Committee on Health

Good morning and welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Health. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time we please ask you silence all electronic devices. If you would like to fill out a testimony slip, then please see one of the sergeant-at-arms officers. Moving forward, at no point in time is anyone to approach the front dais.

Chair, you may begin.

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's hearing of the New York City Council Committee on Health. I'm Councilmember Lynn Schulman, Chair of the Committee. I want to thank my colleagues and the representatives from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for joining us today to discuss food food service establishment inspections in New York City. We've been joined today by Councilmembers Marte, De La Rosa, Wilson, and Areola on Zoom.

At its core, public health is about protecting New Yorkers in their everyday lives. It means making sure the food we eat is safe, that the businesses serving our communities meet clear and consistent standards, and that New Yorkers have access to information that supports their health and well-being. Today, the committee will examine DOHMH's oversight of food service establishment inspections and consider a range of legislation addressing food safety, restaurant accountability, tobacco regulation, disease prevention, and children's nutrition.

The council's analysis of DOHMH data in preparation for this hearing highlights the current challenges facing the city's restaurant inspection program. In fiscal year 2019, 99.5% of restaurants received an initial sanitary inspection. By fiscal year 2025, that figure had fallen to 69.7%, an almost 30% drop. The COVID-19 pandemic seriously impacted inspection rates and staffing levels for public health sanitarians, the title given to restaurant inspectors.

Recently, there are encouraging signs of increased inspection activity. The average number of monthly inspections rose from approximately 1,400 in the final quarter of 2023 to nearly 2,200 by June 2024, reaching just under 2,700 by August 2026. However, the department's entry-level public health sanitarian workforce has not returned to its pre-COVID levels, and inspection trends reflect this reality. These data raise questions about staffing, inspection capacity, and the department's ability to provide consistent oversight across the city's food service establishments.

The council's analysis also found that facility and equipment maintenance and pest presence and prevention account for nearly half of all violations across inspections. These findings underscore why routine inspections, accurate documentation, and timely corrective action are essential to protecting New Yorkers from unsafe and unsanitary conditions. We want to understand how DOHMH is addressing inspection capacity prioritizing inspections and follow-up visits, and ensuring that violations are identified, documented, and corrected.

We look forward to DOHMH's engagement with these topics.

In addition, the committee will consider 6 introductions and 1 resolution. These 3 proposals today focus on restaurant operations, food safety, and accountability. Proposed Intro 189A, sponsored by Councilmember Farias, would require photographs or video documenting each cited violation when a restaurant inspection results in 14 or more points. Intro 908, sponsored by Councilmember Santuso, would establish a digital system for verifying food protection certificates and prevent a restaurant from being penalized solely because a physical certificate is not present, provided the required certification can be verified as valid digitally.

And Intro 1124, sponsored by myself, would require individuals managing or supervising food service establishments to renew their food protection course certification every 5 years.

We will also hear proposed Intro 405A and Intro 947, both sponsored by Councilmember Riley. Healthy eating habits begin early, and the food and beverages children consume can have lasting implications for their health and development. Proposed Intro 405A would establish nutrition standards for children's meals served at chain restaurants. Intro 947 concerns tobacco bars. The bill would allow a qualifying tobacco bar experiencing financial hardship to seek a one-time transfer of its registration and a one-time transfer of its tobacco retail dealer license to a new location, subject to specified conditions.

We look forward to hearing DOHMH's perspective on the public health implications of the proposal and how the existing registration and licensing framework for tobacco bars and tobacco retail dealers operates.

As a follow-up to our hearing on Legionnaires' disease this past September, we will also consider my legislation, Introduction 1094, requiring building owners to report Legionella test results of at least 10 colony-forming units per milliliter to DOHMH. Timely reporting of test results can be a critical component of identifying potential health risks, and giving DOHMH access to more testing data could help the agency take a more proactive approach. approach.

The metric I am proposing in this bill was implemented in jurisdictions in Canada and has been a successful tool in proactively addressing Legionnaires' disease. We want to understand how the proposed requirement would fit into DOHMH's existing practices and whether the agency sees a benefit to changing this reporting threshold. Finally, we will hear Resolution 152 sponsored by Councilmember Stevens supporting state legislation addressing certain food additives as well as color additives in food sold in schools.

In closing, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing these proposals forward. I want to thank Deputy Commissioner Corinne Schiff and DOHMH for appearing before the committee today. I look forward to a substantive discussion about how we can strengthen restaurant inspection and enforcement practices, promote food safety, which we all know is really important these days, address— and I want to thank the DOHMH who's been really on top of this issue— so addressing emerging foodborne illness concerns and how we can collaborate to ensure that inspection rates rebound.

Together, we can work to improve these processes for restaurants, for the inspectors, and for the public.

With that, I would like to read a brief statement by Councilmember Santantos on her legislation. I would like to thank Councilmember Schulman for including Intro 908 onto today's agenda, and the legislative staff, especially Christopher Pepe, for their work drafting this bill. Intro 908 would close a bureaucratic loophole that is hurting beloved restaurants across our city. Currently, any restaurant that is open for business must have at least one person on site who holds a food protection certificate.

This is an important regulation that helps keep restaurants safe for patrons. However, when DOHMH conducts an inspection, the certified worker must have a physical copy of the certificate on hand. Otherwise, the restaurant could receive a serious violation and hefty fine. Despite DOHMH presumably having a database that shows who is certified. So if a worker forgot to bring their certificate to work that day, the restaurant is penalized despite the fact that this worker is duly— is a duly certified food protection worker.

This legislation is very simple. It would require DOHMH to create and maintain a digital database of food protection certificate holders and to consult that database during inspections if a worker does not have their certificate on hand. This would not eliminate DOHMH's ability to enforce the underlying rule requiring certification in the first place and does not change food safety requirements.

It simply recognizes that we are in an increasingly digital world and that checking a database is often a more efficient system than requiring a worker to remember a physical card every day. Passing this legislation would demonstrate to the hospital industry that the city supports them and wants to make it easier for them to continue serving our neighborhoods for years to come.

Thank you.

Now I would like to read a brief statement by Councilmember Riley on his bills. Thank you, Chair Schulman, and the committee for hearing 2 important pieces of legislation focused on the health of New Yorkers and supporting our local businesses. First, Intro 504A, the Healthy Kids Meals Bill. As a father of 3, I know firsthand how challenging it can be to make healthy choices for our children when dining out.

Families should not have to sacrifice their children's health for convenience. And healthy options should not depend on where a family lives or chooses to eat. This legislation establishes stronger nutrition standards for children's meals, including fruits, vegetables, healthier beverage options, and specific nutritional requirements for chain restaurants. Our goal is simple: make healthier meals the standard, encourage good habits early, and give families greater confidence in the choices available to their children.

Next, Intro 947 addresses the operation of tobacco bars in New York City. We recognize that longstanding businesses can face financial hardships that threaten their ability to remain operational. This legislation creates a pathway for eligible previously registered tobacco bars to relocate and resume operations subject to demonstrated financial hardship, Department of Health approval, and applicable requirements. It's about balancing economic opportunity with responsible oversight and the interests of our communities.

I look forward to today's discussion and thank my colleagues, the legislative drafting team, and all stakeholders who have contributed to advancing these bills.

And now I will ask counsel to administer the oath. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. Please raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this committee and to respond honestly to councilmember questions? Yes. You may proceed with your testimony. Before we do that, I just want to acknowledge we've been joined by Councilmember Epstein.

Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair Schulman and members of the committee. My name is Corinne Schiff, and I'm the Deputy Commissioner for Environmental Health at the New York City Health Department. I'm joined today by Kim Kessler, Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention, by Dr. Achala Talati, Director of Tobacco Policy and Programs, and by Vasudha Reddy, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Communicable Diseases.

On behalf of Commissioner Martin, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about our program— programs to promote food safety, address foodborne illness outbreaks, control tobacco, advance nutrition efforts in restaurants, and regulate operation of the city's cooling towers. The Health Department is charged with protecting and promoting the health of all New Yorkers, including to promote the highest food safety standards in New York City restaurants, Respond to foodborne illness outbreaks, reduce tobacco-related disease and death, encourage consumption of healthy foods, and promote compliance with the local law governing cooling towers.

To protect diners, the department issues permits, conducts outreach and education for restaurant owners, trains restaurant supervisors in food protection, conducts unannounced inspections, and issues inspection grades so New Yorkers and the millions who visit our city can make informed decisions about where to eat out. About 90% of restaurants are currently posting an A grade. The department investigates complaints of food poisoning and conducts foodborne illness outbreak investigations, often working with public health experts across the country, as in the recent nationwide cyclospora outbreak.

The Health Department also implements a wide variety of measures to protect New Yorkers from the harms of smoke smoking. And New York City has long been a leader in tobacco control. The city's landmark Smoke-Free Air Act dramatically limited indoor smoking, making New York City a model for jurisdictions around the world, protecting New Yorkers from secondhand smoke, and normalizing a smoke-free culture.

The SFAA, along with other strategies, has enabled the city to reduce the smoking rate by over 50% since 2002, but smoking remains a leading cause of death and continues to be a public health priority. The Council and the Department have continuously strengthened the City's tobacco retail and secondhand smoke policies. Those efforts have paid off in expanded life expectancy and a reduction in tobacco-related diseases and deaths.

Most recently, Chair Schulman and the City Council codified Healthy NYC, the Department's plan for improving life expectancy and creating a healthier city for all. Preventing tobacco use and reducing smoking among New Yorkers is critical to reducing to reaching the chronic disease goals set under Healthy NYC and increasing life expectancy. The Health Department also released a multi-agency strategy that addresses the root causes of chronic diseases, which are a leading cause of death in New York City, taking an especially high toll on Black New Yorkers and New Yorkers in communities experiencing disinvestment.

Finally, as discussed at a hearing last month, the Department promotes compliance with the City's nation-leading requirements dictating the operation of cooling towers. We issue detailed regulations to implement the local law protections, conduct outreach, education, and training, and inspect cooling tower systems to monitor compliance, issuing summonses subject to civil penalties when owners fail to comply. We also respond to community clusters of Legionnaires' disease, rapidly testing cooling towers and requiring owners to fully clean and disinfect to cut off the Legionella bacteria likely to be causing the cluster.

Turning to the legislation under consideration today, Introduction 908 would require the department to maintain a database of food protection certificate holders and check it to confirm there is an FPC holder present at the restaurant before taking enforcement action. Having a supervisor trained in food protection on-site whenever the restaurant is operating is perhaps our most important food safety requirement and critical to protecting diners.

Each year, the department trains about 35,000 restaurant supervisors in food protection at our Health Academy, awarding a wallet-sized FPC certification card with the supervisor's photograph to those who complete the course and pass the exam. Checking that an FPC holder is at the restaurant by reviewing the supervisor's FPC card is a key part of every food safety inspection.

We understand that on occasion, the restaurant's trained supervisor may not have their FPC card with them, leaving them unable to show that they have the required training. When that happens, the inspector attempts to contact the health academy for a database check to confirm the person is an FPC holder, but that process is imperfect, including because the records are deleted after 10 years, so older certificates are unavailable.

The department supports the intent of the legislation but is concerned that as drafted, the bill would require the department to maintain decades of electronic records and poses other operational hurdles. We appreciate the discussion we've had— we have already had with the sponsor and look forward to discussing potential approaches with council. Next, Introduction 1124 would require the FPC holder to renew their certification every 5 years.

We support the intent to enhance food safety protections and would like to work with the council on the best ways to meet this objective. Introduction 189 would require the department to include a photograph or video showing violations identified at the restaurant inspection. Restaurant inspectors review their observations with the restaurant operator throughout the inspection, including providing information about avoiding or correcting conditions that do not meet food safety requirements.

They also document those findings in an inspection report and any summons that may be issued and provide those to the restaurant operator at the end of the inspection. Inspectors are New Yorkers' eyes in the kitchen. Their findings are summarized into the letter grade posted in the restaurant window, and diners who want inspection details can check our inspection website, ABC Eats.

Results are also available on open data. The department is concerned that collecting photographs and video of the inspection would require a longer inspection, especially for a restaurant failing to meet requirements and requiring photographic or video evidence of pest conditions, poor hygiene practices, food not kept at safe temperatures, and more, and require significant data resources to maintain millions of photographs and hours of video to transmit to Oath, post on ABC Eats, and store to meet record retention requirements.

We look forward to discussing the bill with council.

Introduction 947 would allow current tobacco bars to move and allow tobacco bars that had already closed to reopen, including in a new location. The city's landmark Smoke-Free Air Act, passed by City Council in 2001, was enacted to end indoor tobacco smoking, prohibit the opening of new tobacco and cigar bars, and only allow existing bars to continue operating in their then-existing locations under the permits they already had, to enable eventual— the eventual attrition of these establishments.

The Smoke-Free Air Act ended the issuance of new permits for tobacco bars by the Health Department. Allowing tobacco bars to relocate and resume after— resume operations after previously closing undermines the premise of the law. This rollback of our longstanding joint commitment to reducing secondhand smoke exposure would put the decades-long progress the council and department have made to reduce tobacco-related health harms at risk.

Secondhand smoke exposure is not limited to the premises of the establishment. Residential units and businesses nearby will also be affected. This is especially concerning because the decline in smoking in the city has now stalled, and we have seen widespread commentary in the media about a resurgence in the popularity of smoking. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this further.

Next, Introduction 405 would strengthen nutrition standards for children's menus in New York City restaurants. The department supports steps that shift the food environment to make default choices healthier and appreciates the prior conversations with the sponsor regarding this bill. The department looks forward to discussing how to further strengthen this bill in support of children's health.

Finally, Introduction 1094 would require owners of cooling towers to report findings of Legionella bacteria at low levels to the department and to take corrective action. The department already mandates owners to report results of Legionella bacteria to the department when those results show higher levels of bacteria, to maintain records of all sampling results for department review, and sets detailed requirements for corrective actions starting at the same low level set out in the bill.

We look forward to discussing this proposed reporting requirement with you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We are happy to take your questions. Thank you very much.

I'm going to ask a few questions and then I'm going to hand it over to my colleagues and then come back, so, um, to give them an opportunity. Um, Deputy Commissioner, you said in your testimony that 90% of restaurants have an A. Has that always— has that been the plateau, or it's been higher, lower? Just, you want to just go through some of that?

Sure. So I'll say restaurant grading has been a huge success in New York City in promoting high food safety standards among city restaurants. Last July, we celebrated our 15th anniversary of this program. I did a little looking back in preparation for today, and in FY12— so we started the program in July 2010— in FY12, 85% of restaurants were posting A grades, and we're now at 90%.

And it's stayed about that level. It's been a little bit higher before COVID and we've been getting back up to that level. When an establishment doesn't get an A, What is the process around that? So the program that we set up in 2010 for restaurant grading provides 2 opportunities for restaurants to get an A grade. And I'll say that we think of the inspection as an open-book exam to go along with those grades.

So we list every condition that the inspector will look for in a checklist. And we make that available to restaurants, we train them on it, and we encourage them to take that checklist and conduct a self-inspection every day, every week, as frequently as they can so they are ready for that inspection. So we go for an initial inspection, and if the restaurant earns an A at that time, they get that A grade.

When we issue an A grade at the time of inspection, there's no summons, there are no fines, all part of an incentive structure because we really want restaurants to be motivated to meet the city's high food safety standards. If they don't earn an A at that inspection, we come back for a re-inspection. And that's a really important moment for the restaurant to take a look at what we found that didn't result in an A, make those corrections, and then we come back and do that re-inspection.

Again, if they earn an A at the time of inspection, they will get that A. There's no summons, there's no fines. If it's not an A, then we give them, depending on the score, a B or a C and that grade pending card that you've seen in some restaurants. How much time elapses between when they get less than an A and then you come back?

It can vary. We will not come back before a week. We want there to be enough time for them to come back. So it really does vary. You know, where our goal is about a month when we're fully staffed. Okay. Do you also— I understand you have an ombudsman office for establishments. Can you tell us something about that?

We're not on fire. Yes. So we do have an ombuds office. And that is a person, a point of contact person for restaurant owners if they have questions, if they have a complaint. We do get compliments also from the restaurant industry about inspections. And our ombudsperson is there to really be an internal advocate for that restaurant inspector. for that restaurant owner.

So they can, if there is some concern about what happened at the restaurant, that person can review, talk them through it. If it turns out that there was some issue with the inspector, then that inspector can be coached, corrected, and so on. I would say the vast majority of what comes into the ombudsperson is questions. Okay, I don't think, like when I was preparing for this hearing today, I didn't really know about the ombudsman office.

So if there's a way to get some information out, especially to the council members, and they can share it with the local businesses, and I think that would be really helpful. And then it'll prevent us from doing legislation that is like not really needed. Or so we would be happy to do that. I will say that we are, we are routinely issuing information to restaurants.

We do e-blasts to the entire industry. And those work with the Hospitality Alliance and Yes, and those often include the contact information for the ombudsperson. And we also have a customer service office, and so we provide information about both of those contacts. But we would be happy to get that information to you and have you support those outreach efforts.

And the other thing too, that I just— just a suggestion, that when there's a problem with a restaurant, that maybe because a lot of the local council members have relationships with those businesses and they can maybe help to get them to a place where they get an A. So I think that would be really helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

And how many food service establishments does DOHMH currently regulate? So food service establishments is a regulatory term that is bigger than restaurants. Right. There are about 40,000 of those in the city and there are about, about 30,000 of them are what we would consider restaurants. Other than restaurants, you just want to give us the rundown of what it is that you inspect for the food grade?

Yes. So we will— we also have oversight responsibility for food service in cafeterias. Could be school cafeterias, could be business cafeterias, older adult centers, food service in correctional facilities, soup kitchens. Can you just send us the list? Because so that we can— We will send you the list. That would be awesome. Yes. And somebody, if they have a complaint about an establishment, they can call 311.

Is that correct? Is there anything on the website of DOHMH or just 311? We'll— I'll have to— we'll check our website to see what it says about complaints, but certainly at 311, either online or by phone. Okay, great.

So how many inspections did you guys conduct in each of the last 3 fiscal years? Do you have that? So in FY26, we did almost 21,400 restaurants inspected. FY25, it was almost 21,000. And in FY24, just over 20,000. So as you noted in your opening remarks, Chair, we are— our recruitment efforts have been rigorous and ongoing, and we are succeeding in bringing more inspectors on board, which is why you are seeing those numbers go up.

I just met a group of new inspectors in training, a nice big group. So we are continuing to staff up. I'm guessing that you don't have this with you, but if you can give us the number of the type of inspection, the initial, including the initial, reinspection, compliance, and complaint-driven. I have— I don't have complaints, but I have FY26, there were just over 16,000 initial inspections, almost 6,000 reinspections, and just over 250 compliance inspections.

And that was up from the year before, 15,000 initial inspections. Okay, great. According to the fiscal 2026 mayor's management report, DOHMH inspected 71% of the city's restaurants, roughly the same as in fiscal 2025. Below the 100% target, how many restaurants went uninspected in fiscal year 2026, and how many have now gone more than 2 years without an inspection?

In FY26, there were about 8,800 restaurants that were not inspected and just under 500 that had gone 2 or more years without an inspection. And then another set of restaurants where we had attempted an inspection, the restaurant was closed and appeared to be out of business, but we would continue to inspect to confirm that. Do you think you're going to get to a place where it's 95% and higher?

I'm just asking. I mean, that's certainly our goal. Our goal is to inspect 100%. I think you quoted 99-point-something in your opening remarks. That is our goal, and we are continuing to recruit and really welcome the council's support to send us good candidates. It's a great job, a terrific way to serve your community. Yeah, we can do that.

Are there locations where it's more difficult for you to conduct inspections? And if so, why? I don't think so. Like a location or something? No, we're all over the city. We're in every neighborhood. We have people working, you know, early and late. No.

And I think there was— I think I saw someplace where it said a lot of issues have to do— you know, we have the highest rat population of any city. in the country, that it has something to do with vermin and stuff like that. And so, do you work with any other— I know we don't have the Rat Czar anymore, but do you work with any other agencies around that issue?

So the Health Department, also within the Environmental Health Division, has a pest control program. A part of our training for restaurants is about pest management. There are very specific requirements in our food safety rules about controlling pests, maintaining conditions that reduce the risk of pests. And we also, you know, where there are extreme situations in a restaurant, which is not common, we can mostly handle the pest conditions within the Food Safety Bureau, but there are opportunities for internal cross-referrals if we need to call in our pest program.

So what I'm also going to ask, because we're going to have a tremendous amount of construction to build new housing and everything else, and maybe work with DOB around that issue when they have construction in various places, that especially now, like in my district, I have construction that's going to involve small businesses that are around where the construction sites are and stuff.

I mean, I think that would be helpful. Thank you.

I'm going to change gears here to talk about the cooling towers a little bit. How did DOHMH initially settle on the 1,000 colony-forming units per milliliter threshold for mandatory notification? That's an action level that has been established in the research literature, in longstanding CDC guidance, and is a level also that other jurisdictions Does DOHMH have any objections to lowering the threshold to 10 CFU milliliters, as is the practice in other jurisdictions?

So our action levels are the same as what's in the bill, and what I think you're referring to, colleagues in Vancouver, Canada. We have the same action levels in New York City for owners to take corrective action, and we have very detailed They don't give it the same— Specifications for what those action levels are. The difference with Vancouver is that reporting requirement, although I will say that our programs are different and our understanding is that in Vancouver as well, it is at 1,000 CFUs that those reports are made to the Health Department.

When DOHMH receives a notification from a cooling tower operator regarding the presence of potentially harmful levels of Legionella bacteria, what is the procedure for reviewing the notification? So first, I want to just say that, you know, the way we think about that 1,000 CFU limit is that it's really an indication that the cooling tower operator may not have full control over their maintenance program and plan.

And one of the reasons we were so supportive of your legislation in 2025, Chair, was that changing the frequency of sampling from 90 days to 30 days, or 31 days technically, is that it was going to give operators so much more information about their control program. As we discussed last month and last year, our regulations, the local law and our regulations, set out very specific requirements for owners of cooling towers on their maintenance program and plan.

And there's things that they need to do every day or multiple times a week, weekly, bimonthly, monthly, biannually, annually. They're really maintaining their systems constantly. But this, the new sampling regime is gonna give them a lot more information about how that program is working to control the Legionella bacteria. And I think we're still early days in seeing how that works.

But to say, to answer your question, when we get those reports, we have a, there is a unit within the Cooling Tower Program that does follow-up with those buildings, making sure that they take that corrective action, report the corrective action to us. They have to then do sampling to see that that corrective action was successful. They have to report that to us.

Since we've had these 2 outbreaks this year, which is troubling, we're trying to find some new ways to do this. And we are going to have experts, by the way, that are going to testify to my legislation. So I assume somebody will be here from DOHMH when they testify, but somebody's waving to me that they'll be here.

And so we're trying to figure out different ways to get at this because the fact of the matter is because of climate change that we're going to have more or potentially more Legionella because Legionella grows in warm atmospheres. And we had a very hot summer last summer. We had a very hot summer this summer. So that's what we're trying to do.

So we'll work with you to figure it out, but I think we need to look at new ways to manage this. If this bill is enacted, how will DOHMH triage the notifications, and will it change how the agency responds to a notification based off the levels of Legionella found in a cooling tower system? So we look forward to continuing to discuss the bill with you when we're still thinking about those, you know, really important questions.

Okay.

What is— now I'm going to switch back. What I'm going to talk about my intro 1124, the food protection certificate renewal. That's an easy one. What is a food protection certificate and how does an individual qualify for one? And I want to just state for the record that my chief of staff has a certificate. He's a certified chef.

And he came up with the idea of doing this because he felt that you need to know what's going on in the industry and all of that moving forward. And it's good to do something like this. Other jurisdictions have it. But anyway, go ahead. Well, that's great. Thank you. So you— as I noted in my testimony, Every restaurant is required to have a supervisor on site with a food protection certificate.

And it's really the most important requirement that we have, and that's sort of intuitive, I think, that somebody trained in food protection supervising the operations in the restaurant would be critically important. We offer the course at our Health Academy. I don't know if you're— you can also take it from authorized third-party providers. So I don't know if your chief of staff took our course at the Health Academy on the Upper West Side or— A long time.

He said, okay, well, we've been offering it for a long time. It's a great class. I encourage everyone to take it even for your own home cooking. You may never, you know, you won't cook the same way again. I know what temperature to cook my chicken to last night. So at the end of that course, there is an exam.

And if you pass the exam, you get a card. It's a wallet-sized card, so easy to carry around. Keep it in your wallet. You'll have it with you. Please describe the material covered in the food protection course and what the final examination entails. So the course really covers, if you take it in person, it's every morning for 4 days, and then the 5th day it's a review session and exam.

So it really covers all of the issues that are in our food safety rules and how to make sure that you are preparing, storing, serving food in ways that meets food safety protections to keep your diners safe. Approximately how many people take the food protection course each year? It's about 35,000 every year. Oh, wow. Yeah. What fees are associated with obtaining a food protection certificate, and how much revenue, if any, does DOHMH generate from this process?

So the in-person course is $114. The online course is free, and then to take the review course and exam, it's $24 at our Health Academy. Does DOHMH or another entity engage in continuing education opportunities for food protection certificate holders as food safety practices evolve over time and new public health concerns emerge? Such as foodborne pathogens? So we do, and it's a well-timed question.

We are really in the middle— every year we offer a free food safety training program. We offer that in person in different boroughs, and we offer it online, and it's very popular. Hundreds of restaurant operators come to it, and it is a chance to do exactly what you said. chair to refresh any new information in food safety science and remind people of restaurant workers of the most important food safety requirements.

We also bring in colleagues from other agencies to provide information and support services for the industry. One question you didn't answer, how much revenue, if any, does the— I'm going to have to get back to you about that. What specific amend— wait, I'm sorry. That's for another one. Okay.

I'm going to ask some questions that Councilmember Santososo gave me for her introduction. Is a digital database of food protection certificate holders currently maintained? So we do have a database. Records are maintained for 10 years. So this is one of the challenges that we would like to discuss with council about the bill, maybe even your chief of staff, depending on how long ago that person got their food protection certificate.

And we have been doing this for a very long time. We may not have that in the database. So certainly looking back would be a challenge. And even just maintaining, as I said, we trained about 35,000 people. So those are the kinds of things we'd like to talk with you about. Thank you. Sure. What operational changes— and again, this is her legislation, but yes, they're similar— what operational changes would need to be made in order to create such a database or make it accessible to inspectors?

So we're continuing to think about that, but as I noted, one issue is we can't look back before 10 years ago, and then going forward, it would be quite an enormous database as we train 35,000 a year. I hate to bring this up. Would AI be helpful here? So we're— we've got our best IT minds thinking about this, but we look forward to talking with you about the details.

