Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the staff materials. He felt most comfortable with the policies of Santa <br />Monica as a model for proceeding. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted Ms. Walston's suggestion for an ad hoc committee as the public participation element of a <br />City process, and said he preferred not to create a new committee. He noted that in Santa Monica, staff <br />studied such proposals and referred them to a standing committee related to the service area in question, if <br />appropriate. Then the proposal was forwarded to the council, and a public input opportunity occurred at <br />that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thought some of the naming proposals the City Council would consider would be very routine <br />while others would be high profile, but he believed the vast majority of the proposals could be addressed by <br />the council on a Consent Calendar. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly requested a written policy of never naming a facility for a business. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 agreed with many of Mr. Kelly's remarks. He also liked the Santa Monica policy as well as the <br />Honolulu model. He wanted a process that was consistent and could be applied to all situations. Mr. Pap6 <br />believed it appropriate to name facilities for living people who had left office. He thought a process that <br />involved community input was needed. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling appreciated the distinction between naming in commemoration and naming in recognition. He <br />also liked the Santa Monica policy, although he thought it needed tweaking. Mr. Poling wanted to have <br />something in place that the City could apply to each situation, regardless of the facility or the group making <br />the proposal. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed with the staff recommendation that a policy related to the naming of City facilities be <br />established. She wanted to see two policies established, one regarding naming in commemoration and one <br />regarding to naming in recognition. She also wanted criteria to be established for naming in recognition, and <br />endorsed Ms. Taylor's suggestion for a dollar threshold for naming in commemoration. Ms. Bettman called <br />for a neutral policy that could not be used for political expediency. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought there should be a distinction between naming and renaming a facility. She thought there <br />should be some compelling reason to rename something. Ms. Taylor suggested the renaming of City <br />facilities be precluded except for the Amazon Headwaters, which could be named for the benefactor who <br />purchased it and presented it to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor liked the distinctions drawn by Ms. Walston and thought they should be clearly defined. He felt <br />it important that the council give staff direction now to guide those who wished to propose names for City <br />facilities in the future. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the need for monetary thresholds. <br />He thought that would add to the consistency of the process. He said that the final decision on facility <br />names should be the purview of the council. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />