96-750�L
CITY OF 3R. PAUL
-- ■�u •
By
� N SSGCi�
inq ward 5
Ia ths Matter of Sidewalk reaonstrution at the follovring loaation(s):
596041 - on the xicrth side W. Cook Ava. from Marion St. to
valtier �t.
596Q92 - en the narth slde W. Cook Ave. fram Rice St, to
Albemarle St.
596043 - vn the gouth side W. Coak A�re, from Rioe St. to
Galtier St.
S96Q44 - on ths vrest side u7oodbridge St. fram vd. Cuaic Ave.
ta W. Jes9amine Ave, at 1091, 2097 and 1Q9g
woac�ri�ga °t. oni.y.
!I. r. . . � .. . i :.
37
��so
RF�rDFNTrAr AT �(6ne, twa ar thrae family structures)
Reaoaatruction {rep2acemeni of olct sidewaik) -$7,23 per fraszt foc,t f�r a
fiv� (5} foot wida walk und $8.64 per frant faot for a�ix ;6; fo�t wi3e
w$lk. All other widths wi11 be prorated accordlnc(].y. Necr aateatruetion
twhere no wa2k exi9ted) - I00� of the actual aost estimated to be
agproximately $3.23 per square foot.
ALi corner residential properties will receive a aredit u�+ t� the first 2�4
feet of new or reconatruated sidewalk along and abutting the "iong side^ of
thm property.
`���G�����.
�'Rn'T7'-s>F^�Tjj T T 7�,'��� '[h,flTl L31Y'@E fami2y S'�IllC'CllZ'@Sj � j�jQN- F. T NTT�T A 4`
For new end rECOnstructed sidewalk; 100� of actval cost estimatad to be
�PPr�����eZy $4.35 ger squsre fuot.
" � C` - �. ' ` � i
1� i : t' i t. i i�
� `-75�
The :.ouncil of tre C1ty of Sair.t Paul having reaeived the repart of the NFay�r upon
the above improvement, and having considered �aid report, hereb_y resolaes;
1. T2�at the sa3d report and the same is hereby approved with no
alternativea, and that the estimated oost thereaf ia *SEE AB�VE
for esti.mated construction rates, financed by assessments and
I996 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on said isnprovement on tt,e 26th day of
August, 1996, at 4:30 o'c2ock P.M., in the Counci2 cbamL+era of the city
Hall and Court House Building in the City of Saint Paul.
3. That notice vf 9aid publia herxring be given to the peraona �nd in the
man:i�x provided hy the charter, �tating the timE en� plac� �f heariny,
the nature af the improvement and the tata3 cost thereaf aa e9timatad,
CQLfitCILPEF.SflNB
Yees �' Nays
�#takey
✓
�Guerin
✓Harrie
�3eqard
vk'�ettman
�T`hune
1 In Favor
�Agair.st
e �f�RULWrn
r
a- ,lUL 2 0 1996
�
Adoptsd by Coun�s2: Data_ry`�� G�� Iso
Certified Passed by Counoil Secr ary
BY � � �
'�I,t, ZG
Mfl]+OI
° Public Hearing Date.—
DEPARTMENT/OFFICEICOUNCA
Public Works Sidewalks .
CONTACTPEHSON6PHONE
Thomas P. Keefe - 266•612i
MUS7BEONCOUNCILAGENDABY(DATEj ]—
Must be �n Council Rese
no_later than noon Erid
TOTAL Y OF SIGNANHE PAGES __
�?
RE 6-21-96
�il.m
r • ••
GREEN SHE�T
CITY ATTOflNEY �
BUOGET DIRECTOR
AIAYOR (OA ASSISTAN�
1 ___ (CIIP ALL LOCAT70N5 FOR SIGNATUiiE) u ASSOCIATE
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 5(See atiachad list)
FILE NOS. 596041-42-43-44
PLANNIN(3COMMISSION _CIVILSEpViCECOMMISSiON
CIB COMMITTEE _
STAFF �
DISTflICTCOUNCIL — ( _
'DpTS WNICH COUNCR OBJECTNE7
❑ CIIY COUNCIL�� !
❑ ciTr c�EaK
� FIN. E MGT. SERVICES
70 Counoil F
PEASONAL SEfiVICE CONTFACTS MUST ANSWEfl THE fOLLOWING OUESTIDNS:
1. Has this peEs Ne worked under a contract lor this deparunent7
Y
2. Has this p ES nRir Ne been a city employee7
Y
3. Doas ihis persoNfirm possess a Skill not normally possessed by any curren[ ciry
employeel
YES NO
Explaln ali yas qnswers on separate shaet and attach to graen sheat
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of iree roots, deleterious subgrada material, alternating treerthaw cyclas,
service I'rfe limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variaiions, etc. Thase problems occur on a citywide level and must be
addressed and corrected on an annuai basis. Left uncorrected, the sidewaik condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries irom falfs and possible fitigations.
The community will benefit from this project because ii wiil provide safe deteci Iree sidewalks for its many cifizens. The sidewaik
contracts are executed by private contractors, so it tollows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback 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 subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
���/.t[��i �'
This option would ailow the infrastructure of sidewalk stxk to deteriorate, which in iurn, wiil generate more personal injury suiis,
uitimately resulting in the expenditure oi farger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and/or replacement, as weN as claim payouts.
7DTAL AMOUMOF 7RANSACTION S � i Z2 _ 00 COSTlREVENUE BUDGETED (CIpCLE ONE) LY No
FUNDINGSOURCE �6�M-0665 A. PtA 96 = S35,o00 ACITVITYNUMBER C96
FINANCIAL INFOPMATION: �EXPLAIN) B� �{ST ��3 Z� OOO
C. CIB 96 � 50,000