The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFCS-12-047- Robotic Camera Report FinalREPORT TO: Mayor C. Zehr and Members of Council DATE OF MEETING: March 26, 2012 SUBMITTED BY: Randy Gosse, Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk PREPARED BY: Colin Goodeve, Supervisor, Legislated Services (519) 741- 2278 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: February 3, 2012 REPORT NO.: FCS-11-047 SUBJECT: UTILIZATION OF THE ROBOTIC CAMERAS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER RECOMMENDATION: For information and direction. BACKGROUND: In 2005, Rogers Television submitted a proposal to install robotic cameras in the Council Chamber for the purposes of broadcasting Council meetings. In addition, City staff would have full use of the cameras and equipment to record / broadcast other meetings. In May 2007, the City contributed funds and services for the wiring, construction of the control room and other requirements at a cost of $15,000. An Installation Agreement was entered into with Rogers Television, which sets each parties responsibility with respect to the recording equipment. Since 2008, Rogers Television has used the cameras to record approximately eight meetings of Kitchener City Council per year. In addition, Legislated Services staff were trained by Rogers Television in the operation of the cameras and have used them to record select meetings. These recordings have been used to aid staff in the composition of minutes for complex meetings; such as, Council’s budget sessions. REPORT: Having audio / video recordings of Council and Standing Committee meetings, would align with the accountability and transparency tenets set out in Part V.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001. These recordings would enable the public to better understand what led Council to make a particular decision, as well as providing an opportunity to see the debate and discussion that occurred at a meeting. The purpose of this report is to receive direction from Council as to how to move forward regarding the potential utilization of the Robotic Cameras in the Council Chamber. The feedback that staff receives will be used to scope the issues and identify where staff should focus its attention. Further research will be needed to determine the exact financial implications with implementing whatever direction is provided by Council, as well as the associated impact on staff resources. Accordingly, depending on the feedback received, it is staffs’ intention to report back prior to the 2013 Budget deliberations, with details on the administrative as well as financial impacts of utilizing the Council Chamber Robotic Cameras. One of the goals identified at the onset of this project was to allow for the video recording of a meeting to be broken down and edited into smaller components corresponding to individual agenda items. These recordings would then be posted to the City’s website and linked to the meeting agenda, reports and minutes; thereby providing an easy means for someone to access all of the information on a particular item of interest. Unfortunately, the existing software (owned by Rogers Television) does not have the processing power to capture the video in an uncompressed format outside of its own processes. Rogers has asked that the City not use the capture module on the system due to performance reasons. The easiest way to enable the City to capture its own recordings without impacting that system is to re-route the video and audio feed and install an encoding / capture device specific to the needs of the City of Kitchener. It is estimated that approximately $13,000. to $15,000. would be needed in order to record and post a video online after a meeting. A Background Study titled, ‘Utilization of the Robotic Cameras in the Council Chamber’ was undertaken to examine the potential to utilize the robotic cameras on a regular basis; and, to determine if those cameras could be incorporated into the City’s current business practices. During the development of the Background Study, it became evident that direction would be needed on certain fundamental questions, the most prominent being: Whether there is merit to recording all Council and Standing Committee meetings and making those recordings available to the public online? If the answer to the above question is yes, then direction is needed on the following three key issues prior to moving forward: 1. A determination is needed as to which of the following is an acceptable minimum standard for the City’s broadcast production quality: i. Single camera; ii. Multi-camera; or, iii. Rogers TV Quality. 2. Proposed changes to the format of meeting minutes to be more consistent with the majority of municipalities in Ontario as well as to more closely align with Section 228.1(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001; and, 3. Whether there is merit in further investigating live web-streaming of Council and Standing Committee meetings? Interconnected with the issue of web-streaming is the possible embedding of closed captions, or subtitle transcript into the video stream. While not legislatively required, this service is currently being provided by a small number of other municipalities and from an ethical stand point, the City may want to investigate offering this service. Preliminary investigations have shown that there would be a sizable cost associated with the provision of closed captioning. 