HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Health February 1 20051
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Board of Health
February 1, 2005
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
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
1. PUBLIC SESSION
Crawford asked the staff's position on certain emails recently received
regarding the river moving toward the dump and that it should be the top priority
of the water resource inventory area (WRIA). The concern is whether it's a health
problem and where they would get funds to fix the issue.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated the Health Department
has been involved with this site for a long time. The problem is getting worse. The
County has no jurisdiction. The property is trust land owned by tribal members.
The closest the County got to fixing the property was through the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Carl Weimer's idea to get this on the table through the
WRIA process is a good one. The tribes are included in the WRIA process. Come at
it from a cooperative arrangement. It's worth a try at this point. Jeff Hegedus has
experience working with other tribes in tribal cleanups much larger than this
situation.
Roy stated this issue is on the agenda for the next Natural Resources
Committee on Tuesday. The discussion can continue at that time. Councilmember
McShane took the issue to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). He will
update the Natural Resources Committee.
Brenner stated Mr. Weimer is also a SWAC member, which is why the
councilmembers probably received that email.
Janet Baldie, 1235 Deer Creek Drive, Ferndale, Washington, submitted
information (on file). She is here to address the problem of methamphetamine
(meth) labs. There was a lab in her neighborhood that blew up in 2003. Nothing
has been done since with the house. It has been abandoned ever since. People
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 1
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
throw garbage in the house. Kids go in there and play. There is risk of a fire. Six
months ago, someone dumped off a car at the site, which has since been
vandalized.
She talked to the Health Department and a councilmember. Nothing has
happened. The task force is working on it. The property values in the
neighborhood have gone down, according to a realtor. She's been told two
different things about who owns the property. The bank keeps passing off the
responsibility. The property is an eyesore. There isn't anything on the books that
allows them to take care of it right now. The police department won't do anything
about the car because it's on private property.
Roy asked the address of the property. Baldie stated the address is 1227
Deer Creek Drive.
Roy asked if it is in the city limits. Baldie stated it is not.
Roy asked the responding authority was the sheriff, not the police, since the
house is in the unincorporated area of the county. Baldie stated that's correct.
Brenner stated she's talked to Ms. Baldie about this before. She understood
the Council would come up with regulations to clean up the meth labs. There are
two issues. One is the clean up of a meth lab. The other issue is a messy,
garbage - filled private property. She understands that the County doesn't have any
jurisdiction on how someone keeps up, or doesn't keep up, his or her property.
She was told forcing someone to clean up his or her property would be a violation
of property rights.
Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee Chair, handed out information (on file). The advisory committee is
updating its recovery plan for Drayton Harbor. In spite of recent upgrades, there
are chronic health problems. Every time there is a Yz inch of rain, the State
Department of Health closes down the harbor for five days. Everyone is concerned
about the status of onsite septic systems. Objective three in the plan addresses
onsite septic systems. The plan also has an update of where they've been since
2000 and lists tasks and recommendations. The committee has asked for several
years to establish an operations and maintenance program to deal with this
pollution source proactively. It is an ongoing threat. The program now is
complaint- driven. There's no insurance that onsite septic systems don't impact the
bay. Create and implement an operations and maintenance program. The County
is doing better on following up on complaints. In 2002 and 2003, there were 77
onsite sewage system complaints. The County followed up, and 22 failing systems
have been corrected. There hasn't been a proactive program since 1997 when
there were legislative funds to address this problem.
He recommends the County require an onsite septic system evaluation
during a transfer of ownership. The committee wants to discuss this in greater
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 2
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
detail with the Board of Health. The Puget Sound Restoration Fund oyster farm has
been successful in getting a partial upgrade. They are struggling now with key
pollution issues, such as the onsite septic system, hobby farms, and commercial
dairies. Those are the three main areas they are focusing on. Now, they are trying
to transition back to commercial harvesting in the harbor. At this point, with the
lack of a dedicated program, it isn't a viable investment to put money into Drayton
Harbor. They have had 18 five -day closures since mid - August. He asked if there is
any chance to ever have an operations and maintenance program in the Drayton
Harbor watershed.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the last onsite septic system assessment was only
for Drayton Harbor. Menzies stated it was, exclusively. The County received a
$250,000 grant. That was the last time the systems were assessed. The oyster
farm has a viable buyer for the product. The community is trying to rebuild the
harbor. The community is at a key point to transition this place back to a viable
enterprise. Another benefit of a fully approved classification is that it opens up
harvest for recreational and tribal harvesters. The area inside the Drayton Harbor
spit is a Lummi Nation area. It's also a priority site for Marine Resource Committee
(MRC) clam enhancement project. It's a public health problem.
Nelson stated they talked about this at the advisory committee a few years
ago. He asked if there were policies in place requiring inspections. He asked if
they can legally require that the septic systems receive inspections every three to
five years. Delahunt stated it is required. The problem is enforcement and follow
up.
Nelson asked if there is a way to send out onsite septic system statements
with property tax statements that people can sign saying that they have a current
inspection. Most people want to do the right thing. They just need a reminder.
He'd like to see the pumping operator notify residents. Delahunt stated the
pumping operators do send out notices, and the Health Department also sends out
notices to people within the County. This has been before the Board of Health
many times. In the past, the County has taken the educational approach, hoping to
see some improvement. They haven't seen improvement in maintenance and
operations. There was some discussion in the past about making operations and
maintenance more about enforcement. The State is also revising the onsite
regulations, and is in the final stage. Operations and maintenance is a big topic in
those regulations. This year, the Health Department will come back with something
more than the educational approach. The State and local levels have seen that the
educational approach doesn't work. The County will have to create a balance of
education and enforcement. Enforcement will be a huge thing. It's difficult enough
to get enforcement on a failing system.
Brenner asked if the County could pay for an employee, if it levies hefty fines
for not pumping every five years. Those fines would pay for a staff person to do
follow up. Delahunt stated that is one approach the Council can take. It is a policy
decision.
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 3
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford asked if the people who work for the pumping companies are
certified. Pumping isn't the only part of operations and maintenance. Even if the
County said that people have to have inspections, the question is who is doing the
inspections. Delahunt stated she agreed. The County would have to implement an
operations and maintenance specialist program to certify and train people. Many of
the systems are not simple. There are alternative systems where the operations
and maintenance is critical. Even if there is a notice in the deed that there must be
a contract with a certified inspector, it's not getting done.
Crawford asked if the closures this year are due to the bacteria level.
Menzies stated the closures are based on the correlation between rainfall events
and exceedance of non -point pollution from fecal bacteria.
Crawford stated that maybe once per decade they need to do what they did
in 1997. He's concerned about addressing this issue with one particular area and
not with anyone who has a well with a nearby septic system. It's hard to value one
particular area over another area. A program should be countywide. Delahunt
stated State law requires regular operations and maintenance. It's a matter of
enforcing it.
Roy stated this has been part of the Drayton Harbor plan, which the County
adopted. Nothing has been done. She brought this up probably at every Health
Board meeting. She's been told the County will wait for the State update. She
suggested that the Council do something more active to address the problem, such
as having the Health Department make a commitment to sit down regularly with
the advisory committee to come up with options. Begin to talk about it at the
advisory committee.
Menzies stated that when the Council adopted the advisory committee's
recommended plan, they assumed something would happen to put the plan into
effect. Under the new State regulations, local governments are supposed to
develop their own plans, which include identifying sensitive areas. In 1988, this
community identified the Drayton Harbor watershed as a priority area for
protection. It is almost 20 years after that designation. Other counties are looking
at a risk -basis approach for dealing with onsite septic systems. There is resistance
in other communities. It finally comes down to a public health concern, resources,
and the role government wants to play regarding property rights. The community
has a right to clean water in Drayton Harbor. Consider a pilot study or area. If
nothing happens, eventually the efforts that have been underway will not continue.
The community needs support from the County.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees. She would also like an incentive -based
program. Meet with the septic providers to develop an incentive.
Delahunt stated the result will be a combination of all the ideas.
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 4
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Island County has a program that is more actively
involved in enforcement and fines. Whatcom County should look at what it can do
legally in that area.
Nelson stated it's not just septic systems. They need stormwater
management in critical areas. The Council didn't support that. It's a clean water
issue that is important in many areas they keep neglecting.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this needs to start at the Public Health Advisory Plan
to recommend a plan the Council can implement by the end of the year, if possible.
2. PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD - CHAIR REPORT
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, introduced the new Public
Health Advisory Board chair, Laverne Lane - Oreiro. Ms. Lane - Oreiro worked in the
health area with the tribe. In the packet is the draft advisory board work plan and
meeting schedule.
Laverne Lane - Oreiro, Public Health Advisory Board Chair, stated she's looking
for information from the Board of Health on the 2005 work plan and meeting
schedule. The advisory board will forgo its meetings on the months that the Board
of Health meets to focus on the bigger picture. She read the advisory board
meeting schedule of topics.
Brenner asked that the schedule change to switch the onsite septic system
operations and maintenance issue with another item so it can be addressed earlier
in the year. Delahunt stated that issue is scheduled in July because the State
regulations are due by July. However, they can move it up a bit.
Roy asked if the advisory board forms subcommittees to look at specific
issues. Delahunt stated it has in the past.
Roy stated the onsite septic system operations and maintenance issue might
warrant a subcommittee. There is a lot of expertise in the County on that issue.
Nelson asked what is social marketing. Delahunt stated it's the politically
correct term for educating and marketing a behavior rather than a product.
Nelson asked if they will look at elements of childhood and early
development care, such as follow up from birth and childhood dental care.
Delahunt stated the oral health coalition is working on that topic. It's coming
forward in May. The Health Care Access program will be discussed at the advisory
board. The Councilmembers can bring forward child health issues to the advisory
board.
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated they could have an evening Board of Health meeting in
October. The advisory board and Council can have face -to -face contact. An annual
joint meeting would be good to do.
The Council concurred on scheduling a joint meeting one evening.
3. PUBLIC HEALTH STORY - CASE STUDY: METH DECONTAMINATION
Kyle Dodd, Environmental Health Specialist, gave a power point presentation
(on file) and discussed a case study of how the Health Department responds to
meth decontamination. These labs can happen anywhere, including upscale homes,
storage units, and hotels and motels. The Health Department has several
responsibilities, including posting property, inspecting property, determining
contamination, notification of contamination, and verifying decontamination. These
roles are outlined in the State Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246 -205.
They must post property within one day of being notified by law
enforcement. It is typically not a problem. Law enforcement will inform health
when they serve the warrant.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
The department must inspect the property within 14 days of posting to
gather information to determine contamination. Inspection can be a physical
inspection or can include gathering information from law enforcement and the State
Department of Ecology. Staff will gather information on hazardous chemical use
and storage, chemical stains, release of hazardous chemicals to the environment,
and the paraphernalia accumulated on the property.
Brenner asked if a neighbor can inform the Health Department in addition to
of law enforcement. Dodd stated they can. He will talk about that.
The entry team will disassemble the lab materials and place them in visquine
awaiting Department of Ecology responders. The Department of Ecology will
transport the chemicals and glassware for disposal.
Other forms of contamination outside the improved structures include burn
pits and piles of solid waste from the lab.
After determination of contamination, the department is required to notify all
parties with an interest within ten days. There is a list of items that must be in the
notification. The notification is recorded on the property title. In the case study,
the property owner lived out of state, hired a clean up contractor who cleaned up
and decontaminated the property. The estimate for the clean up was about
$29,000. After the contractor presents the report, the Health Department reviews
the report to see if it is consistent with the original work plan. The final clean up
report includes lab results and receipts for disposal. Once that's done, the Health
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Department will release the property, including writing a letter to file with the
County and notifying all parties.
Nelson asked if homeowners insurance covers these types of things. Dodd
stated some people have been lucky to get portions of it covered.
Dodd read the summary of proposed amendments (on file). Improvement
can be made on the State WAC. One amendment is to institute timelines for
creating the clean up work plan and doing the clean up. Another amendment is
about specific enforcement procedures that will make it easier for the Health
Department to respond to a lack of action. Lack of action will be considered a
violation of the health code. If the owner does not meet the timeline, the lack of
action will be a violation with civil penalties and possible abatement. The third
amendment is to clarify the applicability of applying the proposed code to properties
that don't go through the normal law enforcement process. That amendment would
make it easier for a citizen to report the site so the Health Department can get into
the process without the law enforcement process.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this will make it easier to go through the
condemnation process. Dodd stated it will. He hasn't worked on that lately. This
amendment will put a timeframe on cleanup. It may be difficult to issue a violation
to the bank. The foreclosure process is a complication.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the board had talked about putting a lien on a
property to recover the cost of cleanup. Delahunt stated the County has that
authority. This amendment will tie together this clean up process to the statute.
Brenner stated she understood they talked about whether the County could
sell the property, similar to a foreclosure, if not sold and not cleaned up. That's
something the County needs to do. Delahunt stated she didn't think the County
can have that authority, but she would find out.
Crawford stated the Council will be very amenable to getting these
ordinances in place.
Roy asked if the County does or does not have the authority to sell the
property to pay for cleanup.
Brenner stated they don't. She wants to see that happen.
Delahunt stated she's not sure if it will be possible to get that authority.
She'll check. All they have at this point is the ability to place a lien.
Nelson stated it is very hard for the County to get the property owner to
clean up a property, unless the County is willing to pay for the cleanup itself.
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated the problem is that there are quite a few of these properties
in the community. This proposal still doesn't have a lot of teeth. A lien doesn't
mean anything if the owner doesn't do anything with the property. Find out if the
County can sell the property after a certain length of time. The County does that
when people don't pay their taxes. Delahunt stated she would check.
Crawford stated the County can foreclose on a lien. Most liens don't get
foreclosed on. The legal costs of foreclosing a lien are huge. Therefore, everyone
is accustomed to a lien being paid during a sale. Whether the County could engage
in a cost - effective way to foreclose on a lien is unlikely. The reason the County
sells tax title property is because the property is valued less than the taxes owed.
It's a matter of economics. The issue is whether the County wants to bear the cost
of cleanup. The lien is the furthest the County can go.
Delahunt stated the proposal has more authority than now because the
County can say the property owner must clean up the property. Now, the County
can only say someone can't live on the property. If the property owner has to go
through an administrative and then court process, the owner is more likely to clean
up the property.
S. ILLEGAL DRUG MANUFACTURING & STORAGE SITES - DRAFT
ORDINANCE
McShane moved to send this to be considered for introduction to the
Council when it's ready.
Brenner referenced section 24.- -.030. Delahunt stated that if the State code
changes, the County doesn't have to amend this code.
Brenner stated section 24. -- .050(5) should say "a level below contaminant
level" instead of "the lowest practical level." The lowest practical level may still be
above contamination levels. Delahunt stated that section is the State definition.
McShane stated the clean up standards are based on achieving a practical
level. It's part of the process. The level is set at what the lowest practical level is
determined to be through clean up efforts.
Brenner stated she would like that definition changed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the staff can take a look at that definition.
Delahunt stated section 24.-- .070(1) has the practical standards.
Brenner referenced section 24.-- .050(8). There isn't anything after the
colon. Delahunt stated that is a typo. Items (9) and (10) should be part of (8).
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner referenced section 24.-- .050(11). She asked if they call a site an
illegal drug manufacturing or storage site at the time when someone makes an
accusation of an existing lab. Delahunt stated that if there is sufficient evidence,
the first step is to post the property. Then it goes through the evaluation to see if
the site was actually contamination.
Crawford stated the intent is to say that the site is either occurring or there
is reason to believe it has occurred there. The County needs a way to post the site
before it determines contamination. This makes sense to him. It allows the HD to
post the site based on current activity or good cause of past activity.
Caskey- Schreiber referenced subsection 24.-- .050(14). There must be a
strong belief that something has happened.
Nelson stated the language is confusing. He moved to amend subsection
24.-- .050(11), '...stores an illegal controlled substance...." A controlled substance is
specifically defined. They have to differentiate between legal controlled substances.
Caskey- Schreiber stated staff can look at that issue and language.
Nelson withdrew his motion.
Roy stated the different interpretations by the councilmembers indicate that
the language could be made clearer.
Caskey- Schreiber offered a friendly amendment to the motion to
introduce a revised version as mentioned.
McShane accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. STAR RESPONSE PLAN
Jim De Golier, Straight Talk About Responsibility (STAR) Executive Director,
stated STAR has been working to coordinate a community meth response to the
current issue they're facing. In early June, he talked to the County Council about a
meth summit. Since then, they have made tremendous progress identifying the
scope and scale of the impacts of meth. This ordinance touches on a number of
different impacts to property, value, and cleanup. They have also looked at the
health and physical effects on users, the impact to children, and the impact on
crime in the community. Through the work of a number of different people on the
meth action team, which consists of a number of County and private agencies and
community members, they've discussed the impacts. At the summit and through
the work of the action team, they came up with a four -point plan.
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The first point is a major public education and awareness campaign. They
just finished a media campaign earlier this month that included television, radio,
billboards, and newspaper articles addressing the impacts of meth. One health
impact of meth use is corroding teeth. The only option to fix the teeth is to extract
them. They talked to the high school students about people in their early '20's with
dentures. They talk about user impacts to kids and crime. Public awareness is to
help the community understand the full impacts of the use.
They want to coordinate with all agencies that respond to meth incidents and
come up with recommendations on how to help people recognize if there is a
contaminated property nearby. They are doing advocacy to find ways to enhance
responding systems and agencies.
The main issue with meth in Whatcom County is the number of recorded
labs. Since 2001, there have been 80 labs or dumpsites. Before that, since 1990,
there was only one recorded dumpsite. The County is on the upswing of a
tremendous problem. Through the work of the meth action team, they are making
tremendous progress to support agencies and the community.
Crawford stated they had talked about doing this on a case -by -case basis
and having a clearinghouse of information for citizens to check in at any time to
check the status of a particular property. De Golier stated they are trying to figure
out how to consolidate and create access to that information. Five or six agencies
respond strictly to a meth lab. The main plan for the meth action team is to have
people from the community meet with those agencies directly to express concerns.
Crawford asked about prevention. It's a highly addictive drug. The
recidivism rate for addicts is in the 90 percent.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she watched a documentary that said only six
percent of users recover. De Golier stated Washington State and other counties
have taken aggressive stances. A number of different communities are doing
aggressive communities campaigns. The numbers of labs and dumpsites statewide
have lowered recently.
Nelson stated there is a correlation between drug use and mental health.
They are seeing fewer dollars from the State for intervention. De Golier stated that
is correct. According to a mental health specialist who does a lot of homeless
outreach in the county, people who use meth are developing mental health illnesses
because of the meth use. He's learned people with mental illnesses seek out drugs.
With meth, the experts are talking about mental health issues that develop because
of meth use. They're talking about a direct increase in the number of clients that
would be served.
McShane asked if there is a link with nicotine use. Studies show that
smoking permanently rewires the brain permanently. Those who have that
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
affliction would turn toward something like meth more readily. De Golier stated it's
possible. He's not aware of it.
McShane stated the Board of Health also has tobacco as an issue to combat.
There are effects of tobacco besides lung cancer.
De Golier stated the advisory committee will also look at oral health, of which
meth will have an impact.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on February 22 , 2005.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Board of Health, 2/1/2005, Page 11