Evaluation of Planning Costs — Washington State Department of Commerce (January 3, 2023)
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Report
Summary
Evaluation of Planning Costs is a report dated January 3, 2023, prepared by Community Attributes Inc. and LDC Inc. for the Washington State Department of Commerce. The 2022 Supplemental Budget directed Commerce to evaluate the costs for cities and counties of revising comprehensive plans to comply with RCW Chapter 36.70A, the Growth Management Act. Based on an online survey and interviews, the executive summary reports that complex comprehensive plan updates have the highest average cost, at more than $340,000 for cities and nearly $680,000 for counties. It finds that staff labor is typically the largest cost component and that circuit rider services received the highest average ranking among technical assistance options, at 2.4. Survey responses came from 48 cities and 14 counties. The report closes with the technical assistance questions of its survey instrument.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Evaluation of Planning Costs — Washington State Department of Commerce (January 3, 2023).”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2023-commerce-reports-cai-com-planning-cost-evaluation-report-a0264bae-7213/
, SHA-256 4f8de77c2fa48c2280cb68d87f4724fd738dd087d709dfcf6415c22ee3216255.Full text
Washington State Department of
Commerce
Evaluation of Planning Costs
January 3, 2023
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
Community Attributes Inc. tells data-rich stories about communities
that are important to decision makers.
President and CEO:
Chris Mefford
Project Manager:
Elliot Weiss
Analysts:
Cassie Byerly
Erin Ezell
Bryan Lobel
Michaela Jellicoe
Jeff Raker
Nicole Witenstein
LDC Inc.
Clay White, Director of Planning
Samantha Adams
Joel Farias
Ian Faulds
Community Attributes Inc.
500 Union Street, Suite 200
Seattle, Washington 98101
www.communityattributes.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the 2022 Supplemental Budget, the Washington State Legislature directed
the Department of Commerce to conduct an evaluation of the costs for cities
and counties to review and revise their comprehensive plans to ensure
compliance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 36.70A Growth
Management – Planning by Selected Counties and Cities, also known as the
Growth Management Act (GMA).
The intention of this directive is to establish a more robust understanding of
resource expenditures on planning activities for jurisdictions of different
sizes and staff capacity. Both Commerce and the Legislature want to improve
guidance to local jurisdictions, identify relevant state resources, and ensure
future planning requirements are informed by any limitations or needs for
effective city and county planning.
This study presents an estimation of baseline costs required for cities and
counties to comply with the requirements of the GMA. This includes
assessing the level of effort cities and counties voluntarily commit to for
successful planning within their communities and will help the state gain
insight into the types of additional technical support cities and counties
require to help facilitate GMA planning.
Costs of Planning Activities
Jurisdictions, through an online survey, were asked to provide cost estimates
and additional contextual information in connection to seven distinct
planning activities:
New comprehensive plan elements
Complex comprehensive plan updates
Minor comprehensive plan updates
Updates to Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)
Updates to Critical Area Ordinances (CAOs)
Revisions to existing development regulations
New development regulations
Analysis, supported by interviews and discussions with working group
members, indicate that the cost to complete any individual planning activity
might vary considerably based on the actual content of the activity and the
level of political and community interest in the content, as well as based on
the general type of activity. Typically, more complex planning activities have
wider variation and higher average costs, while more routine planning
activities have a narrower range of cost estimates. Respondents also indicate
lower levels of confidence in cost estimates for more complex planning
activities.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE III
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Complex comprehensive plan updates have the widest variation in
total costs for both cities and counties. This activity also has the
highest average cost among respondents at more than $340,000 for
cities and nearly $680,000 for counties.
New comprehensive plan elements, updates to shoreline master
programs and updates to critical areas ordinance are also highly
variable in cost. These activities have average costs ranging from
$85,000 for a critical areas ordinances to $383,000 for new
comprehensive plan elements.
Minor comprehensive plan updates have the lowest average cost for
counties at $28,500 ranging to $53,000 for cities. New and existing
development regulations also have lower and more consistency in
average cost across both cities and counties, ranging from $34,000 to
$40,000. (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2)
Across all planning activities, total costs are generally lower for small
cities and counties and increase based on population size. However,
the costs per 1,000 population are highest among small cities and
counties; in most cases, this is double the cost per 1,000 on average.
Exhibit 1. Total Cost for Cities by Activity
$2,500,000
$2,043,000
30
$2,000,000
$1,465,000
$1,500,000 20
$906,300 10
$1,000,000
$504,700
$500,000 $340,700 $367,800 0
$192,700 $260,400 $239,900 Maximum
$52,500 $115,600 $85,100 $39,400 $33,900 Average
$0 -10
$5,400 $6,700 $1,500 $2,000 $1,000 $1,100 $1,500 Minimum
-$500,000 -20
n= 38 29 37 31 35 36 31
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc., 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE IV
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 2. Total Cost for Counties by Activity
$6,500,000
$5,579,400
$5,500,000 30
$4,500,000
20
$3,500,000
10
$2,443,700
$2,500,000
0
$1,500,000 $1,159,000
$679,400
$382,800 $112,500 $505,400 $234,400 $112,500 $125,000 Maximum
-10
$500,000 $28,500 $156,300 $37,500 $37,400 Average
-$500,000 $10,000
$6,000 $2,800 $45,000 $6,000 $600 $1,200 Minimum
-20
9 12 11 14 13 12 11
n=
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Other key findings on the costs of planning are as follows.
Excluding the costs for a SEPA/NEPA EIS, the maximum and average
costs per 1,000 population vary widely across planning activities
among cities. Generally, more complex planning activities have higher
maximum and average costs per 1,000.
Labor costs or the costs for city and county staff time are typically the
largest component of the cost of planning, on average representing
more than 50% of total costs for all planning activities.
Overall, survey responses indicate a medium level of confidence in the cost
estimates jurisdictions provided across all planning activities (ranging from
45% to 82% of counties and 47% to 65% of cities). When jurisdictions reported
low levels of confidence it was typically related to more complex planning
activities, indicating the more complex the planning activity, the less
confident respondents were in their cost estimates.
Drivers of Cost
Key drivers of cost explored through the survey include the length of time to
complete planning activities, types of technical tasks required, number of
consultant contracts, number of stakeholder and public meetings, and the
types of public engagement used.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE V
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
On average, most planning activities require two years or less to
complete. Planning activities that require more than two years include
complex comprehensive plan updates, new comprehensive plan
elements at the county level, and critical areas ordinance updates.
Public and stakeholder outreach and data analysis are frequently
utilized across all planning activities, while modeling and other
technical methods are less frequent.
Jurisdictions appear to rely on consultants more heavily for complex
planning activities, including new comprehensive plan elements,
complex comprehensive plan updates, updates to critical areas
ordinances and shoreline master programs.
The number of consultants rarely exceeds one to five contracts, but a
small share of cities report more than five contracts for new
comprehensive plan elements, updates to existing development
regulations, and implementing new development regulations.
The number of stakeholder meetings held also appears to vary across
the different planning activities. Most frequently, planning activities
require one to five meetings.
Planning activities typically require at least one public meeting. Only
for implementing a new development regulation do more than 50% of
cities indicate no public meetings were required.
Technical Assistance
Regardless of size and geography, jurisdictions reported that technical
assistance of varying type and intensity is desperately needed.
Data collected from the interviews suggest that on a statewide level,
planners need the most support when it comes to changes to state,
regional, or county law and policy. Small and medium cities rank this
topic highest for additional support. This suggests planners in smaller
jurisdictions across Washington have a harder time keeping up with,
understanding the impacts of, and implementing changes to comply
with state regulations.
Specific comprehensive plan elements rank second highest among
areas where planners need additional support. Planners across the
state have expressed that mandatory elements with technical aspects
such as capital facilities and transportation take significant amounts
of coordination between multiple departments, and that it would be
beneficial for Commerce to provide guiding documents or resources.
Across Washington, two types of technical assistance stand out for
jurisdiction’s interest: circuit rider services and model codes and ordinances.
Both cities and counties in Washington give a high-ranking score for circuit
rider services. The average rank for circuit rider services is 2.4 (on a scale of
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE VI
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
one to ten where one is highest) and this service received the highest average
score out of all the types of technical assistance. (Exhibit 3)
Planners express that model codes and ordinances are generally helpful to
review as they prepare materials, but highlight a caveat that provided
examples must be changed significantly to flow with existing local code.
Exhibit 3. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, All Responses
Alignment with case law and appeals 4.7
Capital Facilities Planning 4
Impact Fees 6.7
Critical Areas 3.9
Specific Elements 3.4
Changes to Law and Policies 3
Communications and PR 4.5
Mediation and Facilitation 4.7
Grant Funds for Technical Assistance 3.4
State Approval and Defense from Appeal 3.3
Expand Role of Colleges 3.4
Involve Regional Agencies 4.5
Master Consultant Agreements 4
Circuit Rider Services 2.4
Data or Analytic Tools 3.8
Model Policy Language 3.2
Model Codes or Ordinance 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
Limitations of this Study and Avenues for Future
Exploration
At the time of this report’s issuance, survey responses were received from 48
cities (17% of Washington’s cities) and 14 counties (36% of Washington’s
counties). Response rates vary when disaggregating by population, geography
or GMA planning level. Response rates are highest among large cities and
counties, Central Puget Sound cities and counties, and fully planning
jurisdictions. Of the 320 jurisdictions in Washington, CAI and LDC
performed technical assistance interviews with 56 (17%) representatives of
cities and counties across the state. There is cross-over between jurisdictions
participating in the survey and interviews.
There are several limitations to this study. Most critically, while the study
aimed to gather data from the largest possible number of Washington cities
and counties, a limited number of jurisdictions responded within the study
timeframe. The limited sample size for this survey presents challenges for
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE VII
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
disaggregating responses based on jurisdictional characteristics and
identifying trends in responses.
Avenues for further and future investigation to improve this study,
incorporating feedback from working group members, include:
Continue to invest in direct outreach. Secure more responses from
Eastern and Central Washington, small jurisdictions, and those
planning partially under GMA to improve representation in the
sample size. Working group feedback indicated that the Washington
State Association of Counties and Association of Washington Cities
could provide support for ongoing outreach and leverage their
relationships with jurisdictions.
Survey response rates increased as the consultant team was able to
schedule additional one-on-one discussions to walk-through the
survey, streamline data collection efforts, and add to jurisdictions’
capacities in providing a response. An extended timeframe would
allow for continued in-depth outreach.
Elected briefing document. Establish a short briefing document to
highlight the financial impact of planning requirements, explain the
need and opportunity for financial and technical resources for
jurisdictions, and connect this with relevant mandates for
comprehensive plan updates due in 2024 and other planning activities.
This document could be shared with local elected officials to highlight
the importance of participating in the study and secure more survey
responses.
Ongoing data collection. Create an opportunity for ongoing and
future data collection by simplifying the survey instrument, aligning
survey requests within Commerce and among other state agencies
attempting to secure information from local jurisdictions, and possibly
add the survey or data requests as part of approval process or close
out forms for Commerce grants, as well as upon submittal of notice for
comprehensive plan and development regulation updates. This could
include providing a link to the survey or data request through
Planview or sending the request upon receipt of an ordinance
submittal through automated messages.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE VIII
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................ 5
Cost Estimates by Planning Activity ............................................................................. 10
Key Drivers of Cost ....................................................................................................... 18
Cost Variability and Differentiation by Jurisdiction Characteristics ............................ 31
Critical Technical Assistance ........................................................................................ 33
Appendices .................................................................................................................... 43
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE IX
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Blank.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE X
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose
In the 2022 Supplemental Budget, the Washington State Legislature directed
the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to conduct an evaluation of the
costs for cities and counties to review and revise their comprehensive plans
to ensure compliance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter
36.70A Growth Management – Planning by Selected Counties and Cities,
also known as the Growth Management Act (GMA).
The intention of this directive is to establish a more robust understanding of
resource expenditures on planning activities for jurisdictions of different
sizes and staff capacity. Both Commerce and the Legislature want to improve
guidance to local jurisdictions, identify relevant state resources, and ensure
future planning requirements are informed by any limitations or needs for
effective city and county planning.
This study presents an estimation of baseline costs required for cities and
counties to comply with the requirements of the GMA. This includes
assessing the level of effort cities and counties voluntarily commit to for
successful planning within their communities and will help the state gain
insight into the types of additional technical support cities and counties
require to help facilitate GMA planning.
Alignment with the Collaborative Roadmap Project
The types of technical assistance addressed within this Evaluation of
Planning Costs have overlap with those included within the Collaborative
Roadmap Phase III project (Phase III).
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 1
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Phase III is a two-year project, funded by the Washington State Legislature
during the 2021 legislative session. The project includes a task force, with
diverse perspectives, to make recommendations to the Legislature regarding
reforms to the state’s growth policy framework. In addition, working groups
have been utilized to provide broad outreach and inform the task force on
important legislative issues it is considering.
The task force is discussing whether Commerce should provide greater
technical assistance. Working groups representing tribal nations, Realtors,
planners, environmental groups, special districts, builders, state agencies,
and environmental justice organizations have also considered this topic and
provided broad support and specific recommendations to the task force for
consideration.
In addition, Phase III included a project survey, which asked: “Which of these
options, if any, do you think Washington State should fund to help local
governments plan under the Growth Management Act?” The survey
responses, which can be found on the Collaborative Roadmaps project
website,1 denoted strong support for assistance, such as the state providing
model policy language for comprehensive plan updates and broad technical
assistance to cities and counties.
Subtle differences from Phase III and this project include the need for
Commerce assistance and resources for tribes, cities, and counties to better
coordinate with each other on specific planning issues.
On November 9, 2022, the Phase III Task force recommended that:
“The state should provide cities and counties, especially those with fewer
resources, additional technical resources, on an ongoing basis. The findings
from the Commerce study of planning costs and comments received from
working groups and surveys during this project should be utilized to assist in
prioritizing which technical resources are most important to provide. The
needs of communities vary, and the options listed below may all be useful to
certain communities.”
The task force did not prioritize the types of technical assistance for
Commerce to provide given the varied needs of communities across the state.
The full recommendation can be found in Exhibit 4.
1 https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-
management/collaborative-roadmap-phase-iii/
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 2
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 4. Collaborative Roadmap – Task Force Recommendation –
November 2022
The state should provide cities and counties additional technical resources on an ongoing
basis, especially those with fewer resources. The findings from the Commerce study of
planning costs and comments received from working groups and surveys during this
project should be utilized to assist in prioritizing which technical resources are most
important to provide. The needs of communities vary, and the options listed below might
be useful to certain communities.
a. Technical assistance and resources for tribes, cities, and counties to better
coordinate with each other on specific planning issues.
b. State development of model code and/or policy language.
c. Mediation and facilitation services.
d. State procurement of and assistance with data tools, like GIS.
e. Technical assistance on specific planning issues to cities and counties.
f. Assistance with master consultant agreements for planning services.
g. Expanding the role of regional agencies, such as councils of government, to provide
planning services to member jurisdictions.
h. Communications and PR expertise for assistance on complex/controversial issues.
i. Expanding the role of colleges and universities in assisting local governments with
planning activities.
j. Library of case law that local governments can easily locate.
Limitations of this Study
There are several limitations to this Evaluation of Costs study. Most
critically, while the study aimed to gather data from the largest possible
number of Washington cities and counties, there was a limited response from
jurisdictions within the study timeframe. At the time of this report’s
issuance, survey responses were received from 48 cities (17% of Washington’s
cities) and 14 counties (36% of Washington’s counties). The limited sample
size for this survey presents challenges for disaggregating responses based
on jurisdictional characteristics and identifying trends in responses.
Challenges cited by jurisdictions in responding to the survey include the
following:
Timeframe for completing this study was the most frequently cited
challenge to completion. This includes both the duration of time
survey responses could be accepted, as well as the timing of the survey
itself, which coincided with several other survey requests to
jurisdictions.
Capacity was a challenge for some jurisdictions, relating to gathering
information within their context and resources. Small jurisdictions
and jurisdictions without or limited planning staff mentioned this
challenge. Additionally, some larger jurisdictions with unfilled staff
positions or significant staff turnover also noted this issue.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 3
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Cost estimation challenged jurisdictions as well, particularly
jurisdictions without a recent example of a planning activity. For
comprehensive planning activities, jurisdictions that most recently
completed these activities as part of a more comprehensive initiative
also noted challenges with disaggregating cost estimates. Jurisdictions
with fewer planning requirements under the GMA needed clarification
about which activities to provide estimates for.
Measuring costs for local planning work that exceeds planning
requirements, as well as unaccounted costs, such as costs to
administer grants challenged jurisdictions.
Identifying entities with authority to provide data impacted
data collection for jurisdictions that use planning consultants or their
Metropolitan Planning Organization for a substantial portion of their
planning work.
Avenues for further and future investigation to improve this study include:
Continue to invest in direct outreach. Secure more responses from
Eastern and Central Washington, small jurisdictions, and those
planning partially under GMA to improve representation in the
sample size. Working group feedback indicated that WSAC and AWC
may provide support for ongoing outreach and leverage their
relationships with jurisdictions.
Survey response rates increased as the consultant team was able to
schedule addition one-on-one discussions to walk through the survey,
streamline data collection efforts, and add to jurisdictions’ capacities
in providing a response. An extended timeframe would allow for
continued in-depth outreach.
Elected briefing document. Create a fact sheet to highlight the
financial impact of planning requirements, explain the need and
opportunity for financial and technical resources for jurisdictions, and
connect this with relevant mandates for comprehensive plan updates
due in 2024 and other planning activities. This document could be
shared with local elected officials to highlight the importance of
participating in the study and secure more survey responses.
Ongoing data collection. Create an opportunity for ongoing and
future data collection by simplifying the survey instrument, aligning
survey requests within Commerce and among other state agencies,
and possibly adding the survey or data requests as part of approval
process or close out forms for Commerce grants, as well as upon
submittal of notice for comprehensive plan and development
regulation updates. This could include providing a link to the survey
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 4
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
or data request through Planview or sending the request upon receipt
of an ordinance submittal through automated messages.
Organization of this Report
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis. Overview of methods
used to collect data on planning costs and technical assistance needs
from cities and counties across the state.
Cost Estimates by Planning Activity. Summarizes findings on the
costs of planning activities and the variability of costs.
Key Drivers of Cost. Details the drivers of costs and factors
influencing cost estimates by planning activity.
Cost Variability and Differentiation of Jurisdiction
Characteristics. Synthesizes findings on cost and drivers of cost
when disaggregated by jurisdiction characteristics including
population, geography, and planning level.
Critical Technical Assistance. Summarizes findings from
interviews including challenges to completing planning requirements
and technical assistance needs.
Appendices. Includes detailed findings and analysis from surveys
and interviews, as well as the survey instrument.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data collection methods included multiple channels of outreach to gather
meaningful and sufficient data.
Engagement with a working group throughout the process to inform
methods, validate findings, test assumptions, and enhance
interpretation. Feedback from working group members and Commerce
staff have been integrated into this report.
Deployment of a survey to gather quantitative and qualitative data
on the costs of planning. The survey was released in both online and
Word formats to provide options for cities and counties to share data.
A supporting template for gathering data was provided in Excel.
In-depth interviews focusing on technical assistance needs and
discussion on the costs of planning provided robust qualitative
information.
Working Group Engagement
A nine-person working group served as an advisory body and provided
essential feedback on methods, data collection, analysis, and interpretation
to support this report. The working group is comprised of city, county, and
state representatives, as well as key consultants and organizations that
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 5
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
support jurisdictions in planning activities statewide. Membership of the
work group includes representatives from the following organizations:
Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC)
Association of Washington Cities (AWC)
Snohomish County
Stevens County
City of Vancouver
City of Woodland
Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC)
SCJ Alliance
Washington State Department of Commerce
At the time of report issuance, the working group met three times. The first
meeting focused on the data collection process, survey design, and the
outreach approach. Feedback from the working group informed updates to
the survey as well as the outreach and analysis approach. Working group
members shared feedback on approaches to provide additional support and
increase response rates, as well as framing for findings and deliverables. The
third meeting covered survey and interview response rates, the limitations of
the study with a low response rate, and options for continued outreach and
future data collection and analysis.
Planning Cost Survey
Community Attributes (CAI), with support and feedback from Land
Development Consultants (LDC) and the working group, designed a survey
questionnaire to collect detailed cost data and supporting details for seven
planning activities, as specified by the legislative request:
Developing a new comprehensive plan element.
Updating a critical areas ordinance.
Updating a shoreline master program ordinance.
Completing a minor update to a comprehensive plan element.
Completing a complex update to a comprehensive plan element.
Updating an existing development regulation.
Implementing a new development regulation.
The complete survey instrument can be found in Appendix P. The survey
instrument includes the following elements:
A brief introduction to the survey and project from the Department of
Commerce and supported by AWC and WSAC, describing the
importance of the survey, as well as the potential benefits to each
community from the study.
Detailed descriptions of the activities required under GMA to complete
each of the seven planning activities. The descriptions are designed to
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 6
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
define the minimum level of effort required to complete each planning
activity.
Questions designed to collect quantitative data on each planning
activity. Cost questions request estimates for high-level breakdowns of
cost elements, including labor and staff costs and consultant contracts.
Additional questions designed to collect qualitative information
probing the drivers of cost estimates, including an environmental
impact statement in the activity (SEPA/NEPA EIS), level of public
engagement and outreach, level of technical work required, length of
time, and the level of confidence in the cost estimate.
Multiple options for submission were allowed to maximize the response rate.
The survey was presented in both an online and Microsoft Word format, to
ensure ease of use while providing respondents the most time and freedom to
collect data and use the templates as their direct submission or as interim
working guides. Some jurisdictions had to coordinate with multiple
departments and staff members to compile a complete understanding of the
costs required for the specified planning activities.
To target a more substantial response, the preliminary survey invitation was
shared by WSAC and AWC, given their direct relationships with each
jurisdiction. Counties received the invitation on Oct. 6, 2022; cities received
the invitation on Oct. 12, 2022. The preliminary close date was Oct. 21, 2022.
However, after an interim evaluation of response rates, the survey was
extended through Oct. 31, 2022.
CAI and LDC sent weekly reminders to each jurisdiction, and the consultant
team updated out-of-date contact information and conducted phone outreach
directly to jurisdictions. Multiple touch points were employed ensure
sufficient survey response and collect qualitative findings. CAI and LDC
provided support to jurisdictions on an ad hoc basis as they completed the
survey.
In an effort to provide additional touch points for jurisdictions to connect
with the consultant team and representatives from other jurisdictions, CAI
and LDC hosted an introductory webinar on Oct. 11, 2022. Additional
webinars were held weekly through the close of the survey. The webinars
provided an overview of the project and emphasized the potential benefits
that jurisdictions might see if the Legislature has meaningful information on
the costs of planning. Attendees were encouraged to ask questions and seek
one-on-one support with the consultant team as needed.
In-Depth Technical Assistance Interviews
In addition to evaluating the costs to complete various types of planning, the
study also focused on other forms of technical assistance beyond direct
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 7
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
financial assistance. These resources might provide additional capacity to
facilitate implementation of new GMA planning requirements. These are
listed and discussed in the Critical Technical Assistance section.
Qualitative in-depth interviews help provide an understanding of
jurisdiction’s interest in different types of technical services and assistance.
This effort gave jurisdictions an opportunity to share their experience and
struggles to remain in compliance with GMA from a technical perspective,
and this data helps inform the Legislature and Commerce on what types of
assistance would be utilized, if prioritized and funded.
Over the course of one month, CAI and LDC contacted every jurisdiction to
invite them to participate in a one-on-one in-depth interview. The consultant
team spoke directly with 56 city and county planners, administrators, and
consultants. Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams and by
telephone, ranging in length from 30 minutes to one hour.
City and county staff were asked a series of five questions, available in full in
Appendix Q. Questions covered:
Primary challenges in completing the planning requirements of
GMA. Interviewees identified, at a high level, the difficulties they face
when planning for state compliance.
General planning activities where they could use support. For
example, interviewees were asked if they would utilize support such
as updating their Critical Areas based on best available science or
capital facility planning.
Specific types of technical assistance needed. The most helpful
forms of technical assistance were identified.
Additional open-ended questions encouraged guided discussion on planning
activities, types of technical assistance and challenges specific to their
jurisdiction.
Two of the three interview questions ask jurisdictions to rank preferences on
a scale of one to ten where one represents the high end of the scale and ten
represents the low end of the scale. The combination of ranked and open-
ended questions provides both qualitative and quantitative data. Together
with the information collected on the cost of planning activities through the
survey, the state Legislature can use this data to better assess how
jurisdictions struggle monetarily and technically to remain in compliance
with GMA. With this information, the state can work to provide accurate and
specific assistance to help planners continue to do this required work.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 8
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Survey Response Rates
Detailed analysis of the survey and interview findings are presented in
subsequent sections. Overall, the survey received 62 responses from 48 cities
and 14 counties. This represents 17% of Washington’s 281 cities and 36% of
Washington’s 39 counties. Response rates vary when disaggregating by
population, geography, or GMA planning level. Response rates are highest
among large cities and counties, Central Puget Sound cities and counties,
and fully planning jurisdictions. (Exhibit 5)
Limited response rates among Central and Eastern Washington cities and
counties as well as among partially planning (GMA 4.0/5.0) cities and
counties limits analysis based on these characteristics. Detailed analysis
contained in appendices A through N do not include summary findings
aggregated for Eastern Washington city or partially planning city categories
due to limited response rates. Additionally, county responses are grouped
into two population categories (large and small/medium) and two geographic
categories (east and west). Fully planning counties are also grouped,
including both GMA 1.0 and 2.0/3.0 into a single category.
Exhibit 5. Planning Cost Survey Response Rates
Response Response
Characteristic Cities Counties
Rate Rate
Population Size
Large (greater than
100,000) 5 50% 7 54%
Medium (10,000 to 100,000) 16 20% 6 27%
Small (less than 10,000) 27 14% 1 25%
Geography
Central Puget Sound (1.0) 20 24% 3 75%
Northwest 6 26% 2 33%
Southwest 9 21% 5 63%
Central 9 14% 2 22%
Eastern 4 6% 2 17%
GMA Planning Level
2.0/3.0 23 17% 9 38%
4.0/5.0 5 8% 2 18%
Total 48 17% 14 36%
Sources: Community Attributes Inc., 2022; LDC, 2022.
Segmentation of Cities and Counties
Analysis of survey and interview responses are segmented based on
jurisdictional characteristics, including population size, geography, and GMA
planning level. Low response rates among certain segments limits the level of
disaggregation possible for both survey and interview findings.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 9
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Population Size
o Large: 100,000 or greater
o Medium: 10,000 to 100,000
o Small: less than 10,000
Geography
o Central Puget Sound includes all cities and counties within
King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.
o Northwest includes all cities and counties within Clallam,
Island, Jefferson, San Juan, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties.
o Southwest includes all cities and counties within Clark,
Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Thurston, and
Wahkiakum Counties.
o Central includes all cities and counties within Adams, Chelan,
Douglas, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Skamania, and
Yakima Counties.
o Eastern includes all cities and counties within Asotin, Benton,
Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Lincoln, Pend Oreille,
Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Whitman Counties.
GMA Planning Level
o Fully Planning within the Central Puget Sound (1.0)
o Fully Planning (2.0/3.0)
o Partially Planning (4.0/5.0)
Interview findings are classified by population size as noted above. Results
are also separated by those counties and cities that are fully or partially
planning under the GMA (Exhibit 26). Fully planning jurisdictions are
categorized as one of five geographies: Central Puget Sound, Northwest,
Southwest, Central, and Eastern. Results from partially planning
jurisdictions are analyzed independently. The geographies are based on
groupings of the workforce development areas from the Employment Security
Department.
COST ESTIMATES BY PLANNING ACTIVITY
Cost estimates by planning activity vary widely among respondents. Drivers
of these costs include the level of engagement, including both public meetings
and stakeholder meetings, as well as staff costs, the technical tools employed
across the different planning activities, complexity of the activity, and the
length of time to completion. Interviews and discussions with working group
members indicate that the cost to complete an individual planning activity
may also vary considerably based on the actual content of the activity, and
the level of political and community interest in the content.
All costs presented in this section are based on estimates provided by
individual jurisdictions and aggregated across all cities or counties in the
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 10
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
state. Appendix A through N contain additional charts and analysis with
breakouts based on characteristics of each jurisdiction, including population
size, geography, and level of planning under GMA.
Total Costs
Across all planning activities, total costs are generally lower for small cities
and counties and increase based on population size.
Complex comprehensive plan updates have the widest variation in costs for
both cities and counties. This activity has the highest average cost among
respondents at more than $340,000 for cities and nearly $680,000 for
counties. New comprehensive plan elements, updates to shoreline master
programs and updates to critical areas ordinance are also highly variable in
cost. These activities have averages costs ranging from $85,000 for a critical
areas ordinances to $383,000 for new comprehensive plan elements.
Minor comprehensive plan updates have the lowest average cost for counties
at $28,500, ranging up to $53,000 for cities. New and existing development
regulations also have lower and more consistency in average cost across both
cities and counties, ranging from $34,000 to $40,000. (Exhibit 6 and
Exhibit 7)
Exhibit 6. Total Cost for Cities by Activity
$2,500,000
$2,043,000
30
$2,000,000
$1,465,000
$1,500,000 20
$906,300 10
$1,000,000
$504,700
$500,000 $340,700 $367,800 0
$192,700 $260,400 $239,900 Maximum
$52,500 $115,600 $85,100 $39,400 $33,900 Average
$0 -10
$5,400 $6,700 $1,500 $2,000 $1,000 $1,100 $1,500 Minimum
-$500,000 -20
n= 38 29 37 31 35 36 31
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc., 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 11
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 7. Total Cost for Counties by Activity
$6,500,000
$5,579,400
$5,500,000 30
$4,500,000
20
$3,500,000
10
$2,443,700
$2,500,000
0
$1,500,000 $1,159,000
$679,400
$382,800 $112,500 $505,400 $234,400 $112,500 $125,000 Maximu
-10
$500,000 $28,500 $156,300 $37,500 $37,400 m
Average
-$500,000 $10,000
$6,000 $2,800 $45,000 $6,000 $600 $1,200 -20
9 12 11 14 13 12 11
n= Minimum
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
SEPA/NEPA Costs
Overall, for cities that conducted a SEPA or NEPA EIS as a part of their
planning activity, average costs range between $1,100 for updates to existing
development regulations to $30,700 for new comprehensive plan elements.
Low estimates for SEPA/NEPA ranged from $300 to $1,000 across all
planning activities. High estimates for SEPA/NEPA costs ranged from $1,500
for a new development regulation to $300,000 for a new comprehensive plan
element. Overall, 41% of responding cities provided SEPA/NEPA costs for a
complex comprehensive plan update, and at the low end just 13% provided
SEPA/NEPA costs for a new development regulation.
Average SEPA/NEPA costs among counties ranged from $1,700 for updates to
existing development regulations or minor comprehensive plan updates to
$181,200 for complex comprehensive plan updates. Low estimates for
SEPA/NEPA costs were $1,200 across all planning activities. High estimates
for SEPA/NEPA costs ranged from $2,500 for updates of existing
development regulations or minor comprehensive plan updates to $500,000
for a complex comprehensive plan update. Among county responses, 56%
included SEPA/NEPA costs as a part of a new comprehensive plan element,
while just 18% included these costs for a new development regulation.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 12
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Per Capita Costs
Excluding the costs for a SEPA/NEPA EIS, the maximum and average costs
per 1,000 population vary widely across planning activities among cities.
Generally, more complex planning activities have higher maximum and
average costs per 1,000 with the exception that minor comprehensive plan
updates appear to have a high maximum and average cost per 1,000
population despite being less complex. (Exhibit 8)
Average per 1,000 costs for a complex comprehensive plan update is
$57,600. This is close to twice the resource requirement for a minor
comprehensive plan update or a new element.
Among less complicated planning activities, including updates to an
existing development regulation, implementing a new development
regulation and updates to a critical areas ordinance range from $4,500
to $10,000, on average.
While updates to shoreline master programs and critical areas
ordinances have higher total costs on average, the cost per 1,000 is
less when compared to other activities.
Among counties, the maximum costs per 1,000 population vary widely across
planning activities and both maximum and average costs per 1,000 are
generally higher for more complex planning activities. Compared to cities,
the average cost per 1,000 population is lower across all planning activities.
Average cost per 1,000 population is highest for a new comprehensive
plan element at an average of $6,200.
The most complex planning activities, including new comprehensive
plan elements, updates to a critical areas ordinance, complex updates
to a comprehensive plan element, and updates to a shoreline master
program range from $3,600 and $6,200 per 1,000, on average.
Minor comprehensive plan updates and new or revised development
regulations all have average costs of $700 or less per 1,000 population.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 13
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 8. Per 1,000 Population Cost for Cities Excluding SEPA/NEPA by
Activity
$1,200,000
$964,300
$1,000,000
$800,000 $656,600
$600,000
$400,000 $200,700
$91,600 $123,200
$200,000 $22,500 $57,600 $26,400 $63,100 $53,100
$10,700 $7,600 $10,000 $4,500
$0 Max
38 29 37 31 36 36 31 Avg
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
n= Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Exhibit 9. Per 1,000 Population Cost for Counties Excluding SEPA/NEPA by
Activity
$40,000 $34,200
$32,400
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000 $20,300
$20,000
$11,300
$15,000
$10,000 $6,200
$4,200 $2,700 $3,600 $4,500 $3,600 $2,200 Max
$5,000 $700 $700 $600 Avg
$0
n= 9 10 11 14 12 12 11
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Components of Costs
Labor costs or the costs for city and county staff time are typically the largest
component of the cost of planning. On average, labor costs represent more
than 50% of total costs for all planning activities. Contract costs represent
the largest share of total costs, excluding SEPA/NEPA costs, for complex
comprehensive plan updates among cities (53%) and updates to a shoreline
master program among counties (54%). Updates to an existing development
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 14
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
regulation and implementing a new development regulation require the least
contract costs at 27% for cities and 5% for counties for an existing regulation,
and 18% for cities and 4% for counties for a new development regulation.
(Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 11)
Exhibit 10. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of City Total Costs
Excluding SEPA/NEPA by Activity
90% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share 78%
80% 1,800
70% 70%
70% 1,600
60% 1,400
53% 53% 53%
45% 47% 1,200
50% 44% 44%
1,000
40% 35%
27% 800
30% 26%
18% 600
20% 400
10% 200
0% 0
n= 39 29 38 31 36 36 32
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 15
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 11. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of County Total Costs
Excluding SEPA/NEPA by Activity
100% Labor Share Contract Share 92% 2,000
87% 87%
90% 1,800
80% 1,600
70% 65% 1,400
59% 61%
60% 54% 1,200
50% 46% 1,000
39%
40% 32% 35% 800
30% 600
20% 400
7% 5%
10% 4% 200
0% 0
n= 9 10 11 14 12 12 11
New Complex Minor Update Update Existing New Dev
Comp Comp Comp SMP CAO Dev Reg Reg
Plan Plan Plan
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Respondents also included other types of costs not captured by labor or
consultant contract costs. Other frequently mentioned types of costs include:
Community outreach, including substantial community meetings and
communication materials, as well as the resources required for public
meetings and hearings, were among the top other costs mentioned for
all planning activities.
Costs attributed to planning review activities, e.g., preparations for
City Council and Planning Commission hearings, were significant for
critical area updates and updating or implementing new development
regulations.
Among new and complex updates to comprehensive plan elements,
research and analysis are among the top other costs.
Legal reviews are another cost included by respondents, particularly
for new comprehensive plan elements, minor comprehensive plan
updates, as well as updates to existing development regulations and
implementing new development regulations.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 16
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Respondent Level of Confidence
Overall, survey responses indicate a medium level of confidence in the cost
estimates jurisdictions provided across all planning activities (ranging from
45% to 82% of counties, and 47% to 65% of cities). Jurisdiction responses
indicate that the more complex the planning activity, the less confident
respondents were in their cost estimates. For cities, the least confidence in
estimates was for critical areas ordinance updates and new development
regulations. For counties, there was less confidence in both complex
comprehensive plan updates and new comprehensive plan elements.
Cities reported the highest levels of confidence for updates to shoreline
master programs, with just 10% reporting a low level of confidence and 39%
with high confidence. Counties were also most confident in their estimate for
updating a shoreline master program with 0% reporting low level of
confidence. (Exhibit 12 and
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 17
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 13)
Exhibit 12. City Level of Confidence by Activity
New Comp Plan 22% 51% 27%
Complex Comp Plan 17% 62% 21%
Minor Comp Plan 21% 47% 32%
Update SMP 10% 52% 39%
Update CAO 26% 51% 23%
Existing Dev Reg 11% 65%
New Dev Reg 25% 50% 25%
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 18
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 13. County Level of Confidence by Activity
New Comp Plan 22% 56% 22%
Complex Comp Plan 27% 45% 27%
Minor Comp Plan 20% 50% 30%
Update SMP 67% 33%
Update CAO 8% 83% 8%
Existing Dev Reg 9% 64% 27%
New Dev Reg 10% 60% 30%
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
KEY DRIVERS OF COST
Many factors influence the level of effort and costs required to complete
planning activities. Some of these factors include:
Length of time required to complete the activity
Reliance on consultant support
Level and type of public and stakeholder engagement
Technical tasks involved
These drivers of cost highlight useful context in connection to the cost
estimates provided, as well as framing ongoing and future discussions as to
areas where resource support might be needed for jurisdictions across
Washington.
Length of Time to Completion
On average, most planning activities require two years or less to complete.
Planning activities that require more than two years include complex
comprehensive plan updates, new comprehensive plan elements at the county
level, and critical areas ordinance updates.
In line with the variable level of effort of different planning activities, most
cities reported that it takes less than one year to update or establish new
development regulations (79% for an update, 83% of responding cities for a
new regulation) or complete a minor comprehensive plan update (69% of
responding cities). The largest share of respondents indicated that it takes
one to two years to complete all other planning activities. A complex
comprehensive plan and update to a shoreline master program are those
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 19
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
activities that are more likely to require more than two years (33% and 27%
share, respectively). (Exhibit 14)
Counties report greater variability in the length of time required to complete
planning activities. Overall, 63% of counties responding to the survey
indicated that it requires more than two years to complete a new
comprehensive plan update and 64% reported the same length was required
to complete a complex update to a comprehensive plan element. Most
respondents indicated that it requires a year or less to complete a minor
update to a comprehensive plan element. The remaining activities, all
require one to two years to complete. (Exhibit 15)
Exhibit 14. Length of Time for Completion Among Cities by Activity
New Comp Plan 28% 53% 19%
Complex Comp Plan 7% 59% 33%
Minor Comp Plan 69% 25% 6%
Update SMP 23% 50% 27%
Update CAO 44% 47% 9%
Existing Dev Reg 79% 12% 9%
New Dev Reg 83% 14% 3%
0% 50% 100%
<1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Exhibit 15. Length of Time for Completion Among Counties by Activity
New Comp Plan 13% 25% 63%
Complex Comp Plan 9% 27% 64%
Minor Comp Plan 60% 40%
Update SMP 7% 64% 29%
Update CAO 17% 50% 33%
Existing Dev Reg 42% 50% 8%
New Dev Reg 36% 64%
0% 50% 100%
<1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 20
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Year of Last Example
Cities drew from examples dating as far back as 1995 for a new
comprehensive plan element; however, most examples were from after 2015
across all the different planning activities. Most examples were from 2021 or
2022.
City respondents were more consistent in drawing from 2021 or 2022 for new
development regulations (88% of examples) and updates to existing
development regulations (84% of examples). Likely related to the cycle of
planning requirements, examples were drawn from a larger span of years
after 2015 for critical areas ordinance updates, new comprehensive plan
elements, and complex comprehensive plan updates.
The examples counties used mostly ranged across the years after 2017. More
recent examples were provided for critical areas ordinance updates and new
development regulations (grouped from 2017 to 2022) with a wider range for
complex comprehensive plan updates (grouped from 2013 to 2024). Most
updates to existing development regulations are from up-to-date examples in
2022 (80% of examples).
Types of Technical Tasks
Public and stakeholder outreach and data analysis are frequently utilized
across all planning activities, while modeling and other technical methods
are less frequent.
Cities most frequently employ modeling as part of more complex
comprehensive plan updates (48% share of cities) or a new comprehensive
plan element (40%). They are least likely to conduct outreach activities when
establishing new development regulations (38%), while outreach is most
frequently used as part of new comprehensive plan elements (75%). Data
analysis is least frequently used for implementing a new development
regulation (27%). (
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 21
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 16)
Almost all counties report using outreach and data analysis as part of a
shoreline master program update (93%) while data analysis is least
commonly employed for implementing new development regulations (36%).
Outreach activities are frequently used across all activities, with more than
50% of counties indicating this as a task they utilized. Modeling activities are
reported most frequently for complex comprehensive plan updates (64%) and
least frequently for minor comprehensive plan updates and implementing
new development regulations (7%). (
Exhibit 17)
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 22
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 16. Types of Technical Tasks Used by Cities by Activity
73% Data Analysis
New Comp 40%
Plan 75% Modeling
Outreach
54%
Complex 48% Other
Comp Plan 56%
10%
54%
Minor Comp 23%
Plan 67%
15%
54%
Update SMP 23%
58%
13%
54%
Update CAO 23%
63%
17%
42%
Existing Dev 13%
Reg 52%
13%
27%
New Dev Reg 6%
38%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 23
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 17. Types of Technical Tasks Used by Counties by Activity
57% Data Analysis
New Comp 43%
Plan 64% Modeling
Outreach
79%
Complex 64% Other
Comp Plan 71%
14%
43%
Minor Comp 7%
Plan 57%
14%
93%
Update SMP 43%
93%
29%
79%
Update CAO 36%
79%
21%
50%
Existing Dev 14%
Reg 71%
21%
36%
New Dev Reg 7%
57%
21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Other types of technical tasks that jurisdictions completed within planning
activities include:
Goal, policy, code, and ordinance writing are common technical tasks
noted by respondents for all planning activities.
Research and analysis including land use and mapping analysis are
technical tasks mentioned for most types of planning activities.
Other frequently mentioned forms of technical tasks include planning
review and staff reports, technical meetings, legislative presentations,
coordination with regional partners and state agencies, as well as
stakeholder and community coordination and outreach including
community materials.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 24
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Number of Consultant Contracts
Jurisdictions appear to rely on consultants more heavily for complex
planning activities, including new comprehensive plan elements, complex
comprehensive plan updates, updates to critical areas ordinances and
shoreline master programs. The number of consultants rarely exceeds one to
five contracts, but a small share (6%) of cities reports more than five
contracts for new comprehensive plan elements, updates to existing
development regulations and implementing new development regulations (
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 25
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 19)
Consultants are less frequently engaged for new development regulations,
with 72% of cities in the survey reporting that zero consultant contracts were
utilized, as well as for revised development regulations, with 67% reporting
zero consultant contracts. In some cases, cities appear to require a large
number of contracts for a new comprehensive plan or development
regulations, while counties do not appear to exceed one to five contracts for
any of the identified planning activities. (Exhibit 18 and
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 26
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 19)
Exhibit 18. Number of Consultant Contracts Reported by Cities by Activity
New Comp
28% 67% 3% 3%
Plan
Complex
21% 79%
Comp Plan
Minor Comp
61% 39%
Plan
Update SMP 32% 68%
Update CAO 36% 64%
Existing Dev
67% 28% 3% 3%
Reg
New Dev Reg 72% 22% 3% 3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 >50
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 27
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 19. Number of Consultant Contracts Reported by Counties by
Activity
New Comp
33% 67%
Plan
Complex
25% 75%
Comp Plan
Minor Comp
91% 9%
Plan
Update SMP 29% 71%
Update CAO 38% 62%
Existing Dev
92% 8%
Reg
New Dev Reg 91% 9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0 1 to 5
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
The types of technical tasks that require consultant support include:
Research and technical analysis are among the most frequently
mentioned technical tasks that require consultant support. This
includes mapping, field work, research on best available science and
best practices, environmental assessment and review, and
transportation and growth modeling. This technical analysis supports
a variety of plan types including transportation, land use, economic
development, and critical areas.
Other technical tasks mentioned include drafting code and ordinances,
policy development, presentations for legislative review and legislative
process support, plan development and technical writing, legal review,
and community engagement support and public meeting facilitation.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 28
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Number of Stakeholder Meetings
The number of stakeholder meetings held also varies across the different
planning activities. Most frequently, planning activities require one to five
meetings. The largest share of city respondents indicated that no stakeholder
meetings were held to implement a new development regulation (69%),
update an existing development regulation (57%), and update a minor
comprehensive plan update (56%). More than five stakeholder meetings were
reported for a new comprehensive plan element (51%). (Exhibit 20)
Like cities, the number of stakeholder meetings varies across planning
activities for counties. Counties report no stakeholder meetings most
frequently for minor comprehensive plan updates. Most activities require
between one and five meetings, except updates to a shoreline master
program, for which 50% of responding counties indicate that more than five
stakeholder meetings are required. (
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 29
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 21)
Exhibit 20. Number of Stakeholder Meetings Reported by Cities by Activity
New Comp Plan 31% 51% 8% 10%
Complex Comp Plan 28% 38% 7% 28%
Minor Comp Plan 56% 38% 3% 3%
Update SMP 26% 65% 10%
Update CAO 44% 50% 6%
Existing Dev Reg 57% 35% 3% 5%
New Dev Reg 69% 31%
0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 30
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 21. Number of Stakeholder Meetings Reported by Counties by
Activity
New Comp Plan 44% 22% 22% 11%
Complex Comp Plan 42% 8% 33% 17%
Minor Comp Plan 64% 27% 9%
Update SMP 29% 50% 7% 14%
Update CAO 23% 46% 23% 8%
Existing Dev Reg 33% 58% 8%
New Dev Reg 36% 36% 18% 9%
0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Number of Public Meetings
Planning activities typically require at least one public meeting. Most
typically, planning activities for cities require between one and five meetings.
More than a third of cities report requiring more than five public meetings
for a new comprehensive plan element, updates to a critical areas ordinance,
updates to a shoreline master program, and a complex comprehensive plan
update. Only for implementing a new development regulation do more than
50% of cities indicate no public meetings were required. (
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 31
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 22)
More than 50% of responding counties report more than five public meetings
as a part of updates to a critical areas ordinance, implementing a new
development regulation, update to a shoreline master program, and a
complex update to a comprehensive plan. (Exhibit 23)
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 32
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 22. Number of Public Meetings Reported by Cities by Activity
New Comp Plan 13% 36% 21% 3%
Complex Comp Plan 17% 34% 17% 31%
Minor Comp Plan 13% 59% 28%
Update SMP 10% 45% 29% 16%
Update CAO 14% 42% 36% 8%
Existing Dev Reg 23% 56% 21%
New Dev Reg 52% 30% 15% 3%
0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 >50
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Exhibit 23. Number of Public Meetings Reported by Counties by Activity
New Comp Plan 11% 44% 33% 11%
Complex Comp Plan 25% 8% 25% 42%
Minor Comp Plan 36% 36% 27%
Update SMP 7% 29% 36% 29%
Update CAO 23% 23% 31% 23%
Existing Dev Reg 8% 58% 17% 17%
New Dev Reg 18% 27% 36% 18%
0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 33
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Other Types of Public Engagement
More than 48% of cities and counties report using a website for public
engagement across all planning activities. Almost all counties used a website
for a shoreline master program update (93%). They less frequently report
using language translation services or other forms of public engagement as
part of their planning activities.
Surveys were employed by cities most for new comprehensive plan elements
(52%) or complex comprehensive plan updates (48%) and less frequently used
in implementing new (15%) or updating existing development regulations
(19%). Counties conducted surveys most frequently as part of shoreline
master program updates and complex comprehensive plan updates (64%).
Language translation services are the least frequently reported type of public
engagement used in planning activities. Cities use language translation
services most frequently for new comprehensive plan elements and complex
updates to a comprehensive plan (more than 20%). Counties most frequently
report using language translation services for complex updates to a
comprehensive plan and critical areas ordinance updates. (Exhibit 24 and
Exhibit 25)
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 34
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 24. Other Types of Public Engagement Used by Cities by Activity
New Comp
Website
Plan 67% Survey
52%
21% Language
23%
Translation
Complex
48% Other
Comp Plan 48%
27%
17%
Minor Comp
Plan 63%
33%
6% 17%
Update SMP 60%
35%
6%
6%
Update CAO 56%
27%
10%
13%
Existing Dev
Reg 52%
19%
8%
10%
New Dev Reg 50%
15%
6%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 35
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 25. Other Types of Public Engagement Used by Counties by Activity
57%
29% Website
New Comp 14%
36% Survey
Plan 67%
52%
21% Language
23%
79% Translation
64%
Complex 29% Other
29%
Comp Plan 48%
48%
27%
17%
57%
43%
Minor Comp 14%
21%
Plan 63%
33%
17%
6%
93%
64%
7%
Update SMP 29%
60%
35%
6%
6%
79%
57%
29%
Update CAO 36%
56%
27%
10%
13%
71%
43%
Existing Dev 7%
21%
Reg 52%
19%
8%
10%
71%
43%
7%
New Dev Reg 14%
50%
15%
6%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sources: Community Attributes Inc, 2022; LDC, 2022.
Respondents noted a variety of other types of public engagement, including:
For comprehensive planning projects, other types of public
engagement include the public comment process, web-based
engagement tools, civic and group presentations, and public events, as
well as workshops and open houses.
Other public engagement methods mentioned by respondents include
mailers, newsletters and email, one-on-one meetings, phone calls and
counter inquiries, as well as technical and business stakeholder
engagement, map visualizations and permit modifications.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 36
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
COST VARIABILITY AND DIFFERENTIATION BY JURISDICTION
CHARACTERISTICS
Detailed analysis of costs and drivers of costs by planning activity are
documented in appendices A through N. Analysis presented in the
appendices provides summary findings by jurisdictional characteristics,
including population size, geography, and GMA planning level.
Population Size
Across all planning activities, total costs are generally lower for small cities
and counties and increase based on population size. However, the costs per
1,000 are highest among small cities and counties and in most cases, this is
double the cost per 1,000 on average.
Geography
Key cost differences for cities between geographic areas include:
The Central Puget Sound (CPS) region has significantly higher total
costs on average for new comprehensive plan elements, while the
region is closer in costs to other regions for complex comprehensive
plan updates, minor comprehensive plan updates, shoreline master
program updates, and development regulations.
The CPS region also has higher total costs per 1,000 for complex
comprehensive plan updates and minor comprehensive plan updates.
Southwest cities and counties report higher total costs than all other
regions for critical areas ordinance updates.
The Southwest region also has the highest costs per 1,000 population
for development regulations.
Like the Central Puget Sound region, the Northwest region has high
costs for a new comprehensive plan element but is similar to other
regions for all other planning activities.
The Northwest region has lower costs per 1,000 population for minor
updates to a comprehensive plan element and updates to existing
development regulations.
Central Washington cities have costs similar to other regions for
complex updates to a comprehensive plan element and updates to
existing development regulations, but lower costs on average for all
other planning activities.
Among counties, Western Washington has higher total costs than Eastern
Washington for new comprehensive plan elements, complex comp plan
updates, minor updates, critical area ordinance updates and development
regulations. These costs are closer in alignment for shoreline master program
updates. However, Western Washington has lower per-1,000 costs than
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 37
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Eastern Washington across many planning activities, while it is more
comparable for complex comprehensive plan updates and critical area
ordinance updates.
Variability
Generally, the range of cost estimates was wider among complex planning
activities, particularly among larger jurisdictions, the Central Puget Sound
(CPS) region, and Western Washington.
Cost estimates for new comprehensive plan elements had a wide range
for large cities and counties, CPS region, and Western Washington.
For complex comprehensive plan updates, there is a wide range for
both large and medium size cities, large counties, CPS and the
Southwest region, and counties in Western Washington.
For critical areas ordinance updates, there is a wide range for both
large and medium size cities and all counties. By region, there is wide
variability in cost within the CPS and Southwest regions, and Western
Washington counties.
Shoreline master program updates had a wider range for large cities,
and cities within the Southwest region as well as large counties, and
Western Washington counties.
Cost estimates for more routine planning activities had a narrower range of
cost estimates.
Minor comp plan updates had a wider range for small cities, large
counties, CPS and Southwest regions among cities, as well as Western
Washington counties.
For existing development regulations, there was a narrower range of
estimates across all cities, but a wider range for large counties, CPS
and Southwest regions among cities, and Western Washington
counties.
New development regulations generally had a narrower range, but
wider for medium cities and CPS regions, large counties, and Western
Washington counties.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 38
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
CRITICAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
CAI and LDC performed technical assistance interviews with 56
representatives of cities and counties, representing 17% of the 320
jurisdictions in Washington, . Findings from these interviews are described
and compared in three different ways depending on the nature of the data.
Interview results are analyzed on a statewide scale, based on population size
and region. Regardless of size and region, jurisdictions reported that
technical assistance of varying type and intensity is desperately needed.
Exhibit 26. Distribution of Interviewees by Population Size and Geography
Total Response
Characteristic Responses
Jurisdictions Rate
Population Size
Large (greater than
100,000) 2 23 9%
Medium (10,000 to 100,000) 24 103 23%
Small (less than 10,000) 18 194 9%
Geography
Central Puget Sound 18 86 21%
Central 18 75 24%
Eastern 8 79 10%
Northwest 8 29 28%
Southwest 4 51 8%
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
Technical assistance findings can be used to give equitable support to
jurisdictions across the state, especially those in regions with specific
planning difficulties.
Challenges in Completing GMA Planning Requirements
Interviewees were asked to identify if any of the below challenges were
applicable to their jurisdiction.
Knowing the requirements of GMA
Knowing changes in state law or policy
Having financial resources
Political challenges with requirements to create new policies or
codes
Of those areas of assistance, having the financial resources and staff
availability to remain in compliance with GMA are noted as applicable by the
most jurisdictions. For many cities and counties, their only option is to hire
consultants to help with long-range, large-scale planning tasks such as
updating the comprehensive plan. The ability to hire consultants does relieve
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 39
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
local planning staff; however, it takes considerable time to manage a
consultant contract and it is a costly endeavor.
Jurisdictions expressed concern that the amount of effort it takes to update a
comprehensive plan is severely underestimated and therefore the proper
amount of grant funds has not been provided in the past. Many explained the
level of detail needed to update elements such as the capital facility plan,
transportation, and utilities take a significant amount of effort and
coordination between multiple departments.
House Bill 1220 is a reoccurring factor described by planners as impacting
the time and money required for this latest comprehensive plan update. HB
1220 amended GMA and requires local governments to “plan and
accommodate” for housing that is affordable to all income levels. Planners
explain that it is taking significant time to entirely understand this
amendment and addressing it in plan implementation.
Jurisdictions across the state, regardless of size and geography, are generally
comfortable with knowing about state requirements and changes moving
through the state Legislature. Many jurisdictions find Commerce’s website to
be a very helpful resource and feel the agency does a good job at keeping it
updated with relevant information during the comprehensive planning
period. Jurisdictions in the Central Puget Sound area also mentioned the
helpful resources of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the
Municipal Research and Services Center when it comes to comprehensive
planning information. In small jurisdictions and those interviewed in Central
and Eastern Washington, planners indicate they use consultants as a guide
to remain in compliance with GMA.
Political challenges that come with remaining in compliance with GMA and
creating new law or policy is a lesser concern for many jurisdictions.
Washington state planners express that the work performed is political in
nature and they generally do not experience major hurdles when it comes to
remaining in compliance with state requirements. Interviewees state that
political challenges sometimes occur with city councils, the public, or even
internal to planning departments, but not to the point where this presents a
significant challenge.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 40
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Planning Activities Requiring Additional Support
Changes to State, Regional or County Law and Policy
Data collected from the interviews suggest that on a statewide level,
planners need the most support when it comes to changes to state, regional,
or county law and policy (Exhibit 27). Small and medium cities (
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 41
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 28 and Exhibit 29, respectively) rank this topic highest for
additional support. This suggests planners in smaller jurisdictions across
Washington have a harder time keeping up with, understanding the impacts
of, and implementing changes to comply with state regulations. Planners in
the Central Puget Sound region noted PSRC as a great resource that helps to
relay information and requirements coming from the state to local planners.
Councils of government can provide similar assistance to local jurisdictions.
Exhibit 27. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, All Responses
Alignment with case law and appeals 4.7
Capital Facilities Planning 4
Impact Fees 6.7
Critical Areas 3.9
Specific Elements 3.4
Changes to Law and Policies 3
Communications and PR 4.5
Mediation and Facilitation 4.7
Grant Funds for Technical Assistance 3.4
State Approval and Defense from Appeal 3.3
Expand Role of Colleges 3.4
Involve Regional Agencies 4.5
Master Consultant Agreements 4
Circuit Rider Services 2.4
Data or Analytic Tools 3.8
Model Policy Language 3.2
Model Codes or Ordinance 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
All regions and jurisdiction sizes ranked changes to state, regional or county
law and policy similarly. On average jurisdictions ranked this between 2 and
3.3, where one is most important and ten is least important (Exhibit 27).
Help in understanding changes to state law and policy is considered the most
important need; planners express less concern about where exactly the
support is coming from.
Specific Comprehensive Plan Elements
Specific comprehensive plan elements rank second highest among areas
where planners need additional support (Exhibit 27). Planners across the
state have expressed that mandatory elements with technical aspects such as
capital facilities and transportation take significant coordination between
multiple departments, and that it would be beneficial for Commerce to
provide guiding documents or resources. This is especially difficult for cities
with a small or no planning team (
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 42
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 28). Those who would find this helpful made said that
comprehensive planning is a local document, unique to the jurisdiction, and
so they would not be interested in a “plug and play”-type document provided
by the state. They said there are things the state could do to provide
foundational support. Interviewees mention that the Passport to 2044 series
of online workshops to support the comprehensive plan periodic updates,
hosted by the Puget Sound Regional Council, the Washington State
Department of Commerce, and the Municipal Research and Services Center,
has been a helpful resource. They noted that this is exactly the type of
service to be provided whether or not the state is in a comprehensive
planning period.
Critical Areas Based on Best Available Science
Additional support for critical areas based on best available science ranked
on average at 3.9 across the state (Exhibit 27). Small cities in the Central
and Southwest regions (Exhibit 1732 and Exhibit 177, respectively) tend to
rank this activity as an area needing additional support (3.6 and 3.4,
respectively), more than other regions and cities. When looking at this area
of support by size of jurisdiction, small cities and counties across the board
are more interested in having critical area data provided. Medium and large
jurisdictions ranked this area of assistance at five, which might be
interpreted as a neutral position. Many jurisdictions rely heavily on state
agencies and consultants for critical areas planning, which can be very
expensive.
Impact Fees
Jurisdictions in the Central and Eastern regions (Exhibit 173 and Exhibit
174 respectively) were much less interested in receiving additional support
for impact fees than all the Western regions (Exhibit 175 through Exhibit
177) in Washington. This reflects the fact that many smaller jurisdictions in
Central and Eastern Washington simply do not collect impact fees because
the level of development is so low, or because they are not able to charge
impact fees. For the larger jurisdictions on the western side of the state, the
consensus was that planners and consultants had a good grasp at creating
and updating impact fees. Generally, small cities ranked impact fees lower in
importance than medium and larger cities (
2 Additional exhibits with breakouts by geography are available in Appendix O.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 43
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 28 through Exhibit 30).
Capital Facility Planning
Every region except the Central region (Exhibit 173) ranked capital facility
planning between 4.8 and 5.3. This falls into the neutral category of needing
additional support, indicating jurisdictions may not necessarily need
assistance, but would not refuse it if provided. The Central region ranked
capital facility planning a high 2.8. This indicates the significant effort it
takes for jurisdictions to update a highly technical element. Overall, smaller
cities ranked this activity higher than medium and large size cities (
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 44
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 28 through Exhibit 30).
Alignment with Case Law and Growth Management Hearings
Board Appeals
Alignment with case law and GMA Hearings Board appeals ranked between
a 4.3 and 5.4 in all regions except for the Southwest region (Exhibit 173
through Exhibit 177). The Southwest region (Exhibit 177) ranked this
activity a 2.1, very important for receiving additional support. Many
planners express the importance of understanding what cases are ongoing
and the details of the review. These planners expressed how helpful it would
be to have cases publicly available so others can learn from the experience.
Notably, jurisdictions that have not had problems with appeals felt this did
not apply to them. There were a few planners who recognize that even
though they have not been appealed, this would still be useful assistance.
Interest in Technical Assistance
The types of technical assistance surveyed include the following:
Model codes or ordinance provisions
Model policy language for comprehensive plan updates
State provision of data or analytical tools
Circuit rider services to directly staff local planning activities
Master consultant agreements for planning services
Involve regional agencies, such as councils of government, to
provide planning services to member local jurisdictions
Expand the role of colleges and universities in assisting local
governments with planning activities
Optional process of state approval and defense from appeal
Allow some portion of comprehensive plan grant funds to be used
for technical assistance
Mediation and facilitation services
Communications and public relations expertise for assistance in
complex/controversial planning issues
Any others recommended by jurisdiction
Across Washington, two types of technical assistance stand out for
jurisdiction’s interest: circuit rider services and model codes and ordinances.
Both cities and counties in Washington give a high-ranking score for circuit
rider services. The average rank for circuit rider services is 2.4, and this
service received the highest average score out of all the types of technical
assistance. The next closest is model codes or ordinances, with an average
rating of 3.0 (Exhibit 27). Planners express that model codes and ordinances
are generally helpful to review as they prepare materials but comes with the
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 45
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
caveat that provided examples must be changed significantly to flow with
existing code.
Circuit rider services are especially highly ranked in small cities (population
under 10,000) in the Central and Eastern regions (Exhibit 173 and Exhibit
174 respectively). This may suggest that there is greater need for
experienced planning staff in these jurisdictions. Almost all jurisdictions said
that any help with their long-range planning from circuit rider services
would free up current planning staff to avoid burnout, do more community
work, and catch up on local permitting backlogs. Others indicated that it
would help avoid challenges in managing staff loads during different levels of
intensity between planning cycles. One county planner indicated that the
planners who do not often need this type of service may still rank it high
because they know how helpful it could be for smaller jurisdictions.
All counties interviewed show great interest in the opportunity to secure
state approval and defense from appeal. Counties ranked state approval and
defense from appeal as the highest level of interest out of all the types of
technical assistance surveyed (Exhibit 32). This result suggests that
counties are receiving many appeals and may spend a lot of time and money
processing these appeals.
When asked if there are any other types of technical assistance that would be
useful in their jurisdiction, a common answer was “any type of assistance to
increase education of planning commissioners.” There is an even distribution
geographically where this was mentioned as a needed technical assistance.
Some of the other types of assistance mentioned include translation services,
scaling model ordinances and policy, equity, more promotion for university
planning programs, and more direction with critical areas.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 46
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 28. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Small Population Size, Washington Cities
Alignment with case law and appeals 4.8
Capital Facilities Planning 3.8
Impact Fees 7.4
Critical Areas 3.8
Specific Elements 3.8
Changes to Law and Policies 3.2
Communications and PR 4.3
Mediation and Facilitation 4.1
Grant Funds for TA 2.5
State Approval and Defense from Appeal 3.2
Expand Role of Colleges 2.9
Involve Regional Agencies 4.5
Master Consultant Agreements 3.9
Circuit Rider Services 1.9
Data or Analytic Tools 3.5
Model Policy Language 3.2
Model Codes or Ordinance 2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
Exhibit 29. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Medium Population Size, Washington Cities
Alignment with case law and appeals 4.9
Capital Facilities Planning 5.1
Impact Fees 5.2
Critical Areas 4.9
Specific Elements 3.6
Changes to Law and Policies 2.6
Communications and PR 4.3
Mediation and Facilitation 5.8
Grant Funds for TA 4.6
State Approval and Defense from Appeal 3.6
Expand Role of Colleges 4.7
Involve Regional Agencies 4.3
Master Consultant Agreements 4.0
Circuit Rider Services 2.9
Data or Analytic Tools 4.1
Model Policy Language 3.6
Model Codes or Ordinance 4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 47
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
The sample for large jurisdictions is limited to one interview.
Exhibit 30. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Large Population Size, Washington Cities
Alignment with case law and appeals 8.5
Capital Facilities Planning 5.0
Impact Fees 6.0
Critical Areas 5.0
Specific Elements 1.0
Changes to Law and Policies 3.5
Communications and PR 7.0
Mediation and Facilitation 5.0
Grant Funds for TA 6.0
State Approval and Defense from Appeal 2.0
Expand Role of Colleges 2.0
Involve Regional Agencies 3.0
Master Consultant Agreements 2.5
Circuit Rider Services 7.0
Data or Analytic Tools 1.5
Model Policy Language 5.5
Model Codes or Ordinance 2.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 48
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 31. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Medium Population Size, Washington Counties
Alignment with case law and appeals 2.3
Capital Facilities Planning 5.9
Impact Fees 5.4
Critical Areas 2.1
Specific Elements 2.8
Changes to Law and Policies 2.5
Communications and PR 3.5
Mediation and Facilitation 4
Grant Funds for TA 3.9
State Approval and Defense from Appeal 1.4
Expand Role of Colleges 4.3
Involve Regional Agencies 6.5
Master Consultant Agreements 6.3
Circuit Rider Services 2.3
Data or Analytic Tools 2.5
Model Policy Language 4
Model Codes or Ordinance 2.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
The sample for large jurisdictions is limited to one interview.
Exhibit 32. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Large Population Size, Washington Counties
Alignment with case law and appeals 1
Capital Facilities Planning 2
Impact Fees 10
Critical Areas 1
Specific Elements 3
Changes to Law and Policies 1
Communications and PR 8.5
Mediation and Facilitation 7
Grant Funds for TA 2
State Approval and Defense from Appeal 1
Expand Role of Colleges 6
Involve Regional Agencies 7
Master Consultant Agreements 6.5
Circuit Rider Services 7
Data or Analytic Tools 3
Model Policy Language 3
Model Codes or Ordinance 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sources: LDC, 2022; Community Attributes Inc, 2022.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 49
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Jurisdictions also provided suggestions for additional ideas for technical
assistance in survey responses. Responses focused on additional research
resources as well as improvements in planning coordination, review
processes, and existing technical assistance programs. Some jurisdictions
note the significant cost and difficulty in accessing planning-related data.
These jurisdictions suggest this could be partly addressed through the
creation of centralized data resources. Centralized data resources mentioned
include data sets and standard scope of service templates for jurisdictions to
use with consultants.
Several jurisdictions in the survey recommended improved planning mandate
coordination and funding processes. Several noted the need to better align
mandate timetables with local planning processes. Improved coordination
was also recommended for GMA implementation and state agency decisions,
such as for infrastructure plans and rule changes. Others recommended that
state planning mandates should allow for more flexible implementation
based on size of jurisdiction or regional differences in planning processes and
allow local communities to develop unique visions and plans.
Several jurisdictions also recommended improved coordination in
environmental assessment processes. Suggestions include improved
integration of assessments, particularly those that link assessments in
comprehensive plans to project-level reviews, and for additional resources to
cover environmental defense legal fees that result from assessments.
Jurisdictions also suggested ways to improve existing technical assistance
programs. Some noted that addressing planning grant reporting
requirements that are time-consuming and potentially cost-prohibitive.
