# South 1st Alliance relaunch operating plan

**Status:** Working draft for the original working group. Nothing in this document assigns a current role, represents a partner commitment, or authorizes public outreach.

## Operating premise

Restart as a small, time-bounded coalition that first establishes current facts and listens, then decides whether there is a credible shared action. The group should advocate for safer, more accessible, more useful conditions on South First without treating any lane configuration as settled before current data, City constraints, and stakeholder input are available.

The first re-engagement can happen one-to-one using the concise, public-safe restart hub. The hub must exclude the credential-bearing administrative document, private contacts, raw email archives, and unverified claims. Diagnose and test Google Group delivery before relying on the Group as an operating channel; until then, use direct one-to-one coordination.

This permits a clearly labeled restart conversation. It does not authorize broad community outreach, publication of the old vision, partner representations, or a public design position.

## Proposed lightweight governance

The original 2024 roles are historical context, not current assignments. At the first alignment meeting, confirm who is active and fill only the roles needed for the next 30 days.

| Proposed function | Accountable for | Guardrails | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Convenor | Agenda, cadence, decisions, and removing blockers | Does not speak for the coalition without an approved position | To confirm |
| Operations keeper | Group/Drive hygiene, task board, meeting notes, and decision log | No shared credentials; least-privilege access | To confirm |
| Evidence lead | Baseline research, source quality, assumptions, and open questions | Separates sourced facts, reported leads, and opinions | To confirm |
| Listening lead | Resident and business interview plan, coverage, consent, and synthesis | Does not claim a representative mandate from a convenience sample | To confirm |
| Partner liaison | Safe Streets/Farm&City and neighborhood-association coordination | Treats historical support as unconfirmed until renewed | To confirm |
| Public-agency liaison | City and CapMetro questions, meetings, and written confirmations | Records names, dates, decisions, and follow-ups | To confirm |

One person may hold more than one function. A five-person active group is enough; the initiative should not wait to fill every role.

### Cadence and decisions

- Hold one 45-minute working meeting each week for the first month.
- Use one shared task list with a named owner and date for every active item.
- Record decisions in the log below within one business day.
- Routine execution decisions belong to the assigned owner and convenor.
- Public positions, corridor boundaries, partner representations, and design recommendations require the active group's explicit approval and a recorded evidence basis.
- Use consent for ordinary decisions: a proposal moves forward when no active member identifies a material, reasoned objection. If an objection cannot be resolved in the meeting, assign a bounded fact-finding task and return to the decision at the next gate.
- Anyone may require a claim to be labeled unverified. No one may turn a historical expression of support into a current endorsement without reconfirmation.

## Thirty-day sequence and decision gates

### Days 1-3 — secure, reconnect, and establish control

- Keep the administrative document and private contacts out of all public materials; track retirement of the legacy credential as housekeeping.
- Repair the Google Group, confirm owners/managers, and run a delivery test.
- Speak with Freddie one-to-one about his May 2026 City and Safe Streets activity.
- Invite the original working group to an alignment meeting and ask each person to opt in, opt out, or remain informed.
- Create the task list and start the decision log.

**Gate 0 — ready to coordinate:** Proceed with the sprint when at least one accountable convenor and one operations keeper have opted in and the team has chosen a reliable operating channel. Group and Drive cleanup can continue in parallel; do not rely on untested delivery or expose administrative/private material.

### Days 4-7 — align the original group

- Hold the first meeting using the agenda below.
- Establish a provisional corridor for research; do not present it publicly as final.
- Agree on the desired outcomes to test: safety, accessibility, transit usefulness, business vitality, and neighborhood access.
- Inventory Freddie's current leads and all active City/CapMetro work that could affect the corridor.
- Assign owners for the 30-day evidence and listening work.

**Gate 1 — coherent question:** Proceed when the group can state the problem it is investigating, the provisional geography, what is still unknown, and what decision it expects to make after listening.