1. BROADCAST QUALITY One factor that will have a considerable impact on the amount of staff time needed to record Council and/or Committee meetings, relates to the desired broadcast production quality. The following outlines the three alternative means by which the cameras can and have been utilized. Each alternative places different requirements on staff time; whereby, as the quality of the production increases, so too does the demand for resources. A determination will need to be made as to which of the following would be considered the preferred alternative. Comprehensive examples of each alternative can be found in the Background Study. i. Single Camera This would provide one static view of the meeting. It does not provide the quality of video that could be produced using the video mixing equipment with multiple pan-tilt-zooms; as employed for the other Options. With the single camera overview, it would be difficult for viewers to tell who is speaking in some circumstances. Further, presentations on the screen in the Council Chamber are not always legible when using this method of production, which could create a challenge for someone trying to determine the topic being discussed, or what point Council is at in a meeting. A single camera static view option does provide the most cost effective means of producing a recording, as it requires a minimal amount of staff time and interaction with the recording equipment during a meeting. ii. Multi-Camera For this Option, all six cameras in the Council Chamber would be operated to capture the various speakers, allowing for a more accurate depiction of what occurred at a meeting. Unlike a broadcast produced by Rogers Television, graphics identifying who is speaking or the topic under discussion would not be utilized. During the meeting, staff would need to be present in the control room to establish which camera angles to use as well as attempting to anticipate who will be responding to questions; and, monitor the audio levels to ensure sound quality. Option ii would provide a balance between the single camera view and the more labour intensive Option iii. iii. Rogers TV Quality (multi-camera with graphics) All six cameras in the Council Chamber would be operated to capture the various speakers with professional style graphics. Currently, a Rogers’ staff person arrives at City Hall to prepare the graphics for a meeting approximately one to two hours prior to a broadcast. It is estimated that staff would need a similar amount of time to develop and load graphics for use during a meeting. Consideration should also be given to the consistency of broadcast quality. Rogers Television is currently web-streaming and archiving copies of all Kitchener City Council meetings that they produce. If it is determined that the City should pursue web-streaming, be it live or accessible online following the meeting, consideration should be given to whether the product being produced by the City should be of a similar quality to that of Rogers. Below is an example as to what is meant by the term “graphic”: These graphics are used by Rogers Television during their broadcasts to identify who is speaking and the topic being discussed at a specific Council meeting. The above graphic is technically three graphics merged into one. It consists of the City of Kitchener logo, the date of the meeting and in this instance the person who is singing “O Canada”. These kinds of graphics are helpful for someone just tuning into a broadcast to identify where Council is at in their meeting agenda; however, these graphics are time consuming to make and a significant amount of staff training would be required to implement and maintain this level of production quality. Technical Requirements Related to Broadcast Quality The selection of one of the above forms of broadcast quality would predicate the need to address certain technical requirements. Currently meetings are recorded on to a DVD, which has a recording capacity of four to five hours, from which it is possible to upload the recordings from the DVD and posted the extracted video online. The existing system does have the ability to convert the audio and video signals into an MPEG file. However, using the existing video capture program causes the computer to slow down which creates a lag in the recording software and can potentially crash the system mid-broadcast. Installation of a dedicated encoder device to create a digital file has been identified as the preferred solution to this issue. It would also make it easier to edit and post segments of the video recording online with specific agenda items. Having the recordings in a digital format would save staff time following the meeting with respect to posting the recording online and would be necessary if the City were to pursue live web-streaming. Which broadcast production quality would Council prefer to see implemented? 2. CHANGES TO THE FORMAT OF MEETING MINUTES Using the cameras in the Council Chamber to record meetings could impact the very nature of how minutes are taken at the City of Kitchener. Currently, for Standing Committees, a Committee Administrator attends the meeting and takes descriptive notes recording what occurred during the meeting in detail. From these notes the Committee Administrator, with the assistance of an Administrative Clerk, drafts the meeting minutes, which provide a comprehensive overview of the discussion and actions undertaken at the meeting. This process typically takes four days to complete, depending on length and complexity of the meeting. The vast majority of municipalities in Ontario produce minutes that more closely align with Section 228.1(a), of the Municipal Act, 2001, in that for the most part they generally reflect who was in attendance, the items that were considered as well as any action that was taken by Council. A comparison between the two styles of minutes can be seen in Appendixes’ ‘A’ and ‘B’, attached to this report. Appendix ‘A’ shows the extent of discussion that went into Waterloo City Council minutes when they considered the Square2Square issue. Appendix ‘B’ shows the amount of content that went into the minutes when Kitchener City Council discussed the Square2Square item. Should Council find merit in utilizing the Council Chamber cameras, there may no longer be a need to include the same level of detail in the meeting minutes. During the meeting, the Committee Administrator would record all parliamentary actions and continue to provide advice on proper meeting procedure. This record of parliamentary actions would serve as the official meeting minutes, pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001. Staff will investigate the feasibility of indexing the recorded meeting, so that it will match with the written minutes and associated report(s) allowing someone to undertake a comprehensive search on a subject. It is important to note that should any technical difficulties arise with the recording, the new format of the written meeting minutes would form the only record of what occurred at that particular meeting. Is Council comfortable with changing the way minutes are taken if recordings of the meetings are made available online? 3. LIVE WEB-STREAMING A web-cast is a media file distributed over the Internet using streaming media technology. As a television broadcast may be either live or recorded, similarly, a web-cast may be distributed live or recorded and later posted to the Internet. There are a number of implications associated with implementing real-time or live web-streaming of Council and Committee meetings. Web- streaming can be a costly and staff intensive initiative and evidence shows that audiences for political meetings streamed over the Internet have a tendency to be very small. Viewership A representative sampling was conducted into the average viewership for municipalities that web-stream council meetings using Rogers Television. The examination focused on all meetings that were web-streamed from the start of each municipality’s new term of Council through to the summer of 2011. For each meeting, the views were recorded and then broken down into what that equated to as a percentage of that municipality’s population. Overall, when taken as a percentage of a municipality’s population, it becomes apparent that there is minimal viewership for web-streamed meetings of municipal councils and committees. For example on average only 94.5 people tune into watch Mississauga City Council meetings via the Internet, which equates to 0.0001% of their population. Similarly, only 95.6 people on average tune in to watch London City Council meetings, which is approximately 0.0003% of their population. As of September 2011, all Kitchener City Council meetings that are televised by Rogers are now streamed on their website www.rogerstv.com as well as being archived on that site for future viewing. Since that time, staff have been tracking the number of views that each broadcast initially received, being: September 19, 2011 12 views October 24, 2011 10 views December 5, 2011 14 views The above figures can be interpreted as being reflective of the number of people who may have watched the live broadcast via the Rogers Television website. When staff re-checked the Rogers Television website on December 6, 2011, the following are the number of people who viewed the archived video after each meeting: September 19, 2011 65 views October 24, 2011 40 views December 5, 2011 42 views It should be noted that while a sizable increase has been observed over the original number of views, the new numbers equate to only 0.00028%, 0.00017% and 0.00018% respectively of the City’s population. In order to pursue web-streaming, preliminary estimates indicate that $2,000. to $4,000. may be required in addition to the previously quoted $13,000. to $15,000. It is important to note that this does not include any operating costs and/or staff time that may be required to undertake web-streaming. If this is pursued, it will need to be determined if there is an expectation to also have IT staff on hand during a meeting to troubleshoot any technical difficulties that may arise with the equipment. Is there merit in investigating live web-streaming of Council and Standing Committee meetings? 