The URL can be used to link to this page

97-12996� CITY OF ST. PAUL FINAI, ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO. " ` �� By �' File o_ Ol Vot ng War 1 Ia the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): both sides Laurel Avenue from N Victoria Street to N Milton Street. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement o£ old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front £oot £or a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square foot. A11 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstruoted sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MUI,TI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAI, RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot, under Preliminary order 97-1032 approved_August 20, 1997_ The Council of the City o£ 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 has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, there£ore, be it RESOLVED, 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 sha11 calculate a11 expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 0£ the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays ✓Blakey �Bostrom ✓Collins ✓� rris ✓ Megard �orton �hune { In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date � �� Certified Passed by Council Secretary or ,.LA*D:OVER BY COUNCIL ON 10-8-97 TO 10-22-97 RE 1�-21-97 �_��„ � � T.M.S.lREAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: October 21, 1997 Green 5heet Num r: 39543 ontad Person and Phone N�ber: EPAR7T�fEN1' DIRE(.'1'OR CITY COi1NCII. PCtCT `. �.�tC u1E�850 ATl'ORNEY TlYCLERK UDCEl' DIItECl'OR FFICE OF FINANCJAL SVCS. LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 10-8-97 TO vstbeonComa1Agendahy: 10 YOR(ORASSISfANT) 1 Oi7NCII.au.cnenCg OTAL # OF SIGNATLiRE PAGES i tci.� au.i.ocA�rcoxs Fox scxaTT�xE� C110N 1tEQUESTED: Approve sidewalk reconstruction on both sides LAUREL AVENLTE from North Victoria Sixeet to North Milton Street. ' e No. S97101 OMD�II.+MIATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR RE.IECT (R) ggpNAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: . Has t6e person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaztment? YES NO PLANNING COhAUSSION A STAFF . Has tLis persoo/firm ever been a Citp empMyee? YES NO C1VII. SEItVICE COMIrIISS10N . Dces this personlCu�m possess a skil! not nurmally possessed by any , YES NO c� coaun�rreie current City employee? - lain aR YES auswecs on a se arate sheet and attach. PORTS WHICA COUNCII. OBJECTIVEI Neighborhoods COi3NCII, WARD(S� � DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL �j TING PROBLEM, 7SSUE, OPPORTUNII'Y (4Vhq WLat, When, Where, Why?): This project was laid over from October 8. C.F. # 37-1255 See Attached VANTAGESIFAPPROVED: LSADVANTAGESIFAPYROVED: ISADVAN'I'AGES IF NOT APPROVED: OTAL AMOUNT OF T1tANSACTION: COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIILCLE ONE) YES NO ACTiVITX NUMBER: ING SOURCE: ANCIAL INFORMATION: (ERPLAIPp Public Hearing Date - October 8, 1997 RE 8-1-97 �� `�1 - DEPAflTUEN7/OFFlCEMAUNCIL DATE1NiT1ATED GREEN SHEET NO. ��`� Public Works Sidewaiks 7 '��' 97 INITIAUDATE INRIAUDATE CAMACT PEpSON b PNONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR � CIiY COUNC�L RobertA.Lissick-266-6121 ��r'N �CITYATTORNEY �CRYCLEAK NUMBEqFOR MUSTBEDNCAUNCILAGENDABV(DATE) $ p��G �BUDGEiD1iiECTOR �FIN.dMGT.SEPVICESDl0. Must be in Council Research Office OMAVOfl(OAASSISTANn tO Gounal Research SOTALaOFS�GNAiUREPAGES I _ (CLIPALLLOCA710NSWiiSGNATUR� �ASSOCIAiE �D=PARTMEHTALACCOUMANT ACTION PEOUESTED ^ � ^ n^- Reconstrud Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3& 7(See ariached list} �� F�t.� �5 �- ? Z pECAMMENDATIONS: �Wp�m�e (l\1 w FejBG (W PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS: P�qNNWfiCOMA11S510N _CNO. SERVICE CAMMISSION 1• Has R1t5 Pe!S �r Ne�ver worked under a contrect tw this department? _ YE CIe COMMfT�EE _ 2. Fias ihis perso�rm ever been a ciry employee? — YES NO A 57nFF _ 3. Does ihis personlfirm pouess a tkifl not normally Rassessed by arry current city �� — emPlaYee? DISTflICTCAUNCRI YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUN L 9 cCTNEY Expiain all ye5 enswers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet � 3 INITIATING PR L .