CC 01-22-2025 Item No. 9. Advanced Systems Group Agreement_Supplemental Report1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: January 22, 2025
Agenda Item #9
Subject
Approve an agreement with Advanced Systems Group, LLC., for Modernization of
Broadcast TV and Community Hall Integration for a not‐to‐exceed amount of $1,100,000,
a 10% contingency in the amount of $110,000 for a total not‐to‐exceed amount of
$1,210,000, and associated budget modification, with the cost to be funded by Public,
Educational, and Governmental (PEG) funds.
Recommended Action
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any necessary
amendments with Advanced Systems Group, LLC., for Modernization of Broadcast
TV and Community Hall Integration, within the total not‐to‐exceed amount of
$1,210,000.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25‐XXX approving budget modification #2425‐368, increasing
appropriations in the amount of $1,210,000 in the General Fund Video budget unit
(100‐31‐305 900‐995), funded by restricted PEG funds.
Background:
Q1: What specifically has triggered this need for an upgrade? (Chao)
The need for this upgrade has been triggered by several factors:
1. Scheduled Technology Refresh:
o The audiovisual (AV) systems in the Community Hall and control room were last
upgraded a decade ago, in line with a typical 10‐year refresh cycle.
o The lighting systems, however, have not been updated in 20 years, making this
component particularly overdue for modernization.
2. Outdated Legacy Equipment:
o Components of the existing AV and lighting systems have reached end‐of‐life and are
no longer supported by manufacturers. This creates reliability risks and increases
maintenance challenges, threatening the Cityʹs ability to provide uninterrupted
services.
2
3. Significant Maintenance Demands:
o Maintaining the current system requires video engineering expertise rather than
standard video broadcast skills, due to its complexity.
o Approximately 16 hours of engineering work per week is currently needed to ensure
operational viability. This is both resource‐intensive and costly.
o The new system, with its streamlined design and modern technologies, will
significantly reduce the time and expertise required for maintenance, improving
overall efficiency.
4. Advancements in Technology:
o The Cityʹs current setup lacks modern capabilities, such as Network Device Interface
(NDI) technology, and improved integration of video and audio systems.
o Upgrading to these technologies will enhance video production quality, operational
efficiency, and scalability.
5. Operational Inefficiencies:
o The existing system does not allow for centralized control or seamless integration of
subsystems like cameras, lighting, microphones, and HVAC systems. Modernizing
the system will streamline operations and simplify control mechanisms, making them
more user‐friendly and efficient.
6. Sustainability and Cost‐Effectiveness:
o LED lighting will reduce energy consumption by up to 75%, lower cooling
requirements, and decrease maintenance needs. This supports the Cityʹs
sustainability goals and reduces long‐term costs.
By addressing these issues, the modernization effort will not only ensure a high‐quality, reliable,
and scalable audiovisual infrastructure but also significantly reduce maintenance demands,
freeing up resources and minimizing operational risks.
Q2: Are there problems? If so, what are they? (Chao)
Yes, there are several challenges with the current system that necessitate this upgrade:
1. Aging and Outdated Equipment:
o The audiovisual (AV) systems were last upgraded 10 years ago, and the lighting
systems have not been updated in over 20 years. Some equipment has reached its
end‐of‐life and is no longer supported by manufacturers, making repairs and
replacements increasingly difficult and time‐consuming.
2. Reliability Risks:
o The current system’s outdated components increase the risk of failures, which could
disrupt City Council meetings and public information sessions. Such failures could
take months to resolve due to the unavailability of replacement parts.
3. Complex Maintenance Requirements:
o The existing system is highly complex and requires significant expertise in video
engineering rather than standard video broadcast skills. This complexity demands
approximately 16 hours of specialized engineering work per week just to keep the
system operational, which is resource‐intensive and unsustainable.
4. Technological Limitations:
o The current system lacks modern features such as Network Device Interface (NDI)
3
technology, and advanced audio capabilities.
5. Operational Inefficiencies:
o The lack of centralized control and integration of subsystems (e.g., lighting,
microphones, HVAC, cameras) results in inefficient operations and makes it
challenging to manage the system effectively.
6. Risk of Service Interruptions:
o Without modernization, the risk of a critical system failure will continue to
increase, potentially leading to significant service disruptions that could negatively
impact public access to important government content.
By addressing these problems through the proposed upgrade, the City aims to ensure a reliable,
efficient, and sustainable audiovisual infrastructure that meets current and future needs while
minimizing operational risks and maintenance burdens.
Q3: Will this upgrade be compatible with the broadcasts currently being done at the
Quinlan Center? If not, what will need to be changed, how much will it cost and how
will it be funded? (Chao)
Yes, this upgrade will be fully compatible with the broadcasts currently being done at the
Quinlan Center.
The Quinlan Center primarily uses Zoom for its broadcasting needs, whereas the Community
Hall has a more extensive AV infrastructure. Zoom is also a key component of the upgraded AV
system for the Community Hall, ensuring seamless compatibility between the two facilities.
Q4: Will this upgrade allow the video capturing of BOTH the Council meeting and any
councilmembers attending remotely as part of public record? (Chao)
Yes, this upgrade will allow for the video capturing of both in‐person Council meetings and any
councilmembers attending remotely, ensuring documentation as part of the public record.
The integration of modern Network Device Interface (NDI) technology and advanced video
systems will enable seamless inclusion of remote participants via Zoom or other virtual
platforms. This ensures that all councilmember interactions, whether in person or remote, are
captured and archived with high‐quality video and audio for transparency and public
accessibility.
Q5: Please verify that the funds needed for this project ALREADY EXIST in a fund and
will not be using unassigned funds of any kind? (Chao)
No unassigned funds will be used for this project. The upgrade will be funded using General
Fund restricted funds from ʺPublic Access Television,ʺ which had a beginning balance of
$1,639,433, as reported in the FY 2023‐24 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (page 91).
