Council debates scale and design of automated traffic‑safety camera program; staff to return with locations and analyses

City Attorney Heidi Wachter and Captain Pete Johnson returned to council on July 20 with updated analysis on automated traffic‑safety cameras (school/park/speed enforcement), program revenue rules and candidate locations.

Wachter said state authorization typically allows 25% of net revenues (after program costs) to go to the state after four years, with the remainder usable to cover program costs and potential roadway improvements. She described required equity reporting and signage requirements. Council members explored several design choices: starting with three fixed locations to test the program versus a larger (5–6) or rotating suite of cameras; prioritizing school, park and pedestrian corridors versus highest‑volume arterials; and using a weighted scoring matrix that combines speed, crash rates, pedestrian and youth volumes and conflict density to choose sites. Counsel and staff noted rotating cameras are feasible but require infrastructure and signage (30‑day signage requirement before activation) and that mobile units are heavy and need planning to move between prepared locations.

Council discussion touched on program goals (safety vs. revenue), community outreach and communications, contract length and the ability to modify the program over time. Several council members suggested staff return with a recommended list of six candidate locations (with narrative context: pedestrian volume, school proximity, crash rate and traffic volume) to allow council to narrow to a launch set; staff indicated they would do so. No final motion was adopted at the meeting.