HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-28 Council Packet
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 28, 2026
Posted: 4/27/2026 8:56 AM Page 1
Agenda
Edmonds City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 MEETING ID: 957 9848 4261
APRIL 28, 2026, 6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish)
people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have
hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty,
their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with
the land and water.
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
5. PRESENTATION
1. Mayor’s Finance Update – Mayor’s Office (5 minutes)
2. 2025 Prosecutor's Office Annual Report First Reading – Human Resources (20 minutes)
3. 2025 Public Defender's Office Annual Report First Reading – Human Resources (20
minutes)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda
as closed record review or as a public hearing. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
Please state clearly your name and city of residence. If attending via Zoom, raise a
virtual hand to be recognized. If using a phone to dial in, press *9 to raise a hand.
When prompted, press *6 to unmute.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. Claims for Damages received for filing
2. February 2026 Monthly Financial Report
3. Outside Boards and Committees Reports (Only One Reading Required)
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 28, 2026
Posted: 4/27/2026 8:56 AM Page 2
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Only One Reading Required
2. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Only One
Reading Required
3. Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Only One Reading Required
4. Hwy 99 Revitalization Project Stage 3 – ILA with Community Transit Second Reading
5. Supplemental Agreement 4 for Highway 99 Revitalization Project - Stage 3 Second Reading
6. Request to Increase Administrative Assistants from (1.4) to (2.0) FTEs Second Reading
7. City Hall Roof Replacement - Job Order Contract (JOC) Second Reading
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Presentation of Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for Perrinville Flow
Reduction Study Update First Reading – Engineering (5 minutes)
2. Adoption of Safety Action Plan Second Reading – Engineering (30 minutes)
3. Update on Public Safety Sales Tax Only One Reading Required – Police Services (20
minutes)
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
For disability accommodations, materials in alternate formats, accessibility information, or language interpretation/ translation needs, please
contact the City Clerk at 425-775-2525 at your earliest opportunity. Providing at least 72-hour notice will help ensure availability.
City Council Agenda Item 5.2
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:2025 Prosecutor's Office Annual Report (First Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Human Resources
PRESENTER:Aaron Walls, The Walls Law Firm
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational
RECOMMENDATION:N/A
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
The Walls Law Firm has provided the City with prosecution services since July of 2023. The Walls Law
Firm has provided an Annual Report for their time providing prosecution services for the City in 2025.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
The Walls Law Firm has provided an Annual Report for 2025.
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A
ITEM HISTORY:
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
2025 Annual Report
Item 5.2
Packet pg. 3/563
2025 Annual Report
City of Edmonds Prosecuting Attorney
Item 5.2
Packet pg. 4/563
Introduction
The Walls Law Firm has provided prosecution services for municipalities since its formation in
2011 and are proud to be the prosecutors for the City of Edmonds. We came on board on July 9,
2023. The Walls Law Firm currently consists of three attorneys, two paralegals, and two legal
assistants, although we are in the process of interviewing candidates for a third attorney position.
Aaron Walls is the prosecutor assigned to the City of Edmonds. Tracy Greenwood is the assistant
prosecutor for Edmonds. Renee Walls also assists with charging and other matters that come up.
Kim Obermeyer is the assigned paralegal, and Irma Salinas is the legal assistant. Caitlyn Walker
and Sofia Vega Shattuck are the paralegal and legal assistant assigned to another of our clients.
Staff
Aaron Walls
Aaron is a partner at the Walls Law Firm. He was born and raised in the City of Edmonds. His
parents have lived in Edmonds since the 1960s and Aaron graduated from Edmonds High School.
Aaron has been an attorney for thirty years – first serving as a public defender and, for the past
thirty years, as a prosecutor. He has served as the Chief Prosecutor and Deputy City Attorney for
Federal Way and as a Deputy Prosecutor for the County of Okanogan. He has argued appeals at
all levels of Washington courts – from hearings examiners to the Washington State Supreme Court.
Renee Walls
Item 5.2
Packet pg. 5/563
Renee is the managing partner of the Walls Law Firm. She was born in Seoul, South Korea and
immigrated to the United States when she was two years old. One of her first jobs was as a
prosecutor at the City of Federal Way where she met her husband, Aaron Walls. She has been a
prosecutor for the past twenty-six years in district and municipal courts. She has also been a pro
tem judge since 2009 and completed a limited term appointment to the King County Superior
Court bench immediately prior to coming to the City of Edmonds. Renee has experience dealing
with cases ranging from misdemeanor property crimes, domestic violence, to homicides.
Tracy Greenwood
Tracy Greenwood is the Assistant Prosecutor assigned to the City of Edmonds. Tracy has been an
attorney for thirty years primarily as a criminal defense attorney and a prosecutor. She has most
recently been a prosecutor for the City of Bothell and King County. She is an avid climber and
outdoor enthusiast.
Kim Obermeyer
Kim grew up in the cold of Illinois and then moved to Washington State. Kim has over 20 years
of experience working as a paralegal. She worked with Renee at Kenyon Disend when Renee
started in 2005. She came with Renee and helped open the Walls Law Firm in 2011 and they have
been working together for the past nineteen years.
Irma Salinas
Item 5.2
Packet pg. 6/563
Irma was born and raised in Washington and has lived in Chihuahua, Mexico. She is bilingual and
reads and writes Spanish fluently. Before joining the Walls Law Firm, she spent the previous
seven years working as a clerk w the Pasco Police Department.
New Case Filings
Below are the criminal and civil case filings for 2023, 2024, and 2025 per the Administrator
of the Courts.
Criminal cases have been trending upwards for the last few years. It appears that they are returning
to pre-COVID 19 pandemic levels.
Blake Cases
In cooperation with the Edmonds Municipal Court and the Administrative Office of the
Courts our office helped process hundreds of cases that were required to be vacated under State v.
Blake, 197 Wn.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). This case found that the former drug possession
Item 5.2
Packet pg. 7/563
statute was unconstitutional. The Court and the Prosecutor worked together to create an efficient
process to address the cases.
Case Backlog
One area of concern in the past was an accumulation of unfiled cases. That backlog was eliminated
after we signed a new contract last year that added Tracy to our staff. Currently there are only
about 9 cases in our charging queue. All of these cases have been reviewed and are awaiting
follow-up reports, principally toxicology reports, or other information.
Community Court
Over the past year the Municipal Court has revamped the Community Court. We have both a
Court resource day for all defendants to be able to connect with service providers and therapeutic
meeting dates for individuals who have entered the therapeutic side of Community Court.
Participants are closely tracked and given support to reach their goals with treatment, homelessness,
and unemployment. Community Court is a successful program that has a great impact on the
participants.
Forfeitures
Another project that we are addressing is addressing the forfeiture of property primarily from drug
seizures. We have addressed a number of these already and are working through the list of cases
where property has been seized and is awaiting forfeiture actions.
New Jail Contract
The City has entered into a new contract with Lynnwood for jail services as well as maintaining
its contract with the County for bookings into the Snohomish County Jail. The Court has added
daily calendars to address the Lynnwood Jail incarcerated individuals. Operationally this will
make addressing the cases of individuals in custody easier and more responsive. It does add
additional preparation and court time requirements for attorneys.
Public Defense Caseload Standards
The Washington Supreme Court has implemented a phasing in caseload limits for public defenders.
Over the next few years this will require public defenders to assign additional attorneys to cover
Item 5.2
Packet pg. 8/563
the same caseload the previously handled. The Snohomish County Public defenders have assigned
an additional defense attorney to the Edmonds Court as a result of these requirements. As more
public defenders are assigned the workload for prosecutors will also increase. Although we do
not foresee this will cause a problem this year, we will continue to be aware of changes in workload
and caseload.
Prosecutor Performance Indicators
In the coming year we are planning on implementing a set of tracking measures to assess our
performance in a quantifiable manner. We are using a subset of prosecutor performance indicators
that are used by a number of prosecutor’s offices throughout the country. Although these are
geared to larger offices who address felony cases as well as misdemeanors, we are adopting the
indicators that apply to our practice.
Conclusion
It has been a pleasure serving the City of Edmonds and we look forward to working with the City
in 2025 and beyond. We would like to thank the Council for giving us this opportunity. With
our new attorney on board, we are committed to improving our level of service and better
fulfilling the needs of the City of Edmonds.
Item 5.2
Packet pg. 9/563
City Council Agenda Item 5.3
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:2025 Public Defender's Office Annual Report (First Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Human Resources
PRESENTER:Kathleen Kyle, Snohomish County Public Defender's Association
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational
RECOMMENDATION:N/A
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City contracts for Public Defender services with Snohomish County Public Defender Association
(SCPDA). Each year, SCPDA provides a presentation and an annual report to City Council
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
Snohomish County Public Defender’s Association is presenting the prior year’s services. The 2025 Annual
Report and presentation slides are attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A
ITEM HISTORY:
Snohomish County Public Defender’s Association presents annually on services provided to the City of
Edmonds.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
2025 SCPDA Annual Report
2025 SCPDA Year End Report Presentation
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 10/563
2025 SCPDA
ANNUAL
REPORT
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 11/563
MEET THE DEFENDERS
Dino Smith
Attorney
Zoe Shields
Attorney
Megan Marlett
Legal Secretary
Lily Parker
Attorney
Sabreena Zavala
Attorney
Paolo Georgiades
Attorney
Michael Yussuf-
Mounthault
Attorney
Tammy Avila
Client Advocate
Along with a team of
social workers and
investigators
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 12/563
WORKLOAD
YEAR IN REVIEW
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 13/563
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 14/563
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 15/563
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 16/563
THEFT DATA
SPOT IN TIME REVIEWS
Reviewed 194 Theft Cases (2024)
Median theft amount was $41.96
22% were dismissed
16% resolved by plea
12% were diverted
**1% of diversions were revoked resulting in a guilty finding
46% are in warrant status
4% were conflicts
Reviewed 80 cases pending in November 2025
Median theft was $36.59
66 of the 80 were $100 or less
9 stores
The #1 store, the median loss was $16.26 (food
items.)
Big picture insights:
•Theft referrals are a driver of public
defender workloads
•Most theft defendants are highly
vulnerable
•Stores could implement prevention
strategies to reduce referrals
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 17/563
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 18/563
OtherOther
Workload Workload
Measures Measures
§90 Investigator Requests
§35 Immigration Consultations
§17 Social Worker Assignments
§26 Client Advocate Assignments
§28 Motions
§101 Stipulated Orders of Continuances (SOC)
§317 Warrants
§250 Dismissals
§0 Client Complaints Filed
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 19/563
2025
SCPDA PROGRAMMING
Ø 56 Continuing Legal Education Classes
Ø 6 SCPDA Coffee Breaks
Ø 12 Anti-racism Committee Meetings
Ø 14 team members support in-house language services
Ø1,009 In-house language requests completed (Spanish, Russian, & Ukrainian), 81 from
the Edmonds Team
Ø124 Interpreter requests completed
Ø 4 Defenders attended the National Association Public Defense Racial Justice
Conference.
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 20/563
INTERPRETER NEEDS
Spanish 75%Other languages:
Portuguese 5%Chuukese
Mongolian 4%Dari
Hindi 3%Farsi
Mandarin 2%Korean
Amharic 2%Punjabi
Cambodian 2%Tagalog
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 21/563
CURRENT CHALLENGES
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 22/563
IMPLEMENTATION OF
NEW WORKLOAD
STANDARDS
Several Washington State Supreme Court Orders
issued in 2025.
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 23/563
TEN-YEAR PLAN
Implementation
Year
Year Attorney Staffing
0 2025 2.75
1 2026 3.75
2 2027 4
3 2028 4.5
4 2029 5
5 2030 5.5
6 2031 6
7 2032 6.5
8 2033 7
9 2034 7.5
10 2035 8.5
14
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 24/563
ADDITIONAL JAIL CALENDARS IN
LYNNWOOD
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 25/563
SYSTEM DESIGN
Intent versus Impact
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 26/563
Ci
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
a
t
i
o
n
Arrest
Fi
r
s
t
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
Bail
No
n
-
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
i
n
C
o
u
r
t
Bench
Warrant/Bail
Amount Set
Gu
i
l
t
y
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
SentenceSentence
Pr
o
b
a
t
i
o
n
Nonappearance Nonappearance
with probationwith probation
Violation of Violation of
probation probation
conditioncondition
LIFE OF A MISDEMEANOR
CASE
Jail at any stage
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 27/563
WHAT IS
THE
IMPACT
OF JAIL?
Inefficient
spending: It costs
taxpayer dollars to
enforce, prosecute,
and defend people
charged with
misdemeanors.
Increased
unemployment:
People we want to
be employed
cannot get to work
and cannot stayed
employed.
Leads to housing
instability:
Discrimination
against people with
criminal records in
housing
applications.
Does not increase
safety: The
consequence of jail
results from a
warrant issued at a
nonappearance.
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 28/563
SCPDA INITIATIVES
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 29/563
2026 FOCUS ON DISABILITY
JUSTICE
PREVALENCE OF DISABILITY IN PRISONS AND JAILS
Nationally approximately 30% of people in state prison, and more
than 40% in jails identify as having a disability.
In 2022, 70% of the people in Washington State Department of
Corrections solitary units were identified as having a disability.
The Washington TBI Council reports that 72% of folks in Washington
prisons have a Traumatic Brain Injury.
4/23/2026 20
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 30/563
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 31/563
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 32/563
THANK YOU!
Kathleen Kyle Dustin Drenguis
Executive Director Supervisor
kkyle@snocopda.org ddrenguis@snocopda.org
SCPDA website: www.snocopda.org
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 33/563
Snohomish County Public Defender Association
2722 Colby Avenue, Suite 200 • Everett, WA 98201-3527
Phone: 425-339-6300 • Fax: 425-339-6363 • www.snocopda.org
This is the 2025 Annual Report of the Snohomish County Public Defender Association
(SCPDA) to the City of Edmonds.
Quality Representation
SCPDA’s mission is to provide the highest quality of representation for people facing
loss of liberty pursuant to civil and criminal laws and who cannot afford to hire an attorney.
We serve an indigent population. In Edmonds, the services provided are solely criminal
defense services. Edmonds Municipal Court conducts a financial screening to determine
eligibility to be appointed a SCPDA public defender.
In 2025, at the start of the year, the public defenders assigned to Edmonds Municipal
Court were Zoe Shields, Michael Yussuf-Mounthault and Lily Parker. Sabreena Zavala
rotated into the unit in July. New attorney Jacob Smith rotated in August 2025 and
experienced attorney Paolo Georgiades was added in October 2025. They were supervised by
attorney Dustin Drenguis. Mr. Drenguis is the second supervisor who provides firsthand
experience. He practiced in Edmonds Municipal Court in 2016. The team was also supported
by Legal Secretary Megan Marlett and Client Advocate Tammy Avila.
SCPDA mission is guided by Indigent Defense Standards adopted by the Washington
State Bar Association (WSBA). The WSBA standards were updated in 2024. In 2025, the
Washington State Supreme Court issued several court orders which adopted new caseload
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 34/563
2025 Annual Report – Page 2
maximums and permitted up to ten years to implement. Other resources that guide quality
public defense include the Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Performance,
Washington statutes, case law, court rules, WSBA Rules of Professional Conduct, and
American Bar Association publications.1
SCPDA produces monthly reports for the City of Edmonds Public Defender Assessor,
Bob Boruchowitz. Mr. Boruchowitz conducts an independent assessment of SCPDA services
based on the monthly reports and conference calls, his own court observations, interviewing
Judge Weiss, as well as listening to audio recordings of court hearings.
SCPDA staff includes attorneys, administrative professionals, client advocates, IT
professionals, investigators, and social workers.
Public Defender Assignments
In 2025, Edmonds Municipal Court appointed SCPDA as counsel in 574 pre-trial
cases and 46 probation-only credits. The top charges included third degree theft, domestic
violence related charges, DUI, possession of controlled substance, and criminal trespass.
SCPDA conducted four jury trials.
SCPDA defenders provided active, meaningful representation consistent with the
principles recognized in Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon. During the year, SCPDA attorneys
initiated 89 defense investigation requests, 35 immigration consultations, 17 social worker
requests, and 26 client advocate requests. SCPDA consulted interpreter services 124 times
and in-house language services 81 times. Together, these efforts reflect a defense practice
1 Hyperlinks for reference materials:
standards-for-indigent-defense-services_2024.09.07_final.pdf
Microsoft Word - bog approved guidelines sept 2020.docx
ABA Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 35/563
2025 Annual Report – Page 3
grounded in independent advocacy, client-centered representation, and holistic defense
practices.
Current Challenges
SCPDA is planning for the implementation of the 2023 National Public Defender
Workload Study. SCPDA is confident in its recruitment strategies and attorney retention, so
long as SCPDA continues to make progress to manage sustainable workloads. The
Washington State Legislature did not significantly improve state funding for public defense.
This is a critical time to not step away from commitment to constitutionally adequate
representation, sustainable caseloads, and the resources necessary for defenders to provide
effective assistance of counsel. Maintaining this commitment ensures that attorneys have the
time, support, and investigation capacity required to meet professional standards and to
protect the rights of the people they represent.
The City of Edmonds entered into an agreement to book people charged with crimes
in Edmonds Municipal Court into the Lynnwood Jail. This agreement will increase
workloads with five (5) additional court calendars per week. The total number of afternoon
calendars will increase to 10, doubling the number of court calendars. These changes are
anticipated to significantly increase the amount of time attorneys spend in court.
The grant that funded SCPDA’s civil legal aid program ended. SCPDA continues to
apply for additional grant funds. The original grant added client advocate services to
SCPDA, as well as provided funding to collaborate with Partners For Justice (PFJ), a
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 36/563
2025 Annual Report – Page 4
nationwide network of client advocates.2 SCPDA hosts two client advocate fellowships,
which are scheduled to end on June 30, 2026.
Public defender client advocates, as well as social workers, identify the root causes of
a person’s criminal legal involvement and work to connect clients with resources like
housing, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, medical care,
employment services, and basic needs resources. They explore and advocate for alternatives
to incarceration that allow people to remain in the community with their families, housed,
employed, and able to access treatment that meets their needs. Client advocates empower
clients to engage in the court process, develop person-centered strategies to resolve their
court matters, and reconnect with family and community support. They also build
community connections, collaborating with community organizations, treatment providers,
and housing programs.
SCPDA is going to continue to offer client advocate services through a grant from the
Washington State Office of Public Defense (State OPD). The limited grant from State OPD
will support SCPDA bringing client advocate services in house on a smaller scale and narrow
scope. The client advocate staffing will reduce from 2.0 FTE to .5 FTE, organization wide.
The State OPD grant is directed solely at people charged with drug possession. This will
maintain or improve client advocate services for Edmonds Municipal Court, due to the scope
of the grant and client needs.
The State OPD grant is timely to keep the client advocate program and meet the
current needs. In 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court held that Washington’s drug
2 Learn more about PFJ on its website: Partners for Justice
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 37/563
2025 Annual Report – Page 5
possession law, which did not require knowledge, was unconstitutional. Starting July 1,
2023, knowingly possessing a controlled substance was deemed criminal as a gross
misdemeanor. A common occurrence is that a police officer identifies a person as having an
arrest warrant, oftentimes for a case not charged in Edmonds Municipal Court. The search
incident to the arrest reveals simple drug possession. This is resulting in a criminal charge.
Edmonds Police Department is not referring individuals to LEAD, Law Enforcement
Assisted Diversion. Instead, an arrest or criminal citation is issued. This would be an
alternative to prosecution in a harm reduction model. The LEAD program connects the
person to a social worker who offers care and services.3 When individuals with behavioral
health and housing issues are cycled through the criminal legal system, it burdens the court
system, does not address the health conditions of vulnerable individuals, and leaves
community members frustrated by the results. LEAD’s work aims to focus on establishing a
relationship with the individual and offer opportunities for incremental behavior change
rather than demand abstinence to access care. The program is designed to defer cases from
the criminal legal system and thereby reduce public defender workloads.
Public defenders see the consequences of limited use of diversion programs and
community-based services reflected directly in their caseloads. When systems lack accessible
treatment, housing, behavioral health services, and restorative alternatives, the criminal legal
system remains the default response to issues that are fundamentally social, medical, or
economic in nature. As a result, defenders frequently represent individuals whose legal
3 Snohomish County LEAD 2024 Annual Report
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 38/563
2025 Annual Report – Page 6
involvement is closely tied to unmet needs such as trauma responsive treatment, disability
support, housing, and medical treatment.
Addiction, physical and mental disabilities, violence, and nonviolence occur in all
spaces no matter how rich or poor. And yet, criminal prosecutions disproportionately impact
people experiencing generational or episodic poverty, people of color, and women. These
disparities are well documented. The 2021 How Gender and Race Affect Justice Now report,
produced by the Washington Gender and Justice Commission, highlighted how race, gender,
and economic inequity intersection to shape who experiences criminal prosecution,
incarceration, and system involvement. The full report is linked to the footnote below.4
SCPDA is a learning organization. SCPDA strives to continuously reflect on its
practices, listen to the experiences of defenders, and adapt its work to better meet the needs
of the people it serves. SCPDA recognizes that effective advocacy requires more than legal
knowledge alone. Public defense work requires cultural competency, humility, and curiosity.
In 2025, SCPDA offered several training courses related to trauma responsiveness, both to
clients and defenders. SCPDA is working to understand how trauma impacts individuals,
families, and communities, and seeks to respond in ways that promote safety, trust, and
dignity. In 2026, SCPDA is focusing on learning more about Disability Justice. Defenders
want to learn how to intentionally address barriers faced by people with disabilities,
particularly those who are also impacted by poverty, racism, and criminalization. SCPDA
aims to build practices and relationships that are inclusive and responsive to the full
humanity of every person.
4 GJ_Study_Pilot_DVMRT.pdf (wa.gov)
Item 5.3
Packet pg. 39/563
City Council Agenda Item 7.1
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Claims for Damages received for filing (First Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Finance
PRESENTER:NA
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational
RECOMMENDATION:Acknowledge receipt of claims for damages.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:NA ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):NA ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
The city received new claims for damages.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
Norma & Douglas Middleton
234th St SW
($140.99)
Loc Van Tran
212th St SW & Hwy 99
($1,324.39)
RECOMMENDATION:
Acknowledge receipt of claims for damages.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
NA
ITEM HISTORY:
NA
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
claim for damages – tran, loc van – for council
claim for damages – middlton, norma – for council
Item 7.1
Packet pg. 40/563
Item 7.1
Packet pg. 41/563
Item 7.1
Packet pg. 42/563
Item 7.1
Packet pg. 43/563
Item 7.1
Packet pg. 44/563
Item 7.1
Packet pg. 45/563
City Council Agenda Item 7.2
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:February 2026 Monthly Financial Report (Second Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Finance
PRESENTER:Richard Gould
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational
RECOMMENDATION:Received for Filing
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
N/A
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Received for Filing
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A
ITEM HISTORY:
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
February 2026 Monthly Financial Report
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 46/563
CITY OF EDMONDS
FEBRUARY 2026 FINANCIAL REPORT
FY 2026 February
February 28, 2026
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 47/563
1
Table of Contents
Financial Status Analysis .............................. 2
Monthly Highlights ...................................... 3
2025-2026 Biennial Budget Summary ......... 4
All Funds Financial Summary ....................... 5
General Fund Summaries ............................ 6
Development Services Revenue Summary .. 8
Major Revenue Summaries ......................... 9
All Revenue Summary ............................... 12
All Expenditure Summary .......................... 14
Salaries and Benefits Summaries .............. 16
Debt Summary ........................................... 20
Interfund Loan Summary ........................... 21
Investment Portfolio Summary ................. 22
General Fund Cash Flow Report ................ 24
Appendix A ................................................ 25
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 48/563
2
2026 February/Report - Financial Status Analysis
The following analysis concerns the February-2026 financial report. Provided is a summary of financial activity through
February 28th. The total fund balance has decreased by $1.74m as of February 28th. In the 2026 modified budget the City is
projected to see a decrease in fund balance of $17m (for the entire biennium of 2025/2026) by year end. Looking at the “All
Funds Financial” summary statement you can see that the most significant reasons for this current difference can be found in
the General Fund ($2.9m), Waste Wastewater Treatment Plant ($372k) and the Technology Rental (512) Fund ($407k). The
total fund balance decrease was up from $3.6m in January which makes sense considering the annual single payments in
January for WCIA and the like. The following comments highlight other significant activity in 2026:
•Interest Income continues to decline from 2025 (as of this date), down 5.1% (approximately 23k). This is due to 2
factors: (1) Multiple bonds with higher (over 4%) interest rates maturing and (2) Interest rates dropping nearly .7% from
last year at this April 11th. It is down from 2024 as of this date by nearly 1.73%.
•Labor costs as of February 28th YTD (year to date) Labor costs are under budget near 1.9% for February and the
General Fund is under budget by 1.2%. The General Fund is over budget in just one department by 1.2% (Public Works
Admin). We came into the second year of the biennium under budget in the first year by almost 9% ($3.7m).
•Revenues & Expenditures - The “All Revenue Summary” shows that the City of Edmonds is under expectations at .2%
(this is expected early in the year). The 2026 appropriations budget is 2.2% below budget expectations. The General
Fund is exceeding budget by 1.3% primarily due to the WCIA payment (liability insurance) as can be seen in the “All
Expenditure Summary”.
•Sales Tax trending – February sales taxes were up by 15.7% ($183k) from 2025. This is a nice start to 2026. We did
receive March’s for 2026, and it is up from 2025 by 6.4% ($57k). For the first quarter of 2026 sales tax surged at 9%
($270k) over Q1 in 2025. Good news indeed.
•Development Services – exceeded expectations by (4.4%). These revenues exceed those from the first 2 months of 2025
by 16.2% ($59.5k). This is a nice change from prior trends of 2024 to 2025.
The Parks and Public Works Capital Projects reports used for tracking by the Finance Department are only included with
quarterly reports due to the time it takes to prepare them and that changes do not often happen monthly. In a joint effort with
Public Works, we are providing information and data on which projects were delayed and why. This is included in Exhibit
“A” which will now also be included with Quarterly reports.
We have begun working on a Biennial Analysis for the labor and benefits costs as well as fund revenues and expenditures
through the 14th month of the 2025/2026 Biennium. Labor and Benefits are under budget by 5.8% ($5.1m). The General
Fund is under budget by 4.4% ($2.8m). The City is experiencing a 1.3% ($2.2 million) shortfall in revenues compared to
budget. The General Fund is below budget by .8% ($875k). As of February 2026 (Month 14), City expenditures are under
budget by 7.5%, or $9.7 million. The General Fund is over its expenditures budget by .2% ($166k).
We have also included a new and updated cash flow report for the General Fund.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to discussing this with you at the Committee Meeting on April
21st.
Thank you.
Richard A. Gould
Finance Director
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 49/563
3
MONTHLY HIGHLIGHTS
GENERAL FUND HIGHLIGHTS
•Sales Tax is up $213,389 from this point last year. We are currently trending 10.06% over 2025 for sales collections through February.
•General Fund Interfund Loan – The City began repayment of this loan in January of 2026; the outstanding balance on the principal as
of the end of February is $5,500,000. Total interest to date that will be charged for this loan is $307,784.
•Salaries and Benefits City-Wide were $(385,752) less than 2025; with the General Fund being less by $(340,224). Through February,
we expended $5,034,592 for the General Fund which is $(427,119) less than we would expect through this point. This is due to
leaving additional approved and funded positions vacant in 2026.
Sales Tax Property Tax Other Taxes
Actual 2,335,231 243,124 2,065,738
Budget 11,700,000 11,713,393 13,222,116
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Ax
i
s
T
i
t
l
e
General Fund Tax Revenue (2026 YTD)
Source
2026 Amended
Budget
2/28/2025
Revenues
2/28/2026
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
TAXES $ 36,635,509 $ 4,239,616 $ 4,644,093 $ 31,991,416 13%
LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,965,050 320,842 343,336 1,621,714 17%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 1,248,653 248,979 86,553 1,162,100 7%
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES 7,733,347 1,516,550 700,009 7,033,338 9%
FINES AND PENALTIES 2,888,000 83,810 463,286 2,424,714 16%
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 838,381 102,089 76,752 761,629 9%
OTHER INCREASES IN FUND RESOURCES - 6,000,000 - - 0%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 50,000 13,345 - 50,000 0%
51,358,940$ 12,525,231$ 6,314,029$ 45,044,911$ 12%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND - BY SOURCE IN SUMMARY
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 50/563
4
001 General Fund 1,336,357$ 110,525,025$ 63,597,662$ 109,490,376$ 64,034,878$ 3,956,235 3,825,656$
009 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund 19,441 550,000 305,000 629,000 416,452 (50,056) (13,556)
011 Risk Management Reserve Fund - - - - - - -
012 Contingency Reserve Fund 2,228,672 - - - - 2,228,672 2,228,672
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 4,559 - - 11,400 - (1,141) 4,559
016 Building Maintenance Fund 2,380,534 194,410 91,329 2,714,068 258,924 448,913 2,204,843
017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund 861,616 - - 85,720 - 861,616 861,616
018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 200,000 - - 196,425 109,397 82,340 90,665
019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund 456,556 100,000 77,004 450,000 - 533,560 533,560
Total General Fund 7,487,735 111,369,435 64,070,996 113,576,989 64,819,651 8,060,139 9,736,015
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 47,981 9,400 3,137 40,000 14,765 34,252 49,642
111 Street Fund 177,530 4,885,000 2,761,486 5,374,146 2,555,205 343,065 631,751
112 Street Construction Fund 3,211,126 12,153,779 3,064,283 11,206,049 2,288,507 4,247,542 3,874,833
117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 671,730 548,241 179,244 768,927 231,891 388,791 620,383
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 165,422 258,410 158,435 290,000 253,839 166,712 133,802
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 12,691 110,290 34,686 65,173 2,002 44,812 23,265
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 20,769 4,750 1,950 6,000 300 21,595 22,255
123 Tourism Promotional Arts Fund 151,599 57,970 59,657 84,800 37,604 136,487 175,047
125 REET 2 2,432,519 3,787,950 2,304,285 3,047,939 1,009,325 4,560,914 3,672,943
126 REET 1 4,631,092 4,043,320 2,440,340 4,054,434 1,722,562 6,090,134 5,241,638
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 3,027,911 677,940 2,236,513 1,298,953 475,319 4,425,275 4,752,932
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Imp. Fund 130,453 675,719 577,367 671,945 335,714 243,704 384,078
137 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 1,269,638 183,761 95,781 311,124 272,174 1,157,217 1,085,293
138 Sister City Commission Fund 17,896 17,540 6,249 14,800 - 22,797 23,967
140 Business Improvement District Fund 34,037 158,418 98,905 173,320 93,276 19,368 26,034
141 Affordable Housing Fund 380,831 130,000 90,296 - - 515,913 450,913
142 Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund 833 - 9,167 - - 10,000 10,000
143 Tree Fund 135,348 141,761 319,659 150,000 101,144 363,090 379,831
Total Special Revenue Funds 16,519,406 27,844,249 14,441,438 27,557,610 9,393,625 22,791,665 21,558,604
DE
B
T
SE
R
V
I
C
E
FU
N
D
S
231 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund - 607,060 306,203 607,760 306,203 (350) -
CA
P
I
T
A
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
FU
N
D
S
332 Parks Capital Construction Fund 299,964 684,482 163,170 237,035 28,279 632,044 423,184
411 Combined Utility Operations - - 162,765 - - 141,155 141,155
421 Water Utility Fund 19,604,419 26,894,575 16,172,707 41,237,970 18,934,574 12,237,791 15,874,212
422 Storm Utility Fund 11,007,902 21,348,402 11,182,913 22,972,678 10,993,234 11,862,687 10,161,085
423 Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 16,635,982 39,829,016 22,468,439 40,183,053 19,559,944 20,364,498 19,916,362
424 Utility Debt Service Fund - 2,323,310 1,149,488 2,297,790 1,149,369 119 119
Total Enterprise Funds 47,248,303 90,395,303 51,136,312 106,691,491 50,637,121 44,606,250 46,092,933
511 Equipment Rental Fund 5,380,342 4,889,190 3,327,576 4,121,587 2,382,041 6,867,368 6,336,429
512 Technology Rental Fund 906,736 5,056,171 2,805,071 5,010,600 2,736,240 1,253,018 1,382,957
Total Internal Service Funds 6,287,078 9,945,361 6,132,646 9,132,187 5,118,281 8,120,386 7,719,386
77,842,486$ 240,845,890$ 136,250,764$ 257,803,072$ 130,303,160$ 84,210,134$ 85,530,122$ TOTAL
2025
Beginning
Fund Balance
2025-2026
Adopted
Revenue
Budget
2025-2026
Adopted
Expense
BudgetFund
2026
Estimated
Ending
Fund Balance
2025-2026 BIENNIAL BUDGET SUMMARY - ALL FUNDS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
SP
E
C
I
A
L
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
F
U
N
D
S
EN
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
FU
N
D
S
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
F
U
N
D
S
2025
Prelimimary
Ending
Fund Balance
2025-2026
Actual
Revenues
Period 1-14
2025-2026
Actual
Expenses
Period 1-14
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 51/563
5
City of Edmonds
All Funds Financial Summary
As of February 28, 2026
Fund
Beginning Fund
Balance*
Revenues /
Sources
Expenditures /
Uses
Revenues less
Expenditures
Ending Fund
Balance
Governmental
001 General Fund 3,825,656 6,314,029 9,240,544 (2,926,515) 899,142
009 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve (13,556) - 78,455 (78,455) (92,011)
012 Contingency Reserve 2,228,672 - - - 2,228,672
014 Historic Sub-Fund 4,559 - - - 4,559
016 Building Maintenance 2,204,843 12,578 4,482 8,096 2,212,939
017 Marsh Restoration 861,616 - - - 861,616
018 Homeless Response 90,665 - 62 (62) 90,603
019 Opioid Response 533,560 - - - 533,560
Total General Funds 9,736,015 6,326,607 9,323,542 (2,996,935) 6,739,080
Special Revenue Funds
104 Drug Enforcement 49,642 325 13,615 (13,290) 36,352
111 Street 631,751 333,056 580,997 (247,940) 383,810
112 Street Construction 3,874,833 277,958 165,889 112,069 3,986,902
117 Municipal Arts 620,383 4,561 5,860 (1,299) 619,083
120 Hotel / Motel 133,802 17,128 80,912 (63,784) 70,019
121 Employee Parking 23,265 22,110 - 22,110 45,375
122 Youth Scholarship 22,255 164 - 164 22,419
123 Tourism Promotion 175,047 6,655 8,048 (1,394) 173,653
125 REET 2 3,672,943 163,110 108,574 54,536 3,727,479
126 REET 1 5,241,638 174,590 67,357 107,232 5,348,870
127 Gifts Catalog 4,752,932 89,535 53,361 36,174 4,789,106
130 Cemetery Maintenance 384,078 41,461 53,432 (11,971) 372,107
137 Cemetery Trust 1,085,293 7,952 - 7,952 1,093,245
138 Sister City 23,967 178 - 178 24,145
140 Business Improvement 26,034 22,515 8,882 13,633 39,666
141 Affordable Housing 450,913 20,214 - 20,214 471,127
142 Edmonds Rescue 10,000 - - - 10,000
143 Tree Fund 379,831 7,533 33,502 (25,969) 353,862
Capital Projects 423,184 11,671 - 11,671 434,855
Debt Service - - - - -
Enterprise Funds
411 Combined Utility Operation 141,155 21,610 - 21,610 162,765
421 Water Utility 15,874,212 2,553,038 1,584,698 968,340 16,842,551
422 Storm Water Utility 10,161,085 2,445,685 1,409,190 1,036,495 11,197,580
423 Sewer / Wastewater Treatment Plant 19,916,362 2,933,591 3,305,476 (371,885) 19,544,477
424 Bond Reserve Fund 119 - - - 119
Internal Service Funds
511 Equipment Rental 6,336,429 409,913 420,465 (10,552) 6,325,877
512 Technology Rental 1,382,957 396,316 803,707 (407,391) 975,567
All Funds 85,530,121 16,287,476 18,027,509 (1,740,033) 83,790,089
*All Beginning Fund Balance amounts are preliminary until the completion of the 2025 Financial Statements.
$200,000 of the Fund Balance in Fund 126 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding, as well as $1,200,000 for the purchase of Open Space.
$250,000 of the Fund Balance in Fund 422 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding.
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 52/563
6
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
Title
2026 Amended
Budget
2/28/2025
Expenditures
2/28/2026
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL 467,139$ 87,958$ 74,602$ 392,537$ 16%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 498,006 67,246 68,002 430,004 14%
HUMAN RESOURCES 1,107,185 172,246 159,294 947,891 14%
CITY ADMINISTRATOR 633,656 - 62,553 571,103 10%
CITY ATTORNEY 1,326,346 25,000 219,876 1,106,470 17%
CITY CLERK 492,795 - 60,688 432,107 12%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,817,770 394,713 308,404 1,509,366 17%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 6,768,912 3,421,005 2,164,618 4,604,294 32%
POLICE SERVICES 18,318,018 2,900,629 3,204,349 15,113,669 17%
MUNICIPAL COURT 2,552,457 289,391 393,024 2,159,433 15%
SATELLITE OFFICE - 10,639 - - 0%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.- 170,999 26,139 (26,139) 0%
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 4,324,631 572,340 611,279 3,713,352 14%
HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM - 28,305 - - 0%
PARKS & RECREATION 5,281,125 788,738 801,702 4,479,423 15%
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 882,456 112,309 153,560 728,896 17%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 2,606,747 392,161 381,604 2,225,143 15%
ENGINEERING 4,151,118 521,440 550,851 3,600,267 13%
51,228,361$ 9,955,119$ 9,240,544$ 41,987,817$ 18%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 53/563
7
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
General Fund - 2025 Revenue Summary
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 5,083,099$ 5,083,099$ 2,714,712$ 2,714,712$ -46.59%
February 8,864,398 3,781,299 3,599,318 6,314,029 -28.77%
March 12,726,533 3,862,135 2,750,963 9,064,993 -28.77%
April 21,208,931 8,482,398 6,041,934 15,106,927 -28.77%
May 25,180,718 3,971,787 2,829,067 17,935,994 -28.77%
June 28,098,591 2,917,873 2,078,374 20,014,368 -28.77%
July 30,749,651 2,651,060 1,888,326 21,902,694 -28.77%
August 33,546,244 2,796,593 1,991,987 23,894,681 -28.77%
September 36,539,778 2,993,534 2,132,267 26,026,948 -28.77%
October 45,143,911 8,604,133 6,128,645 32,155,593 -28.77%
November 48,515,444 3,371,533 2,401,512 34,557,105 -28.77%
December 51,358,940 2,843,496 2,025,396 36,582,501 -28.77%
51,358,940$
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 4,863,083$ 4,863,083$ 5,139,579$ 5,139,579$ 5.69%
February 8,755,349 3,892,267 4,100,965 9,240,544 5.54%
March 13,082,213 4,326,863 4,566,645 13,807,189 5.54%
April 17,041,379 3,959,167 4,178,571 17,985,760 5.54%
May 21,125,693 4,084,314 4,310,654 22,296,414 5.54%
June 25,505,669 4,379,976 4,622,700 26,919,115 5.54%
July 29,300,869 3,795,201 4,005,519 30,924,634 5.54%
August 33,250,576 3,949,707 4,168,587 35,093,221 5.54%
September 37,517,608 4,267,032 4,503,498 39,596,718 5.54%
October 41,890,182 4,372,574 4,614,888 44,211,607 5.54%
November 46,334,305 4,444,123 4,690,403 48,902,010 5.54%
December 51,228,361 4,894,056 5,165,270 54,067,279 5.54%
51,228,361$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-General Fund
*The monthly budget trend column is based on a two year trend.
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
55,000,000
60,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
55,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 54/563
8
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVENUE SUMMARY
Source
2026 Amended
Budget
2/28/2025
Revenues
2/28/2026
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 90,000$ 19,622$ 17,461$ 72,539$ 19%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 30,000 17,322 29,879 121 100%
BUILDING PERMITS 40,000 16,245 27,351 12,649 68%
FIRE PERMIT 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
ENGINEERING PERMIT 108,300 5,937 2,848 105,452 3%
ENG PERMIT - RIGHT OF WAY - 17,810 13,769 (13,769) 0%
ENG PERMIT - ENCROACHMENT - - 429 (429) 0%
ENG PERMIT - STREET USE - - - - 0%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT - - - - 0%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT W/LEASEHOLD 10,000 - - 10,000 0%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES - - - - 0%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 10,000 3,598 9,324 676 93%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE - - 572 (572) 0%
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION 1,160,000 172,900 236,595 923,405 20%
BUILDING PEER PLAN REVIEW - - - - 0%
FIRE PLAN REVIEW 25,000 4,003 5,110 19,890 20%
PLANNING REVIEW AND INSPECTION 110,000 17,981 19,867 90,133 18%
PLANNING PEER PLAN REVIEW - - 1,422 (1,422) 0%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,000 2,751 - 6,000 0%
ENG PLAN REVIEWS 210,000 54,529 6,855 203,145 3%
ENGINEERING PEER PLAN REVIEW 200,000 20,500 30,200 169,800 15%
ENG INSPECTIONS - 11,321 21,312 (21,312) 0%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 17,000 3,414 4,433 12,567 26%
2,021,300$ 367,932$ 427,427$ 1,593,873$ 21%
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVENUES SUMMARY
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 55/563
9
MAJOR REVENUE SUMMARY
Property Tax
2025 total property tax collections were 2.85% higher than 2024 total collections. This is a sign of multiple indicators such as assessed
valuation and possibly new construction along with the 1% allowable on property tax increases. The timing of recording property tax
revenues changed in 2023 to be recorded in the month that they were for versus the month that the payment was received. This is the
reason for the difference between the years 2022, and 2023-2026.
$29,355
$206,364
$387,909
$355,416
$256,728
-
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
450,000.00
500,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Property Tax Revenues (January through February )
Sales Tax
In the next chart, sales tax is up 10.06% from this point in time in 2025. This is up from last year when it was up 4.29% at this point.
$1,464,443 $1,539,597
$1,647,058 $1,853,000
$1,908,832
$2,034,598 $2,121,842
$2,335,231
-
200,000.00
400,000.00
600,000.00
800,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,600,000.00
1,800,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,200,000.00
2,400,000.00
2,600,000.00
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 YTD 2026
Sales Tax Revenues (January through February
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 56/563
10
MAJOR REVENUE SUMMARY
Charges for Services
$613,778
$505,733
$1,000,015
$1,516,550
$700,009
-
200,000.00
400,000.00
600,000.00
800,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,400,000.00
1,600,000.00
1,800,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Charges for Services Revenues (January through February )
Water Utility Tax
$138,271 $143,978 $154,868 $165,810
$365,871
-
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
450,000.00
500,000.00
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Water Utility Tax Revenues (January through February )
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 57/563
11
MAJOR REVENUE SUMMARY
Sewer Utility Tax
$160,357 $166,439
$185,988 $205,158
$453,547
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Sewer Utility Tax Revenues (January through February )
Real Estate Excise Tax
Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) are collected from all real estate transactions. The utilization of this revenue is restrict ed to capital
projects and projects identified in the capital facilities plan. Real Estate Excise Tax is down -41.78% from this point in time last year.
$922,678
$377,997
$270,799 $299,908
$387,997
$272,988
-
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
600,000.00
700,000.00
800,000.00
900,000.00
1,000,000.00
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Real Estate Excise Taxes (January through February )
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 58/563
12
ALL REVENUE SUMMARY
Fund
No.Title
2026 Amended
Budget
2/28/2025
Revenues
2/28/2026
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 51,358,940$ 12,525,231$ 6,314,029$ 45,044,911$ 12%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 275,000 - - 275,000 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 94,070 13,078 12,578 81,492 13%
017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - - - - 0%
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 50,000 - - 50,000 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 4,610 495 325 4,285 7%
111 STREET FUND 2,445,000 318,135 333,056 2,111,944 14%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,027,861 627,371 277,958 8,749,903 3%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 121,420 73,147 4,561 116,859 4%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 128,910 18,082 17,128 111,782 13%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 54,950 9,466 22,110 32,840 40%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,340 213 164 2,176 7%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 8,740 7,019 6,655 2,085 76%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,139,330 220,140 163,110 1,976,220 8%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 2,262,900 242,062 174,590 2,088,310 8%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 332,360 31,360 89,535 242,825 27%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 202,562 39,950 41,461 161,101 20%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 96,924 17,336 7,952 88,972 8%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 6,230 184 178 6,052 3%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 79,209 27,109 22,515 56,694 28%
141 AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND 65,000 18,255 20,214 44,786 31%
142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND - 833 - - 0%
143 TREE FUND 58,259 269,495 7,533 50,726 13%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 301,190 - - 301,190 0%
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 335,860 68,814 11,671 324,189 3%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 20,315 21,610 (21,610) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 15,030,903 1,945,266 2,553,038 12,477,865 17%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 12,074,888 2,011,307 2,445,685 9,629,203 20%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 20,499,448 2,960,893 2,933,591 17,565,857 14%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,148,390 115 1 1,148,389 0%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 2,512,920 409,149 409,913 2,103,007 16%
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 2,652,589 409,197 396,316 2,256,273 15%
123,370,803$ 22,284,016$ 16,287,476 107,083,327$ 13%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 59/563
13
ALL REVENUE SUMMARY
Fund
No.Title
2025-2026
Adopted Revenue
Budget
2025-2026
Actual Revenues
Period 1-14
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 110,525,025$ 63,597,662$ 46,927,363$ 58%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 550,000 305,000 245,000 55%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 194,410 91,329 103,081 47%
017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - - - 0%
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 100,000 77,004 22,996 77%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 9,400 3,137 6,263 33%
111 STREET FUND 4,885,000 2,761,486 2,123,514 57%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 12,153,779 3,064,283 9,089,496 25%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 548,241 179,244 368,997 33%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 258,410 158,435 99,975 61%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 110,290 34,686 75,604 31%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,750 1,950 2,800 41%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 57,970 59,657 (1,687) 103%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3,787,950 2,304,285 1,483,665 61%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 4,043,320 2,440,340 1,602,980 60%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 677,940 2,236,513 (1,558,573) 330%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 675,719 577,367 98,352 85%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 183,761 95,781 87,980 52%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 17,540 6,249 11,291 36%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 158,418 98,905 59,513 62%
141 AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND 130,000 90,296 39,704 69%
142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND - 9,167 (9,167) 0%
143 TREE FUND 141,761 319,659 (177,898) 225%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 607,060 306,203 300,858 50%
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 684,482 163,170 521,312 24%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 162,765 (162,765) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 26,894,575 16,172,707 10,721,868 60%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 21,348,402 11,182,913 10,165,490 52%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 39,829,016 22,468,439 17,360,577 56%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 2,323,310 1,149,488 1,173,822 49%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,889,190 3,327,576 1,561,614 68%
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 5,056,171 2,805,071 2,251,100 55%
240,845,890$ 136,250,764$ 104,595,126$ 57%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 60/563
14
ALL EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Fund
No.Title
2026 Amended
Budget
2/28/2025
Expenditures
2/28/2026
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 51,228,361$ 9,955,119$ 9,240,544$ 41,987,817$ 18%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 311,500 53,207 78,455 233,045 25%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - - 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,700 - - 5,700 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 1,850,000 2,637 4,482 1,845,518 0%
017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - - - - 0%
018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 8,325 13,345 62 8,263 1%
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 50,000 - - 50,000 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,000 - 13,615 6,385 68%
111 STREET FUND 2,733,686 478,641 580,997 2,152,689 21%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8,655,152 305,502 165,889 8,489,263 2%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 353,012 29,795 5,860 347,152 2%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 96,000 2,170 80,912 15,088 84%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 33,403 - - 33,403 0%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 - - 3,000 0%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 47,300 - 8,048 39,252 17%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,251,359 43,476 108,574 1,142,785 9%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 1,414,404 185 67,357 1,347,047 5%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 660,017 47,857 53,361 606,656 8%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 342,936 40,313 53,432 289,504 16%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND 25,000 - - 25,000 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 7,400 - - 7,400 0%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 85,875 5,573 8,882 76,993 10%
142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND - - - - 0%
143 TREE FUND 75,000 223 33,502 41,498 45%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 301,540 - - 301,540 0%
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 127,000 - - 127,000 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 18,667,324 4,565,091 1,584,698 17,082,626 8%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 10,373,286 3,304,866 1,409,190 8,964,096 14%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 20,051,312 2,335,239 3,305,476 16,745,836 16%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,148,390 - - 1,148,390 0%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,981,981 325,256 420,465 1,561,516 21%
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 2,782,528 745,971 803,707 1,978,821 29%
124,690,791$ 22,254,465$ 18,027,509 106,663,282$ 14%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 61/563
15
ALL EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Fund
No.Title
2025-2026
Adopted Expenditure
Budget
2025-2026
Actual Expenditures
Period 1-14
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 109,490,376$ 64,034,878$ 45,455,498$ 58%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 629,000 416,452 212,548 66%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 11,400 - 11,400 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 2,714,068 258,924 2,455,144 10%
017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 85,720 - 85,720 0%
018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 196,425 109,397 87,028 56%
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 450,000 - 450,000 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 40,000 14,765 25,235 37%
111 STREET FUND 5,374,146 2,555,205 2,818,941 48%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 11,206,049 2,288,507 8,917,542 20%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 768,927 231,891 537,036 30%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 290,000 253,839 36,161 88%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 65,173 2,002 63,171 3%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 6,000 300 5,700 5%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 84,800 37,604 47,196 44%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3,047,939 1,009,325 2,038,614 33%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 4,054,434 1,722,562 2,331,872 42%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 1,298,953 475,319 823,634 37%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 671,945 335,714 336,231 50%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND 311,124 272,174 38,950 87%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 14,800 - 14,800 0%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 173,320 93,276 80,044 54%
142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND - - - 0%
143 TREE FUND 150,000 101,144 48,856 67%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 607,760 306,203 301,558 50%
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 237,035 28,279 208,756 12%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 41,237,970 18,934,574 22,303,396 46%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 22,972,678 10,993,234 11,979,444 48%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 40,183,053 19,559,944 20,623,109 49%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 2,297,790 1,149,369 1,148,421 50%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,121,587 2,382,041 1,739,546 58%
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 5,010,600 2,736,240 2,274,360$ 55%
257,803,072$ 130,303,160$ 127,499,912$ 51%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 62/563
16
SALARIES AND BENEFITS SUMMARY
Below is a comparison of the total staff labor related costs (salaries and benefits) for 2019 through 2026.
$4,819,414 $5,002,798 $5,165,363 $5,312,220
$7,436,991 $7,117,164 $7,062,368 $6,676,616
-
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
7,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
9,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Salaries & Benefits (January through February )
Department
2026 Approved
"Regular" positions
2026 Modification
Reductions
2026 Total
(with modification)
2026 Active
(as of 3/5/26)
2026 Vacant but
funded
(as of 3/6/26)
City Council 8.00 8.00 8.00 -
Mayor 5.00 5.00 5.00 -
City Administrator 2.00 2.00
Human Resources 4.00 4.00 4.00 -
Court 11.67 11.67 11.00 0.67
Administrative Services 10.00 10.00 9.00 1.00
Information Services 6.00 6.00 5.00 1.00
Police 61.50 (2.00) 59.50 58.50 1.00
Planning & Development 20.40 20.40 19.40 1.00
Parks, Recreation and Human Services 30.32 (2.00) 28.32 26.00 2.32
Public Works Admin/Facilities 15.03 15.03 11.03 4.00
Engineering 18.50 18.50 14.50 4.00
Streets/Storm 20.00 20.00 17.00 3.00
Water/Sewer/Treatment Plant 38.00 38.00 30.00 8.00
Equipment Rental 4.00 4.00 4.00 -
Total City Employee Count 254.42 (4.00) 250.42 222.43 25.99
The above chart only reflects approved and funded "regular" positions.
Unfunded "Regular" PositionsUnfunded "Irregular" Positions
Mayor 1.00
Human Resources 0.63 -
Court 1.00 -
Administrative Services 2.00 -
Information Services 1.00 0.25
Police 26.00 -
Community Services & Economic Development 1.75 -
Planning & Development 1.60 -
Parks, Recreation and Human Services 10.94 2.87
Public Works Admin/Facilities 1.00 -
Engineering - 1.00
46.92 4.12
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 63/563
17
Page 1 of 3
Title
2026 Amended
Budget
2/28/2025
Expenditures
2/28/2026
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES AND WAGES 265,506$ 43,207$ 39,200$ 226,306$ 15%
OVERTIME - - 813 (813) 0%
BENEFITS 135,028 35,838 25,463 109,565 19%
400,534$ 79,045$ 65,476$ 335,058$ 16%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES AND WAGES 298,357$ 39,761$ 46,782$ 251,575$ 16%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 77,027 11,782 14,818 62,209 19%
375,384$ 51,543$ 61,600$ 313,784$ 16%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES AND WAGES 626,019$ 94,138$ 98,742$ 527,278$ 16%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 221,541 33,670 35,252 186,289 16%
847,560$ 127,807$ 133,993$ 713,567$ 16%
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SALARIES AND WAGES 368,025$ 48,471$ 319,554$ 13%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 97,691 14,025 83,666 14%
465,716$ -$ 62,496$ 403,220$ 13%
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 261,548$ 37,835$ 223,713$ 14%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 94,617 9,945 84,672 11%
356,165$ -$ 47,780$ 308,385$ 13%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,225,806$ 271,883$ 206,414$ 1,019,392$ 17%
OVERTIME 8,000 1,360 9,470 (1,470) 118%
BENEFITS 447,639 79,995 59,722 387,917 13%
1,681,445$ 353,238$ 275,606$ 1,405,839$ 16%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES AND WAGES 249,063$ -$ -$ 249,063$ 0%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 48,607 20,417 14,297 34,310 29%
297,670$ 20,417$ 14,297$ 283,373$ 5%
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES AND WAGES 9,364,798$ 1,717,145$ 1,442,279$ 7,922,519$ 15%
OVERTIME 764,747 78,874 122,107 642,640 16%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 287,420 490 - 287,420 0%
BENEFITS 3,281,907 604,770 575,971 2,705,936 18%
13,698,872$ 2,401,278$ 2,140,357$ 11,558,515$ 16%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,455,523$ 184,801$ 221,654$ 1,233,869$ 15%
OVERTIME 10,000 647 2,013 7,987 20%
BENEFITS 418,948 57,497 70,714 348,234 17%
1,884,471$ 242,945$ 294,381$ 1,590,090$ 16%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES AND WAGES -$ 111,194$ 10,793$ (10,793)$ 0%
OVERTIME - 1,394 - - 0%
BENEFITS - 37,141 2,970 (2,970) 0%
-$ 149,730$ 13,763$ (13,763)$ 0%
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,421,740$ 374,334$ 368,631$ 2,053,109$ 15%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 919,886 114,533 140,409 779,477 15%
3,341,626$ 488,867$ 509,040$ 2,832,586$ 15%
HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM
SALARIES AND WAGES $ - $ 22,068 $ - $ - 0%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS - 5,918 - - 0%
$ - $ 27,986 $ - $ - 0%
CITY OF EDMONDS
GENERAL FUND - SALARIES AND BENEFITS - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 64/563
18
Page 2 of 3
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,571,512$ 438,523$ 422,030$ 2,149,482$ 16%
OVERTIME 10,000 667 1,798 8,202 18%
BENEFITS 1,025,458 167,538 154,128 871,330 15%
3,606,970$ 606,728$ 577,956$ 3,029,014$ 16%
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
SALARIES AND WAGES 489,335$ 58,053$ 91,173$ 398,162$ 19%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 194,326 22,930 30,887 163,439 16%
683,661$ 80,983$ 122,060$ 561,601$ 18%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,038,037$ 191,565$ 156,195$ 881,842$ 15%
OVERTIME 9,000 1,137 442 8,558 5%
BENEFITS 453,470 75,506 60,294 393,176 13%
1,500,507$ 268,208$ 216,931$ 1,283,576$ 14%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,665,936$ 348,555$ 380,997$ 2,284,939$ 14%
OVERTIME 5,857 1 - 5,857 0%
BENEFITS 957,890 127,486 117,859 840,031 12%
3,629,683$ 476,041$ 498,856$ 3,130,827$ 14%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND SALARIES AND BENEFITS 32,770,264$ 5,374,816$ 5,034,592$ 27,735,672$ 15%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS 167,000$ 28,519$ 26,357$ 140,643$ 16%
167,000$ 28,519$ 26,357$ 140,643$ 16%
STREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,026,728$ 119,147$ 113,878$ 912,850$ 11%
OVERTIME 41,700 3,007 6,106 35,594 15%
BENEFITS 449,049 50,971 41,721 407,328 9%
1,517,477$ 173,125$ 161,706$ 1,355,771$ 11%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SALARIES AND WAGES 97,365$ -$ -$ 97,365$ 0%
BENEFITS 44,247 - - 44,247 0%
141,612$ -$ -$ 141,612$ 0%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SALARIES AND WAGES 23,718$ -$ -$ 23,718$ 0%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS 7,585 - - 7,585 0%
31,303$ -$ -$ 31,303$ 0%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 (125)
SALARIES AND WAGES -$ -$ 20,006$ (20,006)$ 0%
OVERTIME - - - - 0%
BENEFITS - - 6,953 (6,953) 0%
-$ -$ 26,958$ (26,958)$ 0%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SALARIES AND WAGES 288,125$ 33,618$ 33,474$ 254,651$ 12%
OVERTIME - - 331 (331) 0%
BENEFITS 146,862 9,039 12,174 134,688 8%
434,987$ 42,657$ 45,980$ 389,007$ 11%
CITY OF EDMONDS
NON GENERAL FUND - SALARIES AND BENEFITS - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
GENERAL FUND - SALARIES AND BENEFITS - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 65/563
19
Page 3 of 3
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES 198,453$ 21,169$ 25,942$ 172,511$ 13%
OVERTIME 3,500 281 - 3,500 0%
BENEFITS 75,188 8,830 16,711 58,477 22%
277,141$ 30,280$ 42,654$ 234,487$ 15%
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,278,765$ 167,855$ 162,420$ 1,116,345$ 13%
OVERTIME 27,500 5,235 6,796 20,704 25%
BENEFITS 546,838 75,233 70,408 476,430 13%
1,853,103$ 248,323$ 239,624$ 1,613,479$ 13%
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,078,536$ 152,389$ 176,604$ 901,932$ 16%
OVERTIME 28,552 4,787 3,455 25,097 12%
BENEFITS 450,180 69,831 79,319 370,861 18%
1,557,268$ 227,006$ 259,379$ 1,297,889$ 17%
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES 891,334$ 477,263$ 125,798$ 765,536$ 14%
OVERTIME 32,438 35,067 6,011 26,427 19%
BENEFITS 353,292 178,509 47,266 306,026 13%
1,277,064$ 690,839$ 179,075$ 1,097,989$ 14%
SEWER FUND (423) - WWTP
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,383,116$ 263,927$ 2,119,189$ 11%
OVERTIME 125,000 55,557 69,442.73 44%
BENEFITS 907,763 109,392 798,371.25 12%
3,415,879$ -$ 428,876$ 2,987,003$ 13%
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES 472,509$ 76,188$ 80,770$ 391,739$ 17%
OVERTIME 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
BENEFITS 166,475 25,887 26,948 139,527 16%
643,984$ 102,075$ 107,718$ 536,266$ 17%
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512)
SALARIES AND WAGES 674,757$ 105,812$ 93,130$ 581,627$ 14%
OVERTIME - 243 - - 0%
BENEFITS 251,096 38,673 30,568 220,528 12%
925,853$ 144,728$ 123,698$ 802,155$ 13%
TOTAL SALARIES AND BENEFITS - ALL FUNDS 45,012,935 7,062,368 6,676,616 38,336,319 15%
CITY OF EDMONDS
NON GENERAL FUND - SALARIES AND BENEFITS - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 66/563
20
DEBT SUMMARY
*This 1st table only reflects the total outstanding principal payments (does not include interest).
2024 Outstanding Fund 001 Fund 111 Fund 112 Fund 126 Fund 421 Fund 422 Fund 423 PFD
2012 LTGO 505,000 505,000
2019 LTGO 2,715,000 2,715,000
2021 LTGO (A)9,015,000 3,410,000 1,270,000 2,640,571 1,260,961 433,468
2021 LTGO (B)2,230,000 2,230,000
2015 Revenue Bond 12,920,000 3,911,810 2,583,269 6,424,921
2020 Revenue Bond 13,875,000 13,875,000
2024 Revenue Bond 19,600,000 11,470,000 2,695,000 5,435,000
PWTFL 06-692-012 32,882 32,882
DOE L1400002 294,776 294,776
Sno Co Loan #03-2016 383,862 383,862
2016 (2007 Refinance) Chase Bank 343,056 59,485 4,597 26,758 3,088 112,729 136,399
64,653,920 3,677,827 9,105 65,763 4,868,002 18,878,331 7,551,663 27,258,229 2,345,000
Total Debt Outstanding 64,653,920
*This 2nd table reflects both the principal and interest portions of the debt payments.
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2035 2040 2045
2012 LTGO 131,063 83,663 81,975 80,288 83,600 81,800 - -
2019 LTGO 236,475 233,725 235,725 232,225 233,475 1,169,656 935,875 -
2021 LTGO (A)1,212,750 1,215,250 1,215,500 1,213,500 1,209,250 2,662,050 1,801,000 357,000
2021 LTGO (B)170,115 167,715 170,315 167,815 170,315 841,188 845,055 169,290
2015 Revenue Bond 1,148,369 1,148,119 1,147,269 1,149,925 1,145,875 5,741,250 5,739,200 -
2020 Revenue Bond 304,044 304,044 304,044 304,044 304,044 1,520,219 3,634,019 12,541,456
2024 Revenue Bond 1,395,000 1,389,250 1,392,750 1,390,000 1,391,250 10,885,500 8,815,000 3,406,500
PWTFL 05-691-015 - - - - - - - -
PWTFL 06-692-012 33,046 - - - - - - -
DOE L1400002 40,570 40,570 40,570 40,570 40,570 121,710 - -
Sno Co Loan #03-2016 35,286 34,843 34,400 33,957 33,514 160,927 91,241
2016 (2007 Refinance) Chase Bank 348,785 - - - - - - -
Total Principal and Interest Debt Outstanding 85,039,379$
Annual Principal and Interest Debt Payments
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 67/563
21
INTERFUND LOAN SUMMARY
Below are details of the Interfund Loans from Funds 421 and 422 to the General Fund in 2025.
Month Beginning Balance Loan Repayment Total Balance Interest Rate (%)Monthly Interest
2026-01 3,500,000 (145,833) 3,354,167 4.45%12,440
2026-02 3,354,167 (145,833) 3,208,334 4.45%11,899
2026-03 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-04 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-05 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-06 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-07 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-08 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-09 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-10 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-11 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
2026-12 3,208,334 3,208,334 4.45%
(291,666) 24,339
*The "Monthly Interest" is the interest charged on the outstanding balance in each month of 2026.
Fund 421 - Principal Repayment Schedule
Month Beginning Balance Loan Repayment Total Balance Interest Rate (%)Monthly Interest
2026-01 2,500,000 (104,167) 2,395,833 4.45%8,881
2026-02 2,395,833 (104,167) 2,291,666 4.45%8,495
2026-03 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-04 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-05 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-06 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-07 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-08 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-09 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-10 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-11 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
2026-12 2,291,666 2,291,666 4.45%
(208,334) 17,376
*The "Monthly Interest" is the interest charged on the outstanding balance in each month of 2026.
Fund 422 - Principal Repayment Schedule
Month Beginning Balance 25 Int. payment Total Balance
2026-01 155,771 (12,981) 142,790
2026-02 142,790 (12,981) 129,809
2026-03 129,809 129,809
2026-04 129,809 129,809
2026-05 129,809 129,809
2026-06 129,809 129,809
2026-07 129,809 129,809
2026-08 129,809 129,809
2026-09 129,809 129,809
2026-10 129,809 129,809
2026-11 129,809 129,809
2026-12 129,809 129,809
(25,962)
*The $155,771 is the total interest owed to Fund 421 for 2025.
Fund 421 - 2025 Interest payment
Month Beginning Balance 25 Int. payment Total Balance
2026-01 110,297 (9,191) 101,106
2026-02 101,106 (9,191) 91,915
2026-03 91,915 91,915
2026-04 91,915 91,915
2026-05 91,915 91,915
2026-06 91,915 91,915
2026-07 91,915 91,915
2026-08 91,915 91,915
2026-09 91,915 91,915
2026-10 91,915 91,915
2026-11 91,915 91,915
2026-12 91,915 91,915
(18,382)
*The $110,297 is the total interest owed to Fund 422 for 2025.
