ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥

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.

Ìý

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.�

Ìý

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.

Ìý

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.

Ìý

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 , Ìýbut 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.

Ìý

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

What the inspector saw:ÌýThe 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:ÌýThe restaurant passed a follow-up on Aug. 21.

Response:ÌýA 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,â€� she said. “We will pay extra attention.â€�

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.

Ìý

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.

Ìý

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.

Ìý

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, andÌýitems 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.�

Ìý

In August

History:ÌýSince 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:ÌýThe 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:ÌýNo follow-up had been done by deadline.

Response:ÌýA message seeking comment was not returned.

Ìý

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.

Ìý

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:ÌýSince 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:ÌýThe 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,â€� according to the inspection report.

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

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

Ìý

In July

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

What the inspector saw:ÌýThe 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:ÌýThe restaurant passed a July 31 follow-up inspection.

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

Ìý

In July

History:ÌýSince 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:ÌýThe 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.â€�

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

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

In July

History:ÌýSince 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:ÌýThe 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:ÌýThe 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:ÌýOwner 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.Ìý

In July

History:ÌýSince 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:ÌýDuring 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 droppingsâ€� in two storage areas and recommended a “very thorough cleaning from floor to ceilingâ€� in the rear of the restaurant.

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

Response:ÌýManager 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:ÌýThis 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:ÌýThe 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:ÌýThe restaurant passed a July 17 follow-up.

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

In July

History:ÌýSince 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:ÌýThe 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:ÌýThe convenience store passed a follow-up on July 24.

Response:Ìý“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,â€� company spokeswoman Donna Humphrey wrote in an email.

In July

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

What the inspector saw:ÌýThe 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:ÌýA follow-up inspection had not occurred by press time.

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

In July

History:ÌýSince 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:ÌýThe 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:ÌýThe restaurant failed its first follow-up on July 21 but passed on July 24.

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

In July

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

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

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

Ìý

In July

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

What the inspector saw:ÌýThe 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:ÌýA follow-up had not occurred by press time, according to online records.

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

Ìý

In July

History:ÌýSince 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:ÌýThe 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:ÌýThe restaurant passed a July 31 follow-up.

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

In July

History:ÌýSince 2009, the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good and excellent. This was its first failed inspection.

What the inspector saw:ÌýThe 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.â€� The inspector also found raw steak and other meats stored above ready-to-eat foods and issues with a dish sanitizer.

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

Response:ÌýGarret 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,â€� he said.

In July

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

Response:Ìý“All violations that we were able to correct on site we did and all other violations were corrected for follow-up and re-inspection,â€� 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