Webstreaming City Council and Standing Committee Meetings

Transcription

1 Report To: From: Subject: Finance and Administration Committee Rick Stockman, Commissioner Corporate Services Department Item: FA File: A-3500 Webstreaming City Council and Standing Committee Meetings Date of Report: February 3,2011 Date of Meeting: February 10,2011 PUBLIC REPORT 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to respond to City Council and Finance and Administration Committee direction for staff to investigate webstreaming of City Council and Standing Committee meetings. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION That the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to City Council: 1. That the City continue to utilize Rogers TV for webstreaming Council meetings they broadcast; and, 2. That City Council direct staff to investigate Rogers TV's capability of webstreaming all regular City Council meetings, including those recorded for later broadcasting. 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff investigated the possibility of webstreaming City Council and Standing Committee meetings in accordance with the Council and Finance and Administration Committee directions. Currently Rogers TV (Rogers) webstreams on their website all regular Council meetings which they broadcast live. They also record all other regular meetings, but these meetings are not webstreamed. There are different options available for the City to webstream meetings, however, each comes with both capital and ongoing operational costs which can be significant depending on which option is selected. Based on the cost of providing a professionally acceptable quality webstreaming and the low viewership experienced by other municipalities, City-based webstreaming is not recommended. It is recommended that staff continue discussions with Rogers in an attempt to have all regular City Council meetings webstreamed, whether live or recorded.

2 Administration Committee (Continued) -2- Meeting Date: February 10, INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 4.1 General P Input was received from other municipalities and external providers. 4.2 Auditor General 9 The Auditor General has no comments. 5.0 ANALYSIS 5.1 Webstreaming Considerations 9 Webstreaming is a technology that allows video content to be published over the Internet. Viewers require a terminal (ie. computer, laptop, blackberry, etc.) with Internet access in order to view the video. 9 When assessing the potential for webstreaming meetings, the following issues need to be taken into consideration: a) Should webstreaming be provided for City Council and Standing Committee meetings just City Council? Depending on the method of delivering webstreaming, additional meetings means additional costs as outlined in the options in Section 5.3 of this report. b) Should webstreaming be provided for regular meetings only or should special meetings also be webstreamed? Special meetings are unpredictable in notice, can only be a few minutes in length and sometimes have no set start time. c) Should webstreaming include closed captioning? The cost for both options has been provided in this report. d) What is an acceptable quality level of webstreaming video? The better the quality of the video, the higher the cost to produce. The quality of the video produced will be a reflection on the municipality. e) Does webstreaming audience size warrant the cost of webstreaming? Webstreaming can be a costly and staff intensive initiative and evidence shows that political meeting audiences are very small. Sections 5.5 and 5.6 address this consideration. 5.2 Webstreaming Components 9 Webstreaming includes a number of component service options to deliver a professionally acceptable broadcast. Video production, video hosting and closed captioning services all require capital equipment purchases and on-going operating costs that vary depending on the method and desired quality of the webstream.

3 Administration Committee (Continued) -3- Meeting Date: February 10, The following provides an explanation of'the various components Video Production 9 The quality of webstreaming delivered to the public depends largely on the method of video production (ie. type of cameras used, number of cameras used, video hosting). 9 Video production costs can vary significantly. In general, a more professional video output requires several cameras of good quality each costing in the $1,500 to $2,000 range. > Single cameras are currently installed in both the Council Chamber and Committee Room. 9 A single camera static view as shown below could provide an overview of the meeting room but would not provide the quality of video that could be produced using video mixing equipment with multiple pan-tilt-zoom cameras. 9 With the single camera overview, it is difficult for web viewers to see gestures or facial expressions and it is difficult to tell who is speaking in some circumstances. 9 Presentations on the screens in the Council Chamber and Committee Room will not be legible during webstreaming using this method of production with the existing available cameras. It should be noted that Rogers' cameras in the Council Chamber are not available for City use.

4 Administration Committee (Continued) -4- Meeting Date: February 10, Video Hosting 9 Webstreaming impacts lnternet communication capacity (bandwidth) and can potentially limit the ability to perform other business functions. 9 Video hosting companies allow others to use their lnternet bandwidth to offer services or material over the lnternet. 9 Using a hosted service protects the limited lnternet bandwidth available to the City and reduces the likelihood that a webcast would negatively impact City services that rely on lnternet connectivity. 9 Using this method, video is streamed from the municipality to the hosted service provider who then streams it to the public. 9 The video hosting service providers do not generally provide video production services. It is up to the municipality to either produce the video or use the video provided by the cable provider. 9 Most municipalities that webstream Council and Committee meetings use a video hosting service on an annual fee basis Closed Captioning 9 Closed captioning is a method of communicating the audio portion of a broadcast through text displayed over the video image. It is commonly available as an optional video component on many television broadcasts. 9 Closed captioning allows those who are deafldeafenedlhard of hearing to follow the spoken audio program. 9 Although the recent Acc%ssible Customer Service and Communication Standards set out by the Province do not speak to closed captioning as they deal with issues in broad terms, the City of Oshawa is progressive in meeting the needs of persons with disabilities. 9 It is recommended that should webstreaming be implemented, closed captioning be a part of the program. 9 Closed captioning adds a significant cost to webstreaming as there are additional components and resources needed to produce the video.

5 ltem: FA Administration Committee (Continued) Meeting Date: February 10, Options 5 k There are three basic webstreaming options available for Council to consider. With the exception of Option 3, closed captioning is an additional feature. For clarification, all costs are estimates based on the experience of other municipalities. Costs noted for "Closed Caption" include the costs outlined in the "No Closed Caption" column. Option One: Webstream from one fixed camera Webstreaming can be produced using one fixed position camera with videolaudio stream. Should one fixed camera be used, the choice exists to have the webstream produced either live or recorded for later broadcasting. The following chart outlines the costs for webstreaming recorded Council and additional meetings at a later date. Pros Relatively simple to manage Relatively small capital costs Ability to stream all Committee and Council meetings Fixed camera would face presenter's back Video audience would be limited on seeing who is speaking due to 1 distance of fixed camera from speakers No ability to switch video feed for presentations, therefore presentations will not be legible Staff time would be needed for post production High closed captioning costs Live broadcasts using a single position camera with closed captioning will cost approximately $85,600 or $23,000 more than a recorded broadcast using one camera. The main cost difference between recorded and live webstreaming is closed captioning. With recorded closed captioning, the City sends the recording to a service provider who adds closed captioning within their time frame and returns the file to the

6 Administration Committee (Continued) -6- Meeting Date: February 10,2011 City. It is estimated the video will not be available for one to two of business days following the meeting. For live webstreaming, the service provider would be linked directly into the meeting and adding the closed captioning as the meeting is progressing. This service is more expensive. The single camera option is not recommended as the production quality of the video is low and viewers will only see one fixed view. Option Two: Webstream using multiple cameras Using live managed video production with multiple cameras for webstreaming would offer the highest quality video. Similar to the previous option, the choice exists to have the webstream produced either, live or recorded for later broadcasting. The following chart outlines the costs for webstreaming recorded Council and additional meetings at a later date. Pros Video quality similar to Rogers with multiple cameras, etc. Video source switching for presentations Ability to stream all Committee and Council meetings Cons Capital costs for cameras and video production equipment Significantly more staff time to manage and produce content Staff training on broadcasting media High closed captioning costs Live broadcasts using multiple cameras with closed captioning will cost approximately $132,000 or $21,000 more than a recorded broadcast using multiple cameras. Again, the main cost difference involves closed captioning.

7 Item: FA-I 1-20 I Administration Committee (Continued) -7- Meeting Date: February 10,2011 It is not recommended that Council proceed with this option due to the high capital and ongoing operational costs. Option Three: Continue status quo with Rogers Rogers currently webstreams Council meetings that are broadcast live and could also webstream some special Council meetings when requested. The City could provide a link to the Rogers' site for the viewer's convenience. There is no cost to the City to continue using Rogers' high quality broadcasts. It should be noted that the recording of Committee meetings and providing closed captioning is not an option when using Rogers TV. This is the recommended option because it is has no cost and meets the needs of most viewers. 5.4 Rogers TV 9 Currently Rogers broadcasts live via their cable television channel several City Council meetings annually. These meetings are also webstreamed live on the Rogers' website. Committee meetings are not broadcast or webstreamed. 9 Rogers recently began the practice of recording the Council meetings they do not broadcast live so they may be broadcast at a future time. These meetings are not webstreamed. 9 Staff met with Rogers and discussed the potential of them providing webstreaming for - all City Council and Standing Committee meetings. Rogers has advised they are unable to provide service beyond the status quo. 5.5 Other Municipalities 9 Staff conducted a site visit to Halton Region who webstreams all regularly scheduled Regional Council and Standing Committee meetings with closed captioning. 9 Halton uses pan/tilt/zoom cameras to allow a camera operator to focus the view on specific people or activities, providing a more professional production. 9 The cost to provide this service in their Council Chamber and Committee Room was approximately $71,000 for equipment, plus $7,000 annually for their web hosting service. Closed captioning is provided at a cost of $145/hour. 9 Staff from Halton estimate an average of 50 people watch their meetings through the webstream portal.

8 10,2011 Administration Committee (Continued) Meeting Date: Februa~y > The Regional Municipality of Durham does not currently webstream, however, there is a proposal in the budget for this service. 9 The City of Thunder Bay also uses a hosted service provider to webstream Committee and Council meetings. The video feed is produced by Shaw Cable. Thunder Bay does not currently provide closed captioning. 5.6 Media Access Requirements 9 Staff were directed to meet with local electronic and print media providers to investigate their needs for access to webstreaming. 9 Staff invited eight local electronic and print media providers to a meeting. Of the eight, two attended and Snap advised they would not have any needs for webstreaming services. The remainder did not respond. Oshawa This Week and Oshawa Express attended the meeting and advised that a link to the webstream was their only requirement. 9 In May 2010, Oshawa This Week ran an editorial asking the public if webstreaming of meetings was available, would anyone watch it. The editorial also questioned if the cost of such an undertaking would be justified by the number of viewers who partake in watching the meetings via webstreaming. A total of four individuals responded to the editorial stating they would watch the meetings. 5.7 Summary 9 Based on the information received from other municipalities and service providers, the cost to provide webstreaming of a professional quality is quite significant. 9 To date, there have been two requests to Committee/Council concerning the availability of webstreaming. 9 It is recommended Council not proceed with webstreaming of Council and Standing Committee meetings because the cost of providing the service can not be justified based on the demonstrated audience. 9 Staff could continue to urge Rogers TV to webstream the Council meetings which are recorded for later broadcasting. If successful, this would result in all regular Council meetings being webstreamed. 6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 9 The financial impact of webstreaming will be based on the option selected as presented in Section 5.3 of this report. 9 If Council adopts the report recommendation, there are no financial implications. - 97

9 Item? FA-I 1-20 Administration Committee (Continued) Meeting Date: February 10, RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN k Ensuring accountability to citizens and effective City management. ac, Sandra Kranc City Clerk =..A > Dave hawby, Director Information Technology Services Corporate Services Department