95-599�
� �- QRIGlNAL ,� G
�
CITY OF SS. PABL COUN �Z N0. 9�
PEELIHIAABY OEDSE By �IS�L
File No. S95 7- 595078
4oting Ward 3
In the Matter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
595076 - on the east side S. Albert St. from Juliet Ave. to Palace Ave.
595077 - on the north side Graham Ave. £rom Sue St, to Norfolk Lane.
595078 - Elimination of driveway and replace with standard curb, per
property owner request, at 1927 Juliet Ave.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Beconstrnction (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.04 per £ront 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. l�iew constrnction
(where no walk existed) - 100q 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-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.
9�' � y
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 Che estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOV&
for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and
1995 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 2nd day
of August, 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
Che 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
�Blakey
Grimm
�Guerin
�arris
gard
Rettman
��hune
a� iai reucn
Adopted by Council: Date__��.,� *� �q°t5
\_ 1
C�'Ser��
Certified Passedby Council Secretary
�
� In Favor By a, ,�
C� Against ����
t � Mayor
� N�t2se,.S°Y
Jtll -11995
Public He
WOfk3 $Id8W2�EC5
- Au ust 2, 1945 RE 5-26-95
—" on��NRw�o �GREEN SHEET
C_0_OC
�r renaun a rrunt � pEPqpTMENT DIREC70R
as P. Keefe - 266-6121 ^�cN � crtv arroru�er
NUMBER FOR
=ONCOt1NCtl_AGENOABY(DKfEI 6-14-g5 R �BISDGETDIAECTOA
t be in Council Research Office � MAYOR(OflASSISTANn
later than noon Fr'da 6-2-95 ❑
I OF SGNANRE PAGES _ j _(CL1P ALL LOCATIONS PoF SIGNATUR� n�SOCIATE
p,� s-s9y
J NO.
WRIAL/DATE
CfiY COUNCiL
crrrc�a�c
FW. S MGT. SEflVICES D10.
Couna7 Research
� pE ALACCOUNTANT
��lA,
Reconstruct Sidewaik 8� Elimination of Driveway 8 Replace Wnh Standard Curb in Wazd 3(See attached list)
Eile No. 595076-78
PLANNINGWAIMiSSION �_CNILSEflVICECdMMIS510N
STAFF _
DIStR1C7COliNCIL— ],1Y� }�
DRTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE7
PERSONAL SERViCE COKSRAC7S MUST AtiSYlEpTF{E FOLIOWING QIIESTIONS:
7. Has this �ES� NO er worked untler a convact tw this deParunent7
2. Haa this p NO er h0en a ciry empioYee7
V
3. Does this parson/firm possess a skilt not normalty possessed by arry wrcent ciry
employee7 �
YES NO
Ezplain all yas answan on separata shaet aM attaeh to graan shaat
The problem 'defective sidewalk' was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating free/thaw cycles,
service I'rfe limits, chemicai addftives, 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 condftion would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
The community will benefft trom this project because it wili provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by pr+vats contractors, so R Sotlows ihat private sector jobs are created as a result ot this activity.
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 controversia4.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPqOVED:
This option would a1Vow the infrastructure of sidewatk stock to deteriorate, wfiich 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.
ii `�'!'�� � �e': �
��i�,'! ( � t�`.�'�
FUNDWGSOURCE 95-M-0664 A. P�A 95 ° 515,000
FINANCIAL INFOPMATION: (EXPLAIN) B � AS T =� � 6� OOO
C. CIB 95 = 50,000
COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE)
ACITVRVNUMBEA
NO
