Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council considers FlashVote polling contract; asks staff to seek shorter initial term
Summary
City Manager Jared Gerber presented a proposal to contract with FlashVote to build a resident survey pool and run monthly short surveys. Council members supported the vendor's approach but asked staff to negotiate a one‑ or two‑year initial term rather than the proposed three‑year commitment, and recommended approving the contract contingent on that change.
City Manager Jared Gerber presented a proposed contract with FlashVote, a polling platform the city tested by demonstration. FlashVote would build a resident pool and deliver short surveys (typically under five minutes) across phone, text and email, with analytics and demographic filters.
Gerber said the three‑year package would run approximately $9,900 per year and provide up to six to seven surveys annually. Council members praised the ability to reach a broad and responsive pool but raised methodological and procurement questions: several members were concerned the margin of error shown in a demo (plus or minus 6 percent) was wider than they preferred, and others were cautious about committing to a three‑year initial term without a one‑year opt‑out. Councilmember questioning included whether the city or the vendor would build the pool, how representative the sample would be by district and demographic, and whether results could be used reliably in public meetings.
Several council members proposed approving the contract tonight contingent on staff returning with a shortened initial term (one or two years) or an annual renewal clause; staff said the vendor prefers a multi‑year agreement because much of the cost is front‑loaded in building the pool. The council instructed staff to negotiate the initial term when finalizing the contract and remain mindful of cost increases if the term is shortened.
Staff said the contract could be funded from existing professional services budgets for the first year and would not require a budget amendment at this time.
