The URL can be used to link to this page

99-415CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELINIINARY ORDER COUNCIL ORIGINAL V �� gW � In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: rto. ° � q ' 4 1,3 WARD 3 S99079- South side Grand Ave. from Cambridge St. to Macalester St. 599080- North side Grand Ave. from S. Wheeler St. to Cambridge St. � � PI1R(I.SHFp MAY 2� I999 599081- Both sides Juno Ave. from S. Syndicate St. to S. Griggs St. S99082- East side S. Mississippi River Blvd. from Hartford Ave. to Randolph Ave. WARD 1 599083- Both sides Anmdel St. from Sherbutne Ave. to Edmund Ave. 599084- Both sides Virginia St. from Sherburne Ave. to Thomas Ave. 599085- West side N. Western Ave. from Edmund Ave. to Thomas Ave. �q-y1S '�ESTTMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAI, RAT'ES (One, two or three family struchxres) 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 construction (where no walk existed) - 100°l0 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. All comer residential properties will receave a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the properiy. MLTLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayar upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for esfimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public hearing be had on said 'unprovement on the 23rd day of June, 1999 at 5:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. 3. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and piace of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COLJNCILPERSONS Adopted by Council: Date_ !�__l�,_ l`��1�( Yeas Nays a ` �enanav Certified Passed by Council Secretary ✓Blakey Bostrom— f��scv.`� Coleman� (�hs�r.� xarris — f�bs� �l' �-\ In Favor ✓�antry �eiter �Against 3 AbS��i PfiRticuFn �IAY 29 1999 Mayor v N� rat�ln�'r r� vuN� �a �C ��-�� .� G� %-l�� DEPARTMEM/OFFlCE/CWNCIL D INRIATED PublicWorksSidewalks -139g GREEN SHEET No. � 69-.—_ NTqCTPER$pNBPHONE INRIAVDATE �NR7AUDATE Bffy TV�( - 266�6�$7 ASSIGN I �lA ❑ CRYCAUNqL U5T8EONCAUNqLAGENDABY(DAS7c ROM�GFOR � ❑C(TYCLERK 5 � �� ORUER � ��'� �� ❑ FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR MAYOR(OflA5515TAt� Q Council Research OTALfOFSIGNATUflEPAGE$ _ (Cl1PALL.LOCA770N5WflSIGNANf1� uA$SOCIATE P ENTALACCOUMANT CiION REQUESTED _ � Reconstruct 8 Construct Sidewalk in Wards 1 8 3(See attached list) G� � 9-5 5 CAMMEtiDASfONS: t.pp�we (A) Dr Rgjacl(A) pERSONAt, SERVICE CONTRAC7S MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOW WCa QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGGOMMISSION _��SEFihCECOMMISSION �. �.�ysthispersoNfirtneverworkeeunaeracontraaSOrMisdepamnent? qBCOMMRiEE YES NO — — 2 Has tt�is persoNfirm ever been a dty employee? A �+� — YES NO wsiFllc7 cOUr�G� 3. Does tt�is persoNfirtn possess a skill not normaiy possessed by any currerrt ciry employee? VPPOFiTSWHICHCOUNQIOBJECTIVE7 YES NO Ezplain all yes answers on separate shee[ antl attach to green sheet � IN A71NG PRpgLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNRY (YMO, VMAT, Nh1EN, WHERE, WFi`n: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muitiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annuaily. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusabte and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGES�FAPPROVW. The community wiil benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewaiks for Rs cRizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuft. DISMVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historicaliy, tF�e sidewaik reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners ques[ion the assessmerrts, despite the fact that up to one-hatf the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversiat issue. OISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal in}ury suits, resuRing in the expenditure of larger dolfar amounts in repairs and repiacemeni, as weli as claim payouts. C .7�;nn� ,;c^, �.,h n >,,. �,vf�= r��.:v�.r, :��,°':;:5 E r�Y g 3 tss� OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ �f COST/REVENUEBUDGE7ED(CIRCLEONE) YES xo FUNDINGSOURCE 99-M-0669 A. PtA 99 = 630,000 pCIN(TYNUMBER css-2ns2-o�sa-00000 FINANCIALINFORMq71pN:(pWWN) B� A�T = 351,000 C, CIB 99 = 50,000 CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELINIINARY ORDER COUNCIL ORIGINAL V �� gW � In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: rto. ° � q ' 4 1,3 WARD 3 S99079- South side Grand Ave. from Cambridge St. to Macalester St. 599080- North side Grand Ave. from S. Wheeler St. to Cambridge St. � � PI1R(I.SHFp MAY 2� I999 599081- Both sides Juno Ave. from S. Syndicate St. to S. Griggs St. S99082- East side S. Mississippi River Blvd. from Hartford Ave. to Randolph Ave. WARD 1 599083- Both sides Anmdel St. from Sherbutne Ave. to Edmund Ave. 599084- Both sides Virginia St. from Sherburne Ave. to Thomas Ave. 599085- West side N. Western Ave. from Edmund Ave. to Thomas Ave. �q-y1S '�ESTTMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAI, RAT'ES (One, two or three family struchxres) 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 construction (where no walk existed) - 100°l0 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. All comer residential properties will receave a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the properiy. MLTLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayar upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for esfimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public hearing be had on said 'unprovement on the 23rd day of June, 1999 at 5:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. 3. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and piace of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COLJNCILPERSONS Adopted by Council: Date_ !�__l�,_ l`��1�( Yeas Nays a ` �enanav Certified Passed by Council Secretary ✓Blakey Bostrom— f��scv.`� Coleman� (�hs�r.� xarris — f�bs� �l' �-\ In Favor ✓�antry �eiter �Against 3 AbS��i PfiRticuFn �IAY 29 1999 Mayor v N� rat�ln�'r r� vuN� �a �C ��-�� .� G� %-l�� DEPARTMEM/OFFlCE/CWNCIL D INRIATED PublicWorksSidewalks -139g GREEN SHEET No. � 69-.—_ NTqCTPER$pNBPHONE INRIAVDATE �NR7AUDATE Bffy TV�( - 266�6�$7 ASSIGN I �lA ❑ CRYCAUNqL U5T8EONCAUNqLAGENDABY(DAS7c ROM�GFOR � ❑C(TYCLERK 5 � �� ORUER � ��'� �� ❑ FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR MAYOR(OflA5515TAt� Q Council Research OTALfOFSIGNATUflEPAGE$ _ (Cl1PALL.LOCA770N5WflSIGNANf1� uA$SOCIATE P ENTALACCOUMANT CiION REQUESTED _ � Reconstruct 8 Construct Sidewalk in Wards 1 8 3(See attached list) G� � 9-5 5 CAMMEtiDASfONS: t.pp�we (A) Dr Rgjacl(A) pERSONAt, SERVICE CONTRAC7S MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOW WCa QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGGOMMISSION _��SEFihCECOMMISSION �. �.�ysthispersoNfirtneverworkeeunaeracontraaSOrMisdepamnent? qBCOMMRiEE YES NO — — 2 Has tt�is persoNfirm ever been a dty employee? A �+� — YES NO wsiFllc7 cOUr�G� 3. Does tt�is persoNfirtn possess a skill not normaiy possessed by any currerrt ciry employee? VPPOFiTSWHICHCOUNQIOBJECTIVE7 YES NO Ezplain all yes answers on separate shee[ antl attach to green sheet � IN A71NG PRpgLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNRY (YMO, VMAT, Nh1EN, WHERE, WFi`n: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muitiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annuaily. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusabte and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGES�FAPPROVW. The community wiil benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewaiks for Rs cRizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuft. DISMVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historicaliy, tF�e sidewaik reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners ques[ion the assessmerrts, despite the fact that up to one-hatf the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversiat issue. OISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal in}ury suits, resuRing in the expenditure of larger dolfar amounts in repairs and repiacemeni, as weli as claim payouts. C .7�;nn� ,;c^, �.,h n >,,. �,vf�= r��.:v�.r, :��,°':;:5 E r�Y g 3 tss� OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ �f COST/REVENUEBUDGE7ED(CIRCLEONE) YES xo FUNDINGSOURCE 99-M-0669 A. PtA 99 = 630,000 pCIN(TYNUMBER css-2ns2-o�sa-00000 FINANCIALINFORMq71pN:(pWWN) B� A�T = 351,000 C, CIB 99 = 50,000 CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELINIINARY ORDER COUNCIL ORIGINAL V �� gW � In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: rto. ° � q ' 4 1,3 WARD 3 S99079- South side Grand Ave. from Cambridge St. to Macalester St. 599080- North side Grand Ave. from S. Wheeler St. to Cambridge St. � � PI1R(I.SHFp MAY 2� I999 599081- Both sides Juno Ave. from S. Syndicate St. to S. Griggs St. S99082- East side S. Mississippi River Blvd. from Hartford Ave. to Randolph Ave. WARD 1 599083- Both sides Anmdel St. from Sherbutne Ave. to Edmund Ave. 599084- Both sides Virginia St. from Sherburne Ave. to Thomas Ave. 599085- West side N. Western Ave. from Edmund Ave. to Thomas Ave. �q-y1S '�ESTTMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAI, RAT'ES (One, two or three family struchxres) 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 construction (where no walk existed) - 100°l0 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 per square foot. All comer residential properties will receave a credit up to the first 150 feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of the properiy. MLTLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayar upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for esfimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public hearing be had on said 'unprovement on the 23rd day of June, 1999 at 5:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. 3. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and piace of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COLJNCILPERSONS Adopted by Council: Date_ !�__l�,_ l`��1�( Yeas Nays a ` �enanav Certified Passed by Council Secretary ✓Blakey Bostrom— f��scv.`� Coleman� (�hs�r.� xarris — f�bs� �l' �-\ In Favor ✓�antry �eiter �Against 3 AbS��i PfiRticuFn �IAY 29 1999 Mayor v N� rat�ln�'r r� vuN� �a �C ��-�� .� G� %-l�� DEPARTMEM/OFFlCE/CWNCIL D INRIATED PublicWorksSidewalks -139g GREEN SHEET No. � 69-.—_ NTqCTPER$pNBPHONE INRIAVDATE �NR7AUDATE Bffy TV�( - 266�6�$7 ASSIGN I �lA ❑ CRYCAUNqL U5T8EONCAUNqLAGENDABY(DAS7c ROM�GFOR � ❑C(TYCLERK 5 � �� ORUER � ��'� �� ❑ FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR MAYOR(OflA5515TAt� Q Council Research OTALfOFSIGNATUflEPAGE$ _ (Cl1PALL.LOCA770N5WflSIGNANf1� uA$SOCIATE P ENTALACCOUMANT CiION REQUESTED _ � Reconstruct 8 Construct Sidewalk in Wards 1 8 3(See attached list) G� � 9-5 5 CAMMEtiDASfONS: t.pp�we (A) Dr Rgjacl(A) pERSONAt, SERVICE CONTRAC7S MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOW WCa QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGGOMMISSION _��SEFihCECOMMISSION �. �.�ysthispersoNfirtneverworkeeunaeracontraaSOrMisdepamnent? qBCOMMRiEE YES NO — — 2 Has tt�is persoNfirm ever been a dty employee? A �+� — YES NO wsiFllc7 cOUr�G� 3. Does tt�is persoNfirtn possess a skill not normaiy possessed by any currerrt ciry employee? VPPOFiTSWHICHCOUNQIOBJECTIVE7 YES NO Ezplain all yes answers on separate shee[ antl attach to green sheet � IN A71NG PRpgLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNRY (YMO, VMAT, Nh1EN, WHERE, WFi`n: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muitiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annuaily. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusabte and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. ADVANTAGES�FAPPROVW. The community wiil benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewaiks for Rs cRizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resuft. DISMVANTAGES IF APPROVED: Historicaliy, tF�e sidewaik reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners ques[ion the assessmerrts, despite the fact that up to one-hatf the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversiat issue. OISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal in}ury suits, resuRing in the expenditure of larger dolfar amounts in repairs and repiacemeni, as weli as claim payouts. C .7�;nn� ,;c^, �.,h n >,,. �,vf�= r��.:v�.r, :��,°':;:5 E r�Y g 3 tss� OTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTION$ �f COST/REVENUEBUDGE7ED(CIRCLEONE) YES xo FUNDINGSOURCE 99-M-0669 A. PtA 99 = 630,000 pCIN(TYNUMBER css-2ns2-o�sa-00000 FINANCIALINFORMq71pN:(pWWN) B� A�T = 351,000 C, CIB 99 = 50,000