HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health September 12 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
September 12, 2006
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 9:30 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. ONSITE SEWAGE ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated this is a continuation of the
discussion on operations and maintenance upon property transfer.
John Wolpers, Health Department, stated there are three major topics. One is
property transfer. The next is inspections of properties with no permit. The third is the
Health Department doing final inspections.
Property transfer is addressed in Whatcom County Code section 24.05.160(A)(12).
They talked about using language from Tacoma /Pierce County. The current language is in
section (12). They are not willing to interfere with conveyance of the property. Real estate
and building industries had issues with the Tacoma /Pierce model. Legal counsel says the
language has met the obligation to not interfere with property conveyance.
Brenner asked if the Health Department assumes they will have a report of system
status form by the time the ordinance is adopted. Wolpers stated they left the language
general regarding the report, because the Health Department would have the report as a
procedural issue. The report is where an operations and maintenance (O &M) specialist
would look at property, submit a report of systems status, and submit the report to the
Health Department. That is what a report of system status is in general.
Brenner stated she has a problem. If there is not a permit on record, the system
would be noncompliant. Her concern is that after some date, in order to get a building
permit, people have had to show the Planning Department an approved onsite septic system
permit approval. If that's the case, and if someone has a legal home after that certain date,
the Health Department had to have had that permit. That's the group she's concerned
about. There probably aren't many. If there aren't, those persons should be treated as if
they have a permit, and go through the same O &M inspections. She has no problem with
doing more in -depth inspections for others. Wolpers stated that if the Health Department
made a mistake and doesn't have a record of the permit, those individuals shouldn't have
any issues anyway. They would still perform the same service.
Brenner asked if the Health Department will not do anything different if the building
is newer than the date when that came into effect and the building is a legal house.
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 1
I Delahunt stated an O &M specialist will go to site, check with the Health Department
2 for a permit, do the O &M inspection, and make a determination about where the drain field
3 is located and the type of system. The specialist will submit that information, the report, to
4 the Health Department. Once submitted to the Health Department, the department should
5 verify that's where the system is, check the setbacks from surface water, look at soils, and
6 look at the water table to make sure the system is somehow not built illegally in the
7 groundwater. That is done at no additional cost to the homeowner. If the homeowner has
8 a permit, there is nothing to worry about. That would become the official record replacing
9 the lost permit.
10
11 Wolpers stated that official record would be valid for things such as property
12 transfers,
13
14 Delahunt stated it would also help for their inventory. There won't be many of those
15 systems in the recent records.
16
17 Weimer stated they discussed additional language in section (12). "Ensure that a
18 current Report of System Status is on file with the WCHD when a residence is offered for
19 sale, and all noncompliant systems, noted in the Report of System Status have been brought
20 into compliance prior to the transfer of ownership or a-. contract to correct any deficiencies
21 within 90 days after the course of the transaction is in place." It doesn't stop the sale of the
22 property, but lets the owner know there is a problem. There was a concern about whether
23 that language is legal. Wolpers stated the Public Health Advisory Board moved forward a
24 recommendation without that language. Section (12) does not put any burden on the
25 Health Department to do enforcement. One way suggested to make sure a buyer doesn't
26 get bitten is to allow a home buyer to go back to a home seller who may or may not have
27 done a report of system status. That would allow a home buyer to have legal recourse if
28 the system fails soon after purchase.
29
30 Weimer stated now, buyers don't know what they're getting. At some point, buyers
31 should know about the report and look it up. That's what he's trying to accomplish.
32 Potential buyers should know what they are getting. Both shellfish districts are vehemently
33 in favor of including something in the language. The point of sale is when there is enough
34 money available to fix the septic system. When the sale goes through and the system isn't
35 fixed, the burden is on the Health Department to enforce on a failing system to someone
36 who has just spent a lot of money to buy a house and may not have any more money to fix
37 the septic system. The point of sale can be negotiated between the seller and buyer to fix
38 the system. That's the intent of his proposed language for section (12). There is some
39 question about whether the County can include language that may slow the sale of
40 property.
41
42 Wolpers stated they took a good look at the onsite septic system (OSS) section of
43 the real estate seller's disclosure form. There are quite a few check boxes, and many have
44 to do with O &M. There is a `don't know' option with the check boxes. That will be a red flag
45 to home buyers that they need to check on the status of the system.
46
47 Nelson asked if just the County will do the report of system status. Wolpers stated
48 the report is performed by an O &M specialist. There are six specialists in the county now.
49 That number will grow as people hear about it.
50
51 Nelson asked how long it takes an O &M specialist to prepare the report. Wolpers
52 stated the Health Department will develop a form that the specialist will submit
53 electronically to the Health Department. He doesn't know how long it will take. It may take
54 a few hours to inspect a system and fill out the report, depending on the system.
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 2
Nelson asked a reasonable number of systems that a specialist can look at in a day.
Wolpers stated he doesn't know, but maybe two or three.
Nelson asked the timeframe the specialist has to submit the report. Wolpers stated
it should be done before the property is put up for sale, so it doesn't interfere with the sale.
Brenner stated an attorney feels that government cannot intrude upon a private
transfer of title contract. She asked how the County's legal counsel feels about that. She
doesn't have a problem with much of this once it's all in place, and they've gone through
the cycles. She wouldn't mind this process as long as there are records for all the
properties. She asked when the new regulations are in place. Wolpers stated the new
State regulations become effective July 1, 2007, whether or not the County adopts them.
The County has to have a complete and accurate inventory of all systems by 2012.
Delahunt stated homeowners have to comply with O &M requirements beginning July
2007.
Peter Robertson, Whatcom County Association of Realtors President, stated realtors
are the only private industry that supports private property rights of a buyer and a seller.
They are the voice for people who buy and sell property. There are 1,300 real estate agents
in the county. They have been showing up for this issue for six months. They are trying to
look at what government plans on doing to see how it will practically affect the people who
buy and sell real estate. This OSS system was his number one priority for realtors this
year. As presented, it is duplicative. It won't solve the problem. He expressed that to
County staff. This issue will already be taken care of. The County is messing with people
who really can't afford it. If people have their building permits, the septic system works.
Section (12) as written is okay. However, the other stuff is overkill. Spend resources on
other things since the State will take care of it.
Steve Schneider, 2455 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated he is a licensed designer.
It is not a bad idea for the Health Department to do an analysis of water tables and soils for
houses where the paperwork can't be found. He is concerned about inspectors changing
over time, water tables changing, and checks during dry seasons are different from wet
seasons. He would hate for someone with an approved system to be required to put in a
new system. There is a difference in interpretations between inspectors in 1980 and
inspectors in 2006. Citizens who get their permits, live in their houses for a years, maintain
their systems, and can't provide the permits would have to build a new system when they
try to sell the house because the water table is two inches higher.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Governmental Affairs, stated she
agrees with Mr. Schneider. Leave sections (11) and (12) as the recommended. It seems
like they are retroacting regulations because records weren't kept. The historical records
often aren't accurate. When the department automated the system, mistakes were made
by the staff, which is fine. However, don't make the public responsible. The problem with
Councilmember Weimer's amendment is with the term "noncompliant system." Citizens
would be responsible for the County failing to maintain records. Secured land transactions
and contracts are a completely different body of law. It's difficult for a government to
interfere in a private, contractual situation.
Sharon Kettells, 349 Kline Road, stated she is a septic designer. Currently, systems
more than two or three years old wouldn't meet current standards and the system status
couldn't be completed. It would immediately require a new design and new installation. Be
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 3
1 clear about whether or not the system has to meet the current standard. Clearly define the
2 system status definition.
3
4 Brenner stated the report will be written when the O &M specialist looks at a system
5 to make sure it's working. She asked if a system failure could happen two or three years
6 later. Kettells stated that in addition to inspection, a designer would have to dig a soil log
7 to find out if the system meets the current standard with vertical separation, even if it's
8 functioning. Currently, they can't submit anything that doesn't meet the current standard.
9
10 Brenner asked if the difference between vertical separation changed recently.
11 Sharon stated it changed in 1995. Many things have changed, also.
12
13 David Davidson, Bellingham, stated he was a member of the subcommittee that
14 worked on the regulation and is a member of the Public Health Advisory Board. The
15 committee wanted something to happen at the point of transfer. They wanted to be able to
16 easily find a record on any system. If they can't find a record, the intent was for someone
17 to go see if the system is functioning. If the system is functioning, put something about
18 that in the record. Only in the instance that there is no paperwork and the inspection falls,
19 then fix the system at the time of transaction or at a time certain after the transaction. The
20 committee did not want to require design changes for a working system. That was the
21 committee's concept. It is frustrating to hear about not holding up property transfers.
22
23 Brenner stated if someone would do a core soil sample if the Health Department
24 can't find a permit. Davidson stated at one point, the staff position was that if there is no
25 permit, the system is de facto out of compliance and will have to go to new modern status.
26 The committee didn't agree. The committee had in mind what Councilmember Weimer is
27 talking about.
28
29 John Worland, Bellingham, stated he was a member of the subcommittee that
30 worked on the regulation and is a member of the Public Health Advisory Board. The issue is
31 operation and maintenance. The systems are built. A large percentage aren't maintained.
32 The committee envisioned an incentive for people to maintain and keep records of their
33 systems. If people don't, then make sure the system operates at the time of property
34 transfer. There are two concepts to remember. One is really trying to encourage O &M,
35 which currently just doesn't happen. Second, it's not a bright line between a system failing
36 and not failing. People learn they can't overload their systems. The systems don't just
37 suddenly fail. There is a period of degradation. Somehow, they have to build flexibility into
38 the system. It is not the intent of people who worked on this to force systems to meet
39 current codes. They are trying to encourage people to do O &M so the systems aren't a
40 problem. If people don't do the O &M, however, then people will have to deal with it. The
41 logical time to deal with it would be at the time of property transfer when there is money to
42 deal with it.
43
44 Dana Quam, Whatcom County Association of Realtors Governmental Affairs Director,
45 stated she supports the advisory committee's recommendation. The language they
46 provided was a small section out of the Pierce County code. It's not a legal way to set up
47 stopping property transfer. The Constitution allows people the right to transfer property,
48 whether or not it's polluting. If it's polluting, the Health Department has a set enforcement
49 ability that allows due process of law. This paragraph does not give a property owner due
50 process of law. It doesn't legally do what it's supposed to do. She understands
51 Councilmember Weimer's intent, but have the legal counsel put something together very
52 detailed like what Pierce County has. Don't put the burden on private property owners and
53 non - government entities to stop the transfer. She is complaining about the legal process
54 that is circumvented. If they actually leave section (11), it will transfer with the seller's
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 4
disclosure form. The seller's disclosure form transfers after five days. If they do what
Councilmember Weimer is suggesting in section (11), they will only have five days to do the
report of inspection status. Keep section (11) as the State says. Changes to section (12)
don't do what Councilmember Weimer wants.
Dorrie Belisle, 231 Ten Mile Road, Lynden, stated she is a member of the Portage
Bay Shellfish Protection District and Ten Mile Creek Watershed Project coordinator. She
supports Councilmember Weimer's proposal. They need stronger O &M and education.
Make sure there is a working septic system when property changes hands. As a property
owner, she is responsible to make sure her system is working. The County has not enforced
that regulation. Thanks to the State's new regulations, they must make sure O &M is done.
A potential home buyer has the right to know that everything is working, including the
septic system. It's no different than buying a home and the roof doesn't work or there is an
insufficient water supply. Eighty percent of septic systems in the county now would not
meet code because of soils and high water table. Make sure homes have O &M in place
since they are at risk from the high water table. The shellfish district is now opened for the
first time. They are on the borderline of keeping them open. In the Portage Bay shellfish
district, several creeks aren't meeting total maximum daily load (TMDL) levels. There are
stringent rules for dairies. They now need the same kind of rules for homeowners. While
working with the septic system community outreach project, she realized that people do not
know about their septic systems. Get education going for the community.
Randy Watts, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated the amendment doesn't allow for
due process. If it's indicated that a system is noncompliant, and the owner disagrees, the
owner must be able to ask for a hearing. If the County just decides, there is not due
process. There must have an appeal procedure. Going through an appeal process before
transfer of ownership is done would be problematic. Rather than the proposal, put someone
on notice that there is a problem, and then let them deal with it.
Crawford stated the notice would be that the property is non - compliant. Watts
stated the notice is that there is an issue of non - compliance. That could then be discussed.
Without a hearing procedure, it is a problem to actually require that something must be
fixed.
Crawford stated someone testified that people have a right to know about a
nonworking septic system. However, people have a right to know, through disclosure, the
status of a septic system. Caveat emptor still applies. He asked if the County Health
Department cannot take a position on compliance, or can take a position of noncompliance,
while they go ahead with title transfer. Watts stated the County can indicate the County's
position about compliance, but will not require the system to be fixed. It just puts the
buyer on notice that there's an issue with the septic. It's just like the notice that there may
be roof or electrical problems.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford asked if the County can make a determination on compliance, but not
make the determination a factor in preventing the transfer of sale. Watts stated that is
correct. The County can provide notice to the buyer that it may need further negotiation.
Nelson asked if the property transaction statement from the realtors is in section
(11). Wolpers stated section (11) is straight from WAC. That is the real estate disclosure
statement that Washington State Realtors use currently. The homeowner fills it in.
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 5
1 Nelson stated there is a chance that a buyer would get false information from that
2 statement. Watts stated the buyer may get an "I don't know" answer.
3
4 Nelson asked what it means to a buyer if the "I don't know" box is checked on the
5 disclosure statement and there is no report on file. Wolpers stated it means caveat emptor.
6
7 Nelson stated the next question from buyers is they would be held accountable for.
8 Under this proposed ordinance, the buyer would be accountable to have a report of system
9 status on file. Eventually, the County will require to have those reports. Wolpers stated
10 that is correct.
11
12 Weimer stated part of the problem is the difference between defining what is failing
13 and what is up to standards. His intention is not to stop the sale. It is to make sure the
14 system is compliant. Add to section (12), "...offered for sale and all non compliant systems
15 noted in the Report of System Status have been brought into compliance." That's what the
16 original advisory committee and the shellfish districts support. Create language that
17 ensures that a septic system is working at the time of transfer. He asked for that language.
18 Watts stated to make that intent happen, it will take a lot more than this language. It will
19 require hearings and an opportunity to appeal.
20
21 Weimer stated they haven't seen what this report is. Delahunt stated the report is
22 essentially the O &M report of a thorough 0 &M inspection. It seems this language is trying
23 to protect the buyer at the time of transfer. It really doesn't matter whether it's the buyer
24 or the seller who has to pay to fix the system. They don't know about any failing systems
25 in the County that won't get fixed. If they are getting a report of failure, whoever owns it
26 will be responsible for fixing it. The system will be fixed either way.
27
28 Weimer stated they don't know about the failing systems because they've never had
29 this process in place. He asked how they are going to fix systems if a report isn't filed at
30 the point of sale and they don't know where the systems are. Delahunt stated they will find
31 the systems because the County will require an inspection of all systems over the next five
32 years. The staff is beginning to compile the inventory of all possibilities. Then, the systems
33 will go through them as they develop the management plan on a prioritized basis. By 2012,
34 all systems will have been looked at. Having a record at the point of sale is a double check
35 of the process, and may push some inspections sooner than if enforcement had found them.
36
37 McShane stated this is an opportunity for the Health Department to look at a
38 property at the point of transfer. He asked if that's not in the code, just an administrative
39 process. Delahunt stated the only way to enforce this was to do it after the point of sale,
40 by looking at transferred property from the Assessor's records.
41
42 McShane stated that according to the proposed language, a new buyer can say they
43 were misinformed and have an opportunity to get recourse from the seller or realtor if they
44 receive a notice. Delahunt stated that's correct.
45
46 McShane stated he has inspected properties and revealed issues that have killed
47 transfers. This would fall into the same category. This is an opportunity when sales occur,
48 because it can be negotiated. Heighten the awareness about whether or not a system is
49 working as much as possible. That happens all the time for all types of property transaction
50 Issues. That all gets worked out. This might be an issue where the County somehow needs
51 to get across to the public that the Health Department is serious about O &M. When a buyer
52 gets a system with a home, it's a big commitment. Delahunt stated education is key.
53 People need to know this enforcement will happen. If O &M doesn't happen, owners will get
54 a letter from the Health Department.
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 6
Watts stated at time of purchase, there will be a home inspection. System
inspection will be one more step in home inspection.
Brenner stated it's odd to make a private sector of the community be liable for
county health regulations. A law says that realtors are responsible to make sure that, if
they know something, they are legally liable to pass on that information. A question is with
who to put the onus on. Put it on the County.
Change the words `compliant' and `noncompliant' to `functioning' and
`nonfunctioning.' System regulations change frequently. A system a few years old will not
be compliant, but it will be functioning, because rules change.
She would be fine with this after the inventory was complete in 2012. Sometimes,
realtors aren't involved in sales. There is a civil court for this stuff. It's the same with any
other home problems. The difference with the septic system is that it can affect other
properties. Make sure whatever they do is more protective.
Nelson stated everyone has the same intention. The first concern is with the report
of system status. Someone said there could be a difference in status from 1980 and now.
Wolpers stated the concern was that there have been changes at the Health Department in
how the inspectors interpret things. The Health Department is trying to follow regulations.
Interpretations internally at the Health Department are to make sure inspectors follow the
regulations.
Nelson asked if a report is that a system operates as designed. Delahunt stated that
is correct. They don't intend for systems to have to come up to current codes.
Nelson asked if that intent needs to be stated in the report of system status.
Delahunt stated they will look at where a system is located and if it's functioning to make
sure it's not failing, which includes contamination of groundwater. They will do a soil core
test. They will be reasonable in determining if a system is functioning. They will make sure
it's set back from groundwater as intended.
Nelson stated there has been much discussion on how to assure at the time of sale
that the buyer or seller is aware that there may or may not be a problem. Nothing in the
disclosure statement indicates whether or not there will be a report of system status. He
asked if it would be changed. Robertson stated nothing will change on the State form
regarding septic systems.
Nelson stated a buyer will still not know if there is a report of system status.
Robertson stated that is correct.
Nelson stated the advisory board concern was to make sure there is a current report
of system status. They need to make sure the buyer or seller knows. As legislators, they
can't mandate who will be informed ahead of time. They can only follow what legislation
allows or what they are proactively trying to accomplish to meet the new legislation, which
is making sure the reports are on file and current.
Crawford stated section ( 11) is the new State law. Delahunt stated that is correct.
Item (12) is the local regulation.
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 7
1 Nelson stated it is something the advisory board requested to make sure they start
2 having a mechanism for having up -to -date records. From this form, no one know the
3 status. It doesn't prohibit the sale.
4
5 Crawford stated keep section (11) as they originally had it, and eliminate section
6 (12). An argument was made for using the real estate transaction process to access large
7 amounts of money that may be available for the home purchase. However, most people are
8 short of money at that time.
9
10 He asked what happens if a property owner who is notified about a nonworking
11 system pleads poverty, if they don't do the real estate transaction thing. Delahunt stated
12 that happens all the time. The enforcement procedure is standard. The department sends
13 a letter first, then has a hearing. They may allow an interim measure. Generally, people
14 have 90 days to repair the systems. If it is not repaired, the department sends the issue to
15 the Prosecuting Attorney. Eventually, the owner may wind up in court. The Judge would
16 order repair. Or, the owner would have to move out of the house.
17
18 Crawford asked if this is practically enforced by the Prosecuting Attorney. Watts
19 stated that has happened. It's rare.
20
21 Delahunt stated the advisory board talked about trying to develop some resources
22 for people who really absolutely cannot fix this system. They will look into that option for
23 people. There will be a lot more failures in the next five years than they've seen in the
24 past.
25
26 Brenner stated set up funding that stays with the County, so the County can pay for
27 it, and have a lien on the property.
28
29 Weimer moved, to amend section (11), "(11)..provide to the buyer a copy of the
30 current report of system status on file with the..Whatcom .County Health. Department,
31 maintenance records, if available...." At this point, it's not required to ever be given to the
32 buyer. Maintenance records could be made available now if there are any. The disclosure
33 statement could be checked "I don't know." There would be no reason to give the buyer the
34 report of system status. Maintenance records may include the report of system status.
35 Make it clear. It is the only up -to -date information that shows whether or not a system is
36 working.
37
38 McShane stated that motion would cover the existing language in section (12).
39
40 Weimer stated that's correct.
41
42 McShane stated Councilmember Weimer wants to make sure that this report is on
43 file with the County. The current language from section (11) is straight from the State.
44 They need to have that in there. Language in section (12) doesn't reflect State law. The
45 County Health Department, under State law, is supposed to have a system where all sites
46 have status reports. There is a variety of ways to get there. It's not inconsistent with State
47 law. This is a way of letting people know that this is something coming up, and they should
48 be aware that the Health Department will be looking at the system. He's comfortable with
49 the motion. The sooner things are figured out, the better it is. It is a way to avoid
50 upsetting some people.
51
52 Weimer asked if there is a reason they can's clarify the State language in section
53 (11). They've already said the report is available. Now, give it to the buyer.
54
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 8
Brenner stated add language, "report of system status once the County has
completed its inventory of system status." The language as it is would hold up a sale.
Delahunt stated that once the inventory is complete, the department will hardly need this
section at all.
Brenner stated they will have it on record, and it's just a transfer of a piece of paper.
If it's not on record, more things will be required and won't be done by the time of sale.
Caskey - Schreiber stated the bigger issue is trying to get compliance and get the
systems functioning and maintained. Don't wait five years for that to happen. They
continually have problems with shellfish beds, feeder streams, and rivers. Don't lose sight
of the big picture, which is to maintain the systems so there isn't environmental
degradation.
Brenner asked what happens if the permit can't be found at the time of sale. Only a
few people are qualified to do this. A transaction is pending. The concern is how long it will
take. She cares about the environmental aspect. However, the County should have this
permit. Not having the permit will hold up the process.
Weimer stated that his amendment will not hold up anything. They don't have to fix
anything, just have a report.
Brenner stated someone has to fill out the report.
Weimer stated that won't take long.
Delahunt stated regulations should not start immediately. They need a lead time.
Nelson stated they all want a warning system for the buyer and seller, without
holding up the transaction. Have some kind of report of the system status at the time of
transfer. Whether or not a permit is available should be noted. Then the buyer can ask
about the system status, and decide whether or not to take action. The language "if
available" is the notice to the buyer if the report isn't available. The specialists have more
work to do than just this. Make sure the report of system status is there. Amend (11) and
leave (12) as it is.
McShane asked to add language, "or if a copy of the current report of system status
is not on file with the Health Department, notify that the report is not available."
Weimer stated that is okay, but counter to not getting rid of the language in section
(12). He restated the motion to amend section (11), "(11) At the time of property
transfer, provide to the buyer a copy of the current. report of system status on file with the
Whatcom County Health Department, maintenance records, if available...."
Crawford offered a friendly amendment,, "(11) At the time of property transfer,
provide to the buyer a copy of the current report of system status on.. file with the Whatcom
County Health Department, and any available maintenance records, if available, in addition
to the completed seller disclosure....".
Weimer accepted the friendly amendment.
Brenner stated she won't support the motion that way. They don't know when and if
they will be available. It should say "if available." If it's not available, it's because the
Board of Health, 9/12/2006, Page 9
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
44
45
46
47
48
49
County doesn't have it. The seller is still notified that it's not available. However, it's not
fair if there isn't a system in place.
Nelson stated a concern is the legal aspect. He asked if it will hold up the property
sale. He asked if the sale can't go through if a buyer can't provide the system status report.
Watts stated the intent is not to insure that the transaction be held up. It indicates that if
the sale goes through, the buyer will be responsible for fixing the system if it's failed.
That's true today.
Nelson stated this is dealing with the property transaction. He asked if the County is
saying a buyer can't sell the property without the report. Watts stated the regulation
doesn't say that the transaction can't go forward.
Nelson asked if the amendment is fine in section (11) because they are still not
holding up the sale.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they are not holding up the sale. The buyer can go back to
the seller and say the buyer should have the report.
Delahunt stated the seller may or may not have some cause of action in the civil
court. The sale goes through whether or not there is a report.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Crawford opposed and Fleetwood absent.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this will be discussed again at another special Board of
Health meeting.
Delahunt asked if the Council is leaving in section (12).
Caskey - Schreiber stated they are for now.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Yranscription
ed these minutes
ATj y� y • e
•O r
•
ro-214, 2
Dan d -Vrown basis' Jodh$TT Clerk
Jr
on October 10 , 2006.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey - Schreiber, Council Chair
Board of Health, 9112/2006, Page 10