Collaborative Roadmap Phase IV — Integrating Water, Sewer, School, and Port Districts into the GMA Planning Process (December 16, 2025)
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Report
Summary
Collaborative Roadmap Phase IV is the Washington State Department of Commerce's final report to the Legislature, dated December 16, 2025, on integrating water, sewer, school, and port districts into the Growth Management Act planning process. It was prepared pursuant to Chapter 376, Laws of 2024 (SB 5950, Sec. 128(34)). The report describes the working groups for Ports, Schools, and Water/Sewer/PUD, a Task Force that met seven times between Nov. 2024 and Nov. 2025, and a consent decision-making process. It lists nine recommendations, including increased comprehensive plan coordination, project permit notifications, coordinated water system plans timing, school district planning and siting, and long-term protection of industrial lands. The report closes with Appendix C, key issues identified by the working groups, such as planning timelines and emergency planning.
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
“Collaborative Roadmap Phase IV — Integrating Water, Sewer, School, and Port Districts into the GMA Planning Process (December 16, 2025).”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2025-collaborative-roadmap-phase-iv-legislative-report-final-120a61d3-e313/
, SHA-256 52b80ed092c3bd56501b19ced6f4fbb08f5b8133d540dc964322f9c67ccd5c4c.Full text
Collaborative Roadmap Phase IV: Final
report on integrating water, sewer,
school, and port districts into the GMA
planning process
Pursuant to Chapter 376, Laws of 2024 (SB 5950, Sec. 128(34))
December 16, 2025
Report to the Legislature
GROWTH MANAGEMENT Director Joe Nguyễn
Acknowledgments
Washington State Department of Commerce
Mark Barkley, Local Government Division Assistant
Director
Dave Andersen, AICP - Growth Management Services
Senior Managing Director
Kimley-Horn
Clay White, Planning Director
Ines Galmiche, AICP, Urban Planner
Erin O'Kelley, AICP, Urban Planner
Triangle Associates, Inc.
Thomas Christian, Senior Associate
Kim Zamora Delgado, Associate
Pauline Mogilevsky, Associate
Washington State Department of Commerce
1011 Plum St. SE
P.O. Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
www.commerce.wa.gov
For people with disabilities, this report is available on
request in other formats. Please call 360-725-4000 with
your request.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2
Table of contents
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................................4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................5
Developing the recommendations .......................................................................................................................7
Legislative recommendations............................................................................................................................ 10
Appendix A: Draft recommendation sheets ........................................................................................................ 13
Appendix B: Library of statutes and rules ........................................................................................................... 35
Appendix C: Key issues identified by working groups ......................................................................................... 37
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
Executive summary
The Collaborative Roadmap is a multi-year research and analysis project led by the Department of Commerce
(Commerce) to make recommendations to update the state's growth policy framework. This framework consists of
state laws that govern/influence the strategies state agencies and local governments use to plan for, implement,
and manage land use policy, permitting and appeals, infrastructure, and environmental protections. This is the final
report of the Collaborative Roadmap, Phase IV and the preliminary report was published earlier this year.
Authorizing legislation
Chapter 376, Laws of 2024 (SB 5950, Sec. 128(34)) requires Commerce to continue the Growth Management
Collaborative Roadmap. Now in its fourth phase, Commerce must:
[C]onvene a task force to make recommendations on integrating water, sewer, school, and port districts into
the growth management act planning process. The task force shall build upon the findings, concepts, and
recommendations in recent reports, including the "collaborative roadmap phase III" report prepared for the
department in 2023 and the "roadmap to Washington's future" issued by the William D. Ruckelshaus center
in 2019. The task force must involve diverse perspectives including but not limited to representatives of
state agencies, cities, counties, special districts, tribal governments, builders, and planning and
environmental organizations that have experience with local or special purpose district planning processes.
[Commerce] must provide a preliminary report on the task force's activities and progress by June 30, 2025.
It is the intent of the Legislature to continue funding the study in the 2025-2027 fiscal biennium, with a final
report with recommendations due December 1, 2025.
Past reports and studies, which include the Land Use Study Commission (1998), Governor’s Land Use Agenda
(2006), A Road Map to Washington’s Future (Phase I, 2019), Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework
(Phase II, 2021), and the Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (Phase III, 2023), provide a foundation for Phase IV of the
Collaborative Roadmap (2025) and new recommendations to enhance planning and coordination for local
governments.
Recommendations
The Task Force's recommendations span over-arching coordination efforts that may apply to all special purpose
districts, cities, and counties, and unique recommendations that may enhance coordination efforts for select
districts or situations that arise in the existing growth policy framework. They include ideas that would both
enhance the existing framework and right-size planning requirements. Recommendations focus on making the
laws and code governing growth and development work better and on providing local governments with tools to
help them address some of our most pressing issues.
The Task Force provided nine recommendations across a broad spectrum of the growth policy framework for the
Legislature to consider. Appendix A contains the full details for all recommendations.
1) Increased comprehensive plan coordination
2) Increased countywide planning policy (CPP) coordination
3) Project permit notifications
4) Tools and technical resources
5) Incentivize coordination and coordinated projects
6) Coordinated water system plans timing
7) School district planning and siting
8) Long-term protection of industrial lands
9) Port and economic development elements
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4
Introduction
Project overview and purpose
The Collaborative Roadmap is a multi-year research and analysis project led by Commerce, as directed by the
Legislature, to make recommendations to update the state's growth policy framework. This framework consists of
state laws that govern/influence the strategies state agencies and local governments use to plan for, implement,
and manage land use policy, permitting and appeals, infrastructure, and environmental protections.
Phase IV focuses on identifying options to increase coordination between jurisdictions and special districts, such
as school districts, ports, and water/sewer/public utility districts (PUD). Special districts provide many of the
facilities and services necessary for cities to implement their vision for the community as adopted in their
comprehensive plan. Special districts also have their own mandates that are affected by the work of cities and
counties. Identifying opportunities to increase coordination between jurisdictions and special districts has been a
consistent theme throughout the previous Roadmap projects.
A Road Map to Washington's Future (2019) included a recommendation to find ways to integrate water and sewer
districts, school districts, and port district planning into the Growth Management Act (GMA). Collaborative
Roadmap Phase IV builds upon previous efforts, providing the working groups and Task Force with the historical
context necessary to make informed decisions. Past reports and studies, which include the Land Use Study
Commission (1998), Governor’s Land Use Agenda (2006), A Road Map to Washington’s Future (Phase I, 2019),
Updating Washington’s Growth Policy Framework (Phase II, 2021), and the Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (Phase
III, 2023), provide a foundation for the Collaborative Roadmap Phase IV (Phase IV: 2025) project.
The Collaborative Roadmap Phase III project built upon this recommendation and emphasized that the process
should focus on:
Convene a collaborative process(es) with, at a minimum, representatives of state agencies, cities, counties,
builders, special districts, Tribal governments, and planning and environmental organizations that have
experience with local and/or special district planning processes.
Focus on increasing planning between jurisdictions and special districts to better implement utility and capital
facility planning requirements under the Growth Management Act.
Focus on methods to help ensure that special districts can more fully incorporate local comprehensive plans as
they plan for the utilities and capital facilities necessary to accommodate growth during the planning period.
Focus on identifying legislative changes that will increase coordination during permitting processes that impact
special districts while limiting new planning requirements.
Commerce created a Collaborative Roadmap webpage to allow for convenient and accessible information sharing.
All project reports will be made available on the project webpage, as well as the project timeline and project
contact information. This report, the recommendations, and recordings or minutes from Task Force meetings
posted to the webpage.
Problem definition
Currently, numerous services are required to implement the growth plans of jurisdictions. Despite this, laws and
processes do not align. Increasing the challenges jurisdictions and special purpose districts face are limited
staffing and time availability, the number of jurisdictions and special purpose districts to coordinate with, and
differing needs between jurisdictions and special purpose districts.
Cities and counties are not alone in providing capital facilities necessary to support growth (population, housing,
and jobs). School districts, port districts, and water/sewer/PUDs are distinct from cities and counties. In many
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
cases, special districts work under separate state laws and rules and have separate administrative structures that
cross multiple city and county boundaries.
The goal of this project is to find solutions for increasing coordination between jurisdictions and special districts.
This includes looking for opportunities to right-size statutes, rules, and processes to ensure that requirements are
aligned with the capacity and size limitations of both jurisdictions and special purpose districts.
More coordination may help with:
Better overall planning.
Increasing understanding between jurisdictions and special purpose districts.
Providing opportunities to link resources and support to each other, focusing on better outcomes.
To achieve the project goals and directions from the legislature, the project team established a continuous
participation process to engage diverse groups, through working groups and a Task Force, to make
recommendations to the Legislature on ways to better integrate capital facility and utility planning efforts of
outside service providers with GMA requirements. In addition, the project team engaged with Tribes, other
interested parties, legislators, and communities who have been left out of public policy decision-making and who
are unevenly impacted by those decisions.
Project schedule
Over the course of a year, the project achieved numerous goals. Professionals and subject matter experts were
united in working groups to compile issues to address and provide initial concepts for addressing those issues.
Those concepts were presented to the Task Force to workshop into legislative recommendations. The project
schedule below outlines key dates when project reports and recommendations are due. The schedule also provides
a high-level overview of when the project Task Force and working groups will meet. This is critically important as
the Task Force recommendations will be the foundation for future reports.
September 6, 2024: Collaborative Roadmap, Phase IV, begins.
November 2024 to November 2025: Task Force and workgroup meetings.
June 30, 2025: Preliminary report to the Legislature.
December 1, 2025: Final report to the Legislature.
June 30, 2026: Develop final outreach tools to support best practices recommendations, and project closeout.
Throughout the process, the Collaborative Roadmap Phase IV webpage maintained project updates and reports.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
Developing the recommendations
The engagement strategy primarily focused on the working groups and the Task Force. This method enables the
project to gather specialized feedback and recommendations from various groups, with the goal of fostering
greater collaboration between individual organizations and jurisdictions. The following establishes the process,
which begins with the working groups making recommendations to the Task Force, which provides a final set of
recommendations to the Legislature for consideration.
Figure one: Process to develop Task Force recommendations
Working groups
Working groups for each special purpose district type were organized to identify recommendations around their
unique planning issues. Three separate working groups focused on Ports, Schools, and Water/Sewer/PUD. Each
working group met three times between January and April. Working groups comprised 10-15 members from the
respective special district types and cities/counties, including diverse representatives from across the state.
After adequately defining the problem with the working groups and Task Force, the project team assembled a
library of existing statutes and rules to identify gaps and opportunities in existing legislation, from which to build
the recommendations in this report. See the Library of Statutes and Rules in Appendix B.
Working Group meetings identified the following issues, which are also detailed in Appendix C:
Timing of public and special district participation in growth management planning.
Assistance from the State of Washington.
Integration of school siting during growth management planning.
Coordination of utility relocation and improvements.
Protection of transition zoning outside of Ports.
Planning for a variety of employment types.
Urban service extensions in rural areas for schools.
Grant incentives.
Coordination on emergency planning.
Planning alignment in the fastest-growing communities.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
Task Force
The Task Force is made up of cities, counties, state agencies, special purpose districts (school districts, ports,
water and sewer districts), planners, and community members often excluded or unevenly impacted by unaligned
planning efforts between jurisdictions and special purpose districts. Task Force members are organized below by
interest area, member, and organization:
Builders: Andrea Smiley, Building Industry Association of Washington
Cities: Carl Shroeder, Association of Washington Cities
Counties: Paul Jewell, Washington State Association of Counties
Environment: Bryce Yadon, Yadon Consulting
Planning: Robin Proebsting, American Planning Association-WA
Ports: Eric Ffitch, Washington Public Ports Association
Public utilities: Travis Nelson, Washington Public Utility Districts Association
School districts: Jeff Mann, Bethel School District
State agencies:
• Dave Andersen, Washington State Department of Commerce
• Brian Sayrs, Washington State Department of Health
Water and sewer districts: Kathy Curry, Woodinville Water
The Task Force met seven times between Nov. 2024 and Nov. 2025. The first few meetings involved reviewing
issues discussed with the working groups. Through an iterative process (see Figure two), the project team filtered
the issues and solutions discussed with the Task Force into a series of recommendations, which were reviewed at
five meetings. Between Aug. and Oct. 2025, the Phase IV project team also met with Task Force members
individually to discuss specific recommendations and evaluate their feasibility and potential impacts.
Figure two: Timeline for task force recommendation development
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
Consent decision-making
To support equity, the project team facilitated Task Force meetings using a consent decision-making process. This
process used simple majority rule. It also emphasized the importance of a clear, shared understanding of
proposals and the value of input from all members of the group. Using this method, the Task Force reached
majority consent on nine recommendations.
Both consent and objections were captured, making it clear who expressed support or concerns regarding the
recommendation. As part of the review of the draft recommendations, the project team scheduled follow-up
meetings with Task Force members who objected to recommendations.
Figure three: Consent decision-making process
Clarifying Short Legislative
Proposal Consent review
questions resposnes report
• Review updated • Each Task Force • All Task Force • Verbal response of • Document
recommendations. member had an members provided consent, object, or recommendations
opportunity to ask short responses that abstain were and Task Force
clarifying questions influenced small captured. Follow-up member positions.
to understand the changes to the discussions were
proposal. proposals. had with each
objecting member.
Other engagement efforts
Additional engagement efforts were intended to gather specific feedback from other parties not directly involved
with the project, as well as to showcase the project and garner support.
In Sept. 2025, the project team met with representatives from the following groups to review draft
recommendations. The purpose was to ensure that the recommendations could be widely accepted and
implemented.
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW)
School Districts
Commerce Dept. of Health (DOH)
Commerce Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB)
Commerce staff for the Small Communities Initiative (SCI)
Commerce staff for the Public Works Board (PWB)
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
Legislative recommendations
The Legislature charged the Task Force with building upon past work to make recommendations on how to better
integrate and improve coordination between water, sewer, school, and port districts with the growth management
act planning process.
As detailed above, the recommendations stem from the participation of the working groups and the Task Force, in
addition to input from other stakeholders. Each recommendation has undergone significant review and discussion,
and includes the following:
Summary of the topic
Summary of the recommendation
Topic overview and background
Description of the issue
Statutes to amend
Anticipated budget impacts
Connection to a previous study
Advantages
Disadvantages
The Task Force's work as part of this Collaborative Roadmap Phase IV includes nine recommendations across a
broad spectrum of the growth policy framework for the Legislature to consider. Full details of the Task Force's nine
recommendations are available in Appendix A.
1) Increased comprehensive plan coordination
2) Increased countywide planning policy (CPP) coordination
3) Project permit notifications
4) Tools and technical resources
5) Incentivize coordination and coordinated projects
6) Coordinated water system plans timing
7) School district planning and siting
8) Long-term protection of industrial lands
9) Port and economic development elements
Overarching issues
During Task Force deliberations, three overarching issues were apparent, and which crosscut the detailed issue
areas outlined in Appendix C. The Task Force recognizes these issues present both challenges and opportunities
across multiple recommendations and issue areas.
Governance
Local governments and special districts each operate under their own governing bodies, mandates, and long-term
visions. As a result, effective regional coordination requires collaboration and shared decision-making. Both of
which can feel, expressed by many Task Force members, like giving up a degree of organizational autonomy. While
the recommendations aim to strengthen alignment across jurisdictions, they cannot fully resolve the fundamental
question of “who is in charge.” In practice, governance relies as much on relationships and day-to-day interactions
among decision makers as on statutory authority. Any successful approach will therefore depend on sustained
cooperation, trust-building, and a willingness to compromise across organizational boundaries.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10
Timing and implementation.
In 2025, local governments are navigating some of the most significant updates to Washington’s planning
framework since the first GMA plans of the early 1990s. Many jurisdictions are already operating at capacity,
managing extensive workloads with limited resources. As the Task Force developed its recommendations,
members consistently emphasized this constraint: the ability of local governments to absorb additional complex
planning requirements is limited. Implementation strategies must therefore account for timing, bandwidth, and the
practical realities facing staff and elected officials.
Organizational capacity differences.
Washington’s cities, counties, and special purpose districts vary widely in size, staffing, and technical capacity. This
diversity is often even more pronounced among special districts, with some water and sewer districts serving
thousands of connections, while others are serving fewer than a dozen. As the Task Force evaluated its
recommendations, a central consideration was how to scale expectations to each organization’s capacity, growth
rate, and service needs. Rapidly growing communities face escalating infrastructure demands, while others focus
primarily on maintaining existing systems. Future laws and policies will need to employ thoughtful applicability
thresholds to ensure that requirements match both the capacity of each organization and scale of its challenges.
Other identified opportunities without recommendations
The Task Force identified additional barriers to coordination, but related solutions and formal recommendations
could not be incorporated at this time. Chiefly, commercial and industrial land capacity likely plays a critical role in
future collaboration discussions.
Commercial and industrial land capacity
The GMA focuses on growth (people and jobs) within existing urban growth areas (UGAs). As urbanization occurs,
there may be a need to provide more detailed planning around housing and jobs, and the connection between the
two. Recent housing element changes (RCW 36.70A.070) have focused the lens on planning for housing types that
are affordable to all incomes.
This level of detailed planning could also be important for employment. Given the limited amount of industrial land
available, it may be important to ensure that the employment capacity provided as part of the periodic update
considers the land needed for commercial and industrial uses during the 20-year planning period.
As part of the Buildable Lands requirements, King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark, and Whatcom
counties and the cities within those counties are already required to consider these issues. However, there appears
to be a gap in planning.
The Buildable Lands Program looks back to determine how growth is occurring in relation to what was adopted in
the current comprehensive plan. As part of that process, a determination is made as to the amount of land needed
for commercial, industrial, and housing for the remaining portion of the 20-year planning period. However, there is
no requirement as part of the periodic update process to establish growth projections by employment type, which a
Buildable Lands report would measure against.
The GMA (RCW 36.70A.115) does require accommodating “as appropriate, the medical, governmental, educational,
institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to such growth, as adopted in the applicable countywide
planning policies and consistent with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of financial management."
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11
However, nothing in the GMA outlines the process to determine what is appropriate. The potential to sync the
current Buildable Lands requirements with the larger periodic update process would address the needs for different
types of employment proactively, but the Task Force did not have a consensus view on how to achieve that.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12
Appendix A: Task Force recommendations
Each recommendation summary that follows will provide key details to inform it, including proposed statutory
amendments, where appropriate. For accessibility reasons, each recommendation that provides a potential
statutory amendment is available online and linked within the recommendation summary of each recommendation
table. A list of all proposed statutory amendments for this report is also available online.
Recommendation 1 – Increased comprehensive plan
coordination
Modify notification requirements for comprehensive plan and development regulation changes
to increase coordination and communication between cities, counties, and capital facility and
Topic utility providers.
The Legislature should amend the GMA public participation notification requirements (RCW
36.70A.035). Specific language should be included to ensure special districts, which provide
capital facilities and utilities to cities and counties, are invited to engage throughout the periodic
Recommendation comprehensive plan update process and when land use, zoning, or development regulations are
proposed within their service area. Public participation plans should also address how cities and
and link to counties will communicate throughout the update process.
proposed Public participation plan requirements (RCW 36.70A.140) should also be amended to reference
statutory the requirements of RCW 36.70A.035 and requirements in RCW 36.70A.110(1), (9)(a) and (b),
which require meaningful consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes for Urban Growth
amendments Area (UGA) swaps under RCW 36.70A.110(8).
Proposed legislative changes for Recommendation 1
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Andrea Smiley, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Travis
Nelson, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch, Dave Andersen, Carl Schroeder
Task Force Object – None
consent votes Abstain – None
No vote recorded – Jeffrey Mann
The GMA requires that each fully planning city and county comprehensive plan include both a
capital facility and utility element (RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (4)). Proper planning for capital
facilities and utilities ensures services are available as growth occurs within communities.
While cities and counties plan for growth, implementation requires close coordination and
planning with school districts, ports, PUDs, water/sewer utilities, and fire districts. Land use and
zoning changes, along with development regulation changes, can impact a provider's ability to
provide services. Early communication and coordination is essential as future growth is planned.
Topic overview The GMA requires a full planning county and city to broadly disseminate to the public a public
and background participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public
participation as part of the periodic comprehensive plan update, which is completed every 10
years.
The GMA also requires cities and counties to adopt notice procedures that are reasonably
calculated to provide notice when amendments to comprehensive plans and development
regulations are made. These may be amendments to land use and zoning maps, or development
regulations associated with the periodic comprehensive plan update or changes made more
frequently.
The public participation notice provisions (RCW 36.70A.035) currently identify many people and
Issue groups who should be provided notice when amendments to comprehensive plans and
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
Recommendation 1 – Increased comprehensive plan
coordination
development regulations are proposed. This includes affected individuals, tribes, and schools.
However, ports and many capital facilities and utility providers are not included. More specific
language will ensure all affected capital facilities and utility providers are notified when these
changes are proposed by a city or county. Language is also proposed to call out capital facility
and utility providers in the section focused on examples of providing reasonable notice.
Currently, public participation plan requirements (RCW 36.70A.140) do not require cities or
counties to provide capital facility and utility providers opportunities for early coordination on
possible land use, zoning, or development regulation changes prior to dissemination of changes
to the public. Connecting early in the process could provide opportunities to discuss the impacts
of the proposal(s) and the capital facility and utility providers' ability to service future growth. By
linking RCW 36.70.140 to noticing provisions in RCW 36.70A.035 and RCW 36.70A.110,
opportunities for increased coordination can occur when amendments to comprehensive plans
and development regulations are proposed.
Possible statutes RCW 36.70A.035 - Public participation—Notice provisions
RCW 36.70A.140 - Comprehensive plans—Ensure public participation
to be amended
Do we expect this
recommendation Yes ☐ No ☒
to have a state
budget impact?
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and A
Yes ☒ No ☐
derive from a Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
1) Increases focus on providing early coordination with service providers.
2) Increased coordination could result in fewer instances of having disconnects between
comprehensive plans and plans by service providers.
Advantages 3) Many jurisdictions may already take these steps in practice, so the impact to cities and
counties should be minimal.
1) Could increase city/county staff time and/or resources to implement.
2) It could take additional time to identify which capital facility and utility providers to
Disadvantages coordinate with.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14
Recommendation 2 – Increased countywide planning policy
coordination
Countywide planning policy (CPP) changes to increase early coordination between cities,
Topic counties, and service providers.
Recommendation
The Legislature should amend the GMA Countywide Planning Policy requirements (RCW
and link to 36.70A.140) to increase early coordination with special purpose districts early in the planning
process.
proposed
statutory Proposed legislative changes for Recommendation 2
amendments
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Andrea Smiley, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Travis
Nelson, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch, Carl Schroeder
Task Force Object – None
consent votes Abstain – Dave Andersen
No vote recorded – Jeffrey Mann
CPPs are written policy statements used solely for establishing a countywide framework from
which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted. There are many
common planning goals between a county and the cities within a county. CPPs provide a
framework to capture those. CPPs focus on issues such as shared goals for planning in
unincorporated urban growth areas, economic development strategies, and countywide
transportation systems. CPPs are also where many communities adopt population, housing, and
Topic overview employment projections, which serve as the basis for the periodic comprehensive plan update
process. Comprehensive plans are required to be consistent with CPPs.
and background
King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Pierce counties are required to update CPPs prior to the periodic
comprehensive plan update cycle. It is optional in all other communities. Changes currently
proposed as part of this recommendation would not change the update requirements. Also note
that the process to adopt CPPs is memorialized by jurisdictions. Inviting other groups to
participate would not necessarily make them members who would vote on CPP amendments.
RCW 36.70A.210 states that "The legislature recognizes that counties are regional governments
within their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of urban governmental services within
urban growth areas." While cities may be the primary provider of services, in many cases, they are
not the only provider of urban governmental services, capital facilities, and utilities within urban
growth areas.
Currently, the CPP section of the GMA does not recognize the critical role that non-jurisdictional
urban governmental service providers, ports, and school districts play as growth is facilitated.
Given that the CPPs are where urban growth area policies are developed and growth is often
Issue allocated prior to each community completing a periodic comprehensive plan update, this could
provide a great opportunity for enhancing early communication and coordination.
Providing an optional opportunity for non-jurisdictional urban governmental service providers,
ports, and school districts to be invited to participate in and cooperate with the countywide
planning policy development and adoption process. Given that many urban governmental service
providers, ports, and school district boundaries cover multiple jurisdictions, this could also
provide an efficient way to communicate.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
Recommendation 2 – Increased countywide planning policy
coordination
Possible statutes RCW 36.70A.210 – Countywide Planning Policies
to be amended
Do we expect this
recommendation Yes ☐ No ☒
to have a state
budget impact?
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and A
Yes ☒ No ☐
derive from a Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
1) Provides opportunity to engage important planning partners earlier in the planning process.
Advantages 2) Recognizes that urban governmental services are often not provided by cities and counties.
Disadvantages 1) May require more meetings or processes to update CPPs. This includes costs to update,
given that additional coordination may lead to additional CPP amendment requests to
consider and/or respond to. Funding for CPP updates is typically not provided by the state.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16
Recommendation 3 – Project permit notifications
Ensuring providers of capital facilities and utilities are notified of project permit applications.
Topic
The Legislature should consider changes to city and county notification requirements for project
Recommendation permit applications (RCW 36.70B.110). This is intended to increase opportunities for
coordination on project permit applications, such as rezones, subdivisions, and conditional use
and link to permits, for example, which are considered outside of the periodic comprehensive plan update. A
proposed separate recommendation has been prepared addressing coordination during the periodic
comprehensive plan update process.
statutory
amendments Proposed statutory amendments for Recommendation 3
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Andrea Smiley, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Travis
Nelson, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch, Dave Andersen, Carl Schroeder
Task Force Object – None
Consent Votes Abstain – None
No vote recorded – Jeffrey Mann
RCW 36.70B - Local Project Review guides the process that counties and cities utilize to process
permit applications. This statute implements Goal 7 of the GMA, which states that "Applications
Topic overview for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to
ensure predictability." Permit applications include any land-use or environmental permit or license
and background required by a local government for a project action. This includes applications such as
subdivisions and site-specific rezones, for example.
Non-county and city service providers, such as special purpose districts, play an important role in
providing necessary services to development projects. Some projects, such as rezoning to
increase a property's density, could impact a service provider's ability to provide needed
services. This is especially true if the use exceeds the densities or uses anticipated by the county
or city.
RCW 36.70A.110 provides the process that counties and cities utilize when public notice is
required for a project permit application. While the current statute states that "…reasonable
methods to give the notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction…", the statute
Issue does not specify that non-jurisdictional capital facility and utility providers are provided public
notice.
To address this, the notice of application requirements could be modified to ensure the notice of
application is provided to capital facility and utility providers. This type of notice is already
occurring in many jurisdictions across the State of Washington. However, small modifications to
RCW 36.70B.110 will ensure capital facility and utility providers are notified when cities and
counties are processing project permit applications.
Possible statutes RCW 36.70B.110
to be amended
Do we expect this
recommendation Yes ☐ No ☒
to have a state
budget impact?
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17
Recommendation 3 – Project permit notifications
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and
Yes ☒ No ☐
derive from a A Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
1) Ensures providers of services are provided notice of applications that could impact their
Advantages services.
2) Many jurisdictions already provide this type of notification.
3) This recommendation does not add new notice requirements. It provides statutory clarity on
important groups for whom notification is required.
1) Could require jurisdictions to increase those notified of permit applications. It could take
Disadvantages time to identify those to send notice to.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18
Recommendation 4 – Tools and technical resources
Under the GMA, RCW 36.70A, cities and counties have varied planning requirements. To better
support cities and counties in implementing the GMA, the state provides a variety of resources,
Topic tools, and data. Typically, these tools are administered through the Department of Commerce
and the department’s associated budget for ongoing assistance.
The State should provide cities, counties, and special districts, especially those with fewer
resources, with additional technical resources to assist in meeting capital facility and utility
element planning requirements under the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(3) and
(4)). If other departments, organizations, or agencies are better suited, the Department of
Commerce should coordinate with them to create and publish resource materials.
This should include:
1) Templates to gather existing conditions and financial data from special purpose districts for
capital facility plans.
Recommendation 2) Provide tools and data to better facilitate coordination.
3) Text templates that explain the purpose of capital facility and utility plans and why gathering
information from special districts is critical.
4) Help identify early indicators of growth constraints for cities, counties, and special districts,
especially in our faster-growing communities.
5) Develop trainings designed to help cities, counties, and special purpose districts understand
each other’s roles and collaborate more effectively, such as identifying constraints and
limitations in current plans and processes. This could be included as part of the existing
local short course on planning.
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Andrea Smiley, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Travis
Nelson, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch, Carl Schroeder
Task Force Object – None
consent votes Abstain – Dave Andersen
No vote recorded – Jeffrey Mann
Based on discussions with the working groups and task force, several tools have been identified
that may support cities, counties, and service providers in their planning efforts. Templates for
capital facility planning may assist county/city staff in efficiently gathering necessary
Topic overview information during the Comprehensive Plan periodic update, consistent with RCW 36.70A.070(3)
and background and (4). Given the strict timelines associated with the update process, planning staff often have
limited opportunities to collect data from service providers, making streamlined tools especially
valuable.
Mandating additional requirements in statute can strain cities and counties, as well as staff
capacity. One way to make planning requirements easier to implement could be funding, through
Issue the Department of Commerce, to provide templates, tools, and other resources for cities,
counties, and service providers to better coordinate.
Possible statutes No statutes to be amended.
to be amended
Do we expect this Although this recommendation has implications for the state
recommendation Yes ☒ No ☐
budget, it is anticipated that the necessary funding will be
provided through existing allocations within the Department of
to have a state Commerce.
budget impact?
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19
Recommendation 4 – Tools and technical resources
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and A
Yes ☒ No ☐
derive from a Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
1) Ease and simplicity of coordination and outreach.
Advantages 2) Efficiency in communication.
3) Assist jurisdictions with fewer resources.
4) Tools such as templates would only need to be created once and would not create recurring
costs for the State.
1) Providing tools and resources often have ongoing costs that would need to be balanced
Disadvantages against other priorities for the Commerce budget.
2) Funding to provide ongoing tools and technical resources may be challenging to provide
over a long period.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20
Recommendation 5 – Incentivize coordination and coordinated
projects
Incentivize Coordination and Coordinated Projects
Topic
Agencies that provide grants and loans to cities, counties, and special purpose districts should
implement options to increase early coordination and incentivize (road, water, sewer, power)
projects where multiple projects are coordinated together, such as road and sewer
improvements.
This could include the following recommendations:
1) Requiring documentation as part of grant and loan applications within road rights-of-way,
demonstrating notification to other agencies that own roads/utilities within the right-of-way,
has occurred. Notification that a grant or loan is being applied for could open early
opportunities for project coordination.
2) Requiring documentation as part of grant and loan applications within road rights-of-way,
asking if the system improvement supports growth anticipated within the adopted county or
city comprehensive plan.
3) Incentivize projects or consider scoring priority for projects where multiple projects are
Recommendation addressed within one grant or loan application and where demonstrated project savings
could occur. This could occur even where funding sources are separate. Ensure that priority
scoring does not negatively impact the ability of small utilities or those where coordination
is not possible (such as not having utilities in the road right-of-way) from receiving project
funding.
4) Consider developing a statewide GIS database to collect data from cities, counties, and
capital facility and utility providers to understand where there are programmed projects
across different jurisdictions and agencies. This data could be collected by the State, in
partnership with cities and counties, from capital facility plans, and show where there may
be crossover for planned projects. This could increase options to coordinate projects,
increase project efficiency, and save project dollars. This database could be limited to
urban growth areas or faster-growing areas, and when implemented, grant and loan
applications could be contingent or scored higher/lower based on the data being provided.
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Andrea Smiley, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Travis
Nelson, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch, Dave Andersen, Carl Schroeder
Task Force Object – None
consent votes Abstain – None
No vote recorded – Jeffrey Mann
Capital facilities and utilities are often located within road rights-of-way. In addition to a city or
county owning the road, water, sewer, and power are often located within the same right-of-way
and owned by different service providers.
Improvements to capital facilities and utilities may occur to replace systems that have outlived
their lifespan. Improvements may also occur to increase the capacity necessary to facilitate
Topic overview development and redevelopment within urban areas. The need to upgrade systems to facilitate
and background urbanization is likely to increase in our fastest-growing communities.
Where more than one agency has improvements planned within the same right-of-way within a
short period of time, finding ways to connect projects could increase project efficiency, save
project dollars, and lessen impacts to businesses and the transportation system, which can
occur during projects that impact road rights-of-way during reconstruction.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21
Recommendation 5 – Incentivize coordination and coordinated
projects
Coordination of projects across different agencies for water, sewer, power, or road
improvements within the same geographical area could provide increased project efficiency,
save project dollars, and lessen impacts to businesses and the transportation system, which
can occur during projects that impact road rights-of-way during reconstruction.
However, this is a complicated topic to address for several reasons:
1) There are often several different agencies/private companies that own capital facilities or
utilities within a right-of-way.
2) Grant and loan programs for projects are often designed to fund a road improvement or
sewer/water improvement but may not support multiple projects. This creates issues with
concurrent funding.
3) In addition to cities and/or counties, there are often many capital facilities and utility
owners. This makes project coordination more difficult.
Issue 4) There are challenges to having multiple agencies working on a project within the same
right-of-way. This includes facilitation of grants/loans, grant/loan timing, liability issues, and
coordination of contractors, to name a few.
5) While coordination projects across agencies may be efficient, there are no known
incentives for agencies to take extra steps to ensure projects are well coordinated.
Documenting that coordination has occurred as part of grant and loan programs and
incentivizing best practices may provide opportunities to link projects. In a meeting with the
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) and Public Works Board (PWB), it was noted that
application changes can occur administratively. Therefore, no RCW or WAC changes would be
required. Creating a state GIS database, linking capital facility plans, could provide even greater
opportunities to link projects early in the process and find long-term ways to incentivize these
projects.
Possible statutes None proposed
to be amended
Do we expect this
Recommendations 1-3 listed above are not expected to incur
recommendation Yes ☒ No ☐ a state budget impact. Recommendation 4 may require
to have a state funding.
budget impact?
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and
Yes ☒ No ☐
derive from a A Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
1) Recommendations could increase communication and opportunities to coordinate projects
across agencies.
Advantages 2) Recommendations 1-3 do not require statute or rule changes.
3) Recommendations 1-3 do not require additional state funding.
4) Recommendation 4, when implemented, may pay for itself through early identification of
projects. This could lead to increased opportunities for co-funding projects.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22
Recommendation 5 – Incentivize coordination and coordinated
projects
1) May create additional information and steps for grant and load applicants.
Disadvantages 2) Coordinating projects may create project efficiency. However, it could create more work for
the agencies coordinating projects.
3) Recommendation 4 would require state resources to implement and maintain.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23
Recommendation 6 – Coordinated water system plans timing
The timing of capital facility and utility plan updates by counties and cities as part of the
Topic periodic comprehensive plan update and plan updates that inform that process.
The Legislature should consider amending RCW 70A.100.050 and the implementing rules in
Recommendation WAC 246-293 to require updating Coordinated Water System Plans (CWSPs) every 10 years,
and link to provided funding is available for those updates. The timing of the updated plan should align
with the city and county comprehensive plan updates, which utilize CWSPs as part of capital
proposed facility planning.
statutory Proposed statutory amendments for Recommendation 6
amendments
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch,
Dave Andersen, Carl Schroeder, Jeffrey Mann, Andrea Smiley, Travis Nelson
Task Force Object – None
consent votes Abstain – None
No vote recorded – None
Growth Management Act
The GMA requires fully planning counties and cities to complete a periodic comprehensive plan
update every 10 years. The timing for periodic comprehensive plan updates is found in RCW
36.70A.130(5).
The periodic comprehensive plan process focuses on planning for the next 20 years of growth
(people, jobs, and housing) and includes important goals such as:
1) Update policies and regulations to reflect changes in state law and case law since the last
plan update.
2) Update critical area regulations in accordance with the latest Best Available Science (BAS).
3) Implement community vision for the next 20 years.
Planning for 20 years of growth requires planning for all the infrastructure to support that
growth, including capital facilities and utilities. However, counties and cities do not always
provide all the capital facilities and utilities needed to support planned growth.
Topic overview Coordinated Water System Plans
The Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977 (RCW 70A.100) and implementing rules
and background (WAC 246-293) provide the foundation for coordinated water system plans. The purpose of
RCW 70A.100 is to:
1) To provide for the establishment of critical water supply service areas related to water
utility planning and development;
2) To provide for the development of minimum planning and design standards for critical
water supply service areas to ensure that water systems developed in these areas are
consistent with regional needs;
3) To assist in the orderly and efficient administration of state financial assistance programs
for public water systems; and
4) To assist public water systems to meet reasonable standards of quality, quantity, and
pressure.
The development and updating of coordinated water system plans implements this directive by
providing “…a plan for public water systems within a critical water supply service area which
identifies the present and future needs of the systems and sets forth means for meeting those
needs in the most efficient manner possible...” (RCW 70A.100.030).
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24
Recommendation 6 – Coordinated water system plans timing
When a county or city completes the periodic update, capital facility and utility elements are
updated. The capital facility plan, which is part of the capital facility element, carries
requirements such as having:
1) At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding
capacities and clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes.
2) A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting
existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and
financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent.
When capital facilities and utilities cannot support growth as planned, the land-use element of a
city or county comprehensive plan must be reevaluated. This emphasizes the importance of
planning, which occurs to support growth planning.
Issue Coordinated Water System Plans provide valuable information that is necessary for cities and
counties as they plan for growth. In fact, when plans are updated, the plan is reviewed by the
county legislative authority(ies) in the county(ies) in which the critical water supply service area
is located, and at least one hearing must be held. (WAC 246-293-300). This emphasizes the
importance of Coordinated Water System Planning and implementing jurisdictions.
However, pursuant to WAC 246-293-280, “The coordinated water system plan shall be reviewed
and updated by the water utility coordinating committee at a minimum of every five years or
sooner, if the water utility coordinating committee feels it is necessary…”
While updating Coordinated Water System Plans is valuable, the lack of funding is a barrier in
many communities to updating these plans.
Based upon the GMA and implementing rule language, possible statutes to amend would
correspond with the following services:
Possible statutes RCW 70A.100.050 - Development of water system plans for critical water supply service areas.
to be amended WAC 246-293-280 - Coordinated water system plan—Update. (Note that rule changes would be
required for consistency with statutory changes.)
Do we expect this
recommendation Yes ☒ No☐
to have a state
budget impact?
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and
Yes ☒ No☐
derive from a A Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
1) Would result in greater consistency between capital facility planning and coordinated water
system plans.
2) Would provide cities and counties with better information when planning for growth and
Advantages developing capital facility plans.
3) Funding to support a Coordinated Water System Plan will ensure plan updates occur.
1) Cost to fund coordinated water system plan updates and determine a consistent funding
Disadvantages source.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25
Recommendation 7 – School district planning and siting
Improve coordination and planning between cities, counties, and school districts.
Topic
The state's current approach to planning and funding schools has been observed as a barrier to
increased planning and coordination between counties, cities, and school districts. The
Legislature should consider further studying and working with the Office of Superintendent of
Public Instruction (OSPI) to revise funding formulas and approaches to school planning. This
Recommendation effort should focus on modifying processes to allow school districts to anticipate growth,
proactively plan, and build infrastructure, such as schools, in alignment with adopted city and
county comprehensive plans. This effort should focus on our fastest-growing cities, counties,
and school districts.
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch, Dave
Andersen, Carl Schroeder, Jeffrey Mann, Andrea Smiley, Travis Nelson
Task Force Object – None
consent votes Abstain – None
No vote recorded – None
Cities, counties, and school districts across Washington State collaborate under the Growth
Management Act (GMA) to align school infrastructure planning with local comprehensive plans.
