Cary to begin livestreaming council work sessions, district meetings after unanimous vote

The Cary Town Council voted unanimously Nov. 20 to begin videotaping and livestreaming its work sessions, district meetings, quarterlies and retreats, approving a lower‑cost option staff estimated at about $400 per meeting.

Council members and staff spent more than an hour weighing options, costs and accessibility before the vote. Susan Moran, a marketing/communications staff member who led the staff presentation, said the fastest, least expensive approach would add webcams and an operator to existing meeting setups and use WebEx or Zoom to deliver streams to Cary TV and YouTube. "You're looking at 10 or $11,000 that is not currently budgeted," Moran said when describing startup and operational estimates for some meeting categories, adding that fuller production would run "about $8,000 a meeting."

Mayor Weinbrecht said he felt an urgency to start recording decision‑making meetings. "I feel a sense of urgency to start televising all work sessions, all decision binding meetings, video," he said before moving to adopt the lower‑cost option. Councilmember Jennifer Bryson Robinson seconded the motion; the chair called for and received unanimous vocal assent.

Why it matters: Council members framed the change as a transparency and access measure that would let residents observe meetings where policy is discussed and decisions are shaped outside televised council sessions. Staff recommended a pilot approach and a one‑year evaluation to measure public use and technical performance; the Information Services Advisory Board (ISAB) would assist in the evaluation.

Details and caveats: Staff outlined two primary approaches: a low‑cost camera/operator model (the option adopted) and a high‑production model that would cost substantially more per meeting. Moran said the pilot could be implemented with existing marketing budget funds for a few months while staff develops a full budget proposal. She cautioned that reliable live streaming requires a staff member or contractor to operate the stream in real time.

Council members raised accessibility and privacy concerns. Several members urged that captioning and ADA accommodations be addressed before broadening the program. "That lower estimate includes — I don't think you would have left that out," one council member said, prompting staff to clarify that human‑produced, ADA‑compliant captioning was not included in the $400 estimate and would require additional funding and options.

Next steps: The motion directs staff to begin livestreaming the specified council meetings on the lower‑cost model and to return with a staff report on options, costs and pros and cons for extending streaming to boards and commissions (including privacy, archiving and accessibility implications), with ISAB assistance. The council also agreed to reassess the pilot after a year to determine whether to expand, change production levels, or adjust staffing.