Loading...
00-659��� oR��tNAt CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCI FILE NO. O� � GS� aS FINAL ORDER By ' �� File No._500128, 500131A, 500149A Voting Ward 2, 6, 7 In the Matter of sidewalk recoastruction at the following locations: 500128 - Both Sides East Maryland Avenue from Cypress Street to Earl Street. 500131A - Both Sides East Minnehaha Avenue from North Ruth Street to North Winthrop Street at 2113 East Minnehaha Avenue. 500149A - Both Sides East Sidney Street from Oakdale Avenue to Andrew Street at 345 East Sidney Street. (LAID OVER FROM JUNE 28) , do - G Sg *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 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; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 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 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 ✓Benanav �l akey ,/�ostrom �oleman �rris v��a try I/keiter Adopted by Council: Date 1 Jc� Certified Passed by Council Secretary IIn Favor By � � D Against ?yL �/�/uG(� �,�„�/� Mayor /� 00 -` F.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: June 30, 2000 Green Sheet Number: 104842 EPARTMENT DIItECl'OR CITY CAUNCII. ntaM Person and Phone Number. ITY ATTORNEY ITY CLER% J CTC� TVCfit 266-6�87 [IDGET DIltECTOR �.& MGT. SVC. DIIL YOR (OR ASSISfANT) 1 OUNCII, RESEARCH ust be on Council A enda b: J�y ia, woo OTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CL7P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) � CTION REQUESTED: econstruct sidewalk in Wards 2, 6& 7. Properties laid over from June 28 Council Hearing. COMMENDATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR R&IECT (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER'THE FOLLOWING: . Has the person/£irm ever worked mder a contraM for this deparhnent? YES NO PLANNING COMhILS510N A STAFF . Aas flvs persodfirm ever been a City employee? YES NO CIVIL $ERVICE COMMISSWN . Does tLis persou/Yu possess a 5l�II ¢ot normally possessed by any YES NO CIH COMMITfEG current City employee? Ex lain all YES answers on a se arate sheet and attach. UPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? COUNCII. WARD(S) �(� �^� DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCII, �� 5 TIA7TNG PROBI,EM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNII'Y (Who, Whay WLen, Where, Why?): he problem "defective sidewalk was caused by multiple problems. These problems occur on a citywide basis d must be addressed and wrrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a tate where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigation. DVANTAGES IF APPROVED: he community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. he sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result ISADVAPiTAGES TF APPROVED: �un� ssearc � aving to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. �j�� Q��� ISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: his option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, whicli in turn, will generate more ersonal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as well s claim payouts.. OTAL AMOi7N'P OF'i'Rt1NSACTION: �O.00 ' WSTlREVENOE BUDGETED (CIILCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVITY NiJMBER: INANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAI� ��� oR��tNAt CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCI FILE NO. O� � GS� aS FINAL ORDER By ' �� File No._500128, 500131A, 500149A Voting Ward 2, 6, 7 In the Matter of sidewalk recoastruction at the following locations: 500128 - Both Sides East Maryland Avenue from Cypress Street to Earl Street. 500131A - Both Sides East Minnehaha Avenue from North Ruth Street to North Winthrop Street at 2113 East Minnehaha Avenue. 500149A - Both Sides East Sidney Street from Oakdale Avenue to Andrew Street at 345 East Sidney Street. (LAID OVER FROM JUNE 28) , do - G Sg *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 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; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 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 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 ✓Benanav �l akey ,/�ostrom �oleman �rris v��a try I/keiter Adopted by Council: Date 1 Jc� Certified Passed by Council Secretary IIn Favor By � � D Against ?yL �/�/uG(� �,�„�/� Mayor /� 00 -` F.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: June 30, 2000 Green Sheet Number: 104842 EPARTMENT DIItECl'OR CITY CAUNCII. ntaM Person and Phone Number. ITY ATTORNEY ITY CLER% J CTC� TVCfit 266-6�87 [IDGET DIltECTOR �.