Although Coun. Shelley Biermanski's motion to suspend portions of the city's municipal naming policy failed during the May 6 council meeting, a few city councillors expect the policy to appear at an upcoming standing committee of the whole meeting.
During their regular May 6 meeting, council voted down a motion to suspend portions of the city's municipal naming policy by a vote of 4-3, with councillors Biermanski, Sheena Hughes, and Ken MacKay in favour.
"I think we need a reset time. Grandin renaming has passed, and we've learned from it," Biermanski said during the May 6 meeting. Her motion was specific to sections 41 to 50 of policy C-CC-05, which details the requirements and process to submit an application and then rename a municipal asset.
Coun. Ken MacKay was one of the five council members who voted in favour of changing the Grandin name to the Gardens. He said he voted in favour of Biermanski's motion because he's "always thinking about the process."
"It comes from my background. I've operated many standard operating plans for any number of different events or occurrences," MacKay said. He said the most critical parts of all of these is the feedback loop that comes at the end.
"I just saw this as an advantage," he said. "I could see some value in saying, 'Well, what harm is there in holding off any future renaming that might come in front of us?'"
He added he doesn't think there will be any renaming applications moving forward, but said it would simply remove the opportunity for there to be one, especially as we inch closer to the municipal election in October. He said he's confident administration would do its due diligence and come back with any recommended changes or amendments.
When asked if there were specific changes to the naming policy he'd like to see, MacKay was unwilling to comment.
"I don't want to prejudice what could come back," he said, referencing the fact some councillors wish to see the threshold increased for signatures required for the Naming Committee to bring a renaming application before council.
Hughes said she would like to see the city adopt a renaming policy similar to Edmonton's, which specifies that if a renaming application is submitted for a road, at least "75 per cent of businesses and property owners affected must support the renaming of the road."
"Then you don't have as much controversy about the decision in the event that you choose to rename. And I think that we need to actually ensure that we have community support," Hughes said.
She added potentially 50 names could still be enough to bring the discussion to council, but then there would have to be support shown by those who live on the affected streets.
Biermanski took issue with the threshold for the Naming Committee to bring a recommendation before council being 50 names, and that those 50 names are anonymous, protected under the Freedom of Information Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act.
MacKay said he doesn't think the renaming vote and subsequent motions related to it will become an election issue and added he hasn't heard much about the issue in the two months since the Grandin renaming vote. Biermanski said she still hears some feedback on it, but it's quieter now. She hopes there will be a more robust discussion on the policy in the weeks to come.
"I think that the policy missed on many, many points. And I'm hoping that comes out in our discussion with committee of the whole," Biermanski said, with the expectation further discussion will take place during the June 10 standing committee of the whole meeting.
