95-507;._ L
OR1GI�iA�.
a7
CISY OF ST. PAIIL COUNCIL ILE NO 9e� S� /
PgSLZHIHA$Y 0&DSB By � '�'7�
File o. 5052 fi S9 53
Vot ng War 1 �
In the �Satter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the Eollowing location(s):
595052 - on the west side Virginia St. from Laurel Ave. to Selby Ave.
595053 - on both sides Virginia St. from Summit Ave. to Laurel Ave.
. . �Cr
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three familp structures)
&eeonstrnction (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) - 1��% 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 sidecaalk 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
approximatelp $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 [he Sth_ day
of July, 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
the manner provided
hearing, Che nature
as estimated.
GOUNCILPERSONS
Yeas Nays
„Blakey
i� Gsimm
�C�ueiin pItG114A��
� � Harris
✓r}egard J�� �p 1995
�/Rettman
� hune
public hearing be given to the petsons and in
by the Gharter, stating the time and place of
of the improvement and the total cost thereof
Adopted by Council: DaCe �, � 5
�+�5 cr�
t� Certified Passed by Council S retary
�In Favor
0 Against
� i�bs�,��
,[' ...__. � , . �. .. .
,�I�I��+'1�!�:� x- -�'�r�
. � _
rF �
..
Public Hearin Date — Jul 5 1995 RE 4=28-95 7S s� 7
DEPAflTMENUOFFICE/COUNCIL OATE INITIAiED G R E E N S H E ET � N O. ����
Public Works Sidewalks 4-1495 INITIAVDATE i rruwnr�
COMAC7PERSONEPNONE nDEPARTMENTDIqECTOR �CIiYCOl1NCI
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 nssGN x r�� �����
NUMBERFOR LJCffYATTORNEV �CRYCLERK �
MUST9EpNCOUNCILAGENDABY�AIE) 5-17-95 p��� �BUOGEfDIRECTOR �FIN.&MGT.SEflVICESDIR
Must be in Council Research Office °i�p � MAYOR(ORMSSl57AM) t� Cou�il Azsearch
no later than noon Frida
TQTAL # OF S(GNATURE P0.GES 1 ! (CIlP ALL IOCAiIONS FOR SIGNANRE� � ASSOCU47E � DE Ri7dENTAL ACCOf1NTANT
ACTIONREWESiED -� � �
Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward 1(See attached list)
Fi1e Nos. 595052-53
flECOMAfENDATiONS: Apprrne (A) w flejaa (R) pEFiSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANS WER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _CNiL SERVICE COMMiSSION i. Naa th�s Pe S� NOef wOrked uRder a Gontfdct f0[ t(tis depertment?
YE
_C18 GOMMViTEE _ 2. Has this p ES� NO er been a ciry employee?
V
A srpFF 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not p nor�ma `/ lty� 1 p�o - ssessed by arry curren[ ciry
_OISTflICTCOUNpL- � _ employee? YES NO 1ZCl.I'�
SUPPOqTS WHICH COUNCIL 09JECTNE7 EuP�ain all yes answars on separete sheet and aLf�acTi id .aet,�
Neighborhoods Ward 1 �aY � �gg,
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORNNITY (WHO, WIiAT, WHEN, WHEflE. W4fn: � �
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternatfngTree/thaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variaiions, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide 1eve1 and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk cond'Rion would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGES IP APPROVEfI:
Tne community 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 ihat private sector jobs are crealed as a resuR of this activity.
DISADVAMAGES IP 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.
;&:rttc;:•;""i ' , ,
b.��k,44�ex �.._.. _ « s :''.._ _
f, I�`i", '� n ^n^-
t': � [ . L, . t � . .�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO:
This option would allow 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.
T07ALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONE 2 9>9$$.OD COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES NO
FUNDINGSOURCE 95-M-0664 A, P�A 95 *= 575,000 pCRVITVNUMBER C95�2T727-o784-27oto
FINANCIAIINFORMATION:(EXPLA�N) B, AST = 7 �OOO
C, CIB 95 = 50,000