The URL can be used to link to this page

99-411CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELINIINARY ORDER flRIGiNA� CO CILF ENO. �q `4II C By File . 599011 Voting Ward_5 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstrucfion at the following locarions: South side W. Idaho Ave. from N. O�ord St. to W. 200'. *ESTIMATEA CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two ar three family structures) Reconstrucrion (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 construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. A11 corner residentiai 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. �UBIISHEn I111 ' � '��1e 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 squaze foot. i The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and hauing considered said report, hereby resolves That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the est7mated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public heazing be had on said impxovement on the 23rd da�of June. 1999 at 530 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 �enanav ✓�lakey Bostrom — �h T �- Coleman _Atis� r� Harris _ ��-}- �In Favar � �k9 ✓Reiter a Against 3 t'�bs< Adopted by Council: Date_ ��`� Certified Passed by Council Secretary BYk—'�-_� . �,.,�. _ � — f —� �?� f�� v�" �//9�� Mayor .�. �PAR7MENf/OPFIGFiL^OUNpL Public Works Sidewalks NTACf PERSON 8 PFiONE erry Tvedt - 266-6087 UST6EONCOUNGLAGENDA! .�T �ubl%C l'�3 OTALI OF9GNANHEPAGES ConsWct Sidewalk in Ward 5(See attached list) CqMMi$$ION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSqN COUNpLOBJECTVE7 �PPORNNRY ('MiO. WHAT. VMEN, GREEN: � DEPAflTMENT DIqECTOR � CRY ATfORNEY �� suocer ar�croR � ennvoa (at assisra+r� LOCATIONS FOR SIGNANR� ASSOCIATE TC :J ;,}, No. 61199 wmavoa're � ❑ CIIY COUNQI ❑CITYCLERK ❑ FlN.SMGT. SEFtYIC£S 07R � Council Research I I �NtTMED1rALACCOU�vrnrtf I c�q _+ttl PERSONAI SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWEH TF1E FOLLOWMG �UESTIONS: 7. Has tliis persoNfirtn ever xroriced under a contract forMis departrnent? YES NO 2 Has this perswJfinn ever been a cdy employee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNfirtn pos5ess a s1u71 not nortnatly possessed by any curtent aty empioyee? YES NO Explain a11 yes answers on separste sheet and ettac� to green sheet The problem 'defective sidewalk" was caused by muttiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw�ycles, service life limits, chemicai additives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and mG"st be addressed and corrected annuaily. Lett uncortected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state wfiere it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. 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 coniradors generating private seclot jobs as a resutt. Historically, the sidewatk reconstructions have created rtiegative feedback because of construetion procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to access for wa{k reconsiruction remains a controversial issue. This option wouid allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stxk to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in tfie expenditure of larger doifar amourds in repairs and reptacement, as well as ctaim payouts. �`i�?'�fi�� i'�e^SS3!'G�T {�'.�^i�`f �;fiY � � 19�9 iANSACTION S ti 7 00 00 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No 99-M-0669 A. PtA 99 = 630_000 ACINfTYNUMBER C99-2T752-0784-00000 (EXPWN) B, AST = 351,00� , C, CtB 99 = 50;000 CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELINIINARY ORDER flRIGiNA� CO CILF ENO. �q `4II C By File . 599011 Voting Ward_5 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstrucfion at the following locarions: South side W. Idaho Ave. from N. O�ord St. to W. 200'. *ESTIMATEA CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two ar three family structures) Reconstrucrion (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 construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. A11 corner residentiai 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. �UBIISHEn I111 ' � '��1e 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 squaze foot. i The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and hauing considered said report, hereby resolves That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the est7mated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public heazing be had on said impxovement on the 23rd da�of June. 1999 at 530 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 �enanav ✓�lakey Bostrom — �h T �- Coleman _Atis� r� Harris _ ��-}- �In Favar � �k9 ✓Reiter a Against 3 t'�bs< Adopted by Council: Date_ ��`� Certified Passed by Council Secretary BYk—'�-_� . �,.,�. _ � — f —� �?� f�� v�" �//9�� Mayor .�. �PAR7MENf/OPFIGFiL^OUNpL Public Works Sidewalks NTACf PERSON 8 PFiONE erry Tvedt - 266-6087 UST6EONCOUNGLAGENDA! .