City of Alexandria, Virginia
________________
MEMORANDUM
DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RASHAD M. YOUNG, CITY MANAGER /s/
DOCKET TITLE:
TITLE
Introduction and First Reading. Consideration. Passage on First Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 7 (Personal Grooming Establishments) of Title 11 (Health, Environmental and Sanitary Regulations) of the Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981 as amended.
BODY
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: City Council consideration of repeal of Chapter 7 (Personal Grooming Establishments), Title 11 (Health, Environmental and Safety Regulations) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council repeal Chapter 7 (Personal Grooming Establishments), Title 11 (Health, Environmental and Safety Regulations) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
DISCUSSION: Program History: Since at least 1983, the Alexandria Health Department (AHD) has permitted and inspected personal grooming establishments such as barber shops, hair salons, nail salons, tanning salons, and aestheticians under City ordinance (11-7-1 et seq.). The ordinance was last amended in 1985. It is currently very outdated as it does not specifically address tanning booth safety, pedicure footbaths, waxing, laser hair removal, or eyebrow threading.
Program Scope: Currently there are 219 permitted personal grooming facilities in Alexandria. Facilities that cut and style hair or provide manicure / pedicure services accounted for the majority of the establishments. However, many of these facilities provide several types of personal grooming services as shown in the table below.
Personal Grooming Establishments by Type of Services Provided*
Permit Type |
Number |
Eyebrow Threading |
7 |
Hair Styling |
166 |
Laser Therapy / Electrolysis |
3 |
Manicure / Pedicure |
94 |
Sauna/Bath |
1 |
Skin Care/Make-Up (Esthetics) |
47 |
Tanning |
7 |
Waxing |
42 |
Total |
367 |
* Some establishments offer multiple services
Frequency of Inspection: Prior to FY03, the Environmental Health (EH) Division inspected personal grooming establishments quarterly. From FY03 to FY08, personal grooming establishments were inspected annually. Since the beginning of FY09, due to the reduction in the number of Environmental Health Specialists (EHSs), personal grooming establishments have been inspected only when they are initially opened and thereafter only when a complaint is received. The EH Division has focused instead on maintaining vital, state-mandated EH programs such as food safety.
Impact of Reduced Inspection Frequency: Elimination of routine inspection of personal grooming establishments has had a negligible impact on the number of health-related complaints received by the EH Division. During the six years from FY03 to FY08, the EH Division received only 18 health-related complaints about personal grooming establishments. During the five years since (FY09 to FY13), the EH Division received only 19 health-related complaints about personal grooming establishments. Below is a table showing the reasons for the health-related complaints about personal grooming establishments received over the last eleven years.
Number* of Personal Grooming Complaints by Issue Type - FY03 to FY13 |
Facility Sanitation |
|
|
Sanitization of Instruments |
13 |
|
Facility Cleanliness |
10 |
|
Vermin (Insects) |
5 |
|
Other - Health |
4 |
|
Dirty Linens |
2 |
Personal Injury or Disease |
|
|
Skin Infection Contracted by Patron |
10 |
|
Patron Cut During Manicure / Pedicure |
5 |
|
Waxing Injuries |
3 |
|
Head Lice |
2 |
Issues Referred to Other Agencies |
|
|
Unlicensed Employees (referred to DPOR) |
9 |
|
Building Condition (referred to Code Administration) |
5 |
|
Ventilation Issues (referred to Code Administration) |
4 |
|
Other (referred to Code Administration) |
2 |
* - Many complaints related to more than one issue |
|
|
|
Public Health Significance: Over the past 11 years (FY03 through FY13) there have been 37 health-related complaints made to AHD about personal grooming establishments. To put this data into context, the health department receives a health-related complaint about the average personal grooming establishment approximately once every 65 years. On average fewer than two persons annually report injuries or infections related to personal grooming. Additionally, AHD has limited to no ability to regulate the techniques of personal groomers (and it is the groomer's technique which can lead to injury or infection).
Resources Used to Implement Personal Grooming Program: This program requires AHD staff time to administer (approximately 25 hours of administrative staff time and 80 hours of professional staff time annually). In FY13, administration of the permitting process required approximately 25 hours of the time of the Environmental Health Division's administrative staff. Plan review and pre-opening inspections for the 17 new personal grooming establishments in FY13 required approximately 68 professional staff hours. Investigation of the five complaints received in FY13 required approximately 12 professional staff hours. The AHD staff administering this City-mandated program are state employees.
What Are Other Jurisdictions Doing?: Locally, neither Arlington County nor Fairfax County permit or inspect personal grooming establishments any longer. The City of Falls Church was the last nearby Virginia locality to deregulate these facilities. On a statewide basis, the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) stopped regulating barbershops and beauty salons in the mid-1980s. The City of Richmond stopped regulating these facilities in 1995. To our knowledge, the Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach are the only other jurisdictions in Virginia that still regulate these facilities.
Role of DPOR: On the state level, the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) licenses personal grooming establishments and barbers, beauticians, estheticians, nail technicians, and wax technicians. DPOR also regulates body piercers and tattoo artists. DPOR investigates consumer complaints about the facilities and individuals it licenses and, when appropriate, takes enforcement action to address violations of their regulations governing health, safety and licensure.
Alternatives to Deregulation: AHD considered recommending that the Personal Grooming Ordinance be amended to deregulate the 85 facilities that only cut and style hair and updating the ordinance to better address manicures, pedicures, indoor air quality, tanning, waxing, electrolysis, laser hair removal, and eyebrow threading. This alternative was determined to have little public health benefit as described below.
Comparison of the complaint data from FY03 through FY08, when inspections were done annually, with data from FY09 through FY13, when inspections were done only upon complaint, revealed no significant difference in the average number of health-related complaints received annually by AHD (3.0 complaints/yr. vs. 3.8 complaints/yr.). It is believed that an annual inspection is too infrequent to change behaviors. A program that makes any difference would require a greater frequency of inspection (e.g. 3-4 times annually). AHD currently does not have the resources to do this - already AHD's state-mandated Food Safety Program is not meeting federal standards for staffing levels. (The elimination of one EHS position in FY09 and the increase in the number of permitted food establishments in the City have increased the food safety workload per EHS by more than 20% over the last five years.)
In order to do this, the City would need to impose license fees sufficient to hire a part-time City employee to implement the program and inspect these facilities at least three times a year. The estimated annual program cost would be approximately $20,234 (or approximately $151 per facility). However, imposing additional regulation and fees on small businesses that provide personal grooming services is unlikely to reduce the number of injuries and infections much below the present level. Again, this option would be unlikely to produce a significant public health benefit and therefore it is not believed that this is a good alternative.
Input from Alexandria's Personal Grooming Businesses: On March 13, 2013, a public meeting was held with personal grooming establishments doing business in Alexandria. The meeting was announced via two letters to each permitted personal grooming establishment (mailed on February 8 and February 28). Twenty-three persons attended this stakeholder meeting to discuss possible deregulation of personal grooming in Alexandria.
A number of those attending the meeting expressed concern that employees may not pay as much attention to cleanliness and sanitation if personal grooming was deregulated by the City. However, all attendees were uniformly opposed to any sort of permit fees to support inspection services. A number of meeting participants also sought information on the Commonwealth of Virginia's program for permitting personal grooming establishments, hair stylists and nail technicians through DPOR. At the conclusion of the stakeholder meeting, the participants conducted a straw poll with a vote of 20-0 (with 2 abstentions) in favor of deregulation of personal grooming by the City. (After the meeting was over, one individual arrived to express her opposition to deregulation).
Basis for Recommendation: Although perhaps useful decades ago, permitting and inspection of personal grooming establishments no longer serves a significant public health purpose. AHD's EH Division should be relieved of this responsibility in order to focus its limited resources on programs that have more potential public health impact (e.g. food safety, as the number of food establishments have increased over the past decade and AHD has one less EH staff member due to budget cuts).
Future Complaints and Concerns from City Residents: If personal grooming is deregulated by the City of Alexandria, future consumer complaints will be referred to DPOR, the industry's state regulatory agency (for licensure and professional practice related complaints) or to Code Administration (for building maintenance issues). As always, the Health Department will be available to answer questions from the public about public health.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. There are no fees charged for City permits issued to personal grooming establishments. In the last eleven years, there have been no fines assessed by the courts (or jail sentences imposed) as a result of enforcement of this ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Proposed ordinance to repeal Chapter 7 (Personal Grooming Establishments), Title 11 (Health, Environmental and Safety Regulations) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
Attachment 2: Coversheet to the ordinance to repeal Chapter 7 (Personal Grooming Establishments), Title 11 (Health, Environmental and Safety Regulations) of The Code of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, 1981, as amended.
STAFF:
Stephen Haering, MD, MPH, FACPM, Health Director, Alexandria Health Dept.
Bob Custard, Environmental Health Division Chief, Alexandria Health Dept.
Mary O'Donnell, Assistant City Attorney