Washington Construction Law Blog

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court today upheld the validity of Olympia's method of calculating the sum to be paid for traffic impact fees for new developments. In a nutshell, the city has broad authority under the GMA and need not make "individualized assessments" as urged by the developer. The dissent -- Johnson, Sanders and Chambers -- would have required such a showing.

The exact holding from the majority:

The GMA impact fee statutes permit local governments to base impact fees on area-wide infrastructure improvements reasonably related and beneficial to the particular development seeking approval. We agree with the superior court's conclusion that 'this 'rational' {or 'relational'} standard . . . {is} broader than the standard under {SEPA or the LTA}.' CP at 674. As the superior court correctly determined, the hearing examiner erred in concluding that the GMA impact fee statutes required the City to calculate Drebick's impact fee by making individualized assessments of the Drebick development's direct impact on each improvement planned in a service area. We hold that the City's method for calculating transportation impact fees complied with the plain language of the GMA impact fee statutes. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals

And the key section of the dissent:

The literal text of chapter 82.02 RCW requires an impact fee imposed under RCW 82.02.050-.090 be 'reasonably related to' and 'reasonably benefit' the new development and that local governments define 'reasonable' service areas. The legislature used Nollan's exact language for a reason, and the requirement that there at least be a nexus between the impact of the development and the fee imposed thus defines the 'reasonableness' of such fees. But here there is no demonstrated connection between this fee and any impact of this development; just the opposite. Thus I would hold that Olympia's citywide averaged fee as applied here violates RCW 82.02.020.