Sounds good to me. -----Original Message----- From: Ext_mail John Hill Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:53 PM To: Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett Cc: Lea Dunn Subject: RE: Vitruvian - Amendment to Master Facilities Agreement ***************************************************************************** IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message contains information from the law firm of Cowles & Thompson, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee, or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately at our telephone number (214) 672-2000 ****************************************************************************** Nancy, please see revision to Section 2.C., last paragraph, to which the following sentence is added: Further, the Project Construction Engineer shall directly supervise the engineering construction of the said Phase IB of the Phase I Infrastructure, Phase IC of the Phase I Infrastructure, and Phase ID of the Phase I Infrastructure. Thoughts? ________________________________ From: Nancy Cline [mailto:ncline@addisontx.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:18 PM To: Hill, John; Clay Barnett Cc: Lea Dunn Subject: RE: Vitruvian - Amendment to Master Facilities Agreement John, As we discussed on the phone just now, what UDR is proposing does not meet the law in my opinion. It is mandatory that the construction be performed under the direct supervision of an engineer. See below. Please let me know if you would like to discuss further. Thank you, Nancy Texas Occupations Code, Title 6, Chapter 1001 (Law and Rules revised 7/20/09) § 1001.407. Construction of Certain Public Works The state or a political subdivision of the state may not construct a public work involving engineering in which the public health, welfare, or safety is involved, unless: (1) the engineering plans, specifications, and estimates have been prepared by an engineer; and (2) the engineering construction is to be performed under the direct supervision of an engineer. -----Original Message----- From: Ext_mail John Hill Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:04 PM To: Nancy Cline; Clay Barnett Cc: Lea Dunn Subject: Vitruvian - Amendment to Master Facilities Agreement ***************************************************************************** IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This message contains information from the law firm of Cowles & Thompson, P.C. which may be privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee, or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately at our telephone number (214) 672-2000 ****************************************************************************** Nancy and Clay, Lea and I met this morning with Tom Lamberth and with the attorney for UDR, Leonard Hoffman, regarding the First Amendment to the Master Facilities Agreement. In particular, we discussed language that had been included in Section 2.C. of the First Amendment that provided that the Project Construction Engineer would have experience in “inspecting” bridge construction, and that the Engineer would “inspect” the work of contractors. In place of the word “inspect” they wanted to substitute the word “observe.” We understood from our conversation that the City has its inspector, Kleinfelder, out on the jobs performing more detailed inspection services. Please note that a couple of the red-lined changes in the document, to Section 2.D. (adding “(that is, prior to the City’s execution of a change order)”) and to Section 2.G. (deleting “shall have”), were previously made as a result of comments from the Council during the February 9 Council meeting (those changes were previously included in a draft of the document sent out following that meeting). The attached copy of the First Amendment is red-lined and shows the changes to that word, along with other changes. Please review and let me know if the language as revised is acceptable. Once I receive your input and make any needed modifications, I will then forward it on to Tom and Leonard for their review. Thanks. John ****************************************************************************************************************** This e-mail and any files or attachments transmitted with it contains Information that is confidential and privileged. This document may contain Protected Health Information (PHI) or other information that is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and entity(ies) to whom it is addressed. If you are the intended recipient, further disclosures are prohibited without proper authorization. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, printing, or use of this information is strictly prohibited and possibly a violation of federal or state law and regulations. If you have received this information in error, please delete it and notify Hamid Khaleghipour at 972-450-2868 immediately. Thank you. *******************************************************************************************************************