In 4 to 1 Vote, Town Council Repeals Development Impact Fee, But May Revisit In Future

RI General Law 45-22.4, the Rhode Island Development Impact Fee Act, recognizes that impact fees on new development are needed for the planning and financing of public facilities to serve new growth. Charlestown has had an impact fee ordinance to finance capital improvements for schools since 2000. The Town Council repealed that ordinance in its entirety on May 27. Going forward, Charlestown will not charge developers impact fees for new development at a time when a new state law allows developers to force ten times the number of houses allowed by Charlestown’s zoning into new developments.

At the meeting, as part of a very lively debate about the issues, Councilors Steve Stokes and Rippy Serra expressed that they are in favor of bringing back impact fees in the future.

The public hearing on May 27 had been continued from the Council’s April 14 meeting so that the Council could request an advisory from the Planning Commission regarding the potential repeal of the ordinance.

The Planning Commission advised that the ability to collect impact fees be retained and extended to other types of capital expenditures related to growth.

Councilor Carney read the Planning Commission’s decision, which was unanimous, dated May 19:

“It is the recommendation of the planning commission that the moratorium pertaining to impact fees should remain in effect until the town establishes a capital improvement plan and required needs analysis. When the study is complete impact fees should be reinstated. The commission recommends that the town retain the existing funding for schools and consider the potential impact of development on recreation and open space when calculating the impact fee.”

Ruth Platner, a member of the Planning Commission and its chair, explained that the Commission’s advisory had been based on work done by the Planning Commission, in the early 2000s, when the law was changed so that impacts other than those on schools could be considered.

Commissioner Platner informed the Council that the Planning Commission’s past work had focused on the impact on the groundwater caused by increased growth because every new development added septage to the town’s groundwater, a natural resource that everyone shared, and the acquisition of open space could offset that impact because fewer houses ultimately would be built and more forest left to keep groundwater clean.

A needs assessment was done, a capital plan developed, and an ordinance written. A proportionate share for each new dwelling unit was calculated, and that figure was multiplied by the price per acre. The calculation done at that time yielded a fee in the $1,000 to $2,000 range.

Commissioner Platner emphasized that what she described was an example—a template—that could be used for different kinds of capital expenditures related to growth and for which fees could be applied universally. A final draft of the needs assessment, capital plan, and ordinance developed by the past Planning Commission and its consultant could be provided.

The Planning Commission suggested assessing developers impact fees for schools, open space, and recreation. The reason is because focusing the effort on capital improvements with universal application would take a shorter time than developing plans for other infrastructure, such as roads, would take.

Councilor Carney contended that what the Planning Commission was recommending regarding acquisition of open space could not be done because the Charter specifies how property can be acquired.

Commissioner Platner disagreed that the Charter would need to be changed because clearly the impact fees would not be enough to pay to acquire land. Different pools of money would need to be used; land could be acquired in coordination with The Nature Conservancy or using grants from the RI Department of Environmental Management. In addition, the town has $1 million in open space bond money that has been approved by the voters, or an acquisition could also be placed on a Financial Town Referendum. The impact fees could then be used to make some of the bond or other payments related to the voter-authorized expenditures.

Councilor Marr observed that charging a fee would not change the amount of sewage that’s output and that the town would still be relying on zoning and wastewater management rules. Further, it would generate little revenue. Councilor Marr then contended, “We’d almost be using it as a cudgel to get the town to spend money to purchase land, and I don’t think that that’s something that we’d really want to support right now.”

Commissioner Platner responded that the town would have already made the decision when it approved the needs assessment and the capital plan. She also observed that, even with the small fee the town had in place for schools, it had collected $800,000. She noted that, in the Town Council’s conversations, there are assumptions that may not be true. For example, because of changes in state law, we may have a lot more housing, and that would mean a lot more fees collected.

Commissioner Platner again emphasized that she was talking about a template that could be used. Therefore, if it’s not an example of something you want to do, the same process can be applied to something that you would want. 

Councilor Stokes observed that during the discussion, what had occurred to him was the recreation component. He gave the example of fencing for the basketball court in Ninigret Park, which was a capital improvement for which the town could have utilized the money. Councilor Stokes stated that there are other ways to look at this.

Councilor Serra observed that this past weekend he had visited Ninigret Park and other town open spaces, which were very busy, and recreation is a clear example of what else an impact fee could be used for. He continued that he did not know if the Council wanted to keep an impact fee. Councilor Serra stated that he would support it being used toward recreation, and he continued, saying “We still need to do a capital improvement plan. That’s a given too.”

The public was invited to speak. Resident Bonnie Van Slyke said that the town needs to develop a five-year capital improvement plan to assist with budgeting and financial decisions anyway and that the work done related to impact fees would be a portion of that plan. She thought that taxpayers would appreciate having developers contribute to offset the impacts of their developments.

Councilor Carney contended that the town had not been complying with the specific requirements of the state law for approximately the past 20 years. She then read each of the provisions in the ordinance where the ordinance is not currently in compliance with state law. Councilor Carney maintained that the town has not had a legitimate five-year capital improvement plan going back at least 15 years and that there has been no consistency in budgeting.

