Agenda Item 7
January 24,2012
Public Hearing
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
~
n
Public Hearing:
Bill 37-11, Motor Vehicles and Traffic - School Bus Safety
Cameras
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 Councilmember Riemer was introduced on November 29,
2011. A Public Safety Committee worksession is tentatively scheduled for February 2 at 9:30
a.m.
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. Council President Valerie Ervin explained the purpose of this Bill
in a November 22 memorandum at ©4-S. 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.
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
Circle
#
1
3
4
6
9
21
 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""!on~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 of school 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]
QQ.u.ble underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom 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
Sec.
1.
Section 31-9B is added as follows:
31-9B. School Bus Safety Cameras Authorized.
2
3
4
{ill
Definitions.
As used in this Section:
Board
means the County Board of Education.
Chief
means the County Police Chief.
Violation
means
~
violation of Transportation Article §21-706.
School bus
means
~
bus operated
hy
the Board to transport students.
School bus safety camera
means
~
camera placed on
~
school bus that
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
is designed to capture
~
recorded image of
~
driver of g motor vehicle
committing g violation authorized
hy
Transportation Article §21­
706.1.
@
12
13
14
15
The Chief, after consulting with the Board, may install, operate, and
maintain school bus safety cameras on school busses as permitted
hy
Transportation Article §21-706.1.
(£}
A person who commits
camera is subject to
Article §21-706.1.
~
~
violation recorded
hy
~
school bus safety
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
civil penalty authorized
hy
Transportation
@
The Executive,
hy
Method
2
regulation, must establish the amount of
the civil penalty
yp
to
~
maximum of $250.
The County must use any fines collected
hy
the County for
~
violation
recorded
hy
~
school bus safety camera:
W
ill
ill
Approved:
to recover the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining
school bus safety cameras; and
for public safety purposes, including pedestrian safety
programs.
25
26
27
28
F:\Law\Bills\1137 School Bus Camera\Bill 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\BILLSil137 School Bus CameraiLRR.Doc
®
 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
Council President Valerie
Erv~1J~
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·
100 MARYLAND AVENUE· ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
240n77-7900
TTY
240n77-7914
FAX
240n77-7989
WWW.MONTGOMERYCOUNTYMD.GOV
C
PRINTED ON RECYCl.ED 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 DRlVERS VIOLATE BUS STOP LAWS, MSDE FIN... Page 1 of 1
About MSDE
I
Divisions
I
State Board
MSDE Home
I
News Room
I
School Systems
I
Testing
I
Instruction
I
Programs
News Release Detail
News Release
>
News Room
o
>
>
Special Reports
>
Calendar at a Glance
>
Videos on MSDE TV
Overview
v
News Releases
o
MSDE News
Publications
I
For Immediate Release Contact: Bill Reinhard, 410-767-0486
1m
NEWS RELEA-"'S""E_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
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.
###
M~Q!=p[ivacy
Statement
Disclaim~[
I
Copyright
©
2003 MSDE
/
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
rState
rarv,and
I
Bus Camera
legislation - Date
SB 679 passed Spring of
2011
HB 440 took effect
12/1/2009
H7755
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
private
3'd
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
County taking the lead.
Buses are equipped with external
cameras.
School systems work directly
with police agencies.
In current trial period 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. $250 fine.
North Carolina (Atkins'
Law)
Rhode Island
Max pts. against the driving record
and variable fines.
Civil violation, ,no pts. $250-500
43 cameras installed
Arkansas (isaac's Law)
Act1207 took effect
7/1/2007
r-
Georgia
SB 57 passed in 2011
West Virginia
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Missouri (Jessica's Law)
2009'
July 1,2011
Pending
Effective 2/2006
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
$500 fine
$450-$1,000
Proposed $250 fine
I
92 cameras in Liberty,
MO. Varies by
jurisdiction and funding
Max $1,000, or 90 day license
suspension
~
-
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Optional for VA counties. Not
mandatory. Counties install their
own cameras.
