Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Movies In The Park Av topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee orders audiovisual assessment for movies program; motion to have technician inspect community hall passes
Summary
Committee voted to have a technician from Loretta's and a city tech inspect the community hall to assess whether a projector/screen or a large TV is the better audiovisual solution for outdoor movies and indoor screenings; discussion covered licensing costs for public screenings and donor offers of equipment.
The Depoe Bay parks and recreation committee approved an assessment to determine whether the community hall can support a projector-and-screen installation or whether a large TV would better suit year-round uses.
By motion and second, the committee asked staff to arrange for Loretta’s technician (a volunteer/contractor identified by committee members) and the city technician (Paul) to visit the community hall and evaluate where a projector/screen could be installed, whether curtains or darkening would be required, and what changes would be needed for acoustics and door/window light control. Committee members emphasized that the action was an assessment only, not an installation or purchase commitment.
The group discussed two practical alternatives: (1) a professional projector and retractable screen, which can require curtain/darkening upgrades and periodic technician support; and (2) a large, fixed television set, which committee staff noted may be easier to operate for rentals and multiple uses in the hall. A committee member offered to donate a projector; staff raised concerns about warranty, maintenance and the need for a trained operator (though several members said modern digital projectors are largely “button push” devices).
Staff and volunteers reviewed licensing requirements for public movie showings. Committee members were told public screenings require licensing from distributors or authorized licensors (committee members referenced Swank as the typical licensing service) and that fees can be either a flat fee or a revenue share; examples discussed included minimums (e.g., $250) and studio percentages (examples cited: 35–55% in some arrangements) depending on whether a film is first-run or repertory content.
After discussion, the motion for an onsite technical assessment carried with unanimous vocal assent; no purchase or installation was authorized at this meeting. Staff were asked to report the assessment findings and cost estimates back to the committee for a subsequent decision on purchase, installation and any required building retrofits (darkening curtains, mounting points, or electrical work).
