HomeMy WebLinkAbout080326 City Council Business Meeting Packet
PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 540 WATER STREET
Business Meeting 6:00 p.m. August 3, 2026
Attend in person or virtually via computer or tablet at
https://zoom.us/j/98187633367 enter the Webinar ID 98187633367
Phone only (muted - listen-only mode) United States: Local Dial In – 1(253)215-
8782,,98187633367#
Submit public comment to be included in the meeting record to:
https://publiccomment.fillout.com/cityofpt
If you are experiencing technical difficulties, please attempt all methods listed above
before reporting any issues to: clerksupport@cityofpt.us
I.Call to Order
II.Roll Call
III.Changes to the Agenda
IV.Proclamation(s) or Special Presentation(s): (None)
V.City Manager’s Report
VI.Comments from the Public (re consent agenda items and items not on the agenda)
(Each person has 3 min. to comment- City Clerk will signal at 2 min. 30 sec.)
A. Public comment
B. Staff or Council response, as needed
VII.Consent Agenda
Action: Move to adopt the consent agenda and/or request to remove any
individual item from the consent agenda.
A. Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants
B.Approval of Minutes:June 1, 2026, June 8, 2026, June 15, 2026
C. Appointments/Reappointments: Climate Action Committee
D. Resolution 26-017 Approving the Final Plat for Falling Waters (Formerly
Pods at the Vineyard), Located in Jefferson County, Washington, City File
No. LUP26-030
E. Project Budget Increase for San Juan Avenue Rehabilitation Project
VIII. Old Business (None)
IX. New Business
A. Settlement Agreement for Nor’West Village Code Enforcement Matters-
COD26-013
Proposed Action: Move to approve Nor’West Village/ COD26-013 Settlement
Agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement.
i. Staff presentation and Council questions
ii. Public Comment
iii. Council deliberation and action
B.Parking Changes Sheridan and San Juan
Proposed Action: No action requested. Discussion only.
i. Staff presentation and Council questions
ii. Public Comment
iii. Council deliberation and action
C. City Manager Transition
Proposed Action: Move to select approach/option for City Manager transition
i. Staff presentation and Council questions
ii. Public Comment
iii. Council deliberation and action
D. Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Update- Recommendation for
Support
Proposed Action: Move to authorize the Public Works Director to vote in favor of
a recommendation to Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners for
adoption of the Updated Coordinated Water System Plan
i. Staff presentation and Council questions
ii. Public Comment
iii. Council deliberation and action
X. Presiding Officer’s Report
A. Social Media and Submitted Public Comment
XI. Suggestions for Future Agendas
XII. Comments from Council
XIII. Adjourn
DRAFT
June 1, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 1 of 6
DRAFT
June 1, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 2 of 6
DRAFT
June 1, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 3 of 6
DRAFT
June 1, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 4 of 6
DRAFT
June 1, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 5 of 6
DRAFT
June 1, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 6 of 6
DRAFT
June 8, 2026 City Council Workshop MeetingPage 1 of 3
DRAFT
June 8, 2026 City Council Workshop MeetingPage 2 of 3
DRAFT
June 8, 2026 City Council Workshop MeetingPage 3 of 3
DRAFT
June 15, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 1 of 6
DRAFT
June 15, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 2 of 6
DRAFT
June 15, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 3 of 6
DRAFT
June 15, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 4 of 6
DRAFT
June 15, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 5 of 6
DRAFT
June 15, 2026 City Council Business MeetingPage 6 of 6
Agenda Bill: AB26-085
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
Agenda Item: Consent VII. C
Regular Business Meeting
Workshop/Study Session
Special Business Meeting
Submitted By: Mayor Howard Date Submitted: April 30, 2026
Department: Mayor Contact Phone: 379-2980
SUBJECT:
Appointment of Lachlan Carey (Position #4, Term Expires December 31, 2029)
to the Climate Action Committee
Appointment of Melissa Spear (Position #13, Term Expires December 31, 2026)
to the Climate Action Committee
Appointment of Brian Roach (Position #14, Term Expires December 31, 2027) to
the Climate Action Committee
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: n/a
Consent Resolution Expenditure Amount: $
Staff Report Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes No
Contract Approval Other:
Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted)
3-Year Strategic Plan: N/A
Cost Allocation Fund: 010-011 GF - Mayor & Council
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
The Mayor is recommending the following appointments:
Appointment of Lachlan Carey (Position #4, Term Expires December 31, 2029)
to the Climate Action Committee
Appointment of Melissa Spear (Position #13, Term Expires December 31, 2026)
to the Climate Action Committee
Appointment of Brian Roach (Position #14, Term Expires December 31, 2027) to
the Climate Action Committee
ATTACHMENTS: Citizen Advisory Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, Committees &
Subcommittees Current Rosters
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION: If adopted as part of the Consent Agenda, no further action
is needed; this represents unanimous approval of the appointments.
ALTERNATIVES:
Take No Action Refer to Committee Refer to Staff Postpone Action
Remove from Consent AgendaWaive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ____
Other:
PARKS, REC, TREES & TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD (5-7)HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE (5-7)
Council Liaison: Monica MickHagerCouncil Liaison: Monica MickHager
Meets Bi-monthly 4:30pm 4th Tuesday at City Hall Meets 3:00pm 1st Tuesday at City Hall
Pos.Name & ExperienceExp.Pos.NameExp.
Matt Miner5/1/28Kathleen Knoblock5/1/29
11
VACANT5/1/26Michael D'Alessandro5/1/29
22
Richard Hefley 5/1/27Dale Dell'Ario5/1/29
33
4 Pamela Adams5/1/28Walt Galitzki5/1/27
4
Rebecca Kimball5/1/28Zhenya Lavy5/1/28
55
VACANT5/1/27Craig Britton, Chair 5/1/28
66
Deborah Jahnke, Chair5/1/27Dave Pitkethly5/1/28
77
Nicole Karn5/1/28
8
Jeffrey Taylor 5/1/28
9
LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE (11 voting)ARTS COMMISSION (9 max.)
Council Liaison: NoneCouncil Liaison: Libby Wennstrom
Meets 3:00pm quarterly 2nd Tuesday at City HallMeets 3:00pm 1st Wednesday at City Hall
Pos.Name & RoleExp.Pos.NameExp.
Owen Rowe, Chair (Elected Official)N/ASimon Lynge5/1/29
11
Sarah Copley (At Large Position)5/1/29Dana Nelson 5/1/29
22
Cindy Finnie (At Large Position)5/1/285/1/29
Melanie Muszynski
33
VACANT (Recipient)5/1/25Heidi Tullman 5/1/27
44
VACANT (Recipient)5/1/27Joshua Saunders5/1/28
55
6
Danielle McClelland (Recipient)5/1/28Sheena Uritz5/1/28
6
Denise Winter (Recipient)5/1/28Chrstine WalshRogers5/1/27
77
VACANT (Collector)5/1/22Dan Groussman5/1/28
88
Kate Philbrick (Collector)5/1/28Doug Caskey 5/1/27
99
VACANT (Collector)5/1/26
10
VACANT (Collector)5/1/24 LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD (5-7)
11
Main Street Designee (Nonvoting)5/1/27 Council Liaison: David Faber
12
Jefferson Transit Authority Kelly Olsen (Nonvoting)5/1/29
13
Meets Bi-monthly 1:00pm 2nd Tuesday at the LLC
Pos.NameExp.
14
VACANT (Nonvoting)5/1/20
1 Pamela Adams 5/1/28
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY TASK FORCE Kathleen Hawn5/1/27
2
3
Council Liaison: None Susan Ferentinos5/1/27
TBDDori Butler 5/1/29
4
Pos.NameExp.
VACANT 5/1/26
5
Catharine RobinsonN/ADiana Grunow 5/1/29
16
7
Earll MurmanN/ADavid Tolmie5/1/28
2
John NowakN/A
3
Richard JahnkeN/A
4
VACANTN/A
5
VACANTN/A
6
VACANTN/A
7
VACANTN/A
8
PEG ACCESS COORDINATING COMMITTEE (8)PLANNING COMMISSION (7)
Meets 3:30pm 2nd Tuesday at the Gael Stuart BuildingMeets 6:30pm 2nd & 4th Thursday at City Hall
Pos.NameExp.
Name
_______, City Council (Chair)Samantha Bair Jones, Chair 12/31/27
1
Joanna Sanders, City ClerkStephen Mader 12/31/26
2
Melody Eisler, Library DirectorRick Jahnke12/31/27
3
John Polm, School District SuperintendentViki Sonntag12/31/26
4
________, School District Video InstructorCorrina Coorrsen12/31/28
5
Richard Durr, School District RepresentativeDylan Quarles12/31/28
6
VACANT, Video ProfessionalAndreas Andreadis12/31/27
7
_____________, Citizen Representative
VACANT, Student Representative CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (3)
Meets as needed
VACANT Producers Group Representative (Optional)
Pos.NameExp.
VACANT Education Group Representative (Optional)
Darryl Elmore 12/31/28
1
CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE (15)David Ehnebuske12/31/27
2
Meets bi-monthly 3:00 p.m. on 2nd TuesdayRichard Sussman 12/31/27
3
Exp.
Pos.Name
N/A FORT WORDEN PDA (9-11)
1 Jefferson County BoCC (Heather Dudley-Nollette)
N/A Council Liaison: Libby Wennstrom
2 City Council (Owen Rowe)
N/A Meets at Fort Worden Commons B
3 JeffPUD (Jeff Randall)
Pos.NameExp.
12/31/29
4 VACANT- At Large
N/ABrad Mace10/24/25
5 Jefferson Healthcare (Kees Kolff)1
N/ATracy Garrett 10/24/25
6 Jeff. Transit (Nicole Gauthier/Amy Hall)2
N/ADavid King10/24/26
7 Port of PT ( Carol Hasse/Eric Toews)3
N/AVACANT10/24/26
8 PT Paper Corp. (Michael Clea)4
12/31/26John Begley10/24/24
9 Cindy Jayne - Chair - At Large 5
12/31/28Steve Dowdell 10/24/24
10 Crystie Kisler - Vice Chair-At Large 6
`
12/31/28VACANT 10/24/24
11 David Wilkinson- At Large 7
12/31/27
12 Jaime Duyck- At Large 8 VACANT10/24/22
12/31/2710/24/25
13 VACANT - At Large 9
12/31/2610/24/25
14 VACANT- At Large 10
Dave Seabrook- At Large
12/31/2710/24/25
1511
EQUITY, ACCESS, AND RIGHTS ADVISORY BOARD
Council Liaison: Amy Howard
Meets 2nd Thursday at 12:30 at Council Chambers
Pos.NameExp.
VACANT 5/1/25
1
Hope Quinn 5/1/29
2
Julia Cochrane5/1/27
3
Amber Kent 5/1/28
4
VACANT 5/1/26
5
6 VACANT 5/1/27
VACANT 5/1/25
7
5/1/29
8 Nikki Jardin
Francisca Ramirez Aquino5/1/27
9
Agenda Bill: AB26-086
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
Agenda Item: Consent VII.D
Regular Business Meeting
Workshop/Study Session
Special Business Meeting
Submitted By: Emma Bolin / Steve King Date Submitted: 7-16-2026
Department: PCD / Public Works Contact Phone: 360-390-4048
SUBJECT:Final Plat approval, LUP26-030, for the Falling Waters subdivision (formerly
Pods at the Vineyard), a 16-lot subdivision processed under File No. LUP22-076 as a
closed-record, quasi-judicial Type IV permit pursuant to PTMC 20.01.040.
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
Consent Resolution Expenditure Amount: $ N/A
Staff Report Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes No
Contract Approval Other: Discussion Item
Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted)
3-Year Strategic Plan: N/A
Cost Allocation Fund: Choose an item.
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
The proposed action before the City Council is approval of the Falling Waters Final Plat,
representing the culmination of a multi-year land use, engineering, and construction
process to redevelop approximately 2.75 acres of R-II Medium Density Residential zoned
property located between 35th and 32nd Streets, west of the Rosewind Planned Unit
Development (PUD) within Blocks 6, 7, and 8 of H.L. Tibbals Jr.’s Second Addition in Port
Townsend.
Formerly known as Pods at the Vineyard, the subdivision received Preliminary Plat approval
from the City Hearing Examiner on May 17, 2024, following an open-record public hearing.
The Preliminary Plat authorized creation of a 16-lot residential subdivision subject to
conditions addressing transportation, utilities, stormwater management, environmental
protection, landscaping, and public safety.
Since that approval, the applicant has completed the required engineering, permitting, and
infrastructure improvements necessary to implement the approved subdivision. City staff
has reviewed the Final Plat application and supporting materials and verified that the project
conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat, that the required public improvements have
been completed or appropriately secured, and that applicable conditions of approval have
been satisfied.
City staff verified that all conditions of approval are satisfied or secured. Final plat approval
is ministerial; as a closed-record decision, the City Council may not take new testimony or
impose newconditions andis limited to confirming compliance with existing approvals and
codes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1:Resolution No.26-017with associated exhibits.
Attachment 2: Hearing Examiner’s Decision
Attachment 3: Conditions Compliance Matrix
Attachment 4: Falling Waters Final Plat Map
Attachment 5: Recorded Release of Claim
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION: If adopted as part of the Consent Agenda, no further action
is needed; this represents unanimous approval of Resolution 26-017 Approving the Final
Plat for Falling Waters (Formerly Pods at the Vineyard), Located in Jefferson County,
Washington, City File No. LUP26-030.
ALTERNATIVES:
Take No Action Refer to Committee Refer to Staff Postpone Action
Remove from Consent Agenda Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ____
Other:
RESOLUTION NO. 26-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND,
WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR FALLING WATERS
(FORMERLY PODS AT THE VINEYARD), LOCATED IN JEFFERSON COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, CITY FILE NO. LUP26-030
WHEREAS,GreenPod Development, Davos Capital LLC, and associated property
owners applied for and obtained approval of a Preliminary Plat for a sixteen-lot residential
subdivision commonly known as Pods at the Vineyard under City File No. LUP22-076.; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2024, following an open-record public hearing, the City of Port
Townsend Hearing Examiner approved the Preliminary Plat and issued Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Conditions of Approval authorizing creation of a sixteen-lot residential
subdivision subject to applicable conditions; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision has subsequently been renamed Falling Waters and consists
of sixteen residential lots, including fifteen newly created lots and one existing lot containing an
existing residence; and
WHEREAS, the property subject to the Final Plat is located within Blocks 6, 7, and 8 of
H.L. Tibbals Jr.'s Second Addition in Port Townsend, Jefferson County, Washington, and
contains approximately 2.75 acres of residentially zoned land; and
WHEREAS, the approved Preliminary Plat authorized subdivision of the property into a
sixteen-lot residential development consistent with City Comprehensive Plan policies supporting
efficient use of urban land, increased residential density within city limits, and provision of
diverse housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently completed engineering design, permitting, and
construction activities necessary to advance the project to Final Plat review pursuant to Chapter
58.17 RCW and the Port Townsend Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, required public improvements were completed under Street and Utility
Development Permit SDP24-055 and verified through engineer-certified as-built drawings dated
September 12, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the completed public improvements include roadway improvements,
extension and realignment of Landes Street, public water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities,
stormwater management facilities, pedestrian improvements, and underground utility
infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, water system improvements include new mainline extensions, individual
service connections, meter vaults, and fire hydrants necessary to serve the development and meet
emergency response requirements; and
Page 1 of 5
Resolution No. 26-017 – Falling Waters Final Plat
WHEREAS,sanitary sewer service has been installed through a low-pressure force main
system and associated infrastructure consistent with the approved engineering design; and
WHEREAS, stormwater facilities include rain gardens, infiltration swales, and vegetated
drainage features designed to manage runoff, promote infiltration, and improve water quality;
and
WHEREAS, electrical and communications infrastructure, including fiber-optic facilities
and related utility infrastructure, has been installed underground within the project area; and
WHEREAS,environmental mitigation, landscaping, and tree conservation requirements
have been implemented through an approved Alternative Tree Conservation Plan providing
seventy-two tree units through a combination of retained and newly planted trees together with
restoration of native prairie habitat utilizing native plant species; and
WHEREAS, following Preliminary Plat approval, minor modifications were
incorporated into the Final Plat documents, including removal of a previously proposed
greenhouse structure within the right-of-way, adjustment of side-yard setbacks to five feet,
simplification of utility easements, and administrative updates to City departmental titles; and
WHEREAS, City staff determined that such modifications do not materially alter the
approved development and remain consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City received a complete application for Final Plat approval under City
File No. LUP22-076; and
WHEREAS, Planning and Community Development and Public Works staff reviewed
the Final Plat application, engineering documentation, construction records, landscaping plans,
and supporting materials and determined that all applicable conditions of approval imposed by
the Hearing Examiner have been satisfied or appropriately secured; and
WHEREAS, under Chapter 58.17 RCW and PTMC 20.01.040, approval of a Final Plat
that is consistent with an approved Preliminary Plat is a ministerial, closed-record action, and the
City Council's review is limited to determining whether the Final Plat complies with prior
approvals and applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Final Plat conforms to the approved
Preliminary Plat, satisfies all applicable conditions of approval, and complies with all applicable
requirements of state and local law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Port
Townsend as follows:
Page 2 of 5
Resolution No. 26-017 – Falling Waters Final Plat
Section 1. Findings
The City Council finds that the Falling Waters Final Plat, as depicted in the final plat documents
submitted under City File No. LUP26-030 (Exhibit A) satisfies the applicable approval criteria
and requirements:
1. State Subdivision Law. The Final Plat complies with the requirements of Chapter 58.17
RCW, including but not limited to RCW 58.17.110, RCW 58.17.140, and RCW
58.17.165 governing final plat approval, conformity with preliminary approval, and
recording requirements.
2. Local Land Use Authority and Procedures. The application has been processed in
accordance with PTMC 20.01.040 as a Type IV permit process, and the City Council has
jurisdiction to approve the Final Plat as a closed-record, quasi-judicial, ministerial action
consistent with applicable state and local law.
3. Subdivision and Development Standards. The Final Plat conforms to the applicable
subdivision, infrastructure, utility, transportation, stormwater, landscaping, and design
standards of Title 18 PTMC, as applied and conditioned through Preliminary Plat
approval.
4. Consistency with Prior Land Use Approvals. The Final Plat is consistent with and
implements the Hearing Examiner's Preliminary Plat approval for LUP22-076, together
with all associated review documents, findings, conclusions, conditions of approval, and
applicable determinations required by law.
5. Conditions of Approval Compliance. Planning and Community Development and Public
Works staff have verified that all applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied or
adequately secured, and that no outstanding condition precludes Final Plat approval.
6. Infrastructure Completion. All required public improvements, including water, sewer,
stormwater, transportation, pedestrian, and utility facilities, have been installed or
otherwise secured in accordance with approved plans and applicable standards.
Section 2. Approval
The City Council hereby approves the Final Plat for Falling Waters, under City File No. LUP26-
030, subject to the following continuing requirements:
A. All approved plans, easements, conditions, restrictions, obligations, mitigation measures,
and plat notes associated with the subdivision shall remain binding upon the property and
all successors and assigns.
B. Any required Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), maintenance
agreements, easements, or other recorded instruments shall be recorded with the Jefferson
County Auditor concurrently with, or prior to, recording of the Final Plat.
Section 3. Execution of Plat
The City Council authorizes and directs the Mayor, City Clerk, and other appropriate City
officials to sign and execute the City's approval on the face of the Final Plat upon satisfaction of
all recording prerequisites.
Section 4. Recording
Page 3 of 5
Resolution No. 26-017 – Falling Waters Final Plat
The applicant shall record the approved Final Plat with the Jefferson County Auditor following
completion of all required inspections and approvals and payment of all applicable City fees,
charges, and assessments.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend at a regular meeting
rd
thereof, held this 3day of August, 2026.
__________________________________
Amy Howard
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Alyssa Rodrigues
City Clerk
Page 4 of 5
Resolution No. 26-017 – Falling Waters Final Plat
Exhibit A
Falling Waters Final Plat
Page 5 of 5
Resolution No. 26-017 – Falling Waters Final Plat
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
1
OF PORT TOWNSEND
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Pods at the Vineyard FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Preliminary Plat/Plat Alteration
5
LUP22-019
6
7
OVERVIEW
8
Davos Capital LLC and Steve and Ann Raab have applied for approval of a 16-lot preliminary
9
plat/plat alteration for the single-family residential development of an approximately three-acre
site located between 35th and 32nd Streets, west of the Rosewind Planned Unit Development
10
(PUD). The application is approved subject to conditions.
11
Neighbors have been very active in detailing concerns with the preliminary plat. Some of those
concerns were addressed in revisions to the preliminary plat that City staff found necessary to
12
correct application deficiencies. The one outstanding issue of noncompliance was safe walking
conditions to and from schools. Such a requirement is specifically called out in state statute as
13
well as the Citys preliminary plat requirements. See RCW 58.17.110 and PTMC 18.16.060A
(2). A couple commentators raised concerns about poor visibility and inadequate walking areas
14
th
on 35 Street that were not fully addressed by the Applicant and staff. The Applicants very
likely cannot be legally required to construct any off-site sidewalks to address such deficiencies
15
1
if they exist. However, the City may have the legal authority to require signage or a widened
shoulder pathway to make the route safer for school children as is commonly required in other
16
jurisdictions. A condition of approval has been added to require the Applicants to provide a
th
written assessment of walking conditions along 35. City staff may impose proportionate
17
mitigation requirements as consistent with state and federal takings law.
18
A major issue for the Applicant was staff recommended conditions requiring a homeowners
association (HOA). At hearing the Applicant and staff came to agreement on avoiding an HOA
19
for some of the recommended conditions. However, some other conditions requiring an HOA
were left unaddressed. Since the City and Applicant have shown progress in resolving the need
20
for an HOA, the staff recommended conditions of approval on those outstanding issues have
been modified to allow HOA responsibilities to be resolved during site plan review. The
21
division between City and HOA responsibilities for maintenance and repairs is not found to be
materially germane to the preliminary plat criteria, which are focused upon appropriate
22
infrastructure and minimizing impacts.
23
1
Under state/federal constitutional provisions and state statute the Applicant cannot be required to fix
24
existing drainage problems, but rather can only be made to prevent creating new problems with its
proposed development. See RCW 82.02.020; Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505 (1998)
25
overruled on other grounds, Yim v. City of Seattle, 451 P.3d 675 (2019).
26
PP/PA p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Some commentators asserted that the proposal should provide for open space and affordable
1
housing. As outlined in the findings and conclusions below, the City is barred by the state and
federal constitution from mandating those amenities for this preliminary plat.
2
The staff report identifies that the Applicant can selectively vest to parking standards adopted
3
after the vesting of the plat application. As outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 5 below, it is
highly legally questionable whether selective vesting should be authorized. The matter can be
4
resolved during site plan review. The proposed lots are large enough to accommodate required
off-street parking if the City determines selective vesting is not legally authorized for this plat.
5
This plat review process is somewhat unique because neighbors were exceptionally diligent in
6
pointing out what they saw to be numerous deficiencies in engineering design. It appears that
those comments led to some project revisions since the continued hearing and may have
7
assisted Public Works in addressing some engineering issues earlier than it would otherwise
have done. However, it should be recognized that this is preliminary plat review. As previously
8
mentioned, the focus of preliminary plat review is to ensure that the plat design provides for
appropriate infrastructure and that impacts to the community and the environment are
9
mitigated. The preliminary stage of review is succeeded by more detailed engineering review,
which then leads to final plat review where the Applicant must demonstrate that the final
10
engineering design is consistent with the Citys public works and engineering standards. Given
this process, preliminary plat review is conceptual in nature and the Applicant must establish
11
that the proposed layout of lots and streets is sufficient to accommodate the public works and
engineering standards applicable to the project. Commentators may very well have raised some
12
valid concerns over the depth/gradient of sewer lines and the like, but public works has found
that any such discrepancies can be addressed during final engineering review within the layout
13
of streets and roads proposed by the Applicant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
the plat is found to sufficiently conform to the standards quoted in this decision to move
14
forward to final plat review.
15
Many of the neighbors concerns are already addressed by the Citys development standards or
cannot be addressed due to legislative and constitutional limitations. It should be recognized
16
that the City of Port Townsend is required to accommodate urban densities by the Washington
State Growth Management Act. The Citys density standards, to which the proposal conforms,
17
is a response to that mandate. In addition, the City has adopted a comprehensive set of
development standards that address all the concerns typically raised by neighbors to new
18
development, such as street width, parking and stormwater controls. Those types of standards
have evolved over decades amongst the couple hundred cities within Washington State. Given
19
this context, it should not be surprising that staffs response to many of the concerns raised by
neighbors is the project meets the Citys development standards. Finally, as noted
20
previously, developers can only be made to fix the problems they create and only in a manner
that is proportionate to their impact. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505 (1998)
21
overruled on other grounds, Yim v. City of Seattle, 451 P.3d 675 (2019). The Citys ability to
fix existing alleged deficiencies in Kuhn Street and to require off-site improvements such as
22
sidewalks for school children is limited because of these constitutional constraints.
23
TESTIMONY
24
A computer-generated transcript accompanies this decision as Appendix A. The transcript is
25
provided for informational purposes only.
26
EXHIBITS
PP/PA p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
The August 22, 2024 staff report in addition to attachments A-I identified at page 31 of the
staff report were admitted during the hearing as Exhibit 1. The following exhibits were also
2
admitted into the record:
3
Exhibit J: April 27, 2024 letter from Applicants
Exhibit K: April 29, 2024 email comment from Sarah Stowell
4
Exhibit L: May 16, 2024 responses to Stowell from Applicant
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
6
Procedural:
7
1. Applicant. The Applicants are Greenpod Development, c/o Anne & Steve Raab, 606
Roosevelt St., Pt. Townsend, WA 98368 and Davos Capital LLC, c/o Dave Holland, PO Box
8
9150, Santa Fe, NW 87504.
9
2. Hearing. A virtual and in-person hearing was held on April 29, 2024 in the Port Townsend
Council Chambers. The April 29, 2024 is a continuation of the hearing originally scheduled
10
for August 19, 2022, which was continued due to defects in hearing notice. The record was
left open through May 2, 2024 to provide an opportunity for Sandra Stowell to provide written
11
comments and a City/Applicant response since Ms. Stowells hearing testimony was inaudible.
The Applicant was permitted to respond through May 18, 2024 at which point the record was
12
closed.
13
Substantive:
14
3. Site and Proposal Description. Davos Capital LLC and Steve and Ann Raab have applied
for approval of a 16-lot preliminary plat/plat alteration for the single-family residential
15
development of an approximately three-acre site located between 35th and 32nd Streets, west
of the Rosewind PUD. The project site is already developed with one single-family residence
16
that will remain after development.
17
The proposed lots range in size from 5,007 to 10,900 square feet (sf) with most being sized
between 7,000 to 7,500 sf. M-of-
18
way (ROW) dedication with road improvements for Landes St. New Landes St. runs south
19
wide paved road and alternating sides of city standard concrete sidewalk and on-street parking.
20
Two (2), or as many as three (3), lots will gain vehicular access via Kuhn St. or Kuhn St. in
21
concert with the 33rd St. ROW. Kuhn St. is a city-maintained paved roadway while 33rd St.
is considered an unopened ROW. As a corner lot, proposed Lot C3 will be able to gain access
22
via either 35th St. or Kuhn St. Lot C5 and the existing home it contains already gain access
via driveways onto both Kuhn and 33rd Sts.
23
4. Surrounding Uses: The area is currently characterized by single-family, detached
24
residences. 1Zoning for most surrounding lands is also R-II (Medium Density Single Family).
There are two (2) nearby residential ; the Rosewind PUD and the EcoVillage PUD.
25
26
PP/PA p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5. Adverse Impacts. As mitigated, there are no discernible adverse impacts that will be
1
created by the proposal. The project is SEPA exempt. Impacts are more specifically addressed
as follows:
2
A.!Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding development. The
3
proposal is for single-family detached development, which is the same type of
development surrounding the project site. The proposed density conforms to the
4
zoning designation, which also applies to most surrounding properties. In this regard,
the density is also found to be compatible with surrounding uses.
5
B.!Critical Areas. There are no critical areas at the project site. Staff and applicant have
6
found no critical areas at the project site and there is no evidence to the contrary.
7
C.!Tree Preservation.
thus is found to make adequate provision for tree preservation.
8
retention standards, all preliminary plat applications require the concurrent submittal,
review and approval of a preliminary Tree Conservation Plan (TCP). Each preliminary
9
submitted for this project showing existing trees and those planned for removal (Ex.
10
B). Tree standards for an R-II zone subdivision are 40 tree units per 40,000 square feet
of area. Projects can achieve their required tree standard either by retaining on-site
11
trees or by planting new trees. Based on the lot sizes proposed, a minimum of 118 tree
unit credits is normally required for the Pods TCP. The Applicants propose 72 tree
12
unit credits as outlined in Ex. B, Sheet A4.
13
The Applicants seeks approval of to maintain and enhance
existing prairie landscape
14
properties and their uses may conflict with the planting of dense tree stands. These
may involve areas of town that historically have had few trees or are dependent upon
15
open space and solar access. In these circumstances, an Alternative TCP that deviates
As an
16
alternative to tree preservation, the Applicants propose a significant amount of prairie
rd
preservation along proposed Landes Street and vacated 33 street.
17
As an alternative to the required 118 trees, staff is recommending that the Examiner
18
accept that a minimum of one (1) tree unit credit (t.u.c.) be planted or retained on each
lot that is <6,000 sf in size and two (2) t.u.c. be retained or planted on each lot that is
19
>6,000 sf in size as part of the building permit review process. An exception to the
20
landscaping
requirements in effect at the time a development permit is sought.
21
merits a reduction in required tree
22
Staff asserts in the staff report that the project area has no
critical areas, which would include protected prairie grass. The issue of prairie grass
23
came up in another land use application, the PT Meditation Center located at the corner
nd
of 32 and San Juan Avenue, LUP21-034. For that application the Washington State
24
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) had advised that it considered the prairie
25
was at the least considered by WDFW
the association at the
26
Staff in the LUP21-034
PP/PA p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
application found that the protected status of the prairie grass was ambiguous and
1
requested a condition of approval, which was granted, requiring further assessment.
The results of that assessment are not in the record.
2
3
grass and whether or not the subject plat site meets them. As far as can be ascertained
from the record of this proceeding, staff does not consider the prairie grass to be
4
protected by its critical areas ordinance but does find that the grass has sufficient value
to justify protection in lieu of tree preservation. The area reserved for prairie grass in
5
does appear to be sufficient to otherwise accommodate the deficit
of 46 tree credits
6
expertise that was exercised in reaching the
conclusion that protecting the prairie grass as proposed by the Applicant provides
7
aesthetic and environmental benefits that are equal to or greater than the deficit in
compliance with tree retention standards. Given the experience of staff in addressing
8
prairie grass (as demonstrated in LUP21-034) and tree conservation requirements, the
staff recommendations regarding the
9
found determinative in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
10
D.!Construction Noise. The proposal is adequately mitigated against the impacts of
11
concerns were raised about construction noise, with the request made that no
construction work be authorized
12
standards cover construction noise and there is nothing unique about the project that
suggests that the proposal will involve noises not anticipated by those regulations. As
13
testified by staff, for installing the infrastructure, construction hours are limited to
Monday through Friday, seven to seven and prohibited on weekends and holidays,
14
unless they get written permission from the PCP department to construct and for cause.
15
6. Infrastructure. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure.
Infrastructure impacts are specifically addressed as follows:
16
A.!Water and Sewer. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate water and
17
sewer.
18
1.!Water. New public water mains will be installed south of 35rd St. in the newly
aligned Landes St. and eastward in 33rd St. to connect with an existing main
19
in the Kuhn St. ROW. Final water system improvements and design will be
determined by Public Works staff during review of the subsequent Street and
20
Utility Development permit (SDP) review. Private service connections and
side service lines leading to a meter box will be identified and installed as part
21
of the SDP process. Fire flow is available adjacent to the site via water main
extensions within the site. Fire hydrants will be installed in accordance with
22
23
2.!Sewer. Sanitary sewer service can be provided to PAV via low-pressure
improvements in Landes and 33rd Sts. Individual lots will be connected to a
24
-site pumps. The city has agreed to assume
responsibility for the force main but all other sewer-related improvements are
25
an ongoing responsibility of the individual lot owner(s). Any public ROW
used for private utilities may be required to acknowledge responsibility for
26
their ongoing maintenance. Final design and responsibilities for the low
PP/PA p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
pressure sewer infrastructure will be determined as part of the subsequent SDP
1
process and shown on the final Plat.
2
Douglas Milholland raised several highly detailed concerns and questions
about sewer infrastructure design.
3
addressed to the extent necessary for the conceptual level of approval involved
in preliminary plat review. The Applicant has apparently revised its design in
4
response and the staff report notes that Public
Works staff are satisfied with the revisions.
5
Even if there are remaining problems with the sewer design, the issues raised
6
by Mr. Milholland are only within the scope of preliminary plat review if they
are integral to the conceptual plat design under review. Engineering design
7
proposed during preliminary plat review is often revised as necessary during
the civil review for final plat approval to conform to unanticipated on-site
8
conditions or to remedy errors in data and/or calculation. unclear and there
is no evidence that the design issues raised by Mr. Milholland would materially
9
affect the overall design of the plat if any revisions had been necessary, i.e. if
any revisions would affect the layout of the lots or proposed locations of
10
streets. For example, the proposed depths and grade of the sewer main are
only directly pertinent to preliminary plat review if correction of the errors
11
would potentially require a re-design of lot layout or street location
12
B.!Drainage. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage facilities.
No impact from drainage is anticipated. The submittal includes a preliminary
13
engineered drainage plan and report (Ex. D). City stormwater regulations, PTMC
13.32.010, pursuant to state mandate, require the
14
establish that post development off-site flows onto adjoining properties (other than
Puget Sound) generated by the proposal not exceed those from pre-developed, forested
15
conditions. The stormwater plans have established to the satisfaction of staff that the
proposal can meet these types of standards. The design includes rain gardens in ROW
16
to address stormwater flows. Rain gardens have also been conceptually sized for each
individual lot based on allowable lot coverage.
17
During the hearing the Applicant and City staff disagreed over whether an HOA was
18
necessary to assume infrastructure responsibilities as recommended in the staff
recommended conditions of approval. City staff and Applicant came to a compromise
19
on rain garden and side sewer responsibility, but did not appear to have covered all of
the maintenance responsibilities addressed in the recommended conditions. To the
20
extent that some issues may be unresolved, the conditions have been modified to have
them decided during site plan review.
21
C.!Transportation. The proposal is found to provide for adequate and appropriate streets
22
rds as
23
conformance will be required for final plat approval.
24
Interior access to the proposed lots is provided via a combination of new and existing
public roads and 1 private driveway in the 33rd St. ROW. Primary access to most lots
25
will be from a re-aligned Landes St. right of way (ROW), between 35th St. and
Woodland Ave. Here, the Applicant proposes a road section that combines various
26
PP/PA p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
provides on-
1
sides with a pedestrian crossing at Landes and 33rd Streets.
2
Public Works staff found the proposal is consistent with the planned housing density
for the area. Anticipated traffic volumes are not expected to adversely impact adopted
3
Levels of Service (LOS) on connecting public facilities. With only 16 lots (one of
which is already developed), the plat falls below the threshold which requires a Traffic
4
Impact Analysis (TIA), i.e. the Citys public works standards find that traffic generated
by plats of this size are not significant enough to raise concerns over congestion
5
impacts. Roads will be built to acceptable Public Works standards and, subject to
conditions, anticipated non-motorized connections are made.
6
Final street parking locations will be determined as part of the subsequent Street and
7
Utility Development Permit (SDP) process. Staff discussed with the Applicant and
recommended maintaining flexibility with driveway placement to allow occasional
8
parking on either side of the street for traffic calming. Engineered raingardens are
proposed for street runoff stormwater along Landes St.
9
10
functionality are being vacated through the Plat/Plat Alteration review; however, one
area of proposed vacation is mistakenly shown incorporated into the plat. The subject
11
ROW involved is the east ½ of Landes St. lying south of 33rd St., together with the
east ½ of Landes St. lying between the centerline of 33rd St. and the south line of 33rd
12
St., as platted within Tibbals 2nd Addition. As noted in the staff report, unless the
abutting owner to this portion of platted Landes St. agrees in writing to allowing all
13
the subject Landes St. ROW to accrue to the plat, this portion of the proposed vacation
area must be removed from the Plat Alteration request and the Final Plat/Plat Alteration
14
map. If the abutting owner is willing to allow acquisition of all platted
15
At hearing a representative of the HOA for Rosewind testified that the Rosewind HOA
board unanimously agreed to cede the Landes St. ROW to the Applicants. From this
16
testimony it appears that the Applicants will not have much difficulty acquiring the
necessary agreement for acquiring the ROW.
17
At hearing staff questioned whether the street vacation process would be required to
18
vacate the right of way along the Rosewind ownership. RCW 35.79.010 requires 2/3
of abutting property owners to sign a petition for a street vacation. The issue is an open
19
question that has apparently not been addressed by the courts. It would appear that the
easiest approach would be to have the form approved by the City Attorney for the
20
Landes vacation include a Rosewind waiver of the street vacation process. If Rosewind
is unwilling to sign the waiver, then the City may wish to consider the necessity of
21
doing a City Council initiated street vacation, which would not necessitate a 2/3
abutting owner petition under RCW 35.79.010.
