HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/06/14 Item 7COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
•
•
ITEM TITLE
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
. ~r9
Resolution approving an amendment
Carrtel Communications
production services to
meetings
Deputy City Manager (ll
City Manager
ITEM 7
MEETING DATE 6/14/88
to the agreement with
Corporation for video
tape City Council
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X)
At the budget review session of June 8, 1988 the City Council approved
increasing the proposed Non-departmental Budget by $5,100 to upgrade the video
production services so less intense lighting is required to tape the City
Council meetings for subsequent televising. Council also directed that staff
negotiate an amendment to the City's contract for video production services
to provide the upgraded services.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
DISCUSSION
The Supplemental Budget Report reviewed by the Council on June 8th outlined
the various alternatives for continued televising of City Council meetings
(see attachment A). Staff has negotiated an amendment to the original contract
and the relevant changes are summarized below:
1. Simard Telecommunications Corporation, parent company of Video Productions
Company, has been purchased by Carrtel Communications Corporation.
However, Video Productions Company will continue to provide video
production services.
2. Cameras will be utilized that are more sensitive to light, thus reducing
the required level of lighting in the Council Chambers during meetings.
3. The cost per meeting has been increased from $625 to $800 for meetings
lasting less than 4 hours. An additional $75 will be paid for the 5th
hour, and an additional $50 will be paid for meetings lasting more than
5 hours. As a result, the maximum total charges per meeting has increased
from $700 to $925. For most meetings however, the increase will be $175.
4. The term of the contract is for 3 years beginning July 1, 1988. The City
also has the right to extend the term of this contract in one year
increments for a maximum of 2 additional years. Cost per meeting will
be adjusted annually beginning with the second year in an amount that
• equals the percentage increase of the All Urban Consumer Price Index for
the San Diego Region (CPI) up to 6%.
5. The City or the Company may terminate this agreement after the first 90
days for any reason by giving a written notice at least 30 days in
advance.
/.~~ . .f
PAGE 2, ITEM 7
MEETING DATE 6/14/88
• Other minor items are addressed in the amendment to the original contract
that better define the full scope of services already being provided. For
example, a late charge may be assessed to the Company if it fails to deliver
copies of the video tapes within the time specified in the contract. The
length of the meeting has been more clearly defined as beginning at the
scheduled start time and running until the meeting is adjourned. Other minor
changes are also included.
If approved, the reduced lighting level would be implemented beginning with
the first meeting in July, pending the availability of the new cameras. If
it takes longer than 3 weeks for the Company to purchase the new cameras, the
current maximum of $700 per meeting will be maintained.
FISCAL IMPACT: $43,300 is budgeted in the Non-departmental budget for the
televising of City Council meetings and should be adequate for this purpose.
S7
•
Council of
L~y the City
Chula Vista, California
Dated
• {.
~..,, ~ a
2
• are currently being televised. The City's contract with
Video Productions Company runs until December, at which time
the City could exercise the first of two one-year option to
continue the contract in force.
However, in response to concerns expressed about the
uncomfortable level of lighting required for television
production, staff has researched alternative production
scenarios that would permit lighting levels to be reduced.
While most alternatives were cost-prohibitive (requiring an
initial investment of at least $100,000 for equipment),
staff concentrated on alternatives that would be feasible
within a relatively moderate budget. The proposed upgrade of
equipment and services would result in an increase of $5,100
in the FY 1988-89 budget. This upgrade should make
televising less obtrusive and distracting to meeting
participants while maintaining adequate production quality.
Staff is prepared to bring back to Council for approval an
amendment to the existing production contract that would
result in the following:
1. Lighting levels would be reduced by approximately
30%. (The lights were reduced to this level
' briefly at the Council meeting of May 24 during
the City Manager's Report.)
2. Video Productions Company would purchase two
cameras which are more sensitive to light. Cost of
these cameras is approximately $7,500 each and is
to be covered by the Company.
3. The Company would make further adjustments to
existing lights, adding diffusion to further
reduce the glare caused by the current lighting
arrangements.
4. Cost per meeting would increase from $625 to $800
for meetings under four hours long. An additional
$75 would be paid for the fifth hour of a meeting,
and an additional $50 would be paid for all
meetings longer than five hours. This would make
the maximum cost per meeting $925. The current
contract only provides for an additional $75 for
meetings over four hours, making the maximum cost
per meeting $700.
5. The term of the contract would be amended from one
year to three years, retaining the City's two one-
year options. The cost would be adjusted annually
using the CPI up to a maximum of 60. Although the
City also retains the right to terminate the
contract after the first ninety days for any
reason by giving thirty days notice, the longer
~.. t
3
• term will provide to the Company an indication of
the City's long-term intent and that an investment
by the Company of about $15,000 for cameras could
likely be amortized over the term of the contract.
Staff also researched ways to reduce the lighting level
using existing cameras. The cameras currently in use are
professional quality; however they utilize "tube technology"
as opposed to micro-chips. For most professional video
production situations, the tube cameras are adequate. They
do, however, require a great deal of light. Reducing the
light in the Council Chambers to a lower level using
existing cameras would result in unacceptable picture
quality. The picture would appear very grainy and persons
appearing on-camera would not appear natural.
The effect of using less light with the current tube cameras
is multiplied when the signal is sent out over Cox Cable.
Cox Cable has already commented that the current video
levels are only marginally acceptable to produce an
acceptable picture for the home viewer. Reducing the light
further would result in an unacceptable picture that would
look amateurish, possibly reducing viewership and
credibility of the meetings. (If Council desires, an example
of how the cameras react to lowered light levels can be
• demonstrated at the budget hearing when this item will be
considered.)
Staff also looked into the feasibility of purchasing "top of
the line" cameras such as those used by commercial
television stations for in-studio news telecasts and talk
shows. These cameras cost about $60,000 each, and even then
the lighting level would have to be maintained at about what
it would be using the proposed chip cameras. There are no
video cameras designed to work in low light situations and
produce an acceptable studio-quality picture. Certain
cameras work in low light situations, such as is seen on the
news broadcasts' clips of night crime scenes. However, the
pictures produced by such techniques are not of a quality
acceptable for Council meetings. The cameras being
considered as part of this upgrade are equivalent to those
used by remote TV news crews for shooting in most low light
situations.
Staff also considered whether a third camera should be added
for the production. Both the City and County of San Diego
use three cameras for their productions. A third camera
would upgrade the coverage of the meetings considerably.
Currently, the unpredictable flow of the meetings often
causes brief lapses in coverage because only one camera can
move at once. For example, when two people are discussing an
item, a camera may be on each of the speakers. When a third
person enters the conversation, one camera must remain on
/-'=- ,
4
• one of the persons not speaking while the other camera
C locates and focuses on the new speaker. Several other
circumstances arise that illustrate the need for a third
camera. However, considering the cost of adding an
additional camera, camera operator, camera control unit and
related equipment, staff is not recommending a third camera.
The current production company is adept at minimizing the
ill effects of using two cameras in what would be considered
in the industry as a "three-camera shoot."
After considering various alternatives, staff concludes that
the proposed upgrade is the most cost-effective way to
address the concerns about the lighting and continue to
produce a professional television program.
EVALUATION OF THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF TELEVISED MEETINGS
Staff has sought feedback from the public in four ways: (1)
encouraging viewers by written messages during each
televised meeting to send or phone-in their comments, (2)
questionnaires attached to public agendas, (3) two phone-in
evaluations, and (4) anecdotal feedback. Below is a summary
of the results of each technique.
1. Mail or phone feedback Staff has received very few
• mail or phone responses to requests for feedback.
One letter has been received commenting positively
about the televised meeting. This letter, however,
was written primarily because of concerns about
other issues not related to the Council meetings.
Two phone calls were received: one was similar to
the letter received while the other was intended
solely to provide positive comments about the
televised meetings.
2. Public agenda questionnaires Questionnaires
attached to the public agendas have produced the
following results:
Total questionnaires returned: 54
Prior to tonight's meeting, did you yes 44
know Chula Vista's Council meetings no 10
were televised?
