Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Automated Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury ad hoc committee recommends ATESD ordinance after legal review; public hearings next
Summary
An ad hoc Danbury City committee voted to recommend an ordinance enabling fixed automated traffic enforcement safety devices (red light and speed cameras) to the full city council, after legal staff outlined definitions, vendor rules, privacy safeguards and required DOT approvals. The committee directed public hearings and further plan review.
The Danbury City ad hoc committee reviewing a proposed ordinance to allow automated traffic enforcement safety devices recommended the measure to the full city council on a committee voice vote Thursday after a legal presentation and extended questioning about privacy, vendor arrangements and appeal rights.
Corporation counsel told the committee the draft ordinance mirrors Connecticut statutes (cited during the presentation) and defines ATSDs as red light or speed cameras that detect vehicles exceeding posted speed limits by 10 miles per hour or failing to stop at a steady red signal. Counsel described vendor and operator responsibilities, saying vendors may provide analytics and reports but "the vendor's fee may not be contingent on the number of citations" and vendors must comply with state rules on personally identifiable information.
The ordinance as presented requires a two-step review before a citation is issued: an operator must review the recorded images and, if there are reasonable grounds, law enforcement must then review the image and verify the device was operating correctly and was recently calibrated. The draft includes fines set by statute — $50 for a first violation and $75 for subsequent violations — and allows a reasonable electronic processing fee not to exceed $15. Counsel said collected revenue "shall be used solely for the purpose of improving transportation mobility, investing in transportation infrastructure, or paying the cost associated with the use of an ATSD device."
Committee members pressed staff on policy details. One member asked whether school zones and pedestrian safety zones were already defined locally; planning and zoning staff said those designations will be addressed in the comprehensive safety action plan and that sites and any new zones must be approved by the Department of Transportation. On fixed locations, staff said the ordinance and DOT-approved plan define specific sites (no mobile enforcement) and initial sites are set for three years, with any additions requiring a fresh data-driven proposal and DOT review.
Privacy and identification drew sharp questions. An ex officio member argued the ordinance attaches liability to vehicles rather than proven drivers and raised concerns about stolen, cloned or rental plates and LLC registrations, saying, "This system simply looks at a vehicle." Police and staff answered that registry lookups, vendor screening and a local operator review are used to reduce false positives, and that the statutory process allows defendants to present defenses at hearings (for example, stolen-plate reports or emergency-vehicle exceptions).
Taylor O'Brien of the mayor's office said the administration has consulted vendors for roughly two years, cited experience with bus cameras and stressed procuring a vendor that offers full citation-handling services. O'Brien said procurement will go through the city's Board of Awards rather than the council, and emphasized community outreach: "the plan will also go to the public, for review."
On implementation details, attendees confirmed required signage and an outreach period; staff said a 30-day grace/warning period would be part of the community education campaign. Counsel also reviewed statutory training and calibration requirements: ATSD operators must complete manufacturer training (with certificates admissible at hearings) and devices require annual calibration with retained calibration certificates.
A committee member moved to recommend the council approve the proposed ordinance with an amendment to section 46-44(c) regarding retention of personally identifiable information; the motion was seconded and the committee took a voice vote to forward the ordinance to the city council. The committee chair said the recommendation is the procedural first step and that the ordinance will go to public hearing before any council vote; staff stressed the DOT plan and any pedestrian-safety zone designations will require further public hearings and DOT approval.
Next steps: the ad hoc committee's recommendation will be transmitted to the city council and the ordinance will be scheduled for public hearing(s). If the council approves the ordinance, staff must prepare a DOT submission identifying fixed ATSD locations; deployment would follow additional administrative steps, vendor selection and DOT approval.
