Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Noise Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council acclaims amended noise-camera pilot; staff to clarify public-records treatment
Summary
Montgomery County council committee acclaimed an amendment and the noise-camera pilot as amended, directing staff to work with state legislators on timing and to clarify the status of recorded images under the Maryland Public Information Act; staff emphasized the pilot is limited to three cameras and would sunset in June 2026 unless extended.
The Montgomery County joint committee on public safety and transportation on Tuesday acclaimed an amendment clarifying how images from the county's three-camera noise-abatement pilot will be treated under the Maryland Public Information Act, and agreed to advance the pilot as amended.
Vice President Stewart, a co-sponsor of the local legislation, told the committee the pilot would begin with three cameras countywide and that the program must follow the contours of state enabling legislation. "This is a pilot. We get 3 cameras. That is it for all of Montgomery County during this pilot," Stewart said, and she noted the program's purpose is to address excessive vehicle noise tied to modified or altered exhaust systems.
Staff member Christine Wells briefed the committee on the packet and proposed an uncodified amendment intended to "clarify the council's intent" that recorded images be exempt from public disclosure and to authorize the police department to adopt regulations on handling recordings. Wells said the amendment would add language after line 134 of the draft to state the council's intent and enable appropriate internal categorization of imagery.
Police directors and staff described technical and administrative challenges the committee considered before acclaiming the amendment. "The true cost is in the back office," said Chris Tibri, director of automated enforcement for Montgomery County Police, describing vendor processing, long-term storage of unadjudicated citations and the need for a third-party testing laboratory to certify devices. Tibri emphasized that hardware costs are modest but that back-office contracts and certification requirements are the bigger implementation risk.
Committee members pressed staff on enforcement mechanics and penalties. Tibri said the civil penalty established by state law would be a $75 fine for the noise violation and explained that the county could flag a vehicle's registration so it could not be re-registered if the citation remained unpaid. Council discussion also noted the practical limits of catching violations without automated detection and raised concerns that $75 might not deter costly modifications.
Several members emphasized community engagement and procedural safeguards. One member flagged the racial equity and social justice impact statement and recommended targeted engagement with BIPOC stakeholders to assess disparate impacts during the pilot. Councilmember Phoebe Gonzalez said she had held Spanish-language town halls and other outreach in her district and objected to language that implied communities of color had not been consulted.
The committee moved the measure by acclamation after the sponsor accepted the staff amendment. Staff and police said they will continue to work with Delegate Julie Pilakovich Carr in Annapolis to explore legislative adjustments, including a possible extension of the pilot's sunset currently scheduled for June 2026, to allow more time for implementation and data collection.
The committee then shifted to a broader presentation on automated traffic enforcement, including speed and red-light cameras and distracted-driving pilots. The meeting record shows no roll-call vote; the bill and amendment were advanced by acclamation.
