A Peeved Roseville Public Speaks Out on Proposed Tax Levy, Utility Rate Hikes

The Roseville City Council faced angry residents Monday evening about its plans to increase the property tax levy by 4 percent and its proposal to raise base fees on water, sewer and storm services by about 60 percent.

The property tax levy hike will mean that owners of a median-valued home in Roseville will pay $684 in city taxes in 2012, a $28 increase over 2011.

The utility hike is calculated to close a 20-year, $44 million funding gap between current revenues and the costs of utility infrastructure. For a single-family home, the 60 percent increase in base fees will mean an additional $12.45 per month.

The council is expected to discuss and vote on the proposed tax levy and utility rates hike at its Dec. 12 meeting.

During the public hearing Monday, Jessica Anderson of Roseville was among the dozens of residents who expressed disapproval with the added tax burden.

“As someone who carefully planned for their own budget in their households, it was a bit shocking to receive this letter in the mail that says we have such a large deficit in planning for future infrastructure increases,” she said, referring to the $44 million utility funding gap. “An increase in the flat rate--the people it’s going to influence the most are people of low socioeconomic status and fixed sources of income.”

Chris Miller, city finance director, said the median-valued home in Roseville will pay $684 in taxes in 2012 should the proposals be adopted.

“You want to ask yourself what people get for $57 a month,” he said. “Roseville historically has been fiscally appropriate, fiscally responsible.”

The proposed $41.4 million 2012 city budget includes more than $460,000 in cuts, including major reductions for the park improvement program, fire relief pension contributions, police and fire department staffing, vehicle and equipment purchases and heating and cooling costs.

During her comments to the council, Roseville resident Karen Schaefer pointed to an article in the New York Times that identified a 15 percentage point increase in the number of students in Roseville receiving free and reduced lunches. The article quoted an economist who called this “the new face of poverty.”

“In light of the new face of poverty, which is what we have here in Roseville, the proposed quadruple whammy of costs assessed to property owners is at least discordant--some people would say it’s just flat out wrong in a moral or ethical sense,” Schaefer said. “So it may not be possible to reduce the absolute tax burden, and it may not be reasonably possible to stave off these utility increases, but it is possible to avoid saddling property owners with years of debt service at least until the new face of poverty gets a makeover.”