WINDHAM – Despite persistent business-community resistance to the introduction of a roadway impact fee, the Windham Town Council narrowly approved a scaled-back version of the fee on Tuesday night.

While the plan as proposed would have assessed up to $300,000 in total fees on new development that generates traffic through the Whites Bridge and Anglers roads intersection in North Windham, the fee that ultimately passed will collect, at most, $150,000. The council passed the scaled-back fee in a 4-3 vote, with councilors Bob Muir, Dennis Welch and Donna Chapman opposed.

The proposed roadway impact fee was designed to raise $300,000 toward the first phase of a $2.88 million project that would align Anglers Road with Whites Bridge Road and construct a new center left-turn lane in the same area. The impact fee will be in place until either the town has collected $150,000 or July 1, 2026, whichever comes first. The Maine Department of Transportation could provide as much as $500,000 toward the first phase of the intersection reconstruction, as well as another $1.15 million toward the rest of the construction.

The scaled-back fee was proposed by the Windham Economic Development Corp. In response to the public perception that “the town was not assuming a fair share of responsibility to pay for the improvements,” the development corporation proposed four alternative options in an April 3 memo. The council modeled the scaled-back fee on the WEDC’s fourth proposed option, which raises $150,000 toward the project through the impact fee, and another $150,000 through Tax Increment Financing district revenues and the repayment to the town of a $450,000 loan to the development corporation.

“I think this is a good neutral spot, a good win-win,” said Councilor Matt Noel, a longtime advocate of impact fees as a way to generate revenue besides property taxes.

According to town planner Ben Smith, the scaled-back fee would cut the assessed impact fees on new residential and commercial development in half. The new fee charges new businesses based on how much additional travel they generate through the Anglers/Whites Bridge intersection.

Business opposition to the roadway impact fee had 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 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 and 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.

Prior to this week’s council meeting, the Sebago Lakes Region Chamber of Commerce, which has traditionally shied away from strong political stances, released a formal statement expressing opposition to the roadway impact fee.

“The mission of the Sebago Lakes Region Chamber of Commerce is to foster and sustain economic growth and prosperity throughout our region by promoting commerce through marketing, advocacy, networking and education, in a manner that enhances the communities that we represent,” the statement reads. “It is the opinion of chamber leadership that the proposed roadway fee would negatively impact business vitality and growth in the Windham area.”

Chapman, a critic of impact fees, saying they would discourage business growth, repeatedly attempted to postpone the vote during Tuesday night’s meeting.

“It’s going to hurt somebody, and in this economy, we’re double-dipping, really, with an impact fee,” Chapman said. “We’re charging to come to town, and we’re going to charge an impact fee to boot.”

Town Manager Tony Plante objected to Chapman’s characterization of the fee.

“I’m sorry,” Plante said. “It’s not double dipping.”

“Well, that’s how I take it, and I’m entitled to my opinion,” Chapman responded.

“Well, you are, except it’s not double dipping because you’re not asking the same people to pay for the same thing twice,” Plante said. “You’re asking new development to help pay for their share of a capital facility that they helped create the need for.”