22
At hearing concerns were raised about Kuhn Street, which one neighbor noted has been
23
developed with a failing chip seal. City staff clarified that only two lots would likely
be adding traffic to Kuhn. The Applicants cannot be legally held responsible for
24
making any off-site improvements to Kuhn other than frontage improvements for this
small amount of added traffic.
25
th
In Ex. F Helen Kolff raised concerns about project created parking along 35 street
26
since it is only 20 feet wide along the project frontage. She noted that design standards
authorize no parking signs if access to emergency vehicles becomes restricted. Public
PP/PA p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
works staff have not found the need to prohibit parking due to restricted emergency
1
access and there is no showing in the record that such access would be materially
restricted. Ms. Kolff also advocated for one way traffic, but the proposed two way
2
roads meet the minimum street design standards for two way traffic. In the absence of
any unique safety problems,
3
guide as to acceptable street design.
4
D.!Schools. As conditioned, the proposal will be served by adequate schools and walking
conditions to and from schools.
5
The record does not establish safe walking conditions to and from school. According
6
to the staff report, walkways will be provided to enhance safe walking conditions to
school, the closest of which is roughly ¼ mile to the north. Staff testified at hearing
7
that there would be sidewalks and/or shoulders available for all necessary public school
th
bus stops and walking routes to schools. Staff specifically opined that 35 street would
8
be safe for children due to the presence of shoulders, sidewalks and low traffic.
However, Sarah Stowell identified in Exhibit K disagreed with the assessment that
9
th
there were safe walking conditions along 35 St. which connected to San Juan Street,
the path that would be followed for students walking to Blue Heron Middle School.
10
th
Ms. Stowell identified that there were sections of 35 without a shoulder on one side
and that visibility was poor for students that would be crossing to the other side. She
11
th
also noted that parked cars prevented use of the shoulder along portions of the 35.
Geralynn Racowski raised similar concerns in Exhibit F. Staff did not respond to Ms.
12
was limited to the position
th
that the proposal would not add much pedestrian traffic to 35.
13
Given the above, Ms. Stowell raise some valid and unanswered concerns about the
14
th
safety of walking conditions to Blue Hearon Middle School along 35. The only direct
th
identification of 35 street deficiencies is that the proposal
15
will not generate any amount of appreciable student traffic. Given the lack of rebuttal
evidence on poor visibility and blocked shoulders, this leaves the possibility that
16
th
students will in fact be crossing 35 or walking on the travelled portion of the road in
portions of poor visibility. It is certainly recognized that developers can only be made
17
to pay for their proportionate share of impacts, but safety can often be enhanced at low
cost via signage, cross-walks and shoulder widening. Given the lack of evidence on
18
safe walking conditions, a condition of approval requires the Applicants to provide an
assessment of walking conditions and reasonable measures that can be taken to ensure
19
safe walking conditions to and from school.
20
The staff report does not contain any direct information on the adequacy of school
buildings and services.
21
identifies that the Port Townsend School District has an elementary, middle and high
school to serve the City. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, this
22
establishes that the City is served by adequate school facilities.
23
E.!Open Space. A couple commentators felt that the proposal should provide more open
space. The City cannot require open space without demonstrating a need for such an
24
amenity. See
dedications of land as condition of project development); Isla Verde Int'l
25
Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wash.2d 740, 755-56 (2002)(City has
burden of establishing that open space dedication is reasonably necessary as a
26
direct result of a proposed development). Cities that require open space
PP/PA p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
dedications typically have ordinances based upon detailed calculations
1
establishing open space demand per residential unit and associated standards
2 for dedication of such areas. Port Townsend does not have any open space
standards that mandate any open space from the Applicant. As noted in the
3
staff report, the proposal is consistent with the Citys Parks, Recreation and
Open Space (PROS) Plan because the proposal is within ½ mile of a formal
4
outdoor space at Blue Heron Middle School.
5
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6
Procedural:
7
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. PTMC 20.01.040 classifies preliminary plats/plat
8
alterations as Type III applications, which requires a hearing before the Hearings Examiner,
who must issue a final decision.
9
Substantive:
10
2. Zoning Designation. The size is zoned R-II (Medium Density Single-Family).
11
3. Review Criteria. PTMC 18.16.060(A) governs the criteria for preliminary plat approval.
12
PTMC 20.01.235(D) requires the Examiner to make a specified set of findings for all Type III
(quasi-judicial) applications. The PTMC does not appear to identify any review criteria for plat
13
alterations, however RCW 58.17.215 provides that the legislative body shall determine the
public use and interest in the proposed alteration. PTMC 19.06.120C governs alternative tree
14
conservation plans. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied via
corresponding conclusions of law.
15
Subdivision Criteria:
16
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(1): The proposed subdivision conforms to all applicable city, state and
17
federal zoning, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans, including, but not
limited to, the following:
18
a. Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan;
19
b. Port Townsend Zoning Code;
c. Engineering Design Standards;
20
d. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Chapter 19.05 PTMC):
21
4. Criterion met. The criterion is met. City staff have reviewed the proposal for conformance
to applicable zoning standards at this stage of review and found it in conformance for the
22
reasons identified at Findings 12-21 of the staff report. Those findings are found to accurately
Footnote 3, which authorizes the
23
Applicant to selectively vest to parking standards adopted after the vesting of the plat
application. Case law prohibits selective the selective waiver of vested rights. See Reclamation
24
Co. v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 436-441 (2005), petition for review denied, 155 Wn.2d
577. As noted in the Bjornsen opinion:
25
If an applicant wishes to take advantage of a change in the law allowing a previously
26
prohibited land use, it may do so by withdrawing its original application and
PP/PA p. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
submitting another. But it may not select which laws will govern its application.
1
While we agree that East could have resubmitted its application after the 1994
SWMP amendments, it did not. Thus, the hearing examiner was required to evaluate
2
the adequacy of East's proposal under the 1991 regulations in effect when East filed
its application.
3
125 Wn. App. At 439-440.
4
Ultimately, off-street parking is typically not addressed until building permit review for
5
residential plats. The proposed lots are large enough to accommodate the off-street parking
that was required at the time the plat vested. The Bjornsen
6
situations where, as here, the Applicants are willing to comply with all regulations that apply
at a given vesting point in time. Following the plain language of the Bjornsen ruling as
7
quoted above, however, for on-street parking the plat must conform to the parking standards
that applied at the time of plat vesting, i.e. at the time the plat application was technically
8
complete. The staff report did identify the option of selective vesting so the public was put
on notice that may be done. Off street parking can be evaluated during building permit
9
review and at that time staff may elect to take a more flexible interpretation of the Bjornsen
ruling.
10
The proposal conforms to the comprehensive plan for the reasons identified in Findings No.
11
30 and 31 of the staff report. There are no critical area or critical area buffers on-site so the
12
6B and 6C.
13
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(2): Utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of
14
the proposed subdivision shall be made available, including open spaces, drainage ways,
streets, alleys, other public ways, potable water, transit facilities, sanitary sewers, parks,
15
playgrounds, schools, sidewalks and other improvements that assure safe walking conditions
for students who walk to and from school;
16
5. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
17
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(3): Conservation of existing trees, and/or the planting of new trees, shall
18
be provided consistent with Chapter 19.06 PTMC, Article III, Standards For Tree
Conservation;
19
6. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C and
20
this decisions approval of an alternative tree conservation plan below.
21
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(4): The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the
proposed subdivision, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have
22
been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the
quality of environment, in accordance with Chapter 19.04 PTMC and Chapter 43.21C RCW;
23
7. Criterion met. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project is SEPA exempt.
24
Conditions of approval mitigate for all potential adverse impacts. There are no critical areas on
site. The project conforms with Chapter 19.04 PTMC and Chapter 43.21C RCW. The review
25
process included the required consideration of probable significant adverse environmental
impacts.
26
PP/PA p. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
PTMC 18.16.060(A)(5): Approving the posed subdivision will serve the public use and
1
interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
2
8. Criterion met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal creates no significant
3
adverse impacts and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6 the proposal will be served by
adequate infrastructure. Further, the proposal accommodates urban growth in furtherance of
4
the environmental and infrastructure policies of the Growth Management Act. Finally, the
proposal fosters economic development and is consistent with the private property rights of
5
property owners. For all these reasons, the proposal serves public use and interest and adequate
provision has been made for public health, safety and welfare.
6
At least one commentator asserted the proposal should provide affordable housing, which one
7
could argue is pertinent to whether the proposal serves the general welfare per the criterion
quoted above. However, Washington courts have ruled cities cannot require affordable housing
8
of developers. The courts consider such a requirement to be a takings of property without just
compensation, because the consider housing unaffordability to be a problem not caused by the
9
developers and therefore must be addressed by the community as a whole. See San Telmo
Assocs. v. Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 20, 25, 735 P.2d 673 (1987). overruled on other grounds, Yim v.
10
City of Seattle, 451 P.3d 675 (Wash. 2019); Robinson v. Seattle, 119 Wn. 2d 34 (1992),
overruled on other grounds, Yim v. City of Seattle, 451 P.3d 675 (2019). Cities give incentives
11
to developers to provide affordable housing with density bonuses and the like, but avoid
making that a requirement.
12
PTMC 18.16.060(B): Notwithstanding approval of criteria set forth in subsection a of this
13
section, in accordance with RCW 58.17.120, as now adopted and hereafter amended, the
proposed subdivision may be denied because of flood, inundation or swamp conditions . . . .
14
9. Criterion met. There is no evidence of flood, inundation or swamp conditions. There are
15
no critical areas on-site, which includes streams, floodplains, shorelines and wetlands. Given
these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the project site is not encumbered with
16
any flood, inundation or swamp conditions.
17
Plat Alteration Criteria:
18
RCW 58.17.215: The legislative body shall determine the public use and interest in the
proposed alteration and may deny or approve the application for alteration
19
10. Criterion met. The plat alterations proposed by the Applicants are the proposed street re-
20
alignments and vacations. These alterations provide for a safe, efficient and code-compliant
transportation system as determined by public works while also enabling the Applicants to
21
maximize the use of the their land at urban densities encouraged and required by the Growth
Management Act. For all these reasons, the proposed plat alterations are found to be in the
22
public use and interest.
23
Alternative Tree Conservation Plan Criteria:
24
PTMC 19.06.120C2: Alternative tree conservation plans may be approved by the PCD
director upon a showing to his/her satisfaction that:
25
a. Due to the physical characteristics of the site, or those of contiguous properties, and/or due
26
to the design goals of a particular development (including but not limited to preserving solar
PP/PA p. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
access or maintaining the character of open grassland areas), strict adherence to the tree
1
conservation standards set forth in subsections A, B, D through G of this section would be
inappropriate or unnecessary to achieve the purposes of this title or would be unreasonably
2
burdensome upon the applicant; and
3
b. The alternative plan is consistent with the purposes of this chapter expressed in PTMC
19.06.010; and
4
c. Alternative plans must provide environmental, recreational, agricultural, and/or aesthetic
5
benefits that are equal or greater to the tree retention standards contained in the tables in this
section.
6
11. Criterion met. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C.
7
and
8
encouraged by the Growth Management Act, or failing to protect prairie grass that has potential
ecological value as outlined in Finding of Fact 5C. Staff have recommended a condition,
9
retention standards are met. The condition requires dispersal of tree retention throughout the
10
development site that helps promote the aesthetic and habitat objectives of the purpose of the
11
with Prairie Grass and its tree retention ordinance
12
that the environmental
13
standards.
14
Type III General Permitting Criteria:
15
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(1): The development is consistent with the Port Townsend
Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Port Townsend Municipal
16
Code;
17
12. Criterion met. As previously discussed, the project satisfies all applicable development
standards and comprehensive plan policies.
18
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(2): The development is not detrimental to the public health, safety and
19
welfare;
20
13. Criterion met.
as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and provides for appropriate infrastructure as
21
determined in Finding of Fact No. 6.
22
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(3): The development adequately mitigates impacts identified under
Chapters 19.04 (SEPA) and 19.05 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) PTMC;
23
14. Criterion met. As previously determined, there are no critical areas or buffers on-site. The
24
proposal is SEPA exempt.
25
PTMC 20.01.235(D)(4): For subdivision applications, findings and conclusions shall be
issued in conformance with PTMC Title 18 and RCW 58.17.110.
26
PP/PA p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
15. Criterion met. The findings and conclusions have been issued in conformance with these
1
applicable regulations. The primary focus of PTMC Title 18 and RCW 58.17.110 is adequate
infrastructure, which is met as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6.
2
DECISION
3
The proposed preliminary plat/plat alteration is approved for the reasons identified in the
4
Conclusions of Law, subject to the following conditions:
5
GENERAL
1.!Development shall be carried out in substantial conformance with the revised
6
preliminary Plat/Plat Alteration site plans and Stormwater Report (Ex. A - D),
7
including the preliminary Tree Conservation and Landscaping Plan (Ex. B), except
where modified by these conditions of approval or by the subsequent Street and
8
Utility Development permit (SDP). The Plat Alteration portion of this approval
includes the lots and rights-of-way shown on the preliminary plat map unless
9
superseded by Condition No. 2, below.
10
rd
2.!As part of the Plat Alteration, the east ½ of Landes St. ROW lying south of 33 St.,
rd
together with the east ½ of Landes St. lying between the centerline of 33 St. and
11
rd
the south line of 33 St., does not automatically attach to the PAV site by law.
Unless the abutting owner to these portions of platted Landes St. agrees in writing
12
to transferring all of the subject Landes St. ROW to the PAV site, this portion of
13
the proposed vacation area must be removed from the Plat Alteration request and
the Final Plat/Plat Alteration map. If the abutting owner is willing to allow PAV
14
to acquire all of platted Landes St., the transfer procedures must be done in a
manner acceptable to the city attorney.
15
3.!The subsequent SDP will determine maintenance responsibilities for sewer
16
infrastructure. Any private maintenance obligation shall be placed into a set of
..
17
18
4.!As agreed at the hearing, the City shall assume maintenance responsibility for
vegetated or grassy swales on City right of way. Individual lot owners are
19
responsible for the rain garden(s) on their respective home sites. For all sidewalks
within the project, the abutting lot owners are responsible for cleaning of the non-
20
motorized improvements per PTMC 12.12.030.
21
5.!
landscaping and on-street parking on alternating sides of the new 50 ft. wide rights
22
of way is approved in concept as shown on the submitted plans (Ex. C). Final
locations for sidewalks, plantings and on-street parking will be determined as part
23
of the subsequent SDP process. Staff will work with the Applicant to maintain
24
flexibility with driveway placement to facilitate these improvements.
25
6.!Final Plat/Plat Alteration approval shall be presented by the Applicant as required
by city code and shall indicate the precise location of all required dedications and
26
easements per these conditions of approval. Interior streets, sidewalks and trails
PP/PA p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
within public ROW or public easements shall be open to the public and signed
1
accordingly at all times. All required infrastructure improvements as set forth in
2
these conditions and the subsequent SDP must be installed or bonded for prior to
final Plat/Plat Alteration approval.
3
7.!The Applicant shall have applied for final Plat/Plat Alteration approval within five
4
2
(5) years of date preliminary approval.
5
6
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
8.!The Applicant shall apply for and receive final Plat/Plat Alteration approval prior
7
to the issuance of any new building permits. To receive final Plat/Plat Alteration
8
approval, all required improvements set forth in the subsequent Street and Utility
Development permit (e.g., street, driveway and utility improvements) and per an
9
approved Final Landscaping Plan must be installed (with conveyance and
acceptance by the City as applicable) or bonded for. The amount of the
10
performance security for any bonded items shall be based upon the current cost
estimate of all materials and construction costs, including applicable tax. The
11
performance security shall consist of a performance bond in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney and in an amount acceptable to the Director and consistent with
12
city code. Cash deposited in an escrow account may also be accepted by the city.
All required landscaping plantings shall be installed within six months of approving
13
the performance security unless a longer time period is agreed to by the PCD
14
Director.
15
OTHER LANDSCAPING-RELATED CONDITIONS
9.!Prior to issuance of a Street and Utility Development permit (SDP) for the project,
16
the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Landscaping and Tree Conservation
Plan (TCP) for review and approval by the PCD Director. The submitted Final
17
Landscaping and TCP must be prepared with sufficient detail on specific plant
species, sizes, spacing and quantities to allow for adequate review by PCD. It must
18
also include a proposed irrigation plan that will be installed as part of the
installation, a table of tree unit credits (t.u.c.) assigned to each lot and details on
19
tree protection measures to be used. The submitted plan must be prepared using a
20
scale capable of being read without magnification of either the plan text or planting
area illustrations. The Final TCP must include a commitment to planting or
21
retaining at least one (1) tree unit credit (t.u.c.) per residential lot that is <6,000 sf
in size. Two (2) t.u.c. are required per residential lot >6,000 sf in size with the
22
exception of Lot C5 which is exempt from the approved tree conservation
requirements of the plat as is the lot is already developed. Future uses of Lot C5
23
in effect at the time a development permit is sought. As proposed by the Applicant,
24
they shall propose a covenant for review and approval by city PCD staff which
identifies those trees on individual lots that will be retained in perpetuity. Once
25
2
w/ ЎБ͵ЊА͵ЊЍЉΛЌΜΛğΜ
26
PP/PA p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
language for the covenant is approved by the city, the terms will be executed during
1
recording of the Final Plat in a manner acceptable to the city. Language allowing
2
for removal of a retained tree in cases of disease, dying or hazardous circumstances
are acceptable within the covenant but replanting is also required. A notation on
3
the face of the final Plat/Plat Alteration map as required by PTMC 19.06 will
provide future purchasers with reference to the resulting TCP requirements.
4
10.!Maintenance responsibilities for ROW landscaping shall be determined during site
5
plan review.
6
11.!For landscaping approved within the adjoining street rights-of-way including the
in-street rain gardens, the Applicant shall provide a 3-year financial guarantee for
7
their survivability. Trees or other approved plantings that die or become diseased
8
within the guarantee period shall be replaced and shall initiate a subsequent 3-year
period starting on the date of replacement.
9
PRIOR TO ROADWAY, PATHWAY AND INFRASTRUCTION
10
CONSTRUCTION
12.!To ensure compliance with City Engineering Design Standards, together with the
11
public and private street and utility installations required by this decision, the
following plans must be prepared, incorporated into and submitted with a
12
completed application for a Street and Utility Development Permit (SDP). These
plans shall be in substantial in conformance with the preliminary drawings
13
submitted as part of the application (Ex. C) except where modified by these
14
approval conditions. These plans must be reviewed and approved by City
engineering staff, and constructed or bonded for by the Applicant prior to final
15
approval of any development phase.
16
a. Engineered plans for the public streets serving this project including but not limited
to the location of all driveways, turn around areas, sidewalks , and drainage facilities;
17
b. Engineered plans for water service and sewer service for the project including
provisions for fire hydrant(s);
18
c. A final engineered stormwater drainage plan and report including construction
drawings complying with the requirements of the Puget Sound Stormwater
19
Management Manual and the Port Townsend Engineering Design standards must
20
be submitted to PCD and approved by Public Works staff prior to issuance of any
building permits. Said plan and report shall include detailed operation and
21
maintenance (O & M) provisions. Once approved by City engineering staff, the
O&M provisions must be formatted by the applicant (or their engineer) in a manner
22
which facilitates their incorporation into any required The need for HOA
responsibility shall be determined during SDP review.
23
d. A final engineered non-motorized trail plan meeting all applicable requirements
of City-adopted plans (Non-Motorized Transportation and the EDS) and the plans
24
approved by this decision.
e.!Any Street lighting shall be dark sky compliant and minimized in conformance
25
with the City's Street lighting policy (Ordinance 3271).
26
CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE PLAT/PLAT ALTERATION
PP/PA p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
13.The Applicant shall provide a mylar or other city-accepted reproduction of the
1
Plat/Plat Alteration to PCD for review and approval (5 paper copies and one
2
electronic .pdf version) as part of the final Plat/Plat Alteration approval process.
Said mylar shall contain the acknowledged signatures of all parties having an
3
ownership interest in the subject property as evidenced by an A.L.T.A. plat
certificate prepared by a local title company. Said plat certificate, or any update
4
provided, shall be less than 30days old. The approved Plat/Plat Alteration shall
not become effective until the mylars required for recording have been filed with
5
the Jefferson County Auditor. While the City will assist in recording the Plat/Plat
Alteration mylar, the Applicant is responsible for all fees associated with recording.
6
All property taxes due and owing on the subject property must be paid in full prior
to obtaining the signature of the Jefferson County Treasurer.
7
8
OTHER/ONGOING CONDITIONS
14.Future occupancy of any units shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the
9
Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC), including zoning, subdivision and the
Engineering Design Standards.
10
15.If the Applicant proposes to add any development signage, it may be necessary to
11
obtain a sign permit. Please contact the PCD Department for signage requirements
prior to ordering, fabricating or installing any signs.
12
SCHOOL CONDITIONS
13
th
14
16.The Applicant shall prepare a walking conditions assessment of 35Street for
students walking to and from school and school bus stops. The assessment shall
15
identify the availability of sidewalks and shouldersand address the visibility issues
identified in Exhibit K. City staff shall impose reasonable and proportionate
16
mitigation measures that may be necessary to ensure safe walking conditions, such
as crosswalks, shoulder widening and signage. Any such required measures shall
17
be implemented prior to final plat approval.
18
Dated this 17th day ofMay2024.
19
20
________________________________
Phil Olbrechts
21
City of Port Townsend Hearing Examiner
22
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
23
This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter
24
36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short,and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to
file a judicial appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural
25
requirements are satisfied.
26
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation
PP/PAp. 16Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Agenda Bill: AB26-087
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
Agenda Item: Consent VII.E
Regular Business Meeting
Workshop/Study Session
Special Business Meeting
Submitted By: Mike Connelly, PW Project Engineer Date Submitted: July 29, 2026
Department: Public Works Contact Phone: 360-531-2761
SUBJECT: Project Budget Increase– San Juan Avenue Rehabilitation
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
Consent Resolution Expenditure Amount: $35,875
Staff Report Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes No
Contract Approval Other: Budget Increase
Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted)
3-Year Strategic Plan: 4 - Ensure sustainable future for public services and facilities
Cost Allocation Fund: 103 Street
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
Staff requests approval of a budget increase to cover the final pay estimate for the San
Juan Avenue Rehabilitation project.
On June 1, 2026, City Council approved Agenda Bill 26-063 awarding the construction
contract to Nordland Construction NW in the amount of $288,038.10. The project
rehabilitated San Juan Avenue from Lopez Avenue to approximately 150 feet beyond
Admiralty Avenue through pavement pulverization, cement-treated base construction,
roadway grading, crushed surfacing, and related work.
Construction is complete. Final quantities were measured and reconciled using field
measurements and material load tickets. The final pay estimate is $325,874.05. The
primary increase resulted from higher roadway excavation quantities than originally
estimated to construct the required roadway cross-section. Suitable material was
reused on site where practical, while excess material was hauled off, and additional
crushed surfacing and cementitious material were required to complete the work.
The contract must be increased by $37,835.95, from $288,038.10 to $325,874.05.
Because the adopted project budget is $290,000, the requested budget increase is
$35,375, resulting in a revised budget of $325,875. The increase will be covered within
the approved 2026 street program by reallocating funds from future Transportation
Benefit District work. To provide Council with a clear view of available funding and final
project cost, the table below summarizes the current budget:
Changes to 2026 Street Repair and 3-year ending balance:
The increase can be accommodated within currently available TBD resources.After
accounting for this increase and other currently forecasted TBD commitments,
approximately $68,577 remains unallocated.
Staff recommends approval to process final payment and complete project closeout.
ATTACHMENTS:
N/A
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If adopted as part of the consent agenda, no further action is needed; this action
increases the San Juan Avenue Rehabilitation project budget by $35,875, from
$290,000 to $325,875 to processfinal payment and complete project closeout.
ALTERNATIVES:
Take No Action Refer to Committee Refer to Staff Postpone Action
Remove from Consent Agenda Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ____
Other:
PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL
CONSENT AGENDA
August 3, 2026
A. Approval of Bills, Claims and Warrants:
Vouchers 179815 through 179898 in the amount of $722,369.83
Electronic Fund Transfers in the amount of $209,025.41
B. Approval of Minutes: June 1, 2026, June 8, 2026, June 15, 2026
C. Appointments/Reappointments- Climate Action Committee
D. Resolution 26-017 Approving the Final Plat for Falling Waters (Formerly
Pods at the Vineyard), Located in Jefferson County, Washington, City File
No. LUP26-030
E. Project Budget Increase for San Juan Avenue Rehabilitation Projects
Action: Move to adopt the consent agenda or request to remove any individual
item from the consent agenda. (Short statements or easily resolved questions are
appropriate without removing item from the consent agenda).
Agenda Bill AB26-088
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
Agenda Item: IX.A
Regular Business Meeting
Workshop/Study Session
Special Business Meeting
Submitted By:Austin Watkins, City Attorney Date Submitted:07/29/2026
KT LaBadie, Code Compliance Officer
Department: City Attorney’s Office Contact Phone: (360) 390-4105
Planning and Community Development (360) 379-5094
SUBJECT: Settlement Agreement for Nor’West Village Code Enforcement Matters –
COD26-013
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:
ConsentResolutionExpenditure Amount:None
Staff Report Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes No
Contract Approval Other: Discussion Item
Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted)
3-Year Strategic Plan: N/A
Cost Allocation Fund: Choose an item.
SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Attorney’s Office (CAO), with the concurrence of
the Planning and Community Development Department (PCD), the City Manager, and
the Nor’West Village property owners present this settlement agreement to resolve
$127,500 in code enforcement penalties for COD26-013.
The proposed settlement terms include resolving all outstanding violations, payment of
$5,000 in penalties to cover staff time, and a commitment to have the Nor’West Village
units remain affordable for at least 3 years.
COD26-013 Overview:
On April 4, 2026, PCD issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Nor’West Village for:
Unsafe Conditions – International Building Code (IBC) 116.1
Unsecured enclosure panels, missing or detached gutters, broken light poles,
unsecured electrical wires, unsecured crawlspace wells, and a broken window.
Nuisance Conditions – PTMC 9.08.020, PTMC 9.080.030(C)(1-3), 9.08.030(D)(2), and
9.08.030(I)(1)
Accumulation of waste and junk, material accumulation, dumpsters overflowing,
and junk/inoperable vehicles.
Materials Constituting a Fire Hazard – PTMC 9.08.030(C)(4), International Fire Code
(IFC) 304.1.1 and 304.1.2
Large volume of dried leaf accumulation throughout the property, shrubs and
trees without adequate fire clearance to structures, moss and vegetation on roofs
and gutters, and exterior lint accumulation in dryer vents.
Failure to Maintain Required Trash Service – PTMC 6.04.040
Nor’West Village’s trash service was suspended on March 31, 2026 due to lack
of payment and trash was overflowing and accumulating in parking areas.
Penalty Amount:
$127,500 for 102 days of penalties. The violations began to accrue on April 4, 2026
(NOV date) and stopped accruing on July 15, 2026 (date of oral commitment by
Nor’West Village to correct all violations).
The daily penalty amount assigned for all violations was $1,250 - $250 base penalty
amount under PTMC 1.20.075(A) and $1,000 enhanced penalty due to public health
risk (lack of trash service) and history of similar violations under PTMC 1.20.075(F).
Under the proposed settlement agreement, Nor’West Village will pay $5,000 in penalties
to the City. These funds will be deposited into the City’s abatement fund to be used for
future code enforcement abatement matters. The $5,000 penalty represents staffs time
on this matter – 50 hours at $100 per hour.
Settlement Authority:
PTMC 1.20.075(F) authorizes up to a 50% reduction of penalties, in certain cases.
However, since this proposed settlement agreement includes $122,500 (96% reduction)
in penalty waiver, Council approval is required.
Settlement Terms:
A. The Property Owner will complete all maintenance and repairs to correct all
violations listed in the April 3, 2026 NOV by August 7, 2026 or provide contracts or other
documentation to the City by August 7, 2026 to demonstrate that work is scheduled to
occur to remedy the violations within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this
Agreement, with the following exceptions:
1. Property Owner to apply for a re-roof permit by August 7, 2026 and complete
the roof replacement within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this
Agreement.
2. Property Owner to repair or replace the broken window within fourteen (14)
days of the date the unit is vacated; however, if it is the only egress window
serving a bedroom it must be repaired immediately and cannot remain boarded
up.
B. If additional time for compliance is required beyond the dates in this Agreement
due to circumstances outside of the Property Owner’s control, such as contractor's
schedules, the Property Owner shall request an extension in writing prior to the
deadline. The City’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or
delayed.
C.Should the Property Owner fail to comply with these requirements in Section 3(A-
B), $122,500 in penalties must be paid immediately.
D.The Property Owner agrees that the Property shall remain affordable to
households earning no more than 60% of the area median income for three (3) years
after the effective date of this Agreement. The Property Owner may transfer the
Property to another owner. Compliance may be demonstrated by providing the City with
a letter of intent, purchase and sale agreement, or similar document recognizing that the
Property will continue to be used for affordable housing consistent with this requirement.
Upon the City’s written approval of such documentation, the penalty waiver in this
Agreement shall become final (unless the corrective measures and deadlines in Section
3(A) are not adhered to), and neither the Property Owner, nor purchaser shall have any
obligation to pay the waived penalties or fees. The City’s approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Should the Property be converted to
market rate housing or transferred to another owner for the purposes of market rate
housing, $122,500 in penalties must be paid immediately.
E. The Property Owner will pay the City $5,000 in penalties, due within 30 days of
the effective date of this Agreement. The $5,000 in penalties is to reimburse the City for
staff time associated with this enforcement matter, which is 50 hours at $100 per hour.
F. Upon completion of the actions described in Section 3 (A-E), the City will:
1. Close code enforcement cases COD26-013; and,
2. The City will eliminate $122,500 of the accrued penalties in COD26-013,
consistent with the requirements of this Agreement.
Nor’West Village Involvement:
Nor’West Village’s parent owner is the Catholic Charites of Eastern Washington
(CCEW). CCEW informed the City that as of 7/1/2026 Ad-West Realty Services is now
managing Nor’West Village and actively working with CCEW to correct any outstanding
violations. PCD and CAO staff worked closely with CCEW to negotiate the requirements
and deadlines for voluntary compliance in this proposed settlement agreement. CCEW’s
President and Executive Director for Catholic Housing Ventures has reviewed the
proposed agreement and concurs.
Summary:
This settlement agreement remedies all outstanding code compliance matters for
Nor’West Village – improving the living conditions of their residents, while preserving
Nor’West Village as affordable housing for at least 3 years.Staff believes that this
agreement is in the best interests of the City, property owners, residents, and
community members.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. April 4, 2026 Notice of Violation
2. July 9, 2026 Notice of Civil Penalty Accrual
3. Proposed Settlement Agreement - Nor’West Village / COD26-013
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve Nor’West Village / COD26-013
Settlement Agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the Settlement
Agreement.
ALTERNATIVES:
Take No Action Refer to Committee Refer to Staff Postpone Action
Remove from Consent Agenda Waive Council Rules
Other:
NOR’WEST VILLAGE / COD26-013
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this _____ day of August, 2026,
by and between the City of Port Townsend, a Washington municipal corporation (“City”), and
Nor’West Village-PT LLC (“Property Owner”) and collectively referred herein as the (“Parties”).
In consideration of the release of certain claims, as well as the mutual covenants and
promises contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this
Agreement agree as follows:
1. Purpose. The Parties enter into this Agreement to settle all currently known claims
and controversiesrelated to the issues related to real property located at 1921 Sherman Street, Port
Townsend, Washington 98368, Jefferson County Tax Assessor ID # 948314201, legally described
as Eisenbeis Addition Blk 142 Lots 1 to 8 Blk 159 Lots 1 to 8 w/ptn Vac Hancock St (“Property”).
The Parties understand that the penalties described in Section 2 are due and owing to the City. The
purpose of this Agreement is to obtain expeditious full code compliance and other promisesat the
Property in exchange for a reduced penalty.
2. Penalties. On April 3, 2026, the City issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) against
the Property under COD26-013 related to: (1) unsafe conditions (IBC 116.1); (2) nuisance
conditions (PTMC 9.08.020, 9.08.030(C)(1-3), 9.08.030(D)(2), and 9.08.030(I)(1)); materials
constituting a fire hazard (PTMC 9.08.030(C)(4), IFC 304.1.1, and IFC 304.1.2); and, failure to
maintain required trash service (PTMC 6.04.040). The date to cure the code violations varied from
April 3, 2026 to June 4, 2026. Based on the compliance dates listed in the NOV, penalties accrued
and continued to accrue until the violations were remedied or the Property Owner orally agreed to
remedy outstanding violations. The Property Owner has accrued penalties in the amount of
$127,500.
3. Terms of Settlement. As an alternative to paying the penalty identified in Section
2, the Parties willsettle the penalty due to the Cityupon the following terms:
A. The Property Owner will complete all maintenance and repairs to correct all
violations listed in the April 3, 2026 NOV by August 7, 2026 or provide contracts
or other documentation to the City by August 7, 2026 to demonstrate that work
is scheduled to occur to remedy the violations within sixty (60) days of the
effective date of this Agreement, with the following exceptions:
A. Property Owner to apply for a re-roof permit by August 7, 2026 and
complete the roof replacement within ninety (90) days of the effective
date of this Agreement.
B. Property Owner to repair or replace the broken window within fourteen
(14) days of the date the unit is vacated; however, if it is the only egress
window serving a bedroom it must be repaired immediately and cannot
remain boarded up.
B. If additional time for compliance is required beyond the dates in this Agreement
due to circumstances outside of the Property Owner’s control, such as
contractor's schedules, the Property Ownershall request an extension in writing
Page 1 of 4
COD26-013 Nor’West Village Settlement Agreement
prior to the deadline. The City’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned, or delayed.
C. Should the Property Owner fail to comply with these requirements in Section
3(A-B), $122,500 in penalties must be paid immediately.
D. The Property Owner agrees that the Property shall remain affordable to
households earning no more than 60% of the area median income for three (3)
years after the effective date of this Agreement. The Property Owner may transfer
the Property to another owner. Compliance may be demonstrated by providing
the City with a letter of intent, purchase and sale agreement, or similar document
recognizing that the Property will continue to be used for affordable housing
consistent with this requirement. Upon the City’s written approval of such
documentation, the penalty waiver in this Agreement shall become final (unless
the corrective measures and deadlines in Section 3(A) are not adhered to), and
neither the Property Owner, nor purchaser shall have any obligation to pay the
waived penalties or fees. The City’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned, or delayed. Should the Property be converted to market rate housing
or transferred to another owner for the purposes of market rate housing, $122,500
in penalties must be paid immediately.
E. The Property Owner will pay the City $5,000 in penalties, due within 30 days of
the effective date of this Agreement. The $5,000 in penalties is to reimburse the
City for staff time associated with this enforcement matter, which is 50 hours at
$100 per hour.
F. Upon completion of the actions described in Section 3 (A-E), the City will:
A. Close code enforcement cases COD26-013; and,
B. The City will eliminate $122,500 of the accrued penalties in COD26-
013, consistent with the requirements of this Agreement.
4. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any legal proceeding to enforce the terms of, or
adjudicate any issues relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party in such proceeding shall be
entitled to collect from the non-prevailing party their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses.
5. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties
hereto and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to permit anyone other than the Parties
hereto and their successors and assigns to rely upon the covenants and agreements herein contained
nor to give any such third party any rights or a cause of action (as a third-party beneficiary or
otherwise) to enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
6. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced according to
the substantive laws of the State of Washington. Jurisdiction and venue of any legal proceeding
relating to this Agreement shall be exclusively in the Jefferson County Superior Court of the State
of Washington.
Page 2 of 4
COD26-013 Nor’West Village Settlement Agreement
7. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties
hereto and to their respective officers, directors, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents,
representatives, receivers, trustees, successors, transferees and assigns, including the payment of
any penalties due and owing. The provisions of this Agreement shall be covenants running with
the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective
heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns.
8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of identical
counterparts, notwithstanding that all parties have not signed the same counterpart, with the same
effect as if all parties had signed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed as and
shall constitute one and the same agreement.
9. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with regard to this Agreement, and
signature is required no later than August 7, 2026.
10. No Admission of Liability. This Agreement does not constitute and shall not be
construed as an admission of liability or responsibility on the part of any of the Parties, who
continue to deny all liability and disclaim all responsibility. The Parties have entered into this
Agreement solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense and uncertainty of litigation.
11. Cooperation in Execution of Documents. The Parties agree to properly and
promptly execute and deliver any and all additional documents that may be necessary or desirable
to render this Agreement legally and practically effective. This paragraph shall not require the
execution of any document that expands, alters or in any way changes the terms of this Agreement.
12. Authority. The Parties each represent and warrant that they have full power and
actual authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out all actions required of them by this
Agreement. All persons executing this Agreement in a representative capacity represent and
warrant that they have full power and authority to bind their respective corporations, partnerships
and/or entities.
