Resolution 5654 - Amending Water Utility Impact FeesRESOLUTION 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.
q>q i V�f-"
Tammi Fisher
Mayor
ATTEST:
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 1a Avenue East
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
September 2012
PREPARED BY:
Morrison-Maierie, 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
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
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) Proiiected 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 301h 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 An Equivalent Residential Unit, or ERU, is a
hours per day, as this would create standard way to measure capacity within a
obvious problems with operation and utility system. An ERU is the water flow
maintenance of equipment. demand arising from an average single-family
The current pumping capacity of the home. Within the Kalispell water system, 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 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 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.
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
a
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 $516,000. No water debt service credits are
necessary in this current impact fee analysis.
This impact fee report update meets the requirements of the 2011 Montana Code Annotated 7-
6-16, regarding the calculation of impact fees. This document is provided as a guide for the City
of Kalispell to use in determining the appropriate charges for water impact fees.
M.
r North Kalispell R
-Isting Population: 3547
cal Build -Out Population: East Whitefish River
West sti iwater 1 River 21700 Existing Population: 8209
River
148 p
ulation: 16907 Theoretical Build -Out Population:
Existing Populati
Theoretical Build -Out Population: _.. 40000
29000 2035 Population: 8224 f
.2035 Population: 10084 d
West Kalispell '*
Existing Population: 3382
oretical$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
APPENDIX A
City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees
ERU Projection
Appendix A
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
ERU Projection
Peale Averages
Day Flow Day Flow Total Additional
(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
20,114
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
Year
2036
15.38
5.76
13,884
272
2037
15.69
5.88
14,161
278
2038
16.02
5.99
14,445
283
2039
16.33
6.11
14,734
289
2040
26.65
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
19.23
7.16
17,263
338
2048
19.51
7.31
17,608
345
2049
19.90
7.45
17,960
352
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 0512612011)
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
APPENDIX B
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 $ 94,868 $ 169,894
2002 Noffsinger Springs Chlorine Room 10,398 18,621
Total Existing Source
$
105,266
$
188,615
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
$
20,616
1956
Northridge Well Site
10
$
19
1997
Northside Water Wells (Grandview 1 and 2)
306,028
$
571,360
2007
Old School Water Well (Wells 1 and 2)
90,106
$
110,962
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
$
575,000
$
594,000
Total Wells
$
2,879,260
2035 ERUs
13,612
Source of Supply Impact
Fee per ERU
$
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
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
1914
Reservoir # 1
1952
Reservoir # 2
1957
Reservoir Covers
1965
Buffalo Hill Elevated Storage Tank
1982
Buffalo Hill to Reservoir pipe
2001
Water Reservoir Roof
1914
Reservoir # 1 Land
1935
Noffsinger Land
1939
Monteath Land
1952
Reservoir # 2 Land
2009
Sheepherder's Hill
Total Existing Storage Plant
Future Storage Plant
beyond 2035
North Kalispell Reservioir 1
beyond 2035
West Kalispell Reservior 2
beyond 2035
South Kalispell Reservior 3
Total Future Storage Plant
Total Storage Plant
Total ERLIs 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
$ 48,117
$
89,834
24,031
$
44,866
73,691
$
137,680
97,577
$
182,175
111,970
$
209,046
11,042
$
20,615
420,128
$
664,077
715
$
1,335
1,500
$
2,800
650
$
1,214
1
$
2
3,812,072
$
4,319,060
$ 4,601,494 $ 5,672,604
$-99
$ 6,672,604
13,612
$ 416.75
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
hnpact
Fee
Eligible'
Erlsdng TransmissioWastrlbution Plant
1967
2200 8 inch
$ 13,465
$ 25,120
0.0% $
1911
3180 20 inch
10,838
$ 20,234
36.6% $
7.403
1911
10112 inch
251
$ 469
36.6% $
171
1924
420418 inch
30,224
$ 56,428
36.6Yo $
20,644
1924
177616 inch
11,349
$ 21,188
36.6oA $
7,752
1924
196998inch
50,136
$ 93,603
36.6% $
34,244
1925
204612Inch
11,016
S 20,567
36.6% $
7,524
1925
11693 6 inch
21,874
S 40,838
0.0% $
-
1928
29412 inch
1,278
S 2,386
36.6% $
873
1930
131696inch
21,428
$ 40,006
0.0% $
-
1932
1311 12 inch
5,158
S 9,630
36.6oA $
3,523
1935
108536inch
18,462
$ 34,468
0.0% $
-
1938
1988 8 inch
12,786
$ 23.871
36.6% $
8.733
1938
156786inch
31,309
$ 58,453
0.0% $
-
1948
11019 6 inch
3,667
$ 6,846
0.0% $
1948
31456Inch
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
38.6% $
6,906
1952
96918 inch
14,578
S 27,217
36.6% $
9,957
1953
12512Inch
1,476
$ 2.756
36.6% $
1,008
1955
6274 6inch
29.235
$ 54,681
0.0% $
-
1956
1266 8 inch
7,983
$ 14,904
36.6% $
5,453
1958
18846inch
10,102
$ 18,860
0.0% $
-
1959
52458inch
36,994
S 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
157512 inch
26,910
$ 50,241
36.0°% $
18,380
1902
4720 8-inch
35,749
$ 66,743
36.6% $
24,417
1962
58716 inch
34,739
$ 64,857
0.0% $
-
1965
322512 inch
55,101
$ 102,873
36.6% $
37,635
1965
24516 inch
14,956
$ 27,923
0.0% $
-
1966
544 8 inch
249,924
$ 466,604
36.6% $
170,704
1967
106012 inch
133,249
$ 248,774
0.01% $
-
1967
590 8 inch
158,707
$ 296,304
36.60/. $
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
1059 6 inch
133,249
$ 248,774
0.0% $
-
1969
1830 6inch
18,588
$ 34,704
0.0% $
1969
3724 8 inch
24,327
$ 45,418
36.6% $
16,616
1969
7021 6 inch
45,023
$ 64,057
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
858 10inch
10,385
$ 19,389
36.6oA $
7,093
1972
1070 8 inch
9,419
$ 17,585
36.61/. $
6,433
1972
2122 6 inch
15,212
$ 28,401
0.0% $
-
1973
567416 inch
129,932
$ 242.581
36.6% $
88,747
1973
231814 inch
49,763
$ 92,907
36.6% $
33,989
1973
176912 inch
38,636
$ 68,399
36.61/. $
25,023
1973
1592 12inch
31,899
$ 59,555
38.0% $
21,788
1973
31010 inch
3,979
$ 7,429
36.6% $
2,718
1973
2178inch
2,064
$ 3,853
36.6% S
1.410
1973
59308inch
54,317
$ 101,409
36.6% S
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
5,623
$ 10,311
0.0% $
1973
178 6 inch
1,273
$ 2,377
0.0% $
-
1974
309712 inch
78,563
$ 146,676
0.0% $
1975
4334 6 inch
48,188
$ 89,966
0.0% $
-
1976
309712 inch
103,559
$ 193,343
36.6% S
70,733
1976
41412 inch
410
$ 765
36.6% $
280
1976
219612 inch
10,882
$ 20,317
36.6% S
7,433
1976
36828inch
55,845 $
104.262
36.6% $
38,144
1970
846 6inch
10.012 $
18,692
0.0% $
-
1977
922 6Inch
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°A $
102,823
1983
6th Avenue Water Main
4,216 $
7,871
36.6% S
2,880
1983
SID 326
4,511 $
8,422
0.0% $
-
1983
370 8 inch
11,101 $
20,725
36.69% $
7,582
1983
230 8 inch
6,873 S
12,832
36.5% $
4.694
1983
12512 inch
1,475 $
2.754
36.6% S
1,007
1984
SID 326 KenwayAddidan
3.781 S
7.059
0.0% $
-
1984
&% 6 inch
191566 $
36,529
O.OY. $
1984
7228 inch
32,507 $
60,690
0.0% $
1984
13756Inch
14,722 $
27,486
0.0% $
-
1984
22012 inch
1,980 $
3,697
36.6% $
1,362
1984
235012 inch
43,968 $
82,088
16.2% $
13,304
1984
65012 inch
6,456 $
12,051
0.0% $
-
1984
24012 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 510E 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
519712 inch
302.513 $
564,787
23.5% $
132,653
1987
157 8 inch
9,486 $
17,710
36.61% $
6,479
1987
2116 inch
15,121 $
28,231
0.0% $
-
1987
400 8 inch
17.168 $
32,034
36.6% $
11,719
1987
3008Inch
9,008 $
16,818
36.6% $
6,153
1987
457 8 Inch
15,084 $
28.162
3.3% $
927
1987
2728inch
9,881 $
18,448
18.3% $
3,3T4
1987
600 8 inch
18,079 $
33,753
36.6% $
12,348
1987
154012 inch
70,434 $
131,499
36.6% $
48,108
1987
145412inch
51,769 $
96,633
36.6% $
35,353
1987
39612 inch
17,679 $
33,006
36.6% $
12,075
1988
5998inch
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% $
5,817
1990
2701 12 inch
162.689 $
303,738
36.6% $
111,121
1991
2619 12inch
197,416 $
368,573
36.6Yn $
134,840
1991
400 6 inch
16,000 $
29,872
0.0% $
-
1991
430 8inch
18,700 $
34,913
36.6% $
12,773
1991
700 8inch
30,120 $
56,234
36.6% $
20,573
1991
366 8 inch
35,605 $
66,4T4
27.8% $
18,483
1992
Trav-L-Vac 80
13,652 $
25,488
36.6916 $
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 426E Backhoe
46,932 $
87,621
36.6% $
32,056
1993
Windward Upsize
15,000 $
28,005
36.61% $
10,245
1994
LN-8000 Tandem
58,108 $
108,487
36.60/. $
39,689
1994
Greenbrier Upsize
15,903 $
29,691
36.6% $
10,862
1994
Kelly Road Upsize
14,023 $
26,181
36.61A $
9,578
1994
8th Ave and Cal St
34,605 $
64,607
36.6% $
23,636
1995
Hydraulic shoring system
6,700 $
12,509
36.0% $
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% S
17,023
1996
E Arizona
15,750 $
29,405
36.6% $
10,758
1997
Tapping Machine
12,320 S
23.001
36.6% $
8,415
1997
Woodland
169,225 $
315,941
36.6Yu $
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
36.6°k $
60,195
1997
Backhoe Jackhammer
12,000 $
22,404
36.6% $
8,196
1998
Buffalo Com
145,201 $
260,037
36.6Y6 $
95,133
1998
Telemetry Upgrade
8,438 $
15,111
36.69/. $
5,528
1999 SthAve NW Water
91,657 $
157,454
36.6% S
57,604
2000 John Deere Loader
34,490 $
56,834
36.6916 S
20,792
2001 Cat430D Backhoe
58,361 $
92,249
36.6% $
33,749
2001 MN SVCntr-Sunst
612,454 $
968,078
36.6% $
354,165
2001 Willow Glen and Woodland
17,625 $
27,701
36.6% S
10,134
2002 MeterTestSench
12,737 $
19,312
36.6% $
7,065
2002 Meridian Rd to 3 Mile Drive
158,707 $
240,634
7.30% $
17,607
2002 Facility Plan
93,000 $
141.008
36.6% $
51,687
2004 Northern Lights Blvd -Water Main installatior
281,859 $
393,225
36.6% S
143,859
2004 Washington St btwn 7th & 8th
26,586 $
37.089
36.6% S
13,569
2005 Ingersoll Rand Roller
13,572 $
18,163
36.6% S
6,645
2005 Meters - New Services
206,703 $
275,279
0.0% S
-
2005 US Highway 93 South Utilities
1,904,905 $
2,649,211
33.3% S
847,798
2006 West View Upsize
12,407 $
15,927
36.6% S
5,827
2007 Sterling Tandem
94,387 $
116,223
36.69% $
42,620
2007 Meridian Road Water Main
203.561 S
260,664
36.60A 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% $
26,252
2008 Spring Prairie Upsize
18.187 $
21,482
36.6% S
7,869
2008 Holiday Inn Upsize
6.072 $
7,172
36.60/6 $
2,624
2008 Gardner Extension Upsize
32,631 $
38,542
36.6% S
14,100
2008 Reserve Loop Extension
15,592 $
18,416
36.6% $
6,738
2008 Hutton Ranch Phase 1 Upsize
12.500 $
14,764
36A% $
5,401
2008 Buffalo Hills Water Main Replacement Proje
100,275 $
118,440
36.6% $
43,330
2009 Bobcat
SZ881 $
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% $
353,715
2010 93 Bypass
100.724 $
109,467
36.6% $
40,048
2010 1st Ave E & Idaho St - 140' 12 inch
32,385 $
35.196
36.6°/a S
12,876
2010 Parkway Or - 36V 8 inch
69,818 $
75.879
36.6% $
27,760
2D11 11 St Et7th Ave E to Woodland -1,016 8 inc
167,942 $
175,080
36.6°/u $
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 $
313,487
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 i
W-EX-8 Conway Drive and Highway 93 Loop $
191,568 $
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 Transmission/Distribution Plant - CiP Projects $
1,422,744 $
1,438,603
$
1,438,603
New ERUs 2012 to 2035 3
4,980
Future TransmisstonlDistribution Plant CIP Projects Impact Fee per ERU
$
288.89
Future Transmission/Distribution Plant -Extension Projects s
2011 Annexaton Boundary
2012-2035 East Whitefish River Extensions
13,544,300
15,684,871
0%
-
2012-2035 North Kalispell Extensions
23,367,000
27,069,973
32%
8,639,131
2012-2035 West Stillwater River Extensions
11,519,800
13,340,415
151/6
1,988.483
2012-2035 West Kalispell Extensions
40,114.200
46,463,938
7%
3,435,837
2012-2036 East Kalispell Extensions
1,392,000
1,611,995
60%
970,336
2012-2035 South Kalispell Extensions
6,455,100
7,475,278
34%
2,549,461
Total Future TransmissionfDistribution Plant Extension Projects $
96,39Z400 $
111,626,470
$
17,583,247
New ERUs 2012 to 2035
4,980
Future Transmission/Distribution 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 capactly 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
i
to
a
i
N
N
7
O
Q
E
CL
U
a�
N
O
Q
O
a
U
i
O
_ (U
Q r
,y N
YN
01
V
4")
(O
a1
N
r
N
O
a1
01
r
O
r
C.
