At its Dec. 7 meeting, the City Council will have second and final readings of two ordinances that would impose fees on new construction projects to offset their impacts on roads and parks.

The implementation of these impact fees is coming after months of discussion in the community. It stems from anxiety about recent growth in the Mercer Island Town Center, and the region, which is expected to grow by one million people in the next 25 years.

Impact fees are assessed only on new development and must be spent within 10 years on projects triggered by growth in the community, including new classrooms, additional traffic signals or park improvements. Most other suburban King County cities use impact fees to fund needed infrastructure upgrades, so the burden for new services is borne by the new development rather than current taxpayers.

Other cities switched from SEPA mitigation fees to impact fees, which are outlined in Washington State’s Growth Management Act, years ago for revenue purposes.

Mercer Island, which said it was mostly built out anyway, decided to stick with mitigation fees until this year, when citizen groups began to argue that the city was leaving millions of dollars on the table.

The Council agrees that growth should pay for growth, but ended up with split votes at its last meeting on how exactly that should happen.

Parks impact fees can cover use by Island residents only, but employees who work on the Island can be included in the calculations as well. Deputy Mayor Dan Grausz said that imposing fees on employees could be a burden on small businesses, especially as Mercer Island is trying to revitalize its Town Center with an ongoing visioning and code revision process.

In an email update, Grausz wrote, “this seems to be the classic cutting off our nose to spite our face.”

He said it could hurt city finances by losing sales tax, that Islanders may have to continue driving off-Island for restaurants, and that “if most customers would be Islanders, there is no resulting increase in traffic on our roads.”

Councilmember Mike Cero said that “growth should pay for growth with no exceptions,” voting against the ordinance that exempted businesses along with Terry Pottmeyer and Benson Wong. The first reading of the ordinance still passed 4-3.

Cero and Grausz voted against the first ordinance for transportation impact fees, as they had questions about exemptions for businesses and affordable housing. The latter would encourage more senior housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and  transitional housing, because if a project meets the requirements to be considered affordable housing, 80 percent of the impact fee would be exempted.

The Council is also considering including a discount on these fees for Town Center residents, as they are more likely to take public transportation.

The city has already adopted school impact fees, which went into effect Oct. 16. Permit applicants for new single-family or multi-family homes will now pay $14,118 for a new single-family home and $4,284 for a new multi-family unit. Though collected by the city, these funds go directly to the school district.

In November, the Planning Commission considered the park and transportation impact fees ordinances, recommending a park impact fee of $1,751 for a new single-family home, $1,126 for a new multi-family unit and $647 per 1,000 gross square feet of commercial/retail/office floor area.

The proposed transportation impact fee would be $3,788 for each evening peak-hour trip generated by the home or business. For example, a new single-family home would be assessed a fee of $3,788. A new 20-unit multi-family development would pay $43,180, and a new 5,000-square-foot restaurant would pay $95,650, according to the city.

For more on impact fees, go to www.mrsc.org.