### Week 2 — establish the current baseline

- Confirm active South First projects, funding paths, project owners, design stages, and engagement windows.
- Gather the highest-value available safety, traffic, turning, transit, sidewalk/ADA, right-of-way, and resurfacing facts.
- Treat the traffic comparisons and diversion claims reported in May 2026 as leads until independently verified.
- Prepare a block-by-block corridor walk sheet and a preliminary stakeholder coverage map.
- Reconfirm partner contacts and willingness privately; do not request public endorsements.

**Gate 2 — evidence sufficient to listen:** Proceed when the group has a plain-language current-state brief, a documented uncertainty list, and neutral questions that do not steer people toward a predetermined design.

### Week 3 — listen and test the problem definition

- Conduct bounded interviews across residents, businesses, corridor users, accessibility needs, transit use, and geography.
- Hold a corridor walk with a mixed group if the access and safety plan is practical.
- Summarize recurring needs, meaningful disagreements, segment differences, and ideas requiring technical evaluation.
- Update the problem statement and option set; do not use interview counts as an approval vote.

**Gate 3 — legitimate basis for a proposal:** Proceed only if the team can show who was heard, who is missing, which findings are consistent, and which issues remain contested. If coverage is materially one-sided, extend listening rather than drafting a public position.

### Week 4 — choose the next action

- Hold technical conversations with the relevant City/CapMetro owners and advocacy partners using the baseline and listening findings.
- Compare a no-build/current-projects case with two or more feasible improvement paths.
- Select one near-term ask and, if warranted, one longer-term ask.
- Draft a two-page brief with its evidence, limitations, named owners, and next milestone.
- Decide whether the Alliance should continue, join or support another active effort, or pause.

**Gate 4 — responsible public relaunch:** Publish or broaden outreach only when the group has a verified operating channel, a settled purpose and geography, current partner language, an evidence-backed ask, a privacy approach, and named owners for follow-through.

## First alignment meeting

**Length:** 60 minutes  
**Purpose:** Determine whether a viable 30-day restart team exists and authorize only the preliminary work.

### Required pre-reads

1. `RESTART-BRIEF.md`
2. `RESEARCH-AND-UPDATE-PLAN.md`, especially P0 and P1
3. `STAKEHOLDERS.md`, with the reminder that every role and relationship is historical
4. The May 2026 Freddie update linked from the restart brief
5. The old community vision only as archived background, not as a proposed position

### Agenda

| Time | Topic | Output |
|---:|---|---|
| 0-5 min | Why reconvene now | Shared purpose for the meeting |
| 5-12 min | Security and Group-delivery status | Gate 0 status and remaining owner/date |
| 12-22 min | Freddie's May 2026 update | Current contacts, facts, reported leads, and unanswered questions |
| 22-32 min | Round-robin commitment check | Active, advisor/informed, or not participating; no assumed roles |
| 32-42 min | Provisional scope and outcomes | Research boundary and neutral problem statement |
| 42-50 min | 30-day work and proposed roles | Named owners for only the agreed preliminary tasks |
| 50-56 min | Decisions and risks | Logged decisions, objections, and unresolved questions |
| 56-60 min | Next checkpoint | Date, deliverables, and sender for written recap |

Do not use this meeting to approve the old lane concept, claim coalition support, invite press, or launch public materials.

## Stakeholder reactivation matrix

All contact should use existing, appropriate one-to-one channels or a verified Group. Do not copy private addresses into shared planning documents.

