Washington County Commission - Seat B
The Washington County Commission is the county’s primary governing body, typically serving 4-year staggered terms. Commissioners set policy, adopt the county budget, and oversee major decisions related to land use, infrastructure, public services, and economic development. They coordinate with cities, state agencies, and special districts while balancing growth, environmental concerns, and taxpayer resources.
Click a candidate icon to find more information about the candidate. To compare two candidates, click the "compare" button. To start over, click a candidate icon.
-
Troy G. Belliston
(Rep)
-
Victor Iverson
(Rep)
How should the county balance rapid growth with preserving community character?
Should growth be limited based on water availability, and if so, in what manner?
What role should developers play in funding new water infrastructure?
How will you ensure long-term maintenance costs are considered before approving new infrastructure projects?
To what extent do you support the Northern Corridor project, and how would you ensure that any benefits outweigh potential environmental, financial, and community impacts?
Campaign Phone
435-632-6400
Grow in a way that future residents can enjoy Washington County without current residents feeling they've lost the Washington County they love.
1-Plan Infrastructure before Growth
2-Preserve Distinct Community Identities
3-Protect Open Space & Scenic Resources
4-Expand Housing Choices
5-Strengthen Economic Diversity
6-Maintain Local Decision-Making
7-Focus on Quality over Quantity
Growth should follow water, not hope. I would work to stick within the following tenants of planning.
1-Requiring proof of long-term water availability before major projects are approved.
2-Encouraging water-efficient landscaping and development standards.
3-Investing in conservation, reuse, and infrastructure improvements.
4-Directing growth toward areas where water can be delivered most efficiently.
5-Ensuring new development pays its fair share of water infrastructure costs.
Growth Pays for Growth is a principle that we've been using here for a long time and I fully support this approach.
1-Existing residents pay for maintaining and replacing infrastructure that serves them.
2-Developers and impact fee's pay for infrastructure required by new growth.
3-Large regional projects are funded proportionally based on who benefits and who creates the additional demand.
A common challenge in public infrastructure planning is that the upfront construction cost receives the most attention, while the long-term operating, maintenance, and replacement costs receive less scrutiny. I would:
1-Require a Lifecycle Cost Analysis
2-Calculate the Long-Term Funding Gap
3-Use a "No Unfunded Maintenance" Standard
4-Create Replacement Reserves
The northern corridor really is long overdue. It's been part of Washington City’s master plan since the early 1990’s and was originally due to be built at least prior to 2015. Had it been, I don’t believe that it would be as big of an issue for people, but what’s happened is that as the homes and developments have been built up to the proposed right of way you now have a lot of homeowners understandably concerned. Moving forward, if the roadway is ultimately approved, I think that it’s important that we recognize that the residents along the Northern Corridor are going to be negatively impacted and we need to implement traffic calming measures into the design and construction.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
To make a selection for a candidate you must first find your races. Would you like to find your races now?
You have already selected the maximum number of candidates for this race.
You must uncheck an existing selection before making another selection.