WINDHAM – On March 11, the Windham Town Council passed a recreation impact fee on all new residential development in town.

The roadway impact fee, which would be assessed on new residential and business development that generates traffic through the Whites Bridge and Anglers Road intersection on Route 302, was an entirely different matter.

Business opposition to the roadway impact fee has intensified in recent weeks. At a March 5 breakfast hosted by the Windham Economic Development Corp., business owners lambasted the proposed fee, characterizing it as a disguised “tax” on future development, and expressing concern that if the fee passed, the town would increasingly look to fees on development as a source of new revenue.

Similar criticism was levied against the roadway fee at the March 11 council meeting, which was attended by two dozen people, many of whom were business owners opposed to the policy. In response, the council voted to postpone a vote on the fee until April 8. In the meantime, the council asked town staff to adjust the fee’s sunset provision as well as the formula that determines the size of the fee assessed on new development.

The recreation impact fee, which passed 5-1, with Councilor Donna Chapman opposed, would assess fees on new residential development. The town will assess a $1,080 fee on a new single, detached home, an $800 fee on a new townhouse, and a $400 fee on a new accessory apartment. The one-time fee would be paid by the builder or developer.

According to Town Planner Ben Smith, the fee revenue would fund the purchase and development of soccer, lacrosse and baseball fields, tennis and basketball courts, and playgrounds. The fee will remain in effect until July 1, 2030.

The proposed roadway impact fee is designed to raise $300,000 toward the first phase of a $2.875 million project that would realign Anglers Road with Whites Bridge Road and construct a new two-way center left-turn lane in the same area. The Maine Department of Transportation could provide as much as $500,000 toward the first phase of the construction, as well as another $1.15 million toward the rest of the construction. According to the proposed policy, a developer would pay a fee based on how many new vehicles travel through the intersection as a result of the new development.

The proposed roadway impact fee, if approved, will last until either the town has collected $300,000 or July 1, 2026, whichever comes first.

During a public hearing, Mark Cobb, the owner of Cobb’s Collision, was one of several business owners and advocates to criticize the roadway impact fee.

“I think you’re going to stunt growth,” Cobb said. “I don’t support the way this is funded. If this is necessary, I think that the town needs to look at other ways to fund it. I don’t believe it should be done on the backs of small businesses.”

Jay Hackett, the owner of Windham Rental Center, said he was opposed to impact fees as a matter of principle.

“Impact fees become a way of covering up for lack of leadership,” Hackett said. “If we need to increase taxes then that’s what we need for the good of the town.”

State Sen. Gary Plummer, R-Cumberland, said that the fee would drive businesses out of Windham.

“I did have a chance to speak with a town councilor last evening who told me that other towns our size do have impact fees,” Plummer said. “Then I went home and started reading the material and I learned that Windham has a lower commercial vacancy rate than other surrounding towns. Putting two and two together, I decided that the idea of an impact fee must be a conspiracy from other towns to try to get Windham’s vacancy rate up so that the businesses would move to their community.”

In response to the complaints, some councilors said they would be happy to modify the proposal. Councilor David Nadeau said that developers should have a means to challenge the formula that determines the fee size.

“There has to be something developed in here so that if somebody feels that their trip count is way off, they have an appeal process for duplicate trips,” Nadeau said.

The town should also look into securing grants that could offset the cost of the construction project, said Councilor Matt Noel. If there are ways to reduce the cost, then the $300,000 sunset provision on the fee should be commensurately reduced, Noel said.

“If it only takes $100,000, then we ought to stop the impact fee at $100,000,” he said.

Some councilors were not convinced that the fee could be reformed. Donna Chapman, who has consistently opposed the proposed policy, apologized on behalf of the council to the assembled business representatives.

“I don’t support this at all,” Chapman said. “I’m sorry, all of you out there. I’m going to get outvoted tonight, I’m sure. They’re just not listening. Somebody has an agenda.”

Council Chairman Tommy Gleason said that raising property taxes was not the way to raise revenues for infrastructure projects.

“Putting it all in taxes and taxing the people is not right, either,” Gleason said. “This has to be tweaked. But we need an impact fee to get that intersection done.”

Nadeau said that long-term infrastructure planning was not the town’s strong suit.

“As a practice, this town doesn’t plan, doesn’t look for infrastructure improvements,” Nadeau said. “And I think any way we can try funding something, I think we have to try and utilize it.”

The council ultimately voted 5-0-1 to postpone the roadway impact fee. Chapman abstained from the vote.