Truth Matters
"Truth matters because trust matters. An informed community is the foundation of good government"
Residents Asked. Here's My Response.
​
Many Credit River residents have contacted me after receiving a political mailer about my record as Mayor. Some have called, sent emails or text messages, or stopped me while I was out in the community. Most expressed their support and asked thoughtful questions about issues like City Hall, taxes, sewer and water, and decisions made by the City Council. Regardless of their viewpoint, they all had one thing in common: they wanted to understand the facts.
I appreciate those questions.
Throughout my years of public service, I have believed that residents deserve leaders who are willing to answer difficult questions openly and honestly. Local elections should be decided by facts, records, and a vision for our community not by incomplete information or campaign rhetoric.
Rather than respond one conversation at a time, I created this page, so every resident has access to the same information. Every statement on this page is supported by public records, or other official documents whenever possible.
My goal isn't simply to disagree with a political mailer. My goal is to give you the information you need to make your own informed decision.
Whether you support me, or are still undecided, I hope you'll take a few minutes to review the facts for yourself.
Thank you for taking the time to learn more about the issues that will shape the future of Credit River.
​
"I trust the people of Credit River. When residents have access to complete and accurate information, I am confident they will make the decision they believe is best for our community."
-Chris Kostik
Jump to a Section
City Hall & Public Works: What Actually Happened
The campaign mailer makes several claims regarding City Hall, Public Works, and future municipal facilities. Here's what actually happened.
Why Was the City Studying New Facilities? Credit River's current City Hall was originally built in the early 1960s when Credit River was still a rural township with only a few hundred residents. The building was constructed primarily as a maintenance garage to house a road grader and snowplow, along with a very small office for Township business. More than sixty years later, the building serves as City Hall, and Council Chambers. It has significant limitations, including: Limited office and meeting space for staff and residents. A holding tank wastewater system that requires frequent pumping. Very limited room for expansion due to road easements, highway setbacks, existing parking, and the current building footprint. Little or no practical space for a compliant replacement wastewater treatment system if the building were expanded. Staff concerns regarding air quality, odors, temperature control, privacy, security, and the lack of a storm shelter. These concerns were discussed during the June 16, 2025 City Council meeting. Recognizing these challenges, the City Council decided it was appropriate to evaluate the City's long-term facility needs before making any future decisions.
The City Council Approved a Planning Study — Not a New Building. On July 5, 2023, the City Council approved issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for architectural services to conduct a space needs analysis and conceptual planning study for future municipal facilities. The motion did not approve construction of a new City Hall. It simply authorized the City to seek professional assistance in evaluating future needs. The minutes describe this as the beginning stage of concept design and space needs analysis. The RFP itself required the consultant to: Evaluate future space needs. Analyze Public Works requirements. Prepare conceptual layouts. Develop preliminary cost estimates. Create a phased long-term facilities plan. The RFP also required additional City Council approval before any detailed design work or future phases could proceed.
How the Consultant Was Selected. The City received 11 proposals in response to the RFP. The City Council appointed Council Members Abe Zanto and Jay Saterbak to serve as the Building Committee with the City Administrator. Their responsibilities included reviewing proposals, interviewing finalists, and recommending a consultant to the full Council. After interviewing five firms, the committee recommended BKV, and the City Council unanimously approved that recommendation.
Where Did the "$21 Million" Number Come From? The facilities study was not directed by the Mayor acting alone. It was initiated by the full City Council, guided by the Council's Building Committee, developed by a consultant selected through a public process, and ultimately presented to the entire City Council in a public meeting. On May 6, 2024, the consultant presented the first phase of its work. The presentation discussed Credit River's projected municipal facility needs over approximately the next 30 years and included a phased long-term master plan. During that presentation, the consultant presented a conceptual estimate of approximately $21 million to address those long-term facility needs over multiple decades. Unfortunately, many residents understandably remembered one number — $21 million — without the broader context that it represented a conceptual planning estimate over a 30-year planning horizon rather than an approved construction project. The City Council never approved a $21 million building project. No building was authorized. No construction contract was approved. No borrowing was approved.
