HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health July 31 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
July 31, 2007
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey - Schreiber
L, Ward Nelson
Z. PUBLIC SESSION
No one spoke.
2. WHATCOM COUNTY HOMELESS SERVICE CENTER
Gary Williams, Health Department, gave a presentation. There is a fragmented
process for providing services to the homeless in the county. The State authorized the
County to charge fees on recorded documents, which funds low - income and homeless
programs. He read from the presentation on the background.
Brenner asked what the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (CTED) has to do with the local homeless. Williams stated it coordinates with
other jurisdictions on homeless services. He continued to read the presentation on the
background, the 2007 point -in -time count results, challenges identified to end homelessness
in Whatcom County, homeless services as they exist today, the health impact, a successful
Whatcom County HGAP grant application, and the Whatcom County Homeless Service
Center ( WCHSC), the WCHSC budget, and conclusion.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how they would outreach to landlords. Williams stated this
effort will provide landlords support to do this, so they don't withdraw their rental units from
the program.
Brenner asked if there will be a referral process to health providers. Williams stated
primary care is a'huge factor in this program.
Brenner stated a person representing the mobile home folks should be allowed to
participate on the Affordable Housing Task Force. They keep hearing about problems with
local mobile home parks. She hopes this project helps people who live in them do some
sort of buyout. Williams stated other localities have passed regulations to support
maintenance of mobile home resources. If they lose that housing, they become part of this
homeless situation.
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 1
1 Brenner stated the concern is that any levy the Council passes runs the risk of
2 creating more homeless people. Williams stated thinking about the whole continuum of
3 housing holistically is important.
4
5 Nelson stated the critical issue is where they are going to put homeless people. They
6 are losing sites to locate people. The primary cause of people being on the verge of
7 homelessness is because landowners find a better way to get a better return on their
8 property investment. Nothing in this plan will prevent that. Even the best housing program
9 is a waste of money if there is no place to put the homeless. Williams stated there are ways
10 to deal with people so they can stay in the housing. The Affordable Housing Task Force is
11 looking at another population. If they just focus on the homeless, they will see a larger
12 number of homeless because of housing affordability issues. They are dealing with
13 homelessness in many ways. This program deals with people who are homeless as an
14 episode and who can come back from homelessness. For others, the larger County process
15 deals with weather they will have affordable housing resources where people can live. That
16 issue is bigger than this program.
17
18 Nelson asked the percentage of these people who abuse alcohol and drugs. Williams
19 stated 29 percent have substance abuse issues. If they can get them into housing, they can
20 work with them on their abuse.
21
22 Nelson stated said there is no precondition or tie to this program. He asked the
23 treatment incentive if there is no condition to this program. Williams stated that when they
24 work with people to provide housing, the housing is a motivator for people to get into
25 treatment. If they keep housing conditional, it removes the incentive.
26
27 Crawford stated he is concerned that they want to assist folks who are really down
28 and out. He asked if the Opportunity Council could have a screening process for folks who
29 are here for awhile as opposed to someone who comes to Whatcom County just for this
30 service. Have a threshold so the program helps others in the community when in need.
31 He's concerned that people from out of the area will come here for this service. Williams
32 stated Whatcom County is already dealing with being at the end of the line because of the
33 Canadian, ocean, and mountain boundaries.
34
35 Crawford asked if there is going to be a mechanism to separate true community
36 members from transients. Williams stated it's a developmental issue. They don't want to
37 deny someone a home because of residency requirements. However, they will consider
38 those issues and challenges.
39
40 Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated that they will have to work
41 closely with the Opportunity Council to get all of these systems and criteria in place before
42 they start the program, so they know exactly who is eligible and how it will operate. Now,
43 the program is still conceptual, and there is a lot of work to do.
44
45 Nelson asked the goal and projection. Williams stated they want to reduce
46 homelessness in this county by 50 percent. He will report both to the County Council and
47 State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED). Other
48 counties doing this are having 30 and 40 percent reductions. These programs work.
49
50 Carolyn Hull, 2585 Birch Bay Lynden Road, Custer, stated that as of July 1, all the
51 funding for sex offenders who come out of prison is cut off, so they have no place to go
52 when they get to Whatcom County, even though the law requires that they be returned to
53 Whatcom County. She asked if this would help with that situation. Williams stated the
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 2
I Department of Corrections walked away and left the counties with this cost. He's outraged
2 about it. The County will work with these people because they are part of the community,
3 but this will be a challenge.
