|
Thursday, December 16, 2004
|
|
Thursday, December 16, 2004
|
|
Members Present - Councilmen Joe Hultquist and Chris Woodhull (Co-Chairs), Jim Arnett, Tom Allen, Councilman Joe Bailey, Ron Emery, John Finger, Margaret Gripshover, Jim Hagerman, Pat Harmon, Rich Hopkins, Lynne Miller, Don McLean, Barry Neal, John Nolt, Martha Olsen, Bob Petrone, Eugene Robinson, Councilwoman Marilyn Roddy, Dean Shipley, Ed Smith, and Sylvia Woods. Jeff Welch and Mike Conger from the TPO were present, along with Renee Davis from MPC, Mike Dunthorn from the City of Knoxville ’s Community Development Office, and Jeannie Dulaney, Executive Director of Leadership Knoxville. Participants enjoyed refreshments and informal discussion during a meet and greet social time beginning at 5 PM.. At 5:30, Councilman Joe Hultquist welcomed everyone and thanked them for coming, explaining that the draft recommendation had been available for review since November 18 and any remaining concerns could be addressed by the task force tonight as they prepare for sign-off of the document and transmittal to the local government agencies and TDOT. Renee Davis noted that an appendix would be added for endorsements and comments from task force members, resolutions, and other related materials. The floor was opened for discussion. Dean Shipley noted three areas that he wished to comment on. 1. In the Executive Summary he wants the language recommending an EIS strengthened and suggested using shall instead of should. The task force discussed the use of shall and questioned the appropriateness of the local government using imperative language in a report to a state agency. It was determined that the opening sentence would be changed to read as: The Task Force asks that TDOT move forward with plans to improve the transportation network in South Knoxville and South Knox County by evaluating the extension of JWP to Governor Sevier Highway, using the project development process required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and subsequent guidance and provisions including a full Environmental Impact Statement. After Dean’s first comment, there was additional discussion at the request of Rich Hopkins to expand the Executive Summary to outline the specific recommendation as agreed upon by the majority of the task force. Because there is not consensus on building the JWP, the document expresses the diversity of opinions and there some concern that the recommendation to build was not easily apparent because of the additional information in the report. Rich reported that more of that information should be located in the appendix, and indicated that he did not think so much of the first Task Force (2002-2003) report should be a part of the appendix, because the current Task Force had not discussed the material or source of the material at length and may not agree with it. *It was determined that more detailed material from the Recommendation section should be added to the Executive Summary in bullet form. 2. Dean Shipley ’s second comment relates to Section 3 Public Process – page 20 in the Community Involvement heading, the second column – third sentence from the bottom “A majority of the respondents favored extending the JWP and making improvements to Chapman Highway ”. The discussion on this sentence centered on the importance of improving Chapman Highway and Dean asked if the language can stress the improvements to Chapman Highway . Several task force members replied that they interpret this sentence to mean that both should be done and no change was made to this sentence. 3. Dean Shipley ’s third comment relates to Section 5 Recommendation – page 36 in Majority Preferred Alternative: Extending James White Parkway, the second sentence - Dean suggested that it be changed to put emphasis on the urgency of the improvements to Chapman Highway. The revised sentence will read “The Task Force recommends operational and safety improvements to Chapman Highway be identified and implemented as soon as possible.” There was additional discussion on what constitutes consensus and a participant asked if anyone had questioned the report saying that “a majority” of the task force supported building the extension. Subcommittee chairs replied that there were several discussions during meetings where a majority of the attendees did state that they favored building the extension, and no one had questioned that, although some support the extension only under certain circumstances. There was discussion on whether or not the report should reflect only the view of the majority, and participants noted that all along the Task Force doubted the decision would be unanimous and had agreed to report majority and minority views. There was discussion on what was being endorsed when the individuals signed off on the report, and Councilman Hultquist explained that you are endorsing the document and acknowledging your participation in the process and your views being heard and expressed, but not saying that you agree that JWP be extended. It was decided that MPC staff would poll Task Force members by use of a ballot to allow everyone the opportunity to vote whether or not they agree that JWP should be extended as stated in the recommendation (which will be presented in bullet points and added to the Executive Summary). This will confirm a majority view and allow individuals who support the road under specific conditions to outline these conditions. While they can abstain from voting, the ballot needs to be signed and returned to MPC and will be included in the appendix. The ballot will be mailed to every member of the Task Force in late December with return postage. The additional language to be added to the Executive Summary will be included so that everyone can review it before signing off. A section on the ballot for personal comments will also be included. We will not be able to have the final document produced in time for City Council’s January 4 th agenda deadline but the ballot and additions to the Executive Summary will be mailed to Task Force members December 20-23. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7 PM Meeting summary by Renee Davis – Friday, December 17 _____________________________________________________ * Addendum to meeting summary outlining changes to the Executive Summary – December 21 Changes to Executive Summary Page 2, second paragraph – order of sentences has been reversed in order to incorporate highlights of the recommendation in bullet format as discussed at the Task Force meeting on December 16 th. The revised paragraph will read - It is difficult to make a final decision to build a road when significant factors including environmental impacts, economic impacts and financial costs are uncertain or unknown. However, a majority of the Task Force and respondents at public meetings want the project to move forward and favor the extension of the parkway. The following details are particularly important:
|