Loading...
ST9304-CS 860114T E R R A January 14, 1986 Mayor & City Council City of Coppell 616 S. Coppell Road Coppell, Texas 75019 Re: Proposed relocation of Belt Line Road Dear Mayor & Council Members: Enclosed please find a copy of the letter of this date from Nathan D. Maier to J.W. Bryan, Director of Public Works for Dallas County. The letter is intended as a report reviewing the recent study of the Belt Line alignment done by Albert Halff & Associates. There is no good reason for moving Belt Line Road other than to increase the value of property owned along the~proposed reloca- tion site. The new Albert Halff study does not change that. It does not stand up to careful scrutiny. In our opinion, it plays games with the numbers and grossly inflates the unit cost esti- mates for constructing Belt Line in its present location and grossly deflates unit cost estimates for the proposed southern route. For example, Nathan Maier surveyed several major Dallas contractors concerning the estimated costs used in the Halff report. Not only do they not follow cost standards currently being used by Dallas County itself, they also inflate unit cost numbers for building Belt line in its present location by as much as 100%. Using the proposed design presented by Albert Halff & Associates (which design has been seriously questioned) but using unit cost estimates accepted in the industry, the proposed southern location for the road is about $500,000.00 more expen- sive than building the road in its present location. Whether safety, hydraulics, traffic, costs or time requirements are considered, the northern route is the superior route. TERRA COMPANIES TWO HNCOLN CENTRE SUITE 1370 5420 LBJ FRFEWAV DALLAS, TEXA~ 75240 214 ?34 9444 Mayor & City Council January 14, 1986 Page Two We hope Mr. Bryan will be seriously considering the critical remarks from Mr. Maier contained in the enclosed letter. If those remarks are not taken seriously and Belt Line Road is built in the proposed southern location, we are afraid the proponents will be embarrassed publicly when environmental, hydraulics, fill and design problems are confronted and when, in fact, the costs of building on the southern location prove to be much higher than construction on the present location as promised to the voters of Dallas County. Thank you. Sincerely, RIVERCHASE JOINT VENTURE By Terra Land Development Co., Venture Manager ~afer'son, President cc: Mr. Frank Proctor NATHAN D. MAIER CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. January 14, 1986 Mr. J.W. Bryan Director of Public Works for Dallas County 161 Ccmm~_rce St. '- Dallas, TX 75207 Dear J.W.: . I appreciate the opportunity last Friday of meeting with your staff, the Albert Halff people, and Don Blackwood, to preview the Halff alignment study .... for Belt Line Road." From my review of the document, it-was apparently · - intended to.be weighed instead of read, as it was riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions.- I therefore offer the following comments with regard to ...... the content of the Albert Halff Consulting Engineers (AHCE) report. -?-~_x}/~-i'-'.i~ "L It-would' appear-~tha~"h6~ °ne'from AHCE has driven-on ~eit Line Road, or he J~-'-:3~?would- have.-been immediatelYTiaWare _of_ the .two' railroad crossings withLn the Cit~ of' Coppell. iLASince-these crossings are going over the railroad, and the -scc/'railroad is ~approXimately eight feet above the 100-year flood;- one would draw ' -. '-'- ~--~'_~/~_?..the-conclusion_.that~ the~Falff., statement of all four-access points being subject to flooding Would be inaccurate. ~ _ Page 5, E__. Rive~ and Channel Crossings: ~" · __...-.' ~.~ LThe authorlefers to the 55,800 cubic, feet per- second as having beene/ determined-by the U.Sl- Army- Corps of Engineers. In reality,~ A~CE came up with .~-f. '~aR~is table stat~s .that- the St.-Louis and.Southwestern*Railroad has 1,680 ........ feet. in-bridge- length' for the Elm Fork and overflows. - In-- reality, 'there are -:-2,680 feet of-bridge opening along the railroad, although Halff designed ara '- ~upervised.the placement of fill south of Belt I.~ne_ Road/which has COmpletely~? obstructed over_ 1,000 feet of this opening ...... ~._...' ......... ~-.Three NorthP&rk/8800 N.-Central Expwy./Suite 300/Dallas. Te~.. 