A. City Council Approval. On August 3, 2026, the Port Townsend City Council
approved this Agreement and authorized the City Manager to execute this
Agreement.
13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties
on all these subjects. This Agreement may not be modified, interpreted, waived or revoked, except
by a writing signed by all Parties. This Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior agreements,
discussions and representations on all these subjects, all of which are merged into, and superseded
by, this Agreement. No party is entering into this Agreement in reliance on any oral or written
promises, inducements, representations, understandings, interpretations, or agreements, other than
those contained in this Agreement.
14. Equal Opportunity to Participate in Drafting. The Parties have had an equal
opportunity to participate in the preparation of this Agreement.
Page 3 of 4
COD26-013 Nor’West Village Settlement Agreement
15. Full Understanding; Independent Counsel. The Parties each acknowledge,
represent and agree that they have read this Agreement; that they fully understand the terms
thereof; and that they have been fully advised by their independent legal counsel or have had the
opportunity to be so advised in connection with the terms of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed effective as
of the date first written above (the “Effective Date”).
PROPERTY OWNER
______________________________________
Signature
_____________________________________
Print Name and Title
Dated this ____ day of August, 2026
City Manager, City of Port Townsend
______________________________________
Signature
_____________________________________
Print Name
Dated this ____ day of August, 2026
Page 4 of 4
COD26-013 Nor’West Village Settlement Agreement
Agenda Bill AB26-089
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
Agenda Item:IX.C
Regular Business Meeting
Workshop/Study Session
Special Business Meeting
Submitted By: Cynthia Shaffer Date Submitted: July 30, 2026
Department: People and Performance Contact Phone: 379-5045
SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction Regarding City Manager Transition and
Recruitment Strategy
CATEGORY:BUDGET IMPACT:
ConsentResolutionExpenditure Amount: $0
Staff Report Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes No
Contract Approval Other:
noted)
Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise
3-Year Strategic Plan:
Cost Allocation Fund: 010-015 GF - Human Resources - General
SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the July 27, 2026, Special Session City Council
Workshop Meeting, Council received the City Manager Transition and Recruitment -
Discussion Framewor k, which was prepared to facilitate discussion regarding the
upcoming City Manager transition and potential approaches for recruiting a City
Manager.
The framework outlines several transition strategies, identifies key policy
considerations, and provides an overview of the recruitment process. The document
was intended as a discussion framework and does not recommend a preferred
approach.
To support Council’s discussion and interest in further exploring Approach 2 – Extended
Interim Appointment with Deferred Recruitment, staff has prepared a supplemental
discussion document illustrating several potential organizational implementation
models. These examples are intended to support Council discussion regarding
executive leadership structure, operational continuity, and succession planning. They
are illustrative only and are not recommendations.
Council is asked to consider the transition approaches presented in the discussion
framework or any others they wish to propose and discuss,and determine the preferred
strategy for managing the City Manager transition.
If Council determines that Approach 2 is the preferred transition strategy, the
supplemental discussion document provides four illustrative implementation options for
consideration. The implementation options are intended to facilitate discussion and
comparison. Council may select one of the illustrative options, combine elements from
multiple options,or direct staff to develop an alternative organizational approach that
aligns with Council’s policy objectives.
Fiscal impacts will vary depending on the transition strategy and implementation option
selected by Council. Potential costs may include external recruitment services, interim
assignments, temporary appointments, organizational structure changes, or other
implementation-related expenses. Any necessary budget adjustments or position
actions will be presented to Council for consideration as implementation proceeds.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – City Manager Transition and Recruitment – Discussion Framework
(previously provided)
Attachment B – Supplemental Discussion Document –Consideration of Approach 2:
Extended Interim Appointment with Deferred Recruitment
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to select \[APPROACH\] for City Manager transition, including \[OPTION\], and
\[IF OPTION A OR B\], direct the City Manager to:
Bring back to City Council a job description and salary schedule for a Deputy City
Manager position.
or
Bring back to City Council a job description and salary schedule for a temporary
Executive Advisor position.
\[IF OPTION C OR D\],
Appoint the Public Works Director as Interim City Manager.
ALTERNATIVES:
Take No ActionRefer to CommitteeRefer to StaffPostpone Action
Remove from Consent Agenda Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ____
Other:
City Manager Transition and Recruitment -Discussion Framework
This discussion framework is provided to support a Council discussion regarding City Manager transition
and recruitment options. It presents potential approaches, decision points, governance considerations,
and illustrative timelines for information purposes only.
This document is intended solely as a discussion framework to assist City Council in evaluating potential
transition approaches, recruitment approaches, and governance considerations. It is not intended to
recommend a specific approach, establish Council direction, or represent a final decision regarding the
City Manager transition process.
Council-City Manager form of Government-General Overview
The Council-Manager form of government establishes a distinction between policy leadership and
professional administration. City Council establishes the City’s vision, goals, and policies, while the City
Manager is responsible for implementing those policies and managing the day-to-day operations of the
City.
Under the Council-Manager form of government, the City Manager serves as the Council’s appointed
executive administrator and is generally the Council’s sole direct employee. Department directors and
other employees operate within the administrative structure under the authority of the City Manager,
consistent with applicable law and City policy.
City Council ResponsibilitiesCity Manager Responsibilities
Establishes the City’s vision, goals, and strategic Implements the policies and direction established
priorities.by City Council.
Adopts ordinances, resolutions, policies, and the Manages the daily operations of the City and
annual budget.oversees municipal services.
Appoints, evaluates, and may remove the City Recommends policies, programs, and operational
Manager, consistent with applicable law and the improvements to Council.Serves as the chief
employment agreement.policy advisor to Council.
Sets policy direction and makes legislative Prepares and administers the annual budget and
decisions on behalf of the community.long-range financial plans.
Approves the City’s budget, major contracts, and Provides administrative leadership, supervises
capital improvement plans.City employees, and appoints department
directors consistent with applicable authority.
Potential Discussion Topics
Consider immediate appointment or interim leadership approaches.
Consider internal or external interim appointment approaches.
Consider timing options for permanent executive recruitment.
Consider use of executive recruitment services.
Consider appropriate levels of public engagement.
Potential Future Council Decision Points
Appoint a permanent City Manager or Interim City Manager, as appropriate.
1
Determine whether executive recruitment services are appropriate.
Review and select semi-finalists.
Review and select finalists.
Approve employment agreement.
Conduct first-year evaluation planning.
Four Transition Considerations
Transition Approaches for Council Consideration
Following a City Manager transition, City Council may consider several approaches to maintaining
leadership continuity while determining the appropriate timing and process for selecting a permanent City
Manager. The approach may depend on factors such as organizational considerations, timing, recruitment
conditions, available internal resources, and Council priorities.
The transition approaches below are provided for discussion purposes only and are not intended to
recommend a preferred course of action. Council direction would determine the approach selected.
Approach 1: Immediate Appointment of an Internal Candidate
Under this approach, Council considers appointing an existing City employee to serve as City Manager on a
permanent basis.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderationsfor Council
Provides continuity of leadership and supports The employee’s existing responsibilities may
ongoing operations.require recruitment, reassignment, or additional
support.
Maintains familiarity with City operations, ongoing Council may wish to consider how the
initiatives, and organizational relationships. appointment aligns with the City’s longer-term
recruitment approach.
Council may also consider whether a broader Clear communication regarding roles,
recruitment would be appropriate following such expectations, and transition plans may be
an appointment.important.
Approach 2: Extended Interim Appointment with Deferred Recruitment
Under this approach, Council considers appointing an internal candidate to serve as Interim City Manager
for an extended period and determine the appropriate timing for beginning the permanent recruitment
process.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderations for Council
Council may consider establishing clear expectations,
recruitment timing and approach.authority, and performance objectives for the Interim
City Manager.
Provides additional time to evaluate Interim arrangements may require adjustments to
leadership needs and recruitment organizational responsibilities.
considerations.
Supports a deliberative recruitment process.Communication with employees and community
members may be an important consideration.
2
Approach 3: Interim Appointment While Conducting Concurrent Recruitment
Under this approach, Council considers appointing an internal candidate to serve as Interim City Manager
while beginning the recruitment process for the permanent position.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderations for Council
Provides immediate leadership continuity while Temporary adjustments may be needed to support
maintaining progress toward permanent the Interim City Manager’s existing responsibilities
recruitment. or position.
Allows recruitment activities to proceed without Balancing transition responsibilities and
delaying the selection process.recruitment activities may require additional
coordination.
Provides an opportunity for the organization to Internal candidates and employees may require
maintain operational stability during recruitment.clear communication regarding the process.
Approach 4: Contract with an Experienced Interim ExecutiveWhile Conducting Concurrent
Recruitment
Under this approach, Council considers appointing an experienced municipal executive on a temporary
basis while conducting a permanent recruitment process.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderations for Council
Provides experienced executive leadership during May involve higher transition-related costs.
a transition.
Brings experience with municipal government, May require time to become familiar with local
recruitment processes, and organizational priorities, projects, and community context.
transitions.
Allows internal leadership to remain focused on The temporary nature of the appointment should
ongoing operations.be clearly defined.
Acting vs. Interim City Manager
These terms are sometimes used interchangeably. For purposes of this framework, the following
definitions apply.
Acting City ManagerInterim City Manager
Usually an internal employee who temporarily Formally appointed to serve until permanent hire is
performs the duties.made.
Often serves during vacations or short absences.Serves during City Manager recruitment.
Usually retains original position in addition to the Often serves solely as City Manager during the
acting position.interim appointment.
Typically short in duration.May serve in position for several months.
Authority may be defined by Council appointment Generally exercises authority delegated by Council
terms and applicable delegation practices.through the appointment action and applicable
law.
3
Council Expectations During an Interim Appointment
Interim City Manager RoleExamples of Situations Warranting Early Council
Communication
Maintain continuity of operations.Significant organizational restructuring or department-level
changes.
Implement Council policy.Significant executive personnel decisions, consistent with
the Council-Manager form of government and applicable
authority.
Continue approved strategic initiatives.New long-term policy initiatives.
Maintain employee engagement.Major budget changes outside the adopted workplan.
Keep Council informed of emerging
issues.
Prepare the organization for the
permanent manager.
Illustrative City Manager Recruitment Timeline
The 10–12-monthtimeline below represents a possible recruitment sequence. Actual timelines may vary
depending on Council direction, recruitment approach, market conditions, candidate availability, and
other factors.
In addition to the activities outlined below, a communication strategy is an important component
throughout this entire recruitment process.
The communication strategy may includethe following: Employee communications, community
communications, media inquiries, candidate confidentiality, finalist announcement, appointment
announcement, and transition communications. Many of these communications are developed by City
leadership in coordination with the executive recruiter.
Communication throughout the transition process should support transparency while recognizing the
importance of candidate confidentiality and maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process.
PhaseDurationActivity/NotesLead
Transition 4 weeksAppoint Interim City Manager, establish expectations, Council
Planningdevelop recruitment approach.
4
Procure 5-6 weeksPeople and
Develop RFP advertise, interview executive recruiting
Executive Performance
and negotiate contractwith chosen executive
Recruiterand Council
recruiter.
Examples of what the executive recruiter mayprovide:
Community engagement, communication strategy,
stakeholder interviews, leadership profile, recruitment
brochure/community profile, targeted outreach,
candidate screening, candidate communication,
reference and background review, interview facilitation,
and transition support.
Community 2-3 weeksRecruiter
Engagement–not to select the City Manager.with People
and
If Council chooses to provide opportunities for the Performance
isto allow support
residents to learn about the candidates and provide
general observations to Council.
Organizational 3–4 weeksExecutive recruiter interviews Council, department Recruiter
Assessmentdirectors, employee groups, community members, and
regional partners.
Develop 2 weeksCouncil reviews and adopts recruitment community Council
Recruitment
by executive recruiter.
Active 10-12 National, regional, ICMA, WCMA, MRSC, and targeted Recruiter
Recruitmentweeksoutreach. Executive recruiter actively engages with
potential candidates.
Candidate 3–4 weeksExecutive recruiter reviews resumes, screens applicants, Recruiter
Screeninginterviews candidates, completes reference checks, and
preliminary background review, as appropriate.
Council 2 weeksRecruiter
Review of
Semi-
Council 1-2 weeksCouncil
Interviews
Finalist 3 weeksFinalists selected. Complete background investigations, Recruiter
Assessmentcommunity visits, spouse/family visits if appropriate,
public reception (optional).
Contract 2–3 weeksCouncil
Negotiationnegotiations, employment agreement, and relocation
discussions).
Notice Period 6–12 weeksAllow time for candidate to provide notice and, if needed,Council
& Relocationrelocate to area.
5
Recruitment Market Considerations–These factors may affect the size of the candidate pool,
recruitment duration, compensation competitiveness, and relocation considerations:
Geographic location and candidate relocation considerations
Conditions within the broader municipal executive recruitment market
Regional housing market conditions
Candidate relocation factors
This framework is intended to support a public Council discussion regarding leadership transition, recruitment, and
governance considerations associated with the City Manager position. Any appointment, recruitment action, policy
adoption, budget authorization, or contractual decision would require separate Council action at a noticed public meeting.
6
City Manager Succession Planning
Succession planning is intended to improve organizational preparedness when a vacancy occurs by
establishing governance processes for emergency leadership, recruitment, onboarding, and knowledge
transfer. The framework focuses on continuity of governance and operations rather than identifying
individual successors.
The succession planning practice intended to promote leadership continuity and organizational readiness.
It does not identify or designate future City Manager candidates or predetermine future Council
appointment decisions.
City Manager Succession Planning Framework
This framework addresses planned transitions by establishing governance processes for leadership
continuity, recruitment, and onboarding.
1. Planned Transition -Provides a structured process for anticipated departures, including retirement,
resignation, or completion of an employment agreement. Planning may include transition timelines,
knowledge transfer, and overlapping responsibilities where appropriate.
2. Acting and Interim Appointments -Distinguishes between:
Acting City Manager for immediate operational continuity following an unexpected vacancy or
temporary absence.
Interim City Manager appointed by Council to lead the organization during the recruitment
process if a longer transition period is anticipated.
3. Recruitment Approach -Council establishes the approach for recruiting the next City Manager,
considering factors such as:
Internal and external candidate pools;
Executive search services, if appropriate;
Recruitment timelines;
Desired leadership competencies and qualifications; and
Stakeholder engagement, as determined by Council.
4. Selection and Appointment Process -The framework outlines Council's role in:
Developing the recruitment profile;
Evaluating candidates;
Conducting interviews and assessments;
Selecting the successful candidate; and
Negotiating the employment agreement.
5. Leadership Transition and Knowledge Transfer -Where possible, the outgoing City Manager provides
a transition through documentation of strategic priorities, key relationships, significant projects,
organizational risks, and other information that promotes continuity.
7
6. Onboarding and Integration -Council establishes a structured onboarding process to support the
incoming City Manager, which may include:
Orientation to Council priorities;
Introductions to executive leadership and community partners;
Governance expectations;
Strategic planning documents; and
Performance objectives for the first year.
7. Periodic Review of the Succession Plan -Council reviews the succession framework at regular
intervals or following a City Manager transition to ensure it remains current and reflects appropriate
practices.
8
Continuity Management and City Manager Transition Framework
This framework treats City Manager succession as an ongoing Council responsibility rather than an event
that occurs when a vacancy arises. Council periodically reviews succession readiness while respecting
the City Manager's responsibility for organizational administration.
1. Adopt a City Manager Succession Planning Policy
Council adopts a policy that defines the purpose and objectives of succession planning, Council's
responsibilities, the City Manager's responsibilities in supporting transition planning, guiding principles for
leadership continuity, and review and reporting requirements.
2. Establish Governance Roles and Responsibilities
Council
Maintains oversight of the succession planning framework.
Reviews succession readiness periodically.
Confirms emergency leadership arrangements.
Directs recruitment and appointment processes when required.
Mayor
Coordinates Council actions during a transition.
Serves as Council's primary liaison throughout the recruitment and transition process.
Supports communication with the City Manager and external stakeholders.
City Manager
Recommends emergency acting arrangements.
Maintains documentation to support organizational continuity.
Ensures executive leadership is prepared to maintain operations during a transition.
People & Performance Director
Maintains succession planning documentation.
Coordinates recruitment activities as directed by Council.
Supports onboarding and executive transition activities.
3. Establish Succession Readiness Reviews
Rather than reviewing individual candidates, Council periodically confirms that governance processes
remain current by considering whether:
Emergency succession arrangements remain appropriate;
Key governance documents are up to date;
Recruitment processes reflect current practices;
Onboarding resources are current; and
Lessons learned from previous transitions have been incorporated.
9
4. Develop a Leadership Transition Framework
Prepare a governance checklist that can be activated when a transition occurs. Topics may include:
Council decision-making timelines;
Appointment of an Acting or Interim City Manager;
Recruitment planning;
Communication protocols;
Orientation for an incoming City Manager; and
Transfer of strategic priorities and governance expectations.
This framework enables Council to respond consistently regardless of the reason for the vacancy.
5. Maintain Document Resources
Develop and periodically update document resources that support leadership transitions, such as:
Council strategic priorities;
Current organizational structure;
Council policies;
Major initiatives and capital projects;
Budget information;
Legislative obligations;
Community and regional partnerships; and
Council orientation materials.
These resources assist incoming City Managers in understanding organizational priorities and governance
expectations.
6. Conduct Post-Transition Reviews
Following the appointment of a new City Manager, Council evaluates the effectiveness of the succession
process by considering:
Effectiveness of the process;
Recruitment outcomes;
Transition activities;
Onboarding effectiveness; and
Opportunities for continuous improvement.
Lessons learned will inform future updates to the succession planning framework.
Council responsibilities
Maintain the City Manager succession policy.
Review succession readiness on a periodic basis.
Confirm emergency succession arrangements.
Establish recruitment parameters and principles.
Evaluate lessons learned following leadership transitions.
City Manager responsibilities
Recommend continuity arrangements, including emergency acting arrangements.
Maintain documentation to support operational continuity.
Ensure organizational preparedness during transitions.
10
City Manager Transition and Recruitment Discussion Framework
Supplemental Discussion Document:Consideration ofApproach 2
Extended InterimAppointment with Deferred Recruitment
If Council selects this approach, implementation of an extended interim appointment
and transition priorities.
The following implementation options are provided to illustrate different organizational
structures that could be used to implement Approach 2. The options are intended
tofacilitateCouncil discussionregardingthe overall transition strategy and executive
leadership structure.
Regardless of the implementation option selected, the Interim City Manager would serve at
the pleasure of Council and exercise the authority delegated by Council during the interim
appointment.
Public Works Leadership Transition
The Public Works Director position oftendefaults to Acting City Manager.The acting role is
identified in the Public Works Director job description.The current Public Works Director
has served in an acting capacity on a regular basis over the past six years.
Appointment of the Public Works Director as Interim City Manager wouldrequire a
transition in Public Works leadership tomaintaincontinuity of operations and ongoing
projects.
For purposes of illustrating the implementation options below, the following assumptions
organizational approaches.
The implementation options below are examples only and
areintendedtoillustratepotential organizational structures.Councilmaymodifyor
develop an alternative approach during its discussion.
1
Option ADeputy City Manager Transition Model
Prior to the City Manager's departure, the current City Manager appoints the Public Works
Director to the position of Deputy City Manager. Upon the City Manager's departure,
Council appoints the Deputy City Manager to serve as Interim City Manager.The People
and Performance Department would create the Deputy City Manager job descriptionand
present to Councilforconsideration.
Prior to departure, thecurrent City Managermayinitiaterecruitment planningforthe
Public Works Director position.Following appointment, the Interim City Manager manages
the recruitment process.
The Deputy City Manager positionremainsvacant during the City Manager recruitment
process. Following appointment of the City Manager, the Interim City Manager transitions
back into the Deputy City Manager position to provide executive leadership support
andassistwith implementation of Council priorities.
Upon appointmentof theDeputy City Manager, theDeputyPublic Works Director assumes
the role ofInterimPublic Works Director.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderations for Council
Provides continuity before, during, and after Creation of a Deputy City Manager position
the leadership transition.requires Council consideration of
organizational structure, budget and long-
term operational needs.
Increasesexecutive leadership capacity to
support strategic initiatives.responsibilities.
Allows the new City Manager to focus on Determinehow responsibilities will be
organizational leadership divided between the City Manager and
whileleveraginginstitutional knowledge.Deputy City Manager following the
transition.
Supports succession planning and long-term Determine ongoing funding for the position.
leadership development.
Retains institutional knowledge.
Option BInterim City Manager with Temporary Executive Advisor Transition
Council appoints the Public Works Director as Interim City Manager.
Public Works leadership is maintained through a temporary appointment, which may
include the Deputy Public Works Director serving in an interim capacity or another
temporary appointment as determined by the Interim City Manager.
2
Upon appointment of the City Manager, the Interim City Manager transitions to a temporary
Executive Advisor assignment for a defined period to support onboarding, organizational
continuity, and completion of key initiatives before concludingthe temporary assignment
and concluding City employment.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderations for Council
Provides continuity throughout the Clearly define the scope, duration,
transition.andobjectiveof the Executive Advisor
assignment.
Preserves institutional knowledge during the Clearly communicate the Executive
onboarding of the new City Manager.
executive authority.
Allows the new City Manageraccess Determinefunding and duration for the
tohistorical context and organizational temporary assignment.
relationships.
Supports completion of strategic initiatives Ensure the assignmentcomplementsthe
without creating anadditionalexecutive authority of the new City Manager.
position.
Provides flexibility by defined transition
periodwhilelimitingbudgetimpacts.
Option CInterim City Manager with Direct Transition
Council appoints the Public Works Director as Interim City Manager.
Upon appointmentof theInterim City Manager, the Deputy Public Works Director assumes
the role of Interim Public Works Director while the Interim City Manager manages the
transition andsubsequentrecruitment for the vacant Public Works Director position.
Upon appointment of the City Manager, the Interim City Manager concludes the interim
assignment and separates from City employment.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderations for Council
Straightforward and clearly defined Institutional knowledge transfer occurs over a
transition.shortertimeframe.
Avoidscreatingadditionalexecutive The new City Manager will have less transition
positions or temporary assignments.support during onboarding.
May reduce transition-related costs.Strategic priority projects initiatedduring the
interim may require reassignment, a pause, or
reduced resourcing.
Option DInterim City Manager with Return to Prior Position
Council appoints the Public Works Director as Interim City Manager.
3
The Public Works Director position is filled by a temporary appointment (internal or outside
consultant).
Upon appointment of the City Manager, the Interim City Manager concludes the interim
assignment and returns to the Public Works Director position.
Potential AdvantagesConsiderations for Council
Retains an experienced Public Works Determine how Public Works leadership will be
Director following completion of the maintained during the interim appointment.
interim assignment.
Preserves institutional knowledge Clearly communicate the temporary leadership
within both executive leadership and structure and transition plan to employees and the
Public Works operations.public.
Avoids creating an executive position Evaluate compensation and employment terms
or temporary post-transition associated with the interim assignment and return
assignment.to the Public Works Director position.
Provides organizational continuity by Determine whether the Public Works Director
allowing the Interim City Manager to position should be filled through an internal acting
return to an established leadership assignment or a temporary external appointment
role.during the interim period.
Defers recruitment for the Public Consider whether delaying recruitment for the
Works Director position by allowing the Public Works Director position aligns with the
incumbent to return to the role -term workforce planning and
following the interim appointment.succession objectives.
OptionsPost-Transition RoleExecutive Organizational
Leadership Complexity
Structure
Option A Returns to Deputy City Manager Deputy City ManagerModerate
position
Option B TemporaryExecutive AdvisorTemporaryExecutive Moderate
Advisor
Option C No continuing executive assignmentCity Manager onlyLow
Option D Returns to Public Works Director City Manager onlyLow
position
4
Flow diagram
5
Agenda Bill: AB26-090
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
Agenda Item: IX.D
Regular Business Meeting
Workshop/Study Session
Special Business Meeting
Submitted By: Steve King, PW Director Date Submitted: July 21, 2026
Department: Public Works Contact Phone: 360-379-5090
SUBJECT: Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan update – Recommendation
for Support
CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT:N/A
Consent Resolution Expenditure Amount:
Staff Report Ordinance Included in Budget? Yes No
Contract Approval Other:
Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted)
3-Year Strategic Plan: 4 - Ensure sustainable future for public services and facilities
Cost Allocation Fund: 415 Water Sewer CIP
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
Background:
The Revised Code of Washington sets forth the fundamentals of water resource policy
to ensure the waters of the state will be protected and fully utilized for the greatest
benefits to the people of the state and establishes procedures for the coordination of
water utilities within the community.
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners declared Jefferson County to be a
Critical Water Supply Service Area and initiated an effort to undertake and develop the
Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP). The CWSP has been developed to comply
with the provisions of state statutes and county resolution.
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners approved a contract with HDR Inc. for
consultant services to update the CWSP at a cost of $151,947 ($9.545 per connection).
Jefferson County will not have sufficient funds to proceed with the update of the CWSP
without fiscal contributions from the County’s two largest water purveyors, namely the
City and Jefferson PUD. Based on the City’s number of water service connections, Port
Townsend’s cost share of $60,000 was approved by the Council on May 5, 2025 via
resolution.
Updating the CWSP complies with Washington State statutes and supports a planning
for continued sustainable supply of drinking water for our growing communities and
region.
Update:
The Public Works Director serves as the City’s representative on the Jefferson County
Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC). Over the past year, the committee has
worked to review and participate in the development of an updated plan. The main
focus of this plan update compared to the previous 1997 plan is to focus on the impacts
of climate change (refer to Chapter 7 of the plan). Note that the plan reinforces a
recent priority of Council to address water storage.
Coordinated water system plans are required to focus on municipal water supplies and
specifically, Group A and B systems as outlined in Table 7-1. Additionally, the goal of
this plan is to create opportunity for collaboration and a holistic approach to public water
system operations in the County for the benefit of the region.
Staff would like to point out that agricultural uses are not an allowed municipal water
state law and is not addressed in the enabling legislation for coordinated water system
planning. However, the City requested language and policies be added to the plan to
address potential agricultural in the future given any water use does potentially impact
water supplies, especially given climate change. Staff expects the WUCC will agree to
include the following policy.
Chapter 7 Policy: Consider development of water storage for municipal and non-
municipal uses to address increasing water demands. For example, agricultural uses
are not provided for under municipal water law, however, may be a public priority for
food resiliency and/or economic sustainability.
City staff recommends authorizing the Public Works Director as a member of the Water
Utility Coordinating Committee to vote in favor of a recommendation for adoption by the
Board of County Commissioners including the above suggested policy.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Coordinated Water System Plan
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize the Public Works Director to vote in favor of a recommendation to
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners for adoption of the Updated
Coordinated Water System Plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
Take No Action Refer to Committee Refer to Staff Postpone Action
Remove from Consent Agenda Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance ____
Other:
DRAFT
2026 Coordinated Water
System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
July 23, 2026
Date Adopted by Council: ___________
Date Approved by Washington State
Department of Health: ____________
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ES-1
ES.1 History of the CWSP ........................................................................................................... ES-1
ES.2 Key Issues Examined in the 2026 CWSP Update .............................................................. ES-1
ES.3 Summary of Policy Statements ........................................................................................... ES-2
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 The Coordination Act.................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Jefferson County Critical Water Supply Service Area .................................................. 1
1.1.3 Jefferson County Water Utility Coordinating Committee .............................................. 2
1.2 Lead Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Relation to Other Water Resource Management Efforts .......................................................... 4
1.3.1 Watershed Planning ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Quilcene-Snow Watershed Management Program Rule ............................................. 5
1.4 Relation to Individual Water System Plans ............................................................................... 5
1.5 Organization of CWSP .............................................................................................................. 6
1.6 CWSP Approval ........................................................................................................................ 7
1.7 Future CWSP Updates .............................................................................................................. 8
2 The Coordinated Water System Plan Process in Jefferson County ................................................... 8
2.1 History of Water System Development in Jefferson County ..................................................... 8
2.2 2025 Coordinated Water System Plan Update ....................................................................... 11
3 Water Utility Service Areas ................................................................................................................ 11
3.1 Purpose of Service Areas........................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Service Area Definitions .......................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Duty to Serve ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Historical Service Area Designations and Agreements .......................................................... 13
3.5 Contested Service Areas......................................................................................................... 14
3.6 Service Areas of Non-Expanding Systems ............................................................................. 14
3.7 Service Area Change Procedure ............................................................................................ 15
3.8 Wellhead Protection ................................................................................................................ 15
3.8.1 State Regulations ....................................................................................................... 15
3.8.2 Jefferson County CARA Regulations ......................................................................... 16
3.8.3 JCPH Regulations ...................................................................................................... 16
3.9 Policy Statements .................................................................................................................... 16
4 Minimum Design Standards .............................................................................................................. 17
4.1 Urban and Rural Levels of Service ......................................................................................... 17
4.2 Minimum Design Standards .................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Application of Standards ............................................................................................ 18
4.2.3 General Provisions ..................................................................................................... 18
4.2.4 Specific Provisions ..................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Fire Protection Standards........................................................................................................ 22
4.3.1 Minimum Fire Flow Requirements ............................................................................. 23
July 2026 | i
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
4.3.2 Fire Assistance ........................................................................................................... 23
4.3.3Fire Hydrants .............................................................................................................. 25
4.3.4Long-Range Planning-Level Guidance for Fire Flows ............................................... 27
4.4 Policy Statements .................................................................................................................... 28
5 Utility Service Review Procedure ...................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Utility Service Review Procedure Process .............................................................................. 29
5.1.1 Determination of Water Service ................................................................................. 31
5.2 Timely and Reasonable Service ............................................................................................. 32
5.2.1 Definition of ÐTimely ServiceÑ ..................................................................................... 32
5.2.2 Definition of ÐReasonable ServiceÑ ............................................................................. 33
5.3 Temporary Interim Service Options ........................................................................................ 34
5.3.1 Temporary Permit-Exempt Well(s) ............................................................................. 34
5.3.2 Temporary Service by Adjacent Purveyor.................................................................. 35
5.3.3 Temporary Interim Service Agreement ...................................................................... 35
5.3.4Participation Agreement ............................................................................................. 36
5.3.5 Latecomers Agreement .............................................................................................. 36
5.3.6 Temporary Interim Group A/B System ....................................................................... 37
5.4 Timely and Reasonable Dispute Resolution ........................................................................... 37
5.5 Policy Statements .................................................................................................................... 39
6 Small Water Systems, Satellite Management, and Water System Failure ....................................... 40
6.1 Small Water Systems in Jefferson County .............................................................................. 40
6.2 Small System Challenges ....................................................................................................... 42
6.2.1 Group B System Challenges ...................................................................................... 43
6.2.2 Resources for Group B Systems ................................................................................ 44
6.3 Satellite Management .............................................................................................................. 45
6.3.1 Regulatory Context of SMA Program ......................................................................... 45
6.3.2 Services Provided by SMAs ....................................................................................... 46
6.4 Receivership ............................................................................................................................ 47
6.4.1 Regulatory Context of Receivership ........................................................................... 47
6.4.2 Receivership Actions and Costs ................................................................................ 47
6.4.3 History of Receivership in Western Washington ........................................................ 48
6.5 Policy Statements .................................................................................................................... 49
7 Regional Water Demand and Supply Assessment ........................................................................... 52
7.1 Summary of Water Systems in Jefferson County ................................................................... 52
7.2 Climate Change Trends/Projections for Jefferson County ...................................................... 54
7.3 Regional Water Demand Assessment .................................................................................... 56
7.3.1 Population Served ...................................................................................................... 56
7.3.2 Future Water Demand Projections ............................................................................. 58
7.3.3 Climate Change Impacts on Water Demand ............................................................. 62
7.4 Regional Water Supply Assessment ....................................................................................... 64
7.4.1 Available Supply Versus Projected Demand ............................................................. 64
7.4.2 Climate Change Impacts on Water Supply ................................................................ 68
7.5 Other Climate Change Considerations ................................................................................... 71
7.5.1 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 71
7.5.2 Agricultural Irrigation .................................................................................................. 71
7.5.3 Wildfire Risk ............................................................................................................... 72
7.5.4 Worker Safety ............................................................................................................. 72
7.5.5 Emergency Funds ...................................................................................................... 73
ii | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
7.5.6 Climate Migration ....................................................................................................... 73
7.6Water Utility Resiliency Strategies .......................................................................................... 73
7.6.1General Water System Planning ................................................................................ 73
7.6.2 Water Conservation .................................................................................................... 74
7.6.3 Supply Diversification ................................................................................................. 75
7.6.4 Reclaimed Water ........................................................................................................ 75
7.6.5 Small System Considerations .................................................................................... 76
7.6.6 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 76
7.7 Policy Statements .................................................................................................................... 77
Tables
Table 4-1. Minimum Fire Flow Requirements ............................................................................................. 23
Table 4-2. Fire protection facility operation, maintenance, and testing ...................................................... 26
Table 4-3. Long-Range Planning-Level Fire Flows .................................................................................... 27
(1)
Table 6-1. Jefferson County Water Systems Summary .......................................................................... 40
Table 6-2. Jefferson County Group A System Ownership .......................................................................... 41
Table 6-3. Jefferson County Group B System Ownership .......................................................................... 42
Table 6-4. Group A and B Management Requirements ............................................................................. 43
Table 6-5. Summary of Approved SMAs in Jefferson County .................................................................... 45
Table 7-1. Summary of Jefferson County Public Water Systems ............................................................... 53
Table 7-2. Jefferson County Growth Allocations......................................................................................... 57
Table 7-3. Jefferson County PWS Baseline Population Information .......................................................... 57
Table 7-4. Jefferson County Future Water Demand Projections ................................................................ 60
Table 7-5. Climate Change Scaling Factors ............................................................................................... 62
Table 7-6. Climate Change Demand Factors ............................................................................................. 63
Table 7-7. Jefferson County Future Annual Water Demand Projections (excluding Mill water
usage) ............................................................................................................................................ 64
Table 7-8. Jefferson County Future Summer Water Demand Projections (excluding Mill water
usage) ............................................................................................................................................ 64
Table 7-9. Jefferson County Future Water Supply Surplus and Deficit Projections ................................... 66
Figures
Figure 1-1. Jefferson County Critical Water Supply Service Area ................................................................ 3
Figure 1-2. Relationship of CWSP to Other Planning Documents................................................................ 6
Figure 2-1. Timeline of Water System Development in Jefferson County .................................................. 10
Figure 5-1. Utility Service Review Procedure Flow Chart ........................................................................... 30
Figure 6-1. Jefferson County Systems by Connection Count ..................................................................... 41
Abbreviations
ADD average day demand
ADWP Alternative Drinking Water Program
APWA American Public Works Association
July 2026 | iii
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
AWWA American Water Works Association
BOCC Board of County Commissioners
CAGR compound annual growth rate
CARA Critical Aquifer Recharge Area
Coordination Act Public Water System Coordination Act
County Jefferson County
CWSP Coordinated Water System Plan
CWSSA Critical Water Supply Service Area
DCD Department of Community Development
DOH Washington State Department of Health
DSL distribution system leakage
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
ERU equivalent residential unit
FPHS Foundational Public Health Services
GIS geographic information system
GMA Growth Management Act
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
IBC International Building Code
IFC Internation Fire Code
JCC Jefferson County Code
JCPH Jefferson County Public Health
Kapowsin Kapowsin Water District
LHJ local health jurisdiction
MDD maximum day demand
MGD million gallons per day
MVO main valve opening
MWL Municipal Water Law
N.H. National Hose
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NTNC non-transient non-community
OFM Washington State Office of Financial Management
OWSI Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc.
PA Participation Agreement
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
POU place of use
PPC physical production capacity
Psi pounds per square inch
PTPC Port Townsend Paper Company
PUD Public Utility District
PWS Public Water System
Q total annual water right
a
Q peak instantaneous water right
i
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SCA Sanitary Control Area
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SIPZ Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones
SMA Satellite Management Agency
State Washington State
SWSMP Small Water System Management Plan
T/R timely and reasonable
TISA Temporary Interim Service Agreement
TNC transient non-community
UGA Urban Growth Area
USRP Utility Service Review Procedure
iv | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Valley Valley Water District
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WHPA Wellhead Protection Area
WHPP Wellhead Protection Program
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
WSALPHO Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
WSP Water System Plan
WUCC Water Utility Coordinating Committee
WUE water use efficiency
Definitions of Key Terms
Consolidation Î The process of merging two water systems together to be owned, operated, and
managed by a single entity. This can be a physical or governance merging.
Coordinated Water System Plan Î 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.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Î An aquifer recharge area that requires special attention to
prevent contamination of groundwater sources.
Critical Water Supply Service Area Î A geographical area which is characterized by proliferation of
small, inadequate water systems, or by water supply problems which threaten the present or future
water quality or reliability of service in such a manner that efficient and orderly development may
best be achieved through coordinated planning by the water utilities in the area.
Existing Service Area Î A specific geographic region to which a water purveyor currently provides
water service.
Failing System Î A water system out of compliance with state rules and regulations that does not
have the technical, managerial, or organizational resources with which to return to compliance.
Future Service Area Î A specific geographic region where a purveyor or utility plans to serve water
in the future but where water service is not yet available.
