Mukilteo Beacon - Your Hometown News Source

Despite a mandate from Mukilteo voters, the council is hesitating to pass Mukilteo initiative No. 2.

Mukilteo City Council voted 4-3 on Monday to wait on deciding whether to pass or repeal a proposed law that would put red-light cameras at the intersection of the SR-525 and Harbour Pointe Blvd. and speed-zone cameras on the SR-525 in front of Olympic View Middle School. An alternative to passing or repealing the proposal is to “do nothing.”

The initiative authored by Mukilteo resident Tim Eyman passed with more than 70 percent of the vote on the November ballot. The measure was an advisory vote, and left final decision with the council.

The initiative requires a public vote before the city could install any traffic-safety cameras. It also limits fines to the cost of the city’s lowest parking ticket, currently $20.

Eyman launched the initiative in response to the council’s vote in May to install red-light and speed-zone cameras in the city.

In July, a group calling itself Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government sued to stop the initiative from going to ballot. Only one local woman is known to belong to the group.

A Snohomish County Superior Court judge and the state Supreme Court both ruled the measure should go on the ballot.

Council agreed to refer the proposal to the city’s Public Safety Committee for additional studies on the effectiveness of using traffic-safety cameras in school zones.

A study completed last year by Mukilteo police reportedly showed more than 85 percent of drivers were speeding in school zones while yellow lights were flashing.

On the committee are councilmembers Jennifer Gregerson, Linda Grafer and Emily Vanderwielen. Councilmember Kevin Stoltz is an alternate.

“We need to stop and take a deep breath and vote in favor of further study before we pursue this,” Councilmember Tony Tinsley said.

Council President Richard Emery and councilmembers Gregerson and Stoltz voted against waiting on the decision.

Vanderwielen, who favors traffic-safety cameras, nevertheless feels the council should wait until the courts rule on the challenge to the initiative. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case May 22.

“I think this is an irresponsible ordinance, and I’m not satisfied with the behavior change that would occur,” should citizens dictate how much is paid by an offender caught by traffic-safety cameras, she said.

Vanderwielen said the city should also involve the Mukilteo Elementary and Olympic View Middle School communities more in the conversation.

Others on the council said the city needs to identify alternatives to the cameras to improve safety in school zones and at intersections, sentiments that were echoed by Mukilteo Police Chief Rex Caldwell.

He also spoke in favor of using traffic-safety cameras.

“Having heard of potential cuts to police services or other safety services, an automated camera in a school zone would be a nice reminder to slow down, an opportunity to issue citations to those violators of our children’s safety, and it frees up an officer to do other work,” he said.

Stoltz was in favor of passing the citizens’ initiative.

“In Mukilteo, you can’t say they’re going to make things safer because we don’t have the data that shows we have an accident problem that they would fix,” he said.

“I think they are more like an automated ticketing machine, and I believe what our residents told us, and that we should pass this ordinance.”

Tinsley said it is not the council’s job to do what the residents say they want, but to do what they really need – and they may need traffic-safety cameras.

“I don’t care if 70 percent said they don’t want these cameras,” he said. “I think they will be providing a service they need.”