95-227` - . �a
'-�- ORIGINA�.
CITY.OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE N0 9.�a a y
PgELZHI$AEY OBDSB B y ; s,�
Fil No. S9 0 2
Voting rd
In the Matter af Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
on both sides North Grotto Street from Aurora Ave. to Fuller Ave.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRIICTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three familp 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 sig (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. Hev constrnetion
(where no walk eaisted) - 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 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.
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 heteby approved with no
alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE
for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and
1995 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 3rd day
of _May, 1995 , at 3:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul.
3. That notice of said public
the manner provided by the
hearing, the nature of the
as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS �I�It�tatn
Yeas Nays �AR 25 1995
�/ Blakey
✓ Grimm
;/ Guerin
✓ Harris
✓ Megard
✓ Rettman
,i Thune
�In Favor
�Against
hearing be given to the persons and in
Charter, stating the time and place of
improvement and the total cost thereof
i�F � IVa7J
Adopted by Council: D�,� � �
Certified
1 Secretary
"�Q�I
ayor
Public Hearing Date —
?ARTMENT70FFICE(COUNGL
iblic Works Sidewalks
NTACT PERSON 8 PHONE
iomas P. Keefe • 266-6121
STBEONCOUNCILPGENDABY(DATE) 3
Must be in Council Re
no later than noon Fr
fAL! OF SIGNANRE PAGES _
995 - RE 2-24-95
DATEINRIATED �G REEN SH EET
Z-� O-9S INITIAVDATE
lN�MBEfi FOR
fiW71HG
Office ��+ .
DEPAp'fMENT DIRECTOR
CITY ATTORNEY
BUDGEf DIRECTOF
MAYOP (OR ASSISTANn
_(CUP ALL LOGAiIONS FOR SIGNANfi� � ASSOCIATE
Recflnstruct Sidewalk in Ward 1(See attached list)
PLANNIN(i COMMISSION
GIB COMMITTEE
STAFF v —
DISTRICTCWNCiI�y _
'JRTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE7
ISSUE,
WH1�:
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, aRernating freefthaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, atc. 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 si ate where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
RECEJVE�
FEB 9 4 rQaa
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: ,�£ p � p � �
The community will benefit from this pfo �be6�44$��provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are exacuted by private contractors, so it follows tha2 private sector jobs are created as a result of ihis activity.
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construdion pracedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despfte the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remaios wntroversial. p' � z, � l . ;_;�^>. , } ��
91�ai:ti.;i i,`�;.v�.?ie.,} {,�!,i�a�n?
FE� 2 � IJ�S
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT
This option wouid allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wiil generate more personal injury suits,.,
uRimately resuRing in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
� aa7
N O. �
❑ cin couNC�i�
� CITY CLERK
� FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DI0.
10 Cow�cil Resea�ch
n o�����.A����
7
��
� PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOi LON'ING W ESTIONS:
CNIL SEPVICE COMMISSION 7, Ha5 [his PEr50�rm eVer wwked under a COfIVac[ for ihis r�p'nMten[?
YES NO
2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a ciry employee?
YES NO
3. Does fiis persoNfirm possess a skill not normatty possessed by any curzent ciry
employee?
YES NO
Ezplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green shea[
TOTALAfiAOUNTOFTRANSACT10N5 Z C�STlREVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCIEONE) YES NO
FUNDINGSOUFCE 95-r�-ob64 a, Pia 95 = 5�5 e000 ACRVRYNUMBER �95-ZT727-o784- 7oto
FINANqAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) - e
C. CIS 95 = So,COo
9�-a� 7
• ; , • . • �Ii]
Ward 1
Soj$OOZPROJECT: RECONS7RUCT SIDEWALK B.S. N. GROTTO ST. from AuroraAve.
to Fuiler Ave.
� INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as
public necessity on the basis of one (1) complaint, a petition with one (1) signer and an
inspection of the walk.
E I 1 NDITt N: This wa(k is poured concrete with tree heaves and
cracked panels.
.............................................................................................