Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003- January File Copy • Jefferson County Board of Health Agenda • & Minutes January 16 , 2003 • • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:30—4:30 PM Main Conference Room Jefferson Health and Human Services AGENDA I. Approval of Agenda II. Election of Board of Health Chair and Vice Chair for 2003 II. Approval of Minutes of Meetings of November 21, 2002 III. Public Comments 1. Conditions for Approval of On-site Sewage Permits—Mr. Michael Belinski IV. Old Business and Informational Items 1. Public Health Funding for 2003-04 Biennium— Governor's Budget and Tri-Association Proposal V. New Business 1. Stage 1 Smallpox Vaccination —Liability, Consent, and Unintended Consequence Issues 2. 2003 Jefferson County Board of Health Retreat Planning VI. Activity Update 1. Civil Penalties Compliance Procedures 2. Universal Home Visiting VII. Agenda Planning VII. Next Meeting: February 20, 2003, 2:30-4:30 PM Main Conference Room, JHHS • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES Thursday, November 21, 2002DRAFT Board Members: Sta Members Dan Titterness,Member- County Commissioner District#1 Glen Huntingford,Member- County Commissioner District#2 Jean Baldwin,Nursing Services Director Richard W7 jt,Member-County Commissioner District#3 �'� Fay'Environmental Health Director Geoffrey Mascz, Vice Chairman-Port Townsend City Council Thomas Locke,MD,Health Officer Jill Buhler,Member-Hospital Commissioner District#2 Sheila Westerman, Chairman- Citizen at Large (City) Roberta Frzssell,Member-Citizen at Large (County) Chairman Westerman called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m. All Board and Staff members were present, with the exception of Commissioner Huntingford. There was a quorum. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • ommissioner Wojt moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Tittemess sec motion, which carried by a unanimous vote. onded the APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Wojt moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2002. Member Buhler second motion, which carried by a unanimous vote. ed the • PUBLIC COMMENT -None OLD BUSINESS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS DtaP Vaccination Requirement Reinstated for School, Preschool, and Childcare Attendance: Dr. Tom Locke reported that the vaccine shortage has ended. Referring to Senator Patty Murray's written response to the Board's letter, he believes Boards of Health voicing concerns about the vaccine shortage made a difference. A letter in the packet from the State Department of Health urges Departments to remind parents of the need to have children's vaccinations brought current before returning to school -om winter break. Jefferson County only had to delay the 12-18 month booster and did not have to delay ose for the four- to five-year-olds entering school. In response to a question by Member Frissell, staff agreed to report back about the County's exemption rate from this fall. HEALTH BOARD MINUTES -November 21, 2002 Page: 2 West Nile Virus: The Board was interested in an update of birds testing positive for West Nile. Dr. Locke reported there were also positive results from a horse on Whidbey Island and crows in Snohomish and possibly King Counties. State Funding Forecasts and Public Health System Impacts—OFM Report and National Trends: Dr. Locke noted that the packet included a presentation by Wolfgang Opus, the head budget writer from the Washington State Office of Financial Management(OFM), showing budget trends. He described the fundamental businesses of Washington State as education, medication and incarceration, which together now account for appropriately 24% of the budget. In response to a question by Vice Chairman Masci • noting that other curves are moving up whereas education expenses are flattening out, Dr. Locke noted that recessions tend to increase educational expenses because people stay in school due to a lack of jobs. Those out of work tend to go back to school. Another article reported on public health funding; while there is new bio-terrorism funding, state governments are in the process of cutting $58 billion in the next funding cycle. Dr. Locke mentioned that the meeting with the legislators last week was canceled the evening before the meeting. There was Board interest in trying to schedule a meeting on December 10,the same day as the legislators are to meet with the Commissioners, but possibly at a venue other than the courthouse. In response to a question by Chairman Westerman, Dr. Locke explained that Washington State's revenue structure was designed on a natural resource-based economy (logging, fishing, etc) and has not changed • despite the changed circumstances of those natural resources. As a result, the State has a structural revenue problem and does not have a way to cover its minimum obligations. Chairman Westerman referred to the recommendations of a new think-tank organized by the Governor that call for a state income tax—getting rid of property tax, while lowering the sales tax to three percent. She believes a public endorsement, such as from those interested in new solutions for maintaining health, would be appropriate. She is interested in lobbying for new solutions. NEW BUSINESS Smallpox Vaccination—Pre-event Immunization of Outbreak Response Teams and Post-event Mass Vaccination Planning for Jefferson County: Dr. Locke reported that smallpox vaccination is now the number 1 priority of the Centers for Disease Control. The State Department of Health is involved in the rapid development of a comprehensive State smallpox response plan. Although no new threat has been detected,he referred to the Washington Post article, which states that four nations are believed to possess smallpox bacteria. Staff has investigated the feasibility of doing a mass vaccination of all Jefferson County residents over a five-day period. Smallpox planning documents, while open for review by the Board are not publicly disclosable at this stage. Vaccinating everyone in the County— including all educators,nurses, security and traffic flow staffing as well as data and record keeping personnel -- would require a staff of about 640 people. It is believed that there is enough vaccine to immunize the entire U.S. and a new, highly purified vaccine is being manufactured. A Stage I voluntary vaccination could begin as soon as January and would involve 11,000 in the State core response teams. Communicable Disease Coordinator Lisa McKenzie noted that details of federal liability were included in the Homeland Security Bill. HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - November 21, 2002 Page: 3 ÔVice Chairman Masci asked about the necessity of training additional staff in order to cover for the corps response teams being vaccinated? The Board noted that the vaccination could be completed within five days. He also asked about the rate of recurrence for those receiving a secondary vaccination. Dr. Locke responded that he has not seen those rates, but the number of serious side effects/life threatening complications are much lower in people who have been previously vaccinated. Member Buhler said it appears that there has been a shift from being concerned about risk to considering the benefits of an aggressive vaccination plan. Dr. Locke agreed that early in the summer the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)produced a cautious set of recommendations but released a much more aggressive set on October 21. He noted that the sense of risk is different now than 30 years ago. Lisa McKenzie said we are asking people to be vaccinated against a disease that no longer exists naturally in the world and is found only in labs. The risk/benefit is extremely different than if smallpox were actually circulating. The other difference is that now there is a feeling that our population is probably very different than in the 60s or early 70s, with cancer treatment and other medications that affect the immune system. There is also an increased number of the population with HIV and eczema. Dr. Locke reported that he attended a regional meeting regarding the three-way planning being done among Health Departments, hospitals, and emergency medical systems and emergency management. The intent is to divide tasks so as not to overlap responsibilities or allow gaps in planning. ,Port Townsend Public Water System Update: Larry Fay reported on the water supply shortage that ccurred over the last month. At the end of October, the City informed Environmental Health Lake was emptyexpressedthat Lords and concern about Port Townsend Paper's plans to resume normal use of the water supply. They wanted to use 40% of City Lake's capacity before shutting down Mill operations. Although even at 60% full, City Lake would still have enough capacity to operate the City, with both reservoirs depleted, low rainfall could create a high risk of elevated turbidity in both reservoirs and, result in the City enacting cautionary boil water advisory. If the turbidity were to continue, the City would run the risk of losing its waiver for the filtration requirements for a surface water supply. Dr. Locke and Larry met with State Department of Health personnel and City Public Works staff to tour the Lords Lake facility where the Mill had installed a six million gallon-per-day pump to further pump the lake down. There was uncertainty as to the risk of turbidity with this increased pumping. Environmental Health met with Public Works and the Mill to highlight its concerns about this decision, particularly that there did not appear to be any contingency plans in place at the Mill for events such as this. The staff worked with the Mill to come up with a plan for different thresholds and milestones to which everyone could agree, with water quality as the priority. Within 48 hours, Public Works and the Mill had prepared a detailed water emergency plan, which was then reviewed by the State Department of Health. A final plan has now been produced, which the State feels is a very good plan and which will hopefully be incorporated into the City's water system plan for future operations. A key issue during this experience was the involvement by Environmental Health. Larry Fay said that although the State has primary regulatory authority over public water supplies and historically has focused on noncompliance with water quality standards after problems occur, he did not know that they are now positioned to monitor situations for imminent threats and issuing orders as such. •lthough the Mill was close to shutting down entirely, u antiof rain have remedied many of risks. City Lake has since filled but with Lords Lake still own and filling slowly, the City will belie challenged to manage the water supply. Given typical weather patterns, it would take somewhere HEALTH BOARD MINUTES -November 21, 2002 Page: 4 between 100 days to a year to refill the lake. 6 In response to a question from Member Buhler about whether water customers should still be practicing conservancy, Larry Fay said that while residents could cut their use and make a 2% difference on the total water usage, the most noticeable conservation efforts would be those of the Mill. The Mill was able to reduce their 10 million gallons per day to 6 million by shutting down one boiler and one line and laying off 20 people. Commissioner Wojt noted that in an emergency, in addition to conservation by the Mill, we need more storage in town and pointed out that there is a 2 million gallon storage tank on the hill at Fort Worden. Vice Chairman Masci noted that the recent conditions were different from those that caused the Mill to shut down in 1994. He talked about the Mill's turbine,which allows it to sell electricity—even when they shut down the pulp operation, they still generate revenue with the reduced water flow. Kees Kolff recognized that Larry Fay and Dr. Locke were extremely helpful during this short crisis in protecting the public water supply. In response to Chairman Westerman's suggestion that we strive to learn from situations such as this, Kees Kolff recognized Port Townsend Paper General Manager John Begley's letter to the editor of The Leader about cooperation among entities to solve a tough problem. Environmental Health Policy Issues: Larry Fay reviewed his memo outlining policy matters that will • need the Board's consideration over the next year. Staff suggested that the Board schedule a retreat to address agenda planning, policy setting, program prioritization, and establishing ground rules for addressing unforeseen cuts in the State Government and Department of Health. Jean Baldwin said that she also heard from the Board over this past year the desire to know what is going on with the Substance Abuse Board and other health-related Boards. With a full retreat agenda, hearing from those Boards may be something that is addressed under agenda planning. Mr. Fay noted that other additions to the list of Environmental Health issues would be revisions to the State Food Service Regulations and the State On- Site Sewage Code. Chairman Westerman spoke of the need for a clear approach to how the Board would work at the retreat to set policy and prioritize and not get into the specific policies. There was support for Staff preparing an all-day retreat proposal to ensure it meets the Board's criteria. Another suggestion was to list the policy decisions that have to be made as well as issues to be discussed in order to determine policy and priority. This would involve getting broad information. Staff believes a first outline could be ready by the next meeting. Health Department vs. Health District—A Comparison: Following up on last month's discussion of the concept of a Health District, Dr. Locke reviewed his memo on the subject of the future of public health in Jefferson County and the health jurisdiction organizational structure. He noted that there are converging crises impacting the status of community health—in the medical care system (personal health care) and the public health system (population-based health care). Referring to a chart of evaluation criteria, he suggested the Board consider which structure—Health Department or Health District—is the most adaptive, because that is the most important element of maintaining public health services. He noted the next decision of the Board is whether Staff should continue to pursue the idea of a Health District. If so, the next step would be a formal proposal to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff clarified that the third column of the matrix refers to the Cost/Benefit of Changing to a Health District. HEALTH BOARD MINUTES -November 21, 2002 Page: 5 AiJean Baldwin pointed out several funding pressures: (1) Federal bioterrorism money comes with many associated costs for staff training, equipment, skills, as well as time in partnership meetings, and (2) local governments are having trouble as States and the Federal Government cut back services and leave local entities to determine their priorities. County government will continue to shrink and, as a county agency, so will the Department. This doesn't change the fact that we are still bound financially, but it may change the way we plan. The Department needs to develop a long-term plan and a balanced budget to present to the County for approval but which will then be independent of the County system and therefore more responsive to what we need to be doing. Vice Chairman Masci asked if the bylaws of the district system would permit citizen members to be elected rather than appointed by the Board of County Commissioners as they currently are?Another issue was whether the Board of Health or the County Administrator would have the civil service responsibilities of hiring, firing, etc. He also asked if the district would be part of the County employee group or be separate? He said the only real advantages presented in the cost/benefits chart are additional funding from the City, reduced County liability, and simplified governance. In proposal, they are massaged to look attractive but they might not be as attractive in the execution. He would still like to know whether transitional costs would be a hurdle? Commissioner Titterness said he does not know that additional funding from the City is a real consideration because we are already, to some degree, collecting from the City through the City/County contract. Ultimately, even in a district situation, the County would be liable if the Health District were to default. • Jean Baldwin said that when it is penciled out, much would be similar; gains and losses would appear minimal on the financial sheet. Current expenses would equal district expenses (health insurance, benefits), although legal fees could be recouped through some grants through Environmental Health that currently cannot. It is more about liability and responsiveness to the community. Regarding membership, some of this is prescriptive in the RCW and some of it is not. The only real benefit that she could see would be to get rid of some of the politics of being a County Department. One difference between this County and others is that we service the City. To those who prefer that we work to reduce the size of government, this would seem to be a step toward a smaller bureaucracy. Regarding liability, Larry Fay commented that the County is responsible for public health services. There is an accountability that you do not shed by creating a district, but the actions of the Health District would probably be a step removed from the County government in terms of operational liability. Chairman Westerman said that in the public's eye a Health District would not have the political baggage that comes with being a County agency. She said she has always found the City/County dichotomy regrettable. The appeal of a district is the removal of that political stigma from public health issues and the possibility of more flexible regional partnerships. Logistically, it does not look that different to her. Jean Baldwin said it does not look different because we have been a separate budget item since about 1992 and we have had an expanded Board of Health since about 1996. 41Ikhairman Westerman agreed that the expansion of the Board laid the groundwork for a District. Dr. Locke noted that the current public health funding system is acknowledged to be broken. The system HEALTH BOARD MINUTES -November 21, 2002 Page: 6 prior to 1977 was much better, as was the period before 1996 where there were clearly established responsibilities of the Cities and Counties to do shared funding. This was broken by the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax transfer. Currently there is an unbalanced funding responsibility, which essentially falls to the Counties. Cities have no responsibility temporarily. We will either revert to pre-1996 or move into a dedicated statewide funding source, which would then take counties and cities off the hook. Vice Chairman Masci expressed doubt that the State legislature would be able to fix the problem, to which Dr. Locke said if they do not do something this year, there would be virtual bankruptcy in a number of County Health Departments and, potentially, Health Districts. In response to a question by Kees Kolff about the difference between the Health Department and a Health District in the way it receives its revenue, Dr. Locke said the revenue would not change unless the City voluntarily agreed to contribute to the district. Jean Baldwin said the only difference is that it would allow the Department to be more flexible as it contracts with other counties. Commissioner Titterness asked whether, with a District,revenue would come directly from the Federal government or through the county? Jean Baldwin responded that it would come directly to the Health District. Vice Chairman Masci said if the City wanted something from the Health Department they would negotiate and contract directly with the District. To Commissioner Titterness's question, Larry Fay said the Environmental Health responsibilities would 41) automatically go to the Health District. To the question of whether the Board of County Commissioners would be required to be involved as a Health District member, Dr. Locke said they have to be as the County's legislative authority. Commissioner Titterness said he does not see how a district would change anything. With the same representatives on the Board he does not think we would de-politicize the process. In response to a question by Kees Kolff about how the politicization of public health prevented the Health Department from providing service, several members spoke that it has not prevented service. However some of the issues can be political (such as septic issues, needle exchange). A district would distance the Commissioners from the ultimate decision-making on public health issues. Vice Chairman Masci said if there seems to be little other benefit to going to a district, then it boils down to whether the three Commissioners are going to see this as a loss or an enhancement to their power. Commissioner Titterness said that if we were to move to a Health District the public would perceive that we were just trying to make another bureaucracy with which they would have to deal. He referred to a possible Parks District and said the only way we can do this is if we talk about City and County consolidation of all of these types of agencies. Citizens do not want to see separate districts or expanding government. Vice Chairman Masci said he is proposing this as the easiest of the district creations. The creation of • districts enhances public control and were you to create a Health District and create two or three positions that were elected by citizens,then they would have much more control and accountability for those programs. He suggested investigating whether the district could sunset, which would allow the HEALTH BOARD MINUTES -November 21, 2002 Page: 7 •opportunity to see if it works. Commissioner Titterness said that while he believes the topic is worthy of discussion, he does not think it is worth pursuing at this point. Commissioner Wojt said the greatest advantage to the overall health of the Health Board is in terms of being able to work the budget in such a way as to have greater facility to react to changing conditions than as part of the total County budget and all of the systems the County is trying to deal with. He believes a district would simplify and compartmentalize. Commissioner Titterness said, as an elected official that may wind up having to make a decision on this issue, the farthest he would go is to recommend that we ask the public. The Vice Chairman noted that this could be done with an advisory ballot. He believed we would need to educate the public as to what we are doing and why we are doing it and let them decide whether it is in their best interest. MaryAnne Preece commented that she does not believe the public sees Public Health as "Government." Member Frissell said she agrees with Commissioner Wojt. If the only advantage is to create flexibility for the people managing this system, then she believes we need to try it. Jean Baldwin said having flexibility is good, but a greater advantage would be the ability to stay focused Afton your own priorities. Over the last year, their management team spent more time at the Courthouse on committees, only to come to the bottom line of"give us $150K."Runnin one person most of the time, it continues to be difficult to fit in the County. Our calendars and s ervicent del very are short different. Chairman Westerman asked to better understand how districts are working in other areas of similar size. The idea of educating the public enough to be able to vote on this difficult an issue seems daunting. Member Frissell agreed and said she believes the first question the public might ask is what is it going to cost me? Vice Chairman Masci said he believes they would be asking why a change is being proposed. He explained that with an advisory ballot the Commissioners are asking the advice of the electorate. Commissioner Wojt said the real question for the new Commissioners to consider is whether this gives us better service of the County citizens? Dr. Locke summarized that a number of good issues have been raised and Staff would bring back reports of other districts of similar size. He agreed to find out if someone can be elected directly to a Board of Health. It was noted that there was also interest in investigating transitional costs. •Vice Chairman Masci asked for a list of the counties that are districts as well as information about their ransitions. Commissioner Titterness suggested considering a regional district. He said Staff could tell Clallam County that we are discussing whether or not to do a Health District. Jean Baldwin agreed and also noted HEALTH BOARD MINUTES -November 21, 2002 Page: 8 that she believes it would be much more complex to try to structure a multi-county district without • having first tried a district. The smaller county feels that they are getting short changed. State of the State Report: Jean Baldwin distributed the Executive Summary of the State of the State of Washington. Dr. Locke noted that this is interesting in that it asks what we can do about these problems, what sort of interventions have been proven to make a difference. AGENDA CALENDAR / ADJOURN December Agenda Items: Health District Continuation of Discussion, Regular Updates on West Nile and Smallpox and Other Federal Issues. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday,December 19, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. at the Jefferson County Health and Human Services Conference Room. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Sheila Westerman, Chairman Jill Buhler, Member • Geoffrey Masci, Vice-Chairman Richard Wojt, Member (Excused) Glen Huntingford, Member Roberta Frissell, Member Dan Tittemess,Member • • Board of Health Election of Board of Health Chair and Vice Chair for � 2003 Agenda Item # II. By Laws and Ordnance January 16 , 2003 • • BYLAWS OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH ARTICLE 1. NAME The name of this organization shall be the Jefferson County Board of Health. ARTICLE II. PURPOSE The purpose of the Jefferson County Board of Health is to supervise all matters pertaining to the preservation of the life and health of the people of Jefferson County and to comply fully with the requirements of all applicable chapters of Title 70, Revised Code of Washington. The Board of Health shall: • Collect, analyze and disseminate to the community, through the Jefferson County Health& Human Services department, information about community health conditions, risks and resources, and the availability of resources to address identified problems. • • Enact such rules, regulations and policies as are necessary to preserve, promote and improve the health status of Jefferson County residents, and guide the allocation of appropriate and necessary public health resources. • Assure that necessary, high quality, effective public health services are available for the protection of the people of Jefferson County, including the control and prevention of any dangerous, contagious or infectious disease within the county. • Provide for the prevention, control and abatement of nuisances detrimental to public health. • Enforce, through the Health Officer, the public health statutes of the state and county. • Establish fee schedules for issuing and renewing licenses and permits, or for such other services as are authorized by the law and rules of the State Board of Health. Jefferson County Board of Health Page 2 Bylaws • ARTICLE III. REPRESENTATION Membership: The Board of Health shall consist of 7 members, selected as follows: • Each member of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners shall serve as a member of the Board of Health for the duration of their elected term of office. • Four members of the Board of Health shall be appointed by the County Commissioners. Appointed members shall include one Port Townsend City Council Member and one Jefferson County Public Hospital District #2 Commissioner nominated by their respective organizations, plus two at-large community representatives. Terms: Appointed members shall serve for three year terms. Board of Health members may serve more than one term, including consecutive terms. Vacancies: In the event that a vacancy occurs for an appointed representative, the Board of County Commissioners shall appoint another representative within thirty (30) days of the date of vacancy. In the event that a vacancy occurs from the Port Townsend City Council or Jefferson County Hospital District #2,the City or District shall nominate another representative from their membership within thirty (30) days. Absences: Board members shall notify the Chairperson in advance if unable to • attend any regular meeting of the Board of Health. Appointed Board members may be removed from Board membership by action of the County Commissioners for lack of attendance. Three or more unexcused absences from regular Board of Health meetings in one calendar year will be considered cause for removal. ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS Chairperson: The presiding officer of the Board of Health shall be the Chairperson, who shall serve for a term of one (1) year. The Chairperson shall be selected by a majority vote of the Board members present at the first regular meeting of each year. Vice-Chairperson: At the same meeting, a Vice-Chairperson shall also be selected for a term of one (1)year, who shall preside over all proceedings of the Board in the absence of the Chairperson. Vacancies: In the event of a vacancy in the office of Chairperson, the Vice- Chairperson shall immediately assume the duties of the Chairperson for the remainder of the year. Another representative shall be selected to serve as Vice-Chairperson at the next regular or special meeting of the Board. Consecutive Terms: Board members shall not serve consecutive terms as Chairperson or Vice Chairperson. • Jefferson County Board of Health Page 3 Bylaws ARTICLE V. RULES OF BUSINESS • Business shall be conducted in accordance with the most current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, so long as they are consistent with these Bylaws or amendments thereto. ARTICLE VI. COMMITTEES The Chairperson shall appoint subcommittees from the Board of Health and/or members of the community from time to time as the Chairperson shall deem necessary. The Chairperson shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. ARTICLE VII. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER The Board of Health shall appoint an Administrative Officer who shall fulfill the responsibilities specified by RCW 70.05.045, including administering the operations of the Health Department. The Administrative Officer shall serve at the will and approval of the Board. ARTICLE VIII. HEALTH OFFICER The Board of Health shall appoint a County Health Officer, who shall be a qualified physician trained and experienced in public health. who shall exercise the • powers, and perform the duties prescribed in RCW 70.05.070. The Health Officer shall serve at the will and approval of the Board. ARTICLE IX. OPERATING RULES Section 1. Meetings Regular Meetingj Regular meetings of the Board of Health shall be held on the third Thursday of each month. If the third Thursday is a legal holiday, an alternate day may be selected by the Chair. Any regular meeting of the Board of Health may be cancelled with the concurrence of a majority of the Board. The location of the meetings shall be within Jefferson County. Special Meeting: The Chair or two-thirds of the members of the Board may call a special meeting of the Board consistent with RCW 42.30.080. Executive Session: The Board may hold executive sessions from which the public may be excluded for the purposes set forth in RCW 42.30.110. Quorum: A majority of all. Board members, including at least two Jefferson County Commissioners, shall constitute a quorum for Board meetings. Tape Recordings: The proceedings of all Board meetings shall be recorded electronically. Any person may have a copy of tape a recording of any meeting of the Board by furnishing an appropriate recording tape to the Health Department Director's office and paying the costs of reproduction. Jefferson County Board of Health Page 4 Bylaws Minutes: Written minutes of each Board meeting shall be prepared and approved . by the Board at the subsequent regular meeting. Minutes shall be signed by the Chair at the time of their approval by the Board. Meetings Open to Public: All regular and special meetings of the Board and Board committees shall be open to the public, in accordance with RCW 42.30. Materials to Board Members: Except in cases of emergency, the agenda and materials related to action items shall be sent to Board members in advance of the meeting at which the items will be considered. Section 2. Voting Actions Requiring a Vote: Each member of the Board shall be entitled to one vote on all actions of the Board that require a vote. An affirmative vote of a majority of Board members shall be required to pass an action of the Board, provided that a quorum of the Board is present. Tie Vote: In the event of a tie vote, the action does not pass. Voting By Proxy: There will be no voting by proxy on any question before the Board. Section 3. Ethics Conflict of Interest: Members of the Board of Health having personal or professional interest on an action item that may be deemed conflicting or infringe upon the appearance of fairness shall declare the conflict and refrain from discussing • or voting on such matters. Section 4. Public Testimony General Public Comments: At each meeting, according to the usual order of business. the Chair shall call for general comments. Persons wishing to comment shall give their name. The Chair may establish time limits for individuals who wish to speak. Comments on Action Items: Prior to voting on any item requiring action by the Board, the Chair shall call for comments by persons interested in or affected by the matter under consideration before the Board. Persons wishing to comment on action items shall give their name, and the Chair may establish time limits for individuals who wish to speak. ARTICLE X. MISCELLANEOUS Reimbursement of Expenses: Board of Health members may receive reimbursement for approved expenses related to completion of their responsibilities. • * Jefferson County Board of Health Page Bylaws ARTICLE XI. AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS 411 These Bylaws can be amended at any regular meeting of the Board by two-thirds (2/3) vote, provided the amendment has been submitted in writing to the Board of Health at least ten (10) days prior to said meeting. ADOPTED the 20`h day of November, 1997 24414/ Chairperson, Jeffe on County Board of Health • • r~ t /7 r7 "997 STATE OF WASHINGTON • JEFFERSON COUNTY �- CO. Hs:1; In the matter of an Ordinance ) Defining the Responsibilities and ) Expanding the Membership ) ORDINANCE NO. 03-0505-97 of the Jefferson County ) County Board of Health ) WHEREAS: Pursuant to RCW 70.05.030,the Board of County Commissioners has constituted the Jefferson County Board of Health. WHEREAS: Section 6 of RCW 70.05.030 and 1993 c 492 s 235 were each amended in 1995 to include the following: The board of county commissioners may, at its discretion adopt an ordinance expanding the size and composition of the board of health to include elected officials from cities and towns and persons other than elected officials as members so long as persons other than elected officials do not constitute a majority. An ordinance adopted under this section shall include provisions for appointment, term, and compensation, or reimbursement of expenses. WHEREAS: The health and safety of the citizens of Jefferson County,and the condition of their living environment, are of paramount importance to the County's well being. WHEREAS: The Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Health, determined at its February 25, 1997 meeting that the addition of persons with knowledge, interest, and expertise regarding the health, safety, and well-being of Jefferson County citizens and their living environment would benefit the operation of the Board of • Health and the citizens of Jefferson County. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED That the Board of County Commissioners after due deliberation and in the best interest of the public,does hereby expand the size and composition of the Jefferson County Board of Health. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED That Title 8,Health and Safety, of the Jefferson County Code be amended to include a new Chapter 8.00, Board of Health, defining the responsibilities and membership of the Jefferson County Board of Health, as follows: 8.00.010 Duties and Responsibilities: The Board of Health shall have responsibilities over all matters pertaining to the preservation of the life and health of the people of Jefferson County and shall: (1) Collect, analyze and disseminate to the community,through the Jefferson County Health& Human Services department, information about community health conditions, risks and resources, and the availability of resources to address identified problems; (2) Enact such rules, regulations and policies as are necessary to preserve, promote and improve the health status of Jefferson County residents, and guide the allocation of appropriate and necessary public health resources; (3) Assure that necessary,high quality, effective public health services are available for the protection of the people of Jefferson County, including the control and prevention of any dangerous, contagious or infectious disease within the county; (4) Provide for the prevention, control and abatement of nuisances detrimental to public health; (5) Enforce,through the Health Officer,the public health statutes of the state and county; and (6) Establish fee schedules for issuing and renewing licenses and permits, or for such other services as are • authorized by the law and rules of the State Board of Health. Ordinance No.O34')505-97re: Board of Health 8.00.020 Members: The Board of Health shall be composed of seven members. The three elected members of the Board of County Commissioners shall be members of the Board of Health. Four members of the Board • of Health shall be appointed by the County Commissioners. Appointed members of the Board of Health shall include one elected official from the City of Port Townsend City Council and three non-elected community representatives. Community representatives shall include one resident of the City of Port Townsend and two residents of unincorporated Jefferson County. One community representative shall be a Jefferson County Public Hospital District#2 commissioner; two community representatives shall be at-large members. 8.00.030 Terms: Appointed members shall serve for three year terms. Of the members initially appointed, an equal number shall be appointed for two years and for three years. The term of office for all appointees shall commence on the first day of June in the year in which the term is to commence. 8.00.040 Appointment: The chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners shall appoint the initial members to the Board of Health with the approval of the majority of the Board of County Commissioners. The Board shall request that the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Public Hospital District#2 each nominate one candidate for appointment to the Board of Health. The County Commissioners shall seek applications from citizens of Jefferson County to fill the at-large membership positions on the Board of Health. 8.00.050 Vacancies: Vacancies on the Board of Health shall be filled by appointment by the chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners in the same manner as initial appointments are made. Appointments shall be for the unexpired portion of the term of the position filled. 8.00.060 Organization: The Board of Health shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson from among its members. 8.00.070 Meetings: The Board of Health shall hold no fewer than one regular meeting in each month of each year;provided that if no issues over which the Board has jurisdiction are pending upon its calendar, a meeting may be canceled. All meetings of the Board of Health meetings shall be open and public,pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act,codified at RCW 42.30 et seq. Meetings shall be held at such times and at . such locations as to be convenient for attendance by Board of Health members and the public,as determined by a Resolution passed by a majority of Board of Health members. 8.00.080 Rules and Record of Proceedings: The Board of Health shall adopt Bylaws for the transaction of its business. No actions shall be taken by the Board of Health unless a majority of members are present, including at least two Jefferson County Commissioners. The Board of Health shall keep a public record of its transactions, findings and decisions. 8.00.090 Compensation or Reimbursement: Appointed members of the Board of Health shall not receive compensation for their services. Appointed members may receive reimbursement for approved expenses related to the completion of their responsibilities. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED That such amendment shall be effective immediately upon execution of this document by the Board of County Commissioners. APPROVED and ADOPTED this J day of / (=?'-/ , 1997. ) , • JEFFERSON CO T ' SEAL: , •! i •••. • s_=FCO COM i "S Al g . .1. + ��d Wojt, Chairman ,` r / 4 \' � )',72-: Glen�funtingford, =�'.er ATTEST.,„:2' / ///1,,-\_' —/-7- • Lorna Delaney,CMC 7f---- Dan Harpole, Me .- Clerk of the Board ., • Board of Health Public Comments Agenda Item # III. • Conditions of Approval of On-site Sewage Permits - Mr. Michael Belinski January 16 , 2003 • • Memorandum To: Jefferson County Board of Health From: Larry Fay Date: January 9, 2003 Re: BOH Meeting 1/16/03, Michael Belinski Attached is a letter from Mr Belinski to the BOH. Mr. Belinski has asked to address the Board regarding concerns that he has about certain provisions contained within the Jefferson County Onsite Sewage Code. Mr Belinski has submitted this written discussion • to preface his remarks • 4 December 10, 2002 rfECEilisb • Jefferson County Board of Health DEC 1 o 200 C/O Jefferson County Environmental Health Office oeiO Z ri 621 Sheridan Street virnnent-ount Port Townsend, WA 98368 SUBJECT: Arguments involving Conditions of Approval for Onsite Sewage Permit # SEP 99-00242 Dear Board of Health, As was presented to the Board in my Letter of Appeal to the Board of Health dated May 3, 2002, I believe the conditions for approval stated in the subject permit, specifically condition#2 involving the requirement of a PUD monitoring contract and condition#16 requiring performance monitoring, are unconstitutional. (As an aside, The Board of Health failed to contact me pursuant to Section 8.15.170(4)(d), of the On-Site Sewage Code (Jefferson County Ordinance 08-0921-00) regarding my subject Letter of Appeal). As can be found in Article I, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, governments are established to protect and maintain individual rights. • And as can be found in Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. These inspections disturb a property owner in his private affairs and are an invasion of his home, without authority of law. These inspections are highly intrusive because I can image few things more private than the contents of my septic tank. The inspector is also collecting information that might be used to assess criminal and civil penalties. In all the correspondence I have had with Jefferson County regarding this issue of contracts and monitoring, no argument has been presented that would provide a reasonable interpretation as to the "authority of law" that authorizes Jefferson County to mandate third party inspections as a condition of septic permit approval. This mandate is clearly a violation of Article I, Section 7, of the Washington State Constitution. Drunk drivers kill more people in one day, than all the septic systems that have ever failed in the State of Washington. These people are significantly more of a threat to public health and safety than a failing septic system. Would it not be for the public good to stop motorists at road blocks to determine if they are drunk so as to protect the people of Jefferson County from death or injury ? As found in SEATTLE v. MESIANI, 110 Wn.2d 454 (1988) road blocks are highly intrusive and unconstitutional because they violate Article I, Section 7, of the Washington State Constitution. • ,3 Page 2 The subject court case goes on to state: "Nevertheless, the City has offered little assistance in balancing interests because it attempts to weigh the national carnage of drunk driving year round against the minimal intrusion on Seattle drivers for a few seconds each. "The easiest and most common fallacy in 'balancing'is to place on one side the entire, cumulated 'interest'represented by the state's policy and compare it with one individual's interest in freedom from the specific intrusion on the other side . . ." STATE v. TOURTILLOTT, 289 Or. 845, 881, 618 P.2d 423 (1980) (Linde, J, dissenting). A fairer balance would weigh the actual expected alleviation of the social ill against the cumulated interests invaded. Moreover, the City has failed to demonstrate the need for sobriety checkpoints or that less intrusive alternatives could not achieve most of the constitutionally permissible benefits sought, such as the addition of more officers to its special enforcement unit. " Similarly, I would argue that Jefferson County has failed to demonstrate a need for these septic system inspections, other than those performed by the homeowner, or that less intrusive alternatives would not provide the benefits sought. Jefferson County has not met the requirement of "authority of law" to justify the governmental disturbance of a property owner in his private affairs or invasion of his home. There is no "authority in law" for roadblocks searching for drunk drivers and there is no "authority of law" for coerced inspections of septic systems searching for failures or other violations. The purpose of the inspection is to identify failures, identify violations of the CODE and collect information regarding the operation of the septic system. All of which can expose the homeowner to • civil and criminal penalties. Access to private property to inspect septic systems can be gained in one of three ways: • VOLUNTARY CONSENT ❖ SEARCH WARRANT ❖ "JEALOUSLY AND CAREFULLY DRAWN EXCEPTIONS" TO A SEARCH WARRANT VOLUNTARY CONSENT Voluntary consent of the property owner is one method to gain access to inspect the septic system. However, as is presented on Page 2 of my subject May 3, 2002 letter to the Board of Health, consent from the property owner for inspection purposes is not voluntary, it is coerced. A property owner must consent to warrantless searches of his property in order to obtain a septic permit. A voluntary act arises from an individual's free will and is without external persuasion or compulsion. Any consent obtained by Jefferson County, to allow access to property for purposes of septic inspections is dependant on the property owner's submission to a condition that is prescribed by Jefferson County that is hostile to both the • Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. Page 3 411 SEARCH WARRANT RCW 70.118.030 provides for Administrative Search Warrants to gain access to property where there is probable cause to believe that there is pollution coming from the septic system. This Law is written to provide protection for the rights of property owners. It requires the Health Officer to request inspection of the property. If access is denied, timely notice is mandated to any affected person that a warrant is being requested and that person may be present for any court proceeding to consider the requested warrant. The court official may issue the warrant upon probable cause. A specific administrative plan must be developed expressly in response to the pollution. The Health Officer is required to submit the plan to the court as part of the justification for the warrant, along with specific evidence showing that it reasonable to believe that pollution is coming from the septic system on the property to be accessed for inspection. The plan must include each of the following elements: (a) The overall goal of the inspection; (b) The location and identification by address of the properties being authorized for inspection; (c) Requirements for giving the person owning the property and the person occupying • the property if it is someone other than the owner, notice of the plan, its provisions, and times of any inspections; (d) The survey procedures to be used in the inspection; (e) The criteria that would be used to define an on-site sewage system failure; and (f) The follow-up actions that would be pursued once an on-site sewage system failure has been identified and confirmed. (2) Discretionary judgment will be made in implementing corrections by specifying nonwater-carried sewage disposal devices or other alternative methods of treatment and effluent disposal as a measure of ameliorating existing substandard conditions. Local regulations shall be consistent with the intent and purposes stated in this section. RCW 70.118.030 makes it very clear the procedure to be used to access private property for purposes of identifying failing septic systems. Jefferson County has ignored the lawful means by which to access private property for the purposes of inspections and implemented conditions by Ordinance (On-Site Sewage Code (Jefferson County Ordinance 08-0921- 00)), which circumvent due process, violate constitutionally protected rights and the Revised Code of Washington(RCW 70.118.030). This Ordinance is not consistent with the • mandates of the Washington State Constitution or the intent, purpose and mandates of Section 70.118.030. dor Page 4 • "JEALOUSLY AND CAREFULLY DRAWN EXCEPTIONS" TO A SEARCH WARRANT Common law exceptions to the warrant requirement under the state constitution include exigent circumstances, consent, searches incident to a valid arrest, inventory searches, the plain view doctrine, and Terry investigative stops. Other exceptions include airport and courthouse searches. A warrantless search that falls outside these "jealously and carefully drawn exceptions" to the warrant requirement is per se unreasonable. The government has the burden of showing that a search falls within an exception to the warrant requirement. Washington State Courts have repeatedly struck down exploratory searches that fall within no recognized exception to the warrant requirement. CITY OF SEATTLE v. MESIANI, 110 Wn.2d 454 (1988) (roadblock sobriety checkpoint) and ROBINSON V. CITY OF SEATTLE, 102 Wn App. 795 (2000) (urinalysis drug test) are examples of exploratory searches that violated Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. Jefferson County has failed to show that there is a"jealously and carefully drawn exception" to a search warrant that authorizes a search of my property looking for a septic failure or other violations of the Jefferson County On-Site Sewage Code (Jefferson County Ordinance 08-0921-00). CLOSING COMMENTS There is no "authority of law"that authorizes Jefferson County to disturb a property owner in his private affairs or to invade his home in order to perform the septic system inspections mandated by the Jefferson County On-Site Sewage Code (Jefferson County Ordinance 08- 0921-00). There needs to be a rational connection between the remedy provided and the evil to be curbed. The property owner is the person legally responsible for the operation, maintenance and monitoring of his/her septic system(Section 8.15.150). The work performed by the third party inspector is redundant and unnecessary. It results in unwarranted, unjustified and intrusive exploratory searches, which disturb property owners in their private affairs and invade their homes, in order to search their property and collect information that can be used to fine and incarcerate them. Jefferson County has failed to demonstrate a need for these septic system inspections, other than those performed by the homeowner, or that less intrusive alternatives would not provide the benefits sought. The third party inspections mandated by the On-site Sewage Code ("CODE") are redundant and are thinly veiled warrant less searches without any particularized grounds for suspicion. The CODE contains both civil and criminal penalties for violations of the CODE (Section 8.15.180). The information gathered during the inspection is sent to the Health Division pursuant to Sections 8.15.140(5) and (6) of the • CODE. This information can be used to assess civil penalties and criminal penalties, including incarceration(Section 8.15.180(2)). I 1 6 Page 5 • Additionally, the content of Section 8.15.180, lacks due process, and is arbitrary and capricious. The test for evaluating whether a statute meets the requirements of due process is whether it provides adequate notice and adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn 2d 259, 264 (1984). (1) Civil Penalties. Assessment of a civil penalty by the Health Officer can be without adequate notice and is totally without adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Why is there no provision for a permit holder to be given a reasonable opportunity to correct a problem with his/her septic system prior to assessment of a penalty ?What procedure does the Health Officer follow to ensure that all permit holders will be treated equally ? (2) Criminal Penalties. Again, where is the due process ? Any enforcement is arbitrary and capricious. This is also broad and unconstitutionally vague. Lastly, Mr. Fay has discussed with me the possibility of the homeowner doing the inspections required of the third party inspector. As a person reviews the Law regarding warrantless searches and Constitutional Rights, I am not convinced that even that could be legally implemented. Pursuant to Sections 8.15.140(5) and (6) of the CODE, the information collected during an inspection is required to be sent to the Health Department. Article 1 Section 9 of the Washington State Constitution mandates that, no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself', or be twice put in jeopardy • for the same offense. By providing information, that can be used to charge the property owner criminally pursuant to Section 8.15.180(2) of the CODE, the property owner is required to give evidence against himself. There are constitutional and less intrusive methods to monitor/ septic systems. Monitoring wells in the Right of Way, collect water from drainage ditches, the plain view doctrine from a vantage point removed from the property being monitored, and probably the most useful method for a septic inspector, his nose. Jefferson County has implemented an easy, but unconstitutional method of inspecting septic systems by requiring the property owner to submit to intrusions into his/her private affairs and invasions of his/her home in order to obtain a septic permit. The conditions imposed on property owners regarding these inspections are unconstitutional and the Jefferson County On-Site Sewage Code (Jefferson County Ordinance 08-0921-00), needs to be amended to removed these unconstitutional inspections. Respectfully, s J!L 1 Mike Belenski Received By P.O. Box 1145 • Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 437-9808 Date (360) 437-4118 FAX ç • Board of Health Old Business Agenda Item # IV. , 1 Public Health Funding for • 2003-04 Biennium Governor's Budget & Tri-Assoc. Proposal January 16 , 2003 • Tl_4,41—,TT:_1_1: 1 _ T__1_1: r+___ i _rte _ TT__1�1_ Maintaining Washington's Child rens Health Q Funding Priorities: How they stack up III These are challenging times for anyone Governor Locke's Goals for who buys health care. Health care costs x r - Public Health continue to rise at more than five times the general inflation rate. In the next two years, the state faces a $550 million increase in the ■ Maintain and improve the state's public health system cost of maintaining current Medicaid and Basic , Health Plan services for low-income • Preserve health care coverage for Washington residents. the state's most vulnerable and needy people Governor Locke's health care budget provides medical services for hundreds of thousands of Washington residents who otherwise could • Shore up the safety net to help not afford to go the doctor. His plan recognizes the front-line role that those who will lose health the state's public health system plays in preventingand controllinginsurance coverage in the coming Y period outbreaks of disease. And it maintains all current health care programs for children, provides a safety net for the most vulnerable adults, but reduces Basic Health Plan coverage for certain categories of adults - so those most in need can be served. THE GOVERNOR'S PLAN BUYS: Implementing the Long-Term Care Health Management Project. rovides more up-front preventive health care in nursing homes to id costly hospitalizations, unnecessary medical tests and other pensive medical interventions. Saves $6 million GF-State, $6 million federal i Public health programs and statewide networks to protect a population of 6 million people. Programs include communicable disease control, emergency preparedness and response, food and drinking water safety, shellfish programs, the Public Health Laboratory, and maternal and child health. Infrastructure maintenance includes direct grants to the 34 local public health jurisdictions serving Washington's 39 counties. Accountability for the grants is achieved through a contract using the Public Health Standards as a way to measure success in getting results. $127 million GF-State, $621 million other funds `' Investments in preventative programs including expansion of the newborn screening program to add five disorders to the current blood i test and new hearing tests. These programs allow for early identification and intervention of treatable disorders, improving the health of affected children. Further investments are made in food safety to increase training, increase prevention-oriented activities and develop a comprehensive food security (bio-security) plan. $1.2 million GF-State, $600,000 federal Medicaid health care to 704,671 Washington citizens for whom Medicaid services are required under federal law. These are the most Onerable citizens of our state who - because of income, age, or ability - require help with health care. For every dollar spent by the state for Medicaid, the federal government contributes an additional dollar. $2.3 billion GF-State, $345 million Health Services Account- State, $2.6 billion federal Non-mandatory Medicaid health care to 204,000 other vulnerable Tl-,,A—4 TT:-1_1:-1_.._ Tl__1_1__ TT__14.1_ T1--- n ...r--, Washington citizens, such as lower-income aged, blind or disabled ' individuals, women with breast or cervical cancer, and children. $149 million GF-State, $85 million GF-Local, $814 million GF-Federal, $279 million Health Services Account .ntinued insurance coverage for all 21,424 children and 59,399 rents currently covered under the state's Basic Health Plan. $319 million Health Services Account-State A health care safety net with expanded grants to nonprofit community clinics for basic medical care for people living below 200 percent of poverty and who have no other coverage such as Medicaid or Basic Health. Increasing the current state grant by $22 million will allow 42,500 additional people to be served in these settings. $41 million Health Services Account SQUEEZING EVERY HEALTH CARE DOLLAR The Governor's proposal calls for more efficiencies and cost-saving activities to stretch state dollars available for health care. They include: Implementing a Prescription Drug Purchasing Project. Three state agencies that engage in major prescription drug purchasing will develop a preferred drug list and consolidate their purchasing where possible. The three agencies are the Medical Assistance Administration, Health Care Authority and Department of Labor and Industries. Savings will be gained by purchasing drugs that are proven to be the most cost- effective. The project will strengthen interagency collaboration, put a greater focus on evidence-based health care and strengthen the state's purchasing power. Saves $24 million GF-State, $23 million federal, $8 million Medical Aid Account-State, $3 million in various other accounts. plying more controls to Medicaid eligibility. Eligibility for edicaid health care benefits will be reviewed every six months rather than every year. Further, the enrollment process will be aligned more closely with the Basic Health Plan's requirements, including the need for proof of income eligibility. Saves $10 million GF-State, $23 million federal, $13 million Health Services Account. Tying increases in Managed Care rates to the state's cost of living index. The rates the state pays for managed care health coverage have historically been higher than the inflation rate. The most recent managed care rate increase was 8.9 percent. In the coming biennium, those increases will be tied to the Seattle Consumer Price Index, a measure of the local cost of living, and will apply both to the Medicaid and the Basic Health programs. Saves $28 million GF-State, $53 million federal, $35 million Health Services Account Cost of Health Care Coverage Outpaces State Revenue Percent Change in Per Capita Health Care Costs Compared with General Fund Revenue 14'?G 1 Health cafe Costs 1 ilk --\N ,-- \ a M General Fund Revenue 75i, \ .o 0% • • . \ . / -2%i 1 / J -a%j MR 1995 1995 ter 19!Y 1999 2000 2001 M 21703 2C07 4135 TT: T__1_11_ TT__141_ T_.