RCW 36.70A.070(3) requires jurisdictions to include school district capital facility plans in their
capital facilities element, incorporating inventories of existing facilities, forecasts of future
needs, proposed locations and capacities for new schools, and a six-year financing plan with
identified funding sources. In many communities, this partnership also supports the adoption
and implementation of impact fees to help fund school capacity needs. However, impact fees
typically cover only a small portion of the costs and are often reduced or capped, limiting their
Topic overview effectiveness. This recommendation highlights the importance of strengthening coordination to
ensure school infrastructure planning supports long-term community development.
and background
While cities, counties, and many other capital facility service providers plan proactively for future
growth to anticipate capital facility improvements necessary to maintain levels of service, as
defined in WAC 365-196-210(26), the process for school districts is much more challenging. To
better align school planning with that of cities and counties, several issues would need to be
addressed, especially in our faster-growing communities. This recommendation outlines those
issues that the Legislature should consider if it wishes to take this up in coordination with the
OSPI.
Cities and counties update comprehensive plans every ten years. One of the primary goals for a
comprehensive plan is to plan for and accommodate the next 20 years of people, jobs, and
housing, while ensuring transportation facilities and infrastructure, parks, utilities, schools, and
capital facilities are planned for and improvements subsequently implemented to accommodate
that growth. When growth outpaces the services necessary to accommodate that growth, the
GMA includes “a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs…” (RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e)). Measuring the ability to provide capital
facilities and services for growth is often expressed through adopted levels of service.
Issues
While cities, counties, and many other service providers proactively plan for growth, the process
for planning schools is often reactive. If the goal, especially in our fastest-growing communities,
is to have schools anticipate and plan for growth, and to anticipate the need for schools where
growth is planned, planning processes need to change. This includes the following three issues:
1) Land for future schools
2) Land necessary to accommodate schools
3) Process to fund and build schools
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26
Recommendation 7 – School district planning and siting
1. Land for future schools
In Washington’s fastest-growing communities, school districts struggle to locate and purchase
properties for future school sites. They often cannot compete with the private sector for property
purchases, and the number of sites available within existing cities and unincorporated UGAs that
are large enough to accommodate future schools is sparse at best. As a result, school districts
face the following challenges:
4) They must purchase available properties when acquisition funding is accessible, often
requiring long-term holding.
5) They are obligated to acquire and hold land outside UGA boundaries when future
development is permissible.
6) They struggle to find suitable sites for schools, limiting their ability to meet capacity
demands from previously approved residential developments.
This means that there is often no relationship between where school districts are purchasing
properties for future school sites and where cities and counties are planning for the next 20
years of people, jobs, and housing. It also means that growth is permitted without first planning
for adequate school facilities. If this trend continues, it is likely that we will often see new
schools’ facilities, especially in the Puget Sound region, built further away from areas where
growth is being focused or not constructed at all. The first issue is evidenced by RCW
36.70A.211and RCW 36.70A.213. These sections of the GMA outline conditions for siting
schools in rural areas that will serve urban populations. The latter issue is not addressed.
Puget Sound Regional Council estimates 1.8 million new people and 1.2 million jobs coming to
King, Snohomish, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties between 2017 and 2050 alone. This region is also
focused on maintaining existing UGA boundaries and focusing growth within existing urban
areas. While RCW 36.70A.211and RCW 36.70A.213 provide some short-term options to ensure
schools have land to accommodate future students; it is important that this issue is recognized
and proactively addressed. If this can occur, it is more likely that future schools will be planned in
a consistent manner with where cities and counties are planning for growth.
2. Land necessary to accommodate schools
WAC 392-342-020(2) states that “The minimum acreage of the site should be five usable acres
and one additional usable acre for each one hundred students or portion thereof of projected
maximum enrollment plus an additional five usable acres if the school contains any grade above
grade six. A district considering the use of a site that is less than the recommended minimum
usable acreage should assure that:
(a) The health and safety of the students will not be in jeopardy;
(b) The internal spaces within the proposed facility will be adequate for the proposed educational
program;
(c) The neighborhood in which the school facility is or will be situated will not be detrimentally
impacted by lack of parking for students, employees, and the public; and
(d) The physical education and recreational program requirements will be met.”
This means that for a new high school with a capacity of 1,500 students, the minimum acreage
which should be considered is 25 acres, unless each of the findings in (a)-(d) is met. It is also
noteworthy that the current rule utilizes the term “usable acres.” This means that for sites that
may have critical areas or other encumbrances, the acreage needed to site new schools may be
much larger. The current OSPI manual (page 114) references WAC 392-342-020.
The Legislature should consider whether minimum acreage requirements and the criteria to vary
from those requirements should be amended. Amendments would recognize that in our fastest-
growing communities, large school sites, close to where growth will occur, will be harder to come
by, and the cost of purchasing those properties will continue to increase. Future schools in
growing communities may need to be built differently, and OSPI standards may need to be
updated to recognize this.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27
Recommendation 7 – School district planning and siting
3. Process to fund and build schools
The OSPI is the primary agency charged with overseeing public K–12 education in Washington
state. Working with the state's 295 public school districts and seven state-tribal education
compact schools, OSPI allocates funding and provides tools, resources, and technical
assistance.
OSPI funds new school construction through the State School Construction Assistance Program
(“SCAP”).
Under current law, SCAP funds cannot be used to purchase school sites. In addition, the SCAP
funding formula is based on “unhoused students,” meaning that school districts must first
demonstrate that existing schools are overcapacity under the OSPI funding formula (which is
typically more conservative than locally adopted program standards). In other words, the SCAP
formula does not allow school districts to anticipate or plan for new enrollment growth; it only
allows them to address it after it has arrived. Importantly, eligibility for SCAP funding requires
secured local funds, typically through voter-approved capital bonds, which requires a 60%
approval threshold.
RCW 36.70A.070(3)(e)
Possible RCW 36.70A.211
statutes/rules/ RCW 36.70A.213
WAC 392-342-020
standards to be RCW 28A.525
amended OSPI school facilities manual
Do we expect this
recommendation Yes ☒ No ☐
to have a state
budget impact?
Did this issue
Yes ☐ No ☒
derive from a
previous study?
1) Enables school districts to anticipate growth and plan for future infrastructure needs,
reducing the lag between residential development and school construction.
2) Encourages new schools where cities and counties are planning for growth.
3) Supports cohesive planning across jurisdictions, ensuring that schools are part of broader
infrastructure and service strategies.
4) Aligning school planning with comprehensive plans can lead to more strategic investments
and reduce redundant or misaligned expenditures.
Advantages 5) Ensures that students in growing communities have timely access to adequate school
facilities, improving educational outcomes.
6) Fosters partnerships between cities, counties, and school districts, leading to more
integrated and responsive governance.
7) Revisiting OSPI’s funding formulas could allow for more flexible and forward-looking
financial planning, especially in high-growth areas.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28
Recommendation 7 – School district planning and siting
1) Aligning multiple jurisdictions and agencies (cities, counties, school districts, OSPI) may
require significant time, effort, and resources.
2) Revising funding formulas and securing upfront capital for land acquisition and school
construction may face political and fiscal hurdles.
Disadvantages 3) Changes to RCWs and WACs may be needed, which can be a lengthy and contentious
legislative process.
4) Tying school infrastructure planning more closely to comprehensive plans could slow down
residential development if school capacity is not assured.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 29
Recommendation 8 – Long-term protection of industrial lands
Long-term protection of industrial lands.
Topic
Recommendation
The Legislature should amend the Growth Management Act (GMA) to modify the notice
and link to requirements to better protect industrial zones located adjacent to housing zones.
proposed
Proposed statutory amendments for Recommendation 8
statutory
amendments
Consent – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Kathy Curry, Eric Ffitch, Dave
Andersen, Carl Schroeder, Jeffrey Mann, Travis Nelson
Task Force Object – None
consent votes Abstain – Andrea Smiley
No Vote Recorded – None
Industrial land plays an important role within the GMA. They provide economic development and
employment and assist in fulfilling Land Use element requirements in RCW 36.70A.070(1). In
many counties and cities, ports play an integral role and facilitate economic development and
employment on industrial lands. Port element requirements contained within RCW 36.70A.085
require:
Protection of the core areas of the port and port-related industrial uses within the city.
Identification and resolution of key land use conflicts along the edge of the core area, and
minimization and mitigation, to the extent practicable, of incompatible uses along the edge of
the core area.
Topic overview
However, the port element requirements are only required for:
and background
Comprehensive plans of cities that have a marine container port with annual operating revenues
in excess of sixty million dollars within their jurisdiction must include a container port element.
