We are going to start the ad hoc that is reviewing the new ordinance sections 46-35, which is automatic traffic enforcement safety devices, which will all butcher ATESD.

Again, it's the same from the previous ad hoc.

I'm in the chair along with councilwomen Wallace Smith and Faye.

We still have ex officio members of President Brazade and Paul Rutello in the room.

And we have the same members of the public that I mentioned before.

This is a review of the ordinance that needs to be on the books in order for this process to go forward.

Our approval of this ordinance, although it will go on the books and be there, is the first step to a long process before we even get to the first camera being placed.

So what we approve tonight or what we recommend to this the city council tonight does not mean next month, if the city council approves it, the cameras will be deployed.

The process is that we get it on the books, and I believe at this point in time, both the police department and the traffic division are beginning their research on where to put the cameras because they have to create a document, okay, that has to be brought back to the city council, approved by the city council to go to the DOT to be approved.

So we're nowhere close to cameras being placed next month.

So just want to make sure everybody understands that this is just the first step, first cod and a wheel that is gonna go for a little while here.

So I'm gonna we started uh the last um ad hoc with a PowerPoint presentation.

Did we get through all the slides or was there a few more slides?

So we stopped at the protected information section, got a little bit into the ATSDs at the beginning because we needed it as the foundation for the PII.

I'm gonna allow corporation council to continue their uh presentation, and then we'll go on and talk about the ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is that clear as mud?

Floor is yours.

So as we previously noted in the ATSD ordinance, we mirrored the drafting of the ordinance to the state statutes, which are found in sections 14307B through 14307H.

Adoption of the ordinance is the first of two steps that need to occur in order to start moving the process forward of adopting ATSD devices.

Within the first uh within section 4636 of the ordinance is the definition section.

On the screen, as we previously noted, is the definition of automatic traffic enforcement safety devices, which provides an explanation of what an ATSD device is.

So that is either a red light camera or a speeding camera, which detects a motor vehicle that exceeds the posted speed limit of 10 or more miles per hour, or fails to stop such vehicle when facing a steady red signal on a traffic control signal.

We already discussed the PII, which is listed in section 4644 of the ordinance where no personally identifiable information shall be disclosed by the city or a vendor to any person or entity, including any law enforcement unit, except where the disclosure is made in connection with the charging, collection, and enforcement of the fines imposed pursuant to the article.

If I could refer everyone back to section 4637 after the definitions, which is where we have an explanation of vendors.

Under section 14307 C B of the Connecticut General Statute states that the municipality may enter into agreements with vendors for the design, installation, operation, or maintenance, or any combination thereof of automatic traffic enforcement safety devices.

If a vendor designs, installs, operates, or maintains an automatic traffic enforcement safety device, the vendor's fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or fines paid pursuant to an ordinance adopted under this section.

The city's drafted ordinance has the same definition of vendor verbatim.

CGS section 14307CB states that a municipality may enter into an agreement with a vendor for the design installation and operation of the device.

Vendors are helpful in providing analytics and assist in drafting reports that are required for the installation of these devices by the DOT, and additionally, vendor chosen must be familiar with and comply with state laws.

This includes the storage and access of PAI and private information.

Operation and citation.

This is also seen in ordinance section 4648 operation of ATSD.

The operator must review the recorded images provided by the ATSD device.

After review, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of the ordinance has occurred, the operator may issue a citation to the owner of the vehicle.

And this mirrors section 14307 CI1 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

When it comes to citations, the citation must include the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, the license plate, the violation charged, the location of the ATSD date and time of violation, and a copy of the information to view the recorded images electronically.

The citation must also include the statement or electronically generated affirmation by the member or employee of the DPD who reviewed the recorded images and determined that the motor vehicle violated the ordinance.

So there's a two-step process.

First, the operator has to review the citation to make sure that there is, in fact, a violation.

And then there has to be pursuant to the statute, a review by the law enforcement or a designated employee of law enforcement that a violation has, in fact, occurred.

The citation must have a statement verifying that the ATSD device was operating correctly at the time of the alleged violation and the date of the most recent calibration check performed pursuant to Connecticut General Statute, Section 14307 CH.

The amount of the fine imposed and how much how to pay the fine also must be included on the citation, as well as the citation must be sent within 30 days of the violation under Section 14307 CI2.

Must be sent via first class mail, and the record of the mailing should be saved by law enforcement to enter into evidence at a hearing if one is requested by the alleged violator.

Section 14307 CG of the Connecticut General Statute states that an ATSD operator shall complete training offered by the manufacturer of the device.

The manufacturer and manufacturer's representative shall issue a signed certificate to the operator at the time of the completion of the training.

The signed certificate shall be admitted as evidence in any hearing conducted pursuant to section 7152C of the Connecticut General Statute.

The city must ensure that each ATSD used by the city undergoes an annual calibration check performed at a calibration laboratory under Connecticut General Statute Section 14307 CH.

The calibration laboratory shall issue a signed certificate of calibration after the annual calibration check, and the signed certificate of calibration shall be kept on file and admitted as evidence in any hearing conducted pursuant to section 7152c.

