2. Extension of Services PolicyCitv of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Utility Requests for Fringe Developments Outside of Evergreen
MEETING DATE: January 10, 2000
BACK GROUND: Over the past 25 years, the City of Kalispell has struggled with how to handle
growth, particularly growth that is either in the "Evergreen" area or somewhere else near, but not
contiguous, to the city's boundaries. It is obvious that protecting the quality of our (entire Valley)
water resources is paramount to our future. As a result of this, the city and Evergreen area reached
an agreement which extended sewer services outside of the city limits.
I suspect that no one could have predicted the level of growth that has taken place over the last
decade and therefore we were ill prepared. The most obvious examples are in Evergreen where
developments were not constructed to city standards (septic systems, no storm water considerations
etc.). Worse yet, we seem to remain ill prepared for the inevitable growth of the upcoming decades.
At this time, several developers are asking our community to respond to their requests for city
services. Three of these are outside of Kalispell and Evergreen and are not contiguous to the city.
There seems to be no end in sight for these requests.
In an effort to avoid repeating the mistakes of our past, this issue must be dealt with head on. In an
attempt to enhance the quality of life for our residents, I believe that we can no longer allow large
developments to occur near Kalispell without annexation. Evergreen, Green Acres, Village Greens,
Hillcrest, and Country Estates are just a few of the developments that should logically be apart of the
City. As we deal with this issue, it will be important to be aware of all the impacts, both positive and
negative. What makes this issue more difficult is the fact that businesses are waiting patiently for our
response. However, they will not wait forever, and most likely will find ways to resolve their
immediate needs if we do not find a way to work together.
As mentioned above, we have three requests for city sewer services on the table. All three have
volunteered to become a part of the city in exchange for our services. All three are separated from
the city by Evergreen. The following is a list of options to deal with the immediate requests.
The city follow its policy of denying requests for services on the basis that properties are
not contiguous to the city limits. The city adopted an Extension of Services Plan on
November 6, 1995. This plan was amended on March 1, 1999 (Resolution 4450 is
attached) and gave clear direction to the city staff that when dealing with developers who
want city services, they must be willing to be annexed into the city in exchange for the
utility extensions and the property must be contiguous to the city boundaries. I would
agree that under ideal circumstances this is an excellent policy. However, as we view the
three requests before us, and future requests, the policy prevents the city from being a
partner in developments that are not contiguous to the city.
On the positive side - the policy helps to ensure that the city staff will not be servicing
islands outside of the city. This helps us in providing efficient services to our citizens.
On the negative side - the policy encourages growth in the Flathead County Water &
Sewer District #1, which increases the problem that already exists. Second, these
businesses may choose to follow the same path as Evergreen and create their own service
area. Today this seems unlikely, but I'm sure that is what the city thought twenty five
years ago before nearly all of the new retail development located outside Kalispell.
Third, they may choose to use septic systems which puts water quality at great risk.
Future generations will wonder why we chose to ignore the problem.
2. The city can provide services to the requesting parties and require them to annex into the
city, even though the property is not contiguous. This is clearly at odds with the city's
adopted policy and would require an amendment. We would have to develop some
parameters for dealing with parcels which are not adjacent to our boundaries. The pros
and cons of this policy are the opposite of those listed under option one.
3. We could provide utilities to the parcels and require the property owners to sign a waiver
of protest for annexation at such time they become contiguous to the city. This option
is also clearly at odds with current policy and would require language changes to the
policy.
On the positive side - Evergreen does not grow into a larger issue than it already is; we
eliminate the potential for a third sewer district; and finally, we protect the Valley's water
quality.
On the negative side - We never seem to get around to annexing areas once services are
provided, and when we do, the property owners fight it tooth and nail in spite of the
signed waiver. Worse yet, our citizens are subsidizing out -of -city utility users who don't
pay city taxes. Even though these are enterprise funds, tens of thousands of dollars are
spent every year through either capital improvements (Tax Increment Improvements) and
miscellaneous issues which the administration deals with on a daily basis but are not
charged to the utilities. This approach has been used and appears to have failed time and
time again.
4. We could require the parties to wait until we resolve our differences with Flathead County
Water & Sewer District # 1 under the assumption that some kind of an arrangement could
be found to ensure that on a specified date, the parcels in question would become
contiguous to the city and thus be annexed without violating our policy.
On the positive side - this assumes that we remove the imaginary wall that exists between
Kalispell and Evergreen (after all the Berlin Wall has been gone for ten years). The
taxpayers win because we will be forced to provide long term solutions to real problems
that exist: growth management, water quality, efficiency of government services, just to
name a few.
On the negative side - The developers may grow weary of the delay and choose to solve
their own problems by creating a new sewer and water district... or ... by the perception that
each side is forced to the table, the discussions get off on the wrong foot and delay the
resolution to this problem even longer.
As growth continues in the Valley the problem of fringe developments is only going to become more
difficult to resolve. Aside from the three requests before us, we can identify at least a half dozen
projects expected in the near future that will be impacted positively or negatively based on our ability
to resolve this issue.
Beyond resolving the annexation issue, these areas come with a number of major challenges. Issues
relating to street construction, storm water and sidewalks, are only a few of the issues that will
require a tremendous amount of work by our current staff. In addition, staff levels in nearly every
department would likely have to be increased in order to provide quality services to the newly
annexed areas. There are no simple answers, but I do believe that with the talents of our City Council
and administration, we can find a resolution that truly adds value to our City's long range goal to
become a world class community.
Step 1 - Though no one seems to have a good handle on the number of parcels, we believe
that we are currently providing sewer service to dozens of property owners who are
contiguous to the city limits and have signed waivers of protest. A list of these property
owners should be developed and annexation procedures should begin immediately.
Step 2 - Talks should begin with the County Commissioners and representatives of these
outlying neighborhoods to decide how we move forward with annexation. Evergreen is the
largest of the group but they are not the only area of concern. In order for us to appropriately
service these areas I would expect some type of a phased annexation process that takes
several years to complete.
Step 3 - We need to amend from our current policy. Any development that is in need of
sewer services should be required to annex into the city whether they are contiguous or not.
In addition, any development that is contiguous to the city limits should be required to utilize
all city services This will ensure that these developments are constructed according to city
standards. If this were required twenty five years ago we would not be having this discussion
today. At an absolute minimum we need to make an arrangement with the County that
identifies projects that will one day be a part of the city and require them to build according
to our standards. This protects our water quality and ensures the homeowners against high
SID's costs necessary to correct infrastructure problems that should have been addressed up
front.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Unknown. If we were to resolve these issues we would be in a much
better position to guide our City's growth into the new millennium. This would almost certainly
result in a stronger local economy for our residents to work in and a clean environment. We would
greatly enhance our tax base, however this could not be accomplished without service contracts or
additional staff in order to properly service the newly annexed areas.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Council.
Respectfully submitted
Chris A. Kukulski
City Manager
Report compiled January 6, 2000
This memo is not intended as a commentary on the appropriateness of the projects in
question. Those issues will be resolved through the planning process assuming that
developments will meet all of the required development standards and will be constructed
with or without the city's involvement.
RESOLUTION NO. 4450
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF KALISPELL EXTENSION OF SERVICES
PLAN, SECTION IV, ¶¶ 4 AND 5, BY SPECIFYING THE CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE UTILITY SERVICES BEYOND ITS CORPORATE
LIMITS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell adopted City of
KAI i4ipP11, RxtPnRian of Services Plan, by Resolution No.
4241, on November 6, 1995, and
WHEREAS, Section IV, IT 4 of said Plan describes the conditions
under which the City allows connection to its public
utility systems, and
WHEREAS, at the request of the City Council, the Public Works
Department and the staff of the Flathead Regional
Development Office revised the connection policy to allow
for orderly expansion of utilities and municipal
boundaries.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, MONTANA AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That the City of Kalispell, Extension o
qP_rvict-.-, Plan is hereby amended by inserting a
new Section IV, ¶ 4, which shall read:
Before a development beyond the City limits is
allowed to connect to a City -owned utility, a
Consent to Annex/Notice of withdrawal from
Rural Fire District and a Petition Requesting
Annexation shall be properly filed with the
City Attorney and said annexation request
shall be approved by City Council Resolution
or Ordinance as may be appropriate. Service
will be extended only to existing or proposed
developments that are contiguous to the City.
The Petition and Consent filed under this
section shall be in a form which may be
recorded in the Office of the Flathead County
Clerk and Recorder.
SECTION IT. That the City of Kal i sDel l , Extpnsinn a
Services Plan is hereby amended by adding to
Section IV, a ¶ 5 which shall read:
As a requirement of access to a City -owned
utility in a subdivision proposed beyond city
limits, the property owner shall apply to the
City for preliminary plat approval and
simultaneously petition for annexation to the
City, and the property shall be annexed or
each phase of said subdivision shall be
annexed with approval of Final Plat. As a
requirement to a city -owned utility in a
proposed land division which is exempt from
subdivision regulation and is beyond the city
limits, the property owner shall petition to
annex and the property shall be annexed prior
to filing the certificate of survey with the
County Clerk and Recorder to create the land
division.
SECTION III. This Resolution shall take effect immediately
upon passage by the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL,
AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR THIS _IST_ DAY OF MARCH, 1999.
wm,E .5oharAi
Wm. E. Boharski
Mayor -
ATTEST:
Theresa White
Clerk of Council
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758
DUM
January 10, 2000
To: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
From: Jim Hansz, Director of Public Wor
Subject: Requests for sewer service via Evergreen system
The City has been receiving a number of requests for sewer service via the Evergreen
RSID system. In December 1998 Mr. Andrew Farris made such a request for a proposed 48-lot
subdivision. The amount of wastewater flow was fairly small, 14,000 gallons per day, and the
impact on the WWTP would have been nominal. Nonetheless, the City Council denied the
request. This project may soon return for the City Council's reconsideration.
In May of 1999, Mr. Bill Lincoln also requested sewer service to his proposed
development on Conrad Drive approximately one mile east of the City limits. In August 1999, the
City Council denied this service request for several reasons including the lack of detailed data on
the quantity of wastewater involved. Mr. Lincoln has subsequently provided information that
indicates a need for service amounting to about 135,000 gallons per day which would be
discharged into the Evergreen force main at a point outside the District boundary.
Another request has been received from Wolford Development to serve an 84-acre
development of 750,000 square feet fronting on the east side of US 2 north of Reserve Drive. The
Wolford project would also border on the west boundary of the Farris project. The estimated
service need for the Wolford commercial development is approximately 160,000 gallons per day.
The total estimated wastewater flow from these three projects is approximately
309,000 gallons per day.
As I mentioned at the December 14, 1998 City Council work session concerning the Farris
project, there is, presently, adequate overall plant capacity to accommodate the added flow from
that project. Based on plant flow records and plant capacity, it also appears there is plant
treatment capacity to serve all three of these projects. The treatment plant capacity is 3,100,000
gallons per day. Current use is averaging about 1,800,000 gallons per day (GPD).
However, as I mentioned during the conversation about the Farris project, an analysis
based simply upon gross plant capacity is somewhat deceptive. It could lead the City to wrongly
conclude that small and fairly large increments of use may be added without an immediate cost or
impact until some time in the distant future when overall plant capacity has been reached. In my
opinion, this would be an incorrect assumption. A preliminary evaluation of plant capacity and
potential growth was made in December of 1998. It has been updated to reflect changes since
then and to include the potential impacts of the three proposed developments outlined above.
