Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Website Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Communications committee prioritizes website text over data hub if budget timing requires it
Summary
The Columbia River Gorge Commission communications committee decided to prioritize finalizing website text and a public-facing site update, with staff to confirm budget implications tied to a June 30 fiscal deadline before shifting VSI/BSI data-hub timing.
Christina, the commission staff lead, told the Communications Committee that staffer Sage had nearly completed edits to the commission’s new website text and asked whether members preferred to review a populated Word document or see content loaded directly onto the site. Sage said she could send the draft by the end of the week and suggested a two-week review window for commissioners.
The committee discussed competing deadlines and the workload required to launch both the website and a separate VSI (data) hub. "I am planning to go live with the VSI Data Hub in July," Sage said, noting the hub comprises 17 pages and 32 datasets. Sage added that some datasets—specifically those relying on U.S. Forest Service material—may not be ready by July because of funding delays.
Commissioners weighed whether to prioritize the website text or the VSI hub. Several members said they would favor moving website text to the front of the queue if doing so would not affect existing budgets or partner commitments. "If it can be done without impact to budget, I guess, I agree," one commissioner said during the discussion. Christina told the committee she and staff (Sage and Connie) would review budget implications before changing priorities and would notify commissioners if the ADR budget timing precluded shifting work.
Budget timing factored heavily in the discussion. A staff member explained the fiscal constraint bluntly: "June 30 is a drop deadline. If an invoice isn't in, it's not paid." That deadline led several members to caution that reordering priorities could risk missing invoice or obligation windows. The committee therefore directed staff to check whether reprioritizing content work would interfere with required fiscal deadlines and to proceed with the website work if it would not create budget problems.
Sage said she would share draft language first with the partners who contributed data and expertise and then circulate the draft to the full commission for review; commissioners recommended providing a concrete calendar for review to keep the process moving.
The committee did not take a formal vote. The next steps are a staff meeting to confirm budget implications and a planned demonstration of the VSI portal to commissioners, followed by a timeline for final review that staff will circulate.
