05/23/02 Memo/Hansz/Glacier MallCity of Kalispell Public Works Department
s
Post Office Box 1997, Kalispell, Montana. 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7720, Fax (406)758-7831
MEMORANDUM
May 23, 2002
To: Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
From: James C. Hansz, PE, Director of Public Works/City
Subject: Glacier Mall
There is a growing angst over the potential that Bucky Wolford will take his ball and go
play somewhere else in Flathead County, far beyond the reach of the unreasonable folks in
Kalispell. Because of this I recently asked the following question of our consultants:
1. What is the potential for a mall development the size of Glacier Mall to go with on -site
sewer?
2. Is it feasible for Evergreen to get a land disposal operation going and sever their relationship
with the City?
I posed these questions in an email to Scott Murphy. His response is attached, as is my email
to him. Interesting reading.
In summary, while technically possible, in my opinion it is unlikely to happen because of the
costs and time required for doing it. If Bucky objects to paying $1.5 million for Evergreen
service now, why would he decide to pay nearly twice that (plus on -going operational costs) and
take several years to build a stand-alone system? At the same time, while Evergreen can in
theory put together a land disposal operation (quite frankly a new plant discharging to the river is
virtually out of the question) is it reasonable to believe that Bucky would wait 4 to 5 years for
this to happen. And he would still have to kick in a bundle, probably much more than the $1.5
million to use their service now.
This certainly cannot answer all the questions about Bucky's intent, but I hope it can help to
reduce the fear factor that he will suddenly get up and move the development into the county at
the first unfavorable word from the City Council.
memo03O2002
From: "Scott Murphy" <smurphy@rn-m.net>
To: <jhansz@kalispell.com>
Cc: <terryr@cyberport.net>; <ccaprara@hdrinc.com>; <damerman@kalispell.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Glacier Mall
Jim:
The capital cost estimate for the 200,000 gpd treatment plant and disposal system I referenced below is
$2.5-3.0 million. Operating costs will be in excess of $150k/year. This is just one reference point and is
specific to the Bozeman case, but does offer order of magnitude applicability to the case you described,
after adjusting for flowrate.
Scott
Jim:
In response, first some "facts" that may help frame the reality of the alternatives you present below:
Evergreen System and Land Application: At 682,00 gpd (their contractual limit with the City), they will
generate approximately 250 MG/year of wastewater. To have a separate treatment system that disposes
of wastewater completely by land application will require 50-60 acres of lined storage lagoons (9
months of storage) and between 300-450 acreas of land to dispose effluent on (assuming conventional
valley crops). A treatment system would be required in addition to this, the land requirements
depending on the approach. Conventional secondary treatment is all that would be required provided
land application is sized to utlize all water with crops. DEQ generally has no problems with approving
land application systems provided they are adequately sized, etc (no percolation to groundwater).
Separate Developer Treatment System: MMI is currently designing a wastewater system for a mixed
commercial/business/residential development near Bozeman with a near term design flow of 200,000
gpd and plans for doubling this. All wastewater will be disposed of via groundwater infiltration. As a
result, treatment standards are very stringent (more stringent than Kalispell AWWTP) to meet non -
degradation criteria. "On -site treatment" consists of a full mechanical wastewater treatment plant. This
is an expensive treatment/disposal system. This development is about halfway between Belgrade and
Bozeman, so conveyance is not cheap, and neither community is anxious for the wastewater. Complete
MDEQ approval is anticipated, but the price tag is very high.
MDEQ subdivision review is required for all signficant subdivisions, including any "on -site" treatment
systems. While I am not current on specific requirements of when and where, I can't imagine a scenario
wherein the Glacier Mall development won't receive a high degree of MDEQ scrutiny.
Now, to attempt to offer preliminary answers to your three specific questions, without regard to local
political influences:
" Is a Mall, and the surrounding development projects of this total size, a candidate for on -site
treatment?" In theory, yes. It would undoubtably be tremendously expensive - and would slow down
the MDEQ approval process as compared to a connection to the City's system (this is a major issue with
most developers). In making this speculation, I am assuming that a land application or groundwater
discharge disposal permit can be achieved, but have no knowledge of the practicality of this. I've been
5/23/02
told that groundwater is very near the surface out in the area of the proposed development. If this is the
case, groundwater disposal may not be possible. The Bozeman example I cited has adequate
groundwater separation for MDEQ to be comfortable. We are also involved in a new treatment system
for the Yellowstone Club in Big Sky. All effluent will be land applied or used in snow making.
