Loading...
97-1236�� CITY OF ST. PAVL PRELIMINARY ORDER - 1A3(. �� i le No. Ia the Matter of Reconstruction o£ sidewalks at�`llowing location(s): 416 & 422 Cherokee Avenue and at 332 Minnesota Street (First National Bank). p�IRIf.C6t�R NO�t =11997 *ESTIMATED CONSTftUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruation (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1�0� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 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 than three £amily structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considerecl said report, hereby resolves: fil � 3 That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1997 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 3rd day of December, 1997, at 4:30 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 providecl by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSON5 Yeas Nays �lakey ✓Bostrom ✓Collins ✓fiarris ✓Piegard ✓Ptorton i/t4zune Adopted by Council: Datel���� Certified Passed by Council SeCretary �In Favor By a QAgainst Mayor �ublic Hearing Date — )EPARTMENT/OFFiCE1COUNCIL 'ublic Works Sidewalks A. Lissick - 266-6121 Must be in f OF SIGNATURE PAGES Office RE 9-26-97 GREEN SHEET No.'�g��i INITIAUDATE INIiIAVDA7E DEPARTMENTDIFECTOq �CITYCAUNCIL CITYATfORNEY �CITYCLERK BUDGET DIRECTOfl � FIN. 8 MGT. SEflVICES DIfl. MAYOR (OR ASSISTANn O COUfiCII RESB2f __ �CIJP ALL LOCATONS FOR SIGNATUFE) � ASS�CIATE Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 2(See attached list) _ CIVIL SERViCE COMMISSKN! CIe COMMI7TEE STAFF — DISTRICT CAUNCIL ;I '� �. ORTS WHICH COUNCIL �� - ia3b PERSONAL S CON7RACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWtNG pUEST10N3: �� H � �� YES � � NOer worked under a contract tw this department7 2. Has this persoNFirm ever been a cily amp�q'ea? YES NO 3. Does this parson/firm possess a skill no[ normally possessed by any current ciry employee? YES NO Explain ali yes answers on separate shee� and ettaeh to green sheet The problem "defective sidewatk" was created because ot tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, altemating freefthaw cycles, service life iimits, chsmical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must 6e addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncorrected, ihe sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from fafls and possible litigations. The community wilf be�efit from this project because it w+ll provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs ara created as a resuft of this activity. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessmeM. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite ihe fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. {)q�}�� �'?,�a�Cy�p�� ����^ 2 ., i�91 tNJVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more persanal injury suits, uftimately resuiting in the expenditure of farger dolfar amounts in eventuat repairs andlor replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUMOFTflANSACTI0N5 H 99] 00 COST/FiEVENUEBUDGETED(CiRCLEONE) ES NO FUNOINGSOURCE 97^�"�^� A , PtA 97 = 557 i�� 0 ACI7VITVNUMBEfl �97�ZT7Z7�078�f-2�0�2 PINANCIALINFORMA710N:(EXPLAIN) e� (�ST = 3O��OQO C, Cte 97 = 50,000 �� CITY OF ST. PAVL PRELIMINARY ORDER - 1A3(. �� i le No. Ia the Matter of Reconstruction o£ sidewalks at�`llowing location(s): 416 & 422 Cherokee Avenue and at 332 Minnesota Street (First National Bank). p�IRIf.C6t�R NO�t =11997 *ESTIMATED CONSTftUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruation (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1�0� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 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 than three £amily structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considerecl said report, hereby resolves: fil � 3 That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1997 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 3rd day of December, 1997, at 4:30 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 providecl by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSON5 Yeas Nays �lakey ✓Bostrom ✓Collins ✓fiarris ✓Piegard ✓Ptorton i/t4zune Adopted by Council: Datel���� Certified Passed by Council SeCretary �In Favor By a QAgainst Mayor �ublic Hearing Date — )EPARTMENT/OFFiCE1COUNCIL 'ublic Works Sidewalks A. Lissick - 266-6121 Must be in f OF SIGNATURE PAGES Office RE 9-26-97 GREEN SHEET No.'