2011-01-20_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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