The URL can be used to link to this page

99-349CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER ORIGINAL COUNCIL FILE NO. B y- File In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: WARD 1 599029 - S99030 - S99031 - S99032 - S99033 - WARD 2 S99034 - S99035 - S99036 - 599037 - Both sides Dayton Ave. from N. Griggs St. to N. Dunlap St. Both sides Englewood Ave. from N. Lexington Pkwy. to N. Oxford St. Both sides N. Griggs St. from Selby Ave. to Dayton Ave. North side Portland Ave. from N. Oxford St. to N. Chatsworth St. Both sides Sherburne Ave. from N. Chatsworth St. to N. Milton St. Both sides Erie St. from Michigan St. to Superior St. South side Michigan St. from Webster St. to W. to Dead-End. South side Portland Ave. from N. Oxford St. to N. Chatsworth St. Both sides Superior St. from Erie St. to Duke St. �6 � }: � .w � 99-3�� `ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three fanuly structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $1038 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construcfion (where no walk e�sted) - 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 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-ItESIDENTI�II, RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 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 1998 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 2nd day of June, 1999 at 5:30 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 ✓Benanav ✓�lakey �ostrom �oleman v�Iarris thantry �iter �URI Icurn 6�AY � 199� Adopted by Council: Date�� _lq�� Certified Passed by Council Secretary r ( In Favor By "�� 'a Q, � Against �� Mayor YUBLIC HEARING DATE - JUNE 2, 1999 RE 4-16-99 �9-3 CJ �� DEPARTMENUOFFICE/COUNQL �ATEINRINTED Y I�. Public Works Sidewalks �-2s-ss GREEN SHEC i o• -9�9�5�— iNmnvon� wmnwn� CANTACT PEFSON & PHONE JersyTvedt-2666087 �� CmA�O �RECT�R ❑CRYCOUNGL MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAlE) pp � ❑ � y �� K April 28, 1999 pppEp Q��ETDIRECfOR ❑FlN.6MGT.SERVICESDI0. For public hearing on June 2, 1999 O��OR(ORASSISTANT) � Council Research OTAL40F516NANREPAGES _ (CLJPALLLOCATIONSFOHSIGNANR� u ASSO(,lATE iMENTALACCOUNTANr CTION REIXJESTED ' ReconsWct Sidewalk in Wards 1 R 2(See attached list) FECAMMENDATIONS: Appmve (A) or RaJect (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONiHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUES710N5: PLANNINGCOMMISSION _GVILSEflVICECOMMISSION i, HasihiSpCrSONfirtneVEfWOAtedundelaconU3MfofU115dCp2M18n[? CIBCOMMfTTEE YES NO — — 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee? A SrnFF _ YES NO Di57AlCT CoUrvaL 3. Does this perso�rtn possess a skill not nortnalty possessed by any curtent city employee? — — YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH CAUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 Exp�ain all yes answers on separate sheet and atta�h to green sheM INIiIATNG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH1�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemicaf additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annualiy. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVFNTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result. DISADVAMAGES IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have 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. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suds, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as well as claim payouts. (r`pl}(iC� R8S@3TCn F'v�S��21 APR 4 3 1999 �TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSAGTtON $ . ZG ; 9�4 �G COST(REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOURCE 99-M ��669 /�� PfA 99 � 630; �� pCINfTYNUMBER C99-2T752-078400000 FlNANqALINFORMAiION:(EXPLAIN) B, a�T � 351 �0� C; GtB 99 = 50i00o CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER ORIGINAL COUNCIL FILE NO. B y- File In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: WARD 1 599029 - S99030 - S99031 - S99032 - S99033 - WARD 2 S99034 - S99035 - S99036 - 599037 - Both sides Dayton Ave. from N. Griggs St. to N. Dunlap St. Both sides Englewood Ave. from N. Lexington Pkwy. to N. Oxford St. Both sides N. Griggs St. from Selby Ave. to Dayton Ave. North side Portland Ave. from N. Oxford St. to N. Chatsworth St. Both sides Sherburne Ave. from N. Chatsworth St. to N. Milton St. Both sides Erie St. from Michigan St. to Superior St. South side Michigan St. from Webster St. to W. to Dead-End. South side Portland Ave. from N. Oxford St. to N. Chatsworth St. Both sides Superior St. from Erie St. to Duke St. �6 � }: � .w � 99-3�� `ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three fanuly structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $1038 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construcfion (where no walk e�sted) - 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 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-ItESIDENTI�II, RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 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 1998 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 2nd day of June, 1999 at 5:30 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 ✓Benanav ✓�lakey �ostrom �oleman v�Iarris thantry �iter �URI Icurn 6�AY � 199� Adopted by Council: Date�� _lq�� Certified Passed by Council Secretary r ( In Favor By "�� 'a Q, � Against �� Mayor YUBLIC HEARING DATE - JUNE 2, 1999 RE 4-16-99 �9-3 CJ �� DEPARTMENUOFFICE/COUNQL �ATEINRINTED Y I�. Public Works Sidewalks �-2s-ss GREEN SHEC i o• -9�9�5�— iNmnvon� wmnwn� CANTACT PEFSON & PHONE JersyTvedt-2666087 �� CmA�O �RECT�R ❑CRYCOUNGL MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAlE) pp � ❑ � y �� K April 28, 1999 pppEp Q��ETDIRECfOR ❑FlN.6MGT.SERVICESDI0. For public hearing on June 2, 1999 O��OR(ORASSISTANT) � Council Research OTAL40F516NANREPAGES _ (CLJPALLLOCATIONSFOHSIGNANR� u ASSO(,lATE iMENTALACCOUNTANr CTION REIXJESTED ' ReconsWct Sidewalk in Wards 1 R 2(See attached list) FECAMMENDATIONS: Appmve (A) or RaJect (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONiHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUES710N5: PLANNINGCOMMISSION _GVILSEflVICECOMMISSION i, HasihiSpCrSONfirtneVEfWOAtedundelaconU3MfofU115dCp2M18n[? CIBCOMMfTTEE YES NO — — 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee? A SrnFF _ YES NO Di57AlCT CoUrvaL 3. Does this perso�rtn possess a skill not nortnalty possessed by any curtent city employee? — — YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH CAUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 Exp�ain all yes answers on separate sheet and atta�h to green sheM INIiIATNG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH1�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemicaf additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annualiy. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVFNTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result. DISADVAMAGES IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have 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. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suds, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as well as claim payouts. (r`pl}(iC� R8S@3TCn F'v�S��21 APR 4 3 1999 �TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSAGTtON $ . ZG ; 9�4 �G COST(REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOURCE 99-M ��669 /�� PfA 99 � 630; �� pCINfTYNUMBER C99-2T752-078400000 FlNANqALINFORMAiION:(EXPLAIN) B, a�T � 351 �0� C; GtB 99 = 50i00o CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER ORIGINAL COUNCIL FILE NO. B y- File In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: WARD 1 599029 - S99030 - S99031 - S99032 - S99033 - WARD 2 S99034 - S99035 - S99036 - 599037 - Both sides Dayton Ave. from N. Griggs St. to N. Dunlap St. Both sides Englewood Ave. from N. Lexington Pkwy. to N. Oxford St. Both sides N. Griggs St. from Selby Ave. to Dayton Ave. North side Portland Ave. from N. Oxford St. to N. Chatsworth St. Both sides Sherburne Ave. from N. Chatsworth St. to N. Milton St. Both sides Erie St. from Michigan St. to Superior St. South side Michigan St. from Webster St. to W. to Dead-End. South side Portland Ave. from N. Oxford St. to N. Chatsworth St. Both sides Superior St. from Erie St. to Duke St. �6 � }: � .w � 99-3�� `ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three fanuly structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$8.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $1038 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construcfion (where no walk e�sted) - 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 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the property. MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-ItESIDENTI�II, RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 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 1998 Public Improvement Aid. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 2nd day of June, 1999 at 5:30 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 ✓Benanav ✓�lakey �ostrom �oleman v�Iarris thantry �iter �URI Icurn 6�AY � 199� Adopted by Council: Date�� _lq�� Certified Passed by Council Secretary r ( In Favor By "�� 'a Q, � Against �� Mayor YUBLIC HEARING DATE - JUNE 2, 1999 RE 4-16-99 �9-3 CJ �� DEPARTMENUOFFICE/COUNQL �ATEINRINTED Y I�. Public Works Sidewalks �-2s-ss GREEN SHEC i o• -9�9�5�— iNmnvon� wmnwn� CANTACT PEFSON & PHONE JersyTvedt-2666087 �� CmA�O �RECT�R ❑CRYCOUNGL MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAlE) pp � ❑ � y �� K April 28, 1999 pppEp Q��ETDIRECfOR ❑FlN.6MGT.SERVICESDI0. For public hearing on June 2, 1999 O��OR(ORASSISTANT) � Council Research OTAL40F516NANREPAGES _ (CLJPALLLOCATIONSFOHSIGNANR� u ASSO(,lATE iMENTALACCOUNTANr CTION REIXJESTED ' ReconsWct Sidewalk in Wards 1 R 2(See attached list) FECAMMENDATIONS: Appmve (A) or RaJect (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONiHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUES710N5: PLANNINGCOMMISSION _GVILSEflVICECOMMISSION i, HasihiSpCrSONfirtneVEfWOAtedundelaconU3MfofU115dCp2M18n[? CIBCOMMfTTEE YES NO — — 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee? A SrnFF _ YES NO Di57AlCT CoUrvaL 3. Does this perso�rtn possess a skill not nortnalty possessed by any curtent city employee? — — YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH CAUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 Exp�ain all yes answers on separate sheet and atta�h to green sheM INIiIATNG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH1�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemicaf additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annualiy. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVFNTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result. DISADVAMAGES IF APPFOVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have 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. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suds, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as well as claim payouts. (r`pl}(iC� R8S@3TCn F'v�S��21 APR 4 3 1999 �TAL AMOUNT OF TRANSAGTtON $ . ZG ; 9�4 �G COST(REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOURCE 99-M ��669 /�� PfA 99 � 630; �� pCINfTYNUMBER C99-2T752-078400000 FlNANqALINFORMAiION:(EXPLAIN) B, a�T � 351 �0� C; GtB 99 = 50i00o