Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
02-624CITY OF ST. PAUL
PRELI.MINARY ORDER
; ",���F.. i
� , :�� ;
; �{ _ : ,
'�.i t 1' L� 3 i`i:
o - ��.�
CO FILE
By
File 02002
Voti g W rd_ 1,4,7
aa
In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction and/or new coastruction at the followiag
locations:
502002 - 2369 Carter Avenue, 2235, 2243 & 2275 Hillside Avenue, 25 & 85 Langford
Park, 2295 Gordon Avenue, 1533 & 1770 East Sixth Street, 1762 East Fourth
Street, 1286 Charles Avenue, 1153 Edmund Avenue
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$10.49 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $12.59 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction
(whare no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.69 per square foot.
All corner residential properties will recaive a credit uH to the first 150
feet of aew 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 sidawalk; 100% of actual cost esti.mated to be
apHroximately $6.35 per squara 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, and
that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates,
financed by assessmants and 2002 Public Improvexnant Aid.
�
[�]
That a public hearing be had on said improvement on tha 24"' dav of July 2002
5:30 o�clock P.Ni. in the Council Chambers of tkxe City Hall and Court House
Building in the City of Saint Paul.
That notice of said public hearing be given to tha persons and in the manner
provided by the Charter, stating the tima and place of hearing, the nature of
the improvement and the total cost thereof as astimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas Nays
�}�scw�Benanav
✓�lakey
,�sostrom
�oleman
vHarris
c,Lantry
�Reiter
� In Favor
QAgainst
� �4bsev.�'
Adopted by Council: Date�c?c��„_
�
Certified Passed by Council Secretaxy
yor
'ublic Works - Sidewalk Division
�NrAGf PEASON & PHONE
lerry Tvedt (266-608�
IUST BE ON CqUpqLAGEN�A BY (DA7Ej
�r����,�� a�� �U
OTALiOF516NqNiiE7AG6 _ jqJPA
�CTION REQUESiE�
Recorxtruct Sidewalk in Wards 1, 4 8 7
�lLE � 502002
ECOMMENDATIONS: APMOVd W) or Fiel� lp)
_waw�caa�nssiior� cm�sm
_q8 WMMRiff
Zp07
FON SIGNANRE)
REEN
� OEPARTMEAff MRECfOR
� CIiYATTORf�Y
� euo�r dr�cror:
I� MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT)
r�o. � oaa� �' I
wmnwnh
❑ Cm COUNCIL
❑ cm c�nK
❑ FlN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR
Q Coundl Research �
PERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER TNE FOLLOWING QUESTpNS:
7• HasMispersoMfrmevervrorkedurMeracontractforthisdepaMreM7
YES NO
— 2 Has this persoNfirtn everbeen a tlty ertpbyee?
— YES NO
uxa� _ 3. Does this PersoNfirm possess a sldli not nomaM Possessed by any curtein ciry ertgYoyee?
COUNqLOB1ECiIVE1 rES NO
fxplain all yes answers on separote sheet and atlaeh M green shaet
The problem "defective sidewalk° was caused by multipie problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freeRhaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical addftives, extreme tempereture variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and
must be addressed and conected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen fo a state where it
would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from fails and possible Iitigations.
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk
coniracts are done by private contractors generating public sectorjobs as a result.
Historicalfy, 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. '
�earch CenYer
JUL p I 2UO2
IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock io deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury
suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger doilar amouMs in repairs and replacement, as we�l as claim payouts.
10UNTOFTAANSAGTIONS 25 ,711.32 COSUREVENUEBUDGETED(C{RCLEONE� YES NO
souctce 01-M-0672 A. PIA = 610,000 B. AST = 380,000 p��7yRy NUMBER C01-2T7540784-00000
INWRMATION: (D(PWN)