Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Council reviews draft traffic-camera ordinance; favors school-zone focus, asks for data and police workload estimate

March 29, 2025 | Lake Stevens, Snohomish County, Washington


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Council reviews draft traffic-camera ordinance; favors school-zone focus, asks for data and police workload estimate
City staff and the city engineer presented a draft traffic-safety–camera ordinance March 25 and asked the Lake Stevens City Council whether the city should pursue a program and what enforcement scope to authorize.

Kim Klinkers, city engineer, summarized the program’s safety goal — reducing vehicle speeds and protecting vulnerable road users — and noted state legislation now permits cameras in school zones and other defined areas. Klinkers said the draft ordinance would be discussed in more detail at a council retreat in April and that staff are collecting data on violations in candidate school zones.

Council members and the city attorney discussed enforcement parameters: the council may set speed thresholds for violations (for example a threshold of 5 mph or 11 mph over the posted limit), designate whether cameras operate only when school-zone flashers are active, and decide whether to treat school zones and park zones differently. The city attorney said the statute allows cameras at certain city‑street intersections with state highways if an engineering analysis justifies placement.

Chief (police) clarified that camera images feed into a database; assigned officers review potential violations and refer tickets to court. Council members asked Chief to estimate the staff time and operational burden that database review will impose on the police department, and requested metrics showing crash history, violation volumes and projected revenues for the locations proposed. Several council members emphasized the ordinance’s safety purpose and asked staff to avoid “blanketing” the city with cameras or creating an excessive fine revenue stream.

Staff noted the statute requires public notice, signage and a warning period before fines are issued; members said a grace/warning period should be part of implementation and that signage and local outreach are important. Klinkers said staff will return to the April retreat with data on high‑risk locations, suggested metrics and an estimate of police review workload so the council can set thresholds and enforcement scope.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Washington articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI