Council debates impact fee changes
Council debates impact fee changes
By Zack Anchors
Staff writer
The Scarborough Town Council, after heated debate, took a step this week toward changing the town's ordinance relating to impact fees.
The council voted to schedule a first reading on establishing an impact fee in the Oak Hill area and another first reading on making amendments to a Dunstan impact fee established last July.
Impact fees require new development in a designated area to contribute a certain
amount of funds towards future capital improvements in that area. In both the Dunstan Corner area and the Oak Hill area, the town is planning major road improvement projects that funds raised from the impact fees would be directed towards.
There are at least two aspects of the proposed changes that have caused some councilors to express concern: a change in the ordinance language that would reduce the amount of the improvement's costs to be generated by the fee from 33 percent to 25 percent and language in
the Oak Hill impact fee that would exempt pending developments that have already appeared before the Planning Board.
"I am supportive of the idea of an Oak Hill impact fee but I do not support the current drafting," said councilor Sylvia Most, who repeatedly stated that the changes "don't make sense."
Most was adamant that there was no sound reason why the impact fee should only be designed to raise 25 percent when the town had been planning for some time on splitting the costs of traffic improvements three ways – one third paid for by the state, one third by the town and one third through an impact fee. But councilor Jeff Messer, who said the reduction to 25 percent was his idea, said the lower amount was more fair to developers. He argued that there were already substantial fees facing developers and that an impact fee that was too large would prevent the moderate development needed to build a strong tax base. Councilor Richard Sullivan also thought that a substantial impact fee might be unfair to developers and prevent needed growth.
But Most argued that the impact fee system in place is working and has not proven to prevent development. She said the Dunstan impact fee, which has been in operation for more than four months with the 33 percent language, has not caused controversy in the development community.
"There's no indication that this impact fee of 33 percent has slowed development in any way," she said. "In fact, this impact fee was arrived at with the help of developers."
Most listed several prominent Scarborough developers who were involved in meetings in which the impact fee was designed.
Messer said he had a different impression of how developers were reacting to the impact fee.
"I've talked to a lot of developers who don't think this is fair," he said.
Councilor Patrick O'Reilly also had doubts about the current drafting of the ordinance, particularly about the language that would exempt pending developments from the impact fees. He pointed out that several large developments, including the Dunstan Crossing and Eastern Village residential developments, currently before the Planning Board would qualify for the exemption.
"I hope people are paying attention because that's wrong," said O'Reilly.
Councilor Carol Rancourt voiced strong objections to the impact fee ordinance language as written also.
"I think it's a gift to developers who are bringing more traffic to Scarborough," she said.
Rancourt stressed that reducing the amount of funds generated by the impact fee would shift the burden onto the town to generate the funds, possibly through increased taxes.
Scarborough was one of the first towns in the state to establish impact fees, although it has become an increasingly common planning strategy. If the impact fees being proposed for Dunstan and Oak Hill are approved, a fee would be levied on any new development within a
certain area based on the amount of new traffic the development is projected to generate. The Oak Hill improvements are estimated to cost around $2 million and the Dunstan improvements are estimated to cost around $6 million. The town is still working on determining what those
actual improvements would be, though there are several options for both areas being considered.
The council ultimately voted 6-1 (with Rancourt opposed) to approve the first reading of the Oak Hill impact fee and voted 5-2 (with Rancourt and Most opposed) to approve the first reading of the amendments to the Dunstan Corner impact fee. Public hearings for both
items will be held on Feb. 7.
By Zack Anchors
Staff writer
The Scarborough Town Council, after heated debate, took a step this week toward changing the town's ordinance relating to impact fees.
The council voted to schedule a first reading on establishing an impact fee in the Oak Hill area and another first reading on making amendments to a Dunstan impact fee established last July.
Impact fees require new development in a designated area to contribute a certain
amount of funds towards future capital improvements in that area. In both the Dunstan Corner area and the Oak Hill area, the town is planning major road improvement projects that funds raised from the impact fees would be directed towards.
There are at least two aspects of the proposed changes that have caused some councilors to express concern: a change in the ordinance language that would reduce the amount of the improvement's costs to be generated by the fee from 33 percent to 25 percent and language in
the Oak Hill impact fee that would exempt pending developments that have already appeared before the Planning Board.
"I am supportive of the idea of an Oak Hill impact fee but I do not support the current drafting," said councilor Sylvia Most, who repeatedly stated that the changes "don't make sense."
Most was adamant that there was no sound reason why the impact fee should only be designed to raise 25 percent when the town had been planning for some time on splitting the costs of traffic improvements three ways – one third paid for by the state, one third by the town and one third through an impact fee. But councilor Jeff Messer, who said the reduction to 25 percent was his idea, said the lower amount was more fair to developers. He argued that there were already substantial fees facing developers and that an impact fee that was too large would prevent the moderate development needed to build a strong tax base. Councilor Richard Sullivan also thought that a substantial impact fee might be unfair to developers and prevent needed growth.
But Most argued that the impact fee system in place is working and has not proven to prevent development. She said the Dunstan impact fee, which has been in operation for more than four months with the 33 percent language, has not caused controversy in the development community.
"There's no indication that this impact fee of 33 percent has slowed development in any way," she said. "In fact, this impact fee was arrived at with the help of developers."
Most listed several prominent Scarborough developers who were involved in meetings in which the impact fee was designed.
Messer said he had a different impression of how developers were reacting to the impact fee.
"I've talked to a lot of developers who don't think this is fair," he said.
Councilor Patrick O'Reilly also had doubts about the current drafting of the ordinance, particularly about the language that would exempt pending developments from the impact fees. He pointed out that several large developments, including the Dunstan Crossing and Eastern Village residential developments, currently before the Planning Board would qualify for the exemption.
"I hope people are paying attention because that's wrong," said O'Reilly.
Councilor Carol Rancourt voiced strong objections to the impact fee ordinance language as written also.
"I think it's a gift to developers who are bringing more traffic to Scarborough," she said.
Rancourt stressed that reducing the amount of funds generated by the impact fee would shift the burden onto the town to generate the funds, possibly through increased taxes.
Scarborough was one of the first towns in the state to establish impact fees, although it has become an increasingly common planning strategy. If the impact fees being proposed for Dunstan and Oak Hill are approved, a fee would be levied on any new development within a
certain area based on the amount of new traffic the development is projected to generate. The Oak Hill improvements are estimated to cost around $2 million and the Dunstan improvements are estimated to cost around $6 million. The town is still working on determining what those
actual improvements would be, though there are several options for both areas being considered.
The council ultimately voted 6-1 (with Rancourt opposed) to approve the first reading of the Oak Hill impact fee and voted 5-2 (with Rancourt and Most opposed) to approve the first reading of the amendments to the Dunstan Corner impact fee. Public hearings for both
items will be held on Feb. 7.
Comments