Fund 422 - 2025 Interest payment
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 68/563
22
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Years
Agency/Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon
Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate
FHLMC Bonds 993,661 0.39 1,115,000 1,102,537 07/22/26 0.830%
Farmer Mac Bonds 2,057,309 0.72 2,305,000 2,264,007 11/17/26 1.150%
First Financial - Waterfront Center CD 245,000 0.83 245,000 245,000 12/27/26 2.469%
US Treasury Note Note 1,003,690 1.00 1,000,000 1,005,479 02/28/27 4.125%
First Financial - ECA CD 2,803,516 1.71 2,803,516 2,803,516 11/15/27 2.956%
Resolution Funding Corporation Bonds 999,192 4.13 1,220,000 1,048,192 04/15/30 4.482%
FFCB Bonds 1,002,270 5.05 1,000,000 1,020,501 03/17/31 4.125%
FFCB Bonds 991,753 5.41 1,165,000 1,028,402 07/28/31 1.310%
TOTAL SECURITIES 10,096,392 2.41 10,853,516 10,517,634
Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool 60,427,961 60,427,961 Demand 3.74%
71,281,477$ 70,945,595$
US Bank Account 10,211,433
81,492,910$
As of February 28, 2026
City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail
TOTAL PORTFOLIO
Farmer
Mac, 21%
First
Financial -
CD, 28%
FFCB, 20%
FHLMC,
10%
US
Treasury
Note, 9%
Issuer Diversification
Checking,
$10.21 ,
13%
State LGIP,
$60.43 ,
74%
CD's , $3.05
, 4%
Note,
$1.00 ,
1%
Bonds ,
$6.81 , 8%
Cash and Investment Balances
(in $ Millions)
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 69/563
23
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
$947,931 $950,684 $1,091,709
$1,683,872
$3,044,847 $2,914,584
$434,964
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 YTD 2026
Annual Interest Income
173,472
200,645
226,451
74,622
418,521
458,423 434,964
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 YTD 2026
Interest Income (January through February )
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 70/563
1,400,777
899,130
339,867
3,507,663
3,798,358
3,043,686
2,445,681
1,863,125
1,490,616
5,053,833
4,775,903
3,194,741
3,825,645
2,037,314
1,660,613
1,101,349
4,269,145
4,559,841
3,805,169
3,207,163
2,624,608
2,252,099
5,815,316
5,537,385
3,956,224
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
Beginning Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Budgeted vs Projected Fund Balance
Projected Fund Balance Budgeted Fund Balance
24
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 71/563
25
APPENDIX A
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 72/563
26
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
City Council
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 46,281$ 46,281$ 36,151$ 36,151$ -21.89%
February 93,767 47,486 38,451 74,602 -20.44%
March 131,999 38,232 30,418 105,020 -20.44%
April 170,890 38,891 30,942 135,962 -20.44%
May 217,805 46,914 37,326 173,288 -20.44%
June 251,744 33,940 27,003 200,291 -20.44%
July 287,585 35,840 28,515 228,806 -20.44%
August 323,246 35,661 28,373 257,178 -20.44%
September 358,236 34,990 27,839 285,017 -20.44%
October 396,060 37,823 30,093 315,110 -20.44%
November 432,728 36,668 29,174 344,283 -20.44%
December 467,139 34,411 27,378 371,661 -20.44%
467,139$
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 37,112$ 37,112$ 34,566$ 34,566$ -6.86%
February 76,213 39,101 33,436 68,002 -10.77%
March 119,559 43,346 38,676 106,678 -10.77%
April 162,726 43,167 38,516 145,193 -10.77%
May 218,379 55,654 49,658 194,851 -10.77%
June 254,833 36,454 32,526 227,377 -10.77%
July 295,364 40,531 36,164 263,542 -10.77%
August 334,749 39,385 35,141 298,683 -10.77%
September 373,340 38,591 34,433 333,116 -10.77%
October 415,197 41,857 37,348 370,464 -10.77%
November 451,655 36,457 32,529 402,993 -10.77%
December 498,006 46,351 41,358 444,351 -10.77%
498,006$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-City Council
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Office of Mayor
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 73/563
27
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 117,174$ 117,174$ 82,364$ 82,364$ -29.71%
February 210,057 92,883 76,930 159,294 -24.17%
March 298,803 88,746 67,299 226,593 -24.17%
April 385,486 86,683 65,735 292,328 -24.17%
May 470,433 84,946 64,418 356,746 -24.17%
June 558,476 88,043 66,766 423,512 -24.17%
July 659,647 101,171 76,721 500,233 -24.17%
August 743,350 83,704 63,475 563,709 -24.17%
September 829,180 85,830 65,088 628,797 -24.17%
October 918,408 89,228 67,664 696,461 -24.17%
November 1,015,642 97,234 73,736 770,197 -24.17%
December 1,107,185 91,543 69,420 839,617 -24.17%
1,107,185$
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 189,077$ 189,077$ 196,947$ 196,947$ 4.16%
February 391,212 202,135 196,077 393,024 0.46%
March 585,244 194,032 194,931 587,955 0.46%
April 778,270 193,025 193,919 781,874 0.46%
May 978,908 200,638 201,567 983,441 0.46%
June 1,183,551 204,643 205,591 1,189,032 0.46%
July 1,393,679 210,128 211,101 1,400,133 0.46%
August 1,619,233 225,554 226,599 1,626,732 0.46%
September 1,850,650 231,417 232,489 1,859,221 0.46%
October 2,088,251 237,601 238,701 2,097,922 0.46%
November 2,321,780 233,529 234,610 2,332,532 0.46%
December 2,552,457 230,677 231,745 2,564,277 0.46%
2,552,457$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Human Resources
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Municipal Court
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
2,200,000
2,400,000
2,600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 74/563
28
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
Administrative Services
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 167,804$ 167,804$ 152,119$ 152,119$ -9.35%
February 319,854 152,050 156,285 308,404 -3.58%
March 470,708 150,853 145,453 453,856 -3.58%
April 614,409 143,701 138,557 592,413 -3.58%
May 809,489 195,080 188,096 780,509 -3.58%
June 941,299 131,810 127,092 907,601 -3.58%
July 1,070,865 129,566 124,927 1,032,528 -3.58%
August 1,207,049 136,184 131,309 1,163,837 -3.58%
September 1,344,774 137,725 132,795 1,296,632 -3.58%
October 1,507,147 162,372 156,559 1,453,191 -3.58%
November 1,672,825 165,678 159,747 1,612,938 -3.58%
December 1,817,770 144,945 139,756 1,752,695 -3.58%
1,817,770$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Administrative Services
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
2,200,000
2,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Administrative Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 75/563
29
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 110,529$ 110,529$ 144,832$ 144,832$ 31.04%
February 221,058 110,529 75,044 219,876 -0.53%
March 331,586 110,529 109,938 329,814 -0.53%
April 442,115 110,529 109,938 439,752 -0.53%
May 552,644 110,529 109,938 549,690 -0.53%
June 663,173 110,529 109,938 659,627 -0.53%
July 773,702 110,529 109,938 769,565 -0.53%
August 884,230 110,529 109,938 879,503 -0.53%
September 994,759 110,529 109,938 989,441 -0.53%
October 1,105,288 110,529 109,938 1,099,379 -0.53%
November 1,215,817 110,529 109,938 1,209,317 -0.53%
December 1,326,345 110,529 109,938 1,319,255 -0.53%
1,326,345$
Police
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 1,448,757$ 1,448,757$ 1,421,817$ 1,421,817$ -1.86%
February 2,906,891 1,458,134 1,782,532 3,204,349 10.23%
March 4,491,917 1,585,027 1,747,220 4,951,570 10.23%
April 5,969,167 1,477,250 1,628,415 6,579,985 10.23%
May 7,644,307 1,675,140 1,846,556 8,426,540 10.23%
June 9,230,967 1,586,660 1,749,021 10,175,562 10.23%
July 10,705,940 1,474,973 1,625,905 11,801,467 10.23%
August 12,118,098 1,412,157 1,556,662 13,358,129 10.23%
September 13,563,261 1,445,164 1,593,045 14,951,174 10.23%
October 15,123,250 1,559,989 1,719,621 16,670,795 10.23%
November 16,784,873 1,661,623 1,831,654 18,502,450 10.23%
December 18,318,018 1,533,145 1,690,030 20,192,480 10.23%
18,318,018$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-City Attorney
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Police
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 76/563
30
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
Planning & Development
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 328,337$ 328,337$ 308,580$ 308,580$ -6.02%
February 700,643 372,306 302,699 611,279 -12.75%
March 1,108,494 407,852 355,832 967,112 -12.75%
April 1,507,308 398,814 347,947 1,315,059 -12.75%
May 1,867,024 359,716 313,836 1,628,895 -12.75%
June 2,237,643 370,618 323,348 1,952,243 -12.75%
July 2,566,182 328,539 286,636 2,238,878 -12.75%
August 2,870,595 304,413 265,587 2,504,465 -12.75%
September 3,318,139 447,544 390,462 2,894,927 -12.75%
October 3,632,413 314,274 274,190 3,169,117 -12.75%
November 3,976,012 343,599 299,775 3,468,892 -12.75%
December 4,324,631 348,619 304,154 3,773,046 -12.75%
4,324,631$
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 425,181$ 425,181$ 409,190$ 409,190$ -3.76%
February 853,429 428,249 392,512 801,702 -6.06%
March 1,341,593 488,164 458,576 1,260,278 -6.06%
April 1,752,303 410,710 385,816 1,646,094 -6.06%
May 2,184,681 432,378 406,171 2,052,265 -6.06%
June 2,614,635 429,954 403,894 2,456,159 -6.06%
July 3,076,586 461,951 433,952 2,890,111 -6.06%
August 3,557,215 480,629 451,498 3,341,609 -6.06%
September 3,998,615 441,400 414,647 3,756,255 -6.06%
October 4,413,096 414,481 389,359 4,145,614 -6.06%
November 4,822,266 409,170 384,370 4,529,984 -6.06%
December 5,281,125 458,859 431,047 4,961,031 -6.06%
5,281,125$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Planning & Development
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Parks & Recreation
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Planning & Development
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 77/563
31
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 242,473$ 242,473$ 211,604$ 211,604$ -12.73%
February 490,971 248,498 170,000 381,604 -22.28%
March 733,425 242,455 188,447 570,051 -22.28%
April 987,110 253,684 197,174 767,225 -22.28%
May 1,185,395 198,285 154,116 921,341 -22.28%
June 1,535,749 350,354 272,311 1,193,652 -22.28%
July 1,738,024 202,275 157,217 1,350,869 -22.28%
August 1,765,212 27,188 21,132 1,372,001 -22.28%
September 1,985,460 220,248 171,186 1,543,187 -22.28%
October 2,191,154 205,694 159,875 1,703,062 -22.28%
November 2,386,521 195,367 151,848 1,854,910 -22.28%
December 2,606,747 220,226 171,169 2,026,079 -22.28%
2,606,747$
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 359,555$ 359,555$ 303,830$ 303,830$ -15.50%
February 713,632 354,077 247,021 550,851 -22.81%
March 1,045,025 331,392 255,801 806,652 -22.81%
April 1,388,340 343,315 265,004 1,071,655 -22.81%
May 1,725,547 337,207 260,289 1,331,944 -22.81%
June 2,111,199 385,652 297,684 1,629,628 -22.81%
July 2,432,015 320,816 247,637 1,877,265 -22.81%
August 2,785,781 353,766 273,071 2,150,336 -22.81%
September 3,136,985 351,204 271,093 2,421,429 -22.81%
October 3,472,951 335,966 259,331 2,680,760 -22.81%
November 3,804,125 331,175 255,633 2,936,393 -22.81%
December 4,151,118 346,993 267,843 3,204,235 -22.81%
4,151,118$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Facilities Maintenance
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Engineering
0
300,000
600,000
900,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
1,800,000
2,100,000
2,400,000
2,700,000
3,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
400,000
800,000
1,200,000
1,600,000
2,000,000
2,400,000
2,800,000
3,200,000
3,600,000
4,000,000
4,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 78/563
32
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT EXPENSE SUMMARY
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 982,771$ 982,771$ 1,686,468$ 1,686,468$ 71.60%
February 1,318,318 335,547 478,150 2,164,618 64.20%
March 1,767,509 449,191 737,551 2,902,169 64.20%
April 2,131,057 363,549 596,931 3,499,099 64.20%
May 2,453,970 322,912 530,208 4,029,307 64.20%
June 2,981,104 527,134 865,530 4,894,837 64.20%
July 3,297,961 316,857 520,265 5,415,102 64.20%
August 3,875,730 577,769 948,670 6,363,772 64.20%
September 4,509,750 634,020 1,041,032 7,404,804 64.20%
October 5,207,370 697,620 1,145,461 8,550,265 64.20%
November 5,872,477 665,107 1,092,075 9,642,340 64.20%
December 6,768,912 896,435 1,471,906 11,114,246 64.20%
6,768,912$
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Non-Departmental
2026
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Current Year Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 79/563
33
FUND SUMMARIES
Fund 016 - Building Maintenance Fund
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 154,167$ 154,167$ -$ -$ 0.00%
February 308,333 154,167 4,482 4,482 -98.55%
March 462,500 154,167 2,241 6,722 -98.55%
April 616,666 154,167 2,241 8,963 -98.55%
May 770,833 154,167 2,241 11,204 -98.55%
June 925,000 154,167 2,241 13,445 -98.55%
July 1,079,166 154,167 2,241 15,685 -98.55%
August 1,233,333 154,167 2,241 17,926 -98.55%
September 1,387,499 154,167 2,241 20,167 -98.55%
October 1,541,666 154,167 2,241 22,408 -98.55%
November 1,695,833 154,167 2,241 24,648 -98.55%
December 1,849,999 154,167 2,241 26,889 -98.55%
1,849,999$
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Fund 016 - Building Maintenance Fund
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 016 -Building Maintenance Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 80/563
34
FUND SUMMARIES
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 180,699$ 180,699$ 102,307$ 102,307$ -43.38%
February 369,890 189,191 170,681 272,988 -26.20%
March 620,117 250,227 184,674 457,662 -26.20%
April 968,775 348,659 257,319 714,981 -26.20%
May 1,339,598 370,823 273,677 988,657 -26.20%
June 2,004,973 665,375 491,063 1,479,721 -26.20%
July 2,359,988 355,015 262,010 1,741,731 -26.20%
August 2,738,388 378,400 279,269 2,020,999 -26.20%
September 3,038,181 299,793 221,255 2,242,254 -26.20%
October 3,439,573 401,392 296,237 2,538,492 -26.20%
November 3,713,484 273,912 202,154 2,740,645 -26.20%
December 4,000,000 286,516 211,456 2,952,101 -26.20%
4,000,000$
Fund 512 - Technology Rental Fund Expenses
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 839,016$ 839,016$ 695,433$ 695,433$ -17.11%
February 983,800 144,784 108,274 803,707 -18.31%
March 1,165,508 181,708 148,445 952,152 -18.31%
April 1,316,718 151,209 123,529 1,075,682 -18.31%
May 1,506,526 189,808 155,062 1,230,744 -18.31%
June 1,655,173 148,647 121,436 1,352,180 -18.31%
July 1,872,333 217,160 177,407 1,529,587 -18.31%
August 2,040,789 168,456 137,619 1,667,206 -18.31%
September 2,227,781 186,992 152,761 1,819,967 -18.31%
October 2,409,853 182,073 148,743 1,968,710 -18.31%
November 2,572,514 162,661 132,884 2,101,594 -18.31%
December 2,782,528 210,014 171,569 2,273,163 -18.31%
2,782,528$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Fund 512 - Technology Rental Fund
2026
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
2,200,000
2,400,000
2,600,000
2,800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 512 -Technology Rental Fund Expenses
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
400,000
800,000
1,200,000
1,600,000
2,000,000
2,400,000
2,800,000
3,200,000
3,600,000
4,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 81/563
35
FUND 421 – WATER UTILITY FUND SUMMARY
Fund 421 - Water Utility Fund Revenues
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 958,926$ 958,926$ 1,419,376$ 1,419,376$ 48.02%
February 1,588,753 629,828 1,133,661 2,553,038 60.69%
March 2,517,448 928,694 1,492,360 4,045,398 60.69%
April 3,193,768 676,320 1,086,809 5,132,207 60.69%
May 4,118,581 924,813 1,486,122 6,618,329 60.69%
June 4,874,074 755,494 1,214,036 7,832,365 60.69%
July 5,979,594 1,105,520 1,776,508 9,608,873 60.69%
August 10,988,128 5,008,534 8,048,434 17,657,308 60.69%
September 12,357,871 1,369,743 2,201,100 19,858,408 60.69%
October 13,273,924 916,053 1,472,046 21,330,454 60.69%
November 14,275,600 1,001,676 1,609,637 22,940,092 60.69%
December 15,030,903 755,303 1,213,730 24,153,821 60.69%
15,030,903$
Fund 421 - Water Utility Fund Expenses
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 2,438,923$ 2,438,923$ 933,217$ 933,217$ -61.74%
February 3,071,564 632,641 651,481 1,584,698 -48.41%
March 3,765,937 694,372 358,244 1,942,942 -48.41%
April 4,498,284 732,347 377,836 2,320,779 -48.41%
May 5,102,424 604,140 311,691 2,632,470 -48.41%
June 6,386,351 1,283,927 662,410 3,294,881 -48.41%
July 7,647,492 1,261,141 650,655 3,945,535 -48.41%
August 12,382,855 4,735,363 2,443,094 6,388,629 -48.41%
September 14,100,725 1,717,870 886,293 7,274,922 -48.41%
October 15,252,589 1,151,864 594,276 7,869,198 -48.41%
November 16,168,803 916,214 472,698 8,341,896 -48.41%
December 18,667,324 2,498,521 1,289,051 9,630,947 -48.41%
18,667,324$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Fund 421 - Water Utility Fund
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Fund 421 - Water Utility Fund
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 421 -Water Utility Fund Revenues
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 421 -Water Utility Fund Expenses
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 82/563
36
FUND 422 – STORM UTILITY FUND SUMMARY
Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund Revenues
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 701,478$ 701,478$ 823,415$ 823,415$ 17.38%
February 2,281,792 1,580,315 1,622,271 2,445,685 7.18%
March 2,982,974 701,181 751,545 3,197,230 7.18%
April 3,622,071 639,097 685,001 3,882,231 7.18%
May 4,409,302 787,230 843,774 4,726,005 7.18%
June 5,042,798 633,497 678,999 5,405,004 7.18%
July 5,823,677 780,878 836,966 6,241,970 7.18%
August 9,008,589 3,184,913 3,413,673 9,655,643 7.18%
September 9,720,915 712,325 763,489 10,419,132 7.18%
October 10,695,619 974,705 1,044,714 11,463,846 7.18%
November 11,398,319 702,699 753,172 12,217,018 7.18%
December 12,074,888 676,569 725,165 12,942,182 7.18%
12,074,888$
Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund Expenses
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 602,625$ 602,625$ 873,709$ 873,709$ 44.98%
February 1,960,241 1,357,616 535,481 1,409,190 -28.11%
March 2,562,611 602,370 433,036 1,842,226 -28.11%
April 3,111,646 549,035 394,694 2,236,920 -28.11%
May 3,787,940 676,293 486,178 2,723,098 -28.11%
June 4,332,164 544,224 391,235 3,114,334 -28.11%
July 5,003,000 670,836 482,255 3,596,589 -28.11%
August 7,739,092 2,736,092 1,966,940 5,563,528 -28.11%
September 8,351,036 611,944 439,918 6,003,447 -28.11%
October 9,188,385 837,349 601,959 6,605,405 -28.11%
November 9,792,059 603,674 433,973 7,039,378 -28.11%
December 10,373,286 581,227 417,836 7,457,214 -28.11%
10,373,286$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund
2026
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
11,000,000
12,000,000
13,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 422 -Storm Utility Fund Revenues
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
11,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 422 -Storm Utility Fund Expenses
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 83/563
37
FUND 423 – SEWER UTILITY FUND SUMMARY
Fund 423 - Sewer Utility Fund Revenues
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 1,433,083$ 1,433,083$ 1,606,318$ 1,606,318$ 12.09%
February 2,737,085 1,304,002 1,327,273 2,933,591 7.18%
March 4,238,410 1,501,325 1,609,111 4,542,702 7.18%
April 5,924,788 1,686,378 1,807,450 6,350,152 7.18%
May 8,041,804 2,117,016 2,269,005 8,619,157 7.18%
June 9,165,000 1,123,196 1,203,835 9,822,992 7.18%
July 10,743,639 1,578,639 1,691,975 11,514,968 7.18%
August 14,811,596 4,067,957 4,360,012 15,874,980 7.18%
September 16,280,297 1,468,701 1,574,145 17,449,125 7.18%
October 17,524,918 1,244,621 1,333,977 18,783,102 7.18%
November 19,202,434 1,677,516 1,797,952 20,581,053 7.18%
December 20,499,448 1,297,014 1,390,132 21,971,185 7.18%
20,499,448$
Fund 423 - Sewer Utility Fund Expenses
Cumulative Monthly Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Trend Budget Trend Actuals Actuals %
January 1,435,442$ 1,435,442$ 2,219,216$ 2,219,216$ 54.60%
February 2,409,722 974,280 1,086,260 3,305,476 37.17%
March 4,001,110 1,591,388 2,182,947 5,488,423 37.17%
April 5,403,943 1,402,834 1,924,302 7,412,725 37.17%
May 6,545,160 1,141,217 1,565,436 8,978,161 37.17%
June 8,094,094 1,548,934 2,124,711 11,102,872 37.17%
July 9,267,050 1,172,956 1,608,973 12,711,846 37.17%
August 13,636,809 4,369,759 5,994,108 18,705,954 37.17%
September 15,001,984 1,365,175 1,872,645 20,578,599 37.17%
October 16,219,443 1,217,459 1,670,019 22,248,618 37.17%
November 17,498,841 1,279,398 1,754,983 24,003,601 37.17%
December 20,051,312 2,552,471 3,501,289 27,504,889 37.17%
20,051,312$
*The monthly budget trend columns are based on a two year trend.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Fund 423 - Sewer Utility Fund
2026
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Summary-Fund 423 - Sewer Utility Fund
2026
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
22,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 423 -Sewer Utility Fund Revenues
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
22,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Fund 423 -Sewer Utility Fund Expenses
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Item 7.2
Packet pg. 84/563
City Council Agenda Item 7.3
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Outside Boards and Committees Reports (Only One Reading Required)
(First Reading)
DEPARTMENT:City Council Office
PRESENTER:Teresa Simanton
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational
RECOMMENDATION:N/A
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from the following organizations:
Afordable Housing Alliance
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
PFD Oversight Committee
Port of Edmonds
Seashore Transportation Forum
SNOCOM 911
Snohomish County Tomorrow
Salmon Recovery WRIA 8
Lake Ballinger Watershed Forum
Community Transit
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
Outside Boards and commissions will be submitted to the Received for Filing portion of the agenda for
last meeting of the month.
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ITEM HISTORY:
Agendas and minutes for the outside boards and committees that have representation from
councilmembers.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 85/563
Lodging Tax Advisory March 2026
Affordable House Alliance February 4, 2026
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce April 23, 2026
PFD Oversight Committee February 10, 2026
PFD Oversight Committee February 26, 2026
PFD Oversight Committee March 31, 2026
Port of Edmonds March 31, 2026
Port of Edmonds February 25, 2026
Port of Edmonds March 9, 2026
Port of Edmonds February 9 2026
Seashore Transportation Forum
Snohomish County Tomorrow March 25 2026
SNOCOM 911, February 19, 2026
SNOCOM 911, February 25, 2026
SNOCOM 911 March 19, 2026
Snohomish County Tomorrow February 25 2026
Salmont Recovery WRIA 8 March 19 2026
Lake Ballinger Watershed Forum
CT Board March 5, 2026
CT Board April 2, 2026
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 86/563
*Remote attendance
**Names of those who were confirmed as attendees are included, others who attended remotely without submitting their names are not included.
Meeting
Thursday, March 5, 2026
Hybrid Meeting - 3 p.m.
Board Members Present
Council Chair Megan Dunn Snohomish County
Council Member Tom Merrill City of Snohomish
Mayor Joe Marine City of Mukilteo
Mayor Jon Nehring City of Marysville
Council Member Susan Paine City of Edmonds
Council Member David Parshall City of Lynnwood
Lela Perkins Labor Representative, non-voting
Mayor Sid Roberts City of Stanwood
Council Member Kyoko Matsumoto Wright City of Mountlake Terrace
Board Members Absent
Council Member Strom Peterson Snohomish County
Others Present**
Mary Allbert CT-Director, Financial Planning, Budget
Greg Allen CT-Sr. Prog. Mgr. Procurement Parts
Sabina Araya* City of Lake Stevens
Roland Behee CT-Chief Operations Officer
Samantha Bowes CT-Sr. Director Employee Engagement
Kristin Bruington CT-Procurement SBE/DBE Specialist
Melissa Cauley CT-Chief Planning & Development Officer
Nicole Collins CT-Procurement & Parts, Sr. Spec.
Kyle Dilbert CT-Director of Procurement
Jamyang Dorjee CT-Program Mgr. Public Affairs
Scott Eastman CT-Sr. Manager Security & Emergency Mgmt.
Heather Fulcher* City of Monroe
Kevin Futhey CT-Project Mgr. III Service Innovation
Mike Gallagher City of Brier
Eunjoo Greenhouse CT-Chief People & Financial Officer
Teran Hayes CT-Asst. Mgr. Procurement & Parts
Jay Heim CT-Manager Zero Emissions
Ric Ilgenfritz CT-Chief Executive Officer
Allie Johnson CT-Sr. Project Mgr. Zero Emissions
Stephan Kimbrough CT-Facilities Dev. Program Mgr.
Sam Lushtak CT-Sr. Director Safety Security & Sustain
Molly Marsicek* CT-Chief Innovation & Customer Exp. Officer
Mattew Muller CT-Sr. Mgr. System & Operation & Design
Martin Munguia CT-Sr. Manager External Communications
Deb Osborne CT-Chief of Staff.
Geoff Patrick CT-Chief Communications Officer
Roger Pence Self
Robert Rich CT-Speed & Reliability Manager
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 87/563
March 5, 2026
Page 2
2
Alexa Russo CT-Sustainability Program Manager
Christopher Silveira CT-Dir. of Capital Dev. & Delivery
Jason Smith CT-Mgr. Diversity Equity and Inclusion
Ellen Southard Salmon-Safe
Monica Spain CT-Program Mgr. Public information Ofcr.
Chas Stearns CT-Chief Information Officer
Christina Strand CT-Sr. Specialist Community Engagement
Sally Stopher CT-Sr. Director Finance & Procurement
Matthew Sutherland CT-Government Relations Mgr.
Mike Swehla CT-Sr. Director Vehicle Maintenance
De Tapia CT-Deputy Dir. of IT Transit Technology
Don Vanney City of Arlington
Jim Williams CT-Sr. Director Transportation
Olivia Woods CT-Director of Research & Analytics
Rachel Woods CT-Executive Programs Mgr.
Henry Yarskinske CT-External Communications
Ryan Zavala CT-Sr. Program Mgr. Safety & Security
Call to Order
Chair Marine called the March 5, 2026, meeting to order at 3 p.m. The meeting was
held at 2312 W. Casino Road, Everett, WA 98204 and by Zoom. The meeting was recorded and
livestreamed.
Roll Call of Members
The Executive Programs Manager called roll. Attendance was as noted above. A quorum was present.
Public Comments
There were no public comments.
Presentations
Salmon Safe Certification
Alexa Russo, Sustainability Program Manager, introduced Ellen Southard., Salmon-Safe Outreach &
Engagement Specialist, Community Transit was presented with the Salmon-Safe Certification, the first
transit agency to receive this recognition. Community Transit will be working towards water quality
protection goals in its ongoing commitment to sustainability.
CEO Ilgenfritz reported on a recent trip to Washington, D.C. where he met Representatives Larsen, DelBene,
and Schrier, as well as legislative staff in the offices of Senators Murray and Cantwell. He also met with
senior leadership at FTA headquarters. The Sound Transit Stride S3 groundbreaking event took place on
February 27 and celebrated the kickoff for construction of the bus rapid transit line. The Community Transit
Swift Green Line extension would connect with Stride directly and share three stations in Bothell.
The State legislative session is nearing an end. The transportation budget proposals continued to support
the House and Senate
proposals. At the federal level staff were working together to submit requests for Community Directed
Spending applications for fiscal year 2027.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 88/563
March 5, 2026
Page 3
3
Tuesday through Thursday this week, from 10 p.m. to the end of service around midnight, Community Transit
was providing shuttle buses to replace trains between Lynnwood City Center and Northgate due to Sound
light rail maintenance.
Bus service reliability has improved substantially. The most recent 5 weeks (February/March) have averaged
99.8% service delivery, and 30 missed trips per week, 80% fewer missed trips than the prior 5 weeks
(December/January). The maintenance team was making substantial progress on fleet maintenance and
progress was being seen in recruitment with four recent journey mechanic hires.
The two zero emissions items on the agenda were reviewed.
Community Transit has once again received the prestigious Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) Excellence in Financial Reporting for the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This is
6th consecutive award and represents strong financial stewardship.
Committee Reports
Executive Committee
Chair Marine reported on the February 20 meeting. The CEO report was provided. The next meeting was
scheduled was scheduled for March 24 at 3 p.m.
Finance, Performance, and Oversight Committee
Councilmember Merrill reported on the February 19 meeting. The Committee reviewed and recommended
the January 2026 monthly expenditures & payroll vouchers to the consent agenda. Programmatic
Procurement Approval Kasch Park Transition Project was reviewed and recommended as an action
item. The Committee received a 2025 Year-End Performance report, also reported to the Board and a Q4
2025 Security Services Update. The January 2026 Sales Tax Report was presented. The next meeting
was scheduled for February 19 at 2 p.m.
Strategic Alignment and Capital Development Committee.
Council Chair Dunn reported on the February 18 meeting. The committee reviewed and forwarded two
action items to the board agenda:
1. ITB #2025-
2. RFP #2025-138, Speed & Reliability Prioritization Study
The Committee reviewed and forwarded one item to consent, RFQ 2025-120, Facilities Master Plan
Phase 8A Kasch Park Zero Emissions Phase 1 Design. The next meeting was scheduled for March 18 at
2 p.m.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Merrill moved to approve items A through H on the consent calendar. The motion
was seconded by Council Member Paine and passed unanimously.
a. Approve minutes of the February 5, 2026 Board Meeting
b. Award RFQ 2025-120, Facilities Master Plan Phase 8A Kasch Park Zero Emissions Phase 1 Design
c. Approve vouchers dated January 2, 2026 in the amount of $2,296,057.35
d. Approve vouchers dated January 9, 2026 in the amount of $5,993,061.00
e. Approve vouchers dated January 16, 2026 in the amount of $5,987,641.87
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 89/563
March 5, 2026
Page 4
4
f. Approve vouchers dated January 23, 2026 in the amount of $3,590,800.83
g. Approve vouchers dated January 30, 2026 in the amount of $2,374,490.95
h. Approve January 2026 Payroll:
i. Direct Deposits Issued, #502919-505084 in the amount of $6,016,200.35
ii. Paychecks Issued, #113822-113881 in the amount of $82,285.50
iii. Employer Payroll Tax Deposits in the amount of $709,218.39
iv. Employer Deferred Compensation for IAM in the amount of $15,625.94
Action Items
Award ITB #2025-139 Ten
Jay Heim, Manager Zero Emissions, reviewed the timeline for the Zero Emissions Program. The battery
electric bus pilot bus had been in revenue service since October 2024 with a positive performance. The
recommendation was to purchase ten battery electric buses. This initial purchase supported
emissions strategy by transitioning a portion of the fleet from
conventional diesel buses to battery electric vehicles and associated charging infrastructure. It was
expected the coaches would be put into revenue service in 2028. The Board asked questions.
Council Member Merrill motioned that the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer
to negotiate and award Contract ITB #2025-
electric buses with inductive charging technology for a not to exceed amount of $19,382,470. The
motion was seconded by Mayor Nehring and passed unanimously.
Award RFP #2025-138 Speed & Reliability Prioritization Study
Robert Rich, Speed & Reliability Manager, presented. In 2024 a Speed and Reliability Program was
launched to advance a transit first approach to roadway design, curb use, and traffic signal timing within its
service area. This program was focused on collaborating with external partners and stakeholders.
Example tools included bus lane treatments and transit signal priority. This five-year study would provide a
Speed & Reliability program framework, analytics tools, and an implementation roadmap allowing the
program to maximize its investments and optimize the network. The vendor selected was DKS Associates
and the cost was considered fair and reasonable.
Council Member Paine motioned that the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer
to negotiate and award Contract #2025-138 Speed & Reliability Prioritization Study, to DKS
Associates, in the not-to-exceed amount of $798,903. The motion was seconded by Mayor Roberts
and passed unanimously.
Approve Programmatic Procurement Approval - Kasch Park Transition Project
Kyle Dilbert, Procurement Director, and Mike Swehla, Senior Director Maintenance presented. All fixed
route contracted bus service was in process of being brought in-house. The Kasch Park Operating Base
needed to be operational before the end of 2026 to support directly operated service. The procurement
recommendation presented was a solution to a challenge to purchase a large volume of coordinated
purchases from multiple vendors, which would require 8 to 10 separate board actions. The
recommendation was to issue a programmatic approval, including direct negotiation with vendors. Best
practice safeguards and controls were reviewed. Staff would return later with a report to the Board. This
procurement was scope-bound, and budget-bound. The Board commented.
Council Member Paine motioned that the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer
to negotiate and award all contracts for tools, equipment, and parts inventory for the Maintenance
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 90/563
March 5, 2026
Page 5
5
shop to support startup and commissioning of the Kasch Park Operating Base, up to a combined
not-to-exceed amount of $3,000,000.00, consistent with the adopted budget and procurement
policy. This programmatic authorization will remain limited to one-time, non-recurring
procurements required to support the initial operational readiness of the KPOB facility. The motion
was seconded by Council Member Matsumoto Wright and passed unanimously.
Chair Report
Chair Marine reported that the next regular Board meeting was scheduled for April 2 at 3 p.m.
Board Communication
Council Chair Dunn attended a recent foodbank coalition meeting
appreciation for transit vouchers for food bank patrons.
Mayor Nehring complimented the staff reports and asked a question about the security services update
report, where there was 62% increase in security reports for the service ambassador group. This
information would be provided by staff to the Board.
Council Member Parshall thanked staff for the presentations.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.
Rachel Woods
Executive Programs Manager
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 91/563
To promote the economic vitality of Edmonds through advocacy, leadership, education and community-building events.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING AGENDA
4/23/2026 | 7:30am-9:00am | ZOOM Meeting
Call to Order Glenda Krull, President, Presiding
Approve March Minutes
Financials Jeff King
President & CEO Ryan Crowther
CEO report
Local Issues
Update from City of Edmonds
Update from Port of Edmonds
Old Business
New Business
Adjourn
Thank you for your service to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
Glenda Krull
Board Chair - Windermere
Jay Hoag
Vice Chair
Jeff King
Treasurer – First Security Bank
Richard Suico
Secretary – Sno-Isle Libraries
Olivia Brown Latham
Sugarology
Brittany Williams
Port of Edmonds
Anne Penny
Past Chair – Edmonds College
••••••••••
Rob Schwertley
Individual Member
John Jessen
Jessen Architects
Liz Dawson
Edmonds Center for the Arts
Jeff Moore
Coastal Community Bank
Diana Van Loveren
R&D Electric
Adel Sefrioui
PNW Development
Robert Ha
Asian Service Center
Jan Flom
Swedish Medical Center
Mitch Brewe
RBC Olympic View Group
Amy Golding
The Crumpet Shop
•••
Michelle Dotsch
City Council Representative
City of Edmonds
Todd Tatum
Economic Development Director
City of Edmonds
Janelle Cass
Commissioner
Port of Edmonds
Upcoming Events…
• Connect Edmonds, April 28, 4:30-6:30pm
• Morning Buzz, May 13, 7:30-9:00am
Thank you for your service to
the Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce
Zoom (Video or Phone)
https://zoom.us/j/93957980476?pwd=RXhjTHhCaVhOVVZoTFJna1JuaWZKUT09
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 92/563
BOARD OF DIRECTORS’
MEETING AGENDA
Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation
Thursday,
April 2, 2026
3:00 p.m.
Community Transit Board Room - 2312 W Casino Road, Everett, WA 98204
Board Meeting Virtual Participation
Zoom Webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87858511746?pwd=UVZwc3doeW41L0pRSFBZbVBVVWlhQT09
Webinar ID: 878 5851 1746 Passcode: 433505 Phone: 1-253-215-8782
Watch Live
Livestream: https://bit.ly/CTPublicMtgsYouTube
Page 1 of 2
*Advance sign up for verbal public comments is not required but requested to support meeting administration.
**Indicates attachment
2312 W Casino Road Everett, WA 98204 (425) 348-7100 www.communitytransit.org
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENT*
a. Verbal Comment: Sign up to speak by completing this Sign Up Form. Requested by 3 p.m. April 1.
Written Comment: Email executiveoffice@commtrans.org. Requested by 3 p.m. April 1.
4. PRESENTATIONS
a. Employee Service Awards – Ric Ilgenfritz
b. 2025 Employee Awards – Ric Ilgenfritz & Mayor Roberts
c. State Legislative Session Report – Davor Gjurasic
5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Executive Committee – Mayor Marine
b. Finance, Performance, & Oversight Committee – Council Member Merrill
7. CONSENT ITEMS**
a. Approve minutes of the February 19, 2026 Board Workshop
b. Approve minutes of the March 5, 2026 Board Meeting
c. Approve vouchers dated February 6, 2026 in the amount of $3,016,693.52
d. Approve vouchers dated February 13, 2026 in the amount of $5,408,831.04
e. Approve vouchers dated February 20, 2026 in the amount of $2,863,831.41
f. Approve vouchers dated February 27, 2026 in the amount of $1,913,390.09
g. Approve February 2026 Payroll:
i. Direct Deposits Issued, #505085-507250 in the amount of $6,045,893.73
ii. Paychecks Issued, #113929-113993 in the amount of $51,792.74
iii. Employer Payroll Tax Deposits in the amount of $714,397.17
iv. Employer Deferred Compensation for IAM in the amount of $16,597.83
8. CHAIR’S REPORT
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 93/563
Page 2 of 2
* Advance sign up for verbal public comments is not required but requested to support meeting administration.
**Indicates attachment
2312 W Casino Road Everett, WA 98204 (425) 348-7100 www.communitytransit.org
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Labor Negotiations Update
10. ACTION ITEMS
a. Adopt Resolution No. 03-26, International Association of Machinists, District 160, Local 130,
Transportation Supervisors and Instructors
11. BOARD COMMUNICATION
12. OTHER BUSINESS
13. ADJOURN
Board materials are available at www.communitytransit.org/board-of-directors. In compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodation for meetings should notify the executive
office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at 425-348-7100 (TTY Relay 711) or
executiveoffice@commtrans.org.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 94/563
AGENDA
Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council
Thursday, March 19, 2026, 2:00-4:15PM
Virtual Meeting Using Microsoft Teams
*See bottom of agenda for meeting link and other connection information
Next Meeting: May 21, 2026, 2:00-4:15PM (Virtual meeting)
Meeting
Packet Page
1. Welcome and Review Participants Vanessa Kritzer, Chair
Councilmember, City of
Redmond
2:00-2:10
2. Public Comment Vanessa Kritzer 2:10-2:15
3. Consent Agenda:
•Approval of Meeting Notes for January 15, 2026
Vanessa Kritzer 2:15-2:20
4. Updates & Good of the Order
Announcements
Carrie Byron,
WRIA 8 Projects and Funding
Coordinator
WRIA 8 partners
2:20-2:45
5. Salmon Day in Olympia Recap and
Legislative Update
(Information)
Hear takeaways from WRIA 8 partners that participated
in the third annual Salmon Day in Olympia on Feb. 4th.
Attendees met with legislative representatives to
advocate for salmon recovery funding in this session.
This topic will also include a general update on
legislative priorities and advocacy
Carrie Byron 2:45-3:05
6. WRIA 8 2025 Progress Report (Information)
Hear an update on WRIA 8 Chinook population and
habitat indicators as described in the 2025 Progress
Report. We report on the status of WRIA 8’s two
Chinook populations and share progress on
implementing many of our ambitious habitat restoration
goals.
Mary Ramirez,
WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator
3:05-3:30
7. WRIA 8 Outreach & Education
Programs (Information)
Hear an update from WRIA 8 partners leading a variety
of Outreach and Education Programs in the watershed.
Carrie Byron 3:30-4:15
8. Adjourn 4:15
3
9
11
13
1 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 95/563
Join the meeting now via Microsoft Teams
Meeting ID: 261 276 537 229 01
Passcode: w5E4Vi7M
Dial in by phone
+1 425-653-6586,,184139213#
https://dialin.teams.microsoft.com/18f41467-8f70-4471-898f-3a898245e90d?id=867042586Phone
conference ID: 184 139 213#
2 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 96/563
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes
Microsoft Teams | January 15, 2026 2:00 pm – 4:15 pm
1
Members Present
# Name Affiliation
1) Councilmember (CM) Vanessa Kritzer, Chair City of Redmond
2) CM Carston Curd, Vice Chair City of Bothell
3) CM Michelle Dotsch City of Edmonds
4) Dana Zlateff City of Everett
5) CM Eric Adman City of Kenmore
6) Deputy Mayor Randy Reeves City of Medina
7) CM Sun Burford City of Newcastle
8) CM Valerie O’Halloran City of Renton
9) CM Roisin O’Farrell City of Sammamish
10) CM Maritza Rivera City of Seattle
11) CM Ted Frantz Town of Hunts Point
12) CM John Brock Town of Woodway
13) Corinne Helmer Cedar River Council
14) Larry Reymann Environmental Science Center
15) Larry Franks Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (FISH)
16) Michelle Clark King County Flood Control District
17) Tor Bell Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
18) Dave Kyle Trout Unlimited
19) Cleo Neculae Washington State Department of Ecology
20) Stewart Reinbold Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Alternates Present
21) Eric LaFrance City of Bellevue
22) Meiring Borcherds City of Mukilteo
23) Martha Neuman City of Seattle
24) Rosa Mendez-Perez King Conservation District
25) Steven Schauer King County Flood Control District
26) Tracy Banaszynski Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group
27) Joshua Thompson Snohomish County
28) David Bain Sno-King Watershed Council
Other Attendees
29) Laurie Deveraux City of Bellevue
30) Janet Geer City of Bothell
31) Allen Quynn City of Issaquah
32) Richard Sawyer City of Kenmore
33) Rachel Konrady City of Kirkland
34) Mark Hofman City of Lake Forest Park
35) Chris Korwel City of Lake Forest Park
36) Reece Hobday City of Mill Creek
37) Patrick Hutchins City of Mountlake Terrace
38) Peter Holte City of Redmond
39) Kristina Lowthian City of Renton
40) Kathryn Hoffman City of Sammamish
41) Danielle Devier City of Seattle
42) Brent Lackey City of Seattle
43) Alison Agness King County
44) Bryna Antonia Cortes King County
45) Jasmin Ka King County
3 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 97/563
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes
Microsoft Teams | January 15, 2026 2:00 pm – 4:15 pm
2
46) Joan Lee King County
47) Ingrid Lundin King County
48) Michael Murphy King County
49) Michael Thai King County
50) Jason Wilkinson King County
51) Mark Clemens Friends of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (FISH)
52) Mackenzie Dolstad Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust
53) Audry Nelson Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
54) Joseph Short Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
55) Michael McDonald Washington State Department of Transportation
56) Carrie Byron WRIA 8 Projects and Funding Coordinator
57) Renee Leichliter WRIA 8 Administrative Coordinator
58) Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager
59) Mary Ramirez WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator
I.Welcome and Introductions - Councilmember (CM) Kritzer, Chair, called the January 15, 2026
Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) meeting to order. Chair Kritzer welcomed everyone and
established quorum by conducting roll call.
II.Public Comment: No public comment.
III.Consent Agenda: The SRC discussed the November 20, 2025 meeting minutes. No edits were
received prior to this meeting.
Action: The SRC voted unanimously to approve the November 20, 2025 meeting minutes.
IV.Updates & Announcements – Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz, WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager
•Jason reminded the Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) that WRIA 8 remains an active
partner at the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PS SRC). Recent meetings focused
on commitments in the Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Plan and approval of the
2027-2029 Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration large capital grant program request
for proposals.
•On December 10th nearly 150 salmon recovery partners from WRIA 8, Snoqualmie
Watershed, and Green/Duwamish Watershed attended the Salmon Recovery Summit:
25 Years of Action. The Summit reflected on the origins of the regional salmon recovery
partnerships, celebrated the incredible habitat protection and restoration to date, and
re-energized partners to address future salmon recovery challenges and opportunities.
The event followed the signing of the renewed interlocal agreements demonstrating the
shared commitment to continue collective watershed-based salmon recovery efforts for
another 10 years.
•Carrie Byron provided an update on the 2026 grant round. Notices of Intent (NOIs) for
both Cooperative Management (CWM) and Salmon Recovery Funding Board
(SRFB)/Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) grant programs are due January
16 via King County’s Foundant platform. Full applications are due in February for
SRFB/PSAR and March for CWM, followed by site visits and presentations. Reach out to
Carrie (cbyron@kingcounty.gov) if you have any questions.
•WRIA 8 is participating in a coalition of partners seeking a legislative funding request to
continue WDFW’s predation suppression efforts in 2027. In late October, the coalition
sent a letter to Senator Mike Chapman, Chair of the Senate Agriculture and Natural
4 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 98/563
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes
Microsoft Teams | January 15, 2026 2:00 pm – 4:15 pm
3
Resources Committee, to request he “champion” this request in the coming legislative
session. Although Senator Chapman is unwilling to introduce a legislative budget
proviso to support funding this work in the 2026 legislative session, he did invite the
coalition to present at the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on
January 19th. WRIA 8 staff are coordinating with partners to support the presentation.
• Salmon Recovery Council membership list has been updated for 2026. As new delegates
or alternates are identified please notify WRIA 8 staff to update participant lists.
• Kathryn Hoffmann shared an update on the George Davis Creek Fish Passage project in
Sammamish. They are getting ready to start construction and will be reaching out soon
to inquire about groundbreaking ceremony attendance.
V. 2025 Partner Satisfaction Survey Results (Information) – Renee Leichliter, WRIA 8
Administrative Coordinator
Renee presented the results of the client survey that was administered at the November Salmon
Recovery Council meeting. This survey is done annually to provide feedback to King County, as
service provider, to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, on the services provided by the WRIA
8 team during the prior year.
Discussion:
• CM Frantz added pinniped predation at the Ballard Locks as a topic of interest for future
SRC meetings.
• CM O’Halloran asked if the topic of stormwater runoff suggested as a future topic at
meetings would include 6PPD? Jason said it would, as part of general stormwater runoff
information in the watershed.
VI. State Legislative Priorities Update and Letter to State Legislators (Decision) – Jason Mulvihill-
Kuntz, WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Manager
Jason shared the draft letter to State Legislators in districts within the watershed and leadership
of key budget and natural resource committees in the house and the senate. This letter conveys
the importance of supporting legislative priorities and will be used in outreach when meeting
with legislators at the upcoming Salmon Day in Olympia. One edit made to the letter since the
packet went out is to include the Community Forest Grant Program as part of listed grant
programs that support salmon recovery.
Discussion:
• Patrick Hutchins asked if “No Child Left Inside” is associated with Washington State
Parks for a specific reason? Jason said his understanding is that is where the program is
housed, so it was intended to clarify to legislators that is where the funding would be
found.
• CM Frantz asked if the wording about 6PPD-q could highlight treatment more? Jason
said there is more legislation being introduced that more directly highlights treatment,
so the intent of listing it in this letter is to highlight there is still monitoring work that
needs to be done. Larry Franks clarified there are two elements to the problem: 1)
management and treatment and 2) removing it from the supply chain. Chair Kritzer
suggested adding phrasing to the letter that clarifies addressing 6PPD-q entering our
waterways as part of the priority. There was general agreement with this approach.
5 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 99/563
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes
Microsoft Teams | January 15, 2026 2:00 pm – 4:15 pm
4
Action: The SRC voted unanimously to approve the associated outreach letter including discussed
revisions.
Jason shared information about a sign on opportunity to a letter supporting legislation to
expedite the removal of toxic 6PPD from tires. This effort is being led by Trout Unlimited and
Seattle Public Utilities. Larry Franks added the scope of this letter was refined to focus on giving
tire manufacturers the incentive to remove this chemical from the supply chain, and adding
“regrettable substitutes” in the letter to help broaden the scope to chemicals we have not
identified yet, but might be similarly toxic.
Action: The SRC voted unanimously to approve signing onto the associated letter addressing removing
toxic 6PPD from tires.
Chair Kritzer shared information about a sign on opportunity to a letter supporting the
Community Forest grant program. This program started in 2020 to protect forest land that didn’t
receive funding from other programs. The three forests being advocated for in this session all
contain key salmon habitat and are hoping to continue receiving funding at historic levels.
Action: The SRC voted unanimously to approve signing onto the associated letter to support the
Community Forest grant program.
Jason reminded the SRC of the upcoming Salmon Day in Olympia on February 4th and shared
information about the WRIA 8 Legislative Subcommittee. If anyone is interested in joining, reach
out to him for more information.
VII.Salmon Returns (Information) – Mary Ramirez, WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator and Alison
Agness, King County Kokanee Recovery Manager
Mary shared an update and information on 2025 salmon returns in WRIA 8. The two primary
sources of information for this presentation today come from the Ballard Locks counts and
spawner and redd surveys.
How did WRIA 8 Chinook do in 2025?
There were 18,741 counted at Ballard Locks. This is above average, but we know it will be higher
than returns at hatchery and spawning grounds due to “recycling” at the Locks or fish not
surviving the rest of the journey after passing through the Locks. Cedar River estimate is a total
of 900 Chinook spawners, and 55% of those were natural origin fish. This is an improvement to
total Cedar spawners from the last two years and right about equal to the 10-year average. This
data is preliminary and still subject to review and approval by Co-Managers (tribes and WDFW),
though it is not expected to change much. The Sammamish population is represented by the fish
returning to index reaches in Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek, and Lower Issaquah Creek, and
1,542 were counted in 2025 with over 90% of those being hatchery fish. Mary shared images
and an update about the recent floods in December and the concern those flows would scour
and wash away redds. A previous study in the Cedar River found that flow levels begin to scour
the stream bed at around 2,300 cubic feet per second (cfs). On December 11th, Issaquah Creek
reached 2,460 cfs and the Cedar River reached 12,500 cfs. It is likely many eggs were lost. Over
6 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 100/563
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes
Microsoft Teams | January 15, 2026 2:00 pm – 4:15 pm
5
the next several months as WDFW monitors the movement of juveniles in the system, the
survival rate of eggs deposited in 2025 will be assessed.
2025 return information on other WRIA 8 salmon species:
•Sockeye – Ballard Locks count was 17,881, Cedar River spawner count was 3,949. The
percent of fish ending up in the Cedar River has declined over time and experts believe
the primary reasons are juvenile predation by predatory fish, warm water, and higher
disease rates.
•Coho – Ballard Locks count was 28,150, Issaquah Hatchery return count was 5,200+. It is
difficult to estimate natural escapement given the many creeks and streams coho spawn
in. One event of note is the Issaquah Hatchery donated 200+ pounds of coho fillets to
the Issaquah Food Bank in 2025.
•Chum – Chum don’t go through the Ballard Locks but return to coastal streams. In Pipers
Creek 428 spawners were counted. This count is much lower than the boom year seen
in 2024, which may have been due to favorable ocean conditions and increased marine
survival, but the 2025 count was still the fourth highest in the last 10 years.
•Alison Agness shared there was a total escapement of 1,321 Kokanee across all creeks.
These returns continue to be promising and in line with the 10-year average.
Discussion:
•CM Frantz asked what the criteria is that creates the goal for Chinook? Mary clarified
there are long term goals set by the co-managers and the 2025 goal is set to support a
trajectory toward the long-term goal.
•Larry Reymann asked if December flood event could’ve also dispersed non-native
predators? He also added success in newly formed side channels could’ve offered a
space for some Chinook to survive. Mary agreed that restored channel connectivity may
help improve survival.
VIII.Flooding Impacts Update (Information) – Mackenzie Dolstad, Mountains to Sound Greenway
Trust, Brent Lackey, Seattle Public Utilities, and Michael Thai, King County
Mackenzie shared information about the Issaquah Creek project site and the work that has been
completed there. He shared modeling done by a consultant earlier in the project that showed
the project under flows of 2,690 cfs. The flood in December reached 2,470 cfs and the reach
modeled behaved exactly as predicted in the model. Next steps are to continue adaptive
management responses assessing the project.
Brent shared that the Cedar River saw almost 20% more water than ever before during the
December flood event. The Royal Arch Reach Floodplain Restoration project started
construction in 2023 and reconnected the mainstem of the river to a new inlet side channel. The
project is bisected by Northwest Natural Gas pipeline corridor, so it was built on either side to
protect that infrastructure from a major avulsion, which did not happen during the December
flood. Brent shared photos of the project and effects of flooding. There is optimism that some
Chinook redds in the side channels may have survived flooding.
Michael Thai shared information on the Riverbend Levee Setback and Floodplain Restoration
project and takeaways from the December 2025 flood event. The implementation of this project
7 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 101/563
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) Meeting Notes
Microsoft Teams | January 15, 2026 2:00 pm – 4:15 pm
6
dramatically changed how flooding occurs in this reach and how the river responds to that
flooding. Michael shared photos of the site before and after the floods.
Discussion:
•CM Frantz asked if the Issaquah Creek project has helped flooding upstream on the
creek? Tor Bell clarified he can’t say for sure, but heard anecdotally from City of
Issaquah staff that they were seeing less water in areas that had flooding in previous
similar high flow events.
•CM O’Halloran offered videos taken on December 11, 2025 of the flood event in Renton
on the Cedar River.
•Chris Korwel asked if the Riverbend project side channel featured in photos that doesn’t
seem to have any flow to it, flooded in December? Was it designed to be that way?
Michael clarified that feature is a floodplain overflow channel, and it did flood in
December and didn’t become inactive until the beginning of January.
•Chair Kritzer asked if additional grant resources might be needed for previously funded
projects to replant areas and adaptively manage restoration after the floods? Jason
clarified that type of adaptive management work on any project sites would be eligible
for existing funding without adjusting existing categories. Brent added he is getting calls
from residents living along the Cedar River that might be interested in selling their
properties, so it is a great time to push for additional acquisition funds. Carrie noted
acquisition is an eligible expense for WRIA 8 grant funds.
Next Meeting: Chair Kritzer adjourned the meeting and noted the next SRC meeting is March 19, 2026,
from 2:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. and will be held virtually.
8 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 102/563
WRIA 8 Updates and Committee Reports
March 19, 2026
•Puget Sound Regional Update – The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (PS SRC) last
met virtually on January 22, 2026. Topics included an update on WDFW’s Duckabush
Estuary Restoration Project, an overview of salmon recovery in the Puyallup White &
Chambers Clover Watersheds (WRIA 10), a legislative update, and discussions of the 2026
workplan and Puget Sound Implementation plans.
The PS SRC meets next virtually on March 26, 2026. Ted Frantz, Hunts Point
Councilmember, represents the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council on the PS SRC. Jason
Mulvihill-Kuntz has also attended as a WRIA 8 staff alternate and Carrie Byron will take on
this role for the March meeting.
The South Central Action Area Caucus (Local Integrating Organization (LIO)) has not met
since September. Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz attends to represent WRIA 8.
•Lake Washington Basin Science Summit - Around 100 scientists and students attended the
two-day Lake Washington Basin Science Summit, hosted by WRIA 8, USGS Western Fisheries
Research Center, and King County, on January 21 and 22. Presenters shared the latest
science on urban and climate impacts on salmon in the Lake WA Basin and groups discussed
knowledge gaps and priorities for guiding salmon recovery efforts. Many participants
expressed how much they appreciated the rich scientific research, engaging conversations,
and opportunity to connect in person.
•2026 WRIA 8 Grant Round – The 2026 WRIA 8 grant round is underway. SRFB/PSAR
applications were due February 23rd and site visits were March 10th. The Grant Review
Committee has met to prepare funding recommendations which will be presented next
month. CWM applications are due tomorrow 2/30 and will be reviewed over the coming
month. Full applications are due in February for SRFB/PSAR and March for CWM, followed
by site visits and presentations with all sponsors. More details can be found on the WRIA 8
Funding Opportunities website. Please reach out to Carrie Byron (cbyron@kingcounty.gov)
to discuss project ideas or with any questions.
•Salmon Recovery Council membership list updated – The Salmon Recovery Council
membership list has been updated for 2026. This is done yearly to ensure all partners have
accurate and up to date representation. Please review your organization's representative on
the WRIA 8 website and reach out to WRIA 8 staff with any updates or questions.
•WRIA 8 E-News – The February Edition of the WRIA 8 E-news included the following topics
and updates: a recap of Salmon Day on in Olympia 2026, information about the Science
Summit, information about a 6PPD-q reduction bill, updates on partner projects, and notice
of recent funding opportunities. The next edition is scheduled for April. Please submit
proposed topics to Renee Leichliter (rleichliter@kingcounty.gov) by April 10th.
9 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 103/563
WRIA 8 Committee Reports
Implementation Technical Committee – The Implementation Technical Committee (ITC) March
meeting included a presentation from Department of Ecology staff on the Puget Sound Riparian
Systems Lead Program and a project update from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on artificial light
and juvenile salmon predation vulnerability. The next ITC meeting will be in May.
10 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 104/563
The Regional Fisheries Coalition represents
Washington’s fourteen regional fisheries
enhancement groups, established by RCW 77.95 to:
Remove barriers to fish migration and complete
large habitat restoration projects by leveraging
local, state, federal, and private funding.
Coordinate robust education, outreach, and
volunteer programs to engage communities in
salmon recovery.
The Coalition’s annual report is at:
2024-25.regionalfisheriescoalition.org.
Working Together for
Salmon Recovery
W+O W( $R(
The Council of Regions brings together Washington’s
seven salmon recovery regional organizations. Local
and tribal governments created the regions in
partnership with the Governor’s Salmon Recovery
Office to:
Give local communities a powerful voice in salmon
recovery.
Work with the federal government to write and
implement regional recovery plans for at-risk fish.
Coordinate with lead entities to oversee state and
federal funding for recovery plan implementation.
The Washington Salmon Coalition supports
Washington’s twenty-six salmon recovery lead entities,
established by RCW 77.85 to:
Coordinate implementation of habitat restoration
and protection projects.
Bring together Tribes, federal and state agencies,
local governments, nonprofits, businesses,
technical experts, and community members to
prioritize salmon recovery projects.
Steward scientifically-sound decision making to
recover salmon and support local economies.
NIsqually1ΖsTually
ChehalisChehalis
WRIA 8WRΖ$ 8
Ζsland
11 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 105/563
Fully fund the Natural Climate Solutions Account using Climate Commitment Act revenues as it
was originally intended, including vital investments in salmon recovery.
Oppose any further reductions in state salmon recovery funding.
Restore funding for salmon recovery programs impacted by federal cuts.
Support agency supplemental budget requests:
Recreation and Conservation Office: $20 million - Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Capital
State Conservation Commission: $2.25 million - conservation technical assistance. Operating
Department of Natural Resources: $4.25 million - Family Forest Fish Passage Program. Capital
SUPPORT THE SALMON STRATEGY AND BIENNIAL WORK PLAN
Our Shared Priorities
Council of Regions
Leslie Selgestad
Leslie.Selgestad@ucsrb.org
(605) 645-8746
SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING PRIORITIES
Washington Salmon Coalition
Mike Lithgow
mlithgow@kalispeltribe.com
(509) 370-8794
Regional Fisheries Coalition
Brynn Brady
brynn@ceibaconsulting.com
(253) 686-3387
SUPPORT OUTDOOR EDUCATION FUNDING
The statewide Salmon Strategy and Biennial Work Plan calls for strategic investments to restore
critical salmon habitat, improve water quality, correct fish passage barriers, reduce flood risks and
hazards, and build community and climate resilience.
Restore funding for programs that supplement K–12 STEM education, provide workforce
development, connect youth with the outdoors, and promote stewardship, including:
Outdoor Learning Grant (OSPI/RCO). Operating
No Child Left Inside Grant (State Parks/RCO). Operating
$1.285 million to backfill federal funding cuts. Climate Commitment Act Natural Climate Solutions Account
$1 million for the Salmon in the Schools Program (OSPI). Operating
$900,000 for Volunteer Cooperative Grant Program (WDFW). Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
RESTORE FUNDING FOR REGIONAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT GROUPS
12 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 106/563
WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Meeting
March 19, 2026
Outreach & Education “Lightning Talks”
Environmental Science Center, Salmon Heroes – Kelly Steffen
Salmon Heroes is a multi-part program for WRIA 8 students and their teachers in 4th-8th grade
focused on the Cedar River. Using salmon as a local phenomenon to center the program,
Salmon Heroes increases knowledge of local salmon habitat needs, challenges to their survival,
and actions they can take to help keep our waters healthy for salmon and humans alike.
Salmon Science Tables, Friends of the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery (FISH) - Taylor McAllister
The Issaquah Salmon Hatchery is generally known as the most visited hatchery in the state,
welcoming more than 200,000 visitors each year. While most visitors come during the fall
salmon run, FISH is working year-round to provide outreach and education opportunities in the
community. Our winter and spring seasons are filled with Salmon Science Tables – a program
designed for public events and school science fairs, featuring activities like salmon dissections,
a watershed model, and interactive explorations of salmon basics. This program is a way for
FISH to act as salmon stewards anytime and anywhere.
Mid Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group, Community Action Training School - Tracy
Banaszynski, Co-Executive Director
Community Action Training School is a free, all-ages program that guides participants through a
robust series of 7 classes and 4 field experiences focusing on scientific, social, cultural, and
political issues important to watershed health and salmon recovery. Participants design and
complete a 50+ hour stewardship action project that helps make a difference for salmon in the
watershed.
Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, Greenway Education Program - Forests and Fins -
Becca Kedenburg
"Forests and Fins" is a 4th-12th grade curriculum that builds support and promotes behavior changes
critical to long-term salmon recovery efforts in WRIA 8. Through a combination of classroom lessons
and field trips, students will evaluate the health of Issaquah Creek and do riparian restoration that
contributes to larger habitat restoration efforts.
Trout Unlimited, Lake Sammamish STREAM Connections Program and Bringing Salmon to
Classrooms around Lake Sammamish - Alex Lee-Tigner
The Lake Sammamish STREAM Connections Program deepens community engagement in
watershed exploration and stewardship. The current phase expands educational outreach and
conservation activities, emphasizes the ecological and cultural importance of salmon, fosters a
profound connection between community members and the Lake Sammamish watershed, and
encourages active participation in salmon recovery. The Bringing Salmon to Classrooms around
Lake Sammamish program expands Salmon in the Classroom to area schools lacking resources
13 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 107/563
for fish tanks, field trips, and/or curriculum support. Partnering with Gibson Ek High School
mentors, students raise coho fry, learn about salmon recovery, and visit restoration sites.
Whale Scout, Inclusive Salmon Restoration Guided Experiences and Interpretive Signage and
Seeds to Sky: Exploring Careers in Salmon Recovery – Rachael Kutz and Whitney Neugebauer
Whale Scout leads guided walks and produces interpretive panels in partnership with the City of
Bothell at the former Wayne Golf Course and on a private property along Bear Creek. The goal
of this project is to increase awareness of and support for salmon recovery efforts and projects
among diverse audiences where restoration projects are currently underway.
The “Seeds to Sky” after-school program engages local high school students learning and
restoring riparian habitat along the Sammamish River in the City of Bothell. Outcomes include
stewardship of fish habitat and more equitable career training in environmental conservation,
reversing historical trends in the field. Staff will also highlight the Diverse Voices Student
Leadership Program aimed offering paid living wage internships to underrepresented students
and a partnership with the University of Washington - Bothell hosting students completing
capstone research projects in the field.
14 of 14
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 108/563
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Via Zoom
4:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
Participating Jurisdictions/Members
City of Arlington Mayor Don Vanney
City of Bothell Councilmember Carston Curd
City of Darrington Mayor Dan Rankin
City of Edmonds Councilmember Chris Eck
City of Everett Councilmember Ben Zarlingo
City of Gold Bar Councilmember Chuck Lie
City of Granite Falls Councilmember David Griggs
City of Lynnwood Mayor George Hurst
City of Mill Creek Mayor Stephanie Vignal
City of Monroe Mayor Pro Tem Jacob Walker, Councilmember
Brandi Blair
City of Mountlake Terrace Councilmember Bryan Wahl
City of Mukilteo Councilmember Bob Champion
City of Snohomish Councilmember Gabe Jacobs
Town of Woodway Councilmember John Brock
Snohomish County Council Councilmember Nate Nehring
Snohomish County Executive Office Josh Dugan
Community Representative Mike Appleby
Community Representative Allan Giffen
Other Attendees/Presenters:
PSRC Ben Bakkenta
Snohomish County Frank Slusser
Snohomish County Steve Toy, Jacob Lambert
Snohomish County Matt Ojala
Everett Housing Authority Sarah Smith
City of Gold Bar Rich Norris
Snohomish County Health Depart Kim Van Pelt, Tony Colinas
Snohomish County Dan Templeman
Snohomish County Executive Office Nick Shekeryk, Richard Porter, Harry Birak,
Samantha Paxton
MBAKS Natalie Reber
Snotrac Brock Howell
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 109/563
Snohomish County Mary Jane Brell Vujovic, Molly Beeman
City of Everett Frank Hong
City of Lake Stevens, PAC Co-Chair Russ Wright
EASC Dan Tappana
HASCO Laurie Olson, Chris Collier
SCT Manager Ann Larson
Snohomish County Taylor Twiford
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm by Councilmember Bryan Wahl.
2. Introductions/Roll Call
Roll call was taken (as listed above).
3. Citizen Comments
No comments.
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes (02-25-26)
Josh Dugan moved to approve the minutes. Mayor Dan Rankin seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. Update Items
a. PSRC Board Actions and Activities,
Ben Bakkenta, Director of Regional Planning, updated the group. The Executive Board
will receive a state legislative end-of-session wrap-up from Robin Koski and be asked to
take action to redesignate regional growth centers and to certify sub-area plans for
those centers. The Transportation Policy Board will have 3 action items. They will
recommend project extensions and exceptions as part of the 2026 project tracking and
delivery process, pursue a funding pilot program for bridge preservation and
replacement and also act on a recommendation that the Executive Board
recommended and forward the Regional Transportation Plan to the General Assembly.
The Growth Management Policy Board will have a discussion of the region's
Comprehensive Climate Action Plan and begin discussion of the review and
redesignation of the region's manufacturing industrial centers.
Bakkenta also gave an overview of the PSRC website’s Data tab provides access to
important resources, including community profiles for every jurisdiction and county in
the region. These profiles allow users to view and map data on topics such as
population characteristics, housing, education, jobs, and transportation. The data
includes measures like age, race and ethnicity, health insurance coverage, housing
units, home values, rent, commute times, and vehicle availability. Users can explore this
information at different geographic levels, including census tracts, and download the
data as needed. The current profiles are based on 2016–2020 American Community
Survey data, and updates are expected soon.
6. Action Items
a. Revisions to MUGA map in Appendix A of the CPPs
Frank Slusser, Senior Planner, gave an overview of what he briefed the group on at
the last meeting. The presentation proposed updates to the UGA and MUGA maps to
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 110/563
align with Snohomish County’s 2024 growth plan. The UGA update is a routine
adjustment already in effect. MUGA changes include approved expansions for
Woodway and a new growth area near 43rd Ave SE, which is still under negotiation
for city annexation. The proposal allows map updates to proceed while discussions
continue, with a recommendation to forward the changes for County Council
consideration.
Councilmember Carston Curd moved to recommend amending Appendix A of the
Countywide Planning Policies by repealing the existing UGA and MUGA maps and
replacing them with the revised maps attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to this
recommendation providing consistency with the UGAs adopted by Snohomish County
on December 4, 2024, and applying MUGA designations for areas added to the
Southwest UGA. Seconded by Councilmember John Brock. Motion passed
unanimously.
b. 2026 Growth Target Reconciliation
Steve Toy, Principal Demographer, presented an overview of the growth target
reconciliation process, which updates population, housing, and employment targets in
countywide planning policies after comprehensive plan updates. This process follows
a long-established two-step cycle, with initial targets adopted in 2022 and
reconciliation occurring after city and county plan updates in 2024–2025. He reported
that, for the first time, there were no discrepancies between the growth targets adopted
by the county and those implemented by all 20 cities. However, some technical
differences were identified in unincorporated and municipal urban growth areas, which
require reconciliation.
Councilmember Jacob Walker moved to recommend amending Appendix B of the
Countywide Planning Policies by repealing the existing initial population, housing and
employment growth target tables (P1, P2, H1, H2, E1, and E2), and replacing them
with the reconciled growth target tables shown in Attachment 1, pursuant to the CPP
requirements for a target reconciliation process conducted by SCT following the 10-
year periodic review and updates to city and county comprehensive plans required
under GMA. Seconded by Councilmember Chris Eck. Motion passed unanimously.
c. PSRC Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee PSRC
Matt Ojala, Engineering Manager, briefed the group on PSRC requesting ICC
members fill positions on the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee.
