Date:	28 March 1999
To:	University Community Stakeholders
From:	Sounding Board Participants 3.27.99 Kristie Langlow, Facilitator
Re:	Convening a Community-based Forum

On Saturday, February 27 about 40 people interested in the future of the University District met to learn about projects underway in the area and how other neighborhoods are monitoring the implementation of their plans. The group then discussed posssible strategies for responding to the 60+ projects anticipated for the University Community over the next several years. The group agreed to meet a second time, and several individuals prepared suggestions for how best to proceed.

At the second Sounding Board on Saturday, March 27, the group based its discussion on several of those ideas. The following summary is an effort to capture the agreements that emerged.

Goals:

• Make the University District a premier place to live and work
• Support, don't supplant, existing community organizations
• Keep the UCUC work alive

Needs:

• Ensure that the City and other agencies fulfill their promises.*
• Provide a focal point for promoting cooperation between agencies and between the public and private sectors.
• Encourage projects that improve the UCUC and try to modify (or stop) projects that do not.
• Supply oversight for UCUC plan implementation.
• Assume fiscal responsibility to raise funds, apply for grants, pay for mailings.*
• Serve as a forum to address issues.*
• Facilitate accurate, timely communication.*
• Respond to Sound Transit and other transportation issues.
• Supply notification for the whole community.*

Note: those items marked with an * were identified as "hopes."

Recommendations:

As a first step toward filling those needs, the group agreed to convene an Ad Hoc Forum on Saturday, April 24^th from noon to 3 p.m. at University Heights. That forum was described as being:

• An unofficial sounding board
• With representation from all four categories of stakeholders
• Neighborhood
• UW
• Social Services
• Business
• That is open to all, including individuals who are unaffiliated.
• But has no formal existence, structure or Board.
• This forum meets quarterly or as needed for information sharing and dialogue
• It has no official commenting capacity but offers the opportunity to form coalitions around issues.
• It allows for differences of opinion and may result in multiple positions

Proposed Participants included:

Neighborhood Groups:

• Roosevelt Neighbors Alliance
• University District Community Council
• University Park Community Club
• Ravenna-Bryant Community Association
• Ravenna Springs Community Group
• Ravenna Urban Village
• Friends of Brooklyn
• Montlake Community Club
• Portage Bay/Roanoke Community Club
• Wallingford
• Eastlake
• Laurelhurst Community Club
• Roosevelt Neighborhood Association

Proposed Business Community Groups:

• Greater University Chamber of Commerce
• University District Parking Association
• North University Way Association
• University Village
• University District Business Improvement Association
• Ave Group
• University Heights

University of Washington:

• Administration
• Faculty Senate
• ASUW Board of Control
• GPSS

Social Services:

• Church Community
• Partnership for Youth
• University District Service League

Discussion Summary:

As the group workded out the recommendation to convene an ad hoc Forum, the following observations were made:

1. The City wants citizens involved in solving difficult problems. When citizens say, "This is what we think will work best," that opinion drives decisions. When there are 12 different voices, the City decides.
2. What are the roles of existing groups?
• NEDC?     Approving neighborhood matching grants. Doesn't focus on U District.
• CUCAC?     A limited mission - formed to advise the City and UW on UW's physical planning.
• Conclusion:     Existing groups are too narrowly focused.
3. There is a lack of trust between the four major categories of stakeholders, but it is important to get all major stakeholders involved. Creating trust will be essential for a group of this nature. Residential areas will need representation.
4. Having small groups focus on specific implementation of the UCUC plan seems useful. Sound Transit and the UW will set up their own advisory groups.
5. Implementing the UCUC plan will depend on interaction with other groups such as Sound Transit, the UW.
6. Duplication of responsibilities may be a problem.

AGREEMENTS:

The Greater University District Chamber will convene the Forum with the assistance of advisors Neil, Eileen, John, Julian and Bridgett. The planners will confirm space, time, agenda, and presenters.

Suggestions for the initial agenda included:

• City actions to date.
• Sound Transit
• How the UW will work with the community
• Community liaison for major projects

# # #