__ '1 _C'1 Amending Initiative 773 to use its new cigarette tax revenue - originally intended to expand the state's Basic Health Plan for working families - to instead minimize enrollment reductions now necessary to pimply sustain the health insurance program. $219 million Health ices Account Implementing the Long-Term Care Health Management Project. Provides more up-front preventive health care in nursing homes to avoid costly hospitalizations, unnecessary medical tests and other expensive medical interventions. Saves $6 million GF-State, $6 million federal Governor's Home Page I Office of Financial Management I Legislature I Press Releases I Budget Detail I Glossary of Budget Terms • • • AWC Association of LOCAL Washington Cities GOVERNMENT J[(o)I[Nlr 1L1E(Gr1[SILA\T1[\V1E PROPOSAL WA\(C(0O Washington Association of County Officials WSAC Washington State Association Clhtu<<clk Mos1huer,. AWC ]P'resiudenut of Counties Greg Zeinap>ell, WA\CO ) Pres kdent 1H[arolhdl Moss,, ' VSA\C 1Presiuden ut 0 January'2o,o3 TRI-ASSOCIATION PRINCIPLES For LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE The Association of Washington Cities, the Washington State Association of Counties, and the Washington Association of County Officials recognize the fiscal crisis faced by state and local government and adopt the following principles: • The Tri-Association will make every effort to assist uniquely impacted jurisdictions to secure sufficient resources so that all cities and counties are able to provide basic services. • The Tri-Association recognizes the need to enhance local government revenues with a focus on securing additional resources for criminal justice and public health expenses. The Tri-Association will advance legislative solutions that assist both cities and counties and will seek $200 million - $250 million in additional annual revenue options for cities and counties. The Tri-Association will also work to ensure that cities and counties are provided adequate flexibility in the use of current revenue sources. • The Tri-Association will support legislation to reduce and/or eliminate state-imposed mandates and program responsibilities or to seek reimbursement and to expand opportunities for increased efficiencies in local government. • The Tri-Association will assist the members in each of the associations to communicate with citizens concerning the impact of insufficient revenues on basic city and county services and the need for corresponding service reductions. • 2 TRI-ASSOCIATION • LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL To assure the capacity of cities and counties to meet criminal justice needs, protect public health, and provide other critical services, the Tri-Association recommends that the Legislature protect local governments' existing revenue base and authorize the following revenue options: RELIEF FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS • State assistance to local governments that suffered a sizeable loss of their general fund revenues is essential to assure that they can provide minimum levels of services. (Funding source to be determined.) • Continued funding for local public health is a high priority for state and local officials. The state must find the means to meet growing demands and assure stable program funding. Twenty-five cents of the state levy unused capacity could be used to fund public health in the state. LOCAL REVENUE OPTIONS PACKAGE Sales Tax Subject to Voter Approval • Counties are authorized to impose an additional sales tax up to 0.2%. • • If a county failed to impose such tax, a city therein may, subject to voter approval, levy such tax. • Countywide Distribution: Countywide sales taxes would be distributed using a formula of 40/40/20. o 40% for County regional services. o 40% for City services. o 20% for Unincorporated services. • Within each county, the cities and county may negotiate a different distribution formula. Property Tax Subject to Voter Approval Shift 35 cents per thousand from the unused state statutory levy capacity as follows: • 10 cents countywide, increasing the maximum county general levy authority from $1.80 to $1.90 per thousand, for regional services. • 25 cents to cities, increasing the maximum city levy authority from $3.60 to $3.85. • 25 cents to unincorporated areas for police and other services. (This would require formation of an Unincorporated Service Area.) Utility Taxes Subject to Action by the Local Legislative Authority • Cities are authorized to impose up to an additional 2% utility tax without voter approval. • Counties are authorized to have taxing powers in unincorporated areas identical to cities, except that there is no authority to impose a business and occupation tax other than on • utility services. • The authority to tax utility services shall apply to all such services provided to consumers by any utility purveyor. 3 IMPROVE EXISTING REVENUE ELEMENTS • • Levy Lid Measures: Reduce the frequency of levy lid lift ballot measures to allow voters to approve multi-year levy lid lifts. • Flexibility for Capital Purposes: Loosen restrictions on the usage of the current Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) to allow use for all capital purposes. • Recognize Community Priorities: Eliminate or reduce statutory fund restrictions that require local governments to spend money on lower priority programs, while higher priority programs are being cut. • Parity for Utility Taxation within Cities: Authorize cities to impose utility taxes on special purpose utility districts for services consumed within such cities. • Interest Earnings: Clarify treatment of interest earnings to permit counties to deposit interest earnings from all county funds in the county current expense fund. CHANGE STATE LAWS TO PERMIT CITIES AND COUNTIES TO CUT COSTS AND MAKE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF EXISTING RESOURCES •Environmental: • Flexibility in Meeting Unfunded Regulatory Mandates: Suspend mandates for environmental or land use planning updates if state funding is not provided (e.g. Shorelines, GMA). Local governments need flexibility in meeting unfunded regulatory mandates, such as the stormwater management requirements, which mandate practices with significant costs to local government. Local Government Operations: • Efficient Purchasing: Eliminate red tape generated by outmoded purchasing and bid requirements. Increase competition and cut costs by publishing bid requirements on a central website. • Market Interest Rates: Reduce interest rates paid by governments (and therefore taxpayers) for court awards. Currently, interest on awards is set at 12%, even when ordinary bank accounts are earning about 1%. • Updating Building Codes: Adopt building codes used by other states to reduce costs for training, documentation and building. • • Independent Audits: Reduce the cost of audits by allowing jurisdictions the flexibility to have audits competitively bid by private firms. 4 • Binding Interest Arbitration: Mandate that arbitrators use the implicit price deflator for cost of living adjustments. Amend the binding interest arbitration statutes to require arbitrators to • consider a jurisdiction's ability to pay. Eliminate comparables outside the state for all interest arbitration. Capital Projects • Inter-local Cooperation on Construction and Maintenance: Allow local jurisdictions to bid on each other's projects in order to increase competition and make better use of specialized equipment and staff. • Public Works Projects: Speed up public works projects by eliminating months of delay caused by the redundant approval process for Public Works Trust Fund projects. • Alternative Construction Bid Methods: Authorize or expand alternative construction bid methods, such as design/build or general contractor construction management (GCCM). • Cut the Cost of Jail Construction: Allow jail projects to qualify for low-interest financing through the Public Works Trust Fund. Law and Justice • Local Courts: Reduce court costs by allowing jurisdictions to downsize and/or consolidate courts to recognize changes in local government boundaries, caseload reductions, and/or to permit • economies of scale. • Publicly Funded Criminal Defense: Improve standards and process for determining when criminal defendants are entitled to free legal defense. • Tort Costs Limitation: Set reasonable limits on tort liability related to the criminal justice system. • Downsizing and Multi-jurisdictional Consolidation: Permit local governments to offer early retirement incentives for LEOFF personnel for downsizing or multi jurisdictional consolidation. • Third Degree Driving While License Suspended: Decriminalize Third Degree DWLS to unclog criminal courts,warrant systems and jails of thousands of cases for this offense. 5 ELIMINATE STATE COST SHIFTS WITHOUT REVENUE • Election Costs: Require the state to pay its share of even-year election costs. • Jail Medical Costs: The state's failure to fund this expense has cost local taxpayers millions. Require the state to fund the medical costs in jails. • Tax Exemption Review: Require a periodic review of current tax exemptions to detelmine if they are still in the public interest. • Equalize Impacts of Sentence Reductions: If the state reduces sentences for crimes, reduce the corresponding sentences that impact jails operated by local governments. Share the cost savings between state and local governments by adjusting the one year cutoff for felony prisoners sent to state prisons versus county jails, potentially reducing the cost of incarceration for both state and local governments. S • 6 • AVIC ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES 111111111111111111.111111111111111 ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES 1076 S Franklin St SE Olympia WA 98501 (360) 753-4137ww w .awcnet.org WACO = • WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS 206 Tenth Av SE Olympia WA 98501 (360) 753-7319 www.wacounties.org lin WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 206 Tenth Av SE Olympia WA 98501 (360) 753-1886 www.wacounties.org 0 Board of Health New Business Agenda Item # V. , 1 • Stage 1 Smallpox Vaccination Liability, Consent, & Unintended Consequence Issues January 16 , 2003 • 411 Smallpox Vaccination: What You Should Know by Thomas Locke, MD,MPH,Jefferson County Health Officer Smallpox is a potentially deadly infection that has plagued human civilizations for over 10,000 years. It is the first (and only) virus to be eradicated from the planet by a worldwide, multi-decade immunization campaign. By 1972, the risk of smallpox in the United States was so low that widespread vaccination was stopped. By 1980, the smallpox virus was officially declared to be eradicated and a small supply of the vaccine (containing the vaccinia virus, a close relative of cowpox)was put into deep freeze storage. Now, over twenty years later, these vaccine stockpiles are being thawed and distributed around the country for administration to military personnel and health care workers. Here are some of the questions and answers that surround the unfortunate resumption of smallpox vaccination in the United States. Why is Smallpox Vaccination Being Resumed?: Over 24 years have passed since the last human case of Smallpox. The virus still exists, officially, in laboratories in the United States and Russia. Other nations, including Iraq and North Korea, are thought to possess covert supplies of the virus. Reintroduction of smallpox into human populations is a terrifying prospect. Virtually all of the world's population is susceptible to the infection since vaccination only provides protection for about 10 years and very few people living today have had natural Smallpox infection. It is the threat of a biological terrorist attack using smallpox virus that has caused the limited resumption of smallpox vaccination. Who will be Receiving Smallpox Vaccination?: The National Smallpox Vaccination Plan, announced December 13, 2002, calls for three potential stages of vaccination. Stage 1 vaccination, to begin in early 2003, involves public health and hospital-based workers who might be called upon to respond to a smallpox outbreak in their communities. Stage 1 vaccination also involves military personnel who may be sent to combat zones where smallpox could be used as a biological weapon. All totaled, as many as 500,000 health care workers and 1 million military personnel could be vaccinated under Stage 1 guidelines. Stage 2 vaccination would involve a much larger group of health care workers and law enforcement personnel, totaling as high as 10 million people. Stage 3 vaccination would be a nationwide campaign, only implemented in the event of a true smallpox outbreak. Why Shouldn't Everyone be Vaccinated? Smallpox vaccine does not contain smallpox virus,but it does contain a close relative know as vaccinia virus. This virus strain was isolated in the late 19th Century and is highly effective in inducing immunity to smallpox. It can also cause serious, even life-threatening complications in a small number of people who receive the vaccine. It can be spread person to person, accidentally infecting people at high risk for complications. Smallpox vaccination is very different from the modern, highly purified, ultra-low risk vaccines of the 21st Century. It is a relatively crude, live virus vaccine that must be given by multiple punctures of the • skin using a two pronged sterile needle. This method of inoculation results in a localized infection that can become very swollen and sore and shed infectious virus for up to 3 weeks. Certain health conditions dramatically increase the risk of complications from • this vaccine: eczema and other chronic skin conditions, drugs or diseases that impair immune function, and pregnancy. What are the Complications of Smallpox Vaccination? The last large scale studies of vaccine complications were done in the 1960's. At that time, about 1 in 1,000 people experienced some type of complication, usually spread of the virus beyond the initial vaccination site or to another person. Most of these complications were mild and resolved without permanent injury. As many as 1 in 20,000 people vaccinated would develop life threatening complications in which the vaccine virus overwhelmed the immune system and spread unchecked throughout the body. This complication is treated with high doses of preformed antibody to the virus. 1 to 3 out of every million people vaccinated would die as a result of the vaccine. The risk of complications is not the same for everyone. People with eczema(or a past history of eczema) or other active skin conditions that cause breaks in the skin have an increased risk of spread of the vaccine virus over the body. People whose immune system is impaired by medications, cancer,HIV infection, or other conditions are at very high risk of life-threatening complications of the vaccine. Pregnant women and young children also have an increased risk of complications. For this reason, all people with a personal medical history of these conditions, or who live in a household where a person with one of these conditions live, will not be allowed to take the vaccine under the Stage 1 vaccination guidelines. • Do All Health Experts Agree that Smallpox Vaccination is Wise? No, there is considerable controversy about this vaccine. Usually the decision whether a vaccine is needed is based on a consideration of risks and benefits. The risks of smallpox vaccine are well known. The benefits are much more difficult to determine. If there is no exposure to smallpox, there is no benefit. No one knows what the risk of a smallpox exposure really is. Most experts believe the risk is very small. There is also controversy among respected scientists about how many people should be vaccinated. Most feel it is beneficial to have a small group of health care workers immunized in order to "jump start" a national vaccination program in the event of a bioterrorist attack with smallpox. The smallpox vaccine can be effective in preventing smallpox infection even if given up to 4 days after exposure. The United States has enough vaccine to immunize everyone in the country. Most experts believe that some version of voluntary, Stage 1 vaccination is reasonable. Vaccination of carefully screened, fully informed health care workers who are trained in infection control techniques is likely to produce very few complications and accidental transmissions. Far fewer health experts support the notion of Stage 2 vaccination, where dozens of people are likely to die, and risks of accidental vaccine virus spread are much increased. Widespread vaccination of the U.S. population with current vaccine strains could result in hundreds to thousands of deaths and would only be justified if smallpox was once again spreading through human populations. What Should a Person Who Wants to be Vaccinated but is not a Stage 1 Candidate Do? Health departments will not be vaccinating people who do not meet the carefully • designed criteria for Stage 1 vaccination. In future years, as new supplies and types of vaccines are developed, people who wish to be vaccinated against smallpox may be able to enroll in experimental "clinical trials" of unlicensed vaccine. These trials would be offered by the vaccine manufacturers. In the event of a smallpox outbreak, all U.S. residents who are at risk of exposure will be offered smallpox vaccine free of charge. What is the Best Protection against a Smallpox Outbreak? Smallpox is one of many naturally occurring infections that has been developed by national governments for use as a biological weapon. There are a wide range of bacteria, viruses, parasites, chemicals, and radioactive materials that could be used by terrorist governments, organizations, or individuals intent on causing widespread death and destruction. No single vaccine or medication will protect us from this disturbing array of bioterrorist agents. What will offer us the best protection is a well-developed, fully functioning emergency response system that expands our existing capacity to respond to small scale emergencies and natural disasters with new capabilities to handle biological emergencies. Public health and medical care workers will serve on the front lines of any such biological attack. Progress has been made in the last year in building up our emergency response system. We have a very long way to go before we are fully prepared. Achieving the goal of a fully prepared emergency management system will take years of hard work and billions of invested dollars. The payoff of this investment can likewise be enormous—a health care system capable of responding not only to bioterrorist threats but also the everyday infectious disease threats that kill tens of thousands of people every year. • kat' lump to m,. Weather(Traffic i Mariners I Seahawks I Sonics i Forums seattlep .com COMmentar Imoo fi NEVO OPINION jr Lo TOOLS Sp Wednesday,January 1,2003 Nation/World Business Small ox preparation is reasonable � A&E P P p Print this E-mail this Lifestyle NW Outdoors By MARY SELECKY AND ALONZO PLOUGH HEADLINES Photos PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS Special Reports There's not enough$$to make up for felled trees COMMENTARY These are interesting and challenging times for public Decrepit buildings now also Opinion health. Now more than ever, agencies such as Public too small Columnists Letters Health -- Seattle & King County and the Washington State By failing to fix Medicare, David Horsey Department of Health have key roles in homeland security. Senate fails senior citizens Saturday Spin Teamwork leads to Forums improved care We have always worked to protect the health of people in Law of nuclear jungle must COFFEE BREAK Comics&Games our communities, but that work is changing. We'll not prevail Mike Mailway continue to work to make sure water is safe to drink, food Dems'presidential TV Listingscontenders range from is safe to eat and people have access to accurate serious to'you're kidding' SHOPPING information to help protect and promote their health. Now Letters to the Editor NWclassifieds •Jobs we're also preparing for diseases terrorists may spread System not keeping up •Autos intentionally -- such as smallpox, anthrax or plague. It's a with demand • Homes • Rentals huge responsibility. There's progress on • Place an Ad Hanford cleanup,but more work to be done NWsource • Coupons In December, President Bush announced plans to begin Waste adds to Hanford • Online Shop vaccinating some people against smallpox. The initial problems P WHERE stage includes military, public health and hospital workers. Kone courts danger with N. wsletters In Washington we have identified about public erts g 7,000President's tax plan helps PDA health and hospital positions that would be a part of this those who don't need it Cell Phones Desktop first group. This vaccination is entirely voluntary. The OUR AFFILIATES public health and hospital workers would form Smallpox pWspurc Response Teams that can provide critical services to the ;kmo public in the event of a smallpox attack. igc The federal government has not given us a timeline or 4 asked us to begin vaccinating yet, but we're preparing so that King County and the state of Washington will be ready when asked. Be assured, we're approaching this task with appropriate caution. Vaccinating even a small number of people for smallpox is a serious matter. The smallpox vaccine does not contain the smallpox virus; it contains a closely related live virus. It's very different from the standard vaccines that we all have become accustomed to. Unlike vaccinations for flu, tetanus or measles, the smallpox vaccine can have a range of side effects, some of which may be quite serious. For every million people vaccinated, one or two may die. • People with skin conditions such as eczema, weakened immune systems and women who are pregnant or are planning to become pregnant are at greatest risk for side effects and should not be vaccinated. People living with someone with one of these conditions should not be vaccinated, because of the risk of spreading the vaccine virus to them. Also, breastfeeding women should not receive the vaccine. Both of us and other public health leaders around the • country have struggled with concerns over the safety of this vaccine. We have never been in a situation quite like this. No one has had smallpox since the 1970s, but most of us are no longer immune. If terrorists spread this disease, having a small number of people vaccinated would be our first line of defense, yet some of those people may die from the vaccination. Our plan strikes a balance between the need for preparedness as well as a cautious and conservative vaccination program. The people who volunteer will be taking a risk, but we in public health will do everything we can to limit that. These volunteers will be your friends, neighbors and family members. They are stepping up to serve their country, and we'll do our best to take care of them. Each volunteer will be carefully screened to make sure they do not have any of the risk factors that can result in a serious reaction to the vaccine. We'll make sure they are well informed of the risks and receive proper follow-up after being immunized. Questions about liability and compensation for those who have a serious reaction to the vaccine are unanswered. These issues are being worked out on a federal level, and we will continue to raise these issues until decisions are made. Although it's important for our communities to have vaccinated teams of people ready to respond, we do not recommend the vaccine for the general public. Right now the risk of side effects from the vaccine outweighs the known smallpox threat to the general public. Our state does not yet have any smallpox vaccine, and when we receive it, it will be used to vaccinate public health and hospital-based response teams. We will not be vaccinating members of the general public in the near future. It's important to us that everybody is well informed about smallpox and the vaccine. Both of our agencies have information on our Web sites, as does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Washington State Department of Health site is www.doh.wa.gov. Public Health -- Seattle and King County is at www.metrokc.gov/health. The CDC Web site is www.bt.cdc.gov/ • CDC has a phone number for the public -- 1-888-246- 2675. We have no information that smallpox poses an imminent threat,but we believe our plan will help all local communities in our state be better prepared, while limiting the number of people who take the vaccine. We continue our commitment to protect and promote the • health of people in this state, and this limited initial stage of smallpox vaccination is a reasonable action at this time. Mary Selecky is Washington secretary of health. Dr.Alonzo Plough is director and health officer for Public Health--Seattle and King County. Printer-friendly E-mail this Get e maaiil news Subscribe to the version story updates P-I Id Back to top Home I Site Map i About the P-I I Contact Us I P-I Jobs I Home Delivery Stank POS 101 Elliott Ave.W. Seattle,WA 98119 (206)448-8000 Home Delivery: (206)464-2121 or(800)542-0820 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com ©1996-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy Policy 0 • • Board of Health Activity Update Agenda Item # VI. , 1 SO Civil Penalties Compliance Procedures January 16 , 2003 • • Memorandum To: Jefferson County Board Of Health From: Larry Fay Date: January 9, 2003 Re: Civil Penalties and Compliance Procedures In September 2002 the board reviewed a draft compliance procedures document that was presented as a companion document to the civil penalties ordinance that the board adopted. The procedures manual was intended to create standardized approach to complaint response, case investigation and compliance measures. The purpose of this memo is to update the board on the status of document. Environmental health staff originally developed the draft procedures for the county administrator. The administrator had intended to use it as a framework for complaint investigation and compliance for all county departments. The work stalled at the administrator's office therefore it was brought forward to the board for consideration as an environmental health specific policy. Since the BOH reviewed the draft policy last fall the administrator has decided to move forward with the policy at a county level. We have been working with him to move the policy forward. Once adopted they will function as a standard operating procedure for all departments that report to him and the BOH will not need to adopt its own policy. • Board of Health Activity Update Agenda Item # VI. , 2 fe Universal Home Visiting January 16 , 2003 • Jefferson County Health and Human Services • OJJDP Grant Report for Oct. through Dec. 2002,Universal Home Visiting Two Public Health Nurses, Shena Kellewea and Mary Jo Mackenzie,went to the Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) Training in Denver in October 2002. They have now completed the 1st NFP training and are building their caseloads. They're scheduled for the 2nd NFP training February 4-6, 2003. Jefferson County Health and Human Services (JCHHS) Public Health Nurses are doing outreach in the community by attending different meetings and explaining our expansion of services. From July to September Jefferson General Hospital and Jefferson County Health and Human Services designed assessment and screening tools and process. These tools were finalized October 2002. Jefferson General Hospital and JCHHS are both teaching the classes at the hospital. The coordination of the universal new born home visiting continues with the ongoing timely referrals by the Hospital nurses and local MD's. Universal newborn screening home visits began in the fall of October 2002 and continues to identify new family's needs and make referrals. During the visit breast-feeding and formula feeding are evaluated. Education around the frequency of postpartum depression is provided and support for the mother to access appropriate resources for counseling, and • or, medication. A screening tool based on Reg. X Federal MCH Standards is being evaluated. Many of the mothers and babies attend one of the weekly support groups facilitated by a JCHHS nurse. Each new family is given a packet of information that includes "The Keys for Caregiving", guidelines for understanding babies cues,behavior and states and other referral information. In August we reported to the Board of Health about the outreach support and education being provided to county new families. An article (see attached)was published in our local paper describing the expanded and new services being offered to county residents. January 10, 2003 Julia Danskin Health Services Program Manager Jefferson County Health and Human Services 615 Sheridan Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9420 • Email: jdanskin@co.jefferson.wa.us • • • ery • 4 ces ,ex and for: .