Laserfiche WebLink
6. Consideration of Minnesota Statute 471.572, Infrastructure Reserve Fund <br />Previously, the Conunission requested staff to contact other commuruties to <br />gather information on the use of this statute. No responding communities are <br />using the statute. Member Wilke wanted clarification on which projects the <br />Mayor was thinking about using the statute. Schwartz confirmed that it was for <br />county or state projects in Roseville. Member Wilke thought that with the large <br />amount of money required for the large projects being considered residents <br />would have to be contributing quite a lot of money* He emphasized that no <br />other city contacted is using the statute even though they are aware of it and that <br />we'd essentially have to have the money in the bank to get Aln/D T to <br />reprogram anything. Schwa said that we'd be building a reserve fund rather <br />than doing any bonding. Member Wilke pointed out that it would take 15 years <br />to build up enough funding to attempt any major project. <br />Member Anderson agreed that it is a significant fact that no other city contacted <br />is using the statute. <br />Member Rossini agreed that it would take too long to see any substance unless a <br />huge arnou.nt was levied, and he didn't thinly the voters would be very receptive. <br />Member Anderson commented that he was still unsure what the Commission <br />was supposed to be doing with this item and that since this is already a statute <br />what does our input really mean. Member Wilke said that if we knew ghat the <br />project was and how the money was going to be used it would be a different <br />situation. Member Anderson agreed. <br />Member Anderson moved to table the idea of the Infrastructure reserve Fund <br />for one year to wait for the economy to improve. Member Rossini seconded. <br />Ayes: 4 <br />Nays: o <br />Motion carried <br />7. Bus Shelter Siting ]discussion <br />Duane Schwartz presented background information on this item. The City <br />Council has commented that they would like the Public works Commission's <br />opinion on developing criteria on where to locate transit amenities. There are <br />I <br />ssues regarding visibility, conflicts with existing bench locations, right-of- <br />ways, ays, etc. <br />Craig Piernot, outdoor Promotions, gave a presentation on his company and <br />ghat they want to do in Roseville. i* <br />Member willenbring asked if they ever had any problems working with cities <br />on signage issues. Piernot answered that they typically do not have a problem <br />because they work with cities to assess their needs before placing signage. <br />Page 3 of <br />L�J <br />