Wolcott residents tell council 'no' to proposed speed cameras, cite privacy and revenue concerns

The Wolcott Town Council heard extensive public opposition to a proposed Automated Traffic Enforcement Safety Device ordinance at a July 21 public hearing at Wolcott Town Hall, where residents, civic members and several written submissions raised privacy, accuracy and revenue concerns.

Many written submissions and residents called the cameras a "money grab" and pressed the town to publish the underlying speed-study. The town recorded receiving 41 letters opposing the cameras and one in support. Several email submissions entered into the record included pointed language: David Ingala wrote, "Automation of fines is not going to stop the speeding. The goal is to make a profit. It's that simple." Another correspondent cited the department's one‑week traffic sample and wrote, "Not ONE accident occurred within the study of the 29,985 vehicles," arguing the data did not support a safety emergency.

Why it matters: the ordinance would authorize automated civil enforcement in proposed locations including school zones and sections of Woodtick Road, Spindle Hill Road, Todd Road, Long Swamp Road and County Road. Residents and advocacy writers said the town should instead consider physical traffic-calming measures, clearer speed-zone signage, selective speed-table installations, or funding a dedicated traffic-enforcement unit within the police department.

Several residents and local analysts submitted longer documents. Michael "Red" Stafstrom provided a multi-section report that compared Wolcott crash rates to state averages and recommended lower-cost, engineering-based improvements. Dr. Linda Dalessio submitted testimony noting that many federal and state safety grants fund physical roadway improvements and arguing Wolcott does not appear to meet the "high-risk" school-zone profile cited as justification for automated enforcement in some other jurisdictions.

Privacy, vendor and legal questions were a recurring theme. Multiple correspondents raised national controversies about vendor data-sharing and license-plate-reader networks, mentioning Flock and other third-party systems and asking who would retain or be able to query data. Writers also asked for specifics about camera siting, calibration schedules and the human-review process required before issuing civil citations under state law.

Council procedure and outcome: Chairman Sean Hughes opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m.; the council took a brief recess to hold a second scheduled hearing and reconvened. Procedural motions to recess, reconvene and to adjourn the cameras hearing were approved unanimously by voice vote; no ordinance vote or formal action on the cameras was taken at the July 21 meeting.

What residents asked the council to do next: make the full speed-study and crash-history data public; provide precise proposed camera locations and operating hours; demonstrate calibration and human-review procedures; and show that less intrusive alternatives were considered and exhausted before authorizing automated enforcement.

The public record for the hearing includes the sign-in sheets, submitted letters and the written materials provided by residents; the council closed the hearing at 8:20 p.m. and did not adopt the ordinance that night.