97-479�L
CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE NO. l� "' t `,�
PRSLIMINARY ORDSR By���� 1�%CLl� �
Fi e No._597036 97039
Voting Ward_4
In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s):
597036 - Both sides of Asbury St from Thomas Ave to Lafond Ave_
597037 - East side of Herschel St from Shields Ave to W University Ave.
S97038 - Both sides of N Prior Ave from Portland Ave to Ashland Ave_
S97o39 - East side of Simpson St from Edmund Ave to Thomas Ave at 594
Simpson St only.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstructioa (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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Nem construction
(where no walk existed) - 10�� of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.33 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 than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4,50 per square Eoot.
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
2
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 25th day of June, 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
provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of
the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas Nays
✓Blakey
I/'ostrom
t/Harris
�gard
VM"orton
��'a[ ii`r.g
�£hune
p����c�.� Adopted by Council: Date 1-�r�,,.Jl �(7_,�(�{
'T 1
MAY �.7 1997Certifiea Passed by Council Secretary
� In Favor By � . �.
G Against ✓%Itil/
Mayor
- rublic Hearin llate — June ZS 1997 RE 4-18-97
DEPAflTtdENT/OFFICE/COUNC4 DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No. =�2232
Public Works Sidewalks 3-2&97 INITIAUOATE 1NITIAUDATE
CANTACT PERSON a PHONE pEpAqTMENT DIflECTOF � QTY CAUNCIL
RobertA.Lissick-26E6121 A991GN �CITVATTORNEV �CITYCLEPK
NUMBERFOR
MUSTflEONCAUNCiIAGEMDAflY(DATESS—�-9 p BUDGETDIPECTOR FIN.aMGT.SERVICESDIfl
Must be in Council Research Office �R ❑ �
b noon Frida 4-25— 7 �MAYOR(ORASSISTMlT) y[]�ounp� pesearch
TOTAL i OF SIGNpTUHE PAGES 1 _(C{JP ALL IOCATONS FOP SSGNANPE) � ASSOC7ASE DEPARS1dEMTAL ALCOIJNTANT
ACTfON REQUESTEO 3 _ 3 � ✓ (�`-t
Reconsiruct Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) �
� � ��
US �p -
pECOMMENDATIONS: Appro+e (ly m FejaU (A) PEHSONAL SERVICE CONTIiACT3 MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_PLANNINGCAMMI$$pN _ClVil SERVICE COMMISSION �� H� ��s � NO � wofked uflder a ContraC[ f0! fhis depaltrnent?
CIB COMMfTTEE 2. Has Ihispe rsonrfirm ever been a city employee?
— — YES NO
A STAFF 3. Does this peraoNfirm possess a skill not normalty possessed by any curren[ ciry
— � employee7
�_DIBTRICTCOUNC�L � �� I YE9 NO
SUPPOPTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE9 Explaln ell yea anewsre on aaperate aheat end attach to green shael
fNITiA51NG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOAiUNf7Y iKM1iO, N1iAT, WHEN, WliEAE, WM'):
The problem "defective sidewaik" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freerthaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries irom falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPpOVED:
The community will benefit from this project because R will provide sate detect frea sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a result ot this activity.
�e"�',. �3D^mt.�esn �p� h.p
.... . V:Y YA,:i�QL�
f�(�R 18 1997
D15ADVANTA6ES 1F APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative fieedback in the area ot construction procedure and assessment.
Simply statad, property owners detest assessments, and despite the tact up to one-halt the assessment is.City subsidizAd, if still
rsmains controversial.
DISqDVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of Iarger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONE 5r9�2�32 COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIpCLEONE) YES d0
FUNDINGSOISHCE 97>�^�66j {� PtA 97 R S d60 AC(TVRYNUMBEfl C9] ^2T729-o784-2 012
FINANCIA� INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) � ° O� OOO
C, Ct6 97 = So,00a
�L
CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE NO. l� "' t `,�
PRSLIMINARY ORDSR By���� 1�%CLl� �
Fi e No._597036 97039
Voting Ward_4
In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s):
597036 - Both sides of Asbury St from Thomas Ave to Lafond Ave_
597037 - East side of Herschel St from Shields Ave to W University Ave.
S97038 - Both sides of N Prior Ave from Portland Ave to Ashland Ave_
S97o39 - East side of Simpson St from Edmund Ave to Thomas Ave at 594
Simpson St only.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstructioa (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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Nem construction
(where no walk existed) - 10�� of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.33 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 than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4,50 per square Eoot.
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
2
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 25th day of June, 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
provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of
the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas Nays
✓Blakey
I/'ostrom
t/Harris
�gard
VM"orton
��'a[ ii`r.g
�£hune
p����c�.� Adopted by Council: Date 1-�r�,,.Jl �(7_,�(�{
'T 1
MAY �.7 1997Certifiea Passed by Council Secretary
� In Favor By � . �.
G Against ✓%Itil/
Mayor
- rublic Hearin llate — June ZS 1997 RE 4-18-97
DEPAflTtdENT/OFFICE/COUNC4 DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No. =�2232
Public Works Sidewalks 3-2&97 INITIAUOATE 1NITIAUDATE
CANTACT PERSON a PHONE pEpAqTMENT DIflECTOF � QTY CAUNCIL
RobertA.Lissick-26E6121 A991GN �CITVATTORNEV �CITYCLEPK
NUMBERFOR
MUSTflEONCAUNCiIAGEMDAflY(DATESS—�-9 p BUDGETDIPECTOR FIN.aMGT.SERVICESDIfl
Must be in Council Research Office �R ❑ �
b noon Frida 4-25— 7 �MAYOR(ORASSISTMlT) y[]�ounp� pesearch
TOTAL i OF SIGNpTUHE PAGES 1 _(C{JP ALL IOCATONS FOP SSGNANPE) � ASSOC7ASE DEPARS1dEMTAL ALCOIJNTANT
ACTfON REQUESTEO 3 _ 3 � ✓ (�`-t
Reconsiruct Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) �
� � ��
US �p -
pECOMMENDATIONS: Appro+e (ly m FejaU (A) PEHSONAL SERVICE CONTIiACT3 MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_PLANNINGCAMMI$$pN _ClVil SERVICE COMMISSION �� H� ��s � NO � wofked uflder a ContraC[ f0! fhis depaltrnent?