� others . , Childbirth classes start Nov. 4 at JJefferson General Enhanced and expanded ser- General Hospital Birth Center, your individual appointment,call newborn home visit, or if you vices for pregnant women, midwives, health care providers the hospital's birth center nurse have other questions, call Carol families and parents of new and other delivering hospitals. at 385-2200,ext. 3600. Hardy or Yuko Umeda at the babies have been recently Families of newborns are wel- • Breastfeeding Tea Party— Health Department, 385-9400. implemented through a col- come to call for services. for all breastfeeding moms and laboration between Jefferson Continuing services include babies, or pregnant women County Health and Human Ser- prepared childbirth classes, of- wanting to 'earn about vices Public Health Nursing fered by the Health Department breastfeeding — meets each Services and Jefferson General and relocated to the JGH audito- Wednesday, 1:30-3 p.m. at the Hospital Birth Center. num, which meet on Mondays Health Department, 615 In September, two new ser- beginning Nov. 4. In addition, Sheridan in Port Townsend. vices were started by the boththeJGHbirthcenterandthe • Breastfeeding Support and hospital's birth center. "Baby Health Department nursing staff Consultation is available by ap- Steps"provides an appointment continue to provide breastfeeding pointment. Call the Health De- with a labor and delivery nurse education, support and lactation partment at 385-9400 or the birth to discuss birth plans and re- consultants. center at'385-2200, ext. 3600. sources,facilitate preregistration Over the next year the two Questions are welcome. at the hospital,and provide a tour health entities will collaborate in •Newborn Home Visit:If you of the birth center.Additionally, creating new classes and services are a new mother and haven't a obstetrics nurse from the birth for pregnant women including received a phone call offering a 1. center is now available 24 hours preparation for breastfeeding t. *day for phone calls to answer classes offered during pregnancy, questions during pregnancy and hypno-birthing classes for ex- after delivery. pectant parents, weekend child- Newborn home visits to all birth classes and a new parent , . neyv'mothers and babies is now support group. offered by Public Health Nurs- ing Services, starting Nov. 1. Current schedule Nursing staff will provide infant •Prepared Childbirth is a six- weight checks,support and infor- week series that meets from 6 to mation on services in the com- 8 p.m. Mondays at the hospital munity. Other services include auditorium.The next series starts breastfeeding consultation and Nov.4.For more information and support, and screening for spe- to sign up call the Health Depart- cial needs. Referrals for home ment at 385-9400. visits will come from Jefferson • Baby Steps: To schedule It• L * /o- vte) - d -2— • Board of Health Media Report • January 16 , 2003 • • Jefferson County Health and Human Services DECEMBER 2002 NEWS ARTICLES 1. "Party scene: Teen drinking pattern worries police,schools" P.T. LEADER, December 4, 2002 2. "High school rules cover some kids"and "Students' view: parties every week" P.T. LEADER, December 4, 2002. 3. "Can Peninsula thwart smallpox terror?" Peninsula Daily News, December 6, 2002 4. "County told to better protect water wells from seawater" P.T. LEADER, December 11,2002 5. "Smallpox shots on the way" Peninsula Daily News,December 16, 2002 6. "Locke says state no longer blazing health care trails" Peninsula Daily News, December 18,2002 • 7. "There's still time for your flu shot" P.T. LEADER,December 18, 2002 8. "Carr's Lube earns environmental award" P.T. LEADER,December 18, 2002 • I• o l u g O o 3 c o °• x o l'-' o h o > r 8 w a E o-y u d E u 2 a • u>,^ t m °� ao hah uoi ,+,,., Tg I • i1.oo H a F.,c3u O '.0 [.� t • 1:-::3 ,G w 'T' 'u0 3 U w 'b '- '5 'S U U Ur+. O N G 'c �" to b':o �) 1' t caO .S 5a- G .0 ° arX ` 8. ° v ? u3 y U U : U 0 a E • cov u T y 0 T u t U c o ,t .°• 5 : > x EH T .r U O Q• p O ,° U u u u 0Upp g a E o Ca y O .. ° o a . a• . c o 0 0tilfiUflhllilt•ascene _ v2': ilI!0U41 ° 9990w H • • �•� � .c � ilhIii 'fliilWllutI� `EiTeen d pattern E 3 G • • • = G o o rag IiflflflflSfl 7a ,, jI1 wornes pohce, schools g .° .E , .,8 By Philip L Wetness old boy,three i7-year-old boys,two 18- o ° c c .S ' '? •D ,5 ' '" o 'y ° ,'> g L �>, 2 Leader Staff Writer year-old boys,a 15-year-old girl and a $ o $ u o °, cC 3 °, u ° R v . . 5 o o•8 c, Q = 43 16-year-old girl. u T �°ss° > g ,, rau 4 .11 ?: ti c '2 u > m s E g td °o High school officials,police and•u- Port Townsend Police Sgt.`Ed u s °••. ' ti :0 A E .� ao .5 '8 c E 3 •w . b :nil eworkers believe they're Green estimated "well over 20 kids" '- E ° x ' 3 ''•c ° •a 5 2 3 a-- `c' E .0 U E justiceY� � o u u o oo-o � � ° � W o S E E'‘,-,- .o . .. o .S Y g P iceberg party P - n , :D .E :n u :.x ca -0 or- E , r) o T->, c .2 •E 5 3 5 il seeing the of the iccbe of al- had been at the art at the time o N u Z , •5 b u o u 8,,b h u • g = o U = >hol use among students and student lice arrived, but many ran from the E -S H .y ui ra .°? t ,c o 3 55 w O 3 ¢ .? a°n hletes.But they don't know whether scene. Three Port Townsend squad e prob Is worse this year than in cars and several Jefferson County —°o .' ' s .5 ,- t o co 5 3 2 = r •evious Sheriff's Office deputies responded to o ro .... L-.: o -� u o x x o x .5 F ;, .o v A teen in earlyOctober on Tho- reports of a loud party. `" Et- 3 E •o ; c E u E E ° -- 2 ,5 > a c party P Hv vu ❑ .N 3 M o , E° c o E o°0 u D ... E:� ° h '- as Street in Port Townsend raised red v x 2 0 -4 - u •8 o p c 8 ° _ u ra u ° u 2 v t!, o0 ags for school officials and juvenile `What kid doesn't drink?' o h .� g u. ° ' ° •a 00 " — A _2 • stice workers for several reasons.Nine Barbara Carr, director of Jefferson J n u 0 t y $ () 0 .°c •5 •d z o •O 0 u '° u E 3 S. 2 — 0 3 venues were arrested, two of whom County Juvenile Services,said her of- n c °'o '' b ti 3 u ° n°. S o = ' 3 0 „ -0 •o r u .a ere so intoxicated they were taken to fice has handled fewer alcohol-related �° •$ V. u , u s o 2 2 u 3 c 3 t-; c c H 5, t- „ :fferson General Hospital.The police cases this year than last,but she doesn't c o c p >,'0 0 Z 3 ° o rau c ° -_, y y 3 - u o e. . ,c, a U •U U U O 0 U = :•'t U • U �? Y rested a 14-year-old boy, a 16-year- See TEEN DRINKING,Page A 12 w ° .c t ?�- o u ¢ o - a w o u E o 8 ° ti 8. > .2 a.L i,rn c `8. -8u ao3 1�... . � Uu - °• UO -2 • . 5a. 0 - ,C T , u O ,c OJ >,.0 U ..,EL.. W UV) N '''D . u v ° - ••5 •a p u g 3 fgr : tic :.0 � , o • u to �V Naayoo.. ° 5 c � 00 E $ , , C 'O ' ug ... .0 1'40 C .J �t - c ' r, Q "R a • c g . 00 o O .5 E 0. P •. • ti: > o .. O D ° T .° 'D • E ••5 oO ` -h HhO Tv. b �. luallit t , E a ti oo f '4 3 c s -c ,t: 0 : . 5 ° °Tcx ,. Lr -,i) n ' � . .6 Xo v. .c ci c C O .''' 'N o • ".e.4 E y E c c A o E `o c ct o .y ra • °. t- • 7v o ,5 °° k ct o0 3 u 3 T o0 u c u U u ,o is s r w &t '' 3 v) ? u `1!-,, a^' ro •° c ° L'''I; E d ca H L O A p o ° V N V Y w u _ E U N L E 2 :. a U U V N w E u '' td ?i. LEik b E� o f 71 1 v u u o ac O •v EVA N 7 u 1 .c ft) `7,-T, o '•v , .c o I. 5 .B o A 3 3 .o 0 3 .o 0 --q--6 )--- 4%11 c 1 c a ro . ar °^,, E- -Z .,-=,) -c c k u _ 8 � '-0 5 o°oh - S w `H° '' cn 4 3 '- .v' EU `o'i � • o .* U 'eN ou fCi, � N 0 Fb •e .c t) y C v v o :. E o b 8 U .. vc '> tc :i� S . : °C v • m ow' C vyT� OD A 'b7 .c H Y .0 L °DO H ,k ° c CD CNT- a 'cO '% '9 n _ E U :O `i \ : 2 .5 's -5 '' -~ a °° 0 ' c 2 ÷-,1 ; ° .o = °"u c .°D - `N >' a .0 •o ,,,- .3' ° g N -o c O 4 Ta ,y D '° c •° N C U ', 0.`.. edO Nj Fc-oo3a2 S2a° . 1-4 o"■ .xctloa `t .� ° 3I. o fii t%) (e �_o ca waa'� � mon 0c° b%n-g-g ° g2 Laall e -1 ii23 3I� � Pox: Effectiveness unsure ro. 0 -•o o..0,C y ._._ _ cd a1.+"'" y by p O 5 3o' o ro I- y a•°3 $° CONTINUED FROM Al week, those identified first to Locke told the preparedness CD .":"E. o b'8°'0 ,)4 d 2:' ~ On Nov.25,President Bush get the vaccine will have to do meeting audience that the C b0° o ti 'v o o ° q so within 30 days, Gunderson smallpox vaccine was isolated .E a)G 0 . ro o x ° ro ' signed the Homeland Security said in 1904 and has not changed. ° a °• c > S > Act of 2002 into law. In the next stage, "first The last known smallpox The Act restructures and c 0 ° strengthens the executive .response -law- enforcement, case was reported im 1946.- 0 .S ay N c 0 0 a branch of the federal govern- public health officials and all "The vaccine is not easy to w ti ° ° others in the health care corn- administer, we're not sure if t. 000`";;'a'0�, ro >- 3 a °� ist govern- ment thto better meet the-terror- ist he terror- munity would receive the the vaccine is always effec- tive,"°' 3.� ° a N o " In establishinga new fed- smallpox vaccine. tive,"Locke said. "" o 0m o v ° o After receivinga smallpox a 0 ' o , 4 y•� ° e4 w eral Department of Homeland .2 million doses vaccination, there are sixto[ °° --CIs a "" Security,the Act creates a fed- .- o v, 0 0 8 ° .., o o-- nine days when individuals -a kr;ro -•,-,; 0 -0 5.0 a w „ o„ eral department with the pri- mary Two million doses of small- feel flu-like stoms, includ- ing ca.-3^> o ro `v P]• a [ a mission to help prevent, pox vaccine are licensed and ing swollen lymph nodes under — ° a p ro , a -..o d ° protect against and respond to available for use, which are the arms and fevers, said N t a•o a 3 �. acts of terrorism. "left over" from past inocula- Locke. MEM - I .N ) Gunderson, a public health tions,he said. `� Said Locke:h ' ',i o• E o official based in Bremerton, One million doses are desig- "You have 72 hours after o ° w 0 said last January the U.S.Sec- nated for the U.S. Department exposure to get the benefits of e 1 , Y " Z L' :°b retary of Health announced a of Defense and 500,000 more the vaccine." ,,,,,. ,tom" V E.6 o•� $1.1 billion program, to-for other public health and law Simple protective gear such E a p v-o E respond to public health threats. enforcement officials. „vo, -� a o > cd a.� as face masks and gloves will Of that amount,$20 million Another 500,000 doses are protect against the spread of on reserve, he said. Awaiting smallpox,Locke said. 0 0 C,., 8 o , ' a •, was earmarked for Washing- licensure are 300,000 more This is because "person to a 0 o•�' °'�a' o ° ° a ton state, $542,000 of which doses, Gunderson said. After person" transmission is quite V 3 o br S o w >,0 y a~.v 0 o y goes to Region 2 —Clallam, initial vaccinations are corn- low compared with other dis- a ',''2 `a 0 CD 0 C v ° al Q • Jefferson and Kitsap counties. p v ° °� a o > x-o pleted,he said, 10 million pea eases. T .a g 0 an , g a> q x 2 "If we can deal with small- ple could be vaccinated late "Protection from a smallpox pox or anthrax, we have good a' o a, 1,_,3 „, ,i,-,, •,_5this winter and earl next vaccination enerall lasts 10 S o b pa E �— ystead to deal with the majority y g ym c•� 0 t, v;" o c spring. years, generally," Locke said. o °$ W q 0 $ o 0 of bioterrorism threats," Gun- "We have to plan on a "But one given 30 years ago derson said Thursday_About �' ai g pp3 0 y- l worst-case scenario that at any can give some protection." 0 0,P,•o q 0 ° v� bA t~,4 0 3 six weeks ago smallpox reared given time we will have to deal its head...and we entered the o o p C w ° with our own resources,"Gun- The Associated Press con- -5 0,q W 0° crisis mode. derson said. tributed to this report. u.-sc....) �, G>~c,„.,4 0. $ ° n Now,as of Dec. 1,we need 0 3.0 U 0.' ° '- 0 0.f O .° to have a smallpox vaccine _a a,al p,° a, 0 v0, 3 0 0 p c.p a a%0 plan."Th Qry ti- •�,E �,4 2 2.0 The state has written that d -EA' a o :T)) ca o ti F' plan,Gunderson said. 'S 3 a U ap y b �, a ,w Public health officials are IIIIIINfirst in line to be vaccinated 'o 4, co y 0 against smallpox,said Gunder- � B 0 c_ 0 vi •is; son, with 65 public-health • �-r qp °7 C.�-[ 0 0 °• °3 workers and 215 hospital CLO V x u o b *' workers across Clallam,Jeffer- son F 0 a.� w son and Kitsap counties identi- MIEN •^a ct °'�,q z N 0•p, ^� fiedf Withr trn President iate vaccination.Bush �-+ a;U P N °•) s 3 expected to make his '`"i C H o d v�°>,> announcement by early next (tj V ••� %, gbn,ga� ao0 � Cw / Q, s6. 0 `) c. oq 2 - 0-03 -8CD z.., 0 ,, w b " o '�/ J ( - ( -O'2_- 0 a) a) v, ah x 0 a • h,^ •'^� as as 0 o F y sQ. a �-+J r-1 3 0 c-w aa� v0 0 �co dl, c�i v� ' " .2 Z° � s 4 16 co .0•16 o 3wo W v a .,c«• E h ba•o U 801 -0�. 0� ° gq'4 w � 2.5. °n• CIN) -'Y O a V 8 g-n a c) D > c0 as > a.O by 0 Port Townsend El Jefferson County Leader County better protect waterwells from seawater By Barney Burke • sion has occurred there. board concluded that the new Ecology (DOE) only required Leader Staff Writer - ordinance "lacks clear stan- monitoring of Marrowstone Is- Case history dards" for dealing with the is- land. However, the hearings Jefferson County has lost The case stems from the adop- sue and has failed to set more board noted that the petition- yet another decision before the tion of the UDC in December restrictive standards for ers found a letter from DOE Western Washington Growth 2000; that code of development Marrowstone Island. recommended monitoring only Management Hearings Board. regulations replaced previous According to the board, as a near-term solution. Dec. 5, the hearings board seawater protection measures.In chloride levels of 100mg/L Representing the appellants determined that the county is March 2001, Olympic Environ- (milligrams per liter) provide before the board is Colette not doing enough to protect mental Council and the Shine "scientific evidence"of seawa- Kostelec, the engineer-turned- aquifers from seawater intru- Community Action Council filed ter intrusion. The new county law student who once served sion. The board has directed an appeal with the board, which ordinance requires more thor- on the county planning com- the county to clarify language ruled in the appellants'favor on ough review when wells are mission and worked for the in the seawater protection pro- Jan. 10, 2002. drilled within 1,000 feet of a City of Port Townsend Public visions of the county's Unified Pursuant to that decision, well with a chloride level above Works Department.A first-year Development Code (UDC), the county amended its ordi- 200mg/L.Theaveragechloride law student at WSU, she did develop a timeline for revising nance July 23 and again on level for wells constructed on not return a phone call seeking maps of contamination areas, Sept. 23,2002.On Oct.22,the Marrowstone Island between comment by press time. and finalize adaptive manage- board held a hearing to deter- 1990 and 1995 was 232mg/L, Commissioner-elect Wendi 0 nt strategies for dealing with mine if the county had corn- just short of the 250mg/L maxi- Wrinkle has been active with issue within 180 days. plied with its earlier order. mum set by the federal govern- the Shine Community Action In addition, the county was The hearings board's writ- ment, according to the board's Council but deferred to ordered to adopt more stringent ten decision last week indicates report. Kostelec on Monday. standards to protect the aqui- that it is"very impressed"with "In Marrowstone Island,the Commissioners Richard fer on Marrow stone Island the county's progress and that fact of seawater intrusion is es- Wojt, Glen Huntingford and s ithin 90 days,citing scientific the county is taking a "rea- tablished," the board con- Dan Titterness all learned of evidence that seawater intru- soned approach."However,the cluded. the decision Monday and didn't have the opportunity to review County position the 12-page finding. Chief In its brief for the Oct. 22 Civil Deputy Prosecuting At- hearing,the county argued that torney David Alvarez also de- the Washington Department of clined to comment. c4)27'. L )E1 Iz—i1 -02 • • . Smallpox shots on MONDAY,DECEMBER 16,2002 A5 the way • No plan to vaccinate Shots: Smallpox general public, say Peninsula health officers CONTINUED FROM Al with victims might put them at By some estimates, fatality risk for infection. PENINSULA DAILY NEWS rates might be as low as 2 per- Surveillance teams AND THE ASSOCIATED PRESS cent among unvaccinated peo- Local vaccination ple who contract the disease, Dr. Scott Lindquist,directo• r Routine smallpox vaccina- of the Kitsap County Health plans to assure pro- "' Lection of key people tions ended in the United District and in charge of the in the case of a small- States in 1972,meaning nearly three-county regional response, pox outbreak are m half the population is without said a recent surveyshowed place for high-risk military and health °}^h �Y protection from the virus. about 90 percent of public care workers. 1", Health officials aren't sure health employees most likely to About 280 civilian whether those vaccinated be on a surveillance team ark health care workers ' .l decades ago are still protected willing to be vaccinated. in Jefferson, Clallam ` " from the disease. Lindquist was visiting and Kitsap counties Locke The new vaccine will be health care workers in Clallam are among an esti- offered in stages, beginning and Jefferson counties Friday, mated 7,000 statewide who will with those most likely to said other steps also are under receive the smallpox vaccine. encounter a smallpox patient. way. Medical providers need There are no plans to vaccinate the That includes people on training on how to recognize general public, unless there is a ter- state response teams, who side effects of vaccina- rorist attack. smallpox"I think the most important mes- would investigate suspicious tions, how to give the vaccine cases, and people who work in and how to give a clearer under- sage(for the public)is that there are steps in place to achieve readiness hospital emergency rooms. standing of what smallpox is, capacity while at the same time mini- In a second phase of vaccina- he said. mining risk," said Rick Gunderson, tion, the shot could be offered It's part of a bioterrorism formerly in Navy intelligence and to other health care workers preparedness program that now bioterrorism coordinator for the and emergency responders extends to other potential three-county region. such as police, fire and emer- threats besides smallpox, The vaccinations would not be gency medical technicians. Lindquist said. mandatory,since they could pose risks President Bush said Friday The president's announce= • to health care workers with sup- he will take the vaccine along ment indicated a response pressed immune systems and certain other medical conditions. with U.S. military forces, and scaled back dramatically from The vaccine is not expected to be he said that new stocks of the earlier speculation that the available until late January,after the vaccine will be offered to the administration was leaning general public within months. toward mandatory smallpox Homeland Defense Act is signed and liability protection is activated. The He said, however, he is not vaccinations for all Americans. recommending it for most "This a very conservative shots can cause rare but serious side effects,including death. Americans, and his family and and carefully crafted effort to Dr. Tom Locke, health officer for staff will not be inoculated. put the minimum number of Clallam and Jefferson counties, met with health care workers Friday atpeopleutat risk,"heLindquist nt's Militaryvaccinations about the president's Olympic Memorial Hospital in Port announcement. Inoculation of some Army, The government will make Angeles to outline the plans. Locke is scheduled to report to the Navy and Coast Guard person- the vaccine available to the gen- Clallam County Board of Health nel reportedly began Friday, about smallpox vaccinations for but Navy officials for the Pacific beat public on a voluntary or early county employees. He is expected to Northwest would onlysaythe beginning in late spring or early address the board during its meeting Y summer of 2003. at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday in the Health were awaiting Department of Bush and his top health and Human Services Conference Defense direction about what aides emphasized there is they should do. enough vaccine for all 280 mil- Room.The room is in the basement of the Clallam County Courthouse,223 The Pentagon says vaccina- lion people in this count tion will begin with teams that that plans are in place for E.Fourth St.in Port Angeles. For now, Locke said, the govern- would respond in case of attack, vaccinations should an attack ment's main strategy is to vaccinate followed by military medical those who would have to care for vie- personnel and then "certainThe vacwith the vccn occur. tiros—and vaccinate everyone else ifcine has risks of its a deliberate release of smallpoxforces that we believe would be own.Based on studies from the were important to carry out any mix- 1960x,experts to happen. estimate that 15 sions in the near future," said out of every 1 million people Offered in stages Gunderson. vaccinated for the first time will Smallpox was declared eradicated Health officials planning the face life-threatening complica- smallpox response said they tions,and one or two will die. from the world in 1980, but experts fear that it could be used b hostile have identified the positions— s in an but not the individuals—that forthoseRig revaccinated nations or terrorist groupons are common attack. would make up surveillance Using these data, vaccinat- Intelligence experts believe that at teams to investigate and diag- ing the nation could lead to • least four nations, including Iraq, have unauthorized stocks of the virus. Smallpox is highly contagious and nose reported cases of smallpox nearly 3,000 life-threatening and later vaccinate those, like complications and at least 170 family members,whose contact deaths. kills about 30 percent of its victims. Some medical experts say modern • care, including new antiviral drugs and other techniques, could make smallpox much less fearsome than it was decades ago. TURN TO SHOTS/A5 ... • . Locke says state no longer blazing health care trails New budget would 60,000 childless adults. Also, his budget takes tobacco taxes cut $700 million earmarked by Initiative 773 for in medical services expanding the Basic Health Plan and uses the money to preserve Basic Health services THE ASSOCIATED PRESS for about 81,000 children and OLYMPIA—As a state leg- parents who remain on the islator during the 1990s, Gary plan. Locke supported expanding Locke also proposed reduc- health care programs to serve ing nursing home funding and many people other states don't mental health services; ending cover. dental, hearing and eye care Now governor, Locke has benefits for adults on Medicaid; proposed a budget that would and scrapping the "medically eliminate state-subsidized indigent" program, which cov- health care for 60,000 people. ers emergency hospital bills for "We simply cannot afford to very poor people. continue being such a trail- "The cumulative impact of blazer," Locke said Tuesday. these cuts is going to be devas- 1111 ✓ Instead, his proposal blazes Ming,"said Tony Lee,commu- nity a trail of retreat on health nity service director for the care, making substantial cuts Fremont Public Association. to write a budget that reflects "You're going to have mentally the anti-tax fervor of the vot- ill people wandering the streets ers. . . . they are going to end up at Advocates say the roughly Harborview or Western State $700 million in health care (mental hospital) and they are cuts would devastate poor, going to create havoc." elderly, disabled and mentally Locke said he isn't trying to ill residents who depend on scare people. He preserved state services. many state health care pro- "I know nothing's fair, but grams for children, the dis this is not fair. It's not fair to abled and pregnant women. balance the budget on their "This budget shows the citi- backs," said Nick Federici, zens of our state what their tax spokesman for the American money can buy, and it shows Lung Association of Washing- what we cannot afford," he ton. "They just can't afford said. insurance on the private mar- ket." Locke's budget proposal slashes the state's Basic Health Plan, which provides subsi- dized health insurance to peo- ple who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid,but less than twice the federal poverty level. A single person must I a-(g= make less than $17,720 a year 410 to qualify. !� Locke proposed eliminating t the Basic Health Plan for • There 's still time for your flu shot The flu season has not yet ar- are strains of the flu that are in- rived in Washington, and plenty eluded in this year's vaccine. of vaccine is still available for People over 65, those with those who wish to decrease their chronic health problems and preg- chance of catching influenza. nant women are especially advised Protection against the flu de- to get a flu shot, but anyone who velops about two weeks after wants to avoid the flu can get vac- getting the vaccine. Flu season cinated,Kurata advised. often peaks in January or Febru- Many local physicians'offices ary, so it's not too late to get a still have flu vaccine. Call your shot— even in January, accord- doctor to learn when shots are • ing to Jane Kurata,public health available. Port Hadlock QFC nurse at Jefferson County Health Pharmacy also has vaccine avail- and Human Services. able on a walk-in basis.Medicare T. The few cases of flu that have clients should take their Medi- been confirmed in laboratories care card for billing. << � 1�—IV—oa--- • 'n y t c R .„.,„„"ma.....,.....,,,. vg $ ► • ,.,,./.,,ti, ..,,,,,'• "N.z.V,,i; lY,,),„iiii1"-1:'"'"''.z. .' ''.r.:' - L.. Z-''76 Z. ii' od2 e1 JJJ ,_ .: L to t f + r7, _ _ �, i.; .` v ` J,, vim. (''?s v § w. m W -ms r ,- xa 0 M L H s `- �a 212 ,c 4 ,A) r., o ° 8 r , (;-,,," .t ° } d y cu c w • . �.- 3 E N N Via' ... , tri _ e s ir,.` `U d ° ,. C to.ej ' '''...'" x C •. ,. d! - N 2 7 O U a Z d 'g N u a u v °3 a:' ?i o E u E > o h " ° .4c) u .E u �c y E u n. 3 y V 0 3 o , o°o `d V) Q tO y U ° S 5 � ° -O `u' ,a t'� oo ', -o a—nu, ° o o o aNi cui N g •e `0 o .c c .`•'. r u Zi 3 •Fo ° co >' 0 8. +.5, H 7. .. E g-0 g''3 O o g .n a a. E � - u p - o ..nom ro -5 c a=i 6 ai E o o & O u F° ,::::t py,, p ,5 w 3 u 3 w ° 81.-.' g o o E o o 4-1 u y • `5 bo . v u O C >. . - L aC > '' ~ W � ' a 0. - o o E. •{ 6> i'3' o o u313 � o e og Z u3 UaU > x 'p P"-C. C4.) u n p (1).4C N y O G U 8 U • y n' N .3 lG c , 3 h 'a) A a t, ❑ y c.-'' u ,ly t >N o `�' 3 •5 v 03 °° °Ri 3 n g c * '' u '5 o eU ° -E:' 06 ^ O 3 .� u 3 0 ,'u .5 OD a > u • u &,) rn 3 o ^ o o `n = o u > o 1.:1" -,'.42 E uu .nr la 11:.i.5 •c E rg B 5, o A • • '^ 3 '. ° p A p O E 'Jr' cd C1. p v, w .� �4 p7 "' �O ,..,, ,C �4 ). v ti •> y v E o 4.. -B ;; n - x - u • s6 zy a E u 4, 4 n x — z C m 6 w po u u ;� 3 °1 9 •G u ., �y i o x C 45 ou A - ^y bt o $Cg o = u ° O u $ a Q . r 0 'l F° 4 U o E ' .o. V o u Oo• 55 Jefferson County Board of Health APPROVAL of AGENDA Agenda Item • r • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:30—4:30 PM Main Conference Room Jefferson Health and Human Services AGENDA I. Approval of Agenda II. Approval of Minutes of Meetings of January 21, 2003 III. Public Comments IV. Old Business and Informational Items V. New Business III 1. Community Health Assessment Update—Detailed Sub-County Data -Dr. Chris Hale 2. Legal Opinion Regarding 0 & M Inspections on Private Property (Possible Executive Session) - Tom, Larry, David Alvarez VI. Activity Update VII. Agenda Planning VIII. Next Meeting: Board of Health Retreat March 20, 2003 • • Jefferson County Board of Health APPROVAL of MINUTES From January 21 , 2003 Agenda Item II • • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH • MINUTES Thursday,January 16, 2003 Board Members: Sta, Members: Dan Titterness,Member- County Commissioner District#1 Jean Baldwin,Nursing Services Director Glen Huntingford,Member-County Commissioner District#2 Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director Wendi H. Wrinkle,Member- County Commissioner District#3 Thomas Locke,MD, Health Officer GeojJrey Masci, Vice Chairman-Port Townsend City Council Jill Buhler,Member-1- o.pital 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 2:38 p.m. All Board and Staff members were present, with the exception of Commissioner Huntingford (who joined at 2:45 p.m.). There was a quorum. Members welcomed newly elected Commissioner Wendi Wrinkle. APPROVAL OF AGENDA •Member Frissell moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Member Buhler seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote. ELECTION OF BOARD OF HEALTH CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2003 Chairman Westerman called for nominations for the position of Chair. Member Frissell nominated Member Masci. There being no further nominations, Member Frissell moved to elect Member Masci as Chair. Member Buhler seconded the motion,which carried by a unanimous vote. In response to the call for nominations for Vice Chair, Member Masci nominated Commissioner Wrinkle. There being no further nominations, Chairman Masci moved and Member Westerman seconded the motion to nominate Commissioner Wrinkle as Vice Chair. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Westerman moved to approve the minutes of November 21, 2002 (No meeting was held in December). Member Frissell seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous vote. • PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Chase asked for a status report on the County's action to address the health-related concerns associated with his neighbor on Egg and I Road. Mr. Fay reported that the two notices of civil infraction HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 16, 2003 Page: 2 issu: has,d to Mr. Gaikowski, having failed to elicit a response, hagone to collections. Pursuant to the civil 41) infraction ordinance adopted last year, a third notice would be sent before beginning a process with the County Prosecutor. He noted that the downside to civil infractions is that there is no further action beyond collections if the person ignores the ticket. However, if Mr. Gaikowski were to come before the judge on another matter, or attempted to obtain a new driver's license, he would be required to pay the tickets. He noted that when a certain threshold is met, communication among these other agencies is a court-initiated action. Member Westerman inquired if there is a policy limiting the time that can elapse between 1St and 3`d tickets and if not, why? Mr. Fay noted that Staff had not proposed a time frame when submitting the draft enforcement procedures to the Board in July 2002. Once Staff issues a notice of infraction, whether it is the first, second or third, the person receiving the infraction has a certain period in which to respond by pleading guilty, paying the fine, or pleading guilty with mitigating circumstances, in which case the respondent would appear in front of a judge to plead not guilty and contest the ticket. Mr. Gaikowski has chosen a fourth option which is to ignore the ticket, that may result in a default ruling by the County and all three infractions would then be in collections. At the Board's urging, Mr. Fay agreed to issue the third ticket to the property owner, who would be given the opportunity to respond. It was felt that this would not necessarily reset the ticket process. PUD Commissioner David Sullivan, noting the close interface of Board of Health and PUD issues, such as public water, sewage, and septic, said the PUD is interested in either having a seat on the Board of Health or finding an alternative for coordinating efforts. He recognized that the creation of a new seat would require an ordinance change. The PUD intends to raise this issue with the County Commissioners in a general discussion stressing the need for open communication among the agencies. There was Board • support for placing this discussion item on the next agenda. Dr. Locke noted that only the County Commissioners can change the membership of the Board of the Health. Mr. Fay noted that the County Commissioners had received a letter from the PUD Manager on January 9th asking for consideration of participation on the Board of Health. Reminding that the PUD is a subcontractor, Chairman Masci suggested that the proposed arrangement be reviewed for any potential conflict of interest. Conditions for Approval of On-site Sewage Permits; Michael Belenski: Mr. Fay introduced Mr. Belenski and provided background on his permit application for property on Mats Mats Bay in Port Ludlow adding that with the exception of language in the ordinance, Mr. Belenski's concerns have been resolved. His remaining concern is that the monitoring requirements in the ordinance are unconstitutional. Referring to a December letter to the Board in which he outlined his thoughts and rationale, Mr. Belenski said that until someone is subjected to such capricious and arbitrary decisions by government officials, they cannot understand the impact of this situation. The pie-shape of his property made it impossible to meet the Code's requirement that 4 holes shall be dug, even though he understands other people have been granted septic permits having dug just two holes. After eight (8) years of confronting the County about these arbitrary requirements and fighting his way through the system, he is finally able to install his septic system but is left frustrated with the lack of a clear complaint procedure. The only remaining issue is whether the County has the right to come onto his property for exploratory reasons .related to his septic system, an act which he considers an invasion of his privacy. He does not feel he can be required to sign a contract giving the PUD or another monitoring entity permission to come on to his property. He is bothered by a Code that is so detailed regarding the ramifications of a lack of compliance, yet provides the homeowner with no method to correct the problem. Although it says the HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 16, 2003 Page: 3 individual has 90 days to correct the problem and that the County would work with the individual to sort through the problem, there should be some policy that will ensure fair treatment. The ordinance states the homeowner has ultimate responsibility, so it seems redundant to have to pay a third party inspector of the system. Dr. Locke issued a decision on April 23, 2002, which Belenski appealed to the Board of Health on May 3, 2002. The ordinance specifies there will be a response from the County within 35 days advising him of his hearing date. Not until he went to finalize a permit for a shop he is building on the same piece of property did the building department advise him that they would not permit the structure until the septic is approved. Although Mr. Fay provided a temporary occupancy permit, Belenski said he keeps having to prod the system to keep it moving. He understands this is his final administrative appeal. Dr. Locke said that, as Administrative Officer, he has to decide whether the request for appeal is appropriately directed. His opinion is that the constitutionality of either this Board's on-site regulations or the State Board of Health's regulations is not an appropriate issue for appeal to the Board of Health, but instead an issue for the courts. The application or interpretation of the law is appealable. The technical issues were all resolved in the administrative phase, the system is permitted and there is an ability to use it. The question of the legal authority to tell someone to enter into an operation and maintenance agreement is a legal issue on which the Board could obtain a legal opinion. This has not yet been done because of the desire to let Mr. Belenski directly address the Board. There is not an outstanding appeal to the Board on the issue related to the use of the on-site system. Mr. Belenski noted that those who approved the on-site septic code also have the authority to revoke it. Although Dr. Locke questioned in his letter whether the appeal process was the proper venue for this •issue, Mr. Belenski said he would have appreciated a response that informed him of the more appropriate course of action instead of leaving him hanging. Member Westerman recognized the Board's significant work on this ordinance and pointed to the State's response in which it concurred that the ordinance was consistent with the intent of WAC 246-272 and was approved. She agreed with Dr. Locke's interpretation of the limits of the Board's authority regarding the legal question of the constitutionality of requiring the monitoring of septic systems. She apologized for the lack of thorough communication in response to Mr. Belenski's concerns. She believes that until the Board is told by the legal department—or the State—that it is unconstitutional, we are obliged to go forward with the laws as written. Member Buhler recommended this issue be forwarded to legal counsel. Asked by Commissioner Titterness whether the County had responded within the 35 days, Mr. Fay said that Dr. Locke's response of May 22 indicated that the issue of constitutionality is not one that can be appealed to the Board. Mr. Fay did recognize that it would have been more helpful to state the intent not to schedule a hearing. Mr. Belenski called attention to WAC 246-272 (passed in 1995) and the subsequent passing of RCW 70.118.30 (1998) regarding the procedure to be followed for obtaining a search warrant to gain access to property for the purpose of checking for a failed septic system. Chairman Masci confirmed there was consensus among the Board to direct Staff to write a letter to Deputy Prosecutor Alvarez regarding his reading of RCW 70.118.030. HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 16, 2003 Page: 4 • Mr. Belenski asked that this correspondence inc:ude all his letters to the Health Department. OLD BUSINESS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Public Health Funding for 2003-04 Biennium—Governor's Budget and Tri-Association Proposal: Jean Baldwin reported that, as Chair of the Washington Association of Public Health Officials, she attended the Governor's press conference on the release of the State's budget. Due to budget challenges, the passage of two education initiatives without an associated funding stream will strain other areas of the budget, including Public Health. The motor vehicle excise tax, which was expected to end in June, will remain in the budget, as will several of the State Department of Social and Health Services/Public Health partnership programs, but with the many legislative demands, the future of this funding remains uncertain. Dr. Locke noted that, although less severe than this year, there was also a budget deficit last year. While there is still no guarantee that public health funding will be maintained, it has become a higher priority, which means that public health officials have made their case to the Governor. Although finding a stable source of funding has been discussed over the past five years, a statewide, predictable funding source is now becoming a concrete proposal and a priority of an organization called the Tri-Association. It may be the first time associations of cities and counties have joined to come up with a common legislative agenda. • Commissioners Titterness and Huntingford provided a brief explanation of the following organizations: Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) is made up of county commissioners, and Washington Association of County Officials (WACO) is other elected and some appointed county officials. It was noted that while the Cities and Counties have often been at odds, they have held joint legislative meetings in the last few years. Dr. Locke, referring to page 3 of the Local Government Joint Legislative Proposal, noted a proposal specifically related to public health funding. It states, "The Tri-Association recognizes the need to enhance local government revenues with a focus on securing additional resources for criminal justice and public health expenses. The Tri-Association will advance legislative solutions that assist both cities and counties and will seek $200 million—$250 million in additional annual revenue options for cities and counties. The Tri-Association will also work to ensure that cities and counties are provided adequate flexibility in the use of current revenue sources." Dr. Locke noted that the group has proposed that 25 cents of the unused property tax authority of the State (.65 per 1,000 property valuation), be used to support local public health. This would amount to more than $100 million, an increase over the current state and county funding sources. Member Buhler asked how the hospitals fit into "local public health?" She believes more collaboration between the Hospital and Health Department is needed in order to identify ways to economize. In response to Jean Baldwin's doubts that this could bring many more efficiencies, Member Buhler pointed to the many changes at the hospital over the last five years: employment of physicians, budget "'constraints, critical access and rural clinic designations. While there has been a lot of work done by both boards, she proposed the Hospital Board and Health Board get together again to discuss ideas, possibly after a meeting between Dr. Locke and Hospital Director Vic Dirksen. HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 16, 2003 Page: 5 In response to a question about who would approve a tax increase, Dr. Locke noted that while it is withi,i • the legislature's authority, it may not have the political will. The legislature could vote to raise taxes or they could pass the decision on to the public by means of a referendum. Either option would be supported by Public Health. Jean Baldwin noted that a tax increase is not very popular, however, if approved, would provide ongoing funding. If the Governor's budget passes, it would provide protection for only another year. Under the Governor's budget, Basic Health would receive cuts and a number of individuals would lose care through the State Department of Social and Health Services. While this public health funding would mean $75K, the majority of the Department's income comes from the State Department of Social and Health Services. She said it is confusing what to ask for from the legislators. Chairman Masci noted that since the session has just opened,this Tri-Association proposal is being presented to different legislative caucuses. The Board could certainly bring this issue up in 30 days, with the legislature still in session. Commissioner Huntingford said from the County Commissioner's discussions with the legislative group, it is likely there would be legislative support for some of the proposals as long as it is up to the local jurisdictions to ask the voters for approval. Chairman Masci asked that Staff provide a budget update next month. NEW BUSINESS Stage 1 Smallpox Vaccination—Liability, Consent, and Unintended Consequence Issues: Dr. Locke reported that on December 13, 2002 the President announced the National Smallpox Vaccination Plan calling for moving forward with Stages 1 and 2. Stage 1 involves the vaccination of nearly 7,000 public health and hospital-based workers in Washington. Stage 2 involved a larger group of health care workers and law enforcement personnel —in excess of 10 million nationwide. Washington State has a Stage 1 plan and has been educating healthcare providers and public health workers on the issues, such as choosing whether or not to become vaccinated and management of adverse reaction. He and Scott Lindquist organized a multi-media talk about smallpox on December 13, which was also videotaped. The military has already begun some vaccination in Washington State and on February 18, Stage 1 vaccinations will begin. There are systems for monitoring adverse vaccine reactions. Although it is believed that the issues around inadvertent secondary transmission of the virus would be much less than in 1972,there are unresolved issues among counties and hospitals about liability. There is some question whether the Homeland Security Act fully covers hospitals or county governments for any side effects or injury. There is not currently a standardized consent and screening form, although Washington State has requested that it be nationwide because of the interest in everyone being screened on the same criteria. Unintended consequences are perhaps some of the biggest issues because smallpox planning has not only taken over bio-terrorism preparedness but all efforts to produce hazard response plans are essentially on hold. In many Health Departments, this issue has crowded out other core programs and Olas disrupted delivery of service. Another issue is that while Stage 1 is a constrained, focused program, albeit disruptive, Stage 2 is a different matter. The federal plan is for Stage 2 to immediately follow Stage 1. At a cost of about $84 dollars per vaccine, vaccinating 10 million people would cost in excess of a billion dollars, equaling the entire federal funding for bio-terrorism planning. HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 16, 2003 Page: 6 • Jean Baldwin added that there is no reimbursement for doing this smallpox vaccination service. The bio- terrorism money, when received, is to be used to prepare a multi-threat plan. Regarding the criteria for who gets vaccinated, Dr. Locke said that Stage 1 involves vaccinating public health response teams—those who would do disease investigations or be involved in jump-starting massive vaccination clinics. In hospitals, it would be care teams—those involved in the initial recognition and care of small pox cases. Those who would not be directly exposed to smallpox would not need to be vaccinated in advance of an outbreak. Jean Baldwin noted that the Centers for Disease Control has an excellent web page with good information and contraindications (CDC.gov) and added that news releases have gone out in Bremerton and Port Angeles and by the end of next week information would be released in Jefferson County. The "What Should You Know" information sheet from the agenda packet is also available on the County website. 2003 Jefferson County Board of Health Retreat Planning: Jean Baldwin recognized that at the last meeting, the Board expressed its desire to have a focused retreat with clear goals and objectives. Staff requested input from the Board on planning the agenda. Chairman Masci and Member Buhler agreed to assist with planning and there was consensus of the Board not to focus on legislative issues. Jean Baldwin said she wanted to talk more in-depth about Health District vs Health Department. She noted •that the Board has in the past also discussed yearly goals and objectives. Staff would also report on County scores on the statewide standards. The full day of March 20 was identified as a tentative date, contingent upon the agenda that is created over the next month. In response to a request for the latest data from the Data Steering Committee, Jean Baldwin noted that Dr. Chris Hale will be bringing the census work to the committee next week, and that the Board would receive this information at the February meeting. They will release a hard copy and also make the information available on a CD in the spring. Chairman Masci noted this could generate some retreat items. ACTIVITY UPDATE Civil Penalties Compliance Procedures: Dr. Locke noted the Activity Update is intended to be used for recurring agenda items on which the Board requests updates. Universal Home Visiting: The report is in the packet. AGENDA CALENDAR /ADJOURN OFebruary Agenda Items: Dr. Chris Hale presenting Census Information. Member Westerman moved to postpone the discussion about creating a PUD position on the Board until the March retreat. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion,which carried by a unanimous vote. HEALTH BOARD MINUTES - January 16, 2003 Page: 7 Commissioner Huntingford moved to invite the PUD to come to the retreat. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote. Commissioner Wrinkle voiced her concerns about being nominated Vice Chair at her first meeting of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, February 20 at 2:30 p.m. at the Jefferson County Health and Human Services Conference Room. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Geoffrey Masci, Chairman Jill Buhler, Member Wendi H. Wrinkle, Vice-Chairman Sheila Westerman, Member Glen Huntingford, Member Roberta Frissell, Member •Dan Titterness, Member • Jefferson County Board of Health NEW BUSINESS Agenda Item V • I . Community Health Assessment Update — Detailed Sub-County Data Dr. Chris Hale DRAFT: February 13,2003 1 of 21 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH ASSESSMENT UPDATE February 20, 2003 Background. The first major presentation of assessment-related information was made by Jefferson County Health and Human Services (JCHHS) in May 1996 at Fort Worden. The focus was the mid-decade projections from the 1990 census and fragmentary data from school surveys. The next public meeting was in January 2001 at the Washington State University Port Hadlock Extension Office. This presentation compared 20 years of birth-related health indicators and mortality rates for Jefferson County residents with those for Washington State and also included preliminary results from the short form of the US Census of 20001. Based on community response at this meeting, a year-long Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)1 of a randomly selected sample of 600 Jefferson County adult residents age 18+was conducted. In March 2002, JCHHS reported summary results from the BRFSS to the Board of Health. BRFSS data have been presented to many governmental and non- governmental organizations and have been utilized in grant applications. Awards to date in grant-related funds total $280,000. • In fall of 2002, detailed information from the 2000 Census — information coming from the SF3 "long" form, was made available at varying levels of geography including state, county, city, metropolitan areas, census-defined places, American Indian reservations, census divisions, tracts and blocks. In this report, SF 3 data (Census long form) for six census-defined places are used: Port Townsend, Port Hadlock/lrondale, Port Ludlow, Marrowstone, Brinnon, and Quilcene. Together these six places have 16,084 of the county's 25,953 residents (62%). The West End, with 593 residents, is included as a census county division. Results of these analyses are set forth in 13 points, which focus on disparities among age compositions and poverty by place because these disparities may be related to disparities in health indicators. Readers are encouraged to review Appendix I: Technical notes to clarify definitions, descriptions, and terms. Additionally, Appendix II: Jefferson County Maps provides a visual for the Census and ZIP Code geography referenced in this document. DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 2 of 21 1. Jefferson County's population is significantly older than Washington State's. (Note data source-Census 2000). The age composition of a place is an important predictor of its demand for health care services. People age 65+ generally account for 50% of all health care expenditures, and as that age segment becomes 75 and 85, its demand for health care increases. Jefferson County's median ager has been steadily increasing in the past 23 years, from 35 years in 1980 to 47.4 years in 2002 (Figure 1). Median age has been increasing in the state as well, but Jefferson County's median age has always been higher than the state's, and the size of that gap has increased over the past 23 years. In 2002, median age for the state was only 35.8 years. In 2001, 5,474 of the county's residents' (21.5%) were 65 or older, nearly twice the state rate, 11.2% (Figure 2). Five hundred and eighty people (2.2%) were 85 or older, about 50% higher than the state rate, 1.5% (Figure 3). Most people 85 or older require some assistance with activities of daily living' if they are to remain in their homes. Figure 1: Median Age-Jefferson Figure 2:Percent Population 65+ Figure 3:Percent Population 85+ County&Washington State Jefferson County&Washington State Jefferson County&Washington State 150.0 25.0% Jefferson County T 45.0 i Jefferson County 2.5% - 40.0 20.0% 35.0 .y.r-•• 2.0% Jefferson County • 30.0 Washington State 15.0% 25.0 1.5% - 20.0 10.0% Washington State ° 1.0% --- 15.0 Washington State 10.0 5.0% 0.5% - 5.0 0.0% 1111111111111111111111 0.0% 1111111111111111+11111 O CO C‘I CO CN0.0 I IltIII I II I Iftl 0 CO O) ) CO CO 0 m C) C) C) rn) rn 0SlN1oCO CD Cl) o 0) 0) T W O) 0 N N a- a- a- r N Source:US censuses,1980, 1990,2000. OFM Intercensal estimates, 1981-89 and 1991-99. All numbers are final. 2001 and later, OFM intercensal projections. Projected numbers are subject to change. O DRAFT: February 13,2003 • 3 of 21 2. The age compositions of places within the county are different. (Note data source-Census 2000). Jefferson County's population in 2000 shows the classic pattern of an aging county with a narrow base, constriction in the ages when people typically seek post-secondary training (about 18-29) and in the early working ages, then expansion through the 50s and 60s, until mortality begins to again constrict the population (Figure 4). In the county overall in 2000, about one in five people was younger than 18 and another one in five was 65+. Figure 4: Jefferson County Population Profiles, 1980, 1990, and 2000 Males Females Males : Females Males : Females IIIIIIIIIll MIN IIIIIIIIIIIIII� MIN = IN • _ • 1980 Population 1990 Population 2000 Population (15,965) (20,406) (25,953) Source: US Census Port Townsend's age composition in 2000 echoes that of the county overall. In contrast, Port Hadlock/Irondale, Quilcene, and the West End have younger age compositions than the county. Port Ludlow, Marrowstone, and Brinnon all have markedly older age compositions than the county (Table 1 and Figure 5). Table 1: Population by Place Place I Total Pop. % <18 % 18-34 % 35-64 % 65+ Jefferson Co. 25,953 19.7% 12.4% 46.8% 21.0% Port Townsend 8,325 19.7% 13.3% 46.2% 20.8% Port Hadlock/ Irondale 3,467 25.8% 17.4% 42.2% 12.6% Port Ludlow 1,953 6.1% 4.8% 45.9% 43.2% Marrowstone 876 15.1% 9.4% 43.9% 31.6% Brinnon 831 10.3% 7.2% 46.7% 35.7% Quilcene 632 29.0% 13.0% 46.4% 11.7% 4111 West End 599 30.5% 17.0% 40.5% 11.8% Source: US Census 2000 DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 4 of 21 Figure 5: Jefferson County 2000 Population, Census-defined places Males Females Males Females Males Females IMI MN • I I = III I • I NMI 1111111■MI in IN NMI NEll M = MI = IIIII MN I MN = IMI Port Townsend Population, Port Hadlocidlrondale Port Ludlow Population, 2000 (8,325) Population, 2000 (3,467) 2000(1,953) • Males Females Males Females Males Females I N 1 ni II Min MI MIN I MIME MI IIIII Minn il• IONE I I _ In • II I •IN ini • Marrowstone Population,2000 Brinnon Population, 2000 (876) Quilcene Population, 2000 (831) (632) Source: US Census 0 DRAFT: February 13,2003 5 of 21 3. Poverty rates in Jefferson County in 1999 were generally higher than in the state, but rates varied from place to place within the county. (Note data source— Census 2000). Poverty' is a term used to describe situations when people do not have enough money to meet their basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, and other essentials of life. In estimating the need for publicly funded programs, poverty rates are often used. Poverty rates are often determined by the household income. In Jefferson County, median household income" varies markedly from place to place. The 1999 median household income for all 11,649 Jefferson County households was $37,869, lower than the state average, $45,776 (Table 2). In fact, for the past two decades, Jefferson County's median household income has been about 80% of the state average. Table 2: Median Household Income by Place Place Total Households Median Household Income. Jefferson Co. 11,694 $37,869 Port Townsend 3,912 $34,536 Port Hadlock/Irondale 1407 $27,885 Port Ludlow 943 $56,938 Marrowstone 394 $38,182 Quilcene 238 $40,385 • Brinnon 422 $27,885 West End 71 $19,931 Source: Census 2000 Like median household income, poverty rates among people in a given place are very different (Table 3). Poverty rates were above the county average in the West End, Quilcene, Port Hadlock/Irondale, Port Townsend, and Brinnon but lower than the county average in Marrowstone and Port Ludlow. However, Port Townsend had the largest number of people living in poverty followed by Port Hadlock/Irondale, the West End, Brinnon, Quilcene, Marrowstone and Port Ludlow. Table 3: People Who Live Below Poverty by Place Place Total Pop. People < 100 % Below %FPL 100% FPL Jefferson Co. 25,953 2,899 11.3% Port Townsend 8,325 1,160 14.0% Port Hadlock/Irondale 3,467 496 14.4% Port Ludlow 1,953 24 1.2% Marrowstone 876 35 4.0% Brinnon 831 115 13.8% Quilcene 632 95 15.2% West End 593 241 40.6% Source: Census 2000 DRAFT:February 13,2003 6 of 21 4. The universe of people in poverty consists of three segments; children younger than 18 and their parents or guardians, people age 18-64, and people age 65+. (Note data source—Census 2000). The largest single group of people in poverty' are children younger than 18 and their parents or guardians who, together, account for nearly half of all people in poverty (Table 4). People age 65+ made up 11% of all Jefferson County residents living in poverty in 1999. People age 18-34 without children account for another 35% of those living in poverty; 23% lived on non-family households, and 12% lived in family households. Table 4: People who live below 100% FPL by living arrangements Non-family -- _ -- -_- - household,people age 65+,no children <18(n=782) Children&female 23.2% household head,no /- spouse present (n=704) 20.9% • Family households, people age 65+,no Children& �z::x��:::::::_s:: .: : :::::::.:<......---- parents/guardians, children<18(n=46) 1.4% married-couple household(n=491) 14.6% Children&male household head,no _ spouse present (n=152) Non-family 4.5% household,people age 18-64,no children<18(n=782) 23'2% Family households, people age 18-64,no children<18(n=408) 12.1% • - Source:US Census DRAFT: February 13,2003 . 7of21 5. Poverty rates among children are higher in Jefferson County than in Washington State, and rates differ sharply by place. One in six children younger than 18 in Jefferson County lives below poverty. (Note data source—Census 2000). The 2000 census reported that 818 of the county's 4,938 children younger than 18 lived in households with incomes below the poverty rate (16.6%, Table 5). This rate is higher than the state child poverty rate, 13.2%. Within the county, child poverty is concentrated in five places, Port Hadlock/Irondale, the West End, Brinnon, Quilcene, and Port Townsend. Table 5: Poverty rates of children <18 by place Place Children <18 Children < 18 % <100% FPL @ 100% FPL Washington State 13.2% Jefferson Co. 4,938 818 16.6% Port Townsend 1,549 295 19.0% Port Hadlock/ Irondale 945 104 20.5% Port Ludlow 119 0 0% Marrowstone 132 0 0% Quilcene 170 34 20.0% Brinnon 86 20 23.3% . West End 176 104 59.0% Source: US Census 2000 6. Jefferson County mothers are significantly more likely to be unmarried and to have their pregnancies and deliveries paid for by Medicaid(the federal-state insurance program for poor women and their children) than in the state. More than half of the births in Jefferson County are paid for by Medicaid. (Note data source: Vital Statistics database by ZIP Code). Two risk factors, being unmarried and having a delivery paid for by Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance partnership for low-income women and their infants, are associated with long-term poverty. (To meet Medicaid eligibility the annual household income must be less than 185% of the Federal Poverty Level). Unmarried mothers, as a group, tend to have higher rates of smoking in pregnancy and lower rates of early prenatal care. They also tend to have less income, so that they and their children face all the risks consequent on poverty. In Jefferson County, roughly 3 out of 10 births occur to unmarried mothers; this same pattern occurs in ZIP Codes 98368 (Port Townsend area) and 98376 (Quilcene area, Table 6). In ZIP Code 98339 (Port Hadlock/Irondale), roughly 3 out of 5 births occur to unmarried mothers. Rates for 98358 (Marrowstone), 98320 (Brinnon area), and the West End are too small to report. • DRAFT:February 13,2003 8of21 Additionally, over half the births to Jefferson County mothers in 1997-2001 were paid for by Medicaid (Table 6). This is considerably higher than the state rate. With the exception of 98365 (Port Ludlow area), over half the births by ZIP Code were paid for by Medicaid. Rates for 98358 (Marrowstone), 98320 (Brinnon area), and the West End are too small to report Table 6: 1997-2001 Marital Status and Medicaid paid deliveries of birth mothers for all births, by ZIP Code Place % Unmarried % Medicaid paid deliveries Washington State 28.7% 35.9% Jefferson Co. 32.5% 54.7% 98368 (Port Townsend area) 36.4% 54.6% 98339 (Port Hadlock/Irondale area) 58.7% 61.5% 98376 (Quilcene area) 31.5% 61.4% 98365 (Port Ludlow area) 25.5% 41.3% West End NR NR 98358 (Marrowstone) NR NR 98320 (Brinnon) NR NR Source:Vital Statistics database 7. Adults in Jefferson County households which included children younger than 18 reported higher rates of health risk behaviors than did adults in households which did not include children. (Note data source—BRFSS 2001). • The Jefferson County 2001 BRFSS asked adult respondents whether their household included one or more children younger than 18. This information was used to divide the sample into adults whose households included children and those whose households did not. A quarter of all adults reported specific forms of physical or sexual abuse during their childhoods, but the rate was a third of those whose households included children (Table 7). Nearly 1 in 4 adults in households with children were current smokers and a third were heavy drinkers'. Table 7: Adult Risk Behaviors and reported abuse as children younger than 18 Behavior All Households Households w/Children < 18 Smoking 16% 24% Heavy Drinking 17% 28% History of Any Abuse 25% 33% History of Physical Abuse 9% 15% History of Witnessing Abuse 11% 16% Source: Jefferson County 2001 BRFSS 0 DRAFT: February 13,2003 • 9of21 8. Poverty rates are higher among people age 18-34, and may be associated with the lack of advanced education. (Note data source-Census 2000). About 1 in 5 of the 18-34 year olds had incomes below the poverty level (Table 8). In the West End, over half of the 18-34 year olds were below poverty. In Brinnon, the rate was 3 in 10. In Port Hadlock/Irondale and Quilcene the rate was about 1 in 4. In the county overall, the rate was 2 out of 5. In Port Ludlow, the rate was 6.5%. Table 8: Poverty Rates among 18-34 year olds by Place Place Total Pop. People 18-34 %With incomes < Years old 100% FPL Washington State 5,894,121 1,400,491 14.4% Jefferson Co. 25,953 3,224 17.7% Port Townsend 8,325 1,109 19.0% Port Hadlock/ Irondale 3,467 604 23.7% Marrowstone 876 82 0% Quilcene 632 93 23.2% Brinnon 831 60 28.3% Port Ludlow 1,953 93 6.5% West End 593 104 54.8% Source: US Census 2000 Among 18-24 year old residents of Jefferson County, roughly a third had not completed 410 high school, a third completed high school or earned a GED, and a third had some post secondary education (Table 9). County 18-24 year olds have less education than in the state. The pattern of educational attainment among county 25-34 year olds is different than county 18-24 year olds and the state overall. Roughly 2 out of five 25-34 year olds had completed high school or less, and about 1 in 4 had some post secondary, just 2 out of ten had 4 or more years of college compared to 3 out of 10 in the state Table 9: Education Levels among 18-24 year olds and 25-34 year olds 18-24 ear olds 25-34 year olds Place < High High Some 4 or < High High Some 4 or more School School Post more School School Post years of Second- years of Second- college ary college ary Washington State 24.7% 28.8% 39.5% 7.0% 12.6% 23.2% 35.3% 28.9% Jefferson Co. 31.5% 36.5% 29.5% 3.4% 11% 33% 35.6% 20.4% Source: US Census 2000 Educational attainment among people age 18-34 in Jefferson County varied by place (Table 10). In Washington State, almost 6 out of 10 people in this age group have some post secondary education; in the county less than half of the 18-34 year olds reported some post-secondary education. In Port Townsend and Port Ludlow, more DRAFT: February 13,2003 • 10 of 21 than half the people age 18-34 have some post secondary education. In Port Hadlock/lrondale, the rate is 4 out of 10 and in Marrowstone, Quilcene and Brinnon, the rate is 3 out of 10. Table 10: Education Levels among 18-34 year olds by Place Place Some Post Secondary Washington State 57.2% Jefferson Co. 46.8% Port Townsend 54.0% Port Hadlock/Irondale 40.4% Marrowstone 31.7% Quilcene 26.8% Brinnon 31.7% Port Ludlow 51.6% West End Source: US Census 2000 9. People age 18-34 have lower rates of health care access lower and higher rates of risk behaviors than adults in the county. (Note data source—Census 2000). The 2001 Jefferson County BRFSS found that more than 90% county 18-34 year olds rated their health as "excellent", "very good", or "good", significantly higher than the average for all adults (Table 11). However, 18-34 year olds were less likely to have 4111 health care coverage, a usual health care provider, and a usual place they received health care. They were also less likely to have had a routine physical or to have seen a dentist in the 12 months before being surveyed. On most access measures, county residents age 18-34 have lower rates than 18-34 year olds in Washington State. County residents age 18-34 were less likely to be overweight than the average for all adults or to be physically inactive. On the other hand, more 18-34 year olds were current smokers and consumed alcohol in the 30 days before being surveyed. Table 11: Self-reported health status, Health Care Access, and Risk Behaviors among 18-34 year olds All Adults 18-34 Year Olds Excellent, Very Good, Good Health 84% 93% Health Care Insurance 91% 74% Usual Health Care Provider 85% 67% Usual Place of Care 88% 74% Routine Physical in past 12 months 74% 64% Seen dentist in past 12 months 63% 74% Overweight 29% 16% Physically Inactive 13% 7% Current Smoker 16% 28% Alcohol consumption within past 30 days 68% 73% Source: Jefferson County 2001 BRFSS DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 11 of 21 10. Using federal poverty guidelines, poverty rates among people ages 65-74 and 75 and older in Jefferson County were lower than in the state, and poverty in this age group in the county was concentrated in a few places. (Note data source—Census 2000). In 1999, 2.3% of county residents age 65-74 had household incomes below poverty (Table 12). This rate is less than half the state rate for the same age group. Poverty rates were highest in Marrowstone, followed by Brinnon, Port Hadlock/Irondale, and Port Townsend. No residents age 65-74 were living in poverty in either Port Ludlow or Quilcene. Marrowstone also had the largest number of people age 65-74 living in poverty followed by Port Townsend, Brinnon, and Port Hadlock/Irondale. In 1999, 10.3% of Jefferson County residents age 75+ had household incomes below the poverty level. This rate is higher than the state poverty rate among the oldest residents, 8.6%. The poverty rate was highest in Port Townsend, followed closely by Port Hadlock/Irondale, Marrowstone, and Brinnon. No residents age 75+ in the Census- defined places of Port Ludlow or Quilcene were living in poverty. It is noteworthy that the service needs of older adults may not be accurately reflected by poverty rates. Port Townsend had both the highest rate of poverty among people age 75+ and the largest number. In terms of numbers, Port Hadlock/Irondale was next followed by Marrowstone and then Brinnon. Table 12: Poverty Rates among 65-74 and 75+ ear olds by Place Place Total Pop. 65-74 % < Pop. 75+ % < Pop. Years old 100% FPL Years old 100% FPL Washington State 6.5% 8.6% Jefferson Co. 25,953 3018 2.3% 2443 10.3% Port Townsend 8,325 791 1.6% 939 17.4% Port Hadlock/ Irondale 3,467 262 2.3% 175 17.1% Port Ludlow 1953 0 0 Marrowstone 876 152 10.5% 126 15.2% Brinnon 831 176 5.7% 121 8.3% Quilcene 632 0 0 0 West End Source: US Census 2000 • • DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 12 of 21 11. Health care access indicators are better among people age 65+ than the county average, but this group has significant health risk behaviors. (Note data source—BRFSS 2001). Only 59% of people age 65+ in Jefferson County rated their health as "excellent", "very good", or "good" in the 2001 BRFSS (Table 13). This rate is significantly lower than the rate for all adults, 84%. Relative to other adults in the county, people age 65+ were significantly more likely to have a usual health care provider and a usual place to get care. They were also significantly more likely to have had a routine physical in the 12 months before being surveyed. Rates of health care coverage (insurance) and making a dental visit were higher among people age 65+, but the differences were not statistically significant. On four behaviors which could be risk behaviors, county residents age 65+ had mixed results. They were more likely to be overweight or physically inactive than other adults, were less likely to smoke and were as likely to consume alcohol. While the alcohol research is unclear on the level at which alcohol consumption becomes a risk factor, in Washington State, the rate of alcohol consumption is only about 45% for adults 65 and older. Table 13: Self-reported health status, Health Care Access, and Risk Behaviors among 65+ year • olds All Adults 65+ Year Olds Excellent, Very Good, Good Health 84% 59% Have any health care coverage 91% 94% Have a usual health care provider 85% 94% Have a usual place of care 88% 93% Routine physical in past 12 months 74% 84% Dental visit in past 12 months 63% 70% Overweight 29% 31% Physically Inactive 13% 16% Current Smoker 16% 5% Alcohol consumption within past 30 days 68% 65% Source: Jefferson County 2001 BRFSS • DRAFT: February 13,2003 • 13 of 21 12. In Jefferson County, poverty rates probably underestimate those who are low income because, during the 1990s, median housing prices in the county rose more rapidly than did median household income and many people were paying more than a third of their income in housing costs. (Note data source— Census 2000, WSU Center for Real Estate Research). In Jefferson County, although median household incomes have been steadily over time, they have remained at about 80% of the state average. But since the early 1990s, the median sales prices of houses have been rising more rapidly than income, so that by the late 1990s, housing sales prices in the county were nearly the same as they were in the state. The result has been the affordability gap shown in Figure 6. Only when housing sales prices become relatively stagnant does the affordability gap narrow The affordability gap Jefferson County thus worsens the impact of poverty on younger people, particularly young families with children who are the most frequent homebuyers. Figure 6: Housing Affordability Gap $160,000 $140,000 • $120,000 \ '\ $100,000 ° R , "IlAte„VVAA S4-4-1W $80,000 ( q 3 � .� s+s'�.� a� �a `•' " °�..�,:: � �"'..ver ����'"� �,, \ $60,000 y $40,000 v �� $20,000 , v,,. $ 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 EAffordable house based on median income for that year aAffordable housing gap1 NOTE "Affordable housing"assumes a 20%down payment and a balance not exceeding three times a household's annual gross income. Source: Census 2000 &WSU Center for Real Estate Research • DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 14 of 21 Another way to assess the cost of housing is to look at who violates the assumption that people will spend about a third of their income on housing' (Table 14). Table 14: Annual Income of 35%+spent on Housing by Place Place Homeowner Renter Washington State 18.2% 32.7% Jefferson Co. 19.4% 37.5% Port Townsend 20.0% 40.8% Port Hadlock/ Irondale 26.4% 46.4% Port Ludlow 17.1% 0.0% Marrowstone 24.5% 0.0% Brinnon 20.0% 31.0% Quilcene 20.0% 29.7% West End Source: US Census 2000 In Jefferson County, three quarters of the people own their own homes and a quarter rent. About one in five county homeowners spends 35%+ of their income on housing, above the state average. In Port Hadlock/Irondale and Marrowstone, the rate is about one in four. The situation is even worse among those who rent their homes. In 2000, 37.5% of county renters were paying 35%+ of their incomes on housing costs, higher than in the • state, 32.7% (Table 14). Nearly half the renters in Port Hadlock/Irondale were spending 35% or more of their incomes on rental housing, as were 40.8% of renters in Port Townsend. Brinnon and Quilcene had about the same rates, 31% and 29.7%, respectively. No renters in Port Ludlow or Marrowstone —which tend to have very few renters anyway — exceeded the 34.9% threshold. DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 15of21 13. County residents age 65-74 and men age 75+ have lower disability rates than the state average, but women age 75+ have a higher rate. The combination of disabilityi and poverty rates point to a need for increased publicly funded services among people age 65 and older. The 2000 census reported that 33.8% of county residents age 65 and older had at least one condition which limited their functioning (Table 15). Disability rates varied by gender and age, but were lower than state rates except among women 75 and older. Disability rates are higher than the county average in Port Hadlock/Irondale, Quilcene, and Port Townsend (Table 16). In Brinnon and Marrowstone, disability rates among people age 65+ are close to the county average. Only in Port Ludlow were rates substantially below the county average. Turning to the numbers of people affected, Port Townsend had the highest number followed by Port Hadlock/Irondale, Port Ludlow, Brinnon, Marrowstone, and Quilcene. JCHHS be releasing a detailed analysis of disability data from the 2000 census in the second quarter of 2003. Based on preliminary analyses, it appears that disability rates among county residents age 65+, unlike poverty-based indicators, are relatively uniform. Table 15: Disability Rates among people age 65+ by gender. • Jefferson County Washington State Total Population age 65+with at least 1 disability 33.9% 43.7% Males age 65-74 (n=369) 23.8% 33.4% Males age 75+ (n=516) 46.8% 50.6% Females age 65-74 (n=332) 22.6% 29.7% Females age 75+ (n=637) 47.5% 34.4% Source: US Census 2000 Table 16: Disability Rates among people 65+ by Place Place Total Pop. Pop. 65+ %With limited Years old functioning Washington State 43.7% Jefferson Co. 25,953 5,450 33.8% Port Townsend 8,325 1,731 39.4% Port Hadlock/ Irondale 3,467 437 46.2% Port Ludlow 1,953 844 13.3% Marrowstone 876 277 30.7% Brinnon 831 297 33.7% Quilcene 632 74 44.6% West End 593 71 Source: US Census 2000 • • DRAFT:February 13,2003 . 16 of 21 Appendix I: Technical Notes Activities of daily living—This is a general term that encompasses going to school (for the age-eligible population), going to work (for people age 16-64), getting out of bed, performing basic toilet functions, dressing oneself, feeding oneself, sitting without assistance, and walking without assistance. People who are unable to carry out these activities are generally considered to have a disability (see that term for further discussion). Averages—In looking at characteristics of people or communities that include a range of value, the general practice is to capture this range with a single measure of central tendency, or an average. The mean is an average in which all values are added together and divided by the number of people for whom a value is available. Another average is the mode, or the single value which occurs most often within a range. In this report, the median is the most frequently used average. The median is that value which divides a range into two equal halves, 50% on one side of the median and 50% on the other. This report includes the median age, median household income (see further discussion under household income), and median housing sales prices and values (see further discussion under housing). Median values are the recommended averages to use when other averages could be distorted by a small number of cases falling at the • extreme end of a range. For example, if Bill Gates were to attend a basketball game, the average income of all those attending would be significantly inflated because his income is so far out at the end of the normal range. But a median income would not be subject to such distortion. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)—This is an annual survey of a randomly-selected sample of residents age 18+ ("adults") in each state and selected territories in the US. The sample design and modules (groups of related questions) were developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using the best practices as determined by scientists at the CDC. It began in the early 1980s as an effort to determine the risk factors affecting chronic diseases and has since been expanded to look at a wider range of adult behaviors which enhance or can interfere with good health. In Washington State the statewide sample provides an acceptable sample size only for King County, so since 1993 many local health jurisdictions have funded an oversample so that they can assess health behaviors locally. Jefferson County funded such an oversample in 2001. The sample size of 602 is sufficient to determine statistically significant rates at the level of±4%. Census—The US Constitution mandates a census of the population be conducted every 10 years. The first one was conducted in 1790, and subsequent censuses have been conducted in years ending with zero. The US 2000 census consisted of two questionnaires, the so-called short form and long form. Questionnaires were sent to • addresses, not to individuals. The short form contained one question about the housing DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 17 of 21 at that address (was it owned with a mortgage, owned without a mortgage, rented for cash rent, occupied without payment of cash rent), six questions about the householder (person who is buying or renting the household or whose name appears first on mortgage papers or rental agreements). These are name, telephone number, gender, age and date of birth, whether or not the person is Spanish/Hispanic/Latino, and the person's race. For all other residents at an address, five questions are asked: that person's relationship to the first-named person, gender, age and date of birth, whether the person is Spanish/Hispanic/Latino, and race. The short form went to five of six households in a town, city, or census-defined place and to five of six households within those parts of a county that were not towns, cities, or census-defined places. The long form contained 32 questions about people and 21 questions about housing. That form went to one in six households. In reporting data from the long form, responses were weighted to the entire population. For example, in Jefferson County, 25,953 people were enumerated in 2000, and 4,195 were in the one-in-six sample (16.2%). In reporting these data, results reflect the assumption that the sample accurately reflects the entire population and so rates based on information only in the one-in-six sample are reported as if they came from everyone. Disabilities—The term "disability" refers to conditions which limit activities of daily living. In the 2000 US census, two questions on the long form were used to determine a • person's disability status. Question 16 said "Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: (a) blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment? (defined as a "sensory disability" in census reports) (b) a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying? Question 17 asked "Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities: (a) Learning, remembering, or concentrating? (b) Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home? `(c) (Answer if this person is 16 years old or over.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? (d) (Answer if the is person is 16 years old or over) Working at a job or business? JCHHS will be issuing a detailed report on people with disabilities based on the 2000 census during the second quarter of 2003. Information in this report is limited to disabilities among people age 65+. Heavy Drinking—Heavy drinking is defined as having 5 or more drinks during one setting within the past 30 days. DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 18 of 21 Household income—This information comes from questions in sections 31 and 32 of the long form of the 2000 census questionnaire. Section 31 asks about specific sources of income in 1999 for each individual in a household, including wages, salary commissions, bonuses or tips; self-employment income from own non-farm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships; interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement; Supplemental Social Income (SSI); any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions, exclusive of Social Security; and any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony. Respondents are cautioned not to include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home. These categories generally follow the organization of the income section of an itemized income tax return except for the inclusion of certain income categories, such as welfare, which are exempted from income tax. Section 32 of the long form census questionnaire asks for total income in 1999 for each person in the household. Respondents are instructed to calculate each person's total income by adding all entries in Section 31 for that person and subtracting any losses. Total income for each person in a household with income are then added up when these data are tabulated by the US Bureau of the Census to determine household • income. Housing Affordability—The annual federal poverty index is built around a set of assumptions that people spend roughly a third of their income on housing, a third of their income on food, and a third of their income on other living expenses. One frequent criticism of this index is that it fails to take into account local variability in these ratios, most often the cost of housing. Jefferson County is one instance of that variability. In calculating affordable housing, the commonest approach is to assume that prospective home buyers will make a down payment of 20% of a house's sales price and carry a mortgage no more than three times their median household income. Housing costs—This figure is estimated based on questions 33-53 on the long form of the US 2000 census questionnaire. Question 33 asks whether the house, apartment, or mobile home is owned with a mortgage or loan, owned free and clear, rented for cash rent, or occupied without payment or cash rent. Questions 34-44 ask more detailed questions about the housing unit itself, not the costs of operating it. Question 45 asks 'What are the annual costs of utilities and fuels for this house, apartment, or mobile home?" (a) electricity (responses are annual costs in dollars or included in rent or condominium fee or no charge/electricity not used) (b) gas (same responses) `(c) water and sewer (same responses), (d) oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc. (same responses). • DRAFT: February 13,2003 • 19 of 21 Question 46 says "answer only if you pay rent for this house, apartment, or mobile home and then says "what is the monthly rent?" And "Does the monthly rent include any meals?" Question 47 begins by saying "Answer questions 47a-53 if you or someone in this household owns or is buying this house, apartment or mobile home and then asks (a) Do you have a mortgage, deed of trust, contract to purchase or similar debt on this property? (b) How much is your regular monthly mortgage payment on this property? And instructs people to include payment only on first mortgage or contract to purchase. `(c) Does your regular monthly mortgage payment include payments for real estate taxes on this property? (d) Does your regular monthly mortgage payment include payments for fire, hazard, or flood insurance on this property. Question 48 asks "Do you have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on this property? If yes, it then asks about how much the payments are on all second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on this property?" Question 49 asks 'What were the real estate taxes on this property last year? Question 50 asks 'What was the annual payment for fire, hazard, and flood insurance • on this property?" Housing costs then are computed as first, second and junior mortgage annual payments plus utilities plus principal and interest plus taxes plus insurance for home owners or rent plus utilities plus insurance for renters. Housing values—This report uses two approaches to measure the cost of housing relative to income. One is median sales price. This information, taken from the website of the Washington State University's Center for Real Estate Research, reflects the price of houses selling in a given year. The second measure is median value of housing. This information comes from question 51 on the long form of the census questionnaire: 'What is the value of this property; that is, how much do you think t his house and lot, apartment, or mobile home and lot would see for if it were for sale?" Respondents checked answers in ranges from less than $10,000 to $1,000,000 or more. Median Age—The age that divides a population into two numerically equal groups: that is half the people are younger than this age and half are older. Median Household Income— Total income for each person in a household with income are added up. Data are tabulated by the US Bureau of the Census to determine household income. The median divides the household income into two numerically equal groups: that is half the households report under the median income and half • report above the median. DRAFT: February 13,2003 1111 20 of 21 Poverty—The term "poverty" characterizes people and households which are likely to lack the financial resources to meet the most basic needs for housing, food, and clothing. Programs which use poverty as a criterion for eligibility generally define eligibility based on the annual Federal Poverty Index (FPI). The FPI for 2002, defined as living in poverty one person living alone with income below $8,860, family households of two people with income below $11,940, three people with income below $15,020, or four people with incomes below $18,100. However, the US Bureau of the Census –which provided the figures used in this report – has a slightly different method of computing poverty. The two methods yield approximately the same result. Using its measure for 2000, a single-person household was considered poor if the person was younger than 65 and had an income below $8,959 or was 65+ and had an income below $8,259. (Unlike the US Department of Health and Human Services –which publishes the official poverty index annually, the Bureau of the Census computes poverty thresholds separately for people younger than 65 and 65+.) The Bureau of the Census poverty threshold in 2000 was $11,239 for households of two people, $13,738 for households of three people, and $17,603 for households of four people. Poverty levels, like household income, are based on experience in the previous year, 1999. Risk Behaviors—The Centers for Disease Control defines risk behaviors as the following: Smoking: currently smoking Heavy Drinking: having 5 or more drinks during one setting within the past 30 days. Physically Inactive: Less than 30 minutes of physical activity 5 times per week Overweight: Calculated using the HANES BMI index. Rate—The number of persons in a population universe (e.g. people living in poverty, people age <18, 18-34, 65+) for a given period of time. Resident—Census numbers are based only on people living in houses, apartments, or mobile homes and do not include people living in group quarters, such as nursing homes. • DRAFT:February 13,2003 • 21 of 21 Appendix II: Jefferson County Maps • Page l of 1 q P mft,es1.3 ' -- iiik, Lrl � R4111 41.1 i }°`:: 1,s. S �3 „,,c•61-1 ,-.',", ��C s c �c tet ## r te ,x NI- :le 4..g. -,, , ,'.1..,Jz , ,,,,,... ,-' „411,,,,:frk!,.' 1 (-', ' ii.,..„,,,+' „ ,-„z.,-hu C t.,.';',-,,,li.,-,-&-: ,,,,...,,,,, , -„,,,42.',f,'„„:"-q, ' ' 4, ,fig �,U 4 kF t '& eF a., o..,z �.•`r xd X'E sry a."@T' ,c r .c{z 410 0 http:/ /factfinder.census.gov/map/72/14452772.gif 2/12/03 I. - I I.i i2 ,z. I. li \ ,, 1. 7t ' ristoi •e •I u•, 8 "o . .r, end Sc ool Distil \ �� ' equim School ristrict 14! - -98382 -'=' , , 98368cli#' i Pi ___6 �' °'il T,371 :-.*-,,,-., .'.. 3r...„,r. ill 4::.,,.:,/..,,)ii) A -r d"' �' e t 4, i r''' 983 5 \ 1. 4 . 'v # \ himacum S• ••, Distric . ' tF / ` . F t \\......_ r.. IIII ,, . - , , , , \ \/it i s : . "I < 1, r W • / / \ o t"' , i / t / ------7 I / '8376 6 i Ara , i / J / Ili - .. / i i / c,\, / ... i 1 ,a _c I t / ' 0-,-p1-A., , non Sch.o/District 98320 ', ' \• \ ) ' . �/, v �=,c,/ School District ', / i�� Postal District III . , / . L _ _ ; County .;- Census Designated Place /// , Major Roads , State,Federal,and Commercial Forest Zone ` i/' ' _ r Jefferson County Board of Health NEW BUSINESS Agenda Item V • 2. Legal Opinion Regarding O&M Inspections on Private Property (Possible Executive Session) Dr. Tom Locke Larry Fay David Alvarez • WA ADC 246-272-15501 WAC 246-272-15501 Page 2 ' Wash.Admin. Code 246-272-15501 (b)Use a sewage system additive unless it is specifically approved by the department;or (c)Use an OSS to dispose of waste components atypical of residential wastewater. • (4) The local health officer shall require annual inspections of OSS serving food service establishments and may require pumping as needed. (5)The local health officer may require the owner of the OSS to: (a) Use one or more of the following management methods or another method consistent with the following management methods for proper operation and maintenance: (i)Obtain and comply with the conditions of renewable or operational permit; ,,.) (ii)Employ a public entity eligible under Washington state statutes to,directly or indirectly,manage the OSS;_ or (iii) Employ a private management entity, �� g guaranteed by a public entity eligible under Washington state statutes or sufficient financial resources,to manage the OSS; (b)Evaluate any effects the OSS may have on ground water or surface water; and/or (c)Dedicate easements for inspections,maintenance,and potential future expansion of the OSS. (6) Persons may obtain a handbook with material outlining management methods to achieve proper operation, maintenance,and monitoring of OSS from the department one year after the effective date of this chapter. (7) The local health officer may require installation of observation ports in each individual lateral or bed which extend from the bottomof the gravel to the finished grade for monitoring OSS performance. • Statutory Authority:RCW 43.20.050. 94-09-025,S 246-272-15501,filed 4/15/94,effective 1/1/95. <General Materials(GM)-References,Annotations,or Tables> WA ADC 246-272-15501 END OF DOCUMENT • Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works WA ADC 246-272-15501 Page 1 • WAC 246-272-15501 Wash.Admin. Code 246-272-15501 WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 246.HEALTH,DEPARTMENT OF 4111CHAPTER 246-272.ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS Current with amendments adopted through 12-4-02. 246-272-15501. Operation and maintenance. (1)The OSS owner is responsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSS, and shall: (a)Determine the level of solids and scum in the septic tank once every three years; (b) Employ an approved pumper to remove the septage from the tank when the level of solids and scum indicates that removal is necessary; (c)Protect the OSS area and the reserve area from: (i)Cover by structures or impervious material; (ii)Surface drainage; (iii) Soil compaction,for example by vehicular traffic or livestock;and (iv)Damage by soil removal and grade alteration; (d)Keep the flow of sewage to the OSS at or below the approved design both in quantity and waste strength; 1111 (e)Operate and maintain alternative systems as directed by the local health officer;and (f)Direct drains,such as footing or roof drains,away from the area where the OSS is located. (2)The local health officer shall: (a) Provide operation and maintenance information to the OSS owner upon approval of any installation, repair, or alteration of an OSS;and (b)Develop and implement plans to: (i)Monitor all OSS performance within areas of special concern; (ii) Initiate periodic monitoring of each OSS no later than January 1, 2000, to assure that each OSS owner properly maintains and operates the OSS in accordance with this section and in accordance with other applicable operation and maintenance requirements. C (iii) Disseminate relevant operation and maintenance information to OSS owners through effective means routine and upon request;and (iv)Assist in distributing educational materials to OSS owners. (3)Persons shall not: (a) Use or introduce strong bases, acids or chlorinated organic solvents into an OSS for the purpose of system cleaning; • Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt.Works Westlaw Attached Printing Summary Report for ALVAREZ,DAVID 4181125 Tuesday,January 28,2003 14:15:04 Pacific • (C) 2003. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a U.S. government officer or employee as part of that person's official duties. All rights reserved. No part of a Westlaw transmission may be copied, downloaded, stored in a retrieval system, further transmitted or otherwise reproduced, stored, disseminated, transferred or used, in any form or by any means, except as permitted in the Westlaw Subscriber Agreement, the Additional Terms Governing Internet Access to Westlaw or by West's prior written agreement. Each reproduction of any part of a Westlaw transmission must contain notice of West's copyright as follows: "Copr. (C) 2003 West Group. No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works."Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and used herein under license:KeyCite, Westlaw and WIN. WIN Natural Language is protected by U.S.Patent Nos. 5,265,065,5,418,948 and 5,488,725. *Your Note:This case goes against us. States County will always obtain a search warrant if consent is not given. Request Created Date/Time: Tuesday,January 28,2003 14:15:00 Pacific Client Identifier: SEPTIC SYSTEMS DataBase: USER-DEFINED-MB Citation Text: 931 P.2d 208 Query Text: DA(AFT 01/28/1993)&"SEPTIC"/P"INSPECT!" Print Command: Current document,Complete result Lines: 645 Lines Charged: 0 Documents: 1 Documents Charged: 0 Images: 0 Images Charged: 0 • 931 P.2d 208 Page 9 (Cite as: 85 Wash.App. 171, 931 P.2d 208) L.Ed.2d 480 (1959)). The Association fails to offer any evidence that the second set of classifications are upon unreasonable or untenable grounds. • Further, we fmd that reasonable grounds exist for distinguishing between those within and without the disputed classes. First, the disputed classes are clearly defined and owners who fall under one of the classifications are easily identified. Second, the triggering events that will cause an owner to fall under one of the classifications (e.g. repair) occur at regular enough intervals to ensure gradual implementation of the permit system. We **217 fmd that the Ordinance satisfies the second prong of the rational basis test. Convention Ctr., 107 Wash.2d at 379,730 P.2d 636. With regard to the third prong, a classification must be "purely arbitrary" to overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality. State v. Smith, 117 Wash.2d 263, 279, 814 P.2d 652 (1991). The disputed classifications are rationally related to the County's stated goal of phasing in the permit system. An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of a legislative body with respect to the wisdom and necessity of a regulation. *187 Homes Unlimited, 90 Wash.2d at 158, 579 P.2d 1331. Because we cannot say that the classifications bear no rational relationship to phasing in the permit system, we hold that the Ordinance does not violate equal protection. Attorney Fees [291[301 The County contends that it is entitled to attorney fees for the time it spent responding to this claim. A defendant to an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may recover its attorney fees when the action is "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). Because the Association's arguments have arguable merit, we decline to award the County its costs. Affirmed. BRIDGEWATER and ARMSTRONG,JJ.,concur. 931 P.2d 208, 85 Wash.App. 171 END OF DOCUMENT • Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 8 (Cite as: 85 Wash.App. 171, 931 P.2d 208) Ordinance authorizes unconstitutional inspections. Ordinance infringes a fundamental right and should Because we hold *184 that the Ordinance does not be analyzed under the strict scrutiny standard. First, authorize unconstitutional searches, we decline to the Association claims the Ordinance infringes their • address the Association's argument that the related right to privacy under Const. art. I, § 7. Second,the inspection fee is ultra vires. Association claims that the Ordinance violates their vested rights to use of the property. Finally, the Due Process Association asserts that the Ordinance infringes their right to sell property. As noted above, we hold that The Association contends that the Ordinance violates the Ordinance violates neither Const. art. I, § 7 nor due process because: (1) requiring owners to obtain the vested rights doctrine. Similarly, we reject the operation permits in order to use their systems Association's argument that the Ordinance infringes violates the vested rights doctrine; and (2) the upon their right to sell their property. County uses water quality monitoring fee revenue for expenses incurred in monitoring citizens not subject 125][26][27] Generally, the rational basis or minimal to the fees. Because we hold that the Ordinance scrutiny test applies to zoning,planning, and building does not violate the vested rights doctrine, we decline regulations. See e.g., Convention Ctr. Coalition v. to address the first argument. City of Seattle, 107 Wash.2d 370, 378, 730 P.2d 636 (1986). Because the Association fails to demonstrate [2 1][22] The Association asserts that because the that the Ordinance infringes a fundamental right, we County does not restrict its use of fee revenue to apply the rational basis test here. Under the rational programs that benefit fee payers exclusively, the basis test, the court must determine: "(1)whether the County violates the fee payer's due process rights. legislation applies alike to all members within the Due process limits a state's power to collect fees to designated class; (2) whether there are reasonable "collection of those funds necessary for regulatory grounds to distinguish between those within and and supervisory purposes." State ex rel. Burlington those without the class; and (3) whether the Northern, Inc. v. Washington Util. & Transp. classification has a rational relationship to the Comm'n, 93 Wash.2d 398, 406, 609 P.2d 1375 purpose of the legislation." Convention Ctr., 107 (1980)(citing Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Washington, Wash.2d at 378-79, 730 P.2d 636. 300 U.S. 154, 57 S.Ct. 397, 81 L.Ed. 573 (1937)). As we noted in our discussion of the police power The Association argues that because the Ordinance • issue, the Association fails to offer any evidence that does not require all septic system owners to obtain the County spent fee revenue on a purpose **216 operation permits, the first prong is not satisfied. In unrelated to the regulation and supervision of septic making its argument, the Association confuses the tank pollution, or that the revenue collected grossly classifications at issue. In order to phase in the permit exceeds the cost of the County's regulatory program. system, the Ordinance divides system owners into Accordingly, we hold that County's use of fee five classes: those building new*186 systems; those revenues does not violate due process. Washington selling property with existing unpermitted systems; Util. & Transp. Comm'n, 93 Wash.2d at 406, 609 those repairing unpermitted systems; those with P.2d 1375. systems located in a designated Geologically Sensitive Area; and those with failing systems Equal Protection identified through the County's water quality monitoring efforts. All system owners who fall ini The Association contends that the Ordinance under one of these five classifications are required to violates equal protection because it fails to treat all obtain operation permits. Because all members of septic system owners in the same manner. Recent each class are treated equally within their respective Washington cases have held that Const. art. I, § 12 classes, we find that the first prong of the rational provides no more*185 protection than the Fourteenth basis test is satisfied. Jeffery v. McCullough, 97 Amendment. State v. Shawn P., 122 Wash.2d 553, Wash.2d 893, 897, 652 P.2d 9(1982). 559-60, 859 P.2d 1220 (1993); State v. Entz, 58 Wash.App. 112, 119-20, 791 P.2d 269, review 128]With regard to the second prong,a classification denied, 115 Wash.2d 1019, 802 P.2d 126(1990). that is "neither capricious nor arbitrary, and rests upon some reasonable consideration of difference or 1241 The first step in equal protection analysis is to policy, [does not deny] equal protection of the law." determine the standard of review. Harris v. State Forbes v. City of Seattle, 113 Wash.2d 929, 944,785 Dept. of Labor& Indus., 120 Wash.2d 461, 476, 843 P.2d 431 (1990) (quoting Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. P.2d 1056 (1993). The Association asserts that the v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 527, 79 S.Ct. 437, 441, 3 . Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 7 , (Cite as: 85 Wash.App.171, 931 P.2d 208) A review of the record discloses that the Ordinance Yes, because issuance of a building site is reasonably related to protecting health and safety approval and construction permit authorizes of County residents. The Association fails to offer the construction and use of an on-site • evidence that the County acted in a clearly system. It would be unreasonably costly for unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious manner. the County to monitor when and whether a Accordingly, we hold that the *182 Ordinance does system is actually in use in order to require not violate the judicial test of reasonableness. an operational permit only at such times. This would not serve the public interest and "Vested Rights Doctrine" would generate high costs which would ultimately be passed on to fee payers. F131[141[15l The Association asserts that construction permits give owners a "vested right" to install and operate their septic systems. The Search and Seizure . Association argues that by requiring owners to obtain an operation permit to use their system, the [16][17][18][191 The Association contends that the Ordinance violates the vested rights doctrine. Under system inspections required under the Ordinance the vested rights doctrine, developers are entitled to constitute warrantless searches which violate the have a land development proposal processed under Fourth Amendment and Const. art. I, $ 7. the regulations in effect at the time a complete Inspections for health, safety, and other violations of building permit application is submitted, regardless municipal codes must be conducted pursuant to a f of subsequent changes in zoning or other land use warrant, or fall with in one of the narrowly drawn At,,( regulations. Erickson, 123 Wash.2d at 868, 872 P.2d exceptions to the warrant requirement. Camara v. 1090. The doctrine applies to septic tank Municipal Court of City and County of San installations. Ford, 16 Wash.App. at 715, 558 P.2d Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 534, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1733- 821 34, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). Warrants for health and safety inspections require a showing of probable The Association's argument is based upon the cause. City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wash.2d premise that a construction permit alone gives owners 260, 273, 868 P.2d 134 (1994)(McCready I ). the right to operate their septic systems. [FN1] A Voluntary consent, however, obviates the need for a 111111 construction permit alone does **215 not allow an owner to use the system. Instead, the Ordinance 10.6 warrant. City of Seattle v. McCready, 124 Wash.2d300,303-304, 877 P.2d 686(1994)(McCready II). requires an owner to obtain an operation permit before issuance of a construction permit. Because a Under the Ordinance, the County first attempts to construction permit alone does not authorize*183 the obtain the permission of the land owner for every use of a septic system, requiring an operation permit septic tank inspection. If permission is refused, the does not deprive owners of a vested right. County is required to obtain a warrant to legally inspect the system. Nothing in the Ordinance • forts to authorize warrantlessarches in the J j se FN1. In concluding that a construction absence of consent. `� permit authorizes using the system, the Association relies exclusively on the fan The Association argues that the County can jS County's answer to the following never obtain voluntary consent because the mere interrogatory: threat to obtain a search warrant is sufficiently Com INTERROGATORY NO 9: Please state coercive to vitiate voluntary consent. For this f� whether an Operational permit is required proposition it relies upon State v. Apodaca, 67 11 1,,`� irrespective of whether the on-site sewage Wash.App. 736, 739-40, 839 P.2d 352 (1992), �(��� disposal system is initially operated during overruled on other grounds, State v. Miert, 127 i the year in which the permit is obtained and Wash.2d 460,901 P.2d 286(1995).The Association's /` the fees are paid. In other words, to reliance upon Apodaca is misplaced. Although construct a sewage disposal system, must a threats to obtain a search warrant may invalidate r property owner obtain an Operational permit consent when grounds for obtaining a warrant do not a prior to constructing an on- site sewage exist, whether consent is coerced is a question of fact disposal system, even if the system is not determined from the totality of the circumstances. actually operated in that year. Apodaca, 67 Wash.App. at 739-40, 839 P.2d 352. The County provided the following answer: ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: The Association fails to demonstrate that the illCopr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 6 . • (Cite as: 85 Wash.App. 171, 931 P.2d 208) the enactment has the burden to show the action was j 51 With regard to the third factor, we note that a improper. Henry v. Town of Oakville, 30 Wash.App. sufficient relationship exists between the burden 240, 247, 633 P.2d 892 (1981), review denied, 96 . created by septic system pollution and the fees Wash.2d 1027(1982). charged. Only owners of septic systems are subject to the disputed fees. Under Covell. "the charge may The County submitted evidence that the actual be deemed a regulatory fee even though the charge is administrative cost of issuing an operation permit is not individualized according to ... the burden $44.24, and that the fee for the same permit is only produced by the fee payer." Covell, 127 Wash.2d at $40. Additionally, the County submitted evidence 879, 905 P.2d 324. The County produced substantial that the water quality monitoring fee will not evidence establishing a direct relationship between generate sufficient revenue to fund the County's septic systems and ground and surface water planned monitoring program. The Association fails pollution. to offer evidence establishing that the disputed fees are excessive. Therefore, the disputed fees are not The Association contends that dismissal was excessive and do not violate RCW 70.05.060(7). improper because the County fails to show that the fee revenues were spent for the exclusive benefit of Because the disputed fees are valid regulatory fees the fee payers. But the relationship factor set out in that do not conflict with RCW 70.05.060(7), we hold Covell is in the disjunctive and is satisfied when a that *181 the County has the authority to impose relationship exists between the fee charged and the them under its general police powers. Covell, 127 benefit to the fee payer, or when a relationship exists Wash.2d at 878-79,905 P.2d 324. between the fee charged and the burden produced by the fee payer. Covell, 127 Wash.2d at 879, 905 P.2d Constitutional Challenges 324. Because the disputed fees satisfy all of the Covell factors, we hold that they are regulatory fees, j9], The Association further contends that the not unauthorized taxes. Covell, 127 Wash.2d at 879, Ordinance violates several provisions of the state and 905 P.2d 324. federal constitutions. Regularly enacted ordinances are presumed constitutional. Homes Unlimited, Inc. LI *180 The Association also asserts that the v. City of Seattle, 90 Wash.2d 154, 158, 579 P.2d operation permit fee creates an ultra vires excise tax. 1331 (1978). The challenger bears the heavy burden • An excise tax is "a tax on the right to use or transfer of proving that the ordinance is unconstitutional things." Whatcom County v. Taxpayers, 66 beyond a reasonable doubt. Erickson &Assoc., Inc. Wash.App. 284, 294, 831 P.2d 1140 (1992). v. McLerran, 123 Wash.2d 864, 869, 872 P.2d 1090 Because we hold that the disputed fees are not taxes, (1994). In doing so, the challenger must rebut the we decline to address this argument. presumption that all legally necessary facts justifying the enactment exist. Homes Unlimited, 90 Wash.2d at j71 The Association next asserts that the Ordinance 158,579 P.2d 1331. conflicts with RCW 70.05.060(7),which provides: Powers and duties of local board of health. "Reasonableness" Each local board of health shall have supervision over all matters pertaining to the preservation of [101[11]f 121 The Association argues that by the life and health of the people within its requiring that owners of existing septic systems jurisdiction and shall: obtain an operation permit before repairing their system or selling their property, the Ordinance (7) Establish fee schedules for issuing or renewing violates "the test of reasonableness." The judicial licenses or permits or for such other services as are test of reasonableness requires that regulations authorized by the law and the rules of the state enacted pursuant to a municipal corporation's police board of health: PROVIDED, That such fees for powers must "be reasonably necessary to protect services shall not exceed the actual cost of public health, safety, morals, and general welfare and providing any such services. ... be substantially related to the legitimate ends sought." Homes Unlimited, 90 Wash.2d at 158, 579 18] The Association argues that the County has not P.2d 1331. A reviewing court may not strike down shown that the disputed fees are lawful under RCW legislation unless it is shown to be clearly 70.05.060. The County correctly notes that the unreasonable or arbitrary and capricious. Homes burden of proving **214 invalidity rests with the Unlimited, 90 Wash.2d at 159, 579 P.2d 1331. Association. A person challenging the validity of • Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 5 • • (Cite as: 85 Wash.App. 171, 931 P.2d 208) the permits exceeds the revenue from the fees. The Seattle, 127 Wash.2d 874, 878, 905 P.2d 324(1995). County is currently holding all revenue from the Whether the County has the authority to impose the water quality monitoring fees pending the outcome of disputed fees depends upon whether they are taxes or • this appeal. The County intends to use this revenue regulatory fees. to fund ground and surface water monitoring in order to identify failing septic systems. The County also u The Supreme Court identified three factors to be contends that the revenue from these fees is considered in determining whether a charge imposed insufficient to cover the cost of its monitoring efforts. by a governmental entity is a tax or a regulatory fee: (1)whether the primary purpose is to raise revenue or The Association filed a lawsuit claiming that the to regulate; (2)whether the money collected is spent County lacks the authority to impose the disputed on non-regulatory purposes; and (3) "whether there fees. The Association also sued under 42 U.S.C. ' is a direct relationship between the fee charged and 1983, claiming that the Ordinance violates various the service received by those who pay the fee or provisions of the state and federal constitutions. The between the fee charged and the burden produced by trial court upheld the Ordinance and entered the fee payer." Covell, 127 Wash.2d at 879, 905 P.2d summary judgment of dismissal in favor of the 324. County. The Association appeals. **213 f4] Reviewing courts may look to " 'the ANALYSIS overall' plan of regulation" in construing the primary purpose of the challenged fee.Margola Assoc. v. City An appellate court reviews a trial court's grant of of Seattle, 121 Wash.2d 625, 637-38, 854 P.2d 23 summary judgment de novo, placing itself in the (1993). Here, the Ordinance expressly provides that position of the trial court and considering the facts in "these regulations are adopted for the protection of a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. public health through the provisions of minimum Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Tydings, requirements for the disposal of sewage, the 125 Wash.2d 337, 341, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994). regulation of on-site sewage disposal systems...." Whereas here, the defendant is the moving party, summary judgment of dismissal is appropriate if the Resolutions of the Thurston County Board of Health defendant meets its initial burden of showing the further support the conclusion that the primary • absence of any issue of material fact, and the plaintiff fails to produce evidence sufficient to establish the purpose of the ordinance fees is regulation.Resolution No. H-3-91 indicates that the permit fees existence of each essential element of its claim. CR are imposed to recover the costs of inspections and 56(e); Buttelo v. S.A. Woods-Yates Am. Mach. Co., services related to issuing the permits. Similarly, Inc., 72 Wash.App. 397, 400, 864 P.2d 948 Resolution H-5-94 indicates that the County intends (1993)(citing Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals Inc., to use the water quality monitoring fees to *179 112 Wash.2d 216, 225, 770 P.2d 182 (1989) ). In "fund the monitoring and protection of ground and making its responsive showing, the plaintiff cannot surface water from degradation in quality due to rely up on allegations made in its pleadings, but septic systems." Based upon the record before us, instead must respond with affidavits setting forth we hold that the disputed fees are part of the County's specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. CR overall plan to regulate septic systems. Margola, 56(e); Young, 112 Wash.2d at 225-26,770 P.2d 182. 121 Wash.2d at 637-38, 854 P.2d 23. Police Power With regard to the second factor, the County submitted evidence that it intends to use the fee aim The Association contends that the County revenues to cover the costs of issuing the permits and lacks *178 authority to impose the disputed fees. monitoring ground and surface waters for Counties may, under their general police powers, contamination from failing septic systems. The "make and enforce within its limits all such local Association contends that a genuine issue of material police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in fact remains as to whether the County has allocated conflict with general laws." Const. art. XI, $ 11. fee revenue to a non-regulatory purpose. The Here, the County has direct legislative authority to Association points to the County's use of some fee regulate private sewage disposal systems. RCW revenue to fund its efforts to inform the general 70.05.060; Ford v. Bellingham- Whatcom County public about the hazards of failing septic systems. Dist. Bd. of Health, 16 Wash.App.709,712,558 P.2d But the Association fails to demonstrate that the 821 (1977). Counties may not, however, impose County's information program is unrelated to the taxes under general police powers. Covell v. City of regulation and supervision of septic system pollution. • Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 4 (Cite as: 85 Wash.App. 171, 931 P.2d 208) 1281 Constitutional Law€^^^1213.1(1) About 57 percent of Thurston County residents use • 92k213.1(1)Most Cited Cases an on-site septic system for sewage disposal. The County estimates that between 32,000 and 37,000 1281 Constitutional Law€213.1(2) septic systems are currently in use within Thurston 92k213.1(2)Most Cited Cases County. County residents rely almost exclusively upon ground water for drinking and other domestic Classification that is neither capricious nor arbitrary, uses. Failing septic systems can discharge untreated and rests upon some reasonable consideration of effluent, contaminating ground *176 water and difference or policy, does not deny equal protection surface water. Untreated sewage can also of the law. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's contaminate shellfish and other marine animals. RCWA Const.Art. 1, § 12. In June 1990, the Thurston County Board of Health 1291 Civil Rights X299 adopted a set of rules and regulations governing 78k299 Most Cited Cases sewage disposal (Ordinance). Ordinance Section 10.4 requires anyone building a new septic system to obtain a construction permit. Ordinance Section 10.5 County which was sued unsuccessfully by property owners association in § 1983 action based on requires anyone repairing an existing septic system to ordinance imposing permit system for on-site septic obtain a repair permit. tank systems was not entitled to attorney's fees; m�`'" Ordinance Section 10.6 requires septic system association's arguments with respect to constitutionality of ordinance had arguable merit. 42 owners to obtain operation permits in order to use A. § 1983. their systems. The Ordinance requires operation permit holders to record " [a] covenant showing the r, 1301 Civil Rights X299 existence of the Operational Permit" with the county le 78k299 Most Cited Cases auditor. Operation permits are valid for no more than five years and are typically issued for a four- Defendant to an action brought under § 1983 may year period. recover its attorney fees when action is frivolous, IIIAlthough the County intends to eventually requireunreasonable, or without foundation. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. all system owners to obtain operation permits, it **211*175 Jeffrey Scott Myers, Deputy Pros. currently lacks the resources to implement this plan Attorne all at once. As part of**212 its plan to phase-in the y,Olympia,for Respondents. permit system, the County requires system owners to obtain operation permits at "times of opportunity." Stephen Jensen Hosch,Michael G.Gusa,Hosch Law Under the Ordinance, operation permits are required: Office, Olympia,for Appellants. (1) for any new system; (2) for any system repair or expansion; (3) for any sale of property with an existing unpermitted system; and (4) for any system located in a designated Geologically Sensitive Area. HOUGHTON,Chief Judge. Owners must also obtain permits when required by Thurston County Rental Owners Association (the the health officer. Association) challenged Thurston County's (the The Ordinance requires that applicants pay fees for County) permit system for on-site septic tank systems, arguing that: (1) the County lacks authority each of the specified permits. The fee for a construction permit is $70 and the fee for an to require the permits and impose the fees; (2) the County has spent the revenue from the fees in an operation permit is $40. Renewing an expired unlawful or unconstitutional manner; (3) the permit operation permit requires payment of a $40 renewal program violates due process and equal fee. Additionally, operation permit holders are q protection assessed an annual $30 fee for water quality rights under the federal and state constitutions; and (4) the County's inspection program amounts to an monitoring. unconstitutional search. The trial court upheld the permit system. We affirm. The County uses the revenue from the operation permit fees to offset its administrative costs in issuing FACTS the permits and to fund enforcement and inspections. • The County *177 maintains that the cost of issuing Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S.Govt. Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 3 (Cite as: 85 Wash.App. 171, 931 P.2d 208) Const.Amend.4; West's RCWA Const.Art. 1,§ 7. (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and Environment) • 1181 Searches and Seizures€ '113.1 349k113.1 Most Cited Cases County ordinance that required septic system owners who fell within any of five classifications to obtain Warrants for health and safety inspections require a operation permits did not violate equal protection by showing of probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. not requiring all septic system owners to obtain 4; West's RCWA Const.Art. 1, § 7. operation permits; ordinance applied alike to all members within the designated classifications, there [191 Searches and Seizures€>171 were reasonable grounds for distinguishing between 349k171 Most Cited Cases those within and without disputed classes, and classifications were rationally related to county's stated goal of phasing in the permit system. U.S.C.A. Voluntary consent obviates need for a warrant to Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, $ conduct health and safety inspection. U.S.C.A. 12 Const.Amend.4; West's RCWA Const.Art. 1,§ 7. 1241 Constitutional Law C '213.1(1) 1201 Searches and Seizures C= "18392k213.1(1)Most Cited Cases 349k183 Most Cited Cases Although threats to obtain search warrant may First step in equal protection analysis is todetermine standard of review. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; invalidate consent when grounds for obtaining a West's RCWA Const.Art. 1, $ 12. warrant do not exist, whether consent is coerced is question of fact determined from totality of the X250.5 circumstances. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; West's 1251 Constitutional Law RCWA Const. Art. 1,§ 7. 92k250.5 Most Cited Cases [211 Constitutional Law€ '278.1 Rational basis test would be applied to equal 92k278.1 Most Cited Cases protection challenge by owners of septic systems to ordinance imposing fees for permits relating to • € 195 systems, as owners failed to demonstrate the [211 Environmental Law ordinance violated a fundamental right. U.S.C.A. 149Ek195 Most Cited Cases Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, § (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and 12 Environment) 1261 Constitutional Law€'228.2 County's use of fees for permits issued to septic 92k228.2 Most Cited Cases system owners did not violate owners' due process rights, where owners failed to offer evidence that Generally, rational basis or minimal scrutiny test county spent fee revenue on a purpose unrelated to applies to equal protection challenges to zoning, regulation and supervision of septic tank pollution or planning, and building regulations. U.S.C.A. that the revenue collected grossly exceeded cost of county's regulatory program. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA Const. Art. 1, $ 12 Const.Amend. 14. _ 281.5 1271 Constitutional Law 0213.1(2) 1221 Constitutional Law 92k213.1(2)Most Cited Cases 92k281.5 Most Cited Cases Under "rational basis test" as applied in equal Due process limits a state's power to collect fees to protection analysis, court must determine whether only those funds necessary for regulatory and challenged legislation applies alike to all members supervisory purposes. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14. within designated class, whether there are reasonable X250.5 grounds to distinguish between those within and 1231 Constitutional Law those without the class, and whether the classification 92k250.5 Most Cited Cases has rational relationship to purpose of legislation. X166 U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA Const. 1231 Environmental Law Art. 1, § 12. 0 149Ek166 Most Cited Cases Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt.Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 2 (Cite as: 85 Wash.App.171, 931 P.2d 208) fees imposed on owners of on-site septic tanks failed arbitrary and capricious. to show that fees violated statute requiring that fees relating to protection of public health not exceed the [131 Environmental Law€ 166 actual cost of providing such services, where county 149Ek166 Most Ciied Cases submitted evidence that actual administrative cost of (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and issuing operation permit was $44.24 and that fee for Environment) permit was only $40, as well as evidence that water quality monitoring fee would not generate sufficient Requirement in ordinance that owners of septic tank revenue to fund planned monitoring program. West's systems obtain an operation permit to use system did RCWA 70.05.060(7). not violate vested rights derived from receiving u Statutes€—^161 361k61 n not authorize usepermit;of septic system.constructiopermit alone did 361k61 Most Cited Cases Person challenging validity of an enactment has 1141 Zoning and Planning€376 414k376 Most Cited Cases burden to show the action was improper. Under "vested rights doctrine," developers are !1 Municipal Corporations x")122.1(2) entitled to have land development proposal processed 268k122.1(2)Most Cited Cases under regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit application is submitted, regardless Regularly enacted ordinances are presumed of subsequent changes in zoning or other land use constitutional, and challenger bears heavy burden of regulations. proving that ordinance is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt; in doing so, challenger must rebut presumption that all legally necessary facts justifying [922kk Constitutional Law e"--)93(1)3(1) 93(1)Most Cited Cases the enactment exist. (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and Environment) [101 Environmental Law€166 149Ek166 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and [151 Environmental Law X176 • 149Ek176 Most Cited Cases Environment) (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and County ordinance requiring that owners of existing Environment) septic systems obtain an operation permit before Vested rights doctrine with respect to land repairing their system or selling their property was development proposals applies to septic tank reasonably related to protecting health and safety of installations. county residents, and thus did not violate judicial test of reasonableness, for purposes of constitutional challenge to ordinance. 1161 Searches and Seizures X12 349k12 Most Cited Cases [111 Municipal Corporations C='589 Ordinance under which county was first required to 268k589 Most Cited Cases attempt to obtain permission of land owner for septic that tank inspection, then to obtain a warrant if Judicial "test of reasonableness" requires permission was refused, did not authorize regulations enacted pursuant to municipal unconstitutional inspections by virtue of alleged corporation's police powers must be reasonably coercive effect of threat to obtain warrant. U.S.C.A. necessary to protect public health, safety,morals, and Const.Amend.4; West's RCWA Const.Art. 1, $ 7. general welfare and be substantially related to the legitimate ends sought. [171 Searches and Seizures€79 [121 Statutes C—'61 349k79 Most Cited Cases 361k61 Most Cited Cases Inspections for health, safety, and other violations of municipal codes must be conducted pursuant to a Reviewing court may not strike down legislation warrant, or fall within one of the narrowly drawn unless it is shown to be clearly unreasonable or exceptions to warrant requirement. U.S.C.A. • Copr.© West 2003 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt.Works 931 P.2d 208 Page 1 , (Cite as: 85 Wash.App. 171, 931 P.2d 208) septic systems for the protection of public health, money collected was not spent on nonregulatory purposes, and a sufficient relationship existed • Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. between burden created by septic system pollution and the fees charged. West's RCWA Const. Art. 11, 11; West's RCWA 70.05.060. THURSTON COUNTY RENTAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION,et al.,Appellants, u Counties€^^^'190.1 v. 104k190.1 Most Cited Cases THURSTON COUNTY, et al.,Respondents. Counties may not impose taxes under general police No. 19160-141. powers. West's RCWA Const.Art. 11, ,$ 11. Feb. 21, 1997. al Taxation C^^^'1 371k1 Most Cited Cases Property owners association brought lawsuit Three factors to be considered in determining challenging county's authority to require permits and whether a charge imposed by governmental entity is impose fees for on-site septic systems and alleging a tax or a regulatory fee are whether primary purpose civil rights violations. The Superior Court, Lewis is to raise revenue or to regulate, whether money County,David Draper, J., granted county's motion for collected is spent on nonregulatory purposes, and summary judgment. Association appealed. The whether there is a direct relationship between fee Court of Appeals, Houghton, C.J., held that: (1) fees charged and service received by those who pay fee or for permits relating to on-site septic tank systems between fee charged and burden produced by fee were valid regulatory fees, and thus county could payer. impose them under its general police powers; (2) association failed to show that permit fees violated Taxation1 statute requiring that fees relating to protection of 371k1 Most Cited Cases public health not exceed actual cost of providing such services; (3) provision requiring that septic system Reviewing courts may look to the overall plan of 1110 owners obtain operation permit before repairing regulation in determining whether primary purpose of system or selling their property did not violate fee imposed by a governmental entity is to raise judicial test of reasonableness; (4) requirement that revenue or to regulate, as part of larger determination owners obtain an operation permit to use system did of whether fee is a tax or a regulatory fee. not violate vested rights derived from receiving construction permit; (5) ordinance did not authorize u Taxation1 unconstitutional inspections; (6) county's use of fees 371k1 Most Cited Cases from septic system permits did not violate owners' due process rights; and (7) ordinance did not violate Charge imposed by governmental entity may be equal protection by not requiring all septic system deemed a regulatory fee, as opposed to a tax, even owners to obtain operation permits. though the charge is not individualized according to Affirmed. the burden produced by the fee payer. j61 Taxation G---"1 West Headnotes 371k1 Most Cited Cases u Environmental Law€;195 "Excise tax" is a tax on the right to use or transfer 149Ek195 Most Cited Cases things. (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and Environment) a Environmental Law 0195 149Ek195 Most Cited Cases Fees for permits relating to on-site septic tank (Formerly 199k25.7(13.1) Health and systems were valid regulatory fees, and thus county Environment) could impose them under its general police powers; fees were part of county's overall plan to regulate Rental owners association challenging validity of • Copr. © West 2003 No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works been coerced through the conditions that have been imposed on that OSS permit. If there are criminal penalties for violation of the OSS codes, then does the information generated by a • mandatory third party operation and maintenance inspection that indicates system failure constitute a form of compulsory self-incrimination? While I do not know if the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is implicated when evidence of OSS code violations are discovered through a search, I think the more crucial question is whether the person discovering the OSS code violations found them in a lawful manner. The question must be rephrased because it is the person observing the OSS code violations that would testify in court. Therefore, if the person discovering the evidence of an OSS code violation had entered upon the privately-owned premises lawfully, then the evidence that he or she observed (or smelled) would be the fruit of a valid search warrant and would be admissible against the property owner. If the person was not there lawfully(either a coerced `voluntary' consent to search or simply no warrant or permission at all), then the testimony would be the "fruits of the poisonous tree," and thus subject to a suppression motion. In other words, the attorney for the defendant (here the holder of the OSS permit)would ask the Judge to declared that evidence inadmissible at the criminal trial, or what lawyers called "suppressed." Of course, without the evidence the criminal charges would have to be dismissed as they could never be proven. • What are the implications of what has been stated above? The BOH faces a substantial quandary. While this County's BOH undoubtedly has an obligation to monitor"each OSS"pursuant to WAC 246-272-15501, specifically subsections (2) and (5), the homeowner having an OSS who refuses the inspector permission to enter upon the homeowner's land can lawfully frustrate that obligation. How does the landowner do that? Simply by exercising rights granted to him or her by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, §7 of our state constitution. Are there any questio s?I am available at 385 9219. ( 1. �-�-r-_ David Alvarez Chief Civil DPA Enclosed: Thurston Cty. Rental Owners Assoc. case & WAC 246-272-15501 MEMO TO BOARD OF HEALTH Alvarez Response to Fay memo February 3, 2003 Page 8 has stated in his memo to the BOH: "[i]Inspections for health, safety, and other violations of municipal codes must be • conducted pursuant to a warrant, or fall with in one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement. (citation omitted.)Warrants for health and safety inspections require a showing of probable cause. (citation omitted)" That quote comes from Thurston County Rental Owners Assoc. v. Thurston County, 85 Wn. App. 171, 931 P. 2d 208 (1997). The Thurston County Rental Owners Association case, while upholding a system that required periodic inspections and OSS permits that expired after either four or five years, also makes clear the point that Thurston County never claimed it could make warrantless searches as part of its regulations relating to OSS and that if Thurston County had made such a claim that claim would be meritless and unlawful. The"take home point" is that there can be no warrantless searches. This is nothing more than what was stated in Seattle v. McCready, 131 Wn. 2d 266, 931 P. 2d 156 (1997) (see above) at about the same time. These are examples of this state granting citizens a substantial "expectation of privacy." The Thurston County Rental Owners Association case also states that the courts will not make a "bright line"rule about whether a consent to search that appears to be voluntary on its surface was in fact coerced by the local government. The appellate panel in the Thurston County Rental Owners ,Association case specifically refused to rule on whether the threat by Thurston County to obtain a search warrant if consent to search was not voluntarily granted was, in fact, coercion that would make an apparently voluntary consent not voluntary in the least. I did not find any other cases that discuss a coercion `defense' to an apparently voluntary consent to search in a NON-CRIMINAL context. In sum,then, Mr. Belenski or any other property owner would be able to argue to a Judge that when this County states, in essence, that"you get your permit when you consent (voluntarily?)to a series of periodic intrusions onto your private property,"then that consent was not voluntary. Do third party inspections carried out under operations and maintenance contracts constitute warrantless searches of private property? Yes,because they are not based on particularized evidence that would allow a judge to find that MEMO TO BOARD OF HEALTH Alvarez Response to Fay memo February 3, 2003 Wage 7 (c) Dedicate easements for inspections, maintenance, and potential future expansion of the OSS. (6) (7) " (bold supplied by this author.) • The clear meaning of WAC 246-272-15501(5) is that periodic monitoring of each OSS has been required since January 1, 2000 and that such monitoring can be done by an outside or third party. Note the use of the word "shall" [always equated with mandatory rather than optional] in WAC 246-272-15501(2), the subsection that talks about monitoring. WAC 246-272-15501(2) stems from and is lawful because of the state law codified at RCW 43.20.050. With this rather extensive background in place, the five questions of the Larry Fay memo dated January 17, 2003 can be answered in sequence. Does the BOH have the authority to require third party monitoring of of OSS as a condition of an OSS permit? Yes. Why? Because of WAC 246-272-15501, specifically subsections (2) and (5). Does the BOH have the authority to require applicants for an OSS permit to enter into an operations and maintenance contract with the PUD as a condition of an OSS permit? II! Yes. Why?Again because of WAC 246-272-15501, specifically subsection(5)(a)(ii) and (5)(a)(iii), which state that a local health authority may require such contracts. Does an inspection of an OSS required as part of a third party operations and maintenance contract constitute permission (Le., voluntary consent) to enter upon the property? No. But a more detailed analysis is required. This question is, in reality, better framed in the converse,that is to say, does requiring the holder of an OSS permit to enter into a third-party maintenance agreement represent coercion that would vitiate and void the alleged"voluntariness"of the consent to search allegedly given by the homeowner? The answer to that question is probably"yes." Begin with the following quote from a Washington appellate court, a quote that clearly dovetails with what Mr. Belenski MEMO TO BOARD OF HEALTH Alvarez Response to Fay memo February 3, 2003 Page 6 • "Each local board of health shall have supervision over all matters pertaining to the preservation of the life and health of the people within its jurisdiction and shall: (1) Enforce through the local health officer or the administrative officer appointed under RCW 70.05.040, if any, the public health statutes of the state and rules promulgated by • the state board of health and the secretary of health; (2) Supervise the maintenance of all health and sanitary measures for the protection of the public health within its jurisdiction; (3) Enact such local rules and regulations as are necessary in order to preserve, promote and improve the public health and provide for the enforcement thereof;" These statutes have led to the enactment of administrative code provisions that permit local health boards such as this BOH to regulate OSS. See Ch. 246-272 of the WAC's. Of particular interest is WAC 246- 272-03001, entitled"Applicability,"which states, in relevant part, "(1)The local health officer and the department: (a) Shall apply this chapter to OSS treating wastewater and disposing of effluent from residential sewage sources;...." (bold supplied by this author.) Since Mr. Belenski has claimed that the BOH cannot mandate monitoring of any individual OSS and, if such monitoring is lawful, cannot delegate it to a third-party, of particular interest is WAC 246-272- . 15501,which is entitled"Operation and maintenance." It states in relevant part: "(1) The OSS owner is responsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSS, and shall (2)The local health officer shall (a) (b) Develop and implement plans to: (i) Monitor all OSS performance within areas of special concern; (ii) Initiate periodic monitoring of each OSS no later than January 1, 2000, to assure that each OSS owner properly maintains and operates the OSS in accordance with this section and in accordance with other applicable operation and maintenance requirements. (3) (4) (5)The local health officer may require the owner of the OSS to: (a) Use one or more of the following management methods or another method consistent with the following management methods for proper operation and maintenance: (i) Obtain and comply with the conditions of a renewable or operational permit; (ii) Employ a public entity eligible under Washington state statutes to, directly or indirectly, manage the OSS; or (iii) Employ a private management entity, guaranteed by a public entity eligible under Washington state statutes or sufficient financial resources,to manage the OSS; (b) Evaluate any effects the OSS may have on ground water or surface water; and/or MEMO TO BOARD OF HEALTH Alvarez Response to Fay memo February 3, 2003 wage 5 What is the underlying issue that Mr. Belenski has asked the BOH to investigate and analyze? Mr. Belenski, on page 2 of his memo, has asserted that "there is no `authority of law' for coerced inspections of septic systems searching for failures or other violations." _ • In reply, I would assert that the "authority of law"does exist and the State's administrative code imposes on all Boards of Health, including this County's BOH, a duty to monitor"each OSS." However, Mr. Belenski is correct when he states that he cannot, by law, be coerced into permitting an inspector on to his privately-owned property to inspect his septic system. Should Mr. Belenski choose to not consent voluntarily to entry upon his property by the inspector, then the BOH or JCHHS would be obligated to either obtain a search warrant based on probable cause (as would occur in any criminal investigation) or obtain a search warrant pursuant to RCW 70.118.030. But the authority of law for monitoring the OSS located at an individual residence clearly exists. The foundation of that law is the WA State Constitution, specifically Article XI, §11, which states "[a]ny 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." There are multiple state laws that provide the state and the counties (which are creatures of the state) with broad powers to protect the general health and welfare by regulating the disposal of waste. See, for example, RCW 43.20.050(2)(b), which mandates that the State Depaitinent of Health must • establish rules relating to how waste, including sewage will be disposed of. That law states, in part: "43.20.050. Powers and duties of state board of health--State public health report-- Delegation of authority--Enforcement of rules (1) (2) In order to protect public health, the state board of health shall: (a) (b)Adopt rules and standards for prevention, control, and abatement of health hazards and nuisances related to the disposal of wastes, solid and liquid, including but not limited to sewage, garbage, refuse, and other environmental contaminants; adopt standards and procedures governing the design, construction...." (bold supplied by this author.) The BOH members will be more familiar with RCW 70.05.060, entitled"Powers and duties of local board of health." It states, in part: MEMO TO BOARD OF HEALTH Alvarez Response to Fay memo February 3, 2003 Page 4 • You can also surrender some part of your Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for a privilege. For example, for the privilege of obtaining a WA State Driver's License you have automatically consented to undergo a breath or blood alcohol content ("BAC")test if so requested by a cop while under arrest by that cop. Accepting the driver's license means that you have surrendered any right to object to the intrusion into your body that is a breath or BAC test. See RCW 46.20.308 and State v. Rogers, 37 Wn. App. 728, 683 P. 2d 608 (1984). Similarly, if you are a bus driver in a large city and thus subject to random drug testing, then that random testing presumably would be found to be constitutional because you have accepted intrusions into your privacy as a condition of driving a public carrier. Finally, the federal definition of"reasonable expectation of privacy" serves as a floor not a ceiling, meaning that while any citizen of any state is guaranteed the protection provided by how federal courts have defined the "reasonable expectation of privacy,"each of the 50 states is free to provide(through case law, statute and/or its state constitution) additional privacy rights to its citizens. Thus, while wiretapping might be permissible in certain circumstances under the federal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, our state would be acting lawfully if our State Legislature banned all wiretapping. Does Washington State protect privacy to a greater extent than the federal courts do? Yes it does. Washington State, through Article I, §7 of our State Constitution(which is this state's Fourth Amendment) and published decisions,provides its citizens with a much greater expectation of privacy than do the federal court decisions. For example, in the absence of state law that allows such searches, e.g., the law codified at RCW 70.118.030, our state's Supreme Court has abolished shotgun-type searches made to find zoning code violations when the subjects of those searches are merely"likely"to contain violations as opposed to the inspectors having"hard evidence"that the locations to be searched truly do contain violations. See Seattle v. McCready, 131 Wn. 2d 266, 931 P. 2d 156 (1997). In essence, the McCready case eliminated so-called"administrative searches,"because it imposed upon those persons wishing to enforce zoning violations the need to have as much probable cause to obtain a warrant as would be required to obtain a search warrant in any typical criminal investigation. MEMO TO BOARD OF HEALTH Alvarez Response to Fay memo February 3, 2003 page 3 Failure to comply with any portion of Jeff Code Ch. 8.15 can lead to criminal or civil penalties. Monitoring of the OSS has to be done periodically(the schedule for such inspecitons is listed within Table 1 made part of Ch. 8.15)by a person or firm certified by the JCHHS according to the rules laid out in Jeff Code §8.15.150(6) and .150(7). In order to monitor it is generally necessary for the person doing the monitoring to enter upon privately-owned property and perform the periodic inspection. What does Mr. Belenski object to? Mr. Belenski states that he has never been informed what "authority of law" allows for what he considers to be an overly-intrusive set of County regulations, overly-intrusive because they require periodic inspection and monitoring which, in turn, requires entry of non-authorized persons on to the private property of Mr. Belenski and others residing in the unincorporated County. Mr. Belenski believes that the intrusions on his property to inspect his septic system violate privacy rights granted to him by both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, §7 of our State's Constitution. What are the general rules that apply to search and seizure? You may recall that the Fourth Amendment (adopted in 1791)was and is a direct response to the occupation of the American colonies by British troops from about 1770 until 1783. British troops could • enter at will the home of any American in their attempt to find traitors and treasonous materials (gunpowder, pamphlets, etc.). In response, the Fourth Amendment made a man's home inviolate from government intrusion, i.e., government (or employees of the government such as cops) can now only enter a residence if it has a search warrant (there are six exceptions to that rule) signed by a judge. The judge cannot sign the search warrant (his or her signature makes it valid) unless they finds sufficient probable cause that a crime or evidence of a crime is at the location that is the subject of the search warrant. The courts have stated that a person holds a"reasonable expectation of privacy"in their person, their home and their belongings. That squishy phrase means that one is entitled to the highest level of privacy inside one's home, a middle level of privacy in a fenced-in area near one's home, often called "the curtilage,"and a lesser(or quite low) level of privacy in a field some distance from your home. MEMO TO BOARD OF HEALTH Alvarez Response to Fay memo February 3, 2003 • Page 2 Juelanne Dalzell r".,, r . JEFFERSON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ' n ' Courthouse—P.O.Box 1220 ,, Port Townsend,Washington 98368 lic 4 •l, f •' .li g:.. A.iC � Telephone(360)385-9180 FAX(360)385-0073 itj. .. f;:' V • 1'`.: '4 , • Jill Landes,Deputy Prosecutor �'� t �',, ,1 -1- Deputy Prosecutor _ � �.,:,�.; ._ �,'- �_ ��.: Michael Haas, P Y }.i`_ PORT TOW- David W.Alvarez,Deputy Prosecutor JEFFERSON COUNTY SEAT- NSEND.WASNNOTON Tracey L.Lassus,Deputy Prosecutor Lianne Perron-Kossow,Victim Witness Advocate MEMORANDUM TO: Jefferson County Board of Health Dr. Thomas Locke, Health Officer Larry Fay, Environmental Health County Administrator David Goldsmith FROM: David Alvarez, Chief Civil DPA DATE: February 4, 2003 RE: Responses to five (5) issues raised by Larry Fay memo This memo is in response to the January 17, 2003 memo from Larry Fay to this author, received by Ailthe Prosecuting Attorney's Office ("PAO") on January 28. The Fay memo asks the PAO to analyze and respond with respect to five distinct legal issues brought to the attention of the Jefferson County Board of Health(or"BOH")by the Mike Belenski memo dated December 10, 2002. The Belenski memo, in truth, raises a sixth(and underlying) issue. The Belenski memo also provides an excellent opportunity to discuss "search and seizure"issues in the context of on-site septic systems (or"OSS"). Since a"Q &A" format worked well the last time I prepared a memo for the BOH I will continue that practice. What is the current regulatory scheme? The County's regulations for OSS are found at the Jefferson County Code (distinct from the Uniform Development Code) at Ch. 8.15, as revised in 2001. Here is my perhaps oversimplified understanding of those regulations. Initially, only persons holding a certificate from the County Health Department (JCHHS) can install an OSS in compliance with the state regulations codified in the Washington Administrative Code or WAC. There is an inspection when the system is completely installed (Jeff. Code §8.15.110). The owner of the property then has to meet certain "operation, maintenance and monitoring"responsibilities and obligations, as described in Jeff Code §8.15.150. •