Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Zone Enforcement Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears data, legal uncertainty and public concerns over automated school‑zone speed cameras
Summary
Sandy Springs staff reported early citation counts, revenue splits and operational rules for two automated speed-detection cameras in school zones; councilors raised enforcement, signage, equity and legislative concerns while the Georgia General Assembly considers bills to restrict or ban the devices.
Sandy Springs — City staff briefed the council Oct. 7 on the city's automated school‑zone speed-detection pilot, reporting citation counts, revenue, contract terms and state legislation that could affect the program.
A lieutenant with the Sandy Springs Police Department described how the city’s vendor, Red Speed LLC, provides cameras, installs equipment and supplies signage while the police department reviews images and approves citations. The contract split gives Red Speed 35% of revenue and the city 65%, and the current agreement expires June 30, 2026. "In a 25 miles an hour zone, a 26 mile an hour or above would receive the citation," the lieutenant said, summarizing enforcement with a 10‑mph buffer described in the contract.
Data presented: staff reported that between April and September the two school‑zone locations produced a combined 3,117 recorded violations, with 1,741 processed (paid) and approximately $142,570 collected to date (Riverwood: $40,900; North Springs: $101,670). The presenter said officers review each automated notice and dismiss citations when video uncertainty exists or incidents occur outside the posted school‑zone times.
Legal and legislative context: staff highlighted two Georgia House measures then pending in the Senate. House Bill 225, as described in the presentation, would ban statewide use of automated speed cameras in school zones and would prohibit cities from entering or renewing contracts for automated enforcement. House Bill 651 would restrict operational hours to arrival and dismissal periods, require active flashing lights when cameras operate, add pre‑entry speed display signage and limit fee and collection practices (for example, preventing forwarding unpaid school‑zone tickets to the Department of Revenue). The presenter noted HB 225 passed the House 129–37 and HB 651 passed 164–8 and both were under Senate consideration.
Council concerns and options: council members raised questions about calibration, due process, the vendor’s share of revenue, who receives citations (residents vs. nonresidents), officer time to review camera evidence and visual prominence of signage. Council also asked whether contract terms could be modified to restrict hours to arrival and dismissal; staff said vendors can sometimes reconfigure timers and that the city’s contract includes a termination notice (discussed as 60 days) with no additional penalty beyond the notice period.
No final policy change was adopted at the meeting. Councilors and staff agreed to monitor the state legislature, to continue the pilot while signage and public notices were strengthened, and to report back with options such as adjusting operating hours, flashing-lights timing or other contract modifications if permitted by state law and the vendor agreement.
