County Extends Speed Camera Contract Without Bid
Decision comes days before County Council votes to expand contract with ACS State and Local Solutions.
County officials say they will exercise a one-year renewal of a contract with its current speed camera vendor rather than rebid the contract.
ACS State and Local Solutions leases 15 cameras to the county at a cost of nearly $12,000 per camera per month.
Ellen Kobler, a county spokeswoman, said Thursday that the one-year contract was set to expire on Feb. 9 but that the county has decided to exercise an option to renew for one year.
The announcement of the decision to renew came just days before the County Council is set to vote on a bill that would allow a nearly unlimited number of cameras in school zones across the county.
The bill, sponsored by Tom Quirk, a Catonsville Democrat, and three others is expected to pass.
Council members have been the focus of efforts to limit and expand the program.
A conservative wrote articles and published a Youtube video to pressure council Republicans to vote against Quirk's bill.
A grassroots group based in Towson has received assistance from a politically connected political strategy firm that helped push supporters to e-mail council members.
Under the terms of the current contract, ACS State and Local Solutions has been paid nearly $1 million of the more than $1.1 million — about 81 cents of every dollar in fines collected by Baltimore County.
The contract, as approved by the council, was never bid out. Instead, the county piggybacked off an existing contract with Montgomery County with ACS State and Local Solutions.
Several on the council had expressed concern about the terms of the current contract.
Quirk, the lead sponsor of the bill to expand speed camera enforcement, declined to comment on the amount of money paid to ACS State and Local Solutions but said the contract "is something the council should take a look at."
"Is it appropriate? It's certainly something we should take a look at," said Quirk.
Councilwoman Cathy Bevins, a Democrat from Oliver Beach and co-sponsor on the bill to expand the program, said last week that she was "disappointed" to learn that the contract would be renewed rather than rebid.
Councilman David Marks, a Perry Hall Republican, also said he would like to see the contract brought back before the council.
"There are a lot of new council members and I think we should have a chance to review it," Marks said. "Maybe, in the end, ACS is the most qualified for this, but I think we should take a look."
Michael Carnahan
10:09 am on Monday, February 7, 2011
I guess the County was right. This isn't really a revenue generator. It's all about the safety of our children. Thank you Baltimore County!
Trish D
11:17 am on Monday, February 7, 2011
People of Baltimore County should be outraged, we were sold a bill that they said was a win-win situation but got a big fat bill that is both revenue and safety negative.
The company who has the contract with the county gets 80 cents of every dollar on all of the current speed camera's. What do you think is behind the push for more camera's?
Michael Carnahan
11:29 am on Monday, February 7, 2011
I'm happy that the County can show that speeding has decreased near the schools that have the cameras. I also think it's interesting that people complained that this was a revenue generator and wasn't about safety. Here we see that it is NOT about revenue generation, but only about safety. That's a good thing. Also, there is no bill attached to it. It has paid for itself with a little left over for the County. The people of Baltimore County should be thankful and proud.
Nelson Lowman
1:30 am on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Don't speed bumps do the same thing? I think we will see this money flow from the company to the campaigns of the councilman ... it all stinks ....
Mike Pappas
11:33 am on Monday, February 7, 2011
I wonder how many of our Council Members were supported by ACS directly in their campaign and how many received support through funds funneled through the Corrupt Democratic Machine in Baltimore County. These folks are all using our tax dollars to make ACS rich in return for drummed-up political support and campaign contributions.
How did we get to this? We must demand better from our elected officials.
Michael Carnahan
11:38 am on Monday, February 7, 2011
What tax dollars? The revenue from the cameras pays ACS.
Buzz Beeler
1:12 pm on Monday, February 7, 2011
Aha, but Michael where does the ACS money go? Are there any campaign donation issues that may come into play? Any other potential conflicts of interest that we are not aware of?
"The contract, as approved by the council, was never bid out. Instead, the county piggybacked off an existing contract with Montgomery County with ACS State and Local Solutions."
"Several on the council had expressed concern about the terms of the current contract."
Those two statements may sound a few alarms and both Mrs. Bevins and Mr. Quirk should look into these issues and make their findings public.
Taxpayer money does come into play based on the percentage of the fines returned to the county as opposed to the costs.
Michael Carnahan
3:12 pm on Monday, February 7, 2011
Thanks, Buzz! I totally understand and appreciate your positions with regard to campaigns, bidding, and the "taxpayer money." I will tell you that I did a quick search on the Maryland State Board of Elections website in the campaign finance database, and I could not find one contribution from ACS State and Local Solutions to any candidate or party in the State. While I'm not sure it was the best thing for the County to piggyback off of another contract, I think it's possible that with the small number of cameras we have, Baltimore County may have ended up paying more for the lease of the cameras and it may have cost quite a bit to actually issue a solicitation for the cameras. Finally, the earlier comment from Mr. Pappas made reference to "tax dollars" rather than to "taxpayer money." My comment was specifically directed to the concept that this revenue was tax money. It is revenue, and it may be considered "taxpayer money" but it certainly is not "tax dollars." Just my opinion. And again, I appreciate and respect yours. Thanks!!!
Mike Pappas
5:02 pm on Monday, February 7, 2011
Mr. Carnahan, my reference to Tax Dollars related to the little publicized fact that the Speed Cameras in Balt. Co are actually losing money. Meaning the County spends more than it takes in. The Cameras cost approx $12,000.00 –each-per month. Plus the County pays police officers (or "people with Police Powers") to review the tickets. There are also engineering costs and other costs that were all detailed in a report of the Director of Budget and Finance indicating that the Cameras are losing money right now. A big reason, revenues drop by 50% after six months in place.
Thus the big push by the Chairman of the Council is to make the Cameras mobile. He says it is so the "police have more flexibility." I think it is really so the revenues stay high and pay for the program. Either way, ACS makes a boatload of cash.
There are Tax Dollars and Tax Payer Dollars at play. Seems like splitting hairs just like that O'Malley Commercial. "If it comes out of my pocket, it's a Tax." They can't have it both ways!
Nelson Lowman
1:33 am on Sunday, February 13, 2011
Mobile speed enforcement units .... does that sound like cops? How many muggings will these mobile unit respond to? We need cops... not speeding kickback machines .....
Robert Armstrong
10:17 am on Sunday, February 13, 2011
The mobile cameras appear to be more expensive. According to the SHA it costs $34,000 per speed automated enforcement vehicle per 8 hour shift.
T.H.
12:18 pm on Sunday, February 13, 2011
I drive by the one in front of Parville High every day. Most people do slow down about 5 feet before the camera then speed up againg when the are out of range.