1. Council Minutes - Regular Meeting - March 17, 2014A REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00
P.M., MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2014, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN
KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR MARK JOHNSON PRESIDED. COUNCIL MEMBERS
JIM ATKINSON, SANDY CARLSON, KARI GABRIEL, CHAD GRAHAM, PHIL
GUIFFRIDA, RANDY KENYON, TIM KLUESNER, AND WAYNE SAVERUD WERE
PRESENT.
Also present: City Manager Doug Russell, City Attorney Charles Harball, Deputy City Clerk Judi
Funk, Police Chief Roger Nasset, Public Works Director Susie Turner, Budget Resource Manager
Terri Loudermilk, and Planning Director Tom Jentz.
Mayor Johnson called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
A. AGENDA APPROVAL
Kenyon moved to approve the Agenda. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
B. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
1. Council Minutes — Regular Meeting — March 3, 2014
2. Award Bid — Wall Repair Project
One bid was received for the Wall Repair Project for the Buffalo Hill Water Storage Tanks.
Staff recommended the bid be awarded to Neal Structural Repair in the amount of
$72,262.00.
Atkinson moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
C. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Duane Larson gave a report on the City -County Board of Health.
D. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
March 17, 2014
Page 1
E. PUBLIC HEARING — WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Mayor Johnson opened the public hearing.
Larry Sartain, 115 West Monture Ridge, Impact Fee Committee member, explained the committee
all agreed with the findings of the report, but the vote was 3-2 in favor because they would like other
means of funding explored.
Bruce Measure, 635 5th Street East, remarked it is difficult to determine everyone's fair share, but
the city can not socialize it on the ratepayers' backs. He said if the project is viable, the developers
will bear the cost.
Lee Selders, 110 Eastway Drive, stated he represents Westcraft Homes and Big Land Development
and this is the wrong time to add more impact fees.
Kurt Hafferman, 1325 2nd Street West, remarked he represents the builders of Depot Place and
Orchard Villa and because multi -family dwellings have to pay impact fees up front, they will be too
expensive to finish remaining phases if this passes.
Bill Goodman, 50 2nd Street East, No. 105, remarked the ratepayers will have to pay extra fees if the
impact fees are not passed.
Jim Cossitt, 1231 6th Street West, gave a brief history of impact fees and estimated we have spent
$300,000 on consultant fees. He urged council to decide on a policy direction and change the start -
stop nature of the fees.
Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive, commented sewer and water bills have recently gone up;
citizens are already paying more and without these impact fees they will be stuck with this bill as
well.
Chris Hall, 115 West Evergreen Drive, remarked impact fees are the cost of doing business and
suggested using "distinguishing characteristics" to charge different developers.
Ed Mahlum, 435 Leisure Drive, stated he is trying to sell lots for homes and when times were good
everyone was doing well, but now that times are tough just a few people are being singled out. He
said everyone in Kalispell should be responsible for getting us out of this.
Erica Wirtala, Northwest Montana Association of Realtors, reiterated the points presented in the
letter they submitted, and commented the burden of impact fees should not rest solely on new
development.
Mayor Johnson closed the public hearing.
(Letters received prior to and during the public hearing are attached hereto and made a part of the
official record)
Kalispell City Council Minutes
March 17, 2014
Page 2
F. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION
F/1. RESOLUTION 5666 — WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
The Impact Fee Committee has completed its review of the Wastewater Impact Fees and is
recommending an increase.
Russell gave a report and staff answered questions.
Public Comment
Chris Hall, 115 West Evergreen Drive, suggested tourists should have to pay for this through local
taxation and requested council get aggressive and find funds for other infrastructure as well.
Bill Goodman, 50 2nd Street East, No. 105, commented everyone has said they don't want to pay for
this growth and council will have to "side with one team or another".
Kenyon moved Resolution 5666, a resolution to amend the City of Kalispell Sanitary Sewer
System Impact Fees as well as the schedules and classifications imposed on the customers of
the City of Kalispell Sanitary Sewer Utility and to set an effective date. The motion was
seconded.
Council Discussion
Graham commented some people may look at growth as a cancer, but he believes it is beneficial for
everyone. He said government should follow the lead of business and set a friendly growth -minded
environment; you don't get more growth by raising development costs.
