HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 9 20021
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
Regular County Council
April 9, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Sharon Roy
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Nelson announced that there was discussion regarding collective
bargaining negotiations (AB2001 -390) in executive session during the
Committee of the Whole meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. PROCLAMATION BY COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REGARDING
GRANGE WEEK (AB2002 -017)
Pete Kremen, County Executive, read the proclamation into the record (on
file). April 14 through April 20 is grange week in Whatcom County.
Rob Horgen, Pomona Grange President, accepted the proclamation. He
invited the councilmembers to the Grange Week celebration on April 17. They will
honor the communities' protectors, including fire, medic, and search and rescue
personnel.
2. PRESENTATION REGARDING THE UPCOMING COUNTYWIDE EARTH
DAY GARAGE SALE (AB2002 -017)
Penni Lemperes, Solid Waste Specialist, stated this is the second annual
countywide garage sale. They started it last year. She is always looking for ways
to increase the recycling rate. A city in California boosted their recycling rate by
having a similar garage sale. Last year, she began with a budget of $2,500, and
hoped that 25 people would sign up. She ended up getting 768 families to sign up,
with events held at 382 separate locations. It was very successful. This year,
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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.
everyone who signed up received garage sale signs, a how -to guide, an inventory
sheet, and a list of locations to take leftover stuff, rather than put it in the trash.
With the help of the Department of Ecology, she calculated that 76.8 tons of
materials changed hands at the various sale locations. That is a very conservative
estimate of about 200 pounds per family. This year, there are 800 individual
families signed up for 400 separate locations. According to their submitted lists,
Bellingham, Sehome, and Squalicum high schools are going to have a joint sale at
Bellingham High School. They have over 3,000 families who are going to
participate. Also participating are the YMCA, Search and Rescue, United Way,
Washington Square, and a couple of church groups who are going to participate.
Altogether, about 3,800 families will participate in this event. It will be held on
Earth Day weekend, April 20 and 21. There will be an advertisement in the
newspaper the Friday before the sale.
MINUTES CONSENT
McShane moved to approve the Minutes Consent items one and two.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR MARCH 26, 2002
2. WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR MARCH 19, 2002
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Leonard Lindstrom, citizen, stated the city is full of whale watchers, which
must be just like watching Christians. They are very bashful and hard to get along
with. They are always looking for someone who they can blame for their misdeeds.
They refuse to use a common language or to address the entire issue.
Doug Campbell, 1401 Astor Street, stated he switched from buying the
Council packet to looking at it on the computer. Unfortunately, the hearing did not
have the ordinance. The Council should consider extending the written comment
period for this issue.
Yvonne Goldsmith, 5840 Church Road, thanked the councilmembers for
serving. She asked when the new Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) tax
goes into effect.
Unknown speaker from the audience stated it would go into effect in January.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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.
Goldsmith stated also that she adopted a dog from Security Specialists Plus
(SSP). She's been going to SSP for two years to look for a dog to replace the dog
she had for more than 17 years. She put the word out at SSP that she was looking
for a small dog. One day, SSP staff called her and told her that they finally had two
small dogs for her. She spent the next nine days going to the pound to see if this
dog would be claimed. She told SSP that she wants the dog if no one claimed it.
Other people also said they wanted the dog. She adopted the dog. It is a fabulous
dog that had very good treatment at SSP. She speaks from experience. In her
youth, she worked for a veterinarian that had a kennel. In the kennel, they know if
the dogs are abused or not taken care of. The dogs would shy away from people or
growl. The dog that she adopted accepts anyone. The dog she adopted has had
excellent care. She's gone in and out of that shelter for two years looking for a
dog. After working for a veterinarian and in a kennel, a person knows if it is not
clean enough or the animals are not getting the proper care.
She mentioned this earlier today to the cemetery board members that she
works with. Mary Imhof just mentioned to her that she had just adopted a cat from
there, and that the cat had a better lifestyle than some humans.
Phyllis Shelley, 5925 Noon Road, stated that puppy and kitten season is upon
them. At Security Specialist Plus- Preferred Animal Care (SSP -PAC), this is a
heartbreaking time. Last summer at this shelter, two healthy mothers with their
respective litters were brought in. Eight of the puppies were five weeks old and
roly -poly. Six of the puppies were only two or three weeks old. SSP -PAC put
down one of the mother dogs and gave all 14 of the puppies to the other mother
dog, which was a small one -year old black lab mix. The smaller puppies could not
compete for the milk. She watched the younger puppies as the younger puppies
were dehydrated, thin, had diarrhea, and cried in pain from hunger. The mother
pup got skinnier and had open, bleeding sores. No one did anything until she asked
an employee to medicate the bleeding sores. She came in to walk the mother dog
and take her out of the feces- and urine - filled kennel. When the mother dog
couldn't get up one morning, she and all 14 puppies were taken to the veterinarian
for euthanization. This inhumane tragedy could have been prevented. A foster
home would be a wonderful solution for mothers and their puppies. This is not
done at SSP -PAC. She asked that an oversight committee be formed as soon as
possible to monitor SSP -PAC to prevent such tragedies this spring and summer.
Deborah Sallee, 5603 Noon Road, stated she agreed that Preferred Animal
Care (PAC) has been coping with a large and growing problem of a surplus of
neglected and abused animals in the county, but this is a for - profit business. Profit
is their end -goal, not the service of caring of these animals and educating the
public. The performance of this contract so far is proof of their real goal. They
need to form an oversight committee right of way to monitor the Rustands' facility
frequently and with detail, to bring the shelter into compliance with the contract
they signed in 1997. It's imperative that the committee continue the oversight as
long as the Rustands' PAC is the contractor. The contract says that the contractor
shall comply with the standards set forth in the Humane Society's uniform
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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
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.
standards guidelines for the operation of an animal shelter. PAC doesn't. Priority
changes needed in the physical environment (inaudible). More employees are
needed to keep the animals adequately cleaned, fed, and exercised. They need to
change record - keeping procedures for feeding, medicating, exercising, and
cleaning. A veterinarian should be available 24 hours per day, seven days per
week. (Inaudible.) Goats and pigs should not be housed with the dogs and
puppies. She wants to put her effort into creating a new facility under different
management to care for the county's homeless animals.
Mary Lee Rustand, 1641 Baker Creek Place, stated they are doing their best,
they are in compliance with the contract, and they are doing everything they can to
help the animals and the residents of Whatcom County. When complaints are
submitted, she responds immediately and efficiently. Her records are in order. The
allegations don't have any fact to support them.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE
WATER SUPPLY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELLER TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BUYER CONCERNING THE WATER
SOURCE WHEN SELLING DEVELOPED PROPERTY (AB2001 -369)
Brenner stated they need to hold this open for another two weeks because of
an addition made by the Board of Health.
Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Director, gave a staff report
and stated there is no Whatcom County drinking water ordinance currently. They
use an interim policy governing water availability for building permits. That interim
policy has been in place since about 1992. There is a joint plan of operation with
the Washington State Department of Health that she uses when evaluating small
public water systems.
It's been about two years since they began writing this ordinance. The Public
Health Advisory Board requested the Health and Human Services Department to
form a drinking water subcommittee to determine whether an ordinance is needed
and, if so, what rules that ordinance should contain. The subcommittee was made
up of Public Health Advisory Board members and stakeholders from the community.
They decided an ordinance was necessary, and there are five things the ordinance
should contain:
1. Contain language to incorporate the existing interim guidelines,
2. Adopt by reference the State rules that pertain to public
drinking water supplies,
3. Contain the minimum standards for construction and
maintenance of wells, which are State standards,
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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
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.
4. Set additional requirements for disclosure information related to
the sale of property and the drinking water supply, and
5. Include provisions for inspections, fees, variances, and appeals.
The staff drafted the ordinance and presented it to the Board of Health. After
that, there was a public hearing. At that time, the Board of Health decided to send
the draft ordinance to the Public Works Committee for further review and
discussion.
The committee completed its review, and recommended it to the Council for
another public hearing. In the Council's packet now is a version of the ordinance
that shows the changes made since the original ordinance was presented to the
Board of Health. There are six major changes:
1. The allowances for a decrease in setback requirements for a well site
to roads and easements from 100 feet to 50 feet when the water
source comes from a confined aquifer,
2. An increase in distance from the well site to sewage and manure
lagoons from 100 feet to 200 feet,
3. A minimum setback requirement of five feet between buildings and
building overhangs,
4. An elimination of the requirement for an applicant to sign a no- protest
agreement to the formation of a public water system when the
applicant proposes to use a contaminated water source,
5. An elimination of the requirement for an applicant to agree to connect
to a public water system when one becomes available if the applicant
proposes to use a contaminated water source, and
6. A requirement that reduces the maximum contaminant level for
arsenic from the current Washington State Department of Health
standard of 50 parts per billion to the newly published Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) standard of 10 parts per billion.
She thanked the councilmembers for ensuring the ordinance addresses the
issues that they need addressed.
Brenner stated she believed that a public water system was any system
providing piped water for consumption, excluding a system serving only two single -
family residences. She asked if a shared well is still considered a public water
system. Delahunt stated it is. A shared well is, by State definition, a public water
supply.
Brenner stated she believed the committee changed the language in
24.11.100(4)(g)(iii).
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated he didn't recall that
the committee took out this language.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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.
McShane stated he recalled a conversation that the committee decided to
leave the language in that section so the director would be given the discretion to
require a pump test.
Brenner stated the notification forms for the private, one home well and the
public, group B well need to be fixed. The instructions in section two of the forms
should say, "5. Site plan showing SpFing well location...." Chudek agreed that the
forms need to be corrected. They will be corrected.
Nelson stated that this public hearing will be left open, for two weeks.
Written comment may be submitted during that time.
Nelson opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association Executive Officer, asked for a
clarification of the definition of the points from which the easements for ingress and
egress are made. He asked whether that is to be considered a driveway or road
into the property.
Doug Campbell, 1401 Astor Street, stated he is a board member of
Northwest Waterworks, the only satellite management agency. His agency was set
up about three years ago to help manage and operate group B water systems.
He made comments regarding the following Council packet pages:
• Page 129 - He supported the "Non -Group B Two -Party Well or Water
Supply" definition. They don't need a satellite management agency to
monitor these wells. It makes sense.
• Page 131, section 24.11.050(5)(x). The State of Washington policy,
POL1015 (on file), specifically defines the non - requirement for a water
right for seawater. He strongly objects to adding this provision in the
in the ordinance at this time. It has no authority to do so. Remove
"seawater" under the provisions of the DOE requirements.
• Page 134, section 24.11.090(2)(e)(vii). A well should not be allowed
down - gradient of a solid waste landfill site.
• Page 155, section 24.11.170(1). Because definition 16 was changed,
this language should be amended, 'The applicant shall create a Group
B public water supply for three dwelling units or more as defined in
WAC 246 - 291...."
• Page 159, section 24.11.190. Take out the restrictions on seawater.
Desalination and reverse osmosis are available to the community.
They are being used in the San Juan Islands quite a bit. The County is
remiss in not considering them as options.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Government
Affairs Officer, spoke on the new regulations about arsenic content. He has
information that says the number of wells in Whatcom County above 10 parts per
billion is 13 out of every 100. If that is true, then they need to be concerned about
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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
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.
those 13 with the new standards. The fact remains that all 100 wells would have to
be tested. The danger is cancer. If the information provided to the public on
cancer prospects from the arsenic content in the water are truthful, the new
standards would take 148 to 218 years to prevent one case of cancer from arsenic
in drinking water. It would take 276 to 394 years to prevent one death. His
concern is with the immediacy and the Council's sense of urgency to implement
standards of ten parts per billion in drinking water in Whatcom County when every
other aspect of the drinking water ordinance requires that they comply with State
standards, which are 50 parts per billion. Currently, federal requirements are 50
parts per billion, but are aimed at reducing the amount of arsenic allowable in
drinking water to ten parts per billion by 2006. The cost to meet the standard of 10
parts per billion is $4,000 per unit and $150 per year. Over the next five years,
new technology could be found at less expensive costs so the desired standards can
be achieved. He recommends that the County adhere to federal standards,
allowing 50 parts per billion until 2006, or to postpone the decision.
Bud Jewell, 3805 Centerview Road, Lummi Island, stated he agreed with the
previous speaker. He has two wells with arsenic. At the federal level, there are
four years until this takes place. The Council is talking about putting it into effect
immediately. Federal standards cover water systems of 14 or more users, not
individual wells. The difference between five parts per billion and one part per
billion is minimal. It's 148 to 214 years for one additional cancer case. He's not
going to live that long.
Right now, he is short platting his property. The Health Department requires
that a treatment system be engineered by a licensed civil engineer, even though a
building may never be built. He is subdividing it so he can give it to his kids when
he dies. Since the same requirements apply when a building permit is issued, this
requirement of an engineered system is a duplication of what will be required at a
later time.
Since treatment is required for the entire house, including washing machines
and toilets, this is a terrible waste of treated drinking water. He has a reverse
osmosis system. It works. It discards 4,000 gallons for every 1,000 gallons of
drinking water. In an area like Lummi Island where water is scarce, it is criminal to
throw that much water away. The cost was $9,000. This is an unfunded mandate
on the constituents.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he agreed with the
previous speakers. Arsenic is a problem that should be discussed more thoroughly.
It will have significant impacts, and costs will be very high. If the Council institutes
this now, there will not be an opportunity to develop new equipment that will cost
less by 2006. The ordinance is more stringent than the federal and State
standards.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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
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.
Russell Weston, 2223 Cody Avenue, Bellingham, stated he doesn't have any
scientific evidence. A friend of his had a dog with bad arthritis. The friend had
rats, and poisoned them with arsenic. The dog at a rat, and it cured his arthritis.
Hearing no one else, Nelson stated this public hearing would be held open to
April 23.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated councilmembers' changes to the ordinance should be made
now so the public can comment on them in two weeks. He moved to adopt the
ordinance.
Brenner moved to amend Council packet page 136, section 24.11.090:
1. "(k) When untreated water sample... Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCL) OF if the aFsenic level exceeds 10 parts peF billion the applicant
has:..."
2. "(1) If the arsenic level exceeds 10 parts per billion, the applicant has a
disclosure attached to the deed until 2006, when the applicant must
design and install a treatment system meeting the requirements of the
Whatcom County Health and Human Services Water Availability
Approval for a Contaminated Well Source (as amended) to reduce the
levels of the contaminants to below the MCL and below 10 parts per
billion for arsenic."
Crawford stated it won't be required in 2006 on private wells, only on public
water systems.
Delahunt stated they use the State - adopted MCL's as the guidelines for
determining whether water quality is adequate for private supplies. Those MCL's
apply to public water systems.
Brenner stated the County has always used them for private wells. Delahunt
agreed. It is what they use to determine water quality. Councilmember Crawford
is correct in that these MCL's will apply to public waters systems. Locally, they use
the MCL's for private wells.
Nelson asked why they would put the standards in when they aren't sure
they will be accepted. Delahunt stated the standard of 10 parts per billion has been
adopted at the federal level. The public water systems that this applies to must
comply by 2006. Currently, the standard is 10 parts per billion. That is a fact.
McShane stated this standard is until the State Department of Health gets
around to adopting the EPA level of ten parts per billion. The State hasn't done
that yet. The State can do it any time. Delahunt stated the State of Washington is
now required to come into compliance with the federal requirements. The State will
adopt the standard at some point, but she doesn't know when.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 8
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.
1
2 Brenner stated the law would allow someone to come into compliance by
3 2006.
4
5 McShane stated the County's language references the State Department of
6 Health guidelines for all other contaminants. The State will change its guideline for
7 arsenic from 50 to ten parts per billion. That can happen at any time. The County
8 is being proactive.
9
10 Brenner stated they know that the EPA has already done this. It sounds like
11 it is going to come into effect by 2006. She is willing to amend her motion to allow
12 a provision if the State adopts the deadline sooner. People should have the time to
13 come into compliance, especially on private wells. The concern was that a buyer
14 might not know something. If it is on the deed, a buyer is going to know. People
15 are saying that it will cost more than $4,000. if someone knows that that he or she
16 has this contaminant level and is willing to drink the water for another several
17 years, the County should let him or her make that decision. The people should
18 have the knowledge, so she supports requiring the test. She does not support
19 forcing people to do treatment right away. She restated her motion to amend
20 Council packet page 136, section 24.11.090:
21 1. "(k) When untreated water sample... Maximum Contaminant Levels
22 (MCL) eF Of the aFsenie level exeeeds 10 paFts per billien the applicant
23 has:..."
24 2. "(k)(i) Designed and installed a treatment system meeting... below the
25 MCL or below 10 parts per billion fer arsenic."
26 3. "(1) If the arsenic level exceeds 10 parts per billion, the applicant will
27 have a disclosure attached to the deed."
28
29 Crawford stated it is hard to vote on an amendment until he can see it in
30 writing. He is not in favor of doing this at the last minute. He preferred to vote
31 against the amendment.
32
33 Nelson stated he would support the amendment because it is an important
34 issue. He has strong concerns. These dollars could be better spent on children's
35 immunization and have far more effect than what they will in the prevention of
36 cancer nationally.
37
38 McShane stated that if they approve this motion, they will allow the
39 subdivision and selling of lots with a water source that contains arsenic at levels
40 above the EPA drinking water standard. The cost - benefit analysis was done by the
41 EPA to determine whether it is a good idea. Cost is taken into account when setting
42 drinking water standards. Their cost - benefit analysis was controversial. The Bush
43 administration felt that it was important enough to hold for more analysis and
44 review. Then, the Bush administration agreed that what the EPA had come up with
45 the first time was that cost - benefit analysis shows that the new standard would
46 save money in the lives saved. That analysis has been done. It's the EPA's
47 conclusion. It's also the conclusion of the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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
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.
Roy stated she agreed, also. She supports the original wording. As the
Board of Health, their duty is to look out for the health of the citizens of Whatcom
County. Arsenic does a lot more than just cause cancer. At the Board of Health
meeting, a long list of things was presented, including diabetes and other
conditions. There is documented evidence, which is why two very different
administrations have chosen to go with this standard. It's indisputable. She would
vote against the amendment, and for keeping the wording the way it is.
Brenner stated that if people know they have a level exceeding the EPA
standard and that they have until 2006 or when the State Department of Health
adopts the new guideline, then it is a personal decision. She has a problem with
protecting people when they already know the facts. If it's attached to the deed,
they will know the facts. The Bush administration already did a cost - benefit
analysis, and decided to let people have until 2006 to come into compliance.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Nelson, and Fleetwood in favor.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to reinstate sections 24.11.100(4)((k)(ii)(A -B) as
they were originally written, in view of learning the hazards of arsenic. Discourage
private wells down the road if pubic water is available. Make those two sections (F)
and (G):
"(F) Connect to a public water system when or if it becomes available.
(G) Not protest the formation and installation of a public water system
which would service their area."
Brenner stated this information was available long before they had their
meeting. Arsenic has always been on the list at 50 parts per billion. It's extremely
disrespectful to people, if there is a disclosure requirement, to make people spend a
lot of money on their system and then to require them to hook onto public water,
without even protesting. Someone will challenge the no- protest requirement at
some point. It's wrong.
McShane offered a friendly amendment to add language to the beginning of
the two subsections, "(F -G) A document stating that the applicant will...."
Caskey- Schreiber accepted the friendly amendment.
Fleetwood asked the reasoning for the requirement to exist to connect to
public water systems. Delahunt stated the Health Department's first choice is that
folks should be required to connect, and also to not protest the formation of a local
improvement district (LID) if they are using a contaminated water source. The
treatment systems that are put in place to use with a contaminated water source
should be viewed as a temporary fix. They are only as good as the maintenance
that is performed on the system. They don't treat for everything. They only treat
for some contaminants. It is important for surface water to have people connected
to a public supply if available.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, 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
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.
Nelson asked if someone with a septic system is required to hook up to a
sewer system. Delahunt stated a person is, if the system fails.
Nelson asked how they determine if the system fails. Delahunt stated the
system fails if there is information that sewage is surfacing or that it is inadequately
treating the sewage.
Nelson asked why they couldn't just do the same thing with this. He asked
why the County would make a person hook up to a water system unless there is
information that the person is not doing maintenance or that he or she is having
problems with the water quality. Delahunt stated that once the systems are in
place, they don't go back to private water supplies.
Nelson asked if they go back to septic systems. Delahunt stated they do if
there is a compliant. They also have regulatory authority over operation and
maintenance on onsite sewage systems, which they don't have for private wells.
Nelson asked where that authority comes from. Delahunt stated it comes
from State law and from the County code.
Nelson stated the County could provide authority for the Health Department
to inspect if there are concerns about a water system. Delahunt stated that could
be done, but she didn't think they want to put that issue on the County.
Brenner stated the required disclosure documents are very stringent. There
is no way that people aren't going to know what is there, and that they should be
treating it. They have already spent a lot of money to treat it and keep it under the
contaminant level.
Crawford stated he would not vote for it. He asked if Caskey - Schreiber's
motion is also intended to reinstate that language for wells for one family, springs
for one family, and springs for two families.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it is. The Council is the Board of Health. She
questioned who would look out for everyone's health if the Board of Health doesn't.
The Council owes it to the public to be safe whenever possible. This is a way to do
that.
Brenner stated the idea that someone might inadvertently drink someone
else's contaminated water is a good reason to require someone to spend $10,000
to $15,000 on a system. After that, she's amazed that they would consider
requiring someone to hook up to a public system, which costs a lot more than that.
McShane stated they have no idea what a well might be used for in the
future. This is the one time they can take care of this problem.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
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 they are saying that the person must have a treatment
system in place that keeps it below MCL's. The people are supposed to adhere to
it. They could have a clause that requires more frequent testing for a multiple -use
water system. To blanket force everyone to get on a public system just because a
public system goes by, when their own systems are working fine, is onerous.
Roy asked if this affects commercial enterprises. Chudek stated that public
water supplies are anything other than a single - family residence. If someone goes
into a small business with employees, it would be a public water supply developed
under the rules of the State of Washington, and it would be required to meet all the
primary MCL's. It would have to have a treatment system in place and be subject
to ongoing monitoring. This applies strictly to a private residential system.
Delahunt stated that is the big difference between a public supply where
testing and monitoring is required. For a private supply, the well goes in and what
happens after that is up to the individual.
McShane asked if cottage industries have to become a public water source.
Chudek stated they do if they have employees. Most of the time, the Health
Department finds out about them through conditional use permits. If the cottage
industry has employees, then they have to develop a small public water supply.
McShane stated that would only be if the cottage industry needed a
conditional use permit. Many of the cottage industries are administratively
approved. Chudek stated that is possible. The Health Department applies the
standards to those cottage industries that it learns about. The standard applies to
those with employees.
Fleetwood stated the object is to ensure adequate health for the people of
Whatcom County. He asked for an explanation of the reasoning for connecting to a
public water system, even in a situation where a person has purchased the
necessary control technology to ensure it is clean water. He asked the reason for
insisting that someone hooks up to a public water supply in that event, if the object
is simply to have good, clean water. Delahunt stated the in -home treatment units
do work, but only if they are properly maintained and monitored. People who have
these individual units in general do not properly maintain them, and the water is
not monitored. In the long run, this is good policy. Also, the Board of Health
should remember that what they are doing is approving standards for adequate
water quality and water quantity for construction within the county. In this section,
they are allowing people to use contaminated water supplies, which the Health
Department doesn't think is a good idea. As a compromise, someone can use the
contaminated water supply for a period of time if there is proper treatment and the
owner signs away the County's liability. If a public water supply, which is reliable,
tested, and maintained, becomes available, then the person is required to hook up
to the system. When the person builds a house, that person knows that he or she
will be required in the future to hook up if it becomes available. The person signs
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 12
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.
the papers saying that he or she understands that they are using contaminated
water and that they have to hook up to a public supply if available.
Brenner stated the County could allow someone to still use a treatment
system if it is still working. Those people are not drinking contaminated water if
the system is working. The supply was contaminated, but it was treated. There is
no cottage industry that serves water as part of its business to the public that
doesn't have to test its water.
Delahunt stated she considers surface water as contaminated source water.
If someone draws water directly out of Lake Whatcom or Lake Samish, the Health
Department requires a treatment system. Those treatment systems in general
treat for bacterial contamination. If there is a spill into those public supplies, the
treatment unit in that house is not going to treat for that chemical, so that supply
will be contaminated. The treatment system will not function adequately for that
contaminant.
Nelson asked if the Health Department requires people to hook up to public
water at Lake Whatcom. Chudek stated that they have to sign a no- protest
agreement and hook to public water when it becomes available. That has been
since 1993. Prior to that, there were no requirements for sources of drinking water
in Whatcom County.
Delahunt stated that if a home was built prior to 1993, a person could install
a pipe and drink the water directly from Lake Whatcom, without treating the water.
Nelson asked what happens if the person sells that home. Chudek stated
that is between the buyer and the seller. If that person applied for a building
permit, the requirement would change.
Nelson stated there seems to be a double standard. There are things in the
lake for which they could argue all night.
Brenner stated Ms. Delahunt said home treatment would treat if there is a
spill. However, this is also about wells and other kinds of systems. There is not
going to be a big spill of arsenic. It's not one of the things that will make the
system suddenly not work. She supports making people prove that their system
works.
Nelson asked if the County is liable if a citizen contracts cancer from water
that was inadequately treated by an un- maintained treatment system.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the County is not liable.
McShane asked who is most at risk from nitrate contamination. Chudek
stated those most at risk are very small children and pregnant women.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 13
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.
Nelson restated the motion to reinstate language into the ordinance where
appropriate, including section 24.11.100(4)((k)(ii):
"(F) A document stating that the applicant will connect to a public water
system when or if it becomes available.
(G) A document stating that the applicant will not protest the formation and
installation of a public water system which would service their area."
Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Crawford opposed.
Roy moved to remove language in section 24.11.050(5)(x) and section
24.11.190 ter ,.,a rainwater." Delahunt agreed with the motion. They did
not intend to do something more stringent than the DOE water rights.
Brenner asked if the State requires a water right for rainwater. Campbell
stated it is a gray area.
Crawford suggested that they also eliminate "seawater" language in
definition 28 on Council packet page 130.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Delahunt stated the staff would like to see how that suggestion would change
other things.
Nelson restated the motion to remove language in section 24.11.050(5)(x)
and section 24.11.190 "seawater a rainwater."
Chudek stated the subdivision rules do not allow for a contaminated water to
be used without it being a public supply. Section 24.11.190 is restating that fact.
It would not be appropriate to strike "seawater" from that section.
Roy amended her motion to remove language in section 24.11.050(5)(x),
° ater a rainwater."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson stated that Mr. Quehrn brought up a concern about ingress and
egress.
Brenner stated the committee discussed it. Private driveways are not
considered part of ingress /egress. If it is a shared driveway, it is.
Nelson stated the hearing would be held open for two weeks until April 23.
CONSENT AGENDA
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 14
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 reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval of Consent Agenda items one through four
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through four carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
NUMBER 02 -33 FOR CRUSHED AGGREGATE AT VARIOUS SITES TO
THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, AGGREGATES WEST, FOR THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $681,494.24 (AB2002 -170)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
NUMBER 02 -34 FOR CRUSHED AGGREGATE AT POINT ROBERTS TO
THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, AGGREGATES WEST, FOR THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $82,252.17 (AB2002 -171)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND THE EVERGREEN AIDS
FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPORT OF VOLUNTEER
SERVICES AND THE SUPERVISION OF CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
FOR CLIENTS INFECTED WITH HIV AND /OR DIAGNOSED WITH AIDS,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,000 (AB2002 -172)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES AND REGION 3 AIDS SERVICE NETWORK TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR HIV /AIDS PREVENTION ACTIVITIES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $126,310 (AB2002 -173)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 98 -057, DELETING THE
SUNSET PROVISION FROM THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR WHATCOM
COUNTY ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND MANDATING ONLY ONE
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION (AB2002 -159)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. REPORT ON DISCUSSION WITH WHATCOM COUNTY AUDITOR
SHIRLEY FORSLOF REGARDING PROPOSED PRECINCT
CONSOLIDATIONS (AB2002 -176)
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 15
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.
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and stated this was for information only. The Auditor would bring forward an
ordinance for the Council to adopt.
Fleetwood asked the reasoning.
Crawford stated that historically, they've added more and more precincts. A
State law says that they have to split up a precinct once the number of voters at a
polling place exceeds 900. As the County has grown, they've gotten more and
more precincts. The reason they are reducing the precincts is because more and
more people are voted on an absentee ballot. It is a cost savings measure. The
estimated cost savings now is $5,000 per election, with the reduction of 31
precincts.
3. RESOLUTION INITIATING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NOISE AND ODOR
EMISSIONS AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
(AB2002 -165)
McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
this was held in committee.
4. REQUEST TO AMEND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO
EXEMPT PARCELS WITHIN THE DRAYTON HARBOR STORMWATER
SPECIAL DISTRICT FROM ON -SITE STORMWATER DETENTION AND
INFILTRATION REQUIREMENTS (AB2002 -174)
McShane reported for the Planning and Development Committee and stated
this will be held in committee until the Council receives information on the
stormwater development standards.
5. CONFIRMATION OF AN EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT OF DAVE
RALSTON TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS (AB2002-
177)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Fleetwood moved to accept the Introduction Item.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 16
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.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2002 BUDGET, REQUEST #4 (AB2002-
175)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Brenner stated the latest edition of the Courthouse Journal reports on a
serious violent offender initiative. Money is available to counties to deal with it.
Whatcom County should get some grant money since the State is threatening
Whatcom County to put in a facility. Whatcom County should take a stand against
the State. The State of California developed a State facility. After mentally ill
violent offenders and sexual predators have finished their terms, they can be sent
to this facility for however long it takes, until they are deemed to be not likely to
re- offend. It passed muster with the Supreme Court. The Washington State
officials should be doing this. The Council should send a letter demanding that
Washington State pass the same kind of law as California regarding violent
offenders and their re- entry.
Nelson stated the Facilities Management team is looking at improvements to
facilities. They are evaluating this and how the County would move forward with
the facilities necessary to do that. They will come forward with recommendations
on this.
Brenner asked the councilmembers if they would consider a letter that she
drafts. The State has some laws in place, but they aren't using them.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated there is a civil commitment law
that allows for sexual offenders to be kept in a State institution. However, there
was a federal judgment that they have to have more than one location for that.
Whatcom County was under some requirements to start planning for the placement
of a facility in the county. Executive Kremen argued against it. The legislature
changed the law in the last session and removed Whatcom County from the list of
the required counties that have to designate a location for sexual predators.
Brenner stated she doesn't know who is saying that there has to be more
than one location. The State of California has one location, and the Supreme Court
approved it. Desler stated that makes sense from an efficiency standpoint. The
federal judgment against the State of Washington indicates that there has to be
more than one location for it in this state.
Brenner asked for that information.
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 17
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
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 she just received information regarding the question of
whether Steri -Cycle is living up to its mission, and about a lot of complaints on how
Steri -Cycle operates. Since the County is supposedly in negotiation with Steri-
Cycle right now, this is an appropriate time to see that they are having problems in
lots of places, not just here. The County should enforce its ordinance and stop
letting them drag the County along.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 7 , 2002.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 4/9/2002, Page 18