Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Naming Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs proposed updates to parks chapter to formalize naming rights and sponsorships
Summary
Staff proposed amendments to Chapter 242 to set criteria and limits for advertising, sponsorship and naming rights across village parks and RecPlex assets; the commission voted to recommend the changes to the village board after discussing revenue allocation, staffing and examples from other communities.
At the Oct. 7 Park Commission meeting, staff presented proposed updates to Chapter 242 of the village code to standardize advertising, sponsorship and naming‑rights processes for RecPlex, Prairie Springs Park and other park assets. Staff said the change would broaden current RecPlex practice to a villagewide process, establish review criteria, and create petition procedures for applicants denied advertising opportunities.
Staff cited recent comparables and market examples to show potential revenue. "Woodman's out in Janesville, secured the naming rights of that new facility for 2,000,000 over 20 years," staff said, noting that deal amounts to roughly $100,000 a year. Staff also referenced prior local naming agreements (example amounts discussed for arena sponsorships) and a single local sponsor for Pleasant Prairie Park's disc golf course.
Commissioners asked whether sponsorship revenue would go to parks or RecPlex; staff replied it would depend on the asset: RecPlex‑associated sponsorships would go to RecPlex while parks‑asset sponsors could support maintenance of that asset. Members discussed staffing implications for managing many sponsors and expressed preference for fewer, longer‑term naming agreements to reduce administrative overhead and visual clutter.
The staff report said a market consultant may be retained to assess opportunities and that major naming agreements would still require village board approval as contracts roll up to the board. After discussion, a motion to recommend the proposed chapter updates to the village board passed by voice vote.
Commissioners also discussed implementation details (who reviews petitions, how long agreements run, examples from comparable communities) and asked staff to incorporate clear procedures before the package goes to the village board.
