Summit County Board Of County Commissioners Dissolve Peak 7 Paving LID

Elisabeth Lawrence, Karn Stiegelmeier and Thomas Davidson – Summit BOCC

After an overwhelming victory at the polls where voters demanded that the Breckenridge Peak 7 Paving LID be thrown out, the Summit County, Colorado Board of Commissioners has officially dissolved the Peak 7 Paving LID.

Their questionable actions in forcing the measure onto the ballot have led many local Summit County Residence to form a grass-roots effort to replace the Summit County Board of County Commissioners in the next election in 2020.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peak 7 Property Owners Shoot Down 1C – Peak 7 Will Not Be Paved

Peak 7 Property Owners Shoot Down 1C – Peak 7 Neighborhood Will Not Be Paved

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


VOTE OUT ELISABETH LAWRENCE KARN STIEGLEMEIER AND THOMAS DAVIDSON IN 2020 – This Board Of County Commissioners Has Stopped Listening To The Citizens Of Summit County, Colorado And It’s Time They Were Voted Out Of Office.


Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t Pave Peak 7 – More Lies From The Peak 7 Pro-Paving Committee – This Time A Non-profit Is Being Inundated With Calls

More Misrepresentations (lies) from the “Yes To Paving” Peak 7 Neighborhood – Breckenridge, Colorado “committee” – Summit County, Colorado

The Summit County Supported Pro-paving committee has been falsely advising those property owners who will experience financial hardship as a result of the Peak 7 Paving LID that the non-profit FIRC Summit will assist them with financing.


” If any neighbor is truly in hardship, Colorado Peak and FIRC have solutions in place for you. Please reach out to them, and share this information with your neighbors. Additionally, we have been researching avenues of assistance for those who may be in hardship positions.” LID representative email sent on 10/12/2019 by”

From: Carla Decker <>Date: October 23, 2019 at 5:28 PMSubject: RE: 1C Ballot Measure

It has been brought to our attention that the Family & Intercultural Resource Center (FIRC) has been mentioned as a resource for aid, or relief to residents in the Peak 7 neighborhood that would be affected by the 1C Ballot Measure, should it pass. We would like to clarify that:

1) FIRC is a non-profit and takes no stance on the 1C ballot initiative. We do not want to be cited as a proponent of, or affiliated with the 1C Ballot Measure.

2) FIRC has very limited funds for people in extreme need of rental or mortgage relief, on a one time basis, for up to $1,000 maximum. This program is simply not applicable to homeowners/renters stressed by the 1C initiative given our limited budget and the purpose of our program.

3) FIRC does not have funding or relief services for the Peak 7 neighborhood, on an on-going basis or related to the 1C Ballot Measure.
If you have any further questions, please reach out to me directly.

Thank you, Carla”

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peak 7 homeowners file lawsuit against county commissioners over proposed paving project News | October 17, 2019

Peak 7 homeowners file lawsuit against county commissioners over proposed paving project

News | October 17, 2019

FRISCO — A group of Peak 7 neighborhood homeowners filed suit against the Summit Board of County Commissioners in Summit County District Court earlier this month. The plaintiffs are seeking to nullify the board’s decision to put a question on November’s election ballot that, if passed, would create a local improvement district to fund road paving in the neighborhood.

The complaint is in regard to ballot Measure 1C, a controversial paving project to be voted on by Peak 7 residents and homeowners next month.  The complaint alleges constitutional and due process violations and asks the court to remove the plaintiffs’ properties from the proposed local improvement district. The lawsuit was brought by homeowners Mark Pappas, Melissa and Eli Snell, and Sharon Henkels.

The county commissioners have until Oct. 24 to respond. Summit County attorney Jeffrey Huntley said that in cases like this, the county typically will either admit or deny the allegations. From there, Huntley said, the two parties will engage in pre-trial proceedings.

The complaint is largely focused around the estimated price for the paving, which will be incurred by the homeowners of the neighborhood. The complaint states that the cost estimate given to the neighborhood in the original petition to pave the roads was $5.6 million.

When divided among the 335 landowners, the cost per home would come to about $16,716. Later in the process, this estimate was increased to $6.66 million, which would cost homeowners about $19,866 each, plus interest if the homeowner could not pay the cost upfront.

