97-1020CITY OF ST. PAIIL
FINAL ORDSR
COUNCIL FILE NO. 1� �O �S
By
File No. 597084
Voting Ward_3
In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s):
on the north side of James Ave from S. Fairview Ave. to S. Howell Ave.
LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 8-6-97 TO 8-13-97.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Recoastruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a five (5)
foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) - 10o� of the actual cost estimated ta be
approximately $3.33 per square foot.
Al1 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150
feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of
the property.
ML7LT2-RESIDENTIAL (MOre than three family structures), NON RE5IDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cast estimated to be
agproximately $4.50 per square foot.
under Preliminary order 97-755 approved_June 18, 1997
The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the
above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City
Charter; and
WHEREAS, The Council l�as heard all persons, objections and recommendations
pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now,
therefore, be it
RE50LVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the
above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed
and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City
officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to
the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 0£ the City Charter.
COUNCILPER50NS
Yeas Nays
�l akey
t/B� strom
✓Collins
�rris
Me ard — 1`�cbScv��
orton
Thune _ 'NIpS�
�In Favor
QAgainst
�- ��OSer��'
Adopted by Council: Date � 3 q��
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
By
\ t �
�_ �o-'�
Mayor
Public Hearing Date - August 13, 1997 RE 8-7-97 q 7��Cai
T.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISTON Date: g_7_97 Green Sheet Number: 40018
ontact Person and PLone Nwnber: EPARTMENT DIRECTOR CYTY COUNCII.
Peter White 266-8850 A ��
ETDIRECfOR FFICEOFFAANCIALSVCS
ns� be on co»�ca n�enaa by: LAID OVER BY Yox cox assis�rarm 1 couNCn, xESenxcn
OLTNCIL ON 8-6-97 TO 8-13-97
OTAL 11 OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCAITONS FOR SIGNATURE)
CT'ION REQUESTED:
t Council`s request on 8-6-97 to 8-13-97 , recon of sidewalk on James Ave from �/
. Faiiview Ave to S. Howell Ave was laid over for further discussion. 5 970 8y
COM[�A'DATIQIQS: APPRO�'E (A) OR REIECT (R) ggSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS M[JST ANSWER TI� FOLTAWING:
. Has the person/fvm ever worked under a contract for this department? YES NO
runmcvcco:�+nss�oN A sr.�
. Has this persoWC�rm ever been a City employee? YES NO
c�va s�cv�cE conmvsssoN
. Does t6is person/fvm possess a skill not normally possessed by any YES NO
current City employee?
c� co�mt:s
Explain aIl YES answers on a sepazate sheet and attach.
UPPOBTS WEiICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE?
COUNCIL WARD(S) AISTRICT PLANT7NG COUNCIL
7'fATING PROBLEM, ISS[TE, OPPORT[INI7'N (Who, Whay When, Where, Why?):
"SEE ORIGINAL GREEN SHEET NL7MBER 32248"
VANTAGES IF APPROVED:
ISADVANTAGES TF APPROVED:
ISADVANTAGES TF NOT APPROVED: '
TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACT'fON: $ COST/REVENCJE BUDGETED (CII2CI,E ONE) YES NO
ING SOURCE: _ ACTIVITY NUMBER:
ANCIAL IlVFORMATION: (F.XPLAII�)
> Public Hearing Date - Au ust 6, 1997 RE 5-30-97 qn p
DEPARTMENT/OPFICFICOUNCIL OATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. `�GZ�o
Public Works Sidewalks 5-Z�•9� INITIAVDATE INI7IAUDATE
CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE �DEPA(iTMEM �IRECTOR �CIN CAUNpL
Robert A. Lissick • 266-6121 �g�'M � CITY ATTORNEY � CRV CLEFK
NUMBFF fON
MUSTBEONCAUNC0.AGENDABY(DA7EJ6_18—(�] pOUTING �gUDGETDIRECTOfl �FIN.bMGT.SERVICESDIfl.
Must be in Council Research Office �`a ypyOfl(OflA55�STANn �Coundl Research
b noon Frida 6-6-97 ❑
TOTAI.I OF SIGNATURE PAGE& 1 _(CLIP ALL LOGA710N5 FOR 9�GNATURE) � ASSOCIA7E PARTMEKfAL ACCOUNTAHi
ACTIONREWES7ED / � aa'�
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 3(See attached tist) �
�- �5 � � �,— m- tazo
RECOMMENDAiIONS:lppore (N a�1� (R! pERSONAL SERYICE CQNTRACCS MUST ANSN'ER 7HE C-0ILOMANG QUES710N5:
PLANNING COAIMISSION _ CNR SERVICE COMM�SSION 1. Has ihis pers Ne worked urder a con[rac[ tor ihis deP�en[?
Y pe
ct8 CoututlTTEE _ 2 � s m � yE� NO er been a dty emptoyee?
A S7AFF 3. Does Nis permNfirm possess a skill not rwrmaly possessed by arry �urrent eiry
[ employee?
_DI57Atc7cOUIVC�L+�JJ _ YES NO
SUPPOPiS We1IGN COUNCIL BJECTNE7 ExP�ain all yes answers on sepatata sheet and attach to gteen shost
1N PA08LE1A, iSSUE, OPPORNNIN (VMO. Mh1AT, WHEN. WNEPE, WHY):
The problem "defective sidewaik" was craated because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freeRhaw cycles,
service liie limits, chemicat add8ives, eztreme temperature variations, etc. These prob{ems occur on a citywide fevef and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrecied, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjeci to increased pedesirian injuries Srom ta11s and p�ssib{e litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many cBizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contradors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft of this activity.
DISADVANSAGES Y. f3PROYED:
Historicaliy, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-haN the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOYED:
This op2ion woutd allow the infrastruciute of sidewalk s5ock to deter'wrate, which in tusn, wi{{ generata more personal injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMWNTOFTFiAMSACTIONS 1�15.3jt COSTIREYENUEBUDGETED(CIHCLEONE) YES t�
FUNDINGSWRCE 97-M-Oo67 A, PIA 9] = SS�.000 __ ACRYRYNUMBER C-2T 2-O H�F-2 O12
FINANCIAL INFORMA710N: (E%PLAIf� $� jiST = 3OD � OOO
C. c16 97 = 50,000
CITY OF ST. PAIIL
FINAL ORDSR
COUNCIL FILE NO. 1� �O �S
By
File No. 597084
Voting Ward_3
In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s):
on the north side of James Ave from S. Fairview Ave. to S. Howell Ave.
LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 8-6-97 TO 8-13-97.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Recoastruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a five (5)
foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) - 10o� of the actual cost estimated ta be
approximately $3.33 per square foot.
Al1 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150
feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of
the property.
ML7LT2-RESIDENTIAL (MOre than three family structures), NON RE5IDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cast estimated to be
agproximately $4.50 per square foot.
under Preliminary order 97-755 approved_June 18, 1997
The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the
above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City
Charter; and
WHEREAS, The Council l�as heard all persons, objections and recommendations
pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now,
therefore, be it
RE50LVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the
above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed
and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City
officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to
the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 0£ the City Charter.
COUNCILPER50NS
Yeas Nays
�l akey
t/B� strom
✓Collins
�rris
Me ard — 1`�cbScv��
orton
Thune _ 'NIpS�
�In Favor
QAgainst
�- ��OSer��'
Adopted by Council: Date � 3 q��
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
By
\ t �
�_ �o-'�
Mayor
Public Hearing Date - August 13, 1997 RE 8-7-97 q 7��Cai
T.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISTON Date: g_7_97 Green Sheet Number: 40018
ontact Person and PLone Nwnber: EPARTMENT DIRECTOR CYTY COUNCII.
Peter White 266-8850 A ��
ETDIRECfOR FFICEOFFAANCIALSVCS
ns� be on co»�ca n�enaa by: LAID OVER BY Yox cox assis�rarm 1 couNCn, xESenxcn
OLTNCIL ON 8-6-97 TO 8-13-97
OTAL 11 OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCAITONS FOR SIGNATURE)
CT'ION REQUESTED:
t Council`s request on 8-6-97 to 8-13-97 , recon of sidewalk on James Ave from �/
. Faiiview Ave to S. Howell Ave was laid over for further discussion. 5 970 8y
COM[�A'DATIQIQS: APPRO�'E (A) OR REIECT (R) ggSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS M[JST ANSWER TI� FOLTAWING:
. Has the person/fvm ever worked under a contract for this department? YES NO
runmcvcco:�+nss�oN A sr.�
. Has this persoWC�rm ever been a City employee? YES NO
c�va s�cv�cE conmvsssoN
. Does t6is person/fvm possess a skill not normally possessed by any YES NO
current City employee?
c� co�mt:s
Explain aIl YES answers on a sepazate sheet and attach.
UPPOBTS WEiICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE?
COUNCIL WARD(S) AISTRICT PLANT7NG COUNCIL
7'fATING PROBLEM, ISS[TE, OPPORT[INI7'N (Who, Whay When, Where, Why?):
"SEE ORIGINAL GREEN SHEET NL7MBER 32248"
VANTAGES IF APPROVED:
ISADVANTAGES TF APPROVED:
ISADVANTAGES TF NOT APPROVED: '
TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACT'fON: $ COST/REVENCJE BUDGETED (CII2CI,E ONE) YES NO
ING SOURCE: _ ACTIVITY NUMBER:
ANCIAL IlVFORMATION: (F.XPLAII�)
> Public Hearing Date - Au ust 6, 1997 RE 5-30-97 qn p
DEPARTMENT/OPFICFICOUNCIL OATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. `�GZ�o
Public Works Sidewalks 5-Z�•9� INITIAVDATE INI7IAUDATE
CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE �DEPA(iTMEM �IRECTOR �CIN CAUNpL
Robert A. Lissick • 266-6121 �g�'M � CITY ATTORNEY � CRV CLEFK
NUMBFF fON
MUSTBEONCAUNC0.AGENDABY(DA7EJ6_18—(�] pOUTING �gUDGETDIRECTOfl �FIN.bMGT.SERVICESDIfl.
Must be in Council Research Office �`a ypyOfl(OflA55�STANn �Coundl Research
b noon Frida 6-6-97 ❑
TOTAI.I OF SIGNATURE PAGE& 1 _(CLIP ALL LOGA710N5 FOR 9�GNATURE) � ASSOCIA7E PARTMEKfAL ACCOUNTAHi
ACTIONREWES7ED / � aa'�
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 3(See attached tist) �
�- �5 � � �,— m- tazo
RECOMMENDAiIONS:lppore (N a�1� (R! pERSONAL SERYICE CQNTRACCS MUST ANSN'ER 7HE C-0ILOMANG QUES710N5:
PLANNING COAIMISSION _ CNR SERVICE COMM�SSION 1. Has ihis pers Ne worked urder a con[rac[ tor ihis deP�en[?
Y pe
ct8 CoututlTTEE _ 2 � s m � yE� NO er been a dty emptoyee?
A S7AFF 3. Does Nis permNfirm possess a skill not rwrmaly possessed by arry �urrent eiry
[ employee?
_DI57Atc7cOUIVC�L+�JJ _ YES NO
SUPPOPiS We1IGN COUNCIL BJECTNE7 ExP�ain all yes answers on sepatata sheet and attach to gteen shost
1N PA08LE1A, iSSUE, OPPORNNIN (VMO. Mh1AT, WHEN. WNEPE, WHY):
The problem "defective sidewaik" was craated because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freeRhaw cycles,
service liie limits, chemicat add8ives, eztreme temperature variations, etc. These prob{ems occur on a citywide fevef and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrecied, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjeci to increased pedesirian injuries Srom ta11s and p�ssib{e litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many cBizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contradors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft of this activity.
DISADVANSAGES Y. f3PROYED:
Historicaliy, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-haN the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOYED:
This op2ion woutd allow the infrastruciute of sidewalk s5ock to deter'wrate, which in tusn, wi{{ generata more personal injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMWNTOFTFiAMSACTIONS 1�15.3jt COSTIREYENUEBUDGETED(CIHCLEONE) YES t�
FUNDINGSWRCE 97-M-Oo67 A, PIA 9] = SS�.000 __ ACRYRYNUMBER C-2T 2-O H�F-2 O12
FINANCIAL INFORMA710N: (E%PLAIf� $� jiST = 3OD � OOO
C. c16 97 = 50,000
CITY OF ST. PAIIL
FINAL ORDSR
COUNCIL FILE NO. 1� �O �S
By
File No. 597084
Voting Ward_3
In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s):
on the north side of James Ave from S. Fairview Ave. to S. Howell Ave.
LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 8-6-97 TO 8-13-97.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Recoastruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a five (5)
foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) - 10o� of the actual cost estimated ta be
approximately $3.33 per square foot.
Al1 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150
feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of
the property.
ML7LT2-RESIDENTIAL (MOre than three family structures), NON RE5IDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cast estimated to be
agproximately $4.50 per square foot.
under Preliminary order 97-755 approved_June 18, 1997
The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the
above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as prescribed by the City
Charter; and
WHEREAS, The Council l�as heard all persons, objections and recommendations
pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now,
therefore, be it
RE50LVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the
above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers are hereby directed
and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City
officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to
the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 0£ the City Charter.
COUNCILPER50NS
Yeas Nays
�l akey
t/B� strom
✓Collins
�rris
Me ard — 1`�cbScv��
orton
Thune _ 'NIpS�
�In Favor
QAgainst
�- ��OSer��'
Adopted by Council: Date � 3 q��
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
By
\ t �
�_ �o-'�
Mayor
Public Hearing Date - August 13, 1997 RE 8-7-97 q 7��Cai
T.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISTON Date: g_7_97 Green Sheet Number: 40018
ontact Person and PLone Nwnber: EPARTMENT DIRECTOR CYTY COUNCII.
Peter White 266-8850 A ��
ETDIRECfOR FFICEOFFAANCIALSVCS
ns� be on co»�ca n�enaa by: LAID OVER BY Yox cox assis�rarm 1 couNCn, xESenxcn
OLTNCIL ON 8-6-97 TO 8-13-97
OTAL 11 OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCAITONS FOR SIGNATURE)
CT'ION REQUESTED:
t Council`s request on 8-6-97 to 8-13-97 , recon of sidewalk on James Ave from �/
. Faiiview Ave to S. Howell Ave was laid over for further discussion. 5 970 8y
COM[�A'DATIQIQS: APPRO�'E (A) OR REIECT (R) ggSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS M[JST ANSWER TI� FOLTAWING:
. Has the person/fvm ever worked under a contract for this department? YES NO
runmcvcco:�+nss�oN A sr.�
. Has this persoWC�rm ever been a City employee? YES NO
c�va s�cv�cE conmvsssoN
. Does t6is person/fvm possess a skill not normally possessed by any YES NO
current City employee?
c� co�mt:s
Explain aIl YES answers on a sepazate sheet and attach.
UPPOBTS WEiICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE?
COUNCIL WARD(S) AISTRICT PLANT7NG COUNCIL
7'fATING PROBLEM, ISS[TE, OPPORT[INI7'N (Who, Whay When, Where, Why?):
"SEE ORIGINAL GREEN SHEET NL7MBER 32248"
VANTAGES IF APPROVED:
ISADVANTAGES TF APPROVED:
ISADVANTAGES TF NOT APPROVED: '
TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACT'fON: $ COST/REVENCJE BUDGETED (CII2CI,E ONE) YES NO
ING SOURCE: _ ACTIVITY NUMBER:
ANCIAL IlVFORMATION: (F.XPLAII�)
> Public Hearing Date - Au ust 6, 1997 RE 5-30-97 qn p
DEPARTMENT/OPFICFICOUNCIL OATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. `�GZ�o
Public Works Sidewalks 5-Z�•9� INITIAVDATE INI7IAUDATE
CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE �DEPA(iTMEM �IRECTOR �CIN CAUNpL
Robert A. Lissick • 266-6121 �g�'M � CITY ATTORNEY � CRV CLEFK
NUMBFF fON
MUSTBEONCAUNC0.AGENDABY(DA7EJ6_18—(�] pOUTING �gUDGETDIRECTOfl �FIN.bMGT.SERVICESDIfl.
Must be in Council Research Office �`a ypyOfl(OflA55�STANn �Coundl Research
b noon Frida 6-6-97 ❑
TOTAI.I OF SIGNATURE PAGE& 1 _(CLIP ALL LOGA710N5 FOR 9�GNATURE) � ASSOCIA7E PARTMEKfAL ACCOUNTAHi
ACTIONREWES7ED / � aa'�
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 3(See attached tist) �
�- �5 � � �,— m- tazo
RECOMMENDAiIONS:lppore (N a�1� (R! pERSONAL SERYICE CQNTRACCS MUST ANSN'ER 7HE C-0ILOMANG QUES710N5:
PLANNING COAIMISSION _ CNR SERVICE COMM�SSION 1. Has ihis pers Ne worked urder a con[rac[ tor ihis deP�en[?
Y pe
ct8 CoututlTTEE _ 2 � s m � yE� NO er been a dty emptoyee?
A S7AFF 3. Does Nis permNfirm possess a skill not rwrmaly possessed by arry �urrent eiry
[ employee?
_DI57Atc7cOUIVC�L+�JJ _ YES NO
SUPPOPiS We1IGN COUNCIL BJECTNE7 ExP�ain all yes answers on sepatata sheet and attach to gteen shost
1N PA08LE1A, iSSUE, OPPORNNIN (VMO. Mh1AT, WHEN. WNEPE, WHY):
The problem "defective sidewaik" was craated because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freeRhaw cycles,
service liie limits, chemicat add8ives, eztreme temperature variations, etc. These prob{ems occur on a citywide fevef and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrecied, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjeci to increased pedesirian injuries Srom ta11s and p�ssib{e litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many cBizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contradors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft of this activity.
DISADVANSAGES Y. f3PROYED:
Historicaliy, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-haN the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOYED:
This op2ion woutd allow the infrastruciute of sidewalk s5ock to deter'wrate, which in tusn, wi{{ generata more personal injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMWNTOFTFiAMSACTIONS 1�15.3jt COSTIREYENUEBUDGETED(CIHCLEONE) YES t�
FUNDINGSWRCE 97-M-Oo67 A, PIA 9] = SS�.000 __ ACRYRYNUMBER C-2T 2-O H�F-2 O12
FINANCIAL INFORMA710N: (E%PLAIf� $� jiST = 3OD � OOO
C. c16 97 = 50,000