Laserfiche WebLink
Taken together, these policies authorize growth across unincorporated Kittitas County <br /> without requiring that the infrastructure exist to support it. That is not just bad policy, it is a <br /> direct conflict with multiple RCW's (RCW 36.70A.020(12) and RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). <br /> What is missing from these proposed changes is financial analysis. Before the County <br /> expands where development can occur, the public deserves to know:What will it cost? <br /> Who pays?What is the impact on roads, water systems, fire districts, and schools?What <br /> happens when the infrastructure fails to keep up, as it already has and most certainly will in <br /> the future. <br /> These are not hypothetical questions.The County already faces a $91 million <br /> transportation gap. Fire districts are stretched thin. Insurance markets are tightening <br /> because the infrastructure to fight wildfire does not exist in many of the areas where these <br /> policies would encourage new development. <br /> We are not opposed to growth. We are opposed to growth without a plan to pay for it.We <br /> are opposed to handing future generations a landscape of private roads, underfunded fire <br /> districts, and development that was approved without the infrastructure to support it. <br /> We ask the Commission to require a fiscal impact analysis of these amendments before <br /> they are adopted. Requires concurrency, not as an afterthought, but as a precondition.And <br /> do not expand the LAMRID boundaries. Any other expansion should be tabled until the <br /> County can demonstrate it can serve what already exists. <br /> Thank you for all your dedication to this process. I request this comment be entered into <br /> the official record. <br /> P4-,k <br /> r <br /> I , <br /> tf <br /> 1 <br />