09-25-12 Impact Fee MinutesIMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
4:00 P.M., TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
Attendees: Board members: Jeff Zauner, Jason Mueller, Larry Sartain, Chad Graham, & Rick
Wills
Others Present: Terri Loudermilk, Susie Turner, Charlie Harball, Tom Lotshaw, & Paul
Burnham
Absent: None
Public Comment: None
Approved August 21, 2012 IFAC Minutes: Jeff Zauner made motion to approve minutes and
Rick Wills seconded motion.
Elect New Secretary: Larry Sartain was asked to fill the vacant Secretary position (previous
Secretary, Michael Johnson resigned from the IFAC on 9/17/12). Larry agreed and all impact
fee members voted in favor.
Review August 2010 and September 2012 Water Impact Fee Report: Paul Burnham,
Impact Fee Consultant discussed the following with the committee:
Premise of impact fees — revenue stream, but more to develop equity between existing
customers and new customers. Discussed the need to extend/expand facilities for growth and
excess capacity in current infrastructure system.
Impact fee criteria — these allow the development of an equitable impact fee, and include:
- customer understanding — easy to understand, not convoluted process, water based on
capacity of an individual meter, sewer based on typical water consumption through
meters and volume received at plant,
- utility planning — the 2011 Annexation Policy and the 2008 Study Area establish the
extent of the future utility, this contains the expanded system to a measurable cost
- Financial analysis — the City considers the actual costs of the additional utility to arrive at
an impact fee. The impact fee accounts for how the utility expansion is paid for, e.g.,
developer contributions are not part of the impact fee, as in the case of Silverbrook or Old
School Station.
- state law — the Montana Code Annotated contains specific legislation authorizing the City
to establish and collect impact fees
Discussed three different types of Impact fee methodology
Original Cost Plus Interest Method — includes 15 years of interest (generally accepted
accounting practice), recognizes that current customers have provided excess capacity and need
to be reimbursed for their initial investment and for the carrying cost on that investment.
Page 1 of 2
Replacement Cost Method — escalate the actual construction cost to current (2012) dollars.
Depreciated Replacement Cost — assets have been used and the value to the new customer is
less than the replacement cost, requires depreciation and escalation of portion of utility
remaining, not representative since the book or accounting life of the asset may not reflect the
actual life of the asset, example: Grandview FM — service life of 20 years, but was replaced at
40.
Date of Next Meeting: October 23, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. (meetings to be held the fourth Tuesday of
the month). Agenda to include continued review of the 2010 Updated Water Impact Fee Report
and Morrison-Maierle's September 2012 Update.
Page 2 of 2
SEPTEMBER 2012 WATER
IMPACT FEE REPORT
(Update to the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report)
PROVISIONAL WORKING DOCUMENT
This is a working copy, subject to revisions after
review by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee.
SUBMITTED TO:
City of Kalispell
201 1 st Avenue East
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
September 2012
PREPARED BY:
Morrison-Maierle, Inc.
125 Schoolhouse Loop
P.O. Box 8057
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 752-2216
MMI PROJECT # 0387.054.010.000411
CITY OF KALISPELL
2012 WATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BASIS OF REPORT...................................................1-1
2.0 SOURCE OF SUPPLY WELLS....................................................................... 2-1
3.0 PUMPING FACILITIES.................................................................................... 3-1
4.0 STORAGE FACILITIES................................................................................... 4-1
5.0 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ....................................... 5-1
6.0 TOTAL WATER IMPACT FEE CALCULATION .............................................. 6-1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-6 2011 Annexation Boundary .....................................End of Section 6
APPENDIX A
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees ERU Projection
APPENDIX B
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees Source of Supply
APPENDIX C
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees Pumping Facilities
APPENDIX D
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees Storage
APPENDIX E
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees Transmission/Distribution
Mains
APPENDIX F
2012/2013 Water Capital Improvement Plan
APPENDIX G
2011 Montana code Annotated 7-6-16
September 2012 Water Impact Fee Report
(Update to the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report)
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BASIS OF REPORT
The current water impact fee is based on the 2006 Impact Fee Final Report and on an
adjustment to the fees by City Council Resolution No. 5273 in April 2008. The City Council has
directed staff to update the existing cost -based water impact fee based on current conditions
and according to 2011 Montana Code Annotated 7-6-16.
In 2010, the City of Kalispell received the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report for review and
consideration by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. No adjustments were made to the impact
fee at that time. This June 2012 Water Impact Fee Report updates the information provided in
the August 2010 impact fee report with the following information:
1) Change to the Kalispell Growth Policy: On March 7, 2011, The City Council adopted
an annexation policy that significantly revised the previous annexation policy boundary.
This June 2012 report accounts for the projected water improvements within the current
annexation boundary. The current annexation boundary is attached to this report, and
provides a comparison to the pre-2011 annexation boundary (original study area
boundary). See Figure 1-6, 2011 Annexation Boundary, at the end of Section 6.
2) Current Water Demands: The August 2010 report used 2006 water production volumes
and projected these volumes to 2010 with a theoretical population growth rate. This
current report uses measured historical water production volumes between 2006 and
2011 as a baseline volume, and projects future volumes based on a growth rate
currently applied by the Kalispell Planning Department.
3) Projected Population Growth Rate: This report uses a population growth rate of 2.00%
as projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update. This is lower than the
projected population growth rates applied in the August 2010 report and in the 2008
Facility Plan Updates. The reduced 2011 annexation boundary also generates a lower
projected population to be served by City utilities. For reference, historic population
growth rates are listed below. The growth calculation is shown in Appendix A.
1990 to 2000
1.78%
2000 to 2010
3.43%
1990 to 2010
2.60%.
1960 to 2010
1.36%
4) Updated Capital Improvement Plan: The Kalispell Public Works Department has
updated the Capital Improvement Plan to reflect the current projected capital needs.
The 2012/2013 Capital Improvement Plan shows projects to be completed over the next
five years and future projects to be completed in approximately ten years. The updated
Capital Improvement Plan is included in Appendix F.
1-1
5) Key Financial Assumptions: In developing the impact fee for the City's water system,
several key assumptions were used. These include the following:
• The City's asset records were used to determine the existing assets and the
value of those assets.
• The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing assets is the 10-year
treasury note rate as reported by the US Department of the Treasury at closing
on November 30th of each year.
• Up to fifteen years of interest is included in the cost of the existing improvements.
The fifteen -year average interest rate is currently 4.25%. The August 2010
Impact Fee Final Report used an interest rate of 6.00%.
6) Council Direction on Administrative Fees: For the August 2010 Impact Fee Final
Report, the City Council directed staff to use the allowable administrative charge of 5%
in the impact fee analysis. This 2012 report follows that same guidance from the City
Council.
By addressing the points listed in this introduction, this report provides an up-to-date analysis of
the water impact fee.
The water impact fee comprises four utility components: (Section 2.0) source of supply, (Section
3.0) pumping facilities, (Section 4.0) storage facilities and (Section 5.0) transmission and
distribution facilities.
1-2
2.0 SOURCE OF SUPPLY (WELLS)
The City's source of supply is provided entirely from wells. (The Noffsinger Spring, located at
the north end of the Lawrence Park complex, will be considered a well for discussion purposes,
as it does not have sufficient artesian pressure to contribute to the system without additional
pumping, and it was recently classified as a well by the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality.) The sources of supply consist of eight active well sites. Details of the calculations for
source of supply are provided in Appendix B, with present costs.
The current wells have a firm capacity of 10.195 million gallons per day (mgd). This firm
capacity assumes all wells, except the single largest, are on 24 hours per day. The firm
capacity provides a characterization of the system, but does not constrain the system to operate
under such conditions the system should
not operate with all pumps turned on 24
hours per day, as this would create
obvious problems with operation and
maintenance of equipment.
