My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-05-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2003
>
2003-05-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 3:00:30 PM
Creation date
6/16/2005 2:17:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/22/2003
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />8. Building Project Update <br /> <br />Duane Schwartz updated the Commission on progress and stated the <br />building project is consistent so far with the goals presented in the <br />referendum and went through the construction schedule. <br /> <br />9. Other Items <br /> <br />Infrastructure Replacement Reserve Fund Discussion <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn brought this issue to the Commission. There is a <br />statute that has been on the books since 1986 called the Infrastructure <br />Replacement Reserve Fund, which states that the City Council by a two- <br />thirds vote can annually levy a property tax in support of the fund; the <br />fund may only be used for road infrastructure purposes. This is a separate <br />levy from the General Fund. The Council could choose a specific purpose <br />for this fund and then ask the voters for approval, such as Hwy 36 <br />improvements. The fund would allow the City to build up a fund that <br />could be lent to the County or State for their reconstruction projects in <br />Roseville, then when their funding came through, they would repay us. <br />This would mean reconstruction projects would be done much quicker. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked what this means to the taxpayers. Mayor <br />Kysylyczyn said it depends on the goal, but basically their taxes would be <br />raised whatever percent was needed. <br /> <br />Member Wilke said that he thought the City of Eagan used this process to <br />move up a MnlDOT project, but they did it to benefit their own industrial <br />area, not just for a highway that runs through the city. <br /> <br />Member Wilke said he thought the timing of this was not good. Mayor <br />Kysylyczyn said that depends on how you look at it and that it should go <br />before the voters to decide. <br /> <br />This was presented as infomlation at this point. It will be brought before <br />the City Council on May 12 to be officially referred to the Commission. <br />Member Wilke suggested it would be helpful to know how other cities are <br />using this fund. Member Anderson requested that staff gather infomlation <br />about other cities for the Commission to review. <br /> <br />10. May Agenda <br /> <br />. Infrastructure Replacement Reserve Fund Discussion <br />. Budget <br />. Follow up on Clean-Up Day <br /> <br />11. Adjournment <br /> <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.