Public Safety Committee presses staff for data as it weighs enforcement blitzes, flashing signs and traffic studies

At its July 13 meeting the Public Safety Committee pressed staff for more data about code‑enforcement activity and traffic enforcement results as it considers temporary and longer‑term traffic‑calming measures.

Committee members sought the full code‑enforcement case inspection report (street/address, repeat offenders, carryovers and clearance metrics) after review of a summary showing 43 new code cases in June and 27 closed cases noted in the packet. Several members said the small summary page did not show whether the closed cases were part of the June batch or older carryovers and asked staff for a month‑by‑month breakdown and an accounting of cases carried over longer than 90 days.

A city staff member agreed to ask the code officer (Mr. Wallace) to produce the case inspection report and to respond to the committee via email; committee members asked for that dataset within roughly seven days if feasible so they could spot trends and identify repeat addresses.

On traffic enforcement, staff said a coordinated 'blitz' on June 23–24 (8 a.m.–4 p.m.) produced 27 citations; additional blitz dates were scheduled for July and August. Committee members asked for a breakdown by violation and clarification about which agency retained citation revenue when multiple agencies participated; staff confirmed that when Hamilton County deputies write a ticket, the revenue goes to that issuing agency, and said the city writes its own tickets when county personnel are assisting.

The committee also discussed flashing speed and stop signs and longer‑term traffic engineering. Staff said some grant‑funded temporary equipment had been purchased and they plan to place existing devices before the start of school; new purchases were being deferred pending a mid‑year budget review after unanticipated expenditures and drawing down approximately $2,000,000 from savings. For structural changes (lane narrowing, one‑way conversions, bump‑outs), staff said the city’s contracted engineer (JMA) needs new, street‑specific traffic studies because prior studies are outdated; JMA will provide cost estimates once the committee identifies streets or a scope (low/medium/high). Committee members asked staff to coordinate with JMA and the police department to identify hot spots and to seek an estimate and timeline for studies and pilot devices.

Action items included staff producing the enforcement case inspection report, coordinating with JMA to get a cost estimate for studies on selected streets, deploying existing grant equipment where practical before school starts and reporting budget conclusions after the mid‑year closeout.