95-377� ' �RIGIl��t!� ��
Cl2Y OF S2. PAIIL COUNCIL FILE N0. S J 7 7
PFSLZ2fIHA&Y OBDEB By � �� ,r,���
File No. S9 35 �3
Voting Ward 4
In the liatter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
at 2223 Fairmount Avenue.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRIICTION 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 eaisted) - 100Y, 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-RESIDENTZAL 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
1995 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 14th day
of June, 1995 , at 3:30 o 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 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 / Nays
��� akey
✓ Gyimm
V.� L l ri
L7.S
Mz�gard
�/�2tman
1/Thune
poi�tr�ue� l` ` , ,
Adopted by Council: Date �� , 1� ��`�
P�AY � 6 �99� t -Fy= S
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
� In Favor By y �
�Against
Mayor
Public Hearing Date — June 14, 1995 RE 4-7-95 `�S �
DEPARiMENT/OFFICFJCOUNCIL DAiE1NITIATED GREEN SHEET No. �1570
Pubiic Works Sidewalks I3-Z3-9S INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE,
CONTAGTPEqgpNaPHONE
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121
be
� DEPARTMENT DIRECTOF
ASSIGN �CITVATTORNEY
NUAIBER FOH
'T� 4-26-95 �R �BUDGETDIRECTOR
Research Office �MAYOI7(ORASSISTANT)
F,-iA�.s /_1G_QS
TOTAL t aF SIGNATUfiE PAGES 1 _(GLIP ALL LOCA710N5 FOR SIGNATUfi� u N530C�NN'fE
ACTKKJ PE�UESTED
� Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 4(See attached Iist)
Fi1e No. 595035
�MMENDATIONS: Approve (A) w Rej�
PfANNING WAIMISSION _
C18CAMMIT(EE _
57AFF _
oisTaicrcouNa�— 14 _
OFTS WHICH COUNCIL O&IECTNI
NeiQhborhoods
!'�J
� PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION �, F{ys Nis person/firm aver worked under a contract fw this depaNnent?
YES NO
2. Has ihis perwnnrm ever been a dry employee?
YES NO
3. �oes this person�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any wrrent dry
employee?
YES NO
Erzpla[n sll yes answers on separate sheet aM attach to green sheet
ITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPORTUNITY (VMO, v..ini, wtiEn, wneHe, wnx7:
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating free/thaw cycles,
service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and correc[ed on an annual basis. Left uncorsected, the sidewalk condition woutd worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falis and possible litigations.
The communiry will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs aFe areated as,`a result o,f,ffiis4activity.
�i„=�� � .. �i'��u1
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
This option would a0ow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wi11 generate more persona{ injury suits,
uftimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
iOTAL/tMWNTOFTRANSACfiONi tf]S.00 COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE)
FUNDINGSOURCE q5-t�-�6E4 A. PIA 95 = 515 ���� ACRVITYNUMBER ��S'ZT]z]
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) s, AS T = 416 � OOO
� GTV COUNCIL _
� qTV CLERK
� FIN.S MGT. SERVICES
7❑ Coundl F
— 27��0
0
C. CIB 95 = 50,000