Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fargo commission backs 64th Avenue/I‑29 interchange, orders neighborhood safety study
Summary
The City Commission selected 'Alternative 1' for the 64th Avenue and I‑29 interchange to capture federal funding and existing infrastructure investments, and directed engineering staff to return in about three months with traffic‑calming and safety recommendations for nearby residents.
Fargo City Commissioners voted to proceed with a preferred design for the 64th Avenue interchange at I‑29 and directed city engineering to develop neighborhood safety measures and cost estimates to return to the commission in roughly three months. City staff told commissioners that the city has invested more than $61 million in corridor infrastructure and that $21,250,000 in federal funds are dedicated to the 64th Avenue project and “cannot be reassigned” if the commission declines to move forward.
The commission heard a staff presentation explaining three build alternatives and a recommendation for Alternative 1, described by staff as a configuration with a signalized intersection on the west side and a roundabout on the east. Tom (city project staff) said the choice “captures the investment that’s already been made” and emphasized the federal funds are dedicated to the interchange.
During public comment seven speakers spoke mostly in support of Alternative 1. Nathan Volmuth, an architect and real‑estate agent, told the commission the ramps support the city’s 2024 Land Development Code and promote “orderly growth, higher density and a higher tax base.” Developers and business owners said the interchange would support commercial development, higher assessed value and visitor access to Fargo events.
Neighborhood residents urged attention to pedestrian and driver safety, noise, delivery access and potential special assessments. Rob Kost asked commissioners to “remember our neighborhood” if the project is approved and to ensure engineered solutions for safety and service access. Commissioners acknowledged those concerns and discussed options including frontage roads, turn lanes, median refuges and other traffic‑calming measures. Staff said some improvements may need to be separate projects because of how the federal environmental clearance and funding are structured.
The commission approved the preferred alternative and separately approved a motion directing the engineering team to prioritize development of safety concepts and cost estimates and return in about three months with recommendations for the neighborhood east of the interchange. The motion passed following roll‑call votes.
Next steps include engineering concept development, pricing and return to the commission for consideration of specific safety measures and final project programming.
