96-749� 1� �� f t � � � � 0� �
�
CIR7L OF ST. PAUL Cpr�7 [ FII, NO `�p ����
PRELIl�71RY ORDER gY �� {'(i�� l.� \
F�iE ra�. ssEa�s—�a
Vating V�erd 3
Zn tho t�sttar oP Sidewalk reconstrution at the following lxation(aj:
595035 - on the north side BerY.e2ey Ave, from 5. Hs�2±n� Ave.
to S. Albert Ave. at 1345 Serkeley Ave. only.
596U36 - on the north side Colvin Ave. from Davern St. to
Fiilltop i,ane.
895037 - on the east aide af Davern �t. from Palace Ave. to spprax.
143 feet north of Palaee Rve.
596038 - on the south sic�e Fairmount Ave. from S. S• St.
to 3. Aamline Aae. at 1336 Fairmount Ave. anly.
596Q39 - on the n�rth aic3e Fard Pkwy. fresm S, Snelling Ave. to
Macalester St. at 1e`31 Ford Pk6Ty, Ori�.]T.
s9o`090 - on tne cvest side s. saratoga St. from St. Cisir Ave.
tc Stanfard Ave. at 2522 at. �`lsir ?:�a. or.Iy.
_ lu�.. .. _. .. • , r ., _ s u
RF.RTDENTTDT. AT G�pne, two or three family structures}
Racaastruction (replacement of old sidewaikj -$7.21 per front foat far a
five ;5} foot wide .valk and $8.54 per frent foot f�r a si� {�) faot wide
vralk. All other widths wili be gsoratec"s aocorciingly. IiwoP casatruction
(where no fralk e:isted) - 200� of the aatual cost e�timated to be
approximately $3,23 per square foot.
R11 cornar residential pranerties will receive a credit up to the first 150
feet �,f new or rEVOn3truvte�i sidEwalk elony and abutting the "l�ng �i�e" �f
the property,
NRiT.TT—RA' TD nr Fz,r (More than three family struatures), Arora � s �msnT nm �
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100�k of actua3 co�t esti.mated ta be
approximately $3,35 per square foot.
�RIGI��►AI
��-��fq
The counci2 cf the City of Ssint Fau3 having received the repe:rt cf the Mayor vpun
the above improvsment, and havin_q aonsidered said report, hereby resolvea:
l. That the said re»art and the seme is hereby approved witL na
altern�tives, arid that the e9timated aost ttiereof is *SEE �6VE
for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and
1996 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be i�ad on said improvement on the 28th day of
Auqust, i99£, at 4:30 o'clock F.M., in the Council Chsafber� of the City
Hall and Court Aou�e Buildinq in the City of Saint Paul.
3, That notiGe of aaid public hearing be given to the pernona and in the
manner provided by tne �harter, statinc� the time an� placE af hearing,
+.he naturP of ths improvement and th� �ot_8� G�st these�f as estimated,
L`QUNCiLFERSONS
Yeas Nays
�lakey
�tostrom
✓U`serin
�rris
�y ard
�ettman
v'L�hune
Adopted by Counoi2: Date 3`q`��
Certifie� P�ssa3 by Cnuncil 3 atz�ry
� In Favor By � �_ a �,.,_�
dAgainst /(�, � �2„"""�
Mayor
����
JUL 201986
. �. �: ..�,,,,��...�, . ..� .� . ....., .
Public Aearing Date - August 28, 1996 RE 6-21-96 �{'� �' �I - �359 q
DEPAPTMENbOFFICE/COUNCII �qTEINITIATEO GREEN SHEET (� NO.
Public Works Sidewalks 5-��-96 INITIAUDATE INITIAUDATE
CONTACTPERSONSPHONE �DEPAflTMENTDiRECTOfl �CIttfAUNCIL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6521 ASSIGN ❑ CITY ATTORNEY � CIN GLERK
NUMBERFOR
MUSTBEONCAUNCiIAC'+ENDABY(DATE) ] ROUTiNG �gUOGETDIRECTOR �FIN.dMGT.SERVICESDIR.
Must be in Council Research Office °qD�'
no later than noon Frida 6-28-96 �MAYOR(ORASSISTANn �Covnal Research
TOTAI Y OFSIGNATURE PAGES 1 __ (CLIP ALL LOCAi10NS WR SIGNATURE) � ASSOCIATE DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTANi
ACTIONPEQUESiEO —_ �
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 3(See attached list) ��
File Nos. 596035-36-37-38-39-40
aECOMh�ENDATiONS: n�yrove tW or Rejaa (H) pERSONAL SERVICE COMfRACT3 MUST ANS WEq TNE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_PLANNINGCOMMISSION _CNILSEFVICE COMMISSION �� H � �� �ES � NOer worked under a contrac( fo� this departrnent7
_Ci9 COMMI77EE �_ 2. Has Ihis �ES ��� NO ef �en a ciry employee?
A S7AFF 3. Does ihis persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any curren[ ciry
_DISTflICTCAUNqL — 1/{ � 1j_ Bf�ployee? YE$ NO
SUPPORTS WHIC{I COUNCIL OBJECTNE? Explaln ail yes enswBls on Separate ShBei and aliath lo green Sheet
Neighborhoods Ward>3,����
INITIATING PROBI,EM, ISSUE, OPPOqNN17Y (WHO, NMAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating iree/thaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These probiems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state whera it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries irom falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPqOVED: �
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide sate detect free 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.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simply siated, property owners detest assessments, and despite the fact up to one-half the assessment is City subsidized, it siill
ramains controversial.
Ct�atrcil R�s��.�ch C�na�r
JUN 21 1996
DISADVANTAGE9IF NOi APPROVE�:
This option would aifow the iMrastructure of sidewa{k stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personaf injury suits,
uftimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTALAMOUNTOFTHANSACTIONS 2�F COST/pEVENUEBUDGETED(CI(iCLEONE) YES No
FUNDINGSOUACE j(3 A. PIA 96 � 5 ��0 ACITVI7YNUMBER C9b-2T728-0784-270�1
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPlA1N) B � AS T ° `�3 Z� OOO
C, CtB g6 = 50,000