Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodinville debates NE 195th school‑zone camera pilot; staff recommends vendor‑run 2‑year trial and graduated fines
Summary
City staff proposed a vendor‑operated pilot of school‑zone speed cameras on NE 195th near Woodinville High, citing extensive speeding (95.4% of vehicles exceeded 20 mph by more than 5 mph in the study area). Council discussed warning periods, data retention, hours tied to bell schedules and using net revenues for corridor safety improvements.
City transportation staff proposed a vendor‑operated pilot for school‑zone speed cameras on the NE 195th corridor near Woodinville High School, presenting a traffic and equity analysis and a set of policy questions for council direction.
Joshua Jeffrey (staff) said the study found average speeds 8–15 mph over posted limits in parts of the corridor and that 95.4% of vehicles exceeded the 20 mph school‑zone limit by more than 5 mph during observed periods. He framed five pilot goals: improve safety for all users; ensure enforcement serves as a deterrent rather than a punitive measure; reinvest net revenue in transportation and safety projects; consider individual circumstances in enforcement; and regularly communicate performance and outcomes.
How it would work: staff described a vendor model in which the vendor owns, operates and maintains the cameras and the city pays a flat monthly fee rather than a percentage of fines; the vendor reviews images and provides potential violations to the city for validation. State law requires that notice of infraction be sent within 14 days, and there are statutory provisions for reduced fines (for example, a 50% reduction for certain public‑assistance recipients) and for affidavit processes for owners who say they were not the driver.
Council discussion and policy questions: members discussed the length of a public warning period (state law requires at least one month; many jurisdictions use two months), signage requirements consistent with MUTCD standards, hours of operation tied to school bell schedules (staff proposed 7:30–9:30 a.m. and 3:00–5:00 p.m. to cover both nearby elementary and high‑school schedules), and graduated fines with a grace band of a mile or two per hour. Chief Myers and the city’s police contractor noted that camera infractions are civil (non‑moving) infractions that do not affect driving records or insurance and stressed the importance of clear contest and hardship processes.
Use of funds and implementation timeline: staff recommended initial reinvestment of any program surplus in a Northeast 195th corridor analysis and design (estimated about $200,000) to guide capital traffic calming and pedestrian improvements. The vendor pilot term would be a minimum of two years to allow cost recovery; staff proposed outreach to schools and neighborhoods in June, vendor solicitation after ordinance adoption, installation by the end of the year and a warning period beginning late 2025 or early 2026 (ideally aligned with a school term start).
Council emphasized equity: several members asked for data retention limits, clearer affidavit/contest processes to prevent repeated use of the 'not driver' affidavit to evade enforcement, and options for graduated fines and reduced amounts for low‑income residents as required by state law. The city will return to council with draft ordinance language, outreach plans and vendor solicitation documents for final direction.
Representative quote: Joshua Jeffrey (staff): “First is to improve safety for all users. That’s the primary driver.” Chief Myers (police): “If we can do that by setting a reasonable enforcement that maybe starts at 25 miles an hour… we can encourage drivers to get down to the speed limit.”
Next steps: staff will proceed with community engagement in June, draft ordinance language and a solicitation for a vendor; final schedules and fine structures will return to council for adoption before camera operation begins.
