Loading...
99-351CITY OF ST. PAUL � •� _� 111' I�G�S�`_C� •i 1 � '7 a�����v�� co czr. Frl, �ro. q- 35 � � B , File o. SEE BE W Voting Wazd_ ,7 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: WARD 5 599050 - 599051 - S99052 - Both sides E. Geranium Ave. from Abell St. to Jackson St. Both sides E. Geranium Ave. from Sylvan St. to Abell St. Both sides Woodridge St. from W. Rose Ave. to W. Maryland Ave. WARD 7 599053 - South side Beech St. from Earl St. to Frank St., East side Eazl St. from Margaret St. to Beech St., West side Frank St. from Mazgazet St. to Beech St. and North side Margaret St. from Earl St. to Frank St. 599054 - Both sides E. Fifth St. from Gotzian St. to Atlantic St. ,, ..� , nur � ao . 1 � . . ,, �1 �-35 + *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES 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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk e�cisted) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be appro�mately $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 proper[y. MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL 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: That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for esfimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. 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 Ciry 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 +iBostrom � oleman �FIarris �antry vI�eiter Adopted by Council: Date ��i i l�(�� Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor By � '� '� , � C� Against ��v^ lL�/" 7 7��j / Pi ni t"' �, Mayor MAY � 1999 PUBLIC HEARING DATE - JUNE 2, 1999 RE 4-16-99 ��-� 5 f �J7� DEPAFTMENT/OFFICE/COUNqI DA7E�NfiIATED NO. �dHHVsJd-- PublicWorksSidewalks �-2s_ss GREEN SHEET dH INITIAI/DATE INfiIAUDAiE PfiACiPER50NSPHONE ODEPAHiMENTDIREGTOA �p17yCqUNCIL erryTvedt-266-6087 ��+ ��rn ❑cmc�rvK NUMBEfl FOH MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAT� APLll Z8 1999 q �� NC ' �BUDGETDIRECTOR �FlN.&MGT.SERVICESDIR OHDEfi For public hearing on June 2, 1999 �MNY�R(OHASSI5fANT) � Councii Research OTALlOFSIGNpiUqEPAGES _ (CLIPALLLOCATIONSGOflSIGNA7VRE] u ASSOpATE ENTALACCOUNTANT CTION flE�UESiED Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 5& 7(See attached list) RECOMMErvonrloNS: npprove (A) «aejea (a) PEHSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _P�MININGCpMMISSIpN _CIVILSQiNCECOMMISSION �, HasthispersaNfirtneverwwkadunderacortfactforthisdepartment? CIBCAMMITTEE VES NO — — 2. Has ihis persaNfirtn ever been a city empioyee? f1 , srnFP _ YES NO DI57aiCr CoUNCIL 3. Does this person/firtn possess a sldll not nortnally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? — YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUNGIL OBJECTIVE'1 Expiatn all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPoRTUNfiY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH1�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezetthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. 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. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: 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 resuit. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconsuuctiqns have created �egative feedback because of construction procedures a�d 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 controvefsial issue. DiSA9VA1d�AGESIF NOT APPROVE6 This option would allow the infrasVucture of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weli as claim payouts. Ci0Ui1�{ RflS�r .r.f=ntat APR 1 3 1999 OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ , ��'37Q�(Q COS7/REVENUEBUOGETED(CIBCLEONE) YES No FUNDING SOURCE <j j-�-0669 /� � B t A 99 = 630 ACINIIY NUMBER C99•2T752-0784-00000 PINANCIALINFORMATION:(E%PLAIN) s„ AsT = 35i;000 C,' Cte 99 = 50,000 CITY OF ST. PAUL � •� _� 111' I�G�S�`_C� •i 1 � '7 a�����v�� co czr. Frl, �ro. q- 35 � � B , File o. SEE BE W Voting Wazd_ ,7 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: WARD 5 599050 - 599051 - S99052 - Both sides E. Geranium Ave. from Abell St. to Jackson St. Both sides E. Geranium Ave. from Sylvan St. to Abell St. Both sides Woodridge St. from W. Rose Ave. to W. Maryland Ave. WARD 7 599053 - South side Beech St. from Earl St. to Frank St., East side Eazl St. from Margaret St. to Beech St., West side Frank St. from Mazgazet St. to Beech St. and North side Margaret St. from Earl St. to Frank St. 599054 - Both sides E. Fifth St. from Gotzian St. to Atlantic St. ,, ..� , nur � ao . 1 � . . ,, �1 �-35 + *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES 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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk e�cisted) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be appro�mately $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 proper[y. MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL 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: That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for esfimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. 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 Ciry 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 +iBostrom � oleman �FIarris �antry vI�eiter Adopted by Council: Date ��i i l�(�� Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor By � '� '� , � C� Against ��v^ lL�/" 7 7��j / Pi ni t"' �, Mayor MAY � 1999 PUBLIC HEARING DATE - JUNE 2, 1999 RE 4-16-99 ��-� 5 f �J7� DEPAFTMENT/OFFICE/COUNqI DA7E�NfiIATED NO. �dHHVsJd-- PublicWorksSidewalks �-2s_ss GREEN SHEET dH INITIAI/DATE INfiIAUDAiE PfiACiPER50NSPHONE ODEPAHiMENTDIREGTOA �p17yCqUNCIL erryTvedt-266-6087 ��+ ��rn ❑cmc�rvK NUMBEfl FOH MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAT� APLll Z8 1999 q �� NC ' �BUDGETDIRECTOR �FlN.&MGT.SERVICESDIR OHDEfi For public hearing on June 2, 1999 �MNY�R(OHASSI5fANT) � Councii Research OTALlOFSIGNpiUqEPAGES _ (CLIPALLLOCATIONSGOflSIGNA7VRE] u ASSOpATE ENTALACCOUNTANT CTION flE�UESiED Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 5& 7(See attached list) RECOMMErvonrloNS: npprove (A) «aejea (a) PEHSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _P�MININGCpMMISSIpN _CIVILSQiNCECOMMISSION �, HasthispersaNfirtneverwwkadunderacortfactforthisdepartment? CIBCAMMITTEE VES NO — — 2. Has ihis persaNfirtn ever been a city empioyee? f1 , srnFP _ YES NO DI57aiCr CoUNCIL 3. Does this person/firtn possess a sldll not nortnally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? — YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUNGIL OBJECTIVE'1 Expiatn all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPoRTUNfiY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH1�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezetthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. 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. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: 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 resuit. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconsuuctiqns have created �egative feedback because of construction procedures a�d 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 controvefsial issue. DiSA9VA1d�AGESIF NOT APPROVE6 This option would allow the infrasVucture of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weli as claim payouts. Ci0Ui1�{ RflS�r .r.f=ntat APR 1 3 1999 OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ , ��'37Q�(Q COS7/REVENUEBUOGETED(CIBCLEONE) YES No FUNDING SOURCE <j j-�-0669 /� � B t A 99 = 630 ACINIIY NUMBER C99•2T752-0784-00000 PINANCIALINFORMATION:(E%PLAIN) s„ AsT = 35i;000 C,' Cte 99 = 50,000 CITY OF ST. PAUL � •� _� 111' I�G�S�`_C� •i 1 � '7 a�����v�� co czr. Frl, �ro. q- 35 � � B , File o. SEE BE W Voting Wazd_ ,7 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: WARD 5 599050 - 599051 - S99052 - Both sides E. Geranium Ave. from Abell St. to Jackson St. Both sides E. Geranium Ave. from Sylvan St. to Abell St. Both sides Woodridge St. from W. Rose Ave. to W. Maryland Ave. WARD 7 599053 - South side Beech St. from Earl St. to Frank St., East side Eazl St. from Margaret St. to Beech St., West side Frank St. from Mazgazet St. to Beech St. and North side Margaret St. from Earl St. to Frank St. 599054 - Both sides E. Fifth St. from Gotzian St. to Atlantic St. ,, ..� , nur � ao . 1 � . . ,, �1 �-35 + *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES 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. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk e�cisted) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be appro�mately $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 proper[y. MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL 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: That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for esfimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. 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 Ciry 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 +iBostrom � oleman �FIarris �antry vI�eiter Adopted by Council: Date ��i i l�(�� Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor By � '� '� , � C� Against ��v^ lL�/" 7 7��j / Pi ni t"' �, Mayor MAY � 1999 PUBLIC HEARING DATE - JUNE 2, 1999 RE 4-16-99 ��-� 5 f �J7� DEPAFTMENT/OFFICE/COUNqI DA7E�NfiIATED NO. �dHHVsJd-- PublicWorksSidewalks �-2s_ss GREEN SHEET dH INITIAI/DATE INfiIAUDAiE PfiACiPER50NSPHONE ODEPAHiMENTDIREGTOA �p17yCqUNCIL erryTvedt-266-6087 ��+ ��rn ❑cmc�rvK NUMBEfl FOH MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAT� APLll Z8 1999 q �� NC ' �BUDGETDIRECTOR �FlN.&MGT.SERVICESDIR OHDEfi For public hearing on June 2, 1999 �MNY�R(OHASSI5fANT) � Councii Research OTALlOFSIGNpiUqEPAGES _ (CLIPALLLOCATIONSGOflSIGNA7VRE] u ASSOpATE ENTALACCOUNTANT CTION flE�UESiED Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 5& 7(See attached list) RECOMMErvonrloNS: npprove (A) «aejea (a) PEHSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: _P�MININGCpMMISSIpN _CIVILSQiNCECOMMISSION �, HasthispersaNfirtneverwwkadunderacortfactforthisdepartment? CIBCAMMITTEE VES NO — — 2. Has ihis persaNfirtn ever been a city empioyee? f1 , srnFP _ YES NO DI57aiCr CoUNCIL 3. Does this person/firtn possess a sldll not nortnally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? — YES NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUNGIL OBJECTIVE'1 Expiatn all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPoRTUNfiY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WH1�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezetthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. 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. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: 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 resuit. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconsuuctiqns have created �egative feedback because of construction procedures a�d 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 controvefsial issue. DiSA9VA1d�AGESIF NOT APPROVE6 This option would allow the infrasVucture of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weli as claim payouts. Ci0Ui1�{ RflS�r .r.f=ntat APR 1 3 1999 OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ , ��'37Q�(Q COS7/REVENUEBUOGETED(CIBCLEONE) YES No FUNDING SOURCE <j j-�-0669 /� � B t A 99 = 630 ACINIIY NUMBER C99•2T752-0784-00000 PINANCIALINFORMATION:(E%PLAIN) s„ AsT = 35i;000 C,' Cte 99 = 50,000