![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi_webp/jsxBT-hLaNc/mqdefault.webp)
►
From YouTube: City Council Work Session Meeting 12 04 2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Thanks
for
letting
us
come
and
talk
to,
you
been
talking
a
lot
about
city,
county
cooperation,
so
this
is
an
opportunity
and
I
think
we're
gonna
see
some
other
things
coming
down
the
pike.
But
this
is
one
thing:
that's
that's
already,
starting
in
the
works
right
now,
I'm
kind
of
a
messenger,
the
slides
I'm
going
to
show
you
are
from
the
unified
judicial
systems,
slides,
didn't
work
there,
weren't
websites
that
I
made
up
myself,
but
essentially
je
Dai
juvenile
detention,
alternative
initiative.
B
If
you
look
at
this
slide,
you
take
a
look
at
that
that
center
square
right
there,
where
it
says
the
purpose.
Whenever
you
have
an
offender,
the
risk
is,
when
you
decide
whether
or
not
you're
going
to
detain
somebody
that
risk
is
zero
risk
to
public
safety,
or
is
there
risk
that
they're
going
to
show
up
for
the
court
date?
B
And
so
the
same
thing
obviously
applies
to
juvenile
offenders,
and
so
the
goal
of
je
Dai
is
to
find
ways
to
minimize
detention
from
the
way
it
sounds:
detention,
alternatives,
boss,
still
doing
that
doing
the
addressing
the
issues
of
Public
Safety
and
reducing
the
the
danger
that
somebody
wouldn't
appear
in
court
or
for
their
court
proceedings
and
so
and
the
idea
there
just
so
people
know
juvenile
them
of
juvenile.
The
juvenile
population
is
not
a
big
problem
for
a
jail.
So
that's
not
really
the
issue.
B
We
have
a
population
overall
as
a
problem,
but
the
juvenile
population
is
not
a
big
problem
for
our
county
jail.
However,
if
we
look
at
the
top
square
there,
this
top
rectangle,
which
says
talks
about
vision.
The
idea
is
that
we
don't
want
juvenile
offenders
to
become
adult
offenders
someday.
So
this
is
really
kind
of
a
long-term
vision
in
terms
of
the
the
conversation
in
the
county
has
been
about
to
jail.
B
B
So,
even
if
you,
if
you
got
arrested
as
a
juvenile
or
Eve
you,
you
knew
you
did
something
that
was
a
criminal
offense.
The
likelihood
that
you
became
a
criminal
for
life,
it's
pretty
low,
so
dis
chiming
attention,
and
this
is
and
again
I'm
kind
of
a
novice
I'm,
a
layman
telling
you
these
things
that
I've
learned
over
the
past
few
months
about
the
criminal
justice
system
and
and
juveniles
involved
in
it.
This
slide
simply
shows
the
process,
so
the
the
youth
behavior
somebody
does
something
foolish.
B
So
that
means
you
need
to
find
an
alternative,
and
so
that's
kind
of
that's
been
basically
directed
to
counties,
and
so
the
juvenile
detention
alternative
initiative
is
something
that
the
UJS
is
helping
us
through
as
counties
and
it's
communities
really
so
that
we
can
come
up
with
solutions
that
are
alternative
to
detention.
Since
we're
not
supposed
to
be
detaining
juveniles
in
general
or
avoiding
it.
As.
C
B
We
can
okay
just
to
give
you
some
statistics
of
what
what
it
looks
like
in
Coddington
County.
These
are
statistics
that
UJS
the
unified
judicial
system
put
together
from
the
past
two
years,
so
from
July
15th
to
July
17,
and
you
can
see
mostly
the
arrests
come
from
Watertown,
that's
understandable,
because
Watertown
was
the
city
in
the
county,
but
it
points
to
the
fact
that
this
has
to
be
really
a
community
effort.
