Councillors give feedback on PA system (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Three Rivers District Council quoted £25,000 to replace PA system
2:30pm Tuesday 4th September 2012 in News
By Adam Binnie, Senior Reporter
A new £25,000 microphone and speaker system for Three Rivers District Council chamber is needed to replace the current failing equipment.
The PA system in the Penn Chamber was bought in October 2002, costing £27,500. The microphones have since come to the end of their life, despite the rechargeable batteries being replaced in 2010.
Problems have occurred at a number of recent meetings due to batteries constantly being charged and used.
Leader of the council, Ann Shaw, described the current system as "embarrassingly inadequate" at an executive meeting last night, during which time the microphones frequently turned off until the system was abandoned completely, forcing councillors to talk loudly.
The council has allocated £25,000 from the capital programme to replace the system.
The existing supplier has provided two quotes, one to upgrade of the existing "swan neck" system or to replace it completely with new "Revoluto" units.
The swan neck system will replace like with like and is cheaper, costing £25,998 in total, with each microphone costing £649.75, compared with £1,084 with the Revoluto system, .
However it is susceptible to damage and the rechargeable batteries are less reliable than Revoluto units.
The Revoluto microphones are more robust, have a longer battery life, and are more sensitive, meaning they can be used by two members, but costs £36,420.
Opposition leader Chris Hayward said: "I'm surprised we've only gone to one supplier for quotes, there are a plethora of different systems that councils use across the country."
A third solution, a fixed hanging microphone system similar to the one used in the House of Commons, would cost an estimated £33,655.
The advantage is that it would be fully wired, eliminating the need to recharge the microphones.
The council agreed to put together a working party of group leaders to make the decision.
Liberal democrat Sara Bedford added: "This isn't really a choice, one is too expensive and the other is too useless."
Comments(20)
Green Gal
says...
3:15pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Green Gal
says...
3:17pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Sara
says...
3:36pm Tue 4 Sep 12
We then returned last night to decide effectively that there was no alternative to what we debated in June and that sadly we had been unable to change HCC's view on the need for two school sites, one in Mill End or Maple Cross and the other in Croxley.
The microphones issue was the first time (and hopefully the last) that the committee will debate the issue.
In any case we spent longer discussing the schools policy last night than any other subject area. An immense of time, both inside and outside the council offices, has been spent on this subject, as befits its importance to residents for a number of reasons.
Sara
says...
3:44pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Most councils have a series of different rooms for different meetings, which each need a different microphone set up.
We have however asked for more systems to be demonstrated to ensure we get something that does its job at reasonable cost.
LSC
says...
4:09pm Tue 4 Sep 12
I think the last time I attended anything that spent over £25,000 on a sound system was a Status Quo concert, and as I was in about the third row, that was pretty wasted on me anyway.
There are cheaper options. £25k is more than a nurses salary, and I know which I'd rather have.
Sara
says...
4:29pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Green Gal
says...
5:10pm Tue 4 Sep 12
http://www.thomann.d
e/gb/gooseneck_micro
phones.html
LSC
says...
5:36pm Tue 4 Sep 12
Sara wrote:I'd be happy to for a small consultancy fee. Just using Google gives 114,000 results for PA systems, and 90% are under £1,000. 50% are under £500.
If you can find a cheaper option, I'm sure Three Rivers will be very pleased to hear about it. Please send the details to the Chief Executive.
They vary from 150 to 500 Watts and beyond, which is enough to mash your eardrums.
Don't councillors have Google?
theguitarman
says...
8:02am Wed 5 Sep 12
Sara
says...
9:18am Wed 5 Sep 12
Having a wireless system gives its own problems in terms of ensuring the robustness of transmission. With the previous system, we sometimes picked up taxis and also occasional performances from Watersmeet. Maybe pleasant, but not helpful if you have come to hear what is being discussed and decided. The number of digital devices carried by most of us have hugely increased and the potential interference has increased likewise.
We also need to have a speaker system, which amongst other things, limits the number of microphones which can be switched on at one time, which allows speaking in either a seated or standing position and minimises background noise from muttering councillors.
