Tacoma committee forwards code changes to expand automated traffic cameras, presses equity and data safeguards

The Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee voted April 23 to forward proposed amendments to Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 11.6 to the full City Council so the city can expand its automated traffic enforcement program under recent state law.

The committee heard a presentation from Carrie Wilhelm, principal transportation planner in the Public Works Department, and Eric Huseby, assistant division manager for transportation, who said the proposed code changes are intended to align Tacoma code with House Bill 2384 and related state requirements and to add clarity on program operations, data use and penalties.

Wilhelm and Huseby told the committee the city now operates 14 automated enforcement cameras, including one fixed speed camera on Bay Street, nine red-light cameras and four school‑zone cameras covering two schools (Stewart Middle School and Bird Downing Elementary). Wilhelm said the city’s data show “99 percent of our drivers actually do not receive a citation” when cameras are present and that “88 percent of those drivers who receive a citation do not reoffend.”

Why it matters: the 2024 legislation (House Bill 2384) broadens where cities may site cameras and adds equity, transparency and reporting requirements. Among the state-level changes staff said they are implementing, the law requires an equity analysis for each new camera location, provides a 50% reduced fine for qualifying low‑income first‑time offenders, and directs that revenue from new cameras be used for Complete Streets infrastructure; staff said the statute also creates an incentive to replace cameras with infrastructure by requiring that, after four years, 25% of revenue from a new camera be remitted to the Cooper Jones Active Transportation Safety Fund.

What staff proposed: Huseby described four main amendments to TMC Chapter 11.6.0: 1) explicitly align Tacoma code with the cited state RCW and related statute; 2) add a definition for automated traffic safety cameras consistent with state language; 3) clarify the types of infractions the system may detect (red‑light, railroad grade crossings and speed); and 4) add operational clarifications, including mailing timing requirements for rental‑car citations. Huseby said staff also proposes raising the local cap on penalties to $145 to match state limits, to adopt administrative authority to double infractions in school zones if the city chooses, and to add an explicit public‑records exemptions section limiting non‑enforcement use of image and personally identifying data.

Task force guidance and rollout: staff told the committee they convened a seven‑member community task force with representatives from Tacoma Police Department, the Center for Strategic Priorities’ equity program and other community groups. The task force recommended a data‑driven, Vision Zero–aligned prioritization (start with the city’s high‑risk network and sites with the highest history of fatal or serious‑injury crashes), regular education and outreach before camera activation, and reinvestment of camera revenues into affected communities with the goal of phasing out cameras after infrastructure improvements.

Equity, privacy and enforcement details: Wilhelm and Huseby outlined several concrete elements the committee will see if the code amendments proceed: the required equity analysis for each new location (statute does not dictate the specific method), a 50% reduced fine for qualifying first‑time low‑income offenders, the option to provide a 30‑day warning period when a camera goes live, and restrictions on non‑enforcement uses of camera data. Huseby said the proposed public‑records language would limit access to images and identifying information to matters strictly tied to adjudicating the violation.

Council questions and concerns: Council members probed staffing, cost recovery and potential unintended effects. Council Member Hines questioned whether cameras would push traffic and speeding into adjacent residential streets and asked about mobile versus fixed units; staff said the initial plan focuses on fixed cameras but that mobile deployment or shorter deployments could be considered later. Multiple members asked for location‑specific revenue estimates before widespread rollout; staff said the next phase will include a vendor feasibility analysis that projects expected citation volumes and helps identify sites that break even or generate net revenue. Committee members also pressed language‑access concerns, asking how citations and administrative processes will accommodate non‑English speakers and low‑income residents.

Public comment and surveillance policy: during public comment, Sally Perkins of District 3 urged the council to adopt a citywide surveillance policy that would cover automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and other technologies and to require documented evidence of enforcement effectiveness. Perkins said, “Automated license plate readers need to be covered by the city's high level surveillance policy.” Staff said the proposed TMC language for camera data limits use of images to enforcement and adjudication of violations; the committee did not vote on a separate surveillance policy at the meeting.

Next steps and formal action: staff recommended forwarding the proposed TMC Chapter 11.6 amendments to the full City Council for consideration. A member moved to forward the proposed amendments; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The committee recorded the outcome as adopted and directed staff to return with feasibility analyses, proposed locations and further outreach plans at future study sessions.

Ending note: staff said any final camera installations will follow further feasibility work, vendor analysis, targeted equity assessments, and a planned public education campaign; the committee requested supplemental materials on expected revenues, administrative costs and language‑access procedures before broader deployment.