Fiscal Stewardship and Responsible Investment

Fiscal stewardship is about more than balancing a budget.

It is about being a responsible steward of the public's trust.

Every tax dollar belongs to the people of Champlin before it belongs to City Hall. Residents earn that money through their work, their businesses, and the choices they make for their families. Government therefore has an obligation to treat public funds with the same care, discipline, and accountability that people expect when managing their own household or organizational budgets.

I believe government has a responsibility to provide excellent public safety, maintain quality infrastructure, preserve our parks and public spaces, and deliver the essential services residents rely on every day.

Those responsibilities require investment.

Fiscal stewardship does not mean automatically opposing spending, taxes, or public projects. It means making sure the need is clear, the alternatives have been considered, the costs are fully understood, and the public benefit justifies the investment.

My bachelor's degree is in Accounting and Business Management.

Throughout my career, I have developed, managed, and evaluated budgets as part of executive leadership in nonprofit organizations. That work required balancing limited resources against significant organizational and community needs.

A budget is never simply a collection of numbers.

It reflects an organization's priorities and values.

Every dollar invested in one initiative is a dollar that cannot be used for another. Responsible budgeting therefore requires more than deciding whether a project or service would be beneficial. It requires determining whether it represents the best use of limited resources when compared with other needs.

That same discipline should guide city government.

Champlin's budget should clearly reflect the needs and priorities of the people who live here.

Residents should be able to understand:

• what the City is funding;
• why those investments were prioritized;
• how much they will cost over time;
• how they will be paid for;
• and what measurable benefit the community should expect.

Financial reports may be technically available to the public and still be difficult for most residents to understand.

A long budget document, check register, or list of payments does not necessarily explain why money was spent, which project it supported, whether the expense was anticipated, or whether the public received the expected value.

Meaningful transparency requires more than making information available.

It requires making information understandable.

Not every spending decision carries the same level of urgency.

Public safety, fire protection, streets, water and sewer systems, emergency preparedness, and the maintenance of existing public assets are essential responsibilities of local government.

Other proposals may improve community life but remain discretionary investments. These may include new facilities, expanded amenities, or programs that go beyond the City's core responsibilities.

Calling an investment discretionary does not mean it lacks value.

It means the City should evaluate it differently from an essential service.

Before postponing a necessary infrastructure repair, we should consider the future cost of allowing the problem to grow.

Before reducing public-safety resources, we should understand the effect on residents, first responders, and emergency response.

Before constructing a major new amenity, we should determine whether Champlin can responsibly afford not only to build it, but also to operate, maintain, staff, repair, and eventually replace it.

Responsible leadership protects essential services while carefully evaluating new commitments that could compete with those services for resources in future budgets.

Taxes are necessary to provide the services and infrastructure residents expect.

The question is not whether government should ever raise revenue. The question is whether an additional tax or levy increase is necessary, fair, transparent, and supported by a clearly demonstrated public benefit.

Before asking residents to pay more, city leaders should ask:

• Have we clearly defined the problem?
• Is the proposed investment necessary now?
• Have we examined lower-cost alternatives?
• Are existing resources being used efficiently?
• Have we pursued grants, regional partnerships, and outside funding?
• Can the project be phased or scaled differently?
• Are we protecting essential services?
• What will happen if projected revenues or participation do not materialize?
• How will we measure whether the investment succeeds?

Residents may reasonably support additional investment when the need is compelling and the plan is responsible.

Trust must come before taxes.

Before residents are asked to approve a new tax, major facility, or long-term financial obligation, they should receive a clear and complete public explanation.

That explanation should include:

• the problem the proposal is intended to solve;
• evidence demonstrating the need;
• the estimated construction or acquisition cost;
• financing and bonding costs;
• annual staffing, operating, maintenance, insurance, and utility costs;
• anticipated repair and replacement expenses;
• realistic revenue assumptions;
• potential General Fund support;
• risks to taxpayers if projections are not met;
• alternatives that were evaluated;
• the reason those alternatives were accepted or rejected;
• and measurable standards for determining whether the project succeeds.

The public should see both the expected benefits and the reasonably foreseeable risks.

Consultant projections should not be presented as guarantees. Forecasts should identify their assumptions and show what happens under more cautious scenarios.

When residents are asked to make a long-term decision, they deserve the complete financial picture—not only the most optimistic version of it.

Public confidence also depends on how the City purchases equipment, hires consultants, and awards contracts.

Minnesota's Uniform Municipal Contracting Law generally requires publicly solicited sealed bids for covered contracts exceeding \$175,000. Contracts between \$25,000 and \$175,000 may use sealed bids or direct negotiation with at least two quotations when possible. State law also permits certain best-value and cooperative-purchasing alternatives.¹⁰

Compliance with minimum legal requirements is the starting point—not the end of fiscal accountability.

Champlin should promote genuine competition whenever practical and provide clear documentation when:

• only one qualified bid is received;
• a sole-source purchase is necessary;
• a cooperative contract is used;
• a contract is amended;
• change orders increase the original price;
• or the City repeatedly contracts with the same provider.

The goal is not to suggest that a familiar or repeat vendor is inherently improper. Experienced vendors may provide excellent value and institutional knowledge.

The goal is to ensure that contracts are awarded based on documented qualifications, performance, cost, and public value—not familiarity alone.

Champlin already publishes bid notices, requests for information, and requests for proposals through its public bid-opportunities system. That foundation should be strengthened through accessible reporting on contract awards, amendments, change orders, performance, and total project costs.¹¹

Fiscal scrutiny should not end when a project is approved or a ribbon is cut.

Completed projects and ongoing programs should be evaluated with the same seriousness used when they were first proposed.

The City should ask:

• Was the project completed within its approved budget?
• Were significant change orders necessary?
• Did operating costs match projections?
• Did projected revenue or usage materialize?
• Is the facility or program serving the intended population?
• Is it producing the promised public benefit?
• Does it require more ongoing taxpayer support than originally anticipated?
• What lessons should guide future investments?

Accountability is not about assigning blame every time conditions change.

Projections will never be perfect, and unexpected circumstances occur. Accountability means openly comparing expectations with results, explaining meaningful differences, and using what we learn to make better decisions.

Champlin's total gross property-tax levy increased from approximately **\$13.52 million in 2023 to \$17.43 million in 2026**—an increase of approximately **\$3.91 million, or 28.9%**, over three budget cycles.^1-4^

That increase does not mean every homeowner's city tax bill rose by exactly 28.9%. Individual property taxes are affected by property values, tax capacity, fiscal disparities, the distribution of the levy among properties, and other factors.

It does mean the total amount the City collects through its levy grew substantially.

Some of that growth supported legitimate priorities. The City's adopted budgets identify investments and cost pressures involving police staffing and compensation, fire protection, additional personnel, equipment and debt, infrastructure, planning, and other services.^1-4^

Recognizing those legitimate needs does not eliminate the responsibility to examine future increases carefully.

Residents experience their financial burden cumulatively. They do not experience the city levy in isolation from:

• county and school-district taxes;
• property-value increases;
• water, sewer, refuse, and utility charges;
• city fees;
• housing and insurance costs;
• sales taxes;
• and the broader effects of inflation.

The City does not control every part of that burden.

It does control whether its own financial decisions acknowledge the full reality facing residents.

After nearly 29% growth in the City levy since 2023, any additional increase deserves thoughtful scrutiny, clear justification, and a serious examination of alternatives.

My goal is to keep property taxes as low as responsibly possible while protecting essential services and maintaining Champlin's long-term financial health.

Champlin has sought legislative authority to use a local sales tax to finance construction of an indoor athletic facility.

The City's 2026 Legislative Agenda describes a project of up to **\$18 million**, potentially including a field house or gymnasium for youth sports, a community walking track, meeting and gathering areas, and indoor play and recreation spaces.⁵

Legislation introduced in 2026 would authorize Champlin, with voter approval, to impose a local sales and use tax of up to **0.5%**. The legislation would permit financing up to \$18 million, plus associated bonding costs, and allow the tax to continue until the authorized costs were collected or for as long as 30 years.⁶

Champlin's current combined general sales-tax rate is **8.525%**. Adding the full proposed local rate would bring the combined rate to **9.025%—tied with Maple Grove for the highest rate among Champlin and its immediate northwest-metro neighbors, and tied for the second-highest combined general sales-tax rate in Hennepin County.**⁷

I support creating accessible recreational opportunities for children, families, older adults, and residents of different abilities.

I also recognize the value of indoor space in a state where weather limits outdoor recreation for a significant part of the year.

