Posts in Roseville Issues Forum

Posts Navigation

Later 20 posts
Earlier 20 posts

Useful Links

Donate to Support this Forum and E-Democracy.Org From: Steven Clift Date: Dec 26 18:43 UTC Short link

If you'd like to support E-Democracy.Org including your local Issues Forum,
please consider donating now before the end of the tax year.

    http://e-democracy.org/donate

Donate using major credit cards, electronic check or mail your check (made out
to Minnesota E-Democracy) to:
   E-Democracy.Org, 3211 E. 44th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55406

Contributions to our 501.c3 non-profit are tax deductible. Consider setting up
a recurring donation to help make sustained difference.

Your support is appreciated and needed.

Sincerely,
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org

P.S. Via our project blog - http://blog.e-democracy.org - and upcoming e-mail
newsletter (first edition coming in January), we will be gathering your input
and building the future of the E-Democracy.Org Issues Forum network together.

Proposed City Tax Increase From: Scott Ritchie Date: Dec 22 15:31 UTC Short link

Thank you, Dan, and other members of the council who recognize that we all,
property owners and city service providers, have to share in responding to this
economic contraction. The economy is probably going to get worse before it gets
better. The most that we can hope for is the beginning of an upturn in 2010.
That means that the city will be grappling with a budget crunch again in
December, 2009. I urge the council to begin now to consider how the costs of
running city government can be pared back to anticipate this situation.



Happy holidays to all.



Scott A. Ritchie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Roe" <dan.roe@comcast.net>
To: "Roseville Issues Forum" <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:09:01 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [RIF] Proposed City Tax Increase

Thanks to all of the people who have provided comments to the City Council on
the proposed budget and tax levy for 2009, whether on this forum, or via emails
or phone calls to councilmembers, or in person at the truth in taxation
hearing.

Also, thanks to my fellow councilmembers for recognizing the need to align the
impact of our property taxes as best we can with the often competing factors of
the ability of our taxpayers to pay and the needs and desires of the users of
city services. We made some tough decisions, and not every member won on every
vote, but the net effect, in my opinion, is to the benefit of our taxpayers.

Some facts and figures to either enlighten or confuse the readers:

Several things can be referred to when talking about percent increases in city
property taxes. First, did the total dollar amount that the city collects in
property taxes go up or down? That amount was about $12.9 million this year,
and would have gone to about $14.1 million in 2009 with our September budget.
That is the number that was talked about as going up by 9.3% in other postings.

Another figure to look at is what is the tax rate that results from the levy
dollar amount. The tax rate is determined essentially by dividing our tax levy
into our "tax capacity," which is essentially the "pool" of property value in
the whole community. That tax rate is then what is multiplied by your property
value (actually, 1% of your property value for most residential payers, and
some other figure for commercial properties - via a fairly complex formula) to
get your city property tax. For 2009, we had, for the first time in years, a
REDUCTION in our tax capacity.  That meant that the number on the bottom of the
fraction got smaller, and, for those who remember their fractions, when the
number on the bottom gets smaller, and the number on the top (our tax levy)
gets bigger, the fraction (or percent) gets bigger. Sure enough, with our
September levy of $14.1 million, and our shrunken tax capacity, our tax RATE
was increasing not by 9.3%, but by 13.5%! That meant tha
t, if your property value stayed about the same, or even went down by as much
as 4%, you would still see a city tax payment increase of more than the 9.3%
levy increase.

Then, there is the actual amount of property taxes that the average residential
property owner in Roseville would pay. For 2009, the average (technically the
median) single-family residential property value decreased by about 5%,
according to the county assessor's report of March 2008. For that property
owner, the tax bill change from 2008 to 2009, with the September levy and
resulting tax rate, would have still been a property tax payment INCREASE of
about 8% -- even with their value having gone down that much.

With the final revised levy of about just over $13.1 million that was passed on
Monday night, the LEVY increase is about 2%, rather than 9.3%. The tax RATE
looks to go up by about 6%, by my calculations, rather than 13.5%. That means
that the average single family residential taxpayer is coming close to paying
just about the same amount in city property taxes in 2009 as in 2008, when
combining a 5% value decrease with a 6% tax rate increase.

I hope that our economic troubles can be as short as possible, not just for all
of our personal sakes, but also so that we can get back to GROWING our tax base
faster than the the growth in the costs of the city doing business, which keeps
the burden on individual taxpayers better under control.

Thanks again to everyone for making sure that we did not miss the message that
you are hurting out there as we made our decisions that affect your taxes. I
hope you feel that, based on our decisions, you were heard.

Dan Roe

Info about Dan Roe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3RIglQPr2t1TG8C222fItK
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

Proposed City Tax Increase From: Dan Roe Date: Dec 18 04:07 UTC Short link

Thanks to all of the people who have provided comments to the City Council on
the proposed budget and tax levy for 2009, whether on this forum, or via emails
or phone calls to councilmembers, or in person at the truth in taxation
hearing.

Also, thanks to my fellow councilmembers for recognizing the need to align the
impact of our property taxes as best we can with the often competing factors of
the ability of our taxpayers to pay and the needs and desires of the users of
city services.  We made some tough decisions, and not every member won on every
vote, but the net effect, in my opinion, is to the benefit of our taxpayers.

Some facts and figures to either enlighten or confuse the readers:

Several things can be referred to when talking about percent increases in city
property taxes.  First, did the total dollar amount that the city collects in
property taxes go up or down?  That amount was about $12.9 million this year,
and would have gone to about $14.1 million in 2009 with our September budget.
That is the number that was talked about as going up by 9.3% in other postings.

Another figure to look at is what is the tax rate that results from the levy
dollar amount.  The tax rate is determined essentially by dividing our tax levy
into our "tax capacity," which is essentially the "pool" of property value in
the whole community.  That tax rate is then what is multiplied by your property
value (actually, 1% of your property value for most residential payers, and
some other figure for commercial properties - via a fairly complex formula) to
get your city property tax.  For 2009, we had, for the first time in years, a
REDUCTION in our tax capacity.   That meant that the number on the bottom of
the fraction got smaller, and, for those who remember their fractions, when the
number on the bottom gets smaller, and the number on the top (our tax levy)
gets bigger, the fraction (or percent) gets bigger.  Sure enough, with our
September levy of $14.1 million, and our shrunken tax capacity, our tax RATE
was increasing not by 9.3%, but by 13.5%!  That meant that, if your property
value stayed about the same, or even went down by as much as 4%, you would
still see a city tax payment increase of more than the 9.3% levy increase.

Then, there is the actual amount of property taxes that the average residential
property owner in Roseville would pay.  For 2009, the average (technically the
median) single-family residential property value decreased by about 5%,
according to the county assessor's report of March 2008.  For that property
owner, the tax bill change from 2008 to 2009, with the September levy and
resulting tax rate, would have still been a property tax payment INCREASE of
about 8% -- even with their value having gone down that much.

