The URL can be used to link to this page

99-540CITY OE 5T. PAUL F=�, ORDER 0 R� G 1 NA L COUNI��/�N� �� — S � O B ?3 File No. 599023 Voting Ward 3 In the Matter o£ sidemalk reconstruction at the following locations: 599023 - East side South Snelling Avenue from Ford Parkway to Highland Parkway. Laid over from Mav 26, 1999 *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three Pamily structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $10.38 per front £oot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 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. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100°s of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. under Preliminary order 99-3`7�8' approved S-2/-9q 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 has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, 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 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 ✓ Senanav ,i Blakey ,i Bostrom ,� Coleman ✓ Harris ,i Lantry y Reiter � In Favor �Against Adopted by Council: Certified Passed by Date j /9 9 Secretary �/ /�� Mayor �7 / Public Hearin Date: 6/9/99 99 's'� T.M.S.IREAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: Green Sheet Number: 63024 EPARTMENT DIItECI'OR CITY COUNCQ. oNa n and Phone Nnmber: ATTORNEY CLERK o weber 266-8858 i7DGET DIItECl'OR fGCH. & MGT. SVG DIR YOR (OR ASSISTAN'1) 1 OUNCD. RESEARCH ust be on Council A enda b: TAL # OF SIGNAT[JRE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RF.QUESTED: pprove the Final Order for sidewalk recoastructioa (File No. 599023). This item was laid over on May 26, 1999 for 2 weeks. SEE ATTACHED COPY OF ORIGINAL GREENSHEET NO. 08052 COMMENDATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR REJECT (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS M[JST ANS WER'PHE FOLLOWING: . Eias the person/firm ever worked under a conh�act for this departnent? YES NO PLANNING COMNIISSION STAFF . Aas this persoN£uw ever been a City employee? YES NO CIVII. SERVICE COMMLSSION . Does this person/£um possess a sldll not normally possessed by any YES NO CIB COMMI7'7'EE �'�t City employee? E lain all YES answers on a se azate sheet and attach. UPPORTS WfIICH COUNCb OBJECI'IVE? COUNCII, WARD(S) DLSTRICT PLANNING COUNCII. TIATING PROBI.EM, ISSUE, OPPORI'IJNI1'Y (Who, 4Vhay When, Where, Why?): DVANTAGES IF APPROVED: ISADVANTAGES IF APPROVF.D: ISADVANI'AGES IF NOT APPROVF,D: OTAL AMOUNT OF T'RANSACTION: COST/REVENUE Bi7DGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVTTY NUMBER: INANCTAI, INFORMATION: (EXPLAIl� � WL : Works Sidewalks :T PERSON d PHONE Tvedt-266-6087 GREEN (OR ASSISTAl1T) ' __ (CLIPALLLOCA710NSFORSIGNANRE) Reconstruct & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3& 6(See attached list) F1l� #.5 599017- 599D?� �� NNING COMMISSION COMMRTEE assocwre DEPUtTMENTAL PERSONALSERVICECONTRpCTSMUS�ANSWERTH�POLLOWMGQUESTIONS: � CIVILSERNGECOMMISSION 7, Hasthisperson/firtneverworkedunderacontrnatorNisdepartment? YES NO 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever 6een a city empioyee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNlrtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? YES NO Expiain all yes answers on sepatate sheet and attach to green sheet COUNCILOBJECTIVE? �� The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusabie and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibie litigations. The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuit. IFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversiaf issue: nuvnrvTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED: - � This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resuiting in the expenditure of farger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. � ��y�� °� JU� 0 � �� /`I' ��C�SsObto NO. �_ INRIAflDATE �CtTYCOUNdL ❑ C(TY CLERK ❑ FlN, d MGT. SEFiVICES DIR Q Council Research. _ .,.., � �. 9�� AMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ 53.96�36 COSTlREVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) +csouace 99-M-0669 A, PIA 99 = 630,000 pCINITYNUMBER css-znsz-o� 4 LINFORMAT�ON:(E%PLAIN) B � qST = 35t �OOO c, Cts 99 = 50,000 i6] � � . ��3� ��4� CITY OE 5T. PAUL F=�, ORDER 0 R� G 1 NA L COUNI��/�N� �� — S � O B ?3 File No. 599023 Voting Ward 3 In the Matter o£ sidemalk reconstruction at the following locations: 599023 - East side South Snelling Avenue from Ford Parkway to Highland Parkway. Laid over from Mav 26, 1999 *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three Pamily structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $10.38 per front £oot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 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. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100°s of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. under Preliminary order 99-3`7�8' approved S-2/-9q 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 has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, 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 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 ✓ Senanav ,i Blakey ,i Bostrom ,� Coleman ✓ Harris ,i Lantry y Reiter � In Favor �Against Adopted by Council: Certified Passed by Date j /9 9 Secretary �/ /�� Mayor �7 / Public Hearin Date: 6/9/99 99 's'� T.M.S.IREAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: Green Sheet Number: 63024 EPARTMENT DIItECI'OR CITY COUNCQ. oNa n and Phone Nnmber: ATTORNEY CLERK o weber 266-8858 i7DGET DIItECl'OR fGCH. & MGT. SVG DIR YOR (OR ASSISTAN'1) 1 OUNCD. RESEARCH ust be on Council A enda b: TAL # OF SIGNAT[JRE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RF.QUESTED: pprove the Final Order for sidewalk recoastructioa (File No. 599023). This item was laid over on May 26, 1999 for 2 weeks. SEE ATTACHED COPY OF ORIGINAL GREENSHEET NO. 08052 COMMENDATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR REJECT (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS M[JST ANS WER'PHE FOLLOWING: . Eias the person/firm ever worked under a conh�act for this departnent? YES NO PLANNING COMNIISSION STAFF . Aas this persoN£uw ever been a City employee? YES NO CIVII. SERVICE COMMLSSION . Does this person/£um possess a sldll not normally possessed by any YES NO CIB COMMI7'7'EE �'�t City employee? E lain all YES answers on a se azate sheet and attach. UPPORTS WfIICH COUNCb OBJECI'IVE? COUNCII, WARD(S) DLSTRICT PLANNING COUNCII. TIATING PROBI.EM, ISSUE, OPPORI'IJNI1'Y (Who, 4Vhay When, Where, Why?): DVANTAGES IF APPROVED: ISADVANTAGES IF APPROVF.D: ISADVANI'AGES IF NOT APPROVF,D: OTAL AMOUNT OF T'RANSACTION: COST/REVENUE Bi7DGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVTTY NUMBER: INANCTAI, INFORMATION: (EXPLAIl� � WL : Works Sidewalks :T PERSON d PHONE Tvedt-266-6087 GREEN (OR ASSISTAl1T) ' __ (CLIPALLLOCA710NSFORSIGNANRE) Reconstruct & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3& 6(See attached list) F1l� #.5 599017- 599D?� �� NNING COMMISSION COMMRTEE assocwre DEPUtTMENTAL PERSONALSERVICECONTRpCTSMUS�ANSWERTH�POLLOWMGQUESTIONS: � CIVILSERNGECOMMISSION 7, Hasthisperson/firtneverworkedunderacontrnatorNisdepartment? YES NO 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever 6een a city empioyee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNlrtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? YES NO Expiain all yes answers on sepatate sheet and attach to green sheet COUNCILOBJECTIVE? �� The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusabie and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibie litigations. The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuit. IFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversiaf issue: nuvnrvTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED: - � This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resuiting in the expenditure of farger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. � ��y�� °� JU� 0 � �� /`I' ��C�SsObto NO. �_ INRIAflDATE �CtTYCOUNdL ❑ C(TY CLERK ❑ FlN, d MGT. SEFiVICES DIR Q Council Research. _ .,.., � �. 9�� AMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ 53.96�36 COSTlREVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) +csouace 99-M-0669 A, PIA 99 = 630,000 pCINITYNUMBER css-znsz-o� 4 LINFORMAT�ON:(E%PLAIN) B � qST = 35t �OOO c, Cts 99 = 50,000 i6] � � . ��3� ��4� CITY OE 5T. PAUL F=�, ORDER 0 R� G 1 NA L COUNI��/�N� �� — S � O B ?3 File No. 599023 Voting Ward 3 In the Matter o£ sidemalk reconstruction at the following locations: 599023 - East side South Snelling Avenue from Ford Parkway to Highland Parkway. Laid over from Mav 26, 1999 *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three Pamily structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $10.38 per front £oot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 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. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100°s of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. under Preliminary order 99-3`7�8' approved S-2/-9q 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 has heard all persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, 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 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 ✓ Senanav ,i Blakey ,i Bostrom ,� Coleman ✓ Harris ,i Lantry y Reiter � In Favor �Against Adopted by Council: Certified Passed by Date j /9 9 Secretary �/ /�� Mayor �7 / Public Hearin Date: 6/9/99 99 's'� T.M.S.IREAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: Green Sheet Number: 63024 EPARTMENT DIItECI'OR CITY COUNCQ. oNa n and Phone Nnmber: ATTORNEY CLERK o weber 266-8858 i7DGET DIItECl'OR fGCH. & MGT. SVG DIR YOR (OR ASSISTAN'1) 1 OUNCD. RESEARCH ust be on Council A enda b: TAL # OF SIGNAT[JRE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RF.QUESTED: pprove the Final Order for sidewalk recoastructioa (File No. 599023). This item was laid over on May 26, 1999 for 2 weeks. SEE ATTACHED COPY OF ORIGINAL GREENSHEET NO. 08052 COMMENDATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR REJECT (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS M[JST ANS WER'PHE FOLLOWING: . Eias the person/firm ever worked under a conh�act for this departnent? YES NO PLANNING COMNIISSION STAFF . Aas this persoN£uw ever been a City employee? YES NO CIVII. SERVICE COMMLSSION . Does this person/£um possess a sldll not normally possessed by any YES NO CIB COMMI7'7'EE �'�t City employee? E lain all YES answers on a se azate sheet and attach. UPPORTS WfIICH COUNCb OBJECI'IVE? COUNCII, WARD(S) DLSTRICT PLANNING COUNCII. TIATING PROBI.EM, ISSUE, OPPORI'IJNI1'Y (Who, 4Vhay When, Where, Why?): DVANTAGES IF APPROVED: ISADVANTAGES IF APPROVF.D: ISADVANI'AGES IF NOT APPROVF,D: OTAL AMOUNT OF T'RANSACTION: COST/REVENUE Bi7DGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVTTY NUMBER: INANCTAI, INFORMATION: (EXPLAIl� � WL : Works Sidewalks :T PERSON d PHONE Tvedt-266-6087 GREEN (OR ASSISTAl1T) ' __ (CLIPALLLOCA710NSFORSIGNANRE) Reconstruct & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 1, 2, 3& 6(See attached list) F1l� #.5 599017- 599D?� �� NNING COMMISSION COMMRTEE assocwre DEPUtTMENTAL PERSONALSERVICECONTRpCTSMUS�ANSWERTH�POLLOWMGQUESTIONS: � CIVILSERNGECOMMISSION 7, Hasthisperson/firtneverworkedunderacontrnatorNisdepartment? YES NO 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever 6een a city empioyee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNlrtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? YES NO Expiain all yes answers on sepatate sheet and attach to green sheet COUNCILOBJECTIVE? �� The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusabie and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibie litigations. The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuit. IFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversiaf issue: nuvnrvTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED: - � This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resuiting in the expenditure of farger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. � ��y�� °� JU� 0 � �� /`I' ��C�SsObto NO. �_ INRIAflDATE �CtTYCOUNdL ❑ C(TY CLERK ❑ FlN, d MGT. SEFiVICES DIR Q Council Research. _ .,.., � �. 9�� AMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ 53.96�36 COSTlREVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) +csouace 99-M-0669 A, PIA 99 = 630,000 pCINITYNUMBER css-znsz-o� 4 LINFORMAT�ON:(E%PLAIN) B � qST = 35t �OOO c, Cts 99 = 50,000 i6] � � . ��3� ��4