Kalispell moves to raise stormwater fees

Faced with more funding needs for Kalispell’s stormwater infrastructure, City Council members were left with two options. Both plans increase the stormwater assessment for residents, but debate centered on how much that price should go up.

In a 7-2 vote during a regular meeting Monday night, the council selected to bring the more expensive of the city’s two options forward for public comment. Those in favor of the decision said it would better support development within city limits.

“It’s never a good time to raise taxes, raise fees, raise assessments or anything,” said Kalispell Mayor Mark Johnson. “But at the same time, there’s compelling reasons why we’d have to do it to maintain what we have, to improve what we have.”

Council members Time Kluesner and Wayne Saverud voted against the measure, citing rising cost for taxpayers.

Public Works Director Susie Turner said a federal mandate attached to the Clean Water Act means Kalispell will need additional personnel and funding, which is why the city needs to raise its stormwater assessment rates.

The first option the city faced would finance the fund for 10 years and meet the city’s new requirements.

For Kalispell residents, that translates into a five-year assessment increase. For a typical residential lot of 8,000-square-feet, the cost would go from $44.55 to $74.72 after the fifth year increase.

The second option — which the council voted to bring before the public — includes additional dollars for growth-related projects. That difference would allow the council to consider a future 50 percent reduction in the storm-water impact fee.

But it also means that the assessment on a typical residential lot would go from $44.55 to $89.21 by 2022.

Councilor Chad Graham argued that the city’s impact fees have pushed development out of Kalispell and into the county.

“You raise the cost of something you get less of it,” he said.

Graham said that’s something he believes is impacting affordable housing in Kalispell.

“Our last manager’s report showed that we’re behind on single-family [development],” he said. “That shouldn’t be happening.”

Erica Wirtala said as a representative of Northwest Montana Association of Realtors Inc., she supported the second option.

She said many of the 813 Realtors tied to the association describe impact fees a deterrent in commercial real estate or development efforts.

She showed council members a list of 34 states including Montana that participated in a survey posted on impactfees.com in 2012. Based on average residential development impact fees, Kalispell took 10th out of the areas surveyed for its fee prices.

“I think that we’re pretty steep,” Wirtala said. “...If there’s any type of opportunity that impact fees can be reduced, we’re more than happy to champion that cause.”

Council Member Tim Kluesner said he wasn’t willing to pass the higher increase off to taxpayers.

“If you’re making your sole decision just based on impact fees, I think you’re flawed in that concept,” he said. “I do agree that we have to take care of our infrastructure and we need money to do it, but I’m not willing to vote for that increased assessment on our residents given the numerous tax increases that all of our residents are going to be seeing in this next year.”

Commissioner Phil Guiffrida called Tuesday’s discussion a philosophical argument the council has faced for years.

He said either way, the assessment price will go up. He said the second plan provides a path for growth.

“We’re not voting on anything but the public hearing tonight,” Guiffrida said. “I want the public to be my checks and balances, which is why I prefer option B here this evening … tell us if we’re wrong in our thinking.”

A public hearing is scheduled for Aug., 7. Action should take place in the weeks following the hearing.

Reporter Katheryn Houghton may be reached at 758-4436 or by email at khoughton@dailyinterlake.com.