📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F3
Findings 4 findings
F1
Page 23
Plumas County ordinances do not require that restaurants and other food facilities visibly display their inspection sheet, so customers don’t know the quality and cleanliness of the facility. The Grand Jury believes that more transparency should exist for the inspection results.
F2
Page 23
Presently, mobile/temporary food facilities don’t have to display their permits or inspection compliance sheets.
F4
Page 23
The Division’s web site, where food facility inspection results are posted, is a very positive process for creating transparency and awareness for food safety. The 23 Grand Jury commends the effort, but believes that many County residents and tourists are not aware of the site.
F5
Page 24
The funding for the department comes from a variety of sources. If any of those funds were reduced, service would suffer if the other sources were not increased.
Recommendations 8
-
R1Page 23The County’s Environmental Health Division should either establish a grading system whereby the quality and cleanliness (safety) of the facility is displayed in the form of letter grade of A, B, or C, or by the colors green, yellow, or red, as determined by the quality of the latest inspection. If a grading system is determined not workable, the Division should require food facilities to display the most recent inspection form, placed near the entrance, visible to patrons.
-
R2Page 23If a grading system is not used for all food handling facilities, the Division should require the mobile/temporary businesses to display the operating permit and the results of the most recent inspection, visible to potential customers.
-
R3aPage 23The Division should establish a brief but detailed set of instructions for inspectors to apply uniformly for correction of infractions.
-
R3bPage 23The Division should establish a standard pattern of rotation for inspectors in such a manner that the same inspector does not conduct more than one of the two inspections of a facility in the same calendar year.
-
R3cPage 23The Division should establish a standard schedule of fines or sanctions for reoccurring violations of a consistent nature.
-
R3dPage 23The Division should establish a fee for owner/operator requested re-inspections for those owners who want to improve their previous inspection grade.
-
R4Page 24The Grand Jury suggests that the Division increase their effort to publicize the existence and nature of this site, using any and all media approaches to reach as many people as possible.
-
R5Page 24That the Board of Supervisors not reduce the County’s tax contribution further than it is now nor take any actions that would compromise the state and other resources that fund the program. Background information: In Plumas County, the Environmental Health Division of the Plumas County Public Health Agency has the responsibility for Food Safety and Consumer Protection as one of its nine functions. The Department inspects every restaurant, grocery, and mobile or temporary food facility in the County twice a year for compliance with the “California Retail Food Code”. A procedural manual for guidelines and training of food facility inspectors—the “Food inspection Data Fields Marking Guideline”—is used to gain consistency and uniformity in the inspection process. When infractions are found, the Division must assure that the facilities correct them to meet the Code. The Division has three Specialists assigned to Food Safety in specified geographic areas of the County. They each inspect all of the facilities in their given area. Among their other State mandated functions, these three Specialists are responsible for inspecting more than two hundred food facilities twice a year. In addition to the inspections of food handling facilities themselves, the Division places on the County web site all food facility inspection sheets for public viewing. Since only about half of the Counties within the State do this, the Jury feels the process is a positive asset for our County. To view these inspection sheets go to (www.countyofplumas.com/publichealth/envhealth). The Division also takes an active role in public education regarding public and consumer safety issues. A list of the Division’s functions and parameters are published in the Annual Report. The Division furnishes information on the County web site where much information about the Division, including the Annual Report can be found. The Division also publishes newspaper articles, handouts, and other information regarding food safety. As a free service to County clients, they also administer the State required Serve Safe Certificate test for food service workers. As indicated in the 2008 Annual Report, the Division’s total revenue sources for all programs, including the Food Safety program, are “Fees for Service—34%, State Realignment—32%, State Program Reimbursement Grants—15% Contracts for Services and other revenue—16%, and County Contribution—3%. The Grand Jury feels that if any of the funding sources mentioned above were reduced, the Division’s performance could be negatively affected, and the Division’s functions are crucial to the well being of County residents. 24