Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Olympia Finance Committee is set to review a proposed new methodology for calculating park impact fees, as the city works to comply with a recent change in state law that requires fees to better reflect housing size.
Under the proposal, Olympia would scale park impact fees based on a home’s habitable square footage, which, according to a staff report, would reduce fees for smaller housing units while funding park infrastructure. The finance committee meets at Olympia City Hall at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, May 18.
In 2023, the Washington Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5258, which amended Revised Code of Washington 82.02.060 to require local governments to adjust impact fees of different housing unit types. The law required lower impact fees for smaller housing based on factors, such as square footage, number of bedrooms or vehicle trips generated.
Olympia must adopt a compliant methodology within six months of adopting its Comprehensive Plan, with implementation required by June 30, 2026.
The city hired consulting firm FCS Group to develop a revised methodology for park impact fees. City staff is recommending the use of habitable square footage, saying it is widely used by jurisdictions across Washington and is easier to administer than other methods.
Impact fees are charges imposed on new development to help fund public facilities needed to accommodate growth. Under state law, the fees must be proportionate to the impact of new development and tied to projects identified in the Olympia Capital Facilities Plan.
Olympia has collected park impact fees since 1992. Current fee rates are based on the city’s 2022 Park Impact Fee Rate Study and the 2022-28 Parks, Arts & Recreation Plan.
Olympia’s park impact fees fund new park development and often serve as matching funds for grants.
Projects funded with impact fees include:
According to the city, park impact fee collections totaled approximately $778,877 in 2023, $461,990 in 2024 and $988,134 in 2025.
The staff report also noted qualifying affordable housing developments in Olympia receive an 80 percent discount on park impact fees.
The finance committee is expected to discuss the proposal on Monday before it advances to the full Olympia City Council for consideration in June.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
jimlazar
All impact fees should be based on square footage. The challenge is to make sure that the total amount collected from all new buildings equals the amount needed. That means lower impact fees for smaller homes, and larger impact fees for larger homes.
Parks, School, Transportation, and Fire impact fees are all allowed by the Growth Management Act. Builders realize that these fees are per-unit, and the choice between building a larger number of smaller dwellings, or a smaller number of larger dwellings is affected.
The net result is that Olympia has very few studio apartments.
There is a notable exception to that in the renovation of the former Westwater (Red Lion) Hotel in SW Olympia. There a lot of studios were created, but I think they were possibly exempt from impact fees because it was a reconfiguration of an existing building, not new construction.
Where studio units are available, they rent for about $1,300/month, significantly less than the $1,700 that is typical for 1-bedroom units.
Examples:
https://westwatervillage.com/availability/
https://www.zillow.com/apartments/olympia-wa/401-union/9VdP77/
Saturday, May 16 Report this
BobJacobs
Impact fees are extremely important to the realization of the principle that "growth should pay for growth". To the extent that impact fees are not charged, the cost of public facilities needed to serve the increased population falls on existing properties.
Unfortunately, our state's impact fee law is inadequate because some public facilities are not subject to these fees (libraries, jails, etc.) and local jurisdictions are not allowed to charge the full cost of new facilities needed to pay for the new populations they imply.
In addition, city councils including Olympia's feel free to give "discounts" to some new facilities with no consideration that these "discounts" shift costs to existing properties.
A fair system would have impact fees at the full cost of providing public facilities for new construction. No more, no less. We are far from that now. All the costs of growth not covered by impact fees are hidden in our local taxes. We never receive an accounting of these hidden subsidies.
Bob Jacobs
Saturday, May 16 Report this
36098501
I am unfamiliar with the specifics of how funding is allocated by the City of Olympia for City park infrastructure.
My concern is that as Olympia has grown, the amount of athletic field infrastructure available for community use has not kept pace with that growth. Increasingly, residents and organized sports groups rely on facilities in neighboring communities such as Lacey, Tumwater, and Centralia to find adequate field space.
Olympia currently lacks a public full size hardball field and also has no dedicated soccer fields within the City park system.
LBA Park was developed in 1974 through a partnership with Little Baseball Association, which provided the land. The park remains a valuable and well-maintained community resource, with six Little League fields, tennis courts, playground space, and walking trails. However, it was designed primarily for youth baseball and does not include field lighting.
Yauger Park was completed in 1982 and was designed both as an athletic complex and part of the stormwater management system for Capital Mall. It remains the last major city-built athletic complex in Olympia. The park is well maintained and includes four fields used for Little League, fastpitch, and slowpitch play. Soccer fields are set up in the outfields of the ball fields. The park is well maintained and includes a playground and skatepark.
Stevens Field is Olympia’s oldest sports complex and originated as part of Olympia High School athletics. The facility is owned by the Olympia School District and leased for community recreational use. Over time, the number of playable fields has actually decreased, from 4 fields to two,. Synthetic turf was added to extend playability. Fields have lighting. My understanding is that capital improvements have involved cooperation between the Olympia School District and the City of Olympia.
Overall, my concern is that Olympia has experienced substantial residential growth over several decades without corresponding investment in major new community athletic infrastructure. I'm not sure what normal is, but the surrounding communities have many multiples of fields available for athletic use, some with much smaller populations.
The Olympia School District does have and maintain sports fields prioritized for school use that are also sometimes leased out to local leagues.
Can anyone involved in the City Park function, or understand the park investment process, explain why there has been no investment in additional athletic facilities in nearly 45 years?
Saturday, May 16 Report this
Yeti1981
Both Bob and Jim are missing a pretty fundamental reality here: new housing already pays for itself many times over, even before impact fees are added.
New development generates:
property tax revenue,
sales tax from construction activity and future residents,
utility taxes and connection charges,
permit fees,
REET revenue,
B&O taxes,
ongoing consumer spending,
and long-term economic activity that supports local services.
The idea that existing residents are “subsidizing” growth ignores the fact that new housing expands the tax base that funds city services for everyone. In many cases, cities financially benefit from growth over time because infrastructure costs are spread across more taxpayers and economic activity.
Impact fees themselves are also not “growth paying for growth” in the pure sense Bob describes. In practice, they function as a tax on housing production that gets passed directly onto future renters and homebuyers. Every additional fee added to a project increases the cost of housing and pushes affordability further out of reach.
Jim is correct that smaller units should not be charged the same as large homes, but the broader issue is that Olympia already has some of the highest development costs in the region. Simply shifting fees around by square footage does not solve the underlying affordability problem if the total fee burden keeps increasing.
It’s also important to remember that parks, roads, utilities, and public amenities are community-wide assets. Existing residents benefit from economic growth, increased tax revenues, job creation, and expanded services that come with new housing and investment. Treating every new resident as a fiscal burden instead of a contributor creates a framework where housing becomes nearly impossible to build affordably.
If Olympia truly wants more studios, workforce housing, and attainable starter homes, the conversation cannot stop at “how do we charge new housing more precisely?” It also has to include “how do we reduce the overall cost burden we place on housing in the first place?”
Monday, May 18 Report this
jimlazar
YETI1931 has clearly not read the professional literature on how new population growth DOES NOT pay for itself.
Study after study shows that growth does not pay for growth. Impact fees cover a PORTION of the capital cost of improvements needed to maintain park, road, fire, and school capacity. The ongoing taxes are not adequate to pay the operation and maintenance costs. So the City budget falls further and further behind, and the City Council has to raise taxes to keep things working.
They have raised utility taxes, vehicle registration fees, sales tax, the Metropolitan Parks District tax, and now the B&O tax to try to keep the City budget afloat.
If Olympia did what Issaquah does, charging full impact fees, not discounted, not only for Parks, Streets, and Schools, but also for Fire and mitigation fees for bicycling and walking facilities, general government facilities, and other costs of growth, perhaps the City would not need to raise all of these other taxes on existing residents.
Read about the costs of growth, and learn why growth does not pay for growth. https://www.impactfees.com/resources/publications/
And YETI: quit hiding behind a pseudonym, and tell us who you are. Some of us know. You should not be secretive.
Monday, May 18 Report this