Howard County delegation backs speed-camera bill, directs excess revenue to school deferred maintenance

The Howard County House delegation voted to report HOCO 9-25 favorably with amendments on Feb. 3, 2025, advancing a bill that would authorize local jurisdictions in Howard County to install automated speed-monitoring cameras in additional locations and direct any remaining revenues, after program costs, toward deferred maintenance at Howard County Public Schools.

Delegate Ash Hill, who offered the amendment tied to school maintenance funding, described the core purpose and the amendment’s revenue direction. “The amendment that I've offered would direct any proceeds above the cost of the program to go towards a new fund ... for deferred maintenance of the school system,” Hill said during the meeting.

Why it matters: The bill expands where speed-camera systems may be deployed — to certain residential districts, to all of Route 1 within Howard County, to school zones with posted speed limits of at least 20 mph, and to highways identified as high-risk in the State’s most recent Strategic Highway Safety Plan or Vision Zero plan. Delegation members framed the revenue provision as a way to channel excess program funds toward school maintenance needs while protecting existing school funding priorities.

What the amendments do: The delegation adopted two amendments before moving the bill forward: - An amendment offered by Delegate Hill requires that any funding used for deferred maintenance “supplement and not supplant” other funds allocated for the same purpose. - An amendment offered by Delegate Daniel Fedemarck (listed on the meeting document as a separate amendment before being combined) allows funds collected across the program to be pooled and used for existing safety improvement purposes or for deferred maintenance; it also clarifies that the existing school-zone camera program and any expanded program may be administered together as a single program and budgetary decisions about allocations would rest with the county.

Discussion highlights: Delegates pressed staff and one another on implementation and fiscal expectations. Delegate Gazzoni (asked as “Koizongi” in parts of the transcript) noted that current school-zone camera operations are not generating a positive balance and cautioned that new cameras would create upfront and ongoing costs. “I’m a little hesitant to seemingly add a whole new level of administrative activity ... when we're not clear that this is gonna generate any significant revenue,” Gazzoni said.

Staff clarified that the bill is enabling legislation: local jurisdictions may choose whether to deploy cameras, and the county would decide how to allocate any pooled revenues between pedestrian-safety improvements and deferred maintenance. Mr. Moriarty, who provided bill text and technical clarifications, reiterated the bill’s definitions and the locations where cameras could be placed, including the county’s Route 1 corridor and highways identified in the state safety plans.

Votes and outcome: The delegation voted first on the Hill amendment (requiring supplemental, not supplanting use of deferred-maintenance funds) and then on the Fedemarck amendment (allowing pooled program funds to be used for either safety purposes or deferred maintenance). Both amendments were adopted. The delegation then voted to move HOCO 9-25 as amended; the motion carried and the bill was reported favorably with amendments from the House delegation.

Process and next steps: Staff read the bill text aloud during the meeting to clarify the statutory definitions and where the bill would apply. Delegation members asked for maps and lists previously circulated to confirm specific streets, and staff said the bill’s language uses the statutory term “district” for residential areas with maximum posted speed limits of 35 mph (and school zones with posted limits of at least 20 mph). The delegation did not adopt additional limitations beyond the bill’s text. The bill, as amended by the delegation, will move forward per delegation procedures.

Ending note: Delegates repeatedly emphasized that deployment remains a local decision and that counties would weigh safety needs against cost and operational capacity before installing cameras.