Douglas County residents work hard for their money. They deserve a county government that treats every tax dollar with the same care, discipline, and accountability families and businesses bring to their own budgets.

Fiscal stewardship is not simply about spending less. It is about setting clear priorities, planning for the future, evaluating results, being transparent about funds, and making sure public resources deliver real value.

It is also a matter of ethics.

A balanced budget can still reflect poor choices. An expenditure can be technically permitted and still represent questionable judgment or a conflict of interest. County leaders must ask not only whether the numbers add up, but whether spending decisions are necessary, transparent, properly documented and worthy of the public’s trust.

My standard is straightforward:

Spend responsibly. Plan honestly. Borrow cautiously. Make every expenditure easy to find, understand, and defend.

Build the budget around community priorities

A county budget is more than a financial document. It is a statement of values.

The choices commissioners make determine whether the county maintains roads, supports public safety, prepares for emergencies, protects open space, strengthens mental-health services, and plans responsibly for growth. Those priorities should be clear before the budget is drafted—not added after the largest decisions have already been made.

I support a budget process that:

• Begins with clearly defined community priorities

• Connects spending decisions to measurable goals

• Identifies the long-term cost of new programs and projects

• Distinguishes essential services from discretionary spending

• Makes tradeoffs clear to residents

• Provides meaningful opportunities for public input

• Explains how the final budget reflects community feedback

Residents should not have to go on a wild goose chase or be accountants to understand where their money is going. Budget materials should be easy to find, presented in plain language, with clear summaries of major increases, reductions, new obligations, and changes in service.

Make public spending easy to see and understand

Transparency should not begin with a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request.

Residents should not have to submit a formal records request, pay retrieval fees, or search through multiple systems simply to understand how commissioners are spending public money.

Douglas County currently publishes budgets, approved vouchers, contract logs, debt information, and other financial reports. It also operates an online financial portal that allows users to explore expenditures, budgets, and fund balances. Those tools provide a foundation, but genuine transparency requires information that ordinary residents can find, navigate, and understand without prior knowledge of how county accounting works.

I support a clear, searchable, and understandable public spending ledger that allows residents to see:

• Who received county money

• What was the expenditure for the purchase

• Which department or elected office authorized it

• The public purpose it served

• Whether it was included in an approved budget or contract

• Supporting invoices, receipts, and reimbursement records

• Related contract amendments and change orders

• Travel expenses by elected officials and senior staff

• Purchasing-card charges and other discretionary expenditures

The information should be updated regularly and searchable by vendor, department, official, and expense type. Financial records should use clear descriptions rather than vague accounting labels wherever possible. A total listed under a vendor name is not meaningful transparency when residents cannot determine what was purchased or why.

Supporting documentation should be published with significant or discretionary expenses. Residents should not have to conduct their own investigation simply to find a receipt or understand the public purpose of an expenditure.

Public dollars belong to the public. The records explaining how those dollars were used should be readily available to them.

Apply ethical standards to every spending decision

Fiscal responsibility is not only about whether an expenditure is legal or whether money was available in the budget.

It is also about judgment.

Public officials should ask whether an expense is necessary, reasonable, properly documented, and clearly connected to a public benefit. They should apply particular care to travel, hospitality, consulting, and other discretionary expenses that could create the appearance of personal or political benefit.

Recent questions involving Commissioner George Teal’s $17,000 taxpayer-funded travel to the Dubai Airshow illustrate why these standards matter. Such allegations and questions raised by reporting demonstrate how quickly public trust erodes when documentation is incomplete or difficult to obtain. The concern is broader than a single trip or a single commissioner.

Residents should not have to file a CORA request to determine why an elected official traveled, what taxpayers paid or what measurable benefit Douglas County received. “Trust us” is not documentation. Therefore, I support:

• Complete and timely disclosure of official travel expenses

• Publication of receipts, itineraries and stated business purposes

• Clear limits on airfare, lodging, upgrades and discretionary charges

• Written justification for any exception to travel policy

• Advance approval for significant international travel

• Public reporting on meetings, outcomes and benefits resulting from taxpayer-funded trips

• Repayment of expenses that violate county policy

• Independent review when compliance is disputed

• Consistent standards for elected officials and employees

Public office is not a blank check. Every expenditure should be necessary, documented and defensible to the people who paid for it.

