Open Space Advisory Board 2018 01 10 Final Minutes

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes January 10th, 2017 Page 5 of 6 X. Discussion Item: Finalize 2017 OSAB Accomplishments The 2017 Goals/Accomplishments list was in the packet. Helen asked if anyone had any comments or edits to the document as written. Laura commented that she liked this format of checking in on the year's goals periodically and thought it worked well. Laura moved to accept the document as written. Peter seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Xl. Discussion Item: SWOT Analysis for 2018 A. Helen lead the group in a SWOT analysis to identify OSAB's priorities and concerns. Board members were asked over email to brainstorm about OSAB's Strengths (internal), Weaknesses (internal), Opportunities (external), and Threats (external). The board members wrote quick summaries of their ideas onto colored post- it notes, and then put them onto the room's white board into each of the SWOT categories. The board members then organized the post-it notes into groupings, to identify redundancies and patterns. Members summarized each category. Then Helen had the board members affix dot stickers to the two post-its or groupings of post-its she thought were the most important or significant in each category. Then the board members discussed the emerging patterns of priorities of the board. What follows is a summary of the white board's final configuration, with dot-totals, for each category. STRENGTHS (internal): —Enthusiastic backing of huge majority of residents for Open Space (4 dots) —Reputation with City Council/Council Support (1 dot) —High quality of Open Space/Parks staff (7 dots) —Board talent/board preparation (1 dot) —OSAB passion for& commitment to Open Space (1 dot) —Tiger teams (1 dot) —Public education efforts (0 dots) —Regular positive interaction with surrounding communities (1 dot) WEAKNESSES (internal): —Lack of real estate expertise on board, lack of diversity on board (0 dots) —Competition with other City priorities (1 dot) —Limited time (4 dots) —Limited understanding of the budget processes (4 dots) —Under investment in education (0 dots) —Lack of master plan for dog facilities (2 dots) —Weak communication with the public (4 dots) —Challenging relationship sometimes with Council (0 dots) —Potential for myopic view of Open Space issues (1 dot) —Meeting packets with clear action items (what are we being asked to do?) (0 dots) OPPORTUNITIES (external): —Partnerships with other communities/jurisdictions (2 dots) —Improve public communication channels/engagement (6 dots) —Develop restoration plans for heavily impacted properties (2 dots) —Seeking what we want instead of accepting what we get (0 dots) —Wayfinding: build the network (4 dots) —Benchmarking of Open Space spending vs. other communities (0 dots)