99-270,
��
CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL� ,, F�� // ILE / NO. q_`• �,� Q
PRELIMINARY ORDER By /IJ'/��J/L�jYL� ��
Fi1e No_ SEE BELOW
Voting Ward 2,3,5
In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations:
WARD 5 - 599007 -
WARD 3 - 599008 -
South side Como Ave. Prom Kent St. to N. Dale St. at 616
Como Ave. only aba Easy Streets West Bar & East side N.
Dale St. from Burgess St. to Front Ave_
North side Watson Ave. from S. Syndicate St. to S.
Hamline Ave. at 1311 Watson Ave. only.
WARD 2- 599009 - South side E. Eifth St. from Minnesota St. to N. Robert
St., East side Minnesota 5t. from E. Fourth St. to E.
Fifth St. & West side N. Robert St. from E. Fourth St, to
E. Fifth St. at 322 Minnesota St.
WARD 2- 599010 - 5outh side W. Fifth St. from N. Wabasha St. to St. Peter
St. at 350 St. Peter St.
P(IRPICtaCi1
t�PR 171999
9
9`t-�`��
*ESTIMATED CObISTRUCTION RATE5
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $10.38 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) - 100$ of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.87 per square foot.
All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150
Peet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "lonq side" of
the property.
MULTI-RE5IDENTIAL(More than three £amily structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE5
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $5.23 per square foot.
The Council of the City of 5aint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon
the above improvement, and l�aving considered said report, hereby resolves:
1
2
3
That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives,
and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction
rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid.
That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 26`�' dav of Mav, 1999
at 5:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court Heuse
Building in the City of Saint Paul.
That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner
provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of
the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
leas Nays
�enanav
�lakey
+/�ostrom
�/C.`oleman
�Iarris
�antry
�eiter
Adopted by Council: Date� l�� G
� l
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
�In Favor By_c�_�2- ��
� Against ��ry���+�
3�3D��-�'� Nayor
�
�tiyc �.... ��i.w
.
DATE INITIATED [7 � 96
�rublicWorksSidewalks 1-28-99 GREEN SHEET NO. �NR�AVpAI�
ONTACTPERSON8PHONE ��DEPARTMEMOIREGTOfl QCRYCOUNCIL
erry Tvedt - 266-6087 AS$IGN ��{y ATTORNEY crrr c�wc
MU5! BE ON COUNQL AGENOA 8Y (DATE� NUMBER FOR � ❑
April 7, 1999 ROUT{NG �g�pG�01RECTOR �FIN,&MC+T.SERYICESOIR.
or ublic hearin on Ma 26 1499 OP6ER
P S S' > �MAYOF(ORASSISTANTj t� Council Research
OiALlOFSIGNA7UREPAGES }, _(CLIPALLLOCATONSFOHSIGNANFl� u ASSOGATE u DEPARiMEMALACGOUNTANT
C710N REOUESTED
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3& 5(See attached list) �q —Z7�
� �S � �
RECOMMENOATIONS: Apprare (A) w Rejec[ (R) pERSONAL SERYfCE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOW WG QUESTIONS:
_PLANMNG COMMISSION _CML SFAVICE fAMMISSION i, t{as this persoNGrtn ever woAced under a contrect tor this departrnent?
CIBfAMMRTEE YES NO
A�� — 2. Has Nis persoNfirm everbeen a city employee?
— — YES NO
DiSTAiCi couNClt _ 3. Ooes this persoMirtn possess a ski11 rwt twrtnetly possessed by any curtent ciry employee?
YES NO
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE? Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
2� 5
INI71AT1NG PROBLEM, ISSU . OPPORTUNIN (r1MD, WHAT, WHEN. WHEFE, WFR'):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thawcycles, service
life limits, chemical addflives, extreme temperature variations, eta These problems occur on a citywide basfs and must be addressed
and corrected annually. Leit uncorrected, the sidewalk condtion would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to
increased pedestrian injuries from tails and possible litigations.
AOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED'
The community wifl6eneti[ from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for ifs citizens. The sidewalk contracts
are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result.
DISRDVAMAGES IF APPPOVED.
Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments.
Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess
for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue.
V�:::?�if i7�?p�rr`-. C,... ,
r � q ry
i € r. 'i��:7,/
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED.
