City Plan - 1955
,
f
t
II-
.
"
--
.
NOVEMBER 1955
(155-9)
J
CITY OF SALINA
KANSAS
PLANNING REPCRT
~~~~***
Dr. Ì'fax Lak~, Mayor
9ommi~sioners
Ralph F. Exline
Albert Hawkes
Carl Ramsey
E. P. W3nger
Lelnnd Srock, Manager
Harold Peterson, Clerk
C. L. Clark, Attorney
Harold Harper, Engineer
1~')~***
',,~ (; 11 U!
"..,;.\:.:¡,...I.~
i:7~'~~" '" ::. :;:~:.<'
.::' :\ J.r! n . .
". -:1 " .
':»,;:i:.~~.~~.::..<.:~.:;..
, I' ,¡ ,\.'.
mLSON & COMPANY
ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
SALINA -- KANSAS
.
,
crry OF SALINA, KANSAS
PLANNING REPORT
Table of Contents
PART I - MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
.~
Scope and Purpose
..
Financing
.
Population Trends
Increase in Population
Population Growth
Residential Area Development
Assessed Valuation vs Tax Rate Trends
Assessed Valuations vs Tax Rates
Valuation per Capita
Bonds Issued vs Retired
Bonds Issued VB Retired
Future 'I'ax Revenues
Future Tax Revenues
Bonded Indebtednoss
Bonded Indebtedness
Bonded Indebtedness - Expressed
as a Percentage of Assessed Valuation
Summary and Conclusion
Summary of Proposed Bond Issues
Improvement Program
.
Airport
Airport Program Estimates
Airport Program Financing
Municipal Airport Improvements
Municipal Airport Improvements
..
Public Buildings
...
City Hall
Hemorial Hall
Civic Auditorium
Parking and Traffic Access
~;ast Fire Hall
Civic Center Land Acquisition
Public BuHding Program Financing
Civic Center Plan
Civic Center (Aerial Perspective)
I
.
TO-I
Page
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
Exhibit A
Map
1-4
Exhibit B(l)
gxhibit B(2)
1-5
Exhibit C
1-6
Exhibit D
1-7
Exhibi t 151
Exhibit E2
1-0
Exhibit F
1-10
1-12
Exhibit G
Alternate No.1
Alternate No.2
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
1-16
1-17
1-17
Exhibit H
Map
lIAp
1-34
1-34
1-35
1-35
1-36
Program and Estimated Costs 1-38
Program Financing 2xhibi t K
t1a. P
.
Flood Control
Right-of-way
Street and Road Levee Crossings
Bridges
Railroads
Utilities
Flood Control Financing
Flood Control
~
.
Park and Playground
Park and Playground Program Financing
Municipal Park
Sewers and Sewage Treatment
Sanitary System
storm System
Slough Drainage System Estimate
South Santa Fe - South Fifth Storm Sewer
Estimate
Recapitulation
Sewers and Se"'age Treatment
Program Financing
Storm Sewer and Sanitary Se",er
Streets and Bridges
.
North-South Bound
East-Heat Bound
Bridges
Hiscel1aneous
Street and Bridge
Street and Bridge
street and Bridge
PART II - HATER llORKS PROGRAM
Purpose
Per Capita Constmlption and Annual Pumpage
"Lost" Hater and "Free" Hater
Hater Usage Trends
Air Conditioning
Receipts and Expenditures
Summary and Recommendations
..
Predicted Income and Operation Based
on Predicted Increase in Population
J
TC-2
Page
1-19
1-20
1-21
1~22
1-22
1-23
Exhibit
Map
1-24-
Exhibit I
Map
1-26
1-27
1-28
1-30
1-32
1-33
Exhibit J
Map
2-1
~2':'1
'2-2
Exhibit L
2-3
2-5
2-5
Exhib1 t M
I
PART III - APPENDIX
Acknowledgements
Tax Comparisons - First Olass Cities of Kansas
Tax Trends in All First Class Cities of Kansas
.
Comparative Table of Tax Data
for First, Class Cities of Kansas
.
.
..
J
TO..J
Par<e
3-1
3-1
Exhibi t N
Exhibit 0
.
CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS
E.1!!!!!lHQ.
REPoRT
------
P ART I
MUNICIPAL Il4PROVEMENl' PROORAM
Scope and Furpose
The intent of this report is to formulate a la-year program of municipal
improvements.
It is arranged to suggest an order of priority in each of its
various sections based upon the relative importance to the public need and
welfare. Caref\ù consideration was given to the City's ability to finance
the program while keeping the mill1evy portion of the tax rate a11otted
for these works as nearly constant as possible. The plan is based upon past
experience and data, together with a reasonable forecast of what can be
expected in the next decade.
Basically the following principles were used
in determining the items recommended.
~~ximum Benefits to the Greatest Number of Persons
.
Improvements That Will Increase Property Value
Improvements in New Developments to Stimulate Proper Growth
Improvements That Would Tend to Solve a Present
or Future Problem
Projects on Which the City Could Expect to Receive Assistance
from State and Federal Agencies
It is a flexible plan, with but few exceptions, designed to be used
as a guide in Bolving the future needs of the entire City.
1-1
Financing
The objective of this section is to determine the approximate amount
of funds that will be available for public improvements during each of the
next ten years.
An analysis of certain past trends reveals the most basic
and comprehensive data for such estimates.
Population Trends.
Exhibit A is included to indicate that the trend
in population has been close1y related to the valuation increases.
It bears out the need and logic to forecast a continuing expansion and
growth of the City requiring not orùy a comprehensive plan of necessary
city-wide improvements but also participation by the city as a whole in the
costs of new developments.
It is, of course, entirely probable that the
actual increase in population will vary from that estimated.
It is not
believed, however, that this variance wil1 be sufficient to seriously
unbalance the schedule of proposed improvements.
For example, the future
may involve a large and sudden increase in poplùation due to the influx
of an industrial development which would mean B similar jump in over all
valuation.
Conversely, we might experience a sudden withdrawal of population
such as would occur if the Air Base were closed.
In either case the result
would be that the program would be stepped up or slowed down as indicated
by the situation.
In other words, the increased or earlier need for public
works will be accompanied by available funds and vice versa.
In arriving at the predicted 40,000 population in 1965, information
and data obtained from the Southwestern Bell Telephone Oompanyand Kansas
Power and Light Company were used.
It is the practice of the telephone
company, for example to forecast quarterly.
Actually the projection
of their present forecast to 1965 is considerably more optimistic than
1-2
the 40,000 used in this report.
Both concerns are of the opinion that
we can logically expect a continuing growth at approximately the same rate
as has been experienced in the last decade.
For use in following sections of the report, a map has been included
which attempts to forecast where this increase in population will reflect
itself in new residential developments. This growth will, or course,
be greately influenced by the location of the proposed flood control levee
which is shown for that reasonq Population densities vary greatly
from a low of five persons per acre in high class residenta1 districts
to a high of 50 to 100 in low class or tenement areasð
Normal or average
residential density of 15 persons per acre has been used in preparing the map:
using this breakdown of areas:
Increa3e in Population
1955 1959 1963
to to to
Are a l2.2ß. 1962 ~ Totals
Present Areas and North Areas 500 500 300 1,300
Outside Levee (Hill East
of River) 100 100 100 300
Adjacent to Ohio Street (South) 1,000 100 1,100
West US 81 (South) 1,000 500 300 1,SOO
East US 81 (South) 600 2,000 1,800 4,400
-
Tot a 1 B 3,200 3,200 2,500 8,900
1-3
fT1
X
I
CD
~
-
»
à
45,000
40,000
35,000
1:)
0 30,000!
1:)
c 25,000
r
:Þ
-i 20,000
0
15,000
z
10,000
0
1900
1910
1920
1930
POP ULA TIO N
/'
/'
l
/'
/'
./
40,000
---
-
/\- ..-"-
/'" //
,/ ",/
'"
1955
Gas I Meters
TelepHones
1960
1965
1940
1950
GROWTH
---
-------- --
----------- ------------
r'
4
s
H
A
F
B
RESIDE NTIAL
DEVE AREA
LOPMENT
!
I'
I
I
I
I
Assessed Valuation vs Tax Rate Trends. Exhibit B(I) is a graphic
representation of the trend in assessed valuation as well as the tax rates.
It clearly indicates that there has been a rather constant increase
in valuation since 1935 with the rate of increase rising sharply since
1945. There were fluctuations in the tax rate between 1935 and 1945,
followed by a rather constant five year period ending in 1950. During the
last five years, the rate has risen approximately one mill per year
reaching 19 mil1s in 1955-56.
The chart further predicts what the valuation level wi 11 -be in the
next ten years. This prediction is based on the valuation per capita
trend outlined on E:xhibit B(2), which developes a ~Þ66,800,000 valuation
in 1965. Calculated by multiplying the predicted per capita valuation
of D1,670 by the predicted 40,000 population.
No consideration was given
to the effect upon these pictures which would result if more realistic
methods of determining valuation were instituted.
.
1-4
-i
)-
>< 50
::0
)-
-i
rr1 40
z
~ 30
r
r
(J)
8 20
<
)-
r
c
»
-i
0
Z
Z
10
('T1 š::
)<: -
r
I r
- 0
IJ)
- z
-I (J)
=
IJ)
:
,....."
-
'-'
70
1935
1940
60
Flood Control
Bond &. Interest
Gen, & Special
Improvements
Non-Improvement
Account s
CODE
15
5
1945
1955
1960
1985 70
1950
...
....
....
./'
/'
....
/'
/'
....
/'
....
....
...
....
....
...
...
...
...
.814,714,815.3 15.715,916.016,116,0
6.016,516.217,817.417.216.918.319.418.218.3 18.918.4
0
35 38 37 38 3940 41 42 434445 46474849 50 51 52 5354 55 56575859 60 61 62 636465
ASSESSED
VALUATIONS
RATES
VS
TAX
.
0
,....
cO
--
\
\
0 \
0 \
0 \
0 \
0
CO \
<L>
<L> \
.. ,
II ,
0 ,
0
0
0 ,
.q- \
x
0
r-
<L>
... '
,
,
,
,
,
,
0
0
0
"
0
0
o. 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 It') 0 It')
- - - -
('\ -
~ ~ ~ -
It')
<L>
0\
.q-
<L>
I")
<L>
N
<L>
<L>
0 «
<L>
0\ ~
It') -
a..
CO «
It')
r- U
L/')
<L> a:
L/')
w
L/') a..
L/')
.q-
It') Z
,., 0
It')
-
N ~
It') «
It') ::>
0 .-J
L/') «
0\ >
.q-
CO
.q-
,....
.q-
<L>
.q-
It')
't
0)
EXHIBIT II BII (2)
Bonds Issuedvs Retired, Exhibit C indicates by year the amount
of bonds issued as compar~d to
the portion retired.
Bond interest and
revenue bonds are not included.
These have peen broken down to show the
portions that are the obligation of the city~t-large as well as the
obligation of individual property owne+~9
Although the City is obligated
in the event of property owner default, pas~ history indicates that it is
only necessary to consider the City share for the purpose of this
planning report,
For that reason, only the city-at-large portions are
shown for the period covered by this report,
The practice of using bond iss~es to pay for capital improvements
has become the standard and accepted American method of financing
improvements.
It has both advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages
.
are higher costs due to interest and al1ied expenditures.
The advantages
.
are great, however, when used for permanent and necessary improvements
that cannot be financed by current revenue.
,
1-5
II'
"
$ 1,100,000
1,000,000
700,000
- ISSUED
f~ RETIRED
PROPERTY OWNERS
SHARE TO 1955
FLOOD CONTROL
/-:;7' CITY SHARE
/'
900,000
,-
800,000
.j
,ò-
,;
,.
.-.
,..
600,000
.
CODE
.~
,.-
500,000
T
X
I
OJ
-I
0 ~ .-!X1 0s<!.JS( rxI JX1 rn I fxj I IX! I fx I !X1 r IX] ~. IX1 I IXI I IX] I !XI I' . :
1935 36 37 38 39 40 4142 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 56 59 60 61 62 83 64 65
.<;,
400,000
300,000
200,000
=
BONDS
ISSUED VS
RETIRED
-
()
Future Tax Revenues,
Exhibit D projects the tax revenues that can
be expected from a tax rate held at approximately its present level
except that the cost of the flood control project has been consid~red
extraordinary.
For that reason, the tax rate has been increased to the
extent necessary to pay for that work over a twenty-year period.
Unless so considered, that project would seriously delay other important
and necessary work and as a result slow the orderly and normal development
of the City.
These revenues calculated from the predicted valuations
per Exhitit B(l) are also distributed between improvement and nonimprove-
ment accounts.
In this way the funds available for projects of the nature
recommended in this report are segregated from those necessary for the
general operation of the City in al1 its various departments.
The revenues
possible by use of the three-mill limited general and s peelal improvement
account total 1.8 million dollars and have not been segregated.
They are
included in the IIAll Other' ocIUJ1".n., under improvement funds.
If they were
budgeted and levied annually the City would save approximately $230,000
in interest and allied costs of bond issues.
However, since it is not
possible to predict to what extent the account will be used, we have
calculated all expenditures on the basis of payment by general obligation
bond issues with the exception of those necessary to continue the major
trafficway resurfacing program.
Recent legislation raises the legal limit of 12 mills for general
operating funds to 14 mills and the charts and program would need to be
revised to the extent the new limitation was applied in establishing
yearly budgets.
..
1-6
, .
I .
Asaeøed Valat,lcm Total '!'ax
Year aoat KI.lla ~t.
19~ 141,'19' ,219 17.99' 751.,860
1955 42,910,85' 19.0 815,450
1956 46 ,340 ,000 19.0 880 ,000
1951 4S ,615,000 19.' 940 , 000
1958 50,885,000 19.4 9tt:J ,000
1959 53,l6O,000 19.5 1,038,000
I
1960 55,435,000 19.7 1,090,000'
1961 57 ,705,000 19.8 1,140,000
1962 59,980,000 19.9 1,196,000
1963 62,255,000 19.8 1,235,000
1~ 61.-,525,000 .19.8 1 ;n6,fØJ
1965 66,800,000 1'.5 1,)01,000
.
* IRclwlH $63-,"50 fL.'
** IDol\l!ea $23,200 0..
'
.
1
Ft7fURE TAX .;¥!i8œ8
hDda
B....,JIl~JMPt 1-1kDlaai ~ "IJlat Total J.w.i.lable I Year
1 11 a d 8 nood Cañrol JJ.l 0tbN" -
tar .." I Aftil-
Jß.l1a A- 481t I Mil1a A po . t JI11lø A At. 111.118 A8R1Dt. able
U.13 $465,175 I I 5.31 $223,215 \ 6.86'_,685* I 1955
12.3 'm,900 I ,6.7 28'1,550 6.7** 2lfl ,55OtH1 1956
U.2 520,000 10.2 t 8,000 7.6 352,000 I 7.8 360,000 I 1957
10.8 525,000 I 0.7 3J ,0001 7.8 383 , 000 I 8.5 415,000 I 1958
10.6 539,000 t 1.1 51.,000 I 7.7 )96,000 I 8.8 450,000 I 1959
10.4 553,000 11.3 68,000, '7.8 41~,000 I 9.1 485,000 I 1960
10.2 565,000 I 1.2 459 ,COO I 9.5 525,000 I 1961-
66,000 8.3
10.0 580,000 11.1 65,000 t 6.7 505,000 I 9.8 560,000 I 1962
9.9 ~,OOO 11.1 61.,000 I 8.9 "',(J()() 110.0 600,000' 1963
9.8 610,000 11.0 63,000 1 9.0 56i,0fJ0 110.0 625,000 I 1964
9.'7 626,000 11.0 62.,000 I 9,1- _000 110.1 650,000 I 1965
..'
9.6 641,000,0.9 60,000 I 9.0 600 t 000 I 9.9 660,000 I 1966
,n
.. S~.1 I¥ølï ~. "e~
ad. Spee,., Ii44~- -. ""11&1\.
ltXHtm D
-
Bonded Indebtedness.
Exhibits El and E2 are presented to show the
past record and the predicted levels of this account. Revenue bonds are
not included.
For comparison purposes they are broken down to indicate
the division of this debt between the property owners and the city-at-
large through 1954.
No attempt was made to predict the future trends or
yearly amounts of the property owners' share, but it would be reasonable
to assume a continuation of recent developments in this account.
In
addition, the per capita portion of the city-at-large share has been
calculated and forecasted.
It is interesting to note that the 1955 per
capita share is lower than it was in the early 1930's although the total
indebtedness is more than double.
This is explained by the sharply
.increased property owner share since 1947.
The effect of a slower rate of retirement than that of issuance
will increase the outstanding debt of the City but not out of proportion
to the increase in population and/or valuation.
1-7
$100
-
80
WITH FLOOD CONTROL
60
r---
/ --
./'" --'"",
.... ,
'/~WITHOUT FLOOD CONTR~~
40
20
0
6.7 6.4 D.I 5.1 5,5
~ 3,500,000
CITY - SHARE
PER
CAPITA
6,2
5.0
t3,000,OOOIPERCENT OF fI
ASSESSED) I
- VALUATION
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
('T1
X
I
CP
-
('T1
-
4.2.
PROPERTY OWNER
SHARE TO 1955
FLOOD CONTROL -
CITY SHARE
6.1
-----C
5.7
4,8
CODE
3.94.1 3.9
3.3
0
1~55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
1935
1940
1945
1950
BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS
1"'1
X
I
(J)
-I
-
1"'1
I\)
1)
1"1
:Ð
0
1"1
Z
-t
10
8
6
TOTAL -INCLUDING
PROPERTY OWNER
INDEBTEDNESS
4
CITY - AT - LARGE
2
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
/'
/ '
/ l'
,
/
I
/
/
/
I
I
I
CITY - AT - LARGE
1955
1960
,
"
,
.....
'\
'\
,
\
\
\
1965
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF ASSESSED VALUATION
(NOT INCLUDING REVENUE, BOARD OF EDUCATION, OR COUNTY BOND ISSUES)
Summary and Conclusion. Exh~b1t F summarizes the expenditures
tor the improvements recommeded in each of the categories of pub1!c works
covered in this report.
The figures are city-at-large costs only.
In the following sections these items are more fully detai¡ed. Exhibit F
1s a coordinated s~hedule with each element in proper relation to all
other elements. The pIan does not necessitate excessively lar~e puþlic
expenditures.
Instead it has been designed to insure that a continuat!on
of normal expenditures will yield maximum returns and that the improvements
so made will not soon become obsolete~
Throughout this report, cost calou1ations have been based upon the
following tenure of bonds.
.
5-~ear (4 Princi~al Payments) at 2-3/4 Percent:
Curb and Gutter Projects
Sanitary Sewers (laterals, Connecting)
ll-year (10 Principal Payments) at 2-3/4 Percent~
Combination Curb, Gutter and Paving Projects
Paving Projects
Sanitary Sewer Mains and PI~ping Stations
Storm Sewers
Public Buildings
Street and Bridge Work
¿I-year (20 Principal Payments) at 2-3/4 Percent:
Flood Control
1-8
The interest rates used are slightly higher than the average of those
negotiated ia the past few years and probably higher than those that will
be actuallyrequired. This has be~n done to inject a further factor
of safety in predicting the ability of the City to meet the financing
obligations.
In this and all other section~ of the report, including the charts
and tables, the assumption is made that future budgets and tax levies
will take full advantage of the general and special improvement (in lieu
of bonds), provision of the Kansas Statutes (79~1950a).
Many of the
improvements recommended may be legally financed by annual use of this
limited three mill source of revenue,
By use of this report budget
preparation each year should set aside a maximum of funds for specific
projects thereby saving the City the ten percent interest and al1ied costs
of bond issues.
Citizen understanding and support is all important and public support
will be assured if they are familiar enough with the plan to realize
it will be of great benefit to each individual,
The plan should be restudied and revised periodically to meet changing
conditions. Conceivably that action might be necessary a6 often as yearly.
1-9
SUMNARY OF PROPOSED BOND ISSUES
(All at 2-3/4 Percent Interest Rate)
Subtotal
Tenure
Years Amount Extension
10 c"- 80,000
.!
11 120,000
5 55,200
5 23,800
11 88,600
Q 367,600
Year
Issued
Pur p 0 s e
1955
Armory
Fire Station (South
Normal Yearly:
Sewer vlork
Street Hork
Street Hork
1956 Pumping Station and Main 11 300,000
Airport Program
(Adm. Bldg., Apron, Road) 11 100,000*
Development of New Parks 5 30,000*
New Park Area (Southeast) 5 30,000*
Flood Control (First Section) 21 300,00b
Normal Yearly:
Sewer vlork 5 12,000
Street Hork 5 24,000
Street Hark 11 80,000
Subtotal 876,000
1957 Airport Program (Widening
Runway, Land Acquisition) 11 100,000*
Flood Control (Second Section) 21 300,000
Development of Ne'!.~ Parks 5 10 , 000*
Slough Storm Sewer (First Section) 11 174,000
street Improvement Program 11 40,000
Normal Yearly:
Sewer Work 5 16,000
Street t'¡ork 5 24,000
Street t1ork 11 80,000
Subtotal
744,000
* Requires Bond Election
EXHIBIT F (1 of 4)
Year Tenure
Issued Purpose Years Amount Extension
---
1958 Airport Program (Extend Runway) 11 ~.:; 110,000*
Flood Control (Third Section) 21 288,000
New Pumping Station and Main
(Southeast) 11 140,000
Street Improvement Program 11 165,000*
Norrnal Yearly:
Sewer 'Tork 5 16,000
Street Hork 5 24,000
Street Hork 11 80,000
Subtotal !' 8
',I' 23,000
1959 Airport Program (Extend Taxiway) 11 65,000
New City HaIl 11 500,000*
New Park Area (Hest-centra1) 5 25,000*
Normal Yearly:
Sewer Hork 5 16,000
Street l-!ork 5 24,000
Street Hork 11 80,000
Subtotal 710,000
1960
Development of New Park
(Hest-central)
Slough Storm Sewer (Second Section)
Street Improvement Program
Normal Yearly:
Sewer Hork
Street Hork
Street Hark
Subtotal
1961
storm Sewer, Santa Fe & Fifth St.
Street Improvement Program
Normal Yearly:
Sewer l'¡ork
Street vlork
Street "\;Jork
Subtotal
* Requires Bond Election
5
11
11
5
5
11
11
11
5
5
11
10,000*
199,000
35,000*
16,000
24,000
80,000
364,000
127,000
150,000*
16,000
24,000
80,000
397,000
X1lIBIT F (2 of 4)
Year Tenure
Issued Purpose Years Amount Extension
1962 New Park Area (Northeast) 5 .. ) 25,000*
Slough storm Sewer (Third Section) 11 181,000
Street Improvement Program 11 40,000*
Normal Yearly:
Sewer Uork 5 16,000
Street vlork 5 24,000
Street Hork 11 80,000
Subtotal (:ì 366,000
1963
Memorial Hall Revisions
Development of New Park (Northeast)
Street Improvement Program
Normal Yearly:
Sewer Hor1c
Stroet Hork
Street '.fork
11
5
11
5
5
11
Subtotal
1964
street Improvement Program
Normal Yearly:
Sewer Hork
Street vlork
Street Hork
11
5
5
11
Subtotal
300,000*
10 ,000*
35,000*
16,000
24,000
80,000
465,000
124,000*
16,000
24,000
80,000
244,000
1965 Street Improvement Program 11 35,000*
Normal Yearly:
Sewer t-lork 5 16,000
Street 'Vlork 5 24,000
Street vlork 11 80,000
Subtotal
155,000
TOTAL
(1955 thru 1965)
I;: 5,511,600
* Requires Bond Election
EXHIBIT F (3 of 4)
SUlIHAI1Y Œ"Ot!;rICIPAT'jD ]0l:D A!ID IXTBn:;~?T PAYì!Cim:
Program 195) 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 Beyond
1965
Airport Program:
Present Obligations l' 21,:!OO -':::0,700 jt 20,500 ,1 20,200 " {\ ,'j. $ .... '" ,~ "
',? .J> .oj ¿;,) 'it- 'Ii ;:~
Adm.Bldg. ,Apr.& Rd. 2,700 12,800 12,500 12,200 11,900 11 ,700 11 ,400 11,100 10,800 20,800
W.Rwy. & Land Acq. '~. "F\'~' 12,800 12,500 12,:200 11,900 11,700 11,400 11,100 31,600
'" , i '-",'
Extend Rummy 3,000 14,000 13,700 13,400 13 ,100 12,800 12,500 47,200
Extend ':i'Qxhm.y 1,800 8,300 8,100 7,900 7,800 7,600 35,200
Subtotals t 21 '(Y :20,900 .)': ;n,20CJ .;: 3" ',IOu ;; :::3,300 ~} 40,500 ,\ 46,100 ". 45,100 ~'44 ,100 'i>. 43,100 ~~ 42 ,ooe :'~134 ,800
. '"~ ,U
Public J1dgs.Progra.m:
Present Obligations 11,100 '18 ,900 ~ 18,600 .\ 16,400 ¿; 15,200 .. (' J', .... '" " '...
