Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Vendor presents automated traffic-enforcement camera option; council raises privacy and cost questions

City of Ruston City Council · June 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Ruston police introduced a NovoaGlobal proposal for automated traffic-enforcement cameras, prompting council questions about privacy, data retention, projected costs, court impacts and possible partnerships with Fircrest and Pierce County.

Ruston Police Chief Bruce Bautista updated the council on 4th of July traffic-management concerns and introduced Heidi Traverso of NovoaGlobal, who presented a turnkey automated traffic-enforcement camera program and answered council questions about privacy, costs and operational details.

Traverso said the system is configured so that "no images of vehicle occupants are captured" and that the vendor follows state and local records-retention guidelines. She explained program revenue must be used for traffic-safety improvements and noted that after program costs a municipality must share 25% of revenue with the state under current law. Councilmembers asked where revenue would be allocated, how long image or vehicle data would be retained and how much staff time each violation review would require; Traverso said review time is typically closer to one to two minutes. Mayor Hopkins and councilmembers discussed possible partnerships, noting Fircrest is evaluating compatibility and that Pierce County partnership estimates would cost roughly $3 million versus projected revenue figures of about $8 million based on available data; Traverso committed to providing a detailed cost and revenue breakdown for follow-up consideration.

Councilmember Huson said more information is needed before any decision on implementation, particularly details on expected citation volume and court processing capacity. Chief Bautista clarified that court contracting and potential transition to a different court are separate issues under review.

The presentation included slide material describing RCW 46.63.220 governing photo enforcement and a vendor description of program components such as installation, review, mailing and payment processing. No formal motion to proceed with the system was recorded at the June 17 meeting.