& MGT. SVC. DIIL YOR (OR ASSISfANT) 1 OUNCII, RESEARCH ust be on Council A enda b: J�y ia, woo OTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CL7P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) � CTION REQUESTED: econstruct sidewalk in Wards 2, 6& 7. Properties laid over from June 28 Council Hearing. COMMENDATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR R&IECT (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER'THE FOLLOWING: . Has the person/£irm ever worked mder a contraM for this deparhnent? YES NO PLANNING COMhILS510N A STAFF . Aas flvs persodfirm ever been a City employee? YES NO CIVIL $ERVICE COMMISSWN . Does tLis persou/Yu possess a 5l�II ¢ot normally possessed by any YES NO CIH COMMITfEG current City employee? Ex lain all YES answers on a se arate sheet and attach. UPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? COUNCII. WARD(S) �(� �^� DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCII, �� 5 TIA7TNG PROBI,EM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNII'Y (Who, Whay WLen, Where, Why?): he problem "defective sidewalk was caused by multiple problems. These problems occur on a citywide basis d must be addressed and wrrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a tate where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigation. DVANTAGES IF APPROVED: he community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. he sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result ISADVAPiTAGES TF APPROVED: �un� ssearc � aving to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. �j�� Q��� ISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: his option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, whicli in turn, will generate more ersonal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as well s claim payouts.. OTAL AMOi7N'P OF'i'Rt1NSACTION: �O.00 ' WSTlREVENOE BUDGETED (CIILCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVITY NiJMBER: INANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAI� ��� oR��tNAt CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCI FILE NO. O� � GS� aS FINAL ORDER By ' �� File No._500128, 500131A, 500149A Voting Ward 2, 6, 7 In the Matter of sidewalk recoastruction at the following locations: 500128 - Both Sides East Maryland Avenue from Cypress Street to Earl Street. 500131A - Both Sides East Minnehaha Avenue from North Ruth Street to North Winthrop Street at 2113 East Minnehaha Avenue. 500149A - Both Sides East Sidney Street from Oakdale Avenue to Andrew Street at 345 East Sidney Street. (LAID OVER FROM JUNE 28) , do - G Sg *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 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; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 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 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 ✓Benanav �l akey ,/�ostrom �oleman �rris v��a try I/keiter Adopted by Council: Date 1 Jc� Certified Passed by Council Secretary IIn Favor By � � D Against ?yL �/�/uG(� �,�„�/� Mayor /� 00 -` F.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: June 30, 2000 Green Sheet Number: 104842 EPARTMENT DIItECl'OR CITY CAUNCII. ntaM Person and Phone Number. ITY ATTORNEY ITY CLER% J CTC� TVCfit 266-6�87 [IDGET DIltECTOR �.& MGT. SVC. DIIL YOR (OR ASSISfANT) 1 OUNCII, RESEARCH ust be on Council A enda b: J�y ia, woo OTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CL7P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) � CTION REQUESTED: econstruct sidewalk in Wards 2, 6& 7. Properties laid over from June 28 Council Hearing. COMMENDATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR R&IECT (R) ERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER'THE FOLLOWING: . Has the person/£irm ever worked mder a contraM for this deparhnent? YES NO PLANNING COMhILS510N A STAFF . Aas flvs persodfirm ever been a City employee? YES NO CIVIL $ERVICE COMMISSWN . Does tLis persou/Yu possess a 5l�II ¢ot normally possessed by any YES NO CIH COMMITfEG current City employee? Ex lain all YES answers on a se arate sheet and attach. UPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? COUNCII. WARD(S) �(� �^� DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCII, �� 5 TIA7TNG PROBI,EM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNII'Y (Who, Whay WLen, Where, Why?): he problem "defective sidewalk was caused by multiple problems. These problems occur on a citywide basis d must be addressed and wrrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a tate where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigation. DVANTAGES IF APPROVED: he community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. he sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result ISADVAPiTAGES TF APPROVED: �un� ssearc � aving to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. �j�� Q��� ISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: his option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, whicli in turn, will generate more ersonal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as well s claim payouts.. OTAL AMOi7N'P OF'i'Rt1NSACTION: �O.00 ' WSTlREVENOE BUDGETED (CIILCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVITY NiJMBER: INANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAI