With half the average staff, the district cannot afford restaurant inspections.
County lacks the funding for routine inspections
Larimer County doesn’t have enough money to inspect its restaurants the way it should, and there’s nothing it can do about it.
State law sets the fees that restaurants and food service facilities, such as cafeterias and grocery stores, pay for licensing — a process that comes with an annual price tag of between $115 for the smallest grocery stores to $690 for the largest deli-included grocery store, and amounts in between for various other eateries. The legislature, which must OK any increase, hasn’t changed those fees since 2009.
The county says it is operating at about half the staff it says it needs to maintain the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recommended inspection rate, even as its workers hit double what an inspector is expected to and the number of restaurants in the county continues to rise.
“We have some (food service facilities) that we haven’t been to in one or two years,” said Jim Devore, Larimer County Environmental Health Specialist.
While he notes that the U.S. “has probably the safest food supply system in the world,” he and his inspectors still check to make sure things like dishware are at least 6 inches from the ground, that food preparation sinks aren’t liable to have sewage back up into them in a clog, and that dented cans — and the fear of botulism that comes with them — aren’t found.
The Larimer County Commission recently asked the statewide lobbyist group for county governments to advocate for a fee increase. As of now, the annual food licensing fees paid by grocery stores, convenience stores and restaurants cover about 40 percent of the cost of health inspections. The gap will create an expected deficit of almost $570,000 this year between revenues and total cost.
The rest of Colorado is going through a similar budgetary struggle, said Jeff Lawrence, director of the division of environmental health and sustainability for the state.
“What’s current in Larimer is not unique,” he said. “It’s the same with any of the agencies that we delegate the authority (for food safety inspections) to.”
The county has switched to a risk-based inspection platform, which essentially means higher-risk facilities, such as those dealing with raw meats, are inspected more frequently. It’s a system widely adopted in the state, Lawrence said. Health departments can essentially choose between that system, which the state established, or inspect each facility twice a year — an unrealistic request as most inspection agencies try to make cost and revenues add up.
Historically, the legislature has increased the fees about every five or six years, Lawrence said. Before 2009’s increase, it was upped in 2003; before that, 1998. Each time, the industry has pushed back. After all, these fees cut into revenues and people’s ability to operate their businesses, Lawrence said.
The Colorado Restaurant Association opposed the first version of the bill. Its president and CEO, Sonia Riggs, called fee setting via legislature a “healthy vetting process.” Her group supported establishing the stakeholder group. “Restaurants aren’t out there trying to make people sick. That would be bad for business.”
The stakeholders group includes the CRA and its equivalent for convenience and grocery stores, as well as local and state health departments and county governments. Riggs expects any recommendation from the group to wind up at the legislature next session.
Her group is chiefly fighting for more uniformity among how inspections are managed in different counties, as well as changes to how results are reported.
While her group is OK with some fee increase, it is also prepared to fight the notion that restaurants should bear the full cost of health inspections, she said. Part of that means pushing for more risk-based inspection schedules, like Larimer County does. Details of what CRA and, ultimately, the stakeholders group, can live with aren’t available yet; the group has only met twice, Riggs said.
Lawrence said he hopes for a fair conclusion, as well.
“We’re trying to be a good stakeholder in the process and hope program resources get increased so the work can get done in a better manner,” he said.