Penalty for violation.

Under Connecticut General Statute Section 14307 C3, an ATSD device shall be used solely for identifying violations of the ordinance.

This is identified under section 4641 of our ordinance.

The penalty, which is a fine for the first violation of the ordinance, which is taken directly out of the statute, is $50.

The fine for each for any subsequent violation shall be $55.

A reasonable fee not to exceed $15 may be imposed for cost of electronic processing of the payment of the fine.

And funds collected from violations of an ATSD device shall be used solely for the purpose of improving transportation mobility, investing in transportation infrastructure, or paying the cost associated with the use of an ATSD device.

And this comes directly out of the statute.

Citation appeal process.

Under Connecticut General Statute Section 14307 CE.

The adoption of the ordinance requires a hearing procedure pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 7152C.

During the hearing, the driver may present defenses to their violation.

This may include, which is also provided within the statute, that the operator was driving an emergency vehicle.

The violation was necessary to comply with a law enforcement order.

Violation was necessary to allow an emergency vehicle to pass, which is observable on the recorded image that's sent in the citation.

That the motor vehicle had been reported as stolen to law enforcement and not recovered prior to the violation, or the ATST device was not in compliance with its calibration check.

During the hearing, the citation officer must admit into evidence the operator statement or electronically generated affirmation by the member or employee who reviewed the recorded image and determined that a violation of the ordinance had occurred.

The citation must have a statement verifying the ATST device was operating correctly at the time of the alleged violation and the day that the most recent calibration check performed.

And the certificate of the ATSD device operator who reviewed the citation, the violation.

Reporting.

So pursuant to Connecticut General Statute, Section 14307G, the city's first report to the Connecticut Department of Transportation is due 18 months after the first ATSD device becomes operational.

Not later than one year after the first report is submitted to the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

The city shall submit an annual report to the Connecticut Department of Transportation as well as the joint standing committee of the General Assembly every year after the ATSD device is operational.

The ordinance requires biannual reports to city council, which gauges the effectiveness of the ATST program.

And that is it.

If anyone has any questions.

All right.

So clearly what I'm I've seen in my um research is the public act from 2013 was turned into the state statute, the 14307B and HR, whatever last numbers.

And the City of Danbury's ordinance is the state statute put into ordinance format.

So once again, we're following the way the legislature set it up through the state, and now the municipality's uh ordinance follows along the same way.

Um I guess a couple questions I'm gonna have, and you know, I'm I was not the sole creator of these questions, but I did receive uh an email about this, and so I want to enter one question.

This is gonna go to uh Chief Sterde of it.

School zones and pedestrian safety zones.

Are those defined anywhere in the uh municipal ordinances?

I'm not sure if they're defined in municipal ordinances.

I have never seen a pedestrian safety zone in Danbury, but we do have the school zones around all the schools.

And because those are highlighted in the ATSD, will those have to be created?

And this is probably gonna be more towards corporation council and the police department uh dually.

That analysis of whether or not a pedestrian safety zone will be enacted as a part of the comprehensive safety action plan, which is being developed by the planning and zoning department.

Okay.

So at this point, that is a to-be-determined um question that we can refer back to once that information becomes apparent.

And the definitions are per statute and so they're they're here in the ordinance.

So if and when those zones are created, then they would be able to be put to use.

Okay.

And like this documents and the guidance documents say, after the ordinances on the books, we then could either hire on with a vendor who can help design the program and/or the police department and traffic must be doing research as well in order to start moving towards the other parts.

So right now, basically, we need to get the ordinance on the books.

That's exactly why we're here today, right?

It's the first step of the main.

Okay.

All right.

Taylor, do you want to bring anything in from the mayor's office?

Yeah, um, I want to think the corporation council have been very thorough on ensuring that our ordinance will meet state statute.

Um, we've been looking, talking to vendors probably two years now.

Of course, we went through with the bus cameras, and that was sort of a first step at seeing that these devices do work.

And also looking at the workload that it will add to the police.

Um, of course, we've also tried to add to our our police um table of organization by 15 in the last three years just to grow our number of uh officers on the road.

But after seeing what the bus cameras produced in just a few months, we see that it's really not possible for our officers at all to get to as many uh folks who who are violating.

So when we started looking into these, we were looking to see you know, our other organizations, other municipalities successful.

Um, and so far we've found many vendors who uh are working in other municipalities have created these plans, have successfully successfully been approved by DOT and are having uh success in those municipalities.

So as we work through this, of course, the the plan will come back to you.

The plan will also go to the public uh for review, but um this is a long process, and we're taking it you know step by step to ensure that we do it the right way.

Yeah, and ordinances automatically go to public hearing.

So obviously when this comes back to the council, it's the first step is public hearing before the council even votes on the um on the ordinance.

So um I'm gonna open it up to questions.

Councilwoman.

I have a question.

It might be for the mayor's office.

So I did a little digging around in the 15 uh municipalities that's been approved thus far for these cameras.

And from what I understood, it was about three vendors that I would say majority of them are using.

