Loading...
97-758w - ' � � CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE NO. �� PRSLIMINARY ORDSR By �n File No. _S 096-597100 � Voting Ward_7 In the Mattar o£ Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597096 - West side Algonquin Ave from Stillwater Ave to Case Ave 597097 - Both sides N Aazel St from E Fifth St to Margaret St & East side N Hazel St from E Fourth St to E Fifth St 597098 - Both sides N Howard St from Wilson Ave to Conway St & Both sides Howard Court from N Howard St to Cul-de-sac 597099 - Both sides Margaret St from N White Bear Ave to N Hazel St 597100 - Both sides Tower St from Wilson Ave to Conway St ��=��g *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDEI3TIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastruction (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. Al1 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. MCTLTI-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. 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. 2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 13th 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. 3. 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 ��ostrom � l l ins �rris �gard �rton �une � In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date �����q� Certified Passed by Council Secretary or PqBIiSNCn jU� ° 5.1997 Public•Hearing Date — August 13, 1997 RE 6-6-97 c�—t�r DEPAflTMEM/OFFICE/COUNCII DAiEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO• `�� Public Works Sidewa�ks 5-21-97 INITIAVDATE INRIAUDATE COMACT PEflSON d PHONE � pEpAHSMENT DIAECTDR ❑ CiTV COUNCIL Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 ^���N CITY ATfOflNEY � CIiY CLERK ldUSTBEONCAUNCIIAGENOABY ATE� NUMBFAiOR � 6-25-97 �R �BUDGETDIRECTOR FIN.GMGT.SERVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Office �MAYOR(ORASSISTMIT) t�Coundi Research TOTALiOFSIGNATUHEPAGES 1 _ (CLIPALLLOCA770NSFOH9IGWITUP� �ASSOCIATE � Fi MALACWUNTANT ACTKKJ HEWESTED �'�' ✓G�'7 Construd & Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward 7(See attached list) ° _I � RECOMMENDA NS:AFpme(lywfle�atf(H) pERSONALSERYICECOMflACTSMU5TANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCOMMISSKKJ _CNILSEflY10ECOMM{SSroN i. ����ES�r NO��rkedundefacontractferthisdePaztrne�t? CIB COMMfi7EE 2. Fias thispe rsorV(rtn ever bean a ciry employee? — — VES NO . A STAFF 3. Does Ihis person/firm possess a skill not normalty possassed by any curtent ciry — — employeel _OISTPICTCOUNCIL..' 'L _ YES NO SUPPORTS WHICN CWNGL �BJECTNEI �Wa1n all yas anawon on soparaU shwt and attach to groon eheet A IN7fIA71NQ ROHL M, 155UE. OPPORTl1NttY �WNO, WHAT, WNEN, W}iEAE, WFIY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freerthaw cycles, service I'rfe limits, chemical addftives, eMreme temperature variations, atc. 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 from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVEO: The community will benetit irom this project because it wi{I provide sate detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft of this activity. e DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Nistoricaiiy, the sidewalk reconstructions have created 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 controversiai. DISADVAN7AGES IF NO7 APPROVED: This option would a1{ow the infrastrudure of sidewa{k stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wilf generate more personal injury suits, uRimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS .23 ;426,87 CO3T/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO FUNDINGSWRCE 97-M^0667 A, PPA 97 � 557,000 ACRVRYNUMBER �97-2T729-0�84-27012 FINANCIAL MFORMATION: (EXPLAIM B�; AST � 3OO � OOO C; CIB 97 = 50,000 w - ' � � CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE NO. �� PRSLIMINARY ORDSR By �n File No. _S 096-597100 � Voting Ward_7 In the Mattar o£ Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597096 - West side Algonquin Ave from Stillwater Ave to Case Ave 597097 - Both sides N Aazel St from E Fifth St to Margaret St & East side N Hazel St from E Fourth St to E Fifth St 597098 - Both sides N Howard St from Wilson Ave to Conway St & Both sides Howard Court from N Howard St to Cul-de-sac 597099 - Both sides Margaret St from N White Bear Ave to N Hazel St 597100 - Both sides Tower St from Wilson Ave to Conway St ��=��g *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDEI3TIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastruction (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. Al1 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. MCTLTI-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. 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. 2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 13th 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. 3. 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 ��ostrom � l l ins �rris �gard �rton �une � In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date �����q� Certified Passed by Council Secretary or PqBIiSNCn jU� ° 5.1997 Public•Hearing Date — August 13, 1997 RE 6-6-97 c�—t�r DEPAflTMEM/OFFICE/COUNCII DAiEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO• `�� Public Works Sidewa�ks 5-21-97 INITIAVDATE INRIAUDATE COMACT PEflSON d PHONE � pEpAHSMENT DIAECTDR ❑ CiTV COUNCIL Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 ^���N CITY ATfOflNEY � CIiY CLERK ldUSTBEONCAUNCIIAGENOABY ATE� NUMBFAiOR � 6-25-97 �R �BUDGETDIRECTOR FIN.GMGT.SERVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Office �MAYOR(ORASSISTMIT) t�Coundi Research TOTALiOFSIGNATUHEPAGES 1 _ (CLIPALLLOCA770NSFOH9IGWITUP� �ASSOCIATE � Fi MALACWUNTANT ACTKKJ HEWESTED �'�' ✓G�'7 Construd & Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward 7(See attached list) ° _I � RECOMMENDA NS:AFpme(lywfle�atf(H) pERSONALSERYICECOMflACTSMU5TANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCOMMISSKKJ _CNILSEflY10ECOMM{SSroN i. ����ES�r NO��rkedundefacontractferthisdePaztrne�t? CIB COMMfi7EE 2. Fias thispe rsorV(rtn ever bean a ciry employee? — — VES NO . A STAFF 3. Does Ihis person/firm possess a skill not normalty possassed by any curtent ciry — — employeel _OISTPICTCOUNCIL..' 