96-748.
�L �RIGII�yL
3,5
CIR7C OF ST. pAUL COUNCIL FILE NO. ��� ` 4 g
DRVT.TYTAianv (��� � - i °'
FiIL Ncs, 8��43i
Votina ward 6
Za ths Ma�tter af SidewalK reconstrution at the fallowing locrxtion(s}:
S96Q91 - on tha sauth side of E. Hcyt Ave. frem McAf2e St, to
Clarence St. at 1563 Clarence St. onlv.
lult � i s i
RF$TDFNTTA7 nT (C}ne, two or three family atructures)
ReconsExuetion {replacement of old sidewalk} - g7,p1 per front foot for s
five {5) foot wide walk and $8.54 per frant foot for a eix {6} foat wide
wa2k. A21 other widths will be prt�rated a�cordingly. New conatruetioa
(where no walk existed} - 100� of the actual co�t e�ti.mated to be
a�pre�ximately $3.�3 per sr��are foct.
n21 corner re�i�3entiel praperties wi11 recEive s credit up to the first 250
feet of new vr recon�tructed sidewslk �slong snd abutting the "2ang �ide" nf
tha property.
?'?UT F T� �mTnT (MOre tY�an three family structures), NoN- x: rn ra TnT nm �
Fc,r new and reconstrueted sidewalk; lOdg �,f aetual aost estimated tc, be
approximately $4.35 per square foot.
ld�i�11V��
�fL-?`�lS�
The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the re�ort of the Mayar u�n
the al�ove improvement, and having considered �aid re_port, hera}�_v resolves:
1. That the said report and the same is hereby appraved with no
alternative9, and that the estimatea cost theraof is *SEE AB04�
for estimateci canstruation rates, financed by assessments and
1996 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on 9aid improvement on the 28th day of
August, 1996, at 4:30 o'c2ock P.M., in the Council Chamber� of the City
Hall and Court House Building in th� City of Saint Faul.
3. That notice of said public henring be given to the persons and in the
menner provided by the Charter, stating the time anc� place of hearinq,
the nature af the improvemsnt and the total coat thereof a� e�timat��.
COUNCILPEftS4NS
Yeas Ngy$
�akey
�BOStrom
�erin
�rrie
�gard
�t�tman
�F�ne
Adopted by Council: Date�\ V l l��
Ce:tified Pa�usd by Coancil 5�cretary
l In Favor By -� Q � �
� Against � �
Mayor
P(!R(ISHEp
JUL 2 � �gg�
' Public Hearing Date - August 28, 1996 RE 6-21-96
DEPARTMENT/OFPICFJCOUNqL DATEINITIATED ��EEN SHEET NO.
Public Works Sidewalks 4-12-96 INITIAL/DATE MITIAIIDATE
CANTACTPERSONdPHONE ; �DEPARTMENTDIPECTOft �CfiYCOUNCIL
ThomasP.Keefe-266-6121 A��N �CfTYATTORNEY �CITYCLERK
NUMBEAFOA
MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA 8Y (OATE) ]-1 O-9 6 pO11TIMG � BUDGET DIRECTOR � FIN. 8 MGT. SERVICES DI
Must be in Council Research Office °� ,.,,,,, .
no later than noon Frida 6-28-96 ; ��� MAYOR(OFASSISTANn ("�_ al Researd�
TO?AL ( Or SIG!lATl1AE FAGES _ 1 _(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR `"1GNATURE) � ASSOCIAiE �.: ='4RT7AEP�A1 M1CCOUNTAM
;F:TIOY REWESTED ��' �-JS_��
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 6(See attached list)
File No_ 596031
RECAMM'c�DATIONS: Apprcve (Aj or Re�ect (R) pEpgONAI SERYfCE CO�TflACTS R5UST AuSK eR THE FOLLOYr'-!1G QUESTiONS:
_ P(ANNING COMMISSION _CIVIL SEflYICE CAMMISSION 7. Haz this pe N�� NO ef Worked Und9r 2 CAn[f3c[ fOf this depa:im2n[?
Y
CIB CoMMITiEE 2. Has ihis persoNfirm ever been a ciry emp;oyee?
— YES NO
A STAFF 3. Does ihis person/(rm possess a skill not normally posses5=d by any current ciry
— — employea7
DISTPICTCOUNQL— Z � YES NO
SUPPORTS WNICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE? �P�aln ail yes ansvears on saparate she5t and atlach to gmen shaa!
Neighborhoods Ward 6
INITIATIYG PROBIEN, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (WHO. NhIAT. WHEN, WHERE, WHY):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, akernating freefthaw cyr.��s,
service life limits, chemical addkives, wctreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and crorrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewaik condRion would worsen to a state where it would be
rendarad unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries trom falls and possibie litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The community wiii benefit from this project because R wili provide safe detect tree 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.
DISAOVANTAGES IF APPROVE�:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedura and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the tact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
��:l��C� �'`�'��.�,n.(�`3 �';�<e�'
JJf�' � 1 i9��
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure oi sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
ultimately resulting in [he expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTRANSACTIONS 426.00 COST/REVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLEONE) YES wo
FUNDINGSOURCE 96-M-o665 A, PIA 96 = 535,00o pCITVRYNUMBER Cg6-2T728-o784-2701t
FINANCIALINFOftMATION:(EXPLAIN) B, AST = 432 �OQO
C, CIB 9 6 = 5 0,000