Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Speed Limits Island County topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Island County continues public hearing on speed‑limit ordinance after residents urge site‑specific changes
Summary
The Board of Island County Commissioners continued a public hearing on Ordinance 6‑66‑25, a countywide speed study that would cap maximum county speeds at 45 mph and eliminate 50 mph designations for study roads. Residents urged lower speeds at congested spots, more transition time for signage and greater bicyclist protections.
The Board of Island County Commissioners continued its public hearing on Ordinance 6‑66‑25 on Jan. 27, 2026, after hearing technical details from county staff and testimony from several Camano Island residents.
Ed Sylvester, Island County’s county engineer, told the board the countywide speed evaluation covers 144 arterial and collector road segments grouped into four regions (Camano and three Whidbey groupings). The study used criteria including average daily traffic (a 1,000‑vehicle breakpoint), lane and shoulder width, crash history and site distance. Sylvester said the board in a September 2025 work session directed staff to apply a 45‑mph maximum where appropriate; when that cap was applied to the study segments, 72 segments remained unchanged and 72 had reduced limits. He also said the study does not include every 50‑mph road in the county and that an additional 14 roads at 50 mph are outside the 144‑segment dataset.
The proposal would eliminate the 50‑mph postings among the segments covered by the study; Sylvester said that would increase the number of posted 45‑mph segments countywide from seven today to about 77 on the study map. He also outlined implementation steps: replacing or reusing signs after reflectivity testing, placing temporary orange flags during the posting period, and updating online maps after the board’s decision.
Members of the public urged commissioners to consider site‑specific adjustments and stronger safety measures. ‘‘Bring it down to 35,’’ said Mark Siegel, a Camano resident who recommended a 35‑mph limit through the commercial IGA corridor near high pedestrian activity, adding a concern that drivers frequently exceed posted limits there. David Pringle, another resident, asked for recommended‑speed warnings or sight‑distance advisory signage at a crest on Monticello/Terrace where visibility is minimal. Donna Connor, a long‑time resident and endurance‑sport trainer, supported lowering limits and recommended a 30–45‑day transition period, portable radar speed trailers for awareness and clearer delineation (rumble strips or marked bike lanes) to protect cyclists and runners.
Commissioners and staff responded to enforcement and timing concerns: staff said law enforcement typically offers warnings for first‑time infractions during transitions and that sign changes should be staged so posted signs reflect the enforceable limit. Commissioners discussed extending the ordinance’s effective period (the draft said 15 days) to allow for weather or workload delays in sign replacement; several suggested 30 days to provide more implementation latitude.
A commissioner moved to continue the public hearing on Ordinance 6‑66‑25 to Feb. 3, 2026, at 10 a.m. in the Commissioners Hearing Room in Coupeville; the motion was seconded by the Chair and approved by voice vote. The board will reconvene the hearing on Feb. 3 for additional public comment and to consider next steps.
The hearing’s continuation leaves the primary policy questions open: whether the board will adopt a uniform countywide 45‑mph maximum for study segments as drafted, or make site‑specific adjustments (for example lower limits or advisory signage) where residents and staff recommend additional safety measures.
