The URL can be used to link to this page

99-597CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL �I� N. �, / I FINAL ORDER - By O��j� A� File No._S9 065 � H Voting Ward_2 In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: 599065 - Both sides Randolph Avenue from View Street to Bay Street. I,aid over from June 9, 1999 *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family 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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100% o£ the actual cost estimated to be approximately 53.87 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% 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 thereo£ having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREA5, 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 o£ 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 ✓ Benanav ✓ Blakey ✓ Bostrom � Coleman ✓ Harris ✓ Lantry ✓ Reiter �In Favor �Aqainst Adopted by Council: Date Certified�P�ssed Secretary Mayor G ic Works Sidewalks \CT PERSON SPHONE � Tvedt - 266-6087 BE ON CAVNpLAGENDA BY (DAT� � �� OPSIGNATUREPAGES __ GREEN S DEPAATMENT DIftECTOR CRYATfORNEY eUDGETDIRECTOR MAVOR (OR ASSI5TANT) _ (CIJPALLLOCATONSGOH5IGNANP� u ASSOCIA7E Reconstruct & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3 E� 4(See attached list) �, c� s�o� .�► ACCWNfANi a�ER �13nlU+� 9 ?0 �UN�tt3 aECOMnnErloAnONS: Approve (a) m qa�ee (a) PERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCAMMISSION __CMLSERVIGECAMMISSION �. Hasthisperson/firtnevervrorkeduntleracontmctforthisdepartmen[? CIBCOMMfTiEE YES NO — — 2. Has Nis person/firtn ever been a dry empioyee? ? S7aFF _ YES NO DISTRICT CoUNCIL 3. Does ihi5 p2�5oN1iRn POSSess a skiN not nortnaHy posse55Cd by any curten[ ciry employee? — — YES NO SuPPORTS WH�Cn COUNCiL oBJEC7NE7 Explain ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet W 3 INRIATINGPROBlEM,15 UE,OPPORTUNI7Y(WHO,WHAT,WHEN,WHERE,WHI�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple probiems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service Iife limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annuaily. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition wouid worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falis and possible litigations. APPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it wi�l provide safe defect free sidewaiks for its citizens. The sidewa�k con[racts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuli. 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. f� This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. . ��&PGh �.cn'g{ : � : te �' �37�� NO. INf(IAUDATE ❑ GITY COUNdL ❑ CRY CLERK ❑ FW. d MGT. SEflVICES DIA � Council Research _ IOUNTOFTHANSACTIONS �t COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No SOURCE g9-rt-o669 a. P�a 99 = 630 ono ACIN4TYNUMflER C99-2Tl52-07 8 4-0 0 00 0 INFORMATION:(E%PLAIN) B� qST = 351 �OOO C, CIB 99 = 50,000 CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL �I� N. �, / I FINAL ORDER - By O��j� A� File No._S9 065 � H Voting Ward_2 In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: 599065 - Both sides Randolph Avenue from View Street to Bay Street. I,aid over from June 9, 1999 *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family 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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100% o£ the actual cost estimated to be approximately 53.87 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% 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 thereo£ having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREA5, 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 o£ 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 ✓ Benanav ✓ Blakey ✓ Bostrom � Coleman ✓ Harris ✓ Lantry ✓ Reiter �In Favor �Aqainst Adopted by Council: Date Certified�P�ssed Secretary Mayor G ic Works Sidewalks \CT PERSON SPHONE � Tvedt - 266-6087 BE ON CAVNpLAGENDA BY (DAT� � �� OPSIGNATUREPAGES __ GREEN S DEPAATMENT DIftECTOR CRYATfORNEY eUDGETDIRECTOR MAVOR (OR ASSI5TANT) _ (CIJPALLLOCATONSGOH5IGNANP� u ASSOCIA7E Reconstruct & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3 E� 4(See attached list) �, c� s�o� .