Based on comments received at these three meetings, a revision was
made to the fixed food establishment fee. EH increased the simple fee
and lowered the fixed food establishment fee. The change was not
significant. Non-profit fees were increased. The temporary food license
increased slightly. A provision was established for nonprofit temporary
food license fees (e.g., Boy Scouts). The vending fee was reduced
slightly.
In regards to the overall food manager “on duty” requirements, this
requirement was slightly revised. EH proposes that the statement read
“substantially onsite at all times.” Interpretation: One certified
person on duty during hours of operation, however, if that individual
was required to leave the establishment to pick something up, etc., that
would be permitted, rather than specifically on-site at all hours of
operation. A concern was also addressed about the 60-day timeframe for
replacement of a certified individual. EH increased this timeframe to 90
days.
Larry asked the Board if they had questions.
Jean asked if the proposed fees cover our costs.
Ted: Not 100%. We receive state funding that was deducted when
computed. We also felt that Calhoun County should have partial ownership
in supporting the program.
When the state, local, and restaurant fees are combined, all costs
are covered.
Larry asked how many establishments in Calhoun County will be
effected.
Ted answered 550-560 total, including churches, fixed food
establishments, taverns, etc.
Ben asked if the fees reflect the revisions we made due to the
revised state laws for food inspections.
Ted: Due to the nature of and thoroughness of inspections over the
past two years, the costs have increased
Larry informed guests again that the changes were per state
requirements.
Ben asked: 1. Are our fees a reflection of the increased state burden
requirements? 2. Is the “food service manager on-site at all times”
requirement a county requirement or state mandated?
Ted: Yes. The food service manager is recommended as a county
requirement.
Paul stated that one of the changes per the food code is the
competency of food managers and operators to have knowledge of the laws
that are provided by the State per the Federal Government. We are
hoping, through the classes offered by EH that it will make it easier
for the operators to have the knowledge required to run their
establishment safely.
Ben stated that there appeared to be a good turnout at the other
meetings. He also indicated that there are three funding sources
Federal, State, and County. Is there a chance that we can get a better
handle determining how much county money goes to the food inspection
program? He also expressed that he likes the idea of a food manager
on-site.
Kathy Ferguson stated that the state cut our funding by several
thousand dollars. Therefore, the amount of funds we provide locally
increases.
Byron asked if we wrote a letter to our representative.
Heidi answered that this is a collective effort through MALPH
(Michigan Association of Local Public Health).
Byron asked if we know how much the cost of this mandate is.
Heidi Oberlin stated this has not been separated out, but Kathy added
that the county costs, including cigarette tax, are about $340,000.
Greg Purcell reassured the Board that the county is not reducing the
funds allocated to EH.
Jean asked for clarification on a comment that approximately 50% of
establishments currently have a certified person on duty?
Ted: We’ve been providing the certified manager training for several
years. We don’t keep a log on where these certified individuals are at
one time. It is our estimate that we have trained approximately 40% of
the individuals currently employed in food establishments within Calhoun
County.
Several attendees to other meetings stated that they indicated they
have certified individuals on staff.
By 2005, all restaurants are required to have a certified person on
staff per the proposed code change.
Greg Purcell stated that when a license renewal is due, all
restaurant owners, non-profits, etc. will pay the new fees.
Public comments:
Dave Stevenson of Stevenson’s Speedy Chick in Marshall expressed his
concerns as follows:
• Appreciate the revisions to the proposed fees and the improvements
– we are moving in the right direction. He feels that he has a positive
relationship with the Health Department.
• One concern he has is that it is fine to write this proposal, but
has there been an analysis completed to determine why we should have a
trained/certified individual on duty at all times? What is the impact
(cost penalty) for the county. He feels that there may be a substantial
burden on our training budget (e.g., if one restaurant with 100 people
has all their employees trained). Once the Health Department requires an
establishment to train their individuals, we are going deeper into the
management of an establishment. Is their a liability for the Health
Department?
• Also feels that the Health Department has to be timely (he operated
three months without a license) in the issuance of licenses. Maybe every
restaurant should have a licensing manager. Training six or seven people
could become a cost burden for restaurants.
Larry Anderson asked Ted Havens to address lateness on licensing.
Ted explained that we have experienced problems with the State of
Michigan and their timeliness. This was a statewide problem. The Health
Department recognizes that restaurants will have expired licenses
posted. However, a restaurant’s license is not technically expired and
would not have to close down due to timeliness by the State.
Byron asked why the State is so late/behind and if it was possible
for the Health Department (locally) to issue licenses.
Ted: The State does our licensing, we do not have control over that
and although local licensing has been discussed in previous years, it
has never gone anywhere.
