Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Stadium Video Board topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

East Allegheny SD board hears stadium video-board proposal, tables decision for more review

East Allegheny School District Board of Directors · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board reviewed a detailed proposal for a new stadium LED video board with vendor options, technical tradeoffs and optional streaming gear; the superintendent asked that the item be tabled for a month to allow comparison of bids and follow-up questions.

The East Allegheny School District board heard a detailed proposal for a new stadium LED video board but did not vote, instead agreeing to table the matter so members can review vendor bids and technical details.

Presenter (S3) walked the board through tradeoffs in LED pixel pitch and resolution, explaining higher-resolution panels (examples discussed as P6.6 versus P10 or P16) provide clearer images at closer viewing distances while lower-resolution panels require spectators to be farther away. The presenter said the vendor’s warranty would be five years and noted the proposal includes a spare-parts strategy: "we get 10% spare parts," which the presenter said is higher than the 2–3% some competitors supply. He also described optional features — wireless sideline cameras, intercoms and streaming capability — that would be quoted separately.

Price components discussed included hardware, a computer-control license (the presenter identified an item of roughly $3,000 for the control program), installation and optional extras. The presenter estimated typical vendor lead time of about eight weeks from order. Board members asked whether the existing structure could support a larger screen, the depth and type of pylons required, and whether power and fiber could be run from the press box; the presenter said the district could do much of that work in-house pending an engineer’s specification for pylon depth.

Superintendent (S6) told the board he wanted more time for members to digest the materials and compare the Runaway Productions proposal with other bids, including options from Daktronics and NEPCO, and recommended tabling the item for a month so staff can follow up with vendors. The board did not take a purchasing vote at the meeting.

Next steps: staff will collect follow-up information from the vendors and return the item for board consideration at a future meeting.