Michael Lully, an economic and fiscal consultant, presented a draft impact-fee study to the South Berwick Town Council on Jan. 13.

Lully explained that impact fees are one-time payments tied to growth-related capital expenditures, not ongoing operations. He outlined three common methodologies — including the incremental expansion approach recommended for this study — and described required credits for developer-provided improvements, debt service and dedicated revenues.

Using the study's base-year figures, Lully reported South Berwick's current baseline as approximately 7,761 residents and 3,104 housing units, with a 10-year projection of roughly 1,776 additional residents and 750 new housing units. He presented sample proposed fees and component calculations used to derive them. Examples shown in the draft materials included a total estimated development-fee package for a single-family unit of about $7,990 and an illustrative suite of draft fire fees (for example, a draft fire-impact fee of $3,191 per single-family unit and $2,172 per multifamily unit in the consultant's component breakout).

Lully also walked through component calculations: a 10-year incremental demand for fire facilities (about 1,262 square feet, at an estimated replacement cost near $884,000 in the draft), fire apparatus and EMS vehicle shares, parkland acreage and associated amenities, and debt credits calculated from principal payments. He noted the town's planned transition to operating EMS services directly and said the draft assumed the town would add two ambulances and that the next 10 years would add a half of an EMS vehicle in the proportional calculation.

Councilors questioned assumptions and data sources: how the growth projections were determined (conversations with planning staff and permit trends, plus external commercial data), whether facility square-footage and utilization were being measured as existing use or overall building area, and whether component costs (for example, ambulance pricing) were accurate. Lully said most unit-cost inputs came from standard cost estimates and the town's CIP; he acknowledged some line items might be adjusted as the CIP and vehicle cost estimates are refined.

Lully emphasized implementation cautions: impact-fee funds must be linked to reasonably expected, capacity-adding capital projects in a near-term CIP or the town risks refund obligations; fees should be reassessed periodically (the draft suggests roughly every five years); and ordinance language must set collection timing (commonly at building-permit issuance) and any exemptions (for example, affordable-housing exemptions require the town to make the fee fund whole if it chooses to exempt a project).

Next steps discussed included council direction on which fee components to include in the final package, further review of housing and growth projections, and drafting an enabling ordinance specifying collection timing and credits. The consultant offered to return with refined numbers once the council narrows component choices.