Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communications And Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposal for social media monitoring and resident polling software; questions on survey validity
Summary
Staff proposed a $10,000 budget item to buy social-media aggregation and polling software to automate postings and run resident sentiment polls; council and residents pressed staff on selection bias, bot filtering and transparency before any procurement decision.
City staff proposed on June 19 to make the communications function a standalone department and to budget about $10,000 to license social-media monitoring, automation and resident polling software intended to improve outreach and measure public sentiment.
Assistant City Manager Jim Williams and Communications staff said the tool would centralize social-post publishing, provide social listening to identify trending issues, and enable repeatable and micro-surveys so council and staff can track resident satisfaction over time. Communications staff noted the department currently operates with a single dedicated position (multimedia communications officer Casey Parker) and occasionally receives help from other staff; they said software could increase productivity without adding headcount.
Several council members and residents raised questions about survey validity and transparency. Residents and Council Member questions focused on selection bias (who responds to open surveys), bot or duplicate responses, how samples would be validated, and whether the city would publish results. Staff said vendors offer filtering to reduce automated or multiple responses, that live dashboards or published reports would be possible, and that staff would brief council on vendor choices and configuration before implementation. Staff also said there are more statistically rigorous, paid community-survey services that use sampling methodology if the council wants statistically representative results; those services would be separate from the proposed $10,000 package.
Council asked staff to present vendor options and validation procedures before committing funds. Staff said the $10,000 figure is an estimate for initial implementation and expected annual subscription costs at a similar level. The communications budget reorganization and the proposed software purchase were presented in the FY 2025–26 budget workshop and will be considered further as part of the budget process.
Why it matters: The software could change how the city gathers and responds to resident feedback and permit trend monitoring, but open surveys risk selection bias if not designed to statistical standards. Council signaled interest in the capability but asked for vendor briefings and clarity on methodology, data sampling and transparency before approving the expenditure.
Next steps: Staff will evaluate vendors, return to council with a product brief showing how the vendor addresses bot filtering, sampling bias and reporting, and incorporate the decision into the final FY 2025–26 budget deliberations.
