8 restaurants fail October Pima County health 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

In September

History: Since 2002, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good, with a few excellents. It had one previous failed inspection, and another needs improvement inspection.

What the inspector saw: During the visit, which was spurred by a foodborne illness complaint, the inspector found five priority violations, including an employee coming back into the restaurant without washing hands or changing gloves and then preparing food, a blocked handsink and food stored above established temperatures. The restaurant was briefly closed due to the cold-holding issues. The toilet was also clogged in the women’s restroom.

Follow-up: A follow-up inspection had not occurred by deadline.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned.

In September

History: Since 2011, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, except for one needs improvement in June 2016. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector identified that some food was being stored below mandatory temperatures, something previous inspectors found in December 2016 and April 2017. As a result, the restaurant received a probationary rating for what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance.”

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on September 25.

Response: Manager Eric Olson said that the issue with the coolers has been resolved. “We had some repair work done on all of our units to make sure nothing was going to happen again,” Olson said.

In September

History: Mariscos Chihuahua has consistently received good ratings since 2003, along with several excellent ratings. This is the restaurant's first failing provisional rating.

What the inspector found: The inspector found food storage and food handling violations. In addition, the inspector found that both the person in charge and the employees were unfamiliar with policy regarding food temperatures and employee illness reporting. The restaurant was issued a provisional rating for having five or more priority violations.

Follow-Up: A follow-up inspection is scheduled for Oct. 9.

Response: A spokesperson was not available for comment.

In September

History: Since 2000, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it did fail a follow-up after a needs improvement rating in 2016.

What the inspector found: The inspector found three priority violations, under the five that are normally required to earn a failing probationary rating. However, one of the violations — a cooler not keeping foods below established temperatures — had been observed in two recent inspections, establishing what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance.” There was also another food temperature violation, as well as issues with date marking.

Follow-up: No follow-up inspection had occurred by deadline, according to online county records.

Response: A message left seeking comment was not returned.

In September

History: This was the restaurant’s first routine inspection.

What the inspector found: Inspectors found six priority or priority foundation violations, earning the restaurant a probationary rating. In addition to a few food temperature violations, the inspector also observed some issues regarding sanitation, including failing to test sanitizing solution concentration.

Follow-up: The facility was scheduled to be reinspected on Friday, October 6.

Response: “One of our biggest problems was the cooler, so that one cooler was adjusted,” owner Jay Healy said. “We also had all our staff take a food-handler class.”

In September

History: Since 2002, the kitchen at the retirement community has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector found: The inspector found five priority violations, including employees putting on gloves without first washing their hands, raw chicken stored next to ready-to-eat food, food stored above established cold-holding temperatures, no discard date on some items, and an employee touching cooking meat and then handling ready-to-eat food.

Follow-up: A follow-up inspection had not occurred by press time.

Response: Fairwinds General Manager Scott Haile said all of the issues have been “rectified. “We don’t have a history of this,” he added. “We’re ready for the reinspection, and we’re confident things will go well.”

In September

History: Since 2009, the restaurant has almost exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it had one previous failing probationary rating in July.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector found just one priority violation: handling limes for drinks with bare hands. However, that same violation had also been observed in two recent inspections, establishing what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance.”

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Sept. 26.

Response: Garret Boos, of the restaurant’s management company Flores Concepts, said he was “disappointed” by the failed inspection, and that staff has been educated about food safety and handling. Additionally, one of the employees observed touching fruit with bare hands is no longer working at the restaurant. Boos also said the restaurant is appealing the decision, and intends to present evidence to county officials that the citric acid in cocktail fruits is a natural antimicrobial, reducing the risks of employees handling the fruit ungloved. County inspections chief David Ludwig said that the food code is clear that gloveless handling of ready-to-eat foods is prohibited. Nevertheless, he said the restaurant could request a code variance, but would have to prove that germ proliferation is inhibited on all the foods that would be handled by bar employees, not just the citrus fruits.

In September

History: Since 2002, this convenience store chain location has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found several violations, though it was unclear how many were priority violations. They included a handsink being used for other purposes, eggs stored above ready-to-eat foods, hot foods held below established temperatures, no sanitizer test strips and no service sink on the premises.

Follow-up: The convenience store failed a Sept. 25 follow-up because the service sink had not yet been completely installed, though work was being done on it.

Response: A company spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

In September

History: Since 2003, the convenience store location has received inspection ratings of good and excellent exclusively. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found seven priority violations, including a handsink without paper towels, nacho cheese and other hot food kept below established temperatures, other foods stored above established cold-holding temperatures and no sanitizer test strips.

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

Response: A company spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

In September

History: Cienega High School has consistently received inspection ratings of excellent since 2003. However, on Sept. 1, the school received a needs improvement rating, followed by two failed follow-up inspections.

