FAIRFIELD – Automated traffic enforcement safety devices (ATESD), better known as speed and red light cameras, are a “go” for the town after the Representative Town Meeting approved an ordinance Monday night.
After a three-hour debate at the Board of Education meeting room RTM members voted 32-6 to enact the ordinance. Now the town’s newly installed Fairfield Traffic Authority will administer the installation of the seven to 10 cameras that will be placed in six school zones.
“I recognize the legitimate concerns of some of our colleagues,” said Rep. Pierre Ratzki, one of a handful of sponsors of the ordinance. “But I think those concerns have been answered by our discussions and the merits of this ordinance.
“First of all, traffic safety is top priority. We get a lot of messages from our constituents about concerns over traffic violations. A child was hit in a school zone not that long ago. We want to make sure our children can walk to and from school safely. There has been an alarming rise in anti-social driving (accidents). This would reduce that.”
Although the final vote didn’t show it, there were several members who were concerned about the privacy of the data that would be collected and disseminated by the third-party vendor’s cameras.
“I do believe the intent and interest behind this is improving safety on our streets, accomplishing that in a cost-effective manner,” said Rep. Myke Hartigan. “All of that I am in support of. I am going to vote no on this proposal. I came to my decision by talking to a number of data security professionals and a lot of neighbors in my community.
“Even though the third-party vendor would collect the data and would have to destroy it within 90 days, there can still be plenty of valuable data to sell (and time to sell it). Data is going to be the real value to the vendor. I don’t know what the Town of Fairfield will be charged for the installation of the camera system, but I’m willing to bet it is significantly less than what can be made by selling the data by the vendor.”
He pointed to a hypothetical situation where an inordinate number of speeding or red light tickets are given out in a particular neighborhood. Although, a person living there may not have been cited for speeding or running a red light, the insurance carrier may “ding” them for living in a high-risk insurance area.
The ordinance, which is allowed under a general statute passed by the state instituting the ATESD program, states the following: “The purpose of the use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices is to promote public safety and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the Town, and its common interest to enact reasonable regulations pertaining to the reduction, control and/or prevention of traffic fatalities and pedestrian injuries and deaths so as to promote the public safety, convenience, general welfare, and quality of life of the Town’s residents.”
It goes on to state that “the Town of Fairfield (the ‘Town’) hereby authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices at locations within school zones, pedestrian safety zones, and other places within the boundaries of Fairfield, Connecticut, provided that the locations of such devices are identified in a plan submitted to and approved by the Connecticut Department of Transportation.”
Ratzki pointed out the safeguards the state put in place in the general statute: “It doesn’t kick in until 10 miles over the speed limit, it’s not allowed to target particular cars and the cameras are car-neutral.”
Under the ordinance, a fine for a first violation would be $50 and $75 for each subsequent violation. There will be no points added to a driver’s license since it would be a town ordinance and a $12.50 processing fee will be assessed when paying the fine online.
At the RTM meeting First Selectman Bill Gerber explained his reasoning behind including a revenue line for the ATESDs in the 2025-2026 proposed budget.
“Chief (Robert) Kalamaras looked into other towns,” Gerber said. “While the goal is safety, not to make money, I felt obligated by campaign promises not to accumulate budget surpluses. I felt obligated (to include $50,000-$75,000 in revenue) to include that in the budget.
He said he come up with the figure based on there being 130 tickets issued per month at $62.50 per ticket.
The chief, who was also at the RTM meeting, mentioned how he had spoken with the Board of Selectmen Monday morning about the possible revenue generated and cost of the cameras.
“I never did the calculations on it,” he said. “I spoke on this at the Board of Selectmen meeting this morning and I think they proposed nine or 10 cameras. At the same time, they were projected $2.3 million for the first year and $2.1 million in the years after. So, I think the number first selectman put forward is very conservative.”
One of the issues that came up during the three-hour debate on the ordinance included whether or not the newly installed Parking Traffic Authority should have to come before the RTM after it has approved its plan for carrying out the speed and red light camera plan. An amendment calling for that was defeated.
The ordinance calls for the Fairfield Traffic Authority to provide a written report each June to the Board of Selectmen and the Representative Town Meeting with a summary of the total number of violations issued and the number at each location at which a ATESD is located in the previous year; the number of vehicle owners who have received more than one violation in the previous year; and recommendations of the authority for additional location for ATESDs based upon the previous year’s incidents of accidents.
Under the ordinance, a person who receives an ATESD-generated ticket is entitled to appeal the ticket within 30 days of the mailing of the notice.
So far, the only town that has administered an ATESD program is Washington in Litchfield County. Many others, including nearby Milford and Stamford, are considering it or have approved such a plan.
