Laserfiche WebLink
52 Ms. Correll reviewed, in more detail, the various meetings, including three (3) initial stakeholder <br />53 meetings held throughout the process with residents of the GLWMO; agencies and representative member <br />54 cities (Shoreview and Roseville) providing input during the process; and the process remaining. <br />55 <br />56 Ms. Correll noted that, based on the public comment received tonight, as well as that from various <br />57 agencies and member cities, the next draft of the Third Generation Plan would receive final edits and then <br />58 go back out for the final ninety (90) day agency review, and subsequent GLWMO Board approval, as <br />59 previously noted. While noting that this Public Hearing was for the purpose of receiving public <br />60 comment, Ms. Correll's presentation included detailed opportunities of previous public comment <br />61 opportunities, as well as the regular and special GLWMO Board meetings that were also open to the <br />62 public to -date. Ms. Correll listed other stakeholders who had been involved in the process, including lake <br />63 associations within the GLWMO; residents within the GLWMO, whether lake residents or not; <br />64 municipalities; Ramsey County; State and Federal agencies and their applicable representatives; and how <br />65 those meetings and opportunities had served to develop the plan in its current state. <br />66 <br />67 Ms. Correll briefly summarized the GLWMO's land and water resource inventory; and the broad issues <br />68 and goals of the Plan, that included studies completed and data collected over the last decade since the <br />69 last Plan update in 2001; technical advances; and revised and improved standards and criteria related to <br />70 water quality and the quantity of water resources; monitoring and data assessment; storm water <br />71 management; and wetland management, as well as other research. <br />72 <br />73 Ms. Correll advised that the Plan, when finalized and adopted, would provide a specific and detailed <br />74 implementation plan with a list of activities, their estimated costs, and a projected timeline to accomplish <br />75 the initiatives, as well as those who will be involved in that implementation. <br />76 <br />77 At the request of an unidentified audience member (off microphone), Ms. Correll summarized the <br />78 geographical boundaries of the GLWMO. <br />79 <br />80 Public Comment <br />81 Mr. Petersen briefly reviewed meeting protocol, noting that the meeting was being recorded for the <br />82 record, and officially opened the Public Hearing for public comment at 6:49 p.m. Mr. Petersen advised <br />83 that the comments expressed would become a part of the formal GLWMO record and published after <br />84 GLWMO Board approval by year -end. Mr. Petersen advised that the purpose of this Public Hearing was <br />85 to listen, and noted that therefore, the Board would not be responding to comments tonight, but would <br />86 take them into consideration as part of their deliberations prior to finalizing the Plan. <br />87 <br />88 Bob Seybold, 657 Heinel Dr. Roseville <br />89 Mr. Seybold reported that he knew nothing of the GLWMO Plan, asked why there will be no opportunity <br />90 for interaction with the Board at this meeting. <br />91 <br />92 Michael Norton, 815 Heinel Drive (Roseville, south end of Lake Owasso) <br />93 Mr. Norton stated that he was unclear on the general process undertaken for the Plan; and if it was <br />94 intended to be an interactive process, why was the Board not responding to comments at tonight's <br />95 meeting, thereby allowing for an exchange of discussion about the business being undertaken. Mr. <br />96 Norton opined that the process didn't make any sense to him to be unable to get a satisfactory response <br />97 tonight. Mr. Norton stated that, to his knowledge, several residents on Lake Owasso were concerned with <br />98 the Plan; and like him, the first they're heard about the Plan was over the last few months, which didn't <br />99 allow for a timely fashion for any of them to have meaningful impact on the concepts being discussed. <br />100 From his perspective, Mr. Norton stated that it seems apparent that there was a breakdown in the <br />101 interactive requirements for submitting the Plan, especially when the Plan directly impacted their use of <br />2 <br />