With the final revised levy of about just over $13.1 million that was passed on
Monday night, the LEVY increase is about 2%, rather than 9.3%.  The tax RATE
looks to go up by about 6%, by my calculations, rather than 13.5%.  That means
that the average single family residential taxpayer is coming close to paying
just about the same amount in city property taxes in 2009 as in 2008, when
combining a 5% value decrease with a 6% tax rate increase.

I hope that our economic troubles can be as short as possible, not just for all
of our personal sakes, but also so that we can get back to GROWING our tax base
faster than the the growth in the costs of the city doing business, which keeps
the burden on individual taxpayers better under control.

Thanks again to everyone for making sure that we did not miss the message that
you are hurting out there as we made our decisions that affect your taxes.  I
hope you feel that, based on our decisions, you were heard.

Proposed City Tax Increase From: Megan Dushin Date: Dec 17 05:17 UTC Short link

I'm just thankful to both Gary and John for staying on top of things. Your
citizenship, knowledge, and communication skills inspire me. Slowly catching up
with a FT job, grad school, and 2 young kids! Thanks again, and hope to see you
at City Hall someday.

Proposed City Tax Increase From: Gary Grefenberg Date: Dec 17 03:12 UTC Short link

City Council Takes Final Action on 2009 Budget

Last night the Roseville City Council again tackled the issue of the 2009 tax
levy and budget.  After almost two hours of detailed discussion, argument, and
various motions, the Council finalized both.

At Monday's meeting City Manager Bill Manager came in with a revised budget
requiring a smaller tax increase (4.5%) than the budget before the Council at
the December 1st Truth in Taxation hearing. This initial budget would have
raised the city's portion of the homeowners' property taxes by an average of
9.3%. This reduced budget was in response to the residents' concerns expressed
at that public hearing and in response to the Council's previous direction to
come back with a budget requiring no more than a 5.0% increase.

City staff recommended the following measures to reduce the budget and
consequently lower property taxes:

           ?? $99,700 in savings from the 2008 budget (carry-over)
   ?? $74,020 in various departmental reductions
   ?? $70,000 in motor fuel and energy related costs

   ?? $100,000 in unspent bond proceeds from the Ice Arena

   ?? $70,000 in personnel costs including a reduction in the COLA to 2.9%

   ?? $30,000 in attorney fees

   ?? $33,000 in elections costs

           ?? $100,000 in the HRA Levy.

This added revenue and budget reductions achieved a savings of over $576,000,
which amount could then be removed from the levy, thus reducing the levy
increase to 4.5%.

Last night the City Council accepted staff revised budget but went even
further, deleting an additional $340,000 proposed as an annual payment to the
City's reserve fund for vehicle replacement.  Currently this reserve fund has
approximately $1,000,000 on hand, and it seemed a majority of the council felt
this one-time payment could be postponed for a year, considering the
extraordinary economic hard times many Roseville residents find themselves
facing.

These changes resulted in an overall city property tax levy of about
$13,138,000, an increase of 1.9% from 2008. This compares to the preliminary
proposed budget of $14,095,000, which would have seen an average property tax
hike for city taxpayers of 9.3%

I've listed the reductions required to achieve this lower property tax increase
because this welcome relief to Roseville property taxpayers comes at a price.

In my mind this almost month-long process proves much more than you can fight
City Hall, but that City Hall responds when you show up.

Gary Grefenberg

[Fwd: Re: School Truth in Taxation Hearing] From: Edward Davis Date: Dec 15 15:36 UTC Short link

We are moving this comment of moved topic to a descriptive subject line.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RIF] School Truth in Taxation Hearing
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:16:48 -0600
From: Dick's Houck Ads e-mail <dick@houckads.com>
To: Roseville Issues Forum <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>,
      Dan Roe <dan.roe@comcast.net>
References: <20081212034802.5B68121B8CA@vida.onlinegroups.net>

Thank you Dan for your posting encouragement, and I will.

I and three other persons showed up for the District 623 School Board Truth
in Taxation Hearing last Tuesday evening. When only one of the board
members
showed up for this State law mandated hearing, I was visibly upset and
angry
and refused to address the empty board seats with my comments. As a result,
the school board did allow time for us to make our comments at their
regular
meeting last night, and although attending this meeting required me to miss
the Ramsey County truth in taxation hearing, I did make my comments.

My comments included my dissatisfaction with the bottom line of the school
districtâs budget in that it has resulted in a 15 percent increase in
that
item on my property tax statement for next year, and also that there is a
never ending demand for an increase in the districtâs tax with little or
only modest improvement in the end product. Who of us is receiving any kind
of an increase in income much less 15 percent.

In a recent  U.S. News and World Report rating of all schools in the
nation,
Roseville did have one award, which is to be commended. However, of the top
20 schools in the nation, 8 were from the East Coast, 6 were from the
South â most in Texas, 10 were from the West Coast â most from
California,
and 1 from the Midwest â Michigan. There were none from Minnesota or
surrounding states. My question is, with all of the money that we spend on
our schools, why are we not in the top twenty, and what are they doing that
we are not that makes them top.

I believe that our public school system is entirely too top heavy and
one in
which the system runs the people and not the people the system. More and
more money keeps pouring into the system and the system just keeps gobbling
it up on more and more expenses with very limited results.

A more relevant survey was taken of some 20 thousand students in which a
substantial percentage admitted that they cheated in their school work,
plagiarized from the internet, and shoplifted from stores, with over 90
percent saying that they were satisfied with their ethics. Certainly
parents
are responsible for this disturbing piece of information, but I believe
that
schools share in it also in that morality cannot be mentioned any more.
What
does that say about the future leaders of our society.

Some time ago I visited with Superintendent Thein with what I believed
to be
an innovative suggestion for an alternative public school in the district.
Since I am not an expert educator I certainly did not have all of the
details that would be necessary to accommodate such an undertaking, but
although it was deemed an interesting idea, it was met with all of the
reasons why it would not be possible, never mind that it might be good for
the children or welcomed by parents. In this regard, I would be glad to
share this idea with the school board if they are at all interested and
would set some time to listen to it.

In conclusion, can the system become leaner and meaner? I am not so sure,
since those in power at the top are satisfied with status quo. Competition
makes for better production and products, but that is not allowed in this
monopoly system. If it were allowed, that would certainly make an improved
system and product. However, at a time when every one in the country is
suffering from an economic down turn, I do believe that the district, city,
county, state and federal government structures should and must suffer the
same as everyone else and correspondingly cut their budgets to the bone
with
no increase or even a decrease. Everyone should fairly share in the
countryâs
economic woes including the government. When the taxpayers are suffering
from less income, higher prices, loss of investments, jobs and even
possibly
homes, the government should not be saying thatâs too bad, but we need
more
and you will have to with even less to accommodate us. I believe this to be
immoral, dishonest and disingenuous.

These were my comments to the Board of Education regarding what will be
their apparent demand for more of our tax dollars.

