HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-06; City Council; 7003-3; Sound System for Council Chamberss
C1T':"'*"jF CARLSBAD — AGENDa.'31LL
Ag# 7003 - #3 TITLE: DEPT. HD.L',J
MTG. 7/6/82 CITY AM-
SOUND SYSTEM FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CEPT.CS CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that staff be authorized to proceed with the
competitive negotiation process for the purchase and installation of
a sound system for the Council Chambers.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
At its meeting of April 13, 1982, Council approved the allocation
of $16,500 for a new sound system for the Council Chambers subject
to further review and report. Next, at its meeting of May 11,
1982, Council Member Casler volunteered to work with staff to
review sound systems.
On June 18, 1982, Mayor Casler and representatives of staff visited
a communications company. It has been determined that the existing
system cannot be modified to resolve the current problems. It is
recommended that staff be authorized to proceed with competitive
negotiations for the purchase and installation of a new sound
system. The attached report identifies current problems with the
existing system, and advantages of a new system.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Currently $16,500 has been allocated. The competitive negotiation
process would be utilized and the maximum cost would be $16,500.
EXHIBITS:
1. Memorandum from City Clerk, dated June 28, 1982.
Z
O
Q
5
Z
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 1982
TO: City Council
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: SOUND SYSTEM FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
At its meeting of April 13, 1982, Council approved the allocation of
$16,500 for a new sound system for the Council Chambers subject to
further review and report.
At its meeting of May 11, 1982, Council Member Casler volunteered to
work with staff to review sound systems.
On June 18, 1982, a committee comprised of three members visited
Communications Company, Inc. in San Diego to view and test systems.
That 3-member committee consisted of:
Mayor Mary Casler
City Clerk. Lee Rautenkranz
Dave Packer
The committee mix was felt to be appropriate since it contained a
representative from the system users, a representative from those
receiving complaints, and a representative of those who attempt to
keep the system operating.
In addition a systems engineer surveyed the Council Chambers and the
current system.
As a result, the following observations are offered for Council
consideration:
1. The present system is operating at maximum capacity.
a. No additional microphones can be added to the
present system.
b. Volumes for each microphone are at the maximum
allowable volume without creating a high-pitched
squeal in the speakers (feedback).
2. Due to the placement of the speakers, Council members and
the members of the audience in the first few rows can
generally hear, but those in the rear of the Chambers can
not hear.
En
SOUND SYSTEM FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS Page 2
June 28, 1982
3. When the amplifier is turned on, each channel is "on" even if
the microphones are "off." Thus, all the wires act as
antennas, and explain the occasional pick-up of CB's and
other interference.
4. The current system could not be modified to meet the sound
needs in the chamber.
5. Curren: microphones take approximately two months for
repairs. It's difficult to find a source who is willing to
work on same.
6. To disconnect the sound in the conference room requires
disconnecting the wire to the speaker, then rewiring later.
The particular type of system reviewed and tested by the 3-member
committee offered the following features and advantages:
1. Several speakers would be installed in the ceiling so an
individual could hear staff reports and Council discussion
in any location of the chambers.
2. The sound level in any location of the chambers would not be
blaring, but at a conversational level.
3. An automatic adjustmep.t would mean that the softest and
loudest voices would be heard at the same noise level.
4. The individual microphones would be left "on" by Council
members, but they would only become "alive" when the Council
member spoke.
5. The microphones would be freestanding on bases in front of
each Council member.
6. Each member would be able to speak in their normal
conversational tone with the microphone approximately arms
length away. No wrestling with the microphones or their
or./off switches would be required.
7. The speaker in the conference room would be installed in the
ceiling.
8. A switch would be installed at the City Clerk's station
which would cut off the sound in the conference room on such
occasions when that is necessary.
'A*!
SOUND SYSTEM FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
June 28, 1982
Page 3
9. The recording system could plug directly into the system and
would record through the system.
10. System capacity, when installed would allow for 20 microphone
stations.
11. The system could be expanded in the future (if necessary) to
accommodate 40 microphones.
12. There would be 20 microphones provided, which would allow
for extras at the front table and would help staff when
presenting reports.
13. The microphone at the bulletin board would have an additional
off switch so it would not be actuated by comments from a
member of the audience during the meeting.
Of primary importance is to address the whole issue in terms of a
sound system. Buying only new microphones would not solve the
problem. Buying only a new ampl'fier would not solve the problem.
Buying only new speakers would not solve the problem. Further,
buying only 2 of the components would not solve the problem.
Therefore, the matter should be approached as a total systems
consideration, looking at the desired performance of the system.
Therefore, it is recommended that staff be authorized to proceed with
the competitive negotiation process for the purchase and installation
of a sound system for the Council Chambers.
LEE RAUTENkRANZ
City Clerk