Nampa Chamber 2026 Candidate Questionnaires

Emily Fisher

I'm running because I love this state and we're at a critical turning point. My family has lived in Southern Idaho for over 100 years, and things are changing faster than ever. In my lifetime I've watched farmland disappear, housing become unaffordable, and public land become less and less available. The catalyzing moment came this past January. I was looking at Idaho's projected water shortage, could hear the construction of a massive development across from our house, and when I pulled up the news, it was about our legislators debating issues the average Idahoan doesn't care about. It was no longer possible for me to sit aside and hope things turned out, or assume that someone else would “handle” the future of our state. I decided to run. Because Idaho deserves leaders who understand what's at stake, who are willing to put priorities first, and who show up with common sense and integrity. That is who I have always worked to be as a leader, and who I intend to be for Idaho.

I'm a Kuna resident and have lived in District 23 since 2015, but I've been connected to this area most of my life. I grew up on the outskirts of Boise and spent years working, hunting and fishing in this region. Growing up, some of my family and best friends lived in Nampa. Over the years I have vended the Nampa Farmers Market, worked with local businesses, and competed with my horses all over Nampa. This community isn't just where I live or campaign— it's where I'm from.

I’m sure each resident would answer this a little bit differently, but in general the three biggest issues I hear are: growth, housing affordability, and water. I have specific goals to address these issues. Development - I believe new growth MUST be grounded in resource reality, and should pay for itself. I will support legislation that includes accurate developer fees, is conscious of water needs and availability and that helps farmers continue to farm, if they choose to do so. Development is a necessary part of a healthy society, and my role as legislator will be to encourage that development in ways that serve and better our communities, without infringing on the rights or opportunities of existing residents. Water - is another massive issue that impacts all of us, and determines whether we can continue to live and work in this valley. Our water rights and availability are currently being threatened. I intend to actively fight for fully funding the Idaho Water Resource Board (the body that monitors and manages the state’s water). I will also adamantly oppose the sale of water rights to coastal investment firms. Housing affordability is a key priority and one that is very close to my heart. Having the option to buy a house can change someone’s life forever. It creates a sense of home, stability, and financial security that leads to stronger families, rooted communities, and peace of mind. I believe that increased housing affordability will take a multi-step approach that addresses supply, demand, and accessibility. I support: - Prioritizing Idahoans ability to receive fair home loans, and possibly to transfer their current rates towards “upgrade” loans that free up lower-cost starter homes - Streamlining the permitting and regulatory process for builders, and incentivizing the construction of entry-level homes (currently our biggest market gap) - Encouraging the use of our “accessory dwelling units” right. This is the existing right for landowners to build a secondary dwelling on their property - Aligning Idaho with the bipartisan federal move to restrict large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, and establishing first-look policies that give Idaho owner-occupants priority access before investors can purchase available homes. - Restoring local governments’ full ability to fund the infrastructure, services, and schools that new development requires, including revisiting HB 389. Of course, all new residential development must be tied to verified water availability first and foremost. Idaho families deserve a housing market that works for them, and their future.

My understanding of this community comes from being part of it. I grew up in the Treasure Valley, and have spent most of my life alongside the people, businesses, and landscapes that define it. Throughout this campaign, I'll be deepening that understanding through door-to-door conversations, community events, and working with organizations like the Farm Bureau Federation and Nampa Chamber. I want to hear directly from the people of Nampa; what they value most and what changes they would like to see. Additionally, since day 1 of my campaign I have made my personal phone number available. I encourage people to contact me and tell me what they want to see in their community, or in me as their representative. Nampa's residents and businesses can reach me at: 208-398-4415 It is only though open and honest communication that we can create fully representative governance.

I believe that local officials have a better pulse on the communities they serve, and should be a primary partner in understanding the needs and concerns of constituents. State legislators need to listen to local officials, and factor their perspective in to the broader conversations and decisions that will impact Idahoans. As far as what issues they should collaborate on vs. remaining separate - I feel that the smallest governing body capable of managing an issue should be empowered to do so. That doesn't meant that state legislators shouldn't be in communication and support of local government, it means that each group should focus on the priorities that they are uniquely qualified to oversee. As an example: water rights must be overseen at the state level since water impacts all of us and crosses many municipal boundaries. That is an inherently larger issue than any one locality could responsibly manage as a whole. On the other hand, issues like zoning, land use, road and traffic planning, business licensing, law enforcement priorities, etc. make more sense to be managed at the local level where those communities best know their own needs and pain points. My current relationship with local officials is that of a citizen who collaborates with local officials for community improvement, and public discourse. For example, I recently started a "Food Waste Reduction" initiative that is working with the City of Boise to create and implement a composting program for Boise restaurants. I have also engaged with local governance around water issues, public land management, even power grid and infrastructure discussions that included the Kuna city counsel and private corporations.

