National Park Service, Department of Interior Image with Arrowhead ParknetLinks to Pastcontact Title Image entitled Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program, Preserving America's Heritage
home link imageprogram description link imagegrants/cost-share link imagecurrent news link imageconferences/training linkconferences/training link imagepublications link imagelinks link imageroute 66 map link imagecontact us link image

 

MINUTES OF THE
ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR PRESERVATION PROGRAM
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
November 8-9, 2006


Introduction

The Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program Advisory Council met at the Best Western Saddleback Inn in Oklahoma City, OK, on November 8-9, 2006.

Members present were:

John Murphey, Chairman
David Knudson
Jim Ross
David Dunaway
Maryann Naber
Gregory Smith
Michael Jackson
David Bricker
Tommy Pike
Michael Wallis
Melvena Heisch
Phyllis Seitts
Carolyn Pendelton
Jim Conkle

National Park Service (NPS) personnel in attendance:

Jere Krakow, Superintendent
Michael Taylor, Program Manager, Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
Kaisa Barthuli, Deputy Program Manager, Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
Josina Martinez, Recorder

 

Day 1, November 8

Meeting was called to order by Chairman Murphey, who noted some slight changes to the agenda.

Ms. Heisch noted that during the public comment period on Thursday, three or four people would attend the meeting, including Pat Smith from the Clinton Route 66 Museum, Fay Culver from the Miami Main Street Program, and Pamela Lewis from the Oklahoma Scenic Byways Program.

Ms. Heisch welcomed the group on behalf of the Governor, and the Oklahoma Historical Commission. She advised that group that on November 9, the State of Oklahoma would be kicking off their centennial celebration in Tulsa. She invited all to participate in events throughout the year and discussed the importance of Route 66 in this celebration. This past year, along with Preservation Oklahoma, they listed the Miami Route 66 roadbed (sidewalk highway) on Oklahoma’s most endangered places list. This year they will focus on motels on the Route.

Chairman Murphey introduced Jere Krakow, Superintendent of the NPS Intermountain Region trails program. Mr. Krakow welcomed the members to the meeting on behalf of the NPS and emphasized the importance of the Council to Route 66. He advised the Council that the new Director of the NPS, Mary Bomar is familiar with Route 66. In her first letters to all employees she mentioned that she herself has experienced Route 66. He told the group that out of 15 national historic trails in the NPS system, the Santa Fe and Salt Lake City offices that he supervises work with nine of those trails. The Route 66 program has been very successful and there is concern about the sunset of the program in 2009. On behalf of the NPS, he asked the members to let him know if there was any way he could assist the Council.

Chairman Murphey stated that in September he gave a talk to international preservationists in Santa Fe. During the question and answer period, people were very unsympathetic about Route 66. They felt that Americans only care about one road, and are letting the rest of the highway culture deteriorate.


Chairman’s Report

Chairman Murphey distributed a chairman’s report and discussed it (see attached). The Preserving Historic Roads Conference was held last year in April in Boston. The next one will be in Albuquerque. This conference has a high profile and he would like to showcase Route 66 in the southwest. This will be a good venue to bring attention to Route 66 and the Federal Advisory Council.

The movie Cars has brought a great deal attention to Route 66. Mr. Wallis said there was talk of a sequel to the movie which would enhance publicity for the road. The movie brought a great deal of publicity to the road, even before the premier. It has helped business along the Route. With the release of the DVD, there has been another flurry of interest. Mr. Conkle noted that in September they were at the Mother Road Festival in Missouri and Mr. Wallis was asked to sign over 1,500 autographs.

The 5th Route 66 International Festival held in Albuquerque was organized by the Route 66 Preservation Foundation and the New Mexico Route 66 Association, and included the Route 66 summit. A person representing each Route 66 state gave an update of progress along the road. Much of the talk at the summit was about motels. A great deal of interest was shown in the Horn Oil property in Albuquerque and it was hoped that because of this interest, the property would be saved. Unfortunately, this did not happen and it is scheduled for demolition. The El Vado, also in Albuquerque, is under consideration by the city preservation board for demolition and could also be lost. Chairman Murphey would like to discuss the role of the Program in preserving these motels, which are under great threat.

Several national register nominations have been funded by NPS. One of the nominations is for the Algodones stretch of Route 66. The state highway department is looking to widen this stretch. The federal register nomination may help preserve this part of the road.

Chairman Murphey discussed Mr. Taylor’s and Ms. Barthuli’s roles in the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program. Mr. Taylor has been given the additional responsibility as point of contact for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro and is now only spending about 70% of his time on Route 66. Mr. Murphey said it is their responsibility to help Mr. Taylor and Ms. Barthuli prioritize their work as much as possible.

Mr. Dunaway asked if some time could be allotted for the subcommittees to meet individually, perhaps during lunch. In the future, it would be desirable to have time allotted for committee meetings. Mr. Murphey agreed that that is a valid request, but due to the tight schedule was not permissible this time. Committee meetings will be considered for next meeting.


Report by the Designated Federal Official (Taylor)

Mr. Taylor welcomed the group again. He reminded the members of their role and thanked them for their participation. He also thanked Ms. Heisch for her hospitality and for the welcome packets. He briefly reviewed the program’s activities since the first council meeting in February. Staff did not travel as much this year, but were able to visit all states except Kansas. Staff also went to Washington, D.C. where they met with NPS personnel dealing with National Register and HABS/HAER. They also met with congressional delegations to provide a status of the program, and discussed the sunset of the program in 2009. Congresswoman Wilson’s office, New Mexico, indicated interest in being the lead on a bill for reauthorization. Mr. Knudson said that Senators Bingaman and Domenici could also take up the issue if necessary.

Mr. Taylor provided the Council members with several handouts including a program priority list and update, white paper, status report update, and cost share projects funded to date.

In fiscal year 2006, 13 cost share applications were received for consideration. Seven of those projects were funded. The total amount funded was $117,000. The projects funded this year include: Palms Grill Café, Atlanta, IL; Walter’s Market, St Louis, MO; Independent Oil and Gas/Phillips 66 Gas Station, Baxter Springs, KS; Vickery Phillips 66 Station, Tulsa, OK; Tower Theater, Oklahoma City, OK; Joe and Aggie’s Café, Holbrook, AZ; and Winslow Historical Society Archives, Winslow, AZ.

Mr. Taylor reviewed the program task priority list and said they hoped to accomplish many of these items in the following year. Money to accomplish these items will have to be taken from the grant program.

