2016-08-23_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

As part of this plan update process, Ms. Nestingen reviewed the projected schedule between now and May of 2017 when adoption of the plan by the City Council has been scheduled. Ms. Nestingen advised that the process would include three meetings of the PWETC to discuss the plan updates proposed for tonight, again on October 25, 2016, and on January 24, 2017 at which time development of the draft plan should be available, and then revised as a second draft by mid-February; and subsequent agency approval in April of 2017 (e.g. watershed districts and Metropolitan Council); and then City Council adoption in May as noted. Ms. Nestingen advised that the revised plan would then be incorporated into the city's larger comprehensive plan update. Ms. Nestingen asked that, as part of the PWETC tasks for meeting number two, members review the current 2013 goals/policies and issues assessment; and then provide feedback to city staff by October 18th to allow that feedback to be disseminated to all PWETC members for discussion at the October 25th PWETC meeting. Member Heimerl asked if getting feedback from residents was tied to that, and whether the PWETC would be privy to that public feedback prior to the October 25th meeting. Ms. Nestingen advised that they could provide a summary of comments to the PWETC as it considered priorities, depending on the timing of public involvement and open houses and how it aligns with the broader comprehensive plan. Member Heimerl stated he would find it personally helpful in providing his feedback and driving the PWETC's focus. Mr. Leaf advised that, before public comments were sought, a list of questions needed to be developed that the public was being asked to comment on. Mr. Leaf stated his firm would work with staff to put that list together; and if individual PWETC members had things on their lists to ask, he asked that they provide them to staff at their earliest convenience to include in the mix of suggestions. Mr. Leaf noted there were only so many questions or areas of focus for consideration. Member Thurnau suggested a targeted outreach, such as NextDoor.com that may reach Lake Owasso residents or their association versus other areas in the city. Member Thurnau noted the variables for residents living on a lake versus citywide surface water issues throughout the community that were entirely different. Mr. Culver questioned the city's involvement with input for NextDoor.com and intentional restrictions in place for posting of agencies to retain the neighbor-to- neighbor format of that website and its intent. While he loved the idea and noted the city occasionally responded to some posts on the website, Mr. Culver suggested relying on other residents if they wanted to start up that discussion. Page 7 of 14