Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bus Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bristol board approves Bus Patrol stop‑arm camera proposal to catch illegal passes
Summary
The Bristol School Board voted to accept a Bus Patrol proposal to install stop‑arm and onboard cameras after hearing the company's presentation, accepting a 30‑day warning phase and city‑level ordinance to follow; board members asked about fines, revenue shares and appeals.
The Bristol Board of Education voted to accept a proposal from Bus Patrol to equip school buses with stop‑arm and interior cameras and to forward the proposal for city ordinance action and implementation this summer.
Superintendent White introduced the item by citing Public Act 24‑107, the Connecticut law that strengthened enforcement of illegal school bus passes and allows municipalities to use camera technology. Michael Gorman, a Bus Patrol representative, told the board the company operates in more than 20 states and on roughly 70,000 buses, and described the program as a safety partnership that begins with education and a 30‑day warning period before fines are issued.
Gorman said the company pre‑screens video and submits a weekly packet to local police for review; police determine whether a detected event qualifies as a citation, after which Bus Patrol handles mailing and processing. "We're not simply seeking a contract with Bristol. What we're looking for is a partnership in child safety," Gorman said.
Board members asked for data from other Connecticut rollouts. Adam Wood, who said he works with Bus Patrol, cited implementation snapshots: "In the first two weeks of implementation in New Haven, there were a thousand violations found," and in Shelton "about 600" in an early period, figures he said illustrate the scale of early detection but also the value of the planned educational phase.
Commissioners questioned reported revenue figures that an outside article attributed to early fines (a cited figure of about $211,000 in fines in one week and a 59/41 revenue split favoring the vendor). Superintendent White and Gorman said the municipal split is contract dependent and that Bus Patrol has moved toward alternative pricing models (a per‑bus fee and minimum guarantees) in some places. The presenters also described an appeals process: Bristol would set a local municipal appeals procedure and the state law change was designed so photo‑enforcement citations would not trigger criminal court for nonpayment.
After questions on AI reliability, installation logistics and impacts on private bus contractors, a board member moved to accept the Bus Patrol proposal and forward it for city ordinance and financing steps; the motion passed without recorded dissents.
What happens next: if the city approves a municipal school bus photo‑enforcement ordinance, the district expects camera installation this summer followed by a 30‑day warning period during which warnings (not fines) would be mailed. The timeline for full enforcement depends on city ordinance approval and local implementation details.
