Loading...
99-453CITY OF ST . PAUL O�' -J l l� A L PRELIMINARY ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO. By File No. 9087 - Voting Ward 1 99-µ EZ•! In the Matter of sidemalk reconstruction at the folloming locations: i i 599�87 - Both sides West Central Avenue from North Chatsworth Street to North Victoria Street. 599088 - Both sides Charles Avenue from Arundel Street to Mackubin Street. 599089 - Both sides Edmund Avenue £rom North Oxford Street to North Chatsworth Street. 599090 - Both sides Fuller Avenue from North Chatsworth Street to North Victoria Street. 599091 - Both sides Fuller Avenue from North Victoria Street to North Grotto Street. S99092 - West side North Victoria Street from West Central Avenue to Aurora Avenue. C�IRI ICpC� Jl1N 19 1999 o���t�At *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES a9-�S 3 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 existed) - 1000 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-RE5IDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: l. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. F R] That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 14th dav of Julv, 1999 5: 30 0' clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays � nanav ✓�lakey v�ostrom �C.�o 1 eman �rris �antry �Reiter �In Favor PIIRI�euen �Against JUN 13 1999 Adopted by Council: Date�4�� Certified Passed by Council Sec etary �or u�w� �rt�►iuc� u��, v ��1 i77� �`"� Y�� �`�i�—`1'1 y— 453 EPARTMEM/OFFICNCAUNCIL DATE INfT1ATED NO. Public Works Sidewalks -27-99 GREEN SHEET iwmnwn� irumnuoah CAI�TACTPERSON&PHONE �DEPARiMEMDIRECTOR ❑C�7YCpUNGIL erry Tvedt - 266-6087 asscx Q�. AnoaN�. ❑ cm c�aK MUST BE ON COUNCILAGENDA BY (DAT� Y Q qQ�NGFOF 1 I� f 1 � OHDQi � BUDGEf DIREC�OR ❑ FIN. & MGT. SERNCES DIR _ � { 1` OMAYOR(ORA5515TMR) � (�,pUflCl� Research cil. OTAL�OFSIGNATUREPAGE$ _(CIJPALLLOGA710NSFORSIGNATUF� U ASSOGATE U DEP EMAIACCpUMANT CTONREOUE5TED � �'� Reconstsuct Sidewalk in Ward 1(See attached Iist) F � -5 2 RECO MENDATIONS: Approva (A) or Aryect (R) pERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER T}iE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCOMMISSION _CIVILSEFVICECOMMISS�ON �, HasihispersoNfirtneverworkedunderacontrac[forthisdepariment? _qBCOMMfTTEE YES NO ` 2. Has Ihis persoNTirtn ever been a city employee? A�` Srt.�F _ YES NO ._DlsTaiCT CoUNCIL 3. Does ihis persoNfirtn possess a ski�l not nortnally possessed by any wrtent city employee? $UPPoRTSYrtiICHCOUNCILOBJECTIVE7 YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attaeh to green sheet � INf�IATiNG PFOBLEM, ISSUE. OPPOflTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHYJ: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezelthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annualiy. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. c -. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result. DISADVANTpGESIFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. DISADVAfJ�AGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which fn turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weil as ciaim payouts. ' Counci! Research C�nter MAY 17 1999 707ALAMOUNTOFTpANSACTION$ 53 COS7/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUFCE 99-M-0669 A, PfA 99 = 630 �00� pCfTVffYNUMBER C99-27752-0784 0000 FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) B� AST = 351 �OOO C. CIS 99 ° 54��0� � CITY OF ST . PAUL O�' -J l l� A L PRELIMINARY ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO. By File No. 9087 - Voting Ward 1 99-µ EZ•! In the Matter of sidemalk reconstruction at the folloming locations: i i 599�87 - Both sides West Central Avenue from North Chatsworth Street to North Victoria Street. 599088 - Both sides Charles Avenue from Arundel Street to Mackubin Street. 599089 - Both sides Edmund Avenue £rom North Oxford Street to North Chatsworth Street. 599090 - Both sides Fuller Avenue from North Chatsworth Street to North Victoria Street. 599091 - Both sides Fuller Avenue from North Victoria Street to North Grotto Street. S99092 - West side North Victoria Street from West Central Avenue to Aurora Avenue. C�IRI ICpC� Jl1N 19 1999 o���t�At *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES a9-�S 3 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 existed) - 1000 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-RE5IDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: l. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. F R] That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 14th dav of Julv, 1999 5: 30 0' clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays � nanav ✓�lakey v�ostrom �C.�o 1 eman �rris �antry �Reiter �In Favor PIIRI�euen �Against JUN 13 1999 Adopted by Council: Date�4�� Certified Passed by Council Sec etary �or u�w� �rt�►iuc� u��, v ��1 i77� �`"� Y�� �`�i�—`1'1 y— 453 EPARTMEM/OFFICNCAUNCIL DATE INfT1ATED NO. Public Works Sidewalks -27-99 GREEN SHEET iwmnwn� irumnuoah CAI�TACTPERSON&PHONE �DEPARiMEMDIRECTOR ❑C�7YCpUNGIL erry Tvedt - 266-6087 asscx Q�. AnoaN�. ❑ cm c�aK MUST BE ON COUNCILAGENDA BY (DAT� Y Q qQ�NGFOF 1 I� f 1 � OHDQi � BUDGEf DIREC�OR ❑ FIN. & MGT. SERNCES DIR _ � { 1` OMAYOR(ORA5515TMR) � (�,pUflCl� Research cil. OTAL�OFSIGNATUREPAGE$ _(CIJPALLLOGA710NSFORSIGNATUF� U ASSOGATE U DEP EMAIACCpUMANT CTONREOUE5TED � �'� Reconstsuct Sidewalk in Ward 1(See attached Iist) F � -5 2 RECO MENDATIONS: Approva (A) or Aryect (R) pERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER T}iE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCOMMISSION _CIVILSEFVICECOMMISS�ON �, HasihispersoNfirtneverworkedunderacontrac[forthisdepariment? _qBCOMMfTTEE YES NO ` 2. Has Ihis persoNTirtn ever been a city employee? A�` Srt.�F _ YES NO ._DlsTaiCT CoUNCIL 3. Does ihis persoNfirtn possess a ski�l not nortnally possessed by any wrtent city employee? $UPPoRTSYrtiICHCOUNCILOBJECTIVE7 YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attaeh to green sheet � INf�IATiNG PFOBLEM, ISSUE. OPPOflTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHYJ: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezelthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annualiy. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. c -. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result. DISADVANTpGESIFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. DISADVAfJ�AGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which fn turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weil as ciaim payouts. ' Counci! Research C�nter MAY 17 1999 707ALAMOUNTOFTpANSACTION$ 53 COS7/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUFCE 99-M-0669 A, PfA 99 = 630 �00� pCfTVffYNUMBER C99-27752-0784 0000 FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) B� AST = 351 �OOO C. CIS 99 ° 54��0� � CITY OF ST . PAUL O�' -J l l� A L PRELIMINARY ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO. By File No. 9087 - Voting Ward 1 99-µ EZ•! In the Matter of sidemalk reconstruction at the folloming locations: i i 599�87 - Both sides West Central Avenue from North Chatsworth Street to North Victoria Street. 599088 - Both sides Charles Avenue from Arundel Street to Mackubin Street. 599089 - Both sides Edmund Avenue £rom North Oxford Street to North Chatsworth Street. 599090 - Both sides Fuller Avenue from North Chatsworth Street to North Victoria Street. 599091 - Both sides Fuller Avenue from North Victoria Street to North Grotto Street. S99092 - West side North Victoria Street from West Central Avenue to Aurora Avenue. C�IRI ICpC� Jl1N 19 1999 o���t�At *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES a9-�S 3 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 existed) - 1000 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-RE5IDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: l. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. F R] That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 14th dav of Julv, 1999 5: 30 0' clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays � nanav ✓�lakey v�ostrom �C.�o 1 eman �rris �antry �Reiter �In Favor PIIRI�euen �Against JUN 13 1999 Adopted by Council: Date�4�� Certified Passed by Council Sec etary �or u�w� �rt�►iuc� u��, v ��1 i77� �`"� Y�� �`�i�—`1'1 y— 453 EPARTMEM/OFFICNCAUNCIL DATE INfT1ATED NO. Public Works Sidewalks -27-99 GREEN SHEET iwmnwn� irumnuoah CAI�TACTPERSON&PHONE �DEPARiMEMDIRECTOR ❑C�7YCpUNGIL erry Tvedt - 266-6087 asscx Q�. AnoaN�. ❑ cm c�aK MUST BE ON COUNCILAGENDA BY (DAT� Y Q qQ�NGFOF 1 I� f 1 � OHDQi � BUDGEf DIREC�OR ❑ FIN. & MGT. SERNCES DIR _ � { 1` OMAYOR(ORA5515TMR) � (�,pUflCl� Research cil. OTAL�OFSIGNATUREPAGE$ _(CIJPALLLOGA710NSFORSIGNATUF� U ASSOGATE U DEP EMAIACCpUMANT CTONREOUE5TED � �'� Reconstsuct Sidewalk in Ward 1(See attached Iist) F � -5 2 RECO MENDATIONS: Approva (A) or Aryect (R) pERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER T}iE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _PLANNINGCOMMISSION _CIVILSEFVICECOMMISS�ON �, HasihispersoNfirtneverworkedunderacontrac[forthisdepariment? _qBCOMMfTTEE YES NO ` 2. Has Ihis persoNTirtn ever been a city employee? A�` Srt.�F _ YES NO ._DlsTaiCT CoUNCIL 3. Does ihis persoNfirtn possess a ski�l not nortnally possessed by any wrtent city employee? $UPPoRTSYrtiICHCOUNCILOBJECTIVE7 YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attaeh to green sheet � INf�IATiNG PFOBLEM, ISSUE. OPPOflTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHYJ: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezelthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annualiy. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. c -. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a result. DISADVANTpGESIFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. DISADVAfJ�AGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which fn turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weil as ciaim payouts. ' Counci! Research C�nter MAY 17 1999 707ALAMOUNTOFTpANSACTION$ 53 COS7/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUFCE 99-M-0669 A, PfA 99 = 630 �00� pCfTVffYNUMBER C99-27752-0784 0000 FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) B� AST = 351 �OOO C. CIS 99 ° 54��0� �