The complaint argues that a revised petition should have been circulated for approval by the neighborhood since “significant material differences exist between the original petition and the final design and probable costs.”

In the complaint, the plaintiffs cite language in Colorado Revised Statute 30-20-603-2B, which reads:

“If the owners of property to be assessed for more than one-half of the entire costs estimated by the board to be assessed shall petition for any particular kind of improvement and for any particular materials to be used in the same, the improvement must be ordered in accordance with the petition, and the materials so designated shall be used, except as otherwise provided in this section.”

The argument is whether the cost difference between the original petition and the current estimated budget is within the legal confines of the above statute’s requirements.

Attorney Meredith A. Quinlivan, of West Huntley Gregory law firm, is representing the plaintiffs and alleges the process taken by the county commissioners in forming and moving forward with the local improvement district did not match statutory policies and procedures. 

“The position of the three plaintiffs is this: The process was invalid,” Quinlivan said. “We’re asking the court to find that the creation of the LID was invalid.”

Quinlivan also cited Colorado Revised Statute 30-20-601, which states the requirements for the creation of a local improvement district. The statute states that proposed improvements have to be authorized by an adopted resolution. State statute is fairly vague on what exactly it means to adopt the resolution. 

The county requires 60% of homeowners benefiting from the proposed improvement to begin the process of creating a local improvement district, a threshold that initially was met. However, when the estimated cost for paving was raised, some homeowners wished to rescind their signatures, which would have brought the signature count to below 60%.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking an injunction from the court to stop the ballot measure and/or start over with the creation of a local improvement district in the Peak 7 neighborhood.

“We want the county to admit that there may have been some items overlooked in the process of setting up the LID and dissolve this LID, and if the people that want to pave want to continue to try and pave, then they need to try again in a transparent way,” Pappas said.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Letter To The Editor – Don’t Pave Peak 7 By: Kathie Kralik

In An Excellent Letter To The Summit Daily News, Kathie Kralik Explains Why Paving Peak 7 Is A Bad Idea

Pine beetle is priority, not paved roads – Kathie Kralik

News | May 6, 2007

Six thousand dollars for a clean car? Come on Peak 7 homeowners, we can do better with our money to protect our neighborhood from wildfire dangers than paving our roads to minimize dust.

The petition to pave our Peak 7 roads at the expense of $6,000 minimal, per homeowner, is not a priority for our neighborhood. Let’s put our resources together to minimize wildfires by spraying and removing our beetle-infested lodgepole pine on Peak 7. Our risk for wildfires is more dangerous than dust on our cars or homes. To minimize dust on your car, try driving slower or better yet, ride your bike. Your $6,000 would provide more than 1,500 car washes, if vehicle cleanliness is such a concern.

To pave our roads on Peak 7, at this point, is like laying new carpet before all repairs and remodeling are finished in a home. Our ongoing main water line breakages will continue, as the old lines under our residential roads we’re never intended to handle the amount of development we’ve experienced in our area. Thus, requiring our roads to be dug up to make ongoing repairs. Utilities need to be buried, and a drainage system installed, among other upgrades before paving the roads make any sense.

Yes, vehicle speed will increase. Don’t be fooled by the petitioners comparison to Silver Shekel saying it “may have reduced speeds” in their neighborhood. Just ask the residents along Barton Road and American Road the increased speed of most vehicles since being paved.

We already have problems with people-hauling a**** and hitting animals on our gravel roads on a daily basis. Let’s not encourage more lead foots by making the roads faster, smoother and slicker with pavement.

Yes, increased traffic will result from paving roads too. Paved roads in the Peak 7 residential area will encourage more skier traffic from the new base area developments on Peak 7 and Peak 8. Thus, skier traffic will learn quickly to beat the rush by getting to Highway 9 via Peak 7 residential area with paved roads.

As for increasing our property values with paved roads, I don’t enjoy paying higher property taxes on my home so others who “come and go” can make a killing when selling their homes. We’re already facing a 28 percent increase in property taxes this year alone.

I don’t care to add another $600 per year to my property taxes, for 10 years minimal, just for paving. Paving increases property taxes, increases speeders, increases traffic, and lessens safety in our neighborhood. Please put an “X” saying “No” to the petition to pave our roads on Peak 7 and mail in before May 11.

Then, let’s get together as a caring neighborhood to work on our pine beetle problem and wildfire danger. The Forest Service and fire departments are more willing to work with us through funding and support if we organize as a neighborhood to attack the pine beetle – versus homeowners doing it on their own. I’d rather have a dusty car and a better-managed wildfire mitigation program in our neighborhood.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Letter to the editor: I’m against Peak 7 paving and dividing our neighborhood

Don’t Pave Peak 7 – Vote No On Measure 1C –

Just because people live in Peak 7 doesn’t mean they can afford to pay for their neighbors’ whims. The cost of living is already enormous without slapping everybody with a $20,000 bill to mitigate petty car problems, allegedly caused by gravel roads.

If some of your Peak 7 neighbors have $20,000 to tuck into savings, they have higher priorities like student loans, a child’s college education, a new roof or a chance to retire. Why should they have to choose between these or paving? Many are already living at the top of their budget, some must live within a certain proximity to work, and some have lost their jobs recently. If this measure passes, there are people (your neighbors) who could lose their homes, and others that would be one unexpected expense from bankruptcy.

Those in favor have publicly remarked, “We’ve earned this.” Have you earned the right to displace local wildlife for months, while the pavers vibrate throughout the area, creating an extensive asphalt road system through what was once a woodland neighborhood? Have you earned the right to put liens on your neighbors’ homes against their will, and to push your neighbor to choose between day care or paving, between home improvement or paving? At what point does anyone become entitled to paving at a $20,000 expense unto their neighbor? 

There are untried solutions. We see multiple times daily heavy construction equipment, delivery trucks, even 18-wheelers shortcutting through our neighborhood to the resort properties. This is a county problem and a resort development problem. Where are the partnerships?

It is not time for paving at all costs. I’m for finding solutions together that unite neighbors. I am against oppression and against dividing this neighborhood. I’m proudly voting no on Measure 1C. 

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t Pave Peak 7 – The Pro-paving Group Has Acted In An Absolutely OUTRAGEOUS Fashion.

The pro-paving group has acted in an absolutely OUTRAGEOUS fashion. Summit County, Colorado #XploreSummit


I can no longer stay out of the fray.

If anyone has access to more than this 75 person email thread, PLEASE FORWARD IT. Everyone need to hear this.

The anger exemplified in the response from Mr. Nelson is NOT the problem – it is a symptom. This is a very heated issue and for good reason. The pro-paving group has acted in an absolutely OUTRAGEOUS fashion. These actions include (but are not limited to): hidden communication lists, lack of transparency, misinformation, and gambling with an enormous sum of each individual homeowners personal finances. Frankly, the notion that I may have to spend an inordinate sum of money on fixing a problem (that I believe does not exist) based on a vote, makes me ill. Worse however is the fact that many people who cannot afford it, may be forced to do the same. This should make all of us FURIOUS. Whether you want to keep your car clean, or not, we should ALL be outraged by the CRUELTY we are inflicting on those of us who are less affluent.

Let me put a few thing into perspective:

1. The quantity of money is EXCESSIVE.

a. $20,000 PLUS 3,000/driveway (I have 2) = 26 grand.

b. My neighbor owns a home plus an additional property to be developed = 46 grand.

c. $46,000 is enough to fully replace an ENTIRE muddy Lexus.

2. Assurances of less expense from the pro-pavers are an absurd fantasy, and an enormously risky gamble.

a. Even if it ends up at 5 Million, that is far too much.

3. Paving will not increase the value of our homes. Any speculation to the contrary is just that, pure speculation.

a. Even if the property value does go up, so do our property taxes.

4. Paving will not slow traffic (do people really think it will?).

a. It will likely increase the number of cars and their speed.

b. Paving will absolutely NOT make the neighborhood more pedestrian friendly (see a. above)

c. Paving may have other unintended consequences. (See the brilliant analyses by world renowned architect, Mark Harris).

5. We have been assured that PAVING WILL NOT RESULT IN BUS SERVICE.

6. We could BUY A BUS and hire a driver all winter for 20 years and not come close to 6.6 million.

a. This would dramatically increase the value of our homes!

b. This is an excellent idea!

7. We could create a car cleaning fund to assist the muddy-car owners in keeping their chariots looking extra spiffy. If everyone tossed in 20 bucks, we would have $7,000… That equals about A THOUSAND CAR WASHES. (There is some real perspective).

8. THIS IS A TAX.If anyone has not figured this out: These are PUBLIC COUNTY ROADS. This is not a private development wanting to pave its own private roads. The roads do not belong to the owners in the neighborhood. You are simply GIVING this money to the County. Money that the County should be spending out of tax dollars ALREADY collected from you.

a. The fact that the County says that it does not have the money, does not change the fact that this is a tax.

9. Maybe some of us do not realize just how much money this is:

a. This is a $200+/month TAX.

b. This is a $2800+/year property TAX INCREASE over 10 years. That approximately doubles your property taxes. Doubles.

10. If you are a renter, and you think it would be groovy to have a paved road, and you think it will not cost you a penny… THINK AGAIN. The owner will pass the cost of the LID on to you.

a. You rent increase will be at least $200 per month. b. $200+ per month is quite a lot to pay for a road toll/tax.

I like the character of the dirt roads in the neighborhood. It gives the area a homey, rustic feel. I chose to buy a house 20+ years ago, in a slightly secluded, wooded neighborhood with dirt roads. That is what we all wanted, and what we all bought into. Therefore (and this will be hard to hear), If you don’t like living in a slightly secluded, wooded neighborhood with dirt roads, maybe instead of forcing your neighbors to PAY EXCESSIVELY for your automotive hygiene, consider moving to a neighborhood that already has more sterile, paved roads.

Mr. Nelson, you are absolutely justified in your response to Thom Beckett.
Mr. Beckett, consider the cruelty you are inflicting on someone who felt compelled to react in such a fashion. If this passes, you will have injured quite a large number of people.

This issue is ripping our community apart over a few of us wanting to spend a few less bucks at the car-wash.

Peak 7 Home Owner”

Bernhard Fritz-Krockow, brandon benson, breckenridge, Breckenridge Colorado, corrupt, corruption, Dan Gibbs, don’t pave paradise, dont pave peak 7, Elisabeth Lawrence, go breck, Karn Stiegelmeier, Mark Wimberly, Megan Greff, misrepresentation, peak 7, peak 7 breck, peak 7 breckenridge, peak 7 LID, peak 7 neighborhood, peak 7 paving, peak 7 petitions, peak seven paving, peak7breck, Shannon Bosgraaf, Steve Carr, summit combined housing, summit county, summit county affordable housing, summit county colorado, summit county commissioner, summit county government, summit daily, Thomas Davidson, town of breckenridge, vail resorts, visit colorado.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Peak 7 Paving – The True Goal Of The Summit County, Colorado​ Board of County Commissioners – To Provide A Connector For Commercial Uses Paid For By A Relative Few Local Property Owners


The True Goal Of The Summit County, Colorado​ Board of County Commissioners – To Provide A Connector For Commercial Uses Paid For By A Relative Few Local Property Owners

i was in attendance at yesterdays meeting and was most pleased to find the overall tenor to be civil, kind, and considerate – what a community should be.

to this end, i’d like to again offer my expertise in both public and private architecture and urban design to help provide some professional insight into the long and short-term impacts of the current proposal. my goal is to provide information, not persuasion.

my job is rarely to tell a client or user group what to do, but to inform them of the options available to a given problem and to help them understand both the long and short-term impacts of their decisions. my stance on the point of paving is somewhat irrelevant in this matter. however, for full disclosure, my wife and i, as property owners and part-time residents on Quartz Circle, are against the notion of paving, but primarily because of it’s currently proposed form.

the professional information i provide is based upon well-known and documented data that is now widely accepted and in practice. as a point of advisement, it is typically broken into two categories – what is ‘usually predictable’ and what is ‘highly-predictable’. to couch this properly, when speaking about what is ‘highly-predictable’ a professional often enters into the realm of being irresponsible if they do not inform their client that the likelihood is almost certain to happen unless unique and/or extreme conditions emerge to thwart it.

to this end, based upon 30-years of experience as an architect and urban planner in designing and advising on over 2.5 million SF of national and international resorts, a wide and diverse range of public municipalities, several of our larges and most prestigious private and public universities, and a wide range of large and small residential subdivisions:

  • a paved road in urban and residential areas, when compared to an un-paved road, increases both it’s traffic use and speed. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice.
  • non-residential levels of traffic and residential neighborhoods rarely support each other. this is especially true when the residential neighborhood is single-family (R-1 zoning). to wit, the presence of one is usually in direct conflict with the other (people and cars don’t mix well), and typically signals the beginning of a series for rapid transformations. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice.
  • unless carefully planned counter-measures are introduced, an increase in traffic typically includes an increase of traffic speed. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice.
  • as stated above, the equation can go either way whether residential use or increased traffic is encouraged or introduced, but if non-residential levels of traffic are introduced into residential areas, it overwhelmingly signals a degradation of residential use. this is because the second and third-level results of traffic (auditory and visual noise, congestion, increased safety risks, etc.) have negative impacts upon residential uses, thus reducing the desirability of the neighborhood on multiple levels. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice.
  • when non-residential traffic levels and speeds are present in residential neighborhoods, and without traffic and speed calming measures in place, safety issues for non-automotive uses (pedestrians, children, bicycles, et all) are increased. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice.
  • when non-residential traffic levels (and speeds) are present in residential neighborhoods, pedestrian and bicycle uses decline unless clear, protected, and designated bicycle and pedestrian paths are included, and unless the pedestrian and bicycle uses are seen as the priority over the automotive uses. this last part has recently proven critical worldwide, but the evidence of this is still a point of argument in practice here in the US ….. but, noted, only here in the US.
  • as a simplification herein, which is sometimes dangerous, the planning term ‘connector’ as a designation for a road simply means that the road ‘connects’ major urban nodes. in this case, Ski Hill Road and American Way are ‘connectors’ between the town/highway and the commercial ski resorts uses of Breckenridge Ski Area. this designation is key in determining it’s width, anticipated traffic counts, anticipated vehicular weight (translates to the specific asphalt design), and anticipated speed limits and traffic measures. if you will notice, inside most modern planned subdivisions, the ‘collector’ streets are specifically isolated from the core residential streets/uses, have wider streets, have buffer areas between the streets and homes, and are often required to be landscaped. as a side note, one might notice that the homes bordering the ‘collector’ streets often have lower real estate values, and that planning high-end, high-value homes next to a collector street is almost universally deemed unwise by the home building, development, and real estate communities.
  • when non-residential traffic and speeds are introduced into residential neighborhoods, the property values reduce. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice. as noted ………. when there is an increase in both traffic and speed in residential neighborhoods, the first industry to point this out to prospective buyers that these are ‘less desirable’ areas is ….. the real estate industry.
  • when non-residential traffic and speeds are introduced into residential neighborhoods, and property values reduce, the incidence of single-family properties converting to rental properties increases. this is not an absolute, but the evidence of this occurring is highly-predictable.
  • when the incidence of single-family properties converting to rental properties increases, it becomes less valuable for residential uses but more valuable for commercial uses. it should be noted that even though they are ‘residential’ uses in terms of ‘housing’, multi-family uses are actually commercial uses, whether a duplex, a 3-plex, a 4-plex, or condo, or apartments, these work under a different set of building and public safety codes than single-family residential uses. this becomes important when one begins to talk about zoning transformations over time (from single-family R-1 uses to R+/MF/commercial uses). this is not an absolute, but the evidence of this occurring is highly-predictable.
  • when the valuation is in favor of commercial development, the increase in rental tends to help validate a change in zoning from single-family residential to multi-family/commercial uses. this is not an absolute, but the evidence of this occurring is highly-predictable.
  • while all roads represent a tax liability for the public, paved roads require a much larger initial expenditure profile and an even larger long-term maintenance profile than non-paved roads. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice.
  • non-paved roads are less expensive to create and maintain than paved roads, and discourage both traffic and speed. the evidence of this is no longer a point of argument in either theory or practice.

[as a side note, it is noted that at current most ’traffic apps’ such as Google maps and others will note that unpaved roads are a less desirable pathway than paved roads. while this may change in the future, it is currently a condition of consideration. it is also noted that posted road speeds are included within the algorithms of these apps, with lower posted speeds being a detriment in preferentially suggested routes.]

  • paved roads that are not continually maintained are most often perceived by the public to be just as bad as dirt roads that are not continually maintained. the most significant difference is the cost profile and their ability to manage storm water. if storm water is managed in other ways, this reduces this aspect of the equation. this is not an absolute, but the evidence of this occurring is highly-predictable. (as verified by discussion yesterday)

IN SUMMARY – one can easily see how one feeds the other. this chain of events is not an absolute, but is a ‘highly predictable’ occurrence unless unique and rare circumstances are also present.


perhaps we are not seeing this for what it truly represents, and perhaps we are simplifying something that is in reality quite complex with far-reaching implications? Perhaps we agree on more than we disagree on, and perhaps the preservation of our neighborhoods is the ‘condition president’ that we should be considering?

for clear and present evidence, just look at Peak 8 and Peak 9 and remember that not too long ago these ’neighborhoods’ looked just like our Peak 7 neighborhood. add to this that the homeowners who sold to developers rarely, if ever, made the true-market profits that the developers made. their homes were first devalued.

THEREFORE …… IF YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE AND EXPEDITE THE HIGHLY PREDICABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU WILL DEGRADE THE PEAK 7 NEIGHBORHOOD AND ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL USES – it is advised that you should pave the road as currently proposed, which would not include any proven traffic or speed reduction methods. this would be your fastest, most expeditious way towards significantly changing the nature, character, and use of the Peak 7 neighborhood. again, your evidence is Peak 8 and Peak 9.

IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW GROWTH TO HAPPEN AROUND PEAK 7 BUT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADING THE PEAK 7 NEIGHBORHOOD AND VALUES (and perhaps increase it’s value if executed properly) – it is advised that you come up with a paving plan that includes proven traffic and speed reduction methods that specifically work in improving both the physical and cultural qualities of our neighborhood. this might go far in helping to distinguish the Peak 7 neighborhood from all other neighborhoods in the greater Breckenridge area, and to perhaps suggest that the key to success for the greater Breckenridge are is that of community and intelligent social collaboration towards a greater good.

an alternative is to isolate the paving to the ‘collector’ streets only – it is predictable that this would likely partially divide the neighborhood into two separate neighborhoods (the street being the division line), but it must be noted that this tends to only slow the process, not ameliorate it.

thank you in advance for your time and kind consideration. i would respectfully request that this information be disseminated to anyone else in the neighborhood who is not only this email distribution list, and i would encourage the entire neighborhood to create a neighborhood community email list that is not control by a third-party.

Best Wishes

Mark Harris, Architect


Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Summit County Engineer Confirms Peak 7 Paving Cost

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:02 PM <> wrote:

FYI – from county engineer who actually prepared the estimate, and repeating his statement made at the last county meeting – “to NOT count on cost being lower than the estimate when deciding on whether to vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ the funding for the proposed district.”  

therefore, from the mouth of the county engineer who prepared the bids and is aware of current costs, expecting a reduction in cost, especially a 35% reduction, in not advised in this particular case for this particular projects. 

the spreading of false hopes against this professional recommendation is both counterproductive and misleading and should stop.  to this end, it is now incumbent to disseminate this information as a corrected counter-measure.  please find ways to distribute to all on the Peak 7 paving platform and email groups.  

Best Wishes

Mark Harris, Architect 
markharris ARCHITECTS, PC
markharris BUILD, LLC

1329 North Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903

office:  719.290.0214

The only time the word ‘success’ comes before the word ‘work’ is in the Dictionary.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert Jacobs <>

Subject: RE: Peak 7 Paving LID question

Date: September 30, 2019 at 1:37:46 PM MDT

To:” <>, “Paul Geiger” <>, Daniel Gietzen <>

Good afternoon Mr. Harris;

Your recollection is correct; residents should NOT count on the cost being lower than the estimate when deciding whether to vote for or against the funding for the proposed district.

Robert L. Jacobs, PE, CFM

County Engineer/Road & Bridge Director

970.668.4212 (o)

970.471.3023 (m)


From: <
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 12:32 PM
To: Robert Jacobs <>; Paul Geiger <>; Daniel Gietzen <>
Subject: Peak 7 Paving LID question

dear county engineers,

i attended the recent presentation of the Peak 7 Neighborhood Paving LID to both citizens and county council, and need a clarification on the report by the county engineering department on anticipated costs.  

with regards to the current cost estimate of $6.66M for the LID, it is my recollection that the county engineer recommended that we NOT count on the cost being lower than the current estimate. it is my recollection that the county engineer turned and faced the audience and specifically stated this recommendation.

is this correct? 

thank you for your time and kind consideration.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment