Laserfiche WebLink
Open Space Advisory Board <br />Memo Continued <br />December 14, 2022 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Are there tweaks we should make? For example, weight certain attributes (water, size, current <br />condition) differently, decrease the number of categories, add our own "high/med/low" <br />ranking (instead of or in addition to the absolute numeric score). <br />How and when do we factor in varying acquisition strategies? In 2021 OSAB added acquisition <br />strategies last but establishing the acquisition strategy or priority first (e.g., if a property is a fee <br />simple acquisition or just a trail easement target) might enable more consensus about the <br />relative ranking of each properties. <br />How do we factor in the financial requirement for an acquisition, if at all? <br />How can we be mindful of the need to be opportunistic (i.e., properties won't come to market <br />in the order in which we have ranked them)? When and how should OSAB should be more <br />proactive about acquisition targets? <br />Next Steps: <br />OSAB will discuss opportunities for improving the process and identify a timeline for any next steps, which will <br />be added as future agenda discussion items. The overall goal is to have the revised process in place for use in <br />2023. <br />Documents Attached: <br />1.OSAB Recommended Candidate Open Space Ranking Table <br />2. City of Louisville Candidate Open Space Category Definitions <br />3. Result of 2021 ranking process <br />4. Reference Map <br />17 <br />