Guiffrida noted this will affect multi -family and affordable housing developments more than larger
developments and therefore violates our growth policy. He said growth benefits us all and we need
to look at alternate funding methods.
Atkinson remarked we had the chance to build up sewer revenue years ago and chose not to raise
rates; now we need to address the issue.
Kluesner stated our backs are against the wall. He said growth benefits the entire valley and the
entire valley should be helping to pay for it.
Kenyon said he disagrees growth benefits all citizens and added the increase must be approved
because it is not worth the risk to the taxpayers.
Mayor Johnson remarked there are only two ways to pay for any improvements in the city — rates or
fees. He said bonding the interceptor makes ratepayers into developers and the end user always pays.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Carlson, Gabriel, Kenyon, and Saverud
voting in favor, and Graham, Guiffrida, Kluesner, and Mayor Johnson voting against.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
March 17, 2014
Page 3
G. MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER REPORTS (No Action)
Russell noted an airport and urban renewal plan work session will be held next week and one of the
work sessions in April will focus on the next legislative platform.
Atkinson talked about the need for local option taxes.
Kluesner acknowledged the people who emailed comments about the impact fees and requested a
50150 tree replacement program be developed.
H. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Theresa White
City Clerk
Kalispell City Council Minutes
March 17, 2014
Page 4
REALTORSO. Inc.
NorthwestMontana! of
110 Cooperative Way
Kalispell, Montana 59901
www.nmar.com
Mr. Mark Johnson, Mayor
Kalispell City Council
201 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Proposed Sewer Impact Fees
Dear Mayor Johnson;
Office (406) 752-4313
Fax (406) 752-7834
nmar@)misnmar.com
As per your request for public comment regarding the proposed Sewer Impact Fees, the
Northwest Montana Association of Realtors (NMAR) would like to submit the following
thoughts:
It is recognized that there are several areas in the City limits where existing sewer
lines are older and failing, thereby causing "bottlenecks" and that there is limited
capacity for future development in these areas. With development pressures building on
the west side of the City, it is also noted that a "Westside Interceptor" sewer main would
allow for additional growth of the City to occur.
We recognize that the development community did not cause the problem to exist;
these bottlenecks have been years in the making.
We also recognize that the rate payers are not at fault either as they have simply
been utilizing a failing system for many years.
However, NMAR feels strongj that it would be unfair if the entire burden of
impact fees were to be imposed solely on either developers or existing rate payers as both
parties benefit from the many economic aspects of growth and development. By shifting
the entire Sewer Impact Fee onto new growth, there is the potential to chill and/or stall
the uptick in growth in the housing industry. Builders have no choice but to pass this
additional expense onto their homebuyers, which could then put a home out of reach of a
new buyer.
Developers should pay their "fair share" as detailed in M.C.A. which sets
guidelines on how to determine the "direct impact" their subdivision would have on the
public facility.
Existing ratepayers should also pay their "fair share". Their home may not be
located within a new neighborhood, but those homeowners are still benefitting from new
growth in the general area. Homeowners in existing homes benefit from healthy growth
and development of the City in a variety of ways and it is not a stretch to assume that if
the City does not, or cannot grow, it is not a good thing for all of the residents of
Kalispell. Ratepayers should shoulder a portion of the costs to assist financing the new
infrastructure. Not only are the current home owners benefiting from a growing
community but they are also benefiting by an updated sewer system.
NMAR thereby urges the Council to consider some alternatives to the proposed
formula that takes into account that spreads the Impact Fee burden between new
development and the existing rate payers.
And finally, NMAR would like the Council to take every opportunity to find
alternative funding sources to finance the West -Side Interceptor project in order to reduce
the necessity of the Impact Fees for that particular project, as soon as feasible. New
construction and ratepayers alike would appreciate the lifting of that heavy burden!
Thank you for your kind consideration of our comments. Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you have any additional questions regarding Impact Fees relationship
on the real estate industry.
Sincerely,
G (.-
ill Leininger, President Erica Wirtala,
Northwest Montana Association of Realtors Government Affairs Director
CONSTRUCTION, Inc.
