
The Winn Parish School Board has rejected a proposal from the City Police Department of place speed cameras inside school zones. The action took place Monday during the board’s July committee session.
Supt. Al Simmons said Assistant Police Chief Charles Curry had contacted him four or five weeks ago, requesting to make the presentation. Responses from several members indicated there was resistance to the offer from the outset.
The School Zone presentation came in light of the state legislature Act 107 in spring session outlawing the use of fixed-mounted cameras to monitor vehicle speeds. That law goes into effect August 1. In the local cases, the license plate information was transmitted to Meta Traffic, a Harrisonburg-based company, with the results reviewed monthly by the local department before the company mails out bills. The company kept a share and the department received a share.
The exception in the legislation allows the speed monitoring practice to continue for safety purposes within school zones only, with approval from the local school boards. Monday night’s proposal to the board was an offer to the board a percentage of the fines received. That amount was not insignificant in that Curry said the department since mid-October last year had received $270,539 after Meta had taken its portion.
During that time, some 27,383 speed violations were detected by the Meta devices. However, that information comes back to the department for review and just 14,662 citations were sent out. Another 2,000 were waived and 6,897 rejected. “We didn’t want to trouble the elderly, disabled, medical personnel or first responders,” Curry told the Journal. There were 4,943 citations paid.
“We’re using the money to update the department’s equipment and more to bring us into the 21st century,” the assistant chief said, explaining that the revenues weren’t simply being stockpiled. He reported that the two monitoring devices (one on the five-lane near the donut shop to the north and the second near the tire store to the south) have slowed traffic and reduced accidents. “Ours are for safety. Unlike some villages, we don’t do this just for the money.”
But questions from members indicated they might not be on board, despite revenue possibilities. Lance Underwood questioned why sheriff’s deputies were handling traffic control at the high school when that had been done by the city. Curry replied that manpower and city funding are part of the problem that the fines help offset.
Joe Llaine Long questioned Curry’s point that if the board didn’t agree to the revenue sharing by okaying the School Zone plan, the department could set up the speed monitors regardless. District Attorney Chris Nevils, present at the superintendent’s invitation, objected by noting “the law specifies that municipalities cannot do this without a school board’s approval.”
He said he attended the City Council meeting a year ago when Jeremy Fuqua of Meta made his first presentation on the speed monitoring program. He advised against this third party arrangement, saying district attorneys across the state have viewed studies and concluded that the camera-control methods with the delayed billing involved and a complicated and review-free process does not impact speeding.
He told the board that while the system is not illegal, he did use the term “scam, a tax on older people who are scared of the government.” He added that the bill itself is so confusing, his office is “buried by calls, estimating a monthly cost of $10,000 to $20,000 lost in employee time. He suggested that those calls would begin coming to the school board. He did laud Curry’s efforts in reviewing Meta’s filings.
With a motion by Dan Taylor and second by Harry Scott, the board voted not to enter an agreement with the City Police Department.
















