HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-12 Bozeman Climate Partners Communications and Outreach Working Group Minutes Bozeman Climate Partners
Communications & Outreach Working Group
qF BOg�
.•.1883..
9r4''ca.'eM1�?
Meeting Minutes
May 16',2012, g:ooam
Bozeman City Hall, Madison Room
Members Attending:
Jay Sinnott, Nick Bentley, Kathy Powell, Kristen Walser, Kathy Powell,
Benjamin Bennett
Cyndy Andrus (Commission Liaison), Emily Baker(Energy Corps Member)
Staff Present:
Natalie Meyer(Staff Liaison)
1) Call to Order
2) Changes to the Agenda
a. None
3) Approval of Minutes
4) Motion to approve minutes from May 2" by Bentley; seconded by Sinott.
5) Public Comment
a. None
6) First Round Logo Design Review— Brad Bunkers
a. Bunkers presented the group with 6 logo design concepts. He went through each,
describing how he felt it represented the group's goals and mission.
b. Group discussion on the various logo options. Numbers 1 and 6 emerged as the
favorites. Number 4 was interesting, but perhaps too literal or cerebral; group chose
one and six as the concepts for Bunkers to focus on for future revision.
c. Public Input process: group discussion
i. Original idea behind public input was to start outreach, and getting our name out
there into the public arena.
ii. With perhaps one week in which to get that input, public input perhaps doesn't fit
our original purpose.
iii. The working group seems like a good cross-section of Bozeman; we're a fairly
representative sample.
d. Process: Bunkers will send Meyer a pdf of the logos, for members not present to
review. He will send revised versions of the logos to Meyer by May 23rd
7) Website RFP (Meyer)
a. Meyer asked the group for input on the proposed timeline.
i. Andrus clarified that it is a request for proposals, not bids, thus an rfp/ proposals
due. If it is a bid, we are bound to go with the lowest offer, not necessarily the best
for our purposes.
ii. Andrus pointed out that Memorial Day is right in the middle of the website
process, and it might be good to leave a little extra room there.
iii. Question of whether 2 weeks is long enough for proposals.
1. Bennett and Bentley believe so.
iv. Discussion of commission meeting dates, and getting items, like the website rfp
on the agenda.
v. Group assent that we will move the contract agreement to the City Commission
meeting on July 2nd
vi. Powel pointed out that we will want to check references, and this may take some
additional time before selection. Meyer reminded the group that one of the main
limiting factors is our meetings: we can make large decisions only at these
meetings, not over email.
vii. Bennett mentioned that example websites given in the proposals should be "live".
We should be able to click-around and check them out, make sure they work well.
viii. Andrus asked the group if there was any problem with moving the website date
back by two weeks. Powel reminded the group of the planned CAP conference in
the fall —we want to have it up and running before then. Meyer had anticipated
having the website and logo ready to go by the start of the summer; Andrus said
she didn't think the commission was too worried by it, and didn't think that 2
weeks would affect thinking on the progress with the CAP.
ix. Decision to move the firm selection date back two weeks. Absolute date we must
have the website up and ready to go: August 31St
x. Evaluation Criteria
1. Group agreement that we will have similar scoring/ evaluation process as the
logo selection process.
2. Discussion on specifics yielded:
a. Portfolio Review (with live sites)
b. Qualifications/ References
c. Proposed Fee
d. Platform (wordpress, other suggested)
e. Fees for Additional Features (facebook integration, other suggested)
3. Prices: Andrus asked whether it would be appropriate to include a price ceiling
in the rfp, as websites can be from 3k to 100k and up. Baker thought it would
perhaps drive up the prices to the maximum we quoted.
4. Bennett said that the navigation tree we will put in the rfp should give a good
scope of work, and thus dictate the price. Quoting a max shouldn't be
necessary, if we are clear how the nav tree will work
5. Powell asked which version of the outline we were planning to include in the
rfp; Bennett recommended the detailed longer one.
a. As this is not finalized, Meyer will contact people responsible for specific
sections, and vet the list before sending out the rfp.
b. Group agreement that we need this outline to be a semi-finalized thing, in
order to work on content, and to share information back and forth with
the website developer.
8) Adjournment