Last year, Pat Connors and his staff at Pastiche Modern Eatery
served food at 27 off-site events, mostly charity fundraisers. Not
once, he says, did they get a visit from a Pima County Health
Department inspector.
But in March, during the Tucson Festival of Books at the UA, an
inspector came calling with a list of do’s and don’ts that Connors says
he’d never seen before. Pastiche didn’t have a temporary
food-establishment permit that was evidently required, and was missing
a few required items.
“All of that was easy to take care of, and we did, but it was still
the first time we’d been through a screening process,” Connors
says.
Typically, Connors says, he and his employees show up at off-site
events with a hand-washing station, a fire extinguisher and other items
to assure that everything is safe and sanitary. Most of the food he
serves at off-site events is prepared in advance, in his restaurant’s
commercial kitchen, where he already has a health-department permit and
is inspected three times a year.
“Considering we’ve never seen a health inspector before (at off-site
events), it seems obvious that enforcement has not been consistent,” he
says. “And it was obvious (at the Book Festival) that they haven’t
reached out to restaurants as much as they should.”
What bothers Connors isn’t just what he considers a lack of
communication; he says he’s concerned about how this all may affect the
off-site events he participates in, such as the Boys and Girls Club
fundraiser at La Encantada, and Puttin’ on the Dog for the Humane
Society of Southern Arizona.
The cost of the temporary food-establishment permit is $68—and
a new permit is required for each event. When Connors multiplies that
by 27 (the number of events he participated in last year), the cost is
$1,836.
“This is a situation where we are giving away food, not selling it,”
Connors says.
At local charity functions, there is usually a one-time admission
fee for event-goers—often between $50 and $125 per
person—which offers an evening of noshing and drinks at booths
from many of the city’s better restaurants.
Connors shared his concerns with friend and fellow restaurateur
Jonathan Landeen, owner of Jonathan’s Cork, who is equally involved in
local charity events. He even hosts a yearly chili cook-off to raise
money for kids to go to camp.
Like Connors, Landeen wondered why a restaurant which already holds
food permits needs another layer of regulation.
“We may lose events or make it more difficult for restaurants and
organizations, during a time when we need to make it easier because of
the economy,” Landeen says.
He worries about that the health department’s renewed regulatory
interests will impact the charities that the restaurants are
helping.
“Most of us don’t get involved in this to go out to the state fairs
and sell our food,” Landeen says. “We’re doing this at the request of
the (organizations).”
Landeen says he can’t help but think the county’s own financial
struggles are playing a part in the sudden crackdown.
Karen Martin, a Pima County Health Department division manager, says
the point of requiring restaurants to get temporary food permits isn’t
to over-regulate or make more money. Instead, it’s about the law. She
points out that these rules have been on the books for years.
A similar issue between food vendors at farmers’ markets and the
health department (See “Growing Controversy,” Jan. 10, 2008) emerged
when health inspectors descended on local farmers’ markets, issuing
citations and reminding sellers that they needed a permit each time
they showed up to work the market.
Vendors were told they could purchase a $48 permit for 14 days. Like
Connors and Landeen, some business owners complained that they were
already adhering to health standards and had current permits, because
they prepared their foods in commercial kitchens.
Farmers’ market managers began meeting with Martin and other
health-department representatives, and everyone agreed to work together
to re-examine the regulations. However, Martin says that work is on
hold, and vendors are still required to purchase temporary food
permits.
The farmers’ market discussion also led the health department to
look at how it was regulating food booths at community and charitable
events. Martin says the county determined the guidelines needed to be
rewritten to better communicate rules to food servers, restaurant
owners and health inspectors. For example, Martin says, restaurant
owners needed to be reminded that their booths should have better
insect protection (in other words, netting) around the food-prep
areas.
The guideline rewrites, made in February, were added to all
applications and permit information, as well as the health department’s
Web site.
Martin says she understands why restaurateurs like Connors and
Landeen are frustrated; however, the health department’s job, as
mandated by state law, is to protect the health and safety of the
people. The permit costs help pay to send inspectors out, she says.
“If something goes wrong, there has to be some accountability,” she
says. “If it does, people will look to the health department to find
out how we could have prevented it. They will also look at the
restaurant, and it could damage its reputation,” Martin says.
Regarding the restaurant owners’ concerns about charitable events,
Martin suggests that nonprofit organizations think about putting the
permit fees in their budgets, just like they would pay for
facility-rental fees or speaker fees when planning an event.
“Its part of the cost of doing business,” Martin says.
While Connors disagrees, he says that he also understands the health
department’s job and the importance of protecting the public. However,
he feels the sudden crackdown will make it harder for new restaurants
and others who’ve never gotten involved in the community before to make
that leap.
“It’s one way we’ve been able to make a difference,” he says.
Connors says he plans to serve food at future events, such as
Puttin’ on the Dog on May 1—and he doesn’t plan to purchase a
temporary permit.
This article appears in Apr 9-15, 2009.