'L _ YES NO SUPPORTS WHICN CWNGL �BJECTNEI �Wa1n all yas anawon on soparaU shwt and attach to groon eheet A IN7fIA71NQ ROHL M, 155UE. OPPORTl1NttY �WNO, WHAT, WNEN, W}iEAE, WFIY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freerthaw cycles, service I'rfe limits, chemical addftives, eMreme temperature variations, atc. 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 from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVEO: The community will benetit irom this project because it wi{I provide sate detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft of this activity. e DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Nistoricaiiy, the sidewalk reconstructions have created 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 controversiai. DISADVAN7AGES IF NO7 APPROVED: This option would a1{ow the infrastrudure of sidewa{k stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wilf generate more personal injury suits, uRimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS .23 ;426,87 CO3T/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO FUNDINGSWRCE 97-M^0667 A, PPA 97 � 557,000 ACRVRYNUMBER �97-2T729-0�84-27012 FINANCIAL MFORMATION: (EXPLAIM B�; AST � 3OO � OOO C; CIB 97 = 50,000 w - ' � � CITY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE NO. �� PRSLIMINARY ORDSR By �n File No. _S 096-597100 � Voting Ward_7 In the Mattar o£ Reconstruction of sidewalks at the following location(s): 597096 - West side Algonquin Ave from Stillwater Ave to Case Ave 597097 - Both sides N Aazel St from E Fifth St to Margaret St & East side N Hazel St from E Fourth St to E Fifth St 597098 - Both sides N Howard St from Wilson Ave to Conway St & Both sides Howard Court from N Howard St to Cul-de-sac 597099 - Both sides Margaret St from N White Bear Ave to N Hazel St 597100 - Both sides Tower St from Wilson Ave to Conway St ��=��g *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDEI3TIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Recoastruction (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. Al1 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. MCTLTI-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. 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. 2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 13th 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. 3. 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 ��ostrom � l l ins �rris �gard �rton �une � In Favor � Against Adopted by Council: Date �����q� Certified Passed by Council Secretary or PqBIiSNCn jU� ° 5.1997 Public•Hearing Date — August 13, 1997 RE 6-6-97 c�—t�r DEPAflTMEM/OFFICE/COUNCII DAiEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO• `�� Public Works Sidewa�ks 5-21-97 INITIAVDATE INRIAUDATE COMACT PEflSON d PHONE � pEpAHSMENT DIAECTDR ❑ CiTV COUNCIL Robert A. Lissick - 266-6121 ^���N CITY ATfOflNEY � CIiY CLERK ldUSTBEONCAUNCIIAGENOABY ATE� NUMBFAiOR � 6-25-97 �R �BUDGETDIRECTOR FIN.GMGT.SERVICESDIR Must be in Council Research Office �MAYOR(ORASSISTMIT) t�Coundi Research TOTALiOFSIGNATUHEPAGES 1 _ (CLIPALLLOCA770NSFOH9IGWITUP� �ASSOCIATE � Fi MALACWUNTANT ACTKKJ HEWESTED �'�' ✓G�'7 Construd & Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward 7(See attached list) ° _I � RECOMMENDA NS:AFpme(lywfle�atf(H) pERSONALSERYICECOMflACTSMU5TANSWERTHEFOLLOWINGQUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCOMMISSKKJ _CNILSEflY10ECOMM{SSroN i. ����ES�r NO��rkedundefacontractferthisdePaztrne�t? CIB COMMfi7EE 2. Fias thispe rsorV(rtn ever bean a ciry employee? — — VES NO . A STAFF 3. Does Ihis person/firm possess a skill not normalty possassed by any curtent ciry — — employeel _OISTPICTCOUNCIL..' 'L _ YES NO SUPPORTS WHICN CWNGL �BJECTNEI �Wa1n all yas anawon on soparaU shwt and attach to groon eheet A IN7fIA71NQ ROHL M, 155UE. OPPORTl1NttY �WNO, WHAT, WNEN, W}iEAE, WFIY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freerthaw cycles, service I'rfe limits, chemical addftives, eMreme temperature variations, atc. 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 from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVEO: The community will benetit irom this project because it wi{I provide sate detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft of this activity. e DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Nistoricaiiy, the sidewalk reconstructions have created 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 controversiai. DISADVAN7AGES IF NO7 APPROVED: This option would a1{ow the infrastrudure of sidewa{k stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wilf generate more personal injury suits, uRimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts. TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS .23 ;426,87 CO3T/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO FUNDINGSWRCE 97-M^0667 A, PPA 97 � 557,000 ACRVRYNUMBER �97-2T729-0�84-27012 FINANCIAL MFORMATION: (EXPLAIM B�; AST � 3OO � OOO C; CIB 97 = 50,000