2014-08-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

400 and maintenance needs to address, creating additional demand for services on the 401 General Fund that were not being funded. 402 403 Discussion included potential blending of special assessments and TIF funding to 404 fund remaining infrastructure and traffic improvements; cash flowing for 405 developers in proposed projects; and the position of Roseville as an attractive 406 location from development perspectives, with staff continuing to field numerous 407 inquiries from the development community, but no concrete plans at this point, 408 but still requiring Roseville to remain competitive with other metropolitan 409 communities in the market place. Ask 410 411 Further discussion included potential internal loan from reserve fund or bonding 412 for the improvements and associated interest; pressures triggering proposed 413 improvements from developers and land use actions by a local jurisdiction 414 triggering certain improvements as traffic capacity increased, and addressed by 415 Ramsey County and MnDOT. 416 & _VL 417 Mr. Schwartz also noted the funding for the proposed construction of the 418 interchange needed to be encumbered by June of 2015 to remain available to the 419 City for the improvement, including costs for engineering and inflation. 420 421 At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz reviewed current Capital 422 Improvement Program (CIP) dollars available and annual projections for ongoing 423 needs. Mr. hwartz reported that the CIP Subcommittee and City Council were 424 fully aw of long-term infrastructure needs; and as part of the City Manager - 425 recommended 2015 Budget, the funds currently used to pay the old Street Bond 426 issue being retired this year, were recommended to be applied to the Street 427 Infrastructure Fund, or Pavement Management Program (PMP) fund. Mr. 428 Schwartz reviewed the purpose of the PT#P when first endowed to create a fund 429 for ongoing street maintenance and r9onstruction rather than assessing residents 430 for those improvements as other communities do. Mr. Schwartz noted that, 431 theoretically, funds could be used for these projected improvements, but overtime 432 funding would become inadequate and require the City to assess residents for mill 433 and overlay projects, as well as other maintenance items. 434 435 Chair Stenlund suggesting continuing this discussion to a future meeting; and 436 encouraged PWETC members to bring any additional ideas back to the table if 437 they were aware of other funding concepts or options to consider. 438 439 7. Community Solar Discussion 440 Chair Stenlund noted that it was imperative in the very near future for the 441 PWETC to make a recommendation to the City Council to access funding for 442 community solar initiatives if that was the intended goal. Chair Stenlund 443 referenced the staff report and sample ordinance provided from the City of 444 Rosemount and the Roseville City Code sections applicable to this discussion. 445 Page 10 of 15