The Opelousas City Council declined on Aug. 12 to repeal the city’s speed‑camera ordinance after a lengthy public hearing in which residents, business owners and law-enforcement leaders gave opposing testimony.

The council considered a motion to repeal Ordinance No. 5 of 2023, which authorizes speed-limit enforcement via photographic and automated means. Several residents and business owners urged the council to remove the cameras, saying the devices create fear, catch drivers who do not see posted signs, or produce notices sent by mail 30 days after an alleged violation. One speaker said she had gathered more than 1,000 signatures opposing the cameras.

Police Chief Charles (first name not given in the record) and department representatives defended the cameras as a traffic‑safety tool and as part of a broader enforcement strategy that the chief said frees officers for other patrol duties. The chief told the council such enforcement reduces speeding and supports neighborhood safety; staff also described plans to upgrade camera hardware to include license‑plate recognition and additional capabilities.

Legal and procedural points were raised: the chief said the city followed state law changes that altered school‑zone photo enforcement and that cameras placed on trailers or poles complied with current requirements. Staff said an affidavit process exists for residents who claim they were not the vehicle operator: a signed attestation can remove civil liability for a recipient who was not driving.

Council vote: Alderman Charles Cummings voted yes to repeal; Alderman Dalita Broussard and Alderman John Gilbo voted no; Alderman Sherrell Roberts voted no; Alderman Chastity Warren voted no; Alderman Marvin Richard voted no. The motion to repeal failed 4 nays to 2 yays.

Why it matters: Photo enforcement has been controversial in Opelousas; proponents cited reduced crashes and a deterrent effect while opponents said cameras are a financial burden and criticized how and where they were deployed. The vote means Ordinance No. 5 of 2023 remains in effect and the city will continue operation under existing contract arrangements and equipment deployments until the council votes otherwise.

Ending: The public hearing closed after extended comment and the council proceeded with other agenda business.