15 Tucson-area restaurants fail August health inspections after 46 failed over the previous 2 months

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

In July

History: Since 2004, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but had two previous fails and a needs improvement.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found just one priority violation: a walk-in cooler not keeping foods at established temperatures. It earned the restaurant a failing probationary rating because similar problems had been found in previous inspections, establishing a “history of noncompliance,” according to the inspection report.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on July 24.

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

In July

History: Since 2000, the location has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but failed two previous inspections.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed nine priority violations, including a hand sink being used for disposal of mop water, ready-to-eat food stored with raw meat, inadequate cooling of prepared foods, improper date marking and no sanitizer test strips.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a July 31 follow-up inspection.

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

In July

History: Since 2009, the restaurant has almost exclusively received inspection ratings of good or excellent, but has had two previous needs improvement inspections. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The probationary rating came during a July 12 follow-up inspection to a previous needs improvement inspection that found cold-holding issues. Because such issues had been observed during two previous inspections, Romano’s received a failing probationary rating for what the health department described as a “history of non-compliance.”

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a July 17 follow-up inspection.

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

In July

History: Since the mid-2000s, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but failed two other inspections in recent years.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed just one violation during a July 3 visit: two reach-in coolers not keeping foods adequately cooled. East Coast Super Subs was one of many locations to have trouble with food temperature violations in recent months.

Follow-up: The situation had not been resolved during a follow-up two days later, but passed during another inspection on August 3. The unusually long delay was due to the fact that the original inspections were conducted by an employee who subsequently left the county. Inspections chief David Ludwig said the employee tasked with following up has been out on medical leave.

Response: Owner Keith McNesby said high summer temperatures and one of their busiest lunch rushes strained the coolers, but added that they should have been functioning nevertheless. 

In July

History: Since 2003, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it has one previous failing probationary and needs improvement inspection.

What the inspector saw: During a July 3 inspection, a county employee saw instances of inadequate hand washing practices and improper storage of pesticides. Though they were not priority items, the inspector also observed a “large amount of rodent droppings” in two storage areas and recommended a “very thorough cleaning from floor to ceiling” in the rear of the restaurant.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed two follow-up inspections and had yet to pass one as of press time, according to online health department information.

Response: Manager Affee Johnson said that another follow-up had since been conducted, and the restaurant failed it as well. However, the only remaining issue, according to Johnson, has to do with structural issues. The rodents have also been cleared out for some time, she said.

“Our kitchen and our food prep area are very clean, and I have full confidence in our kitchen staff and wait staff, that they follow the rules to the best of their ability,” she added.

In July

History: This was the restaurant’s first routine inspection, according to online records. It had been operating without a health department permit since last September after missing payment deadlines, according to additional information provided to the Star.

What the inspector saw: The inspector saw eight priority violations, including an employee handling raw eggs and then tortillas without washing hands, a blocked hand sink, inadequate cleaning practices for a meat slicer, a menu without required consumer advisories and inappropriate use of cleaning products.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a July 17 follow-up.

Response: Adriana Garcia, the owners’ daughter, said “we made a lot of changes” in response to the failed inspection. “We’ve just been working on retraining our employees, and ourselves, to make sure everything is in compliance,” she added. “We’re making sure this mistake doesn't happen again.”

In July

History: Since the early 2000s, this convenience store chain location has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but had one previous needs improvement inspection. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed seven priority violations, including no hand washing sink in rear ware washing area, tongs not being sanitized, and prepared food stored both below and above established temperatures.

Follow-up: The convenience store passed a follow-up on July 24.

Response: “Circle K takes immediate corrective action when receiving a failed inspection notice. All items noted on the July 13, 2017 inspection … have been addressed with store employees and our facilities department,” company spokeswoman Donna Humphrey wrote in an email.

In July

History: Since 2012, the food truck has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed seven priority violations, including a blocked hand sink without soap, raw meat stored in ice chests with ready-to-eat foods and a cooler not keeping foods at established cold-holding temperatures. The food truck was also cooking carne asada and peppers outside without approval.

