HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health August 1 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
August 1, 2006
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber 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
Carl Weimer
L. Ward Nelson
1. PUBLIC SESSION
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association (BIA) Executive Director, referenced
section 26.05.160(A)(12). He objects to that section, especially subsections (i) through
(iv). The Onsite Septic System (OSS) Subcommittee didn't want these sections added.
They were added by County staff after the subcommittee process ended. His
representatives weren't given notice of the subcommittee meetings.
Section 12 will unduly burden property owners by requiring expensive septic tank
system changes, whether or not they are needed. It will be costly. It creates layers of
bureaucracy for a functioning system. It keeps staff from dealing with failing systems.
However, according to the section, a system is noncompliant if it is not permitted. To.get a
building permit, a builder must have an approved septic system.
Crawford stated this subsection 12 is not in the Council's packet.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated the Public Health Advisory
Board (PHAB) unanimously recommends removal of subsection 26.05.160.(A)(12). The
Council version does not have that section.
. Quehrn stated the subsections should not be approved. Noncompliant systems are
systems not in compliance with permitting requirements. This has been a rule in Whatcom
County for years. The Health Department is missing permits, or permits are not correct. If
a permit is not available as evidence, the owner must reinstall or redesign the entire
system, whether or not it is functioning. Do not require redesign and reinstallation of a
system just because the paperwork is not accurate. Gaining access to a. system that is
being investigated could damage neighboring properties. Only a few installers are available
in the county, which can stall a property sale. Staff has a plan to bring those records up to
date. However, section 12 will divert staff from that plan and add significantly to their work
load by adding the policing of paperwork instead of working on real issues.
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 1
1 In summary, he is not sure the OSS Subcommittee wanted section 12 included, that
2 the meeting was advertised, that the OSS subcommittee members were notified of the
3 meetings, and that section 12 was added by staff without approval of the committee. The
4 Public Health Advisory Board recommends that it remain deleted. Strike section 12, or
5 subsections (i) through (iv). Support a program to bring records up to date and address
6 failing systems. It would be useful to the public to advertise these provisions widely.
7
8 Karen Durham, resident, stated she would talk about her experience in tracking
9 down her permit. She has property for sale on Aldrich Road. She has a septic system from
10 1985. At that time, they had a building permit, designer, and certified installer. The
11 Building and Codes Division could not find her permit. She had to go there and find it on
12 microfiche. She had to prove to the holder of the permit that she had a permit. That is a
13 public relations problem. She want to protect the county, but consider how the County
14 handles people like her who must prove that the County has its own records. The County
15 people with whom she worked were very helpful, cooperative, and overworked. The County
16 may be unaware of how many onsite septic systems there are.
17
18 Nelson asked if the permit was a building or septic permit. Durham stated it was a
19 building permit, with a septic permit attached to it.
20
21 Delahunt stated septic permits are on file in a database at the Health Department.
22
23 Brenner stated the Health Department does a great job with the staff it has.
24 However, she's talked with people who have had similar problems. Delahunt stated that if a
25 permit was issued in the 1980's to now, the records are generally easy to find. It gets
26 questionable before the 1980's. They aren't perfect, but staff is working on it.
27
28 Debbie Griggs, Realtor, stated she supports the regulations that require
29 maintenance. However, remove a section that is duplicative and requires a report of
30 system status at the time of property transfer. She asked the cost of implementing this
31 program. She asked if the County has the resources to allow people to buy and sell in a
32 timely manner. That requirement may not allow a sale within the sales timelines due to a
33 lack of inspectors. Don't inconvenience thousands of law abiding people to catch a few
34 systems. The Health Department already has a program to catch them. Remove section
35 26.05.160(A)(12).
36
37 Christie Austin, American Home Mortgage Lender, stated a lender does not require a
38 septic system inspection unless a system is obviously failing. The Federal Housing
39 Administration (FHA) says that if an appraiser doesn't visually see anything wrong, an
40 inspection is not necessary. The Health Department used to have to inspect them all. If
41 there are problems, the failing systems would have been addressed. However, that was
42 gotten rid of a year ago. Lenders don't require that now. If there is a problem, lenders will
43 get the County out and fix the system.
44
45 Nelson asked what the appraiser inspects, and how an appraiser knows a system is
46 failing. Austin stated the appraiser goes through the drainfield and pump system for a
47 visual inspection. A government loan is more detailed and more focused on the property
48 than a conventional loan.
