Loading...
03/17/14 City Council MinutesA REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00 P.M., MONDAY, MARCH 17, 20149 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. Kenyon moved to approve the Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. 1. Council Minutes — Regular Meeting —March 3 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 secondedl There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. "IlUVININ-0141 FU UQ 0-W Duane Larson gave a report on the City -County Board of Health. None. Kalispell City Council Minutes March 17, 2014 Page 1 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 spe $300,000 on consultant fees. He urged council to decide on a policy direction and change the start _t stop nature of the fees. I 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 num 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 Sewel, System Impact Fees as well as the schedules and classifications imposed on the customers o- the City of Kalispell Sanitary Sewer Utility and to set an effective date. The motion wa seconded. I Graham commented some people may look at growth as a cancer, but he believes it is beneficial A everyone. He said government should follow the lead of business and set a friendly growth-minde environment; you don't get more growth by raising development costs. I 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 0 0 voting in favor, and Graham, Guiffrida, Kluesner, and Mayor Johnson voting against, Kalispell City Council Minutes March 17, 2014 Page 3 jjp��IIIJJ 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. The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Theresa White zm� Approved April 7, 2014 Kalispell City Council Minutes March 17, 2014 Page 4 REALTOR9' Northwest Montana Association of REALTORSO. Inc. 110 Cooperative Way Kalispell, Montana 59901 www.nmar.com Mr. Mary 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 nmarC7misnmar.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 strongly 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. NNIAR thereby urges the Council to consider some altematives, to the proposed formula that takes into account that spreads the Irnpact Fee burden between new 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 hnpact Fees for that particular project, as soon as feasible. New construction and ratepayers alike would appreciate the lifting of that heavy burden.1 Thank you for your kind consideration of our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions regarding Impact Fee's relationship 4)n the real estate industry. ill Leminger, President Northwest Montana Association of Realtorl Erica, Wirtala, Govemment Affairs Director CO�N�"F'sTRIJCTION, Inc. Your Local, Trusted Builder of Affordable Homes 7 Meridian Court - Kalispell, MT 59901 - (406)755.7516 - Fax (400)75.5.1,"546 www ronterryconstrucdon.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 Kalispeu versus building homes outside of Kalispeu 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@apiushc.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 fees impacts on new hom and commercial construction starts., construction employment, and new home ownership. I 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 www.discoverkalispell.com To: # and City Council From: Bob i t.! Subject: Testimony for the public he r;n on sewer rates, March 1% 2014 Date of ! 1 •; 1 Purpose r#• of thissubmittal Often oral testimonygrasp"Ait is fleeting. In addition,-� for over a year I've difficult.to make .. adj ustments to my life style. Now my hearing - ab I'lity has deteriorated to the.*., point that engaging in coherent. dialog is -at times. very written. Early in my engineerig 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 1 1 Alaska. As r professional g1:licensedand ! practiced 1 WashingtonMontana, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and technological advances 'in water and sewerage systems.': During my, tenure as ispell's Director of Public' Works and then in private practice I had an opportunity to garner valuable knowledge of the geology 1' 1 ' Flathead Valley and its relationship t wastewater treatment • / 1 disposal throughoutt:' Flathead. Thoseknowledge 1 • - opportunities are # ons for thissubmittal. Supporting documents Included herewith is a copy of F 9 gure 1.6 from the City ofKalispell 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 