There are a number of other technical issues which I am not knowledgable about, which is why I rely on advice from council officers and others who have that knowledge.
Also we have already reduced the likely cost by keeping the number of bases at 16, rather than increasing to 24 as suggested.
Finally the batteries have already been replaced more than once and a periodic draining takes place to maintain battery life as long as possible. However there are increasing problems with the system and several attempts to revive it for longer use have failed.
garston tony
says...
10:23am Wed 5 Sep 12
I also know that their mikes which have a good range, can be turned on and off by the user and use rechargeable batteries cost less than £50 a peice.
Me thinks at £650 a pop the firm is taking the council for a ride. Seeing how shoddy the current system is should they really be using the same firm, there was no mention of quotes from other firms being received. Surely that is a basic thing, to hunt around and make sure you're not being ripped off
Sara
says...
12:37pm Wed 5 Sep 12
The only person who has come in here with any real technical knowledge seems to be @guitarman. Our own officers are checking what we need and we've already told them to come back with cheaper quotes. But first and foremost it has to work.
theguitarman
says...
1:02pm Wed 5 Sep 12
Sara wrote:I have over 40years experience with PA systems. The comments made so far seem to think all you need do is buy a 1000 watt pa system and plonk it down and it will work. It will work but very badly. Any decent radio mike, a Shure SM 58 with a transmitter and receiver is approx £350. The cost of £690 approx for each mike includes the mike, the RX/TX kit,mixer amp, speakers and installation. Seems a good deal to me!
It's not the quote we would necessarily use, it's an idea of what we would need. But when we tried lesser units, we had terrible interference and feedback problems.
The only person who has come in here with any real technical knowledge seems to be @guitarman. Our own officers are checking what we need and we've already told them to come back with cheaper quotes. But first and foremost it has to work.
LSC
says...
1:13pm Wed 5 Sep 12
However 25k is a huge amount of public money. How did they cope before wireless systems? They obviously did, councils aren't a new thing.
25k is almost exactly how much MY council reduced my charity's grant by last year.
Tighten your belts and speak up. You expect the rest of us to.
Sara
says...
1:29pm Wed 5 Sep 12
The less that cn be spent on a sound system, the more that can be pent on children's pay equipment or whatever. Councillors do not generally get some sort of illicit thrill from spending residents' money unnecessarily.
The Three Rivers part of the council tax is several percent lower than it was over six years ago. The only council that has been lower I believe the Lonon Borough of Hamersmih and Fulham. We haven't got there without some effort.
LSC
says...
3:50pm Wed 5 Sep 12
I'm sure they don't. But many have been guilty over the years of mistaking their own importance.
A classic example was the special traffic lanes for the Olympics; God forbid they should be late but it is fine if a surgeon is caught in traffic, or a barrister at Crown Court, or a student on their way to an exam that might shape their entire life; none of them are as important as a man that runs 0.01 of a second faster than the man next to him. That is a very recent example that proves it still goes on.
I'm not knocking you or your council, and I'm not a resident there, but I'm just pointing out sometimes people get carried away with 'essentials' that are in fact anything but.
Sara
says...
5:53pm Wed 5 Sep 12
LSC
says...
10:37pm Wed 5 Sep 12
There have been many examples of councils and politicians doing this in the past. John Prescott made a career of it, needing two company Jaguars that he didn't pay for and the right to use bus lanes the rest of us would be fined for using. He was clearly more essential to the species than you or I.
Would the council consider a £25k grant to a church, mosque or synagogue for a sound system? There are many who would argue the word of their god is FAR more important than the word of the council.
What about schools? When I was a nipper I could never hear a word in assembly in the main hall. Or is that less important?
As I said, I do not know the layout of the council chamber or the number of councilors there even are. But if you seriously cannot hear each other in one room then I respectfully suggest:
The room is to big.
Some people need to learn manners and shut up when someone-else is talking.
You have too many councilors.
Sara
says...
10:46pm Wed 5 Sep 12
Would we give a grant for that amount to a club? Well we have in the past. But not for religious purposes - like Alastair Campbell, we don't (corporately) do God.
The Rover says...
3:05pm Tue 4 Sep 12