95-402 I � �
��- ORIGINAL 17
Cl2Y OF ST. PAIIL COIINCIL FILE N0. 7S7b oL
t
PBSLIHIHABY OSDSB By � �r�„ ,,,,,_
File No. 595040 - 595042
Voting Ward 7 3 ��
In the Matter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
595040 - on the north side Conway St. from North Ruth St. to North
McRnight Rd. and the south side Conway Street from North
Ruth St. to North Howard Ave.
595041 - on both sides Fremont Ave, from Arcade St. to Mendota St.
595042 - on the north side Margaret St. from East Seventh St. to
approximately 80 Ft east of East Seventh St.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
&econstrnction (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 coastraction
(where no walk egisted) - 1007< of the actual cost estimated to be
approximatelp $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-RESZDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.25 per square foot.
� �
9S-�f D�
��t�s+eu��
MAY 131995
The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor
upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, hereby
resolves:
1. That the said report and the same is herebp approved with no
alternatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE
for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and
1995 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 14th_ day
of June, 1995 , at 3:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul.
3. That notice of said public hearing be given to the persons and in
the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of
hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof
as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas Nays
Blakep
��,z' imm
✓�G erin
�dx rris
gard
Rettman
�hune
AdopCed by Council: Date��qq,�
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
�In Favor By ra—s,�
� Against
Mayor
Public Hearing Date — June 14, 1995 RE 4-7-95 9���(��
OEPARTMENT/OFFICEICOUNGL D�TEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. �1573
Public Warks Sidewalks 3-23-95 IN7TIAUDATE iNIT1AUDATE
COMACTPEFi$ONBPHONE �DFPARTMENTDIRECTOR OCITYCOUNdL
ThomasP.Keefe-266-6121 A��N �CITYATTORNEY �CITYCLEflK
NUMBERiOR
MUSTBEONCOI)NCILAGENDABY(DAlE� �_26—g5 p��� �BUD(iETDIRECTOR OFIN.dMGT.SERVICES0IR
Must be in Council Research Office � MAVOR(ORASSISTA1Jn t❑ Counal Research
no later than noon Frida 4-14-95 ❑
TO7AL f OF SIG}L1NiiE PAGES 1 _(CIIP ALL LOCAiIONS C-0R 4GNATURE) � ASSOC4ITE DEPARTMENTAL M;CW N7ANT
ACTION FEWES'fED �
Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward 7(See attached list) �
File Nos. 595040-41-42
aECOMMENDAiIONS: Appm�e (/q w Rejea (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANS WER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
PIANNING COMMISSION _CNIL SERVICE COMMISSKKJ �, F{y5 ihis pBtSONflfin eVer WOfked undEf a Wntract fof thlS depeNTent?
CI8 cOMMrtiEE YES NO
— — 2 Has Nis perso�rm ever been a ciry employee?
A STAFF — YES NO
D45TFiICTCOUNCR— 1. �i 3, Oce5 this perso�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ dry
— — employee?
SUPPOFTSWHICHCWNCILO&IECTNE? YES NO
Expiain all yes answers on separate sheet atd attach to green sheei
Neighborhoods Ward 7
INRIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE.OPPORTUNIN (WHO, VhIAT, WHEN, WHEflE, WFiY):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating freetthaw cycles,
service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, exireme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide level 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 falis and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The community wili benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
coniracts are executed by private coMractors, so i[ follows that private sector jobs are created as a resuR of this activity. ::, °,
....i 4. S='..V
� �; cr 1 i �i
�l�i � �
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.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of �arger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMWNTOFTRANSACTIONS �7,S76,OO COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES !W
FUNDINGSWRCE 95-r� a, Pin 95 = 5�5 coo pCITVITYNUMBEp �95-2T7z7-o784-z7oto
FINANCIAL MFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) g, AS T = 4 t b � ��O - --
C, CIB 95 = 50,000