serve&by the existing sewerage system. An additio n 100,000 gallday of the WWTP's capacity has been granted to Evergreen Sewer District for.use in areas outside theDistrict boundary. Currently one area, Trumble Creek, abutting the northboundary of the District is being served with a portion of that grant under the walver-of-right-to-protest-amexation provision of Kalispell': & regulations. Alsoincludedispage of the Montana1;1 for the+Especially Points.note the two items denoted by, arrows Attached hereto, authored as part of this submittaI, is a two,page paper denoted as Talking t'': sidenotes on 1he first page 1 {! "! as an aid to understanding statements herein. Included also is a copy of the Extension ofServices Plan related to the rate increase. Comments 1 support recommendations1 be made r hereafter Council action , to stop "tentacle" tMe Levelop - - - - - included in the highestrate being proposed is a project for an "interceptor" sewer to serve Stillwater River and North Kalispell. V;hile.there are already p ly. West Kalispell, West developments if thes,areas that have been annexed t#' the City, --they are not # ` •' 1' 1 Ahe system.City. They are already being served by Developer -installed sewerage systems that connect to the These extended lineshave It• t dedicated.and- are ! partof 1w City system. They are ", 1 the City1 i difficult 11 cost1v to provide Recommendations To follow the existing 2007 Wastewater Facility Plan Update philosophy will lead into problems, problems, problems. It is my reco 1 - 11i1ation 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 mon gal/day WNVTP, and 3. The staff began investigating alternate mean 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 PI ,Evergreen Sewer District and Flathead Electric Coop, and formulate a method of handh sludge Mg disposal. 6. Consider modular WWTPs for sizable subdivisions whereby expansion can -be accomplished as phases are initiated util* * on -site disposal where possible for 1ZMg greenery and open space. 7. Partner with the County and the Volunteer Fire Departments for bnding of emergency services and recreational faties. 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". Closm*g 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 individumall 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 requirg 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 small modules in accordance with a phased growth plan of the area to be served. Bob 1337 Tbird Street West Kalispell, MT 59901 3/12/14 Data from 2007 Wastewater West Stillwater River R North Kalispell East Whitefish River :West Kalispell City of Kalispell 74 iL�_ r,_ Evergreen Sewer District East Kalispell South Kalispell Talking Points page 1 of 2 Facility Plan Update --Figure 1-6 Population Growth Existing 2035 Theoretical buildout 13P048 1031084 293,000 31647 19,907 21,700 8,209 8,224 401,000 3,382 1%938 411o686 14,223 299614 295614 830200 109164 10,164 21003 4,107 600 2,513 6,4?4 16,000 43,225 105,512 194,164 Wastewater Facility Plan Update —'fable 1-9, page 1-r19 Wastewater Plow Projections — 2025 Yearly average flow---------------------7.24 mgd Maximum week average flow ---------14.23 " Design maximum day flow -----------16,57 Other data and sources Montana DEQ Permit for dated 7/25/08, Table 1 s Expan ion design flow (currentplant) —5 ,400� 000gal/day Ex ansion design flow, daily peak load--��--�- 11.600 000 gal/day p � � Y� � g 7Y /V0_T4r___ ..............Expansion esign population _w_w_ 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 inforamation 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 Dlant. Sludge was mj ected Iin 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 Creep and our, WNVTP recognized that at tunes, due partially o glow waterflows, 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 WWTP. How this xnfonmtion will translate to. -the ever tightening of allowable discharge into Ashley Creek of nutrients, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, chenxicals, etc, is a continual _question. In the late.1980s the WWTP also underwent modifications to reduce the nitrate/phosphate levels in the W WTP discharge. The latest upgrading to 5,400,000 gal/day was done in the mid 2000s. Table t _ Current Desna Criteria Summary --- Kalisnell WNVTP Facility Description' Continuous 3.1 mgd discharge advanced biological nutrient removal ternary 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 Johann-esburg tireatrnent process m fixture. Construction Date: 1992 Expansion Bate: 2007 — additional bioreactors to E ansion Construction Date: 2007 treat 5.4 mgd, headworks, clarifiers, digesters, and effluent flow measurement upgrades. Ex anslon Desi Year: 2027 1992 Design Population: 31,800 2005 Population Served: 39,300 Expanmon Desip Po ulation: 70,950 1992 Design Flow, Average (mgd)-. 