BELLINGHAM - Crews won't install the red-light or school-zone speed cameras until after the initiative against the cameras is resolved, the city's spokeswoman said Tuesday, Aug. 23.
Meanwhile, a state appeals court will decide whether the initiative lands on the November ballot, and it's expected to decide soon.
Bellingham has signed a contract with camera company American Traffic Solutions to install four red-light light cameras and two speed cameras in school zones. Implementation has been put on hold by mutual agreement of the city and company, said Janice Keller, city spokeswoman.
"No implementation will occur until the initiative matter is resolved by one means or another," she said.
The citywide initiative would require the city remove any red-light cameras and school-zone speed cameras, and it would require voter approval of any plan to re-install them. It also would limit the amounts of fines under the program.
It's still unknown whether the initiative will appear on the ballot. The state Court of Appeals, Division 1, accepted ATS's appeal of an Aug. 17 ruling from Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Ira Uhrig, who let the measure proceed to the ballot.
LEGAL APPEAL
Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, who represents the pro-initiative group Transportation Safety Coalition, said the appeals court is expected to deliver a decision by Sept. 7.
Whatcom County Auditor Shirley Forslof said if the court ruled either way by Sept. 7, her office could either remove or retain the measure on the ballot. But it does compress their schedule.
"It crunches time more," she said. "It's always better to have more time when you're programming and preparing ballots."
In his ruling, Uhrig also penalized the company by awarding the defendants attorney's fees and imposing a $10,000 fine against ATS under a state law on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
With its appeal, ATS is seeking to keep the initiative off the ballot and overturn the ruling on the penalties, said county attorney Royce Buckingham, who represents the Auditor's Office. The county is neutral in the case.
Pidgeon said ATS filed its appeal only under the SLAPP statute, which means a court can only address the attorney's fees and sanction.
"I think the only remedy they have falls under the statute and the statute only, which does not allow the court to impose a preliminary injunction (keeping the initiative off the ballot) when the trial court refused to do so," Pidgeon said.
Attorney Vanessa Power, who represents ATS, couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 23.
COUNCIL REACTIONS
On Tuesday, the city attorney's office told City Council members not to speak about the cameras because of the litigation.
The council last fall approved a law allowing installation of the cameras. That was before the mayor signed a contract with ATS, the initiative was proposed and ATS filed a lawsuit.
Mayor Dan Pike previously said that he suspected that if ATS sued, the council would support cancelling the contract with the company after a one-year pilot period, as the contract allows.
Council members Terry Bornemann and Gene Knutson told The Bellingham Herald on Tuesday they couldn't comment, based on the advice of the attorney. Council members Barry Buchanan, Stan Snapp and Jack Weiss couldn't be reached Monday or Tuesday for comment.
Council member Michael Lilliquist spoke on the topic Monday.
"My concern is not really ATS at all. My concern is public safety and the public preferences on the matter," he said. "If the voters decide to keep the cameras or get rid of them, that's what I'm going to listen to."
He also isn't concerned if a court ultimately finds the initiative invalid after a public vote, he said. If the voters reject the cameras, he would want the contract retained only as long as they're required.
On July 11, the council voted unanimously to let the initiative proceed to the ballot. Lilliquist said that, at the time of that vote, council members knew ATS had a right to sue but "we didn't know if they were going to do it."
Council member Seth Fleetwood, the only council member to vote against the cameras last fall, said Tuesday he still supports having the initiative proceed to the ballot. He cares what the voters think; he'd also want to ensure the city didn't breach its contract.
"If we're within our rights to cancel the contract, and the people voted and indicated their disfavor of the contract, would I support cancellation? Yes," he said.
