Council debates opt‑in vs. opt‑out communication tools and elected‑official access

Staff presented options for modernizing the city’s constituent outreach and elected‑official communication tools and framed a policy discussion about opt‑in versus opt‑out approaches. Staff noted some platforms operate on an opt‑in basis while others (IndiGov, per the slide) can import broader contact data and charge based on subscriber counts; a staff presenter put an annual per‑user estimate at approximately $2,000 for certain products.

Council members argued both for proactive, personalized outreach to constituents and for limits that avoid diluting citywide messaging. Administrator Zelens asked the council to define policy guardrails: "Do you want to, as a local government, opt people into all of your communication when they haven't chosen to get communication from you?" she asked, framing the central governance question for the council. Several members urged a policy before adopting any opt‑in/out‑capable vendor and asked staff to return with a recommendation that includes governance and ethics rules for elected‑official communications.

Why it matters: the decision will shape how residents receive timely, geographically targeted notices (public meetings, construction, emergency alerts) and will determine whether elected officials have carve‑outs or shared resources for constituent engagement. Staff said a tool choice could be accommodated in the communications budget with modest one‑time costs but requested council policy direction on whether to pursue an opt‑in approach or consider a platform that imports voter/address data.