Last week Burnsville’s City Council met at a worksession (video) to discuss several options for updating the signs leading into the city at MN-13, 35W, 35E and CR-42. As part of this discussion, options for a new logo to update the one in use since 1976 were also considered. With City Staff cognizant of the poor financial situation the city is in requiring several tax increases over the last few years to help fund the on-going burden that the Burnsville Performing Art Center has placed on residents, plans are in place to roll out these changes over a number of years in the hopes that in small increments few will notice the large expenditure for something that is, in the eyes of many taxpayers, an unnecessary nice-to-have.
From the worksession background documentation:
Because of a number of upcoming large projects (such as the proposed entrance monument project and needed replacement of aging park signs) that will literally “set the logo in stone” over the next few years, staff proposes that if Council ever were to consider an update or modernization of the City logo – now is the time to consider.
[...]
The 2012 Budget approval included annual dedicated funding ($25k/yr) in the Street Revolving Fund for placement of entrance monuments along TH 13, 35W, 35E and CR 42. The monuments will be installed over a period of years with the initial installations completed in conjunction with road projects. As part of the planning for those installations the City has utilized the 2012 funding for initial monument design and logo review. Working with Kimley-Horn, three preliminary monument designs and an initial location at the eastern entrance to the City along TH 13 has been developed for Council consideration. In order to construct the monuments without additional funding, they will be installed every other year allowing for up to $50k in funding for each location.
With so many choice quotes uttered by several of the current Burnsville City Councilmembers during tax levy time centering around a theme of needing to raise taxes because there just isn’t anything else to cut, spending $150,000 + logo + implementation of the new brand seems like the absolute PERFECT thing to keep out of the budget when there just isn’t anything else left to cut.
Sure, the current City of Burnsville logo is atrocious, most logos regardless of sector are. While logos and branding may be of the utmost importance in the private sector where advertising and image mean the difference between more income or not, in the public sector where they get to produce income out of thin air for projects which may not at all benefit the “shareholders”, it’s just not necessary.
While the signs at the entrance to the city are a monumentally ridiculous way to spend taxpayer dollars, the three potential logos put forth by a local designer to go on these signs as well as just about every other Burnsville item in circulation are laughable to say the least:
While the Council wasn’t keen on any of these three, instead of simply scrapping the idea entirely even though two of the five noted that none of them were “municipal” enough, they asked the designer to go back and create a design incorporating the best from the first and third.
While the City Staff may have a great point about “now or never”, with an on-going economic crisis and ever-increasing taxes within the City of Burnsville because the Council just cannot seem to make anymore cuts, this appears to be a “never” situation. Being that no final decisions have been made, perhaps it’s time for Burnsville residents to get involved and tell their representatives that there is absolutely no reason that a logo which has been in existence since 1976 needs to be revamped in 2012 so that they can put it on a bunch of very expensive signs no one at all will pay attention to when they drive into town.
Do you ever pay attention to signs of other Metro cities as you drive by? Do you think that the Burnsville City Council should approve an expenditure in excess of $150,000 to update these signs? What about the three logo designs presented at the most recent worksession? Did you like any of them? Do you think a combination of the first and third designs will come together to create a worthwhile replacement for the current logo? Do you think that municipalities should be in the business of worrying about their brand when they’re not competing to do anything? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
July 16th, 2012 at 7:50 am
I don’t man, you’re totally missing the point here. I have a very diffilcult time determining when I’m in Burnsville, when I’m in Apple Valley, there’s that crazy thing Eagen does on 13 where I think I’m still in Apple Valley but I’m actually in Eagen except the zip code is Burnsville but the kids go to Apple Valley High.. Big giant cement signs at every entrance to the city would be very helpful for people like me who try to avoid leaving Apple Valley when i don’t have to. We could use a few at the park behind me too, there’s large sections of that park that are in Burnsville.
This is serious dude.
July 16th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Sank’s right. How can we possibly be expected to commit petty crimes in the General Lee and scoot across the border just in time when we don’t know where that border IS?!
