Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Avio Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Avio contract after questions over fees, calibration and relocation charge
Summary
Councilors questioned a proposed monitoring contract with Avio—raising concerns about a $1,000 monthly unit fee, $10 per violation processing cost, an unspecified annual calibration fee, and a $15,000 charge to relocate a nonproductive camera—and voted to table the contract until staff returns with clarification.
Councilors sent the proposed Avio contract for automated monitoring back to staff after an extended question‑and‑answer session about costs and operation.
Town administrator Greg (speaker 11) presented Avio’s system, which, staff said, can perform AI‑based monitoring and support automated stop‑sign enforcement. Greg reported pilot monitoring at three trial locations showing roughly 85% of vehicles did not come to a full stop—data staff used to justify consideration of automated monitoring.
Council members pressed for clarity on fees. Questions included whether the advertised $1,000 monthly leasing/maintenance fee would be charged regardless of infractions, the $10 per processed violation fee, how calibration checks are billed (the contract references an annual calibration check but does not specify cost), and a reportedly large $15,000 fee to move a camera deemed “nonproductive.” Staff said the vendor treats the $1,000 figure as part of a revenue‑capture model and that fees come from collected citation revenue but acknowledged some charges needed clarification. One council member said the town should avoid being locked into equipment that is expensive to relocate after it reduces violations.
After discussion a council member moved to table the contract pending follow‑up on those specific fees, calibration costs, and the vendor’s definition of a nonproductive camera; the motion carried with one council member asking to proceed tonight but the majority opting for more information.
Why it matters: the contract would commit the town to vendor terms that affect ongoing costs and the town’s flexibility to move and configure monitoring units. Council asked staff to return with explicit fee schedules, calibration costs, and clearer terms for relocation or decommissioning of equipment before voting on a contract that could directly affect the town budget and resident fines.
Next steps: staff will seek written cost breakdowns from Avio and return to a work session or subsequent council meeting for further consideration.
