1994 Working Papers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

November 30, 1994 To: Planning Commission From: Terry Hendriksen Subject: EDC Memorandum, November 18, 1994 The EDC recently distributed a memo which included six justifications for selecting the East bridge alternative. I believe these points are flawed and the City Council would benefit from another perspective. I have drafted the following point by point response for your consideration at the December meeting: 1. The right-of-way acquisition cost used by EDC addressed the cost of a xxx foot wide corridor and selectively ignores the costs associated with condemnation / relocation of businesses impacted or displaced by the Easterly alignment. The Planning Commissions review included condemnation & relocation costs that would probably result from each alternative. We determined acquisition cost for the East alignment will far exceed the West right-of-way acquisition costs. 2. The West alternative is actually closer to the midpoint between the highway 101 river crossing in Elk River and the highway 169 river crossing in Anoka. 3. Contrary to EDC's statement, the East alignment will have significantly greater impact on existing development in Ramsey. The West alignment would only affect residential development potential South of highway 10. Residential development potential will be replaced by significantly greater commercial development potential. According to Mayor elect Harden Commercial development is a much higher land use and pays four times the tax. revenue of residential development. The West alternative will create jobs, the East alternative will result in a net loss of jobs (displacement of current business not offset by new business development). 4. The Easterly location creates a "T" intersection with 116. Most traffic planners would consider this configuration less efficient than the Pbnning Commissions recommendation. EDC opposed the creation ofa "T" intersection at 116 as recently as August but is now calling it a benefit. 5. EDC claims surrounding communities, primarily Dayton, are undecided. Actually the citizens of Dayton oppose the East alignment and Dayton has withdrawn its support for the East location. I believe Dayton will ultimately indicate a preference for an alignment consistent with the West alternative. 6. The West alignment will undoubtedly result in significant commercial development potential at its intersection with highway 10. The resulting Commercial development will see the corridor as a benefit not a disruption.