 |
 Minutes Archive |
|
|
Board of Health
Minutes
CALHOUN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES
190 East Michigan Avenue, Suite A100, Battle Creek, MI 49014
Date: June 16, 2003
PRESENT
| Board of Health |
Larry Anderson, Chairperson |
| |
Jean Cook-Hughes, Vice Chairperson |
| |
Ben Miller, County Commissioner |
| |
Dr. Jeffrey R. Mitchell |
| Health Department |
Heidi Oberlin, Health Officer |
| |
Kathy Ferguson, Finance Officer |
| |
Ted Havens, Environmental Health |
| |
Sue Hauxwell, Environmental Health |
| |
Bob Overly, Environmental Health |
| |
Brigette Reichenbaugh, Administrative Assistant |
| Calhoun County |
Greg Purcell, County Administrator |
| |
Jim Latham, County Finance Director |
| |
Nancy Mullett, Legal Counsel |
| Other |
Mr. and Mrs. Larry Marlin |
| |
Mr. Mark Stoor, Assistant Project Engineer, Civil
Engineers, Inc. |
- The meeting was called to order by Larry Anderson at
7:59am in the Public Health Department conference room, George W.
Toeller Building, 190 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite A -100, Battle Creek,
Michigan.
- Larry Anderson asked for a motion to approve the agenda.
Motioned by Ben Miller, seconded by Jean Cook-Hughes. Approved.
- Public Comment - Sewage Disposal Appeal for Mr. Larry
Marlin
Ted Havens summarized the reasoning behind Environmental Health’s
denial of a septic permit to Mr. Marlin. Environmental Health denied
the request do to poor soil conditions. Sue Hauxwell revisited the
site having the same determination. Ted summarized for the board
exactly what we are looking for when conducting a site evaluation
including soil type and the water table level. It is still
Environmental Health’s opinion that the site does not meet the minimum
requirements of the Calhoun County Sanitation Code and we therefore
denied a sewage disposal permit.
Mr. Stoor is representing both the buyer and the seller of the
property under consideration. He also completed an inspection as a
second opinion with the same results. However, Mr. Stoor did have an
option for the Board to consider: a Wisconsin Mound. He indicated that
the Wisconsin Mound is still in draft form and design specifications
have not yet been adopted by the State of Michigan. He explained what
a Wisconsin Mound is and how it operates. A mound system is an
elevated drainage system that consists of a build up of sands and
gravel. It effectively raises the bottom of the disposal system above
unapproved site conditions and allows wastewater to filter through the
sands before it reaches the poorer soil. They believe this will
function satisfactorily and if there is no change in water flow the
system will function as designed.
Larry Anderson asked about the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) approving the Mound and the system. Mr. Stoor noted that the DEQ
reviewed the Wisconsin Mount in March 2003, but has not sent the
process for approval. Larry then asked Ted if he is aware of any
Mounds in Michigan. Ted noted that he is aware they are used in
Michigan. We have used the Wisconsin Mounds for replacement systems on
existing dwellings as opposed to condemning an individual’s home. Bob
Overly indicated that we do have a similar system currently being
installed in Bedford. This system is currently leaking across the road
and into the storm sewer drains into a creek. Bob also explained that
there are problems with these systems and that they are maintenance
intensive.
In response to these concerns, Mr. Stoor indicated that the owner
and buyer are willing to sign a contract to maintain the system. The
contract for maintenance could consist of routine checking of the
system by the property owner’s contractor and pumping the septic tank
as necessary.
Ted asked if there was an alarm system installed. Mr. Stoor
indicated yes.
Ben asked the seller, Mr. and Mrs. Marlin if they were aware of the
conditions prior to purchase. Mr. Marlin stated that he has owned the
property about 25 years, originally their 16 acre farm, and was not
aware of these conditions. Jean Cook-Hughes asked about regular
checking of current systems.
Greg Purcell asked about a possible timeframe that the state
approve this type of system. As of today, there is no specific
timeframe set. The drain field draft presented would be the most
acceptable at this time and is complete, however, has not been
approved by the state and the DEQ.
There is a concern with the liability if the property in question
transferred to another owner, for example. Greg asked Nancy Mullet
about legal concerns and the county’s liability. Nancy noted that the
system needs to be approved prior to the county approving and that the
Health Department would not be liable.
Nancy asked what if the system failed. Mr. Stoor responded that the
owner would be responsible for maintenance. Contract would be with
private individual/company. Mr. Stoor has a backup drain field plan if
the Wisconsin Mound were to fail.
Greg asked what alternatives we have. Mr. Stoor explained
alternative solutions.
Ben asked about our approval system and if anything would have
changed if we originally looked at Wisconsin Mound system.
Ted explained that we are aware of the design system and use this
type of system when existing system fails rather than condemning an
existing home. Greg asked if we had ever done this prior. We have
approved this type of drain field in previous years, as mentioned
earlier, for existing dwellings. The cost of this construction is
substantially higher than a traditional drain field according to Mr.
Stoor.
Nancy asked about possible subdivision. There is no room for the
property in question to be subdivided as illustrated to the Board.
Mr. Marlin stated that the sale of this property is contingent on
this appeal. Bob then asked who would be the responsible party for
maintaining the system.
There are no legal requirements, if the owners were to sell, that
the type of septic system is to be disclosed. Nancy thinks that
Environmental Health has rules and regulations to what they can
approve and this soil type falls within the unapproved category.
Liability is not high.
Jean asked if the buyer is aware of the situation. Mr. Stoor
clarified that he represents the buyer and seller.
Jeff asked if the system fails what are the consequences to other
homes, lakes, etc.
Mr. Marlin explained that the hardships would be the loss without
the sale of the property. Original farm was 16 acres.
Larry asked if we need to make an official denial or approve the
appeal and asked for a motion to approve the appeal.
Larry motioned for approval with Jeff’s addition that it is
contingent on the letter from the buyer assuring maintenance and
agreeing to this type of drain field. Ben seconded. Appeal approved with
one “no” vote.
- Public Hearing
Heidi explained the larvicide packets and our decision to charge $1
per packet.
Resolution 18-2003: Larvicide fee.
Ben moved approval of the fee; Jeff seconded. Approved.
- Consent Agenda
Jeff moved approval of the consent agenda; Jean seconded. Approved.
- Resolutions
Resolution 19-2003: Community Development Block Grant agreement. The
City of Battle Creek requires a representative from the Health
Department to sign the contract at the mandatory meeting (July 1, 2003).
However, Health Department contracts cannot be signed prior to the
Board’s approval. In previous years, the City of Battle Creek would
delay the implementation of the grant for several weeks or until the
contract was signed and delivered. Beginning in 2004, the City indicated
that contracts not signed at the meeting will not be honored.
Greg explained the city’s decision to do this. Heidi explained to the
city that we would like to see contract prior to the meeting. Heidi also
noted that there is a conference in Washington she will attend and will
not be able to attend the City of Battle Creek meeting on July 1.
Therefore, Larry Anderson will sign the contract on behalf of the Health
Department. Nancy will attend the meeting as needed for contract review.
Jeff approved the resolution; Jean seconded. Approved.
- Financial Report
Kathy Ferguson explained her new form of presentation to the board
including breakdown of financials by business unit.
Jean expressed her concerns about the percentage of budget used. Jean
also indicated that she would like to have the written explanation at
the same time she reviews the budget and suggested that the detail be
included with Board packet/mailings.
In response to a question from Ben, Kathy summarized the primary
changes to the budget: Nursing clinic funding and decreases in state
funding. The budget numbers that were presented in the May statements
were changed to reflect the new budget, for the Board to see where we
would be upon approval of this resolution.
Jim Latham asked about the Health Department’s accounts receivables
and where we are in billing. In the past we were over one month behind.
Kathy stated that in general, we are currently billing for May 2003.
Carry over funds identified will be spent by September 30, fiscal
year-end. There were other carry-over funds from United Way (Greater
Battle Creek) which we are starting to dip into now.
Heidi explained that the FTE list is attached to the budget because a
comparison of Human Resource records with Health Department records did
not match. The budgeted FTE numbers for both departments will now
balance. Temporary positions were built into budgeted FTEs including
nurse, educators, etc. for summer help.
Greg explained that this comes from a discussion between Human
Resources and the Health Department. We will be able to fill a
slot/temporary position without Board approval each time. Nancy’s
concern is with Human Resource records based on a school nurse being
laid off then rehired for summer help. She is concerned about Union
details. Heidi stated that no one would be hired without HR concurrence.
Heidi stated a full-time social worker for Nursing Clinic was not
included on the budget as presented today but might need to be filled
yet this FY. This position is part of the nursing clinic grant as
approved by the Federal oversight agency.
Resolution 20-2003: Approval of the amended budget for FY 2002/2003
as presented, with the modification of the 1.0 FTE Social Worker
position in the Nursing Clinic.
Ben moved approval; Jean seconded. Approved.
Larry indicated that as we go along with the Governance process, we
will discuss further fine tuning the budget process.
- Other Business
Nancy asked Heidi about the FIMR (Fetal Infant Mortality Review)
meeting. Heidi thought that there had been at least one meeting but will
have Renay Montgomery, Program Coordinator, contact Nancy directly.
Health Officer Report
Heidi introduced Amy Latham and explained her role. Amy informed the
Board of her background and experience. Bioterrorism money covers the
epidemiologist salary and the staff to support Amy’s efforts along with
IT upgrades, health risk communication, increasing ability to do state
awareness and bolster public health infrastructure generally.
Board Business
Governance Meeting on June 25th 11 – 5. Erv Brinker, Executive
Director, Summit Pointe, and Jane DeVries, Director of the Calhoun
County Coordinating Committee are scheduled to facilitate. Jane also
Chairs the Summit Pointe Board.
Larry reviewed his comments and concerns regarding the current Board
Bylaws:
- Travel expenses for Board Members
- Bioterrorism
- Appointment of Medical Director
- Law suits and expenses for law suits
- Quarterly reports for commissioners – how appropriate?
- Number of Board members.
- Membership removal, process, recommendations to remove, cause, etc.
- Officers annual election – required? Term length?
- Chairperson to present report to Board of Commissioners.
- Requirement that we meet once a month?
- Current bylaws were developed quickly – need to revise. Robert’s
Rules of Order?
- Start with Quorum and someone leaves.
- Can we have more than one fund with County Treasurer?
- Same as previous bylaws….need to explain. Standing committees.
Larry would like to receive all comments, recommended process, and
have Nancy review.
Ben feels that the Board lacks standing committees. Jean asked about
the advantages of a standing committee as opposed to a temporary
committee. Larry feels that having policies may be better than a
standing committee.
Announcements
Jim and Greg asked that the Board participate in a budget meeting
with the Board of Commissioners’ Budget Workshop Committee that will
follow the BOH meeting on July 21st for 1.5 hours following the board
meeting.
Larry announced that today is the start of the syndromic surveillance
program. The Health Care Call Center in Calhoun County is included in
the state’s Bioterrorism budget as one of the first data collection
programs of this type in the country and the only one in Michigan.
- ADJOURNMENT
Larry asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ben moved to
adjourn; Jeff seconded. Approved.
Adjourned at 9:39 am.
|
Several photos included in this 
