2012/05/09 Council Agenda Packet

1 Gary Meisner: What is it you are trying to accomplish here? Is it trying to assure ourselves that the name being selected and the person being honored is worthy or not, or is our job on of protecting the appropriateness of a name being given to a building? Where do we fall on that? Mark French: We'll probably have to wrestle with that at each application. Morrie Trautman: The way this is being written is that any citizen or group can come forward and present a name. If that's the case,we will be the review Commission and they are asking us to make judgment on the appropriateness of the qualification of the individual they are presenting. That would be part of the submission. Dave Ramstad: The presumption is that the Historical Commission in any community understands the concept of the history of the city and the kinds of names that would be appropriate to go on down into the future. Who else would among all the boards and commissions? Who has the sense of continuity and the past if not the Historical Commission? That seems wise. Mark French: When we are asked to address a project in a historic overlay zone,we usually have a presentation by staff that has done their homework on whether the proposal conforms to the guidelines and the ordinance. That presentation helps inform us about what we need to look at. As staff, do you see this procedure as adding further to your workload? The procedure asks questions such as whether there is duplication of names. For example,we will be asked to make decisions about things that we aren't informed about. How will we get this kind of information and understand what we are doing? Dave Koenig: We will staff it. One reason procedure paragraph B was inserted is to make sure when someone makes a proposal, it addresses the policies. It creates a higher bar for submittals. The intent is that when you submit a proposal, you state why a building should be named and describing how the proposal meets the criteria. In the five years since this policy was first adopted,we have had two naming proposals, so it should not create a significant increase in workload. Jim Staniford: A proposal will not come to the Commission unless it has been preapproved that it has some merit. I would not expect a big rush of naming proposals. Dave Koenig: You will also notice that the revisions take out the word"public"buildings and add the word"city"buildings. There are a lot of public buildings with names that the city is not involved with: Everett Community College, Snohomish County Campus, etc. Morrie Trautman: I am glad to see two Council members here tonight. I assume they are here for this discussion and our recommendations. I think it's great that there's a platform and criteria being established for naming proposals so when someone wants to go through the process,there are certain criteria and the proponents can actually make a presentation that says because this proposal meets these certain criteria,we would like to recommend this to the city. The one part about it that bothers me is the potential of renaming historic buildings like City Hall. It would be inappropriate to change names that through long history have been a common usage name. Names such as the Carl Gipson Sr. Senior center are a great idea. But it is not appropriate to name something like City Hall or Pigeon Creek. That doesn't make sense to me. I would ask the Council to be sensitive when you consider this policy and take into consideration the historic perspective and common usage of facilities. Gary Meisner: How would you feel about the Wall Street Building being named? 12 20