�► ACCWNfANi a�ER �13nlU+� 9 ?0 �UN�tt3 aECOMnnErloAnONS: Approve (a) m qa�ee (a) PERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCAMMISSION __CMLSERVIGECAMMISSION �. Hasthisperson/firtnevervrorkeduntleracontmctforthisdepartmen[? CIBCOMMfTiEE YES NO — — 2. Has Nis person/firtn ever been a dry empioyee? ? S7aFF _ YES NO DISTRICT CoUNCIL 3. Does ihi5 p2�5oN1iRn POSSess a skiN not nortnaHy posse55Cd by any curten[ ciry employee? — — YES NO SuPPORTS WH�Cn COUNCiL oBJEC7NE7 Explain ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet W 3 INRIATINGPROBlEM,15 UE,OPPORTUNI7Y(WHO,WHAT,WHEN,WHERE,WHI�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple probiems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service Iife limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annuaily. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition wouid worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falis and possible litigations. APPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it wi�l provide safe defect free sidewaiks for its citizens. The sidewa�k con[racts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuli. 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. f� This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. . ��&PGh �.cn'g{ : � : te �' �37�� NO. INf(IAUDATE ❑ GITY COUNdL ❑ CRY CLERK ❑ FW. d MGT. SEflVICES DIA � Council Research _ IOUNTOFTHANSACTIONS �t COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No SOURCE g9-rt-o669 a. P�a 99 = 630 ono ACIN4TYNUMflER C99-2Tl52-07 8 4-0 0 00 0 INFORMATION:(E%PLAIN) B� qST = 351 �OOO C, CIB 99 = 50,000 CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL �I� N. �, / I FINAL ORDER - By O��j� A� File No._S9 065 � H Voting Ward_2 In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: 599065 - Both sides Randolph Avenue from View Street to Bay Street. I,aid over from June 9, 1999 *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family 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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100% o£ the actual cost estimated to be approximately 53.87 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% 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 thereo£ having been given as prescribed by the City Charter; and WHEREA5, 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 o£ 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 ✓ Benanav ✓ Blakey ✓ Bostrom � Coleman ✓ Harris ✓ Lantry ✓ Reiter �In Favor �Aqainst Adopted by Council: Date Certified�P�ssed Secretary Mayor G ic Works Sidewalks \CT PERSON SPHONE � Tvedt - 266-6087 BE ON CAVNpLAGENDA BY (DAT� � �� OPSIGNATUREPAGES __ GREEN S DEPAATMENT DIftECTOR CRYATfORNEY eUDGETDIRECTOR MAVOR (OR ASSI5TANT) _ (CIJPALLLOCATONSGOH5IGNANP� u ASSOCIA7E Reconstruct & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3 E� 4(See attached list) �, c� s�o� .�► ACCWNfANi a�ER �13nlU+� 9 ?0 �UN�tt3 aECOMnnErloAnONS: Approve (a) m qa�ee (a) PERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCAMMISSION __CMLSERVIGECAMMISSION �. Hasthisperson/firtnevervrorkeduntleracontmctforthisdepartmen[? CIBCOMMfTiEE YES NO — — 2. Has Nis person/firtn ever been a dry empioyee? ? S7aFF _ YES NO DISTRICT CoUNCIL 3. Does ihi5 p2�5oN1iRn POSSess a skiN not nortnaHy posse55Cd by any curten[ ciry employee? — — YES NO SuPPORTS WH�Cn COUNCiL oBJEC7NE7 Explain ail yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet W 3 INRIATINGPROBlEM,15 UE,OPPORTUNI7Y(WHO,WHAT,WHEN,WHERE,WHI�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple probiems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycles, service Iife limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annuaily. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition wouid worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falis and possible litigations. APPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it wi�l provide safe defect free sidewaiks for its citizens. The sidewa�k con[racts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuli. 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. f� This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouts. . ��&PGh �.cn'g{ : � : te �' �37�� NO. INf(IAUDATE ❑ GITY COUNdL ❑ CRY CLERK ❑ FW. d MGT. SEflVICES DIA � Council Research _ IOUNTOFTHANSACTIONS �t COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No SOURCE g9-rt-o669 a. P�a 99 = 630 ono ACIN4TYNUMflER C99-2Tl52-07 8 4-0 0 00 0 INFORMATION:(E%PLAIN) B� qST = 351 �OOO C, CIB 99 = 50,000