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, witl generate more�personal injury suits,
resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as weil as claim payouts: �
OTAIAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS �b.Q7S�39 COSTfPEYENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO
FUNDINGSOURCE 98-M-0668 A , P��1 9$ = 6�8 qCIN1TYNUMBER �98-2T751-07
FINANCIAIWFORMATION:(IXP(AIN) B� (�S1 � 3�LS�OOO
C. CtB 98 = 50;000
,
��
CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL� ,, F�� // ILE / NO. q_`• �,� Q
PRELIMINARY ORDER By /IJ'/��J/L�jYL� ��
Fi1e No_ SEE BELOW
Voting Ward 2,3,5
In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations:
WARD 5 - 599007 -
WARD 3 - 599008 -
South side Como Ave. Prom Kent St. to N. Dale St. at 616
Como Ave. only aba Easy Streets West Bar & East side N.
Dale St. from Burgess St. to Front Ave_
North side Watson Ave. from S. Syndicate St. to S.
Hamline Ave. at 1311 Watson Ave. only.
WARD 2- 599009 - South side E. Eifth St. from Minnesota St. to N. Robert
St., East side Minnesota 5t. from E. Fourth St. to E.
Fifth St. & West side N. Robert St. from E. Fourth St, to
E. Fifth St. at 322 Minnesota St.
WARD 2- 599010 - 5outh side W. Fifth St. from N. Wabasha St. to St. Peter
St. at 350 St. Peter St.
P(IRPICtaCi1
t�PR 171999
9
9`t-�`��
*ESTIMATED CObISTRUCTION RATE5
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $10.38 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) - 100$ of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.87 per square foot.
All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150
Peet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "lonq side" of
the property.
MULTI-RE5IDENTIAL(More than three £amily structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE5
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $5.23 per square foot.
The Council of the City of 5aint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon
the above improvement, and l�aving considered said report, hereby resolves:
1
2
3
That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives,
and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction
rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid.
That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 26`�' dav of Mav, 1999
at 5:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court Heuse
Building in the City of Saint Paul.
That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner
provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of
the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
leas Nays
�enanav
�lakey
+/�ostrom
�/C.`oleman
�Iarris
�antry
�eiter
Adopted by Council: Date� l�� G
� l
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
�In Favor By_c�_�2- ��
� Against ��ry���+�
3�3D��-�'� Nayor
�
�tiyc �.... ��i.w
.
DATE INITIATED [7 � 96
�rublicWorksSidewalks 1-28-99 GREEN SHEET NO. �NR�AVpAI�
ONTACTPERSON8PHONE ��DEPARTMEMOIREGTOfl QCRYCOUNCIL
erry Tvedt - 266-6087 AS$IGN ��{y ATTORNEY crrr c�wc
MU5! BE ON COUNQL AGENOA 8Y (DATE� NUMBER FOR � ❑
April 7, 1999 ROUT{NG �g�pG�01RECTOR �FIN,&MC+T.SERYICESOIR.
or ublic hearin on Ma 26 1499 OP6ER
P S S' > �MAYOF(ORASSISTANTj t� Council Research
OiALlOFSIGNA7UREPAGES }, _(CLIPALLLOCATONSFOHSIGNANFl� u ASSOGATE u DEPARiMEMALACGOUNTANT
C710N REOUESTED
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3& 5(See attached list) �q —Z7�
� �S � �
RECOMMENOATIONS: Apprare (A) w Rejec[ (R) pERSONAL SERYfCE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOW WG QUESTIONS:
_PLANMNG COMMISSION _CML SFAVICE fAMMISSION i, t{as this persoNGrtn ever woAced under a contrect tor this departrnent?
CIBfAMMRTEE YES NO
A�� — 2. Has Nis persoNfirm everbeen a city employee?
— — YES NO
DiSTAiCi couNClt _ 3. Ooes this persoMirtn possess a ski11 rwt twrtnetly possessed by any curtent ciry employee?
YES NO
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE? Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
2� 5
INI71AT1NG PROBLEM, ISSU . OPPORTUNIN (r1MD, WHAT, WHEN. WHEFE, WFR'):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thawcycles, service
life limits, chemical addflives, extreme temperature variations, eta These problems occur on a citywide basfs and must be addressed
and corrected annually. Leit uncorrected, the sidewalk condtion would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to
increased pedestrian injuries from tails and possible litigations.
AOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED'
The community wifl6eneti[ from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for ifs citizens. The sidewalk contracts
are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result.
DISRDVAMAGES IF APPPOVED.
Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments.
Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess
for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue.
V�:::?�if i7�?p�rr`-. C,... ,
r � q ry
i € r. 'i��:7,/
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED.
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, witl generate more�personal injury suits,
resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as weil as claim payouts: �
OTAIAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS �b.Q7S�39 COSTfPEYENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO
FUNDINGSOURCE 98-M-0668 A , P��1 9$ = 6�8 qCIN1TYNUMBER �98-2T751-07
FINANCIAIWFORMATION:(IXP(AIN) B� (�S1 � 3�LS�OOO
C. CtB 98 = 50;000
,
��
CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNCIL� ,, F�� // ILE / NO. q_`• �,� Q
PRELIMINARY ORDER By /IJ'/��J/L�jYL� ��
Fi1e No_ SEE BELOW
Voting Ward 2,3,5
In the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations:
WARD 5 - 599007 -
WARD 3 - 599008 -
South side Como Ave. Prom Kent St. to N. Dale St. at 616
Como Ave. only aba Easy Streets West Bar & East side N.
Dale St. from Burgess St. to Front Ave_
North side Watson Ave. from S. Syndicate St. to S.
Hamline Ave. at 1311 Watson Ave. only.
WARD 2- 599009 - South side E. Eifth St. from Minnesota St. to N. Robert
St., East side Minnesota 5t. from E. Fourth St. to E.
Fifth St. & West side N. Robert St. from E. Fourth St, to
E. Fifth St. at 322 Minnesota St.
WARD 2- 599010 - 5outh side W. Fifth St. from N. Wabasha St. to St. Peter
St. at 350 St. Peter St.
P(IRPICtaCi1
t�PR 171999
9
9`t-�`��
*ESTIMATED CObISTRUCTION RATE5
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $10.38 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) - 100$ of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.87 per square foot.
All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to the first 150
Peet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "lonq side" of
the property.
MULTI-RE5IDENTIAL(More than three £amily structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE5
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $5.23 per square foot.
The Council of the City of 5aint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon
the above improvement, and l�aving considered said report, hereby resolves:
1
2
3
That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives,
and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction
rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid.
That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 26`�' dav of Mav, 1999
at 5:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court Heuse
Building in the City of Saint Paul.
That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner
provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of
the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
leas Nays
�enanav
�lakey
+/�ostrom
�/C.`oleman
�Iarris
�antry
�eiter
Adopted by Council: Date� l�� G
� l
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
�In Favor By_c�_�2- ��
� Against ��ry���+�
3�3D��-�'� Nayor
�
�tiyc �.... ��i.w
.
DATE INITIATED [7 � 96
�rublicWorksSidewalks 1-28-99 GREEN SHEET NO. �NR�AVpAI�
ONTACTPERSON8PHONE ��DEPARTMEMOIREGTOfl QCRYCOUNCIL
erry Tvedt - 266-6087 AS$IGN ��{y ATTORNEY crrr c�wc
MU5! BE ON COUNQL AGENOA 8Y (DATE� NUMBER FOR � ❑
April 7, 1999 ROUT{NG �g�pG�01RECTOR �FIN,&MC+T.SERYICESOIR.
or ublic hearin on Ma 26 1499 OP6ER
P S S' > �MAYOF(ORASSISTANTj t� Council Research
OiALlOFSIGNA7UREPAGES }, _(CLIPALLLOCATONSFOHSIGNANFl� u ASSOGATE u DEPARiMEMALACGOUNTANT
C710N REOUESTED
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3& 5(See attached list) �q —Z7�
� �S � �
RECOMMENOATIONS: Apprare (A) w Rejec[ (R) pERSONAL SERYfCE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOW WG QUESTIONS:
_PLANMNG COMMISSION _CML SFAVICE fAMMISSION i, t{as this persoNGrtn ever woAced under a contrect tor this departrnent?
CIBfAMMRTEE YES NO
A�� — 2. Has Nis persoNfirm everbeen a city employee?
— — YES NO
DiSTAiCi couNClt _ 3. Ooes this persoMirtn possess a ski11 rwt twrtnetly possessed by any curtent ciry employee?
YES NO
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE? Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
2� 5
INI71AT1NG PROBLEM, ISSU . OPPORTUNIN (r1MD, WHAT, WHEN. WHEFE, WFR'):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeze/thawcycles, service
life limits, chemical addflives, extreme temperature variations, eta These problems occur on a citywide basfs and must be addressed
and corrected annually. Leit uncorrected, the sidewalk condtion would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to
increased pedestrian injuries from tails and possible litigations.
AOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED'
The community wifl6eneti[ from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for ifs citizens. The sidewalk contracts
are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result.
DISRDVAMAGES IF APPPOVED.
Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments.
Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess
for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue.
V�:::?�if i7�?p�rr`-. C,... ,
r � q ry
i € r. 'i��:7,/
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED.
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, witl generate more�personal injury suits,
resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as weil as claim payouts: �
OTAIAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS �b.Q7S�39 COSTfPEYENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO
FUNDINGSOURCE 98-M-0668 A , P��1 9$ = 6�8 qCIN1TYNUMBER �98-2T751-07
FINANCIAIWFORMATION:(IXP(AIN) B� (�S1 � 3�LS�OOO
C. CtB 98 = 50;000