1. Michael Cassity prepared the national historic context for Route 66. However, it is not in the required MPDF (Multiple Property Documentation Form) format for the National Register. Many of the states already have state historical contexts in place. The nominations prepared to date have been able to go in under those state contexts, but some states (California, Missouri, Arizona) do not have state contexts which makes it very difficult for the nominations to be officially listed on the National Register. What needs to be done is to fold the national context into a MPDF. It should be done by the end of the calendar year. Mr. Conkle asked if they would receive copies of the finalized MPDF. Mr. Taylor said the easiest way to make it available would be on the website. Hard copies of the context in its existing format were distributed to members via mail prior to the meeting. Ms. Naber said the context contains all the information he would need for public presentations. Mr. Jackson asked if this would give the route national significance.

2. The tourism/economic impact RFP (Request for Proposals) was one of the main recommendations from the February meeting. How many people are traveling Route 66 and how much money is being spent?

3. A survey of museum/visitor centers needs to be conducted. Having an inventory would help guide communities/others who are considering opening additional museums/visitor centers. Is there repetition? Are there too many? There are also a number of visitor centers and museums that need curatorial assistance. A determination must be made as to what condition those collections are in, and to assess the type of interpretation being done.

4. Evaluate cost share grant program effectiveness. Based on resolution that Dr. Dunaway prepared, NPS staff contacted past grant recipients as to whether the technical assistance received has been beneficial or not. They received less than a 50% response so far.

5. Oral history repository meeting. Dr. Dunaway’s involvement has been very beneficial. A lot has been gained from his oral history workshops. The next step is to bring together a meeting of representatives from each of the repositories from all the states. A determination must be made as to what to do with the information that has been gathered, and how to develop a coordinated, national program of Route 66 oral history. Dr. Dunaway has been asked to help with this at a cost of $13,000, mostly for travel for the various representatives.

6. Web site package. If the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program sunsets in 2009, where will all the hard copy information be kept? How can the public still have access to this information? How can they leave a tangible resource for the public? The website currently does this, but it needs a lot of work.

7. Develop accountability measures. How many buildings and road segments are National Register eligible? How many are threatened? What has the program done to help alleviate these preservation concerns? This information is necessary to help determine if reauthorization is justified.

8. Capacity building of nonprofit organizations, local communities, etc. to sustain program’s preservation efforts. This issue is very important on two levels. First, the NPS working with other governmental/organizational entities can leverage existing expertise for training. Secondly, would the Council recommend that the program provide funding to each state association for training?

9. Program personnel have been working with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) on inventory data. Each state has a different method of collecting data. The program wants to bring all data into a single database and make it accessible. An intern was hired last year to do this. There are some problems with merging the data from the different SHPO databases, but all the data is now in one electronic database. Ultimately, the data could be made accessible online. A print-out was provided of the type of information available from the database (Route 66 Database Query). The next step is to look at continuing development of the database and making it available online. It is thought that this will be mostly done in-house.

10. Survey data integrity. Program staff is looking at ways of improving the integrity of the existing information. For example, they need to resurvey Illinois and fill in the gaps. Also need to work with each state to update and improve the information collected.

11. At the last meeting, a strong message was given that educational opportunities about Route 66 should be improved, perhaps by developing curriculum through the Teaching with Historic Places (TWHP) program. This is geared for elementary through high school students. Staff has talked with the TWHP NPS Washington office to develop this program.

12. National register itinerary website development. This past year, the program had a volunteer who was developing narratives on National Register sites. A historian was hired on a temporary basis this past summer to complete more narratives. The next step is to package them into a website. The NPS National Register Program usually does this. However due to changes in the National Register Program, the Route 66 Program would need to provide $10,000 in funding to accomplish this. We have the information; it just needs to be put it into web format.

13. Documentation Protocol. Program personnel have worked with the University of New Mexico and HABS/HAER (Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record) to teach a class to produce a documentation package of how sites can be preserved through documentation. This will be submitted to the Library of Congress. It will be on-line as a model project. The program and UNM are now considering a similar project to document a cultural landscape. The documentation packet could be taken to potential funders to consider a large scale project along the route.

14. Implement publicity plan priorities. The subcommittee will report on this.

15. Fundraising and donations. Mr. Taylor advised the Council that the NPS can establish an account to receive donations; however these then become federal funds. A better way might be for a “friends” organization which could solicit and receive donations.

16. The estimated cost of the FACA meeting is about $8,000. Mr. Conkle stated that this is not a cost, but rather an investment.

17. Springfield was the first official summit meeting. Mr. Ross stated that the meeting at the George Brooks Café in 1996 was the first non-official summit. These meetings have grown considerably. In Albuquerque, Mr. Taylor moderated and had about 40-60 people attending at different times. These meetings are by invitation and include many of the “movers and shakers” on the route. How should these be organized in the future? Should results be recorded? There was a lot of good information disseminated at the meeting. Mr. Conkle said that important decisions were made and facts shared and he would like to see it become more official. Mr. Pike stated that on the road there was as much misinformation as there is good information, but the summit provides a way to get good information which is not embellished by personal opinion. This information is valuable because it comes from people who are involved in the road. Mr. Knudson asked if attendance was limited to four members per association. There were others who entered, but it was controlled. It was suggested there should have been more congressional and government involvement. Dr. Krakow stated that he felt that a summary of the meeting would be better than actual minutes since the summit does not represent an organization. Mr. Ross asked that if a summary was created of the summit meetings, would it be just for participants or distributed on a wider scope. It was suggested that the summary could be placed on the e-group to inform everyone about what takes place at the meetings.

18. The program will be submitting a nomination of Route 66 to the World Monuments Fund 100 Most-Endangered Sites List. If listed, this will provide great national and international exposure of the preservation challenges Route 66 faces. It may also provide funding opportunities through the World Monuments Fund. If the program were to receive funding, it would need to be decided how the funding would be used. (Postnote: a nomination was submitted in January, 2007 citing survey and database development as a primary funding priority).

19. The program will be involved with planning the 2008 Historic Roads Conference scheduled for September, 2008 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The program will co-sponsor with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, the New Mexico Department of Transportation and Paul Daniel Marriott and Associates. The emphasis of this conference is how to take care of the roadbed. This is a wonderful opportunity to emphasize Route 66. Mr. Conkle stated that September is the busiest month of the year for Route 66 activities.

20. Sunset or reauthorization. Reauthorization should not be a goal. If there is a need to continue to accomplish goals, they can look at reauthorization. It was reiterated that it’s improper for a federal advisory council to lobby Congress for reauthorization.

Committee Reports

After a short break, the meeting reconvened. The Chairman asked that committee reports be presented by the each chairperson.

Chairman Murphey then noted that he had neglected to ask for introductions at the beginning of the meeting. He asked each person to identify themselves and who they represented.

