Burke County commissioners approved the first reading of an ordinance amending local speed-zone regulations after a wide-ranging discussion about school-zone signage and automated enforcement. The measure, described as Ordinance 25-02 in the meeting, includes a change for certain zones from 25 mph to 45 mph and time-limited reductions tied to school periods.

Supporters said the ordinance brings the county's written speed limits into alignment with what is posted at some locations; critics warned that camera contractors have issued tickets outside the narrow hours specified in the draft and urged the county to ensure signage and enforcement match the ordinance. Commissioners noted that the county's role is to set speed limits while the placement of cameras and the initial contract for automated enforcement were handled outside this board's purview.

The discussion centered on the school bypass and a route referred to in the meeting as Bird Dog Way. Commissioners asked whether the posted limits and camera signage — and the hours when cameras can generate tickets — were consistent with the draft ordinance. A staff member explained that state law and state signage requirements govern some aspects of camera enforcement and that Georgia Department of Transportation approval had been obtained for placement on the state highway referenced in the discussion. The staff member also advised the board that, under state procedure, tickets issued outside the ordinance's parameters would be defensible in court.

Commissioner Kelly moved to accept the first reading of Ordinance 25-02 amending speed-zone regulations; Commissioner Nicks seconded. The motion carried on first reading. Commissioners discussed making changes before a required second reading; the board observed that second-reading amendments are possible and final adoption would follow.

The board also debated whether to alter the posted speed on Bird Dog Way, which some commissioners said had been posted at 45 mph by the Department of Transportation when the road was transferred and might be changed later by the county if the commissioners decide to reconvene the process.

The ordinance's adoption on second reading will determine the final parameters for enforcement and signage. Commissioners and staff said that if cameras issue citations inconsistent with the ordinance's times or signage, those citations could be contested in court and the county could direct the contractor to comply with the ordinance wording.

No final change to the cameras' vendor contract or to state law was made at the meeting; the board completed the required first-reading vote and left open the opportunity to refine signage language and times before final adoption.