Cedar Rapids official: Interstate 380 traffic cameras no longer issuing tickets

CEDAR RAPIDS - Cedar Rapids officials have appealed a judge's ruling requiring the city to turn off two traffic cameras and move two others on Interstate 380.

The city also has requested a stay from the court to suspend the order to turn off or move the I-380 cameras until after the appeal.

'We intend to instruct (traffic camera vendor) GATSO to keep the cameras on, but not issue citations until a stay order is in place,” Cedar Rapids spokeswoman Maria Johnson said in an email Tuesday morning.

Those instructions apply only to the I-380 cameras and the westbound speed camera at First Avenue East and 10th Street - also ordered turned off by Iowa DOT - not other speed and red light cameras at other locations in Cedar Rapids. For those cameras, tickets are continuing for violators, Johnson said.

The Iowa Department of Transportation, which ordered 10 of 34 traffic cameras around Iowa turned off and another three moved in March 2015, is resisting the stay. The March 2015 order prompted a joint lawsuit by the cities of Cedar Rapids, Des Moines and Muscatine.

Des Moines and Muscatine also have appealed and requested stays. It's not clear when a decision on the stays will be made.

Effective April 25, when Judge Scott E. Rosenberg ruled in favor of the Iowa DOT, no tickets are to be issued based on information from the Cedar Rapids cameras on I-380, Johnson said. If the judge approves the stay, those cameras would resume issuing tickets. If not, ticketing is to remain discontinued.

In the lawsuit, the cities contended local law enforcement had the authority over how to enforce traffic rules, but Rosenberg ruled the Iowa DOT had broad jurisdiction over operations on interstate and primary highways.

Supporters of traffic cameras consider them a necessary and effective traffic enforcement tool, particularly in getting traffic to slow down on I-380, but critics have labeled the cameras a moneymaking scheme.

Cedar Rapids generated $4.4 million in revenue and GATSO USA generated $2 million in fiscal 2016, according to state figures.

While the appeal has been filed, Johnson said the city could abandon the appeal. City officials had said the City Council and Mayor Ron Corbett would have the final say in pursuing an appeal, and Johnson said that remains the case.

The City Council is expected to discuss the case during a closed session, which Iowa Code allows to discuss legal strategy, when it next meets on May 9.

Cedar Rapids Police Chief Wayne Jerman supports the appeal. In 2015, Jerman made a case to the City Council to initially pursue legal action to protect the cameras, and this spring helped sway state lawmakers not to enact an outright ban of traffic cameras.

'We believe they are an important public safety tool and know that they've made a difference in reducing serious injury accidents and deaths,” Jerman said.

At this point, the nine-member council has different views on the best course of action. Corbett favors dropping the case, while others would like to pursue the appeal.

'Now that the judge has ruled, it seems to me we should abide by the ruling and work with the DOT to move the one set of cameras and turn the other ones off,” Corbett said. 'The chances of winning an appeal are much lower than the chances of winning the original case.”

Among other factors, he sees the legal route as costly for taxpayers, and said he understands why motorists see camera location close to speed limit changes as unfair.

Also, uncertainty about legality of the cameras has decreased the rate violators pay their tickets, he said. In fiscal 2016, Cedar Rapids had a 55 percent collection rate, or 85,495 tickets collected out of 154,323 violations issued, according to state figures. Certainty could trigger better compliance, he said.

Still, Corbett sides with some of his colleagues in saying the cameras have made the roads safer and slowed traffic on the S-curve through downtown Cedar Rapids.

Ann Poe, Kris Gulick, and Scott Olson are among council members who want to appeal.

'My initial thought and reason I wanted to appeal is all about safety and getting people to slow down,” Poe said. 'It's not our residents who complain about having to slow down on 380, it's people passing through. That puts everybody in jeopardy. It puts residents at jeopardy, our first responders at jeopardy.”

Olson said, 'I would favor pursuing appeal, but be careful so if we lose the appeal we don't go through the process of having to refund all the tickets (issued since the judge's ruling).”

Gulick said he believe the issue of home rule versus state rule - whether about traffic cameras or on other fronts - is one that must be decided by the Iowa Supreme Court.

l Comments: (319) 339-3177; brian.morelli@thegazette.com