Skip to main content

March 6, 2019 CAC Minutes




Wednesday, March 6, 2019


Members Present

Bill Bushnell, Sliv Carlson, Jerry Ciardelli, Brian Girard, Linda Jahnke, Drew McGovern, Richard Nyquist, Cassy Ordway, Peter Rechelbacher, Marc Rosenberg and John Salditt


Managers Present

Richard Miller


Others Present

MCWD staff: Renae Clark, Becky Christopher, Telly Mamayek, Sarah Bhimani and Darren Lochner


Guest: David Daniels, Woodland City Council


Approval of Agenda and Minutes

It was moved Bushnell to approve the agenda and Carlson provided the second.   All members approved the March agenda.


The CAC reviewed the February minutes and Bushnell moved to approve the minutes and Girard provided the second. All members approved the February minutes.


Discussion Items:
MCWD Website Redesign Update – Mamayek and Bhimani

The purpose of this presentation was to update the CAC on the draft goals, scope, and process for website redesign to be coordinated with the work of an IT consultant and the strategic communications plan.


The MCWD website was last redesigned in 2011. Since that time there have been a lot of technology advancements and the website is due for an update. Staff has already invested a significant amount of time in planning for a new website and research many websites. MCWD will issue a RFP to identify a consultant to assist with this project.  Some of the redesign goals include: visually appealing, intuitive navigation, accessible and transparent, interactive customer service features, improved backend administration and facilitates community engagement. 


The website redesign will be connected to the strategic communications plan.  The RFP applicants will be reviewed and interviewed this spring and selected by the end of May.  MCWD staff will work with IT consultant and the website build is planned to happen by early 2020.  The CAC and Board will be updated and consulted throughout the website redesign process.


Responsive Model Development - Clark

At the March 6, 2019 CAC meeting, staff initiated discussions about the development of the District’s Responsive Model. The Responsive Model is a Strategic Action Plan initiative intended to operationalize the District’s watershed-wide implementation approach. Staff provided an overview of the responsive model background, purpose and goals; and facilitated a discussion on metrics to measure model effectiveness.


The purpose of the responsive model was defined as: Efficiently address resource needs District-wide by prioritizing and responding to opportunities created through land use change or partner initiatives.


The goals for the responsive model include:

-    Maintain District focus through prioritization of opportunities based on sound science

-    Improve coordination with land use planning to support identification of opportunities

-    Maximize use of District staff and financial resources by leveraging partner initiatives

-    Provide responsive and customized service to communities through a clear and transparent framework


Staff then described the scope of work that would be undertaken to develop the Responsive Model, organized into 3 phases: 

-      Opportunity identification

-      Opportunity evaluation and prioritization

-      Opportunity response


Following the overview on the responsive background, the CAC was asked to respond to the following questions.  The committee formed small groups to address each of the questions.  The groups reported back to the full committee followed by a group discussion.  The following is a summary of the discussion.


Question 1. Are the responsive model purpose and goals clear?


-       The committee encouraged staff to use plain language and reduce text.  Some of the terms and phrases were thought to be “corporate speak” and too general or vague.

-       Committee members noted they were not clear on the intended audience of the purpose and goals, and that the goal statements should be written for the intended audience.

-       In addition to the descriptions of the responsive program in text, members recommended having companion visuals and graphics.

-       The committee was interested in more definition of the Focal and Responsive approaches and wondered if there were better terms to describe the two approaches.

-       Committee members suggested that there be an elevator speech for each goal statement.  

-       Staff noted that the purpose and goals statements are primarily for internal audiences (staff, Board, and CAC) to inform development of the model and acknowledged that further work will be needed to develop the external messaging through the Strategic Communications planning process that is getting underway.  


Question 2. Is the program scope clear?

The committee appreciated the visual of the responsive scope however was not clear on the audience for this information. Staff reinforced that the scope is for internal audiences to outline the work needed to develop the model.  


During the scope discussion, the following questions were raised:

-       How is a budget developed for responsive implementation?  Will it be grant-based?  Is it first-come/first-serve for funding? How will projects be identified early enough to inform budget?

-       What does responsive mean and how will that be explained?  Does it set the wrong expectations that we’re responding to all requests, moving really quickly, reactionary?

-       How will the responsive model be evaluated?


These questions will be revisited in subsequent discussions.


Question 3. Based on goals, how can we measure implementation effectiveness?

The committee provided a range of ideas for measuring the effectiveness of the implementation model including:

-       Developing a satisfaction survey for participants (i.e. developers, cities, etc.).  Reach out to district partners on an annual basis.

-       Assess how many partners are coming in to work with the district early in the process.

-       Costs (e.g. staff time, money) and benefits (e.g. nutrient reduction, volume reduction)

-       Assess the responsive model process and work flow.  What is working and what needs improvement from a staff and partner perspective.

-       What are the outcomes – determine what is success and what are the components of success?

-       What is the story to tell with the responsive model?

-       Keep it simple.  Develop simple and easy to understand metrics for the program.


Following the committee discussion on the questions outlined by staff there was an overview of next steps.  Staff will continue to work with the CAC on the development of the Responsive Model through May. Following this input staff will draft the program framework and consult the Board PPC and then follow-up with external policy and technical advisory committees between August-October.  The Board will further review and approve the program at the end of 2019.


Information Items and Updates:
CAC member updates


-       The concept plans for the Minnehaha Creek Parkway Regional Trail Master Plan are available for review and comment.


Board updates – Manager Miller
The press release was share regarding 325 Blake Road and the separation with K/A.   District staff will continue to move this project forward and will be focusing on the creek corridor for restoration and stormwater features in the short term.


Staff updates – Lochner

Two new MCWD Board appointments will be made by the Hennepin County Commissioners.  The appointments will likely be made an upcoming March meeting.


Several stormwater ponds in the district are receiving some maintenance over the winter months. KSTP did a story on the Bde Maka Ska stormwater ponds and MCWD staff was interviewed.


Entries are being sought for the MCWD 2019 Earth Day Photo Contest until Sunday, April 7th.

Guest David Daniels from the Woodland City Council thanks MCWD and the CAC members for allowing him to attend the meeting.


Meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.

Next Meeting is Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.

Board of Manager Liaison TBD

Minutes or Agenda?: