Loading...
97-484L� CITY OF ST. PAIIL o�� PIlAI1Qtlen Ia the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597049 - East side of N Fairview Ave from Englewood Ave to Hubbard Ave, West side of N Fairview Ave from Englewood Ave to Chelton Ave & West side N Fairview Ave from Chelton Ave to C1ayland P1 at 789 N Fairview Ave only 597050 -&oth sides of Montrose Place from Dayton Ave to Marshall Ave 597051 - North side of Thomas Ave from Aldine St to N Wheeler St *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (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. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� 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; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City o£ 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 �akey � strom ,iF��arr i s �PSegard �rton �Tiiune ✓�� l\: r�s �IAY 17 i997 COUNCIL FILE NO. � — �l $y � �� 30 File No. 597049-5 7051 Voting Ward_4 Adopted by Council: Date `' 3G ��(�{+"i 1 Certified Passed by Council Secretary tIn Favor By d Against ��� Mayor �u���c nearing uate - �une [�, tyii x� 4-1�—y! DEPARTAENTbFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINI7IATED GREEN SHEET NO.��� Pubiic Works Sidewalks 4-10-97 INITIAVOATE INITIpLDATE CONTACTPERSONdPHONE �DEPAflTMEMO�RECTOR ❑CiTYCOUNCiL Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 ��N �CRV ATTORNEY � CITV CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUMBEfl FOR MUSt }J8 1R Council Research Office p� ❑�DGETDIRECTOR pIN.dMGT.SERVICESDiR. no later than noon Frida 4-25-97 ��AYOR(ORASSISTMIT) t�] Coar�cif Research TOTAL i OF S7GNATUpE PAGES ]. _(CLIP ALL LOCATONS FOH SIGNATUqE) � ASSOCIATE �'OE EMAL ACCOUNTAM ACTIONflEWESTED ')� '�f' Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) (1� _��. �,S J � � — ECOMM N 710N : (a a HsJa (N) pER30NAL SERVICE CONTqACTS AIUBT ANSWEp THE FOLLOWIN� OUE9TION9: PLANNING CAMMISSION CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has thi5per 9an/firm BVBr Worked under a con[ract tor this department? — — YES NO _CIe CINAMItTEE _ 2. Has this P ES� r NO er been a dty employee? Y � STAFF 3. Does this persontfirm possess a skiA not rwrmally possessed by any curre�t ciry — employee? _DISTRIC7Ca1NCII�'�'3 _ YES NO SUPPOF7S WHICH CWNCIL &IECTNE4 �p�aln al{ ya� anawan on s�parate ahaM atd Ntaeh to grean shwt _ IN TING PROBLEIA. ISSUE, OPPORTUN�TY (WHO, NMAT, MMEN, WNEFE, WHY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freeAhaw cycles, service life limi[s, chemical addBives, extrema temperature variations, etc. These problems oxur on a cftywide 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 from talls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: Tha community will 6anefit trom this project because it will Qrovide sate detect tree sidewalks for its ma�y citizsns. The sidewalk crontracts are executed by private contractors, so it foibws that private sector jobs are created as a tesult of this activity. ,: ,. �. ��:3;Sii`:!� „ � � , . .:�� d.o k:.t'. :.l.d( DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of constsuction procedurs��nd �ss°ss�mant. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the Sact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it stiil remains controversial. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPqOVED: This option would allow tha infrastructure ot sidewalk stock So detecioraie, which in turn, wiN generate more personal injury suits, uftimately resulting in the expenditure oi farger dollar amounts in eventuai repairs andlor repiacement, as we1{ as claim payouts. TOTALAMWNTOFTFiANSACTION3 . �Z.ZGH�EG COST/REVENUEBUDGEfED(CIACLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSWHCE 97-M-o667 A, PlA 97 � 557,000 ACfTVRVNUMBER G9 -2T729-0784-2 072 FINANCIALINfORMATION:(E%PLAIM B„ AST = 3OO C, CIB 97 = 50r000 L� CITY OF ST. PAIIL o�� PIlAI1Qtlen Ia the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597049 - East side of N Fairview Ave from Englewood Ave to Hubbard Ave, West side of N Fairview Ave from Englewood Ave to Chelton Ave & West side N Fairview Ave from Chelton Ave to C1ayland P1 at 789 N Fairview Ave only 597050 -&oth sides of Montrose Place from Dayton Ave to Marshall Ave 597051 - North side of Thomas Ave from Aldine St to N Wheeler St *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (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. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� 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; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City o£ 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 �akey � strom ,iF��arr i s �PSegard �rton �Tiiune ✓�� l\: r�s �IAY 17 i997 COUNCIL FILE NO. � — �l $y � �� 30 File No. 597049-5 7051 Voting Ward_4 Adopted by Council: Date `' 3G ��(�{+"i 1 Certified Passed by Council Secretary tIn Favor By d Against ��� Mayor �u���c nearing uate - �une [�, tyii x� 4-1�—y! DEPARTAENTbFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINI7IATED GREEN SHEET NO.��� Pubiic Works Sidewalks 4-10-97 INITIAVOATE INITIpLDATE CONTACTPERSONdPHONE �DEPAflTMEMO�RECTOR ❑CiTYCOUNCiL Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 ��N �CRV ATTORNEY � CITV CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUMBEfl FOR MUSt }J8 1R Council Research Office p� ❑�DGETDIRECTOR pIN.dMGT.SERVICESDiR. no later than noon Frida 4-25-97 ��AYOR(ORASSISTMIT) t�] Coar�cif Research TOTAL i OF S7GNATUpE PAGES ]. _(CLIP ALL LOCATONS FOH SIGNATUqE) � ASSOCIATE �'OE EMAL ACCOUNTAM ACTIONflEWESTED ')� '�f' Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) (1� _��. �,S J � � — ECOMM N 710N : (a a HsJa (N) pER30NAL SERVICE CONTqACTS AIUBT ANSWEp THE FOLLOWIN� OUE9TION9: PLANNING CAMMISSION CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has thi5per 9an/firm BVBr Worked under a con[ract tor this department? — — YES NO _CIe CINAMItTEE _ 2. Has this P ES� r NO er been a dty employee? Y � STAFF 3. Does this persontfirm possess a skiA not rwrmally possessed by any curre�t ciry — employee? _DISTRIC7Ca1NCII�'�'3 _ YES NO SUPPOF7S WHICH CWNCIL &IECTNE4 �p�aln al{ ya� anawan on s�parate ahaM atd Ntaeh to grean shwt _ IN TING PROBLEIA. ISSUE, OPPORTUN�TY (WHO, NMAT, MMEN, WNEFE, WHY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freeAhaw cycles, service life limi[s, chemical addBives, extrema temperature variations, etc. These problems oxur on a cftywide 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 from talls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: Tha community will 6anefit trom this project because it will Qrovide sate detect tree sidewalks for its ma�y citizsns. The sidewalk crontracts are executed by private contractors, so it foibws that private sector jobs are created as a tesult of this activity. ,: ,. �. ��:3;Sii`:!� „ � � , . .:�� d.o k:.t'. :.l.d( DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of constsuction procedurs��nd �ss°ss�mant. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the Sact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it stiil remains controversial. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPqOVED: This option would allow tha infrastructure ot sidewalk stock So detecioraie, which in turn, wiN generate more personal injury suits, uftimately resulting in the expenditure oi farger dollar amounts in eventuai repairs andlor repiacement, as we1{ as claim payouts. TOTALAMWNTOFTFiANSACTION3 . �Z.ZGH�EG COST/REVENUEBUDGEfED(CIACLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSWHCE 97-M-o667 A, PlA 97 � 557,000 ACfTVRVNUMBER G9 -2T729-0784-2 072 FINANCIALINfORMATION:(E%PLAIM B„ AST = 3OO C, CIB 97 = 50r000 L� CITY OF ST. PAIIL o�� PIlAI1Qtlen Ia the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597049 - East side of N Fairview Ave from Englewood Ave to Hubbard Ave, West side of N Fairview Ave from Englewood Ave to Chelton Ave & West side N Fairview Ave from Chelton Ave to C1ayland P1 at 789 N Fairview Ave only 597050 -&oth sides of Montrose Place from Dayton Ave to Marshall Ave 597051 - North side of Thomas Ave from Aldine St to N Wheeler St *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (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. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� 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; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City o£ 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 �akey � strom ,iF��arr i s �PSegard �rton �Tiiune ✓�� l\: r�s �IAY 17 i997 COUNCIL FILE NO. � — �l $y � �� 30 File No. 597049-5 7051 Voting Ward_4 Adopted by Council: Date `' 3G ��(�{+"i 1 Certified Passed by Council Secretary tIn Favor By d Against ��� Mayor �u���c nearing uate - �une [�, tyii x� 4-1�—y! DEPARTAENTbFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINI7IATED GREEN SHEET NO.��� Pubiic Works Sidewalks 4-10-97 INITIAVOATE INITIpLDATE CONTACTPERSONdPHONE �DEPAflTMEMO�RECTOR ❑CiTYCOUNCiL Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 ��N �CRV ATTORNEY � CITV CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUMBEfl FOR MUSt }J8 1R Council Research Office p� ❑�DGETDIRECTOR pIN.dMGT.SERVICESDiR. no later than noon Frida 4-25-97 ��AYOR(ORASSISTMIT) t�] Coar�cif Research TOTAL i OF S7GNATUpE PAGES ]. _(CLIP ALL LOCATONS FOH SIGNATUqE) � ASSOCIATE �'OE EMAL ACCOUNTAM ACTIONflEWESTED ')� '�f' Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) (1� _��. �,S J � � — ECOMM N 710N : (a a HsJa (N) pER30NAL SERVICE CONTqACTS AIUBT ANSWEp THE FOLLOWIN� OUE9TION9: PLANNING CAMMISSION CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has thi5per 9an/firm BVBr Worked under a con[ract tor this department? — — YES NO _CIe CINAMItTEE _ 2. Has this P ES� r NO er been a dty employee? Y � STAFF 3. Does this persontfirm possess a skiA not rwrmally possessed by any curre�t ciry — employee? _DISTRIC7Ca1NCII�'�'3 _ YES NO SUPPOF7S WHICH CWNCIL &IECTNE4 �p�aln al{ ya� anawan on s�parate ahaM atd Ntaeh to grean shwt _ IN TING PROBLEIA. ISSUE, OPPORTUN�TY (WHO, NMAT, MMEN, WNEFE, WHY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freeAhaw cycles, service life limi[s, chemical addBives, extrema temperature variations, etc. These problems oxur on a cftywide 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 from talls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: Tha community will 6anefit trom this project because it will Qrovide sate detect tree sidewalks for its ma�y citizsns. The sidewalk crontracts are executed by private contractors, so it foibws that private sector jobs are created as a tesult of this activity. ,: ,. �. ��:3;Sii`:!� „ � � , . .:�� d.o k:.t'. :.l.d( DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of constsuction procedurs��nd �ss°ss�mant. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the Sact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it stiil remains controversial. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPqOVED: This option would allow tha infrastructure ot sidewalk stock So detecioraie, which in turn, wiN generate more personal injury suits, uftimately resulting in the expenditure oi farger dollar amounts in eventuai repairs andlor repiacement, as we1{ as claim payouts. TOTALAMWNTOFTFiANSACTION3 . �Z.ZGH�EG COST/REVENUEBUDGEfED(CIACLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSWHCE 97-M-o667 A, PlA 97 � 557,000 ACfTVRVNUMBER G9 -2T729-0784-2 072 FINANCIALINfORMATION:(E%PLAIM B„ AST = 3OO C, CIB 97 = 50r000