Accountability and Measurement Committee
The first committee report was presented by David Knudson and Jim Ross. Their committee was accountability and measurement, trying to determine the effect of tourism on Route 66. Rutgers University has conducted this type of study in the past. Program staff is in negotiation with Rutgers to develop a Scope of Work to do such a study. Rutgers has proposed that its Center for Urban Policy Research will conduct an assessment of the numbers of tourists traveling Route 66 and a socio economic impact of the tourism. NPS will provide $30,000 to conduct the study; the National Trust for Historic Preservation will tentatively provide $5,000, and Rutgers will match the amount with in-kind contributions. The project will consist of two phases. The first will be determining the number of tourists traveling the highway. These individuals will also be identified by state/country of origin. Phase I should be completed by March 2007 (Postnote: as of Feb 27, 2007, the RFP has yet to be awarded. Staff is collecting preliminary information from readily available sources to make available to the contractor before contract is let).

Phase 2 will be the socio-economic data analysis. Mr. Taylor added that Rutgers has tentatively approved a draft scope of work for this. Phase II should be completed by March 2008. The scheduling will most likely change based on when the agreement is signed by NPS and Rutgers. Mr. Taylor distributed a copy of a Rutgers study about the economic impact of tourism and historic preservation in Missouri. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and Melvena Heisch had recommended Rutgers to Program staff earlier. Mr. Conkle asked if the other funding sources were guaranteed. Mr. Ross stated that because of Rutgers reputation and past performance on such studies, this will give the advisory council, decision makers, and the public credible, hard data on the road. Mr. Ross and Mr. Knudson will try to get copies of the visitor lists from the museums and visitor centers. Mr. Wallis said that there could be a great deal of redundancy on the lists.

Dr. Dunaway said it was important to understand that when contracting with a university, there will be overhead costs involved. There should be a breakdown by the university of how the money will actually be spent. They need to make sure that included in Phase 1 is at least one set of sample interviews with people and that they do not just compile data already collected. Ensure that the research is based on actual road work. Dr. Krakow asked if Rutgers will be looking at the multiplier affect? Ms. Naber asked if this cost would come out of one year’s funding. Mr. Taylor replied that it would. Rutgers is aware of the minimal amount of funding available. They are interested in doing the work. Mr. Taylor’s feeling is that whatever agreement is entered into will result in a good product.

Dr. Dunaway stated that there are two earlier such studies which have been done. One is a 1957 study at Missouri State University (master’s thesis: “Roadside utilization along selected bypass sites: US Route 66 in Illinois,” Leonard Hodgman). The Mojave Miner (Kingman) did a preliminary survey of who was traveling the road in 1937. He said he could probably get a copy of these two surveys.

Mr. Ross stated that Rutgers has provided a link to past studies they have accomplished. Mr. Conkle asked if they have done projects dealing with linear projects. Mr. Jackson has worked with them before and has confidence in their work. The cost of putting people on the street to do survey would be costly. Perhaps the local associations could do this; given the questionnaire/format and sent out to survey visitors. This would be more cost effective. Interpreting the data is not a problem. Mr. Knudson said that this would be an ideal topic for the summit committee. He also stated that there was an additional public relations benefit. Mr. Conkle suggested Mr. Ross write an article advertising this initiative to prompt businesses along the Route to become involved. Dr. Krakow stated that since the NPS will be the contracting office, the recovery of costs from chambers of commerce, tourism departments, etc. would be prohibited. The information gathered in this study will become public domain. Chairman Murphey asked what the next step would be. The rough draft of a scope of work will be fleshed out. Mr. Taylor will refine the scope of work. Chairman Murphey asked for a vote or approval recommending that they move forward with this. Mr. Conkle so moved; seconded by Ms. Pendleton. Implement the program conditional on everyone seeing the revised scope of work. All in favor; none opposed.

Mr. Wallis indicated that he has met with Thrifty Car Rental company, and they are showing interest in Route 66. National Car Rental is looking at taking out full page ads in major outlets. Companies could/should offer a Route 66 package.

Education and Outreach Committee
Greg Smith addressed the group. His committee was tasked with developing program priorities on education and outreach. Promotion of the history of Route 66, education for property owners regarding the local, state and federal programs to assist in preservation. He said this dovetailed with the 20 points already made. It is essential for the next 3 years to work directly with as many property owners as possible. This is in line with number 6 on the priority list. We need to develop a way to continue to provide and disseminate information. There are many stand-alone museums, visitor centers, etc along the road. Committee members would be interested in seeing how exactly Route 66 history is integrated with local museum and agencies. We need a comprehensive list of organizations and groups along the road and to keep and maintain a list of all historical organizations at the local level for which Route 66 may play a part in how they tell local history. Program staff is working with National Register of Historic Places to create a teaching with historic places program.

There is a need for education of property owners. A lot of people live and work on the road. They may have heard of state and national organizations but do not know what the details regarding preservation programs and which ones would be beneficial to them. This gap needs to be bridged. Property owners need to understand the National Register and federal tax programs. They are property owners, not preservationists; they need to have this information.

Chairman Murphey asked what the medium for this assistance package would be. Mr. Smith stated it would be hard copy and electronic copy. Each SHPO is going to have this information online. The key is linking the information already available to Route 66. Bring them into the preservation community. Ms. Naber asked if this is something that could be incorporated into some type of handout that could be provided to property owners listing the resources available to help. It will be more successful with us going to them, rather than them coming to us.

Mr. Taylor said that this is exactly what they encounter when they go on the road. Many of the associations don’t know where to find these resources. We have gotten a lot of properties placed on National Register program, but what comes next? They don’t know what to do. We must contact the property owners and explain and make them aware of what this means. The kind of property owners are that segment of business owners that can really use assistance in making them aware of financial services, tax credits, grants. Ms. Barthuli asked about working with associations to fund training so that association members can become familiar with resources available to property owners and to public advocates, can we provide workshops. There are many different approaches to consider. Mr. Jackson said the Main Street Program has already established this type of training but that it is very costly. As a technical assistance component, the Main Street model works.

Chairman Murphey stated that New Mexico has a tax credit program. They are working to educate individuals on how to use these resources. Case studies are important to see how others used the process. Mr. Jackson said that there’s a new preservation brief for gas stations.

Ms. Heisch gave examples of some projects in Oklahoma that are following these programs. Oftentimes, filling out forms is daunting. And they are often reluctant to sign forms, even if they receive help in filling it out. Mr. Pike stated that the paperwork involved is intimidating to most people. Ms. Heisch noted that federal tax credit paperwork is not hard, just time consuming. Sometimes there is a knowledge gap. Her office works with people everyday to help them complete this paperwork. Unfortunately, the individuals seeking assistance have to come in for help because she does not have staff to do the outreach. They do workshops on tax credits, walking people through the form, trying to provide the opportunity but it’s hard to get people to come. Mr. Jackson asked if there is a way to develop someone in each advocacy group in each state? Some people might be more open to having an intermediary. Chairman Murphey asked for a motion to accept the report of the committee. Ms. Heisch so moved; it was seconded and approved by the entire group.

Break for lunch.

Preservation Management Committee
The next committee report was given by Mr. Bricker. He, Chairman Murphey and Ms. Heisch serve this committee. He distributed copies of the committee’s mission statement and goals (see attachment). Eight goals have been established. They are goals that the committee felt were achievable and that they felt would help guide the program. The first two goals deal with resources and information gathering. What are the resources, why are they significant? Those are two areas they are trying to get a handle on, trying to identify resources that have not yet been identified. Goals 3-8 are tools that are trying to provide sustainability for the program. They include identifying existing corridor management plans and threats to the road, not only for private property owners, but also for the actual highway. Maintenance becomes an issue when you have more people using the highway. With more people visiting, how do you not diminish the resources? When you look at other historic facilities, how are they dealt with? Apply the same to the road.

Goal #7 deals with the overall aspect of management assistance as linked to a corridor management plan. Basically we must insure that the byways integrity is not diminished; that the resource is retained in perpetuity.

Goal #8 is to identify preservation tools and basic guidance for use by Route 66 owners and managers, a directory of financial and technical assistance. Is there anything else that could also be provided to help? There are certain links that have already been identified by the education committee. Some goals have already been completed as noted on the NPS priority project list.

Mr. Murphey had sent out a questionnaire to each SHPO to gather more information to assist in meeting goals. He feels that we really needed to get an assessment as to where we are in the area of documentation. He reviewed a few of the comments that have been received from different states. How many resources have been lost? How many Route 66 resources are listed on the National Register? What approximate percentage does this represent overall? There are major gaps in statistics between different states. What is the priority of Route 66 work in each SHPO? It seems to be at the mid-point, most are interested in surveying Route 66, but it is not a major goal of the office. Are departments of transportation sympathetic to preserving Route 66 resources? This varies from state to state. Are there management plans outside of state and federal resources? No Route 66 specific plans were identified. What are the greatest threats to Route 66 resources – private property owner rights. There are no identified financial incentives at the local level. Has your agency ever received complaints that Route 66 has received more attention than other roads? Some states have, some have not. He hopes to use this information to give the NPS direction in what the gaps are in surveying Route 66 resources.

Aside from Oklahoma, Kansas, and parts of Arizona, road bed surveys have not been accomplished. Mr. Ross stated that the Oklahoma roadbed survey was done with a grant from the NPS through the Oklahoma SHPO. Could other states use this method? You can’t really know what resources exist until you know where the road is. The actual roadbed must be identified. Mr. Wallis stated that resources include man-made and natural sites. Right now, they are just looking at the man-made. Do the resources have to be from a certain time period, i.e., 1926 on? Would architecture from late 19th century on Route 66 be included? Chairman Murphey stated that that type of architecture would be included if it had some Route 66 connection. Mr. Wallis asked about former sites that no longer exist. In the Texas survey these types of archaeological resources were taken into consideration, but this was not true in all states. Most natural sites were not included.

Dr. Dunaway said that cultural resources such as oral histories and vertical files about Route 66 must also be considered. There is a 350 page database of all this type of information held locally on Route 66 from Los Angeles to Chicago and this is available on CD-ROM and in time it will be on the program website. The database provides a printout of what Dr. Dunaway has surveyed in every single library and historical society in each state. He has been working to build these types of archival collections and channel donations to repositories.

Mr. Seitts asked Chairman Murphey if they could receive copies of the state’s responses to his questionnaire. What do you conceive to be the natural landscapes/landmarks that contribute to Route 66? Mr. Taylor said they try to merge the people with the cultural resources. What impact has man had on the physical landscape? There is documentation of cultural resources and the engineering of the road. How do we document the natural landscape? Mr. Pike said there needs to be something in the scenic byway program that addresses a 20th century scenic byway. It currently does not fit Route 66. Mr. Bricker said one of the areas of integrity that needs to be looked at is setting, in and outside the historic property. The relationship with landscape is there. Dr. Krakow asked for the definition of the road prism. Ms. Naber said it was the engineered part of the road. Mr. Wallis asked how far off the actual road do we go and what defines the corridor? Mr. Taylor stated that in order for a property to be eligible to receive funds from the program, it must be adjacent to Route 66 or visible from it. Directly and indirectly associated resources qualify for program funding. Direct resources would be motels, cafes, gas stations. Indirect resources would be public buildings and other buildings indirectly used during the period of significance for Route 66. If a historic site or attraction wasn’t on the actual route but was a destination on Route 66 then should it be considered a Route 66 resource?

Mr. Knudson discussed the concept of “loving our history to death.” There are problems where the resource is being damaged by overexposure, such as the Miami sidewalk highway. He discussed the idea of placing signs declaring that it is a valuable piece of road, but this could attract more people to the site, and lead to even more damage.

Mr. Bricker stated that in addition to Mr. Murphey’s survey, he did research on scenic byways. In 2006, half of the Route 66 states (Arizona, Illinois, Missouri, and New Mexico) received funding through the national scenic byway program. Perhaps the Council can facilitate the NPS role in this process. Nonprofits and government agencies must do the nomination for funding and it must be a state scenic byway first.

Motion to accept the report was made by Mr. Pike. Mr. Wallis seconded. No opposition.

Publicity Committee
Dr. Dunaway presented the mission statement of Group #4 which is to promote public understanding of the Route 66 preservation program and Route 66 in general; to make the public aware of the partnerships within Route 66 communities; to publicize accomplishments of the program.

The committee has met three times, beginning with the summit. They started out to evaluate the publicity plan, and before they could begin to evaluate the many projects and processes, they realized that the most immediate and pressing need was to focus on the 80th anniversary. As chair of the committee, Dr. Dunaway has been working closely with Ms. Barthuli to prepare a media initiative to meet those goals. They have worked to set up nine press releases; one covers the county and the program, and the other eight target each state reminding the media of some of the highpoints. Although they thought they would receive a great deal of support from NPS media specialists, this did not happened because they were shorthanded and the work fell to Ms. Barthuli who sent out a number of press releases electronically. (Postnote: The release was picked up by the Associated Press, resulting in more than 18 newspapers, 14 television stations and 1 radio station publishing/airing the press release.)

Two items need to be addressed. First in order to approach media, you need an effective media list. Without NPS support, they received a review of materials and a press list, but individualizing and fine tuning that list needs to be shared. Second there are no staff resources within the program dedicated to press relations. Because of that, there was no one to help Ms. Barthuli follow up in reaching out to media organizations. This is an elaborate process. There are five designated areas; newspapers magazines, television, radio, and internet. Each one must be approached with a separate packet.

One goal was to develop a press kit to go out on the 80th anniversary. Because of limited resources, they sent out press releases electronically. As the media responded, it was planned to distribute press kits upon request. It is very labor intensive to work with media.

The committee discussed the possibility of developing a support strategy for local organizations. One idea is to set up a workshop on press relations at the next summit. Almost every association is represented. A short workshop could include subjects such as development of a speakers bureau, working with radio v.s. television, etc. One of the best ways to publicize Route 66 and the program would involve publicity around local sites.

Next steps to take:

Review the publicity plan and prioritize short and long term. This process has already begun.

Develop a workshop on media for next summit

Develop a sample press kit and protocol for the workshop.

Recruit an intern to work with the program in the area of website development. This can possibly be done through various departments at UNM. Provide short profiles on Advisory Council members; expand and target the media lists; circulate current lists and ask for input from Council members regarding their areas. Individualize by state, region, and locality. Mr. Wallis said all members can assist in getting this information publicized locally. The media list will be sent to all members along with all the press releases. They can then forward to members of the press. Everything needs to go through the NPS. When speaking to a reporter, the NPS Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program should be mentioned, and the phone number provided.

Mr. Ross asked if there is a timeline when they anticipate having a press kit. Dr. Dunaway and Ms. Barthuli have already developed a press kit and it’s moving along. Mr. Conkle said that there are things discussed during the Council meetings which should be included in the press releases.

Mr. Knudson has a good media list of Route 66 television stations, newspapers, and radio stations. It is reasonably accurate. Beyond that Standard Rate and Data Services publishes a monthly series of directories of media. The cost is about $300/year and includes all newspapers, television stations, cable, and magazines. Bacon’s Information Inc. also provides media lists. It’s important to remember that personal/local connections to reporters is important, but also that there is a great deal of turnover in media personnel.

Ms. Seitts said that she serves as the Designated Federal Official for a Department of Agriculture/Department of Interior Advisory Council and at the end of every meeting they have a press release prepared which is widely spread. We should give a history of the Route 66 Advisory Council, who the members are, and who they represent. It must be timely.

Dr. Dunaway made a motion to send the media list to the members. Mr. Knudson seconded and it was passed.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm. for the field trip to the Tower Theatre and Owl Courts.

 

Day 2 , November 9

The meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m.

The meeting began with the public comment period as required by FACA.

Pamela Lewis provides program support for the Oklahoma byways program, which is being administered by the University of Oklahoma. In January, working with the Oklahoma Route 66 Association, they received a state byway designation. They are currently moving forward to a corridor management plan. In 2008, they are hoping to request a national designation for Route 66 in Oklahoma. Next summer, they hope to have a Route 66 farmer’s market program. They are also working with the Department of Education to create a passport program. Each community will have locations where people can have their passport stamps, with some type of award at the end of the trip. Their website is www.okscenicbyways.org. Ms. Barthuli advised her of resources available to them that will assist them in developing their management plan. Ms. Lewis wants to involve each community in this plan. Oklahoma has the most miles of Route 66. She would appreciate knowing of any available resources or advice to help in this process. Mr. Wallis suggested they try to spread out the farmer’s markets throughout the year. It is important not to focus just on the peak visitor’s season. It was suggested that antiques, crafts, books could also be sold. Mr. Ross advised her that Mr. Pike could be a resource for national designation, since Missouri is also working toward that. If these Route 66 scenic byways could get national designation at the same time it could be a good media event. Funding to administer the Oklahoma scenic byway program is from FHWA, with some from the university. The OK scenic byway program tries to supplement this with grants. They have a training curriculum for communities that they are now implementing. Pamela’s phone number is 405-325-2848.

Chairman Murphey had the Council members introduce themselves to the members of the public in attendance.

Next to address the group was Pat Smith, Director of the Route 66 Museum in Clinton, Oklahoma. The museum was rededicated in 1995 as the first facility in the nation featuring the history of Route 66. Among the items addressed at the museum are highway construction, wayside attractions, California migration, WWII, trucking, and the image of the road through songs, movies, television. The Route 66 festival will be held in Clinton next summer. Pat discussed the many activities that will be part of the festival. The website for the festival is www.route66festival2007.com.

Chairman Murphey asked if they have seen an increase in visitors since the release of Cars. Ms. Smith replied that there has been about a 20% increase in visitation, both American and international travelers. Mr. Wallis commented on Ms. Smith’s excellent work on behalf of Route 66 and the museum. Mr. Conkle noted that the Clinton museum has set a standard for all other museums on the road. Dr. Dunaway stated that the museum holds many significant historical documents. Mr. Jackson asked how many people are estimated to attend the upcoming Route 66 festival in Clinton. It is expected to draw 40,000-50,000 people.

Ron Warnick serves as the webmaster of route66news.org. He discussed concerns with the Spraker Service Station in Vinita, Oklahoma. The station is owned by C.R. Moore Company, a car dealership. A Vinita official has told him they are going to tear it down, which he has confirmed. This property is on the national register. He asked the members to go to the website and search Spraker and it will tell them about the story. There is a link to the dealership and the newspaper that people can click on and express their opposition to this building being torn down. Ms. Heisch said that Preservation Oklahoma has an e-list that could be helpful. She will contact them. Their website is info@preserveok.org. No demolition permits have been filed yet. Mr. Pike noted that the national register designation and tax credits give them options for use of the building. Mr. Knudson said it would be a good idea to contact the local newspaper, which Mr. Warnick has already done. He asked for input and information for the website. Mr. Knudson stated that the site is the leading edge in news about the road and the calendar is invaluable. They get approximately 35,000 hits a month during the summer, and though it had declined to about 25,000, it has gone back up with the release of the Cars DVD. (Postnote: the station was demolished in December, 2006.)

Mr. Jackson said that one area they could focus on would be great playgrounds on Route 66. This would fit it with the family travelers. Cars has greatly increased interest in the site and Route 66.

Break

When the meeting resumed, Chairman Murphey said they would discuss preserving historic motels. He provided all the Council members a handout Ms. Barthuli also passed out some information on preserving historic motels to stimulate discussion (see attachment).

