Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/12/07 - Board of Health MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH December'7, 1995 The Board of Health was called to 9rder at 10:00 a.m. by Chairperson Mary Faughender with Board Members Cady and Hunter in attendance. ATTENDANCE: Mary L. Faughender, Chairperson Annette McGee, Shelton William O. Hunter, Board Member Charles & Margaret Bennett, Belfair Mary Jo Cady, Board Member 8111 Taylor, Shelton Brad Banner, Health Services Director Ralph Wingert, Shelton Steve Kutz, Director of Personal Health Ray Adams, Shelton Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer Bill McGee, Shelton Will Satak, Food Program Specialist Warren Dawes, Shelton Mark Tompkins, Program Manager Bill Dewey, Shelton Donald J. Ahrens, Belfair Curt Owen, Allyn Dave Kiemle, Enumclaw R. Rogers, Shelton Arnold Tahja, Hoodsport AGENDA REVISION Chairperson Faughender asked if there were any additions or deletions to the agenda. Board Member Cady responded that she would like to delete the personal and environmental health policy updates because she was not ready to take action on their at this time. CORRESPONDENCE Letter received from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission in support of the proposed On-Site Operation and Maintenance Program in Mason County. MINUTES ADOPTED Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the Board of Health approve the November 2nd, 1995 meeting minutes as circulated and the December 6th, 1995 appeal hearing minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. HEALTH OFFICER'S REPORT Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer, stated there were no reportable diseases in the county during the month of November except for influenza. Influenza A has been identified as occurring in Mason County and probably was approaching epidemic proportions. The case of tuberculosis reported last month has been identified not to be TB and would not require any further investigation or contact. In Thurston County, two cases of meningitis have been reported during the first week of November. Lincoln, Grant and Lewis Counties have been conducting a Hanta Virus study. They have identified the virus in approximately 25% of the deer mice tested in Lincoln County, 21% tested positive in Grant County, and 0% tested positive in the five deer mice tested in Lewis County. Eight additional rodents, which were not deer mice, tested negative for the Hanta Virus. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 2 OF 11 Board Member Cady asked what type of influenza vaccination was given by the Health Department. Dr. Trucksess responded that it was the H3N2 and HIM1 strains of Influenza A and Influenza B. The type of influenza they were seeing was the type that should have been prevented by the vaccine. If a person did not receive their immunization a full 6 weeks prior to exposure, they would likely become infected. Board Member Cady asked if the vaccine would be made available earlier next year. Dr. Trucksess replied this was the second year that the influenza has hit in November and December. Ordinarily it does not hit until January, February or March. They may decide to start giving the vaccine earlier next year. Board Member Hunter asked how long the vaccination was active. Dr. Trucksess replied it was good for one year. Steve Kutz, Director of Personal Health, commented that some immunization sites had good participation and some did not. Many people were trying to get to the clinic on an appointment basis and it was booked up quite a ways in advance. The department was still administering the vaccine, and had approximately 350 doses left. If more people would have come to the community sites in greater numbers, the community would have had greater protection. Board Member Cady noted the lack of participation was not due to lack of advertising. Mr: Kutz agreed and noted that some private providers were out of the vaccine and were referring patients to the Health Department. INFANT CAR SEAT PROGRAM Mr. Kutz presented an informational report on the car seat distribution program which was the result of a lawsuit settlement in which General Motors agreed to an eight million dollar settlement. These monies have been disbursed throughout the United States by providing car seats to low income babies and children. Mason County applied for 50 car seats and received approximately 40. Employees were sent to a training session to learn how to teach others how to use car seats correctly. To receive a car seat, a participant talks with a Health Department employee about the proper use and watches a car seat installation video. Representatives of the Health Department, Skokomish Tribe and the Mason County DWI Traffic/Safety Program have distributed the car seats. So far, 38 have been given to low-income families. The remaining I car seats were given out during an ,infant care workshop held at Mason General Hospital for mothers from Choice High School. Over the next three years, additional allotments of the car seats would be given and the Health Department would be seeking as many as possible for the community. Board Member Cady asked who paid for the employees to attend the training session. Mr. Kutz replied that his department covered the cost for the employees to travel to Tacoma for part of a day. Chairperson Faughender asked if he believed the distribution program was successful. Mr. Kutz believed it was. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SOLID WASTE MONITORING PROGRAM Health Services Director,Brad Banner, presented a resolution for the Board's consideration which authorizes the Solid Waste Monitoring Program being undertaken. This program does not refer to on-site sewage but rather woodwaste fills and 'sludge sites. He explained that each of these facilities has their own consultant who submits reports to the Health Department for review. The monitoring programs were inconsistent in how they collected samples, how the samples were analyzed, and how the information was recorded. In addition, the consultant actually worked for the facility. Therefore, the Health Department has established a program in which a consultant would be selected to work for the Health Department and report to the Health Department on a county-wide basis. The cost of the consultant would be covered by the facilities through the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 3 OF 11 permit fee process. The Board of Commissioners had given authorization to request proposals. From five proposals, one was selected and negotiation began on the scope of work and a budget was proposed. The resolution was read aloud by Mr. Banner. Board Member Hunter asked how many sites would be included. Mr. Banner replied there were several sites, but not all of them were on active status. Ms. Annette McGee asked where the sites were located. Mr. Banner responded that the sites were as follows: Peterson Woodwaste, Webb Hill Biosolid, City of Shelton, Washington Corrections Center, Simpson Woodwaste and Ash Fill Site, Eells Hill, and the Drake Woodwaste site. An Allyn site was presently closed. Board Members Cady/Hunter moved/seconded that the Board of Health adopt the Resolution (Exhibit A) Establishing the Solid Waste Monitoring Program through the Department of Health Services annual permitting process. Motion carried unanimously. Board Members Cady and Hunter noted the benefits of enacting this resolution. RESOLUTION - CLASS B VERTICAL SEPARATION WAIVER Brad Banner reported that when the Washington Department of Health revised their on-site sewage regulations, they instituted more stringent standards for vertical separation. Vertical separation was that amount of soil between the bottom of the drainfield and where the impermeable layer, or limiting layer, was. This could be a seasonal water table or glacial till. In Mason County, as in several neighboring counties, large portions of the county have shallow glacial till. The theory behind the state regulation was that before the sewage hits that glacial till it needed to have a known level of treatment. Therefore, it required treatment standards which would involve sand filters, mounds, aerobic treatment devices, and other more complex systems to give it that treatment before it hit the till. It was the Board of Health's contention, throughout this process, that although that may be well and good for sensitive areas, it was not necessarily fair to apply it every where. The Board of Health, Commissioners, and Health Department worked on a modification to this requirement at the state level. They were unsuccessful in getting it modified although Senator Owens and other legislators had assisted. The outcome was a mitigating decision. The state allowed, in the regulation, multiple site waivers. If conditions could be established that would mitigate less vertical separation, the department could get a waiver to uniformly give to sites providing they could show that public health was still being protected. In•the forefront was Kitsap County Health Department who hired a consultant who worked with them in developing a proposal which eventually was accepted by the State Department of Health. Mason County has taken that proposal, modified it to fit Mason County, and they were now ready to submit it to the State Department of Health. The resolution was basically the cover letter which would accompany the proposal. Chairperson Faughender asked if any other counties, besides Kitsap, had applied for this waiver. Mr. Banner believed Pierce County was in the process. Cowlitz and Lewis Counties have also shown an interest. Board Member Cady asked if he foresaw any problems with its approval. Mr. Banner replied he did not anticipate any problems, it was actually a final product. Board Member Cady asked if there were any agency strings attached to the issuance of the waiver. Mr. Banner answered he did not believe so. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 4 OF 11 Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the Mason County Board of Health approve and sign the Resolution (Exhibit B) requesting the Class B Waiver Relating to Minimum Vertical Separation Requirements to WAC 246-272. Board Member Hunter noted this was something they had worked with the state in attempting to accomplish as the regulation was being imposed. However, they had been unsuccessful, but had been told this process would be available. Chairperson Faughender commented that this waiver should result in fewer high- priced mound, sand filter, and aerobic systems and would allow theirs, with good reason, to install more gravity and simpler pressure systems. Board Member Hunter stated that the more complicated the system, the more prone they were to failure. He believed the more simpler systems have served Mason County well in the past, under certain conditions, and they would continue to do so. He wholeheartedly endorsed the waiver request. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - 1996 FEE SCHEDULE Brad Banner distributed copies of the proposed fee schedules for environmental and personal health for the upcoming year. He noted that the woodwaste fee proposal was listed incorrectly. Last year when preparing the fee schedule, they looked closely at the actual cost of doing the program and set fees based on those costs. This year, they were proposing a 3% increase in the fees. In 1996, the staff would receive a pay increase of 4%. Benefit costs have increased as well as the cost of supplies. Rather than micro-budgeting each fee, they did a 3% increase across the board with two exceptions. One was the woodwaste fee. They were proposing the fee be based on a typical facility, rather than one which was extremely time consuming. The other change with an exception of the 3% increase was part of the Water Program Fees, under Well Drilling Permits. They were proposing reducing the fee from $60 to $40. This service started last year when the Department of Ecology delegated the inspection of the tagging, sealing and decommissioning of wells to Environmental Health. At that time, they had budgeted what the program would cost to make it self-supporting. A portion of the state's monies for well permits comes back to the county to defray those costs. It would continue to be monitored, and could possibly be reduced further in the future. The Food Advisory Committee, the Drinking Water Advisory Committee and the Home Builder's Association have all reviewed the fee schedule proposal. Board Member Cady stated, with her calculations, it appeared the cost for doing some of the services was roughly $45.50 per hour. An employee cost alone was not that much, and it was the employee who was getting the 4% increase. Yet, the department was proposing an across- the-board 3% increase even though all the expenses were not going up accordingly. She asked what staff time was involved in looking at the plan review for 3-6 water connections. Mr. Banner replied there was quite a lengthy packet of information as well as a check list used in reviewing the proposal. It includes hydraulic analysis, layout sketches, covenants, chemical analysis, notification requirements, well house inspections, etc. Basically, the whole design review process was overseen. The State Department of Health was in charge of all public water systems, and they delegate, through a contract with the different counties, to enforce their code on these systems. Board Member Cady commented that, based on the proposed fee, it would take an employee just over 21 hours of work. She wondered if it actually took two and one-half days to do this work. Mr. Banner responded that the fee of $200 divided by $45 was about 4 hours. Board Member Cady noted she was referring to the amount of hours listed on the analysis MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 5 OF 11 worksheet. Mr. Banner replied the'worksheet was based on time sheet data and was used to distribute the cost. There were a lot of water system costs that get lumped into the water program as a whole. Board Member Cady stated the bottom line figures were fine, but she was wondering if some of the figures were skewed to formulate the bottom line. Mr. Banner stated they were not, the figures were directly from the time sheet data base. The total cost was broken down between each activity. The time sheet data lists each specific activity which was done this past year. He had projected how many of each activity the department would be doing in the future. This number may change from year to year. Annette McGee asked if there were any new fees being proposed. Mr. Banner replied there were no new fees, they were all established fees. She asked why the solid waste fees for the sludge/septage utilization sites were also being proposed for reduction. She noted the department had plans to hire a consultant to monitor the facilities. Mr. Banner answered he had overlooked this proposed reduction when he was reporting on the exceptions earlier. The figures had been adjusted based on the hour distribution method. There would be a monitoring fee based on the cost. Mrs. McGee asked if a facility would be charged an at-cost monitoring fee on top of the application fee. Mr. Banner replied they would because it would be the consultant's cost charged to the department. Mrs. McGee noted, then, there was a new fee. Mr. Banner replied that was correct. Mrs. McGee stated there would be a new monitoring fee for sludge which the facility would pay for the consultant, not the taxpayers. Chairperson Faughender commented that one consultant would be doing all the monitoring. Board Member Hunter stated this would result in uniformity in the