Agenda Item 19
March 6,2012
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
n
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
I~
Action:
Bill 37-11, Motor Vehicles and Traffic
School Bus Safety Cameras
I
Public Safety Committee recommendation (3-0): approve the Bill as introduced.
Bill 37-11, Motor Vehicles and Traffic - School Bus Safety Cameras, sponsored by
Councilmembers Ervin, Andrews and Rice, Council President Berliner, Councilmember EIrich,
Council Vice President Navarro, and Councilmembers Riemer and Floreen, was introduced on
November 29, 2011. A public hearing was held on January 24 and a Public Safety Committee
worksession was held on February 2.
Background
Bill 37-11 would authorize the Police Chief, after consulting with the Board of
Education, to install, maintain, and operate cameras on County school buses to monitor vehicles
passing a stopped school bus. Councilmember Valerie Ervin explained the purpose of this Bill in
a November 22 memorandum at ©4-5. Maryland Transportation Article, §21-706 prohibits a
vehicle from overtaking a stopped school bus that is operating its alternately flashing red lights.
The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) recently surveyed violations of this law
throughout the State and looked at similar laws in other States. See the MSDE press release at
©6-S. Chapter 273, 2011 Laws of Maryland, effective October 1, 2011, (©9-20) authorized a
local law enforcement agency to use school bus safety cameras to enforce this State law if the
agency is authorized by a local law enacted by the governing body of the local jurisdiction. Bill
37-11 is an enabling act that would implement this authority in the County.
A violation of §21-706 recorded by a school bus safety camera would be punishable by a
civil penalty established by Method 2 Executive regulation up to a maximum of $250. A
recorded image indicating a violation is evidence of a violation similar to a violation recorded by
a red light camera or a speed monitoring camera. A person who receives a citation can contest it
in the District Court. Pursuant to State law, fines paid without electing to stand trial in the
District Court are retained by the County to defray the costs of the program. Fines paid after trial
in the District Court would be retained by the State. A violation for which a civil penalty is
imposed under this Bill would not be a moving violation for the purpose of assessing points
against a driver's record under State law.
The County would have to pay the initial cost to purchase the camera and install it on a
school bus. The Bill would authorize the Police Chief to use this program; however, the extent
of the initial rollout would depend upon the initial cost and available funds.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Public Hearing
All three speakers at the January 24 public hearing supported the Bill. Todd Watkins
(©25), representing the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), testified in support of the
Bill because it could "dramatically change driving behaviors near stopped school buses." Robert
Herron (©26-27), a bus operator for MCPS and Vice President, Transportation Chapter of the
Service Employees International Union, Local 500, CTW, also supported the Bill. Mr. Herron,
speaking from his personal experience as a bus operator, testified that a driver only receives a
warning when he reports a violation. Finally, Erwin Mack (©28-29), Chairman of the
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (PBTSAC), testified that the
Committee voted to support the Bill. The PBTSAC also questioned the adequacy of the warning
signs on buses and asked about additional efforts to educate the public about this issue.
Public Safety Committee Worksession
Councilmember Rice attended the February 2 worksession along with the Committee
members. Assistant Police Chief Wayne Jerman and Richard Harrison represented the Police
Department. Todd Watkins, MCPS Director of Transportation and Erwin Mack, Chair of the
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee also answered questions.
The Committee reviewed the Bill and discussed how the program would be implemented
if the Bill is enacted. The Committee recommended (3-0) approval of the Bill as introduced.
Issues
1. What is the fiscal and economic impact of the Bill?
OMB, in a fiscal and economic impact statement (©21), was unable to estimate the fiscal
impact of the Bill because the extent of the program and the number of paid citations is
unknown. The important variables that would affect the cost of the new program are the number
of violations and paid citations, the amount of the fine, the number of buses equipped with
cameras, and the payments made to the camera vendor. Unlike speed cameras, it is unlikely that
the revenue from paid citations will exceed the cost of installing, maintaining, and operating the
cameras due to the number of school buses operated by MCPS and the number of expected
violations. Under the State law authorizing this program, fines paid without electing to stand
trial in the District Court are retained by the County to defray the costs of the program.
However, fines paid after trial in the District Court would be retained by the State.
OMB opined that the Bill would have no economic impact on the County.
2. Should the Bill establish the amount of the fine?
The Bill requires the Executive, by Method 2 regulation, to establish the amount of the
civil penalty for a violation up to a maximum of $250. The $250 maximum is set by State law.
The amount of the fine may affect the likelihood that a defendant elects a trial. The fine must
also be significant enough to change behavior. Since the County only retains a fine paid by an
individual who pays without electing a District Court trial, retaining maximum flexibility to
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
adjust the amount of the penalty by regulation as the program is rolled out is the better choice.
Committee recommendation
(3-0): do not amend the Bill to set the amount of the penalty.
3.
Should the Bill be enacted?
The potential danger caused by a vehicle overtaking a stopped school bus that is
operating its alternately flashing red lights can not
be
overstated. Although it is unlikely that the
County will receive sufficient revenue from paid citations to cover its costs, the County can
control its costs by limiting the number of buses that are equipped with cameras until sufficient
funds are available. The Bill is a necessary step to implement this public safety program, but the
actual rollout
Vvill
depend on the Council appropriation for this program in the budget review. A
description by the Police Department of the steps that must be taken to implement this program if
the Bill is enacted is at ©30-32. Photographs of a school bus safety camera on a school bus are
at ©33-34.
Committee recommendation
(3-0): enact the Bill as introduced.
This packet contains:
Bill 37-11
Legislative Request Report
Council President Ervin memorandum
MSDE Press Release
Chapter 273, 2011 Laws of Maryland
Fiscal and economic impact statement
Public hearing testimony
Todd Watkins
Robert Herron
Erwin Mack
Police Department Description of Steps to Implement
Photographs of School Bus Safety Camera
F:\LAW\BILLS\I137 School Bus Camera\Action Memo.Doc
Circle
#
1
3
4
6
9
21
25
26
28
30
33
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
37-11
Concerning: Motor Vehicles and Traffic­
School Bus Safety Cameras
Revised: November
30, 2011
Draft
No.~
Introduced:
November
29, 2011
Expires: May
29. 2013
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: _N'-.!.o""n.!-":e=---_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _• Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmembers Ervin, Andrews and Rice, Council President Berliner, Councilmember
EIrich, Council Vice President Navarro, and Councilmember Riemer
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
authorize the use of cameras on certain County school buses to monitor vehicles
overtaking a stopped school bus under certain circumstances;
authorize the Executive, by regulation, to establish appropriate penalties for a
violation;
provide for enforcement of certain Maryland transportation laws in the County
through the use of school bus safety cameras; and
generally authorize and regulate the use ofschool bus safety cameras in the County.
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 31, Motor Vehicles and Traffic
Section 31-9B
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined tenn.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deleted from existing law
by
original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 37-11
1
2
Sec.
1.
Section 31-9B is added as follows:
31-9B. School Bus Safety Cameras Authorized.
3
.cru
Definitions.
As used in this Section:
Board
means the County Board of Education.
Chie(means
the County Police Chief.
Violation
means!! violation of Transportation Article §21-706.
School bus
means!! bus operated Qy the Board to transport students.
School bus safety camera
means!! camera placed on!! school bus that
is designed to capture !! recorded image of !! driver of !! motor vehicle
committing !! violation authorized Qy Transportation Article §21­
706.1.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.au
ill
The Chief, after consulting with the Board, may install, operate, and
maintain school bus safety cameras on school busses as permitted Qy
Transportation Article §21-706.1.
A person who commits !! violation recorded Qy !! school bus safety
camera is subject to !! civil penalty authorized Qy Transportation
Article §21-706.1.