Motels that have outlived their purpose for overnight accommodations have acquired a bad reputation as a magnet for drugs, prostitutes, etc. The price of land has escalated. In Albuquerque, New Mexico there is a new master plan that encourages high density development. Horn Oil is a National Register listed property in Albuquerque. The developer was putting together a land acquisition model and he wanted to take down the motel. A number of Albuquerque and Route 66 community members got involved to save the motel, but the motel is now being demolished. The El Vado motel was designated a city landmark by the mayor. However, the property owner is appealing the city landmark designation. An application for demolition has been heard by the commission. This property is endangered.

Chairman Murphey asked the Council to brainstorm and share ideas on how to preserve these resources. Perhaps develop guidelines for how motel property owners can benefit from preserving these motels. Ms. Naber said she is involved in Virginia with a group to preserve historic structures. They are getting advice from a national property owner rights organization. There is a national center trying to overturn historic preservation district designation, local and statewide designation. They have questioned the constitutionality of the National Register designation. This is a serious problem nationwide. Mr. Jackson stated that this is one of the critical preservation issues on Route 66 because the motels are probably the most endangered of all structures. We should think of partnering with the Society for Commercial Archaeology (SCA) It is a financial issue. It is a matter that should be on the agenda at the National Trust Conference scheduled to be held in Tulsa in 2008. This needs to be reinforced nationwide. Make owners aware of the incentives and assistance available in restoring historic properties. Mr. Pike suggested that some of these properties could be partnered together and offered as timeshares. They could be fixed and sold to people as vacation homes. Heritage tourism people stay in bed and breakfasts; this could work for some that are not in high tourist areas. There’s not one plan that can work for everyone. Dr. Dunaway stated that from a consumer viewpoint, you may try to support these properties, but some of these motels are not desirable to stay at. A listing in the AAA guide would guarantee a certain standard. It was suggested that they begin a process of certification that would guarantee that the motel meets a certain standard. Find a way to build legitimacy and consistency for the experience of staying in the Route 66 motels. The Federation does have people who review the motels and list them in a guide. Emily Priddy also has reviewed the motels; however, this information needs to be consolidated into one resource. Mr. Wallis stated that one audience they are missing is the “hip” people. The cool, hip factor of Route 66 needs to be publicized. We need to work with developers who own multiple properties. In every community, there is a hotel/motel owners association. Some of these owners are looking for properties that they could rehabilitate.

Discussion of racism/bigotry on the road ensued. Mr. Ross is looking at the issue of motel preservation and reuse from two different contexts: alternate use of motels for other uses and how do to keep the ones that are open for lodging in business. You have to present alternative uses to developers. The Coral Court is a classic example. The property became more valuable without the motel. However, it would have made a fantastic multiple use property. The motels are struggling to operate. When their occupancy goes down, maintenance is usually the first thing affected, then the criminal element moves in. How does joining these motel owners together help them? It is important that the visitors tell the motel owners what is wrong. If it is a good experience, tell them you will spread the word. There is currently no owners association for Route 66 motels. Is there a benefit to try and catalyze them together? Ms. Pendleton discussed the difficulties motel owners in the smaller communities face. Mr. Ross said that the owners of the Blue Swallow Motel in Tucumcari, NM, have made a concerted effort to make their motel a destination on Route 66 and have been very successful. It is the obligation of the associations to help the small businesses that provide good, clean service, whether they are members of the association or not. The Federation provides a dining and lodging guide that serves as a resource for travelers on Route 66. Mr. Knudson said the problem is the owner and how they run the businesses. Ms. Heisch suggested a motel guide be developed that would provide owners an honorary membership for a year to give them a taste of the benefits of joining. 60% or more of the motels listed in the Federation guide are vintage properties. Ms. Naber said it would be helpful if the Federation could sticker the motels that are approved. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has a “national historic hotels of America” organization with certified and approved members. The traveling public knows that a hotel with such designation from the Trust meets a certain standard and is a historic hotel. That is a model that could be followed. The best reuse for a property is the closest to the original intended use.

Mr. Taylor asked for the Council’s recommendations for preserving the motels. The Program has assisted the Aztec, the Wigwam, Eagle Hotel, and Owl Court through the grant program. Although the Owl Court property is not eligible for the National Register, the owner has spirit and passion. It is a huge challenge. The program is putting $9,550 into that property. Is that a wise use of program time and money? Mr. Ross said the Owl Court is borderline because of the amount of work it is going to require. However, the owner is a huge part of the consideration, and this owner has every intention of finishing this project by whatever means he has. Dr. Dunaway suggested that the NPS prepare a tri-fold pamphlet listing resources, contacts, state by state, various federal programs available. Our fundamental job should be to provide information to these owners. This would slowly raise their consciousness of what is available.

Dr. Dunaway asked if Mr. Knudson would move towards the idea of a registry coming out of the traveler’s guide. One thing motel owners know is getting into the guidebooks. They could charge a small fee and the Federation would provide them with some type of plaque identifying it as such. The owners would have to meet the standards and they would be publicized. Mr. Knudson suggested adopters look at a certain section of the road and watch out for preservation issues. They might be the logical ones to distribute literature to the owners. Chairman Murphey said that if we are going to do this we should have case studies of how this can help. Mr. Jackson suggested a building watch where structures could be identified when they need help and can be fixed with a small amount instead of waiting until they are in dire need. Chairman Murphey asked if the focus was shifting to helping the surviving motels instead of those that are already closed. Mr. Wallis suggested that the state associations get involved in passing out the information and welcome the owners to the Mother Road; get them to invest in the road. Mr. Smith said it definitely requires personal interaction and discussion. The real success comes from meeting face to face and presenting the information to people personally. Mr. Wallis stated there are some structures that cannot realistically be saved. Mr. Taylor said it is a program mandate to save the most representative and significant resources on the road. They cannot all be saved. They have documented some of the structures that no longer exist. Ms. Naber said we have a responsibility to raise the consciousness of the public. The Route 66 motels could be nominated to the National Trust’s Most Endangered List. This may also be done at the state level in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. The National Trust meeting in Tulsa is a good opportunity for Route 66 representation. Ms. Naber will be presenting a session at the conference. Mr. Jackson said we need to get owners who have been successful to participate so that other owners can see what can be done. There needs to be advertising in motel owner publications. Chairman Murphey asked for a move to accept Dr. Dunaway’s suggestion to create a pamphlet. Dr. Dunaway moved that the program be requested to prepare a color brochure to be handed to Route 66 hotel owners containing basic information on access to funding and assistance available to them. Mr. Smith’s group will take on the task of assisting NPS to accomplish this. Motion passed.

Chairman Murphey asked if we could take the good seal approach? Mr. Knudson said the Federation would have to acquire funding for the decals and to implement the program (administrative costs). This should be done at no cost to the motel owners. Mr. Knudson can do research on the cost. This could also be discussed at the summit meetings if we want to get the associations involved. This should include both dining and eating establishments. Ms. Naber said that since three states are already looking at putting the hotels on the endangered list, maybe we should look at doing all the states all at once. She is willing to spearhead that. (Postnote: Ms. Naber sponsored a nomination to the National Trust’s Most Endangered list in January, 2007)

The Federation will start to explore the cost and logistics of the good seal program. Mr. Knudson moved; motion seconded and approved.

Lunch

Mr. Taylor noted that fewer program funded projects would save program and personnel time. Mr. Knudson asked if a motion should be made that project applications be limited to economically viable projects? Mr. Taylor stated that we currently have good grant guidelines, but they need to be tweaked. Insure the property is eligible for or already on the National Register. Currently, properties eligible for or listed on the Register get an extra 10 points of consideration. Should federal funds be going into properties that have no existing or proven economic viability? Should the sites be visited before funding is awarded? The Owl Courts was brought up as an example. The existing grant criteria and guidelines are good, but the point rating system could be changed. Chairman Murphey said the anticipated multiplier effect should be considered. Ms. Heisch asked about what happens to these structures once they receive funding. Mr. Pike asked if the guidelines would be changed permanently, or just for one year. Mr. Jackson suggested they focus one year on motels. It was also suggested that the program fund workshops for motel owners.

Chairman Murphey said the Council should come up with a motion on how the guidelines look in the future. Is everyone in agreement that the guidelines should be tightened up? Mr. Knudson asked if we should limit funding to businesses that are actually operating? Mr. Ross disagreed stating that there could be some situations where a business might be able to start up if they receive some funding assistance. Mr. Smith said they must have a business plan and show that they are serious about operating. Mr. Wallis felt that due to the unpredictability of the road, we should not limit ourselves. Mr. Taylor said that from past experience, they know what has not worked; they are learning year to year. Does the Council want to formally appoint a committee to review projects and assist in selecting recipients? Many Council members have already served in this capacity. Dr. Dunaway said he would trust the expertise of those on the advisory Council and would think we need to be flexible.

Moving on to the priorities of the program, there are tasks that must be accomplished. Review the list and put aside those that are required and are not optional. What criteria can be used to determine prioritization? Developing constituencies which might support the program and the Council when they sunset. Publicity potential; those items which would draw attention to the program. Mr. Taylor said they are already actively doing most of the things on the list. There may be a couple of items that could be put aside, but most are already in place.

Mr. Bricker said the overall program needs to be looked at and the cost share is just one component of the entire program. Ms. Barthuli noted that the Act states very specific things that must be accomplished and are reflected in the goals. Ms. Naber stated that if the Act was not complied with, it could affect reauthorization. Mr. Taylor said that the program staff has not fulfilled all the action items called for in the Act because of lack of funding. Mr. Knudson thinks that what the program has accomplished with the resources provided has been excellent. Before the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program sunsets, it needs to identify a private entity to take up what the NPS has implemented to date. Mr. Knudson said the Federation was originally scheduled to take up the job, but they are not prepared and will not do that. He suggested reauthorization as an alternative. The Federal Advisory Council cannot lobby for reauthorization. Mr. Pike said that the Missouri Route 66 Association has been in touch with Congressman Roy Blunt and he feels Blunt supports reauthorization. There is also the issue of raising the amount of annual appropriation the program receives through the NPS. Mr. Knudson stated that the National Historic Route 66 Federation is planning to do what is necessary to support reauthorization of the program. Mr. Ross said that Mr. Taylor and Ms. Barthuli have done an outstanding job.

Dr. Dunaway suggested the Council look at the program’s priority list by categorizing the 20 items which seem to fall into five categories; service to stakeholders, public outreach, resource development, publicity constituency development, and documentation.

Ms. Barthuli said these items all fall within similar but different goal categories already established by the program. Ms. Naber said there are probably a few things that can be taken off the list, such as fundraising and donations. Ms. Seitts suggested the National Park Foundation could be a resource for funding. She would be willing to look into if and how funding could be received from National Park Foundation.

Chairman Murphey said that the bottom line is that each of the items on the list is going to cost money and/or staff time, and takes away from the money available for cost-share projects. Ms. Barthuli stated that the program is focused on fulfilling actions called for in the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Act and also on establishing a tangible legacy in the event the program sunsets.

Priority #1 is already in process and meets both objectives should be retained. All agreed.

Priority #2 was agreed upon by the Council as a major goal at the last meeting. Again, this meets both categories. All agreed.

Priority #3, the visitor center/museum survey. Interesting proposition and necessary, but is it doable as it is presented? Assistance with curation and interpretation is mandated in the Act to be one of the roles of the Program; the Program must provide technical support for museums and interpretation guidance. It’s been available; Ms. Barthuli stated that such a survey would serve as a useful and tangible legacy resource. Mr. Smith said this information is already out there through other entities. The majority consensus was to lower the priority of this issue.

Priority #4, the survey of past cost-share grant recipients is ongoing and has received many responses. It is basically done. It will be condensed into a report. Dr. Dunaway suggested that staff follow up with organizations that have not responded. This item should be discussed at the next meeting.

Priority #5, the oral history repository identified in the Act. This is well underway. What is needed is to come to a conclusion. Dr. Dunaway said the next phase is to develop homes in each of the eight states for this material and provide services to help them build their collections and work with the Route 66 associations. He will be conducting a workshop at the next summit. Consensus that #5 meets both objectives was agreed upon.

Priority #6, the website package/resource center, is ongoing according to Mr. Taylor. The question is how much time are we able to dedicate to this over the next year? Mr. Wallis reminded the group of the discussion earlier about getting an intern to work on this project. The consensus of the Council is to continue with this project.

Priority #7, producing hard numbers on the effectiveness of the program, develop what the measures are. This is partly tied into the proposed Rutgers study. Ms. Naber asked if this could be added to the Rutgers study. Mr. Taylor stated that they are two different issues. This deals with the conditions of the buildings on Route 66. Dr. Dunaway said this is paired more with Priority #4, the accountability of the NPS. The program cannot be held responsible for changes on Route 66. Mr. Taylor said that to really discuss this issue would take a great deal of time and suggested they move on.

Priority #8 is the capacity building which Chairman Murphey had identified at the first meeting. This is threaded through everything, and is part of the legacy building. The consensus is to continue this but to narrow the scope. All agreed.

Priority #9, the inventory database project. Ms. Barthuli stated that a great deal of work has been accomplished with this, but there is much more to do. It is hoped to work with the existing data to make it available through the program website. This will involve some time. This is tied to Priorities #6 and #10.

Priority #11, teaching with historic places project. Mr. Taylor said that this is a project that has life beyond the program. They feel this is a good use of funding. Estimated cost to hire an educator, create a curriculum, and put it online is about $12,000. Dr. Dunaway suggested that the National Endowment for the Humanities could provide funding. One of the associations could do this. Chairman Murphey noted that they have not had great success with this program. Mr. Wallis disagreed and said they have had great success throughout the country. Ms. Naber said this is a great time to strike because of the exposure Cars has given to Route 66. Children will want to learn about the road. Chairman Muphey asked if this should go to the Teaching with Historic Places initiative. Mr. Smith said we should investigate that program as well as look at other options.

Priority #12 has been done. Mr. Taylor noted it will cost $10,000 to put it on the web. The narratives have already been done. Chairman Murphey said this is a giant project. Launch it on the Route 66 website. The consensus is to continue but look at putting on NPS site instead of National Register website.

Priority #13. Mr. Bricker asked if it already exists? Mr. Taylor said that a decision had been made to defer the case study of La Bajada until next fiscal year.

Priority #14, publicity plan priorities. Dr. Dunaway said they have been working on this. He will prepare another report.

Priority #15. Ms. Seitts will look into the National Park Foundation.

Priority #6 is a must do.

Priority #17. The summit meeting is a low dollar amount. Mr. Taylor said they are committed to doing this.

Priority #18. Mr. Taylor said program staff is committed to preparing the application by the beginning of the year.

# 19 is not negotiable.

In summary, the priority of #3 was lowered, priorities #9 and #10 were joined; priorities #9 through #13 would fall under #6; priorities #11 and #12 would be investigated. Mr. Ross asked that the list be cleaned up and sent to the Council members.

The next item discussed was the next Advisory Council meeting. Mr. Taylor said they can probably wait another year or so. Perhaps the meeting could be held in June at the summit. Dr. Dunaway, he would like to hear from the “roadies.” A discussion ensued on whether or not it would be feasible to hold the next Advisory Council meeting in conjunction with the summit. Mr. Taylor asked if some would prefer to take it out of Oklahoma and somewhere else or at another time. He will take the recommendations under suggestion, and come up with some options. Ms. Naber recommended that future meetings be held on the road. The Advisory Council is allowed to have two meetings a year, but due to financial limitations they are trying to hold back to only one a year. Unofficially, anyone from the Council could attend the festival and the summit, and the official FACA meeting would be held later in the year, hopefully after the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Wallis suggested Chicago or St. Louis. Others suggested Los Angeles or Pasadena.

Mr. Taylor thanked Ms. Heisch for hosting the Council. He also thanked Chairman Murphey, Ms. Barthuli, and Ms. Martinez for their assistance.

Chairman Murphey thanked everyone for attending. He asked chairpersons to send him an e-mail advising him what they will be doing next and that this be done with in the next 2 weeks.

Mr. Pike motioned that the meeting be adjourned. Seconded and passed.

Meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m.


Draft
Action Items and Recommendations from Committee

Accountability and Measurement Committee
Economic Impact Study: The cost of putting people on the street to do survey would be costly. Perhaps the local associations could do this; given the questionnaire/format and sent out to survey visitors. This would be more cost effective. Interpreting the data is not a problem. Mr. Knudson said that this would be an ideal topic for the summit committee. He also stated that there was an additional public relations benefit. Mr. Conkle suggested Mr. Ross write an article advertising this initiative to prompt businesses along the Route to become involved.

The rough draft of a scope of work will be fleshed out. Mr. Taylor will refine the scope of work.

Education and Outreach Committee
It is essential for the next 3 years to work directly with as many property owners as possible.

We need a comprehensive list of organizations and groups along the road and to keep and maintain a list of all historical organizations at the local level for which Route 66 may play a part in how they tell local history.

Preservation education/assistance package for property owners in hard copy and electronic copy.

Consensus on all of above.

Preservation Management Committee
Mr. Murphey had sent out a questionnaire to each SHPO to gather more information to assist in meeting goals. He feels that we really needed to get an assessment as to where we are in the area of documentation. He hopes to use this information to give the NPS direction in what the gaps are in surveying Route 66 resources. When this information is compiled, it will be distributed to all Council members.

Consensus on all of above.


Publicity Committee
The committee discussed the possibility of developing a publicity support strategy through local organizations. One idea is to set up a workshop on press relations at the next summit, since almost every association is represented. A short workshop could include subjects such as development of a speakers bureau, working with radio v.s. television, etc. Develop a sample press kit and protocol for the workshop.

Recruit an intern to work with the program in the area of website development. This can possibly be done through various departments at UNM. Provide short profiles on Advisory Council members; expand and target the media lists; circulate current lists and ask for input from Council members regarding their areas. Individualize by state, region, and locality.

Ms. Seitts said that she serves as the Designated Federal Official for a Department of Agriculture/Department of Interior Advisory Council and at the end of every meeting they have a press release prepared which is widely spread. We should give a history of the Route 66 Advisory Council, who the members are, and who they represent. It must be timely.

Dr. Dunaway made a motion to send the media list to the members.

Consensus on all of above.


Motels
The endangerment of motels is a matter that should be on the agenda at the National Trust Conference scheduled to be held in Tulsa in 2008. The issues need to be reinforced nationwide.

Consensus: Dr. Dunaway suggested that the NPS prepare a tri-fold pamphlet listing resources, contacts, state by state, various federal programs available. Our fundamental job should be to provide information to these owners. This would slowly raise their consciousness of what is available.

Chairman Murphey asked if we could take the good seal approach? Mr. Knudson said the Federation would have to acquire funding for the decals and to implement the program (administrative costs). This should be done at no cost to the motel owners. Mr. Knudson can do research on the cost. This could also be discussed at the summit meetings if we want to get the associations involved. This should include both dining and eating establishments.

Consensus: The Federation will start to explore the cost and logistics of the good seal program.

It was suggested that the program fund workshops for motel owners.

Other
Dr. Dunaway suggested that staff follow up with organizations that have not responded to the cost-share grant efficacy survey.


Prioritization of activities:
In summary, the priority of #3 was lowered, priorities #9 and #10 were joined; priorities #9 through #13 would fall under #6; priorities #11 and #12 would be investigated. Mr. Ross asked that the list be cleaned up and sent to the Council members.

***************************************
Committee meetings will be considered for next meeting.






 

captions pagePrivacy & Disclaimer