Mayor George Hurst moved to approve Nick Barnett, City of Lynnwood as BPAC
member, and Dan Carmody, City of Mill Creek and Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds
as alternates. Seconded by Councilmember Ben Zarlingo. Motion passed
unanimously.
7. Briefings, Discussion Items
a. Everett Housing Authority (EHA)
Sarah Smith, the new Executive Director of the Everett Housing Authority (EHA),
oversees programs providing affordable housing to low-income families, seniors, and
people with disabilities in Everett and surrounding areas. EHA runs major programs
like Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) and Project-Based Vouchers, fully utilizing
federal funding to support over 4,000 households, including 2,592 children. The
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 111/563
agency partners with local housing organizations and is planning new developments,
including Ben Young Senior Housing and Baker Heights redevelopment, to expand
affordable housing options. Smith emphasizes community impact, financial
stewardship, and future growth opportunities.
b. Unlicensed Food Vendors
Kim Van Pelt, Health Department Director, & Assistant Director of Environmental
Health, Tony Colinas, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, and Dan
Templeman, Senior Executive Director, discussed the rise of unpermitted food stands.
These stands, including umbrella carts and 10x10 canopies selling tacos pastor, are
not mobile food units and are difficult to permit. They pose serious public health risks
due to poor sanitation, unsafe food storage, cross-contamination, improper waste
disposal, and fire hazards. Five foodborne illnesses have been linked to these stands.
Enforcement is challenging because operators often relocate, do not carry
identification, and civil action is difficult, so the county relies on education, cease-and-
desist orders, and public awareness campaigns.
Economically, these stands compete unfairly with licensed restaurants by avoiding
taxes, permits, and safety regulations. Complaints have surged from 16 in 2022 to 203
in 2025, and local and state agencies are developing strategies, including Everett’s
ordinance criminalizing some stands and an upcoming state toolkit to guide
enforcement.
c. FIFA World Cup 2026 Update
Nick Shekeryk, Economic Development Marketing Specialist, outlined Snohomish
County Tourism’s World Cup campaign, aiming to position the county as a convenient,
fun, and relaxing alternative to Seattle. The campaign has three phases: raising
awareness in target U.S. cities, driving visits and bookings with itineraries and events,
and fostering long-term visitor loyalty beyond the World Cup. Local activations like the
Everett Fan Zone and highlighting natural and cultural attractions are central to the
effort. Nick Shekeryk shared that Snohomish County Tourism’s World Cup campaign
has driven strong engagement through videos, blogs, social media, and podcasts, while
actively partnering with local communities and the Sports Commission to promote fan
zones, events, and county tourism.
8. SCT Manager’s Report
a. SCT Committee Report
9. Go-Round
10. Next Meeting Date
• Wednesday, April 22, 2026, 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
• 2026 SCT General Assembly September 23, 2026
11. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. by Councilmember Bryan Wahl.
All presentations given, discussions held, and actions taken at this meeting are kept on file (via recording) in PDS until six years
from December 31st of this year.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 112/563
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Via Zoom
4:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES
Participating Jurisdictions/Members
City of Arlington Mayor Don Vanney
City of Bothell Councilmember Carston Curd
City of Darrington Mayor Dan Rankin
City of Edmonds Councilmember Chris Eck
City of Everett Councilmember Ben Zarlingo
City of Gold Bar Councilmember Chuck Lie, Rich Norris
City of Lynnwood Mayor George Hurst
City of Mill Creek Mayor Stephanie Vignal
City of Monroe Mayor Pro Tem Jacob Walker, Councilmember
Brandi Blair
City of Mountlake Terrace Councilmember Bryan Wahl
City of Snohomish Councilmember Gabe Jacobs
Town of Woodway Councilmember John Brock
Snohomish County Council Councilmember Nate Nehring
Snohomish County Executive Office Josh Dugan
Community Representative Mike Appleby
Community Representative Allan Giffen
Other Attendees/Presenters:
PSRC Ben Bakkenta
City of Edmonds Councilmember Jenna Nand
Sno-Isle Libraries Eric Howard, Meredith Kraft
Snohomish County Human Services Mary Jane Brell Vujovic
Snohomish County Kara Main-Hester, Jackie Anderson
Snohomish County Frank Slusser
Snohomish County Steve Toy
Economic Alliance Ray Stephanson
CAB rep Samantha Politano
City of Everett Kembra Landry
City of Lake Stevens ,PAC Co-Chair Russ Wright
City of Monroe Lance Bailey
Snohomish County, PAC Co-Chair Michael McCrary
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 113/563
SCT Manager Ann Larson
Snohomish County PUD Brenda White
Snohomish County, ICC Co-Chair Doug McCormick
Snohomish County Taylor Twiford
Community Members Daniel Lucier
1. Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 4:01 pm by Councilmember Nate Nehring.
2. Introductions/Roll Call
Roll call was taken (as listed above).
3. Citizen Comments
No comments.
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes (01-25-26)
Mayor Pro Tem Wahl moved to approve the minutes. Mayor Vignal seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously.
5. Update Items
a. PSRC Board Actions and Activities,
Ben Bakkenta, Director of Regional Planning, updated the group. The Executive Board
will receive a state legislative update from Robin Kosky about what's going on in the
state legislature, as well as a federal legislative update and discussion items will include
a briefing on the regional center's monitoring and upcoming redesignation process. The
Economic Development District Board will elect new officers and ratify presidential
appointments to the board, and to the executive committee. Other business will include
continued work that they have ongoing on developing the next regional economic
strategy, and that's required to be adopted by the Economic Development
Administration by the end of the year. The Transportation Policy Board will review those
Regional Transportation Plan public comments and begin considering edits and
amendments to the plan. They'll also begin a discussion of the policy framework that will
be used to guide the project selection process. The Growth Management Policy Board
will meet and take action to recommend certification of the next group of comprehensive
plans. They're also scheduled to take action to redesignate those 30 regional growth
centers. The Growth Management Policy Board will next turn its attention to reviewing
and redesignating the region's manufacturing industrial centers.
6. Action Items
a. SCT Exploratory Committee Recommendations to Operating Guidelines
Mayor Pro Tem Walh to adopt the changes to the Operating Guidelines as
recommended by the Exploratory Committee. Mayor Vignal seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
b. Election of Officers (Co-Chair, 10 min.)
I. Co-Chair election
Mayor Vignal moved to nominate Mayor Pro Tem Walh as Co-Chair and was
seconded by Councilmember Zarlingo. Motion passed unanimously.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 114/563
II. Vice Chair election
Mayor Pro Tem Wahl moved to nominate Mayor Vignal as Vice Chair and Josh
Dugan seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Briefings, Discussion Items
a. Sno-Isle Libraries
Eric Howard, Executive Director, briefed the group on Sno-Isle libraries. They span two
counties and have 23 libraries. They will be experimenting this coming year with
Library on Wheels to continue to engage in early learning to communities that can't
easily make it to the library. The Library on the Wheels program is to provide a break
down those barriers and provide better access to library services. In March, they will
have their first library district conference on early learning, and the state partners with
us on this, so that they are able to help credential early learners.
b. Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Capital Fund
Mary Jane Brell Vujovic, Human Services Director, updated the group on the
Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Capital Fund Report. The Human Services
Department submits quarterly reports to the Snohomish County Council regarding
expenditures and services for the two councilmanic sales tax funds incorporated into
the Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Capital Fund. The Affordable Housing
Sales Tax is authorized under RCW 82.14.540. These funds have been coupled with
the Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Sales Tax authorized under RCW
82.14.530. Taken together, these funds may be used for capital, operating and
maintenance, and services costs associated with affordable housing, including
emergency housing, permanent supportive housing, and behavioral health facilities.
Capital projects are selected through Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) processes
through which applications are reviewed and selected in accordance with the Interlocal
Agreement (ILA) among Snohomish County and each municipality in the County.
The amounts included in the NOFOs are established through the County’s biannual
budget process through which the Department submits an updated 6-year investment
plan for these funds for consideration in the Executive’s proposed budget and approval
of the final budget by Snohomish County Council.
1590 funds totaling $11,000,000 were obligated for the following projects:
$434,738 for Sea Mar Community Health Centers – Monroe Mental Health and
Substance Use Disorder Clinic
$2,565,262 for Compass Health - Broadway Redevelopment Phase 2
$1,788,513 for HASCO - 200th Street Redevelopment
$6,211,487 for Housing Hope Properties - Everett United Church Redevelopment
1406 funds totaling $5,000,000 were obligated for the following projects:
$3,250,000 Integra Property Group - Stillaguamish II Apartments
$1,358,513 for Catholic Housing Services - Monte Cristo Apartments
$391,487 for HASCO - 200th Street Redevelopment
Of these amounts, $5,686,998 was committed by the end of 2025.
c. New Starts Centers
Kara Main-Hester, Chief Budget Officer, and Jackie Anderson, Division Manager,
updated the group on the New Starts Centers. The Edmonds New Start Center is
primarily complete as far as construction goes. Power's been restored to the building,
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 115/563
and the elevator company is in doing some of the final work on the elevators. It will
hopefully be completed this week. And then, the county working with the city on the
final inspections and getting the certification of occupancy. The site has 40 rooms, 5
staff offices, and 3 multi-purpose rooms. For the Everett site, there's two buildings. The
front building's pretty much complete as far as constructions is concerned. The back
building is close to completion. There are 71 rooms, there's 3 staff offices, and then the
multi-purpose spaces.
d. PAC recommendation: Revisions to MUGA map in Appendix A of the CPPs,
Frank Slusser, Senior Planner, gave an update on proposed amendments to maps in
Appendix A of the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). Appendix A: Urban Growth
Area (UGA) Map Amendments provide consistency with the UGA amendments
adopted by the County Council with the Snohomish County 2024 Comprehensive Plan
Update and include the following UGAs: Darrington, Arlington (technical correction),
Marysville, Monroe, and Southwest Urban Growth Area (SWUGA). The amendments
maintain city/town boundaries as of August 26, 2021 and mapped boundaries
correspond to proposed reconciled growth targets in Appendix B for UGAs and
incorporated areas.
Appendix A: Municipal Urban Growth Area (MUGA) Map Amendments provides
consistency with County Council action on 2024 Comp Plan to amend the SWUGA.
The Woodway Area SWUGA Amendments are technical changes to include full
incorporated boundary and add deepwater pier to MUGA, and were requested by the
Town of Woodway.
e. PAC recommendation: Briefing 2026 Growth Target Reconciliation
Steve Toy, Principal Demographer, gave a briefing on the 2026 SCT Target
Reconciliation. Following review of the 2024 comprehensive plan updates of all cities,
there are no discrepancies to reconcile between the city targets adopted by cities and
the county’s adopted targets for cities. However, there are differences in the county’s
adopted targets and the initial targets in the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) for
several unincorporated UGAs and MUGAs which need to be reconciled. Many
differences were the result of higher than originally anticipated housing growth targets
provided by Commerce (which resulted in some shifts of unincorporated urban
residential growth from areas with insufficient capacity to areas with surplus capacity).
In three Urban Unincorporated Areas (Monroe, Maltby, and the Silver Firs Gap), there
were large residential projects that were pending or already underway which were not
fully included during the development of the initial population targets by SCT in 2021.
For these three locations, the 2044 population and housing targets were adjusted
upwards in order to fully account for the buildout of the pending projects. Some
changes reflect refinements to the county’s UGA Land Capacity Analysis that used a
corrected critical areas layer in four unincorporated urban areas (Lake Stickney Gap,
Larch Way Overlap, Silver Firs Gap, and Maltby UGA) which reduced capacity, and
updated pending residential project information in three unincorporated urban areas
(Bothell MUGA, Lynnwood MUGA, and Maltby UGA) which increased capacity. Some
growth target revisions were required to reflect changes in capacity in unincorporated
areas resulting from final future land use plan designations and development regulation
decisions adopted by the County Council. Revisions to the employment targets in
some parts of the unincorporated UGA where the initial employment target exceeded
capacity (which resulted in some shifts of unincorporated urban employment growth
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 116/563
from areas with insufficient capacity to areas with surplus capacity). Within the Urban
Unincorporated Areas regional geography, excess jobs were primarily shifted from
locations with employment capacity shortfalls (mainly the Silver Firs Gap) to the Paine
Field Area, consistent with the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) designation at
that location.
8. SCT Manager’s Report
a. SCT Committee Report
9. Go-Round
10. Next Meeting Date
a. Wednesday, March 25, 2026
11. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. by Councilmember Nate Nehring
All presentations given, discussions held, and actions taken at this meeting are kept on file (via recording) in PDS until six years
from December 31st of this year.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 117/563
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD MEETING AGENDA
February 19th, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.
IN PERSON MEETING
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88515313070?pwd=IfZHnjyb3yKdZepuoLZ3SIhWVYziWW.1
Webinar ID: 885 1531 3070
Passcode: 621516
or dial +1 253 205 0468
1. Call to Order
A. Roll Call
B. Announcements
C. Public Comment Policy: Public Comments limited to 3 minutes on discussion items
related to agency business.
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes from the January 15th, 2025 Regular Board Meeting
B. January 2026 Blanket Voucher & Payroll Approval Form:
i. Checks 1165-1169, 21106-21198, for a total of $1,927,550.54
ii. Payroll Direct Deposit, in the amount of $1,552,478.10
4. Executive Session
A. Executive Director Review
5. Old Business
A. Committee Appointments
6. New Business
A. APF – Tulalip Tribe Radio Agreement
B. APF – 2025 Year End Underspend
C. APF – VHF Interoperability Needs
D. APF – Appointive Staff Policy Revisions
7. Reports
A. Agency Report
i. New Board Member Welcome Packet
B. Police TAC
C. Fire TAC
8. Committee Reports
A. Finance Committee
i. Funding Forecasts
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 118/563
B. Personnel Committee
C. Public Safety Technology Committee
D. County EESCS Committee (formerly County E911 Office)
E. County ECSF Program Advisory Board
9. Good of the Order
10. Adjourn - The next meeting is scheduled for March 14th, 2026
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 119/563
SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD MEETING AGENDA
March 19th, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.
VIRTUAL MEETING
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84187143466?pwd=z9mY0pGgkcfybQXbQrSDJbCQeUxYTb.1
Webinar ID: 841 8714 3466
Passcode: 425854
or dial +1 253 205 0468
1. Call to Order
A. Roll Call
B. Announcements
i. ACE Proclamation
ii. Commissioner Waugh Acknowledgement
C. Public Comment Policy: Public Comments limited to 3 minutes on discussion items
related to agency business.
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes from the February 19th, 2025 Regular Board Meeting
B. February 2026 Blanket Voucher & Payroll Approval Form:
i. Checks 1170-1174; 21199-21289 for a total of $1,656,204.83
ii. Payroll Direct Deposit, in the amount of $1,561,215.40
C. APF – Aviat Microwave Contract
4. Executive Session (if needed)
5. Old Business
A. APF - Committee Guideline Principals – Personnel
6. New Business
A. APF – Radio Fleet Expansion
B. ADAPT - AI Development, Alignment, Partnerships Team
C. Public Safety Technology Initiative Update
7. Reports
A. Agency Report
B. Police TAC – No February meeting
C. Fire TAC
8. Committee Reports
A. Finance Committee
B. Personnel Committee
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 120/563
C. Public Safety Technology Committee
D. County EESCS Committee (formerly County E911 Office)
E. County ECSF Program Advisory Board
9. Good of the Order
10. Adjourn - The regular Board meeting for April has been cancelled and a ½ day Board Retreat
is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28th from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at SNO911.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 121/563
1
Port of Edmonds Commission Meeting – Minutes of Regular Meeting
Meeting Date: March 31, 2026
Commissioners Present Janelle Cass, President
Selena Killin, Vice President
Jay Grant, Secretary
Ross Dimmick
David Preston
Staff Present Brandon Baker, Executive Director
Brian Menard, Director of Facilities and Maintenance
Brittany Williams, Director of Economic Development
John Peterman, Director of Finance and Administration
Dennis Halpin, Marina Operations Manager
Others Present Emily Guildner, Port Attorney
John Brock, Town of Woodway
I. CALL TO ORDER
President Cass called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
II. FLAG SALUTE
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American
Flag.
III. MISSION STATEMENT
Commissioner Grant read the Port of Edmonds' mission statement:
The mission of the Port of Edmonds is to provide value to our community through
economic development, marina and commercial operations, waterfront public
access, and environmental stewardship.
Docusign Envelope ID: C9B7CCD8-91D9-8C35-8213-7213BADB80DA
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 122/563
2
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER GRANT MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER DIMMICK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Each comment shall generally be limited to 3 minutes or less
and shall be limited to Port business)
Justas Vilgalys submitted a comment via email supporting the inclusion of the
former Unocal site into the Port for use as a wildlife buffer with public access and
suggested exploring a pedestrian connection across the railroad tracks to the
waterfront.
Jamie Holter of My Edmonds News noted that the article on the Unocal property
generated significant online commentary and encouraged both the Commission
and staff to review the comments.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
Prior to approval, Commissioner Cass requested that the March 9, 2026,
Commission Meeting Minutes be removed from the consent agenda to allow for a
correction. The Commission discussed the need to clarify a previously recorded
vote by identifying which Commissioners voted on each side of a split decision. A
motion was made and approved to adopt the March 9, 2026, minutes with the
correction.
COMMISSIONER KILLIN MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER PRESTON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
VII. CITY OF EDMONDS AND WOODWAY REPORTS
John Brock, Town of Woodway Councilmember, reported that police patrol
capacity had returned to full service following earlier equipment repairs.
Docusign Envelope ID: C9B7CCD8-91D9-8C35-8213-7213BADB80DA
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 123/563
3
VIII. POSSIBLE ACTION
IX. INFORMATION
A. Master Planning (MP): Review of MP3 Discussion
Executive Director Baker provided a recap of the most recent Master Planning
Session (MP3) and described how Commission feedback has been incorporated
into the process. He noted strong Commission interest in ensuring that all
historical documents and materials from prior master planning efforts are
reviewed, confirming that materials collected to date have been compiled and
shared with the Commission. An ad hoc committee, consisting of two
Commissioners and staff, has been formed to refine the scope of work for the
Master Planning RFP, with the full Commission to review and discuss the proposed
scope prior to its inclusion in the RFP. Emphasis was placed on incorporating a
thorough economic feasibility analysis as a core component of the master
planning effort, as well as the importance of ongoing collaboration among the
Commission, staff, and the selected consultant. Future public engagement was
also discussed, including early pre-engagement efforts and the potential role of a
public advisory group. Commissioners affirmed that the staff’s summary
accurately reflected prior discussions and expressed support for the outlined next
steps.
B. American Association of Port Authorities Legislative Recap
Commissioner Grant provided a report on his attendance at the American
Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) Legislative Summit, held March 3–6, 2026.
He noted that ports from across the country, including many small and mid -sized
ports, participated in the event. The summit included meetings and discussions
with members of Congress, U.S. Senators, and congressional staff focused on
infrastructure funding, legislative priorities, and regulatory challenges facing
ports. Commissioner Grant also highlighted ongoing efforts to identify and address
federal grant language that may inadvertently limit eligibility for certain port
infrastructure and emphasized the importance of continued relationship -building
with congressional offices, including Senators Murray and Cantwell and
Representative Larsen.
C. Port History and Artwork Preservation
Docusign Envelope ID: C9B7CCD8-91D9-8C35-8213-7213BADB80DA
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 124/563
4
Commissioner Cass discussed the preservation of Port artwork and historical
materials currently located in the former administration building. The discussion
included a recent review of historical artifacts and artwork conducted with a local
historical researcher, as well as interest in holding a future Commission workshop
to further review the materials and identify appropriate locations for display in the
new administration building and other public areas. Commissioners also
recognized the importance of preserving and sharing the Port’s history,
particularly as part of long-term planning efforts and future milestone
celebrations. The Commission expressed general consensus to proceed with
additional planning and to schedule a future workshop.
X. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
• Beyond the Breakwater: A successful event was held on March 26, 2026, with
strong attendance and positive community response.
• Phase II North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction (NPSR): Permits have been
received. Staff will prepare the bid documents, with the goal of presenting a
contract for approval at the May 26, 2026, Commission Meeting. The
availability of electrical equipment was identified as the primary schedule
variable.
• Dry Storage South Cradle: Delivery and installation scheduled in the coming
days.
• M-Dock Finger Piers: Re-leveling work completed; boats will be returned to
their slips as soon as possible.
• Harbor Square Building 1 Windows: The contractor is set to order the windows
soon, and the lead time will dictate the remainder of the construction schedule.
• Harbor Square Building 4 Atrium: The permits are still pending, and the project
is aimed to start after the completion of the World Cup matches to minimize
disruption to businesses during the tournament.
• Replacement of aging dry storage steel components underway.
• Dock pressure washing continues.
• Fuel supplier contract has completed its term; bids are scheduled for opening
on April 6, 2026, to select the new vendor.
• Staff certifications achieved in forklift operations and ABYC electrical standards
to support upcoming electrical upgrades and marina operations.
Docusign Envelope ID: C9B7CCD8-91D9-8C35-8213-7213BADB80DA
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 125/563
5
XI. COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
• Commissioner Dimmick reported on a recent presentation provided to the
Edmonds City Council, delivered alongside Executive Director Baker and with
support from Director Williams. The presentation offered a high-level overview
of the Port’s authorities under RCW Title 53, current Port operations, and
project status updates. Commissioner Dimmick noted that the presentation
was well received, with active engagement and questions from City Council
members. He emphasized the value of continued collaboration and encouraged
ongoing dialogue with the city as the Port moves forward with its master
planning efforts.
• Commissioner Killin commended Security Supervisor Glenn Merryman for his
leadership and ongoing contributions to Port safety and security, noting his role
in maintaining readiness and coordination across Marina, upland, and public
spaces. Commissioner Killin also shared positive feedback from attending the
Beyond the Breakwater event, highlighting its educational value for the boating
community and applauding staff and presenters for their efforts. She expressed
appreciation for the Port’s public outreach initiatives and staff dedication.
• Commissioner Preston commented on his attendance at the Beyond the
Breakwater event, noting strong participation and the value of hands-on
boating safety education. He also shared updates from the Edmonds Yacht Club
and community engagement efforts, including discussions rela ted to marina
electrical needs and vessel power requirements. Commissioner Preston
emphasized the importance of maintaining strong relationships with local
stakeholders, city leadership, and maritime organizations, and noted upcoming
participation in regional economic and community meetings.
• Commissioner Grant echoed appreciation for staff contributions, particularly
highlighting Glenn Merryman’s experience and leadership in security
operations. He reported on meetings with Town of Woodway officials regarding
emergency management coordination and noted continued engagement with
City of Edmonds leadership and council members. Commissioner Gran t
emphasized the importance of cultivating strong intergovernmental
relationships and shared observations from attending the State of the City
address.
• Commissioner Cass shared that she attended the State of the City and noted
the mayor’s strong presentation and a renewed focus on organized
Docusign Envelope ID: C9B7CCD8-91D9-8C35-8213-7213BADB80DA
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 126/563
6
emergency‑management meetings. She shared about her upcoming PNWA trip
to Washington, D.C., for which she participated in a preparatory Zoom session.
She reported positive feedback from WSDOT on recent graffiti‑removal efforts
and ongoing coordination to expand cleanup to the south side of Highway 104.
Commissioner Cass also attended the Edmonds Yacht Club Commodore’s Ball
with Commissioner Killin and highlighted the club’s regional impact and
community value. She closed by offering warm wishes for Easter and Passover.
XII. WORKSHOP
A. Jurassic Parliament Training Session
The Commission participated in a Jurassic Parliament Training workshop focused
on parliamentary procedure. The training was delivered through a pre -recorded
video. Topics covered included the roles and responsibilities of the presiding
officer and governing body members, techniques for maintaining order, decorum,
and equity in public meetings, and the proper use of motions, points of order,
appeals, and public comment procedures. The workshop also emphasized
strategies for conducting effective, inclusive, and transparent public meetings.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
There was no Executive Session.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission Meeting was adjourned at 11:36 a.m.
The next Commission Meeting is scheduled for April 13, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
Jay Grant
Port Commission Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: C9B7CCD8-91D9-8C35-8213-7213BADB80DA
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 127/563
1
Port of Edmonds Commission Meeting – Minutes of Regular Meeting
Meeting Date: February 24, 2026
Commissioners Present Janelle Cass, President
Selena Killin, Vice President
Jay Grant, Secretary
Ross Dimmick
David Preston
Staff Present Brandon Baker, Executive Director
Brian Menard, Director of Facilities and Maintenance
Brittany Williams, Director of Economic Development
John Peterman, Director of Finance and Administration
Dennis Halpin, Marina Operations Manager
Others Present Emily Guildner, Port Attorney
John Brock, Town of Woodway
I. CALL TO ORDER
President Cass called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
II. FLAG SALUTE
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American
Flag.
III. MISSION STATEMENT
Commissioner Preston read the Port of Edmonds' mission statement:
The mission of the Port of Edmonds is to provide value to our community through
economic development, marina and commercial operations, waterfront public
access, and environmental stewardship.
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F263B72-A950-8D4B-8155-D9B159C753F1
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 128/563
2
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER DIMMICK MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER PRESTON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Each comment shall generally be limited to 3 minutes or less
and shall be limited to Port business)
There were no public comments
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER DIMMICK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
A. Approval of February 9, 2026, Meeting Minutes
B. Approval of Payments in the amount of $512,381.89
VII. CITY OF EDMONDS AND WOODWAY REPORTS
John Brock, City of Woodway councilmember, gave a Point Wells update.
VIII. POSSIBLE ACTION
A. Approve Contract No. 2025-537 Breakwater Repairs as Complete
The Commission previously awarded Contract No. 2025-537 for the Breakwater
Repair Project to Brumfield Construction on September 30, 2025. Substantial
completion was reached on February 3, 2026, and the project was certified as
complete by the Port’s Director of Facilities and Maintenance and CG
Engineering. One change order was issued in the amount of $16,453.18 for
additional materials and welding required during construction.
COMMISSIONER KILLIN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT CONTRACT
NO. 2025-537 BREAKWATER REPAIRS AS COMPLETE. COMMISSIONER
DIMMICK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. Approve Contract No. 2026-576 Harbor Square Building One Upper Windows
Replacement
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F263B72-A950-8D4B-8155-D9B159C753F1
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 129/563
3
The Commission’s 2026 budget includes $75,000 for the Harbor Square
Building One Upper Windows Replacement Project. A competitive bid process
opened on February 4, 2026, with a pre-bid walkthrough on February 12, 2026,
and bid closing on February 18, 2026. Five bids were received, and Rain Paint
was identified as the low bidder. Work will begin upon completion of
contracting paperwork, and staff will coordinate with affected tenants
throughout construction. Substantial completion is anticipated by July 1, 2026.
Following the Director of Facilities and Maintenance's acceptance of the work,
staff will return to the Commission for authorization to close out the contract.
COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NO. 2026-576 HARBOR
SQUARE BUILDING ONE UPPER WINDOWS REPLACEMENT. COMMISSIONER
DIMMICK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
IX. INFORMATION
A. 2025 4th Quarter Financial Report
John Peterman, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the 2025
4th Quarter Financial Report. Highlights included an increase in operating
revenues and relatively flat expenses, resulting in higher net income compared
to the prior year. The Marina income statement reflected revenues above
budget and expenses below budget. Director Peterman also reviewed the
impact of GASB 87 lease accounting requirements on rental property income.
X. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
• Bellingham Marine Site Visit – Brian Menard, Director of Facilities and
Maintenance, reported that Bellingham Marine conducted a site visit on
February 10, 2026, to review marina floats and discuss recommended
dock-sealing products, waler through -rods, and general maintenance practices.
Feedback from the visit was positive, with Bellingha m Marine confirming that
the marina is in good working order and that current maintenance practices are
appropriate.
• Phase II Permitting - Additional comments were received from the City of
Edmonds and are awaiting review from CG Engineering, Makers, and Landau. A
resubmittal to the City is planned for March 6, 2026.
• Dry Storage South Launcher Cradle - Director Menard reported that Everett
Engineering is completing repairs to the dry storage south cradle, including
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F263B72-A950-8D4B-8155-D9B159C753F1
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 130/563
4
sandblasting and steel restoration. Following fabrication, the structure will be
galvanized, and it is expected to return for installation in the third week of
March.
• BUILD Grant - Brandon Baker, Executive Director, and Brittany Williams,
Director of Economic Development, continue to work on the BUILD Grant
application and extended appreciation to Jeannie Beckett (The Beckett Group)
and David Martin (Elevate Government Affairs) for their significant assistance.
• Marina Entrance Signage - Director Menard reported that his team is
continuing work on the sign installation; however, tidal conditions have made
progress challenging. Installation will start on the south side, with the north side
signage to follow.
• Dock Pressure Washing – Dennis Halpin, Marina Operations Manager, reported
that pressure washing has been completed on docks H, I, J, and K, with work on
the north half of the marina scheduled to begin this weekend. Electrical testing
across the marina has also been completed, including checks for corrosion,
discoloration, pedestal operation, and thermal hot spots.
• Marina Operations Office Remodel Design - The Port’s architect, John Jessen,
will be on-site on Friday to walk the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing teams
through the site. Upon completion of construction drawings, Jessen will present
the Marina Operations Office Remodel plans for Commission consideration.
• Energy Modeling - No update was available, as Iliana Minkov, Leasing and
Administrative Specialist, is currently out of the office.
XI. COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
• Commissioner Grant thanked staff for their continued good work.
• Commissioner Killin recognized Travis Cruz for his service since 2012, noting his
reliability, leadership on projects of all sizes, and strong focus on customer
experience in planning repairs and maintenance. She provided an update on
the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA) monthly meeting, which
consisted primarily of general project updates with limited direct impact on the
Port of Edmonds. She noted that the PNWA annual report highlighted
statewide momentum around permitting reform, a theme echoed across
agencies and legislative discussions. Commissioner Killin concluded by
expressing her appreciation for the Port and pride in serving the organization.
• Commissioner Dimmick stated that he appreciated the level of detail included
in the February 9, 2026, meeting minutes, noting that it will be helpful for both
meeting preparation and long-term reference, and commended staff for the
improvements. He reported meeting with Edmonds City Council President
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F263B72-A950-8D4B-8155-D9B159C753F1
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 131/563
5
Michelle Dotsch to discuss strengthening the relationship between the city and
the Port, which aligns with Strategic Plan Goal Community Partnering #1
regarding renewed mayoral, council, and staff engagement. He expressed
interest in delivering a 15-minute high-level presentation to the City Council on
the Port’s role in the community, including Port authorities under RCW 53.08,
recent project examples from other ports, and opportunities for collaboration.
He will coordinate with the Executive Director and suggested that staff
participate in the presentation. Council President Dotsch is tentatively
considering March 24, 2026 for the presentation, pending availability.
• Commissioner Preston reported attending the Washington Public Ports
Association (WPPA) Communications Committee meeting, noting strong
engagement and productive discussion regarding communication practices,
challenges, and successes among ports. The next meeting will be during the
WPPA Spring Conference.
• Commissioner Cass expressed appreciation for staff, highlighting the
Mid-Marina Breakwater project for being completed on time and under
budget, and for its long-term benefits to the marina. She also noted the
completion of recent electrical testing and discussed preparations for
managing the early return of sea lions, including the use of deterrent streamers
installed in portions of the marina. Commissioner Cass shared that Port
Attorney Guildner had recommended parliamentary procedure training in
advance of upcoming master‑planning activities and anticipated public
meetings. Port Attorney Guildner proposed using Jurassic Parliament training
materials, citing their strong reputation, cost-effective video modules, and the
advantage of follow-up Q&A tailored to the Port’s meeting practices.
XII. WORKSHOP
A. Master Planning RFP Scope
The workshop focused on developing the scope of work for the upcoming Master
Plan Request for Proposals (RFP). Commissioners emphasized the importance of
reviewing prior planning documents and incorporating an economic feasibility
assessment into the new master plan. The group agreed that the selected
consultant will be expected to review all existing documents and deliver a
comprehensive analysis of past planning efforts. Staff and the Commission further
discussed the importance of ongoing collaboration among the Commission, staff,
and the consultant throughout the master planning process. The use of an ad hoc
committee, consisting of two commissioners and staff, was proposed to conduct
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F263B72-A950-8D4B-8155-D9B159C753F1
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 132/563
6
additional work on the scoping document. The revised draft will be brought back
to the full Commission for review and approval, then incorporated into the RFP by
staff.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
There was no Executive Session.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission Meeting was adjourned at 11:41 a.m.
The next Commission Meeting is scheduled for March 9, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
Jay Grant
Port Commission Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: 4F263B72-A950-8D4B-8155-D9B159C753F1
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 133/563
1
Port of Edmonds Commission Meeting – Minutes of Regular Meeting
Meeting Date: March 9, 2026
Commissioners Present Janelle Cass, President
Selena Killin, Vice President
Ross Dimmick
David Preston
Staff Present Brandon Baker, Executive Director
Brittany Williams, Director of Economic Development
John Peterman, Director of Finance and Administration
Dennis Halpin, Marina Operations Manager
Others Present Emily Guildner, Port Attorney
John Brock, Town of Woodway
I. CALL TO ORDER
President Cass called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. FLAG SALUTE
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American
Flag.
III. MISSION STATEMENT
Commissioner Killin read the Port of Edmonds' mission statement:
The mission of the Port of Edmonds is to provide value to our community through
economic development, marina and commercial operations, waterfront public
access, and environmental stewardship.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8F49338B-F2EC-8CD7-8067-57A8B0D41D5D
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 134/563
2
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER KILLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Each comment shall generally be limited to 3 minutes or less
and shall be limited to Port business)
Timothy Burdick, a liveaboard tenant at the marina, submitted a public comment
via email expressing concerns regarding current deposit amounts and liveaboard
slip availability. Mr. Burdick requested that the Port review its liveaboard policies,
with particular emphasis on deposit requirements, which he characterized as
restrictive.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM A, FEBRUARY 24, 2026, MINUTES. COMMISSIONER
KILLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Staff agreed to correct the February 24, 2026, meeting minutes and bring them to
the Commission for approval at the March 31, 2026, meeting.
VII. CITY OF EDMONDS AND WOODWAY REPORTS
John Brock, City of Woodway Councilmember, did not have any comments.
VIII. POSSIBLE ACTION
A. Federal Lobbying Contract
Director Baker provided an update on the federal lobbying contract with
Elevate Government Affairs. He noted that the current contract, last amended
December 8, 2025, remains active through March 31, 2026, allowing the
Commission additional time to take action if desired. Baker summarized
Elevate’s recent efforts, including securing a $1.2 million federal investment for
Phase 3 of the North Portwalk and Seawall Project, supporting the BUILD grant
application, facilitating a congressional visit, and submitting one federal
earmark request with two additional requests forthcoming. Staff continue to
meet biweekly with Elevate to monitor federal activity.
Docusign Envelope ID: 8F49338B-F2EC-8CD7-8067-57A8B0D41D5D
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 135/563
3
Director Baker reported that the contract cost is $5,000 per month. He stated
that if the Commission wishes to continue with federal lobbying services, staff
recommend continuing with Elevate, citing the firm’s familiarity with Port
projects. Commissioners discussed the contract's cost-benefit, uncertainties in
federal appropriations, and the importance of sustaining momentum in capital
project funding. Staff emphasized the importance of coordination among the
Port, the grant writer, and the federal lobbyist to support grant success.
COMMISSIONER KILLIN MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE ELEVATE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
CONTRACT, EXTENDING IT THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 PER MONTH. COMMISSIONER PRESTON SECONDED
THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 3 (KILLIN, PRESTON,
DIMMICK) - 1 (CASS).
IX. INFORMATION
A. CP2 Unocal Ad Hoc Committee: Progress Report
The CP2 Committee, consisting of Commissioner Cass and Commissioner
Dimmick, provided an update about the future use of the 21-acre Unocal
property. The committee reported on its review of environmental studies,
public input, and zoning considerations, and summarized the site’s
contamination history, recent improvements, and key engineering constraints.
The committee also discussed cleanup standards, pending Department of
Ecology reviews, potential restoration options, and the Port’s potential role as
a secondary purchaser.
B. Marketing Report
Brittany Williams, Director of Economic Development, presented an overview
of the Port’s 2025 marketing and communications efforts. She highlighted key
events from the year, including Sea Notes and Holiday Night at the Marina, as
well as new event sponsorships such as the Edmonds Waterfront Center
Environmental Speaker Series. Director Williams also reviewed key community
partnerships and 2025 communication pieces. She previewed the Port’s 2026
marketing and communications strategy, which includes new events and
education initiatives. Director Williams thanked the Commission, Director
Docusign Envelope ID: 8F49338B-F2EC-8CD7-8067-57A8B0D41D5D
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 136/563
4
Baker, and the Port’s administrative and maintenance teams for their
continued support of the marketing program.
C. 2026 Q2: Travel and Conference Schedule Review
Director Baker reviewed the Q2 travel and conference schedule, discussing
various events, including the Mission to DC with PNWA, the WPPA Spring
Meeting, the PNWA summer conference, and the WPPA Finance and
Administration Seminar.
X. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
• Phase II Permitting - Responses to the City’s comments were submitted on
March 6, 2026.
• Dry Storage South Launcher Cradle - The equipment remains at the galvanizing
shop, with installation targeted for April 1, 2026.
• Marina Entrance Signage - The project is ongoing, with progress limited by
weather conditions, winds, and tides.
• Dock Pressure Washing - Marina Operations staff are currently working on
G-Dock and reported strong progress toward cleaning all docks.
• Marina Operations Office Remodel Design - An MEP site visit is scheduled to
assess existing conditions and support cost estimating. The architects have
also scheduled a pre-application meeting with the City.
XI. COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
• Commissioner Dimmick thanked IT staff for posting Commission meeting videos
on the Port website. He also reminded Commissioners that he, Director Baker,
and Director Williams will attend the Edmonds City Council meeting on March
24th to provide an overview of the Port and its economic development role
under Title 53, along with a high-level status update on the Portwalk and
Seawall project.
• Commissioner Killin reported that she joined Commissioner Cass, Director
Williams, and David Marten of Elevate Government Affairs to welcome
Congressman Larsen for a site visit along the North Seawall and Portwalk
project area. She noted that Congressman Larsen was engaged and that
discussions included public access, upcoming projects, and future funding
needs.
• Commissioner Preston expressed appreciation for Director Williams’ efforts,
noting that her marketing and communications presentations are his favorite
Docusign Envelope ID: 8F49338B-F2EC-8CD7-8067-57A8B0D41D5D
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 137/563
5
annual reports. He thanked staff, acknowledged the addition of new team
members, and commented that activity at the Port is increasing and operations
are running well.
• Commissioner Cass reported on a successful Beautify Edmonds event and
noted positive community feedback through My Edmonds News and The
Beacon. She complimented Director Williams for hosting the congressional
visit, thanked IT staff for setting up SharePoint for Master Planning documents
and the video library, and thanked Commissioner Dimmick for his work on the
CP2 Ad Hoc Committee presentation.
XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
There was no Executive Session.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The Commission Meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
The next Commission Meeting is scheduled for March 31, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Jay Grant
Port Commission Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: 8F49338B-F2EC-8CD7-8067-57A8B0D41D5D
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 138/563
1
Port of Edmonds Commission Meeting – Minutes of Regular Meeting
Meeting Date: February 9, 2026
Commissioners Present Janelle Cass, President
Selena Killin, Vice President
Jay Grant, Secretary
Ross Dimmick
David Preston
Staff Present Brandon Baker, Executive Director
Brittany Williams, Director of Economic Development
John Peterman, Director of Finance and Administration
Dennis Halpin, Marina Operations Manager
Others Present Emily Guildner, Port Attorney
Will Chen, City of Edmonds
David Marten, Elevate Government Affairs
I. CALL TO ORDER
President Cass called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. FLAG SALUTE
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American
Flag.
III. MISSION STATEMENT
Commissioner Preston read the Port of Edmonds' mission statement:
The mission of the Port of Edmonds is to provide value to our community through
economic development, marina and commercial operations, waterfront public
access, and environmental stewardship.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 139/563
2
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER DIMMICK MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER KILLIN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Each comment shall generally be limited to 3 minutes or less
and shall be limited to Port business)
Reed Johnson, a marina tenant, expressed concerns about removing the old
administration building and installing another park instead of expanding parking.
He stated that clearer signage is needed to show where parking is allowed or
restricted and encouraged stricter enforcement, noting past discussions about
towing violators. While he acknowledged the Port’s success in attracting public use,
he emphasized the need to prioritize marina tenants who generate most of the
Port’s revenue.
Mr. Johnson also raised a concern about Travelift and Boatyard billing. Although his
boat measures 32 feet with the engines down, he is consistently billed at 33 feet
based on an older measurement on file. He expressed frustration that visiting
customers with similar boats may be charged less, creating inconsistency for
tenants. While the dollar difference is small, he emphasized that the principle
matters and requested that the billing discrepancy be corrected.
Glenda Krull, an Edmonds resident and Chair of the Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce, thanked the Port for its support of the Beautify Edmonds initiative and
the community effort to address graffiti. She emphasized that maintaining a clean,
welcoming city benefits residents, businesses, and visitors, and expressed
appreciation for the Port’s leadership in this work. Ms. Krull noted that these efforts
strengthen community pride, support the local economy, and help preserve
Edmonds’ character. She concluded by thanking the Port for its meaningful
contribution to the community’s beauty, safety, and vitality.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
COMMISSIONER PRESTON MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER GRANT SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
A. Approval of January 12, 2026, and January 27, 2026, Meeting Minutes
B. Approval of Payments in the amount of $304,859.65
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 140/563
3
VII. CITY OF EDMONDS AND WOODWAY REPORTS
Will Chen, City of Edmonds councilmember, shared that during a recent council
retreat, the council agreed to prioritize developing a long-term financial stability
strategy for 2026, with plans to gather public input on how best to secure the city’s
future.
VIII. PRESENTATIONS
David Martin from Elevate Government Affairs introduced a new grant writer,
Jeannie Beckett, and mentioned their ongoing work to advance the Port’s federal
agenda. David highlighted the importance of Jeannie's expertise in grant writing
and her knowledge of Washington state, which will be crucial in securing additional
funding for the project. The Port is pursuing a $25 million BUILD grant, which is
highly competitive. Staff have been working on gathering letters of support from
various stakeholders to strengthen the application. The Port received its first
federal funding of $1.2 million for the Portwalk project thanks to Rep. Rick Larsen’s
support.
David discussed pursuing additional funding for the Portwalk project, exploring
options like TIFIA loans and Army Corps of Engineers partnerships. He also
mentioned waiting for the next round of PROTECT funding and pursuing changes
to the Port Infrastructure Development Program to include seawalls. Other
alternative funding sources, such as NOAA habitat programs, could be a non-
transportation funding option, though it would be highly competitive. The
discussion also touched on the Economic Development Administration as a
possible funding source, though both have significant challenges and limitations.
David shared strategies for coordinating Port representatives' engagement with
congressional delegation meetings, emphasizing the importance of strategic
scheduling and collective representation at forums like AAPA and PNWA. The
discussion highlighted the need to effectively communicate the Port's priorities
across multiple areas including transportation, maritime, environmental, and
community impact.
IX. POSSIBLE ACTION
X. INFORMATION
A. Beyond the Breakwater Seminar Series
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 141/563
4
The Port has partnered with the Hookup Hut to launch Beyond the Breakwater,
a new workshop series featuring maritime professionals who will share industry
insights and lead hands-on learning sessions. Director Williams noted that the
workshops are free to the public and are currently scheduled for February 26,
March 26, April 23, and May 21. The February session will feature Captain Kyle
Hanada of Tengu Charters. Beyond the Breakwater underscores the Port’s
commitment to supporting local businesses, expanding community knowledge,
and fostering a vibrant waterfront.
B. Association of Marina Industries Conference and Expo Recap
Director Baker shared a recap of the Association of Marina Industries
Conference, where the main seminar themes included data and AI strategies,
marina design, and planning approaches. He also met with vendors and
electrical equipment manufacturers to talk about lead times for the supplies
needed to complete Portwalk Phase II.
C. Wildlife Plan for the Marina
The team reviewed wildlife management efforts, including strategies for
deterring herons, sea otters, and sea lions using non-lethal methods in
collaboration with partners at the USDA.
XI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Executive Director Baker discussed the following topics:
• WPPA Port Day
• Seattle Boat Show
• Marina Operations Staffing; Manager Halpin announced promotions for
Tristan Guempel to Port Operations Supervisor and Luke Brisse to Assistant
Operations Supervisor.
• Mid Marina Breakwater Update
• BUILD Grant
• Dry Storage C Row Project
• Second Floor Window Replacement – Building 1
• Dock Roof and Gutter Cleaning
XII. COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
• Commissioner Preston stated that he will be attending the annual Chamber
meeting on February 10.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 142/563
5
• Commissioner Killin reported on the trip to Olympia for Port Day with
Commissioner Grant and Executive Director Baker. She thanked legislators for
continued support and funding. She acknowledged Port employee Renae Ebel
for all the roles and tasks she fills. Killin provided legislative updates,
highlighting several bills aimed at permitting reform – House Bills 2418 and
2198 and Senate Bill 5968 – which seek to improve project review timelines and
agency accountability.
• Commissioner Dimmick attended the Seattle Boat Show and was impressed
with how extensive it was. He expressed optimism about the boating industry
based on the show’s scale and strong attendance. He emphasized the
substantial investment required for boat ownership and the importance of the
Port’s facilities in supporting that commitment. He also attended the
Environmental Speaker Series presentation on Sharks of Washington by Lisa
Hillier of the WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife. He commended Annie Crawley and
the organizing board for providing valuable educational opportunities to the
community.
• Commissioner Grant met with Councilmember Olson to discuss House Bill
2489, which could allow housing in commercial zones. He attended an ECR
(Edmonds City Roundtable) meeting where attendees shared concerns about
budget, culture, communication, and neighborhood issues - all comments were
forwarded to the Edmonds City Council. He attended Port Day in Olympia
noting contrasting budget perspectives among legislators. Grant will be
attending the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce meeting. He stated that it is
great to hear about internal promotions within the Port.
• Commissioner Cass thanked staff and Jeanie Beckett for attending the meeting.
She shared about a completed practice run of the graffiti removal project and
stated there was strong community interest and engagement. She noted that
the Coast Guard will host a nine-week navigation course covering tools like
Navionics, radar, AIS and tide tables, describing it as a valuable resource for
boaters.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
There was no Executive Session.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The commission meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 143/563
6
The next Commission Meeting is scheduled for February 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Jay Grant
Port Commission Secretary
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 144/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
March 31, 2026
Page 1
M I N U T E S
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Board of Directors Special Meeting
March 31, 2026
The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board hybrid meeting convened at 7:33 a.m. in the
Edmonds Center for the Arts Green Room, 410 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, and via Zoom.
EPFD Board Members Present ECA Board Members Present
Wayne Grotheer, President Matt Cox, President
Suzy Maloney, Vice President Heidi Napolitino, Vice President
David Brewster Jeff Lewis, Secretary/Treasurer
Scott Ely
Ray Liaw Guests
Chris Eck, Councilmember
ECA Staff Present Tam Osborne
Caitlin Pontrella, Interim Executive Director
1. Call to Order
Board President Grotheer called the special EPFD Board meeting to order.
• Attendance of those attending in-person for minutes.
2. Land Acknowledgement & Equity Statement
Board VP Maloney read the Land Acknowledgement & Equity Statement.
3. Agenda Review & Approval
Board President Grotheer requested the following revisions to the agenda:
Remove December and February disbursements from the Consent Agenda (November
already approved and February not ready to approve)
Remove the Financial Update by Turning Point (under Interim Executive Director Update)
as they were unable to attend today’s meeting
BOARD MEMBER LIAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. BOARD
MEMBER BREWSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Board President’s Comments
Board President Grotheer thanked board members for their continued hard work.
5. Public Comment - None
6. Consent Agenda
• January Board Meeting Minutes – January 22, 2026 Revised
• February Board Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2026, February 26, 2026
• January Disbursements
Board President Grotheer confirmed the Finance Committee reviews disbursements before
approval is scheduled to the Consent Agenda.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 145/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
March 31, 2026
Page 2
BOARD MEMBER ELY MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER BREWSTER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Old Business
• Prior Action Items Review
Board President Grotheer reviewed progress on action items from the previous meeting and
identified outstanding items (see Action Items below).
8. Executive Session
• Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) to Review the Performance of a Public
Employee
At 7:39 am, Board President Grotheer recessed the board to a 20-minute executive session
regarding the item listed.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:59 am.
8. PFD Board Business
• Quarterly Joint Meetings with ECA Board
Board President Grotheer reported the agenda for the 5:30 pm April 15 meeting will include
organizational assessment and facility partnerships followed by regular, time critical items, as well
as time for EPFD, ECA and Emeritus Board questions. The intent the April 23 EPFD Board
meeting will be canceled.
• Signature Authority Resolution
Board President Grotheer referred to Resolution 2026.01, intended to clarify signature authority
for the EPFD Board President and Vice President when there is no permanent executive director.
Discussion followed regarding the future need for the board to consider signature authority for the
executive director for everyday items (some authority addressed in the procurement policy).
BOARD MEMBER BREWSTER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2026.01. BOARD
MEMBER ELY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• Human Resources Support Contracting Authorization
Board President Grotheer explained HR support is needed to assist with the upcoming
recruitment for multiple senior level positions. Ms. Pontrella has recommended contracting with
All Things HR. Recruitment is time critical and is not in the budget. He commented on recent staff
changes and plans for an update on staffing budget projection at the May EPFD Board meeting.
BOARD VP MALONEY MOVED TO CONTRACT WITH ALL THINGS HR FOR SENIOR LEVEL
STAFF POSITION RECRUITING SUPPORT AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $30,000.
BOARD MEMBER ELY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Discussion followed regarding the administrative aspects of recruiting that will be handled in-
house.
• Removing Associate Executive Director as Signatory from EPFD Bank Account
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 146/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
March 31, 2026
Page 3
BOARD VP MALONEY MOVED TO REMOVE LORI MEAGHER AS SIGNATORY ON EPFD
BANK ACCOUNT WITH GLOBAL CREDIT UNION. BOARD MEMBER ELY SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• Removing Associate Executive Director as Account Holder from EPFD Credit
Card and Adding New Account Holder
BOARD MEMBER ELY MOVED TO REMOVE LORI MEAGHER AS ACCOUNT HOLDER FROM
ON EPFD CREDIT CARD AND ADDING EPFD BOARD PRESIDENT WAYNE GROTHEER AS
ACCOUNT HOLDER. BOARD MEMBER LIAW SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
• Resolution Authorizing Investment of Edmonds Public Facilities District Monies
in the Local Government Investment Pool – Change Of Signatories
Board President Grotheer relayed the resolution designates himself and Board Member Ely as
persons authorized to make deposits and withdrawals and have online access to the account;
removes Joe McIalwain, Lori Meagher, Glenda Meuller from online access to the account; and
retains online access for Operations Manager Sandra Nestorovic.
Discussion followed regarding frequency of fund transfers between the LGIP and bank account
and ability of the board president to authorize changes.
BOARD MEMBER ELY MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
INVESTMENT OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT MONIES IN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL. BOARD MEMBER LIAW SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
• July 4 ECA Closure
Board President Grotheer explained a 2024 policy authorized ECA leadership a discretionary
closure of ECA campus for up to four business days, typically the week preceding July 4th, a slow
time for ECA events and performances. As there is currently no ECA leadership, this is a decision
of the EPFD Board. In 2026, July 4th is on Saturday and the federal holiday is July 3rd. He
described the policy regarding the determination and notification of employees.
BOARD MEMBER LIAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE CLOSURE OF THE ECA CAMPUS FROM
JUNE 29 THROUGH JULY 2, 2026, UNDER THE DISCRETIONARY CLOSURE POLICY.
BOARD MEMBER BREWSTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Discussion followed regarding staff compensation during the closure.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Interim Executive Director Update
• Organization Assessment
Ms. Pontrella reviewed the executive summary of the draft organizational assessment including
the purpose, people, programs, support functions, and recommendations.
Questions and discussion followed regarding staff survey responses, who owns the calendar,
promoting rental events that align with the mission, rental pricing model, programming
optimization, actionable tasks from the mission statement, multi-year budgeting, blended versus
discreet ECA and EPFD financial reporting, financial assessment and recommendations to be
provided by Turning Point, Joint Operating Agreement, decisions driven by financial sustainability,
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 147/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
March 31, 2026
Page 4
ECA as a cost center in the EPFD’s financials, identifying EPFD versus non-profit responsibilities,
other organizations with non-profits/foundations, loss of institutional memory/decision making,
financial performance versus mission statement diversity, board involvement in operations,
survey data, criteria for future hires, conducting an annual executive assessment,
recommendations Ms. Pontrella can implement, and appreciation to Ms. Pontrella for the
organization assessment.
11. Facility Partnership Evaluation Update
Board Member Liaw advised the Joint Facilities Partnership Taskforce will present a full report at
the April Joint Board Meeting. She reviewed minimum requirements/assumptions for facility
partnership in the categories of mission alignment, enhancement, financial stability, sufficient
space retained by ECA, compatibility, sale vs lease, and form of lease and board members
provided input.
Questions and discussion followed regarding the difference between ground and facility lease,
operational economies of scale, public process to identify a partner, deadline for using the state
funding the EPFD obtained, opportunity for a public-private partnership, other categories, and
ECA space needs.
12. PFD Board Member Reports
Board President Grotheer referred to March Committee-Report out included in the packet. Ms.
Pontrella recommended establishing a date for committees to submit their report for distribution
with EPFD and ECA board agendas. Board member suggestions included:
Add committee members to the report format
Finance Committee Report-Out including more information
Report-Outs including upcoming topics
In response to a concern that the EPFD Board has not seen financials since December, Ms.
Pontrella advised Turning Point will present financials at the next Finance Committee meeting.
13. New Business - None
14. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 am.
Next EPFD Board Meeting: Joint Meeting with ECA Board of Directors: April 15, 2025
ACTION ITEMS:
1. May EPFD Board meeting
a. Update on staffing budget projection
2. Schedule Audit Exit Conference
3. Notice the April 15 EPFD/ECA/Emeritus Board meeting
4. Revisions to Committee Report-Outs
a. Add names of committee members to report format
b. Include more information on Finance Committee Report-Out
c. Include upcoming topics
Future Items
Board consider executive director’s signature authority for everyday items.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 148/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
February 26, 2026
Page 1
M I N U T E S
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Board of Directors Meeting
February 26, 2026
The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board hybrid meeting convened at 7:46 am in the Edmonds
Center for the Arts Green Room, 410 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, and via Zoom.
EPFD Board Members Present ECA Board Members Present
Wayne Grotheer, President Matt Cox, President
Suzy Maloney, Vice President Heidi Napolitino, Vice President
David Brewster
Scott Ely Guests
Ray Liaw Chris Eck, Councilmember
ECA Staff Present
Caitlin Pontrella, Interim Executive Director
1. Call to Order
Board President Grotheer called the EPFD Board meeting to order.
• Attendance of those attending in-person for minutes.
2. Land Acknowledgement & Equity Statement
Board Member Brewster read the Land Acknowledgement & Equity Statement.
3. Agenda Review & Approval
BOARD MEMBER ELY MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. BOARD MEMBER LIAW
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Board President’s Comments
Board President Grotheer commented this is a time of significant change for the ECA, working on
becoming more productive and focus on joint PFD/ECA committees and taskforces and defining
how those organizations work together as well as improving information flow to the PFD Board
while maintaining compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act requirements. He expressed his
appreciation for the efforts of all board members.
5. Public Comment - None
6. Consent Agenda
• January 22, 2026 Meeting Minutes
Board President Grotheer noted the minutes are incomplete due to technical difficulties following
the executive session so there is no record of at least one action taken, increasing the budget for
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 149/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
February 26, 2026
Page 2
the interim executive director. He recommended the minutes be updated and approved at the
next EPFD Board meeting.
BOARD MEMBER BREWSTER MOVED TO REMOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. BOARD
MEMBER LIAW SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Old Business
• Prior Action Items Review
Board President Grotheer reviewed progress on action items from the previous meeting and
identified outstanding items (see Action Items below).
Ms. Pontrella reported following a community safety concern submitted to the ECA regarding the
Andrew Morrison show, staff worked with legal and law enforcement to investigate and found it
unsubstantiated. There will be increased building security the day of the show.
8. Executive Session
• Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110((g) to Review the Performance of a Public Employee
At 7:54 am, Board President Grotheer recessed the meeting to a 30-minute executive session
regarding the item listed.
At 8:24 am, the executive session was extended for 20 minutes.
The meeting reconvened at 8:44 am.
9. PFD Board Business
• Committee & Task Force Assignments
Discussion followed regarding committees and membership, whether to add a PFD board
member to Joint Capital Campaign Readiness, committee-prepared headline report/status update
distributed to board members prior to meetings and opportunity for discussion at board meeting,
adding attorney(s) to the Joint Operating Agreement Committee, having board meetings
discussion-focused, board members with capital campaign experience, identifying which
committees are permanent and short-term, creating a work plan/charter for each committee, how
policies the administration part of Admin & Finance will be addressed with the change to a Joint
Finance Committee, establishing a timeline for the executive director search, how committee
assignments line up with members’ interests, and committees holding meetings in March to
review their draft workplans, make any revisions and submit deliverables and deadlines through
June.
(Board Member Liaw left the meeting at 9:02 am during the above discussion)
JOINT EXECUTIVE
Co-Chair: Wayne Grotheer, PFD
Co-Chair: Matt Cox, ECA-N
Suzy Maloney, PFD
Heidi Napolitino, ECA-N
Lindsay Geyer, ECA-N
JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT
Co-Chair: Suzy Maloney, PFD
Co-Chair: Matt Baldock, ECA-N
David Brewster, PFD
Heidi Napolitino, ECA-N
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 150/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
February 26, 2026
Page 3
Jeff Lewis, ECA-N
JOINT FINANCE
Co-Chair: Jeff Lewis, ECA-N,
Co-Chair: Scott Ely
Wayne Grotheer, PFD
Matt Cox, ECA-N
Richard Canning, ECA-N
Corbitt Loch, ECA-N
JOINT CAPITAL CAMPAIGN READINESS
Chair: Adel Sefrioui, Chair, ECA-N
Treasure Mackley, ECA-N
Jeanne Thorsen, ECA-N
JOINT FACILITIES PARTNERSHIP
Co-Chair: Scott Ely, PFD Ray Liaw, PFD
Co-Chair: Kim Bayer-Augstavo, ECA-N
Lindsay Geyer, ECA-N
Norm Brown, ECA-N
Scott Ely, PFD
EXECUTIVE SEARCH
Co-Chair: Wayne Grotheer, PFD
Co-Chair: Matt Cox, ECA-N
Suzy Maloney, PFD
Heidi Napolitino, ECA-N ECAN
ECAN GOVERNANCE
Chair: Courtney Wooten
Lindsay Geyer
Karen Magarelli
Steven Ruane
Laura Ellis
PHILANTHROPY
Chair: Treasure Mackley
Vicki O’Gorman
Glenda Krull
Caroline Bennett
Tam Osborne
Michael Chong
Nancy Fleck, Emeritus
Cheryl Foster, Emeritus
• Quarterly Joint Meetings
This item deferred to the next EPFD Board meeting. Discussion followed regarding how to make
meetings as interactive as possible for ECA participants, timing of public comment on the agenda,
and scheduling of quarterly joint meetings.
• Communication Strategy
Board President Grotheer relayed the challenge of keeping EPFD board members informed
between board meetings in an OPMA-compliant way.
Board President Grotheer recalled at the EPFD Board’s previous meeting the board approved a
budget for the interim ED contract services with 35 hours/week maximum in the amount of
$260,718 through September. The contract requires the EPFD Board President’s approval to
work beyond 24-hours/week and advance approval of work hours in 4 week increments. Ms.
Pontrella’s invoices reflect an average of 13 hours/week of pro bono work. He has asked her to
submit a request that he intends to approve for 40 hours/week for the next 4 weeks. Total financial
impact is approximately $4,200. Depending on the duration of the interim ED, the budget may
need to be increased again.
BOARD MEMBER ELY MOVED TO AUTHORIZE AN UNBUDGETED EXPENSE FOR A
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF LESS THAN $100,000 TO HIRE A
CONTRACT PART-TIME CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. BOARD VP MALONEY SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Board Member Liaw was not present for
the vote.)
10. Interim Executive Director Update
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 151/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
February 26, 2026
Page 4
• Organization Assessment
Ms. Pontrella reported the Organizational Assessment is completed, she needs to produce a
report and materials. She will work with Board President Grotheer and Matt Hendricks regarding
distribution of materials due to confidential HR-related information. She anticipated the final report
would be available mid to late-March.
Ms. Pontrella reported on the board self-assessment distributed to EPFD and ECA board
members regarding their experiences, friction points, etc. She will process the results and
distribute to both boards. Common themes and trends will help inform the joint operating
agreement discussions as well as a potential board education opportunities.
Ms. Pontrella reported on items on her Financial Watch List:
$400,000 revenue projection from 2026 Gala is unrealistic
Hazel Miller donation was half of the anticipated amount ($25,000 rather than $50,000)
DISH rental lease has not been paid since November ($25,000/year) and DISH plans to
terminate their lease
ECA potentially unable to meet LAND grant deadline for service delivery ($14,000 for
educational programming)
Total revenue impact = $114,000 - $160,000
Ms. Pontrella relayed her plans to work with the development team regarding the realism of their
budget. Discussion followed regarding the EPFD Board’s fiduciary responsibility to review the
organization's financial reports.
11. PFD Board Member Reports
Board President Grotheer relayed a recommendation for written reports with committee
decisions/actions and/or key points so the board can focus on discussion rather than hearing
reports.
Board Member Brewster reported on the Association of WA State PFDs’ interim board members
meeting: dues will remain the same as last year ($750), a retainer agreement with the lobbyist
will be developed (no need for lobbyist’s services this year), lobbyist has been paid, remaining
$6,000 in AWSPFD account will be transferred to new account, 2026 AWSPFD conference will
be at Kitsap Conference Center September 9-11. He encouraged board members to attend the
conference.
Board Member Ely reported on a meeting Ms. Pontrella, Ms. Meagher, ECA Board Chair Cox and
he had with the state auditor.
12. New Business
13. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 am.
Next EPFD Board Meeting: Thursday, March 19, 2026 - 7:30 AM
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Next PFD Board Meeting
a. Approval of revised January 22, 2026 Meeting Minutes
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 152/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
February 26, 2026
Page 5
b. Add Quarterly Joint Meetings to agenda
2. Revise 2026 ECA Committee Assignments to reflect Ray Liaw replacing Scott Ely as Co-
Chair on Joint Facilities Partnership, Scott Ely to remain a committee member
3. Schedule Audit Exit Conference
4. Update 01/22/26 EPFD Board minutes to reflect action taken to increase the budget for
the interim executive director
5. Committee-prepared headline report/status update distributed to board members prior to
meetings and opportunity for discussion at board meeting
6. Board Member Liaw to contact EPFD Attorney Matt Hendricks to confirm he has
communicated with board members that the search firm used to select the ECA’s former
ED is in litigation with some of their employees (EPFD not affected other than request to
retain all records)
Future Items
1. Develop a plan to address operating deficit by end of Q1
2. Presentation/update to city council in Q2
3. EPFD Board Resolution 2026:01 – A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Edmonds
Public Facilities District Delegating Contract Signing Authority to Designated Staff
4. Employee Handbook
Future Items:
1. In the next 3-6 months, provide the EPFD Board:
a. Updated forecast with the extended sales tax revenue
b. When bonds are paid down
c. Additional revenue anticipated with the sales tax extension
d. When anticipate paying back the City
e. Bonding capacity with sales tax extension
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 153/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
February 10, 2026
Page 1
M I N U T E S
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Board of Directors Special Meeting
February 10, 2026
The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board hybrid meeting convened at 5:30 pm in the Edmonds
Center for the Arts Green Room, 410 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, and via Zoom.
EPFD Board Members Present ECA Board Members Present
Wayne Grotheer, President Matt Cox, President
David Brewster Heidi Napolitino, Vice President
Scott Ely Jeff Lewis, Secretary/Treasurer
Ray Liaw Lindsay Geyer, Past President
Tam Osborne
EPFD Board Members Absent Karen Magarelli
Suzy Maloney, Vice President Steve Ruane
Courtney Wooten
ECA Staff Present Ann McMahon
Caitlin Pontrella, Interim Executive Director Kim Bayer-Augustavo
Lori Meagher, Associate Executive Director Vicki O’Gorman
Rick Canning
Caroline Bennett
Glenda Krull
Jeanne Thorsen
Adel Sefrioui
Matt Baldock
Treasure Mackley
1. Call to Order
Board President Grotheer called the EPFD Board special meeting to order.
• Attendance of those attending in-person for minutes.
2. Land Acknowledgement & Equity Statement
ECA Board Member Treasure Mackley read the Land Acknowledgement & Equity Statement.
3. PFD Board Business
Focus Topic 1 – 2026 Board Priorities
ECA Board President Cox and EPFD Board President Grotheer provided introductory remarks.
They reviewed challenges with the 2025 strategic plan final product and plans for 2026; five
strategic questions related to joint partnership, joint reporting, facilities vision, deficit plan, and
fundraising capacity; 2026 joint board priority areas and key deliverables/activities related to, 1)
joint operations, 2) future positioning, and 3) core functions, housekeeping and readiness.
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 154/563
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
February 10, 2026
Page 2
Ms. Pontrella distributed strategic plan tactics and board members rated what needs to be
actioned on, 1) next three months, 2) before ED recruitment is launched, 3) can wait until after
the ED is hired, and 4) anything that is missing.
Focus Topic 2 – Provisional Joint Operating Plan
Board President Grotheer reviewed the existing unsustainable operating structure and joint
operations key considerations. ECA President Matt Cox reviewed proposed 2026 meeting
cadence and committee structure. Ms. Pontrella reviewed joint operations challenges and
available tools. She will develop a skills matrix and explore board members’ interests when
establishing committee/taskforce membership.
Questions and discussion followed regarding expectation about staff attendance at meetings,
board survey questions/responses, whether quarterly joint meetings will be public, start time of
PFD board and quarterly joint meetings, and how committee membership will be determined
Board members reviewed committee summaries and identified what is missing or should be
pushed back, and things that don’t fit anywhere.
Questions and discussion/observations followed regarding who is responsible for deliverables,
establishing fundraising targets, developing clear communication plans, adding members to
Board Governance, clarifying how funding streams can be used, iterative processes, collaboration
with the City’s Finance Director (ex-officio PFD board member), and communication with
committees that are paused.
Board President Grotheer reviewed next steps.
4. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 7 pm.
