Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates whether Orono’s connection fees already cover development impacts
Summary
Staff presented examples showing the town's per-gallon connection fee can exceed what some communities collect as an impact fee; committee discussed whether to treat connection and impact fees separately, and asked staff for models that balance infrastructure recovery with housing goals.
Committee members examined how the town currently calculates connection fees and whether the connection fee model overlaps with or replaces a separate impact fee. Chris gave the committee a worked example: under Orono’s per-gallon connection-fee method, a hotel that added roughly 4,400 gallons per day produced a connection fee roughly equal to $27,000.
"The hotel added almost 4,400 gallons a day," Chris said when describing the calculation. Committee members noted that in some places an impact fee would be charged for system upgrades, while Orono's connection and per-gallon approach can already recoup substantial sums. Town Manager Clint Machin said the committee needs guidance on whether to keep the current connection-fee approach, create a separate impact-fee schedule for large projects, or adopt hybrid approaches (for example charging developers when substantial pipe upsizing is required). Members also stressed the need to avoid making attainable housing financially unviable: Dan Demerra warned that high upfront fees could undermine housing goals.
Why it matters: how the town charges for new connections affects who bears the cost of infrastructure expansion and can influence development patterns and housing affordability. The committee asked staff to return with alternative fee models and data on top users to inform a recommendation.
