## City Council Agenda Monday, May 11, 2026 ## 6:00 PM ## City Council Chambers In accordance with Minnesota Statutes §13D.02 and City policy, Council and Commission members may attend meetings remotely up to three times per calendar year. (Times listed are approximate – please note that items may be earlier or later than listed on the agenda) 6:45 p.m. 1. Roll Call ## Voting & Seating Order: Strahan, Groff, Bauer, Schroeder, and Roe 6:46 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 6:47 p.m. 3. Approve Agenda 6:48 p.m. 4. Public Comment 6:53 p.m. 5. Recognitions and Donations ## 6. Items Removed from Consent Agenda ## 7. Business Items 6:55 p.m. a. Receive Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Auditor Communication Letter, and ## Reports on Compliance for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2025 7:35 p.m. b. Consider 2026 Community Survey ## 8. Council Direction on Councilmember Initiated Agenda Items ## 9. Approval of City Council Minutes ## 10. Approve Consent Agenda 8:20 p.m. 11. Future Agenda Review, Communications, Reports, and Announcements - Council ## and City Manager ## a. Future Agenda 8:30 p.m. 12. Adjourn to Closed Session: City Manager Performance Review 9:10 p.m. 13. Reconvene Open Session 9:10 p.m. 14. Adjourn Page 1 of 260 ## REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 5/11/2026 Item No.: 7.a. ## Department Approval City Manager Approval ## Item Description: Receive Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Auditor Communication Letter, and Reports on Compliance for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2025 Page 1 of 2 1 2Background 3State Statute requires an annual presentation of the City’s year-end financial report by an independent 4auditor. The purpose is to provide a forum for which an independent report can be made directly to 5elected officials with regard to the City’s financial operations. 6 7Rebecca Petersen, from the firm of Redpath and Company, LLC will be present to provide an overview 8of the Annual Reports, as well as the audit process and any required disclosures or findings. 9 10Staff will be available for any follow-up questions if necessary. 11 12Policy Objectives 13The presentation of the annual report is required by State Statute. 14 15 ## 16Equity Impact Summary 17There is no equity impact. 18 19Budget Implications 20Not applicable. 21 22 23Staff Recommendations 24Staff recommends the Council formally accept the 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and 25Audit Reports. 26 ## 27Requested Council Action 28Motion to accept the 2025 Annual Financial Reports. 29 30 Prepared by: ## Samuel Magureanu ## Attachments: 1. Roseville, City of - 2025 Final Issued Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) - ## Unlocked 2. Roseville, City of - 2025 Final Issued Governance Letter - Unlocked 3. Roseville, City of - 2025 Final Issued Internal Control Report - Unlocked 4. Roseville, City of - 2025 Final Issued Legal Compliance Report - Unlocked ## 5. ROSEVILLE, CITY OF- 25FG COUNCIL PRESENTATION Page 2 of 260 Page 2 of 2 6. Bench Handout 1 - Item 7.a Presentation 31 Page 3 of 260 Attachment # 1 Page 4 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - Page 5 of 260 ## ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE ## FINANCIAL REPORT ## OF THE ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## FOR THE YEAR ENDED ## DECEMBER 31, 2025 ## PREPARED BY: ## THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT Page 6 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - Page 7 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## TABLE OF CONTENTS ## Page ReferenceNo. ## INTRODUCTORY SECTION ## Letter of Transmittal3 Certificate of Achievement 7 ## Organizational Chart9 ## Elected Officials and Administration11 ## FINANCIAL SECTION ## Independent Auditor's Report 15 ## Management's Discussion and Analysis 19 ## Basic Financial Statements: ## Government-Wide Financial Statements: ## Statement of Net Position Statement 132 ## Statement of Activities Statement 233 ## Fund Financial Statements: ## Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds Statement 334 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Governmental Funds Statement 436 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of ActivitiesStatement 538 Statement of Net Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 639 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position - Proprietary Funds Statement 740 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary Funds Statement 841 ## Statement of Fiduciary Net Position - Custodial Funds Statement 942 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position - Custodial Funds Statement 1043 ## Notes to Financial Statements 45 ## Required Supplementary Information: ## Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – ## Budget and Actual – General FundSchedule 188 ## Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – ## Budget and Actual – Recreation FundSchedule 289 ## Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – ## Budget and Actual – Community Development FundSchedule 390 ## Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – ## Budget and Actual – Roseville Economic Development Authority FundSchedule 491 Schedule of Changes in the Total OPEB Liability and Related Ratios Schedule 592 ## Schedule of Employer’s Share of PERA Net Pension Liability – ## General Employees Retirement FundSchedule 694 Schedule of Employer’s PERA Contributions – General Employees Retirement FundSchedule 795 ## Schedule of Employer’s Share of PERA Net Pension Liability – ## Public Employees Police and Fire FundSchedule 896 Schedule of Employer’s PERA Contributions – Public Employees Police and Fire FundSchedule 997 Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios – Fire Relief AssociationSchedule 1098 ## Schedule of Employer Contributions and Non-Employer Contributing Entities – ## Fire Relief AssociationSchedule 11100 ## Notes to RSI103 Page 8 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## TABLE OF CONTENTS ## Page ReferenceNo. ## SUPPLEMENTARY SECTION ## Combining and Individual Nonmajor Fund Financial Statements: ## Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental FundsStatement 11116 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – ## Nonmajor Governmental FundsStatement 12117 Schedules of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual: ## Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual –Telecommunications FundSchedule 12118 ## Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – ## Budget and Actual – License CenterSchedule 13119 ## Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – ## Budget and Actual – Charitable Gambling FundSchedule 14120 ## Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service FundsStatement 13122 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position – ## Internal Service FundsStatement 14123 ## Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service FundsStatement 15124 ## STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) ## Financial Trends: ## Net Position by Component – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 1129 ## Changes in Net Position – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 2130 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 3132 Changes in Fund Balance of Governmental Funds – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 4134 ## Revenue Capacity: General Government Tax Revenues By Source – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 5136 Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 6138 Property Tax Rates and Tax Levies – Direct and Overlapping Governments – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 7140 Principal Property Taxpayers – Current Year and Nine Years AgoTable 8142 Property Tax Levies and Collections – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 9143 ## Debt Capacity: Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Per Capita – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 10144 Ratios of Net General Bonded Debt Outstanding – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 11145 ## Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities DebtTable 12146 ## Legal Debt Margin Information – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 13147 ## Demographic and Economic Information: ## Demographic and Economic Statistics – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 14148 ## Principal Employers – Current Year and Six Years AgoTable 15149 ## Operating Information: Full-Time-Equivalent City Government Employees by Function/Program – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 16151 ## Operating Indicators by Function/Program – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 17152 Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program – Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 18 154 Page 9 of 260 ## INTRODUCTORY SECTION 1 Page 10 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 2 Page 11 of 260 May 4, 2026 To the City Council and Citizens of the City of Roseville: Minnesota law requires cities to issue an annual report on financial position and activity prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepte d accounting principles (GAAP), and to have it audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a licensed firm of certified public accountants or the Office of the State Auditor. Pursuant to that requirement, we hereby issue the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) of the City of Roseville for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. This report reflects management’s representations concerning the City’s finances. Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of the information presented. To support these representations, the City has established a comprehensive internal control framework designed to safeguard assets and to provide sufficient, reliable information for preparing financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal control should not outweigh its benefits, our framework provides reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement. To the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material respects. The City of Roseville’s financial statements have been audited by Redpath and Company, an independent firm of licensed certified public accountants. The audit’s objective was to obtain reasonable assurance that the City’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025, are free of material misstatement. The audit included test-based examination of evidence supporting amounts and disclosures; assessment of accounting principles and significant estimates; and evaluation of overall presentation. Based on the audit, the independent auditor issued an unmodified opinion that the City’s 2025 financial statements are fairly presented in conformity with GAAP. The independent auditor’s report appear s as the first component of the Financial Section. As required by GAAP, a Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) accompanies the basic financial statements and provides a narrative overview and analysis. This letter is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The MD&A follows the independent auditor’s report. Profile of the Government Incorporated in 1948, Roseville is a suburban community bordering Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. The City occupies 13.7 square miles and serves a population of 36,305. Roseville is empowered to levy a property tax on real and personal property within its boundaries. Although state statute permits annexation, Roseville is fully developed and bordered by other incorporated communities. 3 Page 12 of 260 Roseville has operated under the council-manager form of government since 1974. Policy-making and legislative authority rest with a City Council consisting of the Mayor and four Council Members. The Council passes ordinances, adopts the budget, appoints committees, and hires the City Manager. The City Manager implements Council policies and ordinances, oversees day-to-day operations, and appoints department heads. The Mayor and Council are elected at large on a non-partisan basis to staggered four-year terms. The City provides a full range of services, including police and fire protection; construction and maintenance of streets, highways, and other infrastructure; water and sewer services; and recreational and cultural programming. ## Budgetary Control The annual budget is the foundation of the City’s financial planning and control. Each May, departments submit appropriation requests to the City Manager, who develops a proposed budget for Council review prior to August 31. The Council holds public hearings and adopts a final budget no later than December 31, the close of the City’s fiscal year. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function (e.g., public safety), and department (e.g., police). Department heads may transfer appropriations within a fund; transfers between funds require City Council approval. Budget-to-actual comparisons are provided for each governmental fund with an ## adopted annual budget—General, Recreation, Community Development, Roseville Economic ## Development Authority, Telecommunications, License Center, and Charitable Gambling. For the General Fund, the comparison appears on page 88; for other budgeted governmental funds, comparisons appear in Required Supplementary Information (RSI) on pages 89-91 and the related schedules on pages 118-120. ## Factors Affecting Financial Condition Local Economy. Roseville continues to benefit from a stable and favorable economic environment. While the region is known for a strong retail sector, recent redevelopment has diversified the local economy. The area includes major industries such as computer hardware and software, electrical controls, medical services, and state government divisions supporting transportation and K–12 education. Roseville’s employed labor force is approximately 40,000 and is expected to remain stable. Given Roseville’s fully developed status, opportunities for large-scale new housing are limited. The City has focused on supporting homeowners with redevelopment and remodeling efforts to ensure that, as demographic changes occur, younger families continue to choose Roseville. Long-Term Financial Planning. The City Council annually reviews long-term goals and objectives. Recent priorities include establishing adequate funding mechanisms for infrastructure replacement, redeveloping housing options, and securing funds for new initiatives. The City is working with state, county, federal, and neighboring jurisdictions to improve the regional transportation network—upgrading highways and strategically placing pathways. Most transportation funding is expected from external sources, with a smaller share from local taxpayers. 4 Page 13 of 260 Financial Policies. As part of the annual budget process, the City reviews fiscal and budget policies each year. No significant changes were made from the prior year, except for a change in the capital investment policy to increase certain capitalization thresholds. ## Major Initiatives and Community Aspirations The City aims to provide necessary and desired services efficiently while limiting the financial burden on taxpayers. Additional goals focus on supporting community aspirations and responding to needs identified in the most recent citizen survey. ## Community Aspirations - Welcoming, inclusive, and respectful - Safe and law-abiding - Economically prosperous, with a stable and broad tax base - Secure in our diverse, high-quality housing and neighborhoods - Environmentally responsible, with well-maintained natural assets - Physically and mentally active and healthy - Well-connected through transportation and technology infrastructure - Engaged in our community’s success as citizens, neighbors, volunteers, leaders, and businesspeople These initiatives are not expected to have a significant financial impact. Where feasible, existing resources will be redirected. As future debt obligations decline, resources previously dedicated to debt service may be repurposed. ## Awards and Acknowledgements The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Roseville for its ACFR for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024—the City’s 46th consecutive year receiving this honor. This award recognizes easily readable and efficiently organized reports that meet GAAP and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for one year. We believe the current ACFR meets the Certificate Program’s requirements and are submitting it to GFOA for consideration. The City also received its 30th GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the budget dated January 1, 2025. To qualify, the budget was evaluated as a policy document, financial plan, operations guide, and communications device. Preparation of this report would not have been possible without the dedicated service of the Finance Department staff. I extend my appreciation to all team members who contributed to this effort. I also thank the Mayor and City Council for their continued support of the highest standards of professionalism in the management of the City’s finances. Respectfully submitted, ## Samuel Magureanu ## Finance Director 5 Page 14 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 6 Page 15 of 260 ## Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of ## Achievement for Excellence in Financial ## Reporting Presented to ## City of Roseville ## Minnesota ## For its Annual Comprehensive ## Financial Report ## For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2024 ## Executive Director/CEO 7 Page 16 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 8 Page 17 of 260 ## City of Roseville Organizational Chart ## City Council ## City ## Attorney ## City ## Manager ## Volunteer ## Commissions ## Economic Development Authority  ## Ethics  ## Human Rights, Inclusion, and Engagement  ## Parks & Recreation  ## Planning  ## Police Civil Service  ## Public Works, Environment & Transportation  ## Finance Commission ## Assistant City ## Manager ## Community ## Development ## Director ## Finance Director Fire Chief Parks & ## Recreation ## Director ## Police Chief ## Public ## Works Director • ## Human Resources • ## Communications • ## Elections • ## Recycling • ## Technology • ## Council Support • ## Building Codes • ## EconomicDevelopment • ## GIS • ## Planning • ## General Accounting • ## License Center • ## Utility Billing • ## Administration • ## Operations • ## Training • ## Inspections • ## Investigations • ## Golf Course • ## Nature Center • ## Skating Center • ## Parks Maintenance • ## RecreationPrograms • ## CommunityRelations • ## Investigations • ## Patrol • ## Police Records • ## Police Reserves • ## Engineering • ## Street Maintenance • ## Utility Maintenance • ## FacilitiesMaintenance • ## Fleet Maintenance • ## GIS 9 Page 18 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 10 Page 19 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS December 31, 2025 ## Term Expires ## Elected Officials: MayorDan RoeDecember 31, 2026 CouncilMatt BauerDecember 31, 2028 CouncilWayne GroffDecember 31, 2026 CouncilRobin SchroederDecember 31, 2026 CouncilJulie StrahanDecember 31, 2028 ## Appointed Officials: ## City ManagerPat Trudgeon ## Finance DirectorSamuel Magureanu ## Police ChiefErika Scheider ## Fire ChiefDavid Brosnahan ## Public Works DirectorJesse Freihammer ## Parks & Recreation DirectorMatthew Johnson ## Community Development DirectorJanice Gundlach 11 Page 20 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 12 Page 21 of 260 ## FINANCIAL SECTION 13 Page 22 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 14 Page 23 of 260 ## INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ## To the Honorable Mayor and ## Members of the City Council ## City of Roseville, Minnesota Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements ## Opinions We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Roseville, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise City of Roseville, Minnesota's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Roseville, Minnesota, as of December 31, 2025, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. ## Basis for Opinions We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of City of Roseville, Minnesota and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions. ## Emphasis of Matter As discussed in Note 15 to the financial statements, the beginning net position for the 2025 financial statements has been restated due to an error correction. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter. 15 Page 24 of 260 ## Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In preparing the financial statements, management is required to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about City of Roseville, Minnesota’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months beyond the financial statement date, including any currently known information that may raise substantial doubt shortly thereafter. ## Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report that includes our opinions. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements. In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and ## Governmental Auditing Standards, we:  Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Roseville, Minnesota's internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.  Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.  Conclude whether, in our judgment, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about City of Roseville, Minnesota's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. 16 Page 25 of 260 We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control related matters that we identified during the audit. ## Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis, the budgetary comparison schedules, and the schedules of OPEB and pension information, as listed in the table of contents, be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. ## Supplementary Information Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise City of Roseville, Minnesota's basic financial statements. The accompanying combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. ## Other Information Management is responsible for the other information included in the annual report. The other information comprises the introductory and statistical sections but does not include the basic financial statements and our auditor's report thereon. Our opinions on the basic financial statements do not cover the other information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon. 17 Page 26 of 260 In connection with our audit of the basic financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and consider whether a material inconsistency exists between the other information and the basic financial statements, or the other information otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we conclude that an uncorrected material misstatement of the other information exists, we are required to describe it in our report. ## Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated May 4, 2026, on our consideration of City of Roseville, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of City of Roseville, Minnesota's internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering City of Roseville, Minnesota’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance. ## REDPATH AND COMPANY, LLC ## St. Paul, Minnesota May 4, 2026 18 Page 27 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS As management of the City of Roseville, we offer readers of the City’s financial statement this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with the City’s financial statements and the additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which can be found on pages 3 through 5 of this report. ## Financial Highlights  The assets and deferred outflows of the City of Roseville exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $238,489,776 (Net position). Of this amount, $30,166,250 (unrestricted net position) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors in accordance with the City's fund designations and fiscal policies.  The City’s total net position from operations increased by $10,672,977.  As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City of Roseville’s governmental activities reported combined ending unrestricted net position of $17,604,313.  At the end of the current fiscal year, unrestricted fund balance for the general fund was $10,619,216 or 35% of total general fund expenditures budgeted for 2026. The unrestricted fund balance includes the assigned balances and the unassigned balance presented on the governmental funds balance sheet.  The City of Roseville total bonded debt decreased by $675,000 during the current fiscal year. This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City’s basic financial statements. The City’s basic financial statements are comprised of three components: 1) Government-wide financial statements 2) Fund financial statements 3) Notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. ## Government-wide Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The Statement of Net Position presents information on all of the City’s assets and deferred outflows, and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference between the two reported as net position. Over time, increases or decreases in net position may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. To assess the overall health of the City, one needs to consider additional non-financial factors such as changes in the City’s property tax base and the condition of the City’s infrastructure. The Statement of Activities presents information showing how the City’s net position changed during the fiscal year. All changes in net position are reported when the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in the future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused compensated absences). 19 Page 28 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS Both government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City include general government, public safety, public works, economic development and recreation. The business-type activities of the City of Roseville include water, sanitary sewer, golf, storm drainage and recycling. The government-wide financial statements can be found in the Basic Financial Statements section of this report. ## Fund Financial Statements A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds. Governmental Funds – Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government- wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financing requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government’s near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City maintains 13 individual governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for the General, Recreation, ARPA, Community Development, Roseville Economic Development Authority, Debt Service, Revolving Improvements, Economic Increments Construction and Street Construction, all of which are considered major funds. Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non-major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found in the Basic Financial Statements section of this report. Proprietary Funds – The City maintains two different types of proprietary funds. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its Sanitary Sewer, Water, Golf Course, Storm Drainage and Solid Waste Recycling operations. Internal service funds are an accounting device used to accumulate and allocate costs internally among the City’s various functions. The City uses its internal service funds to account for Workers’ Compensation Self Insurance and Risk Management. The services provided by these funds predominately benefit the governmental rather than the business-type functions. They have been included within governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. 20 Page 29 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the Sanitary Sewer, Water, Golf Course, Storm Drainage and Solid Waste Recycling since they are considered to be major funds of the City. Both internal service funds are combined into a separate single aggregated presentation in the proprietary fund financial statements. Individual fund data for the internal service funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found in the Basic Financial Statements section of this report. Fiduciary Funds – Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government-wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City’s own programs. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. The basic fiduciary fund financial statements can be found in the Basic Financial Statements section of this report. ## Notes to the Financial Statements The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. ## Other Supplementary Information In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, the Required Supplementary Information presents a detailed budgetary comparison schedule for the General, Recreation, Community Development, and the Roseville Economic Development Authority Fund to demonstrate compliance with the budget. In accordance with the requirements of GASB Statement 75, it also includes other post- employment benefit plan schedule of funding progress. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor governmental funds and internal service funds and other information related to the individual funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information. 21 Page 30 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS The analysis of the City’s financial position begins with a review of the Statement of Net Position and the Statement of Activities. These two statements report the City’s net position and changes therein. It should be noted that the financial position can also be affected by non-financial factors, including economic conditions, population growth and new regulations. Net position may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government’s financial position. In the case of the City of Roseville, assets and deferred outflows exceeded liabilities by $238,489,776 as of December 31, 2025. This represents an increase of $10,672,977 from the previous year. By far the largest portion of the City of Roseville's net position (74.85% percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, machinery, equipment and infrastructure) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City of Roseville uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City of Roseville's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. ## CONDENSED STATEMENT OF NET POSITION * Unrestricted net position restated for 2024 due to the correction of an error. Additional information on this correction can be found in Note 15 in the Notes to the Financial Statements section of this report. A portion of the City of Roseville's net position represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net position totaling $30,166,250 may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Roseville is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net position, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. ## Governmental Governmental Business-Type Business-Type ## ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesTotalTotal 2025202420252024 *20252024 * Current and other assets$80,096,162$73,474,891 $17,095,715$14,170,529 $97,191,877 $87,645,420 Capital assets139,237,103 139,443,570 51,054,658 50,617,867 190,291,761 190,061,437 Total Assets219,333,265 212,918,461 68,150,373 64,788,396 287,483,638 277,706,857 Deferred outflows of resources14,004,443 14,988,810 159,593 118,100 14,164,036 15,106,910 Long-term liabilities Outstanding26,301,504 26,991,181 2,815,238 1,828,772 29,116,742 28,819,953 Other liabilities7,905,335 7,816,389 3,257,699 3,105,498 11,163,034 10,921,887 Total Liabilities34,206,839 34,807,570 6,072,937 4,934,270 40,279,776 39,741,840 Deferred inflows of resources22,385,858 23,768,150 492,264 499,749 22,878,122 24,267,899 ## Net Position Net investment in capital assets129,331,576 129,194,910 49,182,828 48,401,095 178,514,404 177,596,005 Restricted29,809,122 24,180,168 - - 29,809,122 24,180,168 Unrestricted17,604,313 15,946,473 12,561,937 10,094,153 30,166,250 26,040,626 Total Net Position$176,745,011$169,321,551 $61,744,765$58,495,248 $238,489,776 $227,816,799 22 Page 31 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS Analysis of the City’s Operations – Governmental activities increased the City of Roseville's net position by $7,423,460; Business-type activities increased Roseville’s net position by $3,249,517; for an overall increase of $10,672,977. Key elements of this increase are as follows: ## CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET POSITION ## Governmental Governmental Business-Type Business-Type ## ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesTotalTotal 202520242025202420252024 ## Revenues ## Program Revenues Charges for services$12,058,059 $10,347,606 $21,890,654 $20,931,401 $33,948,713 $31,279,007 Operating grants and Contributions3,409,066 3,061,374 523,300 141,459 3,932,366 3,202,833 Capital grants and Contributions758,901 3,484,881 43,989 341,790 802,890 3,826,671 ## General Revenues Property taxes29,831,421 28,244,857 - - 29,831,421 28,244,857 Other taxes5,729,442 3,628,288 - - 5,729,442 3,628,288 Investment earnings3,759,219 4,088,613 281,785 230,148 4,041,004 4,318,761 Net Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments1,608,735 642,891 200,002 (42,421) 1,808,737 600,470 Gain on Sale of capital asset95,381 238,361 175,854 146,915 271,235 385,276 Total Revenues$57,250,224 $53,736,871 $23,115,584 $21,749,292 $80,365,808 $75,486,163 ## Expenses General government$8,185,855 $8,369,989 $ - $8,185,855 $8,369,989 Public safety23,784,129 21,484,496 - 23,784,129 21,484,496 Public works6,606,445 6,267,875 - 6,606,445 6,267,875 Economic development2,971,420 3,697,814 - 2,971,420 3,697,814 Recreation8,069,095 7,646,553 - 8,069,095 7,646,553 Interest on debt127,651 279,387 - 127,651 279,387 Sanitary sewer- 5,697,694 5,147,221 5,697,694 5,147,221 Water- 9,633,418 8,491,848 9,633,418 8,491,848 Golf- 733,296 665,530 733,296 665,530 Storm drainage- 2,217,958 1,860,959 2,217,958 1,860,959 Recycling- 1,665,870 1,082,334 1,665,870 1,082,334 Total Expenses49,744,595$ 47,746,114$ 19,948,236$ 17,247,892$ 69,692,831$ 64,994,006$ ## Change in Net Position before Transfers$7,505,629 $5,990,757$3,167,348$4,501,400 $10,672,977 $10,492,157 Transfers(82,169) (719,111) 82,169 719,111 - - Increase (decrease) in Net position7,423,460 5,271,646 3,249,517 5,220,511 10,672,977 10,492,157 Net position, January 1 $169,321,551 $164,049,905 $59,472,477 $54,251,966 228,794,028 218,301,871 Error correction- - (977,229) - (977,229) - Net position on December 31st$176,745,011 $169,321,551 $61,744,765 $59,472,477 $238,489,776 $228,794,028 23 Page 32 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS ## Governmental Activities The increase in net position resulted from the collection of a local option sales tax implemented as of July 1, 2025 for the financing of a new Maintenance Operational Center, purchase of capital assets being depreciated and not being depreciated, increase in fair value of investments, and a focus on prudent spending habits. Below are specific graphs, which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and expenses for the last fiscal year. 24 Page 33 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS ## Business-type Activities The increase in net position for business-type activities reflects improved cost containment. Rate increases in 2025 for Water were implemented to offset increased operating costs and declining interest earnings as well as other non-tax revenue sources. A major factor in the increase of net position is the capitalization of depreciable assets in 2025. Below are graphs showing the business-type activities revenue and expense comparisons for the past fiscal year. 25 Page 34 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS ## Governmental Funds The focus of the City of Roseville’s governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City of Roseville’s financing requirements. In particular, unrestricted fund balance may serve as useful measure of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Roseville's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $58,866,867. Approximately 64.29% of this total amount, or $37,844,584, constitutes unrestricted fund balance. The remainder of the fund balance is restricted to indicate that it is not available for new spending because it is legally restricted for; 1) various operating purposes - $7,165,057, 2) for tax increment financing activities - $7,582,681, 3) debt service - $2,397,094, 4) housing and economic development - $1,580,605, and 5) capital projects - $2,296,846. The General Fund net change in fund balance increased by $463,149 in 2025. The primary factor was an increase of approximately $1.2 million in charges for services related to contracted police services provided to various retailers and entities in Roseville, which began late in the first quarter. Although this new revenue source boosted overall revenues, the impact was partially offset by the net effect of interfund transfers and higher expenditures, driven largely by increases in public safety personnel costs for both Police and Fire services. In addition, an increase in the fair market value of the City’s investments contributed positively to the year-end results. The Recreation Fund increased by $96,629, due mainly to increased revenues from rentals and donations received as well as less funds being transferred to the general reserve fund. The Community Development fund increased by $374,624 due to the receipt of local affordable housing aid, approximately 563K, which has yet to be utilized for expenditures. The city has three years to utilize the funds before required to return to the State of Minnesota. The Roseville Economic Development Authority fund increased by $33,714 due to the increase of the fair market value of investments in 2025. The Debt Service Fund increased by $27,895 in 2025, primarily due to an increase in the fair market value of investments. The Fund currently holds cash and investment balances that will be used to make the final debt service payments on two outstanding bond issues scheduled to be fully retired in 2028. The Revolving Improvements Fund increased by $3,117,353 mainly due to the issuance of bond 2025A for the purchase of an electric fire engine and the introduction of the new local sales tax for the construction of the new Maintenance Operations Center. Other significant factors would be the increase of fair market value of investments and transfers in from the general fund to support capital projects. The Economic Increments Construction Fund accounts for the activities in the City’s Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts. The Fund’s balance increased by $663,398 largely due to receipt of TIF funds for TIF #17 which will be used in the near future for expenditures related to the Hyde – PIK development. The Street Construction Fund increased by $413,007 mainly due to the increase in fair market value of investments and 2025 projects extending into 2026. 26 Page 35 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S FUNDS ## Proprietary Funds The City of Roseville’s proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. The Sanitary Sewer fund net position increased by $1,142,987 in 2025. This was a result of revenues exceeding operational and capital cost within the year because of the capitalization of a new sewer jet truck and improvements to the Dale/Owasso lift station. The Water fund net position increased by $504,405. This was a result of revenues exceeding operational and capital costs within the year. Factors that contributed were as follows: A significant adjustment to beginning net position due to the correction of an error for $977,229, 2025 water fee rate increase and a capital contribution grant. The Golf fund net position increased by $14,632 in 2025. The increase relates primarily to transfers in as a result of allocation of capital costs to other capital infrastructure funds. The Storm Drainage fund net position increased by $1,775,318 in 2025. This was the result of user charges exceeding expenses which will be used to fund future capital projects. The increase is also due to capital assets added exceeding current depreciation. The Solid Waste Recycling fund net position decreased by $187,825 in 2025. This was a result of the purchase of recycling carts city wide which were partially funded by a Ramsey County PEIG grant. The unrestricted net position in the respective proprietary funds is Sewer - $3,714,800; Water – $2,505,442; Golf - ($71,667); Storm - $5,969,328 and Recycling - $444,034. Overall net position increased $3,249,517 reflecting positive cash flow from utility rates, which were designated for future capital replacements. ## General Fund Budgetary Analysis The General Fund balance increased by $463,149 in 2025. The primary driver of this increase was a $1,119,682 rise in charges for services, resulting from the implementation of contracted police services to Roseville entities beginning at the end of the first quarter. Although this new revenue source contributed significantly to revenues, it also generated higher personnel costs, as overtime expenditures increased for staff assigned to these contracted services. These costs partially offset the revenue gains and contributed to Public Safety expenditures exceeding the final budget by $1,445,612. General property tax revenues were $588,773 lower than the final budget, primarily due to an increase in approved valuation petitions that reduced the City’s taxable market values and overall tax capacity. This reduction resulted from significant market value adjustments applied by the County Assessor’s Office to commercial and industrial properties in 2022 and 2023. Intergovernmental revenues were $322,698 higher than the final budget due to increased Minnesota Public Safety Aid. Licenses and permits revenue exceeded the final budget by $217,227, mainly due to higher-than- expected right-of-way permit activity. Investment income in the General Fund also exceeded the final budget, largely due to an increase in the fair value adjustment of investments based on market conditions as of December 31, 2025. The General Fund received transfers totaling $678,621 from the License Center and Parks and Recreation Funds to maintain the unrestricted fund balance at or above the City’s minimum policy level of 35 percent of subsequent year General Fund budgeted expenditures. The rental revenue budget was increased due to a reclassification of this revenue as miscellaneous revenue. This reclassification also accounts for the corresponding decrease in the miscellaneous revenue budget. 27 Page 36 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## CAPITAL ASSETS The City of Roseville’s investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of December 31, 2025, amounts to $190,291,761 (net of accumulated depreciation) – an increase of $240,324 from the previous year. This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, infrastructure, machinery and equipment, and right to use leases. Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following:  Approximately $2.0 million in improvements to the City’s streets, part of the 2025 Pavement Management ## Program  Approximately $2.9 million in improvements to the City’s sewer lines, water lines, lift stations and storm drainage infrastructure.  Approximately $1.7 million in vehicle replacement purchases between Governmental and Business-Type activities.  Purchased an Electric Fire Engine for approximately $1.8 million.  Addition of capital assets exceeded depreciation and disposals which resulted in a $240 thousand increase from the prior year. ## CAPITAL ASSETS AT YEAR-END ## NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION Additional information on the City of Roseville’s capital assets can be found in Notes 1K and Note 5 in the Notes to the Financial Statements section of this report. ## Governmental Governmental Business-Type Business-Type ## ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesTotalTotal 202520242025202420252024 Land & easements$37,172,750 $37,172,750$893,299$893,299 $38,066,049 $38,066,049 Buildings24,236,388 25,258,000 2,254,659 2,321,217 26,491,047 27,579,217 Right to use lease buildings- 187,080 249,441 187,080 249,441 Improvements other Than buildings9,315,074 9,182,994 220,352 166,613 9,535,426 9,349,607 Machinery & equipment7,394,588 7,571,386 2,040,955 1,796,073 9,435,543 9,367,459 Right to use lease vehicles- 10,681 21,360 10,681 21,360 Infrastructure57,911,664 58,128,202 44,359,502 42,739,042 102,271,166 100,867,244 Construction in progress3,206,639 2,120,237 1,088,130 2,430,823 4,294,769 4,551,060 Total Capital Assets$139,237,103 $139,433,569 $51,054,658 $50,617,868 $190,291,761 $190,051,437 28 Page 37 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS At the end of the current fiscal year, The City of Roseville had total long-term debt outstanding of $11,005,000. Of this amount:  $3,880,000 of general obligation bonds that funded construction of a new fire station and for various parks renewal projects  $2,130,000 for the refunding of general obligation bonds that financed the original construction of a new fire station and to make various park improvements  $1,790,000 for purchase of a new RTX Electric Fire Engine  $1,605,000 in general obligation tax increment revenue bonds to finance public improvements within Tax ## Increment Financing District No. 17  $1,600,000 in general obligation water revenue bonds to finance the replacement of water infrastructure capital assets ## OUTSTANDING DEBT GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS ## AND CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS The City of Roseville maintains an Aaa rating from Moody's and an AAA from Standard and Poor's on all of its general obligation debt. Minnesota State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a city may issue to 3% of total Estimated Market Value. The current debt limitation for the City of Roseville is $200,675,425. $9,405,000 of the City's outstanding debt is counted against the statutory limitation as the debt is wholly financed by a general tax levy. Additional information on the City of Roseville's long-term debt can be found in Note 1O and Note 6 of this report. ## Governmental Governmental Business-Type Business-Type ## ActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesActivitiesTotalTotal 202520242025202420252024 General obligation bonds ## Tax Increment Revenue Bonds$1,605,000$1,805,000 $ - $ - $1,605,000$1,805,000 Municipal bonds7,800,000 8,025,000 1,600,000 1,850,000 9,400,000 9,875,000 ## Total Outstanding Debt$9,405,000$9,830,000$1,600,000$1,850,000 $11,005,000 $11,680,000 29 Page 38 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ## For Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## FINANCIAL OUTLOOK A number of local economic and operational factors were considered in developing the City’s 2026 budget, utility rates, and fee schedule:  The City has experienced valuation challenges from larger commercial properties disputing assessed market values determined by Ramsey County, especially during 2022 and 2023 fiscal years. These appeals have resulted in reduced property tax collections compared to original levy expectations. However, assessed values have begun trending more in line with market conditions, which may reduce the volume of future valuation petitions.  Public safety expenditures are expected to increase in 2026 due to the addition of 15 firefighter/EMT positions and 7 police positions. To help offset these costs, the City was awarded two federal grants: the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant from Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant from the U.S. Department of Justice. Both grants are expected to be fully utilized by the end of 2028, at which time the City will need to identify alternative funding sources.  The City implemented gas and electric franchise fees effective Quarter 1, 2026, to support capital infrastructure needs and reduce reliance on property taxes.  A Local Option Sales Tax became effective July 1, 2025. Proceeds will be used to repay future bond issuances related to the construction of the Maintenance Operations Center.  The City anticipates issuing general obligation bonds in 2026 to finance the construction of a new license center and dance studio. The City plans to use the existing debt service levy capacity from two prior bond issues that are scheduled to be fully retired in 2027 to support the new debt without increasing the levy. Debt levels are expected to remain within the City’s established policy limits.  User charges in the water, sewer, and recycling funds were increased to reflect rising operating costs and to support long-term asset replacement. These factors were incorporated into the City’s 2026 budget and will continue to be monitored as part of ongoing financial planning efforts. ## REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION The financial report is designed to provide our citizens, customers, investors and creditors with a general overview of the City’s finances. If you have questions about this report or need any additional information, contact the Office of the Finance Director, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN 55113. 30 Page 39 of 260 ## BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 31 Page 40 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 1 December 31, 2025 ## GovernmentalBusiness-Type ## Assets:ActivitiesActivitiesTotal Cash and cash equivalents$58,574,838$12,382,108$70,956,946 ## Receivables Accounts 945,0474,002,6824,947,729 Taxes831,288 - 831,288 Investment interest 198,95642,414241,370 Special assessments297,797592,807890,604 Due from other governments 2,189,68030,2642,219,944 Notes6,145,941 - 6,145,941 Leases2,684,142 - 2,684,142 ## Prepaids35,5783235,610 Inventory - 45,40845,408 Assets held for resale 10,410 - 10,410 Net pension asset - fire relief 8,182,485 - 8,182,485 Capital assets not being depreciated: ## Land29,440,857893,29930,334,156 Easements7,731,893 - 7,731,893 Construction in progress 3,206,6391,088,1304,294,769 Capital assets net of accumulated depreciation and amortization: Buildings 24,236,3882,254,65926,491,047 Right to use lease buildings - 187,080187,080 Improvements other than buildings 9,315,074220,3529,535,426 Machinery, equipment and vehicles7,394,5882,040,9559,435,543 Right to use lease vehicles - 10,68110,681 ## Infrastructure57,911,66444,359,502102,271,166 Total assets219,333,26568,150,373287,483,638 ## Deferred Outflows of Resources Deferred OPEB resources308,254 - 308,254 Deferred pension resource13,696,189159,59313,855,782 Total deferred outflows of resources14,004,443159,59314,164,036 ## Liabilities: Accounts payable 1,049,3723,054,3254,103,697 Accrued payroll1,112,501151,3971,263,898 Contracts and retainage payable63,268 - 63,268 Bond interest payable 72,2609,89582,155 Due to other governmental units 4,789,10830,0824,819,190 Unearned revenue31,060 - 31,060 Deposits payable787,76612,000799,766 ## Noncurrent Liabilities: ## Due Within One Year 3,810,915394,5224,205,437 ## Due in More than One Year 22,490,5892,420,71624,911,305 Total liabilities34,206,8396,072,93740,279,776 ## Deferred Inflows of Resources Related to leases2,684,142 - 2,684,142 Deferred OPEB resources497,302 - 497,302 Deferred pension resources 19,204,414492,26419,696,678 Total deferred inflows of resources22,385,858492,26422,878,122 ## Net Position: Investment in capital assets129,331,57649,182,828178,514,404 Restricted for: Fire relief pension8,182,485 - 8,182,485 Law enforcement 673,039 - 673,039 Public safety aid145,415 - 145,415 Telecommunication69,889 - 69,889 Community development 4,175,869 - 4,175,869 Park dedication 2,065,267 - 2,065,267 Capital projects2,949,435 - 2,949,435 Tax increment7,604,722 - 7,604,722 Debt service 2,362,396 - 2,362,396 Housing and economic development 1,580,605 - 1,580,605 ## Unrestricted17,604,31312,561,93730,166,250 Total net position$176,745,011$61,744,765$238,489,776 ## Primary Government The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 32 Page 41 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIESStatement 2 ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## OperatingCapital Charges ForGrants andGrants andGovernmentalBusiness-Type ## Functions/Programs ## ExpensesServicesContributionsContributionsActivitiesActivitiesTotals Governmental activities: General government$8,185,855$5,005,409$174,880$ - ($3,005,566)$ - ($3,005,566) Public safety23,784,1293,585,1342,473,412 - (17,725,583) - (17,725,583) Public works6,606,445277,576112,022758,901(5,457,946) - (5,457,946) Economic development 2,971,42035,699648,752 - (2,286,969) - (2,286,969) Recreation8,069,0953,154,241 - - (4,914,854) - (4,914,854) Interest on long-term debt127,651 - - - (127,651) - (127,651) Total governmental activities49,744,59512,058,0593,409,066758,901(33,518,569) - (33,518,569) Business-type activities: Sewer5,697,6946,435,88053,000 - - 791,186791,186 Water9,633,4189,954,00516,71843,989 - 381,294381,294 Golf733,296652,912 - - - (80,384)(80,384) Storm drainage2,217,9583,828,50717,922 - - 1,628,4711,628,471 Recycling1,665,8701,019,350435,660 - - (210,860)(210,860) Total business-type activities19,948,23621,890,654523,30043,989 - 2,509,7072,509,707 Total governmental and business-type activities $69,692,831$33,948,713$3,932,366$802,890(33,518,569)2,509,707(31,008,862) General revenues: Property taxes29,831,421 - 29,831,421 Tax increments 2,191,480 - 2,191,480 Sales and use taxes 3,192,168 - 3,192,168 Cable franchise taxes 303,776 - 303,776 Gambling taxes 42,018 - 42,018 Unrestricted investment earnings3,759,219281,7854,041,004 Unrestricted net increase(decrease) in the fair value of investments 1,608,735200,0021,808,737 Gain on sale of capital assets 95,381175,854271,235 Transfers(82,169)82,169 - Total general revenues and transfers40,942,029739,81041,681,839 Change in net position7,423,4603,249,51710,672,977 Net position, January 1, as previously reported169,321,55159,472,477228,794,028 Error correction - see Note 15 - (977,229)(977,229) Total net position, January 1, as restated169,321,55158,495,248227,816,799 Net position - ending$176,745,011$61,744,765$238,489,776 Net (Expense) Revenue and ## Program RevenuesChanges in Net Position ## Primary Government The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 33 Page 42 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## BALANCE SHEET ## GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2025 ## Roseville ## General RecreationARPA ## Community ## Development ## Economic ## Development ## Authority ## Assets: Cash and investments $12,917,312$2,280,358$31,060$5,290,216$2,699,078 Investment interest receivable42,3108,078 - 18,1259,248 Accounts receivable 362,737284,897 - 1,15311,242 Taxes receivable 380,21561,511 - - 10,951 Special assessments receivable40,806 - - - - Due from other governments181,963 - - - - Due from other funds - - - - 10,000 Notes receivable - - - 1,389,5684,756,373 Lease receivable 2,612,386 - - - - Property held for sale - - - - 10,410 Prepaid items35,578 - - - - Total assets16,573,3072,634,84431,0606,699,0627,507,302 ## Liabilities, Deferred Inflows ## of Resources, and Fund Balance ## Liabilities: Accounts payable424,359138,613 - 7,23259,422 Accrued payroll616,253237,243 - 111,10512,624 Contracts and retention payable - - - - - Due to other funds - - - - - Due to other governmental units 705,71312,631 - 1,391,3892,218,613 Unearned revenue - - 31,060 - - Deposit payable 519,7761,058 - 247,882 - Total liabilities2,266,101389,54531,0601,757,6082,290,659 ## Deferred Inflows of Resources: Related to leases2,612,386 - - - - Unavailable revenue - due from other governments118,760 - - - - Unavailable revenue - property tax347,85057,527 - - 10,550 Unavailable revenue - special assessments - - - - - Total deferred inflows of resources3,078,99657,527 - 0 10,550 ## Fund Balance: Nonspendable 35,578 - - - - ## Restricted Law enforcement 428,001 - - - - Telecommunications - - - - - Public safety aid145,415 - - - - Community development - - - 4,175,869 - Park Dedication - - - - - Capital Projects - - - - - Tax increments - - - - - Debt Services - - - - - Housing and Economic Development - - - 765,585815,020 ## Committed Street replacement - - - - - ## Assigned Parks and Recreation Programs and Maintenance - 2,187,772 - - - License Center Improvements - - - - - Information Technology 109,992 - - - - Engineering Services 510,479 - - - - Accounting Service 21,367 - - - - Capital Projects - - - - - Housing and Economic Development - - - - 4,391,073 Unassigned9,977,378 - - - - Total fund balance11,228,2102,187,772 - 4,941,4545,206,093 Total liabilities, deferred inflows of resources, and fund balance$16,573,307$2,634,844$31,060$6,699,062$7,507,302 ## Special Revenue The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 34 Page 43 of 260 Statement 3 ## Debt Service ## Revolving ## Improvements ## Economic Increments ## ConstructionStreet Construction ## Other Governmental ## Funds ## Intra Activity ## Elimination ## Total Governmental ## Funds $2,386,312$18,096,488$7,330,130$5,587,780$962,989$ - $57,581,723 8,17561,80725,13119,1443,631 - 195,649 - 276 - - 284,016 - 944,321 40,16953,533259,46120,3935,055 - 831,288 - - - 256,991 - - 297,797 - 1,770,627 - 237,090 - - 2,189,680 - - - - - - 10,000 - - - - - - 6,145,941 - 71,756 - - - - 2,684,142 - - - - - - 10,410 - - - - - - 35,578 2,434,65620,054,4877,614,7226,121,3981,255,691 - 70,926,529 - 198,680 - 98,38076,767 - 1,003,453 - - - - 135,276 - 1,112,501 - - - 63,268 - - 63,268 - - 10,000 - - - 10,000 - - - - 460,762 - 4,789,108 - - - - - - 31,060 - 19,050 - - - - 787,766 - 217,73010,000161,648672,805 - 7,797,156 - 71,756 - - - - 2,684,142 - 698,341 - - - - 817,101 37,56250,06622,04119,0724,728 - 549,396 - - - 211,867 - - 211,867 37,562820,16322,041230,9394,728 - 4,262,506 - - - - - - 35,578 - - - - 245,038 - 673,039 - - - - 69,889 - 69,889 - - - - - - 145,415 - - - - - - 4,175,869 - 2,065,267 - - - - 2,065,267 - 2,296,846 - - - - 2,296,846 - - 7,582,681 - - - 7,582,681 2,397,094 - - - - - 2,397,094 - - - - - - 1,580,605 - - - 5,728,811 - - 5,728,811 - - - - - - 2,187,772 - - - - 263,231 - 263,231 - - - - - - 109,992 - - - - - - 510,479 - - - - - - 21,367 - 14,654,481 - - - - 14,654,481 - - - - - - 4,391,073 - - - - - - 9,977,378 2,397,09419,016,5947,582,6815,728,811578,158 - 58,866,867 $2,434,656$20,054,487$7,614,722$6,121,398$1,255,691$ - $70,926,529 Fund balance reported above$58,866,867 Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources and therefore, are not reported above139,237,103 Long-term liabilities are not due and payable in the current period and, therefore, are not reported in the funds (25,859,108) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of insurance to individual funds.436,573 Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current period expenditures and therefore, are reported as unavailable revenue in the funds9,760,849 Governmental funds do not report long term amounts related to pensions and OPEB Deferred outflow of resources 14,004,443 Deferred inflow of resources(19,701,716) Net position of governmental activities$176,745,011 ## Capital Projects The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 35 Page 44 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND ## CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ## GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## Roseville ## General Recreation ARPA ## Community ## Development ## Economic ## Development ## Authority ## Revenues: General property taxes $19,838,695$3,255,962$ - $ - $351,644 Tax increments - - - - - Intergovernmental revenue 2,694,238 - 183,607 - 85,000 Licenses and permits 797,787 - - 1,415,647 - Sales and use tax - - - - - Gambling taxes - - - - - Charges for services 2,616,9822,751,280 - 76,363 - Fines and forfeits 96,829 - - - - Cable franchise taxes - - - - - Affordable housing aid - - - 563,752 - Rentals405,413107,331 - - - Donation77,147133,832 - - - Special assessments 1,150 - - - - Investment income: Interest earned on investments 234,57749,505 - 127,30782,519 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments408,33171,526 - 138,809105,100 Miscellaneous Revenue 272,40476,548 - 14,89723,824 Total revenues27,443,5536,445,984183,6072,336,775648,087 ## Expenditures: ## Current: General government4,723,513 - - - - Public safety19,497,277 - - 1,189,464 - Public works3,141,977 - 126,940 - - Economic development - - - 730,920614,373 Recreation - 6,187,835 - - - Capital outlay28,17580,164 - 47,567 - Debt service: Bond principal - - - - - Interest and other charges - bonds - - - - - Total expenditures27,390,9426,267,999126,9401,967,951614,373 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 52,611177,98556,667368,82433,714 Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from long term debt, net - - - - - Premium on long term debt - - - - - Transfers in935,288 - - - - Transfers out(525,000)(81,356)(56,667) - - Sale of capital asset250 - - 5,800 - Total other financing sources (uses)410,538(81,356)(56,667)5,800 - Net change in fund balance463,14996,629 - 374,62433,714 Fund balance, January 110,765,0612,091,143 - 4,566,8305,172,379 Fund balance, December 31$11,228,210$2,187,772$ - $4,941,454$5,206,093 ## Special Revenue The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 36 Page 45 of 260 Statement 4 ## Debt Service ## Revolving ## Improvements ## Economics Increments ## ConstructionStreet Construction ## Other Governmental ## Funds ## Intra Activity ## Eliminations ## Total Governmental ## Funds $2,129,214$2,833,536$ - $1,079,442$267,581$ - $29,756,074 - - 2,191,480 - - - 2,191,480 - - - 255,726 - - 3,218,571 - - - - - - 2,213,434 - 2,539,579 - - - - 2,539,579 - - - - 42,018 - 42,018 - 79,752 - - 2,825,591 - 8,349,968 - - - - - - 96,829 - - - - 303,776 - 303,776 - - - - - - 563,752 - 113,560 - - - - 626,304 - 81,000 - - 99,180 - 391,159 - - - 150,302 - - 151,452 49,319406,861165,241165,35228,671 - 1,309,352 70,571427,113195,562146,2356,177 - 1,569,424 - 25,989 - - 85,156 - 498,818 2,249,1046,507,3902,552,2831,797,0573,658,15053,821,990 - 269,060 - - 3,052,618 - 8,045,191 - 503,350 - - 3,960 - 21,194,051 - 398,350 - 147,709 - - 3,814,976 - - 1,638,954 - - - 2,984,247 - 447,288 - - - - 6,635,123 - 4,123,873 - 1,236,341 - - 5,516,120 2,215,000 - - - - - 2,215,000 304,698 - - - - - 304,698 2,519,6985,741,9211,638,9541,384,0503,056,578 - 50,709,406 (270,594)765,469913,329413,007601,572 - 3,112,584 48,5581,741,442 - - - - 1,790,000 - 78,280 - - - - 78,280 249,931525,000 - - 40,378(1,750,597) - - (82,169)(249,931) - (837,643)1,750,597(82,169) - 89,331 - - - - 95,381 298,4892,351,884(249,931) - (797,265) - 1,881,492 27,8953,117,353663,398413,007(195,693) - 4,994,076 2,369,19915,899,2416,919,2835,315,804773,851 - 53,872,791 $2,397,094$19,016,594$7,582,681$5,728,811$578,158$ - $58,866,867 ## Capital Projects The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 37 Page 46 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, ANDStatement 5 ## CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS ## TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Net change in fund balances - total governmental funds$4,994,076 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because: Governmental funds report capital outlay as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Net Position, the cost of these assets is capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful lives with depreciation expense reported in the Statement of Activities(116,990) Net effect of sales, trade-ins and retirements of capital assets (79,478) Issuance of long-term debt (e.g., bonds)(1,790,000) Payments on general obligation debt 2,215,000 Premium on general obligation bonds issued (net of current year amortization)76,401 Net change due to internal service funds incorporated into statement of activities (452,336) Net change in net pension obligation - City 1,286,027 Net change in net pension asset - Fire Relief 1,009,603 Net change in other post employment benefits liability27,426 Change in compensated absences (391,179) Change in bond interest payable 22,367 Adjustment for modified accrual revenue recognition related to special assessments, delinquent property tax and delinquent tax increment 622,543 Change in net position - governmental activities$7,423,460 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 38 Page 47 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATEMENT OF NET POSITIONStatement 6 ## PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31, 2025 ## Sanitary SewerWaterGolf CourseStorm Drainage Solid Waste RecyclingTotals ## Governmental ## Activities - Internal ## Service Funds ## Assets: Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $3,148,760$2,858,039$211,823$5,801,356$362,130$12,382,108$993,115 Investment interest receivable10,7879,79271819,8761,24142,4143,307 Accounts receivable 1,278,0371,811,4701,948716,597194,6304,002,682726 Special assessments receivable 566,12215,142 - 11,543 - 592,807 - Due from other governments15,8255,492 - - 8,94730,264 - Prepaid items - 32 - - - 32 - Inventory - - - - 45,40845,408 - ## Total Current Assets5,019,5314,699,967214,4896,549,372612,35617,095,715997,148 Noncurrent assets: ## Capital Assets: Land - - 319,892573,407 - 893,299 - Buildings and improvements 50,5671,490,7852,650,556 - - 4,191,908 - Improvements other than buildings - 47,696394,0391,134,817 - 1,576,552 - Machinery, equipment, and vehicles1,507,1251,636,089393,9662,891,739 - 6,428,919 - Infrastructure26,926,68423,514,344 - 26,766,352 - 77,207,380 - Right-to-use lease assets103,933103,93353,397103,934 - 365,197 - Construction in progress984,34953,496 - 50,285 - 1,088,130 - Less: accumulated depreciation and amortization(10,334,499)(12,958,991)(1,071,687)(16,331,550) - (40,696,727) - Total Noncurrent Assets19,238,15913,887,3522,740,16315,188,984 - 51,054,658 - Total assets 24,257,69018,587,3192,954,65221,738,356612,35668,150,373997,148 ## Deferred Outflows of Resources: Deferred pension resources31,18958,99727,26336,0586,086159,593 - ## Liabilities: Current liabilities (payable from current assets): Accounts payable 992,0151,654,79110,772273,097123,6503,054,32545,919 Accrued payroll 29,19550,05825,25040,8346,060151,397 - Accrued interest - 9,895 - - - 9,895 - Compensated absences payable20,41912,64825,6647,382 - 66,113 - Customer deposits payable - 12,000 - - - 12,000 - Due to other governmental units - 28,5521,530 - - 30,082 - Bonds payable - current portion - 255,000 - - - 255,000 - Lease payable - current portion20,76720,76611,11020,766 - 73,409 - Insurance claims payable - - - - - - 373,891 ## Total Current Liabilities1,062,3962,043,71074,326342,079129,7103,652,221419,810 Noncurrent liabilities: Compensated absences payable28,19917,46635,44010,194 - 91,299 - Other postemployment benefits liability37,03934,83414,54419,782 - 106,199 - Net Pension liability132,851251,302116,127153,59225,925679,797 - Bonds payable - 1,409,466 - - - 1,409,466 - Lease payable44,65144,652 - 44,652 - 133,955 - Insurance claims payable - - - - - - 140,765 ## Total Noncurrent Liabilities242,7401,757,720166,111228,22025,9252,420,716140,765 ## Total Liabilities 1,305,1363,801,430240,437570,299155,6356,072,937560,575 ## Deferred Inflows of Resources: Deferred pension resources96,202181,97684,092111,22118,773492,264 - Net position: Net Investment in Capital Assets19,172,74112,157,4682,729,05315,123,566 - 49,182,828 - ## Unrestricted3,714,8002,505,442(71,667)5,969,328444,03412,561,937436,573 Total net position $22,887,541$14,662,910$2,657,386$21,092,894$444,034$61,744,765$436,573 ## Business Type Activities - Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 39 Page 48 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSESStatement 7 ## AND CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION PROPRIETARY FUNDS ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## Sanitary SewerWaterGolf CourseStorm Drainage ## Solid Waste ## RecyclingTotals ## Governmental ## Activities - Internal ## Service Funds Sales and costs of sales: Sales $ - $ - $63,030$ - $10,943$73,973$ - Cost of sales - - (28,783) - (10,361)(39,144) - Gross profit - - 34,247 - 58234,829 - Operating revenues: User charges6,376,4199,872,860528,7983,824,1561,018,64321,620,876343,585 Delinquency collections 59,453 - - 1,071 - 60,524 - Intergovernmental revenue - operating53,00016,718 - 17,922435,660523,300 - Miscellaneous 881,14589,8673,280125174,42510,697 Total operating revenue6,488,8809,970,723618,6653,846,4291,454,42822,379,125354,282 Operating expenses: Personal service549,295889,359458,440499,166101,8252,498,085 - Supplies59,552332,26363,09879,6845,250539,847 - Other services and charges4,555,0457,904,055103,160830,3991,558,79514,951,454869,953 Depreciation and amortization533,802494,890108,598808,709 - 1,945,999 - Total operating expense5,697,6949,620,567733,2962,217,9581,665,87019,935,385869,953 Operating income (loss) 791,186350,156(80,384)1,628,471(210,860)2,478,569(515,671) Non-operating revenues (expenses): Investment income Interest earned on investments83,03359,9684,465128,3755,944281,78524,024 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments100,76863,14352818,47217,091200,00239,311 Bond interest expense - (12,851) - - - (12,851) - Gain on sale of capital assets168,000 - 7,854 - - 175,854 - Total non-operating revenues (expenses) 351,801110,26012,847146,84723,035644,79063,335 Income (loss) before capital contributions and transfers1,142,987460,416(67,537)1,775,318(187,825)3,123,359(452,336) Capital contributions - 43,989 - - - 43,989 - ## Transfers: Transfer in - - 82,169 - - 82,169 - Change in net position 1,142,987504,40514,6321,775,318(187,825)3,249,517(452,336) Net position, January 1, as previously reported21,744,554 15,135,734 2,642,754 19,317,576 631,859 59,472,477888,909 Error correction - see Note 15 - (977,229) - - - (977,229) - Total net position, January 1, as restated21,744,55414,158,505 2,642,754 19,317,576 631,859 58,495,248888,909 Net position, December 31$22,887,541$14,662,910$2,657,386$21,092,894$444,034$61,744,765$436,573 ## Business Type Activities - Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 40 Page 49 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWSStatement 8 ## PROPRIETARY FUNDS ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## Sanitary SewerWaterGolf CourseStorm Drainage ## Solid Waste ## Recycling Totals ## Governmental Activities - ## Internal Service ## Funds Cash flows from operating activities: Cash received from customers and users, including deposits$6,435,898$9,468,891$562,362$3,850,188$1,085,600$21,402,939$343,585 Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services(4,229,842)(8,129,038)(155,896)(649,309)(1,556,412)(14,720,497)(585,341) Cash payments to employees(507,128)(872,436)(437,872)(567,910)(89,628)(2,474,974)10,697 Subsidy from governmental grants 53,00016,718 - 17,922435,660523,300 - Other operating revenues881,14589,8673,280125174,425 - Net cash flows from operating activities1,751,936565,28058,4612,654,171(124,655)4,905,193(231,059) Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Transfer in from other funds - - 82,169 - - 82,169 - Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Purchase of capital assets(2,177,206)(51,175)(46,753)(189,704)-(2,464,838) - Subsidy from governmental grants - 43,989 - - - 43,989 - Lease payments(19,754)(21,277)(10,891)(19,754) - (71,676) - Interest paid on capital debt - (26,300) - - - (26,300) - Bond payment-(250,000) - - - (250,000) - Proceeds from sale of capital assets168,000 - 7,854 - - 175,854 - Net cash flows from capital and related financing activities(2,028,960)(304,763)(49,790)(209,458)-(2,592,971) - Cash flows from investing activities: Interest and dividends received84,10959,2374,164120,2796,399274,18824,858 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments100,76863,14352818,47217,091200,00239,311 Net cash provided (used) by investing activities 184,877122,3804,692138,75123,490474,19064,169 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents(92,147)382,89795,5322,583,464(101,165)2,868,581(166,890) Cash and cash equivalents - January 13,240,9072,475,142116,2913,217,892463,2959,513,5271,160,005 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31$3,148,760$2,858,039$211,823$5,801,356$362,130$12,382,108$993,115 Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Operating income (loss)$791,186$350,156($80,384)$1,628,471($210,860)$2,478,569($515,671) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Error correction - see Note 15-(977,229) - - - (977,229) - Depreciation and amortization533,802494,890108,598808,709-1,945,999 - Pension related activity 16,07220,9358,934(49,132)11,6168,425 - Changes in elements affecting cash: (Increase) decrease in accounts receivable 4,512(404,806)(683)5,463(4,661)(400,175)(726) (Increase) decrease in special assessments receivable 11,339 - - 8,994 - 20,333 - (Increase) decrease in due from other governments (15,825)837 - 10,50471,03666,552 - (Increase) decrease in prepaid items 307,854(32)- - 1,870309,692 - (Increase) decrease in inventory - - - - (45,408)(45,408) - Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 76,9011,084,9368,909260,77451,1711,482,69121,318 Increase (decrease) in accrued payroll 5,5839,9754,4258,74158129,305 - Increase (decrease) in compensated absences 18,343(15,722)6,341(30,088) - (21,126) - Increase (decrease) in customer deposits payable - (2,000)- - - (2,000) - Increase (decrease) in due to other governmental units - 1,6051,453 - - 3,058 - Increase (decrease) in other postemployment benefits liability 2,1691,7358681,735 - 6,507 - Increase (decrease) in insurance claims payable - - - - - - 264,020 Total adjustments960,750215,124138,8451,025,70086,2052,426,624284,612 Net cash provided by operating activities$1,751,936$565,280$58,461$2,654,171($124,655)$4,905,193($231,059) Noncash investing, capital and financing activities: $100,768$63,143$528$18,472$17,091$200,002$39,311 Increase (decrease) in fair market value of investments Increase (decrease) in contracts and retainage payable ($46,512)$ -$ -($35,537)$ -($82,049)$ - ## Business-Type Activities Enterprise FundsBusiness-Type Activities Enterprise Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 41 Page 50 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION - CUSTODIAL FUNDS Statement 9 December 31, 2025 ## Roseville Islamic ## Cemetery Fund ## Assets: Cash and investments $91,300 ## Receivables: Investment interest receivable 313 Total assets$91,613 ## Liabilities: Due to other organizations $ - Net position: Restricted $91,613 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 42 Page 51 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION - CUSTODIAL FUNDS Statement 10 ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## Roseville Islamic ## Cemetery Fund ## Additions: Investment income Interest earned on investments$2,243 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments2,473 Total additions 4,716 ## Deductions: Professional services - Total deductions - Net increase (decrease) in fiduciary net position 4,716 Net position - beginning 86,897 Net position - ending $91,613 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 43 Page 52 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 44 Page 53 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## Note 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES ## A. FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY The City of Roseville is a municipal corporation formed under Section 412 of Minnesota State Statutes and operates under a Council-Manager form of government. The five-member Council and Mayor are elected on rotating terms in each even-numbered year. The financial statements present the City and its component unit. The City includes all funds, organizations, institutions, agencies, departments and offices that are not legally separate from such. Component units are legally separate organizations for which the elected officials of the City are financially accountable and are included within the basic financial statements of the City because of the significance of their operational or financial relationships with the City. The City is considered financially accountable for a component unit if it appoints a voting majority of the organization’s governing body and it is able to impose its will on the organization by significantly influencing the programs, projects, activities or level of services performed or provided by the organization or there is a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits to or impose specific financial burdens on, the City. As a result of applying the component unit definition criteria above, certain organizations are presented in this report as follows: Blended Component unit. The Roseville Economic Development Authority (EDA) was established to facilitate development and redevelopment in the City. The governing board consists of the members of the City Council. The City approves the levy and appropriations for the EDA annually as part of the City’s budget process. Any sale of bonds or obligations issued by the EDA must be approved by the City Council before issuance and the City Council may require the EDA to transfer any portion of the reserves generated by activities of the EDA to the City to reduce the tax levies for bonded indebtedness of the City. The EDA does not issue separate financial statements. Financial information may be obtained at the City’s offices. ## B. GOVERNMENT-WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net position and the statement of activities) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the primary government and its component unit. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on user fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or segment, are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use or directly benefit from goods, service or privileges provided by a given function or segment and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or segment. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. 45 Page 54 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT ## PRESENTATION The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary funds. With the economic resource’s measurement focus, revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditure-related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Property taxes, franchise taxes, licenses and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the City. The City reports the following major governmental funds: ## General Fund The general fund is the City’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. ## Special Revenue Funds Recreation Fund – This fund accounts for resources and payments related to adult and youth programs, nature center, skating center, and park maintenance activities. Most revenues are derived from user fees of various programs and activities, room rentals, donations, and concessions. American Rescue Plan (ARPA) Fund – This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds grant authorized by the American Rescue Plan Act. The City did not budget for these funds. Community Development Fund – This fund accounts for resources and payments related to the City’s building codes enforcement, development, and redevelopment activities. The funds primary revenue sources are through permits, contractor licenses, and plan check fees. Roseville Economic Development Authority (EDA) Fund – This fund accounts for the revenues and expenditures used for the activity of the Roseville Economic Development Authority general operations. The funds primary revenue sources are levied taxes, grants and charitable contributions. ## Debt Service Fund The debt service fund accounts for resources accumulated and payments for principal and interest on long term general obligation debt. 46 Page 55 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## Capital Project Funds Revolving Improvements Fund – This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures from replacement funds set aside for equipment and building replacement, and general land improvements. Economic Increments Construction Fund – This fund accounts for tax increment payments to various developers as part of Pay-as-you-go TIF agreements and infrastructure improvements. Street Construction Fund – This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures related to street construction and improvements. The City reports the following major proprietary funds: Sanitary Sewer Fund – This fund accounts for the activities related to the operation of a sanitary collection system. Water Fund – This fund account for the activities related to the operation of a water distribution system. Golf Course Fund – This fund accounts for the activities related to the operation and maintenance of a municipal golf course. Storm Drainage Fund – This fund accounts for activities related to the operation of a surface water collection system. Solid Waste Recycling Fund – This fund accounts for the activities related to the operation of a solid waste recycling collection system. Additionally, the City reports the following fund types: Internal service funds – Account for the worker’s compensation and general insurance services provided to other departments or agencies of the City. Fiduciary Fund - Custodial funds are used to account for assets held by the City as an agent for other organizations and are not available to the City for general operations. The City’s custodial fund accounts for resources held by the City for the Roseville Islamic Cemetery. The funds use the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting. As a general rule, the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements. Exceptions to this rule are other charges between the City's water and sewer function and various other functions of the primary government and its component unit. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported from the various functions concerned. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenue of the City's enterprise funds and internal service funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds and internal service funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. 47 Page 56 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use restricted resources first, and then unrestricted resources as they are needed. ## D. CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investment balances from all funds are pooled and invested to the extent available in authorized investments. Investment income is allocated to individual funds on the basis of the fund’s equity in the cash and investment pool. The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an advance from another fund shown as interfund receivables in the advancing fund, and an interfund payable in the fund with the deficit, until adequate resources are received. Investments are stated at fair value, except for investments in external investment pools that meet GASB 79 requirements, which are stated at amortized costs. Interest earnings are accrued at year-end. For purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows for the proprietary funds and internal service funds participate in the pooling of City-wide cash and investments. Amounts from the pool are available to these funds on demand. As a result, the cash and investments of the enterprise and internal service funds are considered to be cash and cash equivalents for statement of cash flow purposes. ## E. RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES Activity between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as either "due to/from other funds" (i.e. the current portion of interfund loan). All utility and property tax receivables, including those for the EDA, are shown at a gross amount, since both taxes and utility receivables are assessable to the property taxes and are collectible upon sale of the assessed property. Uncollectible amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported. The entity's lease receivable is measured at the present value of lease payments expected to be received during the lease term. Under the lease agreement, the entity may receive variable lease payments that are dependent upon the lessee's revenue/the lessee's usage levels. ## F. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December (levy/assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local school district, and other taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May 15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to the City on or before July 7 and December 2 of the same year. Delinquent collections for November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce payment of property taxes by property owners; the County possesses this authority. ## Government-Wide Financial Statements The City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which the taxes were levied. Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported. 48 Page 57 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## Governmental Fund Financial Statements The City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes received by the City in July, December and January are recognized as revenue for the current year. Taxes collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City following January) and taxes and credits not received at year-end are classified as delinquent and due from County taxes receivable. The portion of delinquent taxes not collected by the City in January is fully offset by deferred inflows of resources because they are not available to finance current expenditures. ## G. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE RECOGNITION Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments are collectible by the City over a term of years determined by policy and approved by resolution. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in the same manner as property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay future installments without interest or prepayment penalties. Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is subject to tax forfeit sale. Proceeds of sales from tax forfeited properties are allocated first to the County's cost of administering all tax forfeit properties. Pursuant to State Statute, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale after three years unless it is homesteaded, agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after five years. ## Government-Wide Financial Statements The City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been reported. ## Governmental Fund Financial Statements Revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special assessments that are collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent, deferred, and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funds are completely offset by deferred inflows of resources. ## H. ASSETS HELD FOR RESALE Property is acquired by the City for redevelopment purposes and subsequent sale. Assets held for resale are reported at the lower of cost or net realizable value based on estimated sales proceeds and selling expenses. ## I. INVENTORY Inventories are stated at cost, which approximates market, using the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method and consist of waste bins which have not yet been allocated to residents. The cost of inventory is recorded as expenditures/expense when consumed rather than when purchased in both government-wide and fund financial statements. 49 Page 58 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## J. PREPAID ITEMS Certain payments to vendors which reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods are recorded as prepaid items in both government-wide and fund financial statements. The City uses the consumption method for accounting prepaid expenses, where the City reports the prepaid items as an asset in the period in which they are purchased and defers the recognition of the expenditure until the period in which the prepaid items are used or consumed. ## K. CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items), and intangible assets such as easements and computer software are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets, except infrastructure assets, are defined by the City as assets with an initial, individual cost equal to or greater than $25,000, or an aggregate cost equal to or greater than $100,000 for a group of similar assets, and an estimated useful life in excess of 2 years. Accordingly, the amounts spent for the construction or acquisition of infrastructure assets are capitalized and reported in the government-wide financial statements regardless of their amount. With the initial capitalization of general infrastructure assets (i.e., those reported by governmental activities), the City chose to include all such items regardless of their acquisition date or amount. The City’s Pavement Management Plan contained all historical costs for the City’s general infrastructure assets. As the City constructs or acquires additional capital assets each period, including infrastructure assets, they are capitalized and reported at historical cost. The reported value excludes normal maintenance and repairs which are essentially amounts spent in relation to capital assets that do not increase the capacity or efficiency of the item or extend its useful life beyond the original estimate. Donated capital assets are recorded at their acquisition value on the date of donation. Property, plant and equipment of the City are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: ## L. DEFERRED OUTFLOWS AND INFLOWS OF RESOURCES In addition to assets, the statement of financial position will sometimes report a separate section for deferred outflows of resources. This separate financial statement element represents a consumption of net assets that applies to future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an outflow of resources (expense/expenditures) until that time. The City has two items that qualify for reporting in this category. The City presents deferred outflows of resources on the Statement(s) of Net position for deferred outflows of resources related to pensions and OPEB. Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions and OPEB results from the difference between projected and actual earnings, changes in actuarial assumptions and employer contribution paid to PERA subsequent to the measurement date. ## Assets Years ## Buildings40 ## Building Improvements25 ## Furniture and Equipment5 ## Light Vehicles5 ## Heavy Vehicles10 ## Fire Trucks20 Streets and public infrastructure50 Utility distribution systems80 Lease assetsShorter of useful life or lease term 50 Page 59 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 In addition to liabilities, the statement of financial position and fund financial statements will sometimes report a separate section for deferred inflows of resources. This separate financial statement element, deferred inflows of resources, represents an acquisition of net assets that applies to a future period(s) and so will not be recognized as an inflow of resources (revenue) until that time. The City has four items that qualify for reporting in this category. On the Governmental Fund Balance Sheet, The City presents deferred inflows of resources related to leases and unavailable revenue. Amounts relating to unavailable revenue are deferred and recognized as an inflow of resources in the period that they become available. Additionally, the City presents deferred inflows of resources on the Statement(s) of Net Position related to pensions, OPEB, and leases. Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions and OPEB results from the net difference expected and actual economic experience and changes in proportion. The deferred inflow of resources is recorded at the commencement of the lease in an amount equal to the initial recording of the lease receivable, and is recognized as revenue over the lease term. ## M. COMPENSATED ABSENCES It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation, paid time off (PTO), compensatory time, and sick pay benefits. There is an estimate for a liability for unpaid accumulated sick leave, as employees may receive up to 320 hours upon retirement only. All leave that is attributable to service already rendered, accumulated, and is more likely than not to be used for time off or otherwise paid is accrued in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. ## N. DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows and inflows of resources, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) and additions to and deductions from PERA’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by PERA, except that PERA’s fiscal year end is June 30. For this purpose, plan contributions are recognized as of employer payroll paid dates and benefit payments, and refunds are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. ## O. LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS In the government-wide financial statements, and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long- term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, and proprietary fund type statement of net position. Bond premiums and discounts, if material, are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. 51 Page 60 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## P. FUND BALANCE ## Classification In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report fund classifications that comprise hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to honor constraints on the specific purpose for which amounts in those funds can be spent: Nonspendable Fund Balance – These are amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in spendable form, such as prepaid items and inventory. Restricted Fund Balance – These are amounts that are restricted to specific purposes either by a) constraints placed on the use of resources by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or b) imposed by law through enabling legislation. Committed Fund Balance – These are amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by the City Council (highest level of decision-making authority) through resolution. Committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the Council modifies or rescinds the commitment by resolution. Assigned Fund Balance – These are amounts that are constrained by the City’s intent to be used for specific purposes but are neither restricted nor committed. Pursuant to Council resolution, the City Council is authorized to establish assignments of fund balance. Unassigned Fund Balance – These are residual amounts in the General Fund not reported in any other classification. The General Fund is the only fund that can report a positive unassigned fund balance. Other funds would report a negative unassigned fund balance should the total of nonspendable, restricted and committed fund balances exceed the total net resources of that fund. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use unrestricted resources as they are needed. When committed, assigned, or unassigned resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to use resources in the following order: 1) committed, 2) assigned, and 3) unassigned. ## Minimum Fund Balance It is the City’s policy that at the end of each year, the City will maintain the unrestricted portion of the fund balance for cash flow in a range equal to 35% to 50% of the General Fund operating expenditures budgeted for next year. At December 31, 2025 this percentage was 35.4% and therefore the minimum fund balance was met. ## Q. NET POSITION Net position represents the difference between assets and deferred outflows of resources; and liabilities and deferred inflows of resources in the government-wide financial statements. Net investment in capital assets, consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and amortization, reduced by the outstanding balance of any long-term debt used to build or acquire the capital assets. Net position is reported as restricted in the government-wide financial statement when there are limitations on use through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments. Minnesota law governs park dedication, debt service, tax increment, housing and economic development, law enforcement, and public safety aid use. 52 Page 61 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## R. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures, or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures/expenses initially made from it are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures/expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Interfund loans are reported as an interfund loan receivable or payable which offsets the movement of cash between funds. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers. ## S. USE OF ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates. ## T. RECLASSIFICATIONS Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year data (such as beginning balances) to conform to the current year presentation. The reclassifications had no effect on the change in net position or total net position as previously reported. Note 2 RECONCILIATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ## A. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND ## BALANCE SHEET AND THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION The governmental fund balance sheet includes reconciliation between fund balance – total governmental funds and net position - governmental activities as reported in the government-wide of net position. Elements of that reconciliation are detailed as follows: Long-term liabilities: Bonds payable($9,405,000) Premium on bonds payable(437,259) Bond interest payable(72,260) OPEB liability(1,385,483) ## Net Pension liability(11,506,668) Compensated absences(3,052,438) Net change due to long-term liabilities($25,859,108) Other long-term assets: Net pension asset - fire relief $8,182,485 Elimination of unavailable deferred revenue1,578,364 Net change in other long-term assets$9,760,849 53 Page 62 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## B. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND ## STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES AND THE ## GOVERNMENTAL-WIDE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES The governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances total governmental funds and change in net position of governmental activities as reported in the government-wide statement of activities. One element of that reconciliation explains that “Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense”. The details of this difference are as follows: ## Note 3 DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS ## A. DEPOSITS In accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at depository banks authorized by the City Council, including checking accounts and certificates of deposits. The following is considered the most significant risk associated with deposits: Custodial Credit Risk – the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the City’s deposits may not be returned to it. Minnesota Statutes require that insurance, surety bonds or collateral protect all City deposits. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of deposits not covered by insurance or bonds. Securities pledged as collateral are required to be held in safekeeping by the City or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. Minnesota Statute 118A.03 identifies allowable forms of collateral. The City’s deposits of $1,671,182 were fully insured or collateralized at December 31, 2025. The City’s investment policy has no additional deposit policies addressing custodial credit risk. Capital outlay $5,516,120 Capital asset contribution - Depreciation expense (5,633,110) Net change in fund-balances-total governmental funds and change in net position of governmental activities ($116,990) 54 Page 63 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## B. INVESTMENTS Subject to rating, yield, maturity and issuer requirements as prescribed by statute, Minnesota Statutes 118A.04 and 118A.05 authorize the City to invest in United States securities, state and local securities, commercial paper, time deposits, temporary general obligation bonds, repurchase agreements, Minnesota joint powers investment trusts and guaranteed investment contracts. The City has the following investments at year-end December 31, 2025: The City categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by generally accepted accounting principles. The hierarchy is based on the valuation inputs used to measure the fair value of the asset. The hierarchy has three levels. Level 1 investments are valued using inputs that are based on quoted market prices. Level 2 investments are valued using inputs that are based on matrix pricing models. Level 3 investments are valued using inputs that are unobservable. The money market fund is a First American Government Obligation fund which seeks to maintain a constant net asset value of $1.00 per share. The securities held by the fund are measured at amortized cost. Shares may be redeemed without penalty on any business day. ## C. INVESTMENT RISKS Investments are subject to various risks, the following of which are considered the most significant: Credit risk – Credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. The City’s policy to minimize credit risk includes limiting investing funds to those allowable under Minnesota Statute 118A, annually appointing all financial institutions where investments are held, and diversifying the investment portfolio. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Custodial credit risk – For investments, this is the risk that in the event of failure of the counterparty to an investment transaction the City would not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City’s investment policy does not further address this risk, but the City typically limits its exposure by purchasing insured or registered investments, or by the control of who holds the securities. Concentration risk – Concentration of credit risk is the risk of loss that may be attributed to the magnitude of a government’s investment in a single issuer. The City’s investment policy does not limit the concentration of investments. At December 31, 2025, the following issuers exceeded 5% of the City’s total investment portfolio: ##  5.11% - New York NY General Obligations Investment type ## Fair Value ## Measurement Rating Less than one year1-5 years 6-10 years Over 10 YearsTotal Municipal securitiesLevel 2 A - AAA5,534,371$ 26,189,113$ 9,854,799$ 1,722,414$ 43,300,697$ U.S. Agency Securities & GSE's Level 2AA+- 1,585,819 - - 1,585,819 Certificates of DepositLevel 2NR240,154 232,946 - - 473,100 Money Market FundsNAAAAm24,413,525 - - - 24,413,525 Total30,188,050$ 28,007,878$ 9,854,799$ 1,722,414$ 69,773,141$ ## Deposits$1,263,805 Total investments69,773,141 Cash on hand11,300 Total cash and investments$71,048,246 Investment maturities 55 Page 64 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 Interest rate risk – Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. The City’s investment policy does not address interest rate risk. The City holds all investments to maturity. ## D. COMPONENTS OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investments at year-end December 31, 2025 consist of the following: ## NOTE 4 RECEIVABLES AND UNAVAILABLE REVENUE Governmental funds report deferred inflows of resources in connection with receivables for revenues that are not considered available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Governmental funds also defer recognition in connection with resources that are not yet available. At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of deferred inflows reported in the governmental funds were as follows: ## Statement of Net Positions - Government Wide Cash and cash equivalents$70,956,946 ## Statement of Fiduciary Net Positions Cash and cash equivalents - Custodial Funds91,300 Total $71,048,246 ## Unavailable Delinquent property taxes (General) 347,850$ Delinquent property taxes (Telecommunications) 4,728 Delinquent property taxes (Recreation)57,527 Delinquent property taxes (Debt service)37,562 Delinquent property taxes (Revolving Improvements) 50,066 Delinquent property taxes (Street Construction) 19,072 Delinquent property taxes (EDA) 10,550 Delinquent property taxes (Economic Increments Construction) 22,041 Special assessments not yet due (Street Construction) 211,867 Unavailable revenue due from other governments (General)118,760 Unavailable revenue due from other governments (Revolving Improvements)698,341 ## Deferred Lease Revenue (General)2,612,386 ## Deferred Lease Revenue (Revolving Improvements)71,756 Total deferred inflows for governmental funds4,262,506$ 56 Page 65 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 Significant receivable balances not expected to be collected within one year of December 31, 2025 are as follows: ## Special ## Assessments ## Receivable ## Notes ## Receivable ## Leases ## ReceivableTotal ## Major Funds: General$ - $ - $2,299,746 $2,299,746 Community Development - 1,389,568 - 1,389,568 Street Construction243,803 - - 243,803 Roseville Economic Development Authority - 4,756,373 - 4,756,373 $243,803 $6,145,941 $2,299,746 $8,689,490 57 Page 66 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## NOTE 5 CAPITAL ASSETS Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2025 was as follows: ## Beginning ## Balance Increases Decreases ## Completed ## Construction & Transfers ## Ending ## Balance Governmental activities Capital assets not being depreciated Land29,440,857$ $ - -$ -$ 29,440,857$ Permanent easements 7,731,893 - - - 7,731,893 Construction in progress 2,120,237 3,291,119 (4,290) (2,200,427) 3,206,639 Total capital assets not being depreciated39,292,987 3,291,119 (4,290) (2,200,427) 40,379,389 Capital assets being depreciated Buildings44,599,539 - - - 44,599,539 Improvements other than buildings16,662,911 963,568 - - 17,626,479 Machinery and equipment24,093,611 1,261,434 (416,691) - 24,938,354 Infrastructure126,153,440 - - 2,200,427 128,353,867 Total capital assets being depreciated211,509,501 2,225,002 (416,691) 2,200,427 215,518,239 Less accumulated depreciation for Buildings19,341,539 1,021,612 - - 20,363,151 Improvements other than buildings7,479,917 831,488 - - 8,311,405 Machinery and equipment16,522,226 1,363,043 (341,503) - 17,543,766 Infrastructure68,025,236 2,416,967 - - 70,442,203 Total accumulated depreciation111,368,918 5,633,110 (341,503) - 116,660,525 Total capital assets being depreciated, net100,140,583 (3,408,108) (75,188) 2,200,427 98,857,714 Governmental activities capital assets, net139,433,570$ (116,989)$ (79,478)$ -$ 139,237,103$ 58 Page 67 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2025 was as follows (continued): ## Beginning ## BalanceIncreases Decreases ## Completed ## Construction ## & Transfers Ending Balance Business-type activities Capital assets not being amortized/depreciated Land893,299$ -$ -$ -$ 893,299$ Construction in progress 2,430,823 1,597,725 (17,652) (2,922,766) 1,088,130 Total capital assets not being amortized/depreciated3,324,122 1,597,725 (17,652) (2,922,766) 1,981,429 Capital assets being amortized/depreciated Buildings 4,191,908 - - - 4,191,908 Right-to-use lease asset-buildings311,800 - - - 311,800 Improvements other than buildings 1,492,418 84,134 - - 1,576,552 Machinery and equipment6,187,867 718,583 (477,531) - 6,428,919 Right-to-use lease asset-vehicles53,397 - - - 53,397 Infrastructure74,284,614 - - 2,922,766 77,207,380 Total capital assets being amortized/depreciated86,522,004 802,717 (477,531) 2,922,766 89,769,956 Less accumulated amortization/depreciation for Buildings1,870,691 66,558 - - 1,937,249 Right-to-use lease asset-buildings62,359 62,361 - - 124,720 Improvements other than buildings 1,325,805 30,395 - - 1,356,200 Machinery and equipment4,391,794 473,701 (477,531) - 4,387,964 Right-to-use lease asset-vehicles32,037 10,679 - - 42,716 Infrastructure31,545,573 1,302,305 - - 32,847,878 Total accumulated amortization/depreciation39,228,259 1,945,999 (477,531) - 40,696,727 Total capital assets being amortized/depreciated, net47,293,745 (1,143,282) - 2,922,766 49,073,229 Business-type activities capital assets, net50,617,867$ 454,443$ (17,652)$ -$ 51,054,658$ 59 Page 68 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 Depreciation and amortization expense was charged to functions/programs of the City is follows: ## NOTE 6 LONG-TERM LIABILITIES ## A. LONG-TERM DEBT The City issues general obligation debt to provide for financing construction of major capital facilities and street improvements. Debt service for street improvements is covered by special assessments against benefited properties with any shortfalls being paid from general taxes. The reporting entity's long-term debt is segregated between the amounts to be repaid from governmental activities and amounts to be repaid from business-type activities. Governmental activities: General government$487,605 Public safety785,061 Public works including depreciation of infrastructure2,923,679 ## Recreation1,436,765 Total depreciation expense - governmental activities$5,633,110 Business-type activities: Sanitary sewer$533,802 ## Water494,890 Golf 108,598 Storm drainage808,709 Total amortization/depreciation expense - business-type activities $1,945,999 60 Page 69 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 As of December 31, 2025, the governmental long-term liabilities of the financial reporting entity consisted of the following: Interest Issue Maturity Original Principal ## RatesDateDateIssue Outstanding ## Governmental Activities: ## General Obligation Bonds: G.O. Bonds of 2012A2.00 - 3.00 09/01/13 03/01/28 $15,685,000 $3,880,000 G.O. Bonds of 2020A1.00 - 2.00 12/30/20 03/01/28 4,775,000 2,130,000 G.O. Bonds of 2025A4.0008/12/25 02/01/33 1,790,000 1,790,000 Unamortized bond premium - 437,259 ## Total General Obligation Bonds22,250,000 8,237,259 ## Tax Increment Revenue Bonds: G.O. Tax Increment Revenue Bonds of 2015A2.00 - 4.00 09/01/16 03/01/32 3,060,000 1,605,000 Total governmental activities bonds$25,310,000 9,842,259 Compensated absences payable3,052,438 Insurance claims payable514,656 Other post employment benefits liability1,385,483 Net pension liability11,506,668 Total - governmental activities26,301,504 ## Business-Type Activities: ## General Obligation Bonds: G.O. Bonds of 2020A1.00 - 2.00 12/30/20 03/01/28 $2,565,000 1,600,000 Bond premium64,466 Total business-type activities bonds1,664,466 Lease liabilities: ## Buildings196,254 ## Vehicles11,110 Compensated absences payable157,412 Other post employment benefits liability106,199 Net pension liability679,797 Total - business-type activities2,815,238 Total - government$29,116,742 61 Page 70 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## B. MINIMUM DEBT PAYMENTS Annual debt service requirements to maturity for long-term debt are as follows: ## Year Ending December 31,PrincipalInterestPrincipalInterest 2026$1,945,000$202,712$210,000$41,256 20272,210,000148,625220,00034,581 20282,295,00086,025225,00029,434 2029250,00049,000230,00023,888 2030260,00038,800235,00017,781 2031-2033840,00051,200485,00014,625 ## Total$7,800,000$576,362$1,605,000$161,565 ## Year Ending December 31,PrincipalInterestPrincipalInterest 2026$255,000$21,250$62,299$3,356 2027260,00016,10065,3972,082 2028265,00010,85068,558745 2029270,0006,850 - - 2030275,0004,125 - - 2031275,0001,375 - - ## Total$1,600,000$60,550$196,254$6,183 ## Year Ending December 31,PrincipalInterest 2026$11,110$140 ## Lease Liabilities - Vehicles ## Business-Type Activities ## Governmental Activities ## Business-Type Activities ## General Obligation Bonds ## General Obligation BondsLease Liabilities - Buildings ## Business-Type Activities ## Governmental Activities ## G.O. Tax Increment Revenue Bonds 62 Page 71 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## C. CHANGES IN LONG-TERM LIABILITIES * The change in compensated absences is presented as a net change. General obligation bonds are direct obligations and pledge the full faith and credit of the government. For governmental activities, other post-employment benefits are liquidated through the general fund. For Insurance claims payables, payments are made from the Worker’s Compensation and Risk Management Funds. ## D. CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATIONS From time to time, the City has issued Industrial Revenue Bonds to provide financial assistance to private-sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private-sector entity served by the bond issuance. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. As of December 31, 2025, there were five series of Housing and Industrial Revenue Bonds outstanding, with an aggregate principal amount payable of $62.8 million. ## BeginningEndingDue Within ## BalanceAdditions ReductionsBalanceOne Year ## Governmental Activities: Bonds payable: General obligation bonds$8,025,000 $1,790,000 $2,015,000 $7,800,000 $1,945,000 Bond premiums513,66078,280154,681437,259 - Tax increment revenue bonds1,805,000 - 200,0001,605,000210,000 Total bonds payable10,343,6601,868,2802,369,6819,842,2592,155,000 Compensated absences payable *2,661,260391,178 - 3,052,4381,282,024 Insurance claims payable250,636775,965511,945514,656373,891 Total governmental activities $13,255,556 $3,035,423 $2,881,626 $13,409,353 $3,810,915 ## Business Type Activities: Bonds payable: General obligation bonds$1,850,000$ - $250,000 $1,600,000$255,000 Bond premiums77,359 - 12,89364,466 - Total bonds payable1,927,359 - 262,8931,664,466255,000 Lease liabilities: Buildings255,516 - 59,262196,25462,299 Vehicles22,001 - 10,89111,11011,110 Compensated absences payable *178,538 - 21,126157,41266,113 Total business-type activities$2,383,414$ - $354,172 $2,029,242$394,522 63 Page 72 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## NOTE 7 LEASES ## A. RIGHT-TO-USE LEASE ASSETS The City of Roseville has entered into lease agreements to lease various assets. Lease agreements that qualify as other than short-term leases under GASB 87 have been recorded at the present value of the future minimum lease payments as of the date of lease commencement. The City entered into an agreement which commenced January 1, 2022 to lease golf carts. The lease requires 60 bi-monthly lease payments of $1,875. The lease liability is measured at discount rate of 2% which is the City’s incremental borrowing rate. As a result of the lease, the City has recorded a right-to-use lease asset with a net book value of $10,681 on December 31, 2025. This City entered into an agreement which commenced January 1, 2024 to lease a storage unit. The lease requires 60 monthly average lease payments of $5,471. The lease liability is measured at a discount rate of 2% which is the City’s incremental borrowing rate. As a result of the lease, the City has recorded a right to use asset with a net book value of $187,080 on December 31, 2025. Expenses recognized relating to right-to-use lease assets for the year ended December 31, 2025 were as follows: Activity and balances for the right-to-use lease assets and lease liabilities are reported in the Capital Asset and Long-Term liabilities footnotes respectively. ## B. LEASE RECEIVABLE The City leases a portion of its water towers for cellular tower antenna sites. These leases are non-cancelable with an automatic renewal period at the lessee’s option. The City considers the likelihood of these options being exercised to be greater than 50%. The agreements call for annual lease payments between approximately $13,000- $51,000 with annual increases based on the contract agreement. The lease receivable is measured as the present value of the future minimum lease payments expected to be received during the lease term at a discount rate of 2% which is based on the City’s borrowing rate over the same time periods. Amortization expense by asset class: ## Vehicles$10,679 ## Buildings62,361 Total amortization expense73,040 Variable lease expense- Interest on lease liabilities4,928 Other lease expense - Total expense recognized in relation to leased assets $77,968 64 Page 73 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 The following table shows additional details of the lease contracts: The City leases building space at 2719 North Lexington Avenue, Suite 2719. The lease renewal is effective February 1, 2025 and extends through January 31, 2027. The agreement calls for monthly lease payments of $5,434 with an annual 3% increase factor based on the contract agreement on January 1, 2026. The lease receivable is measured as the present value of the future minimum lease payments expected to be received during the lease term at a discount rate of 2% which is based on the City’s borrowing rate over the same time periods. At December 31, 2025 the entity recorded $2,684,142 in lease receivables and deferred inflows of resources for these arrangements. Total revenue recognized in relation to these leases is as follows: ## LocationLessee ## Annual Lease ## Adjustment Factor ## Expiration ## Date ## Renewal ## Options 1901 Alta Vista Cingular 3% Increase on Sep 1 08/31/26 5 year terms 1901 Alta Vista Dish 4% Increase on Jan 1 12/31/28 5 year terms 1901 Alta Vista T-Mobile4% Increase on Jan 1 12/31/28 10 year terms 1901 Alta Vista Verizon 2.5% Increase on Jun 105/31/28 5 year terms 2501 Fairview (Lattice Tower)T-Mobile3% Increase on Jan 1 12/31/29 6 year terms 2501 Fairview (Water Tower)AT&T3% Increase on Jun 107/31/26 5 year terms 2501 Fairview (Water Tower)Verizon 3% Increase on Sep 108/31/30 5 year terms 2660 Civic Center Dr (South Tower)T-Mobile3% Increase on Sep 1509/14/30 5 year terms 2660 Civic Center Dr (South Tower)Verizon 3% Increase on Sep 108/31/29 5 year terms 2660 Civic Center Dr (North Tower)AT&T3% Increase on Jan 112/31/29 5 year terms Amortization of lease-related deferred inflows: Antenna leases$346,995 Building lease57,878 Total revenue recognized resulting from deferred inflow amortization404,873 Variable lease revenue- Interest revenue58,837 Other lease revenues- Total revenue recognized in relation to lessor leases $463,710 65 Page 74 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## Note 8 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - PERA ## A. PLAN DESCRIPTION The City participates in the following cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). These plan provisions are established and administered according to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 353, 353D, 353E, 353G and 356. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 356 defines each plan’s financial reporting requirements. PERA’s defined benefit pension plans are tax qualified plans under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. ## 1. General Employees Retirement Plan (General Plan) Membership in the General Plan includes employees of counties, cities, townships, schools in non- certified positions, and other governmental entities whose revenues are derived from taxation, fees, or assessments. Plan membership is required for any employee who is expected to earn more than $425 in a month, unless the employee meets exclusion criteria. 2. Public Employees Police and Fire Retirement Plan (Police and Fire Plan) Membership in the Police and Fire Plan includes full-time, licensed police officers and firefighters who meet the membership criteria defined in Minnesota Statutes section 353.64 and who are not earning service credit in any other PERA retirement plan or a local relief association for the same service. Employers can provide Police and Fire Plan coverage for part-time positions and certain other public safety positions by submitting a resolution adopted by the entity’s governing body. The resolution must state that the position meets plan requirements. ## B. BENEFITS PROVIDED PERA provides retirement, disability, and death benefits. Benefit provisions are established by state statute and can only be modified by the state legislature. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. When a member is “vested,” they have earned enough service credit to receive a lifetime monthly benefit after leaving public service and reaching an eligible retirement age. Members who retire at or over their Social Security full retirement age with at least one year of service qualify for a retirement benefit. ## 1. General Employees Plan Benefits The General Employees Plan requires three years of service to vest. Benefits are based on a member’s highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for General Plan members. Members hired prior to July 1, 1989, receive the higher of the Step or Level formulas. Only the Level formula is used for members hired after June 30, 1989. Under the Step formula, General Plan members receive 1.2% of the highest average salary for each of the first ten years of service and 1.7% for each additional year. Under the Level formula, General Plan members receive 1.7% of the highest average salary for all years of service. For members hired prior to July 1, 1989, a full retirement benefit is available when age plus years of service equal 90 and normal retirement age is 65. Members can receive a reduced requirement benefit as early as age 55 if they have three or more years of service. Early retirement benefits are reduced by 0.25% for each month under age 65. Members with 30 or more years of service can retire at any age with a reduction of 0.25% for each month the member is younger than age 62. The Level formula allows General Plan members to receive a full retirement benefit at age 65 if they were first hired before July 1, 1989 or at age 66 if they were hired on or after July 1, 1989. Early retirement begins at age 55 with an actuarial reduction applied to the benefit. 66 Page 75 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. The postretirement increase is equal to 50% of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) announced by the SSA, with a minimum increase of at least 1% and a maximum of 1.5%. The 2025 annual increase was 1.25%. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. Recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at least one month but less than a full year as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive a prorated increase. ## 2. Police and Fire Plan Benefits Benefits for Police and Fire Plan members hired before July 1, 2010, are vested after three years of service. Members hired on or after July 1, 2010, are 50% vested after five years of service and 100% vested after ten years. After five years, vesting increase by 10% each full year of service until members are 100% vested after ten years. Police and Fire Plan members receive 3% of highest average salary for all years of service. Police and Fire Plan members receive a full retirement benefit when they are age 55 and vested, or when their age plus their years of service equals 90 or greater if they were first hired before July 1, 1989. Early retirement starts at age 50, and early retirement benefits are reduced by 0.417% each month members are younger than age 55. Benefit increases are provided to benefit recipients each January. The postretirement increase is fixed at 1%. Recipients that have been receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 36 months as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive the full increase. Recipients receiving the annuity or benefit for at least 25 months but less than 36 months as of the June 30 before the effective date of the increase will receive a prorated increase. ## C. CONTRIBUTIONS Minnesota Statutes Chapters 353, 353E, 353G, and 356 set the rates for employer and employee contributions. Contribution rates can only be modified by the state legislature. ## 1. General Employees Fund Contributions General Plan members were required to contribute 6.50% of their annual covered salary in fiscal year 2025 and the City was required to contribute 7.50% for General Plan members. The City’s contributions to the General Employees Fund for the year ended December 31, 2025, were $900,120. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. ## 2. Police and Fire Fund Contributions Police and Fire Plan members were required to contribute 11.80% of their annual covered salary in fiscal year 2025 and the City was required to contribute 17.70% for Police and Fire Plan members. The City’s contributions to the Police and Fire Fund for the year ended December 31, 2025, were $1,921,272. The City’s contributions were equal to the required contributions as set by state statute. 67 Page 76 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## D. PENSION COSTS ## 1. General Employees Fund Pension Costs At December 31, 2025, the City reported a liability of $4,365,907 for its proportionate share of the General Employees Fund’s net pension liability. The City’s net pension liability reflected a reduction due to the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million. The State of Minnesota is considered a non- employer contributing entity and the state’s contribution meets the definition of a special funding situation. The State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $105,319. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2025, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. The City’s proportionate share was 0.1317% at the end of the measurement period and 0.1300% for the beginning of the period. For the year ended December 31, 2025, the City recognized pension expense of ($308,330) for its proportionate share of the General Plan’s pension expense. In addition, the City recognized an additional ($16,155) as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $16 million to the General Employees Fund. At December 31, 2025, the City reported General Employees Fund deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability$4,365,907 State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City105,319 ## Total$4,471,226 ## Deferred Outflows of ## Resources ## Deferred Inflows of ## Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience$416,364$ - Changes in actuarial assumptions105,189 (1,008,987) Net difference between projected and actual investment earnings on pension plan investments- (1,746,409) Changes in proportion64,927 (406,101) Employer contributions subsequent to the measurement date438,484 - ## Total$1,024,964($3,161,497) 68 Page 77 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 The $438,484 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: ## 2. Police and Fire Fund Pension Costs At December 31, 2025, the City reported a liability of $7,820,558 for its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Fund’s net pension liability. The net pension liability was measured as of June 30, 2025, and the total pension liability used to calculate the net pension liability was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability was based on the City’s contributions received by PERA during the measurement period for employer payroll paid dates from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025, relative to the total employer contributions received from all of PERA’s participating employers. The City’s proportionate share was 0.6675% at the end of the measurement period and 0.6281% for the beginning of the period. The State of Minnesota contributed $18 million to the Police and Fire Fund in the plan fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. The contribution consisted of $9 million in direct state aid that meets the definition of a special funding situation and $9 million in supplemental state aid that does not meet the definition of a special funding situation. The $9 million direct state aid was paid on October 1, 2024. The direct state aid payment will increase by $17.7 million which was paid on October 1, 2025. Thereafter, by October 1 of each year, the state will pay $26.7 million to the Police and Fire Fund until the fund is 110% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis). The $9 million in supplemental state aid will continue until the fund and the State Patrol Plan (administered by the Minnesota State Retirement System) are 100% funded for three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis). The State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City totaled $271,099. Year ending December 31, Pension expense amount 2026($739,207) 2027(948,740) 2028(576,747) 2029(310,323) 2030- ## Thereafter- ($2,575,017) City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability$7,820,558 State of Minnesota’s proportionate share of the net pension liability associated with the City271,099 ## Total$8,091,657 69 Page 78 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 For the year ended December 31, 2025, the City recognized pension expense of $1,912,446 for its proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan’s pension expense. The City recognized an additional $131,171 as pension expense (and grant revenue) for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s contribution of $9 million to the Police and Fire Fund special funding situation. The State of Minnesota is not included as a non-employer contributing entity in the Police and Fire Pension Plan pension allocation schedules for the $9 million in supplemental state aid, because this contribution was not considered to meet the definition of a special funding situation. The City recognized $60,073 for the year ended December 31, 2025 as revenue and an offsetting reduction of net pension liability for its proportionate share of the State of Minnesota’s on-behalf contributions to the Police and Fire Fund. At December 31, 2025, the City reported Police and Fire Fund deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: The $960,715 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from City contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended December 31, 2026. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: The net pension liability will be liquidated by the general, water, sewer, storm, solid waste and golf funds. ## Deferred Outflows of ## Resources ## Deferred Inflows of ## Resources Differences between expected and actual economic experience$3,661,879$ - Changes in actuarial assumptions6,271,170 (9,942,013) Net difference between projected and actual investment earnings on pension plan investments- (3,380,489) Changes in proportion1,937,054 (1,137,654) Employer contributions subsequent to the measurement date960,715 - Total $12,830,818($14,460,156) Year ending December 31, Pension expense amount 2026$2,302,359 2027(1,484,997) 2028(3,865,436) 2029147,125 2030310,896 Thereafter - (2,590,053) 70 Page 79 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## E. ACTUARIAL METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS The total pension liability for each of the cost-sharing defined benefit plans was determined by an actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2025, using the entry-age normal actuarial cost method and the following actuarial assumptions: The long-term investment rate of return is based on a review of inflation and investment return assumptions from a number of national investment consulting firms. The review provided a range of investment return rates considered reasonable by the actuary. An investment return of 7.00% is within that range. Benefit increases after retirement are assumed to be 1.50% for the General Plan and 1.00% for the Police and Fire Plan. Salary growth assumptions in the General Plan range in annual increments from 11.50% after one year of service to 3.00% after 27 years of service. In the Police and Fire Plan, salary growth assumptions range in annual increments from 10.75% after one year of service to 3.00% after 23 years of service. Mortality rates for the General Plan are based on the Pub-2010 General Employee Mortality Table. Mortality rates for the Police and Fire Plan are based on the Pub-2010 Public Safety Employee Mortality tables. The tables are adjusted slightly to fit PERA’s experience. Actuarial assumptions for the General Plan are reviewed every four years. The General Plan was last reviewed in 2022. The assumption changes were adopted by the board and became effective with the July 1, 2023 actuarial valuation. The Police and Fire Plan was reviewed in 2024. The assumption changes were adopted by the board and became effective with the July 1, 2025 actuarial valuation. The following changes in actuarial assumptions and plan provisions occurred in 2025: ## General Employees Fund ## Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The combined service annuity loading factors increased from 15% to 19% for vested terminated members and from 3% to 44% for non-vested, terminated members.  The assumed post-retirement benefit increase changed from 1.25% to 1.50%. ## Changes in Plan Provisions:  The post-retirement benefit increase formula changed to 100% of the Social Security annual increase, between 1.00% and 1.75%, beginning January 1, 2026. If the funded ratio (on a market value of assets basis) is less than 85% for the last two consecutive annual valuations or is less than 80% in the most recent actuarial valuation, the maximum is reduced to 1.50%. Previously, the benefit increase was 50% of the Social Security annual increase, between 1.00% and 1.50%.  The 1.00% additional employer contribution is eliminated when the plan reaches 98% funded status (on an actuarial value of assets basis); this contribution was previously scheduled to stop when the plan reached 100% funded status. Inflation2.25% per year ## Investment Rate of Return7.00% 71 Page 80 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## Police and Fire Fund ## Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  Assumed rates of salary increases were reduced slightly.  Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted, resulting in an overall increase in unreduced (full) retirements and an overall increase in reduced (early) retirements.  Assumed rates of withdrawal were modified; the new rates will increase predicted terminations, especially in the first few years of employment.  Assumed rates of disabled retirement were significantly increased, especially for ages over age 30.  Continued use of Pub-2010 Public Safety Mortality Table with rates adjusted to better fit observed experience.  Percent married assumption for female retirees lowered from 70% to 65%.  Minor changes were made to form of payment assumptions for retirees.  Minor changes were made to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data.  The combined service annuity load changed from 33% to 13% for vested, terminated members and from 2% to 38% for non-vested, terminated members. ## Changes in Plan Provisions:  The period of time needed for benefit recipients to receive their first benefit increase was reduced by one year (from 36 months to 24 months for a full increase).  The January 1, 2026 benefit increase changed from 1.00% to 3.00%; subsequent January 1 increases will be 1.00%.  The threshold to end the $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the earlier of July 1, 2048 or 90% funded for both PERA Police and Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three consecutive years to 100% funded for both PERA Police and Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).  The threshold to end the additional $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the earlier of July 1, 2048 or 100% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years to 110% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).  An additional $17.7 million in direct state aid will be paid annually each October 1 beginning October 1, 2025 through June 30, 2048.  Joint and survivor actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect changes in assumptions. The State Board of Investment, which manages the investments of PERA, prepares an analysis of the reasonableness on a regular basis of the long-term expected rate of return using a building-block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future rates of return are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce an expected long-term rate of return by weighting the expected future rates of return by the target asset allocation percentages. The target allocation and best estimates of geometric real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table: ## Asset Class ## Target ## Allocation ## Long-term expected real rate of return ## Domestic Equity33.5%5.10% ## International Equity16.5%5.30% ## Fixed Income25%0.75% ## Private Markets25%5.90% Total 100% 72 Page 81 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## F. DISCOUNT RATE The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability in 2025 was 7.00%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that contributions from plan members and employers will be made at rates set in Minnesota Statutes. Based on these assumptions, the fiduciary net position of the General Plan and Police and Fire Plan were projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members. The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability. ## G. PENSION LIABILITY SENSITIVITY The following presents the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability, calculated using the discount rate disclosed in the preceding paragraph, as well as what the City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate one percentage point lower (6.00%) or one percentage point higher (8.00%) than the current discount rate: ## H. PENSION PLAN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION Detailed information about each pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in a separately issued PERA financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained at www.mnpera.org. ## I. PENSION EXPENSE Pension expense recognized by the City for the year ended December 31, 2025 is as follows: 1% decrease in discount rate ## Current ## Discount Rate 1% increase in discount rate City's proportionate share of the General Plan net pension liability$10,604,103$4,365,907($694,674) City's proportionate share of the Police and Fire Plan net pension liability$20,491,520$7,820,558($2,584,301) ## General Plan($324,485) ## Police and Fire Plan2,043,617 ## Fire Relief(963,560) ## Total$755,572 73 Page 82 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## NOTE 9 VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION ## A. PLAN DESCRIPTION The Roseville Firefighter Relief Association is the administrator of a single employer defined benefit pension plan established to provide benefits for members of the City of Roseville Fire ## D ep artment per Minnesota State ## Statutes . The Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained by writing to the Roseville Firefighters’ Relief Association, 2701 N. Lexington Ave., Roseville, MN 55113. ## B. BENEFITS PROVIDED Volunteer firefighters of the City are members of the Roseville Firefighter Relief ## Association. Full retirement benefits are payable to members who have reached age 50 and have completed 15 years of service for monthly service pension, or 10 years of service for lump sum service pension. Partial benefits are payable to members who have reached 50 and have completed 10 years of service. Disability benefits, widow, and children’s survivor benefits are also payable to members or their beneficiaries based upon requirements set forth in the bylaws. These benefit provisions and all other requirements are consistent with enabling state statutes. ## C. EMPLOYEES COVERED BY BENEFIT TERMS At December 31, 2025, the following employees were covered by the benefit terms: ## D. CONTRIBUTIONS Minnesota Statutes Chapter 424A.092 specifies minimum support rates required on an annual basis. The minimum support rates from the municipality and from State aids are determined as the amount required to meet the normal cost plus amortizing any existing prior service costs over a ten year period. The City's obligation is the financial requirement for the year less state aids. Any additional payments by the City shall be used to amortize any unfunded liability of the relief association. The Association is comprised of volunteers: therefore, there are no payroll expenditures (i.e. there are no covered payroll percentage calculations). During the year, the City recognized as revenue and as an expenditure an on behalf payment of $46,043 made by the State of Minnesota for the Relief Association. ## E. NET PENSION ASSET The City's net pension asset was measured as of December 31, 2025 and the total pension asset used to calculate the net pension asset was determined by an actuarial valuation as of that date. Actuarial assumptions: The total pension asset in the December 31, 2025 actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions, applied to all periods included in the measurement: Inactive employees or beneficiaries currently receiving benefits65 Inactive employees entitled to but not yet receiving benefits13 Active employees 4 ## Total82 Inflation rate2.50% per year Discount rate7.00% percent average Investment Rate of Return 7.00% percent, net of pension plan investment expense 74 Page 83 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 The value of death benefits is similar to the value of the retirement pension. Because of low retirement ages, the plan assumes no pre-retirement mortality. Post-retirement mortality does not apply as the benefit structure and form of payment do not reflect lifetime benefits. The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which best-estimates of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense) are developed for each major asset class. These asset class estimates are combined to produce the portfolio long-term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by the current asset allocation percentage (or target allocation, if available) and by adding expected inflation. All results are then rounded to the nearest quarter percent and are summarized in the following table: Discount rate: The discount rate used to measure the total pension asset was 7.00%. Assets were projected using expected benefit payments and expected asset returns. Expected benefit payments by year were discounted using the expected asset return assumption for years in which the assets were sufficient to pay all benefit payments. Any remaining benefit payments after the trust fund is exhausted are discounted at the municipal bond rate. The equivalent single rate is the discount rate. Allocation atLong-TermLong-Term ## Measurement Expected Real Expected Nominal ## Asset ClassDateRate of ReturnRate of Return Domestic equity81.44%4.60%7.10% International equity0.00%4.95%7.45% Fixed income17.96%2.70%5.20% Real estate and alternatives0.00%3.98%6.48% Cash and equivalents0.63%1.19%3.69% ## Total100%6.98% Reduced for assumed investment expense(0.10%) Net assumed investment return (rounded to quarter percent)7.00% 75 Page 84 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## F. CHANGE IN THE NET PENSION ASSET As of December 31, 2025, the City reported a net pension asset of $8,182,485 for the Volunteer Firefighter Fund. Changes in the net pension asset during 2025 were: Sensitivity of the net pension asset to changes in the discount rate. The following presents the net pension asset of the City, calculated using the discount rate of 7.00%, as well as what the City's net pension asset would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage-point lower 6.00% or 1-percentage-point higher 8.00% than the current rate: Pension plan fiduciary net position. Detailed information about the pension plan's fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued relief association financial report. ## TotalPlan FiduciaryNet ## PensionNet Pension ## LiabilityPositionAsset (a)(b)(b) - (a) Balances at January 1, 202510,219,115$ 16,569,563$ 6,350,448$ Changes for the year Service cost13,658 - (13,658) Interest655,288 - (655,288) Differences between expected and actual experience92,215 - (92,215) Changes in assumptions(412,774) - 412,774 Contributions - state and local- 46,043 46,043 Change of benefit terms259,858 - (259,858) Net investment income- 2,425,843 2,425,843 Benefit payments, including refunds of employee contributions(1,049,592) (1,049,592) - Administrative expense- (31,604) (31,604) Other charges- - - Net Charges(441,347)$ 1,390,690$ 1,832,037$ Balances at December 31, 20259,777,768$ 17,960,253$ 8,182,485$ Increase (Decrease) 1%Current1% ## DecreaseDiscount Rate Increase Net pension liability (asset)(7,317,973)$ (8,182,485)$ (8,923,494)$ 76 Page 85 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## G. PENSION EXPENSE AND DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES AND DEFERRED INFLOWS ## OF RESOURCES RELATED TO PENSIONS For the year ended December 31, 2025, the City recognized a decrease of pension expense of $963,560. At December 31, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources: Amounts reported as deferred (inflows) outflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows: ## Note 10 OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ## A. PLAN DESCRIPTION In addition to providing the pension benefits described in the previous notes, the City provides post-employment health care benefits (as defined in paragraph B) for retired employees and police and firefighters disabled in the line of duty, through a single employer defined benefit plan. The term Plan refers to the City’s requirement by State Statute to provide retirees with access to health insurance. The OPEB plan is by the City. The authority to provide these benefits is established in Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.61 Subd. 2a, and 299A.465. The benefits, benefit levels, employee contributions and employer contributions are governed by the City and can be amended by the City through its personnel manual and collective bargaining agreements with employee groups. The Plan is not accounted for as a trust fund, as an irrevocable trust has not been established to account for the plan. The Plan does not issue a separate financial report. ## DeferredDeferred Outflows ofInflows of ## ResourcesResources Difference between expected and actual asset-$ -$ Changes in actuarial assumptions- - Net difference between projected and actual investment earnings- 2,075,025 Total -$ 2,075,025$ December 31, 2026(190,275)$ 2027(998,571) 2028(617,185) 2029(268,994) 2030- ## Thereafter- ## Total(2,075,025)$ 77 Page 86 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## B. BENEFITS PROVIDED ## Retirees The City is required by State Statute to allow retirees to continue participation in the City’s group health insurance plan if the individual terminates service with the City through service retirement or disability retirement. Employees who satisfy the rule of 90 or attain age 55 and have completed 10 years of service at termination can immediately commence medical benefits. Retirees may obtain dependent coverage while the participating retiree is under age 65. Covered spouses may continue coverage after the retiree’s death. The surviving spouse of an active employee may continue coverage in the group health insurance plan after the employee’s death. All health care coverage is provided through the City’s group health insurance plans. The retiree is required to pay 100% of their premium cost for the City-sponsored group health insurance plan in which they participate. The premium is a blended rate determined on the entire active and retiree population. Since the projected claims costs for retirees exceed the blended premium paid by retirees, the retirees are receiving an implicit rate subsidy (benefit). The coverage levels are the same as those afforded to active employees. Upon a retiree reaching age 65 years of age, Medicare becomes the primary insurer and the City’s plan becomes secondary. Disabled police and firefighter The City continues to pay the employer’s contribution toward health coverage for Police or Firefighters disabled in the line of duty per Minnesota Statute 299A.465, until age 65. Dependent coverage is included, if the dependents were covered at the time of the disability. The 2025 monthly premiums paid for Police or Firefighters disabled in the line of duty were: ## C. PARTICIPANTS As of the actuarial valuation dated January 1, 2025, participants consisted of: ## Plan Single ## Two ## Person Family ## HRA Medica$686$1,346 $1,858 ## HSA Medica$568$1,114 $1,538 Retirees and beneficiaries currently purchasing health insurance through the City13 Disabled police and firefighters 4 ## Active Employees 206 Total 223 78 Page 87 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## D. TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY AND CHANGES IN TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY The City’s total OPEB liability of $1,491,682 was measured as of January 1, 2025 and was determined by an actuarial valuation dated January 1, 2025. Changes in the total OPEB liability during 2025 were: There were no plan changes since the measurement date of January 1, 2025. The current portion of the OPEB liability has been determined to be immaterial and is not reported. Balances at January 1, 2025$1,390,602 Changes for the year Service cost 109,986 Interest 53,531 Assumption changes(95,495) Plan changes- Differences between expected and actual experience141,666 ## Other Changes- Benefit payments(108,608) Net changes 101,080 Balance at December 31, 2025$1,491,682 79 Page 88 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## E. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS AND OTHER INPUTS The total liability in the actuarial valuation was determined using the following actuarial assumptions and other inputs, applied to all periods included in the measurement, unless otherwise specified: The health care trend rates were updated to better anticipate short term and long term medical increases. The mortality tables were updated from the Pub-2010 Public Retirement Plans Headcount-Weighted Mortality Tables (General, Safety) with MP-2021 Generational Improvement Scale. The retirement, withdrawal, and salary increase rates for non-police employees were updated to reflect the latest experience study. The discount rate was changed from 3.70% to 4.20%. ## F. SENSITIVITY OF THE TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY TO CHANGES IN THE DISCOUNT RATE The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s total OPEB liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1% lower (3.20%) or 1% higher (5.20%) than the current discount rate: Inflation 2.50% ## Salary increasesService Graded Table Discount rate4.20% 20-year municipal bond yield 4.20% Medical cost trend rates 6.50% in 2025 grading to 5.00% over 6 years and then 4.00% over the next 48 years Years of ## Service ## Public Safety ## Salary ## Increase ## Other ## Salary ## Increase Years of ## Service ## Public ## Safety ## Salary ## Increase ## Other ## Salary ## Increase 111.75%11.50%143.60% 3.90% 29.25%6.75%153.50% 3.80% 38.00%6.00%163.50% 3.70% 47.00%5.50%173.50% 3.60% 55.50%5.25%183.50% 3.50% 64.80%5.00%193.40% 3.50% 74.60%4.75%203.40% 3.40% 84.30%4.50%213.40% 3.30% 94.10%4.40%223.30% 3.30% 104.00%4.40%233.15% 3.20% 113.90%4.20%243.00% 3.20% 123.80%4.10%25-273.00% 3.10% 133.70%4.00%28 or More 3.00% 3.00% ## Salary Increase Rates 1% Decrease ## Discount ## Rate 1% Increase Total OPEB liability $1,614,240 $1,491,682 $1,378,884 80 Page 89 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## G. SENSITIVITY OF THE TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY TO CHANGES IN THE HEALTHCARE COST ## TREND RATES The following presents the total OPEB liability of the City, as well as what the City’s total liability would be if it were calculated using healthcare cost trend rates that are 1% lower (5.50% decreasing to 4.00% then 3.00%) or 1% higher (7.50% decreasing to 6.00% then 5.00%) than the current healthcare cost trend rates: ## H. OPEB EXPENSE AND DEFERRED OUTFLOWS AND INFLOWS OF RESOURCES RELATED TO ## OPEB For the year ended December 31, 2025, the City recognized ($20,919) of OPEB expense. As of December 31, 2025, the City reported deferred outflows and inflows of resources related to the following sources: $121,640 reported as deferred outflow of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the OPEB liability in the year ended December 31, 2026. Amounts reported as deferred outflow and inflows of resources related to OPEB will be recognized in OPEB expense as follows: Deferred outflows and inflows of resources relate primarily to governmental activities and therefore have been allocated there. 1% Decrease ## Current ## Healthcare ## Cost Trend ## Rates 1% Increase Total OPEB liability $1,336,575 $1,491,682 $1,675,632 ## Deferred Outflows of ## Resources ## Deferred Inflows of ## Resources Differences between expected125,925$ 277,735$ and actual experience Changes in assumptions60,689 219,567 Contributions between measurement121,640 - date and reporting date 308,254$ 497,302$ Year endedOPEB ## December 31, Expense 2026(59,678)$ 2027(59,672) 2028(50,413) 2029(61,748) 2030(46,291) ## Thereafter(32,886) 81 Page 90 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## NOTE 11 INTERFUND RECEIVABLES, PAYABLES AND TRANSFERS The City utilizes interfund loans, when available, to finance tax increment activities in order to avoid the costs associated with issuing bonds. As of December 31, 2025, the Economic Increments Construction Fund owed $10,000 to the Roseville EDA Fund related to such a loan. Transfers are used to 1) move revenues from the fund with collection authorization to the debt service fund as debt service principal and interest payments become due, 2) move grant funds to specific funds where the grant dollars are used (specifically American Recovery Program Act dollars), 3) move unrestricted general fund revenues to finance various programs that the government must account for in other funds in accordance with budgetary authorizations, including amounts provided as subsidies or matching funds for various grant programs. The following is a schedule of interfund transfers as of December 31, 2025: Total transfers in/out are created to assist in financing various activities and/or projects. ## NOTE 12 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING The City has entered into five Tax Increment Financing agreements, which meet the criteria for disclosure under Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 77 Tax Abatement Disclosures. The City's authority to enter into these agreements comes from Minnesota Statute 469. The City entered into these agreements for the purpose of economic development. Under the agreements, the City and developer agree on an amount of development costs to be reimbursed to the developer by the City though tax revenues from the additional taxable value of the property generated by the development (tax increment). A "pay-as-you-go" note is established for this amount, on which the City makes payments for a fixed period of time with available tax increment revenue after deducting for certain administrative costs. During the year ended December 31, 2025, the City generated $2,191,480 in tax increment revenue and made $1,351,377 in payments to developers. ## FundTransfer InDescription ## Transfers to General Fund from: ## License Center837,643$ ## 2025 Budgeted Transfer - Admin Support, and Excess ## Fund Balance per Council Approval Parks & Recreation40,978 Excess of Fund Balance per Council Approval ARPA Fund56,667 Funding for Social Worker ## Total General Fund935,288 ## Transfers to Telecommunications Fund from: Parks & Recreation40,378 Excess of Fund Balance per Council Approval ## Transfers to Debt Service Fund from: Economic Increments Construction249,931 Principal, Interest, and Bond Issuance Costs ## Transfers to Revolving Improvements Fund from: General Fund525,000 2025 Budget Transfer - Capital Purchases ## Transfers to Golf Fund from: Revolving Improvements Fund82,169 2025 Golf Capital transfer 1,832,766$ 82 Page 91 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## Note 13 RISK MANAGEMENT The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of damage to, and the destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees and natural disasters. During the fiscal years of 1980 and 1987, the City established a Workers' Compensation Fund and a Risk Management Fund, respectively (internal service funds) to account for and finance its uninsured risks of loss. During 2025, the Worker’s Compensation Fund provided coverage up to a maximum of $500,000 for each occurrence. The City purchases excess loss coverage from the Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association, a nonprofit organization established by Minnesota State Statutes. The Risk Management Fund provides comprehensive general liability and comprehensive automotive liability up to the statutory maximum of $2,000,000. The City retains the risk of the first $100,000 of each occurrence with an annual maximum exposure of $200,000. Liabilities of the funds are reported if it is probable that a loss has occurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNRs). The result of the process to estimate the claims liability is not an exact amount as it depends on many complex factors, such as inflation, changes in legal doctrines, and damage awards. Accordingly, claims are reevaluated periodically to consider the effects of inflation, recent claim settlement trends (including frequency and amount of pay-outs), and other economic and social factors. The estimate of the claims liability also includes amounts for incremental claim adjustment expenses related to specific claims and other claim adjustment expenses regardless of whether allocated to specific claims. Estimated recoveries, for example from salvage or subrogation, are another component of the claim’s liability estimate. The City purchased commercial insurance for claims in excess of coverage provided by the Risk Management Fund and for all other risks of loss. Settled claims have not exceeded this coverage in any of the past five fiscal years. There were no significant reductions in the City's insurance coverage in 2025. Enterprise fund charges and the property tax levy are based on a management estimate of claims history and the amount necessary to maintain catastrophic reserves. The claims liability of $81,204 and $433,452, for the Workers’ Compensation and Risk Management funds respectively, reported in both funds at December 31, 2025 are based on the requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 10. As of December 31, 2025, the Workers’ Compensation Fund reported reserves of $448,864, while the Risk Management Fund reported a deficit of $12,291. The internal service funds are used to account for insurance activities provided to other departments on a cost-reimbursement basis. The negative net position of the internal service funds at year-end is primarily attributable to accrued liabilities and timing differences and is expected to be recovered through future service charges. 83 Page 92 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 This statement requires that a liability for claims be reported if information prior to the issuance of the financial statements indicates it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated (IBNR). Changes in the funds' claims liability amount in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 were: ## Note 14 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES ## A. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS The City receives financial assistance from federal and state governmental agencies in the form of grants. The disbursement of funds received under these programs generally requires compliance with the terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and is subject to audit by the grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims resulting from such audits could become a liability of the applicable fund. However, in the opinion of management, any such disallowed claims will not have a material effect on any of the financial statements of the individual fund types included herein or on the overall financial position of the City at December 31, 2025. ## B. COMMITTED CONTRACTS The City has construction projects in progress as of December 31, 2025. The projects include the improvement and construction of streets, water, sewer, and storm systems. At year end the commitments with these contractors are as follows: ## Year Beginning of ## Fiscal Year ## Liability ## Current Year Claims and Changes in ## estimates Claims Payment ## Ending of Fiscal ## Year Liability 2024177,033$ (60,122)$ 104,298$ 12,613$ 202512,613$ 283,707$ 215,116$ 81,204$ ## Year Beginning of ## Fiscal Year ## Liability ## Current Year Claims and Changes in ## estimates Claims Payment ## Ending of Fiscal ## Year Liability 2024176,891$ 239,889$ 178,757$ 238,023$ 2025238,023$ 492,258$ 296,829$ 433,452$ ## Worker's Compensation Fund ## Risk Management Fund ## Project Spent-to-Date ## Remaining ## Commitment ## MUA Install$100,455$40,949 ## 2025 PMP1,265,368 46,827 2025 Sanitary Sewer Lining958,904 110,536 Cohansey Lift Station Rehab7,757 52,544 Water Booster Phase 446,304 56,594 84 Page 93 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2025 ## C. CONTINGENCIES The City had the usual and customary types of miscellaneous claims pending at year-end mostly of a minor nature, and usually all covered by insurance carried for that purpose or the City has reserved for settlement. The City also carries personal injury insurance against suits for false arrest, libel, slander, violation of privacy, wrongful entry, etc. which can arise from enforcement of the city code and general laws. Although the outcome of these lawsuits is not presently determinable, in the opinion of the government’s legal counsel the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the government. ## Note 15 ERROR CORRECTION During the year ended December 31, 2025, the City identified an error in the financial statements of the prior year related to the accounting for other services and charges expenses within the water fund. Expense and accounts payable were understated in 2024 by $977,229, resulting in an overstatement of net position. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the beginning net position as of January 1, 2025 has been restated to reflect the correction of this error. The effect of the restatement on the beginning balances was as follows: ## Note 16 SUBSEQUENT EVENTS Subsequent events have been evaluated for recognition or disclosure through May 4, 2026, the date the financial statements were available to be issued. ## Note 17 GASB STATEMENTS ISSUED BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) recently approved the following statements which were not implemented for these financial statements: Statement No. 103 Financial Reporting Model Improvements. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2025. Statement No. 104 Disclosure of Certain Capital Assets. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2025. Statement No. 105 Subsequent Events. The provisions of this Statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2026. The effect these standards may have on future financial statements is not determinable at this time. ## Government-WideProprietary Funds ## Business-TypeWater ## ActivitiesFund Net position, January 159,472,477$ 15,135,734$ Net position increase (decrease): Understated expenses correction(977,229) (977,229) Net position, January 1, as restated 58,495,248$ 14,158,505$ 85 Page 94 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 86 Page 95 of 260 ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 87 Page 96 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL Schedule 1 ## GENERAL FUND ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Variance with ## ActualFinal Budget - OriginalFinalAmountsOver (Under) ## Revenues: ## Taxes: General property taxes $20,427,468$20,427,468$19,838,695($588,773) Licenses and permits 580,510580,510797,787217,277 Intergovernmental revenue 2,371,5402,371,5402,694,238322,698 Charges for services1,497,3001,497,3002,616,9821,119,682 Fines and forfeits 70,00070,00096,82926,829 Rentals - 451,680405,413(46,267) Donations - - 77,14777,147 Special assessments - - 1,1501,150 Investment income Interest earned on investments 60,00060,000234,577174,577 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments - - 408,331408,331 Miscellaneous revenue 651,180199,500272,40472,904 Total revenues25,657,99825,657,99827,443,5531,785,555 ## Expenditures: ## Current General government4,812,5444,812,5444,723,513(89,031) Public safety 18,051,66518,051,66519,497,2771,445,612 Public works 3,317,0003,317,0003,141,977(175,023) Capital outlay - - 28,17528,175 ## Total Expenditures 26,181,20926,181,20927,390,9421,209,733 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (523,211)(523,211)52,611575,822 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in200,000200,000935,288735,288 Transfers out - - (525,000)(525,000) Sale of capital assets - - 250250 Total other financing sources (uses)200,000200,000410,538210,538 ## Net Change in Fund Balance($323,211)($323,211)463,149$786,360 Fund balance, January 110,765,061 Fund balance, December 31$11,228,210 ## Budgeted Amounts The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 88 Page 97 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL Schedule 2 ## RECREATION FUND ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Variance with ## ActualFinal Budget - OriginalFinalAmountsOver (Under) ## Revenues: ## Taxes: General property taxes $3,378,300$3,378,300$3,255,962($122,338) Charges for services 2,686,9422,686,9422,751,28064,338 ## Rentals100,000100,000107,3317,331 Donations 39,50039,500133,83294,332 Investment income Interest earned on investments 15,00015,00049,50534,505 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments - - 71,52671,526 ## Miscellaneous Revenue 33,00033,00076,54843,548 Total revenues6,252,7426,252,7426,445,984193,242 ## Expenditures: ## Current: ## Recreation Personal services4,122,5384,122,5383,986,154(136,384) Supplies and materials 408,515408,515407,292(1,223) Other services and charges 1,941,7171,941,7171,794,389(147,328) Capital outlay - - 80,16480,164 ## Total Expenditures 6,472,7706,472,7706,267,999(204,771) Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (220,028)(220,028)177,985398,013 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers out - - (81,356)(81,356) ## Net Change in Fund Balance($220,028)($220,028)96,629$316,657 Fund balance, January 12,091,143 Fund balance, December 31$2,187,772 ## Budgeted Amounts The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 89 Page 98 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL Schedule 3 ## COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Variance with ## ActualFinal Budget - OriginalFinalAmountsOver (Under) ## Revenues: Licenses and permits$1,436,200$1,436,200$1,415,647($20,553) Charges for services50,00050,00076,36326,363 Affordable housing aid - - 563,752563,752 Special assessments - - - - Investment income: Interest earned on investments25,00025,000127,307102,307 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments - - 138,809138,809 ## Interest Earned - Other Miscellaneous Revenue - - 14,89714,897 Total revenues1,511,2001,511,2002,336,775825,575 ## Expenditures: ## Current: Public safety 1,192,1801,192,1801,189,464(2,716) Economic development752,220752,220730,920(21,300) Capital outlay45,00045,00047,5672,567 Total expenditures 1,989,4001,989,4001,967,951(21,449) Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (478,200)(478,200)368,824847,024 Other financing sources (uses): Sale of capital asset - - 5,8005,800 ## Net Change in Fund Balance($478,200)($478,200)374,624$852,824 Fund balance, January 14,566,830 Fund balance, December 31$4,941,454 ## Budgeted Amounts The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 90 Page 99 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUALSchedule 4 ## ROSEVILLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUND ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Variance with ## ActualFinal Budget - OriginalFinalAmountsOver (Under) ## Revenues: Taxes $364,856$364,856$351,644($13,212) Intergovernmental85,00085,00085,000 - Investment income: Interest earned on investments - - 82,51982,519 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments - - 105,100105,100 Miscellaneous Revenue - - 23,82423,824 Total revenues449,856449,856648,087198,231 ## Expenditures: ## Current: Economic development: Personal services 210,250210,250203,640(6,610) Supplies and materials - - 5252 Other services and charges 239,606239,606410,681171,075 Total expenditures449,856449,856614,373164,517 Net change in fund balance$ - $ - 33,714$33,714 Fund balance, January 15,172,379 Fund balance, December 31$5,206,093 ## Budgeted Amounts The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 91 Page 100 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE TOTAL ## OPEB LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS ## For The Last Ten Years 20252024 ## Total OPEB Liability: Service cost $109,986$104,846 Interest cost 53,531 54,082 Changes in benefit terms- - Differences between expected and actual experience 141,666 - Changes in assumptions(95,495) 28,228 Benefit payments (108,608) (86,645) Net changes in total OPEB liability 101,080 100,511 Total OPEB liability - beginning1,390,602 1,290,091 Total OPEB liability - ending $1,491,682$1,390,602 Covered-employee payroll$20,567,533$15,863,297 Total OPEB liability as a percentage of covered-employee payroll7.25%8.77% The schedule is provided prospectively beginning with the City's fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 and is intended to show a ten year trend. Additional years will be added as they become available. There are no plan assets accumulated in a trust that meet the criteria in paragraph 4 of GASB Statement No. 75 to pay these benefits. The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 92 Page 101 of 260 Schedule 5 202320222021202020192018 $96,877$139,534$135,470$112,235$93,240$91,108 36,008 35,311 52,102 59,781 51,636 49,752 - - - - - - (309,503) - (149,745) - (21,855) - (181,507) - 10,616 102,065 (61,560) - (110,076) (84,739) (82,195) (65,582) (78,354) (93,369) (468,201) 90,106 (33,752) 208,499 (16,893) 47,491 1,758,292 1,668,186 1,701,938 1,493,439 1,510,332 1,462,841 $1,290,091$1,758,292$1,668,186$1,701,938$1,493,439$1,510,332 $15,401,259$17,591,639$17,079,261$16,129,907$15,660,104$13,011,570 8.38%10.00%9.77%10.55%9.54%11.61% The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 93 Page 102 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYER'S SHARE OF PERA NET PENSION Schedule 6 ## LIABILITY - GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND ## For The Last Ten Years ## State's ProportionateCity's Proportionate Plan Fiduciary ## City's ProportionateShare of the NetShare of the NetNet Position Measurement Fiscal YearShare (percentage) City's Proportionate Pension Liability Pension Liability as a % DateEnding of the Net Share of the Net Associated with Total City's Covered as a % of Covered of the Total June 30December 31Pension Liability Pension Liability (a)the City (b)(a+b)Payroll (c) Payroll ((a+b)/c) Pension Liability 201620160.1395%$11,326,708$147,908$11,474,616$8,657,720132.5%68.91% 201720170.1412%9,014,115113,3689,127,4839,101,177100.3%75.90% 201820180.1470%8,154,957267,4598,422,4169,445,28489.2%79.50% 201920190.1423%7,867,448244,4898,111,93710,059,97380.6%80.20% 202020200.1512%9,065,131279,6049,344,73510,785,73386.6%79.10% 202120210.1458%6,226,313190,0726,416,38510,472,61361.3%87.00% 202220220.1522%12,054,290353,25612,407,54611,390,160108.9%76.70% 202320230.1385%7,744,765213,4697,958,23411,013,70672.3%83.10% 202420240.1300%4,806,640124,2904,930,93011,004,33744.8%89.10% 202520250.1317%4,365,907105,3194,471,22611,932,05437.5%90.78% The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 94 Page 103 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYER'S PERA CONTRIBUTIONS -Schedule 7 ## GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND ## For The Last Ten Years Contributions inContributions StatutorilyRelation to the ContributionCity's as a Percentage ## Year Required Statutorily RequiredDeficiencyCovered of Covered Ending Contribution (a) Contribution (b)(Excess) (a-b)Payroll (c) Payroll (b/c) 12/31/2016$659,339$659,339$ - $8,791,1877.50% 12/31/2017708,179708,179 - 9,448,0037.50% 12/31/2018738,318738,318 - 9,844,2407.50% 12/31/2019802,161802,161 - 10,695,4807.50% 12/31/2020764,800764,800 - 10,197,3337.50% 12/31/2021831,049831,049 - 11,080,6537.50% 12/31/2022878,830878,830 - 11,717,7337.50% 12/31/2023781,793781,793 - 10,423,9097.50% 12/31/2024860,920860,920 - 11,478,9337.50% 12/31/2025900,120900,120 - 12,001,6007.50% The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 95 Page 104 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYER'S SHARE OF PERA NET PENSIONSchedule 8 ## LIABILITY - PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLICE AND FIRE FUND ## For The Last Ten Years ## State's ProportionateCity's Proportionate Plan Fiduciary ## City's ProportionateShare of the NetShare of the NetNet Position Measurement Fiscal Year Share (percentage) City's Proportionate Pension Liability City'sPension Liability as a % DateEnding of the Net Share of the NetAssociated with Total Coveredas a % of Covered of the Total June 30December 31 Pension Liability Pension Liability (a)the City (b)(a+b)Payroll (c) Payroll ((a+b)/c) Pension Liability 201620160.5110%$20,507,319$ - $20,507,319$4,920,648416.8%63.9% 201720170.5160%6,966,614 - 6,966,6145,293,562131.6%85.4% 201820180.5259%5,605,552 - 5,605,5525,542,123101.1%88.8% 201920190.5452%5,804,205 - 5,804,2055,748,900101.0%89.3% 202020200.5625%7,414,352174,6537,589,0056,347,408119.6%87.2% 202120210.5472%4,223,804189,8904,413,6946,466,59368.3%93.7% 202220220.6188%26,927,7321,176,29328,104,0257,517,243373.9%70.5% 202320230.6176%10,665,149429,61511,094,7648,039,111138.0%86.5% 202420240.6281%8,263,700315,0098,578,7098,697,92998.6%90.2% 202520250.6675%7,820,558271,0998,091,65710,130,08579.9%91.8% The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 96 Page 105 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYER'S PERA CONTRIBUTIONS -Schedule 9 ## PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLICE AND FIRE FUND ## For The Last Ten Years Contributions inContributions StatutorilyRelation to the ContributionCity's as a Percentage ## Year Required Statutorily RequiredDeficiencyCovered of Covered Ending Contribution (a) Contribution (b)(Excess) (a-b)Payroll (c) Payroll (b/c) 12/31/2016$825,632$825,632$ - $5,096,49416.20% 12/31/2017874,916874,916 - 5,400,71616.20% 12/31/2018919,728919,728 - 5,677,33316.20% 12/31/20191,031,5081,031,508 - 6,085,59316.95% 12/31/20201,083,3091,083,309 - 6,120,39017.70% 12/31/20211,265,8871,265,887 - 7,151,90417.70% 12/31/20221,381,6771,381,677 - 7,806,08517.70% 12/31/20231,463,6541,463,654 - 8,269,23217.70% 12/31/20241,637,5301,637,530 - 9,251,58217.70% 12/31/20251,921,2721,921,272 - 10,854,64417.70% The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 97 Page 106 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN NET PENSION LIABILITY ## AND RELATED RATIOS - FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION ## For The Last Ten Years 202520242023 Total pension liability (TPL, actuarial accrued liability) Service cost$13,658$12,257$19,131 ## Interest655,288646,267599,189 Differences between expected and actual experience92,215202,19657,073 Changes of assumptions(412,774)210,338(851,626) Changes of benefit terms259,858356,825291,640 Benefit payments, including member contributions(1,049,592)(857,789)(867,484) Net change in total pension liability(441,347)570,094(752,077) Total pension liability - beginning of year10,219,1159,649,02110,401,098 Total pension liability - end of year$9,777,768$10,219,115$9,649,021 Plan fiduciary net position (FNP, assets) Contributions - State and local$46,043$46,400$48,725 Contributions - donations and other income - - - Contributions - members - - - Net investment income2,425,8432,735,3372,650,695 Other additions (e.g. receivables) - - - Benefit payments, including member contributions(1,049,592)(857,789)(867,484) Administrative expense(31,604)(29,000)(28,254) Other deductions (e.g. payables) - - - Net change in plan fiduciary net position1,390,6901,894,9481,803,682 Plan fiduciary net position - beginning of year16,569,56314,674,61512,870,933 Plan fiduciary net position - end of year$17,960,253$16,569,563$14,674,615 Net pension liability (NPL) - end of year(8,182,485)(6,350,448)(5,025,594) Plan fiduciary net position (FNP, assets)183.68%162.14%152.08% The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 98 Page 107 of 260 Schedule 10 2022202120202019201820172016 $23,829$26,622$25,957$35,904$45,257$48,898$85,623 563,444563,110565,282552,707579,955517,780525,989 110,275(61,093)125,5685,906(16,259)138,754(389,429) 14,290186,143382,673(8,425)533,565111,219(492,447) 813,363537,679265,019299,036 - 653,842 - (982,017)(755,377)(704,524)(673,245)(682,053)(593,632)(569,784) 543,184497,084659,975211,883460,465876,861(840,048) 9,857,9149,360,8308,700,8558,488,9728,028,5077,151,6467,991,694 $10,401,098$9,857,914$9,360,830$8,700,855$8,488,972$8,028,507$7,151,646 $48,815$264,259$250,948$238,755$229,050$222,882$221,324 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3,060,562)2,566,9852,410,0512,626,352(454,151)1,775,014846,802 - - - - - - - (982,017)(755,377)(704,524)(673,245)(682,053)(593,632)(569,784) (31,353)(30,056)(22,314)(25,433)(24,694)(24,935)(25,100) - - - - - - - (4,025,117)2,045,8111,934,1612,166,429(931,848)1,379,329473,242 16,896,05014,850,23912,916,07810,749,64911,681,49710,302,1689,828,926 $12,870,933$16,896,050$14,850,239$12,916,078$10,749,649$11,681,497$10,302,168 (2,469,835)(7,038,136)(5,489,409)(4,215,223)(2,260,677)(3,652,990)(3,150,522) 123.75%171.40%158.64%148.45%126.63%145.50%144.05% The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 99 Page 108 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS AND NON-EMPLOYER ## CONTRIBUTING ENTITIES - FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION ## For The Last Ten Years 202520242023 ## Employer: Actuarially determined contribution (ADC)$ - $ - $ - Contribution in relation to the ADC46,04346,40048,725 Contribution deficiency (excess)($46,043)($46,400)($48,725) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 100 Page 109 of 260 Schedule 11 2022202120202019201820172016 $ - $ - $ - $ - $2,541$55,689$55,689 48,815264,259250,948238,755229,050222,882221,324 ($48,815)($264,259)($250,948)($238,755)($226,509)($167,193)($165,635) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 101 Page 110 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 102 Page 111 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for the governmental funds classified as the General, Recreation, Community Development, Roseville Economic Development Authority, Telecommunications, License Center, and Charitable Gambling Funds. No budgets are prepared for other governmental funds which include the debt service and capital projects. All annual appropriations lapse at fiscal year-end. On or before mid-May of each year, all departments and agencies of the City submit requests for appropriations to the City's manager so that a budget may be prepared. Before September 15, the proposed budget is presented to the city council for review and approval. By September 15, the proposed budget and tax levy must be submitted to the county auditor. The Council holds public hearings and a final budget and tax levy must be prepared, adopted and submitted to the county auditor, no later than December 28. The appropriated budget is prepared by fund, function and department. The City's department heads may make transfers of appropriations within the same fund, which only requires the approval of the City's manager, and does not require Council approval. Transfers of appropriations between funds require the approval of the Council. The legal level of budgetary control (i.e. the level at which expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations) is at the fund level. ## Note A LEGAL COMPLIANCE – BUDGETS The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the department level for the General Fund and the fund level for certain Special Revenue Funds. Expenditures occurred in excess of appropriations in the following funds:  General fund exceeded the budget by $1,209,733. However, actual revenue exceeded the budget by $1,785,555.  Roseville economic development authority fund exceeded the budget by $164,517. However, actual revenue exceeded the budget by $198,231. ## Note B OPEB INFORMATION Assets are not accumulated in a trust that meets the criteria in paragraph 4 of GASB Statement No. 75 to pay related benefits. There are no factors that affect trends in the amounts reported, such as changes of benefit terms or assumptions. 103 Page 112 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 ## Note C PENSION INFORMATION ## PERA – General Employees Retirement Fund ## 2025 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The combined service annuity loading factors increased from 15% to 19% for vested terminated members and from 3% to 44% for non-vested, terminated members.  The assumed post-retirement benefit increase changed from 1.25% to 1.50%. ## 2025 Changes in Plan Provisions:  The post-retirement benefit increase formula changed to 100% of the Social Security annual increase, between 1.00% and 1.75%, beginning January 1, 2026. If the funded ratio (on a market value of assets basis) is less than 85% for the last two consecutive annual valuations or is less than 80% in the most recent actuarial valuation, the maximum is reduced to 1.50%. Previously, the benefit increase was 50% of the Social Security annual increase, between 1.00% and 1.50%.  The 1.00% additional employer contribution is eliminated when the plan reaches 98% funded status (on an actuarial value of assets basis); this contribution was previously scheduled to stop when the plan reached 100% funded status. ## 2024 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  Rates of merit and seniority were adjusted, resulting in slightly higher rates.  Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted as follows: increase the rate of assumed unreduced retirements, slight adjustments to Rule of 90 retirement rates, and slight adjustments to early retirement rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2 members.  Minor increase in assumed withdrawals for males and females.  Lower rates of disability.  Continued use of Pub-2010 general mortality table with slight rate adjustments as recommended in the most recent experience study.  Minor changes to form of payment assumptions for male and female retirees.  Minor changes to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data. ## 2024 Changes in Plan Provisions:  The workers’ compensation offset for disability benefits was eliminated. The actuarial equivalent factors updated to reflect the changes in assumptions. ## 2023 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The investment return assumption and single discount rate were changed from 6.50% to 7.00%. ## 2023 Changes in Plan Provisions:  An additional one-time direct state aid contribution of $170.1 million was contributed to the Plan on October 1, 2023.  