Council considers school‑zone speed cameras under House Bill 2384; revenue and usage questions remain

Spokane Valley staff presented initial findings Oct. 23 on using automated speed‑safety cameras in school zones under state House Bill 2384 and asked the council whether to pursue a limited pilot. The review covered data collection at five school sites, legal limits on image collection and revenue, and sample yield estimates.

Why it matters: speed is a major factor in pedestrian survivability and safety in school zones, and automated enforcement has been used by other Washington jurisdictions to reduce violations and speeds.

Staff ran short speed studies (loop detectors) at five school locations during arrival and dismissal. The top three study locations registered a substantial number of drivers exceeding 26 mph in a posted 20 mph zone during the sample periods; two sites did not show significant violations on the days measured. Staff used conservative assumptions — including an observed 50% immediate drop in violations after signage and a 90% drop in repeat violators after initial notice — to estimate revenues and administrative workload. A conservative scenario combining contract costs, administrative deductions and dismissal/appeal rates produced an illustrative first‑four‑year gross estimate for three cameras of approximately $440,000 before any statutory remittance and prior to adding full staff costs to administer citations.

Legal and operational limits: staff emphasized the House bill’s constraints — cameras may record images of vehicles and license plates only while an infraction is occurring, and the statute places limits on image retention and permissible uses. The bill also requires reporting and allows citation appeals; staff said the city would need a staffed review process (roughly 0.5–1.0 full‑time equivalent, depending on volume) to vet camera captures and manage tickets.

Use of proceeds: the law restricts funds to traffic‑safety activities, including physical infrastructure changes to reduce speeds. Staff noted one provision requiring that, after four years of operation, a portion of revenue be remitted to the state transportation safety account; council asked staff for a legal memorandum clarifying whether enforcement revenue may be used to fund traffic‑unit personnel time devoted to patrolling the camera zones or whether proceeds are strictly limited to capital safety improvements in the affected zones.

Council members generally supported pursuing safety first; some said they would prefer to see physical mitigation and officer presence rather than rely on cameras strictly for revenue. Others noted that if cameras cut violations to near zero, revenue will drop and the program’s ongoing financing of mitigation would likewise decline.

Next steps: staff will seek a legal interpretation of allowable uses, refine location studies with longer counts, outline camera contracts and operational costs, and return with a policy recommendation for council consideration.