Thursday, October 1, 2026
.jpeg)
The Olympia City Council approved a new park impact fee methodology that will scale fees based on the size of residential units.
Council members backed the change following a presentation by consultants from FCS Group and a discussion focused on housing equity, development patterns and state law requirements. The city council made the decision at a meeting on June 2.
The update is in response to a 2023 change in Revised Code of Washington 82.02.060, requiring cities that collect impact fees to scale residential fees based on factors, such as square footage, number of bedrooms, or trip generation, instead of flat rates by housing type.
Under Olympia’s current structure, single-family homes pay the same park impact fee regardless of size. Consultants said the new methodology is intended to reduce the disproportionate burden flat fees place on smaller and lower cost housing units.
The new methodology calculates park impact fees using square footage. According to FCS Group Principal John Ghilarducci, smaller units pay lower fees, while larger homes pay higher fees.
The proposed structure establishes a minimum fee of about $3,188 for units up to 813 square feet and a maximum of about $13,720 for units at or above 3,500 square feet.
FCS Group consultants calculated the proposed rate using Olympia’s average home size of 1,666 square feet, average occupancy of 2.05 people per unit, and a blended average park impact fee of about $6,535 per dwelling unit.
Olympia’s current single-family park impact fee is approximately $6,995 regardless of home size.
Ghilarducci said the revised approach reflects state lawmakers intent to encourage smaller and more affordable housing options.
“By applying impact fees uniformly to residential dwelling units, we are basically creating a disincentive to build smaller, lower cost housing,” he said.
Council member Dani Madrone said smaller homes currently pay the same impact fees as larger homes, making the system less equitable.
“This is something that I’ve brought up in the past,” she said. “We’ve kind of inadvertently incentivized larger houses than are actually needed by our community, because we have a flat rate for single-family homes.”
Council member Robert Vanderpool also supported the change, emphasizingthe proposal applies to individual dwelling units rather than multifamily developments as a whole.
“The rate will be much higher for the big mansion versus a multifamily apartment building or condo,” Vanderpool said. “That’s very important because we need to be able to serve more people, more housing, rather than very large houses that end up not meeting the needs of the community.”
Madrone also cautioned against directly comparing Olympia’s park impact fees with fees of nearby jurisdictions without considering other development-related funding tools.
“Impact fees are not the only types of revenue that cities get from development for parks,” said Madrone, noting cities use different financial approaches.
The updated methodology will now be incorporated into Olympia’s park impact fee structure as required under state law.
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
USA_Ronin
Thievery gets more creative.
Wednesday, June 10 Report this
Bobwubbena
Selective analysis but separating the analysis creates a whole new inequity. It is time for the city to create a "standardized home, apartment, and other normal factors" to evaluate and set all fees. Single family = 1500
sf (regardless of bedrooms); Single Family 1501 sf to 3,000 sf and Single family greater than 3,000 sf or a similar breakdown should be used to assess Impact Fees and all General Facility Fees (water, wastewater, stormwater parks, transportation, schools, etal
Comparing one issue in isolation such as parks distorts the message and expands on the inequity. Please present the whole picture of charges for each standardized residential housing unit and then present your logic and comparative cost benefits for all impacts. Then the community can better assess the fairness of what you are doing. We lived in a 3300-sf home after our kids left. Two of us use a park about three times per year. A friend with three young kids in a 1600 sf home uses the park system almost weekly. Now tell me how this is equitable to charge the larger home over $13,000 for the park impact fee and the small home about $3100 for the park impact fee. Your logic system is out of balance.
Wednesday, June 10 Report this
Patriot
The government adds approx. $1000.00 a month to your mortgage. They forget to tell you that. Keep voting Democrat and they will take ALL your money.
Wednesday, June 10 Report this
BobJacobs
Regardless of the details, impact fees do not cover the full costs of providing new public infrastructure to serve new residents.
State law forbids full cost recovery where impact fees are allowed (streets, parks, schools, and fire facilities).