The vesting period of those hired after June 30, 2010, was changed from five years of allowable service to three years of allowable service.  The benefit increase delay for early retirements on or after January 1, 2024, was eliminated.  A one-time, non-compounding benefit increase of 2.50% minus the actual 2024 adjustment will be payable in a lump sum for calendar year 2024 by March 31, 2024. ## 2022 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2020 to Scale MP-2021. 104 Page 113 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 ## 2021 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.50% to 6.50% for financial reporting purposes.  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2019 to Scale MP-2020. ## 2020 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The price inflation assumption was decreased from 2.50% to 2.25%.  The payroll growth assumption was decreased from 3.25% to 3.00%.  Assumed salary increase rates were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019, experience study. The net effect is assumed rates that average 0.25% less than previous rates.  Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019, experience study. The changes result in more unreduced (normal) retirements and slightly fewer Rule of 90 and early retirements.  Assumed rates of termination were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019, experience study. The new rates are based on service and are generally lower than the previous rates for years 2-5 and slightly higher thereafter.  Assumed rates of disability were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2019, experience study. The change results in fewer predicted disability retirements for males and females.  The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP-2014 table to the Pub-2010 General Mortality table, with adjustments. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2014 disabled annuitant mortality table to the Pub-2010 General/Teacher disabled annuitant mortality table, with adjustments.  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2018 to Scale MP-2019.  The assumed spouse age difference was changed from two years older for females to one year older.  The assumed number of married male new retirees electing the 100% Joint & Survivor option changed from 35% to 45%. The assumed number of married female new retirees electing the 100% Joint & Survivor option changed from 15% to 30%. The corresponding number of married new retirees electing the Life annuity option was adjusted accordingly. ## 2020 Changes in Plan Provisions:  Augmentation for current privatized members was reduced to 2.00% for the period July 1, 2020, through December 31, 2023, and 0.00% after. Augmentation was eliminated for privatizations occurring after June 30, 2020. ## 2019 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018. ## 2019 Changes in Plan Provisions:  The employer supplemental contribution was changed prospectively, decreasing from $31 million to $21 million per year. The State’s special funding contribution was changed prospectively, requiring $16 million due per year through 2031. ## 2018 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2015 to MP-2017.  The assumed benefit increase was changed from 1.00% per year through 2044 and 2.50% per year thereafter to 1.25% per year. 105 Page 114 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 ## 2018 Changes in Plan Provisions:  The augmentation adjustment in early retirement factors is eliminated over a five-year period starting July 1, 2019, resulting in actuarial equivalence after June 30, 2024.  Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00% to 3.00%, beginning July 1, 2018.  Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00%, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that has already accrued for deferred members will still apply.  Contribution stabilizer provisions were repealed.  Annual increases were changed from 1.00% per year with a provision to increase to 2.50% upon attainment of 90% funding ratio to 50% of the Social Security Cost-of Living Adjustment, not less than 1.00% and not more than 1.50%, beginning January 1, 2019.  For retirements on or after January 1, 2024, the first benefit increase is delayed until the retiree reaches normal retirement age; does not apply to Rule of 90 retirees, disability benefit recipients, or survivors.  Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest assumptions. ## 2017 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The Combined Service Annuity (CSA) loads were changed from 0.80% for active members and 60% for vested and non-vested deferred members. The revised CSA loads are now 0.00% for active member liability, 15.00% for vested deferred member liability, and 3.00% for non-vested deferred member liability.  The assumed annual increase rate was changed from 1.00% per year for all years to 1.00% per year through 2044 and 2.50% per year thereafter. ## 2017 Changes in Plan Provisions:  The State’s contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund equals $16 million in 2017 and 2018 and $6 million thereafter.  The Employer Supplemental Contribution for the Minneapolis Employees Retirement Fund changed from $21 million to $31 million in calendar years 2019 to 2031. The State’s contribution changed from $16 million to $6 million in calendar years 2019 to 2031. ## 2016 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The assumed annual benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00% per year through 2035 and 2.50% per year thereafter to 1.00% per year for all years.  The assumed investment return was changed from 7.90% to 7.50%. The single discount rate was changed from 7.90% to 7.50%.  Other assumptions were changed pursuant to the experience study dated June 30, 2015. The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. 106 Page 115 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 ## PERA – Public Employees Police and Fire Fund ## 2025 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  Assumed rates of salary increases were reduced slightly.  Assumed rates of retirement were adjusted, resulting in an overall increase in unreduced (full) retirements and an overall increase in reduced (early) retirements.  Assumed rates of withdrawal were modified; the new rates will increase predicted terminations, especially in the first few years of employment.  Assumed rates of disabled retirement were significantly increased, especially for ages over age 30.  Continued use of Pub-2010 Public Safety Mortality Table with rates adjusted to better fit observed experience.  Percent married assumption for female retirees lowered from 70% to 65%.  Minor changes were made to form of payment assumptions for retirees.  Minor changes were made to assumptions made with respect to missing participant data.  The combined service annuity load changed from 33% to 13% for vested, terminated members and from 2% to 38% for non-vested, terminated members. ## 2025 Changes in Plan Provisions:  The period of time needed for benefit recipients to receive their first benefit increase was reduced by one year (from 36 months to 24 months for a full increase).  The January 1, 2026 benefit increase changed from 1.00% to 3.00%; subsequent January 1 increases will be 1.00%.  The threshold to end the $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the earlier of July 1, 2048 or 90% funded for both PERA Police and Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three consecutive years to 100% funded for both PERA Police and Fire and MSRS State Patrol for three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).  The threshold to end the additional $9 million annual state aid contribution changed from the earlier of July 1, 2048 or 100% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years to 110% funded for a minimum of three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis).  An additional $17.7 million in direct state aid will be paid annually each October 1 beginning October 1, 2025 through June 30, 2048.  Joint and survivor actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect changes in assumptions. ## 2024 Changes in Plan Provisions:  The State contribution of $9.0 million per year will continue until the earlier of 1) both the Police and Fire Plan and the State Patrol Retirement Fund attain 90 percent funded status for three consecutive years (on an actuarial value of assets basis) or 2) July 1, 2048. The contribution was previously due to expire after attaining a 90 percent funded status for one year.  The additional $9.0 million contribution will continue until the Police and Fire Plan is fully funded for a minimum of three consecutive years on an actuarial value of assets basis, or July 1, 2048, whichever is earlier. This contribution was previously due to expire upon attainment of fully funded status on an actuarial value of assets basis for one year (or July 1, 2048 if earlier). ## 2023 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The investment return assumption was changed from 6.50% to 7.00%.  The single discount rate changed from 5.40% to 7.00% 107 Page 116 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 ## 2023 Changes in Plan Provisions:  An additional one-time direct state aid contribution of $19.4 million was contributed to the Plan on October 1, 2023.  Vesting requirement for new hires after June 30, 2014, was changed from a graded 20-year vesting schedule to a graded 10-year vesting schedule, with 50% vesting after five years, increasing incrementally to 100% after 10 years.  A one-time, non-compounding benefit increase of 3.00% will be payable in a lump sum for calendar year 2024 by March 31, 2024.  Psychological treatment is required effective July 1, 2023, prior to approval for a duty disability benefit for a psychological condition relating to the member’s occupation.  The total and permanent duty disability benefit was increased, effective July 1, 2023. ## 2022 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The single discount rate changed from 6.50% to 5.40%.  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2020 to Scale MP-2021. ## 2021 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The investment return and single discount rates were changed from 7.50% to 6.50%, for financial reporting purposes.  The inflation assumption was changed from 2.50% to 2.25%.  The payroll growth assumption was changed from 3.25% to 3.00%.  The base mortality table for healthy annuitants and employees was changed from the RP-2014 table to the Pub-2010 Public Safety Mortality table. The mortality improvement scale was changed from MP- 2019 to MP-2020.  The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2014 healthy annuitant mortality table (with future mortality improvement according to Scale MP-2019) to the Pub-2010 Public Safety disabled annuitant mortality table (with future mortality improvement according to Scale ## MP-2020).  Assumed rates of salary increase were modified as recommended in the July 14, 2020, experience study. The overall impact is a decrease in gross salary increase rates.  Assumed rates of retirement were changed as recommended in the July 14, 2020, experience study. The changes result in slightly more unreduced retirements and fewer assumed early retirements.  Assumed rates of withdrawal were changed from select and ultimate rates to service-based rates. The changes result in more assumed terminations.  Assumed rates of disability were increased for ages 25-44 and decreased for ages over 49. Overall, proposed rates result in more projected disabilities.  Assumed percent married for active female members was changed from 60% to 70%. Minor changes to form of payment assumptions were applied. ## 2020 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2018 to MP-2019. ## 2019 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2017 to MP-2018. ## 2018 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality projection scale was changed from MP-2016 to MP-2017. 108 Page 117 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 ## 2018 Changes in Plan Provisions:  Annual increases were changed to 1.00% for all years, with no trigger.  An end date of July 1, 2048, was added to the existing $9 million state contribution.  New annual state aid will equal $4.5 million in fiscal years 2019 and 2020, and $9 million thereafter until the plan reaches 100% funding, or July 1, 2048, if earlier.  Member contributions were changed from 10.80% to 11.30% of pay, effective January 1, 2019, and 11.80% of pay, effective January 1, 2020.  Employer contributions were changed from 16.20% to 16.95% of pay, effective January 1, 2019, and 17.70% of pay, effective January 1, 2020.  Interest credited on member contributions decreased from 4.00% to 3.00%, beginning July 1, 2018.  Deferred augmentation was changed to 0.00%, effective January 1, 2019. Augmentation that has already accrued for deferred members will still apply.  Actuarial equivalent factors were updated to reflect revised mortality and interest assumptions. ## 2017 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The single discount rate was changed from 5.60% to 7.50%.  Assumed salary increases were changed as recommended in the June 30, 2016 experience study. The net effect is proposed rates that average 0.34% lower than the previous rates.  Assumed rates of retirement were changed, resulting in fewer retirements.  The Combined Service Annuity (CSA) load was 30% for vested and non-vested deferred members. The CSA was changed to 33% for vested members and 2% for non-vested members.  The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 fully generational table to the RP-2014 fully generational table (with a base year of 2006), with male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale AA to Scale MP-2016. The base mortality table for disabled annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 disabled mortality table to the mortality tables assumed for healthy retirees.  Assumed termination rates were decreased to 3.00% for the first three years of service. Rates beyond the select period of three years were adjusted, resulting in more expected terminations overall.  Assumed percentage of married female members was decreased from 65% to 60%.  Assumed age difference was changed from separate assumptions for male members (wives assumed to be three years younger) and female members (husbands assumed to be four years older) to the assumption that males are two years older than females.  The assumed percentage of female members electing Joint and Survivor annuities was increased.  The assumed annual benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00% for all years to 1.00% per year through 2064 and 2.50% thereafter. ## 2016 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The assumed annual benefit increase rate was changed from 1.00% per year through 2037 and 2.50% per year thereafter to 1.00% per year for all future years.  The assumed investment return was changed from 7.90% to 7.50%. The single discount rate changed from 7.90% to 5.60%.  The assumed future salary increases, payroll growth, and inflation were decreased by 0.25% to 3.25% for payroll growth and 2.50% for inflation. 109 Page 118 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ## NOTES TO RSI December 31, 2025 ## Single Employer – Fire Relief Association ## 2025 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The discount rate increased from 6.75% to 7.00%  The expected rate of return on plan assets increased from 6.75% to 7.00%  The disability, mortality, and withdrawal assumptions were updated from the rates used in the July 1, 2023 Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation to the rates used in the 2024 PERA of Minnesota Public Employees Police & Fire Plan experience study. ## 2024 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The discount rate decreased from 7.00% to 6.75%  The expected rate of return on plan assets decreased from 7.00% to 6.75% ## 2023 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The discount rate increased from 6.00% to 7.00%  The expected rate of return on plan assets increased from 6.00% to 7.00% ## 2022 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2020 to Scale MP-2021. ## 2021 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2019 to Scale MP-2020.  The expected return on assets decreased from 6.25% to 6.00%  The discount rate decreased from 6.25% to 6.00%  Base mortality tables were changed from RP-2014 tables to Pub- 2010 tables, with adjustments. ## 2020 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The discount rate decreased from 6.75% to 6.25%  The expected return on plan assets decreased from 6.75% to 6.25%  The price inflation assumption was decreased from 2.50% to 2.25%  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2018 to Scale MP-2019. ## 2019 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2017 to Scale MP-2018. ## 2018 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The discount rate decreased from 7.50% to 6.75%  The expected return on plan assets decreased from 7.50% to 6.75%  The price of inflation assumption was decreased from 2.75% to 2.50%  The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale MP-2016 to Scale MP-2017. ## 2017 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The base mortality table for healthy annuitants was changed from the RP-2000 fully generational table to the RP-2014 fully generational table (with a base year of 2006), with male rates adjusted by a factor of 0.96. The mortality improvement scale was changed from Scale AA to Scale MP-2016. ## 2016 Changes in Actuarial Assumptions:  The discount rate increased from 6.75% to 7.50%  The expected return on plan assets increased from 6.75% to 7.50% 110 Page 119 of 260 ## COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS AND ## SCHEDULES 111 Page 120 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 112 Page 121 of 260 ## NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 113 Page 122 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 114 Page 123 of 260 ## SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Special revenue funds account and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed to expenditure for specified purposes other than debt service or capital projects. Telecommunications: accounts for the revenue and expenditures in the administration, maintenance, and participant activities divisions for Telecommunications License Center: accounts for the revenue and expenditures used to provide motor vehicle licenses, motor vehicle registrations, Passports, and state hunting and fishing licenses Charitable Gambling: accounts for the revenue and expenditures used from charitable gambling Opioid Settlement Fund: accounts for the revenue and expenditures used towards preventing the abuse of opioid addiction 115 Page 124 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## COMBINING BALANCE SHEETStatement 11 ## NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS December 31, 2025 ## Assets ## Tele-communications ## License ## CenterCharitable Gambling ## Opioid Settlement ## Fund ## Total Nonmajor ## Special Revenue ## Funds Cash and investments$55,606$637,124$26,058$244,201$962,989 Investments interest receivable 522,742 - 8373,631 Accounts receivable71,827212,189 - - 284,016 Taxes receivable 5,055 - - - 5,055 Total assets$132,540$852,055$26,058$245,038$1,255,691 ## Liabilities: Accounts payable35,28115,57725,909 - 76,767 Accrued payroll22,642112,485149 - 135,276 Due to other governmental units - 460,762 - - 460,762 Total liabilities57,923588,82426,058 - 672,805 ## Deferred Inflows of Resources: Unavailable revenue - property taxes4,728 - - - 4,728 Total deferred inflows of resources4,728 - - - 4,728 ## Fund Balance: ## Restricted: ## Law Enforcement245,038245,038 Telecommunications69,889 - - - 69,889 ## Assigned: License center improvements - 263,231 - - 263,231 Total fund balance69,889263,231 - 245,038578,158 Total liabilities and fund balance$132,540$852,055$26,058$245,038$1,255,691 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 116 Page 125 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 12 ## CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ## NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## Tele-Communications ## License ## CenterCharitable Gambling ## Opioid Settlement ## Fund ## Total Nonmajor ## Special Revenue ## Funds ## Revenues: Taxes$267,581$ - $ - $ - $267,581 Gambling taxes - - 42,018 - 42,018 Charges for services - 2,825,591 - - 2,825,591 Cable franchise taxes303,776 - - - 303,776 Donations - - 99,180 - 99,180 Investment income: Interest earned on investments 18121,8888075,79528,671 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments 2391,261 - 4,6776,177 Miscellaneous revenue 47,000 - - 38,15685,156 Total revenues618,7772,848,740142,00548,6283,658,150 ## Expenditures: ## Current: General government657,0792,253,534142,005 - 3,052,618 Public safety - - - 3,9603,960 Total expenditures657,0792,253,534142,0053,9603,056,578 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (38,302)595,206 - 44,668601,572 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in40,378 - - - 40,378 Transfers out - (837,643) - - (837,643) Total other financing sources (uses)40,378(837,643) - - (797,265) Net change in fund balance2,076(242,437) - 44,668(195,693) Fund balance, January 167,813505,668 - 200,370773,851 Fund balance, December 31$69,889$263,231$ - $245,038$578,158 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 117 Page 126 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUALSchedule 12 ## TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Variance with ## ActualFinal Budget - OriginalFinalAmountsOver (Under) ## Revenues: Cable franchise taxes $354,000$354,000$303,776($50,224) Property taxes277,635277,635267,581(10,054) Investment income: Interest earned on investments 10010018181 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments - - 239239 ## Miscellaneous Revenue47,00047,00047,000 - Total revenues678,735678,735618,777(59,958) ## Expenditures: ## Current: General government: Personal services 406,000406,000388,740(17,260) Supplies and materials 1,0001,000 - (1,000) Other services and charges 271,735271,735268,339(3,396) Total expenditures678,735678,735657,079(21,656) Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures - - (38,302)(38,302) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in - - 40,37840,378 Net change in fund balance$ - $ - 2,076$2,076 Fund balance, January 167,813 Fund balance, December 31$69,889 ## Budgeted Amounts The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 118 Page 127 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUALSchedule 13 ## LICENSE CENTER FUND ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Variance with ## ActualFinal Budget - OriginalFinalAmountsOver (Under) ## Revenues: Charges for services$2,600,000$2,600,000$2,825,591$225,591 Investment income Interest earned on investments1,0001,00021,88820,888 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments - - 1,2611,261 Total revenues2,601,0002,601,0002,848,740247,740 ## Expenditures: ## Current General government Personal services 2,044,9302,044,9302,032,246(12,684) Supplies and materials 38,20038,20037,448(752) Other services and charges205,976205,976183,840(22,136) Total expenditures 2,289,1062,289,1062,253,534(35,572) Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 311,894311,894595,206283,312 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers out(200,000)(200,000)(837,643)(637,643) ## Net Change in Fund Balance$111,894$111,894(242,437)($354,331) Fund balance, January 1505,668 Fund balance, December 31$263,231 ## Budgeted Amounts The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 119 Page 128 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - Schedule 14 ## BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CHARITABLE GAMBLING FUND ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 Variance with ## ActualFinal Budget - OriginalFinalAmountsOver (Under) ## Revenues: Gambling taxes$29,279$29,279$42,018$12,739 Donations 120,000120,00099,180(20,820) Investment income: Interest earned on investments - - 807807 Total revenues149,279149,279142,005(7,274) ## Expenditures: ## Current: General government: Personal services 29,27929,27933,5034,224 Other services and charges 120,000120,000108,502(11,498) Total expenditures149,279149,279142,005(7,274) Net change in fund balance$ - $ - - $ - Fund balance, January 1 - Fund balance, December 31$ - ## Budgeted Amounts The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 120 Page 129 of 260 ## INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Internal Service funds account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments or to other governmental units. ## Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund-Outside Services: accounts for revenue and expenditures in the administration and servicing of workers' compensation claims Risk Management Fund: accounts for the revenue and expenditures in the administration and servicing of general liability claims 121 Page 130 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION Statement 13 ## INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS December 31, 2025 ## Workers' Compensation ## Self-Insurance Risk Management ## Total Internal Service ## Funds ## Assets: Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents $543,654$449,461$993,115 Investment interest receivable 1,7671,5403,307 Accounts receivable - 726726 Total assets545,421451,727997,148 ## Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable 15,35330,56645,919 Insurance claims payable18,006355,885373,891 Total current liabilities33,359386,451419,810 Noncurrent liabilities: Insurance claims payable63,19877,567140,765 Total noncurrent liabilities 63,19877,567140,765 Total liabilities96,557464,018560,575 ## Net Position: Unrestricted 448,864(12,291)436,573 Total net position $448,864($12,291)$436,573 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 122 Page 131 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES Statement 14 ## IN FUND NET POSITION - INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## Workers' ## Compensation Self- ## Insurance Risk Management ## Total Internal Service ## Funds Operating revenues: Departmental charges$158,735$184,850$343,585 Miscellaneous - 10,69710,697 Total operating revenue158,735195,547354,282 Operating expenses: Professional services8,47522,64131,116 ## Insurance37,910277,501315,411 Training - 11,48111,481 Payment of claims215,116296,829511,945 Total operating expenses261,501608,452869,953 Operating income (loss)(102,766)(412,905)(515,671) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Investment income: Interest earned on investments12,88811,13624,024 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments15,83823,47339,311 Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)28,72634,60963,335 Change in net position (74,040)(378,296)(452,336) Net position, January 1522,904366,005888,909 Net position, December 31 $448,864($12,291)$436,573 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 123 Page 132 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 15 ## INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## Workers' ## Compensation Self- ## Insurance Risk Management ## Total Internal Service ## Funds Cash flows from operating activities: Cash received from customers and users, including deposits$158,735$184,850$343,585 Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services(191,710)(393,631)(585,341) Other operating revenues - 10,69710,697 Net cash provided (used) by operating activities(32,975)(198,084)(231,059) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest and dividends received13,02311,83524,858 Increase (decrease) in fair value of investments15,83823,47339,311 Net cash provided (used) by investing activities 28,86135,30864,169 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (4,114)(162,776)(166,890) Cash and cash equivalents - January 1547,768612,2371,160,005 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $543,654$449,461$993,115 Reconciliation of operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Operating income (loss) ($102,766)($412,905)($515,671) Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided (used) by operating activities Changes in elements affecting cash (Increase) decrease in accounts receivable - (726)(726) Increase (decrease) in accounts payable 1,20020,11821,318 Increase (decrease) in insurance claims payable 68,591195,429264,020 Total adjustments69,791214,821284,612 Net cash provided (used) by operating activities($32,975)($198,084)($231,059) Noncash investing, capital, and financing activities Increase/(decrease) in fair market value of investments$15,838$23,473$39,311 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 124 Page 133 of 260 ## STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) 125 Page 134 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 126 Page 135 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## STATISTICAL SECTION December 31, 2025 ## STATISTICAL SECTION This part of the City of Roseville's annual comprehensive financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City of Roseville's overall financial health. ## Page Financial TrendsTables 1 - 4 These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City of Roseville's financial performance and well-being have changed over time. Revenue CapacityTables 5 - 9 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City of Roseville's most significant local revenue source, the property tax. Debt CapacityTables 10 - 13 These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City of Roseville's current levels of outstanding debt and the City's ability to issue additional debt in the future. Demographic and Economic InformationTables 14 - 15 These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City of Roseville's financial activities take place. Operating IndicatorsTables 16 - 18 These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the City of Roseville's financial report relates to the services the City provides, and the activities it performs. ## Contents: 127 Page 136 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 128 Page 137 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## NET POSITION BY COMPONENT Table 1 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years (accrual basis of accounting) 20162017201820192020 ## Governmental Activities Net Investment in Capital Assets119,959,369$ 121,203,724$ 121,613,755$ 122,449,714$ 123,848,344$ Restricted13,847,317 13,523,329 11,908,357 13,744,369 17,447,435 Unrestricted16,617,276 11,181,711 10,192,853 12,256,314 12,428,273 Total Governmental Activities Net Position150,423,962 145,908,764 143,714,965 148,450,397 153,724,052 ## Business-Type Activities Net Investment in Capital Assets30,729,106 33,862,002 37,768,901 40,295,471 39,212,702 Restricted- - - - - Unrestricted1,593,595 926,515 762,222 (370,939) 4,109,521 Total Business-Type Activities Net Position32,322,701 34,788,517 38,531,123 39,924,532 43,322,223 ## Primary Government Net Investment in Capital Assets150,688,475 155,065,726 159,382,656 162,745,185 163,061,046 Restricted13,847,317 13,523,329 11,908,357 13,744,369 17,447,435 Unrestricted18,210,871 12,108,226 10,955,075 11,885,375 16,537,794 Total Primary Government Net Position182,746,663$ 180,697,281$ 182,246,088$ 188,374,929$ 197,046,275$ 20212022202320242025 ## Governmental Activities Net Investment in Capital Assets122,812,999$ 126,195,186$ 126,897,771$ 129,194,910$ 129,331,576$ Restricted13,047,725 13,652,088 22,378,993 24,180,168 29,809,122 Unrestricted23,600,568 18,620,362 14,773,190 15,946,473 17,604,313 Total Governmental Activities Net Position159,461,292 158,467,636 164,049,954 169,321,551 176,745,011 ## Business-Type Activities Net Investment in Capital Assets46,264,802 47,163,517 46,378,287 48,401,095 49,182,828 Restricted- - - - - Unrestricted1,223,840 2,446,518 7,873,679 11,071,382 12,561,937 Total Business-Type Activities Net Position47,488,642 49,610,035 54,251,966 59,472,477 61,744,765 ## Primary Government Net Investment in Capital Assets169,077,801 173,358,703 173,276,058 177,596,005 178,514,404 Restricted13,047,725 13,652,088 22,378,993 24,180,168 29,809,122 Unrestricted24,824,408 21,066,880 22,646,869 27,017,855 30,166,250 Total Primary Government Net Position206,949,934$ 208,077,671$ 218,301,920$ 228,794,028$ 238,489,776$ ## Fiscal Year ## Fiscal Year 129 Page 138 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## CHANGES IN NET POSITION Table 2 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 1 of 2 (accrual basis of accounting) ## Expenses 20162017201820192020 Governmental activities: General government7,615,373$ 8,180,795$ 8,435,979$ 8,890,774$ 10,031,213$ Public safety13,102,041 12,490,251 12,702,978 12,109,598 13,334,603 Public works9,676,272 7,759,394 8,095,118 6,201,372 5,804,335 Economic development4,729,987 4,047,461 1,229,029 1,653,281 2,766,163 Parks and recreation5,185,845 6,315,824 6,185,924 5,719,426 5,847,653 Interest on long-term debt813,509 785,702 708,583 643,081 660,497 Total governmental activities expenses41,123,027 39,579,427 37,357,611 35,217,532 38,444,464 Business-type activities: Sewer3,815,857 3,982,565 4,148,465 5,199,878 4,748,858 Water5,977,512 6,274,835 5,919,239 6,134,757 6,654,634 Golf340,677 367,665 448,514 430,186 480,815 Storm Drainage1,327,856 1,237,523 1,272,724 1,422,743 1,814,662 Recycling480,918 506,058 551,590 604,052 638,481 Total business-type activities expenses11,942,820 12,368,646 12,340,532 13,791,616 14,337,450 Total primary government expenses53,065,847$ 51,948,073$ 49,698,143$ 49,009,148$ 52,781,914$ ## Program Revenues Governmental activities: Charges for services: General government4,059,091$ 4,550,361$ 5,418,566$ 6,178,307$ 6,691,937$ Public safety2,358,147 1,812,758 2,018,293 3,132,557 2,696,195 Parks and recreation2,390,468 2,314,762 2,567,059 2,837,337 1,216,481 Other activities1,009,329 646,320 1,246,974 443,830 412,534 Operating grants and contributions1,219,715 1,418,596 1,535,286 2,018,835 4,905,134 Capital grants and contributions2,137,095 1,209,349 708,900 257,859 2,236,032 Total governmental activities program revenues13,173,845 11,952,146 13,495,078 14,868,725 18,158,313 Business-type activities: ## Charges for Services: Sewer4,808,303 5,270,628 5,458,020 5,733,880 5,837,210 Water6,687,934 6,613,415 6,649,903 6,806,682 7,000,085 Golf333,222 288,440 305,905 378,383 362,572 Storm Drainage1,798,727 1,947,644 2,019,311 1,999,186 3,562,737 Recycling371,871 436,304 427,065 477,805 584,022 Operating grants and contributions90,533 87,901 124,248 540,008 236,960 Capital grants and contributions277,055050,0008,49228,125 Total business-type activities program revenues14,367,645 14,644,332 15,034,452 15,944,436 17,611,711 Total primary government program revenues27,541,490$ 26,596,478$ 28,529,530$ 30,813,161$ 35,770,024$ Net (expense)/revenue Governmental activities(27,949,182)$ (27,627,281)$ (23,862,533)$ (20,348,807)$ (20,286,151)$ Business-type activities2,424,825 2,275,686 2,693,920 2,152,820 3,274,261 Total primary government net expense(25,524,357)$ (25,351,595)$ (21,168,613)$ (18,195,987)$ (17,011,890)$ ## General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Assets Governmental activities: ## Taxes Property taxes19,550,627$ 20,730,169$ 20,918,842$ 21,166,310$ 23,376,184$ Tax increments1,677,742 1,191,202 922,055 1,151,987 927,912 Affordable housing taxes- - - - - Cable franchisetaxes449,920 452,123 403,224 383,550 379,648 Gambling taxes93,815 58,581 38,018 41,535 30,487 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs24,435 27,208 98,710 72,372 - Unrestricted investment earnings758,630 860,242 378,063 568,744 319,237 Unrestricted net increase (decrease) in the fair value of Investments(897,640) (197,305) (115,486) 842,941 285,640 Gain on sale of capital assets129,474 112,600 65,101 46,800 90,058 ## Special Item - Disposal of Metro-INET ## Transfers805,000(122,737)(1,039,793)810,000- Total governmental activities22,592,003 23,112,083 21,668,734 25,084,239 25,409,166 Business-type activities: Unrestricted investment earnings36,658 31,735 6,039 12,355 6,574 Unrestricted net increase(decrease) in the fair value of investments(46,107) 10,985 87215,5448,827 Bond Interest Payable- - - - - Gain on sale of capital assets7,635 24,673 1,982 22,690 8,029 ## Transfers(805,000)122,7371,039,793(810,000)- Total business-type activities(806,814) 190,130 1,048,686 (759,411) 23,430 Total primary government21,785,189$ 23,302,213$ 22,717,420$ 24,324,828$ 25,432,596$ ## Change in Net Position Governmental activities(5,357,179)$ (4,515,198)$ (2,193,799)$ 4,735,432$ 5,123,015$ Business-type activities1,618,011 2,465,816 3,742,606 1,393,409 3,297,691 Total primary government(3,739,168)$ (2,049,382)$ 1,548,807$ 6,128,841$ 8,420,706$ ## Fiscal Year 130 Page 139 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## CHANGES IN NET POSITION Table 2 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 2 of 2 (accrual basis of accounting) ## Expenses 20212022202320242025 Governmental activities: General government9,700,733$ 11,681,627$ 8,353,906$ 8,369,989$ 8,185,855$ Public safety12,199,338 16,967,185 17,997,888 21,484,496 23,784,129 Public works5,784,692 8,777,781 6,592,587 6,267,875 6,606,445 Economic development3,536,319 3,985,490 1,887,813 3,697,814 2,971,420 Parks and recreation6,345,259 7,315,293 7,525,663 7,646,553 8,069,095 Interest on long-term debt523,904 396,986 343,509 279,387 127,651 Total governmental activities expenses38,090,245 49,124,362 42,701,366 47,746,114 49,744,595 Business-type activities: Sewer4,569,332 4,558,112 4,788,374 5,147,221 5,697,694 Water7,406,174 8,007,013 9,424,806 8,491,848 9,633,418 Golf501,318 521,681 622,209 665,530 733,296 Storm Drainage1,498,814 1,672,286 1,901,167 1,860,959 2,217,958 Recycling586,429 867,109 869,967 1,082,334 1,665,870 Total business-type activities expenses14,562,067 15,626,201 17,606,523 17,247,892 19,948,236 Total primary government expenses52,652,312$ 64,750,563$ 60,307,889$ 64,994,006$ 69,692,831$ ## Program Revenues Governmental activities: Charges for services: General government7,169,949$ 8,233,716$ 4,370,052$ 4,679,608$ 5,005,409$ Public safety2,503,363 2,395,139 2,321,438 2,418,963 3,585,134 Parks and recreation2,175,626 3,575,149 2,940,040 2,958,373 3,154,241 Other activities453,650 419,578 461,395 290,662 313,275 Operating grants and contributions4,816,658 5,513,179 4,847,508 3,061,374 3,409,066 Capital grants and contributions885,421 6,205,118 1,544,559 3,484,881 758,901 - Total governmental activities program revenues18,004,667 26,341,879 16,484,992 16,893,861 16,226,026 Business-type activities: ## Charges for Services: Sewer6,162,785 6,284,669 6,630,712 6,546,930 6,435,880 Water7,244,014 7,984,635 10,140,144 8,977,029 9,954,005 Golf454,586 460,845 500,989 576,871 652,912 Storm Drainage2,654,349 2,235,351 2,964,884 3,837,572 3,828,507 Recycling765,140 861,343 965,219 992,999 1,019,350 Operating grants and contributions280,245 95,927 182,014 141,459 523,300 Capital grants and contributions1,177,51998,211349,840341,79043,989 Total business-type activities program revenues18,738,638 18,020,981 21,733,802 21,414,650 22,457,943 Total primary government program revenues36,743,305$ 44,362,860$ 38,218,794$ 38,308,511$ 38,683,969$ Net (expense)/revenue Governmental activities(20,085,578)$ (22,782,483)$ (26,216,374)$ (30,852,253)$ (33,518,569)$ Business-type activities4,176,571 2,394,780 4,127,279 4,166,758 2,509,707 Total primary government net expense(15,909,007)$ (20,387,703)$ (22,089,095)$ (26,685,495)$ (31,008,862)$ ## General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Assets Governmental activities: ## Taxes Property taxes24,252,351$ 24,964,220$ 26,143,346$ 28,244,857$ 29,831,421$ Tax increments1,211,482 1,400,327 2,429,997 3,261,669 2,191,480 Sales and use taxes- - - - 3,192,168 Cable franchisetaxes385,750 374,855 354,531 321,611 303,776 Gambling taxes37,258 42,688 41,619 45,008 42,018 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs- - - - - Unrestricted investment earnings436,027 648,345 1,117,581 4,088,613 3,759,219 Unrestricted net increase (decrease) in the fair value of Investments(510,189) (5,596,474) 1,961,633 642,891 1,608,735 Gain on sale of capital assets10,139 1,464,277 249,985 238,361 95,381 Special Item - Disposal of Metro-INET(1,504,232) - - - Transfers- (5,179)(500,000)(719,111) (82,169) Total governmental activities25,822,818 21,788,827 31,798,692 36,123,899 40,942,029 Business-type activities: Unrestricted investment earnings19,226 60,808 150,502 230,148 281,785 Unrestricted net increase(decrease) in the fair value of investments(29,378) (347,228) (162,264) (42,421) 200,002 Bond Interest Payable- (26,596) - - - Gain on sale of capital assets- 34,45026,414146,915175,854 Transfers- 5,179500,000719,111 82,169 Total business-type activities(10,152) (273,387) 514,652 1,053,753 739,810 Total primary government25,812,666$ 21,515,440$ 32,313,344$ 37,177,652$ 41,681,839$ ## Change in Net Position Governmental activities5,737,240$ (993,656)$ 5,582,318$ 5,271,646$ 7,423,460$ Business-type activities4,166,419 2,121,393 4,641,931 5,220,511 3,249,517 Total primary government9,903,659$ 1,127,737$ 10,224,249$ 10,492,157$ 10,672,977$ ## Fiscal Year 131 Page 140 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Table 3 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 1 of 2 (modified accrual basis of accounting) 20162017201820192020 ## General Fund Nonspendable80,717$ 1,875$ 9,814$ 11,536$ 144,207$ ## Restricted Law enforcement446,436 407,132 373,225 364,145 353,541 Public Safety Aid- - - - - ## Assigned Engineering services772,697 938,020 805,269 760,929 617,125 Accounting services17,319 17,574 17,687 17,439 17,649 General Service Reserve- - 886,000 756,498 366,054 Unassigned5,856,061 4,848,107 4,136,116 5,006,928 7,347,564 Total General Fund7,173,230$ 6,212,708$ 6,228,111$ 6,917,475$ 8,846,140$ ## All Other Governmental Funds Nonspendable410,081$ 75$ -$ 1,000$ 1,125$ ## Restricted Law Enforcement- - - - - Telecommunications436,616 431,608 345,056 160,316 125,072 Lawful Gambling81,118 110,672 81,751 128,918 12,362 Community Development1,759,272 1,839,150 2,139,763 3,502,984 4,108,422 Park Dedication1,373,738 1,387,845 512,171 1,009,255 1,160,950 Capital projects - - - - - Tax Increment6,586,003 3,686,918 4,135,280 4,611,087 3,363,954 Debt Service2,693,499 2,626,667 2,533,920 2,390,172 7,432,766 Bond Funded Capital Improvements2,902,068 2,189,727 929,573 734,374 - Housing and Economic Development827,821 843,610 857,618 875,223 890,368 ## Committed Street Replacement9,354,461 - 6,115,052 4,960,459 6,385,662 Equipment Replacement1,041,002 1,125,426 - - - ## Assigned Parks and Recreation Programs and Maintenance1,637,111 1,945,172 1,536,462 1,589,307 1,613,737 License Center Improvements1,172,926 976,492 449,864 526,572 - Information Technology- - 1,534,647 1,525,445 2,015,010 Capital project funds3,529,937 12,137,748 4,679,926 6,009,217 7,186,739 Housing and Economic Development3,004,072 3,385,668 3,461,361 3,784,430 4,182,115 Unassigned- - - - 192,925 Total All Other Governmental Funds36,809,725$ 32,686,778$ 29,312,444$ 31,808,759$ 38,671,207$ ## Fiscal Year 132 Page 141 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## FUND BALANCES, GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Table 3 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 2 of 2 (modified accrual basis of accounting) 20212022202320242025 ## General Fund ## Nonspendable60,863$16,854$67,195$59,911$35,578$ ## Restricted Law enforcement333,661366,443348,866378,228428,001 ## Public Safety Aid- - 1,594,625397,179145,415 ## Assigned ## Information Technology100,863113,503109,992 Engineering services538,106316,141320,866357,310510,479 Accounting services16,85715,56615,40514,59821,367 ## General Service Reserve706,946629,748972,3491,365,927 - ## Unassigned8,507,5877,170,1997,464,8928,078,4059,977,378 Total General Fund10,164,020$ 8,514,951$ 10,885,061$ 10,765,061$ 11,228,210$ ## All Other Governmental Funds Nonspendable1,100$864$16,982$-$ -$ ## Restricted ## Law Enforcement- 73,52288,986200,370245,038 ## Telecommunications94,607118,80872,76867,81369,889 Lawful Gambling2,479- - - - ## Community Development4,447,4594,127,8984,399,4934,365,5134,175,869 ## Park Dedication1,205,8851,905,3282,172,8451,969,9632,065,267 Capital projects - - - - 2,296,846 ## Tax Increment3,774,0964,003,8395,506,0166,919,2837,582,681 ## Debt Service2,383,4002,224,3322,298,9192,369,1992,397,094 Bond Funded Capital Improvements- - - - - ## Housing and Economic Development899,385889,772919,5661,144,5131,580,605 ## Committed ## Street Replacement6,002,6574,708,6855,236,4285,315,8045,728,811 Equipment Replacement- - - - - ## Assigned ## Parks and Recreation Programs and Maintenance1,923,7732,007,0372,234,8752,091,1432,187,772 ## License Center Improvements364,574432,531307,929505,668263,231 Information Technology1,897,601873,177- - - Capital project funds9,212,81010,092,04412,773,14413,929,27814,654,481 ## Housing and Economic Development4,185,1953,921,8054,324,9454,229,1834,391,073 Unassigned- (1,289) (15,806) - - Total All Other Governmental Funds36,395,021$ 35,378,353$ 40,337,090$ 43,107,730$ 47,638,657$ ## Fiscal Year 133 Page 142 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Table 4 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 1 of 2 (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 20162017201820192020 ## Revenues Taxes22,235$ 22,474$ 22,252$ 22,710$ 24,688$ Intergovernmental3,381 2,383 2,004 2,018 6,563 Licenses and permits2,414 1,962 2,035 3,131 2,605 Charges for services5,888 6,151 6,859 7,508 6,858 Fines and forfeits107 90 97 85 57 Special assessments302 131 162 261 207 Investment earnings(132) 622 244 1,327 580 Miscellaneous1,168 1,051 1,218 1,806 1,427 Total revenues35,363 34,864 34,871 38,846 42,985 ## Expenditures General government6,822$ 7,342$ 7,814$ 8,226$ 9,307$ Public safety10,086 10,679 11,501 11,360 