Washington
SSB 5540
Similar to MD and RI.
. Competitive bid for camera
vendors.
---­
New York (Aniya's Law)
AB A04416-this bill is
Under consideration-Aniya's
currently under
law deals with bussing
consideration and would requirements based on a
allow for cameras
residency's proximity to the
school
Virginia
Spring 2011
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
-I
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
@€I-elftty D€lapft
If
SOO@8:ti8ft
law enforcement agency,
in consultation with a
@@ptaift 18@al
I~PN
8ftfep@Smsftt
agSft@~T
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!}-elipiftg a 8@h€ll€ 1 D-elS 8f1@lC'8:t8r t€l
gilf@ a r@@€lptiiftg l€ f th@ lfi8latisft t€l 8: 8@rtaift 1888:1 laT sftfup€l@lftsftt ag@ft€lY;
ll
requiring a
p@€l8ptiiftg
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;
s8taDlishiftg that a vi81ati8ft fur T.vhi@h 8: @i"qil fI@ftalty may D@ ilftfl8s@ti -elftft@p this
A:8t i8 a m8viftg vi€l1ati8ft fup @@rtaift fI-elrfl88@8, may D8 tr@at@ti a8 a flapkiftg
vi81ati€lft i'er @@rtaift fI-elFfl8888, aftti may D@ 8€1ftsiftsrsft fuF @@rtam ift8li1:raft@@
flltPfl88SS;
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
 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.
[gJ
ill
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
-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.
Civil penalties resulting from citations issued using
A
traffic control
signal monitoring [systems or/
SYSTEM.
speed monitoring [systems
1
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 (a) 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 ai) of this paragraph. may
spend any remaining balance solely for public safety purposes, including pedestrian
safety programs.
m
&l
W
ill
L
L
For any fiscal year, if the balance remaining from the
(ji)
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 (01 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)
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
CML CITATION ISSUED UNDER THAT SECTION FOR A VIOLATION OF
§
21-706
OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ARTICLE WITHOUT AUTHENTICATION.
(c)
(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.
If
a school vehicle has stopped on a roadway and is operating the
(a)
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,
Governo~
Ch.273
(2)
"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 INCL UDE:
(3)
1.
COMPANY; OR
A
MOTOR
VEHICLE
RENTAL
OR
LEASING
A
HOLDER OF A SPECIAL REGISTRATION PLATE
ISSUED UNDER TITLE
13,
SUBTITLE
9,
PART
III
OF THIS ARTICLE.
2.
(4)
"RECORDED IMAGE" MEANS IMAGES RECORDED BY A SCHOOL
BUS MONITORING CAMERA:
(I)
ON:
1.
Two
OR MORE PHOTOGRAPHS;
Two
OR MORE MICROPHOTOGRAPHS;
Two
OR MORE ELECTRONIC IMAGES;
VIDEOTAPE; OR
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
la lav!
8ftI€J1'@Smsftt)
: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
~law 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;
(I)
That a report of a violation [of
§
21-706 of this subtitle] was
made to the
~law
enforcemenq 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)]
[(1)]
(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 GOUNl'¥ BOhRD OF EDUG!lFION
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY,
IN CONSULTATION WITH A,N AGENCY
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}[
SCHOOL BUS MONI'FORUm CAMERa.;; RECORDS A
VIOL};;'FIO]tl, 'FIlE SCHOOL BUS OPERa"';;'FOR SHiY:.L GIVE 'FilE RECORDHIG OF 'FIlE
VIOLA'FION 'FO AN AGE]tWY
E..~RCISING
JURIS9IC'FION J.VIIERE 'FHE VIOL/;;'FIO]tl
OCCURRED.
(D)
A RECORDUIG
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:
00
(1)
(2)
(3)
AN
IMAGE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE;
AN
IMAGE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE'S REAR LICENSE PLATE;
THE TIME AND DATE OF THE VIOLATION; AND
To
THE
EXTENT
POSSIBLE,
THE
LOCATION
OF
THE
(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.
(2)
A CIVIL PENALTY UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY NOT EXCEED
$DOO
$250.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE DISTRICT COURT
SHALL PRESCRIBE:
(I)
A UNIFORM CITATION FORM CONSISTENT WITH
SUBSECTION (F)(l) 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
PENALTY 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 SECTIO'N 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 OR !filE DIS!fBIG!f
COUR!f; 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 lFHE
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.
ADJUDICATION
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
(H)
(1)
VIOLATION:
(2)
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
(3)
To SATISFY THE EVIDENTIARY BURDEN UNDER PARAGRAPH
(l)(II) 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
(PASSE~GER
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.
(5)
(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.
(4)
1.
2.
-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.
~
A.
'ROLATION FOR ll/UICII A CML PENA:bTY IS IMPOSED YNI1ER TillS
SECTION:
Is
A MOVHiG lROLJiFION FOR TilE P{JRPOSE OF ASSESSING
POUlTS YNI1ER
§
16 492
OF TIIIS ARTICLE
l~lI1
AI/JY
BE RECORI1EI1 BY TilE
:L\I}MunSTRl...T ION
ON
TilE I1RMNG RECORD OF TilE O\¥NER OR I)RIVER OF TilE
VEIIICLE;
~
~!l:A¥
BE TREATED
M!1
A PARKING lROLl...
TIO~l
FOR PYRPOSES
tl+
OF
§ 26 398
OF TillS l...RTICLE; lUll)
~
~"Y
BE CONSII)EREI) Hi THE
PR01RSIO~l
OF MOTOR llElHCLE
INSYRA:NCE COVERAGE.
~m
THIS SECTION:
A
VIOLATION FOR WHICH A CIVIL PENALTY IS IMPOSED UNDER
ill
Is
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 OF MOTOR
VEHICLE INSURANCE COVERAGE.
ill
&1
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.
fKl
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
lsiah Leggett
County Executive
Jennifer
A.
Hughes
Director
MEMORANDUM·
January 6, 2012
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Roger Berlin,l'
~flJ~unty
Council
Jennifer
A
~es~ ~;;
Bil137-11, 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
LisaAus~
Offices of the County Executive
Joy Nurmi, Special Assistant
to the
County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Information Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
Michael Coveyou, Department of Finance
Captain Thomas Didone, Department ofPolice
Alex Espinosa, Office of Management and Budget
Ed Piesen, Office ofManagement and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Director
----------------------------------
Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-2800
101 Momoe Street, 14th Floor·
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
montgomerycountymd.gov/311
240-773-3556 TTY
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council BiU 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 safe.ty cameras to
monitor vehicles overtaking a stopped school bus and enforce violations ofMaryland
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 ofchanges in COlmty 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.
,jj
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
of
program costs must
be
used to support pubJic 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.
5. Later actions that may affect
f!rture
revenue and expenditures
if
the bill authorizes future
spending.
Not applicable.
6.
An
estimate ofthe staff time needed to implement the bilL
Implementation ofthe
Billis
not expected to require additional staff resources
in
the short term.
According to the Department ofPolice. however. the timing ofimplementation 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 of37 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 201
1.
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 number 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 reguJation 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 fine 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 ofrevenue
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 ofequipped 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 of stopped
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 ofrevenues 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. Ifa bill is likely
to
have no fiscal impact, why
that
is the case.
The program which the Bill enables to be implemented will have a fiscal impact, but itcannot 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 ofthe Department ofPolice, Ed Piesen, and Alex Espinosa ofthe Office
ofManagement and Budget
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Council 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, ifany. on employment, spending, saving, investment,
incomes, and property values in the County.
il
;j;
.;
'·i
Not Applicabte
4.
If
a bill is likely to have no economic impact,
why
that is the case.
Bill 37-11 allows a new tool
to
provide
for
law
enforcement and as such
it
has
no economic
impact.
5. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: David Platt. Finance; Mike
Coveyou, Finance
, Datt!