Staff presented four mass notification proposals and described common features: GIS‑based targeting to city limits and rooftop mapping, telephone and text messaging, and optional weather automation in some products.

Why it matters: council members asked whether notifications could be limited to city limits, whether nonresidents could be allowed to register, and how pricing would scale with users and optional geo‑fencing. Staff said most vendors price based on population or number of subscribers and offered to confirm whether signups for nonresidents or out‑of‑city addresses could be enabled without increasing the city’s per‑user costs.

Details: staff said two vendors explicitly cited GIS mapping and rooftop parcel targeting; Text My Gov was noted to integrate with a weather‑alert system that could automatically send emergency weather updates. Reported pricing examples included a one‑time setup fee of about $2,000 plus a small monthly fee for one vendor, and another vendor’s first‑year pricing was listed at a slightly higher figure; staff said final pricing depends on the number of subscribers and optional features (phone calls, texts, geo‑fencing).

Council direction: members asked staff to confirm whether county partners (Walton County, which operates the city’s water system) could push notifications through the city’s system, and whether the system could be set so only residents inside city limits receive messages. A council member said they would be “very hesitant” to extend city notification services to nonresidents by default, though the ability for individuals outside the city to opt in was discussed as a technical possibility. Staff will request formal clarifications from vendors about pricing tiers, nonresident opt‑in flows, and website integration.