The Council Listened to Residents After hearing concerns from residents regarding the consultant's presentation, the City Council paused further work by the consultant. Rather than simply continuing with the consultant's recommendations, the Council appointed a Government Center Citizens Advisory Committee (GCCAC) made up of Credit River residents to independently review the City's facility needs. Council Members Abe Zanto and Jay Saterbak continued serving as the Council's Building Committee and acted as Council liaisons throughout the committee's work. The committee spent months reviewing alternatives before presenting its recommendations to the City Council.
What Happened to the Resident Committee's Recommendations? The resident committee presented its recommendations to the City Council in 2025. Councilmember Bill Markert made a motion to approve all of the committee's recommendations with the addition of a soil test at City Hall. The motion failed because it did not receive a second. The discussion that followed illustrates why. Several Council members expressed concern that while the committee had provided valuable work, its recommendations focused primarily on remodeling the existing building and did not include a long-term facilities strategy or address acquiring land for future municipal needs. The Council also discussed: limitations of the existing septic system, limited room for expansion, future Public Works needs, employee workspace, building security, air quality, privacy, and long-term planning for a growing community. The Council appreciated the committee's volunteer service, but ultimately concluded that additional long-term planning was still necessary.
Was the City Secretly Pursuing a Lease? No. During discussions about temporary solutions for City Hall, a Credit River resident and business owner suggested that the City lease available space in his industrial business park. The proposal would have provided office space for City staff and Council meetings while also allowing indoor storage for Public Works equipment. Rather than negotiate privately, I placed the proposal on a public City Council agenda for discussion. Under the City's bylaws, any Council member may place an item on the agenda for Council consideration. The proposal was discussed publicly by the full City Council. No lease was negotiated. No lease was signed. The City Council ultimately chose not to move forward with the proposal. Bringing a resident's suggestion to the full City Council for discussion in an open meeting is the opposite of secrecy.
Were COVID Funds Set Aside to Build a New City Hall? The campaign mailer also suggests that more than $600,000 in COVID relief funds have been set aside to build a new City Hall. That is not what happened. Like many cities, Credit River received funding through the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The City elected to use the Revenue Replacement option authorized under federal law. Those funds became replacement revenue for general government purposes rather than remaining as a separate "COVID fund." Because those revenues strengthened the City's financial position, the Council later designated a portion of the City's available fund balance as a Facilities Capital Fund to address future municipal facility needs. The current Council has authorized an RFP to retain a commercial real estate professional to help identify suitable property for future municipal facilities. If the City eventually purchases land, these reserved funds could help pay for that acquisition. Purchasing land is not the same as approving a building. No building has been approved. No construction project has been authorized. Any future building proposal would require separate City Council approval during a public process.
Bottom Line
The facts tell a very different story than the campaign mailer.
-
The City Council approved a planning study, not a new City Hall.
-
A Council committee, including Council Members Abe Zanto and Jay Saterbak, selected the consultant through a public process.
-
The consultant presented a conceptual long-term facilities study that included a planning estimate extending approximately 30 years into the future.
-
Residents expressed concerns, and the Council listened.
-
The Council paused the consultant's work and appointed a resident advisory committee.
-
The Council carefully considered that committee's recommendations but did not adopt them as the City's long-term facilities plan.
-
No $21 million building project was ever approved.
-
No lease was executed.
-
No building has been authorized.
-
The Council continues to evaluate how best to meet the City's future facility needs while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Why This Matters
-
Reasonable people can disagree about what Credit River's future facilities should look like.
-
The important point is that those decisions should be based on complete information—not incomplete campaign claims.
-
No $21 million City Hall was ever approved.
-
No building has been authorized.
-
No lease was executed.
-
The City Council studied the issue, listened to residents, considered alternatives, and continues to evaluate how best to meet the City's future needs while protecting taxpayers.
Meeting References:
​
July 5th, 2023
​
September 6th, 2023
​
May 6th, 2024 Consultant Presentation
​
June 16th, 2025
​
​
​
Infrastructure, Roads, Sewer & Water
The campaign mailer claims that extending municipal sewer and water will increase property taxes. This is an important concern, and residents deserve the full story.
​
The facts are that the City's discussions about sewer and water did not begin recently. They are the result of decades of planning, aging infrastructure in several older neighborhoods, and the need to make responsible long-term decisions about roads, septic systems, drinking water, and public investment.
​
In fact, Scott County first identified this area for future municipal services and documented septic challenges in its 1996 Comprehensive Plan—nearly 30 years ago.
​
Below are the facts behind the most common claims. For those who would like more detail, I've also included links to the engineering studies, Metropolitan Council presentations, and other public documents that informed these discussions.
The Facts
Municipal sewer and water are being studied because several of Credit River's oldest neighborhoods face long-term infrastructure challenges. The Country Court neighborhood has aging roads that require continual patching, older septic systems on small lots that can be difficult to replace under today's regulations and is located adjacent to the existing regional wastewater connection through Savage. Combining road reconstruction with underground utility improvements avoids rebuilding the same streets twice, making it the most practical and cost-effective approach.
​
The City Council has consistently stated that the municipal sewer and water improvements should be paid for by the properties receiving the direct benefit, using assessments, connection charges, utility rates, and other project financing. This is separate from the City's general property tax levy.
​
Consistent with the City's long-standing assessment practices, the roadway portion of the project would continue to be funded differently than sewer and water improvements. Historically, Credit River has assessed approximately 60% of roadway reconstruction costs to the benefiting properties, with the remaining share funded through the City's Capital Improvement Fund. Because of the size of the project, the City has also pursued state and federal funding opportunities to reduce costs for local property owners, including a 2026 request for state bonding assistance.
​
Bottom Line
The City is studying this project because aging roads, older septic systems, and other infrastructure in several neighborhoods need long-term solutions. The Council has consistently maintained that municipal sewer and water improvements should be paid for by the properties receiving the direct benefit—not by shifting those costs onto taxpayers citywide. At the same time, the City continues pursuing outside funding to reduce costs for local property owners.
Learn More
​
Septic Systems & Sanitary Sewer Presentation
Credit River Engineer and Scott County Environmental Services gave a presentation to the council on the need for municipal sewer and water in areas of Credit River.
​
Met Council Workshop with Credit River Council
​
​
​
​
Taxes & the 2026 Levy
The campaign mailer claims that I proposed a tax levy increase of more than 15%. That number came from the City’s preliminary levy, not the final levy adopted by the City Council.
​
The Facts
​
Preliminary levy: 15.4% increase
Reduced during budget review: more than $324,000
Final adopted levy: 3.6% increase
Council vote: 5–0
​
In May 2025, Credit River’s Finance Director resigned shortly before the annual budget process began. The City hired CliftonLarsonAllen to provide interim finance services, and the interim contractor was later hired as the City’s Finance Director. That left a limited period to prepare the preliminary levy before the September 30 certification deadline.
​
Because Minnesota cities may reduce—but cannot increase—the levy after that deadline, the Finance Director recommended setting a higher preliminary levy while the Council continued reviewing the budget through fall workshops. The preliminary levy was expressly described as a maximum amount that would be further evaluated before final adoption in December.
​
The preliminary levy represented an increase of approximately 15.4%. Following additional analysis and budget workshops, the Council reduced it by more than $324,000. The final levy adopted on December 15 increased approximately 3.6%, not 15%.
​
The final budget and 3.6% levy increase were approved unanimously by the City Council, 5–0.
