Martha Halenwick and Nora Caldridge agree that Cressvale County needs clearer public measures and more deliberate infrastructure decisions. They disagree about the county’s role, the services that should receive recurring money, and which tradeoffs are acceptable.
Housing
Halenwick proposes a matched public-private housing partnership capped at $2.4 million in county money over three fiscal years. County support would depend on outside matching funds and public affordability terms, with an emphasis on workforce housing, compact homes near services, and rehabilitation.
Caldridge proposes faster decisions on complete permits, a fee audit, modest-home options, and employer-developer partnerships. She emphasizes clearer rules and lower process costs rather than a direct county capital partnership.
Growth and land use
Halenwick emphasizes early consultation and infrastructure commitments before major projects move forward. Caldridge emphasizes published capacity data, predictable zoning, stable rural rules, and documented responsibility for road, drainage, and emergency-response effects on projects of 50 or more homes.
Both describe infrastructure-before-growth standards. Halenwick’s approach begins with coordination; Caldridge’s begins with capacity data and rule clarity.
Taxes and the budget
Halenwick proposes targeted relief rather than an aggregate levy reduction. She would also allow up to $1.6 million in one-time reserve money for documented capital work while preserving an $8 million reserve floor.
Caldridge proposes a $2 million aggregate annual property-tax levy-and-revenue reduction at full implementation. She identifies $1 million from the county-health cut, $600,000 in assessment-growth headroom, and $400,000 in recurring performance and contract-review savings.
The $2 million target is aggregate, not an identical reduction for every property. The $400,000 savings amount is a forecast that would have to be produced through recurring changes.
Public safety and county health
The current sheriff operating baseline is $18.4 million. Current locally controlled county health services total $12.6 million annually. The sheriff has separately requested a $1.8 million annual expansion.
Halenwick rejects the expansion and would reduce the sheriff baseline by another $1.8 million, producing a $16.6 million sheriff budget. She would move that amount to county health, producing a $14.4 million health budget. She accepts fewer deputy shifts, less overtime flexibility, slower lower-priority response, less proactive patrol, and slower vehicle replacement. Her health additions fund clinic staffing, mobile behavioral-health and outreach, and homelessness and housing-rehabilitation coordination.
Caldridge would reduce county health by $2.8 million, producing a $9.8 million health budget. She would use $1.8 million to fund the sheriff request, producing a $20.2 million sheriff budget, and use $1 million for her tax target. She accepts a satellite-clinic closure, reduced hours at two remaining sites, ended county-funded mobile outreach, reduced housing coordination, longer waits, and greater reliance on external providers.
Halenwick forecasts that earlier health access can prevent crises; Caldridge forecasts that greater sheriff capacity will improve response and that a transition plan can keep health-access effects manageable. Those are attributed and disputed forecasts, not established outcomes.
Infrastructure coordination
Halenwick proposes a five-year public capital schedule, fix-it-first maintenance, municipal coordination, and plain-language project dashboards. Caldridge proposes a road-condition scorecard within 120 days, a maintenance schedule, competitive contracting, and defined municipal cost responsibility.
Neither claims a single action will erase the documented $11.8 million backlog. Their difference is primarily in sequencing and management: coordinated multi-year planning versus an operational baseline, contracting, and assigned responsibility.