Almond: Council Interested in Speed Camera Contract Details
Vicki Almond, the newly-elected chairwoman of the Baltimore County Council, said Saturday that she and her colleagues have questions about a proposed speed camera contract with ACS State and Local Solutions.
Almond, speaking on the C4 Show on WBAL 1090 AM, said she and some other council members were interested in how much the contractor will be paid.
"I do think we will be asking those questions," said Almond, a Reisterstown Democrat.
The contract with ACS State and Local Solutions would add seven new speed cameras to the current 15 and seven new red light cameras to the current eight within five months of council approval.
The county could also add an additional four cameras in the first five-year term of the contract.
The contractor would be paid about $6.2 million in the first five years. Two additional one-year extensions could bring the total compensation to about $9.1 million.
Currently, the company supplies the 15 cameras in the county and is paid about $12,000 per camera per month.
Councilmen Todd Huff and David Marks, Republicans from Timonium and Perry Hall respectively, said earlier this week that they were also concerned about the payments made to the contractor. Both have opposed speed cameras in the past.
Almond, who supported a bill last year that eliminated the cap on the number of speed cameras that could be placed in school zones in the county, said she defers to county police Chief Jim Johnson on whether or not the cameras are necessary and effective. She said, however, that as a former community activist she understands the concerns of residents who call and email her office opposing the program.
She said if she were not in office "I'd probably be one of those people out there asking the same questions" but that her position on the council has given her "a different perspective."
Similar to other council members, Almond said news of the contract caught her by surprise.
"We're waiting for a briefing," said Almond. "Before we tackle this issue, we want to be well informed."
"This is a very contentious program and one not easy to deal with," said Almond.
Joan Wood
3:48 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Because she's in office she should be asking the questions..........I believe Madam Chairwoman........it's called doing your job and working for the people of Baltimore County that elected you. You are most probably correct in the fact that your position has given you "a different perspective" but it's not representing the people..........
Bart
5:10 pm on Saturday, January 7, 2012
Ms Wood: Almond is doing her job representing the people. Not everyone agrees with you. Some welcome the cameras, think they are a good idea, and some actually think there should be more.
Tim
12:04 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
I think some folks are missing the bigger picture here.
We're actually having some influence here. Even proponents of the cameras, like myself, have found the terms of the contract positively ridiculous.
I don't think anyone with a straight face can say this contract's reasonable. It's nice to see our new County Chairwoman observing this. Let's see what our Council does about it.
M
7:25 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
This contract represents an almost perfect storm of bad administrative decision making by the County.
1. Approve and deploy a system which was NOT approved by the electorate. If it is overwhelmingly popular, why the fear of a simple Referendum at the appropriate time?
2. To most people, a no-bid contract may as well be filed under the heading "Bribery and Corruption". It just smacks of cronyism and flies in the face of a supposedly honest and transparent administrative process. It may also represent a legal failure by - and a very real liability for - those council members who approved it in that form. Look up the phrase "fiduciary duty", people!
3. Does no-one in the County administration possess even the most mediocre business and/or basic negotiating skills? A sweetheart deal like that, with over 80% of the revenues being paid to a private company (owned, ultimately, by Xerox)... it is such a lose-lose deal for everyone except the contractor that their sales people must have been laughing into their drinks long after leaving that meeting.
4. It appears that the equipment being deployed is not even legal for deployment or use under Baltimore County's own certification requirements. Where was the due diligence, people? This might also render every single ticket issued as a result of readings taken by such equipment invalid, if challenged.
There needs to be public answers and immediate remedies. These are OUR taxes and communities being abused!
kevin
12:11 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
There is a list of the top lobbyists in Sun today , How many are representing this camera firm?
Isn't this a no bid contract ? just pondering
Bart
8:53 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
I think that the Council, under the fine leadership of Almond, will take a good look at the contract with ACS and possibly renegotiate. Any claims as to the unconstitutionality of the cameras, or their accuracy, or adherence to certification are specious. The cameras are here, worldwide, to stay.
K Blue
11:51 am on Sunday, January 8, 2012
I wouldnt go so far as to say that those claims are entirely specious, but if I understand it all correctly, that is not the issue here. The issue here is the contract itself so that is what the Council needs to address (not rehash whether speed cameras area or arent constitutional, etc.). By extension to the contract issue, the Council should ensure that the process by which bids were solicited and the winning bidder was selected for this new contract were fair and above-board, that the contract poses little risk to the County, that the information provided by the Chief to substantiate that the existing and proposed cameras are necessary and effective is in order, pay close attention to the cancellation and default provisions of the contract, and get the actual cost information to the County for overseeing this program so they can see if it is or will be cost-efffective to implement it.
John Dingedahl
12:24 pm on Sunday, January 8, 2012
This is just another example of the liberal party in power in the council. Just like congress in the past (health care) you have to pass the bill to understand whats in it. The terms of this contract should not have been a suprise if the proper vetting had been done and the county taken to the cleaners on the revenue generated by the cameras.
Tim
9:29 am on Monday, January 9, 2012
John, if you take the 'liberal' part out of your commentary, I'd agree with it 100%. This has nothing to do with party, and all about palm greasing which happens unilaterally in government.
Buzz Beeler
11:42 pm on Monday, January 9, 2012
Tim, speaking of greasing palms, come to Dundalk and see what is being proposed.
How's that song go - "slip sliding away!"
Buzz Beeler
10:38 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The council seems to be missing a very important component of this equation, commonly know as the law, or more specifically the County Charter.
http://www.beefbaltimore.org/procurement.pdf the County Charter.
The answer is found on page 7; anything over $25,000 must be sent out on a bid.
Read this quote from the story: "have questions about a proposed speed camera contract with ACS State and Local Solutions." The key word here is - proposed - which would require a bid based on the amount and it's not part of an existing contract.