08/28/01 Hansz/Glacier MallGlacier Mail
Subject: Glacier Mall
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:59:51 -0600
From: Jim Hansz <jhansz@kalispell.com>
To: "Kalispell.com ckukulski" <ckukulski@kalispell.com>
Chris:
I have continued to ponder the scope and scale of this development and am no closer to being
comfortable with its implications than you. From my vantage point it seems that the major issue and
debating point both for and against this development will be the availability of public sewer. Other issues
of public services will be important, but public sewer availability is in my opinion the hinge pin for
whether it goes, or simply goes away. Here are a few ragged thoughts:
Analysis of the City's ability to serve is a composite of flow to date, capacity of the current facility,
commitments made to provide service and the actual use of these commitments by those who have
received the commitment.
As you know the present flow through our plant is about 2.4 to 2.5 million gallons per day against a
capacity of 3.1 mgd. This ratio is 80% and is an indicator that we should soon begin the serious planning
of additional capacity. This need to plan capacity is not related to Bucky's project. It is entirely related to
deceitful flow reporting by a faulty plant meter, perhaps for many years, and nothing more nor less. On
paper this reflects an increase of about 20%. What is the impact of this current flow on our operation or
ability to treat additional wastewater flows? None that I can see because we are operating below our
capacity of 3.1 mgd and we have been treating this flow all along with no problems. Further, as our
facility plan has somewhat indicated, our problem at the plant is not necessarily with the average daily
flow, it is with wet weather peaks that overburden some parts of the plant. And these peaks are not the
fault of Glacier Mall. Older parts of Kalispell are the source of this problem.
There are certain service commitments already made. For the most part they have been partially used or
not used at all at this time. Here are a few of these commitments. Evergreen has about 250,000 gpd of
unused entitlement per their current contract with us. Town & Country Plaza has bout 40,000 gpd of
planned use that may come on line over the next few years. Section 36 is obligated to serve their
development with City utilities. The low estimate for section 36, inclusive of neighboring developments
upstream and T&C Plaza, is about 300,000 gpd when it is fully built out. US 93 South will install sewer
facilities having an initial capacity of 175,000 gpd with a total capacity of 350,000 gpd after changing out
certain low cost pump pieces. This can be further increased to 750,000 gpd with more extensive
modifications to the lift station. Not in this mix of flow numbers are the smaller commitments made, such
as Waterford which may or may not ever materialize, continuing expansion of the hospital and growth iin
the surrounding medical community.
Obviously, when these numbers are summed up and then added to the current daily flow it is clear that
the plant will be greatly over its capacity. But, the rate these flows come on line is the key and in this
respect it is sufficient to have an idea of the future total so that the expansion planning that must be done
now is based on good solid future numbers. We are crunching all these numbers into our current facility
plan to ensure our conclusions are relevant.
In short, we have ample time to plan for dealing with the Glacier Mall development or any other large
development so long as we initiate the facility planning for the treatment plant real soon.
1 of 2 8/29/01 8:25 AM
Glacier Mall
To sum up: we are operating at about 80% capacity, but this is not a problem as some are sure to claim.
We have time to plan and figure out the funding for new facilities so long as we begin soon.The issue of
plant flow is not a Bucky problem, it is a City Council problem that must be solved whether Bucky is here
or not because of other commitments already made.
On the issue of serving or not, it seems a simple yes or no that should be based on many things but not
WWTP capacity. How to serve is the interesting issue. Should Bucky build a line to us, or should he
route his flow through Evergreen's facilities? A new line has advantages if we want to add more
customers. Routing through Evergreen is attractive if we want to tie up their capacity and limit their
growth. Further, a decision to flow through Evergreen may be good general policy since they cannot
expand their boundary. This will allow us to surround them via annexation of new development, use up
their system capacity and stifle their growth. It may also make their plans to go it alone a little harder
when they have a contractual obligation to Bucky. Giving Bucky the option of building or renting sewer
space seems to be the fairest approach. All we need to do is say yes to his request and that he should
decide whether to go through Evergreen or build a line.
All this is grossly simplified and may not be helpful at all, but will hopefully serve to eliminate plant
capacity as an issue in the discussion. I do not want the capacity of our WWTP to be the deciding issue
for this project. There are too many other issues with far greater importance than this one that should be
considered to decide this matter. Can we serve this facility? In a word, yes. Do we need to plan for
expanding the plant? Yes.
Jim H.
2 of 2 8/29/01 8:25 AM