Collaborative Roadmap, Phase IV: Integrating Water, Sewer, School, and Port Districts into GMA Planning
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- 2025 Final Collaborative Roadmap Phase Iv Integrating Special Purpose Distr
- Case
- 2025 Final Collaborative Roadmap Phase Iv Integrating Special Purpose Distr
Summary
A preliminary report to the Legislature dated July 31, 2025 from the Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services, on Phase IV of the Collaborative Roadmap, prepared pursuant to Chapter 376, Laws of 2024 (SB 5950, Sec. 128(34)). The report describes a task force convened to recommend ways to integrate water, sewer, school, and port districts into the Growth Management Act planning process. It sets out the project schedule, including a final report due December 1, 2025, and describes Task Force meetings on November 4, 2024 and May 21, 2025 and three working groups. It states that eight issue areas organize 19 initial recommendations. Its appendix includes recommendations on grant incentives, among them one citing RCW 36.70A.213, and on coordination of 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 GMA Planning.”
Original at app.leg.wa.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2025-final-collaborative-roadmap-phase-iv-integrating-special-purpose-distr/
, SHA-256 27bd88989c3ea926fe4883e40903367e497d6cac9cfbbbb350ddcebd0a98b90f.Full text
Collaborative Roadmap, Phase IV:
Preliminary 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))
July 31, 2025
Report to the Legislature
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES Director Joe Nguyễn
v4
Acknowledgments
Washington State Department of Commerce
Dave Andersen, Managing Director, Growth
Management Services
Valerie Smith, Deputy Managing Director, Growth
Management Services
Mary Reinbold, Senior Policy Analyst, Growth
Management Services
Clay White, Principal Planner, LDC
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: PRELIMINARY REPORT 2
Table of contents
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................................4
Project schedule and progress ............................................................................................................................6
Engagement - Task Force and working groups.....................................................................................................7
Identifying the scope of issues and initial recommendations.............................................................................. 11
Appendix A: Initial recommendation concepts ................................................................................................... 13
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 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.
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).
The project is focused on identifying options to increase coordination between jurisdictions and special districts,
such as school districts, ports, and water/sewer/public utility districts (PUD). Increased planning and coordination
will better implement utility and capital facility planning requirements under the Growth Management Act.
Identifying opportunities to increase coordination between jurisdictions and special districts has been a consistent
theme throughout the 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). The Collaborative Roadmap Phase III project built upon this recommendation and
forwarded the Legislature the following recommendations:
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.
This project is complex because cities and counties are not the only service providers for capital facilities that are
necessary to support growth (population, housing, and jobs). School districts, port districts, and water/sewer/PUDs
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 4
are often distinct from cities and counties. In many cases, special districts work under separate state laws and
rules and have separate administrative structures and cross multiple city and county boundaries.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made on the Phase IV project and present the project
schedule and the scope of issues and initial recommendations under consideration.
Issue areas and initial recommendations
Eight issue areas organize 19 initial recommendations that are under consideration with the Task Force.
1. Timing of public and special district participation in growth management planning.
2. State guidance and other assistance
3. Integration of school siting during growth management planning.
4. Coordination of utility relocation and improvements.
5. Protection of transition zoning outside of ports.
6. Planning for a variety of employment types.
7. Grant incentives.
8. Coordination on emergency planning.
These issues will continue to be discussed and refined through future Task Force and working groups meetings
throughout 2025. Appendix A details the 19 initial recommendations for each of these eight issue areas.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 5
Project schedule and progress
Project information and reports
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. Reports from previous projects are also available on the website. Recordings or minutes from
Task Force meetings will also be posted to the webpage along with information on when, how, and where to attend.
Completed reports
Project Framework and Path to Success (September 2024)
The Project Framework and Path to Success report has been prepared and published. The Framework report:
Provides a background and foundation for the project
Outlines project goals and objectives
Provides a project schedule
Establishes a detailed plan for engagement with the Taskforce and working groups
Identifies communication protocols, contacts, and responsible parties between the project team and Commerce
Outlines keys to the overall success of the project
Identify potential project risks upfront and strategies to address risk
Review of Prior Studies and Findings (September 2024)
The Review of Prior Studies report has also been prepared and published. The report provides an overview of prior
studies which provide the foundation for this project. This report consolidates and provides a succinct overview of
previous report findings which led to Phase IV.
Project schedule
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. This includes the final
report that is due to the Legislature on December 1, 2025.
