Big Picture
By now, plenty of people have watched Mayor Frey’s enthusiastic, albeit somewhat stiff, dance performance at the Black Entrepreneur State Fair. Frey does not seem to have mistaken himself for a gifted dancer, nor does it appear as if he’s headed to Dancing with the Stars after leaving City Hall.
In that exchange, he simply accepted his constituent’s invitation, joined the celebration and risked looking like a goof in public—which is exactly what happened. There is something endearing about that, but there is also something instructive in it.
Frey’s dancing and his proposed 2027 budget have almost nothing to do with each other as matters of policy. But they both reveal the invaluable characteristics of Mayor Frey’s leadership: a willingness to enter uncomfortable territory, to participate rather than watch from a safe distance, and to absorb ridicule without retreating into the cautious choreography that governs so many other figures in public life.
The stakes of the budget, of course, are vastly higher. Frey is proposing an 11.3% property-tax levy increase, the elimination of around 100 city positions and more than $20 million in spending reductions. For the owner of a median-value home, the increase would amount to approximately $409 a year. None of that is funny, and none of it should be minimized.
But there were easier ways for the Mayor to present this budget. They would have required optimistic assumptions, predictable expenses left conspicuously underfunded, permanent programs supported with temporary money, or difficult decisions postponed until another year. To his credit, Frey instead chose to put more of the city’s real bill in front of residents now.
His proposal deserves support not because every provision is beyond debate, but because it replaces fiscal wishful thinking with an honest account of what Minneapolis’ core services cost—and asks elected leaders to make the difficult choices that account requires.
An Honest Budget That Admits What Things Cost
In his budget address, Mayor Frey described a budget problem exceeding $60 million. Roughly $33 million is needed to fully fund existing services, with more than $30 million in additional pressures across departments. Inflation, higher labor and operating costs, the expiration of one-time federal pandemic relief and falling downtown commercial property values have all contributed.
Those declining commercial values matter beyond downtown. When office buildings account for a smaller share of the tax base, homeowners inevitably shoulder more of the burden. An 11.3% levy increase will therefore land at a moment when many residents already feel squeezed by housing, food, insurance and utility costs.
That is the proposal’s hardest fact—and the reason its supporters should resist describing it as painless or merely technical. An additional $34 a month is real money for a working family.
But the relevant comparison is not between Frey’s proposal and a city that delivers the same services without collecting additional revenue. That option does not exist. The administration says that without spending reductions and the correction of chronically imbalanced budgets, Minneapolis would need a levy increase exceeding 19%.
Frey’s proposed $2.3 billion budget, including $753 million in General Fund expenditures, attempts to split the difference between two irresponsible poles: taxing residents as though every existing commitment must remain untouched, or cutting as though the city can abandon its basic obligations without consequence. The proposal raises substantial revenue while reducing spending by more than $20 million through program and contract reductions, operating consolidations and the elimination of roughly 100 positions across the City enterprise.
Notably, the Mayor stated that eliminating roughly 100 positions does not necessarily mean 100 layoffs; vacancies, departures and planned retirements could absorb some reductions. But current employees and city services may still be affected, and the council should scrutinize those consequences closely.
Underbudgeting is NOT Saving
The most controversial piece of Frey’s fiscal argument is the Minneapolis Police Department’s overtime budget. His proposal adds $13.1 million to align the overtime line with the costs the city expects to incur, along with $4.3 million for police recruitment and $3.1 million for external contracts.
Critics have an obvious response: MPD has repeatedly overspent, and increasing its budget can look like rewarding weak management. They are right to demand better controls. However, underbudgeting police overtime does not reduce police overtime. It merely obscures the cost until the bill arrives.
Minneapolis cannot responsibly pretend that officers will stop answering emergency calls or conducting necessary investigations when an artificially low overtime line is exhausted. But recognizing the likely expense must come with enforceable controls, transparent authorization practices and measurable plans to reduce overtime dependence (as noted by Mayor Frey in his address). If the expense is recurring and reasonably foreseeable, it belongs in the adopted budget, where residents and council members can see it and hold the department accountable for it.
Honest budgeting and rigorous oversight are not competing principles. Minneapolis needs both. Putting the real number on the page is the beginning of accountability, not the end of it.
What the Budget Proposal Protects
This is not an austerity budget masquerading as reform. Even while proposing cuts, Frey maintains investments that matter to a progressive city.
The plan would bring total 2027 funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to $15.5 million, provide $1.5 million through Minneapolis HOMES to expand affordable homeownership and continue Stable Homes Stable Schools. It also maintains $25 million for downtown vitality, small businesses and cultural and commercial districts.
Those choices matter because fiscal discipline should not become an excuse to withdraw from the city’s future. Housing affordability, commercial corridors, downtown recovery and public safety are not separate challenges. They reinforce one another. A city that cannot reliably provide services will struggle to attract residents and investment; a city that becomes unaffordable will lose the people whose work and community ties make recovery possible.
The best case for Frey’s proposal is therefore not that Minneapolis should expect less from government. It is that residents can expect more only when government distinguishes durable investment from temporary experimentation and pays honestly for the commitments it intends to keep.
Leadership & the Courage to Disappoint
Political courage is an overused phrase, often awarded to elected officials simply for doing something their supporters already wanted. This budget presents a more credible test - Frey is asking property owners to pay more while asking departments and employees to operate with less.
“Fiscal conservatives” will attack the levy increase. “Progressives” will attack program and staffing cuts. Police critics will condemn the overtime allocation, while police supporters will object that rebuilding remains too slow. There is no large constituency organized around the proposition that its taxes should rise and its preferred program should be examined more closely - but that may still be what’s best for the City.
Elected leaders reveal themselves partly through the discomfort they are willing to accept when leadership requires it. Frey could have produced a document engineered to generate friendlier headlines and left the next shortfall to the next budget cycle. Instead, he proposed visible taxes, identifiable cuts and more realistic baselines.
Again, that approach does not guarantee every judgment is above reproach or without pain, but it does demonstrate the courage and willingness to be judged on the real choices.
Bottom Line
A budget is a statement of values, but it is also an operating plan. If the numbers depend on services costing less than everyone knows they will cost, the values printed beside them do not matter much.
Minneapolis does not need its mayor’s dance moves to improve. What it needs is elected leaders willing to risk an awkward moment, an angry constituency and an ugly headline in order to tell residents the truth — Mayor Frey’s budget proposal does that admirably.
At the Black Entrepreneur State Fair, Frey stepped onto the dance floor knowing—or at least learning quickly—that he could not control how he would look. In the budget debate, he has done something more consequential: surrendered control of the political optics in order to put the city’s real choices on the table.
The City Council should avoid the temptation to engage in political grandstanding and work to improve Frey’s proposal where it can. They can change the steps, but they should not dance around the central truth: Minneapolis cannot sustain core services by underbudgeting predictable costs and postponing difficult choices.
Whatever final version of the budget emerges should preserve the honesty, discipline and political courage at the core of Mayor Frey’s proposal.