And there is NO cost recovery mechanism for other public infrastructure items like libraries, jails, police stations, etc.
The result is that we are all subsidizing new development.
Isn't it odd that our public officials don't mention that?
Bob Jacobs
Thursday, June 11 Report this
OilCan
The Bible has warned against this! President Trump is trying to save us from this tyranny and theft of our money and land by the communist democrats. President Trump is the greatest president in our history and he has even printed his own Holy Bible to save our souls and deliver us from evil and he is a loving family man. save what you have by voting Republican and save your guns. I own a lot with three mobile home for me and family members and we don't want to pay for parks we never use!!!!
Thursday, June 11 Report this
Yeti1981
@BobJacobs, While impact fees do not recover every public cost associated with growth, that does not mean new housing is a net fiscal burden. Independent fiscal impact analysis conducted for Thurston County found that residential development generates substantially more public revenue than associated public costs over time. The study estimated approximately $353 million in local government revenue compared to roughly $98 million in costs over a 15-year period. The policy question is not whether growth creates costs, it does, but whether the overall fiscal contribution of new housing exceeds those costs. In Thurston County, the evidence suggests it does.
The truth is impact fees were never intended to recover every dollar of public expenditure associated with growth. Washington law requires a proportionate share contribution. The more important fiscal question is whether new housing ultimately generates more public revenue than public cost. Independent fiscal analysis conducted for Thurston County, that I was actually a part of, found that residential development generates substantially more revenue than associated government expenditures over time. If that analysis is correct, then the claim that existing residents are subsidizing growth is difficult to support.
Tuesday, June 16 Report this
Yeti1981
I spent some time digging into this proposal and speaking with City staff before Council adopted it.
A few things that don't come through in the article:
This wasn't a discussion about whether growth should contribute to parks. The Legislature changed state law in 2023 and required cities that collect impact fees to move toward a proportional methodology based on square footage, bedrooms, or similar metrics. Olympia chose square footage, which appears to be what most jurisdictions are doing because it is easier to administer and less subjective than trying to define bedrooms. The City's consultant also emphasized that the proposal is intended to be revenue neutral overall. The goal wasn't to collect more money. The goal was to redistribute fees so smaller homes pay less and larger homes pay more.
Whether that ultimately improves affordability is a separate question. One thing I found interesting is that the City acknowledged it did not model impacts on specific housing products such as townhomes, cottage housing, workforce housing, or family-oriented multifamily housing. The assumption is that smaller units will benefit.
I also think some of the comments about taxpayers subsidizing growth deserve scrutiny. Impact fees are only one part of the fiscal picture. Housing also generates property taxes, sales taxes, utility revenue, permit revenue, and long-term economic activity. Several fiscal analyses conducted in Thurston County have found that residential development generates substantially more public revenue over time than associated public expenditures.
Reasonable people can disagree about the methodology. I still have questions about some of the assumptions. But after reviewing the City's responses, I think the more important conversation is how we balance infrastructure funding with the reality that most residents in Thurston County already cannot afford the median-priced home.
Tuesday, June 16 Report this
Yeti1981
@Bobwubbena, This is one of the better critiques in the thread. I agree that looking at park impact fees in isolation does not show the full cost picture for housing. Builders and buyers are also dealing with water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, school fees, permit costs, utility charges, and code-related costs. The cumulative total matters.
I also agree that square footage is an imperfect proxy for park use. A 3,300 sf empty-nester household may use parks less than a 1,600 sf household with children. That is a real limitation. But the City is not allowed to calculate impact fees household by household based on actual park usage. They have to use a reasonable methodology that can be administered at permit review. The state law gave cities options like square footage, bedrooms, or trips generated. Olympia chose square footage because it is already collected and avoids debates over what counts as a bedroom. So I think the real question is not whether the methodology is perfect. It is not. The better question is whether the City should periodically test the model against actual housing outcomes and total development cost burdens. A standardized comparison of all fees by housing type would be very useful. That would help the public see the full picture instead of debating one fee in isolation.
Tuesday, June 16 Report this