Is there a possibility that Evergreen could get a land application permit to dispose of wastewater they
presently send to us? Theoretically yes. Land application is more attractive to MDEQ than discharge
and would in essence help achieve the TMDL goals for the watershed. Practically, it seems infeasible
due to land values and current ownership patterns in the Valley. Complete land application disposal
systems are very expensive regardless of location due to the cost of 9 months + of water storage (non -
growing season). Use of land application during the growing season to off-load stream discharge is a
practical approach, however I think it would be nearly impossible for a new point discharge to be
developed by Evergreen due to MDEQ regs and likely local citizen pressures. It seems to me that a
stand-alone system for Evergreen would run $15 mil + if all the land is purchased.
Has this ever been done in Montana and is it a possibility in the current climate? Theoretically possible
as discussed above, but economically unlikely at first look. Staying with the City seems the only
practical avenue from an MDEQ review and timing standpoint. Time is money for developers - an
Evergreen system would be years away, even if economically feasible. An on -site system might seem
attractive to the developer, but I would think that an thorough analysis of options would show
connection to the City to be the most cost-effective and time -sensitive alternative. I am in the process of
getting budgetary costs for the wastewater treatment/disposal system for the referenced Bozeman -area
Development. I'll pass these along to you as soon as I can.
I hope this helps. It looks like we'll have some interesting discussions on Friday.
Regard, Scott
Scott B. Murphy
Supervising Municipal Engineer
Morrison-Maierle, Inc.
P.O. Box 6147
Helena, MT 59604
406/442-3050
smurphyf —nnet
»> "Jim Hansz" <jha ns�_ fcc i p .com> 05/14/02 09:33AM >>>
Scott:
More thoughts on the big Glacier Mall ... and a question.
There is a planning board meeting tonight which is the first step in the approval process for this mall,
changing the master plan to allow it in the proposed location. After this will come the development of a
PUD agreement which will define the mall and the associated compliance requirements, such as how it
will receive sewer and what facilities it will construct, traffic, etc.
This process has been going on for upwards of two years, but only recently with factual data and formal
applications. During that time Wolford, the mall developer, has seemed to be a straight shooter, having
always said his desire is to be in the City with City utilities. However, some of his "advisors" have,
5/23/02
throughout this same time, been consistent with their insinuations that Wolford just might tell the City to
stuff it and go off on his own, building an on -site sewage treatment system, or, alternately, hooking up
to a new Evergreen plant that disposes of effluent by land application. This would allow him to develop
as he wishes and move the City far out of the planning picture.
Along with the mall, which is about 600,000 to 700,000 square feet as we had been led to believe, there
is an adjacent big -box commercial of about 400,000 additional square feet. There is further commercial
and retail development along with significant residential development, all proposed for the 240+ acres of
this proposal. Adjacent properties will feel pressures to develop in like fashion. The combined effect of
all this development, even if it takes 10 or 20 years, is substantially more than the 125,000 to 150,000
gpd wastewater flow we had been led to believe was the impact of Glacier Mall. This is the potential we
need to discuss on Friday. It is imperative that we become able to answer basic questions about facility
needs, both for the mall and downstream, and also whether it is possible for Wolford to go on his own.
Now for the questions). Is a Mall, and the surrounding development projects of this total size, a
candidate for on -site treatment? Is there a possibility that Evergreen could get a land application permit
to dispose of wastewater they presently send to us? Has this ever been done in Montana and is it a
possibility in the current climate?
We have had informal discussions with the head of MIDEQ and her #2, in the context of another issue,
and from these have the soft belief this is not feasible. We further believe it is a decision that cannot be
made by the local County Commissioners. Can you shed any light that would firm up our belief that any
talk of going it alone is a bluff and not possible in the real world?
A lot of stuff, but any thoughts you have and can share will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jim Hansz
5/23/02