Edgewood council adopts school‑zone camera ordinance after residents and council debate effectiveness and rollout

The Edgewood City Council on Jan. 14, 2025, voted to adopt an ordinance updating the citys school‑zone camera program to reflect recent state law changes and to clarify how revenue and operations are handled. The motion was moved by Councilmember Pasarowski and seconded by Councilmember Southard; the council approved the measure by voice vote (counts not specified).

The ordinance, described to the council by Assistant City Administrator Rachel Pitzel, updates language to ensure consistency with recent state changes, lays out procedures for handling traffic infractions, and specifies how program revenue will be used and reported. City Attorney Maylee, who assisted drafting the ordinance, attended the meeting.

Councilmembers said the ordinance is largely housekeeping but raised questions about the programs rollout and long‑term effectiveness. Councilmember Pasarowski said the cameras, installed beginning in 2019, can act as a behavioral deterrent even if the immediate safety gains are unclear; he noted that the citys citation data show a recent rise in tickets and that roughly 70% of those cited are not Edgewood residents. Councilmember Ramirez, in his first year on the council, said he was unsettled by what he described as a lack of community involvement during the camerasinitial rollout and asked when the council would revisit overall traffic calming beyond school zones. Mayor Olsen and other councilmembers committed to adding public safety and traffic calming to the March 15 agenda and asked Chief Youngman to prepare a broader dataset on citations and traffic counts for that meeting.

A public commenter, Mike Stanzel, told the council he was concerned about privacy and liability arising from automated license‑plate images. Stanzel contrasted criminal investigations with civil traffic enforcement and said he believed state law allows municipalities to treat vehicle owners as responsible based on license‑plate evidence. The council and staff did not adopt any new enforcement policy in response to the public comment during the meeting; Pitzel and staff said the city follows the Puyallup School Districts schedule for activating school‑zone flashers and camera windows (roughly 30 minutes before and after school start and end times for district schools).

Votes at a glance: - Consent agenda: Moved by Councilmember Pasarowski; seconded by Councilmember West. Approved by voice vote; counts not specified. - Ordinance AB25‑673 (school‑zone cameras; ordinance number listed in materials as 673 and 676 — staff noted a likely typographical error): Moved by Councilmember Pasarowski; seconded by Councilmember Southard. Approved by voice vote; counts not specified. The ordinance updates city code to align with state changes and clarifies revenue and operational procedures.

Councilmembers asked staff for follow‑up information on March 15: a presentation from Chief Youngman on traffic camera citations and other traffic enforcement data, context about whether traffic volumes have changed (construction and regional traffic were mentioned as possible factors), and discussion of additional traffic‑calming tools outside designated school zones. Pitzel told the council that the city attorney had helped draft clarity into the ordinance and that the administration will return with the requested data.

The councils action updates the local ordinance to reflect state law and sets a March follow‑up for more comprehensive traffic and citation statistics, but the meeting did not change when or how cameras operate; staff said activation follows Puyallup School District guidance.