Q&A: Bill Wallace | SummitDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Q&A: Bill Wallace

Why are you running for this office? I enjoy the diversity of the issues and being part of the solution to those issues. What would your first priority be if elected? To get a bio-fuels heating plant going for the county buildings at the County Commons. What are the three biggest issues facing your constituents and what do you see as solutions? Issues that surfaced over the past eight years have been the need for a hospital, limiting density increases, mining regulations, housing, transportation, recycling, child care, human services and open space. I see all but the hospital as needing to be continually addressed. Citizens continue to dub “growth” and “maintaining quality of life” very important. What do you propose that will address those concerns? To have policies that require any growth to pay its own way. The master plans do a good job of addressing peoples’ vision and concerns. By having the master plans dynamic, common sense documents, I think the concerns will be addressed. What, if anything, should county government do to help citizens attain affordable housing? County and town governments need to continue to work together to support the Housing Authority. There are programs in place that are working and need to be expanded so citizens who want to live in Summit County have the opportunity to do so. Should Summit County government move to help fund the Summit Housing Authority? If yes, what funding mechanism do you support? Yes. Summit County is part of the agreement with the towns and ski areas to fund the Housing Authority and, until a different funding mechanism is in place, we need to continue to be a part of that mechanism. A sales tax could be used for ongoing operations and the impact fee for projects. What is the solution to Interstate 70 congestion? We need leadership that can think beyond more paving. I served on the monorail project for five years in an attempt to have an alternative way to travel the I-70 corridor. I feel part of its demise was because it was not supported by the state leadership. List public benefits that would seem appropriate for a large development like a ski area. I would want to transfer density from places where the community would like to see it extinguished (mining claims and Lower Blue ranches come to mind). Ongoing cash contributions should go to the general fund based on the success of the operation. Money could be used for early child care, community care clinics, affordable housing and any other unforeseen community benefit. If elected, would you vigorously uphold the “no new density” concept? Why or why not? No. What if a developer comes up with an idea that provides attainment of a community vision such as extinguishing density in places where it’s not wanted? The BOCC needs to be able to work for the best solution and that solution might entail something not done in the past. Please note that my record supports my thoughts that density should not be given just because it’s asked for. The county’s budget is about $55 million annually. Is government spending its money wisely? Please explain. Yes. When we’ve needed to trim, we have. We haven’t re-established eliminated positions or cut/reduced programs just because we’re experiencing better times. Each position and program is evaluated as to its benefit to the community and the needs of the community.


Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.

 

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User