Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town planner and consultant present updated development impact‑fee study; residents warn fees could discourage housing
Summary
A consultant presented a nexus study that calculates the maximum defensible development impact fees across services; the study lists higher potential fees (single‑family and multifamily per‑unit figures were cited), and residents and councilors raised concerns that high fees could hinder housing supply and urged options such as tiering or exemptions for ADUs.
Ron, Middletown’s town planner, introduced a consultant report and nexus study on development impact fees at the March 3 council meeting and said the study produces the maximum defensible fee levels the town could collect.
Richard Ruiz of DTA, the consultant, walked the council through methodologies used to calculate fees for general government, police, fire, parks and sewer. He said the study uses a level‑of‑service approach for most functions and a plan‑based method for sewer; fees are calculated per residential unit, per thousand square feet for nonresidential uses, and by meter for sewer. Ruiz emphasized the numbers in the report represent the maximum fees a municipality can defensibly charge, not a staff or consultant recommendation of what the council must adopt.
The report identifies statutory exemptions—state‑defined low and moderate income housing and pre‑existing developed lots—and noted accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are not automatically exempt under the current framework. Ruiz said towns can choose to reduce the maximums or create tiered schedules (for example exempting the first 750 square feet of an ADU) to avoid discouraging small ADU development.
Councilors and residents raised questions about housing affordability and economic impacts. Multiple council members said fees last revised in 2004 need updated analysis in light of current housing shortages, and asked whether the fees could be tiered by size (bedrooms or square footage) or waived for certain affordable developments. One council member described the fee increase as appearing at first glance like a “money grab.” Residents at public comment warned that large fees would discourage new housing and urged the council to reduce or eliminate fees aimed at encouraging development.
Ruiz acknowledged the political tradeoffs and reiterated the study’s role: to provide a defensible basis for whatever fee schedule the council chooses. The consultant and town staff offered to collect comparative data from other Rhode Island towns; staff also noted existing ordinance language allows in‑lieu dedications or construction of public facilities in lieu of fees.
Key clarifying figures mentioned at the meeting included proposed maximum fee examples (presenters referenced proposed study levels in the packet: a single‑family fee figure cited by council discussion was approximately $18,000 per unit and a multifamily per‑unit figure cited was roughly $14,000 — these were described in the meeting as maximums output by the study, not required charges). Councilors asked staff to compile follow‑up questions and return with comparative fees and examples of tiering or ADU exemptions before any ordinance drafting.
No ordinance was before the council for adoption that night; the study was presented for feedback and follow‑up. Council requested additional detail on: the towns used for comparables, the capital projects funded by previously collected impact fees, whether any prior refunds to developers were made and the potential effect of exemptions or reduced schedules on housing production.
