Date March 26, 2003
1) Report on Community
Workshop
Committee members reviewed the page of the workshop
summary report reporting Strength/Weakness/Opportunities/Threats and Shared
Vision Items [attached]. Approximately
80 people attended the workshop. Grant
indicated that she attempted to include survey questions to gather survey data
on top vision elements as well as selected SWOT’s as
seemed appropriate.
2) Report on Focus Group
Responses
Committee members reviewed listed
focus group responses [attached] in some detail, searching for common themes
and important ideas that should be investigated further in the community
survey. Some highlights of the
interesting discussions are summarized as follows:
- The
perceived needs/wants of employees at Metavante
are different than those at Badger Meter
- Commercial
and hospitality sector business needs and service perceptions differ from
those that large employers represented.
- Loss
of traffic on Bradley, changes elsewhere shifting commerce. No consensus on what should come next,
who should do it, where funding would come.
- Living/working/doing
business in Brown Deer is affected by its proximity to the great Milwaukee
area. This is both good and
bad.
- It is
unknown how/whether proximity to downtown is important to young adults or
attractive to “creative class” growth potential.
- Fine
arts, performing arts center interest locally untapped. Expressed desires for community
center. Unknown how to define need,
determine feasibility, and fulfill need.
- Lack
of central gathering place, downtown-like area, and no clear idea of
what/where it might be. Interesting
discussion of suburban, car-oriented infrastructure being in conflict with
this expressed desire for community center.
- Aging
population and decreasing household size is affecting citizens’ feeling of
community and access to medical services and in-home support
services. Some neighborhood
relationships bridge the gap, but it is not the norm.
- Affect
of “cocooning” trend, busy personal lives, loss of Welcome Wagon community
introduction/integration, perception of decreased community connection and
interaction.
- Affordable
housing with appreciating values still the norm. Possible to get information on turnover
rates, but not on demographics of purchasers.
- “Keep
up appearances” enforcement issues (junk cars, tidiness, etc.) becoming
more important but not with great regularity.
- Perceived
racism less than in past; fear of its return felt by blacks; whites
express sympathy, desire to maintain change. Not clear how to deal with it
productively in survey. Hopeful
that community and neighborhood-building activities could have a positive
impact.
- Discussed
changes in social opportunities for kids now versus when VC members raised
their kids. No/few
places to go, nothing to do in the village for high school students IS
a change. Actions of the few “bad
eggs” add up to decreased social opportunities
outside of homes for whole group.
Low cost, varied alternatives desired but not available locally;
limited in the region.
- Discussion
but no consensus on whether Brown Deer is now perceived as a “good place
to raise a family” when demographic data shows family-age 25-44 year olds
decreasing; school population decreasing; under 5’s decreasing in Brown
Deer, Glendale, Mequon, but more than doubling in Wisconsin.
- Discussion
of larger-home options for families in schools considered equally good or
better; impact on home sales and community demographics in Brown Deer.
- Questioned
number of actual new construction permits vs
remodeling or reconstruction permits on page 86 of Comprehensive Annual
Report and how such information might be valuable in creating community
vision.
- Discussed
how Brown Deer fits top 15 criteria for city rankings in Money Magazine;
how Milwaukee and north side
suburbs differ or are similar and how to determine Brown Deer’s market
niche.
3) Review
and revise Survey Draft #1
Committee members generally
approved of the tone and general topics of the survey. They preferred a more inclusive, rather than
more randomly selective “nearest birthday” qualifier. They preferred that two residents be able to
respond if it could be done quickly and easily.
They approved the collection of demographic and geographic information
if it could be done simply. They
selected a range of 1 to 5 as appropriate for responses requiring a type of
satisfaction rating. They liked the
qualifying yes/no response before evaluation of services. They selected service categories that they
felt were important to evaluate for visioning purposes; they concurred with the
use of questions from the past and into the future to track perceptions of
service quality over time.
Committee members set four pages
as the target length of the survey, warning against the use of small type to
meet that goal. They then evaluated,
critiqued, and revised “Revisions Rev 3” sections as follows:
- Quality
of Life in Brown Deer
- Quality
of Life in Neighborhoods
- Personal
Perception of Safety
- Quality
of Facilities and Amenities
The revised questions are
attached.
The meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:15 pm