277358 WHiTE - CITY CLERK �,��5g
PINK - FINANCE
CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT ��U L COl1I1CII
BLUE - MAYOR
File N�.
CO Y�C � SO tZ
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
A RESOL�lTION ADOPTING GiJIDELINES FOR TI� 1982�1983
RESIDEN.P?AL STREE'T PAVING PROGRAM (RSPP)
WI�REAS, on September 2, 1981, the Public Worka Committee of the
Council of the City of Saint Paul heard public comment on, and reviewed
the proposed Guidelines; and
Wl�RF�AS, in September, 1981, this Council wi11 adopt the 1982/�983
Capital Improvement Budget, including the appropriation for the 1982/1983
RSPP; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by th3s Council, that said Guidelines, hereto attached,
axe adopted for use in determining residential street paving pro�ect
priorities for the 1982�1983 Residential Street Paving Program.
COU[VCILMEN Requestgd by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Hunt
Levine In Favo[
Maddox � �
McMahon B
snowaite� __ Against Y — �
�°,�'
wi�son
Adopted by Council: Date _JGP `i 1�t Form A prove by Ci Attorney '
`� I
Certified Y• .se b Council cre BY
By
Ap o by ;Navor: Da QQ1 Ap by Mayor for Su is ion to Council
ay _ s
ptt LiSHED S E
• 1G�a t��� E
�
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED
CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
MEMO ROUTING SLIp /�t�r � � igg�
�T�' A�i C�E�dFY '
Jerome J. Segal INiTIALS CIRCULATE
Assistant City Attorney
Room 647 City Hall DATE , FILE
� � E
�
� e nard J C rlson i re,ctor
� ! � � r ' ; INFORMATION
na�ce 6 anagement Ser�rices
om�1 13 Ci�t�� Ha;l 1 �, �� l NOTE AND
RETURN i
_ �
VERSATION j
i
�
SEE ME i
�'—�, I �
George Latimer � i
� � FOR S 1 GNATURE 1\
Mayor
��� Room 347 C1ty Hall �. •
' REMARKS:
��'�T�����-�=�-� �
, , �
- __��
�LEAS� �NOTE .,-.. Iiis:' em=-�nust� e � �ch _ '`"
_:the'. e te _---- �' s e�..'
or- .���T mb�����d�_r.�eeting of.-the_-
pC3��\-�.'OLl3'1C3.j.�: . : , �
J '•^- , � _� ' I
,
. �
� % . _
� '-�-�-,--<.� _�1�.��)3 I
.,;� � C'�� . = �, , _, .?,:,G-�.>_
� ��� "� : �
, , _
�- -1 yl����1 ��. ��✓�!� __. __
�' `� � �
FROM: DATE
Do�ald E. Nygaard, Director ��_` �� �
�
PHONE �
- 4241
FnRM tnno (t_o_�cl
� ' � . , � �"7�58
1. �9�� 1 82 1983 RESIDENTIAL STREE,T PAVIl�TG PROGRAM (RSPP)
2. GIJIDELINES .
3• GOAL
4. The goal of the Residential Street Paving Program is to improve the quality
5. of Saint Paul Neighborhoods by replacing present�y unpaved and deteriorated
6. residential streets with permanent roadways, proper�y graded, surfaced and
7. curbed, and by installing sidewalks and street lights as appropriate to each
8, area.
9• PROGRAM DEVEIAPMENT
10. 1. ELIGIBLE Il�'ROVII��NTS AND AREAS
11. a. Oil-surfaced streets may be included in this program. These street
12. surfaces have been built up over the years by a yearly oil and sand
13. treatment (lately, every third year). Some of these streets have
14. had curbing installed on them.
15. b. Paved streets in deteriorated condition may be included in this
16. program.
17. c. Unimproved residential streets which are not assessable under current
18. policy may be included in this program. These streets are generally
19. short blocks abutting the long sides of corner lots, which, under
20. City policy, are not assessed for the first 125 feet of the long side
21. frontage.