Next EPFD Board Meeting: Thursday, February 26, 2026 - 7:30 am
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 155/563
ArlingtonDarringtonEdmondsEverettGranite FallsHASCO
Lake StevensLynnwoodMonroeMarysvilleMill CreekMountlake Terrace
MukilteoSnohomishSnohomish CountyStanwoodWoodway
February 4, 2025, 4:30 – 6:00 PM
Via Teams1
AGENDA
4:30 PM – Welcome & Introductions, Public Comment All
4:35 PM – AHA Introduction & Summary Chris Collier
4:45 PM – Election of Chair & Co Chair All
5:00 PM – FY 27 Work Plan & Budget Chris Collier
5:10 PM – Housing Market Update & Report Chris Collier
5:30 PM – Round Table – What Do Members Want Out Of AHA All
5:55 PM – Next Steps
- Next Meeting Date: TBD
Next Meeting Location: Virtual
All
1 Microsoft Teams Need help?
Join the meeting now
Meeting ID: 290 181 141 620 7
Passcode: FV6BA7g7
Item 7.3
Packet pg. 156/563
6
6
0
City Council Agenda Item 8.1
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes (Only One Reading
Required)
DEPARTMENT:City Clerk's Office
PRESENTER:Luke Lonie, City Clerk
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes of the April 14, 2026 City Council Regular
Meeting, the April 21, 2026 Finance Committee Meeting, the
April 21, 2026 Special Meeting, the April 21, 2026 Parks and
Public Works Committee Meeting, and the April 21, 2026 Public
Safety, Planning, Human Services, and Personnel Committee
Meeting.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
N/A
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the April 14, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting, the April 21, 2026
Finance Committee Meeting, the April 21, 2026 Special Meeting, the April 21, 2026 Parks and
Public Works Committee Meeting, and the April 21, 2026 Public Safety, Planning, Human
Services, and Personnel Committee Meeting.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2026-04-14 Council Meeting Minutes Draft
2. 2026-04-21 Finance Committee Minutes Draft
3. 2026-04-21 Special Meeting Minutes Draft
4. 2026-04-21 PPW Committee Meeting Minutes Draft
5. 2026-04-21 PSPHSP Committee Meeting Minutes Draft
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 157/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 14, 2026
Page 1
Edmonds City Council
Regular Meeting
Action Minutes
April 14, 2026
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Mayor
Michelle Dotsch, Council President
Chris Eck, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Erika Barnett, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Lisa Takach, Human Resources Director
Deb Powers, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
1.CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor Rosen in
the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting
was opened with the flag salute.
2.LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgment.
3.ROLL CALL
4.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5.PRESENTATION
1.Proclamation of Earth Day 2026 Only One Reading Required – Mayor's Office (5
minutes)
Mayor Rosen read a proclamation of Earth Day 2026.
2.2025 Public Defender's Office Annual Report Only One Reading Required – Human
Resources (20 minutes)
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 158/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 14, 2026
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO MOVE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S
PRESENTATION TO ITEM 9.2 FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MOVE IT TO
ITEM 10.1 FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED.
3.Mayor’s Finance Update – Mayor’s Office (5 minutes)
6.AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No members of the audience wished to provide comment.
7.RECEIVED FOR FILING
1.Claim for Damages for filing First Reading
2.Written Public Comments First Reading
3.Tree Code Update Progress Report First Reading
8.APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes Only One Reading Required
2.Approval of PSA for Phase 14 Sewer Replacement and Rehabilitation Project Second
Reading
3.Reclassification of HR Assistant Second Reading
4.Unfund (2) WWTP Operators, Add (2) WWTP Supervisors Second Reading
5.Approval of claim checks. Only One Reading Required
6.Update to Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) By-Laws Second Reading
7.Legal Assessment Committee Proposed Work Plan First Reading
8.Budget Amendment April 2026 (Second Reading) Second Reading
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 159/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
April 14, 2026
Page 3
9.PUBLIC HEARING
1.Interim Ordinance No. 4389 - Six Month Extension Only One Reading Required –
Planning and Development Services
Deb Powers, Planner, provided background into the ordinance which established the
interim regulations.
The following community members provided public testimony:
1. Marjie Fields – expressed support for the extension of the interim tree ordinance.
2. Pam Touer – expressed support for the extension of the interim tree ordinance.
3. Kyle McIntyre – expressed support for the extension of the interim tree
ordinance.
4. Arlene Williams – expressed support for the extension of the interim tree
ordinance.
5. Finis Tupper – expressed support for the extension of the interim tree ordinance
but stressed that the City should take action to protect individuals regarding
strictly necessary tree removal.
Staff answered questions from Council.
10.COUNCIL BUSINESS
1.2025 Public Defender's Office Annual Report Only One Reading Required – Human
Resources (20 minutes)
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO TABLE ITEM 10.1.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11.COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers commented on various topics.
12.MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Rosen provided comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm.
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 160/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Finance Committee
April 21, 2026
Page 1
Edmonds City Council
Finance Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2026
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Michelle Dotsch, Council President (ex-
officio)
Will Chen, Councilmember
Erika Barnett, Councilmember
OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Mayor
Chris Eck, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Richard Gould, Finance Director
Todd Tatum, Interim Finance Director
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
1.CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds Council Finance Committee meeting was called to order virtually and in the
City Council Conference Room, 121 – 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, at 1:00 pm by
Councilmember Chen.
2.COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1.Financial Policy - Financial Reporting Second Reading – Finance
Richard Gould, Finance Director, led a discussion on the current financial policy and the
potential updates to the financial reporting requirements.
Committee Recommendation: Informational
2.February 2026 Monthly Financial Report First Reading – Finance
Richard Gould, Finance Director, reported on the fund balance, revenues, expenditures,
and costs for the month of February, 2026.
Committee Recommendation: Informational
3.Fiscal Sustainability Task Force First Reading – City Council Office
Council President Dotsch, Mayor Rosen and Interim City Administrator Todd Tatum
reviewed the potential for an Edmonds Fiscal Sustainability Task Force and vendors who
would be involved.
The meeting was extended until 2:35 pm.
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 161/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Finance Committee
April 21, 2026
Page 2
Committee Recommendation: Informational
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 pm.
________________________________
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 162/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Special Meeting
April 21, 2026
Page 1
Edmonds City Council
Special Meeting
Action Minutes
April 21, 2026
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Mayor
Michelle Dotsch, Council President
Chris Eck, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Erika Barnett, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Mike Clugston, Planning Director
Brad Shipley, Planning
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
1.CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor Rosen virtually
and in the Council Conference Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
2.COUNCIL BUSINESS
1.Interim Ordinance No. 4389 - Six Month Extension Second Reading – Planning and Development
Services
Mike Clugston, Planning Director, provided a brief background into the need to extend
the interim landmark tree regulations.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING BY SIX MONTHS THE INTERIM REGULATION
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 4389 TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK
TREES.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:49 pm.
________________________________
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 163/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Parks and Public Works (PPW) Committee
April 21, 2026
Page 1
Edmonds City Council
Parks and Public Works (PPW) Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2026
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Michelle Dotsch, Council President
Chris Eck, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager
Mike DeLilla, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation
Engineer
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1.2026 1st Quarter Job Order Contracting (JOC) Report Only One Reading Required – Public Works
and Utilities
Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager, provided a report on first quarter job order contracting
and the benefit to the city.
Committee Recommendation: Informational
2.City Hall Roof Replacement - Job Order Contract (JOC) First Reading – Public Works and Utilities
Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager, briefed Council on the need to replace the roof at City
Hall.
Council recommended the item move to a future consent agenda.
Committee Recommendation: Move to Consent Agenda
3.Adoption of Safety Action Plan First Reading – Engineering
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer, presented on the proposed City Safety Action
Plan and requested that Council place it on a future consent agenda.
Council recommended that the item move to the full council.
Committee Recommendation: Move to full Council
4.Supplemental Agreement 4 for Highway 99 Revitalization Project - Stage 3 First Reading –
Engineering
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer, presented the proposed supplemental
agreement #4 for the stage 3 Highway 99 Revitalization project and requested that it
move to a future consent agenda.
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 164/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Parks and Public Works (PPW) Committee
April 21, 2026
Page 2
Council recommended that the item move to a future consent agenda.
Committee Recommendation: Move to Consent Agenda
5.Supplemental Agreement 1 for Hwy 99 Revitalization Project - Stage 4 First Reading –
Engineering
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer, presented the proposed supplemental
agreement #1 for the stage 4 Highway 99 Revitalization project and requested that it
move to a future consent agenda.
Council recommended that the item move to a future consent agenda.
Committee Recommendation: Move to Consent Agenda
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 pm.
________________________________
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 165/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Public Safety, Planning, Human Services, and Personnel (PSPHSP) Committee
April 21, 2026
Page 1
Edmonds City Council
Public Safety, Planning, Human Services, and
Personnel (PSPHSP) Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 21, 2026
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Michelle Dotsch, Council President (ex-
officio)
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Mike Clugston, Planning Director
Brad Shipley, Planning Manager
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
1.CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds Council Public Safety, Planning, Human Services, and Personnel (PSPHSP)
Committee meeting was called to order virtually and in the City Council Conference Room,
121 – 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, at 4:30 pm by Councilmember Nand.
2.COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1.Request to Increase Administrative Assistants from (1.4) to (2.0) FTEs First Reading – Planning
and Development Services
Mike Clugston, Planning Director, requested that Council increase the Full Time
Employment (FTE) of the planning administrative assistants from a total of 1.4 to a total of
2.0.
Committee Recommendation: Move to Consent Agenda
2.Unlicensed Food Vendors First Reading – Planning and Development Services
Brad Shipley, Planning Manager, briefed Council on the potential need for action relating
to unlicensed food vendors and indicated he will bring back a future recommendation to
Council.
Committee Recommendation: Informational
3.Potential Esperance Annexation Workplan Briefing First Reading – Planning and Development
Services
Mike Clugston, Planning Director, and Brad Shipley, Planning Manager, briefed Council on
the mutual benefits of potential annexation of Esperance.
Committee Recommendation: Informational
ADJOURNMENT
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 166/563
Edmonds City Council Minutes
Public Safety, Planning, Human Services, and Personnel (PSPHSP) Committee
April 21, 2026
Page 2
The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 pm.
________________________________
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
Item 8.1
Packet pg. 167/563
City Council Agenda Item 8.2
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
payments. (Only One Reading Required)
DEPARTMENT:Finance
PRESENTER:Richard Gould
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire
payments
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:1,694,316.55 ☒ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):Various ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of payments.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
Approval of paycheck #66417 for $9,096.59 dated April 20, 2026, direct deposit for $817,750.17, benefit
checks #66418 through #66425 and wire payments
of $867,469.79 for the pay period of April 1, 2026 through April 15, 2026.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments
BUDGET IMPACTS:
$1,694,316.55
ITEM HISTORY:
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment #1 – 04-01-2026 to 04-15-2026 Payroll Earnings Summary Report
Attachment #2 – 04-01-2026 to 04-15-2026 Benefit Summary Report
Item 8.2
Packet pg. 168/563
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,203 (04/01/2026 to 04/15/2026)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 88.00 0.00
UNPAID L & IABSENT118 71.00 0.00
SICK LEAVE - L & ISICK120 18.00 807.11
SICK LEAVESICK121 712.75 37,340.86
VACATIONVACATION122 1,606.50 94,584.86
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 248.00 14,588.66
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 91.00 4,892.05
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 201.83 12,240.64
Holiday Bank WWTPHOLIDAY128 50.00 2,704.94
MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 54.00 2,876.75
BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 17.00 840.45
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 150.25 9,263.84
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 79.01 5,588.22
SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 65.09 6,111.01
VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 126.65 11,890.61
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 69.00 6,397.27
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 15,792.42 901,064.02
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 60.00 3,503.00
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 6.00 294.44
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 3,693.94
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 15.00 2,278.76
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 368.75 41,959.89
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 119.50 12,848.25
MISC PAYMISCELLANEOUS400 0.00 7,654.35
Medical Opt OutMISCELLANEOUS404 0.00 300.00
WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 2,082.25
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 2,254.59
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 797.53
ACCRUED COMP 1.0COMP HOURS602 9.00 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5COMP HOURS604 132.00 0.00
Commander Standy AccrualCOMP HOURS609 15.00 0.00
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 200.69
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 234.62
Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc 0.00 234.02
04/16/2026 Page 1 of 3
Item 8.2
Packet pg. 169/563
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,203 (04/01/2026 to 04/15/2026)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc2 0.00 1,614.54
Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc3 0.00 1,419.50
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 125.70
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 241.76
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 125.70
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 1,145.74
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 856.72
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 735.58
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 11,620.34
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAIDABSENTfmla 10.00 0.00
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 57.00 2,255.75
K-9 AssignmentMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 253.84
LANGUAGE PAYMISCELLANEOUSlan 0.00 950.00
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,197.46
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg11 0.00 852.93
Longevity 9%LONGEVITYlg12 0.00 2,696.50
Longevity 7%LONGEVITYlg13 0.00 1,765.52
Longevity 5%LONGEVITYlg14 0.00 2,105.52
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 571.44
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 1,157.15
Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 3,950.01
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 906.44
Paid Family Medical Unpaid/SupABSENTpfmp 166.45 0.00
Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKpfms 84.75 5,321.62
Paid Family Medical VacationVACATIONpfmv 6.80 437.88
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 3,481.85
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 262.70
Special Ops SergeantMISCELLANEOUSsop 0.00 262.70
PSET SergeantMISCELLANEOUSstr 0.00 262.70
SWAT/NegotiatorsMISCELLANEOUSswat 0.00 441.52
Traffic Officer - CarMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 662.28
04/16/2026 Page 2 of 3
Item 8.2
Packet pg. 170/563
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,203 (04/01/2026 to 04/15/2026)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Total Net Pay:$826,846.76
$1,237,209.01 20,538.75
04/16/2026 Page 3 of 3
Item 8.2
Packet pg. 171/563
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,203 - 04/01/2026 to 04/15/2026
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
66418 04/20/2026 bpas BPAS 7,796.76 0.00
66419 04/20/2026 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 6,762.00 0.00
66420 04/20/2026 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 1,290.00 0.00
66421 04/20/2026 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 5,353.24 0.00
66422 04/20/2026 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 7,391.27 0.00
66423 04/20/2026 teamcom TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 487.00 0.00
66424 04/20/2026 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 6,628.50 0.00
66425 04/20/2026 tx TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT SDU 634.50 0.00
36,343.27 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
3990 04/20/2026 awc AWC 457,625.78 0.00
3995 04/20/2026 edm CITY OF EDMONDS 320.00 0.00
3997 04/20/2026 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 148,822.34 0.00
3999 04/20/2026 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 41,953.43 0.00
4000 04/20/2026 us US BANK 165,882.46 0.00
4001 04/20/2026 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 15,742.51 0.00
4003 04/20/2026 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 780.00 0.00
831,126.52 0.00
867,469.79 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 14/16/2026
Item 8.2
Packet pg. 172/563
City Council Agenda Item 8.3
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Approval of claim checks and wire payments. (Only One Reading
Required)
DEPARTMENT:Finance
PRESENTER:Richard Gould
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:$714,598.03 ☒ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):various ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
Approval of claim checks #281696 - #281777 dated April 15, 2026 for $453,180.06 (re-issued ck#281735
$15,473.25), claim checks #281778 - #281829 dated April 22, 2026 for $234,009.51 and wire payments
of $22,143.00 & $5,265.46.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
The Council President shall be designated as the auditing committee for the city council. The council
president shall review the documentation supporting claims paid and review for approval by the city
council at its next regular public meeting all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand
or voucher. A list of each claim, demand or voucher approved and each check or warrant issued
indicating the check or warrant number, the amount paid and the vendor or payee shall be filed in the
city council office for review by individual councilmembers prior to each regularly scheduled public
meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
$714,598.03
ITEM HISTORY:
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment #1 – Claim checks dated April 15, 2026
Attachment #2 – Claim checks dated April 22, 2026
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 173/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 174/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 175/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 176/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 177/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 178/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 179/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 180/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 181/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 182/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 183/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 184/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 185/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 186/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 187/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 188/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 189/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 190/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 191/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 192/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 193/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 194/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 195/563
Item 8.3
Packet pg. 196/563
City Council Agenda Item 8.4
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Hwy 99 Revitalization Project Stage 3 – ILA with Community Transit
(Second Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Engineering
PRESENTER:Mike De Lilla/ Bertrand Hauss
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the interlocal agreement with Community Transit,
in the amount of $165,743.60, for the Highway 99 Revitalization
– Stage 3 Project.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:$165,743.60 ☒ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):grant ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
As part of the Highway 99 Revitalization project in Stage 3, the two existing Community Transit (CT)
SWIFT Stations at the northeast and southwest corners of Highway 99 at 238th St SW need to removed
and replaced due to the addition of the second left turn northbound lane.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
The goal of the Highway 99 Revitalization project is to extend the successful transformation of Highway
99 in Shoreline through Edmonds from 244th St SW to 210th St SW. Due to the high cost of completing
the proposed improvements along the corridor, the 2.25 mile stretch was divided into seven segments.
The scope of the Stage 3 segment, from 244th St SW to 238th St SW, includes capacity improvements at
238th St SW with the addition of a second left turn lane for the northbound movement. It also includes
a planter strip, bike lane, new sidewalk, new street and pedestrian lighting on both sides of Hwy 99, an
overlay, and the completion of various utility improvements.
This project will impact the two existing Swift Blue Line Stations located on NE and SW corners of Hwy
99 and 238th St. SW. Those stations will need to be relocated in order to accommodate the addition of a
second northbound left turn lane at this intersection. The platform width will to be reduced from 16’ to
12’8” because a bike lane and sidewalk will be added behind the platform as an accommodation of
restricted space from buildings and private parking lots. When feasible, the existing station components
will be reused within the new locations, such as station shelters and other platform components. New
windscreens will need to be built based on the new platform widths. Community Transit has an on-going
design contract with OTAK for the Swift Blue Line and the 30% design of this work has already been
completed. OTAK will complete the remaining design work for the two stations. As part of the ILA,
deliverables will include the 90% and 100% submittals. The final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
(PS&E) for the platforms will be submitted to SCJ (Lead Design consultant) so those can be incorporated
into the Final Design Contract documents. The City Attorney has approved the ILA as to form.
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 197/563
The Design Phase of this project is scheduled to be completed in late 2028.
RECOMMENDATION:
I move to approve the interlocal agreement with Community Transit, in the amount of $165,743.60, for
the Highway 99 Revitalization – Stage 3 Project.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The total fee for those services is $165,743.60 (including 5% Management Reserve) to be paid through
secured grant funding from Connecting Washington funds.
ITEM HISTORY:
February 17, 2026, this item was presented at the PPW Committee and forwarded to the consent
agenda for approval.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Agreement
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 198/563
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR 1
HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT – SWIFT BLUE LINE STATION S 2
RELOCATION 3
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of 4
__________, 2026, by and between the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area 5
dba Community Transit (“Community Transit”), and the City of Edmonds, a Washington 6
municipal corporation (“Edmonds”). Community Transit and Edmonds may be referred to 7
individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” 8
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is implementing improvements along State Route 99 from 9
244th St. SW to ~ 400’ north of 238th St. SW through the Highway 99 Revitalization Project 10
Stage 3 (“HWY 99 Project Stage 3”) to improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians, 11
bicyclists, and all roadway users; and 12
WHEREAS, the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 includes impacts to the Swift Blue Line station pair 13
located at 238th St. SW (“Stations”); and 14
WHEREAS, the construction of the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 requires the removal, storage, and 15
relocation of the existing Stations in order to accommodate roadway reconstruction and new 16
pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and 17
WHEREAS, the redesigned roadway configuration will not accommodate the existing station 18
footprint, and relocation of the Stations requires modifications to the existing Swift station 19
platform design and accommodations to include the existing amenities; and 20
WHEREAS, Community Transit is implementing the Swift 238th Station Design (“Swift 21
Project”) to redesign the station platform to fit within the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 constraints, 22
and reuse existing station components where feasible; and 23
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to coordinate design and construction activities to reduce 24
duplication of work, minimize impacts to transit operations, and ensure integration of Swift 25
station within the HWY 99 Project Stage 3. 26
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 27
1. REQUIREMENTS OF INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT 28
1.1 Authority for Agreement. 29
This Agreement is authorized pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation 30
Act. 31
1.2 Purpose of Agreement. 32
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish coordination between City of Edmonds and 33
Community Transit for the relocation, redesign, and reconstruction of the Swift Blue Line 34
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 199/563
Stations at 238th St. SW as part of the HWY 99 Project Stage 3, and to define the roles, 1
responsibilities, and cost obligations of each Party. 2
1.3 No Separate Entity. 3
No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this Agreement. 4
1.4 Property Ownership. 5
Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement or a future maintenance agreement, each 6
Party retains ownership of property acquired by that Party in connection with 7
implementation of this Agreement. 8
1.5 Administrators. 9
Each Party shall designate a representative responsible for coordination and 10
implementation of this Agreement. Each Party may update its designated representative 11
by written notice to the other Party. 12
2. PROJECT COORDINATION 13
2.1 Design Coordination. 14
The Parties shall coordinate in the review and coordination of design work associated 15
with the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 and Swift Blue Line station platforms to accommodate 16
the new station footprint. This collaboration will include: 17
• Reviewing the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 design with respect to impacts to the 18
Swift Blue Line station locations. 19
• Incorporating Swift Blue Line Station relocation and modifications as required 20
into the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 design documents. 21
• Developing a coordinated and comprehensive design set that integrates roadway, 22
transit, and pedestrian improvements. 23
2.2 Coordination Objectives. 24
The Parties will work collaboratively to: Minimize duplicative design work, ensure 25
compatibility between the Swift station infrastructure and the HWY 99 roadway 26
improvements, and ensure the Swift Blue Line 238th station pairs are reconstructed by 27
Edmonds. 28
3. MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS 29
3.1 Edmonds Responsibilities. 30
As part of the HWY 99 Project Stage 3, Edmonds shall incorporate the following work 31
elements related to the Swift Blue Line Stations located at NB and SB 238th St. SW 32
stations: 33
• Removal, storage, and reinstallation of existing station shelters and components. 34
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 200/563
• Windscreens and benches to be salvaged and coordinated to be returned/delivered 1
to Community Transit. 2
• Construction of the station platform, conduit, in-lane concrete bus pad, concrete 3
bus platform, coordination of all utilities and infrastructure associated with the 4
Swift station. 5
• Appropriate routing of junction utility trenches (JUTs) to avoid conflicts with 6
Swift station platforms. 7
• Completion of environmental review processes, right-of-way acquisition, and all 8
required City permitting processes for all work associated with the Swift stations. 9
3.2 Community Transit Responsibilities. 10
Community Transit shall be responsible for the design and construction of Swift station 11
facilities in coordination with the HWY 99 Project. Community Transit responsibilities 12
include: 13
• Development and completion of Swift station 238th 100% design plans for 14
incorporation into the HWY 99 Project Stage 3. 15
• Furnishing new “L” style windscreens to accommodate the new platform width. 16
• Coordination of new station platform width design elements necessary to ensure 17
compatibility with existing Swift equipment and bike and pedestrian 18
improvements. 19
4. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS 20
4.1 Construction Specifications. 21
Prior to construction, Community Transit shall develop specifications for removal, 22
storage, and reinstallation of existing station components. These specifications shall 23
identify components to be removed and reinstalled by the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 24
contractor and those items to be furnished or re-installed by Community Transit. 25
Community Transit shall provide these specifications to Edmonds prior to solicitation of 26
the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 construction contract. 27
4.2 Construction Coordination. 28
During construction, coordination with the HWY 99 Project Stage 3 contractor shall be 29
required for delivery and installation of any station components furnished or installed by 30
Community Transit. 31
Community Transit shall have reasonable access to observe and review station related 32
work during construction. 33
Community Transit shall have review and approval of Swift station related submittals 34
with at least 20 days to review project submittals and documents. Edmonds shall 35
promptly notify Community Transit construction RFIs or changes. 36
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 201/563
4.3 Final Acceptance. 1
Final acceptance of the station-related work shall be subject to Community Transit’s 2
review and approval that the station shelter, infrastructure, and amenities have been 3
installed in accordance with project specifications. 4
4.4 Ownership and Maintenance Transfer. 5
Upon completion and acceptance of the station work, ownership and maintenance 6
responsibilities for the Swift stations shall transfer from Edmonds to Community Transit. 7
Community Transit’s maintenance responsibilities are anticipated to include the station 8
platform area measuring approximately 12 feet 8 inches by 60 feet and all station 9
components located within that platform. 10
5. FUNDING AND COST SHARING 11
5.1 Community Transit Funding Responsibilities. 12
Community Transit shall be responsible for costs associated with the 30% preliminary 13
design of the Swift Blue Line 238th Stations that it has previously incurred. 14
Community Transit shall also fund the procurement of Owner Furnished Items (OFI), 15
including new “L” style windscreens. 16
5.2 Edmonds Funding Responsibilities. 17
Edmonds shall be responsible for reimbursing Community Transit for all costs associated 18
with the remainder of the work toward final design (60%, 90%, and 100%) of the Swift 19
Blue Line 238th Stations, as identified in Exhibit A (Community Transit Design Contract) 20
and paid within forty-five (45) days of Community Transit sending an invoice for said 21
work. 22
Edmonds shall also be responsible for all costs associated with incorporating Swift 23
station design elements into the HWY 99 Project Stage 3, including removal, storage, and 24
reinstallation of station shelter kits, construction of bus platforms, and station platform 25
infrastructure. 26
6. OPERATIONAL COORDINATION 27
6.1 Temporary Transit Stops. 28
During construction that impacts Swift station operations, Edmonds shall coordinate with 29
Community Transit to identify temporary stop locations and provide any necessary right-30
of-way access for these locations. Edmonds shall also coordinate with Community 31
Transit to install temporary signage identifying the temporary stops. 32
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 202/563
The temporary stop locations and their implementation schedule shall be confirmed with 1
Community Transit at least (30) thirty days prior to implementation to allow for rider 2
communications and service planning. 3
6.2 Construction Notifications. 4
Edmonds shall notify Community Transit of any construction activities that may impact 5
transit operations at least two (2) weeks in advance to allow for appropriate operational 6
accommodations and rider notifications to the extent feasible. 7
7. INDEPENDENT ENTITIES 8
Each Party shall perform its obligations under this Agreement as an independent 9
governmental entity and not as an agent or employee of the other Party. 10
8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 11
8.1 Informal Resolution. 12
If disputes arise relating to this Agreement, the Parties shall first attempt to resolve the 13
matter collaboratively at the lowest possible organizational level. 14
8.2 Escalation. 15
If the dispute cannot be resolved at the staff level, it shall be elevated to the appropriate 16
project management and executive staff from each Party for further discussion and 17
resolution. 18
8.3 Dispute Resolution Panel. 19
If the dispute remains unresolved after escalation, the Parties may establish a dispute 20
resolution panel consisting of one representative appointed by each Party and a third 21
mutually agreed-upon independent member. The decision of the panel shall be binding on 22
the Parties. Each Party shall be responsible for its own costs and shall share equally in the 23
cost of the independent panel member. 24
9. MISCELLANEOUS 25
9.1 Entire Agreement. 26
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the 27
subject matter contained herein. 28
9.2 Amendment. 29
This Agreement may only be amended through a written instrument executed by both 30
Parties. 31
9.3 Governing Law. 32
This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the 33
State of Washington. 34
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 203/563
9.4 Compliance with Laws. 1
Each Party shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws in performing its 2
obligations under this Agreement. 3
4
5
6
7
8
CITY OF EDMONDS 9
A Washington Municipal Corporation 10
By: ___________________________ 11
Name: ________________________ 12
Title: _________________________ 13
Date: _____________ 14
Approved as to form: 15
By: ___________________________ 16
City Attorney 17
18
COMMUNITY TRANSIT 19
Snohomish County Public Transportation 20
Benefit Area 21
By: ___________________________ 22
Name: ________________________ 23
Title: _________________________ 24
Date: _____________ 25
26
27
28
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 204/563
Scope of Work
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 | Redmond, WA 98052 | Phone 425.822.4446 | otak.com
o:\project\32800\32880r\09 corporate\contracts\phase 2\brt stn upgrade_otak scope_phase 2_january 2026.docx
Community Transit
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade – Phase 2
Task Order Request # 2024-141
Otak Project No. 32880.R00
January 14, 2026
Proposed services are provided as supplemental engineering services to RFQ #2017-079, Architect and
Engineering Services, dated January 1st, 2018, between Otak, Inc. (Consultant) and Community Transit
(Client).
Project Understanding
The City of Edmonds is widening a portion of SR-99 to improve safety. As part of these changes, two
Swift Blue Line stations at 238th Street SW will be removed and replaced, the existing station shelter
canopy structure and other amenities will require relocation to fit within the modified station platform.
The goal of this effort is to assist Community Transit in preparing design documentation, including
construction Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) at each design phase for the Swift Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Blue Line Station pair at 238th Street SW, Edmonds, WA. The design is expected to shift
the locations of the existing ticket vending machines, windscreens, and seating to similar positions as was
included as part of the Swift Orange Line. Due to the reduced platform width from City of Edmonds
project, the existing 238th Street station windscreens will need to be replaced with L-shape windscreens
(as typical BRT Orange Line station windscreens) to accommodate the site condition change for
accessibility reasons.
Phase 1 includes the development of preliminary design and construction cost estimates and assisting
with jurisdictional coordination. Phase 2 includes development of final design PS&E for the 238th Street
SW station pair relocation, and continued assistance with jurisdictional coordination to ensure design
details are coordinated with the City of Edmonds construction documents for the roadway widening.
Scope of Services – Phase 2 – Final Design
1. Project Management and Subconsultant Administration
1.1. Project Management
The Consultant will provide project management to satisfactorily complete the scope of services. The
Consultant will plan and manage the activities of the design team and prepare project progress reports
and documentation. The Consultant will direct and supervise internal staff team members and their
activities to ensure completion of design documents and other services provided by the Consultant.
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 205/563
Scope of Work
continued
Community Transit Page 2 of 4
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade – Phase 2 Otak
The Consultant will prepare monthly progress reports and invoices with sufficient detail to demonstrate
progress and budget status. The Consultant will monitor and track scope activities, budget expenditures,
and review/process monthly invoices with sufficient detail to document progress.
1.2. Subconsultant Administration
The Consultant will monitor and track Subconsultants’ scope activities, budget expenditures, and
review/process monthly invoices with sufficient detail to document progress.
The Consultant will coordinate and meet with subconsultant team members to stay informed of activities
and integration of subconsultants’ data and deliverables used in completing the design. The Consultant
will perform quality control check and document reviews of Consultant’s and subconsultant deliverables
for consistency and compatibility between design disciplines and project elements.
TASK 1 DELIVERABLES
Progress Reports and Invoices
2. Project Coordination and Agency Communications
2.1. Project Coordination Meetings with Client
The Consultant will prepare for and attend coordination meetings with the client throughout the project to
review and discuss project status/progress, design issues or considerations, and/or Client review
comments on document submittals. The Consultant will document design decisions, determinations, and
conclusions and prepare/submit meeting summaries to the Client. The following meetings are anticipated:
Regular client coordination meetings to review project progress; obtain client input on project issues;
and status-checks of project activities provided by client and/or others. The client coordination
meetings will take place approximately monthly.
When necessary, meeting(s) to review/discuss client comments associated with document submittals.
2.3. Jurisdictional Meetings and Coordination
The Consultant will provide support to coordinate with the City of Edmonds on the design and project
approval needs for removal and salvaging existing Swift Station components and reinstallation and attend
joint utility coordination meetings when requested.
The Consultant will review the City of Edmonds SR-99 Revitalization Phase 3 project plans to ensure the
necessary site details are included in the City’s design plans, and coordinate with the site grading and
utility plans to facilitate the station relocation.
TASK 2 DELIVERABLES
Project coordination meetings – up to eight (8) meetings
Meeting agendas and notes – up to eight (8) meetings total
Jurisdictional coordination meeting and utility coordination meeting – up to two (2) meetings total
Review comments for the City of Edmonds SR-99 Revitalization Phase 3 project plans (60% design
level or most current version)
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 206/563
Scope of Work
continued
Community Transit Page 3 of 4
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade – Phase 2 Otak
4. Final Design
Final design engineering services will include the preparation of 90% and 100% plans, specifications, and
construction cost estimates for the 238th Street SW station pair relocation.
4.1. Preparation of 90% Design Documents
The Consultant will prepare 90% design plans with changes from 30% review comments incorporated.
The 90% plans will include additional construction details as needed to supplement the plan sheets for
station relocation and the relocation of existing structures, station amenities, and equipment.
The final design includes efforts to coordinate with the City of Edmonds design team. The Consultant will
evaluate and provide structural foundation details for station shelter and amenities (if applicable), platform
curb and paving details, and other necessary utility details (conduits required for the station, and shelter
roof drainage connection) to include in the City’s design plans.
The Consultant will prepare technical specifications associated with the project scope based on the 2026
edition of the WSDOT Standard Specifications with the APWA supplement, and Community Transit
requirements.
A 90% level of anticipated construction cost estimate will be prepared. The construction cost estimate will
be prepared using historical unit prices from similar projects, other current cost data, and recent
Community Transit projects.
The Consultant will assemble and submit design document deliverables to Community Transit for review
and comment. The Consultant will subsequently evaluate review comments and provide the Client with
written responses to each comment for clarification and concurrence. The review comments will be
incorporated into the 100% design documents.
4.2. Preparation of Draft 100% Design Documents
The Consultant will prepare draft 100% design documents with changes from 90% review comments
incorporated.
The draft 100% design document will be submitted to Community Transit and the City of Edmonds for
final review and concurrence.
4.3. Preparation of Final 100% Design Documents
The Consultant will prepare final 100% design documents with changes from draft 100% review
comments incorporated.
4.4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review
The Consultant will perform QA/QC reviews of the project plans, specifications, and cost estimates at
90%, and 100% design levels.
TASK 4 ASSUMPTIONS
The final design will follow the 30% station layout (12’-8” wide platform) with no significant layout
changes. If station dimensions and layout are impacted by changes to the City of Edmonds SR-99
Revitalization project, additional design and coordination efforts will be evaluated and included in
future change orders.
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 207/563
Scope of Work
continued
Community Transit Page 4 of 4
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade – Phase 2 Otak
Special Provisions related to the general requirements, such as temporary traffic control, work hour
restrictions, construction phasing, utility coordination, and other site-specific requirements will be
provided by the City of Edmonds.
Special Provisions may need to be updated to the most current edition of the WSDOT Standard
Specifications with the APWA supplement for the final bid set with a tentative construction schedule in
2028.
TASK 4 DELIVERABLES
90% Plans (PDF), Specifications (PDF and Word), and Cost Estimate (PDF and Excel) – Electronic
Draft 100% Plans (PDF), Specifications (PDF and Word), and Cost Estimate (PDF and Excel) –
Electronic
90% Design Review Comment Response – (PDF format)
Final 100% Plans (PDF), Specifications (PDF and Word), and Cost Estimate (PDF and Excel) –
Electronic
Draft 100% Design Review Comment Response – (PDF format)
Subconsultants
100 Architecture – Pivot
The Consultant will prepare architectural plans, specifications, bidding, fabrication, and construction
support. Refer to Exhibit A-1 for a detailed description of specific services and level of effort.
200 Electrical and Communications – P2S
The Consultant will prepare electrical and communications plans, specifications, construction estimates,
bidding, and construction support. Refer to Exhibit A-2 for a detailed description of specific services and
level of effort.
Project Assumptions
Final Design of the 238th Street SW Station Pair (Phase 2) work will begin in March 2026 and be
completed by the end of 2026, corresponding to the City of Edmonds current final design schedule. It
is understood the City’s design schedule is subject to change.
Project Management scope is based on an eight (8) month active duration for completing Phase 2.
All document submittals will be provided in an electronic format unless noted otherwise.
The City of Edmonds will be responsible for overall Construction Administration and Inspection.
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 208/563
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade – Phase 2
Hour/Fee Estimate
Otak, Inc.
Date: 11/14/2025
SOC Code: 111011 119041 172051 173022 173022 173011 119041 173022 436011
Sr. PIC / Sr.
PM Civil
Civil Engineer
X
Civil Engineer
VII
Engineering
Designer V
Engineering
Designer IV
Engineering
Tech IV
Civil Engineer
X
Engineering
Designer IV
Project
Coordinator I
Vanderhorst, N. Cole, M. Ho, E. Schober, J. Shrestha, R. Kayanda, A. Doherty, B. O'Connell, M. Hazelquist, J.
Labor Budget Rate (DSC+(DSC*OH) =$318.0711 $200.6389 $171.2753 $135.0750 $117.0541 $98.3556 $211.2566 $114.3302 $128.4087
1.0 Project Management and Subconsultant Administration (8 Months)96 $20,942.53
1.1 Project Management 28 16 20 64 $14,214.57
1.2 Subconsultant Administration 12 8 12 32 $6,727.96
2.0 Project Coordination and Agency Communications 48 $10,246.42
2.1 Project Coordination Meetings with Client 8 12 20 $4,599.87
2.3 Jurisdictional Meetings and Coordination 8 8 8 2 2 28 $5,646.55
4.0 Final Design 276 $43,129.99
4.1 Preparation of 90% Design Documents 4 20 16 16 8 12 24 4 104 $15,311.34
4.2 Preparation of Draft 100% Design Documents (2 sets for CT and Edmonds Review)4 20 16 12 8 12 20 4 96 $14,385.80
4.3 Preparation of 100% Design Documents 2 8 8 4 4 8 8 2 44 $6,810.10
4.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review 4 8 12 8 32 $6,622.75
Total Hours 70 8 104 48 32 20 42 54 42 420
Billing Rate $318.0711 $200.6389 $171.2753 $135.0750 $117.0541 $98.3556 $211.2566 $114.3302 $128.4087
Total Labor Cost $22,264.9757 $1,605.1109 $17,812.6363 $6,483.6012 $3,745.7310 $1,967.1120 $8,872.7783 $6,173.8302 $5,393.1654
$74,318.94
Rate Adjustment 2026/2028
Fixed Fee (12.00%)$8,918.27
Fixed Fee Adjustment 2026/2028
100 Architecture - PIVOT $27,904.00
200 Electrical and Communications - P2S $46,566.98
City of Edmonds Management Reserve (5%)$7,885.41
Reimbursables $150.00
Total $165,743.60
Total Budget by
Task
Otak Project # 032880.R00
DescriptionTask Total
Hours
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 209/563
PIVOT Architecture 44 West Broadway Suite 300 Eugene, OR 97401 t.541.342.7291 f.541.342.1535 pivotarchitecture.com
November 10, 2025
Nico Vanderhorst
Otak
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200
Redmond, WA 98052
Dear Nico,
PIVOT Architecture is excited to continue our work with Otak and Community Transit as we move into the 90% and
100% phase of the BRT Station Design Update project for the Swift BRT Program.
Project Understanding
The following scope of services is intended to support Community Transit and Otak in preparation of 90% and 100%
documents supporting relocation of two existing Blue Line stations at 238th Street, Edmonds. This work continues the
efforts that we started in the 30% phase. This scope assumes the Orange Line selected fabricator (Dimensional
Innovations) will provide final construction drawings and fabrication services for any affected amenities. The existing
shelters and those amenities will be removed and stored for reuse at the new station locations. PIVOT will provide
90% and 100% design services and drawings illustrating the two relocated 238th Street stations. Site specific drawings
for the two stations are anticipated to be provided by others, with PIVOT responsible for revised platform plans
illustrating relocated elements and their positions.
Platforms will be placed in positions previously determined by others. Our estimate includes hours for review of the
proposed locations with the intent of verifying that they are compatible with the salvaged and retrofit components,
and that edge conditions of the new locations are evaluated to determine the potential need for adding barrier railings.
In addition to the relocated station pair at 238th Street, this project previously included generation of a template for
future upgrades to Blue and Green Line stations. The work of the 30% phase included an investigation of the
feasibility of upgrading Blue and Green Line stations with the information kiosks developed for the Orange Line. This
revision would have necessitated relocation of existing ticket vending machines. Cost estimation for this work resulted
in Community Transit electing to not further pursue these upgrades. The upcoming documents will remove
references to upgrades. Our understanding is that the only new items to be provided will be L-windscreens like those
installed at typical Orange Line stations. We will need to choose a configuration for these. The 30% work also
included a platform plan for the 12’-8” platform width imagined at that time for the 238th station pair. This will
required further revision as the plan assumed upgraded information cabinet and relocated TVMs. We have not
previously studied retaining the original information cabinet and TVM configuration at a narrow platform.
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 210/563
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade 11.10.2025
Page 2 of 3
Scope of Work
Task 2.04 – Final Design - Relocate 238th Street Stations
PIVOT will provide 90% NB and SB platform plans that include:
•Evaluate optimal windscreen orientations for both platforms.
•Evaluate need for barrier railings at proposed revised locations.
•Revise platform plan to reflect current thinking about new and salvages components within a 12’-8”
platform width
PIVOT will provide 90% architectural specifications based on those employed on previous Swift projects.
PIVOT will provide 100% NB and SB platform plans that include:
•Evaluate optimal windscreen orientations for both platforms.
•Evaluate need for barrier railings at proposed revised locations.
PIVOT will provide 100% architectural specifications based on those employed on previous Swift projects.
Task 2.04 Deliverables:
•90% platform amenity and feature plans
•90% architectural specifications
•100% platform amenity and feature plans
•100% architectural specifications
Task 2.07 – Project Coordination
•PIVOT will virtually attend two (2) Agency Coordination Meetings
Task 2.07 Deliverables:
•None
Assumptions:
•All meetings will be held virtually via video conference, unless otherwise noted.
•Meeting summaries will be provided by others.
•Any UL listing and installation approvals as required by the State of Washington L&I will be provided by the
fabricator and contractor.
•Drawings will be developed in Revit and will be exported to AutoCAD for coordination purposes.
Deliverables will be submitted electronically in PDF format.
•Drawings will be executed in US Customary Units.
Exclusions:
•Design or detailing of significantly altered retrofit components.
•Design of platform and shelter for platforms narrower than 12’-8”
•Site specific drawings for each station location.
•Cost Estimation
•Electrical drawings and specifications
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 211/563
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade 11.10.2025
Page 3 of 3
•Station paving plan
Please see associated 90% and 100% Fee Estimate document for anticipated level of effort and resulting fees.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if I can answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Scott Clarke, AIA Toby Barwood, AIA
Associate, PIVOT Architecture Principal, PIVOT Architecture
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 212/563
Swift BRT Station Design Upgrade - 90% and 100% Documentation
Hour/Fee Estimate
PIVOT Architecture
Date:11/5/2025
SOC Code: 119041 172051 436011 436011
Principal Associate Architect 1 Designer 2
Toby Barwood Scott Clarke Name John Miller
Labor Budget Rate (DR+OH) = $ 172.97 $ 122.88 $ 65.04 Total Hours Budget by
2.04 Final Design
Develop 90% Design Plans and Specifications 2 16 80 98 $7,515
Owner Review Meeting #1 (virtual)2 2 4 $376
Provide Final 90% Plans and Specification documents 2 16 16 34 $3,353
Develop 100% Design Plans and Specifications 2 16 64 82 $6,475
Owner Review Meeting #2 (virtual)2 2 4 $376
Provide Draft 100% Plans and Specification documents for Edmonds Review 2 8 8 18 $1,849
Provide Draft 100% Plans and Specification documents for CT Review 2 8 8 18 $1,849
Provide Comment Response for 100% Plans and Specification documents 2 8 16 26 $2,370
2.07 Project Coordination
Agency Coordination Meetings (2) (virtual)4 4 8 $752
Total Hours 12 80 200 292
Billing Rate $172.97 $122.88 $65.04
Total Labor Cost $2,076 $9,830 $13,008 $24,914
Fixed Fee (12.00%)$2,990
Project Total = $27,904
Total
Budget by
Task
Otak Project # 32880R
DescriptionTask Total Hours
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 213/563
Engineering Services Proposal to:
Eva Ho, OTAK
November 10, 2025
Page 2 of 4
SUBJECT: 100% Construction Design Engineering Services Proposal for Two Swift Blue Line Stations for
Community Transit, Edmonds, WA
Dear Eva,
Thank you very much for considering us for the above-referenced project. We are pleased to provide our following
proposal for partial design scope that defines our statement of understanding, scope of services, assumptions,
schedule, and fees and is consistent with the scope of work and emails dated June 9, 2025 on the subject project.
STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
The City of Edmonds, in collaboration with Community Transit, is requesting a final design for two Swift Blue Line
stations. This would require us to update the current 30% design drawings for 90% and 100% design submittals and
to include the changes to relocate the existing equipment instead of upgrading the equipment. The effort will
involve the following items:
• Permitting Agencies: OTAK will lead and submit electrical permitting to the City of Edmonds. P2S will provide
assistance as required.
• Electrical Systems: The Electrical scope includes changing back the 30% design to relocate all existing
equipment from their current location to a new location which includes power panel, TVM, lights. The work
encompasses evaluating the existing utility service capacity, assessing underground utilities, performing load
calculations, and coordinating with the utility service provider .
• Lighting: Community Transit has recently upgraded their lights to LED as a part of the Blue Line and Green
Line lighting upgrades project. For this project, the Lighting scope would include only reconnecting existing
lights to power circuits. New lighting selections and calculations are excluded.
• Technology Systems: The Technology scope includes changing back the 30% design to relocate all existing
equipment from their current location to new location which includes the current information cabinet, ticket
vending machines, lighting, and RTPI systems, which will be rewired and reinstalled as part of the relocation.
The scope also involves coordination with Community Transit’s IT department for the installation of data and
voice lines to support the relocated systems.
• Sustainability: The design will incorporate energy-efficient and environmentally responsible practices.
• Software: The software will be AutoCAD.
BASIC SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work includes designing plans and providing a construction cost estimate for the “Two Station
Relocation – 238th Street Stations” project.
The scope of this proposal is for the 90% and 100% submittals. Future construction and fabrication phases will be
addressed under a separate proposal, if required.
SERVICES
The following engineering services are included:
• Electrical
o Reconnection to relocated equipment.
o Utility routing relocation.
• Technology
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 214/563
Engineering Services Proposal to:
Eva Ho, OTAK
November 10, 2025
Page 3 of 4
o IT/Telecommunication cabling, cable infrastructure and equipment cabinet.
o Physical security systems, e.g., video surveillance camera(s).
SCOPE OF WORK FOR ELECTRICAL AND TELECOM DESIGN
90% PERMIT PHASE
• Update plans.
• Finalize equipment location and conduit routing pathways.
• Update book specifications.
• Participate in one virtual review meeting.
• Review 90% design development level comments and incorporate them into the construction documents.
100% BID DOCUMENT PHASE
• Update drawings and specifications.
• Provide drawing submittals at the 100% Construction Drawings phase for plan check submittal to OTAK.
Provide electronic prints to the design team for compilation of documents.
• Participate in one virtual review meeting.
• Two sets of review comments will be incorporated in the final drawings.
AGENCY REVIEW
• Provide construction drawings in electronic format and submittal forms for plan check submittal.
• Provide necessary assistance to OTAK for plan review submittal. Submit to OTAK for plan review.
• Review and respond to plan review comments and attain approval.
• Participate in one plan review meeting with the plan check agency.
• The following reviews are anticipated for the project:
o Community Transit Plan Review
o Edmonds City Review
o Plan Check Review
SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
P2S requires a minimum 6 weeks for the 90% deliverable after NTP and a minimum 3 weeks for the 100% deliverable
after NTP.
ASSUMPTIONS
• Upgrades of existing equipment including signage, card readers, and digital vending machines with kiosk, are
excluded.
• Coordination with service providers is excluded.
• CT will be responsible for providing the camera specifications , if required to provide a new camera.
• Plan check fees will be paid by the client. OTAK will take the lead with all permit applications, submissions and
payment.
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 215/563
Engineering Services Proposal to:
Eva Ho, OTAK
November 10, 2025
Page 4 of 4
• If the design or construction of the project is placed on hold by the Owner for more than 12 months, the
remaining fee will be reevaluated, and additional fees will be proposed as applicable prior to project restart.
• Revisions required to the approved plans during construction due to equipment changes will be an additional
service.
• Preparation of separate bid packages and alternates is not included in the proposal. The proposal assumes one
bid package for the entire project.
• All assumptions from the base proposal are also applicable here unless otherwise indicated.
FEE
We propose to undertake the project defined in this proposal for a time and materials fee as shown in the attached
table, plus the fixed fee as negotiated by CT and OTAK. Fees will be billed monthly based on fee/time spent.
The fee quoted in this proposal is valid for 6 months from the date of this proposal. We look forward to working with
you on completing this project successfully.
Sincerely,
Vaibhav Prasad, PE
Project Manager
Attachment: Fee Breakdown Table
VP/mw
P2S Proposal Number: 25-1504
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 216/563
November 2024 Supplement 5 Fee Estimate
SOC Code: 111021 119041 172071 119041 273042 119041 172199 172199
Principal Project
Manager
Project
Engineer
CAD
Technician Admin Technology
Principal
Technology
Project
Engineer
Technology
Project
Engineer
Labor Budget Rate (DSC+(DSC*OH) =$263.0 $214.0 $146.3 $220.0 $128.3 $265.9 $129.0 $150.0
3.0 90% Design
3.1 Meetings 4 4 4 12 $2,041.08
3.2 Design - Drawings, specs, Calculations, Cost Estimates 8 48 4 2 4 20 86 $13,933.36
3.3 QAQC 2 2 2 4 2 12 $2,610.30
3.4 Permit, Review Comments 8 8 16 $2,370.16
3.5 Owner Review Comments 2 2 4 $592.54
3.6 Coordinate scope with existing City Construction, Review Drawings 2 2 4 $592.54
4.0 100%
4.1 Meetings 4 4 4 12 $2,041.08
4.2 Design - Drawings, specs, Calculations, Cost Estimates 8 48 4 2 4 16 82 $13,333.36
4.3 QAQC 2 2 2 4 2 12 $2,610.30
4.4 Owner Review Comments - 2 set of review comments 4 4 8 $1,185.08
Total Hours 4 28 124 8 4 16 64 248
Billing Rate $263.0 $214.0 $146.3 $220.0 $128.3 $265.9 $129.0 $150.0
Total Labor Cost $1,052.0 $5,992.0 $18,137.5 $1,760.0 $513.3 $4,255.0 $9,600.0
$41,309.80
Fixed Fee (12%)$126 $719 $2,176 $211 $62 $511 $1,152
$4,957.18
Reimbursables/Expenses $300.00
Total $46,566.98
Total Budget by
TaskDescriptionTaskTotal
Hours
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 217/563
32880.R Swift - 238th St Station Upgrades Sheet List
SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME
C0.01 COVER SHEET, VICINITY MAP, AND GENERAL NOTES
A1.00 ARCHITECTURAL COVER SHEET
A1.01 SHELTER AND AMENITIES ISOMETRIC VIEW - EXISTING CONDITION/DEMOLITION
A1.02 SB SHELTER AND AMENITIES PLAN & ELEVATIONS - EXISTING CONDITION
A1.03 NB SHELTER AND AMENITIES PLAN & ELEVATIONS - EXISTING CONDITION
A2.01 MODIFIED SHELTER AND AMENITIES ISOMETRIC VIEW
A2.02 SB MODIFIED SHELTER PLAN AND ELEVATION
A2.03 NB MODIFIED SHELTER PLAN AND ELEVATION
A2.04 MODIFIED PLATFORM & GRAPHICS PLAN
A2.05 SHELTER EXPLODED AXON
A3.01 WINDSCREENS
A3.02 WINDSCREEN DETAILS
A4.01 ICONIC MARKER ASSEMBLY
A4.02 - A4.03 ICONIC MARKER DETAILS
A5.01 INFORMATION CABINET
A5.02 RTPI DEMO & MOUNTING DETAILS
A5.03 STATION NAME SIGN
A6.01 SECURITY CAMERA DETAILS
A7.01 STATION RAILING ELEVATIONS
A7.02 - A7.09 STATION RAILING DETAILS
S1.01 - S1.02 STATION FOUNDATION PLAN AND DETAILS
UT1.01 UTILITY PLAN
E1.01 General Electrical Legend Sheet, Abbreviation, and Sheet Index
E1.02 General Telecom Notes, Legend, and Abbreviations
ED1.10 238th Station Electrical and Communicartions SB Demolition Plan
ED1.111 238th Station Electrical and Communicartions NB Demolition Plan
E1.10 Site Plan
E1.11 238th Station SB Electrical Plan
E1.12 238th Station NB Electrical Plan
E1.13 238th Station SB Communications Plan
E1.14 238th Station NB Communications Plan
E1.20 Single Line Diagram and Schedules
Item 8.4
Packet pg. 218/563
City Council Agenda Item 8.5
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Supplemental Agreement 4 for Highway 99 Revitalization Project -
Stage 3 (Second Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Engineering
PRESENTER:Mike De Lilla/Bertrand Hauss
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve Supplemental Agreement #4 in the amount of
$183,164.68 with SCJ Alliance.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:$183,164.68 ☒ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):grant ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
The Highway 99 Revitalization Project - Stage 3 design agreement with SCJ needs to be amended to
include:
•pedestrian crossing memo for three (3) intersections that do not allow active transportation
crossings – 240th St. SW and two SR-104 on/off ramps
•additional Underground Utility Design work
o Service connections and conduit routing from the property line to private properties
(power and communication lines)
o Prepare 30%, 60%, 90%, 95%, and 100% Design Plans for service connections.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
The goal of the Highway 99 Revitalization project is to extend the successful transformation of Highway
99 in Shoreline through Edmonds from 244th St SW to 210th St SW. The 2.25 mile stretch was divided
into seven (7) segments, due to the high cost of completing all proposed improvements along the
corridor. The scope of Stage 3, from 244th St SW to 238th St SW, includes capacity improvements at
238th St SW, adding a second left turn lane for the northbound movement. It also includes a planter
strip, bike lane, new sidewalk, new street and pedestrian lighting on both sides of Hwy 99, an overlay,
and the completion of various utility improvements.
•The original consultant agreement with SCJ was approved on November 8, 2022. Item 2.4
Packet pg. 102/138
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 219/563
•Supplement #1 contained additions regarding stormwater design to account for 2024
Stormwater Manual Update, additional survey work to support that work, Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment, and cultural resources work not included in original contract.
•Supplement #2 contained additions regarding Complete Streets items along the corridor, right-
of-way consultant services, and stormwater design work at Pizza Hut and Safeway properties.
•Supplement #3 consisted of a Project Management extension through December 31st, 2027,
additional Design Analysis documentation, and 60% Design Plan revisions to include signal plans.
The Supplemental Agreement is approved to form by the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION:
I move to approve Supplemental Agreement #4 in the amount of $183,164.68 with SCJ Alliance.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The total cost of this supplement, in the amount of $183,164.68, will be grant funded by Connecting
Washington funds.
ITEM HISTORY:
November 8, 2022, Council approved agreement with SCJ
April 2024, Council approved Supplemental Agreement #1
April 22, 2025, Council approved Supplemental Agreement #2
December 22, 2025, Council approved Supplemental Agreement #3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Agreement
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 220/563
Supplemental Agreement
Number
Organization and Address
Phone:
Original Agreement Number
Project Number Execution Date Completion Date
Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable
Description of Work
The Local Agency of
desires to supplement the agreement entered in to with
and executed on
The changes to the agreement are described as follows:
I
Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read:
II
for completion of the work to read:
III
If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the Appropriate
By: By:
Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature
Date
DOT Form 140-063
Revised 09/2005
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 221/563
Exhibit “A”
Summary of Payments
Basic
Agreement
Supplement #1 Total
Overhead
(Including Payroll Additives)
Fixed Fee
Total
DOT Form 140-063
Revised 09/2005
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 222/563
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY-REVITALIZATION PROJECT – STAGE 3
244TH STREET SW TO 238TH STREET SW
AMENDMENT 4
City of Edmonds, WA
Prepared For: Bertrand Hauss, Project Manager, City of Edmonds
Prepared By: Scott Sawyer, Project Manager, SCJ Alliance
Date Prepared: April 10, 2026
Introduction
At the time the original scope of work was prepared, the goal of the Edmonds Highway 99 Gateway
Revitalization Stage 3 project was to design and construct improvements to Highway 99 between 244th Street
SW and 238th Street SW. These improvements were to be consistent with the Conceptual Plans developed
during the Stage 1 planning effort and the Stage 2 construction. The intent was to continue the transformation
of Highway 99 through Edmonds, building on the upgrades completed in Shoreline. The project scope included
new sidewalks, upgraded street lighting, improved stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, a
dual-left turn pocket for northbound traffic at 238th Street SW, potential undergrounding of overhead
distribution utilities, and landscaping and streetscape treatments reflecting the unique character of Edmonds.
Since then, the project has evolved. WSDOT introduced a Complete Streets element, and the City of Edmonds
advanced additional improvements.
More recently, SNOPUD determined that they would not design the service connections from the JUT as
assumed in the original scope. This amendment includes work for the service connections from a pedestal/vault
at the property line to the businesses along the corridor for both power and communications.
Additionally, this amendment adds work requested by WSDOT for the completion of a Pedestrian Crossing
Memo for each crossing that active transportation is not allowed including 1) 240th 2) Both SR104 ramps for a
total of three (3) intersections.
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 223/563
Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 4
April 10, 2026
Page 2 of 6
1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 Office 206.739.5454 Fax 360.352.1509 scjalliance.com
SCOPE OF WORK
Phase 1 Project Management (No Change)
Phase 2 Funding and Grant Assistance (No Change)
Phase 3 Survey and Basemapping (1AG) (No Change)
Phase 4 Potholing (no change)
Phase 5 Utility Coordination (no change)
Phase 6 Geotechnical Engineering (no change)
Phase 7 WSDOT Project Development Approval (added work SC40)
Task 1 Combined Design Approval-Project Development Approval (no change)
Task 2 Basis of Design (no change)
Task 3 Design Parameter Checklist (no change)
Task 4 Design Analysis (no change)
Task 5 ADA and MEF Documentation (no change)
Task 6 Vehicle Turning Exhibits and Channelization Plans for Approval (no change)
Task 7 Cost Estimating for Complete Streets vs Original Project Scope (no change)
Task 8 Pedestrian Crossing Memo (added work SC40)
1)Draft Memo. Prepare one (1) pedestrian crossing memo for the three (3) intersections that do
not allow active transportation crossings.
2)Final Memo. Respond to comments and finalize memorandum.
Understanding
¨One round of review is assumed
Deliverables
¨Draft Pedestrian Crossing Memo via email in PDF format
¨Final Pedestrian Crossing Memo via email in PDF format
Phase 8 Traffic Analysis (no change)
Phase 9 Design Management and Meetings (no change)
Phase 10 Transportation Design (SCJ) (no change)
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 224/563
Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 4
April 10, 2026
Page 3 of 6
1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 Office 206.739.5454 Fax 360.352.1509 scjalliance.com
Phase 11 Traffic and Electrical Design (no change)
Phase 12 Stormwater Design (OCI) (no change)
Phase 13 Water Design (no change)
Phase 14 Sanitary Sewer Design (no change)
Phase 15 Utility Undergrounding Design (added work SC41 SC42)
Task 1 Utility Undergrounding Assessment (added work SC41)
1)Franchise Agreement Review (No Change).
2)Feasibility Assessment Memorandum (No Change).
3)Site Visits for Service Conversions. Site visit to document existing service connections for both
power and communications. Purpose of site visit is to establish existing site conditions and
document relevant information to be included in plans.
Task 2 Utility Undergrounding Coordination (added work SC41 and SC42)
1)Prepare and Negotiate Undergrounding Agreements (No Change).
2)Design Coordination (No Change).
3)Right of Way Identification and Coordination (No Change).
4)Utility Services Conversion Coordination (No Change).
5)Utility Undergrounding Meetings (No Change).
6)Utility Service Coordination for Roadway Elements (No Change).
7)Conduit Routing Assessment – Power (Concord) (Added Work SC41). Prepare Conduit Routing
Assessment for 21 sites for power. Take information and locates determined from field visit to
establish a feasible conduit routing across private property from the utility/communication
demarcation point to the end user connection
8)Conduit Routing Assessment – Communications (Added Work SC42). Prepare Conduit Routing
Assessment for 21 sites assuming Communications is necessary. This task is tracked separately
and can be removed from the contract. Take information and locates determined from field visit
to establish a feasible conduit routing across private property from the utility/communication
demarcation point to the end user connection. This task is tracked separately and can be
removed from the contract.
Task 3 30% Joint Utility Trench Design (JUT) (added work SC41 and SC42)
1)30% JUT Notes and Plans (No Change).
2)30% Service Conversion Applications and Coordination (No Change).
3)30% Service Connection Design – Power (SC41). Prepare 30% plans as a separate deliverable for
the power service connection starting at the property line. Task includes:
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 225/563
Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 4
April 10, 2026
Page 4 of 6
1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 Office 206.739.5454 Fax 360.352.1509 scjalliance.com
¨One (1) Cover Sheet for all sites
¨One (1) Sheet per site assumed. More complicated sites may need two (2) sheets. Sheets
Include:
(a) Site plan with conduit path and equipment layout
(b) One-line diagram as needed
(c) A typical detail for all sites showing connections to the utility demarcation point
(d) A unique detail for electrical connection to each building
4)30% Service Connection Design – Communications (SC42). Prepare 30% plans as a separate
deliverable for the communications service connection starting at the property line assuming
Communications is necessary. This task is tracked separately and can be removed from the
contract. Task includes:
¨One (1) Cover Sheet for all sites
¨One (1) Sheet per site assumed. More complicated sites may need two (2) sheets. Sheets
Include:
(a) Site plan with conduit path and equipment layout
(b) One-line diagram as needed
(c) A typical detail for all sites showing connections to the utility demarcation point
(d) A unique detail for communication connection to each building
Task 4 60% Joint Utility Trench Design (JUT) (added work SC41 and SC42)
1)60% JUT Notes and Plans (No Change).
2)60% Service Conversion Applications and Coordination (No Change).
3)60% Service Connection Design – Power (SC41). Advance 60% plans for the power service
connection starting at the property line. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final
price will be determined based on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
4)60% Service Connection Design – Communications (SC42). Advance 60% plans as a separate
deliverable for the communications service connection starting at the property line assuming
Communications is necessary. This task is tracked separately and can be removed from the
contract. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final price will be determined based
on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
Task 5 90% Joint Utility Trench Design (JUT) (added work SC41 and SC42)
1)90% JUT Sheets (No Change).
2)90% Underground Overhead Service Coordination (No Change).
3)90% Service Connection Design – Power (SC41). Advance 90% plans for the power service
connection starting at the property line. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final
price will be determined based on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
4)90% Service Connection Design – Communications (SC42). Advance 90% plans as a separate
deliverable for the communications service connection starting at the property line assuming
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 226/563
Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 4
April 10, 2026
Page 5 of 6
1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 Office 206.739.5454 Fax 360.352.1509 scjalliance.com
Communications is necessary. This task is tracked separately and can be removed from the
contract. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final price will be determined based
on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
Task 6 95% Joint Utility Trench Design (JUT) (added work SC41 and SC42)
1)95% JUT Sheets (No Change).
2)95% Underground Overhead Service Coordination (No Change).
3)95% Service Connection Design – Power (SC41). Advance 95% plans for the power service
connection starting at the property line. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final
price will be determined based on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
4)95% Service Connection Design – Communications (SC42). Advance 95% plans as a separate
deliverable for the communications service connection starting at the property line assuming
Communications is necessary. This task is tracked separately and can be removed from the
contract. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final price will be determined based
on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
Task 7 100% Joint Utility Trench Design (JUT) (added work SC41 and SC42)
1)100% JUT Sheets (No Change).
2)100% Underground Overhead Service Coordination (No Change).
3)100% Service Connection Design – Power (SC41). Advance 100% plans for the power service
connection starting at the property line. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final
price will be determined based on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
4)100% Service Connection Design – Communications (SC42). Advance 100% plans as a separate
deliverable for the communications service connection starting at the property line assuming
Communications is necessary. This task is tracked separately and can be removed from the
contract. The price is based on an average cost per site. The final price will be determined based
on the evaluation conducted in Tasks 1 and 2.
Understanding
¨Total number of sites is assumed to be 21
Deliverables
¨Conduit Routing Assessment submitted via email in PDF format
¨30% plans submitted via email in in PDF format
¨All other deliverables are the same as identified in the original contract
Phase 16 Art, Landscape, and Irrigation Design (no change)
Phase 17 Estimate of Probable Cost (SCJ) (no change)
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 227/563
Highway 99 Stage 3: Scope of Work- Amendment 4
April 10, 2026
Page 6 of 6
1201 Third Ave, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 Office 206.739.5454 Fax 360.352.1509 scjalliance.com
Phase 18 Project Manual (no change)
Phase 19 Construction Schedule (no change)
Phase 20 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (no change)
Phase 21 Assistance During Bidding (no change)
Phase 22 Public Involvement (no change)
Phase 23 NEPA and SEPA Documentation (no change)
Phase 24 Permitting (no change)
Phase 25 Right of Way Calculations (no change)
Phase 26 Right of Way Plans (no change)
Phase 27 Right of Way Acquisition Design Support (no change)
Phase 28 Right of Way Acquisition (RESGNW) (no change)
Phase 29 Management Reserve (no change)
END of SCOPE OF WORK
Edmonds_Hwy99_Stg3_amendment 2_v2.docx
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 228/563
SCJ Alliance
Client:
Project:
Job #:Template Version:
File Name:Amendment 4.xlsm Contract Type:
Consultant Fee Determination
DIRECT SALARY COST
Classification Hours Direct Hourly Rate Amount
Principal 4.0 $108.96 $435.84
PM2 Project Manager 12.0 $77.23 $926.76
E3 Engineer 32.0 $42.33 $1,354.56
Total Direct Salary Cost $2,717.16
OVERHEAD
Overhead Rate: 191.76%Direct Salary Cost:$2,717.16 Overhead Cost $5,210.43
FIXED FEE
Fixed Fee Rate: 33.20%Direct Salary Cost:$2,717.16 Fixed Fee Cost $902.10
TOTAL SALARY COST Total Salary Cost $8,829.68
SUBCONSULTANTS Yes
$174,335
x
Subconsultant Fee Subtotal:$0 $174,335.00
Q Subconsultant Markup:0%$0.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Copies, Printing, etc.0.0% of the Direct Salary Costs $0.00
Mileage 0 miles at $0.725 per mile $0.00
Expenses Subtotal:$0.00
Expenses Markup:0%$0.00
SUBTOTAL (SALARY, SUBCONSULTANTS AND EXPENSES)
Subtotal (Salary, Subconsultants and Expenses)$183,164.68
MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (MRF)
Management Reserve:$0 $0.00
Total Estimated Budget: $183,164.68
Subconsultant Fee Determination Summary - Exhibit E-1
Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 4
1/15/202621-000552
LAG Contract
City of Edmonds
Concord PHASE 65 Utility Undergrounding Design (Concord) (SC41, SC24)
4/7/2026 Page 1
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 229/563
Subconsultant Labor Hour Estimate
SCJ Alliance
Client:Template Version: 1/15/2026
Project:Contract Type:LAG Contract No. of Sheets:0 N/A
Job #:No. of Lots:0 N/A
File Name:
City of Edmonds
Highway 99 Gateway - Revitilization Stage 4
21-000552
Amendment 4xlsm Totals:109 77 42 0 $0.00
Template Version:Scott Sawyer Susann
Babaei Danyal Ali
Phase &
Task No.Principal PM2 Project
Manager E3 Engineer Total Direct Labor
Hours & Cost Total Cost
PHASE 7
Task 8 6,017.22$
1 2.0 8.0 24.0 34.0 6,017.22$
2 Final Memo 2.0 4.0 8.0
Subtotal Hours: 4.0 12.0 32.0 34.0 8,829.68$
Total Phase Hours: 4.0 12.0 32.0 34.0 48.0
Total Phase Direct Labor: $435.84 $926.76 $1,354.56 $2,717.16 8,829.68$
PHASE 65
Total Hours All Phases 4.0 12.0 32.0 34.0 48.0
Total Direct Labor Estimate All Phases $435.84 $926.76 $1,354.56 $2,717.16 8,829.68$
Utility Undergrounding Design (Concord) (SC41, SC24)
Phase & Task Title
WSDOT Project Development Approval (SCJ) (SC40)
Pedestrian Crossing Memo
Draft Memo
1 of 1 4/7/2026
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 230/563
SCJ Alliance
Client:
Project:
Job #:
Direct Labor Overhead Fee Total Hourly
Rate Ranges 191.76%33.20%Billing Rates
NTE NTE NTE NTE
1 Principal $140.20 $268.85 $46.55 $455.60
2 Senior Consultant $112.37 $215.47 $37.31 $365.14
3 Senior Engineer $70.20 $134.62 $23.31 $228.14
4 E4 Engineer $66.78 $128.06 $22.17 $217.01
5 E3 Engineer $60.13 $115.30 $19.96 $195.40
6 E2 Engineer $52.48 $100.63 $17.42 $170.53
7 E1 Engineer $43.54 $83.49 $14.46 $141.49
8 Senior Landscape Architect $66.83 $128.15 $22.19 $217.17
9 L4 Landscape $56.86 $109.04 $18.88 $184.78
10 L3 Landscape $49.13 $94.21 $16.31 $159.66
11 L2 Landscape $44.07 $84.51 $14.63 $143.21
12 L1 Landscape $37.12 $71.18 $12.32 $120.63
13 Senior Planner $79.78 $152.98 $26.49 $259.24
14 P4 Planner $55.89 $107.17 $18.55 $181.61
15 P3 Planner $50.56 $96.96 $16.79 $164.31
16 P2 Planner $42.70 $81.88 $14.18 $138.75
17 P1 Planner $39.63 $76.00 $13.16 $128.79
18 Senior Technician $60.11 $115.27 $19.96 $195.34
19 T4 Technician $52.19 $100.08 $17.33 $169.60
20 T3 Technician $44.35 $85.04 $14.72 $144.11
21 T2 Technician $40.45 $77.57 $13.43 $131.45
22 T1 Technician $35.37 $67.83 $11.74 $114.94
23 Senior Project Manager $100.56 $192.84 $33.39 $326.78
24 PM3 Project Manager $83.28 $159.69 $27.65 $270.61
25 PM2 Project Manager $80.14 $153.68 $26.61 $260.43
26 PM1 Project Manager $64.90 $124.46 $21.55 $210.91
35 Construction Inspector $35.87 $68.79 $11.91 $116.57
38 PC2 Project Coordinator $49.59 $95.09 $16.46 $161.14
39 PC1 Project Coordinator $40.46 $77.58 $13.43 $131.47
40 Project Accountant $67.98 $130.36 $22.57 $220.91
41 IT Specialist $64.64 $123.95 $21.46 $210.04
42 Senior Marketing Coordinator $63.44 $121.65 $21.06 $206.16
43 Marketing Coordinator $44.80 $85.90 $14.87 $145.58
44 Communications Manager $61.64 $118.21 $20.47 $200.32
45 Information Services Manager $79.51 $152.47 $26.40 $258.38
46 Graphic Designer $51.69 $99.11 $17.16 $167.96
Invoiced hourly billing rates may be less than the rate shown per job classification, but may not exceed the NTE rate.
Actuals Not To Exceed Billing Rate Table (ANTE)
Effective July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 231/563
June 30, 2025
Shea, Carr & Jewell, Inc., DBA SCJ Alliance
8760 Tallon Ln NE, Suite 200
Lacey, WA 98513
Subject: Acceptance FYE 2024 ICR – CPA Report
Dear Tammy McDonald:
We have accepted your firm’s FYE 2024 Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) of 191.76% of direct labor (rate
includes 0.43% Facilities Capital Cost of Money) based on the “Independent CPA Report”
prepared by Stambaugh Ness, Inc. related to the Shea, Carr & Jewell, Inc., DBA SCJ Alliance.
This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in Washington
only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by WSDOT. Your ICR
must be updated on an annual basis.
Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms
and conditions of the respective agreement/contract.
This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with the firm is responsible for
determining the acceptability of the ICR.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 704-6397 or via email
consultantrates@wsdot.wa.gov.
Regards,
SCHATZIE HARVEY, CPA
Contract Services Manager
SH: kb
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 232/563
Exhibit 1: Stage 3 Draft Fee Estimate for Engineering Services Number of Sites 21
Senior
Engineer 7
Senior
Engineer 8 CAD Manager
Associate
Engineer 2
Assistant
Engineer 5
Assistant
Engineer 2
Project
Coordinator 2 Title Mileage Rate IRS 2026
105.30% 33.20%
0.725$
102.00$ 108.00$ 69.00$ 60.00$ 52.00$ 47.00$ 37.00$ -$ Reimb. Direct Labor OH Fee Labor+OH+Fee
Phase 15 Utility Undergrounding Design
Task 1 Utility Undergrounding Assessment -$ -$ -$ -$
Site Visit 21.00 21.00 217.50$ 3,402.00$ 3,582.31$ 1,129.46$ 8,113.77$
Task 2 Utility Undergrounding Coordination -$ -$ -$ -$
Conduit Routing Assessment 15.75 15.75 15.75 4,252.50$ 4,477.88$ 1,411.83$ 10,142.21$
Task 3 30% Electrical Design -$ -$ -$ -$
Service Connection 31.50 31.50 63.00 10,395.00$ 10,945.94$ 3,451.14$ 24,792.08$
Task 4 60% Electrical Design -$ -$ -$ -$
60% PS&E 15.75 15.75 31.50 78.75 63.00 13,482.00$ 14,196.55$ 4,476.02$ 32,154.57$
Task 5 90% Electrical Design -$ -$ -$ -$
90% PS&E 15.75 15.75 31.50 31.50 6,315.75$ 6,650.48$ 2,096.83$ 15,063.06$
Task 6 95% Electrical Design -$ -$ -$ -$
95% PS&E 15.75 15.75 31.50 4,677.75$ 4,925.67$ 1,553.01$ 11,156.43$
Task 7 100% Electrical Design -$ -$ -$ -$
100% PS&E 15.75 15.75 31.50 4,677.75$ 4,925.67$ 1,553.01$ 11,156.43$
Task 8 Assistance During Bidding -$ -$ -$ -$
Bid Support 16.00 24.00 24.00 4,728.00$ 4,978.58$ 1,569.70$ 11,276.28$
-$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal 100 110 103 297 95 0 0 0 218 51,930.75$ 51,100.77$ 16,111.55$ 115,741.07$
Phase 15 Comm Undergrounding Design -$ -$ -$ -$
Task 1 Utility Undergrounding Assessment -$ -$ -$ -$
Site Visit 10.50 10.50 108.75$ 1,701.00$ 1,791.15$ 564.73$ 4,056.89$
Task 2 Utility Undergrounding Coordination -$ -$ -$ -$
Conduit Routing Assessment 5.25 5.25 5.25 1,417.50$ 1,492.63$ 470.61$ 3,380.74$
Task 3 30% Communication Design -$ -$ -$ -$
Service Connection 10.50 10.50 21.00 3,465.00$ 3,648.65$ 1,150.38$ 8,264.03$
Task 4 60% Communication Design -$ -$ -$ -$
60% PS&E 5.25 5.25 10.50 26.25 21.00 4,494.00$ 4,732.18$ 1,492.01$ 10,718.19$
Task 5 90% Communication Design -$ -$ -$ -$
90% PS&E 5.25 5.25 10.50 10.50 2,105.25$ 2,216.83$ 698.94$ 5,021.02$
Task 6 95% Communication Design -$ -$ -$ -$
95% PS&E 5.25 5.25 10.50 1,559.25$ 1,641.89$ 517.67$ 3,718.81$
Task 7 100% Communication Design -$ -$ -$ -$
100% PS&E 5.25 5.25 10.50 1,559.25$ 1,641.89$ 517.67$ 3,718.81$
Task 8 Assistance During Bidding -$ -$ -$ -$
Bid Support 16.00 24.00 24.00 4,728.00$ 4,978.58$ 1,569.70$ 11,276.28$
Subtotal 32 32 50 103 32 0 0 0 109 21,029.25$ 8,262.36$ 2,605.04$ 18,713.90$
132 142 153 400 126 0 0 0 69,841.50$ 59,363.14$
326.25$ 72,960.00$ 18,716.58$
151,365.97$
105.30% OH 54683.08 105.30% OH 76826.88
33.20% Fee on Labor 17241.01 33.20% Fee on Labor 24222.72
Total Loaded Salary Cost 123,854.84$ Total Loaded Salary Cost 174,009.60$
Total Reimbursable Expenses 217.50$ Total Reimbursable Expenses 326.25$
Total Cost of Services 124,072.34$ Total Cost of Services 174,335.85$
From Previous Contract $65,313 From Previous Contract $65,313
Concord
Electrical Only Estimate Electrical and Communications Estimate
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 233/563
Grand Total 189,385.34$ Grand Total 239,648.85$
Fee/Site $9,018 Fee/Site $11,412
Notes and Assumptions:
1. Billing rates are from the latest available ANTE table (2024)
2. Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) is 105.30% as approved by WSDOT. Please refer to provided WSDOT letter for details.
3. The total number of sites was assumed to be 21, as reported by previous scope of work documents.
4. The Design Per Site tab calculate the total average estimate for one site, and the Total tab reports a cost estimate for the entire stage.
5. All reported costs are based on the total number of sites except for Task 08 - Bid Support (highlighted in green), where a fixed number of hours is assumed.
6. If Power and Comms are issued as one contract, there is a Site Visit (Task 01) savings. $4,165.64
7. Cells highlighted in blue calculate the total cost estimate for additional project scope across all sites.
8. Cells highlighted in orange combine the previous contract amounts with the supplemental estimates in blue.
9. If Power and Comms are issued as one contract, there is a Bid Support (Task 08) savings. $11,276.28
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 234/563
Overhead
NTE
Fixed
Fee NTE
105.30% 33.20%
Project Manager 8 $108.00 $113.72 $35.86 $257.58
Project Manager 7 $102.00 $107.41 $33.86 $243.27
Project Manager 6 $100.00 $105.30 $33.20 $238.50
Project Manager 5 $94.00 $98.98 $31.21 $224.19
Project Manager 4 $92.00 $96.88 $30.54 $219.42
Project Manager 3 $85.00 $89.51 $28.22 $202.73
Project Manager 2 $80.00 $84.24 $26.56 $190.80
Project Manager 1 $76.00 $80.03 $25.23 $181.26
Senior Engineer 8 $108.00 $113.72 $35.86 $257.58
Senior Engineer 7 $102.00 $107.41 $33.86 $243.27
Senior Engineer 6 $100.00 $105.30 $33.20 $238.50
Senior Engineer 5 $94.00 $98.98 $31.21 $224.19
Senior Engineer 4 $92.00 $96.88 $30.54 $219.42
Senior Engineer 3 $85.00 $89.51 $28.22 $202.73
Senior Engineer 2 $80.00 $84.24 $26.56 $190.80
Senior Engineer 1 $76.00 $80.03 $25.23 $181.26
CAD Manager $69.00 $72.66 $22.91 $164.57
Engineering Supervisor $74.00 $77.92 $24.57 $176.49
Associate Engineer 6 $70.00 $73.71 $23.24 $166.95
Associate Engineer 5 $68.00 $71.60 $22.58 $162.18
Associate Engineer 4 $66.00 $69.50 $21.91 $157.41
Associate Engineer 3 $63.00 $66.34 $20.92 $150.26
Associate Engineer 2 $60.00 $63.18 $19.92 $143.10
Associate Engineer 1 $56.00 $58.97 $18.59 $133.56
Assistant Engineer 5 $54.00 $56.86 $17.93 $128.79
Assistant Engineer 4 $52.00 $54.76 $17.26 $124.02
Assistant Engineer 3 $50.00 $52.65 $16.60 $119.25
Assistant Engineer 2 $47.00 $49.49 $15.60 $112.10
Assistant Engineer 1 $44.00 $46.33 $14.61 $104.94
Engineering Intern 3 $40.00 $42.12 $13.28 $95.40
Engineering Intern 2 $30.00 $31.59 $9.96 $71.55
Engineering Intern 1 $20.00 $21.06 $6.64 $47.70
Administrative Process Manager $59.00 $62.13 $19.59 $140.72
Project Accountant 3 $39.00 $41.07 $12.95 $93.02
Project Coordinator 3 $39.00 $41.07 $12.95 $93.02
Project Coordinator 2 $37.00 $38.96 $12.28 $88.25
WSDOT Agreement:
Actuals Not To Exceed Table (ANTE)
All Inclusive
Hourly Billing
Rate NTE
Bellevue, WA 98004
2285 116th Ave NE
Concord Engineering
Job Classifications Direct Labor Hourly
Billing Rate NTE
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 235/563
June 30, 2025
Concord Engineering, Inc
2285 116th Ave NE
Bellevue WA 98004
Subject: Acceptance FYE 2024 ICR – Risk Assessment Review
Dear Irene Yang:
Based on Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) Risk Assessment review
of your Indirect Cost Rate (ICR), we have accepted your proposed FYE 2024 ICR of 105.30% of
direct labor. This rate will be applicable for WSDOT Agreements and Local Agency Contracts in
Washington only. This rate may be subject to additional review if considered necessary by
WSDOT. Your ICR must be updated on an annual basis.
Costs billed to agreements/contracts will still be subject to audit of actual costs, based on the terms
and conditions of the respective agreement/contract.
This was not a cognizant review. Any other entity contracting with your firm is responsible for
determining the acceptability of the ICR.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact our office at (360) 704-6397 or via email
consultantrates@wsdot.wa.gov.
Regards,
SCHATZIE HARVEY, CPA
Contract Services Manager
SH: kb
Item 8.5
Packet pg. 236/563
City Council Agenda Item 8.6
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Request to Increase Administrative Assistants from (1.4) to (2.0) FTEs
(Second Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Development Services
PRESENTER:Mike Clugston
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:Staff recommends the approval of the request to increase the
Administrative Assistants for Planning & Development from (1.4) to
(2.0) FTEs.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
The Planning & Development Department has determined that the current staffing of one (.90)
FTE Administrative Assistant and one (.50) FTE Administrative Assistant is insufficient to support the
demands of the department and the workload of the Administrative Assistants.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
Previously, the Administrative Assistant – Planning & Development was a job share between a (0.60)
FTE and a (0.50) FTE; the Administrative Assistant – Planning was a (1.0) FTE, for a total of (2.1) FTEs.
Due to budget reductions in 2024, the Administrative Assistant – Planning was reduced to (.50) FTE.
Following the retirement of the (0.60) FTE of the job share and a need to reclassify two Planners to
Associate Planner in 2025, the (1.1) FTE for Administrative Assistant – Planning & Development was
reduced to (0.90) FTE, reducing the Administrative Assistant positions from (2.1) to (1.4) FTEs.
The Department has found that (1.4) FTEs is insufficient to support the workloads of the Administrative
Assistants. Further, current staffing does not provide adequate coverage during instances of vacation
or other forms of absence. Increasing Administrative Assistant staffing to two (1.0) FTEs would
improve efficiency, support redundancy, and provide for greater flexibility. This would directly impact
overall department operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the request to increase the Administrative Assistants for Planning &
Development from (1.4) to (2.0) FTEs.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The cost to increase the Administrative Assistant – Planning & Development from (0.90) FTE to (1.0)
FTE for the remainder of 2026, will be $6,328. The annual increase would be $9,396.70. The cost to
increase the Administrative Assistant – Planning from (0.50) FTE to (1.0) FTE for the remainder of 2026
will be $32,216. The annual increase will be $48,324. The total increase for 2026 will be $57,720.70.
Item 8.6
Packet pg. 237/563
The Planning & Development Department has 4 months of salary and benefit savings due to the
budgeted and vacant Senior Planner positions, totaling approximately $98,956. This will cover the
increase of $57,720.70 for 2026.
ITEM HISTORY:
This item was first presented at the 4/21/2026 Public Safety, Planning, Human Services, and Personnel
Committee. PSPHSP approved moving the item to consent.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Administrative Assistant Increase Salary Calculations
Item 8.6
Packet pg. 238/563
Administrative Assistant Increase - Salary Calculations
2026 Annual Salary Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Senior Administrative Assistant - Planning & Development NE-30 79,512.00 83,484.00 87,660.00 92,052.00 96,648.00 101,484.00
Administrative Assistant - Planning NE-29 75,732.00 79,512.00 83,484.00 87,660.00 92,052.00 96,648.00
Budgeted Salaries for 2026 FTE Annual Salary May - December
Senior Administrative Assistant - Planning & Development 0.90 84,570.30 56,954.70
Senior Administrative Assistant - Planning 0.50 48,324.00 32,216.00
132,894.30
Anticipated Salary Increases FTE Salary May - December 2026 Increase Annual Increae
Senior Administrative Assistant - Planning & Development 1.00 93,967.00 63,283.00 6,328.30 9,396.70
Senior Administrative Assistant - Planning 1.00 96,648.00 64,432.00 32,216.00 48,324.00
190,615.00 57,720.70
Salary Savings Salary Salary + Benefits January - April
Senior Planner (NR-35, Step 3)114,180.00 148,434.00 49,478.00
Senior Planner (NR-35, Step 3)114,180.00 148,434.00 49,478.00
98,956.00
Item 8.6
Packet pg. 239/563
City Council Agenda Item 8.7
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:City Hall Roof Replacement - Job Order Contract (JOC) (Second
Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Public Works and Utilities
PRESENTER:Andy Rheaume
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:Authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Woodridge
Construction in the amount of $180,966.18 to replace the roof at City
Hall.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:$180,966.18 ☒ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):016 Bond ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
City Hall was purchased and renovated by the City in 1999-2000, main roof was pre-existing and is
at end of life. The City’s Job Order Contracting (JOC) program is preparing to initiate a contract for work.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
Due to the critical nature of this building to City operations, continuity of business is a must. The
roof must be replaced proactively. This roofing system has been professionally inspected and
maintained since 2016. It could potentially last 3-5 more years before reaching critical replacement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract with Woodridge Construction in the amount of
$180,966.18 to replace the roof at City Hall.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The estimated budget for this work is $300,000. The current proposal returned this amount
of $180,966.18 Funds to be used from 016 fund bond dollars.
ITEM HISTORY:
This item appears on the 2026 JOC Project Status Report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
JC26-03W City Hall Roof Replacement_Woodbridge
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 240/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 241/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 242/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 243/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 244/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 245/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 246/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 247/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 248/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 249/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 250/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 251/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 252/563
Item 8.7
Packet pg. 253/563
City Council Agenda Item 9.1
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Presentation of Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for
Perrinville Flow Reduction Study Update (First Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Engineering
PRESENTER:Mike De Lilla
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:Forward item to consent agenda for approval.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:$383,456 ☒ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):422 ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
An amendment to the professional services agreement is needed for the second phase of the flow
reduction study update for the Perrinville Drainage Basin (Study). It will include more in-depth analysis
for the ten highest scoring projects from first phase of the Study update. The project rankings will be
reassessed and the consultant will provide conceptual design for the six highest scoring sites.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
In 2015, the City completed a Basin Analysis and flow reduction study for the Perrinville Drainage Basin.
The primary goal of the Study was to determine project locations in the Cities of Edmonds and
Lynnwood to reduce peak stormwater flows going into Perrinville Creek. Peak flows cause large amounts
of erosion in the upper reaches, resulting in larger sediment deposits and some flooding in the lower
reaches. This result is not beneficial to the aquatic habitat and health of the overall Creek. By reducing
in-stream peak flows, erosive forces would be mitigated and result in biological benefits to both the
creek and Browns Bay in the Puget Sound. These flow rate reductions would also improve the overall
stream aquatic habitat by treating and reducing the amount of pollutants entering this environment.
The Study evaluated and recommended projects and means to reduce the erosive degradation in
Perrinville Creek. Since that time, Edmonds and Lynnwood have completed a number of projects listed
in the Study and updated their respective drainage codes to further mitigate peak flows when
development within the basin occurs.
In 2024, Edmonds and Lynnwood entered into an interlocal agreement and contracted Herrera
Environmental Consultants to provide design services for the Study Update. Phase 1 of the Study Update
involved a review of the recommended projects and planning level design and estimating work of new
projects. Projects were rated based on criteria including impact on flows, constructability, and cost
effectiveness.
A contract has now been negotiated to finalize the update. This second phase will include a more in-
depth analysis, including geotechnical investigations for the sites that include mitigation via infiltration,
for the ten highest scoring flow reduction projects from first phase of the Study Update. Once the
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 254/563
analysis is completed, the project rankings will be reassessed and the consultant will provide conceptual
design for the six highest scoring sites.
RECOMMENDATION:
Forward item to consent agenda for approval.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Phase 2 will be a joint effort between the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood. To aid with funding, the
Cities acquired a $469,200 Department of Ecology (DOE) grant toward this effort. This grant requires
$82,800 in local (Edmonds & Lynnwood) matching funds. The 2024 Interlocal agreement formalizes the
roles and responsibilities between the two agencies for this project and how the grant and matching
funding costs will be split, with the result being that the grant and the matching funds costs will be split
50/50 between the Cities. The amendment to the professional services agreement is $383,456 and
includes a $20,455 management reserve. This contract will be funded by the Storm Utility Fund, DOE
grant and matching funds from the City of Lynnwood.
ITEM HISTORY:
N/A
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Agreement
Attachment 2 – Site Map
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 255/563
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH · EDMONDS, WA 98020 · 425-771-0220 · WWW.EDMONDSWA.GOV
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | ENGINEERING DIVISION
MIKE ROSEN
MAYOR
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and
Herrera Environmental Consultants, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”, entered into an
underlying agreement for engineering services with respect to a project known as Perrinville Flow
Reduction Study Update project, dated June 27, 2024 (“Underlying Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified with
regard to providing Phase 2 Study Services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Underlying Agreement to revise the Scope of
Work and payment provisions thereof;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and
between the parties thereto as follows:
1. The Underlying Agreement of June 27, 2024 between the parties, incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the Underlying Agreement
shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated
objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A to this Amendment No. 1, incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth.
1.2 Payments. The $140,538 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the
Underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended
to include an additional not to exceed amount of $383,456 for the additional scope of work
identified in Exhibit A to this Amendment No. 1. As a result of this Amendment No. 1, the total
contract amount is increased to a new total not-to-exceed amount of $523,994 ($140,538 plus
$383,456).
1.3 Fee Schedule. Exhibit B to the Underlying Agreement consisting of the rate
and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached
Exhibit B to this Amendment No. 1, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 256/563
2
2. In all other respects, the Underlying Agreement between the parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth in this Amendment No. 1, but only as set forth herein.
DONE this day of , 2026.
CITY OF EDMONDS HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS
MIKE ROSEN, MAYOR JENNIFER SWANSON, Chief Financial
Officer
ATTEST:
________________________________
Luke Lonie, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 257/563
3
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF KING )
On this day of 2026, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
Jennifer Swanson, Chief Financial Officer, to me known to be the person who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said person, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she
was authorized to execute said instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 258/563
SCOPE OF WORK
January 28, 2026 Page 1 of 7
je edmonds_perrinville_scope_phase2.docx
CITY OF EDMONDS PERRINVILLE CREEK FLOW
REDUCTION STUDY UPDATE – PHASE 2,
AMENDMENT 1
The City of Edmonds (City) authorized Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) to prepare a scope of
work and cost estimate outlining services that Herrera will provide to support the update of the second
phase of the City’s Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Study (Study) and to meet the requirements in the
City’s Grant Agreement No. WQC-2024-Edmond-00226 with the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology). Matt Fontaine is Herrera’s project manager for this project. Ryan Hague is the City’s
project manager. The City of Lynnwood (Lynnwood) representative for this project is Derek Fada. This
scope of services includes a discussion of the activities, assumptions, and deliverables associated with this
project:
Task 1 – Grant and Loan Administration ................................................................................................. 1
Task 3.b – Cultural Review and Geotechnical Investigations ........................................................... 2
Task 4 – Feasibility Assessment Report .................................................................................................... 4
Task 5 – Project Closeout .............................................................................................................................. 6
Task 6.b – Management Reserve ................................................................................................................ 6
Project Budget ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Project Schedule ............................................................................................................................................... 7
The Herrera team for this project includes AESI, WSP, and APS Locates (Consultant).
Task 1 – Grant and Loan Administration
Due to limits with City accounting systems, the City elects to charge administrative costs under the tasks
for which the administrative work is supporting rather than tracking administration cost as a separate
task. Therefore, no money is placed in Task 1, and all similar costs incurred during the project would be
billed to other tasks
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 259/563
SCOPE OF WORK
January 28, 2026 Page 2 of 7
je edmonds_perrinville_scope_phase2.docx
General Project Management Assumptions
The following project management assumptions apply during work on Tasks 3b, 4, and 5.
· Herrera will be responsible for ongoing management and contract administration of this project,
including preparing monthly invoices, as well as coordination of work efforts with the City’s
project manager (Ryan Hague). Herrera’s project manager and contract manager will have phone
and e-mail contact with the City’s project manager and other City representatives on an as-
needed basis regarding scope, schedule, budget, and invoicing issues.
· Herrera will facilitate regular check-in meetings between Herrera and the City project manager.
These meetings are in addition to task-specific meetings outlined below and assumed to be
monthly. Herrera will email important notes or action items as needed after these meetings.
Deliverables
· Refer to Task 3b, 4, and 5 for project management/contract administration deliverables.
Task 3.b – Cultural Review and Geotechnical
Investigations
During Phase 1, the Consultant prepared the cultural resource review form and completed an Inadvertent
Discovery Plan (IDP) and submitted those documents to the City for submission to Ecology. The
Consultant also developed a Geotechnical Investigation Plan and submitted it to the City.
During Phase 2 the Consultant will complete the geotechnical investigation.
The Consultant will complete geotechnical explorations and groundwater monitoring to determine
feasibility of the priority projects. Explorations and groundwater monitoring for this project will focus on
filling gaps in site-specific knowledge to collect information that is applicable to facility design. In
addition to groundwater monitoring, the Consultant may estimate infiltration potential at project sites by
correlating grain size results from project explorations to their in-house database of pilot infiltration and
underground injection control (UIC) well test results.
Assumptions
● The scope of work includes geotechnical investigations (vacuum truck excavations and drilling or
hand auger borings) and groundwater level monitoring well installation as summarized in the
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 260/563
SCOPE OF WORK
January 28, 2026 Page 3 of 7
je edmonds_perrinville_scope_phase2.docx
following table. The scope may be revised for specific sites by contract amendment prior to
execution of the geotechnical work:
Site Address
Drilling
Method
Drilling
Depth
(ft)
Vacuum Truck
Excavations
(Yes/No)
Traffic Control
(Yes/No)
17922 72nd Ave. W, Edmonds Sonic 140 2 Yes
7418 Ridge Way, Edmonds Sonic 140 2 Yes
18601 71st Ave. W, Lynnwood HSA 80 2 No
7512 Olympic View Dr, Edmonds HSA 801 21 No
6720 180th St. SW, Lynnwood HSA 80 2 Yes
6718 178th Pl. SW, Lynnwood HA <10 Yes Yes
7128 192nd Pl. SW, Lynnwood3 HA4 <10 0 No
Sonic = Roto-Sonic Drilling
HAS = Hollow-Stem Auger Drilling
HA = Hand Auger
1 Vacuum truck explorations and an exploration boring and monitoring well may be required if the previously installed monitoring well is
unavailable for monitoring or if it is available, but monitoring does not provide sufficient groundwater information.
2 Site 30-2 will utilize an onsite vacuum truck and assisted hand augers and will consider deeper subsurface information obtained from Site
30-1. Additional subsurface exploration (drilling below the hand auger depths) at Site 30-2 may be required in a later phase of the project.
3Retrofit at 7128 192nd Pl. SW3Lynnwood redirect stormwater flow to Lynndale Park for infiltration.
4Assumes 4 hand auger borings in Lynndale Park
●Groundwater level monitoring will be performed at each of the installed monitoring well locations
for 1 year.
●Reporting, for all sites explored and monitored, will be provided in a single document and will
include descriptions of subsurface conditions encountered, groundwater monitoring results, and
recommendations regarding infiltration feasibility and preliminary infiltration rates based on
correlations with grain size and AESI’s in-house database of pilot infiltration and Class V UIC well
test results.
●Deliverables produced for this task will be subject to one set of review comments from the City and
Lynnwood before being finalized.
●The City and Lynnwood will provide one consolidated set of review comments to the Consultant on
draft deliverables within 4 weeks of receipt.
●The Consultant will ensure that all contractors and subcontractors have a copy of the completed
IDP prior to and while working on-site.
●Task duration is assumed to be 17 months.
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 261/563
SCOPE OF WORK
January 28, 2026 Page 4 of 7
je edmonds_perrinville_scope_phase2.docx
Deliverables
● Draft geotechnical investigation report (Microsoft Word)
● Final geotechnical investigation report (Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF)
● Monthly invoices and progress reports (Adobe PDF)
Task 4 – Feasibility Assessment Report
The Consultant will complete the following activities:
· Select the top six priority sites. The prioritized list of 10 sites developed in Phase 1 will be
re-evaluated and refined based on geotechnical data obtained from Task 3.b. The initial list of 10
sites will be narrowed down to six priority sites through a selection process determined through
collaboration with the City.
· Develop conceptual designs and hydrologic models for the six priority sites.
· Prepare cost estimates for the six priority sites.
· Document findings in project summary packages.
· Conduct site visits with City staff to review the six draft conceptual designs..
· Update project summary sheets based on City comments and results of the site visits.
The Consultant will compile all relevant information from Phases 1 and 2 into a consolidated Feasibility
Assessment Report. At the start of report development, the Consultant will prepare an annotated outline
for review by the City and Lynnwood.
The Consultant will lead a virtual workshop with City staff to present the results of the draft Feasibility
Assessment Report and facilitate a comment discussion meeting with City staff.
Assumptions
● Project summary packages will be developed in PDF format and will include:
o Project location and description
o Management objectives
o Site considerations and existing conditions (existing BMPs if applicable)
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 262/563
SCOPE OF WORK
January 28, 2026 Page 5 of 7
je edmonds_perrinville_scope_phase2.docx
o Construction cost estimates will use semi-detailed unit costs with assembly level line items;
parametric estimating may be incorporated where relevant.
o Type of treatment BMP
o Scale schematic on an aerial base map produced using GIS
o Implementation schedule – estimate on timeline and possible funding sources
● Hydrologic modeling will be performed in Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM)
● The Feasibility Assessment Report will include:
o Project summary sheets
o Hydrologic modeling results
o Infiltration feasibility and groundwater level results
● One day of site assessment will be conducted by up to two Herrera staff members and two WSP
staff members.
● Deliverables produced for this task will be subject to one set of review comments from the City and
Lynnwood before being finalized.
● The City and Lynnwood will provide one consolidated set of review comments to Herrera on draft
deliverables within 4 weeks of receipt.
● Land surveying services are excluded.
● Watershed scale hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of Perrinville Creek is excluded from phase 2.
● Calculating the retrofit areas associated with the individual projects in accordance with Ecology’s
Stormwater Project Deliverable Guidance document is excluded from this phase of work.
● The duration of this task is assumed to be 7 months.
Deliverables
● Virtual workshop agenda and action items.
● Draft Feasibility Assessment Report including project summary sheets (for City and Lynnwood
review) (Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF)
● Draft Feasibility Assessment Report including project summary sheets (for Ecology review) (Adobe
PDF)
● Response to Ecology comments (Microsoft Word and/or Excel)
● Final Feasibility Assessment Report including project summary sheets (Adobe PDF)
● Monthly invoices and progress reports (Adobe PDF)
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 263/563
SCOPE OF WORK
January 28, 2026 Page 6 of 7
je edmonds_perrinville_scope_phase2.docx
Task 5 – Project Closeout
The Consultant will provide up to 10 hours of support for project closeout including support for the
Recipient Closeout Report and Outcomes Summary.
Assumptions
●A total of 10 hours of labor has been allocated for support in addition to 1 month of project
management.
●Deliverables produced for this task will be subject to one set of review comments from the City and
Lynnwood before being finalized.
●The City and Lynnwood will provide one consolidated set of review comments to Herrera on draft
deliverables within 4 weeks of receipt.
●The duration of this task is assumed to be 1 month.
Deliverables
●Review comments on draft Recipient Closeout Report and Outcomes Summary (Microsoft Word)
●Monthly invoice and progress report (Adobe PDF)
Task 6.b – Management Reserve
Task 6.b establishes a management reserve for unanticipated services that may be required during work
on the project. Potential unanticipated services may include, but are not limited to, additional cultural
resource investigation, utility locates, supplemental fieldwork, and additional documentation.
Assumptions
Prior to any work on this task, the Consultant will provide a written scope and budget request to the City
for authorization.
The management reserve may only be used with written (email) authorization from the City project
manager.
Deliverables
As defined in the approved scope and budget.
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 264/563
SCOPE OF WORK
January 28, 2026 Page 7 of 7
je edmonds_perrinville_scope_phase2.docx
Project Budget
The estimated project budget is provided in Exhibit B.
Project Schedule
The estimated project schedule is provided in Exhibit B.
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 265/563
Cost Estimate for PERRINVILLE CREEK FLOW REDUCTION STUDY UPDATE – PHASE 2
Herrera Project No. 23-08287-000
1/28/2026 Task No.13.b456.b
Herrera Labor based on:Burdened Labor Rates
Grant and Loan
Administration
Cultural Review
and Geotechnical
Investigations
Feasibility
Assessment
Report
Project Closeout Management
Reserve
Task Start Date 2/17/2026 2/17/2026 7/24/2026 2/24/2027 2/17/2026
Task End Date 7/19/2027 7/19/2027 2/24/2027 3/24/2027 7/19/2027
Staff Labor Category 2026 Burdened Labor Rates
Fontaine, Matthew Engineer VI $290.28 0 10 60 4 15 89
Ramirez, Citlali Engineer I $131.11 0 2 162 1 51 216
Esteban, James Engineer III $181.67 0 18 232 9 50 309
Stebbing, Rebecca GIS Analyst III $141.86 0049 0049
Jackowich, Pamela Administrative Coordinator IV $150.50 007 007
Maloof, Charles Project Accountant III $145.56 0 490013
Mullen, Meghan Engineer III $178.00 0027 0027
Dugopolski, Rebecca Engineer VI $293.07 002 002
Total Hours per Task 0 34 548 14 116 712
Subtotal Labor $0 $7,017 $95,509 $2,927 $20,124 $125,578
Subtotal Herrera Labor $0 $7,017 $95,509 $2,927 $20,124 $125,578
4%Escalation on Herrera Labor in 2027 $0 $116 $1,092 $117 $331 $1,656
Escalated Subtotal Herrera Labor $0 $7,133 $96,601 $3,044 $20,455 $127,233
Subconsultants
Subconsultant
Associated Earth Science $0 $193,700 $0 $0 $0 $193,700
WSP $0 $0 $55,000 $0 $0 $55,000
3%Fee on Subconsultants $0 $5,811 $1,650 $0 $0 $7,461
Subtotal Subconsultant Cost $0 $199,511 $56,650 $0 $0 $256,161
Travel and Per Diem (PD)
Item Unit Unit Cost
Auto Use Mile $0.725 0050 0050
Subtotal Per Diem $0 $0 $36 $0 $0 $36
Other Direct Costs (ODCs)
Item Unit Unit Cost
iPad Mini Day $25.00 001 001
Subtotal ODCs $0 $0 $25 $0 $0 $25
$0 $0 $61 $0 $0 $61
Grand Subtotal $0 $206,644 $153,312 $3,044 $20,455 $383,456
Grand Total $383,456
Note: Herrera adjusts labor rates annually in January unless contract specifies otherwise.
Schedule
Total
Subtotal Per Diem, Lab Costs, and ODCs
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 266/563
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Study Update - Phase 2 305 days Wed 5/13/26 Tue 7/27/27
2 Notice to Proceed (NTP)0 days Wed 5/13/26 Wed 5/13/26
3 Client Project Kickoff Meeting 1 day Wed 5/20/26 Wed 5/20/26
4 Internal Project Kickoff Meeting 1 day Thu 5/21/26 Thu 5/21/26
5 Task 3.b: Cultural Review and Geotechnical Investigations 276 days Wed 5/13/26 Wed 6/16/27
6 Geotechnical Investigation 15 days Wed 5/13/26 Wed 6/3/26
7 Groundwater Monitoring 253 days Thu 6/4/26 Fri 6/4/27
8 Draft Geotechnical Report 30 days Thu 6/4/26 Fri 7/17/26
9 Final Geotechnical Report & Submit to Ecology 8 days Mon 6/7/27 Wed 6/16/27
10 Task 4: Feasibility Assessment Report 240 days Mon 7/20/26 Tue 6/29/27
11 Review Draft Geotechnical Report - Prioritize Sites 20 days Mon 7/20/26 Fri 8/14/26
12 Site Visit 5 days Mon 8/17/26 Fri 8/21/26
13 Modeling 35 days Mon 8/24/26 Tue 10/13/26
14 Basin Delineation 10 days Mon 8/24/26 Fri 9/4/26
15 WWHM Modeling of Priority Sites 25 days Tue 9/8/26 Tue 10/13/26
16 Develop Project Summary Packages 50 days Mon 8/24/26 Tue 11/3/26
17 Develop Cost Estimates 15 days Wed 11/4/26 Wed 11/25/26
18 Virtual Workshop w/ City 5 days Mon 11/30/26 Fri 12/4/26
19 Draft Feasibility Assessment Report 120 days Mon 8/24/26 Tue 2/16/27
20 Write Report & Submit to City & Ecology 90 days Mon 8/24/26 Mon 1/4/27
21 Wait for Ecology Comments on Draft Feasibility Report 30 days Tue 1/5/27 Tue 2/16/27
22 Final Feasibility Assessment Report 95 days Wed 2/17/27 Tue 6/29/27
23 Task 5: Project Closeout 20 days Wed 6/30/27 Tue 7/27/27
24 Draft Recipient Closeout Report and Outcomes Summary 10 days Wed 6/30/27 Tue 7/13/27
25 Final Recipient Closeout Report and Outcomes Summary 10 days Wed 7/14/27 Tue 7/27/27
Notice to Proceed (NTP)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Qtr 1, 2026 Qtr 2, 2026 Qtr 3, 2026 Qtr 4, 2026 Qtr 1, 2027 Qtr 2, 2027 Qtr 3, 2027
Task Milestone Summary Critical
Schedule: Perrinvile Creek Flow Reduction Study Update - Phase 2
Page 1
Project: Perrinville - Phase 2.mp
Date: Fri 4/17/26
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 267/563
Cost Estimate for PERRINVILLE CREEK FLOW REDUCTION STUDY UPDATE – PHASE 2
Herrera Project No. 23-08287-000
1/28/2026 Task No.13.b456.b
Herrera Labor based on:Burdened Labor Rates
Grant and Loan
Administration
Cultural Review
and Geotechnical
Investigations
Feasibility
Assessment
Report
Project Closeout Management
Reserve
Task Start Date 2/17/2026 2/17/2026 7/24/2026 2/24/2027 2/17/2026
Task End Date 7/19/2027 7/19/2027 2/24/2027 3/24/2027 7/19/2027
Staff Labor Category 2026 Burdened Labor Rates
Fontaine, Matthew Engineer VI $290.28 0 10 60 4 15 89
Ramirez, Citlali Engineer I $131.11 0 2 162 1 51 216
Esteban, James Engineer III $181.67 0 18 232 9 50 309
Stebbing, Rebecca GIS Analyst III $141.86 0049 0049
Jackowich, Pamela Administrative Coordinator IV $150.50 007 007
Maloof, Charles Project Accountant III $145.56 0 490013
Mullen, Meghan Engineer III $178.00 0027 0027
Dugopolski, Rebecca Engineer VI $293.07 002 002
Total Hours per Task 0 34 548 14 116 712
Subtotal Labor $0 $7,017 $95,509 $2,927 $20,124 $125,578
Subtotal Herrera Labor $0 $7,017 $95,509 $2,927 $20,124 $125,578
4%Escalation on Herrera Labor in 2027 $0 $116 $1,092 $117 $331 $1,656
Escalated Subtotal Herrera Labor $0 $7,133 $96,601 $3,044 $20,455 $127,233
Subconsultants
Subconsultant
Associated Earth Science $0 $193,700 $0 $0 $0 $193,700
WSP $0 $0 $55,000 $0 $0 $55,000
3%Fee on Subconsultants $0 $5,811 $1,650 $0 $0 $7,461
Subtotal Subconsultant Cost $0 $199,511 $56,650 $0 $0 $256,161
Travel and Per Diem (PD)
Item Unit Unit Cost
Auto Use Mile $0.725 0050 0050
Subtotal Per Diem $0 $0 $36 $0 $0 $36
Other Direct Costs (ODCs)
Item Unit Unit Cost
iPad Mini Day $25.00 001 001
Subtotal ODCs $0 $0 $25 $0 $0 $25
$0 $0 $61 $0 $0 $61
Grand Subtotal $0 $206,644 $153,312 $3,044 $20,455 $383,456
Grand Total $383,456
Note: Herrera adjusts labor rates annually in January unless contract specifies otherwise.
Schedule
Total
Subtotal Per Diem, Lab Costs, and ODCs
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 268/563
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 269/563
DRAFT
Technical Memorandum (continued)
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Study – Retrofit Project Prioritization
Framework
14 June 2025
to geologic hazards using existing reports as well as prior experience within the Perrinville watershed. See
Table 7 for a summary of the geotechnical review for the top 12 priority sites.
Priority Sites Progressing to Phase 2
The Consultant Team considered the results of the geotechnical review and selected 10 priority sites to
progress to Phase 2 (Table 6 and Figure 4). Sites 17-1 and 31-2 were excluded from consideration as they
did not score within the top 10 ranked sites and a maximum of 10 sites were scoped to progress to Phase
2.
Table 6. 10 Priority Sites for Phase 2.
Site ID Address City
Prioritization
Score Origin Retrofit Type
Basin Area
(AC)
4-3b 7606 193rd Place Edmonds 24 New Detention/Infiltration ~1.8
7-4 19405 74th Avenue W Lynnwood 27 2015 Plan Bioretention 0.75
11-1a 17922 72nd Avenue W Edmonds 30 Mod 2015 Plan Detention/Bioretention ~3.5
13-1 7418 Ridge Way Edmonds 25 2015 Plan Detention/Bioretention 3.47
22-1 Blue Ridge Pond Lynnwood 26 2015 Plan Pond 55.2
28-1a 7512 Olympic View Dr Lynnwood 26 Mod 2015 Plan Infiltration 82.1
30-1b 6720 180th St SW Lynnwood 23 New Detention/Infiltration ~15
30-2b 6718 178th Pl SW Lynnwood 23 New Detention/Infiltration ~10
30-4b 7128 192nd Pl SW Lynnwood 28 New Conveyancec ~8
31-1b 7914 180th St SW Edmonds 28 New Detention ~15
31-2b 18331–188323 76th Ave W Edmonds 21 New Infiltration ~100+
Notes.
a Modified 2015 Plan site.
b New site.
c Conveyance of stormwater to existing infiltration without exceeding existing pipe capacity.
Notes.
a Modified 2015 Plan site.
b New site.
c Conveyance of stormwater to existing infiltration without exceeding existing pipe capacity.
Item 9.1
Packet pg. 270/563
City Council Agenda Item 9.2
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Adoption of Safety Action Plan (Second Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Engineering
PRESENTER:Mike De Lilla/Bertrand Hauss
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action
RECOMMENDATION:I move to adopt the Safety Action Plan.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:n/a ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):n/a ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
The Safety Action Plan (the Plan) is now ready for adoption. The Plan has been reviewed by the
Stakeholder Committee members and City residents through a detailed public outreach process.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
The City partnered with ten other agencies, including Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), to secure a
$2.87 million grant through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) Grant Program to complete their Safety Action Plans. The City of Edmonds secured $300,000 of
that total amount. The program is focused on the development of a Safety Action Plan by developing
well-defined strategies to prevent future roadway fatalities and serious injuries for all modes of
transportation and making travel safer for all modes of transportation throughout Edmonds that is
consistent with PSRC’s Vision Zero Goal.
In May 2025, Fehr & Peers was hired to help complete the Plan. It serves as a roadmap to identify
priority locations where crashes and near misses happen often or are most severe and where people
generally feel unsafe walking, rolling, biking, driving, or getting to and from the bus. The Plan includes
the establishment of a vision statement, safety analysis, policy development, public engagement
process, and project selection to address those safety issues. The adoption of the Plan will make the City
eligible to apply for future SS4A grant funding for safety improvement projects specifically identified in
the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
I move to adopt the Safety Action Plan.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
n/a
ITEM HISTORY:
May 6, 2025 Council meeting – the PSA with Fehr & Peers was approved by Council.
April 21, 2026 PPW Committee – item was forwarded to full Council Meeting for presentation and
adoption.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 271/563
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The appendices have been added to the final version of the Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Safety Action Plan
Attachment 2 - Presentation
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 272/563
Edmonds
Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan
(CSAP)
2026
Under 23 U.S. Code § 148 and 23 U.S. Code § 407, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists,
compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement
of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway highway crossings are not subject
to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other
purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or
addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.
Prepared for: Submitted:
City of Edmonds April 2026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 273/563
P
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the elected officials, Edmonds staff, community members, and the Task Force who
were engaged throughout the planning process for both in-person and online outreach events. Your
input was invaluable in creating a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) that reflects the needs
of the Edmonds community!
Elected Officials
Mayor Mike Rosen
Michelle Dotsch, Council President
Chris Eck, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Erika Barnett, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
CSAP Task Force
Gordon Black (North Sound Advocacy Group)
Margaret Elwood (North Sound Advocacy Group)
Jared Cassidy (Transportation Committee / as part of 2024 Transportation Plan)
Yosef Goodman (Transportation Committee / as part of 2024 Transportation Plan)
David Marlow (Transportation Committee / as part of 2024 Transportation Plan)
Richard Smith (Edmonds Police Department)
Stacey McShane (Snohomish County DUI & Target Zero Coordinator)
City of Edmonds Staff
Andy Rheaume, Public Works Director
Mike DeLilla, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, PE, City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer
Consultant Team
Taylor Whitaker, RSP1, Fehr & Peers
Kendra Breiland, AICP, Fehr & Peers
Chithira Unnikrishnan, Fehr & Peers
Sydney Weisman, AICP, Fehr & Peers
Bianca Popescu, AICP, RSP1, Alta Planning + Design
Lela Cooper, Alta Planning + Design
Katie Selin, Alta Planning + Design
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 274/563
P
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
List of Key Terms ........................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1: Background .................................................................................................................. 6
What is a Comprehensive Safety Plan? .............................................................................................................. 6
Safe System Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Vision Zero in Edmonds ................................................................................................................................... 7
Edmonds Profile......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Demographics and Equity .............................................................................................................................. 10
How Safety Aligns with Edmonds Planning Efforts ......................................................................................... 13
Transportation Master Plan/Transportation Element (2024) ............................................................... 13
ADA Transition Plan (2017) ............................................................................................................................14
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2026 – 2031) ..........................................................14
Highway 99 Corridor/Subarea Planning ..................................................................................................... 15
Citywide Programs ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Safety Projects in Edmonds ........................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 2: Task Force and Community Engagement ............................................................... 19
Edmonds CSAP Task Force................................................................................................................................... 19
Community Engagement ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 3: Understanding Edmonds Safety Data ..................................................................... 24
Regional Trends ............................................................................................................................................... 24
Existing Crash Trends .................................................................................................................................... 25
High Injury Network Identification ...............................................................................................................29
High-Risk Network Identification ................................................................................................................32
Chapter 4: From Analysis to Project Development ................................................................. 37
Location Prioritization Framework ..................................................................................................................... 37
Proven Safety Countermeasures ....................................................................................................................... 38
Project Development and Selection ................................................................................................................. 38
Chapter 5: Action Plan and Implementation Strategy ............................................................. 64
Action Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 64
Implementing the Plan ...........................................................................................................................................69
Ongoing Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................. 73
Appendix A: List of Definitions .................................................................................................. 76
Appendix B: Task Force Meetings ............................................................................................. 77
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 275/563
P
Appendix C: Community Engagement ...................................................................................... 78
Appendix D: Existing Crash Analysis ........................................................................................ 79
Appendix E: High Injury Network ............................................................................................... 80
Appendix F: Risk Factors ............................................................................................................. 81
Appendix G: Countermeasure Toolbox ..................................................................................... 82
Appendix H: Project Identification ............................................................................................. 83
List of Figures
Figure 1. WSDOT Safe System Approach Wheel ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Key Destinations Locally ............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Race and Ethnicity of Edmonds Residents ............................................................................................ 10
Figure 4. Composite Equity Scores in Edmonds ....................................................................................................12
Figure 5. Edmonds Highway 99 Near-term opportunities ................................................................................. 15
Figure 6 Edmonds Saturday Market Tabeling on August 9th, 2025 .................................................................21
Figure 7 Phase 1 Public Outreach Comments ....................................................................................................... 23
Figure 8. Total Crashes by Year in Snohomish County ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 9. KSI Crashes by Year in Snohomish County .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 10. All Crashes in Edmonds (2018 – 2024) ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 11. Crashes by Year and Severity in Edmonds (2018 – 2024) ..............................................................27
Figure 12. All Crashes vs. KSI Crashes by Mode in Edmonds (2018 – 2024) ............................................... 28
Figure 13. All Modes High Injury Network ................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 14. Vulnerable Road User High Injury Network ........................................................................................... 31
Figure 15. Vehicle High Risk Network ....................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 16 Bicycle Risk Factor Network ..................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 17 Pedestrian Risk Factor Network .............................................................................................................. 36
Figure 18. Countermeasure Toolbox Example ....................................................................................................... 38
Figure 19. Project A: Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements ............................................................ 41
Figure 20. Project B: Edmonds Downtown Core Unsignalized Intersection Improvements .................... 42
Figure 21. Project C: Highway 99 (244th Street SW to 234th Street SW) .................................................... 43
Figure 22. Project D: Highway 99 (224th Street SW to 212th Street SW) .................................................... 44
Figure 23. Project E: 76th Avenue W (208th Street SW to 224th Street SW) ............................................ 45
Figure 24. Project F: 228th Street SW (80th Avenue W to Interurban Trail) ............................................... 46
Figure 25. Project G: 100th Avenue W (SR 104 to 220th Street SW) ............................................................. 47
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 276/563
P
Figure 26. Project H: 220th Street SW (80th Avenue W to Interurban Trail)............................................... 48
Figure 27. Project I: Puget Drive (12th Avenue N to 88th Avenue W)............................................................ 49
Figure 28. Project J: 9th Avenue N and Main Street Intersection.................................................................... 50
Figure 29. Project K: SR 104 (226th Street SW to 236th Street SW) .............................................................. 51
Figure 30. WSDOT Safe System Approach Wheel ............................................................................................... 64
List of Tables
Table 1. Equity Analysis Variables ................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 2. Recently Completed and Upcoming Safety Projects in Edmonds ................................................... 18
Table 3. Crash Trends in Edmonds (2018 – 2024) .............................................................................................. 28
Table 4. Crash Likelihood Factors in the HRN ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 5. Prioritization Scoring Criteria......................................................................................................................37
Table 6. Priority Project List ........................................................................................................................................ 39
Table 7. Safety Action Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 8. Transportation Safety Funding Sources .................................................................................................. 69
Table 9. Initial Safety Report Card ............................................................................................................................ 74
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 277/563
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Developed in collaboration with
The Path to a Safer Edmonds
Between 2018 and 2024, 61 people were seriously injured and one life was lost in traffic crashes on Edmonds streets. This Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) reflects the City of Edmonds’ commitment to reducing and ultimately eliminating traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by applying a Safe System Approach that prioritizes safety for all road users.
The plan supports Edmonds’ Vision Zero goals and aligns with state and federal safety initiatives, including the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). It builds on Edmonds’ Transportation Master Plan, ongoing safety programs, and recent investments to provide a coordinated framework for improving safety across the transportation system.
Guided by Safe System principles, the plan emphasizes shared responsibility, proactive design, and reducing crash severity by managing speeds and minimizing conflict points. Together, these strategies support a transportation network that better accounts for human error and helps ensure safer travel for people walking, biking, riding transit, and driving throughout Edmonds.The ultimate goal of the Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injury collisions by 2040. The initial goal is to lower fatal and serious injuries by 50% before 2035, with the City formally re-evaluating progress toward both these goals every five years. To achieve this, the City will implement specific safety improvement projects and programs identified in this plan.
Image courtesy of targetzero.com
Engaging Edmonds
Stakeholder and community engagement are key elements in the development of a CSAP, ensuring that community members have ample opportunity to identify safety challenges and influence outcomes.
During Phase 1 (August 2025 through September 2025), participants expressed concerns about transportation safety through an online survey and interactive map, in-person tabling events, and a virtual open house.
Concerns with speeding, ignoring traffic laws, and distracted driving.
A need for enhanced pedestrian infrastructure like sidewalks.
Desire for better biking infrastructure and more connected bike lanes.
Community mandate to address these safety concerns in the near-term.
Dangerous conditions along heavily trafficked roadways.
Key thoughts shared during the Phase 1 outreach included:
Executive Summary | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | 2026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 278/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW
Meadowd
a
l
e
B
e
a
ch Rd
176th St SW
180th St SW
184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) Crashes
Crash Density
Sparse
Dense
0 ¼½M i l e s
Understanding Edmonds’ Safety Profile
A data-informed approach and analysis of trends is central to the CSAP. To identify where safety improvements are most needed, crash data from 2018 to 2024 was evaluated alongside contextual roadway data. The key findings are summarized below.
The map highlights the locations where crashes involving injuries were concentrated.
3%
Pedestrian-involved crashes
1%
Bicyclist-involved crashes
2%
Motorcyclist-involved crashes
5%
3,287 Total Crashes
3,287 Total Crashes
94%
Vehicle-involved crashes
58%
Vehicle-involved crashes
26%
Pedestrian-involved crashes
4%
Bicyclist-involved crashes
12%
Motorcyclist-involved crashes
KSICrashes by Mode62
42%
Motorcyclist, Bicyclist,Pedestrian-Involved Crashes
Vehicle-Involved Crashes
62 KSI Crashes
Total Crashes
31%
19%
13%
6%
6%
Failing to yield
Driverdistraction
Failing tosignalproperly
Drugs and/oralcohol impairment Followingtoo closely
KSI Crashes
21%
16%
13%
Mode-Based Trends
Crash History
Circumstance-Based Trends
KSIs
58%
Other*
Other*
* Other Circumstances:
■Defective Equipment ■Asleep or Ill ■Improper Turn ■Unsafe Starting, Backing, Passing, Parking ■Improper/Failure to Signal ■Over Center Line ■Other/Unknown
Executive Summary | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | 2026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 279/563
Development of the High Injury Network (HIN) & High-Risk Network (HRN)
The CSAP identifies two key safety networks, the High Injury Network (HIN) and the High-Risk Network (HRN).
Edmonds’ all-mode HIN identified that 85% of all KSI crashes occur on just 8% of Edmonds streets, highlighting key corridors for targeted improvements. To better understand these risks, a separate vulnerable road user (VRU) focused HIN was developed. The VRU HIN found 83% of VRU KSI crashes occurred on just 6% of Edmonds streets.
This analysis supports proactive safety strategy that prioritizes both existing crash hotspots and areas of emerging risk.
The equity composite score, a combination of the 10 weighted variables, shows clear geographic disparities across the city. The highest scores, indicating greater equity-related challenges (and therefore, greater equity need), are concentrated in the central and southeastern parts of Edmonds. These areas are located near major corridors such as Highway 99, 220th Street SW, and 76th Avenue W.
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
524
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
al
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW
Meadowd
a
l
e B
e
a
ch Rd
176th St SW
180th St SW
184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
KSI Crash
Non-KSI Crashes
All Modes HIN
0 ¼½M i l es
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
524
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
al
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW
Meadowd
a
l
e B
e
a
ch Rd
176th St SW
180th St SW
184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
Scoring
0-1 (Lower Risk)
2
3
4
5 (Higher Risk)
0 ¼½M i l es
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
524
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW
Meadowd
a
l
e B
e
a
ch Rd
176th St SW
180th St SW
184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
Composite Equity Score
Low
Low-Medium
Medium
Medium-High
High
0 ¼½M i l e s
HIN (All Modes)HRN (All Modes)Equity Concern Areas
The crash data indicates that serious and fatal injury crashes involving people walking and biking occur more frequently on a smaller share of Edmonds streets. HRN factors include:
■Arterials with speeds over 35 MPH ■Downtown or commercial land use ■Within 250 feet of a transit stop ■On a segment with a commercial driveway and a center turn lane
■Medium-High to High Equity Concern Area ■Intersection of two major roads ■On an unprotected bicycle facility (VRU only)
Executive Summary | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | 2026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 280/563
From Insight to Impact: Prioritizing Projects
Priority project locations are highlighted on the map below. These eleven projects focus on locations, corridors, and intersections with high crash risk, equity scores, and community identified safety concerns. Together they represent a focused set of actions to advance transportation safety in Edmonds.
Prioritization Scoring Criteria
Scoring Criteria Number of Points (100 total)Source
Location on the All Modes HIN 16 if Yes 0 if No High Injury Network
Location on the Vulnerable Road User HIN 16 if Yes 0 if No High Injury Network
Risk Score of the Corridor Proportional to the number of risk factors along the corridor.Risk Factor Analysis16 (all risk factors are present)0 (no risk factors are present)
Equity score of the Corridor
Proportional to the equity score of the area where the corridor is located.Equity Area Analysis Composite Score16 (maximum equity score)0 (minimum equity score)
Proximity to points of interest (parks/schools/transit stops)6 (within 1/8 mile)3 (within 1/4 mile)Edmonds Transportation Plan
Whether the Corridor was flagged as a safety concern in the public engagement survey results
Proportional to the number of safety concerns documented in the public engagement survey along the corridor.Community Survey and Engagement 18 (greater number of safety concerns from the public engagement survey)
0 (no documented safety concerns from the public engagement survey)
Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2025
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
Puget D r 196th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Priority Projects
A Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements G 100th Ave W Speed Reduction and Improved Curve Visibility
B Downtown Edmonds Unsignalized Intersection Improvements H 220th Street SW Driveway Conflict Reduction, Enhanced Crossings, and Safer Connections
C Highway 99 Driveway Conflict Reduction I Puget Drive Speed Reduction and Improved Curve Visibility
D Highway 99 Speed Reduction and Upgrades to Multimodal Facilities J
9th Avenue & Main Street Intersection Speed Reduction and Improved Pedestrian Visibility
E 76th Ave W Bicycle Connections K SR-104 Updated Traffic Signal Timing
F 228th St SW Safer Crossings and Trail Connections
Implementation Action Plan & Strategies
Edmonds will implement safety improvements through a coordinated action plan that aligns projects, policies, and programs with proven safety strategies. Progress will be tracked over time to support accountability and guide future investments. Key implementation components include:
Oversight & Accountability
Maintain an ongoing Task Force of stakeholders and community members to support implementation, monitor progress, and sustain focus on advancing safety projects
Trust & Communication
Maintain ongoing communication with stakeholders and the community to build trust, share progress, and support Edmonds’ safety goals.
Coordination & Partnership
Provide regular progress updates and coordinate with City departments and partner agencies to align efforts, build support, and advance safety projects efficiently.
Phasing & Sequencing
Prioritize near-, mid-, and long-term actions, ranging from quick, low-cost improvements to major infrastructure investments.
Funding Strategy
Pursue and coordinate local, state, and federal funding opportunities to support the planning, design, and construction of priority safety projects.
Executive Summary | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | 2026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 281/563
Edmonds CSAP | 5
List of Key Terms
ATIIP Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
ATP Active Transportation Program
BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development Grant Program
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CSAP Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
CSP Complete Streets Program
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HIN High Injury Network
HRN High Risk Network (Elevated Traffic Safety Conditions)
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
KSI Killed or Serious Injury Crash
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
PDO Property Damage Only Crashes
RGC Regional Growth Center
SRTS Safe Routes to School
SS4A Safe Streets for All Program
TIF Transportation Impact Fees
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TMP Transportation Master Plan
UAP Urban Arterial Program
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
VRU Vulnerable Road User
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
For additional definitions of key terms, see Appendix A. List of Definitions.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 282/563
Edmonds CSAP | 6
Chapter 1: Background
Between 2018 and 2024, traffic crashes on Edmonds streets resulted in 61 serious injuries and one
fatality. The Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) adopts a Safe System Approach to
proactively reduce and ultimately eliminate these traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries. This
plan reflects Edmonds’ commitment to prioritizing the safety of all road users and creating a
community where every trip is a safe one.
What is a Comprehensive Safety Plan?
A CSAP is a strategic roadmap designed to reduce and ultimately eliminate serious injuries and death
on the transportation network. This plan is tailored to address Edmonds’ specific conditions and
challenges.
This CSAP takes a proactive approach to safety by focusing not only on known locations with crash
history but also on anticipating future crashes based on higher-risk roadway characteristics. In
addition to guiding local safety improvements, this CSAP supports long-term capital planning and
meets the requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) program and Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) program, positioning Edmonds for future
grant opportunities.
Safe System Approach
The City of Edmonds shares a common
goal with FHWA and WSDOT to
systematically reduce fatal and serious
injury crashes on the transportation
network through the Safe System
Approach, shown in Figure 1. This
approach considers safety for all road
users in the planning, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance
of transportation facilities. The Safe
System Approach encompasses more
than just government actions, and applies
the following principles:
• Eliminate deaths and serious
injuries: While no crashes are desirable,
eliminating crashes that result in fatalities
and serious injuries is a priority.
• Support safe road use: Road users inevitably
make mistakes that lead to crashes, and the transportation system and vehicles can be
designed and operated to reduce injury outcomes from those errors. A forgiving system
accommodates reasonable and predictable human limitations and behavior. Roads developed
in this manner and that serve as "self-enforcing and self-explaining roads" make it less likely
for human errors to occur, and when errors do occur, they result in fewer fatal and serious
injury crashes.
Figure 1. WSDOT Safe System Approach Wheel
Source: WSDOT
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 283/563
Edmonds CSAP | 7
• Reduce large crash forces: Road users have limits for tolerating crash forces before death or
serious injury occurs. Therefore, it is important to adopt designs and operational elements
that account for and reduce crash speeds and improve impact angles to be within survivable
limits.
• Responsibility is shared: Eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes requires that all
stakeholders (transportation system designers, managers, road users, vehicle manufacturers,
policymakers, law enforcement, etc.) work together. The intent is to identify and address
elements of road safety over which a given stakeholder has influence.
• Strengthen all parts: All parts of the transportation system are strengthened to reinforce each
other so that if one part fails, the other parts still protect road users. In this way, redundancy is
provided for elements that make up the Safe System.
• Safety is proactive: Proactive (systemic safety) approaches address context, contributing
factors, and crash types to help reduce the potential or likelihood for fatal and serious injury
crashes.
Vision Zero in Edmonds
Vision Zero is a global traffic safety movement founded on the belief that traffic-related deaths and
serious injuries are preventable, and that even a single fatality is unacceptable. Its success depends
on applying the Safe System Approach to create a transportation network that protects all users.1
In Washington State, this philosophy is echoed through the Target Zero initiative, which aims to
eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roadways by 2030.2
Edmonds reinforces this commitment through their own Vision Zero Statement:
The ultimate goal of the Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is to
eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injury collisions by 2040. The initial
goal is to lower fatal and serious injuries by 50% before 2035, with the City
formally re-evaluating progress toward both these goals every 5 years. To
achieve this, the City will implement specific safety improvement projects
and programs identified in this plan.
Edmonds Profile
Edmonds is a waterfront city located approximately 15 miles north of Seattle and 18 miles south of
Everett, with the Puget Sound to its west. Developed in the late 19th century as a rail- and ferry-
oriented community, Edmonds has retained a compact urban form that continues to shape the city
today. Its setting provides views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains, access to multiple
beaches and waterfront parks, and a walkable downtown that is closely connected to the water.
Edmonds encompasses approximately 9 square miles, with Downtown Edmonds and the Edmonds
Waterfront functioning as the city’s primary activity centers, with galleries, restaurants, parks, and
shoreline. For the purposes of this plan, crashes in the unincorporated Esperance area were not
1 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths
2 https://targetzero.com/
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 284/563
Edmonds CSAP | 8
reviewed. Should annexation occur, the city should consider incorporating Esperance area crash data
into future analyses.
Edmonds is accessible by a range of transportation options that reflect the City’s role as both a
residential community and a regional destination. Interstate 5 and State Route 99 run east of the city,
providing regional north–south connections, while State Routes 104 and 524 provide east–west
access to downtown Edmonds and the ferry terminal. Ferry service between Edmonds and Kingston
connects Snohomish and King counties with the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas. Amtrak provides
passenger rail service at the Edmonds station and Sound Transit’s operates the Sounder commuter
rail, while Community Transit operates local and regional bus service. Bus routes in Edmonds include
the Swift Blue Line along State Route 99, as well as routes 102, 130, and 166, 909 which provide
connections to nearby transit hubs and regional light rail stations.
Edmonds’ key destinations as well as the city boundaries are mapped in Figure 2.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 285/563
Edmonds CSAP | 9
Figure 2. Key Destinations Locally
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 286/563
Edmonds CSAP | 10
Demographics and Equity
As of 2023, Edmonds is a community of approximately 42,800 residents, with about 75% of the
population identifying as White (non-Hispanic). Asian residents comprise the largest minority group,
at 10% of the population (see Figure 3)3. Approximately 3.5% of residents live below the poverty line,
which is about one-third of the rate in Washington (9.9%). The City’s median household income is
$116,095, higher than the Washington state median of $110,744.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate, the
median age in Edmonds is 46, and 61% of the population is between the ages 18 and 64 4. Most adults
have completed some form of higher education.
Figure 3. Race and Ethnicity of Edmonds Residents
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimate. Fehr & Peers, 2026
*Includes Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaska Native
**Hispanic includes respondents of any race. Other categories are non-Hispanic.
The Edmonds CSAP involved an area equity analysis to better understand the varying equity needs
throughout Edmonds using public health and demographic indicators. The analysis generated an
equity score that is a composite of the 10 weighted variables included in Table 1.
3 https://datausa.io/profile/geo/edmonds-wa/#demographics
4 https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US5320750-edmonds-wa/
Europe, 2.4%
Asia, 7.2%
Africa, 0.9%
Oceania, 0.5%
Latin
America,
1.6%
Northern America,
0.8%
Born in the United
States, 86.7%
Foreign-born,
13.4%
Europe Asia Africa Oceania Latin America Northern America Born in the United States
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 287/563
Edmonds CSAP | 11
Table 1. Equity Analysis Variables
Category Variable Weight Data Source
De
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
40
%
Percent low-income households (Household
income is less than 200% of the federal
poverty level)
25% American Community
Survey, 2022
Percent people of color or Hispanic 20% American Community
Survey, 2022
Percent youth or senior (under 19 or over 65) 5% American Community
Survey, 2022
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
35
%
Percent with no high school diploma or GED 10% American Community
Survey, 2022
Economic Opportunity 10% Opportunity Atlas 5
Percent of households with no vehicle 10% American Community
Survey, 2022
Housing cost burden 5% American Community
Survey, 2022
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
25
%
PM 2.5 levels of air pollution 5% EJScreen 6
Lack of tree canopy 5% Tree Equity Score 7
Coronary heart disease 5% CDC Places 8
Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2025.
The equity composite score, a combination of the 10 weighted variables, shows clear geographic
disparities across the city (see Figure 4). The highest scores, indicating greater equity-related
challenges (and therefore, greater equity need), are concentrated in the central and southeastern
parts of Edmonds. These areas are located near major corridors such as Highway 99, 220th Street
SW, and 76th Avenue W. In contrast, the western and northern parts of the city, including
neighborhoods along Edmonds Way (State Route 104) and near Olympic View Drive, show lower
composite scores. This spatial pattern highlights areas where targeted transportation investments
may benefit transportation disadvantaged populations. See Appendix C. for more information on the
equity analysis conducted as part of the Edmonds CSAP.
5 https://www.opportunityatlas.org/
6 https://pedp-ejscreen.azurewebsites.net/
7 https://www.treeequityscore.org/
8 https://www.cdc.gov/places/index.html
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 288/563
Edmonds CSAP | 12
Figure 4. Composite Equity Scores in Edmonds
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 289/563
Edmonds CSAP | 13
How Safety Aligns with Edmonds Planning Efforts
The City of Edmonds has undertaken a range of programs and transportation planning efforts that
invest in transportation safety. These collectively establish the policy framework, project priorities,
and implementation strategies that shape how transportation safety is addressed across all modes
and user groups. Together, they reflect the City’s long-term vision for a safe, accessible, and
multimodal transportation system and provide the foundation upon which this CSAP is built. These
plans were reviewed to ensure the CSAP is consistent with adopted policies, reflects ongoing and
planned investments, and supports coordinated implementation of safety improvements across the
City of Edmonds. The following sections provide an overview of the recent and ongoing
transportation safety-related plans and programs in the City.
Transportation Master Plan/Transportation Element (2024)
The City of Edmonds adopted its Transportation Master Plan (TMP)9 in December 2024 to guide
growth and development of the City’s transportation infrastructure. The TMP serves as the primary
implementation document for the Transportation Element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan 10,
translating adopted transportation and safety policies into actionable strategies and investments. The
TMP is based on existing transportation network studies combined with a 20-year projection of
future growth and transportation needs. The TMP establishes a policy framework for transportation
investments that integrate land use and transportation planning while supporting a balanced,
multimodal system.
The TMP addresses all modes of transportation and includes a wide range of transportation project
types, including roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and freight facilities. Safety is emphasized
throughout the Plan and is reflected in multiple transportation goals and policies that prioritize safe
travel for all users. This CSAP builds on the Edmonds TMP and draws from its goals and policies
related to transportation safety, accessibility, and multimodal connectivity. Key safety-related goals
and policies are summarized below:
Goal T-1: Create a complete and connected system that offers efficient transportation options to
implement the regional transportation plan;
Goal T-3: Support and enforce traffic laws that are designed to provide safety for vulnerable users,
including people walking, biking, riding transit, and people with mobility challenges;
Goal T-5: Minimize the adverse impacts of transportation facility improvements on the natural
environment both in established neighborhoods and undeveloped areas;
Goal T-6: Pursuant to the Growth Management Act, maintain an inventory of the City’s transportation
facilities and establish appropriate Level of Service guidelines and Standards;
9https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/public_works_and_utilities/transportation_system/transp
ortation_planning
10 https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Servi
ces/Planning%20Division/2024%20Comp%20Plan%20Update/241226_Edmonds%20Comp%20Plan%20FINAL_
reduced.pdf
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 290/563
Edmonds CSAP | 14
Goal T-7: Establish infrastructure planning and financing strategies with other agencies to ensure that
these plans are consistent with the regional mobility goals and land use plans;
Goal T-8: Integrate traffic calming to reduce congestion, improve safety, support downtown,
enhance neighborhoods, improve emergency access and maintain a pedestrian-friendly
environment;
Goal T-9: Expand local and regional transit options, ensuring reliable, accessible, and safe service,
and connecting neighborhoods to key destinations to meet diverse community needs; and
Goal T-11: Prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety, support community access to centers and hubs,
and all key destinations integrating with regional systems.
ADA Transition Plan (2017)
The City of Edmonds’ ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan for the Public Right-of-Way focuses
on identifying and addressing accessibility barriers within pedestrian access routes, including
sidewalks, curb ramps, crossings, and pedestrian-activated signal systems. Adopted in October 2017,
the plan identifies policy, programmatic, and physical barriers that limit access for individuals with
disabilities and outlines methods, priorities, and schedules for barrier removal. The plan is based on a
citywide evaluation of public right-of-way facilities conducted using federal accessibility standards
and includes a phased implementation strategy to address high, medium, and low-priority
accessibility deficiencies over time. Public involvement, including input from an ADA Stakeholder
Advisory Committee, informed the prioritization process and continues to guide the City’s ongoing
efforts to improve accessibility and safety in the public right-of-way.11 The plan also identifies several
funded / unfunded, high- and medium-priority projects throughout Edmonds, including:
• Overlay projects
• 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest;
• 238th Street Southwest from Highway 99 and SR 104;
• Dayton Street from 3rd Avenue South to 9th Avenue South;
• 84th Avenue West from 238th Street Southwest to 212th Street Southwest; and
• Other citywide pedestrian crossing locations.
Improvements at these locations include sidewalk construction and replacement, installation of ADA-
compliant curb ramps, driveway and crossing upgrades, and enhanced pedestrian crossings, focused
on improving accessibility, safety, and continuity of pedestrian access routes.
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2026 – 2031)
The Edmonds Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is updated on an annual basis, consistent
with state requirements, to outline medium-term projects that are planned in the City. Regular
updates to the program ensure that the project list remains in line with the latest citywide needs,
goals, and priorities. The 2026-2031 TIP 12 is consistent with the TMP update and aligns with the
TMP’s goals. The TIP includes both specific capital projects and broader citywide programs, with
details such as project descriptions, segment lengths, estimated costs, funding sources, priority
11https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/public_works_and_utilities/transportation_system/ada_tr
ansition_plan
12 https://dpa730eaqha29.cloudfront.net/myedmondsnews/wp-content/uploads/2025/0sw6/TIP-Presentation.pdf
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 291/563
Edmonds CSAP | 15
levels, and budget status. To support safety goals, the review compared TIP projects alongside CSAP
priority locations to identify overlap and explore opportunities to integrate safety improvements into
already planned projects. Some of the key projects in the TIP with safety/capacity components
include:
• Hwy 99 Revitalization project including:
o Stage 3 (between 244th Street SW and 238th Street SW)
o Stage 4 (between 220th Street SW and 224th Street SW)
o Stage 9 (between 220th Street SW and 216th Street SW)
• Other corridor improvements include:
o 84th Ave. West from 238th Street SW to 212th Street SW
o SR 104 Adaptive System from 236th Street SW to 226th Street SW
o 76th Avenue West Adaptive System from 220th Street SW to 206th Street SW
• Intersection improvements on Main
Street @ 9th Avenue W, and 76th
Avenue W @ 220th Street SW
• Bicycle improvements on SR 104 @
100th Avenue West
Highway 99 Corridor/Subarea
Planning
Highway 99 is a critical north–south arterial
in Edmonds and is consistently identified as
a high-priority corridor for safety
improvements due to its high traffic
volumes, frequent access points, transit
activity, and crash history. The City’s
Highway 99 Subarea Plan 13 documents
collision concentrations along the corridor,
particularly at major intersections and
locations with long distances between
controlled pedestrian crossings. Safety
challenges along Highway 99 include vehicle
speeds, limited access management, and
inadequate pedestrian and bicycle crossing
opportunities along portions of the corridor.
Adopted plans identify a range of
multimodal safety strategies along Highway
99 to address these issues, including
enhanced pedestrian crossings, access
management through driveway
consolidation and medians, ADA-compliant
sidewalk and curb ramp improvements,
improved lighting, addition of raised bike
13https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development_services/planning_division/highway_99_p
lanning_project
Figure 5. Edmonds Highway 99 Near-term
opportunities
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 292/563
Edmonds CSAP | 16
lane (separated from sidewalk with a one foot tactile strip), conversion of overhead utilities to
underground, and safer transit access to support Swift BRT and local bus service. Near-term project
opportunities are shown in Figure 5. The addition of raised median with mid-block left turn lanes
along the entire corridor was completed in 2024.
These efforts emphasize reducing conflicts, improving visibility, and prioritizing vulnerable road users
while maintaining regional mobility and access to adjacent land uses. The CSAP draws on a review of
these adopted plans to establish the safety context along Highway 99 and to inform the evaluation of
corridor-specific safety needs.
Citywide Programs
The City of Edmonds has several ongoing annual programs that address Citywide transportation
safety. The following subsections outline how the City approaches traffic calming, active
transportation safety, and active transportation safety education.
Traffic Calming Program
The Edmonds Traffic Calming Program addresses neighborhood safety concerns such as speeding
and cut-through traffic through resident input. The program evaluates submitted street segments
using speed studies and safety criteria, with eligible locations advancing , where prioritized ,to
engineering-based traffic calming treatments. Due to limited annual funding, projects are prioritized
and only the highest-ranked locations are selected for implementation each year, supporting
targeted safety improvements while maintaining neighborhood and emergency access
considerations. 14
Pedestrian Safety Program
The Edmonds Pedestrian Safety Program addresses pedestrian safety concerns identified by
residents at specific locations throughout the city. The program prioritizes and implements targeted
safety improvements on arterial, collector, and local streets based on established criteria (such as
proximity to high pedestrian generators) and available funding, with past treatments including
enhancements such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and improved roadway signage.
Through this program, the City supports safer walking conditions and the increased use of active
transportation facilities.15
Pedestrian Safety Education Program
In response to an increase in pedestrian-related crashes, the City of Edmonds established a
Pedestrian Safety Task Force in 2016 to improve safety for pedestrians and other active
transportation users through education and outreach of all ages. Early efforts focused on senior
populations through presentations to local community groups, while the program expanded in 2019 to
include school-aged children in collaboration with the Edmonds School District. Educational activities
include classroom presentations and hands-on field trips to see real-world locations (such as
signalized intersection / crosswalks) in order to teach safe pedestrian behaviors at those different
14https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/public_works_and_utilities/transportation_system/traffic
_calming_program
15https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/public_works_and_utilities/transportation_system/pede
strian_safety_program
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 293/563
Edmonds CSAP | 17
locations. The City continues to support pedestrian safety education through presentations,
workshops, publicly available safety resources, and attendance at various school safety school events
(such as organized bike ride as part Bike to School Day and Pedestrian Safety field trips).16
16https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/public_works_and_utilities/transportation_system/pede
strian_safety_education
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 294/563
Edmonds CSAP | 18
Safety Projects in Edmonds
Table 2 summarizes safety projects that the City of Edmonds has recently completed as well as
projects that are scheduled for implementation.
Table 2. Recently Completed and Upcoming Safety Projects in Edmonds
Project Status Description
Highway 99 Revitalization
Project (Stage 2) Completed
Raised median with mid-block left turn lanes along
2 ½ mile corridor, along with curb ramp upgrades at
certain locations
Citywide Bicycle
Improvements Project Completed
Addition of bike lanes on both sides of 9th Ave.S
from Walnut St. to 244th Street SWand along
Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. S to 84th Ave W
Traffic Calming Program Annual
Addresses neighborhood traffic safety concerns
identified by residents by evaluating streets using
speed and safety criteria and implementing
prioritized education, enforcement, and traffic
calming treatments where warranted.
Pedestrian Safety Program Annual
Prioritizes and implements targeted pedestrian
safety improvements at community identified
locations to support safer walking conditions
throughout the city.
Overlay Program Annual
Includes upgrading of non-compliant ADA curb
ramps and improve pavement conditions along
various stretches.
Overlay from 196th to Talbot
with curb ramp upgrades 2026
Includes upgrading of non-compliant ADA curb
ramps and improve pavement conditions along
various stretches.
7th Avenue North Pedestrian
Improvements from Main
Street to 9th Avenue North
2026
Curb ramp upgrades along entire stretch of 7th
Avenue along with raised crosswalk at Civic Park
mid-block crossing.
Main Street Overlay from 6th
Avenue to 8th Avenue Completed Overlay along with ADA curb ramp upgrades and
addition of bike lanes for eastbound movement.
Citywide Lighting
Improvement 2027 Add citywide lighting improvements at intersection
and mid-block crossings.
Source: City of Edmonds, 2025
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 295/563
Edmonds CSAP | 19
Chapter 2: Task Force and Community
Engagement
Stakeholder and community engagement are key elements in the development of a CSAP, ensuring
that community members have ample opportunity to identify safety challenges and influence
outcomes. This CSAP collected feedback through an online survey, an interactive map, mobile
outreach at several community events, and input from the Edmonds CSAP Task Force.
Edmonds CSAP Task Force
The project team collaborated with a group of stakeholders, known as the Edmonds CSAP Task
Force, to help guide and shape this CSAP. The Task Force included community-based organizations,
City staff, and partner agency staff from WSDOT.
The Task Force met three times to discuss existing conditions in Edmonds, explore potential
solutions and projects to address identified safety challenges, and review draft plan content.
• Meeting 1: The project team introduced the planning effort, explained the purpose of a CSAP,
outlined the Safe System Approach, and shared findings from the crash data analysis. Task
Force members provided input on how the data aligned with their lived experiences in
Edmonds.
• Meeting 2: The project team presented a summary of crash profiles and systemic safety
findings, and Task Force members provided input on priority location identification and draft
policy direction aligned with Washington’s Target Zero strategy.
• Meeting 3: The project team presented the final plan, and Task Force members provided
input on the shape of the CSAP.
For more information on Task Force Content, see Appendix B.
Community Engagement
Community engagement played a central role in shaping the City of Edmonds’ CSAP. The plan
reflects real safety concerns and community-driven solutions by creating multiple opportunities for
residents, visitors, and community partners to share their experiences and priorities.
Throughout the engagement process and in the community survey, residents consistently shared
their vision for safer streets in Edmonds. As two community members noted:
• “I’d like to see more connected, and safe bike lanes and bike connections to transit”
• “We need safer pedestrian crossings and more sidewalks in residential areas”
Community engagement took place through two phases:
Phase 1: Listen, Learn, and Dive In – The purpose of this phase was to gain a general understanding
of Edmonds residents’ safety concerns, needs, and visions for the future. This phase also offered the
public opportunities to learn about and refine preliminary goals and project/program
recommendations.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 296/563
Edmonds CSAP | 20
Phase 2: Refine – The purpose of this phase was to provide opportunities for the public and partners
to review and comment on the draft plan to lead further refinements before finalization.
Phase 1 Outreach Overview
During Phase 1 (August–September 2025), residents expressed concerns about transportation safety
through online and in-person engagement, more information can be found in Appendix C. Key
concerns and results from the Phase 1 outreach included:
• Concerns with driving behaviors such as speeding, ignoring traffic laws, and distracted
driving.
• A need for enhanced pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks.
• Desire for better biking infrastructure and more connected bike lanes.
• A strong mandate from the community to address these safety concerns in the next steps of
planning.
• General perception of unsafe conditions along heavily trafficked arterials, as well as some
residential collector streets.
Based on the survey results, residents support the following safety improvement strategies:
• 88% supported treatments and strategies to make walking safer.
• 66% supported promoting safe speeds by reducing speed limits/traffic calming.
• 36% supported funding for educational programs for driver safety programs.
• 47% supported treatments and strategies to make biking safer.
• 54% supported automated enforcement programs for roadway laws.
• 54% supported designing our roadway and intersections to improve emergency vehicle
response times.
CSAP ONLINE SURVEY AND INTERACTIVE MAP
An interactive map and survey were active in August and September 2025. Two hundred and sixty
Edmonds residents and visitors added suggestions. Respondents could add points and comments for
locations where they have concerns or feedback. Community comments included site-specific
feedback related to safety, and were organized by mode of travel (biking, walking, and driving).
Overall, the highest proportion of comments were related to walking, second were driving concerns,
followed by biking. These longer-form and site-specific comments provided insights into specific
location needs but also highlighted several key themes described below.
Speeding and distracted driving: This concern included vehicles not following speed laws, or streets
with posted speed limits that feel too fast for users. Respondents also mentioned vehicles not
following traffic laws and stop signs in some areas.
Uncomfortable intersections: Many respondents indicated challenges with intersections and
crossings where adequate infrastructure was not present.
Connectivity concerns: Those biking, walking, and rolling highlighted needs in the pedestrian and
bicycle network to fill gaps in protected infrastructure and sidewalks to make connections across
areas more feasible and safer for a broad range of users.
Improved safe connections to transit and other key amenities: Some respondents highlighted a desire
for safe infrastructure improvements to help connect to nearby regional transit (Sounder and Link),
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 297/563
Edmonds CSAP | 21
and other key community amenities; such as the Downtown Edmonds core, and nearby regional trail
systems.
Figure 7 shows the overall distribution of the 260 comments received on the interactive pin map by
mode category (walking, biking, and driving). Overall, there are many areas where mode categories
overlap, especially in the Downtown area, as well as along Edmonds Way, but also unique cluster
areas by mode category.
IN PERSON TABELING EVENTS
Project staff tabled at the following events in the summer of 2025 to raise awareness about the
project and encourage attendees to complete the survey and participate in the interactive map:
• Edmonds Saturday Market: Saturday, August 2nd and Saturday, August 9th
• Edmonds Concert in the Park: Sunday, August
3rd
• Pop-Up Outreach at 99 Ranch Grocery Store:
Thursday, August 21st (accompanied by a
Chinese Language Interpreter)
Project staff interacted with several hundred members
of the public over the course of these four community
engagement events. 78 of the total 260 map pinpoint
concerns collected came from the in-person
engagement events mapping activity.
VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE
The project team hosted a Virtual Open House on
Wednesday, September 10th, 2025 to present key
project information to community members and share
the overall project goals and upcoming timeline.
The Virtual Open House presentation had an
engagement component that allowed attendees to
share their opinions on safety considerations in
Edmonds, and what their investment priorities were.
There were 11 attendees at the event who provided
feedback through interactive polling based on the
project survey, and the event was also recorded to be posted on the City of Edmonds project website
and other relevant online channels for those who were unable to attend live. The recording can be
viewed on YouTube 17.
Some key themes from the virtual open house included:
• Several attendees raised concerns about reckless driving and specifically speeding.
Attendees wanted more traffic calming solutions and enforcement of speed laws.
• Attendees also emphasized making walking safer for all, especially in areas lacking key
infrastructure such as sidewalks.
17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rJBHjAGcQk
Figure 6 Edmonds Saturday Market Tabeling on
August 9th, 2025
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 298/563
Edmonds CSAP | 22
• Attendees also highlighted specific areas of concern for places needing safer crossings,
improved bike infrastructure, and slower vehicle traffic. This included both the Downtown
Edmonds core, other commercial areas near SR 99, and some residential areas.
Phase 2 Outreach Overview
During Phase 2 (February–March 2026), residents reviewed the draft Edmonds CSAP and provided
feedback through a community survey. A total of 50 respondents participated in this phase of
engagement. Overall, findings from Phase 2 reinforce many of the priorities identified during Phase 1,
while also providing more detailed input on draft strategies and areas for refinement. More
information can be found in Appendix C. Key concerns and results from the Phase 2 outreach
included:
• While many respondents expressed general alignment with the plan, others identified specific
gaps, including additional locations for safety improvements (e.g., Bowdoin Way) and a desire
for stronger emphasis on speed reduction and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
• “Enhancing Pedestrian Crossings” was the top priority (21%), followed by “Increasing Traffic
Enforcement” (19%) and “Adding or Improving Sidewalks and Bike Lanes” (18%). The
continued emphasis on pedestrian infrastructure aligns with Phase 1 results, reinforcing this as
a key priority area for the CSAP.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 299/563
Edmonds CSAP | 23
Figure 7 Phase 1 Public Outreach Comments
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 300/563
Edmonds CSAP | 24
Chapter 3: Understanding
Edmonds Safety Data
A data-informed approach is central to the Edmonds CSAP. As
part of the plan’s development, local and regional crash data was
analyzed to identify patterns and trends. The primary source for
this analysis was seven years of WSDOT crash records from 2018
to 2024 on local streets or State Routes within Edmonds.
The following steps were undertaken to inform safety
recommendations and identify priority locations:
1. Regional Trends: plot and analyze regional trends on
key metrics in Snohomish County before diving into
the specifics of the City of Edmonds.
2. Existing Crash Trends in Edmonds: evaluate recent
crash data for all modes to understand potential
trends within the City.
3. Identification of the High Injury Network: identify
trends for key corridors with high rates of fatal and
serious injury crashes to serve as metrics in
prioritizing locations for safety improvements.
4. Identification of the High Risk Network: relate trends on roadway and crash
characteristics to take a proactive approach to safety by considering risk of potential
crashes, even if there is not a lengthy crash history at a location.
Additional content and findings from analyzing crash data in Edmonds can be found in Appendix C.
Regional Trends
Over the past seven years, total crashes on all roads in Snohomish County decreased by 10%, from
13,884 in 2018 to 12,460 in 2024, as shown in Figure 8, but fatal and serious injury crashes increased
by 29%, as shown in Figure 9.
KSI crashes are fatal or serious
injury crashes. A fatal crash is a
crash within which the most severe
injury was a death within 30 days of
the crash because of injuries
sustained during the crash. A
serious injury is a non-fatal injury
which included bodily injuries such
as broken bones; serious
lacerations; crush injuries;
suspected injuries to the skull,
chest, or abdomen; or significant
burns. Source: Washington Strategic
Highway Safety Plan
WHAT IS A KSI CRASH?
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 301/563
Edmonds CSAP | 25
Figure 8. Total Crashes by Year in Snohomish County
Source: WSDOT Crash Data Portal, 2018-2024, Fehr & Peers, 2025
Figure 9. KSI Crashes by Year in Snohomish County
Source: WSDOT Crash Data Portal, 2018-2024, Fehr & Peers, 2025
Existing Crash Trends
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 3,287 crashes on Edmonds streets 18. Of these, 62 crashes (2%)
resulted in a fatality or serious injury (KSI). Figure 10 highlights the locations where crashes involving
injuries were concentrated.
18 The data includes all reported roadway crashes in the City of Edmonds from 2018 to 2024, including city-
owned roadways, state routes, and border streets. The buffer distance for the crash data used was 35ft. The
data does not include Esperance.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
#
o
f
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
Year
Total Crashes
248 214 227 260 285 308 319
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
#
o
f
K
S
I
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
Year
KSI Crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 302/563
Edmonds CSAP | 26
Figure 10. All Crashes in Edmonds (2018 – 2024)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 303/563
Edmonds CSAP | 27
As shown in Figure 11, the number of crashes by severity varied each year, with a 27% decrease in
total crashes over the last seven years and an 18% increase in KSI crashes over the same seven-year
period. This pattern mirrors broader trends observed across Snohomish County, with a decrease in
total crashes, but an increase in fatal and serious injury crashes.
Figure 11. Crashes by Year and Severity in Edmonds (2018 – 2024)
Source: 2018-2024 WSDOT Data, Fehr & Peers, 2025
Vulnerable Road User Trends
Vulnerable road users, or people walking, and bicycling were disproportionately represented in
serious and fatal crashes in Edmonds. While these vulnerable road users were involved in
approximately 6% of all crashes, they accounted for 43% of KSI between 2018 and 2024 (see Figure
12). Motorcyclists, while not classified as vulnerable road users in Edmonds, also experience high risk
of severe injury, experiencing 2% of total crashes, and 21% of KSI crashes from 2018 to 2024.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
#
o
f
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
Property Damage Only Possible or Minor Injury Killed or Serious Injury Unknown
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 304/563
Edmonds CSAP | 28
Figure 12. All Crashes vs. KSI Crashes by Mode in Edmonds (2018 – 2024)
Source: 2018-2024 WSDOT Data, Fehr & Peers, 2025
KSI Crash Trend Summary
Analyzing recent KSI crash trends helps inform the selection of project types that address recurring
safety concerns. Table 3 highlights key KSI crash trends in Edmonds based on crash data from 2018
through 2024. See Appendix D for supplemental existing conditions charts and information.
Table 3. Crash Trends in Edmonds (2018 – 2024)
Category Factor Trend
Modes
Vehicle Vehicle-to-vehicle crashes comprised of 94% of total
crashes and 36% of KSI crashes.
Bicycle
Bicyclists were involved in 1% of total crashes and 3%
of KSI crashes.
Pedestrian Pedestrians were involved in 3% of total crashes and
40% of KSI crashes.
Motorcyclists Motorcyclists were involved in 2% of total crashes and
21% of KSI crashes.
Vehicle
Action
Going Straight Ahead A vehicle was going straight ahead in 66% of KSI
crashes.
Making Left Turn A vehicle was making a left turn in 14% of KSI crashes.
Negotiating a Curve A vehicle was negotiating a curve in 9% of KSI crashes.
Contributing
Circumstance
Driver Distraction/
Inattention
Distracted driving was a contributing circumstance in
21% of KSI crashes.
Failure to Yield Failing to yield was a contributing circumstance in 16%
of KSI crashes.
94%
36%
2%
21%
1%
3%
3%
40%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All Crashes
KSI Crashes
Vehicle Motorcycle Bicycle Pedestrian
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 305/563
Edmonds CSAP | 29
Category Factor Trend
Under the Influence Under the influence of alcohol or drugs was a
contributing circumstance in 13% of KSI crashes.
Other
Time of Day Highest rates (52%) of KSIs between 5-11pm.
Lighting Condition 49% of KSI crashes occurred in dark, dawn, or dusk.
Intersections or
Driveways 65% of KSI crashes were intersection related*.
* At intersection and related, intersection related and not at an intersection, entering roundabout, at driveway
Source: 2018-2024 WSDOT Data, Fehr & Peers, 2025
High Injury Network Identification
A High Injury Network (HIN) was developed, which identifies roadway segments with the highest
concentration of KSI and injury crashes. The analysis is done by determining the number and severity
of crashes in a “window” on the Edmonds roadway network and shifting that window along the
roadway 1/10 mile at a time. Crashes were weighted by severity, with KSI crashes receiving the
highest weight. Edmonds’ all-mode HIN identified that 85% of all KSI crashes occur on just 8% of
Edmonds streets, highlighting key corridors for targeted improvements. Figure 13 shows the HIN for
all modes across Edmonds. For more information, see Appendix E.
The crash data indicates that serious and fatal injury crashes involving people walking and biking
occur more frequently on a smaller share of Edmonds streets. To better understand these risks, a
separate vulnerable road user (VRU) focused HIN was developed. The VRU HIN found 83% of VRU KSI
crashes occurred on just 6% of Edmonds streets, shown in Figure 14.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 306/563
Edmonds CSAP | 30
Figure 13. All Modes High Injury Network
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 307/563
Edmonds CSAP | 31
Figure 14. Vulnerable Road User High Injury Network
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 308/563
Edmonds CSAP | 32
High-Risk Network Identification
Understanding historical crash patterns can help the City of Edmonds proactively plan for safety
within transportation systems. The analysis combined seven years of crash data (2018-2024) with
available land use and roadway information to identify contributing factors and trends. The trends are
then organized into potential risk factors for fatal and serious injury crashes as well as bicycle and
pedestrian crashes separately. The City’s street network is then analyzed to identify locations with the
highest number of risk factors, which will feed into the prioritization for project identification.
Methodology for Identifying Risk Factors
Understanding the factors that influence crash occurrence and severity supports the City in targeting
safety efforts in areas that may have a high crash likelihood, even if there is not an extensive crash
history. This proactive approach to safety identifies a High Risk Network (HRN). The HRN merges
contextual data, such as land use and roadway characteristics, with crash data to uncover street
characteristics that are associated with higher rates and severity of crashes. Streets with the most
factors present were identified as part of the high-risk network.
The following contextual variables informed the development of the HRN:
• Streets, including speed limit and functional classification
• Signalized intersections and traffic beacons
• Spacing of street lighting
• Land use zoning
• Education facilities and school zones
• Sidewalks
• Bicycle facilities
• Park locations
• Intersection proximity
• Transit stops and stations
Following the review of possible contextual factors associated with crash occurrence and severity,
the analysis identified and selected the key factors to include in the HRN analysis. Table 4 presents
crash likelihood factors that are used as inputs for the HRN, including the modes impacted by each
factor as well as relevant crash statistics and contextual information. Risk factors that were chosen for
the analysis were bolded for each mode. Appendix F provides individual maps of each individual
factor included in the HRN analysis.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 309/563
Edmonds CSAP | 33
Table 4. Crash Likelihood Factors in the HRN
Factor
Percent
of
Street
Network
Vehicles Bicycles Pedestrians
Percent
of all
crashes
Percent
of KSIs
Percent
of all
crashes
Percent
of KSIs
Percent
of all
crashes
Percent
of KSIs
Arterials with speeds
over 35 MPH 22% 75% 77% 73% 100% 60% 60%
Downtown or
commercial land use 14% 68% 59% 65% 50% 65% 72%
Within 250 feet of a
transit stop 13% n/a n/a 55% 0% 61% 72%
On a segment with a
commercial driveway
and a center turn lane
5% 18% 27% 30% 0% 18% 4%
Med-High to High
Equity Concern Area 25% 58% 45% 55% 50% 61% 72%
Intersection of two
major roads* n/a 31% 32% 20% 100% 39% 48%
On an unprotected
bicycle facility** 14% n/a n/a 40% 50% n/a n/a
Source: Fehr & Peers; Alta Planning + Design, 2025.
The bolding represents the chosen higher risk factors chosen for the HRN analysis.
* Major intersections are defined as intersections of two arterials.
**Streets with unprotected bike facilities are defined as roadway segments where there is no lane separation,
sharrows, or any physical barrier between bicyclists and vehicle traffic.
Utilizing the factors identified above, the street network was evaluated for the presence of each
factor for each mode. Roadways were then symbolized based on the number of factors present along
a given segment. A higher number corresponds to a higher number of factors present along a
segment. Figure 15 through Figure 17 map the overlapping High Risk Networks.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 310/563
Edmonds CSAP | 34
Figure 15. Vehicle High Risk Network
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 311/563
Edmonds CSAP | 35
Figure 16 Bicycle Risk Factor Network
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 312/563
Edmonds CSAP | 36
Figure 17 Pedestrian Risk Factor Network
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 313/563
Edmonds CSAP | 37
Chapter 4: From Analysis to Project
Development
One of the central objectives of CSAP is to develop projects and programs that provide safety
improvements at priority locations. This chapter describes the process used to identify and prioritize
key locations in Edmonds. Following the overview of the prioritization framework, the section outlines
how the established prioritization guides the development of implementable safety projects. The
steps taken for this assessment are as follows:
1. Identify preliminary priority locations by incorporating crash history, crash risk, presence
in a higher scoring equity census tract, and community input.
2. Screen preliminary priority locations to determine which locations have recently
completed, underway, or planned safety countermeasures.
3. Identify projects and countermeasures for top corridors using established and emerging
best practices, while considering cost-effectiveness, fundability, and co-benefits.
Location Prioritization Framework
To guide safety investments, the City of Edmonds, in close coordination with the Task Force,
established a prioritization framework to focus resources on locations with the greatest safety needs.
This study evaluated Edmonds corridors using a points-based scoring framework with a maximum of
100 points based on the scoring framework that considers crash history, roadway risk factors, equity
considerations, and community identified concerns. Each roadway segment received a score,
resulting in a network of corridors where safety investments are expected to have the greatest
potential impact. This process applied a scoring framework shown in Table 5:
Table 5. Prioritization Scoring Criteria
Scoring Criteria Number of Points (100 total) Source
Location on the All Modes HIN 16 if Yes
0 if No High Injury Network
Location on the Vulnerable
Road User HIN
16 if Yes
0 if No High Injury Network
Risk Score of the Corridor
Proportional to the number of risk
factors along the corridor
16 (all risk factors are present)
0 (no risk factors are present)
Risk Factor Analysis
Equity score of the Corridor
Proportional to the equity score of the
area where the corridor is located.
16 (maximum equity score)
0 (minimum equity score)
Equity Area Analysis
Composite Score
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 314/563
Edmonds CSAP | 38
Scoring Criteria Number of Points (100 total) Source
Proximity to points of interest
(parks/schools/transit stops)
Within 1/8 mile – 6 points
Within 1/4 mile – 3 points
Edmonds Transportation
Plan
Whether the Corridor was
flagged as a safety concern in
the public engagement survey
results
Proportional to the number of safety
concerns documented in the public
engagement survey along the corridor.
18 (greater number of safety concerns
from the public engagement survey)
0 (no documented safety concerns
from the public engagement survey)
Community Survey and
Engagement
Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2025
Proven Safety Countermeasures
Engineering countermeasures are physical,
infrastructure-based improvements to make
roadways safer by design. Engineering
countermeasures help address the Safe Roads
and Safe Speeds elements of the Safe System
Approach. These countermeasures can be
applied to address safety concerns on the HIN
as well as at locations on the HRN containing
elements that increase crash likelihood, even
if the location does not have a current history
of crashes.
A toolbox of engineering countermeasures is
included in Appendix G. These
countermeasures can serve as a menu of
options to help address crash likelihood
factors and crash trends identified in Chapter
3.
Figure 18 provides an example of what
information is included in the toolbox for each
countermeasure. Most of the countermeasures
have been identified by FHWA as “Proven Safety Countermeasures” and can be advantageous for use
in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding applications. There are also many
effective safety countermeasures beyond those listed in FHWA, several of which are included in the
toolbox.
Project Development and Selection
Priority corridors identified through the CSAP process help determine where safety projects should
be developed and implemented, further information is shown in Appendix H. The CSAP identified 11
Figure 18. Countermeasure Toolbox Example
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 315/563
Edmonds CSAP | 39
safety projects, identified in Table 6 and Figure 19 through Figure 29, in no priority order. Project
development and selection considered the following factors:
• Identified appropriate safety countermeasures based on local corridor conditions, drawing on
emerging best practices and established national guidance, including FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures and NHTSA Countermeasures That Work.
• Considered cost-effectiveness, fundability, and potential co-benefits.
• Paired proven strategies with specific projects, including design and traffic operations
treatments and, where appropriate, enforcement and education recommendations.
• Included policy, education, and enforcement actions informed by the safety analysis and key
themes from community engagement.
• Reviewed projects alongside planned or funded initiatives at the local, regional, and WSDOT
levels to support coordination and integration.
• Identified prioritized projects as eligible for the SS4A Implementation Grant program and
other applicable funding sources.
Table 6. Priority Project List
ID Location Description
A
Citywide Signalized
Intersection Improvements
This project enhances safety at signalized intersections by
improving pedestrian visibility, managing turning movements,
providing dedicated space for biking, and discouraging red-light
running through targeted signal, implementing leading pedestrian
intervals, marking, and enforcement improvements.
B
Edmonds Downtown Core
Unsignalized Intersection
Improvements
This project improves safety in the downtown core by slowing
vehicle speeds, improving pedestrian visibility, enhancing
intersection design, and creating a more comfortable shared
street environment for people walking, biking, and driving.
C Highway 99 from 244th St.
SW to 234th St. SW
This project improves safety and accessibility by reducing
conflicts at driveways and slip lanes and providing safer, more
comfortable facilities for people walking, biking, and using transit.
Future SR 99 Projects: Edmonds is currently working on SR 99
Stage 3 from 244th to 238th. Construction is scheduled for
2029/2030.
D Highway 99 from 224th St
SW to 212th St. SW
This project improves safety by reducing speeding, improving
visibility, and upgrading pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities,
and reducing conflict points at driveways and intersections.
Future SR 99 Projects: Design is ongoing for the upcoming Stage
4 project (224th to 220th). This is partially within this project limits.
E 76th Av. W. from 208th St
SW to 224th St SW
This project improves safety along the corridor by creating
continuous bicycle connections, enhancing crossings and
intersection visibility, managing speeds, and reducing conflicts
between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 316/563
Edmonds CSAP | 40
ID Location Description
F 228th St. SW from 80th Ave
W to Interurban Trail
This project improves safety and connectivity by providing safer
crossings, better trail connections, and upgraded intersections for
people walking, biking, and driving.
G 100th Ave W from SR 104 to
220th St. SW
This project improves safety on Edmonds Way/100th Ave W by
reducing speeding, improving curve visibility, and exploring safer
travel options for all users.
H 220th St. SW from 80th Ave
West to Interurban Trail
This project improves safety along the corridor by reducing
conflicts near driveways, enhancing crossings and intersections,
and providing safer connections for people walking, biking, and
using transit.
I Puget Dr. from 12th Ave
North to 88th Ave W
This project improves safety along Puget Drive by reducing
speeding, improving visibility on curves, and enhancing safety for
people walking, biking, and driving through corridor and
intersection improvements.
J 9th Ave. N .and Main St
Intersection
This project improves safety at the intersection by reducing
vehicle speeds, improving pedestrian visibility, and better
accommodating bicyclists through intersection design and traffic
calming measures.
K SR 104 from 226th St SW to
236th St SW
This project improves safety by updating traffic signal timing in
real time and prioritizing transit movements where appropriate.
Source: Alta Planning and Design, 2025
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 317/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
Puget D r 196th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
The CSAP identified 11 priority projects:
A Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
B Downtown Unsignalized Intersection Improvements
C Highway 99 - (From) Stage 3/ (To) Stage 6
D Highway 99 - Stage 4 / Stage 9 / Stage 5
E 76th Avenue W
F 228th Street SW
G 100th Avenue W
H 220th Street SW
I Puget Drive
J 9th Avenue N and Main Street Intersection
K State Route 104
Price ranges for location specific improvements are as follows:
Under $1 Million
$1 - 5 Million
$5 - 10 Million
$10 - 20 Million
Over $20 Million
Disclaimer: All price ranges are estimations and are not suitable for construction purposes.
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$$
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 318/563
At intersections with a history of left turn crashes. All intersections with two or more left turn lanes.
■Protected left turn phase.
■Flashing yellow arrow.
At all major intersections with bicycle lanes.
■Solid bike lane markings (up to intersection) and green bike conflict markings (in intersection).
At all Intersections with pedestrian activity.
■High-visibility crosswalks.
At all legs where vehicles are expected to stop.
■Stop bars at least four feet back from crosswalk to encourage motorists to give space to pedestrians.
At intersections with higher pedestrian activity, and all intersections with Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs), bicycle lanes, and/or poor sight lines.
■Prohibit right turns on red.
All intersections in downtown Edmonds, or with moderate-high pedestrian activity, near schools, or with multi-use paths.
■LPIs at any intersections where signalization is added.
Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
Between 2018 and 2024, traffic crashes on Edmonds streets resulted in 61 serious injuries and one fatality. This project enhances safety at signalized intersections by improving pedestrian visibility, managing turning movements, providing dedicated space for biking, and discouraging red-light running through targeted signal, marking, and enforcement improvements.
Proposed Improvements
Various locations citywide
At intersections in downtown Edmonds or other areas with especially high pedestrian activity.
■Pedestrian scramble.
At intersections with high rates of motorists running red lights.
■Red light camera, used in conjunction with other signal timing measures.
At intersections with nighttime visibility concerns.
■Lighting to improve nighttime safety.
■Pedestrian-scale lighting.
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT A
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 319/563
E dm ond s - King s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
104
104
99
99
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
iew Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th A
ve W
Oly m pic View Dr
Puget D r 196th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼ ½Miles 99
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
99
A
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 320/563
At all Intersections
■Curb bulbs with small (ideally 15’) radius.
■A parking restriction (20-30’) near intersections.
At all crosswalks
■High-visibility crosswalks.
At high-volume or important intersections, where driver speed or yielding is a concern
■Raised intersection.
At all intersections, especially with a history of left-turn pedestrian collisions
■Left turn calming/centerline hardening.
At intersections with nighttime visibility concerns
■Lighting to improve nighttime safety.
■pedestrian-scale lighting
Downtown Unsignalized Intersection Improvements
This project improves safety in the downtown core by slowing vehicle speeds, improving pedestrian visibility, enhancing intersection design, and creating a more comfortable shared street environment for people walking, biking, and driving.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 247 reported crashes in this priority area. 92% of these crashes were vehicle-only crashes. Of the 247, four (or 2% of the total) resulted in KSIs. All four KSI crashes involved pedestrians. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crash total included vehicles going straight, making a left turn, or backing out. Top contributing driver behaviors included inattention or not granting right-of-way.
Proposed Improvements
Downtown Edmonds
5%
1%1%
92%
KSI Crashes
100%
AllCrashes
All Crashes KSI CrashesContributing Factors
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
41%
50%
16%
50%
Involved a vehicle turning left
18%
25%
Driver distraction or inattention
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
16%
25%
11%
Involved a vehicle backing out
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT B
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 321/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Intersection at Main St & 5th Ave S
■Shared streets that pedestrians can walk on, with 10 MPH speed limits.
■Traffic circle circulation signs at/in advance of the intersection.
Street View image courtesy of Google Earth Pro
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 322/563
At locations with high vehicle speeds/volumes and where Swift BRT stops can create conflicts.
■Enhance BAT (Business Access & Transit) lanes with intensified white lane lines, “BUS ONLY” pavement markings, dashed red-colored pavement, and additional signage.
At locations with a history of turning crashes at driveways
■Consolidate driveways where multiple serve the same parcel/lot.
At locations with narrow sidewalks
■Widen the sidewalk and add a sidewalk buffer.
At locations without bicycle facilities
■Add raised bicycle lanes with a buffer.
Highway 99 - Stage 3 / Stage 6
This project improves safety and accessibility by reducing conflicts at driveways and slip lanes and providing safer, more comfortable facilities for people walking, biking, and using transit.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 248 reported crashes in this priority area. 91% of these crashes were vehicle-only crashes. Of the 248, 14 (or 6% of the total) resulted in KSIs. The majority of KSIs (64%) involved pedestrians. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles driving straight ahead, turning left, and changing lanes. Top contributing driver behaviors included driver inattention, not granting right-of-way, and driving under the influence of alcohol (for KSI crashes).
BU
S
ON
L
Y
Proposed Improvements
Highway 99 from 244th St SW to 234th St SW
6%
2%1%
KSI Crashes
64%
91%
AllCrashes
14%21%
All Crashes KSI CrashesContributing Factors
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
38%
93%
22%
7%
Involved a vehicle turning left
20%
Involved a vehicle changing lanes
Driver distraction or inattention
17%
7%
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
17%4%
21%
Driver under the influence of alchol
99
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
Coordination with WSDOT may be needed.
(From)(To)
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT C
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 323/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Edmonds - Kingston FerryPUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104 9 9524
5
Main St9th Ave S Bowdoin Way 212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
100th Ave W 228th St SW 220th St SW5th Ave W 84th Ave W 76th Ave W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW 76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95th Pl WPine St 96th Ave WDayton St Maplewood Dr 208th St SW192nd St SW Meadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW 80th Ave W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW224th St SWLYNNWOODWOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9
At 234th St SW & 238th St SW
■ADA compliant ramps.
At 236th St SW & 238th St SW
■Redesign slip lanes to prevent vehicles from taking right turns across crosswalk at high speeds.
■Add signalized intersection improvements to reduce chances for conflicts and crashes at 238th St SW (Priority Project A).
Highway 99 & SR 104
■Crosswalk with flashing beacons (RRFB) (Priority Project A).
At N 244th St
■Add signalized intersection improvements to reduce chances for conflicts and crashes (Priority Project A).
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 324/563
Highway 99 - Stage 4 / Stage 9 / Stage 5
This project improves safety by reducing speeding, improving visibility, and upgrading pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, and reducing conflict points at driveways and intersections.
At locations with high vehicle speeds/volumes and where Swift BRT stops can create conflicts.
■Enhance BAT (Business Access & Transit) lanes with intensified white lane lines, BUS ONLY pavement markings, dashed red-colored pavement, and additional signage.
At locations with observed speeding and speed-related crashes.
■Install speed safety cameras.
At locations with narrow sidewalks
■Widen the sidewalk and add a sidewalk buffer.
At locations without bicycle facilities
■Raised bicycle lanes with a buffer.
At locations with a history of turning crashes at driveways.
■Consolidate driveways where multiple serve the same parcel/lot.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 550 reported crashes in this priority area. 96% of these crashes were vehicle-only crashes. Of the 550, 12 (or 2% of the total) resulted in KSIs. Most KSIs involved either motorcycles or scooters (33%), or vehicles (33%). 25% involved pedestrians. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles going straight ahead, making a left turn, or changing lanes. Top contributing driver behaviors included vehicles not granting right-of-way, driver inattention, and improper turning or merging.
BU
S
ON
L
Y
Proposed Improvements
Highway 99 from 224th St SW to 212th St SW
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
1%
2%1%
KSI Crashes
96%
AllCrashes
All Crashes KSI CrashesContributing Factors
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
43%
42%
27%
50%
Involved a vehicle turning left
12%
Involved a vehicle changing lanes
Driver distraction or inattention
19%
8%
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
20%
25%
3%
17%
Driver under the influence of alchol
25%
33%33%
8%8%
99
Coordination with WSDOT may be needed.
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT D
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 325/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
AEdmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104
9 9524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW Meadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9
At 220th St SW
■At locations with a history of nighttime crashes, add additional lighting and visibility improvements.
At Large Signalized Intersections with Higher Chances for Conflicts and Crashes
■Apply signalized intersection improvements at 212th St SW, 216th St SW, 220th St SW, and 224th St SW (Priority Project A).
At 216th St SW & 224th St SW
■ADA compliant ramps.
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 326/563
At locations with a history of bicycle crashes at driveways and intersections.
■Green bicycle conflict markings at major driveways and all intersections.
At locations with a history of rear end crashes.
■Advance intersection warning signs.
At locations with vehicle speeding concerns.
■Raised median.
At locations where the posted speed limit may not be appropriate given roadway context.
■Conduct a speed limit study to evaluate lower speed limits.
■Raised median to enforce lower speeds.
76th Avenue W
This project improves safety along the corridor by creating continuous bicycle connections, enhancing crossings and intersection visibility, managing speeds, and reducing conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 164 reported crashes in this priority area. 91% of these crashes were vehicle-only crashes. There were no KSI crashes reported. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles driving straight ahead and turning left or right. Top contributing driver behaviors included not granting right-of-way, following other vehicles too closely, and driver inattention.
Proposed Improvements
76th Ave W from 224th St SW to 208th St SW
4%
1%4%
91%
All CrashesContributing Factors
Driver distraction or inattention
10%
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
16%
AllCrashes 11%
Involved a vehicle following another too closely
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
49%24%
Involved a vehicle turning left
10%
Involved a vehicle turning right
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
Coordination with Snohomish County may be needed.
$$-$$$$$
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT E
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 327/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Edmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104
9 9524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW Meadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
210th St SW
218th St SW
215th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9
Near 215th and 210th
■Crosswalks with flashing beacons (RRFB) to reduce long distances between marked pedestrian crossings.
At 208th, 212th, 216th, and 220th St
■Signalized intersection improvements to reduce chances for conflicts and crashes.
From 220th down to 224th
■Buffered bike lanes connecting existing bike lanes to eliminate gaps in the existing bike infrastructure.
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 328/563
At locations with poor conditions and gaps in existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
■Multi-use path connecting to Interurban Trail and existing multi-use path along Lakeview.
At locations with an existing crossing of a regionally significant path.
■Pedestrian refuge.
At locations where there are long distances between marked pedestrian crossings, a history of pedestrian crashes, and a lack of pedestrian facility of both sides.
■Crosswalk with flashing beacons (RRFB) to connect pedestrians to existing sidewalks.
At large signalized intersections with higher chances for conflicts and crashes.
■Signalized intersection improvements.
228th Street SW
This project improves safety and connectivity by providing safer crossings, better trail connections, and upgraded intersections for people walking, biking, and driving.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 73 reported crashes in this priority area. 97% of these crashes were vehicle-only crashes and 3% involved pedestrians. Of the 73, 2 (or 3% of the total) resulted in KSIs. Half (50%) of the KSIs involved vehicles and half (50%) involved pedestrians. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles going straight ahead and making a left turn. Top contributing driver behaviors included vehicles disregarding traffic signs and signals, not granting right-of-way to other vehicles, driver distraction, and following other vehicles too closely.
Proposed Improvements
228th St SW from Interurban Trail to 80th Ave W
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
3%
97%
All CrashesContributing Factors
Driver distraction or inattention
12%
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
12%
AllCrashes 10%
Involved a vehicle following another too closely
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
74%21%
Involved a vehicle turning leftKSI Crashes50%50%
50%
KSI Crashes
50%
14%
Driver disregarding traffic signs and signals
50%
Coordination with Snohomish County is not needed since their ROW starts behind the existing sidewalk on south side of street.
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT F
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 329/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
AEdmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104
104
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW Meadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
210th St SW
218th St SW
215th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
224th St SW
15th St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9
At 80th Ave W
■Crosswalk with flashing beacons (RRFB) near/at 80th Ave W to connect pedestrians to the existing sidewalk on 228th St SW.
At 228th St SW
■Pedestrian refuge at Interurban Trail crossing.
At Hwy 99/228th St SW & 76th St SW/228th St SW
■Signalized intersection improvements (Priority Project A)
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 330/563
At locations where old striping is still visible.
■Resurface road and change bike lane to parking protected where on-street parking exists.
At locations with a history of turning crashes at driveway.
■Consolidate driveways where multiple serve the same parcel/lot.
■Extend the bicycle lanes.
At locations with gaps in bicycle facilities, existing bicycle lanes are narrow and have high likelihood of conflicts with parked cars and buses, and speeding concerns.
■Parking-protected bicycle lanes where on-street parking exists. ■Transit islands/shared boarding areas, if/when bicycle facilities run next to a transit stop.
100th Avenue W
This project improves safety on Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W by reducing speeding, improving curve visibility, and exploring safer travel options for all users.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 102 reported crashes in this priority area. 93% of these crashes were vehicle-only crashes. Of the 102, one (or nearly 1% of the total) was a KSI crash and involved a bicyclist. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles going straight ahead and making left or right turns. Top contributing driver behaviors included driver inattention, not granting right-of-way to other vehicles, and making improper turning or merge movements.
Proposed Improvements
Edmonds Way/ 100th Ave W from SR 104 to 220th St SW
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
2%
1%4%
93%
All CrashesContributing Factors
Driver distraction or inattention
20%
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
19%
AllCrashes
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
45%33%
Involved a vehicle turning leftKSI Crashes100%
KSI Crashes
100%
12%
Involved a vehicle turning right
11%
Involved a vehicle making an improper turn or merge
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT G
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 331/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Edmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104
1 0 4
9 9524
5
Main St9th
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76th Ave W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW 76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood Dr
208th St SW192nd St SW Meadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
210th St SW
218th St SW
215th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
224th St SW
15 t h St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9
At SR 104 and 220th St SW
■Signalized intersection improvements.
Through SR 104
■Extend bike lanes.
At 14th St SW, 15th St SW, 227th Pl SW, and SR 104
■ADA compliant ramps.
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 332/563
At locations with a history of rear end crashes.
■Advance intersection warning signs.
At locations with a gap in the existing bicycle facility.
■Raised/separated bicycle lanes or multi-use path to connect to existing bike lanes to the west and Interurban Trail to the east.
At locations with a history of bicycle crashes at driveways.
■Green bicycle conflict markings.
At locations where bus conflicts with the bike lane at bus stops.
■Transit boarding islands or shared boarding areas if/when bike facilities run next to a transit stop.
220th Street SW
This project improves safety along the corridor by reducing conflicts near driveways, enhancing crossings and intersections, and providing safer connections for people walking, biking, and using transit.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 214 reported crashes in this priority area. 96% of these crashes were vehicle-only crashes. Of the 214, one (or 0.5% of the total) was a KSI crash and involved a pedestrian. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles going straight ahead and making left or right turns. Top contributing driver behaviors included not granting right-of-way to other vehicles, driver inattention, and making improper turning or merge movements.
Proposed Improvements
80th Ave W to Interurban Trail
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
2%
1%1%
96%
All CrashesContributing Factors
Driver distraction or inattention
14%
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
19%
AllCrashes
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
46%19%
Involved a vehicle turning leftKSI Crashes100%
KSI Crashes
11%
Involved a vehicle turning right
11%
Involved a vehicle making an improper turn or merge
100%100%
Coordination with Snohomish County may be needed for certain improvements. The County limit starts south of existing sidewalk on the south side of the street.
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT H
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 333/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Edmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104
104
9 9524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SWMeadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
210th St SW
218th St SW
215th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
224th St SW
1 5 t h St SW
P u g e t Dr 196th St SW
236th St SW
232nd St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9 Interurb a n T r a il
At 220th St SW
■Add crosswalk with a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) and a pedestrian refuge where there is no marked crossing for trail users across 220th St SW.
Near Hwy 99
■Consolidate the driveways where there is a history of turning crashes at driveways.
At 76th Ave W and Hwy 99
■Add signalized intersection improvements where there are high possibilities for conflict (Priority Project A).
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 334/563
At locations with lane departure concerns due to significant grade and curve of the roadway, optimize the design to be tolerable to bicyclists.
■Enhanced delineation for horizontal curves such as curve chevron signs and wider edge lines.
■Rumble strips along edge lines and centerline.
At locations with a narrow sidewalk and no bicycle facility.
■Multi-use path, pending a feasibility study.
At locations where there are vehicle speeding concerns.
■A speed safety camera or speed feedback sign for downhill westbound traffic.
Puget Drive
This project improves safety along Puget Drive by reducing speeding, improving visibility on curves, and enhancing safety for people walking, biking, and driving through corridor and intersection improvements.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 36 reported crashes in this priority area. All were vehicle-only crashes. There were no KSI crashes recorded. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles going straight ahead, making left turns, or negotiating a curve. Top contributing driver behaviors included not granting right-of-way to other vehicles, driver inattention, and exceeding reasonable safe speeds.
Proposed Improvements
Puget Dr from 12th Ave N to 88th Ave W
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
100%
All CrashesContributing Factors
Driver distraction or inattention
14%
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
28%
AllCrashes
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
47%33%
Involved a vehicle turning left
8%
Involved a vehicle negotiating a curve
8%
Driver exceeding a reasonable safe speed
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT I
$$$$$
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 335/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Edmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104
1 0 4
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SW
Meadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW
184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
210th St SW
218th St SW
215th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
224th St SW
1 5 t h St SW
P u g e t D
r 196th St SW
236th St SW
232nd St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9 Interurb a n T r a il
Intersection at Puget Dr/88th Ave W/196th St SW
■Evaluate a roundabout or signalized intersection; consider right-in right-out, where there exists a skewed five-leg intersection with a history of crashes.
Aerial image courtesy of Google Earth Pro
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 336/563
At locations with a high volume stop-controlled intersection.
■One lane constrained mini roundabout. If there is insufficient space for appropriate bicycle lane improvements, then consider a signal.
At locations with a gap in the existing bicycle facility.
■Bicycle lanes if/when bicycle lanes are added along the streets, and include appropriate bicycle lane improvements in new intersection design.
At locations with vehicle speeding concerns.
■Add speed humps prior to intersection to calm traffic.
At locations with a history of pedestrian crashes.
■High visibility crosswalks if/when a new intersection design is constructed.
9th Avenue N and Main Street Intersection
This project improves safety at the intersection by reducing vehicle speeds, improving pedestrian visibility, and better accommodating bicyclists through intersection design and traffic calming measures.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 40 reported crashes in this priority area. 93% of these crashes involved vehicles. There were no KSI crashes recorded. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles going straight ahead and starting in a traffic lane. Top contributing driver behaviors included not granting right-of-way to other vehicles and driver inattention or distraction.
Proposed Improvements
9th Ave N and Main St
Please see the map on the following page for location-specific improvements.
3%
3%3%
All CrashesContributing Factors
Driver inattention
15%
Involved a driver not granting right-of-way
38%
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
75%23%
Involved a vehicle starting in the traffic lane
15%
Unknown driver distraction93%
AllCrashes
$$$$$
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT J
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 337/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
AEdmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
104
1 0 4
9 9524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St
Maplewood
D
r
208th St SW
192nd St SWMeadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
210th St SW
218th St SW
215th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
224th St SW
1 5 t h St SW
P u g e t Dr 196th St SW
236th St SW
232nd St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9 Interurb a n T r a il
On Main St Prior to the Intersection
■Add speed humps to calm traffic where vehicle speeding concerns exist.
Aerial image courtesy of Google Earth Pro
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 338/563
At locations with identified safety concerns related to ferry traffic and frequent vehicle back-ups and collisions.
■Adaptive Signal Control (ACS) system.
■Consider transit signal priority and safety signal improvements such as LPIs where they are not currently present.
State Route 104
This project improves safety by updating traffic signal timing in real time and prioritizing transit movements where appropriate.
Collision History
Between 2018 and 2024, there were 256 reported crashes in this priority area. 93% of these crashes involved vehicles. Of the 256, three (or 1% of the total) were KSI crashes. Top vehicle movements that contributed to the crashes included vehicles going straight ahead and making a left or right turn. Top contributing driver behaviors included not granting right-of-way to other vehicles, driver inattention, and exceeding reasonable safe speeds (for KSI crashes).
Proposed Improvements
SR 104 from 226th St SW to 236th St SW
2%
4%1%
93%
All CrashesContributing Factors
Driver distraction or inattention
18%
AllCrashes
Involved a vehicle going straight ahead
40%33%
Involved a vehicle turning leftKSI Crashes
100%
KSI Crashes
11%
Involved a vehicle turning right
Involved a vehicle not granting right-of-way
24%
67%33%
33%33%
67%
Driver exceeding a reasonable safe speed
33%
104
Coordination with WSDOT may be needed.
$$$$$
Priority Projects | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
PRIORITY PROJECT K
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 339/563
E d m o n d s - K i n g s t o n F erry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9
9 9
524
5
Main St9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
Ave
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olympic View Dr
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
238th St SW
200th St SW
76th Ave W
Oly m pic View Dr
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0 ¼½M i l e s 9 9
J
B
I
G
K
E
D
H
F
C
9 9
A
Edmonds - Kingston Ferry
PUGETSOUND
1 0 4
1 0 4
1 0 4
9 9524
5
Main St9th Ave S Bowdoin Way
212th St SW
Fir
d
a
l
e
A
ve
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
228th St SW
220th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
76th Ave W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
88th Ave WOlympic View Dr 76th Ave W
238th St SW
200th St SW 76th Ave W Oly mpic View Dr
234th St SW
N 205th St
95
t
h
P
l
W
Pine St
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
Dayton St Maplewood Dr 208th St SW192nd St SWMeadowdale Beach Rd176th St SW180th St SW184th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
242nd St SW
238th St SW
216th St SW
224th St SW
210th St SW
218th St SW
215th St SW
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
220th St SW
224th St SW
1 5 t h St SW
P u g e t Dr 196th St SW
236th St SW
232nd St SW
LYNNWOOD
WOODWAY
HILLWOOD
EDMONDS
0¼½Miles 9 9
9 9 Interurb a n T r a il
At 100th Ave W & SR 104
■Add signalized intersection improvements, such as LPIs (Priority Project A).
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Priority Projects
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 340/563
Edmonds CSAP | 64
Chapter 5: Action Plan and
Implementation Strategy
This chapter outlines the strategies Edmonds can implement to improve transportation safety
through an action plan, steps for successful implementation, and a framework for monitoring and
evaluating progress.
Action Plan
The following safety action plan (see Table 7)
presents strategies and actions that the Edmonds can
take to advance safety goals into policies, programs,
and operations. Grounded in the WSDOT Safe System
Approach 19 (Figure 30) and FHWA proven safety
countermeasures,20 these recommendations reflect
best practices from across North America and
beyond.
19 https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-06/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf
20 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures
Figure 30. WSDOT Safe System Approach Wheel
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 341/563
Edmonds CSAP | 65
Table 7. Safety Action Plan
Action Safe System
Categories Responsible Party Target Completion
Term 21
Level of Funding
Required 22 Potential Performance Metric
Planning & Design
Prioritize and implement safety treatments along the HIN, beginning with priority projects
identified in CSAP. Improvements should respond to the crash data and could include
improved illumination, pedestrian crossing enhancements, intersection treatments, signal
timing adjustments, or streetscape elements such as bulb-outs, medians, bikeways, etc.,
to slow traffic.
Safer Roads
City Edmonds,
WSDOT Long $$$
• Number of priority corridors that received
improvements.
• Number of safety improvements
implemented on HIN.
Improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and prioritize gaps in the network. Identify
funding and develop a plan to fill in major gaps. Safer Roads
City Edmonds,
WSDOT Long $-$$
• Percentage progress in filling identified gaps.
• Number of miles of completed sidewalk and
constructed bike lanes across all roads in Edmonds.
• Number of miles of completed sidewalk and
constructed bike lanes across all arterials and collectors
in Edmonds.
Address top priority locations identified within the CSAP. Priority locations are further
described in the project cutsheets and include:
1: Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
(Not location-specific)
2: Downtown Edmonds Unsignalized Intersection Improvements
(Downtown Edmonds core)
3: Highway 99 – Stage 3 / 6 from 244th Street Southwest to North 234th Street
4: Highway 99 – Stage 4/9/5 from 224th Street Southwest to 212th Street Southwest
Adaptive System
5: 76th Avenue West from 208th Street Southwest to 224th Street Southwest
6: 228th Street Southwest from 80th Avenue West to Interurban Trail
7: 100th Avenue West from SR-104 to 220th Street Southwest
8: 220th Street Southwest from 80th Avenue West to Interurban Trail
9: Puget Drive from 12th Avenue North to 88th Avenue West
10: 9th Avenue and Main Street Intersection
11: SR-104 from 226th Street Southwest to 236th Street Southwest Adaptive System
Safer Roads
City Edmonds,
WSDOT (locations 3
& 4), Snohomish
County (locations 5
& 8)
Long $-$$
• Number of priority corridors that received
improvements.
• Coordination and creation of ongoing efforts with
WSDOT, adjacent jurisdictions, and Snohomish County
Address accessibility (ADA) issues, such as adding curb ramps and removing sidewalk
obstructions where it is hard for a wheelchair or other mobility device to pass in
coordination with the adopted ADA Transition Plan. Safe Road
Users
City of Edmonds Medium $-$$ • Percentage progress on ADA identified improvement
areas.
21Target Completion Term
Short: 1-3 years
Medium: 4-7 years
Long: Over 8 years
Ongoing: reoccurring actions
22 Level of Funding Required
$- Likely achievable within typical operating budgets.
$$- May need an outside grant to complete.
$$$- Likely would require multiple large grants and/or identification of a new revenue source.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 342/563
Edmonds CSAP | 66
Action Safe System
Categories Responsible Party Target Completion
Term 21
Level of Funding
Required 22 Potential Performance Metric
Incorporate quick-build strategies and demonstration projects for rapid rollout of safety
improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. As funding becomes available, convert
temporary improvements to higher quality, more durable permanent improvements. Safer Roads
City of Edmonds Short $ • Number of quick build projects implemented
• Conversion of projects to permanent improvements
Evaluate all road resurfacing and repainting projects for potential to incorporate:
• Road diets/road reconfigurations
• Narrower lane widths (11' on arterials and 10' on local/collector streets)
• Daylighted intersections/curb bulb-outs using quick-build materials
• Reduced curb radii
• Marked crosswalks
Safer Roads
City of Edmonds Ongoing $
• Number of resurfacing and repainting projects with
safety incorporations
• Updated resurfacing and repainting guidance to
evaluate concurrent feasible safety additions
Policies & Programs
Update the City of Edmonds Design & Construction Standard Plans focusing on
vulnerable roadway user safety. Consider developing standards to minimize curb radii,
and pedestrian crossing spacing standards. Update roadway functional classification
minimum elements to provide buffered bike lanes on all arterials, and update bicycle lane
widths/separation to match national guidance. Consider adding driveway standards that
improve the pedestrian ROW.
Safer Roads
City Edmonds Medium $
• Adoption of updated Design & Construction Standard
Plans.
• Number of new or reconstructed intersections meeting
updated standards.
• Reduction in pedestrian and bicycle crashes or near-
misses at improved locations.
Appoint a permanent Edmonds Safety Task Force that meets quarterly to track progress.
Publish an annual report or webpage that tracks implementation progress using key
performance indicators or dedicate one Council working session a year towards safety.
Create a safety annual progress report to track the performance metrics/progress of
action items. Safer Road
Users
City Edmonds Short $
• Creation of Task Force group.
• Number of briefings.
• Completion of annual report and evaluation.
Coordinate with the Edmonds School District to update the Safe Routes to School
Program and curriculum. Identify funding opportunities especially at the State level and
explore ways to further engage youth in safety related efforts. (See the Funding Resources
tab) Safer Road
Users
City Edmonds,
Edmonds Public
School
Ongoing $
• Create timeline and coordination plan with Edmonds
School District to regularly evaluate and update
curriculum.
• Number of funding opportunities applied to (as needed)
Regularly update (every 2-3 years) the High Injury Network based on the most recent
data available and update this CSAP every 5 years to track progress and meet evolving
needs. Safer Roads
City of Edmonds Short-Medium $$
• Completion of HIN Map updates (2-3 years) and
Transportation Safety Action Plan every 5 years.
• Include designated timeline and completion standards
to follow.
Continue to gather public feedback and empower the public to share roadway safety
concerns. Safer Road
Users
City of Edmonds Ongoing $
• Number of events and communications
containing transportation safety information
and updates.
Work with local law enforcement to conduct high visibility enforcement (HVE) of unlawful
and dangerous activities while driving such as driving under the influence (DUI) or using a
hand-held cell phone. Establish dedicated traffic patrol units that use specialized
techniques to enforce unlawful activities, such as the spotter technique. Broadcast the
efforts of the unit through social media or other paid media. Pair these efforts with a
public relations campaign that makes clear the difference between unlawful and allowed
activities.