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 and best practices recommendations, and project closeout.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 6
Engagement - Task Force and working groups
The process for making recommendations to the Legislature will be similar to the process behind Collaborative
Roadmap, Phase III. Working groups were formed to assist the Task Force with its efforts. Separate working
groups for ports, schools, and water/sewer/PUDs will meet throughout 2025 to provide specific recommendations
for Task Force consideration. These groups contain representatives with 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 special purpose district planning processes.
By forming separate working groups, focused time can be spent on port, school, and water/sewer/PUD topics and
issues. This process allows for greater inclusion of people and groups from organizations throughout the state of
Washington. It also allows the Task Force to be smaller in size so that the project can fulfill its mission to provide
the Legislature with a wide variety of options and ideas to better integrate capital facility and utility planning as
cities and counties plan for growth.
Task Force members
The project Task Force is made of representatives with diverse perspectives including, but not limited to,
representatives of state agencies, cities, counties, special districts, builders, and planning and environmental
organizations that have experience with local or special purpose district planning processes. Task Force members
are organized by interest area, member, 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
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 7
Meeting #1 - November 4, 2024
The initial Task Force meeting was held on November 4, 2024. The meeting provided an overview and history of the
project, established goals, and initiated brainstorming of issues that will need to be considered and addressed in
future meetings and via the working groups. The project team held separate one-on-one meetings with Task Force
members not in attendance.
As part of the first Task Force meeting, a high-level discussion was conducted on key questions. Questions
included:
If local jurisdictions and special districts were successfully coordinated in their planning,
• How would you know? What does success look like?
• How can this project result in better planning outcomes?
• Where are the areas of coordination that are working well and can be built on?
• What are the areas of concern we should be aware of?
In brief, Task Force feedback on how to approach this project includes:
Recommendations that do not create additional planning burdens and are appropriate for the need and staff
capacity.
Strive to help special districts succeed in their missions, acknowledging the scale and resources of unique
special-purpose districts.
Improve planning efficiency by creating communicative relationships and harmonize timing, especially for
smaller jurisdictions.
Encourage a culture of collaboration (in addition to policy changes).
Goal of certainty and predictability through communication, shared forecasting and data, and behavioral changes
that lead to improved coordination.
Utilize existing resources and examples to foster improved planning and engagement. Build on the coordination
between entities that is working.
Meeting #2 - May 21, 2025
Prior to the May 21 Task Force meeting, the Project Team sent the Task Force a package of 19 concepts for
consideration. These concepts were organized by the scope of issues they addressed. The concepts also included
detail about which working groups either supported them or indicated that more consideration was needed.
During the meeting, the Project Team reviewed the concepts with the Task Force members and sought their
direction on which concepts to proceed with and which to remove entirely from the process.
In brief, feedback in this meeting from the Task Force includes:
Consideration to reassess current growth planning coordination issues to better evaluate potential solutions.
Supportive discussion for concepts that provide resources, trainings, and templates from the state and that
support collaboration and coordination between jurisdictions and special districts.
Concerns about establishing new public participation requirements into law or policy without thoughtful
consideration.
Additional Task Force meetings are scheduled July 16, September 17, October 15 and two to finalize the final
report and recommendations in mid-November.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 8
Working groups
The intent of the working groups is to bring together subject-matter experts to provide input and recommendations
for the Task Force to consider. Three working groups have been established:
Ports districts
School districts
Water, sewer, and public utility districts
Each working group met three times between January and April. Working groups comprise 10 to 15 members from
the respective special district types and cities/counties, including diverse representatives from across the state.
At the first meeting, working groups brainstormed ideas to improve coordination. The project team synthesized the
input into a list of concepts that each working group discussed at the second and third meetings. The Project
Team compiled the concepts and Working Group input into a package for discussion by the Task Force at their
May 2025 meeting.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 9
Other engagement efforts
Throughout the Phase IV project duration, the project team will continue to seek opportunities to disseminate
knowledge of the project and foster interest in the issue at hand. The project team presented at the following
conferences and meetings in 2024:
Washington Public Utility District Conference (WPUDA) - September 26, 2024.
Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council Conference - October 22, 2024.
Grant County LEAD Summit - November 14, 2024.
Washington State Association of Regional and County Planning Directors - November 20, 2024.
Attendance at these events assisted with identifying volunteers for the working groups. Task Force members also
received materials and information to assist them with engaging people and groups to participate in the project.
The project team will continue to engage at conferences throughout the rest of 2025.
Legislative engagement
Legislators, at their discretion, may be involved as part of the process. Members may attend and listen in to Task
Force meetings and/or request one-on-one meetings with the project team to receive project updates. The project
team is also able to provide project updates to appropriate legislative committees, as requested. Project updates
will be in conjunction with legislative reports due December 15, 2024, and November 15, 2025.
House Local Government Committee
On December 10, 2024, the Project Team presented to the House Local Government Committee. The presentation
provided the following:
Project background
Goals and issues Phase IV addresses
How the recommendations will be formed
A schedule overview
A project status and progress made to date
The Committee stated support for the project and eagerness to receive recommendations.
Tribal Nations engagement
Tribal Nations have been invited to participate in the process. Specific engagement remains dependent on
feedback and engagement will focus on the issues that Tribal Nations determine they would like to consider.
Outreach to Tribal Nations:
Communication through Commerce's Tribal Liaison.
Engagement at the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) meeting - September 29, 2024.
Engagement at the Tribal Planning Gathering - October 11, 2024.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 10
Identifying the scope of issues and initial recommendations
Scope of issues
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.
The goal of this project is to find solutions for increasing coordination between jurisdictions and special districts.
This includes looking for opportunities to balance appropriately sized 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 provide support to each other, focusing on better outcomes.
As part of the working group meetings, the following issues were specially identified:
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.
These issues will continue to be discussed and refined through the future Task Force and working groups meetings
throughout 2025. Appendix A details the initial recommendations for each of these eight issues.
Initial recommendations
As of June 2025, both the Task Force and the working groups have seen an initial draft of concepts that will
ultimately become recommendations. The concepts will continue to evolve as feedback from the Task Force and
working groups is applied. The next version of the draft is anticipated for July, ahead of the third Task Force
meeting.
These initial recommendation concepts fall into two types:
1) State law or rule changes focused on increased coordination and efficiencies in planning and permitting
processes
2) Tools, studies, funding, and training to increase knowledge and understanding
The initial recommendations were presented to the Task Force and working groups. The Task Force was asked to
answer the following two questions as part of the feedback process:
Any concepts that should not be taken further for analysis by the project team?
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 11
Any concepts that could be removed because it is not a good use of the Task Force and project team’s time to
consider further?
The working groups were asked to vote on each concept via Zoom, noting whether it was a concept that should be
considered and further researched.
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 12
Appendix A: Initial recommendation concepts
The following initial recommendations are organized within eight issue areas. After consideration in working
groups and the full Task Force, they may become a final recommendation in the complete legislative report to be
published after December 1, 2025. An initial recommendation may not advance pending full development of the
proposal, discussion of prioritization and its merits and final vote of the Task Force.
The type of each initial recommendation follows in parenthesis and will be either:
A potential change to statute or rule, or
A potential tool, training or funding.
Issue area #1: Timing of public and special district participation in growth
management planning
1. The Legislature could amend the Growth Management Act (GMA) public participation requirements (RCW
36.70A.140). Specific language should be included to ensure special districts, who provide capital facilities
and utilities to cities and counties, are engaged throughout the periodic comprehensive plan update
process. Public participation plans should also address how cities and counties will communicate
throughout the update process (potential change to statute or rule).
2. The Legislature could amend the Growth Management Act (GMA) countywide planning policy (CPPs)
requirements (RCW 36.70A.140) to increase early coordination with special purpose districts early in the
planning process (potential change to statute or rule).
3. The Legislature could amend GMA Capital Facility and Utility Element (RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (4))
requirements to better outline how non city/county service providers, special districts, and state agencies,
where necessary, participate and assist in developing long term capital facility and utility policies and plans.
The Legislature should also amend statutes for special purpose districts to outline connecting language
back to the GMA Capital Facility and Utility Element requirements to facilitate greater planning and
communication. Lastly, the Legislature should right size new requirements to focus efforts on the fastest
growing counties, cities, and special purpose districts (potential change to statute or rule).
4. The Legislature could consider updating statutes, where appropriate, to better align the preparation of
comprehensive plans under RCW 36.70A.130 and plans by special purpose districts which are utilized to
plan for capital facilities and utilities (potential change to statute or rule).
5. The Legislature could consider changes to city and county notification requirements for large land use and
zoning changes which could impact service providers ability to provide services. This could result in
changes to RCW 36.70B.110 for permits or the GMA if land use map changes are made. This is intended to
increase coordination on large land use and zoning changes considered outside of the periodic
comprehensive plan update. A separate recommendation has been prepared addressing coordination
during the periodic comprehensive plan update process (potential change to statute or rule).
Issue area #2: State guidance and other assistance
6. The state could provide cities, counties, and special districts, especially those with fewer resources,
additional technical resources to assist in meeting capital facility and utility element requirements under the
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070(3) and (4). This could include:
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 13
a. Templates to gather existing condition and financial data from special purpose districts for capital
facility plans (potential tool, training or funding).
b. Text templates which explain the purpose of capital facility plans and why gathering information
from special districts is critical (potential tool, training or funding).
7. The state could prepare guidance to assist counties/cities and special purpose districts can jointly identify
early indicators of growth or constraints, outside of the periodic comprehensive plan update process, which
could impact the future ability to accommodate growth which is planned for (potential tool, training or
funding).
8. The state could find ways to more broadly share information between cities, counties, and service
providers. Having one place where vital information is located could increase coordination between service
providers (potential tool, training or funding).
9. The state could be a clearinghouse for example agreements, such as franchise agreements for public-right -
of-ways, between cities/counties and service districts for how collaboration may be structured. Having one
place to find common agreements would provide efficiencies and opportunities to share information
(potential tool, training or funding).
10. The state could develop best practices, webinars, and guidance for Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Utility
Element planning and/or provide training opportunities to bring city, county, and other service providers
together, to provide education and increase coordination (potential tool, training or funding).
11. The state could prepare guidance and information regarding how counties/cities and special purpose
districts can be more transparent about who needs to be involved in the related planning processes, such
as a guide or directory (potential tool, training or funding).
Issue area #3: Integration of school siting during growth management planning
12. The Legislature could amend the GMA (RCW 36.70A.212 and RCW 36.70A.210) to right-size planning
requirements and provide opportunities for discussions about school siting criteria at the countywide
planning policy level as opposed to each individual comprehensive plan. The Legislature could also amend
corresponding school statutes to connect this requirement for planning (potential change to statute or
rule).
Issue area #4: Coordination of utility relocation and improvements
13. To foster coordination and cost-effective infrastructure improvements, the Legislature and state could
require that water, sewer, and PUDs are provided with a 3-year notice for potential utility relocation related
to road maintenance (potential change to statute or rule).
Issue area #5: Protection of transition zoning outside of ports
14. The Legislature could amend the GMA Ports Element requirements (RCW 36.70A.085), including potential
requirements to protect ports and transition zoning between industrial and residential properties.
Amendment likely also needs to include modifying who is subject to developing a Ports Element (potential
change to statute or rule).
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 14
Issue area #6: Planning for a variety of employment types
15. The Legislature could amend the GMA to address the need to preserve, maintain, and enhance industrial
lands to a greater extent, including a job density and land capacity analysis process. Cities and counties
plan for employment capacity (RCW 36.70A.115 and RCW 36.70A.215). However, planning for employment
growth does not address different types of employment, such as commercial or industrial. This could be
addressed in the GMA similar to how the GMA Housing Element addresses the need to plan for a variety of
different housing types (potential change to statute or rule).
Issue area #7: Grant incentives
16. The Legislature could readdress provisions which permit the extension of urban services into rural areas
(RCW 36.70A.213) for schools. It will be important to consider if changes to this specific section of RCW
may be warranted based upon other recommendations to better coordinate growth planning (potential
change to statute or rule).
17. The Legislature and state agencies could consider options to incentivize infrastructure grants (road, water,
sewer, power) within road right-of-ways so that applicants earn points or credit for collaborating with other
service providers and local jurisdictions. To maximize funding, this could include:
a. Requiring documentation at the time of a state grant application that demonstrates coordination
has occurred with other agencies that have utilities in the project area (potential tool, training or
funding).
b. Incentivizing projects where multiple utility projects are addressed within one project, such as dig
once (potential tool, training or funding).
Issue area #8: Coordination on emergency planning
18. The Legislature could consider funding options to enhance coordination and cohesion for cities, counties,
and special purpose districts on emergency planning efforts (potential change to statute or rule).
19. The Legislature could consider language from the law that founded the GMA (HB 2929 (1990)) and require
that all special districts shall perform their activities which affect land use, including capital budget
decisions, in conformity with the state policy goals and the comprehensive land use plan of the county or
city having jurisdiction in the area where the activities occur. The Legislature could consider only applying
this planning requirement to the fastest growing cities, counties, and special purpose districts (potential
change to statute or rule).
COLLABORATIVE ROADMAP, PHASE IV: PRELIMINARY REPORT 15
File and source
- File
- 2025_final-collaborative-roadmap-phase-iv-integrating-special-purpose-distr.pdf
- Size
- 779,452 bytes
- SHA-256
- 27bd88989c3ea926fe4883e40903367e497d6cac9cfbbbb350ddcebd0a98b90f
- Original
- app.leg.wa.gov