Comprehensive plans of cities that include all or part of a port district with annual operating
revenues in excess of twenty million dollars may include a marine industrial port element.
Increasing long-term protection of industrial lands may facilitate greater coordination among
cities, counties, and ports that are not subject to RCW 36.70A.085. This recommendation may
also address conflicts between non-port-owned industrial lands and uses, and zoning, which may
create conflicts.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30
Recommendation 8 – Long-term protection of industrial lands
The GMA requires cities and counties to plan for employment, including industrial land uses.
With the exception of the Port element requirements, the GMA does not address the inherent
conflicts that can arise when industrial uses are located near other uses, such as housing.
Industrial uses may be loud, operate 24 hours a day, and emit odors incompatible with housing.
These realities create tension in land-use planning, especially in areas where growth pressures
are high. Some cities and counties have addressed this by implementing buffers and setbacks
between zones with conflicting uses.
In the most urban counties, the focus is on maintaining UGA boundaries and promoting
urbanization and redevelopment. This trend places increasing pressure on industrial lands, which
are essential for economic stability and regional functionality. As redevelopment accelerates, the
challenge of preserving industrial areas while accommodating other land uses increases.
The statutory framework under RCW 36.70A.060(1)(b) highlights how Washington law currently
Issues addresses proximity issues for natural resource lands, requiring notices for development near
agricultural, forest, or mineral resource lands. RCW 36.70A.060(1)(b) states that "counties and
cities shall require that all plats, short plats, development permits, and building permits issued for
development activities on, or within five hundred feet of, lands designated as agricultural lands,
forestlands, or mineral resource lands, contain a notice that the subject property is within or near
designated agricultural lands, forestlands, or mineral resource lands on which a variety of
commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development for certain
periods of limited duration."
Extending this notice requirement under RCW 36.70A.070(1) to include development activities
on, or within five hundred feet of, lands designated for industrial use would provide greater clarity
for property owners and developers. Such an approach would ensure that parties are informed of
the proximity to industrial lands and the potential for evolving industrial operations over time.
Possible statutes RCW 36.70A - New section
to be amended
Do we expect this
recommendation Yes ☐ No ☒
to have a state
budget impact?
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and A
Yes ☒ No ☐
derive from a Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
1) Increases early communication when residential uses are planned near existing lands zoned
for industrial uses.
Advantages 2) May reduce potential conflict when a new use on land zoned for industrial uses are proposed
near existing residential uses.
1) Requires cities and counties implement new standards so notice is provided on all plats,
Disadvantages short plats, development permits, and building permits.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31
Recommendation 9 – Port and economic development elements
Expanding port element requirements for faster-growing cities.
Topic
The Legislature should:
1) Amend RCW 36.70A.080 (Comprehensive plans – Optional elements) to make Port
elements an optional comprehensive plan element for cities and counties that are not
Recommendation subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.085. See attachment A.
2) Provide funding for cities and counties, who optionally decide to develop Port elements,
and link to consistent with RCW 36.70A.085. If necessary, prioritize funding for faster-growing
proposed statutory communities or those with larger ports.
3) The Legislature should fund the development and implementation of the Economic
amendments Development element consistent with the requirements in RCW 36.70A.070(10).
Proposed statutory amendments for Recommendation 9
Consent (to all three parts) – Brian Sayrs, Paul Jewell, Bryce Yadon, Robin Proebsting, Eric
Ffitch, Dave Andersen, Jeffrey Mann, Andrea Smiley, Travis Nelson
Task Force Consent (to parts 1-2) - Carl Schroeder
Object – None.
consent votes Abstain (to part 3) – Carl Schroeder
No vote recorded – Kathy Curry
Cities that have a marine container port with annual operating revenues of more than $60
million ], or that have all or part of a port district with annual operating revenues over $20
million within their jurisdictions, must include a port element in their comprehensive plans
(RCW 36.70A.085). This element must be consistent with other comprehensive plan elements
and developed collaboratively between cities, ports, and tribes. Currently, this element is
required only for the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett (Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma,
Port of Everett).
Topic overview Where applicable, a port element must include policies and programs that focus on topics,
and background such as:
• Defining and protecting the core areas of ports and port-related industrial uses.
• Providing reasonably efficient access to the core area through freight corridors.
• Identifying and resolving key land use conflicts along the edge of the core area.
In developing a port element, a city may use one or more approaches, including a port overlay
district, industrial land banks, buffers and transition zones between incompatible uses, joint
transportation funding agreements, and more.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 32
Recommendation 9 – Port and economic development elements
Ports play a vital role in the health and vitality of communities across Washington. However,
except for cities currently required to create port elements under RCW 36.70A.085, there are
no requirements to ensure consistency between city and county comprehensive planning, and
the port comprehensive scheme required under RCW 53.20 and 53.25.
Making the port element an optional element and providing funding to create Port Elements
could increase opportunities for proactive planning without amending who is subject to Port
Element requirements. Where funding is limited, prioritization could be focused on faster-
growing communities and ports. In addition, the current requirements in RCW 36.70A.085
apply only to cities. This would provide counties with an optional process for enacting Port
Elements.
In 2002, the Legislature passed HB 2697, which required cities and counties to include an
economic development element in their comprehensive plans. The current language in RCW
Issues 36.70A.070(7) focuses on “An economic development element establishing local goals, policies,
objectives, and provisions for economic growth and vitality and a high quality of life.”
While creating an economic development element is a requirement, cities and counties have
never been required to create a new element because of RCW 36.70A.070(10) which states
that “Requirements to incorporate any such new or amended elements shall be null and void until
funds sufficient to cover applicable local government costs are appropriated and distributed by
the state at least two years before local government must update comprehensive plans as
required in RCW 36.70A.130.”
Funding the development and implementation of an economic development element is
another way to increase planning and coordination between cities, counties, and ports, given
the importance of ports as economic drivers in communities across the state.
Possible statutes to RCW 36.70A.080 – Comprehensive plans – Optional Elements
be amended
Do we expect this
recommendation Yes ☒ No ☐
to have a state
budget impact?
Did this issue Report or study: Collaborative Roadmap Phase III (2023) and A
Yes ☒ No ☐
derive from a Roadmap to Washington’s Future (2019)
previous study?
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33
Recommendation 9 – Port and economic development elements
1) Expand integration of planning for Ports and comprehensive planning by cities.
2) Provide additional opportunities to coordinate land use, capital facility, and economic
development strategies and planning while recognizing that cities, counties, and ports
work under separate statutory structures.
3) Increased coordination and planning may have a strong return on investment for ports and
Advantages cities.
4) Recommendation would provide funding.
5) Recommendation would not apply until the next periodic comprehensive plan update,
which provides ample time for cities and ports to consider the best approaches to
implement new planning requirements.
1) Require cities and counties to create an Economic Development element.
Disadvantages 2) Funding would be required.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34
Appendix B: Library of statutes and rules
This appendix provides an inventory of relevant state laws and administrative rules for each local government
under review of this report to study and recommend how to integrate select special purpose districts into the
state's growth management planning process. It is worth clarifying that not all local entities will have
corresponding statues and rules.
