2010-12-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

642 Ms. Bloom noted that under the Metropolitan Council and BWSR's requirements, the City's 643 Surface Water Management Plan needed to be consistent with all three Plans; and noted the need 644 for the GLWMO to be aware of how potentially onerous that could become. 645 646 Member Manzara noted that consistency, where appropriate, would also be preferred with the 647 stormwater runoff component. 648 649 Given the lateness of the hour, Ms. Correll suggested individual members submit their 650 perceptions for the GLWMO's vision and mission over the next ten (10) years via e -mail that 651 could be collated by her as draft goals /policies for future refinement. Ms. Correll emphasized 652 the importance for the GLWMO to set those and frame the role for their organization before the 653 next stakeholder meeting in order to effectively communicate that to the public. Ms. Correll 654 suggested that each member provide five words describing how they saw the GLWMO. 655 656 Member Manzara noted the GLWMO was coming into this project anticipating the next ten 657 years, and given WMO's current state of flux as a result of the drastic changes in dealing with 658 cities and state WMO's; it was her strong desire to preface any goals and policies as a "working" 659 document. Member Manzara, as incoming Board Chair, expressed her hesitancy in publically 660 identifying a vision during this stage of the WMO's refocusing that may be subject to change and 661 should thus be identified as a work in progress rather than giving any perceptions as definitive or 662 final. 663 664 Member Westerberg noted the difference in that vision between pragmatic versus absolutist. 665 666 Ms. Correll anticipated that the vision would evolve over the next four months of the planning 667 process. 668 669 Member Eckman suggested that the GLWMO consider adopting a vision modeled after peer 670 Watershed Districts or WMO's since they each shared a basic mission. 671 672 Member Manzara spoke in support of individual members providing Ms. Correll with their five 673 words as a start to the visioning process. 674 675 Chair Ferrington opined that board leadership dictated that the Board start the visioning process 676 and have it as a framework, and supported sending five words to be refined later, followed by 677 stakeholder input providing for further refinement. 678 679 Further discussion included the need for a new vision reflecting changes in watershed 680 management; inclusion of stakeholder input in the vision as it became available; discussion of 681 Vision and Mission Statements of other watershed districts seeking one addressing basic 682 management; and development of the Plan without a Mission Statement in place. 683 684 Ms. Correll suggested that at the first stakeholder meeting, identification of water bodies and 685 their respective trends be provided; and by providing a Vision and Mission Statement from both 686 ends of the spectrum, using the CRWD model, seeking input from those stakeholders on which 687 version they supported. 15