4. CLOSED CAPTIONING Section 14(4) (accessible websites and web content) of Ontario Regulation 191/11 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), requires designated public sector organizations (which includes municipalities), by January 1, 2021, to have all Internet website and web content conform with the World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA; except with respect to Captions (Live) and Audio Descriptions (Pre-recorded). Therefore, there is no requirement under the AODA, obligating municipalities to provide closed captioning for videos posted on their websites. However, from an ethical stand point and to align with the overall tenets of that legislation, if meetings are to be live- streamed via the web, it would be incumbent upon the City to investigate offering this service. Real-time captioning is the process of creating captions for live events and live videos. During the live broadcast, real-time captions are produced by a specially trained captionist who uses a steno machine (similar to court reporters) to "write" captions which are then translated through special software, sent to the broadcaster via modem and embedded into the video stream. To facilitate this, additional equipment and software would need to be installed. Closed captioning service requires an intermediary transcription process and since the objective is real-time translation, the text stream would not represent a substantially verbatim record and is limited in distinguishing multiple speakers. For real-time captioning, the cost is based on how long the service is needed and whether one or more captioners are required. While rates for captioning vary depending on the skill set of the captioner and meeting content, it can range between $125. to $145. per hour. The cost typically consists of a four hour minimum charge, which includes three hours for the actual voice-to-text captioning service and one hour of preparation before the meeting. After that, the rate is charged for every hour or part thereof. Accordingly, the provision of real-time captioning could be cost prohibitive given the length of Standing Committee and Council meetings. The cost to the City to send the signal to the closed captioning company and then receive the embedded captions for all regular Council and Standing Committee meeting held in 2011 would have been approximately $30,740. It is estimated that at least one additional encoder would be required, which could cost anywhere from $4,000. to $10,000. There would also be costs associated with having dedicated phone lines to connect to the captioner. Given these expenses, consideration should be given to the number of views web-casted Council and Committee meetings receive and whether there is enough interest to justify proceeding with live web-streaming. If it is decided that the video recordings would only be posted to the website following the meeting, staff could investigate the possibility of having closed captioning and/or producing a transcript of the meeting; which would be embedded into the video. Certain challenges are inherent in this depending on which quality of broadcast production is selected to record the meeting. For example, if the Single Camera option is selected, it could be difficult to determine who is speaking as most people are not shown on the screen; or, if a person does not speak directly into their microphone. To enable this type of closed captioning and/or transcript to be produced in a timely fashion, it is likely that a third party service provider would need to be retained. This is based on initial assessments of the amount of time it might take to produce a transcript in-house; and, the possibility that this might off-set the efficiencies gained by recording Council and Standing Committee meetings. Pending the direction received from Council, staff will investigate the various third party services providers as well as whether this could be accommodated in-house. Is there merit to providing closed captioning? HOW OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DEALT WITH THIS MATTER Over 20 municipalities were surveyed as part of this project, with follow-up telephone calls being placed where additional information was required, or there was no response to staff’s initial inquiry. Several municipalities that provide web-casting are assisted by their local cable companies, while other upload videos of their meetings through a third party service provider. Through this investigation it was determined that no one format has risen to the front to become the industry standard. The following is a consolidation of the responses received by staff: LIVE-AVERAGECLOSED IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITY STREAMED? VIEWERSHIP? CAPTIONING?MINUTES? Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»®Ò±½¸¿²¹» ïííª·»©°»® Ò± City of Brantford Ì»´»ª··±²¢ø£?«?_?ø±?Ã`£ø ³»»¬·²¹ ??±Ã«ª??Y?Ã£ª¡ ¢Ãª244,¡ Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»® çêª·»©°»® Ò±Ò±·³°¿½¬ City of London Ì»´»ª··±² ³»»¬·²¹ ¢Ãª2434¡ Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»® çëª·»©°»® City of Ò±Ó·²·³·¦»¼½±²¬»²¬ Ì»´»ª··±² ³»»¬·²¹ Mississauga ¢Ãª244+¡ Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»®Ò±½¸¿²¹» íèðª·»©°»® Ò± City of Toronto Ì»´»ª··±²¢ø£?«?_?ø±?Ã`£ø ³»»¬·²¹ ??±Ã«ª??Y?Ã£ª¡ ¢Ãª244+¡ Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»®ïéíª·»©°»® City of Ò±Ò±·³°¿½¬ Woodstock Ì»´»ª··±²³»»¬·²¹ Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»®Ò±½¸¿²¹» ïïèª·»©°»®Ò±ô³¿§°«®«» Town of Aurora Ì»´»ª··±²¢ø£?«?_?ø±?Ã`£ø ³»»¬·²¹·²¬¸»º«¬«®» ??±Ã«ª??Y?Ã£ª¡ ¢Ãª244,¡ Ò±½¸¿²¹» Ì±©²ú×Í×Ù´±¾¿´´·³·¬»¼Ç» Town of Milton ¢ø£?«?_?ø±?Ã`£ø ??±Ã«ª??Y?Ã£ª¡ Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»® èéª·»©°»® Town of Ò±Ò±·³°¿½¬ Ì»´»ª··±² Newmarket ³»»¬·²¹ ¢Ãª244+¡ Ò±½¸¿²¹» Ð±¬»¼¬±Ì±©² ³·²·³¿´Ç» Town of Oakville ¢ø£?«?_?ø±?Ã`£ø ©»¾·¬» ??±Ã«ª??Y?Ã£ª¡ Ô·ª»ª·¿Î±¹»® Town of ´·³·¬»¼Ò±Ò±·³°¿½¬ Orangeville Ì»´»ª··±² Ò±½¸¿²¹» Í¬®»¿³»¼¾§×Í× ìðïëðª·»©»®Ç» Region of Halton ¢ø£?«?_?ø±?Ã`£ø Ù´±¾¿´ ??±Ã«ª??Y?Ã£ª¡ ß«¼·±¬®»¿³»¼ ±²Î»¹·±²ù ïìïª·»©»®°»®ß´´±©»¼º±®³±®» Ò± Region of Peel ©»¾·¬»¿²¼´·ª» ³»»¬·²¹¿½½«®¿¬»³·²«¬» ª·¼»±ª·¿Î±¹»® ¢Ãª244+¡ The responses indicated that web-casting is primarily provided through a municipality’s local cable provider or a third party company. In addition, while several municipalities indicated that they saw value in pursuing closed captioning, only three of the municipalities consulted by staff have implemented it. Only one municipality indicated that producing webcasts of their council and committee meetings prompted a change in the format of their minutes. This is resultant to the fact that the format of most municipalities’ minutes already only reflected parliamentary actions and contained significantly less content than what is typically included in the minutes developed by the City of Kitchener. NEXT STEPS Based on the information received from other municipalities and service providers, it is suggested that the City of Kitchener not pursue live web-streaming of Council and Standing Committee meetings at this time, as the cost of providing the service may not be justified based on the demonstrated audience. Rogers Television has indicated that they intend to broadcast 7 of the 15 City Council meetings scheduled in 2012. Staff will continue to monitor the uptake in the web-streaming of those broadcasts and could report back if a significant change in viewership is observed. Depending on the feedback that is received, staff will investigate and clarify the impact on staff resources and the associated financial implications to record, edit and post a video online after a meeting. Staff would also use this opportunity to assess the best means of pursuing closed captioning and/or a transcription of each meeting, which could be integrated into the video recordings. It should be noted that to implement any changes prior to Council’s 2013 Budget deliberations would require the identification of an unbudgeted funding source. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: This project aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan priority concerning e-engagement, which calls for the use of new technologies to ensure multiple ways to get information to residents. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Research will need to be undertaken into exact costs associated with implementing Council’s preferred option, as well as the extent that can be undertaken in-house. Therefore, pending the feedback received, it is staffs’ intention to report back prior to the 2013 Budget deliberations, with details on the administrative as well as financial impacts of utilizing the Council Chamber Robotic Cameras. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Since September 2011, Rogers Television has been providing live web-streaming and archiving the video from those meetings to their website for future viewing. Rogers has indicated that they intend to continue this practise. Staff anticipates developing a strategy to market this to residents as well as any other initiatives that may arise as a result of the direction received from Council. CONCLUSION: Direction is being requested from Council as to whether there is merit in undertaking any further investigation into utilizing the Robotic Cameras in the Council Chamber to record Council and Standing Committee meetings. This investigation would be based upon the feedback received on the following issues: 1. Whether there is merit to recording all Council and Standing Committee meetings and making those recordings available to the public online? 2. Which broadcast production quality would Council prefer to see implemented? 3. Is Council comfortable with changing the way minutes are taken if recordings of the meetings are made available online? 4. Is there merit in investigating live web-streaming of Council and Standing Committee meetings? 5. Is there merit to providing closed captioning? Further research will be needed to determine the exact costs associated with implementing whatever direction is provided by Council, as well as the related impact on staff resources. At present, it has been identified that approximately $13,000. to $15,000. will be required to facilitate the recording, editing and posting of a video online after a meeting. This does not include any expenses related to live web-streaming, closed captioning, or associated staff resources. Staff anticipates providing a report prior to the 2013 Budget deliberations, with details on the administrative as well as financial impacts of utilizing the Council Chamber Robotic Cameras. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: D. Chapman, Deputy CAO - Finance & Corporate Services Department APPENDIX ‘A’ - City of Waterloo Council Minutes APPENDIX ‘B’ - City of Kitchener Council Minutes