The URL can be used to link to this page

98-659a��MAt CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER Exhibit A i �: � COUN LE � � By File No. S98109 Voting Ward 2 In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the follom3ng locations: �� . S98109 - West side Chester St. from E. Plato Blvd. to E. La£ayette Rd. & South side E. Plato Blvd. from Chester St. to E. Lafayette Rd. *ESTIMATED CON5TRUCTION RATES PliAttSN�n AUG ��81ggg RESSDENTIAL RATES jOne, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.65 per front foot £or a five (5) foot wide walk and $9.18 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. I3ew construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.42 per square foot. All corner residential properties will feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk the property. receive a credit up to the first 150 alonq and abutting the "long side" of MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(MOre than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100°s of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.62 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construCtion rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. Fa c3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 12th dav of Auaust, 1998 5:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Pau1. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, statinq the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays ✓Benanav ✓Blakey �/Bostrom ✓Coleman fAarris �/L� ntry �/keiter Adopted by Council: Date`\� Certified Passed by Counci S retary �In Favor By �Against Mayor DEPAHTMENTRIFFICFiLOUNCIL �^*��RU�� GREEN SHEET g�ri�. Public Works Sidewalks 5-1598 iNinnuoa� wrruwonrE CONTACTPEPSON6PFIONE pEppq7MENTDIRECTOF Cf1YC0UNCIL D I LarryH.Lueth-2666083 ��N cmarrowiEr C{TYqEAK NUMBHi WH YUST BE ON CQUNCLL AGENDA BV (DATE) �p � g�pp�7 DfHECTOR ❑ FlN. S AfGS. SEAVICES 01A. � EiAYOA �DA ASSISTANT) � CO�JrIGI ReSE3fG17 TOTAL f OF SIGNATURE PAGES _(CI1P ALL LOLA7ION5 FOR $IGNANRE) �SOCIAIE � AL U ACTI�I qEpUES7FA � Construd Sidewalk in Ward 2(See attached f'ist) F i1EGOMMENDpTpNS: nppoe (rq a iteject (P) pEp3ptdpL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLANNWG COMMISSIDN _CMlSEAVK�E COMMf5510H 1. Hes U»is pers NO er worked untler a contract for this departrnem4 GB CCM.iMRTEE 2 Hds 1f1i5 y p�son/fum ever been a atY emP�%'ee? — — YES NO �. STAFf 3. Daes this pe(sonlfirm possess a skiil not normalN possessad by arry artent city employee? D4S7R�CTCOUNCIL YES NO SuPPORTS WH%:FI COUNCIL O&IECTNE't F•xPliin all yss lnsr»TS rn sapareto ahwt and attaeh to grean shoet INRIATING PRO6LEM. ISSUE, OPPOpiUNf1Y (VhlO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WFIY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, attemating fraerthaw cycles, service life limits, chemica! add'Rives, extreme temperature variaiions, etc. These pro6lems occur on a cBywide level and must be addressed and correc[ed on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewaVk condRion would worsen to a state where ft xrouid be rendered unusabie and subject to inaeased pedestrian injuries from falis and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIGAPPROYED: The community wili benefit from this projec[ because it will provide safe detect free sidewaiks for fts many citizens. The sidewaik comracts are executed by private contractors, so it folbws that private sector jobs are created�s a re,�ult �s,,�,�ti��r� �;ourr�i t� JUL 1 �� "�� DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative teedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fac[ up to one-haM the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. DISADYANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow ihe irrirastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in iurn, wili generate more personal injury sufis, uhimately resulting in the expenditure of farger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as weli as claim payouts. TOSAL AMWNS OF TpANSACT101i S r � � COSTlREYENUE BUDGESED (C{flCLE ONEy YES fW FUNDWGSWRCE 98-N,-4668 r ° t ACtNfTYNUMBEfl �98'2T751-D784-00000 FINANCIAL INr'ORMATION: (EXPLAIM � a , - C, cts 