22. d. Only streets in which untilites are complete and adequate or streets
23. in which utilities will be installed as part of the improvement will
24. be included in the program. The cost oY utilities other than street �
25. lighting, except spot reeonstruction of drainage facilities, will not
� 26. be part of the program flinding.
27, e. Areas shall be established to obtain maximum effect and efficient
� f�
. Page 2 '
. � �'7358
1. construction. Cost should be $150,000 up to an absolute maximum
2. oY $k00,000. ,
3• P. A�y group or individual may submit proposals �e-�ke-$�elget-See��e�s
4. e€-tl�e-Mayerie-A€€�ee through the appropriate District Council for
5. consideration. However, onl�y the top ��proposa� of each District
6. Council will be �a�e� reviewed by the Streets and Utilities Task
7. Force of the CIB Committee. Additional�y the Streets and Utilities
8. Task Force Will sa#e review up to Pour proposals from the Department
9. oP Public Works.
10. 2. SELECTION CRITERIA
11. a. 1Qor more than #weearea,� will be selected per District for �9�� 1982�
12. 1983.
13. b. The recommendations of the appropriate district council and
14. consistency With a district plan will be given consideration. �g-a
15. g�e�ee�-�s-g�egeee�-�e�-s-��s��r�e�-s�k�eh-has-�e�-een�p�ete�-e-��e��te�
' 16. g�e�►T-��e-�#s��e�-eex�e��-W}�-be-eea�ae�ed-�e-�e�e�#�e-the-aagge�#
17. �e�-e-gav�ag-gre�eet.
18. c. Cottcentration oF improvements may signiPicant�jr strengthen the total
19. impact. A�-gab�e-eag��s�-3sig�e�remea�e-W#��-be-eeas�de�ed-}a-s
20. g�egese�-g�e�ee�-a�eaT Specific consideration will be given to areas
21. where other aeeeled public improvements e�e have been budgeted �a-�l�e
22. �9��-Sag��a�-�g�eireme��-$�dge�-e�-wke�e-g�b�e-�a�prevemea�e-iqa�re
23. �eea-gse�ded-€e�-3x-e-6ap#�a�-�gi►eve�ea�-$a�ge�-adeg�eel more
24. recerit�y thatt �9�6, 1977 by the City.
25. d. IP the City Council appropriates both Capital Improvement Bond funds
26. and Community Development Block Grant ftinds to the �9�� 1982 1983
27. RSPP, then flinds for residential street improvements will be allocated
� • . ' Pae3
. �'7358
1. in accordance with Policy S6 of "Saint Paul Capital Allocation
2. Policy: �9��-�9�5: 1982-1986:" .
3. S6: BALANCED NEIGI�ORHOOD BETTERMEla
4. In order to assure a balanced approach toward neighborhood
5, betterment, new allocations of capital for subsidies and
6, service system i.mprovements should follow this distribution:
7. �O of Total Recommended �, of
8. Residential Subsidy�Service
9. Area Blocks System Capital
10. Lo`+�Moderate Income Areas 3� �-75°�
11. which are Improvement I or
12. II; All Improvement III Areas
13. All Conservation I a.nd II Areas: 70°f, 25-1+0°�,
14. Improvement I and II Areas which
15• are not Low�Moderate Income
16. e. Specific consideration will be given to areas where new opportunities
17. for housing for low�moderate income persons are being developed or
18. where residents are already inv�olved in strengthening housing
19. maintenance efYorts and other neighborhood improvement pro�ects,
20. especial�y current ITA's and N&S tar et areas.
21. P. Continuity of paving program activity over several years in one large
22. residential area is an important factor in overall impact and effective-
23. ness. For this reason, specific consideration �+ill be given to project
24, opportunities immediate�}r ad�jacent to RSPP improvements completed in
25. a previous year.