The Executive, Qy Method
2
regulation, must establish the amount of
the civil penalty
1ill
to !! maximum of $250.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
@
(sU
The County must use any fines collected Qy the County for !! violation
recorded Qy!! school bus safety camera:
ill
ill
Approved:
to recover the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining
school bus safety cameras; and
for public safety purposes,
programs.
including pedestrian safety
23
24
25
26
27
28
F:\Law\Bills\\\37 School Bus Camera\BilI 5.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 37-11
Motor Vehicles and Traffic
-
School Bus Safety Cameras
DESCRIPTION:
The Bill would implement State law authorizing the use of school bus
safety cameras to monitor vehicles overtaking a stopped school bus
and enforce violations of Transportation
Article~
§21-706.
Many drivers ignore traffic laws designed to keep children safe while
traveling on school busses.
The goal is to change the behavior of drivers who ignore this traffic
law and keep children safe while traveling on school busses.
Police
Department~
MCPS
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Robert
H.
Drummer~
Senior Legislative Attorney
To be researched.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENAL TIES:
Civil penalty up to $250.
F:\LAW\BILLS\I137 School Bus Camera\LRRDoc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Councilmembers
'1
'd
.
.1JL-.--­
COunCI PreSl ent VaIene Ervm
November 22,2011
School Bus Safety Cameras
I am requesting your support of the attached bill which would, in consultation
with the Board of Education, place school bus safety cameras on County school buses for
the purpose of recording motor vehicles committing violations related to overtaking and
passing school vehicles. The goal of this legislation is to change the behavior of drivers
who currently ignore traffic laws intended to keep our students safe while traveling on
school buses. As the Council's representative on the County's Pedestrian, Bicycle and
Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, I am sponsoring this bill because I believe it is a
natural outgrowth of our Pedestrian Safety Initiative and our Safe Routes to School
Program.
This bill would implement Senate Bill 679, Vehicle Laws - Overtaking and
Passing School Vehicles - School Bus Monitoring Cameras, passed this year by the
Maryland General Assembly. This bill would allow the County to monitor and ticket
drivers using video cameras mounted on the outside of school buses. Drivers caught on
tape illegally passing a stopped school bus would be subject to a maximum fine of $250.
The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) released a survey in
February 2011 that reported that 7,028 drivers overtook stopped school buses in
Maryland. As expected, the largest school systems noted the most violations. Of the
overtaking violations reported, 56.9 percent were the result of oncoming vehicles passing
the bus from the opposite direction; 37.9 percent of violations were from vehicles passing
on the driver side of the bus; and 5.2 percent were from vehicles passing on the side of
the bus with the passenger door.
STELLA B. WERNER COUNCIL OFFICE BUILDING·
240/777-7900
100 MARYLAND AVENUE· ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
TTY
240/777-7914 •
FAX
240/777-7989
WWW.MONTGOMERYCOUNTYMD.GOV
~
PRINTEO ON RECYCLEO PAPER
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
I have met with Chief Manger and his officers about this issue. He reported that
although the MSDE survey reported 1,645 drivers ignoring the stop arm in Montgomery
County, the number of citations issued for overtaking school buses in Montgomery
County is approximately 500 per year.
According to MSDE, there are currently about 560 school bus monitoring systems
used in four counties: 390 in Prince George's; 133 in Montgomery; 20 in Frederick; and
27 in Kent County. These camera systems would need to be evaluated to determine if
they have the capability to provide the Police Department with the technology needed to
implement automated citations. The fiscal impact for adding cameras in the County
would depend on the agreement negotiated with the vendor.
Current law provides that if a school vehicle is stopped on a roadway and is
operating its flashing red lights, the driver of a vehicle must stop at least 20 feet from the
school bus and may not proceed until the school vehicle resumes motion or deactivates its
flashing lights. If a school bus operator witnesses a violation, the operator may report the
violation to law enforcement with information to identify the vehicle and operator. The
violation is a misdemeanor and carries a fine of up to $1,000. Three points may also be
assessed for failure to stop.
If
the identity of the operator of the vehicle cannot be
established, law enforcement must still issue a warning stating that a report of a violation
was made that described the owner's vehicle as involved in the violation, but that there
was insufficient evidence to issue a citation.
I welcome your support of Bill 37-11, Motor Vehicles and Traffic School Bus
Safety Cameras, which is scheduled to be introduced on November 29. If you have any
questions or suggestions, please contact my office.
Attachments:
Bill 37-11, Motor Vehicles and Traffic School Bus Safety Cameras
Press Release from Maryland State Department of Education
Chart Comparing Bus Camera Legislation
SB 679, Vehicle Laws Overtaking and Passing School Vehicles - School Bus Monitoring
Cameras
c:
Mike Faden, Council Senior Legislative Attorney
Bob Drummer, Council Legislative Attorney
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
THOUSANDS OF MARYLAND DRIVERS VIOLATE BUS STOP LAWS, MSDE FIN... Page 1
of
1
About
MSDE
MSDE
Home
I
Divisions
I
State Board
I
News Room
I
School Systems
I
Testing
I
Instruction
I
Programs
>
ews Room
N
a
News Release Deta
iI
News Release
Eor Immediate Release Contact: Bill Reinhard, 410-767-0486
Overview
v
News Releases
o
MSDE News
>
Publications
>
Special Reports
>
Calendar at a Glance
>
Videos on MSDE TV
[
IilJ
NEWS RELEASE
THOUSANDS OF MARYLAND DRIVERS VIOLATE BUS STOP LAWS, MSDE
FINDS
.
ONE-DAY
STOP ARM
SURVEY BY SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS UNCOVERS MORE
THAN 7,000 VIOLA TORS
BALTIMORE, MD (March 15,2011)
Drivers are bypassing the stop arms on school buses at an alarming rate, a
Maryland State Department of Education-sponsored survey has revealed.
A total of 7,028 violations of school bus stop arms were recorded on a single day
last month. Nearly 4,000 (3,997) were oncoming drivers who ignored the stop
arm, 2,665 drivers moved past a stopped bus on the bus driver's side of the
vehicle and 366 drivers passed a stopped bus on the door side. Stop arms swing
out from a bus and lights flash whenever it is making a student pick-up.
"It is simply illegal to pass a bus with its stop arm extended and its lights flashing,
no matter the Circumstances," said State Superintendent of Schools Nancy S.
Grasmick. "Our number one priority as educators and drivers - should be the
safety our Maryland school children."
MSDE coordinated the survey along with school transportation directors in all 24
systems. It is considered a snapshot of illegal activity on the roads. More than
4,712 school bus drivers took part in the survey, representing 65 percent of the
school bus drivers in the State.
Large systems noted the most violators. Baltimore County school bus drivers
tallied the most - 1,723 drivers ignoring the stop arm - followed by Montgomery
County (1,645), Baltimore City (897), Anne Arundel (845), and Prince George's
(745). Prince George's County found the highest number of door side violations,
with 136.
A few small systems found no violators on the day of the survey: Allegany,
Caroline, and Queen Anne's.
The survey was undertaken at the behest of a number of members of the
Maryland General Assembly, which is considering several bills designed to
strengthen school bus safety. The National Association of State Directors of Pupil
Transportation Services is coordinating surveys of this type in all 50 States.
###
MSDE Privacy Statement Disclaimer
I
Copyright
©
2003 MSDE
http://www.marylandpublicschools.orgIMSDE/pressrelease_details/2011_03_15a.htm
11116/2011
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
e-
State
Maryland
Bus Camera
Legislation - Date
SB 679 passed Spring of
2011
HB 440 took effect
12/1/2009
H77SS
Brief Description
County governing body to
authorize police agencies to
work with school systems.
School officials turn evidence
over directly to police who
handle the violation.
State director must approve
cameras. Districts may enter into
rd
private 3 party agreements.
27-51-1001. section deals with
details.
