Vermont officials say planned work‑zone camera ticketing system not deliverable under current rules

Vermont Transportation Secretary Joe Flynn told the House Transportation Committee that the state cannot deliver the automated speed‑enforcement camera system for highway work zones “as envisioned at this point.” Flynn said technical and procedural barriers — chiefly the requirement that a sworn law‑enforcement officer must issue the traffic ticket — make the planned pilot impracticable under current processes.

The problem, Flynn told the committee, is not a lack of commitment to worker safety but a mismatch between new camera technology and existing ticketing procedures. “We were coming in today to report to you that in the practical world, our ability to deliver the automated speed enforcement system as envisioned at this point is undoable as we see it,” Flynn said. He added that the judiciary’s position — that the traffic ticket must be issued by a sworn officer — and federal checks such as the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act together create a time‑consuming process for each citation.

Why it matters: the camera program was proposed as a highway work‑zone safety initiative and lawmakers have signaled interest in a short pilot at rotating sites. Flynn and Department of Public Safety staff told the committee that even a modest volume of camera‑generated violations could require many hours of sworn‑officer time to adjudicate because officers would need to verify records (including federal military status checks) before issuing a ticket.

Key facts and committee discussion

- Pilot design: Flynn described an earlier pilot concept involving three rotating locations, with only one location active at a time for a week or two. That design was intended to limit simultaneous processing needs but would still create heavy administrative load at individual sites.

- Workload example: Flynn gave an example on I‑89 near the UVM farm between Exits 13 and 14, where more than 10,000 vehicles pass daily. He said that if even a fraction of motorists in a work zone were captured and required processing, the per‑ticket time — which he estimated could be on the order of 10–15 minutes because of database checks — would quickly consume officer time.

- Legal and procedural constraints: Flynn and other witnesses referenced the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act and testimony from the judiciary that the ticket itself must be issued by a sworn officer. Flynn said that if the legislature and judiciary could craft language specific to tickets originating from automated systems that permitted a civilian employee of a law‑enforcement agency to process those tickets, “that would probably change this discussion significantly.”

- Staffing limits: Mandy Wooster, executive director of policy development at the Department of Public Safety, said law enforcement statewide is short staffed and cautioned against assuming existing sworn officers can absorb the extra administrative work. Flynn echoed that even if vacancies were filled, taking sworn officers off patrol for administrative ticket processing would be a poor use of resources.

- Alternative enforcement options discussed: committee members and witnesses discussed increasing visible patrols or adding multiple on‑site cruisers in high‑risk work zones as an interim measure. Flynn said contracts for work zones already sometimes include on‑site law enforcement presence and that contractors typically coordinate with sheriffs for that visible deterrent. He suggested the state could consider adding a second cruiser in especially hazardous zones and using overtime or targeted enforcement hours.

- Comparisons to other states: committee members referenced Connecticut and New York as places that have implemented camera enforcement; Flynn said the state has engaged others but must understand how those programs handle ticket issuance and whether different states’ statutory frameworks account for civilian adjudicators.

Committee directions and next steps

Committee members asked the administration to pursue two lines of follow‑up: (1) consult with the judiciary about whether statutory language could be written so that civilian employees of law‑enforcement agencies could administer citations that originate from automated cameras, and (2) continue outreach with the Vermont sheriffs and local police about the feasibility of on‑site enforcement or overtime details at work zones. Flynn said those conversations should take place in the off session and that the administration would report back; he signaled the conversations were unlikely to produce a statutory solution this session.

Quotes from witnesses and members

“We have a process that we believe we can deliver. And right now, I don't know how we do that,” Flynn said, describing technical, staffing and legal obstacles. Mandy Wooster said, “we all believe in work zone safety,” and cautioned that law enforcement statewide is short‑staffed. Representative Quatt asked to confirm that only one pilot location would be active at a time; Flynn confirmed the rotating design and cautioned that even a single site could generate a workload that would be difficult to process.

What was not decided

No bill was passed and there were no formal votes on policy changes during the session. Committee members did not adopt statutory language; Flynn recommended engaging the judiciary and returning with proposed statutory language and operational options in the off season or next legislative session.

Background and context

Flynn said the automated enforcement concept was first introduced roughly four years ago and resurfaced this session following public and legislative interest in reducing work‑zone crashes and speeding. Witnesses noted existing state practice: work‑zone speed limits are posted and enforcement can include marked cruisers; state law also doubles fines for speeding in work zones, a policy that committee members discussed in relation to signage and public awareness.

Next step for the committee: administration follow‑up with judiciary and law enforcement stakeholders, and a committee update in the off session or next term to present statutory options and operational recommendations.