My overall philosophy of governance is: the smallest body of government capable of addressing the need should do so. Where decisions are genuinely local, I support local authority. Where state consistency protects citizens or creates necessary uniformity, then state-level governance is appropriate. Issues that genuinely require state-level oversight are those that cross municipal boundaries or require statewide consistency: water rights administration, professional licensing, food safety standards, environmental protections, and constitutional rights. Issues that should remain primarily local include zoning and land use decisions, local road priorities, park and recreation programming, and community-specific growth management decisions. Local officials are closest to these problems and most accountable to the people affected by them. When the state preempts local authority on these issues — removing tools without providing alternatives — it undermines both local accountability and effective governance. HB 389 is a clear example of that dynamic.

HB 389 was designed to protect existing homeowners from property tax increases driven by rapid growth. That concern is valid. The implementation, however, has created real consequences for communities like Nampa and it must be changed. By capping revenue from new construction, HB 389 prevented communities from making growth pay for itself — the most fundamental principle of fiscally responsible development. The result is infrastructure deficits, understaffed services, and existing taxpayers absorbing costs created by new development. In 2021 Nampa's Finance Director estimated that HB 389 will reduce revenues from new construction by $1 million. I would support revising HB 389 to restore communities' ability to capture sufficient revenue from new development — while maintaining protections for existing homeowners. But fixing HB 389 alone isn't enough — because growth paying for growth requires more than one tool. Impact fees are an important mechanism and Nampa has been proactive in updating them. However, Idaho law currently limits impact fees to capital improvements — they can fund the fire station but not the firefighters. Ongoing operating costs created by growth still fall on existing taxpayers without adding meaningful benefit for them. I would support three specific changes: revising HB 389 to restore adequate revenue capture from new construction; expanding Idaho's impact fee framework to allow mitigation fees for operating costs; and addressing the school construction gap, where Idaho remains one of the few states that doesn't allow impact fees to fund new school facilities. Growth can bring new opportunities for our community, but it must pay for itself. That is a principle I will carry into the Legislature.

Idaho's budget deficit is the result of two compounding factors: 1. Idaho's budget was based off of revenue projections that significantly exceeded the Governor's recommendations (which led to over-spending). 2. Over the past few years, the legislature has enacted substantial tax reductions that reduced the state's revenue base by billions of dollars. When spending increases and income decreases, a deficit is the predictable result. The Idaho Constitution requires a balanced budget and I fully support that requirement. Specifically, I would support three things: first, adopting a more conservative and transparent revenue forecasting process that stays closer to the Governor's data-based projections; second, reviewing tax reductions and credits that carry high costs relative to their demonstrated public benefit, and third, deploying Idaho's $1 billion reserve fund for urgent temporary shortfalls — while recognizing that reserves cannot paper over a structural imbalances that requires a structural solution. Overall, we need to adjust our priorities and govern with the fiscal discipline Idahoans want and deserve.

Civil discourse is foundational to effective governance. When citizens can't communicate with their government, trust breaks down. Leaders must listen — not just to those who agree with them, but especially to those who don't. I have spent years promoting respectful dialogue, and have no intention of stopping. I have shared my personal phone number since day one of this campaign and welcome direct conversations. I am aldo committed to hosting regular community forums where all perspectives and questions are welcome. This is genuinely one of my strengths. As a business coach I have built my reputation on listening for underlying concerns, finding common ground, and separating the problem from the person in order to effectively move forward. A specific example: during my work with the Idaho Wildlife Federation I regularly participated in legislative sessions and stakeholder meetings on public lands access and sportsmen's rights. Those conversations involved ranchers, conservationists, hunters, federal agency officials, and legislators with deeply conflicting interests and priorities. I didn't always agree with everyone in the room — but I respected their stake in the outcome and worked to find solutions that acknowledged their concerns. That is the approach I bring to every difficult conversation, and the standard I will hold myself to as a legislator.

Workforce readiness starts with high quality education — and I believe that Career and Technical Education programs are among the highest-return investments we can make for Idaho students. I support robust funding for CTE programs that align with the needs of Idaho employers — manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, construction, and technology. These programs give students practical skills, reduce barriers to good-paying careers, and directly address the workforce gaps our communities are experiencing. On public education funding more broadly: Idaho's current budget situation has created real pressure on school funding. I will oppose cuts to core education funding and advocate for funding structures that are stable, equitable, and not overly dependent on local levies that disadvantage lower-income communities. The goal is a system where every Idaho student has the opportunity for a productive future — whether they're headed to college, a trade, or directly into the workforce.

The Nampa Chamber can help me by being a direct line of communication between Nampa's business community and the Legislature — communicating the real-world impact of state policy on operations, employees, and community. I want a working relationship with local leadership. When something isn't working for Nampa businesses, I want to hear it directly and early enough to do something about it. During the campaign, I would welcome the Chamber's help reaching residents, hosting public forums, and engaging people in the political process. After the election, I would welcome the Chamber as a standing partner in my quarterly town halls — bringing your networks into a broader community conversation. Most importantly: hold me accountable. It is my intent to deliver real results on the issues that matter to this community. If I am failing to do so, I want to know about it.

Agree