HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002- June File Copy
•
Jefferson County
Board of Health
Agenda
• 6(
Minutes
June 13 , 2002
•
•
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
Thursday, June 13, 2002
2:00—4:00 PM
Main Conference Room
Jefferson Health and Human Services
AGENDA
I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of Meetings of May 16, 2002
III. Public Comments
IV. Old Business and Informational Items
1. Abatement of Public Health Nuisances-- Policy Options David Alvarez
Larry
• 2. BOH Policy 96-02 Reconsidered—Required Connection
To Existing Public Water Systems Larry
3. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Resolution #31-02 (Information Item)
V. New Business
1. Vaccine Shortage Update Tom
2. Community Assessment Activity Update Jean
VI. Agenda Planning
VII. Next Meeting: July 18, 2002, 2:30-4:30 PM
Main Conference Room,JHHS
•
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
MINUTES °R
RAFT Thursday, May 16, 2002 A�
Board Members: Sta9'Members:
Dan Titterness,Member- County Commissioner District#1 Jean Baldwin,Nursing Services Director
Glen Huntin ord,Member- Court?' Commissioner District#2 Larry Fay,Environmental Health Director
Richard W'ojt,Member- County Commissioner District#3 Thomas Locke,MD,.Health Officer
Geofr y Masci, Vice Chairman-Port Townsend City Council
Jill Buhler,Member-Hospital Commissioner District#2
Sheila Westerman, Chairman- Citizen at Large (CO)
Roberta Frissell,Member-Citizen at Large (County)
Chairman Westerman called the meeting to order at 2:37 p.m.All Board and Staff members were
present, with the exception of Vice Chairman Masci and Member Buhler.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
•.At the suggestion of Mayor Kees Kolff, Dr. Tom Locke invited the Board to view after the meeting
today or at a future time a video from the Centers for Disease Control called "Health Affects of Sprawl."
Chairman Westerman instead suggested that the video be shown at the end of the June meeting for those
who wish to stay. Member Frissell moved to approve the Agenda. Commissioner Wojt seconded the
motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Westerman questioned whether the reference to "low risk families" on Page 8, paragraph 2
should instead be "high risk families?"The sentence said: "Also in doubt were two contracts with the
Department of Health that provide home visits for low risk families that have been screened for child
abuse risk." Ms. Baldwin noted that they are low risk to the Depai talent of Child Protective Services,
but high-risk community families. Chairman Westerman asked this to be clarified in the minutes.
Commissioner Tittemess moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, April 18, 2002 as amended.
Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote.
Member Frissell commented that the requested change to the March minutes was not corrected as
directed by the Board in April. (A review of the referenced minutes following the meeting confirmed the
changes were made as directed).
•
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 2
OLD BUSINESS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Environmental Health Survey: Larry Fay reported that two telephone pilot surveys are now complete.
Staff found that although the survey instrument works well, using the telephone as a method of
conducting the survey was inefficient. They are now piloting a mail out survey and if successful, a larger
mailing would follow in the next few weeks. Survey data may be available by next month. To Member
Frissell's suggestion that Staff investigate whether sociology students at WSU might be willing to take
on or assist with the project, Mr. Fay said this might be possible once the pilot is complete.
Results on BRFSS Environmental Health Questions: Jean Baldwin said she asked Dr. Chris Hale to
expand on the report last month of the Environmental Health data. Before making the following
comments and observations, Dr. Hale reminded the Board that this module is not a standard part of the
BRFSS, but an experimental module. When Jefferson County made the decision to include
environmental health questions, they drew on the experience of Kitsap County's 1998 study. No
comparable national data is available.
• Fig. 10— Source of home drinking water. Far more people in this county are dependant on
private wells and community systems than in Kitsap, which is not surprising for a rural county.
Dr. Hale noted that in 1900, life expectancy in the U.S. was about 48 years. Today, this figure is •
about 78 years. However three-quarters of that improvement had been made by 1917 due to the
separation of drinking water from wastewater.
• Fig. 11—Source of home drinking water by zip code. Eighty percent of those in the 98368 zip
code are on City water. Outside that area, about half the households are on private wells.
• Fig. 12 and 14—Well testing. There were no significant differences between Jefferson and
Kitsap responses to the question if well water has ever been tested or whether well testing
indicated the presence of contaminants.
• Fig. 13 —Well testing within the last three years. There were significantly fewer Jefferson
County residents (54%) reporting having had their well tested within the last three years, as
opposed to 71% of Kitsap County. Kitsap also has an active survey, outreach and education
program. However, Fig. 17 shows that the rates at which households are maintaining their septic
systems are better in Jefferson than Kitsap County—63% as opposed to 49%. Dr. Hale said this
data reveals an opportunity for public education. People may not be aware of the need to ensure
that their wells are tested within a three-year period and that their water quality is maintained.
There is also a higher rate of Giardia(waterborne parasite) in Jefferson than in neighboring
counties. She noted that there has been a lot of attention recently to nuclear power plants, but the
greatest vulnerability is in the water systems, particularly the smaller community systems and
wells.
Commissioner Wojt noted that as individuals from urban areas move into this rural county, often they do •
not realize it is their responsibility to maintain safe water. Larry Fay said he suspects most of those
HEALTH BOARD MINU 1'ES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 3
• households testing within the last three years were tested because of refinancing, sale or building permit,
not necessarily for their own knowledge and information. He noted there has been an active outreach
effort in the on-site sewage program off and on over the last 12 years and the results to the related
questions appear to reflect the benefit to those education programs.
Member Frissell said there appears to be an inordinate number of individuals with autoimmune diseases
in this county (fibromyalgias, multiple sclerosis, arthritis). Recently published papers talk about the role
of giardia in causing autoimmune diseases. She said it would be interesting to ask the medical
community to ask patients with autoimmune diseases what type of water system they have.
Regarding the high rates of giardia, Dr. Hale said that although the figures are small, if there were a
rolled average over a five year period, Jefferson County would be one of the top three to five counties in
the State for giardia. The reason is unclear. Ms. Baldwin said five years ago, there was a GIS overlay of
all giardia, which pinpointed it to contaminated drinking water in a geographic location. Mr. Fay added
that there was a strong association with the City surface water supply. After the City made significant
changes in the operation of the water system the association between the giardia cases and the city
distribution system disappeared.
Dr. Hale agreed with the critical observation that people coming from urban environments with highly
predictable water supplies do not understand their personal responsibility in this county. She noted that
indications in the BRFSS, now confirmed by last week's release of the detailed census data, show that
• almost one third of the people living in Jefferson County did not live here five years ago and the major
source of in-migration was King County.
Chairman Westerman suggested that Staff encourage Clallam County to include the environmental
health module in their BRFSS. She believes this information, which is based on reality rather than
perceptions, will be invaluable in public education and in setting policy and priorities. Dr. Hale agreed
that the study was a valuable investment.
Larry Fay mentioned that the information collected through the BRFSS is consistent with planning
figures in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management and Coordinated Water System Plans. He
suggested the Board consider questions specific to Jefferson County for which we might seek data. Dr.
Hale noted the U.S. Census removed two questions from the 2000 census, which had been on the census
since 1940—What is your source of drinking water? What is your method of sewage disposal?—because
they felt they were unnecessarily intrusive and would not yield much information. Not having that
census data makes this data all the more valuable.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Charles Chase asked for an update on the nuisance property on Egg and I Road. Although he checks and
maintains his water system and encourages his neighbors to do the same, because he is on a shared well,
•
he is still very concerned that his neighbor is not complying with on-site sewage requirements. Larry
Fay said he does not believe there is any argument that the neighbor is in violation of the health code and
there are potential health impacts associated with that. A notice of civil infraction was filed with the
HEALTH BOARD MINU I'hS - May 16, 2002 - Page: 4
court today and they will in turn serve the infraction on the individual. The individual may pay the fine, •
but if the situation were not rectified, the County would write another ticket. If he does not respond to
the ticket, the situation would go before Judge Huth. Staff is anxious to see how the individual responds
to the infraction and hopes to report back on the situation by early July.
Chairman Westerman indicated that the Board discussed the status of this situation at the last meeting
and invited Mr. Chase to stay for the discussion about abatement procedures.
Mayor Kolff suggested the County consider writing a ticket each day until the problem is corrected, to
which Mr. Fay responded that Staff would first see what response there is to this infraction.
Commissioner Huntingford then asked if Staff has worked with the individual to encourage them to file
for a permit to get the work done and to resolve the issue? If so,why the Health Board would not use its
authority to remove someone from his or her property until the situation is resolved. Mr. Fay said he
would have more information on this during the discussion of abatement. He supported this type of
approach on the Linda Sexton matter, but the Prosecuting Attorney's office was not supportive because
of the significant resources involved. He noted that Pierce County recently launched an intensive and
well publicized effort to clean up a number of large nuisance properties. Their County Administrator
dedicated four prosecutors to work on a dozen cases, a huge commitment of resources of the legal staff.