Dick Houck

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Roe" <dan.roe@comcast.net>
To: "Roseville Issues Forum" <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [RIF] No Subject

> Back to the original (no) subject:
>
> Thank you, Luke, for your positive feedback on the RIF.
>
> Please do not hesitate to post thoughts or questions, as that is the whole
> point of the forum.  Believe it or not, the posts do not even have to be
> about Roseville city government or hot-button topics like our tax levy,
> although feedback about such issues can be helpful to the dialogue about
> them in the community.
>
> Don't just lurk -- Post!  Respond!  Converse!
>
>
> Dan Roe
>
> Info about Dan Roe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1QMD9P1dVhSPlwATX18gr6
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> Roseville Issues Forum
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
>

Dick Houck

Info about Dick Houck: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/dickhouck

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2ds3ObseOtebA7whZOA44l
-----------------------------------------
   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

   More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

  Roseville Issues Forum
   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

School Board Tax Levy Hearing From: Edward Davis Date: Dec 15 15:35 UTC Short link

We are moving this comment of moved topic to a descriptive subject line.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RIF] No Subject
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:15:02 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Tom Lageson <tlageson@comcast.net>
To: Roseville Issues Forum <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>

That's not a valid TNT hearing as they didn't have quorum.  I expect
that they need to reschedule, and furthermore, officially re-notify
everyone.  That will be expensive.

So, who was the one school board member to show up?  Does anyone know
why the other ones weren't there?   Being at the TNT hearing is a
fundamental basic part of the job serving as an elected representative.
  If you can't attend that, you shouldn't be on the board.

Also, Gary, you should have posted this in its own thread, with a
subject heading.  People are going to miss this.

- Tom


Tom Lageson
Falcon Heights
Info about Tom Lageson: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/tomlageson

Steven Clift wrote:
> We are moving this topic to a descriptive subject line.
>
> Past posts:
>
> From: Gary Grefenberg Date: Dec 10 13:41 CST Short link
>
> Question: What do you call a public hearing where no one comes to hear the
> public?  Answer: A Roseville School Board Truth in Taxation hearing .
>
> Last night I attended the Roseville School Board hearing on its proposed levy
.
> Only one out of six school board members were present.
>
> My property tax statement had notified me of this Truth in Taxation hearing;
it
> stated The school board will discuss the 2008 budget (emphasis added).  I and
> the other residents present found it difficult to discuss the budget with
most
> of the school board absent.
>
>
> From: Tom Lageson Date: Dec 11 09:12 CST Short link
>
> That's not a valid TNT hearing as they didn't have quorum.  I expect that
they
> need to reschedule, and furthermore, officially re-notify everyone.  That
will
> be expensive.
>
> So, who was the one school board member to show up?  Does anyone know why the
> other ones weren't there?   Being at the TNT hearing is a fundamental basic
> part of the job serving as an elected representative.  If you can't attend
> that, you shouldn't be on the board.
>
> Also, Gary, you should have posted this in its own thread, with a subject
> heading.  People are going to miss this.
>
> - Tom
>
>
> From: Dan Roe Date: Dec 11 21:45 CST Short link
> [Image of Dan Roe]
>
> Back to the original (no) subject:
>
> Thank you, Luke, for your positive feedback on the RIF.
>
> Please do not hesitate to post thoughts or questions, as that is the whole
> point of the forum.  Believe it or not, the posts do not even have to be
about
> Roseville city government or hot-button topics like our tax levy, although
> feedback about such issues can be helpful to the dialogue about them in the
> community.
>
> Don't just lurk -- Post!  Respond!  Converse!
>
>
> Steven Clift
> Ericsson, Minneapolis
> Info about Steven Clift: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stevenclift
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3QuiKn29fIrNdNyKmtyw7W
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>  Roseville Issues Forum
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
>

School Board Tax Levy From: Tom Lageson Date: Dec 15 02:14 UTC Short link

"We appreciate hearing from citizens on any topic related to schools."

But not enough to attend your own state law mandated Truth in Taxation Hearing?

No apology for missing it?

You even wrote your post to sound like the school board is magnanimously
extending receiving public comment.  Shameful.  Maybe you would like to tell
everyone why you are extending comment.

Also, this is also not an official place to post a meeting notice.  This list
is a minuscule fraction of the total taxpayers in District 623.

The Truth in Taxation Hearing is a state law mandated meeting for the
representatives of the taxing jurisdiction to hear comments directly from the
people that elected them.  Only one of the six board members bothered to show
up.  Why did you bother running for school board if you don't show up?  Where
were the other four that missed the meeting?

- Tom

Proposed City Tax Increase From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Dec 15 01:03 UTC Short link

I want to thank Mr. Klausing for offering comments on the proposed property tax
increase, since he is the only one of the five that fully supported the
approximately 10% increase.

After reading his commentary though, Ihave littleidea why he finds a 10%
increase to be acceptable. I have heard clearly from the other four members on
this forum and at council meetings but all I recall Mr. Klausing stating is
that he didn't run for office in order to have to cut the budget and run the
city into the ground. (note that no one has even talked about "cutting" taxes,
just a lower increase)

In absence of an explanation for me to reply to, I'll use my time to reply to a
few of his other statements.

First,I have to disagree with Mr. Klausing's statement that comparing
percentages of levy increases is of little value. This is just one of many
tools that need to be looked at when discussing these issues. What I have been
critical of in the past is using one single statistic to drive the entire tax
levy discussion. If that is Mr. Klausing's position, and I am misunderstanding
him, then we both agree on this point.

If Mr. Klausing and I both agree that we should not talk tax levy issues based
upon one single statistic, I would ask him to tell the finance director to stop
showing that selectively manipulated chart he shows year after year. It is that
chart that makes the claim that we have the lowest property tax rate. The chart
purposely eliminates many cities that have lower tax rates than Roseville to
give residents a false impression of what the real numbers. The real numbers
are fully reported by the Citizens League and the State Auditor. Also let's be
fair and put up the chart that shows that Roseville has some of the highest
user fees around. Let's have this levy discussion with all the info, not just
info slanted to buffalo the people.

Second, the local government aid issue really doesn't apply to our tax levy
discussions. Most of the cities getting large amounts of local government aid
as a proportion of their budget are located in Greater Minnesota. Also these
cities do not have a high percentage of large industrial areas and shopping
malls like Roseville does. High commercial industry values lower residential
property taxes. This whole local government aid argument does little to explain
a 10% property tax increase.

While Roseville has a low tax rate, don't forget the high user fees. Also don't
forget the volunteers who contribute a substantial amound of time and money. I
would argue that we only have an average level of services. It is the
volunteers who bring it into the "high" category. Let's not give government
credit for the independent work of our citizens.

I'm glad that Mr. Klausing pointed out the Citizens League chart on tax rates.
Let's quit using that distorted chart the finance director keeps putting out
every year and use this one that is much more accurate! Please note this for
2009!

I kind of had to chuckle at Mr. Klausing's comparison of the Saint Paul tax
rate and Roseville's tax rate, showing that Saint Paul is higher. This not an
apples to apples comparison for obvious reasons that probably number in the
dozens.