B
The
county
is
simply
kind
of
the
coordinator
of
it
because
we're
responsible
for
the
jail
and
we
support
the
court
system,
and
so
it's
really
a
partnership,
I
guess
kind
of
coordinating
it
between
the
UJS
and
the
county,
but
really
it's
community
involvement
and
then
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
what
kinds
of
offenses.
In
case
you're
wondering
you
take
a
look
at
those.
D
Just
so
the
Ray
that
he's
talking
about
as
a
standardized
instrument
that
intake
centers
can
ascertain
information
about
the
juvenile.
Are
they
on
probation
for
something
else?
Do
they
have
multiple
pending
files?
What
is
the
offense
that
they're
being
brought
in
on?
Is
that?
Would
that
be
a
felony
in
adult
court?
D
Would
that
be
a
misdemeanor
and
each
of
those
things
gets
a
numerical
score
and
then,
when
you
add
up
those
scores
as
part
of
this
instrument,
the
the
instrument
itself
tells
you
what
you
should
do,
and
so,
if
the
score
is
a
low
score,
they
should
be
released
to
their
parents.
If
the
score
is
a
medium
score,
you
might
want
to
look
at
alternatives
and
that's
kind
of
what
je
Dai
is
gonna
be
about
and
what
we're
going
to
be
working
on
and
then
for
very
high
scores.
D
B
This
is
the
results
that
judge
means
just
or
the
the
RAI.
That
judge
means
yes
spoke
of.
This
is
the
the
the
data,
the
resultant
data
from
two
years
worth
of
those
applying
that
risk
assessment
instrument,
and
you
can
see
the
majority
of
folks
of
juveniles,
just
as
indicated
by
the
score
on
the
risk
assessment
instrument
should
be
released,
and
then
you
can
see
the
numbers
there,
twenty
three
four
something
in
between
and
then
22
detained,
but
what
really
happens
because,
but
the
lack
of
alternatives
right
now
is
that's.
B
What
actually
has
has
happened
over
the
past
two
years,
and
so
just
to
give
you
an
idea
that
that
that
those
two
slights
kind
of
show
the
need
for
those
alternatives
and
that's
exactly
what
J
Dai
is
trying
to
address
some
of
the
some
of
the
things
you
might
be
wondering
like.
What
are
you
talking
about
yeah?
Either
you
can
release
somewhere,
you
can
put
them
in
jail.
B
Yeah,
so
what
we're
working
on
now
is
a
memorandum
of
understanding
so
that
we
can
work
as
a
committee,
we've
begun
meeting
informally
with
all
the
entities
that
you
can
see
see
up
there
in
that
first
paragraph
and
right
now
we're
in
in
draft.
So
the
purpose
of
this
discussion
is
simply
to
get
you
familiar
with
the
issue.
So
you
understand
that
we're
talking
about
it.
We
as
the
county
have
not
formally
approved
this
this
memorandum
yet,
but
it's
a
it's
a
pretty
straightforward
thing,
but
the
goal
would
be
that
we
we
get
together.
B
We
apply
these
principles,
we
map
out
all
the
community
resources,
so
the
obvious
and
in
addition
to
the
city,
the
county,
the
court
system
that
would
need
to
be
involved.
Obviously
the
police
department,
Sheriff
jail
and
some
of
the
agencies
that
might
be
providing
alternatives
like
HSA,
LSS,
the
School
of
Boys
and
Girls
Club
and
any
and
over
time,
I
think
we'll
probably
uncover
some
more
nonprofit
agencies
that
that
seek
to
help
juveniles
that
might
be
having
having
trouble.
So
with
that
like
to
answer
any
questions
or
attempt
to
anyway.
So.
B
The
purpose
is
essentially
that
that
first
slide
so
the
idea
of
being
we
want
to
find
alternatives
so
that
we
can
avoid
unnecessary
detention
while
minimizing
the
risk
to
public
safety
and
minimizing
the
risk
that
a
juvenile
offender
is
going
to
avoid
their
court
proceedings
or
minimizing
the
failure
to
appear
the
authority
that
the
committee
would
have
would
essentially
be
to
coordinate
solutions,
map
out
solutions,
and
when
you
have
to
ask
say
a
parent
agency
for
money.
