Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Automated Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown panel discusses state-authorized red-light and speed cameras, seeks targeted roll-out
Summary
Commissioners discussed a proposed ordinance implementing automated traffic-enforcement devices under Connecticut Public Act 23-116, emphasizing data-driven placement, privacy limits in state law, and administrative requirements such as a mayor-appointed hearing officer.
Middletown officials explored a draft ordinance July 25 to deploy automated traffic-enforcement devices — red-light and speed cameras — under authority of Connecticut Public Act 23-116. The commission heard support from local advocates and a description of procedural constraints and revenue use spelled out by state law.
John Hall, speaking for the Jonas Center, told the commission his group has collected public support and is backing use of automated devices to address speeding on corridors such as Washington Street. "I really got very excited, because I think this is something that's needed," Hall said, linking local crash and speed concerns to the state law that enables municipal programs.
Attorney staff and Chief Costa explained that the public act limits disclosure of personally identifying information, requires that footage be reviewed by police, and calls for the appointment of a hearing officer (to be named by the mayor and confirmed by the council) to adjudicate contested notices. Chief Costa said revenues must be used for highway-safety projects and related public-works needs, and that device placement requires crash-data justification from the state traffic-safety division rather than ad hoc siting.
Commissioners asked the chief to work with the traffic division to identify priority locations backed by crash data and to return with a plan that describes staffing, hearing-officer duties and potential budget lines for administration and equipment. The ordinance was discussed in the context of public-safety goals — reducing fatalities and serious injuries — and would advance to a full council agenda item for a future vote if the commission recommends it be moved forward.
The commission asked staff to provide additional drafting on data-protection language and to outline administrative costs and hearing procedures before a full council vote.
