Notes on 5/26 /10 Meeting
List of attendees didn`t include Pete Dammon
1. Bruce immediately asked if there was objections to recorfing the meeting. Gary said that they had asked that the meetings not be recorded. (Attorneys to Attorneys). Bruce put recorder away.
2.Items 1,2,3,4.-I stated that I couldn`t make any comment on JV Burkes drawing at meeting, that I would have to study it. I did study it later and agree that the Parking lot is correct to a degree that only a minor change may be required, and we will check that out. I again stated that we couldn`t agree to any thing in the meeting but I could get it checked out in a couple of days.

Two week look ahead
I have no comment

RFI's
Reviewed RFI`s received in last bi monthly meeting
RFI 2R
(Read their report)
- I asked why he hadn`t called and talked to us about this, as it was agreed that they would meet with Robert on regular basis to get these things worked 
out. Jim Mc Quire said that Robert had not met with them (He and Mike)
There ensued a discussion on RFI 2R about the columns. I had called for an extra strength Fiberglass column. ( Bruce said they have problems with fiberglas and paint coming off.).( Remind me to talk to Bruce on this- We boaters have no problem painting Fiberglass and I can get them with right people to solve problem.) Jim kept insisting that we give him the manufacturers instructions on installing. I told him that we cant call out a manufacturer and he should select one and present it w/ catalogue cut and shop drawing. This is the normal proceedure. Robt had told him who he usually uses , but he (JIim) wanted an arguement.
I agreed to give him a detail for entranceway in a couple of days. This is ready.

Arches- I had to explain to him that they were stryofoam covered with stucco, and not between the porch colums but against the building wall, between the bldg columns.
RFI3&4 Ok

RFI 18R Item1-OK
Item 2 Had discussion on Wainscot deducted. -Bruce explained in detail why he deleted the wainscot in 1st floor
. 
RFI 11R OK
RFI 21R OK
RFI 69R This is probably the rear porch cover but I dont find that number
Note that Landmark is pushing IFR response.
I presented RFI responses 36R, 27R, and 24R
Bruce asked if Robert had met with Jim to resolve issues. Jim said that had not happened. My later conversation with Robert was that it had happened and that he left Jim satisfied.Robert wrote Bruce about that happenstance.
At the time of the meeting, I had not been able to contact Fire Marshal on the (Chase) design. We did get it resolved the following day, there is no requirement for a firewallat the two rear building corners. We will have a deduct on this issue.
Landmark provided a email from the Mech. contractor asking about the separation requirement ffor the ligh fixtures. This was not an official City comment, which Jim was supposed to have given us.
Regardless, I sent a fax tho the City Mechanical inspector, quoting the National Electrical code, requiring only one halh inch separation.
I expect a return soon.( Be aware that the mtg minutes should not indicate that it documented the inspectors comments. The email wasn`t from him and he never contacted  us.)
I did at one point complain that the contractor was bringing up issues that was supposed to be taken care of at the meetings with Robert, and that the gist of most of this meeting was aimed at trying to get the Parish to conclude that Dammon was not doing their job.
 Now it appears that the Contractor was not telling the truth and Robert had met with them.

I guess thats why Jim was so nervous during the meeting.
I also found it odd that Gary hardly opened his mouth during the meetig, and I perceived that Jim had been given his instructions prior to my arrival.
I think its time that we insist that the meetings be recorded for our on protection. This contract-Take over- will certainly end up in court if possible, or in Arbitration. 
I believe we still have the power to direct them to go ahead with certain things, and we will have to use it.

Robert
Issues
They claim that we dont get the tubes on any but 1st floor Chase Since we show them in exterior views,doesn`t that constitute proof that they are part of job. If not Tubes, what do they intend to use.- Certainly not wood.
They now contend that the upper floors dont get chair rail and wainscot. please research.
We now have a deduct for fire wall which was in FM letter.
They cant deny this 

They claim we dont call for  chair rails and wainscot on most floors
1. On ground floor we called out in the schedule because there were several rooms - like Conference rm that we wanted chair rail and waainscot, besides halls.
On other floors we showed section showing hall side of walls w/ chair rail and wainscot On A3 we show cut in wrong place. On A6 cut in wrong place but section says hall.
Finish schedules had been completed w/o wainscot  and we were close to sending out drawings when Bruce told us he wanted the Chair Rail and wainscot. So we xfefed the drawings to show section on all floors.

We can get deduct from 1st floor conf, room and other rms to ward them off on their claims for A3 and A6, even tho these (a3, A6) are considered minor discrepencies and any good attorney and court of law would stand by their intent.

Pete

Bruce questions.
• Dammon Item #3 - States, "Floors 2 through 6 to have "Chair Rails" in all
Corridors and Halls. Landmark reviewed the plans with those present,
pointing out what is thought to be called for in the drawings.
o Third floor schedule does not indicate any chair rail to be provided.  ?????
o Forth floor schedule does not indicate any chair rail to be provided.
Detail AlA4/A4 indicates no chair rail on the corridor side.
o Fifth floor schedule does not indicate any chair rail to be provided.
The detail AI A51A5 indicates a chair rail on the corridor side on the
East wall. Large scale details 71A51A5 shows there is no chair rail on
the South corridor 500.
o Six floor schedule does not indicate any chair rail to be provided. No
large scale details shown on sheet A-6.