WHITEWATER LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT · July 2009 to conduct a capital campaign feasibility...

Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Report

Prepared for

IRVIN L. YOUNG MEMORIAL LIBRARY WHITEWATER WI

December 2009

Irvin L. Young Memorial Library

1 207 E Buffalo St Ste 604 Milwaukee WI 53202 (414) 272-1835 www.mcdonaldschaefer.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The fundamental purpose of a capital campaign feasibility study is to determine how much an

organization can raise in charitable gifts for its intended capital project.

Successful campaigns depend on four primary variables, which are listed below along with a

subjective professional gauging of their strength for the Irvin L. Young Memorial Library and

the expansion project:

Key Readiness Variable Current Status

Weak Strong

Case for Support

Major Donors

Campaign Leadership

Organizational Fundraising Capacity

Amount Tested $4 million

Estimated Fundraising Potential (Based on relatively limited data as explained in report)

$892,000

Case for Support – The proposed project is generally supported by those interviewed.

Major Donors – Only a handful of qualified major gift prospects participated in the study,

enough for some fundraising success, but too few to support a $4 million campaign.

0 1 2 3 4 5

3

1

2

0



Campaign Leadership – Study participants offered the names of several people for the

campaign cabinet, which is the primary fundraising team for the project. But only a few of the

candidates participated in the study themselves so their interest in serving on the campaign

cabinet remains unknown.

Organizational Fundraising Capacity – The library is without an existing development

(fundraising) department, so its capacity to support a major capital campaign is insufficient

unless new development staff is hired or the substantial development services required by a

capital campaign are provided by a fundraising firm such as McDonald Schaefer Group.

An objective analysis of key campaign factors indicates the amount that can be raised for

the Irvin L. Young Memorial Library expansion – under current conditions – would be

approximately $892,000.

IMPORTANT

Several key donor prospects and leadership candidates who could substantially improve

the campaign’s chances of success were unavailable or unwilling to participate in the

study. Therefore, the study cannot and does not include their feedback, input or gift

intentions in its findings, conclusions and calculations.

The outcome of a capital campaign for the library could be much greater than indicated in

this study should these people become involved in the project as major donors, key

leaders, or both.

The full Feasibility Study report follows.



INTRODUCTION Nearly 20 years after it was built, the Irvin L. Young Memorial Library is running out of room.

A professional space needs assessment recommends a considerable expansion of the library –

as much as tripling its size – and architectural plans show how the library could be expanded

on its present site.

McDonald Schaefer Group (MS Group) of Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin was contracted in

July 2009 to conduct a capital campaign feasibility study to test the potential of a $4 million

capital campaign to fund the expansion. The study was conducted from July through October,

2009.

This report details the study’s Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations.

FEASIBILITY STUDY DESIGN Initially, David Malone (Partner Consultant) and Gretchen Lins (Project Manager) met with

Stacey Lunsford (Library Director) to discuss the procedure, timeline and topics to be tested in

the study.

Board Chairperson Donna Nosek then sent a personal letter (see Appendix D) to selected

potential donors and campaign leaders inviting them to participate in the study. Her letter was

accompanied by a project summary (see Appendix E) to provide candidates with a basic

understanding of the plans for the library expansion.

Lins then called each interview candidate seeking to schedule in‐person interviews. In the end,

24 interviews were completed (see Appendix A). Including spouses, 29 “voices” contributed to

the study findings. Appendices B and C show those who could not be reached as well as those

who declined to be interviewed for the study.



FINDINGS & ANALYSIS In this section of the report, each study question is listed followed by the study’s Findings.

When appropriate, the Finding’s relevance to the campaign is analyzed. The responses

represent the relative percentage of those who answered each question (occasionally,

respondents decline to answer a question and/or an interview will run out of time).

I. IMPRESSIONS OF THE LIBRARY

Interview participants were generally complimentary of the current library, saying library

strengths include the staff, collection, and Friends group. They said it contributes to the quality

of life in Whitewater and is convenient and accessible. Other called it, “a hidden gem” and

“virtually everything you could want in a library!”

Weaknesses indicated by study participants included that the library is cramped, has limited

privacy and that more community space and meeting rooms are needed. Some said it would be

nice to have a coffee shop and more of a “living room” feel. Others pointed out that while it’s at

a beautiful location, it has limited visibility for the community. Still others said more public

access computers are needed, the checkout desk if often crowded and the large meeting room

is often in use and unavailable to others.

Campaign Relevance

The library has the advantage of being well respected and appreciated as an important

community resource. Most of the weaknesses cited would, in fact, be improved by the

expansion.

207 E Buffalo

II. IMPRE Before th

explained

interview

printed e

Are you

Ninety pe

percent w

Campaig

This is a

broader

0

25

50

75

100

o St Ste 604 Milw

ESSIONS OF

he interview

d the projec

wer verbally

elevations, fl

generally I

ercent of stu

were neutra

gn Relevanc

strong posit

giving comm

0%

5%

0%

5%

0%

waukee WI 53202

F THE EXPA

ws were cond

t to provide

y summarize

loor plans an

n Favor, Ne

udy participa

al and no one

ce

tion from wh

munity in Wh

90%

Favor

Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

ANSION PLA

ducted, study

a basis for a

ed the plan, r

nd plot map

eutral, or Op

ants favor th

e interviewe

hich to begin

hitewater.

Suppor

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

ANS

y participan

an initial opi

referring to t

s, before ask

pposed to t

he plans, a p

ed was oppo

n a campaign

10%

Neutral

rt for the

ung Me

dschaefer.com

nts were sen

inion. Addit

the space ne

king this que

the expansio

positive and

sed to the p

n, if this sam

Plan

emoria

t a four‐pag

tionally, dur

eeds assessm

estion:

on plans?

encouraging

lans.

mpling fairly

Oppose

al Libra

e summary t

ring the visit

ment as well

g finding. Te

represents

ed

ary

5

that

t, the

l as

en

the



What are your thoughts about the plans? Respondents offered various opinions about the expansion, mostly favoring the plans. Some

said the expansion is overdue and that it’s “an investment in a literate community.” Others

delighted in the plans, saying there are well thought out and beautiful. Some participants were

comfortable to defer to the judgment of library leaders, saying, “I have confidence in the library

board and staff. They’re the right people to work up a plan. I have a high degree of trust in

them.” Some added, “We’ve got to get kids reading today or we’ll lose a generation to the joys

of reading” while others said they’re glad the library would stay on its current site.

Several respondents indicated that while they support the plans, they wonder if this is the right

time for an expansion, given the economy. They note that the aquatic center in town is

struggling financially and they asked if the plans could be re‐configured somehow to buy time

until the economy improves. For example, one participant asked if the expansion exterior

could be built now, while the interior is finished as funding allows.

Others that supported an expansion wondered if such a large expansion was needed. They

said, “This seems ambitious” and “The word on the grapevine is that the plans are too big.”

Some participants felt a total cost of $8 million was too much for the community, especially at

this time. One such donor prospect was even unwilling to say whether his family would be

supportive – or how much they would give – until the project total was finalized, implying that

if the cost was less than $8 million, his family might consider some support but might not

otherwise. But other plan supporters warned against under‐building, saying, “If we’re going to

expand, let’s do it right so we don’t have to come back in five years and add on again.”

One participant who is neutral to the plans noted that the new Beloit Library was built in an old

K‐Mart store and questioned whether the Whitewater library was “too focused on form and not

enough on function.” This person wondered if the library could afford to make an architectural

statement with its added cost. Still others questioned how much the library’s operating budget

would grow if it tripled its size. And some respondents cautioned that the project will be

openly opposed by some within the community who don’t want property taxes to go up.



Others weren’t convinced more space is needed because as technology advances, in their

opinion, it should mean less space is needed. With the introduction of electronic books (e.g.

Kindle), one participant went so far as to ask, “Will the book eventually become incidental?”

Another asked, “What is the future of the book? Will it go digital and will we really need a

larger library?” Yet another asked, “How long will it be before a DVD can fit on the tip of your

finger?”

