Vendor proposes digital scoreboards with guaranteed ad revenue; committee weighs timing and budget impact
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Vendor Digital Scoreboards proposed installing two gym scoreboards (including shot-clock equipment) under a 7-year contract that guarantees an annual $20,900 payment to the district plus a revenue split on net ad sales; committee members asked staff to evaluate budget timing and installation lead times before approving.
Mr. Weaver reintroduced the district’s follow-up on a November presentation about installing digital scoreboards in the competition gymnasium to prepare for upcoming PIAA shot-clock requirements.
Bob Hartman, representing Digital Scoreboards, presented a vendor package that includes two digital scoreboards, design, bidding, installation, software and seven years of parts-and-labor warranty. Hartman said the vendor guarantees a minimum annual payment of $20,900 to the district, contractually obligated regardless of local ad sales, and described a revenue-sharing arrangement on net ad revenue after recouping an initial guaranteed amount. Hartman summarized: “Every penny you give us, we give you back over 7 years… At the end of the seventh year, the last payment is $20,900 plus 25%.”
Board members asked about the total first-year outlay (hardware plus shot clocks) and whether the project is effectively revenue-neutral. Staff and the vendor discussed numbers: initial year costs were described in-slide as $35,000 (later revised in discussion to roughly $30,000–$31,000 including shot clocks), with guaranteed returns and ongoing ad-sales claims from the vendor. Committee members also raised policy concerns: ad content must comply with the district’s commercialism-in-schools policy and the district retains control over sponsorship criteria.
Timing emerged as a key factor. Hartman said product lead time from purchase order to installation is typically eight to 10 weeks but crew availability in summer can extend installation to 12–16 weeks; the vendor suggested an effective decision cutoff around April 1 to secure summer installation and avoid waiting another year. Several board members urged staff to evaluate capital priorities, noting competing projects (bleachers, turf, RFP projects) and suggested bringing a budget-priority memo to the next meeting.
No final procurement decision was taken; staff will return with refined numbers, a not-to-exceed figure if appropriate, and a recommendation on scheduling and budget impact.