95-228LL
CIiY OF ST. PAIIL
PBELZMIHAEY OBDSF
OR1G?�l�iL
In the �Satter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
on the west side Greenbrier St, from East Rose Ave. to East Maryland
Ave. and the north side East Rose Ave. from Payne Ave. to Greenbrier
St.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTZON RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Beconstrnction (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 othet widths will be prorated accordingly. Hev constrnction
(where no walk egisted) - 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 abutCing the "long side" of
the property.
MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three £amily 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 hereby approved with no
alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE
for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and
199� 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.
�i �t i�r:e�
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas Nays �pAR �5 199�
�/ Blakep
✓ Grimm
v Guerin
� Harris
✓ Megard
� RetCman
�/ Thune
�In Favor
�Against
�/
CO NCIL FILE N0 q.� a a 8'
�
BY S.S�
Fi e No. S95003
Voting Ward 6
hearing be given to
Charter, stating the
improvement and the
AdoptedJa�C�unci]
Cert
!�I
the persons and in
time and place of
total cost thereof
�� -
il Secretary
ayor
Public Hearing Date — May 3, 1995 RE 2-24-95 �� »'�
DEPAR7MENT/OFfICHCAUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No. �1556
Public Works Sidewalks Z'� �-95 INITIALIDATE INITIAUDATE
CONTACTPERSONSPFqNE �pEppRTMENTDiRECTOR �CITVCAUNCIL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 A�C'M � C17Y ATTORNEY � CRY CLERK
NUMBERFOR
MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENOABV DAT� 3 S NW71NG BUDGETDIflECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SERVICESDIR
Must be in Counci�l Researc Office oau� 0
no latex than noon Friday 3-3-95 �MAYOfl(ORASS�STAN'� t❑ Couna� Research
TOTAL t OF SIGHANRE PAGES 1 _(CLI7 ALL I.00ATIUMS iOfi S7GNANH� � ASSOCIATE D iMENTAL ACCOUMANT
ACTION RE�UESTm '� �(
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 6(See attached list) ��
�
RECOMMENDATiONS: AFpove (A� w Reject (fi� ¢EPSqiALSEHV{CE CONTMCTS MUST ASiSW ER THE FOLLOWIPIG WESTIONS:
PLpNNING COMMISSION _CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION �, Has thi5 (�Ef50Nfirm eV2f wOfkEd Undef a COntract fof �IliS depariRlent?
CIB COMMIT7EE YES NO
— — 2. Has tfii5 persoNBrm evet been a ciry employee?
A S7nFF _ YES NO
_D�sipICTCOUNCIL� s _ 3. Dces t�is parsoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed 5y any current ciry
emPloyee?
SUPPOFTSWHICHCOUNCILOBJECTIVE7 YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate Shaet and attach to grean sheet
� 6
INITIAiING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNI7Y (WHO, WHAT, WNEN, WHERE, WHh:
The problem "dafeetive sidewalk" was created 6acausa of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, aRemating freefthaw cycles,
service life limits, 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 condition wou�d worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from talls and possibie litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The community will benefit from this project because ft will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contradors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
L�3��..:'� .,_.,..-.,.�i:1 i;tiiifE",F
F� � G � ����
DISADVANTAGES IF APPqOVED:
.... ......... �
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and�assessment.
Simpfy stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPPOVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uRimately resufting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTpAN5ACT10N$ �0,4$O.QO COST/HEVENUEBUDGETED(CIfiCLEONE) YES No
FUNDINGSOURCE °S-M-o6S4 A, PIA 95 = 515 ,000 ACRVITYNUMBER Cg5-2T727-o784-27ot0
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B, AST .= 415 � OOO
C, CIB °5 = 50,000
qS-� y Y
• : ► : • �• •
Ward 6
SqsDD3 PROJECT RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK W.S. GREENBRIER ST. from E. Rose
Ave. to E. Maryland Ave. & N.S. E. ROSE AVE. from Payne Ave. to Greenbrier St.
INITIATING ACTION: This order was initiated by the Director of Public Works as
public necessity on the basis of an inspection of the wafk.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: This walk is poured concrete with disintegrated and
scaled panels.
............................................................