Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Attorney l eelon was present representing the Ch ns. He began by stating Haat <br /> clarification was needed more than anything else. The contract has been broker <br /> into two parts. The first part is the first two months. The second part is the next <br /> four months. It assumes a six-month contract period. The cost of that when you <br /> gun it all out is close to $1-1,000.00. 'The restaurant has already lost about 3 0% of <br /> its business after all this carne out in the paper. What they are wondering is if the <br /> first two months that have the most intense monitoring and training sessions. <br /> Could they make the second four months of continuedmonitoring and reporting <br /> for which there would be charges of$350.00 for every inspection, if that could b <br /> contingent upon the success of their inspection after their first two months? <br /> Would they have to continue with four more months of paying this $350.00 per <br /> inspection and monitoring reports? If the reports did not come back well and <br /> there was a subsequent inspection at the end ofthat two months and it was not <br /> satisfactory, then they would have tog with the next four months. That would <br /> sage theca $4200.00 on this contract. This is a backbreaking cost right now. They <br /> have already done "A 1"" and "B 1" the contract. They haven't actually signed the <br /> contract because f that concern. The second nce"M is the way it is worded in <br /> the second four-month period it talks about by-weekly inspections and what is <br /> supposed to say is bi-monthly. So they end up with eight inspections a month <br /> which i $2500.00 per month. i <br /> Mr. Ball asked what they were looking for there. <br /> Mr. felon responded that they would like to change the bi-weekly to clarify twice <br /> a month or every two creeks. So that it is not read to be twice a trek. In each <br /> place where it says that bi-weekly in B3 and under C2 it should be changed. <br /> i Is. Garron asked Mr. Harrington to confirm if this was what we typed up. Dr. <br /> Wong paraphrased ghat she had typed up. It didn't look like ghat she had typed <br /> . <br /> Mr. Harrington confirmed that the contract that the Chns hadwas-in fact not <br /> what the BOH had typed exp. <br /> Mr. Doherty began by stating that the first thing Haat he wanted to say, not to <br /> beat a dead horse, that all of this could have been avoided. First of all corning i <br /> before the BOH and saying that this is costing them a lot of roan . H <br /> understands that, but it could have all been avoided. So let's kind of keep that in <br /> jmind. Secondly, is it a little bit excessive? Perhaps. Mr. Doherty rty asked Ms. Chen <br /> if she had discussed any of these modifications with ]fir, Wong and is he agreeable <br /> to that. <br /> Ms. Chea replied...(I couldn't make out what she was saying.) <br /> Mr. Doherty responded that that was good. Are the changes being discussed still <br /> ensure the true duality of a prudent and safe <br /> Mr. Harrington rejoined the conversation and stated that he would like to go <br /> 40 <br />