The City of Burnsville could get a new visual calling card. Tuesday, the council kicked around the idea of adopting a new logo to replace its current design, which came into being in 1976.
The question of changing the logo came up afer the city decided to erect monumental welcome signs on all the main roads leading into town.
"It's literally going to be set in stone," said Communications Coordinator Marty Doll. "So if we ever wanted to update it, now is probably the time to think about it."
Doll emphasized that the new design would likely be an homage to the old—not a complete overhaul.
"We're not trying to change our identity. We are very proud of identity Burnsville has," Doll told the council. "The city has done a great job branding itself and we wouldn't want to undo all that hard work, but (the existing logo is) a little visually outdated. It has that 70's look and feel."
Doll presented three new design options, all created by Greg Preslicka of Preslicka Studios in Savage. All incorporated the city's longstanding theme—“trees and water”—but offered varying degrees of change and modernization. You can see all three above.
• Option 1: This design is very close to the existing logo, with the same shape and structure, but slightly different colors and a streamlined look.
• Option 2: The council was uniform in their rejection of this design, which Council Member Dan Kealey described as "pine tree with hurricane."
• Option 3: The third design is the farthest away from current logo. It features an asymmetrical flourish of water and leaves sweeping around a pine tree.
The council had mixed feelings about changing the logo. Kealey said that the more he thought about it, the more he liked the old logo, but that if he were asked to choose he would pick design number three, which struck him as a trendier, more modern choice. Fellow Council Member Dan Gustafson agreed, saying that the design was "flowing, and always moving forward"—just like Burnsville.
On the other side of the fence were Council Members Mary Sherry and Bill Coughlin, who felt that such as design was too trendy and perhaps not "municipal" enough for their tastes. Both said they would opt for design number 1 if they had to.
"Twenty years from now I don't want a design that people will look at and say 'Oh that's so 2010,'" Sherry said, who added that in her opinion, the council should only change the logo if they were "absolutely wild" about a new design.
Ultimately, the council sent Doll back to the drawing board in the hopes that he and Preslicka might come up a fourth option that combines the best of Option 1 and 3.
If Council does choose a new logo, the old will likely linger for quite a few years. City staffers recommended a long-term implementation plan, rather than replacing all of the old logos at once, a move which would be both expensive and time consuming. Instead, the city would update the logo only when a sign or piece of equipment is scheduled for replacement. There would be a few exceptions to the rule, such as the monument signs and the entrance at city hall, which would need to be updated immediately.
What do you think? Which logo would you choose?