Group A Water System Î A water system that serves 15 or more connections or 25 or more people
per day for 60 or more days per year. The three types of Group A systems are: Community,
Transient Noncommunity (TNC), and Nontransient Noncommunity (NTNC).
Group B Water System Î A water system that serves less than 15 connections and less than 25
people per day or 25 or more people per day during fewer than 60 days per year.
Growth Management Act Î Washington State law which guides planning for growth and
development. Local governments throughout the state must develop and adopt Comprehensive
Plans which address the development requirements described in the law.
Intertie Î A physical connection between individual water systems which allows water supply to be
transferred in one or both directions. An intertie can be established as a primary source, secondary
source or peaking supply, or emergency supply.
Land Use Designation Î The land uses allowed in a geographic area by right or permit, as provided
in the applicable comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance.
July 2026 | v
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Large Water System Î A water system serving 1,000 or more connections.
Level of Service Î Operational features, such as pressure, flow, and reliability provided to the
customer by the water system.
Non-Expanding Water System Î A water system that serves a specific number of connections and
does not plan to add new connections to the system, but which may still be infilling to the parcels
identified at first plat and up to the DOH approved number of connections.
Permit-Exempt Wells Î A water supply well that is exempt from the water rights permitting process.
These wells may serve up to two domestic dwelling units.
Reasonable Service Î The provision of potable water service and/or associated water utility
services that are consistent with the conditions of service policies detailed in the utilityÓs DOH-
approved water system plan or small water system management plan and bylaws. Furthermore, it is
noted that a purveyor might be considered unable to provide service in a reasonable manner if one
or both of the following criteria are met:
The purveyorÓs conditions of water service differ adversely in an arbitrary and capricious manner
from the stated conditions of service in the purveyorÓs approved WSP or SWSMP and bylaws
The purveyorÓs conditions of water service differ adversely in an arbitrary and capricious manner
from the purveyorÓs acknowledged standard practice with other applicants requesting similar
water services
Receivership Î The process by which a receiver is court-appointed to temporarily manage a failing
water system with the goal of bringing the water system back to organizational and operation
compliance.
Reclaimed Water Î Water derived in any part from a wastewater with a domestic wastewater
component that has been adequately and reliably treated so that it can be put to beneficial use, such
as irrigation and groundwater recharge. Reclaimed water is not considered a wastewater.
Retail Service Area Î The specific area where a municipal water supplier must meet the ÐDuty to
ServeÑ requirements defined in Washington StateÓs Municipal Water Law.
Rural Î Land which is not located within a specified urban growth area, where land use designations
and densities must meet the criteria defined in the CountyÓs Comprehensive Plan as Ðrural.Ñ These
lands typically allow lower densities and different uses than those seen in urban areas.
Timely Service Î Receiving a commitment to provide service, or the reaching of agreement with the
potential customer, within 120 days of request for water service. The 120-day period shall be defined
as calendar days. The 120-day clock shall commence at the filing of a written application, payment
of fees, or request by the applicant to the purveyor.
Urban Î Land located within defined urban growth areas where growth and development occur at a
generally more rapid pace. Local governments must establish zoning ordinances which define urban
land uses and allowed densities.
Urban Growth Area Î The Growth Management Act requires that participating counties designate a
boundary that includes cities and other areas characterized by urban growth, or adjacent to such
areas that are planned to accommodate future urban growth. Growth occurring outside the boundary
cannot be urban in nature. A final UGA is determined and included in the completed comprehensive
plan of each city and the county. As comprehensive plans are updated, the criteria for designation
and placement of these boundaries are guided by the GMA and county-wide planning policies.
vi | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Utility Service Review Procedure Î An administrative procedure established under local agency
jurisdiction to identify the water purveyor best able to serve an area where public water service is
requested.
Satellite Management Agency Î An individual, purveyor, or entity that is approved by DOH to own
or operate more than one public water system on a regional or countywide basis without the
necessity for a physical connection between systems.
Service Area Î The largest area identified on a map where a municipal water supplier currently
provides direct service and remote service, and the area it plans to serve. The service area may
include the existing service area, retail service area, and the future service area. The service area
may also include where a water system provides wholesale water supply to other public water
systems through an intertie. This area may represent a water rightÓs expanded place of use if the
requirements of WAC 246-293-107 are met.
Service Connection Î A physical connection through which water may be delivered to customers
for discretionary use. Unless otherwise indicated, all such connections, whether currently in use or
not, shall be considered as a service connection.
Small Water System Î Public water systems serving less than 1,000 connections. A subset of small
water systems is defined as Group A water systems that serve between 15 and 99 connections;
these are the systems most susceptible to not meeting regulatory requirements. Group B systems
are a separate form of small water systems, per the ÐGroup BÑ definition for systems of this
size/type.
Small Water System Management Plan Î A written plan prepared by water systems not required to
complete a water system plan under WAC 246-290-100 which must address the systemÓs operation,
technical, managerial, and financial capability to achieve and maintain compliance with all relevant
local, state, and federal plans and regulations.
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Î An administrative and planning boundary established by
the Washington State Department of Ecology. Washington State is divided into 62 WRIAs. Jefferson
County has jurisdiction in part or all of WRIAs 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21.
Water System Plan Î A written plan prepared for a particular water system and service area that
identifies system capacity and basic planning data, hydraulic analysis, asset management
components, a water rights portfolio, and operations program, a schedule of needed improvements,
and a financial program. A water system which is expanding within a designated service area may
be required to include other elements in its plan. Details of Water System Plan requirements can be
found in WAC 246-290. An "approved Water System Plan" is a water system plan that has been
reviewed and approved by both Jefferson County and DOH.
Water Utility Coordinating Committee Î A committee tasked with developing and updating the
Coordinated Water System Plan, organized by the County, which consists of one representative
from each of the following:
County legislative authority within the critical water supply service area
County planning agency having jurisdiction within the critical water supply service area
Health agency having jurisdiction within the declared critical water supply service area under
Chapters 70.08, 70.05, and 43.20 RCW
Water purveyors with over fifty services within the critical water supply service area.
Wellhead Protection Area Î Areas that lie within the ten-year time-of-travel zone boundary of a
public water system well, as delineated by the water system purveyor or its designee.
Wholesale Water Î Water provided by a water utility to another water utility through an intertie. This
is often a source of water for smaller water systems whose sources are not sufficient to meet
demands, and where the larger system has supplies in excess of demands.
July 2026 | vii
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
This page is intentionally left blank.
viii | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Executive Summary
The 2026 Jefferson County (County) Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) provides
an updated plan for public water systems within the CountyÓs Critical Water Supply
Service Area (CWSSA). This CWSP Update was prepared under the direction of the
Jefferson County Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC). It represents the
collective views of the WUCC and integrates the documented views of other Washington
State (State) and local governments. This document, officially known as the ÐRegional
Supplement,Ñ and the individual water system plans (WSPs) approved by the
Washington State Department of Health (DOH), compose the CWSP. When integrated
with the CountyÓs Comprehensive Plan, the CWSP presents a significant piece of the
larger resource and growth management strategy for the CountyÓs future.
ES.1 History of the CWSP
The history of coordinated water system planning in Jefferson County reflects over four
decades of regulatory development, growth management, and utility coordination.
Several State laws enacted during the 1970s established protections for water resources
and public health, including the Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977
(Coordination Act; Revised Code of Washington \[RCW\] Chapter 70A.100), which created
the framework for coordinated water system planning in Washington State. In 1983,
Jefferson County agencies completed a Preliminary Assessment of countywide water
supply issues. Based on the findings of that assessment, the County designated all of
Jefferson County as a CWSSA, activating the requirements of the Coordination Act. The
County then convened a WUCC to develop the original Jefferson County CWSP,
adopted in 1986.
In response to the increase in population growth in the 1980s, the State passed the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990. The law directed counties
and municipalities to develop comprehensive plans that identify policies intended to
direct growth into urban areas formally designated as Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). The
County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The WUCC updated the CWSP
around the same time, in 1997, in response to directions outlined in the County
Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Coordination Act.
Subsequent regulatory changes, including the adoption of the Municipal Water Law of
2003, introduced additional requirements related to retail service areas and water system
responsibilities. Concerns regarding the long-term viability of small water systems and
evolving state regulations further demonstrated the need for ongoing coordinated
planning. The MWL created new planning requirements that had to be integrated with the
existing Coordination Act framework. On January 22, 2024, the County enacted
Resolution 08-24, which established an updated WUCC membership list and initiated the
2026 CWSP update process.
ES.2 Key Issues Examined in the 2026 CWSP Update
Resolution 08-24 states that the Jefferson County Public Utility District (PUD) Ðcontinues
to find uncoordinated planning, inadequate water quality or unreliable service and
July 2026 | ES-1
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
recommends that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners update the Coordinated
Water System Plan to resolve those issuesÑ. This provided the basis for the updating of
the CWSP.
The following key items are addressed in the update:
Water utility service areas and duty to serve requirements
Small water system reliability and sustainability, including water system
consolidation and satellite management opportunities
Minimum design and infrastructure standards for new and expanding water
systems, including updated fire flow requirements and long-range planning
guidance
Utility Service Review Procedures (USRP) and timely and reasonable service
policies
Countywide demographic growth and regional water supply characteristics,
including implications for water demand
ES.3 Summary of Policy Statements
WUCC policy statements are included at the end of each chapter of the 2026 CWSP. A
summary list of these policy statements is provided below.
Chapter 3: Water Utility Service Areas
3-1. Retail Service Area. Any changes in retail service areas require submittal of a
WSP or SWSMP, or amendments to such documents, per DOH requirements. Thus,
if a purveyor determines that it is not able to fulfill its Ðduty to serveÑ requirements
throughout its entire retail service area, the most effective resolution to this is through
modification to its retail service area per documentation in a WSP or SWSMP, or
amendment thereof.
3-2. Water System Consolidation. Larger water systems should consider
opportunities for consolidation of smaller systems on a case-by-case basis where
smaller water systems are also interested in and willing to participate in such actions,
particularly where small systems are entirely surrounded by a single larger system.
Such opportunities should be documented in WSPs.
Chapter 4: Minimum Design Standards
4-1. Periodic Meeting for Standards Review. A Standards Review Subcommittee
of the WUCC should meet periodically (at a minimum once every 3 years) to assess
the current standards and propose changes as needed.
4-2. Design Standard Coordination. Neighboring water utilities should collaborate
and strive toward consistency in design standards to facilitate potential shared
infrastructure improvements and long-range planning.
4-3. Fire Flow: Codify Minimum Standards. Jefferson County should incorporate
the fire flow minimum standards into the Jefferson County Code to allow for easier
modification as needed and make standards easier for applicants to locate.
ES-2 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
4-4. Fire Hydrants: Coordination between Water Utilities and Fire Districts.
Water utilities should coordinate with fire districts operating within their service areas
and create written agreements as appropriate to ensure proper maintenance of fire
hydrants.
4-5. Fire Flow: Long-Range Planning-Level Guidance. The CWSP provides
guidance to new and expanding public water systems by identifying recommended
long-range planning-level fire flow targets that are intended to serve as a guideline
during the planning and design of future infrastructure improvements, to address fire
flow requirements that are likely to be higher than the current required minimums for
future development.
4-6. Fire Flow: Water System Plans. New or expanding public water systems shall
include discussion in their WSPs regarding how improvements to existing
infrastructure and the design of new infrastructure will consider anticipated increases
in fire flow requirements for new development and redevelopment, or the reasons
why higher fire flow requirements are not considered (e.g., because of constraints
related to existing water supply capacities, cost of incorporating increased fire flows
and durations in infrastructure design, etc.).
4-7. Alternative Water Supplies for Fire Flow. Water utilities should collaborate to
identify solutions involving alternative water supplies, such as the Olympic Gravity
Water System, that may be used to address fire flow deficiencies.
Chapter 5: Utility Service Review Procedure
5-1. Utility Service Review Procedure. The USRP outlined in the CWSP shall be
used to identify existing purveyors that can provide water service to applicants
requesting service.
5-2. New Public Water Systems. The establishment of new public water systems is
discouraged if an existing water system can provide service.
5-3. Timely and Reasonable. As established in the MWL, individual municipal water
systems have the authority and responsibility to establish their own policies and
definitions regarding Ðtimely and reasonable service.Ñ The CWSP provides guidance
regarding these definitions that water systems may adopt for their own purposes, or
that could be considered during a dispute resolution process. During its review
process for local government consistency, DCD will review WSPs for inclusion of T/R
policies.
5-4. Temporary Interim Service Options. The CWSP identifies potential
temporary/interim service options that are available for consideration by municipal
water systems when direct connection of an applicant to the systemÓs existing
infrastructure cannot be implemented in a Ðtimely and reasonableÑ manner, so as to
avoid certain disputes. Favorable options include temporary service by an adjacent
purveyor, extension of temporary non-standard connections, and allowance of
temporary permit-exempt wells (for individual homes). The least favorable of the
options described in the CWSP is the development of interim Group A or Group B
systems within existing retail service areas. The WUCC encourages purveyors to
July 2026 | ES-3
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
describe which temporary interim service options, if any, are allowed within their
retail service areas.
5-5. Service Area Dispute Resolution. The County should consider developing a
service area dispute resolution process to reflect the process described in Section
5.4 for various situations.
Chapter 6: Water Utility Service Areas
Agency Assessment/Alerts
6-1 (H). Small Systems: Metrics. DOH should develop metrics and a tool for
assessing the managerial capacity/health of water systems, and periodically assess
systems via the tool (e.g., every 5 years). This would provide an early warning to
DOH and the County regarding systems facing significant problems and increase the
likelihood of action being taken prior to system failure.
6-2 (H). Small Systems: Proactive Enforcement. DOH should develop stronger,
more proactive enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the planning and
managerial requirements set forth in WAC 246-290 and -291 for regulated water
systems, thereby reducing the risk of systems entering receivership.
6-3. Small Systems: Planning Triggers. DOH should develop triggers that would
require Ðpre-failureÑ systems to develop/submit plans for review. The focus of this is
on small, non-expanding Group A and Group B systems that are not currently
required to submit plans. Such triggers could be incorporated into the assessment
tool described in Policy Statement 6-1.
6-4. Small Systems: Agency Coordination. DOH and the County should establish
regular (e.g., quarterly) coordination communications to discuss (1) the specific
systems that are identified by the above actions as being vulnerable to failure and
options that could be employed to avoid failure, and (2) broader efforts to more
generally remove roadblocks to local solution implementation.
6-5. Small Systems: Receivership Planning. The County should identify the steps
and determine a timeline for developing a receivership contingency plan. Such a plan
would identify the entity or entities who agree to serve as a receiver, the conditions
under which they would do so, and the processes to implement such actions in the
event a system is placed into receivership.
6-6. Small Systems: Group B Program. Lack of regulatory oversight of Group B
water systems may create riskier water sources for populations served by Group Bs.
The County should consider adopting a Group B program to enforce compliance with
safe drinking water regulations.
Property Outreach/Technical Support/Consolidation
6-7 (H). Small Systems: Notifications. DOH, with assistance from the County in the
form of providing contact information and other data maintained by the County,
should notify all property owners and/or tenants of a vulnerable water system of the
potential for water system failure. This would include situations where only one Board
position is filled. This outreach has been successful in the past to avoid receivership.
ES-4 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
6-8. Small Systems: Outreach. DOH should initiate immediate outreach and
technical support actions to the top 10 at-risk Group A systems, as identified through
Policy Statements 6-1 and 6-6.
6-9 (H). Small Systems: Consolidation. Encourage consolidation of small systems
into larger systems. This would include eliminating or minimizing the barriers to
consolidation described in Section 6.2. Specifically:
p The legislature should increase funding available to larger systems to implement
consolidation.
p State agencies should streamline the permitting and approvals associated with
grant funding application processes.
p Grant funding should support comprehensive infrastructure upgrades to support
larger systems in bringing small systems up to their design standards.
p The legislature should eliminate uncertainty in water rights issues and transfers
from small systems to large systems.
Pre-Receivership Support
6-10 (H). Failing Systems: Support. DOH should direct more resources to assisting
water systems that are in Ðpre-failureÑ and ÐfailureÑ status in returning to compliance,
as opposed to waiting until the Ðpost-failureÑ status that results in receivership.
6-11. Failing Systems: Funding. The County should lobby for increasing and
stabilizing legislative funding for the Water System Replacement and Consolidation
Grants.
Receivership
6-12. Receivership: Funding as Condition. The County should propose changes to
State law such that State funding is required as a condition of accepting receivership
through a court process. The County may choose to engage external organizations
such as the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials
(WSALPHO) to lobby on such topics.
6-13 (H). Receivership: Funding Pool. The County should request that the State
allocate more funding to pay for water system receivership costs. If the State
developed a funding pool that could be used only to support receivership actions,
receivers would then have access to State funds to complete required actions
needed in receivership.
6-14. Receivership: Remove County as Receiver. The County should propose and
lobby for changes to RCW 43.70.195 to remove a county as the receiver of last
resort. The County and other stakeholders should work collaboratively to identify
recommended alternatives to the County being the receiver of last resort.
6-15 (H). Receivership: Interlocal Agreement Template. Should the County
continue to be the receiver of last resort, then the County should develop a template
for interlocal agreements that can be implemented with other entities to perform
receivership activities. The County should explore the legal ability to transfer to such
entities certain capabilities that the County has but that the other party may not
currently (e.g., ability to apply for certain grant or loan funding).
July 2026 | ES-5
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Post-Receivership
6-16. Post-Receivership: System Ownership. If State or local funding was used to
address receivership, once the problems facing a water system in receivership are
resolved, the system should be required to be owned and operated by a DOH- or
JCPH-approved water system or SMA, with regular WSP updates required.
General Administrative/Regulatory
6-17. State Legislative Changes. The County should lobby for (and DOH should
support) changes to the RCW and associated chapters of the WAC to address the
above recommendations, including:
p Developing required reporting by water systems not required to complete WSP
updates
p Removing quorum requirements related to water system decisions in cases
involving system failure and potential transfer of ownership/operation through
consolidation or other means
p Transfer of system ownership if State or local funding is used for receivership
p Requirements pertaining to pre-/during/post-receivership status
p Agency/administrative staff funding mechanisms
Chapter 7: Regional Water Demand and Supply Assessment
7-1. General Planning. Public water systems should reference and incorporate
information provided in this white paper and the forthcoming CWSP Update to assist
them in meeting DOH requirements to incorporate climate resiliency planning in
future WSP updates.
7-2. Water Demand Forecasting. The WUCC should periodically (at least once
every 10 years, perhaps in conjunction with other CWSP Update activities) update
the analysis of temperature/precipitation trends and their potential impacts upon
water demand, so as to inform the timing of other strategies.
7-3. Water Conservation. As part of their required water use efficiency planning
efforts, public water systems should place a renewed focus on evaluating
conservation measures that aim to reduce summertime water consumption.
7-4. Surface Water Supply/Storage. The WUCC should coordinate with water
systems in the County to further explore various storage options to capture increased
wintertime flow and aid in addressing multiple needs of the City and potentially other
water systems as well.
7-5. Groundwater Level and Quality Monitoring. The WUCC should coordinate
with the County, PUD, Department of Ecology, and others as noted in Section 5 to
expand Countywide groundwater level and quality monitoring, to identify trends that
may be related to sea level rise or other climate change hazards (storm intensity and
frequency, spatial distribution of recharge, and other hazards identified in Section 3).
ES-6 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
7-6. Climate Migration. Public water systems should consider the effects of climate
change on increasing or decreasing their customer base, as part of their periodic
WSP updates.
7-7. Wildfire Risk Management. The WUCC should coordinate with the County to
develop guidance to public water systems regarding how to evaluate the ability of
their systems to suppress fires in the wildland-urban interface.
July 2026 | ES-7
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
This page is intentionally left blank.
ES-8 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
1 Introduction
A Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) is a plan for public water systems within a
defined area that identifies the present and future needs of the systems and sets forth
means of meeting those needs in the most efficient manner possible. The Jefferson
County (County) CWSP consists of two parts: (1) the ÐRegional Supplement,Ñ which
presents the regulatory framework for water system development in the County, an
assessment of water supply needs in the County, and the water supply opportunities
available to meet those needs; and (2) individual Ðwater system plansÑ (WSPs) prepared
by water utilities for their designated service areas. This document is the ÐRegional
SupplementÑ of the Jefferson County CWSP. Once adopted by the County and the
Washington State (State) Department of Health (DOH), the CWSP becomes the
management and planning framework for public water supply development within
Jefferson County.
1.1 Background
This section provides a brief summary of the regulatory context and history of the CWSP
in Jefferson County.
1.1.1 The Coordination Act
The Public Water System Coordination Act (Coordination Act), enacted by the
Washington State Legislature as Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 70A.100
in 1977, provides to counties the authority to identify a critical water supply service area
(CWSSA) within their jurisdiction Ðwhere water supply problems related to uncoordinated
planning, inadequate water quality or unreliable water service appear to exist.Ñ
Procedures for compliance with RCW 70A.100 are codified in Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) Chapter 246-293.
1.1.2 Jefferson County Critical Water Supply Service Area
Following the passage of the Coordination Act, and as a preface to implementing the law
in the County, a Preliminary Assessment of the need for coordination was completed for
the County in 1983. The assessment was a cooperative effort of the Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department (now the Department of Community Development
\[DCD\]), Jefferson County Health Department (now Jefferson County Public Health
\[JCPH\]), water purveyors located within the CWSSA, the County Commissioners, DOH
and other parties.
The Preliminary Assessment identified several issues of concern in the County that may
preclude the delivery of safe, efficient, and reliable water service to its citizens. Those
issues include:
Inconsistent design
Overlapping service areas
Conflicts between land use and water system plans
Duplication of facilities
July 2026 | 1
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Based upon the findings of the Preliminary Assessment, the County Board of
Commissioners, with the support of the water purveyors, declared the County to be a
CWSSA, by resolution on October 24, 1983, and confirmed in 1995. This action initiated
the procedures of the Coordination Act in the County. Figure 1-1 depicts the countywide
extent of the CWSSA.
1.1.3 Jefferson County Water Utility Coordinating Committee
Upon designation of the County as a CWSSA, the County appointed a Water Utility
Coordination Committee (WUCC) to oversee CWSP preparation. The WUCC consists of
representatives of water purveyors serving more than fifty connections, local
governments, and agencies responsible for water supply and public health in the County.
The WUCC recommended that the Jefferson County Council identify the CWSSA
external boundaries as coincident with the boundaries of the County, and that a CWSP
with uniform and consistent policies be developed to recognize both urban and rural
water supply needs. The Jefferson County Council adopted the first CWSP in 1986 and
subsequently updated it in 1997. Further details on the history of the Jefferson County
CWSP are provided in Chapter 2.
The CWSP represents the collective views of the WUCC and integrates the documented
views of other State and local governments and stakeholders. When considered within
the context of the CountyÓs Comprehensive Plan, the CWSP represents a significant
component of the larger resource and growth management strategy for Jefferson
CountyÓs future.
1.2 Lead Agencies
The County maintains partnerships with water purveyors and appropriate agencies to
provide high-quality water resource management services to residents and businesses in
the County. These partnerships are intended to achieve the following water resource
management priorities:
Promote demand reduction: Use demand-side management techniques and
available community building and conservation tools to empower water users to
voluntarily reduce water use through behavior changes. These techniques have
demonstrated achievable results and reduced water use by participating consumers.
Promote development of local supplies: Support and encourage development and
long-term sustainable use of local supplies, such as the Big Quilcene and Little
Quilcene Rivers and area groundwater resources.
Promote efficient use of local supplies: Work to overcome the administrative and
technical barriers to interties to cost-effectively use water resources available locally.
2 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
DCD is the agency responsible for implementing the Growth Management Act (GMA) by
developing a County Comprehensive Plan. DCD manages building permits, code
compliance, land use actions, site development review, long range planning, and the
Office of the Fire Marshal.
DCD serves as the lead agency for implementation of the CWSP. DCD is also
responsible for reviewing (with respect to local government consistency and compatibility
with applicable land use plans and implementation ordinances) individual WSPs,
maintaining current service area designation maps, and providing staff support for the
WUCC.
JCPH reviews and approves water availability to meet building permit, land use permit,
and subdivision requirements; inspects construction of drinking water supply wells;
provides technical assistance to small public water systems; and, oversees the CountyÓs
on-site sewage (septic system) program.
The responsibilities of DCD and JCPH have direct implications on the provision of water
service. Therefore, good relationships between DCD, JCPH and water purveyors are
critical for effective land use and utility planning.
1.3 Relation to Other Water Resource Management Efforts
Numerous other water resource planning efforts occur within the County that have a
bearing on the planning and provision of water supply. Key activities are summarized
below.
1.3.1 Watershed Planning
In 1997 the State legislature passed the Watershed Planning Act (RCW 90.82,
ÐWatershed Planning Act,Ñ July 27, 1997). This act intended to set a framework for local
governments to develop solutions to watershed issues such as instream flows and the
interaction of flows with local water supplies. The Watershed Planning Act notes that
local organizations are more familiar with conditions, needs, and threats to water supply
and quality in their watersheds, and therefore should have primary jurisdiction regarding
planning efforts. The act divided the state into 62 Water Resource Inventory Areas
(WRIAs) in which the plans were developed. Jefferson County has jurisdiction in part of
five WRIAs:
WRIA 16: Skokomish/Dosewallips
WRIA 17: Quilcene/Snow
WRIA 18: Elwha-Dungeness
WRIA 20: Sol Duc/Hoh
WRIA 21: Queets/Quinault
The County and other members of the WUCC participated in developing watershed
plans for WRIAs 16 (in 2006) and 17 (in 2004). The planning groups in these WRIAs
have not met since 2011, due to a lack of implementation funding.
4 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
1.3.2 Quilcene-Snow Watershed Management Program Rule
The Quilcene Snow Watershed Management Rule for WRIA 17 (WAC 173-517) became
effective in December 2009 and was developed to balance the need for water to meet
increasing community/agriculture demand with stream flows needed to support several
fish species including four listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Rule breaks the
watershed into 22 subbasins, establishes instream flows in 11 of the subbasins, closes
(at least seasonally) those same subbasins to future withdrawals, develops reserves for
future water use (including municipal and domestic supply) in those same subbasins,
establishes a conservation standard for access to the water reserves, and requires
metering of all new withdrawals throughout the area covered by the Rule. As such, the
Rule is an important regulatory development that continues to shape development of
new or expanded water supplies within this watershed.
More details regarding the Rule can be found on JCPHÓs website at: Water Resources |
Jefferson County, WA.
1.4 Relation to Individual Water System Plans
The Coordination Act states that each purveyor within the boundary of a CWSSA shall
be responsible for preparing a WSP or small water system management plan (SWSMP)
for its service area. This plan is to describe the utilityÓs proposed method to serve its
area. An exception to these criteria exists for private nonprofit and private for-profit water
systems that existed prior to September 21, 1977, have met minimum State Board of
Health requirements, and do not plan to extend water service to new customers.
Prior to writing or revising a WSP, Group A water purveyors should contact DOH, Office
of Drinking Water. The planning requirements, which are determined by DOH, vary for
individual utilities based on size and complexity in accordance with WAC 246-290-100.
The level of detail and specific requirements for a WSP is determined during a pre-plan
conference with DOH. A detailed description of planning requirements is provided in
DOHÓs Water System Planning Guidebook (DOH Publication 331-068). In addition to
these requirements, WSPs must address items identified in the Municipal Water Law
(MWL). Systems that do not require a WSP are required to complete a SWSMP in
accordance with WAC 246-290-105. For a complete description of SWSMP content
requirements, refer to the Small Water System Management Program Guide (DOH
Publication 331-134).
In addition to the above requirements, all systems within a CWSSA required to submit a
WSP must, in the preparation or update of their WSP, address items relating to the entire
CWSSA. Items required include:
Map of retail service area
Signed service area agreements
Population and water demand projections
Design standards
Implementation of minor and major regional projects
Implementation of water Utility Service Review Procedure (USRP)
July 2026 | 5
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Implementation of satellite system management program (if applicable)
Water use efficiency (WUE) program
Demonstration of financial viability
WSPs are prepared within the aforementioned guidelines and must be consistent with
the policies and procedures of this ÐRegional Supplement.Ñ Those individual WSPs that
have been reviewed by DCD and approved by DOH are incorporated by reference as
part of this CWSP and are on file with the County. Figure 1-2 summarizes the
relationships of the CWSP components, as well as the relationship between the CWSP,
County Code, and other planning efforts.
Figure 1-2. Relationship of CWSP to Other Planning Documents
1.5 Organization of CWSP
The CWSP includes the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides background and context for the
CWSP.
Chapter 2: History of Coordinated Water System Plan Process in Jefferson
County. This chapter describes the history of water system development in the
County, which provides context for the various issues addressed in the CWSP
update process.
Chapter 3: Water Utility Service Areas. This chapter provides the definition of
service areas and water utility responsibilities within service areas, per the
Coordination Act and the MWL.
Chapter 4: Minimum Design Standards. This chapter identifies the minimum
design standards to which water systems in the CWSSA must conform, including
recommended fire flow guidelines for future system planning.
6 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Chapter 5: Utility Service Review Procedure. This chapter describes the
procedure undertaken to identify existing water purveyors able to serve new
applicants requesting water service. The concepts of ÐtimelyÑ and ÐreasonableÑ
service are discussed, and temporary interim service options are identified for use
when timely and reasonable (T/R) service may not be feasible.
Chapter 6: Small Systems, Satellite Management, and Water System Failure.
This chapter describes policies and procedures related to satellite management of
water systems and receivership of failing systems, addresses current issues in the
County, and offers recommendations for improved processes. Satellite management
is a service provided typically by larger systems to smaller water systems with
minimal operational capacity. Receivership is the process by which a failing system
is court-assigned temporarily to another entity and brought back into operational
compliance.
Chapter 7: Jefferson County Demographics and Water Supply Requirements.
This chapter describes the current state of countywide growth patterns and their
projected impacts on future water demand and water supply.
Chapter 8: Regional Water Supply Opportunities and Considerations in
Jefferson County. This chapter describes water supply opportunities throughout the
County that are currently available or may become available in the future.
Understanding the distribution and availability of these supply opportunities may
assist water systems with stressed water resources to plan for additional growth.
Environmental Review
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, requires that all CWSPs be
accompanied by an appropriate environmental document. A SEPA Checklist has been
prepared for the Jefferson County CWSP and its recommended activities. This checklist
is included as Appendix 1-1.
The CWSP update has been prepared to establish administrative, management, and
policy procedures to respond to the needs of existing and future water customers in the
County. It is intended to address regional concerns within the County that are not
ordinarily included in each utilityÓs WSP.
The CWSP update has been developed in coordination with the GMA countywide
planning policies and County land use documents to reflect local land use policies and
requirements. Therefore, implementation of this CWSP and the employment of sound
engineering and construction practices during the implementation of each utilityÓs WSP
will minimize potential adverse impacts.
Before the CWSP has been formally accepted by the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC), it is recommended that a final environmental determination be
made by DCD. This final determination will be included in Appendix 1-1.
1.6 CWSP Approval
The 2025 update to the CWSP has been prepared by DCD and HDR Engineering, Inc.
Close coordination was maintained with DOH during CWSP development to ensure
conformance to the requirements of the Coordination Act. This CWSP was approved by
July 2026 | 7
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
the WUCC, and DCD has determined that it is not inconsistent with County land use
plans and/or County developmental policies and regulations.
Once approved by the WUCC, the completed CWSP is submitted to the Jefferson
County Planning Commission for review, prior to being considered for adoption by the
BOCC. Once reviewed and accepted by the BOCC, the CWSP is submitted to DOH,
which must act within 60 days. After the local preparation and review procedures of RCW
70A.100 have been followed and the CWSP is adopted by the BOCC, DOH will be able
to approve this document as the Regional Supplement of the Jefferson County CWSP.
1.7 Future CWSP Updates
Because rules, laws, and practices change over time, the WUCC anticipates future
updates to the CWSP. More frequent updates of the CWSP may be initiated, as
necessary, at the direction of the BOCC or DOH. In accordance with RCW
70A.100.060(8), if DOH initiates an update or revision of the CWSP, the State shall pay
for the cost of the update.
2 The Coordinated Water System Plan
Process in Jefferson County
This chapter includes a history of water system development and regulation in Jefferson
County and information about the 2025 CWSP update process.
2.1 History of Water System Development in Jefferson
County
Figure 2-1 presents a summary of key regulations and events that have shaped the
development of water systems in Jefferson County since 1970. Highlights are discussed
in more detail below.
Several State laws were enacted in the 1970s to protect the stateÓs water resources and
public health and safety, including the Public Water System Coordination Act of 1977
(described in Chapter 0). Several County agencies conducted a Preliminary Assessment
of Jefferson County water supply issues in 1983. The results of the Preliminary
Assessment led the BOCC to adopt a declaration identifying all of Jefferson County as a
CWSSA in 1983, activating the provisions of the Coordination Act in the County. The
County convened a WUCC, which developed the Jefferson County CWSP. The County
adopted the original CWSP in 1986.
In the mid-1980s, the County (along with much of the western portion of the state) began
to experience significant population growth compared to historical trends. No State policy
existed at that time to regulate and manage growth, which allowed neighborhoods and
subdivisions to develop independently from established urban areas. Water service was
not often available where the developments were occurring, leading developers to obtain
water rights and establish private water systems owned and operated by the subdivision
or developer. This trend resulted in the proliferation of independently managed small
systems throughout the County where established water systems were unable or
unwilling to provide service.
8 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
In response to the increase in population growth rates, the State passed the Washington
State Growth Management Act of 1990. The GMA directed counties and municipalities to
develop comprehensive plans that identified policies intended to direct growth into urban
areas formally designated as Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). The County adopted its first
Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The WUCC updated the CWSP at around the same time,
in 1997, in response to direction outlined in the County Comprehensive Plan, and
amendments to the Coordination Act.
July 2026 | 9
| July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan Jefferson County, Washington Figure 2-1. Timeline of Water System Development in Jefferson County 10
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
In 2003 the State passed the Municipal Water Law, which codified additional regulations
regarding water system service and management, and notably the Ðduty to serve,Ñ further
described in Chapter 3. The MWL and Coordination Act were intended to address
separate issues, but had some conflicting provisions, specifically with regard to the
definition of service area boundaries. The Coordination Act required water systems to
designate Ðcurrent and future service areas,Ñ while the MWL required water systems to
designate a Ðretail service areaÑ in which the purveyor has the duty to serve. WSPs must
reflect both requirements.
Additionally, in 2009 DOH developed a report to the legislature on small systems. The
report describes technical, managerial, and financial issues that small systems face and
provides statutory recommendations regarding potential solutions.
This CWSP update is in response to the CountyÓs updated Comprehensive Plan and new
regulations implemented since adoption of the 1997 CWSP. It addresses common issues
of the past two decades and is intended to minimize these issues in the future.
2.2 2025 Coordinated Water System Plan Update
On January 22, 2024, the BOCC enacted Resolution 08-24, which established an
updated WUCC membership list, comprised of the following:
1. County Commissioner
2. JCPH Director
3. DCD Director
4. City of Port Townsend Public Works Director
5. Public Utility District Number 1 General Manager
6. Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. President
7. Stakeholder appointed by the BOCC representing a Group A or Group B water utility
in Jefferson County with fewer than 50 customers
Upon formation of the new WUCC, DCD initiated the 2025 CWSP update process.
3 Water Utility Service Areas
This chapter describes the purpose and definition of water utility service areas and
defines Jefferson County policies related to their designations and modifications. Also
included in this chapter are considerations related to wellhead protection areas
(WHPAs).
3.1 Purpose of Service Areas
The Coordination Act requires that a procedure be established to identify the service
areas of public water purveyors within the CWSSA. The establishment of service area
boundaries carries with it two obligations:
July 2026 | 11
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
County and State governments recognize an identified purveyor as the responsible
agency for providing all public water service within a designated area.
The purveyor shall assume responsibility, within its service area, for planning and
implementing water system development and proper utility management to support
local land use and zoning plans.
The Coordination Act requires that service area boundaries be established by agreement
among the purveyors based on a variety of factors including topography, readiness and
ability to serve, local franchise areas, legal water system or municipal boundaries,
population projections, and sewer service areas. It also specifies that these service areas
be developed in conformance with the land use policies of the County. Designated
service areas include those areas in which the purveyor expects adequate customer
growth, within a reasonable period, to support an established plan for system
development.
The County maintains a public geographic information system (GIS) database that
includes mapping of Group A and B water purveyor service areas and/or service
connections. Service areas are mapped for systems with approved Water System Plans
(WSPs), while service connections are mapped for smaller systems that do not have
approved WSPs. This database can be accessed at the following link:
Water Service Areas | Open Data Portal
3.2 Service Area Definitions
Multiple service area definitions exist in State law. The Coordination Act makes a
distinction between current service area and future service area: current service area
is where a water system currently provides water to customers, and future service area is
Ða specific area a water system in a Critical Water Supply Service Area plans to provide
water service as determined by a written agreement between purveyors.Ñ The term
service area refers to the largest area identified where a water system currently provides
service and may provide service in the future, including areas where water is provided on
a wholesale basis.
The MWL states that expanding water systems that conduct planning activities under
WAC 246-290-100 (i.e., that submit a WSP to DOH subsequent to passage of the MWL)
have a Ðduty to serveÑ all developments in their retail service area, and does not define
Ðcurrent service areaÑ or Ðfuture service area.Ñ See Section 3.3 for further detail regarding
the Ðduty to serveÑ obligations related to retail service areas.
Furthermore, under the MWL, the service area (as defined in the first paragraph above)
may represent the Ðplace of useÑ (POU) for a water systemÓs water rights, if the
requirements of WAC 246-290-107 are met.
In the 1980s, prior to and during the development of the original Jefferson County
CWSP, several small water systems were established in the County to serve platted
developments, with no plan to expand beyond the defined development area. The
service areas for these systems (i.e., where they have an obligation to serve) were
defined based on the development plats. While such a system is obligated to provide
service to the platted development and adhere to its bylaws, it must also meet the
requirements, and operate within the legal constraints, of its water supply sources, which
12 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
in the case of water rights may be stated in the form of a maximum number of approved
connections or a maximum volume of water that can be withdrawn.
Such systems are not required to conduct water system planning per WAC 246-290-100
and are not required to submit WSPs to DOH. As such, these systems do not have a
retail service area, and the CWSP considers their service area to be as defined during
the initial development of the CWSP. These systems must instead develop an SWSMP
per WAC 246-290-105. DOH does not require formal submittal and recurrent updates of
SWSMPs, but they should be made available to DOH upon request.
If a small system that is not currently required to conduct planning under WAC 246-290-
100 chooses to seek expansion of its service area, or an increase in its maximum
allowed connection capacity, the system would need to submit a WSP and define a retail
service area (in which the Ðduty to serveÑ requirement applies) per the MWL.
A purveyorÓs water facilities, such as sources of supply and reservoirs, can be located
outside the purveyorÓs service area. These facilities can be located within another
purveyorÓs retail service area, provided that the facilities are not used for direct retail
service without the written concurrence of the designated purveyor.
3.3 Duty to Serve
In accordance with the MWL, expanding municipal water systems that are conducting
planning under WAC 246-290-100 have a Ðduty to serveÑ water to all applicants seeking
water service within their retail service area. The duty to serve is subject to the four
Ðthreshold determinationÑ criteria listed below:
The municipal water supplier has sufficient capacity to serve water in a safe and
reliable manner
The service request is consistent with adopted land use plans and development
regulations
The municipal water supplier has sufficient water rights to provide service
The municipal supplier can provide service in a timely and reasonable (T/R) manner
Per the MWL, the water purveyor must develop policies that describe how service within
its designated service area will comply with its Ðduty to serveÑ and how disputes
regarding the application of such conditions of service and policies will be resolved.
3.4 Historical Service Area Designations and Agreements
During preparation of the 1997 CWSP Update, all known Group A and Group B public
water supply systems were notified of the requirements of the Coordination Act for
establishment of service areas. For those purveyors already providing water service, and
not wishing to expand, a good-faith attempt was made to identify existing service areas.
Purveyors indicating plans for expansion were then provided a map showing adjacent
service areas. These purveyors were asked to delineate a proposed future service area
based upon the criteria established in WAC 246-290 and 293.
July 2026 | 13
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
At the time of the 1997 CWSP Update, most purveyors with defined service areas also
filed signed standard service area agreements with the County. Such agreements have
not since been utilized by the County and the purveyors; rather, individual WSPs and
SWSMPs, or amendment thereto, are the means by which service areas are established
and modified. DOH is the agency that approves WSP after DCD review and approval.
Water systems have the opportunity to review and modify their service areas during the
WSP update process. A system conducting a WSP update must also inform adjacent
systems of the update. Those adjacent systems may provide comments in response to
ensure that service area boundary revisions are coordinated and mutually agreed upon
by adjacent purveyors.
Once adopted as part of the CWSP, the designated service area is the exclusive service
area of the identified utility. As a condition of being granted a designated service area,
the utility shall meet the obligations and commitments identified in the CWSP.
3.5 Contested Service Areas
The Coordination Act provides for a mediation procedure to resolve contested areas
between multiple purveyors at the local level. This procedure specifies that if contested
service areas are not resolved within one year of the establishment of the CWSSA
boundary, DOH must conduct a public hearing regarding the unresolved service area. At
the termination of that hearing, DOH may either establish a service area line or impose a
moratorium on new water service extensions to a Ðcontested service areaÑ pending
resolution of that conflict. This moratorium would be limited to the area in question and is
not extended to the entire service areas of the purveyors involved. Per statute, future
contested service area issues may also be resolved through a public hearing conducted
by DOH, as a matter of last resort.
There are currently no unresolved or contested service areas within the Jefferson County
CWSSA.
3.6 Service Areas of Non-Expanding Systems
Small non-expanding water systems (such as those described in Section 3.2) may serve
areas that are adjacent to, or entirely surrounded by, larger water systems. In some
cases, the financial and operational challenges of maintaining an aging small system
become too great for the system to effectively and sustainably manage on its own. Often,
consolidation with an adjacent (or surrounding) system offers the most logical way to
address such issues. The WUCC encourages consolidation of small water systems into
larger systems where feasible so as to avoid significant governance and managerial
challenges. Additional discussion regarding the challenges facing small water systems
and potential means of addressing them, such as consolidation, is provided in Chapter 6.
An area served by a small system entirely surrounded by a large system is not
considered part of the larger systemÓs retail service area. If the small system were to
consolidate into the larger system, the larger system would need to update or amend its
WSP to redefine its retail service area to include the area originally served by the small
system. Therefore, large water systems should identify small systems within their system
that may potentially be incorporated into their system in the future, and how that would
14 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
affect their retail service area. These areas may be displayed on the retail service area
map in such a way as to indicate they represent a potential part of the retail service area
in the future.
3.7 Service Area Change Procedure
Service area boundaries are subject to change. Consequently, service area mapping is
intended to be dynamic and is expected to be revised, as necessary, to accurately reflect
service area boundary changes.
Any changes in water service areas require submittal of a WSP or SWSMP, or
amendments to such documents, per DOH requirements. Thus, if a purveyor determines
that it is not able to fulfill its Ðduty to serveÑ requirements throughout its entire retail
service area, the most effective resolution is through modification to its retail service area
per documentation in a WSP or SWSMP, or amendment thereof, as long as it does not
create a boundary conflict with adjacent purveyors.
According to the MWL, a municipal water supplier has the ability to change its authorized
POU by amending its WSP as opposed to filing a water right change application with the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Following concurrent review by the
County and DOH, and once local government consistency requirements are satisfied, the
utilityÓs CWSP water service areas are adjusted to correspond to those boundaries
identified in the approved WSP or SWSMP.
3.8 Wellhead Protection
Water purveyors are subject to regulatory requirements that apply to geographical areas
extending beyond their designated services areas. For purveyors using groundwater
supplies, one of the most important of these areas is the WHPA, which is established to
help protect and preserve the quality of a systemÓs groundwater sources. Concerns have
been raised that certain land uses and activities permitted by local land use authorities
within WHPAs may pose risks to groundwater quality.
As part of this CWSP update, the WUCC evaluated the extent to which existing local
regulations protect groundwater resources within WHPAs and considered whether
additional safeguards may be warranted for permitted land uses in these areas. The
current regulatory framework governing wellhead protection is discussed below.
3.8.1 State Regulations
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires states to develop a wellhead protection
program (WHPP) to protect groundwater used for public drinking water supply. In 1994
DOH implemented WHPP requirements for public water systems. WHPP requirements
are described in WAC 246-290-135: Source Water Protection.
A WHPP must contain the following key components:
A completed Susceptibility Assessment Form for each water source (e.g., well,
spring)
July 2026 | 15
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
A delineated WHPA for each well, wellfield, or spring, with mapped 6-month and 1-,
5-, and 10-year time-of-travel zones for wells and mapped watershed control areas
for springs
A secured sanitary control area (SCA) around each water source (100-foot radius for
wells, 200-foot radius for springs)
An inventory of potential contaminant sources in the WHPA, updated every 2 years
Documentation showing that the water system sent delineation and inventory
findings to required entities
Contingency plans for providing alternate drinking water sources if contamination
does occur
Coordination with local emergency responders for appropriate spill or incident
response measures
Counties and local health departments may establish jurisdictional regulations in their
code regarding WHPA regulations.
Regulatory agencies may use the broader term Ðcritical aquifer recharge areaÑ (CARA) to
set regulations and permit requirements for hazardous land use types relative to water
supply. WHPAs and SCAs can be designated as subsets of CARAs.
3.8.2 Jefferson County CARA Regulations
Jefferson County CARA policies are codified in Chapter 18.22 (Critical Areas), Article III
(Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas) of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). This portion of the
JCC designates multiple classifications of CARAs, including: Susceptible Aquifer
Recharge Areas, Special Aquifer Recharge Areas, and Seawater Intrusion Protection
Zones (SIPZ). The JCC establishes protection standards that apply to activities occurring
within defined CARAs. Specific high impact uses are identified, which are prohibited in
some instances, or require analysis and review by DCD to be approved.
3.8.3 JCPH Regulations
JCPH provides well inspection services, including reviews of SCAs, for proposed public
water sources.
3.9 Policy Statements
The WUCC policy statements related to the topics addressed in this chapter of the
CWSP are:
3-1. Retail Service Area. Any changes in retail service areas require submittal of a
WSP or SWSMP, or amendments to such documents, per DOH requirements. Thus,
if a purveyor determines that it is not able to fulfill its Ðduty to serveÑ requirements
throughout its entire retail service area, the most effective resolution to this is through
modification to its retail service area per documentation in a WSP or SWSMP, or
amendment thereof.
16 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
3-2. Water System Consolidation. Larger water systems should consider
opportunities for consolidation of smaller systems on a case-by-case basis where
smaller water systems are also interested in and willing to participate in such actions,
particularly where small systems are entirely surrounded by a single larger system.
Such opportunities should be documented in WSPs.
4 Minimum Design Standards
This chapter of the CWSP describes design and performance policies that are adopted
as minimum standards for new and expanding public water systems (defined in WAC
246-293-610) operating in Jefferson County. These standards are codified in Jefferson
County Code (JCC) Section 18.30.030, titled ÐDevelopment Standards: Water suppliesÑ.
The minimum standards and specifications apply to public water system planning,
design, and construction for a purveyorÓs plan to serve a given area with an adequate
level of service that will provide for the health and safety of water system customers. The
specifications are also intended to provide compatibility of system infrastructure between
adjacent water purveyors. Purveyors shall adopt the minimum standards contained in
this chapter and may adopt more stringent standards.
4.1 Urban and Rural Levels of Service
Minimum standards are different for urban and rural areas. Urban levels of service are
provided within UGA boundaries, whereas rural levels of service are to be provided
outside the UGA. Delineation of urban and rural areas is provided in the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and is shown in Figure 1-1. The legislature has found that
rural services also include those public services that historically have been delivered at
an intensity typically found in rural areas and may include domestic water systems,
unless defined otherwise by local government.
Water purveyor planning and facility design in rural areas must seek a level of service
that is consistent with realistic expectation of development in these areas. In many areas,
a density of development that justifies large-scale facilities may not be likely. Urban
public facilities also must not extend beyond UGA boundaries, as noted in the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan and required by the Growth Management Act (GMA).
The minimum design requirements in rural areas require more site-specific water supply
planning. Public water purveyors serving low-density rural residential areas are expected
to plan only domestic water service. An individual or developer who proposes land uses
other than current zoning is responsible for identifying additional water needs for the
proposed development and shall then enter into an agreement with a purveyor or
satellite management agency (SMA) if some or all of those needs must be met by the
public water system.
4.2 Minimum Design Standards
This section presents minimum water system design standards, including discussion of
their purpose, application of standards, general provisions, and specific provisions.
July 2026 | 17
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
4.2.1 Purpose
Minimum design standards are intended to provide a base level of utility planning and
design for public water purveyors. Once the CWSP update is approved by DOH, these
standards will apply to expanding public water systems and to the construction of new
public water systems. The base-level planning must provide for development consistent
with adopted land use plans of the agencies with jurisdiction per WAC 246-290-100.
Uniformity and consistency in standards will, in the long term, reduce costs to consumers
as system interties and/or consolidation of utilities takes place. Reliability of water supply
will also be improved.
The minimum design standards described herein, and as codified in JCC Section
18.30.030, do not apply to municipalities insofar as service within corporate boundaries
is concerned. However, it is expected that municipalities will adopt (or have adopted)
design standards at least equal to those in the CWSP.
4.2.2 Application of Standards
Within the designated service area of a purveyor, new facilities shall be designed and
installed according to the minimum design standards adopted by the purveyor. As noted
at the beginning of this chapter, the purveyor shall adopt the minimum standards as
identified in this CWSP and may adopt more stringent standards. Existing water systems
are not required to reconstruct or replace facilities to comply with these standards unless
such reconstruction or replacement is necessary because of service area expansion or
to meet minimum public health requirements as determined by DOH.
Land use designations that determine minimum standards shall be those identified in the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. These land use designations shall be identified
in a purveyorÓs water system plan, and the purveyor shall use the land use designations
for their service area when establishing design requirements and when planning and
implementing capital improvements.
The purveyor shall prepare a plan and a program of capital improvements needed to
provide the anticipated level of service within each land use area in its service area.
When the purveyor receives a request to expand water service, it can identify the
planned capital improvements that are needed to provide the requested service. As
growth occurs, the full level of water service will eventually be provided throughout the
service area of the purveyor in a planned, phased program that meets County
requirements and minimizes overall cost to the customers. If municipalities extend water
service to customers outside of city limits, the design standards adopted by the
municipality for service in the unincorporated area must meet the minimum standards in
this CWSP. However, municipalities may elect to adopt one set of standards, applicable
both within and outside of city limits, and these standards may be more stringent than the
CWSP minimum standards.
4.2.3 General Provisions
This section presents general provisions for various aspects of water system planning
and design.
18 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Source Development. New sources of water must be designed to meet DOH
regulations and design guidelines including WAC 246-290 and 246-291, "Group A Public
Water SuppliesÑ and ÐGroup B Public Water SystemsÑ, respectively. New wells must
additionally comply with WAC 173-160, ÐMinimum Standards for Construction and
Maintenance of Wells,Ñ as administered by Ecology. All test and production wells must
be drilled in accordance with detailed drilling and testing specifications in WAC 173-160.
Wells used for domestic supply must meet the minimum requirements and obtain written
source approval from DOH in accordance with WAC 246-290.
Source Abandonment. Any well that is unusable, abandoned, or in such disrepair that
its continued use is impractical or is an environmental, safety, or public health hazard
shall be decommissioned in accordance with WAC 173-160-381. When a water source is
abandoned, the water system should notify both Ecology and DOH and should make the
appropriate changes to their WSP and related water rights. Jefferson County Policy
Statement 96-02 (2002) has additional requirements for properly decommissioning
abandoned wells.
Water Rights. Water rights must be obtained in accordance with Ecology regulations
and procedures, and copies of water rights documents, correspondence, and other
records are to be maintained on file with the purveyor.
Water Quality. Water quality must be shown to conform to DOH criteria specified in
WAC 246-290 and 246-291.
General Design Standards Incorporated by Reference. The existing standards listed
below, or as may be modified by the appropriate authorities, are hereby incorporated by
reference. Priority for application of these standards is in the order listed, but the most
stringent of these shall apply. Except as otherwise superseded by the CWSP standards
described herein, these standards will apply to water system design, installation,
modification, and operation.
1. Group A Public Water Supplies (WAC 246-290) and Group B Public Water Systems
(WAC 246-291)
2. Water System Design Manual (DOH Publication 331-123)
3. Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, as published
by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)/American Public
Works Association (APWA), latest edition
4. Standards of the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
General Material Specifications and Construction Standards. Construction within
incorporated areas remains subject to municipal permitting requirements. All
requirements of the permit shall become part of these specifications.
Selection of materials and construction of water system distribution facilities in Jefferson
County shall conform to the following, at a minimum:
1. Applicable County or municipal ordinance(s)
2. WSDOT/APWA Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction
3. AWWA standards
July 2026 | 19
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Along County road rights-of-way in unincorporated areas, a purveyor must obtain a
franchise from Jefferson County Department of Public Works to place or repair
infrastructure within the right-of-way. The purveyor must also obtain a County right-of-
way permit for each individual project within the right-of-way prior to construction.
Hydrostatic Pressure Test. Hydrostatic pressure leakage tests are to be conducted in
accordance with WSDOT/APWA Section 7-11.3(11) or AWWA C-600 specifications, and
may be conducted by more stringent standards at the discretion of the purveyor.
Disinfection and Bacteriological Testing. All pipe, reservoirs, and appurtenances shall
be flushed and disinfected in accordance with DOH standards, as provided in WAC 246-
290.
Power Supply Reliability. In accordance with WAC 246-290-420 and per Section 5.11.1
of the DOH Water System Design Manual, reliable power supply should be provided to
all sources, pump stations, and treatment plants. Furthermore, for public water systems
that do not provide minimum fire flows solely by gravity, the reliability requirements
established in WAC 246-293-660 pertaining to pumping facilities shall be met.
Utility Interties. When planning for system improvements or extensions including
specific locations, size, and alignment of major water lines, a purveyor shall incorporate
consideration and coordination of emergency interties with adjacent water purveyors.
Flow Measurement. All connections to the water system must have a water meter. The
purveyor may develop specific provisions regarding metering requirements for individual
structures. If approved by the water purveyor, domestic water consumption may be
measured by a master meter for service to a complex, under single ownership, and
where water utility line subdivision is impractical. Service lines providing fire flow may be
required by the purveyor to be equipped, at a minimum, with a detector meter.
All new groundwater sources shall be provided with devices to measure depth to water
and total water production. Installation of these devices is also recommended for existing
groundwater sources. All new sources for which water treatment is included shall be
provided with flow measurement.
Cross-Connection Control. Water purveyors are responsible for developing and
implementing cross-connection control programs in accordance with WAC 246-290-490.
The purveyorÓs responsibility for cross-connection control shall begin at the water supply
source and end at the point of delivery to the customer (i.e., at the downstream end of
the purveyorÓs service connection or water meter). Cross-connections between the
distribution system and a customerÓs system are eliminated or controlled through
installation of approved cross-connection control devices (e.g., backflow preventer
commensurate with the degree of hazard). This is accomplished through a program that
relies on either of the following:
Premise isolation as defined in WAC 246-290-010 (i.e., installation of cross-
connection control devices at or near the service connection)
Premise isolation and in-premises protection as defined in WAC 246-290-010 (i.e.,
installation of cross-connection control devices at the point of hazard, within a
customerÓs property/system)
20 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Implementation of cross-connection control programs requires close coordination with
the applicable local administrative authorities (i.e., those entities responsible for
enforcing building and plumbing codes). In the case of programs that rely in part on in-
premise isolation, the purveyor must have reasonable access to the customerÓs premises
to conduct an initial hazard evaluation and periodic reevaluations. This is often
challenging as purveyors do not have the authority to access private property for
inspections, although an in-premise approach requires this. Some purveyors have
addressed this by incorporating into their conditions of service provisions that grant the
purveyor access to the property (subject to specific requirements, including customer
notification).
4.2.4 Specific Provisions
This section presents specific provisions related to water system planning and design.
Pressure Requirement. Water systems shall be designed to maintain a minimum
residual pressure of 30 pounds per square inch (psi) at the point of delivery under peak
hour demand flow conditions, excluding fire demand. For water systems requiring fire
flow capability, the design shall be adequate to maintain, under fire flow plus maximum
day demand conditions, a 20 psi residual pressure throughout the system, per WAC 246-
290-230.
Pipe Sizing. Water mains shall be sized using the DOH Water System Design Manual.
Minimum main size may be established by a licensed engineer using recognized
hydraulic analysis techniques. Water main size shall be adequate to deliver fire flow, if
required, and to maintain the pressure requirement defined above.
Isolation Valving. Valving shall be installed at all crosses and tees in a configuration
that permits isolation of distribution system lines. A valve is not generally required for
short block lines of less than 100 feet. In addition, unvalved lengths of pipe serving
commercial, multifamily, or school areas should not exceed 500 feet, and unvalved
lengths serving residential areas should not exceed 800 feet. Greater spacing between
isolation valves is allowed on transmission lines, to be determined on a case-by-case
basis by the purveyor.
Air and Air-Vacuum Relief Valves. To minimize problems associated with air
entrainment, the purveyor shall provide for installation of air or combined air-vacuum
relief valves at appropriate points of high elevation in the system.
Blow-off Valves. A blow-off assembly shall be installed on all dead-end runs and at
designated points of low elevation within the distribution system. The blow-off assembly
shall be installed in the utility right-of-way except where an access and construction
easement is provided for in writing by the water purveyor. In no case shall the location be
such that there is a possibility of back-siphonage into the distribution system.
Storage. Storage requirements are based upon the following three components:
Equalizing storage, required to supplement production from water sources during
high-demand periods
Standby storage, required as backup supply in case the largest source is out of
service
July 2026 | 21
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Fire storage, required to deliver the level of fire flow service identified in the
purveyorÓs approved plan
Sizing of storage facilities shall be adequate to provide for equalizing storage plus the
larger of standby or fire storage requirements. Equalizing and standby storage volumes
shall be determined using the DOH Water System Design Manual. Fire storage volumes
shall be determined using the fire flow and duration as provided in level-of-service
requirements in municipal ordinance and the purveyorÓs approved water system plan or,
at a minimum, requirements specified in the CWSP (see Section 4.3). Siting of storage
facilities should consider locations that provide gravity flow.
General Facility Placement. Below-ground facilities shall be located in accordance with
applicable municipal or County ordinances. Where no ordinance applies, water mains
shall be installed at a location that is compatible with the existing water system, terrain,
and location of other utilities.
In addition, all piping, pumping, source, storage, and other facilities shall be located on
purveyor-owned property and/or within public rights-of-way or dedicated utility
easements. Utility easements must be a minimum of 20 feet in width, and piping shall be
installed no closer than 5 feet from the easementÓs edge. Exceptions to this minimum
easement may be approved by the water purveyor. Purveyor access shall be provided to
all public water system lines and their appurtenances and public fire hydrants that are
maintained by public agencies or purveyors.
Pipe Cover. The depth of trenching, installation of pipes, and backfill shall be such as to
give a minimum cover of 36 inches over the top of the pipe. This standard shall apply to
transmission, distribution, and service piping. Backfill up to 12 inches over the top of the
pipe shall be evenly and carefully placed. Remaining depth of trench is to be filled in
accordance with applicable construction standards identified in the utilityÓs general
provisions. Materials capable of damaging the pipe or its coating shall be removed from
the backfill material.
Separation Distances. Whenever possible, transmission and distribution water piping
shall be separated by at least 10 feet horizontally from on-site waste disposal piping,
drainfields, and/or wastewater gravity or force mains. At a minimum, the bottom of the
water main shall be 18 inches above the top of the sewer. Where local conditions
prevent such horizontal and/or vertical separation, closer spacing is permissible where
the separation is mitigated in the design and construction and meets requirements set
forth in EcologyÓs Criteria for Sewage Works Design and WSDOT/APWA Standard
Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
4.3 Fire Protection Standards
This section describes the minimum fire flow and fire hydrant requirements for all new
and expanding public water systems in Jefferson County. In addition, long-range
planning-level guidance is provided to aid utilities in the planning and design of
infrastructure to address higher fire flow requirements that are likely to be imposed on
future development. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan developed by Jefferson
County in 2024 can serve as an additional resource for water utilities planning for future
fire flow needs.
22 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
These standards are codified in Jefferson County Code (JCC) Section 18.30.030. This
code states that Ðwater sources and facilities adequate for fire protection purposes shall
be provided in all developments to the satisfaction of the Jefferson County fire marshal.Ñ
It additionally references JCC Title 15, Buildings and Construction, to determine required
fire flow for buildings. However, from a water planning perspective, the county code
states Ðall development must conform to the requirements of Jefferson County public
health and the Jefferson County coordinated water system plan regarding the availability
and provision of water.Ñ
4.3.1 Minimum Fire Flow Requirements
Table 4-1 lists the minimum fire flow requirements applicable to new and expanding
public water systems. Exempted from these requirements are new water systems or new
additions to existing systems when all lots to be served by the new system or new
addition are one gross acre or more in size and uses are limited to single-family
development. These requirements apply to water purveyors planning for fire protection
within their retail service area and do not apply to individual structures, which may have
higher requirements. Higher recommended fire flows are included in Section 4.3.4.
Table 4-1. Minimum Fire Flow Requirements
Fire Flow Required Minimum Duration
a
Type of Development Location/Area
(gpm)(minutes)
b
ResidentialRural500 30
b
ResidentialUrban750 30
c
MultifamilyUrban and rural 1,000 60
Commercial Urban and rural 1,000 60
Industrial Urban and rural 1,500 60
a
Based on Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan definition
b
Single family and multifamily less than 4,000 square feet
c
Greater than 4,000 square feet
4.3.2 Fire Assistance
Many of the water utilities in the county will serve land use classifications which do not
require compliance with the fire flow provisions of these standards. However, it is
strongly recommended that each purveyor take the measures needed to provide the
maximum feasible fire protection for its customers and to facilitate later conversion to full
fire flow capability if expansion of the water system is proposed. Any utility wishing to
explore alternatives for installation of fire protection facilities can obtain technical
assistance from the Fire Marshal in Jefferson County, which may refer to National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1142 for information regarding water supplies
for firefighting in rural areas.
Water utilities may consider lower-cost alternatives in order to provide assistance to
firefighting personnel, including:
A survey and inventory of all utility-maintained water sources and storage facilities
which may be utilized in firefighting. The inventory should be provided to the local fire
July 2026 | 23
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
protection district, along with a notification list of water utility personnel who could be
contacted for assistance by the fire protection district.
Standpipes and emergency water ports installed on existing facilities.
Development of supplemental water sources. Since water for fire protection does not
need to be potable, the fire demand burden from a potable water system may be
reduced by providing additional supply from local natural water bodies, irrigation
facilities, and so forth. Such supplemental supply must not be connected to the
potable water system, even temporarily (i.e., no chance for cross connection). NFPA
1142 provides guidelines for supplemental water source development.
Additional storage facilities. Providing additional storage facilities with suitable
pumper port access (obtain specification from local fire protection district) can
provide a significant increase in available high volume flow, since fire units carry
pumping facilities. If connected to the potable water system, the storage facility must
be protected from contamination and periodically disinfected.
Pre-fire planning. Water utilities, with the assistance of their local fire protection
district, can develop response plans and plans for facility upgrading to increase fire
protection capability.
The fire marshal and building official may consider any combination of alternative
strategies to mitigate in part or in whole the lack of adequate or available fire flow water
and/or reduce the minimum required fire flow storage volume or flow for a given project
proposal. In line with IFC guidance, such strategies may include, but are not necessarily
limited to:
Provide an automatic sprinkler system throughout the building or fire area when not
otherwise required by the International Fire Code (IFC) or International Building Code
(IBC).
Upgrade the proposed building construction type from combustible to non-
combustible and/or fire-rated. For example, upgrade from Type VB to Type VA or
Type IIB construction.
Provide fire walls or fire barrier walls to divide the building into smaller fire areas or to
provide isolated storage of combustible packaging supplies and/or hazardous
materials.
Provide enhanced setbacks from property lines and other buildings on the site.
Provide a monitored fire alarm system when not otherwise required by the IFC or
IBC.
Where appropriate, provide additional exits from the building to adequate, accessible
exit discharge areas.
Reduce high-piled storage racking systems.
Explore development of alternative water supply sources to meet fire flow demand,
for example, the Olympic Gravity Water System.
Other approved strategies that reduce risk to building occupants and emergency
responders.
24 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Approval of such strategies is at the discretion of the fire marshal in cooperation with the
building official. They are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, based on the
specific characteristics of a given project. The fire marshal may require system strategies
be analyzed, evaluated, and/or designed by an approved Fire Technician or licensed Fire
Tech/System Design Engineer.
4.3.3 Fire Hydrants
Fire hydrants shall be located at a spacing of 750 feet for all areas serving single-family
structures and shall be located as close to intersections as possible. For all other types
of service, such as multifamily, commercial, and industrial, hydrant spacing shall be 300
feet on center. Actual location of hydrants shall be identified in the development site plan
and shall be approved by the water purveyor and the fire marshal. Hydrant spacing may
be more stringent than those mentioned above. Placements shall be made to provide
unhindered access for fire hose connection, testing, and maintenance. Control of runoff
during hydrant operation shall also be provided.
Newly installed hydrants shall be maintained, exercised, and inspected according to
NFPA 1, 25, and 291, in addition to applicable sections from AWWA standards, the IFC,
and WAC. Standard hydrants shall have minimum 5-inch main valve openings (MVOs)
with two 2½-inch National Hose (N.H.) outlet ports and one 4½-inch N.H. outlet port. The
2½-inch and the 4½-inch outlet ports shall have threads that correspond with and meet
the approval of the local fire department. All new hydrants, including replaced hydrants,
shall be provided with 4-inch Storz fittings and shall meet the current AWWA standards.
Additional requirements are:
1. Hydrant locations: Hydrant locations shall be determined by the fire marshal in
partnership with the water purveyor, guided by the maximum spacing indicated
above.
2. Auxiliary gate valve: An auxiliary gate valve shall be installed to permit the repair
and replacement of the hydrants without disruption of water service.
3. Setup: Hydrants shall stand plumb and be set to the finished grade. The bottom of
the lowest outlet of the hydrant shall be no less than 18 inches above the grade.
There shall be 36 inches of clear area around the hydrant for operation of a hydrant
wrench on the outlets and on the control valve. The pumper port shall face the street.
Where the street cannot be clearly defined or recognized, the port shall face the most
likely route of approach and the location of the fire truck while pumping, as
determined by the Fire Marshal.
4. Accessibility: Hydrants shall be accessible for fire department pumpers.
5. Plans: The location of all water mains, fire hydrants, and valves to be installed shall
be properly and accurately marked on identifiable plans or drawings. Plans or
drawings shall be furnished to the Fire Marshal for review and approval.
6. Color coding: Color coding, when used, shall be in accordance with National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 291.
It is the determination of the WUCC that the responsibility for maintenance and testing of
fire hydrants primarily rests with the water systems that own the infrastructure. For non-
municipal corporations, a description of the hydrant maintenance procedures must be
July 2026 | 25
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
kept on file to be eligible for liability protection under Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 70A.145.060 for damage that may arise out of a fire event. Within all water
systems, fire hydrants that are permanently inoperative or unusable shall be repaired or
removed. Fire hydrants that are temporarily inoperative or unusable shall be wrapped or
otherwise provided with temporary indication of their condition and the local fire authority
notified when they are unavailable. Fire hydrants that are temporarily inoperative or
unusable shall be repaired as soon as possible (WAC 246-293-650).
Public water systems are encouraged to communicate with their local fire authorities
regarding the location, operation, and status of their fire flow facilities. Where
appropriate, a written agreement that identifies responsibilities for maintenance and
testing of fire hydrants should be negotiated between the fire department or district and
the water utility (WAC 246-293-650(8)). Such agreements could establish operation,
maintenance, and testing policies that are mutually beneficial to both the fire authority
and the water utilities and would clarify each partyÓs respective roles and responsibilities.
Communication is seen as being most important in the unincorporated areas and/or
where County fire districts exist with dynamic boards of commissioners and local fire
district chiefs.
The tasks itemized in Table 4-2 should be carried out in a responsible manner at the
specified frequency. The water utility is ultimately responsible for the implementation of
these maintenance activities but should coordinate with the fire districts in their service
area. Fire districts could also support implementation of these activities. The utility should
notify the local fire authority in advance before any changes are made to hydrant
installation or relocation. The local fire authority should notify the utility in advance of
testing any fire hydrants or hydrant use for firefighting training.
Table 4-2. Fire protection facility operation, maintenance, and testing
Maintenance Activity Frequency
Inspection of new facility At time of construction
Review of location of hydrants At time of construction
Review of installation and type of hydrant, ports, and valves At time of construction
Numbering and color coding of hydrants At time of construction
Mechanical repair and maintenance As needed
Painting and coding of hydrants As needed
Communications (emergency, alert system, faulty hydrant, etc.) As needed
Backflow prevention between potable and fire protection systems As needed
Install and check reflector location, if used Annually
Flow and pressurized testing of hydrant Annually
Operation of tee valve Annually
Private/building fire system testing Annually
Clear vegetation and brush from hydrant Annually
Estimate volume and time of use of hydrants and provide report to utility Monthly
26 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
4.3.4 Long-Range Planning-Level Guidance for Fire Flows
Minimum fire flow requirements are established by zoning category. Issues may arise
when specific developments or proposed land uses for a given parcel(s) trigger higher
fire flow requirements than were associated with parcel zoning at the time of water
system installation. In such cases, the water infrastructure might be undersized. A similar
situation can occur if an area is up-zoned to accommodate higher densities. In these
cases, additional burdens are placed on water utilities and developers to accommodate
higher fire flow requirements than what the system was designed for.
To assist in mitigating these issues in the future, new and expanding water systems are
encouraged to plan and design for higher fire flow requirements that may be imposed on
future development. This CWSP provides guidance in this regard by identifying
recommended long-range planning-level fire flow targets that are intended to serve as
guidelines during the planning and design of future improvements. These recommended
target flows and durations, developed in coordination with the County Fire Marshal and
the WUCC, are shown in Table 4-3, listed by development type.
Table 4-3. Long-Range Planning-Level Fire Flows
Fire Flow Recommended Duration
Type of Development Location/Area
Recommended (gpm)(minutes)
ResidentialRural500 60
Residential Urban 1,000 60
Multifamily Rural 1,000 60
Multifamily Urban 1,000 120
Commercial Rural 1,000 60
Commercial Urban 1,500 120
Industrial Urban and rural 2,000 120
Values in Table 4-3 are not to be considered minimum required fire flow requirements.
Rather, they are recommended guidelines for new or expanding public water systems to
consider when conducting capital improvement planning on a 30-year (or more) planning
horizon. They also do not supersede the authority of the County Fire Marshal to issue
other requirements specific to a proposed development during the development review
process.
Long-range target fire flows are anticipated to be met by infrastructure improvements
phased in over time and in combination with upgrades necessitated by other factors
(e.g., age, condition).
New or expanding public water systems shall include discussion in their WSPs regarding
how improvements to existing infrastructure and the design of new infrastructure will
consider anticipated increases in fire flow requirements for new development and
redevelopment or the reasons why higher fire flow requirements are not considered (e.g.,
because of constraints related to existing water supply capacities, cost of incorporating
increased fire flows and durations in infrastructure design). Reference to the planning-
level flows in Table 4-3, or other known planning targets applicable to the purveyorÓs
retail service area, should be made in WSPs.
July 2026 | 27
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
When existing infrastructure is not able to support minimum fire flow requirements
associated with specific developments, mitigation techniques can be employed. These
include fire sprinkling, use of non-combustible construction materials, increased building
setbacks, and use of firewalls or fire barrier walls. Use of these mitigation techniques
may be coordinated between the developer, water purveyor, and fire authority and are to
be considered on a case-by-case basis.
4.4 Policy Statements
The WUCC policy statements related to the topics addressed in this chapter of the
CWSP are:
4-1. Periodic Meeting for Standards Review. A Standards Review Subcommittee
of the WUCC should meet periodically (at a minimum once every 3 years) to assess
the current standards and propose changes as needed.
4-2. Design Standard Coordination. Neighboring water utilities should collaborate
and strive toward consistency in design standards to facilitate potential shared
infrastructure improvements and long-range planning.
4-3. Fire Flow: Codify Minimum Standards. Jefferson County should incorporate
the fire flow minimum standards into the Jefferson County Code to allow for easier
modification as needed and make standards easier for applicants to locate.
4-4. Fire Hydrants: Coordination between Water Utilities and Fire Districts.
Water utilities should coordinate with fire districts operating within their service areas
and create written agreements as appropriate to ensure proper maintenance of fire
hydrants.
4-5. Fire Flow: Long-Range Planning-Level Guidance. The CWSP provides
guidance to new and expanding public water systems by identifying recommended
long-range planning-level fire flow targets that are intended to serve as a guideline
during the planning and design of future infrastructure improvements, to address fire
flow requirements that are likely to be higher than the current required minimums for
future development.
4-6. Fire Flow: Water System Plans. New or expanding public water systems shall
include discussion in their WSPs regarding how improvements to existing
infrastructure and the design of new infrastructure will consider anticipated increases
in fire flow requirements for new development and redevelopment, or the reasons
why higher fire flow requirements are not considered (e.g., because of constraints
related to existing water supply capacities, cost of incorporating increased fire flows
and durations in infrastructure design, etc.).
4-7. Alternative Water Supplies for Fire Flow. Water utilities should collaborate to
identify solutions involving alternative water supplies, such as the Olympic Gravity
Water System, that may be used to address fire flow deficiencies.
28 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
5 Utility Service Review Procedure
The proliferation of small water systems can lead to cumbersome regional water supply
management and burdensome customer costs. Therefore, the Coordination Act requires
that no new public water system be established within the CWSSA unless it is
determined that existing purveyors are unable to provide water service. This chapter of
the CWSP presents the procedures for reviewing applications for public water service in
the County or other municipal entity in order to identify existing purveyors that are able to
provide water service to such applicants. The procedures are based upon DOH
regulations (codified in WAC 246-290 and 246-293), and County and JCPH policies and
procedures necessary to comply with the Coordination Act.