Safer Road
Users
City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Police
Department
Ongoing $$
• Number of high-visibility enforcement (HVE) operations
conducted
• Number of social media posts or media releases
promoting enforcement efforts
• Reduction in crashes, injuries, or fatalities related to DUI
or distracted driving
• Observed decrease in handheld cell phone use or
impaired driving incidents
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 343/563
Edmonds CSAP | 67
Action Safe System
Categories Responsible Party Target Completion
Term 21
Level of Funding
Required 22 Potential Performance Metric
Develop a citywide Speed Management Plan to prioritize streets for speed management
and develop a Standard Operating Procedure for setting speed limits. Work with partners
to lower speed limits on high injury corridors, where appropriate. Use context-sensitive
speed limit setting procedures such as the NACTO City Limits and 2023 updated
MUTCD guidance.
Safer Speeds
City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Police
Department,
Snohomish County,
WSDOT
Short $$ • Track the start, completion, adoption and
implementation of a Speed Management Plan.
Add speed feedback signs or other traffic calming devices (such as signage, speed
tables, striping) along high injury corridors and in school zones where they are not
currently present. Safer Speeds
City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Police
Department
Ongoing $
• Measure reduction in vehicle speeds after
speed feedback signs have been installed.
• Track the increase in the number of speed
feedback signs installed on high injury
corridors.
Coordinate with partners to assess needs for post-crash response improvements. Identify
and partner with relevant community partners to determine data sharing needs, response
needs, and victim priorities. Create a response improvement plan based on these
findings.
Post-Crash
Care
City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Police
Department
Medium $
• Number of partner agencies engaged (e.g., fire, EMS,
law enforcement, hospitals, transportation).
• Creation of a response improvement plan
Develop a program to enforce speed limits and vehicles stopping at stop signals through
automated speed safety, school zone, and red-light cameras at identified priority
locations. Continue school zone photo enforcement and expand photo enforcement into
more school zones and into non-school zones as allowed by state law and authorized by
city code. Allocate revenue generated from ATE to implement street design and
improvement measures to address high motor vehicle speeds.
Safer Speeds
City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Police
Department
Ongoing $$
• Number of speed safety cameras installed.
• Percent reduction in vehicles traveling 10 mph or more
over the posted speed limit at speed safety camera
locations
Increase road users’ visibility to each other through roadway designs that routinely include
lighting, raised intersections, and daylighting corners (such as through removing parking)
that enhance yielding compliance at intersections. Improve lighting at pedestrian crossing
locations identified in the prioritized project list map. Safer Roads
City of Edmonds Ongoing $$
• Percent reduction in intersection related crashes at
areas where daylighting strategies have been
implemented
Review, update, and maintain local ordinances and standard plans regarding the
appropriate use of emerging micromobility technologies such as e-scooters and e-bikes.
Safer
Vehicles
City of Edmonds Short $
• Creation of micromobility plan/strategy document
Revise zoning codes to allow mixed use in residential districts to reduce the necessity to
drive and provide greater accessibility for people walking and biking to everyday
destinations (as well as access to transit stops). In turn, this will reduce motor vehicle
traffic volumes and vulnerable road user exposure to motor vehicles. Safer Land
Use
City of Edmonds,
Snohomish County Long $
• Conduct a review of existing zoning codes and identify
residential areas that could allow mixed-use
development
• Evaluate mechanisms to allow/or change primarily
residential areas to mixed use development in existing
zoning codes, and develop a zoning update plan.
Reduce or eliminate parking minimums, with a focus downtown, to make these projects
more financially feasible and allow more flexible land use options. Coordinate with
WSDOT and adjacent jurisdictions to coordinate projects with shared jurisdictions. Safer Land
Use
City of Edmonds Long $
• Conduct a review of existing parking requirements and
identify strategies that could eliminate minimums in
downtown and other relevant areas.
Education
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 344/563
Edmonds CSAP | 68
Action Safe System
Categories Responsible Party Target Completion
Term 21
Level of Funding
Required 22 Potential Performance Metric
Launch a safety campaign focusing on key safety concerns identified in the Action Plan,
such as speeding, distracted driving, and bicycle/pedestrian awareness. Develop roadway
safety education materials such as yard signs and billboard messages. Create resources,
handouts, and talking points about roadway safety concerns and needs for each county to
support advocates and inform decision makers and elected officials. Additionally explore
key groups to engage further, such as youth/students and commuters to encourage
inclusivity of education efforts.
Safe Road
Users
City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Police
Department
Medium $$
• Completion of campaign design.
• Number of community members reached through the
campaign.
• Number of community partners helping to
promote the campaign.
Develop an education program for new and young drivers. Collaborate with Edmonds
school districts and Snohomish County Target Zero to collaborate on younger driver
education programs. Safe Road
Users
City of Edmonds,
Snohomish County Medium $
• Completion of campaign design.
• Number of community members reached through the
campaign.
• Number of community partners helping to
promote the campaign (school districts, Snohomish
County Vision Zero).
Offer first responders traffic incident management (TIM) responder training such as that
offered by FHWA. Post-Crash
Care
City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Police
Department
Ongoing $
• Number of trainings offered per year
• Number of partner agencies engaged (e.g., fire, EMS,
law enforcement, hospitals, transportation).
Source: Alta Planning + Design, 2025
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 345/563
Edmonds CSAP | 69
Implementing the Plan
Defining projects, countermeasures, actions, and strategies is essential, but a coordinated
implementation process is crucial to the success of this CSAP. Key considerations for effective
implementation that align with SS4A grant requirements include:
• Oversight and Accountability - After CSAP adoption, maintain the existing Task Force, made
up of stakeholders and community members, to serve in an ongoing role. The Task Force will
help maintain sustained focus and success implementing projects and actions identified in
the CSAP. Such a committee would meet on quarterly basis to discuss delivery of projects,
status of action items, and provide general support to advancing CSAP implementation.
• Coordination and Partnerships – Provide regular updates on action plan progress and
coordinating with agency partners, such as Public Works, adjacent jurisdictions where
applicable, and representatives from police, fire, and schools. Regular communication with
agency partners helps create sustained support, creates opportunities to bundle safety
projects or initiatives with other related ongoing efforts, and facilitates CSAP implementation.
• Communication – Continued communication with stakeholders and community members
through the Task Force and regular community outreach builds trust and support for safety
goals in Edmonds. Strategies include communication across diverse challenges, publication
of fact sheets on action plan progress, and regular public conversation on the topic of safety.
• Phasing and Sequencing – To see meaningful progress in road safety performance, sustained
commitment and investment is needed in the near-term, mid-term, and long-term:
• Short-term implementation efforts may focus on successful completion of ongoing safety
efforts and lower-cost improvements that can be constructed within three years.
• Medium-term implementation efforts may target larger and more comprehensive safety
infrastructure projects and more complex programmatic efforts that require extensive
cross-department collaboration.
• Long-term implementation efforts may focus on initiating significant shifts in Edmonds’
approach to planning and design to incorporate the Safe System Approach.
• Funding – Funding can be a major hurdle in CSAP implementation. Staying up to date on
relevant grant opportunities and proactively pursuing grant funding for the most competitive
projects can help overcome funding hurdles. Edmonds can take advantage of a variety of
regional, state, and federal funding sources to finance safety project planning, design, and
construction in Edmonds. Funding, including required matches, and resources generally must
be available from the City to provide a successful grant application. See Table 8 for potential
funding resources to consider.
Table 8. Transportation Safety Funding Sources
Program Name Program Purpose
Federal Sources
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program is a flexible program that provides communities
with resources to address a wide range of unique
community development needs. Communities often use
CDBG funds to construct and repair streets and
sidewalks.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 346/563
Edmonds CSAP | 70
Program Name Program Purpose
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Grant Program
The SS4A program supports development and
implementation of a comprehensive safety action plan
(Action Plan) to identify and treat the most significant
roadway safety concerns in a community. Applicants
must have an eligible Action Plan to apply for an
implementation grant. The SS4A program can be used to
support safety projects and strategies that address
serious safety violations of drivers (e.g., speeding,
alcohol, and drug-impaired driving), so long as the
proposed strategies are data-driven and demonstrate a
process in alignment with goals around community
policing and in accordance with federal civil rights laws
and regulations.
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD) Grant Program
The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD) Grant Program provides grants for
surface transportation infrastructure projects with
significant local or regional impact. The BUILD program
can fund the surface transportation infrastructure
elements of a project that may also include housing,
employment opportunities, and economic development
strategies.
Active Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program (ATIIP)
The Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment
Program (ATIIP), funded by FHWA, awards planning and
design grants and construction grants for eligible
applicants to develop plans for active transportation
networks and spines. One goal of both types of ATIIP
grants is to integrate active transportation facilities with
transit services, where available, to improve access to
public transportation.
Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP)
The Federal Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program
provides funding for programs and projects defined as
transportation alternatives, including on- and off- road
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects
for improving non-driver access to public transportation
and improved mobility, community improvement
activities and environmental remediation; recreational
trail program projects; and safe routes to school projects.
State Sources
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)
The federally funded Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) allocates funds to local and state
roadways in Washington based on fatal and serious injury
crash data, with funding split between the County Safety
Program and City Safety Program for targeted
infrastructure improvements. Cities in Washington must
have a Local Road Safety Plan to apply for HSIP funding,
with a biennial call for projects under the City Safety
Program.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 347/563
Edmonds CSAP | 71
Program Name Program Purpose
Surface Transportation Block Grant
(STBG)
The federal Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG)
program provides flexible funding for various
transportation infrastructure projects, including transit,
highways, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and
traffic safety initiatives, with allocations set by WSDOT
and administered through regional and countywide
competitions. Public agencies responsible for eligible
transportation facilities can apply for STBG funding,
which is distributed approximately every two years.
Transportation Alternatives (TA)
Program
The Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside under the
STBG funds smaller-scale transportation projects,
including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, non-driver
access improvements, community enhancements, and
safe routes to school initiatives, with funding
administered by state and regional agencies. Public
agencies, including cities and towns with Certification
Acceptance status, can apply for up to $2.5 million per
project, with a limit of two applications per agency.
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Program (PBP)
The Pedestrian and Bicyclist Program (PBP) aims to
enhance safety and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists
by funding construction and design projects that help
eliminate fatal and serious injuries, supported by
Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. All public
agencies and tribal governments in Washington can
apply, with no match requirement or funding limits, and
applications typically due at the end of May each year.
Urban Arterial Program (UAP)
The Urban Arterial Program (UAP), funded by the
Transportation Improvement Board, supports arterial
safety, growth, and mobility improvements for eligible
city and county roadways classified as principal, minor, or
collector routes. Cities with populations of 5,000 or more
and eligible counties can apply, with local match
requirements based on city valuation; applications are
accepted from June to August each year.
Urban Active Transportation Program
(ATP)
The Urban Active Transportation Program (ATP), funded
by the Transportation Improvement Board, supports
projects that enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety,
mobility, connectivity, and infrastructure conditions on
eligible city and county roadways. Cities with populations
of 5,000 or more and eligible counties can apply, with
local match requirements based on city valuation;
applications are accepted from June to August each year.
Complete Streets Award (CS)
The Complete Streets (CS) Award, offered periodically
by the Transportation Improvement Board, provides
additional funding to Urban and Small Cities that
demonstrate a commitment to complete streets
principles by designing roads for all modes, users, and
abilities. Agencies with an adopted Complete Streets
ordinance, are eligible for funding, with the next funding
cycle yet to be announced.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 348/563
Edmonds CSAP | 72
Program Name Program Purpose
Construction and Pre-construction
Loan Program
The Public Works Board provides loans to support
infrastructure systems, including roads and streets, with
funding available for both construction projects and pre-
construction activities such as design, right-of-way
acquisition, and permitting. Counties, cities, special
purpose districts, and qualifying quasi-municipal
organizations can apply, with construction funding
awarded in cycles (most recently closed in June) and
pre-construction applications accepted continuously and
awarded quarterly until funds are expended.
Walker and/or Roller Safety
Enhancement Projects
The Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)
offers $1.5 million in federal funding for Walker and Roller
Safety Enhancement Projects to improve pedestrian and
bicyclist safety through law enforcement training, public
education, and enforcement campaigns. Eligible
applicants, including state agencies, tribal governments,
cities, counties, and non-profits, can apply for grants
ranging from $30,000 to $250,000, with a required
minimum 10% cash match.
Law Enforcement School Zone Grant
The Traffic Safety Commission provides law enforcement
equipment grants to agencies that actively conduct in-
person enforcement for speed management in active
school zones with funds available for traffic enforcement
equipment and helping improve safety on the roads.
Fund levels are based on the number of traffic citations
issued within one year prior to the date of application
with $25 awarded per citation.
School Zone Crossing Guard Grants
This grant provides funding to public, private, and tribal
elementary or middle schools for crossing guard
equipment and training materials, offering up to $300 for
existing patrols and up to $500 for new patrols. Eligible
items include flags, cones, signs, whistles, vests,
raincoats, gloves, and hats, with support from AAA of
Washington for training and program registration.
Let's Go Program
The Let’s Go program equips elementary schools with a
multi-week bicycle and pedestrian safety curriculum for
grades 3–5, fostering confidence, safe riding skills, and
active transportation habits. Supported by Cascade
Bicycle Club, the program has reached over 47,000
students across Washington, with expansions into middle
schools through the Let’s Go Further initiative to promote
lifelong safe and sustainable mobility.
Local and Regional Sources
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 349/563
Edmonds CSAP | 73
Program Name Program Purpose
Transportation Impact Fees (TIF)
Edmonds has an adopted transportation impact fee (TIF)
program to facilitate transportation and promote
economic well-being within the City. TIF funds are for
capacity projects but can include safety elements. TIF
funds can only be spent on projects identified in the
current TIF rate study. More information on TIF can be
found in Edmonds Community Development Code
Chapter 3.36.
Source: Alta Planning; Fehr & Peers, 2026.
Ongoing Evaluation
Ongoing evaluation of progress in implementing the safety action plan is essential for tracking
progress toward safety goals, informing future investment decisions, and meeting grant funding
requirements. To support this, several performance measures are recommended for review every two
years.
The target performance measures will be evaluated and reported using the Safety Report Card, which
will be updated every two years. The Safety Report Card will highlight successes and identify areas in
need of additional attention and resources. The initial Safety Report Card is shown in Table 9. The
table includes performance measures documented for 2018 to 2024. These can be seen in the
WSDOT Crash Data Portal 23 or WTSC Data Dashboards 24. Future CSAP Safety Report Card updates
will include a comparison of previous and current metrics to evaluate how the performance measures
track toward the safety goal.
23 https://remoteapps.wsdot.wa.gov/highwaysafety/collision/data/portal/public/
24 https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 350/563
Edmonds CSAP | 74
Table 9. Initial Safety Report Card
Performance
Measure 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Average
(2018-
2024)
All Crashes 577 569 386 441 437 458 419 470
Total KSIs 11 10 4 7 7 10 13 9
Bicycle Total
Crashes 5 8 2 8 3 8 6 6
Bicycle KSI
Crashes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Pedestrian Total
Crashes 13 15 10 6 14 16 19 13
Pedestrian KSI
Crashes 4 3 1 2 5 4 6 4
Vehicle Total
Crashes 545 537 370 416 414 423 388 442
Vehicle KSI
Crashes 5 5 2 2 1 2 5 3
Motorcycle Total
Crashes 14 9 4 11 7 11 6 9
Motorcycle KSI
Crashes 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 2
Source: 2018-2024 WSDOT Data, Fehr & Peers, 2026.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 351/563
P
Appendices
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 352/563
P
Appendix A: List of Definitions
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 353/563
Appendix A. List of Definitions | 1
Definitions of Key CSAP Terminology
Crash Likelihood Factors
Characteristics or circumstances that increase the probability of a vehicle collision. These factors can
relate to the driver, the vehicle, the road environment, or external conditions. For Burien’s CSAP,
crash likelihood factors were identified through the existing conditions analysis and include patterns
such as high vehicle speeds and major intersections.
High Injury Network (HIN)
The roadway segments with the highest concentration of fatal and serious injury crashes. Identifying
the HIN helps communities focus on safety improvements where they will have the greatest impact.
This analysis uses street network and crash data to prioritize locations with a documented crash
history, allowing targeted investments in the most critical corridors.
High Risk Network (HRN) or Elevated Traffic Safety Conditions
The roadway segments where traffic patterns, speeds, and other factors make crashes more likely to
occur—even in places with few or no recorded crashes. The HRN combines crash history with
contextual information such as land use and roadway characteristics to identify system-wide safety
concerns and street features associated with higher crash likelihood and severity.
Killed or Serious Injury (KSI) Crash
KSI crashes are fatal or serious injury crashes. A fatal crash is a crash within which the most severe
injury was a death within 30 days of the crash because of injuries sustained during the crash. A
serious injury is a non-fatal injury which included bodily injuries such as broken bones; serious
lacerations; crush injuries; suspected injuries to the skull, chest, or abdomen; or significant burns.
Source: Washington Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Overburdened Communities of WA
Neighborhoods in Washington State experiencing greater environmental health risks and
socioeconomic challenges, as identified by tools such as the Washington Environmental Health
Disparities (EHD) Map. These areas often face higher transportation safety risks. The Overburdened
Communities dataset 1 combines census tracts ranked 9 or 10 in the EHD Map, tracts identified as
“disadvantaged” by the federal Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), and tracts
overlapping Tribal reservations recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Safe System Approach
A roadway safety strategy that accepts human mistakes will occur but designs the transportation
system such that mistakes do not result in death or serious injury. It focuses on creating safer roads,
managing speeds, improving vehicle safety, and supporting safe behaviors among road users.2
The FHWA visualizes the Safe System Approach in a wheel that contains five objectives (Figure 1):
•Safer People
•Safer Roads
•Safer Vehicles
•Safer Speeds
•Post-Crash Care
1 https://gis.ecology.wa.gov/portal/home/item.html?id=454c5efc20334dc4909405310b2dbfcb
2 https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-approach
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 354/563
Appendix A. List of Definitions | 2
Washington State adds an additional objective to this wheel (Figure 2):
•Safer Land Use
Figure 1: FHWA Safe System Approach Wheel
Source: https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-
approach
Safety Countermeasure
A specific action or design change that reduces the
risk or severity of crashes—such as adding crosswalks, improving lighting, narrowing lanes, or
installing roundabouts. FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative identifies 28 strategies
effective in reducing fatalities and serious injuries on roads of all types. These countermeasures
address at least one safety focus area—speed management, intersections, roadway departures, or
pedestrians/bicyclists—and many address multiple areas. 3
Vision Zero
A strategy to eliminate all traffic deaths and serious injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and
equitable mobility for everyone. Communities adopting Vision Zero commit to a target year for
achieving zero deaths and implement policies and projects to redesign streets, manage speeds, and
improve transportation safety for all users.4
Vulnerable Road User (VRU)
A person who is more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash because they have little or no
physical protection. This group includes people walking, biking, using wheelchairs, or riding
motorcycles, mopeds, or scooters.
3 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures
4 https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths
Figure 2: Washington State Safe System Approach
Wheel
Source: https://targetzero.com/
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 355/563
P
Appendix B: Task Force Meetings
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 356/563
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Task Force Meeting #1
July 21, 2025
5:00 – 6:30 PM
Purpose of the Meeting: Introduce the project, get to know members of the Advisory Group and the
consultant team, describe the public outreach process and CSAP, and discuss safety challenges/safety
improvements in Edmonds.
Topic Timing
Introductions, Meeting Purpose, and Welcome Remarks
-Round Robin (<1 min per person): name, affiliation
5:00 – 5:20
Background on Advisory Group, Role of Advisory Group, Safe Systems Approach,
What is a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan?
Review existing crash data (trends, modal trends, etc.) in Edmonds.
5:20 – 5:45
Discussion
•How comfortable do you feel walking, biking, rolling or driving in Edmonds?
•What are your greatest transportation safety concerns in Edmonds related to
infrastructure?
•What are your greatest transportation safety concerns in Edmonds related to
behavior?
•What kinds of things would you like to be considered in this plan?
•What surprises you about the data or findings? What resonates with you?
•What do you think would be the biggest challenges to navigate for improving
safety in Edmonds?
5:45-6:25
Wrap Up and Next Steps 6:25 – 6:30
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 357/563
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Task Force Meeting #1 | July 21, 2025
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 358/563
Agenda
•Introductions
•Edmonds CSAP Overview
•Existing Conditions Crash Data Review
•Group Discussion
•Next Steps
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 359/563
Introductions
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 360/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 361/563
Role of the Task Force
•Advise and shape what goes into the CSAP
•Meet three times:
•Today: Introduction and Existing Conditions
•Meeting 2: Solutions and Projects
•Meeting 3: Plan Content Review
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 362/563
Key Steps in the Plan
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/SS4A_FY25-Self-Certification-Worksheet.pdf
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 363/563
Vocabulary
•Comprehensive Safety Action Plan – prioritized work plan to reach zero fatalities and serious injuries on the transportation network
•Crashes or Collisions not accidents
•KSI – Killed or Serious Injury Crashes
•Systemic Safety – Applying changes to a system based on risk, not just history
•Vulnerable Road Users –motorcyclists, pedestrians, bicyclists, or wheelchair users
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 364/563
Overview of Crash Data (2018-2024)
3,287 Total crashes
62 crashes resulted in serious
injury or death (KSI)
The data includes all reported roadway crashes in the City of
Edmonds from 2018 to 2024, including city-owned roadways, state
routes, and border streets. The buffer distance for the crash data
used was 35ft. The data does not include Esperance.
4 modes
Vehicle only
Pedestrians
Bicyclists
Motorcyclists
577 569
385
440 438 458 420
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 365/563
Crash Overview
577 569
385
440 438 458 420
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 The data includes all reported roadway crashes in the City of
Edmonds from 2018 to 2024, including city-owned roadways,
state routes, and border streets. The buffer distance for the
crash data used was 35ft. The data does not include Esperance.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 366/563
Crashes by Year & Injury Type
Between 2018 and 2024…
•27% decrease in the total number of crashes
•18% increase in the number of KSI crashes
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Property Damage Only Possible or Minor Injury Killed or Serious Injury Unknown
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 367/563
Edmonds vs Snohomish County
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Edmonds
Property Damage Only Possible or Minor Injury Killed or Serious Injury Unknown
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Snohomish County
Total Crashes KSI Crashes
Snohomish County data: https://remoteapps.wsdot.wa.gov/highwaysafety/collision/data/portal/public/
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 368/563
Edmonds vs Snohomish County
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Edmonds
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Snohomish County
KSI Crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 369/563
All Crashes vs. KSI Crashes by Mode
Vulnerable road user crashes account for…
•6% of all crashes
•62% of KSI crashes
All Crashes in Edmonds2018 - 2024
KSI Crashes in Edmonds2018 - 2024
Vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
1%
94%
2%
3%
40%
3%
21%
36%
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 370/563
KSI Crashes by Mode
5 5
2 2 1 2
5
4 3
1 2 5 4
6
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Vehicle Pedestrian
Vulnerable road user crashes account for…
•6% of all crashes
•62% of KSI crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 371/563
KSI Crashes Statistics
Going Straight Ahead Making Left Turn Negotiating a Curve
A vehicle was going
straight ahead in 66% of
KSI crashes.
A vehicle was making a left
turn in 14% of KSI crashes.
A vehicle was negotiating a
curve in 9% of KSI crashes.
Driver Distraction/ Inattention
Distracted driving was a
contributing circumstance
in 21% of KSI crashes.
Under the Influence
Under the influence of alcohol or
drugs was a contributing
circumstance in 13% of KSI
crashes.
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
Ci
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
Ot
h
e
r
Time of Day
Highest rates (52%) of KSIs
between 5-11pm.
Lighting Condition
49% of KSI crashes occurred
in dark, dawn, or dusk.
Intersections or Driveways
65% of KSI crashes were
intersection related*.
*At intersection and related, intersection related and not at an
intersection, entering roundabout, at driveway
KSI Crash Information
Failure to Yield
Failing to yield was a
contributing circumstance
in 16% of KSI crashes.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 372/563
Area Equity Analysis
The Area Equity Analysis combined the 10 demographic, opportunity, and environmental weighted variables to create a composite equity score.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 373/563
Percent of KSIs within Equity Areas
•Edmonds overburdened census tracts accounts for 55% of KSI crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 374/563
Discussion
•How comfortable do you feel walking, biking, rolling or driving in Edmonds?
•What are your greatest transportation safety concerns in Edmonds related to infrastructure?
•What are your greatest transportation safety concerns in Edmonds related to behavior?
•What kinds of things would you like to be considered in this plan?
•What surprises you about the data or findings? What resonates with you?
•What do you think would be the biggest challenges to navigate for improving safety in Edmonds?
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 375/563
Engagement Phase 1
•Online interactive map and survey
•Project email list
•Promotion through social media and press releases
•Virtual Open House in August
•4 pop-up tabling events in August (farmer’s market, grocery store, concerts in the park)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 376/563
Milestones
Advisory Group Meeting #1
Today
DataReport Back
Advisory Group Meeting #3
December
Draft Safety Projects/Solutions
Advisory Group Meeting #2
August/September
Priority Safety Project Development
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 377/563
Overall Schedule
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 378/563
Next Steps
•Community Engagement
•Identify key crash profiles
•Develop prioritization metrics
•Identify priority locations
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 379/563
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Task Force Meeting #2
Meeting Notes
November 19, 2025
5:00 – 6:30 PM
Purpose of the Meeting: Introduce the project, get to know members of the Advisory Group and the
consultant team, describe the public outreach process and CSAP, and discuss safety challenges/safety
improvements in Edmonds.
Topic Timing
Introductions, Meeting Purpose, and Welcome Remarks 5:00 – 5:20
Plan Goals
Engagement
Systemic Safety Analysis
Safety Project Selection / Group Discussion
Policies and Actions
5:20 – 5:45
Discussion 5:45-6:25
Wrap Up and Next Steps 6:25 – 6:30
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 380/563
Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan
Task Force Meeting #2 | November 19, 2025
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 381/563
Agenda
•Recap: CSAP Goals (5 min)
•Recap: Engagement (5 min)
•Systemic Safety Analysis (5 min)
•Safety Project Selection and Group Discussion (40 min)
•Design, Policy, and Education Actions and Group Discussion
(30 min)
•Next Steps (5 min)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 382/563
Role of the Task Force + Recap
•Advise and shape what goes into the CSAP
•Meet three times:
•Meeting 1: Introduction and Existing Conditions (July ‘25)
•Meeting 2: Solutions and Projects (November ‘25)
•Meeting 3: Plan Content Review (Spring ‘26)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 383/563
CSAP Schedule
Project Kick -off
Summer 2025
Set Project
Priorities and
Efforts
Policy, Strategy,
and Project
Identification
Fall 2025
Draft Safety
Projects/Solutions
Engagement +
Analysis
Summer + Fall 2025
Determine
Community Goals
+ Analyze Needs
Plan
Development
Winter 2025 –Spring
2026
Finalize and
Share CSAP
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 384/563
How We've Been Listening
Collaborative
Online Pin Map
Online Survey
(~100 responses)
4 Pop -Up Events
(~200 visitors)
Virtual Open House
(11 attendees)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 385/563
How We’ve Been Listening
Virtual Open House:
•11 attendees
•Polling and in -depth feedback: Supplement to broader engagement
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 386/563
Interactive Pin Map Pop-Up Events
(Saturday Market, Concert in the Park, Grocery Store Tabling)
How We've Been Listening
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 387/563
Some of What We've Heard:
250+ Community Members
“More connected, and
safe bike lanes and bike
connections to transit”
“Safer pedestrian
crossings and more
sidewalks in residential
areas”
“Lower vehicle speeds
and safer
intersections”
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 388/563
Systemic Safety Analysis
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 389/563
Systemic Safety Analysis
Methodology:
•Reviewed crash data and context data (GIS roadway
information)
•Exploratory analysis of crashes using roadway contextual data
•Identify risk factors for each mode (vehicle, bicycle,
pedestrian)
•Assigned points to each road segment based on the presence
of each risk factor (up to one point per risk factor)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 390/563
Systemic Safety Analysis
Downtown or
Commercial
Land Use
Within 250 ft
of a Transit
Stop
Segment with
a commercial
driveway and a
center turn
lane
Arterials with
speeds over
35 MPH
Med -High to
High Equity
Concern
Area
Intersection
of two major
roads
On an
unprotected
bicycle
facility
Identified Risk Factors:
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 391/563
Vehicle Risk Factors
Downtown or Commercial Land Use:
68% of crashes, 59% of KSIs
Arterials with speeds over 35 MPH:
75% of crashes, 77% of KSIs
Med -High to High Equity Concern Area:
58% of crashes, 45% of KSIs
Intersection of two major roads:
31% of crashes, 32% of KSIs
Segment with a commercial driveway and a
center turn lane: 18% of crashes, 27% of KSIs
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 392/563
Bicycle Risk Factors
Downtown or Commercial Land Use:
65% of crashes, 50% of KSIs
Arterials with speeds over 35 MPH:
73% of crashes, 100 % of KSIs
Med -High to High Equity Concern Area:
55% of crashes, 50 % of KSIs
Within 250 feet of a transit stop:
55% of crashes, 0% of KSIs
On an unprotected bicycle facility:
40 % of crashes, 50 % of KSIs
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 393/563
Pedestrian Risk Factors
Downtown or Commercial Land Use:
65% of crashes, 72% of KSIs
Arterials with speeds over 35 MPH:
60 % of crashes, 60% of KSIs
Med -High to High Equity Concern Area:
61% of crashes, 72% of KSIs
Within 250 feet of a transit stop:
61% of crashes, 72% of KSIs
Intersection of two major roads:
39% of crashes, 48% of KSIs
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 394/563
Safety Project Selection
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 395/563
Project Selection Strategy
•Goal: develop a comprehensive list of implementable
strategies and projects
•Combine insights from systemic safety analysis and engagement
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 396/563
Project Scoring Criteria
Scoring criteria Number of points (100 total)Source
Location on the All Modes HIN 16 (Y/N)High Injury Network (Task 2.1)
Location on the Vulnerable Road User HIN 16 (Y/N)High Injury Network (Task 2.1)
Risk Score of the Corridor 16 (proportional)Risk Factor Analysis
(Task 2.3)
Equity score of the Corridor 16 (proportional)Equity Area Analysis Composite
Score
(Task 3.5)
Proximity to parks Within 1/8 mile – 6 points
Within 1/4 mile – 3 points
Edmonds Transportation Plan
Proximity to schools Within 1/8 mile – 6 points
Within 1/4 mile – 3 points
Edmonds Transportation Plan
Proximity to transit stops Within 1/8 mile – 6 points
Within 1/4 mile – 3 points
Edmonds Transportation Plan
Whether the Corridor was flagged as a safety
concern in the public engagement survey
results
18 (proportional to number of safety
concerns along the corridor)
Community Survey and
Engagement (Task 3)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 397/563
Prioritization
Scoring
•Highest score: 77/100
•5 th Avenue Downtown Core Area
•High scores in high traffic areas
•Hwy 99
•Route 104 (Edmonds Way)
•Additional key connector
streets
•76 th Ave W
•9 th Ave S
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 398/563
Identified Projects
1: Citywide Signalized Intersection Improvements
(not location -specific)
2: Downtown Edmonds Unsignalized Intersection
Improvements
3: Hwy 99 – Stage 3 / 6 From 244 th St SW to N 234 th St
4: Hwy 99 – Stage 4/9/5 From 224 th St SW to 212th St SW
5: 76 th Ave W From 208 th St SW to 224 th St SW
6: 228 th St SW From 80 th Ave W to Interurban Trail
7: 100 th Ave W From SR-104 to 220 th St SW
8: 220 th St SW From 80 th Ave W to Interurban Trail
9:Puget Drive From 12th Ave N to 88 th Ave W
10: 9 th Ave and Main St Intersection
11: SR-104 from 226th St SW to 236th St SW
2 10
3
45
6
7 8
9
11
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 399/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 400/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 401/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 402/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 403/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 404/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 405/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 406/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 407/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 408/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 409/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 410/563
Discussion
•Any immediate reactions or thoughts on the proposed
project recommendations?
•Opportunity to review and follow up later
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 411/563
Policies + Actions
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 412/563
The Safe System Elements
Safe Speeds: Traffic Calming
Safe Road Users: Education Campaign
Post Crash Care: Emergency Response
Safe Vehicles: City vehicle fleet
Safe Roads: Separated
bicycle facility
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 413/563
Top Safety Concerns in Edmonds
Based on crash data and community engagement (displayed in no particular order):
1.Speeding and distracted driving
•Vehicles not following speed laws, speed limits that feel too fast
•Arterials with speeds over 35 MPH were a risk factor for all travel modes
•Distracted driving contributed to 21% of KSI crashes
2.Uncomfortable intersections
•Challenges with intersections and crossings with inadequate infrastructure
•65% of KSI crashes were intersection related
•Intersections of two major roads were a risk factor for pedestrians and vehicles
3.Connectivity concerns
•Address gaps in protected infrastructure/sidewalks to make connections more feasible and safer
4.Improved safe connections to transit and other key amenities
•Safer infrastructure improvements to connect to nearby regional transit and other key amenities
•Being within 250 ft of a transit stop was a risk factor for pedestrians and bicyclists
5.Improved Lighting Conditions & Visibility
•49% of KSI crashes occurred in dark, dawn, or dusk
•52% of KSI crashes occurred between 5 and 11 pm
•Visibility of those walking and rolling was repeated by the community
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 414/563
Mentimeter HOLD – Speeding and
Distracted Driving
•What comprehensive actions can we implement to address
speeding and/or distracted driving? Consider solutions across
infrastructure, programming, education, and policy.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 415/563
Mentimeter HOLD - Intersections
•What comprehensive actions can we implement to address
uncomfortable intersections? Consider solutions across
infrastructure, programming, education, and policy.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 416/563
Mentimeter HOLD –Connectivity Concerns
•What comprehensive actions can we implement to address
connectivity concerns? Consider solutions across infrastructure,
programming, education, and policy.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 417/563
Mentimeter HOLD – Safe Connections
•What comprehensive actions can we implement to address gaps
in safe connections to essential services? Consider solutions
across infrastructure, programming, education, and policy.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 418/563
Mentimeter HOLD – Lighting + Visibility
•What comprehensive actions can we implement to address
lighting and visibility improvements? Consider solutions across
infrastructure, programming, education, and policy.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 419/563
Next Steps
Project Kick -off
Summer 2025
Set Project
Priorities and
Efforts
Policy, Strategy,
and Project
Identification
Fall 2025
Draft Safety
Projects/Solutions
Engagement +
Analysis
Summer + Fall 2025
Determine
Community Goals
+ Analyze Needs
Plan
Development
Winter 2025 –Spring
2026
Finalize and
Share CSAP
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 420/563
Next Steps
•Incorporate today’s
feedback in projects and
solutions
•Begin drafting CSAP
•Begin Phase 2
of engagement (share the
Draft Plan)
•Task Force Meeting 3
•(TBD, Early Spring 2026)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 421/563
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Task Force Meeting #3
Meeting Agenda
March 26, 2026
5:30 – 7:00 PM
Purpose of the Meeting: Discuss the final Edmonds CSAP plan and next steps.
Topic Timing
Introductions and Meeting Purpose 5:30 – 5:40
Review Executive Summary and key projects 5:40 – 6:00
Review public comments and feedback 6:00 – 6:15
Group Discussion 6:15 – 6:45
Wrap Up and Next Steps 6:45 – 7:00
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 422/563
P
Appendix C: Community Engagement
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 423/563
The ultimate goal of the Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injury collisions by 2040. The initial goal is to lower fatal and serious injuries by 50% before 2035, with the City formally re-evaluating progress toward both these goals every five years. To achieve this, the City will implement specific safety improvement projects and programs identified in this plan.
Scan Me!
Added layers of protection to prevent crashes and reduce the harm when crashes do occur using the Safe System Approach.*
Engaged community members to understand safety concerns.Evaluated recent crash data to identify trends and areas of concern.
The City of Edmonds developed a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) to address transportation safety, working towards eliminating fatalities and serious injuries due to crashes.
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Edmonds is wrapping up the final comprehensive
safety action plan and wants your feedback!
Key elements of the Edmonds CSAP included:
Identified and prioritized safety improvements using community input, existing crash data, and an equity lens.
Developed an action plan that aligns projects, policies, and programs with proven safety strategies.
To learn more, scan the QR code to view the draft plan or visit tinyurl.com/yc7rf6e8
* www.transportation.gov/NRSS/SafeSystem
City of Edmonds
Or visit
tinyurl.com/2ea577vf
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 424/563
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 Multnomah County
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds, Taylor Whitaker, Fehr & Peers
Lela Cooper, Bianca Popescu and Katie Selin, Alta Planning + Design
April 21, 2026
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) Community
Engagement Results
Project Overview
The City of Edmonds is working to develop a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) to help address transportation
disparities and safety concerns. The goals of the Edmonds CSAP include educating stakeholders on the Safe System
Approach, evaluating crash data, identifying potential mitigation strategies, and prioritizing these strategies based on
community input and an equity lens.
The Edmonds CSAP will consider the needs and challenges of all transportation users including people walking, biking,
taking public transit, driving, using a wheelchair or other personal mobility device, using micromobility, and operating
commercial vehicles. Priorities identified during community engagement, along with analysis of traffic safety and
equity data, will guide the strategies and projects included in the plan.
Introduction
The purpose of community engagement for Edmonds CSAP is to 1) understand the transportation challenges and
barriers faced by those who live or work in Edmonds, and 2) to guide the development of relevant and meaningful
transportation safety project recommendations.
Goals of Community Engagement
The engagement process is designed to:
•Understand and synthesize transportation safety concerns from residents who walk, roll, bike, drive, or take
public transit.
•Increase public understanding of why roadway changes are needed to improve safety.
•Make participation accessible and inclusive for all community members through a combination of online and
in-person engagement opportunities.
•Ensure engagement environments are open, respectful, and responsive to concerns.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 425/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Edmonds
Phases of Community Engagement
This community engagement takes place over two phases:
• Phase 1: Listen, Learn, and Dive In – The purpose of this phase is to gain a general understanding of
Edmonds residents’ safety concerns, needs, and visions for the future. This phase also offers the public
opportunities to learn about and refine preliminary goals and project/program recommendations
• Phase 2: Refine – The purpose of this phase is to provide opportunities for the public and partners to review
and comment on the draft plan to lead further refinements before finalization.
This report outlines the activities that took place during Phase 1: Listen, Learn, and Dive In engagement, between
August and September 2025. Phase 2 will begin in Spring of 2026, and another summary will be provided outlining the
results of the community feedback the draft plan.
Phase 1 Engagement Key Takeaways
During Phase 1 (August–September 2025), residents expressed concerns about transportation safety. Key issues
included:
• Dangerous driving behaviors such as speeding and distracted driving.
• A lack of pedestrian infrastructure, such as narrow sidewalks and poorly designed intersections.
• Desire for better biking infrastructure and more connected bike lanes.
• A strong mandate from the community to address these safety concerns in the next steps of planning.
Safety Perceptions (Survey Results + Sentiments from Community Events)
• 35% of respondents felt uncomfortable or very uncomfortable walking or rolling, while 33% felt the same
about biking.
• 41% of respondents felt comfortable or very comfortable walking or rolling, compared to just 17% for biking,
highlighting a significant difference in comfort between these two modes.
• 18% of drivers felt uncomfortable or very uncomfortable driving, while 68% felt comfortable or very
comfortable, showing that driving had the highest comfort level among all modes.
Commonly Identified Concerns (Survey Results + Sentiments from Pop-Up Events)
• Infrastructure gaps like narrow or missing sidewalks, difficult intersections, and discomfort with navigating
vehicle traffic. This was also reflected in gaps and similar difficulties in the bike network.
• Driving at high speeds, ignoring traffic laws, and distracted driving.
• General perception of dangerous conditions along heavily trafficked arterials, as well as some residential
collector streets.
Support for Safety Improvement Strategies (Survey Results Summary)
• 88% supported making walking safer.
• 66% supported promoting safe speeds by reducing speed limits/traffic calming.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 426/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Edmonds
• 36% supported funding for educational programs for driver safety programs.
• 47% supported making biking safer.
• 54% supported automated enforcement programs for roadway laws.
• 54% supported designing our roadway and intersections to improve emergency vehicle response times.
Events and Outreach
Table 1 summarizes the events and activities that took place during this phase of engagement. About a third of all
feedback received was at the in-person engagement events, with the remaining being provided directly through the
project webpage or Virtual Open House. In-person tabling events allowed for one-on-one conversations with
residents, as well as specific location based and thematic feedback via interactive engagement boards. This allowed
for specific location-based feedback using an interactive pin map which was combined with online feedback received.
Table 1: Phase 1 Community Engagement Events and Activities
Event Location Language Date(s) Participants
In-Person Tabling Events
Edmonds Saturday Market Downtown Edmonds English August 2nd and
August 9th
Combined, these events
were attended by
hundreds of Edmonds
residents. These events
allowed for active
engagement with the
project’s activities.
Edmonds Concert in the Park Edmonds City Park English August 3rd
99 Ranch Grocery Store Pop-Up Edmonds 99 Ranch English and
Chinese August 21st
Online Engagement
Virtual Open House Online via Zoom English September 10th 11
Interactive Map Project webpage English July 29–September
16th
260 (includes map pins
that were provided via
the in-person event
engagement boards)
Survey Project webpage English, Spanish,
Korean
July 29–September
16th 231
Project Survey Feedback
The Edmonds CSAP online survey was conducted between July 29th and September 16th, 2025. In the survey,
community members were asked to share their perceptions of safety while walking, rolling, biking, and driving, as
well as their top safety concerns. The survey also presented six potential safety improvement approaches, and
respondents were able to express their support or disagreement for each. At the end, participants had the choice to
provide demographic information to help the project team better understand the survey’s audience. A total of 231
survey responses were received over the period the survey was available, with roughly 100 complete responses.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 427/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Edmonds
Who Took the Survey?
As part of the survey, respondents were asked about their background and identity, which included questions about
gender, birth year, zip code, disability status, and their race or ethnicity. These questions shed light on who the
people were who took part in the survey and whether they match the demographics of Edmonds as a whole.
What Gender Do You Identify As?
In the survey, 101 respondents identified their gender as follows:
Figure 1: Responses to "What Gender Do You Identify As?” (n=101)
What Is Your Age?
Respondents were asked, "What is your age?" to calculate their age ranges. Of the 95 respondents who answered this
question, the largest proportion were between 50 and 69 years old. This is generally consistent with the 2023
Edmonds American Community Survey results but has a higher proportion of respondents in the 50-69 ae category
and less in the 16-29 age group than what the broader population of Edmonds has.
Figure 2: Approximate Age Range of Respondents (from Responses to "What Is Your Age?" Survey Question) (n=95)
What Is Your Home Zip Code?
Of the 90 survey respondents who answered this question, a near equal split was seen between Edmonds’ two zip
codes, 98026, and the 98020.
51
37
1
12
Female
Male
Nonbinary
Prefer not to answer
4
26
44
22
4
16-29
30-49
50-69
70+
Prefer not to answer
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 428/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Edmonds
ZIP codes 98026 and 98020 differ in size, density, land use, and infrastructure. Land use in 98026 is more varied,
encompassing residential neighborhoods, commercial corridors, and shoreline access, while 98020 is primarily
residential and more limited commercial activity. Topographically, both areas feature Edmonds’ characteristic sloping
terrain toward Puget Sound, though 98026 covers more of the waterfront-facing slopes, leading to greater variation
in elevation.
The street network in 98026 tends to be more connected and urban in form, with better access to sidewalks, bike
lanes, and transit services. In contrast, 98020 has more suburban street patterns, fewer multimodal facilities, and
generally lower infrastructure investment for non-motorized travel, particularly in areas like Woodway that prioritize
a quiet, low-impact environment. Overall, 98026 functions as a more mixed-use area, while 98020 remains quieter,
more residential, and less densely developed.
Figure 3: Number of Survey Respondents by Home Zip Code (n=90) Figure 4: Edmonds Zip Code Map
What Race or Ethnicity Do You Identify With?
Respondents were also asked which race or ethnicity they identify with. This analysis helps to determine whether
survey respondents are representative of the community as a whole and whether diverse voices are included in this
work. Respondents could select multiple races or ethnicities that applied to them.
Of the survey respondents, 101 respondents answered this question. The largest group of respondents identified as
white (70% of all responses), with 6% identifying as Asian, and 5% identifying as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. This is
generally consistent with Edmonds’ most recent demographic census reporting in the 2023 American Community
Survey.
51%
49%
98020 98026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 429/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Edmonds
Figure 5: Responses to "What Race or Ethnicity Do You Identify With?" (n=101)
Do you Have a Disability?
The survey asked about disability status, and 100 respondents answered this question. 12% of respondents shared
that they have a disability, with 78% saying they do not. This is representative of Edmonds’ disabled population of
11% based on the 2023 American Community Survey.
Figure 6: Responses to "Do you Have a Disability?" (n=100)
Perceived Comfort
Respondents were asked how comfortable they feel walking, rolling, biking, and driving in Edmonds. 97 people
responded to the first question directed at walking and rolling, and the results revealed 41% of respondents were
either “Very Comfortable” or “Comfortable”, and 35% stating that they were “Uncomfortable” or “Very
Uncomfortable”.
71
6
5
1
25
White
Asian
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Another race or ethnicity
Prefer not to answer
12
78
10
Yes
No
Prefer not to answer
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 430/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Edmonds
Figure 7: Responses to "How Comfortable Do You Feel Walking or Rolling (using a wheelchair or other mobility device) in Edmonds? (n=97)
96 people responded to the second question directed at biking, and the results revealed 17% of respondents were
either “Very Comfortable” or “Comfortable”, and 33% stating that they were “Uncomfortable” or “Very
Uncomfortable” (Figure 8). This highlights a decrease in overall comfort compared to the responses for walking and
rolling (17% vs 41% respectively).
Figure 8: Responses to "How Comfortable Do You Feel Biking in Edmonds?" Survey Question (n=96)
97 people responded to the third question directed at driving, and the results revealed 68% of respondents were
either “Very Comfortable” or “Comfortable” driving in Edmonds, and 18% saying that they were “Uncomfortable” or
“Very Uncomfortable” as shown in Figure 9.
14
26
8
27
7
15
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
N/A
4
12
14
21
11
34
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
N/A
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 431/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Edmonds
Figure 9: Responses to "How Comfortable Do You Feel Driving in Edmonds?" Survey Question (n=97)
The survey results were analyzed based on the zip codes where respondents indicated where they live, revealing
variations in comfort levels for residents across Edmonds. Participants expressed similar reactions overall to comfort
levels for walking and driving across the city, but with higher levels of discomfort reported for biking in the 98026 zip
code of Edmonds compared to the 98020 zip code, highlighting the two areas’ differences in density and usage. The
differences in reported comfort levels by zip code are shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11.
Figure 10: Perceived Feelings Walking in Edmonds by Zip Code (n=81)
23
43
12
16
1
2
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
N/A
8
14
2
11
1
8
2
10
6
11
3
5
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
N/A
98020 98026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 432/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Edmonds
Figure 11: Percentage Who Feel “Uncomfortable” or “Very Uncomfortable” Biking in Edmonds by Zip Code (n=79)
Figure 12: Percentage Who Feel “Uncomfortable” or “Very Uncomfortable” Driving in Edmonds by Zip Code (n=77)
2
9
6
5
4
16
1
1
7
11
4
13
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
N/A
98020 98026
9
22
3
5
0
1
10
14
6
5
1
1
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
N/A
98020 98026
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 433/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Edmonds
Additionally, the survey results were analyzed to look for patterns based on age group and disability status to
determine potential differences among these demographic groups. Overall, those in older age groups were more
likely to feel less comfortable walking and rolling in Edmonds compared to younger residents, but overall trends by
mode were similar across age groups. Those who indicated a disability were also more likely to feel “Uncomfortable”
or “Very Uncomfortable” walking or rolling in Edmonds.
Figure 13: Responses to “How Safe Do You Feel Walking or Rolling (Using a Wheelchair or Other Mobility Device) on Roads in Edmonds by
Age Group (n=76)
2
1
1
4
9
2
5
1
4
8
4
14
1
4
6
1
4
3
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
70+50-69 30-49 16-29
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 434/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Edmonds
Figure 14: Responses to “How Safe Do You Feel Biking in Edmonds?” by Age Group (n=57)
Figure 15: Responses to “How Safe Do You Feel Driving in Edmonds?” by Age Group (n=78)
1
4
5
6
4
1
6
7
7
4
1
1
1
3
1
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
70+50-69 30-49
1
2
1
2
9
9
4
2
7
19
3
10
4
9
3
10
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
70+50-69 30-49 16-29 Under 16
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 435/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Edmonds
Figure 16: “How Safe Do You Feel Walking or Rolling in Edmonds?” (Based on respondents who indicated their disability status)
Infrastructure and Behavior Related Safety Concerns
Survey respondents shared their feedback regarding their primary transportation safety concerns, both infrastructure
and behavior related. Respondents were shown nine different behavior and infrastructure considerations as well as a
short answer option for “Other.” The top two infrastructure priorities from the survey were “Narrow, broken, or
missing sidewalks” at 52% of all responses, and 32% selecting “Difficult intersections or crossings”. The top two
behavior priorities were “Distracted driving” at 40% of all responses followed by 28% of responses as “Aggressive
driving”.
33%
17%
33%
17%
14%
26%
6%
23%
5%
18%
Very Comfortable
Comfortable
Neutral
Uncomfortable
Very Uncomfortable
N/A
Yes No
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 436/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Edmonds
Figure 17: Responses to the “In general, what are your top two safety concerns related to transportation infrastructure” Question.
Figure 18: Responses to the “In general, what are your top two safety concerns related to transportation behavior” Question.
The survey also presented 6 different safety improvement strategies for respondents to provide feedback on. The
results of each of the survey responses are described below and shown in Figure 19. All the proposed safety
improvement strategies were either mostly supported or viewed neutrally by survey respondents.
• 66% of respondents supported (either agreed or strongly agreed) lowering speed limits to reduce serious
crashes while 14% opposed (disagreed or strongly disagreed) this approach.
• Making walking safer was supported by 88% of respondents, with only 4% opposing.
• Support for making biking safer was lower, with 47% in favor and 25% opposed, and a large portion neutral.
50
31
25
18
17
11
8
6
5
Narrow, broken, or missing sidewalks
Difficult intersections or crossings
Poorly maintained roads, sidewalks, pathways, or bike lanes
Other (please describe in 25 words or less)
Missing or uncomfortable bike lanes or pathways
Not enough street lighting
High posted speed limits
Difficulty getting around using a mobility device (for example, a
wheelchair or a walker)
Difficulty connecting from one bike lane or pathway to another
38
28
26
24
21
20
11
8
5
Distracted driving
Aggressive driving
Ignoring traffic laws and signs
People driving too fast
Drivers do not yield to people walking or biking
Limited or no separated path or walk or bike
Other (please describe in 25 words or less)
Unexpected pedestrian crossings
People driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 437/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Edmonds
• Funding for educational programs for driver safety programs received mixed responses with 36% support,
while 29% were against it.
• Automatic enforcement programs for roadway laws had 54% support and 25% opposition from survey
respondents.
• Finally, support for designing roadways and intersections to improve emergency vehicle response times was
supported by 54% of respondents, with 8% opposing.
Figure 19: Responses to “Share your level of support for the following safety strategies.” Question . “I support promoting safe speeds by
reducing speed limits and/or traffic calming.”
Figure 20: Responses to “Share your level of support for the following safety strategies.” Question . “I support making walking safer (more
sidewalks, high visibility crosswalks, mid-block crossings, etc.).”
5
9
19
30
34
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
I support promoting safe speeds by reducing speed limits and/or traffic calming.
3
1
8
19
66
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
I support making walking safer (more sidewalks, high visibility crosswalks, mid-
block crossings, etc.).
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 438/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Edmonds
Figure 21: Responses to “Share your level of support for the following safety strategies.” Question . “I support making walking safer (more
sidewalks, high visibility crosswalks, mid-block crossings, etc.).”
Figure 22: Responses to “Share your level of support for the following safety strategies.” Question . “I support funding for educational
programs for driver safety programs.”
Figure 23: Responses to “Share your level of support for the following safety strategies.” Question . “I support automated enforcement
programs for roadway laws.”
17
7
23
16
30
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
I support making biking safer (more bike lanes/trails and separation from vehicle
traffic).
9
19
33
19
16
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
I support funding for educational programs for driver safety programs.
17
7
21
19
33
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
I support automated enforcement programs for roadway laws.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 439/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Edmonds
Figure 24: Responses to “Share your level of support for the following safety strategies.” Question . “I support designing our roadway and
intersections to improve emergency vehicle response times.”
Interactive Map
A total of 260 suggestions were added to the interactive map. Respondents could put points and comments for
locations that they have concerns or feedback. These comments included site-specific feedback related to safety, and
were organized by mode of travel (biking, walking, and driving). Overall, the highest proportion of comments were
related to walking, second were driving concerns, followed by biking. These longer-form and site-specific comments
provided insights into specific location needs but also highlighted several key themes described below.
• Speeding and distracted driving: This included vehicles not following speed laws, or streets with posted
speed limits that feel too fast to users. Respondents also mentioned vehicles not following traffic laws and
stop signs in some areas.
• Dangerous and uncomfortable intersections: Many respondents indicated challenges with intersections and
crossings where adequate infrastructure was not present.
• Connectivity concerns: Those biking, walking, and rolling highlighted needs in the pedestrian and bicycle
network to fill gaps in protected infrastructure and sidewalks to make connections across areas more feasible
and safer for a broad range of users.
• Improved safe connections to transit and other key amenities: some respondents also highlighted a desire
for safer infrastructure improvements to help connect to nearby regional transit (Sounder and Link), \ other
key community amenities, such as the Downtown Edmonds core, and nearby regional trail systems.
The following map shows the overall distribution of the 260 comments received on the interactive pin map by mode
category (walking, biking, and driving). Overall, there are many areas where mode categories overlap, especially in the
Downtown area, as well as along Edmonds Way, but also unique cluster areas by mode category.
4
4
34
33
19
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
I support designing our roadway and intersections to improve emergency vehicle
response times.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 440/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 City of Edmonds
Figure 25: Overall Interactive Pin Map Comment Density by Mode Category (Walking, Biking, and Driving)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 441/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 City of Edmonds
For walking related comments, several key areas had significant clusters provided. This included much of the
Downtown core including Main Street, Dayton Street, and 5th Avenue, and the surrounding residential streets.
Comments specifically highlighted a need to create safer crossings, and slowing vehicles to make walking and rolling
more comfortable. Olympic View Drive was also noted as an area needing safer crossings, better sidewalks, and
slower vehicle speeds.
Figure 26: Overall Interactive Pin Map Comment Density by Walking Category
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 442/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 City of Edmonds
For driving related comments, concerns were most concentrated in the Downtown core, along
Main Street, Dayton Street, and the surrounding connected streets. There were additional clusters
along 9th Ave S, as well as the northern end of 76th Avenue W. Frequent concerns were unsafe
driving, such as speeding, challenging intersections, or drivers not properly following traffic laws
such as stopping at marked stop signs.
Figure 27: Overall Interactive Pin Map Comment Density by Driving Category
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 443/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 City of Edmonds
Lastly, for biking related comments, community pinpoints were more spread out than the other
categories and were often concerned with specific conditions in a particular site. Concerns about
bikes not following traffic laws in the downtown area, as well as unsafe intersections, and poor
visibility from cars was frequent feedback in many of the points of interest. Some main areas of
note included the intersection along 224th Street SW and 76th Ave W which experiences high traffic
and difficult biking conditions, as well stretches along Olympic View Dr due to vehicle speeds,
missing bike facilities, and limited visibility from cars.
Figure 28: Overall Interactive Pin Map Comment Density by Mode Category (Walking, Biking, and Driving)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 444/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 City of Edmonds
Events Summary
In-Person Tabling Events
Project staff tabled at the following events to raise awareness about the project and encourage attendees to
complete the survey and participate in the interactive map:
• Edmonds Saturday Market: Saturday, August 2nd and Saturday, August 9th
• Edmonds Concert in the Park: Sunday, August 3rd
• Pop-Up Outreach at 99 Ranch Grocery Store: Thursday, August 21st (accompanied by a Chinese Language
Interpreter)
Project staff interacted with several hundred members of the public over the course of these four community
engagement events. 78 of the total 260 map pinpoint concerns collected came from the in-person engagement
events. Feedback from these events was later added to the online engagement interactive map, and general themes
and comments were compiled for review alongside the survey data.
Figure 29: Edmonds residents providing feedback on the project’s interactive community feedback boards at the August 2nd and August 9th
Saturday Markets
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 445/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 City of Edmonds
Figure 30: Table and engagement boards at the 99 Ranch pop-up event on August 21st
Virtual Open House
The project team also hosted a Virtual Open House on Wednesday, September 10th. This allowed the project team to
present key project information to community members and share the overall project goals and upcoming timeline.
The Virtual Open House presentation also had an engagement component that allowed attendees to share their
opinions on safety considerations in Edmonds, and what their investment priorities were. There were 11 attendees at
the event who provided feedback through interactive polling based on the project survey, and the event was also
recorded to be posted on the City of Edmonds project website and other relevant online channels for those who were
unable to attend live. Survey attendees were also encouraged to complete the formal project survey afterwards,
which increased the total number of responses.
Some key themes from the virtual open house included:
• Several attendees raised concerns about reckless driving and specifically speeding. Attendees wanted more
traffic calming solutions and enforcement of speed laws.
• Attendees also emphasized making walking safer for all, especially in areas lacking key infrastructure such as
sidewalks.
• Attendees also highlighted specific areas of concern for places needing safer crossings, improved bike
infrastructure, and slower vehicle traffic, and these were combined with existing pinpoint map comments.
This included both the Downtown Edmonds core, as well as other commercial areas near SR 99, and some
residential areas as well.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 446/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 23 City of Edmonds
Figure 31: Virtual Open House Live Polling with Audience on September 10th
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 447/563
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 Multnomah County
To: Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds, Taylor Whitaker, Fehr & Peers
From: Bianca Popescu, Lela Cooper, and Katie Selin, Alta Planning + Design
Date: April 21, 2026
Subject: Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Phase 2 Community Engagement Summary
Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) Phase 2 Engagement
Results
Project Overview
The City of Edmonds is working to develop a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) to help address transportation
disparities and safety concerns. The goals of the Edmonds CSAP include educating stakeholders on the Safe System
Approach, evaluating crash data, identifying potential mitigation strategies, and prioritizing these strategies based on
community input and an equity lens.
The Edmonds CSAP considers the needs and challenges of all transportation users including people walking, biking,
taking public transit, driving, using a wheelchair or other personal mobility device, using micromobility, and operating
commercial vehicles. Priorities identified during community engagement, helped guide the strategies and projects
included in the plan.
Phases of Community Engagement
The CSAP community engagement took place in two phases:
• Phase 1: Listen, Learn, and Dive In – The purpose of this phase is to gain a general understanding of
Edmonds residents’ safety concerns, needs, and visions for the future. This phase also offers the public
opportunities to learn about and define preliminary goals and project/program recommendations
• Phase 2: Refine – The purpose of this phase is to provide opportunities for the public and partners to review
and comment on the draft plan to lead further refinements before finalization.
This memo outlines the activities that took place during Phase 2: Refine engagement, between February and March
2026. Phase 2 engagement builds on findings from Phase 1 by refining and validating earlier community-identified
priorities. While Phase 1 focused on identifying key concerns and desired improvements, Phase 2 asked participants
to react to a draft plan and prioritize specific strategies. Where applicable, this report highlights consistencies and
differences between Phase 1 and Phase 2 findings.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 448/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Edmonds
Phase 2 Engagement Key Takeaways
During Phase 2 (February–March 2026), residents reviewed the draft Edmonds CSAP and provided feedback through
a community survey. A total of 50 respondents participated in this phase of engagement. Overall, findings from Phase
2 reinforce many of the priorities identified during Phase 1, while also providing more detailed input on draft
strategies and areas for refinement.
Overall alignment with the draft plan is mixed but leans positive.
• 58% of respondents said the draft plan reflects their concerns and experiences.
• 33% felt the plan did not address their concerns, while 9% were neutral.
• While many respondents expressed general alignment with the plan, others identified specific gaps, including
additional locations for safety improvements (e.g., Bowdoin Way) and a desire for stronger emphasis on
speed reduction and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
• This feedback suggests that while the draft plan reflects many Phase 1 priorities, there are opportunities to
refine and better communicate how concerns are being addressed.
No single safety strategy dominates in preferred priority, though pedestrian improvements rank highest.
• Priorities were relatively evenly distributed across strategies, consistent with Phase 1 findings that showed
diverse community needs rather than a single dominant issue.
• “Enhancing Pedestrian Crossings” was the top priority (21%), followed by “Increasing Traffic Enforcement”
(19%) and “Adding or Improving Sidewalks and Bike Lanes” (18%).
• Education-focused strategies ranked lowest, with only 3% including “Educating Drivers and Pedestrians” in
their top three priorities.
• The continued emphasis on pedestrian infrastructure aligns with Phase 1 results, reinforcing this as a key
priority area for the CSAP.
There are opportunities to improve communication and outreach for future projects.
• Some respondents indicated that technical information in the plan could be simplified to better reach a
broader audience.
• Suggested engagement strategies included community walks at high-priority locations and expanded
outreach efforts.
• Participants also expressed interest in more non-digital communication methods, such as local news, on-
street signage near project sites, and community flyers.
• These findings build on Phase 1 engagement by highlighting not just what the priorities are, but how the City
can more effectively communicate and engage with the community moving forward.
Survey Promotion
The Phase 2 Edmonds CSAP survey was conducted from March 9th and March 23rd, 2026. Survey respondents could
access the survey online, and the survey was promoted through several channels. This included announcement posts
with links to the survey on the City of Edmonds social media channels, a city press release, and inclusion on the
project’s page on the city website. Respondents from the Phase 1 survey who provided their email address to stay
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 449/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Edmonds
updated with CSAP progress were also directly contacted and encouraged to review the draft plan and complete the
survey.
Project Survey Feedback
In the survey, community members were asked to share their feedback on the draft plan. At the end, participants
could provide demographic information to help the project team better understand the survey’s audience. A total of
50 survey responses were received. The results of each question are described in the following sections.
Overall Satisfaction of Draft Plan
A majority of respondents (58%) indicated that the draft plan reflects their transportation safety concerns and
experiences, while 33% felt it does not and 9% were neutral. While many respondents expressed general alignment
with the plan, others identified concern about specific issues, including additional locations for safety improvements
(such as Bowdoin Way) and a desire for a stronger emphasis on speed reduction and pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure. Overall, this feedback suggests that while the draft plan reflects many of the priorities identified during
Phase 1, there are opportunities to further refine the plan and improve how it communicates responsiveness to
community concerns.
Figure 1 Results - How well does the draft plan reflect the transportation safety concerns you've experienced or observed in your
community? (n = 43)
10
15
4
9
5
Very well Somewhat well Neutral Not very well Not at all
How well does the draft plan reflect the transportation safety
concerns you've experienced or observed in your community?
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 450/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Edmonds
Additional Feedback on Draft Plan
Respondents were also able to provide short answer feedback on how to elaborate on their responses to the prior
question. Answers to this question reflected a range of perspectives, with many participants expressing general
support for the draft plan while also identifying important gaps. Common themes included concerns that some
recommendations may not fully reflect location-specific conditions or recent safety issues, particularly at specific
corridors and intersections.
Several respondents emphasized the need for more attention to pedestrian visibility, safer crossings, and speeding in
neighborhoods. Others noted challenges with bicycle infrastructure, including discomfort riding in high-traffic areas
and concerns about inconsistent or impractical facility design. Additionally, some participants expressed a desire for
more locally grounded analysis, clearer project details, and greater responsiveness to community-reported issues.
Safety Priorities
When asked to prioritize safety strategies, respondents did not overwhelmingly favor a single approach, instead
distributing their preferences across multiple options. However, pedestrian-focused improvements ranked highest
overall, reinforcing findings from both Phase 1 and other Phase 2 questions. This distribution suggests that the
community values a balanced approach that addresses multiple aspects of transportation safety.
Similar to Phase 1, strategies focused on improving pedestrian safety received the strongest support. Education-based
strategies continued to receive more mixed reactions, suggesting that respondents may prioritize physical
infrastructure and enforcement over behavior-change approaches.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 451/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Edmonds
Figure 2 Results - Which safety strategies in the plan do you think are most important to focus on first? (Choose up to three)
Additional Feedback on Safety Strategies
Respondents were also able to provide short answer feedback on how to elaborate on their responses to the prior
question. Answers suggested a range of additional safety strategies, with a strong emphasis on improving pedestrian
safety through measures such as enhanced lighting, additional sidewalks, safer crossings, and physical separation
from vehicle traffic. Speed management was another major theme, including calls for lower speed limits, traffic
calming features, and increased enforcement.
Several participants also highlighted the need for more effective and context-sensitive bicycle infrastructure,
including protected bike lanes, while others expressed concern about existing bike lane designs. Additional
suggestions included improved signage, intersection visibility, and policies addressing emerging mobility issues such
as e-bikes and mini-motorized vehicles. Overall, responses indicate a desire for practical, visible, and enforceable
safety improvements that address both infrastructure and user behavior.
Communication & Outreach Key Themes
Respondents were asked to provide open answers to; “What types of activities or materials would help get the word
out to your community to help better understand this coordinated transportation safety effort?”. Respondents
identified a wide range of preferred communication methods, emphasizing the importance of using multiple channels
to reach diverse audiences. Common suggestions included community events, local news outlets, social media, and
school-based outreach, as well as more traditional methods such as mailers and on-street signage.
Several participants highlighted the need to reduce reliance on digital-only platforms and ensure information is
accessible to those who do not use social media. Others emphasized the value of geographically targeted outreach,
such as signage or engagement activities at high-priority locations. Overall, responses suggest that effective
communication should be clear, accessible, and distributed through a mix of in-person, print, and digital strategies.
3
10
12
12
16
17
Educating drivers and pedestrians
Lowering speed limits
Installing speed cameras or feedback signs
Improving lighting and visibility
Adding or improving sidewalks and bike lanes
Increasing traffic enforcement
Which safety strategies in the plan do you think are most important
to focus on first? (Choose up to three)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 452/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Edmonds
Additional Open Feedback Key Themes
Many respondents expressed appreciation for the effort to develop the CSAP and recognized it as a positive step
toward improving safety. At the same time, several key themes emerged, including a desire for the plan to be more
clearly communicated and easier to understand for a general audience. Respondents also emphasized the importance
of incorporating local knowledge, addressing neighborhood-specific concerns, and ensuring that community input
leads to tangible action. Ongoing concerns about speeding, distracted driving, and pedestrian safety were reiterated,
along with calls for increased enforcement and follow-through on identified issues. Some participants also noted the
importance of monitoring outcomes over time to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented strategies.