What the inspector saw: Three violations were found, earning the school a needs improvement rating. The most significant of the violations, the incorrect plumbing of a three-compartment sink, caused the school to fail two of the follow-up inspections. The school was given 10 days to fix the problem, which they failed to do.

Follow-up: After the inspection on Sept. 1, the school was inspected 10 days later to determine if the plumbing had been fixed ,  but it had not . Ten days later the inspector found that the repair conducted by the school was not an approved fix, resulting in another fail. A follow-up had not been conducted at press time.

Response: Darcy Mentone, spokeswoman for Vail School District said, “For projects over $500, you have to get three quotes, and go through a whole requisition process, so nothing is ever done fast. That issue has since been resolved.”

In September

History: Since 2001, Ajo Chevron and Food Mart has received only ratings of good or excellent, except for one probationary rating in October 2008.

What the inspector found: The location had several issues with temperature controlled storage, as well as some dead insects underneath the beverage counter. More than five priority or priority foundation violations were found, earning the convenience store a provisional rating.

Follow-Up: The facility was scheduled to be re-inspected on Oct. 6.

Response: A spokesperson was not available for comment.

4,836 - Food service licenses in Pima County

545 - Excellent and good inspections

22 - Needs improvement inspections

11 - Probationary and failed inspections

Source: Pima County Health Department

In August

History: Since 2011 the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found three priority violations, below the five normally required for a failing probationary rating. However, because one of the violations — dirty cookware being stored as clean — was observed in two previous inspections the restaurant failed due to what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance.” The other two violations were a hand sink without soap and an employee not following proper hand-washing procedures.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed an Aug. 28 follow-up.

Response: Owner Kevin Hart said the dirty dishes stemmed from date marking labels that left a sticky residue. In the wake of the failed inspection, Hart said he has taken steps to ensure all cookware is completely cleaned. “We just have to do a better job, that’s all it is,” he said.

In August

History: Since 2003, the chain location has received inspection ratings of good and excellent exclusively. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found just two priority violations, well below the normal threshold of five violations for a failing probationary rating. However, because one of the violations — issues with cold-holding — had been observed in two recent inspections, IHOP earned a failing probationary rating.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Aug. 28.

Response: IHOP District Manager Rebecca Jarvis said the restaurant quickly had the cooler repaired and also purchased additional backup coolers. “We want to run a clean and well-run restaurant, and our guests deserve it,” Jarvis said. “As the franchise operator, when equipment is down … we take immediate action to correct the issue. That’s what we did.”

In August

History: Since 2000, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good with some excellents, though it had one previous probationary rating and five needs improvement ratings.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed eight priority violations, earning it a failing probationary rating. Those included a dirty towel and food debris in a hand washing sink, no detectable disinfectant in a three-compartment sink, damaged cookware, foods stored above established temperatures, and an “excessive number of flies.”

Follow-up: The restaurant passed an Aug. 21 follow-up.

Response: Owner Gilberto Molina said his restaurant took immediate steps to address the violations, many of which were resolved the day of the inspection. “We wanted to fix all these violations and we have, and we’re working with the health department to do that.”

In August

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 noted just three priority violations, well below the normal threshold of five violations for a failing probationary rating. However, one of those — storing cookware as clean when it had food debris — was also observed in two recent inspections, constituting a “pattern of noncompliance.” The inspector also saw an instance of improper hand-washing practices.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Sept. 5.

Response: General Manager Marissa Stewart said the dirty cookware in question was extra and not in use, but has since been removed to avoid additional violations. Employees were also trained to avoid the other issues observed. “Food safety and cleanliness are top priorities,” she said. “We will continue to make sure food safety training takes place.”

In August

History: Since the early 2000s, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent. It had one previous needs improvement inspection and failed a follow-up. This was its first failing probationary inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed three priority violations, well below the normal threshold of five violations for a failing probationary rating. However, because one the violations — cold-holding issues — had been found in two recent inspections, the restaurant earned a probationary rating for what the health department calls a “pattern of noncompliance.”

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Aug. 21.

Response: A restaurant official who declined to provide his name said all of the issues were “fixed right away.”

In August

History: Since 2002 the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed just two priority violations, well below the normal threshold of five violations for a failing probationary rating. However, one of them — buffet items kept above established temperatures — had been noted in two recent inspections, earning the restaurant a failing rating. The inspector also saw an employee handle noodles with bare hands, grab a trash can barehanded and return to handling noodles without gloves.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Aug. 21.

Response: A manager who declined to give their name said she had told her employees to prioritize proper handwashing and buffet temperatures. “We always keep the kitchen and dining room clean,” she said. “We will pay extra attention.”

In August

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

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed two priority violations, earning the restaurant a needs improvement rating in late July. There was a deli slicer with food debris and several cold-holding units not keeping food below established temperatures. Some issues remained during an August 2 re-inspection, resulting in a failed rating.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a second follow-up on Aug. 8.

Response: Owner Mark Jorbin said his restaurant took “immediate action” to have the coolers and other issues resolved. “We take our food handling very seriously over here,” he said.

In August

History: Since 2004, the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found just two priority violations, well below the normal threshold of five violations for a failing probationary rating. However, one of the violations — dirty cookware stored as clean — was observed in two previous inspections, constituting a “pattern of noncompliance” and earning the location a failing probationary rating.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Aug. 31.

Response: Franchise owner Matt Clauser said employees were instructed to ensure that all dishes are “fully clean” before putting them away and keep the hand sink unblocked. “We’ve taken every measure to either replace broken things or speak with staff with regard to compliance,” he said.

In August

History: Since 2000, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but did have several previous needs improvement ratings. This was its first failing probationary rating.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed 11 priority violations, including inadequate handwashing practices, bare handed handling of fruit at the bar, foods stored above established temperatures, and toxic chemicals stored near food and clean utensils. There were also a number of flies in the kitchen.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Aug. 14.

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

In August

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

What the inspector saw: The county inspector noted two priority violations, earning it a needs improvement rating on Aug. 2. However, the inspector returned later that day and closed the restaurant due to an imminent health hazard stemming from a refrigerator not holding foods below established temperatures.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed an Aug. 14 followup because the refrigerator was still not functioning properly. It passed the next day.

Response: A message left seeking comment was not returned.

In August

History: Since 2013 the restaurant has mostly received good and excellent inspection ratings, but had two needs improvement ratings and one previous failing probationary rating.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found 11 priority violations, including a handwashing sink without paper towels, improper sanitization of some items, utensils stored as clean with food debris, a reach-in cooler not keeping food below established temperatures, inadequate date marking, improper storage of toxic chemicals and no sanitizer test strips on premises.

Follow-up: A follow-up inspection had not occurred by deadline, according to online county records.

Response: The restaurant did not respond to an email seeking comment.

In August

History: Since 2010 the grocery and meat market have largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but each earned a probationary rating in 2015.

What the inspector saw: In the meat market, the inspector observed four priority violations, but one of them — issues with cutting board storage — was also found in two previous inspections, resulting in a probationary rating. The inspector found the cutting boards on the floor, ice used to cool fish was also being used to cool employee drinks, and items stored as clean with debris. The inspector found six priority violations, including inadequate hand-washing practices, improper knife storage, food kept above established temperatures. Live and dead bugs were also seen.

Follow-up: No follow-up had occurred by deadline.

Response: “Food safety and quality is a priority at all of our locations and we are taking the necessary steps to address the concerns raised in the recent inspections in our Tucson location,” a company spokeswoman wrote in an email. “Our efforts include additional employee training as well the prompt undertaking the procedural and operational changes as recommended by the Health Department and we fully expect to be compliant within the outlined period.”

In August

History: Since 2008, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but had one previous failing probationary rating in 2013.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted eight priority violations, including an employee handling raw eggs and then utensils without washing their hands, no hot water at a handwashing sink, dirty utensils stored as clean, ice leaking from the sewer line inside the freezer onto a bag of meat, a reach-in cooler not keeping foods below established temperatures, and no date marking on some ready-to-eat food. Mouse feces were also observed near the reach-in refrigerator.

Follow-up: No follow-up had been done by deadline.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned.

In August

History: Since 2009, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but did have a needs improvement inspection in 2011.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found eight priority violations, including inadequate sanitizing practices, a refrigerator not keeping food below established temperatures, cleaning products and other toxic chemicals stored above food preparation areas, and a non-functioning handwashing sink. “Excess flies” were also observed in the kitchen and warewashing area.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed a follow-up on Aug. 25.

Response: A message left seeking comment was not returned.

In August

History: Since 2002, the restaurant has almost exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it did get a needs improvement in 2014.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed eight priority violations, including improper food handling, a blocked hand sink, elevated sanitizer concentrations, food stored above established temperatures, and unlabeled spray bottles. Old, dried mouse droppings were also found.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on Aug. 15.

Response: Owner Victor Croce said most of the issues were resolved the day of the inspection. Many of the violations were due to “oversight of employees doing things they’ve been told many times not to do,” he said, adding that now “they’re doing their job, and it’s good.”

4,836 - Food service licenses in Pima County

567 - Excellent and good inspections

13 - Needs improvement inspections

15 - Probationary and failed inspections

Source: Pima County Health Department