5.1 PH Special Assessments
CI TY OF SALI NA
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
3/17/1980
TIME
4:00 P.M.
..\GENOA SECTION: Public Hearings and Items
NO. 5 Scheduled for a Certain Time
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
City Clerk
ITEM
NO. 1
Don Harrison
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA:
e~
BY:
BY:
On February 25, 1980 the public hearing date wes set for March 10, 1980 for
Engineering Project 79-646 for street and utility improvements in Marydale,
Woodland, Schippel, Twin Oaks, Grain Belt Additions.
This hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving comments, written or oral,
on the method of assessment for this Engineering Project.
Ordinance Number 80-8781 should be introduced for first reading at the conclusion
of the publ ic hearing and then adopted March 24, 1980.
Property Owner1s Share of the Project
To be paid by the City-at-large
$467,839.70
112,995.02
$580,834.72
Total cost of the project
On March 10, 1980 the public hearing was continued until March 17, 1980.
COMMISSION ACTION
:v10TION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
I
March 14,1980
r____
Q ;: 0 ~,~~---~-
t , L... C t: I 1,/ IE l:;---'
r~ 1 if. ?9SQ
-'~ I ....
CITY MANf;f;~r;I<) 0" l
~~
TO:
Rufus L. Nye, City Manager
FROM: Dean Boyer, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Public hearing on proposed special assessments for street and
utility improvements in Engineering Project No. 79-646.
At the above public hearing on proposed assessments for street and
utility improvements held on March 10, 1980 at 4:00 P.M., several property
owners expressed concern about their respective assessments. The following
information is offered in response to their questions:
1. ~1r. Peterson, representing Mr. Sampson, questioned the amount
of assessment.
Mr. Sampson's Petition No. 3739 and the feasibility report
both showed the estimated cost for the improvements chargeable
to property within the benefit district along Gold Road in
Grain Belt Subdivision to be $151,635.00. The final construc-
tion costs chargeable to the benefit district was $174,884.88
or 15% more than the amount estimated on the petition and in
the feasibility report. The feasibility report was prepared
in December, 1978 and the bid letting for this project was
held in March, 1979. We had estimated the concrete paving on
this project at $10.50 per square yard. This was a 10% increase
over our last concrete price in April, 1978. The bid price on
the concrete paving on this project was $13.50 per square yard
or an increase of 42% which accounts for all of the overrun on
this petition. We had a bid for concrete paving in September,
1979, six months later than this project, of $12.00 per square
yard which is only 26% above the April, 1978 price.
This petition was only a part of the total project. The total
project was bid within our total estimate of costs, so this
petition did not affect the award of a contract.
2. Mrs. Morris questioned the difference in assessments on equal
size lots in Block Seven (7), Woodland Addition.
Lots Two (2), Six (6), Twelve (12) and Sixteen (16), Block Seven
(7), Woodland Addition, were assessed an additional $213.30 per
lot - more than the other lots in Block Seven (7) - due to the
fact that the above four lots were not served with water services
prior to this project. City policy requires that water services
be extended, prior to street paving, to any vacant or unserved
lot that is adjacent to the street improvements. This require-
Rufus L. Nye, City Manager
Page 2
March 14,1980
ment is to prevent, as much as possible, the breaking up of
newly paved streets to install water services. The $213.30
per lot included the service corporation tap, a one-inch
copper service line and a curb valve with valve box.
3. Mrs. Frick questioned the charge for trees which they removed.
According to information furnished by Brown & Brown, Inc.,
their firm was a subcontractor for the prime contractor, Smoky
Hill, Inc., who was engaged to perform the site preparation,
excavation, tree removal, etc., for the street improvements
on Front Street adjacent to the Marydale Addition. Brown &
Brown, Inc., uprooted seven trees on the east side of Front
Street and the property owner (Frick) was authorized by the
contractor to cut the downed trees into firewood. The property
owner then burned the remaining brush and stumps on the site.
The City contracted with the prime contractor, Smoky Hill, Inc.,
to remove seven trees. What side agreements were made between
the prime contractor, his subcontractor and/or the property
owner was strictly between them and did not alter the contract.
Respectfully submitted,
c--- ~
11 r ~ . :..e...---
Dean Boyer
DB : MKP