Person will be charged
with negligent homicide if death
occurs while passing a stopped
bus
10% of districts currently
equipped with cameras. Cobb
C()unty taking the lead.
Buses are equipped with external
cameras.
School systems work directly
with police agencies.
In current trial perioa with a
camera vendor.
. Section
304.050.
Bus drivers
work directly with police
agency-does not authorize
cameras, allows ticket issuance
to registered owner if driver ID is
unable to be made.
--
Cameras Installed
Varies by County.
Frederick has 20
external cameras
Varies by County
Fines
I
Penalties
Civil violation, no pts. $2S0 fine.
r--­
North Carolina (Atkins'
Law)
Rhode Island
Max pts. against the driving record
and variable fines.
Civil violation,.no pts. $2S0-S00
h
r--­
43 cameras installed
--
Arkansas (isaac's Law)
Act1207 took effect
7/1/2007
Georgia
SB 57 passed in 2011
West Virginia
Connecticut
2009
July 1, 2011
Pending
--
102 cameras on Cobb
County buses ... more on
the way.
Varies by County
Starts this school year.
-
Max $1,000, or 90 day license
suspension
+
400 hrs. of community
service. Possible 30 days in prison
and $100 fine for a bus driver not
reporting,
1 yr. in jail. Fine can vary from $300­
$1,000 $300
$
iOO
fine
$450-$1,000
Proposed $250 fine
,------­
I
Massachusetts
I
Missouri (Jessica's law)
Effective 2/2006
92 cameras in Liberty,
MO. Varies by
jurisdiction and funding
Max $1,000, or 90 day license
suspension
--
G>
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Virginia
Spring 2011
~-~
----­
Washington
SSB 5540
---­
~-~
New York (Aniya's Law)
l
AB A04416-this bill is
currently under
consideration and would
allow for cameras
Optional for VA counties. Not
mandatory. Counties install their
own cameras.
Similar to MD and RI.
Competitive bid for camera
vendors.
Under consideration-Aniya's
law deals with bussing
requirements based on a
residency's proximity to the
school
Varies by county.
$250 fine paid to the applicable
school district and court costs.
$500-mandatory fine; no reductions
(double the regular $250 penalty)
$150,000 grant for 12
school districts
e
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.273
Chapter 273
(Senate Bill 679)
AN ACT concerning
Vehicle Laws - Overtaking and Passing School Vehicles - School Bus
Monitoring Cameras
FOR the purpose of authorizing a
@e~flt;T
B8a1'd 8f 8dlit@ati8ft
law enforcement agency,
in consultation with a
@srtaifl le@al law sflf81'@8mSftt ag8fl@Y
county board of
education,
to place school bus monitoring cameras on county school buses for the
purpose of recording a motor vehicle committing a violation relating to
overtaking and passing school vehicles. if authorized by a local law enacted by
the governing body of the local jurisdiction;
rs~litiriflg
a s@h881 BlitS 8fl81'at81' t8
. giv8 a 1'8@8rdiflg 8£ th8 vistati8fl is a @8riaifl
l€~@al
law 8flf81'@Smsflt ag8fl@Y;
requiring a
1'8@81'diflg
recorded image
made by a school bus monitoring camera
to include certain images and information; providing that the driver of a motor
vehicle recorded committing a certain violation is subject to a certain civil
penalty; providing that a civil penalty under this Act may not exceed a certain
amount; requiring the District Court to prescribe a certain uniform citation
form and civil penalty;
providing for the payment of fines imposed and the
distribution of revenues collected as a result of violations enforced by school bus
monitoring cameras;
requiring a certain local law enforcement agency to mail a
certain citation to the owner of a certain motor vehicle within a certain period of
time; providing for the contents of a certain citation; authorizing a local law
enforcement agency to mail a warning instead of a citation; authorizing a
person receiving a certain citation to pay the civil penalty or elect to stand trial;
providing that a certain certificate is admissible as evidence in a proceeding
concerning a certain violation; providing that a certain adjudication of liability
is based on a preponderance of evidence; establishing certain defenses, and
requirements for proving the defenses, for a certain violation recorded by a
school bus monitoring camera; requiring the District Court to provide certain
evidence to a local law enforcement agency under certain circumstances;
authorizing a local law enforcement agency to mail a certain notice within a
certain time period after receiving certain evidence; authorizing the Motor
Vehicle Administration to refuse to register or reregister a motor vehicle or
suspend the registration of a motor vehicle under certain circumstances;
sstaBlishiftg thai a vistatisfl fu1' TNhi@a a @ivil fleflalty may B8 imfl8s8d litftds1' tais
A@t is a msviflg vislati8fl fu1' @srtaifl
~litrfl88S8,
may BS trsated as a
~al"kiftg
vielati€lfl fur @81'taift
~lit1'~88S8,
afld may B8 @8flSid81'sd fer @srtaift iftslit1'aft@@
requiring the Chief Judge of the District Court, in consultation with
certain local law enforcement agencies, to adopt certain procedures; providing
that a proceeding for a certain violation recorded by a school bus monitoring
camera is under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the District Court;
-1
~litl'fl88S8;
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.273
2011 LAWS OF MARYLAND
providing that a recorded image of a motor vehicle produced by a school bus
monitoring camera is admissible in a certain proceeding under certain
circumstances; defining certain terms; and generally relating to the use of
school bus monitoring cameras to enforce offenses relating to overtaking and
passing school vehicles.
BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
Article - Courts and Judicial Proceedings
Section 4-401(13),
7-302(e),
and 10-311
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2006 Replacement Volume and 2010 Supplement)
BY repealing and reenacting, without amendments,
Article - Transportation
Section 21-706
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2009 Replacement Volume and 2010 Supplement)
BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
Article Transportation
Section 21-706.1
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2009 Replacement Volume and 2010 Supplement)
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article - Courts and Judicial Proceedings
4-401.
Except as provided in § 4-402 of this subtitle, and subject to the venue
provisions of Title 6 of this article, the District Court has exclusive original civil
jurisdiction in:
(13) A proceeding for a civil infraction under
§
21-202.1,
§
21-704.1,
§
21-706.1,
§
21-809, or
§
21-810 of the Transportation Article or
§
10-112 of the
Criminal Law Article;
7-302.
A citation issued pursuant to
§
21-202.1.
§
21-706.1.
§
21-809, or
§
21-810 of the Transportation Article shall provide that the person receiving the
citation may elect to stand trial by notifying the issuing agency of the person's intention
to stand trial at least
5
days prior to the date of payment as set forth in the citation. On
receipt of the notice to stand trial, the agency shall forward to the District Court having
{gl
ill
-2­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.273
venue a copy of the citation and a copy of the notice from the person who received the
citation indicating the person:S intention to stand trial. On receipt thereof. the District
Court shall schedule the case for trial and notify the defendant of the trial date under
procedures adopted by the Chief Judge of the District Court.
A citation issued as the result of a traffic control signal monitoring
system
or
speed monitoring system. including a work zone speed control system.
controlled by a political subdivision
OR A SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERA
shall
provide that. in an uncontested case, the penalty shall be paid directly to that political
subdivision. A citation issued as the result of a traffic control signal monitoring system
or
a work zone speed control system controlled by a State agency, or as a result of a
traffic control signal monitoring system [or/. a speed monitoring system.
OR A SCHOOL
BUS MONITORING CAMERA
in a case contested in District Court, shall provide that
the penalty shall be paid directly to the District Court.
(2l
Civil penalties resulting from citations issued using
A
traffic control
signal monitoring [systems orl
SYSTEM,
speed monitoring [systemsl
SYSTEM,
[or al
work zone speed control system.
OR SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERA
that are
collected by the District Court shall be collected in accordance with subsection ra) of
this section and distributed in accordance with
§
12-118
of the Transportation Article.
