The URL can be used to link to this page

00-426CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER ORIGINAL By Fil � No. oo- �l�L C y Z4 2� 500071 - 500075 Ward 5, 6 & 7 a3 Ia the Matter of sidawalk reconstruction, sidewalk raconstxuction with iategral curb and/or new sidawalk construction at the followiag locations: 500071 - Northeast side Como Avenue from Atwater Street to Topping Street. 500072 - Both sides North Hazel Street from East Nevada Avenue to East Nebraska Avenue. 500073 - Both sides East Nebraska Avenue from North Hazel Street to Furness Parkway. 500074 - Both sides East Nebraska Avenue from North White Bear Avenue to North Hazel Street. 500075 - North side Hudson Road from Forest Street to Cypress Street. ORIG1�lAL *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES po -�1a� RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (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 will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 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), NO23-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% 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 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 ✓Benanav ,/�lakey ,�ostrom vC`oleman ,iYfarri s �Lantry ,/Reiter Adopted by Council: Date� dc� �_�. � Certified Passed by Council Se�cretary � In Favor By r l � Against � r/(-l�-yy2��Ki"V`� �//�� Mayor / "�� `�/�l/UD Works - Sidewalk Division FOH OFSIGNA'NRE FORSICaNA7UR� GREEN SHEET INRIAUDATE DEPARTMEM' DIflECTOR C17Y ATTORNEY HUDGETOIRECTOR MAYOR (OF ASSISTANi) ASSOCWTE �p, t02750 ❑CITYCAUNGII ❑ C17Y CLEHK ❑ FlN. & MGL $ERVICES DIR. ❑i Council Research .� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 5, 6& 7(See attached list) � '•°�, ��"'.'"'"�"°° ��' "� °""`� �°' pEASONAL SEHVICE CONTRACSS MUST ANSWER iHE FOLLOWIN6 QUESTIONS: NNINGCOMMISSION _��LSERVICECOMMISSiON ,7, H85thi5perSONfirmeverWOdcetlund¢l3COnttaCllolthi5departmEnt? COMMt1TEE YES NO — 2. Has ihis person/(rtn everbeen a ciry employee? FF _ YES NO QOVNCIL _ GH COUNqt O&IECTIVE? OPPORTUNITV (WHO, NMAT, 3. Does fhis personlfirm possess a skill not nomrally possessed by any current ciry empioyee? YES NO F�cplain ali yes answefs on separete sheet and attach to green sheet The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multipie problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems 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 talls and possible litigations. APPROVEO: The community wiii benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewaiks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result. APPqOVE4 Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessmerits. 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. DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVE�. This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, witl generate more personal injury suits, resuiting in the expenditure of {arger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as weif as ciaim payouts. (OTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S FUNDINGSOUFlCE QQ FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPtA1Nj � ..� .... - ��...... c, cre oo = 50,000 COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No ACINRYNUMBER C00-2T753-0784-00000 CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER ORIGINAL By Fil � No. oo- �l�L C y Z4 2� 500071 - 500075 Ward 5, 6 & 7 a3 Ia the Matter of sidawalk reconstruction, sidewalk raconstxuction with iategral curb and/or new sidawalk construction at the followiag locations: 500071 - Northeast side Como Avenue from Atwater Street to Topping Street. 500072 - Both sides North Hazel Street from East Nevada Avenue to East Nebraska Avenue. 500073 - Both sides East Nebraska Avenue from North Hazel Street to Furness Parkway. 500074 - Both sides East Nebraska Avenue from North White Bear Avenue to North Hazel Street. 500075 - North side Hudson Road from Forest Street to Cypress Street. ORIG1�lAL *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES po -�1a� RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (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 will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 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), NO23-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% 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 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 ✓Benanav ,/�lakey ,�ostrom vC`oleman ,iYfarri s �Lantry ,/Reiter Adopted by Council: Date� dc� �_�. � Certified Passed by Council Se�cretary � In Favor By r l � Against � r/(-l�-yy2��Ki"V`� �//�� Mayor / "�� `�/�l/UD Works - Sidewalk Division FOH OFSIGNA'NRE FORSICaNA7UR� GREEN SHEET INRIAUDATE DEPARTMEM' DIflECTOR C17Y ATTORNEY HUDGETOIRECTOR MAYOR (OF ASSISTANi) ASSOCWTE �p, t02750 ❑CITYCAUNGII ❑ C17Y CLEHK ❑ FlN. & MGL $ERVICES DIR. ❑i Council Research .� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 5, 6& 7(See attached list) � '•°�, ��"'.'"'"�"°° ��' "� °""`� �°' pEASONAL SEHVICE CONTRACSS MUST ANSWER iHE FOLLOWIN6 QUESTIONS: NNINGCOMMISSION _��LSERVICECOMMISSiON ,7, H85thi5perSONfirmeverWOdcetlund¢l3COnttaCllolthi5departmEnt? COMMt1TEE YES NO — 2. Has ihis person/(rtn everbeen a ciry employee? FF _ YES NO QOVNCIL _ GH COUNqt O&IECTIVE? OPPORTUNITV (WHO, NMAT, 3. Does fhis personlfirm possess a skill not nomrally possessed by any current ciry empioyee? YES NO F�cplain ali yes answefs on separete sheet and attach to green sheet The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multipie problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems 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 talls and possible litigations. APPROVEO: The community wiii benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewaiks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result. APPqOVE4 Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessmerits. 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. DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVE�. This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, witl generate more personal injury suits, resuiting in the expenditure of {arger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as weif as ciaim payouts. (OTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S FUNDINGSOUFlCE QQ FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPtA1Nj � ..� .... - ��...... c, cre oo = 50,000 COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No ACINRYNUMBER C00-2T753-0784-00000 CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER ORIGINAL By Fil � No. oo- �l�L C y Z4 2� 500071 - 500075 Ward 5, 6 & 7 a3 Ia the Matter of sidawalk reconstruction, sidewalk raconstxuction with iategral curb and/or new sidawalk construction at the followiag locations: 500071 - Northeast side Como Avenue from Atwater Street to Topping Street. 500072 - Both sides North Hazel Street from East Nevada Avenue to East Nebraska Avenue. 500073 - Both sides East Nebraska Avenue from North Hazel Street to Furness Parkway. 500074 - Both sides East Nebraska Avenue from North White Bear Avenue to North Hazel Street. 500075 - North side Hudson Road from Forest Street to Cypress Street. ORIG1�lAL *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES po -�1a� RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstxuction (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 will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 1000 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.32 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), NO23-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% 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 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 ✓Benanav ,/�lakey ,�ostrom vC`oleman ,iYfarri s �Lantry ,/Reiter Adopted by Council: Date� dc� �_�. � Certified Passed by Council Se�cretary � In Favor By r l � Against � r/(-l�-yy2��Ki"V`� �//�� Mayor / "�� `�/�l/UD Works - Sidewalk Division FOH OFSIGNA'NRE FORSICaNA7UR� GREEN SHEET INRIAUDATE DEPARTMEM' DIflECTOR C17Y ATTORNEY HUDGETOIRECTOR MAYOR (OF ASSISTANi) ASSOCWTE �p, t02750 ❑CITYCAUNGII ❑ C17Y CLEHK ❑ FlN. & MGL $ERVICES DIR. ❑i Council Research .� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 5, 6& 7(See attached list) � '•°�, ��"'.'"'"�"°° ��' "� °""`� �°' pEASONAL SEHVICE CONTRACSS MUST ANSWER iHE FOLLOWIN6 QUESTIONS: NNINGCOMMISSION _��LSERVICECOMMISSiON ,7, H85thi5perSONfirmeverWOdcetlund¢l3COnttaCllolthi5departmEnt? COMMt1TEE YES NO — 2. Has ihis person/(rtn everbeen a ciry employee? FF _ YES NO QOVNCIL _ GH COUNqt O&IECTIVE? OPPORTUNITV (WHO, NMAT, 3. Does fhis personlfirm possess a skill not nomrally possessed by any current ciry empioyee? YES NO F�cplain ali yes answefs on separete sheet and attach to green sheet The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multipie problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems 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 talls and possible litigations. APPROVEO: The community wiii benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewaiks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating public sector jobs as a result. APPqOVE4 Historically, the sidewalk reconstruction has created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessmerits. 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. DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVE�. This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, witl generate more personal injury suits, resuiting in the expenditure of {arger dollar amounts in repairs and repiacement, as weif as ciaim payouts. (OTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S FUNDINGSOUFlCE QQ FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPtA1Nj � ..� .... - ��...... c, cre oo = 50,000 COST/REVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No ACINRYNUMBER C00-2T753-0784-00000