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

Response: Manager Aleyda Lopez said the only issue remaining to be resolved is the cooler, and all the other issues have been addressed.

In July

History: Since last year, the restaurant at Quality Inn has had two routine inspections and received an excellent on the first and on the more recent earned a needs improvement.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector found four priority violations, including a hand sink without hot water, food contact surfaces not being sanitized, food held above cold-holding temperatures and no probing thermometer on site.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed its first follow-up on July 21 but passed on July 24.

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

In July

History: Since 2000, the daycare has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, but had three previous needs improvement inspections.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found four priority violations, earning the location a needs improvement rating. Those included pots and pans with crumbs stored as clean, no date marking on some prepared foods and a dish sink connected directly to the main drain.

Follow-up: The daycare failed a July 6 follow-up because the sink plumbing had not been brought into compliance, but passed the following day.

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

In July

History: This was the food truck’s first routine inspection, according to online records.

What the inspector saw: The number of priority violations was unclear, but it was enough to earn a failing probationary rating. The violations included a person-in-charge unable to respond to questions about preventing the spread of food borne disease, inadequate hand washing practices, a blocked hand sink, an employee handling raw hamburger meat and then a bun without washing hands, food stored above established cold-holding temperatures and no testing devices for sanitizing solution.

Follow-up: A follow-up had not occurred by press time, according to online records.

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

In July

History: Since 2012, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it had two previous needs improvement inspections. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found 11 priority violations, including an employee handling money and then food without washing hands, raw pork stored near cabbage, dishes not being sanitized, dirty pots stored as clean, no date marking on prepared foods and medicines stored near food.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a July 31 follow-up.

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

In July

History: Since 2009, 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 three priority violations, below the threshold normally required for a failing probationary rating. However, one of the violations — handling lemons for drinks barehanded — had been observed on two prior occasions, establishing what the health department calls a “history of noncompliance.” The inspector also found raw steak and other meats stored above ready-to-eat foods and issues with a dish sanitizer.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on July 24.

Response: Garret Boos, with Flores Concepts, the restaurant’s owner, said employees will now use picks to handle lemons for drinks, avoiding any contact with bare hands. “Hopefully that will stop the issues in the future,” he said.

In July

History: Since the mid-2000s, Sonoran Delights has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it had one previous needs improvement and a failed follow-up in 2014.

What the inspector saw: During an early July inspection, a county employee noted four priority violations, earning the location a needs improvement rating. Those included a blocked hand sink, a cooler not keeping foods at established temperatures, prepared foods without date marking and a prep sink that drains directly to the sewer system.

Follow-up: During a July 5 follow-up, the cooler was still not functioning properly. Sonoran Delights passed a second follow-up on July 17.

Response: “All violations that we were able to correct on site we did and all other violations were corrected for follow-up and re-inspection,” general manager Mia Robles said. "Corrective action was taken in the form of replacing equipment, aesthetic renovation, and further training and enforcement of proper food prepping and handling. As before and after this inspection, Sonoran Delights continues to place an emphasis on consumer food health and safety."

4,836 - Food service licenses in Pima County

504 - Excellent and good inspections

29 - Needs improvement inspections

14 - Probationary and failed inspections

Source: Pima County Health Department

In June

History: Since the early 2000s, the restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good, but has failed four previous inspections, including a string of three in late 2015 and early 2016.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed 10 priority violations, including an employee handling rice with their bare hands, raw chicken stored over raw shrimp, “numerous food contact surfaces including reach-in refrigerator, pots used for cooking and grill encrusted with grease and food debris,” inadequate cooling of food, food kept below established hot-holding temperatures, ready-to-eat food stored without date marking, cooked chicken stored in a shopping bag and an employee banging a spoon on the inside of a garbage can to discard rice and then washing it with water only.

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

Response: Several messages seeking comment were not returned by deadline.

