02/17/09 City Council MinutesA REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00
P.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL
IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DUANE LARSON PRESIDED.
COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, KARI GABRIEL, BOB HAFFERMAN, TIM
KLUESNER, AND WAYNE SAVERUD WERE PRESENT. MAYOR PAMELA B.
KENNEDY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS RANDY KENYON AND HANK OLSON WERE
ABSENT.
Also present: Interim City Manager Myrt Webb, City Attorney Charles Harball, City Clerk Theresa
White, Chief of Police Roger Nasset, Acting Fire Chief Dan Diehl, Public Works Director Jim
Hansz, Budget Resource Manager Terri Loudermilk, Finance Director Amy Robertson, Parks and
Recreation Director Mike Baker, Economic and Community Development Director Kellie
Danielson, Planning Director Tom Jentz, Senior Planner Sean Conrad, Human Resources Director
Terry Mitton, Airport Manager Fred Leistiko, and Recording Secretary Judi Funk.
President Larson called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Atkinson moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded.
There was no further discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote with Kenyon, Olson and Mayor Kennedy absent.
Council Minutes — Regular Meeting — February 2, 2009
2. Ordinance 1654 — Zoning with PUD Placeholder — Siderius Family Limited
Partnership — 2nd Reading
This is a request to zone 207 acres located on the west side of Highway 93 South as B-2
(General Business) on the east half of the property, and RA-1 (Low Density Residential
Apartment) on the west half. A Planned Unit Development placeholder zoning district would
also be placed over the entire site. Ordinance 1654 passed unanimously on first reading
February 2.
Saverud moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Kenyon, Olson and Mayor Kennedy
absent.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page I
C. STUDENT ISSUES
None.
D. PUBLIC COMMENT
Wayne Freeman, CTA Architects Engineers of Bozeman, representing 93 & Church, LLC, referred
to several letters between the City, DEQ, and CTA concerning sanitary sewer service to Silverbrook
Estates and future developments along the Highway 93 corridor. He said 93 & Church has invested
approximately 44 million dollars in developing Silverbrook including extending sewer and water
lines along Highway 93. Freeman requested that any discussions with DEQ concerning sewer service
and capacity be done quickly and if the Council is going to table the preliminary plat that it not be for
any longer than 30 days.
Howard Mann, 93 & Church, LLC Managing Member, emphasized they were guaranteed sewer
capacity at the start of the Silverbrook project and the City agreed to make the necessary upgrades to
the Grandview Lift Station.
Eric Mulcahy, Sands Surveying, representing Mark Owens and Owl Corporation, stated Owens
supports the Silverbrook project, however, he has a concern with how Silverbrook's latecomer's
agreement will affect Owl Corporation's latecomer's agreement that was signed in 2005. He asked
that the preliminary plat be tabled until a policy for latecomer's agreements and preliminary plats be
addressed with DEQ.
Mann rebutted that he has the same concerns as Owens, but he was asked by the City to upgrade the
lines at a cost of over three million dollars and his preliminary plat should be approved.
MIT" V [110
E11. RESOLUTION 5339 — PRELIMINARY PLAT — SILVERBROOK ESTATES
PHASE 2
This is a request by 93 & Church, LLC for preliminary plat approval of Silverbrook Estates Phase 2
which includes approximately 167 acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Highway 93 and Church Drive.
Atkinson moved Resolution 5339, a resolution conditionally approving the preliminary plat of
Silverbrook Estates Subdivision Phase 2, more particularly described as Tract 3 and a portion
of Tracts 4 and 5 of Certificate of Survey 15896 located within the northeast quarter of Section
13, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The motion was
seconded.
Webb gave a staff report, recommending that Council table this item for 60 days due to DEQ's
change in how they look at water and sewer capacity. According to a letter Public Works received
from DEQ, all infrastructure has to be in place before preliminary plats can be approved, even if
Kalispell City Council Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 2
build out is over 20 years. Webb stated staff would like to meet with DEQ to clarify their intent and
we should not make a commitment to phase 2 of this development until we are able to do that.