Will the city council get an opportunity to look at the proposal from each vendor, and then we would choose what would work best for Dareberry.

Does that make sense?

What I'm trying to do.

It does make sense.

Uh, but no, it would not come back to council.

That would go through um our board of awards.

We have an approval process internally.

Uh of course, our goal is to do what's best for the city when we do choose a vendor.

Uh and I will say from our standpoint, if it's under this leadership and we choose the vendor, we're looking for somebody who has worked in the state, has those approvals with the state and meets all the guidelines of the privacy policy and this ordinance to be adopted.

I was thinking more from a like a cost standpoint.

I know some of the vendors are I think it was up there.

We are we're allowed $50 for the fine, and they collect, they would get a percentage.

So would they all put in some a different percentage?

Let's say vendor A says, I want 10%, or the another vendor says I want 15.

Yeah, I could tell you what I've seen.

I've talked to about five vendors, they're all on the same page on that.

The differences in the vendors that we look at are uh sort of the procedures after the fact, like how well they handle citations, that they help us handle sort of that hearing procedure, um, like start to finish because the vendors could have a lot of control, or they could just say, we just give you cameras, we'll take our fee.

Good luck with the rest.

And that is obviously a lot harder for us to manage uh internally.

So we're looking at the full picture of what they offer.

The costs are pretty similar.

There's no upfront fee to any of these, it's not legal for the state.

Um, and so obviously we're not looking at at that, but um the fees, as you heard too tonight, all the anything collected goes to helping our traffic safety and and what we do in our traffic engineers department and our police department.

So it's not a moneymaker for us, it's not something we want are in the business for to make money, but um, it's the cost share is really to pay for the cameras and the services that we're getting.

So as long as we're getting a decent amount of services, that's what we're looking for.

If I may, two more questions.

You may.

Some what I'd like to see, something on my wish list, I think, is for once this goes through and we we start collecting, is to maybe have a special fund.

I think I read someplace, forgive me, sometimes my memory's not great, where um you can establish a special fund for the monies that's collected from this, and those funds should be used towards infrastructure and may not be used in the right terms.

They have to be, yeah.

So it's actually in the order.

But can we can we drill down on what exactly that infrastructure spending would look like?

Can we say we want it on our city roads and we want it to be used for I don't know, the betterment of our community?

I don't know, parks and anything to do with children and education instead of it just going off and being used for whatever.

Well, I can tell you it's for traffic safety and what we do spend money on today and and the budget that gets approved every year for the traffic engineer.

We could die dive deeper into like what we actually do for traffic safety.

It's included uh um the crosswalks that you see that are now illuminated, those are major costs that we spend hundreds of thousands on here.

So sidewalks were obviously we go after grants as well, but trying to get more uh pedestrian-friendly roadways around schools so that students are walking in the road.

Um, so things like that.

So there is a section in here though.

42.

I thought I read something.

I know I saw it some somewhere.

Okay.

So yeah, solely for the purposes of improving transportation mobility investing in transportation infrastructure or paying costs associated.

So the transportation infrastructure that comes out of the engineering department.

So we have traffic engineer uh Vera who is going to be part of the uh plan that we do create.

So when you have that opportunity to go through the plan, he will be available and present to talk about uh what sort of safety improvements he makes, and he coordinates with our chief uh traffic uh safety person.

I'm not sure what the title is for a chief right an hour, but is is the chief of police.

So they coordinate uh with the traffic division often.

So every time, say the mayor's office gets a phone call, you know.

I've noticed a lot of speeding on my road.

Uh we would have maybe Sergeant Wakeman go out to a study, and then Vera might suggest improvements.

So that's how we we spend that money now.

And then my last question from a community impact standpoint, because I'm known for having a lead foot myself.

Will we have a 30-day grace period?

And will there be illuminated sign that says you're approaching a radar?

It's required.

Yeah, but there's I am not gonna pretend to be a uh I can be very honest with you.

There was no requirement for bus cameras, and we did not do a grace period.

Uh we thought past the fact that you may have a stop school bus is enough of something you should know.

It's a giant yellow bus.

Uh, but for these we do have to have signage that tells you that you're seeing one and there is a third crap period.

Because I did speak to warning, yes.

And there's a community um outreach education component.

Okay.

Because I did speak to one town, fairly smaller town in Danbury, who did a test.

So no one knew these cameras were up.

They just kind of put them up and they were collecting speed data as they went along and for over a month period, it was almost it would have been almost two million dollars in revenue for speeders.

I just I think that and it's a way smaller town in Danbury.

Traffic and safety has been something we've made a pillar of our administration, and what we've noticed and seen just shows that we're here for a reason like Gs are a solution that and a tool that we want to utilize for for those reasons.

Okay, yeah.

I'm done.

Thank you.

All right.

My my primary concern is getting a lot of public input because like you, I've been watching this, I've been researching it.

Seems that most of most of the towns that have failed have not received, have not solicited enough public input.

So they've gotten a lot of pushback.

Um I I mean, I I just think if we can do more of that, it would benefit the city because it would there'd be no surprise, right?

