CC_Minutes_2013_0415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 15, 2013 Page 30 bile or enhanced e-communications components as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Grefenberg expressed appreciation in working with staff; however, he stated frankly that while there had been some advocates —himself included— of contin- uing to use Civic Plus, during the process it had become evident that they could not provide what the City needed, especially with the civic engagement compo- nent. Discussion ensued regarding the civic engagement component as a stand-alone proposal; misunderstandings among committee members regarding committee priorities and recommendations, established as 1) web design; 2) usability studies; and 3) civic engagement. Mayor Roe summarized the committee recommendation that the user study and one consultant to coordinate all of this was necessary, with the options for mobile and enhanced e-communications not yet indicated until the other components were completed; and further noted that staff was seeking further direction from the City Council on the civic engagement component, as outlined in the RCA. Mayor Roe expressed his appreciation for the committee's observation; and again summarized that a user experience evaluation appeared to be the number one pri- ority. Mr. Grefenberg advised that the committee was thinking basically of functionali- ty, and thought an agreement had been reached for adoption of three (3) recom- mendations and one recommendation to seek authorization to pursue the civic en- gagement component. Councilmember McGehee spoke strongly for a user beta test, opining that the cur- rent site's search function was practically non-existent and inconvenient. As a user, Councilmember McGehee suggested that this be the first step, and additional components not be considered at this time, as long as they could be interfaced at a later date. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Pratt clarified that actual services that Vision Internet would offer; with Councilmember Etten not comfortable with the cost for the enhanced e-communication component at this time. Councilmember Laliberte advised that she could not support a User Experience Evaluation, as she had found that website companies dealing with redesign in- cluded that as part of what they do; and suggested that the RCA (line 47) combine their professional assessment with Attachment B needs identified by the commit- tee and task force, to clarify what the City needed and wanted. However, Coun- cilmember Laliberte advised that she could not support Fredrickson Communica- tions at $36,000.00. If the City was assured that Vision Internet could provide what the City needed, or other components, Councilmember Laliberte advised