Lake Forest Park examines lower-than-expected traffic-camera revenue, staffing and spending plans

Lake Forest Park city staff told the Budget & Finance Committee on June 26 that revenue from the city’s traffic‑safety camera program has so far trended below the $8 million two‑year figure the council adopted, prompting questions about staffing and how camera receipts should be used.

The committee heard staff present a month‑by‑month revenue breakdown for the newly created Traffic Safety Fund (Fund 002) and a summary of expenditures that staff has tentatively associated with the fund, including court and police time, a vendor fee for cameras, professional services, traffic calming transfers and two police vehicles identified as potential obligations.

Committee members pressed staff for explanations of the lower revenue numbers and how obligations would be reflected across funds; staff described a mix of causes and stressed ongoing monitoring. Vice Chair Goldman asked whether the shortfall represented a true reduction in violations or an administrative bottleneck. Staff responded that both factors have played a role: initial state approval and court processing limits created a backlog that the city has since worked through, and enforcement data also show lower speeds and fewer repeat violations in some corridors.

Committee members also focused on how camera receipts will be applied. Staff said some court and police costs now charged to the general fund could be reallocated to Fund 002 to match where enforcement activity takes place, and that a portion of traffic safety revenue was being held to seed traffic‑calming and pedestrian improvements. Several members emphasized that the program’s main policy purpose was to reduce speeding and improve safety rather than to produce net revenue.

Staff outlined items currently on the Traffic Safety Fund list: the vendor fee for camera operations, professional services, court and police staff time allocations, two police vehicles tied to increased traffic enforcement, and a placeholder transfer of about $300,000 over the biennium for traffic calming design. Staff said those transfers were seed money and had not yet been tied to specific projects. Councilmember Jack asked how a vehicle purchase would be shown across funds; staff said the appropriate accounting would show an expense in Fund 002 and a corresponding revenue/transfer to the vehicle fund so the city’s vehicle replacement fund records the actual purchase.

The committee debated whether the adopted $8 million projection should be adjusted. Staff recommended continued monitoring and an open discussion at the mid‑biennium review and said the administration would return to the council in August with traffic studies and more detail on staffing needs. Mayor French and other members noted the program appears to be delivering safety benefits and urged caution in prematurely reducing the revenue forecast.

The committee did not approve any budget adjustments at the meeting; members directed staff to return with traffic‑safety study findings, more precise staffing allocations, and a refined schedule for moving operating costs into Fund 002 where appropriate.

The committee’s next steps include a fuller staff presentation in August that will show how court and police allocations could migrate from the general fund to Fund 002, and whether the $300,000 biennial placeholder for traffic calming should be tied to specific projects.