Here's the email I sent to each council member:

Council Member [ fill in name here],

I am writing to follow up on the petition I submitted, along with a full list of signers and two supporting lists documenting that more than 2,000 drivers have never paid the cited infraction.

I spoke directly with Mayor Olson to request a response to the petition for myself and the signers. To date, no response has been provided. In light of this silence, I delivered a letter to city hall and am now emailing you to ensure that the matter is acknowledged.

The petition signers and I believe we are entitled to a clear and timely explanation from city leadership. I respectfully request that this issue be addressed at the next council meeting and that a written response be provided.

Respectfully,

Michael Stanzel

==============================================

This is council member Keith's response and my final reply:

Mr. Stanzel:

Traffic cameras are included on the upcoming agenda for the Study Session on August 19.

The city is currently under contract for the cameras. Any change to that arrangement would require a formal process and will not occur quickly.

Peer-reviewed research indicates that fixed speed cameras typically reduce average vehicle speeds by 5–15 mph within the enforcement zone. International and U.S. studies report reductions of 20–40% in serious and fatal crashes at locations where cameras are installed. Reduced speeds extend beyond the immediate enforcement zone, particularly when combined with visible signage.

A comprehensive discussion should include before-and-after safety data and a complete cost analysis, including personnel, equipment, vehicles, benefits, and administrative allocations, for replacing camera enforcement with active patrols. Consideration should also be given to potential liability in cases of injury or death at locations where traffic-calming measures were removed.

Council is not able to respond during the public comment portion of meetings. Detailed presentation and evaluation of safety, cost, and other factors must occur through the council agenda process. Compiling and analyzing the necessary data is unlikely to be completed in a single study session or meeting and may be tied to broader budget discussions related to police staffing.

Councilmember Keith

================================= 

Council member Keith,

Thank you for your response.

For the upcoming study session, these are issues that must be addressed. Since public comment is not permitted during the session, I am providing them now for the record.

1 No Evidence of a Safety Problem 

      You referenced “International and U.S. studies” showing 20–40% crash reductions where cameras are installed. That statistic does not apply to Edgewood.

• Public records show there has never been a crash in an Edgewood school zone.
• Half of all citations issued are for speeds of 24–25 mph — speeds that would not ordinarily result in a traffic stop or citation by an officer.

2  Absence of a ‘Before’ Study & Questionable Justification

     You stated that a discussion should include before-and-after safety data and a cost analysis. The fact is:

• No “before” safety study was ever conducted.
• I have already provided the council with the State of Vermont’s evidence-based guide for setting traffic speeds, which the city has disregarded.
• Without baseline data, there is no factual foundation to claim these cameras were installed for safety rather than as a revenue source.

3  Liability and Loss of Actual Traffic-Calming Measures

     You mentioned liability if traffic-calming measures are removed. In reality:

• Edgewood is the only jurisdiction in the Puyallup School District using automated cameras as its school zone enforcement method.
• I am not asking that flashing lights — a genuine traffic-calming measure — be removed. 
• At Zeiger Elementary, where students do walk, crossing guards provide safety for about 10 minutes after dismissal (photos attached).

I fully understand that the city is under contract for the cameras and that change requires a process. That is precisely why it is critical to ensure decisions are based on accurate, locally relevant safety data rather than generic studies. Continuing a program without such evidence risks misallocating resources and eroding public trust.

The city’s decisions on this matter have lacked transparency, ignored standard traffic engineering practices, and failed to demonstrate any measurable public safety benefit. These issues should be addressed directly and on the record during the study session.

Respectfully,

Michael Stanzel