Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ceremonial Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richardson council discusses 'Key to the City' design and naming rules; staff recommends supermajority approval
Summary
Council reviewed a proposed ceremonial 'Key to the City' policy and a companion asset-naming policy that would reserve naming and renaming for rare circumstances and require a supermajority (6 of 7) for approval; staff showed two design options and estimated about $850 per key and box.
City staff presented draft policy language and two design options for a ceremonial "Key to the City" and a companion policy for naming or renaming city assets. Staff emphasized rarity and neutrality—prohibiting recognition based primarily on political, ideological or religious positions—and proposed a nomination process beginning with a council member and final approval by a supermajority vote of the council.
Design and cost: Staff showed two mockups (a traditional brass key with a folded-city-flag box and a more modern acrylic key with a technology motif). "We anticipate about $850 give or take a little bit for each one of these key to the cities," staff said, noting the box and presentation package are the primary cost drivers.
Nomination and approval: The draft process would allow any council member to nominate an individual or organization; staff suggested raising the bar for consideration to require multiple sponsors and recommended a supermajority (6 of 7) to approve naming or renaming. Council members discussed whether to require three sponsors to place a nomination on the agenda and whether to cap the number of keys presented annually.
Naming policy: Staff presented criteria for naming or renaming major assets (public buildings, infrastructure, projects) and recommended a supermajority requirement for asset renaming. The draft discourages naming for currently serving elected officials and favors posthumous recognition or recognition after sustained service. A separate parks-specific naming process would remain in place for park assets.
Council reaction: Members favored keeping public engagement high and were cautious about creating a small, exclusive advisory body that could supplant broader outreach. Several members supported the higher nomination/approval thresholds and suggested tying presentations to existing city events to reduce ceremony costs.
Next steps: Staff will return with a small set of revised designs (including options with technology motifs and different flower/branding treatments), additional vendor lead-time estimates and cost comparisons for production runs and presentation packaging. Council gave direction on thresholds and requested clarity on whether renaming would apply to existing roads and buildings (staff confirmed it could, if council chose to allow it). No final policy adoption occurred at this meeting.