testing. Mrs. McGee wondered if reducing the fee and then adding the monitoring fee would be legally sufficient to guarantee they would receive the cost of this consultant. Mr. Banner replied he had talked with the Prosecuting Attorney's staff specifically about this, and he did not see a problem. The resolution would strengthen it also. Board Member Hunter noted the resolution would uphold the fee if it was challenged. Mrs. McGee wondered if this monitoring was addressed specifically in the resolution. Mr. Banner referred to the wording in the resolution which covered this subject. Chairperson Faughender commented that this would enable the county to monitor these facilities rather than having them monitor themselves. The resolution should satisfy any legal challenges. Mrs. McGee suggested that another paragraph be added so the sites could be named in the resolution to ensure the county's protection. Steve Kutz commented that the personal health fees were all listed on the superbill which everyone accessing their services would receive. The appropriate fees would be circled on the bill. The items that needed to be purchased were based on actual cost. When billing for some of the fees, they proposed changing the fee to what medicaid would allow them to charge. In virtually all instances they were charging less than the allowable medicaid rate. The fees had been rounded up to the nearest dollar. He noted that the reimbursement fees and the acquisition costs change. When not using medicaid, an individual would be charged based on a sliding fee scale based on the federal poverty level. The discounts were based on their income. In some cases, there was no charge for services. However, some services were not provided on the sliding fee schedule, but actual cost. Most of these instances were immunizations for people traveling, such as the hepatitis, typhoid, cholera, and chicken pox. It also included the birth and death certificates, and lab work for the hepatitis antibody unless the person was part of the prenatal program. There would be a billing program to bill people for the service if they were MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 6 OF 11 not covered by some other mechanism. Private insurance would also be billed. Board Member Cady asked if they were bringing the billing into conformance with what DSHS was already doing. Mr. Kutz replied that was true, but there was also a philosophy change. For example, they were now charging based on the type of office visit was actually received. Chairperson Faughender opened the meeting to public comment. Curt Owen stated he was representing the Allyn Inn and he was present to bitterly complain about the fees he pays. The fees used to be around $150 a year for a restaurant, now they were $700 a year. He paid around $400 a year because he took the certification class ran by the Health Department. He believed the fee was going to be $200 after taking the class, but it was still $400. He felt it was an outrageous increase, and noted that the class attendance cost $300 which took 5 weeks. Chairperson Faughender asked Will Satak, Food Program Specialist, to explain the process for reducing the fee after receiving certification. Mr. Satak informed the class was $200. Mr. Owen commented that the class also involved study time which was tremendous. He had put in a terrific amount of effort as well as spending approximately $1,000 on training materials to bring his crew up to date on the certification. He also spent another $20,000 updating his restaurant in the way he felt it should be after taking the program. He pays only $2,000 a year for a liquor license, which he gets something in return. But this usually only gets him a bunch of grief. He believed others would be outraged too if their fees had been increased like this. He did not understand why a restaurant would be the largest contributor in the county to the Health Department. A tavern pays less and probably sells as much food as his establishment does. He agreed that his restaurant was large and had a complex menu, however, a lot of taverns were in the same category. He believed the fees were capricious. Board Member Hunter asked if staff would like to respond to the first comment. Mr. Satak replied that he was the Food Advisory Committee Chairperson, and the Vice-Chairperson had been chosen to speak to the Board. Board Member Cady asked Mr. Satak to explain the $402 fee for an establishment who has gone through the certification program. Mr. Satak replied that the class was a separate issue. For the $402 fee, the establishment receives technical assistance from the Health Department. Staff verifies that the establishment was inspecting for the things they should be. They also receive one quality control inspection per year. Board Member Cady wondered how long one inspection for a large restaurant would take. Mr. Satak answered that it would be from one to two hours. Board Member Cady noted the travel time. Mr..Satak stated that the point of giving technical assistance was to enable the establishments to succeed and be effective inspectors. Don Becker, Vice-President of the Food Advisory Committee, commented that he agreed with Mr. Owen. One of the problems he saw in the fee schedule raising so rapidly, especially in this county, was the change from a small complex restaurant to a large. He agreed with Mr. Owen that a tavern across the street from him was doing as much volume or more and new restaurants to the area such as Denny's were considered a small restaurant even though their turn over was going to be much greater based on their seating capacity. His restaurant was in Elden and their _ business comes in the summer. He was considered a small restaurant because it was under 72 seats. If he added a lounge and put a few more chairs in his establishment, his fee would go up. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 7 OF 11 When he was appointed to the advisory committee he had a proposal for them to look into this, which the committee was in the process of doing. He believed the fee should be based on volume. Mr. Satak spends as much time inspecting a restaurant as he does a tavern. A tavern or a small establishment like Taco Bell may be doing $1 million dollars in sales. The committee wanted to establish a fee which would be fair to.the owners. Board Member Hunter stated that some establishments had take-out windows. He wondered how they were being assessed. Mr. Satak replied there was not a category specifically for take-out food. They would be considered a restaurant based on their menu type, either complex or non- complex. Depending on seating inside they would be considered large or small. Chairperson Faughender noted the hearing today was to consider fees. The Board has been briefed on the proposals being considered and believed the proposals had merit. They hope, in the future, a more equitable distribution could be'done. Mr. Becker stated that it could be based on sales. They were looking at what would be appropriate. Board Member Cady commented she may be being simplistic, however, she wondered why food establishment fees were any different than any other health fees that were based on the actual cost of the county to provide that service. Mr. Banner responded that they were calculated the very same way. Board Member Cady replied that if it took four hours to do it, with all the costs added, it amounts to under $200. She wondered why it should be based on how much money the restaurant makes or how many chairs they have. Mr. Banner stated that .89% of Mr. Satak's time was budgeted in the Food Program. The remainder of his time was spent in other programs. The cost of the Food Program was approximately $85,000. That may sound high, but that was the way it was with the cost of cars, overhead, and various transfers to other departments. They had to consider how that cost would be broken down into the various categories. Mr. Owen commented that it takes the same amount of time to inspect regardless of the type of establishment. Mr. Banner stated the cost was estimated for each type of facility. If it was a large complex there would be three inspections per year. Board Member Cady stated that Mr. Satak had mentioned it would be one inspection per year. It was noted that would be for an establishment on self-certification. 'Mr. Banner stated he calculated the hours strictly for the inspection times, divided by the establishments, to get the cost per establishment. Regarding Board Member Cady's question, he did not have a breakdown between the cost of the certified versus the non-certified restaurants. He only had the combined cost based on three inspections. The combined cost estimate was $615. The breakdown for a certified versus non-certified was not clear yet because it had just been started. It could be broken down differently. The revised certification fee could be lower and the standard fee higher, and they would still receive the same revenue. Rather than do that, they used last year's figures and increased them both by 3%. Board Member Hunter wondered if all the overhead costs, office time, and committee time was involved in that cost. Mr. Banner replied it was. Margaret Bennett asked if the people testifying could identify themselves and give their qualifications. Chairperson Faughender assured Ms. Bennett that they were qualified by education and training. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 8 OF 11 Mr. Owen commented that an inspection at his establishment has never taken more than an hour. It would not take four hours. When Mr. Satak comes to the North Mason area, he would be inspecting more than one establishment, so the travel time should not be calculated so highly. The travel time was only one-half hour. He understands there were costs and the need for the Health Department, but he believed these fees were totally outrageous to jump from $150 a year to $700 a year. He did not see any savings in doing the certification program because what he spent actually added thousands of dollars a year to his budget. He has voluntarily done this because he believes it makes things safer for the public and makes his restaurant a better place to go to and he would ultimately benefit. However, the way the fees were being dispensed were grossly unfair. Mr. Faughender noted that Mr. Owen has a reputation of being very progressive and has done a lot of work to his establishment to make it one of the better establishments in the county and the Board appreciated that. Mr. Owen noted he has been in the restaurant business 25 years in this county and he had not been asked to participate on the Food Advisory Committee. He would love to attend and see how these items were decided. Mr. Faughender asked Mr. Satak to get a volunteer application for Mr. Owen to complete. Chairperson Faughender asked for additional public comment. None was heard. Board Member Hunter moved that the Board of Health approve the proposed fees with the following amendments: That the fee for a Hepatitis A Immunization be $58 rather than $55; the revised insert pertaining to Solid Waste Fees be included, and that the Food Establishment Fees remain unchanged. Board Member Cady questioned if the motion was to not increase the Food Establishment Fees, to adopt the Public Health Fees under the Superbill as recommended, including the sliding scale program as described; and to adopt the Solid Waste Fees with the new insert for wood waste. Board Member Hunter concurred. Board Member Cady asked if the motion included the Land Use, Liquid Waste and Living Environment Fees. Board Member Hunter stated those would be included for approval with the 3% increase as recommended. Board Member Cady seconded the motion, with the stated amendments. Chairperson Faughender asked for discussion on the motion. Board Member Hunter commented that the Food Establishment Fees, based on the presentation made by the Vice-President of the Advisory Committee, would be brought before the Board for consideration of drastic changes. Board Member Cady stated she was still opposed to a straight 3% increase across the board. She believed it could be used for the portion dealing with salaries and benefits. However, a lot of the others were not increasing at a 3% cost to the county. She noted it was difficult to ascertain what those actual costs were. Board Member Hunter noted that by making his motion, it did not indicate he was in favor of the 3% increase, but he did not have a method to arrive at a better solution. He noted, however, that all the associated costs probably have increased by at least 3%. Board Member Cady commented that the increases on the Superbill indicated fees that DSHS allows. Chairperson Faughender concurred with Board Member Hunter's comment that probably most of the costs have gone up at least 3% during the year. He believed it was better to have small increases each year because costs were rising annually. He wished there was a better way to do it, but it was one way to reflect the increasing cost of county business. Motion passed unanimously. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 9 OF 11 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL Chairperson Faughender informed the audience that the Board has been reviewing the Operation and Maintenance Proposal but were not, at this time, ready to make a decision. Testimony was taken at the time of public hearing and additional public testimony could not be heard at this time since the hearing had been closed. He noted it would not be an easy decision. CLASS B VERTICAL SEPARATION WAIVER / O & M PROPOSAL Mr. R. Rogers asked to comment on the action taken earlier by the Board regarding the Class B Vertical Separation Waiver. He remarked that in reading the information regarding this waiver, the Board would not have to make a decision on the Operation and Maintenance Proposal because it has already been passed. He stated he has been a tax payer in the county for 25 years even though he was a resident of Oregon. He referred to the paragraph entitled Surface Water Precautions. He stated he was in favor of the waiver request until he noted that it excluded sites adjacent to any marine waters of the State of Washington. It has nothing to do with the waterfront. These parcels would be subject to the standard requirements of Chapter 246-272 WAC. He read that provisions of this waiver will generally apply to sites that are adjacent to or that encompass any stream, pond, or lake protected or regulated under Mason County's Shoreline Master Plan. However, the horizontal separation between a SSAS (drainfield) installed per provisions of the waiver and such surface water bodies must be 150 feet. Site on which a 150 foot horizontal separation cannot be maintained will be subject to the standard requirements of Chapter 246.272 WAC. The Mason County Department of Health Services may reduce the 150 horizontal separation if deemed warranted based upon the results of monitoring. He stated this was the O & M Program. However, horizontal separation will not be reduced to less than the minimum distance specified in WAC 246-272.09501. He stated that most of the waterfront lots were not that big. If you could not build within 150 feet, the property would be worthless. Secondly, it would be monitored if they were not within 150 feet, and that was all of them. Twenty-five years ago, fifty-five feet was the setback requirement. He stated he would sincerely appreciate, as would many others, seeing facts that show information on failing systems. Mr. Banner responded that it was never the intent of their department in any of their correspondence with the Department of Health to indicate that this waiver was appropriate for environmentally sensitive areas. It has been discussed with Kitsap County, and they feel the same way. They were addressing upland, larger lots where it just did not make sense to go with the more stringent requirement. There could be various opinions on some of the intermediate ones, but this would be for the blatantly obvious ones in which the requirement should not apply. Mr. Arnold Tahja, septic designer, stated he has read the document several times and the only thing he had against it was that there was so much red tape thrown in that means nothing that it would scare people off that should not be scared off. Board Member Hunter read a portion of a letter from a local health professional regarding the language in WAC 146 pertaining to periodic monitoring of each on-site system no later than January 1, 2000. The letter stated that it does not mandate an involuntary inspection program it merely mandates the local health officer to help develop and implement plans. The language allows these plans to be a program for home-owner monitoring. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 10 OF 11 Mr. Charles Bennett wished to comment on the Operation and Maintenance Proposal. Chairperson Faughender noted that a public hearing had already been held on this subject and the Board was in the process of making a decision. Since the public hearing had been closed, no new public testimony could be received. He explained the process in which they notify of public hearings calling for testimony on these issues. WATER ADEQUACY REGULATION - HEARING SET Brad Banner requested a public hearing be set to consider a revised Water Adequacy Resolution. He presented a draft (Exhibit C) proposal. He noted- this regulation had been adopted immediately after the growth management process and it has been found that the existing regulation could be improved by simplifying the language. The draft proposal has the same meaning and requirements as the present regulation, but the new form was very simple to read and understand. The Water Advisory Committee has reviewed the draft and has authorized them to submit it for consideration by the public and the Board. Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that a public hearing to consider amendments to the Water Adequacy Regulation be held on January 4, 1996, at 10:30 a.m. Board Members Hunter and Cady were pleased to see a proposal for a simplified version of the regulation and looked forward to the public comment on the proposal. Motion carried unanimously. ADVISORY COMMITTEE BYLAWS Mr. Banner reported that, pursuant to the Board's direction, he has reviewed the membership of the advisory boards pertaining to the Health Department. He presented copies of current bylaws adopted for the Mason County Food Sanitation Advisory Committee and proposed bylaws for the Mason County Drinking Water Advisory Committee and the Mason County On-Site Sewage Advisory Committee. All three bylaws would be identical in the way the committees were structured. Both advisory committees had voted unanimously to approve their bylaws and ask for their adoption. Mr. Banner also submitted updated committee membership rosters. The rosters were discussed. Board Member Cady questioned whether the North Mason area realtors were active in the Mason County Realtor's Association and suggested that the On-Site Sewage Advisory Committee have a representative category of "realtor" rather than stating the representative would be a member of the Mason County Realtor's Association. Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the bylaws and attached membership rosters be adopted with the following amendments: That two members of the Food Sanitation Advisory Committee represent the complex,large restaurants and that the wording for representation by the Mason County Realtor's Association be changed to realtor. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. R. Rogers stated that some of his neighbors were concerned but unwilling to speak publicly so he was there to testify. He wanted clean water and mentioned new processes which were available to ensure clean water. Ralph Wingert commented he was associated with Shelton Land & Homes and a member of the Board of Realtors which does include realtors from all areas of the county. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH DECEMBER 7,1995-PAGE 11 OF 11 FOOD SANITATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Board Member Cady questioned whether it was appropriate to have a Health Department staff person as chair of an advisory committee reporting to the Board of Health. Mr. Banner stated that was who the committee chose. However, they have discussed this and would consider changing this appointment at one of their next meetings. VERTICAL SEPARATION WAIVER Chairperson Faughender asked that the last paragraph of the vertical separation waiver document 'be discussed at the next briefing. ADJOURNMENT Board Members Hunter/Cady moved/seconded that the Board of Health meeting be adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH M. L. Faughender, Cl a rperson � o William O. Hunter, Board Member Mary J ad Board Me er Respectfully Submitted, J �.uQ N"XII-) Lorraine Coots