����Ӱ��AV

In December

History: This was the restaurant’s second regularly scheduled inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted five priority violations, including several handwashing issues, handling ready-to-eat food with bare hands, a handwashing sink used for other purposes, several items stored without required date marking and menus without required food safety warnings.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a Nov. 20 follow-up inspection.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In December

History: Since the early 2000s, the school has earned inspection ratings of excellent almost exclusively. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted three priority violations, including an employee handling dirty dishes and then clean dishes without changing gloves or washing their hands, a dishwasher not reaching established temperatures and a reach-in cooler not keeping food below mandated temperatures.

Follow-up: The school failed a follow-up on Nov. 20 because the cooler issue had not been resolved. It passed the next follow-up on Nov. 30.

Response: A district representative did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

In December

History: The restaurant has received mostly good ratings since 2014. In January 2016, it was issued a needs improvement score. It passed the follow-up inspection.

What the inspector saw: In addition to food storage temperature violations, inspectors found German roaches in the food preparation area. This violation had been observed several times previously, establishing a pattern of noncompliance and earning the restaurant a probationary rating.

Follow-Up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on Nov. 13.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In December

History: These appear to have been the restaurant’s first regularly scheduled inspections, according to online health department records.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed just a few violations, but one — the lack of proper warning about raw and undercooked foods in the menu — was not resolved during the inspection, earning the restaurant a needs improvement rating.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed a Nov. 16 follow-up and another had not occurred as of Wednesday.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In December

History: Since 2000, the restaurant has received scores of either good or excellent.

What the inspector saw: In addition to some food storage temperature violations, inspectors found rodent droppings in the back storage area. Inspectors also found that the walls and floor of the back area were in disrepair.

Follow-Up: The restaurant failed two follow-up inspections on Nov. 15 and 30. It passed a third inspection on Dec. 1.

Response: Brand manager Donna Humphrey said all the violations from the Nov. 30 inspection were addressed with employees and the facilities department. “Circle K takes immediate corrective action when receiving a failed inspection notice,” she wrote in an email.

In December

History: Other than a needs improvement rating in May 2017, the restaurant has received ratings of good or excellent since the mid-2000s. It passed the May follow-up.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed roaches in the break room, back prep area and dish washing area. Inspectors also found several issues with proper food storage, earning the restaurant a probationary rating for having six violations.

Follow-Up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on Nov. 9.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In December

History: Since 2004, El Taco Tote has consistently received ratings of good or excellent. It was issued provisional ratings in 2006 and April 2017. It passed both follow-ups.

What the inspector saw: Inspectors found multiple issues with food storage and cleaning of food preparation utensil. In addition to having six violations, two of the violations were identified on previous inspections. The restaurant received a probationary rating.

Follow-Up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Nov. 13.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In December

History: Since 2015, the restaurant has only received ratings of good and excellent.

What the inspector saw: Inspectors found metal pans and a bowl with food debris still on them stored as clean. This violation was found during two prior inspections in 2016, marking a pattern of non-compliance. As a result, the restaurant was issued a probationary rating.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed its follow-up inspection on Nov. 13.

Response: Michael Rohwer, the owner’s father, said, “the problem has been corrected and we passed our re-inspection.”

In December

History: Since 2004, the chain location has almost exclusively received inspection ratings of excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed a single priority violation: a hand-washing sink unable to reach the minimum temperature of 100 degrees, an issue that was not resolved by the follow-up, earning the location a failed rating.

Follow-up: The juice chain location had not resolved the hand sink issue by a Nov. 29 follow-up, but passed on Dec. 1.

Response: Franchisee Lindsay Page said he had not been notified of the Nov. 17 inspection, but as soon as he heard there had been an issue, “I jumped right on it. The violations have been addressed.”

In December

History: Since the early 2000s, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent. It has failed two previous inspections since 2016.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed two priority violations, well below the five normally required for a failing probationary rating. However, one of the violations — food in a walk-in cooler not being kept below established temperatures — had been observed in three recent inspections, constituting what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance.”

Follow-up: A follow-up inspection had not occurred as of Wednesday.

Response: Manager Michael Morse said the cooler was functioning properly, and shredded cheese was the only item that was above the required temperatures. He said 40 pounds of cheese, which was just a few degrees out of compliance, had to be thrown out. He expects to pass the follow-up inspection.

In December

History: Since the early 2000s, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good, but has had five needs improvement inspections.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed 13 priority violations, including raw eggs stored above prepared chicken, equipment with food debris stored as clean, coolers not keeping food at established temperatures and unlabeled cleaning products.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on Nov. 20.

Response: Restaurant representative Eddy Sanchez said staff took immediate action to address the issues, which he said have been resolved.

In December

History: Since 2015, the food truck has received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted eight priority violations, including a hand sink without hot water, raw bacon stored above produce, a reach-in cooler not keeping foods below established temperatures and no test strips for measuring sanitizer.

Follow-up: Molcas passed a Nov. 29 follow-up inspection.

Response: Owner José Alfaro said that all the issues were resolved by the follow-up inspection.

In December

History: Since 2002, Monterey Super Meat Market has consistently received scores of good or excellent.

What the inspector saw: Inspectors found issues with proper food storage, as well as dried meat and cilantro on the food preparation table and utensils. In addition, they found dried rodent droppings on the premises. For having more than five violations, the restaurant was issued a probationary rating.

Follow-Up: The market passed a follow-up on Nov. 3. However, it failed a follow-up inspection on Nov. 13 for failing to correct a violation from a previous inspection. It passed another follow-up inspection on Nov. 14.

Response: Owner Mahyeldin Kardof said he and his staff “took care of everything.”

In December

History: Since 2012, the restaurant has received scores of good or excellent.

What the inspector saw: Inspectors found several issues with proper food storage and witnessed staff handling ready-to-eat food with their bare hands. In addition, the menu did not include a warning about food cooked to order. The restaurant was issued a probationary rating for having five or more violations.

Follow-Up: It was not clear from online records whether a follow-up has occurred.

Response: A spokesperson was not available for comment.

In December

History: Since 2002, the restaurant has received ratings of good or excellent. In May, it was issued a needs improvement rating. It passed the subsequent follow-up inspection.

What the inspector saw: Inspectors found dirty dishes stored as clean and parts of the facility in disrepair. The metal racks in the walk-in freezer had peeling rusted paint and the kitchen tile was missing a large portion of grout. In addition, the three-compartment sink was not properly draining.

Follow-Up: The restaurant failed a follow-up inspection on Nov. 13 for failing to complete all the necessary repairs. It passed another follow-up on Nov. 20.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In December

History: The restaurant has only had one inspection prior to November. It passed.

What the inspector saw: Inspectors found multiple issues regarding food storage and safe food handling. Due to the number of violations, the restaurant was issued a probationary rating.

Follow-Up: It passed a follow-up inspection on Nov. 27.

Response: General Manager Mariana Villarreal said, “we’re making sure everything is being followed. We are a brand new restaurant, so we do have new employees, and we’re on top of them on a daily basis to make sure we don’t fail again.”

In December

History: Since 2006, the chain location has almost exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. It failed another inspection in April.

What the inspectors saw: The inspector saw five priority violations, including inadequate washing of cookie tongs, insufficiently frequent cutting board washing, prepared foods kept below established temperatures and coolers not keeping food below established temperatures.

All were corrected the same day.

Follow-up: The Subway location passed a Nov. 20 follow-up inspection.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In December

History: Since 2009, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good, but failed another inspection in 2011.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found eight priority violations, including improper segregation of foods in coolers, kitchen equipment stored as clean with debris, a cooler not keeping foods below established temperatures and food date marking issues.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a Dec. 1 follow-up.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

History: Since the early 2000s, the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found nine violations, including insufficiently hot water at a handwashing sink, a hand sink used to store dirty dishes, a dishwasher water below established temperatures, kitchen equipment stored as clean with food debris, a cooler not keeping foods below established temperatures and no test strips for measuring sanitizer.

Follow-up: It appears the restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on Nov. 27, according to online records.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

History: Since the early 2000s, this Wendy’s location has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed two priority violations: a nonfunctional hand washing sink and a cooler not keeping foods below established temperatures. Neither was corrected the day of the inspection, resulting in a needs improvement rating.

Follow-up: The Wendy’s failed a Nov. 30 follow-up because the hand sink had not been repaired. An additional follow-up had not occurred as of Wednesday.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to a message seeking comment.

History: Since 2010, the frozen yogurt shop has received inspection ratings of good and excellent exclusively. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found just one violation: no test strips for sanitizing solution. The issue was not resolved the day of, earning Yogurt Swirl a needs improvement rating.

Follow-up: The shop failed its first follow-up on Nov. 29 before passing on Dec. 6.

Response: Yogurt Swirl’s Russuell Mercado said the shop had just run out of test strips before the first inspection, after which they put in an order and received them in time for the second follow-up.

4,836 - Food service licenses in Pima County

535 - Excellent and good inspections

32 - Needs improvement inspections

History: Since January, the restaurant has received two good inspection ratings before the string of failed follow-ups and a probationary rating.

What the inspector saw: In late September, the county inspector found four priority violations, resulting in a needs improvement rating. Those violations included a hand sink without soap, a mechanical dishwasher without sanitizer, a cold-holding table not keeping food below established temperatures and prepared food stored without date markings.

Follow-up: Continuing issues with the cold holding table resulted in three failed follow-ups in October, after the last of which the county issued a failing probationary rating. A new make unit resolved the issue before a fourth follow-up on Oct. 25.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned by deadline.

History: Since 2000, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it failed two previous inspections in 2014 and 2015 and received a needs improvement in March.

What the inspector saw: The inspector saw five priority violations, including a hand sink without soap, a chile relleno in the refrigerator “encrusted with food debris,” two pans of beans had mislabeled date marking tags, and cheese kept out without discard time information.

Follow-up: A follow-up inspection does appear to have been conducted by press time.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned by deadline.

History: The restaurant has had only one previous regularly scheduled inspection, during which it earned a rating of good. This was its second inspection and first fail.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found 11 priority violations, including an employee re-gloving without first washing their hands, an employee handling tomatoes with gloves used for dishwashing, prepared chicken containers stored near raw pork, elevated sanitizing chlorine levels, storing utensils without first sanitizing, inadequate cooling of prepared food and fire retardant stored above food.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed an Oct. 30 follow-up.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned by deadline.

History: Since 2014, the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed just one priority violation: cookware and other items stored as clean with sticker residue and food debris. A failing probationary rating normally requires five or more priority violations. However, if a single violation was observed in three of the last five visits, it establishes what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance,” which also results in a probationary rating.

Follow-up: The results of a follow-up inspection scheduled for Nov. 2 had not been posted online by deadline, but the owner said the restaurant had passed.

Response: Owner Michael Rohwer said that the issue was quickly resolved

History: Since 2011, the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent, according to online health department records. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted four priority violations, below the threshold of five normally required for a failing probationary rating. However, because one of them — cookware stored as clean with food debris — had been observed in two other recent inspections, the restaurant was failed for what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance.” The other violations included an employee taking trash outside and returning to handle ready-to-eat food without changing gloves or washing their hands and a hand sink without paper towels, according to the inspection report.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed an Oct. 25 follow-up inspection.

Response: Owner and operator Sean Edwards said the issue with food debris on items stored as clean was relatively minor and did not present a threat of food contamination. “We had one pan that had food debris on it that needed to be rewashed and that was the extent of it,” he said, adding later that “we had everything resolved before (the inspector) left.”

History: Since 2006, the food truck has mostly received inspection ratings of good, along with a handful of excellents and needs improvements. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector noted six priority violations, earning the restaurant a failing probationary rating. The infractions included employees drying their hands on a cloth towel, a number of prepared foods without date markings, a hand washing sink without hot water and a hose used to fill up the mobile unit’s drinking water laying on the ground disconnected from the food truck.

Follow-up: A follow-up had not been conducted by press time.

Response: Attempts to reach the food truck were unsuccessful.

History: Since 2007, the daycare has earned inspection ratings of good and excellent exclusively. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed four priority violations, including a kitchen refrigerator keeping some items well above established temperatures, no sanitizer test strips, a three compartment sink with a direct connection to the main drain line, and sippy cups covered in dust stored as clean.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed an Oct. 2 follow-up inspection and passed 10 days later.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned by deadline

History: Since 2013, the hotel has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but did fail a follow-up inspection after a needs improvement rating last December.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found five priority violations, including a dishwasher without sanitizer, prepared food kept both above and below established temperatures, no food thermometer on the premises, a hand washing sink “falling off” the wall and another hand washing sink in the bar without soap or paper towels.

Follow-up: Results from a follow-up inspection had not been posted by deadline.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned by deadline.

4,836 - Food service licenses in Pima County

530 - Excellent and good inspections

39 - Needs improvement inspections

8 - Probationary and failed inspections

Source: Pima County Health Department