94-1114 ♦ Al
ORIGINAL
CITY OF ST. PAUL COUNC FILE NO. !
FINAL ORDER By
File No. S9489
Voting Ward 7
In the Matter of Sidewalk reco struction at the following location(s):
on both sides North Winthrop S.reet from North Park Drive to Burns Avenue.
II
*ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION RATES
RESIDENTIAL RATES (One two orlthree family structures)
Reconstruction (replacement of ' old sidewalk) — $6.84 per front foot for a
five (5) foot wide walk and $8122 per front foot for a six (6) foot wide
walk. All other widths will b prorated accordingly. New construction
(where no walk existed) — 100% of the actual cost estimated to be
approximately $3.10 per square foot.
All corner residential propert' 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 t Tree family structures), NON RESIDENTIAL RATES
For new and reconstructed side alk; 100% of actual cost estimated to be
approximately $4.15 per squarel foot.
Preliminary Order a roved \c
under � y � �� pp �'� -�� S 9 y _
The Council of the City if Saint Paul has conducted a public hearing
upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as
prescribed by the City Charter and
WHEREAS, The Council as heard all persons, objections and
recommendations pertaining t. said proposed improvement and has fully
considered the same; now, Cher _ fore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Counci of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order
that the above — described impro ement be made, and the proper City officers
are hereby directed and authori ed to proceed with the improvement; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That u on the completion of said improvement, the
proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall
report the same to the City Cou in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City
Charter.
COUNCILPERSONS Adopted by Council: Date /4
Yeas Nays ��5Clis -
1/Blakey Certified Passed by Council Secretary
V Grimm
V,, Guerin /A
V Harris 1! In Favor By 4 1'�,` • �M_16.-:14.
Megard
Rettman O Ag inst / ArArAW
Thune ✓ I 5 Mayor
n ,\ „.3--
•
Public Hearing Date - August 3, 1494 RE 5 - 27 .95/
? /14.-
287/1
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED GREEN SHEET N O !� g
Public Works Sidewalks 5 -10 -94 INITIAUDATE INITIALOATE
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL
Thomas P. Keefe - 266 -6121 ASSIGN CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERIC
NUMBER FOR
IMMMMIIMAff
ROUTING BUDGET DIRECTOR FIN. &MGT. SERVICES DIR
EFI
❑ MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) 1 Council Research
TOTAL N OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (OUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) [ ASSOCIATE Ej I. ' � :t ENTAL ACCOUrT
ACTON REQUESTED —) - i
Reconstruct Sidewalk in Ward 7 (See attached 1st)
0- 9
.nr 59v �'9
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION CIVIL SERVICE COMMISS )N 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this depa ese,►t?
as COMMITTEE YES NO
2. Has this p n/firm been a city employee?
A.. STAFF
DISTRICT COUNCIL — 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? employee?
YES NO
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
WPIA O 7
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE. OPPORTUNITY (WHO. WHAT. WHEN. MERE. WHY):
The problem "defective sidewalk" was created because of tree roots, deleterious subgrade material, afternating free/thaw cycles,
service life limits, chemical additives, extreme tear erature 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 bet
rendered unusable and subject to increased pedestrian injuries from falls and possible litigations.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED
The community will benefit from this project becat.se it will provide safe detect free sidewalks for its many citizens. The sidewalk
contracts are executed by private contractors, so t follows that private sector jobs are created as a result of this activity.
{
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Historically, the sidewalk reconstructions have cr gated negative feedback in the area of construction procedure and assessmeft.
Simply stated, property owners detest assessme Its, and despite the fact up to one -half the assessment is City subsidized, it still
remains controversial.
end %Nardi Car
MAY 2 7 1994
{ •
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
This option would allow the infrastructure of sidev-aik stock to deteriorate, which in turn, wittgterersonal injury suits
ultimately resulting in the expenditure of larger dalar amounts in eventual repairs and /or replacement, as well as claim payouts:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S 2 H, nnR m COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) 4122, NO
FUNDING SOURCE 94 -M -0663 A. PIA 94 = 495.000 ACITVITYNUMBER C94- 2T726- 0784 -27009
FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) B. AST . 400,000
C. CIB 94 50,000
C A ( 1 - 41 ( 01g —
SUMMARY OF NGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
Ward 7
s' PROJECT: RECONST UCT SIDEWALK B.S. CONWAY ST. from Cypress St. to
Earl St.
INITIATING ACTION: This o 1 as initiated by the Director of Public Works as
public necessity on the basis o r (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk.
EXISTING CONDITI • S: Th's -Ik is poured concrete with heaves, asphalt
patches, disintegrated, scaled, s: tle• - • cracked panels.
S 9y 8G PROJECT: RECONSTRUCT !SIDEWALK B.S. N. WINTHROP ST. from North
Park Dr. to Burns Ave.
INITIATING ACTION: This ord r was initiated by the Director of Public Works as
public necessity on the basis of f. r (4) complaints and an inspection of the walk.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Thi walk is poured concrete with heaves, offgrade,
asphalt patches, settled and crac ed panels.