From the fines collected by a political subdivision as a result
of violations enforced by speed monitoring systems
OR SCHOOL BUS MONITORING
CAMERAS.
a political subdivision:
May recover the costs of implementing and
administering the speed monitoring systems
OR SCHOOL BUS MONITORING
CAMERAS;
and
2.
Subject to subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph. may
spend any remaining balance solely for public safety purposes, including pedestrian
safety programs.
W
W
ill
L
L
For any fiscal year. if the balance remaining from the
(ii)
fines collected by a political subdivision as a result of violations enforced by speed
monitoring systems, after the costs of implementing and administering the systems are
recovered in accordance with subparagraph
(i)1
of this paragraph. is greater than 10%
of the total revenues of the political subdivision for the fiscal year, the political
subdivision shall remit any funds that exceed 10% of the total revenues to the
Comptroller.
2.
The Comptroller shall deposit any money remitted
under this subparagraph to the General Fund of the State.
10-311.
-3-
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.273
2011 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(a)
A recorded image of a motor vehicle produced by a traffic control signal
monitoring system in accordance with § 21-202.1 of the Transportation Article is
admissible in a proceeding concerning a civil citation issued under that section for a
violation of § 21-202(h) of the Transportation Article without authentication.
A recorded image of a motor vehicle produced by a speed monitoring
system in accordance with § 21-809 or § 21-810 of the Transportation Article is
admissible in a proceeding concerning a civil citation issued under that section for a
violation of Title 21, Subtitle 8 of the Transportation Article without authentication.
(b)
(c)
A RECORDED IMAGE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCED BY A SCHOOL
BUS MONITORING CAMERA IN ACCORDANCE WITH
§
21-706.1
OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE IS ADMISSIBLE IN A PROCEEDING CONCERNING A
CIVIL CITATION ISSUED UNDER THAT SECTION FOR A VIOLATION OF
§ 21-706
OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE WITHOUT AUTHENTICATION.
(D)
In any other judicial proceeding, a recorded image produced by a traffic
control signal monitoring system, speed monitoring system, [or] work zone speed
control system,
OR SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERA
is admissible as otherwise
provided by law.
Article - Transportation
21-706.
(a)
If
a school vehicle has stopped on a roadway and is operating the
alternately flashing red lights specified in
§
22-228 of this article, the driver of any
other vehicle meeting or overtaking the school vehicle shall stop at least 20 feet from
the rear of the school vehicle, if approaching the school vehicle from its rear, or at least
20 feet from the front of the school vehicle, if approaching the school vehicle from its
front.
If
a school vehicle has stopped on a roadway and is operating the
alternately flashing red lights specified in
§
22-228 of this article, the driver of any
other vehicle meeting or overtaking the school vehicle may not proceed until the school
vehicle resumes motion or the alternately flashing red lights are deactivated.
(b)
(c)
This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle on a divided
highway, if the school vehicle is on a different roadway.
21-706.1.
(a)
(1)
IN THIS
MEANINGS INDICATED.
SECTION THE
FOLLOWING WORDS
HAVE
THE
-4­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.273
"LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY" MEANS A LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY OF A LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THAT IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A
CITATION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE MARYLAND VEHICLE LAW OR OF LOCAL
TRAFFIC LAWS OR REGULATIONS.
(I)
"OWNER" MEANS THE REGISTERED OWNER OF A MOTOR
VEHICLE OR A LESSEE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER A LEASE OF
6
MONTHS OR
MORE.
(II)
"OWNER" DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(2)
(3)
1.
COMPANY; OR
A
MOTOR
VEHICLE
RENTAL
OR
LEASING
2.
A
HOLDER OF A SPECIAL REGISTRATION PLATE
ISSUED UNDER TITLE
13,
SUBTITLE
9,
PART
III
OF THIS ARTICLE.
"RECORDED IMAGE" MEANS IMAGES RECORDED BY A SCHOOL
BUS MONITORING CAMERA:
(I)
ON:
(4)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Two
OR MORE PHOTOGRAPHS;
Two
OR MORE MICROPHOTOGRAPHS;
Two
OR MORE ELECTRONIC IMAGES;
VIDEOTAPE; OR
ANY
OTHER MEDIUM; AND
(II) SHOWING THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AND, ON AT
LEAST ONE IMAGE OR PORTION OF TAPE, CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE
REGISTRATION PLATE NUMBER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE.
"SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERA" MEANS A CAMERA
PLACED ON A SCHOOL BUS THAT IS DESIGNED TO CAPTURE A RECORDED IMAGE
OF A DRIVER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE COMMITTING A VIOLATION.
(5)
(6)
SUBTITLE.
"VIOLATION" MEANS A VIOLATION OF
§
21-706
OF THIS
-5-
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.273
2011 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(B)
(1)
(I)
If
a school bus operator witnesses a violation [of
§
21-706 of
this subtitle], the operator may promptly report the violation
te
[a law
sniel"@SIft@fit]
AN
to a law enforcement
agency exercising jurisdiction where the violation occurred.
[(2)]
(II)
[(i)]
The report, to the extent possible, shall include:
1.
Information pertaining to the identity of the alleged
violator;
[(ii)] 2.
in the violation;
[(iii)] 3.
and
[(iv)] 4.
An
identification of the vehicle as an automobile,
station wagon, truck, bus, motorcycle, or other type of vehicle.
[(b)]
(2)
If
the identity of the operator of the vehicle at the time the
violation occurred cannot be established, the flaw
enforcement~
agency shall issue to
the registered owner of the vehicle, a warning stating:
The license number and color of the vehicle involved
The time and location at which the violation occurred;
[(1)]
(1)
That a report of a violation [of
§
21-706 of this subtitle] was
made to the flaw
enforcemen~
agency and that the report described the owner's
vehicle as the vehicle involved in the violation;
[(2)]
citation;
[(3)] (III) That the warning does not constitute a finding that the
owner is guilty of the violation; and
[(4)]
(II)
That there is insufficient evidence for the Issuance of a
(IV)
The requirements of
§
21-706 of this subtitle.
(c)
(1)
ffi
A
A
SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERA MAY NOT BE
USED IN A LOCAL JURISDICTION UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS ITS USE IS
AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTION BY LOCAL
LAW ENACTED AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE AND A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE
LOCAL JURISDICTION, A
COUNTY EOl..RD
OF
EDUCATIO:N
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY,
IN CONSULTATION WITH
l"dt
t"..
GENCY
THE COUNTY BOARD
OF
EDUCATION,
MAY PLACE SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERAS ON COUNTY
SCHOOL BUSES.
-6­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.273
IF A. SCHOOL BUS MONITORUlG CMIERl... RECORE)S A
¥lOhATION, THE SCHOOL BUS OPERtt:TOR SHALL GIVE TilE RECORE)UiG OF THE
I,qOLATION TO
Alt.
AGENCY mmRCISlNG JURISE)ICTION WUERE TIlE JIIOlrATIOP'l
OCCURREE).
(D)
A RECORIHNG
RECORDED IMAGE
BY A SCHOOL BUS MONITORING
CAMERA UNDER THIS SECTION INDICATING THAT THE DRIVER OF A MOTOR
VEHICLE HAS COMMITTED A VIOLATION SHALL INCLUDE:
(1)
~
AN
IMAGE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE;
(2)· AN
IMAGE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE'S REAR LICENSE PLATE;
(3)
(4)
VIOLATION.
(E)
(1)
UNLESS THE DRIVER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE RECEIVED A
CITATION FROM A POLICE OFFICER AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION, THE
OWNER OR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (H)(5) OF THIS SECTION, THE
DRIVER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE IS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PENALTY IF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE IS RECORDED BY A SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERA DURING THE
COMMISSION OF A VIOLATION.
THE TIME AND DATE OF THE VIOLATION; AND
To
THE
EXTENT
POSSIBLE,
THE
LOCATION
OF
THE
(2)
$iOO
$250.