Mike Rahn of Cereal City Snacks stated that he appreciates the
revised fees from the original proposal. However, he is concerned with
the 20 – 25% increase (per his calculations). Mike feels that if he
extends the increase to his clients, he will run many customers out the
door. Mike also feels that it does not make sense that others don’t pay
license fees (e.g., vendors, restaurants, etc.).
Paul Makoski stated that if you see a food establishment operating
without a license, please contact us immediately. Again, the fees are
simply a reflection of the services we provide.
Mike Rahn: When the Health Department completes inspections for
Cereal City Snacks, it usually takes about three hours. He provides
transportation to all of the machines. That is $250 an hour and he is
doing the driving. That does not cover machine cost.
Paul: We calculate that it tabulates to a $1 per machine when spread
out over the type of machines and how much they sell out of that
machine. Vending fees have not been adjusted for approximately five
years.
Mike: When the Federal Government produced the $1 coin, it cost him
approximately $80,000 to change all his machines.
Ted: Paul is right about the increase. We have not adjusted the
vending fees for approximately five years.
Sara Hisler, Awesome Ice Cream, expressed her concerns as follows:
• Last year she opened on Memorial Weekend. She received her license
in October (once month after she closed in September).
• She falls within the grey areas between Simple and Complex.
• Has an ice cream shop on Columbia Avenue, in Battle Creek. They
established the ice-cream shop within the building that they previously
owned. Very simple. Soft-serve ice cream and hand dipped. Slicing
bananas, etc.. No food, no ice, very small. Cans of pop. Five employees.
Seasonal. Four to five months in operation. Most of the time by herself.
If the ice cream is frozen or not, she can tell.
• She goes through a lot of turnaround, however, she feels that the
exposure with food handling is not there. Her biggest factor is keeping
the machines clean. Liability exposure is not there.
Paul: Anything that is consumed is considered to be food. Food is not
our main concern with nationwide central suppliers. Sixty-six percent
(66%) of all foodborne illnesses are from what people do and how the
food is handled. Seventy six million (76,000,000) foodborne illness
cases that can be traced back to the source. This is due to turnover of
staff, source of supplier (third-world country), greater volume of
people eating out, and the handling of food.
Sara: Running an establishment involves cleanliness.
Paul: Due to Communicable Diseases, handling of food is a large
reason for the inspections and training. Handling of the can, etc.
Sara feels that all owners should be trained, but in her case with
large turnover and seasonal, she’s concerned about training her staff
and the costs this may occur. She feels that violators should be
penalized.
Paul stated that of the 560 places we inspect, approximately ½ of
those require further inspections. The Health Department can make a
career out of the violators in Calhoun County.
Sara stated that she will try to comply.
Paul: Home study programs are an option. We have information on
institutions that offer training. You can take the class elsewhere and
show us the certification. Employees do not need to be trained at the
Health Department; however, the classes offered here are at no charge
(included in the fees).
Sara: It costs employers when sending employees to training.
Linda Headley, Binder Park Zoo: Do we require a food certified
individual at each location (in the Binder Park type of operation), or
could they have someone cover all locations. Or, do we require one
certified individual in each area.
Paul: This does not cover carts. But yes, one in each area (Africa
and front area of Binder Park Zoo).
Shirley Hunt, Ice Cream Dream, proposed that fees be prorated for
those that operate seasonally. Increase the fees and penalties for those
that require multiple inspections.
Paul: Violators do pay an additional fee for repeat inspections.
George Perrett stated that he agrees and those that require multiple
inspections need to be penalized.
Ben: The fees are understandable that we are answering due to State
mandates. Although, as to the manager portion, we are going out on our
own.
Paul: We have net gain in the numbers of restaurants but no net loss
in shutting down restaurants.
George: To answer Dave’s question regarding the liability on the
Health Department; the government has little or no risk of shared
liability. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t take his comments to heart. He’s
seen the revised proposal.
• The terminology “significantly on-site” is subject to
interpretation and will be very difficult to regulate. When referring to
small operations, we are going to force them to have more than one
certified individuals. This does become a cost of operation and will
impact a person’s decision whether to continue operation or not.
• The $75 penalty is a “bucket of sand out of the Sahara.” We should
go after those that aren’t complying with existing regulations. Force
those out of business where people contract a foodborne illness and
those with many penalties.
• If a restaurant has a three shift operation with one certified
manager, there could be a thousand employees; you can’t state that that
is a safe operation. A manager/owner can assign one employee to each
shift to manage 1,000 employees. Not going to work.
• We must clarify what we mean by substantially on-site.
