2016-10-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

XTP 265 As part of this plan update process, Ms. Nestingen reviewed the projected schedule 266 between now and May of 2017 when adoption of the plan by the City Council has 267 been scheduled. Ms. Nestingen advised that the process would include three 268 meetings of the PWETC to discuss the plan updates proposed for tonight, again on 269 October 25, 2016, and on January 24, 2017 at which time development of the draft 270 plan should be available, and then revised as a second draft by mid-February; and 271 subsequent agency approval in April of 2017 (e.g. watershed districts and 272 Metropolitan Council); and then City Council adoption in May as noted. Ms. 273 Nestingen advised that the revised plan would then incorporated into the city's 274 larger comprehensive plan update. 275 276 Ms. Nestingen asked that, as part of the PWETC tasks for meeting number two, 277 members review the current 2013 goals/policies and issues assessment; and then 278 provide feedback to city staff by October 18th to allow that feedback to be 279 disseminated to all PWETC mem or discussion at the tober 25th PWETC 280 meeting. 281 IAL 282 Member Heimerl asked ' etting feedback from residents was t o that, and 283 whether the PWETC w rivy to that public feedback prior to the October 284 25th meeting. 285 286 Ms. Nestingen advised that they could provide a summary of comments to the 287 PWETC as it considered priorities, depending on the timing of public involvement 288 and ope ses and how it aligns with the broader comprehensive plan. 289 290 Member Heimerl stated he would find it personally helpful in providing his 291 feedback and driving the PWETC's focus. 292 293 r Leaf advised that, before public comments were sought, a list of questions 294 4nto be developed that the public was being asked to comment on. Mr. Leaf 295 stated his firm would work with staff to put that list together; and if individual 296 PWETC members had things on their lists to ask, he asked that they provide them 297 to staff a their earliest convenience to include in the mix of suggestions. Mr. Leaf 298 noted the ere only so many questions or areas of focus for consideration. 299 300 Member Thurnau suggested a targeted outreach, such as NextDoor.com that may 301 reach Lake Owasso residents or their association versus other areas in the city. 302 Member Thurnau noted the variables for residents living on a lake versus citywide 303 surface water issues throughout the community that were entirely different. 304 305 Mr. Culver questioned the city's involvement with input for NextDoor.com and 306 intentional restrictions in place for posting of agencies to retain the neighbor -to - 307 neighbor format of that website and its intent. While he loved the idea and noted 308 the city occasionally responded to some posts on the website, Mr. Culver suggested 309 relying on other residents if they wanted to start up that discussion. Page 7 of 14