Inyo County environmental health officials presented countywide outreach and research on Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations, or MECOs, and the Board of Supervisors provided direction to staff to study a pilot program and return with recommendations.

Environmental Health Director Jerry Oser told the board the 2019 state law that created MECOs allows by-right operation from a residential kitchen if a county opts in, and summarized key state caps and local-permit requirements: “It’s 30 meals per day and 90 meals per week,” he said, and gross sales “can’t exceed $100,000 per year.” Oser said MECOs must follow a locally approved standard operating procedure covering menu, sourcing, storage, fats/oil/grease handling and waste, and that annual on-site inspections would be the basic enforcement frequency.

The presentation described a 2024, grant-funded outreach effort that collected 183 public survey responses and 66 responses from existing restaurant owners. Oser said that public responses were “split” with “quite a bit of support” but also substantial opposition; restaurant respondents, he said, generally reported concerns that MECOs would affect their business “negatively.” Oser said jurisdictions that have permitted MECOs reported few documented foodborne-illness complaints but flagged recurring enforcement questions: caps are sometimes exceeded and there is “no enforcement mechanism for residential sources” of grease and fats in sewer systems.

Cook Alliance policy director Lauren Wolfer, testifying by phone in favor of MECOs, urged the county to adopt a pilot program. Wolfer said jurisdictions that adopted MECOs statewide “have maintained an excellent track record for health, safety and community impact” and that most early concerns “have not materialized.” She argued that MECOs extend Inyo’s existing cottage-food model and that unpermitted home-based vendors cause the majority of problems when they operate outside regulation.

Representatives of sewer districts and a local community-service district urged caution. Jen Krapcheck, general manager of Eastern Sierra Community Service Districts, noted an unpermitted home-based food operation that she said had led to grease problems and cited a documented clean-up cost of more than $18,000 at one mobile-home park. She asked that any program include clear rules and responsibilities because sewer overflows are both public-health and environmental hazards.

Building department staff raised fire- and ventilation-related concerns. Tyson Sparrow, the county building department representative, told the board that commercial kitchen ventilation and fire-protection systems differ substantially from residential equipment, and that improper ventilation can lead to grease accumulation and elevated fire risk. County code enforcement staff warned the board that neighborhood nuisance complaints (trash, parking, odors, noise) would likely rise if MECOs spread and that inspections done only once per year would mean complaint-driven enforcement for many issues.

Oser said some incorporated cities, including Bishop, raised two recurring concerns during city council discussions: difficulty enforcing the MECO meal and revenue caps, and the perceived unfairness of less-stringent physical requirements compared with restaurants. He also noted sewer, septic and potable-water questions that would need local rules, and said the department recommends careful drafting if the county opts in — “refine your ordinance,” he told supervisors.

Public commenters were split. Some local residents and small-business representatives said MECOs would provide economic opportunity and more food options in seasonal communities; others, including residents of smaller communities and sewer-district operators, said neighborhood impacts and infrastructure risks were insufficiently mitigated by the current state framework.

After extended discussion among supervisors and questions from multiple departments, the board gave staff direction to continue work on the issue: develop options and a draft pilot-program framework and return to the board with legal and regulatory recommendations. The board did not adopt a final ordinance or a countywide change at the meeting; several supervisors said they favored a carefully limited pilot while others opposed directing staff to prepare further work because of perceived staff workload and infrastructure risks.

The board’s next step, as stated during the meeting, is for county counsel and environmental health to prepare a follow-up report that lays out legal constraints, enforcement mechanisms, recommended permit terms and staffing/resources needed to implement a pilot or a permanent MECO ordinance.