The USRP is a mechanism designed to avoid the numerous and costly challenges posed
by increased numbers of small water systems. Such challenges are discussed in more
detail in Section 6.
5.1 Utility Service Review Procedure Process
The USRP applies to all proposed land use activities requiring potable water approval by
the County or other municipal entity, including formal subdivisions, large lot divisions,
short subdivisions, land use permits and approvals, and the issuance of building permits.
At the time an application is submitted for permits or approvals, or upon request, and
upon payment of appropriate fees, DCD will initiate the review procedure. DCD will
coordinate the review with JCPH before the issuance of any approvals. A flow chart
indicating the steps to be followed in the USRP is provided in Figure 5-1. Additional detail
pertaining to certain steps of the process follows.
July 2026 | 29
| July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan Jefferson County, Washington Figure 5-1. Utility Service Review Procedure Flow Chart 30
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
5.1.1 Determination of Water Service
When development applications conform to the CountyÓs Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations, the USRP will generally follow the steps outlined in Figure 5-1.
DCD will coordinate review of all land use applications received. DCD will be responsible
for ensuring compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate land use
regulations. Upon determination of appropriate land use designation, DCD will review
building requests for conformance with the appropriate building codes.
Within unincorporated Jefferson County, development projects that require water service
will be referred to JCPH by DCD, which maintains current records of approved WSPs
and designated service areas. JCPH will review the proposed water service request, and
will refer the applicant to a designated public water system, adjacent public water
systems, or SMAs, as outlined in the steps below. For developments located outside of a
public water systemÓs service area that do not require public water, an individual well
may be developed.
When water service is required for a development, and the development is located within
the retail service area of a public water system, that purveyor shall specify its intent to
implement one of the following options:
The purveyor can serve in a T/R manner and will make direct connection to the
development
The purveyor cannot provide service in a T/R manner and develops an interim
service agreement with the developer, which leads to an eventual system connection
The purveyor will not be able to serve the development in a T/R manner, nor at a
future time, and thus reduces its retail service area by means of a WSP amendment
If it is determined that eventual water service cannot be provided by an existing purveyor
within its retail service area, including with the use of temporary interim service options to
serve the development in the near term, the service area boundary is adjusted
accordingly through the processes described in Section 3.7, and ultimately documented
in a water system plan amendment or update.
If the development is not located within the retail service area of an existing system and
requires service from a public water system (i.e., not an individual well), JCPH will refer
the applicant to existing purveyors in the vicinity of the proposed development. An
adjacent purveyor may decide to expand its service area to serve the applicant.
Appropriate modifications to the retail service area maps and WSP(s) will then be
completed by the affected purveyor(s), in accordance with the process outlined in
Section 3.4. If the proposed development does not require public water service, an
individual well may be developed.
If adjacent purveyors decline to serve the applicant or are unable to provide service in a
timely and reasonable manner, a new water system may be developed, in consultation
with DOH. It shall be the burden of the applicant to provide documentation, if requested
by DCD or JCPH (or DOH, in the case of Group B systems), of correspondence with
existing purveyors and justification for formation of the new water system. All new public
water systems shall be managed and operated by an approved SMA, except water
systems serving only two connections (no SMA required). JCPH will refer the applicant to
a list of prequalified SMAs (see Chapter 6). The applicant is responsible for contacting
July 2026 | 31
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
the SMAs and negotiating conditions of service. If no SMAs are willing to manage and
operate the water system, the water system shall contract with a State-certified water
system operator to operate the water system.
As part of the water service application process, the proposed project must be reviewed
with the water purveyor to identify the engineering, financial, managerial, and other
requirements of service, consistent with the purveyorÓs established policies pertaining to
T/R provision of service. If the applicant accepts the T/R conditions of service prescribed
by the water purveyor, the purveyor shall provide to the applicant a signed certificate of
water availability prior to the County's issuance of the required approval/permit.
If the applicant and purveyor are unable to agree on T/R conditions of service, the
applicant may file a complaint or appeal according to the processes established by the
purveyor for resolution of such issues within its service area. The MWL provides means
for resolution of T/R disputes within retail service areas, including appeals to Superior
Court.
After the preliminary plat or other land use permits are approved, but prior to the
application for a building permit, it is recommended that a written contract be developed
between the purveyor and applicant to formalize the conditions of service and
responsibilities. Prior to completion of the requested land use approval or permit by DCD
or JCPH, the water facilities are to be installed, and prior to issuance of a building permit
and provision of water service by the purveyor, to be installed and approved by the water
purveyor.
When development triggers new infrastructure, a WSP amendment is required by DOH.
This in turn triggers the WSP review and approval process, including Ecology water right
review, which must be completed prior to DOH approval of the amended WSP.
5.2 Timely and Reasonable Service
As discussed in Section 3.1, one of the four threshold determination criteria of a water
systemÓs Ðduty to serveÑ includes that the Ðmunicipal supplier can provide service in a
timely and reasonable manner.Ñ This criterion is elaborated upon in this section. As
described in Section 3.1, Ðtimely and reasonableÑ pertains to those public water systems
that conduct DOH-required water system planning as established by WAC 246-290-100
(Water System Plan) and those water systems that conduct planning as set forth by
WAC 246-290-105 (Small Water System Management Program). When a service area
expansion request occurs, this may result in a change in legal water right place of use,
which in turn will trigger the Ðduty to serveÑ requirements of the MWL, including the
Ðtimely and reasonableÑ element.
5.2.1 Definition of ÐTimely ServiceÑ
The MWL (Chapter 3) provides individual municipal water systems the authority and
responsibility to establish their own policies and definition regarding Ðtimely service.Ñ
However, some utilities have not defined timely service in their policies or plans, leading
to misunderstandings between customers requesting service and the purveyor about
when service can be expected. Therefore, the CWSP provides the following definition of
Ðtimely serviceÑ that water systems may adopt for their own purposes, or that could be
considered during a dispute resolution process if the water purveyor fails to define it:
32 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Receiving a commitment to provide service, or the reaching of agreement with
the potential customer, within 120 days of request for water service. The 120-day
period shall be defined as calendar days. The 120-day clock shall commence at
the filing of a written application, payment of fees, or request by the applicant to
the purveyor.
The 120-day standard does not apply to the provision of service. Planning, design,
contracting, and construction of new development and associated water service
connections often require more than 120 days for completion.
5.2.2 Definition of ÐReasonable ServiceÑ
The MWL provides individual municipal water systems the authority and responsibility to
establish their own policies and definition regarding Ðreasonable service.Ñ However,
some utilities have not defined reasonable service in their policies or plans, leading to
misunderstandings between applicants requesting service and the purveyor about the
reasonable conditions of service. Therefore, the CWSP provides the following definition
of Ðreasonable serviceÑ that water systems may adopt for their own purposes, or that
could be considered during a dispute resolution process:
The provision of potable water service and/or associated water utility services
that are consistent with the conditions of service policies detailed in the utilityÓs
DOH-approved water system plan or small water system management plan and
bylaws.
Furthermore, it is noted that a purveyor might be considered unable to provide service in
a reasonable manner if one or both of the following criteria are met:
The purveyorÓs conditions of water service differ adversely in an arbitrary and
capricious manner from the stated conditions of service in the purveyorÓs approved
WSP or SWSMP and bylaws
The purveyorÓs conditions of water service differ adversely in an arbitrary and
capricious manner from the purveyorÓs acknowledged standard practice with other
applicants requesting similar water services
The following is additional guidance that individual utilities may consider in development
of their own definition of Ðreasonable service,Ñ based on criteria informed by applicable
DOH policies and best utility management practices. Under this guidance, Ðreasonable
serviceÑ would reflect, in addition to the criteria noted above, the following:
Rates/charges that are based on the water systemÓs cost of service
That the water system has taken affirmative action to plan for water service within its
retail service area, including making plans and implementing capital investments in
required facilities/infrastructure, and new water sources/supplies
That full cost recovery of planned actions/investments in retail water service facilities
is required by the water systemÓs authorizing statute, WSP policies, and DOH
financial planning requirements in order to achieve the following goals:
p Maintain system financial viability and reliable service within its retail service area
July 2026 | 33
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
p Avoid stranded costs/investments that may require imposition of unplanned rate
increases on existing customers to offset unanticipated revenue losses/cost
exposure
5.3 Temporary Interim Service Options
Financial hardship posed by costly main extensions may invite a contentious Ðreasonable
serviceÑ dispute. Therefore, the CWSP identifies potential interim/temporary service
options that are available for use by water systems, with the caveat that such alternatives
shall protect the integrity of the water systemÓs retail service area boundaries, system
planning, and operational/financial obligations. These options are provided for
consideration by purveyors to avoid certain Ðreasonable serviceÑ disputes. They be used
individually or in combination.
5.3.1 Temporary Permit-Exempt Well(s)
Agreements for future water service connection may be appropriate in circumstances
where the cost of a main extension to a single-family property is determined by the water
system to be unfeasible or unreasonable relative to estimated costs; distance; water
quality issues; and other appropriate design, cost, and engineering considerations.
In general terms, under such an agreement a property owner may install a private well to
provide potable water to the subject property on a temporary basis. As described in more
detail below, the use of such a well will terminate when water service becomes available
within the vicinity of the subject property.
The specific terms and conditions of such an agreement should be presumed to vary
according to the specific situation, but may include the following common elements:
The water system does not object to the ownerÓs installation of a private well to
provide potable water service and related temporary connection to the property,
subject to appropriate conditions
The owner agrees that upon notification from the water system operator of the
availability of water to the property from the water system (as defined by the water
system in the agreement), the property owner shall take appropriate action to
connect to the water system (per water system design standards)
If all or a portion of the water systemÓs fees and charges assessed against the
property occur through a reimbursement (e.g., latecomers) or participation
agreement, the payment of those fees and charges shall be in accordance with any
such agreement
The property owner shall pay the water systemÓs fees and charges upon the
availability of water service and upon the connection of the property to the water
system and provision of water service
Upon connection of the property to the water system, the owner shall be subject to
and comply with all water system resolutions, policies, and procedures regarding the
provision of water to the property
34 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Upon connection of the property to the water system, the owner shall permanently
disconnect the private well from the residence/other structure on the subject property
receiving water at the time of connection, subject to the discretion of the water
system
The agreement is appurtenant to the property and shall constitute a covenant
running with the property that is recorded and binding on the owner, ownerÓs heirs,
assigns, and successors
5.3.2 Temporary Service by Adjacent Purveyor
Temporary connection to an adjacent purveyor may be appropriate in circumstances
where the cost of a main extension to a new development is unreasonable relative to
estimated costs; distance; water quality issues; and other appropriate design, cost, and
engineering considerations within the designated purveyorÓs service area. It may be
reasonable to allow the development to connect to an adjacent purveyor that has
infrastructure in the vicinity of, and that is capable of, serving the development in the
near term. The designated purveyor, adjacent (temporary) purveyor, and developer
should identify the terms of service and conditions which will trigger an eventual transfer
from the adjacent utility to the designated utility.
5.3.3 Temporary Interim Service Agreement
In general, interim non-standard (i.e., non-main or Ðspaghetti lineÑ) connections to a
water system shall be avoided. However, under certain circumstances, a water systemÓs
operational, financial, and policy interests may be met by permitting this type of
connection to a water system main on an interim basis. Such an arrangement may be
deemed appropriate, however, only when the water system determines that the subject
property will be served in the future by a standard water system main abutting the
property.
This type of service should be governed by a Temporary Interim Service Agreement
(TISA), which may apply in either or both of the following circumstances:
Where the distance from an existing water distribution main exceeds a threshold
distance defined by the water system (e.g., ¼ mile)
Where there is no existing capital project or main extension plan under construction
or planned that would enable connection within the ÐreasonableÑ criteria
An interim non-standard connection will require a TISA to be executed between the
customer and the water system. The TISA will specify the terms and conditions for the
interim connection. These may include, but are not limited to, provisions designed to
facilitate financing and connection to a main, at the time that a main abutting the property
is subsequently installed and fees and charges associated with the initial installation of
the temporary meter and the future abandonment of the temporary meter.
Prior to execution of the TISA by the water system, the customer may be required to pay
an Interim Connection Agreement Fee, Permit Fee, Service Connection Charge for
installation of the temporary meter, a Service Connection Charge for the future
installation of the permanent meter (which includes the cost of installing a new meter and
other facilities or equipment necessary to connect to the water systemÓs main if and
July 2026 | 35
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
when a main is installed abutting the property), and a Meter Abandonment Fee (which
includes the cost of removing the temporary meter connection and disconnecting the
service at the water systemÓs main). Prior to execution of the TISA by the water system,
the applicant may also pay an applicable general facilities charge and other fees required
by the utility.
The customer shall obtain and maintain all easements, property rights, and/or permits
that are necessary or appropriate for interim water service. The customer must provide
documentation of same as part of the TISA. Whenever a property temporarily served
pursuant to a TISA can receive permanent service by connection to a newly extended
water system water main abutting the property, the TISA will be terminated.
Relocation of the temporary meter connection to the permanent location may result in
temporary loss of service. The customer will also be required to extend the personal
water service line from the new location of the permanent meter to the property at their
cost within 60 days of receiving written notice from the water system.
5.3.4 Participation Agreement
A Participation Agreement (PA) is a water service tool whereby a water system enters
into an agreement with a property owner within the water systemÓs retail service area for
the purpose of enabling the equitable distribution, recovery, and reimbursement of costs
relating to a main extension that involves normal or oversized capacity. This involves the
water system paying for a portion of the main extension costs, as outlined below.
A PA may be appropriate in circumstances where absent such an agreement, the water
system has determined that the cost of a main extension to provide water service to the
subject property is ÐunreasonableÑ for a property owner to bear on an individual basis.
The core elements of a PA are as follows:
The water system financially participates in the cost of the installation of ÐoversizedÑ
improvement and/or main extension to an area in reasonable proximity to the
property that will benefit the property
The water system reimburses the property owner for the difference in material costs
incurred by the property owner to install the improvements as approved by the water
system
The water system reimburses the property owner for all or a portion of the
homeownerÓs installation costs
5.3.5 Latecomers Agreement
A Latecomers Agreement may be appropriate in circumstances similar to a PA,
described above. Such agreements allow a property owner within a water systemÓs retail
service area to recover a portion of the costs of a main extension (or other facility
improvements) from other property owners who develop their property later in time in the
vicinity of the improvements, and use the improvements.
Latecomers Agreements (contracts) must be filed and recorded with the County Auditor
and meet conditions required by the water system consistent with its adopted policies
and design standards.
36 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
A Latecomers fee is a charge collected by the water system, whether as a separate
charge or as part of a connection fee for providing access to a water system, against a
property owner who connects to or uses a water facility.
In general terms, a property owner may not connect to water facilities during the life of a
Latecomers Agreement without first paying to the water system, the amount required by
the agreement. The costs due under such agreements are determined by an engineerÓs
estimate, which must include the fair share pro rata share due from the property owners.
The reimbursement period of a Latecomers Agreement for cities/towns may last up to 20
years or longer subject to extensions, while for water/sewer districts, the period is up to
15 years.
5.3.6 Temporary Interim Group A/B System
For circumstances where service to a new development is deemed unreasonable and
the development cannot be served by a single-family private well, consideration can be
given to the creation of an interim Group A or Group B water system. The CWSP
strongly discourages implementation of this option, but acknowledges that it does pose
an alternative that water systems can explore if no other option is feasible.
If considered, two approaches to a temporary, interim water system are described below,
allowing the water purveyor the prerogative to define its role in interim service
(ownership/management, or allowing the developer to own/administer the system). In
both cases the water system must be built per the purveyorÓs standards, and all parcels
will pay applicable connection fees and receive water from the purveyor once water is
available from the municipal water system at the subject parcels. The two approaches
are described below:
A ÐremoteÑ Group A or B water system is developed by the developer/owner. The
remote water system is built per the purveyorÓs standards and is owned and/or
operated by the purveyor. The remote system is incorporated into the municipal
water system or is decommissioned when service from the existing municipal water
system is available at subject parcels. Subject parcels will pay applicable standard
connection fees at the time of connection.
An ÐinterimÑ Group A or B water system is developed by the developer/property
owner. The interim water system is built per the purveyorÓs standards, but is owned
and operated by the developer. The interim water system is then decommissioned
and subject parcels are connected to the municipal water system when service is
available at the subject parcels. Subject parcels will pay applicable standard
connection fees at the time of connection.
5.4 Timely and Reasonable Dispute Resolution
The 1986 and 1997 CWSPs envisioned that issues may arise with respect to
disagreements between water service applicants and water purveyors regarding the
definition or conditions related to timely and reasonable service. The prior CWSPs noted
that, according to RCW 70.116.060(5), the County may develop and utilize a mechanism
for addressing said disputes. The 1986 CWSP laid forth an appeals process, though that
process has not been used extensively, and where it has been used, the process has not
July 2026 | 37
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
been well defined. Therefore, the following process was developed in the 1997 CWSP,
and was reconsidered during this CWSP update.
It is anticipated that most disputes will arise over the question of what constitutes
reasonable conditions of service. The view of the WUCC is that the majority of such
disputes can best be resolved if discussions between the parties are facilitated by
persons knowledgeable of public water system design, construction, and operation. To
this end, the WUCC will form a Subcommittee for the purpose of peer review of issues
with the objective of reaching negotiated agreements. The information presented in
Section 5.2.2 will inform the SubcommitteeÓs review.
If an applicant and a utility are unable to agree on conditions of service, a written request
for review of the issues may be made to DCD by either party. DCD will initiate review by
sending a copy of the request to the chairperson of the WUCC. The WUCC is
responsible for establishment of a facilitation/mediation process for resolution of the
disagreement. The process is voluntary for all parties and will generally function within
the framework below.
Appeal Review Subcommittee
A subcommittee of the WUCC will be formed by the WUCC chairperson. Membership will
initially consist of representative of the interests listed below. This membership may
change at the discretion of the WUCC as experience is gained in the appeal process.
JCPH (1 member)
WUCC Utility Member (3 members)
Non-Voting WUCC Member (1 member)
Objectives
The review process will be directed to achieve the following objectives:
Provide a forum for negotiation of the issues between the parties
Facilitate the negotiations
Assure equitable representation between parties
Reach agreement between parties
Where parties choose not to participate in the negotiations, identify and evaluate the
facts associated with the issues
Subcommittee Report
The Subcommittee will conclude its review within 45 days of receipt of the appeal. The
Subcommittee chairperson will provide a written report to DCD containing the majority
view of the Subcommittee. When the appeal has been resolved, the conditions of
agreement will be reported. A full or conditional notice of withdrawal of the appeal by the
applicant should accompany the report. Where resolution was not achieved, the report
should identify the controlling issues and position of the parties. A Subcommittee
recommendation for disposition of the issues is to be provided.
DCD Action
38 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
DCD will file the Subcommittee report as part of the development request record. In
situations where the appeal is not resolved, DCD will review the recommendation of the
Subcommittee for consistency with CWSP provisions and County land use policies. Any
inconsistencies will be noted as an addendum to the Subcommittee report. The original
appeal, Subcommittee recommendations, and DCD addendum (if any) will then be
forwarded by DCD for consideration in conjunction with the development application.
Ultimately, the County holds the statutory authority in matters relating to the provision of
timely and reasonable service, as established in RCW 70A.100.060(3)(b).
5.5 Policy Statements
The WUCC policy statements related to the topics addressed in this chapter of the
CWSP are:
5-1. Utility Service Review Procedure. The USRP outlined in the CWSP shall be
used to identify existing purveyors that can provide water service to applicants
requesting service.
5-2. New Public Water Systems. The establishment of new public water systems is
discouraged if an existing water system can provide service.
5-3. Timely and Reasonable. As established in the MWL, individual municipal water
systems have the authority and responsibility to establish their own policies and
definitions regarding Ðtimely and reasonable service.Ñ The CWSP provides guidance
regarding these definitions that water systems may adopt for their own purposes, or
that could be considered during a dispute resolution process. During its review
process for local government consistency, DCD will review WSPs for inclusion of T/R
policies.
5-4. Temporary Interim Service Options. The CWSP identifies potential
temporary/interim service options that are available for consideration by municipal
water systems when direct connection of an applicant to the systemÓs existing
infrastructure cannot be implemented in a Ðtimely and reasonableÑ manner, so as to
avoid certain disputes. Favorable options include temporary service by an adjacent
purveyor, extension of temporary non-standard connections, and allowance of
temporary permit-exempt wells (for individual homes). The least favorable of the
options described in the CWSP is the development of interim Group A or Group B
systems within existing retail service areas. The WUCC encourages purveyors to
describe which temporary interim service options, if any, are allowed within their
retail service areas.
5-5. Service Area Dispute Resolution. The County should consider developing a
service area dispute resolution process to reflect the process described in Section
5.4 for various situations.
July 2026 | 39
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
6 Small Water Systems, Satellite
Management, and Water System Failure
This chapter describes policies and procedures related to satellite management of water
systems and receivership of failing systems, addresses current issues facing small water
systems in the County, and offers recommendations for improved processes.
6.1 Small Water Systems in Jefferson County
As described in Chapter 2, significant population growth in the mid-1980s led to the
proliferation of independently managed small systems throughout the County where
established water systems were unable or unwilling to provide service. Some of these
systems have consolidated with other systems to create larger systems, while others
have remained their original size. As of March 2026, Jefferson County has 181 water
systems, including both Group A and Group B systems:
Group A: serve 15 or more service connections, or serve 25 or more people for 60
or more days per year
Group B: serve fewer than 15 service connections, and serve fewer than 25 people
per day (or 25+ people fewer than 60 days/year, with limits)
A summary of all systems in Jefferson County is shown in Table 6-1. While the majority
of systems are Group B, these systems represent only 3% of all connections within the
County.
(1)
Table 6-1. Jefferson County Water Systems Summary
System Type Count % of Systems Total Connections % of Connections
Group A 59 33% 16,045 97%
Group B 122 67% 506 3%
Total 181 100% 16,551 100%
Notes:
1. Includes all active systems.
Source: DOH Sentry Database (March 2026).
The majority of water systems located within Jefferson County are very small, serving
less than 100 connections. Figure 6-1 depicts the breakdown of Group A and B systems
by connection count. Only three of these systems (all Group A), serve populations of
1,000 or more: these include the City of Port Townsend (PWS # 69000R), Quimper
(PWS #05783U), and Olympic Water and Sewer Inc. (PWS # 68700L).
40 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
Number of Systems
20
0
<1515-5051-100101-500501-9991,000+
Number of Connections
Group AGroup B
Figure 6-1. Jefferson County Systems by Connection Count
Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 describe how ownership of systems and connections are
divided by Group A and B systems. In summary, the majority of Group A connections are
owned by a special district or city/town, while the majority of Group B connections are
privately owned.
Table 6-2. Jefferson County Group A System Ownership
Count % of Systems Connection Count % of Connections
City/Town 3 5% 6,763 42%
Association 8 14% 651 4%
Investor 8 14% 2,292 14%
County 1 2% 1 0%
Federal 4 7% 157 1%
Private 21 36% 944 6%
Special district 11 19% 5,116 32%
State 3 5% 121 1%
Total 59 100% 16,045 100%
Notes:
1. Includes all active systems.
Source: DOH Sentry Database (March 2026).
July 2026 | 41
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Table 6-3. Jefferson County Group B System Ownership
Count % of Systems Connection Count % of Connections
City/Town 4 3% 15 3%
Association 8 7% 48 9%
Investor22 18% 109 22%
County 1 1% 1 0%
Federal 1 1% 2 0%
Private 79 65% 283 56%
Special district 5 4% 37 7%
State 2 2% 11 2%
Total 122 100% 506 100%
Notes:
1. Includes all active systems.
Source: DOH Sentry Database (March 2026).
6.2 Small System Challenges
All water systems face challenges such as implementing long-term maintenance,
investing in capital improvements, and maintaining financial viability. Small water
systems are particularly vulnerable to these issues because of a lack of resources
required to manage and conduct operations consistent with requirements to which they
must adhere. In 2009, DOH released a report to the legislature titled ÐSmall Public
Drinking Water SystemsÑ in response to a legislative directive to Ðconduct a statewide
review of small public drinking water systems that have or may in the future require
significant state resources to resolve urgent threats to public health and safety.Ñ The
report identified technical, managerial, and financial issues that small systems face
because of the lack of an economy of scale. These are summarized in the report as:
Technical: Compared with larger water systems, small water systems have more
water quality violations and are more likely to fail to properly monitor contaminants,
make timely repairs, or replace faulty materials. This can lead to poor water quality,
water system unreliability and failing water system infrastructure, all of which can
pose significant public health risks to their customers.
Managerial: Water system owners and board members of small water associations
often do not fully understand their responsibilities to ensure the safe and reliable
delivery of drinking water to their customers.
Financial: The most pressing problem for small water systems is financial viability.
Their smaller rate base puts them at a significant financial disadvantage. They must
bear relatively higher per-capita costs to meet regulatory requirements and to
maintain infrastructure, because fewer customers share the expense.
A systemÓs type (Group A or B) determines the planning, permitting, monitoring, and
long-term operations requirements of the system. A high-level summary of these
differences can be found in Table 6-4.
42 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Table 6-4. Group A and B Management Requirements
Group A Group B
Typical Type of Service Cities and towns, mobile home parks, Small rural subdivisions, small
Connections subdivisions, schools, prisons, churches, businesses, clusters of homes
food service establishments, sharing a well
campgrounds, etc.
Number of Connections 15 < 15
Population 25 people < 25 people/day
1
Primary Regulator DOH DOH
Washington Legislature WAC 246-290 WAC 246-291
Planning Requirement Yes: Water System Plan (WSP) or Small Limited: typically require a design
Water System Management Program workbook and well site inspection
(SWSMP)
Monitoring Requirement Extensive: ongoing water quality Minimal: limited or no routine
monitoring and regular sanitary surveys monitoring
Notes:
1. DOH is the regulator for Group B system approvals for new systems and expanding systems. As of May 2026,
Jefferson County does not have involvement in regulating Group B systems.
6.2.1 Group B System Challenges
Group B systems face a variety of specific challenges that Group A systems do not. In
Washington, these systems are regulated under WAC 246-291 and are overseen by
DOH or the local health jurisdiction (LHJ). In Jefferson County, new and expanding
Group B water systems are reviewed by the DOHÓs Office of Drinking Water for approval;
Jefferson County does not regulate Group B public water systems. Some challenges that
Group B systems in Jefferson County face include:
Limited monitoring requirements: Group B systems are not required to conduct
routine water quality monitoring. Often, the systems have no routine ongoing
monitoring unless it is required by the LHJ. This can lead to delayed detection of
contamination and potential health risks for consumers.
Limited resources: Small water systems often lack professional staff and funding
for engineering reports, system upgrades, or additional testing. This can create
disproportionate financial pressure for small systems.
Operational Expertise and Maintenance: Many small systems are run by
homeowners or volunteers, not water professionals. This can lead to deferred
maintenance and management of the system.
Local regulatory inconsistencies: DOH has limited their Group B authority to
promote LHJs to adopt County Group B programs or ordinances. As of July 2025,
Jefferson County is one of 12 counties in Washington that has no Group B system
1
involvement.
1
Per DOH 331-720: Washington State Local Health Jurisdictions, Group B System Involvement Map LHJ
Group B Involvement
July 2026 | 43
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Emergency Response Limitations: Group B systems often lack backup power,
redundant supply, and formal emergency plans. This makes them more vulnerable to
outages and contamination events.
State regulations and programs exist that help water systems avoid reaching a point of
failure in addressing these challenges and provide a course of action when failure cannot
be avoided. These include the StateÓs Satellite System Management Agency program
and receivership. The regulatory frameworks of both of these are described in Section
6.3 and 6.4, respectively. Additionally, Section 6.2.2 discusses resources that are
available to Group B systems.
6.2.2 Resources for Group B Systems
Alternative Drinking Water Program
The Alternative Drinking Water Program (ADWP) was established in 2023 as part of
WashingtonÓs Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The ADWP provides grant funding
to help private and Group B well users access safe drinking water when contamination is
present. The program prioritizes environmental justice, aiming to direct at least 40% of
funds to disadvantaged communities and address inequities in contamination exposure.
It provides short-term safe water solutions while long-term remediation efforts are
pursued, targeting contaminants like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
nitrates, arsenic, uranium, and industrial chemicals.
Funding is available to local health jurisdictions (LHJs) and community organizations
through a reimbursement model. Group A community public water systems are not
eligible for funding through this program. Funding is tied to fiscal-year timelines (July 1Î
June 30) and requires projects to meet completion deadlines.
Model Local Drinking Water
The Model Local Drinking Water Program (DOH 331-775) is a model that was created by
various local health jurisdictions, including JCPH, in 2025. The development of this
model was funded by the Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) program and was
designed to increase the capacity of all local health jurisdictions to design and implement
a local drinking water program. The Program provides a blueprint for local governments
to ensure that drinking water systems of all sizes are safe, resilient, and protective of
public health. The model contains four elements of a foundational drinking water
program, one of which is the Group B Water System Program (Chapter 5). This Chapter
provides the following guidance for such systems:
Program Authority: how LHJs can gain authority to regulate Group B systems
Approvals: processes for approval of a new system, approval of a proposed
expansion of a system, and approval of an existing non-expanding system
Other Group B Concepts: including waivers and variances
Ongoing Program Components: including monitoring requirements, operating
permits, enforcement, and more
44 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
6.3 Satellite Management
Satellite System Management is a regulatory framework that allows a qualified
organization to own, operate, or manage multiple public water systems under a single,
centralized management structure. A Satellite System Management Agency (SMA) is an
entity approved by DOH that may manage multiple Group A and/or Group B systems,
either through ownership or contractual operation. SMAs can be a city, town, county,
utility, or another qualifying public or private entity. DOH is responsible for approving
SMAs and assigning them an SMA number. Jefferson County does not manage SMAs
directly, but ensures SMA use aligns with public health standards, land-use approvals,
and long-range water system planning. Details regarding the procedures and
qualifications associated with the StateÓs SMA program can be found in WAC 246-295
(Satellite System Management Agencies) and the Public Water System Coordination
Act.
Table 6-5 provides a summary of approved SMAs in Jefferson County as of March 2026.
Table 6-5. Summary of Approved SMAs in Jefferson County
System Count
Name SMA #
Group A Group B Total
Cascadia Water, LLC 168 1 0 1
Jefferson County PUD #1 101 10 4 14
Northwest Water Systems 119 5 0 5
Strait Water Management 167 1 1 2
Washington Water Service Company 114 1 0 1
Source: DOH Sentry Database (March 2026).
Note: This table reflects the number of systems each SMA operates in Jefferson County only.
6.3.1 Regulatory Context of SMA Program
Some areas of Jefferson County are not served by an existing water purveyor and are
not covered by an approved WSP. If water service is requested within these areas, this
CWSP provides a mechanism for the provision of adequate and safe potable water
supply. Chapter 5 describes the USRP, which determines the water purveyor responsible
for providing water to a new development.
When development is proposed in areas without a designated purveyor or approved
WSP, applicants may negotiate with an approved SMA to own or operate the new water
system to ensure that it has qualified oversight and professional management. The
applicant and SMA are required to enter into a contractual agreement that establishes
the responsibilities of the SMA and the applicant. The contract, which must be reviewed
and approved by DOH), must also contain a provision dealing with termination of the
contract and the requirement that a new SMA must be in place to operate the system
before the existing contract can be terminated. Before there is a change in management
or contract management, the SMA shall notify DOH.
July 2026 | 45
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
SMA Policies for New Group A Systems
Per RCW 70A.100.130, no new Group A public water systems may be approved or
created unless at least one of the following criteria are met:
It is owned or operated by an SMA established under RCW 70A.100.130 and the
system complies with the financial viability requirements of DOH
An SMA is not available and it is determined by DOH that the new system has
sufficient management and financial resources to provide safe and reliable service
If a Group A system is approved without SMA ownership, approval must be conditioned
on future transfer to SMA management or ownership when feasible or periodic reviews to
ensure ongoing financial and operational viability.
SMA Policies for New Group B Systems
In 2025, House Bill 1947 updated RCW 70A.100.130 so that the requirements for Group
A systems (outlined in Section 6.3.2) no longer apply to most Group B water systems.
SMAs will now only be required for Group B systems if at least one of the following
criteria are met:
It is required to provide treatment to meet water quality standards
It provides fire flow
It has atmospheric storage
It serves 10 or more service connections
6.3.2 Services Provided by SMAs
In general terms, the services provided by SMAs can be summarized as follows:
Direct Service - ownership and operation by the SMA.
Contract Services (on a limited basis) - routine operation and maintenance, water
quality monitoring, utility billings, and other periodic tasks for systems not owned by
the SMA.
Support Assistance (on a limited basis) Î one-time or long-term support to systems
requiring technical, professional, or special assistance on a more limited scale.
Entities agreeing to provide Ðsatellite management and operation services" means
performing all day-to day responsibilities of a water system. Management responsibilities
include planning and policy decision making. Operational responsibilities include normal
day-to-day operations, preventative maintenance, water quality monitoring, trouble-
shooting, emergency response, response to complaints, public press contact, and
recordkeeping.
A vital part of coordinating effective public water supply in areas of the County not
currently claimed by any water system is ensuring that qualified management agencies
are available for comprehensive, long-term service to water systems. SMAs must be
committed to full-time water system operations and development, with sufficient staff and
equipment resources. The selection of an SMA for direct service will be the responsibility
46 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
of the applicant, and will be predicated upon the SMAÓs policies, procedures, and
operational conditions, as well as its ability to provide cost-effective service in a timely
and reasonable manner. The applicant and SMA are required to enter into a written
agreement which establishes the SMA's responsibility and the applicant's responsibility.
Existing water systems may enter into an agreement with an SMA to provide for
comprehensive water system operations and management. By combining economies of
scale among several water systems, and by establishing a formal planning program as
an expanding water system, the SMA becomes a direct participant in meeting CWSP
and County planning objectives. This may be particularly helpful when smaller systems
are struggling operationally, managerially, or financially. WAC 246-295-110 provides
special provisions for when an SMA enters into an agreement with a system for the
purpose of bringing the system into compliance.
6.4 Receivership
When a water system fails to provide safe and reliable water, DOH uses a variety of tools
to bring it back into compliance. These include informal actions such as phone calls,
letters, site visits, and technical assistance, as well as formal enforcement actions such
as issuing orders and penalties. In most cases, by the time formal enforcement action
occurs, the water system has exhausted all reasonable justifications for not meeting
DOH requirements. As a last resort, if the system fails to respond, the Secretary of
Health may file a petition with the Jefferson County Superior Court. The court, in turn,
may appoint a receiver that is willing and able to operate the water system. Receivership
is not a final action, but a process to bring failing public water systems back into
organizational and operational compliance. Receivership is a last-resort enforcement tool
when informal and formal enforcement actions fail. Generally, the court intends
receivership to be temporary until permanent solutions have resolved the water systemÓs
problems.
6.4.1 Regulatory Context of Receivership
RCW 7.60 provides the legal mechanism (receivership) to take over failing drinking water
systems when they can no longer reliably or safely operate. A receiver is defined as Ða
court-appointed entity that temporarily takes over and manages property or operations
when an organization is unable to meet its obligationsÑ. RCW 43.70 provides the
regulatory authority for DOH to monitor, enforce standards, intervene in public health
threats, and ultimately petition the courts for receivership if necessary. According to
RCW 43.70.195 (Receivership), the county in which a water system operates will be
court-appointed as the last-resort receiver if no other entity (including approved SMAs) is
willing and able to act as receiver.
6.4.2 Receivership Actions and Costs
Failing water systems should carefully consider the ramifications of receivership and
explore all options that could be taken as alternatives, as many cost-intensive obligations
can be required through the receivership process. Once appointed, receivers must:
Conduct an audit by a Certified Public Accountant of all accounts, corporate books,
and records (RCW 7.60.180; RCW 64.38.045)
July 2026 | 47
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Ensure that a licensed professional engineer with expertise in water systems
conducts a physical inventory of all assets within 35 days of appointment as a
receiver (RCW 7.60.090(2))
Take sworn depositions of all current and past officers and directors (RCW
7.40.060(1)(i); RCW 7.60.080(4))
Obtain an appraisal of water system value (RCW 7.60.060(1); RCW 7.60.090(5)) by
a qualified appraiser
Develop a proposal prepared by a licensed professional engineer with expertise in
water systems to upgrade the water system to meet current DOH standards (RCW
43.70.195)
Develop a proposal for how to pay for the proposed upgrade costs (such as a local
improvement district), and recovering public expenses through special assessments
against the owners (RCW 43.70.195(5))
6.4.3 History of Receivership in Western Washington
The following are examples of recent receivership in other Counties within western
Washington.
Pierce County
In 2017, the Kapowsin Water District (Kapowsin) experienced a failed transmission main;
at this time, Kapowsin and the Valley Water District (Valley) were negotiating an
Agreement for Water System Management and Operation. Valley provided trucked water
to Kapowsin customers following the main break. Over time, Valley became
uncomfortable charging Kapowsin the fees necessary to continue trucking water and
provide the additional services that would bring the system back into compliance. By not
directing the full costs to Kapowsin customers, an unfair burden would be placed on
existing Valley customers to recover costs for continued operation of Kapowsin. The
Valley Board ultimately voted to terminate its Agreement for Water System Management
and Operation in November 2017. This termination triggered receivership actions and the
Superior Court identified Pierce County as the receiver for Kapowsin per State law. This
illustrates a vulnerability in the SMA approach to addressing failing water systems, as
such agreements can be terminated by the SMA at any time.
Pierce County as an entity was not formed or structured to assume ownership,
management, and operation of water systems. In response to the Kapowsin receivership
process, the County developed a report titled Consolidated Water Study and Review of
Failing Water Systems (January 25, 2019) to describe the landscape of water systems
potentially vulnerable to receivership in the County. The report includes an inventory of
public water systems in the County, stakeholder interviews regarding the challenges
faced by small water systems, risk criteria, and subsequent risk assessment.
The report describes risks in terms of technical, financial, and managerial capacity,
similar to the 2009 DOH report described previously. This risk assessment ranked Group
A water systems on a scale between 1 (lowest risk) and 5 (highest risk) depending on
the number of risk criteria applicable to the system. Seventy-seven percent of Group A
systems (162 out of 210) were either category 1 or 2 (lower risk). Thirty-nine systems
48 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
ranked in category 3. Seven systems ranked in category 4, and two systems (one of
which was Kapowsin) ranked in risk category 5. These findings suggest that several
systems in the County are vulnerable and trending toward receivership and there are no
other institutions, besides Pierce County government to deal with forthcoming
receiverships effectively and efficiently. The report also indicates that a major cause of
receivership is lack of managerial capacity (i.e., the owner/operator ceases to be able to
perform the function, and/or the SMA terminates the management contract).
Clallam County
Clallam County is currently acting as the court-appointed receiver for the Golden Beach
Water System, which has been under receivership since 2021. The receivership was
initiated after the system experienced prolonged noncompliance with state drinking water
standards, primarily related to treatment and source water quality deficiencies. Clallam
County was identified as the most viable temporary operator due to its institutional
capacity and proximity.
While acting as receiver, Clallam County has been responsible for day-to-day operations
of the system as well as bringing the system into compliance with WAC 246-290. In
February 2025, Clallam County sought a $403,002 grant from the WA Office of Drinking
Water to construct a filtration plant, upgrade valves and meters, improve leak detection,
and secure and protect the systemÓs water source. These design documents are
currently under DOH review. The County intends to bid construction once funding and
plan approval are finalized. The County has publicly stated its intent to return the system
to local control once compliance and governance conditions are met.
Lewis County
Between 2006-2010, the Enchanted Valley Water System was operated by the City of
Vader and experienced 16 main breaks and issued 10 boil water advisories. By 2010,
the City faced a budget deficit, had a poor credit rating, and was unable to financially and
managerially operate the water system. At that time, the City voluntarily placed a
moratorium on new City water and wastewater connections; Lewis County was
appointed as the receiver of the system in October 2010 and began full operation and
management of the system in January 2011.
Over the next several years, Lewis County completed significant system improvements
including the replacement of 6,700 linear feet of asbestos concrete lines, construction of
1,940 linear feet of new transmission lines, construction of 77 new service connections,
and more. In February 2014, it was decided to transfer the assets of the water system
from the City to Lewis County. Effective April 30, 2014, the system was owned by Lewis
County Public Works.
6.5 Policy Statements
The WUCC policy statements related to the topics addressed in this chapter of the
CWSP are provided below. The policy statements are organized by the status of small
systems facing challenges (e.g., actions related to identifying systems nearing failure and
that would serve to avoid receivership are described first, while those related to
receivership and post-receivership status are described later). The policy statements
July 2026 | 49
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
deemed of the highest priority by the WUCC are indicated by Ð(H)Ñ placed after the policy
statement number.
Agency Assessment/Alerts
6-1 (H). Small Systems: Metrics. DOH should develop metrics and a tool for
assessing the managerial capacity/health of water systems, and periodically assess
systems via the tool (e.g., every 5 years). This would provide an early warning to
DOH and the County regarding systems facing significant problems and increase the
likelihood of action being taken prior to system failure.
6-2 (H). Small Systems: Proactive Enforcement. DOH should develop stronger,
more proactive enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the planning and
managerial requirements set forth in WAC 246-290 and -291 for regulated water
systems, thereby reducing the risk of systems entering receivership.
6-3. Small Systems: Planning Triggers. DOH should develop triggers that would
require Ðpre-failureÑ systems to develop/submit plans for review. The focus of this is
on small, non-expanding Group A and Group B systems that are not currently
required to submit plans. Such triggers could be incorporated into the assessment
tool described in Policy Statement 6-1.
6-4. Small Systems: Agency Coordination. DOH and the County should establish
regular (e.g., quarterly) coordination communications to discuss (1) the specific
systems that are identified by the above actions as being vulnerable to failure and
options that could be employed to avoid failure, and (2) broader efforts to more
generally remove roadblocks to local solution implementation.
6-5. Small Systems: Receivership Planning. The County should identify the steps
and determine a timeline for developing a receivership contingency plan. Such a plan
would identify the entity or entities who agree to serve as a receiver, the conditions
under which they would do so, and the processes to implement such actions in the
event a system is placed into receivership.
6-6. Small Systems: Group B Program. Lack of regulatory oversight of Group B
water systems may create riskier water sources for populations served by Group Bs.
The County should consider adopting a Group B program to enforce compliance with
safe drinking water regulations.
Property Outreach/Technical Support/Consolidation
6-7 (H). Small Systems: Notifications. DOH, with assistance from the County in the
form of providing contact information and other data maintained by the County,
should notify all property owners and/or tenants of a vulnerable water system of the
potential for water system failure. This would include situations where only one Board
position is filled. This outreach has been successful in the past to avoid receivership.
6-8. Small Systems: Outreach. DOH should initiate immediate outreach and
technical support actions to the top 10 at-risk Group A systems, as identified through
Policy Statements 6-1 and 6-6.
50 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
6-9 (H). Small Systems: Consolidation. Encourage consolidation of small systems
into larger systems. This would include eliminating or minimizing the barriers to
consolidation described in Section 6.2. Specifically:
p The legislature should increase funding available to larger systems to implement
consolidation.
p State agencies should streamline the permitting and approvals associated with
grant funding application processes.
p Grant funding should support comprehensive infrastructure upgrades to support
larger systems in bringing small systems up to their design standards.
p The legislature should eliminate uncertainty in water rights issues and transfers
from small systems to large systems.
Pre-Receivership Support
6-10 (H). Failing Systems: Support. DOH should direct more resources to assisting
water systems that are in Ðpre-failureÑ and ÐfailureÑ status in returning to compliance,
as opposed to waiting until the Ðpost-failureÑ status that results in receivership.
6-11. Failing Systems: Funding. The County should lobby for increasing and
stabilizing legislative funding for the Water System Replacement and Consolidation
Grants.
Receivership
6-12. Receivership: Funding as Condition. The County should propose changes to
State law such that State funding is required as a condition of accepting receivership
through a court process. The County may choose to engage external organizations
such as the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials
(WSALPHO) to lobby on such topics.
6-13 (H). Receivership: Funding Pool. The County should request that the State
allocate more funding to pay for water system receivership costs. If the State
developed a funding pool that could be used only to support receivership actions,
receivers would then have access to State funds to complete required actions
needed in receivership.
6-14. Receivership: Remove County as Receiver. The County should propose and
lobby for changes to RCW 43.70.195 to remove a county as the receiver of last
resort. The County and other stakeholders should work collaboratively to identify
recommended alternatives to the County being the receiver of last resort.
6-15 (H). Receivership: Interlocal Agreement Template. Should the County
continue to be the receiver of last resort, then the County should develop a template
for interlocal agreements that can be implemented with other entities to perform
receivership activities. The County should explore the legal ability to transfer to such
entities certain capabilities that the County has but that the other party may not
currently (e.g., ability to apply for certain grant or loan funding).
July 2026 | 51
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Post-Receivership
6-16. Post-Receivership: System Ownership. If State or local funding was used to
address receivership, once the problems facing a water system in receivership are
resolved, the system should be required to be owned and operated by a DOH- or
JCPH-approved water system or SMA, with regular WSP updates required.
General Administrative/Regulatory
6-17. State Legislative Changes. The County should lobby for (and DOH should
support) changes to the RCW and associated chapters of the WAC to address the
above recommendations, including:
p Developing required reporting by water systems not required to complete WSP
updates
p Removing quorum requirements related to water system decisions in cases
involving system failure and potential transfer of ownership/operation through
consolidation or other means
p Transfer of system ownership if State or local funding is used for receivership
p Requirements pertaining to pre-/during/post-receivership status
p Agency/administrative staff funding mechanisms
7 Regional Water Demand and Supply
Assessment
This chapter provides a summary of Jefferson CountyÓs existing public water systems
and the populations they serve. Additionally, the chapter examines projected climate
trends and evaluates how changing temperature, precipitation patterns, and rising sea
level may influence water supply, demand, infrastructure, and overall system resilience.
Content in this Chapter has been adapted from the Water Utility Climate Resiliency
White Paper developed as a part of Jefferson CountyÓs CWSP update in April 2026.
7.1 Summary of Water Systems in Jefferson County
Based on parcel records maintained by the Jefferson County AssessorÓs Office, about 65
percent of the current land use in the County consists of parks and open space due to
the presence of Olympic National Park. Along the eastern side of the County lies a small
geographic area that contains residential, agriculture, public/civic, and industrial activity.
Within this area, a variety of public water systems (PWSs) provide drinking water service
to residents, commercial/industrial activity, and tourism. PWSs range in size and
ownership type, as summarized in Table 7-1 below.
The three largest utilities in Jefferson County are the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson
County Public Utility District (PUD) #1, and Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. For the sake
of this analysis, and consistent with the Public Water System Coordination Act, these
utilities, along with others, are considered ÐlargeÑ Group A Community PWSs because
they serve the same 50+ connections year-round.
52 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
As previously discussed in Chapter 6, the County also contains many small systems
including the Group A Community PWSs listed in Table 7-1; these systems provide water
to communities with fewer than 50 connections. Transient Non-Community (TNC) and
Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) systems supply water to non-residential
populations; TNC systems provide water where people do not remain for long periods of
time, such as churches or campgrounds; NTNC systems regularly supply water to at
least 25 of the same people at least six months per year, like school districts.
Table 7-1. Summary of Jefferson County Public Water Systems
Number of Residential Ownership
System Name
Connections Population Type
Group A Community (Large, >50 connections)
City of Port Townsend 6,452 11,324 City/Town
Jefferson County PUD #1 Systems
Quimper 4,177 11,806 Special District
Bywater Bay 302 592 Special District
Gardiner 159 358 Special District
Lazy C 150 295 Special District
Coyle 115 154 Special District
Triton Cove 77 170 Special District
Snow Creek 56 134 Special District
Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. 1,815 2,883 Private
Cape George Colony Club Inc. 561 1,022 Private
Bridgehaven Community Club 216 501 Association
Jefferson County Water District #1 203 280 City/Town
Seamount Estates Community 130 85 Association
Discovery Bay Leaseholders 118 30 Private
Pleasant Tides Water Co Op 109 93 Association
Olympus Beach Tracts 72 123 Association
Discovery Bay Village 65 126 Investor
Group A Community (Small, <50 connections)
Jefferson County PUD #1 Systems
Quilcene 41 69 Special District
Mats View 26 50 Special District
Rondelay Meadows 32 82 Investor
Moa Tel 26 37 Investor
Tala Point 18 45 Private
Olympic Corrections Center 19 380 State
July 2026 | 53
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Number of Residential Ownership
System Name
Connections Population Type
Group A TNC and NTNC
Group A TNC/NTNC Systems (36 total) 977 199 TNC/NTNC
Group B
Group B Systems (122 total) 633 527 Various
Notes:
This table provides a snapshot of public water systems in Jefferson County per Washington State Department of
Health Sentry database in May 2025.
7.2 Climate Change Trends/Projections for Jefferson
County
In the future, Jefferson County is expected to experience higher daily temperatures,
more extreme seasonal precipitation patterns, and significant sea level rise, in addition to
2
related climate impacts, as outlined in the Jefferson County Climate Impacts Summary.
While natural variability shapes climate in Jefferson County, such as from El Niño/La
Niña cycles and year-to-year variability, trends have emerged over time showing
anthropogenic influences on Jefferson CountyÓs climate. The primary climate changes
expected in Jefferson County, as detailed in the Jefferson County Climate Impacts
Summary, are:
Temperature. The average annual temperature and maximum August temperature,
indicators of heat stress, have increased by 1.7°F and 2.4°F, respectively, from 1895
to 2024. This trend is expected to continue, with high-emission scenarios projecting
an additional 8.3°F increase by 2099. Additionally, the number of very hot day
(maximum humidex greater than 90°F) is expected to increase by 29 days per year,
on average, relative to 1980-2009.
Precipitation. While Jefferson County experiences wide variability in yearly
precipitation, the overall trend has been a slight increase from 1895 to 2024. The
seasonal pattern of precipitation is expected to become more extreme, with drier
summers (21 percent decrease by 2099) and wetter winters (14 percent increase by
2099), with a more modest increase in precipitation annually. Extreme precipitation
events are additionally expected to increase in frequency and intensity.
p Streamflow. With increased winter precipitation, peak stream flows are also
expected to increase. The Hoh and Queets rivers are expected to have flow
increases of 64 and 39 percent, respectively, by the end of the century in a high-
emission scenario. Increased streamflow is expected to increase inland flooding
as well.
p Drought. The eastern part of Jefferson County faces drought conditions in the
rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains. The projected decreases in summer
precipitation are expected to exacerbate this condition.
2
Climate Impacts Summary. Jefferson County and Cascadia Consulting Group, Nov. 2024.
54 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
p Landslides. Increases in extreme precipitation events are expected to lead to
increases in soil water content, which increases landslide risk.
Sea level rise. Since 1972, sea levels around Port Townsend have increased by
34
about 0.31 feet
and by 0.17 feet in the Salish Sea. This trend is expected to
continue, with a 50 percent probability of 2 feet of sea level rise by the end of the
century in a high-emission scenario, with up to 3 to 5 feet possible with less certainty.
p Erosion. Historically, Jefferson County has experienced bluff erosion rates
between 0.04 and 0.45 feet per year. Sea level rise projections are likely to
increase these rates.
p Flooding. With sea level rise, the mean higher high water tide level will increase
and daily inundation will extend farther inland where bluffs are not present.
Additionally, the 100-year storm event flood elevation will also extend farther
inland.
p Groundwater rise. Sea level rise induced groundwater rise will occur along the
coast and inland in tidally influenced river systems, causing permanent reduction
in unsaturated zone thickness, and in some locations, permanent groundwater
emergence may occur.
Wildfires. Increased temperatures and decreased summer precipitation are likely to
drive increased vegetation dryness, which makes wildfire spread more likely. Under a
high-emission scenario, Jefferson County could experience 10 more high fire danger
days a year by 2050.
Ocean acidification and harmful algal blooms. The Salish Sea is expected to
experience a drop in pH as a result of increased CO concentrations. Warmer sea
2
surface temperatures along with ocean acidification is likely to lead to more frequent,
severe, and toxic harmful algal blooms. Additionally, increased temperatures of
freshwater bodies as a result of warming may lead to increased likelihood of harmful
algal blooms.
These climate changes are anticipated to impact water demand, supply, and utility
infrastructure in Jefferson County. Water demand can be influenced by a reduction in
summer rainfall and increase in temperature, driving a higher demand of water for
irrigation without the adoption of additional conservation measures. Wildfire risks can
drive an increased need for fire suppression supplies and delivery infrastructure. Water
supply can be influenced in both quantity and quality. With precipitation expected to shift
toward increased rainfall in winter and a decrease in summer, late summer water
shortages could increasingly become a challenge in Jefferson County. Groundwater
levels are expected to be impacted by reduced rainfall as well.
Increased rainfall and severe storms in winter can also drive increased runoff, which
impacts water quality by introducing sediment and debris into waterways. Harmful algal
blooms induced by increased reservoir temperatures can also negatively impact water
quality through biomass and toxin production. Infrastructure may also be impacted by
3
City of Port Townsend Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment. Port Townsend and Cascadia Consulting
Group, Oct. 2022.
4
Climate Impacts Summary. Jefferson County and Cascadia Consulting Group, Nov. 2024.
July 2026 | 55
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
climate changes. Sea level rise can cause pipe inundation and create buoyancy forces
on pipe, increasing the likelihood of leaks and breaks in areas that are currently at or just
above sea level.
7.3 Regional Water Demand Assessment
Using best available data for each PWS, existing utility planning projections, and regional
growth forecasts, this section estimates future service populations for each system (or
group of systems). This data is then used to project total water demands through 2075,
with and without the anticipated impacts of climate change.
7.3.1 Population Served
Domestic water use in Jefferson County is distributed primarily across the water systems
listed in Table 7-1, relatively proportional to the number of connections served by each.
In addition, some residents obtain water from their own individual, permit-exempt source
of supply. Table 7-3 summarizes the current baseline population for each public water
system (or category) based on the best and most readily available data, as defined
below.
Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD #1, OWSI
For the largest Group A systems (City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD #1, and
Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc. (OWSI)), estimates of current and future population
served were obtained from the individual Water System Plans (WSPs) prepared by the
utilities. For each of those systems, a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) was
calculated to determine the average rate at which the population is expected to grow
over the planning period.
Other Group A Community PWSs
For all other Group A Community systems, current population served values were
obtained from the Washington State Department of HealthÓs (DOHÓs) Sentry database.
To estimate future populations for these systems, Jefferson County demographic growth
information for urban/rural areas was used to project population growth from 2025 to
2045. In 2024, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners adopted
Resolution # 68-1118-24R to establish updated planning populations and growth
allocations to be used by the City and County for the comprehensive planning period of
2025-2045. The adopted projections were developed by the Washington State Office of
Financial Management (OFM) and show a Countywide increase in population from
34,586 to 40,486 over the planning period; this, in turn, means that the County
population is expected to increase by 5,900 people over the next twenty years (CAGR =
0.79%). These projections were applied to current populations to produce the growth
allocations shown in Table 7-2 and were ultimately used to extrapolate long-term growth
in population and water demand in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4.
56 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Table 7-2. Jefferson County Growth Allocations
Percent of 2025 2045 Population
Allocation CAGR
2
Population Population Population Growth
1
Total County Growth 100% 34,586 40,486 5,900 0.79%
Unincorporated County 69% 23,864 27,404 3,540 0.69%
Incorporated County 31% 10,722 13,082 2,360 1.00%
Notes:
1. Based on Jefferson County Resolution # 68-1118-24R.
2. Based on 2025 OFM population estimates for unincorporated/incorporated Jefferson County.
TNC and NTNC Systems
TNC and NTNC systems are displayed on the below table but were not considered in
this assessment of current water demand, as it is challenging to estimate demand
without a more detailed analysis. While the population for these systems may change
over time, this may not be reflected in connections served; typically, these systems only
add one or two connections per year, so the CAGR would be minimal.
Table 7-3. Jefferson County PWS Baseline Population Information
Baseline Population Projections
System Name Current Future
CAGR
Year Pop Year Pop
Group A Community (Large, >50 connections)
1
City of Port Townsend - Municipal
2025 11,324 2036 13,006 1.27%
1
Jefferson County PUD #1 Systems
Quimper 2025 11,806 2045 16,657 1.74%
Bywater Bay 2025 592 2045 752 1.20%
Gardiner 2025 358 2045 445 1.10%
Lazy C 2025 295 2045 375 1.20%
Coyle 2025 154 2045 192 1.10%
Triton Cove 2025 170 2045 214 1.17%
Snow Creek 2025 134 2045 170 1.20%
1
Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc.
2025 2,883 2045 3,358 0.85%
2
Cape George Colony Club Inc.
2025 1,022 2045 1,173 0.69%
2
Bridgehaven Community Club
2025 501 2045 575 0.69%
2
Jefferson County Water District #1
2025 350 2045 402 0.69%
2
Seamount Estates Community
2025 85 2045 98 0.69%
2
Discovery Bay Leaseholders
2025 33 2045 38 0.69%
2
Pleasant Tides Water Co Op
2025 110 2045 126 0.69%
2
Olympus Beach Tracts
2025 138 2045 158 0.69%
2
Discovery Bay Village
2025 191 2045 219 0.69%
Group A Community (Small, <50 connections)
Jefferson County PUD #1 Systems
1
Quilcene
2025 69 2040 86 1.45%
July 2026 | 57
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Baseline Population Projections
System Name Current Future
CAGR
Year Pop Year Pop
1
Mats View
2025 50 2040 71 2.32%
2
Rondelay Meadows
2025 82 2045 94 0.69%
2
Moa Tel
2025 73 2045 84 0.69%
2
Tala Point
2025 45 2045 52 0.69%
3
Olympic Corrections Center 2025 380 2045 380 0%
Group A TNC and NTNC
3
Group A TNC/NTNC (36 total)
- 0 - 0 -
Group B
3
Group B Systems (122 total)
2025 527 2045 527 0%
4
Sub-Total: All Municipal/Domestic Systems 2025 31,372 - - -
5
Total Jefferson County 2025 34,586 2045 40,486 0.79%
Notes:
1. Population projections obtained from Water System Plan, CAGR was calculated.
2. Assumed 0.69% growth rate based on Jefferson County projections for unincorporated rural areas.
3. Assumed no growth (0%) in demand.
4. Total 2025 population served by all municipal and domestic systems outlined in Table 7-2. Future total is not
calculated because the above data represent various years.
5. See Table 7-2. Population not served by municipal/domestic water systems typically receives water from
private, water right exempt wells.
7.3.2 Future Water Demand Projections
Table 7-4 was generated to summarize current total municipal/domestic water demand
for Jefferson County and how water demands are anticipated to change in the future,
through 2075. The demand for all systems listed in Table 7-1 and Table 7-3 represent
the known quantity of water used by municipal and domestic systems. Additional water
consumption in Jefferson County comes from non-PWS served residences and
commercial users, as outlined below.
Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD #1, OWSI
For these largest systems, baseline demand data was obtained from published WSPs.
The metrics of average day demand (ADD), maximum day demand (MDD), and annual
demand were interpolated/extrapolated to fit the planning years of 2025, 2050, and 2075.
Other Group A Community PWSs
For all other systems, demand estimates were calculated based on best available data.
Populations for each system were converted to equivalent residential units (ERUs) by
dividing the total population (obtained from the DOH Sentry database) by the average
household size in rural Jefferson County, per OFM. In this analysis, each systemÓs
population was divided by 2.12 people per household. The total water demand for these
systems was then estimated based on the data from similarly sized Jefferson County
PUD #1 systems (Quimper, Bywater Bay, Gardiner, Lazy C, Coyle, Triton Cove, Snow
Creek, Quilcene, and Mats View). On average, these systems had a water use factor of
152 gallons per day (gpd) per ERU. This value was multiplied by the number of ERUs to
58 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
calculate ADD. The MDD was calculated for these systems by multiplying the ADD by
2.0.
Non-Public Residential Water System Demand
Additional water consumption in Jefferson County comes from non-PWS served
residences (i.e., individual private wells). To determine this value, the total population
served by PWSs was subtracted from the total population projections in Jefferson County
Resolution # 68-1118-24R. This population was converted to demand in similar fashion
as the small PWSs.
Commercial Water Demand
Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC) is a large commercial user of water in Jefferson
County; PTPCÓs mill in Port Townsend, Washington produces kraft pulp, kraft paper,
containerboard, and specialty products. These demands are listed in Table 7-4 as an
additional known line item. Current demand values for the mill represent master meter
data from 2024. Future system growth for the mill is limited by contract; the millÓs
average day demand shall not exceed 11 million gallons per day (MGD) and the
maximum daily demand shall not exceed 13 MGD. These limitations were used as a cap
on future demand growth.
July 2026 | 59
7,000 9,000
39,000 41,000 19,000 13,000 70,000 17,000 22,000 28,000 38,000 27,000 23,000 16,000 15,000 54,000 75,000
220,000 106,000 958,000 206,000 101,000 570,000
2075
3,253,000 3,490,000 8,848,000 9,419,000
13,000,000 22,419,000
-
6,000 8,000
90,000 33,000 34,000 16,000 11,000 85,000 59,000 14,000 19,000 23,000 32,000 23,000 19,000 14,000 12,000 54,000 75,000
185,000 807,000 173,000 520,000
2050
2,543,000 2,867,000 7,203,000 7,723,000
13,000,000 20,723,000
-
9,000 5,000 6,000
141,00 70,000 25,000 27,000 13,000 72,000 50,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 27,000 17,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 54,000 75,000
649,000 146,000 460,000
2025
2,038,000 1,956,000 5,470,000 5,930,000
13,000,000 18,930,000
-
7,000 9,000 3,000 8,000 7,000 5,000
53,000 19,000 20,000 10,000 35,000 14,000 19,000 14,000 11,000 27,000 38,000
110,000 479,000 103,000 550,000 111,000 285,000
2075
1,626,000 1,745,000 4,424,000 4,709,000
11,000,000 15,709,000
-
8,000 6,000 7,000 3,000 9,000 7,000 6,000 4,000
92,000 45,000 16,000 17,000 87,000 42,000 30,000 12,000 16,000 11,000 10,000 27,000 38,000
403,000 260,000
2050
vided by the average household size in rural Jefferson County (2.
1,271,000 1,433,000 3,602,000 3,861,000
11,000,000 14,861,000
-
6,000 4,000 6,000 2,000 8,000 9,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 3,000
70,000 35,000 12,000 13,000 73,000 36,000 25,000 10,000 14,000 27,000 38,000
978,000 329,000 230,000
2025
1,019,000 2,735,000 2,965,000
11,000,000 13,965,000
-
47 97 71 63
835 505 416 217 240 189 707 494 120 155 195 269 116 103 380 527
4,066 1,441 3,985
2075
18,532 17,497 47,281 51,266
-
39 82 59 97 87 53
703 425 350 183 202 159 595 416 101 131 164 227 380 527
3,424 1,214 3,634
2050
14,486 14,373 38,477 42,111
-
85 33 69 50 82 73 45
592 358 295 154 170 134 501 350 110 138 191 380 527
2,883 1,022 3,214
2025
11,324 11,806 31,372 34,586
- - -
82 75 92 40 82 35 30 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
Group B
111 111 117 102
ADD/
Person
Current
Group A TNC and NTNC
. To determine ERUs served, current system populations were di
- - -
fit planning years.
86 87
159 216 184 112 126 155 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 200 195 152 152 152 152 152
122
Current
Group A Community (Small, <50 connections)
Group A Community (Large, >50 connections)
ADD/ERU
- -
ADD
0.99% 1.74% 1.20% 1.10% 1.20% 1.10% 1.17% 1.20% 0.85% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 1.24% 2.33% 0.69% 0.69% 0.69% 0.00% 0.00%
CAGR
- -
5,000 7,000
31,000 49,000 23,000 18,000 82,000 57,000 14,000 18,000 23,000 31,000 38,000 30,000 13,000 12,000 54,000 75,000
229,000 115,000 765,000 168,000
MDD
(gpd)
2,380,000 2,804,000 3,775,000
13,000,000
- -
7,000 5,000 7,000 3,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 4,000
84,000 41,000 15,000 16,000 84,000 41,000 29,000 11,000 16,000 10,000 27,000 38,000
ADD 383,000
(gpd)
1,130,000 1,251,000 1,812,000
11,000,000
- - -
2036 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2043 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2045 2040 2040 2045 2045 2045 2045 2040 2036
Year
- -
#1 systems were used as ADD water use factor (152 gpd per ERU)
5,000 6,000
93,000 25,000 40,000 18,000 14,000 72,000 50,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 27,000 30,000 19,000 12,000 10,000 54,000 75,000
ADD, MDD, and annual demand metrics interpolated/extrapolated to
180,000 641,000 146,000
MDD
(gpd)
1,877,000 1,987,000 3,073,000
11,830,000
- -
6,000 4,000 6,000 2,000 8,000 8,000 5,000 6,000 5,000 3,000
66,000 33,000 12,000 13,000 73,000 36,000 25,000 10,000 14,000 27,000 38,000
928,000 887,000 320,000
ADD
(gpd)
1,515,000
10,440,000
- -
2016 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2022 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2020 2020 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2016
Year
1. Baseline data projections obtained from Water System Plan: 2. Average demand data from similarly-sized Jefferson County PUD
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
7.3.3 Climate Change Impacts on Water Demand
To analyze the potential impacts of climate change on water demands, work previously
completed in the region was leveraged. Climate planning documents from the cities of
Spokane and Tacoma, Washington and Hillsboro, Oregon informed the climate scaling
factors used in this analysis; these factors are summarized in Table 7-5. The
temperature impacts are represented as the percent change in demand per degree
Fahrenheit of warming. The precipitation impacts are represented as the percent change
in demand per percent decrease in summertime precipitation. While wintertime
precipitation influences water supply, summertime precipitation has a greater influence
on demand as this is the peak irrigation season. The Spokane temperature impact was
obtained directly from work done for the city. Precipitation impact values were not
available for Spokane. Impact values for Tacoma were evaluated by changing
temperature and precipitation demand model inputs by set amounts and evaluating the
impacts on demand. Impact values for Hillsboro were similarly determined by varying
temperature and precipitation inputs to their single-family residential demand equation
and evaluating outputs. This was evaluated for both the yearly average demand and the
summertime demand, as changes to summer demands will be felt most strongly through
the peak use season.
Table 7-5. Climate Change Scaling Factors
123
SpokaneTacoma Hillsboro Average
ADD (yearly average)
% increase in demand per degree F 1.7 1.4 2.0 1.7
% increase in demand per % decrease in summer precipitation 0.0035 0.0024 0.0030
4
ADD (summer)
% increase in demand per degree F - 1.9 2.0 2.0
% increase in demand per % decrease in summer precipitation 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072
Notes:
1. Based on projections from Spokane Future Flows Î Climate Assessment Technical Memorandum, 2023.
2. Based on projections from Tacoma WaterÓs Integrated Resource Plan, 2025.
3. Based on projections from City of HillsboroÓs Demand Projections Update Report, 2018.
4. Defined as June-September, based on peak water use period in Jefferson County.
Based on data summarized in the Jefferson County Climate Impacts Summary, average
temperatures for Jefferson County are projected to increase between 2005-2090 from
53°F to 61°F. Similarly, projected summertime precipitation is expected to decrease 13
percent between 2024 and 2099. These projections were interpolated to estimate
projected changes in temperature and precipitation for the years 2050 and 2075.
Subsequently, these projections were used in conjunction with the climate change
scaling factors in Table 7-5 to determine changes in demand. Results for this are shown
in Table 7-6.
62 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Table 7-6. Climate Change Demand Factors
2025 2050 2075
ADD (yearly demand)
1
Future Projected Temperature (°F)55 57 60
Temperature Increase (°F) 2 5
2
% Demand Increase 4 8
Rainfall Decrease (%) 4.48 8.78
4
% Demand Increase 0.01 0.03
5
Total Yearly Demand Change (%) 4.01 8.03
ADD (summer)
6
Temperature Increase (°F)3 9
7
% Demand Increase 5 17
8
Rainfall Decrease (%) 4.48 8.78
9
% Demand Increase 0.03 0.06
Total Summer Demand Change (%) 5.23 17.06
Notes:
1. Based on interpolated temperature data between 2005-2090.
2. Temperature change multiplied by scaling factor of 1.7% per °F.
3. Based on interpolated summer rainfall data between 2024-2099.
4. Rainfall change multiplied by scaling factor of 0.0030% per % decrease.
5. % demand change for temperature plus % demand change for precipitation.
6. Based on analysis of Tacoma climate data which found over 25 years, summertime average temperatures
increase 30% more than yearly average temperatures.
7. Temperature change multiplied by scaling factor of 2.0% per °F.
8. Based on Climate Impacts Summary which found summertime average precipitation decreases 21% more
than yearly average precipitation rates.
9. Rainfall change multiplied by scaling factor of 0.0072% per percent decrease.
Based on these projected demand changes, overall future water demand projections are
expected to be higher in future years than currently projected. By 2050, water demand
projections are forecasted to be 4 percent more than typically expected, and by 2075,
demands are projected to be 8 percent higher due to climate change impacts. These
calculations are further summarized in Table 7-7. Summer demands are expected to
increase more than yearly average, with a 5 percent increase projected by 2050, and a
17 percent increase estimated by 2075. Summertime calculations are provided in Table
7-8.
July 2026 | 63
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Table 7-7. Jefferson County Future Annual Water Demand Projections (excluding Mill
water usage)
ADD (MGD) MDD (MGD) Annual (million gallons)
2025 2050 2075 2025 2050 2075 2025 2050 2075
Baseline Totals 2.965 3.861 4.709 5.930 7.723 9.419 1,075 1,400 1,706
Climate Change Totals 4.016 5.087 8.033 10.175 1,456 1,843
% Change 4% 8% 4% 8% 4% 8%
Notes:
Current totals multiplied by climate demand factors for 2050 and 2075.
Table 7-8. Jefferson County Future Summer Water Demand Projections (excluding Mill
water usage)
Summer ADD (MGD)
2025 2050 2075
1
Baseline Summer Totals4.625 6.023 7.346
Climate Change Totals 6.338 8.599
% Change 5% 17%
Notes:
1. Based on Baseline Total ADD with scaling applied for 52 percent of demand (from Jefferson County water
system plans) coming from the four summer months.
7.4 Regional Water Supply Assessment
This section evaluates the balance between available water supply and projected future
demands for Jefferson CountyÓs PWSs. By comparing system capacities, water rights,
and anticipated demand across the planning horizon, this analysis identifies potential
surpluses and deficits to inform long-term water resource planning and system
coordination.
7.4.1 Available Supply Versus Projected Demand
To assess the available water supply for Jefferson County water providers, multiple
sources were reviewed. This analysis was focused on the CountyÓs Group A community
water systems (i.e., those where most of the growth in water demand will need to be
met). For the larger water systems for which water system plans were readily available
(City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County PUD #1, and Olympic Water and Sewer, Inc.),
physical production capacity (PPC) and water rights, in total annual (Q) and peak
a
instantaneous (Q), were obtained directly from their plans. For smaller Group A systems,
i
the DOH online Sentry database was used to obtain well pumping capacity, and the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) online water rights search tool was
used to obtain water rights. These assessments of water supply were converted to units
of gallons per day to easily compare to estimates of water demand developed in Section
Error! Reference source not found.. Three separate comparisons of water supply were
developed as follows:
ADD Surplus/(Deficit): The ADD surplus/(deficit) value compares the total annual
water right, Q, to the estimated ADD for 2025, 2050, and 2075.
a
64 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
MDD Surplus/(Deficit): The MDD surplus/(deficit) value compares the peak
instantaneous water right, Q, to the estimated MDD for 2025, 2050, and 2075.
i
PPC Surplus/(Deficit): The PPC surplus/(deficit) value compares the PPC to the
estimated MDD for 2025, 2050, and 2075.
These results are shown in Table 7-9.
July 2026 | 65
PPC Surplus/ (Deficit)
61,400 37,400 31,320 94,000 16,600 44,800 81,000 55,000 48,480 18,800 25,680
926,960 175,800 369,200 160,200 341,800 422,800 293,760 456,000 192,800 208,320 464,400
2025
1,924,800
96,800 81,800 59,000 71,120 43,400 32,480 45,000 69,160 77,600 57,000 19,800
333,200 162,600 164,920 559,760 349,840 179,800 415,000 287,600 106,000 442,800
2075
1,747,000 1,057,520
(gpd)
e
84,800 61,000 82,120 44,400 37,480 49,000 73,160 79,600 60,000 20,800
131,800 349,200 168,600 171,920 710,760 382,840 195,800 418,000 290,600 112,000 442,800
2050
2,457,000 1,680,520
MDD Surplus/ (Deficit)
87,800 63,000 91,120 45,400 40,480 55,000 80,160 81,600 62,000 22,800
175,800 369,200 176,600 178,920 858,760 409,840 208,800 420,000 293,600 117,000 442,800
2025
2,962,000 2,591,520
(215) (733)
4,606 2,588
35,517 85,375 34,565 92,486 20,889 16,472 68,407 45,347 36,262 11,319 10,327 24,298 49,136 37,637
(2,394)
128,548 106,911
2075
(203,055)
3,374,000
(gpd)
d
606 267
(215)
5,606 3,588
53,517 93,375 37,565 95,486 22,889 92,472 84,407 50,347 38,262 13,319 12,327 27,298 50,136 38,637
108,945 136,548 106,911
2050
3,729,000
785
ADD Surplus/ (Deficit)
7,606 2,606 4,267 4,588
75,517 41,565 99,486 24,889 98,407 55,347 39,262 14,319 14,327 29,298 51,136 39,637
563,945 103,375 166,472 142,548 106,911
2025
3,981,000
72,000 50,400 60,480 72,000 92,160 93,600 72,000 28,800
316,800 439,200 201,600 205,920 100,800 555,840 280,800 141,120 432,000 309,600 144,000 496,800
5,000,000 4,547,520 1,517,760
Qi (gpd)
70 50 98 35 42 50 64 65 50 20
Group A Community (Small, <50 connections)
Group A Community (Large, >50 connections)
220 305 140 143 386 195 300 215 100 345
3,472 3,158 1,054
(gpm)
c
Qi
2,785 7,588
53,565 30,889 11,606 80,347 45,262 22,319 24,327 43,298 11,606 10,267 57,136 44,637
145,517 138,375 112,486 495,472 171,407 178,548 133,911
5,000,000 1,541,945
Qa (gpd)
Supply Capacity
60 13 90 25 13 64 50
8.5
163 155 126 555 192 200 150
34.6 50.7 3.12 48.5 11.5
5,601 27.25
(acre-
1,727.2
b
feet/year)
Qa
(gpd)
86,400 50,400 40,320 21,600 64,800 72,000 60,480 28,800 31,680
a
316,800 439,200 187,200 568,800 365,760 144,000 468,000 208,800 108,000 220,320 518,400
2,964,960 3,880,800 1,000,800
PPC
Jefferson County PUD #1 Systems Jefferson County PUD #1 Systems
Table 7-9. Jefferson County Future Water Supply Surplus and Deficit Projections
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Table 7-9 provides a regional perspective of where water supply surplus and deficiency
may occur over the planning period; however, the values presented do not supersede
water supply and demand planning at the individual utility level. The analysis projects a
countywide water surplus through the planning period, although some systems in the
County may be in need of additional water supplies in the latter half of the 50-year
planning horizon. These systems should address supply deficits in their WSPs, and are
required by WAC 246-290-100 to evaluate source of supply alternatives if water
shortages are projected to occur within the next 20 years. When evaluating alternatives,
water systems are encouraged to explore regional options wherein potential surpluses
existing with neighboring systems could be used to meet certain deficiencies.
