College Park hears presentation on stop‑sign cameras as residents press for independent safety data

Craig Price, a sales executive for Avio, told a College Park public‑safety meeting that automated stop‑sign monitoring cameras deployed at five intersections are intended to change driving behavior and improve safety, not primarily to generate revenue. "We are in your warning period now," Price said, noting "207 warning letters sent out" to drivers and that the system provides a public portal where residents can view video and the reason a vehicle was identified.

The company said cameras are solar powered, deploy quickly and collect rear‑license‑plate images only; Price said Avio does not use facial recognition and the registered vehicle owner, not the driver, receives any citation. City staff confirmed the program’s warning period began Feb. 16 and reported 522 portal‑recorded violations since that start date. Price also said the company’s deployments in other jurisdictions produced a 65–80% reduction in unsafe stop‑sign behavior within months and that, under Maryland law, proceeds must be returned to public‑safety uses.

The presentation prompted pointed community questions about independent evidence of safety benefits and how enforcement will be reviewed. Christine (resident) asked for independent studies free of vendor financial interest; Price said he would gather and circulate studies and cited PG County data and a Bike Colorado study in Pueblo as examples. "It's being reviewed by our staff, all human, and then to law enforcement," Price said when asked whether human reviewers screen events before citations are advanced to police.

Residents pressed the city on who has final approval of citations and on the program’s financial incentives. Todd Rizzo asked whether local law enforcement must sign off before a citation is issued; staff replied that contract Prince George’s County officers assigned to the city will perform the final review. Price acknowledged Avio receives an administrative share of processing and court support; he and city staff said the transcript numbers indicate a roughly 60/40 split in College Park, with the transcript stating that "60% of the violation or citation goes to College Park and then 40% comes to us." Residents said that revenue share raises a conflict‑of‑interest concern and risks eroding public trust.

Several residents, including a physician who identified himself as Stephen and resident Gavin, said the program’s primary metrics were violation counts and money rather than clear safety outcomes such as reduced crashes or injuries. Stephen asked whether reduction in events has been correlated with measurable safety improvements; Price said he would attempt to supply those data and that the dataset is limited because stop‑sign enforcement deployments are relatively new. "If we are coming out with this type of a program stating that the intent is to improve public safety, but the only metrics we're utilizing are violation metrics and money, then it's going to erode public trust," Stephen said.

City council members and staff responded to concerns by stressing legal limits on the use of revenue and the program’s safety intent near schools. A council member said the legislature restricts how proceeds may be spent and emphasized investments must be narrow and related to pedestrian safety, sidewalks and crosswalks. Staff noted there will be an April discussion and that contract officers have the final say in review of potential citations.

What happens next: the city will continue community outreach, staff and Avio said they will provide requested independent studies and data about safety outcomes, and the city will continue its internal process for law‑enforcement review and operational oversight. The presentation and Q&A will be followed by additional council discussion and community information as the program moves from warning period to enforcement.