A CIVIL PENALTY UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT EXCEED
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE DISTRICT COURT
SHALL PRESCRIBE:
(I)
A UNIFORM CITATION FORM CONSISTENT WITH
SUBSECTION (F)(1) OF THIS SECTION AND
§ 7-302
OF THE COURTS ARTICLE;
AND
(II) A CIVIL PENALTY, WHICH SHALL BE INDICATED ON THE
CITATION, TO BE PAID BY PERSONS WHO CHOOSE TO PREPAY THE CIVIL
PENAL TY WITHOUT APPEARING IN DISTRICT COURT.
(F)
(1)
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS
(2)
THROUGH
(4)
OF THIS SUBSECTION, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL MAIL TO THE
OWNER LIABLE UNDER SUBSECTION (E) OF THIS SECTION A CITATION THAT
SHALL INCLUDE:
(3)
-7­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.273
2011 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(I)
OF THE VEHICLE;
THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE REGISTERED OWNER
(II) THE REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE
INVOLVED IN THE VIOLATION;
(III)
(IV)
VIOLATION;
(V)
(VI)
THE DATE AND TIME OF THE VIOLATION;
THE VIOLATION CHARGED;
To THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LOCATION OF THE
A
COPY OF THE RECORDED IMAGE;
(VII) THE AMOUNT OF THE CIVIL PENALTY IMPOSED AND THE
DATE BY WHICH THE CIVIL PENALTY MUST BE PAID;
(VIII)
A
SIGNED STATEMENT BY A TECHNICIAN EMPLOYED BY
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT, BASED ON INSPECTION OF RECORDED
IMAGES, THE MOTOR VEHICLE WAS BEING OPERATED DURING THE COMMISSION
OF A VIOLATION;
(IX)
OF A VIOLATION; AND
A
STATEMENT THAT RECORDED IMAGES ARE EVIDENCE
(x)
INFORMATION ADVISING THE PERSON ALLEGED TO BE
LIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION:
OF THE MANNER AND TIME IN WHICH LIABILITY
AS ALLEGED IN THE CITATION MAY BE CONTESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT;
AND
THAT FAILURE TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY OR TO
CONTEST LIABILITY IN A TIMELY MANNER IS AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND
MAY RESULT IN REFUSAL OR SUSPENSION OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE
REGISTRATION.
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY MAIL A WARNING
NOTICE IN PLACE OF A CITATION TO THE OWNER LIABLE UNDER SUBSECTION
(E) OF THIS SECTION.
1.
2.
(2)
-8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.273
ExCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (H)(5) OF THIS
SECTION, A CITATION ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE MAILED NO
LATER THAN 2 WEEKS AFTER THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
A PERSON WHO RECEIVES A CITATION UNDER PARAGRAPH
(1)
OF THIS SUBSECTION MAY:
(I)
PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE CITATION, DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY QR
'IIIE l)IS'IIUC'I
CQUR'I; OR
(II)
ELECT TO STAND TRIAL FOR THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
(3)
(4)
(G)
(1)
A CERTIFICATE ALLEGING THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED,
SWORN TO OR AFFIRMED BY A DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
~
A LAW
ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY, BASED ON INSPECTION OF RECORDED IMAGES
PRODUCED BY A SCHOOL BUS MONITORING CAMERA SHALL BE EVIDENCE OF
THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE CERTIFICATE AND SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY
PROCEEDING CONCERNING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
(2)
ADJUDICATION
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
(H)
(1)
VIOLATION:
OF LIABILITY
SHALL
BE
BASED
ON A
THE DISTRICT COURT MAY CONSIDER IN DEFENSE OF A
(I)
SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH
(2)
OF THIS SUBSECTION,
THAT THE MOTOR VEHICLE OR REGISTRATION PLATES OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE
WERE STOLEN BEFORE THE VIOLATION OCCURRED AND WERE NOT UNDER THE
CONTROL OR POSSESSION OF THE OWNER AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION;
(II) SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH
(3)
OF THIS SUBSECTION,
EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON NAMED IN THE CITATION WAS NOT OPERATING
THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION; AND
(III)
ANY
OTHER ISSUES AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT DEEMS PERTINENT.
IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MOTOR VEHICLE OR
THE REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STOLEN BEFORE THE VIOLATION OCCURRED
AND WERE NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OR POSSESSION OF THE OWNER AT THE
TIME OF THE VIOLATION, THE OWNER MUST SUBMIT PROOF THAT A POLICE
REPORT ABOUT THE STOLEN MOTOR VEHICLE OR REGISTRATION PLATES WAS
FILED IN A TIMELY MANNER.
(2)
-9-
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.273
2011 LAWS OF MARYLAND
To SATISFY THE EVIDENTIARY BURDEN UNDER PARAGRAPH
(1)(11) OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE PERSON NAMED IN THE CITATION SHALL
PROVIDE TO THE DISTRICT COURT EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF WHO WAS OPERATING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE
VIOLATION, INCLUDING, AT A MINIMUM, THE OPERATOR'S NAME AND CURRENT
ADDRESS.
(I)
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH APPLY ONLY TO
A CITATION THAT INVOLVES A CLASS
E
(TRUCK) VEHICLE WITH A REGISTERED
GROSS WEIGHT OF 26,001 POUNDS OR MORE, CLASS
F
(TRACTOR) VEHICLE,
CLASS
G
(TRAILER) VEHICLE OPERATED IN COMBINATION WITH A CLASS
F
(TRACTOR) VEHICLE, AND CLASS P (PASSENGER BUS) VEHICLE.
(II) To SATISFY THE EVIDENTIARY BURDEN UNDER
PARAGRAPH (1)(11) OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE PERSON NAMED IN A CITATION
DESCRIBED UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH MAY PROVIDE TO
THE DISTRICT COURT A LETTER, SWORN TO OR AFFIRMED BY THE PERSON AND
MAILED BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, THAT:
STATES THAT THE PERSON NAMED IN THE
CITATION WAS NOT OPERATING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION;
AND
PROVIDES THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND DRIVER'S
LICENSE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE PERSON WHO WAS OPERATING THE
VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION.
(I)
IF THE DISTRICT COURT FINDS THAT THE PERSON
NAMED IN THE CITATION WAS NOT OPERATING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF
THE VIOLATION OR RECEIVES EVIDENCE UNDER PARAGRAPH (4)(11)2 OF THIS
SUBSECTION IDENTIFYING THE PERSON DRIVING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF
THE VIOLATION, THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ISSUING THE CITATION A COpy OF ANY EVIDENCE
SUBSTANTIATING WHO WAS OPERATING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE
VIOLATION.
(II) ON THE RECEIPT OF SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF THIS PARAGRAPH, AN
THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY MAY ISSUE A CITATION AS PROVIDED IN
SUBSECTION (F) OF THIS SECTION TO THE PERSON THAT THE EVIDENCE
INDICATES WAS OPERATING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION.
(3)
(4)
1.
2.
(5)
-10­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.273
(III)
A
CITATION ISSUED UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (II) OF
THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE MAILED NO LATER THAN 2 WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT
OF THE EVIDENCE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.
(I)
IF THE CIVIL PENALTY IS NOT PAID AND THE VIOLATION IS NOT
CONTESTED, THE ADMINISTRATION MAY REFUSE TO REGISTER OR REREGISTER
OR MAY SUSPEND THE REGISTRATION OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE.
~
l'...
VIOLNFIOl'l' FOR 'JIlIIGII
l ...
GIVIL PEl'lALTY IS IMPOSED Ul'lDER TIllS
'
~
SEGTION:
Is
A MOIRP'lG VIOU...TIOl'l FOR THE PURPOSE OF llSSESSUlG
POUlTS UNDER
§
Hi 4g2
OF TillS ARTIGLE l\ND
~1I1¥
BE REGORDED B=Y TIlE
l\DMUHSTRATION ON TIlE DRM.NG REGORD OF TilE ffiJR>TER OR DRI¥ER OF TIlE
VEIIIGLE;
~
~ll.iY
DE TREA!J'ED
AS
A PARKUiG lROk\TION FOR PURPOSES
OF
§
26
ggo
OF TIllS ltRTIGbE; 1Y'lD
~
MAy
BE GOl'lSIDERED IN THE PROV-ISIOl'l OF MOTOR JJEIIIGLE
A
VIOLATION FOR WHICH A CIVIL PENALTY
IS
IMPOSED UNDER
UrSURiY'WE GOVERl...GE.
~Hl
THIS SECTION:
NOT A MOVING VIOLATION FOR THE PURPOSE
OF
ASSESSING POINTS UNDER
§
16-402
OF
THIS ARTICLE AND MAY NOT BE
RECORDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE DRIVING RECORD
OF
THE OWNER
OR DRIVER
OF
THE VEHICLE;
MAY BE TREATED AS A PARKING VIOLATION FOR PURPOSES
OF
§
26-305
OF
THIS ARTICLE; AND
MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE PROVISION
VEHICLE INSURANCE COVERAGE.
ill
Is
ill
ill
OF
MOTOR
IN CONSULTATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, THE CHIEF
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL ADOPT PROCEDURES FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS, TIlE TRIAL OF
TRIALS FOR
VIOLATIONS, AND THE
COLLECTION OF CIVIL PENALTIES
IMPOSED
UNDER THIS SECTION.
f.Kl
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
October 1, 2011.
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.273
2011 LAWS OF MARYLAND
Approved
by
the Governor,
May
10, 2011.
-12­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
066201
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Jennifer
A. Hughes
Director
MEMORANDUM'
January 6, 2012
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Roger Ber,ej'
~esi~tl)~unty
Council
J_A~~
Bill 37-11, Motor Vehicles and Traffic - School Bus Safety Cameras
Attached please
find
the fiscal and economic impact statements for the above
referenced legislation.
JAH:mob
c:
Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy Nurmi, Special Assistant
to
the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Infonnation Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
Michael Coveyou, Department of Finance
Captain Thomas Didone, Department ofPolice
Alex Espinosa, Office ofManagement and Budget
Ed Piesen, Office ofManagement
and
Budget
Naeem Mia, Office ofManagement and Budget
:1
;1
J
>,:
I
'"
ti
~
t!
:i
'i
,
,.[
lj
"
f~
~~
~j
:::
E,
~
~
.•
;.'.
;-:
!,.;
~i
..
::~
:~~
'.
Office of the Director
101
Monroe Street,
14th
Floor • Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-2800
Yiww.montgomerycountymd.gov
::1
'.1
montgomerycountymd.IIOV/311
240-773-3556 TTY
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council
Bm
37-11, Motor Vehicles
and
Traffic School
Bus
Safety CameraS
1. Legislative Summary.
The proposed
Bill
would implement State law authorizing the use of school bus safety cameras to
monitor vehicles overtaking
a
stopped school bus
and
enforce violations ofMary1and
Transportation Article
21-706.
The
Bill
also authorizes the County Executive, by Method
2
regulation, to establish the amount of civil penalty
up
to a maximum of$250.
2.
An
estimate of changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless ofwhether the revenues
or expenditures are assumed
in
the recommended or approved budget Includes source of
information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The Bill is an enabling act
that
would implement the State law in the County. The fiscal impact
on the County depends
on
the scope ofthe program that is implemented in coordination with
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) and the violation fine amount established
by
regulation. The fiscal impact cannot be determined until the program is designed and the fine
amount established; however, fine revenue is intended to at
least
cover program costs. County
revenue in excess ofprogram costs must be used to support public safety programs, including
pedestrian safety.
3.
Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next
6
fiscal
years.
See response to
#2.
4.
An
actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each
bill
that would affect retiree
pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
S.
Later
actions that may affect
f11ture
revenue and expenditures
if
the bill authorizes
future
spending.
Not
applicable.
,i
j
.j
'.!
6.
An
estimate ofthe staff time needed to implement the bill.
Implementation ofthe
Bill·
is not expected to require additional
staff
resources
in
the short term.
According to the Department ofPolice, however, the timing of implementation would
be
dependent on the method of camera system
procurement, which
could
range from 3-6
months
if
the County's contract with
its
current automated traffic enforcement vendor can be amended, or
up to 18 months if a new competitive procurement is initiated.
An
estimate
of
staff
and
contractor time needed to equip school buses once the system
is
procured would depend on the
scope ofthe program that is developed between the County and MCPS. Additional staff
resources could be required to administer the
program
depending on the number of citations
issued
in
the
future.
7.
An
explanation ofhow the addition ofnew
staff
responsibilities would affect other duties.
Not
applicable.
8.
An
estimate ofcosts when an additional appropriation is needed.
See response to
#2.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Variables that could affect revenue and cost estimates include:
• The number ofviolations. According to the Department ofPolice's review ofMCPS
Transportation Division violation data. 1,256 violations have been reported over the last three
years through October 2011, or an average of 37 per month. Approximately 20 bus routes
had 10 or more violations reported during
that
time period. During the same time period.
patrol officers issued 359 violations
in
2009,258
in
2010, and 146 though September 2011.
It
is
likely that violations are currently under-:reported and automated enforcement would
result in a higher number ofviolations. The number ofviolations could affect the mnnber of
staff needed to administer the program in the future.
• Amount ofthe fine established through regulation. The Bill authorizes the County Executive
to establish the fine amount through Method 2 regulation up to a maximum fine of$250. The
fme amount will affect the total amount ofrevenue generated.
In
addition, the County may
only retain fine revenue for uncontested violations. but all fme revenue associated with
violations that are contested go to the District Court and become State ofMaryland general
fund revenues. The program's net revenue, therefore,
is
affected by the amount of revenue
retained by the County rather than the District Court
• Program design and method ofvendor payment. The program's design and method ofvendor
payment have not been determined at this time, but both will affect the fiscal impact on the
County. The number of equipped school buses and bus routes covered
by
the program will
affect the program's overall cost and fine revenue.
As
the experience with the County's other
automated enforcement programs has demonstrated, automated enforcement ofstopped
school vehicles
is
expected to decrease actual violations over time. The method of
procurement and vendor payment (i.e., whether the equipment cost is paid upfront by the
County or recovered by the vendor through a share ofcitation revenue) also would
affect
the
County's costs and net revenues.
10. Ranges ofrevenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project
A range of revenues and expenditures cannot be provided until the regulation is drafted, the scope
ofthe program
is
developed in coordination with MCPS. and the procurement method
is
detennined.
11.
If
a bill
is
likely to have no fiscal impact, why that
is
the case.
The program which the Bill enab1es to
be
implemented will have a fiscal impact, but it cannot be
detennined
at
this time.
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
13. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Captain Thomas Didone of the Department ofPolice, Ed Piesen, and Alex Espinosa ofthe Office
ofManagement and Budget.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
t
.!
Economic Impact Statement
Counell
Bill
37-11, Motor Vehicles and
Traffic-
School Bus Safety Cameras
Background:
!
Bill 37-11 would authorize the Police Chief, after consulting
with
the Board of
Education, to install, maintain, and operate cameras on County school buses to monitor
vehicles passing a stopped
school
bus.
1.
The
sources of information,
assumptions,
and methodologies
used.
Not Applicable.
2. A description ofany variable that could affect economic impact estimates..
Not Applicable .
3. The bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any, on employment, spending, saving, investment,
incomes, and property values
in
the County.
.
Not Applicable
4.
If
a bill is likely to have no economic impact, why
that
is the case.