In explaining how the process is supposed to work, Councilor Carney stated, “The intent of having a capital improvement plan is that you plan for the upcoming five years, and so there should be carry through. If it was in this year’s capital improvement plan, say, for 2026, when you get to 2026 that money should be, should go in the budget and then be expended.”

She mused that in March 2026, the moratorium would expire, and the Town Council would find itself in the same boat. She maintained that, if the Council were to repeal the ordinance, the language would still exist in history so that when a five-year capital improvement plan and a needs assessment was completed, the language could be retrieved.

Councilor Serra expressed his clear frustration regarding the lack of action by the Town Council:

“You know, I’m so sick and tired of this. I’m tired of the dissertation of what went wrong, okay. This council needs to decide how they’re going to move forward. I’m tired of hearing about the past. I think I’ve heard this dissertation ten times in three years. Okay. I’m tired of hearing the dissertation about the past.

This council needs to agree whether they want to have an impact fee, okay, and then once they agree they want to have an impact fee, they need to figure out how they’re going to put it together…. Let’s move forward. So we’re either going to get rid of this ordinance or we’re going to move forward and fix it. Make up your minds. I’ve been to plenty of meetings with the administrator and Ken, and we’ve gone over how to calculate it. We have, like, five different methods of calculating it. But we’re just sitting here spinning our wheels, talking about a dissertation of the past. We’re going to move forward, or we aren’t. That’s what we need to decide. It’s that simple.”

Councilor Stokes agreed and made a motion, which was disallowed, to move the process forward:

“I’ll echo that, and I’ll go one step further, and I’ll say we can solve one of these problems right now. I’ll make a motion that the administrator have six months to return with a five-year capital improvement plan….

It’s literally in the vein of this because it’s going to relate directly to the impact fees as well as a needs assessment. He has staff, he has time, and he has an office, and I will give him the latitude to do that and return because I’ve been hearing the same thing over and over again as well, and I’ve been hearing that in 15 years we haven’t done this. Well, this council, with the exception of Mr. Marr and Mr. Slom, this council’s just as much to blame. We’ve been here two and a half, almost three years, and we haven’t done it either….

Here’s the date. Make this happen. This is the directive from the council. We are the policy-setting body of this town…. Come back with a document that says, here’s our capital improvement plan, here’s the needs assessment, and then we can make a re-evaluation….

If we completely repeal an ordinance, exactly what happens to everything else in town government across the board for twenty years, thirty years, probably in the history of the government, is it gets forgotten. It gets lost. How many times have we had something that nobody even thought of again, and it just disappears because there’s so many moving parts that continue to go on, over and over again. At the bare minimum, at least if a moratorium runs out, it’s automatically going to come back up to be revisited by a Council.

At the end of the day, this continues to be a concern. This continues to be a discussion about capital improvement plans, especially because it’s required and we need it. So just do it. And, again, I will make that motion, and I believe it’s within the vein of this agenda, that the administrator has six months to return with a five-year capital improvement plan and a needs assessment for the town of Charlestown.

And that will be directly related to how we can look, view, this. And perhaps we can move the moratorium up. Perhaps we can address this earlier. There is no reason why we can’t do it. We have an incredibly professional staff. We have a staff that has an incredible amount of knowledge, and it can be done, and it should be done. And that’s it, and put the date on it. Do it. That’s my motion.”

In response to a question, the Solicitor advised that the matter is before the Council as a public hearing on an amendment to a zoning ordinance, so the Council’s choices were to vote on the ordinance or continue the hearing; things cannot be added. Councilor Stokes said that he would put his motion on the agenda for the next Council meeting.

Resident Mike Marcelynas asked whether impact fees apply to ADUs. He said it seems counterintuitive to not have an impact fee for ADUs because there are more people coming in and more people coming in means more people using septic systems and more people using the senior center. Councilor Carney read from the current ordinance that accessory buildings were exempt. Councilor Serra clarified that, he had read that under state law, it is affordable housing that can’t be charged.

Councilor Serra observed that the Town Council had just approved a plan for Ninigret Park and that future infrastructure would probably be based around the park unless an open space component is also included.

Councilor Marr then stated that he agrees with the sentiments of Councilor Serra and Councilor Stokes about moving forward and added, “I think we probably should have impact fees.” He did not see the point of keeping the ordinance and believed that it is the job of the Council not to forget. He said, because Councilor Stokes is going to put something on the agenda regarding a capital improvement plan for the next meeting, he urged that a decision be made on the ordinance now.

Councilor Stokes saw no reason to keep the public hearing open because there are other things to do. He stated that if the public hearing were to be closed with no action, everything would stay as it is. Councilor Stokes made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was not seconded, so the motion failed.

Councilor Serra said that he would like to repeal the language of the ordinance but reserve the ordinance as a placeholder. Councilor Serra made a motion to approve Ordinance 430, amending Chapter 218, Zoning Impact Fees. The motion was seconded and passed with a vote of 4 to 1, with Councilors Marr, Serra, Slom, and Carney voting yes and Councilor Stokes voting no.

The entire discussion on impact fees for new development is included in the video below and takes about 50 minutes to view.