Well,
then
it
would
just
be
an
advisory
or
recommending
role,
and
then
we
keep
it.
B
Just
the
the
the
memorandum
is
amendable,
you
know,
keep
it
going
as
long
as
we
need
to
I
would
imagine
this
would
go
on
indefinitely
the
strategies.
Basically,
the
idea
there
is
simply
to
collaborate
as
much.
You
can
map
out
all
the
things
that
we
have
figure
out
a
system
within
the
community
where
we
can
provide
alternatives
for
juvenile
offenders,
use
a
lot
of
data
and
by
the
way,
one
of
the
one
of
the
nice
things
about
this
with
you
UJ
s
kind
of
pushing
communities
to
do
this
is
that
we
we
get
a
consultant.
B
The
state
has
a
consultant,
they
have
the
her
name
is
Angie
calling-
and
she
couldn't
be
here
tonight-
she's
she's
in
another
community,
but
she's
she's
based
here
in
Watertown,
so
that's
kind
of
convenient
for
us,
but
she
can
help
us
with
all
the
the
studies
and
the
data
gathering
and
assembling
that
as
we
go
through
it
and
then
that
third
bullet
down
making
use
of
objective
instruments.
So
the
risk
assessment
instrument
to
guide
detention
decisions
so
make
it
as
objective
as
possible
and
then
establishing
that
community
continuum
of
non
secure
detention,
alternatives.
B
B
Let
you
to
have
you
sign
it
yeah
and
then
the
other
thing
is
we've
already
informally,
we've
had
the
school
resource
officers
from
the
police
department
have
been
taking
part
in
the
meetings,
so
so
chief
Nick
beaks
been
very
supportive
of
this
effort.
So
right
now
it's
it's
kind
of
putting
our
heads
together,
figuring
out
solutions.
I
think
we
can
probably
do
this,
especially
since
we're
getting
a
lot
of
the
consulting
from
the
state.
You
know
it's
kind
of
part
of
the
program
that
that
UGS
is
funding
right
now
there
may
be.
B
B
D
E
B
Would
be
in
financing
I
think
they
answer
from
somebody
that
works.
You
know
what
kind
of
kind
of
one
of
the
people
that
that's
working
in
this
area
would
be
number
one.
It's
the
right
thing
to
do.
You
know
you
want
to
avoid
creating
adult
offenders
from
juvenile
offenders
and,
generally
speaking,
incarceration,
particularly
juvenile
incarceration
is
pretty
expensive.
So,
though,
that's
upwards,
it's
over
two
hundred
dollars
a
day,
some
the
counties
like
Minnehaha
that
have
a
more
full
up.
D
I
can
tell
you,
there's
two
pilot
sites
that
have
been
already
been
working
on:
JD
AI
for
a
number
of
years,
Minnehaha
and
Pennington
County,
and
for
those
counties
they
have
been
able
to
close
off
entire
wings
of
their
Detention
Center,
because
they've
seen
the
populations
decrease
and
the
numbers
decrease.
So
in
a
place
like
that,
you
can
then
reallocate
those
resources
to
alternatives.
We
may
not
be
that
I
guess,
cursed
or
blessed
depending
on
how
you
look
at
it.
D
But
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
we
also,
then
won't
have
to
spend,
spend
a
lot
or
find
a
lot
of
resources,
because
we're
really
only
talking
about
22
to
23
youth
for
a
period
of
a
year,
so
we
don't
have
to
come
up
with
huge
resources.
We
just
have
to
come
up
with
some
alternatives
and
that's
what
we're
working
on
and.
B
B
So
mayor,
if
that's
okay,
we'll
probably
come
back
to
you
know
within
a
month
or
so
with
asking
you
to
approve
this,
we're
gonna
do
the
same
in
the
county
as
well
as
some
of
the
other
agencies
that
are
at
the
bottom
of
that
memorandum
and
then
just
just
to
kind
of
put
a
bug
in
your
ear.
We
have
a
similar
effort
going
on
in
the
mental
health
mental
illness
in
the
jail
that
you
probably
heard
about.
B
That's
been
a
working
group,
that's
been
going
on
for
over
a
year,
but
very
informally,
so
adding
some
structure
to
it,
we're
probably
looking
at
an
MoU
or
a
charter
for
that
as
well,
and
the
police
department's
been
involved
with
that.
So
that's
been
the
city
representation
on
that
one,
but
that's
just
a
bug
in
your
ear
right
now.
So
thank.
A
Okay,
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
temporary
signs
as
free
speech,
presentation
by
first
District,
Association
of
local
governments
and
I,
see
Luke
Muller's
here
I
knew
there
was
court
case
out
there,
where
a
city
was
sued
and
lost
for
doing
something
similar
to
what
we're
thinking
about
doing
here
and
so
I
asked
Luke.
If
he
would
give
this
presentation
actually
didn't
realize
that
it
was
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States.
A
G
You
mayor
thanks
for
chance
to
come
in
and
speak
to.
You
said
Luke
Muller
here
with
first
District
Association
of
Governments.
You
can
see
I
wear
a
few
hats
out
of
that
office,
but
one
of
them
I,
don't
wear
is
that
of
an
attorney
I'm,
not
an
attorney
I'm,
not
here,
to
give
you
any
legal
advice,
don't
take
it
that
way.
G
What
I'm
doing
is
giving
you
information,
that's
based
off
of
through
trade
magazines,
as
well
as
planners
Association,
as
which
I'm
the
president
of
South
Dakota
planners
Association
I've,
given
presentations
based
on
my
own
understanding
of
this,
which
has
been
gleaned
from
other
attorneys
as
well
as
this
is
a
combination
of
my
presentation
as
well
as
one
from
the
past
president
of
the
South
Dakota
planners
Association,
immediately
outgoing.
She
gave
the
presentation,
along
with
Sioux
Falls,
'as
a
city
planner
at
the
Municipal
League
conference
this
year
as
well.
G
So
it's
a
combination
of
those
items,
we're
really
going
to
focus
on
the
idea
with
temporary
signs,
because
that
is
the
portion
of
that
decision.
That
was
really
settled
case
law,
there's
a
little
bit
more
open
that
I'm
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
with,
but
basically
overview
that
decision
as
it
relates
to
some
of
the
things
that
are
in
front
of
you
today
and
then
just
kind
of
try
to
help
you
navigate
through
that
as
far
as
some
of
them
may
be
best
practices
or
just
ways
to
look
at
your
ordinance.
G
This
really
isn't
meant
to
be
any
sort
of
any
sort
of
a
speaking
negative
about
any
type
of
sign,
in
particular
as
long
as
it's
not
regulating
the
content
of
the
signs,
the
basically.
This
is
going
to
be
about
as
subtle
as
a
sledgehammer
we're
going
to
go
over
about
the
same
thing
several
times
here,
but
leading
up
to
the
decision
that
was
referenced.
The
and
it
was
a
decision
out
of
Gilbert
Arizona
and
I'll
talk
about
it
in
a
little
bit
leading
up
to
that
a
lot
of
Supreme
Court
and
in
federal
court
decisions.
G
Supreme
Court's
upheld
sign
codes,
largely
especially
where
they
relate
to
safety,
they've,
even
upheld
aesthetics
things
as
far
as
they
look
nice
and
codes.
As
long
as
that,
as
long
as
those
aesthetics
serve
a
compelling
government
interest
of
some
sort,
I'll
talk
about
what
that
means.
In
a
little
bit,
lower
courts
have
been
a
little
less
apt
to
uphold
a
code
that
was
heavily
based
on
aesthetics.
That's
where
a
lot
of
those
have
made
their
way
up
to
the
National
Supreme
Court.
G
However,
courts
at
all
levels
do
scrutinize
any
exemptions
that
are
in
reference
to
the
sign
code.
So
the
more
exemptions
you
have
in
your
sign
code,
the
weaker
it
is
that's
just
generally
the
way
that
it's
been
looked
at
and
then
finally
content-based
regulations.
Anything
that
that
is
based
upon
what's
on
the
sign
itself
makes
it
very
difficult
to
enforce.
G
So
we've
got
a
narrowly
tailored
rule
that
says
that
we
can
allow
a
stop
sign
that
intersection
to
keep
people
from
turning
out
and
oncoming
traffic.
That's
a
narrowly
tailored
solution
to
a
compelling
government
interest
in
the
case
of
Gilbert
Arizona.
What
they
had
is
they
had
a
sign
code.
They
had
23
different
exemptions
to
their
sign
code,
which
seems
like
a
lot
when
you,
except
for
when
you
consider
Watertown,
has
20.
So
the
fact
is
is
that
it's
very
similar
the
ideologic
signs.
G
These
are
just
a
couple
of
them
that
applied
in
back
case
the
ideologic
signs,
reference,
20
square
feet
and
all
zoning
districts.
They
had
political
signs
much
like
this
community
has.
They
were
separate
sizes
depending
on
the
zoning
district,
and
then
they
had
temporary
directional
signs,
and
this
is
really
where
the
rubber
met.
The
road
was
the
fact
that
there
was
a
church
that
would
have
rotational
places
for
their
services,
but
the
regulation
said
that
they
could
only
place
signs
12
hours
in
event,
12
hours
in
advance
of
an
event.
G
So
if
their
church
services
at
9
o'clock
in
the
morning,
imagine
how
much
good
it's
going
to
do
to
put
the
sign
up
at
9
o'clock
at
night,
directing
people
to
the
new
location.
So
the
church
said
no
we're
going
to
put
them
somewhere
else,
because
we
see
signs
plastered
all
over
town,
so
we're
gonna
do
the
same
thing.
So
they
did
and
then
the
city
went
and
took
him
out,
and
then
they
took
him
to
court
and
went
to
a
lower
level
court
federal
court,
ultimately
to
the
Supreme
Court.
G
And
that's
where
that
comment
in
that
decision
of
the
compelling
Garman
interest
and
aesthetics
and
traffic
and
safety
and
the
Supreme
Court
said
it
fails
those
tests,
their
regulations
failed.
Those
tests
because
it
depended
on
who
was
making
who
was
advertising
on
those
that
those
exemptions
were
different
based
on
what
the
message
was.
So
again,
it
failed
on
the
compelling
government
interest
and
it
failed
to
regulate
narrowly
toward
the
government
interest.
2
points,
they're
gonna
say
the
same
thing
on
these
next
two
slides
judge,
Clarence
Thomas.
You
can
see
his
quote.
G
That
indicates
content-based
laws
which
are
those
at
target
speech
based
on
its
communicative
content,
are
presumptively
unconstitutional
and
may
be
justified
only
if
the
government
proves
that
they
are
narrowly
tailored
to
serve
the
compelling
state
interest
and
so
bottom
line
the
harsh
tests.
The
government
regulation
of
speech
is
what
it
was
looked
at
and
the
topic
discussed
here.
The
idea
of
the
message
about
the
specific
event
really
isn't
something
you
can
look
at
said
in
another
way.
G
Basically,
Supreme
Court
ruled
against
the
city
ruled
that
the
message
itself
was
subject
to
or
based
on
what
was
being
said,
or
the
sign
regulation
was
based
on
what
was
being
said
on
the
sign,
the
laws
that
can't
be
justified
without
reference
to
the
content,
regulate
a
speech.
