Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletics Scoreboard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews offer for two free digital scoreboards; advertising and maintenance terms draw questions
Summary
A vendor proposal would provide two digital gym scoreboards at no capital cost under a 10‑year lease; the district would pay roughly $75 per year for software, the vendor retains exclusive advertising rights but offers a referral rebate, and board members asked about warranty, maintenance and the ability to offset upfront costs via local sponsors.
Board members reviewed a proposal from Digital Scoreboards to supply two digital scoreboards for the high school gym under a long‑term lease and asked detailed questions about advertising exclusivity, warranty and maintenance costs.
A presenter (speaker 9) said the company would provide two scoreboards at no up‑front capital cost and the school’s ongoing obligation would be approximately $75 per year to run the software for the devices. The presenter explained the vendor retains exclusive advertising rights on the boards but the district would receive 25% of any referral revenue if the district helps the company secure advertisers: "if we make a referral and any one of our referrals as a package, we get 25% of that money back directly towards that," the presenter said.
Board members asked where the scoreboards would be installed (the high school gym), whether the boards include video, and who would be responsible for maintenance after the manufacturer's warranty. The presenter said the boards had manufacturer replacement warranties and that longer‑term maintenance was the district’s responsibility after warranty expiration. Responding to a question about damage from PE or lacrosse balls, the presenter said manufacturers replace damaged panels under warranty and the district would be responsible for maintenance after that period.
One board member asked about the likelihood of offsetting any district costs through sponsorships; the presenter said he had identified roughly 40–50 local commercial prospects and believed it was "very high" the district could secure enough referrals to offset the $7,000–$7,500 cost cited during discussion.
Board members asked staff to add the scoreboard agreement (agenda item 12.2) and related athletics consent items to the August 21 voting session for final approval. The board did not approve the scoreboard at the work session; members requested any final agreement language and warranty terms be included with the voting agenda.
What’s next: The scoreboard item and related logo approvals will appear on the Aug. 21 voting agenda with revised paperwork, warranty details and any corrected cost figures.
