Laserfiche WebLink
. <br />. EXHIBIT ��D" <br />,�, ..--� �'`�-^., �-,� J��',`' <br />`�'I'~; 4 �! 'i � ` V�/' <br />j `� � t_ <br />`�" � � <br />D4NALD W. CARTER P.S. <br />Attorney at Law COLBY AVENUE LAW OFFICES <br />A PROFESSIONAL SERVICL CORPORATfON 3731 COLBY AVENLTE <br />EVERE"TT, WA 98201-4910 <br />TELEPHONE (425) 258-3538 <br />FACSIMILE (425) 339-2527 <br />July 26, 1999 <br />Dean M. Hough, PE <br />Dean Hough & Associates <br />8918 — l l lt" Street N.E. <br />Everett, Washington 98205-1407 <br />Re: My Clients . FDS <br />Dear Mr. Hough: <br />Irrunediately after meeting with you on July 26, 1999, I had the opportunity to meet with <br />Ron Downing, Nancy Fraser, and Doug Fraser regarding the engineering contract in April 1998, <br />as well as the documentation they have relative to the retention/detention design methods. I have <br />also made inquiry and discerned that prior to commencing the proj ect, there was no meeting <br />between you and the Everett Public Works Department to determine what the requirements were <br />going to be. I also believe that through the submission of the initial report there were no on-site <br />meetings with anyone from the Public Works Deparhnent. <br />Relying on your purported expertise, FDS paid to you slightly under $3,400.00 to obtain <br />the plans which were submitted in August 1998 and then resubmitted in April 1999. These plans <br />were rejected by the City of Everett, and obviously had you taken the opportunity to meet with <br />them earlier, it would have been discovered that they would not be satisfactory from the very <br />beginning. <br />Apparently, you have now done another set of plans which you feel may be adequate. <br />Unfortunately, the status of those plans remains uncertain due to the fact that they have not been <br />submitted. These plans are, however, at least the plans originally contracted for, i.e., "design <br />will be per existing City of Everett's new R/detention design methods and standards". The old <br />plans obviously were not as they were rejected. <br />At this point, you have tried to holcl up iny clients for an additional $3,800.00, a portion <br />of which appears to be fifteen hours billing my clients for unsuccessful phone calls. Further, I <br />note that you have demanded that this payment be made before the plans are submitted. <br />�3 <br />