Palm Bay Officials Face Pushback Over School Zone Speed Cameras, Financial Incentives, and Public Comment Limits

Palm Bay, FL – Palm Bay’s controversial school zone speed camera enforcement program is under fire again, following heated discussions at the latest City Council meeting where council members and residents questioned its accuracy, financial motivations, and the city’s handling of public concerns.

The debate came a week after the program was temporarily halted due to reports of incorrect citations being issued. The Palm Bay Police Department assured the public it was working to resolve the glitches before reinstating the system. However, the latest council discussion raised deeper concerns about whether the cameras are truly about safety or revenue generation—and whether officials are doing enough to ensure transparency.

Before discussions on speed cameras began, Mayor Rob Medina made remarks emphasizing that public comments should be handled administratively when possible. “To keep our meeting efficiently focused on City business, I respectfully ask that my fellow council members refrain from dialogue on matters which are best handled administratively,” Medina stated. He added that city staff members were available to step outside with members of the public to discuss administrative matters. “If an issue can’t be addressed immediately, the city manager’s office will contact the speaker within three business days,” he assured. 

During the meeting, Councilman Chandler Langevin raised concerns about the financial burden on residents, emphasizing that a $100 ticket could significantly impact working-class families. “If you’re living paycheck to paycheck and get hit with a $100 ticket, that means you might have to skip a dinner out or other local spending. That affects our local economy,” he said. The financial breakdown of the fines was also discussed, revealing that of the $100 citation, $60 goes to the municipality, with $39 going to the City of Palm Bay and $21 going to RedSpeed. 

Langevin also questioned the program’s effectiveness, arguing that the cameras were intended to slow drivers down—not serve as a money grab. “The whole point of these cameras is to slow people down. It’s not supposed to be a way to be a money grab,” he stated. He further pointed to RedSpeed’s track record, the company operating the cameras, referencing problems in Jonesboro, Georgia, where over 1,200 incorrect citations led to nearly $80,000 in refunds. “This isn’t a new system. This company has had problems elsewhere, and we should have known that before we brought them in,” he warned.

Greg Parks, Senior Vice President of RedSpeed, pushed back against criticism, arguing that the company does not issue tickets automatically and that Palm Bay Police officers review all citations. “We’re simply gathering evidence and presenting it to Palm Bay Police,” he said. He also disputed claims that Jonesboro, Georgia, had abandoned its RedSpeed program. “The Jonesboro program that was referenced is still operating with great effect,” he stated. “They reduced speeding by 90%, and it’s still in operation.”

Deputy Chief Jeff Spears acknowledged that there had been a glitch in the system that resulted in incorrect violations, but assured council members that the issue had been resolved and that refunds were issued where necessary. He also noted that 3,970 warning citations had been issued since the program launched, and that nearly 900 drivers had already paid their citations. Spears reiterated that Palm Bay Police officers review all violations before tickets are issued.

Additionally, broader concerns about surveillance technology in Palm Bay surfaced during the meeting, particularly regarding Flock Safety’s automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras. Some residents questioned the necessity of these cameras and their potential implications for privacy and over-policing. 

Despite reassurances from officials, the debate underscores ongoing skepticism from residents and local leaders alike. As discussions continue, the council appears divided on whether the cameras should remain in place or if further adjustments are needed to restore public trust in the system.