Loading...
072704 PK MINCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION CITY HALL TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Davis convened the work session meeting at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Farmok, Meyer, and Westerlund. City Engineer Brown; Technician Bailey; City Administrator Dawson, and late arrival City Council liaison Zerby Absent: Commissioners Young and Gilbertson B. Review Agenda Item 2.5 Work Program discussion was added to the agenda. 2. DISCUSS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR RECOGNIZING DONATIONS TO THE PARKS Dawson presented a draft Donor Recognition Policy modeled after the Eagan policy for review. He indicated that the City had expressed interest in developing policy and procedures that set a standard to follow or refer to on a case by case basis. Although she appreciated the revisions to the policy as suggested by staff, Davis stated that she was uncomfortable with naming rights being given to donors. She also suggested that donors be given a list of approved benches or trees to choose from when they wish to donate these items. The Commission reviewed the Donor Policy on a page by page basis making numerous revisions to the document. Page one revisions consisted of renaming the document to a Donor Policy, followed by section one to Donor Recognition. Other minor wording modifications were made. The Naming Section was removed from page one, as were subsections throughout the document which referred specifically to `naming' including page 2(c), page 2(b) under Proposals, and page 4(a), (b), (d), and (h). Throughout the remaining document the term `naming' was changed to 'recognition'. Page 3-4, under Requirements, the Commission deleted (a), (b), and (e), as well as, made minor revisions to letters (c) and (d). Page 5, under method of payment item (a) was revised and (c) was removed. Meyer questioned whether it was appropriate to name everything within Freeman Park. She believed a recognition plaque should suffice in place of naming. Davis concurred. Brown stated that it would be appropriate to set up guidelines for recognition and allow certain parameters based on the size of donations. He acknowledged that the Commission PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004 PAGE 2 OF 4 could develop a policy stating that they were not in favor of naming particular improvements, but would find official recognition acceptable via a plaque or marker. Westerlund questioned whether the Commission should shut out the option of naming something altogether. Brown pointed out that, whatever policy the Commission develops it will be challenged; therefore, he encouraged the Commission to make the policy as tight as possible and void of subjectivity. Dawson asked at what point the Commission would feel comfortable offering naming privileges. Brown cautioned the Commission from setting too high a threshold so that only the wealthiest retailers etc. would be able to afford naming opportunities. On the other hand, Brown pointed out that an asphalt company had volunteered to donate materials to construct a trail at Freeman Park. Brown asked how to recognize this contribution. Davis felt a plaque thanking him for his contribution was appropriate, but not naming rights. If the policy is that the City would not accept gifts with naming rights attached, Dawson asked how substantial gifts might be treated, or if they would only be given recognition. Meyer maintained that she would prefer the focus be kept on donor recognition alone. Zerby arrived at 6:53 P.M. Brown explained that the ultimate goal would be to compile a `donation/gift' book for potential donors to choose from, i.e. a set standard of trees, furniture, plaques, etc. In addition, Brown stated that the donor agreement would need to be tweaked to cover certain circumstances. Under the Method of Payment section, Brown asked how the Commission felt about long term pledges. He asked at what point the City might consider severing the relationship with a donor working on raising pledges, for example 2-5 years. If the City does not want financial liability, Westerlund suggested the recognition portion of the donation be approved once the donor has obtained their pledges. Davis believed setting a shorter time limit would force the group to make a decision. She asked whether the group should be allowed to begin digging before they've raised and submitted their pledges within the 2 yr time limit. Brown urged the Commission to obtain financial assurity or that financial pledges be fulfilled prior to the groundbreaking. Farniok indicated that she would wish to be given some direction from the City's financial department on this matter. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004 PAGE 3 OF 4 Method of Payment (a) was revised as follows: Financial assurity or cash escrow for the full amount of the donation shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of the construction. Under (b) and (d), Brown deferred to the opinion of the City Attorney. Brown asked whether the City would consider allowing naming under a certain set of criteria or not. Westerlund stated that she would not wish to miss out on a donor opportunity due to naming restrictions. By leaving the naming section out of the policy, Westerlund asked whether this provided the Commission with the opportunity to consider naming on a case by case basis. Davis cautioned that the typical corporate entity does not name for the good of the community; however, acquiesced that she might consider naming privileges for substantial gifts. Brown indicated that, without established policy to stand on, the City would be making decisions based solely on subjectivity. Brown asked what might happen if the City was given a donation of land to be turned into a park. Dawson asked whether the Commission would prefer to accept donations and refer the donor to the recognition policy. Brown asked if the Commission meant to establish a position that they will not consider names at all. While Davis and Meyer both agreed, Davis felt that an offer of land for a new potential park might provide a unique opportunity. Meyer asked whether staff was comfortable with not naming donations. Brown indicated that staff would be comfortable with the decision if standards were put in place that the City Council could enforce. Brown stated that, in fact, everyone has the right to appeal any policy to the City Council. While it is difficult to override a policy, Zerby stated that the Council often reviews a policy to see if it works. In addition, the Council must approve any policy sent forth by the Park Commission before they take effect. Westerlund suggested that naming privileges be considered under certain scenarios and that the Commission identify those unique circumstances. Farniok concurred, stating that she was not opposed to naming something for an outstanding donation; however, commented that $20,000 was not considered outstanding in her mind. Davis suggested the policy reflect the sentiment that, while the City discourages the naming of gifts and donations, under certain circumstances, such as a significant donation PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004 PAGE 4 OF 4 of land or outstanding financial contribution towards new facilities, naming should be considered. Davis opposed naming things within an existing park. Farniok pointed out that the term outstanding gift might need to be defined to a set value, for example, $200,000 or more. While outstanding to some may not be to others, Meyer stated that, in her mind, a new piece of land for park use would warrant naming. Westerlund reiterated that the policy should reflect the Commission's position about naming, as well as, define the differences between recognition and naming. She, too, was open to naming something that was a new addition to the existing park system versus adding an amenity to a current park. Brown summarized the Commissions position, noting that the City would prefer not to name facilities; however, outstanding donations made outside the geographic confines of the existing park system might be considered for naming. He reminded the Commission that the pressure is on to establish a policy on recognition and naming and asked whether more discussion was necessary. Davis asked staff to write up the changes discussed this evening and present them at the next Commission meeting for approval. Brown promised to email a revised draft to the Commissioners and add this item to the August IO'h agenda. In the meantime, he asked the Commissioners to contact Park Secretary Grout with any concerns or additions that come to mind after they review the draft. 2.5 WORK PROGRAM Brown encouraged the Commission to think about the goals and priorities discussed in the past as staff strives to assemble a 12 month work plan for discussion at the next regular meeting. Davis shared her work list containing approximately 12 items, many of which she noted had been addressed. 3. ADJOURNMENT The Work Session adjourned at 9:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary