Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor presents automated speed-enforcement data; board asks for more review before decision
Summary
Blue Line Solutions presented speed studies showing hundreds of potential school-zone violations at Phoenix Elementary and Randolph Henry; supervisors expressed concern about counts, privacy, and workload for the sheriff's office and asked staff to return with more information next month.
Blue Line Solutions made a formal presentation to the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors proposing automated speed enforcement (ASE) for two school zones and summarized the company’s approach to data, education, and enforcement. The board did not vote; members asked staff to gather additional information and return the item to the agenda next month.
Randy Campbell, who identified himself as a retired Virginia State Police sergeant representing Blue Line Solutions, described 5‑day speed studies conducted in May. He reported that 946 vehicles were recorded traveling 10 miles per hour or greater over the posted 25 mph limit at Phoenix Elementary during active flashing-beacon times and that 644 vehicles met the same threshold at Randolph Henry High School. Campbell explained the vendor’s model: a public information and education (PIE) campaign followed by a 30‑day warning period, then enforcement; violations are processed by the vendor, submitted to the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office for law‑enforcement approval, and handled as a $100 civil penalty under Virginia code (no points, not DMV recordable). He said compliant sign and VDOT‑permitting upgrades would be provided at no cost to the county and that, under the law, roughly 70% of paid fines return to the locality after administrative deductions.
Supervisors questioned the raw counts and whether traffic was double‑counted, raised concerns about elderly drivers and truck trailers getting tickets, and worried about the processing workload for sheriff’s staff. One supervisor called widespread camera deployment “another big issue” and urged caution about scope and privacy. The vendor and a sheriff’s representative (present in the room) responded that the system captures rear plates, not drivers’ faces; that trailers without matchable registration produce voided summonses; and that the PIE and warning phases typically reduce violations substantially. The sheriff expressed support for addressing school‑zone safety.
The board directed staff to collect additional information, consult with the sheriff, and bring a recommendation back at the next meeting. No contract was approved; the discussion remains at the study/consideration stage.
