04/18/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 4/18/2000 another suggested change which was never suggested before. So, consequently, a letter was written to the person who rejected it and to that person's boss. Every time we comply with what they want so that we can be in compliance, they change the rules. Consequently, we are going back to them again and suggesting that perhaps they ought to adopt a different format when these things are sent to them. Because, other than that, there is no doubt in his mind we could make a suggested change that they had proposed, they will sit on it for six months and send it back and have something else that they find wrong. That is just a bureaucratic morass. It seems like we are caught up in that. All we are trying to do is qualify for some federal grants in the area of fair housing, and they have been prohibiting us from doing it for four years. 3) A meeting was held in Judge Nugent's chambers regarding the Chamber of Commerce case. There are a couple of issues that were outstanding, one being the attorney fee issue, the other being the retaliation issue. Although an attempt was made to resolve all of these issues at one time, it was not possible to do so at that meeting. Judge Nugent set the matter for trial for May 18. All issues, presumably, at that time will be resolved. 4) Ordinance 2000-12, which has been amended again, is on the agenda. The Law Department has put untold numbers of hours into this legislation. They have worked both internally and with Mr. Zimmerman, have taken suggestions, have attended public hearings and have made more modifications, some of them being significant to the people who asked for them, others being somewhat insignificant. There have been questions that have been raised as late as today. He believes that the sign code is content neutral. The sign provisions deal across the board, so no one has an advantage over anyone else. All the members of Council in the last week have also received a copy of a memo that he wrote to the Mayor and Mr. Bohlmann relative to signage in the right-of--way. In the past, the city has placed banners across the right-of--way announcing anything from St. Clarence's festival to the Kiwanis pancake breakfast or fish fry or whatever. He does not believe we can do that anymore. We are prohibited. Also, he does not think we can use the sign board in front of City Hall for things other than city business. He has advised the administration that those practices must cease because, if not, the mode of expression using the public right-of--way is open to anyone for any reason at any time. He does not believe that it is the intent of this Council, particularly in light of the decision of Judge Nugent, to open up our right-of--way to all speakers for all subjects at all times. He does not believe we could ever adopt a policy that would be able to restrict any speaker from using that mode of expression. He has recommended that we cease using the right-of- way to advertise charitable and non-profit group activities. Councilman Gareau asked Law Director Gareau if his understanding was correct that the fair housing ordinance is voluntary. Although the city is not in compliance at this point in time, we are attempting to do this voluntarily and it is not a matter subject to penalty. Law Director Gareau said that was correct, it is strictly voluntary and we are not in violation of anything. The only purpose for it is to try to qualify for federal grants dealing with housing issues. 3