Loading...
97-621�� CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL F NO. ����\ PREL2MINARY ORDSR By �Ti,�'' �?//�/�/ �} , File No._597066-597071 � /. Voting Ward 6 ' In the Matter o£ Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597066 - South side of E Arlington Ave from Greenbrier St to Walsh St 597067 - Both sides E Geranium Ave from Earl 5t to Duluth St 597068 - Both sides Greenbrier St from York Ave to Sims Ave 597069 - North side o£ E Magnolia Ave £rom Cypress St to Earl St 597070 - Both sides Sherwood Ave from Edgerton St to Payne Ave 597071 - Both sides Weide St from York Ave to Sims Ave ��bZ� *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDEN`PIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a £ive (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide wa1k. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New constructioa (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square foot. A11 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 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 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 23rd day of July, 1997, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers o£ the City Aall 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 i�Blakey �//Bostrom r% ollins vliarri s �I�'fegard �NPOrton �Yune Adopted by Council: Date_� V 9� Certified Passed by Council Secretary 1 In Favor By � ��z�� ?-�-�r�� � Against ��� Mayor P091.ISUCn dUN 14_1997 Public Hearing�Date — July 23, 1997 RE 5-16-97 q PEPARTMENPOFFIGE/COUNCIL �� DATE MRIATE� � 4 � ` Public Works Sidewalks 5-2-9, GREEN SHEET r,o. �2244 INITIAUDATE INITIAL/OATE CANTACT PEPSON & PHONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOfl � CIN COUNC0. Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 A��N � C�TY ATTORNEY � CITY CLEflK NUMBFR FOH MUSTBEONCAUNCiLAGENDABY(DA7E7 6-4-97 ROUTING OgUDGETDIRECTOfl �FIN.&MGT.SEPVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Office °RD� MAVOR(OFASSISTANT) i Counal Research b noon Frida 5-23-97 0 ❑ TOTAL R OF SIGNATUFE PAGES 1 ___ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS f-0R SIGNATUIiE) � ASSOCIA7E � DEPAR CCAUNTAM ACTION REWESTED �G�(]� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 6(See attached list) � r �L % RECOM NDATqNS: Ppprwe (!a ar RejeU (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTHAC?5 MUST ANSWEp THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _PLANNMG GOMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has thi5 peEs WDrked under a Contract tOf this depaftrnent? Y _CIB CoMMITTEE _ 2. Has ihis p n/fr ryp er been a ciry employee? Y A STAFF 3. Does thi5 persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ ciry — ` employee7 _DISTPICTCOUNCIL—� _ YES NO SUPPOqTS WHICH COUNCIL O&IECTNE7 ExP�aln all yos answers on separafe sheet and attaeh to green sheat INITIATINO PPOBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOR7UN�7Y (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHEPE, WHY): The problem "defective sidewalk^ was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating trea/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems oxur 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 rendsred unusable and sub}ec[ to increased pedestrian injuries trom fa{Is and possible litigations. AOVANTAGES if APPROVED: The community wifl benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewafks for its many citizens. Tha sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessme�t. Simply stated, property ow�ers detest assessments, and despite the fact up to ona-half the assassment is City subsidized, it still remains crontroversial. �+QU��i� ,L?1c �.'^;;i?f f��tF1Y Z � 5g97 DISADVANTAGES lf NOT APPROVED: " � This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, ukimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMWNTOFTFlANSACTIONS �4.H��+.SO CO3T/REVENUEBU�GETED(CINCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSOURCE 97-M-0667 A,. P(A 97 = SS�.��� ACITVITYNUMBER .97 n�9-n7R4 =�97(177 FINANCIAIMFORMAT10N:iEXPIAtN) B� AST =. j66�000 C, Ct6 97 = 50,000 �� CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL F NO. ����\ PREL2MINARY ORDSR By �Ti,�'' �?//�/�/ �} , File No._597066-597071 � /. Voting Ward 6 ' In the Matter o£ Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597066 - South side of E Arlington Ave from Greenbrier St to Walsh St 597067 - Both sides E Geranium Ave from Earl 5t to Duluth St 597068 - Both sides Greenbrier St from York Ave to Sims Ave 597069 - North side o£ E Magnolia Ave £rom Cypress St to Earl St 597070 - Both sides Sherwood Ave from Edgerton St to Payne Ave 597071 - Both sides Weide St from York Ave to Sims Ave ��bZ� *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDEN`PIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a £ive (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide wa1k. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New constructioa (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square foot. A11 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 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 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 23rd day of July, 1997, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers o£ the City Aall 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 i�Blakey �//Bostrom r% ollins vliarri s �I�'fegard �NPOrton �Yune Adopted by Council: Date_� V 9� Certified Passed by Council Secretary 1 In Favor By � ��z�� ?-�-�r�� � Against ��� Mayor P091.ISUCn dUN 14_1997 Public Hearing�Date — July 23, 1997 RE 5-16-97 q PEPARTMENPOFFIGE/COUNCIL �� DATE MRIATE� � 4 � ` Public Works Sidewalks 5-2-9, GREEN SHEET r,o. �2244 INITIAUDATE INITIAL/OATE CANTACT PEPSON & PHONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOfl � CIN COUNC0. Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 A��N � C�TY ATTORNEY � CITY CLEflK NUMBFR FOH MUSTBEONCAUNCiLAGENDABY(DA7E7 6-4-97 ROUTING OgUDGETDIRECTOfl �FIN.