Ephrata officials review proposed transportation and parks impact fees

Tim Wood, a consultant working with the city, outlined a proposed methodology for transportation and parks impact fees for Ephrata at the meeting. He said the transportation fee’s denominator is the expected increase in PM peak-hour trips over 20 years and that, after adjustments, the city’s growth basis is roughly 3,224 PM peak-hour trips. He stated the net allocable transportation cost basis is about $6.8 million, which produces a PM-peak-hour rate of $2,095 per trip that would form the basis of the transportation impact fee.

Wood described the fee formula as eligible capital costs divided by units of growth and noted that certain outside funding would be deducted from the project cost before calculating fees. He said the methodology applies trip-generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers so different land uses (single-family, multifamily, commercial) result in different per-unit fees. "So pretty straightforward stuff," Wood said while describing the structure and where the city fits into the planning cycle. He also showed a comparison to nearby jurisdictions and explained why the proposed per-trip number differs from others.

On parks, Wood presented the current inventory (about 46.8 acres of parkland and 3.4 miles of trails) and a parks project list with a total cost near $8.1 million. He said the city expects to apply roughly $1.4 million in real-estate-excise-tax funding to that list, leaving approximately $6.7 million as the remainder affecting impact-fee eligibility. Using different level-of-service approaches changes the share of project costs that are eligible for inclusion in a parks impact fee; Wood noted the "future level-of-service" approach yields materially larger eligible costs (just under $2 million under one approach) and recommended that approach so the collected fee would be "worth collecting."

From those calculations, Wood reported park-impact-fee ranges: about $169 to $913 per resident and an implied fee per single-family detached dwelling roughly from $450 to just under $2,500, depending on the level-of-service approach and the chosen defensible maximum. He also reviewed an implementation detail required by state policy: impact fees for single-family homes must be scaled by home size. Wood said the team used an average occupancy of 2.67 persons per single-family detached unit and an average home size of about 1,700 square feet to compute a per-square-foot implication; he cited a per-square-foot threshold where the correlation between size and occupancy drops off (about $35.58).

Ray, the city administrator, asked whether the future-dollar projections account for inflation; Wood recommended indexing the fee to a construction cost index so the charge keeps pace with construction inflation. "That's the way that we get around that," Wood said of indexing.

No formal vote on any impact-fee ordinance or schedule was recorded in the supplied transcript. Wood told the group he would provide tables and the methodology report so the council and staff can review the numbers in greater detail and study implementation choices before any formal adoption decision.

Why it matters: The methodology and choices about eligible projects, level-of-service approach and indexing determine how much revenue the city could collect from new development to pay for transportation and park capital needs. The fee ranges presented would affect developers and prospective homebuyers if adopted and set at or near the maximum defensible amounts.

What’s next: Staff and the consultant said they will supply the methodology tables and report for further review; the transcript did not record a motion or vote to adopt fees during the excerpt provided.