Meeting #18 Minutes: August 19

Franklin Street Arterial Study GroupMeeting #18, August 19, 2009NotesCom. Members present: Greg Martin, Liz Hoglund, Markos Miller, Mark Adelson, Markos Miller, Boyd Marley, Jaime Parker, Ethan Boxer-Macomber, Mike LabergeStaff: Mike Bobinsky, Kathi Earley, Carl Eppich, Alex Jagerman, Greg MitchellConsultant: Mitch Rasor1. Welcome and Introductions2. Discussion of Phase 2/Intersection Study

• Scope of Phase 2- Mike Bobinsky plans to draft Scope of combined Feasibility Study/Intersection study. This will be presented to committee for input, and then to Maine DOT for negotiation. Maine DOT would manage joint project in this arrangement.
• CSS characteristics of Phase 2- Mike Bobinsky will include certain CSS conditions that the City sees as essential to the Feasibility Study, to help ensure all parties understand and agree to what process will be like. These could be conditions for agreeing to combine study.
• Committee Input Regarding Combining Phase 2 and Intersection Study
• Concern that a combined study would over-emphasize Intersection design and not first thoroughly assess all alternatives
• Suggest that any/all agreements or conditions be memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement between City and State
• Opposition expressed to combining study- should keep local control- this project cam from neighborhoods
• Combined study would be more integrated, in concert
• Not combining could be duplicative
• DOT comfortable with either arrangement
• Local Control is important; could a memorandum of understanding preserve this?
• Stakeholder group will have input either way
• May be better to put Intersection study on hold until end of Feasibility Study
• What is deadline for Intersection project? 10 yrs from granting of funds (2016-ish)
• Combining creates continuity; you can overcome issue of control with agreements
• Risks either way: control vs. disconnect; a well articulated agreement could address these issues
• Committee concerns should be addressed
• Phase 2 should lead, Intersection should follow
• The transportation design will advance/promote land use, economic development, and neighborhood visions; transportfacilities must be in a supporting role.
• Intersection work should not begin until the Feasibility study has clearly indicated what should happen at Marginal/Somerset.
• Where will CSS expertise come from? Local control- Consultant. Combined- MDOT?
• Will MDOT project manager be able to fully explore/advance committee ideas that DOT is not comfortable with? Manager will have to follow lead of DOT bosses.
• Committee wants to be sure it’s product is delivered

3. Public Evaluation MeetingCommittee Reviews Meeting Format, offers suggestions indicated:Public Evaluation Meeting- DRAFT AGENDASept 2, 2009Merrill Rehearsal HallHandout should be prepared- agenda, brief narrative of each alternative, etc.1. Welcome and Introduction Co-chair 1 6:10-6:15committee members/staffplan for evening2. Presentation of Study Goals, Process Co-chair 2 6:15-6:25

• Range of options
• mix and match
• phase 2- just mention, come back to at closing
• long term visioning

3. Presentation of Franklin Concepts Lucy 6:25-6:55

• The ‘STORY’ behind each one
• evaluation matrix
• what does it look like

4. Getting a closer look/ Giving Feedback- Instructions ??? 6:55-7:005. Concepts Stations Teams of Committee members at tables

• describing details of concept
• answering clarifying questions 7:00-7:45
• public indicates preferences/concerns on color-coded sticky notes
• Pre-determined groups should go to each station for 15 minute presentation/questions/feedback. Groups will then rotate through all three stations in 15 min intervals. Three separate diagrams should be used so that one groups comments do not influence comments of other group.

6. Closing Remarks Co-chair 1 7:50-8:00Next StepsPhase 2Should arrange Press releaseCo-chairs writing Op-Ed piece for PPHImportant to dispell ‘rumors’, set stage for understanding that nothing is set in stoneA questionnaire could get helpful feedback about specific issues- Markos to follow up with Liz on this.Station AssignmentsStaff to fill in as needed. Other committee members to be added .4. Review of Materials for Public Meeting

Review Modeling for Multi-Way and Parkway. Comments:
• Urban Boulevard to be renames Urban Parkway
• Green/shared corridor needs to be added to Urban Parkway
• Modeling should be shown at end of Power Point presentation- from a variety of specific locations show: Existing (base modeling), and each of three alternatives in succession
• Label each slide with alternative name and location in BIG FONT, centrally located
• Play around with building colors to emphasize existing buildings a little more
• Any way to highlight a few landmarks to help orient people?

5. Review of Final Report

• Many sections drafted
• some sections still need completed- chairs to follow up on
• Ethan will write up Workshop section
• Committee asked to review electronic draft circulated, to discuss at late Sept meeting.

6. Homework: OutreachPublic Awareness: be sure people understandGoals, Process, and Purpose of Final Products of Study. Get them to the meeting.Study Matrix, Performance Criteria, Diagrams, etc. to be able to speak about your assigned concept; know the story behind the concept. New Matrix to be sent out next week.7. CommentsFuture Mtgs9/2- Public Presentation9/16-Responding to Public Feedback10/7-Finalizing Report