New Search
• <br /> Draft Draft Draft <br /> recommended that the focus remain on the program review. <br /> Mr. Corey said that there was limited interest in program details and agreed that keeping the <br /> focus on the program itself as originally planned was appropriate. <br /> Mr. Schoening said direction could be provided to the Management Team to develop the <br /> additional scenario. He suggested the Council be informed of the process involved in negotiating <br /> changes in the permit with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEG). Mr. Medlin noted <br /> that DEQ lacked the staff and resources to monitor the City's compliance, and renegotiating the <br /> permit would raise issues again. <br /> Mr. Lankston said it would be prudent to inform the Council of the effects of a $2 million <br /> reduction and the process involved with DEQ of the program no longer met permit conditions. <br /> Mr. Ruffier commented that the program was governed by regulations and it was important that <br /> the Council understand the regulatory constraints. Ms. Childs remarked that the Council was <br /> concerned that programs tended to be"Cadillac" versions, rather than just addressing basic <br /> requirements. <br /> Members discussed the problems with a lack of response or action by DEQ on permit matters <br /> and concluded an update on the DEQ permit process should be obtained and the Council be <br /> provided information on the level of risk to the program's ability to meet permit conditions <br /> associated with each scenario. <br /> Mr. Lankston asked how questions raised during the Council's work session would be addressed. <br /> Mr. Corey replied that answers were provided at the work session or would be provided as follow <br /> up and used, along with comments from councilors, to frame future discussions. <br /> 3. Stormwater Development Standards <br /> Ms. Walch observed that the question of whether to adopt new development standards would <br /> Stormwater Policy Team June 3, 2003 Page 2 <br />