&MGT.SEPVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Office °RD� MAVOR(OFASSISTANT) i Counal Research b noon Frida 5-23-97 0 ❑ TOTAL R OF SIGNATUFE PAGES 1 ___ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS f-0R SIGNATUIiE) � ASSOCIA7E � DEPAR CCAUNTAM ACTION REWESTED �G�(]� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 6(See attached list) � r �L % RECOM NDATqNS: Ppprwe (!a ar RejeU (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTHAC?5 MUST ANSWEp THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _PLANNMG GOMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has thi5 peEs WDrked under a Contract tOf this depaftrnent? Y _CIB CoMMITTEE _ 2. Has ihis p n/fr ryp er been a ciry employee? Y A STAFF 3. Does thi5 persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ ciry — ` employee7 _DISTPICTCOUNCIL—� _ YES NO SUPPOqTS WHICH COUNCIL O&IECTNE7 ExP�aln all yos answers on separafe sheet and attaeh to green sheat INITIATINO PPOBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOR7UN�7Y (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHEPE, WHY): The problem "defective sidewalk^ was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating trea/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems oxur 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 rendsred unusable and sub}ec[ to increased pedestrian injuries trom fa{Is and possible litigations. AOVANTAGES if APPROVED: The community wifl benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewafks for its many citizens. Tha sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessme�t. Simply stated, property ow�ers detest assessments, and despite the fact up to ona-half the assassment is City subsidized, it still remains crontroversial. �+QU��i� ,L?1c �.'^;;i?f f��tF1Y Z � 5g97 DISADVANTAGES lf NOT APPROVED: " � This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, ukimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMWNTOFTFlANSACTIONS �4.H��+.SO CO3T/REVENUEBU�GETED(CINCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSOURCE 97-M-0667 A,. P(A 97 = SS�.��� ACITVITYNUMBER .97 n�9-n7R4 =�97(177 FINANCIAIMFORMAT10N:iEXPIAtN) B� AST =. j66�000 C, Ct6 97 = 50,000 �� CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL F NO. ����\ PREL2MINARY ORDSR By �Ti,�'' �?//�/�/ �} , File No._597066-597071 � /. Voting Ward 6 ' In the Matter o£ Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597066 - South side of E Arlington Ave from Greenbrier St to Walsh St 597067 - Both sides E Geranium Ave from Earl 5t to Duluth St 597068 - Both sides Greenbrier St from York Ave to Sims Ave 597069 - North side o£ E Magnolia Ave £rom Cypress St to Earl St 597070 - Both sides Sherwood Ave from Edgerton St to Payne Ave 597071 - Both sides Weide St from York Ave to Sims Ave ��bZ� *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDEN`PIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastructioa (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.45 per front foot for a £ive (5) foot wide walk and $8.94 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide wa1k. A11 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New constructioa (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.33 per square foot. A11 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 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 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 23rd day of July, 1997, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers o£ the City Aall 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 i�Blakey �//Bostrom r% ollins vliarri s �I�'fegard �NPOrton �Yune Adopted by Council: Date_� V 9� Certified Passed by Council Secretary 1 In Favor By � ��z�� ?-�-�r�� � Against ��� Mayor P091.ISUCn dUN 14_1997 Public Hearing�Date — July 23, 1997 RE 5-16-97 q PEPARTMENPOFFIGE/COUNCIL �� DATE MRIATE� � 4 � ` Public Works Sidewalks 5-2-9, GREEN SHEET r,o. �2244 INITIAUDATE INITIAL/OATE CANTACT PEPSON & PHONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOfl � CIN COUNC0. Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 A��N � C�TY ATTORNEY � CITY CLEflK NUMBFR FOH MUSTBEONCAUNCiLAGENDABY(DA7E7 6-4-97 ROUTING OgUDGETDIRECTOfl �FIN.&MGT.SEPVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Office °RD� MAVOR(OFASSISTANT) i Counal Research b noon Frida 5-23-97 0 ❑ TOTAL R OF SIGNATUFE PAGES 1 ___ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS f-0R SIGNATUIiE) � ASSOCIA7E � DEPAR CCAUNTAM ACTION REWESTED �G�(]� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 6(See attached list) � r �L % RECOM NDATqNS: Ppprwe (!a ar RejeU (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTHAC?5 MUST ANSWEp THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _PLANNMG GOMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has thi5 peEs WDrked under a Contract tOf this depaftrnent? Y _CIB CoMMITTEE _ 2. Has ihis p n/fr ryp er been a ciry employee? Y A STAFF 3. Does thi5 persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ ciry — ` employee7 _DISTPICTCOUNCIL—� _ YES NO SUPPOqTS WHICH COUNCIL O&IECTNE7 ExP�aln all yos answers on separafe sheet and attaeh to green sheat INITIATINO PPOBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOR7UN�7Y (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHEPE, WHY): The problem "defective sidewalk^ was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating trea/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems oxur 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 rendsred unusable and sub}ec[ to increased pedestrian injuries trom fa{Is and possible litigations. AOVANTAGES if APPROVED: The community wifl benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewafks for its many citizens. Tha sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessme�t. Simply stated, property ow�ers detest assessments, and despite the fact up to ona-half the assassment is City subsidized, it still remains crontroversial. �+QU��i� ,L?1c �.'^;;i?f f��tF1Y Z � 5g97 DISADVANTAGES lf NOT APPROVED: " � This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, ukimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMWNTOFTFlANSACTIONS �4.H��+.SO CO3T/REVENUEBU�GETED(CINCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSOURCE 97-M-0667 A,. P(A 97 = SS�.��� ACITVITYNUMBER .97 n�9-n7R4 =�97(177 FINANCIAIMFORMAT10N:iEXPIAtN) B� AST =. j66�000 C, Ct6 97 = 50,000