Council debates street‑name change policy; staff to draft disclosure and cost estimates ahead of vote

The City Attorney presented a draft resolution on April 14 to create a policy and procedure for requesting street‑name changes in Upper Arlington, and councilmembers spent the bulk of the legislative portion of the meeting debating petition thresholds, fees and resident notification.

City Attorney Shulman said the draft policy is a follow-up to a citizen request and a previous October 7, 2024 review; the goal is to create a consistent process for evaluating name‑change requests. Shulman explained the draft drew on best practices from other cities and that three elements—petition signature threshold, application fee, and whether a portion of the fee is refundable if the request is denied—were likely to draw council amendments.

The draft that staff circulated used a high threshold (about 90% of property owners on the affected street) and a suggested $500 application fee with a $100 nonrefundable component if the request is denied. Shulman said staff recommended a policy (a resolution) rather than an ordinance to retain flexibility as the city gains experience with the process.

Councilmembers raised several recurring concerns and clarifying points: whether the policy would prevent council from initiating a street name change (members asked staff to add explicit language preserving council’s authority to act on its own initiative), how to ensure residents signing a petition understand potential personal costs, and how to handle signature validity if residents move before certification.

Councilmember Wakulwitz asked whether the policy would bar council-initiated renamings; Shulman and staff said it would not and agreed to add explicit language preserving council’s prerogative. Councilmember Lynch and others urged a stronger disclosure requirement for petition signers, so that signers know they may need to update deeds, driver’s licenses, passports, insurance policies and subscriptions. Shulman said the deed-recording cost could be the largest expense for many residents because recorded documents often incur per‑page fees.

Several councilmembers suggested lowering the petition threshold from the draft 90% to 80%; staff said 80% falls within the range used by other local governments and that staff would be “largely agnostic” but preferred a higher threshold to avoid burdening property owners who did not support the change. Councilmembers asked staff to provide: (1) a clearer disclosure or notice requirement to accompany petition forms, and (2) a better estimate of staff time and the likely city cost to prepare the report and to replace street signs. Shulman and staff agreed to prepare proposed amendment language and to include those items in the packet for the next meeting.

Council directed staff to organize potential amendments (thresholds, application fee/refund rules, disclosure language) so members and the public can review them before a vote. If council members want to propose additional amendments, they were asked to email them to the city attorney in advance so staff can package the options for a future vote. The resolution will return for consideration at the next meeting.