Impact fees are based on the sensible theory that taxpayers ought to be shielded at least in part from the burdens imposed on municipal infrastructure and operations by new development. But what if assessing those fees discourages desirable development that would benefit the whole community and those same taxpayers?

That’s a dilemma that the Hartford Selectboard may be facing. As staff writer Matt Hongoltz-Hetling reported last week, Mike Davidson, a developer who is proposing to turn an eyesore at 241 S. Main St. in White River Junction into 36 badly needed studio apartments, contends that having to pay $37,000 in impact fees to the town could derail the $3 million project. Although the claim has been met with a certain amount of skepticism, Davidson insists it’s true, and the Selectboard appears to be taking it seriously.

“This is very disturbing, the fact that we might lose an investment in downtown White River Junction,” said Selectboard Chairman Dick Grassi, who termed the prospect “devastating.” It’s easy to see why he thinks so: The value of the building is projected to increase from $189,000 to $1.6 million if the development occurs, producing annual tax revenues of nearly $40,000. Besides that, the project addresses the region’s need for housing and would contribute to the ongoing revitalization of the downtown.

Complicating matters for the Selectboard is that in the opinion of the town’s attorney, the 28-year-old impact-fee ordinance contains no provision that would allow the Selectboard to waive the fees if it determined that it was in the town’s best interest to do so. So Town Manager Leo Pullar has been asked to research possible alternatives, such as amending the ordinance or even repealing it.

Although on first glance it appears odd that no provision was made originally to reduce or waive the fees, on further reflection the difficulties are apparent. Giving a political body discretion to deem some development projects to be in the public interest and others not would almost certainly invite controversy and perhaps even the suspicion that certain developers — as opposed to certain kinds of development — were being favored. Thus any provision to waive the fees would need to contain sufficiently objective criteria on which to base a decision. That could be tricky because a community’s priorities for development and where it takes place shift over time, so the standards would have to be at once rigid and flexible. In any case, it also should go without saying that developers seeking a waiver ought to be asked to provide detailed financial information so the town’s professional staff can assess the strength of their claim.

Revising the ordinance also would provide the opportunity to remedy a flaw identified by Pullar in the research he has done so far, which is that he has been unable to identify how the fee schedule was determined in the first place. Obviously, developers have the right to know the rationale for how much they are being charged. It should be plainly stated and the fees easily calculated.

Despite the difficulties, revision of the ordinance is a better choice than outright repeal. As detailed by Hongoltz-Hetling, impact fees play a key role in bolstering Hartford’s infrastructure at a time when the town is having trouble keeping up with those demands. As long as town officials can demonstrate a rational relationship between the burdens imposed by a development and the amount assessed, they ought to keep impact fees in place in some form, because the underlying principle remains sound.