Laserfiche WebLink
S <br /> as a starting point? <br /> IVIS. Grady stated that they could begin with August 26th 2004. <br /> Ms. Gromelski interjected that legally they could not retro-activate fires. As a board <br /> they could make whatever determinations they want to make-and they could cone to <br /> an agreement of what the costs would be. But, legally the first clay that you found <br /> out about the violations were the only day that the board had valid proof. Plus, they <br /> didn't have notice from the board. The board is required to provide the board with <br /> notice of second offense. They did not have any notice accept On last Thursday. leo <br /> fires could go past last Thursday because last Thursday was the last day <br /> operation. So they could not have been violating the lav by not operating. They had <br /> one day of an offense on the same day that they were operating. Any offenses can be <br /> for that day and no further. That was going to be her recommendation for thein and <br /> that was the law. <br /> Mr. Santos agreed with IVIS. Gromelski. <br /> Mr. Ball asked about the ability to revoke their license. <br /> Mr. Harrington wasn't sure if they had all of the requirements to do that right now. <br /> He would have to look at that a little further right now. They have met all of the <br /> portions of the code right now. They have ServSafe person there. They have all the <br /> food sources documented that they were up to date. They summarily suspended their <br /> license with the emergency closure. So right now because they have met all of their <br /> requirements and the imminent health hazard no longer exists. The other violations <br /> have been corrected. He did not believe they could revoke their permit. At another <br /> point in time should another violation come along he felt that the board could do that <br /> at that point. <br /> Mr. Ball asked if that was a correct approach considering that this was the second <br /> violation. He wanted to know where this was going to end. By admitting that they <br /> didn't have a SerSafe person for fourteen days even though we can't fine therm. <br /> Where does this stop? Did we have to catch them to do anything significant to <br /> punish them? This is what bothers him. � <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that they could set conditions upon their operations. <br /> IVIS. Grady asked if they could require more than one person be ServSafe certified. <br /> Could they require that every person be SerSe certified? <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that they could absolutely do that. <br /> Mr. Bowar interjected that that was their intention. <br /> Ms. Gromelski added that they were planning on doing that anyw ys. When they <br /> 1 <br />