.;;, ,, ','; \iJ ',t' .¡
Armory 10,200 10,000 9,700 9,100 9,000 8,800 8,600 8,500 8,300 8,200
Fire Sta. (30uth) J,300 LS , JOO 15,000 14,600 14 ,300 14 , 000 13,700 13 ,300 13,000 12,700 12,300
City Hall 13,800 63,700 6.'2 ,400 61,000 59,600 58,200 270,700
Hemoria1 Hall 8,300 38,200 307,100
Subtotals ", 1C),10C 3:2,400 )~ 43,900 $ 41,100 ": 33,900 !' 37,100 -7 Q(; :-:00 :-': ß4,700 . 8r 80r) $ 39,200 $117,300 $590,100
'.' c.. ,-' '{ ..::, u
(;t & 'r>idge PrOi:YTOam'
~ v. ,'. - ,. c' .
Present Obligations
:¡or!Y'.al~ea.rly \'¡ork
(Incl.Est.1')::,,) 3,100 :~O,'7CO J7;:~CO 53,300 68,900 78,300 ~)7,20() 96,200 104,700 113,300 Cont.Exp.
;:tecornn~nded Pro5. 44,('» 30,000 3~,00C; 1,100 54,óOO 51,000 26,~0~ 58,400 83,900 112,oOC 118,400 478,800
~. , + ~, 'l"""~(', ,-"., "70") "l""':J"(',:)'" """144 80C'\ "'1.43 SO"" ""~o 1"" "'.1/'J .-,,','--' C'lce 31"(J ""~"'O 70'l ('"')41 30" '":478 800
,:,uovo"e,..s ,ÀU'-)'-~\.~-~'-¡...L.....~,----,--'.J,:,j u ,,";'1 ,l)U",..,; , ',l' , v '.L.¿V, cA.' " O./..Jl:U "'~}-" u ",::,,), \,. 'ff"'- . U ,;, 'I '
Flood C0!1t. Pr°br'l...T!'.:
..'
Park & P'~~. Pr~reJn:
Present O';;,ligations'
Devel. Pres. Parks
Land Acquisitions
Dev. P:!'o~o:3ed Park]
J
,+ ,
Subtotals
4,
Seò1ers & ,""'. l'r83, tment
Program:
Present Obligations
:;oIT¡.'ll ~"earlyl'¡oT'k
(, l' t ~(J'-,,)
lnc-...S . 1.;,/>
Ash St. Pump. :3t.a.
& ,ain
Slot1¿h ~torm :,\:1"'8:-
L P.Sta. & ::ain
S E:a...'1ta ;'">6 & :th :3t.
Storm Seò1er
",'::4/..':.,
:3ubtotals
:.124,0,];,:
(-.(11')
, - -',
'T'O1;"LS
, ,40C,
"
"
., "nl ~..., rn- ~~.., qrJ~ ~ 67 _0(' ^ b" 300 ~ br 10~ ~ 63 qno
G,,}'v'- ',i'.J-'-,>uU ,'¡»)"ll.l ';J ,J.J:} b, ',' -J, U ,j "L"
$ 62,700 $ 61,?OO $688,100
l' 1""- ~:31,9(;O ", 3(" '-n'--, 31,000 ~ 29,600 "30,100 ::; 28,700 29,20C :: 27,800 -'}"8 ,,:\on i.
...,' ,..."-U ' ,J,)vl) 'ii' "-. ,.. v "
Su:) 3,3CD 8,100 7,900 7,700
80e 3,30U 8,100 8,600 14,700 6,BoO 7,200 13,400 6,800 12,900
300 2,800 2,700 2,900 5,400 2,700 2,900 5,400 7,900
31,400 ~,~ 33, jOO 47,M)(! ", 50,000 ) 48,800 ..'~ r l: 400 '. 1.;,0,900 '~. 39,100 ~. 44 ,100 :) 40,500 ~. 2.0 ,800
,,' :J -' ,
,000 ::"11') , '?OO :3103,7(":0 "? 44,400 :~: 43,400 42,400 ~ 41,500 "40 , -500 ,,~ " ","
',,'
1,50C 15 ,300 17 ,900 ~3,300 27,600 17,500 17,500 17 , 500 17,500 17,500 Cant. .3xp.
n ..,..V' 'J (} ",rv,¡ J7,40CJ 36,600 35,800 ':1'- ("inn 34,100 33,300 32,500 62,400
u, ';U',) .Ju,'~~'U ../-" \JV,""
4 ,8DC 22,200 21 ,700 26,700 46,100 :;O,JOO 67,200 65,600 348,700
3,900 17,800 17,500 17,100 16,700 16,300 15 ~ 900 59 ,8ee
3 , 500 1(; "00 15,800 15,500 98,700
- ,"-
'122 ,500 ,,140,000 ~;171 ,600 ~;131 ,700 ;:'147,100 "',139,900 ~;16c ,700 "'.175,100 ~'150 ,100 $147,000 ~p 569 ,600
64,600
-1'- 57,800
~. 49,300
.~ 17 700 ~ ~- ~no
':,' , "-I.) ,.<: L
.~' 13 ,100 ,H.
0 600 ',)
/ ,
'36,900 .523,900 :,,' 23,300
]':]4/'00
"',)/'( ,¡~()O
.;4L.7,600
,:~59 ,80C
:)coo,30e
,~~619 ,900
;,649,600
.:.414, ()OO
484,300
',522,30C)
,..,-:iI~,;' l'
(4 of 4)
.
Improvement Program
Airport.
Air transportation has, without question; been growing
rapidlyand consistently.
It is also a foregone conclusion that the end
of that growth is not within sight for maAr years to come.
A progressive
city must recognize this expansion and what it will require in the nature
of airport space and facilities.
Recommendations and estimates are presented as follows:
The building presently housing the airline office and waiting room is
much too small and unattractive.
It is not a credit to a City of this size.
There is a definite need for a new structure to house the airport manager's
and airline's offices adjacent to the modern CAA Office.
It is also
of importance to plan for the distinct possibility of a second airline
(north-south route) requiring additional office space.
This proposed adminis-
tration building would necessitate additions to the apron and a new access
road.
This proposition, narrowly defeated in the 1955 spring election,
should be presented again to the ~oters as soon as possible.
The need for a longer runway is brOtlght about by the use of newer types
of aircraft.
The present 4,800 feet is adequate for the rapidlydisappearing
DC-3, which is being replaced by the Convair, Martin 404, etc., which require
6,000 feet for regular operation.. The width of runways is also affected
by this evolution of aircraft and with only one runway the width should be
sufficient to make cross-wind landings and take-offs safer. Widening the
present runway from 100 to 150 feet is therefore a definite requirement
of the program.
The runway extension can be accomplished either to the
north or the south.
In either case, approximately 40 acres of land will be
required.
There are advantages and disadvantages to be considered for both
alternates, however, it is recommended that the expansion be to the south.
1-10
The problem of rerouting the Crawford Street County Road is both involved
and costly and the land costs will undoubtedly be higher than those at the
south.
The road at the south could be closed without creating very serious
inconvenience.
The relative costs indicate a slightly lower cost tor the
southward extension.
Extension of the taxiway system is advisable to eliminate the necessity
of using the runway for ground movement of planes.
Time alone will dictate
what further improvements are necessary and they should be made as deve1op-
ments or parts of a suitable over-all master plan such as suggested by the
accompa~ying layouts.
.
Since Federal funds are now available for work of this nature, the
City should take advantage of every possible occasion to accomplish the
suggested developments.
The recently passed !bnroney Bil1 (Public Law 211),
instituting a "Four-year Airport Programll authorizes the CAA to participate
with cities and states on a 50-50 basis on programs similar to that pro-
posed in this report.
Recommendations and estimates are presented as follows:
1-11
Year
1956
1957
.
1958
1959
Airport Pro~ram Estimates
Description
Estimated
C 0 s t
Administration Building $ 85,000.00
Apron and Access Road 56,000.00
Water Main 16,000.00
Sewer Line 10,000.00
Contingencies 16,700.00
Legal, Engineering and Administration 16,300.00
$ 200,000.00
Alternate No.1 (South Expansion)
Widen Present Runwar (Pave, Grade
and Move Lighting)
Land Acquisition (South)
Contingencies
Legal, Engineering and Administration
$
Alternate No.2 (North Expansion)
Widen prese, nt Runwar (Pave, Grade
and Move Lighting)
Land Acquisition (North)
Relocate County Road
Contingencies
Legal, Engineering and Administration
$
$ 166,000.00
12,000.00
7,000.00
15,000.00
200,000.00
$ 166,000.00
48,000.00
21,000.00
9,000.00
18,000.00
262,000.00
Alternate No.1 (South Expansion)
Extend Runway 1,200 Feet (Pave, Grade,
and Extend Lighting) $ 194,000.00
Contingencies 10,000.00
Legal, Engineering and Administration 16,000.00
$ 220,000.00
Alternate No.2 (North Expansion)
Extend Runway 1,200 Feet (Pave, Grade,
and Extend Lighting) $ 167,000.00
Contingencies 9,000.00
Legal, Engineering and Administration 14,000.00
$ 190,000.00
Alternate No.1 or No.2
Extend Taxiway (Grade and Pave) $ 115,000.00
Contingencies 6,000.00
Legal, Engineering and Administration 9,000.00
$ 130,000.00
1-12
City's Share
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 131,000.00
$ 110,000.00
$ 95,000.00
$ 65,000.00
AIRPORT PROGRAM FINANCING
(2-3/4 Percent Interest)
Year
B &; I
Payments
Due
* Four-ðear Pro~ram
vb. on
Adm. Bldg., Runway and ::!:xtend
Apron & Road Land Acquis. Runway
Extend
Taxiway
Extension
1955 ,~ 21,200
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
20,900
20,500
20,200
Totals::i 82,800
Beyond
1965
(;i 2,700
12,800
12,500
~:; 2,700
12,800
(; 3,000
14,000 ':)
1,800
8,300
:::; 21,200
20,900
23,200
35,700
28,300
40,500
46,100
45,100
44,100
43,100
42,000
12,500
~:; 82,500
~~ 41, 500 ~~ 390,200
::'i100 ,000 bond - II-year - issued in 1956
~:>100,000 bond - II-year - issued in 1957
13,700
13,400
8,100
7,900
12,200
11,900
12,500
12,200
13,100
12,800
7,800
7,600
"; 47,290
:::; 35 ,200 ~¡> 134,800
::~ll0,000 bond - II-year - issued in 1958
'~; 65,000 bond - II-year - issued in 1959
* Based on recommended Alternate No.1 - Runway Extended South
11,700
11,400
11,900
11,700
11,100
10,800
11,400
11,100
i
I .
~: 97,100
~;) 86,300
,'; 20,800
31,600
EXHIBIT G
\,:))
.~~, 0 0'" - ~c~ '...'...,,~.'l
'.'.~J l~~-:ilr-:.;
,~, ,: ~I
":;¡1ŒJ?~"",J~ è
'I \~ -',
I :: :.: ::
, I ';r -:. ;~-'
'" 'i
: :'- - J:
I ,r-"
I " I'
',LLL-"-_-
'\
r~
::;
SCALE:
I" = 600'
II
II
I'
I'
':
II
"
" \ ")
. ',', (",'
'\ :,,'v'> ,/'
'~, ~~. ,~... ,...,'>
';', (.,~', ~...' """
, '",,'" <.,<- ,>
, ,(. " i.>
, , '>,' N) ,'"
','," ;,,<- ",,-'"
',",¿> ~~<-
, , ';
'v'>"
Lu
,
y
c I
/ I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/'
I
I
'.