4
5 Hull asked when these funds might be available. These men and women are
6 returning to the county now, and the funds are gone. Williams stated they hope to have
7 this process in place by the end of 2007 or early 2008.
8
9 Hull stated they must consider what is going to happen to these people between now
10 and then.
11
12 3. DEFINING OSS SENSITIVE AREAS AND HOMEOWNER EVALUATIONS
13
14 Weimer stated the Board is talking about the definition of sensitive areas and a
15 proposal from Councilmember Brenner about homeowner evaluations.
16
17 John Wolpers, Health Department, stated the local regulations were effective on April
18 2. State regulations went into effect on July 1. The 12 Puget Sound counties are required
19 to develop a local management plan detailing how they are going to implement and enforce
20 operations and maintenance (O &M) in the county. The plan had a July 1 deadline, matching
21 the State regulation implementation. Whatcom County requested and received an
22 extension to October 31, 2007, to make sure a good plan is in place.
23
24 Today, they will talk about part two of the local management plan, which is defining
25 sensitive areas. The County must review and evaluate a broad range of areas, which are
26 referred to as areas posing an increased risk to public health (APIRPH). There is a list of
27 designations. After looking at these areas, they found that those areas cover 90 percent or
28 more of the county. Within these areas, they must identify the sensitive areas within those
29 areas. That will tell them whether or not they must add more protective, additional
30 requirements to onsite sewage (OSS) systems within those areas.
31
32 They are also supposed to coordinate with other agencies governing development.
33 They have met with the Planning Department about this. The Onsite Sewage Subcommittee
34 has met twice since the last Board of Health meetings. They also met with the Public Health
35 Advisory Board (PHAB).
36
37 Based on their input, they propose to define sensitive areas as wellhead protection
38 areas for group A public water systems and those areas designated in the shoreline
39 management program, including those streams with a mean average flow of 20 cubic feet
40 per second (cfs), all lakes over 20 acres, all marine shorelines, all associated floodways, and
41 the 200 foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark from fresh and marine shorelines.
42
43 The OSS subcommittee suggested extending the shoreline delineation farther up
44 those reaches. However, they narrowed the focus to be consistent with the agencies that
45 are governing development.
46
47 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
48
49 Wolpers continued to state that they narrowed the focus also to make sure they are
50 well defined and to administer this program. No additional requirements were necessary
51 within sensitive areas based on design criteria and current location standards in the
52 regulations. They don't need to do anything more in that respect.
53
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 3
The current program doesn't allow homeowner inspections at this time. They've
discussed a change to allow homeowner inspections under certain conditions. He worked
with Councilmember Brenner on proposed language, included in today's packet. Today, he
recommends approving the definition of sensitive area and providing direction for any
revision to the regulations if the Board decides to go that route.
Weimer stated it looks like they've defined the areas, but there aren't any actual
additional regulations, so the entire county Regulations are the same. Wolpers stated that
is correct.
Crawford asked if this definition is tied to homeowner evaluation. Wolpers stated the
recommendation is that homeowners not do their own inspections in these sensitive areas.
Crawford asked how big the wellhead protection areas are. Wolpers stated they
have a larger map that has more specific information on those areas. They are designated.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated there is a calculation that's
done for each area, which is then mapped accordingly. The water system must define the
methodology used to identify the areas and then they're mapped.
Crawford asked if it's based on how much water comes out. Delahunt stated the
quantity drawn out of the aquifer is a part of it. The water causes the draw down and a
larger delineation of the area. The soils and many other factors go into the calculation.
Wolpers stated it is only for group A systems, which are 14 or more connections.
Fleetwood asked how they distinguish between group A and group B systems.
Wolpers stated a group A system is managed under State Department of Health, has 14 or
more connections, and 25 or more people are connected to the system. This does not affect
group B systems. They are looking at group A systems because that is one consideration in
the State regulation of the areas posing an increased risk to public health.
Weimer asked if the parcel or the system has to be outside the 200 foot buffer.
Wolpers stated the parcel must be outside the buffer.
Weimer asked if Councilmember Brenner's proposal is different from the committee's
recommendation.
Brenner stated her proposal had to do with how they define sensitive areas. She
thought only sensitive areas were to be included in this regulation. That was the State
intent. Delahunt stated the State requirement to perform maintenance is a statewide
requirement that covers every system in the county.
Brenner stated that doesn't mean it has to be done by a licensed O &M inspector at
those times. Her proposal has to do with sensitive areas. Outside sensitive areas, the State
doesn't require anything. Delahunt stated the State requires O &M on every system within
Whatcom County within the State. Whether or not someone is in a sensitive area, one must
do O &M once every one or three years, depending upon the system. The owners may do
the O &M themselves in sensitive areas, but the O &M has to be done. The State doesn't
require licensed O &M specialists to do it. The County regulations are more stringent than
the State regulations.
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 4
Crawford stated many wells indicated on the map have multiple rings. He asked if
that indicates that the widest ring is a sensitive area. He asked that criteria. Wolpers
indicated on the map the distance they are considering, which is the farthest ring. He
explained the areas on the map.
Delahunt stated some areas have been modeled, and some areas are more generic.
For the generic areas, the widest outer ring denotes the wellhead protection area. That is
the committee's recommendation.
Brenner stated there are locations on the map that aren't group A systems.
Delahunt stated the map is intended to apply to group A systems.
Brenner stated people who were going to be covered under this new rule were going
to be able to take a homeowner course so they can do their own home inspections for a
certain length of time. The State allowed for that. This has gotten bigger than she thought
it would. Everyone should be allowed an opportunity to take the class and do their own
inspections. No one has any idea about the costs involved. If people did their own
inspections, with a professional inspection every fifth year, they will identify all the
problems. The current regulation is overkill. They are trying to find the failing systems, not
punish people. Her proposal is intended to apply to people in sensitive areas, so they have
to take the class. Everyone else outside the sensitive areas can do their own inspections
without taking the class. Only the people in the sensitive areas would go through the class.
Wolpers stated he understood that the staff was to define sensitive areas. The
subcommittee did not want homeowners in the sensitive areas to do their O &M. Everything
outside of those sensitive areas, once defined, would be the areas where homeowners can
do their own evaluations.
Brenner stated she thought the only systems that wouldn't be allowed to do their
own inspections are those systems listed in subsection (D) in her proposal.
Weimer stated that is the difference between Councilmember Brenner's proposal and
what the Board has seen before. Councilmember Brenner wants to allow people in sensitive
areas also do their own inspections.
Delahunt stated that was the debate they had before, but they haven't defined
sensitive areas so the Board could decide what it wants to do. Now, they have defined
sensitive areas to a certain extent.
Fleetwood asked if the State offers recommendations. Delahunt stated the State
regulations don't go either way. It gust says an evaluation shall be done. The State leaves
it to local jurisdictions to be more specific.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced subsection 24.05.160(A)(4)(a). She asked if a gravity
system in a sensitive area would become more stringent. She asked how things would
change if the Board adopts the proposal from Councilmember Brenner. Delahunt stated all
the requirements are the same countywide. The only difference is if homeowners can do
their own evaluations for five years. According to Councilmember Brenner's draft, anyone
can do their own inspections, including those in sensitive areas. The OSS subcommittee
recommends that Councilmember Brenner's proposal apply only to areas that are not
sensitive areas.
Weimer stated add "D.4 systems within sensitive areas."
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 5
1 Fleetwood stated they could also amend B, "...specialist, except. for. defined. sensitive
2 areas."
3
4 Delahunt stated the staff would like to understand what the Board wants to do, and
5 then it will come back with proposed changes. They would have to amend the existing
6 regulations and go through a public hearing process.
7
8 Weimer stated there are two questions. One is whether the Board agrees with the
9 sensitive area definition. The other is what they want to do with homeowner inspections.
10 Deal with the definition first.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is fine with the definition. It's fair to allow those folks
13 to do their own inspections if they can take a class in the county, with added language that
14 self- inspection not be allowed in sensitive areas.
15
16 Weimer stated most of the Drayton Harbor shellfish protection district is not in this
17 definition. He asked if they talked with the shellfish protection district about this. Wolpers
18 stated Geoff Menzies is on the OSS subcommittee. The issue is how to best try to
19 implement this regulation. The question for the OSS subcommittee was how to begin
20 implementation. The subcommittee determined to start implementation of the O &M
21 program within Drayton Harbor. Within the Drayton Harbor watershed, it will apply to
22 Dakota Creek, California Creek, and along the marine shorelines. There are tributaries that
23 are not covered currently.
24
25 Delahunt stated the subcommittee would have preferred extending the sensitive area
26 further up the reaches of those streams. However, the staff wanted to be consistent with
27 the shoreline management plan for now. It would be easier to do and track. They don't
28 have all those extended areas mapped. Sticking with this would be best for now.
29
30 Wiemer asked if the subcommittee voted on that. Wolpers stated it did not. It just
31 had the discussion. Another issue is that the subcommittee wants to abandon everything
32 east of Deming. The North Fork, South Fork, and middle fork of the Nooksack River
33 watersheds would not be included.
34
35 Brenner stated she was told that a couple of members of the OSS Subcommittee
36 didn't know anything about the meeting during which this recommendation was decided.
37 There are many issues besides what's being said now. Some areas have very good
38 percolation, and other areas don't. They aren't necessarily solving a problem. They are
39 making some kind of a decision. Treat everyone the same, and they will still catch the
40 problems.
41
42 McShane stated there are overlay districts, such as the stormwater overlay, for the
43 Drayton Harbor watershed. Different rules and regulations kick in. He asked if that was
44 considered. Wolpers stated they looked at the ten items listed in the State regulations.
45
46 Delahunt asked if they looked at those overlays instead of the shoreline management
47 plan designation.
48
49 Wolpers stated the subcommittee did not.
50
51 Brenner stated the staff would like direction from the Board on the sensitive area
52 map. It can be further refined in the future. The Board can decide about homeowner
53 evaluations whenever they think they have enough information to decide.
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 6
1
2 Tim Slater, 103 E. Holly, Bellingham, asked the source of the data used to establish
3 the wellhead protection areas and modeling used. That information is hard to verify.
4 Another issue is about the existing septic systems for which the County and homeowners
5 don't have records. Nothing in the language provides protection and assurance that
6 someone will be considered in good standing, which is necessary to get people to comply.
7
8 Patrick Grover, Loomis Trail Road, stated that at earlier hearings, they were told that
9 the O &M specialist inspection was mandated by Olympia. Now, he's hearing it's a County
10 decision. It's appalling to impose this extra protection, and then say the State requires it.
11
12 There are problems in the proposal. Homeowner inspection requires first inspection
13 by an O &M specialists, but there aren't enough O &M specialists in business for it to be done
14 timely. Also, inspectors work for installation companies, so they have a vested interest in
15 finding problems. If it's so important to control and check these systems, it should be a
16 function of the Department of Health, not someone who has a vested interest in making a
17 profit from putting in a new system, If they have to do that, then allow pumpers, who do
18 some kind of inspections when they pump. Get them certified to do inspections.
19
20 Brenner stated anyone can take the course and become a licensed O &M inspector.
21 Grover stated make it part of the regulation so that a pumper must become a certified O &M
22 inspector, or make a certain percentage of a company's fleet must become certified. Make
23 it mandatory, not voluntary.
24
25 Ethyl Kitching, Kitching Excavating, Ferndale, stated she is a licensed installer of
26 sewage disposal systems in both Whatcom and Skagit County. She supports
27 Councilmember Brenner's proposal for homeowners to do their own evaluations. Inspectors
28 have many hurdles in educating homeowners in operations and maintenance of septic
29 systems. Until the recent implementation of the O &M program, installers and pumpers
30 typically were the ones who responded to problems that arise. Many owners don't know
31 where their tanks are or that they have a sewage disposal system. When educating
32 property owners about their systems, she found that owners generally want to do whatever
33 they can to protect their systems. The best way to protect the systems, and the
34 environment, is to educate the property owners. A properly working septic system can
35 recharge the groundwater and enhance the watershed areas. Allowing homeowners to
36 become educated and then inspect their own systems is an excellent idea. It should include
37 the sensitive areas. If homeowners are willing to take the O &M class, but don't want to do
38 all the paperwork, the County could waive the filing fee as an incentive to get them to take
39 the class.
40
41 Her husband is on the OSS Subcommittee, but not could attend two recent meetings
42 because he only had a few days' notice. There was not a vote on some of the information
43 regarding sensitive areas. She encourages more discussion regarding that. Support
44 Councilmember Brenner's proposal.
45
46 Nelson asked the percentage of people who call her and know the location of their
47 tanks. Kitching stated the percentage is very small.
48
49 Nelson asked the percentage of her clients who call for regular maintenance versus
50 how many call because there is a problem. Kitching stated few clients call just for regular
51 maintenance. About 99 percent of the calls she receives are due to a property sales or a
52 mess in the backyard.
53
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 7
I Nelson asked how many of those few have their tank lids off and ready for
2 inspection. Kitching stated very few. She knows of pumpers who tell people they can save
3 money if they can find the tank lids. It is not a matter of neglect, just a matter of not being
4 aware.
5
6 Lyle Smith, Ten Mile and Noon Road, stated he supports allowing the owners to do
7 their own inspections. There shouldn't necessarily be a fee attached for them to do it.
8 Regarding sensitive areas, those individuals should also do their own inspections, with a
9 class if necessary.
10
11 Nelson asked if Mr. Smith ever inspected his tank and how he got his lid off. Smith
12 stated he has. He lifts his lid off with his tractor.
13
14 Nelson stated one couldn't just lift off the lid. He has to use a crowbar on his tank.
15
16 Bill Cowen, 9780 Allen Street, Blaine, stated he supports self- inspection. He has a
17 jet aeration system. He's been doing his own inspections twice per year for the past 30
18 years. Periodically, it's pumped. He's never had a problem with it. He wouldn't mind going
19 to a class if he has to, but he's not happy that he now has to hire someone to do what he's
20 been doing for 30 years.
21
22 Curtis Hull, 2585 Birch Bay Lynden Road, stated he would like to know what qualifies
23 as a sensitive area. He asked if single residents, in addition to group A systems, in sensitive
24 areas must also follow the rules. He supports Councilmember Brenner's idea to allow
25 owners to inspect their own systems. The septic system he built with his home in 1994 had
26 to meet County requirements, which included that the system be sufficient to deal with the
27 septics of that size residence. Whenever he considers adding anything to his system, the
28 County suggests that he not do anything. He understands the need for a quality
29 environment.
30
31 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
32
33 Curtis continued to state he is concerned about the cost to the homeowners.
34
35 Weimer asked if individual exempt wells within the area of a group A system circle
36 still must still have regular operations and maintenance. Wolpers stated they would, if
37 adopted as proposed.
38
39 Howard Andreson, 2696 Willy's Lake Road, Custer, stated he supports
40 Councilmember Brenner's proposal to allow owners to inspect their own systems. He has
41 rental homes. The extra cost will be passed on to the renters, making rents less affordable.
42 With education, he can learn to inspect his own system.
43
44 Perry Eskridge, Whatcom County Association of Realtors Government Affairs
45 Director, stated his representative on the OSS Subcommittee didn't get any notice of the
46 meeting. He asked if any parcel that abuts the 200 foot buffer is included in the sensitive
47 area, regardless of the size of it. He opposes that.
48
49 Les Bjerkstam, 8172 Van Buren Road, stated he appreciates Councilmember
50 Brenner's help in these matters. Once, a contractor told him his baffles were shot and
51 needed to be replaced, but the contractor lied. His baffles were fine. That is a problem.
52
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 8
1 John Worland, 4367 Squalicum Lake Road, stated he was a member of the OSS
2 Subcommittee. The OSS Subcommittee is not terribly opposed to homeowner maintenance.
3 However, they are generally opposed because the record individual maintenance on septic
4 tanks is lousy. People don't pump them, let alone figure out if they are working properly.
5
6 There are three ways a system can fail. Few systems in this county are gravity
7 systems anymore. Most of the new systems have mechanical systems. The repair of a
8 pressurized gravity mound failure is very expensive. People must maintain them.
9 Maintenance costs much less than the cost of replacing a failed drain field. If people don't
10 do maintenance, they face the cost of replacement.
11
12 The primary concern is coliform and surface water issues, primarily in the shellfish
13 protection areas and lower parts of the drainages. Because they are close to the source,
14 those failures end up with sewage that gets into the surface water, runs off, and ends up in
15 the shellfish areas. That is the primary documented problem.
16
17 Regarding the parcel versus the land, it will have to be an adaptive program. They
18 have to start with finding the parcels and systems.
19
20 Wellhead protection areas is an EPA program for water systems to protect the source
21 water. It wasn't designed for this. It is mentioned as one of the State's ten criteria, which
22 is why the subcommittee chose it. Groundwater contamination is not as much of an issue
23 as surface water contamination.
24
25 Education is good. If they can get people to be aware of their systems and make
26 sure those people know how important it is to maintain their systems, that would be good.
27 He's concerned that failures happen gradually. It's hard to tell when a system is failing.
28
29 Nelson asked Mr. Worland to state his background. Worland stated he is an
30 environmental engineer. He's built hundreds of septic systems and designed a lot of
31 wastewater treatment.
32
33 Unidentified speaker, asked if the County's regulations are more stringent than the
34 State's. Delahunt stated they are.
35
36 Speaker asked why they feel that the County is better than the other counties. He
37 asked what is wrong with the State regulations.
38
39 Crawford stated the State requires inspections. However, the State didn't define
40 what an inspection was. The Board of Health felt that it needed to define an inspection. It
41 came up with a system that requires certain things to happen. To make sure those certain
42 things happen, someone who is certified has to sign off on the inspection. The certified
43 person puts their reputation and business on the line to verify that inspection.
44
45 Councilmember Brenner proposes that there can be a time gap between those
46 professional inspections and when homeowners can do their own inspections. The State
47 regulation was silent on how and who were to do the inspections.
48
49 Wes Kentch, Enterprise Road, Ferndale, stated he's lived on his property for 45
50 years. He's installed septic systems on his property and his sons' properties. Homeowners
51 are smart enough to do their own inspections. He has to maintain his system because he
52 drinks his effluent, which goes to his well in his field.
53
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 9
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Governmental
Affairs Director, stated Councilmember Brenner's proposal is a good amendment. It
provides an incentive to owners. She is concerned about the definition of sensitive areas.
Parcels adjacent to the buffer would be problematic because there is no rationale for it. It's
not actually in the buffer. Work on this longer.
Nelson stated he understands everyone's sentiments. He's looked at his system for
years, but there are problems with doing that. It would be a value to all owners to be
educated on their systems. The Board needs to work on allowing that to take place. People
in the rural area want to take care of their properties and investments. Very few people
have their tanks inspected, or even know where their tank is. The lids are very heavy and
difficult to lift. An education program is valuable for all. Most homeowners won't want to
stick their heads into the tank to inspect the baffles or take the time to inspect the field.
Many systems used to be just a pipe going out to the back pasture. This is a health issue,
not a private property rights issue. More and more people rely on group A systems as the
population grows. People are getting very concerned about water quality and water
quantity. He questions the shoreline areas. There was a debate about whether 200 foot
buffers in Kendall and Glacier would have any impact or provide protection. Therefore, look
at the shoreline areas again. They are trying to protect water and communities impacted by
these septic systems. He supports a mechanism to provide education, but look at where
that is allowed.
Brenner stated that when people take those classes and find out the costs of
neglecting their systems, they will want to do inspections themselves. Every sixth year, a
regular inspection is still required. Not letting people take care of their own systems is
overkill. This is an opportunity for people to learn about their systems and become
stewards.
McShane stated they should be able to figure out what's going on within a 200 foot
buffer. Regarding wellhead protection areas, it seems that within the health guidelines for
those areas, this issue was addressed in terms of time of travel. There could be some
lesser period of time that pathogens can survive that is less than 20 years. They may not
need to use the entire 20 -year travel time area. The time varies from issue to issue. They
may be able to shrink that area.
Brenner stated she wants to allow everyone in the county, even those in the
sensitive areas, to be allowed to use this. Councilmember McShane's comment about
wellhead protection area time of travel is interesting. Delahunt stated it sounds like the
Board believes the staff is going in the right direction, but should reconsider the time of
travel area and the eastern portion of the county. That's what she needed to know. In
addition, she would like to know whether the Board wants staff to work on a modification to
the OSS regulations to allow homeowners to do their own inspections.
Brenner moved to request that staff go forward with amending the regulation per
her proposal and bring the amendment forward to the Board for adoption.
Fleetwood stated the motion is just to give direction. Delahunt stated staff would
make the amendment and go through a public process, including a formal public hearing.
W-1
Fleetwood asked if the subcommittee considered this proposal. Delahunt stated it
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 10
Brenner stated this was brought before the subcommittee. She wasn't told about
the meeting, so she wasn't there. The OSS subcommittee didn't discuss it, but just went
forward with what it had.
Nelson stated he appreciates Councilmember Brenner's effort. The subcommittee
discussed it thoroughly. The subcommittee is merely stating to the Board that it, the
subcommittee, has no comment. The subcommittee commented upon the protection areas,
which was the Board's request. It's inappropriate to pick on the subcommittee. The Board
of Health makes the decisions.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the concept of self - inspection with education
in areas not deemed sensitive. She can't support the motion as it is now. She is concerned
that they have not vetted the definition of sensitive areas.
McShane stated he agrees that sensitive areas should be excluded from self -
inspection, and the sensitive areas should be defined. Also, look at the special overlay
areas of Lake Samish, Lake Whatcom, and Drayton Harbor to define the sensitive areas.
Fleetwood stated that the Board shouldn't vote on the proposal until it has refined
the definition of sensitive areas. The definition will influence votes on the proposal.
Brenner stated only a minority of people will take the class. Those who take the
class are those who are serious about maintaining their systems.
Nelson stated they need to know the number of failures that the Health Department
inspected, and how many systems had to be shut down before deciding the sensitive areas.
Wolpers stated that since the April 2 implementation of the regulation, there have been 250
reports of system status performed by the 0 &M specialists. Of those, at least 16 of those
came back as failures. Five of those have been addressed. They're working now on the
others.
Nelson asked if the failures were a public health concern or just a system failure.
Wolpers stated that any failure is a public health concern.
Nelson stated keep in perspective the impact to public health versus just a failing
system. A system failure may impact a home, but nothing else. Identify and be clear about
what they're trying to protect.
Crawford stated he supports the motion. It allows the process to move forward. If
people are concerned about self- inspection in environmentally - sensitive areas, there is no
risk for at least the first year anyway, because the first inspection has to be done by a
licensed inspector. They have a year to work on it. There is no harm in saying that this is a
good concept, supported by the public. They have a year to deal with the environmentally
sensitive issue. Get this out for a hearing. As they continue to refine and deal with
environmental areas, they can make exclusions at that time.
Brenner stated 250 systems were inspected and 16 were failures. Those failures
would be found anyway, if done by a licensed 0 &M person first. This is a compromise to
adopt the spirit of the law and respect the owners.
Weimer stated they don't totally agree yet on the definition of sensitive areas. Also,
he is concerned that they are treating complicated and less complicated systems the same
way for self - inspection. The State saw a big difference between the two. He asked why the
Board of Health, 7/31/2007, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
County is giving pressure systems a pass if the State regulations say they need to be
inspected every year. He asked why it shouldn't be done every other inspection, based on
the State regulations. Wolpers stated the regulations are for every three years and every
one year. That won't change. The change is for when the O &M specialist or when the
homeowner does the inspection. The recommendation is to make program administration
easier, so they don't have to track two different cycles. The intent is to have the first
inspection done, and then go for five years until the next inspection is done. The owner of a
gravity system would get the first inspection and the sixth inspection. The owner of a more
technical system would be able to have the specialist inspect only on the sixth year.
Weimer stated the State thinks the more technical systems fail quicker and should
be inspected more often.
Brenner stated have two classes, one for gravity and one for more technical systems.
Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford in favor.
Weimer stated he is in favor of homeowner inspection, but more clearly define the
sensitive areas at first.
Fleetwood stated he agrees.
Delahunt stated that by the next Board of Health meeting, they hope to have the
draft County management plan that will include the draft sensitive area designations.
AD30URN
The meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
fir• N
- ,
Jill Nixon, Minutes Tra scription
_.anIM u,,._
NT
Woo
Dar.1� BroW�rQ�
these minutes on September 25 , 2007.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cam/
Carl Weimer, Council Chair
fill
Board of Health, 7/3112007, Page 12