95-508l- L
Cl2Y OF SR. PAIIL
PBEI.IHIAAEY OgDSB
4RIG{NAL ,���� a � p�
,n(�� BQU �ZL FILE SOO
� `! `
` � � 9Y / ( ,���:-P ���� �
F�le No. S95054 - 595057_
Voting Ward 6
In the ?latter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
59505G - on the north side East Hawthorne Ave. from Flandrau St. to
Breen St. and at 1724 East Hawthorne Ave.
595055 - on both sides East Hyacinth Ave, from Rennard St. to Breen St.
595056 - on both sides East Lawson Ave. from Earl St. to Duluth St.
595057 - on both sides East Orange Ave. from Flandrau St. to Breen St.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structuzes)
Beconstruction (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 constraction
(where no walk existed) - 100% of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.15 per square foot.
A11 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-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100Y of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.25 per square foot.
��-so 8'
vI IRI (sue� i
JUP310 1995
The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the Mayor
upon the above improvement, and having cousidered 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 �3t-�i— day
of July, 1995 , at 3:30 o`clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of
the City Aall and Court Aouse 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.
COUNCSLPERSONS
Yeas Nays
� lakey
Grimm
�Guerin
;�Harris
�Megard
�Rettman
�une
Adopted by Council: Date_����
��p.scr��
� Certified Passed by Council Secretary
�In Favor
_�Against
I �1�sTr��
.� �� �►_ �
�'�'�.1����!� !
.
Public Hearin Date - Jul S 1995 RE 4-28-95 �'p 9� S� d
DEPAflTMENLOFFICElCAUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET � NQ. ��
Public Works Sidewalks 4-1495 iNinnuoarE �l INRIAVDATE
CONTACTPERSONSPHONE DFPARTMENTDIRECTOR ❑CfTYCOUNGL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 A�C'N an nnoaNEr ❑ ar� c�aic
NUMBFR FOR
MUST9EONCOUNCILAGENDABV(DA7E) 5-17-95 ��T�� BUDGETDIRECTOfl �FIN.BMGT.SEFVICESDIP
Must be in Council Research Office �R MAVOFi(OflASSISTAPfT) 1� Coundl Research
no later than noon Frida 5-5-95 �
TOTALYOFSIGNATUREPAGE3 1 _ (CIJPALLLOCATIONSFOR9GNATIIR� � ASSOCIATE RTMENTALACCOUNTANT
ACTpN pEWESTED �Z
Reconstruct Sidewaik in Ward 6(See attached list)
File Nos. S95054-57
RECOMMENDATIONS: ApproVB (!Q n/ RejetS (RJ PERSONAL SERVICE CANTRACTS MUST ANSWEfl THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
PLANNING COMMISSIDN _CNIISERYIGE GOMMISSION �• H az �� �S � NO� WDrked uflder a Contiact for itli5 deparUnent?
_CIB COMMITfEE _ 2• Ha5 this p E son/fi Ne�ver been a ciry employee?
Y
A STA _ 3. Does mis pe�son/firm possess a skill not normalty possessed 6y any current ciry
— 5 employee?
DISTR�CTCOUNqL— Z� VES NO
SUPPOR7S WHICH COUNCIL O&IECTNE? �P�ain all yes answeB on separate sh6et aifd attaeh to gr6en sheet
Neighborhoods Ward 6
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORiUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WFiY):
The probiem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freefthaw cycles,
service I'rfe limits, chemical add'Rives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems 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 subjeci to increased pedestrian injuries from talis and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPAOVED:
The community will benefiit from this project because it wiil provide safe detect free sidewalks for fts many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it follows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
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 faet up to one-half the assessment is Gity subsidized, it still
remains controversial. �-��°�°`� '' �
- ir.,._�. ._yd,,.,�,„,'e W _.. _,.
�i�:�a ki J �i�1'��
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
❑Rimatety resulting in the expendfture of {arger dolfar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as wel! as claim payouts.
TOTALAbIQUNTaFTRANSAC710N5 22,934.0o COST/fiEVENUEBUDGETED(CIPCLEONE) VES NO
FlJNDMGSWHCE 95-M�o664 A, PIA 95 = 515,000 pCRVRYNUMBER C95-2T727-0784-27oto
fINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPLAIM B. AST = 416 �000
c. GIB 95 = 50,000