Wash. Rev. Code » Title 82 · Chapter 82.02
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in special interest-bearing accounts. Separate accounts shall be established for each type of public facility for which impact fees are collected. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the impact fees were imposed. Annually, each county, city, or town imposing impact fees shall provide a report on each impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
(2) Impact fees for system improvements shall be expended only in conformance with the capital facilities plan element of the comprehensive plan.
(3)(a) Except as provided otherwise by (b) of this subsection, impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within ten years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten years. Such extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be identified in written findings by the governing body of the county, city, or town.
(b) School impact fees must be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within ten years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten years. Such extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be identified in written findings by the governing body of the county, city, or town.
(4) Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a permit or other approval of development activity.
(5) Each county, city, or town that imposes impact fees shall provide for an administrative appeals process for the appeal of an impact fee; the process may follow the appeal process for the underlying development approval or the county, city, or town may establish a separate appeals process. The impact fee may be modified upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on principles of fairness. The county, city, or town may provide for the resolution of disputes regarding impact fees by arbitration.
[ 2011 c 353 s 8; 2009 c 263 s 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 46.]

Notes:

Intent—2011 c 353: See note following RCW 36.70A.130.
Severability—Part, section headings not law—1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 12× “RCW 82.02.070(2),(3). ¶ 15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 12× “RCW 82.02.070(2), (3). ¶15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
New Castle Investments v. City of LaCenter, 989 P.2d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “2 TIF fees must be retained in a special account (RCW 82.02.070); the interest must be spent only on system improvements (RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 83 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The parties agree that the City did not determine individualized impacts quasi-judicially, and we assume that the City could not or did not determine such impacts legislatively.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 83 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[2] The parties agree that the City did not determine individualized impacts quasi-judicially, and we assume that the City could not or did not determine such impacts legislatively.”
Douglass Props. Ii, Llc v. City Of Olympia (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “RCW 82.02.070(5). Impact fees in the administrative appeal process can be modified under “principles of fairness.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(2) — 2 cases
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2),(3). ¶ 15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2), (3). ¶15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(3) — 2 cases
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2),(3). ¶ 15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2), (3). ¶15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(4) — 4 cases
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2),(3). ¶ 15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2), (3). ¶15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 83 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “The parties agree that the City did not determine individualized impacts quasi-judicially, and we assume that the City could not or did not determine such impacts legislatively.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 83 P.3d 443 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “[2] The parties agree that the City did not determine individualized impacts quasi-judicially, and we assume that the City could not or did not determine such impacts legislatively.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(5) — 3 cases
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2),(3). ¶ 15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 82.02.070(2), (3). ¶15 Chapter 82.02 RCW also provides mechanisms by which permit applicants may challenge the impact fees imposed or receive a refund of impact fees paid.”
Douglass Props. Ii, Llc v. City Of Olympia (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 82.02.070(5). Impact fees in the administrative appeal process can be modified under “principles of fairness.”
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.