The Appleton Parks and Recreation Committee voted to amend its park-naming policy and will forward the revised document to the City Council after extended debate about classifications and priorities.

Committee members and staff spent more than two hours debating whether to add a prioritized list of naming classifications — including places and features, organizations, and “great ideas or causes” — to the department’s existing naming policy. Director Gazza told the committee the policy had not required updates since a 1997 revision and that the department believed the current practice generally covered naming questions: "I think there is miss, misunderstanding that because the last update was 1997 that it had not been, reviewed," Director Gazza said.

Ald. Van Zeland proposed an amendment to add a set of classifications as examples and to prioritize them. After discussion and an initial amendment vote earlier in the meeting, the committee ultimately approved a substitution that incorporates seven classifications and will send that newly amended document to council. The final vote on the revision by substitution passed 3-2.

Members who supported the substitution said the list would give clearer guidance to staff and the public about preferred name categories. "My proposed amendment would be to add the classifications to the current policy," Ald. Van Zeland said during the debate. Those who opposed said the proposal was too broad and risked overcomplicating a policy that, in practice, is used infrequently. One member said the draft created "a lot of redundancy" if the new list were simply added to the existing 1–6 items.

The meeting record shows recurrent procedural confusion about whether the committee had first approved the base motion and then amendments; Attorney Glatt clarified the committee's intent and procedure before the final vote. Several members urged staff to produce a single clean draft incorporating the committee’s direction before council review so electors and council members would see an unambiguous document.

Committee members also debated whether to explicitly add a category for abstract or conceptual names (sometimes described in the meeting as "great ideas or causes") and whether prioritizing categories would unduly constrain future naming decisions. Supporters said the addition closes gaps (for example, allowing recognition of historical groups or concepts tied to local history); critics worried it could force staff and volunteers to “shoehorn” names into categories.

Outcome and next steps: The committee approved the amendment by substitution (3–2) and will forward the amended naming policy to the City Council as the document to be considered there. Staff and the clerk were directed to ensure the council packet contains the final amended version to avoid further confusion.

Ending: The item as amended will go forward to the Council; committee members asked staff to produce a single, finalized draft that reflects the committee’s instructions before council consideration.