95-639` ' �,
L L.
CIiY OF ST. PAIIL
PgSLIHIAAgY OgDSB
ORIGINAL
.
:'� ���.ap
� �
r , , �
Sheet 4131585
N0. ��
95079 - 595083
2
In the Matter of Sidewalk reconstruction at the following location(s):
595079 - on both sides Arbor St. from Jefferson Ave. to James Ave.
595080 - on both sides Armstrong Ave. from Osceola Ave. to W. Seventh St.
S95081 - on both sides Duke St. from Banfil St. to St. Clair Ave.
595082 - on both sides Victoria St. from James Ave. to Randolph Ave.
595083 - on both sides View St. from Juno Ave. to Armstrong Ave.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRIICTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
&econstrnction (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) - 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-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.
r
�rs � 3�
������
JUE.151995
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 AB04E
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
the manner provided
hearing, the nature
as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS
Yeas� Nays
✓Blakey
�� imm
✓G�yerin
✓�arris
�M gard
✓ Rettman
�/�hune
public hearing be given to
by the Charter, stating the
of the improvement and the
the persons and in
time and place of
total cost thereof
Adopted by Council: Date�, �y `\��
�bs ev��'
Certified Passed by Council Secretary
�� In Favor
� Against
� A��er�-
Bv .� a -.
// —�
�9'�/� �/� t/i:G�-G� l '--
,��/ �i.
�� Mayor
Public Hearin Date — Au ust 'L 1995 x� �—cb-7� —.� `o /
DEPAflTMENT/OFFICF/COUNCIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET No.
Rublic Works Sidewalks 5 INITIAVDATE INITIAUDATE
CONTACT PEPSON 8 PHONE � DEPARTMENT DIFlECTOR � CITY COUNCIL
ThomasP.Keefe-266-6121 ASSIGN ❑��7yp770RNEY �CINCLERK
NUMBFRFOR
MUSTBEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DAT� ( S R �gpp�ETDIRECTOH �PIN.&MGT.SEflVICESDiR
Must be in Council Research Office �µprOR(ORASS6STAN7� � Coundl Research
no later than noon Fr'da —2—
TOTALS'OFSIGNqNREPAGES 1 _(CLIPALLLOGATIONSFORSIGNATURE) � ASSOCIAiE � DEPAflTME ALACCOUNTANi
ACTION RE�UESTED �� � D'
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 2(See attached list)
����
Fi1e No. 595079-83
RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve (N or Reject (R) pERSONAL SERVICE COMRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS:
PLANNING CAMMISSION _CIVIL SERV�CE CAMMISSION 1. Has thls peEs Ne Wofked undEf a tontfaC[ for this deparMent?
— Y
CIB COMMITiEE 2. Has this persoNfifin eVer been a ciry employee?
— — YES NO
A S7AFF 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skiii not normalty possessed by any current ciry
— — emPloyee?
DIS7RiCiCOUNCIL— 9 YES NO
— — Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheat
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE?
Neighborhoods Ward 2 ��
INITIATING PflOBIEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNIN (WHO, NMAT, WHEN. WHERE, WHV):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating freefthaw cycles,
service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide levef and must be
addressed and crorrected on an annuai basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
qDVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewaik
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 sidewafk reconstructions have creaied negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simp�y stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
DISAOVANTAGES IF NOT APPflOVED:
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 doilar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
u''.,ES.'.:e.�! :..�.�_..`J.`'. :y .,,
,,� , _
�„�:Y w � d��3
TOTALAMOUNTOFTFANSACTION$ 39e� J•OO COSTlREVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE)_. YE No
FUNDINGSOURCE 9S A, PIA 95 = 515 � 00 � pCITVRYNUMBEH C95'2f�2�'0784-27610
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLA�N) B� AST = 7 � OOO
C, CIB 95 = 50,000