75231/(214) 739-4741 Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 2 Page .8, H: Environmental Considerations and Role of Regulatory Agencies: This states that the City of Dallas will have to approve the proposed improvements, even though these improvements clearly violate the City of Dallas' floodplain 'alteration criteria by channelizing the Elm Fork main stem .and' destroying the natural environment, both along the Elm Fork and the overflow swales. Page 10, Design Criteria: .... This section includes a discussion of design criteria to be used in the Halff evaluation. In examining the maps provided by Halff, one is immediately aware of the apparent omission of the eastern end of their project. The reason for the omission could be that a cursory review of those maps would show that the Halff design violates standard practice, particularly in the area of the Hutton Drive intersection with Belt Line, providing a conglomeration of minimal roadway design criteria, particularly with respect to radius, proximity of intersection to the Hutton Branch bridge, and safe angle of intersection for Hutton Drive to Belt Line Road. Any minimum site distance criteria is _completely violated. ....._ Page 13, Alternate Ali~R~nen~:~. ........ The author fails to acknowledge that the four lanes of pavement can be constructed within~the existing 100-foot right-of,way_~in Carrollton and. 120- foot right-of-way throughout the City of Coppell. - Page 15: This refers' to NDMA plans for MacArthur. As referenced., however,_ Figure 4 is'AHCE Plans and not NDM/L The constraints' which were placed o~ the design causing it to be inadequate were placed by AHCE themselves in limiting the elevation-of'Belt 'T.4ne Road at the MacArthur intersection~ despite suggestio~ from the Nathan Maier Consulting Engineers ~IDMC~ staff that the intersecti°n ........... ~'--" The-reporffE'~oes on-to clearly contradict'itself by stating~ that._ "signalization of the Belt Line - MacArthur intersection only provides for3 Control of traffic movements and will not make the intersection safer wi.t2~ regard to the stopping site distance." Referring back to page 29, howewer, Halff's report also states that "at the MacArthur - Belt Line Road intersection, the bridge railings of MacArthur bridge over Grapevine Creek would:cause'a-site obstruction only if a.vehicle attempts to cross-Mac~ with a red light".- a clear contradiction. ....L~-:~: .-.-:- .......................... - Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 3 Page 15 goes on to say that, from a safety standpoint, this is a very undesirable condition because vehicles will be stopped on the railroad crossing-for ~xtended periods of time during normal traffic moveme~nts. The author fails to mention, however,' that only two trains a day are on this 'sectiOn of track, -and that the signalization of the intersection has already been designed to eliminate the condition described by the author. This signaliza%ion, it should be mentioned, will be funded by Riverchase Joint "'. .-_~.-_- Venture if Belt' Line .is not relocated~._ . . ....... --~._-.--~ .......... . ....... ~..: _. ~______ .. .............. ~- ~3'~'. -?' 3.- ........... '- Page 16, Item 4, Bridge and Drainage Structures: . It states herein that the existing bridges must be removed and replaced to provide adequate freeboard. This is, in fact, the case for both ...... conditions. But with- the roadway left in' its present alignment, the existing Belt Line bridges can act as working surfaces from which the P~w bridges can be constructed. ..... _-.- ............. . Page 17 ......................................... '- ~fer~s" ~e made. h~e to r~~le ass~p~ wi~ r~ ~ ~ ---- - ......... :" size of bridges- r~~_-do~s~m. -: _~e au~or's f~m ~,-~ f~,--~'~ ........ ~e comple~ o~c~on 1,000 f~t of bridge o~ ~~~ly w~t of ~ . ~._ :. _ _'_ - -referenced' bridge; If, therefore, one were to discover ~at ~e re~n~g _ '~.~/- ~obstructed brildg~'~was_no%_fully utilized~ one would_.assu_me__~ati.~, t~, .... '- . ~uld ~' r~uc~ ~ si~. A~rd~-~' ~ hy~aulic ~m~ti~s ~ ~1 ~- -'~' -' - -' :/~- provided to ~e-Co~ty by ~is firm, this bridge can, in fact, ~ r~c~ ..... si~ic~tly,':3'~e re~ ~nt~ues to r~ch e~o~ ~1~' ~'-on his mis~te~re~tio~ of ~e flow da~. . _'. ._ Page 20: .......... - ::r-- .... ~e--au~or--s~tes-~t Hut~n ~ch will r~e a-br~ ~~~ly ~]7 ~_~?h~260 feet lOng.- one wOUld have to question why someone would, build a b~d~e ---~ '. ~.u-wider- ~an- ~e ~isting' 'chapel flow~g-~der- ~at bridge.'-. So, ~d~ -~.~-:t~:-'j-~- . .