Jump to main content.

Project XL Logo

Portland Water Bureau (XLC)XLC Logo

November 16, 1998 Meeting #2 Summary

Project XL for Communities Sponsor/Stakeholder meeting for
Portland's Lead Hazard Reduction Program (LHRP)
Meeting Summary
Meeting #2, November 16, 1998 , 9:00am-1:00pm

In Attendance:

Facilitator - Stacey Drake Edwards
Sponsors - Bert Seierstad, Rosemary Menard, Stacey Drake Edwards, Curt Ireland
Co-sponsors - John Dougherty, Chris Johnson, Dave Leland, Scott Schnoor,
Michael Stimson, Stephanie Weise
EPA Stakeholders - Bill Glasser, Kristina Heinemann
Direct Participant Stakeholders - Jerry Arnold, Dean Fritzke, Ann Kimerling,
Alfonso Lopez, LeRoy Patton, Tom Penpraze, Harvey Rice, Marty Wegner,
Lore Wintergreen, Damon Whitehead
Convening Support Services - Elaine Hallmark  

The following were presented (and achieved!!!) as Desired Outcomes for Today s Meeting:

All meeting participants introduced themselves. There were some new individuals who had joined the group and others who were unable to attend the first meeting. Joan Brown-Kline could not be present for this meeting, but the intent is to have her continue to be a part of this effort and provide facilitation services.

Meeting participants received two handouts:

These flow charts were presented to provide the group with a more comprehensive picture of the steps in this process, and the tasks which will need to be completed. It will be important for the group to focus its efforts in a common direction. EPA personnel emphasized that stakeholder involvement needs to be a part of project implementation, with an understanding that project monitoring and evaluation is necessarily a longer process of 1-5 years.

Rosemary related that those initially involved as stakeholders at the conceptual stage of this project were the Water Bureau, Oregon Health Division, Multnomah County Health Department and the Water Quality Advisory Committee (a committee that advises the Water Bureau and the Portland City Council on water quality issues; the committee incorporates a public forum into its format). These stakeholders asked themselves what would result if resources were applied in a way that was different from what was specified in the Lead and Copper Rule, and in a way which also achieved significant or improved health benefit. The result was a conceptual program that was predicted to achieve greater environmental benefits through an alternative means of complying with the Rule. The Water Bureau is very committed to this program, and has found this community-based effort to be an important effort from which the Bureau has learned a great deal. This type of program is not the kind of program that utilities usually undertake.

The group discussed the need for the Lead Hazard Reduction Program to have appropriate levels of stakeholder involvement, and agreed that these efforts could proceed in a parallel manner and be effective. The FPA Development group could be a smaller group with a different focus than the larger group of stakeholders who are impacted by the programs and who also need to be involved. The group recognized the need for and the commitment to a broad-based community involvement strategy, with effective communication between critical parties about what is going on. Alfonso identified the Turning Points initiative for the Portland tri-county area as a program with health issues similar to the LHRP. It was agreed that the Outreach and Education efforts for the LHRP and the Comprehensive Lead Plan effort lead by the Urban League are needed elements of an effective solution to lead problems, in addition to stakeholder involvement and feedback by this group as the FPA is developed and implemented.

Meeting participants received two handouts:

Elaine Hallmark presented this information. Elaine is a subcontractor to the RESOLVE consulting group with whom the EPA has contracted to provide convening support services to XLC Project Sponsors who request such services.

The "Public Consultation and Information Sharing" model and the "Consensus Decision-Making with Stakeholders" alternatives for Decision-Making processes were discussed. The Consultation model is characterized by a group which acts in an advisory capacity to the project sponsors, and the Consensus model is denoted by the group of stakeholders and the project sponsors working in partnership to come to consensus on decisions and outcomes.

It was recognized that another possible decision-making alternative is where the government or government agency facilitates the community in making its own major decisions, and mostly functions in providing the resources to do so.

It will be important to clearly define the role of stakeholders both at this table, and the role of stakeholders at other tables. It was also acknowledged that regardless which Decision-Making process is chosen, the plans for outreach to the broad base of stakeholders in the greater community need to include ways to bring ideas and feedback from this ancillary process back into the FPA process.

The group decided to first identify and come to a common understanding on the types of decisions which this FPA Development group would need to make, and then use that knowledge to come to agreement on the type of Decision-Making process we would use.

General Categories of Decisions:

Project Sponsors clarified that the decision to proceed with the XL process was voluntary, but nonetheless the Water Bureau has seen that the XL process and use of this type of community participation model has produced good benefits in the first year of this program. Therefore, Project Sponsors stated that the Water Bureau would be comfortable with the use of consensus decision-making for most decisions, with the possible exception of issues where there are constraints, such as budgetary issues. On those issues the Water Bureau would feel the need to maintain control. Also, while there are limitations on budget resources, there is flexibility probably in the range of about +5%.

The group then used Elaine s handout and the guidelines for when to use the Consensus and Consultation alternatives for Decision-Making. Group members responded with their observations and concerns.

Use Consensus Decision-Making Processes when:
Use Public-Consultation and Information Sharing Processes when:
The group discussed how this project utilizes an organic process, which is very cyclical in nature:
Presentation of Information -- leads to -- Discussion -- leads to -- Participation -- leads to --Delegation of Project Tasks and Building of Partnerships -- which leads back to presentation of additional information, and the cycle continues.
The group agreed that it will be necessary to determine exactly who the signatories to the FPA will be, and the determination of the roles and responsibilities of all signatories during both the development of the FPA and the Implementation of the project.

The group recognized that the Implementation phase of the project will require a different kind of stakeholder involvement from the current process for development of the FPA. Ideas included:

It was agreed to use the following Decision-Making process for FPA DEVELOPMENT: It was agreed that during FPA IMPLEMENTATION, a combination of Consultation and Consensus processes would be applied, using consensus whenever possible. It was also recognized that during Implementation, it will be very important for Project Sponsors to provide many diverse opportunities for stakeholders to have ongoing access to information on all components of the Lead Hazard Reduction Program as these program components develop and evolve.

It was agreed to use a facilitated consensus process to proceed from this point toward development of a written Final Project Agreement:

Bert will take the lead on facilitating completion of these efforts. The group agreed that setting of critical timelines is necessary, along with commitments by all group members to complete the agreed upon tasks.

Stakeholders present at this meeting all expressed a desire to be a signor of the FPA (either on behalf of their organization or agency, or on behalf on themselves personally). Each Direct Participant will need to determine whether they are signing on behalf of their organization, or for themselves.

It was also suggested that efforts be made to bring a parent of a young child with elevated blood lead levels into this group. Stephanie will access CLEARCorps program records, and see if there is a parent who is interested in this level of involvement.

The current list of Direct Participants will be refined to better indicate who has been, and wants to be, part of this FPA development process. The current list includes some people who have expressed some interest, but have not yet made a firm commitment to be a Direct Participant. Some of these individuals may become Commentors to this process.

It will also be necessary to be very clear about exactly who is involved in each consensus decision, and also in group members knowing when consensus has been achieved:

These above issues will be addressed in the written FPA, as will gathering and presentation of feedback from other stakeholders (e.g. XL Commentors and the General Public).

The group agreed to the need for a facilitated process to achieve development of and consensus on the Final Project Agreement.

The group also agreed to a "homework assignment" to facilitate the timely completion of the FPA. Group members agreed to work individually to complete an extensive review of material on the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, and to submit a list of their suggested improvements and enhancements needed for the LHRP.

The November 16 meeting summary, and revised list of contact information for Sponsors and Stakeholders will also be provided to all participants.

The next meeting will be Monday January 25, 1999, 9:00 am - 2:00 pm, at the Lutheran Inner City Ministries facility, 4219 NE Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, in NE Portland, at the corner of MLK and Skidmore.

The group agreed to the timelines and commitments summarized in the following table:

Due Date Responsible Party Tasks and Responsibilities
November 30, 1998 Water Bureau (Bert) Send additional project information for review and feedback to all Stakeholders and Sponsors:
-- Agreement on Decision-Making and Consensus-Building Processes
-- XL Outreach and Education Plan
-- Comprehensive Lead Plan efforts
-- Complete list of the Nine XLC Selection Criteria
-- EPA Discussion Items for the LHRP
December 14, 1999 ALL Stakeholders and Sponsors "Review the five items above, AND all information you have previously received about the LHRP. 
-- Focus your review on:
the four components of the LHRP:
1) Water Treatment/Water Quality Monitoring
2) Home Lead Hazard Reduction Program
3) Stakeholder Involvement, Public Education, and Outreach
4) Lead-in-Water Testing
5) The stakeholder involvement processes for the purposes of developing and implementing  the FPA
-- Review the 5 issues by asking yourself:
"What are your reactions?
"What contributions can you make?
"What is your level of interest?
"What are your suggestions for improvements and enhancements to the LHRP?
"Complete your review and provide suggestions for improvements and enhancements to the LHRP to Bert:
-- Provide feedback in the form of written comments, questions, or suggestions, or marked-up copies of the documents.
-- Send feedback via email, fax, regular mail, or by whatever means work best for you.
January 4, 1999 Water Bureau "Develop and send DRAFT Final Project Agreement document to all Stakeholders and Sponsors for review and comment.
January 15, 1999 ALL Stakeholders and Sponsors "Review the DRAFT Final Project Agreement, and provide feedback to Bert.
January 22, 1999 Water Bureau "Send compilation of feedback on the DRAFT Final Project Agreement to all Sponsors and Stakeholders.
January 25, 1999
9:00 am - 2:00 pm
Third XL Sponsor/
Stakeholder meeting
ALL Stakeholders and Sponsors "Come to the meeting prepared to:
-- Discuss the DRAFT Final Project Agreement and the feedback that was received in detail
-- Come to consensus on the changes needed and timeframe for producing a Final Draft of the FPA
-- Determine timeframe and process for 30-Day Public Comment Period.
Note: By this meeting, all Direct Participants, other Stakeholders, Sponsors, and Co-Sponsors should decide whether they will be formally signing the FPA, and whether they are signing on behalf of their organization or for themselves.
To Be Determined ALL "Develop Final Draft of the FPA, probably about two weeks after January 25th meeting
To Be Determined ALL "30-Day Public Comment Period, probably sometime in February
To Be Determined ALL "Formal FPA Signing Ceremony, probably sometime in March

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.