Thursday, October 1, 2026
The City of Olympia is asking people to weigh in on where crews should fix damaged sidewalks first, as it works on a long-term policy for repair work.
The city would also like to know what people think about the role property owners should play since Olympia Municipal Code states they are responsible for fixing sidewalks adjacent to their property.
To get a better idea on the state of the 226 linear miles of sidewalks in Olympia, the city took stock of every one less than two years ago.
"To understand the scale of the problem, in 2024 the (city) did an inventory of all sidewalks and rated their condition. Among the things you can see in the story map are the results of that work," said the city in announcing a survey about the issue.
The survey can be found at the end of the story map, which offers a wealth of information about the issue. The survey in the story map will close on March 20.
For more information or questions about sidewalks, contact Associate Planner Max DeJarnatt of Public Works Transportation at 360-570-3723 or email him at mdejarna@ci.olympia.wa.us .
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Larry Dzieza
The City should hire someone who knows about conducting unbiased surveys. For example, they place their preferred choice first on the list of multiple-choice questions. First-choice bias is well known. That is why Washington state law requires candidate names be placed on election ballots by random drawing (see RCW 29A.36.131 - Order of candidates on ballots).
This is happening even though Survey Monkey (the software they are using) can be used to randomize the order of answer choices.
For example, the survey provides two specific choices for priority setting and a third “other”. Today the city provides free sidewalk repairs for owners of downtown properties and to the mall owners on the Westside but expects all other property owners to pay for the repairs themselves (though they seldom enforce it). It is almost like the city's preferred approach is to concentrate all sidewalk dollars in what I call " sales tax producing" areas.
What is the first choice on the survey? The Current policy of focusing on downtown and sales tax producing streets. The second choice is repairs near common pedestrian destinations like grocery stores and transit stops.
There is no specific choice to provide for needed sidewalk repairs in neighborhoods outside of the downtown and “pedestrian destinations”.
If you choose alternative one, I will guess it would take a decade given existing funding before the city could fix them all and by that time it will have to go back and repair the ones fixed in year one. These are the most expensive sidewalks to fix and the dollars don’t go very far.
On a per dollar basis more miles of sidewalks can be made safer in neighborhoods outside of the downtown. And that is where most Olympians live.
Here is my “Other” recommendation:
We need sidewalks throughout the city. And we need distribute the benefits. 1/3 should be the downtown and arterial streets leading into downtown, 1/3 common pedestrian destinations and 1/3 low-cost fixes primarily on residential streets.
It is important for city CREDIBILITY and community SUPPORT FOR THIS recently enacted TAX that everyone gets to have a visible benefit.
Finally, the “Story Map” does not show where the bad actually sidewalks are. It is an aggregate of issues used to create a scoring system. The city should make the GIS data that WE PAID for them to collect publicly accessible. The story map does NOT suffice. For an example of what the city has go to https://tinyurl.com/4nhnb5w4 and click on the google street view to see actual problem sidewalks.
Along those lines, the public should not have to wait from March 20, 2026, to May 4, 2026 in order to see the results of the survey. Make the responses publicly available soon after the March 20th close of the survey.
Monday, March 2 Report this
BobJacobs
Once again Larry Dzieza's analysis of a public policy issue is right on the money.
And once again the city's surveying and reporting procedures fail on very basic grounds.
The city needs to do better.
Bob Jacobs
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
BobJacobs
It is high time for the city of Olympia to evaluate the cost of repairing/replacing sidewalks damaged by street trees. And the cost of paying for injuries caused by street trees that the city required to be installed.
A full analysis of the street tree problem, including alternatives, has simply not been done. And the city's budgets have never included enough money to pay for sidewalk damage.