co
O
00
O
N
(0
r
O
M
O
m
I-
(O
00
7
M
C)
0)
O
Co
Co
0
1-
r
—
7
OD
N
O
O
(O
O
N
(D
O
O
00
N
O
N
01
(O
O
7
0
0
C)
00
"t
Nzt
0
N
(O
U
m
(DV
N
00
V
M
I1
1-
11-
M
7
7
O
(0
M
M
0)
w
N
(0
O
O
1-
O
Co
Co
CoO
Co
O
O
(
N
r
O
00
N
7
(O
7
(0
7
01
f�
O
-p
u)
1-
00
M
I-
00
0)
00
1`
(O
0)
O
00
O
(O
(O
O
O
u)
7
N
7
7
00
00
op+ ate+
R
(n
M
O
N
O
M
u")
0
(f)
7
1-
N
M
7
1-
7
0)
7
N
M
M
u')
V
00
1'
O
n
M
N
M
M
O
1�
M
N
00
N
M
M
O
M
W
co
N
W
HT
(n
(n
EA
EA
EA
K3
EA
EA
EA
(n
EA
EA
H3
VT
VT
HT
EA
EA
H3
�
EA
EA
EA
ER
M
O
Co
O
N
O
O
Co
O
M
N
O
O
Co
Co
Co
O
0
00
1-
00
V ti
0
o
N
W
N
(O
(O
O
1--
y (p
M
N
(O
M
O
R
�LL
N
W
EA
EH
ELT
�
fR
O
O
Co
O
N
N
7
0
O
Co
O
O
O
U m
O
1-
0)
O
O
Co
Co
�
a0
N
M
(O
00
a
M
(0
O
co
O
"I
N
R
00
00
N
N
O
t
(O
1�
(O
O
O
M
7
t
O
V
1--
-q
(n
E LL
N
N
W
(A
EA
EFT
ELT
ELT
�
(n
(ri
00
1-
O
Co
O
0)
N
N
N
1`
N
O
Co
O
7
N
M
p
U (n
M
00
(0
t
O
O
O
Co
Co
co
N
00
O
00
(0
( o
M
O
v
r-
1--
O
a
N
M
(0
(O
(O
O
0)7
N
7
W
ti
f6
00
O
n
O
M
0)
7
(fl
M
(O
-q
O
�
W
N
w
eT
eT
ELT
ELT
e»
ELT
�
eT
En
O
Co
O
V
O
N
O
Co
O
O
M
W
N
O
u)
Co
CoO
no
(0
00
U
O
O
CoO
Co
7
00
00
v
N
a
4i
(O
()
O
(O
O
N
zt
co
R
}
r
N
M
O
N
._ W
N
W
E9
fA
fH
KJ
EA
EA
�
fR
O
O
O
O
co
O
N
CoO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
N
O
O
O
O
Co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
co
O
O
7
Co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
-q
U co
O
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
Co
co
O
O
O
O
00
Co
Co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(C
a c
N
V
(O
O
(O
O
(O
N
7
(O
O
(O
00
O
O
7
O
0
w
N
R�
E LL
M
O
N
(0
(O
(O
M
O
V
0)
7
7
N
7
N
M
0)
O
N
N
N
W
EA
EA
EFT
EFT
EH
EA
�
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
fR
>
R
a)
O
O_
U
N
R
w
Q
N
O
U
(n
N
O
N
0
O
o0
t
.O
O
E
O
d
L
p
O
a
O
L
_
O
-0~
O
47
4i
N
O-
L
C
N
O_
R
00
00
°LL
}
C
O
L
06ZL(7)
C
W
U
_�
y
Q
o
U
C
L
ui
O
^
4n
>
Q
(o
E
0
3
°
w
o
3
L
°>
y
o
N
c
R
y
00
3
c
0
a)
W
°
Z
0
a
R
C
E
>
Z;
0
N
O
U
y
d
C
Lu
O_
>
a
O
>
s
c
a)
Q
yO
o
Ro
af
o
r
a
0d
w
.-0O
3u
W
MN
p
>
a)
C
)
°Oo
3
E
°
U)
W
Z
w
�
u
t
a
EO
m
a)
o
a
N
U
E >
>
O
T
C
C
O
R
N
.0
Q
)
E>
N
a)
C
J
W
a)
0N
(`
c
E
w
aa))
o-
c°i
❑
J
c°i
aEi
°)
a°'i
°-
>
.N
3
E
U)
>
a°`
°-
�
m
°
°
E
m
aa))
o
Q°
y
a
°
O
r
r
Q>
o
E
c
W
a
a
U
Q
>
Q
O
a) i
>.
-6
CL
N
C
'N
°-
W
U
2
a)
(>6
M
W'
a)
.�
C
a°c
m
Y
O_
d
.0
R
C
C
O-
O_
.0.
W'
a)
O_
.N.
L
C
'C
>
C
C
O
m
L
>
`°
N
R
cu
j_
a)
O
O
E
'C lL
R
j
M
-0
O-
O-
O
O
O
O
O
Q
,C
R
C
E
ti)
7
C
a)
C
O
a)
�'
.0
a)
a)
a)
a)
U
y
j
O
N
R
22
L
'C
0)
O
a)
E
m
O
W'
.0
R
-0
O
w'
J
C
y
O
(n
p
Q
O
J
J
-0
°
J
J
Q
O
O
O
O_
O
R
ti)
.0
O
-0
R
Q
a)
>
Z
C
d
i
Q
D
Z
a)
O)
R
W
C
_
Q
C_
C
R❑
a)
'R
>(6R
iq O
°
_0
°
>
>
m
W
Z
O
J
J
p
O
y
R
a)
U
O)
Q
R
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
L
O
tq
N
3
f/
a)
a)
R
>
E>
(6
>>
tq
a)
C
R
O)
C
R
H
U
Z
R
fn
-0
O
O
'�
❑`
>
zS
R .>
W
❑
R
O
y0
Q
>
N
Z>>
O
>
W
O
O.
R
U
R
O
C
O
O
O
U
U
>
a)
C
Z
O
p-
N
O
>a)
❑
0
R
J
y
O
p
O
>
a)
>
in
C
.>.
=
(L
N
W'
'N
N
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
R
0
U`
>
N
>Z
f�
j
a)
in
a)
0
>
U
a)
C
C
°
J
M
C
a)
C
aj
Q
a)
y0
-0
0
(O
N
(O
(O
o0
00
j
C
C
O_
C
>
1
(/)
0
0
m
a)
()
12>>
a$
R
C
>°
>>
(4
W'
M
a
>>
Q
°c
>,
C
U
fL
`
U
a
N
U
N
U
N
U
N
U
N
U
N
U
R
3
a
r
o>>
O
Z
°0
a)
>
a
>,
Q
C
L
Q
Q
C
>
Cn
Q
Q
>.
rn
Q>
Q
-6
OU
0
0
0
O_
O
L
L
L
-°
L
a)
>.
3
O
0
C
L
m
V)
C
°°
i
C
Q
O_
O_
O_
O_
Q
C
3
L
Q
U-0
m
?�
.'--'
a)
d
U'
W
(O
o
U
!n
-
!n
U'
(O
M
o
7 Z
Y
2
C�
(n
lL
1�
r
F
a)
in
J
o
Z>%
>R
co)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
U'
R=
2
2
(O
y
a)
❑
Q
a
Q
N
in
J
O—
J❑
o
Z
L
(n
O
-
C C
❑
W'
W'
—
❑
❑
W'
W'
W'
W' ❑
W'
W'
W'
H
W'
W'
W'
W'
W'
❑
W'
W'
W'
—
—
W'
W'
WIT
W'
W'
W'
W'
W'
❑
W'
W'
w
W'
—
W'
W'
W'
W'
IL
F
W'
W'
W'
W'
'a
❑
C N
7 a)
IL ❑
0)
O
0
0)
M
7
00
O
N
M
N
O
r
6)
N
M
7..
O
M
7.
(0
00
0)
O
U y
M
(O
(0
W
N N
N
N
N
N
N
O
M
N
M
00
00
7
7
u)
u)
u)
u)
(0
(0
a 9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'0 E
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
IL z'
W LO N 00
W
A O — a�
A
M (o 1-� cq
M
m N N
W
N O —
N
(O 00
(O
T �2 N (h T
EA EFT ER 64 K3 EA
2
W co
O
C Q
7
O Q C
O O E R
>��pb� , E
O r9 Cn 'S .0.
°'
O N y
9 a O
La
w 6E co
m >
Q Q N 0) Y
co D a
cm
1.- 00 O (o 0) N
XN CO XV XVLO
7 (O
s M LL] LL] LL] LL] W W
AD
� O
i
a
a
u m
L O
3 U
u O
3 N �
_ >- m -00.o O
N Q 0) O O
o _ a_ a_
w � m m
0 LL Q � �
r` rn '
(Xh aX7 X� X X XN
V >W W W W W > W
AN
a
APPENDIX G
2011 Montana Code Annotated
7-6-16
7-6-160 1. Definitions.
PWOVS SWAiOM MCA �erds Part COMerd$ SW=h Help Next Section
Page I of 2
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 apublic 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 tile 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 pen -nit 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 amount the limitations provided in.7-6-16-02.
(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;
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
btq)://dat-,i.opi.nit.gov/bills/nca/7/6�/7-6-1601.htm 3/21/2013
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 ftntana Legislative Services
bttp:Hdata.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1601.htm 3/21/2013
7-6-1602. Calculation of im. pact -fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or re.. Page I of 2
Pre,jous Section M.A. �rtWs Part Cordeds 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;
(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 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;
(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 m. ust contain documentation of sources
and methodology used for purposes of subsection (2) and must document bow each impact fee
meets the requirements of subsection (7).
(4) The service area report that supports adoption and calculation of an impact fee niu, st be
available to the public upon request,
(5) The amount of each impact fee 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 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
pefiodically updating the documentation required under subsection (2).
(7) An impact fee must meet the following -requirements-,
htip://data.opi.mt.p_-ov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602..Iitm 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
(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 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 Montana iegWatrve 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 -- mcch... Page 1 of 2
Pre4ous SWion MCA C40eds Pad °Contents Search Hdp Next Section
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact lees --- 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 benerits
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 find.
(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 clue.
(2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no
earlier than the elate 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 leas 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 7-6-160
(b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined
to be appropriate for the proposed use by the governmental entity;
(c) formulas or procedures for determining the worlb 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 in excess of the impact fee due from an individual development.
(5) Impact fees may not be unposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or ether improvements to
an existing structure or for rebuilding a dannaged structure unless there is an increase in units
that increase service demand as described in 7-6-1 02(2)6). If impact fees are imposed for
littl)://data.opi.nit.govibills/mc,a/7/6/7-6-1603.htm 3/21 /2013
7-6-1+603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits - mech.... Wage 2 of
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 refunds or credits;
(a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1 b02 and
this chapter; or
(b) in accordance with a. voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6-160 and
this chapter, between the govermrnental 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. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005; amd. See. 2, Ch. 358, L. 2009.
~d ser Aw
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/617-6-1603.litm 3/2 1 /201
7-6-1604, Impact fee advisory committee.
ted
Pre'JOW SWIM MCA Conims Pon Gents Swch tip Next Seciian
Page I of I
7-6-1604. 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 cominittee 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. See. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005,
PMOW JDy MMOR btpisfitke &&Vkes
bttp://data.opi.mt._gov/bilWiiica/`//6"/7-6-1604.litm.. 3/21/2013
Attached below is the Final 2013 Impact Fees for the Water System Report,
dated March 21, 2013.
Attachment "A" of Resolution no. 5654 is included as Appendix H in the Final 2013 Impact Fees for
Water System Report.
201
Impact Fees for Water System
0
N FA
Final Report
City of Kalispell
3/21/2013
Contents
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................4
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................4
Financial Objective of Impact Fees...........................................................................................................4
ImpactFee Criteria....................................................................................................................................4
TheNeed for This Study............................................................................................................................5
Development and Summary of the Water Impact Fee.............................................................................6
Consultant's Recommendations...............................................................................................................8
Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC)....................................................................................................9
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................9
Section 1: Introduction and Overview........................................................................................................10
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................10
1.2 Overview of the Report.....................................................................................................................12
1.3 Disclaimer..........................................................................................................................................12
1.4 Summary...........................................................................................................................................12
Section 2: Overview of Impact Fees and Generally Accepted Industry Practices.......................................14
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................14
2.2 Defining Impact Fees.........................................................................................................................14
2.3 Historical Perspective........................................................................................................................14
2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices.............................................................................15
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees..................................................................................................18
2.6 Relationship of Impact Fees and New Construction Activities.........................................................19
2.7 Summary...........................................................................................................................................20
3.0 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies...............................................................................................
21
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................21
3.2 Impact Fee Criteria............................................................................................................................21
3.3 Growth, Risk and New Connections..................................................................................................22
3.4 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology.......................................................................................22
3.5 Summary...........................................................................................................................................24
4.0 Legal Consideration in Establishing Impact Fees for the City...............................................................
25
4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................
25
4.2 Requirements Under Montana Law..................................................................................................25
2
4.3 Summary...........................................................................................................................................25
5.0 Determination of the City's Water Impact Fees...................................................................................26
5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................26
5.2 Overview of the City's Water System...............................................................................................26
5.3 Overview of the City's Water Facility Plan........................................................................................26
5.4 Present Impact Fees..........................................................................................................................26
5.5 Calculation of the City's Impact Fees................................................................................................27
5.5.1 System Planning.........................................................................................................................27
5.5.2 Calculation of Equivalent Residential Units...............................................................................28
5.5.3 Calculations of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components ..........................................
28
5.5.4 Debt Service Credits...................................................................................................................32
5.6 Net Allowable Water Impact Fees....................................................................................................
33
5.7 Key Financial Assumptions................................................................................................................34
5.8 Implementation of the Impact Fees.................................................................................................34
5.9 Summary...........................................................................................................................................35
References..................................................................................................................................................
