Laserfiche WebLink
07i20ii990 10:33 FROM ~T 7p R 08 <br />Vbering, ~1~urth & Assoc¢s .. <br /> <br />Civil. <br />Land <br />1015 Elkton Drive • Colorado Spdogs, Colorado 80907 • Phone (719) 581200 • Fax (719) 581.6266 Ext. 3 <br />MEMO: HR-B Culvert <br />July 18, 199D <br />Protect No. 89002.001 <br />T0: Castle Concrete Co. <br />Attn: Gordon Morgan <br />FROM: Roland Dberin~ )/J~V <br />Obering, tinirth 6i Assoctttites' (OWA) 16~ llCTeceIpt cfZhe tatest inimmation <br />on the HR-8 Culvert issue including a. letter from the lender's attorney <br />(Tammy Akers} to Scott Briggs transmitting their consultant's review of our <br />HR-B Flttal Design Analysis and the MLRD "seven options". We have the <br />following comments: <br />- 1. The Kiowa letter recommends "Option s" which, when you review all <br />of the history of this item, !sn't really an option, but actually <br />represents the MLRD Board's directive with the exception of upsizing <br />the culvert to accommodate the 100 year storm. <br />2. The Kiowa letter further .recommends (Item AF6 under Conclusions) <br />that "Cedar Heights install a culvert at location "A" under Cedar <br />Heights Drive" which repeats almost verbatim what OWw-said in our <br />`^ Final Design analysis (Page 2 of Overview) "9s inch CSP culvert with <br />headwall entrance condition be installed at Doth HR-s umier the <br />access road and Proposed Culvert A at Cedar Heights Drive". <br />3. The Board directive gave Castle the flexibility to come tip with <br />options that were mutually agreeable with Castle and Cedar Ftelghts. <br />Those options have been presented, reviewed, and apparently found to <br />be "unacceptable" by Cedar Heights lenders based 1>'n the <br />recommendations in the Kiows letter. <br />4. The transmittal letter from Akers to Briggs "recommends adoj>tlon of <br />Option s" which really Isn't an option but rather the Board directive. <br />The letter further states in part "Cedar Heights Lenders are a~~suming <br />no responsibility for construction of the additional culvert". .The <br />Akers letter goes on to indicate a consensus of the Lenders and <br />Homeowners is being pursued but we ^cannot commit to anything at <br />this time". <br />aher reviewing all of this, it is my opinion that both parties have spent <br />countless hours of time and lots of dollars and we are exactly where me were <br />when we received the Board directive -put in the 3B" pipe and Cedar Heights <br />t .. <br />