�T �ubl%C l'�3 OTALI OF9GNANHEPAGES ConsWct Sidewalk in Ward 5(See attached list) CqMMi$$ION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSqN COUNpLOBJECTVE7 �PPORNNRY ('MiO. WHAT. VMEN, GREEN: � DEPAflTMENT DIqECTOR � CRY ATfORNEY �� suocer ar�croR � ennvoa (at assisra+r� LOCATIONS FOR SIGNANR� ASSOCIATE TC :J ;,}, No. 61199 wmavoa're � ❑ CIIY COUNQI ❑CITYCLERK ❑ FlN.SMGT. SEFtYIC£S 07R � Council Research I I �NtTMED1rALACCOU�vrnrtf I c�q _+ttl PERSONAI SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWEH TF1E FOLLOWMG �UESTIONS: 7. Has tliis persoNfirtn ever xroriced under a contract forMis departrnent? YES NO 2 Has this perswJfinn ever been a cdy employee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNfirtn pos5ess a s1u71 not nortnatly possessed by any curtent aty empioyee? YES NO Explain a11 yes answers on separste sheet and ettac� to green sheet The problem 'defective sidewalk" was caused by muttiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw�ycles, service life limits, chemicai additives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and mG"st be addressed and corrected annuaily. Lett uncortected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state wfiere it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. 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 coniradors generating private seclot jobs as a resutt. Historically, the sidewatk reconstructions have created rtiegative feedback because of construetion procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to access for wa{k reconsiruction remains a controversial issue. This option wouid allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stxk to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in tfie expenditure of larger doifar amourds in repairs and reptacement, as well as ctaim payouts. �`i�?'�fi�� i'�e^SS3!'G�T {�'.�^i�`f �;fiY � � 19�9 iANSACTION S ti 7 00 00 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No 99-M-0669 A. PtA 99 = 630_000 ACINfTYNUMBER C99-2T752-0784-00000 (EXPWN) B, AST = 351,00� , C, CtB 99 = 50;000 CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELINIINARY ORDER flRIGiNA� CO CILF ENO. �q `4II C By File . 599011 Voting Ward_5 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstrucfion at the following locarions: South side W. Idaho Ave. from N. O�ord St. to W. 200'. *ESTIMATEA CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two ar three family structures) Reconstrucrion (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 construction (where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. A11 corner residentiai 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. �UBIISHEn I111 ' � '��1e 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 squaze foot. i The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and hauing considered said report, hereby resolves That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the est7mated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public heazing be had on said impxovement on the 23rd da�of June. 1999 at 530 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 �enanav ✓�lakey Bostrom — �h T �- Coleman _Atis� r� Harris _ ��-}- �In Favar � �k9 ✓Reiter a Against 3 t'�bs< Adopted by Council: Date_ ��`� Certified Passed by Council Secretary BYk—'�-_� . �,.,�. _ � — f —� �?� f�� v�" �//9�� Mayor .�. �PAR7MENf/OPFIGFiL^OUNpL Public Works Sidewalks NTACf PERSON 8 PFiONE erry Tvedt - 266-6087 UST6EONCOUNGLAGENDA! .�T �ubl%C l'�3 OTALI OF9GNANHEPAGES ConsWct Sidewalk in Ward 5(See attached list) CqMMi$$ION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSqN COUNpLOBJECTVE7 �PPORNNRY ('MiO. WHAT. VMEN, GREEN: � DEPAflTMENT DIqECTOR � CRY ATfORNEY �� suocer ar�croR � ennvoa (at assisra+r� LOCATIONS FOR SIGNANR� ASSOCIATE TC :J ;,}, No. 61199 wmavoa're � ❑ CIIY COUNQI ❑CITYCLERK ❑ FlN.SMGT. SEFtYIC£S 07R � Council Research I I �NtTMED1rALACCOU�vrnrtf I c�q _+ttl PERSONAI SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWEH TF1E FOLLOWMG �UESTIONS: 7. Has tliis persoNfirtn ever xroriced under a contract forMis departrnent? YES NO 2 Has this perswJfinn ever been a cdy employee? YES NO 3. Does this persoNfirtn pos5ess a s1u71 not nortnatly possessed by any curtent aty empioyee? YES NO Explain a11 yes answers on separste sheet and ettac� to green sheet The problem 'defective sidewalk" was caused by muttiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw�ycles, service life limits, chemicai additives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and mG"st be addressed and corrected annuaily. Lett uncortected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state wfiere it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. 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 coniradors generating private seclot jobs as a resutt. Historically, the sidewatk reconstructions have created rtiegative feedback because of construetion procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to access for wa{k reconsiruction remains a controversial issue. This option wouid allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stxk to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in tfie expenditure of larger doifar amourds in repairs and reptacement, as well as ctaim payouts. �`i�?'�fi�� i'�e^SS3!'G�T {�'.�^i�`f �;fiY � � 19�9 iANSACTION S ti 7 00 00 COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No 99-M-0669 A. PtA 99 = 630_000 ACINfTYNUMBER C99-2T752-0784-00000 (EXPWN) B, AST = 351,00� , C, CtB 99 = 50;000