Loading...
02-455CITY OF ST. PAUL FINAL ORDER couivc= a z No _ O a. -� SS �� By / Fil No. �2038,502046,5�2047,502053, 502061,502068-502071,502073-S02079, 502081,502082,S02084,502087 Voting Ward_1,2,3,5,6,7 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the fo11o*aing locatioas: Amendment: A1so, the £ollowing addresses were referred (See Attached) to the Dept. of Public Works - 1587 and 1595 Reaney St. Amendments: Legislative Hearing Officer 456 Blair Avenue not be included in the *ESTTMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES t to at the time three nanels in em necess RESI➢ENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.49 per front foot £or a five i5) foot wide walk and $12.59 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New constructiou (where no walk existed) - 100g of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.64 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. M[7LTI-RESIDENTIAL (More than three family structures}, NON RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $6.35 per square foot. under Preliminary 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 Cauncil has heard a11 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 sha11 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 _ A.���df ✓ Bostrom Coleman � A1jSe�-r>' ✓Harris ,�Lantry ,�Re i ter ��n�i��o �/��/�a � In Favor d Against 6? /�.�`�'/T Adopted by Council : Date �`/_%?��a �od1 O Certified Passed by Council Secretary or P�r��r� ��► - 5�`0.� aa, a��� o�.-�ss . - _�-� • - � -_-- - - - ., . S02046 - Both sides Blair Avenue from Kent Street to Arundel Stree� � �_� � � �� :� � - �. _ , , _ •� � ; , S02053 - Both sides Hubbard Avenue from North Syndicate Street to North Lexington Parkway. , � � � u�a�uun�.n.i�.���unt�a_112JV�a�vmo.i.an��iUUy�r ' 1 1 . - - , _ _ � _ - � � � . ...,_. . . �. . � - - . . . , � . -. �_ .. , �.. �_ � ..... A . ... _ .: ..' , ..'. . ,. .. .,. . _ .. ..� ,. _ •.. _. •.-_ •, ._.. . � 1 1 1 , ti r " 1 1 1 "_ - ' ' . 1 1 � , _ .. � . �. �. �- � �� - . . .� 1 I .� . � 1 . , ., _. .� ., . . 1 � � � � . . . . . . S02073 - East side Payne Avenue from Case Avenue to 3enks Avenue. � ' ' �- � - � -- - S02075 - Both sides East Jessamine Avenue from Arkwright Street to Desoto Street & Both sides Desoto Street from East Jessamine Avenue to East Geranium Avenue. S02076 - Both sides East Cottage Avenue from Arcade Street to Mendota Street. 502077 - Both sides East Ivy Avenue from Hazelwood 5treet to Germain Street. S02078 - Both sides East Ivy Avenue from Flandrau Street to White Bear Avenue. 502079 - Both sides East Ivy Avenue from White Bear Avenue to Hazel Street. 502081- Both sides East Seventh Street from Germain Street to Kennard Street. O���T�CM s -'• -- -� c• 46 cF r__� n_._a_� o�_..,.a s,. � ai....«�,��..,,,.� S02084 - Both sides East Minnehaha Avenue from Duluth Street to Atlantic Street. 502087 - North side Reaney Avenue from Hazelwood Street to Germain Street. Zz 2 �. Z T.M.S.IREAL ESTATE DIVISION Da�� Apri123, 2002 Green Sheet Number: 1'{ y � 19 ntactYasonandPhoaeNnmber: EYAR'cn3ENTDIRECPOR 1 CiTYCOUNCII, Tom Sawyer 266-8850 .;,�,.�, � ,,,,, ATTORNEY ITYCLERB � � 'LQ�Z� 7� � y. � UDGETDIItECTOR FFICEOFFINANCfALSVCS, ust be oa Councl Agenda bp:�� ��� ".,�_ � �` YOR(OR ASS7STAt�1'C) (ji1 OTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNAI'URE) C7YON REQUES'CED: econstruct sidewalks in Wards 1,2,3 ,6 7 �j 5 3 �P 50 7 50 Q � — Q I 0 —5 zprt tlzDq OloSZ 0 COMI447�1DATIONS: APP OVE (A) R RFJE (R) EASONAL SERVICE CON1'RACTS NNST ANS`WE THE FOLLOWING: . Has the person/fum ever worked under a contraM for Wis deparlment? YES NO ri.evivnvc con+n+ss[ox A sn+Fe . FIas ttis persodPum ever been a City employee? YES NO CIVIL SERVIGE CO�IMISSIOV . Does this persod£uw possess a slall not normally possessed by any YES NO Cm Comrntrrree �'�t City employee? Ex lain all YES answers on a se arare sheet and attach. UPPORTS WHICH COUNCII.OBJECTIVE? COUNCb WARD(5) � 2� S(� ^� DISTRICT PLANNING COi3NCII, MTIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUHII'Y (Who, What, When, Where, Why?): The problen: "defective sidewalk° was caused by multiple problems, treet roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thaw cycies, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis a�d must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falis and possi6le litigations. �� �".�'�"� �:,:,> DVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: . - ` : �'�� The community will bene6t from this project because it will provide saFe defect free sidewatks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are donz by private contractors generating pablic sector jobs. ISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: Historicatly, the sidewalk recoustruction has created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessmer.ts. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized Ha��ing to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. ISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: T6is option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury siuts, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement as well as claim payouts. OTAL AMOL7NT OF TRANSACTION: � COST/REVENUEBIIDGETED (CIIiCLE ONE) YES NO ING SOURCE: ACTIVIT71VI7MBER: INANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAP� Page 1 of 1 �a-`�S Nancy A�derson - Re; Green Sheet # 111119 From: NancyAnderson To: Sawyer, Tom Date: 5/6l2002 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Green Sheet # 111119 The Preliminary Order was already adopted at the May 1st Coundl Agenda, but those project numbers can be deteSed on the Fnal Order at the public hearing on May 22nd. Would you be rescheduling them at a later date? »> Tom Sawyer 05/06/02 09:39AM »> Would it be possible to have some items deleted from the Preliminary order and Fnal Order on the above green sheet The orders are for sidewalk reconstruction and it has been decided iA do some of the pro}ecfs at a later date. The affected file #'s are: S02038 Both sides Bayard Avenue from PleasaM to S Chafsworth 502047 North side Bums Avenue from Suburban to Rutt� 502061 Both sides Rome Avenue from S Howell to S Fairview 502068 Both sides Tusprora Avenue from Pleasant to S Chafsworth S02069 North side Wafson Avenue from Pleasant to S Chatsworth S02070 Both sides Watson Avenue from S Chatsworth to S Milton S02071 Bofh sides Watson Avenue from S Milton to S�ctona S02074 West side White Bear Avenue from E ivy to Ctear S02082 Both side5 East Sixth Street from Gotian to Atlantic. I didn't receive any infortnation on these projects so we weren't able to notify the affected properties. Please let me knoe if it is possible to delete these files. Thnk you. file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOOS.HTM 5/6/2002 'p REPORT Date: May 13, 2002 Time: 4:30 p.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. LEGISLAT'IVE HEARING Gerry Strathman Legislative Hearing Officer A�peal of sidewallc construcfion in front of 456 Blair Avenue (502046) Legislative Heariug Officer recommends that the proposed three panels in front of 456 Blair Avenue not be included in the reconstruction at this time; however, Public Works may appiy asphalt to the sidewalk as they deem necessary. �y,,�.ss MINUTES OF TF� LEGISLATTVE HEARING SIDEWALK ISSUE - 456 Blair Avenue Monday, May 13, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order at 431 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Allan Czaia, Public Warks-Sidewalks Thomas Heinl, owner, appeared. He filed an appeal to a deteimination by Pubiic Works with respect to the sidewalk in front of his property at 456 Blair Avenue. Mr. Strathman asked what this is about. Mr. Heinl responded he received a notice indicating there was a sidewalk construction project on both sides of Blair between Aruudel and Kent Streets, but the notice did not tell him why his sidewalk needed replacement. Mr. Heinl stated that A1 Czaia indicated he did not know where the boundary lines were: it was originally 19 feet, and now it is down to 15 feet or 14.5. Mr. Heini requested to have a revised notice in an alternative format so he could read what his obligations were. He found there were no standards in the City ordinance relative to what constitutes a tripping hazard and what constitutes a slope tl�at is too great. Mr. Heinl found that Minneapolis and Bloomington have a standazd. He feels he is being treated differently because he is in a construction area. Also, two inspectors could have different opinions as to what needs to be done. Mr. Heinl stated he and his wife are totally blind and they have lived at this properiy far 30 years. This sidewalk has been that was for at least half that time, and he has not tripped on it. Mr. Heinl went on to say his real problem is with the procedure and not so much the sidewalk which may be only $150. He feels there is no procedure far doing the job right. If they want to say any slope or elevation is a tripping hazard, then it should be put in writing. Bloomington has 3/4 of a inch; Minneapolis has 1 inch. There should be something in the ordinance so everybody knows what is going on. Mr. Strathman asked what is the rise or drop in elevafion on his sidewalk. Mr. Heinl responded they never measured it, but it is less than 3/4 inch. It all depends on where it is measured from. One block is sloped. Walking one way, there is a tripping hazazd on one half; walking the other way, the tripping hazazd is the other way. There is a cracked sidewalk, too. NSP put a new line under the sidewalk a few yeazs back. ff it was cracked at that time, the City should have made NSP replace it. Besides his concerns with process, Mr. Strathman asked, what is his desire with respect to his property. Mr. Heinl responded if it is a tripping hazazd, he wanted to Irnow what they would do if it was not in a construction zone. He asked why it is being treated differently right now. Mr. Stratl�mau asked does he want it left as is. Mr. Heinl responded he would prefer that. When Public Works digs up sidewalks, it takes a long tnne for them to finish the work. They will not ��...�1�SS LEGISLATIVE HEAR.ING - SIDEWALK - 456 BLAIR AVENUE - MAY 13, 2002 Page 2 sod on either side of the sidewalk. He is more concerned with the procedure if they have to replace it. A1 Czaia reported a sidewalk inspector went out on a complaint at another address. This inspector noticed problems up and down that block. He alerted Mr. Czaia that this would be a candidate for reconsiruction for the following yeaz. That put it in Mr. Czaia's hands to make a formal inspection for proposal to get the sidewalk as defect free as possible. This particular address is a twin home. He had indicated five panels that needed to get back to their original state. Typically, he looks for 1/4 inch ofpitch from properry side to boulevazd side. Anythiug beyond that is a deviation. Mr. Strathman asked what the pitch is at this locafion. Mr. Czaia responded he did not make any measurements. This is a visual inspection. If there is a need for discussion about how much it is out of line, then they wouid make physical measurements. Minneapolis does their process through administrative orders; Saint Paul does legislative orders for sidewalk repairs. Minneapolis inspectors go out on a list of criteria, and there is no legislative hearing process. Saint Paul has decided to go with the inspector's judgement on site. Tree heaves can raise a panel half an inch, but if the inspectar feels it will keep rising, it may be a good time for consideration of doing those panels even though they are not that much out of line. Saint Paul has over 1,000 miles of sidewalk, and they cannot keep going back to the same biock. When they aze on a block, they like to correct the whole block so they will not have to go back in the neaz future. Mr. Strathman asked what wouid be the consequence of not repairing the sidewalk in front of 856 Blair. Mr. Czaia responded he tries to be consistent in what he sees in front of each house, so he does not get into discussions about why he did different things at different houses. He initially 9ndicated five panels, but two of the panels could be saved a little longer, therefore, he is only proposing three of the five. Two of these panels aze back pitched; there is an edge that is exposed in the center of the panel and is flat. The third panel is cracked. The cracked off section is about 18 inches. That cracked section is attached to the one that is back pitched. Mr. Strathman asked are any of the panels new. Mr. Czaia responded the first two are not. The third one is a different color. There aze brand new panels up and down this block from previous work. He has notes about an Xcel Energy panel. They go after Xcel Energy for two years to replace panels, but that is not the situation with this particulaz panel. Mr. Strathman asked the risk to the City if these panels are not replaced. Mr. Czaia responded he is replacing everything else down the block. He cannot propose to fix a tripping edge at one properry and leave one next door. If someone h and hurts themselves, that person could sue the City. His prunary function is to prevent that from happening. The City Attorney has lost cases down to a 1f4 inch. Mr. Czaia feels that is a little thin, but he has to pay attenfion to what happens in a court of law. If he makes a proposal and someone opts to make a change in the o�v,�� LEGISLA"I'IVB HEARING - SIDEWALK - 456 BLAIR AVENUE - MAY 13, 2002 Page 3 proposal, that is the right of the process. If the City Council negates doing any work, then no work is done. Mr. Strathman asked is the level of hazard mild, moderate, or severe. Mr. Czaia responded he would put it between mild and moderate. He would consider severe a tree heave panel that is six inches. There is peat in this azea, and panels have a tendency to move. They try to put reinforcement bars in these things so they flow together when they move. He looked at doing just the one panel. He would have to skew the one panel so much on each side, that it would not make a good match. He does not tlunk it is doable for just one. Mr. Heinl stated he understands the tripping hazazd and the liability. If someone complains about the tripping hazard, the City goes out and asphalts them. The City can asphalt his tripping hazard. There are panels sioped ten tnnes more than his. He has not had any ponding. If there was some standard or criteria and his panels met that criteria, then Mr. Heini would not be here today. Mr. Strathman asked is his wish that the panel not be replaced. Mr. Heinl responded as long as he does not become liable for any potential problems with them. Mr. Strathxnan responded he cannot do anything about liability Mr. Heinl will or will not haue. The City may have liability. Mr. Czaia stated he ordered an asphait patch for this properry because he did not know the outcome of this hearing. Gerry Strathman recommends the proposed three panels in front of 456 Blair Avenue not be included in the reconstruc6on, but they may be asphalted as Public Works deems necessary. He understands it would be a better practice to replace these two panels, but the problem is not at a level far the City to insist on the replacement over the properiy owner's objection. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm. � a�-yss CITY OF ST. PAIIL PRELT**T*Tn ORDER f :��t��: , a t�' i \ � =.� i �s � 't ` COUNCIL FILE NO . OZ • 3�S O� y BY ����j/'6%K/ File No.S02038,502046,502047,S02053, 502061,502068-502071,S02073-S02079, 502081,502082,502084,S02087 Voting Ward_ 1,2,3,5,6,7 In the Matter of sidewalk recoastzuctioa aad/or aew coastructioa at tha followiag locatioas: (See Attached) *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDIIVTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.49 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.59 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 $4.69 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 $6.35 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE AB0�7E for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2002 Public Improvement Aid. 2. 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 22n dav of Mav 2002 5:30 o'clock P.M, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature o£ the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �enanav �Slakey �Sostrom �oleman �Iarris �antry �eiter �In Favor �Against Adopted by Council: Date� oa— �� Certified Passed by Council Secretary By � 2- �,�_ / Mayor