We are going to be having a hearing on AI in healthcare. So just FYI there. Is there a standard policy for when a violation is given for lack of food protection Certificate on site, and if so, what is that policy? Yes. So having a person trained in food protection is perhaps the most important of all of the food safety requirements.

And so it's a part of every one of our inspections. In FY26, we did cite it— we issued about 2,800 violations for there not being a food protection certificate holder on site. Are there any circumstances currently in which DOHMH might try and verify whether or not someone has a food handler's license via the database as opposed to the physical card?

So we do do that, as I described in my testimony. We will when possible. So for example, it's a newer card, so it's going to be within the database, and it's the database at the Health Academy. So the Health and inspector doesn't have access to that. So there are some sort of technical things, but we do try to do that.

Okay. What concerns, if any, does DOHMH have about creating, maintaining, or making more readily accessible this database? So those— the concerns that I've noted. Right. Yeah. Can you confirm that during the process of certifying a worker, their immigration status is not collected or maintained? Not collected or maintained. Okay, great.

Okay. Oh, and I want to acknowledge we've been joined by Councilmember Narcisse. I want to get the questions about the legislation out of the way. Okay. This is about proposed Intro 189, the photo or Video evidence. Okay.

When a violation is challenged by an FSE, how does DOHMH establish that the violating condition existed at the time of inspection, particularly when the condition has since been corrected? So first to note again, when the restaurant achieves an A grade at the time of the inspection, there is no summons as part of our overall system, which is designed really to create a variety of incentives for the restaurant to meet those highest food safety standards.

So let's— we're talking about a restaurant that does not, to answer your question, does not get an A at the time of inspection, which means that we're finding food safety violations. The inspection is— we consider it to be a teachable moment. The inspector is there and they They walk through the restaurant with whoever the restaurant chooses to accompany the inspector.

We prefer a supervisor, but they can choose who that is. And we go step by step through that inspection checklist that we have shared with the restaurant because it's an open book exam and we want them to do their own self-inspection. And as we're going through, our inspector is describing what they're observing, why it meets or doesn't meet the food safety protection and what needs to be done to bring that situation into compliance, and they're recording that all along the way.

At the end of the inspection, they review their overall findings with the restaurant operator. They are carrying handheld printers, and so at the end of the inspection, they are able to print out the inspection report and any summons right there on the spot for the restaurant owner to The summons goes to Oath, right? The summons goes to Oath, yes.

Is there another appeals process through Oath if they want to appeal that? Absolutely. Every— if there is a summons issued, if it's not an A grade, then there is an opportunity for the restaurant owner to object to those findings and to bring in their evidence for why the inspector was wrong. What are DOHMH inspectors currently required or instructed to document?

You just said that. How does the department determine whether a violation has been sufficiently documented to support the issuance of a notice of violation? So that is a big part of our training program, and those— the big cohort of new inspectors that I met last week or so were learning all of the different violations trained in customer service to be able to deliver that teaching inspection and also to document that.

It is a legal document and we do have to establish the conditions that meet the violation. Is a sworn statement sufficient? The summons that we issue is a sworn statement by the inspectors. They're putting in details of their observations. And then they're signing it at the end. I think you mentioned this. There's— DOHMH maintains written protocols and training materials?

We do. Governing this? Okay. How long are FSE inspection records retained? You know, we meet the city's record retention program, and I will get back to you about exactly what that number is because I don't want to get that wrong. Does the department track how often violations are dismissed, reduced, or otherwise resolved because of insufficient documentation or conflicting accounts of the inspection?

We have some record of that, yes. And is there any trends that come out of that that you see, or— I haven't looked at that in a long time, so I don't know, but others are looking at that, sure. Curiosity. Does DOHMH anticipate that taking photographs or video of cited violations would lengthen But you said that in your testimony.

Are there particular categories of violations for which photographs or video would be especially useful in demonstrating a public health risk? As I said, we are— we do train the inspectors to make very detailed recordings of their observations. To give you an example, You know, pest condition could be a common finding in a restaurant, especially one that's not getting an A grade.

So there will be a summons. And the inspectors are literally trained to count mouse droppings that they observe and to record the numbers of mouse droppings that they have seen. Do we also need a photograph of that? No. You know, I don't think so. The purpose of our documenting is to let the restaurant owner and Oath know about that observation.

Do you know what percentage of FSE inspections annually would be affected by this bill's documentation requirements? So it would be any of the restaurant inspections where there isn't an A at the time of inspection, and so there is a summons. Which would be like 10%. It would be— you know what, we will have to— there is some complexity to your question, but also we don't know until the end of the inspection what the score is going to be.

So I don't know at the beginning, right? The bill applies to an inspection with 14 or more points. That is because that is the cutoff for an A grade. A is under 14. We don't know at the start. We only know at the finish. I may be subject to documentation requirements for having taken that— those photographs or videos anyway.

So probably 100%, but we would have to do a little more thinking about that.

I have a question. It's not about a bill. When you close a restaurant, which is very rare, but when you do, what's the process for them reopening? Because I— you talked about Like from a B to a C and that upgrade, but how does the closing work? Closing a restaurant is something we hope not to do. It is an extreme measure that we take only when we feel, based on the observations, that that restaurant cannot safely serve its customers.

It's not a decision that's made by the inspector. The inspector reports back to the office to their supervisor, and there are multiple levels of supervisory review before we take that extreme action. Any of the conditions, we call them public health hazards, that could be fixed by the restaurant before the end of the inspection, that won't result in a closure.

We have them fix those conditions. We want restaurants to stay open. Where we feel that those conditions cannot be corrected before the end of the inspection, we will close that restaurant, and we then, we provide very detailed information to the restaurant owner about the conditions that have to be corrected before they can reopen. That's where our customer service office is really active working with that restaurant if they don't understand, if they have questions, if they need more guidance.

We are there for them. Our goal is to get that restaurant open safely as soon as we can. About approximately how much time elapses in those circumstances? It really ranges. It depends on the conditions. Some of the conditions cannot be fixed quickly. If there is a severe pest infestation, you're gonna need to Plug up holes. You're going to need to— you probably need to dispose of some food if we've found gnaw marks in some bags of flour or something.

You're going to need to get pest-proof containers. You're going to need a couple of extermination sessions. So it really varies on what we have seen. If your refrigerators are not working, you can't hold food at a safe temperature, but you can get someone in there the next day and get those refrigerators repaired, that's going to be much faster.

Okay.

Now I'm going to ask about proposed Intro 405, the healthy kids' meals. How does DOHMH currently enforce New York City's existing requirements concerning beverages offered with children's meals as codified in local law? Thank you for the question, Councilmember. I think that's just part of the regular inspection process. Okay. How does the agency currently monitor compliance with the existing children's meal requirements?

The— it is similar. It is the same process. Are these requirements incorporated into routine restaurant inspections, complaint-driven inspections, or another enforcement process? I believe they're part of the regular enforcement process. What does DOHMH's current public health data show about the nutritional challenges facing children in New York City, particularly with respect to fruit and vegetable consumption, added sugar, sodium, These are all areas of ongoing concern in New York City and a huge priority for us, the Health Department.

Specifically for fruit and vegetable consumption, one of the things that I think is really promising about the legislation, which would require fruit and— a fruit and vegetable to be served as part of all kids' meals, is that it really would help just normalize that as part of children's meals. Some more of the more recent data that we have about this is that for kids between up to 13 years old, I think it's 5 to 13, it's 5% of kids who haven't had any fruits and vegetables in the day before.

And for public high school students, that's 10%. So that's just to give an indication. And certainly other nutrients of concern that would be limited by the proposed legislation, at least in chain restaurants, such as sodium and saturated fat, you know, those are, those are all just also things that there's too much consumption of in the American diet and for New Yorkers as well.

Believe me, I look at the labels. I'm like, what? This is a little bit controversial, this question, but what is DOHMH's position on the consumption of whole milk by children? The legislation, the current draft of the legislation would allow for whole milk to be served. And given that this kids' meals could be consumed by kids of all ages and whole milk is actually recommended for kids between 1 and 2, we think it makes sense for parents to be able to choose and for that to be available in restaurants.

Is nonfat and low-fat milk healthier than whole milk? I know there's this whole controversy around this. I think, you know, we use— we apply the New York City food standards for meals that are served in city meals, and those meals have an overall saturated fat limitation requirement. I think, you know, Whole low and reduced fat milk is what is promoted in city food standards for kids.

And this legislation is really thinking about the whole spectrum of age. What is the OHMH's position on flavored milk? We do have concerns about the sugars in flavored milk. And this legislation doesn't have limits on added sugars. And so one way to reduce the amount of added sugars that would be available in kids' meals would be to make this for unflavored milk.

Given just how much sugar kids are consuming, we think that's a good opportunity. What procedures would DOHMH use to assess compliance with the nutritional limits for chain establishments, including calories, sodium, saturated fat, and fiber? The specific requirements that are in the proposed legislation for chain restaurants are ones that the FDA does require chain restaurants to disclose, which makes it feasible for that to become part of the inspection process.

