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

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.080 (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) The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the county, city, or town fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of when the fees were paid or other such period of time established pursuant to RCW 82.02.070(3) on public facilities intended to benefit the development activity for which the impact fees were paid. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis. The county, city, or town shall notify potential claimants by first-class mail deposited with the United States postal service at the last known address of claimants.
The request for a refund must be submitted to the county, city, or town governing body in writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. Any impact fees that are not expended within these time limitations, and for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period, shall be retained and expended on the indicated capital facilities. Refunds of impact fees under this subsection shall include interest earned on the impact fees.
(2) When a county, city, or town seeks to terminate any or all impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the county, city, or town shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first-class mail to the last known address of claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the local government, but must be expended for the indicated public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within an account or accounts being terminated.
(3) A developer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when the developer does not proceed with the development activity and no impact has resulted.
[ 2011 c 353 s 9; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 47.]

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 8 cases, 1999–2006 · leading case: City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006). “Moreover, the refund provision plainly equates the beneficiary of the system improvements with the particular new development seeking approval; RCW 82.02.080(1) refers to the local government's six-year window for spending the impact fees "on public facilities intended to…”
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). “Third, RCW 82.02.080(1) allows for property owners to request a refund of impact fees paid if a "county, city, or town fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or other such period of time established pursuant to RCW 82.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). “Third, RCW 82.02.080(1) allows for property owners to request a refund of impact fees paid if a “county, city, or town fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or other such period of time established pursuant to RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 156 Wash. 2d 289 (Wash. 2006). “Moreover, the refund provision plainly equates the beneficiary of the system improvements with the particular new development seeking approval; RCW 82.02.080(1) refers to the local government’s six-year window for spending the impact fees “on public facilities intended to…”
Pierce Cnty. v. State, 159 Wash. 2d 16 (Wash. 2006). “Moreover, the intervenors fail to point out that neither the initiative nor the relevant statutory provisions governing vehicle licensing fees provide for payment of interest on refunds of such fees.”
Pierce Cnty. v. State, 148 P.3d 1002 (Wash. 2006). “010 (no provision for interest on refunds of vehicle license fees) with RCW 82.02.080 (provides for interest on refunds of impact fees).”
New Castle Investments v. City of LaCenter, 989 P.2d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “070); the funds must be spent in conformance with the municipality’s growth management plan (RCW 82.”
Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Cnty. of Snohomish, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (W.D. Wash. 2003). “(2) Pursuant to RCW 82.02.080, “[ijmpact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a permit or other approval of development activity.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.080(1) — 4 cases
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 126 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2006). “Moreover, the refund provision plainly equates the beneficiary of the system improvements with the particular new development seeking approval; RCW 82.02.080(1) refers to the local government's six-year window for spending the impact fees "on public facilities intended to…”
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). “Third, RCW 82.02.080(1) allows for property owners to request a refund of impact fees paid if a "county, city, or town fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or other such period of time established pursuant to RCW 82.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). “Third, RCW 82.02.080(1) allows for property owners to request a refund of impact fees paid if a “county, city, or town fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or other such period of time established pursuant to RCW 82.”
City of Olympia v. Drebick, 156 Wash. 2d 289 (Wash. 2006). “Moreover, the refund provision plainly equates the beneficiary of the system improvements with the particular new development seeking approval; RCW 82.02.080(1) refers to the local government’s six-year window for spending the impact fees “on public facilities intended to…”
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.