95-510� � ORIGlNAL 3a
CIYY OF SY. PAIIL COIINCZIr FI N0. 5- Sli/
PEELZHIHAgY OBDEE By I� �I�'G
File No. 595064 - 595073
Voting Ward 3
In the 1Katter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
595064 - on both sides Bayard Ave. from Davern St. to S. Wheeler St.
S950b5 - on both sides Brimhall St. from Jefferson Ave. to Palace Ave.
595066 - on both sides Brimhall St. from Palace Ave. to Randolph Ave.
595067 - on both sides Brimhall St. from Stanford Ave. to Jefferson Ave.
595068 - on both sides Davern St. from St. Clair Ave. to Stanford Ave.
595069 - Sidewalk construction (new) on west side South Finn St. from
Pinehurst Ave. to approx. 125' south of Pinehurst Ave.
595070 - at 1789 and 1795 Ford Parkway.
595071 - on west side South Snelling Ave. from Jefferson Ave. to James Ave.
and east side South Snelling Ave. from Jefferson Ave. to Randolph
Ave.
595072 - on both sides South Snelling Ave. from St. Clair Ave. to Jefferson
Ave.
595073 - on both sides Watson Ave. from Macalester St. to Davern St.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reeonstrnction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.04 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $8.46 per front foot for a sist (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be protated accordingly. Hev eonstrnction
(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 of new or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of
the property.
MULTI-RESZDENTIAL(More than three family sCructures), NOI3-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 10�% of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.25 per square foot.
°/S �l�
�������-�.
�Uf� 10 �99�
The Council of the Gity 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 the Sth day
of July, 1995_, at 3:30 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of
the CiCy 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
akey
imm
G}�e rin
✓}H �'ris
� gard
�R� ttman
t�hune
Adopted by Council: Date � �
�b✓n�
Certified Passed byCouncil Secretary
�In Favor
Q Against
Y ��Sen"�'
✓
Public Hearing Date - Jul 5, 1995 RE 4-28-95 ( r � - k � 1 � ,� ��- J r .-
DEPARTMENT/OFFICFICOUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET /� v NO. 31576
Publ'�c Wor1cs Sidewalks 4-1495 �NITIAL/DATE �� INITIALlDATE
NTACT PERS�N R PFi�NE � DEPARTMENT OIRECTOR � CIT! CAUNGL
ThomasP.Keefe-266-6121 ��N �CRYATfOflNEY �CflYC4ERK
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DA NUM6ER GOR
5-17-95� qOUT�� �BUDGETDIflECTOR �FIN.&MGLSERVICESDiq,
Must be in Council�esearc Office �
no later than noon Friday 5-5-95 �MAYOfl(ORMSSISTANTJ t� Council Aesearch
TOTAL/OFSIGNANREPAGES I ! (CLIPALLLOCA710NSFORSIGNATUR� � ASSOCIAiE DE FiNENiALACCOUMTANT
ACTION fiEWESTED �?y— jC
Construct & Reco�struck Sidewalk in Wazd 3(See attached list) cl
File Nos. 595064-73
RECOMMENDATIONS: Ppprove (W o� Rejea (� pERSONAL SEHVICE CANTRACiS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING 6UESTIONS:
_PLANNING COMMISSION _qViL SERVICE COMMISSION �� � m� PeE NQe� worked under a contrect for rt�is departrnent?
Y
_CIB WMMITiEE 2 Has ihis persoNfirm ever been a ciry employee?
— YES NO
A S7AFF 3. Daes ihis persaVfirm possess a skill not normalty possessed by arry curren[ ciry
— employee?
_DISTRICTCOUNCI4— ].�{�]. YES NO
SUPPORiS WHICH CWNCIL OBJECTNE? �P�ain ail yes answers on separeta sheet aM aitach to green shaet
Nei hborhoods Ward 3
INITIATING PR06LEM, ISSUE. OPPOflTUNIN (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE. WH1�:
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, aRernating free/thaw cycles,
service I'rfe limBs, chemical additives, 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 subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The 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 that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
�ISADVANTAGES 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.
��tY;':,:f ��_..__..., , ...�. ,`�.;
�.; .+:: . ':,v_
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would alfow the infrastructure of sidewaik stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
ukimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUMOFTflANSACf10N5 S� 3 .00 COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CiRCLEONE) YES NO
FUNDINGSWACE 95-�,-o6bb A. PfA 95 = 535,00o ACftVRVNUMBER C�j�2 2—� `13�F-2 ���
FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) B� AsT = 476,000
C, CIB g5 = 50,000