Landmark Development, Inc. v. City of Roy

(dissenting) — The majority construes a statu*577tory mandate that costs be “equitably] share[d]”5 to mean municipalities are entitled to collect twice for the construction of the same water system: once from a federal grant, and once again from the property owners. Compounding its error the majority then ignores trial court factual findings that Roy arbitrarily discriminated against Landmark visá-vis a similarly situated developer, New Concept. Landmark is entitled to relief on both grounds and the trial court should be affirmed.

A. Equitable sharing of costs must account for federal grant

Cities…