Marian Meadows - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C!l ,Vi r-LlK SliKlN 6. DAVt:i rli!)l{\i1t ra irt\ Your client's argument in your May 24th letter seeks to improperly compartmentalize the provision of emergency medical services, apart from lhe emergency response services, in an effort to resist and reject the District's legitimate concems related to the Project's impacts and new demands on the District's existing capital facility and the cause of new capital requirements. That argument reveals a complete lack of understanding and awareness of the tasks required of the Fire District and the reality of the delivery of emergency response services as the District responds to medicalemergencies with its engine, which must be properly equipped to serve and respond to developments within the Project, and particular structures above 24' in height and other structures. Second, ERLC's proposed specific parcel as a land gift is not viabte for a number of reasons. Most significantly, it is not accessible during the winter months, nor is it accessible via a County road, and the parcel is not in a strategic location to provide service to residents and businesses within the District. The District would have to incur significant additional capital costs, uniquely and specifically related to this site, to put the oflered property to use, thereby defeating the purpose of mitigation. Certainly, the District would be willing to take a one-time, lump sum payment of tho appraised value of the proposed land gift, but it appears your client has no intent to otfer this donation. ln the District's view, your client's continued rehashing the history of lhis Project review pre- 2018 does not change the County Board of Commissioner's condition in the Approval requiring mitigation, nor help the parties move closer to an agreement. As a small rural volunteer fire district wilh limited resources and minimal experience in addressing development proposals such as the Project, the District only has so much capacity to respond to ERLC's demands. That said, the Dislrict has intentionally and constructively sought to engage in negotiations over the past 5 plus months to address appropriate mitigation for the Project and the District is willing to continue ihose negotiations if its good faith is reciprocated. To that end, the District would agree to a mitigation fee payment schedule as follows: . Eight Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00) per residentialunil (The definition of a unit is a single-family residential structure, garage or shop with living quarters or home, a duplex is 2 units, and a triplex is 3 unils).. Fifty Cents ($0.50) per square foot of commercial and industrial occupied space (The definition of an occupied space would include RV storage units, recreational, campground or park buildings, and other struclures inclusive of storage spaces).. A one-time payment of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) dedicated to the retrofit of existing apparatus with a ladder package prior to the occupancy of any structure above 24'. The above offer is a significant movement on the part of the District in an effort to reach an agreement with ERLC. Again, the District is willing to be flexible with the timing of the payment on the mitigation fees requested above, provided the fees are paid no later lhan the time of building permit issuance. When new significant development occurs, such as the Project, the District will seek to require appropriate proportional mitigation in order to prevent significant impacts lo public safety. The County Board of Commissioners recognized this reality in 2018, when it imposed the condition in the Approval requiring the developer to work with the District to mitigate the impacts of the Project. Page2