​
Bottom Line
A preliminary levy is a ceiling used while the budget is still being completed—it is not the final tax levy. After additional analysis and public budget workshops, the City Council unanimously adopted a final levy increase of approximately 3.6%, not more than 15%
References
​
May 19, 2025, Council Agenda Packet
​
​
September 22, 2025, Council Agenda Packet
​
September 22, 2025, Council Meeting Minutes
​
December 15, 2025, Council Agenda Packet
​
December 15, 2025, Council Meeting Minutes
​
​
​
​
​
​
Transparency & Public Engagement
The campaign letter points to a proposed change discussed during the January 5, 2026 City Council meeting as evidence that I oppose transparency. That leaves out both what happened at the meeting and my broader record of expanding public access and engagement in Credit River.
​
The Facts
At the annual review of the City Council bylaws, I proposed removing the requirement that Council workshops be livestreamed. The purpose was to discuss whether Councilmembers would have more open, productive working conversations without a camera running—an issue residents had raised with me.
​
The proposal was discussed publicly. The Council chose not to adopt the change, and workshops continue to be broadcast. The meeting minutes clearly record that the proposed change to Section 308 was not approved.
​
Proposing an idea for public discussion is not the same as secretly changing policy. It is how an open governing process is supposed to work: an idea is raised, discussed in public, and decided by the full Council.
​
My record on transparency and public engagement is broader than one proposed bylaw change. During the COVID emergency, I established Credit River’s livestreaming capability and set up much of the technology and services still used today. When the City lacked staff capacity, I also helped build the initial website content and public-reference materials for agendas, minutes, and supporting documents.
​
I also proposed Credit River’s neighborhood town hall meetings and have helped lead them, giving residents opportunities to ask questions and speak directly with City officials outside the formal Council meeting setting.
​
Bottom Line
The proposal to change workshop broadcasting was openly discussed and was not adopted. Credit River’s meetings, agendas, minutes, supporting documents, livestreams, and neighborhood meetings remain available to the public.
Transparency should be judged by the full record—and that record shows that I helped create and expand many of the public-access tools Credit River residents use today.
Other Claims
​
Respectful Leadership
Claims about someone’s personality or tone are subjective. I believe public officials should be judged by their conduct, their record, and whether they listen and work respectfully with residents, staff, and fellow Councilmembers—even when there is disagreement.
​
The Private Survey
The survey cited in the campaign letter was not commissioned or administered by the City. It was created by a privately organized group during discussion of a development concept in its area, and several questions were framed around opposition to development.
The responses were one form of public input, but a privately written survey does not replace the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, public hearings, professional studies, or consideration of the interests of the entire community.
​
Campaign Facebook Moderation
The comments referenced in the letter were removed from my privately operated campaign Facebook page—not from a City page or an official public-comment forum. Campaign pages are communication platforms maintained separately from the City’s official channels.
Residents remain free to criticize my decisions, contact City officials, speak at public meetings, and participate through the City’s official public-engagement channels.
​
Bottom Line
Healthy disagreement is part of local government. But disagreement with a decision, moderation of a campaign page, or reliance on a privately organized survey should not be presented as evidence that residents are being denied access to their government.
Why I Chose to Respond
​
Campaigns naturally involve differences of opinion. Residents should expect candidates to disagree about taxes, development, infrastructure, and the future of Credit River.
​
But disagreement should be based on complete and accurate information.
​
I chose to respond because several claims in the campaign letter omit important context, confuse proposals with final decisions, or present opinions as established facts. Left unanswered, those claims can undermine trust not only in me, but also in the City Council, City staff, and the public process itself.
​
My purpose is not to attack anyone who disagrees with me. It is to provide residents with the facts, explain the reasoning behind difficult decisions, and link directly to the public records used throughout this page so people can review the information for themselves.
​
I do not expect everyone to agree with every decision I have made. I do believe residents deserve an honest discussion grounded in facts.
​
Bottom Line
Truth matters because trust matters. Credit River is best served when residents have accurate information, differing viewpoints are treated respectfully, and decisions are made in the long-term interest of the entire community.