1. Resolution 5654 - Water System Impact FeesCity of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903
Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Russell, City Manager
From: Susie Turner, Public Works Difecto
Re: Water System Impact Fees
Meeting Date: November 4, 2013 — Regular Council Meeting
The Impact Fee Committee completed its review of the 2013 Water Impact Fees in September
2013 and recommended the report be forwarded to the City Council for final review and
consideration.
On September 30, the proposed changes were reviewed during a work session and staff was
directed to bring forward the report for official council action.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2013 Water Impact Fee Report recommends increasing the water
impact fee from $2,213/ERU to $2,567/ERU.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2013 Water
Impact Fee Report and adjustments to the Kalispell Water System Impact Fees.
RESOLUTION NO.5654
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY OF KALISPELL WATER UTILITY IMPACT
FEES, AS WELL AS SCHEDULES AND CLASSIFICATIONS IMPOSED ON THE
CUSTOMERS OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL WATER UTILITY AND TO SET THE
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to authority granted to municipalities operating utility services by
Section 69-7-101, MCA, and the authority granted to municipalities to charge
impact fees to fund capital improvements by 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604, MCA, the
City of Kalispell did consider it proper to amend the fees, schedules, charges and
classifications imposed for utility services to its inhabitants and other persons
served by the City of Kalispell Water Utility; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Impact Fee Committee met in noticed public meetings with the
City's consultant, Morrison-Maierle, Inc. (MMI), reviewed its report and
recommendations on the water utility facilities and examined the methodology
utilized and issued its recommendations for the amendment of an impact fee
schedule along with the data sources and methodology supporting the amendment
to the water utility impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did, on October 7, 2013 set a public hearing to be held on
November 4, 2013 on said proposed amendments to the fees, schedules, charges
and classifications of the Water Utility services of the City of Kalispell and the
City Clerk published the necessary Notice thereof as required by Section 69-7-
111, MCA; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held by the City Council at a public meeting thereof
in the Kalispell City Hall beginning at 7:00 o'clock P.M. on November 4, 2013,
and all persons appearing at said hearing and expressing a desire to be heard were
heard, and all written comments thereon furnished to the City Clerk at said
meeting prior thereto were given consideration by the Council; and
WHEREAS, based upon the report and recommendations of the Kalispell City Impact Fee
Committee, the evidence provided by the public, in writing and at the public
hearing, the City Council finds said proposed amended fees, schedules, charges
and classifications utilizing an assumed projected growth rate of 2% to be
reasonable and just and further adopts as its findings the report and
recommendations of the City's consultant, MMI, along with the data sources and
methodology used supporting the amendment of the impact fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the fees, schedules, charges and classifications applicable to the use
of the City of Kalispell Water Utility and other services performed by said
utility, as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference
made a part hereof, are found to be just and are hereby established and
adopted to be imposed for water utility services to the inhabitants of the
City of Kalispell and those other persons served by its water utility
service.
SECTION 2. This resolution becomes effective ten (10) days after filing of this
Resolution with the City Finance Director. The Finance Director shall file
a copy hereof with the Public Service Commission of Montana at that
time.
SECTION 3. That the fees, schedules, charges and classifications applicable to the use
of the City of Kalispell Water Utility and other services performed by said
utility shall be reviewed no later than two years after the effective date of
this resolution.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR
THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013.
Tammi Fisher
Mayor
Theresa White
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
SEPTEMBER 2012 WATER
IMPACT FEE UPDATE SUMMARY
(Update to the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report)
SUBMITTED TO:
City of Kalispell
201 10 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 SUMMARY
HUM1,111111
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
LIST OF APPENDICES
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 Update Summary
(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 September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary 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 September 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) PrpAected 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 1 0-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 chn"Iri
not operate with all pumps turned on 24
hours per day, as this would create
obvious problems With operation and
maintenance of equipment.
The current pumping capacity of the
system is sufficient to meet current 2012
peak day demands (9.560 mgd) and to
meet peak day demands into 2015
(10.150 mgd). Between 2012 and 2015,
the City should consider developing
additional supply capacity in the system.
This will likely be accomplished through
development of the Grossweiler well
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
home. Within the Kalispell water system, an
ERU is 415 gallons per day, or 166 gallons per
person with 2.5 persons per single-family
residence. A facility that consumes 830
gallons per day would have the impact of two
ERUs. This unit creates the equitable
distribution of costs across residential,
(2.880 mgd). The Grossweiler well is located adjacent to the DNRCIDEQ/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 Grossweller 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 2012 Source of Supply Costs: $ 2,879,260
Total Proiected 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 Proiected 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.
M
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
IN
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 $20,196,005. 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
$6,416,138, or $1,288 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: $ 6,416,138 ($1,288 / ERU)
Transmission and Distribution CIP Impact Fee: $ 1,438,603 ($ 289 / ERU)
Total Proiected Additional ERUs at 2035 Planning Year. 4,980
Impact Fee (Trans. & Dist.) per ERU: $ 1,577
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: $ 1,577
Administrative Charge (5%) $ 122
TOTAL WATER IMPACT FEE $ 2,567
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 $516,000. 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.
ME
LEGEND
ANALYSISZONES
Original Study Area Boundary
East Kalispell
Annexation Boundary
East Whitefish Rive,
North Kalispell
Kalispell City Lirrits
L
South Kalispell
West Kalispell
FUTURE
WATER MAINS
West Stillwater Rive,
MORRISON
J,JjJ MAIERLE, INC.
-MA'
KAUS
WATERAND.%VVER IMPAGI $+E UPDATE
MONTANA
MARCH 20f 1 ANNEXATION SOUNDARY FIG. 1-6
APPENDIX A
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 Additional
Year (MGD) (MGD) ERUs 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
8,204
2011
9.38
3.51
8,463
2012
9.56
3.58
8,632
169
2013
9.76
3.65
8,804
173
2014
9.95
3.73
8,981
176
2015
10.15
3.80
9,160
180
2016
10.35
3.88
9,343
183
2017
10.56
3.96
9,530
187
2018
10.77
4.03
9,721
191
2019
10.99
4.11
9,915
194
2020
11.21
4.20
10,114
198
2021
11.43
4.28
10,316
202
2022
11.66
4.37
10,522
206
2023
11.89
4.45
10,733
210
2024
12.13
4.54
10,947
215
2025
12.37
4.63
11,166
219
2026
12.62
4.73
11,389
223
2027
12.87
4.82
11,617
228
2028
13.13
4.92
11,850
232
2029
13.39
5.02
12,087
237
2030
13.66
5.12
12,328
242
2031
13.93
5.22
12,575
247
2032
14.21
5.32
12,826
251
2033
14.50
5.43
13,083
257
2034
14.79
5.54
13,345
262
2035
15.08
5.65
13,612
267
Planning Year
2036 15.38 5.76 13,894
272
2037
15.69
5.88
14,161
278
2038
16.01
5.99
14,445
283
2039
16,33
6.11
14,734
289
2040
16.65
6.24
15,028
295
2041
16.99
.6.36
15,329
301
2042
17.32
6.49
15,635
307
2043
17.67
6.62
15,948
313
2044
18.02
6.75
16,267
319
2045
18.39
6.89
16,592
325
2046
18.75
7.02
16,924
332
2047
19.13
7.16
17,263
338
2048
19.51
7.31
17,608
345
2049
19.90
7.45
17,960
352
2050
20.30
7.60
18,319
359
1 2005 through 2011 Actual Water Production, 2012 through 2050 are projected flows based on growth rate by Kai. Planning Department
2 Average Day Water Production with Peaking factor Applied
2.00% Growth Rate from Kalispell Planning Department (Growth Policy Update 05/2612011)
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
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees
Source of Supply
Appendix B
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
Source of Supply
Original Cost
Year Equipment List Cost 2012
2002 Source Water Delineation Study
2002 Noffsinger Springs Chlorine Room
Total Existing Source
Existing Wells
1913
1956
1966
1979
1982
1956
1997
2007
2009
2011
2011
Total Existing Wells
Future Wells
$ 94,868 $ 169,894
10,398 18,621
$ 105,266 $ 188,515
Lawrence Park Well (Noffsinger Spring)
$ 9,835
$
18,362
Depot Park Well
38,306
$
71,517
Armory Well
34,251
$
63,946
Buffalo Hill Well
94,577
$
176,574
Buffalo Hill Well to Res
11,042
$
20,615
Northridge Well Site
10
$
19
Northside Water Wells (Grandview 1 and 2)
306,028
$
571,350
Uld School Water Well (Wells 1 and 2)
90,106
$
110,952
West View Water Project
853,355
$
966,847
Grosswieller Well Development
92,626
$
96,563
Silverbrook Well (by Developer)
-
-
$ 1,530,136
$
2,096,744
2012-2023 Grosswieller Water Supply
Total Future Wells
Total Wells
2035 ERUs
Source of Supply Impact Fee per ERU
$ 575,000 $ 594,000
$ 575,000 $ 594,000
$ 2,879,260
13,612
$ 211.53
APPENDIX C
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
UNJOHIRM
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$-3 374;189 $--3 907,3
beyond 2035 West Kalispell Reservior 2—3,27-7.� gg — ,795,483
beyond 2035 South Kalispell Reservior 3 3,277,5W �05 qgg
Total Future Storage Plant $-9188 $-1-1,498;-31X
Total Storage Plant $ 5,672,604
Total ERUs 2035 13,612
Distribution Storage Plant Impact Fee per ERU $ 416.75
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
APPENDIX E
City of Kalispell Water System impact Fees
Transmission/Distribution Mains
Appendix E
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
Transmission/Distribution Mains
Year
Equipment List
Original
Cost
Cost
2012
Percent
Impact Fee
Related
Impact
Fee
Eligible'
