8.6 Advis Valley View CITY OF SALINA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION DATE TIME
8/5/96 4:00 P.M.
AGENDA SECTiON: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR
NO. 8 Engineering & Utilities AGENDA:
ITEM
NO. 6 and 6a .-"~'
BY: Shawn 0 ' Leary~ BY: ~
I'I'I~M:
Report on validity and submittal of engineering feasibility report for Petition No. 4124, filed by Dr. Rod
Hancock, requesting certain utility (water) improvements in Valley View Addition.
BACKGROUND:
Petition No. 4122 was submitted on July 17, 1996 for these improvements. A revised Petition No. 4124 was
submitted on August 1, 1996 for these improvements which included some changes to the benefit district,
method of assessment and different signatures.
It is prescribed by Kansas State statutes that the City Commission consider a petition for street, drainage and
utility improvements and establish sufficiency on the basis that any one of the following three conditions are met:
1. The petition is signed by a majority oftbe resident owners of record of'property liable for
assessment under the proposal.
2. The petition is signed by the resident owners of record of more than one half of the area
liable for assessment under the proposal.
3. The petition is signed by the owners of record, whether resident or not, of more than one
half of the area liable to be assessed under the proposal.
In this case, the petition signatures represent 69.3% of the owners of record oftbe area liable for assessments.
Therefore, the petition clearly meets the statute requirements for sufficiency. The Saline County Treasurer has
indicated there are no delinquent taxes or special assessments on any property within the benefit district owned
by the petitioners.
The engineering feasibility report for these public improvements is attached for your i'eview. The property
owners within the benefit district shall be assessed for approximately $7.7% oftbe project costs which are
estimated to be $70,219.00. The City's proposed share of'the project costs includes the over-sizing of the water
pipeline on Cloud Street and the costs oftbe water system which will serve currently undeveloped properties
in the area. Those properties will pay their share of'the costs when they are developed. Each of the twenty (20)
buildable lots in Valley View Addition will pay their share of the costs on the basis of equal assessments per
buildable lot for utility improvements.
The project will be initially financed 100% by the City and then repaid 100% by the property owners with
special assessments.
RECOMMENDATION:
It. is recommended that the City Commission approve the engineering feasibility report for utility (water)
improvements in Valley View Addition and adopt the resolution determining the advisability and authorization
for the project.
Attachment: Feasibility Report
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ESTIMATE
FEASIBILITY REPORT
PETITION NO.
PROPOSED
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
FILE NO. 96-3 JUNE- 1996
(Revised July 25, 1996
DON HOFF, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING & UTILITIES
SCOPE OF WORK
The installation of water main to serve Lots 1 through 5, Block 1; Valley View Addition; Lots 1 through 3,
Block 2, Valley View Addition; Lots 1 through 9, Block 3, Valley View Addition.
BENEFIT DISTRICT
Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, Valley View Addition; Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, Valley View Addition; Lots 1
through 9, Block 3, Valley View Addition.
ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT
The assessment with accrued interest to be levied as a special assessment tax upon the property included within
the benefit district concurrent with the general property tax and shall be payable in ten (10) equal annual
The method of assessment is that 100% of the total cost assessed against the property shall be based upon an
equal assessment per buildable tract in the benefit district.
APPORTIONMENT OF COST
COST CHARGEABLE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY:
1. 87.7 % of the total estimated cost of water mains, fittings, hydrants, water services, valves, and any
incidentals thereto to complete the water system.
COST CHARGEABLE TO CITY:
1. 12.3 % of the total estimated cost of water mains, fittings, hydrants, water services, valves, and any
inddentals thereto to con~lete the water system. This participation cost relates to the ovcrsizing (8"
vs. 6") of the water pipeline on Cloud Street between Bluestem Lane and Valley View Drive for
enhancement to the water distribution system, haft the cost of same pipeline and one equivalent
"buildable tract" share for the currently unplatted, unannexed tract of land located at the south end
of Valley View Drive. Said costs of an equivalent 6" watermain to be recovered when property north
of Cloud Street develops. Said costs of the one equivalent "buildable tract" share to be recovered
upon issuance of a city building permit for that property.
DISTRIBUTION OF COST
VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
TO THE CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS
PETITION NO.
COST COST COST TOTAL
CHARGEABLE CHARGEABLE CHARGEABLE COST
PER EACH TO BENEFIT TO CITY
BUILD. TRACT DISTRICT
WATER
SYSTEM $ 3,080.67 $ 61,613.39 * $ 8,605.61 $ 70,219.00
TOTAL: $ 3,080.67 $ 61,613.39 $ 8,605.61 $ 70,219.00
*City's share of water system costs based upon the oversizing (8" vs. 6") of the water pipeline on Cloud Street
between Bluestem Lane and Valley View Drive for enhancement to the water distribution system, halt'the cost
of same pipelim and one equivalent "buildable tract" share for the unplatted, unannexed tract of land located at
the south end of Valley View Drive. Said costs of an equivalent 6" watermain to be recovered when property
north of Cloud Street develops. Said costs of to one equivalent "buildable tract" share to be recovered upon
issuance of a city building permit for that property.
PETITION NO.
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
1. WATER PIPELINE, 8" 450 L.F. ~ $ 15.00 -- $ 6,750.00
2. WATER PIPELINE, 6" 1,760 L.F. ~ 12.00 -- 21,120.00
3. WATER FITTINGS 1.0 TON ~ 3,500.00 = 3,500.00
4. FIRE HYDRANT 6 EA. ~ 1,700.00 -- 10,200.00
5. GATE VALVE, 8" 1 EA. ~ 800.00 -- 800.00
6. GATE VALVE, 6" 1 EA. ~ 500.00 -- 500.00
7. WATER SERVICE, 1" 18 EA. ~ 500.00 -- 9,000.00
8. SPECIAL TRENCH COMPACTION 157 L.F.~,, 7.00 -- 1,099.00
9. REM.& REPL. CONCR. PVMT. 57 S.Y.~ 40.00 -- 2,280.00
10. REM.& REPL. ASPHALT PVMT. 14 S.Y.~ 25.00 -- 325.00
11. WATER 1 L.S.~ 200.00-- 200.00
12. CONSTRUCTION STAKING 1 L.S.~ 1,000.00 -- 1,000.00
SUB TOTAL: $ 56,799.00
15% ENGINEERING & CONTINGENCY: $ 8,520.00
TEMPORARY NOTE INTEREST, BONDING, ISSUING: $ 4,900.00
TOTAL: $ 70,219.00
VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
to the City of Salina, Kansas
DISTRIBUTION OF COST'
Property Per
Description Each Water Total
BLOCK 1, VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
Lot 1 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
Lot 2 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
Lot 3 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
Lot 4 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
Lot 5 & N. 30' Vacated Street 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
BLOCK 2, VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
Part of Lot 1 & S. 30' Vacated Street 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
Part of Lot 1 2.00 $6,161.33 $6,161.33
Lot 2 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
Part of Lot 3 1.00 $3,080.67 $3,080.67
BLOCK 3, VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
Part of Lot 1 1.00 $3 080.67 $3,080.67
Part of Lot I 1.00 $3 080.67 $3,080.67
Lot 2 1.00 $3 080.67 $3.080.67
Lot 3 1.00 $3 080.67 $3,080.67
Lot 4 1.00 $3 080.67 $3.080.67
Lot 5 1.00 $3 080.67 $3.080.67
Lot 6 1.00 $3 080.67 $3,080.67
Lot 7 1.00 $3 080.67 $3 080.67
Lot 8 1.00 $3 080.67 $3.080.67
Lot 9 1.00 $3 080.67 $3 080.67
City of Salina 1.00 $8,605.61 $8,605.61
Total: 21.00 $70,219.00 $70,219.00
PETITION NO.
VALLEY VIEW ADDITION
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
Pwperty Description Property_ Owner
Valley View Addition
Block 1
Lot 1 Marvin N. & Eileen C. Pratt, Trust
Lot 2 James L. & Patricia Tullis
Lot 3 Jack & Neola 1~ O~[eal
LOt 4 Glen I. Trotter
LOt 5 and N. 30' vacated street Dorothy W. Lynch, Trust
Block 2
Part of Lot land $. 30' vacated street Dorothy W. Lynch, Trust
Part of LOt 1 Richard & Clauda J. Esch
Lot 2 Robert R. Hoffifines, Trust
Part of LOt 3 Michael K. & Julie Lawrence
Part of Lot 3 Harold L. & Royanne Lars°n
Block 3
Part of LOt 1 Samuel T. Morrone
Part of LOt I Ronald G. & Kay L. Hosie
Lot 2 Charles W. & Brenda Gagnon.
Lot 3 Brian E. Conner
Lot 4 Wilbur J. Jr. & Judith Helm
Lot 5 D.L. & Cheryl A. Deturk
Lot 6 Jack & Eileen Byquist, Trust
Lot 7 Jack & Eileen Byquist, Trust
Lot 8 Rodney L. & Audra R. Hancock
Lot 9 Joseph M. & Elly M. Ritter
I
VA~ ~ FY I VAU Fy -~
10 _ g
1 1 185.36' 164.53'
I
28&34' ~ 2~3.4o' 11 8
2 ~ 12 7
~ ~I.~'
278.74'
5
275.99' ~ 2~'
4 4 4
J I ~7.56' 14
273.9Y
~ ~EW I
5 5
I 2
2~.86' ~04' I~.~
I ~ ~5 I
/ I
/
~I,51' !~' 151,28'
I / ~ 2
s / I
/ I
1~62' / "'
/
17 ~o.43'
I 9 ~... ~/
/
-... ( a~.
~ 8 ~ i BENEFIT
~.~. DIS~ICT
:65.09'
: O0 NOT IIRITE IN THIS SPA~E
.' PETITION NONBER
' FILED
I
'96 JUL 17 fir 11 ~19
017~ OF SALINA, KS
TOt' mE ~t~ ~ . 011¥ OL£RK°$ OFFIO£
City of hll~ Fansss '~'
(Al ~, t~ ~sl~ bel~ ~ers of re~ of p~r~ ll~le for Is~s~ f~ ~ foiling
~e tn~t~lat~on of water ~ln to se~e Lots I through 5, BZock 1, Valley View Addt~ton;
Lots I through ~ Block 2~ Valle~ V~e~ Add~g~on~ ~gs 1 gh~ough ~, Block ~,
View Addition: uno!a~ed Tract "A".
