My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2014_0414
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
CC_Minutes_2014_0414
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2014 9:32:05 AM
Creation date
4/24/2014 9:31:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
4/14/2014
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, April 14,2014 <br /> Page 17 <br /> Member Grefenberg opined that he didn't find it traumatic to delay action for one <br /> month for the CEC to meet with staff to review this; and expressed his interest in <br /> continuing this discussion with staff and state what was desired from the architec- <br /> ture. From his perspective, Member Grefenberg opined that what the site looked <br /> like was not of the greatest importance, but the need for the CEC to be listened to <br /> and be allowed to meet with staff, opining that this was his perception of what the <br /> City Council initiated the CEC for in the first place. <br /> Member Gardella stated that as long as she knew the opportunity for input and <br /> changes were available within the updated website structure, she was fine with the <br /> staff recommendations and process to proceed at this point. Recognizing that the <br /> CEC only met monthly, Member Gardella opined that a one month delay would <br /> not allow them to address the situation, and suggested that the CEC needed more <br /> time. If the RFP may be open again in the future if needed, Member Gardella <br /> opined that if the CivicPlus site was not working, and changes not working, she <br /> was fine moving forward with that potential for change available if and when <br /> needed. <br /> Member Mueller concurred with the comments of Member Gardena; and based <br /> on Mr. Bowman's comments, the vehicle was available to get to the goal and pro- <br /> vide input later. <br /> Member Becker, based on his experience and career designing websites, opined <br /> that when he reviewed proposals such as this one, he looked for "gotcha's". <br /> Member Becker opined that, when going with a contract management platform <br /> such as this, you were essentially locked in; and he had concerns about that, and <br /> continued to have many open questions, whether they were deal breakers or not. <br /> From his perspective, Member Becker opined that CivicPlus seemed inexpensive, <br /> and questioned if their initial proposal would require additional add-ons and addi- <br /> tional money to accomplish them. One example used by Member Becker was <br /> whether consulting costs would apply from CivicPlus if and when a third party in- <br /> tegration occurred and two-way dialogue needed. Member Becker advised that <br /> there were too many unknowns to him at this time; and many layers (e.g. mobile <br /> applications and GPS integration) that may all be additional things supported by <br /> the CEC, but not necessarily available from this simple redesign and relook of the <br /> current website; getting to the entire issue of parity. Member Becker encouraged <br /> the City Council to seriously think about that, and any potential design fee or an- <br /> nual fee from CivicPlus. <br /> Member Manke expressed her interest in receiving answers to those questions at <br /> this point versus waiting for those answers later and finding that the money could <br /> have been better spent. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.