Committee reports Bill 575 to allow municipal automated enforcement in school and construction zones

Representative Hope Jones opened debate on Bill 575, saying the measure “has to do with school zone safety as well as construction safety,” and committee members spent the hearing outlining how municipal use of automated enforcement would operate and how fines and appeals would be handled.

The bill is permissive: municipalities would be allowed — but not required — to adopt automated enforcement systems for school and construction zones, presenters and committee members said. A presenter summarized the local-choice nature of the bill, saying, “This is all permissive.”

Proponents and staff described several key features of how enforcement would work under the proposal. According to the discussion, an automated detection system would be tied to a law-enforcement officer’s device and would require verification by an officer before a civil citation is issued. “This is only a law enforcement. It’s not a toll camera. It’s not a red light camera. It’s not a speed camera,” a presenter said, describing the intended officer verification and data-handling process.

Committee members pressed on liability and appeals. The bill, as described in the hearing, would make the vehicle owner the named party for civil penalties; if the owner requests an administrative hearing, the petitioner must show who was driving to avoid liability. The presenter said if the owner pays the fine, the owner would then have a civil claim against the actual driver to recover the amount paid.

Members discussed how municipalities might set fines and thresholds. One presenter contrasted approaches used elsewhere, noting some local programs had fines as high as $230 before local change, and said the municipality decides the fine amount and whether to issue warnings before citations. The presenter told the committee that in other jurisdictions only about “3 to 4%” of recipients request administrative hearings; most accept the citation.

Representative Bickler raised concerns about construction-zone enforcement when no workers are present, saying, “many times you see construction zones, and no one's working.” Committee staff advised the bill references existing state code definitions for construction and school zones: construction-zone violations require workers to be present under the cited code, and school-zone violations apply when school lights are flashing under the School Safety Zone Act. A committee member asked whether those conditions needed to be restated in the local-authority bill or whether referring to the state code was sufficient.

Members also discussed municipal discretion on program design: cities would determine whether to operate enforcement at all, set the speed threshold that triggers a citation (for example, only citing drivers more than a specified number of miles per hour over the limit), and decide how to apply revenue. A presenter said that under some local programs “the lion's share went to the city” and that municipalities would be required to direct a portion of revenue back to school-related safety purposes; the presenter described that requirement as “they have to put at least 10 back into the school system for school resource officers, for school zones, for safety programs,” and clarified that municipalities decide exact allocation and implementation details.

Committee members cited local interest from mayors and law enforcement. A presenter said the measure was pushed by the Baldwin County Mayors Association and named Orange Beach and Fairhope as municipalities seeking the authority; the committee heard an example from Hattiesburg and Orange Beach where officers documented dozens of violations during brief enforcement periods near schools.

After discussion, Representative Givens moved that the committee report the bill favorably; Representative Fidler seconded the motion. The committee voice-voted in favor and the motion passed; no roll-call tally was recorded in the hearing transcript.

The bill’s text as considered refers to existing state code and the School Safety Zone Act for definitions and activation conditions; committee staff noted those statutory cross-references during questioning.

What the committee decided was procedural: it voted to report Bill 575 favorably to the next legislative stage. The transcript does not record the bill’s next scheduled floor action or an exact vote tally from the committee.