My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DV-25-00001 Suncadia Resort Master File
>
Meetings
>
2026
>
02. February
>
2026-02-17 2:00 PM - 2:00pm Public Hearing
>
DV-25-00001 Suncadia Resort Master File
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 12:34:38 PM
Creation date
2/12/2026 12:29:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
2/17/2026
Meeting title
2:00pm Public Hearing
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Item
Public Hearing continued from February 3, 2026, to consider a 15-year extension to the existing Development Agreement for Suncadia DV-25-00001. The record is open.
Order
1
Placement
2:00pm Public Hearing
Row ID
141467
Type
Hold Public Hearing
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
From:Alex Bogaard <br />To:Jamey Ayling <br />Subject:Suncadia Development Agreement Extension <br />Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 8:30:07 AM <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 />Kittitas Community Development Services <br />Attention: Jamey Ayling <br />411 N Ruby St, Suite 2 <br />Ellensburg, WA 98926 <br />Re: Suncadia Development Agreement Extension <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. I support responsible and <br />well-planned development. However, I believe it is premature to extend the agreement when it <br />appears the developer has not demonstrated full compliance with its existing obligations. <br />The Development Agreement includes numerous commitments related to infrastructure <br />delivery, public amenities, environmental mitigation, and cost allocation. These commitments <br />were intended to protect residents, the public, and the County. To date, it is not clear that all <br />such obligations have been fully satisfied or independently verified. <br />Approving an extension without a documented compliance determination risks transferring <br />unresolved obligations to homeowners, future purchasers, or the County itself. It also weakens <br />the enforceability of development agreements generally by signaling that compliance is <br />optional. <br />Before any extension is considered, I respectfully request that the County require a <br />comprehensive written compliance review of the existing Development Agreement. That <br />review should document compliance status in detail and identify any outstanding obligations <br />that must be cured. <br />If the County elects to proceed with an extension process, it should be expressly conditioned <br />on independent verification of compliance, with no waiver of prior noncompliance and with <br />clear enforcement mechanisms for remaining obligations. This approach supports <br />transparency, accountability, and public trust. <br />Wendi Bogaard
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.