Thursday, October 1, 2026
A shared responsibility approach to sidewalk repair has emerged in the City of Olympia.
At a Olympia Land Use & Environment Committee meeting on May 28, Michelle Swanson, Senior Planner with Public Works Transportation, presented a draft sidewalk policy and sought input from the committee before it goes to the full city council for a study session on July 21.
Swanson discussed the city’s growing sidewalk maintenance backlog and the challenges of relying on adjacent property owners to make repairs.
The city’s process for policy development began in 2022 when the committee requested staff explore different approaches to sidewalk repair. The work led to the identification of a range of options from full city responsibility, full property owner responsibility and shared responsibility.
A citywide sidewalk inventory completed in 2024 identified nearly 28,000 defects across 226 miles of sidewalks, with roughly 83 percent linked to tree-related damage.
Olympia’s current code places responsibility for sidewalk maintenance on adjacent property owners. However, Swanson said that approach has proven difficult to enforce.
A study funded by the Washington Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee found 72 percent of surveyed cities assign sidewalk maintenance responsibility to adjacent property owners, while only about 3 percent reported the approach as effective.
In Olympia, the city has started investing in repairs, including the addition of a four-person sidewalk crew and about $1.2 million annually in Transportation Benefit District funding. Swanson said current funding levels would require an estimated 250 years to address all identified repair needs.
In March, the city conducted outreach through an online story map and survey, which 1,900 people viewed and 363 people responded to survey questions.
“We heard support for prioritizing repairs near common pedestrian destinations,” Swanson said. “There is some acceptance of large property owners being held responsible for fixing their sidewalks, and there is also some support for requiring that people fix their sidewalks upon the sale of the property.”
Based on the feedback, staff recommended a shared responsibility model.
The proposal would have city crews and sidewalk repair funding focus on sidewalks near schools, transit stops and other common pedestrian destinations, while large property owners would be responsible for repairing adjacent sidewalks.
City staff would also explore a future point-of-sale repair requirement.
Speaking on behalf of the Olympia Planning Commission, Chair Greg Quetin said commissioners view sidewalks as a public good the city should maintain to support mobility and equity.
He said commissioners were also concerned that requiring repairs by large property owners could result in costs being passed on to apartment tenants or small businesses. Quetin urged the city to identify additional funding sources, saying the current timeline for repairing the network is far too long.
Committee members agreed that sidewalk repairs should be prioritized near schools, transit stops and heavily used pedestrian routes. However, they differed on how costs should be shared.
Committee member Paul Berendt, who represents the Olympia City Council on the committee, said he supports a shared responsibility model rather than placing the full burden on either property owners or the city.
“I think citizens need to have some skin in the game,” said Berendt, suggesting a cost sharing arrangement of a 50-50 split between property owners and the city.
While rejecting the idea of leaving sidewalk repairs solely to property owners, Committee member Robert Vanderpool, who also represents the city council on the committee, expressed concerns about requiring large property owners to pay for repairs if the costs are passed on to tenants.
He also raised concerns about the impact on seniors, first-time homebuyers and lower-income residents, who could unexpectedly inherit costly sidewalk repairs.
Committee members also expressed uncertainty about the staff’s proposal to require large property owners to repair adjacent sidewalks.
Swanson acknowledged the concerns and said additional analysis could help determine how many properties would qualify as “large property owners” under different criteria. Many of the properties are owned by schools, government agencies or multifamily housing operators.
The committee directed staff to return with additional analysis before presenting the proposed sidewalk repair policy to the full city council.
12 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
TheGreatAnon
My city needs to bite the bullet and spend a what is necessary to catch up to the millions in deferred infrastructure maintenance. All the Arts & Cultural programs in the world mean nothing if you can't get there.
Monday, June 1 Report this
36098501
Another increase to the 9% Utility Tax? Or another tax?
https://www.slideserve.com/neviah/olympia-s-parks-and-sidewalks-tax-leaving-butt-prints-in-the-sands-of-time
There aren't many people that are against parks, new sidewalks, sidewalk repair or street maintenance. It is interesting that the high level of taxation in the City isn't enough to cover these very basic public requirements.
The City taxpayer is tapped out. There needs to be some hard conversations and decisions to prioritize basic City functions that don't seem to be getting the attention they deserve.
I don't hear them being discussed, or debated, publicly at City Council meetings, but this could be because they are being handled in the consent calendar.
Monday, June 1 Report this
JHermes
Just don't follow Lacey (the signs declare it, "Tree City") and decapitate hundreds of trees because they dared to grow where they were planted.
And please don't follow Lacey and do it right at the start of foliage season.
After all, we can't let the 12 people who prefer walking on sidewalks to looking at trees risk tripping and suing.
What's next, Lacey? Carpenter Road? There are REALLY big trees there, so obviously they need to be cut down in favor of concrete walkways.
"We plant 3 times more trees than we cut down". Yes, but healthy big trees absorb as much carbon as a small tree each year, and continue to grow.
Plus you can't get them back.
Olympia, please consider what's being proposed. Don't just get blinded by the talk of "sidewalk improvement " or the threat to make individuals pay for it.
Monday, June 1 Report this
KarenM
98501 -
My name is on the slide show you regularly include as a link in your comments. Please include your name when you comment here.
That was a presentation at a conference 20 years ago. That Parks and Sidewalks funding measure was passed by the voters. It was developed through a public process for the parks plan and grass roots efforts by people in our community. We wanted more for our parks system and wanted to make sure we had the property to develop neighborhood parks, community parks, trails and open space. At the same time, there were people who wanted to build sidewalks so that kids could walk to school and people could get to the bus. While that wasn't enough to build out the whole system, it has resulted in some important additions. None of that was done in secret and the results have been great improvements in our community.
Monday, June 1 Report this
2theroots
What i find frustrating in the city's discussion is it focuses on who should pay for "fixing" the sidewalks. But it does not address what the fix is and whether it should include taking down trees as Lacey is doing. As someone below commented it is not the trees fault it grew where it was planted. Also at this point the trees are big and providing a lot of valuable services: sequestering carbon, drawing down pollution, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, etc. There are other ways of making a walkable path that do not have to involved the expense and loss of taking the tree down - cresent moon side walk around the tree, a sort of arching bridge up in a new side walk over the tree roots, etc. Could we please have discussion of the solutions and consider the trees as valuable. This may even lead to cheaper solutions.
Monday, June 1 Report this
36098501
KarenM –
Yes. It appears that put your name on the very first slide. You were representing the City of Olympia as a City Council member and you chose to travel to Wisconsin to give this presentation at a conference. This presentation was a publicly available document and still remains in the public domain today.
My name has nothing to do with the presentation that was given, the political campaign, your time as a public figure representing the City of Olympia or your decision to make public comments here.
This is what fair criticism looks like versus what political intimidation looks like in Olympia.
It is your choice, and entirely fair and encouraged, to provide your arguments to the issues presented. Nothing mentioned here is new information. This is decades old stuff.
For many years, this presentation has served as a valuable reference illustrating to groups the political disconnect between those in positions of power in Olympia, who are largely insulated from debate and criticism, and the citizens who have the least political influence. These are often the very people who are least able to absorb the financial burden of higher taxes and increased bureaucracy. The City Council is expected to represent the entirety of the community.
The presentation demonstrates the arrogance many residents witness firsthand in how the City Council approaches affordability issues. The fact that this presentation was considered a good idea - acceptable by other Council Members with a message of taxing people more and proudly delivered to other communities across the country - speaks volumes. In its own words, it reveals far more about the City Council’s, and the people adjacent to it, mindset and priorities than any public comment, editorial, or written essay ever could.
From your summary, I think you might want to revisit your memory of the circumstances at the time.
There aren’t many people in the community that don’t want more nice parks or sidewalks - like near zero. It was the affordability of the tax increase that was on the ballot.
The 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. The people that chose to be involved positioned themselves to utilize and manipulate City functions in a manner that even casual observers would justly characterize as Machiavellian.
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 a City Council, and a campaign, that treated voters they represented as opponents to outsmart, and outmaneuver, and not community members to serve, represent and protect.
While the utility tax has been used to fund a variety of good projects, the immediate impulse to recite those projects does less to demonstrate sound governance than it does to defend the tactics and methods used to secure higher taxes in the first place. That reaction is understandable. Few people would want their names associated with a political approach that invites legitimate questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust. The instinctive defense emerges for a reason: the underlying narrative is not particularly favorable to those involved in a system that claims to be progressive with a claimed focus on equity while doing the opposite.
