Loading...
97-718CIT� OF ST. PADL COUNCIL FILE NO. l � ��/ PRBLIMINFIXY ORDER By File No. 597086-597 88 Voting Ward_4 In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597086 - West side of N Hamline Ave from W Arlington Ave to W Nebraska Ave 597087 - South side of W Nebraska Ave from N Hamline Ave to Sheldon St and the North side of W Nebraska Ave from N Hamline Ave to the west 128 feet to the alley 597088 - North side o£ Pearl St from Bayless Ave to Cromwell Ave and the East side of Cromwell Ave from Pearl St to North 40 feet *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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100g 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. MUI,TI-RESIDENTIAL than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTSAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. 2 !�3 That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1997 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 6th day of August, 1997, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �Blakey �/Bostrom ,/Eollins vflarr i s M�gard � �h� �MOrton ✓Thune P�BIISHFD Adopted by Council: Date w.-�� t`� dU� - 5 199 Certified Passed by Council Secretary �In Favor 6 Against ! �Abs�•r.�' By <-� � _ � rv-�� � -- . ` ! Mayor � 'Public Hearing Date — August 6, 1997 RE 5-30-97 DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No.32249 Public Works Sidewalks 5-2�-97 INITIAVDATE INITIAVDATE CONTACT PERSON d PHONE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOfl CITV CAUNCIL Robert A. Lissick - 2666121 A�r"N � CffY ATTORNEY CITV CLERK NUMBERFOH MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DAT� (7-1$ J pOUTING � gUDGET OIRECTOR � FIN. 8 MGT. SERVICES DIR Must be in Council Research Office � MAYOR(ORASSISTANn 1 Counal Research b noon Frida 6-6-97 � � TOTAL; OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 _(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOH 9GNATUflEi � ASSOCIATE ENTAL ACCOUNTANT ACTKKJREWESiED L /� ^7�� ReconsTrud Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) J oa q�i - �l l� �5 - RECOMMENDA7qNS: ALx�mve (A) or PeJea (a) PERSONAL SERNCE CON7HAC7S MUST ANSWER 7HE FOLLOWING W1ES710NS: PLANNINO COMMISSION __CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION 1. Has tltis peEs Ne worked under a tontract fa this departrneni? Y _CIB COMMRTEE _ 2 � Ha$ �� yES �� NO er baen a city employee? A S7AFF 3. Does ihia person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by arry current ciry — — amployee? _DISTflICTCOUNCII�o''L _ YES NO SUPPORiS WHICH CWNCIL O�JECTNEP E%P�eltt ell yes ensWefs on sepe�ele sheet 8I1d eqech to gleen Shebt INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPOR7l/NITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE. WHY): Tha problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freeRhaw cycles, service life Iimits, chemical add'Rives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide Ievel and must be addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condiiion would worsen to a stffie whare it would be rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because R will provide saTe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAGES IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative fsedback 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 remai�s controverslai. „� G'QUf1Cl� Ca S�=�;i>Y JUN � 2 i�iJ7 DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will geneiafe moie pe�sonalin suits, uftimately resulting in the expenditura oi larger dollar amounts in Bvenival repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TO7ALAMWMOFTRANSACTIONS 9'032_3H COST/REVENUEBU�GETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSWRCE 47-�y�0667 A, PtA 97 � 55� 000 ACITVRYNUMBEH �'��–� FINANCIAI INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B A�T a 3OO � OOO �, �fg 97 = 50,000 CIT� OF ST. PADL COUNCIL FILE NO. l � ��/ PRBLIMINFIXY ORDER By File No. 597086-597 88 Voting Ward_4 In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597086 - West side of N Hamline Ave from W Arlington Ave to W Nebraska Ave 597087 - South side of W Nebraska Ave from N Hamline Ave to Sheldon St and the North side of W Nebraska Ave from N Hamline Ave to the west 128 feet to the alley 597088 - North side o£ Pearl St from Bayless Ave to Cromwell Ave and the East side of Cromwell Ave from Pearl St to North 40 feet *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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100g 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. MUI,TI-RESIDENTIAL than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTSAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. 2 !�3 That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1997 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 6th day of August, 1997, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �Blakey �/Bostrom ,/Eollins vflarr i s M�gard � �h� �MOrton ✓Thune P�BIISHFD Adopted by Council: Date w.-�� t`� dU� - 5 199 Certified Passed by Council Secretary �In Favor 6 Against ! �Abs�•r.�' By <-� � _ � rv-�� � -- . ` ! Mayor � 'Public Hearing Date — August 6, 1997 RE 5-30-97 DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No.32249 Public Works Sidewalks 5-2�-97 INITIAVDATE INITIAVDATE CONTACT PERSON d PHONE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOfl CITV CAUNCIL Robert A. Lissick - 2666121 A�r"N � CffY ATTORNEY CITV CLERK NUMBERFOH MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DAT� (7-1$ J pOUTING � gUDGET OIRECTOR � FIN. 8 MGT. SERVICES DIR Must be in Council Research Office � MAYOR(ORASSISTANn 1 Counal Research b noon Frida 6-6-97 � � TOTAL; OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 _(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOH 9GNATUflEi � ASSOCIATE ENTAL ACCOUNTANT ACTKKJREWESiED L /� ^7�� ReconsTrud Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) J oa q�i - �l l� �5 - RECOMMENDA7qNS: ALx�mve (A) or PeJea (a) PERSONAL SERNCE CON7HAC7S MUST ANSWER 7HE FOLLOWING W1ES710NS: PLANNINO COMMISSION __CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION 1. Has tltis peEs Ne worked under a tontract fa this departrneni? Y _CIB COMMRTEE _ 2 � Ha$ �� yES �� NO er baen a city employee? A S7AFF 3. Does ihia person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by arry current ciry — — amployee? _DISTflICTCOUNCII�o''L _ YES NO SUPPORiS WHICH CWNCIL O�JECTNEP E%P�eltt ell yes ensWefs on sepe�ele sheet 8I1d eqech to gleen Shebt INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPOR7l/NITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE. WHY): Tha problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freeRhaw cycles, service life Iimits, chemical add'Rives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide Ievel and must be addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condiiion would worsen to a stffie whare it would be rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because R will provide saTe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAGES IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative fsedback 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 remai�s controverslai. „� G'QUf1Cl� Ca S�=�;i>Y JUN � 2 i�iJ7 DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will geneiafe moie pe�sonalin suits, uftimately resulting in the expenditura oi larger dollar amounts in Bvenival repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TO7ALAMWMOFTRANSACTIONS 9'032_3H COST/REVENUEBU�GETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSWRCE 47-�y�0667 A, PtA 97 � 55� 000 ACITVRYNUMBEH �'��–� FINANCIAI INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B A�T a 3OO � OOO �, �fg 97 = 50,000 CIT� OF ST. PADL COUNCIL FILE NO. l � ��/ PRBLIMINFIXY ORDER By File No. 597086-597 88 Voting Ward_4 In the Matter of Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597086 - West side of N Hamline Ave from W Arlington Ave to W Nebraska Ave 597087 - South side of W Nebraska Ave from N Hamline Ave to Sheldon St and the North side of W Nebraska Ave from N Hamline Ave to the west 128 feet to the alley 597088 - North side o£ Pearl St from Bayless Ave to Cromwell Ave and the East side of Cromwell Ave from Pearl St to North 40 feet *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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100g 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. MUI,TI-RESIDENTIAL than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTSAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. 2 !�3 That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1997 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 6th day of August, 1997, at 4:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �Blakey �/Bostrom ,/Eollins vflarr i s M�gard � �h� �MOrton ✓Thune P�BIISHFD Adopted by Council: Date w.-�� t`� dU� - 5 199 Certified Passed by Council Secretary �In Favor 6 Against ! �Abs�•r.�' By <-� � _ � rv-�� � -- . ` ! Mayor � 'Public Hearing Date — August 6, 1997 RE 5-30-97 DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No.32249 Public Works Sidewalks 5-2�-97 INITIAVDATE INITIAVDATE CONTACT PERSON d PHONE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOfl CITV CAUNCIL Robert A. Lissick - 2666121 A�r"N � CffY ATTORNEY CITV CLERK NUMBERFOH MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DAT� (7-1$ J pOUTING � gUDGET OIRECTOR � FIN. 8 MGT. SERVICES DIR Must be in Council Research Office � MAYOR(ORASSISTANn 1 Counal Research b noon Frida 6-6-97 � � TOTAL; OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 _(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOH 9GNATUflEi � ASSOCIATE ENTAL ACCOUNTANT ACTKKJREWESiED L /� ^7�� ReconsTrud Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached list) J oa q�i - �l l� �5 - RECOMMENDA7qNS: ALx�mve (A) or PeJea (a) PERSONAL SERNCE CON7HAC7S MUST ANSWER 7HE FOLLOWING W1ES710NS: PLANNINO COMMISSION __CIVIL SEflVICE COMMISSION 1. Has tltis peEs Ne worked under a tontract fa this departrneni? Y _CIB COMMRTEE _ 2 � Ha$ �� yES �� NO er baen a city employee? A S7AFF 3. Does ihia person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by arry current ciry — — amployee? _DISTflICTCOUNCII�o''L _ YES NO SUPPORiS WHICH CWNCIL O�JECTNEP E%P�eltt ell yes ensWefs on sepe�ele sheet 8I1d eqech to gleen Shebt INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPOR7l/NITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE. WHY): Tha problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freeRhaw cycles, service life Iimits, chemical add'Rives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide Ievel and must be addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condiiion would worsen to a stffie whare it would be rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because R will provide saTe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity. DISADVANTAGES IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative fsedback 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 remai�s controverslai. „� G'QUf1Cl� Ca S�=�;i>Y JUN � 2 i�iJ7 DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will geneiafe moie pe�sonalin suits, uftimately resulting in the expenditura oi larger dollar amounts in Bvenival repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TO7ALAMWMOFTRANSACTIONS 9'032_3H COST/REVENUEBU�GETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSWRCE 47-�y�0667 A, PtA 97 � 55� 000 ACITVRYNUMBEH �'��–� FINANCIAI INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B A�T a 3OO � OOO �, �fg 97 = 50,000