Questions and Answers
This section will cover any questions asked by the general public. I will answer questions as they come in and post on the website and on social media channels.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. There is a lot I still need to learn. What I do know is that no single person can fix everything. We need stronger relationships between the county and our cities, and we need to work together to create greater efficiency through collaboration.
We’re all neighbors, and what one person does affects another. Division and blame are getting us nowhere. Canyon County needs leaders who are willing to let go of old grievances and focus on working toward common goals.
Q: Property taxes — should the county prioritize lowering them, maintaining them, or increasing them to fund services?
A: Generally speaking, I’m a fan of lowering taxes whenever it’s reasonable and responsible to do so. Compared to the national average, Canyon County’s taxes are low, but compared to other counties within Idaho, they are on the high side. Over the last several years we’ve experienced unprecedented growth, and rising home prices have dramatically increased the tax burden on many residents.
Q: Agricultural land — how should the county balance protecting farmland with housing and commercial development needs?
A: We need clearly defined planning and zoning policies—and we need to stick to them. Zoning by variance is not the way. Growth planning that focuses on city centers helps prevent projects that fracture farmland and open the floodgates to additional development that isn’t conducive to protecting our agricultural economy. Not all development in the county is bad, but the impact must be carefully considered before approving zone changes and variances. We need a unified vision for Canyon County, and we need to be okay with saying no to projects that don’t fit that vision.
Q: Infrastructure — how should the county fund roads and infrastructure as the population grows?
A: There’s no single easy solution. It will require improvements in many areas. Impact fees can help ensure longtime residents aren’t paying the full cost of new development. Developer agreements are useful, but we also need to ask why developers are sometimes allowed to build projects before the infrastructure needed to support that growth is completed.
State, regional, and federal grants can help as well, but counties sometimes miss opportunities because they haven’t planned far enough ahead. Planning, coordination, and collaboration are critical.
Look at the roundabout projects on Linden and Farmway. Both were extended mid-process by a year because someone—at the city, highway district, Army Corps of Engineers, or elsewhere—didn’t secure the necessary permits before irrigation season. That kind of inefficiency is exactly what we need to fix through better planning and coordination with cities throughout Canyon County.
Q: Does the county have a role in protecting social/cultural values of the community?
A: Yes, I do believe the county has a role, but it should be a supporting and safeguarding role, not an overreaching one. Canyon County’s identity is rooted in agriculture and industry. Despite the unprecedented growth, we are still a mostly rural county that has managed to retain our small-town feel. Protecting that doesn’t mean regulating culture. It means making thoughtful decisions about land use, growth, and a collaborative approach to government. For example, I would support:
Policies that preserve agricultural land and prevent unchecked sprawl. Better coordination with cities so development occurs where it is most beneficial to surrounding areas. Planning decisions that respect existing neighborhoods and rural character. Protecting our values comes from how we plan for the vision we share, not just how we regulate what people can or cannot do.
Q: Do you believe the level of regulation we place on property owners, property developers, are too much, too little, or just right?
A: Right now, I would describe growth in Canyon County as more “reactive” than “proactive.” This tells me the issue isn’t simply “too much” or “too little” regulation, it’s that we don’t have a shared vision and we lack collaboration and coordination across the county. I believe in a balanced approach:
Regulations should be clear, predictable, and fair so property owners and developers know what to expect. At the same time, they should encourage growth to happen in the places we want it, not just where there is the least resistance. The County should be a partner and convener, working with our cities rather than creating unnecessary barriers or competition over land. Good policy should protect what makes Canyon County special while still allowing for opportunities to improve the economy and quality of life for our citizens.
I believe in planning growth intentionally, preserving what matters, and making sure our approach is coordinated, practical, and rooted in the values of the people who live here.
Q: Growth and development — should the county primarily allow market-driven development, or use stronger planning and zoning to guide where growth happens?
A: I’m definitely on the side of using better planning to guide growth. To protect our rural and agricultural lands from sprawl, we need to guide the growth that is coming to where it makes the most sense and where it will create the most benefit. That means collaborating with city leaders across Canyon County, property owners, and developers so they understand where development makes sense—and where it doesn’t.
Q: County spending — are there areas of county government you believe should be reduced, expanded, or reformed?
A: Yes—to all three. Better collaboration with city leaders in the county can lead to greater efficiency and cost reductions. At the same time, we need to invest in projects that improve efficiency and create a better return on investment.
For example, I’ve toured our jail and it is in bad shape—not because it’s uncomfortable for inmates, but because of serious issues with security, overcrowding, and efficiency. We’re paying significant costs to house people elsewhere because there isn’t space here, and there have been increased escape attempts along with other costly problems that waste taxpayer dollars. It’s time for a better, more efficient facility.
As for reform—what is going on with the animal shelter? In the last year we’ve gone from celebrating a new roof, to allegations of funds being misused, to asking cities to increase contributions six-fold in a single year, to awarding the management contract to a new vendor who later backed out and then giving the contract back to the previous group. I don’t have all the answers yet, but there clearly needs to be a serious review of how we address animal control in Canyon County.
Q: Could you share your opinion on up-zoning, density, and infill development?
A: Growth is happening whether we plan for it or not, so the real question is how we manage it. I believe there is a place for higher-density development and infill, when it is done thoughtfully and in coordination with our cities. The county doesn’t control city government and cities don’t control county government. They certainly impact each other though.
One of my priorities is to help focus growth and development back into city centers rather than allowing sprawl development across agricultural land that is critical to our economy. That means working closely with city leaders to encourage development where infrastructure and services already exist and are much less costly to develop. I don’t believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. Density should match the character of the area and be part of a well-coordinated plan. When done right, infill reduces sprawl, preserves farmland, and encourages reinvestment into the most blighted areas of the community. I should also note that density doesn’t automatically mean low income. Yes, we need low-income housing options, but we also need the rest of the spectrum which includes market rate and higher end options. I’ve spoken with a number of people who would love to have a condo in downtown Caldwell or Nampa but there are no options that are up to the standards they are looking for.