More importantly, the issue is not only whether worthwhile projects were funded. The issue is also whether the commitments made to voters that supported the tax increase were honored.
A specific list of projects was presented alongside the tax measure to justify the utility tax increase. The City Council ultimately did not adhere to that list. At least $3 million from the sidewalk fund was transferred and spent on an entirely different project and not for sidewalks — the Fones Road project.
As a result, even the commitments made to voters who approved the utility tax increase to 9% were not kept. When taxpayers are asked to support higher taxes based on specific promises, those promises should carry meaning. Redirecting funds away from the projects used to justify the tax further erodes public confidence and raises legitimate concerns about accountability.
A 57% election result does seem like a solid mandate, but it is surprisingly modest given there is near-universal support for parks and sidewalks. A well-resourced and funded campaign, a sophisticated strategy led by political insiders that faced no organized opposition still only cleared the 50% threshold to pass by 1,500 votes.
To summarize, 43% of those voting didn’t want the tax increase and the 57% that did vote for the increase for sidewalks didn’t get exactly what they voted for.
While the outcome was achieved through democratic means, it raises important questions about how majority decisions can disproportionately affect lower-income residents and ultimately push those very important people out of our community. The tax increase was passed, but the burden it placed on many in our community showed a lack of respect for their affordability challenges.
Imposing regressive tax increases on non-discretionary utilities is not a sustainable or rational strategy for maintaining a diverse and equitable community. 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 essentials such as prescription medications, medical care, food and housing.
In Olympia, equity, progressive politics and concerns about affordability go quickly by the wayside if the Olympia political engine decides it wants something bad enough.
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.
The ends remain worthy. The means didn’t, and still don’t, reflect the community’s values to serve all of Olympia – not just the majority.
Tuesday, June 2 Report this
Patriot
So when you build in a commercial zone the city requires the builder to put in sidewalks, street trees, road improvements etc. at their expense. They tell you where to put the trees and what trees to plant. So when the trees ruin the sidewalks that the builder paid for it's now the property owner who has to pay for what the city required? And this is fair?
Tuesday, June 2 Report this
Mugwump
Thank you 306098501 for your well-reasoned and well-written post. And, for your sharing of the presentation. It demonstrates, as many suspect, that Olympia's priorities, as they relate to the maintenance of basic infrastructure like sidewalks, are not in the best interest of the citizens. What we need, for the time being at least, is for the city leadership to commit to addressing nuts-and-bolts issues before turning their attention to more esoteric but not necessarily unworthy ones.
Tuesday, June 2 Report this
JS122471
The city owns the Sidewalks; the city is the one that instructed many of those specific trees to be put in. The city wrote the code to place the financial burden and any injuries sustained from their owned property on a homeowner adjacent to city property.
You want the people who own the adjacent property to pay to fix the sidewalk you own, how about you do a couple of things.
1) Give the sidewalk to the property owner, so the property owner owns the land.
2) Allow them to remove any tree causing the issue without having to replace that tree.
3) Give them a credit in their property taxes for the cost they incurred for fixing your property.
Tuesday, June 2 Report this
36098501
Mugwump — Agreed. Olympia is far behind the curve of City asset investment and maintenance given the level of taxation. We have asymmetric priorities in the community, but City Councils have been focused for a couple decades on political issues rather than the hard decisions required to run a healthy vibrant community for everyone.
The fundamental problem in Olympia is not a lack of money, nor a lack of good intentions. It is a failure of governance.
For a city with Olympia's tax burden, the condition of many public assets and core public spaces is difficult to reconcile with the promises residents have heard for years. Drive through downtown. Travel Capital Way, 4th Avenue, State Avenue, or 5th Avenue. What residents see is not a city that appears to be thriving under effective stewardship. They see deteriorating public spaces, visible disorder, and mounting evidence that many long-standing policies are not producing the outcomes that were promised.
Citizens are repeatedly told these challenges are being managed through compassionate and progressive approaches. Yet what people observe with their own eyes, and feel with their hearts, often tells a different story. At some point, public officials must recognize that lived reality carries more weight than political messaging.
The issue is not primarily about individual actors. It is structural.
Over the years, I have met many of the elected officials, board members, nonprofit leaders, and activists involved in shaping Olympia's direction. Without exception, I have found them to be intelligent, hardworking, and sincerely committed to what they believe is best for the community. I do not question their dedication.
What I question is the system in which they operate.
When decision-making becomes concentrated within a small and largely homogeneous circle of people who share similar assumptions, priorities, and worldviews, blind spots become inevitable. Even highly capable people lose the ability to see what their framework excludes. Diversity of thought is not a slogan; it is a safeguard against error. Without it, unintended consequences cease to be surprises and become predictable outcomes.
This does not require bad motives. It does not require corruption. It does not require malice.
In fact, the opposite is often true. Well-intentioned people working within an insulated system can unintentionally create consequences that would have been obvious and predictable had alternative perspectives been given serious consideration. The more complex the problem, the more dangerous intellectual uniformity becomes.
Olympia's governing culture increasingly reflects this dynamic.
Meaningful dissent is frequently marginalized, ignored, or treated as a problem to be managed rather than an essential component of sound decision-making. One need only observe the extraordinary number of unanimous consent-calendar votes and near-unanimous council decisions on consequential matters. Healthy institutions do not fear disagreement. They depend upon it.
When the appearance of consensus becomes more important than the testing of assumptions, accountability weakens. Debate disappears. Public confidence erodes.
Compounding the problem is the decline of genuine public discourse. Robust debate, rigorous scrutiny, and open disagreement are not obstacles to effective government; they are the mechanisms that make effective government possible.
Yet many individuals with valuable expertise, institutional knowledge, business experience, or dissenting viewpoints have concluded that participation is simply not worth the personal, professional, or reputational risk. They remain silent. The community loses perspectives it desperately needs.
The result is a system that increasingly hears from the same voices, validates the same assumptions, and arrives at the same conclusions regardless of outcomes.
The reaction to criticism often illustrates the problem perfectly. As is the case with my comments here, rather than engage the substance of an argument, some immediately seek to identify, categorize, or discredit the person making it. The focus shifts from the merits of the criticism to the identity of the critic. That is a big, big problem.
That impulse is corrosive to civic life, but it is an everyday reality in Olympia.
A healthy community responds to criticism with evidence, debate, and reasoned argument. An unhealthy community responds with suspicion, intimidation, and character attacks. Too often, Olympia chooses the latter.
This is why the issue should not be framed as a failure of character. It is a failure of process.
Any system insulated from meaningful scrutiny, protected from robust disagreement, and dominated by a narrow range of viewpoints will eventually lose its capacity for self-correction. The dedication of the people inside that system cannot compensate for its structural weaknesses.
Until Olympia embraces genuine viewpoint diversity, welcomes rigorous public debate, and rebuilds processes that reward scrutiny rather than suppress it, we should not be surprised when the same problems continue to produce the same results.
The question is no longer whether the current approach has shortcomings. The evidence is visible throughout the city.
The real question is whether local leadership is willing to confront those shortcomings honestly—or whether it will continue defending a status quo that is increasingly difficult for residents to ignore.
Apologies for the long read, but these are nuanced topics not discussed elsewhere.
See other related comments here for a better explanation -
https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/olympia-committee-to-review-nearly-485m-in-cultural-funding-recommendations,29262?
https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/olympia-regional-partners-collaborate-on-response-to-the-jungle-encampment,29105?
https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/olympia-city-council-divided-on-40m-waste-facility,28942?
https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/olympia-finance-committee-recommends-home-size-formula-for-park-impact-fees,29202?
Tuesday, June 2 Report this
Patriot
Evidently the City of Olympia hasn't checked with the other cities that have tried this. They ALWAYS lose in court. They cannot make you pay for fixing sidewalks, period. They are on city right away, the street trees are in city right away, the city owns them along with the liability of someone getting hurt. The city has been sued many times for injuries stemming from their lack of maintenance on the sidewalks. The city pays the claims not the adjacent owners. This is nothing more than an intimidation tactic.
Tuesday, June 2 Report this
Yeti1981
What makes this a 50/50 split?
Tuesday, June 2 Report this