My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/12/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
8/12/2004 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:48:19 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:32:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/12/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r <br /> 5 5 <br /> • <br /> then Woodard & Curran does the report. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that they don't pay the county. <br /> IVIS. Warden stated that they forward the Dill along to Woodard & Curran, <br /> as it was part of the contract. Ms. Carron just kept a copy for our records. <br /> Mr. Santo's stated that they paid Barnstable county Lab* <br /> Mr, Harrington stated that they did not. Woodard & Curran paid the lab. <br /> They were not the county's client. They should not be sending it to us. <br /> Mr. Santos stated that that was the only problem that he had. <br /> Ids. Grady asked IVIr. Harrington if he noted an increase in different areas <br /> in the contract from their previous billing, <br /> Mr. Harrington.stated that there were increases. <br /> IVIS. Grady didn't think that that wasn't correct. <br /> Mr. Santos Mated that the basic battery was all part of the pest-closure <br /> that was required. The DEP usually didn't let therm get array without doing <br /> one of these batteries. He felt that in all good conscience he did not like <br /> this contract. He wanted a better breakdown. He wanted an explanation <br /> as to why they were increasing cost on other line items when they were <br /> basically trying to show a reduction in cost. They were showing an <br /> $800.00 reduction in cost but it was still a $22,000.00 contract. Part of <br /> the original contract included the investigation of the reduction from the <br /> DEP. If they did not incur that cost because they did not incur it in the <br /> original contract. It was their fault. The information that he saw.and that <br /> they noted on to approve was all pant of that deal. <br /> Mr, Harrington agreed that that was part of the original contract, They <br /> were told right up front that part of this contract was that they would# <br /> have to incur some time in dealing with the DEP. They were trying to <br /> charge and it was in their contract. They were not going to eget any more <br /> money, They could not request any extra time. <br /> Ms. Grady remembered that part of the negotiations. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that September was corning up quick and they <br /> needed to do something. That was the fourth quarterly sampling in F <br /> 2005. They needed to have something ironed out before then. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.