In June

History: Since 2000, Pat’s has received mostly good and excellent inspection ratings. In February 2005, it received a needs improvement rating and more recently failed an inspection in March 2014. This is its second failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed 10 priority violations, including improper handwashing by employees, a rusted chain on a salt scoop, several unclean areas where dishes or food are kept, broken or cracked food containers and cutting boards, improperly refrigerated food and “thick grease buildup” on floors, walls and sink area. Several items were corrected on site, including retraining employees on proper handwashing techniques and throwing out improperly refrigerated food.

Follow up: It passed  reinspection on June 20.

Response: Several calls were made to obtain comment, but the Star was unable to reach anyone by deadline.

In June

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

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted about a dozen priority violations, including the person in charge not knowing several key restaurant regulations, a blocked hand sink, tamales whose origin could not be established, no sanitizing solution on site, a reach-in cooler not keeping foods at established temperatures, numerous containers without date marking and no thermometer for checking food temperatures.

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

Response: Owner Gerardo Ramos said all of the issues were quickly resolved and he has taken a number of measures to ensure there is not another failed inspection.

Mariscos Chihuahua, 2902 E. 22nd St., was left off the failed restaurant inspections for the month of June. 

History: Since 2000, this Mariscos Chihuahua location has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it has failed two previous inspection, once in 2010 and another in 2014.

What the inspector saw: On June 14, the inspector observed three priority violations, earning it a needs improvement rating. Those included no date tags for shellfish, a reach-in cooler not keeping food at established temperatures and no on-site food thermometers.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed two follow-up inspections in June before passing a third in July.

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

In June

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 inspector noted six priority violations, including raw meat stored over ready-to-eat food, a walk-in cooler not keeping food adequately cooled, food lacking date markings in the walk-in, and warewashing sink basins draining directly into the sewer. 

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on July 3.

Response: A message left for the owner Thursday was not immediately returned.

In June

History: Since 2006, 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 one priority violation — several coolers not keeping foods at established temperatures, a widespread problem among restaurants that failed in June. However, because the restaurant had similar issues in several recent inspections, it received a failing probationary rating for a “pattern of noncompliance.”

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up on June 30.

Response: Pauline Loftus, the restaurant’s general manager, said one of the coolers was repaired and another was replaced. “We do make every effort to ensure quality and safety,” she said, but added that the “extreme heat” strained the equipment.

In June

History: Since 2000, this Del Taco location has received inspection ratings of good and excellent exclusively. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed six priority violations, including inadequate handwashing practices, raw meat stored above ready-to-eat food, food equipment stored as clean with food debris that “felt sticky,” a refrigerator not keeping food sufficiently cool, chemical spray stored near cups and no sanitizer testing strips for a three-compartment sink. All of the violations were corrected on site.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed reinspection on June 12.

Response: The Star was unable to reach someone for comment before deadline.

In June

History: Since 2008, Rincon Market has received mostly good and excellent inspection ratings. On June 8, it received a needs-improvement inspection rating and failed on June 9, and again on its reinspection on June 19.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed several core and priority violations including lack of a food protection manager, three employee drinks and an employee’s “amino acid powder” on the food prep table, raw meat that did not hold the proper temperature in the walk-in, an open-air cheese and sausage refrigerator that was too warm, two hand sinks in the kitchen “draining into buckets” and a prep sink with improper drainage. Food that didn’t meet temperature requirements was thrown out during the inspection.

Follow up: This location failed its reinspection on June 19 for failing to repair plumbing issues connected with the sinks.

Response: Danny Abbott, the owner’s son, said that the sinks with improper drainage have been fixed and the market is currently in full compliance. He contested the failures, stating that they had not failed any inspections for the month of June and had only been placed on needs-improvement status. He said that the health inspector had given the market several extensions to correct sewage issues connected to the improperly draining sinks. However, health inspections chief David Ludwig said that Rincon Market did fail both of its reinspections on June 9 and 19 and added that the health inspector inappropriately wrote “facility remains in needs improvement until plumbing repairs” on the report. He does not know why the health inspector did so. “Nowhere on the operator’s report does it say fail. (The inspector) knew it was a failure, they entered it as a failure into our database,” he said. According to Ludwig, if the plumbing issue is not resolved in the next 10 days the market will likely be placed on probationary status.