He added that municipal governments have a clear pathway on abatements, but counties do not. Since
there currently are no guidelines on this issue he is sorting through the law and the efforts of some other •
counties to see just what can be accomplished. As he sees it, the sequence of responses is: issuance of a
notice of violation, staff consultation with the offender, issuance of an infraction and, finally, removal of
the offender from the property.
Commissioner Wojt asked about the possibility of the individual filing suit against his neighbor for
damages or potential damages to his well? Mr. Fay said he believes he would have to demonstrate he has
been harmed. He is uncertain that the complainant could convince a court that the actions - even though
they have the potential to harm him - resulted in demonstrable monetary damage. While Gaikowski has
unpermitted structures, it is uncertain what he is doing with his sewage, Staff has not been allowed on
property and has not seen even the kind of surfacing sewage that you typically see with a failing drain
field. Although Mr. Chase said Staff could go on the property with a search warrant, Mr. Fay said there
has to be probable cause for a search warrant. Mr. Chase said he has sought legal advice and received a
similar opinion. After a lawsuit, he could still end up with a bad well. Mr. Fay said he believes working
to get Gaikowski in compliance is the best option. Mr. Chase said he agrees that the efforts taken so far
are appropriate.
Member Frissell said the Board is frustrated over situations such as this and has searched for a process
that could provide a positive result.
Castle Hill Space Reallocation: Jean Baldwin announced that the County has purchased the Castle Hill
building, from QFC to the end of the building where the Permit Center is now located, including the •
DSHS site and the grassy knoll. In response to continual frustration in both the Health Department and
Planning Department over space issues, an architect will investigate optimization of the uses of existing
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 5
• and new spaces. Improvements to ventilation and various maintenance activities are also necessary. Mr.
Fay added that another goal in this space consolidation and redesign is to integrate Environmental
Health and the Department of Community Development processes. Combining the interdepartmental
functions of land development and environmental health issues in a single location will, hopefully,
expedite development approvals while better safeguarding the public's health.
Member Frissell asked what implications this might have for the Health Department? Ms. Baldwin said
the goals of this space addition are to improve the use of space, flow of information, working conditions
and updating the infrastructure and technology. There is also a need for a larger community meeting
room.
Commissioner Titterness asked about the expected timeline? Larry Fay said that while no timeline has
been set, actual work might be able to begin in the spring. Ms. Baldwin mentioned it would be necessary
to do the project incrementally because staff will remain in the space during construction.
Chairman Westerman asked how the space reallocation and expected efficiencies would affect the
number of personnel housed in the facility? She has a growing appreciation for the connection between
Community Health and Environmental Health and would be concerned if they were separated.
Commissioner Titterness responded that although the long-range plan is to move Public Works to a
iCounty-owned facility, the additional space in this building is, at this point, intended to be used for the
people that are currently housed here. Chairman Westerman said it seems a good idea to have Public
Works next to Community Development.
Mr. Fay said Environmental Health is an integral part of Public Health and basic sanitation is
intertwined with land development and building permits There is a need to facilitate the process that an
applicant or developer has to go through when dealing with multiple departments co-housing people
working on activities directly tied to plan development/land approvals will ensure they mesh. Dr. Locke
said no matter where it is sited, the authority for Environmental Health activities would remain with the
Board of Health and the Health Officer
NEW BUSINESS
Proposed Budget Cuts: Jean Baldwin explained that the Board received a memo and spreadsheet from
County Administrator David Goldsmith regarding Department budget cuts. In response to confusion
about the lack of reference to the Health Department, she explained that because the Health Department
is an outside budget fund the spreadsheet only reflects a belt-tightening of$78,000 under"Operating
Transfers," which relates to the Health Department. The packet also included a staff survey,which was a
fact-finding exercise. She indicated that some Staff were not receptive to the survey, however
Commissioner Titterness expressed that the information collected was helpful.
iMr. Fay went on to explain that of the $3 million Health Department budget for 2002, $750,000 came
from the general fund. When Public Works Director Gary Rowe asked the department to cut $150,000 of
the operating transfer, this figure was based on not filling the Health Director position as well as a
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 6
general fund savings due to increased Environmental Health fees. Given the delay in adopting the fee •
structure, the $150,000 target was met in a number of other ways, as shown on the portion of the
spreadsheet specific to the Department of Health.
Health and Human Services Budget Administrator Mary Ann Preece explained that aside from the
$68,000 cut from unfilled positions, there were $78,000 in real cuts. For 2003, there will be a smaller
base budget, less the same $68,000. In her opinion, these cuts are not sustainable without cutting
services or programs. Next year, however, the fee increase should permit the Department to reduce the
general fund operating transfer by about $90,000. She then explained that the reference to "MRC
activities" on page one of the summary, should in fact read "Weed Board."
There was discussion about impacts to the health officer services and travel expenses ($1,984 and $5,500
respectively). Ms. Preece clarified that $5,000 is "director-related,"while $500 is directly related to Dr.
Locke.
Member Frissell asked whether the removal of the health director funds from the 2003 budget means
that the need for a Director has vanished? Ms. Preece said no, this is what she means by not sustainable.
There is a need for more analysis of services and programs to see what is sustainable.
Ms. Baldwin added that without a health director, there is high a staff to management ratio and issues
and concerns related to quality assurance, supervision, and scheduling. The management need will not •
go away. She also noted that there were program cuts in January.
Commissioner Huntingford said although there is a desire to keep matching grant funds and the
programs they support, rectifying problems in the 2003 budget will likely require a reduction in or
cutting of programs because there is not the money or the staff. His concern is that continued cuts will
make it difficult to do all programs well.
Chairman Westerman felt that at some point we have to enter, as a community, into the discussion of
increasing taxes. She would like to be a part of that dialogue instead of witnessing the County
Commissioners get condemned and lose community support as it attempts to increase revenues. Her
recommendation is that the Health Board come out in support of the services that we have achieved and
educate the public about the increasing cost of delivering those services.
Commissioner Huntingford said it is apparent that using even the banked capacity and any cash
carryover,would provide only a short-term fix of 1 to 1-1/2 years. There is just not enough taxing
authority. It may be that the legislature could give more taxing authority for health issues,but even if the
County takes the full amount it has banked, the cost of doing business is growing faster than any ability
to generate revenue. Since you cannot do everything, the question is how to figure out what the public
wants to support.
Member Frissell said she sees the need for education on what exactly is the county portion of a tax bill
and what it provides. The fear is that a County increase would affect their entire tax bill. She added that •
few people relate their vote on I-695 to the $22.50 they pay for a round-trip ferry ride.
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 7
• Commissioner Wojt mentioned that we choose not to talk about the reality of what Initiative 695 did to
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET). The legislature got tired of cities and counties bickering over what
they paid for regional health services. They gave MVET monies to the Counties and said the Cities do
not have to pay any more because this covers their share. Now the City is getting a free ride and
although there is an argument that City residents are also County residents, the tax distribution is
different. When you look at the expenses— 1/3 of the people getting 2/3 of the services—that argument
does not hold a lot of water.
Mayor Kolff said he believes the City and County need to enter into serious dialogue to solve the public
health funding problem in the County.
Commissioner Huntingford said it has been a difficult process for the County and they have attempted to
make it as fair for everyone as possible. It has been an interesting process in getting departments heads
together and talking about each other's problems.
Jean Baldwin said she is most concerned about productivity, morale and turnover. A lot of care needs to
be taken, because of the price we are paying to get to the bottom line.
Policy 96-02 Consideration: Larry Fay explained that the main principle in Policy 96-02 is the
requirement to connect to a public water system, where public water is available, in a timely and
Ask
reasonable manner. In the packet were several letters from Cordell Burke, who has particular interest in
the adopted policy because he would like to drill a well, but is prohibited from doing so due to the
proximity of a water purveyor. Mr. Fay said he believes there is some merit to Mr. Burke's concerns. He
explained that through the Coordinated Water System Plan, there was interest in establishing an appeal
process for those who felt that a utility was imposing unreasonable conditions. This process was not
adopted in the final plan, largely because an appeal board would be a subcommittee of the Water Utility
Coordinating Committee and the City did not believe it was appropriate for them to give up their
governance and their responsibility for their water supply. Instead of a countywide appeal process, there
is a strictly voluntary mediation process.
Mr. Fay pointed out that while "timely"has been defined, "reasonable"has not. In listing possible
amendments to Policy 96-02 (as follows), he attempted to identify some clear-cut conditions under
which someone would be required to connect or by which connection becomes optional. His
recommendation is to find a better definition of reasonable. He referred to several Policy Options as
drafted, but solicited other recommendations.
A. Policy Amendment—The Board of Health could amend policy statement 96-02 to include
guidance as to what constitutes reasonable conditions. The policy would attempt to
balance the public health risk and necessity with the cost associated with connection. On
a high-risk site, it might be reasonable to accept a much higher cost for connection
compared to drilling a well than on a low risk site. This could be tricky and there do not
appear to be any existing models from which to work.
B. Include a Waiver Provision—Since the Board of Health has adopted the only County
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 8
policy, exceptions to the requirement to connect could be considered on a case-by-case •
basis by means of a formal waiver application. The burden of proof would fall on the
applicant to show that the terms and conditions of connection to the public water system
were unreasonable. Decisions by the Health Officer could be appealed to the Board of
Health.
C. Repeal Policy 96-02 and Limit Water Well Construction—Within recognized water
service areas, allow water well construction only when the lot on which the well is being
constructed meets the land area requirements for a well and septic. Outside water service
areas, allow well construction only when the site meets land area requirements as
established in Policy Statement 97-02.
Chairman Westerman asked for the definition of a "high risk site" under Policy Amendment. She
suggested clearly defining these and other terms such as "recognized water service areas" so that during
the Board's review it will be clear what we are reviewing. Under Repeal Policy 96-02, she asked to
understand the difference in the two statements. Mr. Fay said the policy he drafted follows Option A.
He recognized the need for definitions and said copies of the water service area maps might have also
been helpful. He said his first definition of a high-risk site is anything less than an acre.
Member Frissell asked whether the water service area was designated before or after Mr. Burke bought
his property? Mr. Fay said the designation of the water service area occurred prior to the time Mr. Burke
applied to drill a well. However, the Department does not have as a matter of record information that a
piece of property is contained within a particular water utility service boundary. There is also no
convenient way through a property title search to obtain this information. The information is available if
you know to ask for it.
Chairman Westerman asked whether a bank would want to know about a water service area before
approving a loan? Mr. Fay said the bank might not require it and most individuals do not know to ask
the question even though the information is available. He went on to explain that water service areas are
simply a declaration on behalf of a purveyor that they are going to sell water in a particular area. They
are not approved, but merely acknowledged by the County. The whole idea with designated water
service areas is to avoid conflicts and overlapping service so utilities can then provide for rational
delivery of water within a particular area. Part of the problem with the process is that most people
assume that water development is taking place by larger utilities, such as the PUD. There was no real
mechanism for a person like Mr. Burke to know that someone had decided to deliver water to the south
end of the Coyle Peninsula and for him to vote whether or not he wanted to be in that water service area.
This is part of the process in the Coordinated Water System Plan, which is outside of the Board's scope.
Chairman Westerman asked if there is an approval process for purveyors? Mr. Fay explained that the
Coordinated Water System Plan states that after the utility makes a declaration they have a year to
submit their plan to the State Department of Health. The referenced water system has an approved plan
and design.
Commissioner Titterness asked who would determine if it is unreasonable? Mr. Fay said that without a •
person or entity of authority to make that determination, it would have to go to court to decide. Dr.
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 9
• Locke said that under a new policy, the Health Officer would make a determination that could be
appealed to the Board of Health. Mr. Fay said this would at least provide a framework for assessing this
situation, but there is the potential for problems in other situations.
Member Frissell said she couldn't imagine how a person could buy a piece of real property without
asking a question about water. Either it was or was not disclosed.
Commissioner Titterness said if the Department is the decision-making authority at this point and if it is
the opinion that requiring connection is unreasonable, then the purveyor could appeal to the Health
Board. Mr. Fay said he is asking the Board to try to create a policy that anticipates at least some
examples of"reasonable" and "unreasonable" circumstances.
Commissioner Titterness said there is good argument for that, but what we find, as in this case, every
time you try to write a regulation, there is another circumstance that creates another issue. It becomes
nearly impossible to continually clarify a regulation. So, in writing a regulation, less is better. He
expressed support for utilizing the policy in existence.
Member Frissell said the policy might need to be revised if it is inadequate. Commissioner Titterness
said that inasmuch as Mr. Fay has the authority and has indicated his feelings about what is
unreasonable, he believes he can make this call. Member Frissell said there appear to be two issues: one
• is the specific case and the other is the policy question.
Commissioner Wojt said one of the discussions in the Water Utility Coordinating Committee about
setting up the water purveyors is that if someone moves into a water district and requests water and the
water purveyor cannot provide it or cannot provide it within a reasonable period of time, that removes
the individual from the service area. He said the purveyor must provide water to your property line.
Mr. Fay said you can either write policy to anticipate the circumstances or you need to correct the
process. He suggests that if he, in the Department, has the authority to do the process, then there still
should be an amendment of Policy 96-02. He also noted that the designation of reasonableness is
appealable and that there should be some timeframe with required notification to the purveyor before a
person can start to drill a well.
Chairman Westerman then asked how new construction and expansion of structures for which potable
water is required fit under the "applicability" standard? She asked whether there should be a square
footage specified? Commissioner Titterness explained that a structure might contain more than one
tenant and therefore more than one unit, which may have to be metered separately.
Mr. Fay said this language comes from a 1992 policy on water availability and implements RCW
19.27.97, which says that anybody applying for a building permit for a building that requires a source of
potable water has to prove that they have an adequate supply of potable water. The policy goes on to list
exclusions. When adopted in 1992, the policy followed the RCW and expansions were viewed similarly
•to septic expansions. This language could be clarified, although he would be inclined to eliminate it
rather than try to refine it. The standard is 400 gallons. Unlike the septic, which is designed for the size
of the house, their standard for potable water supply is one number. He would be inclined to specify new
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 -Page: 10
construction and to keep a narrow focus. •
Chairman Westerman said she believes that is fine. Under the general policy statement, "Reasonable
shall mean that the requirements for connection shall be consistent with the standards specified in the
utilities water system plan. The requirements are the same as they would be for any other applicant
requesting similar service, costs shall be consistent with capital costs of improvement as well as the
industry standard for waterline extension and there is a compelling public health interest in requiring
the extension." She asked if this is the language on which Mr. Fay would base his judgment?
Mr. Fay said this is the struggle: How badly as a public health agency and Board of Health do we want
to go to battle for a utility that might want to sell water on 10-acre lots? There may not be a compelling
public health interest in doing that. That is why he said, "...and there is a public health interest"—
generally, the higher the density, the greater the public health interest. What we would work on in policy
is trying to create a matrix.
Chairman Westerman said it appears that if Mr. Fay determines that there is not a compelling public
health interest, then a hookup is not going to be required,which is a decision more appropriate to the
Health Board. Dr. Locke said that is the whole basis of a Board of Health's involvement in this kind of
issue. Otherwise, the Board is straying into marketplace decisions.
Chairman Westerman said that an appeal based on the claim that there is no compelling public health •
interest would be a much better case to come before the Board. This would also allow Mr. Fay to say I
do not see the health interest here.
Mr. Fay said he believes there are some places where there is a compelling public health interest and that
is the relationship with the on-site sewage code. Referring to the General Policy Statement of the draft
policy, he noted that Number 4 deals with a specific situation where there is a compelling public health
interest in requiring a connection. When the lot does not meet the siting criteria for well and septic we
are dealing with a situation where it is much more fair to require the connection. He believes this is a
good situation to state in a policy. He will continue to tweak the policy and clear up some of the process
around appeals.
Mayor Kolff suggested that the last part of the sentence that starts with"there is a compelling public
health interest"be moved to the first part of the policy.
Chairman Westerman suggested Mr. Fay rework and refine the policy based on the input received today
and provide it to the Board again at the next meeting. Mr. Fay said he would try to frame it as an
amendment to 96-02 rather than a whole new policy. He also agreed to provide 96-02 and 97-02.
SB 6588/Restaurant Association: Mr. Fay distributed a response article on SB 6588 from the May
issue of the Restaurant Association newsletter.
•
HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - May 16, 2002 - Page: 11
•
AGENDA CALENDAR/ADJOURN
Joint Board Meeting: A Joint meeting of the Health Board/Hospital Board is scheduled for
Wednesday, June 5, 2002 from 3:00-5:00 p.m. in the Hospital Auditorium.
June Agenda Topics: Abatement of Public Health Nuisances—Policy Options.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 2:30
p.m. at the Jefferson County Health and Human Services Conference Room.
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
(Excused)
Sheila Westerman, Chairman Jill Buhler, Member
(Excused)
•Geoffrey Masci, Vice-Chairman Richard Wojt, Member
Glen Huntingford, Member Roberta Frissell, Member
Dan Titterness, Member
•
Board of Health
Old Business
Agenda Item # IV. , 1
Abatement of Public Health
Nuisances
Policy Options
June 13 , 2002
•
Solid Waste abatement program
Results of initial program
2001-2002
Since the inception of the compliance/abatement program for Solid Waste under the
auspices of the Environmental Health Department, the following cases have been
handled by the department:
A total of 84 cases have been reported to the department. The current status breakdown
is:
Of the 84 cases,
• 9 were illegal dumping complaints investigated and abated. This number does
not include the on-going illegal dump cleanup program administered and
operated by the Juvenile Services Department.
• 4 were community sponsored cleanups:
• *DNR Dabob Bay cleanup
*Chimacum Creek cleanup, Marine Science Center
*Quilcene Community Cleanup
• *Duckabush Round-up
• 15 violation investigations and/or mitigation are on-going.
• 56 cases were abated and closed.
Of the 56 abated cases, several have signed up for garbage service. When appropriate,
disposal receipts for self-hauling were requested and received by the department.
Additionally, ten (10) "No Dumping" signs have been placed at historical problem sites.
Molly Pearson
Environmental Educator
i
Y
• Juelanne Dalzell
0
(„...4, ,,„ ____, JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
' IM Courthouse—P.O.Box 1220
c' '' 1 ` , Port Townsend,Washington 98368
�1 ;'c; i `'� ! Telephone(360)385-9180 FAX(360)385-0073
µ4 E p' R i'
* -1;_ Jill Landes,Deputy Prosecutor
Michael Haas,Deputy Prosecutor
JEFFERSON COUNTY SEAT-PORT TOWNSEND•WASHINGTON David W.Alvarez,Deputy Prosecutor
Tracey L.Lassus,Deputy Prosecutor
MEMORANDUM
To: Jefferson County Board of Health
From: David Alvarez, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date: June 4, 2002
Re: Enforcement Questions, which includes "abatement"
The closely-related questions of enforcing local Ordinances and abating the consequences
left by persistent violators have recently been brought to this author's attention by, respectively,
• the three County Commissioners and the seven-member County Board of Health.
The general issue of enforcement is similar to a memory game, because the tools that are
available to enforce and abate are seemingly placed in random locations within the state statutes,
provide different powers to different local officials and require much "dotting of i's" and
"crossing of t's"by an attorney to achieve the goal desired: compliance.
Here are some "Frequently Asked Questions"that may assist you in your analysis.
What original source grants counties the right to create health and welfare
ordinances?
The original source is found in the Washington State Constitution. We must
look to the State Constitution because only the state government holds the
authority to create and empower the local government (or municipal
corporation) we know as Jefferson County. The applicable provision of the
State Constitution is Article XI § 11 entitled "POLICE AND SANITARY
REGULATIONS," which states that "Any county, city, town or township
may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other
regulations as are not in conflict with general laws."
III
110 Do statutes arise from theowers outlined in Article cle XI, §11 of the State
Constitution?
That provision of the state constitution encourages the State Legislature and
the Governor to provide powers of enforcement and abatement to the local
governments. Legislatures have used this power sporadically since at least
1854, well before Washington became a state. Thus, the list of statutes that
may apply in circumstances when local governments wish to enforce or abate
is a long one and I will discuss below only the most prominent ones.
Are there state laws specifically empowering the Board of Health and its Health
Officer?
Yes, they are, respectively, RCW 70.05.060 and RCW 70.05.070. The local
Board of Health is authorized to "supervise the maintenance of all health and
sanitary measures for the protection of the public health," enact any necessary
local rules that benefit or promote public health, prevent and control the spread
of contagious diseases and "prevent, control and abate .. nuisances detrimental
• to the public health." The Health Officer has the same powers although he or
she cannot enact local rules since that is an action only a legislature and not a
person can undertake. It is these state laws that would allow the County Board
of Health to enact an enforcement and/or abatement ordinance if it chose to do
so.
Such statutes are dwarfed in number by the number of statutes found, by way
of example, in Title 70 RCW which declare that certain acts or omissions rise
to the level of a violation, be it civil or criminal. For example, if a person
commits a certain act (dumping solid waste without a permit), then, to follow
out that example, a civil infraction has occurred pursuant to RCW 70.95.240.
Do the County Commissioners have any parallel or similar authority?
Yes. Pursuant to RCW 36.32.120(7), the County Commissioners can
make and enforce "all such police and sanitary regulations as are not in
conflict with state law" for the unincorporated portions of the County. That
same state law allows the County Commissioners to make a violation of a
properly enacted "health and safety" Ordinance either a misdemeanor or a
civil violation subject to a monetary penalty. It is this broad so-called police
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 2of11
• power which validates most, if not all, of the Ordinances the County
Commission enacts and further buttresses any sanitary regulations that County
Commission may have enacted when the 3-member County Commission also
served as the County's Board of Health.
So what exactly are the regulations found "on the books" in this County?
This author believes the following items are the most oft-used regulations and
rules in this County. The regulations used in this County include, but are not
limited to:
1. Applicable RCW and Washington Administrative Code
("WAC") provisions, such as those found at Chapter 246-272 WAC
governing on-site septic systems.
2. The Uniform Building and Fire Codes;
3. Section 8.15 of the Jefferson County Code, which governs on-
site septic systems; and
4. Section 10 of the Unified Development Code, our GMA-derived
development regulations, which speak to enforcement of zoning and
land use violations.
• Others in the County will have more information on the daily utilization of
these or other regulations with respect to citizens who either apply or appear to
be in violation of a WAC provision or Ordinance
What is the enforcement process this County undertakes now?
The current enforcement process in Jefferson County begins with the
appropriate department or agency, usually either Community Development
(f/k/a the Permit Center) or Environmental Health, and ends, only as a last
resort, with assistance from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, specifically this
author. This author does not learn of the potential violation cases that are
resolved solely through the work of County staff, but presumes that successful
resolution occurs through the mailing of form letters that provide gentle
reminders of what must be done to achieve and remain in compliance. Larry
Fay and Dr. Locke can better speak to that.
The names of the more recalcitrant offenders, typically those who have
ignored one or more letters from the department asking them to comply, letters
often sent via certified mail, are sent to this author's attention by the
departments. Our office has a form letter that threatens criminal prosecution
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 3 of 11
• [the relevant Ordinances allow the County to deem a violation of that
Ordinance to be a misdemeanor as is permitted by RCW 36.32.120(7) and
each day is a separate violation/misdemeanor] if they do not comply. Having
waved that powerful stick, the letter also contains a carrot: it urges them to
speak to the nice people at DCD or Environmental Health to remedy the
problem, the implication being that the County knows honest mistakes occur
and it is not eager to jail its citizens.
The letter on Prosecuting Attorney's Office letterhead is successful at least
9/10ths of the time. Often the offender simply let his or her permit lapse, was
an absentee landlord who thought his tenant would take care of the problem, is
elderly or did not understand that there are no exceptions to the PUD
inspecting on-site septic systems.
If the letter on Prosecuting Attorney's Office letterhead is not successful, then
nothing else is undertaken, because litigation would be unwise, since the cases
have not typically been prepared in a way that would lead to successful
litigation and because the PA's office has extremely limited resources, i.e., this
author, who is the entire Civil Department.
• These remaining offenders typically have a "come and get me" attitude based
in part on libertarian political beliefs or hermit-like attitudes and ignore the
letter this author sends. They are the hardcore offenders that we could be
more proactive about.
What, if anything, is missing from this County's regulatory toolbox?
I will take this opportunity to again strongly argue that this County needs an
enforcement officer, perhaps an officer who can handle enforcement actions
for both Environmental Health (septic, solid waste) and planning (junkyards,
setbacks, illegal structures). If it was one person's job to write the tickets,
prepare the factual underpinnings for a court action, testify in court, handle
follow-up, encourage and monitor voluntary compliance, then enforcement
would settle into a routine and there would be continuity since the enforcement
actions would all cross a single desk. Current county staff has expressed their
reluctance to add enforcement duties to their already long list of duties. Of
course, I understand that Jefferson County does not have at present the
$50,000 or more it would take annually into perpetuity to pay for an
enforcement officer. But the hiring of such a person should be high on the
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 4 of 11
• wish list when times get better.
Are there any legal limits that might prevent creation of an proactive
enforcement program?
Yes, and the problem arises in the difference between the powers granted to a
law enforcement officer, commissioned to prevent and detect crime, and the
powers granted to a county employee asked to prevent and detect health,
safety or zoning violations. Generally, Washington state case law states that a
police officer can intrude on private property to the same extent that a Postal
Service letter carrier or UPS driver can, i.e., they can go past "no trespassing"
signs and proceed up a driveway. The same does not hold true for a county
employee who has the job of enforcing local ordinances. The local code
enforcement officer would arguably be obligated to obey a sign indicating "no
trespassing,"but could ignore that sign if he or she wished. However, if the
property not only was marked "no trespassing," but there was also a locked
gate across the driveway, then the occupant's obvious intent to not have
strangers enter his property would prevent the code enforcement officer from
entering the property, but not necessarily the police officer. Thus, some code
• enforcement investigation must be done from the neighboring yard or from the
street.
A second limit on enforcing the provisions of local ordinances is the decision
of the Washington State Supreme Court to abolish so-called "administrative
search warrants." The published decision that abolished this type of search
warrant is entitled Seattle v. McCready, 124 Wn. 2d 300 (1994). Challenged
in the McCready case was an ordinance enacted by Seattle that allowed that
city to conduct random searches for building code violations based solely upon
the age, size and neighborhood of a particular multi-family dwelling. In other
words, if a building was old enough and in a certain neighborhood it was
likely that building violations were occurring there. When certain residents
and owners of a building that met this "old, thus decrepit" profile objected to
the searches, the State Supreme Court invalidated the Seattle ordinance as a
violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. The State Supreme
Court ruled that before a search could occur, there had to be probable cause
that a specific building contained a specific building violation, not merely the
suspicion that a building, based on its age, was likely to be in violation. Thus,
the bottom-line effect of McCready is to require the probable cause be present
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 5 of 11
• in order to obtain a search warrant for a code infraction, the same probable
cause that must be present to obtain a search warrant during a criminal
investigation.
The practical effect of the McCready decision is that search warrants are and
will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain in the context of
attempting to enforce local civil ordinances and this County will need to
continue to rely upon Neighbor Smith complaining about the mess that
Neighbor Jones is making. However, we all know that neighbor v. neighbor
disputes are often simultaneously petty and ugly.
What about using civil infractions for enforcement against the most recalcitrant
offenders?
This would require giving the alleged violator a ticket [formally known as a
"notice of civil infraction" or "NOCI" pursuant to RCW 7.80.050(1)] akin to
those a police officer `writes' when he alleges an automobile driver has
committed a traffic violation. Chapter 7.80 RCW would control and the
matter would be heard in District Court. This is the process:
• a) an enforcement officer, someone authorized to enforce the provisions of the
ordinance or regulation that was allegedly violated, witnesses the violation or
concludes he has reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred and
writes the NOCI on a quadruplicate and standardized form; RCW 7.80.040,
RCW 7.80.050(3) and 7.80.150 for the standardized forms
b) the NOCI is either immediately handed to the alleged violator or if that is
not possible the NOCI is filed with District Court within 48 hours and served
on the defendant by the District Court; RCW 7.80.050
c) the NOCI equates with a determination that the violation occurred UNLESS
it is contested by the defendant within 15 days. RCW 7.80.070 and .080(3)
d) at the time of the hearing held with respect to any contested NOCI, the
defendant may hire a lawyer and the County's DPA is not required to appear,
although this author assumes that County staff would certainly want the
County's DPA present at the adjudication; RCW 7.80.090
e) the hearing held with respect to any contested NOCI is a so-called "bench
trial," i.e., the District Court Judge has sole power to make decisions on
factual and legal issues and there is no jury involved RCW 7.80.100;
f) the burden of proof at the hearing on the contested NOCI rests with the
State of Washington (the County) and the County must "establish the
commission of the civil infraction by a preponderance of the evidence." The
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 6 of 11
• legal term of art "preponderance of the evidence" has been interpreted to mean
that the evidence presented makes it more likely than not that the violation
which is alleged did occur; RCW 7.80.100(3)
g) if the Judge determines that the infraction did occur, then the defendant
must immediately pay monetary fines that can range from $25 up to $500 per
infraction, depending on the seriousness of the infraction, and this County's
District Court is authorized to use a collection agency to collect unpaid fines;
RCW 7.80.120
h) in the circumstances where a Judge has determined that the infraction did
occur and yet the defendant is indigent and cannot pay the fine then the Judge
can either reduce the fine or order the defendant to do community service, the
defendant will work off his fine at the rate of the state's current minimum
hourly wage; RCW 7.80.130(2)
i) a defendant who fails to either pay the fine or perform the required
community service can be found to be in contempt of court; and [RCW
7.80.160(3)]
j) the prevailing party may seek to have the losing party pay its attorney's
fees, although with our most stubborn offenders that may be the equivalent of
attempting to obtain blood from a stone RCW 7.80.140.
Civil infractions are well and good for punishment, but what about abatement?
Generally, if the citizen's action complained of constitutes a "nuisance," as
that term of art is defined in state law, then that nuisance can be abated.
However, the term "abatement" appears 151 times in state law and can refer to
the abatement (closure) of a place where liquor is illegally sold [RCW
66.36.040], seizure of a residence where illegal drugs were manufactured
[RCW 7.43.080], abatement of excessive noise by the State DOE [RCW
70.107.060] or abatement of a public nuisance by the Sheriff, since a public
nuisance can rise to the level of a criminal misdemeanor pursuant to RCW
9.66.030.
What, then, is the definition of a nuisance?
There are numerous definitions of nuisance found in state law.
While nuisance is defined in several portions of Ch. 7.48 RCW, the broadest
definition of a nuisance is found at RCW 7.48.010, which defines a nuisance
i
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 7 of 11
as "[t]he obstruction of any highway or the closing of the channel of any
stream used for boating or rafting logs, lumber or timber, or whatever is
injurious to health or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to
the free use of property, so as to essentially interfere with the comfortable
enjoyment of the life and property." A roughly similar definition of nuisance is
found at RCW 7.48.120.
Thus four distinct actions or omissions can constitute a nuisance: a)
obstructing a highway, b) closing a channel or stream used for boating, c)
anything injurious to health or offensive to the senses or d) an obstruction to
the free use of property. Clearly, it is items (c) and (d) previously described
that are most relevant to the analysis found in this memo.
But there are additional definitions of nuisance in Ch.7.48 RCW. A "public
nuisance" is defined at RCW 7.48.130 as "one which affects equally the rights
of an entire community or neighborhood, although the extent of the damage
may be unequal." RCW 7.48.140 then lists nine specific actions or omissions
which, if committed, constitute a public nuisance. While some seem unlikely
to occur (manufacturing gunpowder, fermenting alcoholic beverages), others
• may apply to our 21' century reality, specifically #1 ("to cause or suffer any
offal, filth or noiseome substance to be collected, deposited or remain in
any place to the prejudice of others") and#2 ("to throw or deposit any offal or
offensive matter, ..... in any watercourse, stream, lake, pond, spring, well or
common sewer, street or public highway, or in any manner to corrupt or render
unwholesome ..... the water of any such spring, to the injury or
prejudice of others.")
These statutes allow a person to sue a local government for permitting or
creating a nuisance [Miotke v. City of Spokane,101 Wn.2d 307, 678 P.2d 803
(1984), overruled on other grounds, sub. nom. Blue Sky Advocates v. State,
107 Wn.2d 112, 727 P.2d 644 (1986)] and for a local government to use the
public nuisance statute affirmatively pursuant to City of Burlington v. Kutzer,
23 Wn. App. 677, certif. denied 92 Wn. 2d 1036 (1979) (city can bring civil
nuisance suit against individual operating bingo hall in a residential
neighborhood in violation of the relevant zoning code.)
What can the local government do when it finds a nuisance?
RCW 7.48.200 informs us that the potential remedies against a public nuisance
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 8 of 11
• are to 1) file a criminal information pursuant to RCW 9.66.030, 2) pursue a
civil action in a manner that conforms with RCW 7.48.010 to RCW 7.48.040
or 3) abate the nuisance.
The right to abate a public nuisance rests with any public body or officer
authorized thereto by law, according to RCW 7.48.220.
The "criminal information" route will not be discussed here because the
burden of proof upon the State (county) in a criminal matter is so substantial
that it would make this process too cumbersome. The second and third routes
below overlap and will be jointly discussed.
What happens if a civil action is undertaken?
The party files the civil action and would generally ask for three forms of
relief, i.e., that 1) the act or omission of the defendant does constitute a public
nuisance and must be remedied in a manner prescribed by the Judge, 2) for a
judicial Order entering and creating a Warrant of Abatement asking the Sheriff
to abate the nuisance at the expense of the offending party, i.e., the defendant
• and 3) money damages that arose as a consequence of the existence of the
nuisance. RCW 7.48.020 and RCW 7.48.030. Only Superior Court and not
District Court can issue a Warrant of Abatement, according to RCW 7.48.260.
The County would normally not ask for money damages as we do not suffer
any consequential damages. Why? Because the County Sheriff is authorized to
recover the costs that the County would incur when the Sheriff abates and
reports the cost of the abatement. RCW 7.48.280.
Of course, the defendant may not have any money or any items of value to pay
the County either the fines or the cost of the abatement. Separately, does the
Sheriff have the resources or the knowledge needed to undertake abatements?
Can the defendant (the offender) slow down this process?
Absolutely.
The defendant can file court papers to stay (delay) the execution of the
Warrant of Abatement so that the defendant can cure or remove the nuisance.
The Warrant of Abatement will only be stayed if the defendant gives "bond to
the plaintiff in a sufficient amount with one or more sureties, to the satisfaction
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 9of11
• of the court or judge thereof, that he will abate it within the time and in the
manner specified in such order." If the defendant cannot remedy the problem
within the time he or she asked for then, the Warrant of Abatement is issued
and abatement by the Sheriff takes place. RCW 7.48.040 and RCW 7.48.270.
Also, the bond is forfeited if the defendant cannot remove or cure the public
nuisance within six months, pursuant to RCW 7.48.270.
What papers would have to be filed to undertake a civil action against a
public nuisance?
The Civil DPA would have to file 1) a Verified Complaint signed by the
county staff person with personal knowledge of the violation, e.g., "on May 1,
2002 I saw the following violation at parcel #123 located on Center Valley
Road." 2) a notarized Declaration of that same county staff person attaching
any documents or photos that the staff person generated when investigating the
alleged violation, 3) a Notice of Issue mandating that the defendant come to
court and "Show Cause" why the alleged violation does not rise to the level of
a public nuisance that can and should be abated pursuant to Ch. 7.48 RCW,
which would include a date when the defendant must "Show Cause," and 4)
• proof that the defendant/offender received notice well before the date for the
"Show Cause" hearing of that date and the purpose of the hearing.
Items #1 and #2 listed above in response to this FAQ would need to be
specifically tailored to each circumstance and the relevant facts and thus they
would require careful editing and organizing as well as high levels of
cooperation between the DPA and county staff. The other documents could
and would be standardized.
Again, can the defendant slow down this process?
Absolutely.
Initially, the defendant might need some time to retain an attorney. Once an
attorney has stated his or her intent to represent the defendant, then that
defense attorney can use all the tools of civil discovery, including
Interrogatories (questions), depositions (questions asked of a witness under
oath), requests for production of documents, the retention of experts etc. The
defendant's attorney can file motions, seek dismissal of the lawsuit and/or
simply ask for continuances (adjournments) of the case. In other words, there
is no guarantee that using Ch. 7.48 RCW would be easy or quick.
Nor is there any guarantee that a defendant would have the money to
•
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 10 of 11
•
0
•
• reimburse this County for the costs the County incurred.
Are there certain activities that can never rise to the level of a public
nuisance?
Yes. Agricultural and forest practices, as defined by RCW 7.48.310, as well as
any act expressly authorized by a statute, can never constitute a nuisance.
CONCLUSION:
Of course, in an ideal world the goal of the County would be compliance not the
collecting of fines and penalties or, in a worse case scenario, assuming ownership
of the property where the violation occurred.
This memo could not be shorter because this is a complex topic that will require
much further debate.
• Very truly yours,
David Alvarez, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Alvarez memo on Enforcement/Abatement
June 4, 2002
Page 11 of 11
•
Memorandum
To: Jefferson County Board of Health
From: Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director
Date: Ma31, 2002
Re: Amendments to BOH Policy Statement# 96-02, Utility Service Review
Attached with your packets are two documents derived from our May Board meeting.
Attachment "A" is a line in, line out version of policy 96-02 that attempts to capture the
spirit of the discussion from the meeting. Essentially it modifies the original policy
• significantly by imposing the requirement to connect to public water to only those
circumstances where there is a compelling public health interest to do so and goes on to
define compelling public health interest. This is a much simpler approach that should still
address the original problem.
Attachment "B"is a copy of BOH policy 97-02 dealing with minimum land area
requirements for issuing an onsite sewage system. This policy clarifies existing
requirements contained with WAC 246-272 regarding septic permitting and the
relationship between type of sewage treatment (onsite vs. public sewer), water supply
(individual vs. public) and land area. This policy serves as the basis for the amendments
to 96-02.
Page 3 of 3, Certification of Water Utility Service ii Nk_ //11
• JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
Policy Statement 96-02 t ,
Program: Drinking Water
Subject: Certification of Water Supply Utility Service for Building Permits
Chapters 19.27.097 and 18.104.043 RCW
The 1990 Growth Management Act includes provisions requiring proof of an adequate
supply of potable water for the intended purpose(s) of the building before a building
permit can be issued. The law(Chapter 19.27.097 RCW) also indicates that counties
may impose conditions on building permits requiring connection to an existing public
water system where the existing system is willing and able to provide safe and reliable
potable water.
The Water Well Construction Act, Chapter 18.104.043 RCW, allows the Department of
Ecology to delegate portions of water well construction program through a Memorandum
of Agreement with the local governing body. This policy is intended to adopt the
following guidelines to implement the Memorandum of Agreement, and to create
guidelines to implement a utility service review procedure.
• Effective this date, the following policy shall be adopted concerning procedures that shall
be followed to request from Jefferson County a review of water service and inspection of
individual water well construction if water well is to be constructed.
I. General Requirements.
A. Every land owner shall be required to submit an application for
Certification of Water Supply Utility Service. If water service is available
from an approved public water system in a reasonable and timely manner,
and there is a compelling public health interest in requiring connection to
public water, then the lan =::landowner shall be required to connect to
the public water system.
B. If a water well is to be drilled, the land owner or representative shall
submit the application for Certification of Water Supply Utility Service at
least three (3) days in advance of commencing construction of the well.
Jefferson County may observe construction of the surface seal, to assure
compliance with WAC 173-160.
II. Utility Service Review
A. The land owner, or the land owner's designated representative, shall
• submit to the Jefferson County Permit Center a completed"Request for
M
•
•
•
r
Page 3 of 3, Certification of Water Utility Service
• Certification of Water Supply Utility Service". Upon receipt of the
request, Jefferson County will determine the potential availability of
public water systems to the area in question. Where potable water is
available from an approved public water system in a reasonable and timely
period, which is defined as 120 days in ESSB 5448, and there is a
compelling public health interest in requiring connection to the public
water system, the property owner shall be required to connect to the
ç
available public water system if capacity exists. For the purposes of this
policy it shall be deemed to be in the public health interest to require
connection when the development being proposed will utilize an onsite
Qsewage system and the building site is smaller than the minimum
necessary to support a well and onsite system. (See Policy Statement 97-
�` 02)
B. Proof that water is not available from the existing public water system
must be in the form of a letter from the water purveyor indicating that
capacity does not exist and/or service cannot be provided in a timely
manner.
C. For individual wells, proof of water adequacy for the purpose of obtaining
a building permit shall be valid for thirty-six (36)months form the date of
completion of the water supply well. After 36 months, the land owner will
be required to re-establish proof of an adequate supply of potable water in
order to obtain a building permit.
D. If the property owner constructs a water supply well and is also required to
connect to an existing water system, the public water supply system shall
be protected from cross-contamination in accordance with the purveyor's
backflow prevention plan or program.
III. Water Well Construction Notification Procedure
A. The land owner, or the land owner's designated representative, shall
submit to the Jefferson County Permit Center a completed "Request for
Well Inspection"now fewer than three days and no more than one-
hundred and twenty(120) days before the commencement of work on a
well. If after 120 days the well has not been constructed, the land owner
will be required to submit another request for utility certification. No
additional fees will be collected for the submission of the new request
form.
B. The land owner, or the land owner's designated representative,
construction or decommissioning a water well shall follow procedures
outlines in 18.104.048 RCW, Prior notice of water well construction,
•
Page 3 of 3, Certification of Water Utility Service
• reconstruction and abandonment, and 18.104.050 RCW, Reports of water
well construction or alteration.
C. Water well contractors shall be responsible for notifying Jefferson County
Environmental Health by telephone at least 24 hours prior to commencing
construction on any well, following procedures established by the Director
of Environmental Health.
IV. Water Well Inspection
A. Jefferson County Environmental Health shall inspect construction of
wells, in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between
dIf > Jefferson County and the Washington Department of Ecology. Well
construction shall follow procedures outlined in WAC 173-160 for well
�N(` tagging, construction, and decommissioning of water supply wells.
B. Water samples are to be drawn by the land owner, or the land owner's
representative, and tested at a state certified lab for all parameters required
for compliance with 19.27.097 RCW and Jefferson County Policy (No.
93-02). Chloride shall be measured in accordance with the Critical Areas
Ordinance (Nos. 05-0509-94 and 14-0626-95), which charges
Environmental Health with developing a system for receiving and
analyzing dew data in order to continually assess the condition of the
aquifers (Section 7.301.9). At a minimum, the land owner shall test for
total coliform, nitrate-nitrogen, and chloride. Lab results shall be
submitted to the Environmental Health Department within 30 days of the
completion of the water supply well.
V. Fee Schedule
A. The Environmental Health fee schedule shall follow the fee schedule listed
in Jefferson County Ordinance No. 03-0205-96, as amended.
B. The adoption of this policy shall include a procedure for Certification of
Water Supply Utility Service, which incorporates into one fee,paid to the
Permit Center: the determination of water adequacy, well site inspection,
and water service review.
This policy shall remain in effect until amended or repealed by the Jefferson County
Board of Health.
•
Page 3 of 3, Certification of Water Utility Service
• Health Officer Date
Chairman of the Board of Health Date
‘tC
%%11*
•
•
facii
nh., i3
• JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH& HUMAN SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
POLICY STATEMENT NUMBER 97-02
PROGRAM: Onsite Sewage
SUBJECT: Minimum Land Area Requirements
Effective this date the following policy shall be adopted concerning the minimum land area that is
necessary for the approval of an application for an onsite sewage permit.
I. When there is an inconsistency between onsite sewage system regulations and county or
city zoning or other land use or development regulations, the more restrictive regulation
shall apply.
II. The minimum land area required for approval of an onsite sewage system permit shall be
determined by either Method I or Method II as established in Chapter 246-272-20501
WAC. When a Method II analysis is being performed the analysis must be conducted for an
area of at least 100 acres. If the project site is less than 100 acres, the area surrounding the
site shall be included so that a minimum of 100 acres is analyzed. When conducting a
Method II analysis, the area to the centerline of a road or street right-of-way may be
411 included in the minimum land area application if the dedicated road or street right-of-way is
along the perimeter of the development and is dedicated as part of the development and land
area is at least 12,500 square feet in area and the property can be served from an approved
public water supply.
HI. Applications for permits for sites not meeting minimum land area requirements, whether
determined by Method I or Method II, shall be approved only when a waiver from minimum
land area requirements has been approved by the Health Officer.
A. General Land Area Waiver Provisions.
1. Applications for waivers must be submitted on forms prescribed by the Health
and Human Services Department and appropriate fees must be submitted before
a waiver will be considered.
2. The waiver application shall include a justification describing how the requested
waiver is consistent with the purposes and objectives of protecting the public's
health. Justification may be in the form of the "standard land area waiver"
described below or may be specific to the proposed development.
3. Applications for waivers from minimum land area requirements will be reviewed
• by the Health Officer or his designee within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
waiver application. The Health Officer must provide written findings that the
1
4
•
waiver is consistent with the standards and intent of the onsite sewage system •
regulations before the waiver may be approved.
4. The Health Officer may establish monitoring, sampling, inspection or other
appropriate requirements as a condition of the waiver.
B. Waiver Limitations. Waivers to minimum land area requirements will not be
approved if any of the following conditions exist:
1. The proposed project is within a Vulnerable Aquifer Recharge Area, or is within a
Special Aquifer Protection Area and susceptible aquifer recharge area as
identified in the Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, unless
Critical Areas BMPs have been adopted allowing development on smaller
parcels.
2. The proposed system requires any other waivers from onsite sewage system
regulations.
3. The land area under contiguous ownership on which the development is being
proposed can accommodate an onsite sewage system without a land area
waiver.
4. Sewer service is available in a timely and reasonable manner.
C. Standard Land Area Waiver Conditions. A standard waiver may be approved if
the following circumstances have been met:
1. The ownership pattern of the land area on which the development is being
proposed was established prior to the effective date of this policy, and;
2. The land area available for the proposed development can be justified by means
of an analysis using unit volumes of sewage per unit land area, for example:
Parcel size = 9,800 square feet
Public water
Soil type = Type 3
Minimum land area per Table VII = 15,000 square feet
9,800 sq ft x 450 gpd/sewage unit = 294 gpd volume
15,000 sq ft/unit sewage volume
The parcel could support a two-bedroom home with a waiver; or
•
2
I
• 3.Land area averaging when an off-site drainfield or well is proposed. The aver
land area of the sites encumbered by the onsite sewage system and/or well average
equal to or greater than the minimum land areas specified in Table VII, for
example:
Adjacent building sites, 0.5 and 3 acres
Individual water supply
Minimum land area per Table VII= 1 acre
Off-site drainfield on adjacent 3-acre site
3 acres + 0.5 acres
= 1.75 acres average
2
1.75 acres > 1 acre from Table VII
Waiver may be approved.
or
4. The waiver is conditioned upon providing an advanced level of treatmen
disposal and neither 2 nor 3 above are feasible. t prior to
• a. A one-level step up in treatment allows approval o
minimum land area requirement. PP al of a waiver to 75/o of the
b. A system providing treatment standard 1 performance prior to disposal allows
approval of a waiver to 50% of the minimum land area requirement.
D. Appeals to decisions regarding waiver applications may be made by filing a written
request with the Jefferson County Board of Health within fifteen (15) days of the
decision.
IV. This policy shall remain in effect until amended or repealed by action of the Jefferson
Cou oard of Health.
41116
Health Officer
Date
Chairman of th ' ` - 7 7
rd of Health Date
•
3
2:4BLE VIf •
Minimum Land Area Requirement
Single Family Residence or Unit Volume of Sewage
e :defined >section ttOd1 It s hapter)
1A, 1B 2A, 2B t 3 4 5 6
0.5 acre'
Public 12,500 15,000 18,000 20,000 22,000
2.5 acre' sq• ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft.
Individual, 1.0 acre'
on each lot -1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 2 acres 2 acres —�
2.5 acres2
TABLE V
Maximum Hydraulic Loading Rate
For Residential Sewage' - •
.e
IA Very gravelly' coarse sands or coarser, Varies according to
extremely gravelly3 soils. system selected to
meet Treatment
Standard 2
1B Very gravelly medium sands, very gravelly fine sands, Varies according to
very gravelly very fine sands, soil type of the non-
very gravelly loamy sands. gravel portion $
2A Coarse sands (includes the ASTM C-33 sand). 1.2
2B Medium sands. 1.0
3 Fine sands, loamy coarse sands, loamy medium sands. 0.8
4 Very fine sands, loamy fine sands, 0.6
loamy very fine sands, sandy loams, loams.
5 Silt loams that are porous and have well developed 0.45 •
structure.
6 Other silt loarns, sandy clay foams, clay foams, 0.2
silty clay foams.
TABT,F IS FROM WAC 246-272
•
Board of Health
Old Business
Agenda Item # IV., 2
• BOH Policy 96-02 Reconsidered
June 13 , 2002
•
•
Board of Health
Old Business
Agenda Item # IV. , 3
• Jefferson County Board
Of Commissioners
Resolution 31-02
June 13 , 2002
•
At
• JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF } RESOLUTION NO. 31-02
HEARING NOTICE: PROPOSED BUDGET }
REDUCTIONS FOR VARIOUS }
GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS }
WHEREAS, the 2002 General Fund budget was adopted on December 24, 2001,
per Resolution No. 99-01, in which appropriations of expenditures were made
for the various departments funded by the General Fund, and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington has reduced state shared revenues to
support the local criminal justice system by eliminating I-695 replacement
funds, and
WHEREAS, local economic conditions have been in decline resulting in
lower revenue receipts for various revenue sources including sales and use
tax, timber excise tax and investment income, and
WHEREAS, expenditures approved in the 2002 General Fund budget exceed
projected revenues by approximately $930, 000, and
WHEREAS, future forecasts for revenues are not expected to increase to
a level to sustain the current authorized expenditure levels, and
WHEREAS, available reserves would be depleted if expenditures are not
reduced during the 2002 budget year, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners finds that the aforesaid conditions
• constitute and emergency that could not have been foreseen or contemplated at
the time of preparing the General Fund budget for 2002 .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That an emergency exists and that the
following identified departmental budgets within the General Fund are to be
reduced by the amount shown on Attachment A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held on the said
emergency budget reductions and that said hearing be held in the County
Commissioners Chambers, Courthouse, Port Townsend, Washington on the 29th day
of May, 2002 at the hour of 2 :00 p.m. and that said notice of said hearing be
published in the official newspaper of Jefferson County, and that at said
hearing those interested may appear and be heard for or against the budget
reductions for such alleged emergency.
APPROVED this -13th day of May, 2002 .
FFERSO -,UNTY
' t i . , BOARD OF COM 1 SIONER
. 1 ' .r Af ,
SEAL: / I �� III 1
, � 1 �� mrd Wojt, airi
Alingsuisow
ATT T: q Dan Titterness, Me' •er
1111
AA• /
Lorna Delaney, CMC / ,,;9 /
Clerk of the Board ( Glen Huntingford, M4ter
u
ATTACHMENT A •
Reduction Revised
2002 Budget Budget
Assessor 555,706 11111"11546,483
Assessor
359, 341
Auditor 150, 251
Elections
County Administrator 280,282
1111111111111111111111111
(10, 028)
County Commissioners 1111111111111111
_®Board of Equalization (1, 360) 3, 803
Civil Service Commission
4,208 (405)
Commission 10, 123 '
Planning 123, 437
1111111111131
1111111111111111 (2°' 550)
� (20, 550)
Public Safety 179 806
Cooperative Extension
188,270 MOM
District Court 111110211111115111111111111111511111
212, 504
Animal Services
223, 390 (10, 887)
III
iiiiiiiiiMININIIIIIIIII
parks & Recreation
390, 534 (20,245) 370,289
Community Development 586, 505
Prosecuting Attorney IllaillilliMalli22, 350
23,450 (1, 100)
Coroner 2,461,410
NEIIIIIIIIIIIINNIIIMIN®�� 360, 596
Superior Court
410, 552 MEM
221608,
Operating Transfers 1, 1,208, 334
Non-Departmental
1, 310, 079 (101, 745)
Grand Total 12, 178, 360 (908 , 604)
III
May 29, 2002
• Community Health, Environmental Health, Natural Resources & Human Services
Presented by Jean Baldwin, Director Community Health, Health & Human Services
Public health structure is a compilation of National and State systems that rely on local
jurisdictions to provide services to each community. Funding for those services is a shared
responsibility of Federal, State and local agencies. Health&Human Services provide essential
core public health services to Jefferson County through the competent management of local
public health funds. For over a decade we have been able to provide professional services to
Jefferson County that have ensured a decrease in communicable disease and family violence
while implementing services that allow development while preserving water quality.
In this, the third year of declining public health funding, we are no longer able to reduce
programs and services while maintaining outside revenues that are leveraged by local dollars.
Those programs have enabled Health&Human Services to generate $5 in public health funds
through fees, grants and partnerships for every one-dollar received through County General
• Funds. These funding practices and management systems allow us to provide essential core
public health services to our community such as immunization clinics, assessment, and
prevention services.
Prior to this budget revision Community Health had already cut $90,000 from program budgets
and reduced staff by 1.5 FTE. Additionally these July budget revisions cut a further$147,267
from the HHS budget. These further cuts mean that the general fund support to HHS are at
about the same level as 1996. Funding priorities are set by local needs and decisions are
directed at core services and measured by performance standards. This reduction in General
fund support rolls back the public health support to the lowest level since pre 1997 with the
expectation that services will meet the community health needs of 2002 and beyond. While we
are able to tighten our belt for the next 6 months, we must sustain key and essential public health
service to our community. We implore the board of commissioners on behalf of the citizens of
Jefferson County to maintain funding to public health services at a level that assures a safe and
healthy community for our children and seniors today and in the future.
•
•
Board of Health
New Business
Agenda Item # V. , 1
•
Vaccine Shortage Update
June 13 , 2002
•
411F-
RESPONSE TO HEALTH OFFICER INQUIRY: REASONS FOR VACCINE SHORTAGES
•
Reasons for the Shortages Overall
The nation has been experiencing shortages of several of the routine childhood vaccines since
mid 2000. Although there are some differences in the underlying causes of shortages among the
various vaccines, there are several over-arching factors that are applicable to the vaccine
shortages in general. They include:
1. Decreased or limited numbers of manufacturers producing and supplying vaccines.
2. Removal of thimerosal containing vaccines from the supply.
3. Production changes due to the removal of the preservative thimerosal in some childhood
vaccines.
4. Temporary or periodic discontinuation of production to allow for production practice
changes or upgrades, due to external or internal audit of production practices.
5. Pricing differentiation between the public sector and the private sector that leads to
manufacturers' selecting in some cases to provide a greater amount of the shortage vaccines
to the private sector than to the public sector.
Reasons for the Shortages by Vaccine
DTaP and Tetanus Related Vaccines -- The nation has been experiencing shortages of several
• vaccines since mid-2000. The earliest shortage was in Tetanus and tetanus related vaccines, such
as DTaP, Td, T, DT, and DTaP/HIB, for which tetanus is the limiting factor. This shortage
stemmed from several key factors:
1. In late 1999, public concern over the use of the preservative thimerosal in childhood vaccines
lead to the removal of thimerosal containing vaccines from the market, and revamping the
manufacturing process for those vaccines, effecting the production of DTaP, DTaP/HIB, and
other vaccines.
2. The number of manufacturers of tetanus and tetanus related vaccines decreasing from 4 to 1
over a period of about 3 years. In 2000, a manufacturer that had previously produced 32
percent of the national product need for diphtheria and tetanus products discontinued
production of Td, leaving a single national producer of Td. Shifting shares of the market,
changes in production activities, and the length of time needed to grow the tetanus virus have
all limited the availability of tetanus and tetanus related vaccines.
3. There also has been some discrepancy in the availability of DTaP vaccines for the public
sector, which purchases the vaccine at a lower cost, versus the private sector.
All of these factors have contributed to the current shortage problems. As we begin to see the
resolution of the Td shortage, the shortages for other tetanus containing vaccines, such as DTaP,
will begin to resolve as well. Just recently, there has been some improvement in the Td supply.
Although the restrictions for Td vaccination continue, the vaccine will be made available to the
private sector for routine immunizations in the summer of 2002. The DTaP shortage is
anticipated to be resolved by the end of 2002.
•
RESPONSE TO HEALTH OFFICER INQUIRY: REASONS FOR VACCINE SHORTAGES
•
PCV-7 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 7 valiant) Vaccines --Nationally, the shortage of
pneumococcal conjugate vaccine has been felt equally in both the public and private sectors.
Key factors contributing to the availability of PCV-7 include:
1. A single manufacturer producing the vaccine.
2. Unanticipated rapid implementation in the public sector, and high demand for the vaccine,
resulting in a demand that exceeded manufacturing projections and supply.
3. Manufacturer experiencing need for re-vamping some manufacturing practices due to audits
by the Food and Drug Administration.
The manufacturer indicates that production for 2002 will soon meet the demand though
inventory build-up may not be sufficient to return to the "routine schedule"before fall 2002.
Varicella Vaccine -- The Varicella supply was primarily affected by delays caused by updating
production practices. This is also a vaccine with a single licensed supplier in the United States.
1. Both public and private providers in all states have experienced critical shortages.
2. States that have included Varicella vaccination as part of their requirements for childcare
and/or school attendance are advised to consider options for allowing conditional entry until
the vaccine is available to update the child's immunizations.
411
3. ACIP has recommended that routine Varicella vaccinations be delayed from 12-18 months of
age to 18-24 months of age (see MMWR, March 8, 2002).
Providers may be able to return to recommended schedule by early summer 2002.
Measles, Mumps, Rubella(MMR) Vaccine -- The MMR supply was primarily affected by delays
caused by updating production practices. This is also a vaccine with a single licensed supplier in
the United States.
1. The MMR supply is rapidly improving nationally; in Washington State, we have been
virtually unaffected by this short-term shortage.
2. Nationally, ACIP has recommended that providers suspend the second dose of MMR if their
supply is insufficient (MMWR, March 8, 2002).
•
• Vaccine shorts e
Washington State Departmer2t of g
update
Healtha
June 4, 2002
(The following is an editorial submitted by Washington State Health Officer Dr. Maxine Hayes
to the Yakima Herald-Republic for publication on June 5, 2002):
The mission of the state Department of Health is to protect and improve the health of people in
Washington State. Vaccination is one of the most important things the department does to
accomplish that mission. The department works closely with the policy-setting state Board of
Health on such issues, and both agencies are committed to taking measures to protect public
health despite the current national vaccine shortage.
The shortage is making this work very difficult. Our state buys thousands of doses of vaccine
every year and provides them to children at no cost, however in some ways, we are just like any
other consumer: The product must be available before we can purchase it. That is where the
problem lies. There is just not enough vaccine being made right now. Fewer manufacturers
• producing vaccine along with changes in manufacturing practices have contributed to the lack of
vaccine availability. There have been several types of vaccine in short supply over the past few
years. Currently, the shortage of the vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (DTaP)
is the one that health care providers are most concerned about.
Next week at its June 12 meeting, the Washington State Board of Health will consider allowing
me to temporarily adjust state immunization requirements when a vaccine shortage exists. This
would be a temporary rule change, in effect for 120 days, to ensure that children who delay
receiving a DtaP booster will still be able to attend school or licensed childcare this fall. The
Yakima Herald-Republic recently ran an editorial against this plan, but I believe it was a position
taken without a clear understanding of the issue.
The state Department of Health and the state Board of Health are working with local health
departments, doctors, nurses and clinics to do our best to continue to protect children against
vaccine-preventable diseases. DTaP is usually provided in a series of five doses to children
between the ages of two months and four to six years. The initial three doses provide strong
protection when a child is most vulnerable to the severe consequences of diseases. The last dose
is a booster needed to ensure immunity through the primary school grades.
Unfortunately, there is just not enough vaccine available to provide five doses to every child in
our state right now. That is why during this shortage the National Advisory Committee on
Immunization Practices is recommending children receive the initial three doses of DTaP, defer
• the fourth dose, and if necessary the fifth dose.
• This plan is allowing children at highest risk to be immunized on schedule. I want to make it
clear: Immunization standards have not changed. It is essential for all children to be fully
immunized. Many of these diseases can still result in potentially devastating consequences,
including death. That is why we in public health are taking measures to assure as many children
as possible are vaccinated with this limited supply. We continue to distribute vaccine throughout
the state as soon as it arrives.
All indications are that the national supply of most vaccines should be back to normal by late this
year. We shouldn't punish kids by keeping them out of school because they have not received
their DTaP boosters. By managing the vaccine supply carefully, we should have enough to
adequately protect children and allow them to attend school. The state Department of Health and
the state Board of Health are working with local health departments, health care providers, and
schools to track children who must delay booster doses now so they can be vaccinated when the
supply returns to normal.
Additionally, the state is collaborating with local and national partners to help resolve current
shortages and prevent future ones. In the meantime, we must all work together to effectively
manage this situation so we can continue to protect and improve the health of people in
Washington State.
Dr. Maxine Hayes, State Health Officer
Washington State Department of Health
•
•
•
Board of Health
Media Report
•
June 13 , 2002
•