36
AppendixA: ERU Projections......................................................................................................................37
Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan......................................................................................................40
Appendix C: Montana Code Annotated 2011.............................................................................................42
AppendixD: Source of Supply.....................................................................................................................50
Appendix E: Pumping Plant Facility.............................................................................................................52
AppendixF: Storage....................................................................................................................................54
Appendix G: Transmission and Distribution...............................................................................................56
Appendix H: September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary..........................................................
60
3
Executive Summary
Introduction
Morrison Maierle, Inc (MMI) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to update the current cost -based
impact fees for the City's water and wastewater systems that comply with Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-
6-1604 based on the new facility plan adopted by the City. This Executive Summary is intended to
provide an overview of the water study, along with a summary of the findings and conclusions from the
study. In addition, a comparison of the cost -based fees calculated within this study has been compared
to the previous water impact fee study conducted in 2006.
Impact fees are a one-time assessment against new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure
required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for new
utility infrastructure between existing customers and new customers connecting to the City's water and
wastewater systems. The portion of existing plant and future capital improvements that will provide
service (capacity) to new customers is included in the impact fees. The objective of this report is to
properly place in context the purpose of water impact fees, and to determine cost -based impact fees for
the water systems that comply with Montana law.
Financial Objective of Impact Fees
An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue raising device. To understand this
perspective, one must view new development as creating the need for new or expanded facilities. As a
result, without payment of impact fees, the utility would have insufficient revenues to provide the
facilities, and therefore, the community is unable to accommodate new development. While on the
surface it may appear as simply a means to extract revenue from new development, the reality is far
more complicated. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial objectives. These
objectives tend to lean more towards financial equity between customers as opposed to simply
producing revenue. An impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new
customers. Impact fees create equity within the system by addressing the issue of timing and the
"value" of the assets and the "value" of the capacity.
Impact Fee Criteria
In the determination and establishment of the impact fees, a number of different criteria are often
utilized. The criteria often used by utilities to establish impact fees are as follows:
■ Customer understanding
■ System planning criteria
■ Financing criteria, and
■ State/local laws
The use of system planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of impact
fees. System planning criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of infrastructure
necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. The rational nexus test requires that there
be a connection (nexus) established between new development and the existing or expanded facilities
required to accommodate new development; and appropriate apportionment of the cost to the new
development in relation to benefits reasonably received.
11
An important consideration in establishing impact fees is any legal requirements at the state or local
level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees must be
calculated or how the funds must be used. The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was
enacted in 2005 via Senate Bill 185. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7,
Chapter 6, and Part 1601 to 1604 of the Montana Code.
The Need for This Study
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. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, attached for reference in Appendix
H, 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, City Council adopted an annexation
policy that significantly revised the previous annexation policy boundary. This report accounts
for the projected water improvements within the current annexation boundary.
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.
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. .
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.
,$I
• 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) Administrative Fees: For the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report, and subsequent Council
workshops, 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.
Development and Summary of the Water Impact Fee
The City currently services a population of approximately 21,000 customers with water services. This
report uses a population growth rate of 2.00% as projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update.
The reduced 2011 annexation boundary also generates a lower projected population to be served by
City utilities.
The calculation of the water impact fee was based on the City's fixed asset records, future capital
improvements as identified in the City's 2012 Capital Improvement Plan, and planning criteria and
capital improvements from the master plan entitled, "City of Kalispell Water Facilities Plan Update"
dated March 2008 prepared by HDR Engineering (the "Water Facility Plan"). On March 7, 2011 the City
Council adopted an annexation policy that significantly revised the previous annexation boundary. This
report uses the annexation policy boundary for the planning boundary and adjusted Capital
Improvement Projects to meet the infrastructure needs in the expanded service area.
A number of key steps in the calculation of the water impact fees included the following:
Use of System Planning Criteria: The number of equivalent residential units (ERUs) was determined
based on the planning criteria from the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy which uses a projected growth rate
of 2.00%. This planning criterion incorporated with water usage data from Kalispell water system
establishes the average day flow and peak day flow for an ERU.
Calculation of Equivalent Residential Units: The planning horizon for the study was 2012 — 2035. The
number of current and future (additional) water ERUs was determined within this step.
Calculation of the Impact Fee For the Major Water System Components: Each of the major functional
components of the water system (e.g. source of supply, treatment, etc.) are reviewed to consider the
existing plant assets, along with planned future capital improvements. This provides the basis for the
value of capacity and when divided by the appropriate ERUs produces a cost per ERU for each major
system component. When the cost per ERU for each major component is added together, it produces a
"gross" impact fee.
Debt Service Credits: If impact fees are insufficient to pay growth -related debt service, then a debt
service credit is provided against the "gross" water impact fees. The debt service credit is designed to
avoid the potential "double payment" of debt service (i.e. once through the payment of the impact fee
and again through rates). No water debt service credits are necessary in this current impact fee analysis.
me
Future Extensions: In determining the water impact fees, the City also considered significant future
extension improvements to the transmission and distribution system. The impact fees were calculated
"without future extensions" and "with future extensions." The distinction between these two
categories being that "without future extensions" the impact fees are calculated in a manner consistent
with the City's previous water impact fee analysis and include only the improvements within the City's
2012 Capital Improvement Plan. In contrast to this, "with future extensions" includes
extensions/improvements needed to serve the expanded planning area as contained within the
annexation boundary. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Summary (Appendix H) provides a
proportional cost of these "with future extensions" improvements based on the improvements that are
shown within the 2011 Growth Policy annexation boundary. The total impact fee related to "with future
extensions" to the existing system to accommodate future growth is $17,583,247, or $3,531 per ERU.
These "with future extensions" costs may be included in or excluded from the impact fee analysis based
on recommendations from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) and as set by City policy. The
extension costs were provided for discussion by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The IFAC reviewed
the "with future extensions" costs and recommended not including the cost in the 2013 water impact
fee total. The "with future extensions" costs are not included in this report's recommended water
impact fee.
Determination of the "Net Allowable" Water Impact Fee: Based upon the steps noted above, a "net
allowable" impact fee was developed. Shown below in Table ES-1 is a summary of the net allowable
impact fee by major component for one (1) ERU.
Table ES-1
Description Total
Source of Supply
$212
Pumping Facility
$239
Storage Facility
$417
Transmission and Distribution Mains
$1,577
Administrative Cost at 5%
$122
Total Impact Fee
$2,567
It should be noted that in the 2006 impact fee study, the calculated water impact fee was $2,154.72.
The 2006 fee was adjusted in 2008 to reflect cost of construction to $2,213. Therefore, the
recommended calculated fee within this report is slightly more ($354.00) than the current fee.
7
Water Impact Fee by Meter Size (Capacity): For ease of administration, the recommended charge for
one (1) ERU is $2,567. The impact fees are then "weighted" by meter size to reflect potential capacity
use of the larger sized meters. This "weighting" by meter size is based upon the safe operating capacity
of the meter. Provided below in Table ES-2 is a comparison between the water impact fees by meter
size as developed in the 2006 water impact fee study and subsequent 2008 increase and the water
impact fee by meter size developed within this report.
Table ES-2
Allowable Water System Impact
Comparison Between the Current Fee
Meter Size Current
Water Impact Fee
Fees By Meter Size
and the Proposed Fee
Proposed Water Impact
Fee
Residential
$2,213
$2,567
1"
5,533
$6,418
1-%"
11,066
$12,835
2"
17,705
$20,536
3"
35,411
$41,072
4"
Calculated
Calculated
[1] — Commercial customers with residential type usage pay the residential fee.
The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable water impact fee, but not
over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus
test of a cost -based impact fee.
Consultant's Recommendations
Consultant's recommendations on the Water Impact Fee: Based on our review and analysis of the City's
water system, MMI makes the following recommendations:
■ The City should implement impact fees for new hookups to the water system that are no greater
than the impact fees as set forth in this report. Using the current philosophy in place, the water
impact fee would be $2,567/ERU.
■ The City should update the actual calculations for the impact fees based on the methodology as
approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for impact fees every two
years as required by Montana law.
Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC)
The Montana Annotated Code requires the establishment of an Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC),
which serves in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the City of Kalispell. The September 2012
Water Impact Fee Update Summary was reviewed and discussed with the IFAC at various meeting since
October 2012. At the November 27, 2012 meeting the proposed methodology and impact fee as
outlined in the Update Summary was motioned and approved by the committee members. This final
report incorporates the September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, developed by MMI and
approved by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee.
Conclusion
This concludes the executive summary of the development of the water impact fee study. A more
detailed discussion of the various steps associated with the development of this fee can be found in
Section 5 of this report and the appendices.
61
Section 1: Introduction and Overview
1.1 Introduction
Morrison Maierle, Inc (MMI) was retained by the City of Kalispell; Montana (City) to update the current
cost -based impact fees for the City's water systems that comply with Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6-
1604 based on the facility plan adopted by the City, the change in annexation boundary, current water
demands, newly projected growth rates and an updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This final
report incorporates the September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, developed by MMI and
approved by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and provides details of the development of cost -based
impact fees for the City's water systems.
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. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, attached for reference in Appendix
H, 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, City Council adopted an annexation
policy that significantly revised the previous annexation policy boundary. This 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 1.
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.
10
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 B.
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, and
subsequent Council workshops, 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.
Impact fees are a one-time assessment on new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure
required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for new
utility infrastructure between existing customers and new customers connecting to the City's water
systems. The portion of existing facilities and future capital
improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new customers
is included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the City has future
capital improvement projects that are related to renewal and
replacement of existing facilities in service. These infrastructure
costs are typically included within the rates charged to the City's
customers, and are not included within the impact fee. By
establishing cost -based impact fees, the City will be taking a policy
"The objective of this
report is to properly place
in context the purpose of
impact fees, and to
determine cost -based
impact fees for the water
systems that comply with
Montana law."
action of having "growth pay for growth" and help existing utility customers be sheltered from the
financial impacts of growth.
1.2 Overview of the Report
The development of cost -based water impact fees requires detailed analyses of each utility. To better
understand the approach and methodology used, along with the development of the City's impact fees,
this report has been divided into a number of sections (chapters). This report is organized in the
following manner:
• Section 1—Introduction and Overview
• Section 2 — Review of "generally accepted" practices related to impact fees
• Section 3 — Overview of the criteria and methodologies used to establish the impact fees
• Section 4 — Summary of the legal requirements for enactment of impact fees under Montana
law
• Section 5 — Review of the development of the cost -based water impact fees
1.3 Disclaimer
Morrison Maierle, Inc, in its determination of impact fees presented in the September2012 Water
Impact Fee Update Summary, has relied upon data and information provided by the City. At the same
time, Morrison Maierle, Inc used "generally accepted" engineering, accounting, and ratemaking
principles in the development of these cost -based impact fees. This should not be construed as a legal
opinion with respect to Montana law.
1.4 Summary
This section of the report has provided an overview of the water impact fee report developed by the
City in coordination with Morrison Maierle, Inc. This report provides the basis for the establishment of
cost -based impact fees by the City.
The next section of the report will discuss the "generally accepted" utility industry practices as they
relate to impact fees
12
LM E.M
MUSS MTS
71goi:Slu*Arm BarWmn
IONKINKOH
comt ,wn E, ltn
Eul WT6eAcn Pu--
CM gM Gq Lunl4
9EuC1 II>tll6pm.
�
lYrJ IS�IIS]el
�krEau+eius
i�
IsreS[ slll h%t,l[r fare
z� y
3
I1MORR1CRRl
15lALIlALRRIIJ]iU11111 1J� N1L�lL MlYfli/�)
Mwa �a+nax.,Kwsau�wr FIG. I-h
Section 2: Overview of Impact Fees and Generally Accepted
Industry Practices
2.1 Introduction
An important starting point in discussing the City's continued implementation of water impact fees is an
understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial objective of those fees. This
section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the "generally accepted" practices of
the industry.
2.2 Defining Impact Fees
One must first define an "impact fee" before beginning an assessment and review of the fees. Impact
fees are also often called system development charges (SDCs), capacity charges, buy -in fees, facility
expansion charges, plant investment fees, etc. Regardless of the name applied to the fee, the concept is
still the same. Simply stated, impact fees are capital recovery fees that are generally established as one-
time charges assessed on developers or new water and wastewater customers as a way to recover a
part or all of the cost of system capacity constructed for their use. Their application has generally
occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new residential and/or commercial development.'
The main objective of an impact fee is to assess the benefiting party, their proportionate share of the
cost of infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated another way, impact fees imply that new
development creates new or additional costs on the system, and the impact fee assesses that cost in an
equitable manner to those customers creating the additional cost.
2.3 Historical Perspective
Historically, the financing of infrastructure was typically paid for via long-term debt and "pay as you go"
rates. However, over the last twenty years, the use of impact fees as a method of financing growth and
infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge, no clear surveys or data exists to show
this change, however, there are a number of examples within the literature that point out this
phenomena. As an example, a survey of 67 Florida communities was undertaken in 1986 and 1989. The
number of communities in 1986 using impact fees was 15. By 1989, the number of communities using
impact fees had more than doubled to 32.2 As this funding mechanism gained popularity, legislatures
across the U.S. were developing legislation to provide utilities with the authority to impose impact fees.
Typical legislation generally provides the approach to be used to develop the fees and requires that the
fees be used only for growth -related needs and not for current O&M requirements. At this time, the
State of Montana has very specific legislation related to impact fees. This specific legislation regarding
the fees provides the City with the authority to establish and collect impact fees. This authority is
provided in Montana Code Section 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604.
1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing (Boca
Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73.
2 James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson and Julian C. Juergensmeyer, A Practitioner's Guide to Development
Impact Fees (Chicago: Planners Press, 1991) p. 3.
14
While many utility managers viewed impact fees as an important and alternative source of funding for
new capital construction, these fees were also being rationalized from a number of different
perspectives. Among these were the following:'
1. To shift the fiscal burdens from existing development to new development.
2. To synchronize the construction of new or expanded facility capacity with the arrival of new
development.
3. To subject new development decisions to pricing discipline.
Each of these different perspectives is discussed in more detail below.
Historically, existing development was often subsidized by federal or state resources. As an example, in
the early 1970s, many wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. were 90% grant funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Today, grants are nearly extinct, often replaced instead by low
interest state revolving fund (SRF) loans. Therefore, as existing customers were being impacted by the
cost of growth, local communities searched for methods to help minimize rates and the impacts of the
cost of growth.
Unchecked growth and sprawling expansion is very costly on a per unit basis. In response to this
dilemma, many legislative bodies created urban growth boundaries. At the same time, utilities moved
towards impact fee and extension policies that assist in managing system growth in an orderly and
coordinated manner. As a result, improved planning and cost -based fees have helped utilities manage
the costs of growth, while stabilizing rates to existing customers.
Establishing the price of a commodity equal to its cost is a basic economic and market principle. In
theory, consumers of a service will make "optimal" consumption decisions when the price of the
commodity is set equal to its price. By establishing cost -based impact fees, developers should be in a
position to make better and more rational decisions concerning new development. At the same time,
proper pricing of impact fees also encourages "right sizing" of facilities to serve new development. In
other words, given the proper price signal, the developer will properly size their service facilities to meet
their needs, e.g., installing a %-inch meter versus a 2" meter.
In summary, the use of impact fees has changed over time, as historical funding sources such as grants
have been reduced or eliminated. In response, many communities have moved towards adoption of
cost -based impact fees, particularly in areas of high growth.
2.4 Impact Fees and "Generally Accepted" Practices
Impact fees are one input into the rate setting process. Therefore, it is important to understand how,
within the context of "generally accepted" utility industry practices, impact fees may be used. In
conducting a comprehensive water rate study, three interrelated analyses are typically conducted. They
are a revenue requirement analysis, cost of service analysis and rate design analysis. Figure 2-1 provides
an overview of each of these analyses.
3 Adapted from: Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Facilities (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1995) p. 6-7.
15
Figure 2-1
Overview of the Three -Interrelated Analyses to Review Rates
Revenue Requirement Analysis
Cost of Service Analysis
Rate Design Analysis
Compares the sources of funds (revenues) to
the expenses of the utility to determine the
overall adjustment to rates
Allocates the total revenue requirements to
the various customer classes of service in a
"fair and equitable" manner
Considers both the level and the structure of
the rate design to collect the appropriate
and targeted level of revenue
Impact fees are taken into account within the revenue requirement analysis. The revenue requirement
analysis determines the overall funding needs of the utility, while considering prudent financial planning
criteria, e.g., adequate reserves, meeting debt service coverage requirements, etc. For most municipal
utilities, the methodology used to establish their revenue requirements is referred to as the "cash basis"
approach. Figure 2-2, shown below, provides an overview of the key components of the "cash basis"
approach to developing revenue requirements.
16
Figure 2-2
Overview of the "Cash -Basis" Approach
+ 4 r nn mnd Maintenance E"nraaa
+ Toxae 0 TranskK Psyn ants
+ Debt Service Wnt of Apphiv.d Impart Fees)
+ Ceuital lmprovernsrrte Funded From Rates
= Total Rmtenue RequIrements
# t — Mildcollannous Rav4rnims
Total R"irad From Rates
Total Capital Improvement Projecxi
Lose: Outside Funding Sources
— Capital %wrvea
= I nmpact Fees
— Grants
— Long -Term Dehl
— Other Capital Funiilnn Sources
ra4al Capital Improvements FuFWed Ftom Rates
As can be seen in Figure 2-2, there are two elements to establishing the "cash basis" revenue
requirements. The top or blue box shows the four basic cost components that are included within the
"cash basis" revenue requirements. In contrast, the bottom or yellow box illustrates the various
methods used to fund capital infrastructure projects.
It should be noted in Figure 2-2 that impact fees may be used (applied) in two different ways, each
having a different impact upon the utility's revenue requirements and, ultimately, the utility's rates. The
first possible use of impact fees is shown in the bottom or yellow box. In that particular case, the impact
fees are applied directly to growth or expansion related capital projects. The effect of using the funds in
this manner is it helps minimize long-term borrowing. For each dollar of impact fees applied in this
manner, one less dollar of long-term borrowing is required. Typically, total capital improvements
funded from rates is established and fixed in the financial planning process. Therefore, applying impact
fees to capital projects typically will not have a significant impact upon the amount of capital
improvements funded from rates.
The other potential use of impact fees is to apply the fees toward growth -related debt service. As
shown in Figure 2-2, debt service is shown as net of any impact fees. In contrast to applying impact fees
directly toward the capital project, in this particular case, for every dollar applied in this manner, there is
17
a corresponding dollar decrease in revenue requirements and the resulting rates. This is a very effective
method to help minimize rates, but even better at matching the cost of growth to the gradual way in
which customer growth occurs over time. In other words, a utility may build or expand a facility with
sufficient capacity to handle growth over the next ten to twenty years. That growth doesn't occur in the
first year, but rather, trickles in over a number of years. Therefore, applying the impact fees against the
debt service associated with the project creates a better matching of the cost incurrence (debt
payments) to the actual customer growth.
2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees
An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue raising
device. To understand this perspective, one must view new
development as creating the need for new or expanded facilities.
As a result, without payment of impact fees, the utility would have
insufficient funds to provide the facilities, and therefore the
community is unable to accommodate new development. With this
said, impact fees do have certain financial objectives associated
with them. While on the surface it may appear as simply a means
to extract revenue from new development, the reality is far more
"An impact fee is a
regulation and not a user
fee or revenue raising
device. To understand this
perspective, one must
view new development as
creating the need for new
or expanded facilities."
complex. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial objectives. These objectives
tend to lean more towards financial equity between customers, as opposed to simply producing
revenue.
One key financial/rate objective that is achieved from impact fees is equity. Equity is achieved in two
different ways. First, an impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new
customers. For example, assume that a water treatment plant is expanded by 5 million gallons per day
(MGD) to accommodate growth and the facility is financed over a 20-year period. Without an impact
fee, new customers connect to the system and pay for the debt service on the facility via their rates.
The customer that connects to the system in year one will contribute to the cost of that facility for 20
years. In contrast, the person who connects in year 10 will only pay for debt service on the facility for
ten years, even though the "value" of the capacity was the same for the person connecting in year 1 or
year 10. Impact fees create equity within the system by addressing the issue of timing and the "value"
of the assets and the "value" of the capacity.
U. an impact fee is also a
form of a financial
reimbursement to existing
ratepayers who paid for
those facilities in advance
of the new customer
connecting to the system."
The second way in which impact fees help to create equity is after
a facility is paid for. Continuing with the example above, after the
debt service is fully paid off in year 20, and assuming that some
capacity is still available, a new customer connecting to the system
would "in theory' receive their capacity at zero cost, because the
debt service is paid in full. All the existing customers connected to
the system, over the past twenty years, paid for that customer's
capacity. Therefore, an impact fee is also a form of a financial
reimbursement to existing ratepayers who paid for those facilities in advance of the new customer
connecting to the system.
Most commonly, impact fees
are adopted in high growth
areas where infrastructure
expansion has strained
existing financial resources.
Philosophically, many utilities
desire to have a policy of
"growth paying for growth."
Based upon the above example, impact fees also have an equity
perspective associated with the rate setting process. That is,
impact fees are a form of "system buy -in." A properly
established impact fee implies that a new customer connecting
to the system has bought into the system at its current cost.
Therefore, from a rate setting perspective the utility does not
need to have rates for "old" and "new" customers. Again,
existing customers have been equitably reimbursed for their
past investments.
Even with the above discussion, not all communities have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are
adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources.
Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of "growth paying for growth." Impact fees
comport with that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the impact fees either directly against the
capital cost of the expansion facilities or against the debt service associated with it.
2.6 Relationship of Impact Fees and New Construction Activities
There are a number of myths surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some may argue that
impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around two issues. These are
as follows:
• Development will occur on those parcels with lower or non-existent impact fees
• Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development.
Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Provided below is a brief
explanation of each.
Developers look at many factors before a parcel is developed. One myth concerns the selection of
parcels for development and whether impact fees are applied to the land.
"The argument goes that if a developer is choosing between two parcels of land on which to
build —where the first parcel is inside a city where SDCs (impact fees) are charged and the
second is just outside where lower or no SDCs (impact fees) are charged —the developer will
choose the second parcel.
The trouble is this means that the owner of the first parcel does not make a sale. The
landowner must lower the land price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if the
landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future development may be
higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they will choose the second
parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel anyway. In the meantime, the
land market will be holding the first parcel available for higher value development. In effect
what might look like a loss in the short term may be a much higher level of development in the
long-term. 11
4
4 Nelson. "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 55.
19
The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they are bad for
economic development. The argument against this position is as follows:
"The argument goes that because SDCs (impact fees) raise the price of doing business, they
frustrate economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First, remember
that SDCs (impact fees) will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling the community to
more easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand.
Now, consider what economic development really looks for. skilled labor, access to markets,
and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic development will be
stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by SDCs (impact fees). In the
competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to show developers the dollar
value of SDCs (impact fees) waived as a solid demonstration of the local government's
commitment to such development. "5
As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, SDCs (impact fees) do not hinder growth, but in fact
may help to spur growth. It must be remembered that an important concept associated with impact
fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure in advance of
the actual development.
From the developer's perspective, absent impact fees (i.e. a moratorium
on new connections) no new development can occur. Therefore,
developers are generally supportive of cost -based impact fees,
particularly when it provides available capacity and opportunities for
development.
"As can be seen, at
least in the opinion of
Nelson, SDCs (impact
fees) do not hinder
growth, but in fact may
help to spur growth."
2.7 Summary
This section of the report has provided an overview of the financial objectives associated with impact
fees and some of the issues surrounding them. This section should have provided a basic understanding
of the fees such that when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning the continued
implementation of impact fees and the imposition of new impact fees, they can be placed in proper
perspective. The next section of the report will provide an overview of methodologies for the
application of impact fees.
Nelson, "System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities" P. 56.
20
3.0 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies
3.1 Introduction
An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the purpose
of these charges, along with criteria and general methodology that is used to establish cost -based
impact fees. Presented in the section of the report is an overview of impact fee criteria and the
"generally accepted" methodologies that are used to develop cost -based impact fees.
3.2 Impact Fee Criteria
In the determination and establishment of the impact fees, a number of different criteria are often
utilized. The criteria often used by utilities to establish impact fees are as follows:
• Customer understanding
• System planning criteria
• Financing criteria, and
• State/local laws
The component of customer understanding implies that the charge is easy to understand. This criterion
has implications on the way that the fee is implemented, administered and assessed to the customer.
Generally, for a water system, the fee is based on the size (capacity) of the meter. This makes it easy for
the customer to understand the level of fee based on the size of a meter required to provide service. In
some instances, larger meter sizes are calculated based on actual usage. While this is more
complicated, it applies to very few customers and generally more sophisticated industrial customers.
For wastewater systems, the charge can be based on meter size or the type of dwelling or business type
being assessed. For example, a school could be assessed based on a per student basis corresponding to
the sanitary sewer flow per student. The other implication of this criterion is that the methodology is
clear and concise in its determination of the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service.
The use of system planning criteria is one of the more important
aspects in the determination of impact fees. System planning
criteria provides the "rational nexus" between the amount of
infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the
customer. The rational nexus test requires that there be a
connection (nexus) established between new development and
the existing or expanded facilities required to accommodate new
development; and appropriate apportionment of the cost to the
new development in relation to benefits reasonably received. An
example of using system -planning criteria is the determination
"The use of system planning
criteria is one of the more
important aspects in the
determination of the impact
fees. System planning criteria
provides the "rational nexus"
between the amount of
infrastructure necessary to
provide service and the charge
to the customer."
that a single-family residential customer requires 415 gallons of water distribution storage. The impact
fee methodology then charges the customer for 415 gallons of water distribution storage at the per
gallon cost of storage.
21
One of the driving forces behind establishing cost -based impact fees is that "growth pays for growth."
Therefore, impact fees are typically established as a means of having new customers pay an equitable
share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing criteria for establishing impact
fees relates to the method used to finance growth -related infrastructure of the system and assures that
customers are not paying twice for growth -related infrastructure — once through impact fees and again
through rates. The double payment can come in through the imposition of impact fees and then the
requirement to pay debt service within a customer's rates. The financing criteria also reviews the basis
under which main line and collection line extensions were provided and addresses the issue such that
customers are not charged for infrastructure that was provided (contributed) by developers.
Many states and local communities have enacted laws which govern the calculation and imposition of
impact fees. These laws must be followed in the determination of the impact fees. Most statutes
require a "reasonable relationship" between the fee charged and the cost associated with providing
service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically exact, but must bear
a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above, the utilization of the
planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and the planned costs of construction provide the
nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement.
3.3 Growth, Risk and New Connections
One of the common phrases associated with impact fees is "growth paying for growth." While this is a
simple and convenient phrase to convey the concept and purpose of impact fees, the reality of the
transaction is far more complicated. As the recent downturn in the economy has demonstrated,
customer growth is not assured or to be taken for granted. At the same time, it must be kept in mind
that it is the existing customers that bear the risk of growth -related facilities that are built. If growth -
related facilities are built in anticipation of future growth, and little or no connections occur, it will be
the existing ratepayers that will bear the burden of any financial responsibility (e.g. long-term debt)
associated with those growth -related facilities. Absent some form of an impact fee, existing ratepayers
would likely be hesitant to fully support undertaking such risk.
3.4 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology
There are "generally -accepted" methodologies that are used to establish impact fees. Within the
"generally accepted" impact fee methodologies, there are a number of different steps undertaken.
These steps are as follows:
• Determination of system planning criteria.
• Determination of equivalent residential units (ERUs).
• Calculation of system component costs.
• Determination of any credits.
The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the system planning criteria. This
implies calculating the amount of water required to serve a single-family residential customer.
Generally for a water system, two different criteria are determined due to differences in planning
criteria. The first planning criterion is the peak day water usage per ERU and the second is a water
22
storage requirement per ERU. These two different planning criteria are developed since a majority of
the water system infrastructure is sized to meet the peak day demand, and water storage is sized to
meet equalizing, emergency and fire flow requirements.
Once the system planning criteria is determined, the number of ERUs can be determined. For the water
system, this is determined by utilizing the peak day water system demand and dividing it by served
ERUs. This is a very important calculation since it provides the linkage between the amounts of
infrastructure necessary to provide service to a set number of customers. This implies that if the system
is designed to provide service to demands up to the year 2035, then the infrastructure costs are divided
by the ERUs in 2035 to determine the cost per ERU.
Once the number of ERUs has been determined, a component by component, e.g., source of supply,
treatment, storage, etc., analysis is undertaken to determine the component impact fee in dollar per
ERU. Individual facility components are analyzed separately for the water systems given that the
planning criteria for the design of the various system components differ. The calculation of the
component impact fee includes both historical assets and planned future assets. Historical assets can be
valued in a number of different ways. These include original cost plus interest, replacement cost and
depreciated replacement costs.
1. The original cost plus interest method includes original cost plus fifteen (15) years worth of
interest. This calculation is done to reflect the fact that existing customers have provided for
excess capacity in the system and hence need to be reimbursed for not only their initial
investment, but also the "carrying cost" on that investment. The reimbursement to existing
customers is accomplished by the fact that without an impact fee, rates would otherwise be
higher than they would be without impact fees.
2. The replacement cost method values existing assets based on the cost to replace the assets in
today's dollars. This is done by escalating the original cost by the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost (ERN) index. The theory behind the use of replacement cost is that customers
are indifferent since they would have to pay replacement cost if the infrastructure was built
today to serve their needs.
3. The use of depreciated replacement cost reflects the fact that the assets have been used and
hence their value to the new customer is less that the replacement cost. Caution needs to be
exercised in the use of depreciated replacement cost, since the book or accounting lives used by
many utilities are not reflective of the actual life of the asset and may result in the assets being
undervalued. An example is using a useful life for a storage reservoir of 40 years, when in
reality, with maintenance, the actual life may be between 60 to 80 years.
MMI recommends and used the original cost with interest method, since it will reflect the actual cost of
the City's system, to calculate the impact fee in this report. The City's system is developed to serve
future development through existing capacity and planned future capacity additions. This has been
accomplished by the City building excess capacity and using borrowing to finance this capacity and the
City building future capacity. Therefore, the use of the original cost with interest method will reflect the
actual costs that have been incurred or will be incurred by the City in providing capacity to new
development. This is also the most commonly used method to value capacity in water systems. This
23
method also appears to comply with the requirements under Montana law wherein in the actual cost of
infrastructure is required.
Once the total cost of the capital infrastructure is determined, it is then divided by the appropriate
number of equivalent residential units the infrastructure will serve to develop the cost per ERU for the
specific facility component.
After each plant component is analyzed and a cost per ERU is determined, the cost per ERU for each of
the facility components is added together to determine the "gross impact fee." The "gross impact fee"
is calculated before any credits for debt service.
The last step in the calculation of the impact fee is the determination of any debt credits. This is
generally a calculation to assure that customers are not paying twice — once through impact fees and
again through debt service included within the water rates. A crediting mechanism is also utilized if
general obligation or tax revenue has been used to finance the infrastructure.
The final cost -based impact fee is determined by taking the "gross impact fee" and subtracting any
credits. This results in a "net impact fee" stated in dollar per ERU. The general basis of this calculation
for a water system is the assumption that an ERU is equivalent to a single family residential customer.
Larger meter sizes are then imposed fees based on the number of ERUs for a given meter size based on
its safe operating capacity. The number of ERUs per meter size is generally based on the safe operating
capacity of the meter.
3.5 Summary
This section has provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of impact fees
In addition, an overview of the "generally accepted" methodology used in the calculation of the water
impact fees has been provided. Given this background, the next section of the report discusses any
specific legal criteria that must be used by the City in the establishment of its impact fees.
24
4.0 Legal Consideration in Establishing Impact Fees for the City
4.1 Introduction
An important consideration in establishing impact fees is any legal requirements at the state or local
level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees must be
calculated or how the funds must be used. Given that, it is important for the City to understand these
legal requirements. This section of the report provides an overview of the legal requirements for
establishing impact fees under Montana law.
The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding of the
relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fee. It in no way constitutes a legal
interpretation of Montana law.
4.2 Requirements Under Montana Law
In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is they be developed and implemented in
conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established
specific laws regarding the establishment, calculation, and
implementation of capacity fees. The main objective of most state laws is
to assure that these charges are established in such a manner that they
are fair, equitable, and cost -based. In other cases, state legislation may
have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to
establish the charges.
"The laws for the
enactment of impact
fees in Montana are
found in 7-6-1601 to
7-6-1604 of the
Montana Code.
The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in 2005 via Senate Bill 185. This was
comprehensive legislation allowing public entities in the State of Montana to enact impact fees for
various services. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part
1601 to 1604 of the Montana Code. A copy of the code is summarized in Appendix C.
4.3 Summary
This section of the report has reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana. MMI
concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost -based impact fees and the proposed
methodology to be used within this study, in the opinion of MMI and the City, meets the requirements
of Montana law.
25
5.0 Determination of the City's Water Impact Fees
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report presents the development of the City's 2013 water impact fee. The
calculations of the water impact fee presented in this section are based on:
1. The City's fixed asset records
2. Future capital improvements as identified in the City's current Capital Improvement Plan
(Appendix B)
3. Planning criteria projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy
5.2 Overview of the City's Water System
The City currently provides water services for a population of approximately 21,000 customers. 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 City obtains 100% of its water supply from wells. The City's source of supply is provided by eight
active well sites. (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 City also has four storage reservoirs including the recently
constructed Sheepherders Hill reservoir. The capital improvement plan calls for the construction of a
new well, upgrades to the distribution and transmission system, and new storage.
5.3 Overview of the City's Water Facility Plan
The water facility plan provides an update to the water system portions of the City of Kalispell Water,
Sewer, and Storm Drainage System Facility Plan, completed in July 2002. Since completion of the 2002
report, the City has continued to experience population growth and the expansion of infrastructure;
therefore, in 2006 and 2008 the City chose to update their facility plan to analyze potential growth and
effectively plan for growth while protecting water and environmental resources.
The area studied in the 2006 and 2008 Water Facility Plan is represented in Section 1, Figure 1-6 — Water
and Sewer Impact Fee Update. The basis of planning was to determine the requirements for the next 50
years in areas that the City will have to provide water service as growth continues.
On March 7, 2011 the City Council adopted an annexation policy that significantly revised the previous
annexation boundary. This report uses the annexation policy boundary for the planning boundary and
adjusted Capital Improvement Projects to meet the infrastructure needs in the expanded service area.
5.4 Present Impact Fees
The City currently assesses an impact fee for connection to the water system. The current water impact
fees are shown in Table 5-1.
26
Meter Size
ERU Factor
Charge
3/4"
1.0
$2,213
1"
2.5
5,533
1-1/2"
5.0
11,066
2"
8.0
17,705
3"
16.0
35,411
Over 3"
Calculated
Calculated
5.5 Calculation of the City's Impact Fees
As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based upon a four -step process.
In summary form, these steps were as follows:
• Determination of system planning criteria
• Determination of equivalent residential units (ERU)
• Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs
• Determination of any impact fee debt credits
Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below.
5.5.1 System Planning
The number of equivalent residential units (ERUs) was determined based on the planning criteria from
the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy which uses a projected growth rate of 2.00%. Kalispell water usage data
calculates a 166 gallons per capita day average flow and an assumed typical peaking factor of 2.67. An
averaged 2.5 persons per household or ERU was utilized to develop a peak day flow of 1,108 gallons per
day per ERU. A summary of the ERU conversion factors is presented below in Table 5-2.
(1) From the Kalispell water production reports.
(2) Based on a peaking factor of 2.67x
27
As discussed previously, certain facilities may be planned and sized around different planning criteria.
Therefore, the system planning criteria shown above will be used for different facility components to
determine the cost per ERU for that specific facility component.
5.5.2 Calculation of Equivalent Residential Units
The planning horizon of this study was 2012 — 2035. Other impact fee components were based on the
number of ERUs in 2035 or additional ERUs from 2012 to 2035
As a part of this study, a projection of the number of new/additional ERUs per year must be determined,
along with the total number of ERUs at 2035. The City's total number of residential ERUs for each year
was determined by dividing the peak day usage factor per ERU into total peak day demand. The number
of ERUs added during each year of the study period was made based on a 2% growth rate as set forth
2011 Kalispell Growth Policy. The ERU calculation in correspondence with the 2% growth rate is located
in Appendix A. A summary of the ERUs for 2012 and 2035 are presented in Table 5-3.
Given the development of the total water ERUs for each year of the planning period, the focus can shift
to the calculation of the impact fee for each facility component. This aspect of the analysis is discussed
in detail below.
5.5.3 Calculations of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components
The next step of the analysis is to review each major functional component of facility in service and
determine the impact fee for that component. In calculating the water impact fee for the City, both
existing facility assets, along with planned future CIP were included within the calculation. The major
components of the City's water system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating impact fee were
as follows:
• Source of Supply
• Pumping Facilities
• Storage Facilities
• Transmission and Distribution Mains
• Administrative Charge
A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is provided
below.
NO
SOURCE OF SUPPLY
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 D, 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.
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
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
creates the
residential,
developing additional supply capacity in the
system. This will likely be accomplished through 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 D.
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.
29
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 D.
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
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 costs 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 E. Details of the pumping facilities calculation are also
provided in Appendix E.
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 Protected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612
Impact Fee (Pumping Facilities) per ERU: $ 239
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,
tilt,
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.
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 F.
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 Protected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612
Impact Fee (Storage Facilities) per ERU: $ 417
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION MAINS
The City's transmission/distribution network consists of numerous lines of 8-inch, 10-inch, 12-inch, 16-
inch, and 20-inch diameter mains. To determine the impact fee for transmission mains and booster
pumps, an inventory of the existing system was undertaken as well as those planned improvements as
identified in the capital improvement program. The historical investments of the City were adjusted for
interest charges up to a maximum of fifteen years and allocated to growth based on the capacity of the
assets to provide service to new development.
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. All existing mains that were
contributed by developers, financed through improvement districts, or contributed by grants were
excluded from the analysis. All mains less than six inches were also excluded from the analysis since
these would not be able to provide capacity to new development. Water main replacements were also
31
excluded since these are not growth -related and should be paid for through rates. 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 G.
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 G.
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 Protected Additional ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 4,980
Impact Fee (Trans. & Dist.) per ERU: $ 1,577
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 calculated based on the pre-2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update. The September 2012
Water Impact Fee Summary (Appendix H) 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 the summary report. 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 were provided for discussion by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC).
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. The IFAC reviewed the extension
costs and recommended not including the cost in the 2013 water impact fee total.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE
Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact not to
exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. For the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report, the City Council
guided staff to use the allowable administrative charge of 5% in the impact fee analysis. The same
guidance from the City Council is followed for this report, and therefore the water administrative charge
of $122 per ERU equal to 5% is included as a part of the collected water impact fee.
5.5.4 Debt Service Credits
The final step in calculating the water impact fees was to determine if a credit for payment on debt
service for the City's outstanding bonds. 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.
32
5.6 Net Allowable Water Impact Fees
Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable water impact fee can be
determined. "Net" refers to the "gross" impact fee, net of any debt service credits. "Allowable" refers
to concept that the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-4 is the City's cost -based impact fee. The
City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable impact fee, but not over that
amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a
cost -based impact fee. A summary of the calculated net allowable water impact fee for the City is
shown in the Table 5-4.
Table 5-4
Description
Total
Source of Supply
$212
Pumping Facility
$239
Storage Facility
$417
Transmission and Distribution Mains
$1,577
Administrative Cost at 5%
$122
Total Impact Fee
$2,567
Based on the impact fee for 1 ERU, the charges for a residential customer with a %" meter and various
sized meters results in the following impact fees as shown in Table 5-5. One (1) ERU is defined as the
usage for a single family residential customer. Other meter sizes are then weighted based on their safe
operating capacity.
33
Allowable Water System
Meter Size
Table 5-5
Impact Fees By Meter Size
FRU Factor 1 Charge
3/4"
1.0
$2,567
1"
2.5
$6,418
1-1/2"
5.0
$12,835
2"
8.0
$20,536
3"
16.0
$41,072
Over 3"
Calculated
111 - Commercial customers with residential type usage pay the residential tee.
In Table 5-5 the impact fees for the larger meter sizes are determined by multiplying the impact fee for
an ERU by the meter capacity weighting factors for up to 3 inches. The weighting factors are
determined based on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) safe operating capacities for the
type and size of meter. For meter sizes over 3 inches, the impact fee is calculated based on the actual
usage of the customer.
5.7 Key Financial Assumptions
In the development of the impact fees for the City's water system, a number of key assumptions were
utilized. These are as follows:
• 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%.
5.8 Implementation of the Impact Fees
The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the cost of money or interest
charges and inflation. Therefore, consultants recommend the City adjust the impact fees each year by
an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. The most frequently used source to
escalate impact fees is the ENR index which tracks changes in construction costs for municipal utility
projects. This method of escalating the City's impact fee should be used for no more than a two-year
period. After this time period, as required by Montana law, the City should update the charges based on
34
the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities that would be contained in an updated
master plan or capital improvement plan.
5.9 Summary
The water impact fees developed and presented in this report are based on the engineering design
criteria of the City's water system, the value of the existing assets, future capital improvements and
"generally accepted" ratemaking principles. Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple
benefits to the City and create equitable and cost -based charges for new customers connecting to the
City's water system.
35
References
1. September 2012 Water Impact Fee Summary
2. Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater system August 2010 (non -adopted impact fee report)
36
Appendix A: ERU Projections
37
City of Kalispell
Water System Impact Fees
ERU Projections
Water Production
Peak' Average'
Day Flow Day Flow Total Additional
(MGD) (MGD) ERUs ERUs
Year
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
2036
15.38
5.76
13,884
272
38
Water Production
Peak' Average'
Day Flow Day Flow Total Additional
(MGD) (MGD) ERUs ERUs
Year
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
1 19.90
7.45
17,960
352
2050
1 20.30
7.60
1 18,319
359
2005 through 2011 Actual Water Production, 2012 through 2050 are projected flows based on
growth rate by Kal. Planning Department
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
39
Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan
.o
MI
;9
i
LL
w
ww°O
w
S
icc{
E�
�LL
Y
n
SEES
ry
<
W
�Nt
E�
W
ym�
Q
gag
ji
W
Vi
Y
a
a
�
-
W 2
N
a
4
$
s
gW4N
�
�y
i5
-0
E
b3
�'i
815
�•-<ci�4
�
�
`�
m
ob
to
E
a
Li-
pQ
v
SI�
Z
8
vaaa
c
p
cE�
u
=
Ba
c
o
oozQa
t
xaFrcrc�Qa❑.rc�1
ors
woca�rc�rc��
dr
W
ss-Foza
So
W
O�+.-N_�f��
ry rf
YN�
T
Na9f
cNf
M
of ONO��mNN
m
NA
0'9
l�1�1�1
Ol
lgS V
FB3
w
a g*f
7
3
sR
m s
m
ai�33333i333333333333333
3333i3333333�3�333i33333�
Appendix C: Montana Code Annotated 2011
42
7-6-1601, l linkiuns.
Page 1 of 2
Montana Code Annotated 2011
Pre -lads Saclhon W.A Cyril" Pen CO,eONLA Sbercd rip Nazi SWCon
7-6-1601. Definitions. As u%cd in this part, the 1ollow 1ng detinlilnns apply_
(1) (a) "Capital impravcments" meats improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life
of 10 ytars or Tno€t Thai incrmait or improve the srrvicc Capacity of public facility,
(b) The term doeb not include cunsumablc supple.
(2) "C'onawion charge" means the souaI cosy of connecting a property 10 a pubic utility
syrstern and is limited to the Iabor, materials, and overhead inyolved in making connections and
imga1hng meters,
(3) "Develrapment" mea tis construution, renovation, or installation. of building or structure,
a change in use of building or structure. or a change in the use ofland when the conamctian,
itmmll$tion, or uthcr ution Creates additional demand For public facilities,
(4)'Govmmental entity" means a county, city, sown, or consolidated government.
(5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development 17y- a gDvernmcntal cntity
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 fie for the
adm i nidmlion of the impact fk�_- -not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected_
{b) The term Macs not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration. plan review, or i nspcmion cots us,,ociated with
a permit required for development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(ui) any other Fec aul harized by lake, including but not limited to user fees, special
irnpresvemcnt district as<s stnenti. fees authc-rued under Title 7 for county, municipal, and
consolidated goverctment sewer and water dilmdi t and systvns, and cosh of ortgoiag
ttinter�ce; or
(iv) onsite -or rrfit'site improvements nece<s.%ary for new development to meet the safety, level
of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adapted by the
governmental entity.
(6) Vnipurtio=e share" means that portion of the cost of capital systeiTi improvernt~ms that
rea`sonablyr relam5 to the service &Canards aml nos of the project. A p ornonatc !iharc must
take into acoa aot the limitratiun5i p"wiJc+d in 7-6-1 WZ
(7) "Public facilities" means,
(a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility;
(b) a wastewater collection, treatmen or disposal facility;
(c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic 5i Is,
and landscaping;
(d) a storm venter collection, retention, d mention, treuimen i, or disposal facility or a flood
control facility;
(e) a pofiM emergency medical rmue, o{ fire protection facility; and
(f} other W1111M fcrr wNth documuntuliwn is prepared as pre vided in 7-6-1602 tlmt have
43
7-6-1601, Definitions,
Page 2 of 2
loon approvod as pare of an im}wct fecordinance or resolution by-
(i) a two-thirds majority of the govoming body ofan incogmratcd city, town. or consolidated
local government; or
(ii) a unanimous vote of The boerd of county commissioners of county government.
History: £n. Sec, 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
AV~ t:!XMXUPW eerwr" SOMK a
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation rcquired -- ordinance or re... Page 1 of
Montana Code Annotated 2011
Prelious SWIiDn MCA Contents Part Contents Search Help Next Section
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or
resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) per 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 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 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 pui j)or es 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 impact fee 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 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:
,to
7-6- i 602. 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 ofthe cast of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new
development.
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the casts incurred or to
he 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 fot 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 rnaintenance of the facility.
History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005; amd, Sec:. 1, Ch. 359, L. 2009.
Fhidddd by MoptQMir Legl9iO" Services
Me
7-6-1 bd3. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mech... Page L of 2
i
Montana Code Annotated 2011
Prewaus Section MCA CaoteN$ Part OxAeds Search Help Nftl 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 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 roust
be invested with all interest accruing to the fund.
(b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalfof 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 clue.
(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 casts 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 ofpayment of impact fees &
(a) the need 1br the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6-1602;
(b) the Iand proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed 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 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 7-6-16U2(2)i; j ). if impact fees are imposed for
47
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mech... Page 2 of 2
remodeling, rehabilitation, or other Jim provernents 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 refunds or credits:
{a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of7-fi-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. Sea, 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005; and. Sec. 2, Ch. 358, L. 2009.
Pm4d�d by ftrtanr Lerslobve Services
7-6- 1604. Impact fee advisory committee.
Montana Cade Annotated 2011
PreMcus Section MCA CQraems Pars Contents Searrh Herp Next Section
Page 1 of l
7-6-1604. 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) Ain 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 comnvttee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing
body of the governmental entity.
History: En. See. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005.
Pwviderl by XDPt2»g Ley4lffiVc Servjccs
we
Appendix D: Source of Supply
50
Source of Supply
Original Cost
Year Equipment List 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
Grosswieler 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 $ 575,000 $ 594,000
Total Wells $ 2,879,260
2035 ERUs 13,612
Source of Supply Impact Fee per ERU $ 211.53
51
Appendix E: Pumping Plant Facility
52
Pumping Plant Facility
Year
Equipment List
Original Cost
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
53
$ 238.83
Appendix F: Storage
IV
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, $ 3,997,
beyond 2035 West Kalispell Reservior 2 3 2-7'-� ,549 3,795,483
beyond 2035 South Kalispell Reservior 3 3,277- 99 3,795,499
Total Future Storage Plant $ ° 929 /AA $ 11A98 317
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
55
Appendix G: Transmission and Distribution
56
Percent Impact
Original Cost ImImaFee Fee
Year Equipment List Cunt 2012 Related Eligibla '
Existing 7ransmrssran1Ofstrihu6an Plan t
19m7
2200 8 Inch
S 13,45,5
S. 25,120
D.0% $
-
1911
318h0 20 inch
14,83a
S 20,234
35.6% $
7,403
1911
101 12 inch
251
S 469
35.6% $
171
1924
4204 f8 inch
30,224
S 56,428
35.6% S
20,644
1924
17761di&
V.349
6 21.168
36.6°/o- $
7,752
1924
195W 8 inch
50.136
6 93.603
36.13% $
34,244
1925
204612inch
11,016
S 20,567
36.0% $
7,524
1925
1lwp winch
21,874
5 40,838
-D.0% $
-
1928
294 12 inch
1,27$
5 2,3815
39.6% $
673
19311
13169 6 inch
21,42$
$ 40.U96
9.0% $
-
_
1932
1311121nch
5,158
5 9.630
36.6% $
3,523
1935
10663 6 inch
10.452
5 34.408
0.0% 5
1938
1988 8 inch
12.785
S 23,671
36.0% $
8.733
1938
156786rrG
31,309
S 58,453
t1.09% $
1948
11019 6 inch
3,667
5 t3.846
0.0% $
1948
3145 B inch
11,624
S 21,702
0.0% S
-
1949
32N 8 inch
15,5T3
S 29,075
36.6°k $
10,t337
1950
1452 6 inch
5,447
S 10.169
0.0% $
-
1952
630 20 inch
10,109
6 18,973
35 M $
6,905
1952
969 18 indl
14,578
S 27,217
36.B% $
9.957
1953
12612incli
1.476
S 2,756
36.61% $
1,008
i955
6274 6 inchh
29.236
S 54.581
0.0% $
$956
1266 8 inch
7,9&3
5 14.904
36.6% $
5,453
1998
1884 6 inch
10,102
S 18,860
0.0% S
1959
52415 8 inch
38,994
S 69.067
36.0% $
25.269
1960
2122 6 inch
12,006
5 22,415
0.0% $
1961
low 12kWh
17.964
S 33,539
36.6% $
12,270
f961
157512 inwh
21 .210
5 50,241
36.6% S
16,380
1962
47M 8 inch
35.749
S 66.743
36.6% $
24.417
1962
5871 6 inch
34,739
S fA.857
0.0% $
-
1965
3225 12 whch
55,101
5 102.873
3S.t34h $
37,635
1965
2451 6 inch
14.956
6 27, 823
ac% $
f965
5448Inch
249.924
5 486,B04
36.6% S
170,704
t967
106012ianch
133,249
5 248.774
0.0% S
-
1987
56)0.5 inch
159.7137
S 2M,M4
35.6% $
108,401
1968
115712inch
1.192,190
S 2,225,601
36.6% $
814,29m
19,68
2795 8 irmM
80,000
5 149.359
36.6% $
s4.642
1%8
1o5s6inch
133.249
6 2413,7T4
1).0% $
1969
18M 6 Inch
113,588
5 04,704
0.0% $
1962
=,& 8 Inch
24,327
S 45.418
36.6°i S
16,816
19m
7021 6 inch
45,023
S 64.057
0.0% $
-
1970
10708 inch
1B,2dt5
S 34•063
Imm $
1970
1635 8 imrL
13.517
5 25,236
35.m % $
9 32
19TO
3725 6 inch
24.079
$ 44,955
0.0% $
1971
1866 6 inch
13,206
$ 24.767
0.0% $
1972
Airport 8 inch
40,418
$ 75,4tio
36.6% S
27,$07
1972
85610 Inch
10,885
$ 19,389
30.6% $
7.093
197-2
10708 inch
9,4f9
$ 17,535
38.m% $
6.433
1972
212215 ihoh
15.212
$ 26,401
0.0% S
-
1975
6m74 113 inoh
120.032
$ 242,081
9B.6% S
B.U,747
1073
2319 14 inch
4E).753
$ 92.907
36.6% 5
33A89
1973
1769 12 inch
361t33E3
$ 68.399
36-6% 8
25,023
1973
1592 12 inch
31,899
$ 59,555
36-M S.
21,788
1973
31610inch
3,979
$ 7,420
36.6% $
2,71$
1973
217 8 inch
2,064
$ 3,853
35.13% $
1,410
t973
5930 8 inch
54,317
S 101,409
36.6% $
3T,100
1973
50 8 inch
457
$ 853
36.6% $
312
1973
2589 8 inch
18.527
$ 34.5A0
0.0% $
-
1973
743 6Inch
5.523
$ 10.311
0.0% $
1973
178 6 imh
1.273
5 2,377
0.0% $
-
1974
3097 12 inch
78.563
S 146,6715
0.0°l $
-
1975
4334 E3 inch
48.168
S 89.1 tC,
0.0% $
-
1976
5097 12 inch
103,559
0 lm,043
35.6% S
70,733
1976
414 12 inch
410
$ 765
36.6% $
280
1976
219012Inch
10.862
$ 20,317
36.6% $
7,433
1W7
36828+hch
59.245
$ 104,2132
38.5% S
36, 144
197(1
045 6 inch
10.012
S 18,092
a.U% S
-
IW7
S72 6 nc:h
12.400
$ 73,151
0.0% s
-
1981
tcahv Slreet Mum
79.072
S 1419.120
36.6% 5
51,555
1962
SILT 320
24.6;8
S 46,014
0 0% 5
-
1969
Ltf1.n Slreel
150,540
S 281.056
36.5% S
102-823
1993
8th Avarlur` Watal Mail
4.216
S 7,871
366% 5
2.948
1983
SID 326
4.511
$ 8.422
D.[)% 9
-
19W
M5,nch
11.101
S 20.725
366% S
7.U2
1963
230 6 -rrch
6.073
S 12.4332
38.6% S
4,d"
1y83
1?512 nch
1.4175
S 2.754
916.6% S
1.007
1964
SID 328 Kam-sy Additon
3.701
S 7.059
0 056 3
-
1984
8S9 6 irich
19.506
5 36.529
0 0% 3
1964
722 6 inch
32.507
S 60,690
0 0% 5
1064
1375 6+1ch
14.722
S 27,4BG
D D% 3
-
1904
22012 inch
1,9E6
$ 3,1R97
38.6'6 $
1,352
19134
235012Inch
43.9138
S 82.489
16.2% S
13,31a4
11984
dw 12 inch
6.455
S 12,051
0 0% S
-
1964
240 12 nch
8.094
$ 15.111
3615% 5
5,628
19Q34
380 6 ir4ch
5120
S 10.306
13.13% S
-
1981
2¢i p 0 iich
17.317
S 32, 331
13.12096 S
-
1D54
JD 5T086ackl.ae
43.15d
S 80,994
366% S
29.909
19$5
3050 6 inch
37.706
$ 70,400
0.0% 3
-
1965
1 M 8 hinch
32.400
S 60.490
36 IRM 5
22,13D
1986
365131nroh
11.550
$ 21.5m
366% 3
7.N9
1965
400 6'nch
12,000
S 22.404
38.6% S
8.196
1965
12508i1Ch
87.`J44
S M,012
36.696 S
25,513
1%5
320 4 inch
@Ace
$ 17.923
36 tM S
8,557
1965
36D6irrh
1D,800
S 20.163
36.6% 3
7.377
19H
2271) B i1ah
B9,3I13
$ 185,992
a a% s
t6, 278
1989
01U B-nih
15.3DO
S 26,565
36.5% $
MAW
196'
51117 12 Iruph
302.513
S 5E4.75F
23 rp% S
132.1A3
196'
157 B inch
9.486
S 17.710
38.15% $
13.479
19B'
211 6 inch
15.121
S 26,231
D.[)% $
-
196'
46O B iW-h
17.15$
$ 32,034
36.5% S
11.719
IS6'
'MaInch
9.008
5 1$.018
36.6% 5
E11S3
1%6
457Binch
$ 2B.182
3.3% s
927
tg8'
2729inch
9.001
S 15.448
163416 $
3.374
196'
49D0 IS inch
10.079
S 33.753
36.6% S
12,346
190'
154012 inch
70.434
S 131.499
3&5% S
48.108
106'
145412 imh
51.759
5 911,1633
36.15% S
35.333
19W
3w 12 kWh
17.679
S 33.0D+3
36.15% $
12.076
1su
FYI" 8Bch
18.145
S 33.876
_V3,6396 S
12.393
i900
1$57 12 inch
69.322
$ 127.556
366% S
413.5"
1981
SW Kok PraJen
257,027
S 481 ,359
25 5% S
i 23.272
1969
5t10 12 inch
24.318
S 45.401
36 r-% $
16,810
-19B1
3004vich
8.516
S 15.899
35.13% S
5.517
19M
2701 12 inch
192,M9
$ 3n3,738
3615% S
151,121
1901
2610 12 irreh
1♦47,411$
S 38B,573
35.6% 5
134,640
1991
400 flinch
16,00D
S 29.W2
4 U1% S
1991
430 8 inch
18.700
S 34.913
38 B% S
12.MI
1991
700ainch
30,120
$ 58,234
38.656 S
20.573
1991
.W20 R -ridh
35.605
S 69,474
27.B% $
i8,483
1992
Trpv.L Veq Od
13.052
S 25,488
36 6% S
9-J?5
i992
713 B inch
21.646
$ 40,417
38 6% 3
14,M
1992
6th StW
66,444
$ 124,117
9Ci.G% S
45,428
1992
14th $A and srh AV41
66,709
S 122,678
366% S
44,8E1
1903
Cal 42146 8W*rK)9
46.032
5 87,e21
366% 3
32.056
1983
Windward Upsl2e
15,0110
$ 28,OD5
38.6% 5
10.245
1994
LN-RWO Tandem
$8.108
S 108,487
96.6% S
39.60
1994
iGr"r&wier UDsRw
13,i163
% 20.01
3619% 9
10,90
1994
Kelly Road Upe9¢e
14,023
$ 26.161
366% 5
9,5T6
1994
Oth Aim and Col St
34.005
$ f14,6D7
38.6% S
23.19%
1995
Mydr2LAC ahanp SY5WM
0.704
S 12.5019
3615% 3
4,$78
1995
Lawrence Park
39,575
$ 68.102
36.6% S
24,549
199$
Utah Street
19.5�21
$ 36.445
36.1a% S
13,333
1995
Ave al Arlaf2nd Ave
24.973
S 40.5,31
36 e% $
17,023
1999
E Aroma
15.750
S 29.405
36 e% S
10, 75B
199x
Tapping MwJwe
12 320
5 23001
36.13°!u S
8.415
1997
WVKx2and
169.225
S 3T5,941
36u% S
115,M5
1987
L4bsmI {T wp Mae
314 628
5 507.406
36 e% $
214,894
1997
14th St
2A_799
S 53,765
36.6% S
19,6T[1
1997
W*MWyomrrp
513.130
S 184.537
36.6% S
so, ID5
i99*
BIpkhoo,JaMharnww
12.000
5 22.404
38.0% $
6,1P6
1999
Buffara C Dm
145 201
$ 250, D37
36.10% S
95.1 S3
1969
Telemetry "ode
8.41M
5 15,111
36-6% S
5,528
11ho
51h Awe NW Water
91 ,es7
s 157.454
39.E+4+. $
57,6w
20M
John D-re Loader
34.490
6 56.834
36.6 6 $
2l
2001
Cat 4300 6acil
59.301
$ 92.249
35.6% $
33.749
2001
MN SvCn[r-Sunst
012.454
3 988,078
3016% $
354.185
2091
Will Glen arw Waod•and
17.625
3 27,701
36_BA1. $
10.134
2092
Meter T4pt 9encri
12.737
6 19.312
35.6% $
7,06S
2002
Mer-don Rd to 3 Mile 6r-,
155.707
3 240.834
7.3.% S
17.607
2002
FaciFily Plan
93,0w
5 141 ,0W
38.M $
51.54T
2004
Norlh4rn Ughts BlYCI-VY tar Maln installatlof
261,E59
$ 393,225
35.4% $
143,41.59
20G4
washerlgton SL Mwn 701 $. 81h
29,5$5
$ 37,089
30.6% $
15.566
21305
Ingcrsol ill Roller
13.572
5 18,163
35.6% S
0.45,15
2006
Matera •Flew Ser-Ices
205.703
$ 275.279
0.0r% $
200r
US Hrghyvay 9L3 South utilities
1.904,905
$ 2.549,211
33.3% $
847,796
2006
West "w upa ze
12.407
6 15.027
96.6AG $
ll
ROOT
SWft T4nC[an
94.387
3 116,223
36-0% $
42.520
2007
Meriden F7oad Water hlarrl
203.661
$ 250.654
38_b% $
91. T130
2007
Wesrwavd Upwze
29,923
$ 36.014
35.5% S
13.029
2007
Lone Pine Meadows Upaize
59.275
$ 71.757
35.6-% S
26,2W
20M
Sl Prairie Upaize
70,1i17
S 21,482
36.6% $
7.859
20w
HolodayInn Umtre
8,072
S 7,172
U." $
2.624
2008
Gardner Extension Upsize
32,631
$ 38,542
36.6.% S
14.100
Roca
FteeehreLoop €rnensinn
16.%2
$ 18.416
36.6% S
5.738
2008
Hallam Ranch Rtwse 1 Llpsrie
12, 5W
S 14.764
30.6% $
6.401
20M
BLlfab Hills Water Main Replacement Propt
100,P75
3 114,440
38.6AL $
43.330
20M
Babru
52,881
$ 59,014
7.3A%
20"
Tr* King 7iR Il TraYer
20,a95
$ 23,674
36.6%
2009
Upper 7crla Production
853,355
$ 986,847
38.6% S
353, T15
2010
93 BypPse.
100,T24
S 109.487
30.616 $
All
2010
1st Ave E E Idaho Sl - 14V 12 kw-+
32.385
$ 35,190
36.6-% S
12,676
2010
Parkway Dr - 310- a inch
69.818
5 75.079
36_&% $
27.7130
2011
11 SI V74H Ave E to Woodland-1.0160 eft
107.942
$ 176,0w
64,062
2011
Gat Eackhoe
14®,232
$ 110,747
36.&% S
4D.516
2011
A rporl Rd ti k1erg2nrer - 22T $ inch
7.051
S 7.976
36 6% S
2.918
2911
0,M Corporal Settlerrreni
313.407
3 313,487
1010 0% S
313.4457
Tofaf Ill TrarwMa-lion and L3lstnil lOn Plant f
72,5fl2,T31
5 20090,005
$
M*8,133
Never E RUs 21172 kC 2035
4.960
Exizb ny Trarlsmission/Distri
bunion Plant Impact FQa per Ell
#
1,28$,46
Fulury Trensmiss fomeor stobutlan Plarrl - CA° Prolao2s r
W-EX-B
CyrrwpylannHiglwmy93Loop i
141,658
3 207,417
100.0% 5
207.4t7
W-FCC-1 19
Ill Cordre" "lain Up%Lze
57$,000
876,900
100.0% 3
675,004
W-EX-123
Meters -New Services
35®,186
356,186
1QQ.¢Y $
356,186
Total Fvrura Transmiss rVi Psf6bvlf4n Want - 4--OP Prufacts S
1,432,T44
$ 1,438,603
6
1,43>1,803
New EPUs 2012 Ip 2036 '
4.980
FiAurs Trnns.misrl0nit}ittrlbutil Plant CIP Projech Impact Fee pe- ERU
S
209-69
FeiBrre TrarsErYFiES}ora+L+l'ercibttelar+ il- Extension PAVecrs '
2011 Arr+exaton Boundary
2012.2035
East WhitnGsh Rmrer Exterfalvna
13,544,300
15.6u.R-el
0%
-
2012-2035
Nol Kalil ExtsnSlon5.
23.367.060
27.65%973
327E
.8 639.131
21112 2036
Waal Sl Rrlor Extenslons
11.519,aw
13,340_415
15%
'1 988,4$3
2l
WaslKallspell Extensions
40.114,200
48.453.936
7%
3.436,837
2012-2035
East Kallspell ExIonsiarts
1.392,400
1 ,611.905
6065
970.335
2012-7035
ScuthK9119pdkExlantsians
6.41156,100
7,475.27a
3A%
2.649.461
Ta"IFvllrr+rfarrrryPfpr+iF><e4nslanProfacts S 96.302,4w S fli.wa,479 a 17.583,247
rverrr FFUs 2012 to 2035 4 9W
Fut9m Tran'SrrisaiordDhfatrlbutkM Plant Impact F Mn per ERU S 3,530.99
Total Tan sml ildic wOialributlon Plant Impact Fee per ERU 11 5,100.19
7 • r4Arooefl0i+ for en ldt+rl;? prpJgcls basari m new €Rtl s from 2fl } 2 l0 2U35 divrr7bd bi' tofAf Fftils in 2'O.?5.
$onw p*wXA.s excuwird w reduced L "d vrr the amount Awn develd_+er �nrWibulia+� and ar Mao smowN whieft walSh�+ r'8t'x94ne+ nr-
2 - Sae Clly of Kalfsi It i lgr Gullet j," rovarr3erH CIAn fAppandnc F) Ill pm yiecl defedrs
J. Aiyawllea Ill l Phoi 6fs pravids 5erVC0 e9tyW9Y lluorrgh pfaa-V hprrl2,or1
d - Sae Chapter 5 Cr The Water Facll Phar1 LWd le - 2069 and Apperd x F of leis rep-1
PrQlDWs are "ua9d 40 00l dp,l iFam 9ha 2007 plan . aloes bass-Y on changes ur, ffre EhrR Corlsfrucfim Co-sl lnaax.
Appendix H: September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update
Summary
SEPTEMBER 2012 WATER
IMPACT FEE UPDATE SUMMARY
(Update to the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report)
E-111MVIN M"s 11011
City of Kalispell
201 1st Avenue Fast
P.Q. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
September 2012
PREPARED BY:
Morrison-Maierle, Inc.
125 Schoolhouse Loop
P.Q. Box 8057
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 752-2216
MMI PROJECT # 0387.054.010.000411
CITY OF KALISPELL
2012 WATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE SUMMARY
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
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 Polic : 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) Proiected 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 Ivey 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 301" 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
h W'th'm th K 1' II t t
The current pumping capacity of the ome. i El- a ispe 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 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 Storaqe: 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 Proiected 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 $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 proiects (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 ($1,2881 ERU)
Transmission and Distribution CIP Impact Fee: $ 1,438,603 ($ 2891 ERU)
Total Projected 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-]
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.
b-I
e
:��¢ rya � ��� f ' �; ' • �•
a
ii, IFI.•
yy,
72)
'l y.
LEGEND
ANALYSIS ?ONES
Original Sludy Area Boundary East Kallspell
Annexation Boundary East Whlterish River �-
North Kalispell
Kallspell Clty Limits
South Kalispell _
West Kalispell -,
FUTURE
WATER MAINS west Stillwater River
I1VIGRRISON �.••.. ^ ~•••rs-1� 'ro.+••o• — y�p�IS>'ELL wAI EH AND SEwEll fMPALT FEE UPDATE�."
s. ,. .ww.e• o..��
J L MAIERLE, INc. MONTSNA
.•-r. " �'— rrmcrl 2011 ANNEXAMOV BOUNDARY 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
3.59
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
3.89
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,S75
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
13,984
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 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 dwelting unit X 165 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
APPENDIX B
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 $ 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
853,365
$
966,847
2011
Grosswieller Well Development
92,626
$
96,563
2011
Silverbrook Well (by Developer)
-
-
Total Existing Wells
$
1,530,136
$
2,096,7.44
Future Wells
2012-2023
Grosswieller Water Supply
$
575,000
$
594,000
Total Future Wells
$
575,000
$
594,000
Total Wells
$
2,879,260
2035 ERUs
13,612
Source of Supply Impact Fee per ERU
$
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 hark 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.N. 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
NoffsingerlChlorine 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' $— ,374,00
beyond 2035 West Kalispell Reservior Z 3,277,500 3,795,493
beyond 2035 South Kalispell Reservior 3 277 500 3,795,483
n
Total Future forage Plant o �929dn� 11 - ,-.498w31-T
Total Storage Plant $ 5,672,604
Total ERUs 2035 13,612
Distribution Storage Plant Impact Fee per ERU $ 416.75
1 - See Table 5-1 E 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
Percent Impact
Original Cost Impact Fee Fee
Year Equipment List Cost 2012 Related Eligible'
Existing Transmission/Distribution Plant
1967
2200 8 inch
$ 13,455
$ 25,120
0.0% $
-
1911
3180 20inch
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
36.6% $
20,644
1924
1776 16 inch
11,349
$ 21,188
36.6% $
7,752
1924
19599 8 inch
50,136
$ 93,603
36.6°/ $
34,244
1925
2046 12 inch
11,016
$ 20,567
36.6% $
7,524
1925
11693 6 inch
21,874
$ 40,838
0.0% $
-
1928
294 12 inch
1,278
$ 2,386
36.6% $
873
1930
13169 6 inch
21,428
$ 40,006
0.0% $
-
1932
1311 12 inch
5,158
$ 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
31456inch
11,624
$ 21,702
0.0% $
-
1949
3290 8 inch
15,573
$ 29,075
36.6% $
10,637
1950
1452 6 inch
5,447
$ 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
1,475
$ 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
1884 6 inch
10,102
$ 18,860
0.0% $
-
1959
5245 8 inch
36,994
$ 69,067
36.6% $
25,268
1960
2122 6 inch
12,006
$ 22,415
0.0% $
-
1961
1098 12 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
5871 6 inch
34,739
$ 64,857
0.0% $
-
1965
3225 12 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
1157 12 inch
1,192,190
$ 2,225,801
36.6% $
814,296
1968
2795 8 inch
80,000
$ 149,359
36.6% $
54,642
1968
1059 6 inch
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%n $
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
858 10 inch
10,385
$ 19,389
36.6% $
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
5674 16 inch
129,932
$ 242,581
36.6% $
88,747
1973
2318 14 inch
49,763
$ 92,907
36.6% $
33,989
1973
1769 12 inch
36,636
$ 68,399
36.6% $
25,023
1973
159212inch
31,899
$ 59,555
36.6% $
21,788
1973
316 10 inch
3,979
$ 7,429
36.6% $
2,718
1973
217 8 inch
2,064
$ 3,853
36.6% $
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 6 inch
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
414 12 inch
410
$ 765
36.6% $
280
1976
2196 12 inch
10,882
$ 20,317
36.6% $
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% $
547555
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% $
2,880
1983
SID 326
4,511
$ 8,422
0.0% $
-
1983
370 8 inch
11,101
$ 20,725
36.6% $
7,582
1983
230 8 inch
6,873
$ 12,832
36.6% $
4,694
1983
12512 inch
1,475
$ 2,754
36.6% $
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
1375 6 inch
14,722
$ 27,486
0.0% $
-
1984
220 12 inch
1,980
$ 3,697
36.6% $
1.352
1984
235012 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
1080 8 inch
32,400
$ 60,490
36.6% $
22,130
1985
385 flinch
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
519712 inch
302,513
$ 564,787
23.5% $
132,653
1987
157 8 inch
9,486
$ 17,710
36.6% $
6,479
1987
211 6 inch
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
154012inch
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
660 12 inch
24,318
$ 45,401
36.6% $
16,610
1989
300 8 inch
8,516
$ 15,899
36.6% $
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
8th 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
35.6% $
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
$ 587,406
36.6% $
214,899
1997
14th St
28,798
$ 53,765
36.6% $
19,670
1997
West Wyoming
88,130
$ 164,537
35.6% $
60,195
1997
Backhoe Jackhammer
12,000
$ 22,404
36.6% $
8,196
1998
Buffalo Corn
145,201
$ 260,037
36.6% $
95,133
1998
Telemetry Upgrade
8,438
$ 15,111
36.6% $
5,528
1999
5th Ave NW Water
91,657
$ 157,454
36.6% $
57,604
2000
John Deere Loader
34,490
$ 56,834
36.6% $
20,792
2001
Cat 430D Backhoe
58,361
$ 92,249
36.6% $
33,749
2001
MN St/Cntr-Sunst
612,454
$ 968,078
36.6% $
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% $
7,065
2002
Meridian Rd to 3 Mile Drive
158,707
$ 240,634
7.3% $
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% $
143,859
2004
Washington St. btwn 7th & 8th
26,585
$ 37,089
36.6% $
13,569
2005
Ingersoll Rand Roller
13,572
$ 18,163
36.6% $
6,645
2005
Meters - New Services
205,703
$ 275,279
0.0% $
-
2005
US Highway 93 South Utilities
1,904,905
$ 2,549,211
33.3% $
847,798
2006
West View Upsize
12,407
$ 15,927
36.6% $
5,827
2007
Sterling Tandem
94,387
$ 116,223
36.6% $
42,520
2007
Meridian Road Water Main
203,561
$ 250,654
36.6% $
91,700
2007
Westwood Upsize
28,923
$ 35,614
36.6% $
13,029
2007
Lone Pine Meadows Upsize
58,275
$ 71,757
36.6% $
26,252
2008
Spring Prairie Upsize
18,187
$ 21,482
36.6% $
7,859
2008
Holiday Inn Upsize
6,072
$ 7,172
36.6% $
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% $
5,401
2008
Buffalo Hills Water Main Replacement ProjF
100,275
$ 118,440
36.6% $
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% $
353,715
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
36.6% $
12,876
2010
Parkway Dr - 360' 8 inch
69,818
$ 75,879
36.6% $
27,760
2011
11 St E/7th Ave E to Woodland -1,016 8 in(
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
New ERUs 2012 to 2035
Existing Transmission/Distribution Plant Impact Fee per ERU
Future Transmission/Distribution Plant - CIP Projects 2
W-EX-8 Conway Drive and Highway 93 Loop
W-EX-119 Misc Contract Main Upsize
W-EX-123 Meters - New Services
Total Future Transmission/Distribution Plant - CIP Projects
New ERUs 2012 to 2035 3
$ 12,592,251 $ 20,196,005 $ 6,416,138
$ 191,558 $ 207,417
875,000 875,000
356,186 356,186
$ 1,422,744 $ 1,438,603
Future Transmission/Distribution Plant CIP Projects Impact Fee per ERU
Future Transmission/Distribution Plant - Extension Projects
4,980
$
1,288.46
100.0% $
207,417
100.0% $
875,000
100.0% $
356,186
$
1,438,603
c
4,980
�vo ao
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 Transmission/Distribution Plant Extension Projects $ 96,392,400 $ 111,626,470 $ 17,583,247
New ERUs 2012 to 2035 4,980
Future Transmission/Distribution 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
Kalispell Original CC[ Currant CC Multiplier
2012M3 Coul ij Proposed Water Capital Improvement Plan 800748 9273 1.158042231
Project
Number
Funding
Designation
I ecr Dearal Hon
Estimated Cos1
FY 12-13
Estimated Cost
FY 13-14
Estimated Cost
FY 14-15
Estimated Cost I
FY I!Il
Estimated Cost
FY M117
00rinated Cast
future
W-EX-3
D
G•,LV
WEX•5
R
&tr Ave W. Main Re0acarnort
S 7,298 310.60
WF-X-6
R
6th Ave, WanMain Repiawmart
S 402.697-61
W-EX-a
l
Cam= Drive and l 93 Loa
Y 207 418.94
W-EX-10
D
$- Woodland 0r- to 51h;-y . L
W-EX•11
D
Sy-1 C1. LMP
W-roc-72
R
Grandm— Drive l
S 503.736.79
W-FX-15
R l6lh
St Water Main Im rovements
S 747,110.95
W-FJG77
R IM
Ave, WN Water Main laeemetnt
$ 328779-77
•2RR
venue as n R acarrent
$ 735.125.21
WEX•22NoWm
Cne 0-- Ia F;,or M,:o i r--.-e, -xn
222 L`i' I3
W-EX-23Meridian
Road to Sunn -de Dove Loa 30% of • cam ,n 20055
S 749.439-61
W-EX-24Kali
Road to Woodland Ave Leh Ln to Woodland
S 312,ODO.00
W-F�626
93 to Al Rd
$ 946,D42.85
WFX-28Cdurado
Street Loop
--rls-E�7 r0
W-EX-29S1lriBoulevard
S 247.369-40
W-EX-30First
Avenue NE
S 165,000.00
W-EJL-32Trh
Avenue W.N. two
S 339,932.39
W-EX-38
R
Third Ave. W. L000
$ 83,413.78
W-EX-40
R
Second Ave.E Loop
I
S 166468.5!
W-=-X-45
D
b:eily 51reett:,::
459.789.0t1
WFX-1p9
R
NOwW—Silntenance mil repainsfmgr Icmnt
S 80$25.97
W-EJf-110
R
Wal SL Main Replacement 4th Ave to S1h Ave
S 76 809.IX7
•EX-115
R
Witerailility assessment security it do only if mandated
S 169 074,17
W-F,X-118
I
M:sc Com—i%1—U sire
5 50.000.00
5 t5.W0.00
S 75,WD.00
5 75OW-DO
S 75,o00.DO
S 375.000.00
W-EX-123
1
Morcrs
5 55r00006
5 fi5,000.60
$ 6S,000.00
S 65,8>70-00
S 66-000.00
S 325.01DO.011
W-EX-124
R
Meters• Replaosments
S 130000.D0
5 130.000.00
S M.Op4.fl0
S 1315030-00
S 130.000A0
S 130 Wit
W-EX-12aNO
Canned e6Sti 64ri pipingon 6th Ave. East ana 7th Ave. East v+th an 8anch on 101n St. feu
S 99082.09
WEX-130ace
0-rnc11 on E Or 51, OffUlo n 71n Ave. EN and ath Ave, EN wrdl an $-rrrdi e
S 110 26a.7a
W-EX-132Replace
2-" and 4-Inch 1 in E Arizona At Ind 15t Ave, EN vnlh 8-ir;0 and 8-rich 1pe
585 GW.OU
W-EX•133Re
am 6•incri i �n 4th Ave, WN from W CaVomia Sr 1¢ W W 31 will &inch
5 276 47*,00
W-E1t-135ace
&�r1ch m W Anxcna St. won &mcki
S 330.W6.34
W-FX-130ace
&inch in H 2 from Menial Rd w the entrance to the Ham Inn w.ih ldmch
S 10S.474A9
W-EX-137Replace
0-inch 1a rgmmerppl area adacon tD le Drive rxlh 10-inch r
5 174.79273
W-EX•139Mail
and Replacement
S 445 646.26
S e45,8A6.26
S 445 a4U
S 445 a4626
3 449 846-28
S 445 B46.26
W-EX1471ile�.,+r
5v:�+�;
S 1•:0-G32.G5
WEJL-t4P
R
HavAhOm Dnva West
S 132 842.18
WE i3
R
Hdh Avenue
S 214,145-17
W-FJ4144
R
M Avenue NoAh Weat
S 364.366.41
W-EX-145
R
1st AvenueWesitNorth
$ 284.461.49
W-EX•147
I
Derye;va Crossxe Saar Water S of I FY 12.13 & ro*Ituct Gra sswra!er Weil FY 14.15
46.000.00
5 51H-7410 21
-EX-160
R
Waf, Genarm"
S 90.000.00
•EX-163
R
Abandon The ball 3rd Ave E & N h Ave E jrewnrect swvloes to exotliIN manr[a be co C
$ 45 l
•EX-154
R
2nd Ave WN Waterline Ropliacemont
S 2421000.00
W-EX-155
R
SCADA Syslem UpignmoNIm emenis
S 40 000.00
W11l
Dr11F
L. orrty 51 re,1 W o1 cr ll.• -
- 336,796.93
W-5X-158
R
Levrsr Zone Rastrvnir v racks
S 120.000.00
W-FX•159
R
Ul Asset Man t Program
S 34 000.00
W-EX-160
R
No1f5incer Sl3ring Emergency General Rf91pcoK4A (Appawd for FEMA Grant to pay 25% cost
S 90 000.00
W-EX•161
R
Sheepherder Tank Backup Pourer (Applip.d for FCMA Grant to 25% cost
$ 10 M M
Total CooNaid
$ 2,296.84e,2181
S 2,056,248.81
15 1,047,917.32
S 2,547,486.91
1 S 1,947,881.29
$ 8,308.107,10
2013 Whiter CIP • Added Projects WEX•158 . W-EX-161
FY 08 - FY 12 Compteled Prajetts
W-EX-13 - Upper Zone Storage
W-l9- 11th 5t E Water Main
W-EX•115 - Security Upgrades
W-EX-117 - Uuper Xone FraduGiun
W-EX719- Annuat Allxer on
W-EX-123 - Annual Allocaton
W-EX-124 - Annual Allocation
$6,351,428
W- EX- 127 • Mach & Equip moved to Equip CIP
W EX•138 • Upper & Lower Zane Interconnect
W-EX•140. 1st Ave E Idaho 51 Crossing
WEX-140 • System VilwtKrtlan Impry
W-FJC-149 - US 93 8ypass Water Utility r ideate
WEX-152 - Parkway Dr Water mein Rapid.
W.l157 - Seaon 38 Water to on Exlenaion
Total Current Pds • FY 13 thru Future
Fur in Deal natlon
R r Rates
I ' Irnpact Fees
D - Developer 7 FID 7 TIP
Combine lion of Funds
S 19,105,293.79
$ 13,788,023.85
$ 2,147,157.15
S 3.191,11218
S -
S 19,7G 74
APPENDIX G
2011 Montana Code Annotated
7-6-16
7--1 0 l . Definitions.
Page 1 of
Montana Code Annotated 2011
Pf"OLIS Swion MCA CorteaS Part Corderts Search Help Next Section
7-6-101. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
0) (a) "Capital improveranents"f means improvements, ]and, and equipment witty 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.
() "Connection charge" rneans the actual cost of connecting a property to a public uti lity
system ad is limited to the labor, materials, and overhead involved in malting connections and
installing meters.
() "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure,
a change in use o f a building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction,
instal lati on, 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 % 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 seiner and water districts and systems, and costs ofongoing
maintenance; or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level
of service, and other minimwn 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 7-6-160 .
(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, inclining roads, streets, bridges, rights -of -way, traffic signals,
and landscaping;
(d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposai facility or a flood
control facility;
(e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and
(0 other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6- 102 that have
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-160 1. htm 31 1f 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 Mantana Legislative Services
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-160Lhtm 3/21/2013
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or re... Page l of 2
Montana Code Annotated 2011
Pre+ Ous SOchOn MCA COMM Pal CoMeMs Search Help Next Section
7- -1 0 . 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.
() 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 service areas 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 casts 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 casts and correction of existing deficiencies frorn the impact fee;
0) establish the amount ofthe impact fee that wilt be imposed for each unit of inereaed
service demand; and
(k) have a component of the budget: of the goverryrrmental 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-yeas' period and is reviewed and updated at least every 2 years.
() 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.
() The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost ofpublis
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.
() 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:
http:lldata.opi.mt. govlbillslmca/71 17- -1 02.htm 3/21/201
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
(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 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 Montana Legislo bwe Senices
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1602.htm 3/21/2013
7-6-1 03. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- torch... Page 1 of 2
Montana Code Annotated 2011
PFO%iaus SOCtiOrk MCA C4Mens Part Camatents Geamch Heap Next Seclian
7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanisum
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 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 7-6-160 , 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 ofwastcater 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 mast have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a
manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This parr 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 cast 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) GovernrnentaI 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 7-6-1 U ;
(b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed 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 establ fished as part of the irnpaact 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 ifthe dedication of land or construction ofpub] ic facilities
is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an individual developrrrent.
() Impact fees may not be unposed 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( )0). If impact fees are imposed for
hup. //data.opi.mt.govlbills/mcal"71 17-6-1603. htrn 3/21 /20 l 3
7- -1 03. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mech... Page 2 of
remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net
increase between the old and new demand may be imposed.
(b) 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 -6-1 02 and
this chapter; or
(b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-fi7 l 0202 and
this chapter, between the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the
impact fees.
(7) An impact fee represents a fce 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. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 005; amd. Sce. 2, Ch. 358, L. 2009.
PrWAdWbd1ft*dFnfi teVISMAV Services
http:lldata.opi.mt. govlbi I Ishncal7/6/7-b-1603. htm 3/21 /2013
7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee.
Page 1 of l
Montana Cade Annotated 2011
Pfeuous Bechar) MCA ntws Part Contents Sexch Heap Next Section
7- -1604. 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.
Pkw dbyll9adoe teglsloWe Services
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/7/6/7-6-1604.hti-n 1 1 /201