New Search
C. Debrief. A debriefing meeting was held the following day to assess the work of the first <br /> session and to scope out the next steps in the process. Debriefers included: Les Lyle, Michelle <br /> Cahill, Deborah Evans, Jim Carlson, and Tim Bingham. The group agreed that the brainstorm <br /> session was valuable, providing a lot of new view points and concerns, and that the issue of <br /> public versus private controls is very complex, not likely to contain a "black- white" answer. <br /> Rather, the physical circumstances of the drainage basins and the developable sites within the <br /> basins will need to be assessed for suitability. Developing a decision making tool, therefore, is <br /> the next step in the process. The group agreed that to begin the next step, the comments from <br /> the scoping session should be categorized by topic, from which the criteria could be developed. <br /> D. Products. Three products were generated. Attachment One contains the advantages and <br /> disadvantages, grouped according to the 12 general topics, each containing a management <br /> guideline statement. Attachment Two is a summary list of the 12 categories and management <br /> guidelines without the comments. Attachment Three is the list of incentives that was generated <br /> at the first scoping session. <br /> VI. RESULTS OF SCOPING SESSION II ( July 11, 1994). <br /> There were 18 participants at the second scoping session. Primary objectives of this session <br /> were to review and refine the categorization of the advantages and disadvantages developed from <br /> session I, respond to the management guidelines, develop specific criteria for determining <br /> suitability for private storm systems, identify processes needed to enact new development <br /> standards, and to identify the organizational interface between departments and divisions for <br /> implementing the standards. Two facilitators were used for this session. <br /> A. Refinement of Advantages /Disadvantages. The group reviewed each of the 12 categories <br /> and discussed content and minor word changes. Most of the discussion and suggested changes <br /> focused on the management guidelines. The group combined two categories: Dependability, <br /> Reliability, Consistency with Creativity, Flexibility resulting in a total of 11 categories. Refer <br /> to Attachment Four reflects the changes made by the group. Attachment Five is a revised <br /> summary sheet of the categories and management guidelines that reflect the changes in <br /> Atttachment Four. <br /> B. Develop Specific Criteria for Private Stormwater Systems. The goal of this exercise was <br /> to develop a decision making tool for determining the circumstances for which private <br /> stormwater systems would be suitable and appropriate. The exercise included a methodology <br /> that would build on the management categories generated in session I. Each category would be <br /> reviewed•an'eriteria would be developed for both basin level and site level ap1ieetion. After <br /> working through the first category, Affordability, the facilitators suggested this exercise be <br /> dropped as it proved too complex and time consuming for the limited time of the scoping <br /> session. The group agreed. The water resources team would complete the criteria at a later <br /> date, perhaps as part of the Citizen's Advisory Committee process. The criteria developed for <br /> Affordability is shown on Attachment Six. As an alternative, the group was asked to prioritize <br /> the management guidelines relative to importance in determining private systems. Participants <br /> 3 <br />