Look on the Citizens League chart at the COUNTY tax rate column for a clue. It
shows that all of the suburbs in Ramsey County are taxed at a 0.44% rate. It
also shows that Saint Paul is taxed at a 0.41% tax rate. So why the different
tax rate? Well it is called the difference between the city levy and the
suburban levy as it has been explained to me by city staff. Saint Paul pays
less of a county tax rate because the city does work for the county. Staff
informed me years ago that Saint Paul plows and cleans county roads in their
city. In Roseville the city does NOT do this, but the county does it
themselves. My point is that Saint Paul is going to have a higher city tax rate
because they take on county work and in return they get a lower tax rate from
the county.

A second hole in this comparison is that I am almost positive that Saint Paul
has no where near the amount of commercial property as Roseville doesif you
properly compare these numbers on a percentage basis. Total amount of
commercial property is meaningless. It is the amount of commercial property vs.
residential property that matters. The more commercial pays, the less
residential pays.

Roseville hasn't gotten LGA since the mid-1990's or maybe even the mid 1980's,
not just "the last few years". Non issue.

I do agree with Mr. Klausing that we need to consider more than just percentage
increases when discussing tax levy issues. So let's start talking about the
increase in personal income in this community. Let's start talking about city
health care benefits versus what they are giving out in the real world. Let's
start talking about whether the newly proposed2.9% pay increase for employees
is compariable to what people are getting in the real world. Let's start
talking about how many jobs other cities are leaving unfilled or how many
people they are laying off.

After all of these comparisons are done, I think we come right back to the same
conclusion that most had at the Truth in Taxation meeting which is that a 10%
levy increase is rediculous. So is a 5% increase for that matter.

John Kysylyczyn
Roseville



-------- Original Message --------Subject: Re: [RIF] Proposed City Tax
IncreaseFrom: "Gary Grefenberg" <ggrefenberg@comcast.net>Date: Thu, December
11, 2008 4:46 pmTo: "Roseville Issues Forum"
<roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>,"Craig Klausing"
<craigklausing@comcast.net>I appreciate the Mayor's response; it adds more
information for Roseville residents' to consider and thus assists in the
community dialogue on what may be the Council's most important decision this
year. I do not, however, believe that Ramsey County's comparison of proposed
levy increases "obscures" consideration of the proposed tax hike. In fact, it
is the one set of statistics that impacts residents' lives the most, and in my
mind thus even more relevant than a Citizens' League study of past tax
rates.All of the residents, save one, who appeared at the Council's December
1st Truth in Taxation hearing raised the impact of the city's proposed property
tax increase on their lives, input which should prove more than useful for the
council.in making its final decision.A copy of the County's comparison of
proposed property tax increases is attached.No one is attacking the level of
services currently provided by the city, much less the public servants who
provide them. Some of us are questioning whether in these times of recession
and high unemployment we can afford this service level for all city services.
Others are questioning whether it is fair for City Hall to require Roseville
residents on fixed income, low income, and no income, to pay for city
employees' 3.5% cost of living raises as well as salary step increases ranging
between 2.5-4%. Since these are difficult economic times requiring hard
decisions for all of us, homeowners, renters, and public employees alike, I
attempted to find out how other cities are reacting to this budget squeeze and
was frankly surprised that Roseville's levy increase was the second highest
compared to the other 18 Ramsey County municipalities, including St. Paul. At
the same time I read in my daily newspaper that both the mayors of St. Paul and
Minneapolis have imposed hiring freezes, that 3M has slashed 1,800 jobs and
postponed merit pay performances for next year, and that nationally the year's
total job losses are now up to 1.9 million, the largest monthly job loss total
since December 1974. So naturally I look to the Mayor and Council to provide
leadership in these times before Roseville experiences a financial crisis
requiring widespread lay-offs and elimination of some city services.I
personally support council members Roe and Willmus' efforts to bring the City's
proposed budget increase to no more than 5%, and council member Ihlan's
position that 'everything should be on the table' when considering the proposed
2009 budget. Other residents may disagree, feeling that the economic times
require a 0.00% increase in next year's levy. What I am convinced of, however,
is that these extraordinary times require new approaches to budgeting and tax
increases, and strong civic leadership.----- Original Message ----- From:
"Craig Klausing" <craigklausing@comcast.net>To: "Roseville Issues Forum"
<roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008
11:03 AMSubject: Re: [RIF] Proposed City Tax Increase> As the council works
through the budget for 2009, we are faced with many tough choices in balancing
the level of services that Roseville residents have come to expect against what
residents are willing and able to pay for those services. Merely comparing the
percentage of levy increases between communities is of little value to that
process and in fact obscures more than it illuminates. > > Cities with higher
tax rates can impose lower percentage increases while still imposing a greater
tax burden on their citizens. Some cities receive large amounts of local
government aid (LGA) from the state making them less dependent on property
taxes to provide services. The level of services provided varies greatly from
city to city. > > Roseville provides a very high level of services at a very
low tax rate. Roseville has a nationally recognized park and recreation system,
our average response time for police and fire calls is among the best in the
state, our roads are well maintained (compare how quickly and well your street
was plowed after the last snow fall compared to St. Paul), so on and so forth.
The city has done all that while having one of the lowest tax rates in the
metropolitan area and not receiving any LGA for the last few years. > > The
Citizens League has posted their annual survey of tax rates for 117
metropolitan communities (a link is at the end of this post). Of 117
communities in the metropolitan area, Rosevilles tax rate ranks 84th. In other
words, out of 117 communities, only 33 have a lower tax rate. Yes, Rosevilles
initial percentage increase was higher than St. Pauls, but St. Pauls tax rate
(.304%) is higher than Rosevilles (.252%), meaning that you will pay more taxes
on the same house in St. Paul than you would in Roseville. Moreover, St. Paul
was certified to receive $56,781,644 in local government aid (LGA) in 2008.
Roseville received nothing, not a penny, in LGA (Minnesota Department of
Revenue, link concerning LGA at end of post). So even with $56.7 million state
aid, St. Pauls tax rate was still higher than Rosevilles. Despite all of this
Roseville still provides, I believe, a level of services that is second to
none. > > Again, the city council and the community of Roseville have tough
decisions to make regarding taxes and services. Reasonable people can reach
different conclusions as to how to strike that balance. While comparing
percentage increases between cities can be part of a discussion of this issue,
it cannot be the only factor we look at if we are trying to make sound
decisions about the budget. > >
http://www.citizensleague.org/what/projects/tax/property/2008-1/>
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/property_tax_administrators/other_supporting_content/city_aid_cert_2009.shtml
(Scroll to the bottom of the page and open the spread sheet.)> > > Craig
Klausing> Roseville> Info about Craig Klausing:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/craigklausing> > This topic's messages may be
viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5bDXRSl7Qp7nr83S7GfXyD>
-----------------------------------------> To post, send your message to:
<email obscured>> To leave or for daily digest, type
"unsubscribe" or "digest on,"> in subject line and send to:
<email obscured>> > More info about Roseville Issues
Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues> >
E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules>
-----------------------------------------> Technical assistance thanks to our
friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net> > Roseville Issues Forum>
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html Roseville
Issues Forum now contains the following
filehttp://forums.e-democracy.org/r/file/258-2008-12-11T234601ZName: Ramsey Co
2009 PROPOSED NetLevy Comparison2.pdfTags: "attachment" Type:
application/pdfSize: 13KBAll the files that have been added to Roseville Issues
Forum can be viewed
athttp://forums.e-democracy.org/s/?g=roseville-issues&amp;f=1&amp;t=0Gary
GrefenbergInfo about Gary Grefenberg:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/garygrefenbergThis topic's messages may be
viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1w3wCf8V0CslpQtxuIcqkO
-----------------------------------------To post, send your message to:
roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.orgTo leave or for daily digest, type
"unsubscribe" or "digest on,"in subject line and send to:
roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.orgMore info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issuesE-Democracy.Org rules:
http://e-democracy.org/rules-----------------------------------------Technical
assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.NetRoseville Issues
Forumhttp://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

