DV-19-00001 Marian Meadows Development Agreement

Home Browse Search

Lindsay Ozbolt October 30, 2019 Page 4 2008 — Quaking Aspen Development, 8 lots 2008 — Cabin Mtn Tracts, 15 lots 2008 — Monahan Mtn Tree Farm and Forest Tracts, 16 lots 2011 — Big Creek Development, 58 lots 2011 — Easton Ranchettes, 54 lots These 151 lots (excluding Snocadia) were not required to pay their fair share of impacts to the Easton School District, or any other. The result of this is, as the District puts it, an inability to pay for additional capital facilities, busing, and/or land for development. The appropriate way to make up for this shortfall, since mitigation payments were not required when the developments were created, is through school levies and property taxes. A prime example is the annual levy of $340,000 approved for submittal to voters by the School Board's Directors this year. Appropriate Mitigation in Jurisdictions That Plan for Growth A similarly sized development in the Cle Elum School District, Cle Elum Pines, added 153 equivalent residential units (ERUs) to that district. The Cle Elum School District agreed to $500 per ERU, for a total of $76,500. This is a significant sum for such a development, in addition to the police, fire, traffic, and other mitigation. Had Easton School District asked for $500 per ERU for the last fifteen years, there would be $75,500 in the bank for new capital facilities. This is precisely why a single project should not be held hostage for mitigation that is based on preexisting conditions. Requiring Marian Meadows to Pay for Easton School District's Loss of Small District Status Would Be Unlawful A funding need, however sympathetic in nature, cannot be assigned or passed down to a single developer or development project, but must be paid for by sharing the costs fairly across the jurisdiction. Easton School District has historically made the decision not to ask for mitigation for any proposal. The District claims "the Developer's proposed mitigation would compromise the District's ability to educate the students of Easton." This claim is dispelled above. Regardless, if the District continues to advance the theory that Marian Meadows will overpopulate their facilities, then the District cannot remedy the unavoidable consequences of its inaction over the past decades by requiring one developer to cover those lost mitigation opportunities. The District's argument is akin to the way cities establish a project's transportation impacts and impose fees to alleviate the project's impacts on the roadway system. The development might be required pay its fair share of the improvements to an intersection or roadway segment to bring it up to standards, or build those improvements as part of the project. However, the development cannot be required to build a new intersection because that is a `good idea' for anticipated future needs or to get the intersection up to a current standard. JOH S-MONROI -MITSL TAGA-KoLOUSKOVA - PLLC