Bill37~11
allows a new tool
to
proVide for
law
enforcement and as such
it
has
DO
economic
impact.
5. The following contributed to and concurred
with
this analysis: David Platt, Finance;
Mike
Coveyou, Finance
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Department of Transportation
16651 Crabbs Branch Way
Rockville, Maryland
20855
301-840-8130 • Fax: 301-840-4516
County Council Public Hearing, January 24, 2012: Bi1l37-11, Motor Vehicles and Traffic - School
Bus Safety Cameras, Agenda Item 7
Good Afternoon. My name is Todd Watkins. I am the director of transportation for Montgomery
County Public Schools. I am here to speak strongly in favor ofBi1l37-11 allowing the use of cameras
to enforce the law prohibiting the passing of a stopped school bus.
I am a supporter of this bill because I believe it has the potential to dramatically change driving
behaviors near stopped school buses. Whether or not one generally supports the use of cameras for
automated enforcement, it is hard to refute their effectiveness in bringing about behavior change. One
only has to sit and watch an area that has a speed camera or an intersection camera. Areas where speed
cameras are located are normally areas where motorists regularly exceeded the speed limit by significant
amounts. Intersections with cameras are those where the red light was regularly run. Watching those
same areas since the placement of cameras will reveal most vehicles being driven within the speed limit
and stopping for the red light. It is this same type ofbehavior change I desire near stopped school buses.
And, I believe this technology is perfectly suited for the school bus application because, while there is
certainly some amount of general change in driving behaviors resulting from cameras in the county, the
•greatest change is
in
the immediate vicinity of the cameras.
In
this case, we seek only to change driving
behavior in the immediate vicinity of school buses. I have been working with Captain Tom Didone
from the Montgomery County Police in hopes of making automated enforcement on school buses a
reality should this bill pass.
The potential for tragedy is high when motorists pass a stopped school bus. Each day
in
Montgomery
County, 100,000 students ride a school bus to and from school. Many thousands of those students cross
a roadway to get on their bus in the morning and just after getting off their bus in the afternoon. Each
one of those crossings is a potential tragedy when matched with a motorist who chooses to ignore the
law requiring them to stop when approaching the stopped bus. The vast majority of motorists
in
the
county wouldn't think of passing a stopped school bus. But others need additional incentive to follow
the law, as the potentially tragic consequences for one of our county's children appears to be insufficient
motivation. I imagine they think it will never happen to them.
Weare very fortunate to be talking about local legislation to support a Maryland law with no name
attached.
In
several other states with similar legislation, the law is named after a student who was killed
while crossing the street, assuming they were protected by the flashing lights of their school bus.
As someone who drives a bus periodically, I can tell you what an anxious feeling is caused when
students get off the bus in the afternoon and cross the street. No matter how much they are told to stop
at the comer of the bus and look for traffic, or wait for the signal of their bus operator, many simply trust
that motorists will obey the law and stop. After all, who would illegally pass a school bus? While exact
numbers are not known, we do know it happens multiple times each day in our county. Please support
this bill that can help make the trip to and from school each day a safer one for the students of
Montgomery County.
Todd Watkins, Director, Department of Transportation
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.5
Testimony
Before Montgomery County Council Members
In Support of School Bus Camera Red Light Violations
By
Robert Herron
Bus Operator, Montgomery County Public Schools
Vice President, Transportation Chapter
Service Employees International Union, Local 500, CTW
President Berliner, and distinguished Members of County Council:
Good
Afternoon. My name is Robert Herron. For over twenty
years I have
worked
as a School bus operator for Montgomery County Public Schools.
I'm
also proud to represent my fellow colleagues in
the
Transportation
Department as Vice President of Service Employees International Union, Local
500.
I'm here this afternoon to urge in the strongest terms possible, for you to support
and enforce the School Bus Camera Red Light Warning Violations that are being
committed
in
Montgomery County
on a
daily basis.
Each and everyday, my colleagues and
I
safely transport over One Hundred
Thousand students to and from school. The parents
in
our community entrusts us
with the safety and well being of their children.
It
is an awesome responsibility that
we take very seriously. The safe operation of a school bus has
its
challenges.
For
most of us,
it
means operating a school bus with between
40-55
students on
board, though increasingly hazardous road and
traffic
conditions. In many
cases
the bus operator is the only adult on the bus. It's our responsibility to maintain
discipline and order on the buses while maintaining
fuJI
awareness of the road and
traffic condition under which we operate.
Our mission of student safety is put at risk when cars
a.nd
trucks disregard the
flashing red lights and stop sign when we are loading and unloading our students,
and simply drive pass us. At nearly every stop
J
make, I see students, running a
few second late, running towards
my
bus so
they
won;t miss
it.
They
run across
~
streets,
dart
betvveen
parked cars, in
order to make
it
to
my
bus before I depart.
b
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Whe'n a motorist ignores the flashing red lights and school
b~s
stop
si~n,
and
passes the bus, the 're often
agitated
by
t~e
delay. and pay.llttle
attention to
activities surrounding my schaar bus. A chrld can appear qUickly out of nowhere.
assuming that traffic has completely stopped, and step in front of an on coming
car. An agitated car or truck driver and a carefessstudent is a perfect storm for a
disaster waiting to happen.
An
increasing number of school buses are now
equipped with cameras that video graph vehicles unlawfully passing our buses.
Those who we identify and report, simply receive a written warning that, in my
opinion isntt worth the paper irs written on. In a survey that was done two years
ago in several counties that participated in our state of Maryland on a Thursday,
recorded over 24,000 school bus Red Ught Violations that day. Violations of this
law is an everyday occurrence in the course of my day and many of my
coUeagues wHl tell the same.
The enforcement of this law for those caught on camera, disregarding the safety
of our students, for a sake of a few seconds must be deterred with a strong
message with a fine for Violating a safety law For which there is presently little
consequence. You only have to imagine a parent receiving a phone call saying'
their child has been sertously injured or killed, because an irresponsible driver
who placed saving a few seconds of commuting time above safety of our children.
If there was ever a need for enforcement Now is the time.
I
On behalf of my school system, my union, my 1500 colleagues who drtve school
buses and most importantly the One Hundred Thousand plus students we
transport everyday. I urge you to support and enforce this law.
Thank you.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PBTSAC Action on Bil137-11: Motor Vehicles and Traffic - - School Bus Safety Cameras
As
the Chainnan of the Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (PBTSAC,) I am
pleased to be able to submit to the County Council the recommendation of our committee on this very
important piece of legislation: Bill 37-11 , to allow for the installation of safety cameras on school buses,
providing for the automated enforcement of laws prohibiting vehicles from overtaking (passing) stopped
school buses with children boarding. The PBTSAC is advisory to both the County Executive and the
County Council on matters pertaining to improving pedestrian and bicycle safety in Montgomery
County. Bill 37-11 is intended to protect the most precious members of our community - - our children.
We are pleased to be able to provide our recommendation to the County Council today in support of Bill
37-11.
David Anspacher
RaminAssa
Thomas Doone
Darrel Drobnich
Valerie Ervin
Steve Friedman
Angel Garcia-Ablanque
Arthur Holmes.
Jr.
Erwin Mack, Chair
Alan Migdal!
Colleen
Mitchell
PeterMoe
Aly~
Ortuzar
Reemberfo Rodriguez
David Sharp
Jack Strausman
While the PBTSAC voted to support this legislation and recommends its approval, we did have
extensive discussion on the issue at our last meeting, January 5,2012. The PBTSAC has become very
aware in the past several years that measures needed to improve safety for pedestrians are often complex
and involve many different variables. Simple or singular solutions may sometimes fall short of
accomplishing the intended results. It is for this reason that we have continued to support the three "E's"
of improving pedestrian safety: Engineering, Education, and Enforcement. Much committee discussion
focused on other aspects ofthe problem that also need to be considered in protecting our children from
cars passing stopped school buses. Questions raised by the PBTSAC included:
1. Are there engineering improvements that can be made to improve the warning visibility of
buses that are stopped to load or discharge students, including larger signs on the extended stop
flag, head lights and taillights that also flash when the school bus stop sign is activated, and
larger and brighter flashing lights for buses that are in the process of loading or discharging
students?