26. g. Specific consideration will be given to the general condition,
27. appeara.nce, serviceability and extraordinary maintenance needs of the
28. existing streets.
. t� � /�5�ege 4
1. h. Specific consideration will be given to proposals which do not entail
2. excessive pro�ect costs due to unusual construr�ion requirements.
3. i. SpeciPic consideration will be given to paving proposals Yor
4. residential streets �hich are public transportation (MTC) routes and�
5. or marked bicycle routes and lanes.
6. �. Specific consideration will be given to the Public Works Department's
7, overall recommendations on a particular proposal. The rauge of 0-10
8. points to be assigned will be based on the Department's general
9. appraisal of the proposal.
lo. 3. PROJECT STAN�ARDS
11. Standard street construction consists of the following:
12. a. A 32' wide street with asphalt pavement and concrete curb and gutter.
13, b. Sidewalk reconstruction based on a condition inspection by the
14. Department oY Public Works.
15. -- All old tile sidewalk will be replaced with new sidewalk.
16. -- All scaled, cracked or tree-heaved sidewalk will be replaced if,
17. in the opinion of the Department of Public Works, it constitutes
18. a tripping hazard.
19. -- Reconstructed sidewalks will be 5' wide except spot panel
20. replacement of 6' wide walk.
21. -- Pedestrian racips s�ill be constructed at all intersections where
22, sidewalk is being reconstructed.
23. c. New catch basins.
24. d. Ornamental lighting wi.th underground wiring installed with energy-
25, efficient sodium vapor lighting if requested by the affected neighbor-
26. hood. In most instances, e�d sting ornamental light standards will be
27. retlu�bished and converted to sodium vapor fixtures.
28. e. Driveways constructed�reconstructed between the sidewalk and curb
� , . Page 5
l. •aith new concrete aprons.
2. f. Outwalks constructed�reconstructed between the s�dewalk and curb with
3, new 2' wide concrete outwalks.
4. g. Boulevards regraded and sodded where necessary. (Usua7.7,y this is the
5, entire boulevaxd).
6. h. Water services will be replaced on a pro3ect basis from the main to
7, the stop box with copper pipe, at the request of e-e�t�gea-ergan�$e��ex,
8. the proposer, where the size of the service is 5�8 inch in diameter
9, or less and where the average static water pressure in the main is
10. equa,l to or less than 40 pounds per square inch. ���-ekee�d-be-eaeele
11. e�es� (I'P SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR that Yor a resident to realize an
12, improvement at the water faucets, the remainder of the water service
13. Prom the stop box, which is in the boulevard, to the house, as well
14, as the water pipes in the house, may have to be replaced. This would
15, be at the home owner's expense).
16. ��-s�iea��-l�e-e�gl�ea�sed IT SHOULD BE EI�HASIZED that a request �r-a-
17. e��}se�-gret�g for special desiga items (i.e. , stone curb, historic light
18. fixtures, textured concrete surFace, etc. ) which are other than the above
19. listed standard construction will be considered by the CIB Committee and
20, sub�ect to City Council approval. City Council consideration will include
21. a.a-eaa�ya#s-by-the-6�-6ea�}��ee-e€ the additional cost Por non-standard
22. work and the impact of that additional cost on the other priority pro�ects
23, in the recommended RSPP budget.
24. 4. EST]MATED COST
25. The estimated cost of these pro�ects during �9�� 1982 1983 is $125.00
26. per lineal foot of street (that's $660,000 per mile), and includes items
27. 3a through 3g above; cost per lineal foot without lighting is $113•00•
� P�ge 6
l. a. If the blocks are standard "long blocks" (660' ) and "short blocks"
2• (330' ), estimate the length by multip�jring the aumber of long blocks
3• times 660, and the short blocks times 330 and multip�ying this times
4• $125.00 Yor total pro�ect cost.
5• b. Call Mike Eggvm (292_7153) or Bob Peterson (298-5070) if assistance
6• is needed in determining the pro�ect estimate.
?• 5• SUR�IISSION OF PROJECr REQUESTg
8. Citizen groups wishing to submit paving proposals, ske�}ei-�e##�r-tge3�
9• el�s��et-ee�e��-e€-the��-}x�eat�e�se-na� must coordinate their submissions
10. with others from the district .council.
11. A�� Requests for residential street paving Prom the District Councils
12• are due in the City Budget Director's Office, Room 367 City Hall, 55102,
�-3• no later than 4:30 p.m. on Friday, October 3 2, �9�e 1981. Forms received
14. af'ter 4:30 on October 3 2, will not receive points allocated by the Streets
15. & Utilities Task Force for timely submission. Forms for requesting ftuiding
16. consideration ("Proposal Por �9�� 1982 1983 Residential Street Paving")
17• are included in this mailing and ca� also be obtained by calling Public
18. Works, 298-5311 or the Budget Section, 298-4323•
19• BeYore a e��#sea-ergea#sa��e�_s�����s_e_gre�ee�-�eqaeat proposal is
2�• submitted to the City, the e�geai#$e��ex-aay-W}sk-�e proposer should call;
21. 2�#ise-�66t�-F292-�53�-eg-�ke-S��reet-�v#e�ea-e�-�tege�-�ie�re��e�-4292-6AA4�-
22. e€-�ke-Se�+e�-��s}ea-te-�*e�eFr-�he-g;►e�ee�-#e-�alfe-e�e-}�-e�ee�s-�hese
23. e�#e�s-ge�e�ee:--���-}s-eagee3e}�r-}�ge�a��-te-a�re�d-eea€��et-W��k
24• a.�y-geee}b�}��r_e€_�t�e-seWe�-eeas��e�}ex��
25. a. Mike Eggum (292_7153) of the Streets Division for a preliminary review
26• of the proposal to determine ar�y strong conflicts with the criteria
27• listed in these guidelines
28• b. Roger Puchreiter (292-600l�) of the Sewer Division For review of the
' , , � Page 7
� 2'7'735�
1, proposal to determine fliture sewer construction conflicts. (IT IS
2. ESPECIALLY Ib1PORTANT THAT TI� PROPOSER AVOID CONFLICT WITH FUTfJRE
3. SEWER CONSTRUCTION)._
4. 6. Exc�rlONS To c�vm�s
5. Paving proposals not consistent with these guidelines should be submitted
6. as part of the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process
7. (vcIPBP) in spring �9�� 1983.
8. 7. SCHEDUI�
9, The calendar of events for the 1981 RSPP is attached, as is an updated
10. �p of CDBG eliqible areas in Saint Paul. The CIB Committee recommended
11. that review of proposals for the 1982 RSPP and the 1983 RSPP be done in
12, one process during the fall of 1981 due to limited f'unds available for
13, the program.
i4. 8. �oRrrrEs
15, Pro�ects will be recommended based on the adopted level of ftiuids Por 1982
16. and the pro osed level for 1983. Should additional flinds become available,
17. the next priority eligible will be selected. If fluiding should decrease
18. for 1983, the lowest priority pro�ects will be deleted.
. . OM ol : 12/1975
a • � Rev: g/$/76
" • EXPtANATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, ��y���
RESOLUTFONS, AND QRDINANCE5 (
. , ,
Date: August 17, 1981 ' �. •
T0: MAYOR GEORGE LATIMER
FR: Donald E. Rygaard
RE: 1982�1983 Residentisl 3treet Paving Program Guidelines � ' ° �� -��-• ` ��-�
� . - AUG j � 1981
'; r�•,-,-...-._,
/,''""1�+^
ACTIGN R�QUESTED: Approval for submission to Council of the attached proposed resolution
adopting the Guidelines for the 1982/1983 Residential Street Paving Program.
PURPOSE AND RATlQNALE FOR THIS ACTION: Adoption of the RSPP Guidelines by the City
Council.is a neceasary st�p in the process of selecting the streeta to be
reconstructed under this program.
ATTACHt��E��TS: 1. Proposed City Council Resolution.
2, Propoaed RSPP Guidelines. . �
+�� v.� �ti +� V A' ti.i.a..�...�..r. • .+\ .^r .�.� .a�
"`-� OF�'IC�; Ok' TT.�E CI7'�X COII1]'C�L
j_ � �`
�� ���'' �'� ..
,.- :.:•.;-- . . °����,��
, . � -,
� �.�,,.�. _
.
�.
��� � f- Dote : September 3, 1981
.�_
��:;.,_., �
� COi�� �llZ°'T� � F� � �' � ��° - � .
- � � ° � �i
`ta : S�int @ouI . Csty� Council - : � �
. �'� � � � C0�7i1'T'1!'���� OCi PUBLIC WORKS Se t. 2 1981 � �. - . . . - :.�
P � . t
. Victor J. Tedese:o���. , chairman, makes �tr�e tatlowii�c� - � �� � . � �
� ' . ' �� •.'... � •. • - . ` . . � f
� � .� report on C.��. : . �. - [� OrdirraFie�� - . . = #
_ . - - [� Resolu f ion ;
. _ . �
- . � . . . �.x Qther - � I
- � �.
' • - • . � . . i
. � i���.�� . • - . • . • - `
" : . . . �
The following actions were taken by the Public Works. Committee at its Sep'tember 2, � ' t
_ 1981 meeting: � �'. • . . . !
- - . . • � . .• ... . �
—` �-- T}ie Committee recommended that Agenda It�ms 2 & 11� be DENIED. � . . �
The Gommittee recommended Agenda I.tems 3, 4, 5, C�, 8, 9,. }8 be ARPROVED. -
The Committee's recommendatio� on Item 12 was for APPROVAL .of tFi� suggested : - �
compromise by Planning and. E�conomic Development and Public Works staffi whereby . •'. " .
Ann Street would be added .to tfie street pavinq project in return .for installation= _ �
of conventional residential street lighting similar to that installed in nearby �' �
Leech-McBoal area in 1980. The District Council requested Superior. St. be�added
& a request wi11 be made to the_C. I.B. Committee for this. . - �- _ - �
� , � . - �
� . . . � . . ,. +
. �
� �.� . � : �.. , ,.-�� �
� • - . . . �. . .. � . 3� (
�
CITY HAL.L SgyEM-g FLOOR SAIYl' PALrI., tiilti�ESpT� 5�102 '
� . =��:�
.•� _ _
��u.-�/L��_L�ti 2�.c : {
CITY OF S.�.INT PAUL �
� , �^�• � ;
^�1� OFI�'ICE OF TS� CITY COIINCIL , ,
t '
, �;;� �
�- ���, ..�.;r;:
� ..�„v.,��•j,s �
k
- S
,, ,_ , . Dnte: August 27, 1981 • �
----"' - i
� MEETING NOTICE � '
��S
�°� �°°' °�"� PUBLIC WORKS CO�MITTEE � � - �
N MOL�DQ�C
�F2C;E M�tAFi0P1
w�v'E siown�.7ER W t.) � .
MEFTING DATE: Wednesday, September 2, 1981 '- - , �
� � . - � �
T1ME . l0:0o A.M. -
PLACE . Room 707 City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Blvd. -
� 1
0. Review by the Public Works Committee of the 1982/1983 Guidelines for the j
Residential Street Paving Program. �
11. Consideration of letter from Larry Alexander requesting a waiver of ' f
�
demolition assessment for 923 Hague. Referred by City Council to Public �
Works Committee on July 21, 1981. � �
12, Continuation.of discussion from May 27, 1981 Public Works meeting regarding �
the Cliff Street Identified Treatment Area's request for ornamental street �
lighting the same as is in Irvine Park. � �
' i
13. Old Business � � - i
�
14. New Business I
�
�
i
. . i
. - . �