The URL can be used to link to this page

99-541CITY OF ST. PAUL F=�. ORDER ORIGINAL COUNCIL FILE N0. B Y Fil No. 9031 Vo ina W r 1 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: S99031 - Both sides North Griggs Street from Selby Avenue to Dayton Avenue. Laid over £rom June 2, 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 foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100°s of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. All 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 approved 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 o£ the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City of£icers 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 Adopted by Council: Date�� qy Yeas Nays /// ✓ Blakeav Certifi�1assed by�pun�!�Secretary y / / � ✓ Bostrom ✓ Coleman ✓ Harris ,/ Lantry � Reiter �f In Favor �Against Mayor C HEARING DATE – JUNE 2. 1999 Works Sidewalks RE 4-16-99 �GREEN erryTVedt-266-6087 assicN �� — NUMBEfl FOR �U5fBEONCOUNqLAGENOABY(DAT� April 28, 1999 OR I�BUDCETDIREGTOR For public hearing on June 2, 1999 ��VOR(ORASSISTMR) MAIfOFSICNATUREPAGES _ (Ct1PALLLOCATIONSFORSIGNATUfl� U ASSOCIATE �GTION REQUES�ED Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 1& 2(See attacfied Iist) �� COUNCIL _ CH COUNCII OB1ECiIVE4 r. PT�.Lua�� PEflSONAL SERVICE CONTFiACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIOfVS: CIVILSEftVICECAMMISSION �, HasthispersoNfirmeverworkedunderawnUactforthisdepartment? YES NO 2. Has this persoNfirtn everbeen a ciry employee? YES NO 3. Does this personlfirtn possess a sw�� not nortnaliy possessed by any curten[ city employee? YES NO Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet WHEN, NMERE, WHI�: The problem °defective sidewaik" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it woutd be unusabie and subject to increased pedestrian injuries trom falls and possibte litigations. IF APPROVED: 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 secFor jobs as a result. IFAPPflOVED: 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 controversial issue. ADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVEO: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wili generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. .' ., :�,: . �.. � i. �a� fOTAL AMOUNT OF TftANSACTION $ FUNDINGSOUHCE 9J'M^�6� FINhYCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) A, PfA g9 = 630,000 B, AST = 351,000 C, CIB 99 = 50,000 COSTlREVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) ACINITYNUMeER C9a-?7759-m 99— Ss�/ �� INRIAUDATE � GTY GOUNCIL ❑CfT`(CLEPK ❑ FW. fi MC�T. SERVICES DIFL � Councii Research � CITY OF ST. PAUL F=�. ORDER ORIGINAL COUNCIL FILE N0. B Y Fil No. 9031 Vo ina W r 1 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: S99031 - Both sides North Griggs Street from Selby Avenue to Dayton Avenue. Laid over £rom June 2, 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 foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100°s of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. All 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 approved 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 o£ the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City of£icers 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 Adopted by Council: Date�� qy Yeas Nays /// ✓ Blakeav Certifi�1assed by�pun�!�Secretary y / / � ✓ Bostrom ✓ Coleman ✓ Harris ,/ Lantry � Reiter �f In Favor �Against Mayor C HEARING DATE – JUNE 2. 1999 Works Sidewalks RE 4-16-99 �GREEN erryTVedt-266-6087 assicN �� — NUMBEfl FOR �U5fBEONCOUNqLAGENOABY(DAT� April 28, 1999 OR I�BUDCETDIREGTOR For public hearing on June 2, 1999 ��VOR(ORASSISTMR) MAIfOFSICNATUREPAGES _ (Ct1PALLLOCATIONSFORSIGNATUfl� U ASSOCIATE �GTION REQUES�ED Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 1& 2(See attacfied Iist) �� COUNCIL _ CH COUNCII OB1ECiIVE4 r. PT�.Lua�� PEflSONAL SERVICE CONTFiACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIOfVS: CIVILSEftVICECAMMISSION �, HasthispersoNfirmeverworkedunderawnUactforthisdepartment? YES NO 2. Has this persoNfirtn everbeen a ciry employee? YES NO 3. Does this personlfirtn possess a sw�� not nortnaliy possessed by any curten[ city employee? YES NO Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet WHEN, NMERE, WHI�: The problem °defective sidewaik" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it woutd be unusabie and subject to increased pedestrian injuries trom falls and possibte litigations. IF APPROVED: 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 secFor jobs as a result. IFAPPflOVED: 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 controversial issue. ADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVEO: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wili generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. .' ., :�,: . �.. � i. �a� fOTAL AMOUNT OF TftANSACTION $ FUNDINGSOUHCE 9J'M^�6� FINhYCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) A, PfA g9 = 630,000 B, AST = 351,000 C, CIB 99 = 50,000 COSTlREVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) ACINITYNUMeER C9a-?7759-m 99— Ss�/ �� INRIAUDATE � GTY GOUNCIL ❑CfT`(CLEPK ❑ FW. fi MC�T. SERVICES DIFL � Councii Research � CITY OF ST. PAUL F=�. ORDER ORIGINAL COUNCIL FILE N0. B Y Fil No. 9031 Vo ina W r 1 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: S99031 - Both sides North Griggs Street from Selby Avenue to Dayton Avenue. Laid over £rom June 2, 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 foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100°s of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. All 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 approved 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 o£ the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City of£icers 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 Adopted by Council: Date�� qy Yeas Nays /// ✓ Blakeav Certifi�1assed by�pun�!�Secretary y / / � ✓ Bostrom ✓ Coleman ✓ Harris ,/ Lantry � Reiter �f In Favor �Against Mayor C HEARING DATE – JUNE 2. 1999 Works Sidewalks RE 4-16-99 �GREEN erryTVedt-266-6087 assicN �� — NUMBEfl FOR �U5fBEONCOUNqLAGENOABY(DAT� April 28, 1999 OR I�BUDCETDIREGTOR For public hearing on June 2, 1999 ��VOR(ORASSISTMR) MAIfOFSICNATUREPAGES _ (Ct1PALLLOCATIONSFORSIGNATUfl� U ASSOCIATE �GTION REQUES�ED Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 1& 2(See attacfied Iist) �� COUNCIL _ CH COUNCII OB1ECiIVE4 r. PT�.Lua�� PEflSONAL SERVICE CONTFiACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIOfVS: CIVILSEftVICECAMMISSION �, HasthispersoNfirmeverworkedunderawnUactforthisdepartment? YES NO 2. Has this persoNfirtn everbeen a ciry employee? YES NO 3. Does this personlfirtn possess a sw�� not nortnaliy possessed by any curten[ city employee? YES NO Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet WHEN, NMERE, WHI�: The problem °defective sidewaik" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it woutd be unusabie and subject to increased pedestrian injuries trom falls and possibte litigations. IF APPROVED: 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 secFor jobs as a result. IFAPPflOVED: 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 controversial issue. ADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVEO: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wili generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. .' ., :�,: . �.. � i. �a� fOTAL AMOUNT OF TftANSACTION $ FUNDINGSOUHCE 9J'M^�6� FINhYCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) A, PfA g9 = 630,000 B, AST = 351,000 C, CIB 99 = 50,000 COSTlREVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) ACINITYNUMeER C9a-?7759-m 99— Ss�/ �� INRIAUDATE � GTY GOUNCIL ❑CfT`(CLEPK ❑ FW. fi MC�T. SERVICES DIFL � Councii Research �