For the second time Monday night, the Mukilteo City Council was in the awkward position of making decisions based on events that may or may not happen before those decisions are relevant.

This time, it was the much-debated traffic cameras that had councilmembers wishing their new chambers included a crystal ball.

Mukilteo Initiative 2, which puts the camera issue in the hands of voters, goes before a Superior Court judge Friday Aug. 6, but the council must decide before Aug. 10 whether the city wants to let the voters decide even if the initiative is tossed out.

To do so, and to meet legal noticing requirements, it had to decide Monday whether to hold a special meeting Monday, Aug. 9 – the last day it could meet before that deadline.

The council informally agreed to hold a special meeting Aug. 9 before its scheduled work session to discuss whether to put the question on the ballot as a city-generated measure, should the judge toss out the initiative in Friday’s hearing, and if so what should be included.

If the judge approves the initiative, Monday’s discussion would be moot, and would be removed from the agenda.

The council voted earlier this year to approve use of the cameras, and to contract with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions, the company that leases the systems to municipalities.

Mukilteo resident Tim Eyman launched an initiative to require council supermajority approval and voter simple majority approval to bring any cameras to town, and also limit the maximum fine to that of the lowest parking ticket, currently $20.

Mukilteo resident Christine Preston sued the city and Snohomish County in Superior Court, alleging that the cameras are outside the scope of initiative legal power.

Preston filed the suit under the group Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government and named herself as the spokeswoman, but refuses to speak in public and only issued a prepared statement through her attorney, not addressing any questions the Beacon asked.

No other people have come forward to speak on behalf of the group, or even acknowledge they are members.

In response, Mayor Joe Marine said that if the initiative is ruled invalid, the city itself could ask the voters how they feel about the cameras.

At the time, Marine said the city’s version would address using the cameras to catch red-light runners, but not those speeding in school zones, reasoning that most voters who don’t support using the cameras to catch red-light runners told him they support their use in school zones.

Monday, councilmember Jennifer Gregerson suggested next week’s special meeting, saying that voters have the right to answer all of the points the initiative addresses, which includes using the cameras in school zones.

Councilmembers Richard Emery and Linda Grafer earned a rebuke from Eyman for discussing the need for the council to “take back control” of how it operates, and to not let outside entities (Eyman's I-2 co-sponsors live in King County) dictate how the council conducts Mukilteo business.

Emery urged the council to put off any final decisions on the cameras until it researches the public safety options that came up during earlier discussions, and the transportation and public safety committees have had a chance to discuss the proposals.

“I support putting this on the ballot, but I can’t support the initiative itself,” Emery said. “The council started this process (implementing the traffic cameras) independent of the initiative.”

The council has lost control of the process, he said, and needs to regain it by following through with researching the public safety options before putting anything on the ballot in any form.

Emery said that this council has a proven track record of listening to the voters, and pointed out last year’s reversals of the dive ban at Lighthouse Park and the proposed sale of Goat Trail Park, both in response to public outcry.

The only “outside entity” here is the for-profit Arizona company funding the lawsuit, Eyman told the council.

Eyman called Emery’s proposal “death by delay,” and urged the council to follow through with asking the voters this November, not in a special election.

“You’re putting off asking the voters what they think,” he said. “You’ve already made the decision – the tough part is over.”

This November is the chance to reach the largest number of voters, Eyman pointed out, since most don’t turn out for spring elections, and even next November is an odd year with lower turnout due to no state-level seats up for grabs.

The council will meet at 6 p.m. Monday, Aug. 9, to discuss the traffic cameras IF the initiative is tossed out Friday. Check mukilteobeacon.com Friday afternoon for the results of the judge’s decision.

Regardless, the council will meet and discuss putting annexation on the ballot as an advisory vote, and how the budget impacts levels of service the city provides.