CWG Mtg 1

<body> <h2><font color="#FF901A">Community Working Group </font></h2> <p>Meeting One, September 24, 1998, 7:00 - 9:00PM <br> EWGCC Offices, 10 Stadium Plaza, St. Louis </p> <p><font size="4"><strong>Final Summary of Meeting One</strong></font><br> (revised 10.23.98) </p> <p><strong>Purpose & Objectives</strong><br> The first meeting of the Community Working Group was held September 24, 1998 from 7:00 to 9:00 pm at EWGCC's offices in downtown St. Louis. The meeting was held to introduce members to the study scope and schedule and the design options under consideration. The meeting was designed to encourage members to share thoughts about their motivation for participating and their personal goals for the process. Introducing members to possible operating procedures and protocols also was among the meeting objectives. (A list of desired outcomes is included on the attached Outcomes and Agenda sheet.) </p> <p><strong>Attendance</strong> <br> The following Community Working Group members (21 total) were present at the meeting:</p> <table border="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td width="33%" valign="top">Robert H. Winters<br> Tom Shrout<br> Dan Bockert<br> Brent Hobgood<br> George Liyeos (for Tim Dunn)<br> Dorothy Edwards<br> Karl Odenwald, Sr.</td> <td width="33%" valign="top">Joyce G. Littlefield<br> Paul Hohmann<br> Karleen Hoerr<br> Anne L. Gagen<br> Margaret Donnelly <br> Albert Fields <br> H. C. Milford</td> <td width="34%" valign="top">Gregory Reynders<br> Brian Witherspoon<br> Stephen Lamkin<br> Freeman McCullah <br> Matthew P. McCauley<br> Todd J. Thompson<br> Steven P. Hoffner </td> </tr> </table> <p>Judi Roman, James K. Berthold, Carolyn Toft and Cecil Browning were not present. One appointment each from Forest Park Advisory Board and EWGCC are forthcoming. </p> <p>Les Sterman, Jerry Blair, Donna Day, and Jim Seamon of EWGCC were in attendance. Dick Hocking and Bill Schafer of Parsons Transportation Group represented the design consultants. Mary Means and Steven Schukraft of Mary Means & Associates, Inc, (MMA) and Jessica Perkins and Laurna Godwin of Vector Communications represented the engagement consultants. In addition, representatives from local media outlets and neighborhood organizations observed the meeting. </p> <p><strong>Presentation/Discussion Summary</strong> <br> <em><strong>Welcome. </strong></em>Welcoming remarks from Les Sterman and Mary Means were offered and members of the design and engagement teams were introduced. </p> <p><em><strong>Review of Outcomes, Agenda & Ground Rules.</strong></em> Jessica Perkins reviewed the list of outcomes and the agenda with members and suggested a time budget for the meeting. </p> <p><em><strong>Overview of Study Scope, Outcome, Approach & Schedule.</strong></em> Steven Schukraft provided a brief overview of the study scope, anticipated outcomes, approach and schedule. A copy of the presentation slides used in the presentation are available upon request. </p> <p><em><strong>Member Introductions-Share Perspectives & Interests.</strong></em> Jessica Perkins & Mary Means led an exercise designed to help members begin to understand the perspectives and interests of fellow members. Members were asked to provide brief answers to the following questions: "Why did you decide to participate?" and "How will you judge the success of the effort?" </p> <p>In general, members shared their hopes that the study will result in a design that achieves support from a broad cross-section of neighborhood and regional interests. Many expressed their hope that their service on the Working Group will not be in vain, that their ideas and concerns, as well as the concerns of stakeholders along the extension and throughout the region, be addressed fully and openly. Many suggested that they support the idea of extending MetroLink but want to make sure it "is done right." Several said they hoped to offer a specific or unique perspective in the discussions. Members suggested they were interested in considering a range of issues. Potential positive and negative impacts on various stakeholder groups-residents living close to the line, transit riders, business and property owners, persons with disabilities, and taxpayers-were mentioned, as were concerns about design quality and effects on local and regional transportation patterns. </p> <p><em><strong>Introduction to the Design Options.</strong></em> Dick Hocking presented the design options under consideration. He provided an overview of the route and described basic vertical alignment alternatives (surface, elevated, and below grade in a trench or tunnel). Design options in the three primary sections of the route were introduced and the engineering rationale for including or not including certain options were offered. For example, Mr. Hocking explained the technical reasons (topography and displacement of park facilities) for why an alignment through Shaw Park is not included in the list of options under consideration. </p> <p><em><strong>Upcoming Engagement Activities.</strong></em> Schukraft briefly described the purpose and structure of the Public Forum and Community Issues Workshops. </p> <p><em><strong>Review of Draft Operating Procedure.</strong></em> A paper listing draft Operating Procedures for the Working Group was distributed and Means requested that members review the draft procedures and prepare for a discussion of the procedures at the next meeting. </p> <p><em><strong>Comments & Questions.</strong></em> Following the presentations, members asked several questions. A question about the group's purpose was answered by Mary Means. Means stated that the group exists as another avenue to ensure stakeholder interests are represented in the discussion of the design consultants and policy makers. Means said the group would function as a "sounding board" for the team, offering feedback on the technical material and the effectiveness of the community engagement process. </p> <p>The idea of conducting a tour of the route for Working Group members also was suggested. (Joyce Littlefield made a similar suggestion in a letter received by MMA September 15, 1998.) Possible dates for a tour will be discussed at the next meeting. </p> <p><em><strong>Agenda Items for the Next Meeting.</strong></em> Schukraft suggested that the next meeting begin with a discussion of operating procedures and a briefing from the engagement team on the outcome of the Public Forum and Community Issues Workshops. He suggested that most of the meeting be dedicated to a discussion among members of the design options in each of the three areas. Schukraft also invited members to offer suggestions about items for the next Meeting. </p> <p>Stephen Lamkin asked that time be allocated for the prioritization of the Preliminary Planning Goals in Table 1 of the System and Alignment Design Concepts Technical Memorandum. A copy of the page listing general community goals is attached. </p> <p><em><strong>Wrap Up.</strong></em> Perkins suggested that each member contact a fellow member they do not know particularly well and share their thoughts about the study. </p> <p>This concludes the meeting summary. </p> <p><strong>Member Comments Received Since the Meeting</strong> </p> <p>Since the meeting, members have asked that the Working Group be offered an opportunity to consider the following: <ul> <li>the possibility of holding additional Working Group meetings with or without MMA's planning and facilitation (Paul Hohmann & Joyce Littlefield, Suggested at Public Forum, 09.28.98); </li> <li>the plans for distributing meeting summaries and public comments (Paul Hohmann, 09.30.98 e-mail); </li> <li>the possibility of providing additional technical material, for example, copies of Bi-State's design manuals for the existing line and the St. Clair extension, copies of the Cross-County Major Transportation Investment Study, and other reports prepared for past projects. (Paul Hohmann, 09.30.98, e-mail); and </li> <li>the planning of additional public hearings, in addition to those held by individual municipalities, during the engagement process (Paul Hohmann, 09.30.98 e-mail). <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <tr> <td width="272" colspan="2"><strong><small><img src="../images/arrow_right.jpg" width="5" height="10" alt="arrow_down.jpg (716 bytes)"> Contact Info</small></strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="13"></td> <td><small>Cross-County Study<br> Hotline:  314.621.4499<br> E-mail: <a href="mailto:crosscounty@marymeans.com">crosscounty@marymeans.com</a></small></td> </tr> </table> <p align="center"> </p> <p align="center"><small></small><br> <small>[ <a href="http://www.ewgateway.org" target="_top">EWGCC Home</a> ]</small></p> <p> </p>  </li> </ul> </body>