City Loses Chance to Gain a Million Dollars

A funny thing happened at the budget meeting this week. Scott Voigts was bemoaning the fact that the City may have to pay $250,000 (his invented figure, which differs from the figure used by the City Clerk) for the recall election that removes the Gang of 3 (Voigts-Hamilton-Robinson), and for a moment I thought he was going to announce that based on this cost, he and his colleagues would resign and save the City the expense. But, no. There was no resignation. Only Voigts’ complaint.

Meanwhile, the Gang of 3 voted against a proposition by Councilman Nick and I to explore generating $1,000,000 in additional revenue by establishing private-public partnerships. The examples I used were to (a) approach a pet store (like PetsMart) and offer them the “naming rights” for the new dog park, and (b) approach some of our major companies and ask for “naming rights” to the new performing arts center, the new civic center, the new senior center, as well as amenities within the new centers.

NAMING RIGHTS

“Naming Rights are when Company (A) agrees to pay Company (B) for the right to place its company’s name on, perhaps, the roof or large exterior and/or interior wall(s) of perhaps a stadium, hospital, shopping center, convention center, museum, office building, airport or some other kind of venue owned by Company (B). Naming Rights are the right to name a piece of property, either tangible property or an event, usually granted in exchange for financial considerations. Institutions like schools, places of worship, For-Profit Businesses of all kinds, Non-Profit Businesses of all kinds and municipalities have a tradition of granting donors the right to name facilities in exchange for financial contributions/ donations and/or buying Naming Rights. Corporations/ Naming Rights Buyers see the buying of Naming Rights from stadiums, convention centers, shopping centers, hospitals, office buildings and other public gathering places as a form of advertising, marketing and branding. Thus Naming Rights deals worth millions and sometimes billions of dollars have been transacted.”

PROMINENT EXAMPLES

Here are some examples of naming rights –

• · Fenway Park in Boston
• · Wrigley Field in Chicago
• · Budweiser Stadium in St. Louis
• · AT&T Station in Philadelphia
• · Sony Centre for the Arts in Toronto
• · Citi Performing Arts Center in Boston
• · Wells Fargo Center for the Arts in Santa Rosa

MUNICIPAL EXAMPLES

Although naming rights are most associated with sports parks, they are even more active in municipal agreements. For example, Scottsdale Arizona signed a three-year, $150,000 deal giving the city the fitness equipment it needed to fill the 4,000-square-foot fitness recreation center. In return, Scottsdale Healthcare enjoyed a presence within the fitness center (in the form of medical wellness programs such as health risk assessments and health education seminars) and the right to name the fitness center portion of the building.

It doesn’t always work, and Collingwood Council member Ian Chadwick noted naming rights should “not simply sold to a company without a business and social presence….” In fact, the City of Toronto , San Angelo, San Jose, Las Vegas, Seaside, etc. adopted specific naming rights policies to avoid this kind of problem.

Cities, of course, are not the only examples. Universities and hospitals also raise funds by naming libraries, buildings, and amenities after prominent gift givers. Needless to say, naming rights don’t only have to go to people or companies that give generously, and could also go to noteworthy citizens, as is specified in all the naming rights policies adopted by the cities listed above.

GANG SAYS NO

The point is, this area of new revenue should be explored. But the Gang of 3 said "no". Forget about the money. We’ll spend our own money! Yet this is the very same group of people who forever drone on about using developer money to fund City amenities, like the sports park and the civic center. The key to understanding their reluctance to adopt naming rights lies in the flow of money. You see, developers not only give money to the City to fund our amenities, they also give money to the Gang of 3. By my count, over $100,000 has come from developers to fund the campaigns of the Gang of 3, and who knows what else. So, in the minds of the Gang of 3, it’s good to allow developers to fund City amenities because they also contribute to the Gang of 3, but God forbid a multi-million or multi-billion dollar company should be allowed to give money so that our performing arts center could be first rate.

I think the solution is to adopt an ordinance that requires any company or person requesting naming rights to first contribute to the campaigns of the Gang of 3, and then to approach the City. Just kidding.

Or perhaps we should sell the naming rights to the Council seats. Andy Hamilton can occupy the “Meritage Seat of Government”. Dwight Robinson can hold the "Brookfield/Trumark Chair”. Scott Voigts can simply hold the “All Donors Seat”. Just kidding.

If we’re lucky, the Gang of 3 will be gone soon and we can re-introduce the idea of naming rights and get a lot of additional revenue for the City.

BTW – if you’re doing the math, the $200,000 we might spend on the recall election could easily be recovered with the naming rights, which could top $1,000,000. So by keeping the Gang of 3 in office, we just lost $800,000.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 4 pm to 6 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a Town Hall meeting every quarter. The next meeting will be on August 13 at 2 pm at the Foothill Ranch Public Library.

7BX��u�1