95-1515 65-33 ,5b9
L L i � r ( fr�r'
CITY OF ST. PAUL C 1 11 . j IS /S
PRELIMINARY ORDER By
Fil -No. '
Vot .rd 1,2,3,4,5
In the Matter of Construe ion and /or reconstruction of sidewalks at the
following locations: 800 B air Ave.; 794 Dayton Ave.; 175 N. Victoria St.;
775 Jefferson Ave.; 1382 Bdyard Ave.; 1818 & 2017 Bohland Ave.; 1703 Rome
Ave.; 1880, 1886 & 1890 Yorkshire Ave; 1514 Englewood Ave.; 1095 Desoto St.
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One, two or three family structures)
Reconstruction (replacement of old sidewalk) — $7.04 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $8.46 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will be prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) — 100% of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.15 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 — RESIDENTIAL(More than three family structures), NON— RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed sidewalk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.25 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, and that the estimated cost thereof is *SEE ABOVE
for estimated construction rates, financed by assessments and
1995 Public Improvement Aid.
2. That a public hearing be had on said improvement on the 21st_ day
of February, 1996, at 3:30 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 said public hearing be given to the persons and in
the manner provided by the Charter, stating the time and place of
hearing, the nature of the improvement and the total cost thereof
as estimated.
COUNCILPERSONS Mt= Adopted • Coun : . to /O /� ���
Nays Blakey a s JAN 201996 Cer if ' ed P - ss 5nounci l Secretary
Grimm e
./ Guerin
Harris 9 In Favor B i /
Megard �� 4
,/ Rettman i2 Against
,/ Thune j Mayor
Public Hearing Date — February 21, 1996 RE 12 -15 -95
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED GREEN SHEET NO. 33 569
Public Works Sidewalks 12 -4 -95 INITIALlDATE INITIAIJDATE _
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE ❑ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 0 CITY COUNCIL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266-6121 ASSIGN a CITY ATTORNEY 0 CITY CLERK
NUMBER FOR
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) 1 - 3 - 9 6 ROUTING El BUDGET DIRECTOR FIN. a MGT. SERVICES DIR.
Must be in Council Research Office ORDER
no later than noon Friday 12 -22 -95 ❑MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) ®CQynoll>
TOTAL 1 OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) 0 ASSOCIATE 0 DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUN NT
ACTION REQUESTED ,
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 1 s ee attached list) %-5-3.5 FILE No. $9SlD9
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R)
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING 0U88TIAN8s
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this perrsson/fir Ne worked under a contract for this department?
_ CIS COMMITTEE 2. Has this YYD rs err ever been a city employee?
A STAFF 3. Does this YES possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city
employee?
_ DISTRICT COUNCIL - 5 P, II 4 YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE?
4IE/ -416D4 /MaOS W00,15 /, t,1, 4 S
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE. OPPORTUNITY (WHO, WHAT, WHEN. WHERE. WHY):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating free/thaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme temperature variations, etc. These problems 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 where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
The community will benefit from this project because it will provide safe 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.
Council Pf33MTCil CiNliCI
•
DEC 1 1995
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
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.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidewalk stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
ultimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dollar amounts in eventual repairs and /or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ #7,V64. S 9 COST /REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE 95 - M - 0664 A, PIA 95 = 15,000 ACITVITYNUMBER C95-2T727- 0784 -27010
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B, AST = 416,000 •
C, CIB 95 = 50,000