Laserfiche WebLink
the District, the county and ERLC *'ere so.far apart that no consensus was reached, Itwas ultimately agreed that the best qpproach *Jt" p.r".raio**a the DevelopmentAgrcement with an onnortunitl ror atipartie, to proiio. aoru*rnorion to rhe Bocc.The lawsuit was dismiised eariy i" nrJr*U"r 201g. <br />unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that ERLC and the District are any closer tomeeting minds now rhan when the t"*.uit u"g*. rrr" ni;;;;;, Jury 22,2019 commentsto community Development services *protests" the $500 mitigation fee in theApplication' Lrut the District does noro#er ano{rer mitigario;iet alone legal rationale oranalysis in support' The District does noi.xptain *hy tft;4;cularions,,differ so muchfrom the enroilmenrprojections ofop;i Th; Dishi; ao., nol"*prainwhy thisdeveloper should pay for ttre pis*ici's Joice r" not r."[n,itigutioo from priordevelopmenrs. The ?i*^rri" ano nnt ""jain why, wjth a .r#; enroflmenr of l 12 and aprojected addition of 53 student. f.o* iA".iun Vraao*iifr", dnfC should pay the costof constructing a new elementary r"t oot *lr"n trr*ir"*.rri?Jiity is fit for zz1students.Finally, the District oloyidgs. no support for its clairn that the imposition of a $j00mitigation fee witholt ry Dllri;i;iiput wourd somet ow viorut" trr* ordinance and thesettlement Agreement. The listric;;ffiiy again object, *i-i""t providing anysubstantive input There is simpry no <br />"-uiar.rr" to support any concem that MarianMeadows wourd compromise tnr biruirt;s ab'iry to provide <br />-zu <br />it, students. To thecontrary' ERLC's offer of mitigation is entirely r"rr"i"ii", .*ristent with mitigation;fif lJrrrrnffiTliffl,;:*."ntr"n*raistrictr",..ria.ntiuroru*ropml't-ano-.. <br />Lindsay Ozbolt <br />October 30, 201 9 <br />Page 6 <br />Duana T. Kolou5kovd <br />Direct Tet: (425) 467_9966 <br />Em a i I : ko leus ktVsilj nnl qVCg n <br />53 l-00) Response to Dislrict Conntent l0_l 5_l9.docx <br />.|out*S.MON n O ni M1aS lrr,iAG,I'KOLOUSKOVA. PLLC