98 � Sa,000 a��MAt CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER Exhibit A i �: � COUN LE � � By File No. S98109 Voting Ward 2 In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the follom3ng locations: �� . S98109 - West side Chester St. from E. Plato Blvd. to E. La£ayette Rd. & South side E. Plato Blvd. from Chester St. to E. Lafayette Rd. *ESTIMATED CON5TRUCTION RATES PliAttSN�n AUG ��81ggg RESSDENTIAL RATES jOne, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.65 per front foot £or a five (5) foot wide walk and $9.18 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. I3ew construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.42 per square foot. All corner residential properties will feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk the property. receive a credit up to the first 150 alonq and abutting the "long side" of MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(MOre than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100°s of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.62 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construCtion rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. Fa c3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 12th dav of Auaust, 1998 5:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Pau1. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, statinq the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays ✓Benanav ✓Blakey �/Bostrom ✓Coleman fAarris �/L� ntry �/keiter Adopted by Council: Date`\� Certified Passed by Counci S retary �In Favor By �Against Mayor DEPAHTMENTRIFFICFiLOUNCIL �^*��RU�� GREEN SHEET g�ri�. Public Works Sidewalks 5-1598 iNinnuoa� wrruwonrE CONTACTPEPSON6PFIONE pEppq7MENTDIRECTOF Cf1YC0UNCIL D I LarryH.Lueth-2666083 ��N cmarrowiEr C{TYqEAK NUMBHi WH YUST BE ON CQUNCLL AGENDA BV (DATE) �p � g�pp�7 DfHECTOR ❑ FlN. S AfGS. SEAVICES 01A. � EiAYOA �DA ASSISTANT) � CO�JrIGI ReSE3fG17 TOTAL f OF SIGNATURE PAGES _(CI1P ALL LOLA7ION5 FOR $IGNANRE) �SOCIAIE � AL U ACTI�I qEpUES7FA � Construd Sidewalk in Ward 2(See attached f'ist) F i1EGOMMENDpTpNS: nppoe (rq a iteject (P) pEp3ptdpL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLANNWG COMMISSIDN _CMlSEAVK�E COMMf5510H 1. Hes U»is pers NO er worked untler a contract for this departrnem4 GB CCM.iMRTEE 2 Hds 1f1i5 y p�son/fum ever been a atY emP�%'ee? — — YES NO �. STAFf 3. Daes this pe(sonlfirm possess a skiil not normalN possessad by arry artent city employee? D4S7R�CTCOUNCIL YES NO SuPPORTS WH%:FI COUNCIL O&IECTNE't F•xPliin all yss lnsr»TS rn sapareto ahwt and attaeh to grean shoet INRIATING PRO6LEM. ISSUE, OPPOpiUNf1Y (VhlO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WFIY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, attemating fraerthaw cycles, service life limits, chemica! add'Rives, extreme temperature variaiions, etc. These pro6lems occur on a cBywide level and must be addressed and correc[ed on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewaVk condRion would worsen to a state where ft xrouid be rendered unusabie and subject to inaeased pedestrian injuries from falis and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIGAPPROYED: The community wili benefit from this projec[ because it will provide safe detect free sidewaiks for fts many citizens. The sidewaik comracts are executed by private contractors, so it folbws that private sector jobs are created�s a re,�ult �s,,�,�ti��r� �;ourr�i t� JUL 1 �� "�� DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative teedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fac[ up to one-haM the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. DISADYANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow ihe irrirastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in iurn, wili generate more personal injury sufis, uhimately resulting in the expenditure of farger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as weli as claim payouts. TOSAL AMWNS OF TpANSACT101i S r � � COSTlREYENUE BUDGESED (C{flCLE ONEy YES fW FUNDWGSWRCE 98-N,-4668 r ° t ACtNfTYNUMBEfl �98'2T751-D784-00000 FINANCIAL INr'ORMATION: (EXPLAIM � a , - C, cts 98 � Sa,000 a��MAt CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER Exhibit A i �: � COUN LE � � By File No. S98109 Voting Ward 2 In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the follom3ng locations: �� . S98109 - West side Chester St. from E. Plato Blvd. to E. La£ayette Rd. & South side E. Plato Blvd. from Chester St. to E. Lafayette Rd. *ESTIMATED CON5TRUCTION RATES PliAttSN�n AUG ��81ggg RESSDENTIAL RATES jOne, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.65 per front foot £or a five (5) foot wide walk and $9.18 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. I3ew construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.42 per square foot. All corner residential properties will feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk the property. receive a credit up to the first 150 alonq and abutting the "long side" of MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(MOre than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100°s of actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.62 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construCtion rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. Fa c3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 12th dav of Auaust, 1998 5:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Pau1. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, statinq the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays ✓Benanav ✓Blakey �/Bostrom ✓Coleman fAarris �/L� ntry �/keiter Adopted by Council: Date`\� Certified Passed by Counci S retary �In Favor By �Against Mayor DEPAHTMENTRIFFICFiLOUNCIL �^*��RU�� GREEN SHEET g�ri�. Public Works Sidewalks 5-1598 iNinnuoa� wrruwonrE CONTACTPEPSON6PFIONE pEppq7MENTDIRECTOF Cf1YC0UNCIL D I LarryH.Lueth-2666083 ��N cmarrowiEr C{TYqEAK NUMBHi WH YUST BE ON CQUNCLL AGENDA BV (DATE) �p � g�pp�7 DfHECTOR ❑ FlN. S AfGS. SEAVICES 01A. � EiAYOA �DA ASSISTANT) � CO�JrIGI ReSE3fG17 TOTAL f OF SIGNATURE PAGES _(CI1P ALL LOLA7ION5 FOR $IGNANRE) �SOCIAIE � AL U ACTI�I qEpUES7FA � Construd Sidewalk in Ward 2(See attached f'ist) F i1EGOMMENDpTpNS: nppoe (rq a iteject (P) pEp3ptdpL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLANNWG COMMISSIDN _CMlSEAVK�E COMMf5510H 1. Hes U»is pers NO er worked untler a contract for this departrnem4 GB CCM.iMRTEE 2 Hds 1f1i5 y p�son/fum ever been a atY emP�%'ee? — — YES NO �. STAFf 3. Daes this pe(sonlfirm possess a skiil not normalN possessad by arry artent city employee? D4S7R�CTCOUNCIL YES NO SuPPORTS WH%:FI COUNCIL O&IECTNE't F•xPliin all yss lnsr»TS rn sapareto ahwt and attaeh to grean shoet INRIATING PRO6LEM. ISSUE, OPPOpiUNf1Y (VhlO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WFIY): The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, attemating fraerthaw cycles, service life limits, chemica! add'Rives, extreme temperature variaiions, etc. These pro6lems occur on a cBywide level and must be addressed and correc[ed on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewaVk condRion would worsen to a state where ft xrouid be rendered unusabie and subject to inaeased pedestrian injuries from falis and possible litigations. ADVANTAGESIGAPPROYED: The community wili benefit from this projec[ because it will provide safe detect free sidewaiks for fts many citizens. The sidewaik comracts are executed by private contractors, so it folbws that private sector jobs are created�s a re,�ult �s,,�,�ti��r� �;ourr�i t� JUL 1 �� "�� DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative teedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment. Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fac[ up to one-haM the assessment is City subsidized, it still remains controversial. DISADYANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow ihe irrirastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in iurn, wili generate more personal injury sufis, uhimately resulting in the expenditure of farger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as weli as claim payouts. TOSAL AMWNS OF TpANSACT101i S r � � COSTlREYENUE BUDGESED (C{flCLE ONEy YES fW FUNDWGSWRCE 98-N,-4668 r ° t ACtNfTYNUMBEfl �98'2T751-D784-00000 FINANCIAL INr'ORMATION: (EXPLAIM � a , - C, cts 98 � Sa,000