Loading...
00-424C2TY OF ST. PAIIL COUNC FILE NO. O� � y�.'1 PRELIMINARY ORDER By ����'� a ` File No. S00092 Voting Ward_ 3 Iu the Matter of new sidecvalk construction in the followiag locaCion: 500092 - East side South Howe11 5treet from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES 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. All 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. A11 corner residential properties wi11 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), NQN-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav, 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court Aouse Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �� enanav ✓ Blakey ✓� ostrom ✓Coleman ✓Harris ✓Lantry �Reiter Adopted by Council: Date_rf\� . ac�c)a --, i Certified Passed by Council 5�'cretary �In Favor By � Against Mayor .�/S/�� Works - Sidewalk Division Yvedt 80FSIGNp7llREPAGES __ (CUP Construct New Sidewalk in Ward 3(See aRached.lisi} NNiNl3 COMMI$SION GVIL SERNCE CAMMI5SION CAMM�fIFF SIGNANRc7 � GREEN ��. � '�/ZJ��(�` NO. �751 �..��....,�.,� iNmawa� �RTMENTOIRECTQR �C(TYfAUNCIL � ATTORNc^/ �CITYCLERK 3Ef DIRECrOR ❑ FlN. & MGf. SERVICES OIR )R (OFYASSISTANT) � Coancil Research ICIATE I IDEPf.ACCOUl/�/Wl<.. �i �i( �I PERSONAL SERVICE CONiRACTS 61UST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUE5il�NS: 1. Hasihisperson/firtneverworlcedunderacantraMforthisdepartrnenY? YES NO Has this persoN6ttn ever 6een a city employee? YES NO ;� �G� _ 3. Does this persoNfirtn possess a sld0 not normally possessetl by any cuRent city employee? WHICHfAUNCILOBJEGIiVE2 YES NO F�cplain ali yes answers on separate sheet and attach to gree� sheet 3 PqOBLEM, l$SUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WFiAT, WHEN, WHFAE, WHYj: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muliipte probiems, tree roots, poor suBgrade materiais, free/thaw cycies, service life iimits, 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 unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibfe litigations. The community wi41 benefit from this project because it wili provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewaik contracts are done by private contractors generating public sectorjo6s as a result. 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 assessmerrt is City subsidized_ Having to assess for wa(k reconstruction remains a controversiai issue. NOT APPROVED: This option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in tum, wiil generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacemerit, as weil as claim payouts. Catx�#I Ressarch Cenfer APR 2 4 24Q� DTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTiON $ Z,� S2 . C}a C�STlREYENUE BUDGETED {CIRCLE ONE) UN�INGSOUACE oo-r�-a67s �, PfA fla = 624��d� ACINRYNUPA6ER C00-2T753-07 NANGIALINFORMATION:(IXPWN) 8, AST = 3 �,000 < c, c�a oo = 5o,aao � C2TY OF ST. PAIIL COUNC FILE NO. O� � y�.'1 PRELIMINARY ORDER By ����'� a ` File No. S00092 Voting Ward_ 3 Iu the Matter of new sidecvalk construction in the followiag locaCion: 500092 - East side South Howe11 5treet from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES 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. All 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. A11 corner residential properties wi11 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), NQN-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav, 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court Aouse Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �� enanav ✓ Blakey ✓� ostrom ✓Coleman ✓Harris ✓Lantry �Reiter Adopted by Council: Date_rf\� . ac�c)a --, i Certified Passed by Council 5�'cretary �In Favor By � Against Mayor .�/S/�� Works - Sidewalk Division Yvedt 80FSIGNp7llREPAGES __ (CUP Construct New Sidewalk in Ward 3(See aRached.lisi} NNiNl3 COMMI$SION GVIL SERNCE CAMMI5SION CAMM�fIFF SIGNANRc7 � GREEN ��. � '�/ZJ��(�` NO. �751 �..��....,�.,� iNmawa� �RTMENTOIRECTQR �C(TYfAUNCIL � ATTORNc^/ �CITYCLERK 3Ef DIRECrOR ❑ FlN. & MGf. SERVICES OIR )R (OFYASSISTANT) � Coancil Research ICIATE I IDEPf.ACCOUl/�/Wl<.. �i �i( �I PERSONAL SERVICE CONiRACTS 61UST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUE5il�NS: 1. Hasihisperson/firtneverworlcedunderacantraMforthisdepartrnenY? YES NO Has this persoN6ttn ever 6een a city employee? YES NO ;� �G� _ 3. Does this persoNfirtn possess a sld0 not normally possessetl by any cuRent city employee? WHICHfAUNCILOBJEGIiVE2 YES NO F�cplain ali yes answers on separate sheet and attach to gree� sheet 3 PqOBLEM, l$SUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WFiAT, WHEN, WHFAE, WHYj: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muliipte probiems, tree roots, poor suBgrade materiais, free/thaw cycies, service life iimits, 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 unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibfe litigations. The community wi41 benefit from this project because it wili provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewaik contracts are done by private contractors generating public sectorjo6s as a result. 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 assessmerrt is City subsidized_ Having to assess for wa(k reconstruction remains a controversiai issue. NOT APPROVED: This option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in tum, wiil generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacemerit, as weil as claim payouts. Catx�#I Ressarch Cenfer APR 2 4 24Q� DTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTiON $ Z,� S2 . C}a C�STlREYENUE BUDGETED {CIRCLE ONE) UN�INGSOUACE oo-r�-a67s �, PfA fla = 624��d� ACINRYNUPA6ER C00-2T753-07 NANGIALINFORMATION:(IXPWN) 8, AST = 3 �,000 < c, c�a oo = 5o,aao � C2TY OF ST. PAIIL COUNC FILE NO. O� � y�.'1 PRELIMINARY ORDER By ����'� a ` File No. S00092 Voting Ward_ 3 Iu the Matter of new sidecvalk construction in the followiag locaCion: 500092 - East side South Howe11 5treet from Palace Avenue to James Avenue at 1876 Palace Avenue Only. *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES 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. All 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. A11 corner residential properties wi11 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), NQN-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 1000 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.84 per square foot. The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no alternatives, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 2000 Public Improvement Aid. 2 3 That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24 dav of Mav, 2000 5:30 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court Aouse Building in the City of Saint Paul. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yeas Nays �� enanav ✓ Blakey ✓� ostrom ✓Coleman ✓Harris ✓Lantry �Reiter Adopted by Council: Date_rf\� . ac�c)a --, i Certified Passed by Council 5�'cretary �In Favor By � Against Mayor .�/S/�� Works - Sidewalk Division Yvedt 80FSIGNp7llREPAGES __ (CUP Construct New Sidewalk in Ward 3(See aRached.lisi} NNiNl3 COMMI$SION GVIL SERNCE CAMMI5SION CAMM�fIFF SIGNANRc7 � GREEN ��. � '�/ZJ��(�` NO. �751 �..��....,�.,� iNmawa� �RTMENTOIRECTQR �C(TYfAUNCIL � ATTORNc^/ �CITYCLERK 3Ef DIRECrOR ❑ FlN. & MGf. SERVICES OIR )R (OFYASSISTANT) � Coancil Research ICIATE I IDEPf.ACCOUl/�/Wl<.. �i �i( �I PERSONAL SERVICE CONiRACTS 61UST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUE5il�NS: 1. Hasihisperson/firtneverworlcedunderacantraMforthisdepartrnenY? YES NO Has this persoN6ttn ever 6een a city employee? YES NO ;� �G� _ 3. Does this persoNfirtn possess a sld0 not normally possessetl by any cuRent city employee? WHICHfAUNCILOBJEGIiVE2 YES NO F�cplain ali yes answers on separate sheet and attach to gree� sheet 3 PqOBLEM, l$SUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WFiAT, WHEN, WHFAE, WHYj: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muliipte probiems, tree roots, poor suBgrade materiais, free/thaw cycies, service life iimits, 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 unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possibfe litigations. The community wi41 benefit from this project because it wili provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewaik contracts are done by private contractors generating public sectorjo6s as a result. 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 assessmerrt is City subsidized_ Having to assess for wa(k reconstruction remains a controversiai issue. NOT APPROVED: This option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in tum, wiil generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacemerit, as weil as claim payouts. Catx�#I Ressarch Cenfer APR 2 4 24Q� DTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTiON $ Z,� S2 . C}a C�STlREYENUE BUDGETED {CIRCLE ONE) UN�INGSOUACE oo-r�-a67s �, PfA fla = 624��d� ACINRYNUPA6ER C00-2T753-07 NANGIALINFORMATION:(IXPWN) 8, AST = 3 �,000 < c, c�a oo = 5o,aao �