The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-04-08 Study Session - Upgrades to Council ChamberCIIY 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6n FAx:760 340-0574 info@palm-desert.org NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION OF THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Palm Desert City Council will convene Thursday, April 8, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, for the purpose of conducting a Study Session. Said Study Session will be held in order to discuss potential upgrades to audio/visual, equipment in the Council Chamber with the City's consultant, K2 Audio, LLC. CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA April 2, 2010 NO ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN AT THE STUDY SESSION. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY SESSION IS INFORMATION ONLY. ^....am. I REQUEST: SUBMITTED BY: DATE: Background CITY OF PALM DESERT C,C- AGENDA PACKET SECTION S-n a L( StS& o pJ MEETING DATE aen ' ,a\,CL INFORMATION SYSTEMS / FINANCE DEPARTMENT Project Status Report BUDGET PROCESS FY 2010-2011 PERFORM VARIOUS UPGRADES TO THE AUDIO AND VISUAL SYSTEMS IN THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Clayton von Helf, Information Systems Manager February 11, 2010 When the City Council Chamber renovation project was initiated and designed in 1999, state-of-the-art audio/visual (A/V) equipment was specified and became part of the approved project. The first meeting held in the renovated Chamber was February 2001. The City has been using that system full time for over nine years. It is now time to update both the recording equipment from analog to digital, and replace outdated equipment. City Clerk and I.S. staff has been researching different options to address the many issues with the outdated Council Chamber A/V equipment. A consultant was hired and has attended several meetings, reviewed our original schematics, and interviewed the City Clerk staff. The findings from the consultant were used to create this multiple -option report. Summary Upon direction, staff would perform the necessary due diligence to find the appropriate contractors and suppliers to implement the solution chosen. Given the current financial environment, Staff has organized the needs into three categories. The most critical of these are listed first as necessary repairs, and the others are identified for additional consideration. The repairs should be done at a minimum level and staff would implement any of the other parts that the council would choose. There is a cost savings if all of the work is done at one time, otherwise we will be paying for the reprogramming of systems with each change. Fiscal Impact Funds are available in Fund 400 to cover the cost of each of the options up to $130,000. No additional appropriation is required. Any funds remaining upon completion of the project will be used for the upcoming broadcasting project. Project Status Report 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 2 of 5 Future Consideration The Council Chamber AN equipment repairs and enhancements are a necessary. foundation required before streaming or broadcasting of the meetings should be implemented. Staff has prepared a report for next fiscal year's budget detailing the broadcast options and estimated costs. Discussion Along with using the system for regular City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Housing, Financing Authority and Planning Commission meetings, the Chamber is also used quite heavily for the City's other public meetings or those approved as being of general benefit to the community at -large (i.e. CVAG public hearings, Congressional and State Assembly outreach). The following three needs are presented to Council to determine staff direction. Needed Repairs — Dais Microphones, AMX System Control, Digital Recording and NION Reprogramming The estimated cost range is $16,500 - $19.,000. The existing AMX system has some issues resulting from modifications that were made to the programming (touch panel freezing, podium "lock outs" etc). To alleviate these issues and bring the system up-to-date with current technology we will purchase a new AMX web -based control system processor, a complete re -write of the control system code and touch panels graphical user interface. This will provide a more intuitive and automated user interface both at the Clerk's position as well as the dais. The new control system processor would interface with any legacy equipment and any new equipment. There have been issues with the RF interference (digital "chatter" that occurs when a cell phone, BlackBerry or other wireless device is in the vicinity of the microphone) and poor sound quality coming from the five Council member's microphones. These would be replaced with new RF immune versions that have better off -axis pickup. The off -axis pickup would capture the Council member's voice even if they were not speaking directly into the microphone. The current analog Lanier recorder has been a faithful servant for 20 years. The analog technology is no longer being manufactured and will soon not be supported. Therefore, it is time to upgrade to digital recording. The current system would be replaced with a c Project Status Report 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 3 of 5 digital recording / archiving system. Part of this would be a reprogramming of the NION (the component that controls the audio system) to allow for the digital signal to be recorded. Additional Consideration —Audio Systems There are two approaches to improve the audio system in the Council Chambers. The first approach would utilize new loudspeakers as well as reconfiguring the existing system and components. This would include reusing many of the existing audio components and supplementing the system with new audience area (ceiling) and dais mounted (desktop) loudspeakers. A new mix -minus system would be employed using the existing NION system with reconfigured programming. The second approach would be to not only utilize new loudspeakers and components, but also to replace all of the existing AMX touch panels (Under Desk / Drawer mounted), and facia -mounted "request to speak" (RTS) buttons with a new integrated digital conferencing system with voting capabilities. This system would provide integrated microphone/loudspeaker with RTS stations at each dais locations and provide a feed to the general audience. The Councilmember positions would receive additional voting and agenda display functions utilizing a touch screen LCD or button panel. This approach would greatly simplify the operation of the audio video system by integrating the current standalone systems. Both options would replace several components such as the outdated wireless microphone systems and a new assisted listening system. 1. Reconfigure Existing System - Estimated cost range: $27,000 — $30,000 a. Replace existing audience area loudspeakers with new improved performing loudspeakers; b. Add desktop loudspeakers at each dais position to allow for a "mix - minus" system to be created;. c. Provide required audio amplifiers; d. Provide required wireless microphone systems; e. Provide required assisted listening systems; and f. Add required audio/digital conference equipment. 2. Replace Existing System - Estimated cost range: $45,000 — $50,000 a. Replace existing, audience area loudspeakers with new improved performing loudspeakers; Project Status Report 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 4 of 5 b. Provide required audio amplifiers; c. Provide required wireless microphones systems; d. Provide required assisted listening systems; e. Replace existing staff microphones, AMX touch panels and RTS buttons with integrated digital conference system; f. Add required audio/digital conference equipment; g. Replace existing Council/Mayor AMX touch panels, voting and RTS buttons with integrated digital conference system (with touch screen); and h. Provide new conference controller for setup, configuration and operation of the voting and agenda systems. Additional Consideration —Video Systems There are also two approaches to improve the video systems. The first approach would be to address the brightness of the video projector. As implemented now, the current video system and its associated components are limited to 800 x 600 resolutions. By upgrading the projector the brightness would improve but would not result in any improvement in the resolution. The second option would be a more, comprehensive overhaul of the entire video system that would replace all of the outdated video system components and bring the system up to current display standards (SXGA+ or higher). This approach would also provide for new switching and routing components and a new ceiling mount with a high resolution document camera. The following is a summary of the two approaches: 1. Replace video projector - Estimated cost range: $25,000 - $27,000 a. Replace existing video projector for improved brightness b. Modify existing rear projection system/mount as required C. Reprogram AMX control system 2. Provide new video system - Estimated cost range: $60,000 - $60,000 a. Replace existing video projector for improved brightness b. Modify existing rear projection system/mount as required Project Status Report 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 5 of 5 C. Provide new desktop monitors for dais d. Provide new DVD/VCR for media playback e. Provide new ceiling document camera (HD) f. Provide new high resolution video switching system/infrastructure g. Reprogram AMX control system Submitted by: Clgon ormation ystems Manager White Paper 2010 — 2011 Budget Process Information Systems Department I Finance WHITE PAPER BUDGET PROCESS 2010-2011 CZ, AeENDA PACKET SMM 511u-D K Sass c o,J MEETM DATI!' __.' (-)� 1.1d . SUBMITTED BY: Clayton von Helf, Information Systems Manager DEPARTMENT: Information Systems / Finance THIS IS A REQUEST FOR: DATE: FISCAL IMPACT: Council Chambers Broadcast Options February 2, 2010 Dependent upon the broadcast option, selected. There is $40,000 available in Fund 400. Anything over this would require additional appropriation. Background: Staff has been asked to research. different options for broadcasting the City Council meetings. This white paper presents the different options and cost estimates that are available. All of the options would require the, repair work to be completed on the Council Chamber AV system before they could be implemented. Summary: Given the setup of the Council Chamber, web streaming is the most practical and cost - effective way to broadcast the Council meetings. The same equipment could be used for other meetings and events in the Council Chamber at little to no extra cost. Staff i White Paper 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 2 of 1 recommends at least a multiple standard definition solution at a cost of $30,000 to $40,000. The web streaming solutions outlined would also require a monthly hosting and maintenance fee of $1,000. Discussion: 1. Audio Streaming - Cost estimate - $3,000 — 4,000. This would provide for a live and/or archived audio only broadcast accessible from the City website. Equipment Requirements: One rack -mounted standard definition media encoder. • Pros: i. Lowest one-time purchase price ii. No additional hardware or modifications needed to the Council Chambers • Cons: Would require manual start/stop control to operate the system ii. Audio only — no images, video, presentations would be available iii. Would require IT personnel to operate, service and configure (approx. 1 hour per meeting) iv. Poorly represents the Palm Desert image 2. Single Standard Definition Camera —Cost estimate - $15,000 — 18,000. Equipment requirements: System would include one wall mount standard definition video camera, one rack mounted standard definition streaming media encoder, and minor reprogramming of existing Peavey NION audio system digital signal processor. Web streaming company would charge $1,000 per month for hosting, bandwidth and maintenance. . Pros: Lowest one-time purchase price for video ii. No additional lighting required for acceptable camera image White Paper 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 3 of 1 iii. . Video and agenda will be available with a minimal amount of staff time — no outside vendors required. • Cons: Would require manual start/stop control to operate system ii. Single camera option would only allow for a single fixed wide shot of the main.council dais area. People presenting to the Council would be seen from their backs only iii. No ability to display video projector image to web (presentations or exhibits would not be seen) iv. Poorly represents the Palm Desert image 3. Multiple Standard Definition Cameras — Cost estimate $30,000 - $40,000. Equipment requirements: System would include four wall mount standard definition capable video cameras; one rack -mounted video switching device and significant reprogramming of existing NION audio system. Web streaming company would charge $1,000 per month for hosting, bandwidth and maintenance. I . • Pros: i. Lower one time purchase than the High Definition Cameras ii. Capable of integrating with presentation system iii. Four cameras will give good coverage of meeting — including podium iv. System can be programmed to switch camera views based on current speaker, freeing up staff or contractors from running cameras v. Video and agenda will be available with a minimal amount of staff time — no outside vendors required. • Cons: i. Would require manual start/stop control to operate the system White Paper 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 4 of 1 ii. Camera is'/d' single CCD and would not have high definition upgrade capability iii. Even with four cameras some possible unwanted camera switching during debate is possible — camera switching may be erratic if the dialog goes back and forth quickly. 4. Multiple High Definition Cameras — Cost estimate $65,000 - $80,000. Equipment requirements: System would include four wall mount high definition capable video cameras; one rack -mounted high definition video switching device, and significant reprogramming of existing NION audio system. Web streaming company would charge $1,000 per month for hosting, bandwidth and maintenance. • Pros: i. Capability to migrate to HD in the future ii. Capable of integrating with presentation system iii. Four cameras will give good coverage of meeting — including podium iv. System can be programmed to switch camera views based on current speaker freeing up staff or contractors from running cameras v. Video and agenda will be available with a minimal amount of staff time - no outside vendors required. • Cons: i. Would require manual start/stop control to operate the system ii. Increased start-up cost iii. Even with four cameras some possible unwanted camera . switching during debate is possible — camera switching may be erratic if the dialog goes back and forth quickly. 5. Video Recording with Delayed T.V. Broadcast of 48 Hours — Staff Operated Cameras — Cost estimate - $75,000 to $100,000. There is no charge by Time Warner to broadcast the video recording; the costs are all in n r. White Paper 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 5 of 1 the production of the video. Time Warner requires a 48 hour lead time for airing of video -recorded meetings. The cost would be to purchase video equipment. City staff would be used to video record, edit, and produce the recording. This cost is for the cameras, switcher, cables, and production booth needed, and does not include staff time or training that would be required. This is a one-time cost, with minimal ongoing maintenance costs. • Pros: i. Televised meetingswould not require a computer or internet connection to view • Cons: i. High start-up cost ii. Would require additional staff time and training to record and edit meeting iii. Delayed broadcast would have little value to residents 6. Video Recording with Delayed T.V. Broadcast of 48 Hours - Vendor Operated Cameras — Cost estimate - $33,000 'per vear. There is no charge by Time Warner to broadcast the video recording; the costs are all in the production of the video. Time Warner requires a 48 hour lead time for airing of video -recorded meetings. A professional filming company would be hired to record the meetings. The company would set up with four cameras and the production equipment needed. We would have to pay extra for longer meetings. Pros: i. Lower start-up costs ii. No extra training needed for staff iii. Televised meetings would not require a computer or internet connection to view • Cons: i. Higher on -going costs White Paper 2010-2011 Budget Process Council Chambers Audio Visual Page 6of1 Delayed broadcast would have little value to residents iii. Cost is only for City Council meetings — any other meetings would be extra 7. Live T.V. Broadcast — Cost estimate - $130,000 equipment plus $2,145 per month and production costs. There is no cost from Time Warner for the actual broadcast of the meeting, however there would be significant start up and ongoing costs associated with the recording of the meeting. This would include purchase of production equipment, construction of a production booth, and installation of a fiber optic circuit to facilitate the live feed. The cost of the equipment and installation would be at least $130,000. The fiber optic circuit would be $2,145 per month. There would also be an additional cost of a production booth, which would vary depending on location selected. This does not include camera operation, directing, editing, etc. This would either be a new staff position, or an outside vendor. • Pros: Televised meetings would be accessible to anyone with a T.V. ii. Residents would be able to watch live meetings • Cons: Very high start-up cost H. Complex implementation — require building a production booth, and installing a fiber optic circuit iii. Would require production expertise that is not currently available from staff — either new position or hiring a film crew Respectfully Submitted, r.1 A VOWHELF, INFORMATION SYSTEMS