Others recommended increasing state resources to more adequately support
local community engagement activities. Additional recommendations were
offered for more state technical on-call assistance and best practice
information on how jurisdictions address specific GMA challenges.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 50
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
APPENDICES
Appendix A. New Comprehensive Plan Element Detail for
Cities by Characteristic
Survey response data provided by cities and counties for each planning activity are
presented in detail within Appendix A through N. Responses are segmented by city
characteristics including:
Population size:
o Large City (more than 100,000 population)
o Medium City (10,000 to 100,000 population)
o Small City (less than 10,000 population)
Geography:
o Central Puget Sound (CPS) includes all cities within King, Kitsap, Pierce
and Snohomish counties.
o Northwest includes all cities within Clallam, Island, Jefferson, San Juan,
Skagit and Whatcom counties.
o Southwest includes all cities within Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis,
Mason, Pacific, Thurston and Wahkiakum counties.
o Central includes all cities within Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Kittitas,
Klickitat, Okanogan, Skamania and Yakima counties.
o Eastern includes all cities within Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Ferry,
Franklin, Garfield, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla
and Whitman counties.
GMA Planning Level
o Fully Planning within the Central Puget Sound (1.0)
o Fully Planning (2.0/3.0)
o Partially Planning (4.0/5.0)
The breakout for Eastern region and partially planning (4.0/5.0) are excluded from the
presentation of results due to limited response data.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 51
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 33. Total Costs for a New Comprehensive Plan Element by Characteristic
$1,600,000
$1,465,000 $1,465,000
30
$1,200,000
20
$900,000
$800,000 10
$414,400
$419,600 $414,400 $414,400 0Maximum
$324,800 $350,000
$400,000
$238,300 $168,500 $230,400
-10
$91,600 $111,800 $115,100
$87,100 Average
$0 -20
$22,400$6,200 $5,400 $16,500$6,200 $6,700$15,000 $5,400
21 Minimum
n= 5 15 18 15 5 9 6
LargeMediumSmall CPS North- South-Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 34. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a New
Comprehensive Plan Element by Characteristic
$250,000
$200,700 $200,700 $200,700Max
$200,000
$150,000
$118,280 $123,240
$100,000
$52,290
$45,420 $42,900
$50,000 $37,060
$14,390 $28,620 $27,620
$16,130 $16,740 Avg
$3,380 $8,870
$0
n= 5 15 19 16 5 9 6 21
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 52
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 35. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a New
Comprehensive Plan Element by Characteristic
70% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
63%
60% 59% 1,800
60% 55% 56%
52% 53% 1,600
50%
50% 46% 45% 46% 1,400
42% 42%
38% 38% 1,200
40%
32% 1,000
30%
800
20% 600
400
10%
200
0% 0
n= 5 15 19 16 5 9 6 21
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 36. Level of Confidence in Cost Exhibit 37. Length of Time to Complete
Estimates for a New Comprehensive a New Comprehensive Plan Element
Plan Element by Characteristic by Characteristic
Large City Large City 20% 40% 40%
25% 50% 25%
Medium City 21% 64% 14%
Medium City 27% 53% 20%
Small City 35% 47% 18%
Small City 17% 50% 33%
CPS 14% 57% 29%
Northwest 25% 75%
CPS 19% 69% 13%
Southwest 56% 33% 11%
Northwest 40% 60% Central 67% 17%
Southwest 13% 38% 50%
Central 20% 80% 2.0/3.0 35% 55% 10%
0% 50% 100%
<1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
2.0/3.0 26% 37% 37%
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 53
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 38. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a New Comprehensive Plan Element
by Characteristic
100%
Large City 60%
100%
88%
Medium City 44%
88%
44%
59%
Small City 33%
63% Data Analysis
7%
Modeling
Outreach
70% Other
CPS 40%
70%
20%
67%
Northwest 33%
67%
50%
89%
Southwest 56%
100%
22%
67%
Central 33%
67%
83%
2.0/3.0 43%
87%
22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 39. Number of Consultant Contracts for a New Comprehensive Plan Element
by Characteristic
Large City 40% 40% 20% 0
Medium City 27% 73%
1 to 5
Small City 26% 68% 5% 5 to 10
10 to 50
CPS 19% 75% 6%
Northwest 40% 60%
Southwest 44% 44% 11%
Central 17% 83%
2.0/3.0 29% 67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 54
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 40. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 41. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a New Comprehensive for a New Comprehensive Plan
Plan Element by Characteristic Element by Characteristic
Large City 20% 40% 20% 20% Large City 20% 20% 40% 20%
Medium City 33% 47% 13% Medium City 27% 47% 20%
Small City 32% 58% 5% Small City 16% 47% 21% 16%
CPS 44% 38% 13% CPS 13% 25% 31% 25% 6%
Northwest 20% 60% 20% Northwest 20% 20% 40% 20%
Southwest 22% 56% 11% 11% Southwest 11% 44% 33% 11%
Central 17% 67% 17% Central 83% 17%
2.0/3.0 24% 62% 10% 2.0/3.0 14% 43% 24% 19%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 >50
Exhibit 42. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a New Comprehensive Plan
Element by Characteristic
80%
Large City 80%
60%
20%
88%
Medium City 69%
25%
50%
52%
Small City 37%
11%
7%
70%
CPS 60%
25%
25%
50%
Northwest 50%
17%
33%
78%
Southwest 44%
11% Website
33%
56% Survey
Central 44%
33%
11% Language
Translation
Other
48% 74%
2.0/3.0 22%
22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 55
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix B. New Comprehensive Plan Element Detail for
Counties by Characteristic
Responses are segmented by county characteristics including:
Population size:
o Large county (more than 100,000 population)
o Small and medium county (less than 100,000 population)
Geography:
o West includes the following counties:
Central Puget Sound (CPS) counties including King, Kitsap, Pierce
and Snohomish.
Northwest counties including Clallam, Island, Jefferson, San Juan,
Skagit and Whatcom.
Southwest counties including Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis,
Mason, Pacific, Thurston and Wahkiakum.
o East includes the following counties:
Central counties including Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant,
Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Skamania and Yakima Counties.
Eastern counties including Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Ferry,
Franklin, Garfield, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla
Walla and Whitman .
GMA Planning Level
o Fully Planning including Central Puget Sound or 1.0 planning counties
and 2.0/3.0 planning counties
o Partially Planning (4.0/5.0)
Geographic data are aggregated into two categories due to limited response rates within
more detailed geographies. The breakout for partially planning (4.0/5.0) are excluded
from the presentation of results due to limited response data.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 56
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 43. Total Costs for a New Comprehensive Plan Element by Characteristic
$2,600,000 $2,443,700 $2,443,700 $2,443,700 Maximum
$2,200,000 30
$1,800,000
20
$1,400,000
10
$1,000,000
$735,000
$634,700 0
$600,000 $426,300
$152,200 $136,300 Average
$101,100 $68,000 -10
$200,000
$10,000 $35,100 $74,300 $10,000 $10,000
($200,000) -20
Minimum
n= 4 5 5 4 8
LargeSmall/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
Exhibit 44. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a New
Comprehensive Plan Element by Characteristic
$40,000
$34,210 $34,210 $34,210 Max
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,160 $10,660
$10,000 $6,740
$3,920 Avg
$4,460
$5,000 $2,600
$1,200
$0
n= 4 5 5 4 8
Large Small/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 57
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 45. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a New
Comprehensive Plan Element by Characteristic
90% 85% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
80% 1,800
70% 1,600
60% 60% 1,400
60% 57%
54%
1,200
50% 44%
41% 1,000
38% 38%
40%
800
30%
600
20% 14% 400
10% 200
0% 0
n= 4 5 5 4 8
Large Small/Med West East Fully
County County Planning
Exhibit 46. Level of Confidence in Cost Exhibit 47. Length of Time to Complete
Estimates for a New Comprehensive a New Comprehensive Plan Element
Plan Element by Characteristic by Characteristic
Large Large
75% 25% 25% 75%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
40% 40% 20% 50% 50%
County County
West 100%
West 80% 20%
East 33% 67%
East 50% 25% 25%
Fully Planning 13% 25% 63%
Fully Planning 13% 63% 25%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
<1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
Low Medium High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 58
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 48. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a New Comprehensive Plan Element
by Characteristic
50%
Large 33%
County 67%
71%
Small/Med 57%
County 71%
14%
Data Analysis
Modeling
Outreach
44%
Other
West 44%
56%
22%
100%
East 50%
100%
25%
64%
Fully Planning 55%
73%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 49. Number of Consultant Contracts for a New Comprehensive Plan Element
by Characteristic
Large
County
25% 75% 0
Small/Med 1 to 5
40% 60%
County
West 100%
East 75% 25%
Fully Planning 25% 75%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 59
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 50. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 51. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a New Comprehensive for a New Comprehensive Plan
Plan Element by Characteristic Element by Characteristic
Large Large
25% 50% 25% 50% 25% 25%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
60% 40% 20% 40% 40%
County County
West 20% 40% 20% 20% West 20% 60% 20%
East 75% 25% East 25% 75%
Fully Fully
38% 25% 25% 13% 13% 38% 38% 13%
Planning Planning
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 52. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a New Comprehensive Plan
Element by Characteristic
67% Website
Large 33%
County 33% Survey
50% Language
57% Translation
Small/Med 29%
County Other
29%
56%
West 33%
22%
44%
75%
East 25%
25%
73%
Fully Planning 36%
18%
45%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 60
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix C. Complex Update to a Comprehensive Plan
Element Detail for Cities by Characteristic
Exhibit 53. Total Costs for a Complex Comprehensive Plan Element Update by
Characteristic
$2,500,000
$2,043,000
$2,043,000 $2,043,000 Maximum
$1,934,500 $1,934,500 30
$2,000,000
$1,500,000 20
$1,000,000 $601,400 10
$481,000 $432,900
$482,100
$400,500 $402,100 $334,300 0Average
$500,000 $255,000
$90,700 $224,000
$134,600
$0 $41,300$6,700 $37,100 -10
$21,600 $6,700 $28,000 $22,100 Minimum
$21,600
($500,000) -20
5 12 12 12 4 7 5 15
n=
LargeMediumSmall CPS North- South-Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 54. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Complex
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
$1,200,000
$964,330 $964,330
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$122,650
$154,720 $49,260
$200,000 $116,720 $110,480 $39,190 $122,650 Max
$10,340 $38,790$14,990$15,620
$3,650 $20,960 $21,640
Avg
$0
n= 5 12 12 12 4 7 5 15
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 61
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 55. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Complex
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
70% 65% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
58% 60% 59% 1,800
60% 55% 56%
1,600
49% 50%
50% 47% 46% 1,400
41% 42% 42%
38% 38% 1,200
40%
32% 1,000
30%
800
20% 600
400
10%
200
0% 0
n= 5 12 12 12 4 7 5 15
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 56. Level of Confidence in Cost Exhibit 57. Length of Time to Complete
Estimates for a Complex a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Element Update Element Update by Characteristic
by Characteristic
Large City 40% 60%
Large City 0% 80% 20% Medium City 58% 42%
Medium City 25% 67% 8% Small City 20% 70% 10%
Small City 17% 50% 33%
CPS 55% 45%
CPS 17% 75% 8% Northwest 67% 33%
Northwest 25% 50% 25% Southwest 29% 43% 29%
Southwest 29% 57% 14% Central 80% 20%
Central 40% 60%
2.0/3.0 7% 71% 21%
2.0/3.0 13% 53% 33% 0% 50% 100%
<1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 62
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 58. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
100%
Large City 80%
100%
75%
Medium City 63%
75%
19%
33%
Small City 33%
37%
7%
55% Data Analysis
CPS 45%
55% Modeling
5%
50% Outreach
Northwest 50% Other
50%
67%
Southwest 67%
78%
22%
56%
Central 44%
56%
57%
2.0/3.0 52%
61%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 59. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
Large City 20% 80% 0
Medium City 8% 92% 1 to 5
Small City 33% 67%
CPS 17% 83%
Northwest 25% 75%
Southwest 29% 71%
Central 20% 80%
2.0/3.0 13% 87%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 63
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 60. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 61. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Complex for a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Element Update Element Update by Characteristic
by Characteristic
Large City 20% 40% 40% Large City 20% 20% 40% 20%
Medium City 17% 25% 17% 42% Medium City 17% 25% 8% 50%
Small City 42% 50% 8% Small City 17% 50% 17% 17%
CPS 42% 33% 8%17% CPS 33% 17% 17% 33%
Northwest 25% 50% 25% Northwest 25% 75%
Southwest 14% 43% 14% 29% Southwest 43% 43% 14%
Central 20% 40% 40% Central 100%
2.0/3.0 20% 33% 7% 40% 2.0/3.0 7% 47% 13% 33%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 62. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Complex Comprehensive
Plan Element Update by Characteristic
100%
Large City 80%
60%
69%
Medium City 69%
44%
31%
26%
Small City 30%
11%
11%
50%
CPS 45%
30%
15%
50%
Northwest 50%
33%
56%
Southwest 67%
22%
33%
44%
Central 44%
33%
22%
Website
Survey
52% Language Translation
2.0/3.0 52%
30%
17% Other
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 64
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix D. Complex Update to a Comprehensive Plan
Element Detail for Counties by Characteristic
Exhibit 63. Total Costs for a Complex Comprehensive Plan Element Update by
Characteristic
$5,579,400 $5,579,400 $5,579,400 Maximum
$5,500,000
30
$4,500,000
20
$3,500,000
10
$2,500,000
$1,420,100 0
$1,500,000 $1,121,400
$550,000 $803,400
Average
$500,000 $158,800 $154,200
$50,800 -10
$6,000 $19,300 $92,500 $6,000 $6,000
($500,000) -20
Minimum
n= 5 6 7 4 10
LargeSmall/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
Exhibit 64. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Complex
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
$12,000 $11,320 $11,320 $11,320 Max
$10,000
$8,310
$8,000
$5,990
$5,600
$6,000
$4,490 $4,540
$3,970 Avg
$4,000
$2,040
$2,000
$0
n= 4 6 6 4 9
Large Small/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 65
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 65. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Complex
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
100% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
88%
90% 1,800
80% 75% 1,600
70% 1,400
58% 61%
60% 1,200
49%
50% 46% 1,000
41%
40% 36% 800
30% 600
19%
20% 12% 400
10% 200
0% 0
n= 4 6 6 4 9
Large Small/Med West East Fully
County County Planning
Exhibit 66. Level of Confidence in Cost Exhibit 67. Length of Time to Complete
Estimates for a Complex a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Element Update Element Update by Characteristic
by Characteristic
Large
20% 20% 60%
Large County
50% 50% Small/Med
County 20% 80%
County
Small/Med
50% 50%
County
West 14% 86%
West 17% 67% 17% East 33% 33% 33%
East 50% 25% 25%
Fully Planning 10% 20% 70%
Fully Planning 22% 56% 22% 0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100% <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
Low Medium High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 66
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 68. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
83%
Large 67%
County 67%
71%
Small/Med 57%
County 71%
78%
West 78%
67%
11%
75% Data Analysis
25%
75% Modeling
East
25% Outreach
Other
91%
Fully Planning 73%
82%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 69. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
Large
40% 60% 0
County
Small/Med 1 to 5
17% 83%
County
West 14% 86%
East 50% 50%
Fully Planning 20% 80%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 67
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 70. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 71. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Complex for a Complex Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Element Update Element Update by Characteristic
by Characteristic
Large
20% 20% 60%
Large County
40% 40% 20%
County Small/Med
33% 33% 33%
Small/Med County
33% 17% 33% 17%
County
West 29% 14% 57%
West 29% 14% 43% 14%
East 25% 25% 25% 25%
East 50% 25% 25%
Fully
20% 10% 20% 50%
Planning
Fully Planning 30% 10% 40% 20%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100% 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 72. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Complex Comprehensive
Plan Element Update by Characteristic
Large 83%
50%
County 33%
33%
Small/Med 71%
71%
County 14%
14%
78% Website
West 56%
33% Survey
22%
75% Language
East 75% Translation
25% Other
91%
Fully Planning 73%
27%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 68
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix E. Minor Update to a Comprehensive Plan Detail for
Cities by Characteristic
Exhibit 73. Total Costs for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Element Update by
Characteristic
$450,000
$367,800 $367,800
30
$350,000
$249,400 $249,400 20
$249,400 Maximum
$250,000
$165,000 10
$150,000 $104,300
$67,000 0
$68,000 $69,600
$40,300$47,600 $35,200 $21,900 $46,000
$50,000 Average
$10,700 -10
$15,400 $2,500 $1,500 $1,500 $4,200 $1,500 $2,600 $4,200
($50,000) Minimum
-20
n= 5 14 18 17 4 8 7 17
LargeMediumSmall CPS North- South-Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 74. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Minor
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
$700,000 $656,610 $656,610
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$60,900
$100,000 $53,090 $48,590 $60,900Max
$1,260 $3,830 $8,400$12,940 $12,340
$720 $1,190 $3,130 $4,800 $7,900Avg
$0
n= 5 14 18 17 4 8 7 17
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 69
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 75. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Minor
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
100% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
89% 89%
90% 1,800
80% 1,600
70% 1,400
60% 59%
60% 55% 56% 1,200
51% 50%
50% 46% 46% 1,000
42% 42%
38% 38%
40% 800
30% 600
20% 400
10%
10% 4% 200
0% 0
n= 5 14 19 18 4 8 7 17
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 76. Level of Confidence in Cost Exhibit 77. Length of Time to Complete
Estimates for a Minor Comprehensive a Minor Comprehensive Plan Element
Plan Element Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large City 60% 40% Large City 40% 20% 40%
Medium City 21% 57% 21% Medium City 73% 27%
Small City 26% 37% 37% Small City 75% 25%
CPS 32% 42% 26% CPS 63% 31% 6%
Northwest Northwest 75% 25%
100%
Southwest 75% 13%13%
Southwest 13% 50% 38%
Central 29%
Central 17% 67%
2.0/3.0 76% 18% 6%
2.0/3.0 6% 63% 31%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 70
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 78. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Minor Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
100%
Large City 60%
100%
63%
Medium City 19%
75%
38%
41%
Small City 19%
56%
4%
50% Data Analysis
CPS 15%
65% Modeling
25%
50% Outreach
Northwest 33% Other
67%
67%
Southwest 44%
89%
11%
67%
Central 22%
67%
61%
2.0/3.0 30%
74%
9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 79. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Element
Update by Characteristic
Large City 80% 20% 0
Medium City 86% 14% 1 to 5
Small City 37% 63%
CPS 67% 33%
Northwest 50% 50%
Southwest 63% 38%
Central 43% 57%
2.0/3.0 53% 47%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 71
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 80. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 81. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Minor Comprehensive for a Minor Comprehensive Plan
Plan Element Update by Characteristic Element Update by Characteristic
Large City 60% 20% 20% Large City 20% 40% 40%
Medium City 47% 47% 7% Medium City 7% 53% 40%
Small City 63% 37% Small City 16% 68% 16%
CPS 84% 16% CPS 21% 42% 37%
Northwest 50% 25% 25% Northwest 75% 25%
Southwest 13% 88% Southwest 75% 25%
Central 43% 57% Central 86% 14%
2.0/3.0 29% 59% 6% 6% 2.0/3.0 6% 76% 18%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 0 1 to 5 5 to 10
Exhibit 82. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Minor Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
80% 100%
Large City 80%
88%
Medium City 19% 44%
6%
19% 41%
Small City 4%7%
35% 75% Website
CPS 15% Survey
50% Language
Northwest 17% 33%
17%
56% 78% Translation
Southwest Other
11% 22%
11% 44%
Central
11% 22%
30% 61%
2.0/3.0
13% 22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 72
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix F. Minor Update to a Comprehensive Plan Detail for
Counties by Characteristic
Exhibit 83. Total Costs for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Element Update by
Characteristic
$112,500 $112,500 $112,500 Maximum
$115,000
30
$95,000
20
$75,000
10
$55,000
$42,900
$31,500 $41,700 0
$35,000 $23,600 Average
$32,100
$18,900 $14,600 -10
$15,000
$7,100 $7,100 $2,800
($5,000) $2,800 $2,800 Minimum
-20
n= 5 5 6 4 9
LargeSmall/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
Exhibit 84. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Minor
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
$3,000 $2,710 $2,710 $2,710 Max
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500 $1,360 $1,360
$1,270
$1,000
$700
Avg
$500 $220 $300
$80
$0
n= 5 5 6 4 9
Large Small/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 73
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 85. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Minor
Comprehensive Plan Element Update by Characteristic
120% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
100% 1,800
100%
89% 1,600
83% 84%
1,400
80% 71%
1,200
60% 1,000
800
40%
600
16% 400
20% 13%
9%
200
0% 0
n= 5 5 6 4 9
Large Small/Med West East Fully
County County Planning
Exhibit 86. Level of Confidence in Cost Exhibit 87. Length of Time to Complete
Estimates for a Minor Comprehensive a Minor Comprehensive Plan Element
Plan Element Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large Large
50% 50% 60% 40%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
40% 60% 75% 25%
County County
West 80% 20% West 50% 50%
East East 100%
50% 25% 25%
Fully Planning 67% 33%
Fully Planning 13% 63% 25%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
<1 Year 1-2 Years
Low Medium High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 74
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 88. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Minor Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
33%
Large
County 50%
43%
Small/Med 14%
County 57%
Data Analysis
33%
11% Modeling
West
44% Outreach
11% Other
50%
East
75%
25%
45%
Fully Planning 9%
64%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 89. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Element
Update by Characteristic
Large
County
100% 0
Small/Med 1 to 5
80% 20%
County
West 83% 17%
East 100%
Fully Planning 89% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 75
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 90. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 91. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Minor Comprehensive for a Minor Comprehensive Plan
Plan Element Update by Characteristic Element Update by Characteristic
Large Large
60% 40% 20% 60% 20%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
60% 20% 20% 40% 20% 40%
County County
West 67% 33% West 33% 33% 33%
East 50% 25% 25% East 25% 50% 25%
Fully Planning 56% 33% 11% Fully Planning 22% 44% 33%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 0 1 to 5 5 to 10
Exhibit 92. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Minor Comprehensive Plan
Element Update by Characteristic
Large 67%
33%
County 17%
33%
Small/Med 43%
43%
County 14%
14%
56% Website
West 33%
22% Survey
22%
50% Language
East 50% Translation
25% Other
64%
Fully Planning 45%
18%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 76
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix G. Update to a Critical Areas Ordinance Detail for
Cities by Characteristic
Exhibit 93. Total Costs for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update by Characteristic
$504,700
$550,000 $500,000 $504,700 $500,000 $500,000 Maximum
30
$450,000
$350,000 20
$200,000 10
$250,000 $200,000
$170,900 $139,300
$150,000 $106,400 $95,600 0
$99,300 $80,700 Average
$54,300
$35,300
$50,000 $18,900 -10
$18,000$1,200 $1,000 $1,200$17,900$8,800 $1,000 $1,000 Minimum
($50,000) -20
n= 5 15 15 16 4 6 7 17
LargeMediumSmall CPS North- South-Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 94. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Critical Areas
Ordinance Update by Characteristic
$100,000 $91,600 $91,600 $91,600 Max
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$49,260
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000 $24,290
$16,880 $17,480
$20,000 $14,190 $11,640
$9,960
$2,530 $8,170 $6,710
$10,000 $790 $2,740 $3,440 Avg
$0
n= 5 15 16 16 4 7 7 17
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 77
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 95. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Critical Areas
Ordinance Update by Characteristic
70% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
62%
60% 59% 1,800
60% 55% 56%
51% 53% 1,600
50%
50% 46% 1,400
42% 42%
40% 38% 1,200
40% 38%
34%
30% 1,000
30%
800
20% 600
400
10%
200
0% 0
n= 5 15 16 16 4 7 7 17
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 96. Level of Confidence in Cost Exhibit 97. Length of Time to Complete
Estimates for a Critical Areas a Critical Areas Ordinance Update by
Ordinance Update by Characteristic Characteristic
Large City 20% 20% 60% Large City 20% 40% 40%
Medium City 20% 73% 7% Medium City 20% 73% 7%
Small City 33% 40% 27% Small City 79% 21%
CPS 19% 63% 19% CPS 25% 63% 13%
Northwest Northwest 33% 33%
50% 50%
Southwest 57% 43%
Southwest 13% 50% 38%
Central
Central 40% 40%
2.0/3.0 63% 31% 6%
2.0/3.0 29% 41% 29%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 78
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 98. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update
by Characteristic
80%
Large City 20%
80%
63%
Medium City 38%
81%
38%
44%
Small City 15%
48%
7%
55% Data Analysis
CPS 35%
70% Modeling
20%
33% Outreach
Northwest 33% Other
50%
17%
67%
Southwest 11%
67%
22%
56%
Central 11%
67%
57%
2.0/3.0 17%
57%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 99. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update by
Characteristic
Large City 40% 60% 0
Medium City 27% 73% 1 to 5
Small City 44% 56%
CPS 38% 63%
Northwest 25% 75%
Southwest 43% 57%
Central 43% 57%
2.0/3.0 29% 71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 79
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 100. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 101. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Critical Areas for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Ordinance Update by Characteristic by Characteristic
Large City 40% 20% 40% Large City 60% 20% 20%
Medium City 33% 67% Medium City 13% 27% 53% 7%
Small City 56% 44% Small City 19% 50% 25% 6%
CPS 56% 44% CPS 13% 25% 50% 13%
Northwest 25% 75% Northwest 25% 50% 25%
Southwest 14% 71% 14% Southwest 57% 43%
Central 57% 43% Central 57% 14%
2.0/3.0 35% 53% 12% 2.0/3.0 12% 53% 29% 6%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 102. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Critical Areas Ordinance
Update by Characteristic
60% 80%
Large City 40%
31% 81%
Medium City 13% 25%
19% 37%
Small City 4%
7%
30% 75%
CPS 10%
10%
33%
Northwest 17%
33%
33% 44% Website
Southwest 11%
11% Survey
44%
Central 22% Language
11% 22% Translation
Other
26% 48%
2.0/3.0 13%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 80
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix H. Update to a Critical Areas Ordinance Detail for
Counties by Characteristic
Exhibit 103. Total Costs for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update by Characteristic
$1,550,000
30
$1,159,000 $1,159,000 $1,159,000
Maximum
$1,150,000
20
$766,300
$750,000 10
0
$286,200 $323,800
$350,000 $262,600
$178,200 $115,700 Average
-10
$48,900
($50,000) $6,000 $23,800 $30,000 $6,000 $6,000 -20
6 6 8 4 10 Minimum
n=
LargeSmall/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
Exhibit 104. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Critical Areas
Ordinance Update by Characteristic
$35,000 $32,400 $32,400 $32,400 Max
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$8,650 $8,490
$10,000
$4,160 $5,100
$4,710
$5,000 $980 Avg
$410
$0
n= 6 6 8 4 10
Large Small/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 81
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 105. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Critical Areas
Ordinance Update by Characteristic
90% 83% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
80% 1,800
72%
68% 1,600
70%
1,400
60% 53% 51% 1,200
50%
39% 40% 1,000
40%
800
30% 27% 27%
600
20% 17%
400
10% 200
0% 0
n= 6 6 8 4 10
Large Small/Med West East Fully
County County Planning
Exhibit 106. Level of Confidence in Exhibit 107. Length of Time to
Cost Estimates for a Critical Areas Complete a Critical Areas Ordinance
Ordinance Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large Large
80% 20% 17% 50% 33%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
17% 83% 20% 60% 20%
County County
West 86% 14% West 63% 38%
East 25% 75% East 67% 33%
Fully Planning 89% 11% Fully Planning 20% 50% 30%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 82
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 108. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update
by Characteristic
83%
Large 33%
County 83%
71%
Small/Med 43%
County 71%
14%
78% Data Analysis
West 44% Modeling
78%
22% Outreach
75% Other
East 25%
75%
25%
82%
Fully Planning 36%
82%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 109. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update
by Characteristic
Large
County
67% 33% 0
Small/Med 1 to 5
17% 83%
County
West 50% 50%
East 25% 75%
Fully Planning 50% 50%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 83
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 110. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 111. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Critical Areas for a Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Ordinance Update by Characteristic by Characteristic
Large Large
33% 67% 33% 17% 33%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
17% 33% 33% 17% 17% 17% 50% 17%
County County
West 25% 63% 13% West 13%13% 50% 25%
East 25% 25% 50% East 50% 25%0%25%
Fully Planning 20% 50% 20% 10% Fully
20% 20% 40% 20%
Planning
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 112. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Critical Areas Ordinance
Update by Characteristic
Large 83%
50%
County 50%
50%
Small/Med 71%
57%
County
14%
78% Website
West 56% Survey
33%
33% Language
75%
East 50% Translation
25% Other
82%
Fully Planning 55%
27%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 84
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix I. Shoreline Master Program Update Detail for
Cities by Characteristic
Exhibit 113. Total Costs for a Shoreline Master Program Update by Characteristic
$906,300 $906,300 $906,300 Maximum
$950,000
30
$750,000
20
$550,000
10
$343,100 $357,400
$350,000 $335,000
0
$135,000 $91,000
$146,200 $160,000
$127,800 $108,500 Average
$150,000 $56,100 $55,900 -10
$39,300 $28,100
($50,000) $47,000 $2,000 $8,800 $2,000$19,400
$8,800$10,500 $10,500 -20
Minimum
n= 4 13 13 15
14 4 7 5
LargeMediumSmall CPS North- South-Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 114. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Shoreline Master
Program Update by Characteristic
$70,000
$63,060 $63,060
$60,000
$50,000
$39,330
$37,150 $37,150 Max
$40,000
$29,560
$30,000
$19,260$17,730
$20,000 $16,220
$4,590 $5,870 $9,430 $10,640 $9,160 $8,360
$10,000 Avg
$1,970
$0
n= 4 13 14 13 4 7 5 15
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 85
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 115. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Shoreline Master
Program Update by Characteristic
80% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
70% 67% 1,800
61% 60% 1,600
58% 59%
60% 55% 56%
50% 1,400
50% 46%
42% 42% 42% 1,200
38% 38%
40% 1,000
31%
30% 800
23%
600
20%
400
10% 200
0% 0
n= 4 13 14 13 4 7 5 15
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 116. Level of Confidence in Exhibit 117. Length of Time to
Cost Estimates for a Shoreline Master Complete a Shoreline Master Program
Program Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large City 60% 40% Large City 20% 60% 20%
Medium City 15% 62% 23% Medium City 8% 46% 46%
Small City 8% 38% 54% Small City 42% 50% 8%
CPS 7% 79% 14% CPS 50% 50%
Northwest Northwest 33% 33% 33%
50% 25%
Southwest 43% 57%
Southwest 29% 71%
Central 50%
Central 25% 75%
2.0/3.0 36% 57% 7%
2.0/3.0 13% 31% 56%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 86
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 118. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Shoreline Master Program Update
by Characteristic
80%
Large City 20%
100%
75%
Medium City 31%
81%
19%
37%
Small City 19%
37%
11%
65% Data Analysis
CPS 20%
65% Modeling
10%
33% Outreach
Northwest 17%
50% Other
33%
67%
Southwest 44%
67%
22%
33%
Central 11%
44%
48%
2.0/3.0 30%
57%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 119. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Shoreline Master Program Update
by Characteristic
Large City 100% 0
Medium City 38% 62% 1 to 5
Small City 36% 64%
CPS 15% 85%
Northwest 75% 25%
Southwest 43% 57%
Central 40% 60%
2.0/3.0 33% 67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 87
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 120. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 121. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Shoreline Master for a Shoreline Master Program Update
Program Update by Characteristic by Characteristic
Large City 0% 75% 25% Large City 50% 50%
Medium City 15% 69% 15% Medium City 8% 46% 23% 23%
Small City 43% 57% Small City 14% 43% 29% 14%
CPS 31% 54% 15% CPS 8% 23% 46% 23%
Northwest 25% 75% Northwest 25% 75%
Southwest 14% 71% 14% Southwest 71% 14%14%
Central 40% 60% Central 20% 60% 20%
2.0/3.0 20% 73% 7% 2.0/3.0 7% 60% 20% 13%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 122. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Shoreline Master Program
Update by Characteristic
100%
Large City 20% 60%
50% 81%
Medium City 13%
13%
22% 41%
Small City
4%
40% 70% Website
CPS 5%10% Survey
50%
Northwest 17% Language
17% Translation
44% 67%
Southwest 11% Other
44%
Central 11% 22%
30% 57%
2.0/3.0
4%9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 88
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix J. Shoreline Master Program Update Detail for
Counties by Characteristic
Exhibit 123. Total Costs for a Shoreline Master Program Update by Characteristic
$600,000
$505,400 $505,400 $505,400 Maximum
30
$500,000
$400,000 20
$300,000 10
$211,300 $211,300
$179,000 $144,700 0
$200,000 Average
$142,700 $141,900
$114,100
$100,000 -10
$82,800 $81,300
$45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Minimum
$0 -20
n= 6 7 9 4 11
Large…
Small/Med… West East Fully Planning
Exhibit 124. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a Shoreline Master
Program Update by Characteristic
$25,000
$20,270 $20,270 $20,270 Max
$20,000
$15,000
$9,500
$10,000
$6,610
$4,180 $3,980
$5,000
$1,210 Avg
$600 $1,320
$0
n= 6 7 9 4 11
Large Small/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 89
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 125. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a Shoreline Master
Program Update by Characteristic
100% Labor Share Contract Share
2,000
88%
90% 1,800
80% 1,600
71% 69%
70% 66% 1,400
60% 1,200
49% 50%
50% 1,000
40% 34% 800
29% 30%
30% 600
20% 12% 400
10% 200
0% 0
n= 6 7 9 4 11
Large Small/Med West East Fully
County County Planning
Exhibit 126. Level of Confidence in Exhibit 127. Length of Time to
Cost Estimates for a Shoreline Master Complete a Shoreline Master Program
Program Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large Large
60% 40% 17% 50% 33%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
67% 33% 86% 14%
County County
West 75% 25% West 67% 33%
East 33% 67% East 25% 75%
Fully Fully Planning 9% 64% 27%
56% 44%
Planning
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
Medium High <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 90
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 128. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a Shoreline Master Program Update
by Characteristic
83%
Large 33%
County 83%
100%
Small/Med 57%
County 100%
14%
Data
Analysis
89% Modeling
West 44% Outreach
89%
22% Other
100%
East 50%
100%
25%
91%
Fully Planning 36%
91%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 129. Number of Consultant Contracts for a Shoreline Master Program Update
by Characteristic
Large
50% 50% 0
County
Small/Med 1 to 5
14% 86%
County
West 44% 56%
East 100%
Fully Planning 36% 64%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 91
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 130. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 131. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a Shoreline Master for a Shoreline Master Program Update
Program Update by Characteristic by Characteristic
Large Large
17% 67% 17% 17% 50% 17%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
29% 43% 14%14% 14% 57% 29%
County County
West 22% 78% West 11% 22% 33% 33%
East 25% 25% 50% East 50% 50%
Fully Fully
18% 55% 9% 18% 9% 18% 45% 27%
Planning Planning
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 132. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a Shoreline Master Program
