Laserfiche WebLink
<br />this option. He stated that the third option would be to stop the project altogether and pursue <br />interchange improvements. He reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of this option. He <br />stated that the City has been working on this project for a long time, but when staff took a step <br />back and looked at it, they decided pursuing some other funding mechanisms.and investigate the <br />possibility of an overpass, may' make sense. He reiterated that staff is recommending option 2. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that if the City says they will hold off construction until 2010, that <br />doesn't initiate movement to an overpass, and he really likes the concept. He stated that the <br />costs for this project are projected to be higher than budgeted. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson stated that the cost wa,g projected to be quite a bit l:igher than <br />originally thought, mostly due to oil prices. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he has no question that this should continue moving forward, <br />but the expected growth is not happening and he thinks there are some redesign issues atthe west <br />end of the RTC that need to be considered. He stated that he also really likes the idea of holding <br />off and using the money as a match for what the City really wants, an overpass <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson stated that the City wants to move forward with design of the <br />interchange, which does not mean closing the door on interim improvements, but really focuses <br />. on the possibility of getting a federal grant to get something done quicker. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that he is more in favor of option 1. He stated that he has a hard <br />time conceptualizing an interchange at Armstrong and leapfrogging two big areas in Ramsey and <br />also Anoka area where there are a lot of problems. He stated that the reality of getting an <br />interchange is a great idea, but it seems like such a "home run", he doesn't think it seems <br />realistic. He stated that he is in favor of going ahead with the project as planned. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that under option 1, the disadvantage is the hard channelization. He <br />asked for. more information on that and whose recommendation it was. He stated that this <br />project is longer than the Ramsey and Sunfish projects. <br /> <br />Public Works Dire.ctor Olson stated that it is longer than those projects and that the design was <br />completed based on County standards. He noted that 149thdoes not meet their standards, which <br />is why the hard channelization was included. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he is not in. favor of moving forward on this right now. He <br />stated that the main stimulus for this project was the RTC. He stated that he doesn't want to <br />throw $5 million at this and lose the opportunity to use it as a match for a larger project. He <br />stated that he thinks it is prudent to buy ourselves the time to see how realistic this idea may be. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that Armstrong is a problem right now. He stated that there have to <br />be some improvements, almost immediately, and if you are trying to direct traffic into a town <br />center, he would think you would want nice access on both sides. He stated that ifthe City waits <br />then it may be a deterrent to developers coming in. He stated that it seems to be a "no brainer" to <br />improve this if the City wants to get the developers in. <br /> <br />City Council October 28, 2008 <br />Page 15 of 20 <br /> <br />P33 <br />