Traffic light cameras and enhanced police body cams approved at council meeting

At the City Council meeting on the evening of Monday, September 23, Public Hearing Item 1 (PH1) called for the “Approval of a Five-Year Agreement with Verra Mobility, to Provide Automated Red Light Camera Enforcement Equipment and Services in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $4,554,000.”

Staff answered questions from the council regarding the operation of the automated cameras and the fines (which will remain the same). Vice Mayor O’Brien said that, as a pedestrian, he has found himself with his hands on the hood of a car on many occasions, near misses, so he wholeheartedly endorsed anything that would improve safety.

Council member Freddy Puza said that he had concerns about pushing people towards poverty, and that he would like to explore a sliding scale of fines. Still, the item passed unanimously.

The motion to increase the salary of council members, first raised at the meeting two weeks prior, was brought forward and unanimously approved this week. Their salary increases from $485.10 per month to $1,261.26.

The most contentious item of the evening was Action Item 2 (A2), “Approval of a Ten-Year Agreement with Axon to provide Body-Worn Cameras (BWC), In-Car Cameras (Fleet), Less Lethal Electronic Control Devices (Taser Systems), and Software Products in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $4,900,000.”

Concerns were raised about the accuracy of A.I. when it comes to facial recognition, especially with people of color. Mayor Yasmine-Imani McMorrin and Puza both pointed out the biases that are intrinsic in technologies such as these. However, Council Member Goran Eriksson said that this isn’t true A.I. anyway, as it’s still human-controlled. The item passed 3-2, with McMorrin and Puza the two no votes.

Item A3 called for, “Discussion and, if Desired, Adoption of the Proposed Statement of Land Acknowledgement Recommended by the Equity and Human Relations Advisory Committee (EHRAC), or a Different Statement of Land Acknowledgement.”

After Eriksson dismissed the statement as “performative,” because nobody has any intention of giving the land back, and complained about “looking back,” McMorrin said that these statements do mean something to some people. The council compromised on a shorter version than initially proposed.