## Meeting Overview On a cold Tuesday morning in February, the Whatcom County Council Public Works and Health Committee convened in hybrid format to tackle a single but significant agenda item: amendments to the county's septic system regulations. Committee Chair Jon Scanlon opened the 11:30 a.m. meeting with fellow members Mark Stremler and Ben Elenbaas present in chambers, while several other councilmembers joined both in-person and online to observe the proceedings. The meeting centered on AB2025-149, an ordinance updating Whatcom County Code 24.05 governing onsite sewage systems. What began as a routine discussion of state-mandated regulatory changes evolved into a broader conversation about public engagement, housing costs, and the balance between compliance deadlines and democratic process. By meeting's end, the committee would vote unanimously to recommend adding a public hearing to the process—a decision that reflected both their commitment to transparency and their recognition that septic regulations, while technical, carry real implications for housing development and costs across the county. ## The Push for Updated Septic Regulations Hayli Hruza from Health and Community Services returned to the committee for the second time in two weeks to discuss the proposed amendments to county septic regulations. The urgency was clear: state law changes take effect April 1st, and Whatcom County needed to align its local code with new requirements, particularly around nitrogen reduction in septic systems. "We're monitoring and monitoring water with Whatcom County Health. And our main deadline is April 1," Hruza explained, outlining the timeline that had driven their work. "That's when the changes from the state code come into effect." The proposed changes weren't simply rubber-stamping state requirements. Hruza's team had formed a technical advisory group, sought community input, and made strategic decisions about where to deviate from state standards when local conditions warranted it. The most significant new requirement involved nitrogen reduction systems for new construction, expansions, and subdivisions—technology designed to address groundwater contamination from septic waste. Committee members pressed for specifics about how these requirements would work in practice. When Councilmember Stremler asked about a hypothetical five-acre property with new construction, Hruza walked through the decision tree: "So if you have a minimum amount of land on that property, like I think it's like 3000 square feet...You wouldn't need to [install nitrogen reduction] because you're addressing nitrogen via the land capacity." The larger the property, the more the soil itself could handle nitrogen dilution without requiring expensive treatment systems. "It was based on like a white paper relating to...an assumption that there is groundwater under all soil," Hruza explained. "And so they're saying this amount of land can account for this amount of nitrogen as it seeps into that groundwater. So it'll be diluted." ## Housing Cost Concerns and Analysis Following up on questions raised two weeks prior by Councilmember Elenbaas about housing costs, Hruza had prepared a detailed analysis examining the financial impact of each proposed change. The document, distributed to councilmembers the day before, attempted to quantify costs using a Department of Health analysis that had surveyed designers, industry members, and local health jurisdictions. "The document that was sent to all yesterday was essentially to answer the question what benefit does this have to a homeowner," Hruza said, referencing the table that cross-referenced proposed changes with their rationale and cost estimates. The nitrogen reduction requirement represented the most significant potential cost increase. For properties without sufficient land area to handle nitrogen naturally, property owners would need to install specialized treatment systems that had undergone NSF testing to verify their nitrogen removal capabilities. "A lot of those systems are now going through that certification process to see like, okay, what kind of nitrogen can we treat with these systems," Hruza noted. However, the impact would be felt primarily on smaller lots and new development rather than existing septic systems undergoing routine maintenance. "For repair, the nitrogen is, I don't think is going to be the impact. It's for new construction expansions and subdivisions," Hruza clarified. ## The Public Hearing Debate The most spirited discussion of the morning centered not on the technical details of septic systems, but on process and public engagement. Councilmember Elenbaas raised a question that would drive the rest of the meeting: "How come this doesn't have a public hearing?" The question caught others by surprise. County Clerk Cathy Halka explained that the prosecutor's office had determined no public hearing was required under county code, but Elenbaas pushed back on the practical implications. "Some of the people that helped on this who support it were like Ben, why is there no public hearing on this? And I'm like, I'm shocked that there isn't," Elenbaas said. "They're like, it's not that I don't support it because I do. But I would assume that we would want the public to have as much input on something that could be a...you know, it's going to add cost and difficulty in providing housing." Chair Scanlon acknowledged they had discussed this two weeks earlier without reaching a decision: "I think I've talked to...John is both vice chair and and chair of this committee. I talked to Kathy, we heard from the administration that there were prosecutor's office that there was no need and I just hesitate to delay this because we didn't have it make a decisive decision." The distinction between public comment and public hearing became important to the discussion. Scanlon explained that "A public hearing would be specific to that...So people would like show up and say I'm speaking to this at this time. And they would do it before we voted on it." Public hearings also require specific legal notice in newspapers with prescribed timing. Despite concerns about the April 1st deadline, Elenbaas felt strongly about public engagement: "I understand that we are under a time crunch, but we always are. And I understand that it will take more time, but I, this is something that I feel like...Is something that the public would expect to have a public hearing on." ## Industry Outreach and Communication The discussion revealed that Hruza's team had made significant efforts to engage the septic industry throughout the process. Using their Envision Connect software system, they maintained a list of licensed installers and had been sending monthly updates since March about the proposed changes. "When I contact the install community I pull like a list from that software and I mean this is just how I do I send like a monthly email that's like news to know and I just provide like this is where we're at in this process here's the proposed code changes," Hruza explained. However, gaps in communication had emerged. Councilmember Stremler noted that when he contacted an installer he knew, "he's like well I kind of heard something about it but but you know tell me about it." This suggested that while formal notification processes were in place, the information wasn't reaching all affected parties effectively. The technical advisory group had included five industry representatives—"a designer installer pumper and a specialist"—covering the main categories of professionals who work with septic systems. But the conversation highlighted a broader challenge: ensuring that regulatory changes affecting housing development reach not just industry insiders, but the broader public who would ultimately bear the costs. ## The Motion for Public Hearing After extensive discussion, Elenbaas made a formal motion: "I would move that we have a public hearing at our earliest...availability while making...Hitting all the legal requirements on AB 2025 dash one for nine ordinance adopting amendments to welcome county code 24 dot zero five on site sewage system regulations." Stremler quickly seconded the motion. The committee discussed timing, with the earliest possible date being the March 11th council meeting, which would still allow time for action before the April 1st state deadline. Hruza graciously accepted the potential delay: "I think that in general this is local government and these are the processes that we have and so it's kind of the beauty of it as well and so we're just so we're going to do it and that's okay and my team is going to prepare the best that we can." The motion passed unanimously, 3-0, with all committee members supporting the public hearing requirement. ## Recognition and Gratitude As the meeting drew to a close, multiple councilmembers took time to praise Hruza and her team's work on the ordinance. Councilmember Galloway offered particularly detailed appreciation: "I just want to say on this one I thought this was a stellar example of good policy process...I think you know discussing again was important I thought the materials were so clean clear concise just organized...fantastic materials." He continued: "When we all kind of do our like you know reach out to the one or two people on our list everyone had good things to say they felt engaged...early and often they they felt like this you know is best it could have been under whatever the circumstances." Councilmember Elenbaas echoed these sentiments while taking responsibility for the public hearing oversight: "I want to agree with what council member Galloway said and I hope that you don't walk out of here going oh man we screwed this up because we didn't I feel like we screwed it up by not catching the fact that we didn't have a public hearing I think it's our fault." Both councilmembers emphasized that the decision to add a public hearing reflected not dissatisfaction with the staff work, but rather their commitment to ensuring robust public engagement on policies affecting housing costs and development. ## Closing and What's Ahead The committee adjourned at 12:02 p.m., having accomplished their primary goal of reviewing the septic ordinance while adding an important procedural step. The recommendation for a public hearing would go to the full council that evening, with the expectation that the hearing could be scheduled for March 11th. The morning's work highlighted both the technical complexity of modern environmental regulation and the ongoing challenge of balancing compliance deadlines with democratic participation. While nitrogen reduction requirements and soil percolation rates might seem like arcane technical matters, the committee members understood their real-world implications for housing development, construction costs, and ultimately, housing affordability in Whatcom County. For Hruza and her Health and Community Services team, the path forward meant preparing for two scenarios: implementing the new regulations if approved, or adjusting course based on public input at the upcoming hearing. Either way, the April 1st state deadline remained fixed, adding urgency to whatever decision emerged from the expanded public process. The morning demonstrated local government at its most deliberative—wrestling with state mandates, industry concerns, public engagement, and housing policy all within the confines of a 30-minute committee meeting. The unanimous vote for a public hearing reflected the committee's collective judgment that some decisions, even technical ones, deserve the full transparency and engagement that formal public hearings provide.