Yet other respondents asked about how point‐of‐sale DVD rentals such as Red Box (a type of

vending machine where DVDs can be rented with a credit card at grocery stores, convenience

stores, etc.) as well as Netflix (an internet DVD rental service) will affect the space needs of

libraries in the future. Some asserted that the days of physical DVDs are numbered and that

they’ll follow the same path to obsolescence as VHS video cassettes. They bolstered their

prediction claiming the world is moving toward streaming video directly to computer and TV,

which requires no physical DVDs at all. Some wondered aloud if books would follow the same

path DVDs appear to be.

But other participants contradicted these concerns when they asked, “Wasn’t the computer

going to lead to the paperless office? That hasn’t happened, has it?!” And, “Weren’t videos and

DVDs going to be the end of movie theatres?” Yet that hasn’t happened either.

Yet others claimed more and more people have computers and Internet at home and don’t need

the library as much. Finally, other reactions to the plans included the idea of mixed use space,

such as having a Starbucks on site or even renting student apartments on the upper level as a

way to diversify funding sources.

Campaign Relevance

Study participants were generally supportive of the expansion plans but several questions and

objections were revealed by the study. The concerns raised by some participants are valid and

may well be encountered with potential donors. Therefore, these objections must be carefully

examined and credible responses developed. The library should not assume the need for

207 E Buffalo

expansio

explain t

create su

Should e

A majorit

primarily

responde

for the co

Campaig

The timin

this will

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

o St Ste 604 Milw

on is easily u

the rationale

uch a rationa

expanding t

ty of study p

y because th

ents think th

ommunity.

gn Relevanc

ng of a camp

directly influ

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

waukee WI 53202

understood o

e for expansi

ale.

the Library

participants

he economy

he project is

ce

paign for libr

uence the co

44%

High

Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

or justified a

ion. There s

be a high, m

(56%) cons

is in recessi

important e

rary expans

ommunity’s

P

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

and that it w

seems to be a

medium or

sider a librar

on and man

enough that

ion must con

perception o

56%

Medium

Priority

ung Me

dschaefer.com

will take a str

ample inform

low priorit

ry expansion

y people are

is should be

nsider the co

of the projec

emoria

rong outreac

mation to w

ty?

n a Medium

e out of work

e considered

ondition of t

ct’s priority.

Low

al Libra

ch effort to

work with to

priority

k. 44% of

d a high prio

the economy

.

ary

8

rity

y as



III. IMPRESSIONS OF A FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

A fund raising campaign will be needed to fund the expansion. Why do you think people in the community would give to the project? Study participants felt there are many civic‐minded people in town who believe in libraries and

that these folks will be supportive. Others said we should build it for our youth, for the next

generations. They went on to say that to support the library is to support an essential

community resource.

Others said that libraries, “level the playing field,” giving everyone across all socio‐economic

backgrounds access to computers, the Internet, and other educational resources. Some

respondents said Whitewater is better educated than most communities, that it’s progressive

and people will make this investment to ensure an informed, literate community.

What do you think will be the biggest challenge for the campaign?

The economic recession was most often cited as a significant challenge for the campaign.

Others questioned whether the library can, “make the case persuasively,” implying that not

everyone in the community thinks we need more room. This sentiment was summed up by one

participant who thinks many will ask, “Do we need bigger libraries in the computer age?”

Other participants said that the same people who oppose all community projects will be

outspoken with several saying they pay their property taxes and that should be enough.

At least some respondents said residents won’t realize 20 years have passed and will ask,

“Didn’t we just build this library, and now we’ve got to build again?!”

Others said there aren’t many deep pockets in Whitewater and that nonprofits go to the same

few people over and over; it can’t last! Some respondents said flatly, “Those who don’t use the

library won’t support it.” Some thought competition from other campaigns might also present

a challenge to a library campaign.



Campaign Relevance

The weaknesses identified by interviewees may create some challenges to a successful

campaign, but do not appear to be insurmountable obstacles. Perhaps the greatest obstacle

uncovered was the relatively limited understanding of the need for expansion. Even some

supporters of the expansion were unclear about why the library needs to be almost tripled in

size. Justifying the expansion can be done but a comprehensive communications plan will be a

key priority for the campaign.

Who do you think might consider a lead gift to the project, for example a gift of $100,000 or more? 53 potential major gift prospects identified are listed in Confidential Appendix F. A Campaign Cabinet is going to be formed to help raise the needed funds. In your opinion, who should be on the campaign cabinet? 41 potential Campaign Cabinet candidates are listed in a Confidential Appendix G. Are you aware of other campaigns that might compete with or interfere with this one? Study participants were aware of only a few campaigns that might somewhat compete with a

campaign for the Irvin L. Young Memorial Library:

• St. Patrick’s Church (this campaign may be complete but multi‐year pledge payments

might still be due)

• The Historic Society may be planning a $1 million to $1.5 million campaign

• Fairhaven may have a $1 million campaign underway

• Fort Atkinson Library

• Fort Health

• The Whitewater Tech Park is seeking funding (this may or may not include

philanthropic funding)

• Rainbow Hospice in Jefferson has a $4 million campaign underway

207 E Buffalo

Campaig

At any gi

primarily

the librar

its timing

way or a

perfect ti

III. PERS Would yto expan

Campaig

The good

expansio

needed t

o St Ste 604 Milw

gn Relevanc

iven time, m

y searching

ry that it wo

g. In a comm

nother since

ime to launc

SONAL INTE

you share wnd the libra

gn Relevanc

d news is tha

on. The bad

to raise $4 m

1

waukee WI 53202

ce

any campaig

for other cam

ould require

munity like W

e there are o

ch a campaig

EREST IN TH

with us yourary, would y

ce

at 91% of stu

news is that

million as see

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

W

Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

gns for a var

mpaigns tha

a reassessm

Whitewater,

only so many

gn.

HE PROJECT

r preliminar you conside

udy particip

t too few of t

en in the foll

91%

Yes

Would you

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

riety of proje

at would com

ment of the p

, any of the a

y donors to t

T

ry interest er a gift or p

pants said th

them are in

owing sectio

u Conside

ung Me

dschaefer.com

ects will be u

mpete so dir

project’s ove

above campa

turn to but t

in the projepledge to he

hey would pr

a position to

on.

9%

No

er a Gift?

emoria

underway. T

rectly with th

erall potentia

aigns could c

there is also

ect? If the Belp fund it?

robably mak

o make large

al Libra

This questio

he campaign

al or at least

compete in o

seldom a

Board decid

ke a gift for t

e gifts of the

ary

11

on is

n for

t, of

one

des

the

kind

207 E Buffalo

In what

Campaig

The findi

goal of $4

lend conf

noted tha

indicated

o St Ste 604 Milw

range woul

gn Relevanc

ings present

4 million, to

fidence to a

at Whitewat

d above, but

2

0

5

10

15

20

waukee WI 53202

ld your gift

ce

ted in this gr

o few interv

potential ca

ter includes

many of tho

3

17

Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

likely be (i

raph are the

viewees expr

ampaign of th

donor prosp

ose people d

7

2

Prelimina

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

if payable o

e most conce

ressed inter

hat size. As

pects capabl

did not partic

1 1

ary Gift Int

ung Me

dschaefer.com

over 3 years

erning of the

est in the pr

stated earli

le of much la

cipate in the

1 1

ention

emoria

s)?

e study. Desp

roject at the

er in this rep

arger gifts th

e study.

al Libra

pite testing

levels neede

port, it must

han those

ary

12

a

ed to

t be

207 E Buffalo

Would y

42% of th

answers,

cabinet c

Campaig

As with t

presuma

study an

o St Ste 604 Milw

you be perso

hose intervi

, saying they

candidates.

gn Relevanc

the previous

ably would b

d consequen

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

waukee WI 53202

onally invo

ewed said th

y'll try to hel

ce

s finding reg

be influential

ntly their int

Will yo

Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

lved in a ca

hey would h

lp in some sm

garding dono

l leaders for

terest in the

42%

Yes

ou be Invo

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

apital camp

help with a c

mall way bu

ors, there are

r the project

project rem

olved in a

ung Me

dschaefer.com

aign for thi

apital camp

ut few saw th

e people in t

but who did

mains unknow

58%

No

a Campai

emoria

is project?

aign. Most q

hemselves as

the commun

d not partici

wn.

