Roseville Council adopts $82.8M budget, chooses franchise-fee scenario to lower property-tax jump
Loading...
Summary
The Roseville City Council adopted a $82,818,474 2026 budget and selected a levy-and-franchise-fee plan (Scenario 2) intended to reduce the city portion of the property-tax increase to about 7.59%; the council also approved monthly franchise fees ($3 electric/$3 gas) and cited federal SAFER and COPS grants that offset some costs.
ROSEVILLE, Minn. — The Roseville City Council on Dec. 8 adopted a $82,818,474 budget for 2026 and set a tax levy under a package of measures that combine a modest franchise fee on gas and electric bills with targeted reallocation of existing levy dollars, council members said.
City Manager Pat Trojgan and Finance Director Michelle Petrick walked the council and the public through the components of the proposed budget and the three scenarios the city had discussed for funding new public-safety positions and ongoing capital needs. Trojgan said the base budget presented in August was about $81 million, with about $33 million of that funded by local property taxes, and that the city had proposed a preliminary 12% levy increase earlier in the process.
Why it matters: Many residents told the council the proposed increases were unaffordable. In response, council members weighed short-term pain against long-term capital needs and voted to adopt "Scenario 2," which staff said would implement franchise fees and reallocate existing levy dollars to shore up capital funds while reducing the property-tax increase to roughly 7.59% compared with the preliminary levy shown on mailed notices.
The key numbers and choices: City staff said the federal SAFER grant award of $3.9 million (to defray firefighter costs over three years) and a COPS grant of approximately $500,000 (to support police positions over three years) helped lower the expected levy, but did not eliminate the need for new revenue. Staff described three scenarios: (1) no franchise fees and a larger levy increase (about 11.5%); (2) adopt franchise fees and reallocate $1.6 million of existing levy to capital to reach an estimated 7.59% increase for 2026; and (3) adopt franchise fees and reallocate more levy dollars to operations, producing a slightly lower levy percentage but different capital impacts. The council voted to adopt scenario 2 unanimously.
Franchise fees: The ordinances the council approved impose a $3 monthly charge on residential electric accounts and a $3 monthly charge on residential gas accounts (a combined $6 per month for a typical residential customer), with a different account-class structure for commercial users. City staff estimated franchise-fee revenue at about $2.4 million annually, which the council said would be used to supplement capital spending and reduce reliance on property taxes for those needs.
Public safety staffing: The budget includes funding for new public-safety positions the departments identified as necessary: the fire department requested 15 additional firefighters to respond to rising call volumes, and the police department requested seven new employees (six sworn officers and one civilian position). Council members stressed the city pursued grant funding (SAFER and COPS) to offset initial costs; staff said those grants cover parts of the new positions' costs over multi-year periods.
Resident reaction: During the public hearing dozens of residents said their property-tax bills had jumped sharply. "It's just astonishing to me that the cost of living in Roseville has been doing nothing but going up," said Greg Ryan, a long-time resident, voicing a common theme in the testimony. Other residents reported year-over-year increases in the high teens and even above 30% for a single parcel. Residents pressed the council on appeal routes for assessed value, whether statutory limits exist on local tax increases and where to find rebate programs; staff directed taxpayers to the county assessor for appeals and noted a state rebate program that may help taxpayers with large year-to-year increases.
Council debate and rationale: Council members who favored the chosen scenario said the approach spreads some costs across utility accounts rather than concentrating them on property taxes, protects capital reserves, and helps avoid steeper levy spikes in coming years. Members who expressed concern nonetheless emphasized the real immediate pain for some homeowners and urged continued homework on cost reductions and long-term planning for the capital improvement program.
Vote and next steps: The council adopted the 2026 budget by resolution and then adopted the levy resolution reflecting Scenario 2; both votes were unanimous. The council also passed ordinances adopting the gas and electric franchise fees and approved required resolutions to publish ordinance summaries. Staff said the franchise fees will appear as a separate line on monthly utility bills rather than as part of property-tax notices.
What was not decided here: The council did not change the county's assessed values or the state tax code; staff reiterated that appeals of assessments must go to the county assessor. Council members also said they would continue to monitor capital fund balances and asked the finance commission to review CIP priorities and look for efficiencies.
The council adjourned fiscal decisions and then moved to other items on the agenda, including utility rates and liquor-license matters.