� UE, OPPORNNITY (WMO, NM1+AT. WNEN. WHERE, WMIY): The probiem "defecCrve sidewaik" wzs crealed because oi tree raots, deleter'rous subgrade material, alternating treerthaw cycles, service i'rfe limils, chemical additives, ealreme temperature variations, etc. These problems ocxur on a ckywlde level and musl be addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncotrected, the sidewa4k cond'Rion wou{d worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries irom tafls and possibfe {ftigations. ADV0.NTAGESI6 APPPOYED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safie deteci free sidewafks tor its many citizens. The sidewaik contracts are executed by private contractors, so d follows that privaie sector jobs are created as a resuR ot this activity. Ol$ADVANTAGES IE PPPFOVED: Historica0y, the sidewatk reconsiructions have created negative teedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply siated, property owners detesi assessments, and despite the facl up to one-halt the assessment is CiSy subsidized, it still remains controversial. DISADVANTAGES ff NOT APPROVER This option wou{d al{ow the infrastructure of sidewalk siock to deterarate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, uftimately resufting in the expenditure of larger doilar amounts in eve�tual repairs andlor repiacement, as weU as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNTOFTAANSAC'f10NS 4 T��.7�t COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIpCLEONE) YES No FUNDING SOURCE 97-�M-o667 A P i A q7 = 557 , 000 ACITVITY NUMBEA � -Zf 2 84 �2 � FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B� AST = 3OO �ODO c, cIa 97 = So,OOo esz^t os sm PAIIL . FINAL ORDER R 'cre.�n� e � - By q� - i NO. F� . S 71 5971 i�7ard , 2 , 3 , 7 In the Matter of Reconstruction o£ sidewalks at tl�e following location s): 597101 - Both sides Laurel Ave £rom N Victoria St to N Milton St 7 l.,r�� Over }e �o��a�1"1 C:� 597102 - At 420 Cherokee Ave, 863 Ottawa Ave, 235 W Stevens St, Cour�a�1 Mi� 20�5 Thure Ave, 1585 Conway St. Q *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$?.45 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per £ront foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New coastruction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square £oot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the £irst 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures}, NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot_ under Prelimittary order � 1^ ��'J� approved �,._. ,�c� �,�q!'� The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereo£ having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and r WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therePore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council o£ 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 ofEicers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays vBlakey ✓'�ostrom �ollins �rris �gard �rton Thune... AbS e�n�` �? In Favor �Against ,,, �� e r.� �� g � �.� COUNCIL Adopted by Council: Date_� �_�' �qq� -T Certified Passed by Council Secretary � ` � R �� Mayor runlr� �earing Date — October 8, 1997 RE 8-1-47 � DEPAFlTMENT�OFfICErCOUNGI DATEINRIASED GREEN SHEET No.3g�ss Public Works Sidewaiks 7-10-97 � ��.� corrrncr�r+ssa+sauor+e o�aan,�ErrrwaECTOa []emcour+cu RobertA.iiss'idc-266-6i21 x �e�� ScrtvArrow�v �cmaerix wusreeoNCOUr+canr�Hw.sr�nh� g—ZO-97 R� �eu�EroiaEC�roa �FNLEMGT.SEFVCESDIR Must be in Council Research Office �µpY�R{ORfSSISTANT) 0�,�� p TOTAL i QF SGNATUHE PAGES 1 __ (tt1P ALL LOCA710NS fOR SIGNANRq � ASSOCIA7E � DEPARTMEN7AL ACCOUMANT ACTION pEIXJESTED —_ ^ A I r.JX7 Recanstrud Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3 8 7(See attached list) �` j � Fu� � � � Z q`� � 9 ��' �� °� �« PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS YUST ANSWER TFiE FOLLOWING CUESTIONS: PLANNMI6 COIAMISSqN CNR SERVICE CdAMIS510N 1. Has Mis��v� rm eVef wotked undBr 8 Contrae[ far ll»is dBpaNnen[? — — EY S ND _GB COMMRTEE 2 Has rtiis personftimt evet bBen a dry emW%ee? — YES NO A SsaFG 3. Ooes tliis pe'saVfirm possess a skitl not rortnally possessed try a�ry wrrent city DISYA�C7CWNCILI/�,�_ � YES NO SI�PORTS WHICFi COUNCIL CTrvEZ �@�� a0 yas a�rowers on soparata sheet aM at4oh to groan shwt � 3 fNRfATIN(i P UE.OPPDR'NNITV (YMO. WViAT. WHEN. WHEPE. The problem "detective sidewalk" was created because ot tree roots, deleterious su4grade material, aRemating freefthaw cycles, service I'rfe limRs, chemicat additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Laft uncorrected, the sidewalk condRion wouid worsen to a state where ft would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian inyuries from fails and possible litigations. ADVANTAGES fF APPROVEb. The community will benefit irom this project because ii wili provide safe detect free sidewalks for fts marry citizens. Tfie sidewaik contracts are executed by private contractors, so it folbws that private sector jobs are created as a resuR of this activity. DISADYANTAGES IF APPROVED: r Historicalry, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construetfon procedure and assessment. Simpry stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-haH the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversiai. DlSAnYANTqGE51F NOT MPROVED: This option wouid allow the infrastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personai injury suits, uRimately resuking i� the expenditure of larger do4lar amouats i� eventua! repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. Ci01SP�}� t3�?3fL�S '�i�g� AUG 1 i�37 TOTAL AAIOUM OF TfiANSACTION S �t � � tF7 . 7 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED �C1RClE ONE) Y NO FUNDINGSOURCE 97-�MM-�Ob67 A, p►q gj x 557 ACENITYNUMBER C97-2T729-0784-27ot2 Fl"^"cva"�c°aM^T+ow:�r.�^+rn B. AST : 30�,000 C, c�s 97 a 50,000 6� CITY OF ST. PAUL FINAI, ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO. " ` �� By �' File o_ Ol Vot ng War 1 Ia the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): both sides Laurel Avenue from N Victoria Street to N Milton Street. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement o£ old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front £oot £or a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square foot. A11 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstruoted sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MUI,TI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAI, RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot, under Preliminary order 97-1032 approved_August 20, 1997_ The Council of the City o£ 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 has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, there£ore, be it RESOLVED, 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 sha11 calculate a11 expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 0£ the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays ✓Blakey �Bostrom ✓Collins ✓� rris ✓ Megard �orton �hune { In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date � �� Certified Passed by Council Secretary or ,.LA*D:OVER BY COUNCIL ON 10-8-97 TO 10-22-97 RE 1�-21-97 �_��„ � � T.M.S.lREAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: October 21, 1997 Green 5heet Num r: 39543 ontad Person and Phone N�ber: EPAR7T�fEN1' DIRE(.'1'OR CITY COi1NCII. PCtCT `. �.�tC u1E�850 ATl'ORNEY TlYCLERK UDCEl' DIItECl'OR FFICE OF FINANCJAL SVCS. LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 10-8-97 TO vstbeonComa1Agendahy: 10 YOR(ORASSISfANT) 1 Oi7NCII.au.cnenCg OTAL # OF SIGNATLiRE PAGES i tci.� au.i.ocA�rcoxs Fox scxaTT�xE� C110N 1tEQUESTED: Approve sidewalk reconstruction on both sides LAUREL AVENLTE from North Victoria Sixeet to North Milton Street. ' e No. S97101 OMD�II.+MIATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR RE.IECT (R) ggpNAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: . Has t6e person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaztment? YES NO PLANNING COhAUSSION A STAFF . Has tLis persoo/firm ever been a Citp empMyee? YES NO C1VII. SEItVICE COMIrIISS10N . Dces this personlCu�m possess a skil! not nurmally possessed by any , YES NO c� coaun�rreie current City employee? - lain aR YES auswecs on a se arate sheet and attach. PORTS WHICA COUNCII. OBJECTIVEI Neighborhoods COi3NCII, WARD(S� � DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL �j TING PROBLEM, 7SSUE, OPPORTUNII'Y (4Vhq WLat, When, Where, Why?): This project was laid over from October 8. C.F. # 37-1255 See Attached VANTAGESIFAPPROVED: LSADVANTAGESIFAPYROVED: ISADVAN'I'AGES IF NOT APPROVED: OTAL AMOUNT OF T1tANSACTION: COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIILCLE ONE) YES NO ACTiVITX NUMBER: ING SOURCE: ANCIAL INFORMATION: (ERPLAIPp Public Hearing Date - October 8, 1997 RE 8-1-97 �� `�1 - DEPAflTUEN7/OFFlCEMAUNCIL DATE1NiT1ATED GREEN SHEET NO. ��`� Public Works Sidewaiks 7 '��' 97 INITIAUDATE INRIAUDATE CAMACT PEpSON b PNONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR � CIiY COUNC�L RobertA.Lissick-266-6121 ��r'N �CITYATTORNEY �CRYCLEAK NUMBEqFOR MUSTBEDNCAUNCILAGENDABV(DATE) $ p��G �BUDGEiD1iiECTOR �FIN.dMGT.SEPVICESDl0. Must be in Council Research Office OMAVOfl(OAASSISTANn tO Gounal Research SOTALaOFS�GNAiUREPAGES I _ (CLIPALLLOCA710NSWiiSGNATUR� �ASSOCIAiE �D=PARTMEHTALACCOUMANT ACTION PEOUESTED ^ � ^ n^- Reconstrud Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3& 7(See ariached list} �� F�t.� �5 �- ? Z pECAMMENDATIONS: �Wp�m�e (l\1 w FejBG (W PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS: P�qNNWfiCOMA11S510N _CNO. SERVICE CAMMISSION 1• Has R1t5 Pe!S �r Ne�ver worked under a contrect tw this department? _ YE CIe COMMfT�EE _ 2. Fias ihis perso�rm ever been a ciry employee? — YES NO A 57nFF _ 3. Does ihis personlfirm pouess a tkifl not normally Rassessed by arry current city �� — emPlaYee? DISTflICTCAUNCRI YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUN L 9 cCTNEY Expiain all ye5 enswers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet � 3 INITIATING PR L .� UE, OPPORNNITY (WMO, NM1+AT. WNEN. WHERE, WMIY): The probiem "defecCrve sidewaik" wzs crealed because oi tree raots, deleter'rous subgrade material, alternating treerthaw cycles, service i'rfe limils, chemical additives, ealreme temperature variations, etc. These problems ocxur on a ckywlde level and musl be addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncotrected, the sidewa4k cond'Rion wou{d worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries irom tafls and possibfe {ftigations. ADV0.NTAGESI6 APPPOYED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safie deteci free sidewafks tor its many citizens. The sidewaik contracts are executed by private contractors, so d follows that privaie sector jobs are created as a resuR ot this activity. Ol$ADVANTAGES IE PPPFOVED: Historica0y, the sidewatk reconsiructions have created negative teedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply siated, property owners detesi assessments, and despite the facl up to one-halt the assessment is CiSy subsidized, it still remains controversial. DISADVANTAGES ff NOT APPROVER This option wou{d al{ow the infrastructure of sidewalk siock to deterarate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, uftimately resufting in the expenditure of larger doilar amounts in eve�tual repairs andlor repiacement, as weU as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNTOFTAANSAC'f10NS 4 T��.7�t COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIpCLEONE) YES No FUNDING SOURCE 97-�M-o667 A P i A q7 = 557 , 000 ACITVITY NUMBEA � -Zf 2 84 �2 � FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B� AST = 3OO �ODO c, cIa 97 = So,OOo esz^t os sm PAIIL . FINAL ORDER R 'cre.�n� e � - By q� - i NO. F� . S 71 5971 i�7ard , 2 , 3 , 7 In the Matter of Reconstruction o£ sidewalks at tl�e following location s): 597101 - Both sides Laurel Ave £rom N Victoria St to N Milton St 7 l.,r�� Over }e �o��a�1"1 C:� 597102 - At 420 Cherokee Ave, 863 Ottawa Ave, 235 W Stevens St, Cour�a�1 Mi� 20�5 Thure Ave, 1585 Conway St. Q *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$?.45 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per £ront foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New coastruction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square £oot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the £irst 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures}, NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot_ under Prelimittary order � 1^ ��'J� approved �,._. ,�c� �,�q!'� The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereo£ having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and r WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therePore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council o£ 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 ofEicers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays vBlakey ✓'�ostrom �ollins �rris �gard �rton Thune... AbS e�n�` �? In Favor �Against ,,, �� e r.