Update by Characteristic
Large 100%
50%
County 17%
33%
Small/Med 86%
71%
County
29%
100%
West 56%
11%
33% Website
75%
East 75% Survey
25% Language
Translation
Other
100%
Fully Planning 64%
9%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 92
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix K. Existing Development Regulation Update Detail
for Cities by Characteristic
Exhibit 133. Total Costs for an Existing Development Regulation Update by
Characteristic
$290,000 $260,400 $260,400
$220,800 30
$240,000 $208,900 $208,900 $208,900 Maximum
20
$190,000
10
$140,000 $101,100
$98,800
$90,000 $56,000 0
$40,000 $48,100 $46,900 Average
$23,500 $35,600
$40,000 $25,700 -10
$23,000
($10,000) $17,800 $2,500 $1,100 $2,500 $4,200 $1,100 $4,100 Minimum
$4,100 -20
4 14 18 16 5 7 6 18
n=
Large Small CPS South-
City City west
Exhibit 134. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for an Existing
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
$140,000 $123,240
$123,240 $123,240 Max
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000 $67,740
$60,000
$31,630
$40,000
$18,990 $22,050
$20,000 $2,560 $3,690 $9,430 $4,070 $7,060 $11,020
$910 $1,140 $1,900 Avg
$0
n= 4 14 18 16 5 7 6 18
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 93
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 135. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for an Existing
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
90% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
79% 81%
80% 1,800
70% 1,600
59% 60% 59% 1,400
60% 55% 56%
50% 1,200
50% 46%
40% 42% 42% 1,000
38% 38%
40%
800
30%
20% 600
20% 400
12%
10% 200
0% 0
n= 4 14 18 16 5 7 6 18
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 136. Level of Confidence in Exhibit 137. Length of Time to
Cost Estimates for an Existing Complete an Existing Development
Development Regulation Update by Regulation Update by Characteristic
Characteristic
Large City 60% 40%
Large City 60% 40% Medium City 93% 7%
Medium City 19% 50% 31% Small City 71% 14% 14%
Small City 6% 81% 13%
CPS 71% 21% 7%
CPS 18% 53% 29% Northwest 100%
Northwest 20% 80% Southwest 88% 13%
Southwest 71% 29% Central 80% 20%
Central 67% 33%
2.0/3.0 88% 6% 6%
2.0/3.0 79% 16% 0% 50% 100%
<1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 94
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 138. Types of Technical Tasks Required for an Existing Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic
80%
Large City 60%
0%
56%
Medium City 19%
69%
31%
26%
Small City 11%
41%
4%
45% Data Analysis
CPS 10%
40% Modeling
15%
33% Outreach
Northwest 17% Other
50%
44%
Southwest 22%
78%
22%
44%
Central 11%
56%
11%
39%
2.0/3.0 13%
65%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 139. Number of Consultant Contracts for an Existing Development Regulation
Update by Characteristic
Large City 75% 25% 0
Medium City 86% 14% 1 to 5
Small City 50% 39% 6%6% 5 to 10
10 to 50
CPS 63% 38% > 50
Northwest 80% 20%
Southwest 71% 14% 14%
Central 67% 33%
2.0/3.0 67% 22% 6%6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 95
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 140. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 141. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for an Existing Development for an Existing Development Regulation
Regulation Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large City 60% 20% 20% Large City 20% 40% 40%
Medium City 50% 43% 7% Medium City 13% 69% 19%
Small City 61% 33% 6% Small City 33% 50% 17%
CPS 81% 19% CPS 28% 39% 33%
Northwest 40% 40% 20% Northwest 20% 80%
Southwest 38% 63% Southwest 13% 88%
Central 33% 50% 17% Central 17% 67% 17%
2.0/3.0 37% 47% 5% 11% 2.0/3.0 16% 74% 11%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50 0 1 to 5 5 to 10
Exhibit 142. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for an Existing Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic
40% 60%
Large City 20%
75%
Medium City 13% 31%
19%
7% 37%
Small City 4%7%
15% 55% Website
CPS 5%
5% Survey
50%
Northwest 17%
17% Language Translation
33% Other
33% 56%
Southwest
11%
11% 44%
Central
11% 22%
22% 57%
2.0/3.0 13%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 96
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix L. Existing Development Regulation Update Detail
for Counties by Characteristic
Exhibit 143. Total Costs for an Existing Development Regulation Update by
Characteristic
$135,000
$112,500 $112,500 $112,500 Maximum
$115,000 30
$95,000 20
$75,000
$49,500 10
$52,700
$55,000 $48,400 Average
$49,500 $41,400
0
$35,000 $25,600
$19,000
-10
$15,000
$6,900 $11,000 Minimum
($5,000) $600 $600 $600 -20
n= 6 5 8 3 10
LargeSmall/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
Exhibit 144. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for an Existing
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
$4,000 $3,630 $3,630 $3,630
Max
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000 $1,700
$1,450 $1,550
$1,500
$1,000 $760
$270
$500 $350 Avg
$110
$0
n= 6 5 8 3 10
Large Small/Med West East Fully Planning
County County
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 97
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 145. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for an Existing
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
120% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
100% 1,800
100%
1,600
86% 85% 85%
1,400
80%
69%
1,200
60% 1,000
800
40%
600
400
20% 13%
8% 7% 200
0% 0
n= 6 5 8 3 10
Large Small/Med West East Fully
County County Planning
Exhibit 146. Level of Confidence in Exhibit 147. Length of Time to
Cost Estimates for an Existing Complete an Existing Development
Development Regulation Update by Regulation Update by Characteristic
Characteristic
Large
50% 50%
Large County
60% 40% Small/Med
County 40% 40% 20%
Small/Med County
20% 80%
County
West 38% 63%
West 86% 14%
East 67% 33%
East 33% 33% 33%
Fully Planning 50% 40% 10%
Fully Planning 11% 67% 22%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100% <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
Low Medium High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 98
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 148. Types of Technical Tasks Required for an Existing Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic
33%
Large 17%
County 67%
57%
Small/Med 14%
County 71%
14%
44% Data Analysis
West 22% Modeling
67% Outreach
22%
Other
50%
East
75%
25%
45%
Fully Planning 9%
73%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 149. Number of Consultant Contracts for an Existing Development Regulation
Update by Characteristic
Large
100% 0
County
Small/Med 1 to 5
80% 20%
County
West 88% 13%
East 100%
Fully Planning 90% 10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 99
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 150. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 151. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for an Existing Development for an Existing Development Regulation
Regulation Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large Large
50% 33% 17% 17% 50% 17% 17%
County County
Small/Med Small/Med
100% 60% 20% 20%
County County
West 25% 63% 13% West 13% 50% 25% 13%
East 33% 67% East 67% 33%
Fully Fully
30% 70% 10% 60% 20%10%
Planning Planning
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 5 to 10 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to
50
Exhibit 152. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for an Existing Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic
Large 67%
33%
County 17%
33%
Small/Med 71%
43%
County
14%
67% Website
West 33% Survey
11%
22% Language
75%
East 50% Translation
25% Other
73%
Fully Planning 36%
9%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 100
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix M. New Development Regulation Detail for Cities by
Characteristic
Exhibit 153. Total Costs for a New Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
$280,000
$239,900 $239,900
30
$230,000
$180,000 20
$130,000
$89,000 $107,800 $107,800 $107,800 10
Maximum
$80,000 0
$46,900 $52,600
$24,000$36,800
$25,500 $24,200 $24,000 $26,000 Average
$30,000 $14,800 -10
$9,100
$1,500 $5,200 $1,900 $3,000 $3,000 -20
($20,000) $3,000 $1,500$1,900 Minimum
n= 5 13 13 11 4 8 5 18
Large Small CPS South-
City City west
Exhibit 154. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a New
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
$60,000
$53,080 $53,080 $53,080
Max
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$12,210$10,770
$9,410
$10,000 $6,420 $6,740
$580 $5,270 $5,270
$1,210 $3,460 $2,360 Avg
$180 $1,170
$0
n= 5 13 13 11 4 8 5 18
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 101
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 155. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a New
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
120% 2,000
Labor Share Contract Share
99% 1,800
100%
1,600
75% 1,400
80% 73%
1,200
60% 59%
60% 55% 56% 1,000
50%
46%
42% 42% 800
38% 38%
40%
600
24%
19% 400
20%
200
0% 0
n= 5 13 14 12 4 8 5 18
Large Medium Small CPS North- South- Central 2.0/3.0
City City City west west
Exhibit 156. Level of Confidence in Exhibit 157. Length of Time to
Cost Estimates for a New Development Complete a New Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic Regulation Update by Characteristic
Large City 60% 40% Large City 60% 40%
Medium City 36% 36% 29% Medium City 85% 8% 8%
Small City 23% 62% 15% Small City 91% 9%
CPS 25% 42% 33% CPS 64% 27% 9%
Northwest 100%
Northwest 75% 25%
Southwest 100%
Southwest 13% 63% 25%
Central 25%
Central 17% 50% 33%
2.0/3.0 94% 6%
2.0/3.0 22% 61% 17%
0% 50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
Low Medium High <1 Year 1-2 Years >2 Years
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 102
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 158. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a New Development Regulation
Update by Characteristic
20%
Large City 20%
31%
Medium City 19%
56%
31%
26%
Small City 30%
4%
20% Data Analysis
CPS 10% Modeling
30%
15% Outreach
17%
Northwest 33% Other
17%
56%
Southwest 11%
44%
22%
22%
Central 44%
30%
2.0/3.0 4%
48%
13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Exhibit 159. Number of Consultant Contracts for a New Development Regulation
Update by Characteristic
Large City 100%
0
Medium City 62% 31% 8%
1 to 5
Small City 71% 21% 7%
5 to 10
10 to 50
CPS 67% 25% 8%
>50
Northwest 100%
Southwest 63% 25% 13%
Central 80% 20%
2.0/3.0 72% 22% 6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 103
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 160. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 161. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a New Development for a New Development Regulation
Regulation Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Large City 60% 40% Large City 60% 20% 20%
Medium City 62% 38% Medium City 57% 29% 7% 7%
Small City 79% 21% Small City 43% 36% 21%
CPS 67% 33% CPS 54% 31% 15%
Northwest 100% Northwest 75% 25%
Southwest 63% 38% Southwest 50% 25% 13%13%
Central 60% 40% Central 40% 60%
2.0/3.0 72% 28% 2.0/3.0 50% 28% 17% 6%
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
0 1 to 5 0 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 50
Exhibit 162. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a New Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic
40%
Large City 20%
75%
Medium City 13% 25%
13%
11% 37%
Small City
15%
Website
15% 45% Survey
CPS 5%
5% Language
50%
Northwest 17% Translation
17%
33% 67% Other
Southwest
22%
44%
Central 11%
11%
13% 57%
2.0/3.0 9% 22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 104
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix N. New Development Regulation Detail for Counties
by Characteristic
Exhibit 163. Total Costs for a New Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
Exhibit 164. Per 1,000 Population Cost (excluding SEPA/NEPA) for a New
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 105
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 165. Labor and Contract Costs as a Share of Total Costs for a New
Development Regulation Update by Characteristic
Exhibit 166. Level of Confidence in Exhibit 167. Length of Time to
Cost Estimates for a New Development Complete a New Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic Regulation Update by Characteristic
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 106
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 168. Types of Technical Tasks Required for a New Development Regulation
Update by Characteristic
Exhibit 169. Number of Consultant Contracts for a New Development Regulation
Update by Characteristic
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 107
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 170. Number of Stakeholder Exhibit 171. Number of Public Meetings
Meetings for a New Development for a New Development Regulation
Regulation Update by Characteristic Update by Characteristic
Exhibit 172. Other Types of Public Engagement Used for a New Development
Regulation Update by Characteristic
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 108
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix O. Technical Assistance Needs Ranked by Region
Areas of challenge and technical assistance preferences are ranked on a scale of one to
ten, with one being most important and ten being least important.
Circuit rider services rank highest among jurisdictions within the Central region.
Exhibit 173. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Central Washington Geography
Within the Eastern region, jurisdictions have little interest in involving regional
agencies. Similar to statewide results, there is a lot of interest in circuit rider services
as well as data and analytical tools.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 109
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 174. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Eastern Washington Geography
Standouts for the Central Puget Sound region include a high interest in model policy
language.
Exhibit 175. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Central Puget Sound Geography
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 110
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Exhibit 176. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Northwest Geography
Exhibit 177. Areas of Greatest Challenges and Technical Assistance
Preferences, Southwest Geography
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 111
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix P. Survey Instrument
The Washington State Department of Commerce has been tasked with conducting a
study of the costs to cities and counties of planning requirements. The survey presents a
series of questions to gather cost data for seven specific planning activities. A part
of this task also includes understanding the interest cities and counties have in various
forms of technical assistance. Survey responses will be aggregated to provide the
legislature with a data informed understanding of the costs to complete required
planning activities. Your participation will ensure that the legislature has a
comprehensive understanding of the costs to cities and counties when making
future decisions for required planning activities. Findings will also help the
legislature as they make future decisions on technical assistance the
Department of Commerce can provide.
Below are a series of questions for each of the seven specific planning activities. A
definition for each of these activities is provided for reference. Please provide cost
estimates for each of the major elements outlined below for your City/County’s latest
experience with this activity. Additional details for each activity will help provide the
legislature with the best possible assessment of the costs of planning for Washington
cities and counties.
If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Witenstein at
nicole@communityattributes.com. You may also submit data on your costs via Excel or
another format, if that is simpler for you.
Please provide your contact information:
City/County*: Enter City/County.
Name*: Enter your name.
Position: Enter your position.
Email: Enter your email.
Phone: Enter your phone number.
New Comprehensive Plan Element
A new comprehensive plan element includes the following:
A new chapter containing new introductions, goals, policies and objectives.
Minor modifications to policies/policy additions to two existing elements to tie
into a new planning element (for example – land use and housing element goals
often have some overlapping language for consistency.)
Minor modifications to three different chapters of development regulations to
implement a new goal. This includes minor zoning map changes, minor
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 112
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
modifications to subdivision regulations, and minor bulk standard zoning
changes.
Engagement activities which include development of website content, publishing
of public hearing notices, materials, staff reports, and ordinances. It also includes
two planning commissions and two council meetings or hearings.
Medium level of public or state or federal agency involvement. Up to 20 comment
letters.
SEPA DNS, MDNS, or adoption of existing document. No EIS or SEIS.
No appeals.
Please provide fully loaded cost estimates for the following cost
components for a new comprehensive plan element.
Note: fully loaded costs include staff labor costs, including wages and benefits, as well as
materials and contracts.
Staff Recovery Rate: $ Enter staff recovery rate per hour here.
Staff recovery rate refers to the fully loaded staff costs on an hourly basis
Staff & Labor Costs or Hours: $ Enter staff and labor costs/hours here.
Are your staff and labor entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Contracted Services: $ Enter contracted services costs here.
If applicable, how many contracts for services did this activity require?
Enter number here.
Please specify the types of technical tasks that required consultant support:
Enter description here.
Other Costs or Hours: $ Enter other costs/hours here.
Are your other cost or hours entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Please specify the types of costs included in the other category: Enter
description here.
Note: Other costs or hours excludes contracted services.
Specify year(s) you last engaged in the above activity: Enter year here.
How long did this planning activity require? (Select one)
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 113
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
☐Less than one year ☐1-2 years ☐More than 2 years
What types of technical tasks were included in this activity (Select all
that apply)
☐Data Analysis
☐Modeling
☐Public and Stakeholder Outreach
☐Other (Please specify):
Did this activity include a SEPA/NEPA EIS?
☐Yes ☐No
SEPA/NEPA EIS Costs: $ Enter other SEPA/NEPA EIS costs here.
How many public meetings did this activity require? Enter number here.
How many focus groups or other types of stakeholder meetings did this
activity include? Enter number here.
What other forms of public engagement did this activity include? (Select
all that apply)
☐Language translation services
☐Website
☐Stakeholder/public survey
☐Other (Please specify)
What other unique characteristics influence the cost of the activity?
Enter description here.
What is your level of confidence in the cost estimate provided?
