2014-07-22_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Discussion included potential blending of special assessments and TIF funding to fund remaining infrastructure and traffic improvements; cash flowing for developers in proposed projects; and the position of Roseville as an attractive location from development perspectives, with staff continuing to field numerous inquiries from the development community, but no concrete plans at this point, but still requiring Roseville to remain competitive with other metropolitan communities in the market place. Further discussion included potential internal loan from reserve fund or bonding for the improvements and associated interest; pressures triggering proposed improvements from developers and land use actions by a local jurisdiction triggering certain improvements as traffic capacity increased, and addressed by Ramsey County and MnDOT. Mr. Schwartz also noted the funding for the proposed construction of the interchange needed to be encumbered by June of 2015 to remain available to the City for the improvement, including costs for engineering and inflation. At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz reviewed current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) dollars available and annual projections for ongoing needs. Mr. Schwartz reported that the CIP Subcommittee and City Council were fully aware of long-term infrastructure needs; and as part of the City Manager- recommended 2015 Budget, the funds currently used to pay the old Street Bond issue being retired this year, were recommended to be applied to the Street Infrastructure Fund, or Pavement Management Program (PMP) fund. Mr. Schwartz reviewed the purpose of the PMP when first endowed to create a fund for ongoing street maintenance and reconstruction rather than assessing residents for those improvements as other communities do. Mr. Schwartz noted that, theoretically, funds could be used for these projected improvements, but over time funding would become inadequate and require the City to assess residents for mill and overlay projects, as well as other maintenance items. Chair Stenlund suggesting continuing this discussion to a future meeting; and encouraged PWETC members to bring any additional ideas back to the table if they were aware of other funding concepts or options to consider. 7. Community Solar Discussion Chair Stenlund noted that it was imperative in the very near future for the PWETC to make a recommendation to the City Council to access funding for community solar initiatives if that was the intended goal. Chair Stenlund referenced the staff report and sample ordinance provided from the City of Rosemount and the Roseville City Code sections applicable to this discussion. Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the excerpts of Roseville Code and the Rosemount amended code pertaining to solar recently reviewed; and recommended the input Page 10 of 15