Extracted text (via pymupdf_layout)
42476 characters
Report to the Board of Supervisors Prepared by the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Board of Health (BOH) Meeting Date: July 22, 2013 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: September 25, 2013 Case #/Title: ES-2013-001/Experimental Food Service Permit Supervisor Districts: All Districts Applicant: Department Initiated Support/Opposition: Industry members have expressed verbal support for this case from the onset. They were actively involved in the initial development, have provided valuable feedback, and have voiced their understanding of the value it would provide. No opposition has been expressed. Stakeholder meetings were held on February 13, 2013 and June 5, 2013. No comments have been received via the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) website. Request: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department proposes to create a new Trial Review Establishment food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by Maricopa County Environmental Health Code (MCEHC) regulations. The proposed Trial Review Establishment plan review fees are the same as the Chapter I Fee Schedule “Environmental Health Plan Review” fees for categories “All Other Food Establishments”, “Mobile Food Establishments” and “Pushcart Plan Review”. In addition, the Trial Review Establishment permit fees are half the annual “Food Environmental Health Operating Permits” fees by class and seating capacity as listed in the MCEHC Chapter I Fee Schedule. Department Recommendation: Approve BOH Recommendation: Approve per Department recommended language Page 1 of 3 Executive Summary: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department proposes to create a new food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by MCEHC regulations. The 2009 FDA Food Code allows for modifications and waivers but does not define their application to specific items. The new permit type, Trial Review Establishment Permit, will allow a prospective restaurant owner the option to submit their drawings and management plan addressing any food safety and sanitation hazards not in line with regulations as a result of the establishment’s unique or novel design/layout. The permit will be six months in duration. If the applicant is able to demonstrate sufficient control of the hazards during the life of the Trial Review Establishment Permit, then the business will transfer into a standard food service permit with stipulations. If control of the hazards is not met, then the owner will be required to make necessary modifications to qualify for a standard food service permit. This proposed regulatory change is following the EROP policy and workflow process. The Trial Review Establishment plan review fees are the same as the Chapter I Fee Schedule “Environmental Health Plan Review” fees for categories “All Other Food Establishments”, “Mobile Food Establishments” and “Pushcart Plan Review”. In addition, the Trial Review Establishment permit fees are half the annual “Food Environmental Health Operating Permits” fees by class and seating capacity as listed in the MCEHC Chapter I Fee Schedule. The County Manager briefed the Board of Supervisors in February 2013. Following passage of the Maricopa County Resolution, “Moratorium on Increased Regulatory Burdens”, the County Manager authorized the Department to proceed with this case. An initial stakeholder meeting was conducted February 13, 2013. Then on April 22, 2013, the Department presented a Staff Report for this case to the Board of Health (BOH) at which the BOH voted in support of the Department initiating this case. The Department conducted a follow-up stakeholder meeting on June 5, 2013. Then on July 22, 2013, the Department presented a Staff Report for this case to the BOH at which the BOH voted to recommend that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopt the proposed revision to the MCEHC. No comments have been received via the EROP website. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-251.13, written notice of the proposed new fee was posted on the home page of the Maricopa Page 2 of 3 County website more than sixty days before the date the proposed new fee is approved or disapproved by the BOS at the September 25, 2013 hearing. Presented by: John Kolman, R.S., MBA, Director Attachments: Report to BOH (July 22, 2013) – (29 Pages) Public Notice of Proposed Fees and Notice of Public Hearing – (3 Pages) Page 3 of 3 Report to the Board of Health To Make Recommendations To Board of Supervisors Prepared by the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Case #/Title: ES-2013-001/Experimental Food Service Permit Meeting Date: July 22, 2013 Supervisor Districts: All Districts Applicant: Department Request: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department proposes to create a new food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by Maricopa County Environmental Health Code (MCEHC) regulations. Support/Opposition: Industry members have expressed verbal support for this case from the onset. They were actively involved in the initial development, have provided valuable feedback, and have voiced their understanding of the value it would provide. No opposition has been expressed. Stakeholder meetings were held on February 13, 2013 