Police support builds for proposal to regulate traffic cameras

• Some Iowa police chiefs - including Cedar Rapids' - are supporting a proposal to regulate and standardize traffic camera use across the state
• The proposal is seen as an alternative to legislation that would ban the devices
• Iowa House lawmakers advanced a bill that would require state approval for the placement of speed cameras along interstates and highways

DES MOINES — Cedar Rapids' police chief joined other law enforcement officials in the state in advocating support for proposed legislation working its way through the House and Senate to regulate the use of automated traffic enforcement cameras across the state.

A House subcommittee on Wednesday advanced a bill that would require Iowa cities to obtain approval from the Iowa Department of Transportation for the placement of speed cameras along interstates and highways.

The DOT rolled out a policy a decade ago in 2014, but the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the agency lacked the legal authority to regulate traffic cameras. The cities of Des Moines, Muscatine and Cedar Rapids filed lawsuits in 2015 successfully challenging the DOT rules that prohibited cities from placing the systems on highways and interstates. The DOT had ordered some of those cameras turned off in 2015, sparking the lawsuit.

  Buy Photo

Cedar Rapids Police Chief David Dostal joined police chiefs from Des Moines and Altoona on Wednesday in support of measures in the House and Senate to preserve, regulate and standardize automated traffic enforcement across the state as an alternative to a separate effort that would ban their use.

Cedar Rapids uses the cameras at nine locations along its primary highway system and major thoroughfares for both speed and red-light enforcement, including four speed cameras around the S-curve on Interstate 380 near downtown.

Dostal told lawmakers the cameras have resulted in a significant reduction in serious injury crashes over the past three years.

“There’s a change in traffic behavior, resulting in traffic safety,” Dostal said.

Lawmakers have attempted several times over the years to prohibit or regulate use of the devices, citing concerns over their growing use, including in smaller communities, and that they’re principally being used to generate revenue because of a lack of funding.

The devices capture video of vehicles speeding or running red lights. Law enforcement then reviews the images captured by a camera vendor, and issues citations to the vehicle's registered owner.

House Study Bill 740 advanced out of a three-member subcommittee Wednesday with unanimous support. It moves next to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Police chiefs urge regulation in lieu of ban

Iowa cities, including Cedar Rapids, Des Moines and Davenport, see the cameras as traffic safety tools that reduce public safety costs, providing 24/7 traffic monitoring and enforcement at a significantly lower cost than deploying officers to those areas. That frees cities to focus strained resources elsewhere.

The city of Cedar Rapids began using automated traffic enforcement in 2010. Speeding citations are issued for vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit by 12 mph or more.

Revenues from traffic citations issued for violations captured by cameras often go to fund police departments.

Cedar Rapids anticipates the cameras will generate $7.2 million in revenue for the fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30, 2025. Roughly $5.5 million of which is budgeted to fund 41 police officer positions. More than $1.7 million is earmarked for the city’s traffic camera service provider and collection costs.

Cedar Rapids partners with vendor Sensys Gatso USA Inc., to run the program. For red light citations, Sensys Gatso receives $22 per paid citation and the city receives $78 per paid citation. For speed citations, the vendor receives $18 per paid citation and the amount to the city varies depending on the amount of the fine.

Dostal and law enforcement officials said they’re willing to put guardrails on the use of traffic cameras to make sure that they're used as intended for safety purposes, and support a regulatory structure that creates a reliable, standardized process.

“I appreciate having this conversation about a regulatory bill. It’s long overdue,” Des Moines Police Chief Dana Wingert said. “There are jurisdictions out there that are doing it the right way. Some that are not. … But all the things I see in this bill on the regulation side are things that we're already doing; things we've been doing since the inception.”

What the bill does

The bill codifies the previously adopted 2014 DOT rules.

Cameras would only be allowed in areas with documented high-crash or high-risk locations that make it unsafe for police to make in-person traffic stops, such as the I-380 S-curve.

Cities and counties would be required to apply to the Iowa DOT for permission to install a speed camera on a state highway or interstate and justify the location with data showing a high volume of crashes, as well as documentation of alternative solutions tried and considered but not implemented, including “engineering and design changes, and public education campaigns.”

  Buy Photo

The bill applies only to cameras used by local jurisdictions to monitor and enforce excessive speed violations on DOT-maintained primary road systems. The Iowa DOT would not have authority to regulate traffic cameras that issue tickets for vehicles caught speeding or running red lights on city streets.

It also would prohibit the DOT from using automated traffic enforcement or receiving related payments from cities and counties.

Cities and counties could appeal the DOT denial of a traffic camera location, and would be required to report back to the DOT annually on the number of citations issued and any change in crash volume to justify the continued need for a camera at approved sites.

The bill requires stationary cameras be calibrated quarterly, and mobile systems calibrated before each use at a new location. Cities and counties also would be required to post signs in advance of locations where traffic cameras are in use to alert drivers.

It also states automated traffic enforcement cameras must be used in conjunction with conventional law enforcement methods, “not as a replacement for law enforcement officer contact.”

Wingert suggested House lawmakers amend the bill to standardize fines across the state so that Iowa drivers know what to expect.

Altoona Police Chief Greg Stallman, representing the Iowa Police Chiefs Association, also suggested including red-light cameras, which are not addressed in the bill, and requiring a public information and education program to take place before cameras are used to issue warnings.

Subcommittee chairman Rep. Phil Thompson, R-Boone, said he’s open to amending the bill to include those suggestions.

Where the bill goes from here

The Senate has advanced its own bill to regulate the use of automated traffic enforcement cameras.

Unlike Senate File 2408, the House bill does not specify how local governments must handle revenues from traffic tickets. The Senate bill would require communities to give up a share of revenues to the state for law enforcement training and an award program for volunteer firefighters and emergency medical personnel.

Revenues kept by cities and counties could only be used to pay for road projects or to offset police or fire department operating costs.

The Senate bill also would ban traffic cameras for communities under 20,000 in population, and specifies how fines could be issued by larger communities.

“I fully expect us to marry language between the House and the Senate on a regulatory piece and move that forward,” subcommittee chair Rep. Phil Thompson, R-Boone, said.

Both chambers also introduced legislation this year that combined a traffic camera ban with another controversial bill that would ban the use of hand-held phones or other devices behind the wheel.

Senate File 2337 is on unfinished business in the Senate. A similar House bill failed to advance.

“I really think there is a middle ground here,” Thompson said. “I totally understand the perspective of people who want an all out ban. I'm honestly philosophically probably in that camp. But working with (police) chiefs, especially in the Cedar Rapids area … these can play a good role in public safety. So I think we're really striking a good middle ground here, as far as making sure that it is about public safety, and not about revenue generation.”

Sen. Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee who proposed the Senate regulation bill, said he intends to sit down with House lawmakers in the coming days to hammer out compromise language.

“I've always been pro-regulation and look forward to continue to work on that as it moves forward and see what kind of compromise we can come up with,” Klimesh said.

Comments: (319) 398-8499; tom.barton@thegazette.com