-'-' -- ~g~ w~ld.:desi~ ~ bridge ~ Hut~n Br~ to ~ tSO. f~t ~t~-.~-[~-.-::-..~.:_~ .... .. -~_..- .......;:. _ _ _- . . ..... .__.~ ...: ..... . .: ....__ . - _ .......... ~ .... ~..- ~_..~_~.:_.::~_.~-_- _ ......... '3j ~_~ _:/~,.~:~>::[::~.f.A-:-z[.~-:~:~[~:['.. ..... Pa~e 21: ".~- ~ _ __.~.~ ~_ . . . . _ .. . _~: _ --~-._~-: :- . _-.---~ ~'~- _ :~.-:~:.~- ~ _. :- - _ . - . _ ~. - .-.~...-~ ............... : ..... ............................... - _ - ~- ~' '~.~ .. ~' .~:~~ ........ .- .__ ~_..While'it. is mentioned that ~e TP&L] line. may have..tQ:~_.rais~:zto-;-?~.--:-:- maintain pro~r clearance for reconstruction of ~e roadway in its pr~ent=l[.~%:~t::~_[ ~-. in the pro~s~ relocation, and ~at, in fact, the proximity of tD~e TP&L ~wers to ~e ri~t~f-way of ~e pro~s~ relo~tion-~y ~f~rd a h~d Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 4 Page 21, Item 6:. North Access Point: Again, the author fails to recognize that there are six - not four - existing access points for property owners north of the railroad. The two addiitonal crossings not mentioned are, in fact, going over the railroad, and · could readily tie into the raised Belt T.~ne Road in its existing alignment. " The author goes on to say that Figure 12 shows that access to the north ~ is__limited, and that_visibility of the property_ north of Belt T.~ne_is blocked by-the railroad embankment. ~ Again,-I would question-whether the-author has 'ever driven Belt Line Road through the City of Coppell. There are 2,000 feet ........ of ~ railroad trestle-' which offer a clear view of the-property nOrth of the railroad to traffic driving along Belt Line Road. It should also be mentioned that both Belt Line Road and property north of Belt Line are being raised, thereby achieving the high visibility of the tract for traffic on Belt T.~ne. Item 7: Construction Phasin~ and Detour'in~ Required: The author states that detouring of traffic would be required during the construction phase. Again, since only four lanes are being constructed at this time, those lanes can be constructed within the existing right-of-way, while leaving the existing road to be used by traffic during construction. -'='-'~'-- ...... On page 22,-~-the author g6es on to Say-that the ~firs{ pha~e"-0f --_~-:_='3~.'-c0nstruction will-require utility adjustments; including' raising and relocating TP&L'S overhead line. Yet~ only one page' earlier,-~ the 'author said t~a~---the line only-had to be checked, and may have to be raised. Now-the' line must.be 'relocated and raised, and the utilities - which have become an issue '---in leaving Belt Line in its present location, in the author's mind - are safe, according to the City's engineering staff, and would, in fact, only need to .be relocated if Belt Line were abandoned and the roadway moved. .............. Th~'-author-~ co~tinue~- in his-'Constructio~ -phasing. The third lane, which might be considered earlier in the report, is now being built - this is ....... ~ .... Page 23, Item 8, Construction Timing: -~--: The author s~para{es Table 5 from Table 7 by many pages, making it difficult to compare the two tables. A cursory review of Table 5 will show :'~i3jA~-~tha% 84% of the projects-on this table Provided for_the construction, of lanes, not four lanes,-~0f p~vement in the existing alignment_ Clearly, it would take longer to construct six lanes in the existing alignment than it Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 5 In contrast, the author offers Table 7. Upon scrutiny, however, one realizes that these are not comparisons between construction timing in the existing alignment versus construction timing in another alignment- Rather, this could be~a contrasting of public jobs to private jobs, or a contrastir~ of building six lanes on public jobs to only four lanes on private jobs. ....... Page 25, ConstruCtion Cost . .... _~ ..... The auth'or's rendition of construction .cost, and.the supporting P~/information presented in Appendix 3, contains perhaps the most conspicuous deviation from the-facts. The inevitable conclusion, after analysis of these, is that the author decided what the job should cost and worked baCkwards to determine his unit prices. The estimates, according to the author, are based on unit prices which have been established by Dallas County Public Works. The author fails to state, however, that he has doubled the unit prices used for the existing alignment above what he used in his report for construction in the proposed alignment. For instance, it does not appear to be sound engineering practice to double the unit price of a type Y inlet - an inlet which clearly is not constructed in the roadway and is instead built in a ditch. --~- . ......... - -~ ..... - J.~' .... .'L Such inflated prices are used for leaving Belt_Line_-'inj~ts present ~v~'--a-location thr°Ugh6ut~' the ~entire~cost estimate presented by AHCE. The author~ .... ~?%~contrasts $8.5 million to build MacArthur in its existing alignment with $7~3 ......... million to move it 600 feet to the~south. _ Of course, ~the~.author-found ~ necessary to cut the prices by 50% to make the compariso~ A more reasonable-~ _~-¥~¥~ comparison - using the author's own bridge lengths for the proposed and a more realistic number for the bridge lengths in the existing alignment -quickly indicates the fallacy in their computations. Instead~of comparing. $8.5 million for existing to $7.3 million for proposed alignments, the numbers tuxn out to be '$8~05 million for the existing alignment and $10. million for the_ proposed alignment ~ a savings of nearly $2 million to leave the road wher~ it is. '~ ..... We also t0ok'a survey of unit costs for materialS,-using Several~area contractors. They indicated that it was not standard practice to double unit'- costs for phased construction as proposed for Belt Line. ~ Using their higher ~ unit costs for leaving Belt Line in its existing alignment and AHCE's om~ ~L__~_-~_design including bridge lengths, the relocation is still $500,000 more~ expensive.' It would cost $9.5 million to build Belt Line in its existing -alignment and $10 to relocate it. These are, of course, based on the assumption that the author has correctly modeled the hydraulics for tke L--'~- ' proposed'condition~ an assumption which may not be based in fact and will be - ......... later. Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 6 Page 26, B. 1. Pight-of-way Requirements "" ~ The author assumes that because the County would release the existing right-of-way-for Belt Line Road, the cities would also release the right-of- '' .way for Belt Line Road, although no such agreement has ever been reached cr even discussedl' If, indeed, the cities decided not to release the right-of- ~.~__ way, abandoning i~. to the adjacent property owners, the proposal would most -~ likely die~ and-the agreements with the adjacent property owners would ....... disappear. ' The author goes on ~to say that an existing lake is not used for drainage, ·-~"-~'-.' -an~d could be filled. One must ask why then the lake was built, if not for drainage. -_ Page 27: The author makes reference to the presence of Dallas Power and Light Company (DP&L) property on the proposed alignment. He does not, however, mention the transmission towers immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for ..... the Proposed alignment, which may, in fact, be found to be too close to the --~-~'~-~!~proposed roadway and may need to be relocated at considerable expense. - =~ ~ .... ~'"' .......... ' ..... ' ' I! ' ' ....... ' ~:~=-~-~-~"~-~0a-ds." This same material was suitable for construction of Luna Road, -~i-~-assuming' that Luna Road would be used for about a year - because that-is t~ -~.~_~_-.~_ , approximate amount of time it took for the road to begin failing. It is, in ' - ~ fact, my interpretation of the extremely high P.I. material along the proposed . '" roadway al'ignment that leads me to conclude that this material would need =_ .... ~__ ~ be-' removed and .'replaced with select material - the same select material, ~t ~'~'~..~.i~' ~-~should ~be-noted, which was used for MacArthur Boulevard through the Rivercha-~ ~_~'~-i_i'J/...'~' prpjeCt~ _Soils engineers studying the river bottom material with its hi~n "__~_'- _ plasticity index recommended that select material be brought in,_ instead, cf ....... ~"--'_'~'~using the much cheaper adjacent river bottom material.' ..... - -~'~?';~: ~'~<~-~¥'-" Page 28, 3. Road Crossings: ......... _.~' = ~._ -'~- _ . ~ . ~_ .. ~ -.-__- . - :..- --:i_~!-_-'~-~ :';reCeptive to_ sharing the cost of reconstructing Luna Road._ Such assumptiors-- : ...... -~-_~ -.2~_..often end Up costing those who make them considerable money. Is the County - -' ........... prepared to pay for. this additional cost if the City of Carrollton does nc-__=_ "'J~ ~: want to? Certainly, with the alignment as proposed,._ this reconstruction ~=s ~_'~:i .... .