Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Recordings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hayden council asks staff for cost estimates to expand meeting recordings; no policy change yet
Summary
Council reviewed staff recommendations on which meetings are video- or audio-recorded and directed staff to provide rough cost estimates and for Council Member White to submit a prioritized list of additional meetings to record.
Hayden City Council on Feb. 25 reviewed staff—s recommendations for meeting audio and video recording and directed staff to return with rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates for expanding recordings to additional commissions and meetings.
Staff described current practices: regular city council and Planning & Zoning meetings are video recorded; many special meetings, workshops and other commissions are audio recorded or archived for minutes. Staff reported an external vendor charge of roughly $300 per meeting for audio/video recording services when a vendor is used and noted in-house staff capacity to record additional meetings is limited.
Council members voiced differing views. Council Member White argued for expanding video recording to additional meetings that involve council members and specifically suggested the Public Safety Commission be added to the video list because those meetings occur only quarterly and have public-safety implications. Other council members raised cost concerns and said no constituent demand had been documented for broader video coverage; one council member noted that some users clip and redistribute meeting snippets on social media, which inflates view statistics but does not equate to full meeting viewership.
The council did not adopt a formal policy at the meeting. Instead, it asked staff to solicit rough price estimates (not a contract) from the current vendor and to return with an order-of-magnitude cost for adding video to the meetings requested. Council Member White agreed to submit a written list of the additional meetings she wants recorded. Staff also noted the city's audio retention schedule is two years and that audio recordings are available by records request today; some minutes are already posted after approval.
No vote was required for the directive; it was recorded as staff direction and follow-up. The council asked staff to present cost comparisons for using the current vendor versus adding in-house capacity, and to provide the estimated incremental annual cost to implement the changes requested.
