Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.020 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except only as expressly provided in chapters 67.28, 81.104, and 82.14 RCW, the state preempts the field of imposing retail sales and use taxes and taxes upon parimutuel wagering authorized pursuant to RCW 67.16.060, conveyances, and cigarettes, and no county, town, or other municipal subdivision shall have the right to impose taxes of that nature. Except as provided in RCW 64.34.440 and 82.02.050 through 82.02.090, no county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on the construction or reconstruction of residential buildings, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other building or building space or appurtenance thereto, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land. However, this section does not preclude dedications of land or easements within the proposed development or plat which the county, city, town, or other municipal corporation can demonstrate are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or easement is to apply.
This section does not prohibit voluntary agreements with counties, cities, towns, or other municipal corporations that allow a payment in lieu of a dedication of land or to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision, or plat. A local government shall not use such voluntary agreements for local off-site transportation improvements within the geographic boundaries of the area or areas covered by an adopted transportation program authorized by chapter 39.92 RCW. Any such voluntary agreement is subject to the following provisions:
(1) The payment shall be held in a reserve account and may only be expended to fund a capital improvement agreed upon by the parties to mitigate the identified, direct impact;
(2) The payment shall be expended in all cases within five years of collection; and
(3) Any payment not so expended shall be refunded with interest to be calculated from the original date the deposit was received by the county and at the same rate applied to tax refunds pursuant to RCW 84.69.100; however, if the payment is not expended within five years due to delay attributable to the developer, the payment shall be refunded without interest.
No county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall require any payment as part of such a voluntary agreement which the county, city, town, or other municipal corporation cannot establish is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat.
Nothing in this section prohibits cities, towns, counties, or other municipal corporations from collecting reasonable fees from an applicant for a permit or other governmental approval to cover the cost to the city, town, county, or other municipal corporation of processing applications, inspecting and reviewing plans, or preparing detailed statements required by chapter 43.21C RCW, including reasonable fees that are consistent with RCW 43.21C.420(6), 43.21C.428, and beginning July 1, 2014, RCW 35.91.020.
This section does not limit the existing authority of any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation to impose special assessments on property specifically benefited thereby in the manner prescribed by law.
Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from imposing or permits counties, cities, or towns to impose water, sewer, natural gas, drainage utility, and drainage system charges. However, no such charge shall exceed the proportionate share of such utility or system's capital costs which the county, city, or town can demonstrate are attributable to the property being charged. Furthermore, these provisions may not be interpreted to expand or contract any existing authority of counties, cities, or towns to impose such charges.
Nothing in this section prohibits a transportation benefit district from imposing fees or charges authorized in RCW 36.73.120 nor prohibits the legislative authority of a county, city, or town from approving the imposition of such fees within a transportation benefit district.
Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from imposing transportation impact fees authorized pursuant to chapter 39.92 RCW.
Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from requiring property owners to provide relocation assistance to tenants under RCW 59.18.440 and 59.18.450.
Nothing in this section limits the authority of counties, cities, or towns to implement programs consistent with RCW 36.70A.540, nor to enforce agreements made pursuant to such programs.
[ 2013 c 243 s 4; 2010 c 153 s 3; 2009 c 535 s 1103; 2008 c 113 s 2; 2006 c 149 s 3; 2005 c 502 s 5; 1997 c 452 s 21; 1996 c 230 s 1612; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 42; 1988 c 179 s 6; 1987 c 327 s 17; 1982 1st ex.s. c 49 s 5; 1979 ex.s. c 196 s 3; 1970 ex.s. c 94 s 8; 1967 c 236 s 16; 1961 c 15 s 82.02.020. Prior: (i) 1935 c 180 s 29; RRS s 8370-29. (ii) 1949 c 228 s 28; 1939 c 225 s 22; 1937 c 227 s 24; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 8370-219. Formerly RCW 82.32.370.]
Notes:
Intent—2010 c 153: See note following RCW 43.21C.420.
Intent—Construction—2009 c 535: See notes following RCW 82.04.192.
Application—Effective date—2008 c 113: See notes following RCW 64.34.440.
Findings—Construction—2006 c 149: See notes following RCW 36.70A.540.
Effective date—2005 c 502: See note following RCW 1.12.070.
Intent—Severability—1997 c 452: See notes following RCW 67.28.080.
Savings—1997 c 452: See note following RCW 67.28.181.
Part headings not law—Effective date—1996 c 230: See notes following RCW 57.02.001.
Intent—Construction—Effective date—Fire district funding—1982 1st ex.s. c 49: See notes following RCW 35.21.710.
Effective date—1979 ex.s. c 196: See note following RCW 82.04.240.