Protect essential services before funding political priorities

County government has core responsibilities.

Public safety, roads, emergency preparedness, human services, elections, public health, land-use planning, and other essential functions must be adequately staffed and maintained.

Commissioners should not reduce services residents rely on while directing substantial resources toward high-profile projects that have not been shown to meet an urgent public need.

Every major spending proposal should be evaluated against basic questions:

• Is this a core county responsibility?

• What demonstrated community need does it address?

• What essential work could go unfunded as a result?

• What will it cost to operate and maintain over time?

• Is another government, nonprofit or private organization better positioned to provide it?

• Does the proposal reflect residents’ stated priorities?

• How will the county measure success?

Fiscal discipline requires the willingness to say no—even when a proposal is politically attractive.

Plan for the full cost, not just the groundbreaking

Large projects are often presented through their initial construction cost.

But taxpayers remain responsible for staffing, maintenance, utilities, repairs, insurance, security and eventual replacement long after the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

Before approving a major capital project, the county should disclose:

• The complete estimated construction cost

• Financing and interest expenses

• Annual operating and staffing costs

• Maintenance and repair projections

• Expected revenue and the assumptions behind it

• Risks if revenues do not meet projections

• The useful life of the facility or asset

• Future replacement or renovation needs

• The effect on funding for other county priorities

A project is not affordable simply because the county can find a way to finance its construction.

The real question is whether taxpayers can responsibly support it throughout its entire life.

Borrow cautiously and transparently

Debt can be an appropriate tool for long-lived infrastructure that serves residents across generations; however, borrowing should never be used to avoid difficult public conversations or move major obligations outside the normal budget process.

When county leaders consider debt, residents deserve to know:

• Why borrowing is necessary

• What alternatives were considered

• The total principal and interest cost

• How repayment will affect future budgets

• What revenue source will secure the debt

• What risks would taxpayers bear

• Whether the public will have a vote

• What services or investments may be constrained in future years

Financing structures may be legally available without being fiscally wise or publicly accountable.

For large discretionary projects that create substantial long-term obligations, county leaders should seek meaningful public consent rather than relying on technical workarounds that avoid a vote.

Legal authority should never replace public accountability.

Realistic assumptions

Budgets and financial projections are only as reliable as the assumptions behind them.

Revenue forecasts, construction estimates, attendance projections, operating costs, and economic-impact claims should be conservative, transparent, and independently reviewed when the financial exposure is significant.

I support:

• Realistic revenue and growth forecasts

• Clear disclosure of assumptions and uncertainties

• Independent financial analysis for major projects

• Sensitivity testing for lower revenues or higher costs

• Contingency planning for economic downturns

• Regular comparison of projections with actual results

• Prompt public reporting when costs or timelines change

County leaders should not select the most optimistic scenario simply because it makes a preferred project appear affordable or more palatable to the public.

Maintain responsible reserves

Strong reserves help the county respond to wildfire, severe weather, economic downturns, infrastructure failures and other unexpected events without immediately cutting essential services or raising taxes. Reserve policies should also be transparent.

Residents should understand:

• How much the county holds in reserve

• What portion is legally restricted

• What portion is available for emergencies

• What conditions justify using reserves

• How depleted reserves would be replenished

• Whether excess funds could address deferred maintenance or other documented needs

Reserves should protect financial stability, but not become a way to accumulate money without a clear purpose or avoid transparent discussions about community priorities.

Invest before problems become more expensive

The cheapest budget is not always the most responsible one.

Delaying road maintenance, leaving important positions vacant, underfunding prevention or ignoring aging infrastructure may reduce spending in the current year while creating larger costs later.

Strategic early investment can:

• Extend the life of roads and public facilities

• Reduce emergency repairs

• Prevent behavioral-health crises

• Improve employee retention

• Lower long-term operating costs

• Protect residents from avoidable risks

• Reduce pressure on law enforcement, emergency rooms, and detention facilities

Fiscal stewardship means understanding both the cost of acting and the cost of waiting.

A decision that saves money today but creates a larger obligation tomorrow is not truly conservative.

County employees are a worthy investment

County services depend on qualified employees.

Chronic vacancies, outsourcing, high turnover, and inadequate training can reduce service quality, increase overtime, and force the county to spend more on recruitment, contractors, or temporary solutions.

Responsible workforce planning should include:

• Competitive compensation based on reliable market data

• Strong recruitment and retention strategies

• Training and professional development

• Reasonable workloads

• Employee wellness and mental health support

• Succession planning for critical positions

• Transparent evaluation of when contractors are more or less cost-effective than employees

Public employees should be held to high standards, and county leaders should give them the resources needed to meet those standards. Cutting positions without considering the effect on services, workload and long-term costs may produce savings on paper while creating real problems for residents.

Competitive, transparent contracting

Douglas County spends public money through contracts for construction, technology, consulting, and other services. Those decisions should be fair, competitive, and free from political favoritism.

I support:

• Open and competitive procurement possible

• Clear evaluation criteria

• Disclosure of significant campaign or political relationships

• Public access to contracts and amendments

• Strong conflict-of-interest and recusal standards

• Careful oversight of change orders and cost increases

• Performance requirements and enforcement mechanisms

• Review of whether contractors provide fair wages, safe workplaces, and properly trained workers

The lowest initial bid does not always produce the best value. County leaders should consider quality, safety, performance, long-term costs and the contractor’s ability to deliver, not simply the number printed on the first page.

Require proof that spending is working

Programs should not continue indefinitely without evidence that they are effectively serving residents. That does not mean every public benefit can be reduced to a single number. It does mean county leaders should establish clear goals, collect useful information, and make adjustments when results fall short.

For major programs and investments, the county should report:

• What need the program addresses

• Who is being served

• What outcomes are expected

• What the county is spending

• Whether performance goals are being met

• What has changed based on the results

• Whether the program should continue, improve, expand, or end

Transparency should include both success and failure. Residents deserve to know when a program works and when it doesn’t.

Protect taxpayers as Douglas County grows

Growth can increase county revenue, but it also creates new costs.

More residents and development can require additional roads, deputies, emergency services, facilities, technology, and staff. County leaders should evaluate the net fiscal effect rather than assuming all growth automatically strengthens county finances.

Major development decisions should include analysis of:

• New tax and fee revenue

• Required infrastructure investments

• Ongoing service and staffing costs

• Maintenance obligations

• Emergency-response needs

• Financial risks and contingencies

• Whether developer contributions cover a fair share of impacts

Growth that creates more public expenses than revenue can leave existing residents subsidizing private development.

Responsible planning connects land-use decisions to long-term financial consequences.

My commitments

As Douglas County Commissioner, I will work to:

• Build budgets around clear community priorities

• Protect essential services before funding discretionary projects

• Present budget information in plain, accessible language

• Create a clear, searchable, and understandable public spending ledger

• Publish supporting documentation without requiring residents to file CORA requests

• Require complete disclosure and justification of taxpayer-funded travel

• Strengthen travel, reimbursement, and purchasing-card safeguards

• Apply ethical as well as legal standards to public spending

• Require repayment and independent review when expenditures violate county policy

• Disclose the full lifetime cost of major capital projects

• Use debt cautiously and transparently

• Seek meaningful public consent for major long-term obligations

• Require realistic assumptions and independent analysis

• Maintain responsible and clearly defined reserves

• Invest early when prevention and maintenance reduce future costs

• Support responsible staffing and workforce planning

• Strengthen competitive procurement and conflict-of-interest protections

• Require measurable outcomes for major programs

• Connect growth decisions to their full fiscal impact

• Explain difficult tradeoffs honestly

Fiscal responsibility is about choices—and trust

Douglas County has significant resources, but no government has unlimited money.

Responsible leadership requires more than celebrating a balanced budget or pointing to a strong credit rating. It requires choosing the right priorities, understanding long-term consequences and being honest about what taxpayers are being asked to support.

It also requires ethical judgment.

We can maintain strong reserves while investing in essential needs.

We can build infrastructure without hiding its full cost.

We can support effective programs while improving or ending those that do not work.

We can publish spending records before residents are forced to request them.

And we can make major financial decisions in public rather than treating legal compliance as a substitute for transparency, ethics, or community consent.

My goal is a county government that earns taxpayers’ trust by using their money carefully, openly and for the benefit of the whole community.