In June

History: Since 2011, Monkey Burger has received mostly good and excellent inspection ratings. It received a needs improvement rating in December 2016. This is its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed several violations, including improper handwashing and glove use, pans of food at improper temperatures, a sandwich make unit “encrusted with food waste and debris” and a damaged refrigeration unit.

Follow up: It passed its reinspection on June 13.

Response: Owner Stuart Lauer said that the refrigerator  was low on coolant and has been fixed. Employees were  retrained on proper handwashing and glove use techniques.

In June

History: Since 2011, this location has had all excellent inspection ratings and one needs-improvement rating on June 8. A follow-up inspection on June 19 was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted that a reach in cooler was blowing hot air, and had not been replaced since the visit on June 8.

Follow up: This location passed reinspection on June 29.

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

In June

History: Since 2000, this restaurant has received mostly good ratings, with one previous failed inspection, a needs improvement and an excellent.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted six priority violations, including handling ready-to-eat-food with bare hands, “raw chicken stored over an open can of mushrooms,” a lack of use-by dates and food that did not meet temperature requirements.

Follow up: It passed reinspection on June 26.

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

In June

History: Since 2013, the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent, according to online inspection records. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted 11 priority violations, including inadequate sanitizing of tongs used to handle raw beef, a sanitizer whose maximum water temperature was below established minimums and air fresheners stored near single-serve items.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on June 16.

Response: Owner Danny Liebeskind said that some of the violations stemmed from recent changes in the food code, which the restaurant quickly complied with.  “It was a setback and humbling,” he said of the inspection, adding: “We’re not a dirty place. All I can really say is we are now in compliance with 2017 codes.”

In June

History: Since 2000, this location has received almost all good and excellent inspection ratings, with one needs-improvement rating in 2004. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed five priority violations including, improper handwashing before employees put on gloves, improperly sanitized dishes, food that didn’t hold the right temperature and items on the prep line, like tomatos and lettuce, that were not thrown out within four hours per “time as control” procedures. Most issues were resolved at the time of inspection.

Follow up: This McDonald’s passed reinspection on June 21.

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

In June

History: Since the early 2000s, the chain location has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it did earn a needs-improvement in 2002. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector saw five priority violations, the minimum for a failing probationary rating. Those included the person-in-charge being unable to answer basic food safety questions, inadequate sanitizing of trays, a cooler not reducing temperatures quickly enough or keeping foods below mandated temperatures. The restaurant was temporarily closed due to “imminent health hazards” stemming from the cold-holding issues.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on July 6.

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

In June

History: The restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good, though it has received two needs-improvement ratings, after one of which in 2008 it failed a number of follow-up inspections. It also failed an inspection in 2013 and failed two follow-up inspections.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed 10 priority violations, including a hand sink without soap or paper towels, a deli slicer encrusted with food debris, inappropriate sanitizing of utensils, a reach-in cooler not keeping foods at established temperatures, and no date marking on a number of items.

Follow-up: No follow-up inspection had been conducted by deadline.

Response: A message seeking comment was not returned.

In June

History: Since the early 2000s, this Food City location has largely received high inspection ratings, with an unbroken string of excellent ratings from 2007 through 2016. It has received two previous needs-improvement ratings, and failed one of the follow-ups in 2006.

What the inspector saw: The only priority violation the inspector observed was a walk-in and self-service cooler not keeping foods below established temperatures.

Follow-up: The grocery store failed a follow-up on June 26, but passed on July 6.

Response: Several messages seeking comment were not returned by deadline.

In June

History: Since 2013, this location has received all excellent inspection ratings with the exception of a needs-improvement inspection rating on June 1. A follow-up inspection on June 12 was its first fail.

What the inspector saw: The inspector reported several violations, including a person in charge who didn’t excuse an ill employee from working with food, no thermometers in refrigerators, dirty food storage shelves, an expired permit and old, spilled milk in the bottom of a refrigerator. Several violations were dealt with on site.

Follow up: This location passed reinspection on June 22.

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

In June

History: Since 2008, all permitted facilities in this Whole Foods location have almost exclusively received inspection ratings of good or excellent. The supermarket had one previous needs improvement, and this was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The sole violation observed by the inspector was a cooler not keeping food at established temperatures. Because it wasn’t resolved during the inspection, the deli earned a needs improvement rating.

Follow-up: The deli failed a follow-up inspection on June 19 and passed another on June 29.

Response: Manager Clinton Jessup said that it took a little tinkering, but the cooler was eventually brought into compliance. He noted that every other store department passed their inspections.

In June

History: Since 2000, this location has received all good and excellent inspection ratings. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector saw seven priority violations, including a store manager unaware of proper food safety who did not have a food thermometer, a lack of a required hand sink, improperly heated nacho cheese, food in open air cases that did not meet temperature requirements and a lack of use-by dates on refrigerated items.

Follow up: This location passed reinspection on June 19.

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

In June

History: Since 2015, the commissary has received two excellent and one good inspection rating. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector noted seven priority violations, including the staff’s “inability … to answer questions pertaining to food safety,” limes stored “in varying stages of decomposition,” storage racks encrusted with food debris, employees not sanitizing utensils, dirty utensils stored as clean, foods stored above established cold-holding temperatures, and no date marking on some stored food. Though it was not a priority violation, the inspector also saw single serve cups stored on a “bloody, soiled towel.”

Follow-up: The commissary failed a follow-up inspection on June 30, and another had not been conducted by press time.

Response: In a written statement regarding this failed inspection and another at the mercado’s commissary, the swap meet said “we have hired a new manager for that location and requiring all of our managers and cooks to obtain additional licensing in food service and management. The (swap meet) has been operating over 10 different food and snack locations for over 40 years and has an excellent record with the Health Department. We are confident that this will address all concerns.”

In June

History: Since 2001, this location has received all good and excellent inspection ratings. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed violations including a lack of soap at the sinks, employees not washing their hands, hot dogs and other roller grill food items not meeting temperature requirements and several other food temperature issues. Most violations were corrected on site, except proper refrigeration.

Follow up: This Circle K passed reinspection on June 19.

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

In June

History: Since 2000, the mercado has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it failed inspection in 2016.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed eight priority violations, including an employee touching his face and returning to food preparation without washing his hands, “numerous food contact surfaces” with built-up grease, employees not properly sanitizing utensils, foods stored below established hot-holding temperatures and below established cold-holding temperatures, foods stored without preparation date, no thermometer on site for taking food temperatures. Though they were not priority violations, the inspector also found rodent droppings and a dead mouse in a trap.

Follow-up: The mercado failed a follow-up inspection on June 30, and another had not occurred by press time.

Response: In a written statement regarding this failed inspection and another at the mercado’s commissary, the swap meet said “we have hired a new manager for that location and requiring all of our managers and cooks to obtain additional licensing in food service and management. The (swap meet) has been operating over 10 different food and snack locations for over 40 years and has an excellent record with the Health Department. We are confident that this will address all concerns.”

In June

History: Since 2008, this 7-Eleven has received inspection ratings of good and excellent, with one needs improvement on May 22. The June 1 follow-up inspection was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector found that the open-air deli case with prepared sandwiches failed to meet temperature requirements. All food was pulled from the case and discarded. The convenience store was not allowed to use this case until the problem was addressed.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed reinspection on June 26.

Response: Tom Rai, manager, said the issue with the deli case has been resolved .

In June

History: Since 2000, Buggy Wheel has received mostly good and excellent inspection ratings, though it received a needs improvement rating in June 2015. This is its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed that there was not a suitable food thermometer, inadequate water pressure in the hand sink and issues with the sink’s drainage system.

Follow up: It passed reinspection on June 29.