~ .... ~ -; .... th~ such be rode In
.... f -~-,.s I~prov~flt tho mmr pr~J~ ~ A~fole bo hpter 12 of the Kansas
Sta~te8 ~tat~ os ~.
(B) ~o estlmt~ or pr~able ~st of'such i~r~flt ts ,,, Seventy ~ousand ~o Hundred HtaeCeen and
00/100 Dollars.
(S 70,219.00
(C) T~ exte~ Of ~ p~l~ l~Mflt dJltrf~ ~ ~ Illelltd Ii fndlolt. ~ th Itto~ed plat I~ Is
descrl~ is foll~st Lo~8 ~ ~hFou~h ~, ~Zoc~ ~, Va~e7 YSev Add~C$on; LaCs ~ ~h=ou~h 3.
Block 2. Valley View Add~tton; Lots 1 through 9, Block 3, Valley Vlev Addltlon ~o the
City of 2alin~, ~ansav~-unplatted Tract 'A'.
(D) The proposed method of assessment Is: Based on an equal assessment per tract for water
~ssessments without re~ard to bulldtn~s or /m?rovemenc of the land.
(El The proposed apportionment of costs between the Improvmuo~t district and the City-at-large
percent ( t6) to be assessed against tho Ja~rovomeflt district and
percent ( t,) to ba assessed against the CIty-stolargo,
(Fl We further propose that such improvement be mode without notice end hooting sa required by K.$,A. 12o6sOq(1)
es olu~lded.
* No stone Boy be withdrawn from this petition after the Governing Body coauenees consideration *
e of the petition or ii,or than seven (7) days ef~er this pot~tlofl his bewn ftlod with ~he City Clerk *
* (K.S.A. 12-6eOq)
Respootfully subultted b~. Rod L. Hancoc~
TalephQne Number...
Dm & Tinw
I:he J~te~ p~.pel~ne on
: PETITION NUH~ER
!
*" ' FIkED
!
lO~ THE GOVERNING BODY Cl:l¥ O? c' , ,
c~cy of ~nna, ~n.s CI~Y OLER~'S OFFIOE
(A) Ne~ ~ underslg~d~ being ~ers of record of pro~rty It.bio for ,ssess~nt for the foll~lng l~rov~ents:
The installation of water main Co serve Lots I through 5, Block 1; Valle~ View Addttton~ ,,
LaCs 1 through 3~.,Block 2) Valley.Vte~ AddtClon~ Lots 1 through 9, Block 3, Valle~
View Addition ....
hereby propose that such teprovenent bo side in tho m. nner provided by Article 64, Choptor 12 of the Kansas
Statutes ~nnotated) a~ ~,
(B) ~e es~i~Ce or pr~ible ~s~ of such t~rov~nt Is Seven~~ Thousand ~o Hundred Nineteen and
00/100 Dolla=s.
(S70,219.00 )
(C) The ex~en~ of ~ pr~sed f~rov~n~ dls~rie~ to be assessed as indicated on the ~tt~ehed plst ~nd Is
described es foll~s~ Lots I through, 5) Block 1} Valle~ View Addition; Lots I through 3~
Block 2,~ Valley View Addttton{ Lots I through 9, Block 3,1 Valle~ View Addition to the
Oily of Sal~np~ ,Kansas~
(D) The proposed method of assessment is: Based on an equal assessment per butldable tract for water assessments without re~ard to buildings or improvement of the land.
(E) The proposed apportionment of costs between the improvement district and the City-at-large
* percent ( ,,, %) to bo assessed against the improvement district end
* percent ( ,, , ~) to be assessed egelnst the Clty-e~-Ilrge.
(F) #e further propose that 'euth Improvement be made without notice end hearing as required by K.S.A. 12-GsOk(1)
aa ~ended.
e Ho name say bo withdrewn fr~n this petition after the Governing Body commences consideration *
* of the petition or iet~r then seven (7) deys citer this petition has been filed with the City Clerk *
* (K.S.A. i2-GsO~) *
Respectfully submitted by Ro, d L. Hancock
Telephone NImbmr 827-41.56
O~la & Time ' Properly owed wilbin
*City', ~in~ of w~ter ~t~ ~o~t~ bas~ upon the oversizing (8" vs. 6") of the water pipeline on Cloud
betwcm Blu~tem Lm~ and Valley View Drive for enhancement to the watcr dislribufion system, half thc cost
ofsan~ pipeline and one equivalent "buildable tract" share for the unplattcd, unanncxed tract of land located at
the south cad of Valley View Drive. Said costs of an cquivalmt 6" watermain to be recovered when property
north of Cloud $ts~ct dewclops. Said costs of to one equivalent "buildable tra~t" share to bc rccovered upon
issuance of a city buiklin$ Ix:trait for that property.