Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Transportation Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Centennial School District board approves Bus Patrol stop-arm camera contract amid privacy questions
Summary
On Sept. 30, 2025, the Centennial School District Committee of the Whole approved a contract with Bus Patrol to install stop-arm cameras on school buses. The vendor covers equipment costs and is repaid from citations; the district faces questions from parents about who can access interior camera footage.
The Centennial School District Committee of the Whole approved a contract on Sept. 30, 2025, with Bus Patrol to install and manage a stop-arm camera ticketing system on district buses. The board approved the contract as agenda item 8.2d by voice vote with no opposition.
District administrators said the program will install exterior and interior cameras on buses to record motorists who illegally pass stopped school buses and to provide better interior coverage for student safety. Tom Greenwood, the district's Chief Financial Officer, said, “There is no upfront cost to the district.” He described the vendor model as using camera evidence to support citations issued by law enforcement and said the vendor pays the equipment and technical fees up front and recoups costs from a share of collected fines.
Greenwood said the system includes side-loading cameras that can capture license plates in HD and provide “a complete case” for law enforcement. He described an internal upgrade in recording quality, noting interior cameras will offer “a better view into those seats” and improved cloud backup for incident review.
The vendor provided district estimates that “we could have 150 to 200 tickets issued every month,” Greenwood said, a figure he and other board members called an estimate based on vendor experience. Greenwood and other administrators said the district would receive only a share of collected fines and would not be responsible for equipment or monthly technical fees unless there are contractual terms that require district payment; Greenwood said clarifications with the vendor and solicitor showed “there is no fee to the district if not a single bus violation is incurred.”
Board members and residents pressed the administration on program details. Board member Mrs. Crosson asked the meeting to “stress for anybody who didn't hear in the community that this is not gonna cost the district any money,” and Greenwood affirmed that statement. Board member Mr. Martin asked about a listed $250-per-bus-per-month technical fee; Greenwood said that fee is an equipment fee paid down from collections and reiterated there is no cost to the district per the contract review.
A public commenter and parent, Katherine Dangler of Newtown Road, asked specifically about interior footage: “Who has control of that footage from inside the bus? Like whose cloud is that on? Who has access to that footage?” Greenwood acknowledged the concern and said he would follow up with details and share the information in the superintendent’s weekly update.
Administrators said they had discussed the program with police chiefs in each jurisdiction and that law enforcement will receive recorded incidents for review and citation issuance. Greenwood said the district’s solicitor reviewed the contract and that the plan had been presented to and approved by the operations committee on Sept. 12.
The board approved agenda item 8.2d (contract with Bus Patrol) with a recorded motion under the operations agenda and a subsequent voice vote approving the contract with no board opposition. Administrators said next steps include final contract execution, coordination with participating townships and police jurisdictions, and a district follow-up to clarify data access and retention for interior recordings.
