Committee considers ordinance to allow automated traffic cameras in Snoqualmie school zones
Loading...
Summary
The City of Snoqualmie Public Safety Committee reviewed ordinance 26-004 to permit automated traffic-safety cameras in three school zones (two cameras each). Councilmembers raised privacy and governance concerns; the administration said police — not vendors — would issue citations and staff will return with vendor proposals and numbers.
The City of Snoqualmie Public Safety Committee on March 2 reviewed an ordinance (26-004) to add chapter 10.13 to the municipal code to permit automated traffic-safety cameras, limited initially to three school zones with two cameras each.
The measure, presented by the administration, would allow vendors to capture images and digital evidence but would leave citation issuance to city officers. Mayor James Mayhew told the committee the administration would return with vendor proposals and supporting numbers and said enforcement levels would be determined by staffing and safety needs rather than revenue: "covering costs will never be part of that decision of how many infractions to issue." The mayor and staff said the cameras are intended to "augment the work of our police department" and are targeted at school-zone speed enforcement, not citywide speed policing.
Councilmember Brian Holloway urged caution about delegating enforcement-related functions to private vendors, saying he had "concerns when cities make police forces worry about revenue" and warning that third-party data may be accessible to federal requests. Holloway asked that any policy or enforcement threshold ultimately be approved by the council rather than be set solely by administration or vendors; the city attorney offered to work offline with him to draft precise amendment language and provide that draft back to the council.
Administration representatives described the vendor role as middleware that captures photos and video for police review. City Attorney Dina Burke said she would connect with Councilmember Holloway to clarify the language and produce the amendment the councilmember requested so it could be proposed at the next council meeting.
No formal vote was taken at the committee meeting; staff said they will bring vendor proposals, cost and enforcement-calibration details back to the council for further review before any final ordinance action.
The committee accepted the agenda packet and moved on to other business; next steps on the cameras item are a staff-provided ordinance amendment and formal consideration by the full council.
