The URL can be used to link to this page

00-423CITY OF ST. PAUL �;. � ORiGINAL COUN IL F27.� N0. od ��3 c � By N ao Fil No. 500067 - 500070 Voting Ward_ 2 & 5 Ia the Maiter of sidemalk reconstruction, sidewalk recoastruction with iategral curb aad/or new sidewalk coastruction at the £ollowiag locatioas: S00067 - Both sides East Jessamine Avenue from Jessie Street to Edgerton Street. S00068 - West side Rice Street from West Hyacinth Avenue to South 164 feet. 500069 - East side Rice Street £rom West Montana Avenue to West Hoyt Avenue. S00070 - Both sides Bay Street from James Avenue to Palace Avenue. ��Sl��l�� *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES ao -vz3 RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to t2ie 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-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100o of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav, 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hal1 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 thereo£ as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays i/Benanav � akey � s trom r�2'oleman �rris ,�antry �Reiter Adopted by Council: Date_� V c�dz. � Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor By � J r �j� O Against /�� G��4:G(A � JQ� Mayor / �� ,�., - «` rv �� t�� `►r�i� uv OEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL TE INITIATED 1�27 A p PublicWorks-SidewalkDivision s-�o-ao GREEN SHEET No. `*� INfTIAVDATE INl1'IAVDATE GONTACTPERSONBPHONE �DEPARTMENTDIRECrOR ❑CfTYCAUNGIL erry Tvedt (266-6087) N MBEfl fOR �� m ATTORNEY ❑ cm c�aK MU5TBEONCOVNCILAGENDABY(�ATE) 'J�� _Ill pOU71NG �gUDGETDIREGTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICESOIR. � U DpDEH �� L �� . � Z� �MAYOR(ORASS15fANT) �CouncifResearch tlTALiDF51GNANREPAC�ES _(CLIP LLI,OCATONSPOflSIGNA'NBE� uA550CIATE uOEPT.AC UM - — CTiON REQUE5iED 6 p »��.. Reconstruct Sidewalk, Reconstruct Sidewalk WRh Integraf Curb & Construct New Sidewalk in Wards 2& 5(See attached list) fi!►,� 5 000 -5 RECQMMENDATtONS: Appewre (A) ot RejecA (R) PERSONAL SEBVICE CONiRACTS MUST ANS WER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PlANNWGCOMMISSION _CINLSERNCECOMMISSION �, HaSlhi5per5oNfirtneYefWO(kBdunderaCOnttaCtforthi5department? CIBCOMMITTEE YES NO — — 2. Has this person/tirtn everbeen a ciry employee? A STAFF _ YES NO DISTRICT COUNGL 3. Does Nis perso�rm possess a skill not nortnaily possessed try any current ciry employee? — — YES NO SUPPORTS WHtCH COUNCII OBJECi1VE? Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sbeet Z�F � INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freelthaw cycles, service iife limits, chemical additives, e�ctreme 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 17tigations. ADVANTA6ESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk conlracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a resuft. DISADVAMAGES IFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has 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. DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED' This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weif as claim payouts. C�ttnr�9 Resaarch Cenier �;=�� '� 26900 OTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ r 1 �, COSTBEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUftCE OQ-M-0671 � ° f, pCINITYNUMBER C0a-2T753-0784-00000 FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPIAINj � ° } C Ci�g QD � 5��00� CITY OF ST. PAUL �;. � ORiGINAL COUN IL F27.� N0. od ��3 c � By N ao Fil No. 500067 - 500070 Voting Ward_ 2 & 5 Ia the Maiter of sidemalk reconstruction, sidewalk recoastruction with iategral curb aad/or new sidewalk coastruction at the £ollowiag locatioas: S00067 - Both sides East Jessamine Avenue from Jessie Street to Edgerton Street. S00068 - West side Rice Street from West Hyacinth Avenue to South 164 feet. 500069 - East side Rice Street £rom West Montana Avenue to West Hoyt Avenue. S00070 - Both sides Bay Street from James Avenue to Palace Avenue. ��Sl��l�� *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES ao -vz3 RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to t2ie 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-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100o of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav, 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hal1 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 thereo£ as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays i/Benanav � akey � s trom r�2'oleman �rris ,�antry �Reiter Adopted by Council: Date_� V c�dz. � Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor By � J r �j� O Against /�� G��4:G(A � JQ� Mayor / �� ,�., - «` rv �� t�� `►r�i� uv OEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL TE INITIATED 1�27 A p PublicWorks-SidewalkDivision s-�o-ao GREEN SHEET No. `*� INfTIAVDATE INl1'IAVDATE GONTACTPERSONBPHONE �DEPARTMENTDIRECrOR ❑CfTYCAUNGIL erry Tvedt (266-6087) N MBEfl fOR �� m ATTORNEY ❑ cm c�aK MU5TBEONCOVNCILAGENDABY(�ATE) 'J�� _Ill pOU71NG �gUDGETDIREGTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICESOIR. � U DpDEH �� L �� . � Z� �MAYOR(ORASS15fANT) �CouncifResearch tlTALiDF51GNANREPAC�ES _(CLIP LLI,OCATONSPOflSIGNA'NBE� uA550CIATE uOEPT.AC UM - — CTiON REQUE5iED 6 p »��.. Reconstruct Sidewalk, Reconstruct Sidewalk WRh Integraf Curb & Construct New Sidewalk in Wards 2& 5(See attached list) fi!►,� 5 000 -5 RECQMMENDATtONS: Appewre (A) ot RejecA (R) PERSONAL SEBVICE CONiRACTS MUST ANS WER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PlANNWGCOMMISSION _CINLSERNCECOMMISSION �, HaSlhi5per5oNfirtneYefWO(kBdunderaCOnttaCtforthi5department? CIBCOMMITTEE YES NO — — 2. Has this person/tirtn everbeen a ciry employee? A STAFF _ YES NO DISTRICT COUNGL 3. Does Nis perso�rm possess a skill not nortnaily possessed try any current ciry employee? — — YES NO SUPPORTS WHtCH COUNCII OBJECi1VE? Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sbeet Z�F � INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freelthaw cycles, service iife limits, chemical additives, e�ctreme 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 17tigations. ADVANTA6ESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk conlracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a resuft. DISADVAMAGES IFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has 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. DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED' This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weif as claim payouts. C�ttnr�9 Resaarch Cenier �;=�� '� 26900 OTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ r 1 �, COSTBEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUftCE OQ-M-0671 � ° f, pCINITYNUMBER C0a-2T753-0784-00000 FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPIAINj � ° } C Ci�g QD � 5��00� CITY OF ST. PAUL �;. � ORiGINAL COUN IL F27.� N0. od ��3 c � By N ao Fil No. 500067 - 500070 Voting Ward_ 2 & 5 Ia the Maiter of sidemalk reconstruction, sidewalk recoastruction with iategral curb aad/or new sidewalk coastruction at the £ollowiag locatioas: S00067 - Both sides East Jessamine Avenue from Jessie Street to Edgerton Street. S00068 - West side Rice Street from West Hyacinth Avenue to South 164 feet. 500069 - East side Rice Street £rom West Montana Avenue to West Hoyt Avenue. S00070 - Both sides Bay Street from James Avenue to Palace Avenue. ��Sl��l�� *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES ao -vz3 RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$9.65 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $11.58 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. A11 other widths wi11 be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100� of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 per square foot. All corner residential properties will receive a credit up to t2ie 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-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100o of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav, 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hal1 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 thereo£ as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays i/Benanav � akey � s trom r�2'oleman �rris ,�antry �Reiter Adopted by Council: Date_� V c�dz. � Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor By � J r �j� O Against /�� G��4:G(A � JQ� Mayor / �� ,�., - «` rv �� t�� `►r�i� uv OEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL TE INITIATED 1�27 A p PublicWorks-SidewalkDivision s-�o-ao GREEN SHEET No. `*� INfTIAVDATE INl1'IAVDATE GONTACTPERSONBPHONE �DEPARTMENTDIRECrOR ❑CfTYCAUNGIL erry Tvedt (266-6087) N MBEfl fOR �� m ATTORNEY ❑ cm c�aK MU5TBEONCOVNCILAGENDABY(�ATE) 'J�� _Ill pOU71NG �gUDGETDIREGTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICESOIR. � U DpDEH �� L �� . � Z� �MAYOR(ORASS15fANT) �CouncifResearch tlTALiDF51GNANREPAC�ES _(CLIP LLI,OCATONSPOflSIGNA'NBE� uA550CIATE uOEPT.AC UM - — CTiON REQUE5iED 6 p »��.. Reconstruct Sidewalk, Reconstruct Sidewalk WRh Integraf Curb & Construct New Sidewalk in Wards 2& 5(See attached list) fi!►,� 5 000 -5 RECQMMENDATtONS: Appewre (A) ot RejecA (R) PERSONAL SEBVICE CONiRACTS MUST ANS WER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PlANNWGCOMMISSION _CINLSERNCECOMMISSION �, HaSlhi5per5oNfirtneYefWO(kBdunderaCOnttaCtforthi5department? CIBCOMMITTEE YES NO — — 2. Has this person/tirtn everbeen a ciry employee? A STAFF _ YES NO DISTRICT COUNGL 3. Does Nis perso�rm possess a skill not nortnaily possessed try any current ciry employee? — — YES NO SUPPORTS WHtCH COUNCII OBJECi1VE? Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sbeet Z�F � INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freelthaw cycles, service iife limits, chemical additives, e�ctreme 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 17tigations. ADVANTA6ESIFAPPROVED: The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk conlracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a resuft. DISADVAMAGES IFAPPROVED: Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has 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. DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED' This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as weif as claim payouts. C�ttnr�9 Resaarch Cenier �;=�� '� 26900 OTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ r 1 �, COSTBEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUftCE OQ-M-0671 � ° f, pCINITYNUMBER C0a-2T753-0784-00000 FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPIAINj � ° } C Ci�g QD � 5��00