US 93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River
Location/Design Concept Study and Environmental Studies
|
US 93: Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Location/Design Concept Study and Environmental Studies
|
|
SR 89 to Wickenburg Interim Bypass Wickenburg (SR 89) to Santa Maria River
|
Partnering Workshop Report (February 1999) Overview of Workshop A Partnering workshop for the US 93, Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Location/Design Concept Study was held at the Rancho De Los Caballeros on February 17, 1999. Hosts for the meeting were ADOT and Sverdrup Civil, the study consultant. Also attending were several state and federal agency representatives, Town officials, and members of many local constituency groups. The purpose of the meeting was to agree on a process and structure for involving the many stakeholders affected by this study and the eventual alignment of US 93, including a bypass around the Town of Wickenburg. Information about the Study project and process was presented by ADOT and Sverdrup. A Mission Statement for the Study Steering Committee was developed by the participants and a Partnering Agreement was begun. The group also determined the membership of the Project Team, Interdisciplinary (ID) Team, and Steering Committee. Some items planned for the meeting were not addressed, and will be completed by the Steering Committee at their first meeting, which will be held on March 1, 1999, from 1:00-5:00 pm, in the Wickenburg Council Chamber. Participants
The workshop opened with an overview of the purpose and agenda for the day. It was emphasized that the primary purpose of this meeting was to agree on a process for involving the community in the study, not to try to address specific issues being forwarded by various stakeholders. All participants then introduced themselves and described their relationship to this venture. Russ Hanson presented an overview of the Principles and Process of Partnering. The key elements of Commitment, Communication, Win-Win Conflict Resolution, and Continuous Evaluation were discussed, with Trust being the glue that ties them together. An explanation of how Partnering would be applied to this Study project was also presented. We emphasized the importance of working together in a cooperative spirit to evaluate alternatives and develop recommendations that are based upon input from all stakeholders and striving to meet the underlying needs of all concerned. Rich DeBoer of ADOT presented a brief history of the work that has been done up to this point and Berwyn Wilbrink of Sverdrup presented an overview of the major elements of the Study Scope of Work and the various deliverables that will be developed. The group then worked together to create a Partnering Agreement for the Study Steering Committee. Beginning with a draft Mission Statement, the members went on to refine the wording of the mission until it met its intended purpose. We began to develop a set of goals and objectives for the Charter, but ran short of time. The group decided to let the Steering Committee complete the goals at their first meeting. The final Partnering Agreement will then be shared with all stakeholders. The Mission Statement and initial goals may be found in the next section of this report. Following lunch, we continued with a discussion of the Study Process and how all stakeholders would be involved. Bert Bertleson presented a model for the process, which was discussed and approved. The group agreed that if changes need to be made to the model once the Study begins, there is opportunity for that. They then developed the membership for the Steering Committee. Criteria used for selection included: · Keep the number to a workable size (not more than 15) · Members must be committed to regular attendance for a two year period · Members will be communication channels and representatives for their respective constituencies, solicit and share information with other related stakeholders, and must be willing to develop recommendations that are for the greater good of the community. Click Steering Committee for a list of members. Throughout the day, a number of issues were identified that warrant further work by the Steering Committee and the Study Team. These items were also documented and may be found in the final section of the report. Two items normally developed during a Partnering session are the Issue Resolution Process and the Partnering Evaluation Process. Due to time limitations, these items were delegated to the Steering Committee to complete at their first meeting. We did discuss the Issue Resolution process and how disagreements within the Steering Committee must be resolved on a consensus basis as much as possible. The government agencies responsible for making final decisions on the Corridor Study have the official authority for resolving disputes. The Steering Committee can only recommend, so a teamwork approach will be vital to its success. The workshop concluded with final remarks and a written evaluation of the meeting. The first meeting of the Steering Committee is scheduled for March 1, 1999, from 1:00-5:00 pm, in the Wickenburg Council Chamber. The meeting will be facilitated by Russ Hanson and the agenda is to complete the Partnering Agreement and develop the remaining elements of the Partnership. Workshop Evaluation Summary: Overall Rating of the Effectiveness of the Workshop: 4.0 out of 5 Of most value: · We achieved the primary goals; agreeing on study process and forming the Steering Committee. The group began to pick up on the value of Partnering · Informative · Meeting all the key players · Understanding better what was done in past · Appreciate early involvement · The presentation on process and development of the Mission Statement · The ability of the facilitator to bring together group with such obvious differences · Having a facilitator to keep group focused and discussing differences professionally · Learning how Partnering works · The candor of the people; the interplay of ideas · The visual presentation of the Study process · Working on the trust issue · Interaction with others · Getting Steering Committee membership outlined · Seeing individuals begin to develop communication lines · Providing a venue for all to be heard; beginning a process to renew trust Suggested improvements: · Adjust order of agenda to present study process before Mission & Goals · Less aggressive agenda; tried to accomplish too much in one day · Needed more time for questions and issue discussion · Keep the coffee hot! · Knowing reasons why alternative bypass routes were rejected · Fewer side conversations · More opportunity for input · If we had time to complete charter with entire group; final product may have been better · Get more consensus · Having someone representing the entire corridor, not just bypass area · If you were able to eliminate the "past history" hang-up · Having a 1½ day session to complete entire process · Should have concluded on a more positive note Facilitator Effectiveness: 4.2 out of 5 Other Comments: · Building trust with the local citizens is going to be an uphill battle · Russ keeps things rolling & on schedule - good job! · Good location and environment for meeting · Good session · Compliments to the host facility! · Excellent presentation by Sverdrup · Keep the information flowing as soon as it is available; internet connection should be very valuable · Great job with a difficult group. This was new territory and you did an excellent job of leading us through the process · ADOT and Sverdrup still need to gain the trust of the group · BOOT members dominate the Steering Committee. Should be more balance. · Don't underestimate the difficulty overcoming problems lingering from what happened in the past with local community. Providing public info. about past decisions will help greatly PARTNERING AGREEMENT US 93, Wickenburg to Santa Maria River Corridor Study Mission: As Partners of the US 93 -- Wickenburg to Santa Maria Study Steering Committee, we commit to creating a positive working relationship and an effective, rational process for identifying and evaluating all interim and ultimate corridor alternatives (including the Wickenburg Bypass). Our process will strive to be inclusive and well coordinated so that everyone's needs are considered. Our recommendations will be in the best collective interest of all stakeholders and the community at large. We set forth the following goals: 1. COMMUNICATION · Provide continuous communication with the public and stakeholder groups § Share results of surveys as soon as information becomes available § Use all media available to disseminate information · Provide consistent messages, both into and out of the Steering Committee · Establish key points of contact for communication · Develop effective communication processes within the Committee · Provide interactive communication processes; e.g. web site with e-mail response 2. BUILD CONSENSUS · Clearly identify all issues and gain all perspectives · Ensure all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate · Stick to issues, not personalities · Search for common ground (Remainder to be completed by Steering Committee) ISSUES AND ACTION PLANS Following are some of the issues identified at the Partnering session that were discussed, but not resolved or that require future action. 1. Labeling on Maps A request was made to label certain key landmarks and properties on all future map displays of the study area. These include: · Vulture Peak · Rincon Ranch · Wickenburg Inn · Flying E Ranch 2. Alternative Alignments Eliminated from the Study There was considerable discussion about the 30 or so alternative bypass alignments that were eliminated from the current study during the earlier phase of analysis. The major issue is that the community has not heard the reasons why these were eliminated and why the two corridors presented at the Partnering meeting were selected. Many of the citizen groups expressed their reluctance to commit to future work until this question is answered. ACTION: ADOT will prepare a response that explains the reasons why the other alignments were not selected for this study and present them to the Steering Committee. 3. Definition of Stakeholders There was considerable discussion during the development of the Mission Statement about the meaning of certain words. When it came to identifying who the Steering Committee was "representing" in its efforts, the list included terms like community, community at large, user groups, landowners, agencies, stakeholders, the traveling public, etc. The group agreed to simply use the term "stakeholders" as an all inclusive term, rather than creating a long list in the Mission Statement. Additionally, during the creation of the Steering Committee membership, we tried to keep the membership small enough to be an effective working group, but large enough to cover this broad spectrum of stakeholders. As such, members of the committee will be representing the interests of more than just their immediate "organizational" affiliation. Other groups mentioned that need to have their concerns included in the study process are: · Local ranchers (Cattleman's Association) · Truckers · Guest ranches · Other clubs and associations that may be affected by the corridor decision · Schools · Emergency services · Game & Fish (will be called in as needed) · BLM (will be called in as needed) The Steering Committee will work to solicit input from these other groups and to share information with them. 4. Completion of the Partnering Process Work remains to complete the goals and objectives for the Partnering Agreement, develop the Committee's Issue Resolution Process and its Partnering Evaluation Process. ACTION: Sverdrup has scheduled the first Steering Committee meeting for March 1, 1999, from 1:00-5:00 pm, in the Wickenburg Council Chamber to finish this work. The agenda will include: · Complete Partnering Agreement -- Goals and Objectives · Define Steering Committee member roles and responsibilities · Establish Ground Rules for the Steering Committee · Agree on Decision Making/Issue Resolution process · Develop the Partnering Evaluation Process |
|
