95-505�� ��
CISY OF ST. PAIIL 0 R I G I NA L COUNCIL FILE N0. J
PBBLIHI$AHY 0&DBF By 1mg o�/,s7 r 'f
File No. 595049
Voting Ward 7
In the Hatter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
on both sides North Ruth St. from Upper Afton Rd. to North Park Drive.
*ESTIMATED GONSTRIICTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Heconstraction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.04 per front foot for a
Eive (5) foot wide walk and $8.46 per front fbot fbr a six (6) foot wide
walk. A11 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 o£ new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of
the property.
MULTI-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.
The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mapor
upon the above improvement, and having considered said report, herehy
resolves:
1. That the said regort and the same is hereby approved with no
alCernatives, 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 Sth_ day
of July, 1995 , at 3:30 o'clock P.M., in the Councii 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 �b��p�}-
�akey ✓
✓$2 i mm
�%uerin
i/�arris � In Favor
,� �t�,egara
�.ettman pII�I1.C4t�P �Against
^fhune r (��pS�r�
Jl3N �0 1995 �
Adopted by Council: Date � 1 Q�
Certified Passed by Council Se retary
�1� �
/ � �' `�f ; /
.,
Public Aearin Date — Jul 5, 1995 RE 4-28-95 �
OEPARTMENT/OFFICEWUNGIL DA�INITIA7ED GREEN SHEET NO. ���
Publ'�c Works Sidewalks 4-1495 INITIAL/DATE INRIAUDATE
CONTACf PEASON & PHONE � ppppq7MENT DIRECiDA � CIiY COUNCIL
Thomas P_ Keefe - 266-6121 ��N cm anoarvEr ❑cmc�EaK
p NU/ABER WR
MUSTBEONCOUNqLAGENW.BY(DATE1 S POUTING gpp�E'fDIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.5EqVICESDIR
Must be in Council Researesi Office � MAYOR(ORASSISTAN'I) �Coundl Fiesearch
no later than noon Erida 5-5-95 ❑
TOTAI t OF SIGNATUpE PAGES ]. ^_ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR 9GNATURt7 � ASSOCIA7E DEPA EMAL ACCOUN7ANT
ACTIONpEWES1ED "� "/
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 7(See attached list)
File No. S95049 Q5 - �5
RECOMMENOATioNS: Approve �A) w ReJect (R) pEfl50NAL SERV�CE COMRACTS MUS7 ANSWEA THE FOLLOWING QUESSIONS:
PaNN�NGCOµµ1S5pN _CNIL SEflVICE COMMISSION �- H � �� �ES � NO r worked under a contracC for this departrnent?
�CIB COYMRTEE _ 2• Fias tl�iS per5on/firm eVer been a ciry employee?
YES NO
A STAFF _ 3. Dce5 this persoNfifm pos5es5 a skill not normaily pas5essed by any Cufren[ tiry
employee?
DIS7RICTCAUNCIL 1 YES NO
SUPPONTS WHICH CWNCIL O&IECTNE? E%P�ain all yes answars on 5oparete 5heet and atlaeh to green sh0et
Neighborhoods Ward 7
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (WHO, WHAT, WHEN. WHERE, WH`�:
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, aRernating freeRhaw cycles,
service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide 1eve1 and musi be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewa4k cond'Rion would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable an�subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPPOVEO:
The community wifl benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect iree sidewalks for its many cdizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
OISPDYANTAGES lF APPPOVF-0:
Historical4y, 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.
^ ' y y � �. _ _. ?,
��=�bau:; F:��.�..._i_ . i.l.. ._.
rt s�r? tl [?
['Yi . , L.} 4. �.. < •..
DISADYANTAGES VF NOT APPROVED:
Th+s option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
uftimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMWNTOFTRANSACTIONS ��SH3.00 COSTiREVENUEBUDGESED(CiRCLEONE) YES 130
FUNDINGSOUFCE 95-M-o664 A. PIA 95 = 515,000 ACITVI7YNUMBER �95-ZT727-0784-27oto
FINANCIAL INfORMATION: (EXPUIIN� g. AST = 4 t 6 � OOQ
C, CIB 95 = 50,000