and June 5, 2013. No comments have been received via the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) website. Department Recommendation: Approve Discussion: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department proposes to create a new food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by MCEHC regulations. The 2009 FDA Food Code allows for modifications and waivers but does not define their application to specific items. The new permit type, Trial Review Establishment Permit, will allow a prospective restaurant owner the option to submit their drawings and management plan addressing any food safety and sanitation hazards not in line with regulations as a result of the establishment’s unique or novel design/layout. The permit will be six months in duration. If the applicant is able to demonstrate sufficient control of the hazards during the life of the Trial Review Establishment Permit, then the business will transfer into a standard food service permit with stipulations. If control of the hazards is not met, then the owner will be Page 1 of 2 required to make necessary modifications to qualify for a standard food service permit. This proposed regulatory change is following the EROP policy and workflow process. The Trial Review Establishment plan review fees are the same as the Chapter I Fee Schedule “Environmental Health Plan Review” fees for categories “All Other Food Establishments”, “Mobile Food Establishments” and “Pushcart Plan Review”. In addition, the Trial Review Establishment permit fees are half the annual “Food Environmental Health Operating Permits” fees by class and seating capacity as listed in the MCEHC Chapter I Fee Schedule. The County Manager briefed the Board of Supervisors in February 2013. Following passage of the Maricopa County Resolution, “Moratorium on Increased Regulatory Burdens”, the County Manager authorized the Department to proceed with this case. An initial stakeholder meeting was conducted February 13, 2013. Then on April 22, 2013, the Department presented a Staff Report for this case to the Board of Health (BOH) at which the BOH voted in support of the Department initiating this case. The Department conducted a follow-up stakeholder meeting on June 5, 2013. No comments have been received via the EROP website. Department Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Health approve the proposed revision to the MCEHC. Presented by: John Kolman, R.S., MBA, Director Attachments: Maricopa County Resolution, “Moratorium on Increased Regulatory Burdens” (2 Pages) County Manager Case Approval (1 Page) Proposed Code Revision Language (3 Pages) Presentation – Stakeholder Meeting (6/5/13) – (2 Pages) Minutes – Stakeholder Meeting (6/5/13) – (1 Page) Report to BOH (4/22/13) – (18 Pages) Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION Moratorium on Increased Regulatory Burdens WHEREAS, creating a predictable regulatory climate that promotes job creation and a healthy economy is critical to the well-being of the county’s residents and businesses; and WHEREAS, county government plays a critical role in encouraging economic recovery; and WHEREAS, Maricopa County is committed to full compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations and enforcement of such as may be required; and WHEREAS, Maricopa County is further committed to streamlining regulations, improving regulatory processes, and decreasing regulatory burdens while protecting the public health, safety and the environment; and WHEREAS, the regulated community and the general public is encouraged to bring forward ideas to reduce regulatory burdens and create regulatory efficiencies; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has previously demonstrated its commitment to regulatory fairness and transparency by adopting the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program, a program that provides unprecedented communication and participation regarding regulatory changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, directs the following: 1. All county departments are prohibited from initiating any regulatory ordinance, rule or regulation changes except as permitted by this Resolution. It is the objective of this Resolution to eliminate any unnecessary increased regulatory burdens or costs for employers, citizens, or political subdivisions of Arizona. 2. Paragraph 1 does not apply to regulatory changes for any one or more of the following reasons: a. To lessen or ease a regulatory burden b. To prevent an immediate or significant threat to public health, peace or safety c. To avoid a violation of a court order or federal law that would result in sanctions by a court or the federal government for failure to make the regulatory change d. To comply with a federal statutory or regulatory requirement or a state statutory requirement e. Fee initiations or adjustments necessary to provide adequate, timely or required service 3. A county department shall not initiate any regulatory changes outlined in Paragraph 2, sections a – e, without written authorization from the County Manager. 4. This Resolution does not confer any rights, legal, administrative or otherwise upon any persons and shall not be used as a basis for challenges to any county ordinances, rules, regulations, approvals, denials, permits, licenses, or other County actions or inactions. 