2017-03-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3, February 28, 2017 92 reported that the areas of highest concern were flooding drainage and surface 93 water management quality and protection. Ms. Nestingten reported that these 94 responses were similar to other surveys performed by SEH; and addressed 95 concern about stormwater runoff from streets and parking lots, construction site 96 erosion, and shoreland land uses. 97 98 Ms. Nestingten reported that the draft plan update had been emailed to the 99 PWETC and City Council prior to tonight's meeting, and also posted on the city's 100 website. Ms. Nestingten further reported that this latest draft plan update since 101 the 2013 plan was based on feedback to -date from the' WETC and goals and 102 policies discussed by them at Meeting #2, and any city up ates and demographic 103 changes, best management practices (BMP's) through the city, and overhaul of 104 the city's CIP to -date; all key highlight areas withAnost of he figures updated for 105 clarity. 106 Discuss 107 Member Trainor noted that even with th ather changes an ased intensity 108 in rain events being experienced ref s in plan update till from 109 2006 studies, and suggested referencing cu tudies and b ing on that 110 data and determinations as to whether tha nt ata is accurate or if new 111 studies provided updated in f ation. 112 113 Referencing the lack of survey on and publOrle4ss'ed ment received results 114 seemed futile and insignificant; Mem eimerl e hope that moving 115 forward the city would seek ways to obtain additional public feedback on the plan 116 and impacts to t unity. Wit4 the desire to obtain sufficient data to form a 117 good opinion of resid eeds and Wants, Member Heimerl noted the need for 118 additional Aources and ter ways to communicate to obtain that feedback to 119 inform the plan earlier inocess. 120 121 Engineer Freihastated that staff was open to any and all ideas from the 122 TWETC as well as the xpended by the city's communications staff in 123 seeking that feedback from residents. 124 125 Mr..phnson suggested expanding efforts on social media to increase that 126 communication frog residents especially for water quality concerns that were 127 shared among residents in the community and how they related to and impacted 128 this plan and quality of life for residents. 129 4 130 Member Heimerl suggested that timing for receiving that feedback may be the 131 answer in seeking it during other events (e.g. Day in the Park, Rosefest, etc.) 132 when people were gathered and getting the community's pulse at public events 133 during the summer when people are out and about. Member Heimerl suggested 134 setting up booths at Central Park during those events, and perhaps focusing on 135 different issues or topics and possibly in advance of important upcoming issues or 136 areas of interest. 137