Houghton County commissioners adopt resolution opposing proposed statewide septic inspections
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board unanimously approved Resolution #23-14 opposing proposed statewide septic-code bills that would require five-year inspections, citing costs to property owners and burdens on local health departments; the resolution will be forwarded to state legislators and neighboring counties.
The Houghton County Board of Commissioners unanimously adopted Resolution #23-14 on July 18, opposing proposed state legislation that would impose a statewide septic-system code and mandatory five-year inspections.
Commissioner Glenn Anderson introduced the resolution, saying the pending bills (identified at the meeting as Senate Bills 299 and 300 and House Bills 4479 and 4480) would require inspections every five years and ‘‘impose greater expenses to property owners and local public health departments.’’ The resolution cites soil variability across Michigan, the absence of a permanent funding mechanism for inspections, and the potential difficulty of finding and retaining qualified septic inspectors in rural areas.
The resolution states there are an estimated 4,455 septic systems in Houghton County and notes the estimated inspection cost range of $300 to $500 per system. In public comment and during discussion, resident Greg Markkanen warned of stronger enforcement penalties under the proposed code, saying an individual ‘‘could possibly be fined $1,000 per month if they failed the inspection.’’ That concern was cited in the board’s rationale for opposing the bills.
The motion to approve Resolution #23-14 was made by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Janssen. The vote was recorded as YES: Anderson, Janssen, Tikkanen, Keranen, Britz (5); NO: none. The resolution directs the county clerk to forward a copy to State Senator Edward McBroom, State Representatives Gregory Markkanen and Jennifer Hill, and to leaders and committee clerks on the Agriculture and Rural Development and Natural Resources committee, and to Baraga, Keweenaw, Ontonagon, and Gogebic counties.
Board members and the resolution stressed the county’s support for protecting water resources while objecting to a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ statewide approach that they said could be financially and administratively unsustainable for rural jurisdictions.
The resolution document is filed as Resolution #23-14; the board provided no additional fiscal offset or implementation plan, and no county policy change was adopted beyond the formal opposition.