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