Opinion: City Hall Has a Spending Problem. It’s Time to Give Voters the Veto.

As the Minnesota Legislature gathers in St. Paul this March, a high-stakes proposal has landed on the table. It is simple, direct, and—given the trajectory of local spending—absolutely necessary. The bill would cap property tax increases for cities and counties with over 2,500 residents. The limit? The rate of inflation plus 50% of population growth. Anything higher would require a direct vote from the people paying the bill.

For years, city leaders have dismissed concerns about tax hikes as the “cost of a great city.” But the numbers tell a different story. It isn’t just about the cost of services; it is about a systemic failure to prioritize.

I believe this proposal deserves more than a passing glance. It deserves to be the anchor of our fiscal policy. It is time to let the voters decide when enough is enough.

The Math of Unsustainability

To understand why this legislative check is necessary, look at the last five years of Minneapolis tax levies. City Hall’s spending has not just tracked with the economy; it has sprinted past it.

• 2026 (Proposed): 7.8% increase.

• 2025 (Adopted): 6.9% increase.

• 2024 (Adopted): 6.2% increase.

• 2023 (Adopted): 6.5% increase.

• 2022 (Adopted): 5.45% increase.

Now, compare those figures to the reality of the people paying them. In 2025 and 2024, the tax levy increases nearly doubled the rate of inflation. While residents were tightening belts to handle 3% spikes in the cost of milk and gasoline, their city government was demanding 6.9% more from their home equity.

This is a structural disconnect. When the city’s revenue demands consistently outpace the growth of the residents’ wages, you don’t have a budget—you have a slow-motion eviction of the middle class, and potentially a flight of high income residents.

The Strategic Shift: From “Trust Us” to “Ask Us”

The current system relies on a “Trust Us” model. The Mayor and City Council hold hearings, listen to three minutes of public testimony per resident, and then proceed to approve hikes that satisfy their internal list of priorities.

The proposed legislative cap shifts the power. Under the “Voter Approval” model, the city maintains its autonomy up to a point. If the Mayor wants to keep the lights on and the roads paved, he has the inflation-adjusted cap to work with. If City Council members want to fund “transformational” new programs or massive bureaucratic expansions, they have to make the case to the public.

This isn’t a “ban” on tax increases. It is a requirement for a sales pitch. If a project is truly vital, the voters will support it. If it isn’t, the city should find the money elsewhere or do without.

The Arguments Against: A Brief Audit

Opponents of the cap—predominantly elected officials, city staff and advocacy groups—argue that local governments face unique cost pressures. They point to mandated police reforms, rising construction material costs, and the sunsetting of federal pandemic aid.

These are real factors. They are not, however, excuses for a blank check.

1. The Labor Argument: Labor costs are rising. True. But every private-sector business in Minneapolis is facing the same labor market. They don’t have the luxury of simply “levying” more revenue from their customers. They innovate. They cut. They prioritize. City Hall should be no different.

2. The Mandate Argument: State and federal mandates often come without funding. This is a legitimate grievance. However, the voter approval proposal provides a safety valve. If a mandate is so burdensome that it requires an 8% tax hike, the city can present that specific mandate to the voters as the reason for the referendum. It forces transparency.

I’m not arguing that cities don’t need flexibility. But flexibility without accountability is just a recipe for waste.

The Strategic Value of the “Referendum Trigger”

Why focus specifically on the voter approval trigger? Because it forces a “Heartbeat” of accountability into the budget cycle.

Right now, the budget process is an inside game. It is a negotiation between department heads, council members and the Mayor. The taxpayer is an afterthought—a secondary character in a drama about “funding priorities.”

A referendum requirement levels the playing field. Suddenly, the City Council has a reason to look for “cost avoidance” and “spending caps.” They know that if they cross the line, they have to win an election on that specific issue. It turns the budget into a living contract with the citizenry.

Who Wins and Who Loses?

The Winners:

• Low-Income Residents: For those on the margins, a property tax spike is a rent hike in disguise. Capping increases at the rate of inflation protects the city’s most vulnerable from being priced out of their own neighborhoods by their own government.

• Middle-Class Families: The “squeezed middle” lacks the subsidies of the poor and the tax shelters of the wealthy. A referendum requirement ensures their household budgets—already battered by 3% inflation—aren’t cannibalized by a 7% city spending spree.

• Fixed-Income Seniors: Predictability is the only thing keeping many seniors in their homes. This policy replaces “tax-and-hope” with a hard fiscal guardrail.

• Small Businesses: For a neighborhood shop, a property tax spike is often the difference between hiring a new employee and cutting hours.

• The Credibility of Government: When the public knows they have a “veto” over extreme spending, trust in the institution actually grows.

The Losers:

• The DSA-Aligned City Council Majority: This voting bloc has treated the city budget as a laboratory for social experiments. A voter-approval cap ends their ability to fund ideological projects without first winning a mandate from the broader public.

• Activists & Advocacy Groups: Non-profits and special interest groups that rely on municipal grants and “pilot programs” will find their funding source under a microscope. When every extra dollar requires a public vote, “nice-to-have” programs are the first to be cut.

• The Bureaucracy: Department heads who have grown accustomed to annual budget “glides” will finally have to justify their headcount to the people paying the salaries. Accustomed to building budgets in the dark, they will find the light of a referendum uncomfortable.

The math of the last five years confirms a systemic failure of restraint. A 7.8% levy increase against a 3% inflation rate is not a budget; it is an ultimatum.

Requiring voter approval for these hikes is not a radical proposal. It is a common-sense guardrail for a city that has proven it cannot find the brake pedal on its own. City leaders often talk about “building a city for the future.” You cannot build a future on a foundation of tax-driven displacement. If the Mayor and Council believe their spending is justified, they should have no fear of asking the people they serve for permission.

Let the voters decide. It is their city. It is their money. Stop pretending otherwise.