School Board Tax Levy From: Kitty Gogins Date: Dec 12 18:34 UTC Short link

I would like to thank all the citizens who attended the Truth in Taxation
Hearing December 9, spoke at the School Board Meeting December 11 or otherwise
provided input to the school board.  We appreciate hearing from citizens on any
topic related to schools.

The regularly scheduled School Board meeting of Roseville Area Schools held on
Thursday, December 11, 2008, will be continued to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
December 16, 2008, at the District Offices located at 1251 County Road B2W,
Roseville, MN, 55113.  The purpose of this continued meeting will be to provide
further opportunity for public comment on the proposed 2009 Payable 2010 Tax
Levy for Independent School District No. 623.  After receiving public comment
at this continued meeting, the School Board will take final action on the
proposed tax levy.

We look forward to any additional input you are interested in providing.

Kitty Gogins
Roseville Area School Board Chair

School Truth in Taxation Hearing From: Dick Houck Date: Dec 12 18:23 UTC Short link

Thank you Dan for your posting encouragement, and I will.



I and three other persons showed up for the District 623 School Board Truth
in Taxation Hearing last Tuesday evening. When only one of the board members
showed up for this State law mandated hearing, I was visibly upset and angry
and refused to address the empty board seats with my comments. As a result,
the school board did allow time for us to make our comments at their regular
meeting last night, and although attending this meeting required me to miss
the Ramsey County truth in taxation hearing, I did make my comments.



My comments included my dissatisfaction with the bottom line of the school
district’s budget in that it has resulted in a 15 percent increase in that
item on my property tax statement for next year, and also that there is a
never ending demand for an increase in the district’s tax with little or
only modest improvement in the end product. Who of us is receiving any kind
of an increase in income much less 15 percent.



In a recent  U.S. News and World Report rating of all schools in the nation,
Roseville did have one award, which is to be commended. However, of the top
20 schools in the nation, 8 were from the East Coast, 6 were from the
South – most in Texas, 10 were from the West Coast – most from California,
and 1 from the Midwest – Michigan. There were none from Minnesota or
surrounding states. My question is, with all of the money that we spend on
our schools, why are we not in the top twenty, and what are they doing that
we are not that makes them top.



I believe that our public school system is entirely too top heavy and one in
which the system runs the people and not the people the system. More and
more money keeps pouring into the system and the system just keeps gobbling
it up on more and more expenses with very limited results.



A more relevant survey was taken of some 20 thousand students in which a
substantial percentage admitted that they cheated in their school work,
plagiarized from the internet, and shoplifted from stores, with over 90
percent saying that they were satisfied with their ethics. Certainly parents
are responsible for this disturbing piece of information, but I believe that
schools share in it also in that morality cannot be mentioned any more. What
does that say about the future leaders of our society.



Some time ago I visited with Superintendent Thein with what I believed to be
an innovative suggestion for an alternative public school in the district.
Since I am not an expert educator I certainly did not have all of the
details that would be necessary to accommodate such an undertaking, but
although it was deemed an interesting idea, it was met with all of the
reasons why it would not be possible, never mind that it might be good for
the children or welcomed by parents. In this regard, I would be glad to
share this idea with the school board if they are at all interested and
would set some time to listen to it.



In conclusion, can the system become leaner and meaner? I am not so sure,
since those in power at the top are satisfied with status quo. Competition
makes for better production and products, but that is not allowed in this
monopoly system. If it were allowed, that would certainly make an improved
system and product. However, at a time when every one in the country is
suffering from an economic down turn, I do believe that the district, city,
county, state and federal government structures should and must suffer the
same as everyone else and correspondingly cut their budgets to the bone with
no increase or even a decrease. Everyone should fairly share in the country’s
economic woes including the government. When the taxpayers are suffering
from less income, higher prices, loss of investments, jobs and even possibly
homes, the government should not be saying that’s too bad, but we need more
and you will have to with even less to accommodate us. I believe this to be
immoral, dishonest and disingenuous.



These were my comments to the Board of Education regarding what will be
their apparent demand for more of our tax dollars.



Dick Houck

School Board Tax Levy Hearing From: Steven Clift Date: Dec 12 18:05 UTC Short link

We are moving this topic to a descriptive subject line.

Past posts:

From: Gary Grefenberg Date: Dec 10 13:41 CST Short link

Question: What do you call a public hearing where no one comes to hear the
public?  Answer: A Roseville School Board Truth in Taxation hearing .

Last night I attended the Roseville School Board hearing on its proposed levy .
Only one out of six school board members were present.

My property tax statement had notified me of this Truth in Taxation hearing; it
stated The school board will discuss the 2008 budget (emphasis added).  I and
the other residents present found it difficult to discuss the budget with most
of the school board absent.


From: Tom Lageson Date: Dec 11 09:12 CST Short link

That's not a valid TNT hearing as they didn't have quorum.  I expect that they
need to reschedule, and furthermore, officially re-notify everyone.  That will
be expensive.

So, who was the one school board member to show up?  Does anyone know why the
other ones weren't there?   Being at the TNT hearing is a fundamental basic
part of the job serving as an elected representative.  If you can't attend
that, you shouldn't be on the board.

Also, Gary, you should have posted this in its own thread, with a subject
heading.  People are going to miss this.

- Tom


From: Dan Roe Date: Dec 11 21:45 CST Short link
[Image of Dan Roe]

Back to the original (no) subject:

Thank you, Luke, for your positive feedback on the RIF.

Please do not hesitate to post thoughts or questions, as that is the whole
point of the forum.  Believe it or not, the posts do not even have to be about
Roseville city government or hot-button topics like our tax levy, although
feedback about such issues can be helpful to the dialogue about them in the
community.

Don't just lurk -- Post!  Respond!  Converse!

No Subject From: Dan Roe Date: Dec 12 03:45 UTC Short link

Back to the original (no) subject:

Thank you, Luke, for your positive feedback on the RIF.

Please do not hesitate to post thoughts or questions, as that is the whole
point of the forum.  Believe it or not, the posts do not even have to be about
Roseville city government or hot-button topics like our tax levy, although
feedback about such issues can be helpful to the dialogue about them in the
community.

Don't just lurk -- Post!  Respond!  Converse!

Proposed City Tax Increase From: Gary Grefenberg Date: Dec 11 23:46 UTC Short link

I appreciate the Mayor's response; it adds more information for Roseville
residents' to consider and thus assists in the community dialogue on what may
be the Council's most important decision this year.  I do not, however, believe
that Ramsey County's comparison of proposed levy increases "obscures"
consideration of the proposed tax hike.  In fact, it is the one set of
statistics that  impacts residents' lives the most, and in my mind thus even
more relevant than a  Citizens' League study of past tax rates.

All of the residents, save one, who appeared at the Council's December 1st
Truth in Taxation hearing raised the impact of the city's proposed property tax
increase on their lives, input which should prove more than useful for the
council.in making its final decision.

A copy of the County's comparison of proposed property tax increases is
attached.

No one is attacking the level of services currently provided by the city, much
less the public servants who provide them.  Some of us are questioning whether
in these times of recession and high unemployment we can afford this service
level for all city services.   Others are questioning whether it is fair for
City Hall to require Roseville residents on fixed income, low income, and no
income, to pay for city employees' 3.5% cost of living raises as well as salary
step increases ranging between 2.5-4%.

Since these are difficult economic times requiring hard decisions for all of
us, homeowners, renters, and public employees alike, I attempted to find out
how other cities are reacting to this budget squeeze and was frankly surprised
that Roseville's levy increase was the second highest compared to the other 18
Ramsey County municipalities, including St. Paul.  At the same time I read in
my daily newspaper that both the mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis have
imposed hiring freezes, that 3M has slashed 1,800 jobs and postponed merit pay
performances for next year, and that nationally the year's total job losses are
now up to 1.9 million, the largest monthly job loss total since December 1974.
So naturally I look to the Mayor and Council to provide leadership in these
times before Roseville experiences a financial crisis requiring widespread
lay-offs and elimination of some city services.

I personally support council members Roe and Willmus' efforts to bring the
City's proposed budget increase to no more than 5%, and council member Ihlan's
position that 'everything should be on the table' when considering the proposed
2009 budget.  Other residents may disagree, feeling that the economic times
require a 0.00% increase in next year's levy.  What I am convinced of, however,
is that these extraordinary times require new approaches to budgeting and tax
increases, and strong civic leadership.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Klausing" <craigklausing@comcast.net>
To: "Roseville Issues Forum" <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [RIF] Proposed City Tax Increase


> As the council works through the budget for 2009, we are faced with many
tough choices in balancing the level of services that Roseville residents have
come to expect against what residents are willing and able to pay for those
services.  Merely comparing the percentage of levy increases between
communities is of little value to that process and in fact obscures more than
it illuminates.
>
> Cities with higher tax rates can impose lower percentage increases while
still imposing a greater tax burden on their citizens.  Some cities receive
large amounts of local government aid (LGA) from the state making them less
dependent on property taxes to provide services.  The level of services
provided varies greatly from city to city.
>
> Roseville provides a very high level of services at a very low tax rate.
Roseville has a nationally recognized park and recreation system, our average
response time for police and fire calls is among the best in the state, our
roads are well maintained (compare how quickly and well your street was plowed
after the last snow fall compared to St. Paul), so on and so forth.  The city
has done all that while having one of the lowest tax rates in the metropolitan
area and not receiving any LGA for the last few years.
>
> The Citizens League has posted their annual survey of tax rates for 117
metropolitan communities (a link is at the end of this post).  Of 117
communities in the metropolitan area, Rosevilles tax rate ranks 84th.  In other
words, out of 117 communities, only 33 have a lower tax rate.  Yes, Rosevilles
initial percentage increase was higher than St. Pauls, but St. Pauls tax rate
(.304%) is higher than Rosevilles (.252%), meaning that you will pay more taxes
on the same house in St. Paul than you would in Roseville.  Moreover, St. Paul
was certified to receive $56,781,644 in local government aid (LGA) in 2008.
Roseville received nothing, not a penny, in LGA (Minnesota Department of
Revenue, link concerning LGA at end of post).  So even with $56.7 million state
aid, St. Pauls tax rate was still higher than Rosevilles.  Despite all of this
Roseville still provides, I believe, a level of services that is second to
none.
>
> Again, the city council and the community of Roseville have tough decisions
to make regarding taxes and services.  Reasonable people can reach different
conclusions as to how to strike that balance.  While comparing percentage
increases between cities can be part of a discussion of this issue, it cannot
be the only factor we look at if we are trying to make sound decisions about
the budget.
>
> http://www.citizensleague.org/what/projects/tax/property/2008-1/
>
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/property_tax_administrators/other_supporting_content/city_aid_cert_2009.shtml
(Scroll to the bottom of the page and open the spread sheet.)
>
>
> Craig Klausing
> Roseville
> Info about Craig Klausing: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/craigklausing
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5bDXRSl7Qp7nr83S7GfXyD
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> Roseville Issues Forum
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

The following file was added to this topic:

Ramsey Co 2009 PROPOSED NetLevy Comparison2.pdf (application/pdf, 14KB)

No Subject From: Tom Lageson Date: Dec 11 15:12 UTC Short link

That's not a valid TNT hearing as they didn't have quorum.  I expect that they
need to reschedule, and furthermore, officially re-notify everyone.  That will
be expensive.

So, who was the one school board member to show up?  Does anyone know why the
other ones weren't there?   Being at the TNT hearing is a fundamental basic
part of the job serving as an elected representative.  If you can't attend
that, you shouldn't be on the board.

Also, Gary, you should have posted this in its own thread, with a subject
heading.  People are going to miss this.

- Tom

No Subject From: Gary Grefenberg Date: Dec 10 19:41 UTC Short link

Question: What do you call a public hearing where no one comes to hear the
public?  Answer: A Roseville School Board Truth in Taxation hearing .

Last night I attended the Roseville School Board hearing on its proposed levy .
Only one out of six school board members were present.

My property tax statement had notified me of this Truth in Taxation hearing; it
stated The school board will discuss the 2008 budget (emphasis added).  I and
the other residents present found it difficult to discuss the budget with most
of the school board absent.

Proposed City Tax Increase From: Craig Klausing Date: Dec 10 17:00 UTC Short link

As the council works through the budget for 2009, we are faced with many tough
choices in balancing the level of services that Roseville residents have come
to expect against what residents are willing and able to pay for those
services. Merely comparing the percentage of levy increases between
communities is of little value to that process and in fact obscures more than
it illuminates.

Cities with higher tax rates can impose lower percentage increases while still
imposing a greater tax burden on their citizens. Some cities receive large
amounts of local government aid (LGA) from the state making them less dependent
on property taxes to provide services. The level of services provided varies
greatly from city to city.

Roseville provides a very high level of services at a very low tax rate.
Roseville has a nationally recognized park and recreation system, our average
response time for police and fire calls is among the best in the state, our
roads are well maintained (compare how quickly and well your street was plowed
after the last snow fall compared to St. Paul), so on and so forth. The city
has done all that while having one of the lowest tax rates in the metropolitan
area and not receiving any LGA for the last few years.

