HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Minutes_5-16-12Bozeman Climate Partners
Communications & Outreach Working Group
/
Meeting Minutes
May 16th, 2012, 9:00am
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)
Call
to Order
Changes to the Agenda
None
Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve minutes from May 2nd by Bentley; seconded by Sinott.
Public Comment
None
First Round Logo Design Review – Brad
Bunkers
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.
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.
Public Input process: group discussion
Original idea behind public input was to start outreach, and getting our name out there into the public arena.
With perhaps
one week in which to get that input, public input perhaps doesn’t fit our original purpose.
The working group seems like a good cross-section of Bozeman; we’re a fairly representative
sample.
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.
Website RFP (Meyer)
Meyer
asked the group for input on the proposed timeline.
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.
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.
Question of whether 2 weeks is
long enough for proposals.
Bennett and Bentley believe so.
Discussion of commission meeting dates, and getting items, like the website rfp on the agenda.
Group assent that we will move
the contract agreement to the City Commission meeting on July 2nd.
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.
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.
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.
Decision to move the firm selection date back two weeks. Absolute date we must have the website up and ready to go: August 31st.
Evaluation Criteria
Group agreement that
we will have similar scoring/ evaluation process as the logo selection process.
Discussion on specifics yielded:
Portfolio Review (with live sites)
Qualifications/ References
Proposed
Fee
Platform (wordpress, other suggested)
Fees for Additional Features (facebook integration, other suggested)
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.
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
Powell asked which version
of the outline we were planning to include in the rfp; Bennett recommended the detailed longer one.
As this is not finalized, Meyer will contact people responsible for specific sections,
and vet the list before sending out the rfp.
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.
Adjournment