95-380¢
�L
�R1���.��.�_
Cl2Y OF ST. PAIIL COII CIL FILE N� '36 �
PHELIHIHAgY OBDSB B9
File No. 5950/+8_�
Voting Ward 6
Zn the Matter of Sidewalk reconstruction at [he following location(s):
on both sides East Lawson Ave. from Edgerton St. to Payne Ave.
*ESTIMATED GONSTRIICTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Heconstrnetion (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.04 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $8.4b per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths wi11 be prorated accordinglp. Hev constraetion
(where no walk existed) - 100Y of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.15 per squate foot.
All corner residential properties wi11 receive a credit up to the first 150
feet of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of
the property.
MULTI-RESIDEI3TIAL than three £amilp structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cos[ 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.
3.
That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 14th day
of June, 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.
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
Xeas Nays
�lakey
Grimm
�,/�,C.0 e r i n
,Jt�arris
�/ gard
�ttman
�Thune
9iret re�3rr
MAY m 6199�
�s
Adopted by Council: Date ��j � ��`��
Certified Passed by CouncilSecretary
a• �In Favor By �.
��� �Against
Mayor
li�i� `7 � 3Sr r7
Public Hearing Date -- June 14, 1995 RE 4-7-95 3y 3c�
DEPARTMENT/OFfICF1ClJUNG0. DATEINITIqTED GREEN SHEET r,o.3��+ �
PubVic Works Sidewatks 3-23-95 INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE
COMACT PERSON E PFiONE
�DEPARTMEMDIRECTOR �CITYCOUNq4
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 AS9GN �CRV ATfORNEY ��
NUMBEA FOR
MUSTBEONCDUNCILAGENDABY(DATE)!{—ZC7-9S pW)71NG g�pGET01RECT�H Ftt15MGT.SERYICESDIR.
Must be in Council Research Office �R �u�YOaroR�s�sTne� t Research
no later than noon Frida 4-14-95 ❑ ❑
TOTAL! OF SIGNATURE PAGE8 1 _(CLIP ALL LOCA770N5 fOR 9GNATUR� Q ASSOCIA7E iL1EMAL M•COt1MANT
OCTION pEOUESTED .�. � {��
Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward b(See attached tist) ��"e1
File No, S95048
REC6AIMENOATqNS:ApprwBlNa RBI�IPo PERSONAL SEqViCE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS:
PLANNING COMMISSION _ CML SEpV10E CAMMISSION �. � y�j per5on/firm eVe! WOfked under a contract for ¢fis depaftrnent?
�Cie CoMUmEE YES NO
— 2 Has this perso�rm ever been a ciry employee?
A STAFF _ YES NO
DISTR�CTCOUNCIL —$ _ 3. Dces this personttirm possess a skitl not normally possessed by any current dry
— emptoyee?
SUPPORTSWHICHCWNCILO&IECTNE7 YES NO
Exptain all yes a�wers on saparate shaet and atfach to green shoel
Neighborhoods Ward 6
INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WHAT. WHEN, WHEflE. WH1'):
The probfem "defective sidewaik" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, aRernating freetthaw 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 annuai basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condRion would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries trom falis and possible litigations.
AOYANTAGESIFAPPROYEO:
The community wili benefit irom this project 6ecause ¢ wiil provide safe detect iree sidewalks tor its many citize�s. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so R foflows that private sector jobs are created as a resuft ot this actfviry.
�'�'s�:� (';:� is;:�'
_.__ _ _ a
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of constructron procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property ownets detest assessments, and despite the tad up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it stiil
remains controversiai.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would a0ow the infrastructura of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uRimateiy resuiting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounis in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMWMOFTRANSACf10N5 ZS.30].00 COST/qEVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO
FUNDINGSOURCE 95-t�t-0664 A. Pla °5 = 515 �OOa ACRYItYNUMBER C95-2T727-0784-27010
FINANqAL INFORMATION; (E%P�pfN) B, q s7 = 4 t 6 � OOO
C, CIB °5 = 5�,000