My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/26/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2010
>
Agenda - Council - 10/26/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 2:47:16 PM
Creation date
10/21/2010 2:48:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/26/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
213
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
CASE #10 <br />CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO COMPLETE <br />FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #06 -20, THE <br />SIGNALIZATION OF ARMSTRONG BOULEVARD AND BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD <br />By: Tim Himmer, City Engineer <br />Background: <br />As part of the Ramsey Town Center Regional Roadway Improvements associated with the Joint Powers <br />Agreement (JPA) with Anoka County, the City was required to be the lead agency for the reconstruction <br />of Armstrong Boulevard, similar to the already completed Ramsey and Sunfish Lake Boulevards, from <br />TH 10 to the north. The Armstrong Boulevard improvements were scheduled for construction in 2009; <br />however during the plan approval process in 2008 Council directed staff to investigate the option of <br />constructing an overpass instead of the proposed interim improvements. On March 10, 2009 the City <br />Council approved a revision to the JPA with Anoka County, and City and County staff began studying <br />the options for an Armstrong Boulevard interchange over the BNSF tracks and TH 10. <br />The County requested as part of the JPA revision that the City continue to move forward with planned <br />improvements at the Armstrong Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard intersection as a 2010 <br />construction project, which would include the installation of traffic signals, turn lanes and divided <br />medians. Council authorized the acquisition of properties associated with this project on January 12, <br />2010. Due to the unknown location of the TH 10 interchange, and its effects on the existing Armstrong <br />Boulevard alignment, the signalization of the Bunker Lake and Armstrong Boulevard intersection was <br />delayed. Now that it has been determined that the existing intersection will remain in its current location <br />this project can now be initiated, with an anticipated construction schedule of early 2011. <br />Observations: <br />The City initially requested a proposal for design services for these improvements from TKDA, which <br />was accepted on June 8, 2004 in the amount of $250,200. The scope and schedule for this project has <br />changed numerous times over the years, including expanded and contracted project limits due to the <br />Town Center evolution and development proposals, extension of utilities south of TH 10, and revised <br />right -of -way platting resulting in a total contract amount of $414,867 to date. Now that the final scope <br />has been determined for a portion of this project a final construction package can be prepared and <br />distributed for bid. <br />Since the original project scope was nearly completed, prior to the Council deciding on a new approach <br />to investigate the interchange option, staff has received a request for Amendment No. 4 from TKDA in <br />the amount of $29,200 to complete the necessary revisions to the construction documents for the <br />purposes of bidding the intersection improvements. Since the Legacy Christian Academy School <br />application was received it was always envisioned that we would adjust the final contract with TKDA to <br />incorporate any necessary improvements as a result of the feasibility study now underway. When <br />TKDA was contacted to request a revised scope and proposal to incorporate this additional work they <br />responded that they were not interested in providing any additional scoping without being paid for <br />services already performed. Discussions were had with TKDA to look at options for addressing their <br />concerns and they have supplied 3 alternatives to consider: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.