And, you know, we look forward to discussing details of the enforcement process. Is the amended bill that the committee is hearing today enforceable from your perspective? From our perspective, it is. And I know that the legislation allows for rulemaking also, which would allow us to add more detail about if necessary. Okay.

And now I'm going to ask about the tobacco bars, which I know is like a major issue for you guys. Has DOHMH received requests from tobacco bar operators seeking to relocate due to financial hardship or other factors. I just want to, for the record, say that this bill came out of when COVID happened and there were landlords that sold the buildings in which these establishments— because I know you're looking for attrition around these establishments.

And so they were put out of business before their natural life course would go out of business. So they're seeking this one-time Transfer of the license, and then the attrition would start from that point. But I just wanted to point that out. Anyway, have you received requests, and if so, how were those requests handled, and was any form of assistance offered to these operators?

I'm actually not sure about specific requests. I would just, you know, want to underscore, you know, what you just referenced and what the Deputy Commissioner spoke about in her testimony. just about the shared public health success of the Smoke-Free Air Act, the aim of reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, which remains a huge public health concern, and moving from 8 of the tobacco bars that existed at the time of the legislation to 5 today is consistent with what would have been expected in a reduction of these hazardous businesses that have hazardous health consequences.

And because we do think it's important to just keep at the front of mind in considering these issues and when weighing this legislation. Would also love my colleague, Dr. Achala Talati, just to speak a bit more about secondhand smoke. Sure. So secondhand smoke, like, you know, contains tar and cancer-causing chemicals. And so because of that, it lowers air quality, worsens asthma, but can also cause chronic disease.

And there's no real safe level of secondhand smoke. And I think that's why We're concerned about anything that, you know, does not continue to reduce indoor smoking over time. And that's really why that was the goal of the Smoke-Free Air Act. We also get like thousands of complaints every year from New Yorkers about secondhand smoke exposure. So for any new location, I think we're not only concerned about the safety of the staff, you know, who work at that location, but also New Yorkers who live or work nearby and will be affected potentially on like a daily basis.

I mean, the legislation doesn't say carte blanche, like you can open up and that's that. I mean, they'd have to work with you guys. And I think we're talking about less than 10 of these places, to be honest. Has— can you— what specific— wait, sorry. Do you have evidence that tobacco retail density is associated with adverse health outcomes at the community district level?

I'm not sure if we've analyzed that at the community district level. It is, I think, irrefutable that tobacco is of public health concern, and one of the core strategies in tobacco control is retail reduction. We want to reduce just the prevalence, availability, the normalization of the use of tobacco products, and that's consistent with other legislation around licenses that we've worked on together, as well as the Smoke-Free Air Act overall.

And again, that's because of the evidence connecting tobacco with health harms. Do you have data on complaints, inspections, violations, or other health-related concerns involving currently registered tobacco bars? Do you know the answer to that? I don't know. I think we would have to double-check specifically about tobacco bars. Can you get back to us? Because that would play into How many tobacco bars currently operate in the city, do you know?

There are currently 5 operating in the city, and as mentioned, you know, that is a reduction from the 8, you know, consistent with the intention of reducing exposure to these businesses that have health harms. I— would you have specific amendments to make the bill workable for small businesses while preserving the public health objectives of the existing tobacco licensing framework?

I think we would welcome the opportunity to discuss that further. We would want to make sure that health is at the forefront of any considerations. Okay. I'm going to turn it over to my colleagues now. I have other questions, but I wanted them to have the opportunity. So Councilmember Epstein is first.

Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. You mentioned that 90% of restaurants have A ratings. Does that break down by restaurants that are takeout or sit-down? Is there a distinction between those A ratings? We don't have that distinction. Can you get it? I can look. I don't know. Okay. It would be great if you could let me know.

And just with some of the takeout restaurants, do you have data on how many of the violations you issued, are they a higher percentage of violations for takeout restaurants versus sit-down restaurants? I can— we can take a look and see if we have that data. Yeah, the reason I'm asking this is because we do get— we don't get a lot of complaints about health issues on restaurants unless it's related to a takeout establishment.

And we see kind of more, you know, with buffets, food being out, and kind of, you know, airborne illness, we're seeing higher percentages of that happening in Is that, you know, it's only anecdotally. I'm wondering what you see internally. I've not heard that. I'll have to, I'll check with the team that takes in those complaints to see if they're seeing the same thing.

Of course, the same rules about food safety would apply whether it's sit-down or takeout. So there are a couple of takeout places in my district where there have been ongoing concerns, where there have been inspections, violations, shutdown, and they just continue to reopen. Is there a moment where if someone has ongoing violations where a health department makes a determination that that location or that establishment in that location can't continue to operate?

We do have the authority to take action against a restaurant owner who appears to be unable to comply. with food safety requirements. And how often have you exercised that option? Extremely rarely. Our goal is to bring restaurants into compliance. So we are much more likely to try to provide technical assistance to that restaurant owner to help them come into compliance with the requirements.

We have lots of tools for restaurant owners. For example, one we haven't talked about is we've developed what we call an inspection history report. Any restaurant can get on our website, type in some information, their permit number or something like that, and get an individualized report that shows their last 3 years of history of repeat violations. And so that's our way of saying, here's something to focus on.

These are things that you continue to do wrong. So we're really— our goal is really— and we can work with SBS. They also have a compliance team to bring that restaurant into compliance. And to be able to operate. How often have you exercised that tool? I don't have that number. I'd have to check. Could you check and get back to us on it?

And just in this vein, we've also heard around kind of the food safety issue around not having enough recycling and trash for takeout locations. Have you heard that as an issue, and what does the Health Department do about ensuring cleanliness around and in front of the food safety establishment? Depending on where the trash is, we will be doing an inspection of maintaining trash in a way that especially prevents pest conditions in the restaurant.

But if you're talking about how they put trash out on the curb and so on, that, that may not be the Health Department. So maybe we can follow up and get a little more detail about these issues and see where that falls. If someone doesn't have a trash can or recycling bin in the takeout establishment, is that an issue that the Health Department will manage?

Restaurants do have to have containers to maintain their trash in the restaurant. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Councilmember Wilson. Thank you, Chair. I was a server for 10 years at 2 prominent New York City restaurants. It's a great job and a great industry to work in. But one of the restaurants I worked at, it's no longer there, but it had a good run. We had an alarm at the host stand that would get pressed when the health inspector arrived to stall to get them to the kitchen so that the kitchen could get its, you know, make sure it was ready for the inspection.

So my question is, there are ways that restaurants practically run in the middle of food service that are often not the way that the health inspector will see the kitchen. So how are you collaborating with the industry to ensure that you're scoring and looking for the— maintaining the safety of the food that also matches with the ways that a restaurant will practically run food service, like during a peak lunch shift or dinner shift?

So we do know that some restaurants will do what you just described. Our inspection is unannounced in an effort to see the actual practices of the restaurant, but some restaurants do as you say. But it's part of why we continue to do training. We know that restaurants want to keep their customers healthy and safe, and so there are a lot of things that we do to continue to educate restaurants so that they will know what is required to keep their customers safe.

You said they're unannounced, but when the health inspector shows up to a restaurant, that will shut down the service for a long time. for a long period of time. So how do you manage the timing of the inspection to ensure that they're not going to lose like a full shift or 2 worth of income, which we of course know can really make or break restaurants that often operate in the red?

Restaurants do not need to stop service. They don't need to, but practically it's quite difficult to maintain it while there is an inspection. So some restaurants choose to do that. It is not required and we don't recommend it. We, you know, the timing is randomized from our point of view. It is scheduled by us, but it is unannounced for the restaurant.

Restaurants are working all the time, serving all the time, so we really can't inspect only when there is no possibility that they're serving food, but that's a decision that the restaurant is making. When you do the inspections, there are certain elements of the building that's controlled by the restaurant and others that are by the commercial— I mean, by the landlord that rents the space to the commercial tenant.

What are some ways that the Health Department ensures that landlords of buildings are active partners in maintaining hygiene and food safety? And how do you ensure— make landlords aware of what their responsibilities are to commercial food tenants? Our relationship is with the permit holder, so the person that owns that restaurant. And certain of the requirements certainly have to do with facilities, and so we would recommend that restaurant owners make sure that that lease and that relationship with the property owner is clear.

They will, in some circumstances, they may need cooperation with the property owner to make corrections if they are building-related, for example. But our relationship is with the restaurant owner. So the department does not do any types of trainings or outreach to commercial landlords that have leases with It might depend on what the issue is. If there is a pest condition, as we were talking about before, some of those obligations are on the owner of the property.

So it may depend on exactly what the issue is. So the owner of the property is responsible for maintaining that property in a pest-free state. The restaurant would certainly be responsible for making sure that there are not holes that allow the pests to move around their restaurant, whether there's an opportunity for our pest control program to intervene with that property manager.

There may be, and sometimes we do that internal cross-reference that I was noting between our food safety program and our pest control program. Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Narcisse. Thank you, Chair. And when I had a restaurant, we did not have the grade A, so that was a good thing. I wore many hats in my life. So, but the supervision was always there. You had to take the classes, and I know how to handle my food before, so I can check in the kitchen.