<
"
"
-'---'
I
I I
I: I
@1:¡~
I I
I I
': r
~
:@
LEGEND
CD Aa'",- ðJclg. - Apron - Ar:-cesf'
@ ,"ena' A(:'(?~"""'r-"el7 - 1~5';-
@)
@
@
I2cacr' - .' !'5G
I
I :
, ,
, ;
- .. '
WÚ:len R'un4Jcz':;l - /00 ¡'O /50 - /~57
L. engt-høn e'uru.Jf:z!:I - 4"00; ¡l-o GOOO; - /~5ð
Tc:xi(JÇ "!:I ~x'¡'en~íøn.. - /!!)5~ I
, I
I ,
: :
I I '
I '---'
I
I '
I I
I
I I
I
A/ere.. Acr'a'ir-Ione! ¡:..d"ure /;:Jeve/c¡:>-
!?711'17'f- PcsrlÎ::':Ji,J-/tPs ~re ¡q/:ro
Incl/r:-ar-e-cT ,
: I
I I
: I
I I
I I
I ,
, I
I
I \
I" ,
L - - - -
L--..
I
1 I
I I '
: L_~
I I. I
I I
I I
I I
:+:
I I
:41
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
: 1
I I
I I
L__j
~
.
.
ALTERNATE
NO.
~
i
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
: IMPROVEMENTS
i
@
---,:~:-: - -'"- - - --
','
>11 r'
'- o..J
/^"- ",0 rJ
, \ r
- " ~.r..,
( ',' LJ"",
- . '~'O: ,11;,
.11--~ ",";,,"tIé,X' J:í
""'-""'~;r.
'I ~,~ -, ,
I I I " :'
" 'J J I
1 ";,-:';¡' .', ,--
I' II t" / \
: :"'": :; > ¡
'-... : :~ -¡: "':~ \.. j
-...'_I.L--"---T-----
'-'-... / ';
, I
-... /
'y' / I
\.. / I
\.., /'
-... / I
',< :
, I
~i
I
:¡
II
II
"
II
'"
',I
"
II
I'
I:
"
I,
"
" \ ..,
""" ,.,é.." ','
'" ,.,' ,.,'
'~,~~',(-"~...,<"
'~', <.."" ;",' ..,è"
, " ..,:"" ¿.,<- ,>
, ,<. '., p
, ",,' ,,> ."
',',~ :,,"'.,>è'>~
, ,¿" <-
" :""
, , ",
',)'-
/
L--
~
~
'v
LEGEND
I---~
~
/'
/ I
/ :
1
I
1
I
>-
/ .
// '----.
-...
,
>-
/ '
/ '
/:
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
,
I
1
I
I
I
I
"":
/
,
-...
"""
I
I
,
,
I
'---- I
'----,: I
~
: ¡""
, I
I I
" I
:: 1
" 1
cif;;@4
: I :
I I I
': I
: I I
I I I
1 I I
I 1 I
I I I
:: 1
, I I
, , I
I I I
, I 1
I I 1
I I I
: I I
1 ',___:
I
I (--.,
I , I
I I
I I
1 I
, I
1 I
: 1
I I
I I
I
I I
, I
, I
I ,
I I
I I
I I
, ,
I I
I I
1 I
1 l
I' ,
L_____-
/
/
/
/
Ul
I
CD Ad,.,.,. /Jldg. - Apr"n - Acoc~', h!oad - I ~5G
@ t..cnd Acol¡ui..i1'-iC1n - 1~57 I
@ C'olJl7ry Roaa' ,?,locar-Ion - I~S7 I
@ W'-d~n æ~nc..Jald - 100' fo 150' - 1!J57
@ ':'~ng'¡'he17 Æ!'~17,..,":7ff - <;1ðCO' foe; GOOO' - 1~5ð
@ Ta"';'-Jt:'Ifi ="'r~n.,.;"n.,. - 1~5!J
I../"r~.. Aa'di1'-iøl7cl ¡:~rlJr~ ';)~V41',"'p-
f?7"',.,'¡- Po~../~/I;'¡-/~", ¡Qr~ ¡Q¡.,."
1 m;:l ¡'co a 1'- ~ ci .
L..-- - -
r---'
I ,
. I
I
I I
I I
I I
I :
I ,
, I
, I
I
I I
,~'
, I
I I
I 5 '
, I
, I
1 ,
I I
I I
I
---l
l
3
SCALE:
(" =600'
j@)
I
I
,
,
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
,
,
,
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
ALTERNATE
NO.2
,MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
--~ IMPROVEMENTS
Fublic Buildings.
There is need in Salina for both new and replaced
public buildings.
Of prime importance is the selection of the proper
location.
The function of each facility in most instances quite definitely
becomes the governing factor in such selection.
It is essential as wel1
as desirable to group public buildings and not necessarily with the desire
to provide a monumental or esthetic outlay.
Proper grouping insures many
economies not only in property acquisition but more important in the
everyday maintenance and operation of buildings, together with the inter-
related governmental functions they house.
Further, the grouping is
additionally desirable if located near the central business area, hotels,
restaurants, office buildings, and post office.
Conversely, the function
of fire stations predetermines their location in outlying sections
of the city.
Salina has the nucleous of such a civic center started in the area
of the County Court House and Vemoria1 Hall.
Plans exist for the expansion
and remodeling of the Court House.
That project will add to the value
of the entire layout of public buildings.
The following recommendations
involve the continued development of that section as pictured on the
accompanying aerial perspective drawing and civic center plan.
Recommendations and estimates are presented as follows:
1-13
(City HaIl)
The present building, built in 1911, was designed to house the depart-
,ments of City government common to that day and for a population exceeded
some time ago. Despi te a number of movings of departments and offices
within the building, overcrowding still exists and interoffice efficiencies
have decreased.
The structure itself is of an age that does not lend
itself to expansion or design and layout change.
Its location is not
desirable. This report recommends the erection of a new building at the
rear of 1~moria1 Hall facing the Salil~ County Court House. A building
of sufficient size for the predictable future can be erected for appro xi-
mately ~500,OOO, including the cost of the site.
The area is adequate
to make it possible to design a structure that can be economically expanded
while still retaining the same architecturallines. The present City Hall
and Police Station site could be returned to commercial purposes but
consideration to a municipally operated or leased multistory parking garage
would appear to be warranted.
1-14
(fv'.emorial Hall)
The City has need for a larger and better arranged arena type building
for activities such as basketball, expositions and similar events.
}~moria1 HaIl was designed as a multipurpose unit to handle sports events,
stage shows, dances, etc.
As a result, it has a number of inherent short.
comings.
They are to name a few:
Floor too Small for Basketball
Not Enough Seating for Basketball
Permanent Seats not Located Well for Stage Presentations
Portable Seats on Floor Very Poor for Stage Presentations
Inadequate Toilet Facilities
Inadequate Kitchen and Banquet Facilities
No Facilities for Ice Shows or Hockey
Consideration is recommended to a plan for remodeling and expansion
of l'!emorial Hall as a sports arena.
A study of the possibilities afforded
has indicated the feasibility of that development.
Both from functional and
cost angles it has advantages over a project involving the remodeling and
modernization of Agricultural Hall in Kenwood Park, which is suitable
for activities of the nature of horse shows, rodeos, livestock exhibits
and Scout exhibitions.
The remodeling of Memorial HaIl would cost between
~~300,ooo and 0500,000 dependent upon the extent of work desired.
1-15
(Civic Auditorium)
A building to house activities such as stage shows, recitals, concerts,
dances, banquets, conventions, meetings, reviews, and like events is
recommended.
Such a facility is A decided asset to a city and desirable
in a growing, progressive community.
When properly promoted and managed,
it soon becomes the focal point of social and cultural activities so
important to the city as a whole.
Conceivably the building would include
a large
theater-auditorium, banquet and dance area, little theater for
recitals and similar smaller events, meeting rooms, and all attendant
facilities.
A most desirable location would be facing ~~morial Hall in
the block between it and the Sacred Heart School grounds.
(Parking and Traffic Access)
If a civic center project eventually becomes a reality, it would be
of utmost importance to provide adequate parking close to all of the
buildings involved.
To handle the parking and safe access problem,
it would be advisable to close Tenth Street between State and Park Streets
and State Street between Ninth and Tenth Streets.
The accompanying civic
center plan pictures how this development might appear when completed.
1-16
(EAst Fire Hall)
If residential growth continues eastward and particularly east
of the river, a fire station to serve that and present eastern develop-
menta may be warranted.
It does not appear that this need be considered
during the next decade.
(Civic Center Land Acquisition)
Critics of the p1~n offered in this report will be quick to point out
the costs involved in the condemnation of developed property.
Surely
those costs cannot be treated lightly.
However, experience has proven
that the absence of realistic 10ng range planning in the past has greatly.
increased the cost of public works of today.
Cities and other governmental
agencies have in many instances in recent years paid more for land and
right of way than the cost of the work itself.
More than often it even-
tually becomes more costly to avoid higher initial costs by acceptance
of cheaper alternates.
This is:true not only as regards location but also
as regards size, materials, and workmanship, whether it be for public
buildings, roads, streets, bridges, sewers, or utilities.
1-17
In conclusion; funds will not be available from reYenues at present tax
levels unti11ate in the period covered by this report.
Planning should
be started, however, so that a part or all of a civic center project might
be presented to the voters for their consideration when financing bocomes
possible.
It is the recommendation of this report to acquire preliminary
designs and cost estimates so that they may be on hand at that time.
The following priority 1j.sting is suggested:
New City Hall
Reuse of Present City Hall and Police Station Site
(Paid by Revenue Bonds)
Revisions to ~'~morial Hall
Portion of New Parking Area
Civic Building
Completion of Parking Areas
1-18
Year
B 8.:. I
Payments
Due
1955::;19,100
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
18,900
18,600
16,400
15,200
Totals ":.88,200
Beyond
1965
PUBLIC BUILDING PROGRAM FINANCING
(1)
Armory
() 10,200 i';
10,000
9,700
9,100
9,000
8,800
8,600
8,500
8,300
8,200
(2-3/4 Percent Interest)
(2)
(4)
(3)
South Fire New
.S ta ti.2!l..__C i ty Hall
Memorial
Hall
Extension
3,300
15,300
"
, ;
15,000
14,600
14,300
14,000
,"¡ 13 800
" ,
63,700
13,700
13,300
62,/¡.00
61,000
13,000
59,600
58,200
,
,
8,300
38,200
12,700
-'-
~-
,,; 90,400 '::' 129,200
~ 318,700
", 46,500
12,300
270,700
307,100
',,; 19,100
32,400
43,900
41,100
38,900
37,100
86~500
84,700
82,800
89,200
117,300
':;; 673,000
590,100
(1) ,':' [';0,000 Bond - 10-year - 2-3/4~~ &- 2% issued 1955
(2) ':,120,000 Bond - II-year - issued in 1956
(3)
'::.500,000 Bond .. II-year - issued in 1959
(4) ':.)00,000 Bond - II-year - issued in 196,3
EXHIBIT H
~. .--- 7f-ïr--"'-- -,'~, -T,~, ---'-rr""~~' "r:,I¡ !
',III; ::i~.~! 111 " ~i ~ ,1V ...,! !
j Iii iij'W9/1 ~.t ¡I;i ~~n: .-~1rw'r::;J'\~I'I: :
x ,.~ Ú ä", ' '~','.J " i,' I '! H; F " tr ;J .
:'~- : c: (jt.Q::; ~,~ b~ c~,..JJ ~~~=:G. dJ ~ ; . ~ ()hJ
---- 9) ì ,
~ E.. L """ IS T. " .
~ 'r:~ ;tr"'-".~~~~~1~.~~ tl ;fr+
!":""¡~""",,,,,¡,~,-,,~, -,"¡,l~' '~ ii ,t=~ ',!, II~rii II ~ II
i"."nl >~ ";:",, ,..Jr-" !\
-=#~-~ ':'" , ' '--0- r }1
, FAR. I<:- $ T. . = '=.;;;Ì:::::::::::= :",
1t lift -:_~--_:k rJ
¡ t¡' 'r"'- ,', jíi
"t ' '1-=-c~-=='=c="'-'==,,--~ . ~
q Of=-:c:= - , =-=c.=--,-----=--- -, -k
'H-: 'P-'- c 1"'~ s Ii. ?' "" ',¡
~j ~ill=-'c:._...::-~--=-"c.:===~-~=-=::::]1 . r II
)r~F-~~_r:~ ~_:=~-:=-- -- Co . "1~
'.d~ ft-'-,-=,_:,.,-,;::",'-,-=-'~ to - &,,_),,~1~_~,. rLJ , 7:~:~~::~U~:~CNS
~ =' (IT -4------=r~"¿;;' V. ',,-~ ~-"'" ~ , ---.