%

o

ign?

al Libra

qualified the

s campaign

nity who

pate in this

ary

13

eir



CONCLUSIONS For any capital campaign, the probability of success depends on four primary factors:

1) Case for Support 2) Major Donors 3) Campaign Leadership 4) Organizational Capacity

(campaign office).

CASE FOR SUPPORT – The library’s case for support is relatively strong among those connected to

the library who participated in the study. Given some of the questions that came up about the

need to expand, however, the case may not register as well with donor prospects not directly

connected to the library but who are interested in the library as a community resource. For

this audience, a strong rationale for the project will be needed.

CAMPAIGN LEADERSHIP – The people on the campaign cabinet serve as the campaign’s primary

fundraisers and several attractive candidates for a cabinet have been identified through the

study. Building a quality leadership team is critical because it means access to potential major

donors. The study has identified several good candidates; the question now is can they be

recruited to the project?

MAJOR DONORS & CAMPAIGN GIFT POTENTIAL – Several major donor prospects were identified

during the study. However, too few of these prospects participated in the study through which

their gift intentions could have been determined directly. So we’re left to calculate a numerical

analysis of the gift intentions that were recorded and to speculate on the rest.

For most established organizations, a donors’ gift history is among the best data for calculating

future support. Since the library doesn’t have an existing donor base, we are unable to factor

past support into the analysis. But a realistic campaign goal can be reliably projected by

analyzing the gift intentions through three calculation methods that are broadly understood

and accepted in fundraising circles:



1. Leading Gift Analysis

2. Top 10 Gift Analysis

3. Total Gifts Analysis Each is explained and analyzed below.

Lead Gift Analysis

The success of a capital campaign is largely dependent on significant lead gifts. Lead Gift

Analysis looks specifically at the top most gift offered during the study and assumes it

represents 10 percent to 20 percent of the total amount that could be raised, which is common

in capital campaigns.

The largest gift indicated during this study falls in the range of as little as $1,000 to as much as

$250,000 pending the performance of the donor prospect’s business. If we assume this gift

intention represents a typical lead gift (10% to 20% of the total that will eventually be raised),

we can estimate the campaign total.

To do so, we apply two multipliers to the potential lead gift. Multiplying the gift by five

assumes the gift represents 20% of overall potential; multiplying the gift by ten assumes the

gift represents 10% of overall potential.

Lead Gift Analysis

Lead Gift

$250,000 $250,000

x Factor (20% gift) 5

x Factor (10% gift) 10

Campaign Potential $1,250,000 $2,500,000

The Lead Gift Analysis provides an interesting model but gives a wide range that can be

misleading and thus must be further refined with two additional calculations.



Top 10 Gift Analysis

Another measure of a campaign’s potential is revealed by totaling the top 10 gift intentions and

seeing if they add up to a minimum of 33 percent to 40 percent of the campaign goal.

The tables below list the ten highest gift ranges offered during the study, multiplied by 2.5

(assuming they represent 40% of the likely goal) and by 3 (assuming they represent 33% of the

likely goal).

Top 10 Gift Analysis

Top 10 Gifts Top 10 Gifts 40% Factor 33% Factor

Rank Low High Rank Low High 1 $1,000 $250,000 1 $1,000 $250,0002 $10,000 $49,999 2 $10,000 $49,9993 $10,000 $24,999 3 $10,000 $24,9994 $5,000 $10,000 4 $5,000 $10,0005 $5,000 $9,999 5 $5,000 $9,9996 $1,000 $9,999 6 $1,000 $9,9997 $1,000 $9,999 7 $1,000 $9,9998 $1,000 $9,999 8 $1,000 $9,9999 $1,000 $9,999 9 $1,000 $9,99910 $0 $9,999 10 $0 $9,999

$35,000 $394,992 $35,000 $394,992Factor 2.5 2.5 Factor 3 3

$87,500 $987,480 $105,000 $1,184,976



Total Gifts Analysis

Ideally, all the gifts indicated in the survey would total 33 percent to 40 percent of the goal. So,

the totals in the Table below provide a third equation we can use to hone in on the most

feasible figure for the campaign goal.