3.1 1992 Design Flow, Daily Peak (mgd): unknown E ansion Desi Flow m d : 5.4 Expansion Des!e Flow, Daily Peak rn d : 11.6 Minimum urn 1992 Detention Thne da s : 0.75 at 3.1 Ragd Design BOD Removal (1/o): >85 1992 Design BCD Load Ob/day): 5,560 (from design factor 0.175 lb/capita/day) Ex ansion Desi l3f �D Load Qtlda : 12,416 Design SS Removal (0/o): >85 Design TSS Toad (lb/day): 6,620 (from design factor 0.21 lb/capita/day) Expansion Desie TSS Load(lb/day):_14,900 Desio TN Removal % : NA Design. TN Load 0b: NA Design TP Removal L/ol:_ NA Desi TP Load QhLda : NA Collection S stem: Combined Se arate X ] SSD Events : N Number: zero jrted Bypass Events(Y1'N'): Y with Number: one with authorization in July 2005 for authorization. facility u es; `t lhnitations met. Inflow and Infiltration.. contribution (mgd): Source: storm water, subdivision hook ups, sump 0.070 a hcation value)__um s, failing lift stations and sewer lines. Disinfection: Yes T : Ultra. -violet light Dischar a 1Vlethod: Continuous Effluent Flow Device: v-notch weir ino rable since construction Effluent Secon Flow Devine: ultrasonic meter (ino rable since construction) ud a Sto e: no udge Disposal: lance and local EPA Authorization Number: MTG650010 st facili B. Effluent Characteristics A summary of the City of Kalispell 30-day average influent and effluent water duality data for January 2002 through May 2007 is presented M' Table 2. s 2. If the pro �s to be annexed, the Ckys anne��on ordinance or resolution s cagy State the method and time mrame for brin9mg the emstaft utilities or services 'ces into coMPIlance with city standards-, and shaJI id the necessary .=prate ent, the d es respo =ble for the in provements and the �thod of financ0 . the costs- of the pro cents. 9. f` City -'+ass a to pro ded -without concument �e tion, the --perty owner sha submit a waiver to Proteft Annexation / Notice of Withdrawal from Rural ire District with the: l--spell City Clerk who wMl record the document at the Flathead County Clerk and Recorders Office, j,ue waiver to protest annexation shall be a. covenant runs with the land and shWI not be affected by changes in ownership. withdrawal. from the rural fire district would not occur unto such tie as the proper is annexed to the cite 10. A Aver to protest par#.i�pati on . the formation of any special iprc►enent district that may be created to upgrade City u ' 'ties, services streets or other re shall be fled with the 'Kalispell CILIW Clerk .o will record the document at the Flathead bounty Clerk and Recorder ice, The rwa,z4ver to protest participabron m the specW xnprro y tent district shall be a covenant that rune with the land and shaft not be affected by than o 'C"MP ftmainkow the Cost of.,,ure $erv�Ce� It is the t 1*s to sure that adequate funds are available for the Iona - term replacement, maintenance and upgrade of the various components of the physical plant and other Wrastructure. To that end, the spell City Councd has developed, and adopted a fee schedule for utilities that will be implemented throe System Development Charge "connection'* fees} utility rates for monthly service,, and assesswents for and sto�n i e. i . For the purpose of setting aside adequate Ands to replace components of the physical pit, the following shall be considered as the estimated life of each of thecomponents: a: structures - 30 Years b* Filaeline 30 Yew c, Stationary Equipxnent -- 20 Years (motors., pumps, conveyors, etc+) d, Asphalt Sui faces: Local Streets - 20 Fears Collector St. - 15 Yew Arterial St,, 10 Years 2. the amount to set aside each year for the replacement of x�unlcipal infrastructure components shall be the cost of construefion, if new, or the total estimated replacement cost divined by the remammg- number of years of the life of the component. 26 Cityof-KafispeH 2007 wastewater Facility Plan Update Note: Figure 1-6 Existing population corresponds to Year 2005. Population Growth A MORRISON City of Kalispell A MAIERLE,D.