| Outreach order | Stakeholder | Historical connection | First purpose | Evidence or output needed before moving on |
|---:|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Freddie Summer | Most recent City and Safe Streets activity; Group manager as of May 2026 | Compare the archive with what happened after his May note; identify current people, facts, and next steps | Dated conversation notes; permission to reference contacts; list of claims to verify |
| 2 | Sam Gaddis | Original convening and shared infrastructure | Close security/operations issues and set the bounds of the restart | Gate 0 checklist and proposed first-meeting invite |
| 3 | Ed, Isaac, Chris, Carolina, and Darren | Original working group with distinct historical contributions | Ask whether each wants to be active, advisory, informed, or removed; learn what occurred outside the archive | Individual status; current interests; new information; no automatic role carryover |
| 4 | Safe Streets Austin and Farm&City | Historical offers of support; Freddie reported 2026 Safe Streets coordination | Reconfirm current relationship, work already underway, and where the Alliance could add value | Current contact, accurate description of support, and non-duplicative path |
| 5 | BCNA and Galindo neighborhood leadership | BCNA was the original neighborhood base; Galindo was identified as necessary in 2026 | Learn current priorities, process, representation expectations, and existing work | Named liaison, engagement method, and documented concerns; no support claim yet |
| 6 | Relevant City and CapMetro project owners | Necessary for active projects, Route 10, ADA, resurfacing, and feasibility | Validate project status, constraints, decision windows, and data sources | Written answers or meeting notes with dates and owners |
| 7 | South First businesses and property owners | Historically recognized as essential but not systematically consulted | Listen to access, delivery, parking, safety, construction, and customer needs | Balanced interview coverage and a disagreement-aware synthesis |
| 8 | Residents and corridor users | Original neighborhood discussion and broader affected public | Listen across geography, mode, age, ability, and lived experience | Coverage map, anonymized findings, and explicit limitations |
| 9 | Towers and any other public amplifiers | Historical offer of future supportive coverage | Reconnect only after there is a verified, publishable brief and a clear next action | Gate 4 approval and current, accurate media language |

## Resident and business listening protocol

### Purpose and sample

The interviews are discovery, not a vote and not proof of representative support. Start with a bounded target of 20-30 conversations split roughly evenly between residents/corridor users and businesses/property operators. Deliberately cover both sides of the street, multiple segments, people south of Oltorf if the provisional boundary reaches them, different travel modes, renters and owners, accessibility needs, and businesses with different delivery/parking patterns.

Keep a coverage table that records stakeholder type and corridor segment, but not personal contact details in the shared synthesis. If the sample is skewed, say so and recruit for missing perspectives.

### Opening script

> We are revisiting an older neighborhood effort concerning South First. We have not settled on a street design or public position. We are trying to understand what works, what does not, and what current City projects may already change. This is a listening conversation, not a vote. May I take notes? I can attribute your comments by name, by stakeholder type, or keep them unattributed—what do you prefer?

### Core questions for everyone

1. What part of South First do you use, and how do you usually use it?
2. What currently works well and should be protected?
3. Where do you experience the greatest difficulty or risk? Ask for a specific location, time, and example.
4. Who else is affected differently or may see this another way?
5. Have recent construction or transportation changes altered your experience?
6. If one practical improvement happened in the next year, what should it accomplish?
7. What tradeoff or unintended effect worries you most?
8. What information would you need before supporting or opposing a change?
9. Who else should we hear from?

### Business prompts

- How do customers, employees, deliveries, contractors, and emergency services reach the site?
- Which access points, turning movements, loading times, parking spaces, or visibility conditions are operationally important?
- Which safety or accessibility problems affect staff or customers?
- How would construction timing and notice affect operations?
- Would segment-specific treatments matter more than one corridor-wide design?

### Resident and corridor-user prompts

- Ask separately about walking, mobility devices, transit, bicycling, driving, crossings, noise, shade, and nighttime conditions where relevant.
- Identify school, caregiving, aging-in-place, affordability, displacement, and emergency-access concerns without assuming they apply.
- Ask for places avoided, not only places where an incident occurred.

### Note handling and synthesis

- Record date, stakeholder type, corridor segment, consent choice, observations, quotes approved for use, and follow-ups.
- Mark each item as direct experience, preference, factual claim needing verification, or proposed idea.
- Store contact details separately with limited access; the shared synthesis should use names only with permission.
- Summarize themes by frequency and intensity, but include meaningful minority views and contradictions.
- Do not convert “interested,” “open to,” or “likes the goal” into endorsement of a specific design.
- Give participants a way to correct attributed notes before publication.

