For the time being, no changes will be made to the Whatcom County ordinance on meth abatement procedures. After a short hearing on a proposal that came from the Health Board last year, the council decided on 3 March to have the Public Works, Health and Safety Committee look at the changes again in a future session. The reconsideration and discussion of the changes will take place before the committee on 17 March at 1:30 pm. The agenda bill can be found here. [Ling updated on 8 Jul 15 due to reconfiguration of county website that broke many standing links to documents]
I outlined some of the problems with the changes to the ordinance in an article here on 25 February entitled Dealing with Meth Contamination - A Race to the Bottom in Whatcom County. Among other problems, I pointed out that the driving force behind the amendments to the current ordinance is primarily one of money when the deciding factor should be that of health and safety of the occupants of a dwelling. I testified to that effect before the Whatcom County Council on 3 March at which time the full council decided not to act on the ordinance that evening. You can listen to the hearing and the subsequent discussion by the council here - begin at counter number 29.20.
Council member Ken Mann had a problem with the loosely defined term "Illegal use site" being a site that law enforcement deems to be just that. He also said that for changes to an ordinance of some complexity and concern ought to be considered fully in committee before another public hearing and ultimate decision.
The Public Works, Health and Safety Committee ought to be looking at the best solution for protecting the health of the citizens. A secondary consideration may be financial but there is nothing in the changes to the ordinance that speaks to that except that the property owners (and by extension jurisdictions separate from the county, such as the cities) will only receive "technical assistance" in instances of contamination by meth use as opposed to its manufacture.
Staff comments at the beginning of the hearing spoke to the "onerous" enforcment provisions of the current ordinance without giving a shred of evidence to support such a contention. There was no talk of the discussions with the cities in Whatcom County about the apparent transfer of enforcement costs to these jurisdictions.
Because the council has to change the Whatcom County ordinance to match a greater level of contamination (now mandated by the state to trigger mitigation) is no reason to change other portions of the ordinance having to do with enforcement.