� �� g � �.� COUNCIL Adopted by Council: Date_� �_�' �qq� -T Certified Passed by Council Secretary � ` � R �� Mayor runlr� �earing Date — October 8, 1997 RE 8-1-47 � DEPAFlTMENT�OFfICErCOUNGI DATEINRIASED GREEN SHEET No.3g�ss Public Works Sidewaiks 7-10-97 � ��.� corrrncr�r+ssa+sauor+e o�aan,�ErrrwaECTOa []emcour+cu RobertA.iiss'idc-266-6i21 x �e�� ScrtvArrow�v �cmaerix wusreeoNCOUr+canr�Hw.sr�nh� g—ZO-97 R� �eu�EroiaEC�roa �FNLEMGT.SEFVCESDIR Must be in Council Research Office �µpY�R{ORfSSISTANT) 0�,�� p TOTAL i QF SGNATUHE PAGES 1 __ (tt1P ALL LOCA710NS fOR SIGNANRq � ASSOCIA7E � DEPARTMEN7AL ACCOUMANT ACTION pEIXJESTED —_ ^ A I r.JX7 Recanstrud Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3 8 7(See attached list) �` j � Fu� � � � Z q`� � 9 ��' �� °� �« PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS YUST ANSWER TFiE FOLLOWING CUESTIONS: PLANNMI6 COIAMISSqN CNR SERVICE CdAMIS510N 1. Has Mis��v� rm eVef wotked undBr 8 Contrae[ far ll»is dBpaNnen[? — — EY S ND _GB COMMRTEE 2 Has rtiis personftimt evet bBen a dry emW%ee? — YES NO A SsaFG 3. Ooes tliis pe'saVfirm possess a skitl not rortnally possessed try a�ry wrrent city DISYA�C7CWNCILI/�,�_ � YES NO SI�PORTS WHICFi COUNCIL CTrvEZ �@�� a0 yas a�rowers on soparata sheet aM at4oh to groan shwt � 3 fNRfATIN(i P UE.OPPDR'NNITV (YMO. WViAT. WHEN. WHEPE. The problem "detective sidewalk" was created because ot tree roots, deleterious su4grade material, aRemating freefthaw cycles, service I'rfe limRs, chemicat additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Laft uncorrected, the sidewalk condRion wouid worsen to a state where ft would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian inyuries from fails and possible litigations. ADVANTAGES fF APPROVEb. The community will benefit irom this project because ii wili provide safe detect free sidewalks for fts marry citizens. Tfie sidewaik contracts are executed by private contractors, so it folbws that private sector jobs are created as a resuR of this activity. DISADYANTAGES IF APPROVED: r Historicalry, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construetfon procedure and assessment. Simpry stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-haH the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversiai. DlSAnYANTqGE51F NOT MPROVED: This option wouid allow the infrastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personai injury suits, uRimately resuking i� the expenditure of larger do4lar amouats i� eventua! repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. Ci01SP�}� t3�?3fL�S '�i�g� AUG 1 i�37 TOTAL AAIOUM OF TfiANSACTION S �t � � tF7 . 7 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED �C1RClE ONE) Y NO FUNDINGSOURCE 97-�MM-�Ob67 A, p►q gj x 557 ACENITYNUMBER C97-2T729-0784-27ot2 Fl"^"cva"�c°aM^T+ow:�r.�^+rn B. AST : 30�,000 C, c�s 97 a 50,000 6� CITY OF ST. PAUL FINAI, ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO. " ` �� By �' File o_ Ol Vot ng War 1 Ia the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): both sides Laurel Avenue from N Victoria Street to N Milton Street. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement o£ old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front £oot £or a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square foot. A11 corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstruoted sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MUI,TI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAI, RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot, under Preliminary order 97-1032 approved_August 20, 1997_ The Council of the City o£ 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 has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, there£ore, be it RESOLVED, 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 sha11 calculate a11 expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 0£ the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays ✓Blakey �Bostrom ✓Collins ✓� rris ✓ Megard �orton �hune { In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date � �� Certified Passed by Council Secretary or ,.LA*D:OVER BY COUNCIL ON 10-8-97 TO 10-22-97 RE 1�-21-97 �_��„ � � T.M.S.lREAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: October 21, 1997 Green 5heet Num r: 39543 ontad Person and Phone N�ber: EPAR7T�fEN1' DIRE(.'1'OR CITY COi1NCII. PCtCT `. �.