2011-12-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

303 Chair Eckman suggested that she would provide Mr. Petersen with her e-mail contact list and her 304 personal e -mail list for those requesting information on the "No Wake Zone" going forward. 305 306 Mr. Petersen suggested using member cities monthly mailing as well as other avenues beyond the 307 formal notice. 308 309 Chair Eckman suggested using avenues beyond the formal notice, such as cable television networks, 310 city news letters, event calendar notices in local media and other sources as evident and available. 311 Chair Eckman noted the need to include the Shoreview Press in free public calendar notices as well as 312 those in the Lillie Suburban newspapers. She further noted that Legal notices are seldom read by the 313 general public. 314 315 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 316 317 Mr. Petersen noted that if the Public Hearing was scheduled ten (10) days after the written comments 318 with written responses were sent to the review State Agencies and after the joint agency meeting on 319 the draft work -plan for the WRAPP, this would make the 2 °a Public Hearing sometime in late January 320 of 2012. 321 322 Chair Eckman noted that, even though the Second Generation Plan expired in July of 2011, and the 323 current JPA is not up -to -date, the current JPA is the one the GLWMO continues to operate under 324 even though not in compliance with current state standards; and she advised the GLWMO Board that 325 funding remained in place to continue operating into 2012 until issues were resolved. 326 327 2) Next Steps (Melissa Lewis, BWSR Q & A) 328 At the request of Chair Eckman, Ms. Lewis summarized what constituted any WMO being in non - 329 compliance or non - performance and what would trigger the BWSR stepping in to dissolve the 330 GLWMO. 331 332 Ms. Lewis advised, in general, that it would be if and when the GLWMO was not meeting their 333 statutory responsibilities, but this entailed a broad range of issues, and advised that she was not 334 prepared to address any specifics at this time. Ms. Lewis noted that the GLWMO JPA language 335 clearly outlines the dissolution process if either or both cities should request dissolution of the 336 GLWMO; however, she noted that the GLWMO Board itself could take the actual action to dissolve. 337 338 Ms. Lewis noted that she currently had twenty (20) WMO JPA's that she was working with, and they 339 were all different; and at the request of Chair Eckman reviewed the status of those other WMO's 340 Third Generation Plans, noting that their status was directly related to recent changes and 341 expectations and increased scrutiny and requirements for watershed management agencies. 342 343 At the request of Chair Eckman, Ms. Lewis reviewed key success factors for successful JPA 344 approval, based on performance review and assessment of individual WMO's; activity and 345 effectiveness of WMO Board members and their member cities; their partnership with other agencies 346 (e.g. conservation districts and member cities); annual budgets and their success in grant awards; and 347 their overall budgets and management of those funds. 348 349 Further discussion included make up of other WMO's and their staffing or service contracts with 350 other agencies or entities; taxing authority provisions; oversight of member cities of WMO budgets; 351 involvement of member city councilmembers on WMO Boards; and whether ensuring member cities 352 more control in the decision - making loop and budgets would address current concerns. 353 7