HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health September 19 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
September 19, 2006
Council Chair Laurie Caskey - Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:03 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
John Wolpers, Health Department, stated the Board of Health amended item
24.05.160(A)(11) at the previous Board of Health meeting to add the report of system
status.
Brenner moved to remove 24.05.160(A)(12).
Weimer stated he is not in favor of the motion to amend because it is a separate
issue. Item (11) talks about the time of transfer. Item (12) is about when the residence is
offered for sale. If buyers want to find out if a system is working, they can look. The seller
can get a status report the day of transfer and give it to the buyer during transfer. If the
buyers have to provide a status report at the time homes are put up for sale, it will be on
record. Potential buyers can look at them any time, even before offers are made. If they
remove (11), then sellers aren't required to provide reports to a buyer at all.
Brenner suggested combining items (11) and (12). They are almost repetitive. She
withdrew her motion.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated section (12) requires the seller
to make sure there is a report of system status on file when the property is put up for sale.
Section (11) requires the seller to give the buyer a copy of that report so the buyer has that
information. That is the difference between sections (11) and (12). Before, the seller had
to make sure a report was on file, but there was no mechanism for the buyer to get a copy
of the report.
Brenner moved to remove subsection .160(A)(12).
Nelson stated subsection (11) includes the report of system status. He asked what
happens on a property sale if the Board removes subsection (12).
Wolpers distributed a draft report of system status (on file). The draft shows what
the procedure could possibly look like. Attached to the handout is Skagit County's
operations and maintenance (O &M) inspection and service record. The operations and
maintenance specialist would do the report of system status.
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 1
1
2 Nelson asked if buyers have to have a report done before their homes are sold,
3 according to subsection (11). Realtors would have to tell sellers that the sellers have to
4 provide the report. It doesn't preclude the sale from going forward. Buyers would know
5 that there may be a bad system if the report isn't filed. Wolpers stated that was the intent
6 of leaving subsection (11) alone and adding subsection (12). The Board has accomplished
7 the same thing with subsection (11) only, with the amendment.
8
9 Delahunt stated she agreed. If sellers have to provide buyers with the report of
10 system status, then the report has to exists. The only way to have a report is if it's on file.
11 The 0 &M specialist will do the report and file it with the Health Department.
12
13 Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a scenario where there is a report, but it's not
14 handed over to the Health Department. Delahunt stated that in the regulation, they may
15 allow owners to do their own 0 &M inspections for certain systems.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's important to have that language of subsection (12)
18 there.
19
20 Nelson asked if private property owners could fill out a report. Delahunt stated the
21 regulation allows that under certain circumstances.
22
23 Weimer stated subsection (11) says that the report must be on file with the Health
24 Department. The only difference is that one could have an 0 &M specialist do the report the
25 day before a property transfer and hand it over the day of title signing. That's different
26 from having the report on file for someone to go look at when the property is put up for
27 sale. It's a way to assure that people are getting these things done.
28
29 Brenner stated it's still official. It's buyer beware. People will have to deal with it.
30 The report will be on file at the Health Department. Any buyer won't look at it anyway if
31 they wait until time of transfer.
32
33 Fleetwood asked the harm of keeping subsection (12) if subsection (11) just informs
34 buyers that there is an adequate report on file.
35
36 Brenner stated subsection (12) is repetitive. Also, it should be the decision of the
37 buyer to file the report when the sale goes through. The document will be there and the
38 new owner will know exactly what is going on.
39
40 Nelson stated the basis of the argument is that subsection (12) is a requirement.
41 Realtors are concerned that the County can't put the requirement on this for sale. It is the
42 responsibility of the buyer to be aware. Councilmember Weimer's issue is whether it is
43 something that will be done routinely or if buyers wait until they sell their properties. As an
44 answer, this will become routine. The County has a plan in place to inventory the entire
45 county and have these reports on file. This is merely addressing how to deal with the
46 information at the time of sale. Keep the perspective of working with the public during this
47 transition time. His real concern is how this report is done. That's where true protection
48 happens. He is reluctant to have homeowners fill out their own reports. He asked if that is
49 practical. Wolpers stated a competent homeowner could probably look at the septic tank
50 and drain field, but if there is anything technical, it should not be reported on by the
51 homeowner. Subsection (D) talks about how they allow competent homeowners to perform
52 their own OSS maintenance.
53
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 2
1 Crawford asked if a bore is involved in a drain field inspection. He asked if a
2 homeowner would go to an O &M class and learn how to do the bore. Wolpers stated this
3 addresses two separate things. The report of system status procedure would be performed
4 by the Health Department. Once they establish that the system is functioning, it's a
5 question of whether the system seems to not be failing. He assumes that a gravity drain
6 field could be allowed for homeowners to do their own inspections. Homeowners would not
7 be able to do their inspections in areas that affect public health.
8
9 Crawford stated the bigger issue to protect public health is drain field issues. A
10 problem with a tank is easier to fix compared to a drain field. Delahunt stated the issue is if
11 the property owners would be forthright when they do their own drain field O &M, and the
12 drain field is failing. The committee felt that they ought to allow homeowners to do the
13 maintenance, provided they take a class and show they know what they're doing if they
14 have a gravity drain field not in areas of increased risk.
15
16 Caskey- Schreiber stated a purpose of subsection (12) could enhance the property
17 transaction process. If sellers have to deal with this when they put their property up for
18 sale, and not at property transfer, the prospective buyers will know what they are getting
19 into. The issue will be addressed up front, leave subsection (12) in the regulation. The
20 larger issue is how to get the best compliance. This is one way to do it. Both measures will
21 help get the inventory done. They are talking about a small percentage of the population,
22 but the twofold approach will help get compliance.
23
24 Nelson stated that in that case, they could simply require everyone in the county to
25 fill out one of these forms and bring it in to the County. However, they must be practical.
26 If they are going to have the public work with the Health Department, don't create
27 confusion. Get the sellers to understand they need to have this document in their portfolio.
28 Subsection (12) requires the report at the time properties are offered for sale. That could
29 be difficult if owners don't know this is required. He's not comfortable that the regulation
30 may prevent the sale by requiring a report. Wolpers stated subsection (11) is written by
31 the WAC, without Councilmember Weimer's amendment. Subsection (12) was written by
32 the committees to address the report at time of property transfer. In his opinion, the
33 addition of Councilmember Weimer's language, addresses the concerns of subsection (12).
34
35 McShane stated he is comfortable with subsection (11), as amended. Someone
36 might offer property without the system report on file. When the transfer occurs, it should
37 be on file at that time. Once people talk about exchanging money, there is assurance that
38 things in agreements will be taken care of. Hopefully, realtors help people through those
39 agreements. It works well.
40
41 Motion carried 4 -3 with Weimer, Caskey - Schreiber, and Fleetwood opposed.
42
43 Nelson referenced subsection 24.05.160(D). He's not sure how they decide someone
44 is competent enough. With some training, he would feel comfortable. He asked if the
45 training would provide certification. Wolpers stated that is a concern. If an individual sells
46 a home where he did his own O &M, a buyer buys the home, and then the system fails.
47 Then the buyer would come to the Health Department and say the Department is liable
48 because it certified the owner to do the inspection.
49
50 Nelson stated there will be more than enough people to do the O &M inspections. He
51 asked if pumpers are trained to do this. Wolpers stated there are. More are being licensed.
52
53 Nelson stated those should be the individuals who do the O &M inspections.
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 3
1
2 Weimer stated they are mixing two things. Item (D) talks about maintenance, not
3 inspections. Inspections is described in subsection .160(A)(4). That's where the inspection
4 requirements are. He moved to amend, "Assure a complete evaluation of the system
5 components by a licensed.... &M specialist and /or property to determine functionality,
6 maintenance needs, and compliance...."
7
8 Crawford stated it's a gray area. The entirety of section .160 is very complex.
9 Maintenance almost means septic pumping. Leave it the way it is. The bases are covered
10 in many areas. This is all covered under section .160. He asked if the question is who
11 needs to evaluate system components.
12
13 Weimer stated that is his concern.
14
15 Crawford stated that when they get to .160(A)(6), they will have to deal with
16 subsection (D) also. He is against the motion. The Council is beginning to micromanage
17 the process. They are inviting a tremendous amount of third party monitoring of septic
18 tanks. He's not sure the problem merits the time and expense.
19
20 Brenner stated she is in favor of the amendment. People could think they can do
21 inspections themselves, but it should be done by a specialist. Homeowners shouldn't do it
22 themselves.
23
24 Wolpers stated subsection (D) is not a requirement of the WAC. It is a local
25 regulation.
26
27 McShane stated the State requirement is for every three years. The Board can't
28 allow less frequent inspections, regardless of where they are or the risk. Delahunt stated
29 the intent was to allow the evaluation required by subsection (4) to be done by the
30 homeowner, but only in no -risk areas. That was the intent, but the language doesn't
31 convey that intent. The intent of the committee was monitoring. It was a compromise on
32 how they can assure that the evaluation is done.
33
34 McShane asked who makes the determination of which areas are no -risk. Delahunt
35 stated that's part of the management plan the staff has to develop over the next few
36 months. The areas would have to be mapped. It would be complicated.
37
38 McShane stated conditions can change over time, which would change the risk level.
39 Delahunt stated the committee intent was to map the areas at a macro level.
40
41 McShane stated the risk can change depending on how the property is managed,
42 particularly with how stormwater regulations are implemented. Low impact stormwater
43 regulations are trying to maximize infiltration into the subsurface. On many sites, the
44 position of a drain field is an issue. He would support the motion.
45
46 Brenner asked the fee if O &M specialists check systems once every three years, and
47 they don't have to pump.
48
49 Crawford stated they have a call charge of about $100.
50
51 Wolpers stated it depends on how long the specialist is at the site and the complexity
52 of the system.
53
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 4
1 Weimer stated it's important to have it done by an O &M specialist. It removes the
2 concern that someone just signs off the form. Subsection (D) needs to be relaxed, because
3 now, an owner can't even have the tank pumped without hiring a specialist.
4
5 Caskey - Schreiber asked if the regulation of every three years is for all septic
6 systems, or just gravity systems. Wolpers stated gravity systems are done every three
7 years. The requirement is every year for every other system.
8
9 Caskey - Schreiber asked who would assure compliance. Delahunt stated the Health
10 Department would assure compliance.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Health Department would tell people every three years
13 that they must have their systems reviewed. Delahunt stated they would.
14
15 Nelson asked who would do inspection under subsection (A), if the Board removed
16 (D). Delahunt stated it leaves it open, They just have to assure that it's done.
17
18 Wolpers stated it would have to be addressed in the management plan.
19
20 Delahunt stated the regulations should specify who should do it.
21
22 Nelson stated require an O &M specialist look at it, but allow owners to do minor
23 repairs. Delahunt stated subsection (6) allows the owner to do minor repairs.
24
25 Nelson stated removing subsection (D) covers the issue, with the amendment to (A).
26 He's concerned about the liability of people doing their own inspections. Wolpers stated
27 subsection (D) talks about two things. It also says homeowners in at -risk areas can't do
28 their own repairs.
29
30 Delahunt stated she would rather allow owners to do small repairs then have them
31 not do the repairs because the repair by a specialist would be twice the cost.
32
33 (Clerk's Note. End of tape one, side A.)
34
35 Caskey-Schreiber asked if subsections (4)(i) and (ii) would have to be amended,
36 "This 0 &M specialist...." Without Councilmember Weimer's amendment, it is allowed by a
37 homeowner or anyone. Wolpers stated that is correct.
38
39 Fleetwood asked if the requirement that there be an 0 &M specialist be triggered by
40 an increased level of public health. He asked what defines that increased level. Wolpers
41 stated that trigger will be defined in the management plan. There is a guidance document
42 that the Department of Health has developed for the local levels.
43
44 Delahunt stated State regulations list areas of increased public health risk. There are
45 15 types of situations on the list. The State requires counties to look at that list to identify
46 and address those areas in their counties.
47
48 Fleetwood asked if the definition section defines those areas by referencing the State
49 mandate. It should. Delahunt stated it's not in the definitions. That would be a good
50 addition.
51
52 Weimer stated there is a problem with subsection (4). As written now, the report of
53 system status is only required for the ones that are being inspected every year. It isn't
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 5
I required at all for ones inspected every three years. Subsection (ii)(a) should be amended
2 to be (iii). He moved to amend_ 24.15.160(A)(4), "Assure a complete evaluation of the
3 system components by a licensed O &M specialist and /or property to determine functionality,
4 maintenance needs, and compliance...."
5
6 Nelson offered a friendly amendment, "Assure a complete evaluation of the
7 system components by a licensed O &M specialist and /or property to determine functionality,
8 maintenance needs, and compliance with this chapter and any permits. A report of system
9 status shall be completed at the time of the. evaluation and submitted to the WCHD." And
10 delete (ii)(a).
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is concerned about the financial burden on some
13 people. Delahunt stated that is a concern. The committee talked about finding dollars to
14 help low income people.
15
16 Brenner stated they are required by law to allow the homeowner to be responsible.
17 Add language that O &M inspection must be performed by licensed O &M specialists at least
18 once every six or seven years, for the regular ones. Wolpers stated that would be a
19 tracking nightmare.
20
21 Nelson stated the financial impacts is a concern, but people take on those
22 responsibilities when they purchase a home. There are mechanisms for helping find
23 financing. Give this a chance. To do this fairly, it needs to be established so everyone
24 learns about it right away. Don't apply it in increments because they are concerned about
25 financial impacts. Address that issue through another mechanism.
26
27 Weimer stated it is a financial burden. They are creating a $1 million O &M industry.
28 However, the State wants it done, and this is the best way to do it. At $100 per inspection,
29 it's still cheaper than paying a sewer bill in a city.
30
31 McShane asked if there is language in the State law about evaluating the results of
32 the data the County will collect from these types of inspections. Wolpers stated the first
33 thing they are trying to do is compile the database. Then they can see what areas or
34 designs are problems.
35
36 McShane asked if there would be changes to the State requirement in the future if
37 they find they don't need to do these every year. Newer designs may be more low -
38 maintenance. He is optimistic this regulation will be pulled back in a few years.
39
40 Crawford stated a difference is that the cost of septic systems are much more than a
41 sewer hookup. There are enormous up -front expenses. Don't compare the OSS and sewer.
42
43 Brenner stated the County should be responsible for providing a staff position, paid
44 for with tax dollars, which would be a lot better than the burden that will be put on people.
45 Allow homeowners to be responsible for the gravity systems as long as there is a licensed
46 O &M specialist inspection done every six years.
47
48 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Health Department is going to need a bunch of staff to
49 implement this requirement. Delahunt stated the department proposes four new positions
50 over the next two years. A question of having inspections every six years would be whether
51 that is allowed for all gravity systems or just the ones not in a critical area.
52
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 6
1 Caskey - Schreiber stated this will be an administrative nightmare. They might as
2 well give it their best try, see how it works, and then fine -tune the process if needed. She
3 asked the County's recourse if people don't follow the regulation. she asked if the County
4 would file a lien against the property. Delahunt stated that in the end, if an owner doesn't
5 do O &M, the best the County can do is put a notice on the title saying that O &M hasn't been
6 done.
7
8 Caskey- Schreiber stated that's why they should deal with the issue at the time of
9 property transfer. Money may be available to do this and negotiation is going on. She is
10 concerned that requiring it every three years will be a burden. Delahunt stated 90 percent
11 of the people comply, once they receive a letter. In this case, that other 10 percent might
12 have to be situations where the department puts notice on the title.
13
14 Caskey- Schreiber asked if Peaceful Valley is on sewer. People in that area aren't
15 going to be able to afford this. Delahunt stated Peaceful Valley is not on sewer.
16
17 Brenner asked if there would be a note on the title if the County does enforcement
18 every three years. Delahunt stated they also have the option of going the civil penalty
19 route.
20
21 Brenner stated leave it the way it is, so the owner is responsible.
22
23 Weimer accepted the friendly amendment and restated the motion, to delete
24 .160(A)(4)(ii)(a) and amend 24.05.160(A)(4), "Assure a complete evaluation of the system
25 components and /or property by a licensed Q &M specialist to determine functionality,
26 maintenance needs, and compliance with this chapter and any permits. A report of. system
27 status shall 'be completed at the.time of the evaluation and submitted to the WCHD."
28
29
30 Brenner stated split the motion.
31
32 Caskey - Schreiber restated the motion to amend 24.05.160(A)(4) "Assure a
33 complete evaluation of the system components and /or property by a licensed O &M specialist
34 to determine functionality, maintenance needs, and compliance with this chapter and any
35 permits."
36
37 Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner opposed.
38
39 Caskey - Schreiber restated the motion to delete .160(A)(4)(ii)(a) and amend
40 24.05.160(A)(4) "Assure a complete evaluation of the system components and /or property
41 by a licensed O &M specialist to determine functionality, maintenance needs, and compliance
42 with this chapter and any permits. A report of system .status. sha11. be completed at the time
43 of the evaluation and submitted to the WCHD."
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
47 Nelson moved to delete 24.05.160(D).
48
49 Caskey- Schreiber asked the purpose of subsection (D).
50
51 Delahunt stated subsection (D) doesn't have a purpose now. It would be too
52 confusing. Maintenance is allowed by the homeowner under subsection .160(A)(6).
53
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 7
Motion carried 6 -I with Crawford opposed.
Crawford moved to eliminate subsection .160(A)(10).
Delahunt stated that language is in the State code.
Crawford asked if someone is legally required to call the Health Department if they
think something is wrong with the system. Delahunt stated that is correct. That is required
now. Generally people call a designer and submit a permit, so notice is generally through
an agent.
Crawford withdrew his motion.
Brenner stated an approved onsite sewage permit is good for two years, according to
24.05.090(1). Increase it to three years. Wolpers stated the change is recommended
based on new technologies that may come along that would be better and if the ground has
been altered from when the permit was first issued. The intent was to condense the permit
length to three years total.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the State left it at five years. Wolpers stated it did.
Crawford stated he can understand that argument if new designs cost less.
However, they don't. New designs are more costly.
Brenner stated people can still go to a cheaper new discovery. It doesn't preclude
someone from doing that. If someone is going to sell property, show there is an approved
design done and installed. It can be passed on to the buyer. Not every buyer can build a
home immediately. It could easily take more than two years. Have it be three years with a
one year renewal. The State doesn't change the rules often.
Delahunt stated site conditions can change. In the past, permits have gone for five
years, but the system may not be good after five years. That has happened. Even though
the permit expires at the end of three years, the design can be resubmitted and the permit
could be reissued. The person doesn't have to get a new design.
McShane stated dramatic land changes happen all the time, especially in an area
that is developing. It is not a bad idea to do review every couple of years. It is not a big
deal if nothing changes.
Crawford asked if there are situations when there would have to be a change to the
site design if there is no change to the site and the time is less than five years. Wolpers
stated that if a permit is already issued, they must adhere to whatever is the most lenient
for that individual.
Delahunt stated that even if the regulations change, the person has a valid permit
and can operate under that permit.
Crawford asked if there are changed design requirements that would apply if the
permit expires. Wolpers stated there are not. The last design changes were done in 1995.
However, there have been changes to properties due to the new critical areas ordinance.
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 8
I Crawford stated he supports going to five years. If a person is going to sell a lot, a
2 seller won't know what kind of house the buyer wants to put up. Delahunt stated that for
3 plats, they do only soils work. They generally don't do designs before a plat is approved.
4
5 Nelson stated he doesn't have a problem with five years if everything stays the
6 same. Changes occur on short plats, construction sites, in the neighborhood, and because
7 of critical areas. They are creating a problem down the road for the buyer if they leave it at
8 five years.
9
10 Crawford stated the permit locks in the system that is allowed.
11
12 Nelson stated one may be required to have to put a new system in again, even if
13 there is a permitted system, if there is a problem with an old design that may create a
14 public health problem. That puts a burden on a buyer that shouldn't have to be there. Err
15 on the side of better protection for those who are buying. Delahunt stated Councilmember
16 Nelson is right. If the department finds that the design is no longer suitable after two or
17 three years, they will say that the design is no longer suitable, and the owner must account
18 for the change that has occurred.
19
20 Brenner stated a permit renewable may be granted, not shall be granted. Designers
21 have told her that two years is too tight to get the work done. Wolpers stated he did an
22 evaluation across the state. The timeframe varies dramatically. Some areas have a one -
23 year renewal.
24
25 Caskey- Schreiber stated the language as it is will help people in the long run. She
26 agrees with Councilmember Nelson. Get the most current design in. Replacing an
27 antiquated system is a financial burden. Delahunt stated the real tragedy is when the
28 County goes on a final inspection, and deems a new system as inadequate. That's
29 happened.
30
31 McShane stated the development of the property has to be holistic. People may
32 have a false assumption that the design will work. People can't shoehorn a system into the
33 entire site development.
34
35 Brenner withdrew her motion.
36
37 Crawford moved to amend 24.05.090(I) to five years.
38
39 Motion failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
40
41 Wolpers stated one of the two remaining issues is final inspection done by the Health
42 Department. There was misinformation that the Health Department would give up the right
43 to do final inspections. They are not giving up the Health Department's right to do final
44 inspection. The Health Department does do final inspections. The regulation allows the
45 Health Department to have a designer do a final inspection. The Onsite Septic System
46 (OSS) Committee and Public Health Advisory Board talked about that.
47
48 Delahunt stated a citizen, Steve Schneider, commented to the Board of Health that
49 the Health Department was trying to move the final inspection work to the designers.
50 That's not their intent. It's rare that a designer would do a final inspection. There may be a
51 rare situation in which the designer could be allowed to do the final inspection. It's in the
52 designer's best interest to make sure the system is installed as designed.
53
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 9
Nelson stated licensed designers and engineers are allowed under the State licensing
procedures to be able to inspect systems to see if they are built as designed. The regulation
doesn't remove the County's responsibility for final inspection. He agrees with the Health
Department to leave it as it is.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner asked about 24.05.100(C). Wolpers stated that staff took the original
County code, and tried to insert the new Washington Administrative Code (WAC) when they
wrote these changes. Subsection .100(C) doesn't completely address what is supposed to
be addressed. He read the WAC, "The horizontal separation between an OSS dispersal
component and an individual water well, individual spring, or surface water that is not a
public water source can be reduced to a minimum of 75 feet by the local health officer and
be described as a conforming system upon signed approval of the health officer if the
applicant demonstrates...."
Brenner moved to change .100(C) to match the WAC language.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent.
Brenner stated include acronyms in the definitions. The acronym for subsurface soil
absorption system (SSAS) isn't defined. Other acronyms in the code have their own
definitions.
McShane stated create a separate definition of SSAS.
The Council concurred.
Weimer referenced licensing of maintenance and operations people. Wolpers stated
subsection .220(C)(6). They talked about deleting the language that is added at the end of
that section.
Fleetwood stated the requirement to take "a course" is vague. Wolpers stated there
are specific courses that are going to be for O &M specialists, created by the Washington
Onsite Sewage Association, that will be fine.
Weimer moved to amend subsection .220(C)(6), "...attended either by the !'.c- ^c^
Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent.
Weimer stated subsection 24.05.220 (C)(4) makes it hard for someone new to get
into the business, especially if there will be classes. He moved to amend subsection
24.05.220(C)(4), "The applicant must provide verifiable evidence of a minimum of two
years' continuous experience in the OSS industry; or a combination of education and field
experience approved by the health officer."
Nelson asked the type of training or field experience that the health officer would
look at. Delahunt stated it's possible the Technical College or the State Association will
create training.
Nelson asked if they would recognize certifications. Delahunt stated they could.
They could recognize classes taken through the wastewater association. The Health
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 10
1 Department will look at it and decide if a person has really had a lot of training in this area,
2 similar to how one would look at a job application.
3
4 Caskey - Schreiber stated the intent is to keep it fluid. This is an ever - changing field.
5 The County is creating the demand. Delahunt stated that is correct. The folks will be
6 licensed and monitored by the Health Department.
7
8 Motion carried 6 -0 with Crawford absent.
9
10 Brenner referenced language on the draft Report of System Status procedure. It
11 should say, "If the OSS system is net peFFR:tF =a permit cannot be located:" Wolpers stated
12 he recommends, "If the OSS system, for which a permit cannot be located:."
13
14 Delahunt stated it is just information for the Board on how the Health Department
15 would implement the process. It isn't a regulation. She understands the concern.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council must introduce the ordinance and then vote on
18 it two weeks after that.
19
20 Walpers stated they need to talk about implementation date, which has to be by July
21 2007. They need the management plan, which has just been started.
22
23 Delahunt stated they could do it by this spring.
24
25 Walpers stated he will come back to the Board with a proposed implementation date.
26
27 Caskey - Schreiber stated the staff can bring it forward when this is introduced. She
28 asked about today's health summit. Delahunt stated the pandemic flu summit at St. Luke's
29 Health Education Center is today. They will discuss the recommendations from the
30 committee. Dr. Stern will give an update on the situation worldwide. Members of each
31 committee will talk about what happened in their committees. They will talk about unified
32 area command and how the next planning phase will move ahead.
33
34
35 ADJOURN
36
37 The meeting adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
38
39 _
40
41 Jill Nixon, Minutes Tran cription
42
43 T,,#%CUWLIA'agproved these minutes on October 10 , 2006.
44 ��.�`,�� C O v WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
46 ATT`1 ��' �. ` I C00. �'''' W HATCOM COUNTY WASHINGTON
47 = 0; o) CpUHTY
s
48 0
49 _
50 _ • r G..e c�
51 Bra jj4 'ncil. lerk Laurie Caskey -Schre ber, Council Chair
Board of Health, 9/19/2006, Page 11