�g��i INITIAUDATE INIiIAVDA7E DEPARTMENTDIFECTOq �CITYCAUNCIL CITYATfORNEY �CITYCLERK BUDGET DIRECTOfl � FIN. 8 MGT. SEflVICES DIfl. MAYOR (OR ASSISTANn O COUfiCII RESB2f __ �CIJP ALL LOCATONS FOR SIGNATUFE) � ASS�CIATE Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 2(See attached list) _ CIVIL SERViCE COMMISSKN! CIe COMMI7TEE STAFF — DISTRICT CAUNCIL ;I '� �. ORTS WHICH COUNCIL �� - ia3b PERSONAL S CON7RACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWtNG pUEST10N3: �� H � �� YES � � NOer worked under a contract tw this department7 2. Has this persoNFirm ever been a cily amp�q'ea? YES NO 3. Does this parson/firm possess a skill no[ normally possessed by any current ciry employee? YES NO Explain ali yes answers on separate shee� and ettaeh to green sheet The problem "defective sidewatk" was created because ot tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, altemating freefthaw cycles, service life iimits, chsmical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must 6e addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncorrected, ihe sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from fafls and possible litigations. The community wilf be�efit from this project because it w+ll provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs ara created as a resuft of this activity. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessmeM. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite ihe fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. {)q�}�� �'?,�a�Cy�p�� ����^ 2 ., i�91 tNJVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more persanal injury suits, uftimately resuiting in the expenditure of farger dolfar amounts in eventuat repairs andlor replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUMOFTflANSACTI0N5 H 99] 00 COST/FiEVENUEBUDGETED(CiRCLEONE) ES NO FUNOINGSOURCE 97^�"�^� A , PtA 97 = 557 i�� 0 ACI7VITVNUMBEfl �97�ZT7Z7�078�f-2�0�2 PINANCIALINFORMA710N:(EXPLAIN) e� (�ST = 3O��OQO C, Cte 97 = 50,000 �� CITY OF ST. PAVL PRELIMINARY ORDER - 1A3(. �� i le No. Ia the Matter of Reconstruction o£ sidewalks at�`llowing location(s): 416 & 422 Cherokee Avenue and at 332 Minnesota Street (First National Bank). p�IRIf.C6t�R NO�t =11997 *ESTIMATED CONSTftUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruation (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1�0� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 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 than three £amily structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considerecl said report, hereby resolves: fil � 3 That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1997 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 3rd day of December, 1997, at 4:30 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 providecl by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSON5 Yeas Nays �lakey ✓Bostrom ✓Collins ✓fiarris ✓Piegard ✓Ptorton i/t4zune Adopted by Council: Datel���� Certified Passed by Council SeCretary �In Favor By a QAgainst Mayor �ublic Hearing Date — )EPARTMENT/OFFiCE1COUNCIL 'ublic Works Sidewalks A. Lissick - 266-6121 Must be in f OF SIGNATURE PAGES Office RE 9-26-97 GREEN SHEET No.'�g��i INITIAUDATE INIiIAVDA7E DEPARTMENTDIFECTOq �CITYCAUNCIL CITYATfORNEY �CITYCLERK BUDGET DIRECTOfl � FIN. 8 MGT. SEflVICES DIfl. MAYOR (OR ASSISTANn O COUfiCII RESB2f __ �CIJP ALL LOCATONS FOR SIGNATUFE) � ASS�CIATE Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 2(See attached list) _ CIVIL SERViCE COMMISSKN! CIe COMMI7TEE STAFF — DISTRICT CAUNCIL ;I '� �. ORTS WHICH COUNCIL �� - ia3b PERSONAL S CON7RACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWtNG pUEST10N3: �� H � �� YES � � NOer worked under a contract tw this department7 2. Has this persoNFirm ever been a cily amp�q'ea? YES NO 3. Does this parson/firm possess a skill no[ normally possessed by any current ciry employee? YES NO Explain ali yes answers on separate shee� and ettaeh to green sheet The problem "defective sidewatk" was created because ot tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, altemating freefthaw cycles, service life iimits, chsmical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must 6e addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncorrected, ihe sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from fafls and possible litigations. The community wilf be�efit from this project because it w+ll provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs ara created as a resuft of this activity. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessmeM. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite ihe fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. {)q�}�� �'?,�a�Cy�p�� ����^ 2 ., i�91 tNJVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more persanal injury suits, uftimately resuiting in the expenditure of farger dolfar amounts in eventuat repairs andlor replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUMOFTflANSACTI0N5 H 99] 00 COST/FiEVENUEBUDGETED(CiRCLEONE) ES NO FUNOINGSOURCE 97^�"�^� A , PtA 97 = 557 i�� 0 ACI7VITVNUMBEfl �97�ZT7Z7�078�f-2�0�2 PINANCIALINFORMA710N:(EXPLAIN) e� (�ST = 3O��OQO C, Cte 97 = 50,000