Committee presses AOT and public safety after work‑zone camera pilot delayed by law‑enforcement issues

Committee members raised concerns after testimony that the Agency of Transportation’s pilot to use automated traffic enforcement in work zones on limited‑access highways will not begin as scheduled because AOT reports it has not secured a willing law‑enforcement partner to review and certify camera‑generated violations.

The committee’s discussion focused on S.184, the enacted pilot statute cited in testimony, which sets out a civil‑penalty framework and requires a law enforcement officer to inspect recorded images and affirm violations before a civil complaint is issued. Committee members said testimony from AOT indicated the agency had contracted for equipment and federal grant funding was in place but that the state had not identified law enforcement staff ready to undertake the certification and affidavit work the statute requires.

Members described the pilot as a safety measure aimed at slowing traffic in construction zones to protect highway workers. Several legislators recalled testimony from employers and workers reporting frequent speeding through work zones and urged the committee to press agencies for specific barriers preventing implementation. Representative Jerry Pouch and others said the pilot was carefully negotiated in prior sessions and that, without enforcement, the law’s intent to reduce speeds and protect workers will not be realized.

Committee staff and members considered three categories of remedies: (1) require or authorize a particular law‑enforcement group to perform the review and issuance (for example, state police, municipal police, or DMV enforcement officers if the statute is amended to include them); (2) change the enforcement mechanism (for example, administrative penalties enforced by an agency rather than civil penalties requiring sworn law‑enforcement affidavits); or (3) pursue oversight actions such as summoning the involved agencies (AOT, Department of Public Safety/state police, DMV) for follow‑up testimony and documentation. Staff explained administrative penalties are simpler to enforce but have fewer enforcement “teeth,” while civil penalties (the current statutory route) trigger surcharges and a judicial‑bureau process when contested.

Staff from legislative counsel and committee members reviewed statutory language cited in testimony, noting the statute currently limits the certifying officer to a state police officer, municipal police officer, sheriff or deputy sheriff, or a municipal constable exercising law enforcement authority under 24 VSA. That interpretation may exclude DMV enforcement officers unless the statute is amended. Committee members asked AOT to clarify which law‑enforcement entities it approached and why those entities declined or could not commit resources. The committee also requested documentation about contracting and outreach to prospective enforcement partners and whether the federal grant funding requires a specific enforcement structure.

Committee members discussed implementation mechanics, including that the pilot’s first violation is structured as a $0 civil violation (effectively a warning) and repeat violations within 12 months carry an $80 civil penalty and applicable surcharges. Members debated whether a warning‑first approach, outreach and signage, or an initial non‑penal warning period might allow the pilot’s presence and warnings to slow traffic while agencies address the law‑enforcement question. Officials noted that states using similar systems reported significant reductions in speeding rates from warnings and camera presence alone in many cases.

The committee did not amend statute language at the hearing but directed staff to invite AOT and Department of Public Safety representatives back to explain the “roadblocks” and to provide memos or letters detailing the procurement, contract status, grant conditions, and the law‑enforcement agencies AOT has contacted. Members also discussed the option of a limited statutory amendment to add DMV enforcement officers or another state law‑enforcement category, if that would be acceptable to the committee and the agencies.

Ending — The committee committed to follow up. Staff will request a short AOT memo and invite the relevant law‑enforcement agencies to testify about capacity and willingness to implement the pilot, and to provide the contract and grant documentation referenced in testimony. No formal committee vote or change to the statute occurred at the meeting.