Bill Hoster

Yes.

No.

I am not opposed to the idea of expanding from 3 to 5 commissioners. There are arguments that a larger commission can provide broader representation, distribute workload more effectively, and bring more diverse perspectives to the table. The voting is another issue, too. That said, there are also potential downsides, such as increased costs, the possibility of slower decision-making, and the risk of added bureaucracy. I think it's important to fully understand both the benefits and the trade-offs before making a change of this magnitude. My approach would be to carefully identify how this has worked in other counties of similar size in Utah, gather input from our residents, and clearly present the pros and cons. Ultimately, I believe a decision like this should be made with strong public involvement, and the voters themselves.

I am in favor of the northern corridor. Safety and congestion issues are at hand. I'm not certain the location currently identified is the best, though.

I strongly believe in transparency. These are taxpayer funds, and the public should have clear visibility into how every dollar is spent. I support more proactive disclosure; making budgets, detailed expenditures, general ledger breakdowns, and any transfers between accounts easily accessible without requiring a formal request. This information can be easily available on the county's website. Expenditures, bids, quotes, and other financial transactions should all be easily available online. I also believe we can improve communication by creating additional opportunities for public dialogue. I would support adding a monthly regular meeting specifically for open discussions, without a formal agenda, where all commissioners are present and residents can ask questions and engage directly — broadcasted for online Q&A participation, too. This would allow for more meaningful two-way communication while still respecting the structure required in formal meetings under Robert's Rules and public meeting laws. Finally, transparency builds trust. I think we should always be looking for ways to strengthen that trust with the public.

One area where I feel I did well was with funding for fire and EMS in the Hurricane Valley Fire District. When I came in, there was a proposal on the table that would have resulted in about a 92% property tax increase. I didn't feel that was right for our residents, so I pushed to find another way. I personally worked on this for about three years, working closely with our legislators to get a better solution in place. In the end, we were able to shift more of that burden to visitors instead of local property owners, which reduced taxes while still maintaining and even improving services. As far as something I would improve on, being Mayor of a small town means you are working with very limited staff. We dealt a lot with complex issues like land use, EPA involvement, and coordination with the county, and I think I could have done a better job making sure the public had more visibility into those things as they were happening. Going forward, I would focus more on getting information out consistently so people feel informed.

Candidate response: n/a

I don't know why the parking garage is only open during office hours. That was a decision made by the current administration. That said, I think it's a fair question and one that deserves a clear answer.

Yes, I do believe that if this is a public parking structure paid for with taxpayer funds, it should be accessible to the public in a similar way as the other public parking structures nearby, assuming there aren't legitimate safety or legal constraints.

I don't know the specifics on the epoxy flooring or why that decision was made. That's something I would want to understand better before offering an opinion.

I don't know why the pickleball courts are not open to the public, and I agree that "liability" by itself is not a sufficient explanation if the facility was properly designed and approved. If elected, I would work with legal counsel and staff to identify what the actual barriers are and find a way to open that space up for public use.

I don't know the cost or the funding source for the courts. That information should be easy for the public to access, and I would support making those kinds of details more transparent.

I think the bigger issue here is perception and trust. When taxpayers see limited access to facilities they paid for, or amenities that appear underutilized, it raises valid concerns. I don't believe government should operate with an "ours, not yours" mindset. These are public assets. Like Frederic Bastiat said, the proper role of government is to use the law to protect life, liberty, and property. When tax dollars go beyond that and are used in ways that don't clearly serve the public, it's legal plunder.

At the same time, I want to be careful not to assume misuse without fully understanding the decisions that were made. My approach would be to get the full picture, ensure transparency around costs and use, and where something isn't serving the public well, make changes. I don't support any unnecessary or luxury spending of taxpayer dollars, and I believe we have a responsibility to always be good stewards of those funds.

I would not support a blanket 3 or 5 year moratorium on building permits tied to the county's water. I understand the concern. Water is a serious concern and we need to be responsible stewards. But a full stop on building can create serious unintended consequences, including impacts on property rights, the local economy, and housing availability. Instead, I would focus on making sure growth is aligned with our actual water capacity. That means better planning, honest accounting of our water resources, and requiring that new development brings "wet" water (versus paper water), when applying for will-serve letters to build. If there are specific areas where water is truly constrained, then targeted restrictions may make sense. We need smart growth, not no growth.

While conservation at the homeowners' level matters, it shouldn't be the only place we're looking to conserve. We lose roughly 17-21% of our water through system leakage. That's millions of gallons a day. We can address that with very affordable technology and remedy. Large commercial users should absolutely be part of the conversation. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect similar conservation efforts across all users. I'm not sure if those rebates aren't funded at the direction of the state, but it should be clearly communicated. If we're asking water users of the desert to conserve, it needs to be across the board, and it needs to make a real difference.

A lot of seniors are on fixed incomes, and rising property taxes are a serious burden. I would be cautious about a full exemption tied to the local school fund. If we remove money going to our schools, the burden just shifts to other taxpayers, so I'd want a full analysis of the anticipated outcomes. A tiered approach is more reasonable, but I would want it tied to actual need, not just age. We should be helping seniors who truly need it, not creating a broad exemption regardless of income. I'm open to solutions, but it has to be done responsibly and with full understanding of the impacts.

Affordable Housing: We need to look at the full equation. Affordability isn't just about home prices, it's also about income. In Washington County, that gap is real. The best long-term solution is a stronger local economy. More competition, fewer barriers, and allowing the free market to function will raise wages and create opportunity. Government should be focused on getting out of the way and enabling that growth, not overregulating it.

TRT Funds: We need more local control. Right now, a percentage of TRT funds is mandated to go toward marketing. I think that should be revisited at the legislative level. Our advisory boards should have the flexibility to decide year to year where those funds are most needed. Tourism drives our economy, but the infrastructure that supports it also needs to be funded.

Traffic: This is only going to get worse if we don't stay ahead of it. Route 9, Bluff, the Boulevard, these are already strained during peak hours. That impacts safety, quality of life, and the visitor experience. We need to continue pushing for state and federal support for major infrastructure projects while planning smarter at the local level.

Public Safety: Public safety is more than just law enforcement. It's fire, EMS, and the entire criminal justice system. ISO ratings directly impact homeowners through insurance costs. EMS response times are critical. And the justice system includes prosecutors, clerks, detention, and mental health resources. If any part of that system falls behind, it affects the whole community. This has to remain a top priority.

Additional: Water is going to continue to be one of the biggest issues we face. We need to be serious about conservation, infrastructure, and long-term planning. That includes reducing system losses, being fair about where conservation efforts are applied, and making sure we are planning for growth responsibly. Most of these issues come back to responsible growth, good planning, and making sure we are using taxpayer dollars wisely.