The Archuleta County Board of Health (BoH) discussed issues with food safety inspections for temporary events and potential solutions at its June 20 meeting.
Environmental Health Specialist Angelica Leslie presented a proposal for standards for temporary event food safety inspections and on whether or not to charge for permits for these events.
She explained that the Archuleta County Public Health Department (ACPHD) held a community meeting in May with food vendors and event coordinators, which she described as “kind of a bloodbath.”
Leslie stated that her thinking is that food vendors for temporary events need to be inspected and “follow the rules” and that most counties in Colorado have their own ways of inspecting special events, with a variety of costs for such inspections.
She proposed that the county charge $50 per unit for the season for mobile food vendors located in the county and $75 per unit for the season for vendors coming from outside the county or state.
She also recommended creating a farmers market permit, which would enable vendors to operate at farmers markets and would cost $75 per unit for the season.
Leslie stated that counties have a wide variety of permitting costs for temporary food vendors, with some costs being more than her proposal and some being less.
She suggested that any new permitting process be implemented next year since the current food truck season has already begun.
Leslie indicated that the ACPHD has received eight temporary food vendor permit applications, including three from outside the state and county.
In response to a question from BoH member Jessica Cox, Leslie explained that these permits would be for opertaing at special events in the community and would be separate from the permitting for annual operation of a food truck.
Leslie added that the inspections at events are much more limited than other food truck permitting, and primarily focus on core health and safety concerns such as the presence of handwashing stations.
Commissioner Warren Brown asked if there are other health department standards that food truck vendors must comply with, noting that, if they do business in the Town of Pagosa Springs, they have to pay for a town license, among other items.
Development Director Pamela Flowers stated that food trucks require a temporary use permit from the county in addition to permitting from the Pagosa Fire Protection District (PFPD).
Commissioner Veronica Medina asked how much the temporary use permit is.
Flowers stated it costs $50.
Leslie added that the annual food truck permit costs either $275 or $385, depending on the type of food preparation occurring.
Medina asked if the county would potentially charge the additional temporary food permitting fee due to Leslie having to inspect these trucks during the season.
Leslie stated that this is the plan and that she would inspect all food trucks over the season.
Medina asked what the application fee for annual food truck operations covers, noting that the fee “seems like a lot” and that county fees have to match the cost incurred in providing the services involved.
Leslie explained that the fee includes inspections, answering questions and concerns, and providing brief training for employees.
She added that this permit fee is set by the state and that it does not cover large-scale food safety training for staff at a permitted establishment.
She also emphasized that the number of inspections performed in a year is highly variable depending on the need for inspections at a particular establishment.
Cox commented that guessed the main issue with the permitting is the cost, but asked if there were other objections to it as well.
Leslie replied that the vendors understand the “need to be inspected,” but not the reasoning for the extra fee.
In response to a question from Cox about other concerns, Leslie added that “everybody goes back to saying that we’re just charging to charge.”
ACPHD Executive Director Ashley Wilson stated that another issue is that some temporary food vendors have been found to be out of compliance by the department.
“While the cost may be the thing they’re voicing the most, I’m curious if some of it is the actual compliance issues that come with the additional inspections given that, when you’re at events, sometimes having all of the checklist of things is more difficult,” Wilson said. “The handwashing station in particular can be a harder aspect to have, but it is one of the core things that keeps food preparation safe.”
Medina stated that she attended the meeting with food vendors and that costs were a major concern.
She commented that she and Leslie explained that some of the permitting costs are set by the state and that other county fees could potentially be adjusted.
She added that some vendors were also inspected multiple times and felt they were being “picked on,” even though the vendors who were most concerned about this issue were in compliance.
Medina commented that, in her opinion, another key issue is that the vendors were rarely inspected by San Juan Basin Public Health (SJBPH) and are unfamiliar with the inspection process and are wondering, “Why now?”
Leslie added that SJBPH never performed inspections for special events.
In response to a question from BoH member Stacey Foss, Leslie explained that this issue has arisen both from day-to-day work and issues at the ACPHD and from efforts to improve coordination for safety between various entities — such as the police, public health and the PFPD — in the community.
Medina asked what portion of the state permitting fees are kept by the county.
Leslie indicated that the ACPHD sends $43 of the fee to the state and the rest is retained by the county.
“Then my vote would be that we don’t charge extra,” Medina said.
Foss asked what the benefit to Leslie’s job would be to charge the additional fee.
“The benefit for me would just be able to continue paying me to do my job,” Leslie said, adding that she can flex her hours to inspect festivals on the weekends, but that it is additional work to review plans for vendors coming in to such events to ensure safety and to perform additional inspections.
She added that she will continue performing these tasks whether there is a fee or not.
Wilson pointed out that the funds from the state do not cover Leslie’s full position and the fees would help generate revenue for her performing tasks, such as inspections at festivals, that have not previously been done.
She noted that the BoH has the ability to waive fees and recommended that the ACPHD charge the full amount for vendors coming from outside the county or state since the department has had no previous contact with them.
Wilson commented that the issue is one area where the BoH has discretion to set fees and make decisions concerning food permitting, which was one of the reasons the issue was brought to the board.
She added that staff could potentially track the amount of noncompliance among temporary food vendors and the hours Leslie spends inspecting them to give the board further information for a decision in the future.
Medina asked how much time and cost is incurred for the reviews and inspections required by the state and what is “left over.”
Wilson explained that this depends on the establishment’s compliance, since less-compliant establishments can require multiple inspections at an added cost.
Medina highlighted that short-term rental permitting includes two inspections in the permitting cost and that additional inspections incur an additional cost.
She proposed that the county could potentially use a similar fee structure for food vendor permitting.
She added that the county could potentially not charge an additional fee for local vendors, but that she feels charging an extra fee for out-of-state or out-of-county vendors would be reasonable since it would help support local businesses.
Wilson asked Leslie how the state breaks down its fees, including those for noncompliance.
Leslie explained that there are additional fees for being out of compliance that the ACPHD could charge.
Wilson added that these fees would be charged if an establishment requires additional inspections to check compliance outside of those required by the state.
Leslie indicated that these fees could be charged “if there is a closure initiated” or if fees for the license are not paid.
She added that she had to issue two notices of violation this year due to nonpayment of licenses.
Medina commented that this could have been caused by the businesses not knowing where to pay the fees or there being delays caused by the transition from SJBPH.
Wilson stated that the ACPHD “gave them lots of extra time,” with Leslie adding that staff also notified them multiple times through various means.
“But, it all worked out,” Wilson said.
Wilson then outlined the options before the board, including making a decision at the meeting, gathering additional information to consider changes for the next year or bringing back additional information for it to make a decision at its next meeting, though she pointed out that this would change the rules in the middle of the season.
She added that, if the BoH chose to waive the temporary event fee, it would have to consider how to offer refunds to those who have already paid the fee this year.
Medina stated that she would like additional information on the costs for permitting and that the board could make a decision at some point that could be implemented next year.
She added that this would allow the county to communicate to the public that their concerns were heard and considered and communicate the plan that would be implemented next year.
Brown asked if the ACPHD collects the event fees currently “because that’s what we have on the books right now.”
He stated that he agreed with Medina that he would like more information on costs and does not feel that the BoH should make any changes for the current season.
He added that having the breakdown of costs would allow the BoH to serve the public better by ensuring that the costs charged match the costs incurred to provide the service.
Cox expressed agreement with Brown and Medina about gathering additional information and supporting local businesses.
Medina then moved to direct staff to gather additional information on the costs of permitting process and to continue the permitting process and fees until the BoH reaches a decision on changes.
The motion passed unanimously.
josh@pagosasun.com