• Cannot support this proposal as it stands. Has no problem with the
assessment of the fee if it covers our fees. Is it wrong that the State
and Federal do not send money with it? Yes, but a large fee is not going
to force them out of business. Also has a problem with the training
component and the burden it will place on employers/owners.
Larry: Voting is separate for the fees and for the code changes. Two
options for fee changes based on feedback are:
• Seasonal operations -- prorating license fees based on the number
of months in operation.
• Second are higher penalties for institutions that continually have
violations.
Greg: Referred to Nancy’s comment. Not a sanction.
George: Tardy licensure. Assess a late fee on top of existing
licensing fee for those who are tardy on their license renewal. Repeat
violator. Concerned about tardy licensure. But more of a concern is “Is
the business putting out bad food?”. Assess a civil sanction in the form
of the late fee. We can adopt a more harsh penalty for violation of
existing standards.
Paul: There are pieces of the food code that do address those issues.
Penalties are also included in the current fees that we charge.
George: If there is ever an opportunity for us to address a windfall
should be put on those that are in violation. Our sanction should be
$500 (not just to cover costs). If we have to be tested in court on
something like that, not a bad thing. Repeat violators should be put out
of business. They can’t just get by and pay their $100 fee.
Larry proposed that we address the issue of fines on a separate day.
However, at this time, we will adjust the fees to represent prorating.
Ted: That would not be a problem. The Health Department can establish
a separate fee for prorated (e.g., ½ year Simple inspection, $175).
Paul: Nine months or less is considered seasonal (one inspection).
Larry proposed that we accept the Resolution 25-2003 and accept the
fee schedule.
George: The fee should not be assessed based on the number of
inspections. Should be prorated on the number of months a business is in
operation. George feels that the fee should be based on the nature of
the operation of the business. Is it possible for us to assess based on
that? Maybe not workable, but if someone is open eight months they
should pay 2/3 of the fee.
Greg: Seasonal is nine months of operation would be half the fee.
Larry: Adopt the fee schedule with the change to seasonal operation.
Ben moved. George seconded. Passed.
Larry: Let’s consider the code changes that have been proposed.
George moved that the issue of the code changes be revised and
proposals to be presented at the next Board meeting. Jean moved. Larry
seconded. Passed.
VI. Resolutions:
Resolution 26-2003: Heidi summarized the resolution. The
Meningococcal vaccination is typically required for individuals going
off to college. It is hard to schedule an appointment at a physician’s
office for this. We are proposing to charge for this immunization
because this does not fall into our standard childhood immunizations.
Fees would allow us to purchase supply by private stock.
Ben: Have there been a lot of requests for this?
Greg: Prevention is really the answer.
Heidi: This immunization is not a State requirement, but individual
institutions are requiring it. This is currently only available through
local physicians in Calhoun County.
Ben moved. Jean supported. Passed.
Resolution 27-2003: Heidi: This is the standard DEQ contract for
inspections of manufactured housing communities. Basic boilerplate.
Ben moved. Jean supported. Passed.
Resolution 28-2003: Heidi: This is the standard annual contract with
the State Department of Community Health. Boilerplate language lighted
up regarding HIPAA. The budgetary impact is outlined and much we knew
about.
Larry: Increase in bioterrorism funds? Do we know specifically what
they are for?
Heidi: We know exactly that funds from this contract will fill the
gap in infrastructure responding to surveillance, communication, IT,
Communicable Disease. It will greatly assist with staffing needs.
Larry motioned for approval. Jean moved, Ben supported.
Greg: If you add up all and take bioterrorism out, it’s actually a
$140K cut. $115K in Federal.
Resolution 29-2003: Heidi: This is the standard contract we use with
local providers. Reimbursement rates are set forth by the state and our
staff needs to annually engage the hospitals and individual physicians
to secure contracts with them as we have access to provide better
outreach than officials in Lansing.
Larry: Two years ago we had a committee whereas hospitals came up
with a solution that the Health Department should maintain these
services.
Jean: moved; Ben and Mac supported. Passed.
VII. Finance Report
Kathy Ferguson: We are showing an excess of $25,000 revenue over
expenses. Under-spending is in capital and line items. Large dollar
amounts will hit in August and September as we were conservative until
we knew where we would be. We have been able to cover our expenses with
current revenue.
Larry: New furniture is part of that capital?
Kathy: We received an offer of 0% interest on a two-year lease of
several furniture items.
Larry asked for comments. None.
Budget:
Kathy: Overall the budget increased $37,000 this year. $9,000
additional in state funds. Environmental Health fees are estimated at
$60,000. The Nursing Clinic will obtain a billing system. Kathy
summarized the Nursing Clinic donations (unexpected donations of
approximately $75,000). We expect a loss of funding grants. CDBG
decreased their funding, Area Agency on Aging will fund services once
provided by the Health Department.
