Hendry County hears report on automated school‑zone enforcement, seeks advisory process for county share

Hendry County commissioners reviewed a staff report on the county's automated school‑zone citation program at their Oct. 14 meeting in Clewiston.

The presentation covered program activity from Oct. 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025. The report listed 6,951 violations issued, 4,547 violations paid and 2,391 violations pending; 13 violations were shown as contested. The presentation listed total deposits of $395,930 and a state share described as 23% ($91,064.94). The presenter also listed a 5% allocation for school crossing guards ($19,796.72), a county disbursement of $19,100.8 and a vendor disbursement to a party identified as “Ultimate” recorded as $208,000.742 in the slide deck.

County staff and several commissioners raised questions about program costs and contract terms during the discussion. Commissioners asked whether signing and flashing signs in school zones were the county's responsibility and whether the cost of signage or equipment came from Road and Bridge or other budgets. Staff said flashing signs are not required by statute but acknowledged they can help compliance; cost estimates provided during the meeting indicated flashing signs can run about $7,500 each.

Lease and contract costs for cameras were discussed. A calculation shown during the meeting noted 16 cameras at $34.99 per month as the lease payment; one commissioner remarked that, when extrapolated from Oct. 1, 2024, to June 30 (the period covered in the staff handout), the lease figure reached more than $500,000, which prompted staff to explain report timing and which months the program was active (staff said citations for the county began Feb. 3). Staff said the report handed out that evening was based on monthly clerk reports and covers February through October activity.

Jennifer Davis, Hendry County administrator, told the board that the county had not spent any of the county's share and that staff planned to propose an advisory board composed of public‑safety stakeholders and other county representatives to make recommendations on how to spend that money. Davis said the advisory panel's membership would be appointed by the board and any spending recommendations would be brought back to the commission for approval.

Staff also noted there have been citations dismissed for locations where jurisdictional questions existed (roads inside the city but listed as county roads on the program list); county counsel said staff would present an amendment to the ordinance to resolve confusion about which roads are covered and that correcting the road listings should increase the program's enforceable coverage.

The county did not take formal action on the camera program at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to return with clarifications about contract obligations, the timing of charges and a proposed advisory board structure.

Ending: Commissioners said they want clearer cost and jurisdiction information before any spending decisions and urged staff to return with a refined report and the advisory‑board recommendation for approval at a future meeting.