2 Are there education efforts that can alert drivers to the requirement to stop before passing
stopped school buses and receiving tickets?
In
discussion, there was an acknowledged level of
confusion of when drivers are and are not required to stop for a school bus ..For example,
where buses stop on divided roadways with a median vs. a wide multi-lane roadway with a two­
way tum lane separating traffic - at which must you stop for a school bus? Drivers need to
know the laws. The lack of knowledge and education on the issue was a concern to the
PBTSAC.
With these issues and concerns in mind, the PBTSAC passed the following motion with 10 in favor, 3
opposed, and I abstention:
VOTED, that the Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Traffic Safety Advisory Committee supports Bil137­
11, to authorize the installation of school bus safety cameras and that the program should
include a strong education component and citizen involvement through a citizens' advisory
committee, similar to the advisory committee used for implementing the County's speed
camera program.
While three members voted in opposition, the primary reason for their opposing the motion was their
concern that more needed to be known about the problem. For this reason, the committee discussed the
need to implement such a program at a pilot scale first, learning from the gradual implementation of the
program. Data gathered from the pilot scale effort can serve to further define the problem and other
Department of Transportation
101 Monroe Street· Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-7170 • 240-777-2544 TTY • 240-777-7178 F.'\X
www.montgomerycountymd.gov!walk
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
appropriate measures needed to make our children safer when boarding or while being discharged from
school buses.
I thank the County Council for providing our committee the opportunity to provide our
recommendation. We applaud your efforts to improve pedestrian safety in Montgomery County, and
appreciate the role you have afforded us in helping you to accomplish this important mission.
Sincerely,
~~
.-.
__
­
....
Erwin H. Mack
Chair, PTSAC
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Council
Bill 37-11
Briefing Overview
&
Action Items
January 19, 2012
Maryland Senate Bill 679 (21-706.1) that was enacted into law October 1, 2011,
authorized the use of external cameras to be placed on school buses to capture live
images ofmotorists illegally passing stopped school buses when the stop ann is deployed
and the red lights are activated. The legislation is essentially identical to the legislation
that was passed to enforce "Red-Light" violations (21-202.1) which allows for civil
tickets, not to exceed $250.00, be issued to the owner of the vehicle that illegally passes
the school bus. The legislation also required:
• Local Governing Body (JGB) enabling legislation in which Council Bill 37-11
was submitted to address.
• TheLaw Enforcement Agency to work in consultation with the Board of
Education to place school bus monitoring cameras on school buses.
• The District Court to adopt certain procedures; defining certain terms; and
generally relating to the use of school bus monitoring cameras to enforce offenses
relating to overtakipg and passing school buses.
.
• That the fines collected by the political subdivision may recover the costs of
implementing and administering the program and may spend any remaining
balance solely for public safety purposes including pedestrian safety programs.
The legislations also directs that if the case is contested in District Court then the
District Court then the fine will
be
paid to them directly.
Revenue expenditures will be difficult to forecast because there are currently only a few of
these camera systems in place in the Country and none currently in the State of Maryland.
In
a recent discussion with the Office of Procurement and the Office of the County Attorney, we
recognized that there were three mechanisms that would bring the program to County and all
of them did not have cost factors immediately available.
• The first option would be for the County to submit a Request for Proposal (RFP).
This would be the most time consuming option in which the costs associated are
completely unknown. On December 28,2011, Frederick County released an RFP for
a School Bus Violation Reporting System Utilizing External Mounted Cameras that
will be closing on January 20 2012. Once the proposals are received a cost-expense
assumption could be made.
• The second option would be to bridge and existing contract. As previously stated,
there currently is not an active contract in the State of Maryland utilizing this
technology. Our research has identified that Calvert County has the only active pilot
project in the State and that Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties are not looking to
pursue the use of these systems in the communities. Like in the first option, once a
contract has been issued we can affect a cost-expense assumption.
• The third option is to negotiate with our current vendor Affiliated Computer Services
(ACS) and amend our current contract.
In
regards to this option, on November 2011,
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
. the County awarded ACS a four year contract to consolidate all of the Automated
Traffic Enforcement under one vendor. ACS does have school bus camera system in
with the base cost would be $5-8,000 per camera for installation then a back office
processing ofthe violations would be "per paid' citation presumably (subject to
negotiation) at the current cost ($29.24) fee.
The Department
has
reviewed the violation data received from the School Board
Transportation Division for the past three years (though October 2011):
• Approximately 1256 violations have been reported which makes an average of37
violations a month including summertime when only a few buses are in operation
for all 1100+ buses that traverse the County.
• There are approximately 20 bus routes that report at least 10 or more violations
during that time period
• Some drivers are more diligent in reporting violations then others
.• That everyone accepts that these violations are under reported and a ratio could be
3 actual violations to 1 reported because the drivers must get the entire
registration plate to report the violation
• Our best assessment would be an average of one to three violations a day with
diminishing returns over time due to the public awareness as in the case with both
the red-light and speed campaign.
• Additionally, Officers on patrol issued 359 (2009), 258 (2010) and 146 (through
9/2011) tickets for passing school bus violations observed during this time period.
This is a factor of concern because if an officer issues a citation for a violation
captured by automated enforcement, the automated enforcement citations is
voided.
It
is important to understand that the primary variable that affects our revenue cost and
benefits projections is the unknown number of violations that will be paid to the District
Court. As previously mentioned, the District Court collects the fmes for all contested
matters but the County is still responsible to pay the costs to the vendor. Regardless of
the methodology used to procure this technology, (and believe me, the vendors will make
unbelievable promises) there will bea prepaid citation expense associated with the
processing of every citation.
It
is anticipated that a very high number of the citations
issued will go to District Court (unlike the other types of automated enforcement which
are around 1%) because ofthe high fme of$250.00. If this assumption becomes fact, the
County will still need to pay the vendor the cost even though the District Court receives
the money.
This
will
create an ongoing deficit that is only defmed by the number of
citations issued annually.
In
an effort to mitigate this deficit, we would recommend that the County consider paying
for the cameras with a defmed upfront cost per camera (with the expectation that the
vendor will be responsible for maintenance and replacement over time) and "slow grow"
the program (20-25 cameras initially). This practice will allow the County to have an
actual cost to start the program rather than having the vendor amortize these costs into a
much higher "per paid" citation fee that cause the County a greater risk over time.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Also, we have recommended that the County consider a tiered fee schedule where the
first time violator would only
be
fmed 100.00 or $125.00 and second and subsequent
violations would at the full amount. The benefit to this would encourage more persons to
prepay the citations rather than requesting court while not diminishing "watering down"
the violation which may not be well received by Annapolis or the general public. The
current County Bill has a provision included that allows for an executive fee schedule to
be
set.
Action Items:
• Successful passage of Bill 37-11
• Letter from the CE's Office to the School Board to authorize discussions by staff to
facilitate implementation of the program.
(I
am working to set a meeting to brief CE's
Office and direction to accomplish this task)
• Letter of support from the District Court (a meeting was requested with Judge Wolfe
since December an hope to accomplish ASAP)
• Development ofa workgroup MCP, MCPS County Attorney to develop MOU's and
make decisions on procurement mechanisms available (unofficial discussions underway
be awaiting bullet 2) Also, awaiting results of Frederick RFP, closes 1120
• Procurement of equipment
• Development and delivery of a public awareness campaign
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files  PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9
"
<
>
c
>
C-'>