Your Local, Trusted Builder of Affordable Homes
7 Meridian Court - Kalispell, MT 59901 - (406)755.7516 - Fax (406)755.1546
tivww ronterrvconstruction.com
March 17, 2014
Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the Kalispell City Council,
I am unable to attend this evening's meeting due to an event for my children so I am writing this
letter to express my opposition to the proposed increases in the City of Kalispell sewer impact fee
because. I will cover four topics in this letter. First, I will discuss a major concern I have with the
formula for the sewer impact fee that I believe needs to be addressed by the council before a vote
should be taken on this issue. Second and third, I will address the impact raising the fees such a
large amount will have on affordable housing and the affordability of building homes in Kalispell
versus building homes outside of Kalispell in Flathead County. Fourth, I will propose a possible
alternative solution to raising the sewer impact fees such a high amount at this time.
1. Methodology Issue. When I attended the City Council work session on the sewer impact
fees about a month ago, Mr.Hafferman, a respected engineer in the valley mentioned that he
uses lower numbers of Average daily flow per ERU than in the current impact fee study
when he completes similar studies within the county. I believe he mentioned 180 gallons of
Average Daily Flow. I checked the City of Kalispell's Wastewater Impact Fee reports
starting from 2006 to see what the reports have used for the average daily flow. In 2006, the
average daily flow per ERU used was 210.54. In 2008, that number changed to 265 gallons
per ERU and it has remained at 265 and it is still 265 in the current report. If I understand
the formulas correctly, and if the number being used in the City's study is incorrect and
should be reduced down, we should have the ability to serve more ERU's in our current
system, thus reducing the actual dollar amount impact fees required per ERU. I believe that
if another professional engineer who does this type of work for a living suggests that the
numbers he has been using are different, the city has a duty to review the current research in
this area.. This makes sense intuitively also because new homes are built with many water
efficient features that many older homes don't have like low -flow toilets and shower heads.
Many people now use water -efficient appliances in their homes that weren't available a
number of years ago also. This probably does reduce the amount of water they use and
discharge and would reduce the average daily flow.
2. Housing Affordability. As I have mentioned previously, I strongly believe that increasing
impact fees by such a large amount will increase the price of building homes and multi-
family within Kalispell which will then make homes and rentals less affordable for many. I
believe that during a normal housing cycle (as opposed to the widely varied cycles we have
had over the last ten years), the price of homes will tend to settle right around the price that
a new home builder can build a home and maintain a reasonable profit. We are just at the
point where we again have "affordable" housing in Kalispell again. I would hate to see the
City Council increase fees and contributing to the increasing the prices of new and existing
homes and rentals, thus making housing less affordable for their constituents.
3. Lower costs in the County. Over the last few years, our company has been building homes
in neighborhoods outside of the city limits that contain community water systems. Right
now, the cost to build in those neighborhoods is about the same as the cost to build within
Kalispell. The home sites are larger, but cost about the same to develop because the
requirements in the county are less stringent than the city (i.e., no curbs and gutters, no need
for infrastructure to connect to the sewer system, no boulevards, etc). I budget about $6500
to put in and connect a standard septic system. This amount is close to the price of impact
fees and a building permit in Kalispell currently. We also don't have the same expensive
storm water requirements while building in the county as we do in the city. In addition, the
homeowners have the benefit of lower taxes and lower monthly water and sewer fees in the
county. If the city raises the sewer impact fees by such a large amount, the balance will
change and it will be definitely more affordable to build in the county as opposed to the city.
4. Alternative Ideas. If I was on the city council, here is how I would respond. First, I would
ask for a review of the average daily flow per ERU to be sure that we are using currently
accepted numbers in our report and ask that the report and fee amounts be adjusted
accordingly, if needed. Then I would probably raise the sewer impact fees a small amount to
keep up with inflation if the report recommends a higher amount. After that, I would
remember that I recently voted to send a delegation from the City of Kalispell to
Washington D.C. to meet with our national legislators. I would use this opportunity to tell
them about our issue and begin to search for alternative funding sources (such as grants, etc)
that might be available on a national level for which the City of Kalispell might be able to
apply to help both ratepayers and people purchasing homes or renting in the community.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to and read my letter. I know that you will receive lots of
input tonight. Good luck with this decision.
Sincerely,
Merna Terry
Theresa White
From: Joe Unterreiner [Joe@ kalispellchamber.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:49 PM
To: Theresa White
Cc: kcarlson@aplushc.com; mark—johnson@ml.com
Subject: Comments: Wastewater system impact fees public hearing
I would like to offer some comments on behalf of the members of the Kalispell Chamber to you for the wastewater
system impact fees public hearing that will be held at your meeting of March 17, 2014.
The Kalispell Chamber has long been an advocate for the public infrastructure needed to support sustainable growth
and community economic health. We agree with the assessment that failure to increase capacity on the Westside may
be a serious impediment to future growth. As you know, we have long -supported support well -planned municipal
services including sewer, water, roads, police, fire, and education.
Nevertheless, the size of the increase proposed is concerning and threatens to slow the recovery that is just beginning
in the real estate and construction industries.
We encourage you to look at reducing or phasing in the rate increase to moderate this this fee's impacts on new home
and commercial construction starts, construction employment, and new home ownership.
Joe Unterreiner, President and CEO
Kalispell Chamber of Commerce
Convention and Visitor Bureau
15 Depot Park, Kalispell, MT 59901
406-758-2804 direct
406-249-2046 mobile
ioe@kalispellchamber.com
www.kalispellchamber.com
www.discoverkalispell.com
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Hafferman
Subject: Testimony for the public hearing on sewer rates, March 1% 2014
Date of submittal: Marchl2, 2014
Purpose of this submittal
Often oral testimony is hard to grasp and it is fleeting. In addition, for over a year I've had
to make adjustments to my lifestyle. Now my hearing ability has deteriorated to the point that
engaging in coherent dialog is, at times. very difficult. It is for the foregoing that my testimony is
written.
Early in my engineering career I had the opportunity, while working 13 years for the
National Park Service, to live and learn in the climatic and geologic diverse States of Montana,
Florida, California, Arizona and Alaska. As a professional engineer; licensed and practiced in
Montana, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Washington in Civil Engineering; I had to keep abreast of the
technological advances in water and sewerage systems. During my tenure as Kalispell's Director
of Public Works and then in private practice I had an opportunity to garner valuable knowledge
of the geology of the Flathead Valley and its relationship with wastewater treatment and disposal
throughout the Flathead. Those knowledge opportunities are other reasons for this submittal.
Supporting documents
Included herewith is a copy of Figure 1-6 from the City of Kalispell 2007 Wastewater
Facility Plan Update to illustrate an estimate population trending within the Kalispell area. All of
the City of Kalispell and Evergreen Sewer District are currently served by the existing
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Parts of the areas noted as North Kalispell and West
Kalispell areas have been annexed to the City, hence to be served by the existing sewerage
system. An addition 100,000 gal/day of the WWTP's capacity has been granted to Evergreen
Sewer District for use in areas outside the District boundary. Currently one area, Trumble Creek,
abutting the north boundary of the District is being served with a portion of that grant under the
waiver -of -right -to -protest -annexation provision of Kalispell's regulations.
Also included is page 3 of 33 of the Montana DEQ Permit for the WWTP. Especially
note the two items denoted by arrows.
Attached hereto, authored as part of this submittal, is a two page paper denoted as Talking
Points. The side notes on the first page are intended as an aid to understanding statements herein.
Included also is a copy of the Extension of Services Plan related to the rate increase.
Comments to support recommendations to be made hereafter
Council action to stop "tentacle" We development
Included in the highest rate being proposed is a project for an "interceptor" sewer to serve
primarily West Kalispell, West Stillwater River and North Kalispell. While there are already
developments in these areas that have been annexed to the City, they are not contiguous to the
City. They are already being served by Developer -installed sewerage systems that connect to the
City's system. These extended lines have been dedicated and are now part of the City system.
They are like "tentacles" to the City infrastructure: very difficult and costly to provide City
services required by State law when the City annexes these "tentacles".
Recommendations
To follow the existing 2007 Wastewater Facility Plan Update philosophy will lead into
problems, problems, problems. It is my recommendation that:
1. The existing rates be adjusted for inflation only,
2. That a decision by the Council that no further enlargement is to be made beyond the
existing 5.4 million gal/day WWTP, and
3. The staff began investigating alternate means of treatment and disposal. It would
probably be beneficial for staff member to visit other installations, perhaps some
being small, to generate ideas for the future of the Kalispell infrastructure, or
4. Hire a consultant who "thinks outside the box" and has had experience in plants other
than large centralized treatment plants and stream disposal, and
5. Discuss with local entrepreneurs including the County Planning, Evergreen Sewer
District and Flathead Electric Coop, and formulate a method of handling sludge
disposal.
