3003 W CASINO RD 1990 BASE FILE 2018-01-01 MF Import

VII. 1�IITIGATION OF OTIiER EMPLOYMENT DRIVEN IMYAC'�'S In addition to the on-site impacts discussed earlier in the Document, the EIS anatyzed a number of offsite or so calle� "employment driven" impacts. The proposal will add new people to a region which is already experiencing rapid growth. 7'he EIS concludes that as many as 54.000 new worken and their families will come co the Impact Area as a result of direct Bceing employment and secondary employment. These families wili live in the area, buy or rent housing, shop, consume praducts and services, and pay taxes. These activides will both require services from the public sector -- local and stau govemmenu, and contribute to the ta�c bau of the state and the local govemments in which they reside. In reality, we can only estimate what these numbers will be and where thesc new rcsidents will live. While we may prodict with some certainry what Bceing employment needs may be to build a new airplane, we cannot be certain as to where the new in-migrating population will live. It is hcrc that recognition of concerns and the impiications for aniculating rcasonable mitigation measures is most chalienging and difficult. Iiere, impacts aze identified and quantified by malong assumptions concerning the relevance of historicat data, predicud behavioral patterns, and the presumed actions of the public secWr regarding budget priorities and policies. These are hardly matters of precise science and unfailing farmulas. SEPA requires that mitigation be based on adopted policies, and that the decision maker "...shall wnsider whether local, state or fe�eral r�{uiremmts and enforcement would midgau..." an impact, (WAC 197.11.660 (e)). For one jurisdiction to impose midgating measures on another regarding matters whe�e the second jurisdiction has no specific SEPA policies, is an inappropriate exe�ciu of substanave authority, and an intrusion into the ezercise of police powers of another jurisdiction. One must presume [hat the silence of the SEPA policies, or the absence of specific policies on a given matter, is a deliberatc decision by the jurisdiction. SEPA was never intended to span such a chasm or place one jurisdiction in a superior posidon to another. The EIS presents an approach to funding of public services which relies on a tax revenue/expenditure comparison. This decision document empioys that altemaave foc mitigation of public service impacts. Implicit in this decision is the opportunity for local and state governments to maloe further decisions as ro budget priorities, policie.s, and expendituns of revenues. The mitigation decision respects the difficulty inherent in finding equiry in the state and local govemrnent tax swcture to fund services. The decision relies heavily on local govemments woridng with the statc to balance impacts and tax revenues. The goal then is to seek equity for all partics, the local governmenu, the state and the applicant. If this can be done, it will truly balance the impacts and the revenues with the responsibilides of the applicant and the govemmental endties. 43