Existing TransmissionlDist6bution Plant
1967
2200 8 inch
$ 13,455
S 25,120
0.0% $
1911
3180 20 inch
10,838
$ 20,234
36.6% $
7,403
1911
101 12 inch
251
$ 469
36.6% $
171
1924
4204 18 inch
30,224
$ 56,428
36.61/. $
20,644
1924
177616 inch
11,349
$ 21,188
36.6% $
7,752
1924
195998 inch
50,136
$ 93,603
36.6% $
34,244
1925
204612 inch
11,016
S 20,567
36.6°% $
7,524
1925
116936inch
21,874
$ 40,838
0.0% $
-
1928
294 12 inch
1,278
S 2,386
36.6% $
873
1930
13169 6 inch
21,428
S 40,006
0.0% $
-
1932
1311 12 inch
5,158
S 9,630
36.6% $
3,523
1935
10853 6 inch
18,462
$ 34,468
0.0% $
-
1938
1988 8 inch
12,786
$ 23.871
36.6% $
8,733
1938
15678 6 inch
31,309
$ 58,453
0.0% $
-
1948
11019 6 inch
3,667
$ 6,846
0.0% $
1948
3145 6 inch
11,624
$ 21,702
0.0% $
-
1949
3290 8 inch
15,573
S 29,075
36.6% $
10,637
1950
1452 6 inch
5,447
S 10,169
0.0% $
-
1952
630 20 inch
10,109
$ 18,873
36.6% $
6,905
1952
969 18 inch
14,578
$ 27,217
36.6% $
9,957
1953
125 12 inch
1,476
$ 2,756
36.6% $
1,008
1955
6274 6 inch
29,235
$ 54,581
0.0% $
-
1956
1266 8 inch
7,983
$ 14,904
36.6% $
5,453
1958
18846inch
10,102
S 18,860
0.0% $
-
1959
5245 8 inch
36,994
$ 69,067
36.6% $
25,268
1960
2122 6 inch
12,006
S 22,415
0.0% $
-
1961
109812 inch
17,964
$ 33,539
36.6% $
12,270
1961
1575 12 inch
26,910
$ 50,241
36.6% $
18,380
1962
4720 8 inch
35,749
$ 66,743
36.6% $
24,417
1962
58716 inch
34,739
S 64,857
0.0% $
-
1965
322512 inch
55,101
$ 102,873
36.6°% $
37,635
1965
2451 6 inch
14,956
$ 27,923
0.0% $
-
1966
544 8 inch
249,924
$ 466,604
36.6% $
170,704
1967
1060 12 inch
133,249
$ 248,774
0.0% $
-
1967
590 8 inch
158,707
$ 296,304
36.6% $
108,401
1968
115712 inch
1,192,190
$ 2,225,801
36.6°% $
814,296
1968
2795 8 inch
80,000
$ 149,359
36.6% $
54,642
1968
10596inch
133,249
$ 248,774
0.0% $
-
1969
1830 6 inch
18,588
$ 34,704
0.0% $
-
1969
3724 8 inch
24,327
$ 45,418
36.6% $
16,616
1969
7021 6 inch
45,023
$ 84,057
0.0% $
-
1970
1070 8 inch
18,245
$ 34,063
0.0% $
-
1970
1635 8 inch
13,517
$ 25,236
36.6°% $
9,232
1970
3728 6 inch
24,079
$ 44,955
0.0% $
-
1971
1866 6 inch
13,266
$ 24,767
0.0% $
-
1972
Airport 8 inch
40,418
$ 75,460
36.6°% $
27,607
1972
85810 inch
10,385
$ 19,389
36.6°% S
7,093
1972
1070 8 inch
9,419
$ 17,585
36.6% $
6,433
1972
2122 6 inch
15,212
$ 28,401
0.0% $
-
1973
567416 inch
129,932
$ 242,581
36.6% $
88,747
1973
2318 14 inch
49,763
$ 92,907
36.6% $
33,989
1973
176912 inch
36,636
$ 68,399
36.6% $
25,023
1973
159212 inch
31,899
$ 59,555
36.6% $
21,788
1973
31610 inch
3,979
$ 7,429
36.6% $
2,718
1973
217 8 inch
2,064
$ 3,853
36.6% S
1,410
1973
5930 8 inch
54,317
$ 101,409
36.6% $
37,100
1973
50 8 inch
457
$ 853
36.6% $
312
1973
2589 6 inch
18,527
$ 34,590
0.0% $
-
1973
743 6 inch
5,523
$ 10,311
0.0% $
1973
178 6inch
1,273
$ 2,377
0.0°% $
1974
3097 12 inch
78,563
