CC 01-22-2025 Item No. 9 Approve an agreement with Advanced Systems Group, LLC_Written Communications (2)CC 01-22-2025
Item No. 9
Approve an agreement
with Advanced Systems
Group, LLC
Written Communications
From:Pamela Wu
To:Liang Chao
Cc:Tina Kapoor; Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO; City Clerk; Christopher Jensen
Subject:RE: Questions on ITEM 9 - Impact on Council meetings, EOC, Project Creep
Date:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:13:13 AM
Mayor Chao, these questions will be included in today’s written comm.
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
PamelaW@cupertino.gov
(408)777-1322
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 8:48 AM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO <TeriG@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Questions on ITEM 9 - Impact on Council meetings, EOC, Project Creep
Please help answer these concerns/questions from Peggy, which likely are shared by
other community members:
Q1 (from Peggy G.): EOC…Can these funds be used for the EOC instead?
The EOC is communications, video, etc. If they can be used for our EOC then has the
decision been made that Community Hall is where the EOC will be located
permanently?
Q2 (from Peggy G.): Impact on availability of Community Hall for Council meetings…
-Will there be a disruption?
-If so, how long and can it be prevented? Where would these meetings be held?
This contract indicates it will be done August 2027! Would Community Hall be
unusable Council meetings for the next 2 years?
Q3 (from Peggy G.): Project creep…Although Quinlan was upgraded by this company in
2022 (see Attachment A-Draft Agreement.pdf, page 33 of 52), will it need to be upgraded
again to work with this new system?
If so, this is project creep where this would be an additional increase in budget.
Q4 (from Peggy G.): Staff time…How much staff time will this project take and by
whom?
My concern is using valuable staff time which would take away from a more critical
project such as the EOC.
Q5 (from Peggy G.): Can this project be delayed to allow the EOC and City Hall upgrades
to be completed first?
If so, can some of these funds be used there?
Thank you for addressing these concerns.
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 3:00 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: 2025-01-22 City Council Meeting - PULL ITEM 9 CONSENT - Impact on Council meetings,
EOC, Project Creep
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and Staff,
Please PULL CONSENT ITEM 9. This project needs to be discussed, please. It has
the potential to impact the EOC funding, Council meetings and take staff resources.
My concerns are:
Q1: EOC…Can these funds be used for the EOC instead?
The EOC is communications, video, etc. If they can be used for our EOC then has
the decision been made that Community Hall is where the EOC will be located
permanently?
Q2: Impact on availability of Community Hall for Council meetings…
-Will there be a disruption?
-If so, how long and can it be prevented? Where would these meetings be held?
This contract indicates it will be done August 2027! Would Community Hall be
unusable Council meetings for the next 2 years?
Q3: Project creep…Although Quinlan was upgraded by this company in 2022 (see
Attachment A-Draft Agreement.pdf, page 33 of 52), will it need to be upgraded again
to work with this new system?
If so, this is project creep where this would be an additional increase in budget.
Q4: Staff time…How much staff time will this project take and by whom?
My concern is using valuable staff time which would take away from a more critical
project such as the EOC.
Q5: Can this project be delayed to allow the EOC and City Hall upgrades to be
completed first?
If so, can some of these funds be used there?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Pamela Wu
To:Liang Chao
Cc:Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO; City Clerk; Christopher Jensen
Subject:RE: Questions on ITEM 9 - $1.2M Community Hall broadcast upgrade
Date:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 11:08:31 AM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
Mayor Chao, we will include your question below as today’s written communication.
Pamela
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
PamelaW@cupertino.gov
(408)777-1322
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 10:36 AM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO <TeriG@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: Questions on ITEM 9 - $1.2M Community Hall broadcast upgrade
Really appreciate all the answers to my questions. Appreciate it.
I am still going to pull this item specifically for transparency because this is an item
which was NOT in the adopted FY 2024-25 budget. Thus, I do not think such item with
additional expenditure, even if covered by a special fund with designated purpose,
should be approved as a Consent Item.
One more question: What technology upgrade is necessary to support hybrid meetings
for commission meetings held in the Quinlan Center?
Thanks,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 2:40 AM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO <TeriG@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: Questions on ITEM 9 - $1.2M Community Hall broadcast upgrade
Additional questions:
AQ1: Needs:
AQ1-1: There have been no complaints for the City's audio/video quality from the public
at all. It is unclear why the Community Hall needs an integrated system when the
number of meetings it support are reduced since the Parks and Rec Commission
meetings are moved to Quinlan. It is unclear why the City needs to hire an external
consultant to have a feasibility study at all when incremental upgrades are usually
suggested by staff as needed.
AQ1-2: The real needs that I have heard from multiple community members are the
needs to support hybrid meetings for the commission meetings being held in the
Quinlan Center. Could we include that in the plan?
AQ2: RE: Adopted buget
The recommended action includes "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."
AQ2-1: Was this $1.2M item was included in the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget? Was this
item included in the FY 2024-25 CIP list for consideration?
AQ2-2: If this item was included in the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, there is no need for a
budget modification, right?
AQ3: RE: PEG Funds
The staff report states "Cupertino receives approximately $100,000 in PEG funds
annually, with around $20,000 allocated each year for regular maintenance. Currently,
the City has a PEG fund balance exceeding $1.6 million."
Thus, the city saves about $80,000 per year from the PEG funds. The balance of $1.6M is
about 20 years of saved up PEG funds. Is my understanding correct?
AQ4: RE: The Proposal, attached to the agreement
AQ4-1: From the staff report, I thought the $1.2M would include the entire video system
upgrade, including the equipment. The proposal attached to the Agreement is titled
"CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION FOR MODERNIZATION OF
BROADCAST TV AND COMMUNITY HALL
INTEGRATION", which seems to only include consultation, but not equipment needed.
But then, I found that Phase III appears to include equipment costs.
But if the Needs Analysis is not done yet, how do we know what equipment are needed
and how much is the cost? How is the figure $986k for Phase III based on?
AQ4-2: The Proposal states "The first part of the process is to return to the The City of
Cupertino Team a conceptual design based on the Needs Analysis and discussions
between ASG and The City of Cupertino in a kick-off and design charette. This design will
be refined, and budget discussions will be held such that both parties are aware of how
the new system will be integrated into the existing system. ASG will assign a Project
Manager to facilitate the discussions and maintain a schedule.
II.ASG will produce a detailed budget that will be approved by the The City of
Cupertino as the basis for moving forward with the overall project."
Am I to understand that this item will come to the Council agenda before Phase III,
where the Council will review and approve the actual equipment, which currently is
budgeted for $986k?
AQ5: Please include the RFP in PDF, without requiring access to a system that requires
login.
AQ6: The REF selection process:
The staff report states "The RFP resulted in three proposals, each of which was
evaluated based on established criteria identified within the RFP. Advanced
Systems Group, LLC was identified as the highest‐ranked proposer due to its
strong scoring across all criteria and demonstrated knowledge of the City’s unique
needs and priorities for this project."
AQ6-1: How come the lowest bid measure is not used for this project? What state law
permits this project to not use the lowest bid measure, as required by the state law?
AQ6-2: Who are the other proposers?
AQ6-3: What's their bid amount and their scores? What are they scored on?
AQ6-4: The pitfall when not using the lowest bid measure is that the bidding evaluation
process is not transparent and the public agency might play favors to certain bidders.
Please describe the process to ensure the public that a fair and transparent process was
conducted to select the chosen applicant.
AQ7: It seems some of the stated purposes of the RFP, such as the feasibility study for
system upgrade, do not seem to meet the criteria for PEG fund, which is limited to
capital cost of the upgrade. The cost to replace LED lighting does not seem to qualify for
the PEG fund either? Please clarify.
Per the staff report:
Allowable Expenditures:
· Capital Costs: Purchase, upgrade, or maintenance of equipment (e.g.,
cameras, microphones, software) and facilities for PEG programming.
· Infrastructure: Building or improving networks and systems for PEG
channel distribution.
· Technical Support: Ensuring compliance with signal quality and
transmission standards.
· Accessibility: Adding features like closed captioning to meet accessibility
requirements.
· Limited PEG Activities: Noncommercial advertising, sponsorships, or
system upgrades to enhance public access.
Thank you for clarifying these questions.
(If any question is not answered as a part of this agenda item, please indicate when
those answers would be provided. Thanks.)
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 11:29 PM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Teri Gerhardt, CGCIO <TeriG@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Questions on ITEM 9 - $1.2M Community Hall broadcast upgrade
Including questions from the enclosed email:
Q1: What specifically has triggered this need for an upgrade? (From Peggy G)
Q2: Are there problems? If so, what are they? (From Peggy G)
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?
(From Peggy G)
Q4: Will this upgrade allow the video capturing of BOTH the Council meeting and any
councilmembers attending remotely as part of public record? (From Peggy G)
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? (From Peggy G)
Q6: What does this statement mean? (top of Page 2 of 6 of Staff Report) (From Peggy G)
Thanks,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 10:25 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: 2025-01-22 City Council Meeting - PULL ITEM 9 CONSENT - $1.2M Community Hall
broadcast upgradee
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE
ABOVE MEETING AGENDA IITEM.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and Staff,
Regarding Consent Item #9…PLEASE PULL THIS ITEM so it may be discussed and the
following items discussed in public.
Questions I have are:
Q1: What specifically has triggered this need for an upgrade?
Q2: Are there problems? If so, what are they?
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?
Q4: Will this upgrade allow the video capturing of BOTH the Council meeting and any
councilmembers attending remotely as part of public record?
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?
Q6: What does this statement mean? (top of Page 2 of 6 of Staff Report)
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:Anne Ezzat
To:citycounil@cupertino.org; City Clerk
Subject:Consent item #8 and 9
Date:Wednesday, January 22, 2025 3:26:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chiao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Member Freun, Council Member Mohan, and
Council Member Wang,
I am writing to ask you to remove item #9 from the consent calendar and would like my
comments to be added to the record. I am puzzled as to why an upgrade needs to be done to
the communications systems of Community Hall at this point. It will effectively muck up the
ability of citizens to view council meetings, it will also have the added benefit of keeping
council members from communicating with the public. The timing on this project is too
precious. In addition, it will take approximately 2 years to complete. Why? My
neighbors completely renovated their home, took it down to the stds and added additional
space; it took them six months..
While I understand that the funds are restricted to communications projects, why can't these
friends be allocated to EOC in light of what is going on with fires in Southern California?
Which leads to another point, what is the current status of the city's fire plan? The people of
Pacific Palisades never expected their city to turn into an inferno. Our city dodged a bullet a
couple of years ago with the Santa Cruz fires a couple of years ago. We might not be
so lucky next time.
Regarding item #8, it is foolish and dangerous to put concrete barriers on DeAnza. What is
the point of having bike trails and barriers when they are unsafe for the public? Bike trails
and barriers should be placed where they can do the most good, the greatest harm. While I
know the city is eager to spend down the large donation it received for bike trails, the city
should consider what the best use of this money should be.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat