Brown Deer Visioning Committee Minutes

Date April 17, 2003

 

Members Present: Marty Ball, John Buckley, Barb Fleming, Mike Ganzer, Margaret Hirschi, Anne Lutz, Carrie Weddle, Russ VanGompel, Barb Grant and Dave Vaclavik.

Members Excused: Jeff Bersch, Mary Fitzgerald, Bob Oates, Wayne Parker, Gregg Umipeg

The meeting convened at 7:05 pm and adjourned at 8:50 pm.

 

Grant reviewed issues raised in the Community Workshop and Focus Groups as published in the respective reports.  Concern was expressed regarding low attendance at some Focus Group sessions.  Committee members discussed follow-up activities, some of which “took the mountain to Mohammed.”

-         Developers: As there were no developers in attendance, committee members felt that follow-up by letter/survey or another means would be important.  PMP and Van Gompel were asked to determine appropriate alternatives.

-         Youth: Although the focus group for youth was attended by a cross-section of recommended youth and service providers, committee members felt that in-school surveys or focus groups would broaden input regarding youth experiences and preferences.

-         Seniors: As the focus group for seniors was not well attended, committee members felt that follow-up letters/survey opportunities as well as outreach beyond to Algonquin and Bradley Manor and/or area churches might yield a better cross-section of issues and opinion.

 

Grant reviewed the survey decisions made at the last meeting and committee members weighed in with their opinions.

-         There was concurrence to strike language proposed to randomize the household sample by birthday.

-         There was concurrence to use a repetitive 1-5 rating scale where appropriate, but in reversed number order with 1 being low and 5 high.

-         The committee felt strongly that one survey per household should be the standard with one person rather than multiple persons completing the survey.

-         As to the issue of separate sections for issues important to distinct demographic groups, Grant reported that it should be possible to cross-correlate answers to questions on diversity, community friendliness, safety, etc. by demographic sub groupings.  In this way it should be possible to identify whether important differences in opinion and experience exist.

 

Grant asked for reactions to all background materials distributed.  Members felt that three were most thought-provoking: Census comparisons; Rise of the Creative Class article by Richard Florida; and 10 Most Enlightened Suburbs article.

 

Grant asked for reactions to Survey Draft #4, based on the efforts of three groups at the last meeting to select key questions of:

    1. Quality of Life
    2. Quality of Neighborhoods/Perception of Safety
    3. Quality of Facilities and Amenities

Grant explained that she took committee question choices from the last meeting and service questions developed jointly with Van Gompel.  After she removed duplications and roughly formatted pages, Survey Draft #4 was then distributed to the Village Board for reaction and comment.  Both Grant and Van Gompel received both general and specific recommendations from trustees that they shared.

 

Committee members expressed significant concerns with the tone of Survey Draft #4 being less “visionary” and too service and performance-oriented.  Specifically, members:

-         Raised issues about the “service-used” column on page 4;

-         Felt that any service section should be more “How are we doing?” in tone;

-         Wanted to find more about values and priorities rather than about performance ratings;

-         Indicated a preference for including and evaluating workshop opinions regarding community strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats;

-         Would like the survey tone to be more visionary, goal-oriented, and value-driven, similar to Mequon’s and Glendale’s surveys;

-         Want to know about redevelopment preferences;

-         Want to know more about issues related to diversity;

-         Wanted to consider adding fill-in-the-blank areas to garner some free-form responses.

 

Glendale’s Vision Report “Section 4, A ‘Self-Audit,’ was held up as an example of finding and reporting common values, strengths, and weaknesses.  They preferred ranked preferences that built a community vision.

 

Significant discussion ensued regarding the roles of the Visioning Committee and the Village Board in developing and approving the community survey and coordination of joint responsibilities in the visioning process.  Van Gompel reviewed the history of activities leading up to the visioning process.  Grant described PMP’s role in clarifying, facilitating, and coordinating all participants’ responsibilities in order to build a widely accepted and useful visioning process.  Grant pointed out that development of any written survey leads to conflicts that are resolved as participants determine what questions will generate the best information in the space available.

 

Visioning committee members asked that PMP rework the survey in light of the discussion as well as specific comments generated during review of Draft #4 questions.  They asked that the service questions be redrafted to more clearly develop the defining relationships between service quality and quality of life.  They also asked PMP to: 

□        consider developing questions regarding value as related to taxes, fees, etc.

□        consider the use of free-form response space