1986-09-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes September 9, 1986 Council Business, continued Locke had nothing further to add to the staff report concerning changes to the ordinance as it pertains to campaign signs, and noted that Witzke was present to speak to his suggested changes for the ordinance. Witzke reviewed and explained his suggested changes, indicating he believed they would make the campaign sign portion of the ordinance simpler and enforceable: change "issue" to "resolu- tion;" add "per side" to square footage requirements; add "each private property frontage" so that corner lots could display two signs per candidate; change from four week to "three weeks" be- fore an election for display time; to add to have signs removed "two days after a primary or general election," as specific elec- tions are not stated in the current ordinance; and that the re- moval of signs is the "responsibility of the candidate or poli- tical group supporting a resolution" rather than the responsi- bility of the citizen or the private party. Witzke also suggested "enforcement be the responsibility of the City Planner who would travel the entire city the third day after the election to identify signs not removed" and explained his suggestions as to how the enforcement could work. Witzke asked that council consider rewriting the ordinance entirely by using his first two paragraphs and, if they feel comfortable with his "enforcement" paragraph, use the third paragraph as it is or in a modified form. Benke stated he was in sympathy with some issues, but had ques- tions on others: felt the candidate should be responsible for picking up their signs; has problems with putting a lot of staff time into it as a strict requirement, Locke stated the City Planner does not have to be named as an enforcing person because the Planner is responsible for the entire ordinance; the issue of traveling the city is an enforce- ment policy issue rather than having it written specifically. Benke believed that the signs that are currently displayed are in conformance with what the council believes they adopted; Witzke stated many are on non-private property. Williams didn't believe there is ownership of the signs and believes enforcement is absolutely essential and that it should be included in this portion of the ordinance; believes the major question is what the city should do about signs between the primary and the general elections. Schmidt stated once an election is over the signs should be re- moved; believes enforcement should be the candidate's responsi- bility and there should be an enforcement requirement on the part part of the city. Page Eight Campaign Signs Report 86-212 (No report 86-211)