Total Gifts Analysis

Total Gifts Total Gifts

40% Factor 33% Factor

Low High Low High

Gift Intention $47,000 $462,985 Gift Intention $47,000 $462,985

Factor 2.5 2.5 Factor 3 3

$117,500 $1,157,463 $141,000 $1,388,955

Final Gifts Analysis

The final step in the gift analysis is to average the result of the three main calculations:

Grand Average Low High

Lead Gift Analysis $1,250,000 $2,500,000

Top 10 Gift Analysis A $87,500 $987,480

Top 10 Gift Analysis B $105,000 $1,184,976

Total Gifts Analysis A $117,500 $1,157,463

Total Gifts Analysis B $141,000 $1,388,955

GRAND AVG. $340,200 $1,443,775 $891,987

The study concludes that approximately $892,000 could be raised.

The table above suggests the campaign could raise as little as $340,200 and as much as

$1.44 million. However, it is the process of averaging the high and low that produces the most

reliable results of approximately $892,000. Having said that, this projection must be weighed

against three additional factors:

1. Most donor prospects interviewed for a feasibility study offer conservative estimates

of their likely gift at this stage because the project is still preliminary and developing



2. This interview question was not a carefully developed “ask” made by a person

influential with the donor after an appropriate cultivation period but rather it was a

preliminary inquiry. Actual gifts will tend to be larger than those indicated in a

feasibility study.

3. Several major gift prospects did not participate in the study but may in fact

financially support a library expansion.

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNDRAISING CAPACITY – Capital campaigns are major undertakings that will tax

and strain an organization’s development department, even one that is established, has

experienced staff, systems, policies, a communications plan, brand recognition, computers and

software, and other infrastructure in place. Presently the Library has no development

department. Several important issues related to the organization’s fundraising capacity to

support such a major undertaking will need to be addressed before the library can launch a

campaign.

RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE FOR SUPPORT – Carefully consider the objections that have been raised by the feasibility

study and develop a case for support that addresses them convincingly. Consider a Frequently

Asked Questions section in the case that tackles the objections head‐on. When a potential

donor has read the case, there should be no doubt left that the expansion is needed, relevant

and urgent.

CAMPAIGN LEADERSHIP – Candidates for the cabinet identified in the study must now be vetted

against more stringent criteria. Who cares about the library mission? Who has their own gift

capacity and is willing to invest in the library expansion? Who is well respected within the

community and can open doors to other major donor prospects? Who will devote the time and

energy needed? Who has the skill and courage to fundraise for major gifts on behalf of the

library?



To be sure, bold, capable leadership composed of the most affluent and influential people you

can attract will be essential to the project’s success.

MAJOR DONORS – A lack of qualified major donor prospects remains one of the most troubling

findings of the study. To remedy this shortcoming, time is of the essence. Building

relationships with potential donors takes time. Therefore the library should begin immediately

developing a stronger pool of gift candidates.

Once you’ve recruited your new leadership team, develop personal cultivation strategies for

each major donor prospect, deciding how best to engage them, how best to educate them about

the project, who to involve and how best to inspire the prospects to eventually make a gift.

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNDRAISING CAPACITY – Working with campaign counsel, begin to ready a

campaign office by determining what resources will be necessary and how resources will be

allocated to campaign operations. Consider hiring internal development staff and/or

outsourcing this function to campaign counsel.

CAMPAIGN COUNSEL – Retain experienced campaign counsel, whether McDonald Schaefer Group

or someone else, to provide much needed campaign expertise and guidance, especially critical

for organizations undertaking a capital campaign for the first time and with no pre‐existing

donor base.

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN – Make it a high priority to develop an overall communications plan that

will keep the Board, potential cabinet members and potential donors apprised of relevant

progress. This plan would begin immediately and steadily expand as the library is increasingly

positioned for the campaign.

