95-600G
� � �.
Cl2Y OF ST. PAIIL
PFBLIHIBABY 0&DEH
ORfG{N,qL COIINC��FILE N0. /�l ���
- - BY �_�.�.�..»
File No S95084-92; 595099-1
Doting Ward 7 3/J �D
In the Matter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
595084 - on the south side Conway St. from Flandrau St, to North White
Bear Ave.
595085 - on both sides East Fourth St. from Flandrau St. to N. White
Bear Ave.
595086 - on the west side Gotzian St. from East Third St. to East
Fourth St.
S95087 - on both sides Margaret St, from Atlantic St, to .Tohnson Pkwp.
595�88 - on both sides Margaret St. from Auluth St. to Atlantic St.
S95089 - on both sides East Sixth St. from Hancock St, to Go[zian St.
S95090 - on the south side Stillwater Ave. fzom N. Ha2e1 St, to N.
Ruth St.
595091 - on the south side Stillwater Ave. from N. Ruth St. to Nokomis
Ave.
595092 - on both sides East Third St. from Pedersen St. to N. Howard St.
595099 - on the west side of Ruth St. £rom Stillwater Ave. to Case Ave.
595100 - on the north side Stillwater Ave. from Hazel St. to N. Ruth St.
595101 - on the north side Stillwater Ave. from N. Ruth St. to Nokomis Ave.
� #�
� :�
��
*ESTIMATED CONSTRIICTION RATES
g ,�� � �
:
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Beeoasirnctipn (replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.04 per front foot for a
fine (5) foot wide walk and $8.46 per front foot for a sis (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordinglp. Hev eoastrncEioa
(where no walk egisted) - 1009 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 neA or reconstructed sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" of
�b�the property.
MULTI-RESIDENTIAL(More than three family sCructures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be
appioximately $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 eonsidered 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
3.
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 Aouse Building in the City of Saint Patsl.
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
✓ Blakey
s. mm
�erin
Harris
��� gard
V Rettman
�/i
P�IRt reuGn
JUL -1 i995
Rb � �,�--
�
�In Favor
QAgainst
� ��Oseri'�'
Adopted by Council: Date���
Certified Passed by Couneil Secretary
By d, _
���A�
Public Hearing Date — Au ust 2, 1995 RE 5-26-95 �J`� �i 0
DEPAflTMENTlOFFICER',OUNqL �^� ��T�^�� G R E E N S H E ET r, o. � 15a o
Pubiic Works Sidewalks 5-9-95 n�mnuoa� 7NRWJDATE
CONTACTPEIiSONiPFfONE �pEpqpT�AENTDIPECTOR �CIIYCOUNCIL
ThomasP.Keefe-266-6127 ��N CT'A'RORNEY �CfiYCLEFK
wurseoHCOUricx.�riwarroA� 6-14-95 oure�icwx ❑
�N- � BUDGE7 DiAEC70R � FIN. S/AGT. SEPVICES O10.
Must be in Council Research Office �� MpyOR(ORASSISTAN� � Coundl Research
no later than noon Frida 6-2— ❑
TOTI1Li OF SIGNANRE FAGES 1 ,(CIJPl�7,L LOCATIONS FOR 9GNATURE) � ASSOCIA7E � DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTANf
ACTIONPEIXIES7ED l� )�„�
Reconstrud Sidewalk in Ward 7(See attached 1'�st) �
File No. 595084-92, 595099-101
RECOMMENDATIONS:I�Wa9 (Iq or Aejeti lA) PERSONAL SERVICE COMHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
PLPHNtNG COMMISSION _CNIL SERVICE COMM�SSION �� � m� peES fi Ne Worked undBf a contrac[ for this departrfien[?
Y
,CIB COAIMI7TEE 2. Has this pareonlfirtn ever been a dry employee?
— YES NO
A STAFF 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normalty possessed by any curren[ city
— employee? �
DISTRICiCWNGI— 1� 2��},_ YES NO
SUPPORTS WHfCH CWNCilO&tECTNE4 Explefn all yas anawera on sapareta sheat and attach b green shwt
Neighborhoods Ward 7
INRIATN6 PflOBLEM, ISSUE, OPPOflT1Nf1Y (Wr10, WHAT, WHEN. WHERE, Wlil�:
The problem 'defective sidewalk' was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, aRemating freeRhaw eycles, "
service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a cBywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition wouid worsen to a state where it would be -
rendered unusabie and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries from falis and possibie IAigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: , .
The community witt benefit from this projact 6ecause it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it fotlows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPqOVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simpiy stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite tha fact up to one•haff the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPPOVED:
This option would aliow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wiil generate more personai injury suits,
uRimately resulting in the expenditure of Iarger dollar amounts in event al repairs and/or repla�e ment, as weil as claim payouts.
��J'cFi1SE� v�`c�9"sv?r:a"s &oi"��"�
�+^ r
C:""s.�'Y � � iy��
TOTALAlAOl7NSOFTRANSACTIONS 61.067.0o COSTlREVENUEBUDGETEO(CIRCLEONE) YES No
RINDINGSOURCE 95-M-0664 A, PPA 95 = 575,�00 pCRVRYNUMBER C95-ZT727-0784-270
FPJANCIAL INFORMATION: (E%PLAIM B. AST � 4 7 6 � OOO
C, CIB 95 � 50,000