�tC u1E�850 ATl'ORNEY TlYCLERK UDCEl' DIItECl'OR FFICE OF FINANCJAL SVCS. LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 10-8-97 TO vstbeonComa1Agendahy: 10 YOR(ORASSISfANT) 1 Oi7NCII.au.cnenCg OTAL # OF SIGNATLiRE PAGES i tci.� au.i.ocA�rcoxs Fox scxaTT�xE� C110N 1tEQUESTED: Approve sidewalk reconstruction on both sides LAUREL AVENLTE from North Victoria Sixeet to North Milton Street. ' e No. S97101 OMD�II.+MIATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR RE.IECT (R) ggpNAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING: . Has t6e person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depaztment? YES NO PLANNING COhAUSSION A STAFF . Has tLis persoo/firm ever been a Citp empMyee? YES NO C1VII. SEItVICE COMIrIISS10N . Dces this personlCu�m possess a skil! not nurmally possessed by any , YES NO c� coaun�rreie current City employee? - lain aR YES auswecs on a se arate sheet and attach. PORTS WHICA COUNCII. OBJECTIVEI Neighborhoods COi3NCII, WARD(S� � DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL �j TING PROBLEM, 7SSUE, OPPORTUNII'Y (4Vhq WLat, When, Where, Why?): This project was laid over from October 8. C.F. # 37-1255 See Attached VANTAGESIFAPPROVED: LSADVANTAGESIFAPYROVED: ISADVAN'I'AGES IF NOT APPROVED: OTAL AMOUNT OF T1tANSACTION: COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIILCLE ONE) YES NO ACTiVITX NUMBER: ING SOURCE: ANCIAL INFORMATION: (ERPLAIPp Public Hearing Date - October 8, 1997 RE 8-1-97 �� `�1 - DEPAflTUEN7/OFFlCEMAUNCIL DATE1NiT1ATED GREEN SHEET NO. ��`� Public Works Sidewaiks 7 '��' 97 INITIAUDATE INRIAUDATE CAMACT PEpSON b PNONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR � CIiY COUNC�L RobertA.Lissick-266-6121 ��r'N �CITYATTORNEY �CRYCLEAK NUMBEqFOR MUSTBEDNCAUNCILAGENDABV(DATE) $ p��G �BUDGEiD1iiECTOR �FIN.dMGT.SEPVICESDl0. Must be in Council Research Office OMAVOfl(OAASSISTANn tO Gounal Research SOTALaOFS�GNAiUREPAGES I _ (CLIPALLLOCA710NSWiiSGNATUR� �ASSOCIAiE �D=PARTMEHTALACCOUMANT ACTION PEOUESTED ^ � ^ n^- Reconstrud Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3& 7(See ariached list} �� F�t.� �5 �- ? Z pECAMMENDATIONS: �Wp�m�e (l\1 w FejBG (W PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS: P�qNNWfiCOMA11S510N _CNO. SERVICE CAMMISSION 1• Has R1t5 Pe!S �r Ne�ver worked under a contrect tw this department? _ YE CIe COMMfT�EE _ 2. Fias ihis perso�rm ever been a ciry employee? — YES NO A 57nFF _ 3. Does ihis personlfirm pouess a tkifl not normally Rassessed by arry current city �� — emPlaYee? DISTflICTCAUNCRI YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUN L 9 cCTNEY Expiain all ye5 enswers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet � 3 INITIATING PR L .� UE, OPPORNNITY (WMO, NM1+AT. WNEN. WHERE, WMIY): The probiem "defecCrve sidewaik" wzs crealed because oi tree raots, deleter'rous subgrade material, alternating treerthaw cycles, service i'rfe limils, chemical additives, ealreme temperature variations, etc. These problems ocxur on a ckywlde level and musl be addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncotrected, the sidewa4k cond'Rion wou{d worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries irom tafls and possibfe {ftigations. ADV0.NTAGESI6 APPPOYED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safie deteci free sidewafks tor its many citizens. The sidewaik contracts are executed by private contractors, so d follows that privaie sector jobs are created as a resuR ot this activity. Ol$ADVANTAGES IE PPPFOVED: Historica0y, the sidewatk reconsiructions have created negative teedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply siated, property owners detesi assessments, and despite the facl up to one-halt the assessment is CiSy subsidized, it still remains controversial. DISADVANTAGES ff NOT APPROVER This option wou{d al{ow the infrastructure of sidewalk siock to deterarate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, uftimately resufting in the expenditure of larger doilar amounts in eve�tual repairs andlor repiacement, as weU as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNTOFTAANSAC'f10NS 4 T��.7�t COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIpCLEONE) YES No FUNDING SOURCE 97-�M-o667 A P i A q7 = 557 , 000 ACITVITY NUMBEA � -Zf 2 84 �2 � FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B� AST = 3OO �ODO c, cIa 97 = So,OOo esz^t os sm PAIIL . FINAL ORDER R 'cre.�n� e � - By q� - i NO. F� . S 71 5971 i�7ard , 2 , 3 , 7 In the Matter of Reconstruction o£ sidewalks at tl�e following location s): 597101 - Both sides Laurel Ave £rom N Victoria St to N Milton St 7 l.,r�� Over }e �o��a�1"1 C:� 597102 - At 420 Cherokee Ave, 863 Ottawa Ave, 235 W Stevens St, Cour�a�1 Mi� 20�5 Thure Ave, 1585 Conway St. Q *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$?.45 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per £ront foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New coastruction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square £oot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the £irst 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures}, NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot_ under Prelimittary order � 1^ ��'J� approved �,._. ,�c� �,�q!'� The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereo£ having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and r WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therePore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council o£ 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 ofEicers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays vBlakey ✓'�ostrom �ollins �rris �gard �rton Thune... AbS e�n�` �? In Favor �Against ,,, �� e r.� �� g � �.� COUNCIL Adopted by Council: Date_� �_�' �qq� -T Certified Passed by Council Secretary � ` � R �� Mayor runlr� �earing Date — October 8, 1997 RE 8-1-47 � DEPAFlTMENT�OFfICErCOUNGI DATEINRIASED GREEN SHEET No.3g�ss Public Works Sidewaiks 7-10-97 � ��.� corrrncr�r+ssa+sauor+e o�aan,�ErrrwaECTOa []emcour+cu RobertA.iiss'idc-266-6i21 x �e�� ScrtvArrow�v �cmaerix wusreeoNCOUr+canr�Hw.sr�nh� g—ZO-97 R� �eu�EroiaEC�roa �FNLEMGT.SEFVCESDIR Must be in Council Research Office �µpY�R{ORfSSISTANT) 0�,�� p TOTAL i QF SGNATUHE PAGES 1 __ (tt1P ALL LOCA710NS fOR SIGNANRq � ASSOCIA7E � DEPARTMEN7AL ACCOUMANT ACTION pEIXJESTED —_ ^ A I r.JX7 Recanstrud Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3 8 7(See attached list) �` j � Fu� � � � Z q`� � 9 ��' �� °� �« PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS YUST ANSWER TFiE FOLLOWING CUESTIONS: PLANNMI6 COIAMISSqN CNR SERVICE CdAMIS510N 1. Has Mis��v� rm eVef wotked undBr 8 Contrae[ far ll»is dBpaNnen[? — — EY S ND _GB COMMRTEE 2 Has rtiis personftimt evet bBen a dry emW%ee? — YES NO A SsaFG 3. Ooes tliis pe'saVfirm possess a skitl not rortnally possessed try a�ry wrrent city DISYA�C7CWNCILI/�,�_ � YES NO SI�PORTS WHICFi COUNCIL CTrvEZ �@�� a0 yas a�rowers on soparata sheet aM at4oh to groan shwt � 3 fNRfATIN(i P UE.OPPDR'NNITV (YMO. WViAT. WHEN. WHEPE. The problem "detective sidewalk" was created because ot tree roots, deleterious su4grade material, aRemating freefthaw cycles, service I'rfe limRs, chemicat additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Laft uncorrected, the sidewalk condRion wouid worsen to a state where ft would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian inyuries from fails and possible litigations. ADVANTAGES fF APPROVEb. The community will benefit irom this project because ii wili provide safe detect free sidewalks for fts marry citizens. Tfie sidewaik contracts are executed by private contractors, so it folbws that private sector jobs are created as a resuR of this activity. DISADYANTAGES IF APPROVED: r Historicalry, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construetfon procedure and assessment. Simpry stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-haH the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversiai. DlSAnYANTqGE51F NOT MPROVED: This option wouid allow the infrastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personai injury suits, uRimately resuking i� the expenditure of larger do4lar amouats i� eventua! repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. Ci01SP�}� t3�?3fL�S '�i�g� AUG 1 i�37 TOTAL AAIOUM OF TfiANSACTION S �t � � tF7 . 7 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED �C1RClE ONE) Y NO FUNDINGSOURCE 97-�MM-�Ob67 A, p►q gj x 557 ACENITYNUMBER C97-2T729-0784-27ot2 Fl"^"cva"�c°aM^T+ow:�r.�^+rn B. AST : 30�,000 C, c�s 97 a 50,000