12,681 Public works2,499 4,934 5,180 2,616 2,819 Economic development4,602 3,944 1,179 1,538 2,758 Recreation4,380 4,685 4,725 4,926 4,231 Capital outlay9,822 4,836 3,822 4,669 5,238 Debt service Principal2,660 2,760 2,880 2,675 1,900 Interest849 789 730 666 680 Other Charges- - - - - Total expenditures41,720 39,969 37,830 36,676 39,614 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures(6,357) (5,105) (2,959) 2,170 3,371 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in2,579$ 2,821$ 3,365$ 2,832$ -$ Transfers out(1,774) (2,944) (3,884) (2,022) - Refunding bonds issued- - - - 4,775 Discount on bonds issued- - - - - Bonds issued- - - - - Premium on bonds issued- - - - 322 Sale of assets173 144 119 205 173 Total other financing sources (uses)978 21 (400) 1,015 5,270 ## Special Item ## Sale of Metro-INET Net change in fund balances(5,379)$ (5,084)$ (3,359)$ 3,185$ 8,641$ Debt service as a percentage of noncapital11.00%10.10%10.61%10.44%7.51% expenditures ## Fiscal Year 134 Page 143 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Table 4 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 2 of 2 (modified accrual basis of accounting) (amounts expressed in thousands) 20212022202320242025 ## Revenues Taxes26,005$ 26,700$ 28,835$ 31,923$ 34,833$ Intergovernmental5,384 11,541 6,467 6,066 3,783 Licenses and permits2,633 2,281 2,276 2,144 2,213 Charges for services8,048 9,898 6,290 6,598 8,350 Fines and forfeits62 87 76 86 97 Special assessments137 246 698 48 151 Investment earnings(73) (4,809) 2,978 1,937 2,879 Miscellaneous1,527 2,281 1,416 1,514 1,516 Total revenues43,723 48,225 49,036 50,316 53,822 ## Expenditures General government9,304$ 10,659$ 7,629$ 7,666$ 8,045$ Public safety13,627 15,013 15,935 17,665 21,194 Public works2,949 5,822 3,782 3,519 3,815 Economic development3,584 3,912 1,862 3,820 2,984 Recreation4,851 6,099 6,260 6,393 6,635 Capital outlay2,822 6,961 3,509 5,676 5,516 Debt service Principal7,040 2,020 2,110 2,145 2,215 Interest532 439 370 301 305 Other Charges- - - - - Total expenditures44,709 50,925 41,457 47,185 50,709 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures(986) (2,700) 7,579 3,131 3,113 Other financing sources (uses) Transfers in-$ -$ 1,469$ -$ -$ Transfers out- (5) (1,969) (719) (82) Refunding bonds issued- - - - - Discount on bonds issued- - - - - Bonds issued- - - - 1,790 Premium on bonds issued- - - - 78 Sale of assets28 1,328 250 238 95 Total other financing sources (uses)28 1,323 (250) (481) 1,881 ## Special Item ## Sale of Metro-INET(1,289) Net change in fund balances(958)$ (2,666)$ 7,329$ 2,650$ 4,994$ Debt service as a percentage of noncapital18.08%5.59%6.54%5.89%5.58% expenditures ## Fiscal Year 135 Page 144 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 136 Page 145 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES TAX REVENUE BY SOURCE Table 5 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years ## Fiscal YearProperty TaxTax Increments ## Sales and Use ## Taxes ## Cable Franchise ## Taxes ## Gambling ## TaxesTotal 201619,550,637$ 1,677,742$ -$ 449,920$ 93,815$ 20,451,552$ 201720,730,169 1,191,202 - 452,123 58,581 21,772,114 201820,918,842 922,055 - 403,224 38,018 22,432,075 201921,132,512 1,151,987 - 383,550 41,535 22,282,139 202023,376,184 927,912 - 379,648 30,487 22,709,584 202124,370,939 1,211,482 - 385,750 37,258 24,714,231 202224,880,844 1,400,327 - 374,855 42,688 26,005,429 202326,006,742 2,429,997 - 354,531 41,619 28,832,889 202428,294,064 3,261,669 - 321,611 45,008 31,922,352 202529,756,074 2,191,480 2,539,579 303,776 42,018 34,832,927 137 Page 146 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## ASSESSED VALUE AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL Table 6 ## VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY Page 1 of 2 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years ## Fiscal ## YearPersonal Property ## EndedResidentialCommercialGas &Leased Machinery ## December 31PropertyPropertyOtherElectric& Equipment 201625,839,545$ 16,230,896$ 9,066,597$ 707,709$ 65,466$ 201727,523,973 17,137,024 9,461,535 682,029 91,259 201829,331,022 18,261,950 10,082,719 739,086 72,205 201931,375,778 19,535,047 10,785,617 763,065 48,226 202028,115,372 28,604,783 7,669,585 783,764 89,799 202129,790,164 31,695,674 8,306,067 852,904 113,487 202231,421,278 32,838,231 8,786,564 509,980 52,663 202335,186,256 36,772,991 9,839,392 528,059 54,852 202438,504,828 37,797,436 11,030,074 547,813 57,438 202539,392,166 35,795,601 9,837,413 564,030 59,535 ## Sources: Ramsey County & League of MN Cities ## Real Property 138 Page 147 of 260 ## City of Roseville, Minnesota ## ASSESSED VALUE AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL Table 6 ## VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY Page 2 of 2 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years ## FiscalLess:TotalEstimatedAssesed YearTIF &Total TaxableDirectActualValue as a ## EndedFiscal DisparityAssessedTaxTaxablePercentage of December 31Contribution (Net)ValueRateValueActual Value 2016(6,700,122)$ 45,983,266$ 39.32%4,067,077,000$ 1.13% 2017(6,198,994) 49,475,356 38.56%4,293,939,000 1.15% 2018(6,237,582) 53,066,460 38.18%4,539,121,600 1.17% 2019(6,631,933) 56,719,579 37.42%4,861,021,500 1.17% 2020(6,981,638) 59,161,670 39.20%5,087,172,300 1.16% 2021(6,877,663) 64,854,004 37.07%5,459,147,800 1.19% 2022(8,190,519) 65,973,536 38.48%5,666,632,400 1.16% 2023(9,535,613) 72,837,758 36.08%6,329,266,941 1.15% 2024(10,435,909) 77,501,681 37.23%6,709,886,784 1.16% 2025(10,003,762) 75,644,983 40.38%6,689,180,827 1.13% 139 Page 148 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## PROPERTY TAX RATESTable 7 ## DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTSPage 1 of 2 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years ## Ramsey County ## DebtTotalTotalSpecial ## FiscalOperatingServiceCityCountyDistricts ## YearTax CapacityTax CapacityTax CapacityTax CapacityTax Capacity 201633.77%5.55%39.32%58.89%9.56% 201733.38%5.18%38.55%55.85%9.04% 201833.35%4.83%38.18%53.96%9.20% 201933.53%3.89%37.42%52.88%8.74% 202035.45%3.75%39.20%52.30%8.74% 202133.67%3.40%37.07%47.76%8.38% 202235.08%3.40%38.48%48.07%10.40% 202333.04%3.04%36.08%44.90%9.78% 202434.35%2.88%37.23%45.45%9.87% 202537.44%2.94%40.38%47.48%10.32% ## Sources: Ramsey County & League of MN Cities (1) Overlapping rates are those of local and county governments that apply to property owners within the City of Roseville. Not all overlapping rates apply to all City of Roseville property owners (e.g., the rates for special districts apply only to the portion of the government's property owners whose property is located within the geographic boundaries of the special district). ## City of Roseville 140 Page 149 of 260 ## City of Roseville, Minnesota ## PROPERTY TAX RATESTable 7 ## DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTSPage 2 of 2 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years ## Total TaxMarketTotalMarketDirect & ## FiscalCapacityValue BasedCapacityValue BasedOverlapping ## YearBasedTax RateBasedTax RateTax Capacity 201626.25%0.22261%20.96%0.22104%154.97% 201725.31%0.20119%18.89%0.19350%147.64% 201828.46%0.19725%34.40%0.21951%164.20% 201926.33%0.18765%31.69%0.22529%157.06% 202024.96%0.29347%30.67%0.19816%155.87% 202123.86%0.25290%31.25%0.16876%148.32% 202223.42%0.25640%26.91%0.26937%147.28% 202318.37%0.22776%25.53%0.21357%134.66% 202416.47%0.24480%25.03%0.23293%134.05% 202517.03%0.23270%27.77%0.22517%142.97% ## School District - ISD#621 ## Overlapping Rates (1) ## School District - ISD#623 141 Page 150 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS Table 8 ## Current Year and Ten Years Ago 20252016 ## PercentagePercentage ofof ## TaxesTotal TaxesTaxesTotal Taxes ## TaxpayerLeviedRankLeviedLeviedRankLevied PPF Rtl Rosedale Shopping Ctr LLC$ 727,357 12.50% $ 291,19651.54% St Paul Fire and Marine Ins So635,075 22.18%326,50731.72% Har Mar Retail Associates, LLC457,708 31.57% Meritex Industrial Portfolio LLC363,544 41.25% ## Rosedale Commons LP329,041 51.13%214,70671.13% Magellan Pipeline Company LP319,846 61.10%354,36721.87% ## Rosedale Square LLC313,516 71.08%267,38961.41% ## Roseville Properties LLC291,991 81.00% Crossroads of Roseville 2023 LLC291,264 91.00% Arrow Lexington Apartments LLC241,705 100.83% ## Gateway Washington Inc426,41812.25% ## Wilcal Crossroads LLC325,90741.72% ## Wal-mart Realty Company 2087209,19981.10% ## Veritas Technologies LLC205,01191.08% ## BRE Timberwolf Property Owner LLC195,651101.03% $ 3,971,04613.62% $ 2,816,34914.87% ## Source: Ramsey County 142 Page 151 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS Table 9 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Collections / ## Fiscal YearTotal TaxAdjustments in EndedLevy forPercentageCurrent / Percentage ## 31-DecFiscal YearAmountof LevySubsequent YearsAmountof Levy 201618,944,720$ 17,663,506$ 93.24%(29,539)$ 17,633,967$ 93.08% 201719,869,645 19,659,496 98.94%(40,126) 19,619,370 98.74% 201820,756,100 20,721,589 99.83%(87,361) 20,634,228 99.41% 201921,551,650 21,105,455 97.93%12,312 21,117,767 97.99% 202023,105,170 22,981,304 99.46%(82,226) 22,899,078 99.11% 202124,152,660 24,091,198 99.75%(166,573) 23,924,625 99.06% 202225,429,114 25,033,295 98.44%(212,345) 24,820,950 97.61% 202326,822,889 26,293,861 98.03%(272,685) 26,021,176 97.01% 202429,150,515 28,433,718 97.54%(249,723) 28,183,995 96.68% 202530,717,459 30,183,596 98.26%- 30,183,596 98.26% ## Total Collections to Date Collected within the ## Fiscal Year of the Levy 143 Page 152 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## RATIO OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPETable 10 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years ## Business-Type ## Activities Percentage of ## TaxEstimated ## GeneralSpecialIncrementWaterTotalActual Taxable FiscalObligationAssessmentRevenueCertificateRevenueLeasePrimaryValue ofPer YearBondsBondsBondsof IndebtednessBondsLiability (3)GovernmentProperty (1)Capita (2) 201626,041,440$ -$ 3,246,065$ 640,000$ -$ -$ 29,927,505$ 0.74%849$ 201723,492,848 - 3,208,661 325,000 - - 27,026,509 0.63%754 201820,904,256 - 3,101,257 - - - 24,005,513 0.63%671 201918,265,665 - 2,923,852 - - - 21,189,517 0.44%584 202021,535,936 - 2,741,448 - 2,693,931 - 26,971,315 0.53%736 202114,553,659 - 2,529,044 - 2,681,038 - 19,763,741 0.36%556 202212,591,382 - 2,316,639 - 2,438,145 105,184 17,346,166 0.31%476 202310,539,096 - 2,104,235 - 2,185,252 33,750 14,828,583 0.23%403 20248,451,829 - 1,891,830 - 1,927,359 277,515 12,271,018 0.18%342 20258,162,833 - 1,679,426 - 1,664,466 207,364 11,506,725 0.17%317 Note: Details regarding the City's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. (1) See the schedule of Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property for the estimated actual taxable value. (2) See Population on Demographic & Economic Statistics schedule. (3) Lease Liability added in 2022 due to implementation of GASB 87 ## Governmental Activities 144 Page 153 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING Table 11 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Percentage ofEstimated (3) ## NetEstimatedPersonalOutstanding ## GeneralResourcesGeneralActual TaxableIncomeDebt to FiscalObligationRestricted forBondedValue ofPer(amounts expressedPersonal YearDebtRepayment (4)Debt (4)Property (1)Capita (2)in whole dollars)income 201626,681,440$ 2,693,499$ 23,987,941$ 0.74%680.62$ 1,707,818,508.00$ 1.75% 201723,817,848 2,626,667 21,191,181 0.63%591.34 1,784,095,260 1.51% 201820,904,256 2,533,921 18,370,336 0.53%513.20 1,871,808,636 1.28% 201918,265,665 2,390,172 15,875,492 0.44%437.68 1,992,566,048 1.06% 202021,535,936 7,432,766 14,103,170 0.53%384.87 2,036,783,452 1.32% 202114,553,659 2,383,399 12,170,260 0.36%332.12 2,082,638,262 0.95% 202212,591,382 2,213,907 10,377,475 0.31%284.78 2,280,925,360 0.76% 202310,539,096 2,298,919 8,240,177 0.23%223.86 2,405,827,980 0.62% 20248,451,829 2,304,102 6,147,727 0.18%171.28 2,487,674,520 0.49% 20258,162,833 2,362,396 5,800,437 0.17%159.77 2,605,573,545 0.44% Note: Details regarding the city's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. (1) See the Schedule of Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property for property value data. (2) Population data can be found in the Schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics. (3) This estimated personal income number is calculated by taking the per capita personal income of Ramsey County and multiplying it by the City population. (4) Implementation of GASB 54 in 2011 145 Page 154 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT Table 12 As of December 31, 2025 ## PercentageAmount ## Gross DebtApplicableApplicable ## Governmental UnitNet of Refundingto Rosevilleto Roseville ## Direct Debt: City of Roseville9,842,259$ 100%9,842,259$ ## Overlapping Debt* School District #621195,795,000$ 8%15,663,600$ School District #623167,200,000 61%101,992,000 Special School District #91664,130,000 8%5,130,400 Metropolitan Council1,564,245,118 1%15,642,451 Metropolitan Airports Commission1,981,755,000 1%19,817,550 Ramsey County233,227,000 9%20,990,430 Total Overlapping Debt4,206,352,118 179,236,431 Total Direct and Overlapping Debt4,216,194,377$ 189,078,690$ *Note: Overlapping governments are those that coincide, at least in part, with the geographic boundaries of the city. This schedule estimates the portion of the outstanding debt of those overlapping governments that is borne by the residents and businesses of the City of Roseville. This process recognizes that, when considering the government's ability to issue and repay long-term debt, theentire debt burden borne by the residents and businesses should be taken into account. However, this does not imply that everytaxpayer is a resident, and therefore responsible for repaying the debt, of each overlapping government. 146 Page 155 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION Table 13 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years 20162017201820192020 Debt Limit122,012,310$ 128,818,170$ 136,173,648$ 145,830,645$ 152,615,169$ Total net debt applicable to limit28,585,000 27,026,509 24,005,513 21,189,517 26,971,315 Legal debt margin93,427,310$ 101,791,661$ 112,168,135$ 124,641,128$ 125,643,854$ Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit23.43%20.98%17.63%14.53%17.67% 20212022202320242025 Debt Limit163,774,434$ 169,998,972$ 189,878,008$ 201,296,604$ 200,675,425$ Total net debt applicable to limit19,763,741 17,346,166 14,828,583 12,271,018 11,506,725 Legal debt margin144,010,693$ 152,652,806$ 175,049,425$ 189,025,586$ 189,168,700$ Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit12.07%10.20%7.81%6.10%5.73% ## Estimated Market Value 6,689,180,827$ Debt Limit (3% of total estimated market value)200,675,425 Debt applicable to limit: ## Total Bonded Debt11,506,725 ## Less: ## Special Assessment Bonds- ## Housing Bonds- Total net debt applicable to limit11,506,725 ## Legal Debt Margin189,168,700$ Note: Under Minnesota state law, the City of Roseville's net debt cannot exceed 3 percent of the estimated market value of property. This limit increased from 2% to 3% in calendar 2008. ## Fiscal Year ## Legal Debt Margin Calculation for Fiscal Year 2025 ## Fiscal Year 147 Page 156 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS Table 14 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years ## Per ## Estimated CapitaSchoolSchool ## FiscalPersonalPersonalEnrollmentEnrollmentUnemployment YearPopulation (1)Income (2)income (3) District #623 (4) District #621 (4)Rate (5) 201635,2441,707,818,508$ 48,457$ 7,58011,1453.0% 201735,8361,784,095,260 49,785 7,58111,2852.5% 201835,7961,871,808,636 52,291 7,53111,3892.4% 201936,2721,992,566,048 54,934 8,25511,6552.6% 202036,6442,036,783,452 55,583 7,27611,7154.1% 202135,5662,082,638,262 58,557 7,20511,4992.1% 202236,4402,280,925,360 62,594 7,37911,4862.2% 202336,8102,405,827,980 65,358 7,35611,7922.1% 202435,8922,487,674,520 69,310 7,35511,6322.3% 202536,3052,605,573,545 71,769 7,25611,9343.8% (1) Population and per capita income figures, other than census year, are estimates provided by the Metropolitan Council. The last census was taken in the year 2020. (2) This estimated personal income number is calculated by taking the per capita personal income of Ramsey County and multiplying it by the City population. Also see note (3) regarding the Per Capita Personal Income figures. (3) The per capita personal income used is for that of Ramsey County, in which the city resides, the smallest region applicable to the City that this information is available for. In addition, the 2009 - 2011 figures are an estimate for the State of Minnesota provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis as there were no other relavent estimates available at the time of this report. (4) The City is served by two independent school districts. District #623 covers approximately 67% of the City, while District #621 covers approximately 33% of the City. Accordingly, not all students enrolled in District #621 live in the City of Roseville. Information is provided by the National Center for Education Statistics School District Search. (5) Annual average unemployment provided by the Minnesota Department of Employment & Economic Development 148 Page 157 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS Table 15 ## Current Year and Ten Years Ago ## PercentagePercentage ## of Total Cityof Total City EmployerEmployees RankEmployment Employees RankEmployment ## Roseville Area Schools1,49014.09%50041.32% ## University-Northwestern-St Pl 1,12223.08%70021.84% ## MN Dept. of Transportation75132.06%80012.11% ## Old Dutch Foods60051.65%40071.05% ## Presbyterian Homes Housing60041.65% ## Pediatric Home Respiratory Services, LLC43861.20% ## Lunds & Byerlys37771.03%37780.99% ## Hypro-Pentair37581.03%37590.99% ## Arvig Answering Solutions30090.82% ## Asmodee North America250100.69% ## Metz Baking Co60031.58% ## Symantec Corp50051.32% ## MEDTOX Scientific Inc40061.05% ## Eagle Crest Retirement Community330100.87% ## Total6,30317.30%4,98213.12% ## Sources: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development and Ehlers ## Data Axle Reference Solutions ## Written and Phone Survey 20162025 149 Page 158 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 150 Page 159 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION Table 16 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years 2016201720182019202020212022202320242025 ## Function General government (1)45.1947.8550.1551.5050.5755.6559.2837.4338.1937.02 Public safety ## Police62.9958.6658.7457.2362.1064.7470.0072.6970.9677.39 ## Fire26.8818.3520.1918.3222.0728.2328.7729.2329.5529.83 ## Public Works19.2918.1118.7918.9219.3020.3519.7419.0619.0819.30 ## Recreation48.7649.1647.8445.3636.5742.1243.0946.0346.2348.65 ## Economic Development14.0613.1613.5713.4613.9213.3611.7012.3212.0613.43 ## Water7.417.927.347.026.226.997.457.117.327.45 ## Sewer5.415.215.225.495.405.504.414.044.214.29 ## Golf3.283.825.205.904.705.175.245.665.385.57 ## Recycling0.300.300.300.540.290.300.350.630.700.70 ## Storm Drainage4.904.794.314.274.704.894.984.995.184.89 Total238.47 227.33 231.65 228.01 225.84 247.30 255.01 239.19 238.86 248.52 (1) In 2023, Metro INET split off into a separate organization so they are no longer included in the General Government Function. ## Fiscal Year 151 Page 160 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION Table 17 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 1 of 2 20162017201820192020 ## Function ## Police Serious offenses3,2432,0412,0032,3363,042 Calls for service ## Reactive20,99722,34221,92922,94222,691 ## Proactive13,70412,82918,83714,0058,208 ## Other1,3771,2731,3202,2571,747 Traffic stops (3)4,232 Citations issued508706638247 Warnings issued1,9514,7303,4851,585 ## Fire Fire incidents4,9974,7934,9695,5405,528 Fire inspections2855575892,112385 ## Public Works Street patching (tons)6126251,1501,2001,422 Snow / ice control (miles)125125125125125 Sign repair / replacements4903421,3031,200100 ## Recreation Recreation and leisure participations110,000137,000145,210151,290103,514 Facility usage permits1,5951,6912,0412,211737 ## Economic Development Building permits issued1,6251,3701,5681,6291,480 Number of inspections5,5434,7164,8545,2664,513 Planning / zoning cases3223292834 ## Water Meters repaired / replaced1,000780620716371 Water main breaks4035303635 Hydrants repaired / flushed1,8851,8851,9902,1007 Annual water pumped (thousands of gallons)1,653,8811,640,6061,714,3461,627,2111,708,834 ## Sewer Sewer pipes repaired / replaced (linear feet)31,04239,91631,15234,34337,846 Sewer pipes cleaned (linear feet)258,564241,031257,350259,110102,719 Sewer pipes televised (linear feet)71,80479,84479,84128,21335,736 Annual sewer flow (thousands of gallons)1,133,4201,202,9801,246,4201,175,7801,203,420 ## Golf Number of rounds played25,90522,50020,44421,41625,012 ## Recycling Materials collected (tons)3,2413,2613,1883,1023,070 ## Storm Drainage Sweeping (centerline miles)125125125125125 Structure inspections181322293300200 Infrastructure repair / replace (linear feet)2,9408091000- Sources: Various city departments (1) In 2023, the Fire Department started to inspect individual units in mulit-family units again. This was suspended during COVID and was restarted. (2) In 2025, Recreation facility usage permits began to include all indoor facility permits and not just "Park" permits. (3) Ramsey County started to document specific traffic data in 2017. Prior the City only had total stops data. ## Fiscal Year 152 Page 161 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION Table 17 ## Last Ten Fiscal Years Page 2 of 2 20212022202320242025 ## Function ## Police Serious offenses4,2024,0873,3774,4563,883 Calls for service ## Reactive19,68824,51925,18925,79724,982 ## Proactive7,92710,9359,58615,63313,645 ## Other1,4072,9173,4703,2622,427 Traffic stops Citations issued296190164453494 Warnings issued1,6091,8473,4746,1936,006 ## Fire Fire incidents6,2456,6506,9077,5447,788 Fire inspections (1)4666052,1192,1782,226 ## Public Works Street patching (tons)1,673998935441607 Snow / ice control (miles)125125125124124 Sign repair / replacements75575575213 ## Recreation Recreation and leisure participations193,974214,462215,321221,442204,117 Facility usage permits (2)5851,3412,4072,34810,037 ## Economic Development Building permits issued1,5592,0862,1731,5571,499 Number of inspections5,2385,4425,7884,8724,894 Planning / zoning cases2515152220 ## Water Meters repaired / replaced882827739638292 Water main breaks2937352131 Hydrants repaired / flushed1,9131,7581,7531,7521,748 Annual water pumped (thousands of gallons)1,875,7341,863,7961,929,3171,624,6841,629,040 ## Sewer Sewer pipes repaired / replaced (linear feet)37,62229,14635714,78410,675 Sewer pipes cleaned (linear feet)173,067142,514253,859245,813232,870 Sewer pipes televised (linear feet)42,28033,29370,13015,62919,874 Annual sewer flow (thousands of gallons)1,024,525956,6401,015,2201,057,6001,076,170 ## Golf Number of rounds played27,40125,65125,48629,74931,039 ## Recycling Materials collected (tons)2,9372,7392,5782,5132,442 ## Storm Drainage Sweeping (centerline miles)125125125124124 Structure inspections20056416163085 Infrastructure repair / replace (linear feet)- - 9113370 ## Fiscal Year 153 Page 162 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAMTable 18 ## Last Ten Fiscal YearsPage 1 of 2 20162017201820192020 ## Function ## Public Safety ## Police: ## Stations11111 ## Patrol Units3837363636 ## Fire Stations11111 ## Public Works Streets (miles)125125125125125 ## Street Lights1,1451,1451,3881,1341,134 ## Recreation Parks and playgrounds3232323232 Lighted park shelters55555 ## Parks Acreage685685685685685 ## Skating Rinks ## Outdoor1111111111 ## Indoor11111 ## Golf Course11111 ## Ballfields2121212121 Soccer/football fields1919191919 ## Tennis Courts1717171717 ## Volleyball Courts55555 ## Basketball Courts1515151515 ## Pickleball Courts ## Miles of Trails7171717171 ## Water Number of connections10,22410,27810,30310,31110,340 Water mains (miles)166166166166166 ## Fire Hydrants1,7111,7111,7841,7841,784 ## Water purchased from St. Paul (thousands of gallons)1,653,881 1,640,606 1,714,346 1,629,466 1,708,834 ## Sewer Number of connections10,15910,20810,23010,25810,266 Sanitary sewers (miles)156156156156156 Storm drainage Storm sewers (miles)145145145145145 Sources: Various city departments Note: No capital asset indicators are available for the general government function (1) Prior years only included game-ready fields. In 2025, the number also included neighborhood ballfields. ## Fiscal Year 154 Page 163 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAMTable 18 ## Last Ten Fiscal YearsPage 2 of 2 20212022202320242025 ## Function ## Public Safety ## Police: ## Stations11111 ## Patrol Units3842414242 ## Fire Stations11111 ## Public Works Streets (miles)125125125124124 ## Street Lights1,1341,1341,4071,4231,416 ## Recreation Parks and playgrounds3334343433 Lighted park shelters55555 ## Parks Acreage686688688688688 ## Skating Rinks ## Outdoor1111111111 ## Indoor11111 ## Golf Course11111 Ballfields (1)2121212135 Soccer/football fields1919191919 ## Tennis Courts1715151515 ## Volleyball Courts55555 ## Basketball Courts1515151515 ## Pickleball Courts6666 ## Miles of Trails7171717171 ## Water Number of connections10,38510,39710,42210,49910,534 Water mains (miles)166162162162162 ## Fire Hydrants1,7841,7841,7531,7521,748 ## Water purchased from St. Paul (thousands of gallons)1,875,734 1,863,796 1,929,317 1,624,684 1,629,040 ## Sewer Number of connections10,30510,29110,34110,34210,361 Sanitary sewers (miles)156156156157157 Storm drainage Storm sewers (miles)145125125128128 ## Fiscal Year 155 Page 164 of 260 - This page intentionally left blank - 156 Page 165 of 260 ## COMMUNICATION WITH THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE ## To the Honorable Mayor and ## Members of the City Council ## City of Roseville, Minnesota We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Roseville, Minnesota for the year ended December 31, 2025. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated January 9, 2026. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. ## Significant Audit Matters ## Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City of Roseville, Minnesota are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2025, except that the City of Roseville increased its capitalization threshold for certain types of capital assets (see footnote 1.K.). We noted no transactions entered into by the City of Roseville, Minnesota during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s financial statements are the: the estimates used to calculate the net pension liability, the pension related deferred outflows and inflows of resources, and pension expense the estimates used to calculate the other post-employment benefit liability and deferred inflows and outflows the self-insurance liability and related accounts Attachment # 2 Page 166 of 260 ## City of Roseville, Minnesota ## Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 2 These estimates are based on actuarial studies and loss run reports. We evaluated the methods, assumptions and data used to develop the estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. Determining sensitivity is subjective, however, we believe the disclosures most likely to be considered sensitive are Note 8 – Defined benefit pension plans and Note 15 – Error Correction. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. ## Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. ## Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has determined that the effects of uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate to the financial statements taken as a whole. The most significant identified uncorrected misstatement in the 2025 financial statements relates to the write-off of old utility receivables, resulting in an understatement of revenue in the following funds of approximately:  $13,500 in the recycling fund  $112,000 in the water fund  $78,000 in the sewer fund The uncorrected misstatements or the matters underlying them could potentially cause future period financial statements to be materially misstated, even though, in our judgment, such uncorrected misstatements are immaterial to the financial statements under audit. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole. However, management identified a material error correction that resulted in the restatement of beginning net position in the 2025 financial statements. In January 2026, the finance department was notified of invoices that were received by a city department in 2024 and had not been remitted to finance for payment. The invoices related to project expenses that should have been accrued as a liability at December 31, 2024. This matter resulted in a prior period error correction of an approximately $977,000 reduction to beginning net position, as well as an internal control finding (2025-001) and legal compliance finding (2025-003). Page 167 of 260 ## City of Roseville, Minnesota ## Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 3 ## Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. ## Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated May 4, 2026. ## Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. ## Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. We were unable to substantiate the City’s collateral balance related to deposit accounts held with BMO Bank as of December 31, 2025. The City closed its accounts with BMO Bank subsequent to year-end and supporting documentation for the collateral balance in effect prior to account closure was not retained. ## Other Matters We applied certain limited procedures to the management discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison information, and schedules of OPEB and Pension information, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. Page 168 of 260 ## City of Roseville, Minnesota ## Communication With Those Charged With Governance Page 4 We were engaged to report on combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the introductory report and statistical sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. ## Restriction on Use This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City of Roseville, Minnesota and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. ## REDPATH AND COMPANY, LLC ## St. Paul, Minnesota May 4, 2026 Page 169 of 260 ## INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL ## REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT ## OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ## GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS ## To the Honorable Mayor and ## Members of the City Council ## Roseville, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of Roseville, Minnesota's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated May 4, 2026. ## Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City of Roseville, Minnesota's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Roseville, Minnesota's internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Roseville, Minnesota's internal control. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. However, as described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. We consider the deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses as item 2025-001 to be a material weakness. Attachment # 3 Page 170 of 260 A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider the deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses as item 2025-002 to be a significant deficiency. ## Report on Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. ## The City of Roseville, Minnesota’s Response to Findings Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s responses to the finding identified in our audit and described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. The City of Roseville, Minnesota’s responses were not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the responses. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. ## REDPATH AND COMPANY, LLC ## St. Paul, Minnesota May 4, 2026 Page 171 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND RESPONSES ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## 2025-001 Financial Statement Corrections Criteria: An entity’s system of internal controls should allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. Material audit adjustments are considered to be a deficiency in internal control as defined by auditing standards. Condition: The 2025 financial statements include a restatement of beginning net position due to an error correction. An invoice including $977,229 of water fund expenses for services and charges relating to 2024 was not accrued as a payable at December 31, 2024. Cause: The City did not identify the missing accrual during the 2024 year-end closing process. We understand that lack of communication between City departments may have been a contributing factor. Effect: Inadequate controls over the year-end closing process results in an increased risk that financial statement misstatements may occur and not be detected on a timely basis. This matter also resulted in a legal compliance finding (2025-003). Recommendation: We recommend the City continue efforts to ensure that all adjustments are identified during the year-end closing process. Additionally, we recommend that the City take steps to educate other departments within the City about the importance of communicating with finance regarding year-end accruals, unpaid invoices and other similar matters. City Response: The Finance Department agrees with this finding and recognizes a need for increased internal controls. The Finance Department is working with other departments to create project codes to track budgeted activity which may have been missed. The Finance Department will also evaluate year end procedures and implement additional procedures to help minimize such misstatements in the future. Page 172 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND RESPONSES ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## 2025-002 Internal Controls over Disbursements Criteria: The City should have adequate internal controls over its disbursements to ensure all expenditures adhere to public purchase requirements. Additionally, the City should have adequate segregation of duties over approval of expenditures. Condition: During the audit, we noted the following matters related to disbursements:  One instance noted where a department head approved their own purchasing card (P- Card) transaction for $350.  Two instances noted where supporting documentation was not sufficient to provide details of the specific items purchased in the P-card transactions, totaling $665.74.  One instance noted where the amount of a P-card purchase was cut off from support provided, and the employee wrote in the missing amount for $69.64.  Four instances noted where there were grocery or meal expense reimbursements coded to training, however there was no proof of training held included within the reimbursement request. These instances totaled $437.40. Cause: We noted the City’s purchasing policies and procedures were not followed related to segregation of duties over approvals and attaching receipts. In addition, we noted a lack of internal controls over reimbursement for meals purchased for training to validate meetings were held at the time meals were provided. Effect: Lack of adherence to internal controls and inadequate internal controls over disbursements results in an increased risk that disbursements do not meet a public purpose. Additionally, there is an increased risk of fraudulent or erroneous payments being made and going undetected. Recommendation: We recommend that management develop additional internal controls to ensure the City’s purchasing policies and procedures are followed. Additionally, we recommend management enhance the City’s P-card policy to require employees to submit proof of training held to substantiate the meals provided where meals could be provided under Union contract. We recommend proof of training include the training agenda, attendees, location, date(s) and time(s) of training held. Views of Responsible Officials: The Finance Department agrees with this finding and is in the process of updating their P-card policy. Additionally, the Finance Department will add monitoring internal controls over their disbursement approval process to validate adherence to their P-card policy. Page 173 of 260 ## MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE REPORT ## To the Honorable Mayor and ## Members of the City Council ## City of Roseville, Minnesota We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Roseville, Minnesota as of and for the year ended December 31, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated May 4, 2026. In connection with our audit, we noted that the City of Roseville, Minnesota failed to comply with provisions of the claims and disbursements section of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 6.65, insofar as they relate to accounting matters as described in the schedule of findings and responses as item 2025-003. Also, in connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the City of Roseville, Minnesota failed to comply with the provisions of the contracting – bid laws, depositories of public funds and public investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, miscellaneous provisions, and tax increment financing sections of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Cities, promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 6.65, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the City of Roseville, Minnesota’s noncompliance with the above referenced provisions, insofar as they relate to accounting matters. Government Auditing Standards requires the auditor to perform limited procedures on the City of Roseville Minnesota’s response to the finding identified in our audit and described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. The City of Roseville Minnesota’s response was not subjected to the other auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the response. Attachment # 4 Page 174 of 260 The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. ## REDPATH AND COMPANY, LLC ## St. Paul, Minnesota May 4, 2026 Page 175 of 260 ## CITY OF ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA ## SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND RESPONSES ## For The Year Ended December 31, 2025 ## 2025-003 Prompt Payment of Bills Criteria: Minnesota Statute 471.425 requires that a municipality must pay each vendor obligation according to the terms of the contract or, if no contract terms apply, within the standard payment period unless the municipality in good faith disputes the obligation. For municipalities who have governing boards which have regularly scheduled meetings at least once a month, the standard payment period is defined as within 35 days of the date of receipt. Condition: During our audit testing, we noted multiple contractor invoices submitted to the City which were not paid within 35 days of the date of receipt, as summarized below:  A project pay request for $309,523 was approved for payment on October 2, 2025 and not paid until December 31, 2025.  Project pay requests totaling $1,063,660 were dated December 26, 2024 and not paid until January 28, 2026. Cause: Our understanding is that $1,063,660 of invoices were not provided to the finance department for payment on a timely basis. The delay in payment of the $309,523 pay request was due to a delay in setting up a new vendor for payment. Effect: Although no penalties and interest were charged to the City in this circumstance, there is a risk of incurring finance charges if invoices are not paid timely. Additionally, lack of timely identification of certain project amounts due resulted in a $977,229 restatement of beginning net position in the 2025 financial statements. Recommendation: We recommend the City implement procedures to ensure all invoices are provided to the finance department so that payment can be made timely. Additionally, we recommend that the City take steps to educate other departments within the City about the importance of communicating with finance regarding year-end accruals, unpaid invoices and other similar matters. Management Response: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. City staff will work to ensure timely and prompt payment of invoices within the legally required time limit. Page 176 of 260 ## City of Eagan, Minnesota ## 2024 Audit Results 1 ## Rebecca M. Petersen, CPA ## Managing Director 651-407-5826 rpetersen@redpathcpas.com ## City of Roseville ## 2025 Audit Results May 11, 2026 ## A ttachment # 5 Page 177 of 260 ## GFOA Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting 2 ## The City received the GFOA Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. ## The Award demonstrates the City’s commitment to preparing financial statements that are comprehensive, transparent and consistent with accounting standards. Page 178 of 260 ## Reports Issued by Audit Firm •Opinion on the Fair Presentation of the Financial Statements •Report on Internal Controls ## •Report on Minnesota Legal Compliance •Communication to Those Charged with Governance 3 Page 179 of 260 ## Opinion on Financial Statements •What did we do? oPlan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are presented in accordance with established accounting principles and are free of material misstatement. •How did we do it? oAudit Standards – GAAS (AICPA) and GAGAS (GAO) oRisk Assessment •What is the result? oA “clean” unmodified opinion was issued on the 2025 financial statements. 4 Page 180 of 260 ## Report on Internal Controls over Financial Reporting •What did we do? oWe gained an understanding of internal controls in place and their effectiveness in order to design our audit procedures. •Internal Controls oPreventative controls oDetective controls oOngoing oversight by management •What is the result? oTwo internal control findings: ## oFinancial Statement Corrections oInternal Controls over Disbursements 5 Page 181 of 260 ## Minnesota Legal Compliance Report •What did we do? oFollowed the audit guide published by the Office of the State Auditor. The guide consists of seven sections: oDepositories of public funds and investments oConflicts of interest oPublic indebtedness oContracting bid laws oClaims and disbursements oTax increment oMiscellaneous provisions •How did we do it? oSelect sample of transactions to test for compliance with statutory provisions. •What is the result? oOne finding of noncompliance reported oPrompt Payment of Bills 6 Page 182 of 260 ## Communication to Those Charged with Governance •Accounting policies used and/or changed. oIncrease in capitalization threshold •Accounting estimates in the financial statements (rounded). oOPEB liability – $1,493,000 oPERA net pension liability – $12,186,000 2024 PERA net pension liability – $13,070,000 2023 PERA net pension liability – $18,410,000 2022 PERA net pension liability – $38,982,000 •No difficulties encountered in performing the audit. •Corrected and uncorrected misstatements. •No disagreements with management. •Other Matters oPledged collateral documentation 7 Page 183 of 260 ## Governmental Funds – 2025 Financial Summary 8 Page 184 of 260 ## General Fund Budget Performance - 2025 9 Page 185 of 260 ## General Fund – Fund Balance 10 City policy is to maintain a minimum fund balance of 35% - 50% of annual expenditures for cash flow purposes Page 186 of 260 ## Governmental Funds Revenue 11 Page 187 of 260 ## Water Fund Operations 12 Page 188 of 260 ## Sanitary Sewer Utility 13 Page 189 of 260 ## Storm Drainage 14 Page 190 of 260 ## Golf Course Operations 15 Page 191 of 260 ## Solid Waste Recycling 16 Page 192 of 260 ## City Of Roseville ## Review 2025 Year-End Financial Results May 11 th , 2026 ## B ench Handout 1 Item 7.a May 11, 2026 Page 193 of 260 ## Governmental Activities – Summary of Net Position 202320242025 ## ASSETS $227,368,039$227,897,271$233,337,708 ## LIABILITIES $63,318,085.00$58,575,720.00$56,592,697.00 ## NET POSITION $164,049,954.00$169,321,551.00$176,745,011.00 $- $50,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $200,000,000 $250,000,000 Page 194 of 260 $7,423,460 – Increase from prior year Due from Other Governments AR – $1.98 million local sales tax Capital Assets – $1.58 million CIP Fire Truck Cash and Investments – $2.7 million – current local sales tax not yet spent $17,607,313 – Unrestricted and may be used to meet the City’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors ## Net Position Analysis - Total Net position $176,745,011 Page 195 of 260 ## Governmental Activities – Summary of Net Position ## Net investment in capital assets Restricted - ## Fire Relief ## Pension Restricted - ## Law ## Enforcement Restricted - ## Public Safety ## Aid Restricted - ## Telecomunica tion Restricted - ## Community ## Development Restricted - ## Park ## Dedication Restricted - ## Capital ## Projects Restricted - ## Tax Increment Restricted - ## Debt Service Restricted - Housing and ## Economic ## Development ## Unrestricted 2023 126,897,7715,025,594437,8521,594,62572,7684,399,4932,172,8455,506,0162,250,234919,56614,773,190 2024 129,194,9106,350,448578,598397,17967,8134,365,5131,969,9637,002,0392,304,1021,144,51315,946,473 2025 129,331,5768,182,485673,039145,41569,8894,175,8692,065,2672,949,4357,604,7222,362,3961,580,60517,604,313 - 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000 140,000,000 2,949,435 is new in 2025 as it relates to the funds collected from local sales tax and are restricted for the new Facility Maintenance B uilding Page 196 of 260 ## Revenues – Governmental Funds - 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 202320242025 Page 197 of 260 Total Revenues $55,785,651 An increase of 9.38% or 5.23 million from prior year Local sales Tax - $2.54 million 1.75 million charges for services – contracted Police services with Rosedale Mall, ISD 623, and several other entities 1.34 million Miscellaneous due to bond equipment proceeds for Fire Truck ## Revenues – Governmental Funds Page 198 of 260 ## Expenditures – Governmental Funds - 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 ## General GovernmentPublic SafetyPublic WorksEconomic ## Development ## RecreationCapital OutlayBond PrincipalTransfer OutInterest and Other ## Charges - Bonds 202320242025 Page 199 of 260 Total Expenditures $50,791,575 An increase of 5.69% or $2,887,867 ## Public Safety Personnel Cost ## Union Contract Settlements ## Additional Fire Cadets ## Addition of Housing Fire Inspector Addition of Police Commander ## Addition of Two Mental Health Coordinator Overtime Cost up ## Expenditures – Governmental Funds Page 200 of 260 EOY Collateral ## Switched from BMO to a Third Party BNY Mellon Safeguards public funds from loss due to bank failure Collateral must typically hold a market value of at least 100%-110% of the uninsured deposits. ## Prior Period Adjustment Water Fund Understatement of liabilities of $977,229 Related to capital assets Water Rates are projected on a long-term analysis Cash was decreased on the books when invoice was paid in 2026 ## Other Miscellaneous Items Page 201 of 260 Insurance Claims Payable - $514,656 $433,451.51 – Liability Claims Discrimination Emotional Distress Cyber Breach License Denial Basement Flood ## Solar Panel Cracking Vehicle Accidents $81,204 – Worker’s Compensation ## Other Miscellaneous Items Page 202 of 260 ## QUESTIONS??? Page 203 of 260 ## REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 5/11/2026 Item No.: 7.b. ## Department Approval City Manager Approval ## Item Description: Consider 2026 Community Survey Page 1 of 3 1 2Background 3The City of Roseville has historically utilized statistically valid community surveys to benchmark resident 4satisfaction, identify community priorities, and evaluate the effectiveness of City services and initiatives. 5Previous surveys were conducted in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and most recently in 2024 after a brief 6pause due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 7 8The 2024 survey maintained many historically consistent questions in order to monitor trend data while 9incorporating minor updates to reflect evolving City services and priorities. As the City continues 10implementation of its Strategic Plan, staff is proposing a limited number of minor revisions to the 2026 11survey questionnaire to better align survey questions with the City’s adopted strategic priority areas, 12desired impacts, and long-term success indicators. These changes are intended to establish stronger 13baseline data that can be used to measure progress over time while preserving the integrity of historical 14benchmarking. 15 16Several existing survey questions already provide valuable data related to specific Strategic Plan 17success indicators. The proposed modifications outlined below are intended to further strengthen 18alignment between the community survey and the City’s qualitative success indicators across multiple 19strategic goals. 20 21Remove: 22• Q 26-28 - Related to "new" Cedarholm building 23• Q 56-63 - Related to sales tax/Maintenance Operations Center 24Edit: 25• Q9: Update to measure progress toward the City's vision (Roseville is a vibrant, safe and 26inclusive community) 27• Q13: Update to identify community priorities tied to the strategic plan. There is currently a 28question that helps identify short-term, current and/or urgent problems (Question 5). By updating 29this question, we can gather data on longer-term priorities that can help inform future needs. 30• Q 51-55: Add "sustainability/environmental projects" in response selection 31• Q 77-83: Update to address how housing options are meeting needs in the community. This is 32tied to the Economic Vitality success indicator: "Housing in Roseville is provided in a manner to 33meet the life-cycle continuum." 34New: 35• Add a question related to feeling safe and secure. This is tied to the Responsive Services and 36Safety success indicator: "Community members report feeling safe and secure." Page 204 of 260 Page 2 of 3 37• Add a question related to multi-modal transportation meeting needs. This is tied to the Economic 38Vitality success indicator: "Roseville residents, workers and visitors have multi-modal options to 39connect to places they want and need (amenities and employment)." 40• Add a question related to any housing challenges residents are facing. This is tied to the 41Economic Vitality success indicator: "Roseville residents feel safe, secure and stable in their 42housing." 43• Add a question to measure city services being responsive to the needs of the community. This is 44tied to various success indicators such as: "Real-time data and information are utilized to 45improve operations, response, and customer service." and "Residents report satisfaction with the 46quality and responsiveness of City services. 47 48Staff is requesting Council feedback on overall priorities, strategic alignment, and policy direction, while 49final question wording will be developed by the survey consultant to ensure neutrality, methodological 50integrity, and statistical validity. The survey will continue to be administered through a statistically valid 51methodology utilizing telephone outreach to a random sample of approximately 400 residents, providing 52a margin of error of approximately +/- 5 percent. 53 54Policy Objectives 55Ongoing community engagement remains essential to assessing resident satisfaction, measuring 56community perceptions, and evaluating progress toward the City’s vision of being a vibrant, safe, and 57inclusive community. 58The community survey serves as a critical performance measurement tool by: 59• Benchmarking resident satisfaction over time 60• Measuring progress toward strategic plan desired impacts and success indicators 61• Informing future policy, service delivery, and budget decisions 62Updating select survey questions will better position the City to track strategic outcomes while 63maintaining continuity with prior surveys. 64 65 ## 66Equity Impact Summary 67The community survey continues to include demographic tracking and cross-tabulation to ensure results 68accurately reflect the diversity of Roseville residents. This approach supports the City’s commitment to 69equity by allowing staff and Council to better understand variations in resident experiences across 70demographic groups, identify disparities, and inform more equitable policy and service decisions. 71 72 73Budget Implications 74The 2026 adopted budget includes $30,000 for the community survey. The current proposal from Morris 75Leatherman includes a base cost of $28,000 for a survey of up to 130 questions, with any additional 76questions beyond that amount billed at $250 per question. Staff’s current proposed modifications are 77expected to remain within the approved budget allocation. 78 79Staff Recommendations 80Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the 2026 Community Survey contract as budgeted and 81provide feedback on proposed minor survey updates. Staff further recommends allowing the survey 82consultant flexibility in final question wording to maintain neutrality and methodological validity while 83strengthening alignment with the City’s strategic performance measures. 84 Page 205 of 260 Page 3 of 3 ## 85Requested Council Action 86Motion to authorize staff to proceed with the 2026 Community Survey contract within the approved 87budget. 88 89 Prepared by: ## Rebecca Olson, Assistant City Manager ## Attachments: ## 1. Strategic Plan Goals 2. 2024 Community Survey 3. 2024 Report of Survey Findings 4. Powerpoint 90 Page 206 of 260 Attachment 1 ## Economic Vitality: Desired Impact: Roseville has a diverse & stable business community, offers a wide range of housing types for people at all income levels, & includes multi-modal transportation options. Goal 1: Create a climate that supports the retention and expansion of Roseville businesses: • Provide programs and resources, informed through communications and engagements, aimed at helping establish and grow small businesses and to support and stabilize the retail sector of Roseville. • Success indicators o Roseville’s overall commercial tax base experiences steady growth. o Programs and regulations evolve/adapt to meet the needs of the business community. o Small, Woman, Veteran and BIPOC-owned businesses have a recognizable presence. Goal 2: Housing types and programs contribute to economic success for households at all income levels: • Provide programs aimed at cost-burdened households and the unhoused and to maintain and stabilize Roseville’s housing stock valued at or below the median- level. • Ensuring group homes and multi-family housing types are regulated in a manner that meets the needs of the people they serve and contribute positively to the communities they are a part of. • Create a regulatory environment that is favorable to the development of lower density housing types for middle income households. • Success indicators o Housing in Roseville is provided in a manner to meet the life-cycle continuum o Roseville residents feel safe, secure, and stable in their housing o Roseville residents are not cost-burdened by their housing Goal 3: Develop and advocate for safe, intentional, multi-modal transportation systems throughout Roseville: Page 207 of 260 Attachment 1 • Work with agencies to plan and implement multi-modal transportation options to residents and businesses as transportation systems are upgraded. • Success indicators o Roseville residents, workers and visitors have multi-modal options to connect to places they want and need (amenities and employment). o Roseville advocates and partners with other public agencies towards advancement of multi modal options. ************************************************************************************* ## Parks and Natural Environment: Desired Impact: Parks and natural resources are preserved, maintained and enhanced to ensure a broad cross-section of community members actively use and participate in our parks, activities and facilities. Goal #1: Roseville Parks system, and recreation programs are thoughtfully planned, sustainably funded and well-maintained: • Conduct a comprehensive, systematic evaluation of the Parks and Recreation System (including facilities and programs) to align with the anticipated needs of the community. • Ensure that funding for parks, facilities, and programs aligns with community’s expected level of service. • Success indicators o Roseville’s Parks and Recreation System Master Plan evolves to align with the needs of the community. o The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan continues to be implemented. o Residents and non-residents (worker and visitor) across all demographics utilize parks and participate in recreation opportunities. o Roseville’s parks and programs positively contribute to residents’ quality of life. Goal #2: Roseville’s natural environment is actively protected and restored.: • Implement the Natural Resources Master Plan. • Success indicators o Roseville’s natural spaces positively contribute to residents’ quality of life. Page 208 of 260 Attachment 1 o City programs and regulations support community members in their efforts to maintain, protect and restore the environment. ## o The Parks and Recreation Natural Resources Master Plan is implemented. o Residents and stakeholders are empowered to preserve and restore Roseville’s natural resources. ************************************************************************************* ## Responsive Services and Safety: Desired Impact: Community members with a variety of needs feel confident that city services are responsive to ongoing needs & keep everyone safe, secure & positively impact their quality of life. Goal #1: Take proactive steps to create a safer community through prevention, planning, and early intervention: • Support the community through preventative programs and services that improve safety and security. • Establish a dedicated coordinator to oversee and streamline licensing to improve safety and compliance. • Success indicators o Real-time data and information are utilized to improve operations, response, and customer service. o Increased public safety involvement in community activities and outreach efforts. o Policies and procedures ensure the protection of the community. Goal #2 develop and implement a prioritized multi-year resource allocation strategy and structure to ensure people, resources, training, and technology are in place to respond to the needs of the community. • Will be accomplished by the objective in City Operations to develop a multi-year operational budget plan. • Success indicators o Grants, partnerships, and other funding sources contribute to improved resources and technology. o Community members report feeling safe and secure. o Improved public safety response times. Page 209 of 260 Attachment 1 Goal #3: Strengthen trust through transparency, accessibility and engagement: • Commit to open and consistent communication, build authentic partnerships with diverse communities, and create accessible opportunities for residents to participate. • Success indicators o Increased involvement in city activities and outreach efforts. o Trust is fostered through open discussions with city public safety officials and community. o Policies and procedures maximize transparency, accessibility and engagement. o Historically underrepresented communities feel an increased sense of trust which leads to an increase in calls for service. ************************************************************************************* ## Reliable and Sustainable Infrastructure: Desired Impact: Roseville's assets and infrastructure are effectively, efficiently and sustainably planned, managed and funded. Goal #1: Develop and implement a strategic funding strategy that prioritizes key capital improvements that are planned, regularly assessed and evolve based on city values and changing community needs. • Develop and Implement a Strategic Asset Management Plan by 2028. • Success indicators o All capital assets are catalogued and regularly assessed for condition and expected lifespan. o Infrastructure updates and replacement is strategically planned and includes the Community’s voice. o Capital projects are evaluated and prioritized on values guiding the City ## of Roseville (Community, Accountability, Integrity, Equity, Safety) o Funding strategies are developed and implemented to ensure that Roseville’s infrastructure is maintained and updated to a level of service that meets or exceeds the expectations of the community. o Residents are satisfied with the quality of the infrastructure. o Service interruptions are minimized. Goal #2: Implement the civic master plan on time, within budget, and with community input: Page 210 of 260 Attachment 1 • Implement the project on time and within budget. • Success indicators o City’s Maintenance and Operations space needs are met within the approved budget and timeline o City’s license center/wellness and dance studio needs are met within the approved budget and timeline o Final design was developed with community input. Goal #3: City Infrastructure supports the sustainability goals of the city: • Climate Equity Action Plan will be created, adopted and utilized to guide decision making by 2027. • Success indicators o Climate Action Plan is created, completed and implemented. o Green alternatives are actively considered in asset replacement. ************************************************************************************* ## Community and Civic Engagement: Desired Impact: Roseville’s public, across all demographics, feels informed and valued for its feedback and input. Goal #1: Create an environment for diverse stakeholder participation at all levels and types of city decision-making: • Create a strategic approach to city-wide community engagement initiatives that better align city resources and leads to more informed residents. • Success indicators o Roseville stakeholders are informed about the city’s, mission, vision, values, and strategic plan and how they drive/influence decisions. o Residents understand how their input will be used and the level of impact it has on decision making in advance of participating. o Engagements include an intentional plan for historically underrepresented populations to participate. o Create an environment that fosters a sense of civility in public engagement. Goal #2: Utilize Roseville’s commissions to provide accessible pathways for residents of all backgrounds representing the voice of the community to shape city decisions and become better informed residents: Page 211 of 260 Attachment 1 • Increase support for staff liaisons by standardizing commissioner onboarding and better aligning scope of work with council priorities so that commissions can effectively advise council. • Identify common barriers to participation and create strategies to remove them for increased representation in commissions from residents of all backgrounds. • Success indicators o Residents are aware of and understand the opportunities for participation on city commissions. o There is growth in commission appointments from underrepresented groups o Commissioners understand their role and feel that they have an impact in city decision-making processes. o Commissioners are well-informed on issues related to their commission scope. ************************************************************************************* City operations: Desired Impact: The City of Roseville’s workforce & public officials are capable, nimble, & forward thinking in achieving its strategic priorities. Goal #1: Technology, resources, and processes are used to improve operations: • Provide staff ongoing training on current technology and review high-priority processes and technology to identify opportunities for improved efficiency, cross- departmental use, and replacement needs. • Success indicators o City services demonstrate alignment with strategic priorities and adapt as priorities evolve. o Residents report satisfaction with the quality and responsiveness of City services. o Workforce and public officials report increased efficiency and capacity to deliver high-quality services. Goal #2: The city attracts and retains a diverse and innovative group of employees who support the mission, vision, and values of the strategic plan: • Implement a citywide learning framework that defines core competencies for all positions and development pipelines for employees. Page 212 of 260 Attachment 1 • Identify employee wellness needs and develop high impact initiatives to improve employee wellness. • Develop at least three citywide cross-departmental work teams that advance strategic priorities. • Integrate the city's mission, vision, and values into all recruitment, selection, and onboarding processes. • Success indicators o Progress is made toward goals outlined in the strategic plan; staff use the city’s values to guide decisions. o City leadership invests in proactive workforce development. o Voluntary employee turnover is reduced. o The city’s work environment attracts and retains staff. Goal # 3: Ensuring resource allocation meets operational needs while advancing strategic priorities: • By the 2028 budget year develop a multi-year financial forecast for operations to plan for necessary resources. • Success indicators o Progress is made toward goals outlined in the strategic plan; staff use the city’s values to guide decisions. o City leadership invests in proactive workforce development. o Voluntary employee turnover is reduced. o The city’s work environment attracts and retains staff. Page 213 of 260 Attachment 2 1 THE MORRIS LEATHERMAN COMPANY City of Roseville 3128 Dean Court Residential Survey Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL APRIL 2024 Hello, I'm ________ of the Morris Leatherman Company, a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Roseville to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being conducted because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and future city needs. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1. Approximately, how many years have TWO YEARS OR LESS.......9% you lived in Roseville? THREE TO FIVE YEARS....17% ## SIX TO TEN YEARS.......20% ## 11 TO TWENTY YEARS.....18% ## 21 TO 30 YEARS.........17% ## OVER THIRTY YEARS......19% 2. As things stand now, how long in TWO YEARS OR LESS.......5% the future do you expect to live THREE TO FIVE YEARS....11% in Roseville? SIX TO TEN YEARS.......17% ## OVER TEN YEARS.........55% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....12% 3. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT..............33% life in Roseville – excellent, GOOD...................54% good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR..............10% ## POOR....................3% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 4. What do you like most, if any- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% thing, about living in Roseville? NOTHING.................3% ## CONVENIENT LOCATION....11% ## NEIGHBORHOOD/HOUSING...13% ## SAFE....................6% ## FRIENDLY PEOPLE........13% ## CLOSE TO FAMILY/ ## FRIENDS............17% ## CLOSE TO JOB...........13% ## SCHOOLS.................5% ## PARKS/TRAILS............9% ## SHOPPING................3% ## QUIET AND PEACEFUL......7% ## SCATTERED...............1% Page 214 of 260 Attachment 2 2 5. What do you think is the most DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% serious issue facing Roseville NOTHING................22% today? HIGH TAXES.............16% ## RISING CRIME...........25% ## POOR CITY SPENDING......2% ## LACK OF JOBS/BUSINESS...7% ## AGING POPULATION........9% ## AGING INFRASTRUCTURE....6% ## STREET REPAIR...........7% ## SCATTERED...............6% 6. All in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION........85% Roseville are generally headed in WRONG TRACK............13% the right direction, or do you DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3% feel things are off on the wrong track? ## IF "WRONG TRACK," ASK: (n=50) 7. Please tell me why you feel DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% things have gotten off on HIGH TAXES.............14% the wrong track? POOR CITY SPENDING......6% ## RISING CRIME...........60% ## GROWING DIVERSITY.......6% ## TOO MUCH RETAIL.........4% ## TOO MANY RENTALS........2% ## SCATTERED...............8% 8. How would you rate the sense of VERY STRONG............28% community identity among residents SOMEWHAT STRONG........58% in Roseville - would you say it NOT TOO STRONG.........10% is very strong, somewhat strong, NOT AT ALL STRONG.......3% not too strong, or not at all DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% strong? 9. Please tell me which of the fol- CITY OF ROSEVILLE......18% lowing do you feel the closest NEIGHBORHOOD...........43% connection to - the City of SCHOOL DISTRICT.........7% Roseville as a whole, your neigh- CHURCH..................3% borhood, your School District or WORKPLACE...............6% something else? (IF "SOMETHING FAMILY/FRIENDS.........23% ## ELSE," ASK:) What would that be? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% Page 215 of 260 Attachment 2 3 10. How welcome do you feel in the VERY WELCOME...........59% City of Roseville – very welcome, SOMEWHAT WELCOME.......29% somewhat welcome, not too welcome, NOT TOO WELCOME.........6% or not at all welcome? NOT AT ALL WELCOME......2% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......5% ## IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=382) 11. Why do you feel that way? UNSURE..................2% ## FRIENDLY PEOPLE........49% ## UNFRIENDLY PEOPLE.......3% ## WATCH OUT FOR EACH ## OTHER...............3% ## DON’T KNOW NEIGHBORS....5% ## LOTS OF COMMUNITY ## EVENTS..............7% ## WELCOME DIVERSITY.......3% ## FRIENDLY SCHOOLS........2% ## FEELS LIKE HOME.........6% ## RACISM..................4% ## WELCOMING...............2% ## FAMILY & FRIENDS HERE...2% ## LOT OF LONG TERM ## RESIDENTS...........2% ## GREAT SERVICES..........2% ## SCATTERED...............8% Let's spend a few minutes discussing the future of the City of Roseville. 12. When thinking about a city's DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% quality of life, what do you think SAFETY.................24% is the most important aspect of SENSE OF COMMUNITY.....17% that quality? GOOD SCHOOLS...........16% ## UPKEEP OF CITY..........9% ## OPEN SPACE/NATURE.......9% ## PARKS/RECREATION........8% ## UPKEEP OF HOUSING.......4% ## QUIET AND PEACEFUL.....12% ## SCATTERED...............1% Page 216 of 260 Attachment 2 4 13. What aspects, if any, of the com- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% munity should be fixed or improved NOTHING................16% in the future? LOWER TAXES............16% ## BETTER ROADS...........11% ## MORE JOBS...............8% ## MORE PUBLIC TRANSIT.....6% ## MORE SENIOR HOUSING.....7% ## LESS AFFORDABLE ## LOW INCOME HOUSING..3% ## SIDEWALKS...............8% ## REDUCE CRIME...........21% ## SCATTERED...............3% 14. What, if anything, is currently DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% missing from the City of Roseville NOTHING................36% which, if present, would greatly MORE PUBLIC TRANSIT....10% improve the quality of life for MORE JOBS..............17% residents? MORE ENTERTAINMENT.....10% ## MORE AFFORDABLE ## HOUSING...........11% ## SIDEWALKS..............14% ## SCATTERED...............1% I would like to read a list of characteristics others have mentioned that indicate a city has a high quality of life. 15. Please tell me which one you think is most important for a city to have? (ROTATE AND READ LIST) 16. Which is second most important? (RE-READ LIST; OMITTING FIRST ## CHOICE) 17. Which is least important? (RE-READ LIST; OMITTING FIRST TWO ## CHOICES) Page 217 of 260 Attachment 2 5 ## MOST SEC LST ## HIGH PROPERTY VALUES.......................6%.....4%....10% ## WELL MAINTAINED PROPERTIES................10%.....9%....10% ## LOW PROPERTY TAXES.........................8%.....8%.....9% ## LOW CRIME RATE............................26%....22%.....7% ## GOOD SCHOOL SYSTEM........................18%....15%.....7% ## VARIETY OF SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES..........4%.....5%....11% ## VARIETY OF PARK AND RECREATION ## OPPORTUNITIES.........................5%.....8%.....8% ## JOB OPPORTUNITIES..........................6%....10%.....7% ## COMMUNITY EVENTS AND FESTIVALS.............4%.....7%....11% ## SENSE OF COMMUNITY........................13%....11%....10% ## ELSE.......................................1%.....1%.....0% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.........................0%.....0%....10% Let's discuss recreational opportunities in the community.... 18. How would you rate park and rec- EXCELLENT..............28% reational facilities in Roseville GOOD...................66% - excellent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR...............6% poor? POOR....................0% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% ## 19. Which Roseville recreation facili- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% ties, if any, do you or members of NONE...................18% your household use most TRAILS.................38% frequently? NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS.....34% ## ATHLETIC FACILITIES....10% 20. How would you rate the upkeep and EXCELLENT..............31% ## maintenance of Roseville City GOOD...................62% Parks - excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR...............7% fair, or poor? POOR....................1% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 21. In the past year, have you or any YES....................34% members of this household partici- NO.....................66% pated in any city-sponsored park DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% and recreation programs? IF “YES,” ASK: (n=137) 22. Were you satisfied or dissat- SATISFIED..............96% isfied with your experience? DISSATISFIED............2% ## NEUTRAL (VOL.)..........2% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% Page 218 of 260 Attachment 2 6 23. Are there any park and recreation programs you would like to see offered or expanded? ## UNSURE, 10%, NO, 84%; PICKLEBALL, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%. 24. How often do you or members of TWICE OR MORE A WEEK...15% your household use the trail sys- WEEKLY.................22% tem, weather permitting - twice TWO/THREE PER MONTH....22% or more per week, weekly, two or MONTHLY................13% three times per month, monthly, QUARTERLY...............3% quarterly, less frequently, or not LESS FREQUENTLY........11% at all? NOT AT ALL.............14% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 25. Which of the following would be your top priority for the city’s trails and sidewalk system? (ROTATE) ## CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL TRAILS FOR ## EXERCISE WITHIN PARKS..........................33% ## CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS CONNECTING NEIGHBORHOODS ## AND PARKS......................................38% ## CONSTRUCTION OF TRAILS CONNECTING NEIGHBORHOODS ## AND SHOPPING AND BUSINESS AREAS................21% ## ELSE.................................................1% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED...................................8% ## The City has park buildings at Autumn Grove, Lexington, Rosebrook, Oasis, Sandcastle and Villa Parks, as well as a newer community ## building at Cedarholm Golf Course, the Cedarholm Community Building. 26. Are you aware of Roseville’s park YES....................65% buildings and the newer Cedarholm NO.....................35% Community Building? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 27. Have you or members of your house- YES....................36% hold visited or used one of the NO.....................64% park buildings or the new Cedar- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% holm Community Building? IF “YES,” ASK: (n=143) 28. How would you rate your ex- EXCELLENT..............32% perience – excellent, good, GOOD...................68% only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR...............1% ## POOR....................0% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% Page 219 of 260 Attachment 2 7 29. Would you consider using one YES....................95% of the park buildings or the NO......................2% new Cedarholm Community DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......3% Building again? IF “NO,”ASK: (n=3) 30. Why won’t you use one of the park buildings or the new Cedarholm Community Building again? ## NO NEED, 100%. 31. Do you feel the current mix of YES....................95% recreational or sports facilities NO......................1% meet the needs of members of your DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......4% household? IF “NO,” ASK: (n=4) 32. What recreational or sports facilities do you feel are missing? ## PICKLEBALL COURTS, 100%. Moving on.... I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE) ## EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 33. Police protection? 46% 43% 11% 0% 0% 34. Fire protection? 43% 51% 4% 0% 2% 35. Emergency medical services? 47% 41% 5% 1% 6% 36. Sewer and water? 24% 67% 7% 1% 2% 37. Drainage and flood control? 25% 62% 10% 1% 2% 38. Building inspections? 26% 56% 6% 0% 12% 39. Animal control? 34% 57% 7% 1% 2% 40. Code enforcement? 27% 64% 5% 0% 5% ## IF ANY SERVICES WERE RATED “ONLY FAIR” OR “POOR” IN QUESTIONS #33-40, ASK: (n=109) Page 220 of 260 Attachment 2 8 41. Why did you rate __________ DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% as (only fair/poor)? COULD IMPROVE...........8% ## FLOODING...............18% ## MORE PATROLLING........31% ## POOR INSPECTIONS........3% ## LOOSE ANIMALS..........16% ## RUNDOWN HOMES...........6% ## RUDE/UNFRIENDLY.........1% ## POOR TASTE OF WATER....11% ## SLOW SERVICE............6% Now, for the next six city services, please consider only their job on city-maintained streets and roads in neighborhoods. That means excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are taken care of by other levels of government. Therefore, ## Interstate 35W, Highway 36, County Road C or Lexington Avenue, should not be considered. How would you rate .... (ROTATE) ## EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 42. Street repair and maintenance? 22% 57% 21% 0% 0% 43. Snow plowing? 32% 57% 11% 1% 0% 44. Trail and pathway plowing in parks? 32% 50% 16% 1% 2% 45. Trail and pathway plowing in neighborhoods? 30% 57% 13% 1% 0% 46. Pathway repair and maintenance in the parks? 30% 55% 14% 1% 1% 47. Pathway repair and maintenance in neighborhoods? 21% 62% 11% 1% 6% 48. Do you consider the city portion VERY HIGH..............16% of your property taxes to be SOMEWHAT HIGH..........30% very high, somewhat high, about ABOUT AVERAGE..........45% average, somewhat low, or very low SOMEWHAT LOW............2% in comparison with neighboring VERY LOW................0% cities? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......7% 49. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR..................57% crease in YOUR city property tax OPPOSE.................37% if it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......7% services at their current level? Page 221 of 260 Attachment 2 9 50. When you consider the property EXCELLENT..............14% taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD...................71% city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR..............13% you rate the general value of city POOR....................1% services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% fair, or poor? For each of the following long-term infrastructure projects, please tell me if you strongly support the City continuing to invest in it, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose. (ROTATE) ## STS SMS SMO STO DKR 51. Water and sewer pipes? 42% 44% 11% 2% 1% 52. City buildings? 29% 48% 16% 5% 3% 53. Pedestrian pathways? 33% 47% 16% 3% 1% 54. Bikeways? 31% 44% 21% 3% 1% 55. City roads? 45% 49% 4% 1% 2% In Minnesota, cities and counties are permitted to ask the Legislature for permission to hold a public vote on an increase to the local sales tax to pay for improvements that are regionally significant. The sales tax is assessed in the same way as the state sales tax, meaning that items such as clothes and groceries are exempt from the tax. During the 2023 Legislative session, the City of Roseville was given permission to hold a sales tax referendum this November for the construction of a Public Works and Parks and Recreation maintenance facility and a new license and passport center. 56. Prior to this survey, were you YES....................56% aware of the sales tax referendum NO.....................43% this November? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% The City will ask voters to approve two questions for a new local HALF cent sales tax increase for up to twenty years. For your information, a HALF cent sales tax increase would be 5 cents on every $10 of taxable purchases in the City of Roseville. The local sales tax would expire once the approved projects are fully funded. Page 222 of 260 Attachment 2 10 57. First, if the election were today, STRONGLY SUPPORT.......13% would you support or oppose a ref- SUPPORT................56% erendum for a HALF cent sales tax OPPOSE.................19% increase for the construction of a STRONGLY OPPOSE.........5% ## Public Works and Parks and Recrea- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......7% tion maintenance facility? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? ## IF A POSITION IS TAKEN, ASK: (n=371) 58. Could you tell me one or two DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% reasons why you feel that NEEDED..................5% way? REASONABLE COST........42% ## LIKE INSTEAD OF A ## PROPERTY TAX.......27% ## PREFER PROPERTY TAX.....3% ## NOT NEEDED..............4% ## POOR SPENDING...........1% ## TOO HIGH INCREASE.......1% ## INFLATION/ECONOMY.......9% ## NO MORE TAX INCREASE....6% ## SCATTERED...............2% A second referendum question is required to allow the funds from the same HALF cent sales tax increase to be used to build a new license and passport center. There would NOT be a second HALF cent sales tax increase if this referendum also passes. 59. Next, if the election were today, STRONGLY SUPPORT.......14% would you support or oppose a ref- SUPPORT................52% erendum to use the HALF cent sales OPPOSE.................22% tax increase to build new license STRONGLY OPPOSE.........7% and passport center? (WAIT FOR DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......6% RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? ## IF A POSITION IS TAKEN, ASK: (n=377) Page 223 of 260 Attachment 2 11 60. Could you tell me one or two DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% reasons why you feel that NEEDED..................8% way? REASONABLE COST........39% ## LIKE INSTEAD OF A ## PROPERTY TAX.......23% ## PREFER PROPERTY TAX.....3% ## NOT NEEDED..............8% ## POOR SPENDING...........2% ## TOO HIGH INCREASE.......3% ## INFLATION/ECONOMY......14% ## SCATTERED...............1% A sales tax increase would not only capture sales tax from city residents, but also from people outside the city who make purchases in Roseville. A University of Minnesota study projected almost 64% of the new sales tax revenue would come from people who live outside of Roseville and use city services. 61. Does that make you much more like- MUCH MORE LIKELY.......21% ly to support the sales tax in- SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY...41% crease, somewhat more likely, SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY....1% somewhat less likely, much less MUCH LESS LIKELY........2% likely, or does it make no differ- NO DIFFERENCE..........35% ence to you? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% It is projected with a HALF cent sales tax increase that the typical Roseville resident would pay an additional $55.48 per year in sales tax. 62. Does this make you much more like- MUCH MORE LIKELY.......19% ly to support the sales tax in- SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY...37% crease, somewhat more likely, SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY....7% somewhat less likely, much less MUCH LESS LIKELY........3% likely, or does it make no differ- NO DIFFERENCE..........33% ence to you? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% The current city budget does not include funding to make these improvements. If the sales tax increase is not approved, the City could consider a property tax increase which only Roseville residents and businesses would pay. These projects could cost the owner of a $350,000 home in Roseville about $430 per year for the improvements only. Page 224 of 260 Attachment 2 12 63. Does this make you much more like- MUCH MORE LIKELY.......32% ly to support the sales tax in- SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY...28% crease, somewhat more likely, SOMEWHAT LESS LIKELY....3% somewhat less likely, much less MUCH LESS LIKELY........3% likely, or does it make no differ- NO DIFFERENCE..........33% ence to you? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% Changing topics.... 64. Other than voting, do you feel YES....................72% that if you wanted to, you could NO ....................22% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......7% of Roseville runs things? 65. From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE.......14% or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE................78% and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE..............6% FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE.....0% strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% ## IF “DISAPPROVE” OR “STRONGLY DISAPPROVE,” ASK: (n=25) 66. Why do you feel that way? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% ## POOR JOB...............20% ## POOR SPENDING..........28% ## COULD IMPROVE...........4% ## HIGH TAXES.............24% ## DON’T LISTEN...........16% ## RISING CRIME............8% 67. From what you have heard or seen, EXCELLENT..............16% how would you rate the job per- GOOD...................76% formance of the Roseville City ONLY FAIR...............5% staff - excellent, good, only POOR....................0% fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3% ## IF “ONLY FAIR” OR “POOR,” ASK: (n=21) 68. Why do you feel that way? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% ## POOR SPENDING..........29% ## DON’T LISTEN...........57% ## RUDE/UNPROFESSIONAL....14% Thinking about another topic.... Page 225 of 260 Attachment 2 13 69. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT..............21% condition and appearance of Rose- GOOD...................72% ville - excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR...............6% fair, or poor? POOR....................0% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% ## IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (n=26) 70. Why do you feel that way? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% ## MESSY YARDS............50% ## JUNK CARS...............8% ## VACANT BUSINESSES......23% ## RUNDOWN HOMES..........19% 71. Over the past two years, has the IMPROVED...............44% appearance of Roseville improved, DECLINED................6% declined, or remained the same? REMAINED THE SAME......49% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% 72. How would you rate the job the EXCELLENT..............13% City does enforcing city codes on GOOD...................78% nuisances – excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR...............8% fair, or poor? POOR....................0% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% ## IF “ONLY FAIR” OR “POOR,” ASK: (n=31) 73. What nuisances does the City DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% need to do a better job of MESSY YARDS............45% enforcing? RUNDOWN HOMES..........10% ## JUNK CARS...............3% ## LOOSE ANIMALS..........19% ## VACANT BUSINESSES......13% ## NOISE..................10% Turning to the issue of public safety in the community.... I would like to read you a short list of public safety concerns. 74. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest public safety concern in Roseville? If you feel that none of these problems are serious in Roseville, just say so. Page 226 of 260 Attachment 2 14 Violent crime..................................2% ## Drugs.........................................15% Youth crimes and vandalism....................13% Break-ins and theft from automobiles..........13% Business crimes, such as shop- lifting and check fraud...................4% Residential crimes, such as burglary, and theft......................10% Traffic speeding..............................14% Reckless driving...............................5% Identity theft.................................2% ## Car Jacking/Auto Theft.........................7% ## ALL EQUALLY....................................7% ## NONE OF THE ABOVE..............................8% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.............................1% ## IF “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” ASK: (n=31) 75. Is there something not mentioned you consider to be the greatest public safety concern in Roseville? ## NO, 90%; ASSAULTS/MUGGINGS, 10%. 76. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH................3% ## patrolling the Roseville Police ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT.....71% Department does in your neighbor- NOT ENOUGH.............25% hood -- would you say they do too DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% much, about the right amount, or not enough? Changing topics... I would like to read you a list of characteristics of a community. For each one, please tell me if you think Roseville currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. (ROTATE) ## MANY FEW/ ABT DK/ ## /MCH LITT RGHT REF 77. Affordable rental units? 21% 27% 49% 3% 78. Market rate rental units? 11% 25% 52% 13% 79. Condominiums? 14% 18% 66% 3% 80. Townhomes? 18% 16% 63% 3% 81. Affordable owner-occupied housing? 11% 25% 58% 6% 82. "Move up" housing? 17% 24% 56% 3% 83. Higher cost housing? 28% 18% 52% 2% Page 227 of 260 Attachment 2 15 ## MANY FEW/ ABT DK/ ## /MCH LITT RGHT REF 84. Assisted living for seniors? 8% 33% 52% 8% 85. Parks and open spaces? 14% 17% 70% 0% 86. Trails and bikeways? 13% 19% 67% 2% 87. Service and retail establish- ments? 15% 19% 66% 1% 88. Entertainment and dining oppor- tunities? 15% 23% 61% 1% 89. If you were going to move from VERY COMMITTED.........35% your current home for upgrading, SOMEWHAT COMMITTED.....54% how committed would you be to stay NOT TOO COMMITTED.......7% in Roseville - very committed, NOT AT ALL COMMITTED....3% somewhat committed, not too com- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% mitted, or not at all committed? 90. And, if you were going to move VERY COMMITTED.........36% from your current home for down- SOMEWHAT COMMITTED.....52% sizing, how committed would you be NOT TOO COMMITTED.......7% to stay in Roseville - very com- NOT AT ALL COMMITTED....3% mitted, somewhat committed, not DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......3% too committed, or not at all committed? ## IF “NOT TOO COMMITTED” OR “NOT AT ALL COMMITTED IN QUESTIONS #89 OR #90, ASK: (n=40) 91. Is there anything missing or that could be improved in Roseville that would make you committed to staying? ## NO, 73%; MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 8%; REDUCE CRIME, ## 5%; LOWER PROPERTY TAXES, 15%. The City of Roseville works with organizations to offer a variety of different housing programs for residential homeowners. This includes foreclosure protection, home improvement loans for interior and exterior remodeling and a land trust program. 