Loading...
01-588CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO . ��^ 5�� By File No.SO 078,501 82,501110,S61114 501129 Voting Ward 6 & 7 Sn the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction andJor naw cox�struction at the £ollowing locations: 501078 - Both sides Margaret Street from Forest Street to Cypress Street. S010S2 - South side East Minnehaha Avenue from Kennard Street to Flandrau Street. 501110 - Both sides Margaret Street £rom Johnson Parkway to Clarence Street. 501114 - North side East Minnehaha Avenue from Kennard Street to Flandrau Street. 501129 - Both sides East Third Street from North White Sear Avenue to North Hazel Street. O 1- 58��' *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDFNTIAL RATES i0ne, two or three family structures) Raconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - l��°s of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. Al1 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. MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RE5IDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $6.09 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 27"' dav of June, 2001 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 �lakey ✓BOStrom ✓C`ol eman ✓karris �Lantry ✓�eiter Adopted by CounciL• Date o � Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor Ey �_ \ . � ��� � Against Mayor �/�8/0� VvU� �J � : Works - Sidewalk Division :T PERSON & PHONE Tvedt (266-6087) E ON COUNQLAGENDA BV (DATE� -t OF SIGNATUpE PAGES Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 6 8 7 _PLANNINGCOMMISSION _GBCOMMRTEE A STAFF _pISTRICTCOUNCIL WHEN, ` 1zl GREEN �K�� h �(1-(�� a-S� �HEET NO. �10437 � DEPAPTMENr DIRECTOR � CiTY AiTOANEY � BUDGET DIPEGTOR O MAYOR (OR ASSISTANn iNmnwn� ❑CT'COUNGL ❑ CRV CLERK ❑ FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR � Council Research I I DEPT. ACCAOI AtJr PEHSONAL SERIICE CON7RACTS MUST ANSWEFi THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Hasthispersonlfi�meverwodcedunderaco�t2ctforthisdepartmenl? YES NO 2. Has this persorJfirtn ever been a ciry employee? YES NO 3. Does this personRirtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent city employee? YES NO F�cplain all yes answers on separote sheet and attach to green sheet WHYJ: The probiem "defective sidewa�k" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, free/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme 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 wouid be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. 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 public sector jobs as a result. APPROVED 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. IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infirasiructure of sidewaik siock to deteriorate, which in turn, wiil generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, a$ �yel��aarC���i�a��uts. �iOUf}�Bi t48 czji9i 65 � �oo� CINL SERVICE COMMISSION AMOUNT OF 7RANSAC710N $ } 9�} V G� t� COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No iG SOURCE 01-M-0672 A . P t/� s � �� ��� pCINI7Y NUMBEH �� ' C01-2T754-0784-00000 Al INPORMATION: (EXPLAIN) . ° � ... . ... _.... ,..� . ........ . ... . . . � CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO . ��^ 5�� By File No.SO 078,501 82,501110,S61114 501129 Voting Ward 6 & 7 Sn the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction andJor naw cox�struction at the £ollowing locations: 501078 - Both sides Margaret Street from Forest Street to Cypress Street. S010S2 - South side East Minnehaha Avenue from Kennard Street to Flandrau Street. 501110 - Both sides Margaret Street £rom Johnson Parkway to Clarence Street. 501114 - North side East Minnehaha Avenue from Kennard Street to Flandrau Street. 501129 - Both sides East Third Street from North White Sear Avenue to North Hazel Street. O 1- 58��' *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDFNTIAL RATES i0ne, two or three family structures) Raconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - l��°s of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. Al1 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. MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RE5IDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $6.09 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 27"' dav of June, 2001 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 �lakey ✓BOStrom ✓C`ol eman ✓karris �Lantry ✓�eiter Adopted by CounciL• Date o � Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor Ey �_ \ . � ��� � Against Mayor �/�8/0� VvU� �J � : Works - Sidewalk Division :T PERSON & PHONE Tvedt (266-6087) E ON COUNQLAGENDA BV (DATE� -t OF SIGNATUpE PAGES Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 6 8 7 _PLANNINGCOMMISSION _GBCOMMRTEE A STAFF _pISTRICTCOUNCIL WHEN, ` 1zl GREEN �K�� h �(1-(�� a-S� �HEET NO. �10437 � DEPAPTMENr DIRECTOR � CiTY AiTOANEY � BUDGET DIPEGTOR O MAYOR (OR ASSISTANn iNmnwn� ❑CT'COUNGL ❑ CRV CLERK ❑ FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR � Council Research I I DEPT. ACCAOI AtJr PEHSONAL SERIICE CON7RACTS MUST ANSWEFi THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Hasthispersonlfi�meverwodcedunderaco�t2ctforthisdepartmenl? YES NO 2. Has this persorJfirtn ever been a ciry employee? YES NO 3. Does this personRirtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent city employee? YES NO F�cplain all yes answers on separote sheet and attach to green sheet WHYJ: The probiem "defective sidewa�k" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, free/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme 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 wouid be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. 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 public sector jobs as a result. APPROVED 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. IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infirasiructure of sidewaik siock to deteriorate, which in turn, wiil generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, a$ �yel��aarC���i�a��uts. �iOUf}�Bi t48 czji9i 65 � �oo� CINL SERVICE COMMISSION AMOUNT OF 7RANSAC710N $ } 9�} V G� t� COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No iG SOURCE 01-M-0672 A . P t/� s � �� ��� pCINI7Y NUMBEH �� ' C01-2T754-0784-00000 Al INPORMATION: (EXPLAIN) . ° � ... . ... _.... ,..� . ........ . ... . . . � CITY OF ST. PAUL PRELIMINARY ORDER COUNCIL FILE NO . ��^ 5�� By File No.SO 078,501 82,501110,S61114 501129 Voting Ward 6 & 7 Sn the Matter o£ sidewalk reconstruction andJor naw cox�struction at the £ollowing locations: 501078 - Both sides Margaret Street from Forest Street to Cypress Street. S010S2 - South side East Minnehaha Avenue from Kennard Street to Flandrau Street. 501110 - Both sides Margaret Street £rom Johnson Parkway to Clarence Street. 501114 - North side East Minnehaha Avenue from Kennard Street to Flandrau Street. 501129 - Both sides East Third Street from North White Sear Avenue to North Hazel Street. O 1- 58��' *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDFNTIAL RATES i0ne, two or three family structures) Raconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.06 per front foot for a five (5) foot wide walk and $12.07 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. Al1 other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction (where no walk existed) - l��°s of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $4.50 per square foot. Al1 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. MIJLTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RE5IDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100� of actual cost estimated to be approximately $6.09 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 27"' dav of June, 2001 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 �lakey ✓BOStrom ✓C`ol eman ✓karris �Lantry ✓�eiter Adopted by CounciL• Date o � Certified Passed by Council Secretary � In Favor Ey �_ \ . � ��� � Against Mayor �/�8/0� VvU� �J � : Works - Sidewalk Division :T PERSON & PHONE Tvedt (266-6087) E ON COUNQLAGENDA BV (DATE� -t OF SIGNATUpE PAGES Reconstruct Sidewalk in Wards 6 8 7 _PLANNINGCOMMISSION _GBCOMMRTEE A STAFF _pISTRICTCOUNCIL WHEN, ` 1zl GREEN �K�� h �(1-(�� a-S� �HEET NO. �10437 � DEPAPTMENr DIRECTOR � CiTY AiTOANEY � BUDGET DIPEGTOR O MAYOR (OR ASSISTANn iNmnwn� ❑CT'COUNGL ❑ CRV CLERK ❑ FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR � Council Research I I DEPT. ACCAOI AtJr PEHSONAL SERIICE CON7RACTS MUST ANSWEFi THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Hasthispersonlfi�meverwodcedunderaco�t2ctforthisdepartmenl? YES NO 2. Has this persorJfirtn ever been a ciry employee? YES NO 3. Does this personRirtn possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any curtent city employee? YES NO F�cplain all yes answers on separote sheet and attach to green sheet WHYJ: The probiem "defective sidewa�k" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, free/thaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme 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 wouid be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations. 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 public sector jobs as a result. APPROVED 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. IF NOT APPROVED: This option would allow the infirasiructure of sidewaik siock to deteriorate, which in turn, wiil generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, a$ �yel��aarC���i�a��uts. �iOUf}�Bi t48 czji9i 65 � �oo� CINL SERVICE COMMISSION AMOUNT OF 7RANSAC710N $ } 9�} V G� t� COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No iG SOURCE 01-M-0672 A . P t/� s � �� ��� pCINI7Y NUMBEH �� ' C01-2T754-0784-00000 Al INPORMATION: (EXPLAIN) . ° � ... . ... _.... ,..� . ........ . ... . . . �