T-R PHOTO BY ROBERT MAHARRY City of Marshalltown Public Works Director Heather Thomas, center, addresses the council while Marshalltown Police Department Capt. Chris Jones, right, and resident Jimmy Landt look on during Monday night’s meeting.

As it has been almost a full year now since the first two Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) cameras were installed in the community, Marshalltown Police Department (MPD) Capt. Chris Jones provided a general update to the city council during Monday night’s meeting while also discussing the changes on the horizon as the result of a new state law taking effect July 1.

Because of the aforementioned legislative change and the impending requirement that cities utilizing ATE apply for permits with the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), the program has been temporarily suspended while the MPD works through the new regulatory framework. Jones said the application with the DOT is due this coming Monday, and he felt confident that the city would receive the desired permits and continue its program.

Over the 10 ½ months the cameras have been in operation, they have issued 7,559 citations and 2,461 warnings, and Jones also shared the locations where the mobile unit has been placed over the last few months — May Street, West Main Street, South 12th Street and East South Street, generating between 130 and 140 citations. Between the first two months the cameras were active (last June and July) and the last two that they were fully operational before the pause, Jones said speeding contacts have decreased by 34 percent at the South 12th Avenue/Governor Road location and 69 percent on Lincoln Way.

“Ideally, the educational part of it isn’t necessarily just us. We worked with local media. We worked with a lot of regional media that took interest in our program, but it’s coming up here and talking about the problem of speeding in our community and getting out there and the public talking about their concerns,” Jones said. “And I know there is some negativity that actually comes out on social media, but there’s a lot of positive comments that come out in those social media posts about wanting the cameras in their neighborhood.”

He then detailed the experiences he and fellow Capt. Kiel Stevenson had with the mobile units, noting that people would come by and give them a “thumbs up” as they were moving them and expressed their support. Whenever they asked to put it on someone’s property, he said, they were “overwhelmingly accepting.”

So far, the payment rate for the citations is about 60 percent, and the MPD has been working with a company called ARC Management Group on collections for the approximately 40 percent that haven’t been paid. With the floor opened up to council questions, Mayor Pro-Tem Mike Ladehoff wanted to reiterate that the mobile unit isn’t placed in locations “just to surprise people.”

Jones responded that they have been giving advance notice about where the unit is placed, and he went on to explain that the DOT is requiring an application for each location and direction for the mobile unit — nine in total. The goal is to focus on “critical areas” like elementary schools and the pedestrian walkthrough area on Marion Street near JBS, he explained.

Jim Shaw sought clarification on signage placement in relation to the mobile units and then asked, regarding the Flock cameras (which would be discussed later), whether a photo had been captured of the vehicle that the suspect in a homicide outside of the Center Street Station bar on June 1 was driving. Jones said the mobile unit signage is required on any highway entering the community but not necessarily within a certain distance of the units themselves, and he added that they will be allowed to continue enforcement until Oct. 1, when the state will determine whether or not the program can continue.

Police Chief Mike Tupper said the second question Shaw asked was in reference to an active, ongoing investigation, and the MPD wouldn’t be making any comments on evidence it does or does not have. Jimmy Landt then asked Jones about the distance requirement for signage ahead of cameras, and the captain responded that while he wasn’t sure, the public works department was working to determine what needs to be done to comply with the law.

Recounting his travels to other communities in Iowa, Landt felt they provided more advance notice of the cameras than Marshalltown. Public Works Director Heather Thomas said both of the signs for the fixed sites are within the current specifications of the state code, but on July 1, the required distance will increase to 500 to 1,000 feet in front of the camera. Thomas said it was her understanding that the signs had been moved to get them within compliance as of Monday.

Shaw then returned to the podium to ask another question on the range of the speed cameras, and Jones responded that there’s a sign on either end of the camera informing drivers about laws being photo enforced, and it’s in between those signs.

In an update shared Thursday, the MPD indicated that the two fixed site cameras on Lincoln Way and Governor Road would resume issuing citations on July 1 while the department applies for its permits with the Iowa DOT.

Flock update

After the discussion on ATE, Capt. Stevenson took over to discuss the Flock license plate reader cameras, which received council approval last year and have been installed around town since. He noted that they’re still in the process of getting the system fully set up and have run into “a few snags” with state permitting.

Even without the system running at full strength, however, Stevenson said it has been “a tremendous asset” to the MPD.

“Flock is quickly becoming the rule, the way that crimes are solved, not the exception to that rule. Officers are quickly relying on Flock to help us identify individuals that have been involved in a number of different crimes in our community,” he said. “I will tell you that we’ve had major crimes in our community that Flock has been instrumental (in solving), but we’ve used it to solve major thefts in our community, to solve hit and run accidents.”

It’s also a valuable tool in tracking down individuals who have warrants out for their arrests, driving a stolen vehicle or using stolen plates, and within seconds, alerts are sent out to the police department. Currently, 36 arrests have been attributed solely to Flock alerts and/or using Flock as part of the investigation in just three months of use.

“(I’m) keeping it short and sweet, but Flock has been instrumental in numerous things. And I think once the entire plan comes together and we get these remaining five cameras, it’s gonna be even more of a game changer for us,” Stevenson said.

Councilor Gary Thompson asked Stevenson to reassure the public the cameras weren’t being used to issue seatbelt violations, citing constituents who had reached out to him, and the captain responded that they are not as they don’t generate citations at all.

“I’ll tell you now, it’s extremely restrictive on what you can do. I don’t get to just pull up a camera and say I want to see who went through this intersection. I don’t get to just decide that I want to see where Gary went today and pull up his vehicle and go because I have to put a case number in there, and we do audits back on that,” Stevenson said. “So, if officers aren’t putting that in, they have to attribute it back to either a case number or a call for service that tells us exactly why they’re looking that information up.”

Councilor Barry Kell asked Stevenson how many officer man hours the cameras saved on the aforementioned 36 crimes and/or how much quicker they were solved as a result. He didn’t have a total figure but said solving many of the cases was “almost instantaneous” once the Flock evidence was available.

Thompson also wondered if the Flock cameras had assisted in solving any cases outside of Marshalltown, which Stevenson said was “a great question” and something he would look into in the future. The figure he provided, 36, was strictly related to Marshalltown and Marshall County cases.

Ladehoff hoped to reiterate that the Flock cameras were not monitoring any activity on private property and only watching public property.

“They’re all on public right-of-way. They’re all just monitoring vehicle traffic, vehicles in traffic, places where you would normally drive and anyone could see you drive anyway,” Stevenson said. “Even though we could stand there and watch every single one, with this system, it doesn’t allow us to really do that. It’s only when it’s a targeted reason that we’re looking for a specific vehicle, you know, things like that. So it’s a little more narrow focused on how we use the cameras.”

——

Contact Robert Maharry at 641-753-6611 ext. 255 or

rmaharry@timesrepublican.com.