An Equivalent Residential Unit, or ERU, is a
standard way to measure capacity within a
utility system. An ERU is the water flow
demand arising from an average single-family
ho With'in th K I'isII t t
The current pumping capacity of the me. e a pe wa er sys em, an
system is sufficient to meet current 2012 ERU is 415 gallons per day, or 166 gallons per
peak day demands (9.560 mgd) and to person with 2.5 persons per single-family
meet peak day demands into 2015 residence. A facility that consumes 830
(10.150 mgd). Between 2012 and 2015, gallons per day would have the impact of two
the City should consider developing ERUs. This unit creates the equitable
additional supply capacity in the system. distribution of costs across residential,
This will likely be accomplished through commercial and industrial demands.
development of the Grossweiler well
(2.880 mgd). The Grossweiler well is located adjacent to the DNRC/DEQ/911 Center complex
on Stillwater Road. The costs associated with this well development are included in this impact
fee analysis, and are shown in Appendix B.
The addition of the Grossweiler well will bring the peak day capacity to 13.075 mgd. This is the
approximate peak day demand at the 2028 planning year, or 13.130 mgd.
Note on Planning Period: The 2008 Water Facility Plan Update uses the design
year 2035 for facility planning. This same design year is used as the planning year
in this report. Extending the planning year further into the future will increase the
number of ERUs over which to distribute the impact fees. This will decrease the
impact fee, but will also create a greater risk to the City of not collecting sufficient
impact fee when the improvements are needed. Conversely, bringing the planning
year closer to the present year will decrease the number of ERUs and will increase
the per-ERU impact fee. For these reasons, the 2035 planning year is used for this
water impact fee update.
By following the 2011 Montana Code Annotated 7-6-1602 (2 k iv), regarding the update of the
impact fee analysis, the City will be able to respond to changes in the actual population growth
rates and development patterns. This response will allow the City to modify future capital
improvement plans to meet changing population growth rates.
2-1
The total current cost for source of supply equipment is $2,879,260. This total cost is divided by
the ERUs at the 2035 planning year, or 13,612 ERUs. This generates a per-ERU supply cost
shown below. Details of this calculation are shown in Appendix B.
Total Impact 2012 Source of Supply Costs: $ 2,879,260
Total Projected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612
Impact Fee (Source of Supply) per ERU: $ 212
2-2
3.0 PUMPING FACILITIES
The City currently has pumping facilities at all well sites. No future capital improvements were
identified as part of the 2012 capital improvement plan. The cost of future pumping facilities
associated with the Grossweiler Well are included in the source of supply costs in the previous
section. The total cost of existing pumping facilities are shown in Appendix C. Details of the
pumping facilities calculation are also provided in Appendix C.
The total 2012 cost for pumping facilities is $3,250,836. This total cost is divided by the ERUs
at the 2035 planning year, or 13,612 ERUs. This generates a per-ERU cost shown below:
Total 2012 Pumping Facilities Costs: $ 3,250,836
Total Projected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612
Impact Fee (Pumping Facilities) per ERU: $ 239
3-1
4.0 STORAGE FACILITIES
The City currently has four storage reservoirs with a total storage volume of 6.5 million gallons.
Each reservoir contains the following components of storage volume:
Operational Storage: this is the water that is stored between the pump "on" and pump "off"
settings. This is a relatively small component of the storage system, and allows the well pumps
to cycle and alternate rather than run continuously during average demand conditions. This is
currently approximately 0.880 million gallons.
Equalization Storage: this is the water used when the supply system cannot provide sufficient
water at peak system flows, e.g., summer watering patterns and daily peak demands. The use
of this equalization water does not indicate a deficiency in the system; rather, this component of
storage allows the system to function more cost-effectively by not requiring additional wells and
pumps to meet peak day demands; the storage tanks are in place to meet these peak day
demands. The storage facilities contain 1.625 million gallons of equalization storage, or 25% of
the total storage volume.
Fire Storage: this water is used for fire suppression activities and is determined by the size of
the community and the land uses within the community. The City of Kalispell applies a 4000
gpm fire flow over a period of four hours to develop the fire storage volume. This equates to
960,000 gallons of fire storage.
Emergency Storage: this component is used to provide water to the community during
extraordinary events such as prolonged supply failures. The City's water system contains
redundancies in the system, which minimize the probability of an emergency scenario. These
redundancies include multiple wells, multiple tanks, auxiliary power, upper/lower zone
connections and comprehensive monitoring by means of the SCADA system (Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition). The current emergency storage volume is approximately 2.720
million gallons.
Remaining storage is water that may be unavailable due to outlet levels or low pressures as the
system empties. This component is not considered in Kalispell storage calculations, as it
comprises an insignificant volume of water in the Kalispell system.
The total available operational and equalizing water storage is 2.820 million gallons. The City
currently utilizes approximately 0.880 million gallons of this available storage. Discussions with
water department staff have indicated the City intends to study the viability of optimizing the
water system to use approximately 1.195 of this storage. The full amount of this storage is not
currently used due to low pressures that develop when the tanks are drawn to lower levels.
When the tanks are drawn to lower levels in an attempt to use the full storage capacity, the
water pressure (near the top of the lower pressure zone) drops below what citizens typically
expect.
It is recommended the water department consider utilizing more of the 2.820 million gallons of
operational and equalizing storage prior to constructing additional storage facilities. If the City
.utilizes the full 2.820 million gallons of operational and equalizing storage, no additional storage
capacity is necessary within the planning period. While the full use of the 2.820 million gallons
may not be feasible, due to citizens' expectations for water pressure, the City should determine
how much of the storage may be reasonably used for current demands. This will allow the City
to determine what additional storage may be necessary during subsequent impact fee analyses.
4-1
The total cost of existing storage facilities was divided by the planning year 2035 ERUs to
develop the cost for storage facilities per ERU. Details of the storage facilities calculation are
provided in Appendix D.
The total 2012 cost for storage facilities is $5,672,604. This total cost is divided by the ERUs at
the 2035 planning year, or 13,612 ERUs. This generates a per-ERU cost shown below:
Total 2012 Storage Facilities Costs: $ 5,672,604
Total Projected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612
Impact Fee (Storage Facilities) per ERU: $ 417
4-2
5.0 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
5.1 Recoupment Costs and Capital Projects within the Existing System
A significant component of the water impact fee arises from recoupment costs associated with
existing transmission and distribution facilities that have excess capacity. The total 2012 cost of
these facilities is $19,882,538. The impact fee related costs were determined by considering
the additional ERUs that are projected to connect to the system during the planning period
(2012 to 2035), and then dividing this number of ERUs by the total ERUs projected at the 2035
planning year. The total impact fee related to existing transmission and distribution facilities is
$6,102,671, or $1,226 per ERU. A summary of these costs and this calculation is shown in
Appendix E.
A second component of the transmission and distribution facility impact fee is the cost related to
capital improvement projects (CIP) within the existing system that are necessary to
accommodate future growth. The total impact fee related to capital improvements to the
existing system is $1,438,603, or $289 per ERU. These costs are also summarized in
Appendix E.
The two components of the transmission and distribution facilities impact fee are shown below
with the associated per-ERU impact fee.
Transmission and Distribution Recoupment Impact Fee: $ 6,102,671 ($1,226 / ERU)
Transmission and Distribution CIP Impact Fee: $ 1,438,603 ($ 289 / ERU)
Total Projected Additional ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 4,980
Impact Fee (Trans. & Dist.) per ERU: $ 1,515
5.2 Extensions to the Existing System
A third component of the transmission and distribution facility impact fee is the cost related to
extensions to the existing system that are necessary to accommodate future growth. The
costs of these extensions were originally calculated based on the pre-2011 Kalispell Growth
Policy Update. This impact fee update provides a proportional cost of these improvements
based on the improvements that are shown within the 2011 Growth Policy annexation boundary.
