Following the General Assembly’s adjournment on March 14, several bills concerning photo speed monitoring devices have passed. The following are bills that VACo worked on or are most impactful to how these programs operate. The bills address how photo speed monitoring devices are operated, but they can differ in scope, technology used, and enforcement provisions. It is worth noting that the bills changed significantly and rapidly throughout the session, and the provisions described below reflect the form that passed the General Assembly before the Governor had a chance to act.
HB 1220 – Delegate Delaney
HB 1220 (Delaney), as reported out of conference, makes a broad set of changes to how photo speed monitoring devices are placed and operated, how civil penalty revenue is used, signage, data retention, device calibration, public transparency and awareness, and reporting requirements.
Regarding civil penalty revenue, the bill states that funds collected from these programs must first cover the operating costs of the camera program. Any excess funds shall then be deposited into a local fund used solely for improving traffic safety, speed management, bicycle and pedestrian safety, public transit, and other systemic safety initiatives. These funds must first be applied to highway work zones, high-risk intersections, and school crossing zones before use elsewhere.
A large focus of the General Assembly this year was including some form of enforcement mechanism in speed camera legislation. HB 1220 includes a provision stating if a locality operates a photo speed monitoring program and willfully enforces it unlawfully, the person penalized can sue for compensatory damages, capped at the amount of the original fine, attorney fees and court costs, and can ask the court to order the locality to follow the law. If the locality then ignores that court order, a judge can cut off its share of the program’s revenue that exceeds the operating cost, redirecting those funds to the state’s Highway Safety Improvement Program until it complies. The bill states that these cases are heard in general district court, the locality can appeal, and nothing here strips away qualified immunity protections.
The bill also calls for standardized summons to be developed by the Supreme Court of Virginia, new device calibration requirements, public awareness campaigns, updated signs and other reporting requirements.
HB 994 – Delegate Seibold
HB 994 (Seibold) shares most of the same provisions as HB 1220, but its key distinguishing feature is that it would expand the use of photo speed monitoring to “safety red zones” within Planning District 8 (Northern Virginia). The bill defines, “safety red zone” as a highway with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour or less that is in a priority pedestrian corridor as identified in the statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan or other high-risk pedestrian corridor as designated by the Commissioner of Highways. HB 994 does not include the enforcement language that is included in HB 1220.
SB 84 – Williams-Graves
SB 84 (Williams-Graves) includes many of the provisions of HB 1220, but what is different about this bill is the inclusion of pedestrian and stop sign violation monitoring systems. The bill authorizes state and local law-enforcement agencies to place and operate pedestrian crossing violation and stop sign violation monitoring systems in school crossing zones and highway work zones for the purposes of recording pedestrian crossing and stop sign violations. This bill does not include the enforcement language of HB 1220.
SB 219 – Senator Jones
SB 219 (Jones) includes much of the language found in HB 1220 but the bill requires a second summons to be mailed when someone fails to appear after an initial speed camera violation notice. Furthermore, a second failure to appear would trigger the DMV to withhold vehicle registration renewal until all penalties are paid. The bill includes the same enforcement language found in HB 1220.
Sovereign Immunity Controversy
Both HB 1220 and HB 994 originally contained a provision that VACo found particularly alarming. Both bills included language stating that in any court proceeding involving a locality’s failure to comply with the speed camera program requirements, the locality would waive its sovereign immunity; meaning local governments could face open-ended liability for lawsuits. VACo formally opposed both bills on that basis, warning that without sovereign immunity protections, localities face exposure to high-dollar verdicts. That language has been amended favorably with HB 1220 and SB 219 as the bills with enforcement language remaining while the problematic language was amended out of HB 994 early in the legislature.
Legislative Status
Currently, all bills have passed the General Assembly and are awaiting action from the Governor. VACo would like to thank stakeholders and local leaders for their work on these bills throughout session. VACo will provide updates on the status of these bills as they are made available.
VACo Contact: James Hutzler