Those benefits do not eliminate the need for careful financial analysis.

Sales taxes are broadly paid by residents and visitors, but they also tend to consume a larger share of income from households with fewer financial resources. That makes it especially important to show that the proposed project delivers broad, accessible public value rather than primarily benefiting residents who can afford additional fees, memberships, or organized sports.⁸

Before asking voters to approve the tax, the City should publish a complete, understandable proposal addressing:

• the final facility design and location;
• total construction and financing costs;
• expected interest and bonding costs;
• the proposed tax rate and anticipated duration;
• staffing and operating expenses;
• maintenance and long-term capital needs;
• admission, membership, and rental fees;
• accessibility for residents with limited incomes;
• projected users and regional demand;
• anticipated revenue;
• the amount of any expected annual subsidy;
• risks if participation or revenue falls below projections;
• effects on other city priorities;
• and the criteria voters can use to evaluate the project.

A voter referendum is essential, but a vote is only as meaningful as the information residents receive beforehand.

Champlin's existing recreation facilities demonstrate why construction costs are only part of the financial picture.

The City's second-quarter 2026 financial report shows that the Ice Forum receives General Fund support. The report records approximately **\$1.33 million in transfers into the Ice Forum fund through June 30**, including a one-time **\$1.2 million transfer** from excess 2025 General Fund balance. It also states that the transfer allowed the City to avoid approximately \$1 million in potential borrowing for planned capital work.⁹

This does not mean the Ice Forum lacks public value.

It supports youth and high-school hockey, recreation, community activity, and an important local asset.

It does demonstrate that publicly owned recreation facilities may require ongoing operating support and periodic major capital investment beyond the revenue they directly generate.

That experience should inform—not automatically determine—decisions about another facility.

Residents deserve to know whether a proposed athletic facility is expected to be self-supporting, partially subsidized, or regularly supported through property taxes or other General Fund revenue.

The answer may not automatically determine whether the project is worthwhile.

It should never remain unclear.

The choice should not be reduced prematurely to either constructing the full proposed facility or doing nothing.

Before committing to a new city-owned facility, Champlin should meaningfully evaluate:

• regional partnerships with neighboring communities;
• shared facilities with school districts;
• collaboration with youth athletic organizations;
• private-sector partnerships;
• expansion or adaptation of existing spaces;
• phased construction;
• shared-use agreements;
• grants and philanthropic support;
• and lower-cost programs that expand recreation access without requiring the same long-term public obligation.

Champlin already has experience with a public-private recreation model. Since 2000, the City's partnership with Life Time has allowed Champlin residents to use the private facility—including its indoor pool and gymnasiums—at reduced daily rates without purchasing a membership.¹²

That partnership may not meet every need identified for a new athletic facility.

It does show that city ownership is not the only way to expand public access to recreation.

Alternatives should be evaluated honestly, not merely listed after a preferred option has already been selected.

Keeping residential property taxes as low as responsibly possible also requires thoughtful economic development.

Champlin should continue pursuing commercial growth that:

• brings useful goods and services closer to residents;
• supports local entrepreneurs;
• creates employment;
• strengthens underused commercial areas;
• and diversifies the community's economic base.

Commercial development is not a magical substitute for responsible spending, and regional tax-sharing rules mean its effects are not always simple or immediate.

A healthier and more diverse local economy can nevertheless strengthen city revenues, reduce overreliance on homeowners, and improve Champlin's long-term financial resilience.

Economic development should be intentional, compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, and evaluated for its full impact on traffic, infrastructure, public safety, utilities, and quality of life.

Growth should strengthen Champlin rather than merely increase its size.

City staff, consultants, engineers, financial advisors, providers, and community organizations all contribute valuable expertise.

Their work should inform the City Council's decisions.

It should not replace the independent judgment of elected officials.

Consultant recommendations should be examined carefully. Staff proposals should be questioned respectfully. Advocacy from organizations that would use or benefit from a project should be heard without being treated as the only community perspective.

Asking difficult questions is not hostility toward staff, youth organizations, public employees, or community investment.

It is part of the responsibility residents assign to their elected leaders.

A mayor should be willing to ask those questions even when a proposal is popular, politically convenient, or supported by influential voices.

Champlin is a strong community, and responsible investment can make it stronger.

