Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Philanthropy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews draft philanthropic campaign, donor tiers and naming‑rights framework
Summary
Board members reviewed a draft brochure and catalog of giving opportunities covering academics, student well‑being and campus expansion; staff proposed donor tiers from $5 million down to under $1,000 and suggested time-limited naming/lease arrangements, prompting board questions about impact statements, tier simplification and corporate vs. individual recognition.
A board member presented a broad draft philanthropic campaign and accompanying catalog of giving opportunities at the March 16 meeting, asking for input on content, donor recognition levels and how the district should structure naming rights and sponsorships.
The materials presented included: an overview brochure, examples of impact stories tied to QR-code videos, a catalog of specific naming and sponsorship opportunities (athletics, labs, media center, solar‑shingle pilot, classroom sponsorships and instruments), and a proposed recognition scale ranging from a $5 million "Eagle Visionary" level down to modest family giving categories under $1,000.
The presenter said naming‑rights durations should vary by asset: facilities could follow the life of the structure or 15–25 years, lab and technology spaces 5–10 years because of equipment obsolescence, and renovations would be linked to the next major life‑cycle renovation. The materials also included illustrative price points drawn from probable cost estimates developed for the campus master plan; the presenter emphasized those figures were examples and subject to change after final cost estimating.
Board members praised the breadth of options and the inclusive approach but asked for clearer impact descriptions tied to each dollar amount and suggested consolidating recognition tiers. Several trustees recommended distinguishing corporate giving levels from family/individual levels and urged staff to define what donors receive in return (donor wall placement, naming duration, recognition language). One trustee also urged caution before publicizing price tags tied to probable construction costs, noting perceived value (for example, prominence of a scoreboard) can differ from build cost.
The discussion also covered governance: presenting board members asked that any naming or leased naming agreement follow board policy and go through a formal gift agreement process, board review and public dedication. The board asked staff to refine the brochure, add clearer impact statements and return with a final recommendation and any draft gift‑agreement language in a future meeting.
What happens next: staff will incorporate feedback, refine the catalog and recognition tiers, and return to the board with updated materials and proposed policy language as needed.