CAMPAIGN PLANNING TASK FORCE – Develop a small Campaign Planning Task Force (not the

Campaign Cabinet) to address the specific campaign challenges identified in this study. This



relatively small Task Force should initially include selected members of the Board, the Library

Director and campaign counsel (director). Working at the direction of an experienced

Campaign Director this committee should be tasked with beginning the considerable amount of

work needed to prepare the library for a capital campaign of any size.



One last recommendation . . .

IMPORTANT

The conclusions of this report are based solely on the data gathered from completed

interviews. Based on that data alone, this study concludes that less than $1 million can be

raised for the $4 million expansion project. To assume otherwise would be to disregard

the study and rely instead on speculation about what the community will really do for the

project should the board commit to the expansion.

Having said that, MS Group feels the potential to raise more than $1 million exists if you

can attract the right people for the actual campaign who, for various reasons, did not

participate in the feasibility study.

The campaign’s greatest potential could be realized if someone in the community who

believes in the library, supports the expansion, is well respected, can make a lead gift and

has time to devote to the project, is willing to champion the campaign.

Someone like this makes up for the key shortcomings revealed by the study. Someone like

this gives the project credibility. Someone like this sets an unmistakable momentum by

making a lead gift. Someone like this attracts other respected leaders to the cabinet.

Someone like this opens doors to many of the community’s civic leaders who have the

capacity to make major gifts to the project.

The best candidates for this role are among the list of interview candidates who did not

participate in the study (Appendices B & C). If no one that fits this description can be

recruited, the Conclusions of this report should be heeded. On the other hand, if someone

like that does agree to boldly champion the campaign, then much more is achievable!



Appendix A Study Participants

First Name Last Name 1. Ron Binning 2. Kevin Brunner 3. Bob & Marion Burrows 4. Jim Connor 5. Rollie & Nancy Cooper 6. Vi DeWind 7. Jon Erickson 8. Bud Gayhart 9. Shirley Hapka 10. Marty Harrison 11. Kathy Haven 12. Dawn Hunter 13. Dave Kachel 14. Jon Kachel 15. Jeff Knight 16. Jim & Rose Mary Leaver 17. Everett & Ellen Long 18. Nels Madsen 19. Jim Stewart 20. Marjorie Stoneman 21. Richard Telfer 22. James & Lavone Underwood 23. Kristine Zaballos 24. Suzanne Zentner



Appendix B Unable to Reach or Unable to Schedule for study

First Name Last Name 1. Ron Berg 2. Jim & Ginny Coburn 3. Thayer Coburn 4. Joe Coburn 5. Rick & Jeannine Fassl 6. Jack & Betty Frawley 7. Mike & Jo Anne Frawley 8. Scott Gittrich 9. Dave & Kathy Granum 10. Geoff Hale 11. Richard Haney 12. Aaron Jagdfeld 13. Richard Kelly 14. Joe Ketterhagen 15. Marilyn Kienbaum 16. Ben & Anne McCready 17. Dan Reynolds 18. Dave Schumacher 19. Steve & Janna Smith 20. John Tincher 21. Russ & Kim Walton 22. David Yocum

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Rod

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Jeanine

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Yochum



Appendix C Declined to participate in study

First Name Last Name 1. Tami Brodnicki 2. Jim & Julie Caldwell 3. Randy & Pat Cruse 4. Gaylon & Hanna Greenhil 5. Dr. Anne Griffiths 6. Lowell & Thu Hagen 7. Dr. Kenneth Kidd 8. Harry Leffingwell 9. Bob & Sharon McCullough 10. Doug & Mary Meikle 11. John & Prudence Negley 12. Jim & Peg O’ Connor 13. Mark Olm 14. Carroll Olm 15. John Patterson 16. Robert Pitcher 17. David & Grace Saalsaa 18. Charles & Shirley Scharine 19. Rod & Sue Scherer 20. Dr. Gerald Theune 21. Don & Marjorie Triebold 22. Richard & Judy Triebold

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Greenhill



Appendix D Interview Request Letter

207 E Buffalo

AppendiProject S

o St Ste 604 Milw

ix E Summary

waukee WI 53202

Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

ung Me

dschaefer.com

emoriaal Libra

ary

26

207 E Buffalo

o St Ste 604 Milwwaukee WI 53202

Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

ung Me

dschaefer.com

emoriaal Libra

ary

27

207 E Buffalo


Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

ung Me

dschaefer.com

emoriaal Libra

ary

28

207 E Buffalo


Irvin

2 (414) 272-1835

n L. You

5 www.mcdonald

ung Me

dschaefer.com

emoriaal Libra

ary

29



Appendix F – CONFIDENTIAL Potential Donors Named During Study Who do you think might consider a lead gift to the project, for example a gift of $100,000 or more?

First Name Last Name 1. Moria Ambrose 2. Anderson Family 3. John Boswitch 4. Cheryl Bresnahan 5. Bob & Marion Burrows 6. Jim & Julie Caldwell 7. James Carlson 8. Jim & Ginny Coburn 9. Joy & Jess Coburn 10. Thayer Coburn 11. Jim Connor 12. Joe Damish 13. Russ & Vicky Debitt 14. Vi DeWind 15. Corinne Forster 16. Betty Frawley 17. Mike Frawley 18. Frawley Oil 19. Generac 20. Gaylon & Hanna Greenhill 21. Anne Griffiths 22. Hale Lumber 23. Richard Haney 24. Dick Haven 25. John & Nancy Hoffman 26. Paul Joseph 27. Dave & Lolita Kachel 28. Joe Ketterhagen family 29. Dr. Ken Kidd 30. Joe Krumholz 31. Jim & Rose Mary Leaver 32. Everett Long 33. Nels Madsen

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Moira

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Joe

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Domitrz

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Devitt



34. Ken Matheson 35. Steve & Billie Moksness 36. Dirk Moroske 37. John & Arlene Newhouse 38. Sandors 39. Charlie Scharine 40. Schenk Accurate 41. Rod & Sue Scherer 42. Jim & Sue Schlough 43. Sam Soffa 44. Marjorie Stoneman 45. Richard Telfer 46. Jim Tincher 47. John Tincher 48. Dick Triebold 49. Don Triebold 50. Ray Triebold 51. Russ & Kim Walton 52. John West 53. Peter & Kristine Zaballos

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Maroske



Appendix G – CONFIDENTIAL Potential Campaign Cabinet Candidates

First Name Last Name 1. Jim Anaman 2. Lynne Binnie 3. Kevin Brunner 4. Bob Burrows 5. Mike Ciardo 6. Chris Coan 7. Ginny Coburn 8. Joel Coburn 9. Thayer Coburn 10. Rick & Jeanine Fausel 11. Gaylon & Hanna Greehill 12. Geoff Hale 13. Richard Haney 14. Martin Harrison 15. Dick Haven 16. Kim Hickson 17. Dawn Hunter 18. John Kachel 19. Mike Kachel 20. Jeff Knight 21. Jim Leaver 22. Nels Madsen 23. George Martinez 24. Bob & Sharon McCullough 25. John & Prue Negly 26. Donna Nosek 27. Steve Noss 28. Don Oker 29. Mark & Germaine Olm 30. Mary Sue Reutebuch 31. Alice Scherer 32. Red Scherer 33. Dave Schumacher 34. Jim Stewart 35. Ronnie Tefler 36. Dick Telfer

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Fassl

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Hixson

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Rod

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Roni

slunsfor

Cross-Out

slunsfor

Replacement Text

Telfer



37. Dick Triebold 38. Don & Margie Triebold 39. Kim & Russ Walton 40. David Yochum 41. Kristine Zaballos



Appendix H – CONFIDENTIAL Potential Campaign Cabinet CHAIR Candidates

First Name Last Name 1. Bob Burrows 2. Jim Caldwell 3. Julie Caldwell 4. Ginny Coburn 5. Thayer Coburn 6. Rick Fausel 7. Dick Triebold 8. Don Triebold 9. Kristine Zaballos

WHITEWATER LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT · July 2009 to conduct a capital campaign feasibility...

Documents

Transcript of WHITEWATER LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT · July 2009 to conduct a capital campaign feasibility...