94-1045 • gublic Hearing Date - July 20 1994 RE 5 -13 -94 qv- /O93 227/A
DEPARTMENT/OFFICEK:OUNCIL • TE INITIATED GREEN SHEET
Public Works Sidewalks -26-94 INITIAUDATE INITINID4TE —
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266 -6121 w _ CITY ATTORNEY 0 CITY CLERK
BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) 6 -1 -94 ROUTING BUDGET DIRECTOR ❑ FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR..
ORDER
0 MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) 117 Council Reseaiph
TOTAL 0 OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (C ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ASSOCIATE I • • +TMENTAL ACCOUNTANT
ACTION REOUESTED ��
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 7 (See attached li -) `
F /� AT.. S9�Sv
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
— PLANNING COMMISSION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIO 1. Has this personrtirm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB COMMITTEE YES NO
2. Has this persorvfirm ever been a city employee?
STAFF YES NO
DISTRICT COUNCIL— Z . 3. Does this persorVfirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city
employee?
SUPPORTS WHICH =Net OBJECTIVE? YES NO
6 /LO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WH0. WHAT. WHEN. WH RE. WHY):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created b= - use of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, alternating free/thaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme tem • - rature variations, etc. These problems occur on a citywide level and must bej
addressed and corrected on an annual basis. Left ncorrected, the sidewalk condition would worsen to a state where it would be
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedes ian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
The community will benefit from this project becau - = lt will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so • follows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
DISADVANTAGES F APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have cr= =ted negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessment.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessme s, and despite the fact up to one -half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial. Council Research Ceder
MAY 16 1994
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of side Ik stock to deteriorate, which in turn, will generate more personal injury suits,
ultimately resulting in the expenditure of larger do = r amounts in eventual repairs and /or replacement, as well as claim payouts.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S S4.058.0 COST /REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) NO
FUNDING SOURCE 94 —M -0663 A. PIA 94 = 495,000 ACITVITY NUMBER C94 - 2T726 -0784 - 27009
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B, AST = 400,000
C. CIB 94 = 50,000
(
9 y -
SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS,
Ward 7
S9y8ti y PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK E.S. NORTONIA AVE. from Escanaba
Ave. to Stillwater Ave.
INITIATING ACTION: This ord r was initiated by the Director of Public Works as
public necessity on the basis of o e (1) complaint and an inspection of the walk.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Th s walk is poured concrete with tree heaves, asphalt
patches, disintegrated, scaled, s ttled and cracked panels.
seiseK PROJECT: RECONSTRUC IDEWALK S.S. E. THIRD ST. from N. Ruth St. to
Pedersen St.
INITIATING ACTION: This ord-r - initiated by the Director of Public Works as
public necessity on the basis of o = ) complaint and an inspection of the walk.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Th s wal • poured concrete with tree heaves, settled
and cracked panels.
• ,