Larry asked if this was a reflection of organizations cutting their
programs and funding.
Kathy: Yes. However, we do not predict staffing cuts due to
relocation of staff to other programs.
Expenses: Decreased spending on capital items.
Ben: Where did we bid on the furniture and where did we purchase?
Greg: Custer Office Equipment as part of county agreement.
Kathy: Spending less on contracts with outside organizations and less
on supplies. Spending more on salaries and benefits. Expect a 10%
increase in health insurance costs.
Greg: We are doing some things to remediate those costs, however,
they will increase.
Kathy: Rates are effective January 1, 2004.
Jean: Part of the county’s umbrella?
Greg: Yes.
Kathy: We are expecting a 2% pay increase and additional salary
expense as staff move up along the scale.
Byron: What were the two city block grants we lost?
Heidi: Lead and Great Choices.
Byron: Senior health assessment/Area Agency on Aging?
Greg & Heidi: Burnham Brook will provide the services.
Byron: Homeless clinic. What was the carryover?
Kathy: The carryover is approximately $70K.
Ben: Expenses shows $351,000.
Kathy: That reflects clinical support that is spread over the
programs. All costs go elsewhere.
Ben: Why or where is the $351,000 reduction in expense?
Jim: Allocation.
Kathy: This is a holding tank that will be spent throughout.
Larry: Regarding the NCBC – do we still have a deficiency in medical
direction oversight?
Kathy: Yes, it is included and we do have the money to hire prior to
fiscal year end.
Larry stated that the community group is working on the project and
that it is moving positively.
Byron: How much of the Nursing Clinic budget are we covering?
Kathy: None.
Ben: $9,042K is going into the NCBC.
Kathy: Administrative costs. Maintenance cost from county plus
indirect costs. Not county hard dollars.
Jim Latham: Maintenance effort is the dollars we send over, but
indirect is what we do and the services we provide.
Ben: We cannot, as a county, give you money and carry it forward --
money would have to be spent.
Byron: How much do we get from Tobacco?
Kathy: There are two items: 1. $50,000 in cigarette tax dollars. 2.
$14,000 tobacco reduction to assist others in quit smoking.
Heidi/Greg: This money is decreasing due to the reduction in quantity
sold. Studies show that many smokers are purchasing tobacco in Indiana
and Ohio.
Greg: Staffing pattern. Actually breaks out into a new category
between temporary/seasonal. The Health Department will be correcting the
2002/2003 budgets to reflect permanent and temporary FTEs into separate
categories. Total authorized staff is what BOH and BOC will approve.
Temporary will be separate.
Byron stated that he would like Heidi, in letter/memorandum form, to
write down additional programs that she feels the Health Department
should offer.
Larry suggested that this should be placed on the next agenda
included with Ends policies.
Larry: Motion for approval of the 2003/2004 budget.
Ben moved. Jean supported. Passed.
Larry presented the Teen Pregnancy ad to the Board. Larry summarized
that Nancy McFarland, UWGBC, is heading up the project. Ben has signed
as a commissioner. Heidi has signed it. But under our revised policies
if an individual signs as a Board member, support is required from all
Board members.
Ben feels that as a member of the BOH, there should be nothing
precluding him as a member to list themselves as a member of the BOH.
Larry: According to the revised Board policies, an individual cannot
do that as a Board member.
Ben stated that he cannot believe that this was included in the
policies
Ben: Full support that we take a position on that.
Byron: Suggest that we check with George Perrett on this matter.
Larry motioned that we confirm with other Board members.
Ben Moved. Mac: Supported. Passed.
Larry: Put on discussion for next meeting – Ends Policies.
Larry informed the Board that he contacted Pat West regarding her
membership on the Board of Health. Pat stated that since she is a foster
mother and has two children that are presenting some real challenges,
she is not able to attend meetings in the morning, and that she will be
submitting her resignation to the Board after today. The Board will form
a nominating committee to look for a new representative. If anyone is
interested in sitting on the nominating committee, please let Larry
know.
Jean: In response to a comment that we should recruit an individual
from Albion, Jean believes that we are tying our hands when we say
Albion. Also, by stating that specifically a minority may also tie our
hands.
Ben, Jean, and Larry will become the nominating committee.
Larry will call Pat West for her letter of resignation.
Greg commented that recently he read in a Jackson newspaper, Jackson
County has established similar EH fees, but have not established the
certification requirements that EH are proposing.
Greg asked if the EH fees and regulations will go to BOC at the same
time?
Heidi: Fees can go without regulations to the BOC.
Larry: Meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
Minutes Archive
Several photos included in this 
