96-704L �- ��f���i���
CITY 4F ST. PAUL
.,.� ; . ;,. :�-
���czz FF�,� �o. q L . � 0�
By �. U
Fiie �io. 5 � iiGi
Voting W�r�l l
In the MatEer of Reeonstruotian of sidewalk on hoth sides ICent St.
£rom Ashland Av�. to fiolly AYe=
F3� ►,.r� � �, s : Y
RESiDENTIAL RATES {(1ne, two or three family atructures)
Reaor�atruat3on {replacement of old sidewalk) -$7.21 t�er €rant fu�t fur s
five {5; foot wic3e walk and $8,64 per frant fcot for a�ix ;6) ..c�t -rriue
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordinq_ly. Nea aatsatruation
{where no walk axisted} - 100� of the aatual C09t esti.mated to be
approx�ately $3.23 per square foot.
iill corner residential properties vtill recaiee s credit up to the first 154
feet of new or reconstruated sidewalk along and abutting the "long side" o€
the �rap2rty,
m_r._rr.mr_gFarr�rnrrrnr.(p�re than three family e3truatures}, Non?- a� T� NTTAi. AT .^
Fas new and recona+ructed aidewalk; 100� of aatual coat esti.mated to be
epproximate2y $9.35 per �quare foot.
The Council af the City of Saint Paul having reoeived the report of the Mayar ugan
the aYrove improvement, and haviny vonsidered said rapart, herEby resalves:
1. That tha said report and the same is herehy approved with no
a2ternatives, ei7d tYtet tre sstimatad cost thereof is *SEE �EflVL for
estimated conatruatian ratea, financed by a�sesaments and 1996 Public
Impravement.Aid.
2.
3
That a pui>lic hearing be had on said improvement on the 7th day
of Augu�t, 1996, at 4:30 o`clook P.M., in the Council Chambers of *he
City xell and Court House Buildinc} 1n the City of Saint Paul.
That notice of said public hearina be given to the persans �nd in the
monner prcvided by the i:hartar, 9tatin7 tl time ar�c� �,lace Ui i�earing,
the nature of the impravemznt and the total cost thereof aa estimatecl.
Ye��
f�akey
��ostrom
Guerin -
� r��
� r gard
�ttman
Thune -
Nays
�10SeN�
�bsev.�
P()B(lSNF�
Adopted by Council; Date '�C L�� �
JUL 1 � 9996
certifisd Pas�sd by Council 3ecretary
S In Favor
� Against
� � �s ev��'
�Y . i-''t ��
� �
��
Mayox
Public Hearing Date — Au ust 7, 1996 RE 5-31-96 q� O�
�EPARIMENT/OFFICFJCOUNGIL DATEINITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. ��`���
Publ'�c Works Sidewalks 3-5-96 INITIAUDATE� W
CONTACTPEqgOIJdPHONE �DFPAPTMENTDIRECTOfl CI7YCOUNGL - w 23
ThomasP.Keefe-266-6121 ���N �qiYATTOflNEY �cmc�aK
NVMBERfOR
MUST HE ON COUNCIL AGBNDA BY (�A7E) ( ( pDUTiN6 � BUDGET OIRECTOR � FW. S MGT. SERVICES OIR,
Must be in Council Researcfi Office �� MAYOA(OftASSiSTMfi) t Cwna7 Research
no later than noon Frida 6-7-96 ❑ 0
TOTALR OF SIGNATUHE PAGES S _(CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOH SGNATURE) � ASSOCIA7E � DEPARTMENT Ni
ACTION flEWESTED
Raconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 1(Sea attached listj
File No. 596001
aECOMMtiNOn7aas: nqxow (W a ae�ea (�ry PERSONAL 3EAVICE CONTAACTS MUST ANSWER THE FDLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PtAtJNING COMMISSION ,_CML 9ERVICE CAMMf3StOti t. Has this pers Ne worked under a contraet tw ihis depertrneni4
YE
_CIB COMMItiEE _ 2. Has this pe�rs NFl rye�ver been a ciry employee7
Y
A STqFF 3. Does Nis parsoNfirm possess a skill no[ noimaliy possessed by any current ciry
— — employee?
=oisrp�cscourfc«. g v6s N6
SUPPOFTS WNICH COUNCII O&IECTNEI �P�nln all yas enswan on saperato ahoN and atUCh to grwn �hoat
Neighborhoods Ward 1
INITIATING PROBLEM. ISSUE.OPPORTUNIN (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY):
The probfem "deiective sidawaik" was creaied because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade materiaf, alternating freeAhaw cycles,
service 1'rfe limits, chemical addkives, e�ctreme tamperature variations, etc. These probiems oxur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an ann�al basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewaik condition wouid worsen to a state where it wouid be
rendered unusable and subjed to increased pedestrian injuries from talis and possible iftigations.
P➢4AN7AGESIFAPPROVED: '
The community will benefft from this project because it will provide safe detect free sidewaiks tor Rs many citizens. The sidewaik
contracis are executed by private contractors, sa it follows that private sector jobs are created as a result of thls activity.
DfSADVANTAGES iF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewafk reconstructions have created negative teedback 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 subsldized, it still
remains controversial.
G�t �>,,. �,�„n--
,��.,'sl ���:�,_.;_.ecP� ��ii�r
�ti$iAY � 1 1�396
OISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allowthe infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which fn tuiri; wil�generate more personal injury suits,
uftimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as ciaim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTFiANSACTION$ � 3$$,00 COST/HEVENUEBUDGETEO(CIRCLEONE) YES No
FUNDINGSOURCE 9b-M-0665 A. PtA 96 � 535.0�0 ACIT4ITYNUMBER C96-21728-0784-2 Oit
FWANCWLINFOftMATION;(EXPLA�M ' " Q AST = 432 �000 "
C. C16 96 = 50,000