95-1011CIiY OF ST. PAIIL
FZNAL OBDEE
ORIGINAL q 3 �
COUNCI FI N . 1 (O .
B
Fi No. 595074, 087 & 95102
Vo ing Ward 5,6,7
In the Matter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
595074 — on north side Topping St. from Mackubin St, to N. Western Ave.
595087 — on both sides Margaret St. from Atlantic St. to Johnson Pkwy.
595102 — on east side Winchell St. from E. Nevada Ave. to E. Hoyt Ave.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstrnction (replacement of old sidewalk) —$7.04 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $8.46 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Hev constrnction
(where no walk existed) — 100% of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.15 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), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.25 per square foot.
4
under Preliminary order 95-598, 95-600 & 95-601 approved
°IS - 1 O� �
June 7, 1995
The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing
upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been- given as
prescribed by the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, The Council has heard all persons, objections and
recommendations pertaining to said pzoposed improvemenY and has fully
considered the same; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order
that the above-described improvement be made, and the proper City officers
are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the
proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall
report the same to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City
Charter.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas � Nays
✓Blakey
i/�r i mm
� e r i n— A-�s�,r.�
IJ,arris
✓� gard
�/3,ettman
✓Thune
�o In Favor
Q Against
� ��PSer1
Adopted by Council: Date� �
Certified Passed by CouncilSecretary
�� ' / � � •! r..�vs�.��
.���•� �����c.�'
„ . _ .
Public Hearing Date - August 23, 1995 RE 8-17-95 ✓� � 5 " � O��
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED p
Public Works Sidewalks 8-17-95 GREEN SHEE N_ 3 4 0 0 9
CANTACT PERSON & PHONE iN1TIAVDATE iN1T1AtlDATE
� DEPARTMENTD�AECTOR O CRYCOUNdL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 A���N �CINATfORNEY �CITYCLEflK
MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUMBER FOfi ❑ BUDGET DIREGTOfi � FIN. 8 MGT. SERVICES OIR.
PUBLIC ROUTING
HEARING IS SET FOR 8-23-95 ONDER �MAVOR(ORASSISTANn �1 Council Research
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
AC710N REQUESTED:
At Council's request on 8-2-95, fiZe no.'s 595074, 595087 & 595102 for Sidewalk
reconstruction were laid over for further discussion to 8-23-95.
AECAMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or eeject (R) pERSONAL SEFVICE CONTflACTS MUST ANSWER TXE POLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ GVI� SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has [his person/Firtn ever worked under a contract for this department? -
_ C7B COMMRTEE _ �'ES NO
A STA�F 2. Has this personRirm ever been a city employee?
— — YES NO
_ DIS7RICTg�7LC011RCiL— �� 4�_ 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normall �
y possessed by any current city employee.
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVET Wards S� C7 � � YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet antl attaeh to green sheet
NeighborhoQds
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPP�RTUNITV (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
"SEE ORIGINAL GREEN SHEET NUIiBERS 31588, 31590 S� 31589"
ADVANTAGES IP APPROVED:
�ISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED:
DISAOVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED:
i T .
R!� G 17 1995
70TAL AMOUNTOFTRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIHG SOURCE AC7IVITV NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN)
Public Hearin Date - Au ust 2 1995 RE 5-26-95 g S- � O�,
OEPARTMENTAFF�CE�COUNC0. DATE INITIA7ED G R E E N S H E ET N o. 31588
Public Works Sidewalks 5-9-9$ �NITIAVDATE INI7IAL/DATE
CANTACT PER50.4 d PHONE � DEPARTMENT D�RECTOR � CRV CAUNqL
ThomasP.Keefa-266-6121 ��N �cmarroaNEr []cmc�aK
uuMeEa wa
MUSTBEONCOUNCdAGENDABY(DA'fE) 6-14-95 pO�T��' �BUDGETDIfiECTOR �FIN.aMGT.SERVICE5Dl
Must be in Council Research Office °�'D� � MAYOR(ORASS�STANn QCounal Research
no later than noon Fr'd
TOTALSOFSIGNANREPAGES i _ (CLIPALLLOCATONSfOq51GNATURq �ASSOCIATE DEPA ENTN.ACCOIINTAM
ACTION REWESTED � „ {9� � GJ�
Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward 5(See attached list) � V �
File No. 595074-75
qECOMMENDqTroNS:Appwe (q+a Re�en (R) PERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWEii THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
PLANNING COMMISSION _CN0. SERVICE COMMISSION �� ��� � � NO� worked under a contract for this depamnent?
_CIB COA�MRTEE _ 2 � 5 �� yE5 � NO er been a ciry employee?
�+ STAFF 3. Does ihis person/firm possess a skiil not normaliy possessed by any current ciry
— — employee7
DISTRICTCOUNCIL— S& 6 YES NO
SUPPOATS WNICH CWNCIL OBJEG7NE7 �p�ain all yes answers on separele sheet arxl attach to green sheal
Neighborhoods Ward 5
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORNNI7Y (WHO, WHAT, WHEN. WHERE, WHV):
The problem "detedive sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrede material, aflernating free/thaw cycles,
service I'rfe limfts, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk cond'Aion would worsen to a stafe where it wouid be
rendered unusable and subject to inaeased pedestrien injuries trom falls and possible I@igations. '
I�VANTAGES IF APPROVED: �
The community will beneiR from this project because R will provide safe detect free sidewalks tor its many citizens. The sidewalk
contrads are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft of this activity.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPPOVED:
Historically, tha sidewalk reconstructions hava created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-halt the assessment is City subsidized, i[ still
remains controversial.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stxk io deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uHimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dolfar amounts in eventual repairs and/or repiacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUMOFTRANSACTIONS S 6SO.O0 COSTlREVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES rW
FUNDINGSOUHCE 95-M-o664 A. PIA 95 � 5�5.000 pCITVITYNUMeER Cg5-2T727-o784-2 010
FINANGIAL INFOPMATION: (E%PtA1M B. A�T = 4 7 6 � �0� --
C. CIB 95 ° 50,000
Public Hearing Date - Au ust 2, 1995 RE 5-26-95 9 S - � O ��
DEPARTMENI/OFFICFJCOUNqL DATE MRIATED G R E E N S H E ET N O. `' ��`�"
Public Works Sidewalks 5-9-95 iNinnwnTE iNmawnra
COHTACT PERSON 8 PHONE ❑ pEppq7MENT DIRECTOR � Gtt COUNCIL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 A59GN ❑ �tty pT70RNEY � CI7V CLERK
NUMBERFOH
MU5T9EONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAT� 6-14-95 ROUTING OBUDGETDIRECTOR �FIN.du1GT.SERVICES�I
Must be in Council Research Office °"DF" MAVOR(ORASSISTAIJn t[] Counal Research
no later than noon Frida 6-2- �
T0T4L f OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 _(CUP ALL LOCATONS Wp gGNATUP� � ASSOCIA7E � DEPARTM'cNTAL AC('AUNTAM
ACTtONPEWESTED � `�_Cr
Reconstruci Sidewalk in Ward 7(See anached list) � �
File No. 595084-92, 595099-101
RECOMMENDA710N5: �pmre (!q a Rejea (B) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS:
_PIANNING COMMISSION _CNR SERViC'c CAMMISSYJN S. Hd5 mu �ES � NO� �rked under a contratt fm this department?
Ci8 COMMIT7EE 2 Has this Derso�rtn ever been a ciry employee?
— — YES NO
A STAFF 3. DOes Nis perso�rm possess a skill no[ normally posses5ed by any current ciry
— employee?
_DISTRICTCOUNCIL— 1�2 YES NO
SUPPORTS NM1IICH CAUNCIL oBJECTNE7 FxP�ain all yes answers on separate sheat and attach to graen sh6et
Neighborhoods Ward 7
MRIATING PROBLEM, lSSUE, OPP6RTUN7TY (WNO. 4hiAT, W41EN, WHERE, WHY):
The problem 'defective sidewalk' was created because ot tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freerthaw cycles,
service life limRs, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a cRywide level snd must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condftion would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries irom talls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROYED:
The communrty will benatit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for ks many cftizens: The sidewalk
contrads aze executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuk of this activisy.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area oi construction procedure and assessment.
Simpiy stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-hzli the assessment is City subsidized, it still
�emains cnntmvcrsial,
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT A?PROVED:
This option wouid altow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wi�I generate more personal injury suits,
uftimately resulting in the expenditure oi larger doilar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as ciaim payouts.
TOTAL AMOUM OFTRANSACfION S 67 . 067, oo COST/HEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No
FUNDINGSOUBCE 95-M-0664 A, PIA 95 � 5 pCITVITYNUMBEFi C95-2T727-0784-27010
FINANCIAL INFORAIATION: (E%PLAIM B, AS T = Y� 6� OOO
C, GIB 95 = 50,000
Public Hearin Date — Au ust 2 1995 RE 5-26-95 `1 J�� 0 1\
DE7ARTMENLOFFICEiCOUNqL DATEINITIAicD GREEN SHEET NO. ���
Public Works Sidewalks 5-9-95 �NITIAVDATE wmnwnTa
CONTACT PERSON 8 PNONE � DFP�TMENT DIRECTOR � Cf7Y CAUNCi4
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 ASSIGN �CRY ATTORNEY � CITY CLERK
NUMBER FOR
MUSTBEONCOUNCdAGENDABV(DA7� 6-14- 5 NOUTNG �g�p�E701RECTOfl �FIN.BMGT.SERVIC'cSDi0.
Must be in Council Researc Office �� MAYOR(ORASSISTAtJn � Counal Research
no later than noon Fxida 6-2-95 �
TOTAl7 OF SIGNANRE GAGE$ 1 _(GIJP ALL LOLATONS fOP BGNATUR� � ASSOCIA7E DEPARThIENTAL M^COUMANT
ACTION REWESTED
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 6(See attached list) ��� "
File No. S95093-98, 595102
flECOAiMENDATIONS:/�prove (ta w PejeC (fl) PERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER 7HE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
PLANNING CAMMISSION __CNIL SERV�^.E COMMISSION �• H� m� � � NOer worked under a wntract for this deparenent?
CIB COMMfTTEE 2 Has this perso�rm ever been a ciry employee?
— — YES NO
a SinFF � 3. Does this persoMfirm possess a skBi not normaly possessed by any current ciry
— ' empioyee?
DISTSi1C�COUNCIL— �L YES NO
SUPPOq7S WHICH COUNC�L OBJECTIVE9 �p�aln ali yes answero on separete sheet and attach to green shaet
Neighborhoods Ward 6
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE. OPPOFTUNRY (YMO, WelAT. WHEN, WNERE, WN1�:
The problem "detective sidewalk' was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, aflernating free/thaw cycles,
service IHe limits, chemical add'Rives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to inaeased pedestrian injuries from tails and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGES ff APPROVED:
The wmmunity will beneift from this project because it wili provide sate detect free sidewalks ior its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it foilows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
DISADVAN7AGES IF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative Teedback in the area ot cons4ruction procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-hali the assessment is City subsidized, @ still
remains controversiai.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED:
This option would ailow the infrastructure oi sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
ultimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRP.NSACiION S 17. C�07 . OO COST/REYENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDiNC50UfiCE 95-M-o66� A. P1A 95 � S�S.�O� ACRVITYNUMBER C95-2T 727-0784-27010
FINANCIAL INFOFMATION' (E%PLAIM B. AST = 47 6 � OOO �
C� C�B 95 ° 5����0