-"-t. ' ~- ...:.. ',----------- . ~ , . ,
1='",:(jLA_~___,H -- "~ s '=~,',!ij ,r,J¡X=
~JI-ur---~-=:--~-~-~i. -~ --n ~ . 2: ~,
; ::,- Π- -~-=.==:~]:: )I hi
. ~,:il~~" -,---, ", _',A,,"~,,'-'--~,-=~ N.-, -,,=.-=.'.'.-'::_-=--=-. ¡",', ~~ '.~
fj] .:'OC:':.J - ' . ,]
j~-;J ~~-.'~ -:;-~-==='~-E.-7--' ;: J'E
--4i --- ---),-- ~ , .-'!.
'ST4T£; .ST. ".. ..'.,,' ~
~ ~L~L~=l r~~~l i
qQ C I V ][ C
0 L IF~ C:1 ~ "'LQ~
1, C lTY IFI R-IL $TAï¡O,~
~'£. OUNT"{ COUR.T i-IlcUS'E:.
W ITH pl2..OpO':i'~:;¡ "R.f.'vI?IONS I
3' <.OUNTY ",f:..LFAR.Å ¡ß',- o'Go.
4-COUNTY JA:L..
15, PR.OpO~y....D CiTY UA"-,-
4). J\"E:.I:,CR.-I,c.L "AU.. WITH
~t
--4--- .
-"
::'
'I
I;,
¡i,
11:
i¡
Iii
'
I
¡
¡
I
--=-'::'-":':'::'---~'~_::-'-~~~,~-'---'----:"'-"'-'=' . ~'--:'-""._", ._~~=,'~"'~-':'="'-'~'-.~"~=="::=-~-=:-----_:""::"=:..=,::",,:,,- I
L -- ,_.,. ---",_. .0. - ,. 0.,. ., ,....~~~=~~ ~~::~~..,~-,.~.~.,' ..,' _._-. -- ',.. --J
CENTER
PLAN 0°
...;,
, "
. ,
,
. ,
'I- ~
'. ' ,.
'," ',.','
,.',',\, -- / .-tl~"¡";"':""
\ ( ""'¡O,
\ ,1' ¡
\
i;
'-'Z'-"jfl"C>" -';-'-
~?:I /
l~~:% ! ;'
i,i,;I, J..l
i :¡{;' r/
'if' if, """ '
.-" /",/.
." ,.-
\' ,1/ -.
\j ,
:; ~t¡.tö)'/" ":;'
I
i
..' ----J
l'
0/'
(
.I
t
.; .
:.:.:.,,:¡-
. ~.....
'/
'-
¡"
i- :.
,{
, "j
/
! ./
.'
J::, ,
/
, A/
, ,
, I
,.. I
"
,.- ¡
\
\
\
'\ \,
, '
\
,¡
í
\:It -,',
,/,'- //
.. //
I i
J~. /1 t
')" -
,
./
j, , , .
. . ! ¡
\ II {
, \'
...
, '
/
i
,
f
¡,oJ
/0 ,,;,
"f iN
',j¡-/ l,.'
,'.','" i'
, . ,/
.-/
; l," ~-
.-'-,
.'1
./
i i
/",
,/ ~
¡
I,
I
"
!
¡,
"
'\
I'
I
I'
'i'
~
;
;;
Î .'
.,i '
I'
~
:,',\,
\: '-,,'
Ii '
(1 \'
:' II
i' '
.' -
/
I , .
.
¡.
\
! .\
t, " \
í
\1/7':-'
\.'/ .'
;~ '.
í. /.
I.
T!' '
, i
;:,
. -
" ,-
'. I
;" ¡
\\,1/'
\\"j
ì
~'..
t..
\
.~
,,1,\
'i '; \
, ' \
:". ,t, \
:~~~"-'1 \ \
,0 \
.'r \
\
.)/"".. "
~,,~
, "
\
\
\
\
\
~
" \
- ,
\
\
\
Iœ11
~
~~;
. I
\ \
\ "
í I
\
\
\
1
\
\
~
~
"
, Ii
¡:
¡,
I'
f>.
,
\
~
~
I
::
I'
I
\
, \,
\
\
\
I
i
\,
\
-~,-~"---,..
rÌ
'I
, ~
l
If
II
i:
I'
.~' "...
I
,>Ì
, \
, ,
,\
\
II ,
, \
\
\
,,\ ,;..,
/'
\ -_/,./---'
5-(
"\-
\
F'lood Control.
The Corps of Engineers have Federal funds available
this year for completion of a construction plan for a complete flood control
system for Salina.
This is Phase II of the project.
Phase I is the pre-
planning work and this is considered to be complete.
Phase III is the
actual construction And operation.
Before beginning Phase III, the Corps
will require from the City:
.
(1)
Assurance of right-of-way (documenta11y supported).
This wi11
entail an engineering study and survey by the City to arrive at the most
satisfactory solution to problems caused by the levee, channels and dams to
Utilities (Sewers, Water, Gas, Electric and Telephone Lines)
Streets and Highways
Bridges
Railroads
Properties Outside the Levee
(2) A statement holding the Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Govern-
ment harmless from all claims.
(3) Assurance of the City's financial ability to construct its part
Ir
of the project and maintain it in the future. This entails a detailed cost
estimate including right-of-way, together with all necessary lega1
determinations.
The City is allowed five years to take action.
After five years, the
project is automatically deauthorized.
It is reasonable to expect completion of the project in two to three
years after Phase III is started.
This means that the City must have funds
available in 1956.
The latest estimate by the Corps of the City share was
approximately ~;700,OOO.
1-19
Reoommendations and estimates of the City obligations for the flood
control program are presented as follows:
(Right-of-way)
. Levee - 68,000 feet (12.88 miles) less ~ 14,500 feet of existing dike
at the south and west.
Width of right-of-way will vary from 50 feet
to 200 feet, dependent upon height of levee.
Bottom width will be 8 to 10
times levee height.
Right-of-way should be sufficient to allow an access
road on inside or both sides of the levee for maintenance and inspectio~.
No. on Map
Descr~~~ion
Estimated
Cost
Extension
(1 ) Diversion Channel, 3,300 feet
(2) & (3) Streets on Both Sides of Channel,
developed by securing sufficient width
of right-of-way
"
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7), (8)
& (9)
(10)
Upper Dam and Access Road
Lower Dam and Access Road
Drainage Ditch (future storm sewer)
Storm Sewer Extensions to Levee
Relocated Dry Creek Channel,
west side
Additional Areas for Excess Fill
and/or Retaining Walls where streets
cross the levee
TOTAL - Diversion Channel
and Pertinent Items
$ 180,000.00
1-20
(Street and Road levee Crossings)
Clockwise around system beginning at upper dam.
Estimated
No. on Map Description Cost Extension
(11) East Crawford Avenue
(Part of County bridge project) ~. 0.00
(12) East Cloud Avenue 1,600.00
(13) Roach - Ohio Street County Road 1,300.00
(14) East "MJte111 Road 2,000.00
(15) US 81 (South) (State and Federal Aid) (12,000.00)
(16) West "M:>tel" Road 600.00
(17) West Cloud Avenue 200.00
(18) West Crawford Avenue 400.00
(19) State Street 1,000.00
(20) US 40 (West) (State and Federal Aid) (4,000.00)
(21) West North Street 700.00
(22) Grand Avenue 2,000.00
(23) Euclid Avenue 900.00
(24) US 81 (North) (State and Federal Aid) (6,500.00)
(25) Fifth Street 3,200 .00
(26) Ohio Street 3,000.00
(27) US 40 (East) (State and Federal Aid) (5,000.00)
(28) East North Street 600.00
(29) Iron Avenue 7,500.00
Subtotal. $ 52,500.00
Less Estimated Participation
by Federal and State Agencies 27,500.00
TOTAL - Street and Road
Levee Crossings $ 25,000.00
1-21
No. on Map
(29)
(30 )
(17 )
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(Bridges)
Description
Estimated
Cost
Iron Avenue
$ 140,000.00
Greeley Avenue
(Not Recommended)
West G;l.oud Avenue
0.00
West Crawford Avenue
57 , 500 .00
60,000.00
State Street
us 40 (Uest) (State and Federal Aid)
(62,000.00)
60,000.00
West North Street
Grand Avenue
60,000.00
$ 439,500.00
Subtotal
Less Estimated Participation
by Federal and State Agencies
62,000.00
TOTAL - Bridges
(Railroads)
Cost obligations for railroad grade changes and bridge work
is not definite as regards the City's share.
There are seven
crossings of the levee system (Rl) to (R7), inclusive, as located
on the map. Some, if not all, may be considered satisfactory as
sandbag gaps..
Such gaps are allowab1e when they do not exceed
Extension
~ 377,500.00
5 feet in height. Presently known data indicates all seven cross-
ings come within this limitation. The time angle is critical,
however, mRking it difficult if not impossible to protect against
flashflooding, especially through crossings on the south and west.
TOTAL - (Rl) to (R5), Inclusive
1-22
Assumed None
(Utilities)
It has been assumed that all required changes to privately
owned utilities (gas, telephone and power) will be borne entirely
by those companies.
No. on Nap
Description
Estimated
Cost
Extension
Sanitary Sewers
(29)
Iron Avenue Crossing at Bridge over
Diversion Channel
~ 25,000.00
Storm Sewers
(7)
Extension to Levee Northwest Corner
of Edgemere Addition
16,000..00
(8 )
Combining and Extension to Levee
of Iron, State, Ash and Park
Street Lines
33,000.00
(9 )
Combining and Extension to Levee
of Grand, Woodland, Antrim and
Ninth Street (US 81) Lines
133,500.00
TOTAL - Sanitary and Storm Sewers
~ 207,500.00
Water Mains
(29)
Iron Avenue Crossing at Bridge
OVer Diversion Channel
5,000.00
I'rainage Ditch
South of Cloud to River (This item
also appears in the storm sewer
section of this report)
13,000.00
Engineering, Legal, Inspection and Contingencies
80,000.00
GRAND
TOT A L - Flood Control
~ 888,000 .00
1-23
FLOOD CONTROL F'INANCING
(2-3/4 Percent Interest)
Year
(1)
Extension
(2)
(3)
1957
1958
~ ,8,300
23,200
22,800
1959
1960
22,400
22,000
1961
1962
21,600
1963
1964
21,200
20,800
1965
20,400
::¡i182 , 700
Totals
Beyond
19ó5
212,100
688,100
~~
t'
~¡i
8,300
23,200
7,900
22,800-
22,400
22,300
21,900
22,000
21,600
21,500
21,100
21,200
20,700
- 20.300
20.800
:,,;162,300
232,500
~\13 5, 700
243,500
(1) ~300,000 Bond - 2l-year - issued in 1956
(2) .,aoo,ooo Bond - 2l-year - issued in 1957
(3) $288,000 Bond - 21-year - issued in 1958
EXHIBIT
.::; 8,300
31,500
53,900
67,500
66,300
65,100
63,900
62,700
61,500
;~480, 700
s
OIJ/o -Sl're>eJl-
I'D,."" ~;' Pc1".
NOTE. ;
Levee, Dams & Channe Is
located as shown on Sept.
1953 Corp. of Engineers
i: plan - File No. A-15-12
o¡
:1
~ l,,/sf'¡"9 L~ I~'.s
Nlt'I '6>r~~ç
5",-,....
COUNTIt. Y
C<'UI!.
~
..-
¡
,
i .~,
L
, l
NOUHVI"..,
COV""'2.Y
B
/.
l'
'l' 1-
~;~~ @ -,<
,/
/.^ ohio -rl'f"t"fIo
/::;/ ¿o"".. 8/1 Pa,.,
/ @
c<.u@,
H
A
F
@
@
fLOOD CONTROL MAP
Park and Playground.
Parks and playgrounds should be readily
available to the persons they serve.
It is desirable and recommended
that they be spaced so that all sections of the City be no more than a
mile from a park area.
In recent months the City has acquired two areas
which, when developed, will become important parts of a wel1 planned park
system.
However, three additional recreational developments seem to be
warranted and, before all available vacant land is occupied, the City
should acquire suitable grounds.