Hafferman read a written statement. (Statement is attached and by this reference is made a part of the
official record)
Hafferman moved to table Resolution 5339 until March 2. There was no second.
Saverud asked when staff received the DEQ letter and was told just last week.
Saverud moved to table Resolution 5339 for 60 days.
Gabriel requested the motion be withdrawn to allow for discussion.
Saverud withdrew the motion.
Gabriel questioned the need for 60 days instead of 30.
Webb replied that DEQ is involved with the legislature at this time and it will be difficult to set up a
meeting in a short period of time.
Hafferman commented we do not need to meet with DEQ. These are common sense rules which are
in the extension of services policy.
Kluesner remarked that DEQ needs to accept the responsibility for this matter; he doesn't want to
even give them 30 days to respond.
Gabriel suggested the plat be tabled for 30 days and then tabled again if necessary.
Saverud moved to table Resolution 5339 for 30 days. The motion was seconded.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Kluesner, Saverud, and
President Larson voting in favor, Hafferman voting against, and Kenyon, Olson, and Mayor
Kennedy absent.
E/2. RESOLUTION 5340 — SOUTH KALISPELL AIRPORT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
A proposed redevelopment plan for the City airport is now complete and staff is requesting the
Council forward the document to the Planning Board for review and comment.
Atkinson moved Resolution 5340,_a resolution directing the City Department of Economic and
Community Development and the City Planning Department to prepare and assist the
Kalispell City Planning Board in the review of the South Kalispell Airport Redevelopment
Plan and provide a report with recommendations to the Kalispell City Council. The motion
was seconded.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 3
Webb gave a staff report and answered questions.
Hafferman commented he will vote against this because it contains some misleading information.
Kluesner agreed, stating the terms of the TIF district, along with other information, needs to be
included in the report.
Kluesner moved the report be amended prior to being sent to the Planning Board. The motion
was seconded.
Saverud noted that some of the missing information Kluesner mentioned is in the report and cited
page numbers.
The motion to amend failed upon vote with Hafferman and Kluesner voting in favor,
Atkinson, Gabriel, Saverud, and President Larson voting against, and Kenyon, Larson, and
Mayor Kennedy absent.
There was no further discussion.
The main motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Saverud, and President
Larson voting in favor, Hafferman and Kluesner voting against, and Kenyon, Olson, and
Mayor Kennedy absent.
WN
�, �. �IWJNLJ
.�.
This resolution states the Council's intention to consider the adoption of impact fees for services of
transportation facilities and schedules a public hearing for March 2.
Gabriel moved Resolution 5341, a resolution of intent to establish impact fees for City of
Kalispell Transportation facilities pursuant to MCA 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, setting a
public hearing and directing the City Clerk to provide notice therefore. The motion was
seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Kenyon, Olson, and Mayor Kennedy
absent.
E/4. RESOLUTION 5342 — FACILITY PLAN UPDATE 2006 AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
The City of Kalispell Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage Facility Plan Update 2006 and Capital
Improvement Plans respond to growth patterns and reflect expected future demands.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 4
Gabriel moved Resolution 5342, a resolution to approve and adopt the City of Kalispell Water,
Sewer, and Storm Drainage Facility Plan Update 2006 and Capital Improvement Plans. The
motion was seconded.
Hansz gave a staff report and answered questions.
Hafferman commented he will be voting against this because we need to resolve the Silverbrook
Phase 2 issue first.
Hansz replied the facility plan is one of the necessary components the DEQ will be looking at when
considering sewer capacity.
There was no further discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Kenyon, Olson, and Mayor Kennedy
absent.
F. MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR'S REPORTS
(No Action)
The following department supervisors gave reports: Human Resources: Terry Mitton, Parks &
Recreation: Mike Baker, Police: Roger Nasset.
G. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
Approved March 2, 2009
Kalispell City Council Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 5
COUNCIL February 17, 2009
Silverbrook, Phase 2
Afte reading the proposed Developer Extension Agreement for Silverbrook that was pulled
from the February 2nd agenda and Conditions 10 and 29 on tonight's submittal, it appears there is a lot
of confusion about "Developer Extension Agreements", "impact fees" and "SIDs". These can be
confusing for the Council and the public because they do not work with them on a day to day bsasis. It
is the responsibility of Public Works to keep the Council informed that regulations are being followed
when the Council is being asked to approve Preliminary Plats.
Easy to remember is a requirement enumerated in the Extension of Services Plan which states:
S. It shall be the responsibility of the developer or property owner to extend,
and pay the cost thereof, all roadways and utilities from the existing City
facilities to the site of development in accordance with all City standards
Silverbrook has alresady complied with this requirement by extending the utilities in Phase I.
Not so easy to understand is that main extenders are required to not only size the main to meet
the needs of their development, including fire, but, in some cases, oversize the main to meet future
needs of others within the Growth Policy Area. The extender is entitled to a reimbursement from other
entities along the extended main that hook onto the main PLUS payment for oversizing from the Ci 's
impact fee account as other entities hook on. The Extension of Services Plan states:
6. If the developer bears the costs of extending utility service improvements
of a size or capacity greater than needed to serve the proposed
development, ._ . 'Aitta- +a e..t., ,�. -.
between the developer
entered into
excess ' COSTS"
stablishiYg a
Surcharge refers to a hook-up fee. SDC is an impact fee. It must be noted that entities
within, say, Silverbrook do not nay hook-up fees as their lots are, by regulation, already hooked -up.
But they have not yet paid an "impact fee". Everyone, city-wide, pays the same impact fee into the
City's impact fee account for oversizing. Oversizing is need for growth impact.
In the case of the Mark Owens and Silverbrook projects, the impact fees from entities
connecting to their projects will go to the respective developer UNTIL the developer's oversizing cost
is fulfilled. For some small projects shortfalls in impact fees for oversizing may require reimbursement
from the City's impact fee account
A large development, say Silverbrook, may actually be paying more in impact fees than the
oversizing costs. This excess goes to help finance the enlarging of WWTP or enlarging existing lines
ANYWHERE within the City.
With regard to SIDs, the Council has utilized a waiver for an SID for roads. Developments that
contribute more than 300 vehicle trips per day must submit a traffic impact analysis. Any negative
impacts must be mitigated How the existing SID encumberences will be utilized if Transportation
Impact Fees are enacted will have to be determined by the Council. Once a road impact fee is enacted
SIDs may be needed only within a development or b�those adjoining parcels directly benefiting
from the SID.
SIDs ARE USED LOCALLY in a defined area— IMPACT FEES ARE USED
ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE. Condition #29 should be removed. An
SID is being used as an impact fee. Phase II residents would have to pay an sewer impact fee plus a
second sewer impact fee disguised as an SID. Phase I residents pay only a single impact fee —no SID
MY OTHER CONCERN
There are two mains already connected to Grandview lift station (1) the main extended by Mark
Owens that has a Developer Extension Agreement, a contract that CANNOT be violated and (2) the
main extending along US 93 to Silverbrook. Both systems have been reviewed by Public Works
which recommended Plats for approval.
DEQ requires that "a public utility have literal infrastructure capacity for the proposed
additional connections at the time the connection or subdivision is approved". I am concerned by
Concition #10 and #29. We may be having a problem.
It is the responsibility of Public Works to be sure that the City system has the capacity to serve
the connecting subdivision. It is the Public Works responsibility to determine what bottlenecks may be
in the system that have to be mitigated to fully utilize the extended main as well as to inform the
Council of how they are to be mitigated BEFORE Council approval. Public Works, and only Public
Works, have all the figures to determine the existing status at the time of approval.
I will be moving that this project be tabled to March 2nd to allowPublic Works time to give
the Council and the public a written report detailing that the existing Owens main and the extended
Silverbrook main are within the city Is EXISTING capacity or, if not, how impact fees are to be
used to enlarge the existing infrastructure to make them capable of serving the two existing
approved mains to the capacities for which they were REQUIRED to be designed and built.
It is not the responsibility of the developer to fulfill Condition #10 sometime later. That
Condition must be fulfilled by Public Works BEFORE approval by the Council