6. Consider modular WWTPs for sizable subdivisions whereby expansion can be
accomplished as phases are initiated utilizing on -site disposal where possible for
greenery and open space.
7. Partner with the County and the Volunteer Fire Departments for funding of emergency
services and recreational facilities.
8. The staff formulate a plan to better equalize usage of the infrastructure in the existing
sewer pipage corridors based on the boundaries shown in the 2011 Resolution
5484A pertaining to the "direct annexation boundaries".
Closing philosophy
My experience with the National Park Service taught me a valuable lesson on dealing
with increased usage: Tread lightly on the land. In other words: don't keep slugging Ashley
Creek and eventually Flathead Lake (see Talking Points Current problems of central plants).
Additional considerations
In the Talking Points mention was made to advanced individual and modular WWTPs
and the need for routine maintenance on a scheduled basis. In the So what's the solution
statements reference was made to "pods of treatment and disposal areas". The maintenance of
these system should be done by a persons licenced by the State. It seems to me this could fit in
nicely with personnel in the sewerage division whom are now licenced.
Think of it this way: Instead of miles and miles of pipe lines and lift stations that require
routine maintenance and building a large oversized WWTP for future unknown growth are
replaced with on -site treatment and disposal pipage and lower cost motors for circulation., still
requiring routine maintenance, but not built years and years ahead of growth, but rather built in
small modules in accordance with a phased growth plan of the area to be served.
A//e
Bob an
1337 Third Street West,
Kalispell, MT 59901
3/12/14
Talking_Points
page 1 of 2
Data from 2007 Wastewater Facility Plan Update --Figure 1-6 Population Growth
Existing
2035
Theoretical buildout
West Stillwater River
1,048
10,084
29,000
North Kalispell
3,647
19,907
21,700
East Whitefish River
8,209
8,224
40,000
West Kalispell
3,382
19,938
41,686
K .4, ro. City of Kalispell
14,223
29,614
29,614
4. Evergreen Sewer District
8,200
10,164
10,164
East Kalispell
2,003
4,107
6,000
Zz
South Kalispell
2.513
6,474
16.000
43,225
105,512
194,164
Wastewater Facility Plan Update —Table 1-9, page 1-19 Wastewater Flow Projections — 2025
Yearly average flow---------------------7.24 mgd
Maximum week average flow--------14.23 " - -
Design maximum day flow-----------16,57 ..__c
Other data and sources
Montana DEQ Permit for WWTP dated 7/25/08, Table 1
Expansion design flow (current plant)—5,400,000 gal/day
Expansion design flow, daily peak load ----- 11.600,000 gal/day
i—- ` Expansion design population ----- 70,950 -
Public Work Director Turner's memo of 10/23/13
A single family household is 1 ERU = 265 gallons of sewage a day
Historical information
In early 1980 the existing plant, with discharge to Ashley Creek, was upgraded and modified to
3,100,000 gal/day with significant grant funds. The grant was for a regional plant. Sludge
was injected in a 40 acre parcel of land south of Cemetery Road. (Later the City hauled
the sludge to Olney for use in the Glacier Gold fertilizer plant and infrequently to the
County landfill).
In the mid 1980's discussions between persons familiar with Ashley Creek and our WWTP
recognized that at times, due partially to low water flows, the Ashley Creek discharge had
finite limits in meeting water quality standards. There has been significant data collection
on quality and quantity of flows emanating from Ashley Creek and the City's WWTP.
How this information will translate to the ever tightening of allowable discharge into
Ashley Creek of nutrients, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, etc, is a continual
question.
In the late 1980s the WWTP also underwent modifications to reduce the nitrate/phosphate levels
in the WWTP discharge.
The latest upgrading to 5,400,000 gal/day was done in the mid 2000s.
rep / -r X;:61Z WW7')�� -7 /;Z 516a
Table 1. Current Design Criteria Summary — Kalispell WWT P
Facility Description' Continuous 3.1 mgd discharge advanced biological nutrient removal tertiary
system utilizing the modified University of Capetown treatment process with UV disinfection
capabilities and post aeration. The facility is upgrading flow capacity and will utilize the modified
Johannesburg treatment process in future.