## Decision log template

Copy this block for each decision:

```markdown
### DEC-YYYY-MM-DD-## — Short decision title

- Status: Proposed | Decided | Superseded
- Date:
- Decision owner:
- Participants:
- Decision:
- Why this decision is needed now:
- Evidence considered:
- Source quality or limitations:
- Options considered:
- Material objections or tradeoffs:
- Stakeholders not yet heard:
- Follow-up actions, owners, and dates:
- Review or expiration date:
- Supersedes / superseded by:
```

## Initial risk register

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation and trigger | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed credential remains usable or copied elsewhere | High until verified closed | High | Rotate/retire it; audit account activity, recovery, Drive revisions, and sharing before Gate 0 | To confirm |
| Google Group silently rejects or loses messages | Demonstrated historically | High | Diagnose settings, test delivery from approved senders, name two managers, and define a fallback channel before Gate 0 | To confirm |
| The group duplicates Freddie/Safe Streets or an active City effort | Medium | High | Freddie first; map current work and ask partners where the Alliance adds value | To confirm |
| Historical support is presented as current endorsement | Medium | High | Reconfirm all roles and partner language; keep dated notes; require approval before public claims | To confirm |
| A preferred lane design drives the research | High | High | Outcome-first problem statement, no-build comparison, multiple options, neutral interview prompts | To confirm |
| Corridor scope expands faster than capacity | High | Medium | Provisional research boundary; document exclusions; change scope only through a logged decision | To confirm |
| Convenience interviews overstate community support | High | High | Coverage matrix, explicit sample limitations, minority views, and no vote-like reporting | To confirm |
| Businesses engage only after a public proposal | Medium | High | Early listening before design; recruit varied operating models and both sides/segments | To confirm |
| City/project facts or funding windows are stale | High | High | Verify with named current owners and dated primary sources; label reported leads | To confirm |
| Volunteers lose momentum after the first meeting | Medium | Medium | Thirty-day scope, one owner per item, weekly cadence, explicit opt-in, and Gate 4 continue/join/pause decision | To confirm |
| Public materials expose personal information | Medium | High | Separate contacts from shared notes; permission for attribution; minimum necessary access | To confirm |
| Media interest arrives before the coalition is ready | Medium | Medium | One holding line: the group is updating facts and listening; no design or endorsement claims before Gate 4 | To confirm |

## Draft outreach — Freddie

**Status: Unsent draft. Send one-to-one only.**

**Subject:** South First — can we compare notes?

> Hey Freddie,
>
> I pulled together the old South 1st Alliance emails, Drive files, and the May update you tried to send to the group. It looks like you were already moving the City and Safe Streets conversations forward, so I want to start with you rather than duplicate anything.
>
> Could we spend 30 minutes comparing notes? I’d like to understand what happened after your May message, who you spoke with, what is still active, and where a small neighborhood group could actually help.
>
> I’m also keeping the old administrative material out of anything public and sorting out a reliable way for the group to coordinate.
>
> Sam

## Draft outreach — original working group

**Status: Unsent draft. Use one-to-one with the public-safe restart hub; do not rely on the Group until delivery is tested.**

**Subject:** South 1st Alliance — a short reset

> Hi everyone,
>
> I’ve reassembled the South 1st Alliance archive and would like to see whether there is a useful way to restart the work. A lot has changed since 2024, and Freddie had already reopened conversations with the City and Safe Streets last year.
>
> I’m proposing one 60-minute alignment meeting. The goal would be to compare what we know now, confirm who wants to be involved, and decide whether to do a focused 30-day research and listening sprint. We would not be approving the old vision or assuming anyone’s former role.
>
> Before sending a meeting time, could you reply with one of these: active, happy to advise or stay informed, or not participating? If you have relevant updates that never reached the group, please include those too.
>
> I’m starting one-to-one while we sort out a reliable group channel, so this is still a draft and no broader public outreach has started.
>
> Sam

## Definition of a successful first month

The first month succeeds if the initiative has secure operating tools, a small accountable team, a verified map of current work, a documented listening sample, and a defensible choice among continuing independently, joining or supporting an existing effort, or pausing. A logo, website, press mention, or declaration of broad support is not a substitute for those outcomes.