Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Speed Camera Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County adopts ordinance to allow camera enforcement in work zones and school crossings, approves vendor contract
Summary
The Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance authorizing camera speed monitoring in highway work zones and school crossings and retroactively approved a cooperative procurement contract with Modexo/Elevate to operate the cameras; the board directed revenues to a traffic enforcement fund.
Get email alerts on the Speed Camera Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 38, Article 1, Section 38-8 to permit camera‑based civil enforcement in designated highway work zones and school crossing zones.
Mr. Snodgrass introduced the item and Sheriff Andes described a planned pilot using equipment provided and operated by Elevate (owned by Modexo). The sheriff said the county will pilot one work‑zone camera on I‑81 northbound (Exit 10) during a multi‑year bridge project and rotate a separate camera among school crossing locations that meet state guidelines. Sheriff Andes and staff said the systems use LiDAR for speed measurement and that vendor processing includes violation review and reconciling funds.
Under the ordinance discussed, a civil penalty would be charged for speeds 10 mph or more above the posted limit; the board described the penalty as comparable to a parking citation that does not affect driving records unless appealed and prosecuted. The board considered court precedent (a Court of Appeals decision in the City of Suffolk) and noted the case was on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
After the ordinance discussion and public hearing (no speakers opposed at the hearing), supervisors moved to retroactively approve a cooperative procurement/contract with Modexo Traffic Management USA (referred to in the meeting as Modexo/Elevate) and to place receipts from these civil penalties into the county traffic enforcement fund. The board directed that revenue be accounted for in a separate line item within the traffic enforcement fund and indicated an intention to use proceeds for capital purchases such as vehicles and enforcement equipment rather than recurring operating expenditures.
Board members and the sheriff discussed revenue allocations and timing: under the arrangement described, the vendor reconciles monthly and remits a single deposit to the county; the board asked staff to establish accounting sub‑lines to track receipts and expenditures. The board noted the work‑zone camera program is time limited (the work zone equipment and contracts are tied to VDOT projects) and that revenues may decline when projects end, so members urged using the money for one‑time capital needs.
What happens next: The ordinance passed (motion carried 6‑0). The sheriff will proceed with the pilot installation and the county treasurer/finance staff will create accounting lines within the traffic enforcement fund to track Modexo/Elevate receipts and expenditures.
