| Jo Ann Henrie Foreman |
 COUNTY OF MENDOCINO Grand Jury |
Telephone: (707) 463-4320 |
GRAND JURY |
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION FOOD FACILITY INSPECTION PROGRAM The Grand Jury examined the food facility inspection program for restaurants, fairs, festivals, food concessions in markets, jails, juvenile hall. and bed and breakfast establishments. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION As part of its oversight responsibility, the Grand Jury reviewed the food facility inspection program within the Environmental Health Division (ERD), a part of the Department of Public Health. ERD is responsible for enforcing state laws and county regulations associated with food facilities, wells, swimming pools, septic tanks, and hazardous waste disposal. It inquired into the inspection process for restaurants, fairs, festivals, food concessions in markets, jails, juvenile hall, and bed and breakfast establishments. METHODS OF INVESTIGATION Interviews with personnel from the ERD were held. Documents reviewed included laws and regulations. policies and procedures, applications for permits. food facility inspection reports, surveys of budgets, salaries and fees, citizens' complaints lodged with the ERD. and training workshop schedules. In addition, the committee visited and interviewed personnel from several randomly selected restaurants that had been inspected within the previous 90 days. These restaurants were located in various places in the county. FINDINGS I. The ERD budget for 1996-97 was $931,244. Eighty-six percent of revenue was derived from fees collected from issuing and renewing permits. The remaining fourteen per cent came from grants. No money from the general fund is used to operate the EHD. Fee schedules are adjusted every few years by the Board of Supervisors. The ERD collected a total of $873,497 in fees. Fees charged are comparable to those charged by neighboring counties. In 1996-97. $28,501 was paid to the county for county services provided to EHD; in 1997-98. $83,379 for county services is in the budget. 2. The EHD consists of 24 employees. The Land Use/Consumer Protection (LUCP) Program, which includes the food facility inspection program, has a staff of 6.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Each employee is assigned some food facilities, although the percentage is not equal among all employees. The staff time allotted for the food program is 3.0 FTE. The other 3.5 FTE in the LUCP Program is divided among land use (septics and wells), public swimming pools, small public water systems, housing, and other general types of environmental health problems. 3. In the fiscal year 1996-97, the ERD had oversight responsibility for 670 permanent permits reviewed annually and 12 special food events/fair. The ERD conducted approximately 1400 inspections. It is not required to inspect non-profit facilities. (H & S 27500 et seq.) 4. The ERD has neither the time nor the personnel to monitor truth-in-packaging such as "fresh vs. frozen" and "organic vs. non-organic." 5. Seventy-six citizen complaints concerning problems with food facilities were reported to the EHD in 1996-97. The ERD responded to these with contact to the facilities. Some required re-inspections resulting in $2,392 in re-inspection fees. Re-inspection fees were only assessed when the previous violations had not been corrected. 6 The salaries of the Environmental Health Specialists are 50th out of the 58 counties in the state. The salary of the Director is third from the bottom. The low pay has resulted in a loss of personnel. 7. Education requirements are set by the State for Environmental Health Specialists (H & S 10660et seq.) 8. The hours of training required by the State depend on the education and experience of the new employee (H & 5 106635). The ERD provides approximately 200 hours of training for the first six months and an additional 100 hours for the second six months. 9. The cost for training per trainee at $60.73 per hour is about $18,000 per year. Seven trainees have been hired in six years. 10. Some restauranteurs reported what appeared to the Grand Jury to be a personal rather than a professional relationship with inspectors. 11. Restauranteurs interviewed reported that inspectors conduct the inspections in a professional and courteous manner. Inspectors explain violations and offer suggestions for correcting the problems. 12. The most frequently encountered violations include sanitation, food temperatures, waste disposal, and structural proble.ms such as cracks and peeling paint. Food facilities are provided time to correct violations, but serious violations can result in the immediate closure of the restaurant or food facility. 13. When new laws and regulations are enacted, restaurants and food facilities with a current permits are exempt from remodeling kitchen equipment. For example, an existing restaurant with a single sink does not have to conform to the current regulation of three sinks. When the exempt portion of a facility is remodeled, it must meet current regulations. 14. Special food events/fairs of less than three days duration are not inspected but are required to comply with food handling laws. 15. The EHD offers yearly voluntary food facility training at no cost to the food facility. The training is usually 2 1/2 hours in length and is available at five different locations within the county. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Inspectors should be rotated to different food facilities at least every three years. This will provide some variation with the inspection and help assuage any biases of the inspector. (See Finding 10.) 2. The EHID should institute a program of random inspections for special food events/fairs of less than three days duration. (See Finding 14.) 3. Training should be mandatory for food facility employees. (See Finding 15.) 4. The Board of Supervisors should review the salaries of the EHID inspectors and their supervisors. Funds generated by the program could be used to offset the cost of raising salaries. Higher salaries may help alleviate the problem of staff turnover with resultant loss of monies invested in training. (See Findings 6, 8, 9.) COMMENTS The Grand Jury found the personnel of the EHD to most cooperative with this investigation and responsive to our requests for information. RESPONSES REQUIRED 1. Mendocino County Environmental Health Division (Recommendations 1 - 5). 2. Mendocino County Board of Supervisors (Recommendations 4 - 6).
|