A summary of these costs and this calculation is shown in Appendix E. The total impact fee
related to extensions to the existing system to accommodate future growth is $17,583,247, or
$3,531 per ERU.
These extension costs are provided for further discussion by the Impact Fee Advisory
Committee. These costs may be included in or excluded from the impact fee analysis based on
recommendations from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and as set by City policy.
5-1
6.0 TOTAL WATER IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
The total water impact fee is shown below. This calculation includes impact fee components for
the source of supply (wells), pumping facilities, storage facilities, and transmission and
distribution facilities.
Impact Fee (Source of Supply) per ERU: $ 212
Impact Fee (Pumping Facilities) per ERU: $ 239
Impact Fee (Storage Facilities) per ERU: $ 417
Impact Fee (Trans. & Dist.) per ERU: $ 1,515
Administrative Charge (5%) $ 119
TOTAL WATER IMPACT FEE $ 2,502
As shown in Section 5.2, the costs related to extensions are provided for further discussion by
the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. These costs may be included in or excluded from the
impact fee analysis based on recommendations from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and
as set by City policy.
Note on Water Debt Service Credits: Based on current growth projections, the water impact fee
will collect sufficient funds to cover the debt service related to growth. For example, the
average annual debt service payments for the drinking water loans is $235,259, and the
projected annual water impact fee revenue is $502,900. No water debt service credits are
necessary in this current impact fee analysis.
This impact fee report update meets the requirements of the 2011 Montana Code Annotated 7-
6-16, regarding the calculation of impact fees. This document is provided as a guide for the City
of Kalispell to use in determining the appropriate charges for water impact fees.
6-1
r North Kalispell R
-Isting Population: 3547
cal Build -Out Population: East Whitefish River
West sti iwater 1 River 21700 Existing Population: 8209
River
148 p
ulation: 16907 Theoretical Build -Out Population:
Existing Populati
Theoretical Build -Out Population: _.. 40000
29000 2035 Population: 8224 f
.2035 Population: 10084 d
West Kalispell '*
Existing Population: 3382
oretical$uiId-Out Population:
41886
2035 Population-, 1993a .4
R
Evagreen Sewer District
b ,4tA ng Population:8200
f' ical Build -Out: 10164 .-
2035 Population: 10164 -
14223
East Kalispell
ing Population:2003
'13uild-Out Population: 6000
5 Population: 4107
1 ,
PO
LEGEND
ANALYSIS ZONES
Original Study Area Boundary East Kalispell
e
- - is • '>
.rn I
is Populatio .2$1
Annexation Boundary attic uild-Out Pdpti(at! _—
-r.'" 160AR '
- 2D36 Po +atio8474 Kalispell -
North
Kalispell City Limits South Kalispell
N West Kalispell
West Stillwater River
r..
t
® r r }y
HadyeI�I►:t�1
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees
ERU Projection
Appendix A
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
ERU Projection
Water Production
Peak Average'
Day Flow Day Flow Total
Year (MGD) (MGD) ERUs
2005
9.02
3.38
2006
9.93
3.72
2007
10.79
4.04
2008
10.01
3.75
2009
10.51
3.94
2010
9.09
3.40
2011
9.38
3.51
2012
9.56
3.58
2013
9.76
3.65
2014
9.95
3.73
2015
10.15
3.80
2016
10.35
3.88
2017
10.56
3.96
2018
10.77
4.03
2019
10.99
4.11
2020
11.21
4.20
2021
11.43
4.28
2022
11.66
4.37
2023
11.89
4.45
2024
12.13
4.54
2025
12.37
4.63
2026
12.62
4.73
2027
12.87
4.82
2028
13.13
4.92
2029
13.39
5.02
2030
13.66
5.12
2031
13.93
5.22
2032
14.21
5.32
2033
14.50
5.43
2034
14.79
5.54
2035
15.08
5.65
2036
15.38
5.76
2037
15.69
5.88
2038
16.01
5.99
2039
16.33
6.11
2040
16.65
6.24
2041
16.99
6.36
2042
17.32
6.49
2043
17.67
6.62
2044
18.02
6.75
2045
18.39
6.89
2046
18.75
7.02
2047
19.13
7.16
2048
19.51
7.31
2049
19.90
7.45
2050
20.30
7.60
8,204
8,463
8,632
8,804
8,981
9,160
9,343
9,530
9,721
9,915
10,114
10,316
10,522
10,733
10,947
11,166
11,389
11,617
11,850
12,087
12,328
12,575
12,826
13,083
13,345
13,884
14,161
14,445
14,734
15,028
15,329
15,635
15,948
16,267
16,592
16,924
17,263
17,608
17,960
Additional
ERUs
169
173
176
180
183
187
191
194
198
202
206
210
215
219
223
228
232
237
242
247
251
257
262
267 Planning Year
272
278
283
289
295
301
307
313
319
325
332
338
345
352
359
1 2005 through 2011 Actual Water Production, 2012 through 2050 are projected flows based on growth rate by Kal. Planning Department
2 Average Day Water Production with Peaking Factor Applied
2.00% Growth Rate from Kalispell Planning Department (Growth Policy Update 05/26/2011)
1108 gallons per day per ERU (from 2.5 persons per dwelling unit X 166 gallons pp/day X 2.67 peaking factor)
415 gallons per day per ERU actual without peaking factor (from 2.5 persons per dwelling unit X 166 gallons pp/day)
166 gallons per day per capita without peaking factor
2.67 peaking factor
ORNMEN M.
City of Kalispell Water System impact Fees
Source of Supply
Appendix B
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
Source of Supply
Year
Equipment List
Original
Cost
Cost
2012
2002
Source Water Delineation Study
$
94,868
$
169,894
2002
Noffsinger Springs Chlorine Room
10,398
18,621
Total Existing Source
$
105,266
$
188,515
Existing Wells
1913
Lawrence Park Well (Noffsinger Spring)
$
9,835
$
18,362
1956
Depot Park Well
38,306
$
71,517
1966
Armory Well
34,251
$
63,946
1979
Buffalo Hill Well
94,577
$
176,574
1982
Buffalo Hill Well to Res
11,042
$
20,615
1956
Northridge Well Site
10
$
19
1997
Northside Water Wells (Grandview 1 and 2)
306,028
$
571,350
2007
Old School Water Well (Wells 1 and 2)
90,106
$
110,952
2009
West View Water Project
853,355
$
966,847
2011
Grosswieller Well Development
92,626
$
96,563
2011
Silverbrook Well (by Developer)
-
-
Total Existing Wells
$
1,530,136
$
2,096,744
Future Wells
2012-2023
Grosswieller Water Supply
$
575,000
$
594,000
Total Future Wells
`total Wells
2035 ERUs
Source of Supply Impact Fee per ERU
$ 575,000 $ 594,000
$ 2,879,260
13,612
$ 211.53
ff ►l M
City Of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees
Pumping Facilities
Appendix C
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
Pumping Plant
Original Cost
Year Equipment List Cost 2012
Existing Pumping Plant
1913
Lawrence Park Pump & Springhouse
$ 112,024
$ 209,147
1966
Lawrence Park Pump # 1 & Motor
4,025
9,646
1964
Lawrence Park Pump # 2 & Motor
3,302
7,913
1959
Lawrence Park Pump # 3 & Motor
7,785
18,657
1971
Lawrence Park Chlorine Injector
1,073
2,572
1965
Lawrence Park Furnace
2,129
5,102
1987
L. Park-2 Cylinder Chlorine Scale
3,820
9,155
1951
Depot Park Pump house
3,000
7,190
1951
Depot Park Pump house Elec. & meter
6,780
16,249
2000
Chlorine Room Addition
7,550
15,192
1951
Depot Pump # 1
4,644
11,130
1959
Buffalo Hill Booster Station
2,150
5,153
1956
Buffalo Hill Booster Motor
4,870
11,671
1965
Armory Well Pump house
2,744
6,576
2000
Chlorine Room Addition
7,839
15,774
1965
Armory Pump/ Motor
7,293
17,478
1965
Armory Well Flow Meter
1,972
4,726
1975
Armory Well Muesco Valve
4,995
11,971
1967
Telemetry System
30,140
72,232
1974
Buffalo Hill Booster Station
22,678
54,349
1999
Buffalo Hill Fuel Tank
8,117
17,313
1986
B.H. Pressure Transducer System
5,330
12,774
1979
B.H. Well Turbine Pump
107,930
258,661
1985
Buffalo Hill Flow meter
1,979
4,743
1990
Remodel Lawrence Park Pump house
37,130
88,984
1991
Buffalo Hill Flow meter
2,467
5,912
1992
Buffalo Hill Telemetry System
60,276
144,455
1999
Telemetry System Upgrade
3,945
8,414
1998
Northside Pump house and Telemetry
501,757
1,134,424
2001
Noffsinger/Chlorine Room
.6,249
11,862
2001
2002 Noffsinger Upgrade
4,148
7,874
2002
Standby Power Upgrade
249,924
447,576
2005
Wtr Supply Electrical Safety Syst Upgrade
346,497
521,003
2008
Grandview System Improvements
33,105
41,794
2011
Telemetry System wide upgrades
31,286
33,163
Total Existing Pumping
Plant
$ 1,640,953
$ 3,250,836
Total ERUs 2035
13,612
Pumping Plant Impact
Fee per ERU
$ 238.83
APPENDIX D
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees
Storage
Appendix D
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
Storage
Original Cost
Year Equipment List Cost 2012
Existing Storage Plant
1958
Buffalo Hill Standpipe
$ 48,117
$
89,834
1914
Reservoir # 1
24,031
$
44,866
1952
Reservoir # 2
73,691
$
137,580
1957
Reservoir Covers
97,577
$
182,175
1965
Buffalo Hill Elevated Storage Tank
111,970
$
209,046
1982
Buffalo Hill to Reservoir pipe
11,042
$
20,615
2001
Water Reservoir Roof
420,128
$
664,077
1914
Reservoir # 1 Land
715
$
1,335
1935
Noffsinger Land
1,500
$
2,800
1939
Monteath Land
650
$
1,214
1952
Reservoir # 2 Land
1
$
2
2009
Sheepherder's Hill
3,812,072
$
4,319,060
Total Existing Storage Plant $ 4,601,494 $ 5,672,604
Future Storage Plant
beyond 2035
North Kalispell Reservioir'
beyond 2035
West Kalispell Reservior 2 3,277,500 3,795,4&3
beyond 2035
South Kalispell Reservior 3 3,277-,,795,483
Total Future Storage Plant
Total Storage Plant
Total ERUs 2035
Distribution Storage Plant Impact Fee per ERU
1 - See Table 5-16 City of Kalispell Water Facility Plan Update - 2008
2 - See Table 5-18 City of Kalispell Water FacilityPlan Update - 2008
3 - See Table 5-20 City of Kalispell Water FacilityPlan Update - 2008
CYO" � O?t] 7l4/I `� 97 ADR '297
$ 5,672,604
13,612
$ 416.75
APPENDIX E
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees
Transmission/Distribution Mains
EEV'L
$
%9'9£
LL£'oZ
$
Z88'OL
43u! ZL 96LZ
9M6
08Z
$
%9'9E
99Z
$
OLV
4ou! ZL VLV
9L66
E£L`OL
$
%9 9E
£VE'U6
$
699'EOL
4uu! ZL L60£
9L66
$
%o'0
996'68
$
88 L'8V
4uu! 9 V££V
9M6
$
%0'0
9L9'9V4
$
£99'8L
4uu! ZL L60£
17L6L
$
%0'0
LL£'Z
$
£LZ' L
4ou! 9 8L L
£L6 L
$
%0'0
LL£bl
$
EZ9'S
43u!9EVL
EL6L
$
%0'0
06917E
$
LZS'8L
4ou!968SZ
EL6L
Z LE
$
%9 9E
ES8
$
LSV
4ou! 8 OS
£L6 L
006'L£
$
%9'9E
60V'LOL
$
LL£'bS
4ou!80E69
EL6L
O LV' L
$
%9 9£
E98'E
$
V90'Z
4ou! 8 L LZ
EL6 L
8LL'Z
$
%9 9£
6ZV'L
$
6L6'£
43u! OL 9L£
£L6L
88L'LZ
$
%9'9£
999'69
$
668'L£
4ou! ZL Z69L
£L6L
EZ0'9Z
$
%9'9£
66E'89
$
9E9'9£
43u! ZL 69LL
£L6L
686'EE
$
%9'9£
L06'Z6
$
£9L'6V
4ou! VL 8LEZ
£L6L
L17L'88
$
%9'9E
L89'Z17Z
$
Z£6'6ZL
4ou! 9L bL99
EL6L
$
%0'0
LOV'8Z
$
ZLZ'SL
4ou!9ZZLZ
ZL6L
£EV'9
$
%99c
S8S'LL
$
6LV'6
4ou!80LOL
ZL6L
E60'L
$
%9 9£
68E'6L
$
S8E'ol
4ou! OL 8S8
ZL6L
Lo9'LZ
$
%9'9E
0917'9L
$
8LV'OV
4ou!9jjodj!y
ZL6L
$
%o'0
L9L'bZ
$
99Z'£L
4ou!9998L
LL64
$
%0'0
996117
$
6LO'VZ
4ou!98ZL£
OL6L
Z£Z'6
$
%99£
9EZ'SZ
$
LL9'EL
4ou!9SE9L
OM6
$
%0 0
E9O'V£
$
SVZ'8L
43u! 8 OLOL
OM6
$
%0'0
LSO'178
$
EZO'Sb
43u! 9 LZOL
696L
9L9'9L
$
%9'9£
8L17'917
$
LZ£'VZ
43u!8VZL£
696L
$
%o'0
VOL'V£
$
889,8E
4ou!9OCR L
696L
$
%0'0
VLL'8VZ
$
617Z'E£L
4Du!9690L
896L
ZV9'VS
$
%9'9£
69£'6VL
$
000`08
4ou!096ZZ
896L
96Z'VL8
$
%9'9£
Lo8'SZZ'Z
$
06L'Z6L'L
4ou!ZLLSLL
896L
LOV'80L
$
%9'9E
VOE'96Z
$
LOL'89L
4ou!9069
L961
$
%0 0
17LL'8VZ
$
6VZ'EEL
4ou! ZL 090L
L96L
VOL'OLL
$
%9'9£
V09'9917
$
17Z6'6bZ
4ou! 8 VVS
996L
$
%0'0
EZ6'LZ
$
996'14
4ou! 9 LSVZ
996E
SE9'L£
$
%99£
£L8'ZOL
$
LOL'99
4ou! ZL SZZ£
996L
$
%0'0
LS8'V9
$
6EL'V£
4ou! 9 LL89
Z96L
LLV'bZ
$
%9 9£
£bL'99
$
6VL'SE
4ou! 8 OZLV
Z96L
08E'8L
$
%99£
LVZ'OS
$
0L6'9Z
4ou! ZL SLSL
L96L
OLZ'ZL
$
%9'9E
6£9'E£
$
b96'LL
4ou! ZL 860L
L96L
$
%0'0
SLV'ZZ
$
900'ZL
4ou!9ZZLZ
096E
89Z'9Z
$
%9'9E
L90'69
$
V66'9E
4ou! 8 SVZS
696E
$
%0'0
098'8L
$
ZOL'OL
4ou!9V88L
896E
£SV'S
$
%9'9E
V06'17L
$
£86'L
4ou!999ZL
996L
$
WO
L89'VS
$
SEZ'6Z
43u! 9 VLZ9
996L
80o' L
$
%9'9E
99L'Z
$
9Lb' L
4ou! ZL SZ L
£96 L
L96'6
$
%9'9E
LLZ'LZ
$
SLS'VL
4ou18L 696
NU
906'9
$
%9'9E
EL8'8L
$
60L'U
4Dul OZ OE9
Z96L
-
$
%0'O
69L'OL
$
LVb'S
4ou! 9 ZSVL
09U
LE9, L
$
%9 9£
SLO'6Z
$
£LS'S L
4ou! 8 06ZE
6V6 L
$
%0'0
ZOL' LZ
$
VZ9' L L
4Du! 9 Sb L£
8176 L
$
%0'0
9V8'9
$
L99'£
4ou!96L0LL
8V6L
$
%0'0
E9V'89
$
60E' LE
4ou! 9 8L99 L
8E6 L
EEL'8
$
%9'9E
LL8'EZ
$
98L'Z L
4ou! 9 296 L
9M
$
%0'0
89V'b£
$
Z9V'8L
Pu! 9 £980L
9M
EZS'E
$
%9'9E
0£9'6
$
8SL'S
4ou!ZL LL£L
NU
$
%0'0
900'Ob
$
8ZV' LZ
LIM! 9 69 L£ L
0£6 L
£L8
$
%9'9£
98£'Z
$
8LZ'L
43u! ZL V6Z
8Z6L
$
%0 0
8E8'OV
$
VL8' LZ
4ou! 9 E69 L L
SZ6 L
VZS'L
$
%9'9E
L99`OZ
$
9L0'LL
4ou! ZL 9VOZ
SZ6L
VVZ'V£
$
%9'9£
£69'E6
$
9EL'OS
43u!96696L
17Z6L
ZSL'L
$
%9'9E
88 L' LZ
$
6b£' L L
43u! 9 L 9LL L
VZ6 L
VV9'OZ
$
%9'9E
8Zb'99
$
VZZ'0£
4ou! 8L VOZV
VZ6L
LLL
$
%9'9E
69b
$
LSZ
4ou! ZL LOL
LW6
£OV'L
$
%9'9£
V£Z`OZ
$
8E8'OL
43u! oZ 08L£
LWL
$
%00
OZL'SZ
$
9917'EL $
WWI 8OOZZ
L96L
;ueld uoi;ngjj;sipLuojssiwsuejl Bupsjtx9
olq!6113 pa3elaN U0Z ;soo ;sl-I }uawd!nb3 leak
003 eaj;oedwl ;soo leul6uo
;aedwl ;uaoaad
sinew uoljnqu}sl4/uolsslwsueal
saa3 }oedwl walslg aaleM
Iladslle7l jo 1,1E0
3 xlpuaddd
2ZS'9
$
%9'9£
L L CSL
$
8£7'8
apea6dn lilawelal
866E
E£L'96
8
%99£
L£0'O9Z
$
LOZ'97L
w000lej}n8
8666
96L'8
$
%99£
707'ZZ
$
000'ZL
iawweq�oe(`aoq�oe9
L66L
96CO9
$
%99E
LES'79L
$
OEL'88
6u!woAM;saM
L666
OL9'6L
$
%9'9E
99L'£9
$
86L'87
IS g37L
L666
668'7LZ
$
%9'9E
9074L89
$
8Z9'17L£
al!W onnl/ALaaq!l
L666
989'9LL
$
%9'9£
L76'9LE
$
SZZ'69L
PuelPOOM
L666
9LVe
$
%99£
L00'£7
$
OZ£'ZL
ou!goeW6u!ddel
L666
89L'OL
$
%9'9£
907'6Z
$
OSL'SL
euoz!ay3
966E
EZO'L L
$
%9 9E
LE9'97
$
EZ6'7Z
any puZ/sLay Jo any
9666
E££'£L
$
%9'9£
S77'9E
$
LZS'6L
;aaalS ge4n
9666
876'7Z
$
%99E
Z6C89
$
9ZS'9£
WdG0uaJMel
9666
9LS'7
$
%9'9E
60S'ZL
$
OOL'9
waLsAsbuuogso!lneJPfH
9664
9£9'EZ
$
%9'9E
L09179
$
909'7E
IS leo pue any qa8
766 L
8LS'6
$
%99£
1.9C9Z
$
£ZO'7L
ez!sdnPeoyAIla�i
b666
Z98'OL
$
%9'9£
L69'6Z
$
E06'9L
azjsdnjapquaeaS
7666
689'6E
$
%9'9E
L87'806
$
80L'8S
wapue10008-N1
766E
S7Z'OL
$
%9'9£
900'2Z
$
000'9L
oz!sdn pieMpu!M
£66L
990'ZE
$
%99£
LZ9'L8
$
ZE6'97
a0q�Mo89Z7jeo
E66L
688'77
$
%9 9E
8L9'ZZL
$
60L'99
any q39 PUe IS g176
Z66L
8o7'S7
$
°%9'9E
L66'7Z6
$
087'99
MiSg39
Z666
98L'76
$
%9'9E
L67'O7
$
879'6Z
g0U!8ELL
Z666
9ZE'6
$
%9'9E
887'9Z
$
Z99'EL
00OeA-1-^eal
Z666
£87'86
$
%O'ZZ
7L7`99
$
909'9E
q0U! 8 99£
ML
£LS'OZ
$
%9'9E
7EZ'99
$
OZL'OE
qou! 8 OOL
6666
£LL'ZL
$
%9'9E
EL6'7£
$
OOL'8L
40U!9OC7
6666
$
%0'0
ZL8'6Z
$
000'91.