7.4.2 Climate Change Impacts on Water Supply
Quantity
Surface Water
While overall precipitation is not expected to change significantly with climate change,
the timing of precipitation is likely to change, with drier summers and wetter winters. In
addition, the rain/snow mix of precipitation is expected to shift more toward rain with
warmer temperatures. This is likely to impact surface water sources with greater water
availability in winter as a result of greater rainfall and more precipitation falling as rain
rather than snow and less water availability in summer as a result of drought and
decreased snowmelt from reduced snowpack. Many of the surface water sources used in
Jefferson County originate in the Olympic Mountains, making them vulnerable to water
supply impacts from snowpack decline.
Port Townsend is one utility in Jefferson County that is expecting impacts from climate
change on their water supply, as they note in their Olympic Gravity Water System
5
Planning and Environmental White Paper. Port Townsend has water rights on the Big
Quilcene River and Little Quilcene River. Their municipal watershed is expected to shift
from being mixed rain/snow to rain-dominated. As a result, they are anticipating
increased winter flows and reduced late-summer flows. This will result in a greater
dependence on stored water to get through the drier late summers and more water runoff
that is unable to be stored when the reservoirs are at peak capacity during winter.
This also presents a potential opportunity to increase supply resiliency through increased
storage of winter surface water, for use during later, drier times of the year. As water
availability shifts increasingly toward winter with stressed summers, storage will play a
key role in keeping water available year-round. Historically, snowpack has acted as a
reservoir for utilities by storing water and melting in the summer months, but as
snowpack declines there may be an increased need for engineered reservoir capacity.
Lords Lake, which stores water for the City of Port Townsend, is typically full from
6
January to July and river diversions are streamflow-limited from July to October. The
City additionally voluntarily maintains a minimum streamflow in the rivers it has water
5
Olympic Gravity Water System Planning and Environmental White Paper. Port Townsend, 17 Aug.
2021.
6
City of Port Townsend Water System Plan. Port Townsend. Jul. 2019.
68 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
rights to in order to support healthy fish populations. To continue meeting environmental
commitments in addition to water demands, increased water storage could foreseeably
be a necessary consideration with climate pressures. The City has previously and
preliminarily evaluated increases to the storage capacity in Lords Lake. Further
examination of implementing additional storage could yield benefits to the City and
instream flow needs, as well as other water users who could potentially make use of the
system.
As the climate in the Olympic Mountains shifts from mixed snow and rain to rain
dominant, changes in the intensity of extreme precipitation events can result in higher 2-
7
year peak flow events, which can cause significant flooding. Likewise, prolonged
dry/drought conditions during the summer months will result in lower low flow predictions,
which may result in availability issues for water purveyors. Model predictions for the peak
flows are limited due to statistical methods used in the modeling which do not accurately
capture changes in extreme rain events. This means that results from current models
may underestimate the peak flows and associated flood risk in streams located in areas
where snowpack decline is projected. Note that lower low flows could result not only in a
physical reduction in streamflow but also a regulatory reduction in access to water as
junior water rights are curtailed in favor of senior water rights and instream flow
requirements.
Groundwater
Groundwater sources are additionally expected to be impacted by climate change. With
reduced reliability of surface water through the summer months, utilities may turn
increasingly toward groundwater sources, as Port Townsend notes as a potential option
8
for their system. This increased use could affect groundwater availability. Additionally,
drought during summer months is likely to impact groundwater recharge, with July
9
through September soil moisture projected to decrease by about 10 percent. In addition,
any wildfires resulting from drought and temperature increases could impact groundwater
recharge through the creation of hydrophobic soils.
Additional factors that could impact groundwater quantity include:
Climate change may result in more extreme weather events negatively impacting
groundwater recharge. Precipitation delivered in excess of soil infiltration capacity,
for example, could increase the amount of rejected recharge, even if the total annual
precipitation is not substantially different. Drier soils in the summer and fall require
more water to reach and exceed field capacity before deeper infiltration occurs, both
delaying and decreasing recharge.
Changes in the spatial distribution of recharge and discharge areas, affecting
production well capture, areas contributing recharge to wells, and vertical gradients
between aquifers.
7
Yoder, Jonathan and Crystal Raymond et al. Climate Change and Stream flow: Barriers and
Opportunities, Preliminary report to the Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication 22-
11-029. Jun. 2022.
8
Olympic Gravity Water System Planning and Environmental White Paper. Port Townsend, 17 Aug.
2021.
9
Climate Impacts Summary. Jefferson County and Cascadia Consulting Group, Nov. 2024.
July 2026 | 69
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Sea level rise may cause impacts to water quality, which in turn impacts the quantity
of water that can be produced without causing saltwater intrusion or exacerbating
current issues.
As with surface water sources, junior groundwater rights for sources found to be in
hydraulic conne ction to surface waters subject to instream flow restrictions could
be curtailed.
Quality
Surface Water
With increased precipitation and the shift from snow toward rain through winter, in
addition to increased frequency and severity of severe storms, winter streamflow and
runoff is expected to increase. Runoff can bring sediments and debris into water supply
sources, increasing treatment needs. In the Jefferson County/Port Townsend All Hazard
Mitigation Plan, increased risk of Cryptosporidium bacteria in the source water is cited as
10
a result of severe storms and associated runoff. Drought can also worsen water quality
by causing vegetation die back, which reduces soil stability, thereby increasing the
likelihood of sediment transport into waterways when rains return and reducing a natural
water filter in the form of plants.
Sea level rise and flooding may also impact water quality if water infiltrates septic
systems and taints drinking water sources. Septic systems near the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers, which supply water for Port Townsend, in addition to septic systems in
100-year floodplains, are prone to infiltration, which would cause septic system failure, as
defined in WAC 246-272A. Similarly, inundation as a result of sea level rise would cause
failure of septic systems and could impact water quality.
Additionally, wildfires resulting from increased wildfire risk can have impacts on source
watersheds. Wildfires create hydrophobic soils, increasing runoff and causing related
water quality impacts. This runoff may also contain more chemicals as a result of wildfire
byproducts.
Increasing reservoir temperatures, combined with increased sediment contamination
from runoff, increases the likelihood of harmful algal blooms. The biomass from harmful
algal blooms can increase treatment costs in addition to impacts from toxins produced by
the algae.
Groundwater
Sea level rise may result in saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, due to the inland
migration of a saltwater wedge, reduced groundwater recharge, and inundation due to
King tides and coastal flooding. An increase in flooding and shallower depths to water
may also cause an increase in the failure rate of septic systems, impacting shallow water
quality. Contaminant plume directions could shift as a result of reductions in regional
groundwater gradients, allowing local and seasonal gradients to dominate. Collectively,
these impacts make treating the water more costly for utilities. Notably, the identification
of Coastal, At Risk, and High Risk seawater intrusion protection zones (SIPZs) in the
10
All Hazard Mitigation Plan. Jefferson County Emergency Management, Nov. 2016.
70 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Jefferson County Code (Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas) provides essential identification
and monitoring tools to assess these issues.
Additionally, changes in groundwater chemistry and increases in groundwater
temperature could exacerbate losses in well efficiency and production due to biofouling,
microbially-induced corrosion, or the formation of precipitates which can clog well
screens and interfere with production.
7.5 Other Climate Change Considerations
In addition to changes in water supply and quality, this section describes additional
factors that may influence the future resilience and reliability of PWSs in Jefferson
County. In particular, it highlights how climate-related stressors can affect infrastructure,
resource availability, and long-term system planning.
7.5.1 Infrastructure
Sea level rise can threaten water conveyance infrastructure by inundating pipes and
creating buoyancy forces on pipes. Rising groundwater levels as a result of sea level rise
could cause pipeline buoyancy, which could lead to leaks and failure, though pressurized
11
pipes are not expected to be very sensitive to infrequent flooding. Water facilities are
also vulnerable to sea level rise when located in the flood zone. The Jefferson County
Sea-level Rise Study12 identifies up to 11 miles of water pipes that could be affected
under sea level rise when combined with a 100-year flood. Three water facilities (a well
and two fire hydrants) were identified as vulnerable to flooding with sea level rise. Rising
groundwater levels could also increase the failure rate of septic systems. Beyond direct
impacts, sea level rise can also make it more challenging for maintenance personnel to
access facilities and pipelines and disrupt access for emergency services, such as
access to fire hydrants.
7.5.2 Agricultural Irrigation
Farming in East Jefferson County has been a long-held value in terms of local food
sustainability. The climate induced by the rain shadow offers some unique advantages
for local food production. As climate change creates longer and drier summers, the
agricultural community has communicated concerns regarding adequate and affordable
water supply for local food production. Presently, there are no known formal irrigation
systems or districts in East Jefferson County. Irrigation for agricultural purposes
generally is from wells or domestic water taps in a public water system. For example, the
City of Port Townsend has an irrigation customer class benefiting non-residential uses.
Developing a plan or system for increasing irrigation water supply reliability is a
substantial effort and one that falls outside the context of the municipal water supply
focus of the CWSP. However, the WUCC recognizes this as an important consideration
in the broader water resources context of Jefferson County. While the use of
11
Jefferson County Sea-level Rise Study. Jefferson County Department of Community Development and
ESA, Jun. 2023.
12
Jefferson County Sea-level Rise Study. Jefferson County Department of Community Development and
ESA, Jun. 2023.
July 2026 | 71
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
domestic/municipal water systems for agriculture purposes can be costly (and, except
under specific instances, is not allowed from a water rights perspective), options to
expand municipal water systems, and specifically surface water storage, to take
advantage of the wetter winters that are likely to result from future climate conditions may
offer opportunities for coordination/collaboration between municipal and agricultural
water supply planning efforts. Such expansion of systems, including consideration of
utilizing existing water supplies/rights for agricultural irrigation purposes requires
evaluation on a case-by-case basis for compliance with Municipal Water Law and the
involved entitiesÓ water rights as defined in Chapter 90.03 RCW.
7.5.3 Wildfire Risk
Beyond the potential impacts of wildfire on water quantity and quality, wildfires could also
potentially put infrastructure directly at risk and increase demand for emergency water
supplies. The Jefferson County Climate Impacts Summary predicts 10 more high fire
13
danger days each year by 2050, representing a significant increase in wildfire risk.
Nearly all of Jefferson County is either vegetated or part of the wildland-urban interface,
where inhabited areas are in close proximity to or intermixed with vegetation, putting
14
these areas at increased wildfire risk. Infrastructure in the wildland-urban interface is at
increased risk of damage from wildfire because of its proximity to fuel.
Areas in the eastern part of Jefferson County, where most of the water utility service
areas in Jefferson County are located, were identified as extreme and high risk in a
15
composite risk-hazard model run for Jefferson County. There are similarly extreme and
high risk areas in western Jefferson County, where there is Tribal land and associated
water infrastructure. This puts water infrastructure, such as treatment plants and pump
stations, directly at risk from fire damage and drives demand for emergency water
supplies to fight fires in this wildland-urban interface zone. The Jefferson County
Community Wildfire Protection Plan identifies Ðimprove water systemsÑ as one of its
goals, aiming to improve water suppression capabilities and enhance public safety
through upgrading water infrastructure, identifying water resources for wildfire
suppression, and protecting key water resources in areas of elevated fire risk with
vegetation management.
Beyond these direct impacts, wildfires put Jefferson County at risk for additional,
secondary impacts. These include landslides, debris flow, and flooding. When wildfire
damages vegetation and creates hydrophobic soils, landslides and large debris flow,
such as falling boulders, becomes more likely. This could damage infrastructure.
Flooding also becomes more likely as a result of hydrophobic soils and less vegetation
taking in water, which can similarly put infrastructure at risk.
7.5.4 Worker Safety
Climate change hazards, such as extreme heat and wildfire smoke, create challenges for
worker safety, limiting the number of days that water crews can safely work outside
13
Climate Impacts Summary. Jefferson County and Cascadia Consulting Group, Nov. 2024.
14
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Jefferson County and SWCA, Jun. 2024.
15
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Jefferson County and SWCA, Jun. 2024.
72 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
repairing pipes, reading meters, and doing other necessary maintenance activities. In
these circumstances, routine maintenance may need to be paused and emergency
repairs may be more difficult to respond to while prioritizing worker safety. This can
create strain on the water systems as a whole if there are extended periods where
maintenance is reduced.
7.5.5 Emergency Funds
Climate hazards which damage infrastructure in the ways outlined above can deplete
emergency repair funds, so when other, non-climate-related emergencies, such as burst
pipes, occur, there is less funding available to respond. This can strain water utility
financial resources and potentially impact rates.
7.5.6 Climate Migration
Climate change is impacting where people choose to and are able to live. Sea level rise
and coastal erosion, in addition to stream channel migration and landslides, in Jefferson
County could locally impact where people are living, and potentially result in people
moving outside of the County if their home is affected. Conversely, if nearby areas have
higher exposure to climate hazards, Jefferson County could become a receiving county
for climate migration. These impacts should be considered for analysis in future
Jefferson County water system planning.
7.6 Water Utility Resiliency Strategies
In response to the impacts of climate change, water systems within the Jefferson County
can implement a variety of strategies to strengthen their resilience. This section
highlights key considerations that can help utilities adapt to changing conditions while
maintaining reliable and sustainable water service.
7.6.1 General Water System Planning
In 2024, the Washington State Department of Health introduced a climate resilience
planning component to water system plan requirements. As specified in RCW 43.20.310,
all water system plans initiated after June 30, 2025, for utilities serving more than 1,000
customers, must include a climate resilience element. This element should address
which extreme weather events pose challenges to their system, assess critical assets
and necessary protection measures, and include reports describing costs and benefits of
resilience strategies for the system. Financial assistance for climate readiness projects is
available under RCW 70A.125.180.
Jefferson County has been working on planning projects which can support water utilities
16
in execution of this new requirement. The Jefferson County Climate Impacts Summary
gives an overview of the climate threats that are likely to impact Jefferson County, with
an analysis of what types of infrastructure and resources are vulnerable to which threats.
16
Climate Impacts Summary. Jefferson County and Cascadia Consulting Group, Nov. 2024.
July 2026 | 73
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
17
The Jefferson County Sea Level Rise Study is another resource for water utilities,
including maps of sea level rise overlaid with existing infrastructure, such as water pipes.
18
The Community Wildfire Protection Plan is one other resource produced by Jefferson
County with reference maps of wildfire risk hazard. Jefferson County water utilities
developing or updating their WSPs should consult with these documents, as well as this
white paper, in evaluating their own specific circumstances with respect to potential
climate change impacts.
To provide a baseline of current groundwater conditions from which to assess future
changes, such as those discussed in Section 3, Jefferson County could implement
regional or county-wide groundwater monitoring programs. Jefferson County Code
(Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas) already has voluntary and mandatory monitoring actions
related to groundwater quality (chloride) in SIPZs, and it may be possible to expand on
this regulatory framework to incorporate ongoing water level data collection. Periodic
review of this data could provide meaningful insights into how and where saltwater
intrusion is evolving over time. Looking beyond the SIPZs would involve identifying
willing partners (e.g., Jefferson County, Washington State Departments of Ecology and
Natural Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, etc.) as well as suitable well completions
and distribution throughout the County. Water quality and water level data are likely
already available from municipalities and purveyors upon request, particularly in eastern
Jefferson County. Presuming private well owners are willing to provide access, County
staff could substantially augment that data by directly collecting non-pumping water
levels and/or water quality samples, preferably within a few days of each other on a
quarterly/seasonal basis. It may even be possible to engage the community with a citizen
science effort to solicit their water level observations, though such an approach makes it
more likely that the data will include inaccuracies and irregularities than if it was collected
by municipal, purveyor, or County staff. These efforts might also support the eventual
development of a regional groundwater flow model to assist with water resources
decisions over the range of climate change predictions.
7.6.2 Water Conservation
In Washington State, the Municipal Water Law, passed in 2003, requires water suppliers
to use water more efficiently in exchange for water rights certainty and flexibility. In 2007,
the Department of Health adopted an enforceable Water Use Efficiency (WUE) program
intended to achieve a consistently high level of stewardship among all water utilities.
Water utilities are required to collect data, forecast demand, evaluate WUE measures,
calculate distribution system leakage (DSL), and implement a WUE program to meet
their goals. Water utilities must meet a DSL standard to minimize water loss from their
system and report annually to their customers on their performance toward their WUE
goal.
WUE goals are implemented at the utility level. For example, Port Townsend has a WUE
goal to reduce the city-wide per capita daily consumption to 3 percent below the 2013-
2017 average over a 6-year period and maintain the 3-year rolling average DSL below
17
Jefferson County Sea-level Rise Study. Jefferson County Department of Community Development and
ESA, Jun. 2023.
18
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Jefferson County and SWCA, Jun. 2024.
74 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
19
6.5 percent. As climate change poses increased risk to water supply and the potential
for increased demand without intervention, water conservation will become an
increasingly important approach to water management. Water conservation promoted by
water utilities could encourage residents to plant native vegetation instead of water-
intensive lawns, for example, to help conserve water in summer months when water
supply is expected to be the most constrained.
7.6.3 Supply Diversification
Supply diversification gives utilities greater resilience in responding to climate threats as
a result of greater flexibility in supply sources. As surface water sources face water
quantity threats as a result of climate change, groundwater may play an increasingly
important role in getting utilities through summer months. However, both surface water
and groundwater sources face challenges with climate change. For this reason, other
types of supply diversification, such as interties and wholesale water, may be
increasingly important in Jefferson County.
Interties
Interties are physical connections between different water systems which allow water to
be transferred in one or both directions between the utilities. This connection can provide
water that is used as a primary supply, secondary or peaking supply, or only as an
emergency supply. Interties are usually governed by a written agreement between the
utilities. Interties can allow for greater water reliability by allowing for the sale and
transfer of water from utilities with a water surplus to utilities facing supply challenges.
Interties can also increase resilience to wildfires by allowing water to be moved to a utility
fighting a wildfire.
Wholesale Water Provision
There are currently no official wholesale water providers in Jefferson County, but there
are informal setups with trucked water. This is used by residents who typically do not
have any source of potable water at their property or home. This is a legal source of
potable drinking water but is not an approvable water connection for building permits.
7.6.4 Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed water is highly treated wastewater that can be used for a variety of beneficial
uses and purposes rather than being disposed of. This potential water resource provides
an opportunity to address some needs in Jefferson County, including reducing the stress
placed upon potable water supplies through its use for non-potable purposes, enhancing
the environment through its use in replenishment of depleted water resources, and
providing a source of water for water rights mitigation purposes to offset future surface or
groundwater withdrawals. With regulatory approval, reclaimed water could also
potentially be injected via a series of wells to create a barrier system to help
minimize the impacts of saltwater intrusion in particularly vulnerable areas.
19
Olympic Gravity Water System Planning and Environmental White Paper. Port Townsend, 17 Aug.
2021.
July 2026 | 75
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
Reclaimed water use has been explored by some Jefferson County water utilities, in the
course of developing their WSPs. To date, all options analyzed have not been financially
feasible, due to the significant infrastructure and operational investment compared with
the relatively modest savings in potable water use. Furthermore, the opportunities for
implementing a reclaimed water strategy are limited by the relatively small portions of the
County that are sewered and therefore the limited amount of raw wastewater that is
readily available for conversion to reclaimed water.
7.6.5 Small System Considerations
Small systems can be particularly vulnerable to climate changes because they have
fewer resources available to respond to threats. For this reason, consolidation of small
water systems into larger systems can help provide climate resilience.
Satellite management agencies (SMAs) are approved agencies to own and/or manage
and operate public water systems. Under WAC 246-290 and 246-291, all new Group A
and Group B water systems approved after July 1995 must be owned or operated by an
SMA unless one is not available. This regulatory requirement is intended to ensure that
all water systems have technical, managerial, and financial oversight while providing safe
drinking water.
Receivership is a last-resort approach available to DOH and local health agencies to
improve management of a water system that is failing to provide safe and reliable water.
In this case, usually after informal communication and formal penalties have not worked
to bring a water system into compliance, courts appoint an entity to manage the water
system. This is typically a temporary solution until a more permanent solution is found.
When there are no qualified water agencies to serve as the receiver, the court will
appoint the county to manage the water system, as provided in RCW 43.70.195.
For small water system consolidation to functionally be effective, proximity of the
consolidating systems is important. A benefit of consolidation for larger systems is often
the acquisition of water rights from the smaller water system. However, this is contingent
on Ecology approval of the water rights transfer. Consolidation also requires upfront
investment to create necessary interties and infrastructure improvements to bring the
smaller system up to the regulatory standards of the larger system.
7.6.6 Infrastructure
As infrastructure faces a number of threats as a result of climate change, resilience
considerations should be applied when siting new infrastructure. Infrastructure should be
sited above projected sea level rise zones and far enough from other water bodies to
avoid flooding during future flood conditions. Where wildfires are a concern, facilities
should have sufficient vegetation clearance in the immediate vicinity to reduce wildfire
vulnerability.
Increased water quality monitoring can be an additional approach to provide more
resilience to water systems. Because of increased risks of cryptosporidium
contamination and sediment transport into water sources, increased chloride level
monitoring in the supply network can help ensure that water is safely getting to
customers.
76 | July 2026
DRAFT 2026 Coordinated Water System Plan
Jefferson County, Washington
7.7 Policy Statements
The WUCC policy statements related to the topics addressed in this chapter of the
CWSP are:
7-1. General Planning. Public water systems should reference and incorporate
information provided in this white paper and the forthcoming CWSP Update to assist
them in meeting DOH requirements to incorporate climate resiliency planning in
future WSP updates.
7-2. Water Demand Forecasting. The WUCC should periodically (at least once
every 10 years, perhaps in conjunction with other CWSP Update activities) update
the analysis of temperature/precipitation trends and their potential impacts upon
water demand, so as to inform the timing of other strategies.
7-3. Water Conservation. As part of their required water use efficiency planning
efforts, public water systems should place a renewed focus on evaluating
conservation measures that aim to reduce summertime water consumption.
7-4. Surface Water Supply/Storage. The WUCC should coordinate with water
systems in the County to further explore various storage options to capture increased
wintertime flow and aid in addressing multiple needs of the City and potentially other
water systems as well.
7-5. Groundwater Level and Quality Monitoring. The WUCC should coordinate
with the County, PUD, Department of Ecology, and others as noted in Section 5 to
expand Countywide groundwater level and quality monitoring, to identify trends that
may be related to sea level rise or other climate change hazards (storm intensity and
frequency, spatial distribution of recharge, and other hazards identified in Section 3).
7-6. Climate Migration. Public water systems should consider the effects of climate
change on increasing or decreasing their customer base, as part of their periodic
WSP updates.
7-7. Wildfire Risk Management. The WUCC should coordinate with the County to
develop guidance to public water systems regarding how to evaluate the ability of
their systems to suppress fires in the wildland-urban interface.
July 2026 | 77
ЋЉЋЏ /ƚƩĻ Cƚĭǒƭʹ /ƚƓķǒĭƷ ğ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤΏǞźķĻ ƭǒƩǝĻǤ Ʒƚ ĬĻƷƷĻƩ ǒƓķĻƩƭƷğƓķ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ƓĻĻķƭ ğƓķ ŭğźƓ źƓƭźŭŷƷƭ źƓƷƚ ƷŷĻ ķźǝĻƩƭźƷǤ ƚŅ ƚƦźƓźƚƓƭ͵
INNOVATE OUR SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES & PROCESSES - Set the City and community up for sustained success through process and
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
STATUS
FSI2025
Est: $=$1k, $$=$10k, $$$=$100k
structure improvements and optimization
PEL/interdepartmental coordination
Permitting procedures, configuration, Smartgov efficiency, leveraging 2025 videos
Fire inspections and business license integration
Permitting Fees Update
Purchasing Policy Simplification
AI Policy (complete)
Police final push toward agency accreditation
ENVISION OUR SUSTAINABLE FUTURE AND DELIVER OUR PRIORITY INITIATIVES - Deliver the 2025-2045 Comprehensive Plan and
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
STATUS
FSI2025
Est: $=$1k, $$=$10k, $$$=$100k
associated priorities to catalyze a financially, socially, and environmentally sustainable future
Implement Housing/Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
Continue to develop, implement, and refine code and comp plan changes to help unlock and inspire affordable, dense, quality infill development
Implement the community's vision for Evans Vista neighborhood and deliver infrastructure to make it development-ready
Develop RFP for Evans Vista phased development
Cherry St sale under new Comp Plan zoning
Explore options presented in the housing white paper for implementation - fee structures, incentives, infrastructure extensions
Economic Development - Housing Infill
Economic Development - Improve commercial intensity, beyond commercial corner store/shop allowances in residential zones
Glen Cove Sewer Study - next steps - Interlocal Agreement with Jeff. Co.
Await State Shoreline Master Program comments and make directive changes after state process
Revisit 2009 Housing Property Inventory
Support and coordinate with providers and partners on the unhoused population's needs
Implement Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
Mill Road Roundabout funding/grant application
Streets improvements concept plans (like Washington St, San Juan/F, Hastings, Admiralty) - Multimodal Arterial Cohesive Study
Puget Sound to Pacific/Olympic Discovery Trail - in-town connection to Fort Worden and land purchase near Eaglemount (City Lake)
Safe Route to Schools Neighborhood Connections Study
ADA Transition Plan Update - Parks, Facilities, Right of way
Continue to refine Engineering Design Standards
Deliver Lawrence Street project (Harrison to Walker)
Implement 2026 chip seal program (Sheridan and Monroe)
Transportation Benefit District implementation, including street repair, grants, active transportation
Update STIP (incorporate active transportation plan, multimodal arterial street, RAISE grant, and saferoute planning studies)
Implement Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Facilities/Library/Arts & Culture (Community Services) Initiatives:
Work with JLT - Cappy's Preservation Implementation, 80 acres
Address parks, facilities, library, and arts & culture funding needs and prioritize future phased investments
Establish ER&R Facilities program and budget
Consider implementing Library's Level of Service Plan Option #2
Determine an approach to deer management in partnership with State Fish & Wildlife
Anticipate RCO grant application for 2027 cycle
Build golf park playground
Explore collaboration/LOA with Jefferson County to increase recreation opportunities
Inventory public art and consider links to functional plans, maintenance planning for artworks, infusion of art into infrastructure projects
DNR grant implementation
New Public Works facility design
Undertake master planning of golf park in collaboration with Friends of the Golf Park
Undertake master planning of west-side park
Facilities Updates - City Hall HVAC, Mountain View HVAC/parking, Library HVAC , City Hall and Library elevators (subject to budget and grants)
Trails (Volunteer Program, street ends, loop trail)
Parks upgrates - Kah Tai Restrooms, Chetzemoka kitchen shelter, demolition of Golden Age Club and Parks house (subject to budget)
Collaborate with related agencies to stabilize and plan for the sustainable future of Fort Worden State Park
Reestablish the 1% for the Arts support for all City public works projects in line with the City Code (complete); implement program
Other Priorities - Deliver on Water/Sewer/Storm Priorities:
Capital Facilities Plan Update (2027-2033) - Big effort incorporating all new plans
Standpipe Reservoir Recoating Design
5ĻƌźǝĻƩ źƓƷĻŭƩğƷĻķͲ ƭƷƩğƷĻŭźĭ ğƓķ ƭǒƭƷğźƓğĬƌĻ ǝğƌǒĻ ŅƩƚƒ ƷŷĻ /źƷǤ ƚƩŭğƓźǩğƷźƚƓ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ĬǤ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦźƓŭ ğƓķ ƌĻǝĻƩğŭźƓŭ ƦğƩƷƓĻƩƭŷźƦƭͲ ĻƓŷğƓĭźƓŭ ƭƷğŅŅ ğƓķ
ƷĻğƒ ƦĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻͲ ƦƩƚǝźķźƓŭ ĭƌĻğƩ ķźƩĻĭƷźƚƓͲ ƓǒƩƷǒƩźƓŭ ķĻĻƦ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ƦğƩƷźĭźƦğƷźƚƓ ğƓķ ĻƓŭğŭĻƒĻƓƷ ğƓķ ĻƓƭǒƩźƓŭ ĭƚƓƷźƓǒƚǒƭ ķĻƌźǝĻƩǤ ƚŅ ƨǒğƌźƷǤ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻƭ
Λ/źƷǤ ağƓğŭĻƩγƭ hŅŅźĭĻΜ
Marketing the City to the visiting public working with LTAC, contractors, and community partners to do so
Special projects, communication, engagement and advocacy on behalf of the City and community
5ĻƌźǝĻƩ ƨǒğƌźƷǤͲ ĻŅŅźĭźĻƓƷ ğƓķ ĭǒƭƷƚƒĻƩΏŅğĭźƓŭ ƦĻƩƒźƷƷźƓŭͲ ĭƚķĻ ĻƓŅƚƩĭĻƒĻƓƷͲ ĭǒƩƩĻƓƷ ğƓķ ƌƚƓŭΏƷĻƩƒ ƦƌğƓƓźƓŭ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚƒƚƷĻ ƚƦƦƚƩƷǒƓźƷǤ ğƓķ ƨǒğƌźƷǤ ƚŅ ƌźŅĻ źƓ tƚƩƷ
ƚǞƓƭĻƓķ ΛtƌğƓƓźƓŭ ε /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷΜ
$$$ ongoing and one-time
tƩƚǝźķĻ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ ğƓķ ķĻƭźƩĻķ ŅźƓğƓĭźğƌ ƩĻƦƚƩƷźƓŭ ğƓķ ƦƩğĭƷźĭĻƭͲ ƭƷĻǞğƩķ ƦƩĻƦğƩğƷźƚƓ ğƓķ ĭƚƌƌĻĭƷźǝĻ ƚǝĻƩƭźŭŷƷ ƚŅ ĬğƌğƓĭĻķ ŅǒƓķƭ ğƓķ ĬǒķŭĻƷƭ ğƓķ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ
ƷĻĭŷƓƚƌƚŭǤ ƓĻĻķƭ Ʒƚ ĻƓƭǒƩĻ ƷŷĻ ƭǒĭĭĻƭƭ ƚŅ ğƌƌ ķĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷğƌ ğƓķ ƚƩŭğƓźǩğƷźƚƓğƌ ğĭƷźǝźƷźĻƭ͵ ΛCźƓğƓĭĻ ε ĻĭŷƓƚƌƚŭǤ {ĻƩǝźĭĻƭΜ
Coordinated front desk internal and external service via the Public Experience Liaisons
Management of city Investment and debt according to government regulations
Fiscal responsibility and management of city resources
Updated Fee Schedules
ƚ ǒƦƌźŅƷ ƚǒƩ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ƷŷƩƚǒŭŷ ƩĻğķźƓŭͲ ƌĻğƩƓźƓŭͲ ĭƚƓƓĻĭƷźƚƓ ğƓķ ĭƩĻğƷźǝźƷǤ Λ\[źĬƩğƩǤΜ Ώ ƓƚƷĻ ƷƩğƓƭźƷźƚƓ Ʒƚ /{5 Ǟ źƓƷĻŭƩğƷĻķ ƭƷğƷĻƒĻƓƷ Ʒƚ ĭƚƒĻ
ƚ ǞƚƩƉ źƓ ƦğƩƷƓĻƩƭŷźƦ ǞźƷŷ ƚǒƩ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ Ʒƚ ƦƩƚǝźķĻ ğ ƭğŅĻ ğƓķ ĭƚƒƦğƭƭźƚƓğƷĻ ĻƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷ ǞŷźƌĻ ƩĻķǒĭźƓŭ ĭƩźƒĻ ğƓķ ƷŷĻ ŅĻğƩ ƚŅ ĭƩźƒĻ ΛtƚƌźĭĻΜ
5ĻǝĻƌƚƦ ğƓķ ķĻƌźǝĻƩ źƓƓƚǝğƷźǝĻ ƭƚƌǒƷźƚƓƭ ƷŷğƷ ğƌƌƚǞ ƷŷĻ /źƷǤ Ʒƚ ƒğƉĻ ğ ƦƚƭźƷźǝĻ ƌĻğƦ ŅƚƩǞğƩķ źƓ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦźƓŭ ğƓķ źƓǝĻƭƷźƓŭ źƓ ƦĻƚƦƌĻ ğƓķ ƦĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻͲ ķƩźǝźƓŭ
ĭƚƚƩķźƓğƷĻķ ƷĻğƒ ĻǣĭĻƌƌĻƓĭĻͲ ĭƚƓƷźƓǒƚǒƭ źƒƦƩƚǝĻƒĻƓƷͲ ğƓķ ğĭĭƚǒƓƷğĬźƌźƷǤ ΛtĻƚƦƌĻ ε tĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻΉIwΜ
Employee engagement, including development and delivery of an engagement survey and accompanying manager follow up approach
tƩƚǝźķĻ ƨǒğƌźƷǤ ğƓķ ƩĻƌźğĬƌĻ źƓŅƩğƭƷƩǒĭƷǒƩĻ ƷŷğƷ ǒƓķĻƩƦźƓ ğ ŷĻğƌƷŷǤ ƭƚĭźğƌͲ ĻƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷğƌ ğƓķ ĻĭƚƓƚƒźĭ ŅğĬƩźĭ ğƓķ ƭǒĭĭĻƭƭ ƚŅ tƚƩƷ ƚǞƓƭĻƓķ ğƓķ ƚǒƩ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ
Transportation engineering (Non-motorized, traffic, accident analysis, grant writing)
Absent
Floor ConfFloor ConfFloor Large
ambers
h
ndndnd
LocationChambers Chambers Chambers Chambers Chambers Chambers Pink House Chambers 2C2Chambers Chambers 2Conf. Room
Information Only
)
–
uan
J
Support
Compost, Chips, Biosolids,
move to late summer or fall
Update
Plan
–
–
www.cityofpt.us
Reading
st
Municipal Services Center
1
Harrison to Walker Bid AwardHarrison to Walker Bid Award
–
Modeling
website
–
Sheridan and San
–
–
City
Item
See
Financial Policies Update (incl. reserve levels)
changes
SCHEDULE
Supplemental
Agenda
arking
udget:
nd
change.
PWater Utility Rate Parking changes Sheridan and San JuanPW Fee resolution update Septage, Account changesMill RD Lift Station Interlocal with Jeff. Co.Lawrence Street Preapproved stock
plan program updateRevisions to street painting code 12.11
Coordinated Water SystemConsent Agenda: Falling Waters Final PlatNor'west Village Settlement AgreementCity Manager transitionFinal Facilities ER&R PresentationSchematic Design Budget:
Revenue Update for 2027 budget presentation2BLawrence Street Bond Issuance Ordinance
to
MEETINGS
TentativeCANCELED CANCELED CANCELED
subject
CITY
only,
draft
is
schedule
(This
Meeting
of
TypeCity Council Business Meeting Historic Preservation CommitteeCouncil Infrastructure and Development CommArts Commission Council Finance and Budget Committee City Council Workshop
Meeting Library Advisory BoardSpecial Session Planning Commission Equity, Access, and Rights Advisory Bd Special Session Arts Commission Civil Service Commission Meeting Planning Commission
City Council Business Meeting Council Culture and Society Committee
Time 3:003:003:003:00 6:00 1:006:3012:303:004:156:30 6:30 3:00
6:00
DateAug 3 Aug 4Aug 5Aug 6Aug 10 Aug 10 Aug 11Aug 12Aug 13Aug 13Aug 13Aug 13 Aug 17 Aug 20
Day
Mon TuesWedThursMon Mon TuesWedThursThursThursThurs Mon Thurs