Loading...
01-1163�RIGiNAL Presented Referred To CouncilFile# p�. ��V3 Green Sheet # 110341 Committee Date a4 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 31, 2 2001, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Properry Appealed A epp Ilant 5 1888 Dorothea Avenue Joseph Weah 6 Decision: Appeal denied on Summary Abatement Order dated October 29, 2001. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman �. Harris �- Benanav ,j Reiter ,l Bostrom � LanhS' ✓ �( � O AUL, MINNESOTA Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council � 14 15 Adopted by Council: Date: `�,� _`Z �. � 16 ' 17 Adoption Ce ified by Council Secretary 18 By: �� �, � � _- . ..� . -. . � . 1 �. - �,/�. � .�p ��fJ �I����� 'ARTMEDf�lOFFICE/COUNGL ... . , DAiEWIMTED City Council Offices 10-31-2001 ffACT PERSON & PHONE Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 _■ K ee «a couNCa nc�n sv mnrq - wuraFn Fox ROUTING ORDER TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET ot -►t�3 N� 110341 u �,,,�,�,*� u �„�— ❑ crtrwnon�r � arcncxrt ❑sruxcw.amuicESOw. ❑wnxauumnnxcrc � WYORI�A994llflff) ❑ (CLIP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the October 31, 2001, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on a Property Code Enforcement Appeal for 1888 Dorothea Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RSONALSERVICE WNiRpCfS MUSTANSWERTHE FOLLOWING QUESiIONS: Has this perso�rm e�er xrorked under a contract for Nis tlepartmentl VES NO Has Mis peisoNfirm ever been a cily empbyee? YES NO Dces this persoNfirm possess a sldll not normallypossessetl by any curtmt city employee? YES NO Is this person/firm a targeted ventloYt � YES NO Cou�� ��s�a�ch Csnt2r �C3 � �. AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION C0.4T/REVENUE BUDGETED (CU2CLE ONE) ACTNIN NUMBER VES NO MFORMATION (EJPWN) ti � CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE DIVISION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT Room 190, City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 �olinlol . Insg� tio� J�atg / �o( `/ U Date Ma'led Mailed y blall�� SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDER TO: � � r I�gg n ar Q_sf � (, �.� . �-• s� < < 6, G��_ ! ��-.�.— � b 3 S 'ke� c� � G�c �. . � .S � ti io . �--.-�--��.;... d--�-.. �-�- �.-�..�a �, As owner or person(s) responsible for: L+ b you are hereby ordered to eliminate alI r Legislative Code. � ��� .■J n � �i�4 w cs.� ►1. conditions which are in violation of Chapter 45 of Saint Paul Remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, discarded furniture, appliances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recyc�ing materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc., from yard areas. Cufand remove talt grass, weeds and rank plant Remove and properly dispose of all animal feces from yard areas. IMMEDIATELY secure all buildings which are open to unauthorized entry, including: Other• ��'"�'P /LS�.''Q C�`'S29 c.� '�-c�''"` �� A�--r�..a ��sti,�.v� c J.� • .� cx..�S2 "C� .9 �Ccr.r-� �, i b 5 �A-�"-'-�-.-� —�'�.� • � �,..«. �oi3�1 crl � If you do not coirect the nuisance or file an appeal before � �� G i�.�"`� , , the Ciry will correct the nuisance and charge all cosu, including boarding cosu, againsc :he property as a special assessment to be collected in the same way as property taxes. Charees: If the City corrects the nuisance, the charges will include the cost of correction, inspection, �avel time, equipment, etc. The rate will be approximately $225.00 per hour plus expenses for abatement. You must maintain the premises in a clean condition and - provide proper and adequate refuse storage at all times FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN A CRIMINAL CITATION Issued by: , Badge Number 3 e h Phone Number (651) 2�° S� 6q � If you have any questions about this order, the requirements or the deadline, you should contact the Inspector listed above, Monday through Friday. Anneals: You may appeal this order and abtain a 6earing before the City Council by filing a written request with the City Clerk befare the appeal deadline noted above or seven (7) days after the date mailed, whichever comes first No appeals may be filed aRer that date. You may obtain an applica[ion Crom the City Cierk's Otfice, Room 170, City Halt, St. Paul, MN 55102. The telephone number is (651) 266-8989. You must submit a copy of this Summary Abatemen[ Order with your appiication. Revised 4/2001 v\-��b3 Z4. NOT'ES OF 'IT� SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEN'1' MEETING VJednesday, October 31, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESEN'I': Fred Owusu, City Clerk and D'uector of Citizen Service Office The meeting was called to order at 1:40 a.m. 1888 Dorothea Avenue Gerry Sirathman stated this meeting is being held to heaz an appeal on a summary abatement order to Georgia Dietz. This has to do with an order insiructing her to remove all of her temporary election signs in Saint Paul tUat exceed 16 square feet. The following appeazed: Georgia Dietz, appellant; Kenneth Udoibok, representing Ms. Dietz, 2469 University Avenue West; and Jessica McKiimey, representing Ms. Dietz, 2469 University Avenue West, attorney. Mr. Udoibok stated the ordinance is unconstitutional. The enforcement of the ordinance is in violation of the 1 st and 4th amendment rights of Ms. Dietz because it is content based enforcement. Bob Cazdinal, 2497 Adele Sireet, Maplewood, appeazed and stated he is the Mayor of Maplewood. He had the same size sign as Ms. Dietz. Mr. Stratlunan asked have any of his signs been up in Saint Paul. Mr. Cazdinal responded no. Mr. Strathman asked is there an ordinance in Maplewood similaz to Saint Paul's ardinance. Mr. Cardinal responded he does not know. Terrance Cu11en, 1815 Pinehurst Avenue, appeared and stated he lives on the corner of Pinehurst and Fauview. He had one of the larger lawn signs in his yard. He checked the line of sight so that there are no accidents because of the sign. Whenever anyone has called him about a vision problem because of his lawn sign, he has moved it. His sign is the same size as the Ciresi sign in his neighbor's yazd last yeaz. He talked to the owner of that properry, and that owner said that she had received a visit from the police, who told her the sign was too close to the curb. That neighbor set it fiirther back from the sidewalk. Mr. Strathman stated Section 30.5 of the Legislative Code reads as follows: "Nothing in tYus chapter shall be construed as applicable during those years in which statewide general elections aze held. This chapter sha11 be applicable in those years in which elections for municipal office aze held.° That provision esplains, stated Mr. Strathman, why the signs were not objectionable under the ordinance last year. a� ��.�3 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 2 Marvin Wolf, 1907 Dorothea Avenue, appeazed and stated he cannot see a distincrion between state elections and municipal elecrions. This whole issue today has political undertones to it. Ms. Dietz has a good message, and some school board members are afraid of it. If Mr. Ciresi can have a 4 feet by 8 feet sign, then Ms. Dietz can bave the same size sign. Ordinances are written by people who have a particulaz interest. He has an interest in this ordinance, stated Mr. Wolf, and he would like to see it rescinded. All these restrictions should apply evenly. The complaint was probably brought by someone opposing Ms. Dietz. Mr. Strathman stated this ordinance was passed in 1988. There aze vehicles to get ordinances appealed. The City Council can appeal it. Also, it may be appealed through a more cuxnbersome process of citizen iniriative. Ms. Udoibok stated they may seek an injunction if they feel Mr. Strathman's opinion is unfavorable. There is no reason that there should be a distinction among Michael Ciresi, anyone in a state election, and Ms. Dietz. They intend to enforce what they feel to be the constitution of the law by getting the ordinance reversed or rescinded. You don't think the ordinance is content neutral, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Udoibok responded the enforcement cannot be content neutral. He has done, albeit limited, research to see where this same ordinance has been enforced on nonrepublicans. Also, why would a dentist, lawyer, or architect be allowed 50 feet to express his or her views and a school boazd member cannot, asked Mr. Udoibok. The City may not haue intended to control or legislate free speech, but they have done so. Mr. Strathman asked is he trying to draw a connection among election signs, business signs, and advertising signs. Mr. Udoibok responded political speech is subject to strict scrutiny. Mr. Wolf asked what is the specific wording of the ordinance pertaining to the size. NIr. Strathman read Section 30.03, which is as follows: "No temporary election sign may exceed sixteen (16) square feet on any side nar be designed to have more than two (2) sides. Further, the aggregate azea of temporary elecfion signs shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet on any single lot of land as platted." Eileen Corry, 535 Hoyt Avenue East, appeared and stated she has been an election judge for 25 years. If it is okay for a large election in na6onal elecrions, then it should be okay in City elections. If it is okay in Maplewood, then it should be okay in Saint Paul. She has never heazd of this law. Ms. McKiuney stated a lot of people have a question about the purpose behind this municipal ordinance and why there is a distinction between municipal elections and general elections. It is cleaz that the intent from Section 30.1 is beautification standazds. There was an issue raised during the enactment of the ordinance that the lazger signs were created out of cardboard material and would disintegrate over time causing litter problems and would be distracting to motorists. O� �\ t�3 PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 3 If those aze the rationale, then the general election candidates should not be able to display signs of that size. Signs aze no longer made out of the same materials as 1988. They do not disintegrate over time. The zoning codes show that some districts have codes that allow people to display any type of sign up to 32 square feet. Mr. Strathman asked is she referring to special sign districts. Ms. McKnuiey responded yes. The justification behind the ordinance is weak. It strengthens the azgument of those who aze here today on behalf of Ms. Dietz. The rationale is content based and not beautification based. John L. Oneill, Jr., 1141 Dale Street North, appeazed and asked if he purchased a sign, would the ordinance apply to him. The ordinance from 1988 should be declazed unconstitutional. Also, he is uptight over the charge of $250 to remove the sign. Mr. Strathman responded there aze other ordinances that regulate placing signs generally. There aze regulations on bnsiness and advertising signs. Business signs aze about a business on the property, and advertising signs aze about a business that is not on that properry. Mr. O'Neill stated there is a gray area here, but a company that makes signs should be knowledgeable of that ordinance. Candidates may not lrnow. Mr. Strathxnan responded that sign makers may not lrnow the rules because the rules vary from city to city. Also, there is a limit of the total number of election signs a person can put in their yazd. The limit is 80 square feet. Jane Nelson, 231 Isabel Street West, appeared and stated she was a city plaiming commissioner in the 19'70's when the original sign ordinance was adopted. The campaign ordinance was an addition to that. She is also a former newspaper editor and journalist. She has a deep appreciation for the importance of &ee speech. There is no justification to discriminate against a candidate for school boazd with respect to free speech and other candidates for political office. The school board is a independendy elected board. It is not controlled by the City Council. Ms. Dietz's signs are not outlandish, damaged, broken. They do not contain offensive remazks or images. Ms. Nelson considers the sign on her properry to be a expression of speech. She was offended when she heazd that police officers have been told to remove this expression of speech when there are other things they could be doing instead. Cindy Hilborn, treasurer for Ms. Dietz, 1635 Niles Avenue, appeared. She asked would there be a problem if the signs aze cut in half and displayed. Mr. Strathman responded he would think not because then it would be 16 feet. Mr. Strathman stated he would like to be clear about his role here. The order that was issued is a notice to Ms. Dietz that she is in violation of the City ordinance and instrucYs her to remove the signs. In most cases, a person sees a notice and then corrects the problem. When an order like this is issued, the City Council long ago recoa i'ed that the enforcement officers can make mistakes and there should be an arena where people can ha�e an opportunity to go to an independent body to ensure the enforcement officer has acted correctly under the code. Mr. Strathman stated it is not his role to deteiinine whether the code is correct, wise, legal, ar constitutional. He asked Mr. Owusu why he felt it was necessary to issue this order. o� t�.1�3 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 4 Fred Owusu reported last Friday he received a compliant about the size of Georgia Dietz's campaign signs. The complaivant, who wished to remain anonymous, cited the chapter and section of the code. It is Mr. Owusu's job to investigate and enforce the code. This is the first time he received a complaint of this nature that he had to actually enforce. He received complaints last yeaz, but he reminded callers that the ordinance is only in effect when there are no statewide elections. In today's instance, it is enforceable because it is a municipal election. He has received up to 25 complaints. He had his program manager Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) investigate, and he brought Mr. Owusu one of the signs. The sign cleazly exceeds the requirements. He wrote Ms. Dietz and Ms. Hilborn a letter asking them to remove the signs. Betty Copeland, 612 Cook Avenue East, appeazed and stated she finds this issue ridiculous. The main reason for this complaint is freedom of speech. On the top of the Ms. Dietz's campaign signs reads "God Bless America." Ms. Copeland stated she does not see anything wrong with that. NIr. Owusu responded the complaints he received have been sirictly about the size of the sign. This issue is not about religion, but about enforcing the code as it reads. Mr. Udoibok stated the complaints remain anonymous, and they will not lrnow how many complaints were received. They cannot confront anyone that has a problem with the sign. He recommends that the signs remain in place until after the election. Mr. Owusu responded state law allows people to call govemment and report thiugs anonymously. Mr. Strathman added the City is prohibited by State law from disclosing the name of the complainants. Mr. Strathxnan stated the City has a couple of vehicles they use to ensure that ordinances aze complied with. Generally speaking, the City elects to do an abatement order, which is a nofice of the violation. If the owner does not voluntarily bring the issue into compliance, the City conducts a summary abatement, which means the City deals with the nuisance. There is a fee and it is billed to the property owner. The owner can contest that assessment. This is a civil process. Another mechanism far enforcing CiTy ord'mance is a criminal process. Violating most City ordinances contains in it some sort of criminal penalty. The City haue the authority to issue citations and pursue the violation as a criminal offense. Mr. Strathman has heard interesting testnnony this afternoon; however, it seems to go to the appropriateness and constitufionality of the ordinance. No one has argued that these signs don't e�st, that Ms. Dietz is not responsibie far them, nor that they are smaller than 16 square feet. There does not seem to be any dispute about the facts. Ms. Dietz is in violation of the ardinance, and Mr. Owusu has acted in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Strathman will recommend to the City Council that this appeal be denied. The customary process for recommendations he makes is that they aze referred to the City Council far approval. The next time the City Council meets to review his decisions is ne� Wednesday, November 7, at which point the matter becomes moot because that will be after the election. There may be mechanisms used to accelerate the process, but he doubts they will be used. The City may pursue a criminal action by issuing a citation. That action will go to the courts. a� �\�03 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT' NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Udoibok stated he spoke with a police officer who implied that Mr. Udoibok should be ready with his motion for a restr ��a order because the officer thought the hearing officer would deny the appeal. At the conclusion of this hearing, this o�cer was going to make a call to the police so the signs would be removed. Mr. Owusu responded when someone brings an appeal before Mr. Stratlunau, they await approval of this action from the City Council. If the police deparhnent issues citations and the City Attorney elects to take those citations to court, stated Mr. Strathman, that is not precluded by what is going on here. Mr. Udoibok asked does that come out of Mr. Owusu's auspices. Mr. Owusu responded he has a commander in the police department that serves as program manager for his Code Enforcement division. This commander has the authoriTy to write criminal tags. Mr. Udoibok responded he can deal with the criminal issue if it comes. He just does not want the speech limited. Mr. Wolf stated the government functions according to the will of the people. Everyone is in favor of these signs. Mr. Strathrnan responded that is the will of the people present at this meeting. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the Summary Abatement Order dated October 29, 2001. The meeting was adjoumed at 135 p.m. rrn �RIGiNAL Presented Referred To CouncilFile# p�. ��V3 Green Sheet # 110341 Committee Date a4 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 31, 2 2001, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Properry Appealed A epp Ilant 5 1888 Dorothea Avenue Joseph Weah 6 Decision: Appeal denied on Summary Abatement Order dated October 29, 2001. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman �. Harris �- Benanav ,j Reiter ,l Bostrom � LanhS' ✓ �( � O AUL, MINNESOTA Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council � 14 15 Adopted by Council: Date: `�,� _`Z �. � 16 ' 17 Adoption Ce ified by Council Secretary 18 By: �� �, � � _- . ..� . -. . � . 1 �. - �,/�. � .�p ��fJ �I����� 'ARTMEDf�lOFFICE/COUNGL ... . , DAiEWIMTED City Council Offices 10-31-2001 ffACT PERSON & PHONE Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 _■ K ee «a couNCa nc�n sv mnrq - wuraFn Fox ROUTING ORDER TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET ot -►t�3 N� 110341 u �,,,�,�,*� u �„�— ❑ crtrwnon�r � arcncxrt ❑sruxcw.amuicESOw. ❑wnxauumnnxcrc � WYORI�A994llflff) ❑ (CLIP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the October 31, 2001, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on a Property Code Enforcement Appeal for 1888 Dorothea Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RSONALSERVICE WNiRpCfS MUSTANSWERTHE FOLLOWING QUESiIONS: Has this perso�rm e�er xrorked under a contract for Nis tlepartmentl VES NO Has Mis peisoNfirm ever been a cily empbyee? YES NO Dces this persoNfirm possess a sldll not normallypossessetl by any curtmt city employee? YES NO Is this person/firm a targeted ventloYt � YES NO Cou�� ��s�a�ch Csnt2r �C3 � �. AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION C0.4T/REVENUE BUDGETED (CU2CLE ONE) ACTNIN NUMBER VES NO MFORMATION (EJPWN) ti � CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE DIVISION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT Room 190, City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 �olinlol . Insg� tio� J�atg / �o( `/ U Date Ma'led Mailed y blall�� SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDER TO: � � r I�gg n ar Q_sf � (, �.� . �-• s� < < 6, G��_ ! ��-.�.— � b 3 S 'ke� c� � G�c �. . � .S � ti io . �--.-�--��.;... d--�-.. �-�- �.-�..�a �, As owner or person(s) responsible for: L+ b you are hereby ordered to eliminate alI r Legislative Code. � ��� .■J n � �i�4 w cs.� ►1. conditions which are in violation of Chapter 45 of Saint Paul Remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, discarded furniture, appliances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recyc�ing materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc., from yard areas. Cufand remove talt grass, weeds and rank plant Remove and properly dispose of all animal feces from yard areas. IMMEDIATELY secure all buildings which are open to unauthorized entry, including: Other• ��'"�'P /LS�.''Q C�`'S29 c.� '�-c�''"` �� A�--r�..a ��sti,�.v� c J.� • .� cx..�S2 "C� .9 �Ccr.r-� �, i b 5 �A-�"-'-�-.-� —�'�.� • � �,..«. �oi3�1 crl � If you do not coirect the nuisance or file an appeal before � �� G i�.�"`� , , the Ciry will correct the nuisance and charge all cosu, including boarding cosu, againsc :he property as a special assessment to be collected in the same way as property taxes. Charees: If the City corrects the nuisance, the charges will include the cost of correction, inspection, �avel time, equipment, etc. The rate will be approximately $225.00 per hour plus expenses for abatement. You must maintain the premises in a clean condition and - provide proper and adequate refuse storage at all times FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN A CRIMINAL CITATION Issued by: , Badge Number 3 e h Phone Number (651) 2�° S� 6q � If you have any questions about this order, the requirements or the deadline, you should contact the Inspector listed above, Monday through Friday. Anneals: You may appeal this order and abtain a 6earing before the City Council by filing a written request with the City Clerk befare the appeal deadline noted above or seven (7) days after the date mailed, whichever comes first No appeals may be filed aRer that date. You may obtain an applica[ion Crom the City Cierk's Otfice, Room 170, City Halt, St. Paul, MN 55102. The telephone number is (651) 266-8989. You must submit a copy of this Summary Abatemen[ Order with your appiication. Revised 4/2001 v\-��b3 Z4. NOT'ES OF 'IT� SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEN'1' MEETING VJednesday, October 31, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESEN'I': Fred Owusu, City Clerk and D'uector of Citizen Service Office The meeting was called to order at 1:40 a.m. 1888 Dorothea Avenue Gerry Sirathman stated this meeting is being held to heaz an appeal on a summary abatement order to Georgia Dietz. This has to do with an order insiructing her to remove all of her temporary election signs in Saint Paul tUat exceed 16 square feet. The following appeazed: Georgia Dietz, appellant; Kenneth Udoibok, representing Ms. Dietz, 2469 University Avenue West; and Jessica McKiimey, representing Ms. Dietz, 2469 University Avenue West, attorney. Mr. Udoibok stated the ordinance is unconstitutional. The enforcement of the ordinance is in violation of the 1 st and 4th amendment rights of Ms. Dietz because it is content based enforcement. Bob Cazdinal, 2497 Adele Sireet, Maplewood, appeazed and stated he is the Mayor of Maplewood. He had the same size sign as Ms. Dietz. Mr. Stratlunan asked have any of his signs been up in Saint Paul. Mr. Cazdinal responded no. Mr. Strathman asked is there an ordinance in Maplewood similaz to Saint Paul's ardinance. Mr. Cardinal responded he does not know. Terrance Cu11en, 1815 Pinehurst Avenue, appeared and stated he lives on the corner of Pinehurst and Fauview. He had one of the larger lawn signs in his yard. He checked the line of sight so that there are no accidents because of the sign. Whenever anyone has called him about a vision problem because of his lawn sign, he has moved it. His sign is the same size as the Ciresi sign in his neighbor's yazd last yeaz. He talked to the owner of that properry, and that owner said that she had received a visit from the police, who told her the sign was too close to the curb. That neighbor set it fiirther back from the sidewalk. Mr. Strathman stated Section 30.5 of the Legislative Code reads as follows: "Nothing in tYus chapter shall be construed as applicable during those years in which statewide general elections aze held. This chapter sha11 be applicable in those years in which elections for municipal office aze held.° That provision esplains, stated Mr. Strathman, why the signs were not objectionable under the ordinance last year. a� ��.�3 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 2 Marvin Wolf, 1907 Dorothea Avenue, appeazed and stated he cannot see a distincrion between state elections and municipal elecrions. This whole issue today has political undertones to it. Ms. Dietz has a good message, and some school board members are afraid of it. If Mr. Ciresi can have a 4 feet by 8 feet sign, then Ms. Dietz can bave the same size sign. Ordinances are written by people who have a particulaz interest. He has an interest in this ordinance, stated Mr. Wolf, and he would like to see it rescinded. All these restrictions should apply evenly. The complaint was probably brought by someone opposing Ms. Dietz. Mr. Strathman stated this ordinance was passed in 1988. There aze vehicles to get ordinances appealed. The City Council can appeal it. Also, it may be appealed through a more cuxnbersome process of citizen iniriative. Ms. Udoibok stated they may seek an injunction if they feel Mr. Strathman's opinion is unfavorable. There is no reason that there should be a distinction among Michael Ciresi, anyone in a state election, and Ms. Dietz. They intend to enforce what they feel to be the constitution of the law by getting the ordinance reversed or rescinded. You don't think the ordinance is content neutral, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Udoibok responded the enforcement cannot be content neutral. He has done, albeit limited, research to see where this same ordinance has been enforced on nonrepublicans. Also, why would a dentist, lawyer, or architect be allowed 50 feet to express his or her views and a school boazd member cannot, asked Mr. Udoibok. The City may not haue intended to control or legislate free speech, but they have done so. Mr. Strathman asked is he trying to draw a connection among election signs, business signs, and advertising signs. Mr. Udoibok responded political speech is subject to strict scrutiny. Mr. Wolf asked what is the specific wording of the ordinance pertaining to the size. NIr. Strathman read Section 30.03, which is as follows: "No temporary election sign may exceed sixteen (16) square feet on any side nar be designed to have more than two (2) sides. Further, the aggregate azea of temporary elecfion signs shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet on any single lot of land as platted." Eileen Corry, 535 Hoyt Avenue East, appeared and stated she has been an election judge for 25 years. If it is okay for a large election in na6onal elecrions, then it should be okay in City elections. If it is okay in Maplewood, then it should be okay in Saint Paul. She has never heazd of this law. Ms. McKiuney stated a lot of people have a question about the purpose behind this municipal ordinance and why there is a distinction between municipal elections and general elections. It is cleaz that the intent from Section 30.1 is beautification standazds. There was an issue raised during the enactment of the ordinance that the lazger signs were created out of cardboard material and would disintegrate over time causing litter problems and would be distracting to motorists. O� �\ t�3 PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 3 If those aze the rationale, then the general election candidates should not be able to display signs of that size. Signs aze no longer made out of the same materials as 1988. They do not disintegrate over time. The zoning codes show that some districts have codes that allow people to display any type of sign up to 32 square feet. Mr. Strathman asked is she referring to special sign districts. Ms. McKnuiey responded yes. The justification behind the ordinance is weak. It strengthens the azgument of those who aze here today on behalf of Ms. Dietz. The rationale is content based and not beautification based. John L. Oneill, Jr., 1141 Dale Street North, appeazed and asked if he purchased a sign, would the ordinance apply to him. The ordinance from 1988 should be declazed unconstitutional. Also, he is uptight over the charge of $250 to remove the sign. Mr. Strathman responded there aze other ordinances that regulate placing signs generally. There aze regulations on bnsiness and advertising signs. Business signs aze about a business on the property, and advertising signs aze about a business that is not on that properry. Mr. O'Neill stated there is a gray area here, but a company that makes signs should be knowledgeable of that ordinance. Candidates may not lrnow. Mr. Strathxnan responded that sign makers may not lrnow the rules because the rules vary from city to city. Also, there is a limit of the total number of election signs a person can put in their yazd. The limit is 80 square feet. Jane Nelson, 231 Isabel Street West, appeared and stated she was a city plaiming commissioner in the 19'70's when the original sign ordinance was adopted. The campaign ordinance was an addition to that. She is also a former newspaper editor and journalist. She has a deep appreciation for the importance of &ee speech. There is no justification to discriminate against a candidate for school boazd with respect to free speech and other candidates for political office. The school board is a independendy elected board. It is not controlled by the City Council. Ms. Dietz's signs are not outlandish, damaged, broken. They do not contain offensive remazks or images. Ms. Nelson considers the sign on her properry to be a expression of speech. She was offended when she heazd that police officers have been told to remove this expression of speech when there are other things they could be doing instead. Cindy Hilborn, treasurer for Ms. Dietz, 1635 Niles Avenue, appeared. She asked would there be a problem if the signs aze cut in half and displayed. Mr. Strathman responded he would think not because then it would be 16 feet. Mr. Strathman stated he would like to be clear about his role here. The order that was issued is a notice to Ms. Dietz that she is in violation of the City ordinance and instrucYs her to remove the signs. In most cases, a person sees a notice and then corrects the problem. When an order like this is issued, the City Council long ago recoa i'ed that the enforcement officers can make mistakes and there should be an arena where people can ha�e an opportunity to go to an independent body to ensure the enforcement officer has acted correctly under the code. Mr. Strathman stated it is not his role to deteiinine whether the code is correct, wise, legal, ar constitutional. He asked Mr. Owusu why he felt it was necessary to issue this order. o� t�.1�3 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 4 Fred Owusu reported last Friday he received a compliant about the size of Georgia Dietz's campaign signs. The complaivant, who wished to remain anonymous, cited the chapter and section of the code. It is Mr. Owusu's job to investigate and enforce the code. This is the first time he received a complaint of this nature that he had to actually enforce. He received complaints last yeaz, but he reminded callers that the ordinance is only in effect when there are no statewide elections. In today's instance, it is enforceable because it is a municipal election. He has received up to 25 complaints. He had his program manager Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) investigate, and he brought Mr. Owusu one of the signs. The sign cleazly exceeds the requirements. He wrote Ms. Dietz and Ms. Hilborn a letter asking them to remove the signs. Betty Copeland, 612 Cook Avenue East, appeazed and stated she finds this issue ridiculous. The main reason for this complaint is freedom of speech. On the top of the Ms. Dietz's campaign signs reads "God Bless America." Ms. Copeland stated she does not see anything wrong with that. NIr. Owusu responded the complaints he received have been sirictly about the size of the sign. This issue is not about religion, but about enforcing the code as it reads. Mr. Udoibok stated the complaints remain anonymous, and they will not lrnow how many complaints were received. They cannot confront anyone that has a problem with the sign. He recommends that the signs remain in place until after the election. Mr. Owusu responded state law allows people to call govemment and report thiugs anonymously. Mr. Strathman added the City is prohibited by State law from disclosing the name of the complainants. Mr. Strathxnan stated the City has a couple of vehicles they use to ensure that ordinances aze complied with. Generally speaking, the City elects to do an abatement order, which is a nofice of the violation. If the owner does not voluntarily bring the issue into compliance, the City conducts a summary abatement, which means the City deals with the nuisance. There is a fee and it is billed to the property owner. The owner can contest that assessment. This is a civil process. Another mechanism far enforcing CiTy ord'mance is a criminal process. Violating most City ordinances contains in it some sort of criminal penalty. The City haue the authority to issue citations and pursue the violation as a criminal offense. Mr. Strathman has heard interesting testnnony this afternoon; however, it seems to go to the appropriateness and constitufionality of the ordinance. No one has argued that these signs don't e�st, that Ms. Dietz is not responsibie far them, nor that they are smaller than 16 square feet. There does not seem to be any dispute about the facts. Ms. Dietz is in violation of the ardinance, and Mr. Owusu has acted in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Strathman will recommend to the City Council that this appeal be denied. The customary process for recommendations he makes is that they aze referred to the City Council far approval. The next time the City Council meets to review his decisions is ne� Wednesday, November 7, at which point the matter becomes moot because that will be after the election. There may be mechanisms used to accelerate the process, but he doubts they will be used. The City may pursue a criminal action by issuing a citation. That action will go to the courts. a� �\�03 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT' NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Udoibok stated he spoke with a police officer who implied that Mr. Udoibok should be ready with his motion for a restr ��a order because the officer thought the hearing officer would deny the appeal. At the conclusion of this hearing, this o�cer was going to make a call to the police so the signs would be removed. Mr. Owusu responded when someone brings an appeal before Mr. Stratlunau, they await approval of this action from the City Council. If the police deparhnent issues citations and the City Attorney elects to take those citations to court, stated Mr. Strathman, that is not precluded by what is going on here. Mr. Udoibok asked does that come out of Mr. Owusu's auspices. Mr. Owusu responded he has a commander in the police department that serves as program manager for his Code Enforcement division. This commander has the authoriTy to write criminal tags. Mr. Udoibok responded he can deal with the criminal issue if it comes. He just does not want the speech limited. Mr. Wolf stated the government functions according to the will of the people. Everyone is in favor of these signs. Mr. Strathrnan responded that is the will of the people present at this meeting. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the Summary Abatement Order dated October 29, 2001. The meeting was adjoumed at 135 p.m. rrn �RIGiNAL Presented Referred To CouncilFile# p�. ��V3 Green Sheet # 110341 Committee Date a4 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 31, 2 2001, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Properiy Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 address: 4 Properry Appealed A epp Ilant 5 1888 Dorothea Avenue Joseph Weah 6 Decision: Appeal denied on Summary Abatement Order dated October 29, 2001. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Yeas Nays Absent Blakey �/ Coleman �. Harris �- Benanav ,j Reiter ,l Bostrom � LanhS' ✓ �( � O AUL, MINNESOTA Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayar for Submission to Council � 14 15 Adopted by Council: Date: `�,� _`Z �. � 16 ' 17 Adoption Ce ified by Council Secretary 18 By: �� �, � � _- . ..� . -. . � . 1 �. - �,/�. � .�p ��fJ �I����� 'ARTMEDf�lOFFICE/COUNGL ... . , DAiEWIMTED City Council Offices 10-31-2001 ffACT PERSON & PHONE Gerry Strathman, 266-8560 _■ K ee «a couNCa nc�n sv mnrq - wuraFn Fox ROUTING ORDER TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET ot -►t�3 N� 110341 u �,,,�,�,*� u �„�— ❑ crtrwnon�r � arcncxrt ❑sruxcw.amuicESOw. ❑wnxauumnnxcrc � WYORI�A994llflff) ❑ (CLIP ALL IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Approving the October 31, 2001, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on a Property Code Enforcement Appeal for 1888 Dorothea Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RSONALSERVICE WNiRpCfS MUSTANSWERTHE FOLLOWING QUESiIONS: Has this perso�rm e�er xrorked under a contract for Nis tlepartmentl VES NO Has Mis peisoNfirm ever been a cily empbyee? YES NO Dces this persoNfirm possess a sldll not normallypossessetl by any curtmt city employee? YES NO Is this person/firm a targeted ventloYt � YES NO Cou�� ��s�a�ch Csnt2r �C3 � �. AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION C0.4T/REVENUE BUDGETED (CU2CLE ONE) ACTNIN NUMBER VES NO MFORMATION (EJPWN) ti � CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE DIVISION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT Room 190, City Hall 15 W. Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55102 �olinlol . Insg� tio� J�atg / �o( `/ U Date Ma'led Mailed y blall�� SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDER TO: � � r I�gg n ar Q_sf � (, �.� . �-• s� < < 6, G��_ ! ��-.�.— � b 3 S 'ke� c� � G�c �. . � .S � ti io . �--.-�--��.;... d--�-.. �-�- �.-�..�a �, As owner or person(s) responsible for: L+ b you are hereby ordered to eliminate alI r Legislative Code. � ��� .■J n � �i�4 w cs.� ►1. conditions which are in violation of Chapter 45 of Saint Paul Remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse including: garbage, rubbish, discarded furniture, appliances, vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recyc�ing materials, household items, building materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc., from yard areas. Cufand remove talt grass, weeds and rank plant Remove and properly dispose of all animal feces from yard areas. IMMEDIATELY secure all buildings which are open to unauthorized entry, including: Other• ��'"�'P /LS�.''Q C�`'S29 c.� '�-c�''"` �� A�--r�..a ��sti,�.v� c J.� • .� cx..�S2 "C� .9 �Ccr.r-� �, i b 5 �A-�"-'-�-.-� —�'�.� • � �,..«. �oi3�1 crl � If you do not coirect the nuisance or file an appeal before � �� G i�.�"`� , , the Ciry will correct the nuisance and charge all cosu, including boarding cosu, againsc :he property as a special assessment to be collected in the same way as property taxes. Charees: If the City corrects the nuisance, the charges will include the cost of correction, inspection, �avel time, equipment, etc. The rate will be approximately $225.00 per hour plus expenses for abatement. You must maintain the premises in a clean condition and - provide proper and adequate refuse storage at all times FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN A CRIMINAL CITATION Issued by: , Badge Number 3 e h Phone Number (651) 2�° S� 6q � If you have any questions about this order, the requirements or the deadline, you should contact the Inspector listed above, Monday through Friday. Anneals: You may appeal this order and abtain a 6earing before the City Council by filing a written request with the City Clerk befare the appeal deadline noted above or seven (7) days after the date mailed, whichever comes first No appeals may be filed aRer that date. You may obtain an applica[ion Crom the City Cierk's Otfice, Room 170, City Halt, St. Paul, MN 55102. The telephone number is (651) 266-8989. You must submit a copy of this Summary Abatemen[ Order with your appiication. Revised 4/2001 v\-��b3 Z4. NOT'ES OF 'IT� SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEN'1' MEETING VJednesday, October 31, 2001 Room 330 Courthouse Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer STAFF PRESEN'I': Fred Owusu, City Clerk and D'uector of Citizen Service Office The meeting was called to order at 1:40 a.m. 1888 Dorothea Avenue Gerry Sirathman stated this meeting is being held to heaz an appeal on a summary abatement order to Georgia Dietz. This has to do with an order insiructing her to remove all of her temporary election signs in Saint Paul tUat exceed 16 square feet. The following appeazed: Georgia Dietz, appellant; Kenneth Udoibok, representing Ms. Dietz, 2469 University Avenue West; and Jessica McKiimey, representing Ms. Dietz, 2469 University Avenue West, attorney. Mr. Udoibok stated the ordinance is unconstitutional. The enforcement of the ordinance is in violation of the 1 st and 4th amendment rights of Ms. Dietz because it is content based enforcement. Bob Cazdinal, 2497 Adele Sireet, Maplewood, appeazed and stated he is the Mayor of Maplewood. He had the same size sign as Ms. Dietz. Mr. Stratlunan asked have any of his signs been up in Saint Paul. Mr. Cazdinal responded no. Mr. Strathman asked is there an ordinance in Maplewood similaz to Saint Paul's ardinance. Mr. Cardinal responded he does not know. Terrance Cu11en, 1815 Pinehurst Avenue, appeared and stated he lives on the corner of Pinehurst and Fauview. He had one of the larger lawn signs in his yard. He checked the line of sight so that there are no accidents because of the sign. Whenever anyone has called him about a vision problem because of his lawn sign, he has moved it. His sign is the same size as the Ciresi sign in his neighbor's yazd last yeaz. He talked to the owner of that properry, and that owner said that she had received a visit from the police, who told her the sign was too close to the curb. That neighbor set it fiirther back from the sidewalk. Mr. Strathman stated Section 30.5 of the Legislative Code reads as follows: "Nothing in tYus chapter shall be construed as applicable during those years in which statewide general elections aze held. This chapter sha11 be applicable in those years in which elections for municipal office aze held.° That provision esplains, stated Mr. Strathman, why the signs were not objectionable under the ordinance last year. a� ��.�3 PROPERTI' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 2 Marvin Wolf, 1907 Dorothea Avenue, appeazed and stated he cannot see a distincrion between state elections and municipal elecrions. This whole issue today has political undertones to it. Ms. Dietz has a good message, and some school board members are afraid of it. If Mr. Ciresi can have a 4 feet by 8 feet sign, then Ms. Dietz can bave the same size sign. Ordinances are written by people who have a particulaz interest. He has an interest in this ordinance, stated Mr. Wolf, and he would like to see it rescinded. All these restrictions should apply evenly. The complaint was probably brought by someone opposing Ms. Dietz. Mr. Strathman stated this ordinance was passed in 1988. There aze vehicles to get ordinances appealed. The City Council can appeal it. Also, it may be appealed through a more cuxnbersome process of citizen iniriative. Ms. Udoibok stated they may seek an injunction if they feel Mr. Strathman's opinion is unfavorable. There is no reason that there should be a distinction among Michael Ciresi, anyone in a state election, and Ms. Dietz. They intend to enforce what they feel to be the constitution of the law by getting the ordinance reversed or rescinded. You don't think the ordinance is content neutral, asked Mr. Strathman. Mr. Udoibok responded the enforcement cannot be content neutral. He has done, albeit limited, research to see where this same ordinance has been enforced on nonrepublicans. Also, why would a dentist, lawyer, or architect be allowed 50 feet to express his or her views and a school boazd member cannot, asked Mr. Udoibok. The City may not haue intended to control or legislate free speech, but they have done so. Mr. Strathman asked is he trying to draw a connection among election signs, business signs, and advertising signs. Mr. Udoibok responded political speech is subject to strict scrutiny. Mr. Wolf asked what is the specific wording of the ordinance pertaining to the size. NIr. Strathman read Section 30.03, which is as follows: "No temporary election sign may exceed sixteen (16) square feet on any side nar be designed to have more than two (2) sides. Further, the aggregate azea of temporary elecfion signs shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet on any single lot of land as platted." Eileen Corry, 535 Hoyt Avenue East, appeared and stated she has been an election judge for 25 years. If it is okay for a large election in na6onal elecrions, then it should be okay in City elections. If it is okay in Maplewood, then it should be okay in Saint Paul. She has never heazd of this law. Ms. McKiuney stated a lot of people have a question about the purpose behind this municipal ordinance and why there is a distinction between municipal elections and general elections. It is cleaz that the intent from Section 30.1 is beautification standazds. There was an issue raised during the enactment of the ordinance that the lazger signs were created out of cardboard material and would disintegrate over time causing litter problems and would be distracting to motorists. O� �\ t�3 PROPERT'I' CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 3 If those aze the rationale, then the general election candidates should not be able to display signs of that size. Signs aze no longer made out of the same materials as 1988. They do not disintegrate over time. The zoning codes show that some districts have codes that allow people to display any type of sign up to 32 square feet. Mr. Strathman asked is she referring to special sign districts. Ms. McKnuiey responded yes. The justification behind the ordinance is weak. It strengthens the azgument of those who aze here today on behalf of Ms. Dietz. The rationale is content based and not beautification based. John L. Oneill, Jr., 1141 Dale Street North, appeazed and asked if he purchased a sign, would the ordinance apply to him. The ordinance from 1988 should be declazed unconstitutional. Also, he is uptight over the charge of $250 to remove the sign. Mr. Strathman responded there aze other ordinances that regulate placing signs generally. There aze regulations on bnsiness and advertising signs. Business signs aze about a business on the property, and advertising signs aze about a business that is not on that properry. Mr. O'Neill stated there is a gray area here, but a company that makes signs should be knowledgeable of that ordinance. Candidates may not lrnow. Mr. Strathxnan responded that sign makers may not lrnow the rules because the rules vary from city to city. Also, there is a limit of the total number of election signs a person can put in their yazd. The limit is 80 square feet. Jane Nelson, 231 Isabel Street West, appeared and stated she was a city plaiming commissioner in the 19'70's when the original sign ordinance was adopted. The campaign ordinance was an addition to that. She is also a former newspaper editor and journalist. She has a deep appreciation for the importance of &ee speech. There is no justification to discriminate against a candidate for school boazd with respect to free speech and other candidates for political office. The school board is a independendy elected board. It is not controlled by the City Council. Ms. Dietz's signs are not outlandish, damaged, broken. They do not contain offensive remazks or images. Ms. Nelson considers the sign on her properry to be a expression of speech. She was offended when she heazd that police officers have been told to remove this expression of speech when there are other things they could be doing instead. Cindy Hilborn, treasurer for Ms. Dietz, 1635 Niles Avenue, appeared. She asked would there be a problem if the signs aze cut in half and displayed. Mr. Strathman responded he would think not because then it would be 16 feet. Mr. Strathman stated he would like to be clear about his role here. The order that was issued is a notice to Ms. Dietz that she is in violation of the City ordinance and instrucYs her to remove the signs. In most cases, a person sees a notice and then corrects the problem. When an order like this is issued, the City Council long ago recoa i'ed that the enforcement officers can make mistakes and there should be an arena where people can ha�e an opportunity to go to an independent body to ensure the enforcement officer has acted correctly under the code. Mr. Strathman stated it is not his role to deteiinine whether the code is correct, wise, legal, ar constitutional. He asked Mr. Owusu why he felt it was necessary to issue this order. o� t�.1�3 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 4 Fred Owusu reported last Friday he received a compliant about the size of Georgia Dietz's campaign signs. The complaivant, who wished to remain anonymous, cited the chapter and section of the code. It is Mr. Owusu's job to investigate and enforce the code. This is the first time he received a complaint of this nature that he had to actually enforce. He received complaints last yeaz, but he reminded callers that the ordinance is only in effect when there are no statewide elections. In today's instance, it is enforceable because it is a municipal election. He has received up to 25 complaints. He had his program manager Mike Morehead (Code Enforcement) investigate, and he brought Mr. Owusu one of the signs. The sign cleazly exceeds the requirements. He wrote Ms. Dietz and Ms. Hilborn a letter asking them to remove the signs. Betty Copeland, 612 Cook Avenue East, appeazed and stated she finds this issue ridiculous. The main reason for this complaint is freedom of speech. On the top of the Ms. Dietz's campaign signs reads "God Bless America." Ms. Copeland stated she does not see anything wrong with that. NIr. Owusu responded the complaints he received have been sirictly about the size of the sign. This issue is not about religion, but about enforcing the code as it reads. Mr. Udoibok stated the complaints remain anonymous, and they will not lrnow how many complaints were received. They cannot confront anyone that has a problem with the sign. He recommends that the signs remain in place until after the election. Mr. Owusu responded state law allows people to call govemment and report thiugs anonymously. Mr. Strathman added the City is prohibited by State law from disclosing the name of the complainants. Mr. Strathxnan stated the City has a couple of vehicles they use to ensure that ordinances aze complied with. Generally speaking, the City elects to do an abatement order, which is a nofice of the violation. If the owner does not voluntarily bring the issue into compliance, the City conducts a summary abatement, which means the City deals with the nuisance. There is a fee and it is billed to the property owner. The owner can contest that assessment. This is a civil process. Another mechanism far enforcing CiTy ord'mance is a criminal process. Violating most City ordinances contains in it some sort of criminal penalty. The City haue the authority to issue citations and pursue the violation as a criminal offense. Mr. Strathman has heard interesting testnnony this afternoon; however, it seems to go to the appropriateness and constitufionality of the ordinance. No one has argued that these signs don't e�st, that Ms. Dietz is not responsibie far them, nor that they are smaller than 16 square feet. There does not seem to be any dispute about the facts. Ms. Dietz is in violation of the ardinance, and Mr. Owusu has acted in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Strathman will recommend to the City Council that this appeal be denied. The customary process for recommendations he makes is that they aze referred to the City Council far approval. The next time the City Council meets to review his decisions is ne� Wednesday, November 7, at which point the matter becomes moot because that will be after the election. There may be mechanisms used to accelerate the process, but he doubts they will be used. The City may pursue a criminal action by issuing a citation. That action will go to the courts. a� �\�03 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT' NOTES OF OCTOBER 31, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Udoibok stated he spoke with a police officer who implied that Mr. Udoibok should be ready with his motion for a restr ��a order because the officer thought the hearing officer would deny the appeal. At the conclusion of this hearing, this o�cer was going to make a call to the police so the signs would be removed. Mr. Owusu responded when someone brings an appeal before Mr. Stratlunau, they await approval of this action from the City Council. If the police deparhnent issues citations and the City Attorney elects to take those citations to court, stated Mr. Strathman, that is not precluded by what is going on here. Mr. Udoibok asked does that come out of Mr. Owusu's auspices. Mr. Owusu responded he has a commander in the police department that serves as program manager for his Code Enforcement division. This commander has the authoriTy to write criminal tags. Mr. Udoibok responded he can deal with the criminal issue if it comes. He just does not want the speech limited. Mr. Wolf stated the government functions according to the will of the people. Everyone is in favor of these signs. Mr. Strathrnan responded that is the will of the people present at this meeting. Gerry Strathman denied the appeal on the Summary Abatement Order dated October 29, 2001. The meeting was adjoumed at 135 p.m. rrn