July 16th, 2012 at 8:31 am
New Logo, Designer’s Perspective:
I have personally designed hundreds of logos. Logos for small mom-and-pop
companies, logos for Global Fortune 500 companies, and even logos for
angry South Suburb bloggers. I have designed logos in exchange for pizza
and beer and I have designed logos in exchange for thousands of dollars.
The cost of logo design typically depends on the importance of the
logo/company, the budget of the client, and more importantly the amount of
work involved.
Redesigning an existing and well established logo is almost always more
challenging than starting from scratch. It is very rare that a new logo
design is universally welcomed. There are always critics, other “experts”
that say “it sucks”, people that claim their five year old could design it
better, and other “designers” that say they could have done the same for
$50.
I’m assuming that redesigning the logo of a large Minneapolis suburb
involves quite a bit more work than most small business type jobs. You’ve
likely got meetings with committees that are full of the “experts” that I
referenced above, and all kinds of grand “ideas” from those same experts
that simply are impossible to accomplish. I’m also sure that it is safe to
assume that many guidelines and restrictions were given to the designer to
try and preserve whatever branding image already exists for Burnsville.
Which of course, limits the creativity and options of the designer.
Without knowing the full background of the project and the design brief
given to the designer, it would be unfair of me to harshly criticize the
proposed designs. The final product of any major design project is rarely
exactly what the designer imagined. It is most likely a combined product
of designers work and the client’s feedback. All I can say about the
proposed Burnsville logo redesign samples is that I would have done it
differently, and it is fair to say nearly every designer would have the
same feeling. There is never only one correct answer when it comes to
design.
July 16th, 2012 at 8:35 am
The new logo should incorporate a “Sinking Ship” which would better express the financial direction of the city.
July 16th, 2012 at 8:41 am
Typical tax-and-spend attitude from Burnsville. Yeah, they say they’ve already budgeted for the signs, and will stagger them out over time, but really, what a complete waste of City resources and taxpayers’ money.
Somebody needs to slap the Council upside the head to try to knock some common-fucking sense into them. STOP SPENDING MONEY. JUST SAY “NO!”
July 16th, 2012 at 9:02 am
What is with the obsession of having some sort of greenery in the logo? Even my city has it.
July 16th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Nils, it lets them pretend they didn’t come from recently converted farm fields that have no trees over the age of 10 years aside from a handful of examples previously used as windbreaks between fields.
July 16th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Dave, I respect that opinion. I am not a logo designer, but have worked on corporate branding initiatives for many years. I sit in on those meetings you describe and have done so with various levels of leadership. Here’s my view (and I’m on record as one of the “they suck” people…I mean come on…you can criticize those childish fonts. I know plenty of graphic designers and am privvy to the “behind closed doors” conversations. I know you are laughing out loud):
- In the City’s Council Worksession Notes they state that “understanding that there is little appetite (or necessity) to spend money on a “rebranding” initiative for the City, staff kept the scale of the project simply to an update of the current City of Burnsville logo. Staff employed the graphic design services of Greg Preslicka of Preslicka studios in Savage, Minn., to develop three potential options
for an updated logo design.”
As is the case too often with the City of Burnsville, they clearly put the cart before the horse. While still discussing the merits and ramifications of the re-brand, they appear to have arbitrarily hired someone (a non-resident while there are many talented business brand designers in Burnsville I might add) to have already produced design concepts. I question if there was a competitive bid process to do the logo design work and whether it’s prudent to hire someone to do design work prior to any of the project actually being confirmed.
As usual, this smacks of the foregone conclusion of spending on these things, which many people find anywhere from wasteful to downright offensive (meaning, while we’re driving to the food shelves, we’re passing these fancy, $50,000+ “monumental signs”).
- I also respect Dave’s thoughts on the logo, but I just don’t see the “collaborative process” or thoughtfulness he describes being employed here. The evergreen tree — the central figure in the logo — isn’t something with any meaning to this location except their artificial nature. Why not a palm tree? Surely the City of Burnsville Forester (yes, there is one on staff) could confirm or deny that. When the City is taking flack for building fake “Main Streets” with fake cobblestone paths, I would think focusing your logo on a non-native tree would be an obvious non-starter.
Along those lines, was there anywhere in the Council discussion where ANYONE suggested this should be a joint City-citizen process? From what it appears, four Councilpeople and the Mayor are deciding what looks neat and what doesn’t.
To me, this hit me as another example of the Mayor and Council having lost perspective, imposing their desires on the citizens, and the City staff doing things seemingly on whims without a sensible, professional plan.
This whole idea should be tabled indefinitely at minimum. There is NO NEED for this project. If nothing else, they should build the $50,000 monumental signs in such a way that the logo could be replaced vs. “literally set in stone”.
July 16th, 2012 at 9:28 am
Dave be that as it may if you’re into design, an easy way to judge something is if they can at the very least make the fucking kerning right! The top two are atrocious and the bottom one not very good. This is design 101 stuff.
July 16th, 2012 at 9:33 am
coz, I completely agree, the kerning is terrible. I’m hoping that it was just an oversight on these proposals and the final product will have better typography.
July 16th, 2012 at 9:42 am
I have never been so outraged by such an inferior set of kerns. Embarrassing!
I mean, who kerns like that, right?
July 16th, 2012 at 10:26 am
Seems to me that money could be put to better use somewhere else. I don’t care what the signage looks like – it’s what’s BEHIND the signage, ie: What does the city have to offer me and/or my family/friends?
July 16th, 2012 at 11:54 am
First: I was disappointed to read in the paper (http://sunthisweek.com/2012/07/12/new-logo-entrance-signs-planned-in-burnsville/) about the logo change. Why not follow the lead of the last logo design and let the community submit designs for a new logo. If you are going to “waste” the money on a redesign, might as well be on something we can all be proud of (and something created within our city). A city contest could have been fun, providing something for us to come together on in a time when many question the city (aka Heart of the City, BPAC, etc). They could have had voting end after the Burnsville Fire Muster (allowing voting to be better advertised), or announced the winner then.
Second: Yes, a few more Burnsville city limit signs would be nice, but those green signs work well enough for me.
Third: How about take the money they would have used on this project and plant some trees? In my neighborhood (along 35W), we were told that they will never build a sound wall in our area as there are not enough people in close proximity to the road. A few trees would help cut the noise in our neighborhood, and would add to the visual appeal of the city. Being on the edge of the city, if they really need something to welcome people, they could hang a Pepsi banner (bet they could get it for free) saying “Welcome to Burnsville” from the trees when they get large enough.
Last: If they want to roll out a new design, only updating when needed does make the most sense. It wouldn’t cost much more (or any more after the templates are made) to use the new design. I appreciate that the city thought of this rather than requiring rebranding everything right away.
July 16th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
The third design is the least bad. I suppose I can agree that a city logo is in some way necessary, and that it should even be revisited now and then. But now, with the economy the way it is? These are lean years; revisiting the logo is something you do when you’ve got so much money you don’t now what to do with it.
July 16th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Knowing your background as a conservative I find this comment to be either hilariously funny or hilariously sad.
You NEVER EVER spend money you have just because it’s available to you. Rebranding efforts, as I stated in the post text above, are super useful for the private sector but totally useless in the public. There is nothing to sell here which a logo will solve, it’s more in line with what Darcie says back in comment #12, what you actually have going behind that brand that makes a difference, especially in the public sector.
This is a waste of time and money regardless of when or where it is happening. Boo.
July 16th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Burnsville’s logo is pretty terrible. I don’t think there’s much dispute about that. I’d love to see something new. The logo does reflect on the city to a certain extent and I don’t like what I see plastered on city vehicles and signs.
But as a point of reference, I took a look at the logos for Minneapolis, St. Paul, Eagan, Lakeville, Apple Valley, and Bloomington. A few things stood out to me.
First, I had trouble recalling any of these logos from memory. I recognized a few of them due to their prominence on various signage, but none of them had the Coca-Cola effect where I thought of the city and the logo is the next thing that popped into my head.
Second, most of these are terrible. St. Paul’s is pretty good, though it could easily be that of any other capitol city in the country. Minneapolis’s logo is bad enough that they considered changing it 6 years ago. That obviously never happened. Lakeville’s logo has always struck me as something that was ripped from Clip Art. All that’s missing from Eagan’s logo is Charlie Brown’s kite stuck in the tree. Apple Valley’s hexagon of red dots can’t be drawing anyone to the city. Bloomington’s is really the only logo that seemed current and I didn’t recognize it as something I’d seen before.
And yet, all of these cities are attracting businesses, residents, etc. I have yet to hear of someone whose opinion of a city was in any way shaped by their logo.
Now, all of that said, I don’t mean to diminish the value of a good logo. I’ll be honest, I look down my nose at Lakeville for the ridiculous cartoon of a logo that takes up the majority of their city park signs and I can’t say my opinion of the city wasn’t affected by that when I first saw it. There’s something to be said for a city presenting itself well and a decent logo doesn’t seem like such a terrible thing. I can’t imagine the cost would be prohibitive to find a better logo (the contest idea sounds good, perhaps with a prize for the logo that is selected) and if Burnsville can find something that doesn’t force the city worker to cringe as they apply the logo sticker, I’m fine with that.
As for the signs, there’s absolutely no reason we should be spending $50,000 per sign. I’m actually pretty shocked that a price point like that is being seriously considered, especially given the financial posturing of some of the members of the city council.
I can think of very few cities in the metro that have major welcome signs like this. Prior Lake’s welcome sign at the intersection of 13 and 42 comes to mind. Personally, I think it’s a strange design.
I also think welcome signs serve a purpose that doesn’t work very well in suburbia. In a metropolitan area, people tend to identify with the region more than the city. Unless you live in Minneapolis or St. Paul, if you’re in one of the first two or even three rings of suburbs, you probably identify as a resident of “the Twin Cities” or even Minneapolis or St. Paul. My employer isn’t located within the city of St. Paul, but that’s the address they list because that’s what they want their customers to identify them with. People move to suburbs for quiet living, larger homes, better schools, parks, convenient shopping (i.e., big box retail and fast food), comfort, affordability, and a number of other reasons. But their community identity is rarely in that suburb.
Welcome signs are visually appealing (if maintained). They show civic pride and I think that’s worth something. But I’d much rather see the dollars for those signs come from a community organization (Lions, Rotary Club, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) than from the taxpayers. If there isn’t enough community support to fund the signs, then there probably isn’t much of a purpose in marking our boundary and welcoming people to the city with anything more than the green street signs that exist today.
July 16th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
I’ve nothing against a new logo, but I think it should come from within the community, as others have suggested. Not that I could tell you what any of the logos around here look like, other than Lakeville’s, and the only reason for that is because I worked for the city as a summer employee in college and saw it all the time. And the signs are excessive from a cost standpoint.
July 17th, 2012 at 8:39 am
I don’t understand why there is a need for a new logo just because it is dated? I think it is more that our Mayor and council don’t think it looks good enough (for the record they also don’t like the chain link fence over 35W on the McAndrews bridge – not fancy enough). Eagan’s logo came from an oak tree that died years ago. They continue to use the symbol and have probably had the logo as long as if not longer than Burnsville has had theirs. I grew up in Maplewood and the city adopted a Maple leaf for its logo when it was just a village and hadn’t yet even become a city. Again, much older than Burnsville’s logo.
I’m tired of these snobs in office and can’t wait to vote this fall.
July 17th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Bill, yes, I am a fiscal tightwad when it comes to government spending. That said, IF it’s going to waste money, the fat years are a better time to do it. I should have made clear that I was referring to the timing of the purchase rather than its desirability.
One thing that makes the logo spending “not so bad” is that it’s less of an ongoing suck of money than, say, the BPAC.
July 17th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I noticed an electronic speed sign up in front of the mayors condo this morning. One of those that says the speed limit, and below it shows your speed. I thought this was pretty funny. How does anyone speed through the stoplight fest that is HOC.
As far as a logo, I am sure the mayor is just looking for a little crown on the jewel she has created.
July 17th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
I would like monuments with four walls, a roof, a hole underneath and a bench seat with a big hole that could be used for the same purpose the portable toilets served that used to be at the ball parks my grandkids play at.
If they have a good design and cheap enough, they could be used at the city entrances as well as at the ball parks.
Anyone who has discovered their prostrate and have little jocks for grandkids will understand.
July 24th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Two words: ninety-nine designs. You get hundreds of logos from dozens of designers for a few hundred dollars rather than relying on only a single designer at the same price. You can also tell them what to change in the designs. At least that way, the council knows they can eventually find a design they can agree on.
At least, I’ve had luck with 99designs.com before. I suppose the council might just be hard to please.
September 13th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Unbelievable choice in logo: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Thisweeklivecom/~3/z2aJ6SqMaSA/
September 13th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Brilliant! Two handlebar moustaches with a Christmas tree shooting out green flames! I can’t wait until it’s plastered EVERYWHERE!!
September 13th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
From the article: “Council Member Dan Gustafson liked the chosen design for its flow. ” What flow? It looks exactly like MSPD described!
September 13th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Did you know Burnsville’s new logo comes with its own mascot?
September 13th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
CoTY!
September 13th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
It’s up there for sure. Spot on.
September 13th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
#24 Hey MSPD, Be careful what you wish for! We have a Burnsville water tower in our backyard.
September 14th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
That’s my sole submittion for COTY. This is all I’ve got. I went with my trusty Microsoft Paint and a picture of the Monopoly man for comparison.
MSPD writes brilliant fake press releases, I rip off cartoon characters from board games.
September 14th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
What would make that logo even better is if he was holding the community chest card, saying that you are being assessed for street repairs.
September 14th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
You’re right, Nils. Here you go:
September 14th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
(If you click the picture it will open in a new window where you can see it in its full, zoomed-in glory.)
September 14th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
You need to add a couple “0″s behind each dollar amount though.
This is sheer awesomeness, by the way.
September 14th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Fucking hilarious.
About time we had something interesting to discuss on this blog.
September 14th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Joey,
Epic. Fucking epic.
September 16th, 2012 at 8:08 am
a little light in the assessment department :)
bb
September 16th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I’m OK with assesments as long as they start going to the Burnsville Chamber of Commerce! The July 6, 2012 legal notices show a 2011 Operating Loss of $841,414 funded by the taxpayers for the Chamber’s PAC. Remember from Kautz’s visioning process this was supposed to attract people with money to Burnsville. Remember also it was supposed to loose only about $350,000 a year. In reality, on a cash flow basis it is costing taxpayers over a million a year. Remember the split decision to spend $20,000,000 plus was based on three votes from Kautz and her two Chamber endorsed minions.
Since January, the Kautz taxpayer funder propaganda machine has been telling us the PAC had their best year ever and lost only $275,000 (but they’re not telling you that is based on Kautz Accounting Principals)
The Minnesota State Auditor’s web site says that expernal reporting needs to be GAAP based and that is where the $841,414 comes from.
November 21st, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] The list includes items like: Statue or bust of M.W. Savage placed somewhere on City Campus ($30,000-$75,000); McColl Pond Fountain ($30,000-$50,000); and entrance signage and landscaping in downtown Savage ($40,000-$75,000) similar to what Burnsville considered wasting too much money on recently. [...]
March 28th, 2013 at 7:02 am
[...] and down for joy, do cities the size of Burnsville which have such important funding priorities as city monuments at their borders need $86,000 more dollars from the taxpayers to fill this ‘unmet need’ with dollars [...]