95-341�s-• 1
��
CIiY OF ST. PAII7,
P&ELIliIHAHY OEDBF
ORlGI[��;4L
a�
COUNCI FIL 0. � ✓T i
By � �
Fi o. S 5031 & 95032
Vo "ng Ward 5
In the �Satter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
595031 - on the east side of Jackson Street from East Geranium Avenue
to East Rose Avenue.
595032 - on the south side of East Maryland Avenue from Jackson Street
to approximately 66' west of Jackson Street and the west side
Jackson Street from East Maryland Avenue to approgimately 30'
south of East Maryland Avenue.
*ESTZMATED CONSTRUCTION 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 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.
MIILTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.25 per square foot.
q� 3 ��
The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor
upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby
resolves:
1. That the said report and the same is hereby approved with no
alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE
for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and
1995 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 24th day
of May, 1995 , at 3:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of
the CiCy Hall and Court Aouse Building in the City of Saint Paul.
3. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in
the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of
hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof
as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas�' Naqs
✓�,lakey
�/ Grimm
�uerin
�arris
�egard
Rettman
�Thune
�st �� ��uw�
Adopted by Council: Date ��,�;�, S I���
—�_�__
Certified Passed by CouncilSecretary
�In Favor By
� Against �
f Mayor
r�. k �
' y"':
Public Hearing Date — May 24, 1995 RE 3-17-95 ,$ �„�j
DEPARTMENT/OFFICECAUNCIL DATE INIT7ATE� G R E E N S H E ET N O.
Public Works Sidewalks 3-3-95 INRIAL/OATE INITIAIIDATE
CANTACTPERSONdPHONE �pEppq7MENTDIRECTOR �CI7YCAUNCIL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 � � � cin arroadEr ❑ cm c�EaK
MUSTBEONCIXINCILAGENDABY (F—S— pWTNG �BUDGETDIFECTOB �FIN.BMGT.SERNCESOIR.
Must be in Council Research Office �0� MpY00.(ORASSISTANT) 70 Counal Research
no later than noon Frida 3-24-95 �
TOTAL! �F SIGNIINRE PAGES ]. _(CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOft SIGNAiUflE) � ASSOGATE � DEP TM AL ACCOUNTANT
ACT10N RE�UESTED -
Reconstruet Sidewa{k in Ward 5(See attached {ist)
FILE NOS. 595031 and 595032
FECOMMFJJDA7IONS: Apprwe (A) or ReJect (f� PERSONAI SEHVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWEii THE FOLLOW ING WESTIONS:
PLANNING COMMISSiON _CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION �, Has [his perSO�RfI eV2r Wofked under a ContraCt for ihis dep2llrtlen[?
YES NO
_C18 COMMITiEE — 2. Has ffiis persoNfirm ever been a ciry employee?
A STAFF _ YES NO
DIS7FiICTCOUNCIL — 6 3. Does ihis perSONfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry
— — employee?
SUPPOqTS WHICH CAUNCILOBJECTIVET \'ES NO
Explain all yes answers on separete sheat and ariach to green sheet
Neighborhoods Ward 5
INITIATING PR08LEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHEflE, WH1�:
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freeRhaw cycles,
service life limits, ohemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide Ievel 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 increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigalions.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPPOVEO:
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewaiks for its many citizens. The sidewafk
contracts are executed by private contradors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activfty.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construdion procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fad up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
,;_ . . . ._...., .?i �`��:�
��,:�,^: .. � Ea�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uftimately resulting in the expend'+ture oS larger dollar amou�ts in eventual repairs andlor repfacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS 4 COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO
FUNDMGSOURCE 95-^t-o664 a. PIA 95 = 515>oon pCRViT1'NUMBEH �95-2T727-o734-z7o�o
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B, AST = � � OOO
C. CIi3 95 = 50,000