The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIR 8750N RITOW-03MI 2�� At the January 24, 2006 Pre-Council meeting, Council asked for additional information specific to the legality, feasibility and implementation requirements of a publicly posted restaurant grading system in Fort Worth. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of a potential restaurant grading system model and resource/revenue enhancement detail required to implement a publicly posted restaurant grading system in Fort Worth. Potential Restaurant Grading System Model As a brief overview of how a restaurant grading system could work in Fort Worth, every food service establishment inspection report (including some mobile food vendor reports) would be translated into a letter grade of either "A", "B" or "C" based upon a demerit matrix. More serious violations would be weighted heavier than less serious violations, so that a combination of total demerits and a weighting multiplier would determine the letter grade. This letter grade would be issued by the Public Health Department inspector for mandatory posting by the establishment. An ordinance revision will be necessary to require the letter grade be posted in a readily visible location to consumers. For food establishments that receive a grade of "A", no re-inspection or other follow-up will be required prior to the next regularly scheduled inspection (typically six months). Any establishment receiving the grade of 13" or "C" will be allowed to request, and pay for, a re-inspection within 72 hours of the original inspection. A grade of "D" will result in a mandatory re-inspection within 72 hours. If improvements have not been made to the extent necessary to attain a score of "C" or better, the establishment will be closed pending appropriate improvements. If any follow-up inspection is requested or required, the grade earned during the re-inspection will be final until the next regularly scheduled inspection. Increased Workload Estimates Transitioning to a publicly posted restaurant grading system will result in an increased workload for the Public Health Department's Consumer Health Division staff. This is due primarily to four factors: I An average food establishment inspection currently takes approximately 45 minutes. With the added component of translating the inspection report into a single letter grade that must be posted in a readily visible location, it is expected that the restaurant representative would beome a more ti paeiicipant in the inspection. It is estimated that the e extra time spent lxplaining, educating or listening to what the establishment representative may consider eaten uating circumstances would expand the average inspection time from 45 minutes to 60 minutes. This estimated expanded time factor would decrease the number of inspections perfomied annually with existing staff by 25%. Clod establishments that receive a grade lower than an "A" can request (and pay for) a re- inspection, It is anticipated that as many as 40% of all establishments would tie, eligible for this senuice (bas ed Up, n current actual scor s,,, and 60% of those eligible -,, { „ul request this vice, rr:suflting in approximately 1 .63 4 aelldnii nal 11 ins red tionns annuallf (:24% increase in tc-,Ial nurriber of inspectioin,,$). ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 4. To the Mayor and Members of the City Council TI. Me -11611 February 14, 2006 Page 2 of 5 SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A PUBLICLY POSTED RESTAURANT GRADING SYSTEM It is anticipated that complaints and appeal requests would increase when food establishment representatives have differences of opinion with the field inspector. These calls are typically handled by supervisory staff. Quality assurance and standardization activities will require enhancement. While these program components are currently in place at adequate levels, an increased emphasis would be required to implement and sustain a fair and equitable letter grading system. In summary, it is estimated that the expanded time allotment required for each inspection and the increase in re- inspections will result in an enhanced workload of approximately 1,702 inspections (25% fewer inspections performed by existing staff and 1,634 more inspections required due to re- inspection provisions). Other related functions will also experience a workload increase, including quality assurance, standardization, administrative support and customer service. Staffing Requirement Recommendations The table below shows a comparison of current staffing levels between Fort Worth and three jurisdictions that have successfully implemented a publicly posted restaurant grading system (Los Angeles and San Diego, California and Wake County North Carolina). As noted, the ratio of inspectors to establishments is much lower in the benchmark cities to address the enhanced workload issues noted above. In order for Fort Worth to match the ratios of these benchmark cities, the addition of 9, 5.5 or 5 inspectors would be required respectively. In addition to benchmarking other cities, the staffing enhancement recommendations also cross - reference the workload increase estimates detailed in the previous section. Utilizing the estimated enhanced workload o €3,336 inspections (25% fewer inspections performed by existing staff and 1,634 more inspections required due to re- inspection provisions), an inspection staff increase of five is required based upon the following formula. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS Ratio of Number of Food Number of Food Inspectors to Jurisdiction Inspectors Establishments Establishments San Diego County California 52 11,000 1:211 Wake County North Carolina 10 2,667 1:267 Los Angeles County California 140 38,347 1:273 City of Fort Worth 9 3,908 1:434 (To match 1.-211 ratio) ( +9) (1:211) (To match 1: 267 ratio) ( +5 5) (1:267) (To match 1:273 ratio) ( +5) (1:273) In order for Fort Worth to match the ratios of these benchmark cities, the addition of 9, 5.5 or 5 inspectors would be required respectively. In addition to benchmarking other cities, the staffing enhancement recommendations also cross - reference the workload increase estimates detailed in the previous section. Utilizing the estimated enhanced workload o €3,336 inspections (25% fewer inspections performed by existing staff and 1,634 more inspections required due to re- inspection provisions), an inspection staff increase of five is required based upon the following formula. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS rW�"lraw To the Mayor and Members of the City Council No. 8750 February 14, 2006 Page 3of5 SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A PUBLICLY POSTED RESTAURANT GRADING SYSTEM • Current number of annual inspections performed per inspector = 866 • Estimated number of annual inspections performed per inspector after inspection time allotment increase = 650 • Estimated increased number of inspections required, including reduced number of inspections performed by existing staff (1,702) and 1,634 additional re- inspections = 3,336 • Total number of estimated increased inspections (3,336) divided by estimated number of annual inspections performed per inspector after inspection time allotment increase (650) = 5.1 (required inspection staff increase) In summary, utilizing all of the factors identified above in the form of benchmarked cities and increased workload projections, staff recommends the following staff additions: 5 inspector positions 2 administrative support positions 1 quality assurance specialist position Other Operating and Equipment Costs With the staffing additions recommended above, providing city vehicles and other related equipment (including notebook computers and portable printers) would be required for field inspectors. Additionally, the increase of a total of 8 staff positions would require an increase of an estimated 33% increase in other operating costs. This is an estimate based upon the pro -rata increase in staffing. The recommended budget enhancement detailed below includes only direct cost implications. Not included is space rental or other potential indirect costs associated with housing expanding staffing levels. Recommended Budget Enhancement BUDGET CATEGORY RECOMMENDED INCREASE Personnel $351,620 Other Operating Costs $58,379 Equipment (Year One) $185,260 TOTAL $595,259 Revenues l Fees In order to generate additional revenues sufficient to offset the enhanced budgetary requirements, a significant adjustment to the department's fee structure is required. The table below details the current and recommended revised fee structure. Raising fees as proposed would generate an additional $621,750 annually. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS I�� ` n� 444 a .•.• •. . . -. .i Permit Fee Current Fee Annual Annual Proposed Fee Estimated Estimated Annual Food $200.00 Volume Revenue $100.00- Volume Revenue Annual Food $200.00 3,342 $808,742 $325.00 3,342 $1,232,742 Service (Plus $5 per employee) (Plus $5 per (including employee) employee) mobile fond vendors with Certificate of Occupancy) Re-Inspection $65.00 100 $6,500 $125.00 1,634 $204,250 TOTAL $815,242 $1,436,992 Below is a comparison of Fort Worth's current and proposed fees with other area program fees. Permit Fee Fort Worth Current Fort Worth Proposed Arlington Tarrant Coun r Dallas Plano Annual Food $200.00 $325.00 $200.00- $100.00- $300.00 - $350.00- Service (Plus $5 per (Plus $5 per $375.00 * $300.00 * $425.00 * $475.00 (including employee employee) mobile food vendors with Certificate of Re- Inspection 1 $65.00 $125.00 N1A N A Nl A 1/A * Fees vary depending upon establishment size (square footage). Challenges As rioted in the first informal report to Council on this topic, there are significant challenges associated with implementation of publicly - posted restaurant grading system beyond the flnan ial / resource. issues. All can be overcome- ho x� � � ors , p . gram mules, public education. and ether implementation strategies would need to address the following: • Each inspection is a snapshot in time and the letter grads awarded is only reflective of conditions on the day the inspection was conducted, Should conditions significantly change the next day or in one of the subsequent months betrveerr inspections, the grade could lead to a false sense of security I- or consumers or an outdated ' e t =r Dee ��'�� in� e� fog s ` v -m o� r r �, ? �.�� . � ��t �? ' �� ,� �� i�1�� tom. , h x,tential exists 15 r misint r retation of the ite information provided by a i.. g1le letter grade- Consumers ar left .,o de tunnnhne tiei l s what a B or Cz letter x d-, means in relation to fbod sa ry ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS jT:: Pi IT; Tv: W F-I III •., :f-A 18110 B S 'wTV I • Establishments that have sufficiently few violations to receive the letter grade of an "A", but do have violations, may fail to recognize any incentive to address these violations. • With the expanded potential for the publicly posted letter grade to have a more immediate and direct impact on business volume, the perceived relationship between the inspector and business owner or manager could transition from a partnership to ensure consumer health and safety to more adversarial in nature. Conclusion With a sufficient infusion of resources (detailed above), a publicly-posted restaurant grading system could be implemented in Fort Worth. The challenges noted above, however, would require extensive planning in order to address concerns that have already and will continue to be expressed by restaurant owners relative to the potential business volume impacts of such a system. Additionally, significant consumer education would be required to minimize the potential for letter grade misinterpretations. In conclusion, the simplicity of a letter grading system has the potential to create a valuable tool for dining consumers and potentially reduce the incidence of food -borne illness. With only this limited and time- specific information, however, results could be misinterpreted or outdated very quickly. If Council is interested in further considering implementation of a restaurant letter grading system in Fort Worth, staff recommends initiation of a more inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders. A task force charged with analyzing the issue and returning to Council with recommendations is suggested. For further information on this topic, contact Joe Paniagua at 817-392-6191 or Dan Reimer at 81"7 -871- 7201. Charles R. Boswell City Manager ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS