Bel Air commissioners debate formalizing neighborhood traffic program amid calls for clearer process

Bel Air town staff on Wednesday previewed a revised Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) manual that would alter how the town evaluates neighborhood traffic concerns and who makes certain decisions.

Kevin (staff), who led the presentation, said the draft copies a lot of Harford County's approach but includes local changes: raising the threshold for what constitutes a level‑1 concern to 25–50 points, shifting five points from traffic volume to speed to prioritize treatable speed problems, establishing a 500‑foot buffer around elementary schools and converting a quarter‑mile reference to 1,000 feet to match county definitions. He also proposed that certain outlier events — such as a fatal crash or a cluster of injury crashes — be allowed as an "unanticipated" input that could move a request out of the standard point calculation.

"We thought it would be helpful to include a mechanism for unplanned inputs so we don't paint ourselves into a corner," Kevin said during the presentation.

Liz (legal counsel) told the board she had drafted two governance options for commissioners to consider: an ordinance that would formally establish the NTMP as a committee in town code (with membership, delegated authority, an appeals path and Open Meetings Act obligations), or a resolution/policy that would recognize the existing ad hoc work group and adopt the manual without the formal statutory structure.

"With a formal committee, you get a clearer chain of authority and a definable appeal route if someone is aggrieved," Liz said. "But that also creates an obligation for open meetings, minutes and potential additional staff resources."

Several commissioners said they value openness and clearer procedures. Commissioner (speaker 3) said a formal, codified process would make the NTMP's authority and membership clear and would provide for appeals and transparency. Others, including the chair, argued for keeping the NTMP ad hoc to preserve the informal, dialog-driven process that allows residents and staff more time for back-and-forth discussion.

"I prefer to keep it an ad hoc committee so people can engage in a dialogue," the chair said, adding she does not favor converting everyday administrative choices into formal appeals.

Commissioners pressed staff on implementation details. Staff confirmed the town would publish a definitions page to explain technical terms (for example, 85th percentile speeds), provide a standardized form or letter for complaints, and post status updates on a website so residents can track petitions. They also described a typical timeline for level‑2 and level‑3 measures — which may require budget approval — as three months to a year.

The board debated who should determine the geographic scope of a petition (for example, who must sign or which neighboring households are affected). Kevin said staff now mark a neighborhood on a map for each application, using typical travel patterns to draw boundaries, but commissioners asked for clearer objective standards.

On delegation of authority, commissioners discussed allowing the town administrator to implement level‑1 actions (education, enforcement, pavement markings and signage) while notifying the board and bringing briefings to the next work session. Most agreed that level‑2 and level‑3 measures — which often require construction or budgeted capital work — should come to the board for approval.

Next steps: Liz offered to prepare both a draft ordinance and a resolution/policy so the board can compare options. Staff will revise the manual based on commissioner feedback, add a definition page and a complaint form, and return to the board for further consideration.

The board did not adopt any ordinance on Wednesday and will take up the NTMP again at a future meeting.