Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Market and associated right-of-way. Since 2005, the City has worked on the design of <br />Armstrong Boulevard in preparation for a reconstruction project. The project has <br />changed over the years but if reconstruction is to occur south of Sunwood Drive, it will <br />require the realignment of Armstrong Boulevard at TH #10. This realignment and the <br />need for ponding for a reconstruction project would require a total acquisition of the <br />Oasis property. In November 2008, City Council directed staff to continue with the land <br />acquisitions necessary for the entire reconstruction project and redirect our efforts <br />prioritizing Armstrong Boulevard as an interchange rather than an at grade crossing with <br />the railroad and Highway #10. The Oasis property owner negotiated with the Anoka <br />County Highway Department and came to terms for a total price of $1,030,000, plus <br />approximately $120,000 for relocation costs. These costs would be an eligible TIF <br />expense and it could be financed through the cash balances remaining in the <br />aforementioned TIF Districts. Mr. Sullivan pointed out another option would be to let the <br />Districts run to their statutory maximum and to amend the budgets to spend the projected <br />fund balances for 2011 and 2013 on TIF eligible expenditures. This option does not <br />allow for the tax capacity that is captured for these Districts on an annual basis <br />($1,522,746) to be utilized by the General Fund levy in 2010. Due to the need to return <br />taxable market value and its associated tax capacity to the tax rolls for support of the <br />General Fund levy, staff is not recommending this option. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wise stated that he thought the Armstrong Boulevard project was a <br />County project. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan replied that it is the County but they are ultimately looking at it as a City <br />project and we will be buying it from the County. <br /> <br />Mr. Ulrich stated that as part of the joint powers agreement, the City has agreed that the <br />County would be the purchasing agent. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that he is looking at the money part of it - why would we <br />. turn back $1.7 million and get 40% back. He mentioned money for the General Fund. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan reminded Council that the money has to be spent on TIF eligible projects <br />within Development District # 1. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that one of the City's problems is coming up with money in <br />the General Budget. He thinks there are benefits on both sides. In this JP A, we are <br />spending so much and getting $4 million from them - that's not too great. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGlone commented that we have plenty of things we want to do and <br />we are short funding for them. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey stated it seems like a "no-brainer" to do this but asked what the negatives <br />would be of decertifying these early. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session - June 30, 2009 <br />Page 5 of17 <br />