Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'tJ ~. <br /> <br />. "J' <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 5/21/84 <br /> <br />AGENDA SECTION: <br />Ordinances and Resolutions <br /> <br />ORIGINATING DEPT./DIV,: <br />Administration <br /> <br /> <br />ITEM NO.: <br /> <br />F,I <br /> <br />ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposed ordinance repealing certain <br />sections of the City Code pertaining to the removal of <br /> <br />MGR. REVIEWED/ RECOMMENDS: <br /> <br /> <br />The Council, in July, 1981, adopted an ordinance requiring the removal of <br />advertising signs (billboards) from residential-zoned property by June 1, <br />1984, and from all other zoning districts by June 1, 1985. Billboards <br />along interstate highways were exempted because State Statutes required <br />just compensation if those billboards were required to be removed. <br /> <br />Earlier this year, the City Attorney was asked to review the City's legal <br />position before final notices were sent, reminding the billboard owners <br />of the removal date. Attached is a March 1 letter from the Attorney <br />indicating the 1983 legislature adopted an amendment to the Statutes <br />requiring that just compensation is applicable to all billboards, <br />regardless of proximity to the interstate highway system. The Attorney <br />states ,: "by reason of this amendment, our ordinance requiring a plwse-out <br />is nullified, and if the City chooses to enforce it, the City will be <br />required to pay just compensation through either negotiation or condemnation." <br /> <br />Also attached is a letter from the League of Cities Legislative counsel <br />indicating they were not aware of the change. Further, that the legislature <br />would be hesitant to reinsert the old language, allowing amortization or- <br />dinances to be enforced. This change in the law was apparently lobbied <br />for by the companies in the advertising sign business. <br /> <br />The City Attorney advises that payment of just compensation and its <br />accompanying legal fees could be very expensive. It is, therefore, <br />recommended that sections of the City Code requiring removal of advertising <br />signs be repealed. <br /> <br />Council Action Requested: Motion adopting ordinance repealing Sections 14.035 <br />thru 14.038 of the City Code pertaining to the re- <br />moval of advertising signs. <br />