You can sort of take that out.

It's a really dicey issue.

I think you're keep not everybody loves this.

Um, and I think we have to be really careful with that.

I am a little confused on the uh the fees because the statute says that the vendors' fees can't be contingent, but if they're taking a percentage, that's exactly contingent.

So I I guess I'm just confused on how that fee structure is I believe it's saying we can't pay based on how many they get, so there's no like unfairness for them to say forwards they get out of purposely if we get a thousand tickets and when we get two thousand tickets they get another level.

Yeah, I I see so it's as a graduated like that, but it is contingent on how many fines are issued and paid.

No, so what I what I read about one measure, for example, because I was thinking about that too, is it in one instance where I read they get a fee um for reviewing every stop or every view.

So it's not contingent on the amount, it's they get a fee for every stop they review it and then they send it on to the police department too.

Oh, so there's a two-step review.

There is, yeah.

Yeah, so someone wherever would be reviewing it once, and then it sends it local.

That was just one.

So that is somewhere.

Oh, that okay, so that's it.

Not a requirement of how it worked in that instance in your questions to make sure it's not based on the amount of stops.

It was almost, I would call it content control.

It was ever for every stop, it's reviewed, and it's determined, you know, do we go forward, send it on to the PD.

But there was a fee for every capture.

Every capture.

And there could be captures because there's a police officer in the road directing traffic and they go through a red light.

There could be ambulances going through.

So they'll see that first, so that our police department isn't bogged down with those false positive.

Infrastructure.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um my other question.

Um regarding the pedestrian safety zones that I think you raised.

What are the or you do know what the um requirements are for planning and zoning when they're creating those?

Because seemingly we can make every street in Danbury a pedestrian safety zone.

And I don't know that we want to, but if we wanted to, is it so you know what I mean?

And I think that's another discussion, probably that should get some public input, right?

And again, I'm thinking just from this tragedy that just happened a couple of days ago.

We don't think of walking on Route 7, but it's not a highway.

You're allowed to walk on Route 7.

I see people walking on Route 7, not routinely, but I do.

You know, like is that is that something maybe the council?

Like, I would just want all of this to really get a lot of public input so that whatever the council decides to do, it's a really educated move forward.

No, I think that's a good point.

I know our planning and zoning department.

I mentioned the Safe Streets project we're looking for grant funding on, and they have a public input component where the public is on their committee and then they go out to the public to talk about it.

Um and that's where areas where there aren't sidewalks and we do find incidents.

Um Caitlin, tell me if I'm wrong, but would this would this plan go to through planning and zoning commissions, which also have public hearing components?

They do.

Yeah, so there's opportunities like more.

I just in this instance, I really do because I think it's a very controversial topic.

I think that's that's two public hearings.

This is one for an ordinance, one for the plan.

So we do have two for council, two through planning and zoning.

So that's four opportunities for public hearings, plus the component uh making uh uh like an awareness campaign planning.

I kept looking.

The plan has one also, so when they come back to us, the plan goes to public hearing too, right?

Yes, yes, okay.

And then the other two you're saying is if they decide to adopt the state statutes for school safe school zones and pedestrian safety zones, planning would have to have and zoning, yeah.

Uh and zoning would have to have public input to the establishment of the zones themselves.

Yeah, so four bytes of the apple to to come out in two for us.

So this ordinance has to go to public hearing.

Uh-huh.

That's one.

Okay.

Good the plan when they come back, however many weeks from now, that one goes to public hearing, but planning and zoning sounds like if they adopt the school zones or the pedestrian safety zones, that's going to care about hearing component.

The pedestrian safety zone, I believe goes back.

I'm not sure.

I don't know, because I see their general Connecticut General Statutes.

I'm not going to be able to do that.

Yeah, well, and zone zones are already established.

Yes.

So it would be the pedestrian safety zone.

And that's more.

Ultimately approved by the Office of State Traffic Administration.

But I know Caitlin spoke with Jennifer Eminger, who's working on that other plan.

And so they not only have to follow state statute, but ultimately when that comprehensive safety action uh safety action plan is submitted to council, it still has to be submitted to the Department of Transportation.

So any of these locations where not only a pedestrian safety zone is determined, it has to be sent to the state, as well as our um approved plan of where we would be submitting the devices as well.

So a minimum we can say there's at least two more public hearings led by the city council portion of the process.

Yes, nice.

Okay.

Okay.

And the requirement for the awareness campaign.

And I I think, and this, I mean, this relates to this statute, and we just, you know, consider the the personal PPI, personal privacy information, identifying information.

Um but I think some of the concerns, at least that I've heard, are, you know, just the fact that we're over policing, that we're putting cameras, you know, in everybody's every day.

And I remember something else in front of the council uh a couple of years ago.

There was, you know, some concern that it was going to be capturing, you know, apartments on main street windows and that sort of thing.

Um, so I think there are multiple layers of the privacy concern.

I think we have the privacy concern in terms of you know who's driving.

Well, we don't care who's driving the car because they're per se violations, but like who owns the car and that sort of thing.

And then it's also, you know, the second layer of what somebody's doing in that car or where they're going, or are you entitled to know what church they go to and that sort of thing that people kind of get their backup about?

Um I would like to know, I couldn't find this anywhere.

What happens if a car is unregistered?

It happens, I mean, right?

It happens all the time.

So what can we do with that?

I mean, the statute says that you have to go to the registry, the registry of motor vehicles.

It's very specific to get that information.

Here and their um comparative office in another state.

So if it's somebody like I've had it happen to me, somebody takes my license plate, right?

And I mean, if you drive down Main Street, you will see multiple cars with the same license plates at times.

So, like, what if it's not I I have seen it and it has happened to me.

So if you know you're just kind of like up a creek, because you don't know who's driving it.

But I I don't I mean, I think the what if game could be played long and far here, but clearly there's gonna be cases where they may not be able to identify anyone.

But one of the things you said first was, you know, are we over policing?

Uh how many people in social media or to our faces when we're knocking on doors or we're talking to constituents have said speeding in this in this city is rampant.

People running through red lights is rampant.

The police department has how many people out at one time in each shift?

Okay.

Can't be everywhere at every time.

They're not doing a good job.

They're doing a great job.

Look at traffic enforcements, okay?

Up, right?

More people in the police department.

Up it's it's going really well.

But this is one additional layer that helps us make our city safer.

And I think that's where this all came from, was trying to make city safe.

I'm gonna make any arguments.

No, no, I'm just saying I think in the end we're gonna lose concern.

We're gonna lose some of those, but the ones that we get and my keep from doing another infraction down the road.

So I'll tell you one thing when Leadfoot Frank gets caught on 84 going fast, lead foot Frank comes down for quite a long time, especially if you get caught in New York, because they have definitely more than $15 a decimal tacked on to their phones, right?

So maybe somebody will think twice now when they're driving.

So I I don't know how to answer that last year.

I know I'm just trying to think.

I I guess because it's not contemplated in the statute, and I was just curious, but like the same, like the same thing came to me.

Maybe it's just because of what I do.

If if now I issue a citation to Peter Busade's car and it's not insured, doesn't matter, right?

We're just we're just doing speed or the red light.

We're not doing anything else.

It doesn't trigger any other.

Thank you.

Please so this is only solely about speed.

It's only solely about people who are captured in the camera who it can be enforced against.

If your plate is stolen and misused, you know, it's on you to report it stolen.

And then you're you're not gonna be included in this ticket.

They won't let you report one plate stolen.

It's you have to report it to motor vehicle.

There's a form for that.

They they told me I had to report two.

It was years ago.

But they have to whatever.

You report it to motor vehicles.

You report if you report one and keep the other, that's a problem.

So even both.

So you surrender the plate, but but I mean there's you know, it it's not perfect, but it's only about the thing.

Yeah, no, I'm just I and I'm not I'm just gonna in terms of people who have no plates, you know, they're gonna get away with one.

They have other problems.

I mean, at some point they're gonna encounter, you know, an officer somewhere.

Tell any something.

Just add so I mean, just the way bus patrol works, we do a license plate lookup so we would know if the vehicle matched the license as well.

So we that's a way to tell, sort of, that it's not registered, yeah.

Chief, you look like you wanted to say so.

I'm just concurring.

There's there's a lot of mechanisms we can use in your scenario if it's an unregistered car, and then that plate comes back to a red Honda, but the car being driven was a glue Chevy pickup.

Well then, maybe you don't issue it.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

So there's a lot of mechanism for really looking into that.

I will say the vendors too have given us ideas and thoughts on that because it's not uh unique to Damber.

They've seen similar issues and they've talked to us through do other municipalities or do you know um if other municipalities have maybe started with something else like the the speed, you know, you're going 45 miles per hour and you're in a 25 zone.

Like is that used interchangeably with these sort of things, or is that a first step sometimes to this sort of consideration?

Yeah, but the well, I would just say with a plan, if I could add, like you're going to be able to see where we identify where these are gonna go.

But I think um I think deputy chief servants should talk about other traffic enforcement because we're already doing, I mean, we're here because we do a lot of this already, but do you want to talk about what we do?

We do our traffic division's pretty robust as you've seen the numbers go up through the years as we increased our manpower and everything else.

Um we do use those devices, those are for getting data.

So we'll put them in certain streets, and we do.

We get so many speeding complaints, red light complaints that to public through the 311 and everything else.

So we do use those, but not for enforcement, they are just for collecting data, and it shows us is this a hot spot?

Do we need to be here?

Um people perceptions is perception.

So some people, oh, they're flying down my street, and then we do a data and study say, well, 85% of the cars are going under 35 in the 25 zones, so it's not as prominent as you think it is, and we could share the data, but that's also gonna help us find out where we want to put these cameras.

Yeah.

So now do you use that sort of thing to know where you want to put a patrol car at you know, rush hour or something like that?

Correct.

And obviously, we don't have manpower to be everywhere, so we do use them as a device to slow people down.

And some people use them as a personal challenge, but most people slow down.

Um they're very effective.

Right, right.

There's uh statute does require two signs.

It requires two signs.

Yes, so when the light is there.

Yeah, we're saying I think you're asking before and what we do.

And red light cameras, I mean, I can only talk from New York City because that's where I see them the most.

Every intersection leading up to uh it says red light cameras in use, and then clearly in the intersection, it's it's marked as red light.

Which is required by our statute as well.

And there has to be a campaign where we're also alerting the um providers, such as Waze or Google Maps to alert drivers if it's on their device or they're what they're driving, that it shows up that there is a red light camera.

Yeah, that's another point.

The other thing is this the ATESD program when you determine the spots, there's no provision that there's a mobile unit, right?

Yeah, we're gonna move it here, here, and here.

You are actually defining the spots, and that's your spot.

Yes, for three years.

Three years, and then if you want to create new spots or make changes, you have to write back to you.

You have to do another kind of port new public.

Show the data from the other areas or show the new data from a new site and then get DOT to approve a revision to your plan.

Yes, and to your point, it would also have to go back to the council again for our public.

So it would come back to us as well.

So it's a big process.

Yeah, just one of the articles.

Well, no, then you think about some things, and I have been because it's been kicked around for a little bit.

Um, the articles I read was about Fairfield.

Um, and one of the big pushbacks was that the school zones were you were you were still getting fines for the school zones even when school wasn't in session, right?

I have pretty strong feelings about that.

Like you're not allowed to sell drugs in the summertime at a school zone, so I don't know why you would be allowed to speed there during the summertime.

Um but I just it's again just like I think the more public input and addressing these concerns right at the outset would be a really helpful thing for all of us because we're gonna get yelled at.

But I think like talking about it as infraction-based recording, like there's cameras that are constant, this is infraction-based, and we have to make justifications for every area.

So um, Councilman Faye you're mentioning like is it so you said like if somebody knows we're gonna go into church or school or something?

Like we are making justifications for every spot, so anything we're getting on camera, we're telling the public in this plan meeting, and the justification has to be because we've seen accidents, crashes, speeding.

So I mean, when we're choosing that, it's it's supposed to be facing the road and not so much the sky comes out every day from school, but if you're not speeding, we're not gonna know.

Like we're not gonna we're never gonna see it.

So there's like there's like seven cameras on a pole.

When you see these, right?

Like everyone I've seen.

There's there's a camera going forward, there's a camera going backward.

There's there, I mean, have you guys seen them?

Like there's a lot of things.

In every angle in the intersection.

Every angle of the interfaces.

I mean, there's no question that was your car.

Yeah, right.

When it's you.

All right.

I'm gonna can I open it up to ex officio.

Yeah, we can use it.

Ex officio.

Thanks.

And the ordinance section 4640, penalty for violation.

This is the second page at the bottom.

You know, normally when we talk about offenses, we're talking about people.

In this particular ordinance, I'm assuming you just come from the streets.

We're not really talking about people offending, we're talking about motor vehicles.

It's all new to me.

It's right here in black and white.

Whenever an automated traffic enforcement safety device detects and produces recorded images of a motor vehicle allegedly committing a violation of this article.

A motor vehicle.

I mean, okay, maybe we're gonna get to a point in 50 years where cars are driven, you know, self-driving, and then I I guess, unless you want to go up to the software.

The motor vehicle itself will be committing a violation.

But in this case, today in Danbury, when I blow through a stop sign.

I am committing, I am committing.

Lead foot Frank is committed.

A motor vehicle infraction using a motor vehicle.

It could be a bicycle, it could be uh an unregistered car, it could be a mini-bike, it could be a million other things.

But it's the person.

I bring this up because on the next page, well, maybe it's the page off of there's a section about defenses.

And there's all kinds of things that you can use for defense, except for the major defense, which is it wasn't me.

I wasn't driving.

Councilwoman Fay brought this up.

What happens if somebody steals the paid plates?

Councilman sort of brush it off by saying it's on you, you've got to report that.

People clone pet plates.

You could copy my plate and drive around in Bridgewater with it.

I never know.

I'm not going to report that.

Really, what we're talking about are fing people, not finding motor vehicles.

And the the foundation of this is that it has nothing to do with the person.

We're not interested in the person.

All we're interested in is the motor vehicle.

And to me, that just is so I don't want to use the word unconstitutional, but it just so goes against everything that this country either is about or should be about.

We are finding people for something we don't even know that they've done.

We just assume that they did it, or we don't care that they did it.

Your car, you let it to your brother and he blew through a stop sign, go after him for the money.

Oh, it's your car, but you know, the gas station guy was driving it because it was in the shop being fixed.

That's too bad.

You shouldn't have led it to that gas station.

Oh, yeah, it's your car, but you know what?

It's sorry, you know, you get the fine, and you you see where I'm going.

How can we support finding people when we're not even concerned with whether they violate it or not?

So is there something that we can do to add a lever of a level of protection where we are assured that it is the person who is getting the fine instead of the motor vehicle?

I'm I'm I don't want to discuss why the state statute is written this way.

I'm well aware that it's very hard to see in the cars.

That's not my problem.

I'm a public official.

Before I sign a bill that is going to fine people for doing things they haven't even done and can't protect themselves and can't defend themselves against because we don't care if you weren't driving the car.

Before I do that, which I'm not gonna do, there's no way I'm gonna do that.

Before I do that, I need to be assured that it's absolutely flat out impossible.

When Chief Servant pulls somebody over, he doesn't care if the car was, he doesn't care who owns the car.

I mean, at some point if the car is stolen, that's a whole different story.

He's gonna ask me for my license.

He's gonna tell me, do you know why I pulled you over?

Not gonna say, do you know why I pulled your sob over?

He's gonna ultimately find me or not find me, give me a warning or whatever.

But he's gonna give it to me.

Because I'm the operator.

This system doesn't do that.

This system simply looks at a vehicle.

And if the vehicle is similar enough to another vehicle, I'll tell you a story, but I'm not gonna bother you with it, but it's just a funny story.

I have a sort of unique car, but somebody else has the same exact car, same color, same model, same year, same everything.

And I get phone calls all the time from people, hey, I saw you here, I saw you there, it's not me.

Not me.

Plate looks the same, same stickers, everything.

It happens.

We need to do something to ensure that the people we are finding are actually the violators.

You you know, you you call that an edge case, Frank.

Councilman chairman, Mr.

Chairman.

You call that an edge case of, you know, there's all kinds of stuff going on.

We can't really, we're gonna lose a few here, lose a few there.

If the fruit of of this ordinance rests upon the concept that we don't even care if you're driving the car, it's the whole thing is flawed going forward.

So that's my position on this, and I would throw this open to council, not necessarily for tonight, but something needs to be investigated as to whether this is actually true, that we we actually don't or can't um find people.

We can only find vehicles, and and by finding the people we are finding them through a circuitous uh avenue of uh that's registered here, it's insured there.

We finally pop up with a name, it's an LLC, whatever, but the guy who's in charge of the LLC lives in Delaware, so he winds up getting the fine.

Or it's a Hertz car.

Who gets the fine when it's when it's a rental car?

I'm sure Hertz is gonna call you up.

Hey, you were driving the car.

Hey, I wasn't driving the car, prove it.

So Hertz says, well, you you rented it, so you get the fine.

I'm like, uh no way.

What would a judge do in that case?

I mean, you you clearly cannot be proven.

If the state cannot make a case, the city cannot make a case beyond a reasonable doubt that you actually are the one who violated.

And we don't care about that.

We're about to pass an ordinance where that's irrelevant.

It seems to be unbelievably anti-democratic and a very, not to use a bad pun here, but a very dangerous road we're about to embark on.

But I think that needs to be fixed before we go any farther with this.

We need to get that straightened out.

I don't care if your Ford went through a stop sign.

What I care about is who was driving that forward.

And if I can't prove that, I can't give you a ticket.

Thank you.

I don't know how to answer that one.

Anybody at it?

I don't know.

Do we need to answer that here?

I mean, I don't think we if you don't want that, I'm you know, I I don't know.

I just served this up for ex officio members, right?

I I I just want to say thank you.

Whoever drafted this did a really pretty good job.

I was very impressed with it.

Um it closely mirrored the statute.

It it dealt with everything.

I was very pleasantly pleased to read it.

I think it's a full and accurate um ordinance, um, given what we're allowed to do statutorily.

I support it.

I support it for a number of reasons.

Um I've had the privilege of campaigning in Danbury and knocking on doors for every election for for at least the last three years.

And the one standard complaint I get from all my constituents is about speeding.

Everybody complains about speeding on the roads uh and and what they believe is a lawlessness.

The fine here is barely a fine compared to the normal speeding violation of when um deputy chief Sturden or any other officer shows up at the side of a car.

It's also important to note that unlike unlike when you get a speeding ticket from a police officer, there is no jeopardy, your license is going to be suspended from this ordinance and this minimal amount of fine.

It does not bother me that the fine is attributed to an to the owner of the motor vehicle, because we hold owners responsible for their property all the time.

If somebody borrows your car and barrels through easy pass things all over New York City and doesn't pay for it, the owner gets the fine from easy from the state of New York.

If somebody um had uh borrows your car and plows into people, you are held personally liable, even though you weren't driving the car and you didn't cause that accident.

This is standard law.

There's nothing unusual about it.

These fines are minimal.

And and I would hope the owner of the car would go after or make sure the person using the car heard about this and perhaps paid them back.

Um that's a minimum.

Uh there are cars that are speeding on our streets.

There are cars and and many different certain intersections in Danbury where people fly through red lights.

It is a deepened problem, and and it's long overdue that we do something about this.

As to a rental car, I can attest from my own personal problem in New Orleans that I was once given a ticket on a rental car from Enterprise, not from Hertz, because I was going 26 in a 25 mile an hour zone in New Orleans, and it actually said that with a picture of the rental car with me in it going going 26 miles an hour down some street in New Orleans.

So they sent me the ticket.

I don't know how they did it, but it went to me, even though it was a rental car.

And you do sign the rental agreement any infraction.

I'm not, I'm not, I'm not too troubled by this.

Um, I I think I think this is a good step.

I think that uh these are at fixed locations throughout Danbury.

The police department's gonna be deeply involved in choosing these locations, and and it's just a small step into to bringing some kind of semblance of order to the case, what I think is sometimes the chaos of Danbury Roadways and the speed in Danbury Roadways.

I fully expect, given um what happens in other cities, that the people who are gonna get the consequence of this the most are Danbury residents who usually use Danbury roads.

But uh, you know, I think it's it's long overdue.

I I really appreciate the ordinance.

I I think it's very well written and drafted, um, and I look forward to the opportunity of voting on it.

So thank you.

Before we do the motion, I want to take a point of personal privilege just to thank you, ladies, for the work that you did.

Uh you guys remember that we were going to do this in March.

And we were going to meet to go over it the day before, and they came to me and said, you know, the legislature just went out, and there's some changes to the law that we want to take time.

And they took the, we gave them the time, we canceled within 24 hours.

I know that was inconvenient for us, but they researched it, and this is what came before you tonight.

So I want to thank you, ladies, for the work that you did.

And for the police department, I'm I'm fully supportive of this because I do believe that you need the X number extra person out there helping you guys because you can't be everywhere.

Um and in the end.

If they catch the plates and they find the owner, I'm fine with that.

Because if we tilted the camera up and we started getting people's faces, the argument would be we're now taking away personal information.

We're now um you know, bringing people's faces into view, and there's a lot of people that don't like that.

And so I think the way this is written um does the best justice to make sure that we can enforce it.

And let's face it, we're just gonna say go to a public hearing, and we need to listen to the public before we do the vote.

So this is just one step closer towards the ordinance becoming uh something that sits on the book.

So I thank you guys all for your time and uh for my committee members, their patience with a little bit of a stop and a start on this one.

Can I ask one question that I came to what happens if someone doesn't pay one of these signs?

What are the consequences?

Yeah, because it doesn't appear there are any.

So um we I've asked every vendor we've met with because we're doing the same thing with Bus Patrol about collections right now, is what we're looking into.

Um obviously if there's no if there's no collections, then I agree there's no consequence for many people.

So uh I've been talking to each vendor, we haven't selected one yet, but that's been a big part of my conversations to ensure that that's part of their structure.

So that once uh we do multiple warnings, multiple letters, multiple opportunities for them to to go to a hearing, they want to fight it, etc.

If it's still not paid, then I personally and hopefully uh everyone will be on board at the board of awards.

I'm interested in getting a vendor that has collections in Clobo.

Can I actually jump on her question and say is there other statutes that guide the failure to pay parking or moving violations that impacts your ability to register that car next time to I mean you don't pay your taxes, you can't register your car.

Is there any other statutes on the books that may take care of that?

Really?

I don't think so.

Not yet.

Don't say it too loud.

Okay, I just not yet.

Yeah, I can answer that.

There are none.

There are none.

This is this is uh change behavior.

This is this is not something unlike the unlike a motor vehicle ticket that a police officer issued issues that leads to a suspension or or uh even a suspension of a registration.

This goes, this is the only remedy for the city is actually a collections action.

You know, how like wouldn't we?

So collections requires more information.

Now you're in a really murky area in terms of the personal privacy identifying information.

I'm not finding that with bus patrol, like they're able to just take the citations and have a company do it so we could kind of like do what they are doing and what we've been doing, like just keep constant mailing them until they respond.

Um versus now, and I'm just playing devil's advocate, but now we're you know, contracting with so many different vendors with this personal information, like that's why I'm gonna just bring it up.

Some issues.

It's a good question.

It is a good question.

So whatever has to be done has to be done within the confines of the has to be whatever is allowed to be shared.

That's it.

I mean, that's the bottom line.

So there may be some that are not collectible.

I mean, another avenue is going through the whole citations process, but it's $50 ticket.

I mean, you know, there's that whole process, but it's a good idea.

Councilwoman, she she mumbled the words.

Hopefully it's gonna change actions, and I think that's why we need behaviors.

Yeah, I think we need to, you know, I we still need to move forward with it.

But I think you know, any loopholes that we discover down the line, hopefully there's remedies for us as a council to do it.

So Madam, you want to go.

So I moved to recommend the council approve the proposed ordinance regarding the use of ATESDs with the amendment to section 46-44 C regarding the retention of PPI as presented by corporation council.

Second no, I wanted to go back to the council because I want to do the next step, but I don't know that I necessarily want to move to the case.

So this this is gonna actually guide that the when this comes back, we automatically have to send it to public hearing.

Right, right.

So that doesn't need to be a part of the motion, but then down the line, this motion is gonna be used for the when it comes back from public hearing.

Yeah, I'm anxious to get to the next step and and have that discussion.

So there you go.

Okay.

Motion made second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Vote subordered.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

Anybody not in favor?

Good.

Let's go.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you.