Construction Date: 1992
Expansion Construction Date: 2007
Expansion Date: 2007 — additional bioreactors to
treat 5.4 mgd, headworks, clarifiers, digesters, and
effluent flow measurement upgrades.
Expansion Design Year: 2027
1992 Design Population: 31,800
Expansion DesjE Population: 70,950
2005 Population Served: 39,300
1992 Design Flow, Average (mgd): 3.1
Expansion Desie Flow, (mgd : 5.4
1992 Design Flow, Daily Peak (mgd): unknown
1 Expansion Design Flow, Daily Peak (mgd): 11.6
Minimum 1992 Detention Time (days): 0.75 at 3.1 mgd
Design BOD Removal (%): >85
1992 Design BOD Load (lb/day): 5,560 (from
design factor 0.175 lb/capita/day)
Expansion Design BOD Load (lb/day): 12,416
Design SS Removal (%): >85
Design TSS Load (1b/day): 6,620 (from design
factor 0.21 lb/capita/day)
Expansion Design TSS Load (lb/day): � 14,900
Design TN Removal % : NA
Design TN LoadOh/day : NA
Design TP Removal % : NA
Design TP Load bMay): NA
Collection System: Combined Se arate X
SSO Events : N
Number: zero reported
Bypass Events(Y/N): Y with
authorization.
Number: one with authorization in July 2005 for
facility upgrades; permit limitations met.
Inflow and Infiltration contribution (mgd):
0.070 (application value
Source: storm water, subdivision hook ups, sump
pumps, failing lift stations and sewer lines.
Disinfection: Yes
I T Ultra -violet light
Discharge Method: Continuous
Effluent Flow Primary Device: v-notch weir (inoperable since construction
Effluent Secondary Flow Device: ultrasonic meter (inoperable since construction
Sludge Storage: no
Sludge Disposal: landfill and local
com st facili
EPA Authorization Number: MTG650010
B. Effluent Characteristics
A summary of the City of Kalispell 30-day average influent and effluent water quality data for
January 2002 through May 2007 is presented in Table 2.
A
2. If the property is to be annexed, the Citys annexation ordinance or
resolution shall specifically state the method and time frame for bringing
the existing utilities or services into compliance with City standards, and
shall identify the necessary improvement, the parties responsible for the
improvements and the method of financing the costs of the improvements.
9. If City services are to be provided without concurrent annexation, the
property owner shall submit a Waiver to Protest Annexation / Notice of
Withdrawal from Rural lire District with the Kalispell City Clerk who will
record the document at the Flathead County Clerk and Recorders Office.
The waiver to protest annexation shall be a covenant that runs with the
land and shall not be affected by changes in ownership. Withdrawal from
the rural fire district would not occur until such time as the property is
annexed to the city.
10. A waiver to protest participation In. the formation of any special
improvement district that may be created to upgrade existing City utilities,
services streets or other infrastructure shall be filed with the Kalispell City
Clerk who will record the document at the Flathead County Clerk and
Recorders Office. The waiver to protest participation in the special
improvement district shall be a covenant that runs with the land and shall
not be affected by changes in ownership.
Policies fos the goat of VUtaro Servk:es
It is the City's policy to insure that adequate funds are available for the long-
term replacement, maintenance and upgrade of the various components of the
physical plant and other infrastructure. To that end, the Kalispell City Council
has developed and adopted a fee schedule for utilities that will be implemented
through System Development Charge "connection- fees, utility rates for
monthly service, and assessments for road and storm drainage.
1. For the purpose of setting aside adequate funds to replace components of
the physical plant, the following shall be considered as the estimated life of
each of the components:
a. Structures - 30 Years
b. Pipeline - 30 Years
C. Stationary Equipment - 20 Years
(motors, pumps, conveyors, etc.)
d. Asphalt Sui faces:
Local Streets -- 20 Years
Collector St. - 15 Years
Arterial St. - 10 Years
2. The amount to be set aside each year for the replacement of municipal
infrastructure components shall be the cost of construction, if new, or the
total estimated replacement cost divided by the remaining- number of
years of the life of the component.
26
City o�-Kalispell
2007 Wastewater
Note: Figure 1-6
Existing population corresponds to Year 2005. Population Growth
fal City of Kalispell .Imm m