Q6: Additionally, the project will centralize the control room within the Community
Hall, facilitating smoother integration and more efficient operation of the audiovisual
systems. (Chao)
4
This statement means that the control room, which currently operates from City Hall, will be
relocated to the Community Hall where the meetings are held. By moving the AV system control
room to the same facility, the following benefits will be achieved:
1. Reduced Infrastructure Complexity:
o Currently, the system requires extensive cabling and connections between City
Hall and Community Hall to manage AV operations remotely. This setup is
complex, prone to issues, and requires significant maintenance.
o By centralizing operations within Community Hall, the need for this intricate
infrastructure is eliminated, simplifying the system and reducing potential points
of failure.
2. Improved Efficiency:
o Operators will be able to manage the AV systems directly from the same location
where meetings occur, enabling quicker response times and easier coordination
during events.
o This proximity reduces delays and errors that might occur when managing systems
remotely.
3. Seamless Integration:
o Centralizing the control room allows for a more streamlined integration of all
audiovisual components (e.g., cameras, microphones, lighting, HVAC, and voting
systems). The systems can work together seamlessly, improving overall
performance and ease of use.
4. Cost and Resource Savings:
o A simpler infrastructure reduces maintenance demands and operational costs over
time. It also minimizes the need for highly specialized expertise to troubleshoot
complex remote configurations.
In summary, moving the control room to the Community Hall will enhance the efficiency,
reliability, and simplicity of AV operations for meetings and events held there.
Q7: Why is an integrated system needed in Community Hall when there have been no
public complaints about audio/video quality and the number of meetings held there has
decreased? (Chao)
See the answer to Q1.
Q8: Why is an external consultant necessary for a feasibility study when incremental
upgrades have traditionally been recommended by staff? (Chao)
Cupertino has used an external consultant to perform a redesign and implementation of the control
room and AV systems on an average of every ten years.
Q9. Can the plan include support for hybrid commission meetings at the Quinlan Center, as
that is a primary need raised by the community? (Chao)
The Quinlan Center primarily relies on Zoom for its broadcasting needs, while Community Hall
features a more advanced AV infrastructure. As the primary City Channel broadcasting facility and
5
home to the Council Chambers, Community Hall requires dedicated PEG funds to maintain and
upgrade its integrated equipment, ensuring high‐quality and seamless productions.
Q10: Was the $1.2 million budget request included in the FY 2024‐25 Adopted Budget?
(Chao)
No, the $1.2 million budget request was not included in the FY 2024‐25 Adopted Budget.
Q11: Was this budget item part of the FY 2024‐25 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list?
(Chao)
No, this budget item was not part of the FY 2024‐25 CIP list.
Q12: If it was included in the Adopted Budget, why is a budget modification necessary?
(Chao)
See the Fiscal Impact section of the staff report.
Q13: Is the City’s understanding correct that it saves approximately $80,000 per year from
PEG funds and that the current $1.6 million balance represents 20 years of accumulated
savings? (Chao)
Yes, these savings are used to fund the control room and Community Hall AV upgrades on a ten‐year
cycle.
Q14: Does the proposed feasibility study and LED lighting replacement meet PEG fund
criteria, which primarily cover capital costs? (Chao)
Yes, both qualify for PEG funds.
Q15: Does the $1.2 million budget include the full video system upgrade, including
equipment? (Chao)
Yes
Q16: The attached proposal focuses on consulting and planning, but Phase III seems to
include equipment costs. How was the $986,000 figure for Phase III determined if the Needs
Analysis has not yet been conducted? (Chao)
This Not‐to‐Exceed (NTE) estimate is based on the vendor’s experience with similar projects, a
walkthrough of our site, site drawings, and discussions with our internal subject matter experts.
Additionally, our internal staff’s research, system knowledge, and past experience in building and
refreshing the control room and Community Hall AV in both 2003 and 2015—each time costing
approximately $1 million—confirm that this estimate is reasonable and well‐founded.
Q17: Will Council have a chance to review and approve the actual equipment costs before
Phase III is implemented? (Chao)
6
The approval of actual equipment costs before Phase III falls under the responsibility of the Innovation
& Technology (I&T) Department. I&T is responsible for managing the project scope, budget, and
procurement process to ensure alignment with the Cityʹs operational and technological requirements.
Q18: Can the RFP be provided in PDF format without requiring login access to a system?
(Chao)
See the supplemental attachment.
Q19: Why was the lowest bid measure not used for this project? (Chao)
The Scope of Work (SOW) for this project has not been fully defined at a granular level, necessitating
the issuance of an RFP. In this case, selecting the most qualified vendor was the most appropriate
approach.
Q20: What state law allows an exemption from the lowest bid requirement? (Chao)
This project is not a public works project subject to the Public Contract Code. Procurement decisions
may be based on best value and are not limited to lowest cost.
Q21: Who were the other proposers, and what were their bid amounts and evaluation
scores? (Chao)
The requested information may be disclosed after the contract has been awarded.
Q22: What criteria were used to evaluate the proposals? (Chao)
Q23: How was transparency ensured in the selection process to prevent favoritism? (Chao)
All vendors were informed of the ranking criteria as part of the RFP process.
Q24: Do all elements of the proposed project, such as the feasibility study and LED lighting
upgrades, align with the allowable uses of PEG funds? (Chao)
7
Yes
Q25: If any part of the expenditure does not meet PEG criteria, how will it be funded
instead? (Chao)
NA – funds have been earmarked in our regular operating cost for any electrical work potentially
needed.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Draft Agreement
B – Resolution 2025‐XXX
Additional Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
C ‐ RFP ‐ Modernization of TV Broadcast System