49
50 Nelson asked how an appraiser knows where the drain field is. Austin stated the
51 lender will ask the owner.
52
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 2
Dana Quam, Association of Realtors Governmental Affairs, referenced section
26.05.160(A)(12). Systems are inspected every day in the county. Not every system is
inspected. A low -risk septic system that is likely to function appropriately does not have to
be inspected for the bank requirement. A high -risk system must be inspected for a bank
requirement. Under subsection 12, that inspection is not required. Subsection 12 requires
inspections for low -risk systems, but not high -risk systems. Use the allocation of
government resources in the Health Department to do maintenance and inspection
requirements that the State will require. Don't have a duplicate layer that sends public
health resources to inspect low -risk systems and neglect high -risk systems. The Health
Department, which doesn't necessarily want inspections during sales because t is a
duplication of effort and not necessary to protect public health. They will implement a
system to check the septic system and maintain them over a year. Through that process,
they will capture the failing systems. Subsection 12 is duplicative and takes away
resources. There are only two or three certified operations and maintenance specialists in
the county. Inspections can't be done timely. Don't put this burden on the community.
Proponents of subsection 12 say that it will put in place a system like the Pierce
County system. That is not possible. The Pierce County system is very complex. They
send out Health Department inspectors for every sale, then file a lien against every
property. This section does not allow the Whatcom County Health Department to fix a
failing system before property transfer. The Health Department doesn't have that authority
during property transfer. The proponents have good intentions, but the program doesn't do
what the Pierce County program does. Give the power back to the Health Department to let
them put together a system that protects the county's public health.
Fleetwood asked if the proponents were trying to replicate the Pierce County system,
as a fact. Quam stated a letter from a proponent says the Pierce County system is why
they want subsection 12. However, it's unconstitutional to stop the transfer of property.
There are ways to do it, but this language doesn't give the Health Department that
authority.
Brenner stated section 12 is just to ensure that a current report of system status is
on file. That's the State requirement, anyway. Quam stated the State doesn't have its
program in place. It may in a few years. Now, only two or three specialists can do that job.
Brenner stated she assumes they will phase this in. She asked if the program would
bother Ms. Quam if the County had staff available. Quam stated the requirements are
duplicative, and take staff focus away from true public health issues. Now, staff has to do
the paperwork for all property sales. The regulation shifts government resources away from
the primary issues.
Weimer stated it looks like subsection 26.05.160(A)(4) stated those old high -risk
places are covered. Quam stated section 26.05.160(A)(12) duplicates what is in section
26.05.160(A)(4).
Weimer stated that that if it's done under subsection(4), it shouldn't be a problem
during a home sale, so the new owners know they have a good system or are on the hook
for improving the systems. Quam stated ideally that is the case. However, when the
County starts this program, no one has that information now. They don't know the
regulation is there. Two or three inspectors will have to catch everyone up. Instead, let the
Health Department system work, and subsection 12 becomes moot in three years.
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 3
Nelson stated an operations and maintenance operator is the qualified person to do
inspections on the sewage systems. That is any septic pumper. There are more than two
or three out there. Delahunt stated that under new rules, it would not be any pumper
unless the pumper takes an exam. The Health Department licenses the operation and
maintenance specialists. There are three licensed right now. As the business grows, they
will get more people. Many of the pumpers will come in and take the test.
Nelson stated there is a difference between operations and maintenance and a
system designer, which requires a state license. Delahunt stated they just need to know
the pumper is aware of the different elements of the system and can provide advice to the
homeowners.
McShane stated it seems like the Realtors Association would be aware of this, if
passed, and inform the sellers that they need this inspection. There are other requirements
that require an inspection. Its something necessary for a good sale, anyway. It puts a
layer of regulation on the County Health Department, which may be covered elsewhere.
This is a way of catching some houses that slip through the cracks. It also puts the realtors
on the hook for doing due diligence. Quam stated any duties of the agents comes from the
State level. The County does not have the authority to put a duty on real estate agents.
Currently, seller disclosure form 16, a State requirement, requires disclosure of septic
system maintenance. "That isn't a problem for the real estate industry. A buyer gets a lot of
information on the septic system. The annual inspection will be included in the records.
The concern is already being addressed. Subsection 12 isn't adding any benefit. It only
adds more regulations for the Health Department.
McShane stated it sounds like realtors would already get this information as part of
their duty. Quam stated the seller's disclosure form is a form from the property owner to
the buyer. The agents don't have disclosure requirements. If the buyer information is
wrong, it is between the seller and buyer. The agent is not the information - giver. The
industry wants to keep it that way.
McShane asked if an agent is obligated to tell the purchaser and seller that there is
information they need to provide. Once the realtor knows, the realtor must tell people in
the future. Realtors should be aware of a regulation like that. A good realtor would
recommend that an inspection be done. Quam stated that generally happens. Whether or
not the buyer complies with requirements is not something the agent is responsible for.
McShane asked if the concern is purely about the Health Department's capacity to do
the work. Quam stated agents should not become septic cops. The Health Department has
the legal burden. They are in the best place to enforce it. Let them do that.
McShane asked if the concern is that realtors would play this role. He doesn't
understand why Ms. Quam is against it, other than because of Health Department capacity.
He asked why realtors would be against this. Quam stated a good community has efficient
and effective government that works for the people and doesn't burden the people. People
who want to close in a week won't be able to close. There is a fairness issue.
McShane asked if Ms. Quam is worried about delays in property transactions. Quam
stated she is.
Jan Hanson, Blaine, stated section 12 may need tweaking. However, put the public
health as the highest priority, and the health of Drayton Harbor second priority. The health
of Drayton Harbor and Puget Sound is essential to quality of life and more important than
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 4
1 the convenience of realtors and the problems of home sellers and buyers. Put the health of
2 the environment very high in the priority.
3
4 Steven Schneider, Lummi Island, submitted comments (on file). The Health
5 Department microfiche scanning process can make it difficult to keep accurate records. He
6 recommended two changes, specified in his letter.
7
8 Schneider stated operations and maintenance is important.
9
10 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
11
12 Schneider continued to state that his problem with the proposal was that if a system
13 is working, they should not be forced to bring stuff up to standards because of paperwork.
14
15 McShane asked what permitting requirements would trigger a new system, if the
16 system is demonstrated to work. Schneider stated changing out septic tank was a
17 component replacement. One didn't need a permit. Now, one has to have a designer and
18 analyze existing paperwork. If there is no paperwork, they must prove it complies with
19 standards or bring it up to standards. The original requirements were not to show
20 operations and maintenance records, but to prove that the records exist.
21
22 McShane stated Mr. Schneider is talking about rebuilding a permit based on not
23 knowing what is under the ground. Schneider stated that if a public health inspector finds it
24 okay, but no paper is on file, the inspector sends a letter that says no paperwork is on file
25 and one will have to prove the system is up to standards if a building permit is applied for.
26 That paperwork should go to the buyer to make the buyer's decision. It doesn't force
27 someone to upgrade a system if it is working fine, just to meet standards.
28
29 Nelson asked if Mr. Schneider is a licensed designer. Schneider stated he is. He has
30 been licensed by the State for last five years and through the County since 1982. He used
31 to be licensed by the County, but the State now does the licensing. He explained the State
32 Department of Licensing license procedure.
33
34 Nelson asked if a licensed designer or engineer is on County staff. Delahunt stated
35 most staff have taken the same test as a licensed designer. They are licensed inspectors,
36 licensed by the State.
37
38 Wolpers stated a lawsuit was filed by engineers because licensed designers were
39 practicing engineers. To settle that lawsuit, inspectors, staff, and designers were required
40 to all pass the same test.
41
42 Nelson asked if it is a license to practice. Wolpers stated it is.
43
44 2. PUBLIC HEALTH STORY - FARMERS MARKET VOUCHERS
45
46 This item was held to the next Board of Health meeting.
47
48
49 3. ONSITE SEWAGE ORDINANCE REVISIONS
50
51 John Wolpers, Health Department, gave a staff report and stated the Washington
52 Administrative Code (WAC) becomes effective June 1, 2007. They are working to get the
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 5
County code to comply with the WAC. The Public Health Advisory Board formed the Onsite
Septic System (OSS) Subcommittee, which has met since last January on the regulations.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated the discussion form in the
packet includes the contentious issues.
Wolpers stated they are talking about operations and maintenance at the time of
property transfer. The Board of Health asked the subcommittee to figure out a way to do
operations and maintenance at the time of property transfer. They found out that
Tacoma /Pierce County had been doing this. He submitted information (on file). The
subcommittee modified the Tacoma /Pierce County regulations to Whatcom County's
purpose. They talked to many in the industry and real estate industry. They tried to
address the transfer of ownership, which was the biggest issue of the realtors. They came
up with language to address the concern. The Public Health Advisory Board recommended
removing subsections 12(i) through 12(iv), which is before the Board of Health.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Health Department creates and holds the report of
system status. Wolpers stated the terminology was derived from the Tacoma /Pierce County
model. It is when an individual has an operations and maintenance specialist go to the site,
look at the system, fill out a form, and submit it to the Health Department to keep on file.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if a pumper can do that, if licensed. She asked if the burden
is on the pumper. Wolpers stated that is correct. An operations and maintenance
specialist, which may or may not be a pumper, would do that.
Delahunt stated operations and maintenance specialist goes to property, does an
inspection, makes sure the system is properly functioning, submits that information to
Health Department, and the Health Department keeps it on file. The owners can call and
see if a current maintenance schedule is on file.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Health Department has the infrastructure in place to
do this. Delahunt stated it does.
Brenner stated that sounds simple, except when the Health Department can't find
the paperwork. It's not as simple as it says. Ms. Delahunt stated that if no one could find a
permit, the requirement would be for a designer to prepare an as -built drawing and confirm
that a system is not failing. No designers would be willing to do that. They feel it is not
their job. This goes beyond seeing if a system works fine. The designers would have to
take on that liability. There are enough permits that they may not be able to find that this
could be a real problem. She doesn't know how many permits are not on file, but it seems
to be a significant amount. If the permit is not available, a lot of work is required.
Delahunt stated that if there is no permit, and an operations and maintenance specialist has
no way to do a property operations and maintenance inspection, then a designer will have
to do an as -built drawing on the system to give to the operations and maintenance
specialist to have the operations and maintenance properly completed.
Brenner stated more than that is required. They also have to confirm the system is
not failing. It is fine for the designer to show the design, and for the operations and
maintenance specialist to say it seems to be working. However, it's a job for the health
inspector, not private industry. The designers, who make money, convinced her that they
don't want to compete with the economics.
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 6
1 Weimer asked if the report of system status will show there is problem. Wolpers
2 stated it would.
3
4 McShane stated final language on point four was a compromise, not an effort to slow
5 down the point of sale. It says the new owners takes over responsibility. He asked how
6 they envision making sure the new owner is responsible. Delahunt stated that if there was
7 just section 12 only, no subsection, she would explain how that vision would work.
8
9 Nelson stated they need a management plan from the Health Department. Delahunt
10 stated subsection 12 means the seller assures that operations and maintenance is done and
11 current. There is no mechanism for the Health Department to check that before a sale.
12 Monthly, the Health Department would check the Assessor's records for property
13 transactions, cross reference those with operations and maintenance records. If there isn't
14 a current record, the department would send a notice to the new property owner saying the
15 operations and maintenance is not up to date, and it is required. The department would
16 carry out the normal enforcement. After five to seven years of phasing in operations and
17 maintenance, and once they change the culture in the community about having to have the
18 operations and maintenance records up to date, the double check would eventually find few
19 properties where operations and maintenance is not current. Now, they would find many
20 properties without current operation and maintenance. The department would also have an
21 educational program for the public about this new requirement. Once they start enforcing
22 it, things will change.
23
24 McShane asked if subsections (12)(i) through (12)(iv) were to articulate the
25 methodology. Delahunt stated they were.
26
27 Caskey- Schreiber asked the longevity of a septic system. Delahunt stated a system
28 generally lasts 30 years. However, something 40 years old could be working.
29
30 Nelson moved to remove section 12 entirely. That section may not be harmful, but
31 it will happen anyway. Under the management plan, put emphasis on sensitive watershed
32 areas. The community should understand the County doesn't want to damage the
33 environment. It will take a while to get to the problem systems. They also have in place a
34 requirement that septic systems will require inspections annually by an operations and
35 maintenance specialist. People will begin to learn to keep their own paperwork. He asked if
36 it will be taken care of anyway. Delahunt stated at some point it could become redundant.
37 Now it could serve as a double- check. However, they have to balance that with the
38 administrative burden.
39
40 Nelson stated what's important is the critical areas they must work on. Put staff
41 emphasis on those critical areas. Wolpers stated that is done through the management
42 plan.
43
44 Nelson stated an issue is designers and licensing. He understands having the Health
45 Department do the inspection. It is the same program and training that the designers go
46 through. It is a private designer through the field that is registered with the State has that
47 State authority. Respect that authority. That's why they are licensed.
48
49 Weimer stated he is opposed to the motion. Add to 24.05.160(A)(11), "At the time
50 of property transfer, provide to the buyer, maintenance records, if available, and a current
51 report of system status, in addition to the...." It would do the same as all of section 12.
52 Think of systems the County doesn't know about, how to catch those, and how to have a
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 7
1 system status on file with the County when the property sells. There is a need for that
2 disclosure during property sale. It protects consumers, also.
3
4 Brenner asked what they will do when people have home sales pending, until
5 operation is up and running well. Delahunt stated it will have to be phased in. Not
6 everything will be instantly available at the time the regulation is passed.
7
8 Brenner asked if everything will get phased in for the systems that do have a permit.
9 She disagrees with Councilmember Nelson, who is not the government. There is a big
10 difference between an economic incentive to pass something for final inspection and
11 treating everyone the same, which is what the government is supposed to do. She would
12 rather be consistent. Delahunt stated the language in this draft is the same language that
13 has always existed. It is the language in the State law. It's never been their intention to
14 not do final inspections. It only says they may allow a designer to do that. They don't
15 intend to pass off all the final designs and requiring that designers do that.
16
17 Crawford stated he supports the motion. Eliminating subsection 12 does not say
18 they are not putting public health first. It is not because of a delay or inconvenience to
19 realtors. When anyone buys a home, insist on seeing the building permit, not the structural
20 designs behind the permits. Those buyers with a concern can get an inspection if they
21 choose. To say that the real estate transaction triggers a component of this is wrong. They
22 could theoretically say that every aspect of a real estate transaction must be regulated. All
23 of those components of a home are all in the same category as a septic system. When they
24 start going down the road of a sale triggering stuff, he is opposed.
25
26 McShane stated the concept is to have a reporting system for all septic drain
27 systems. Subsection 12, without subsections (i) through (iv), is a way to meet the goal of
28 finding failing systems. The public does have a concern. This is not about individual
29 property owners. Citizens, the County, and the State have a public concern. He is opposed
30 to the motion, but don't micromanage it with language that they have been struggling with.
31 Wolpers stated they are talking about section 24.05.160, regarding operations and
32 maintenance. Everything in that section, other than subsection 12, is also in the State
33 regulations. Item 12 is what they are struggling to meet.
34
35 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. They are so focused on how it
36 affects the individual. They wouldn't have to do this if there weren't so many individuals
37 affected. Do it in a way that just provides information to the buyer. They get better
38 compliance in the long run if people know what needs to be done. It's about developing a
39 culture of responsibility for actions. Many people are disconnected to what is going on in
40 their own yards.
41
42 Brenner stated she would support section 12 if it was a licensed person who goes out
43 to do a cursory look to make sure something is not obviously wrong. However, if a person
44 can't find a permit for one reason or another, it's a problem. There may be a substantial
45 number of cases where permits can't be found. She called designers, who say that the kind
46 of inspection without a permit would cost $1,000 to $1,800, and few designers would do
47 them. Focus on areas where they know there are problems. Wolpers stated this regulation
48 is a huge shift into operations and maintenance. This is the way the WAC is telling the
49 County to deal with these situations. They are not trying to be more stringent than they
50 have to be.
51
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 8
1 Delahunt stated the County is required by 2012 to have a complete inventory of
2 every system in Whatcom County. To have an inventory, they need to know what is in the
3 ground.
4
5 Brenner stated she is afraid that more will be required than just knowing what is in
6 the ground.
7
8 Nelson stated they have to have all the systems identified and permitted in six years.
9 Subsection 12 is redundant. The County will get there. They won't catch that many during
10 the point of sale. It will happen eventually. Also, he is not sure they have enough
11 operation and maintenance specialists. The County may punish people unnecessarily
12 because it can't meet the resources. He asked if there are enough specialists to meet the
13 demand. Delahunt stated it would have to be phased in. They would need a mechanism in
14 the regulation for certain aspects to become effective by a certain date.
15
16 Wolpers stated there are not currently enough operations and maintenance
17 specialists.
18
19 Nelson stated subsection 12 would facilitate a phased -in approach. Include a date
20 certain in subsection 11.
21
22 McShane stated subsection 12, without subsections (i) through (iv), is what they are
23 after, which is how to ensure there is a report of status on file. One approach is to send out
24 a notice. The activity Ms. Delahunt described does not include the subsections (i) through
25 (iv). The goal is to make sure they have a report of system status. How that is done will
26 be up to the owners. It is a way to let people know that they don't have a system in place.
27
28 Greg Stern, Health Officer, stated the purpose of subsection 12 was to protect
29 buyers. It is redundant. Everyone will have to be up to speed by the time the WAC's are in
30 place. The purpose is not to slow down transactions, but to let the buyer be aware. Out -of-
31 towners will not know of the regulations. Real estate disclosure forms have an option of
32 saying a seller doesn't know. There is another way of meeting that need. It is a consumer
33 protection element.
34
35 Weimer asked where in subsection 12 requires that this information be given to a
36 buyer. Delahunt stated it doesn't.
37
38 Weimer stated nothing in subsection 12 says anything about protecting a buyer.
39
40 Crawford stated it gives a lot of latitude to the Health Department.
41
42 Fleetwood stated that if that is the purpose, there is a less burdensome way of
43 achieving that. They could simply say that, by 2012, they will be required to follow
44 regulations. Stern stated the question is how to ensure that buyers are informed.
45
46 Brenner stated subsection 11 covers the issue. If the information is available, it is
47 provided to the buyer.
48
49 Caskey- Schreiber stated subsection 11 only requires the information if it is available.
50 Subsection 12 requires that the information be made available.
51
52 McShane stated that ultimately, they have to make sure all the systems are
53 recorded. Subsection 12 is one way to get there. All it says is that the Health Department
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 9
1 would send a notice after transfer of sale. It doesn't hold up the sale. The buyer would
2 then decide whether or not to take it on. It is something the buyer and seller would
3 negotiation. It probably happens to a degree anyway, but not all the time. When people
4 move into an area, they don't know of the various regulations.
5
6 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
7
8 Crawford stated this is a health ordinance, not a consumer protection ordinance.
9 They don't use a health ordinance for caveat emptor.
10
11 McShane stated this is a public health ordinance, and they are meeting as the Health
12 Board. There are public health reasons why the system should be identified, maintained,
13 and taken care of. If systems aren't working, it has public health implications.
14
15 Nelson stated he agrees with Councilmember McShane. Those concerns are still
16 addressed if they remove 12.
17
18 Delahunt stated item 12 is a double check.
19
20 Motion failed 3 -4 with Crawford, Nelson, and Brenner in favor.
21.
22 Crawford moved to forward to a public hearing.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.)
25
26 Delahunt stated address the four items that are the major areas of disagreement, so
27 staff can clarify things that have been said during the comment period. This issue needs
28 more discussion and work before going forward with a public hearing.
29
30 Brenner stated she has many comments and questions.
31
32 Fleetwood stated this item should be held in Board of Health.
33
34 Nelson suggested that councilmembers get their questions and concerns to the Public
35 Health Advisory Board for answers.
36
37 McShane asked if staff needs direction from the Board about the other three points
38 on the discussion form. Wolpers stated it does.
39
40 Delahunt stated the subcommittee and Public Health Advisory Board have been
41 through all four points. They need Board of Health input.
42
43 Crawford stated the Board should meet again in September to take this up again.
44
45 The Council concurred.
46
47 Steven Schneider, 2455 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated he has had more than one
48 discussion with Jim Goode, who stated he wants to move toward it. Mr. Goode said he
49 would recommend designer inspections during one of the subcommittee meetings. If the
50 Public Health Advisory Board doesn't desire it, they should have no problem making the
51 change to require them to do final inspections. They are just assuring that administrative
52 move cannot be made. He has had discussions with the public health wastewater
53 supervisor, who intends to push that, even though Ms. Delahunt may not intend it.
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:13 p.m.
k0c,
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on September 26 , 2006.
ATTEST: Ntttttttt��i�. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
" IY :� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
C'
Dan= BrcdNn -p vis Councl Clegk
..�
ST
Aft OF
81NG' �•'
rl', tO-4 _ CLr-'�,-
curie Caskey -S hreiber, Council Chair
Board of Health, 8/1/2006, Page 11