Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors approve ordinance allowing camera speed enforcement in work zones and school crossings and retroactively approve vendor contract
Summary
The board adopted an amendment to Chapter 38 authorizing camera speed monitoring in highway work zones and school crossing zones, approved the sheriff’s cooperative procurement with Modexo/Elevate for photo enforcement and discussed how civil-penalty revenue will be handled while pilot projects run.
The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted to amend Chapter 38, Article 1, Section 38-8 to permit camera-based speed monitoring in highway work zones and school crossing zones, and the board gave retroactive approval to the county’s cooperative procurement with vendor Modexo (Elevate).
Mr. Snodgrass summarized the ordinance's basics: cameras would issue civil penalties (a $100 fine for speeds 10 mph over the limit) and an officer is required to sign off on photo enforcement evidence. The board discussed legal precedent including a Court of Appeals decision regarding the City of Suffolk and noted that some matters remain on appeal.
Sheriff Andes described a pilot program in work zones on I-81 (Exit 10) and a rotation of cameras among six qualifying school zones. He said Elevate’s equipment uses lidar for speed measurement and handles violation processing and analytics; an Elevate brief study during a severe rainstorm detected dozens of high‑speed violations. "This camera will promote safety in the work zone by decreasing speeds and accidents," Andes said.
Board members asked about revenue and accounting. The sheriff described a reconciliation process under a cost‑neutrality agreement: the vendor reconciles monthly and remits funds after any fee; the county discussed using existing traffic‑enforcement accounting and creating a separate line item for camera revenues. The board debated revenue sharing and use. After discussion and a public hearing with no speakers against, the board adopted the ordinance and voted to retroactively approve the cooperative procurement agreement. The board indicated it will treat camera-generated funds as traffic enforcement funds (with separate line items) and recommended using revenue for capital items such as vehicles to avoid operating budget mismatches while the pilot lasts.
The ordinance passed and the procurement approval was recorded as carried; installation of cameras is planned to begin in April for initial testing with a six‑month review period to evaluate safety outcomes and revenue flows.
