Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-12-142- Recording Council & Standing Committee Meetings to the City's WebsiteREPORT TO: Finance & Corporate Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: September 24, 2012 SUBMITTED BY: Randy Gosse, Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk PREPARED BY: Colin Goodeve, Supervisor, Legislated Services 741-2278 Daphne Livingstone, Committee Administrator 741-2277 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All DATE OF REPORT: July 31, 2012 REPORT NO.: FCS-12-142 SUBJECT: RECORDING AND POSTING COUNCIL AND STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS TO THE CITY’S WEBSITE RECOMMENDATION: That subject to Council’s 2013 Budget deliberation process, $10,000., be allocated annually to the Legislated Services Division operating budget to accommodate third party video hosting services for on-demand webcasts of Council and Standing Committee meetings; and, That staff be directed to proceed with development of tender specifications for third party video hosting services to facilitate the provision of on-demand webcasting, as outlined in Finance and Corporate Services Department report FCS-12-142, and on completion of the written specifications to commence the tendering process; and further, That staff endeavour to provide a Rogers Television broadcast production quality for Council meeting webcasts and a single camera broadcast production quality for all Standing Committee webcasts. BACKGROUND: In 2007, Rogers Television installed robotic cameras in the Council Chamber for the purposes of broadcasting Council meetings. Through an installation agreement, Legislated Services staff were trained in the operation of those cameras and have since used them to record select meetings. This led to an examination of the potential to utilize the cameras on a regular basis and whether they could be incorporated into the City’s current business practices. On March 26, 2012, a Background Study entitled, ‘Utilization of the Robotic Cameras in the Council Chamber’ was presented to Council and direction was sought on the following questions to assist staff in refining their investigation: Whether there is merit to recording all Council and Standing Committee meetings and making those recordings available to the public online? Which broadcast production quality would Council prefer to see implemented? Is Council comfortable with changing the way minutes are taken if recordings of the meetings are made available online? ïð ó ï Is there merit in investigating live web-streaming of Council and Standing Committee meetings? Is there merit to providing closed captioning? At the March 26, 2012 meeting, Council expressed a desire to have Rogers Television continue to broadcast and web-stream six to eight Council meetings annually. In addition, staff were directed to undertake an investigation into the viability of recording the remaining Council as well as Standing Committee meetings. This examination was to consider the feasibility of implementing the various broadcast quality options. Council further agreed that the recordings should be accessible for viewing online following the meeting; rather than pursuing live web- streaming with closed captioning. It was also indicated that should the City move forward with providing on-demand webcasts of Council and Standing Committee meetings, a parliamentary style format would be adopted for the minutes of those meetings. REPORT: 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. Those recordings would then be posted to the City’s website and linked to the meeting agenda, reports and minutes; thereby providing improved accessibility to all of the information on a particular item of interest. Implementing said goal would be predicated on addressing certain technical requirements, which primarily relate to the existing recording software (owned by Rogers Television) not having the processing power to convert the audio and video signals into a usable digital format. The easiest way to overcome this and enable the City to capture its own recordings is to re-route the audio/video feed from the cameras to an encoding/capture device specific to the needs of the City of Kitchener. In-House On-Demand Web-Streaming If an in-house video web-streaming solution were pursued, the City would need to purchase the following equipment: 1. encoder - estimated cost of $10,000.; 2. video distribution server - estimated cost $4,000.; and, 3. video editing software/graphics cards - estimated cost of $1,200. per PC. The costs associated with video editing, would allow the PCs to remain standard, which would aid in future troubleshooting as well as reducing installation costs and eventual software and hardware upgrades. Many of the video editing packages are very complex and would require significant staff training in order to use it effectively. In addition, once the editing was complete, staff would still need to generate the final web format video file, which could take one to two hours to complete. The PCs would be unavailable during this time, which would prevent other work from taking place. With an in-house solution, it would be necessary to plan for the maintenance and eventual replacement of the subject equipment. Training would need to be implemented to develop the staff skills required to operate and support the devices as well as having the ability to deal with any equipment failures in a timely manner. Third Party Video Hosting Services Several third party video web-hosting service providers were contacted as part of this investigation and were identified as being able to supply packages specifically designed to meet a municipality’s needs. Their services include the ability (hardware/software) to easily capture and stream meetings while potentially providing unlimited storage space. In addition, the ïð ó î archived material would be hosted by the third party and linked to the City’s website, which offers unlimited number of viewers without affecting the City’s bandwidth. The third party video hosting companies would supply all the necessary hardware, software and ongoing technical support based on an annual retainer ranging from approximately $7,500. to $10,000. Of the over 20 municipalities surveyed as part of the Background Study, each was identified as either having their web-streaming delivered through their local cable provider (Rogers Television), or uploaded through a third party service provider. The simplified web based interface, provided by a third party video hosting company, for processing the video file contains the exact functionality that is required to produce an edited meeting video in a searchable format. Through an online platform, City staff would create index points and link to meeting minutes, reports and agenda items. This involves taking the media file and editing it into sections that correspond with the agenda items. From there, the specific clips within the archived video file are hyperlinked and uploaded to the City’s website. The simplified web editing interface is user friendly and could likely be demonstrated in a relatively short period to new staff; thereby reducing the learning curve for someone to become efficient in video editing. In addition, as the video file is transferred only once to the hosted servers, the amount of bandwidth consumed is considerably reduced. Unlike the in-house option, as the video file is being edited through the web interface there is no final rendering or conversion required. Accordingly, time is not lost as all processing occurs on the host’s servers. The third party hosting company provides and supports the encoder and would deal with any failures or issues that may be encountered. It has been identified that any malfunctioning hardware could be replaced within 24 hours. This removes the onus off the City for the ongoing maintenance and replacement of this costly equipment. While initially, the in-house option would only require an upfront investment, this does not take into account the amount of staff time that would be required to develop the system as well as ongoing maintenance and future replacement costs. Whereas, a third party web-hosting service would provide the expertise and equipment necessary to ensure the City is putting forth a professional quality product in a timely manner. Accordingly, staff are requesting direction to proceed with the development of tender specifications for third party web-hosting services to facilitate the provision of on-demand webcasting. Camera Operating System Upgrades Regardless of which option is selected, given the age and limited processing capacity it may be necessary to upgrade the control room PC, which is used to operate the cameras in the Council Chamber. As Rogers owns the equipment, they would be responsible for replacing it should it fail outright. This is a unique situation, given that the PC currently functions well enough to meet the demands placed on it by Rogers; but, may need to be upgraded to accommodate the City’s increased use of the system. It is estimated that a one-time expenditure of approximately $1,200. would be needed to cover the costs associated with those upgrades. Broadcast Quality Should the City decide to pursue either an in-house solution or a third party video web-hosting service, a determination is needed on the most efficient means of recording Council and Standing Committee meetings. Each option places different requirements on staff time; whereby, as the quality of the production increases, so too does the demand for resources. It has been determined that it would be feasible to implement a broadcast quality for Council meetings similar to what is provided by Rogers Television. Currently, two staff members from ïð ó í the Legislated Services Division attend every Council meeting to provide procedural advice and transcribe the minutes. By enacting the change to parliamentary style minutes, it would be feasible to have one of those staff members reassigned to record the Council meeting; thereby negating the need for additional staff resources. This person would operate all six cameras to capture the various speakers while inserting professional style graphics. Given that Rogers Television currently web-streams Council meetings, implementing this broadcast quality would ensure consistency for all Kitchener Council meetings that are posted online. It is further proposed that the single camera approach be used to record all Standing Committee meetings. This option would capture everything that occurred at a meeting, but would only provide one static view of the proceedings. Typically, only one Legislated Services staff member (Committee Administrator) attends a Standing Committee meeting; therefore, additional staff would be required to achieve the same production quality as Rogers Television. By implementing the single camera production quality, the same Legislated Services staff who would be taking the minutes, would activate the system prior to the start of the meeting; and, deactivate it once the meeting has been adjourned. Several municipalities, such as the Town of Milton, use a single camera perspective for Standing Committees; while utilizing multiple cameras for Council meetings. This approach provides the most cost effective means of producing a recording, as it requires minimal amount of staff interaction with the equipment. Rogers Television has agreed to assist with training additional Legislated Services staff in the operation of the Council Chamber cameras and provide troubleshooting advice during a meeting. However, due to the complexity of the recording equipment as well as concerns regarding reliability, they would not be prepared to allow anyone other than their personnel or trained City staff to operate the cameras. Rogers has also advised that they would not be capable of expanding their services beyond what they currently provide. It was indicated that as most of the Councils for the local area municipalities meet on Monday nights, they would not be able to broadcast every Kitchener City Council meeting. 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: An initial one-time cost of approximately $18,800., would be required to proceed with an in- house option for recording and posting meeting videos to the City’s website. This estimate only includes costs associated with purchasing an encoder, a distribution server and the installation of editing software on four PCs. It does not take into account any potential ongoing maintenance, long-term storage or eventual equipment replacement costs. Nor does it factor in the staff expertise that would need to be developed in order to successfully operate and maintain this equipment. Should the City choose to engage a third party web-hosting service provider, depending on the company selected, there would be no upfront hardware or associated installation costs. A yearly retainer ranging from $7,500. to $10,000. would accommodate all hardware, hosting, transfer, archiving and support needed to allow the public to access recordings of Council and Standing Committee meetings via the City’s website. Accordingly, if the decision is made to pursue on-demand webcasting of Council and Standing Committee meetings, staff are recommending that the City use a third party video web-hosting service. ïð ó ì In addition to the estimated $1,200. needed to upgrade the PC used to operate the cameras in the Council Chamber, there may be other future unforeseen costs related to both the in-house and third party options. An internal solution could create a need for additional bandwidth and future hardware to ensure high quality video playback and to prevent the slowdown of existing web services. It is estimated that this could cost approximately $3,000/year to $6,000/year depending on how much bandwidth is needed. Moreover, while some third party service providers offer unlimited storage space, others allocate only a specified amount. Once this capacity has been reached, additional storage space may need to be purchased. Those costs would be examined further as part of the tendering process. The requested allocation of $10,000. represents an additional expenditure that is outside of the current 2013 Budget targets and contrary to the guidelines which call for no service level enhancements. Accordingly, if this moves forward, staff intends to monitor any potential workload impacts and seek to identify possible efficiencies that may be realized through this proposal. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Since September 2011, Rogers Television has been providing live web-streaming and archiving the video recordings of 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 which may arise as a result of the direction received on this proposal. CONCLUSION: Having recordings of Council and Standing Committee meetings available online aligns 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 given meeting. Webcasting is becoming a valuable communications tool, allowing organizations to effectively reach out to geographically dispersed audiences, community stakeholders and constituents. The ability to broadcast meetings via the Internet would allow the City of Kitchener to present citizens with timely information enhancing transparency and encouraging community engagement. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: D. Chapman, Deputy CAO - Finance & Corporate Services Department ïð ó ë