The URL can be used to link to this page

99-392� i �✓ O CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNC FI E NO. �`� �� a. �D PREI,IMINARY ORDER PUBCISf{EO BY �� Fil _ 99069 - 599073 J Voting Ward 6,7 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: Ward 6 599069 - Both sides Ames Avenue from Van Dyke Street to North Hazel Street. 599070 - South side East Maryland Avenue £rom Hazelwood Street to Herbert at 1624 East Maryland Avenue Only. 599071 - Both sides Mechanic Avenue £rom Van Dyke Street to North Ha2el Street. Ward 7 599072 - Both sides East Fourth Street from North Howard Street to North McKnight Road. 599073 - Both sides East Third Street from English Street to Clarence Street. '�� lt�ilVU � v �EM/OFFlC UNQL Works Sidewalks f PERSON 8 Y410NE 'vedt - 266-6087 ON CAUNpLAGENOA BY (DA'I� 1A C �nN UN V{/N{- OFSIGNAiUpEPAGES _ / `�5� �(- ltp-`1"( 1 J-99 1A � D GREEN SHEE � DEPAR7MEhT OIRECTOR IU�MBERf-0fl �CITYATiOflNEY tOUiR1G ag�p�,�p�pE07Ofl IRDEft � n�,Y�,�oRA��„�, ,__ (CLIPALLLOCAiIONSFORS�GNA7Ufl� � � ASSOCIATE ReconsWCt & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3& 4(See attached list) • � : � _ ❑ CfiYCOUNpL ❑Gfl"YCIFRK ❑ FlN. 8 MGL SERVICES DIR [�] Council Res �q. ��I °" "" PERSONAL SER4fCE CONTRACTS MUST 1WSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTiONS: _GYVILSERNCECAMMISSION 7_ H2SiI11Spei5o�rtn¢YBfVroikedUnde�flCOntf2CtfOfitl'15departfnetlt? YES N� — 2. Has Nis peeson?um ever 6een a City employee? _ YES NO 3. Does this persoMrtn possess a sldll not normally possessed by any curtent city empioyee? — YES NO E? Explain all yes answers on sepafate shcet and attach to green sheet 1NfTY(WHO.MAIAT. Wf1EN. WHERE. WHY�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muliiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian inyuries from falls and possible IiUgations. • The community will benefit from this project because it wiU Qrovide safe defect free sidewalks for its ciGZens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resutt. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half tha assessment is Ciry subsidized. Having to assess for watk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amou�ts in repairs and replacemert, as well as claim payouts. CouR� Research G�ntn,r APR 2 '� 99�9 C0.SLHEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ACKVITV NUMeER cas.2ns�-n�nannnnn 1NFORMATON: (FXPLAIt� B.� qST = 35�1 C;�Ct6 9g = 50 (� � / � 1� � �� { t *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) - 58.65 per front foot for a five (51 foot wide walk and $10.38 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordinqly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 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-RESIDENTSAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 9 dav o£ June, 1999 5:30 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 provided by the the improvement COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays i/Benanav �lakey ,/Sostrom v�oleman ,�arris �ant ry ✓ R'eiter said public hearing be given to the persons and Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, and the total cost thereof as estimated. Pll&HSNFn Adopted by Council: Date S��{`( Certified Passed by Council Secretary MAY 2 � 1999 in the manner the nature of 1 In Favor By �'j Against � Mayor u � v rr u v� r -r�� y-� t�-`�` D PApTMENT/OFFIC OVN L DATEINRIAiED � NO. ��-- PublicWorksSidewalks ' 5-99 GREEN SHEET � �mnwA� ACT PERSON & PHONE O pEppq7T�ENf DIRECfOR ❑ CRy CpUNGIL � erry Tvedt - 266-6087 ^��+ crtvanorwer �y �K NUMBEAFOR MUSiBEONCWNQLAGENDABY(DA7� ' pOUiMG � aBU�GET0IRECTOH ❑FlN.SMGT.SERVICESDIR � ` `�� , � MAVOR(OflAS5i5TANn � Counal Research OTAI/OFSGNqTUPEPAGES _(QIPALLLOCATONSFORSIGNAiLfl� u ASSOGATE u ALACCOUNlANT cna+r�nuesrEo Reconstruct Sidewalk & Widen Driveway Apron in Wards 6& 7(See attached iist) Ftt�� 5 — � y"3a � RECOMMENDAnoNS: npqove (A) ar qejeq (R) , ' pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: " PLANNINGCOMMISSION _��SERVICECOMMISSION 7, Nys�hispersonlfirtneverworkedunderawnNactPorNisdepartment? CIBCOMMRTEE YES NO � — — 2 Has this perso�im ever been a city empbyee? , A 57/�F _ YES NO DISIRICTCAUNGL 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a sldll rrot nom�ally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? — — YES . NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 ' Fj(PIeI11811 ye4 enaweB a0 88pe�ete ShfBt eild Bt18Ch SO g�eBO Sh2@i V INI7IATING PROBLEM.1 UE, OPPOR7UNRY (NMO, WHAT. WHEN. WHERE, WHYJ: , ' Trie probiem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variatio�, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed " and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and passible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: , , The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private coniractors generating private sector jobs as a resuN. , DISADVAMAGES IF APPFOVED: , Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction prxedures and assessments. Property.owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-tiatf the assessment is Ciry subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. � � / yi(+ r ..., =; „Tn,Y � � '� L?CiJI �6L -` in:. . � . ��1 � V ��L9b DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would altow the infrastructure of sidewatk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personat injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouis. O7AL AMOUNT OF 7RANSACTION S . � 9 t 3 � jL COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUNCE 99rM-0669 A' Rt�A 99 = 630 �,000 ncmmNUMSen css-2 sz-o�ea-000 0 FlNANCIALINFOflMAiION:(IXPLAIN) B�. AST = 351 �000 , C; Cf6 99 � 50,OOQ � i �✓ O CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNC FI E NO. �`� �� a. �D PREI,IMINARY ORDER PUBCISf{EO BY �� Fil _ 99069 - 599073 J Voting Ward 6,7 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: Ward 6 599069 - Both sides Ames Avenue from Van Dyke Street to North Hazel Street. 599070 - South side East Maryland Avenue £rom Hazelwood Street to Herbert at 1624 East Maryland Avenue Only. 599071 - Both sides Mechanic Avenue £rom Van Dyke Street to North Ha2el Street. Ward 7 599072 - Both sides East Fourth Street from North Howard Street to North McKnight Road. 599073 - Both sides East Third Street from English Street to Clarence Street. '�� lt�ilVU � v �EM/OFFlC UNQL Works Sidewalks f PERSON 8 Y410NE 'vedt - 266-6087 ON CAUNpLAGENOA BY (DA'I� 1A C �nN UN V{/N{- OFSIGNAiUpEPAGES _ / `�5� �(- ltp-`1"( 1 J-99 1A � D GREEN SHEE � DEPAR7MEhT OIRECTOR IU�MBERf-0fl �CITYATiOflNEY tOUiR1G ag�p�,�p�pE07Ofl IRDEft � n�,Y�,�oRA��„�, ,__ (CLIPALLLOCAiIONSFORS�GNA7Ufl� � � ASSOCIATE ReconsWCt & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3& 4(See attached list) • � : � _ ❑ CfiYCOUNpL ❑Gfl"YCIFRK ❑ FlN. 8 MGL SERVICES DIR [�] Council Res �q. ��I °" "" PERSONAL SER4fCE CONTRACTS MUST 1WSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTiONS: _GYVILSERNCECAMMISSION 7_ H2SiI11Spei5o�rtn¢YBfVroikedUnde�flCOntf2CtfOfitl'15departfnetlt? YES N� — 2. Has Nis peeson?um ever 6een a City employee? _ YES NO 3. Does this persoMrtn possess a sldll not normally possessed by any curtent city empioyee? — YES NO E? Explain all yes answers on sepafate shcet and attach to green sheet 1NfTY(WHO.MAIAT. Wf1EN. WHERE. WHY�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muliiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian inyuries from falls and possible IiUgations. • The community will benefit from this project because it wiU Qrovide safe defect free sidewalks for its ciGZens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resutt. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half tha assessment is Ciry subsidized. Having to assess for watk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amou�ts in repairs and replacemert, as well as claim payouts. CouR� Research G�ntn,r APR 2 '� 99�9 C0.SLHEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ACKVITV NUMeER cas.2ns�-n�nannnnn 1NFORMATON: (FXPLAIt� B.� qST = 35�1 C;�Ct6 9g = 50 (� � / � 1� � �� { t *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) - 58.65 per front foot for a five (51 foot wide walk and $10.38 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordinqly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 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-RESIDENTSAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 9 dav o£ June, 1999 5:30 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 provided by the the improvement COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays i/Benanav �lakey ,/Sostrom v�oleman ,�arris �ant ry ✓ R'eiter said public hearing be given to the persons and Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, and the total cost thereof as estimated. Pll&HSNFn Adopted by Council: Date S��{`( Certified Passed by Council Secretary MAY 2 � 1999 in the manner the nature of 1 In Favor By �'j Against � Mayor u � v rr u v� r -r�� y-� t�-`�` D PApTMENT/OFFIC OVN L DATEINRIAiED � NO. ��-- PublicWorksSidewalks ' 5-99 GREEN SHEET � �mnwA� ACT