Camera data should be easier to get

It's been six months since Cedar Rapids officials were told by the Iowa Department of Transportation that a pair of speed cameras on Interstate 380 don't comply with state rules.

Since then, there has been an exchange of information between the city and state officials. But the DOT has yet to make a final call on how it wants the issue resolved. Maybe sometime this month.

In the meantime, a lawsuit has been filed in federal court seeking to unplug the camera program.

Tens of thousands of people - locals and visitors - have received civil speeding infractions. Local leaders say crash statistics show the cameras are making the freeway safer, particularly at the S-curve downtown.

So Cedar Rapids' cameras have received lots of attention and have made plenty of news. But, oddly enough, the one place you won't read about them is in the city's budget book.

Nowhere in the 266-page book is there a specific reference to revenue from automated traffic enforcement cameras. There's no information on the number of infractions recorded and no specific line items allowing citizens to know how the dollars are being spent.

City officials insist it's in there. Camera revenues are rolled into a larger category of 'fines and forfeitures,” along with all the other assorted fines paid for breaking city rules. If you ask, the city will tell you fines total about $4.7 million annually, with $3 million for the city and $1.7 million going to the camera vendor. Actually, fines topped $5 million in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, according to figures provided to us last year.

Spending? It's part of the nearly $36 million police operations budget.

We're supportive of the camera program, and believe there has been a positive effect on roadway safety. We've said that local officials, not the state DOT, should decide how cameras are used.

But we think the city of Cedar Rapids has done too little to share information about the program's scope with citizens. The budget sheds too little light. A city website dedicated to the program gives precious little information beyond camera locations.

This is a far-reaching, high-profile law enforcement effort done on behalf of the citizens of Cedar Rapids. Those citizens should have far easier access to information about the program. At the very least, the city should deliver an annual report. Perhaps a small scoop of camera fines could pay for it.

' Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com