|
Tuesday, 22 July 2008 |
By WILLIAM LANEY
Managing Editor
An attempt to establish a penalty for posting signs in the city right-of-way is “mushrooming” as an issue, a city elected official says, and more time is needed to address the legislation.
Wapakoneta 3rd Ward Councilor Bonnie Wurst, who chairs city council’s Lands and Buildings Committee, garnered support Monday from fellow councilors to table an ordinance to establish a fine for posting signs in the city right-of-way.
“We sought a tabling of the ordinance because issues that our committee had not considered when we requested the legislation have been pointed out to us, and we need to address some of those issues,” Wurst said after Monday’s Wapakoneta City Council meting.
Wurst provided examples such as business signs noting sales posted on sidewalks in the downtown area and directional signs posted by realtors on main thoroughfares indicating a property for sale on less traveled streets.
Legislation being considered by city councilors provides a definition of garage and yard sale signs, political signs and real estate signs with specific stipulations on each type of sign. The ordinance also establishes a fee of $10 per sign for each offense.
Wurst said her committee members want the sign ordinance to be fair to all business owners because if there is an exception for one business or industry then other business owners will inquire about an exemption.
The 3rd Ward councilor called for a Lands and Buildings Committee meeting for 10 a.m. Wednesday to continue discussing the issue and how to proceed.
“We need to decide if a complete prohibition of signs on city property, which is the way the ordinance is now worded, is the way to proceed, and if it is the way to move forward then how do we plan to enforce that,” Wurst told the Wapakoneta Daily News. “We also need to determine if there is some other option other than all-out prohibition.”
Wurst said she plans to investigate state regulations regarding signs in the right-of-way since the public right-of-way is to be reserved for traffic control signs and devices.
“We need to investigate what the state requirements are and bring those to the table,” Wurst said. “There could be very different regulations for a state roadway than there are for county or city roads.”
One councilor objected to tabling the legislation.
1st Ward Councilor Jim Neumeier said councilors should continue with the three readings. The legislation would have been read for the second time at Monday’s meeting.
“I voted no on tabling the legislation because I think it will never come back to the floor,” said Neumeier, who served on council in the 1980s and 1990s. “I think it will be tabled and then it will go away.”
Council President Don Jump instructed City Clerk Carlene Koch to have the issue listed under unfinished business on the agenda until the ordinance is passed or rejected.
During the meeting, Neumeier said posting signs in the right-of-way or onto city property is already against city ordinance, referring to legislation adopted in 1980.
He also objected because residents are damaging city property in the process of posting their signs.
“I think anything that is attached to city property, other than placards approved by council, is damaging city light poles and electric poles,” Neumeier said, noting crews were painting light poles last week because of paint stripped off from garage sale and other signs posted on them. “In my opinion, I think they can fix the ordinance real quick and we could get something done and we could still move forward.”
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 28 July 2008 )
|
