Bel Air commissioners agreed Aug. 26 to place the contested speed-hump installation at the Broadway and Shamrock intersection on the agenda of a September town meeting for a formal vote, after residents, staff and commissioners spent more than two hours debating whether the town's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) justified the device.

The NTMP scoring worksheet assembled by town staff showed the location scored 32 points; the program requires 50 points for a Level 2 traffic-calming measure such as a speed hump. Staff and police data cited a peak-period traffic count of 211 vehicles, an 85th-percentile speed at about 31'0-32 mph on a 25 mph posted limit, and a calculated non-local (cut-through) share of about 18.9 percent — all figures below the NTMP thresholds for the device.

Why it matters: commissioners and residents framed the dispute as both a technical-policy question and a residents'promise question. Residents who collected a petition with two-thirds support expected the town to install the hump; staff acknowledged the petition but also acknowledged the NTMP score did not meet the numeric threshold. The episode prompted commissioners to say the town must clarify the NTMP procedures and how staff uses discretion.

Town staff, police and residents described the technical findings and the neighborhood views. Kevin Small (public works) and Chief Moore reviewed the traffic counts and crash history; town staff recorded one property-damage-only accident in the prior three years at the intersection. The police emphasis, staff said, had been enforcement addressing failure-to-stop behavior rather than high-speed violations at that location.

Town Administrator Eddie Hopkins said staff had asked neighborhood organizers to collect signatures and that staff had relied on the petition in deciding to move forward despite the NTMP score. Hopkins acknowledged the choice was his: "I will take responsibility for the decision to change course earlier this summer that has brought us to the table," he told the board.

Several commissioners said the board should enforce clear, predictable rules for traffic interventions going forward. Mayor Edding offered an apology to affected residents for the mixed signals they received: "I feel it incumbent upon me as a representative of the town just to apologize to these folks who were given, you know, what ultimately turned out to be an inaccurate picture of the circumstances," she said.

Commissioner Taylor, citing the documented assurances residents received, said she supported installing the speed hump in this instance: "I am still in favor of installing the speed hump because of the promise that was made and because the very clear expectation that prevailed upon our residents," Taylor said.

Board action and next steps: Commissioners agreed to place the Broadway/Shamrock speed-hump proposal on the agenda of a future town-hall meeting for a public vote (the board named a September meeting date in the session). The board directed staff to prepare documents for the public meeting, including the NTMP worksheets, the petition, the police data, and to give residents formal opportunity for public comment at that legislative meeting.

Policy changes and follow-up: Commissioners said they want the NTMP clarified and codified so similar disputes do not recur. Staff and the board discussed possible changes including: (1) making the program's distance definitions (for schools, pedestrian generators) explicit, (2) tightening the rules for when staff may rely on petitions or "other factors" to override numeric thresholds, and (3) improving public communication so petition signers understand the program's criteria and limits. Commissioners also discussed origin-destination camera studies as a more precise way to measure cut-through traffic in future evaluations.

Context and neighborhood views: Residents who gathered the petition told commissioners they had canvassed and obtained the signatures in good faith and expected the town to act. Other neighbors opposed the physical hump and favored alternatives such as increased signage, pavement markings or enforcement. Staff reiterated that Level 1 measures (education, targeted pavement markings, temporary enforcement) remain available regardless of NTMP score.

What remains unresolved: The board did not adopt a final resolution on the speed hump at the work session; instead it scheduled a public vote so the board itself could record an up-or-down decision. Commissioners said they expect to follow the vote with a formal effort to codify the NTMP and the committee's role, including whether the committee should be made a formal board-appointed body or remain an ad-hoc staff-run group.

Ending: The Town Hall meeting where the speed-hump question will be decided will include a public comment period; commissioners asked staff to circulate the NTMP materials and to identify potential alternative mitigations if the device is not approved.