If the expansion of the City continues
at its present rate, there is but little time to accomplish this
suggestion.
Area No.
(1)
(2)
(3 )
(4)
(5 )
The following map illustrates th.) present facilities.
Recommendations and estimates are preserl~ed as follows:
Description
Estimated Cost
Development of Indian Rock Park, including
access roads, walks, landscaping" fencing
playground and picnic facilities, '3tC.
~$ 30,000.00
Land Acquisition - Southeast, appro~.mate1y
20 acres. Suggested use, picnic (;.:-ounds
and play area
30,000.00
Land Acquisition - West-central, ap¡roxi-
mately 20 acres. Suggested use, ¡icnic
grounds, play area, baseball and loftba1l
diamonds
25,000.00
Land Acquisition - Northeast, approfimately
25 acres, Suggested use, childre~'s play
area, baseball and softball diarno~ls
25,000.00
Development of Proposed New Areas "
2,3 and 4, above
30,000.00
/
1-24 ;' ;
!
, J
Consideration IDight also be given to a tract along Dry Creek
of some 15 acres at Thirteenth and Woodland for use ~g a neighborhood
picnic and playground park.
It would also be advisable to have park ground in mind when
ri~lt-of-way is being procured for the flood control. levee, dams, and
channels.
It is conceivable that desirable additions to the park system
could be acquired at little extra cost to the City.
"
1-25
PARK AND PLAYGROUND PROGRJl.M FINANCING
(2-3/4 Percent Interest)
(1) (;~) (3)
B E. I Development
Year Payments of Nouly Land Costs Development of Extension
Due Acquired Areas Proposed Areas ProEosed Areas
1955 ,", 4,500 '. 4, 500
',,' .. >
1956 31,400 ,. 800 32,200
',;>
1957 31,900 8,300 .. 800 '~1, 000
"
)
1958 30,500 8,100 8,300 " 300 47,200
" I
1959 31,000 7,900 8,100 2,800 49,800
1960 29,600 7,700 8,600 2,700 48,600
1961 30,100 14,700 2,900 47,700
1962 28,700 6,800 5 ,400 40,900
1963 29,200 7,200 2,700 39,100
1964 27,800 13,400 2,900 44,100
1965 28,300 6,800 5,400 40,500
Totals '::;303,000 :::' 32,800 74,700 ::; 25,100 '::; 435,600
Beyond
1965 12,900 7,900 20,800
(1) ::;;30,000 Bond - 5-year - issued in 1955
(2) :::;30,000 Bond - 5-year - issued in 1956
':/25,000 Bond - 5-year - issued in 1959
~>25 ,000 Bond - 5-year - issued 1n1962
(3) ::;10,000 Bond 5-year issued in 1957
:::ao , 000 Bond - 5-year - issued in 1960
:::)10,000 Bond - 5-year - issued in 1963
EXHIBIT I
. .
LEGEND
, i ~ Present Areas
I œ Proposed Areas
COVNTlt.Y
CLvl!.
'"
"",OUHYI",,,
COVN"T"-V
s
F,
.
l.~~ee
h
- h:;-' II
-=--d - //
/~' - =-~
þ ( .
/~f ohiø S'f,.,,¡10 ~
// et:t-r¡' 6~ Pn-r
/
.
CLUe,
H
A
B
MUNIC 'PAL PARK
MAP
. ---,,'
Sewers and Sewage Treatment.
A most serious condition is rapidly
developing and must be faced within the next few years.
It is the result
of the following factors:
Population Increases
Air Conditioning Water Demands
Combination Storm and Sanitary Sewers
Portions of City Raw Sewage Still Discharged Into River
The present disposal system is adequate in size and design for the expected
gain in population if remedial action is taken with regard to air condition-
ing and combined storm and sanitary mains.
For purposes of this section
it would be sufficient if air conditioning waste waters were directed
to the storm sewer system.
However, the increasing necessity for water
conservation dictates that either an ordinance prohibiting nonconserved
air conditioning water be inacted or the installation of sanitary sewer
meters with adequate and realistic charges imposed.
Quite certainly
it would be more reasonable and economical to control air conditioning waste
than to provide additional water supply and treatment facilities, together
with increased sewage disposal ficilities to handle peak demands in the
..
season of heavy air conditioning loads.
This wil1 be further developed
in Part II.
The following map locates the recolnmendations made for this period.
1-26
Recommendations and estimates are presented as follows,
(Sanitary System)
Ash street Pumping Station and !~~in to Disposal Plant,
This
recently approved project is well planned and a mucll needed addition to the
sanitary sewer system,
ì~~n completed it will eliminate the dumping of raw
sewage into the river during the su~ner months and relieve the heavy 10ad
of the main pumping station at the foot of Ash Street and its major feeder
main.
It will also provide pumping capacity to the disposal plant for the
predicted growth of the City.
Estimated Cost
$300,000
New Residenta1 Areas:
Present major sanitary sewer facilities appear
to be adequate in all areas except south of Cloud Street between US 81
(Ninth Street) and the proposed flood control levee on the south and east.
That area will require a pumping station and combination gravity-force main
leading to the recently completed pumping station at the river on Ohio
..
Street north of Crawford.
Conceivably this future station might be located
near the corner of Ohio and Cloud in the same general area proposed as a
possible site for a southeast park.
Estimated Cost
$140,000
1-27
(Storm System)
Slour)l :
The accompanying map illustrates the area (A, B, and C) within
the proposed flood control levee from which storm water finds its way
into this waterway.
Without the levee, the overflow from flooded Dry Creek
is added from the southwest, resulting in considerable damage to properties
adjacent to the slough.
As a consequence, there is a meandering strip
of undeveloped land through the City from Cloud Street to the river
at Prescott, and development of the area south of Cloud Street is dis-
couraged.
The first practical step towards solution of the problem is
to take care of the waters accumulated in Area A (approximately 440 acres).
This water concentrates on the half-section line of Section 25 near a point
on the line where it crosses Fifth Street extended.
It is therefore pro-
posed to construct a diversion ditch paralleling the half-section line
from the eY~sting bridge under the Union Pacific Railroad to the levee line
and thence to the river.
The present flood control plans include a pumping
station at the levee near where this ditch crosses the levee.
This same
ditch line within the levee would become a street in future platting and
eventually be the location of a storm sewer line,
It is recommended that
..
the right of way be acquired and the ditch excavated whether ~ ~ ~ ~
contr~ plan ~ approved.
By such action it makes it considerably more
practical to install a storm sewer and ditch in the slough to reclaim the
adjacent areas for property development.
Estimated Cost
(;13,000
1-28
With Area A eliminated, the slough would then drain Areas Band C.
In addition, this report recommends the separation of storm water from the
sanitary system on South Santa Fe and South Fifth Streets.
This divorce-
ment adds Area D to the slough, a total of approximately 580 acres.
All of thesewators progressively accumulated and finally concentrate
at Crawford between Second and Third Street.
It is at this point that
they join the storm sewer carrying the runoff from Area E, which is
approximately 300 acres.
The existing 72-inch sewer from Crawford to the
river at Prescott is overloaded and is actually only sized to handle
Area E waters.
This 72-inch line is therefore not available for any
of the slough waters.
It is not economically feasible to put all of the slough runoff waters
that can be expected Hance in 10 years" underground.
A "once in 2-year"
underground line in addition to a greatly reduced surface ditch is suggested
as an alternate method of solving the problem.
The underground system
starts approximately 1,000 feet south of Cloud Street with 42-inch rein-
forced concrete pipe and progressively increases in size and number of pipes
to Bond Street where it becomes a 9- by 8-foot reinforced concrete box
..
to the river.
The surface ditch starts at the same point south of Cloud
Street with a 20-foot wide bottom and approximately 2 feet deep and pro-
gressively increases in size to a 50-foot bottom, approximately 3-1/2 feet
deep, from Republic Street to the river.
This surface drainage would be
carried under the street crossings by the batteries of squashed corrugated
pipes that are being installed.
This narrow and shallow ditch can be satis-
factorily maintained and should be landscaped and grassed to be pleasing
to the eye.
As a result, additional lots adjacent to the ditch line can
be developed as residential sites.
1-29
Slough Drainage System Estimate
L o.c at ion Underground Structure Ditch
Hidth & Depth
Fro m T 0 Type Size Feet Estimated Cost Year
-
River at Prescott S Side Cra1-lford RO Box 9' X 8' 50 x 3-1/2 ~ 113,000.00* 1958
S Side Crauford 11 Side Bond RC Box 9' X 81 50 x 3-1/2 61,200.00* 1958
N Sic1./3 Eond S Side RahID RC? Dbl.78" 50 x 3-1/2 50,000.00 1960
~ S Side Rahm S Side Hilson RCP 76" x 72" 50 x 3-1/2 67,500.00 1960
I
\..ù
a
S Side Hilson S Side Republic RCP Dbl. 72t1 50 x 3-1/2 81,500.00 1960
S Si<le Republic S Side Je't.¡ell RC? 60" & 66" 40 x 2-1/2 90,800.00 1962
S Side Jeuell S Side Claflin ReP 54" & 60" 30 x 3 34,200-.00 1962
S Side Claflin S Side Cloud RCF Db1- 54" 30 x 2-1/2 39,400.00 1962
S Side Oloud South 1,000 Feet RC? 42" 20 x 2 16.600.00 1962
Subtotal .~ 554¡200.00*
* If the sugGestion to relieve the Crmn:ord ~treet sewer by installing Alternate 2(B)
(See Page 1-32), is not taken, the 9' x 81 RC box from Bond Street to the river
in the slough can be reduced to a 7-1/2' x 7-1/2' RC box.
The cost of the completed slough storm system would be reduced by
-40,200.00
Vaking a Total for the Slough Drainage System
/', 514,000.00
No costs have been included for filling the existing slough and
grading the ditch.
Undoubtedly the project wi11 have to proceed section
by section beginning at the river.
It should be completed as soon as
possible, if developments south of Cloud Street are to be encouraged.
It would not be unsound to acquire the required right of way and grade
a ditch from 1,000 feet south to Cloud Street to confine the waters
in that area.
South Santa Fe - South Fifth Street Storm Sewer:
-
The storm water in this
area is presently collected in the sanitary sewer system.
(Area D on map.)
To comply with Board of Health requests and to ease the load on the disposal
plant, it is recommended that a storm system be installed discharging
into the slough.
Alternate No.2 providing for relief of the Crawford
Street sewer requires the use of a 9- by 8-foot reinforced concrete
box in the slough from Bond Street to the river, as.outlined previously.
1-:31
South Santa Fe - South Fifth Storm ,seHer :estimate
Location
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
M a ins Laterals
Size Length l5-inch
Inches Feet Number
0 n
Fro m
T 0
Bas i c
Santa Fe Claflin f.'li.nneapolis 18
Santa Fe Hinneapolis Republic 24
Republic SB.nta Fe Fifth 30
Fifth RG pub lic Hilson 30
l1i1son Santa Fe Fifth 18
Fifth 1Tilson Bond 36
Santa Fe 3001 S Bond Bond 18
TOT A L - Basic
I:-'
I
'-.oJ Alternate No.1
N
Bond Santa Fe Fifth 18
Bond Fifth SloUCh 42
1,200 5
700 2
400
900 2
500
800 2
300 2
500
800
TOT A L - AJternate No.1
Alternate 1:0. 2
?revision can be made to relieve the load on th3 Crawford street 60-L~ch
lines carrying Area L ~aters. It could be accomplished in 2 steps:
Bond
Bond
Santa Fe
Fifth
Fifth
Slough
66
72
500
800
TOT A L - Alternate No. 2(A)
Followed by:
9th & Frost
Bond & Santa Fe
66
TOT A L - ~lternate No. 2(B)
1,000
Estimated Cost
':; 40,600.00
, 14,5CJ.00
':' 51,000.00
:~ 35,000.00
Reo a pit u 1 a t ion
South Santa Fe - South Fifth Storm Sewer Estimate
Basio System + Alternate No.1 t' 55,100.00
',~
Basic System + Alternate No. 2(A) A 91,700.00
',,'
Basic System + Alternate No.2 (A & B) ~) 126, 700 ~OO
Vdscel1aneous;
The eventual necessity to provide a sewage pumping station
and main to connect the Country Club areas and new developments east
of the river with the disposal plant must be kept in mind.
