Loading...
97-623< L� CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL EILE NO. ��� PRSLIMINARY ORDBR By �/ Fi No. 597065 Voting Ward_5 In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): Both sides Jessie St from E Maryland Ave to E Brainerd Ave. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuctioa (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. New coastruction (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 £irst 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 $A.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 thereoE 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 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 flakey �ostrom �ollins �ffarri s vI�Fegard ,/forton �xune DIIRIICFICII Adopted by Council: Date JUN 14.19� rtified Passed by Council Secretary �In Favor By a- �Against Mayor ' Public Hearin Date - Sul 23 1997 RE 5-16-97 ° DEPAFTMENT/OFFICE/CAUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. -i�.�'"!��I Public Works Sidewafks 5-2-97 INITIAVDATE INITIAUOATE CANTACTPERSONBPHONE DEPAf2TMEMOIFiECTOR �CITVCAUNCIL RobertA.Lissick-266-6121 ASSIGN garranow+EV ❑cmc�EaK NU/dHER FOA MUSTBEONCOUNqLAGENDABY(DATE) — — 9J flOUTING �OUDCaETDIRECTOR �FIN.8MGT.SERVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Of£ice �� MAVOR(OPASSISTANTJ � Coundi Research b nonF' � TOTAL X OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 _(CIIP ALL LOGATONS FOR SIGNATUNE) � ASSOCIATE � DEPAFTlA T UNTRNT ACTION RE�UESTED ��G(� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 5{See attachad list) �� � 9 41v� aECOMMENOATioNS: Appmve (a) or ReJect (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS: _ PLANNING GOMMISSION __CIVfL SEAVICE COMMi5S10N 1• Ha5 th15 pe�s 7fif Ne worked under a coniract For th(s depariment7 Y _CIB COMMIT7EE _ 2. Has tfi(s peESoNfir Ne�ver been a ciry emp4oye¢? Y A STAFF 3. Does ihis Qersonm�m possess a skilt not normally possessed 6y aoy current ciry — r — emPloyee? _OtSTq�CtCOUNGI�If _ YES NO � Explein all y�s answars on aapereb aMet and ettaeh to g�een aheat SUPPORTS WHICH COUNGI OBJECTNE7 iNR1ATMG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOA7UNIT' (NHO, WHAT, WHEN. WHERE. WHY): The probiem "defeciive sidewalk" was created because of iree roois, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freehhaw cycles, service {ife 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 uncorrectad, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from talls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. Tha sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a rasuR ot this activity. DISADVANTAGES if APPROV£D: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have creaied negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. ,��rS� �'�^ :.>-?' (' ��... r . �, i,:,:i � ti I.1J� DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOVED: This option would allow the inirastructura of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, ultimately resulting in the expenditure of Iarger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNfOFTHANSACTIONS �� 7,OS2,60 COSVREVENUEBUDGETEO(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDMGSWRCE 97-M�o667 A, PIA 97 ° J pCITVI7YNUM6ER � ^2 Z-� 84- FINANCIAL7NFOFMATION: (E%PLFII� B t AST � 3OD �OOO C, CIB 97 = 5a,000 < L� CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL EILE NO. ��� PRSLIMINARY ORDBR By �/ Fi No. 597065 Voting Ward_5 In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): Both sides Jessie St from E Maryland Ave to E Brainerd Ave. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuctioa (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. New coastruction (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 £irst 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 $A.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 thereoE 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 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 flakey �ostrom �ollins �ffarri s vI�Fegard ,/forton �xune DIIRIICFICII Adopted by Council: Date JUN 14.19� rtified Passed by Council Secretary �In Favor By a- �Against Mayor ' Public Hearin Date - Sul 23 1997 RE 5-16-97 ° DEPAFTMENT/OFFICE/CAUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. -i�.�'"!��I Public Works Sidewafks 5-2-97 INITIAVDATE INITIAUOATE CANTACTPERSONBPHONE DEPAf2TMEMOIFiECTOR �CITVCAUNCIL RobertA.Lissick-266-6121 ASSIGN garranow+EV ❑cmc�EaK NU/dHER FOA MUSTBEONCOUNqLAGENDABY(DATE) — — 9J flOUTING �OUDCaETDIRECTOR �FIN.8MGT.SERVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Of£ice �� MAVOR(OPASSISTANTJ � Coundi Research b nonF' � TOTAL X OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 _(CIIP ALL LOGATONS FOR SIGNATUNE) � ASSOCIATE � DEPAFTlA T UNTRNT ACTION RE�UESTED ��G(� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 5{See attachad list) �� � 9 41v� aECOMMENOATioNS: Appmve (a) or ReJect (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS: _ PLANNING GOMMISSION __CIVfL SEAVICE COMMi5S10N 1• Ha5 th15 pe�s 7fif Ne worked under a coniract For th(s depariment7 Y _CIB COMMIT7EE _ 2. Has tfi(s peESoNfir Ne�ver been a ciry emp4oye¢? Y A STAFF 3. Does ihis Qersonm�m possess a skilt not normally possessed 6y aoy current ciry — r — emPloyee? _OtSTq�CtCOUNGI�If _ YES NO � Explein all y�s answars on aapereb aMet and ettaeh to g�een aheat SUPPORTS WHICH COUNGI OBJECTNE7 iNR1ATMG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOA7UNIT' (NHO, WHAT, WHEN. WHERE. WHY): The probiem "defeciive sidewalk" was created because of iree roois, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freehhaw cycles, service {ife 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 uncorrectad, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from talls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. Tha sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a rasuR ot this activity. DISADVANTAGES if APPROV£D: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have creaied negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. ,��rS� �'�^ :.>-?' (' ��... r . �, i,:,:i � ti I.1J� DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOVED: This option would allow the inirastructura of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, ultimately resulting in the expenditure of Iarger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNfOFTHANSACTIONS �� 7,OS2,60 COSVREVENUEBUDGETEO(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDMGSWRCE 97-M�o667 A, PIA 97 ° J pCITVI7YNUM6ER � ^2 Z-� 84- FINANCIAL7NFOFMATION: (E%PLFII� B t AST � 3OD �OOO C, CIB 97 = 5a,000 < L� CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL EILE NO. ��� PRSLIMINARY ORDBR By �/ Fi No. 597065 Voting Ward_5 In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): Both sides Jessie St from E Maryland Ave to E Brainerd Ave. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuctioa (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. New coastruction (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 £irst 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 $A.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 thereoE 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 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 flakey �ostrom �ollins �ffarri s vI�Fegard ,/forton �xune DIIRIICFICII Adopted by Council: Date JUN 14.19� rtified Passed by Council Secretary �In Favor By a- �Against Mayor ' Public Hearin Date - Sul 23 1997 RE 5-16-97 ° DEPAFTMENT/OFFICE/CAUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. -i�.�'"!��I Public Works Sidewafks 5-2-97 INITIAVDATE INITIAUOATE CANTACTPERSONBPHONE DEPAf2TMEMOIFiECTOR �CITVCAUNCIL RobertA.Lissick-266-6121 ASSIGN garranow+EV ❑cmc�EaK NU/dHER FOA MUSTBEONCOUNqLAGENDABY(DATE) — — 9J flOUTING �OUDCaETDIRECTOR �FIN.8MGT.SERVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Of£ice �� MAVOR(OPASSISTANTJ � Coundi Research b nonF' � TOTAL X OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 _(CIIP ALL LOGATONS FOR SIGNATUNE) � ASSOCIATE � DEPAFTlA T UNTRNT ACTION RE�UESTED ��G(� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 5{See attachad list) �� � 9 41v� aECOMMENOATioNS: Appmve (a) or ReJect (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS: _ PLANNING GOMMISSION __CIVfL SEAVICE COMMi5S10N 1• Ha5 th15 pe�s 7fif Ne worked under a coniract For th(s depariment7 Y _CIB COMMIT7EE _ 2. Has tfi(s peESoNfir Ne�ver been a ciry emp4oye¢? Y A STAFF 3. Does ihis Qersonm�m possess a skilt not normally possessed 6y aoy current ciry — r — emPloyee? _OtSTq�CtCOUNGI�If _ YES NO � Explein all y�s answars on aapereb aMet and ettaeh to g�een aheat SUPPORTS WHICH COUNGI OBJECTNE7 iNR1ATMG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOA7UNIT' (NHO, WHAT, WHEN. WHERE. WHY): The probiem "defeciive sidewalk" was created because of iree roois, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freehhaw cycles, service {ife 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 uncorrectad, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from talls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. Tha sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a rasuR ot this activity. DISADVANTAGES if APPROV£D: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have creaied negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. ,��rS� �'�^ :.>-?' (' ��... r . �, i,:,:i � ti I.1J� DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOVED: This option would allow the inirastructura of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, ultimately resulting in the expenditure of Iarger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNfOFTHANSACTIONS �� 7,OS2,60 COSVREVENUEBUDGETEO(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDMGSWRCE 97-M�o667 A, PIA 97 ° J pCITVI7YNUM6ER � ^2 Z-� 84- FINANCIAL7NFOFMATION: (E%PLFII� B t AST � 3OD �OOO C, CIB 97 = 5a,000