Exeter council adopts updated impact‑fee rules after contested public hearing

The Exeter Town Council on Monday approved amendments to Chapter 14 governing impact fees after a public hearing and a detailed presentation by consultant Ben Griffin.

Griffin walked the council through three accepted methodologies for impact‑fee calculations, explained credits for developer‑provided improvements and dedicated revenues, and described the study’s assumptions: the town’s staff average permitting rates (about eight single‑family and four multifamily units per year), a 10‑year projection of roughly 120 new housing units, and corresponding demands on public works, streets and vehicle/equipment services. “Impact fees are for capital investments tied to growth, not for operations, maintenance or replacement,” Griffin said during the presentation (Ben Griffin, consultant).

The presentation included example calculations: the study shows adding about 1.5 vehicle units to maintain the current service level over 10 years and estimates the public‑works share of fees using persons per housing unit; Griffin told the council the proposed approach is consistent with Rhode Island requirements and that municipalities must spend or refund impact‑fee revenues within an eight‑year window.

During public comment, a long statement from a resident (identified in the transcript as Speaker 9) accused the town of prior improper handling of collected impact fees and urged an investigation and refunds. The resident cited a prior transfer of $308,000 to the general fund and said APRA records and minutes indicate credits were not applied for bond‑funded projects. “Impact fees collected from newcomers have regularly been used to mitigate general tax increases for established town residents,” the resident said, and asked the council to reconcile past practice with state law.

Council members asked Griffin and staff follow‑up questions about low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) exemptions and whether projected LMI units were included in totals; Griffin said that the fee calculation method is incremental and that exemptions would change payer counts not the per‑unit fee formula itself.

After discussion, a motion to adopt the recommended impact‑fee amendments carried. The council directed staff to ensure the ordinance language and administrative procedures reflect statutory limits on permitted uses of impact fees and the requirement to segregate and account for those funds. The council also asked staff to provide documentation on existing impact‑fee balances and credit practices at a later date.

The ordinance change is now in effect as adopted; the council did not vote to alter the town’s prior accounting practice at this meeting but did commission follow‑up review and record requests referenced in public testimony.

What’s next: the council requested a staff memo clarifying how existing impact‑fee revenue has been recorded and whether any past transfers warrant further action.