Treatment Plant Capacity
1. Although present plant utilization is 1,900,000 GPD, and the designed maximum
capacity is 3,100,000 GPD, the difference, 1,200,000 GPD, should not be viewed as the amount
capacity that is available for use without cost or impact on the City. The City must anticipate the
need for plant expansion long before the plant is operating at its full capacity. The guideline used
by USEPA, who participated in funding the present plant, is that we should begin planning for
expansion when we reach approximately 75% of utilization. Some utilities stretch this to 80%
capacity utilization. Therefore, at an average daily flow of between 2,300,000 GPD and
2,500,000 GPD the City will need to begin the expenditure of time and money to plan the
expansion of the plant. In other words, there is about 400,000 to 600,000 GPD of capacity
available for use before the City needs to begin planning the plant expansion. When capacity
utilization approaches 85% - 90% the City should begin the actual design of a plant expansion and
settle the issues of financing the project. When this is done the construction should begin in time
to ensure that additional capacity is coming on-line when plant inflow equals the present designed
capacity.
It should be understood that the USEPA and 1MEQ would use the City's present
discharge permit as a measuring tool for determining when the City will need to expand the
treatment plant. The City will not be allowed to violate the terms of its discharge permit.
2. As indicated, the perceived "cushion" of capacity, based on the present average daily
flow rate, is about 400,000 to 600,000 GPD. For this evaluation 600,000 GPD will be used. In
order to develop an accurate assessment of available capacity the unused contracted entitlement
of the Evergreen RSID needs to be considered. Of the 600,000 GPD total, roughly 230,000
gallons per day is the unused entitlement of the Evergreen RSID. (682,000 GPD entitlement -
450,000 GPD current use = 232,000 GPD unused entitlement. It should be noted that some of the
Evergreen RSID's current metered use is wastewater generated by out -of -district customers
previously authorized by the City, and this use is not charged against Evergreen. So, for the
purpose of this review, the Evergreen RSID's available unused entitlement is estimated to be
230,000 GPD)
The City has no direct control over the rate of utilization of this unused Evergreen RSID
entitlement. Because of this, the entire Evergreen RSID treatment entitlement should be
considered the same as an on-line use. When viewed this way the gap between the current plant
flow and the flow that would initiate the City planning process is much narrower. When this
number is added onto the current plant flow the total equivalent plant flow is 2,130,000 GPD. In
other words...
The actual plant capacity cushion available to the City, for uses such as the requests
made by Farris, Lincoln and Wo ford, or others, is approximately 390,000 GPI). When this
additional amount of flow comes on-line, regardless of the source, the City should expect to begin
the expenditures of time and money to plan the plant expansion.
3. It is apparent that the plant capacity cushion would be nearly consumed by the 309,000
GPD service requests of Farris, Lincoln and Wolford. In addition, existing and proposed
development within the City and other specific projects in areas contiguous to the City for which
the City has made a commitment to serve, are capable of consuming more than the entire
remaining plant capacity. These commitments and other potential new development are:
• Approximately 420 vacant building lots awaiting home construction
• Domesite PUD
• Waterford
• US 93 South development, Phase I design flow
• US 93 South development, Phase II design flow, an additional
• US 93 South development, Phase III design flow, an additional
• Wolford Commercial Development
• Lincoln Commercial Development
• Farris Residential Development
122,000 GPD
115,000 GPD
30,000 GPD
175,000 GPD
160,000 GPD
415,000 GPD
160,000 GPD
135,000 GPD
14.000 GPD
Sub Total 1,326,000 GPD
Total potential flow into the treatment plant from current flow and these other sources is
approximately equal to:
Current
1,900,000 GPD
Future
1,326,000GPD
Total
3,226,OOOGPD
In addition to this amount, the unused Evergreen RSID entitlement needs to be added in
to arrive at an approximately correct estimate of total potential flow into the plant. (Note: this is
not a double count of the remaining ERSID treatment entitlement that was referred to in part 2.)
230,000 GPD
Total 3,456,000 GPD
4. From the information outlined above it is apparent that the current amount of potential,
planned and existing development within or adjacent to the City can consume over 110% of the
existing capacity of the City's wastewater treatment plant. The point at which this capacity is
utilized cannot be reliably predicted because the City cannot tightly regulate the pace of this
private construction. The City should expect that virtually all the vacant lots would be developed
in a few years. It should also be anticipated that other lots will be added to the City inventory and
sewer service will be expected. In addition, the phased utilization of US 93 South facilities is not
something staff can predict with any accuracy.
The fact that current development proposals and commitments to serve appear to have
consumed plant capacity is not reason for immediate alarm. However, it should alert the
community that any new development proposals, especially large proposals, should be reviewed
with great care. New development proposals will not only guarantee the need for plant
expansion, they will also greatly move forward the need date for plant expansion, and the
expenditure of City funds. This last point should not be overlooked.
The City's new treatment plant was funded from four sources: a revolving fund loan, a
bond, cash on -hand and a grant from the USEPA. Grants from the USEPA are not available now,
and this source paid for 50% of the new plant.
11/23/99
City Manager, City Engineer and
Kalispell City Council
Dear Sirs,
After meeting with Jim and Chris, I am submitting the enclosed "Conceptual Wastewater Treatment
Estimates" for the 2 Rivers RV Resort project at 855 Conrad Drive. These are a best possible estimate
scenario.
There is more than sufficient capacity in the force main for this amount, my water will come from
Evergreen Water, and the Evergreen Sewer Board has granted its permission for access to the line (copy in
previous request). I am therefore requesting a level of 135,000 gpd (gallons per day) permission from the
city of Kalispell.
Thank you for your time, I am:
Sincerely Yours,
William T. Lincoln
DOGIVM�01-� tt
RIO
r
v
w
Conrad Dr...
ASA
-----
'� � SA
Abed
{ Ret6! S Fist FNl
�%A 176 :=% ��`417 �l- -
au
371 47
mom
FTC WA `
1 ` A
389
RV umm
MOM
f
,�, �, Con e t al
'
IV
DISTRICT 1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT ESTIMATES
DISTRICT 1 (30+ Acres)
TOTAL 22,294gud
District 1 is a business district to provide for those supportive retail sales and
service functions and operations that are typically characterized by outdoor
display, storage, and/or sale of merchandise, by servicing of automobiles and
recreational vehicles, and by outdoor and indoor commercial amusement and
recreational activities. This district will also serve the general needs of the
tourist and traveler.
These wastewater treatment estimates are made utilizing the "Onsite
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System" Design Manual of the EPA.
When the planned unit was unavailable a, by fixture, computation from the
same source was used. This is completely an estimate based upon possible
uses by districts. The final unit development plan is still dependent on
necessary road locations, and engineering needs and requirements.
Potential Uses:
i. Tour Distillery
Figured using "Store, department" @ 528gpd/washroom
& 10.6gpd/employee with 20 employees
1056gpd + 212gpd Total=1268gpd
2. Theaters (live and IMAX)
Figured in District 2
3. Motel
Figured using "Motel" @ 31.7/person
2 persons/unit x 150 units x 31.7gpd = 9510gpd Total 9510gpd
4. Retail Space 1
Figured using "Shopping Center' @ 1. 1 gpd/parking space
for 500 spaces and 10.6gpd/employee for 50 employees
plus 2 food service Crestaurant' } 1 @ 400 meals & 1 @ 250
at 2.6 gpd/meal=1690gpd Total 2770gpd
5. Retail Space 2
Figured using "Shopping Center' @ l.lgpd/parking space
for 500 spaces and 10.6gpd/employee for 25 employees with I
"restaurant" doing 400 meals @2.6gpd = 1040 gpd Total 1990gpd
6. RV Plaza
Figured using "Automobile Service Station" @ 10.6/vehicle served for 600
Vehicles and 13.2gpd/employee for 30 employees Total 6756gpd
Bulk and Dimensional Requirements:
(Identical to "B-2 General Business")
Other uses are possible, but, unknown at this point.
DISTRICT 2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT ESTIMATE
DISTRICT2 (20+ Acres)
TOTAL 34,091 gpd
District 2 is a business district to provide specific tourist related retail and
commercial service facilities where such uses are desirable for tourist retail
development and where public facilities may be available. After the
determination of the needed road location this districts West boundary will
become the road easement.
These wastewater treatment estimates are made utilizing the "Onsite
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System" Design Manual of the EPA.
When the planned unit was unavailable a, by fixture, computation from the
same source was used. This is completely an estimate based upon possible
uses by districts. The final unit development plan is still dependent on
necessary road locations, and engineering needs and requirements.
Possible Uses:
i. Recreational Park Offices
Figured as "Offices" @ 14.5gpd/employee
5 employees = 72.5gpd Total
2. Restaurants, Cocktail lounge, Casino & Office
Figured as 2 "Restaurants" @2.6gpd/meals for 300 meals/day
each, and one "Cocktail lounge" @ 19.8/seat for 100 seats Total 3540gpd
3. Fratemal Club/Tavern
Not in this estimate but a possibility
4. Laundromat and Offices
Figured as "Laundromat" @ 581gpd/machine for
a 30 washing machine estimate Total 17430gpd
5. Motel w/ Restaurant
Figured as "Motel" @31.7gpd/person for an average, at 50%
occupancy, for 200 rooms = 3170. Plus one "Restaurant"
@2.6gpd/meals for 300 meals/day each, and
one "Cocktail lounge" @ 19.8/seat for 100 seats = 2760gpd Total 5930gpd
6. Retail Space
Figured using "Shopping Center" @ l.lgpd/parking space
for 500 spaces and 10.6gpd/employee for 25 employees
Figured as 3 "Offices" @ 14.5gpd/employee for 25 employees
for 363gpd Total 1260gpd
7. Convenience Store
Figured using "Automobile Service Station" @ 10.6/vehicle
served for 300 Vehicles and 13.2gpd/employee for 10 employees Total 3378gpd
8. Theaters
Figured using '"Cheater" @2.6gpd/seat for a SOOseat IMAX
and a 500 seat Live Theater or 1000z 2.6 Total 26Wgpd
9. Deeded Road Easement
None needed
Bulk and Dimensional Requirements:
(Identical to "B-2 General Business")
Other uses are possible, but, unknown at this point.
DISTRICT 3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT ESTIMATES
DISTRICT 3 (50+ Acres)
TOTAL 40,412 gpd
District 3 is a Recreational Vehicle Park, Campground and Golf Course
business district to provide retail and commercial services only for the clients
of the R.V. and Golf Course facilities.
These wastewater treatment estimates are made utilizing the "Onsite
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System" Design Manual of the EPA.
When the planned unit was unavailable a, by fixture, computation from the
same source was used. This is completely an estimate based upon possible
uses by districts. The final unit development plan is still dependent on
necessary road locations, and engineering needs and requirements.
Potential Uses:
1. Recreational Vehicle Park and Campground
590 RV Locations
50% as "campground" person and 50% as "Cabin, Resort"
295 units @ 31.7gpd campground level = 12363 gpd
295 units @ 42.3 gpd cabin, resort level = 16497 gpd Total 28860 gpd
Golf Course
No irrigation water will be needed as water rigbts are
already available.
3. Club House Restaurant/ Lounge
Figured as a restaurant since no shower facilities will be available
@ 2.6gpd/meal 250 mealsX2.6 = 650 gpd
lounge/bar 150 customers @ 2.1gpd plus 18 employees @ 13.2gpd
315gpd + 238gpd = 420.6gpd + 650gpd = 1203gpd Total 1203 gpd
4. Laundromat
will be included in district 2
5. Recreation Centers (adult and child) and Bathhouses
Figured as "bathhouses and swimming pools" 9 10gpd/person
500persons/day average x 10 gpd = 5000gpd total Total 5000 gpd
6. Swimming Pool/Hot Tub
Figured as "bathhouses and swimming pools" @ 10gpd/person
150persons/day average x 10 gpd = 1500gpd total Total 1500 gpd
7. Recreation Facilities, low impact
8. Offices
14.5 gpd/employee for 5 employees Total 72.5 gpd
1. Tour/Travel Agency
Will be included in district 2
2. Resort area and equipment storage and maintenance area
Requires no sewer
3. Curio shop
Part of office
a. Coffee shop/Snack bar
5.3 gpd/customer for 150 customers = 795 gpd
and 10.6 gpd/employee for 8 employees = 85 Total 880 gpd
i. Picnic and BBQ area
Figured as a "day camp" @ 132gpd for 30 campers
per day average = 396gpd total Total 396 gpd
2. R.V. dump station
There will only be one RV dumpsite figured
at 25 uses per day @ 100 gallons Total 25M gpd
Bulk and Dimensional Requirements:
(Identical to "B-6 Resort Business" with the addition of MT
State requirements for Recreational Vehicle Spaces)
'j,4; . -'5/ dw L'
/0LFORD
December 23, 1999
Chris Kukulski
City Manager
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell. MT 59901
Re: Proposed Regional Mall
Intersection of Northeast Quadrant of Highway-2
And Fast Reserve Drive
Dear Chris:
It was certainly a pleasure for Scott Williamson. Clint Wolford and me to meet you this
past Monday December 20, 1999. Also, we appreciate the time you gave us to discuss our
proposed project to be located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 2
and East Reserve Drive.
As I stated during our meeting, Wolford Development, Inc. has been working the
Kalispell market since March of 1999 to find a site large enough to accommodate an
enclosed regional mall containing approximately 750.000 square feet of retail space. This
mail would have four major department stores, two of which would be new to the market,
and have another 90 specialty retail stores. In addition, we would want to have enough
property to accommodate the typical peripheral development that borders a major
enclosed regional mall. As I stated during our meeting, we currently have under option
approximately 84 acres and would eventually like to have up to 130 acres at a minimum.
During our meeting, we discussed the possibility of our annexing to the city and
receiving sewer service from the city. As a result of those discussions, you requested we
supply you with some estimates of the average daily sewage flow generated by the
project. Since returning to Chattanooga, we have spoken to our engineers to obtain some
preliminary estimates on sewage flow per day-. Based on his calculations. the mall of
approximately 750,000 square feet and four major department stores would generate an
average daily sewage flow of 80,500 gallons. In addition, the peripheral development
Four Squares Business Center • 1200 Mountain Creek Road, Suite 102 • Chattanooga, Tennessee 37405
423.874.0811 • FAX:423.874.0748
surrounding the mall, which is so vitally important to the success of the overall project
and should be as strongly supported by the city, would generate an additional average
daily sewage flow of 77,050 gallons. This results in a total average daily sewage flow of
157,550 gallons for both developments.
Chris, as I stated during our meeting, it would be our preference to be annexed to the city
of Kalispell. We feel it is important to the overall success of our development to be a part
of the city. However, if it is not possible for us to be annexed at this time, we would be
willing to execute an agreement with the city stating we would not protest any future
annexation. In return for this agreement, we only ask the city to agree to provide us with
the sewage capacity for our total development.
In analyzing our proposed development, I feel it is critical to point out that we are not
only a retail development, but we are also a major employer. Based on my past
experience with developments of this size, I would anticipate the mall creating
approximately 1400 jobs with an annual payroll of approximately S? 1.000,000.
Furthermore, the peripheral development would add approximately 700 jobs with an
annual payroll of approximately S 10,500,000. Needless to say, none of these numbers
address the additional jobs created during construction of the project.
Chris, my company and I are extremely excited about Kalispell and the surrounding trade
area. As I stated to you, I have had the real estate representatives of three of the major
department stores in Kalispell with me within the last month. They are equally excited
about the potential of this project and are anxious to move forward. For that reason, I
would like to have a response from the city of Kalispell about my proposal at their
earliest convenience. If necessary, I would be more than glad to come to Kalispell to
meet with the appropriate city officials.
Again, thank you for the time you spent with us. I look forward to receiving your
response.