Have you ever watched all of part of yes 34
a Council meeting on television? no 20
If yes, how many times? 1_2 ~*
3-4 11*
~.. ~.
r~
~J
If you have seen meetings on TV,
did that partially encourage you to
come to today's meeting?
5
5 or more 15*
yes 18*
no 18*
Do you think you will watch all or yes 37*
parts of future Council meetings on TV? no 16*
•
* Some response totals do not add up correctly
because some questionnaires were not filled out
completely or as intended.
3. Call-in evaluation Two call-in evaluations (April
27 and May 25) were conducted. Viewers were
encouraged by announcements made by the Mayor and by
messages appearing on the screen to call-in during
the meetings to give their comments to staff
awaiting to receive their calls. The two sessions
produced the following results:
April 27 May 25
Total number of callers: 161 92
Length of call-in period: 3.5 hrs 2 hrs
Callers per hour of call-in 46 46
Do you find having yes: 152 87
. Council meetings no; g 5
televised useful?
Number of times watched? 1: 20 15
2-5: 38 14
more than 5: 103 59
Chula Vista resident? yes: 104 53
no: 57 38
Although no reliable indicators or "rules of thumb"
are known to staff, it can safely be assumed that not
everyone watching all or part of a televised Council
meeting will call in during an evaluation of this
type. The actual audiences are therefore probably
considerably larger than the numbers shown above.
When possible, staff attempted to obtain additional
information about viewing habits from persons who
called in. A significant number of callers indicated
they watch the meetings virtually every week. Some
of these comments also indicated that by far the
most common way viewers learned about the meetings
~ ~.
_~~-~~
6
• being on television was by accidentally finding them
while flipping through the channels. over time, it
could be expected that more people would discover
the meetings in this manner as well as more being
exposed to the City's limited advertising about the
telecasts.
Of those viewers who did not support the televising
of meetings, the majority were non-residents and by
far the most common complaint from this group
concerned how the meetings interrupted regular C-
SPAN programming. Because the government access
channel provided by Cox Cable has been so
underutilized by local governments, viewers have
come to view C-SPAN as the primary reason for
channel 25. In reality, C-SPAN is programmed as
filler for the lack of locally-produced government
programming. It is possible that as local
governments produce more for television, C-SPAN will
have to be relocated to a different channel. Staff
has notified Cox Cable of the concerns expressed by
these callers.
4. Anecdotal No attempt has been made to quantify the
• anecdotal feedback received by staff or the Council.
It is staff's impression, however, that a
considerable amount of feedback has been received
and the feedback has been positive. Various staff
members and Council members have indicated that they
frequently receive comments about the meetings.
While staff has little basis to draw conclusions
from such comments, it appears that they generally
support the feedback received from the other
evaluation methods.
In conclusion, the evaluation methods utilized provide no
scientific grounds to conclude the meetings are successful.
As discussed in a previous report, the City has not _,
attempted to define in quantifiable terms what would be
considered successful. Because of the lack of similar
studies, establishing quantifiable goals would be highly
arbitrary. Short of a more valid evaluation, staff has
concluded that a significant number of residents, as well as
a considerable number of non-residents, are watching the
meetings on television. This will help produce more informed
voters, greater compliance with City ordinances, more
familiarity with the programs offered by the City, better
understanding of the City's goals and objectives, an
enhanced image of the City among viewers outside Chula Vista
and a stronger sense of City identity.
~~ . .;,
.~„~
FISCAL IMPACT The City Manager's proposed FY 1988-89 Non-
departmental Budget includes $38,200 for televising ($35,200
for production, $3,000 for advertising). Approving the
recommendations of this report would result in this amount
being increased by $5,100 for improved production
capabilities. The amended amount would total $43,300 for FY
1988-89. Because of the benefits associated with the
coverage of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency
meetings and SCOOT activities, it is proposed that 400 of
this amount would be reimbursed to the General Fund by the
Redevelopment Agency and 10% would be reimbursed by SCOOT.
•
r'
~ ~ •F