Bob Jacobs
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
EdgarAllen
Not too many years ago, our family moved into a home in Olympia with adjacent street trees that we didn't own but were responsible for by City Code. This meant years of cleaning up over 5000 (weighed at the dump by load) pounds of leaves from trees during the Fall that were not ours while the City cleaned up leaves from similar trees in other parts of the community. Additionally, when we moved in, the street tree roots had grown into the sewer line, which was repaired (we thought). The City arborist and a contractor they hired at that time miraculously judged that not to be so. We asked to cut down the trees and replace with approved street trees to avoid damage to the home. No was the answer, even with repeated attempts to gain explanation, the trees are not the problem. Several years later, the tree roots grew through our sewer line, backing up the sewer and causing about $250k in damage to the home. During repairs, it was found that the City never properly inspected the junction between home sewer line and street line (City owned). The roots got in there and destroyed the line at the junction. The City again said it was not the trees' fault (they didn't cause the damage although it was obvious and documented) and the damage was on us, the homeowner (and our insurance). Again we asked to cut down the offending trees due to the current damage and past history and were denied. Not the trees' fault, they're just being trees. The first assessment indicated they were damaging a sidewalk (which was more important than a sewer line), the second assessment years later by the same consultant found they were not then damaging the sidewalk as they had been before (they must've regressively grown) and couldn't be removed. So we reluctantly moved out of the house and out of Olympia (for this and a variety of related reasons), where I was born and raised and worked in public service for 30 years. Street trees and their management issues in Olympia are real, not well-governed or clearly legislated, with arbitrary and delusionally subjective decisions being the norm by city government, those encumbered with protecting our property rights and safety. I guess we could've hired an attorney and gone to the hearings examiner, again at our cost, but the rubber stamp of denial without rationale again was a real threat. Glad to be out of that situation. Tree management in Olympia, sidewalks or sewer lines, is real and sooner or later, will apply to all who live near the trees. Then you too can try to deal with the city, as we did, and receive a load of bull like we did.
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
36098501
The conversation around sidewalks in Olympia is a slippery slope of nonsense over at least the last 2 or 3 decades. In the past, money for sidewalks has been used as a mechanism to gain more tax revenue for the City rather than optimize and refocus existing budget priorities.
The sidewalk and park campaign in 2004 to increase the Utility Tax rate by 3%, from 6% to 9%, was coordinated by Council Members, City Staff and allied political insiders using resources not available to the broad public. They positioned themselves to utilize and manipulate City functions in a manner that even casual observers at the time justly characterized as Machiavellian.
One of many taxes Olympia has implemented, the 9% Utility Tax on a basic life necessity, impacts those who can least afford it the most. Thought leaders in public utility policy widely recognize this, resulting in many states and municipalities prohibiting taxes on basic utilities. The same idea applies to the exemption of taxes on life essentials such as prescription medications, medical care, food and housing. Not so in Olympia. Given our general political leaning, that is a weird result.
Just one small example:
https://www.slideserve.com/neviah/olympia-s-parks-and-sidewalks-tax-leaving-butt-prints-in-the-sands-of-time
Despite all the benefits of inside support, funding, voter outreach, no coordinated opposition and most everyone in favor of more parks and sidewalks, the measure passed by just 1500 votes.
Words and phrases like “Get the money!”, “infiltrated”, “stacked”, “influence the process”,” convinced to be silent”, “We won!” tell the harsh reality of the “means” while revealing people and a campaign that treated community members as opponents to outmaneuver, not community members to serve and represent.
The 2004 Utility Tax rate increase is just one of many examples of gradual tax increases and increased bureaucracy that, over time, when all are layered together, make it harder for many in our community to afford living or doing business here. But, it was in the name of sidewalks and parks which are virtuous and good "ends" despite the "means" that simply impact affordability that is apparently someone else's problem to deal with.
The ends remain worthy. The means didn’t reflect our community’s values to serve all of Olympia – not just the majority.
Be careful what you wish for in Olympia, as there is certainly another tax that can make it come true. Olympia can find millions of dollars to fund other projects every year, but good infrastructure will always take time, consultants and require more taxes because meaningful cuts and optimization in other areas doesn't seem to happen.
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
Taxpayer
Why didn't my comment from March 3rd get published?
Wednesday, March 4 Report this