qou! 9 007
6666
078'7E6
$
%9'9E
£LS'89£
$
9L7'L6L
qou! ZL 61.9Z
6666
$
%9 9E
8EL'EO£
$
689'Z9 L
q0U! Z L LOLZ
066 L
LL8'9
$
%9'9£
668'9L
$
969'8
40U!9ON
686E
OL9'94
$
%9'9E
607'97
$
86£'7Z
qou! ZL 099
686E
ZLZ'£ZL
$
%9'9Z
69£'L87
$
LZ8'L9Z
10G[CUd le7l MS
6864
999'97
$
%9'9E
999'LZL
$
ZZ£'89
qou! ZL L99L
886E
£6£'ZL
$
%9'9£
9L8'££
$
97L'8L
g0U!8669
886E
SLO'ZL
$
°%9'9£
900'EE
$
6L9'LL
q0U! ZL 96£
L964
£S£'SE
$
%9'9£
££9'96
$
69L'LS
qUU! ZL 7574
L86L
80 L'87
$
%9 9£
66V L£ L
$
7£7'OL
WWI Z L 07S L
L86 L
87E'ZL
$
%99£
£SL'EE
$
6LO'9L
4oU18009
L86L
7LE'£
$
%E'8L
877'8L
$
L88'6
qou! 8 ZLZ
L86L
LM
$
%E'E
Z9C8Z
$
780'SL
q0U! 9 L97
L86L
£SL'9
$
%9'9£
8L8'9L
$
800'6
g3u!9ON
L86L
6LL'LL
$
%9'9E
7£0'ZE
$
8(iL'LL
gUU!9OO7
L86L
$
%0.0
L£Z'8Z
$
LZCSL
40U!9 LLZ
L86L
6L7'9
$
%99£
OLL'LL
$
987'6
40u!9LSL
L86L
£99'ZEL
$
%S'£Z
L8L'799
$
£LS'ZO£
g0U! ZL L6LS
L861,
O97'OL
$
%9'9£
999'8Z
$
OOE'SL
qou! 2 M9
986E
8LZ'9L
$
%8'8
Z6E'98L
$
OOE'66
Wu! 0OLZZ
9964
LLE'L
$
%9'9£
E9COZ
$
008'01,
g0U!809£
996L
L99'9
$
%99E
EZ6'LL
$
009'6
40U18OZE
996E
£L9'SZ
$
%9'9£
ZLO'OL
$
0092£
g0U!0OM
986L
96C9
$
%9'9E
707'ZZ
$
000'ZL
g0U!8007
986L
688'L
$
%9'9E
799' LZ
$
099' L L
q0U! 8 S8E
986 L
OEL'ZZ
$
%99£
067'09
$
o07'Z£
g0u!9NU
996L
$
%0'0
007'OL
$
SOL'LE
g0U!90900
996E
609'6Z
$
%9'9E
7E6'08
$
09£'£7
aoq�0e8 80L9 of
786E
$
%00
LEE'ZE
$
L LE'L L
q0U! 9 OZSZ
786 L
$
%0'0
90E'OL
$
OZS'S
g0U!909£
786E
8Z9'9
$
%9'9E
LLL'9L
$
760'8
40U1 ZL O7Z
786E
$
%0'0
L90'ZL
$
S97'9
q0U! ZL OS9
786E
70E'EL
$
%Z'9L
880'Z8
$
896'E7
g0U!ZLOSEZ
786E
Z9E'L
$
%9'9E
L69'E
$
086'L
q0U! ZL OZZ
786E
$
%00
987'LZ
$
ZZL't7
WWI 9SLEL
786E
$
°%0'0
069'09
$
LOS'Z£
g0U! 8 ZZL
786E
$
%0'0
6Z9'9E
$
99S'6L
g0U!9692
786E
$
%0'0
6S0'L
$
L8L'E
Uo!;!ppyAennua}l9ZEQIS
786E
zoo' L
$
%9'9£
79L'Z
$
9L7'L
q0U! ZL SZL
E86L
769'7
$
%99£
Z£8'ZL
$
EL2'9
g0U!80EZ
E86L
Z89'L
$
%9'9£
9ZL'OZ
$
LOL'LL
g0U!8OLE
£86L
$
%00
ZZ7'8
$
L LS'7
9ZE aIS
£86 L
088'Z
$
%9'9E
LL8'L
$
9 LZ'7
u!eIN aaILM anuany qa9
E86 L
EZ8'ZOL
$
%9'9£
990'1,8Z
$
079'096
499a;s U!eA
E86L
$
%00
7L0'97
$
979'7Z
9ZEols
Z86L
SSS'7S
$
%9"9E
OZC67L
$
ZL8'6L
U!eA1094SogePl
L86L
$
%00
LSL'EZ
$
OOb'ZL
g0U!9ZZ6
LML
-
$
%0'0
Z69'8L
$
ZLO'OL
q0U! 9 S78
9M6
77L'8E
$
%99£
Z9Z'70L
$
S78'SS
g0U!0Z990
9L6L
xapul lsoo uogan4suoj bN3 aq; ul SeBueyo uo paseq senlen ueld LOOZ aq; woaL scollop Z60Z o7 pasnfpe aae s;aafoad
podaa slq; {o j xipuaddy pue goof - alepdo ueld Alllaej jaleM all jo g aaldego eas - b
.uozuoq Bumeld gBnoagl Apedeo aolnaas apinoid spefoad dlo ;eq; sawnssy -£
s#elap loafoid ao} (j x!puaddy) ueld luawanoadwl lelldeo ialgM lladsgeNjo Xllo eas - Z
luawooeldej jol sem golajm;unowe ag; ao pue suggnquluoa aadoleAep wog{ lunowe eql uo paseq peonpaa ao papnloxe sl;ueld awos
'S£OZ ul snd3le4ol Aq popinlp g£OZ of ZkoZ woi; sn&3 A— uo paseq slaafoid Bugslxe ioj uolleoolly -1
orsvo'S
$
na3 jad aaj -pedwl;ueld uo!;nqu;s!a/uolss!wsuejl lelol
WKS'£
$
n213 aad aaj;oedwl lueld uo!lnqu;sla/uolsslwsueal aanlnj
0861,
SEOZ of Z 60Z smAD MON
LYZ'S89`L6
$ OLP'9Z9$66
$ 00b`Z6£`96 $ spefojd uoisua;x3;veld uof;nqu;slpLuolss/wsueil—in
69b'6179'Z
%bE 8LZ'9Lb'L
006'S9b'9 suo!sua;x3 llads!le}l glnoS 9£OZ-Z60Z
9E£'OL6
%09 966'669'6
000'MCI, suo!sua}x3lleds!le}llse3 SEOZ-Z60Z
LE8'9£17'£
%L 8£6'£9V'91,
OOZ'b44'Ob suopua;x3llads!leyl;saM S£OZ-Z60Z
£8b'886'6
%SL 96b'ObE'£6
008`669'66 suo!sua4x3a9n!�jaalemp!lS;saM SEOZ-Z60Z
6£6`6E9'8
%Z£ £L6'690'LZ
000'L9£'£Z suopualx3 Ilods!le>1 g;aON 9EOZ-Z40Z
%0 4L8'b89'S6
o0E'bbS'£6 su0!su9;x3aan!dgsga;!gNAlsej 9£OZ-Z60Z
liepuno8 uo;exauuV 66OZ
r s;oapid uolsua;x3 -;ueld uor;nqu;slQ1uolsslwsuejl ajn;nj
68'88Z
$
nN3 aad asj;oedwl sloaloM d10lueld uollnq!a;s!aluo!ss!wsueal ain;n j
086'b
e S£OZ of Z 60Z snb3 MON
£o9'8£4'4
$ £o9`8Eb'4
$ VVL'ZZ1 4 $ s;aafoxd dID -;ueld uognqu;sfa1uoisslwsueal can;nj le;ol
986,99E
$ %0'006 986,99E
986'9SE sa0!nJaS MaN - saalalnl £Zl-X3-AA
000'9L8
$ WO06 000'9L8
000'9L8 ez!sdll u!E!IN }oeiluoo os!lN 666-X3-M
L6b'LOZ
$ %0'006 LVVLOZ
$ 899'666 $ doo3£6lemg6!Hpueangabemuoo 8-X3-AA
z s;aafoad dlo -;ueld uol;nqu;srpLuoesslwsueal wn;nj
4S'SZZ'4
$
n213 ied aaj;oedwl;ueld uol;nquls!a/uo!sslwsueal6ul;slx3
0861,
SEOZ of Z 60Z smo MON
4L9'Z04'9
$ 8£9'Z88'64
$ 48L'9LZ'Z4 $ ;ueld uopnqu;sla pue uoesslwsueal Bugsex3leiol
8 66'Z
$ %9'9E
9L6'L
$
699'L
qou! 9 ,OZZ - jasue6aaln! V pa laoda!V
6 60Z
969'Oti
$ %9'9£
LbL'066
$
Z£Z'906
aoq�oe8leo
660Z
ZSO'ti9
$ %9'9E
080'9L6
$
Zb6`L96
)u! 8 960'6- PuelpooM 013 a^V qlL/31S 66
660Z
091'LZ
$ %9'9£
6L8'9L
S
868`69
qau! 8 A9E - j0 (emNjed
060Z
9L8'Z6
$ %9'9£
964'9£
$
98£'ZE
g0u!Z6,Ob6 -ISOgep1'83aAV1s6
06OZ
8b0'017
$ %9'9£
L9b'6M
$
bZL'006
ssedl8 £6
060Z
96L'E9£
$ %9'9E
Lb8'996
$
99E'£S8
uogonpoid auoZ iaddn
60OZ
199'8
$ %9 9E
bL9'£Z
$
968'OZ
aal1eal �oa4 In BuiN I!eal
600Z
178E'17
$ %£'L
b66'69
$
688'ZS
leogo8
60OZ
OEE'Eb
$ %9'9E
ObV'86 6
$
9LZ'006
a!oad luawaoeldab u!elnl aaleM SIM oleb3n8
800Z
60b'S
$ %9'9E
b9L'176
$
009'Z4
ez!sdn 6 asegd goueb uollnH
800Z
8£L'9
$ %9'9E
96b'86
$
Z69'94
uo!sua;x3 doo-1 anJasadl
800Z
006'176
$ %9'9E
Zb9'8E
$
6E9'ZE
ez!sdn uo!sualx3 aaupies
800Z
bZ9'Z
$ %9'9E
ZL 6'L
$
ZLO'9
az!sdn uul AeP!I0H
800Z
698'L
$ %9 9E
Z8b'4Z
$
L8686
az!sdn ap!eid Bu!adS
800Z
ZSZ'9Z
$ %9'9E
LSL' 6L
$
SLZ'89
ez!sdn smopealn! au!d auo-!
LOOZ
6Z0'£6
$ %99£
1769'9£
$
£Z6'SZ
az!sdnpoomisaM
LOOZ
OOL' 66
$ %9'9£
bS9'09Z
$
699'£OZ
u!elnq aaleM peoZj ue!puaW
LOOZ
OZ9'Zti
$ %9'9£
£ZZ'966
$
L8076
Wepuel6u!lials
LOOZ
LZ8'9
$ %9'9£
LZ6'96
$
LOb'ZI,
ez!sdn ma!n;saM
900Z
86L'Lb8
$ %£'££
66Z'6bS'Z
$
906'1706'4
sa!1!1!ln glnoS £6Aemg6iH sn
SOOZ
$ %0 0
6LZ'SLZ
$
£OL'SOZ
sa0!naaS MON - sac;aln!
SOOZ
Sb9'9
$ %9'9£
E94'86
$
ZL9'E6
jalloH pued Ilosiabul
SOOZ
699'E6
$ %9'9£
680`L£
$
98S'9Z
gl8'S qlL um;q ';S uol6u!gseM
170OZ
698`£V6
$ %9 9£
9Z7`E6£
$
698' 68Z
a0!lellelsu! u!elN Ja}eM-PA18 slg6!-! uaaglaoN
1700Z
L8S'69
$ %9'9E
800'6b6
$
000'E6
ueldA;!I!0ed
ZOOZ
L09'L I.
$ M L
17£9'ObZ
$
LOL'896
an!a4 al!W £ of p�-j ue!puaW
ZOOZ
990'L
$ %9'9£
Z6£'64
$
LEL'Z6
goua8lsal aalalnl
ZOOZ
b£6'06
$ %9'9E
60L'LZ
$
SZS'L6
puelpooMpueualE)Moll!M
600Z
996'b9£
$ %9'9£
8L0'896
$
ti9b'Z69
;suns-alu0/lS NW
600Z
6bL'££
$ %9'9£
617Z`Z6
$
69£'89
aogjoe8 40£b leo
600Z
Z6L'OZ
$ %9'9E
17E8'99
$
06b17£
Japeo-1 aaaa4 ugop
OOOZ
ti09'L9
$ %9'9E
bSb`LS 6
$
L99' 66
a91eM MN a^V q19
6661,
2012/2013 Water Capital
Improvement Plan
U
wm
n
U
C
R
a
C
Cy
E
0
O
CO.
G
R
Q
m
U
.d.
a
m
O
Q
O
IL
rn
ain
l°rnlnr
In
o
rn
rnnon000
m
rn^N
<or
rn
-m
ro
o
U
O
W
O
t0
V
Iq ry
O N
N'
W
r rn
t0 O
m�
r�
r
W
r
r
co
aD
M
V
m
N
V
O
a
D7
�p
M
M
N
m
T
o rn
W IN
aDN
rfD
o
W V
On000
O)O
0 0
0 0
O O
0
0
O
r
W
f0
N
v
R N
r rn
V
p�
N Io
V
t0
a
lO
lD
O
n
n
O
v t
n�aGMn
W
Oi
eD
r
<G
W OeD
OiNU>O
O
ViO
N
•Q
eD
W
W�
M.
OOi00
N
M I
V
10 r
N
M
a
r
'T
rn
V
N
m
M
inmr
V
lon
�
Nm
M M
�
on
v
C N
N
M
M
a
W
w
wwwwww
w
w
w
w
wwwwwww
w
www
ww
w
w
w
O
U n
a 8
ELL
W
w
M
V
o
N
w
SSS
O O
0 0
n m
www
O
0
M
m
N
m
N
v
w
o
ly
n
m
rn
V
fD
SOO
O
NO
w
o
Ur
cam
oct
.0
N
w
w
w
w w
w
w w
w
p
V 10
mn Iro
mC6
va
S 000
oo
o000
N
O
N
V
°D
�
O
N
O
of
n
o!
m '
m so
mco
u) in
Nomrn
o of
'°
v
m
ed
in
r
w
E LL
w
ww
wwww
w
w
w
w
%
o
N
O S
SSS
S
O M
am
0
aca
°D
N�
r
At100
M
�
Ey
.� LL
W
www
N M
ww
'A
O
`"
w
O
UM
O
O
0
o
O
O
0
ao
O
O
0
0
O O
O O
0 0
000
O
O
0
O
O
o
0
ry
ro
O O
O O
o 0
000a
O O
O O
0 0
O
0
o
0 0
0 0
0
0000
0 0
0 0
0 o
tp
f0
tQ0
�
E LL
.a
w
m
w
N
w
w
www
w
"�
wwwww
wwww
N
w
10
@
0
U
n
`m
W
u))
@
U
p
_
y
3
o
U
m
0
~
o
e
N
W U
C
C S
C
d
R
-
m
m
od
}
c
o
c
of
3
c
c$ o
Ljj
W C
w
W.
Q V
Wo
S
a
-
Q6
L
a
@
3
o
LL N
d
wawa
E
c
w
t
w¢
y
S°
2
¢ �°
cE)
n>
N
o
r>
d
U
c
uci
o
EQ
o
vQa
._v
o
o
E
`03
ouLv
@n
o
�Lfl
•�-uw.
@
w
o
O
o
J J
J
N
6
o
N
E
N
E
G
Co
>
O
o
E
o
E.c
C
°°@
E
LLj
aci
E
aEi °i
w
i
v m
d
@
d
c
u y
c
d-
o
a c
r E
U
o
Q f0
E
m Q
o a
m
¢
>�
Q
._
9¢'Lua
v
o
..@..
'lo
m C
"-
L
c C
c
x U
8
E
@
-ate
d2QN
O
0
O
0°
J
0
6�'N
N
C
c
o
._ ._
O.
._
-•
d o
d m_
o d
E m
R
Z
@ C@
g d
p
J O
3@
o
O¢
J
m>
J
LU Z
O J
J w
p
J c
H@
O
._ N'4
>
w
m
gm?cam❑
c
zw016O
?
v°
°
d�c�o°
" o
a°'a�3
N >
Z
> >
3 i
m
m m
N@
_
L°
N
@ .K
Kv1oNm<o�oS@-
ccccca
'-
'- '-
.__
do
p
��oC7>>Nay
z3
@ @
Q
-z-�
m
o
N v
pm33p�6Yd>>@}i
ai¢-_a`��=�
N
Q>>°>
N
N Q
L
N¢¢
a_
o
¢
Q C
g@
C
L N
o d
O
P c-
N N
A lU
N f6
3 N
c'�
L
o¢¢>
9>
Q¢
Q
2
C
o
a
m¢¢
LLpp
is co�UNwU`
3>
r,
coMV
ELomd
Z
Y2[.)lnm
pp
�LL@ao
P v)
z
m c
�._mmo@@@@@@@_@_
zi>22
ow
o
K
o---
wQLL
w w
KC72210-p¢
�@
aU,o
Q N
m;
N J
o-O
O
av
Z In
o
C C
D �
c w
� m
LL O
p[C�-pOKfL
KKp
�wwLL
H wxwwwo
a K--ww
KKKK
K �aOCL
CL
�K-CL
LL_
C
p
of of
Er of
V m
M10
tom
�-�NN
NNNNNx
N 1O
cD
O N
c?
O>
-
O 10
-
O m
•- --
a 0)
-
O N
M �O
10 r
O
N m
V i0
r O
M�
N t0
M W
O
® a
•oEw
X
X X
wwwwwwwww,
X X
X X
X X
X>"��
6
w�
w
X w
xxx
wwwwwwwwww
w w
w w
w w
w w
k X
w
X X
wwwwwwwww
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
wwwWWw
X X
X )C
mz'3333333333333333333333333333333333333333�3��333333
n c�o�rn n
OMf N � N W
m MNM O)
w wVTwww
LL
` ~ N
� p C
O l
LL @ �
2 O
aL+ LL O c0
11 m m > c
@ a d -
Y c E U E
LL o u u
0
C
a rn
7 r
U �p
A C
O LL
H
APPENDIX G
2011 Montana Code Annotated
?-6-16
7-6-1601. Definitions,
Page 1 of 2
Eonta,na Code Annotated 2011
ll-
Previous. Section MCA ODnionts D'art Contents Search Help Next Benton
7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a
useful life of 10 years or more that increase or improve the service capacity of a public
facility.
(b) The term does not include consumable supplies,
(2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public
utility system and is limited to the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making
connections and installing meters.
(3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or
structure, a change in use of a building or structure, or a change in the use of land when
the construction, installation, or other action creates additional demand for public
facilities.
(4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government.
(5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a
governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional
service capacity -required by the development_ from which it is_collected. Animpact fee
may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total
impact fee collected.
(b) The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs
associated with a permit required for development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special
improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal,
and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of
ongoing maintenance; or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the
safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been
adopted by the governmental entity.
(6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system
improvements that reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project.
A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in 7-6-1602.
(7) "Public facilities" means:
(a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility;
(b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility;
(c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic
signals, and landscaping;
(d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, tr eatnient, or disposal facility or a
http://clata.opi.mt,gov/bills/rhea/7/6/7-6-1601.17trn 6/11/2012.
7-6-1601. Definitions.
Page 2of2
flood control facility;
(e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and
(f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-1602 that
have been approved as part of an impact fee ordinance or resolution by:
(i) a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or
consolidated local government; or
(ii) a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county
government.
History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Providers by ATC-di ma LC-gJalatrva services
bttp:4,'d,it-,i.opi,rnt.gov/bills/mca/7/6!-/-6-160 I.htm 6/11/2012
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required --- ordina... Page 1 of 2
pre�kus- Section NJOA D'art Contents Search Help Next Section
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or
resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an
impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve a service area
report.
(2) The service area report is a written analysis that must:
(a) describe existing conditions of the facility;
(b) establish level -of -service standards;
(c) forecast future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identify capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service;
(e) identify those capital improvements needed for continued operation and
maintenance of the facility;
(0 make a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service
area is necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;
(g) make a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service
area for transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees
and benefits;
(h) establish the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity
will assign the proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to
provide service to new development within each service area;
(i) establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude
operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the
impact fee;
0) establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each wait of
increased service demand; and
(k) have a component of the budget of the governmental entity that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected
growth;
(d) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements;
and
(iv) covers at least a 5-yeas periodd and is reviewed and updated at least every 2
years,
(3) The service area report is a written analysis that must contain documentation of
sources and methodology used for purposes of subsection (2) and must document how
each impact fee meets the requirements of subsection (7).
(4) The service area report that supports adoption and calculation of an impact fee
must be available to the, public upon request.
(5) The amount of each inapact fee imposed must be based upon the act-aal cost of
http://data..opi.mt.gov/hills,/raaca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 61/11 /2012
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordina... Wage 2 of 2
public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be
incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new development. The calculation of
each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,
(6) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time
schedule for periodically updating the documentation required. under subsection (2).
(7) An impact fee must meet the following requirements:
(a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably
attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made
necessary by the new development.
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs
incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the
development. The following factors must be considered in determining a proportionate
share of public facilities capital improvements costs:
(i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new
development; and
(ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be
made by or as a result of the development in the form'of user fees, debt service
payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements.
(c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be
included in the impact fee.
(d) New development may not be held to a. higher level of service than existing
users unless there is a mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements
to the -existing system to matchthehigher level of service.
(e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the
facility.
History; En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005; aind. Sec. 1, Ch, 358, L. 2009.
Provided by ibla xrta na Legislative Sevvice,-
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mea,�7,)'6/7-6-1602.11tln 6/11/2012
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact. fees -- refunds or credits ... Page 1 of 2
Pre�ws Section MCA Oontentq, Pert Contents Search Helga Next Section
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits --
mechanism for appeal required. (1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees
must comply with this pant. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be
reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees.
The ordinance or resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the
following requirements:
(a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund,
which must be invested with all interest accruing to the fund,
(b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts.
(c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee
ordinance or resolution or in accordance with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were
collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that the
refund was due,
(2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be
paid no earlier than the date of issuance of a building permit if a building permit is
required for the development _or -no _ earlier than the time. of wastewater or water service
cont-iection or well or septic permitting.
(3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital
facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of
new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed
for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been
documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess
capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an
impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees
imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the
governmental entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility
and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess
capacity.
(4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of
public facilities in lieu of payment of impact fees if:
(a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-
6-1602; _
(b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constricted is
determined to be appropriate for the proposed use by the governmental entity;
(c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or
constructions are established as part of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and
(d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as
part of the adopting ordinance or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of
http://data,opi,mt.gov/bills/mea/7/6/7-6-1603.htm 6/11/2012
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits ... Page 2 of 2
public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an individual
development.
(5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other
improvements to an existing structure or for rebuilding a damaged structure unless
there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6-1602(2)0).
If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an
existing structure or use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be
unposed.
(6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refunds or
credits:
(a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7-6-
1602 and this chapter; or
(b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6-
1602 and this chapter, between the governmental entity and the individual or entity
being assessed the impact fees.
(7) An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional
demand on the facility.
(8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a
Person charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has
been made.
History: En. See. 3, Ch, 299, L. ZOOS; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 353, L. 2009.
Pralridped fey Afmtana Legi-5 A1t,
lnttp://data,opi,mt.gov/'bills/nlca/7/6/7-6-1603.htm- 6/11/201'12
7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee,
Page 1 of 1
..,.,Z.,,,;ana Code Annotated 2011
PrWOM Section NIGA CnntQnts Part Contents Search Flelp Next Section
7-6-1.604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends
to propose an impact fee ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory
committee.
(2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the
development community and one certified public accountant. The committee shall
review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and spending impact fees.
(3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the
governing body of the governmental entity.
History: En, Sec. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005,
Provided byffobtanG Le is,+atdete SeMgees
http://data.opi.nit.gov/bills/mea/7/6/7-6-1604.htm 6/11/2012