Laserfiche WebLink
From:Rex Bloesser <br />To:Jamey Ayling <br />Cc:Rex Bloesser; Jack Bliss (stobliss@comcast.net); bdheintz77@gmail.com; beck_douglas@hotmail.com <br />Subject:Public Comments on proposed Suncadia DA extension <br />Date:Sunday, January 25, 2026 9:28:32 AM <br />Attachments:image001.png <br />Importance:High <br />CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Kittitas County network. Do not click <br />links, open attachments, fulfill requests, or follow guidance unless you recognize the sender <br />and have verified the content is safe. <br /> <br />Jamey Ayling <br />Kittitas Community Development Services <br />411 N Ruby St, Suite 2 <br />Ellensburg, WA 98926 <br /> <br />Mr. Ayling <br />I am a Suncadia homeowner writing in response to the County’s request for public comment <br />on the proposed extension of the Suncadia Development Agreement. <br />I support responsible and well-planned development. However, I believe it is premature to <br />extend the agreement when the developer has not demonstrated full compliance with its <br />existing, binding obligations. The Development Agreement contains numerous commitments <br />related to infrastructure delivery, public amenities, environmental mitigation, and cost <br />allocation. These provisions were intended to protect residents, the public, and the County. To <br />date, it is unclear whether all such obligations have been fully satisfied or independently <br />verified. <br />Examples include: <br />1. The basic supervision of builder contractors is not enforcing covered loads, parking, <br />noise, and speed limits for developer contractors. <br />2. The developer has been shown to participate in a scheme that charges existing <br />homeowners for pure development costs through an inclusive billing arrangement with <br />the Suncadia water company. <br />3. The developer continues to control the HOA board and is charging the homeowners’ <br />HOA for builder trash removal and other builder costs. <br />4. The developer owes the HOA $2.8 million, plus interest, related to a prior overcharge. <br />The developer continues to ignore this obligation, and it now appears litigation will be <br />required. <br />5. Ignoring the National Forest Fire Safety guidelines for trimming and setbacks <br />6. Many more …. <br />Granting additional time without first resolving outstanding compliance issues creates long-