We should invest in public safety, infrastructure, parks, economic opportunity, and community spaces that create lasting value.

We should also recognize that each new financial commitment affects what future councils will be able to fund.

Fiscal stewardship is not about saying **"no."**

It is about making sure we can confidently explain why we are saying **"yes."**

A responsible investment is one that:

• addresses a clearly demonstrated need;
• has been compared with realistic alternatives;
• is financially sustainable;
• protects essential services;
• distributes benefits fairly;
• acknowledges risk honestly;
• and delivers measurable value to the public.

As Mayor, I will:

• protect essential public services and infrastructure;
• work to keep property taxes as low as responsibly possible;
• distinguish between essential obligations and discretionary investments;
• require plain-language explanations of major budget and tax decisions;
• advocate for complete lifecycle-cost analysis before supporting major projects;
• insist that financial assumptions, risks, and potential public subsidies be clearly disclosed;
• support competitive, transparent, and accountable procurement;
• ask for clear explanations when bidding is limited or exceptions are used;
• evaluate completed projects against the results originally promised;
• pursue grants, regional partnerships, shared-use arrangements, and private-sector collaboration;
• support commercial growth that diversifies Champlin's economy and tax base;
• consider the cumulative financial burden residents experience;
• ask difficult questions respectfully and independently;
• and treat every taxpayer dollar as a public trust.

**Transparency.**

**Responsibility.**

**Accountability.**

Good stewardship is not measured by how much government spends.

It is measured by how wisely government invests.

**1.** [[City of Champlin, 2023 Adopted Budget.]{.underline}](https://www.champlinmn.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=82) The budget reports a total gross levy of \$13,524,328 and describes public-safety and operating priorities.

**2.** [[City of Champlin, 2024 Adopted Budget.]{.underline}](https://www.champlinmn.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=85) The budget reports a total gross levy of \$15,067,508.

**3.** [[City of Champlin, 2025 Adopted Budget.]{.underline}](https://www.champlinmn.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=1091) The budget reports a total gross levy of \$16,356,258 and identifies significant factors contributing to the increase.

**4.** [[City of Champlin, 2026 Adopted Budget.]{.underline}](https://www.champlinmn.gov/475/Budget) The certified 2026 Champlin levy is \$17,430,432.

**5.** *City of Champlin, 2026 Legislative Agenda, "Local Option Sales Tax for Indoor Athletic Facility."* The agenda describes a project of up to \$18 million and the proposed facility's potential features.

**6.** [[Minnesota Legislature, HF 5039, City of Champlin; Taxes Authorized.]{.underline}](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/HF/5039/versions/0/) The introduced legislation provides for a tax of up to 0.5%, financing of up to \$18 million plus bonding costs, voter approval, and a maximum 30-year duration.

**7.** [[Minnesota Department of Revenue, Metro Counties Sales and Use Tax Rate Guide, effective July 1-September 30, 2026.]{.underline}](https://www.revenue.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2026-05/metro-tax-rate-guide-2026-q3.pdf) The guide lists Champlin's current combined general rate as 8.525%; Maple Grove and several other Hennepin County cities are at 9.025%; and Golden Valley is at 9.775%.

**8.** [[Internal Revenue Service, Understanding Taxes: Regressive Taxes.]{.underline}](https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/whys/assessment/as_thm03_les02.jsp) The IRS explains that sales taxes tend to be regressive because they consume a larger percentage of income for lower-income taxpayers.

**9.** [[City of Champlin, Second Quarter Financial Reports—2026.]{.underline}](https://champlin.civicweb.net/document/177489/SECOND%20QUARTER%20FINANCIAL%20REPORTS.pdf?handle=455DAADBFD4349AA8318D40622AF8124) The report includes the Ice Forum income statement and General Fund transfer information.

**10.** [[Minnesota Statutes §471.345, Uniform Municipal Contracting Law.]{.underline}](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/471.345) The statute establishes contracting thresholds and permitted procurement methods.

**11.** [[City of Champlin, Bid Opportunities.]{.underline}](https://www.champlinmn.gov/426/Bid-Opportunities) The City publishes public bid notices, requests for information, and requests for proposals.

**12.** [[City of Champlin, Champlin Life Time.]{.underline}](https://www.champlinmn.gov/495/Champlin-Life-Time) The page describes the public-private recreation partnership established in 2000.