But if you check restaurants just like you check the adult senior daycare, which I had one, It was just amazing. You're always on point when you come with the inspection, and I didn't know that restaurants were not getting the same love that we were receiving in social daycare. So I want to say thank you for the work you're doing.

But now, what is the DOHMH fiscal 2027 budget for food service establishment inspection, and how much is allocated to inspector salaries. How much did DOH spend on inspectors' payroll fiscal 2026? Um, the overall budget for our Food Safety Bureau is about $25 million, and about $20 million of that is for personnel. Thank you. Um, how long do restaurants typically sit on grade pending?

Because sometimes I see them for a while while contesting, if they're contesting at oath. Is that being used to avoid posting a B or C for months? Because I'm always questioning in my head. Is that possible? So the restaurants have the opportunity to leave that grade pending card up while they're waiting for their oath. hearing, and how long that takes is really a question for OATH.

They have rules about being able to postpone and so on, so I would refer your question to OATH. Yeah, because they're pending for a while. What is the most common critical violation citywide right now, and what is the department doing about it beyond issuing fines? So some of our most common violations are that the facility is not vermin-proof, there are harborage conditions, food is not protected from contamination, the food is held at unsafe temperatures, or there's equipment that's not properly maintained.

And we do a lot of different things. We are routinely sending out information to restaurants, referring them to the wide range of information we have on our website. We have annual refresher trainings like the one I mentioned that are underway. Now, we welcome restaurants to send multiple people to our Health Academy. Many restaurants do that, and that's a great way to make sure that you're meeting the food safety requirements in your restaurant is to have multiple people trained.

And then, as I said, every inspection is a teachable moment. I hope that's what you experienced. That inspector is walking through describing everything that they are observing. Thank you. How long does it take to receive the inspection if you just open a restaurant right now in New York City? I'm sorry, how long does it take? If you open— yeah, a newly opened restaurant, how long will it take to get an inspection from the Department of Health?

For a new restaurant, I'd have to get back to you. I don't have that data with me. All right. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember De La Rosa? Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. I had a question. So we already heard 90% of restaurants have an A grade. Do you believe that requiring the reapplication will solve for the 10% that is not an A grade? Requiring the recertification? It's an interesting question. You know, ongoing training and refresher training it could be an important part of food safety, but whether it would, whether it would bring us to 100% of A's, I don't know.

What, what do you see as the discrepancy between all of the restaurants that have the A's and the ones that don't? Like, what is the main challenge? Well, I would say that those most common violations would be something that the restaurants would look at, and, and really those restaurants that are not getting that A grade are just not— they're not meeting those high food safety standards that we set out in our health code.

And the grade is one among many incentive systems that we have to try to encourage restaurants to do that and then to take the opportunity to participate in all of the outreach and education and training that we offer. The test for the food safety and protection or the certifications, are those offered in multiple languages? Our guide, our inspection guide, is offered in 36 languages other than English.

I have to check and see if literally the exam is in those languages or just the inspection or just the course review. That would be helpful. I've always brought up to the city in other in other hearings, you know, when you're not an English language— native English language speaker, you think in another language and you're actively translating.

Yes. And so you study different and you test different. So it's important, especially considering the diversity of the food of the city, that they're able to take these courses in their language if possible. I wanted to ask about, in your opinion, You know, when the health code is updated or the food safety regulations are updated, how do restaurants get notified that that update is happening?

And then does it make more sense to tie a reapplication to major changes, or you all believe that the 5 years is sufficient? The 5-year reapplication. So we periodically update the health code because food safety science evolves. And we will keep an eye on the model— at the FDA model food code, at least when we were confident that that was an evidence-based document, and continue to keep our food code, our health code food safety requirements up to date.

When we do that, we have many opportunities and moments when we notify the industry. First, when we put that rule out for public comment, we will send an email out to all restaurants because we want them to know that there are rules that the Board of Health is considering, and we want to hear from them what they think of those changes.

If the Board adopts those changes, we then take another opportunity and let the industry know that the changes have been made. We develop guidance materials that we will then Distribute. We will typically have a compliance period, giving us and the restaurants an opportunity to be ready to make those changes. It's an interesting question that you ask whether that's the opportunity to update the food protection certificate.

I would want to give that a little more thought. Okay. One challenge off the top of my head is it means that everybody's renewal would have to happen at once. So the thing about, you know, everyone gets their food protection certificate at a different time depending on when they take that course. That means that the renewals, 5-year renewals, are also staggered.

If we tie it to a particular moment that affects the entire universe, that means that everybody would be subject to a renewal at the same time. So that might be a challenge, but we can give that a little more thought. Great. Thank you for your answers. And one suggestion is also, I'm sure you all do this in some way or another, but also having folks on the ground just because I know that, you know, and when we talk about tech and digital, the digital divide, there's some businesses that are very, you know, anti-tech, not because they want to be, but that's just who's running them, right?

And so we want to make sure that folks are on the ground letting people know about these changes. I think that's a good way to compromise on that. Thank you. And that is a part when the reason that we have a little lead time before we implement typically is because it is a chance for the inspector to talk through with the restaurant owner what's coming.

I absolutely agree. Thank you.

All right, I have a few more questions. According to the fiscal 2026 mayor's management report, DOHMH is working to hire additional health inspectors to meet safety standards. What is the hiring target? I know you talked about the new class. And by what date does DOHMH expect to reach full staffing? So we do have a really active recruitment program, and again, we would welcome your help.

We want to be fully staffed as soon as we can, and we're really routinely looking for great candidates. I'll say that our commissioner is very enthusiastic about this as well, and he's been out on inspections, he's met with our inspectors, and has been posting on his own social media to How much did DOHMH spend on inspector overtime in fiscal 2025 and fiscal 2026?

We spent a few hundred thousand dollars. Does DOHMH consider overtime a sustainable way to close the gap, and has it assessed whether heavy overtime affects inspection quality or consistency? We do offer overtime as a way of meeting, getting closer to our inspection targets, but really we want to be fully staffed. Fully staffed. Okay. What are the main barriers to hiring and retaining inspectors?

Is there a salary issue? Is there— No. The qualifications for this job is you need to be a college graduate with a science major. And there's no, there really is no work-from-home opportunity to be a restaurant inspector. It's a very hard job, but it's a really terrific job, great way to serve your community. So we are actively recruiting, but it has been a challenge to fill these positions.

How does the salary compare with other cities? Do you have a sense? I don't know. Does DOHMH believe it needs increased funding to hire more inspectors, or is current funding sufficient? This is really not a funding issue. We have no issues with OMB processing. We're just really actively recruiting, and that's why I keep saying, please send us good candidates from your communities.

Send us the job description. I'll get it out to my colleagues on the committee. A restaurant has 2 chances to earn an A in every inspection cycle. If it doesn't earn an A on the first inspection, it's scored but ungraded. An inspector then goes back to the restaurant unannounced and the re-inspection is graded. What percentage of establishments earn an A on the initial inspection versus re-inspection?

A bit over half get that A at the first inspection. Okay. What percentage of establishments— Let's see. I need to do that right. Does the department have data on how often posted grades are missing, obscured, or not displayed as required? By the way, I have a food place in my district that has no— nothing in their window or inside, but we'll talk about that.

And how is posting enforced? So first, we'll follow up with you to get the details about that restaurant. And we do inspect for grade card posting violations, we would generally call that. That's part of every routine inspection. We will respond to complaints about that, and we do sometimes do, you know, grade card sweeps, we call them, to see that restaurants are posting their grade card.

I can tell you that in FY26, we issued just over 870 So, I have— what happens when they have an oath hearing and they don't show up to it? I'm— I really would refer your oath questions to Oath, but that is a default when you do not appear. Okay. Let me ask it in the— in the— in the sense of the OHMH.

They have a B, right? They have a B. They had an oath hearing. They didn't go to the— they didn't show up to the oath hearing. How long do you leave— how long does that B stay up there? Because B's not great either in terms of, you know, people, like, using the premises and all that stuff and using the restaurant or bakery or whatever it is.

So is there anything else that you guys can do there to help them get to an A, or— So once that grade becomes final after that opportunity for the hearing, whether they appear or not, they've had that opportunity for the hearing, the grade becomes final, and then we will go back for their next cycle, and that's their next chance to get the A grade.

How long is that cycle? When we are fully staffed for a B, we should be back there within a few months. I don't remember the exact protocol, so I'd have to get back to you, but we do that for those same reasons. We want the restaurant to have a new opportunity to get an A grade. Okay. Right.

That's all. So I want to— I want to thank you. I want to also say, because, you know, in the past I've talked about— there have been times when we've had hearings that I've complained that DOHMH wasn't prepared, but you were extremely prepared today. I really appreciate it. I appreciate all the responses and for all the things that you are doing to keep our city safe, because as you know, People are getting sick all over the country around foodborne food pathogen issues and all kinds of stuff.

And we really appreciate the job that you do, that the inspectors do. So I wanted to, you know, when I have a criticism, I'll make it. But when I have a, you know, when I have a compliment, you get that too. So please let the commission and whoever's watching from City Hall, they're doing a great job at DOHMH and.

Thank you guys very much for everything that you do. And we'll circle back on the other stuff. Thank you.

We're going to take a 5-minute break and then do public testimony. Thank you.

Okay, everyone, we will now open the hearing for public testimony. I want to remind members of the public that this is a government proceeding. Decorum shall be observed at all times. As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

Further, members of the public may not present video or audio recordings as testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recording to the sergeant-at-arms for inclusion in the hearing record. If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with the sergeant-at-arms and wait to be recognized. When recognized, you will have 2 minutes to speak on today's oversight topic and the attached legislation.

If you have testimony that is longer than 2 minutes, please, you can submit it to— you can submit it online and just do a summary of what you're talking about. If you have a written statement or additional written testimony you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to the sergeant-at-arms. You may also email written testimony to testimony@council.nyc.gov within 72 hours of the adjournment of this hearing.

Audio and video recordings will not be accepted. And now I'll call up the first panel. Charlton Smith, and Carmen DeLeon. And I also, before we— come on. Before we start, I want to acknowledge that we have students here from Pace University who've come here to see how government works. So thank you for coming today. You came to a good hearing, actually, to do that.

Just press the button when you're ready to speak. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Okay, I can already tell you this is going to be longer than 2 minutes, so summarize what— summarize what you're going to— what you're going to say.

Thank you, uh, Chair Schulman. We, we know. Go ahead. So I am Carmen DeLeon. I am, as always, the president for right now of Local 768. I represent many of the healthcare, uh, members throughout the city. The public health sanitarians and the Bureau of Food Safety is covered by our local. So 3 points that I want to make.

One of them is that there is a shortage of public health sanitarians. With that being the academy, the Bureau of Food Safety, we've had many issues throughout the years of my tenure at 6 years, and we haven't really gotten to look at that. The second thing, of course, is the salary. We haven't done metrics, so we are, after this, we're going to do metrics on salaries based on cities with the same type of cost of living.

And then the other thing is more pointedly to Intro 018. We have some serious concerns around safety and health for our members who have been physically and verbally assaulted during inspections. So there is that. And then as one of my members, when I was talking about this, to get kind of some feedback was that the process that's being asked for in particular in 0189 is actually impractical.

It is a redundancy of processes that are already in place. Is that the video one? I'm sorry. I'm sorry? Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I was just figuring out which letter. 0189. And I'm now going to turn it over to my Executive Vice President, Good morning. Good morning.

My name is Charlton H.L. Smith. I'm currently the executive vice president and grievance rep for Local 768. I'm also— I have 24 years of service with New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Food Safety and Community Sanitation, including 8 years as a public health sanitarian and 16 years as an associate public health sanitarian.

As a dedicated public health professional with over 2 decades of field experience inspecting New York City food service establishments, and in my capacity representing the frontline public health sanitarians of Local 768, I write to express serious concerns regarding Intro 189. While intended to increase transparency, making photographic or video documentation mandatory for every cited violation introduces severe operational safety and legal challenges that will undermine the efficacy of the inspection process.

The current system allows inspectors to submit photos on a case-by-case basis, such as documenting layouts during pre-operational inspection, which do not carry notices of violation are capturing severe critical violations. Example: sewage backup, structural defects, pest infestation. To assist management in closer determination, expanding this to a mandatory blanket requirement for all violations is counterproductive for the following reasons.

One significant administrative burden. Privacy and confidential risk. Inspector distraction and safety diminution. Increased potential for confrontation. Evidentiary and documentation complexities. Data storage and security infrastructure. Inconsistent enforcement and documentation. And risk of visual overreliance. Conclusion: In intro 18189, inadvertently compromises the safety, efficiency, and professional authority of New York City public health sanitarians. The existing discretionary Framework strikes the correct balance.

It leverages visual data when critical public health threats— Okay, can you summarize your end so that— and you can submit that to us. I got 2 lines. Go ahead. Threats warrant immediate managerial review without saddling the workforce with unsustainable administrative and safety risks. Local 768 strongly urges the City Council to reconsider this mandate. Thank you so much.

I have a question. Don't go yet. What's— I mean, where does, in terms of salary structure, where does New York City fit? Like very low down, very in the middle, like from your perspective? I would say based on the cost of living in New York, we would— so the cities, I've done this for health and hospitals. So the cities we typically compare ourselves are California, Oregon, and Chicago.

So I can't really directly answer that question because I would have to look— If you can get us some information on that, that would be helpful. No, we are. I already spoke to Susan. We are. The problem is, is that when we do this metric, we sometimes have to look for a career path in these other cities that matches ours.

But we are— let me just say one thing. While the commissioner— while the testimony here kind of danced around the salaries, when we take a look at them, what is the average salary on the base? Like maybe $45,000, $50,000 coming in, right? And then after 1 year of service, they go up, they go to a PHA Level 1, but it's still comparably low.

But we definitely will get you that information. I appreciate that, and thank you so much for Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

All right, I'm going to call up the next panel. All right. Before I call up the next panel, I just want to say that the testimony that you provide needs to be on topic. It needs to be on food inspections. If it's not, if it's off topic, the testimony won't be allowed. So I just want everybody to know that.

The next panel is Jacob— Zajcik. Zajcik and Michael Davoli. It's not required. Don't worry about it. Oh yeah, it's yeah, it's about the bills. But yeah, it's about the topic that we're having the hearing on. Sorry about that. Yes. Yes, you each have two minutes and summarize if you can, and then you can submit the testimony because we're looking at everything.

So we're not going to do anything before we. do that anyway. So, all right, um, who's going first? You are, go ahead.

Uh, good morning, Chair Schulman, the council. My name is Michael Davoli, uh, from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ACS CAN. Uh, I'm here today to speak in opposition to Intro 0947. Uh, while I want to acknowledge, you know, the financial difficulties of any business in New York City, um, this legislation would take us down a very slippery slope that could really contribute to an increasing saturation of tobacco here in New York City.

When the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act was first passed, which is a historic legislation, first bill of its kind in the entire nation, it specifically aimed to reduce tobacco bars, restaurants, tobacco bars, retailers, etc., through attrition by not eliminating, forcing anyone to close, by simply saying we're not going to add any more businesses to this market, a market that now has 6 tobacco bars but more than 6,000 licensed tobacco retailers in New York City.

By allowing tobacco bars to regain their licenses or transfer their license, we are undermining that— the very nature of this Smoke-Free Air Act, and we are continuing to exacerbate the deadly impact that tobacco has in New York City. Over 12,000 New York City residents will die every single year from tobacco-related illness, and that is not something that we should just say because of businesses facing financial hardship, we should look the other way on.

So first and foremost, we just, we cannot be opening up this sort of Pandora's box and starting to chip away at that historic legislation. If we do this now, it's only going to open the door for other businesses to come forth with any type of financial— while the pandemic was a once-in-a-lifetime, we hope, situation, there are financial ups and downs in this city all the time.

So that's just— that's it? I was going to conclude, and I will be submitting written testimony. I mean, you can summarize. You don't have to stop right there, but you can summarize what you were going to say. No, I was just, I was just going to comment just also the other legislation, which I'm forgetting the bill number, on the school, the school meals.

We do support that legislation. In fact, it was in 2019 when that bill passed, my 3rd grade daughter sat next to me and actually testified on behalf of that bill. So I'm excited to sort of express our support for that. bill today. Thank you.

Next. Dear Councilmember— Council— I apologize. Dear Chair Schulman and members of the City Council Committee on Health, on behalf of the American Heart Association, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Intro 0405, which would establish healthy nutrition standards for children's meals sold at chain restaurants in New York City. Childhood obesity in the United States remains high, and recent findings show that nearly 40% of New York City public school children are in grades K through 8 are overweight or obese, with higher percentages in Harlem, Central Brooklyn, and the South Bronx.

Unfortunately, less than 1 in 5 New York City children aged 5 to 13 consume the recommended fruit and vegetable servings per day. The American Heart Association has worked closely with Intro 05 sponsor Councilmember Kevin Riley and community stakeholders to amend the current law. This current legislation would ensure that children's meals sold at chain restaurants in New York City provide at least 1 non-juice fruit serving, 1 serving of non-deep-fried vegetables, and reduce the serving size for juice.

In addition, this law would set nutritional standards for calories, sodium, and saturated fat. These are important and impactful additions that strengthen New York City's current children's meal law, and the American Heart Association is supportive of them. In 2019, the New York City Council took an important step to ensure healthier beverage default options for children meals. A key component of that policy was excluding whole milk as a default beverage option.

The American Heart Association does have concerns with whole milk and flavored milk being included in this current version of the legislation, as we believe it would weaken the current beverage default standard. And, uh, on behalf of the American Heart Association, I just really want to thank Chair Schulman and all the community stakeholders in the Committee on Health for the opportunity to testify today.

The American Heart Association looks forward to continuing to work with everyone to improve cardiovascular health for all and looks forward to supporting Intro 045, which would set nutritional standards for children's meals sold in the city. In addition, we will be submitting testimony on the tobacco bars bill that we have many of the concerns of our community partners and also the American Cancer Society Action Network.

And thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. And we look forward to seeing your testimony and You know, I've worked with both of your organizations and, you know, you do great work. So thank you. Thanks so much. Okay.

Christina Danson? Okay. Just want to remind you, you have 2 minutes, and if not, you can submit testimony. All right. Good afternoon to the Health Committee and to Chairwoman Schulman. I'm here to testify in favor of Intro 974, which surprises me that we'll be sticking up for the tobacco bars because this is the first— because I am not a smoker, I don't support the tobacco industry in any way, I think it's disgusting and harmful, but I believe in business owners' constitutional rights.

In a 1942 court decision, Good Humor versus the City of New York, the New York State Supreme Court held that the city council cannot ban a lawful licensed business when regulations will suffice to address evils to the public good. So when the Smoke-Free Air Act was passed, it was not a ban on business, it was a ban on activity, it was regulation.

And so I encourage the council here, I'm encouraged by the fact that they want to help small businesses stay in business and to understand that it's not the business of the government to ban businesses but to regulate them. Thank you. And so I'm pleased to see that the government is trying to help small businesses, not help them.

And I hope that they consider that position as they continue the rest of their week. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Really appreciate it.

Is there anyone else that's here to testify in person? Okay, we're going to go to virtual testimony. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you to everyone who has testified. If there's anyone present in the room or on Zoom that has not had the opportunity to testify— wait, I'm sorry. We will now move to virtual testimony. Please wait for your name to be called to testify, and please select unmute when prompted, and you have 2 minutes.

And Kevin Dugan. Good evening. You may begin. Virginia Villa. You may begin. Nope. Oh, there you go. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Go ahead. Oh, she's frozen. The screen is frozen. I don't know if you can hear us. Is it from our end? Okay.

Rachel was found to have high levels of Legionella. Do you want to— the screen was frozen on our end. Do you want to start over? Okay, yeah, sure. Okay, thanks. Sorry about that. That's okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Virginia Villa, and I'm the Deputy Research Director at the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council. I'm here to testify in support of Intro 1094 today, which would be a crucial improvement to our city's public health and safety protocols.

Earlier this summer, HTC members were put in a precarious situation when a hotel was found to have high levels of Legionella. But they were not notified until the union got involved. Because the levels did not meet the reporting threshold of 1,000 colony-forming units per milliliter, there was no requirement for reporting or remediation. Workers and guests were subsequently left in the dark.

Only after arbitration did the hotel agree to remediation. And still then, the test showed that the hotel's Legionella density had increased fourfold to over 700 colony-forming units per milliliter. Forming units per milliliter. Under city law, immediate action and reporting to the city is only required if the rates exceed 1,000 of those colony-forming units. Because the levels at this hotel were below that threshold, the law only required the building to increase or change the chemicals in the system and perform a visual inspection, and there was nothing else the city could do in this case.

Under the current rules, workers and guests were left vulnerable and uninformed to the potential health crisis. Thank you. The current system in place to protect workers and guests had its hands tied by these numbers. This legislation would establish a reporting requirement for results of 10 colony-forming units per milliliter or more. In those instances, the building owner would have to report it to the DOHMH and take corrective action immediately.

Without management having a legal obligation to notify workers or guests of any potential risk, workers with preexisting respiratory conditions and weakened immune systems were potentially put at risk. Strong health and safety standards are necessary for workers' well-being and for guests to have a comfortable and enjoyable stay in our city. As Chair Schulman noted earlier, climate change is changing our city.

It's changing our world, and regulations need to be able to keep up with that. We need to learn from the past tragedies, and we urge the council to take action to increase transparency by passing Chair Schulman's bill. Reducing the reporting threshold will make our city safer and healthier. Thank you. Thank you very much. Really appreciate you testifying today.

Philip Stewart White. You may begin.

Hey, good morning. So my name is Philip White. I'm from Vancouver, Canada, where I co-designed and ran the City of Vancouver's cooling tower registry for 6 years. I'm now an independent consultant to government on building water safety. I support introduction 1094, and I would suggest one change: require every monthly result to be reported, not only those at or above 10 CFU.

A threshold-only rule tells you when there's a problem, and full reporting tells you the testing is actually happening. And a missing report is in itself the signal. You cannot enforce a testing requirement you cannot see. 10 CFU is the right threshold. Vancouver's number from day one and the CDC's line for a poorly controlled tower. At 10 CFU, something is amiss and the operator needs to look for the culprit.

A threshold by itself prevents nothing though. What reduced elevator results from repeat systems 86% in the City of Vancouver in 4 years was the follow-up. We tracked the repeated systems and focused our efforts there. They drove 2/3 of the citywide decline. We didn't send an inspector to every number. We sent one when the numbers repeated, and we sent them to look at the system, not just the water result.

In Vancouver, it was nearly always a mechanical or an operator fault. That's prevention, not reaction. Finding out at 1,000 CFU or after the outbreak versus knowing the sample was taken and report it. You can't act on the number you never see. So here I'm telling you that regulation works, Vancouver's program works, and we have the data to prove it.

In New York City, when a child's blood lead comes back at 3.5, you find the lead and the owner is ordered to remove it. It used to be 15, a level where the damage is already irreversible. 10 is a 3.5 of Conan Towers. Find the fault and fix it. You build the program around the system, not just the cooling tower, and your efforts will be rewarded.

Thank you. Thank you so much. We really appreciate your testimony and you agreeing to do that today. And we'll be in contact with you too, because we want to get— we want to do something with this. Thank you so much. Thanks.

Next is Ian Horn. You may begin. Ian Horn. Yes, I'm trying to unmute. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Yes, thank you so much. We have submitted a written testimony along with our application. I'm going to present to you a very short summary of that. Good morning, Chairperson Schulman and members of the City Council Health Committee.

My name is Ian Horn and I'm the president of the Cooling Technology Institute. I come before you today in opposition of proposed legislation to amend New York City's reporting requirements for Legionella test results. We ask that you do not lower the Legionella reporting threshold to 10 CFU per milliliter as proposed by this bill. I am also offering our services as a technical resource on the topic of Legionella control and prevention.

We are here at your service. CTI is an independent nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating and promoting for the benefit of the public safe use of all environmentally responsible and energy-efficient cooling technologies. Our organization is responsible for drafting many internationally recognized standards and guidelines. We appreciate the council's commitment to protecting New Yorkers from Legionnaires' disease, and we share that objective.

However, we believe that policy decisions should be based on demonstrated public health benefits. Major technical guidance documents, including CTI Guideline 159, ASHRAE Standard 188, and ASHRAE Guideline 12, emphasize comprehensive water management practices in investigation of system conditions rather than the reliance on one single low Legionella test result. While Legionella concentrations are one important indicator of system performance, no single concentration has been demonstrated to reliably predict human illness across all building types, operating conditions, and exposed populations.

To our knowledge, peer-reviewed research has not demonstrated that reducing the reporting threshold to 10 CFU improves Legionnaires' disease prevention or public health outcomes. For that reason, CTI strongly encourages continued emphasis on robust water management programs, timely investigation of elevated results, epidemiology-guided outbreak investigations, and operator training. CTI also believes Legionnaires' disease investigations are most effective when they evaluate all potential environmental sources, including entire building water systems, as well as all incoming potable water supplies.

In conclusion, CTI asks that you do not lower the reporting detection limit to 10 CFU, and we are available to you as a technical resource on this topic. I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions for you. One is, I don't know if you heard the prior testimony from the gentleman from Vancouver, and they seem to have a very big success rate because we're focusing on that right now. And then I have a second question about something else, but what's your take on Well, actually, I like what he said because what it does is it takes away the focus from just the cooling towers, the potential source, and it focuses on the entire building, right?

We know that this Legionella bacteria tends to proliferate in the warm areas, you know, in boiler systems, in long legs of piping, and it's exposed to people in places like the showers. Not just in cooling towers. So I think that looking at the entire system and not just the cooling towers is very, very important. So you would be— are you familiar that in the New York State Legislature there's a bill called Source to Tap?

Are you familiar with that? I have heard about it, but I'm not familiar with it. Okay. So it's basically to get from— to follow the water from source to tap in terms of what goes on in that range, and that's— there is— it's a bill in the Assembly and in the Senate, State Senate, that we're actually following as well.

So I would ask if you get a chance to take a look at it. Senator— Senator Claudio? Senator Claire. Senator Claire. And in the Assembly, it's Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal. Right. And then, you know, let us, let us know offline, like, what your take is on that. Absolutely. Okay. I really appreciate your testimony. I appreciate you coming and being with us today.

And we will, we'll follow up with you. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Sure.

Okay. Next is David Brinker. You may begin. Okay. David Brinker? Okay. Thank you to everyone who has testified. If there's anyone present in the room or on Zoom that has not had the opportunity to testify, please raise your hand. Seeing no one else, I would like to note that written testimony will be reviewed in full by committee staff, and it may be submitted— excuse me— to the record up to 72 hours after the close of this hearing. by emailing it to testimony@council.nyc.gov.

And with that, today's hearing is closed out. Thank you very much to everyone who participated today. Thank you.