Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff proposes school-zone speed cameras; board asks for contract, signage and VDOT clarity
Summary
Sheriff Jason Smith presented a speed-enforcement camera program for Orange County school zones, citing local speed-study results and vendor claims of a no-cost, violator-funded contract. Supervisors asked for the contract, details about signage and VDOT permits, and measurement of where cameras would be placed before deciding.
Sheriff Jason Smith asked the Orange County Board of Supervisors to consider deploying automated speed-enforcement cameras in active school zones, saying speeding and reckless driving are a pressing problem countywide.
Smith presented results from a short speed study at county school zones and described vendor mechanics and legal constraints. Examples cited included four-day counts at Locust Grove Middle (about 3,000 vehicles with 446 violations) and at Locust Grove Elementary (about 8,000 vehicles with 401 violations). Smith said vendor projections estimated a roughly 90% reduction in violations after implementation and offered a no-cost guarantee to the county under the vendor's violator-funded model.
Under Virginia Code provisions cited by Smith, enforcement would be limited to when school-zone lights are active, and the posted enforcement threshold would typically begin at 10 miles per hour over the posted school-zone speed. Smith said the vendor (named in the presentation as Altumont) handles processing, maintenance, and violation mailing; law enforcement must review and sign each citation before it is mailed. He also described a 30-day warning period and a public information campaign before citations begin.
Supervisors raised multiple operational and legal questions. They asked how camera hours would be set for varying school schedules, whether VDOT must approve additional advance signage, and how the transfer-of-liability process would work when the registered owner is not the driver. Smith said the vendor uses DMV registration data for owner identification and that tickets could be contested in court or transferred via vendor procedures. He agreed to provide the contract, additional signage samples, and measurements showing distance from advance signs to school entrances so the board can assess differences between zones.
No ordinance or contract was adopted at the meeting. The sheriff offered to bring the vendor to a future meeting for a fuller presentation and to supply the contract for legal review and VDOT coordination prior to any formal action.
Next steps: Board requested the vendor contract and sample signage, and asked staff to confirm permitting/VDOT requirements and to measure sign distances between school advance signs and school entrances for the cited school zones.