Except only as expressly provided in chapters 67.28, 81.104, and 82.14 RCW, the state preempts the field of imposing retail sales and use taxes and taxes upon parimutuel wagering authorized pursuant to RCW 67.16.060, conveyances, and cigarettes, and no county, town, or other municipal subdivision shall have the right to impose taxes of that nature. Except as provided in RCW 64.90.655 and 82.02.050 through 82.02.090, no county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on the construction or reconstruction of residential buildings, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other building or building space or appurtenance thereto, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land. However, this section does not preclude dedications of land or easements within the proposed development or plat which the county, city, town, or other municipal corporation can demonstrate are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or easement is to apply.
This section does not prohibit voluntary agreements with counties, cities, towns, or other municipal corporations that allow a payment in lieu of a dedication of land or to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision, or plat. A local government shall not use such voluntary agreements for local off-site transportation improvements within the geographic boundaries of the area or areas covered by an adopted transportation program authorized by chapter 39.92 RCW. Any such voluntary agreement is subject to the following provisions:
(1) The payment shall be held in a reserve account and may only be expended to fund a capital improvement agreed upon by the parties to mitigate the identified, direct impact;
(2) The payment shall be expended in all cases within five years of collection; and
(3) Any payment not so expended shall be refunded with interest to be calculated from the original date the deposit was received by the county and at the same rate applied to tax refunds pursuant to RCW 84.69.100; however, if the payment is not expended within five years due to delay attributable to the developer, the payment shall be refunded without interest.
No county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall require any payment as part of such a voluntary agreement which the county, city, town, or other municipal corporation cannot establish is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat.
Nothing in this section prohibits cities, towns, counties, or other municipal corporations from collecting reasonable fees from an applicant for a permit or other governmental approval to cover the cost to the city, town, county, or other municipal corporation of processing applications, inspecting and reviewing plans, or preparing detailed statements required by chapter 43.21C RCW, including reasonable fees that are consistent with RCW 43.21C.420(6), 43.21C.428, and beginning July 1, 2014, RCW 35.91.020.
This section does not limit the existing authority of any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation to impose special assessments on property specifically benefited thereby in the manner prescribed by law.
Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from imposing or permits counties, cities, or towns to impose water, sewer, natural gas, drainage utility, and drainage system charges. However, no such charge shall exceed the proportionate share of such utility or system's capital costs which the county, city, or town can demonstrate are attributable to the property being charged. Furthermore, these provisions may not be interpreted to expand or contract any existing authority of counties, cities, or towns to impose such charges.
Nothing in this section prohibits a transportation benefit district from imposing fees or charges authorized in RCW 36.73.120 nor prohibits the legislative authority of a county, city, or town from approving the imposition of such fees within a transportation benefit district.
Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from imposing transportation impact fees authorized pursuant to chapter 39.92 RCW.
Nothing in this section prohibits counties, cities, or towns from requiring property owners to provide relocation assistance to tenants under RCW 59.18.440 and 59.18.450.
Nothing in this section limits the authority of counties, cities, or towns to implement programs consistent with RCW 36.70A.540, nor to enforce agreements made pursuant to such programs.
[ 2024 c 321 s 431; 2013 c 243 s 4; 2010 c 153 s 3; 2009 c 535 s 1103; 2008 c 113 s 2; 2006 c 149 s 3; 2005 c 502 s 5; 1997 c 452 s 21; 1996 c 230 s 1612; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 42; 1988 c 179 s 6; 1987 c 327 s 17; 1982 1st ex.s. c 49 s 5; 1979 ex.s. c 196 s 3; 1970 ex.s. c 94 s 8; 1967 c 236 s 16; 1961 c 15 s 82.02.020. Prior: (i) 1935 c 180 s 29; RRS s 8370-29. (ii) 1949 c 228 s 28; 1939 c 225 s 22; 1937 c 227 s 24; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 8370-219. Formerly RCW 82.32.370.]
Notes:
Effective dates—2024 c 321 ss 319 and 401-432: See note following RCW 64.90.485.
Intent—2010 c 153: See note following RCW 43.21C.420.
Intent—Construction—2009 c 535: See notes following RCW 82.04.192.
Application—Effective date—2008 c 113: See notes following RCW 64.34.440.
Findings—Construction—2006 c 149: See notes following RCW 36.70A.540.
Effective date—2005 c 502: See note following RCW 1.12.070.
Intent—Severability—1997 c 452: See notes following RCW 67.28.080.
Savings—1997 c 452: See note following RCW 67.28.181.
Part headings not law—Effective date—1996 c 230: See notes following RCW 57.02.001.
Intent—Construction—Effective date—Fire district funding—1982 1st ex.s. c 49: See notes following RCW 35.21.710.
Effective date—1979 ex.s. c 196: See note following RCW 82.04.240.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002).
Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002). “We conclude that the open space set aside condition violates RCW 82.02.020, and thus do not reach arguments respecting the constitutionality of this requirement.”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 877 P.2d 176 (Wash. 1994). “*242 The trial court held that the suit was timely because Bothell had not complied with RCW 82.02.020, the statute which authorizes impact fees, and, therefore, the 3-year statute of limitations, applicable to actions for the refund of taxes, fees or indirect charges on…”
Trimen Dev. Co. v. King Cnty., 877 P.2d 187 (Wash. 1994). “38, which conditions subdivision plat approval upon the dedication or reservation of land for open space or upon the payment of a fee in lieu of such dedication or reservation, is an invalid "tax" in violation of former RCW 82.02.020. We affirm the Court of Appeals.”
City of Fed. Way v. Town & Country Real Est., LLC, 252 P.3d 382 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Town & Country argues that (1) we must give special deference to the hearing examiner’s legal conclusions; (2) RCW 82.02.020’s definition of “direct impact” does not encompass the traffic effects that the proposed development will generate; (3) the mitigation payment is not…”
Citizens' All. for Prop. Rights v. Sims, 187 P.3d 786 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “150 violates RCW 82.02.020. They also alleged that the ordinance violates substantive due process and other provisions of the Washington constitution.”
Cobb v. Snohomish Cnty., 829 P.2d 169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “II Cobb contends first that SCC Title 26B is nothing more than a scheme for imposing taxes, fees, or charges on developers in violation of RCW 82.02.020. RCW 82.02.020 provides in relevant part: [N]o county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee,…”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 834 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “They allege that Bothell's assessment and expenditure of the park impact mitigation fees violated RCW 82.02.020. Bothell contended below, inter alia, that the action was barred by the 30-day statute of limitations period established by RCW 58.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 13 By requiring a general fee schedule for planned, systemwide improvements and allowing individualized fee calculations as an exception, the legislature distinguished the impact fee statutes from the regulatory fees referred to in RCW 82.02.020: Except as provided in RCW 82.”
Olympic Stewardship Found. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 166 Wash. App. 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “172(1), and (2) RCW 82.02.020’s “con *176 stitutional nexus and rough proportionality” requirements.”
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 830 P.2d 318 (Wash. 1992). “In its provisions for the protection of low income tenants the ordinance additionally required that tenants be given a 120-day notice of an intended demolition, and that low income tenants be either relocated or, at the option of the landlord, paid up to $1,000 per family in…”
Kitsap All. of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 255 P.3d 696 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “REMAINING ISSUES ¶35 The KAPO I opinion was decided on procedural grounds and did not address KAPO’s substantive arguments that the shoreline buffers were not based on the best available science and constituted an impact fee in violation of RCW 82.02.020. Preliminarily, there…”
R/L Assocs., INC. v. City of Seattle, 780 P.2d 838 (Wash. 1989). “The validity of the tenant assistance provisions is tested under RCW 82.02.020, which provides in part: No county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on the construction or reconstruction of residential…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.020(1) — 4 cases
Trimen Dev. Co. v. King Cnty., 877 P.2d 187 (Wash. 1994). “38, which conditions subdivision plat approval upon the dedication or reservation of land for open space or upon the payment of a fee in lieu of such dedication or reservation, is an invalid "tax" in violation of former RCW 82.02.020. We affirm the Court of Appeals.”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 877 P.2d 176 (Wash. 1994). “*242 The trial court held that the suit was timely because Bothell had not complied with RCW 82.02.020, the statute which authorizes impact fees, and, therefore, the 3-year statute of limitations, applicable to actions for the refund of taxes, fees or indirect charges on…”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 834 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “They allege that Bothell's assessment and expenditure of the park impact mitigation fees violated RCW 82.02.020. Bothell contended below, inter alia, that the action was barred by the 30-day statute of limitations period established by RCW 58.”
Org. to Preserve Agr. v. Adams Co., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.020(1X3) — 1 case
Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v. Adams Cnty., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.020(3) — 7 cases
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 877 P.2d 176 (Wash. 1994). “*242 The trial court held that the suit was timely because Bothell had not complied with RCW 82.02.020, the statute which authorizes impact fees, and, therefore, the 3-year statute of limitations, applicable to actions for the refund of taxes, fees or indirect charges on…”
Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v. Adams Cnty., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996).
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 834 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “They allege that Bothell's assessment and expenditure of the park impact mitigation fees violated RCW 82.02.020. Bothell contended below, inter alia, that the action was barred by the 30-day statute of limitations period established by RCW 58.”
humbert/birch Creek Constr. v. Walla Walla Cty., 185 P.3d 660 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Humbert v. Walla Walla Cnty., 145 Wash. App. 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.