HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-07-061 - Robotic Cameras in the Council ChambersReport To: Chair Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance & Corporate
Services Commitee
Date of Meeting: May 7, 2007
Submitted By: R. Gosse, Director of Legislated Services/City Clerk
Prepared By: R. Gosse
Ward(s~ Involved: n/a
Date of Report: May 2, 2007
Report No.: CRPS-07-061
Subject: ROBOTIC CAMERAS IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECOMMENDATION:
That notwithstanding Council's August 28, 2006 resolution accepting a proposal from
Rogers Television to install robotic cameras in the Council Chamber at no cost to the
City, a revised proposal be accepted from Rogers Television which provides that the City
pay for part of the installation up to an upset limit of $15,000.
BACKGROUND:
In 2005, Rogers Television submitted a proposal to install robotic cameras in the Council
Chambers 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. That proposal
included the proviso that the City contribute funds and services for the wiring, construction of the
control room and other requirements at an estimated cost of $13,000. Early in 2006 Rogers
Corporate Office offered to pay for the complete installation.
In August 2006, Council accepted the proposal (Report CRPS-06-111 attached) with no cost to
the City pending a successful agreement being reached. During the time negotiating the
agreement, the Rogers Corporate Office withdrew their offer to pay for the complete installation.
REPORT:
Negotiations with respect to the agreement took longer than anticipated as there were many
changes that staff wanted to the standard agreement proposed by Rogers. It was felt by staff
that should the City wish to utilize the equipment to record and possibly broadcast meetings not
being covered by Rogers Television, assurances had to be given that control and ownership of
the recordings/broadcasts remain with the City. The standard agreement did not include
provisions for this to happen. During these negotiations Rogers Corporate office informed the
local office that the offer to pay for the complete installation of the equipment including the
control room were no longer available.
Despite the removal of the offer to cover all costs, staff believe that the possible benefits of
having the cameras and equipment installed in the Council Chambers will more than exceed the
estimated cost to the City of $15,000. The following are some of the perceive benefits for both
Rogers Television and the City:
City staff could be trained to make use of the system to record meetings that are not
traditionally covered by Rogers Television. Meetings could be recorded and archived to
VHS or DVD.
In the event of emergency, the council chamber could be used for emergency
broadcasts as there is virtually no set up time required in order to go live.
Though Rogers cannot guarantee additional coverage, they claim to be in a much better
position from a resource perspective to consider requests for coverage of special
meetings (ie., budgets etc}.
Televised Council meetings could be streamed to the web either via Rogers Television
website or the City of Kitchener website.
As cameras would already be installed there would be no need to book chambers for
technical setup on council days, allowing other meetings to take place earlier that day.
Robotic cameras would eliminate the need for the larger floor cameras and personnel to
be stationed throughout the chambers.
This would result in more cameras overall covering the council meetings - a better on air
presentation.
The City of Ottawa has utilized the services of a third party software company and Rogers
Television, to broadcast and archive their meetings. Anyone can go onto the Ottawa web site
and view previous meetings by subject heading. Based on this idea, Kitchener's Office of the
City Clerk could conceivable re-engineer how minutes are taken for all meetings and reduce the
amount of staff time currently required to produce written minutes. Although it is not being
proposed at this time that the City move in this direction, the cost effective installation of the
cameras and associated equipment as proposed by Rogers, will allow staff to investigate this
option along with many others.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
It is estimated that the original cost to the City in 2005 for the wiring and control room was
approximately $13,000. There will be slightly higher costs today therefore it is recommended
that an upset limit be set at $15,000 to be funded from a City Hall Facility Maintenance
contingency account.
R. Gosse - Director of Legislated Services