Sincerely,
Bucky Wolford
The Kalispell
Memorandum
January 10, 2000
To: City Manager, Chris Kukulski
From: Chief of Police, Frank Garner
Re: I" Alley West, 200 Block
Department
I was contacted by the owners of Underground Books at 222 Main Street to discuss a
concern they have about I' Alley West behind their establishment. They pointed out that ? Alley
West in the 200 block is, by ordinance, a one-way alley. The alley, however is signed and utilized
for two way traffic from their building (about halfway down the alley) to 3'd Street.
It seems when the city parking lot was established at Main and 3' Street the designation of
the alley from one-way to two-way was changed by administrative order, without the corresponding
change in the city code. This use, in contradiction to the ordinance, may create some exposure on
the city's part in the event of an incident related to the use in that alley.
The concern of the business owner at 222 South Main Street revolves around access to their
business. They have some parking spots at the rear of the store, just off the alley. They feel that
restricting use of the alley to one-way would hamper their ability to access the rear of their building.
They prefer that the entire alley from 2" a Street to Yd Street be two-way traffic.
I explained to them that I could not support such a request, as the proximity of the business
entrances on the north side of the alley would create too great a hazard in a two-way scenario. They
did appear satisfied with the compromise of limiting two-way traffic to the section of the alley from
the north side of their property line at 222 North Main Street, south to 3' Street. The north end of
the alley, from their property line to 2n8 Street, would remain one-way.
This compromise would address my safety concerns for pedestrian traffic in the north end of
the alley while improving access for Underground Books at their location. They also requested the
garbage containers be moved from their current location to the west of their parking area. That
request has already been met by public works.
*0 Frank Garner, Chief of Police - Jim Brown, Asst. Chief of Police - KPD phone (406) 758-7780, FAX (406) 758-7799
300 1st Ave. East, Kalispell, MT 59901 ti_�
In consideration of this discussion I would recommend the city amend the current ordinance,
17-96 (see attached), under section C., to allow for two-way traffic on 1" Alley West, from Yd Street,
north a distance of 175 (one hundred seventy five) feet to the north property line of 222 North
Main. Section C. should also be amended to eliminate the reference to Railroad Street (which no
longer exits) and allows for the current alignment in the 00 hundred block of V Alley West as it
currently in use.
As an example of the proposed section C. might read as follows:
C. 1' Alley West between Main Street and I" Avenue West and from a point beginning 212
(two hundred and twelve) feet south of the south right of way line of center Street to the north right
of way line of 4' Street from the north to the south except that section of I' Alley West from 175
(one hundred and seventy five) feet north of the north right of way line of 3'd Street, south to north
right of way line of 3' Street.
17-96
17-96
CHAPTER 17
MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
ARTICLE VI. ONE-WAY STREETS
SECTION:
17-96:
Direction Of Travel On Certain Streets Or Alleys
17-96-1:
Seventh Street West
17-96-2:
Sixth Street West
17-96-3:
Streets To Be Marked With Directional Signs
17-96-4:
Penalty For Violation Of Sections 17-96-1 And 17-96-2
17-97:
Certain Semicircular Loops
17-97-1:
Rep. by Ord. 803
17-97-2:
Third Avenue East
17-97-3:
Fourth Avenue East
17-97-4:
Rep. by Ord. 803
17-97-5:
Certain Streets Designated
17-96: DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ON CERTAIN STREETS OR
ALLEYS: It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or
operate any vehicle of any kind, including bicycles, upon or over any of the
streets or alleys or portions thereof indicated in the following sections,
except in the direction set out in this article.
A. Second Avenue East between Second Street East and Fourth Street
East from south to north.
B. Alley between First Avenue East and Main Street between Fifth
Street East and First Street from north to south.
C. Alley between First Avenue West between Fourth Street West and
Railroad Street from the north to the south. (Ord. 609 §§ 1, 5, 6;
amd. Ord. 812 § 2; Ord. 1001 § 1)
City of Kalispell