-_ quite necessary... Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 7 Page 29: The author only casually mentions Hutton Drive. The proposed interse~tiOh~ Of~ut~oD Drive is sub-standard to' even the most casual obr~r~er. There .is,'in~.fact~; sub-standard radius on the design, and an unsafe site dist.~nce crea~ed by the creek crossing over Hutton Branch. There is also a substandard interse'ction design created by the acute angle of inter~=~tion of Hutton Drive with Belt Line Road~ The authOr goes on to state that the proposed MacArthur crossing, of the railroad can"be made safer. ~e clear implication here is that the existing intersection' design would be unsafe, and this is not true. In fact, the design of the' Belt Line - MacArthur intersection in the existing Belt Line alignment can be quite safe, with proper design and signalizatioru The author states that the southern route will also allow a grade separation at the railroad crossing if future traffic so necessitates. What the author fails t6 point out, however, is that the relocation would preclude a'grade separation of the railroad and MacArthur. An overpass could be -constructed that Would pass over both the existing Belt Line Road and the ~--~-~.railroadJ This .condition would be elimiD~ted by moving Belt Line- ~-%~.~?~' --- In~ the- neXt-~-Paragraph,- the- author clearly contradicts- an earlier ~a~agraph 'and makes, some less. than accurate assumptions, about__the. _ ~ site distance and uses of signalization systems. ~]~.~.~ - The~'' laSt` paragraph on- page 29-offers an additional' contradic~~n in-~ i~s ;--~-~'-'-~?~'analysis of the 'left turn storage needs on MacArthur Boulevard. The ability to-provide' the 200-foot storage is available only under the interim geometrics Of MacArthur BOUlevard and would not, in fact, be present when MacArthur-is brought to its ultimate six-la~e design. ' ............ .' . ~- --'... The analysis of bridge and drainage structures follows, and the author 'Y~r-vVT~outs~ a O.6'foot decrease in the upstream water surface-elevati°hJ['~'' '~"'~'~'~- ...... The author:proposes to devegetate the area between th~e~-existing and proposed'Belt Line .alignments. ~e proposes the ch~nnelization of-the main Elm. destruction'of, vegetation in the old Elm Fork channel - a channel area which- !~?'~?;-contains significant and beautiful flora which Will be cleared for th~ sake of the relocation. - "' ' ....................... ~ Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 8 Page 32: The'authOr'goes on to say that the cities may wish to i~gtall utilities in the new street prior to construction. What the report does not mention is that'thes~ut>iiities would need to be relocated from the existing street so that the existing roadway could be utilized by developers. The authOr next states that the southern route west of MacArthur will -~LT~_~--require .cl'ose'¢oordination with and approval by DP&L. -- What he fails to acknowledge is-~hat there may, in fact, be a conflict between the existing DP&L-towers .and'the proposed roadway alignment, and that- there may be a vertical conflict between .the wires and the proposed alignment ................. _ ._ Page 32, 6~ North Access Points: ---- The author refers again, mistakenly, to the four property owners north of the railroad. Indeed, we do, however, supportthe author's contention that the access to these six parcels should be provided in advance of considering the relocation of Belt Line. .... Page 33, 8. Construction Timing: - - 71-~=3~17<~ Th~= authOr c~06ses to-disregard the-approval' processes thrc~.-the City. of' Dallas,' the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the City of Coppell. ~ Bec_~m.~e the plan clearly violates the City of Dallas flood Plain alteration criteria, this approval process Could be - and probably will be - lengthy.-. Likewise, the relocation violates precious wetland areas and should entail a p~blic hearing before issuance of a 404 permit_ It is also highly doubtful that tt~ Corps of Engineers will allow AHCE to compensate for a genuine obstruction-of t_he floodplain with some transitory of roughness coefficients. --Indeed, AHCE used 0.035 for a roughness coefficient in channels which presently hawe roughness coefficients-of- 0,05. -- --' ........................................ _ _ '<~-~i:.f=l=~f->~?