5. This Resolution shall remain in effect until 2016, unless repealed, amended or reauthorized by the Board of Supervisors. ADOPTED by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County, Arizona, this ____ day of _____________2013. _________________________________ Andrew Kunasek, Chairman of the Board ATTEST: _________________________________ Fran McCarroll, Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Deputy County Attorney 2 MARICOPA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CODE CHAPTER VIII FOOD, FOOD PRODUCTS, FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENTS SECTION 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGULATION 1. Definitions (1) to (69) No Change (70) “TRIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHMENT” MEANS A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS OPERATING UNDER A SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN ITEMS, EQUIPMENT AND ACTIVE MANAGERIAL CONTROL PLANS FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 6 MONTHS. (70) (71)"Uniform Mechanical Code" means the Uniform Mechanical Code published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. (71) (72) “Vending Machine Operator” means anyone who as the owner or person in charge, furnishes, installs, services, operates or maintains one or more vending machines. (72)(73) "Wholesome" means clean, free from spoilage, and safe for human consumption. REGULATION 2. to REGULATION 11. No Change MARICOPA COUNTY HEALTH CODE CHAPTER VIII FOOD, FOOD PRODUCTS, FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENTS SECTION 6 FOOD RELATED FACILITIES In addition to complying with the regulations in Section 1 and 2 of this Chapter, beverage plants, damaged and salvaged food establishments, bakeries, ice manufacturing plants, refrigerated warehouses and food catering establishments shall comply with the following regulations. REGULATION 1. to REGULATION 7 No Change REGULATION 8. TRIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHMENT (A) AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR REVIEW UNDER A TRIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT INCLUDE STRUCTURAL ITEMS, CUSTOM EQUIPMENT, UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS, ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS, OR OTHER ITEMS THE DEPARTMENT DEEMS APPROPRIATE. (B) AREAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REVIEW UNDER A TRIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT INCLUDE FOOD TEMPERATURE CONTROL, PERSONAL HYGIENE CONTROL, CHEMICAL/REAGENT MATERIALS, ANY ITEM DIRECTLY RELATED TO CDC RISK FACTORS, OR ANY ITEM THE DEPARTMENT DEEMS COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT PUBLIC HEALTH. (C) ANY ESTABLISHMENT THAT SERVES A HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATION MAY NOT APPLY FOR A TRIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT. (D) AT THE END OF THE SIX MONTH PERIOD, THE DEPARTMENT WILL TRANSITION THE BUSINESS INTO AN APPLICABLE FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT WHERE THE OWNER WILL EITHER: (1) MAKE ALL NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS TO MEET CURRENT MARICOPA COUNTY HEALTH CODE REGULATIONS; OR (2) OPERATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH A DEPARTMENT APPROVED ALTERNATIVE DESIGN, EQUIPMENT AND/OR ACTIVE MANAGERIAL CONTROL PLAN. (E) THE TRIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHMENT PLAN REVIEW FEES ARE THE SAME AS THE CHAPTER I FEE SCHEDULE “ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PLAN REVIEW” FEES FOR CATEGORIES “ALL OTHER FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS”, “MOBILE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS” AND “PUSHCART PLAN REVIEW”. IN ADDITION, THE TRIAL REVIEW ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT FEES ARE HALF THE ANNUAL “FOOD ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OPERATING PERMITS” FEES BY CLASS AND SEATING CAPACITY AS LISTED IN THE CHAPTER I FEE SCHEDULE. Environmental Services Department Stakeholder Meeting ES-2013-001 Experimental Permit Wednesday June 5, 2013 9am Stakeholders Present: Leezie Kim, Fox Restaurant. Staff Present: Ken Conklin – Quality & Compliance Division Manager, Shikha Gupta – QA/QC EOPS, Caroline Oppleman – Quality & Compliance Management Analyst, Daenon Brewer – Plan Review and Construction Supervisor, Vasanthi Hofer – Western Regional Office EOPS, Scott Zusy – Quality & Compliance Environmental Related Illness Supervisor, Pat Valadez – Quality & Compliance Administrative Assistant Presenter(s): Caroline Oppleman, Daenon Brewer Minutes*: Ms. Oppleman gave a brief explanation about the county’s Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) and how to submit comments and sign-up to receive notices on the EROP web site. She also reviewed the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department’s vision and mission statement. Mr. Brewer presented and explained the concept behind the proposed revisions. The stakeholder present was familiar with the Experimental Permit process. What is the next Phase that this goes to (agenda)? o This will be presented to the Board of Health on July 22, 2013 and we will recommend that the Board of Health propose that the Board of Supervisors adopt it on September 25, 2013. What is the fee cost? o The trial review