South Kingstown adopts CIP amid dispute over fair‑share impact fees and ADU exemptions
Loading...
Summary
Council adopted the proposed Capital Improvement Program after debate about allocation, road and sidewalk priorities, and an extended dispute over 'fair share' (impact) fees that increased after reassessment; council asked staff to research whether ADUs can be exempted from the fee schedule.
The South Kingstown Town Council voted to adopt the town’s Capital Improvement Program after extended debate over priorities and whether to change the municipality’s 'fair share' development fee methodology, which councilors said increasingly burdens homeowners and ADU builders.
Finance director Brian Silvious summarized the CIP figures, saying the town manager’s proposed CIP funding was about $2.077 million after adjustments to department requests. Silvious noted that prior use of federal ARPA money accelerated projects and that some projects remain in planning or reliant on grants.
Councilors pressed staff on specific projects including a costly Kersey Road sidewalk project (estimated in the hundreds of thousands) and the timeline for infrastructure bank–funded improvements at High Street and Main Street. Councillors also debated redirecting limited staff time and grant dollars to priorities such as intersection safety and park improvements.
The meeting included a heated policy discussion about fair‑share development (impact) fees, which the finance staff said are calculated using a needs assessment and include a variable for assessed land value. One councilor described the fee formula as increasing the cost of new units because land assessments rose after a recent revaluation (an example used in the discussion: a jump in assessed land value from roughly $167,000 to $217,000 per acre, reported by staff). Several councilors expressed concern that the resulting fee increases discourage construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that the town wants to encourage as affordable housing options.
Counsel reviewed the statute and advised that the town likely has authority to exempt ADUs if the council changes its ordinance. The solicitor said the enabling statute "does say nothing in this chapter shall prevent a municipality from granting any exemptions that it deems appropriate," but added that changing the ordinance would take time and likely would not affect the fee schedule in the short term.
Council ultimately adopted the CIP (voice vote recorded; final tally recorded in the meeting as 4–1). Several members directed staff to prepare a memo describing the legal path and timeline to consider an ordinance change that could exempt ADUs from the impact fee schedule and to provide revenue/impact estimates if the council wants to hold fees flat for one year.
Outcome and next steps: The CIP was adopted; staff committed to a written memo on ADU exemptions and the solicitor said an answer would be available by the council’s next meeting. Councilors also discussed targeted uses for remaining façade and infrastructure funds and asked for comparative cost estimates.