-h-In-additi0n~' no ti.me is-allocat~-d'for utility adjustmen{s-'0r easement =~3~7Were 'for-paving only-an8 did not include construction._ of bridges or_the .of utilities ................ -~ · -~-_~tZ~:L.-.=~2_Again,._Usingath. e~author's own~unit costs, _the estimated., coP~_~ucticn in_ =~=~"-~=~-f'the-soUthern route='would-n0t-coS~- $7.3-millio~ but' W0~d in-'fac--. cost . .._ _f zz-_- _;~- . - Mr. J.W, Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 9 The author goes on in section 5 with his evaluation and recommendation, and concludes, by following a trail of unsubstantiated hypotheses and flagrant manipulation of numbers and ill-advised hydraulic procedures, that the relocation is better, and in fact is "far superior." Upon scrutiny, however, "~'~"those princiPals upon which t_he author based his findings are not sound. We feel that a careful, "impartial" analysis by AHCE will substantiate our ' findings that the far superior alignment for the proposed Belt Line Road improvements already exists in the present configuration.~ The rest .~of the report consisted of maps, exhibits, and profuse computer printouts. The printouts, it should be noted, do not support the initial. hypothesis that it is a good idea to move Belt Line Road. I have a few comments on the hydraulics analysis that is presented. First, with regard to the split flow analysis, the purpose of running a split flow analysis is to ascertain the amount of water flOWing in the diverging channel alignments. The procedure is to start with a known water surface elevation, a common water surface downstream, and 'run up through the various alternate channels, reuniting at the upstream point. One would, of course, expect that, for a satisfactory analysis, the channel alignments would have the same water surface elevation both downstream and upstream. The AHCE split flow analysis does not do this, and in reality shows a 0.41 foot difference -between the various water surface elevations upstream. It appears that the ~nvestigator either has not finished his analysis or simply hasn't_ looked at the numbers he attained, because this is not a satisfactory result. ~ ~i_~-~i~-_ The proposed Belt Line improvements in the southern route show water ..... surface elevations to be-less than for the proposed improvements in the existing location. This is a ~rect result of a major channelization program proposed for the southern route and the use of 0.035 for the "n" values in tbe channels. Such channelization was not considered for the existing location improvements. It would be extremely difficult to maintain the channelized portions to reflect an "n" value of 0.035. This is especially true in light of the manner in which the flows are diverted into the channels. Channelization of the main stem of the Elm Fork will rec~re the removal of trees on the overbanks, which is in clear violation of the City of Dallas' reclamation criteria, and should not be received favorably in the 404 evaluation process. - - ~ Page 17 of' fhe text states that the bridge on Belt Line at ~he west trestle can be reduced to 600 feet-and still retain the_ same ~fl0w distribut~o~ between~the~main channel and the two overflow bridges. However, Table 4 shows -an approximate 42% increase of flow in the left bank for the existing ~ alignment and an approximately 34% increase for the southern route, which is a clear contradiction. ~ ......... ~ .... ~.~_.~ ...................... ~ Page 30 of the text says that the water surface upstream .of the railroad i~ lowered 0.6 feet. However, Table 3 shows only a 0.5-foot reduction at one cross-section, and a 0.36-foot reduction immediately upstream. ~ Figure 10 do~ 'not include a ~schematic of the ~utton Branch bridge as referenced on page 311 Mr. J.W. Bryan January 14, 1986 Page 10 I offer these comments as an aid to the County in the evaluation of the Halff report. I trust that you will give me a call if you have any questions or comments regarding my findings, and I stand ready to assist the County and AHCE in their re-evaluation of the facts involved in the evaluation of alternative alignments for Belt Line Road, Again, J.W., I wish to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report and look forward to working with you again in the near future. ................. Sincerely; '-. ' --* ....... - - - NATHAN D. MAIER - CONSULTING ENGINMFRS, INC. Nathan D ~' Maier, P.E.- NDM/rp cc: Jay Patterson