It may also
become a necessity to install a storm sewer in the business district
to relieve the load on the disposal plant and to comply with Board of Health
demands.
1-3.3
SE1,JERS AND SEvJAGE TREATMD:NT PROGRAM FINANCING
(2-3/4 Percent Interest)
(1) (2) (3)~~ (4) (5)
B t I Normal Ash Street Slough Santa Fe
Year Payments Yr. VJork Puroping Storm SE Pumping & 5th St.
Due Inc. 1955 Sta. &. l.hin Sewer Sta. ~ Main Storm S. Extension
1955 124,000 t~ 124,000
..
1956 121,000 " 1,500 122,500
,~
1957 115,900 15,800 I" 8,300 140,000
,(
1958 108,700 19,900 38,200 ...~ 4,800 171,600
1959 44 AOO 23,800 37,400 22,200 I' 3,900 131,700
.. )
1960 43,400 27,600 36,600 21,700 17,800 147,100
1961 42,400 17,500 35,800 26,700 17,500 139,900
1962 1.1,500 17,500 35,000 46,100 17,100 '::, 3,500 160,700
1963 . 16,200
40,500 17,500 34,100 50,100 16,700 175,100
1964 17,500 33,300 67,200 16,300 15,800 150,100
1965 17,500 32,500 65,600 15 ,900 15,500 147,000
Totals ::~681, 800 ',:.176,100 ~l291,200 !~304 ,400 l:il05,200 I' ~:;l, 609,700
.'51,000
Beyond
1965 (continuing) I' 6 :':348,700 'i 59,800 ~:)98 ,700 (, 569,700
..,; 2,400 ",'
(1) ~:; 55,200 bond - 5-year - issued 1955
':; 16,000 bond - 5-year - issued each year
(2) (~300 ,000 bond - II-year - issued 1956
(3) ~>17 4,000 bond - ll-year - issued 1957
!:il99,000 bond - II-year - issued 1960
t' II-year issued 1962
,';181,000 bond - -
(4) r II-year issued 1958
,,>140,000 bond - -
(5) ",:;127,000 bond - II-year - issued 1961
* Highest cost alternates used in each case.
EXHIBIT J
" .
Oh/o ~"r'e'!-
4-t:1~~ ~y Pt:1,.,.
¡i
I
STORM DRAINAGE.
~ Area A
~ Area B
~ Area C
0 Area D
lIT] Area E
--- Storm Sewer
.....-- Sanitary Sewer Main
~
SA"""""
CQUNT"-Y
¡:,iv,rs/on
Cht:1nn4'/ CLUe.
,[
Non-VI"""
COUNH" Y
S
CLUe.
H
A
ohio ~:l-r't1'"
é-aS' f' -5:; Pa~,.
F
L.
A
B
-_.J
&
MAP
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
Streets and Bridges.
The development of wide and direct major
trafficways not only facilitates traffic movement, but it also removes
undesirable traffic from the remaining streets.
Experience has indicated
that major trafficways located about one-half mile apart adequately
handle city traffic.
Such a system of major trafficways should include
both highway bypass and cross-town routes and when completed, resemble
a gridiron pattern.
Recommendations and estimates follow.
(North-South Bound)
Santa Fe Avenue, Ninth Street,
and the US Highway 81 bypass are the
present major trafficways in this direction.
They are rapidly becoming
inadequate due to Air Base activity and the growth of the City to the south
and east.
We recommend the early completion of the Ohio Avenue east-bypass
as a definite part of this ten-year program.
~fuile not a part of this
report, we recommend the completion of the north-south pattern of major
trafficways, by developing a portion of Fourth Street between the inter-
section of Fourth Street extended and the proposed Ohio Street east-bypass
at the south to South Street at Fifth Street on the north.
This involves
a new diagonal cutoff skirting the water plant facilities.
1-34
(East-West Bound)
\re recommend the designation of the following streets as major
trafficways at this time.
Pacific-Broadway (US Highways 40 and 81)
Iron-College-State Street Route
Crawford Avenue
Republic Avenue
Cloud Street
Developments in the next few years may dictate the desirability
of adding South Street from Fifth Street to the US Highway 81 bypass
to this listing.
The reco~nendation at this time is only to direct atten-
tion to this possibility that involves widening the present street and
opening the route between the ~fissouri Pacific tracks and the US Highway 81
bypass.
All portions of North Street may some day be considered a part
of this east-west bound system, but is l~t a recommendation of this report.
OJ
(Bridges)
Of the seven bridges over the Smoky Hill River, only one, Iron Avenue,
is considered satisfactory in both size and condition.
The other six are
in varying degrees, both inadequate in size and structurally deteriorated.
It is the recommendation of this report that a program of replacement be
initiated to assure completion within the period covered.
1-35
(Hiscellaneous)
The present program of asphalt resurfacing of brick paved so-called
major trafficways followed by similar treatment of major streets, especially
in the business district, should be continued.
This has been accomplished
by financing through the General and Special Improvement Account of the
b'udget in lieu of general obligation bonds.
When and wherever possible the
funds so allotted should be increased in order that the over all program may
be hurried to completion.
The tax levy for this work in the 1955 budget
represented 0.54 mills as compared to a statute limitation of 3 mills.
Strictly enforced minimum specification should be continued on all
oil mat street surfacings.
Concrete or asphalt paving should be encouraged
in every way possible to lengthen the life of street improvements.
Consideration has been given to suggestions and recommendations
for other street improvements.
They include provision of two-lane medial
strip pavings on US Highway 40 (east side), US Highway 81 bypass (west and
south), US High\-TaY 40 (west side), and the proposed Ohio Avenue east bypass;
(future need for two-lane medial strip paving on tlle Ohio east bypass should
..
definitely be considered in planning this street and the two new bridges
involved); Marymount and Country Club Road paving; various street widening;
open and pave Greeley from Ohio Avenue to }hrymount Road; etc.
These items
have not been included for on8 or more reasons, namely
Not l;ecessary at This Time
Problem can be Alleviated by Extensic.m and Cc.ntj nuance
of Present Parking Restrictions
Problem Will be Lessened by Other Proposed Improvements
The improvements recommended have been located on the following
street map.
1-36
In this section of the report it has been assumed that the flood
control project will become a reality.
For example, the bridg,es have been
estimated and sized to span controlled flow between the upper and lower
dams thereby reducing the bridge costs by a minimum of 50 percent.
This savings of approximately ~;250,OOO should be kept in mind when
considering the costs to the City of the flood col~rol project.
1- 3 '7
Year
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
Totals
Street and Bridge Pr~~~~m and Estimated Costs
Resurfacing Bridge Ohio Street Misc. Street
Programa Program* Bypass* Improvements
..' 44,000
30,000
30,000
. . 40, Ooob
Extension
..' 44,000
30,000
70,000
165,000
45,000
60,000
150,000
65,000
70,000
184,000
95,000
, ; 978 ,000
* Items which may require bond election
a .
Resurfacing Program - no attempt has been made to set up a priority listing
for the major streets which should be resurfaced. The following map indi-
cates those streets recommended for consideration. This column indicates
the years and amounts available within the program of the report. The
amounts are expected to be levied as General and Special Improvement Funds
and arc not bond issues.
b I'liden, curb and gutter Claflin Street from Ninth 3treet to Highland, and
widen, curb, gutter and pave Ninth Street from Cloud to the alley south
of Je\o1ell.
..
~::; 40, OOoc
',:, 125, OOOd
c ReplacÐ Ohio Street bridge.
d Start Ohio Street east bypass project. Total estimated cost, including new
bridge north of Crawford, ',,;433,000. 48 t concrete between Cloud and Pacific
Streets. 22' concrete on north and south connections to US 81. ¡he assump-
tion is made that approximately 1/3 of the cost would be availablefrom
State-Federal funds reducing the City cost to ('>275,000.
45,000
25,000
31,000e
4,00cf
e Replace Kemlood bridge.
f Hiden and pave Crawford street from Missouri-Pacific tracks to Phillips.
g Replace ~mlnut Street bridge.
h Replace Ash Street bridge.
i Replace 151m street bridge.
j Pave Cloud street from Ninth Street to Ohio (City share).
k Replace Mulberry Street bridge.
150,000d
25,000
35,000
60,000
60,000
~) 354,000
40,000g
35,00Ch
35,000i
35 , oock-
89, oocj
::, 216,000
~:~ 275,000
) 133,000
1-38
STREET AND BRIDGE PROGRAM FINANCING
(2-3/4 Percent Interest)
(I) (2) -or
B 8- I' Normal Yearly
Year Payments Work Including Recommended Resurfacing Extension
Due Est. 1955 Projects Program
1955 56,600 ~~ 44 000 ¡\ 100,600
.., ,P
1956 64,600 '* 3,100 30,000 97,700
"1'
1957 57,800 20,700 30,000 108,500
1958 49,300 37,200 rI' 1,100 87,600
',~
1959 36,900 53,300 9,600 45,000 144,800
1960 23,900 68,900 26,000 25,000 143,800
1961 23,300 78,300 26,500 128,100
1962 17,700 87,200 33,400 25,000 163,300
1963 15,200 96,200 48,900 35,000 195,300
1964 13,100 104,700 52,900 60,000 230,700
\
1965 9,600 --113,300 58,400 60,000 241;300
Totals ,.' 368,000 ::' 662,900 ':; 256,800 j 354,000 ~J 1,641,700
Beyond
.. 1965 (continuing) :, 478,800 ( continuing)
(1) t23,800 bend 5-year - issued in 1955
~88,600 bond - II-year - issued in 1955
~Þ24,000 bonds - S,:"year - issued each year 1956 tbru 1965
~:;80,OOO bonds - II-year - issued each year 1956 tbru 1965
(2) ':'40,000 bonds -. II-year
$125,000 bond - II-year
:)35,000 bonds - ll-year
- issued in years 1957,1958 & 1962
- issued in 1958
- issued in years 1960, 1963s
1964 and 1965
~:;l50 ,000 bond - II-year - issued in 1961
':)89,000 bond II-year issued in 1964
"General and Special Improvement" (in lieu of bonds) levies
(3)
EXHIBIT K
-------- -------
LEGEND
..
~
~
!:-
!: )::(
Resurface - Hot ASphort~
concrete - Present st.
Concrete - Proposed st.
Bridge ~
~
~ , '"~- ':
.-/:--
-\:/-:,>
-.
- ~~\::Loi
'~î :
r-
¡r
Non""..""
COUN,2.Y
S
CLUI!.
H
F
.
l4 L.~~-~.~
:If
Ohio slreer
t: as! 13~ Pass
B
-.. -
A
. ----"",'
STREET & BRIDGE MAP
PART 'II
WATER WORKS PROGRAH
Purpose
This portion of the report has been prepared to forecast the demand
of a rapidly growing population upon the existing facilities and what effect
the cost of satisfying this demand wil1 have upon the finanica1 structure
of the Water Department.
Per Capita Consumption and Annual Pumpage
The rate of water usage has been increasing even faster~ than the
population..
Undoubtedly the biggest factor has been a quite unbelieveable
increase in usage for air conditioning purposes.
Department records are
not the only proof of this development. Electric power shortages in the
summer of 1954 were attributed to a considerable degree to air conditioning
demands.
Communities of all sizes throughout the country have been forced
to face the situation.
Many have already taken and the others are planning
..
remedial action.
There are, of course other principal causes including:
more sanitary facilities, automatic washers, garbage disposal units, and
better kept lawns.
Unfortunately we have at the same time experienced a
drastic deficiency in the annual precipitation.
The over-all effect has
been a serious fall in the well water levels which are the principal source
of Salina's supply.
Completion of the facilities for pumping water from the Smoky Hill River
is scheduled for next spring.
This secondary source of water will alleviate
the supply problem to a considerable degree.
2-1
..'
Exhibit L charts the usage of water in recent years and predicts the
increases that wil1 occur with the population growth estimated in Part I,
Exhibit A.
.
The amount of water pumped per day per capita has increased from
63 gallons in 1926 to 183 gal10ns in 1954. The average water pumped per
year is the product of average gallons per day, population, and number
of days per year.
The total amount of water pumped per year increased
from 411 million gal1ons in 1926 to 2,073 million ga110ns in 1954.
The curves shown on Exhibit L indicate an estimated 200 gallons per day
per capita and an annual pumpage of 2,920 million gal10ns in 1965.
"Lost" Water and "Free" Water
-
This unaccounted for water is the difference between the water pumped
and the water metered.
In recent years considerable progress has been made
in reducing the amount of 10st water which is the result of pipeline leakage,
nonregistered low flows, and faulty meter registration. This 10st water
averaged about 30 percent or the total pumped a few years ago and coupled
..
with an average of 5 percent of "free" water to the other City departments
amounted to 35 percent.
In 1952 the total was 38.3 percent; 1953,33.4 per-
cent; and 1954,31.8 percent.
This improvement was the result of a continu-
ing program of meter and pipeline maintenance, repair, and replacement.
It is recommended that this program be continued and no change is suggested
in the method of handling "free" water.
2-2
200 rT ".... 3500
"
....
....
"
,;'
"
,/
'"'
I W ""'
C) 175 3000 It
«
0.. «
~ uJ
:> / >
0.. /
It
W x )( / uJ
C) 0..
« 2500 ~
It 150
w /
> 0
« / ..J
/ ..J
> «
..J / C)
It
« Z
w 0
> 125 2000::ï
'oJ O ..J
> ~
« xx 'oJ
0
I/)
It Z
W
0.. 100 1500 «
~
«
I- 0
0.. I-
«
\) 0
W
It Il.
w 0 ~
0.. 75 1000 :>
I/) . I 0..
tH
Z
0 -L It
..J W
..J l-
. « «
' c) ~
50 500
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965
WATER
USAGE
TRENDS
EXHIBIT ilL"
Air Conditioning
The consideration of conserving water used in air conditioning is
looked upon differently by the consumer, the Water Department, and the City.
Cost is probably the only concern of the customer or, in other words, if the
cost is low the customer will not be interested in conserving water.
The Water Department is concerned when the capacity of the facilities or
source of supply may be exceeded.
The City, although owner of theutility,
must consider the effect on storm and sanitary sewers, sewage treatment
plants, and water treatment plants.
The City must also consider the effect
upon the health and economic welfare of the community resulting from a
shortage of water.
Air conditioning must be considered separately in Water Department
studies because of its phenominal growth and because of its abnormally
poor annualload factor.
Window and console conditioners which are air
cooled are of course not considered.
We are primarily concerned with:
Nonconserved air conditioning which passes condenser cooling water
only once through the unit and then wastes it to the sewer, and
Conserved air conditioning which provides a cooling tower or
evaporative condenser to cool and recirculate the water.
Without giving any amount of supporting data, it is an accepted fact that
nonconserved air conditioning on a maximum day wil1 require approximately
1,200 gallons per day for every ton of conditioning equipment as compared
to approximately 60 gallons per day per ton for conserved units.
This
means that 20 times more water than necessary is used in the nonconserved
installations.
Here in central Kansas this should be a serious warning
2-3
especially since water supply ia limited and we are located in an area which
requires as nnnyor more hours of air conditioning per year to insure comfort
as any other in the country.
There is no question but what both residential and commercial air
conditioning installations, as well as industrial types, will continue
to increase rapidly.
Steps should be taken quickly to stop this avoidable
use of water.
Two solutions are available:
Where the source of water supply is obviously inadequate for the
predictable future to prohibit, by ordinance, the use of non-
conserved equipment. A model ordinance of this type has been
passed in a number of cities, and
The establishment of a rate schedule to charge properly for air
conditioning usage. This is also an action that has been taken
by a number of cities.
The last solution will be difficult in a certain sense since, the rate
schedule now provides for a decreasing charge as usage increases.
This
overcharge is based upon the difference between the normal eight or nine
months (fall-winter-spring) water demand and that during the air condition-
ing season.
If the rate schedule is realistic the consumer will soon
determine that it is more economical to install conserving equipment.
The restricted ordinance or the new rate schedule will both be
unpopular but very likely less unpopular than restricting the use of water
for lawn sprinkling; building additional water department facilities
including wells, tanks, and treatment plants; and additional facilities
in the sanitary sewer and sewage treatment system.
The problem is serious and should be faced even though the solution
may be disagreeable.
2-4
Receipts and Expenditure~
- ~ --
On the basis of recent trends and those predicted for the next decade
it would appear that the Water Department will be financially able to cope
with the foreseeable demands.
This is largely the result of the effect
of the new rate schedule and the recent decision to charge a $1.50 per foot
tapping service.
With this revenue, and a continuing practice of setting
aside monies for replacements and additional new facilities, there is no
recommendation in this section except that it be reviewed periodically.
Exhibit 11 shows predicted trends of these accounts.
Summary and Recommendations
--
EarlY Rction to restrict the use of nonconserved air conditioning water
will go a long Wf'l toward solving the immediate problems of the Water
Department and the Ci" ,y.
It will alleviate the supply problem to d con-
siderable degree and lore:?tall any need to plHn addition&.l fadli.ties
at the sewage treatment plant.
The present d~sposal system is adequate
for the predicted population of 40,000 in 1965, if the rate of per capita
...
usage is curtailed by such action.
2-5
,
J
.PffEDICTED ¡moo A.1ID OfEIW'ION BASED ON PREDICTED DlC1ŒJSK Dl POP&4nOR
Vater Reeeipt.a* 0 Jeftt.1Jq¡ IIeft!Iœ Baad P>Qmea.ts IS" r p 1 U ."
Popu- Ptaped 18 OJ:Ierat1ag Exp _u_. Surpl- IMl18iiag New f.4OO,oo 1...- (Tb~1Id8 at Dollara)
y",,-. Year llatiœ Bi1U. Thoa8aaIs (1'h0WlaDla of Do11.&rs
TåcMa- GallOll8 of S)'8tea SGt't. of
suds perY &111\"'& Dollar. 1irterest Pr1neipal Total Am1œ1 Cau1ati-n.
Plant T
1954 31.3 2.07 432 lOJ 103 329 40 66 106 223 73***
1955 31.9 1.W 400 114 75 189 2U )9 66 105 106 11;9****
1956 32.7 2.20 440 118 124. 242 198 50 in 111 81 260
1957 33.5 2.)0 .460 123 l3O 253 2fT! 49 81 136 71 331
1958 34.3 2.40 480 l28 136 264. 216 47 83 130 86 aU7
1959 35.1 2.48 496 133 l42 275 221 43 85 l28 93 510
1960 35.9 2.56 512 137 145 282 2)0 41 88 l29 1Dl 611
1961 36.1 2..62 S24 :w> 149 289 235 38 sa l26 109 720
1962 37.5 2.70 ~ 1.44 153 :J!11 243 35 90 125 118 838
1963 38..3 2.78 556 148 156 304 252 33 93 126 126 964
1~ 39.1 2.~ 564 151 161 :Jl2 '.
252 29 93 122 l3O 1,094
1965 40.0 2.92 571 155 164. 319 252 26 95 121 131 1,22~+
It there 1. set aside eaà,.es.r in total,'
an Ø'Øl'8C8 of: $lOO,ooo rar depreciatiœ,
a1JrteDa.ue 8JId repair J repla.ce88Dt 8.1Id
ezteD81G1U $ 1,225,000
1,100..000 (11 J8U"8 at 1100,000)
. 125,000 (S1Ø"JÙ.- at eM ot 1965)
* IDCl1ldea expected i&ppiJ:Ia 88II"Yiee !'Ø~8.
** S1D"plu to C8JV deprecrlat1c, a18teaa.Dce am. repûrJ
~ 881 exteaa18 ..
... Lese $100, 000 re 8 8t'ft - ~ BC8d SWi.. ....
: ~-i' . and '$ 5Q, 000 N4Nn'l& - Vat.!- Works Rep1aeTllIllrt. aDd
ExteuiOl18 .
**** Leu $30,000 resene - Re~- B8Ii Serie. tIC-.
+ ReInal t at '7O-dq 8wJa tarJ'8 .. ~ .
(~ 1aa epPt_1 i-W.)
++ It tbe 8I8G1d 12oõ,000 .r tbe a1ltM..1Hd $600,000 BcIIIII
Serlea tIC- are 11014 late 1111956 tb1a C81Ùat.iw 81B'p1.1I8
viU haw be8 ~ ..b. 14 to 1, m b7 reasca or the
add! tiGMl priœ1p&1 88i hterest PQ8IIt8.
Emmrf M
.
PART III
APPEND IX
Acknowledgements
All City Officials have been most cooperative in assembling the
data required to prepare this Planning Report.
Engineering studies and reports prepared in recent years have been
used where appropriate and changed only as directed by developments
since their preparation. The 1951 Hare and Hare Report was used as a
.
reference and some of the recommendations herein wil1 be found to concur
with that study.
~
Tax Comparisons - First Class Cities of Kansas
The fol10wing table s,nd chart are included for reference purposes.
The information was obtained from the Kansas Government Journal.
,.
..
3-1
'õt
10
0\
C/)
«
C/)
z
«
~
LL
0
10
'õt
0 10 on o~ (/)
Ii) N W
~
TOTAL TAX DOLLARS PER CAPITA -
I-
-
'õt U
on
0\ (/)
(/)
. «
..J
U
..
~
(/)
a:
-
LL
on
'õt ..J
10 0 10 0 100\
Ii) Ii) N N ..J
TAX RATE IN MILLS «
Z
'õt
10
0\ C/)
0
Z
w
a:
~
X
~
on
'õt
0 0 0 0 00\
0 0 0 0 0-
,... ~ ~ on
....
AS SESSED VALUATION IN DOLLARS PER CAPITA
,
EXHIBIT II N"
-.------ ---.------.-.-. . .--.-..---...-- .. - ---_.__..._._~--
..
'.
,j
"
..
..
.
".
.
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF TAX DATA FOR FIRST CLASS CITmS OF KANSAS
------ -
------
- " :
~ Assessed ~ ~ Tax Rat~ in Mills Tax Dollars: Total*
C i t Y : Year Population ~ Valuation in j Valuati~n ~ Bonded Indebtedness
Thousands ~ per Cap~ta ~ Total : ffiI Acct. ~ per Capita ~ in Thousands: per Capita
Atchison : 1945 11,865 ~ $ 11,004 ~ $ 9Zl ~ 12.85 : 11. 91
: 1954 12,ZlO ¡ 13,674 ¡ 1,114 ¡ 19.85 5.86 22.12 $ 540 : $; 44.01
Coffeyville 1945 : 19,120: 11,490 ~ 601 : 9.43 : 5.66
:
1954 17,368 14,317 824 21. 24 6.52 17.51 5,970 : 343.74
: :
: : :
: . - :
Fort Scott 1945 10,136 : 6,828 674 11.48 : 7.73
: 1954 : 10,438 : 9,874 946 19.74 6.00 : 18.67 474 45.41-
16.77 : 15.76
Hutchinson : 1945 30,981 29,120 940
: 1954 35,824 46,948 : 1,311 2O. 25 7.33 26.53 4,673 130.44
: : :
'Kansas City 1945 134,217 : 84,637 631 17.52 11.05
1954 126,876 92,071 726 34.66 8.14 25.15 : 6,383 50.31
: : : :
Lawrence : 1945 15,377 15,603 : 1,015 : 9.88 : 10.02
1954 20,057 25,036 1,248 19.63 7.08 : 24.51 : 1,306 65.11
:
:
Leavenworth 1945 : 19,320 10,980 568 17,49 9.93
1954 : 21,057 17,436 828 23.17 4.54 : 19.19 : 1,335 63.40
:
Parsons 1945 : 14,938 : 10,902 73° : 11.19 8.17
1954 15,326 15,059 983 16.42 5.36 16.14 964 62.90
Pittsburg 14,872 : 9.78
: 1945 20,903 711 13.74
: : :
: 1954 21,317 16,392 769 17.89 5.54 13.75 1,227 57.56
:
: :
Salina 1945 : 22,808 24,800 1,090 13.78 : 16.10
: :
: 1954 31,130 : 41,794 1,343 : 17.99 ;'5.31 24.15 2,031 : 65.24
:
:
Topeka 1945 76,590 : 71,579 935 14.78 13.81
:
1954 81,082 98,758 : 1,218 22.60 5.53 27. 52 5,190 64.00
:
:
Wichita 1945 155,968 137,012 878 12.87 11. 30
: 1954 217,197 266,793 1,228 20.59 6.51 : 25.29 23,045 106.10
:
: :
:
*As of 10/1 each year - not including revenue ronde or temporary notes.
Exhibit i"
t
NOTES
.-
.
,
~
"
.
,