Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Livestreaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates low-cost livestreaming for meetings and how to manage outside recording
Summary
Council members discussed a roughly $3,500 livestream setup proposed by staff, weighed technical and acoustic needs, and debated how to limit the influence of third-party live recorders while noting First Amendment protections and the option to disable viewer comments.
Council members and staff spent a substantial portion of the meeting discussing whether to begin livestreaming council meetings and how to manage technical and legal issues that come with video coverage.
Staff said a local vendor, Rob Ross, estimated about $3,500 for a basic setup — one or two cameras and an iPad controller — and suggested staff could cobble that amount together from current funds. The staff member cautioned that if costs rose to roughly $5,000 the city would likely need additional microphones and that a larger expense would be harder to find without budgeting for it next year.
A council member expressed support for livestreaming but warned that an outside individual is already livestreaming meetings and "owns the content," meaning the individual can edit and repackage footage. The exchange prompted discussion of practical mitigations: creating a designated media gallery or confinement area for citizen journalists and specifying filming locations to avoid obstruction.
Members also addressed how the city would control viewer interaction: staff said they would not allow comments on the channel and noted that the city can publish video without enabling comments; the transcript refers generically to "state law" in that context but does not provide a statutory citation. Another member said the city cannot legally prevent people from recording meetings in a public building and invoked the First Amendment as the basis for that view.
On technical setup, members discussed camera placement (focusing on the council versus also capturing public speakers), portability for meetings held in other rooms such as the fire department, and the need for sufficient microphones to ensure clear audio. Staff recommended testing a modest system in an existing, smaller conference room where acoustics have worked well, and suggested implementation could occur in the coming months or be included in next year's budget if more equipment is required.
No formal vote on initiating a livestream was recorded in the provided transcript; staff said the idea could be pursued now with a basic setup or delayed for budget inclusion depending on cost and further planning.