Cities and counties
Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
RCW 36.70A.020 – GMA planning goals
RCW 36.70A.030 – GMA definitions
RCW 36.70A.070(3) – GMA capital facilities element
RCW 36.70A.070(4) – GMA utilities element
RCW 36.70A.130 – GMA comprehensive plan update schedule
RCW 36.70A.085 – GMA port element
RCW 36.70A.211 – GMA siting of schools – Impact fees
RCW 36.70A.212 – GMA siting of schools
RCW 36.70A.213 – GMA schools – Extension of public facilities and utilities to rural areas
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) implementing rules or state guidance
WAC 365-196-210 – Additional definitions
WAC 365-196-415 – Capital facility element
WAC 365-196-420 – Utilities element
WAC 365-196-350 - GMA schools – Extension of public facilities and utilities to rural areas
Port districts
Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
RCW 36.70A.085 – GMA port element
RCW 53 – Ports
School districts
Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
RCW 28A – Common school provisions RCW 28A.150 – General provisions
RCW 28A.335.090 – Conveyance and acquisition of property
RCW 28A.335.110 – Real property – Annexation to city or town
RCW 28A.335.220 – Eminent domain
RCW 28A.525 – School bonds
RCW 28A.525.020 - Defines eligibility for state school construction funding
RCW 28A.530.010 and RCW 28A.530.080 – Allows school districts to issue bonds for construction, but requires
voter approval for major capital projects
RCW 36.70A.020(12) – Public facilities and services
RCW 36.70A.070(3) – Capital facilities plan
RCW 36.70A.150 – Identification of lands useful for public purposes
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35
RCW 36.70A.211 – GMA siting of schools – Impact fees
RCW 36.70A.212 – GMA siting of schools
RCW 36.70A.213 – GMA schools – Extension of public facilities and utilities to rural areas
RCW 82.02.050 to RCW 82.02.100 – Impact fees
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) implementing rules or state guidance
WAC 365-196-350 - GMA schools – Extension of public facilities and utilities to rural areas
WAC 365-196-415 – Guidance on long-term school capacity planning under the GMA
WAC 392 – Superintendent of Public Instruction
WAC 392-342-015 – Educational specifications
WAC 392-342-020 – School Site selection – For purposes of school construction assistance
WAC 392-343-019 – Establishes minimum classroom space per student for state construction assistance
WAC 392-343-035 – Requires school districts to submit a Capital facilities plan to qualify for state funding
WAC 392-343-045 – Space allocations – Enrollment projection provisions
Water and sewer districts and public utility districts
Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
RCW 54 – Public Utility Districts
RCW 57.02 – Water and Sewer Districts
RCW 57.16 – Comprehensive Plan Local Improvement Districts (including comprehensive plan requirements)
RCW 90.48 - Water Pollution Control
RCW 36.94 – Sewer, Water, and Drainage Systems
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) implementing rules or state guidance
WAC 246-293 (220-300) Coordinated Water System Plans
WAC 173-240-050 – General sewer plan (includes comprehensive plan requirements)
WAC 246-290 – Group A Public Water Supplies
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36
Appendix C: Key issues identified by working groups
School districts
Growth projections and forecasting
School districts need early and accurate growth projections, ideally in 5–10-year increments.
Forecast data should be aligned across cities, counties, and school districts.
Assistance from OFM is needed to support short- and long-term forecasting.
There’s no systematic method for improving projection accuracy, especially in rural areas.
Require service providers to align planning with growth targets, including statutory updates to match county
Periodic Update schedules.
Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) and siting
Improve LCA by incorporating housing, jobs, and public facilities, especially schools, to support siting decisions.
Zoning and land availability are critical for school siting, especially in rural areas.
Recommendations are needed for shared facilities, flexible design, and standards that reduce land needs for
urban schools.
Rural district challenges
Rural districts often lack long-range planning expertise and staffing capacity.
Planning requirements should be lighter for rural counties, focusing on key comprehensive plan components.
Siting schools in rural areas is difficult due to zoning and land availability.
Coordination with cities and counties
School districts frequently lag behind cities in planning due to restrictive boundaries and lack of coordination.
Proactive engagement is needed—receiving a CFP copy is not sufficient.
Regular meetings between schools and local governments (such as, every two years) help build relationships
and share data.
King County’s school siting Task Force is a model for improving coordination.
Prioritize early engagement with non-city/county service providers, ensuring joint identification of growth
opportunities and constraints during updates to countywide planning policies.
Policy and planning thresholds
Align planning thresholds between school districts and local governments to trigger coordinated planning.
Consider thresholds for ramping down rural growth and density to address school capacity issues.
School districts should be included in planning committees and processes earlier to allow for better siting and
infrastructure planning.
Port districts
Coordination and engagement
Ports coordinate extensively with cities and counties through both formal (e.g., container port elements, subarea
plans) and informal mechanisms (e.g., regular meetings, stakeholder engagement).
Coordination varies by region and port size; rural ports need “right-sized” approaches to avoid unnecessary
burdens.
Reject mandatory early engagement requirements, as ports value flexibility and independence in planning.
Relationships and informal coordination are often more effective than formal mandates, though political
leadership can disrupt progress.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37
Transition zones and land use compatibility
Ports face challenges from incompatible land uses, such as residential encroachment near industrial areas.
Transition zones (such as buffers) are critical to protect port operations and maintain land use compatibility.
Strengthen statutory language to protect ports, requiring cities and counties to implement measures like
transition zoning.
GMA’s localized lens can overlook regional impacts of port activity, creating blind spots in planning.
Capital facilities planning
Ports lack a standardized Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) template; developing one could improve consistency
without adding paperwork burden.
Coordination with other service districts (such as, schools, fire, or others) is essential for infrastructure planning.
Some ports already estimate job impacts and align harbor improvements with comprehensive plans.
Economic development and job planning
Ports play a key role in regional economic development, but GMA does not differentiate between types of jobs
(such as, industrial vs. service).
Support targeted siting policies, especially near ports and freight routes, to preserve industrial job centers.
Economic development elements in comprehensive plans are optional and often delayed; funding is needed to
support port participation.
Regulatory and economic development priorities can clash, requiring better alignment of terms and timelines.
Planning timelines and regional structures
Timing misalignments between port planning and city/county comprehensive plans create coordination
challenges.
Regional planning bodies (such as the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)) are complex and resource-
intensive, even for large ports.
Increase coordination language in the GMA without adding procedural burdens.
Best practices and tools
Develop best practices for coordination between ports, cities, and counties, tailored to different port sizes and
contexts.
Examples from Kitsap County, Port of Seattle, and Port of Everett show successful integration of port planning
with local and regional efforts.
Gathering and sharing coordination models and planning structures would help ports navigate GMA processes
more effectively.
Water and sewer districts and public utility districts
Urban Growth Area (UGA) coordination
Increase flexibility around UGA boundaries, especially for utility extensions just outside designated areas, though
this raises concerns about encouraging future development.
Clarify and standardize exemptions, recognizing that some already exist and are typically managed at the city or
county level, but may benefit from clearer guidance.
Request expert input on UGA and GMA policy, indicating a need for further discussion to understand the
implications and feasibility of proposed changes.
Concerns about development in unincorporated UGAs without sewer infrastructure, leading to reliance on septic
systems.
Water and sewer districts should be engaged during UGA land swaps and comprehensive plan amendments.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 38
Concerns about development in unincorporated UGAs without sewer infrastructure, leading to reliance on septic
systems.
Suggest integrating utility input into capital facilities planning and land capacity analysis.
Planning timelines and synchronization
Misalignment between Department of Health, Department of Ecology, and GMA planning timelines.
Suggest staggering planning cycles (for example, a three-year offset) between cities, counties and service
providers.
Outdated planning documents and inconsistent update schedules hinder coordination.
Service area boundaries and capacity forecasting
Need realistic service area definitions and timelines for extending services.
Early communication is critical when changes occur.
Use water quality reports and updated studies to inform planning and public engagement.
Capital facilities and utility planning
Integrate water/sewer district plans into county capital facilities plans.
Require consistent timelines and projections across jurisdictions.
Emphasize planning for infrastructure upgrades aligned with growth and land-use changes.
Coordination and communication
Cities and counties often plan growth without involving water and sewer districts.
Recommend feedback loops and coordination guidance (such as through meetings and training).
Upzoning should trigger communication with service providers to assess capacity.
Smaller districts and resource limitations
Smaller rural districts face staffing and resource challenges.
Suggest building networks for training, education, and emergency support.
Coordination is especially needed in critical aquifer recharge areas.
Population and demand projections
Encourage real-time sharing of growth forecasts and capacity data.
Use regional databases (such as the one used by PSRC) for consistent planning inputs.
Planning should reflect actual growth trends, not just projections.
Disaster and emergency planning
Develop joint protocols for system redundancies, backup power, and rapid repairs.
Establish clear emergency contact networks and public messaging strategies.
Challenges and recommendations
Lack of coordination leads to misaligned infrastructure and growth planning.
Need for clearer directives and requirements for engaging service providers.
Consider thresholds for infrastructure capacity when densification occurs.
Coordination should include both public and private utility providers.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP PHASE IV - LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39
File and source
- File
- 2025_collaborative-roadmap-phase-iv-legislative-report-final-120a61d3-e313-.pdf
- Size
- 1,253,842 bytes
- SHA-256
- 52b80ed092c3bd56501b19ced6f4fbb08f5b8133d540dc964322f9c67ccd5c4c
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov