SWOT ANALYSIS RESULTS
DEPARTMENT HEADS
· City Staff - attitude, care about the city. · Great things to do. Good quality of life. · Diversity of thought people think through issues. · Opportunity because of university, culture, schools, very accessible. Family get participate in many and varied activities. · Geographic location center, transportation, KU, people in the community, state partners with state. · People have different opinions and are open minded sets us apart. · Diversity of Lawrence provides knowledge of different concerns. · Passionate people, relatively smart population. · Diversity educated. · Population caring. · Empathetic population. · Quality of Personnel. · Relationships with other agencies.
|
· Inconsistency of policy application city commissions keep changing the direction of the City. · Bedroom town impacts community involvement. · Unruly visitors to Lawrence. · Lacking Lawrence standard of improving just better is good enough. · Special interest groups decisiveness opposition to change. · No consistent priorities. Lack of strategic planning. · Lack of better paying jobs. · Lack of a plan for the City. · Risk adverse. · Easily sidelined. · Get off topic story versus facts. · Turnover/retirements loss of knowledge base. · Organizational staffing levels.
|
· Rock Chalk Park, SLT, individual parks are going to attract greater development opportunity. · Coalescing of different interests opportunity to create greater cohesion. · Growth in our tax base which results from marketing our differences and cultural advantages. · We have so much to offer poised to be a great location for numbers of new businesses. Exploit our ability to collaborate. · Keep growth growing with new comp plan. · Development of riverfront. · City relationship with university. Partnership between university and city. More opportunities to explore. · River is an opportunity. · Expand our job opportunities · Technology. · New leadership to get us to focus our efforts not kneejerk reactions. · Young training with the university get them involved and to contribute. · Recruitment/retention/diversity. · Strategic planning. |
· Defunded maintenance and lack of funding for our infrastructure. · Future of the university. · Not thinking outside the box backing away from too much criticism. Reducing our standards to follow sales tax dollars. · Other cities are more welcoming and interested in new development. Lack of collaboration. · Lack of clear vision from City Commission. · States impact on home rule · State legislation. Increase demands for non-core services. Affordable housing, social justice. · Failure in economic development which creates significant tax burden. · fear of change · Economic issues find a way to pay for needs and some wants. · Possible find other sources of revenue. · Aging infrastructure. · Changing government direction. |