Committee recommends Council approve automated traffic‑camera ordinance after adopting privacy policy

Chair Frank Salvatore convened the Ad Hoc Committee on Traffic Enforcement Devices of Danbury City at 6:00 p.m. July 14, where the committee reviewed a proposed privacy policy needed to implement automated traffic enforcement safety devices (ATESDs) and voted to recommend Council approval of a corresponding ordinance.

Deputy Corporation Counsel Robin Edwards told the committee that state legislation passed in 2023 allows municipalities to use red‑light and speed cameras only after adoption of a local ordinance and a privacy policy; Edwards said about 15 municipalities have already adopted ordinances and that Department of Transportation approval is required for camera use. Assistant Corporation Counsel Kaitlin Gruse outlined the implementation steps the city must take: adopt an ordinance, adopt a privacy policy, prepare a Safety Action Plan (Planning and Zoning is working on the plan), and obtain DOT approval of a final plan developed with the Police Department and the city traffic engineer.

Gruse defined ATESDs as red‑light or speed cameras that collect images of the violation, date, time, location and license plate. She said an outside vendor will maintain images and associated information — including plate numbers, contact details and payment information — and that the policy limits use of that data to issuance and collection of fines. The proposed policy would require destruction of personally identifying information no more than 30 days after collection of the fine or a hearing, except where additional violations occur; in those cases the vendor may retain related data for up to one year after each subsequent violation.

Member Candace Fay asked what information would be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request; Gruse and Edwards said identifying information would not be provided and that only general camera information would be available. Paul Rotello, an ex‑officio attendee, asked whether vendors are approved by the state and expressed concern about federal government access to the data; Edwards replied that data would be subject to lawful process such as a warrant and noted the city may choose shorter retention than the policy maximum.

After questions and discussion, Member Candace Fay moved and Member Cheryl Wallace‑Smith seconded a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance authorizing ATESDs, with an amendment to Section 46‑44.C regarding the retention of personally identifying information as presented by Corporation Counsel. The motion carried unanimously among the committee members present. The committee then moved and carried to adjourn; the meeting ended at 6:20 p.m.

The committee’s vote was a recommendation to the City Council; final adoption of an ordinance and DOT approval are separate, subsequent steps.