Community feedback was actively incorporated into the CSAP’s development: Phase 1 survey results and outreach
insights shaped the selection of project locations, informed strategy prioritization, and guided actions aimed at
addressing neighborhood-specific concerns. Overall, comments in Phase 2 reflect support paired with a strong
expectation for meaningful, visible improvements and continued community engagement.
Who Took the Survey?
As part of the survey, respondents were asked about their background and identity, which included questions about
gender, birth year, zip code, disability status, and their race or ethnicity. These questions shed light on who the
people were who took part in the survey and whether they match the demographics of Edmonds as a whole.
What Gender Do You Identify As?
The gender distribution of survey respondents reflects a relatively balanced sample, though with some variation
across categories. This distribution is generally consistent with Phase 1 participation.
Figure 3 Results - What gender do you most identify with? (n = 35)
What Is Your Age?
Survey respondents skewed toward older age groups, with the largest share between ages 50 and 69. This trend is
generally consistent with Phase 1 engagement and aligns with broader participation patterns often seen in voluntary
survey efforts. While younger residents are somewhat underrepresented, the results still provide valuable insight into
community safety concerns.
16
13
1
5
Female
Male
Nonbinary
Prefer not to answer
What gender do you most identify with?
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 453/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Edmonds
Figure 4 Results - What is your age? Please choose one. (n = 35)
What Is Your Home Zip Code?
Responses were relatively evenly distributed between Edmonds’ two primary zip codes, 98020 and 98026, similar to
Phase 1 outcomes.
Figure 5 Results - What is your home ZIP Code? (n = 20)
What is your Race or Origin?
The racial and ethnic distribution of respondents is broadly consistent with available demographic data for Edmonds,
with a majority identifying as white and smaller shares representing other groups. While this reflects overall
community demographics, it also highlights the importance of continuing efforts to reach more diverse voices in
future engagement.
0
1
6
12
9
7
Under 16
16-29
30-49
50-69
70+
Prefer not to answer
What is your age? Please choose one.
8
12
What is your home ZIP Code?
98026 98020
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 454/563
Edmonds CSAP Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary April 21, 2026
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Edmonds
Figure 6 Results - What is your race or origin? Please choose all that apply.
Do you Have a Disability?
Survey respondents were asked to optionally indicate disability status, with a majority reporting they do not have a
disability. This is similar to Phase 1 results.
Figure 7 Results - Do you have a disability? (n = 39)
Overall Findings Across Phases
Across both Phase 1 and Phase 2 engagement, several consistent themes emerge. Community members continue to
prioritize improvements to pedestrian infrastructure, express concerns about driver behavior such as speeding and
distraction, and report lower comfort levels for biking compared to other travel modes. While Phase 2 responses
show general alignment with the draft plan, they also highlight opportunities to improve communication and refine
specific project priorities. Together, these findings will directly inform final refinements to the CSAP, ensuring the plan
is both data-driven and responsive to community priorities.
21
1
1
3
1
1
0
10
White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Another race or ethnicity
Prefer not to answer
What is your race or origin? Please choose all that apply.
1
28
5
Yes
No
Prefer not to answer
Do you have a disability?
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 455/563
P
Appendix D: Existing Crash Analysis
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 456/563
Overview of Crash Data (2018-2024)
3,287 Total crashes
62 crashes resulted in serious
injury or death (KSI)
The data includes all reported roadway crashes in the City of
Edmonds from 2018 to 2024, including city-owned roadways, state
routes, and border streets. The buffer distance for the crash data
used was 35ft. The data does not include Esperance.
4 modes
Vehicle only
Pedestrians
Bicyclists
Motorcyclists
577 569
385
440 438 458 420
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 457/563
Crash Overview
577 569
385
440 438 458 420
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 The data includes all reported roadway crashes in the City of
Edmonds from 2018 to 2024, including city -owned roadways,
state routes, and border streets. The buffer distance for the
crash data used was 35ft. The data does not include Esperance.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 458/563
Crashes by Year & Injury Type
Between 2018 and 2024…
•27% decrease in the total number of crashes
•18% increase in the number of KSI crashes
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Property Damage Only Possible or Minor Injury Killed or Serious Injury Unknown
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 459/563
Edmonds vs Snohomish County
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Edmonds
Property Damage Only Possible or Minor Injury Killed or Serious Injury Unknown
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
KSI Crashes 248 214 227 260 285 308 319
Total Crashes 13,884 13,023 9,640 11,519 11,309 12,395 12,460
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Snohomish County
Total Crashes KSI Crashes
Snohomish County data: https://remoteapps.wsdot.wa.gov/highwaysafety/collision/data/portal/public/
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 460/563
Edmonds vs Snohomish County
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Edmonds
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Snohomish County
KSI Crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 461/563
All Crashes vs. KSI Crashes by Mode
Vulnerable road user crashes account for…
•6% of all crashes
•62% of KSI crashes
All Crashes in
Edmonds
2018 - 2024
KSI Crashes in
Edmonds
2018 - 2024
Vehicle
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
1%
94%
2%
3%
40%
3%
21%
36%
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 462/563
KSI Crashes by Mode
5 5
2 2 1 2
5
4 3
1 2 5 4
6
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Vehicle Pedestrian Motorcycle Bicycle
Vulnerable road user crashes account for…
•6% of all crashes
•62% of KSI crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 463/563
KSI Crashes Statistics
Going Straight Ahead Making Left Turn Negotiating a Curve
A vehicle was going
straight ahead in 66% of
KSI crashes.
A vehicle was making a left
turn in 14% of KSI crashes.
A vehicle was negotiating a
curve in 9% of KSI crashes.
Driver Distraction/ Inattention
Distracted driving was a
contributing circumstance
in 21% of KSI crashes.
Under the Influence
Under the influence of alcohol or
drugs was a contributing
circumstance in 13% of KSI
crashes.
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
Ci
r
c
u
m
s
t
a
n
c
e
Ot
h
e
r
Time of Day
Highest rates (52%) of KSIs
between 5-11pm.
Lighting Condition
49% of KSI crashes occurred
in dark, dawn, or dusk.
Intersections or Driveways
65% of KSI crashes were
intersection related*.
*At intersection and related, intersection related and not at an
intersection, entering roundabout, at driveway
KSI Crash Information
Failure to Yield
Failing to yield was a
contributing circumstance
in 16% of KSI crashes.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 464/563
Area Equity Analysis
The Area Equity Analysis
combined the 10
demographic, opportunity,
and environmental weighted
variables to create a
composite equity score.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 465/563
Percent of KSIs within
Equity Areas
•Edmonds overburdened
census tracts accounts for
55% of KSI crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 466/563
All Crashes and KSI Crashes : Vehicle Action
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Backing
Changing Lanes
Going Straight Ahead
Going Wrong Way
Parking Related
Turning
Negotiating Curve
Merging
Passing
Slowing/Starting
Stopped
Other
Blank
Total Crashes KSI Crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 467/563
All Crashes and KSI Crashes: Contributing Circumstances
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Asleep or Ill
Defective Equipment
Disregard Sign or Signal
Driver Distraction/Inattention
Fail to Yield/Did not Grant RW
Following Too Closely
Improper Turn
Improper/Failure to Signal
Other
Over Center Line
Speeding
Under the Influence
Unsafe Starting, Backing, Passing, Parking
None
Blank
Total Crashes KSI Crashes
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 468/563
All Crashes and KSI Crashes: Junction
Relationship
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
At Driveway At Driveway
within Major
Intersection
At
Intersection
and Not
Related
At
Intersection
and Related
Circulating
Roundabout
Driveway
Related but
Not at
Driveway
Entering
Roundabout
Exiting
Roundabout
Intersection
Related but
Not at
Intersection
Not at
Intersection
and Not
Related
Traffic
Calming
Circle
Total Crashes KSI
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 469/563
KSI Crashes: Time of Day
12:00
AM
1:00
AM
2:00
AM
3:00
AM
4:00
AM
5:00
AM
6:00
AM
7:00
AM
8:00
AM
9:00
AM
10:00
AM
11:00
AM
12:00
PM
1:00
PM
2:00
PM
3:00
PM
4:00
PM
5:00
PM
6:00
PM
7:00
PM
8:00
PM
9:00
PM
10:00
PM
11:00
PM
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 470/563
KSI Crashes: Lighting Conditions
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Daylight
Dark-No Street Lights
Dark-Street Lights Off
Dark-Street Lights On
Dusk
Dawn
Unknown
Dark - Unknown Lighting
Other
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 471/563
P
Appendix E: High Injury Network
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 472/563
Tood High Injury Network
What is a High Injury Network?
A High Injury Network (HIN) refers to a collection of roadway segments within a city or region where a
disproportionate number of severe traffic injuries or fatalities occur. Traffic safety countermeasures
along identified HIN corridors can have the greatest effectiveness in reducing severe injuries or
fatalities. Local and regional agencies have set forth aggressive actions in reducing and eliminating
traffic-related deaths and severe injuries, and with the influx of state and federal funding directed
towards improving traffic safety, the need for statistically backed systemic safety tools has never
been higher.
HIN Development
The injury network corridors were developed analyzing the Edmonds street network and seven years
(2018 to 2024) of crash data from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to
evaluate segments with the highest crash density, weighted by crash severity. The analysis is done by
determining the number and severity of crashes in a “window” on the Edmonds roadway network and
shifting that window along the roadway 1/10 mile at a time. The steps to developing each HIN are
documented below:
Step 1: Weighting Research
A fatal crash is a crash where the most severe injury was a death within 30 days of the crash because
of injuries sustained during the crash. A serious injury crash is a crash which included bodily injuries
such as broken bones; serious lacerations; crush injuries; suspected injuries to the skull, chest, or
abdomen; or significant burns 1. Fatal and serious injury crashes are collectively referred to as killed or
serious injury (KSI) crashes. A possible injury is defined as any injury reported to the officer or
claimed by the individual, such as momentary unconsciousness, claims of injuries not evident,
limping, complaint of pain, nausea, etc. At the lowest level of severity are property damage only
(PDO) crashes, which apply when the officer at the scene has no reason to believe that, at the time of
the crash, the person received any bodily harm due to the crash 2.
Step 2: Weight Crashes
As part of the HIN process, weights are assigned to each crash type. Weights vary between different
jurisdictions and land use contexts depending on the types of crashes the community would like to
consider and the level of interest in analyzing non-severe or non-injury crashes.
Once data was collected from 2018-2024 WSDOT database, the crashes were weighted by severity.
In all scenarios KSI crashes receive the highest weight. Table 1 below defines the weighting used for
the Edmonds HIN (2018-2024).
1 https://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Washington_Target_Zero_Plan_FINAL_11-04-
2024_Accessible_Chapter_2.pdf
2 Source: https://highways.dot.gov/media/20141
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 473/563
Table 1. Crash Weighting
Crash severity (most severe injury type) EPDO/WSDOT Cost-Estimate Ratios
Fatal 10
Suspected Serious Injury 10
Suspected Minor Injury 2
Possible Injury 1
Property Damage Only* 0
Step 3: Apply A Sliding Window 3 Methodology:
The Network Screening Tool provides an initial assessment of network segments where there are
groupings of severe injury or fatal crashes. However, this tool can create harsh corridor cutoffs and
doesn’t smooth the data across the network. Therefore, the HIN analysis further processes crash data
using the Sliding Window method. This method, which is recommended in the Highway Safety
Manual, can be used to perform network screening along roadway corridor segments, which
addresses the limitations of Esri’s FHWA Network Screening Tool. This method is documented in
detail by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute and has been used by many jurisdictions around the
world.4 The Sliding Window approach works by creating “windows” of a specific length in GIS that
measures the severity and density of crashes within a 50-foot buffer around the segment. The
process is repeated by “sliding” the window a defined distance along the corridor and repeating the
analysis. Through this method, discontinuities in the data are smoothed out, which help to address
known errors where the precise crash locations are not known or properly recorded. Figure 1 shows a
simplified visualization of the Moving Window method. The resulting Sliding Window network
highlights where a disproportionate number of severe injury and fatal crashes occur. A sliding window
was applied with a shift length of one tenth of a mile.
3 https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uwm.edu/dist/e/546/files/2018/02/TRR-2011-MPC_HRRR-1w3hdjb.pdf
(page 3)
4 Texas A&M Transportation Institute, “Statewide Implementation of Innovative Safety Analysis Tools in
Identifying Highway Safety Improvement Projects,” https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/5-6912-
01-R1.pdf
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 474/563
Figure 1. Sliding Window Visualized
Source: https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uwm.edu/dist/e/546/files/2018/02/TRR-2011-MPC_HRRR-
1w3hdjb.pdf (page 3), Fehr & Peers, 2025
Step 4: Connect Highest Scoring Segments
The network was then smoothed to create a near-complete HIN with non-overlapping segments.
Each window in the Sliding Window network contains a score based on a variety of crashes and
contextual factors. The Network Smoothing method uses this score to assign a scoring percentile to
each window. A percentile threshold (e.g., 95th percentile) was set in the method parameters. This
isolates "high scoring windows" that have a score that meets or exceeds that threshold and uses them
as a starting point to smooth the network. Then a maximum distance threshold or gap length was
defined to determine whether high scoring windows get connected or not. Various combinations of
thresholds and gap lengths were tested.
Step 5: Run High Injury Networks
All modes HIN used a 95th percentile threshold (top 5% of the network) and a 0.25 mile gap length to
capture the crashes on the roadway while Vulnerable Road Users HIN used a 97th percentile threshold
(top 3% of the network) and a 0.25 mile gap length.
Step 6: Develop Final HIN
Each HIN was then further refined to manually merge the following corridors:
1. All Mode HIN:
o Edmonds Way from Paradise Lane to 5th Avenue South.
o 196th Street Southwest 0.2 miles west of 88th Avenue West through Puget Drive
o Main Street from 4th Avenue North to approximately 400 ft west of Railroad Avenue.
o 212th Street Southwest from 84th Avenue West to 0.1 miles east of 76th Avenue West.
o 9th Avenue South from 220th Street Southwest to Walnut Street
o 76th Avenue West from 220th Street Southwest to 300 ft north of 208th Street Southwest
2. Vulnerable Road User HIN:
o 100th Avenue West from 15th Street Southwest to 215th Street Southwest.
o 220th Street Southwest from 80th Avenue West to 300 ft east of 76th Avenue West.
o 244th Street Southwest from Aurora Avenue North to 0.2 lies west of 92nd Avenue West.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 475/563
o 76th Avenue West from 220th Street Southwest to 300 ft north of 208th Street Southwest
o Edmonds Way from 232nd Street SW to 102nd Place West.
o 212th Street Southwest from 84th Avenue West to 0.1 miles east of 76th Avenue West.
Results
The summary of the HIN results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. HIN Summary
Modes Window/Gap
Length Shift Threshold Findings
All Modes 0.25 mile 528 ft 95th percentile 8.2% of streets account for 85%
of KSI crashes
Vulnerable Road
Users 0.25 mile 528 ft 97th percentile 5.5% of streets account for 83%
of KSI crashes
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 476/563
P
Appendix F: Risk Factors
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 477/563
MEMORANDUM
1
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Edmonds, WA
To: Taylor Whitaker, Fehr & Peers
From: Kelly Dunn, Lela Cooper and Bianca Popescu, Alta Planning + Design
Date: April 21, 2026
Re: Risk Factor Analysis Results
Risk Factor Analysis
Enabling safe systems requires building a proactive understanding of where safety risks 1 are in a wider mobility
system and how speeds on Edmonds’ streets can be kept low enough to prevent high severity crashes. In systemic
safety analysis, risk factors are contextual characteristics or exposures that are associated with an increased likelihood
of harm from crash. This memo documents Alta’s proactive safety analysis approach that evaluated risk factors based
on existing travel network data and other contextual data. This included the evaluation of vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian risk factors including available data regarding posted speeds, types of bicycle facilities, built environment
context, distance between crossing opportunities, or intersection characteristics such as signal presence. This
provides a measure of risk associated with each contextual characteristic.
Methodology
Exploratory Analysis
Alta and Fehr & Peers reviewed available datasets from the City of Edmonds and the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) and performed exploratory analysis of crashes using a variety of roadway contextual data.
Fehr & Peers evaluated a number of risk factors for each mode 2 in collaboration with Alta and calculated the share of
crashes that occur on roadways with each risk factor. Using these tabulations, we identified the five risk factors most
appropriate to each mode (vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians), which are listed in Table 1. These were typically the
risk factors that accounted for the highest percentages of crashes for each mode, but some risk factors were ignored
where they were not relevant to a particular mode (for example, proximity to a bicycle facility was not considered as
a factor for vehicle-only crashes). The top five risk factors that were selected for each mode are bolded in Table 1.
Additionally, several risk factors were evaluated but not ultimately chosen as risk factors for any mode. Proximity to
schools (within a half a mile) was a factor in 62% of VRU crashes, but since 63% of the street network mileage of
Edmonds is within a half a mile of a school, this trend was not noteworthy. Similarly, residential land use was
evaluated but 89% of the street network is adjacent to residential land use, so again no disproportionate crash rate
1 Risk is conventionally defined as the magnitude of consequences of some event multiplied by its probability. Within
transportation safety, it is often referencing the probability of a crash of a given severity per unit of exposure. While Alta
did not compute actual probabilities of events per unit of exposure, we are referring to risk as the association of specific
contextual characteristics to historical propensities for severe crashes per mile of that contextual characteristic.
2 For the purposes of this memo, vehicle crashes refer to crashes that involved motor vehicles only, not bicyclists or
pedestrians.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 478/563
MEMORANDUM
2
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Edmonds, WA
was found on those streets. Finally, streets with no bike facilities were also evaluated as a bicycle risk factor, but the
analysis found that unprotected bike facilities were a greater risk factor.
Table 1: Summary of risk factors evaluated. Risk factors that were chosen for analysis for each mode are bolded.
Vehicles Bicycles Pedestrians
Factor
Percent
of Street
Network
Percent
of all
crashes
Percent
of KSIs
Percent
of all
crashes
Percent
of KSIs
Percent
of all
Crashes
Percent
of KSIs
Arterials with speeds over 35
MPH 22% 75% 77% 73% 100% 60% 60%
Downtown or commercial
land use 14% 68% 59% 65% 50% 65% 72%
Within 250 feet of a transit
stop 13% n/a n/a 55% 0% 61% 72%
On a segment with a
commercial driveway and a
center turn lane 5% 18% 27% 30% 0% 18% 4%
Med-High to High Equity
Concern Area 25% 58% 45% 55% 50% 61% 72%
Intersection of two major
roads n/a 31% 32% 20% 100% 39% 48%
On an unprotected bicycle
facility 14% n/a n/a 40% 50% n/a n/a
Total # 150 miles 3093 22 40 2 93 25
Scoring
Fehr & Peers and Alta then joined contextual data relating to each risk factor (such as bicycle facilities and zoning) to
the Edmonds centerline network to create a comprehensive centerline network with attributes for the presence of
each risk factor. Alta then assigned points to each road segment based on the presence of risk factors for each mode
and summed the total points for each segment by mode. For every risk factor present on a segment, the segment
scored one point, up to a total of five points per mode. These scores were then used to create maps of the network
for each mode depicting the risk scores on each segment. Road segments that are the riskiest have the highest
number of points along the segment.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 479/563
MEMORANDUM
3
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Edmonds, WA
Risk Factors Summary
Maps by Mode
For each mode, Alta mapped the top five risk factors, highlighting the road segments with the most high-risk
contextual attributes. The maps identify where there are facilities that include a collection of risk factors that are
associated with high severity of crashes, whether there is actual crash history in that location. For each mode, this
section summarizes the risk factors and gives an overview of where the high-risk areas are in Edmonds. The results of
the Systemic Safety Analysis demonstrate that there are some types of roadway contexts that clearly present higher
risk for crashes than others, which City of Edmonds can target proactively for safety improvements.
Vehicle Risk Factors
Edmonds’ Vehicle Crash Risk Factors are shown in Figure 1. This map identifies where there are streets that include a
collection of risk factors that are associated with high severity vehicle crashes, whether there is actual crash history in
that location. Several corridors stand out as having a particularly high number of risk factors for motor vehicle
crashes. These include most of SR-99 as a heavy connector and commercial core in Edmonds, as well as segments of
176th Ave W bordering Esperance. Additional high-risk areas fall along the major arterial of Edmonds Way, and along
central commercial streets of the downtown core.
Bicycle Risk Factors
Edmonds’ Bicycle Crash Risk Factors are shown in Figure 2. The corridors with the most bicycle risk factors are similar
to those in the vehicle risk factors map, with some of the highest risks along SR 99, with high vehicle speeds and
commercial usage, as well as Edmonds Way, and the commercial core in downtown Edmonds and areas adjacent to
the ferry terminal. A key distinction between the bicycle risk factors and other modes’ risk factors is the presence of
unprotected bicycle facilities, including sharrows or bike lanes with no separation from traffic. These facilities draw
higher volumes of bicyclists than roads with no facilities, but still leave bicyclists at risk from vehicle traffic.
Pedestrian Risk Factors
The map showing Edmonds’ Pedestrian Crash Risk Factors are shown in Figure 3. Several corridors stand out as having
a high number of risk factors for pedestrian crashes. These include most of SR 99 and 176th Street with a high
frequency of transit stops, and high vehicle speeds, as well as the corridor of 212th St SW. In addition, the high-speed
corridors along Edmonds Way, and 100th Ave W, as well as most streets within the downtown area. While these areas
are generally consistent with the high-risk areas shown for vehicles and cyclists, there is a higher risk assigned to
proximity to transit stops and downtown or commercial land use in comparison.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 480/563
MEMORANDUM
4
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Edmonds, WA
Figure 1. Vehicle-Only Crashes Risk Factors
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 481/563
MEMORANDUM
5
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Edmonds, WA
Figure 2: Bicycle-Involved Crashes Risk Factors
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 482/563
MEMORANDUM
6
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Edmonds, WA
Figure 3: Pedestrian-Involved Crashes Risk Factors
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 483/563
MEMORANDUM
7
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Edmonds, WA
Limitations
This analysis evaluated how different contextual risk factors relate to the historical crash histories in the City of
Edmonds, but this analysis has a few limitations worth considering:
• Lack of Exposure Data: The analysis does not account for the volume of pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles
using each segment, leading to an incomplete understanding of relative risk. Exposure is accounted for by
proxy by evaluating the network milage, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facility presence. In spite of this
limitation, targeting improvements where the most crashes occur – regardless of exposure – will result in
reducing the most injuries and saving the most lives.
• Risk Categorization Process: Categorical assignments of risk factors may oversimplify nuanced relationships,
masking gradients of risks or interactions between these factors. The cutoffs were carefully selected for this
analysis, but there are still limitations to these types of tabulations.
• Reduced Speed Limits: This analysis used speed limits in current roadway data, but if speed limits have
recently changed then it may be different than the speed limit in effect at the time of the crash.
• Low sample size: Fortunately for safety, there are relatively low numbers of bicycle and pedestrian KSIs in the
Edmonds crash data. However, this low sample size means that differences between a share of pedestrian
KSIs or bicycle KSIs with a certain risk factor should be taken as an approximation and is not statistically
significant.
• Lacking data: Additional data at the roadway level would aid in more detailed analysis, such as sidewalk
presence.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 484/563
P
Appendix G: Countermeasure Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 485/563
CountermeasuresToolbox
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
CITY OF EDMONDS, WA | 2026
Produced By
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 486/563
Introduction
This document provides a set of tools for improving pedestrian safety on the State Highway System.
It was designed to be used to address issues identified during traffic safety investigations conducted while evaluating high collision concentration locations and systemic safety locations. However, these tools may be used more generally to improve pedestrian safety.
This document should not provide the sole source of guidance when resolving a pedestrian safety issue. Each location and situation is unique, and engineering judgment should be used when applying these tools and selecting the best solution for any location.
2 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 487/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Barrier in the center of the roadway that physically separates opposing vehicular traffic. Median barriers can also help control access to and from side streets and driveways, reducing the number of conflict points.
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R03
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Median Barrier
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Summary
* https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2024-01/Safe_System_Roadway_Design_Hierarchy.pdf
This Toolbox presents 43 safety countermeasures applicable in different roadway contexts.
Many of the countermeasures have an associated Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) and crash type (i.e., all modes, bicycle and pedestrian crashes only, etc.) as outlined in the California Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM). The higher the CRF (1 being the highest), the greater the expected reduction in crashes. Countermeasures not in the LRSM are scored on a “low-medium-high” research availability scale based on proven safety studies. The higher the rating, the greater the availability of rigorous research demonstrating proven safety benefits.
Countermeasures also feature the tier rankings introduced by the FHWA Safe System Roadway Design Hiearchy. The Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy includes four tiers arranged from most to least aligned with Safe System principles.*
Countermeasure Description
Countermeasure Icon
Cost ($ / $$ / $$$)
LRSM ID
Countermeasure Title
Safe System Roadway Design Hierarchy
3Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 488/563
Index of Countermeasures
Bikeways 6
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint) ..............................................................6
Bicycle Ramp ..................................................................................................6
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase ..............................................................7
Bike Box ..........................................................................................................7
Bike Detection ................................................................................................8
Bike-Friendly Drain .........................................................................................8
Extend Bike Lane to Intersection ....................................................................9
Bike Lane .........................................................................................................9
Floating Transit Island or Bus Boarding Island .............................................10
Green Conflict Striping.................................................................................10
Separated Bikeway ........................................................................................11
Mixing Zone .....................................................................................................11
Door Zone Markings .......................................................................................12
Shared-Use Path ...........................................................................................12
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box ...................................................................13
Extend Green Time for Bikes .........................................................................13
Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign ....................................................................14
Buffered Bike Lane ........................................................................................14
Intersections & Roadways 15
Rumble Strips.................................................................................................15
All-Way Stop Control .....................................................................................15
Centerline Hardening ....................................................................................16
Close Slip Lane ..............................................................................................16
Directional Median Openings to Restrict Left Turns .....................................17
Improved Pavement Friction .........................................................................17
Safety Edge ...................................................................................................18
Guardrail ........................................................................................................18
Median Barrier ................................................................................................19
Roundabout ...................................................................................................19
Signal ............................................................................................................20
Superrelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations ...........................................20
Intersection Reconstruction and Tightening ................................................21
Lane Narrowing ..............................................................................................21
Left Turn Enhanced Daylighting/Slow Turn Wedge ......................................22
Neighborhood Traffic Circle .........................................................................22
Partial Closure/Diverter ................................................................................23
Protected Intersection .................................................................................23
Raised Crosswalk .........................................................................................24
Raised Intersection .......................................................................................24
Raised Median ..............................................................................................25
Refuge Island ................................................................................................25
Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersection .....................................................26
Road Diet ......................................................................................................26
Speed Hump or Speed Table .......................................................................27
Splitter Island ................................................................................................27
Straighten Crosswalk ...................................................................................28
Widen/Pave Shoulder ...................................................................................28
Pedestrian Facilities 29
Audible Push Button Upgrade ......................................................................29
Add Sidewalk ................................................................................................29
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations ...............30
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian Crossings ........................................30
Curb Extensions .............................................................................................31
Extend Time Push Button ...............................................................................31
High-Visibility Crosswalk ..............................................................................32
Pedestrian Countdown Timer .......................................................................32
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon ...........................................................................33
Landscape Buffer .........................................................................................33
4 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 489/563
Leading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall .....................................34
Pedestrian Detection ...................................................................................34
Remove Crossing Prohibition .......................................................................35
Restripe Crosswalk .......................................................................................35
Upgrade Curb Ramp .....................................................................................36
Widen Sidewalk ............................................................................................36
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon ............................................................37
Signals 37
Retroreflective Tape on Signals ...................................................................37
Supplemental Signal Heads .........................................................................38
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection ............................................................38
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time ................................................................39
Extend Yellow and All Red Time .....................................................................39
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase ...........................................................................40
Pedestrian Scramble ....................................................................................40
Prohibit Left Turn ............................................................................................41
Prohibit Turns During Pedestrian Phase.........................................................41
Protected Left Turns .....................................................................................42
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red .........................................................................42
Separate Right-Turn Phasing ........................................................................43
Shorten Cycle Length ...................................................................................43
Signal Interconnectivity and Coordination/Green Wave ............................44
Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal ..............................................................44
Upgrade Signal Head ...................................................................................45
Signing & Striping 45
Advance Stop Bar .........................................................................................45
Advance Yield Markings ................................................................................46
Curve Advance Warning Sign .......................................................................46
Flashing Beacon as Advance Warning ..........................................................47
Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves ............................................................47
LED-Enhanced Sign .....................................................................................48
Painted Centerline and Raised Pavement Markers ......................................48
Speed Feedback Sign ..................................................................................49
Speed Legends on Pavement at Neighborhood Entries .............................49
Striping Through Intersection .......................................................................50
Time-Based Turn Restriction ........................................................................50
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings ...................................................51
Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting ...................................................51
Upgrade Striping ..........................................................................................52
Upgrade to Larger Warning Signs ................................................................52
Wayfinding ....................................................................................................53
Yield to Pedestrians Sign ..............................................................................53
Other 54
Back-In Angled Parking ................................................................................54
Access Management/Close Driveway .........................................................54
Intersection Lighting ....................................................................................55
Segment Lighting .........................................................................................55
Create or Increase Clear Zone ......................................................................56
Curbside Management .................................................................................56
Far-Side Bus Stop .........................................................................................57
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Markers ..........................................57
Impact Attenuators .......................................................................................58
Median Guardrail ...........................................................................................58
Speed Limit Reduction .................................................................................59
Relocate Select Hazardous Utility Poles ......................................................59
Remove Obstructions for Sightlines ............................................................60
Upgrade Lighting to LED ..............................................................................60
Red Light Camera ..........................................................................................61
5Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 490/563
Solid green paint across an intersection signifies the path of the bicycle crossing. Increases visibility of bicyclists’ anticipated path of travel through an intersection.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A ramp that connects bicyclists from the road to the sidewalk or a shared use path.
Cost $
BIKEWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Bicycle Ramp
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
6 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 491/563
A traffic signal directing bicycle traffic across an intersection. Separates in time bicycle movements from conflicting motor vehicle, streetcar, light rail, or pedestrian movements. May be applicable for Class IV facilities when the bikeway is brought up to the intersection.
Cost $$$
BIKEWAYS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A designated area between the crosswalk and vehicle stop bar at a signalized intersection that is often painted green where bicyclists can wait during a red signal phase. The use of the bike box places bicyclists in a location where they are more visible to motorists.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S20PB
BIKEWAYS
Manage Conflicts in Time Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Bike Box
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
7Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 492/563
Technology used at signalized intersections, either through use of push-buttons, in-pavement loops, or by video or infrared cameras, to call a green light for bicyclists and reduce delay for bicycle travel. Discourages red light running by bicyclists and increases convenience of bicycling.
Cost $$
BIKEWAYS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Bike Detection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Drains that avoid placing grating in the right-of-way that may pose a hazard to bicyclists by increasing their risk of falling.
Cost $$
BIKEWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Bike-Friendly Drain
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
8 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 493/563
In locations where a bike lane is dropped due to the addition of a right turn pocket, the intersection approach may be restriped to allow for bicyclists to move to the left side of right turning vehicles ahead of reaching the intersection.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Extend Bike Lane to Intersection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists using pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flows in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or travel lane.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R32PB
BIKEWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Bike Lane
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
9Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 494/563
Transit boarding island that is designed to allow bicycles to pass between the sidewalk and island thereby avoiding a bus-bike conflict when the bus stops at the boarding island. Can be used in combination with a bike lane, bufferred bike lane, or separated bike lane. The treatment can also reduce vehicle speeds as the island itself visually narrows the roadway and can have a traffic calming effect.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Floating Transit Island or Bus Boarding Island
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Green conflict striping is green pavement markings in a dashed pattern that extend across bike lanes approaching an intersection and/or going through an intersection. Green conflict striping improves and increases the visibility of bicyclists and potential conflict points so motorists and bicyclists can use caution when traveling toward and through an intersection.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Green Conflict Striping
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
10 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 495/563
A separated bikeway, also called a cycletrack, provides dedicated street space, typically adjacent to outer vehicle travel lanes, with physical separation from vehicle traffic, designated lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Physical separation may consist of plastic posts, parked vehicles, raised median, or a curb (if the separated bike lane is raised to sidewalk level). Separated bikeways reduce conflicts between people biking and motorists. They also provide more physical protection that further reduces the risk of severe conflicts between bicycles and vehicles on the road. Separated bike lanes can also help manage or reduce vehicle speeds as some of the design features can have a traffic calming effect.
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R33PB
BIKEWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Separated Bikeway
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A mixing zone is where a suggested bike lane is within the inside portion of a dedicated motor vehicle turn lane. Lane markings delineate space for bicyclists and motorists within the same lane and indicate the intended path for bicyclists to reduce conflict with turning motor vehicles.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Mixing Zone
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
11Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 496/563
Pavement markings denoting door zone of parked vehicles to raise awareness of bicyclists and motorists of that conflict area where an open car door could obstruct the path of a passing bicyclist.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Door Zone Markings
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Shared-use paths or trails are off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for nonmotorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. They could be located alongside a roadway, or exist in a separate right-of-way. Bike paths have minimal cross flow with motorists and can be utilized for both recreational and commute trips.
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Shared-Use Path
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
12 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 497/563
This roadway treatment provides bicyclists with a means of making a left turn at a multi-lane signalized intersection from a bike lane or cycle track on the far right side of the roadway. In this way, bicyclists are removed from the flow of traffic while waiting to turn. Use of this treatment could be mirrored for right-turns from a one-way street with a left-side bikeway.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
Manage Conflicts in Time Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Prolongs the green phase when bicyclists are present to provide additional time for bicyclists to clear the intersection. Can occur automatically in the signal phasing or when prompted with bicycle detection. Topography should be considered in clearance time.
Cost $
LRSM ID S03
BIKEWAYS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
13Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 498/563
A sign placed on roads with lanes that are too narrow to allow safe side-by-side in-lane passing of a bicyclist by a motorist - signs indicate that bicyclists may occupy the full lane. Intended to encourage motorists to provide ample space between side of the vehicle and an adjacent bicyclist when passing.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
BIKEWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Buffered Bike Lanes are standard bike lanes paired with a designated horizontal buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. This type of bikeway provides greater distance between vehicles and bicycles; provides space for bicyclists to pass each other; provides greater space for bicycling without making the bike lane appear so wide that it might be mistaken for a travel lane; and encourages bicycling by contributing to the perception of safety.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R32PB
BIKEWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Buffered Bike Lane
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
14 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 499/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Rumble strips create noise and vibration inside the vehicle that alert a driver as they cross the centerline or edge line. Treatment can help with lane keeping instances where a driver is distracted or drowsy. Rumble strips also alert drivers to the lane limits when conditions such as rain, fog, snow, or dust reduce driver visibility.
Cost $
LRSM ID R30/R31
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Rumble Strips
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
An all-way stop-controlled intersection requires all vehicles to stop before crossing the intersection. An all-way stop-controlled intersection reduces the risk of severe conflicts as long as all road users see and obey the stop signs. The MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) includes information on when and how to implement “All Way” Or “Multi-Way” stop control intersections.
Cost $
LRSM ID NS02
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Manage Conflicts in Time Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
All-Way Stop Control
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
15Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 500/563
Centerline hardening involves placing durable plastic bollards, flex posts, and/or rubber curbs along the centerline. When used at intersections, they can be effective at requiring motorists to make left-turn movements at a 90-degree angle, thereby slowing vehicle speeds and improving motorists’ visibility of the crosswalks across which they travel when turning. When used along a roadway segment, they can be effective at generally slowing vehicle speeds and preventing undesirable left-turning and/or U-turns between intersections.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Centerline Hardening
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=24
Modifies the corner of an intersection to remove the sweeping right turn lane for vehicles. Results in shorter crossings for pedestrians, reduced speed for turning vehicles, better sight lines, and space for landscaping and other amenities.
Cost $$$
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Close Slip Lane
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
16 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 501/563
A directional median opening restricts specific turning movements, such as allowing a left-turn from a major street but not from a minor street. A directional median opening to restrict left turn improves safety by reducing the number of conflict points.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S14
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Directional Median Openings to Restrict Left Turns
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
High friction surface treatments improve a vehicles’ ability to stay on the roadway as well as come to a stop over a shorter distance. The treatment can be used to help address roadway departure crashes and/or intersection crashes on approach to unsignalized intersections.
Cost $$
LRSM ID R21
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Improved Pavement Friction
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
17Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 502/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
When a vehicle leaves the traveled way and encounters a pavement-shoulder drop-off, it can be difficult for the driver to return safely to the roadway. A safety edge is a treatment intended to minimize the severity of roadway or lane departure crashes. With this treatment, the shoulder pavement edge is sloped at an angle (30-35 degrees) to make it easier for a driver to safely reenter the roadway after inadvertently driving onto the shoulder. This treatment could be incorporated as a standard practice in overlay or roadway resurfacing projects.
Cost $
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Safety Edge
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle. Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object.
Cost $$
LRSM ID R04
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Guardrail
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
18 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 503/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Barrier in the center of the roadway that physically separates opposing vehicular traffic. Median barriers can also help control access to and from side streets and driveways, reducing the number of conflict points.
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R03
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Median Barrier
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A roundabout is a type of circular intersection in which road traffic is permitted to flow in one direction around a central island, and priority is typically given to traffic already in the junction. The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, severe conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection; the range of vehicle speeds is also narrowed, reducing the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians also only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing exposure to vehicle traffic.
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S16/NS04
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Roundabout
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
19Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 504/563
Other Reference InformationCurrently the CMF Clearinghouse has only one reference for ped/vehicle collisions which indicates an increase in crash likelihood. However, a majority of references for all crash types show a decrease in collisions. See additional reference: FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Traffic signals at intersections control the flow of traffic by assigning right-of-way to different movements at different times. Some traffic signal phasing is more effective at reducing the likelihood of severe injury collisions. For example, protected left-turn signal phasing reduces the likelihood of severe left-turn collisions more effectively than permitted left-turn signal phasing.
Cost $$$
LRSM ID NS03
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Signal
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Superelevation is the rotation of the pavement on the approach to and through a horizontal curve and is intended to assist the driver in negotiating the curve by counteracting the lateral acceleration produced by tracking. In other words, the road is designed so that the pavement rises as it curves, offsetting the horizontal sideways momentum of the approaching vehicle. Superelevation can help vehicles stay on the roadway. Superelevation can also inadvertently make it easier for drivers to drive at higher than desirable speeds. Consider the target or desired speed for a roadway and relevant design guidance when selecting appropriate superelevation.
Cost $$
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Superelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
20 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 505/563
Intersections that intersect at a skewed angle or angle notably different than 90-degrees have a greater likelihood of collisions. Squaring up the intersection helps reduce the likelihood of collisions. “Squaring up” an intersection as close to 90 degrees as possible involves intersection reconstruction and approach realignment to provide better visibility for all road users, also reducing high speed turns, reducing length exposure for vehicles and/or bikes passing through the intersection, and reducing pedestrian crossing length.
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Intersection Reconstruction and Tightening
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Lane narrowing reduces the width of the marked vehicle lanes to encourage motorists to travel at slower speeds. Lane narrowing can also help reallocate existing roadway space to other road users.
Cost $
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Lane Narrowing
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
21Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 506/563
Uses paint and bollards to extend the curb and slow left turns at intersections of one-way to one-way or two-way streets. Widening the turning radii of left-turning vehicles expands the field of vision for drivers and increases the visibility of pedestrians.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Left Turn Enhanced Daylighting/Slow Turn Wedge
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=34
Neighborhood traffic circles are circular intersections similar to roundabouts, but are stop controlled on the approach and intended for smaller intersections. Typically, they supplement existing stop-controlled intersections with a circular island in the center that is designed to slow traffic and eliminates severe conflict points (such as conflicting left-turn movements).
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
22 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 507/563
A roadway treatment that restricts through vehicle movements using physical diversion while allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to proceed through an intersection in all directions.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Partial Closure/Diverter
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationEvolution of the Protected Intersection, Alta Planning and Design, December 2015. https://altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-the-Protected-Intersection_ALTA-2015.pdf
Protected intersections use corner islands, curb extensions, and colored paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian movements across an intersection. Slower driving speeds and shorter crossing distance increase safety for pedestrians. Separates bicycles from pedestrians as well as moving vehicles.
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Protected Intersection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
23Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 508/563
A Raised Crosswalk is a pedestrian crosswalk that is typically elevated 3-6 inches above the road or at sidewalk level. A Raised Crosswalk improves increases crosswalk and pedestrian visibility and slows down motorists.
Cost $$
LRSM ID R36PB
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Raised Crosswalk
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationNote: some studies in CMF Clearinghouse show an increase in crashes. See additional source below showing decrease. (1) Perkins+Will Consultant Team. “Pedestrians at Multi-Modal Intersections.” Better Market Street Existing Conditions & Best Practices, Part Two: Best Practices 36-58, City & County of San Francisco, San Francisco. http://www.bettermarketstreetsf.org/about-reports-existing-conditions.html (2) Bhatt, Shailen, Natalie Barnhart, Mark Luszcz, Tom Meyer, & Michael Sommers. “Delaware Traffic Calming Design Manual.” Delaware Department of Transportation, State of Delaware, Dover, DE. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DE-Trafc-Calming-Manual_2012.pdf (3) King, Michael R, Jon A Carnegie, and Reid Ewing. “Pedestrian Safety through a Raised Median and Redesigned Intersections.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1828 (1), 56-66, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://trid.trb.org/view/663867 (4) Fitzpatrick, Kay, Mark D Wooldridge, and Joseph D Blaschke. “Urban Intersection Design Guide: Volume 1–Guidelines.” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4365-P2.pdf
Elevates the intersection to bring vehicles to the sidewalk level. Serves as a traffic calming measure by extending the sidewalk context across the road.
Cost $$$
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Raised Intersection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
24 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 509/563
Curbed sections in the center of the roadway that are physically separated from vehicular traffic. Raised medians can also help control access to and from side streets and driveways, reducing conflict points.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S12/NS14/R08
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Raised Median
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A Raised Median, or Refuge Island, is a raised barrier in the center of the roadway that can restrict certain turning movements and provide a place for pedestrians to wait if they are unable to finish crossing the intersection. A Raised Median reduces the number of potential conflict points with designated zones for vehicles to turn, and a pedestrian refuge island reduces the exposure for pedestrians crossing the intersection. Pedestrian refuge areas constructed from paint and plastic may be implemented as part of a low-cost/quick build project.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS19PB
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Refuge Island
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
25Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 510/563
Geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur can simplify decisions and minimize the potential for left-turn related crashes. Two designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT). Both designs require some out of direction travel for vehicles.
Cost $$$
LRSM ID NS16
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A Road Diet reduces roadway space dedicated to vehicle travel lanes to create room for bicycle facilities, wider sidewalks, or center turn lanes. A Road Diet reduces vehicle speeds and creates designated space for all road users.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R14
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Road Diet
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
26 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 511/563
These traffic calming devices use vertical deflection to raise the entire wheelbase of a vehicle and encourage motorists to travel at slower speeds.
Cost $
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Speed Hump or Speed Table
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A raised area that separates the two directions of travel on the minor street approach at an unsignalized intersection or roundabout. Helps channelize traffic in opposing directions of travel. Also helps improve the visibility of an intersection when approaching it. Provides a refuge for pedestrians.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS13
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Splitter Island
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
27Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 512/563
Straightening crosswalks improves sight lines, making pedestrians more visible to oncoming drivers, and may shorten the crossing distance, reducing the length of time required for pedestrians to cross an intersection.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Straighten Crosswalk
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Widened and paved shoulders, which may also include flattening the slopes along the sides of the roadway, create a separated space for bicyclists, create space for a driver to safely recover if they inadvertently depart the travel lane, and also provide space for inoperable vehicles to pull out of the travel lane. The addition of a paved shoulder to an existing road can help to reduce run-off-road crashes. Benefits can be realized for high-risk rural roads without paved shoulders, regardless of existing lane pavement width. Adding paved shoulders within horizontal curve sections may help agencies maximize the benefits of the treatment while minimizing costs as opposed to adding paved shoulders to an entire corridor.
Cost $$
LRSM ID R15
INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Widen/Pave Shoulder
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
28 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 513/563
Other Reference InformationAudible Push Button Upgrade and Extended Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
Push buttons must comply with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standards for accessibility. Pushbuttons should be visible and conveniently located for pedestrians waiting at a crosswalk. Accessible pedestrian signals, including audible push buttons, improve access for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision. Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) includes accessibility design guidance.
Cost $
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage Conflicts in Time Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Audible Push Button Upgrade
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationData in the CMF Clearinghouse is currently limited to bicycle/vehicle collisions. See additional reference: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=1
Adding sidewalks provides a separated and continuous facility for people to walk along the roadway.
Cost $$$
LRSM ID R34PB
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Add Sidewalk
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
29Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 514/563
A pedestrian crossing at an intersection or on a segment provides a formalized location for people to cross the street, reducing the risk of people crossing outside crosswalks where drivers are not expecting them. Crosswalk striping, signs, and other enhanced features alert drivers that there may be a pedestrian crossing.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R35PB
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (Signs and Markings Only)
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Place bus stops and pedestrian crossings in close proximity to allow transit riders to cross the street at well-designed crossing locations.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian Crossings
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
30 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 515/563
Other Reference Information(1) Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways, NCHRP, 2016. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24634/application-of-pedestrian-crossing-treatments-for-streets-and-highways (2) Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, NCHRP, 2017. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24627/development-of-crash-modifcation-factors-for-uncontrolled-pedestrian-crossing-treatments (3) Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.pdf
A curb extension is a traffic calming measure that widens the sidewalk for a short distance to enhance the pedestrian crossing. This reduces the crossing distance and allows pedestrians and drivers to see each other when parked vehicles would otherwise block visibility. Paint and plastic curb extensions are a low-cost/quick-build option.
Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS21PB
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Curb Extensions
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationAudible Push Button Upgrade and Extended Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
A push button that can be pressed to request extra time for using the crosswalk, beyond the standard crossing time. Ideal near senior-serving land uses.
Cost $
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Extend Time Push Button
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
31Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 516/563
A high-visibility crosswalk has a striped pattern with ladder markings made of high-visibility material, such as thermoplastic tape, instead of paint. A high-visibility crosswalk improves the visibility of marked crosswalks and provides motorists a cue to slow down and yield to pedestrians.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S18/NS20
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
High-Visibility Crosswalk
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Displays “countdown” of seconds remaining on the pedestrian signal. Countdown indications improve safety for all road users, and are required for all newly installed traffic signals where pedestrian signals are installed.
Cost $$
LRSM ID S17PB
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Pedestrian Countdown Timer
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
32 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 517/563
A pedestrian-hybrid beacon (PHB) is used at unsignalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks to notify oncoming motorists to stop with a series of red and yellow lights. Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests in dark until a pedestrian activates it via pushbutton or other form of detection.
Cost $$$
LRSM ID NS23PB
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage Conflicts in Time Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Separating drivers from bicyclists and pedestrians using landscaping provides more space between the modes and can produce a traffic calming effect by encouraging drivers to drive at slower speeds, lowering the risk of crashing.
Cost $$
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Landscape Buffer
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
33Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 518/563
Other Reference InformationPedestrian Phase Recall: Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.pdf
At intersection locations that have a high volume of turning vehicles and have high pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes, a leading pedestrian interval gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3 - 7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left or right. Pedestrian recall is a traffic signal timing function that causes a pedestrian walk phase to activate automatically every cycle.
Cost $
LRSM ID S21PB
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Leading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=11
An intersection treatment that relies on sensors to detect when a pedestrian is waiting at a crosswalk and automatically triggers the pedestrian “WALK” phase. Reduces crossings at inappropriate times while providing sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the roadway.
Cost $$
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Pedestrian Detection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
34 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 519/563
Removes existing crossing prohibitions and provides marked crosswalk and other crossing enhancements for pedestrians to cross the street.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Crossing Prohibition
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=4
Periodic restriping of crosswalks is necessary to maintaing visibility of the traffic markings. Crosswalk may be restriped with high visibility markings.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Restripe Crosswalk
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
35Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 520/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=3
Tactile warning devices must be detectable to visually impaired pedestrians. Curb ramps must follow PROWAG and local design guidelines.
Cost $$
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Upgrade Curb Ramp
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Widening sidewalks provides a more comfortable space for pedestrians, particularly in locations with high volumes of pedestrians, and provides space to accommodate people in wheelchairs. Widening sidewalks reduces the likelihood of collisions with pedestrians walking in the road.
Cost $$
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Widen Sidewalk
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
36 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 521/563
A rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) is a pedestrian-activated flashing light with additional signage to alert motorists of a pedestrian crossing. An RRFB increases the visibility of marked crosswalks and provides motorists a cue to slow down and yield to pedestrians.
Cost $$
LRSM ID NS22PB
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Retroreflective borders enhance the visibility of traffic signals for aging and color-vision-impaired drivers, enabling them to understand which signal indication is illuminated. Retroreflective borders may also alert drivers to signalized intersections during periods of power outages when the signals would otherwise be dark and non–reflective signal heads and backplates would not be visible.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S02
SIGNALS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Retroreflective Tape on Signals
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
37Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 522/563
Additional signal heads allow drivers to anticipate signal changes farther away from intersections. Supplemental traffic signals may be placed on the near side of an intersection, far-left, far-right, or very high.
Cost $$
LRSM ID S02
SIGNALS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Supplemental Signal Heads
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system adjusts the start time of the yellow-signal phase (i.e. earlier or later) based on observed vehicle locations and speeds. The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system minimizes the number of drivers that are faced with the dilemma of determining if they should stop at the intersection or drive through the intersection based on their speed and distance from the intersection.
Cost $$
LRSM ID S04
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
38 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 523/563
Increases time for pedestrian walk phases, especially to accommodate vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S03
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Extending yellow and all red time increases the time allotted for the yellow and red lights during a signal phase. Extending yellow and all red time allows drivers and bicyclists a few additional seconds of time at the end of a signal phase to cross through a signalized intersection before conflicting traffic movements are permitted to enter the intersection.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S03
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Extend Yellow and All Red Time
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
39Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 524/563
Flashing yellow turn arrow alerts drivers to proceed with caution and decide if there is a sufficient gap in oncoming traffic to safely make a turn. To be used only when a pedestrian walk phase is not called. Protected-only phases should be used when pedestrians are present.
Cost $$
SIGNALS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A form of pedestrian “WALK” phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians to cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally.
Cost $$
LRSM ID S03
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Pedestrian Scramble
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
40 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 525/563
Prohibitions of left turns at locations where a turning vehicle may conflict with pedestrians in the crosswalk or where opposing traffic volume is high. Reduces pedestrian interaction with vehicles when crossing.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S15/NS16
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Prohibit Left Turn
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Restricts left or right turns during the pedestrian crossing phase at locations where a turning vehicle may conflict with pedestrians in the crosswalk. This restriction may be displayed with a blank-out sign.
Cost $
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Prohibit Turns During Pedestrian Phase
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
41Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 526/563
A protected left turn can be implemented at signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection. Providing protected left-turn phases for signalized intersections removes the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles.
Cost $$
LRSM ID S06/S07
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Protected Left Turns
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationCurrently the CMF Clearinghouse does not include specific studies; however, permitting right-turns-on-red shows an increase in ped/vehicle crashes. Additional information is available at the FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=49
Prohibiting right-turn-on-red movements should be considered at skewed intersections, or where exclusive pedestrian “WALK” phases, Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs), sight distance issues, or high pedestrian volumes are present. Can help prevent crashes between vehicles turning right on red from one street and through vehicles on the cross street, and crashes involving pedestrians.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
42 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 527/563
Other Reference Information(1) Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.pdf (2) FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Provides a green arrow phase for right-turning vehicles. Avoids conflicts between right-turning traffic and bicyclists or pedestrians crossing the intersection on their right.
Cost $$$
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=45
Traffic signal cycle lengths have a significant impact on the quality of the urban realm and consequently, the opportunities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles to operate effectively along a corridor. Long signal cycles, compounded over multiple intersections, can make crossing a street or walking even a short distance prohibitive and frustrating. Short cycle lengths of 60–90 seconds are ideal for urban areas.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Shorten Cycle Length
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
43Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 528/563
The emphasis on improving signal coordination for this countermeasure is to provide an opportunity for slow-speed signal coordination. Coordinating signals to allow for bicyclist progression, also known as a ‘green wave,’ gives bicyclists and pedestrians more time to cross through the ‘green wave’ intersections. It also slows vehicle speeds, helping to reduce the likelihood of severe collisions.
Cost $$
LRSM ID S03
SIGNALS
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Signal Interconnectivity and Coordination / Green Wave
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
At certain hours (e.g. late night) a signal remains red for all approaches or certain approaches until a vehicle arrives at the intersection. If the vehicle is going faster than the desired speed, the signal will not turn green until after vehicle stops. If the vehicle is going the desired speed the signal will change to green before the vehicle arrives. This signal timing provides operational benefit to drivers traveling at the desired speed limit. Can be paired with variable speed warning signs.
Cost $$
LRSM ID R26
SIGNALS
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
44 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 529/563
Upgrading Signal Heads replaces existing 8-inch signal heads with 12-inch signal heads to comply with the California MUTCD’s 2014 guidelines. Upgrading signal heads provides better visibility of intersection signals and by aiding drivers’ advanced perception of upcoming intersections.
Cost $
LRSM ID S02
SIGNALS
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Upgrade Signal Head
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
An advanced stop bar is a horizontal stripe painted ahead of the crosswalk at stop signs and signals to indicate where drivers should stop. An advanced stop bar reduces instances of vehicles encroaching on the crosswalk. Creating a wider stop bar or setting the stop bar further back may be appropriate for locations with known crosswalk encroachment issues.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S20PB
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Advance Stop Bar
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
45Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 530/563
Yield lines are placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of multi-lane pedestrian crossings to increase visibility of pedestrians. They can reduce the likelihood of a multiple-threat crash.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Advance Yield Markings
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
A curve advance warning sign notifies drivers of an approaching curve and may include an advisory speed limit as drivers navigate around the curve. This warning sign is ideally combined with other infrastructure that alerts drivers of the curve, such as chevron signs, delineators, and flashing beacons. A curve advance warning sign provides drivers additional time to slow down for the curve.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R24
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Curve Advance Warning Sign
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
46 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 531/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
A flashing beacon as an Advanced Warning is a blinking light with signage to notify motorists of an upcoming intersection or crosswalk. A flashing beacon provides motorists more time to be aware of and slow down for an intersection or yield to pedestrians crossing a crosswalk.
Cost $$
LRSM ID S10
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Flashing Beacon as Advance Warning
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Post-mounted chevrons are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve and provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R23
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
47Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 532/563
An LED-Enhanced Sign has LED lights embedded in the sign to outline the sign itself or the words and symbols on the sign. The LEDs may be set to flash or operate in a steady mode. An LED-enhanced sign improves the visibility of signs at locations with visibility limitations or with a documented history of drivers failing to see or obey the sign (e.g. at STOP signs).
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS08
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
LED-Enhanced Sign
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
A raised pavement marker is a small device attached to the road and used as a positioning guide for drivers.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Painted Centerline and Raised Pavement Markers at Curves on Residential Streets
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
48 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 533/563
A speed feedback sign notifies drivers of their current speed, usually followed by a reminder of the posted speed limit. A speed feedback sign provides a cue for drivers to check their speed and slow down, if necessary.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Speed Feedback Sign
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Speed legends are numerals painted on the roadway indicating the current speed limit in miles per hour. They are usually placed near speed limit signposts.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Speed Legends on Pavement at Neighborhood Entries
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
49Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 534/563
Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. Intersections where the lane designations are not clearly visible to approaching motorists and/or intersections noted as being complex and experiencing crashes that could be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful attempt to navigate the intersection can benefit from this treatment.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID S09
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Striping Through Intersection
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Restricts left-turns or right-turns during certain time periods when there may be increased potential for conflict (e.g., peak periods, school hours).
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNING & STRIPING
Manage Conflicts in Time
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Time-Based Turn Restriction
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
50 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 535/563
Upgrading intersection pavement marking can include “Stop Ahead” markings and the addition of centerlines and stop bars. Upgrading intersection pavement markings can increase the visibility of intersections for drivers approaching and at the intersection.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS07
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Upgrading signs with fluorescent sheeting replaces existing signs with new signs that can clearly display warnings by reflecting headlamp light back to vehicles. Upgrading signs with fluorescent sheeting improves visibility of signs to drivers at night.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R22
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
51Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 536/563
Restripe lanes with reflective striping to improve striping visibility and clarify lane assignment, especially where the number of lanes changes.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Upgrade Striping
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Upgrading to larger warning signs replaces existing signs with physically larger signs with larger warning information. Upgrading to larger warning signs increases the visibility of the information provided, particularly for older drivers.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS06
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Upgrade to Larger Warning Signs
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
52 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 537/563
A network of signs that highlight nearby pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Can help to reduce crossings at locations with poor sight distance or limited crossing enhancements.
Cost $
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Wayfinding
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
“Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs alert drivers about the presence of pedestrians. These signs are required with advance yield lines. Other sign types can be placed on the centerline in the roadway.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS06
SIGNING & STRIPING
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Yield To Pedestrians Sign
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
53Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 538/563
Back-In Angled Parking requires motorists to back into an angled on-street parking spot and to drive forward when exiting a parking spot. Back-in angled parking increases the visibility of passing vehicles and bicycles while exiting a spot, particularly if large adjacent vehicles obstruct sight, and allows trunk unloading to happen on the curb instead of in the street.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Back-In Angled Parking
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationThe CMF Clearinghouse has limited research related to vehicle/pedestrian crashes. See additional reference: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=20
Vehicles entering and exiting driveways may conflict with pedestrians and with vehicles on the main road, especially at driveways within 250 feet of intersections. Driveway consolidation reduces conflict points along a segment and/or near intersections.
Cost $$
OTHER
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Access Management/Close Driveway
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
54 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 539/563
Other Reference InformationPedestrian-Level Lighting: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=8
Adding intersection and/or pedestrian-scale lighting at intersections increases the visibility of all road users. This countermeasure is most effective at reducing or preventing collisions at intersections at night or in low-light conditions. When lighting pedestrian crosswalks, it is helpful to use lighting analysis to avoid designs that inadvertently introduce glare or backlight pedestrians, making it hard for motorists to see them.
Cost $$
LRSM ID NS01
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Intersection Lighting
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Providing roadway lighting increases driver awareness and can improve visibility of other road users and/or objects in the roadway.
Cost $$
LRSM ID R01
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Segment Lighting
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
55Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 540/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. The width of the clear zone is informed by roadway context, desired vehicle speeds, and agency design standards.
Cost $$
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Create or Increase Clear Zone
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Curbside management helps prioritize different uses that would otherwise be in conflict with one another such as location of bus stops, bicycle infrastructure, freight deliveries, passenger pick-ups/drop-offs, green stormwater infrastructure, public spaces, and parking management.
Cost $
OTHER
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Curbside Management
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
56 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 541/563
Far-side bus stops are located immediately after an intersection, allowing the bus to pass through the intersection before stopping for passenger loading and unloading. Far-side stops encourage pedestrians to cross behind the bus for greater visibility and can improve transit service reliability.
Cost $
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Far-Side Bus Stop
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are generally less costly than Chevron Signs as they don’t require posts to place along the roadside.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID R27
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Markers
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
57Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 542/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Impact attenuators bring an errant vehicle to a more-controlled stop or redirect the vehicle away from a rigid object. Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators tend to be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed.
Cost $$
LRSM ID R05
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Impact Attenuators
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
The installation of median guardrail is most suitable for use in traversable medians having no or little change in grade and cross slope. While these systems may not reduce the frequency of crashes due to roadway departure, they can help prevent a lane-departure crash from becoming a head-on collision.
Cost $$
OTHER
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Median Guardrail
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
58 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 543/563
Other Reference InformationTRB Study on Setting Speed Limits; also Richard, C. M., Magee, K., Bacon-Abdelmoteleb, P., & Brown, J. L. (2018, April). Countermeasures that work: A highway safety countermeasure guide for State Highway Safety Offices, Ninth edition (Report No. DOT HS 812 478). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
As an industry, there is a consistent movement away from setting speed limits solely based on 85th percentile vehicle speeds. Roadway characteristics, adjacent land use context, as well as the risk higher speeds create for all road users are now considered. Where separate space is not available for vulnerable road users and/or severe conflicts (e.g., crossing or turning conflicts) are present between motorvehicles speeds of 25 mph are preferable to reduce the risk of severe collisions. Where separated space is provided for vulnerable road users and severe conflicts between vehicles are managed, speed limits above 25 mph can be considered.
Cost $
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Speed Limit Reduction
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Relocating or removing utility poles from within the clear zone alleviates the potential for fixed-object crashes. If utility poles cannot be completely eliminated from within the clear zone, efforts can be made to either relocate the poles to a greater offset from the road or given high-visibility treatments.
Cost $$
OTHER
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Severe Conflicts
Relocate Select Hazardous Utility Poles
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
59Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 544/563
Other Reference InformationFHWA Manual for Selecting Safety Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Remove objects that may prevent drivers and pedestrians from having a clear sightline. May include installing red curb at intersection approaches to remove parked vehicles (also called “daylighting”), trimming or removing landscaping, or removing or relocating large signs.
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build alternative available
LRSM ID NS11
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Remove Obstructions For Sightlines
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
Upgrading Lighting to LED replaces high-pressure sodium light bulbs with LED light bulbs in street lights. Upgrading Lighting to LED increases the visibility of pedestrians in crosswalks through greater color contrast and larger areas of light distribution.
Cost $$
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Upgrade Lighting to LED
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
60 Countermeasures Toolbox | Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 545/563
A red light camera enforces traffic signal compliance by capturing the image of a vehicle that has entered an intersection in spite of the traffic signal indicating red. The automatic photographic evidence is used by authorities to enforce traffic laws and issue traffic violation tickets.
Cost $$
OTHER
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
SAFE SYSTEM HIERARCHY
Red Light Camera
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
61Edmonds Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) | Countermeasures Toolbox
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 546/563
P
Appendix H: Project Identification
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 547/563
Task 4.1: Edmonds CSAP Project Selection Strategy
The Alta team will develop a comprehensive list of implementable strategies and projects to
address the highest priority areas for safety improvements in the City of Edmonds. Corridors in the
city will be prioritized based on the following criteria, for a total of 100 points. Based on the
engagement process and analysis conducted, Alta will score each roadway segment in GIS. The
result will be a network of segments that, when improved, will have the largest impact on safety in
the City of Edmonds.
Table 1: Prioritization Scoring Criteria
Scoring criteria Number of points (100 total) Source
Location on the All Modes HIN 16 (Y/N) High Injury Network (Task
2.1)
Location on the Vulnerable Road
User HIN
16 (Y/N) High Injury Network (Task
2.1)
Risk Score of the Corridor 16 (proportional) Risk Factor Analysis
(Task 2.3)
Equity score of the Corridor 16 (proportional) Equity Area Analysis
Composite Score
(Task 3.5)
Proximity to parks Within 1/8 mile – 6 points
Within 1/4 mile – 3 points
Edmonds Transportation
Master Plan
Proximity to schools Within 1/8 mile – 6 points
Within 1/4 mile – 3 points
Edmonds Transportation
Master Plan
Proximity to transit stops Within 1/8 mile – 6 points
Within 1/4 mile – 3 points
Edmonds Transportation
Master Plan
Whether the Corridor was flagged
as a safety concern in the public
engagement survey results
18 (proportional to number of
safety concerns along the
corridor)
Community Survey and
Engagement (Task 3)
Edmonds streets scored based on the criteria above is shown in Figure 1. The top 10 locations for safety
improvements can be found at this link: Prioritization Scoring
The top corridors will become a list of priority locations for safety projects in Edmonds. Alta’s
engineering team will identify safety countermeasures along the key corridors. The Alta team will
reference emerging best practices as well as established guidance such as FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures
That Work to pursue recommendations that have documented track records in improving safety
outcomes.
In addition to the scoring criteria listed above, the cost-effectiveness, fundability, and co -benefits
of projects will be considered when prioritizing the list of safety projects. The Alta team will
recommend pairing proven strategies with projects where appropriate, such as design and traffic
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 548/563
operations treatments or broader recommendations focused on enforcement and education. In
addition to infrastructure specific strategies, the Alta team will recommend actions, such as policy,
education and enforcement, based on the biggest challenges identified through the safety analysis
and key themes from the community engagement.
These prioritized projects will be eligible for SS4A implementation grant or other eligible grant
funding. The Alta team will check the list of projects against and combined with projects that are
currently planned or funded through local, regional, and WSDOT priorities.
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 549/563
Figure 2: Prioritization Scores in Edmonds
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 550/563
Safety Action Plan
City Council Meeting
4/28/26
Bertrand Hauss (Transportation Engineer)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 551/563
Agenda
•Description
•Schedule
• Priority identified projects
• Next steps
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 552/563
•Safe Streets For All (S4A) program: Federal Initiative providing funding to
support regional, local, and tribal efforts to prevent roadway deaths and
serious injuries.
•In 2024, City secured Federal funding to complete Safety Action plan (along
with PSRC & other local agencies).
•Safety Action Plan is the basic building block to significantly improve
roadway safety (completed data analysis to identify roadway safety
problems).
•SS4A grant program follows Safe System Approach, analysis of
transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes
and lessening impact forces to reduce crash severity and save lives.
•Upon completion Plan, City eligible to apply for future SS4A funds to
implement those identified projects.
•A Stakeholder Committee was involved in the development of this Plan.
Description
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 553/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 554/563
5
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 555/563
Vision Zero Statement
•“The ultimate goal of the Edmonds Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan is to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injury
collisions by 2040. The initial goal is to lower fatal and
serious injuries by 50% before 2035, with the City formally
re-evaluating progress toward both these goals every 5
years. To achieve this, the City will implement specific
safety improvement projects and programs identified in this
plan.”
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 556/563
Project Sc oring Criteria
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 557/563
Complete Project List (in no priority order)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 558/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 559/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 560/563
Conclusion
•Final Approval / Adoption of Safety Action Plan
•Apply for identified projects within Plan (as part of
SS4A program => due May 26th 2026)
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 561/563
Item 9.2
Packet pg. 562/563
City Council Agenda Item 9.3
April 28, 2026 - Regular Meeting
TITLE:Update on Public Safety Sales Tax (Only One Reading Required)
DEPARTMENT:Police Services
PRESENTER:Chief Loi Dawkins
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational
RECOMMENDATION:Chief Dawkins will provide an update as council requested.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:N/A ☒ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):General Fund ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
Council requested an update regarding the Public Safety Sales Tax connected to House Bill 2015. Chief
will be present to provide an update.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
As part of the budget process for 2026 during the 2025 calendar year, applying for the Public Safety
Sales Tax (as outlined in House Bill 2015) was approved by Council. The police department has worked
on the process as outlined in House Bill 2015 over the last 4 months.
RECOMMENDATION:
Chief Dawkins will provide an update as council requested.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
This is an update to what has already been approved by council.
ITEM HISTORY:
Chief Dawkins will provide an update as council requested.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
n/a
Item 9.3
Packet pg. 563/563