92. Prior to this survey, were you YES....................58% aware of this housing programs? NO.....................42% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% Changing topics.... Page 228 of 260 Attachment 2 16 The City contracts with a local company for curbside recycling services. Currently, residents are provided a single-sort recycling cart, and recyclables are picked up every two weeks. 93. Do you participate in the curbside YES....................81% recycling program by separating NO.....................19% recyclable items from the rest of DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% your garbage? IF "NO," ASK: (n=74) 94. Could you tell me one or two reasons why your house- hold does not participate in the curbside recycling program? ## TOO BUSY/HASSLE, 15%; NOT ENOUGH WASTE, 22%; TAKE ## ELSEWHERE, 9%; RENTER/ASSOCIATION, 46%; COST TOO MUCH, ## 3%; AGE/HEALTH, 2%; LACK OF INFORMATION, 4%. 95. Are there any changes or improvements in the service which could be made to induce you to participate in it? ## UNSURE, 8%; NO, 89%; LARGER CARTS, 2%; MORE ## INFORMATION, 2%. ## IF "YES" IN QUESTION #93, ASK: (n=325) 96. How often do you put recycle- EVERY TWO WEEKS........74% ables out for collection - MONTHLY................19% every two weeks, monthly, or LESS OFTEN..............7% less often? DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% When you think of the recyclables your household generates... 97. Would you favor or oppose a STRONGLY FAVOR.........11% change to an every week col- FAVOR..................39% lection schedule for recycl- OPPOSE.................47% ables for an additional fee? STRONGLY OPPOSE.........2% ## (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......2% feel strongly that way? 98. Are there any changes or improvements in the curbside recycling program you would like to see? ## UNSURE, 6%; NO, 90%; SCATTERED, 4%. Most communities have one of two systems for trash collection. Page 229 of 260 Attachment 2 17 Roseville operates under an open collection system, in which residents choose from a list of haulers licensed by the City to provide residential trash collection. Some cities use an arrangement in which the City manages a collection system, negotiates prices and standardizes services for residential trash collection. 99. Would you favor or oppose the City STRONGLY FAVOR.........11% of Roseville changing from the FAVOR..................37% current system, in which residents OPPOSE.................31% choose their trash hauler to a STRONGLY OPPOSE.........6% system where the City manages DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....16% trash collection? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? ## IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: (n=338) 100. Could you tell me one or two reasons for your decision? ## UNSURE, 2%; LIKE CURRENT HAULER, 13%; PREFER TO ## CHOOSE, 25%; CITY/LESS TRUCKS, 18%; CHOICE/CHEAPER, ## 5%; CITY/CHEAPER, 13%; CITY/LESS POLLUTION, 9%; ## CITY/LESS STREET REPAIR, 4%; CITY/BETTER SERVICE, 8%; ## SCATTERED, 3%. In 2019, the City of Roseville, in partnership with Ramsey County, opened an organics recycling drop-off site at the Leaf Recycling Center on Dale Street just south of County Road C. Roseville residents can now collect food scraps and other organic waste in their home and take it to a drop-off site. 101. Prior to this survey, were you YES....................67% aware Roseville has a drop-off NO.....................32% site for residents to recycle DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......1% food scraps and other organic waste? IF “YES,” ASK: (n=268) 102. Have you used this drop-off NO.....................32% site? (IF “YES,” ASK:) Do MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK...4% you use this site – more than ONCE A WEEK............10% once a week, once a week, EVERY OTHER WEEK.......16% every other week, once a ONCE A MONTH...........20% month, or less often? LESS OFTEN.............18% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% Page 230 of 260 Attachment 2 18 ## IF “NO” IN QUESTION #102, ASK: (n=86) 103. Why don’t you use the food scraps and organics recycling drop-off site? ## UNSURE, 2%; NO INTEREST/HASSLE, 40%; NOT ENOUGH ## WASTE, 28%; COMPOST AT HOME, 11%; BAD ODOR, 13%; ## ATTRACTS ANIMALS, 2%; MESSY, 5%. ## IF “NO” IN QUESTION #101, ASK: (n=126) 104. Now that you are aware of the VERY LIKELY.............7% organics drop-off site, how SOMEWHAT LIKELY........41% likely would your household NOT TOO LIKELY.........28% be to use the site for re- NOT AT ALL LIKELY......18% cycling compostable waste – DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......6% very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely? IF “NOT TOO LIKELY” OR “NOT AT ALL LIKELY,” ASK: (n=58) 105. Why would you not use the food scraps and organics recycling drop-off site? ## NO INTEREST/HASSLE, 36%; NOT ENOUGH WASTE, 24%; ## COMPOST AT HOME, 7%; BAD ODOR, 7%; ATTRACTS ## ANIMALS, 10%; MESSY, 5%; RENTER/NO WHERE TO ## STORE, 10%. 106. When a curbside collection program VERY LIKELY............11% for compostable waste is avail- SOMEWHAT LIKELY........42% able, how likely would your house- NOT TOO LIKELY.........24% hold be to participate in it – NOT AT ALL LIKELY......16% very likely, somewhat likely, not DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......8% too likely, or not at all likely? On another topic.... 107. How would you rate the City's EXCELLENT..............11% overall performance in communicat- GOOD...................76% ing key local issues to residents ONLY FAIR..............13% in its publications, website, POOR....................0% mailings, and on cable television DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% - excellent, good, only fair, or poor? Page 231 of 260 Attachment 2 19 108. What is your primary source of in- DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% formation about the City of Rose- NONE....................1% ville? CITY NEWSLETTER........42% ## EMAIL/E-NEWSLETTER.....11% ## CITY WEBSITE...........20% ## CABLE TV................2% ## WORD OF MOUTH..........13% ## SOCIAL MEDIA...........10% ## SCATTERED...............2% 109. How would you most prefer to re- EMAIL...................9% ceive information about Roseville CITY WEBSITE...........21% City Government and its activities PUBLICATIONS/NEWSLTRS..43% - (ROTATE) email, information on MAILINGS TO HOME........8% the city website, city publica- LOCAL WEEKLY PAPERS.....1% tions and newsletters, mailings CABLE TV................5% to your home, local weekly news- CITY FACEBOOK..........10% paper, cable tv programming, the CITY TWITTER............2% City's Facebook, the City’s NEXTDOOR................1% Twitter feed or Nextdoor? 110. Do you recall receiving the City’s YES....................76% printed publication -- "Roseville NO.....................24% City News” – in the mail during DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% the past year? IF "YES," ASK: (n=302) 111. Do you or any members of your YES....................92% household regularly read it? NO......................8% ## DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% 112. How effective is this City VERY EFFECTIVE.........50% publication in keeping you SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.....43% informed about activities in NOT TOO EFFECTIVE.......6% the city - very effective, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE....0% somewhat effective, not too DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......1% effective, or not at all ef- fective? I would like to ask you about information sources. For each one, tell me if you currently use that source of information; then, for each you currently use, tell me if you would be likely or unlikely to use it to obtain information about the City of Roseville. ## (ROTATE) Page 232 of 260 Attachment 2 20 ## NOT USE USE DK/ ## USE LIK NLK REF 113. Facebook? 39% 46% 15% 0% 114. Twitter? 60% 26% 14% 0% 115. YouTube? 52% 28% 20% 0% 116. Nextdoor? 63% 27% 10% 0% 117. Email? 38% 48% 14% 0% 118. City website? 23% 73% 4% 0% 119. Other social media sites? 65% 27% 8% 0% Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes.... Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. 120. Persons 65 or over? NONE...................70% ## ONE....................16% ## TWO OR MORE............14% ## REFUSED.................0% 121. Adults between the ages of 50 NONE...................72% and 64 years of age? ONE....................13% ## TWO MORE...............15% ## REFUSED.................0% 122. Adults between the ages of 18 NONE...................46% and 49 years of age? ONE....................19% ## TWO....................33% ## THREE OR MORE...........2% ## REFUSED.................0% 123. School-aged children and pre- NONE...................74% schoolers? ONE....................10% ## TWO....................13% ## THREE OR MORE...........3% ## REFUSED.................0% 124. Do you own or rent your present OWN....................68% residence? RENT...................32% ## REFUSED.................0% Page 233 of 260 Attachment 2 21 125. What is your age, please? 18-24..................11% ## (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25-34..................16% 35-44..................15% 45-54..................16% 55-64..................15% ## 65 AND OVER............27% ## REFUSED.................0% 126. Which of the following best des- SINGLE/NO OTHER........31% cribes your household: (READ) SINGLE PARENT...........5% A. Single, no other family at MAR/PARTN/CHILDREN.....21% home. MAR/PARTN/NO CHILD.....43% B. Single parent with children at SOMETHING ELSE..........1% home. DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......0% C. Married or partnered, with children at home. D. Married or partnered with no children or no children at home. E. Something else. 127. Which of the following categories WHITE..................66% represents your ethnicity - AFRICAN-AMERICAN.......11% ## White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO.........6% ## Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLAND...10% Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN.........1% ## else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE," ASK:) SOMETHING ELSE..........0% What would that be? MULTI/BI-RACIAL.........7% ## DON'T KNOW..............0% ## REFUSED.................0% 128. Do you live north or south of NORTHWEST..............15% ## Highway 36? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) NORTHEAST..............44% Do you live east or west of SOUTHEAST..............26% Snelling Avenue? SOUTHWEST..............15% ## DON’T KNOW/REFUSED......0% Page 234 of 260 Attachment 2 22 129. Finally, thinking about your STATEMENT A.............6% household finances, how would you STATEMENT B............41% describe your financial situation, STATEMENT C............47% would you say that - STATEMENT D.............4% A) Your monthly expenses are ex- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED......2% ceeding your income; B) You are meeting your monthly expenses but are putting aside little or no savings; C) You are managing comfortably while putting some money aside; D) Managing very well? 130. Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALE...................48% ## FEMALE.................52% Page 235 of 260 Attachment 3 ## The Morris Leatherman Company 2024 Findings and Implications ## City of Roseville ## City Demographics: Roseville remains a balanced first-ring suburban community, with longer residential longevity, growing population diversity, slowing generational replacement, and decreasing numbers of renters than in the 2020 study. The median longevity of adult residents is 13.0 years. Twenty-six percent of the sample report moving to the city during the past five years, while 36% are there for more than two decades. Sixteen percent report they will move in the next five years, in contrast, 67% have no plans to leave during the next ten years. Thirty-one percent of city households classify themselves as “single, no other family at home.” Five percent are “single parents with children at home.” Twenty-one percent are “married or partnered, with children at home.” Forty-three percent are “married or partnered with no children or no children at home.” Sixty-six percent classify themselves as “White.” Eleven percent are “African-American,” and ten percent are “Asian-Pacific Islanders.” Six percent are “Hispanic-Latino.” One percent classify themselves as “Native American,” while seven percent are “mixed/bi-racial.” Women outnumber men by four percent in the sample. Thirty percent of Roseville households contain residents over 65 years old. Twenty-eight percent report the presence of adults between the ages of 50 and 64; fifty-four percent contain adults between the ages of 18 and 49. Twenty-six percent of the households contain school-aged children or pre-schoolers. Sixty-eight percent own their current homes, while 32% rent. The average age of respondents is 49.8 years old. Forty-two percent of the sample fall into the over 55 years age range, while 27% are less than 35 years old. Fifteen percent live north of Highway 36 and west of Snelling Avenue. Forty-four percent reside north of Highway 36 and east of Snelling Avenue. Twenty-six percent are south of Highway 36 and east of Snelling Avenue, while 15% live south of Highway 36 and west of Snelling Avenue. Forty-seven percent report they are fiscally stressed – either their monthly expenses exceed current income, or their monthly expenses meet their income, but little or no savings result. Fifty-one percent report no fiscal stress – either managing comfortably and putting money aside or managing very well. ## Quality of Life Issues: Eighty-seven percent, a drop of seven percent in four years, rate their quality of life as either “excellent” or “good.” In fact, a solid 33% deem it “excellent.” Thirteen percent, up eight Page 236 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 2 percent since the 2020 study rate the quality of life lower. The overall positive rating is in the top quartile of suburban communities, while the “excellent” rating is 13% higher than the Metropolitan Area average of 20%. At 17%, “closeness to family and friends” leads the list of attributes people like most about living in the community. At 13%, three responses tie: “closeness to job,” “friendly people,” and “neighborhood/housing.” “Convenient location” places third, at 11%, followed by “parks and trails,” at nine percent, and “quiet and peaceful,” at seven percent. “Safe,” at six percent, and “schools,” at five percent, round out the list of statistically significant responses. The most serious issues facing the city remain “rising crime” at 25%, up eight percent in four years. “High taxes” and “aging population” rank at 16% and nine percent, respectively. Seven percent each post “street repair” and “lack of jobs and businesses.” Six percent point to “aging infrastructure.” A “booster” group of 22%, virtually unchanged from the 2020 result, says there are “no” serious issues facing the community – over twice as high as the Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Eighty-five percent think things in Roseville are generally headed in the “right direction.” Thirteen percent regard things are “off on the wrong track.” This is primarily due to perceptions of “rising crime” in the community. A secondary factor contributing to the increase is “high taxes.” A very high rating of 86% of the sample reports the general sense of community identity in the City of Roseville is “very strong” or “somewhat strong”; thirteen percent rate it lower. Eighteen percent report a closer connection to the City of Roseville “as a whole,” an almost four-fold increase since the last study, while 43% have a closer connection to their “neighborhood.” Seven percent report a closer connection to the “School District.” Twenty-three percent volunteer “family and friends.” And, five percent feel a closer connection to their “workplace.” As in the 2020 study, intermediary institutions and social precincts are prominent in the community as cohesive forces. Eighty-eight percent, a ten percent decrease in four years, feel “welcomed” in the City of Roseville, only eight percent disagree. The major reason for feeling welcomed is “friendly people,” while the only statistically significant reason for not feeling welcomed is “not knowing their neighbors.” In thinking about a city’s quality of life, 24%, down eight percent in four years, feel the most important aspect is “safety.” Seventeen percent point to “sense of community,” 16% cite “good schools,” and twelve percent point to “quiet and peacefulness.” Nine percent each post “upkeep of the city” and “open spaces and natural areas.” Eight percent state “parks and recreational facilities.” Twenty-one percent believe “reducing crime” is the aspect of the city which needs to be fixed or improved in the future. Sixteen percent believe “lower taxes” and 11% feel the same about “better roads” as aspects of the city which need to be fixed or improved in the future. Page 237 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 3 “More jobs” and “sidewalks” follow at eight percent each. Seven percent cite “more senior housing,” and six percent point to “more public transit.” Seventeen percent, a decrease of 16% in four years, think there is “nothing” or are unsure about anything needing fixing or improving. Thirty-seven percent, a decrease of 16% since the 2020 study, believe there is “nothing” or are unsure about anything currently missing from the community which, if present, could greatly improve the quality of life for residents. Seventeen percent would like to see “more jobs”; 14% would like to see “more sidewalks”; 11% would like to see “more affordable housing”; and 10% each would like to see “more entertainment opportunities” or “more public transit.” ## Community Characteristics: In assessing the one or two most important characteristics of a high quality of life community, 48% point to “low crime rate” and 33%, down 10% in four years, choose “good school system.” This continues the order of the top two choices four years ago. Twenty-four percent pick “sense of community.” Nineteen percent select “well-maintained properties.” Sixteen percent each pick “low property taxes” or “job opportunities.” There are five characteristics residents consider to be of least importance: “variety of shopping opportunities” or “community events and festivals,” each at 11%, and “high property values,” “well-maintained properties,” or “sense of community,” all at 10%. When examining the number or quantity of various community characteristics, majorities of residents think Roseville has “about the right amount” of 11 of 12 discussed. In the one case where opinions split almost evenly between “too many” and “too few,” residents are divided on affordable rental units. The 11 attributes posting higher levels of agreement about sufficient current numbers are: market rate rental units, condominiums, townhomes, affordable owner- occupied housing, “move up” housing, higher cost housing, assisted living for seniors, parks and open spaces, trails and bikeways, service and retail establishments, and entertainment and dining opportunities. Eighty-nine percent, virtually unchanged from the 2020 study, are either “very committed” or “somewhat committed” to stay in Roseville if they were going to move from their current home to upgrade. Just as impressive, 88% are “committed” to staying in the city if they were going to move from their current home for downsizing. While most of the small number of residents who are not “committed” to stay in the city report there is nothing missing or could be improved to make them more committed to stay, 15% would like to see “lower property taxes” and eight percent wish for “expanded choices of affordable housing.” ## City Services: In evaluating specific city services, the mean approval rating is 87.0%, a significant 2.7% Page 238 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 4 increase over the 2020 level. If we consider only residents holding opinions, the mean score is a higher 89.3%, well within the top 10% of summary ratings in the Metropolitan Area. Over 90% rate fire protection, emergency medical services, sewer and water, building inspections, animal control and code enforcement as either “excellent” or “good.” Eighty-nine percent favorably rate police protection and drainage and flood control. Key reasons for giving services an unfavorable rating include “poor patrolling,” at 31%, “flooding,” at 18%, “loose animals,” at 16%, and “poor taste of water,” at 11%. Between 79% and 89% similarly rate street repair and maintenance, snow plowing, trail and pathway plowing in parks, trail and pathway plowing in neighborhoods, pathway repair and maintenance in the parks and pathway repair and maintenance in neighborhoods. The lowest rated service remains street repair and maintenance at 79%, which is a seven percent increase from the 2020 study. This service rating is now well above the Metropolitan Area norm of 60%. ## Property Taxes: Roseville residents remain tax sensitive during the past four years. Forty-six percent think their property taxes are “high” in comparison with neighboring suburban communities, while 45%, a 10% increase in four years, see them as “about average.” Eighty-five percent, an eight percent increase, view city services as either an “excellent” or a “good” value for the property taxes paid; this endorsement level now places Roseville within the top decile of Metropolitan Area suburbs. While 57% of the sample, a seven percent increase from the 2020 level, would support an increase in their city property taxes to maintain city services at their current level, thirty-seven percent, also a seven percent increase, would oppose an increase under these circumstances. Solid majorities endorse the City continuing to invest in long-term infrastructure projects. By a 94%-5% margin, residents support investing in city roads. An 86%-13% majority favors investments in water and sewer pipes, and a 77%-21% majority feels the same about city buildings. An 80%-19% majority is in favor of continued investment in pedestrian pathways, and a 75%-24% majority endorses continued investments in bikeways. Overall, the average change in support in comparison with the 2020 study is an insignificant -2.7%, reflecting the stable consensus in favor of long-term investments during the past four years. Page 239 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 5 ## Sales Tax Referendum: Respondents were reminded that Minnesota cities and counties are permitted to ask for legislation to permit a public vote on an increase in the local sales tax to pay for improvements that are regionally significant. The sales tax is assessed in the same way as the state sales tax, exempting items such as clothes and groceries. During the 2023 legislative session, the City of Roseville was given permission to hold a sales tax referendum this November for the construction of a Public Works and Parks and Recreation Maintenance Facility and a new license and passport center. Fifty-six percent report awareness of the November sales tax referendum. They were told the City will ask voters to approve two questions for a new local half-cent sales tax increase for up to 20 years. The sales tax would expire once the approved projects are fully funded. By a 69%-24% majority, residents support the referendum for the construction of a Public Works and Parks and Recreation Maintenance Facility. Strong support outnumbers strong opposition by a 13%-5% margin. Supporters base their decision on “reasonable cost,” “like instead of property tax increase,” and “needed.” Opponents base their verdict on “current inflation and economy,” “no more tax increases of any kind,” and “not needed.” They were informed a second referendum question would be required to allow the funds from the same half-cent sales tax increase to be used to build a new license and passport center. There would not be a second half-cent sales tax increase if this referendum question passes. By a 66%-29% majority, residents support the referendum for the construction of a new license and passport center. Strong support outnumbers strong opposition by a 14%-7% margin. Supporters again base their decision on “reasonable cost,” “like instead of property tax increase,” and “needed.” Opponents base their verdict on “current inflation and economy” and “not needed.” Next, respondents were read three statements and asked if each one would affect their decisions. The table below shows the statement, followed by the percentage of respondents who are “more likely” to support the referenda, “less likely” to support the referenda,” and “makes no difference” to them. Page 240 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 6 ## Statement More Likely Less Likely ## No ## Difference A sales tax increase would not only capture sales tax from city residents, but also from people outside the city who make purchases in Roseville. A University of Minnesota study projected almost 64% of the new sales tax revenue would come from people who live outside of Roseville and use city services. 62% 3% 35% It is projected with a half-cent sales tax increase that the typical Roseville resident would pay an additional $55.48 per years in sales tax. 56% 10% 33% The current city budget does not include funding to make these improvements. If the sales tax is not approved, the City could consider a property tax increase which only Roseville residents and businesses would pay. These projects could cost the owner of a $350,000 home in Roseville about $430.00 per year for the improvements only. 60% 6% 33% All of the statements result in at least 56% of the respondents saying they are “more likely” to support the referenda. The negative impact never exceeds 10%. A consistent 33%-35%, though, were unmoved by each statement. ## City Government and Staff: Respondents give the Mayor and Council a job approval rating of 92%, an eight percent increase in four years, and a disapproval rating of six percent. The current fifteen-to-one approval-to- disapproval rating of the Mayor and City Council is now within the top five communities in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. The small disapproval rating stems from perceptions of “poor spending,” “high taxes,” and “overall poor job.” Citizen empowerment remains high and shows a significant increase in the four-year interim between studies. The number of residents -- 22% – who feel they could not have a say about the way the City of Roseville runs things is well below the suburban norm. This level of alienation is 11% lower than the 2020 level. Residents award the City Staff a job approval rating of 92%, a nine percent increase from the 2020 level, and a disapproval rating of only five percent. Both the absolute level of approval and the 18-to-1 ratio of approval-to-disapproval are also among the top in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. The miniscule disapproval rating stems from “not listening to residents” and “poor spending.” Page 241 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 7 ## Neighborhoods and Businesses: Ninety-three percent rate the general appearance of the community as either “excellent” or “good”; six percent are more critical in their evaluations. “Messy yards” is the chief complaint of the small number posting a negative judgment. Over the past four years, 49% think the appearance of Roseville “remained about the same,” while 44%, a 12% increase from the 2020 level, see an “improvement,” and only six percent, a “decline,” a ten percent decrease from the 2020 study. Code enforcement is also highly rated. Ninety-one percent award this service either an “excellent” or “good” rating, while eight percent are more critical, focusing on “messy yards” and “loose animals.” Fifty-eight percent are aware Roseville works with organizations to offer a variety of different housing programs for residential homeowners, including foreclosure protection, home improvement loans for interior and exterior remodeling, and a land trust program. ## Garbage Collection: By a 48%-37% plurality, residents support the City of Roseville changing from the current system, in which residents may choose from several different haulers to a system where the City manages trash collection; eleven percent strongly favor this change, while six percent strongly oppose it. Sixteen percent are unsure. Supporters of the change base their decision primarily on “less truck traffic,” “lower cost with one hauler,” “less pollution,” and “better service.” Opponents cite “prefer to choose my own hauler,” “like current hauler,” and “competition creates lower cost.” ## Curbside Recycling: Eighty-one percent participate in the curbside recycling program by separating recyclable items from the rest of their garbage. The 19% who do not participate indicate they “rent or their association does it,” “do not have enough waste,” and “they think it is too much hassle.” Most program participants, 74%, down eight percent in four years, put their recyclables out for collection every two weeks; nineteen percent do so monthly. By a virtual tie of 50%-49%, participants narrowly favor a change to a weekly collection schedule for recyclables. Sixty-seven percent of residents are aware of the drop-off site to recycle food scraps and other organic waste, an increase of 18% in four years. Among aware residents, 14% use the site at least once a week, 50% use the site at least once a month, and 18% are more sporadic users. Among Page 242 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 8 non-users, two statistically significant reasons are given: “no interest or too much hassle” and “not enough waste.” Among residents not aware of the organics drop-off site, a projected 14% would use the site. Among all residents, a projected 16% of households would use a curbside collection program for compostable waste if it were available. ## Public Safety: In rating the seriousness of public safety concerns in the City of Roseville, 15% think “drugs” and “traffic speeding,” at 14% are the greatest concerns. Thirteen percent each feel similarly about “youth crimes and vandalism” and “break-ins and theft from automobiles.” Eight percent consider none of these as serious concerns. Seventy-one percent, down 12% in four years, rate the amount of police patrolling in their neighborhood as “about the right amount,” while 25%, up ten percent since the last study, think it is “not enough,” and three percent see “too much.” ## Parks and Recreation: Ninety-four percent rate the park and recreation facilities in Roseville as either “excellent” or “good.” Only six percent are more critical. Among the City’s recreational facilities, 38% most frequently use “trails,” 34% most often use “neighborhood parks,” and 10% most frequently use “athletic facilities.” Eighteen percent of the City’s households do not use any of these facilities. Ninety-three percent highly rate the upkeep and maintenance of Roseville City Parks; eight percent are more critical in their judgments. Thirty-four percent report household participation in a city-sponsored park and recreation program. Ninety-six percent are satisfied with their experience. No statistically significant suggestion was made for offering new or expanding current park and recreation programs. Thirty-seven, down eight percent since the 2020 study, report household members use the trail system at least once per week; thirty-five percent, up eight percent, do so several times a month or just monthly; fourteen percent are less frequent trail users. Fourteen percent report no one in their household uses the trails at all. In prioritizing expansions or improvements of the City’s trail system, 38% pick “construction of trails connecting neighborhoods and parks,” while 33% choose the “construction of additional trails for exercise within parks.” Twenty-one percent, down eight percent from the 2020 level, choose “construction of trails connecting neighborhoods and shopping and business areas.” Page 243 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 9 Sixty-five percent, a decrease of 16% since the 2020 study, are aware of the City’s park buildings and the newer Cedarholm Community building. Thirty-six percent of the sample have visited or used one of the new park buildings. One hundred percent of park building visitors rate their experience as either “excellent” or “good,” and an emphatic 95% would consider using one of the new park buildings or the Cedarholm Community building again in the future. A nearly- unanimous 95% feel the current mix of recreational or sports facilities meets the needs of members of their household. ## Communications Issues: The City newsletter and the City website are the most often indicated primary sources of information about the community, at 42% and 20%, respectively. The “grapevine” ranks third, at 13%. Email/e-newsletter is relied upon by eleven percent of the sample. “Social media” completes the list at 10%. Preferred sources of information about City Government and its activities are slightly different from the existing communications pattern. This time, the City publications and newsletters are at the top of the list at 43%, followed by the City website, at 21%. Ten percent choose the City’s Facebook page, while nine percent indicate email, and eight percent opt for direct mail. Seventy-six percent receive the “Roseville City News,” and 92% of this group regularly read it. The reach of the publication is 70% of the community’s households, lower by five percent from the 2020 level. The newsletter’s effectiveness as an information channel is highly rated. Ninety- three percent, an increase of nine percent since the 2020 study, see it as “effective” in keeping them informed about activities in the city. Social media usage among Roseville residents has changed since the 2020 study. Seventy-seven percent use the City website, sixty-two percent use “email,” and 61% use Facebook. Forty-eight percent use “YouTube,” 40% tweet, and 37% use “Nextdoor.” Thirty-five percent, over three times the 2020 level, report using other social media sites. Over 70% of the users of five social media sources would be likely to use each to obtain City information: the “City website,” “email,” “other social media sites,” “Facebook,” and “Nextdoor.” Eighty-seven percent rate the City’s overall performance in communicating key local issues to residents as either “excellent” or “good.” Thirteen percent are more critical in their evaluations. This rating remains among the top five in the Metropolitan Area. Page 244 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 10 ## Conclusions: As in the 2020 study, the key issues in 2024 facing decision-makers is addressing perceptions about “rising crime,” particularly “drugs,” “youth crimes and vandalism,” and “automobile break-ins and theft.” Unlike other suburbs, concerns about crime in Roseville have not seriously eroded the high levels of approval and support for the quality of life, fiscal management of the community, direction of the city, tax tolerance, government job ratings, and sense of community. So far, the City has done a comparatively good job tempering the concern about crime. Since 48% rate “safety” as the most important aspect of city’s future quality of life, “crime”— together with its prevention and reduction – should continue to be given a high place in the discussion of issues, policies, and resource allocation. Additionally, worries about “speeding traffic” and “more police patrolling” will need to be discussed and a framework for policy goals considered. While perceptions of city property taxes have worsened across the Greater Metropolitan Area suburbs, the general hostility is far more moderate in Roseville than the regional trend would suggest. Even so, it should be considered a more limiting factor in using additional funds to maintain and augment services. While 46% still see their property taxes as “high,” this is nine percent lower than the current suburban average. A corresponding seven percent increase in the number of residents willing to increase their property taxes to maintain city services, indicates residents are more tolerant to a discussion of additional funding to continue to provide city services at their current level. It is also a testament to the high ratings city services are granted. The proposed sales tax referenda are in the most curious position MLC has encountered this year. The 69% and 66% support levels do not deviate significantly among all demographic groups. Since 2024 is a presidential year, turnout will be at its usual maximum level. Only two demographic groups register even high levels of support: households containing 18-24 year olds, and residents in the Southeast or Southwest quadrant of the community. The major communications challenge facing supporters is to aggressively inform voters that the second question does not request approval of another half-cent sales tax increase. In addition, as always, another challenge will be to make sure voters know the referenda are on the ballot – a surprised voter usually votes against a referendum. Community development efforts should continue to focus on helping seniors stay in the community and provide younger adults options to move into the city. Moderate concerns continue about assisted living opportunities for seniors. This perception is in line with the very high levels of commitment to staying in the city if residents moved from their current homes. The parks and recreation system remains the “crown jewel” in the City’s quality of life. Usage is still higher than expected viewed against the demography of the community. Park buildings and the newer Cedarholm Community Building are very well-received by the public. Trails and Page 245 of 260 ## The Morris Leatherman Company May 2024 11 neighborhood parks play an unusually large and growing role in city life, acting as key ingredients in the strong sense of community. No strong consensus is present on future city trails and sidewalk expansions: thirty-eight percent support the construction of trails connecting neighborhoods and parks, 33% favor the construction of additional trails for exercise within parks, and 21% prioritize the construction of trails connecting neighborhoods and shopping and business areas. Information levels about City Government activities remain extremely high in comparison with neighboring communities. Positive ratings of the Mayor, City Council and City Staff are among the top of the Metropolitan Area. “Roseville City News,” the City newsletter, and the City website are very well used and exceptionally well regarded. In fact, the City newsletter continues to possess higher readership and effectiveness ratings than most peer communities. Citizens remain enthusiastic about their City. At a time when government at different levels polarizes people, Roseville residents are overall extremely satisfied with their local government and its services. With a 22% “city booster” core, the City still possesses a large reservoir of goodwill which has served it well. ## Methodology: This study contains the results of a sample of 400 randomly selected adult residents residing in the City of Roseville. Professional interviewers conducted the survey by telephone between April 18 th and May 7 th , 2024. The typical respondent took seventeen minutes to complete the questionnaire. The non-response rate was 5.5%. The results of the study are projectable to all adult City of Roseville residents within ± 5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases. Page 246 of 260 ## 2026 Community Survey May 11, 2026 ## City Council Meeting Attachment 4 Page 247 of 260 ## Background ## MEASURES ## SATISFACTION WITH CITY ## SERVICES ## IDENTIFIES COMMUNITY ## PRIORITIES AND ## CONCERNS ## TRACKS TRENDS ## OVERTIME ## INFORMS COUNCIL AND ## STAFF DECISION-MAKING ## GUIDES STRATEGIC ## PLANNING AND ## BUDGETING ## MEASURES PROGRESS ## TOWARD GOALS Attachment 4 Page 248 of 260 ## Background ## SURVEYS CONDUCTED ## REGULARLY SINCE 2014 ## LAST SURVEY COMPLETED ## IN 2024 ## BENCHMARK RESIDENT ## SATISFACTION/PRIORITIES Attachment 4 Page 249 of 260 ## Survey Methodology ## Statistically valid 400 random resident sample (+/-5%) Phone survey (includes cell phones) 130 Questions (including demographics) ## Average interview time = 22 minutes Core questions remain for trend analysis Attachment 4 Page 250 of 260 ## Strategic Plan Alignment Measure progress toward ## Strategic Plan goals Support qualitative success indicators Inform policy, budget and service priorities Attachment 4 Page 251 of 260 ## Success Indicators • Roseville residents feel safe, secure and stable in their housing (Goal #2) • Roseville residents, workers, and visitors have multi-modal options to connect to places they want and need (Goal #3) ## Economic Vitality • Roseville’s parks and programs positively contribute to residents’ quality of life (Goal #1) • Roseville’s natural spaces positively contribute to residents’ quality of life (Goal #3) ## Parks & Natural Environment • Community members report feeling safe and secure (Goal #2) ## Responsive Services & Safety Attachment 4 Page 252 of 260 ## Success Indicators • Residents are satisfied with the quality of the infrastructure (Goal # 1) ## Reliable & Sustatinable Infrastructure • Residents understand how their input will be used and the level of impact it has on decision making in advance of participating (Goal #1) ## Community & Civic Engagement • Residents report satisfaction with the quality and responsiveness of city services (Goal #1) ## City Operations Attachment 4 Page 253 of 260 ## Recommendations ## New: Add a question related to feeling safe & secure Add a question related to multi-modal transportation meeting needs Add a question related to any housing challenges residents are facing Add a question related to measure city services being responsive to needs of community ## Edit: Q9: Update to measure progress toward City’s vision Q13: Update to identify community priorities tied to strategic plan Q 51-55: Add “sustainability/environmental projects” in responses Q 77-83: Update to address housing option needs in community ## Remove: Q 26-28 – Related to “new” Cedarholm Building Q 56-63 – Related to sales tax/ Maintenance Operations Center Attachment 4 Page 254 of 260 ## Cost Base survey cost = $28,000 (up to 130 questions) Additional questions each = $250 Budget = $30,000 Attachment 4 Page 255 of 260 ## Timeline Feedback provided to Survey company ## May Survey conducted ## June Results presented to Council ## July Results used to inform budget recommendations ## August Key data points included in ## Strategic Plan metrics ## September Attachment 4 Page 256 of 260 ## Key Items for Council Seeking feedback on staff’s recommended survey updates Are there additional strategic priorities Council would like reflected? Attachment 4 Page 257 of 260 May 11, 2026 ## FUTURE MEETING AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS ## June Events •June 13 – Juneteenth Celebration – Central Park •June 17 – Discover Your Parks (DYP) – Valley Park – 6:30 pm •June 22- 28 Rosefest •June 22 – Rosefest Parade – 6:15 pm •June 24 – DYP – Supehero Carnival – Langton Lake Park – 6:00 pm •June 25 – Taste of Rosefest – 5:00 pm •June 27 – Party in the Park – Central Park – 3- 11 pm ## May 18 – City Council Meeting ## •LGTBQIA+ Month Proclamation ## •Gun Violence Awareness Month ## •Juneteenth Day Proclamation ## •Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Certifying Unpaid Utility ## Charges to Property Tax Rolls ## •Cancellation of Centre Pointe Medical Building Planned ## Unit Development ## •Award Nature Playground Consultant Contract ## June 15 – City Council Meeting •Minor Plat at 2816 Oxford Street ## •Receive Presentation and Consider Approval of Civic ## Campus Concept Plans ## •Receive Presentation of Popular Financial Report ## June 8 – City Council Meeting ## •Consider Willow Pond Environmental Assessment ## Worksheet Approval •Consider Approval of Purchase Agreement with VFW related to the Civic Campus project ## •Receive Update on Autumn Grove Playground Planning ## Process ## •Joint Meeting with Finance Commission ## •Receive Presentation from Commissioner Mary Jo McGuire Page 258 of 260 Page 259 of 260 by the people who live here, but he managed to get you to raise our taxes to pay for it. Even though the things is younger than my youngest child. - Admitting in 2023 or 2024 that the 10 year projection as wrong and it needed to go a lot, so our taxes have gone up. - Not taking responsibility for the mess up with our utility bills a few years ago, and getting the board to charge us to his office's mistake. Ooops! Just another oops. - Putting up the idea of spending our emergency fund on a protective slide for the police with no talk about it in the city council because it needed to be signed that day or our neighbors would not get our help. That was crappy. - Then take that and the final straw is the "action" taken on ICE running around our streets, where his only offering was to put up signs. Signs! That was it. That was what the person who makes 6 figures comes up with. It is time the city manager be put on a PPP plan and really show they can work with the money they have, work for the citizens of the town not just the chiefs so we can prosper as a city and not play catch up to the mistakes he has made over the years that I have been here. Thank you for taking the time to read this and acknowledge, even if you choose to do nothing about it, that you took this into consideration when performing the performance review. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 260 of 260