permit fee would be $615.00. Do you want public comments from other restaurateurs? o We always welcome feedback and comments. We want to get you through the approval process in a timely manner and we want to set you up for success long term. Meeting adjourned. *In order for the minutes to be relevant; only those questions and comments that were applicable to the topic presented were recorded. All other questions and comments not relevant to the topic were addressed either at the time of the meeting or shortly thereafter. Working with our community to ensure a safe and healthy environment Page 1 of 1 Report to the Board of Health To Initiate Regulatory Change Prepared by the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Case #/Title: ES-2013-001 / Experimental Food Service Permit Meeting Date: April 22, 2013 Supervisor Districts: All Districts Applicant: Department Request: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department is proposing the creation of a new food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by Maricopa County Environmental Health Code regulations. Support/Opposition: Industry has shown their support of this case from the onset. They have been actively involved in the initial development, have provided valuable feedback, and have voiced their understanding of the value it provides. No opposition has been expressed. Only constructive input into the details of the case. Department Recommendation: Initiate Discussion: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department is proposing the creation of a new food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by Maricopa County Environmental Health Code regulations. The 2009 FDA Food Code allows for modifications and waivers but does not define their application to specific items. The new permit type, with a working title of ‘Trial Review Permit’, would allow a prospective restaurant owner the option to submit their drawings and management plan addressing any food safety and sanitation hazards not in line with regulations as a result of the establishment’s unique or novel design/layout. The permit would have a limited duration. If the applicant is able to demonstrate sufficient control of the hazards during the life of the Trial Review Permit, the business would transfer into a standard food service permit with stipulations incorporated into a variance. If control of the hazards is not met,the owner will be required to make necessary modifications in order to qualify for a standard food service permit. Maricopa County Environmental Services will work closely with industry and stakeholders to refine this conceptual permit. If the initiation of this case is approved, the Department will work with industry to draft proposed code language. Page 1 of 2 This proposed regulatory change will follow the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach policy and workflow process. The County Manager briefed the brief the Board of Supervisors in February 2013. A stakeholder meeting was conducted February 13, 2013. Department Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board of Health approve initiation of the proposed revision to the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code. Presented by: John Kolman, R.S., MBA, Director Attachments: Presentation – Stakeholder Meeting (2/13/13) – (12 Pages) Minutes – Stakeholder Meeting (2/13/13) – (4 Pages) Page 2 of 2 Trial Review Food Service Permit Environmental Health Division Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Working with our community to ensure a safe and healthy environment VISION STATEMENT: As the recognized regional environmental leader, we will develop and foster innovative environmental health protection programs for the safety of our residents and their environment. MISSION STATEMENT: The mission of the Environmental Services Department is to provide safe food, water, waste disposal and vector borne disease reduction controls to the people of Maricopa County so that they may enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Permit Scope • To provide a permitting option in which the Department can review a novel design item not in line with code regulations • Owner will have to describe how the hazards of concern are controlled for in their application • Owner will have to demonstrate active managerial control of these items during the review period • Voluntary on the part of the applicant • Transitions into a regular permit with an incorporated variance Eligibility • Regulatory items eligible for review under this permit include: – Structural items (e.g. building barriers) – Custom Equipment – Unique Architectural Designs (e.g. novel finishes) – Alternative Equipment Systems (e.g. hot water generation) Eligibility • Regulatory items not eligible for review under this permit include: – Food temperature control items – Personal hygiene control items – Chemical/Reagent items – Any item directly related to CDC risk factors – Any item the Department determines could adversely impact public health – Any establishment that serves a highly susceptible population Attributes • Intiated by application submittal • Full plan review process and fees are required for permit approval • All licensing timeframe rules apply to the application review • Full compliance with regulations not part of the trial review is required for permit approval • Separate permit fee is required upon approval • 6 month expiration upon issuance • 2-3 inspections conducted during trial period Compliance • Department will determine through the application/plan review if the proposed managerial plan addresses the hazards of concern • Once the final plan is approved, construction inspections are complete, and the permit fee is paid, the permit is issued Compliance • Department will monitor compliance with the approved managerial plan and the health code through inspections during the trial period • Deficiencies will be documented during inspections • During the last month of the permit cycle, the Department will review the compliance history to determine if the hazards of concern have been controlled for Compliance • If the Department approves the continued use of the managerial control plan, the business will be transitioned into a regular 12 month permit • The managerial plan will be formalized into a Department issued variance attached to the new permit • The owner will pay a separate fee for the new permit Compliance • If the Department denies the continued use of the managerial control plan, the business will be required to close upon the permit expiration date • If the owner chooses to continue their business, they would submit a new permit application, with applicable fees, and be required to come into full compliance with the health code • An owner cannot apply for a second experimental permit for the same business Denials/Appeals • Appeals process for permit denials are defined in A.R.S. §11-1601 through §11-1610 and the Maricopa County Establishing Licensing Timeframes Ordinance (No. P-30) Questions? Robert Stratman, M.S., R.S. Maricopa County Environmental Services Department Environmental Health Division 1001 N. Central Ave. #300 Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 506-6986 Your email@mail.maricopa.gov Environmental Services Department Public Meeting Experimental Food Service Permit Wednesday February 13, 2013 2:00pm Stakeholder Present: Sherry Gillespie – AZ Restaurant Assoc, Kara Sundeen – Fox Restaurant, Leezie Kim – Fox Restaurant. Staff Present: Steven Goode – Deputy Director, Robert Stratman – Environmental Health Operation Supervisor, Hether Krause – Enforcement Operation Supervisor, Caroline Oppleman – Quality & Compliance Management Analyst, Lene Pope – Quality & Compliance Development Services Technician. Presenter: Robert Stratman Minutes: A brief explanation of the County’s Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) was given, along with information on how to make and receive comments from the site. The code revision process might take a little longer, but it will be transparent. The title on the EROP site is “Experimental Food Service Permit”, we will most likely be changing the name to “Trial Permit” which is more in line with what the intent of the permit is. We want to provide a permitting option in which the Department can review novel design items not in line with code regulations. The owner will have to demonstrate active managerial control of these items during the review period. Submitting plans for the “Trial Permit” will be similar to a regular permit, but the length of the permit and the outcome will be different. If success of the Trial Permit items has been demonstrated, then we will transition into a regular permit with an incorporated variance. Some regulatory items eligible for review under this permit include: Structural items (e.g. building barriers), Custom Equipment (non food safety related), Unique Architectural Designs (e.g. novel finishes), Alternative Equipment Systems (e.g. hot water generation). Our main focus will be from a public health perspective and making sure that food safety has not been compromised. If any items were to come up that’s not listed here, would it still be considered? o Yes, we are just outlining a few examples. When it comes down to rule writing, we will consider any item that the Department determines NOT to adversely impact public health, and will try to come up with language that is clear to state that. There are regulatory items that will not be eligible for review under this permit, and they include: Food temperature control items, Personal hygiene control items, Chemical/Reagent items, any item directly related to CDC risk factors, any item the Department determines could adversely impact public health, any establishment that services a highly susceptible population (e.g. hospital, school, nursing home). Going back to what started this, the question about fly fans, what category would that fall into? o That would be considered “Structural” or “Building barrier”. It is not directly related to a core food safety item that we are trying to protect. Working with our community to ensure a safe and healthy environment Page 1 of 4 The attributes of how we envision the permit structurally, will be initiated by application submittal, full plan review process and fees are required for permit approval. All licensing timeframe rules apply to the application review. Full compliance with regulations not part of the trial review is required for permit approval. A separate permit fee is required upon approval, and we are likely looking at 6 months expiration upon issuance. The amount of inspections that will be conducted during the trial period will be around 2-3, and we will be assessing the managerial plan over that six month period. If compliance is granted after the six months trial period, would you pay the regular permit fee? o Yes, the fees you paid were to cover for the trial period, and that fee will be based on the work that was conducted within that six months. The regular permit fee is paid up front and covers the next 12 months. So the trial permit fee will include 3 inspections? o Correct. Everything ties back to the workload. Do you have any ideas of how much that fee would be? o Our full service permit fee is around $1000, so we would probably be looking around the $400-$500 range. But nothing has been determined yet. We would have to set the number of inspections required, and that would be included in the determination. AZ Restaurant Assoc. is looking into the requirement of the inspections that will be conducted during the trial period, and perhaps 3 inspections will be too much. Can the inspections be part of the regular inspections that normally would occur within those 6 months, that way only 2 inspections will be needed? o The inspections will be conducted by the assigned regional offices, and will be seen as any other routine inspection. Full compliance will be determined and evaluating the managerial control plan for the “trial” permit will be conducted as well. That is not any different than what is already done. If after the 6 months everything is great, we will be formalizing the managerial plan into a regular permit with an attached variance. It is still outside of code, but the six months allows the establishment to demonstrate that the “hazard” can be controlled. The inspections conducted will be very similar to any other place that has a variance. So the establishment is not really paying any more money for the permit, since all fees are paid up front it will just be pushing it out 6 months? o That is correct. You will just be paying for 6 months of a permit first instead of the normal 12 months. The inspections may come down to 2, but toward the end we would have to conduct a “case study”. AZ Restaurant Assoc. is just trying to avoid any more inspections than necessary, and trying not to have a fee that would be too high. So the fee for the 6 months would not just be for the variance, it would be like half a normal permit fee? o We are still looking into any exact fees, and also how we can transition into a variance permit. So the size of the restaurant will still be factored into the fee determination? o Yes. This concept is strictly voluntarily and if we already have an approved variance for the particular item, then that might be the more economical way to go. This new trial permit is for “novel” items that don’t already exist as a variance. The FDA has protocols in place for certain items and we have a guideline to go by when reviewing that, in this case there is no guideline and we’ll have to establish that. Compliance: The Department will monitor compliance with the approved managerial plan and the health code through inspections during the trial period. Deficiencies will be documented during inspections. During the last month of the permit cycle, the Department will review the compliance history to determine if the hazards of concern have been controlled for. If the Department approves the continued use of the managerial Working with our community to ensure a safe and healthy environment Page 2 of 4 control plan, the business will be transitioned into a regular 12 month permit. The owner will pay a separate fee for the new permit. If the Department denies the continued use of the managerial control plan, the business will be required to close upon the permit expiration date. If the owner chooses to continue their business, they would submit a new permit application, with applicable fees, and be required to come into full compliance with the health code. An owner cannot apply for a second experimental permit for the same thing, but each case is different. When you are looking at violations, how are they counted? Will they be counted individually or cumulative? o We haven’t looked into any enforcement actions on this trial permit yet, and we welcome any comments on this. The way violations are currently written on a regular permit, they are looked at individually. If you are in violation with violation #20 and the next time you are in violation with #14, those are separate violations. You have to have 4 consecutive violations of the same number to have your permit revoked. What if one refrigerator is broken on the first inspection, corrected and fixed on the next inspection. But then on the second inspection another refrigerator is broken, it is the same type of violation, but on a separate unit, how will that be counted? o It will be tough to account for that, because it is the same category of violation. From a public health standpoint, if a piece of equipment is faulty on one inspection and part of the corrective action is, that you as the operator is to make sure that you are up to speed on all your equipment. The corrective action discussed is not just for one piece of equipment, it includes all. What will constitute a denial of the trial permit? o That is something we will have to work out, language for the code will have to be made up. We are currently not to that point yet. However, we will not allow any facility to enter into this with a major risk or public health item. If it has been determined that the managerial control plan will not work out, and the establishment will have to go back to the retrofit plan. Is there any way to make the time period a little longer? o In those cases, it would be helpful if the establishment already had a plan in place. There are already some permit denial items in place, and those would apply to this as well. But there are several things that we can do along the way to help with this. This is a really good thing that the Department is doing, and it shows that you are open to innovations, and it will not cost the taxpayers anything. We think that the industry will really support this. We are just a little worried that closing an establishment down can be really costly for the place. So if the establishment already had the backup plan in place, could the closing be avoided? o There currently are existing things in place that could be utilized, such as settlement agreements and such. But we also want to make sure that it is known that there is a “risk-reward” going into this. So going into this with an open mind will be helpful. As of right now, how long would an establishment have to fix a corrective action? o It depends on the category of violation. Some could be 10 days, other could be immediately. What if it was a less severe violation, not a health risk? o Typically it would need to be fixed before the next routine inspection. But the trial permit only has a 6 month lifecycle, so it would be a little different here. What if an establishment discovers 3 months into the trial period that the variance item will not work out for them, could they sever the trial permit voluntarily and get a new permit? The concern from the industry is that they don’t ever want to be in a position where they have to close, so if there are other ways to work with the Department to avoid that. Working with our community to ensure a safe and healthy environment Page 3 of 4 o The Department has already talked about this, and there might be a way that could work. There are a few options that we are looking into. We would have to look at what the item is, and work from there. Before the trial permit is issued, the Department has to make sure that it meets the minimum requirements. During the transition we’ll work with the establishment to find out what “tool” works best. We don’t want to close an establishment either, but we want to make sure that it is know that we take this very seriously. How long into the 6 months trial period would a determination be made? o We haven’t come up with an exact day yet, that is something that will need to be determined. But it would likely happen somewhere after the 5th month. The industry feels that any establishment will be devastated from closure of the facility, so if there are some language that could be included into the code that would state a minimum time period to correct things might be helpful. As long as people would know that they have a chance to correct things might appeal more to establishments. o Those are all things that we will consider when writing this into code, coming up with a language that everyone will understand and without being too specific. During the plan review process items like this will also be addressed. Hopefully this meeting covered most of the items that we are trying to accomplish with this permit. You have done an amazing job putting this together. From an optic perspective, this is very innovative, applying new technology and new ideas to the current system in a way that does not cost the taxpayers anything. You are seeking input from the stakeholders and business community to be considered. The elective officials and public should really like this. The safety and public health is being retained, but are encouraging innovation, that is fantastic. This is a big deal for the industry. This is a classic example of a public-private partnership that works both ways. The next Board of Health meeting is April 22nd, so the rule writing will be around that time. We will conduct another stakeholder meeting after the draft language of the rule has been written. September is when we are looking at getting this passed. Meeting adjourned. Working with our community to ensure a safe and healthy environment Page 4 of 4 Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program PUBLIC NOTICE OF PROPOSED FEES DATE/TIME: Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 9:00 a.m. LOCATION: Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson St., Phoenix The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing on September 25, 2013 to discuss proposed code revisions to the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code (MCEHC) and associated new and modified fee information for the following: Case #/Title: ES-2013-001/Experimental Food Service Permit Overview: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department proposes to create a new “Trial Review Establishment” food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by MCEHC regulations. The Trial Review Establishment plan review fees are the same as the Chapter I Fee Schedule “Environmental Health Plan Review” fees for categories “All Other Food Establishments”, “Mobile Food Establishments” and “Pushcart Plan Review” as follows: Environmental Health Plan Review Subtype Fee All Other Food Establishments $615.00 Mobile Food Establishments $75.00 Pushcart Plan Review $45.00 In addition, the Trial Review Establishment permit fees are half the annual “Food Environmental Health Operating Permits” fees by class and seating capacity as listed in the Chapter I Fee Schedule as follows: Food Environmental Health Permit 1 Year Fee Operating Permits Subtype Adventure Food Service Class 4 $585.00 Bakery Class 2 $310.00 Boarding Home Class 2 $275.00 Boarding Home Class 5 $760.00 Damaged Food Class 4 $620.00 E&D 0-9 Seating Class 2 $260.00 E&D 0-9 Seating Class 3 $455.00 E&D 0-9 Seating Class 4 $695.00 E&D 0-9 Seating Class 5 $610.00 E&D Service Kitchen Class 2 $230.00 E&D 10+ Seating Class 2 $315.00 Food Environmental Health Permit 1 Year Fee Operating Permits Subtype E&D 10+ Seating Class 3 $650.00 E&D 10+ Seating Class 4 $1,030.00 E&D 10+ Seating Class 5 $1,020.00 Food Bank Class 2 $260.00 Food Catering Class 5 $530.00 Food Processor Class 2 $260.00 Food Processor Class 4 $590.00 Ice Manufacturing Class 2 $175.00 Meat Market Class 4 $610.00 Mobile Food Unit Class 4 $610.00 Pushcart Class 3 $240.00 Refrigerated Warehouse/Locker Class 2 $265.00 Retail Food Establishment Class 3 $505.00 Retail Food Establishment Class 2 $235.00 Case #/Title: ES-2013-002/Revisions to MCEHC – Misspellings/Spacing throughout the Code and Reorganizing, Updating, and Definitions/Application in Chapters I, VIII and X Overview: This code revision adds clarification to defined terms, removes unnecessary items and edits for improved readability. No fee changes are requested. However, the Water and Waste Management Division section of the MCEHC Chapter I Fee Schedule will be reorganized by annual permit categories, followed by plan review categories, to reduce redundant fee lines. In addition, fees used by multiple programs will be shown one time. The proposed reorganization will allow customers to identify applicable fees in the MCEHC. Case #/Title: ES-2013-003/Food Service Worker Overview: Revisions to MCEHC Chapter VII – This code revision establishes the opportunity for those with a disability to obtain a Limited Use Food Service Worker Card. It also clarifies existing exemption language and enhances consistency with Chapter VIII terminology. No fee changes are requested. However, the fee associated with the Limited Use Food Service Worker Card will be $5.00 for the original card and $3.00 for a duplicate card, the same as listed in the MCEHC Chapter I Fee Schedule for the existing Food Service Worker Card (original and duplicate versions, respectively). The Limited Use Food Service Worker Card expires three years from the date of issue. For more information and to follow Maricopa County’s regulatory adoption process step by step, please visit: http://www.maricopa.gov/regulations/. Also, you may submit comments at: http://www.maricopa.gov/regulations/comments.aspx. Thank you for your participation. Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date/Time: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. Location: Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson St., Phoenix, AZ 85003 The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will host a Public Meeting to discuss the following proposed code revisions to the Maricopa County Environmental Health Code (MCEHC): Case #/Title: ES-2013-001/Experimental Food Service Permit Overview: To align with Chairman Kunasek’s vision of “adaptive reuse”, the Department proposes to create a new food service permit that may accommodate food service establishment design concepts not specifically allowed for by MCEHC regulations. Case #/Title: ES-2013-002/Revisions to MCEHC – Misspellings/Spacing throughout the Code and Reorganizing, Updating, and Definitions/Application in Chapters I, VIII and X Overview: This code revision adds clarification to defined terms, removes unnecessary items and edits for improved readability. No fee changes are requested. Case #/Title: ES-2013-003/Food Service Worker Overview: Revisions to MCEHC Chapter VII – This code revision establishes the opportunity for those with a disability to obtain a Limited Use Food Service Worker Card; it also clarifies existing exemption language and enhances consistency with Chapter VIII regarding terminology. No fee changes are requested. Case #/Title: ES-2013-004/Revisions to MCEHC Chapter II, Sewage and Wastes – Technical Revisions to Onsite Wastewater Rules and Clarification of Livestock Manure Storage Requirements Overview: This code revision provides technical clarifications for onsite wastewater systems and exempts livestock manure from unintended, cost-prohibitive refuse storage requirements. No fee changes are requested. Case #/Title: ES-2013-005/Revisions to MCEHC Chapter VI, Bathing Places – Public and Semipublic Swimming Pools – Pool Construction Requirements Overview: This code revision clarifies certain pool construction requirements to prevent varied interpretations. No fee changes are requested. For more information and to follow Maricopa County’s regulatory adoption process step by step, please visit: http://www.maricopa.gov/regulations/. Also, you may submit comments at: http://www.maricopa.gov/regulations/comments.aspx. Thank you for your participation.