Response: Manager Carol Howard said all issues have been resolved and they now have the proper, smaller food thermometer. The sink in the back was also fixed.

In June

History: Since 2000, this location has received all good and excellent inspection ratings. This is its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector found eight priority violations, including improper glove use and handwashing, food temperature issues, unlabeled cleaning products and dust accumulation in the walk-in. Most violations were corrected on site.

Follow up: It passed reinspection on June 22.

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

In June

History: This chain location has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent since the early 2000s. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed a manager “return to work without washing hands” and several other instances of inadequate handwashing, a rear handsink that had been removed and food contact surfaces not being washed with mandated frequency.

Follow-up: The restaurant failed a follow-up inspection on June 30. Another had not been conducted by press time.

Response: Manager Kristin Angeley said that the restaurant had not had inspection issues with hand sinks and that “it was sprung on us out of nowhere” during the most recent inspection. Employees were trained on proper hand washing practices after the failed inspection.

In June

History: The market has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it did receive a needs improvement and failed the follow-up in 2007. This was its first probationary rating.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed that there was no handsink outside of the bathroom, tongs and ice scoop stored in bleach water because there is no warewashing sink and nacho cheese kept below mandated temperatures.

Follow-up: The market failed a follow-up inspection because the operator declined to pay the reinspection fee. He said he intends to stop selling all non-prepackaged food.

Response: The Star was unable to contact the market  at the number listed online.

In June

History: Since 2007, this convenience store location has received inspection ratings of good and excellent exclusively. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: As with many locations in the record-setting June heat, a walk-in cooler was not keeping foods below established temperatures. That was the only priority violation.

Follow-up: The 7-Eleven location failed a follow-up on June 19, but passed on June 29.

Response: Manager Rami Khatri said repairs were conducted on the walk-in, which eventually resolved the issue.

In June

History: The restaurant has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent since 2010, though it has gotten several needs improvement ratings.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed two priority violations, including several coolers not keeping foods at established temperatures and food stored without discard dates. Because the restaurant has had previous issues with cold-holding in other recent inspections, it received a failing probationary rating.

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

Response: Chef Israel Velderrain said that every cooler at the restaurant was “revamped” in the wake of the failed inspection, and added that the record summer heat had put a lot of strain on them. “They work pretty hard all day long,” he said.

In June

History: Since 2000, the restaurant and bar has largely received inspection ratings of good and excellent, though it had two needs improvement ratings in the mid-2000s.

What the inspector saw: The inspector observed nine priority violations, a number of which were corrected on site. Those included an employee washing their hands in the warewashing sink, raw eggs stored above ready-to-eat foods, wares stored as clean with food debris, a cookline cooler not keeping foods at established temperatures, food stored without proper date marking and a can of insecticide stored near prep sink.

Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on July 3.

Response: Owner Ramiro Flores said that “every single issue on that list was either corrected that day or soon thereafter.” He added that some of the issues were due to a new cook, who will soon be taking the county’s food safety certification course.

In June

History: Since 2000, this restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. They were placed on probationary status on June 7 and failed the required follow up on June 19.

What the inspector saw: The county inspector observed seven priority violations including improper food-handling training, dirty food contact surfaces, prep refrigerators holding food at insufficient temperatures, ready to eat food without discard dates, improperly stored cleaning solution and home-use insecticide and bug traps.

Follow up: The restaurant failed  inspection on June 19 due to the grills remaining dirty. The person in charge was still awaiting the proper food-handling test from Pima County. They  passed another inspection on June 29.

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

In June

History: Since 2000, this location has received only excellent and good inspection ratings. This is its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw: The inspector saw seven priority violations, including improper dishwashing practices, a lack of thermometers, tongs that were only washed once a day and a lack of use-by dates on ready to eat food.

Follow up: The inspection report noted that the location was under a remodel for cosmetic purposes. It passed reinspection on June 28.

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

4,836 - Food service licenses in Pima County

616 - Excellent and good inspections

26 - Needs improvement inspections

31 - Probationary and failed inspections

Source: Pima County Health Department