Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The local ordinance by which impact fees are imposed:
(1) Shall include a schedule of impact fees which shall be adopted for each type of development activity that is subject to impact fees, specifying the amount of the impact fee to be imposed for each type of system improvement. The schedule shall be based upon a formula or other method of calculating such impact fees. The schedule shall reflect the proportionate impact of new housing units, including multifamily and condominium units, based on the square footage, number of bedrooms, or trips generated, in the housing unit in order to produce a proportionally lower impact fee for smaller housing units. In determining proportionate share, the formula or other method of calculating impact fees shall incorporate, among other things, the following:
(a) The cost of public facilities necessitated by new development;
(b) An adjustment to the cost of the public facilities for past or future payments made or reasonably anticipated to be made by new development to pay for particular system improvements in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement;
(c) The availability of other means of funding public facility improvements;
(d) The cost of existing public facilities improvements; and
(e) The methods by which public facilities improvements were financed;
(2) May provide an exemption for low-income housing, and other development activities with broad public purposes, including development of an early learning facility, from these impact fees, provided that the impact fees for such development activity shall be paid from public funds other than impact fee accounts;
(3)(a) May not impose an impact fee on development activities of an early learning facility greater than that imposed on commercial retail or commercial office development activities that generate a similar number, volume, type, and duration of vehicle trips;
(b) When a facility or development has more than one use, the limitations in this subsection (3) or the exemption applicable to an early learning facility in subsections (2) and (4) of this section only apply to that portion that is developed as an early learning facility. The impact fee assessed on an early learning facility in such a development or facility may not exceed the least of the impact fees assessed on comparable businesses in the facility or development;
(4) May provide an exemption from impact fees for low-income housing or for early learning facilities. Local governments that grant exemptions for low-income housing or for early learning facilities under this subsection (4) may either: Grant a partial exemption of not more than 80 percent of impact fees, in which case there is no explicit requirement to pay the exempted portion of the fee from public funds other than impact fee accounts; or provide a full waiver, in which case the remaining percentage of the exempted fee must be paid from public funds other than impact fee accounts, except as provided in (b) of this subsection. These exemptions are subject to the following requirements:
(a) An exemption for low-income housing granted under subsection (2) of this section or this subsection (4) must be conditioned upon requiring the developer to record a covenant that, except as provided otherwise by this subsection, prohibits using the property for any purpose other than for low-income housing. At a minimum, the covenant must address price restrictions and household income limits for the low-income housing, and that if the property is converted to a use other than for low-income housing, the property owner must pay the applicable impact fees in effect at the time of conversion;
(b) An exemption for early learning facilities granted under subsection (2) of this section or this subsection (4) may be a full waiver without an explicit requirement to pay the exempted portion of the fee from public funds other than impact fee accounts if the local government requires the developer to record a covenant that requires that at least 25 percent of the children and families using the early learning facility qualify for state subsidized child care, including early childhood education and assistance under chapter 43.216 RCW, and that provides that if the property is converted to a use other than for an early learning facility, the property owner must pay the applicable impact fees in effect at the time of conversion, and that also provides that if at no point during a calendar year does the early learning facility achieve the required percentage of children and families qualified for state subsidized child care using the early learning facility, the property owner must pay 20 percent of the impact fee that would have been imposed on the development had there not been an exemption within 90 days of the local government notifying the property owner of the breach, and any balance remaining thereafter shall be a lien on the property; and
(c) Covenants required by (a) and (b) of this subsection must be recorded with the applicable county auditor or recording officer. A local government granting an exemption under subsection (2) of this section or this subsection (4) for low-income housing or an early learning facility may not collect revenue lost through granting an exemption by increasing impact fees unrelated to the exemption. A school district who receives school impact fees must approve any exemption under subsection (2) of this section or this subsection (4);
(5) Shall provide a credit for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the developer, to facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the county, city, or town as a condition of approving the development activity;
(6) Shall allow the county, city, or town imposing the impact fees to adjust the standard impact fee at the time the fee is imposed to consider unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that impact fees are imposed fairly;
(7) Shall include a provision for calculating the amount of the fee to be imposed on a particular development that permits consideration of studies and data submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee;
(8) Shall establish one or more reasonable service areas within which it shall calculate and impose impact fees for various land use categories per unit of development;
(9) May provide for the imposition of an impact fee for system improvement costs previously incurred by a county, city, or town to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements provided such fee shall not be imposed to make up for any system improvement deficiencies;
(10) Shall provide a 50 percent reduction of the impact fees specified in the schedule of impact fees for system improvements under RCW 82.02.090(7)(a) if the project is within a station area and claiming a multiple-unit housing property tax exemption under RCW 84.14.020(1)(a)(ii)(D); and
(11) Must adopt or amend by ordinance, and incorporate into their development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls the requirements of this section to take effect six months after the jurisdiction's next periodic comprehensive plan update required under RCW 36.70A.130.
For purposes of this section, "low-income housing" means housing with a monthly housing expense, that is no greater than 30 percent of 80 percent of the median family income adjusted for family size, for the county where the project is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban development.
For the purposes of this section, "early learning facility" has the same meaning as in RCW 43.31.565.
Notes:
Findings—2025 c 267: See note following RCW 36.70A.840.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006).
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 156 Wash. 2d 289 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 83 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*791 The City relies on RCW 82.02.060, 53 and especially RCW 82.02.”
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
Wellington River Hollow, LLC v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 82.02.060(l)(c) states the Legislature’s intent that impact fees are *754 imposed through established procedures and criteria so that a development does not pay arbitrary or duplicative fees for the same impact.”
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). “¶ 4 In 1991, the County adopted an impact fee ordinance to aid in funding the capital facility improvements identified in the County's 1977 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 82.02.060. From 1992 to October 1995, impact fees were collected by the County for parks and roads from…”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). “¶4 In 1991, the County adopted an impact fee ordinance to aid in funding the capital facility improvements identified in the County’s 1977 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 82.02.060. From 1992 to October 1995, impact fees were collected by the County for parks and roads from…”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 83 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The City relies on RCW 82.02.060, [53] and especially RCW 82.”
New Castle Investments v. City of LaCenter, 989 P.2d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “Although impact fees must be “reasonably related” to the impact of new development on the public infrastructure, they are not individually calculated for each new development, but rather are based on a general calculation that applies to all new development.”
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 16 A.L.R. 6th 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
BELLEAU WOODS II, LLC v. City of Bellingham, 208 P.3d 5 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See RCW 82.02.060(3). ¶ 13 In the fall of 2006, Belleau Woods applied for building permits to develop its acreage in accordance with the planned development contract.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060(1) — 6 cases
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 156 Wash. 2d 289 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
Wellington River Hollow, LLC v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 16 A.L.R. 6th 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060(1)(c) — 1 case
Isla Verde Intern. Holdings v. CAMAS, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060(3) — 2 cases
BELLEAU WOODS II, LLC v. City of Bellingham, 208 P.3d 5 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See RCW 82.02.060(3). ¶ 13 In the fall of 2006, Belleau Woods applied for building permits to develop its acreage in accordance with the planned development contract.”
Belleau Woods II, LLC v. City of Bellingham, 150 Wash. App. 228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060(4) — 2 cases
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 156 Wash. 2d 289 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060(6) — 8 cases
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 156 Wash. 2d 289 (Wash. 2006). “Those standards, most of which are spelled out in RCW 82.02.060, presumably enable local governments to arrive at fees that satisfy the criteria of RCW 82.”
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
Wellington River Hollow, LLC v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 83 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*791 The City relies on RCW 82.02.060, 53 and especially RCW 82.02.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060(l)(a) — 2 cases
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 54 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
Wellington River Hollow, L.L.C. v. King Cnty., 16 A.L.R. 6th 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “050(3) and RCW 82.02.060(1). RCW 82.02.050(3) provides that local governments may assess impact fees that: (a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development; (b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.060(l)(c) — 1 case
Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 82.02.060(l)(c) states the Legislature’s intent that impact fees are *754 imposed through established procedures and criteria so that a development does not pay arbitrary or duplicative fees for the same impact.”
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.