☐Low ☐Medium ☐High
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 114
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Update Critical Areas Ordinance
An update to a critical areas ordinance includes:
Minor update to critical areas regulations following the guidance in WAC 365-195
(Shoreline Master program approval/amendment procedures and master
program guidelines).
Base level engagement activities as outlined in WAC 173-26-100.
Engagement activities which include development of website content, publishing
of public hearing notices, materials, staff reports, and ordinances. Includes two
planning commissions and two council meetings or hearings.
Medium level of public or state and federal agency involvement. Up to 20
comment letters.
SEPA DNS, MDNS, or adoption of existing document. No EIS or SEIS.
No appeals.
Please provide fully loaded cost estimates for the following cost
components to update a critical areas ordinance.
Note: fully loaded costs include staff labor costs, including wages and benefits, as well as
materials, and contracts.
Staff Recovery Rate: $ Enter staff recovery rate per hour here.
Staff recovery rate refers to the fully loaded staff costs on an hourly basis
Staff & Labor Costs or Hours: $ Enter staff and labor costs/hours here.
Are your staff and labor entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Contracted Services: $ Enter contracted services costs here.
If applicable, how many contracts for services did this activity require?
Enter number here.
Please specify the types of technical tasks that required consultant support:
Enter description here.
Other Costs or Hours: $ Enter other costs/hours here.
Are your other cost or hours entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Please specify the types of costs included in the other category: Enter
description here.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 115
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Note: Other costs or hours excludes contracted services.
Specify year(s) you last engaged in the above activity: Enter year here.
How long did this planning activity require? (Select one)
☐Less than one year ☐1-2 years ☐More than 2 years
What types of technical tasks were included in this activity (Select all
that apply)
☐Data Analysis
☐Modeling
☐Public and Stakeholder Outreach
☐Other (Please specify):
Did this activity include a SEPA/NEPA EIS?
☐Yes ☐No
SEPA/NEPA EIS Costs: $ Enter other SEPA/NEPA EIS costs here.
How many public meetings did this activity require? Enter number here.
How many focus groups or other types of stakeholder meetings did this
activity include? Enter number here.
What other forms of public engagement did this activity include? (Select
all that apply)
☐Language translation services
☐Website
☐Stakeholder/public survey
☐Other (Please specify)
What other unique characteristics influence the cost of the activity?
Enter description here.
What is your level of confidence in the cost estimate provided?
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 116
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
☐Low ☐Medium ☐High
Update a Shoreline Master Program Ordinance
An update to a shoreline master program ordinance includes:
Minor updates to the shoreline master program following the guidance in WAC
173-26 (Shoreline Master program approval/amendment procedures and master
program guidelines).
Includes base level engagement activities as outlined in WAC 173-26-100.
Engagement activities include development of website content, publishing of
public hearing notices, materials, staff reports, and ordinances. Includes two
planning commission and two council meetings or hearings.
Medium level of public or state and federal agency involvement. Up to 20
comment letters.
SEPA DNS, MDNS, or adoption of existing document. No EIS or SEIS.
No appeals.
Please provide fully loaded cost estimates for the following cost
components to update a shoreline master program ordinance.
Note: fully loaded costs include staff labor costs, including wages and benefits, as well as
materials, and contracts.
Staff Recovery Rate: $ Enter staff recovery rate per hour here.
Staff recovery rate refers to the fully loaded staff costs on an hourly basis
Staff & Labor Costs or Hours: $ Enter staff and labor costs/hours here.
Are your staff and labor entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Contracted Services: $ Enter contracted services costs here.
If applicable, how many contracts for services did this activity require?
Enter number here.
Please specify the types of technical tasks that required consultant support:
Enter description here.
Other Costs or Hours: $ Enter other costs/hours here.
Are your other cost or hours entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 117
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Please specify the types of costs included in the other category: Enter
description here.
Note: Other costs or hours excludes contracted services.
Specify year(s) you last engaged in the above activity: Enter year here.
How long did this planning activity require? (Select one)
☐Less than one year ☐1-2 years ☐More than 2 years
What types of technical tasks were included in this activity (Select all
that apply)
☐Data Analysis
☐Modeling
☐Public and Stakeholder Outreach
☐Other (Please specify):
Did this activity include a SEPA/NEPA EIS?
☐Yes ☐No
SEPA/NEPA EIS Costs: $ Enter other SEPA/NEPA EIS costs here.
How many public meetings did this activity require? Enter number here.
How many focus groups or other types of stakeholder meetings did this
activity include? Enter number here.
What other forms of public engagement did this activity include? (Select
all that apply)
☐Language translation services
☐Website
☐Stakeholder/public survey
☐Other (Please specify)
What other unique characteristics influence the cost of the activity?
Enter description here.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 118
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
What is your level of confidence in the cost estimate provided?
☐Low ☐Medium ☐High
Minor Update to a Comprehensive Plan Element
A minor update to a comprehensive plan element includes:
Up to 10 new or modified policies.
Assumes that guidance is provided such as revised Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs), state law changes, or prepared guidance that makes clear what needs to
be amended within the comprehensive plan element.
Engagement activities include development of website content, publishing of
public hearing notices, materials, staff reports, and ordinances. Includes two
planning commission and two council meetings or hearings.
Medium level of public or state and federal agency involvement. Up to 20
comment letters.
SEPA DNS, MDNS, or adoption of existing document.
No appeals.
Please provide fully loaded cost estimates for the following cost
components for a minor update to a comprehensive plan element.
Note: fully loaded costs include staff labor costs, including wages and benefits, as well as
materials, and contracts.
Staff Recovery Rate: $ Enter staff recovery rate per hour here.
Staff recovery rate refers to the fully loaded staff costs on an hourly basis
Staff & Labor Costs or Hours: $ Enter staff and labor costs/hours here.
Are your staff and labor entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Contracted Services: $ Enter contracted services costs here.
If applicable, how many contracts for services did this activity require?
Enter number here.
Please specify the types of technical tasks that required consultant support:
Enter description here.
Other Costs or Hours: $ Enter other costs/hours here.
Are your other cost or hours entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 119
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Please specify the types of costs included in the other category: Enter
description here.
Note: Other costs or hours excludes contracted services.
Specify year(s) you last engaged in the above activity: Enter year here.
How long did this planning activity require? (Select one)
☐Less than one year ☐1-2 years ☐More than 2 years
What types of technical tasks were included in this activity (Select all
that apply)
☐Data Analysis
☐Modeling
☐Public and Stakeholder Outreach
☐Other (Please specify):
Did this activity include a SEPA/NEPA EIS?
☐Yes ☐No
SEPA/NEPA EIS Costs: $ Enter other SEPA/NEPA EIS costs here.
How many public meetings did this activity require? Enter number here.
How many focus groups or other types of stakeholder meetings did this
activity include? Enter number here.
What other forms of public engagement did this activity include? (Select
all that apply)
☐Language translation services
☐Website
☐Stakeholder/public survey
☐Other (Please specify)
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 120
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
What other unique characteristics influence the cost of the activity?
Enter description here.
What is your level of confidence in the cost estimate provided?
☐Low ☐Medium ☐High
Complex Update to a Comprehensive Plan Element
A major update to a comprehensive plan element, including updates to an element as
part of the 10-year periodic update, includes:
Preparing a policy gap analysis to review existing policies vs. recent changes to
state laws, case law, and regional policies.
Major modifications to policies and policy additions in response to policy gap
analysis.
Revision to chapter introduction.
Documentation of consistency with Commerce checklist (assumes major change is
conducted as part of the 10-year periodic update).
Engagement activities include development of website content, publishing of
public hearing notices, materials, staff reports, and ordinances. Includes two
planning commission and two council meetings or hearings.
Medium level of public or state and federal agency involvement. Up to 20
comment letters.
SEPA DNS, MDNS, or adoption of existing document.
No appeals.
Please provide fully loaded cost estimates for the following cost
components for a complex update to a comprehensive plan element.
Note: fully loaded costs include staff labor costs, including wages and benefits, as well as
materials, and contracts.
Staff Recovery Rate: $ Enter staff recovery rate per hour here.
Staff recovery rate refers to the fully loaded staff costs on an hourly basis
Staff & Labor Costs or Hours: $ Enter staff and labor costs/hours here.
Are your staff and labor entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Contracted Services: $ Enter contracted services costs here.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 121
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
If applicable, how many contracts for services did this activity require?
Enter number here.
Please specify the types of technical tasks that required consultant support:
Enter description here.
Other Costs or Hours: $ Enter other costs/hours here.
Are your other cost or hours entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Please specify the types of costs included in the other category: Enter
description here.
Note: Other costs or hours excludes contracted services.
Specify year(s) you last engaged in the above activity: Enter year here.
How long did this planning activity require? (Select one)
☐Less than one year ☐1-2 years ☐More than 2 years
What types of technical tasks were included in this activity (Select all
that apply)
☐Data Analysis
☐Modeling
☐Public and Stakeholder Outreach
☐Other (Please specify):
Did this activity include a SEPA/NEPA EIS?
☐Yes ☐No
SEPA/NEPA EIS Costs: $ Enter other SEPA/NEPA EIS costs here.
How many public meetings did this activity require? Enter number here.
How many focus groups or other types of stakeholder meetings did this
activity include? Enter number here.
What other forms of public engagement did this activity include? (Select
all that apply)
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 122
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
☐Language translation services
☐Website
☐Stakeholder/public survey
☐Other (Please specify)
What other unique characteristics influence the cost of the activity?
Enter description here.
What is your level of confidence in the cost estimate provided?
☐Low ☐Medium ☐High
Update an Existing Development Regulation
An update to an existing development regulation includes:
Research for code update.
Development of draft and final code language.
Engagement activities which include development of website content, publishing
of public hearing notices, materials, staff reports, and ordinances. Includes two
planning commission and two council meetings or hearings.
Medium level of public or state and federal agency involvement. Up to 20
comment letters.
SEPA DNS, MDNS, or adoption of existing document. No EIS or SEIS.
No appeals.
Please provide fully loaded cost estimates for the following cost
components for an update to an existing development regulation.
Note: fully loaded costs include staff labor costs, including wages and benefits, as well as
materials, and contracts.
Staff Recovery Rate: $ Enter staff recovery rate per hour here.
Staff recovery rate refers to the fully loaded staff costs on an hourly basis
Staff & Labor Costs or Hours: $ Enter staff and labor costs/hours here.
Are your staff and labor entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Contracted Services: $ Enter contracted services costs here.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 123
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
If applicable, how many contracts for services did this activity require?
Enter number here.
Please specify the types of technical tasks that required consultant support:
Enter description here.
Other Costs or Hours: $ Enter other costs/hours here.
Are your other cost or hours entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Please specify the types of costs included in the other category: Enter
description here.
Note: Other costs or hours excludes contracted services.
Specify year(s) you last engaged in the above activity: Enter year here.
How long did this planning activity require? (Select one)
☐Less than one year ☐1-2 years ☐More than 2 years
What types of technical tasks were included in this activity (Select all
that apply)
☐Data Analysis
☐Modeling
☐Public and Stakeholder Outreach
☐Other (Please specify):
Did this activity include a SEPA/NEPA EIS?
☐Yes ☐No
SEPA/NEPA EIS Costs: $ Enter other SEPA/NEPA EIS costs here.
How many public meetings did this activity require? Enter number here.
How many focus groups or other types of stakeholder meetings did this
activity include? Enter number here.
What other forms of public engagement did this activity include? (Select
all that apply)
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 124
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
☐Language translation services
☐Website
☐Stakeholder/public survey
☐Other (Please specify)
What other unique characteristics influence the cost of the activity?
Enter description here.
What is your level of confidence in the cost estimate provided?
☐Low ☐Medium ☐High
Implement a New Development Regulation
A new development regulation includes:
Work to get new code language online (such as work with code publishing).
Training for permit reviewers on new code.
Development of materials for customers such as new development handouts.
Implement new changes to permit tracking system.
Modify fee collection (assumes new fee based on code change).
Please provide fully loaded cost estimates for the following cost
components to implement a new development regulation.
Note: fully loaded costs include staff labor costs, including wages and benefits, as well as
materials, and contracts.
Staff Recovery Rate: $ Enter staff recovery rate per hour here.
Staff recovery rate refers to the fully loaded staff costs on an hourly basis
Staff & Labor Costs or Hours: $ Enter staff and labor costs/hours here.
Are your staff and labor entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Contracted Services: $ Enter contracted services costs here.
If applicable, how many contracts for services did this activity require?
Enter number here.
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 125
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Please specify the types of technical tasks that required consultant support:
Enter description here.
Other Costs or Hours: $ Enter other costs/hours here.
Are your other cost or hours entries above listed as staff hours or total costs?
☐Hours ☐Total Costs
Please specify the types of costs included in the other category: Enter
description here.
Note: Other costs or hours excludes contracted services.
Specify year(s) you last engaged in the above activity: Enter year here.
How long did this planning activity require? (Select one)
☐Less than one year ☐1-2 years ☐More than 2 years
What types of technical tasks were included in this activity (Select all
that apply)
☐Data Analysis
☐Modeling
☐Public and Stakeholder Outreach
☐Other (Please specify):
Did this activity include a SEPA/NEPA EIS?
☐Yes ☐No
SEPA/NEPA EIS Costs: $ Enter other SEPA/NEPA EIS costs here.
How many public meetings did this activity require? Enter number here.
How many focus groups or other types of stakeholder meetings did this
activity include? Enter number here.
What other forms of public engagement did this activity include? (Select
all that apply)
☐Language translation services
☐Website
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 126
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
☐Stakeholder/public survey
☐Other (Please specify)
What other unique characteristics influence the cost of the activity?
Enter description here.
What is your level of confidence in the cost estimate provided?
☐Low ☐Medium ☐High
Technical Assistance
We are looking at ways the state can provide more assistance to local
governments, particularly cities and counties, with fewer resources.
Please rank the following options in order of preference for which
Washington state should fund to help local governments plan under the
Growth Management Act.
☐More technical assistance to cities and counties
☐Model policy language for comprehensive plan updates
☐Optional process of state approval and defense from appeal
☐Allow some portion of comprehensive plan grant funds to be used for technical
assistance
☐Mediation and facilitation services
☐Communications and PR expertise for assistance in complex, controversial
planning issues
☐Expanding the roles colleges and universities can play in assisting local
governments
☐None of these
☐Other (Please specify)
Should more counties be required to regularly update countywide
planning policies?
☐Yes ☐No
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 127
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Should slow-growing cities and counties that fully plan under the
Growth Management Act have fewer requirements if their growth rate
falls below a certain rate in the years leading up to their comprehensive
plan update?
☐Yes ☐No
What are specific ideas you may have for how to eliminate gaps,
conflicts, and overlaps in state requirements? Please briefly describe up
to three below.
Enter description here.
Conclusion
Is there anything else you would like to share about the costs of
planning requirements or technical assistance for local governments?
Enter description here.
Thank you for your participation!
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 128
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
Appendix Q. Interview Questions
Introduction
The Washington State Department of Commerce has been tasked with
conducting a study of the costs to cities and counties of planning
requirements. A part of this task includes understanding the interest in
cities and counties have in various forms of technical assistance, as well as
the potential effectiveness of technical assistance. Findings from these
interviews will help the legislature as they make future decisions on
technical assistance the Department of Commerce can provide as well as
future legislative decisions.
Questions
1. What are your primary challenges in completing the planning
requirements in the Growth Management Act?
2. Please rank on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most important, the
importance the areas of planning activities where your jurisdiction may
need additional support?
Changes to state, regional, or county law and policies?
Specific comprehensive plan elements?
Critical Areas based on best available science?
Impact fees?
Capital facility planning?
Alignment with case law and Growth Management Hearings Board
appeals?
Other? (Please describe)
3. Would additional technical assistance provided by the Department of
Commerce or other state agencies be utilized? Please describe.
4. Please rank on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the most important, your
interest in the following types of technical assistance?
Model codes or ordinance provisions
Model policy language for comprehensive plan updates
State provision of data or analytical tools
Circuit rider services to directly staff local planning activities
o How many hours of additional planning staff could you
make use of?
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 129
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
o What types of tasks would these additional planning staff
support?
o In what way would additional staff increase your capacity
for planning?
Master consultant agreements for planning services
Involve regional agencies, such as councils of government, to
provide planning services to member local jurisdictions
o What planning services could your county or regional
agencies support?
o How regularly could you use these services?
Expand the role of colleges and universities in assisting local
governments with planning activities
Optional process of state approval and defense from appeal
Allow some portion of comprehensive plan grant funds to be used
for technical assistance
Mediation and facilitation services
Communications and PR expertise for assistance in
complex/controversial planning issues
Other (please describe)
None of the above
5. What other models, pilot programs, options for technical assistance could
you make use of?
DEPT OF COMMERCE PAGE 130
EVALUATION OF PLANNING COSTS JANUARY 3, 2022
File and source
- File
- 2023_commerce-reports-cai-com-planning-cost-evaluation-report-a0264bae-7213.pdf
- Size
- 2,494,806 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4f8de77c2fa48c2280cb68d87f4724fd738dd087d709dfcf6415c22ee3216255
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov