Lobbyists for cities, including Cedar Rapids, and Sensys Gatso, a technology company that works with cities to provide traffic cameras and help collect fines, expressed their opposition during a legislative hearing.
A law passed last year added significant restrictions to where automated traffic cameras could be placed on Iowa roads to enforce speed limits. Under the new law's framework, which requires local governments to provide safety data-driven justification for the traffic cameras, the state transportation department approved only 11 out of 139 applications for fixed automated traffic cameras — including only four of the 13 requested by Cedar Rapids. The Iowa Department of Transportation also approved 143 mobile traffic cameras out of 209 applications statewide.
Fixed cameras denied by the Iowa DOT for speeding violations still are allowed to issue tickets for red-light running if they are so equipped — which the cities of Cedar Rapids and Marion planned to continue while denials are on appeal.
The new bill, according to its text, addresses "fines issued for excessive speeding violations detected by an automated or remote system for traffic law enforcement," and amends the section of state law that deals with devices used to detect speed limit violations. The bill does not address stoplight violations.
Lobbyists for Iowa cities said private vendors are more efficient collectors of fines, and prohibiting their use would create an inefficient local government that would be more costly to taxpayers.
The cities of Cedar Rapids and Marion both use a third-party company to help collect unpaid fines from the traffic cameras.
"It's more efficient, we believe, to have a third party, because this is work that's going to have to be done," city of Cedar Rapids lobbyist Gary Grant said. "And in the interest of smaller, smarter government, we'd really rather not hire more employees to have to do this. But if we do this, (if) a measure like this passes, we are definitely going to have to assign that work with someone.
"I know there are a lot of smaller, smarter government folks up here (in the Iowa Legislature). There are folks up here that want to lessen the burden on local property taxpayers. Adding more staff really doesn't do that," Grant said.
Cities' lobbyists also noted the Republican-majority Iowa Legislature last year passed legislation designed to slow the growth of local property taxes, and plans more, similar legislation this session.
"In the climate, cities and local governments are seeking to find different efficiencies that we can utilize and this bill, unfortunately, would limit some of the efficiencies," said Cody Carlson of the Iowa League of Cities. "It would require them to shoulder the entire costs of some of these, where (currently) they can cost share with private vendors while still getting the public safety focus from the ATEs."
Marion Police Chief Mike Kitsmiller also said the third-party vendor saves the city time and money. The bill, should it pass, would place more work on the city, Kitsmiller said.
The new bill, House File 3, was proposed by Rep. Henry Stone, a Republican from Forest City, and considered Tuesday by a three-member panel of other lawmakers in the Iowa House. Republican Reps. Bill Gustoff, of Des Moines, and Christian Hermanson, of Mason City, voted to advance the bill, making it eligible for consideration by the House Transportation Committee. Rep. Daniel Gosa, a Democrat from Davenport, opposed advancing the bill.
In addition to barring cities from contracting with third-party vendors to collect fines from violations caught by automated traffic cameras, the legislation also would exclude fines from automated traffic cameras from state collections procedures. Money owed for a traffic camera penalty could not be acquired, for instance, by withholding money from an individual's tax return.
Gustoff said he understands the concerns about efficiency in local government but voted to advance the bill to keep the discussion going. Gustoff said he is uncertain of the proposal's fate.
Cities with a population of 20,000 or less are prohibited from issuing speeding fines from violations observed by mobile automated traffic enforcement cameras — equipment installed in a vehicle or trailer parked along a shoulder. Those cities can issue only warnings for violations observed by mobile devices.
© Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