PERSON & PHONE O pEppq7T�ENf DIRECfOR ❑ CRy CpUNGIL � erry Tvedt - 266-6087 ^��+ crtvanorwer �y �K NUMBEAFOR MUSiBEONCWNQLAGENDABY(DA7� ' pOUiMG � aBU�GET0IRECTOH ❑FlN.SMGT.SERVICESDIR � ` `�� , � MAVOR(OflAS5i5TANn � Counal Research OTAI/OFSGNqTUPEPAGES _(QIPALLLOCATONSFORSIGNAiLfl� u ASSOGATE u ALACCOUNlANT cna+r�nuesrEo Reconstruct Sidewalk & Widen Driveway Apron in Wards 6& 7(See attached iist) Ftt�� 5 — � y"3a � RECOMMENDAnoNS: npqove (A) ar qejeq (R) , ' pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: " PLANNINGCOMMISSION _��SERVICECOMMISSION 7, Nys�hispersonlfirtneverworkedunderawnNactPorNisdepartment? CIBCOMMRTEE YES NO � — — 2 Has this perso�im ever been a city empbyee? , A 57/�F _ YES NO DISIRICTCAUNGL 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a sldll rrot nom�ally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? — — YES . NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 ' Fj(PIeI11811 ye4 enaweB a0 88pe�ete ShfBt eild Bt18Ch SO g�eBO Sh2@i V INI7IATING PROBLEM.1 UE, OPPOR7UNRY (NMO, WHAT. WHEN. WHERE, WHYJ: , ' Trie probiem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variatio�, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed " and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and passible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: , , The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private coniractors generating private sector jobs as a resuN. , DISADVAMAGES IF APPFOVED: , Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction prxedures and assessments. Property.owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-tiatf the assessment is Ciry subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. � � / yi(+ r ..., =; „Tn,Y � � '� L?CiJI �6L -` in:. . � . ��1 � V ��L9b DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would altow the infrastructure of sidewatk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personat injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouis. O7AL AMOUNT OF 7RANSACTION S . � 9 t 3 � jL COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUNCE 99rM-0669 A' Rt�A 99 = 630 �,000 ncmmNUMSen css-2 sz-o�ea-000 0 FlNANCIALINFOflMAiION:(IXPLAIN) B�. AST = 351 �000 , C; Cf6 99 � 50,OOQ � i �✓ O CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNC FI E NO. �`� �� a. �D PREI,IMINARY ORDER PUBCISf{EO BY �� Fil _ 99069 - 599073 J Voting Ward 6,7 In the Matter of sidewalk reconstruction at the following locations: Ward 6 599069 - Both sides Ames Avenue from Van Dyke Street to North Hazel Street. 599070 - South side East Maryland Avenue £rom Hazelwood Street to Herbert at 1624 East Maryland Avenue Only. 599071 - Both sides Mechanic Avenue £rom Van Dyke Street to North Ha2el Street. Ward 7 599072 - Both sides East Fourth Street from North Howard Street to North McKnight Road. 599073 - Both sides East Third Street from English Street to Clarence Street. '�� lt�ilVU � v �EM/OFFlC UNQL Works Sidewalks f PERSON 8 Y410NE 'vedt - 266-6087 ON CAUNpLAGENOA BY (DA'I� 1A C �nN UN V{/N{- OFSIGNAiUpEPAGES _ / `�5� �(- ltp-`1"( 1 J-99 1A � D GREEN SHEE � DEPAR7MEhT OIRECTOR IU�MBERf-0fl �CITYATiOflNEY tOUiR1G ag�p�,�p�pE07Ofl IRDEft � n�,Y�,�oRA��„�, ,__ (CLIPALLLOCAiIONSFORS�GNA7Ufl� � � ASSOCIATE ReconsWCt & Construct Sidewalk in Wards 2, 3& 4(See attached list) • � : � _ ❑ CfiYCOUNpL ❑Gfl"YCIFRK ❑ FlN. 8 MGL SERVICES DIR [�] Council Res �q. ��I °" "" PERSONAL SER4fCE CONTRACTS MUST 1WSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTiONS: _GYVILSERNCECAMMISSION 7_ H2SiI11Spei5o�rtn¢YBfVroikedUnde�flCOntf2CtfOfitl'15departfnetlt? YES N� — 2. Has Nis peeson?um ever 6een a City employee? _ YES NO 3. Does this persoMrtn possess a sldll not normally possessed by any curtent city empioyee? — YES NO E? Explain all yes answers on sepafate shcet and attach to green sheet 1NfTY(WHO.MAIAT. Wf1EN. WHERE. WHY�: The problem "defective sidewalk" was caused by muliiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezeRhaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, eMreme temperature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian inyuries from falls and possible IiUgations. • The community will benefit from this project because it wiU Qrovide safe defect free sidewalks for its ciGZens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private contractors generating private sector jobs as a resutt. Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction procedures and assessments. Property owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-half tha assessment is Ciry subsidized. Having to assess for watk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personal injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amou�ts in repairs and replacemert, as well as claim payouts. CouR� Research G�ntn,r APR 2 '� 99�9 C0.SLHEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO ACKVITV NUMeER cas.2ns�-n�nannnnn 1NFORMATON: (FXPLAIt� B.� qST = 35�1 C;�Ct6 9g = 50 (� � / � 1� � �� { t *ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures) Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) - 58.65 per front foot for a five (51 foot wide walk and $10.38 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide walk. All other widths will be prorated accordinqly. New construction (where no walk existed) - 100 of the actual cost estimated to be approximately $3.87 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-RESIDENTSAL(More than three family structures), NON-RESIDENTIAL RATES For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100 of actual cost estimated to be approximately $5.23 per square foot. 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, � that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and 1998 Public Improvement Aid. 2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 9 dav o£ June, 1999 5:30 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 provided by the the improvement COUNCILPERSONS Yeas � Nays i/Benanav �lakey ,/Sostrom v�oleman ,�arris �ant ry ✓ R'eiter said public hearing be given to the persons and Charter, stating the time and place of hearing, and the total cost thereof as estimated. Pll&HSNFn Adopted by Council: Date S��{`( Certified Passed by Council Secretary MAY 2 � 1999 in the manner the nature of 1 In Favor By �'j Against � Mayor u � v rr u v� r -r�� y-� t�-`�` D PApTMENT/OFFIC OVN L DATEINRIAiED � NO. ��-- PublicWorksSidewalks ' 5-99 GREEN SHEET � �mnwA� ACT PERSON & PHONE O pEppq7T�ENf DIRECfOR ❑ CRy CpUNGIL � erry Tvedt - 266-6087 ^��+ crtvanorwer �y �K NUMBEAFOR MUSiBEONCWNQLAGENDABY(DA7� ' pOUiMG � aBU�GET0IRECTOH ❑FlN.SMGT.SERVICESDIR � ` `�� , � MAVOR(OflAS5i5TANn � Counal Research OTAI/OFSGNqTUPEPAGES _(QIPALLLOCATONSFORSIGNAiLfl� u ASSOGATE u ALACCOUNlANT cna+r�nuesrEo Reconstruct Sidewalk & Widen Driveway Apron in Wards 6& 7(See attached iist) Ftt�� 5 — � y"3a � RECOMMENDAnoNS: npqove (A) ar qejeq (R) , ' pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING �UESTIONS: " PLANNINGCOMMISSION _��SERVICECOMMISSION 7, Nys�hispersonlfirtneverworkedunderawnNactPorNisdepartment? CIBCOMMRTEE YES NO � — — 2 Has this perso�im ever been a city empbyee? , A 57/�F _ YES NO DISIRICTCAUNGL 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a sldll rrot nom�ally possessed by any curtent ciry employee? — — YES . NO SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 ' Fj(PIeI11811 ye4 enaweB a0 88pe�ete ShfBt eild Bt18Ch SO g�eBO Sh2@i V INI7IATING PROBLEM.1 UE, OPPOR7UNRY (NMO, WHAT. WHEN. WHERE, WHYJ: , ' Trie probiem "defective sidewalk" was caused by multiple problems, tree roots, poor subgrade materials, freezefthaw cycles, service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variatio�, etc. These problems occur on a citywide basis and must be addressed " and corrected annually. Left uncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and passible litigations. ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: , , The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe defect free sidewalks for its citizens. The sidewalk contracts are done by private coniractors generating private sector jobs as a resuN. , DISADVAMAGES IF APPFOVED: , Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have created negative feedback because of construction prxedures and assessments. Property.owners question the assessments, despite the fact that up to one-tiatf the assessment is Ciry subsidized. Having to assess for walk reconstruction remains a controversial issue. � � / yi(+ r ..., =; „Tn,Y � � '� L?CiJI �6L -` in:. . � . ��1 � V ��L9b DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVEO: This option would altow the infrastructure of sidewatk stock to deteriorate, which in tum, will generate more personat injury suits, resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in repairs and replacement, as well as claim payouis. O7AL AMOUNT OF 7RANSACTION S . � 9 t 3 � jL COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES No FUNDINGSOUNCE 99rM-0669 A' Rt�A 99 = 630 �,000 ncmmNUMSen css-2 sz-o�ea-000 0 FlNANCIALINFOflMAiION:(IXPLAIN) B�. AST = 351 �000 , C; Cf6 99 � 50,OOQ