$ 146,676
0.0% $
1975
4334 6 inch
48,188
$ 89,966
0.0°% $
-
1976
3097 12 inch
103,559
$ 193,343
36.6% $
70,733
1976
41412 inch
410
$ 765
36.6% $
280
1976
2196 12 inch
10,882
$ 20,317
36.6% S
7,433
1976
36828inch
55,845
$ 104,262
36.6% $
38,144
1976
845 6 inch
10,012
$ 18,692
0.0% $
-
1977
922 6 inch
12,400
$ 23,151
0.0% $
-
1981
Idaho Street Main
79,872
$ 149,120
36.6% $
54,555
1982
SID 328
24,646
$ 46,014
0.0% $
-
1983
Main Street
150,540
$ 281,056
36.6% $
102,823
1983
6th Avenue Water Main
4,216
$ 7,871
36.6'/0 $
2,880
1983
SID 326
4,511
$ 8,422
0.0% $
-
1983
370 8 inch
11,101
$ 20,725
36.61/. $
7,582
1983
230 8 inch
6,873
$ 12,832
36.6% $
4,694
1983
12512 inch
1,475
$ 2,754
36.61/6 $
1,007
1984
SID 326 Kenway Addition
3,781
$ 7,059
0.0% $
-
1984
859 6 inch
19,566
$ 36,529
0.0% $
1984
722 8 inch
32,507
$ 60,690
0.0% $
1984
13756inch
14,722
$ 27,486
0.0% $
-
1984
220 12 inch
1,980
$ 3,697
36.6% $
1,352
1984
2350 12 inch
43,968
$ 82,088
16.2% $
13,304
1984
650 12 inch
6,455
$ 12,051
0.0% $
-
1984
240 12 inch
8,094
$ 15,111
36.6% $
5,528
1984
360 6 inch
5,520
$ 10,306
0.0% $
-
1984
2520 6 inch
17,317
$ 32,331
0.0% $
-
1984
JD 510B Backhoe
43,350
$ 80,934
36.6% $
29,609
1985
3050 6 inch
37.708
$ 70,400
0.0% $
-
1985
10808inch
32,400
$ 60,490
36.6% $
22,130
1985
385 8 inch
11,550
$ 21,564
36.6% $
7,889
1985
400 8 inch
12,000
$ 22,404
36.6% $
8,196
1985
1250 8 inch
37,500
$ 70,012
36.6% $
25,613
1985
320 8 inch
9,600
$ 17,923
36.6% $
6,557
1985
360 8 inch
10,800
$ 20,163
36.6% $
7,377
1986
2270 8 inch
99,300
$ 185,392
8.8% $
16,278
1986
610 8 inch
15,300
$ 28,565
36.6% $
10,450
1987
5197 12 inch
302,513
$ 564,787
23.5% $
132,653
1987
157 8 inch
9,486
$ 17,710
36.6% $
6,479
1987
211 6inch
15,121
$ 28.231
0.0% $
-
1987
400 8 inch
17,158
$ 32,034
36.6% $
11,719
1987
300 8 inch
9,008
$ 16,818
36.6% $
6,153
1987
457 8 inch
15,084
$ 28,162
3.3% $
927
1987
272 8 inch
9,881
$ 18,448
18.3% $
3,374
1987
600 8 inch
18,079
$ 33,753
36.6% $
12,348
1987
1540 12 inch
70,434
$ 131,499
36.6% $
48,108
1987
145412 inch
51,759
$ 96,633
36.6% $
35,353
1987
396 12 inch
17,679
$ 33,006
36.6% $
12,075
1988
599 8 inch
18,145
$ 33,876
36.6% $
12,393
1988
165712 inch
68,322
$ 127,556
36.6% $
46,666
1989
SW Kai Project
257,827
$ 481,359
25.6% $
123,272
1989
66012 inch
24,318
$ 45,401
36.6% $
16,610
1989
300 8 inch
8,516
$ 15,899
36.6`yo $
5,817
1990
2701 12 inch
162,689
$ 303,738
36.6% $
111,121
1991
2619 12 inch
197,416
$ 368,573
36.6% $
134,840
1991
400 6 inch
16,000
$ 29,872
0.0% $
-
1991
430 8 inch
18,700
$ 34,913
36.6% $
12,773
1991
700 8 inch
30,120
$ 56,234
36.6% $
20,573
1991
366 8 inch
35,605
$ 66,474
27.8% $
18,483
1992
Trav-L-Vac 80
13,652
$ 25,488
36.6% $
9,325
1992
713 8 inch
21,648
$ 40,417
36.6% $
14,786
1992
6th St W
66,480
$ 124,117
36.6% $
45,408
1992
14th St and 5th Ave
65,709
$ 122,678
36.6% $
44,881
1993
Cat 426B Backhoe
46,932
$ 87,621
36.6% $
32,056
1993
Windward Upsize
15,000
$ 28,005
36.6% $
10,245
1994
LN-8000 Tandem
58,108
$ 108,487
36.6% $
39,689
1994
Greenbrier Upsize
15,903
$ 29,691
36.6% $
10,862
1994
Kelly Road Upsize
14,023
$ 26,181
36.6% $
9,578
1994
81h Ave and Cal St
34,605
$ 64,607
36.6% $
23,636
1995
Hydraulic shoring system
6,700
$ 12,509
36.6% $
4,576
1995
Lawrence Park
36,525
$ 68,192
36.6% $
24,948
1995
Utah Street
19,521
$ 36,445
36.6% $
13,333
1995
Ave of Arts/2nd Ave
24,923
$ 46,531
36.6% $
17,023
1996
E Arizona
15,750
$ 29,405
36.6% $
10,758
1997
Tapping Machine
12,320
$ 23,001
36.6% $
8,415
1997
Woodland
169,225
$ 315,941
36.6% $
115,585
1997
Liberty/Two Mile
314,628
S 587,406
36.6% $
214,899
1997
14th St
28,798
$ 53,765
36.6% $
19,670
1997
West Wyoming
88,130
$ 164,537
36.61/o $
60,195
1997
Backhoe Jackhammer
12,000
$ 22,404
36.6% $
8,196
1998
Buffalo Com
145,201
$ 260,037
36.6% $
95,133
1998
Telemetry Upgrade
8,438
$ 15,111
36.6% $
5,528
1999
SthAve NW Water
91,657
$ 157,454
36.6% S
57,604
2000
John Deere Loader
34,490
$ 56,834
36.6% S
20,792
2001
Cat 430D Backhoe
58,361
$ 92,249
36.61/6 $
33,749
2001
MN SUCntr-Sunst
612,454
$ 9W078
36.6% S
354,165
2001
Willow Glen and Woodland
17,525
$ 27,701
36.6% $
10,134
2002
Meter Test Bench
12,737
$ 19,312
36.6% S
7,065
2002
Meridian Rd to 3 Mile Drive
158,707
$ 240,634
7.3% S
17,607
2002
Facility Plan
93,000
$ 141,008
36.6% $
51,587
2004
Northern Lights Blvd -Water Main installatior
281,859
$ 393,225
36.6% S
143,859
2004
Washington St. btwn 7th & 8th
26,585
$ 37,089
36.6% S
13,569
2005
Ingersoll Rand Roller
13,572
$ 18,163
36.6°/n $
6,645
2005
Meters - New Services
205,703
$ 275,279
0.0% S
-
2005
US Highway 93 South Utilities
1,904,905
$ 2,649,211
33.3% $
847,798
2006
West View Upsize
12,407
$ 15,927
36.6% S
5,827
2007
Sterling Tandem
94,387
$ 116,223
36.61% S
42,520
2007
Meridian Road Water Main
203,561
$ 250,654
36.6% S
91,700
2007
Westwood Upsize
28,923
$ 35,614
36.6% $
13,029
2007
Lone Pine Meadows Upsize
58,275
$ 71,757
36.6% S
26,252
2008
Spring Prairie Upsize
18,187
$ 21,482
36.6% $
7,859
2008
Holiday Inn Upsize
6,072
$ 7,172
36.6% S
2,624
2008
Gardner Extension Upsize
32,631
$ 38,542
36.6% $
14,100
2008
Reserve Loop Extension
15,592
$ 18,416
36.6% $
6,738
2008
Hutton Ranch Phase 1 Upsize
12,500
$ 14,764
36.6% S
5,401
2008
Buffalo Hills Water Main Replacement Proje
100,275
$ 118,440
36.6% S
43,330
2009
Bobcat
52,881
$ 59,914
7.3% $
4,384
2009
Trail King Tilt Deck Trailer
20,895
$ 23,674
36.6% $
8,661
2009
Upper Zone Production
853,355
$ 966,847
36.6% $
353,716
2010
93 Bypass
100,724
$ 109,467
36.6% $
40,048
2010
1 st Ave E & Idaho St - 140' 12 inch
32,385
$ 35,196
36.61% $
12,876
2010
Parkway Dr - 360' 8 inch
69,818
$ 75.879
36.6% $
27.760
2011
11 St Et7th Ave E to Woodland -1,016 8 inc
167,942
$ 175,080
36.6% $
64,052
2011
Cat Backhoe
106.232
$ 110,747
36.6% $
40,516
2011
Airport Rd & Merganser - 220' 8 inch
7,651
$ 7,976
36.6% $
2,918
2011
Owl Corporation Settlement
313,467
$ 313,467
100.0% $
313,467
Total Existing Transmission and Distribution Plant $
12,592,251
$ 20,196,005
$
6,416,138
New ERUs 2012 to 2035
4,980
Existing Transmission/Distribution Plant Impact Fee per ERU
$
1,288.46
Future Transmission/Distribution Plant - CiP Projects 2
W-EX-8
Conway Drive and Highway 93 Loop $
191,558
$ 207,417
100.0% $
207,417
W-EX-119
Misc Contract Main Upsize
875,000
875,000
100.0% $
875,000
W-EX-123
Meters - New Services
356,186
356,186
100.0% $
356,186
Total Future TransmissionlDistribution Plant- CIP Projects $
1,422,744
$ 1,438,603
$
1,438,603
New ERUs 2012 to 2035
3
4,980
Future Transmission/Distribution Plant CIP Projects Impact Fee per ERU
$
288.89
Future TransmissionlDistribution Plant- Extension Projects 4
2011
Annexaton Boundary
2012-2035
East Whitefish River Extensions
13,544,300
15,684,871
0%
-
2012-2035
North Kalispell Extensions
23,367,000
27,059,973
32%
8,639,131
2012-2035
West Stillwater River Extensions
11,519,800
13,340,415
15%
1,988,483
2012-2035
West Kalispell Extensions
40,114,200
46,453,938
7%
3,435,837
2012-2035
East Kalispell Extensions
1,392,000
1,611,995
60%
970,335
2012-2035
South Kalispell Extensions
6,455,100
7,475,278
34%
2,549,461
Total Future TransmissionlDistribution Plant Extension Projects $ 96,392,400 $ 111,626,470 $ 17,583,247
New ERUs 2012 to 2035 4,980
Future TransmissioniDistribution Plant impact Fee per ERU $ 3,530.99
Total Transmission/Distribution Plant Impact Fee per ERU $ 5,108.35
1- Allocation for existing projects based on new ERUs, from 2012 to 2035 divided by total ERUs in 2035.
Some plant is excluded or reduced based on the amount from developer contributions and or the amount which was for replacement.
2 - See City of Kalispell Water Capital Improvement Plan (Appendix F) for project details
3- Assumes that CIP projects provide service capacity through planning horizon.
4 - See Chapter 5 of the Water Facility Plan Update - 2008 and Appendix F of this report
Projects are adjused to 2012 dollars from the 2007 plan values based on changes in the ENR Construction Cost index.
APPENDIX f
2012/2013 Water Capital
Improvement Plan
�'
��r
m
CISppl
�
�
�4+
i
AOV
apQQ pppp
88
�
�
O ��
m
�i
��
f
u
A
w
�
M
m �
t�]]
1cV
O
c�
v
r
O�l•
e�
CI
d eC
1aC
Sri
o
Vy1j a
� o
mm
ELL
a
M
In •nNNN
N
H
�• MNNpW
Np
N
NNN
NN
N
M
f? O
S5��QQQ
pN
O
e
ar`
N N
N
»
M
CG
IA
888
�
O
�S
000
499
ID
a
W
N
y
y
p
W N
N
N N
�
N
fJ N
9
Y
888888
O
�,
K
(�lpp
yGy�l
p�p p�p�I
y�y
E�
W
N•n
.
Np
N
N
O
N
88».
