Danbury ad hoc panel recommends council adopt ordinance allowing school-bus violation cameras

The Danbury ad hoc committee charged with reviewing a proposed ordinance on school-bus-mounted violation detection systems recommended the City Council adopt the measure after a short hearing on enforcement data, equipment limits and contract responsibilities.

The committee’s chair, Peter Zadeh, said the draft ordinance closely mirrors a state statute passed last year and would allow the municipality to authorize video monitoring systems on school buses if the council approves. “It tracks the statute very, very closely, like a hand in a glove,” Zadeh said.

The measure is intended to address drivers who pass stopped school buses with flashing lights. Committee members and witnesses agreed that reliable local enforcement data are limited. A representative from the Danbury Public Schools said the district receives “occasional” calls about motorists passing buses but has no systematic statistics and recalled “a case about 10 years ago” involving an injured student; the school representative said there were no recent confirmed injuries.

Melody Fitzpatrick, the bus-company representative and terminal manager, described the company’s current reporting: drivers complete a form with vehicle make, plate and time that is sent to the DMV, and the company estimates it files information on about "5 to 10 a day." “We don't keep the number per se in the office, but we do verify with the police department,” she said, adding that the buses' onboard cameras historically have not reliably captured license plates.

Captain Williams of the Danbury Police Department told the committee he did not have current patrol figures and would follow up to determine how many citations the department has issued under the referenced statute. On the interaction between camera-issued citations and officer-issued citations, committee members noted the ordinance/statute language prevents double punishment when both a camera and an officer cite the same incident.

On costs and contracting, witnesses described a vendor model in which approved state providers own the equipment and recoup their costs through citations, meaning the municipality would not pay an upfront price under current vendor contracts. Taylor O'Brien, a mayor's office representative, explained procurement would go through the city’s Board of Awards and that the mayor’s office would negotiate the vendor contract if the ordinance is adopted. “My understanding is no. It does not” come before council as a direct contract item under the described model, O'Brien said, referring to whether the vendor contract itself would require full council approval.

Committee members raised maintenance concerns — batteries, repairs and possible vandalism — and were told those responsibilities would be addressed in the contract. The committee’s discussion repeatedly emphasized that contractual details, maintenance obligations and enforcement protocols would be finalized through the procurement and contract negotiation process rather than by the ordinance itself.

A member moved to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Danbury Code of Ordinances adding an article on municipal school-bus violation detection monitoring systems (sections 46-193 through 46-201). The motion was seconded and, after the chair called for favor, the chair said “Aye” and declared the motion carried; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally or detailed vote count. The committee then adjourned.

The committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration and any subsequent contract negotiations and procurement steps would follow if the council adopts the ordinance.