District administrators presented three proposed naming‑recognition opportunities tied to donations vetted through the Imagine Foundation for Project 2 facilities. The opportunities included a science lab to honor Rachel Ganke Smiley, a yoga/meditation classroom in honor of the Saddleton family, and a green room to honor Elizabeth McGuire. Staff said the foundation conducts an initial vetting and the district uses an ad‑hoc committee of faculty and administrators to research nominees before a naming agreement proceeds.

Administrators described the Smiley and McGuire recognitions as honoring individuals with local ties; staff said the Saddleton family are donors who prefer recognition for a wellness space. Staff said the district’s agreement with the foundation links a recognition level to the donation amount and that naming recognitions often include multi‑step vetting and a fixed term rather than in perpetuity (staff cited typical terms of 10–15 years and said the district can remove recognition earlier if needed).

Trustees asked for clearer guidance on what physical recognition looks like (plaque, signage, donor wall or larger naming like a facility name) and whether the district would permit a donor wall with graduated prominence by gift size. Board members raised concerns about donor expectations, proportionality of recognition, and the risk of private contributions driving public priorities. Trustees suggested developing consistent, transparent guidance on signage and recognition levels, and one member recommended reviewing local examples (the park district was cited) for tasteful implementation.

Staff said the recognitions would be brought back to the board for approval along with the underlying donor contracts; administrators suggested further discussion with the donors about signage details and said the November/December memo provides additional context for naming distinctions.

Ending: District staff and the Imagine Foundation will refine signage and vetting details and return the three naming recognitions for board approval at a future meeting; trustees asked staff to develop clearer, consistent guidance on recognition levels and signage to share with donors before final agreements are signed.