Laserfiche WebLink
Data Collection / Assessments <br />Amberg described current ways data was planning to be collected including: <br /> Building Assessments <br />o Architect sub-consultant HCM will be assessing four park buildings, the Community Center and <br />the golf course Clubhouse in terms of the following: <br /> Overall age and condition <br /> Building codes <br /> Potential future programming ideas <br /> Athletic Needs Assessment <br />o WSB will be speaking with athletic associations within New Brighton and surrounding areas <br />regarding field use, needs, participation and growth. <br /> Park Evaluations <br />o WSB will be visiting each park in New Brighton and evaluating the site and park amenities <br />based upon age, condition, accessibility and design. <br /> <br />Steering Committee Input <br />Amberg led committee members in conducting a SWOT analysis as follows: <br /> <br />Strengths <br /> 50% Cost Recovery mainly (revenue <br />from Eagles Nest contributes) while 28% <br />is average <br /> Lots of Parks, within ½ mile +/- <br /> Parks are being used: city survey <br />indicated 9 out of 10 use parks <br /> School district is a strength – growth and <br />demand <br /> Location of New Brighton in proximity to <br />the downtown areas (draws residents) <br /> Long term stability of community <br /> Younger and more diverse new <br />community members <br /> Economically diverse – good range of <br />residents from low to high income <br /> Community Center/ Eagle’s Nest <br /> Golf Course <br /> Proximity to regional parks (Silverwood, <br />Long Lake) and Rice Creek trail <br /> Public safety’s relationship with the <br />community <br /> Staff at the Community Center <br /> Has Park & Rec department <br /> Has Parks & Recreation Director <br /> Well run, fiscally sound city <br /> Connection with Moundsview, <br />specifically Carl Brown <br /> <br />Weaknesses <br /> Lack of pool in city building (at school) <br /> Age of park buildings and community center, <br />park amenities: city survey indicated 1 out of <br />10 are satisfied with the parks currently <br /> No sidewalks, few sidewalks <br /> Deferred maintenance <br /> Fields with poor conditions and poor <br />drainage – were not originally built to higher <br />quality to handle poor soils common in parks <br /> Lack of full size multi-purpose fields (High <br />School level) <br /> No athletic complex – cannot accommodate <br />tournaments and fields are spread out <br /> Part of community is resistant to change or <br />funding improvements if residents don’t see <br />a direct impact for them specifically <br /> Focus of neighborhoods on their local park <br />vs. the overall community park system: some <br />have proprietary feel over their park and lack <br />greater overall picture of parks and <br />recreation <br /> Lack of a large gathering space for civic <br />events, concerts, etc. <br /> Lack of a dedicated space for seniors or not <br />enough space to accommodate their <br />programs: City currently doesn’t include <br />some programs common in other areas due <br />to lack of space (serving meals, etc.) <br /> NB is already developed and established <br />community <br /> Southeast area / Vermont Park seems to be