Lawmakers move bills to restrict traffic cameras

DES MOINES — Cities and counties would lose authority to set up automated traffic cameras and collect revenue under a pair of bills lawmakers advanced Wednesday.

One bill would require local governments to receive approval from the state Department of Transportation before placing a traffic camera on an interstate or state highway.

Local governments could put traffic cameras only in “high-crash or high-risk” locations and would have to exhaust all other traffic enforcement options before putting up an enforcement camera.

The bill, House Study Bill 161, mirrors regulations set by the Iowa Department of Transportation before those rules were struck down in 2018 by the state Supreme Court in an appeal by Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Muscatine. The court found the state department could not regulate city traffic cameras.

There have been several attempts since then to rein in the use of the devices, which some lawmakers see as an infringement of privacy and argue cities are abusing them to raise revenue.

“We do believe some kind of statewide regulatory framework is necessary,” said Rep. Phil Thompson, R-Boone, who chairs the Public Safety Committee. ” … This is essentially just codifying what (the DOT) tried to do in 2018.”

The bill passed the subcommittee with only Republican support.

Cities and counties also would be required to submit a yearly report to the Iowa DOT on the effectiveness of the cameras, which the state would use to determine whether to keep them in place.

Representatives for cities and law enforcement agencies argued the bill would remove the control cities have to regulate traffic. There are at least 10 cities that have traffic cameras in place. Three cities — LeClaire, Cedar Rapids and Des Moines — have speed cameras on interstate highways.

“If the Legislature is looking to provide a regulatory framework, I think we can work toward that, but adding state government into this would be difficult,” David Adelman, a lobbyist for the Metropolitan Coalition told lawmakers. The Metropolitan Coalition represents Iowa's 10 largest cities.

Lobbyists also said the cameras reduce crashes and keep police out of high-risk areas. Doug Struyk, a lobbyist for the city of Des Moines, said the traffic camera on Interstate 235 keeps police from pulling drivers over in a dangerous area of the road.

“There’s no place to be, and you’re going to end up injuring and killing officers, and you’re going to injure the public by trying to pull people over and enforce traffic there,” he said.

Revenues would go to state fund

Another bill, House File 313, would direct the revenues gathered from traffic cameras to the state Road Use Tax Fund, a fund that pays for state and local road improvements. Vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes are currently directed to the fund.

Cities again opposed the bill, saying it would take away significant money that cities use to fund police positions and ease property taxes.

“What this bill is doing is removing dollars that have gone to public safety, to police, to EMS, to fire, and removing those dollars from local law enforcement,” Adelman said.

Larry Murphy, a lobbyist for the Iowa Police Chiefs Association and Cedar Rapids, said the city of Cedar Rapids uses its traffic camera revenues to fund 11 police positions, which would lose that funding source if the state redirects the money.

The bill passed the subcommittee with only Republican support.

Lawmakers advanced a bill earlier this month that would restrict cities to placing traffic cameras on city roads, and counties on county roads, and allowing the Iowa DOT to place traffic cameras on state roads.

The bills would need to advance through a committee before next Friday, the first "funnel" deadline, to remain viable this session, and Thompson said he isn't ruling any of them out.

"I'm going to give all these bills a subcommittee hearing and try to gather as much feedback and try to put together some kind of framework," Thompson said.