Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Buildings and Grounds committee backs recommended scoreboard for East High
Loading...
Summary
The committee approved moving forward with a recommended vendor for a new East High stadium scoreboard, citing student engagement and advertising revenue potential; funding was discussed using AEF contributions plus a district budget line.
The Aurora East USD 131 Buildings and Grounds Committee on April 12 agreed informally to move forward with the recommended vendor to replace the East High football scoreboard.
During a presentation, a facilities staff member laid out the RFP process: four vendors were invited, three attended a mandatory walkthrough and only one submitted a timely bid. Staff said the proposal from Correct Digital Display scored highest on the district's evaluation matrix and would allow replays, community advertising and possible future audio expansion. "It would give our students or give us opportunity to do commercials, replays, sell rights to it," the staff member said.
Why it matters: district staff emphasized the scoreboard could both improve the spectator experience and provide an advertising stream that would help offset installation costs. The staff member also described how the district and AEF would partner on advertising revenue: "because they're contributing to it, work with them on a prorated basis" to retain local advertising space and recoup some costs.
Details: Staff said vendors discussed included Daktronics, Watchfire and Correct Digital Display; the recommended Correct Digital Display option was described as the smallest of the three size options that "will meet the needs of our home bleachers." The price figures given during the meeting were spoken as "around 185-ish" for an earlier estimate and "this one came back at a total of 2.19," with higher options quoted as "2.63, 2.75" and others "over 300." The meeting transcript does not specify the units associated with those figures; the committee flagged cost as a key factor when considering larger-size options (staff said increasing screen size would add roughly $50,000). Clarifying financial notes provided during the meeting: staff said they expected to use AEF funds plus a district budgeted amount (quoted in the meeting as "125 of AEF funds and then $94,001.60"). Because the transcript's numeric references lacked explicit units in places, the committee recorded these as staff-reported figures for follow-up verification.
Outcome and next steps: When the chair asked, "Is everybody in favor of it?" members voiced assent and the committee directed staff to proceed with planning and budget alignment. There was no formal roll-call vote recorded on the transcript; the decision was reached by committee consensus. Staff said they will "massage" the budget line items to fit the purchase and continue design coordination with the selected vendor.
What remains open: final contract terms, a confirmed vendor price in writing and the exact funding mix for purchase and installation. The committee did not record a formal motion or vote in the transcript; staff will return with paperwork and cost confirmations at a subsequent meeting.