CIB COMMfTTEE 2. Has Ihispe rsonrfirm ever been a city employee?
— — YES NO
A STAFF 3. Does this peraoNfirm possess a skill not normalty possessed by any curren[ ciry
— � employee7
�_DIBTRICTCOUNC�L � �� I YE9 NO
SUPPOPTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE9 Explaln ell yea anewsre on aaperate aheat end attach to green shael
fNITiA51NG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOAiUNf7Y iKM1iO, N1iAT, WHEN, WliEAE, WM'):
The problem "defective sidewaik" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freerthaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries irom falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPpOVED:
The community will benefit from this project because R will provide sate detect frea sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a result ot this activity.
�e"�',. �3D^mt.�esn �p� h.p
.... . V:Y YA,:i�QL�
f�(�R 18 1997
D15ADVANTA6ES 1F APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative fieedback in the area ot construction procedure and assessment.
Simply statad, property owners detest assessments, and despite the tact up to one-halt the assessment is.City subsidizAd, if still
rsmains controversial.
DISqDVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of Iarger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONE 5r9�2�32 COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIpCLEONE) YES d0
FUNDINGSOISHCE 97>�^�66j {� PtA 97 R S d60 AC(TVRYNUMBEfl C9] ^2T729-o784-2 012
FINANCIA� INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) � ° O� OOO
C, Ct6 97 = So,00a
�L
CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE NO. l� "' t `,�
PRSLIMINARY ORDSR By���� 1�%CLl� �
Fi e No._597036 97039
Voting Ward_4
In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s):
597036 - Both sides of Asbury St from Thomas Ave to Lafond Ave_
597037 - East side of Herschel St from Shields Ave to W University Ave.
S97038 - Both sides of N Prior Ave from Portland Ave to Ashland Ave_
S97o39 - East side of Simpson St from Edmund Ave to Thomas Ave at 594
Simpson St only.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstructioa (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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Nem construction
(where no walk existed) - 10�� of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.33 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 than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4,50 per square Eoot.
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
2
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 25th day of June, 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
provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of
the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas Nays
✓Blakey
I/'ostrom
t/Harris
�gard
VM"orton
��'a[ ii`r.g
�£hune
p����c�.� Adopted by Council: Date 1-�r�,,.Jl �(7_,�(�{
'T 1
MAY �.7 1997Certifiea Passed by Council Secretary
� In Favor By � . �.
G Against ✓%Itil/
Mayor
- rublic Hearin llate — June ZS 1997 RE 4-18-97
DEPAflTtdENT/OFFICE/COUNC4 DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No. =�2232
Public Works Sidewalks 3-2&97 INITIAUOATE 1NITIAUDATE
CANTACT PERSON a PHONE pEpAqTMENT DIflECTOF � QTY CAUNCIL
RobertA.Lissick-26E6121 A991GN �CITVATTORNEV �CITYCLEPK
NUMBERFOR
MUSTflEONCAUNCiIAGEMDAflY(DATESS—�-9 p BUDGETDIPECTOR FIN.aMGT.SERVICESDIfl
Must be in Council Research Office �R ❑ �
b noon Frida 4-25— 7 �MAYOR(ORASSISTMlT) y[]�ounp� pesearch
TOTAL i OF SIGNpTUHE PAGES 1 _(C{JP ALL IOCATONS FOP SSGNANPE) � ASSOC7ASE DEPARS1dEMTAL ALCOIJNTANT
ACTfON REQUESTEO 3 _ 3 � ✓ (�`-t
Reconsiruct Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) �
� � ��
US �p -
pECOMMENDATIONS: Appro+e (ly m FejaU (A) PEHSONAL SERVICE CONTIiACT3 MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_PLANNINGCAMMI$$pN _ClVil SERVICE COMMISSION �� H� ��s � NO � wofked uflder a ContraC[ f0! fhis depaltrnent?
CIB COMMfTTEE 2. Has Ihispe rsonrfirm ever been a city employee?
— — YES NO
A STAFF 3. Does this peraoNfirm possess a skill not normalty possessed by any curren[ ciry
— � employee7
�_DIBTRICTCOUNC�L � �� I YE9 NO
SUPPOPTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE9 Explaln ell yea anewsre on aaperate aheat end attach to green shael
fNITiA51NG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOAiUNf7Y iKM1iO, N1iAT, WHEN, WliEAE, WM'):
The problem "defective sidewaik" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freerthaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries irom falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPpOVED:
The community will benefit from this project because R will provide sate detect frea sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a result ot this activity.
�e"�',. �3D^mt.�esn �p� h.p
.... . V:Y YA,:i�QL�
f�(�R 18 1997
D15ADVANTA6ES 1F APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative fieedback in the area ot construction procedure and assessment.
Simply statad, property owners detest assessments, and despite the tact up to one-halt the assessment is.City subsidizAd, if still
rsmains controversial.
DISqDVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of Iarger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONE 5r9�2�32 COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIpCLEONE) YES d0
FUNDINGSOISHCE 97>�^�66j {� PtA 97 R S d60 AC(TVRYNUMBEfl C9] ^2T729-o784-2 012
FINANCIA� INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) � ° O� OOO
C, Ct6 97 = So,00a