Frequently Asked Questions
What will you bring to the City Council?
I will bring a thoughtful, collaborative, and data-informed approach to City Council. My background in science, education, and small business has taught me to evaluate complex issues, ask important questions, communicate clearly, and make evidence-based decisions. My community involvement has also taught me the value of listening, cooperation, transparency, and responsible stewardship. I will work respectfully with residents, City staff, fellow Council members, businesses, and community partners to find common ground and develop practical solutions.
What are your priorities for Richland?
I believe Richland’s continued growth must be managed thoughtfully and responsibly. My priorities include ensuring that housing, infrastructure, and public facilities keep pace with growth; supporting economic stability, workforce development, and educational opportunities; maintaining strong public safety; and protecting our parks, trails, riverfront, and natural resources. Above all, I want to help ensure that Richland remains a great place to live, work, raise a family, and build a future. I believe our best future is one we build together—with integrity, accountability, fiscal responsibility, and respect for our community.
Would you revisit a data center moratorium?
Yes, I would be willing to revisit the issue, but first we need to understand what a moratorium would accomplish and what information the city still needs.
Data centers can bring significant private investment, but they can also place substantial demands on electricity, water, land, and infrastructure. Before making long-term decisions, we should evaluate projected energy and water use (and effect on rates), infrastructure costs, permanent jobs and tax revenue, environmental impacts (noise and water temperature), and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and existing land-use plans.
We should also determine whether current zoning and development regulations adequately address these concerns or whether additional protections are needed.
I don’t believe a moratorium should simply delay difficult decisions. However, if the city lacks sufficient information to evaluate long-term impacts, a temporary pause could provide time to establish appropriate standards.
Richland should not approve development simply because an investment is large. We need to understand the full costs and benefits and ensure decisions serve both current residents and future generations.
Richland has accepted an annexation petition from DOE that would make its firefighters responsible for responding to emergencies at the Hanford 324 building. What questions do you want answered?
Before supporting an annexation that expands Richland’s emergency response responsibilities, I would want clear answers about the risks, costs, and obligations being transferred to the city.
Given the 324 Building’s history and the nature of the Hanford Site, I would want to know what emergencies and hazardous or radiological risks firefighters could face, what specialized training and equipment would be required, and whether Richland has the resources to respond safely without affecting service elsewhere in the community.
I would also ask who will pay for additional personnel, training, equipment, and response costs; what liability the city would assume; and what long-term financial protections DOE would provide. Finally, I would want to know how incident command would be coordinated among DOE, contractors, and Richland.
I support responsible collaboration with DOE, but public safety must first. I would want independent technical review, input from fire professionals, and a transparent agreement protecting firefighters and taxpayers.
My position is that public safety cannot be compromised by an agreement that transfers responsibility without fully addressing the associated risks and costs. Before moving forward, I would want independent technical review, input from our fire professionals, and a transparent agreement that protects both our firefighters and Richland taxpayers.
Where should Richland spend its first municipal dollar? Its last?
Richland’s first municipal dollar should go toward maintaining essential services and infrastructure residents depend on every day, including public safety, reliable water and sewer systems, roads, and infrastructure that supports responsible growth. We need to take care of what we have before committing significant resources to expansion.
I believe we must distinguish between investments necessary for public health and safety and those that are desirable but discretionary.
As for the last dollar, I would be cautious about spending it on projects intended to attract development without a clear demonstration of long-term public benefit. Incentives and expansion projects should be evaluated based on their actual costs, expected returns, and impacts on existing residents.
Every municipal dollar should be spent with transparency and accountability. Does it address a demonstrated community need? Is it financially sustainable? Are there competing priorities that deserve greater attention?
The goal goes beyond a balanced budget, but ensuring that public resources are being used responsibly and equitably.
Richland’s economic development strategy has yielded energy-intensive operations with few employees. Is this the right approach for the city?
Economic development should be evaluated by more than the capital investment a project brings to Richland. We must consider the number and quality of jobs created, long-term tax revenue, infrastructure needs, energy and water demands, and overall community benefit.
Richland has unique economic assets, including the Hanford mission, PNNL, research institutions, and regional education. We should leverage these strengths to build a diverse, stable and resilient economy that creates opportunities for residents.
Some industries require significant energy and infrastructure while employing relatively few people. That doesn't automatically make them inappropriate, but we must carefully evaluate whether the public benefits justify the costs.
Through my experience in government-sponsored research, education, and small business, I understand the competing priorities involved in economic development. I support a balanced approach that considers the full economic picture and attracts businesses offering meaningful opportunities and sustainable long-term benefits to our community.