2011-12-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

specifically structured emphasizing that this WRAPP work plan and the DRAFT Third Generation Plan continued to be a project between the GLWMO and member communities. Member Von De Linde concurred; noting that the GLWMO affected their property and the watershed; and for five (5) members of a WMO making the decisions for two (2) member communities and lake residents was very challenging for all parties. Member Miller noted the ongoing comments about the need for the GLWMO to focus on improving communication efforts, no matter which governance model was chosen going forward, as well as needing to improve coordination with agencies and stakeholders. Motion 11 -1211-6 Member Miller moved, and Member Von De Linde seconded that the meeting of the GLWMO Board to solicit feedback on the WRAPP and draft work plan be declared as a special meeting of the GLWMO Board; specifically inviting the three (3) lake associations by providing each respective Lake Association Board of the meeting and inviting comments from their members; seeking the assistance of and the GLWMO Board's expectations for those lake associations in disseminating the meeting information to their membership. Discussion included if and whether the GLWMO Board could depend on the lake associations to effectively provide that communication to their membership at their discretion; specifically requesting the assistance of respective lake associations in sharing the meeting information with their membership; use of available e -mail lists and competencies in publishing the meeting in local newspapers, in addition to use of cable television in conjunction with member cities. Member Von De Linde suggested that Mr. Petersen and the Board use a check -off list for consistency in notifying various entities of upcoming meetings and Public Hearings. While use of mailed notices was briefly discussed, consensus was that this was cost prohibitive for a WMO the size and nature of the GLWMO. Member Miller suggested that Mr. Petersen provide notice of the meeting to member City representatives and ask their cooperation in disseminating information as appropriate through their communication tools and in a timely manner. Members discussed the format of the first Public Hearing and the Board not responding to public comments; with the pros and cons of response or no response addressed; with Member Miller concluding that responding to comments could create more disceetion with individual Board members having the potential difficulty in remaining objective and not becoming defensive. Member Barrett noted MnDOT's evolution from Public Hearings to open houses for their highway projects, with the public seldom having access to a microphone and required to submit their written comments on cards which were then addressed by the Board or their representatives. Member Barrett advised that the public was encouraged to visit one -on -one in small groups, also serving to diffuse perceptions of "us against the world" and provided for less intimidation for those wishing to comment. Members were of the consensus that this would be a more productive structure for the Second Public Hearing and tasked Mr. Petersen with determining the legal requirements for a Public Hearing and whether such a format could be done. 9