�a•�l
S
pO
G
E�
w
W
N
8
8
588
8
88$88
8$$8
V'
�
O
10
abl'1
m
�j
�Ol
V NY
N1'1
Off �
N
E y
M LL
W
{f
�
b
8
E
H
to
o
•�
c
v
R
W
C
3
$
< F
<
8
AS
U3
¢¢
J
Is
a
LL
{
fi
m
_
wmm
x
8
�<3
al
n
b
o
J
j
Z16,
83;�
Am
V
3gg
zyL
;3�
�3y
y�<N
�N3b.bb
3N3y=
c
0
-
��ca�-oozazxo��x�
v
c a
xaaxoazee--aaaoc��xrc,xo
nrz,r-���sr�rcarca:
LL
E.p
f
NIgOn"�
X xx
w W
xx
W Yi
W
LL[ W
wA• NNIV
x
W W
NN
W
N'C4i
W
t:l
W W
t'1 T
W W
Y
W
Oils
LL W
01'
W !
^ p�p[rA
W a
J Ji
J 'Y
A
W W
W W
Nln
W W
O NA,I�N'�O
W T
W 11
W W
W W
If11C
W
O
W W
n`#i333333333333i33333;333��i3.33333��
�333��333�
33
APPENDIX G
2011 Montana Code Annotated
7-6-16
7-6-J601, Definitions.
Pteijous Section MCA CoftrAs Pad Contents Seard, Help Next Section
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. An impact 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, a nd
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 minimuin 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 i.n.7-6-1602.
(7) "Public -facilities" ineans:
(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, treatment, or disposal facility or a 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
btti)://data.opi.nit.govfbills/iiica/77-6-1601.htm -3/210-013
7-6-1601. Definitions.
Page 2 of 2
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.
Provided by Montana Legisiatave Services
http:Hdata.opi.mt.gov/bills/mcan/6/7-6-1601.htm 3/21/2013
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or re.. Page I of 2
��re�ous Se.--fion MCACooftj$ Pivt Contents Search Help Next Section
7-6-1602. Calculation of i-t.npact 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;
(f) 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 sery ice 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 irn pact fee,-,
(j) establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit 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;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period 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 (12) 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 impact fiee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public
facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the
governmental entity as atesult 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:
bti-p://data.opi,m,t.00v/bilis/mca/7/6/-/-6-160?.lit,m 3/21/2013
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or re... Page 2 of 2
(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
(h) 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 match the higher 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; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 358, L. 2009.
Provided by Manhm? Legislative Services
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 3/21/2013
7-6-1603. Collection, and expenditure. of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mech... Page I of 2.
Pre4ous Section MCA Contep,,$ Part C40ents SeaO Help 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
part. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be reasonably related to the benefits
accruing to the development paying the impact -R�es. 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 fbnd', which must
be invested with all interest accruing to the ffind.
(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 connection 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 onthe 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 constructed is determined
to be appropriate for the proposed use by the govemmentalentity;
(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 public facilities
is of worth it) 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 7-6-16-02(2)0), If impact fees are imposed for
litti)://data.opi.nit.gov,lbills/mea/7/6/7-6-1603.htm 3/2112013
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- inech... Doge 2of2
remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net
increase between the old and new demand may be imposed.
(6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refbnds 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 govertirnental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the
impact -fees.
(7) Ali 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 where -by a person
charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has been made.
History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299L. 2005; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 358, L. 2009.
PWided,by NwAma LogiSINW& SeNket
fittp-.//(Iata.opi.nit.govibills/inca/7/6i'7-6-16OL' Uitin 3/2 1 /2013)
7-6-1604, Impact fee advisory committee.
Pt--4ous SW, its MCA ConterAs Park Contents Swrh Holp Next Section
7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governi-nental 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.
Pwfi*d ty ftgapa LegishOke Serkes
littp:Aldata.opi,mt.gov/bills/iiica/`//6/7-6-1604.litm. 3/21/20 13 )