The Citizen’s League has posted their annual survey of tax rates for 117
metropolitan communities (a link is at the end of this post). Of 117
communities in the metropolitan area, Roseville’s tax rate ranks 84th. In
other words, out of 117 communities, only 33 have a lower tax rate. Yes,
Roseville’s initial “percentage” increase was higher than St. Paul’s,
but St. Paul’s tax rate (.304%) is higher than Roseville’s (.252%), meaning
that you will pay more taxes on the same house in St. Paul than you would in
Roseville. Moreover, St. Paul was certified to receive $56,781,644 in local
government aid (LGA) in 2008. Roseville received nothing, not a penny, in LGA
(Minnesota Department of Revenue, link concerning LGA at end of post). So even
with $56.7 million state aid, St. Paul’s tax rate was still higher than
Roseville’s. Despite all of this Roseville still provides, I believe, a
level of services that is second to none.

Again, the city council and the community of Roseville have tough decisions to
make regarding taxes and services. Reasonable people can reach different
conclusions as to how to strike that balance. While comparing percentage
increases between cities can be part of a discussion of this issue, it cannot
be the only factor we look at if we are trying to make sound decisions about
the budget.

http://www.citizensleague.org/what/projects/tax/property/2008-1/
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/property_tax_administrators/other_supporting_content/city_aid_cert_2009.shtml
(Scroll to the bottom of the page and open the spread sheet.)

Proposed City Tax Increase From: Gary Grefenberg Date: Dec 09 22:52 UTC Short link

December 9, 2008



 On Monday, December 1st, the Roseville City Council held its tax levy hearing
on its proposed 9.3% increase in property taxes for 2009.  Final city council
action is expected at their December 15th meeting.



I had prepared eight questions meant for those who had prepared the budget.
Time permitted only question: what new programs or program expansions required
a budgetary increase of 9.3%.  The mayor's answer was that there were no major
new program or expansions, or even minor expansions, in the budget.  Problem:
If there is nothing new being proposed and if the cost of living raises are set
at 3.5%, why is the proposed levy set at 9.3%?  (The Ramsey County web site,
Property and Tax Information page, pegs Roseville's increase even higher at
9.9%.)



The proposed increase also seems seriously out of wack with surrounding
communities:  Such as:



            Falcon Heights           2.1%                Roseville almost 4.5
times more.



            Shoreview                   3.9%                Roseville 2.3 times
more



            Little Canada             5.0%                Roseville 86% more



            Arden Hills                 7.4%                Roseville 26% more



And most shocking of all Roseville is even proposing a levy increase of bigger
then 'the big city' of St. Paul, a levy increase covering not only city
operating costs but also the St. Paul Library, the Port Authority, and debt
service:



            St. Paul                                   8.0%
Roseville 16% more.



More importantly, as indicated on the Ramsey County web site, Roseville's
proposed levy is the second highest in all of Ramsey County, surpassed only by
St. Anthony which came in at 10.0%. (That St. Anthony figure needs to be
understood in the context that the actual amount to be levied is based on its
2008 budget of $1.1 million, compared to Roseville's current budget of $12.1
million.)



Last year's approved levy increase was 11.6%. That made us then the 4th highest
out of 19 municipalities. As you can see, we've 'improved' our ranking since.



If this year's proposed levy is approved Roseville will have experienced a 21%
increase in property taxes in only two years.  And this is in a time when the
year's total job losses are now up to 1.9 million, the largest monthly job loss
total since December 1974.  Keith Hall, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, recently described the situation to a congressional committee as
"maybe one of the worst jobs reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics (founded in
1884) has ever produced."

One of the Roseville residents who spoke at last week's council hearing
described the proposed levy increase as "immoral".  I now understand his point.
City Hall may be asking Roseville residents on fixed income, low income, and no
income, to sacrifice even more so that city employees can get 3.5% raises and
some even an additional 4% step increases.



I'm a liberal and believe in the value of government, but something does seem
wrong here, if not immoral.  The final decision will be up to the City Council
at its next meeting on Monday, December 15th.

Following the 2009 Legislative Session Online From: Tim Erickson Date: Dec 05 20:31 UTC Short link

Public Invitation: Please share with others......
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please join us for our final SPED Outreach workshop of the current
session. We have invited Robbie LaFleur, director of the Minnesota
Legislative Library, to give us a tour of the many resources on the
state website, useful for tracking the upcoming legislative session.

WHAT:     Following the MN Legislature on the Web

WHO:      Robbie LaFleur, Director of the Minnesota
               Legislative Reference Library
WHERE:    Rondo Community Outreach Library,
               Electronic Classroom
               University & Dale, St. Paul
               (FREE INDOOR PARKING)
WHEN:     Mon. December 8th, 7:00 PM
           FREE and OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

The 2009 session of the Minnesota legislature convenes on January 9th.
This year, the state of Minnesota is facing a historic budget deficit
with huge implications for everyone in the state of Minnesota.
Unfortunately, most of us are unaware of the powerful tools that are
available to help us:

  * Learn about and contact our legislators
  * Track pending bills
  * Keep track of committee meetings
  * Watch live and archived video of legislative meetings
  * Find valuable historic information about the state
    and state legislature
  * Access the valuable archives and information maintained
    by the Minnesota legislative library.

The internet is a powerful tool for members of the community to track
and influence the many important decisions that will be made at the
state capital this coming session. This session will be a great
opportunity to learn more about how you can keep yourself informed and
potentially participate in the process.

Questions: Tim Erickson
           651-246-5045

HRA levy-could we do without it for the year 2009? From: Scott Ritchie Date: Nov 27 17:03 UTC Short link

Thanks, John K., for again responding with facts and experience to JO's claims
that Roseville employees should be privileged with cost of living pay raises
regardless of what is happening in the larger economy.

It bears repeating yet again: Roseville property taxes should not be increased
when people are losing their jobs, the wages of people with jobs are stagnant
or decreasing, and retirees' income is decreasing as a result of inflation and
the stock market crash. We are teetering at the edge of a depression. It is
outrageous that our city council is in these desperate times proposing an 8+%
tax increase.

I plan to be at the the hearing to consider this proposal at City Hall on
Monday, Dec. 1, at 6:00. I urge all concerned Roseville citizens to attend and
make their views known.



Scott A. Ritchie

----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Kysylyczyn" <johnk@usfamily.net>
To: "Roseville Issues Forum" <roseville-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:13:36 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [RIF] HRA levy-could we do without it for the year 2009?

In reply to the mysterious city employee JO of Energy Park of Saint Paul, I
think that Ken is right that it is improper for people to hide their true
identity on the forum. I always automatically give people much more credit when
they have the backbone to personally stand behind their words.

But in the interests of exploring these issues more thoroughly, I am going to
respond because JO needs some educating, rather than take a pass on his
comments.

JO seems to think that Roseville operates on some sort of an island. It most
certainly is germane to point out that Roseville employees are asking to
getting higher raises than the taxpayers who are paying their salaries. If
anyone can't understand the connection, I apologize that I cannot explain it
any more clearer.

JO thinks that high deductible health insurance policies with HSA accounts are
lousy insurance plans. For the intelligent people who are good shoppers, they
can be excellent programs. We actually pay less than we did with our old plan
which is the type that JO is advocating for. I don't go along with JO's
apparent belief that those of us who are good shoppers are supposed to pay the
way for the crappy shoppers.

JO is scared to shop for prescriptions, but I bet he has gotten the courage in
the past to shop for things like automobiles. Shopping for prescriptions is
like shopping for a lot of things in life, and I am pretty good at doing this.
In many cases we end up paying the same price and in one case less than the
co-pay that existed with the old plan. That drug that goes by the name
Prilosec, which is now available over the counter? Well I pay probably half
what everyone else is paying. When you add these savings to an insurance policy
costing a fraction of what we were paying under the old system, and we save and
get the same benefits. I believe the greatest out of pocket expense we can have
is $2000 a year. With a family of four, I dont believe that we have even come
close to half of that. With the employer contribution to the HSA account coming
in every year, we have built up a fund balance to cover the maximum deductible
for a few years. We will continue to build u
p that fund in the future.

JO doesn't understand what unneeded doctor trips are, but frankly this should
be pretty self explanatory. When someone else is paying the bill, you never
think twice about using the supposed "free" service. When you are paying the
bill, you do ask yourself if you really need to go into the doctor every time
you have a runny nose. The leaf pickup program is a good comparison to explain
what I am trying to say. When it was "free", a certain number of people used
it. When they started charging $10, the numbers drastically dropped off. Turns
out that a lot of people really didn't need the program, but figured heck, if
it is free, why not, never thinking that nothing is ever free, it simply is
being paid for by the taxpayers.

JO again thinks that the City of Roseville is an island when it comes to
cost-of-living increases. If the city was an independent company, owned by
private shareholders or owned by even a single person, then it is their
business what they pay their employees. But last time I checked, the City of
Roseville is owned by the people of Roseville. As a person who lives in this
city, I believe there is absolutely no logical reason you would give your
employees fat pay raises in this economy.

JO doesn't understand economics 101 in a capitalistic society. You give pay
raises to keep people from jumping to some other position. Maybe you give
raises to keep a certain level of experience on your staff. The proposed pay
raises by the council have nothing to do with either of these things. There is
absolutely not one iota of evidence that a 0% increase would drive even one
person to jump to another job. Can someone tell me what other city is doing a
mass hiring at better wages than we pay?

JO obviously has been drinking the DFL Kool-Aid when it comes to his comments
about property taxes going up because the governor. He is also being
brainwashed by the Klausing rhetoric that I have heard from him the last 6
years. Roseville hasn't gotten LGA since probably the Perpich administration.
The Market Value Homestead Credit was cut back during my term, 6 years ago.
Klausing claims every year that we need to raise taxes in order to make up for
aid cuts. Klausing already raised taxes the first year he took office to
supposedly accomplish this. It is an old excuse that has no bearing in fact. It
is being used again and again to pass off the blame on others, when it is his
out of control spending habits and aloof attitude towards the budget that are
to blame.

The governor and many in the legislature have taken the position that cities
and their taxpayers should pay their own way. If you pay for it yourself, you
will be more responsible with spending. A simple concept.

Just this Monday, Klausing made the outrageous claim that taxes needed to rise
9% because the city had to make up for previous cuts and gave several examples.
He then went on to give the old scare tactic that city financial reserves were
low, even though we have enough money stored up to cancel property taxes for
two to three years. Thankfully Ms. Ihlan pointed out that there was absolutely
no connection between the examples Klausing was giving with what he was trying
to claim. Ms. Pust was looking at Klausing like he was nuts. (Note: Seeing
council members reactions to what others are saying is the biggest benefit of
attending meetings in person, versus attending them on your Lay-Z-Boy at home.)

JO obviously hasn't looked at his tax bill. Property values are falling but
ROSEVILLE taxes are going up at a rapid pace. Oh yeah, I forgot, JO lives in
Energy Park Saint Paul so he hasn't ever seen a Roseville tax bill.

While I don't have the time to educate JO on this, property values themselves
have little to do tax increases or decreases. It has to do with net tax
capacity formulas and how different types of property increases or decreases,
and whether new capacity is added through new construction, or taken away or
limited due to the creation of TIF districts. This is an extreme
oversimplification of it, but my best shot at explaining this in one paragraph.

I used to live by Energy Park. I seem to recall that this was another taxpayer
black hole as far as money went. Remember that great prosperous mall that was
supposed to be there? The dreams of government bureaucrats unchecked by elected
officials...

John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN 55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004

-----Original Message-----
From: J.O. [mailto:forcasa@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Roseville Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [RIF] HRA levy-could we do without it for the year 2009?

John K said:

"Maybe JO can tell us who has gotten 3+% wage increases for the past 5
consecutive years, along with generous health benefits, and rock solid job
protection?"

I never claimed that anyone else is receiving a 3% raise. We're discussing
Roseville city employees. What other organizations do with (to?) their
employees is their business and not relevant to this discussion.

and:

"I operate under a high deductible health insurance plan with an HSA account
and you better bet that I don't make unneeded trips to the doctor. I shop for
the best
price on prescriptions, rather than take the attitude of who cares, insurance
is paying for it."

I see exactly where this is going...what you're basically saying is that you
have a lousy insurance plan. And because you're forced to deal with (A) a high
deductible; (B) an HSA (which in my opinion is a complete joke); and (C) having
to shop for prescriptions, you feel that everyone else should have to comply.
That is a complete crock of you-know-what, and it's that kind of attitude
that's got us into this current mess. Essentially: "Because my health insurance
sucks, yours should too." This contradicts your statement of "Agreed that
health insurance should not be a race to the bottom."

Furthermore, exactly what are your criteria for 'unneeded doctor trips?' That's
a slippery slope if there ever was one.

Scott said:

"Roseville city government should not be proposing any property tax increases
in this economic environment, period. Economies will have to be found within
the
city budget or personnel will have to be laid off."

If staff aren't to be given a pay rise, then I agree with the above position if
that is the reasoning used. In other words, the city will go broke if we
increase payroll by 3%, and we may even have layoffs. I agree with that -- if
there's no money, we can't pay out more. That makes sense.

But the idea that Roseville employees should not be given a cost-of-living
increase simply because some other unnamed company doesn't follow suit is flat
out wrong and irrelevant. Roseville can do with its money whatever it wants --
it is not required to be motivated by what the private sector chooses to do
vis-a-vis employment.

Property taxes have increased, in large part, because of a hostile governor. He
has stripped LGA and forced the cities to make up the difference by jacking up
their taxes to ridiculous levels. The spike in house prices 2002-2006 did not
help the situation. I think we're already seeing some taxes come down because
of falling real estate values. It's not enough though.

J O
Energy Park, Saint Paul
Info about J.O.: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidmoufang

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1EWAGTQEE6tCVNqKOFZbif
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

John Kysylyczyn
Roseville
Info about John Kysylyczyn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnmkysylyczyn

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2H9kZiZggxR9MHF6DsvZhU
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

Roseville Issues Forum
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate. Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.