What's
that
mean,
basically,
if
you
have
to
read
the
sign
and
I'm
gonna
say
this
again:
if
you
have
to
read
the
sign
to
regulate
it,
it's
not
gonna
meet
the
subject
of
scrutiny
is
what
it
is,
what
they're
getting
at.
G
If
someone
was
having
a
book
club
meeting
to
discuss,
one
of
John
Locke's
works,
they'd
have
to
fall
under
the
short
time
frame
meeting
that
they
were
going
to
have
a
they're
going
to
have
a
book
club
meeting
at
this
house
on
this
day.
They'd
have
that
12
hour
provision,
if
they're
going
to
advertise
a
political
candidate
that
was
running
under
the
under
with
a
quote
under
John
Locke's
ideals,
he
would
fall
under
the
political
sign
portion
if
there
was
just
something
that
said,
fill
in
the
blank
John
Locke
said
and
put
that
on.
G
That
would
also
be
different.
That
would
be
more
like
a
political
ideal,
billboard
kind
of
like
the
right
to
life
science.
So
again,
depending
on
what
was
being
said
there
regulating
it
differently,
all
three
be
treated
differently
by
their
ordnance
and
for
what
it's
worth
they'd,
be
different
treated
differently
by
the
city
of
water
towns,
ordinance
I,
know,
that's
not
what's
being
discussed,
but
it's
some.
You
want
to
keep
in
mind.
G
So
what
can
be
regulated?
It's
three
things:
it's
the
time
how
long
they're
up
where
they're
located
and
the
manner
which
means
type
of
materials
how
big
they
are
lighting.
Are
they
LED?
Are
they
backlit
those
sorts
of
things
sign
codes,
as
I
said,
can't
regulate
based
upon
content,
particularly
in
the
temporary
science?
G
So
our
regulations,
basically,
as
I,
said
before,
if
you've
got
to
read
the
sign,
to
determine
what
hole
it
fits
into
then
based
on
what's
been
said.
In
other
cases,
it's
likely
unconstitutional.
In
other
words,
our
regulations
have
to
assume
that
a
sign
looks
like
that.
It's
a
blank,
we're
regulating
blank
signs,
that's
the
bottom
line.
So
how
do
we
do
that?
Well,
we
all
know
that
we've
got
political
sign
exemptions,
we've
got
real
estate
signs
and
directional
signs
construction
signs,
you're,
not
the
only
community
that
has
this.
G
G
You've
already
done
that
you've
got
that
in
your
code.
Already,
you
basically
have
to
take
that
out
as
a
political
sign
at
the
end
of
this
I'm
going
to
explain
something,
though
that's
gonna
change
that
a
little
bit
with
real
estate
signs.
It's
the
same.
Why
what'd
they
do
instead
of
listening
as
real-estate
science.
Is
they
say
that
a
sign
may
be
put
on
a
property
while
it's
being
sold
or
while
something
on
the
property
is
being
sold?
G
You
may
have
to
identify
how
long
that
is,
but
also
the
size
of
the
signs,
those
sorts
of
things.
It's
it's
really
dealing
with
the
exemption
but
notice
in
here.
Nowhere
in
here
is
it
referencing
who's
advertising
or
what
it
is
the
same
thing
with
directional
signs.
You
might
treat
those
like
the
bank
signs
of
say
turn
in
here
or
something
like
that
again
treat
those
as
accessory
signs,
as
opposed
to
saying
that
they
are
a
directional
sign
for
this
business
and
the
same
thing
with
construction
signs
during
a
construction
project.
G
It's
more
about
during
something
you're
regulating
the
time
that
these
can
be
up,
not
what
it's
going
to
say,
but
notice
again,
as
I
said,
we're
not
talking
about
what's
on
them
now,
if,
during
an
election,
somebody
wants
to
put
a
sign
on
their
property,
it
says
it's
a
there's.
A
garage
sale
going
on
wall
knock
yourself
out,
we're
not
regulating.
What's
on
that
sign
we're
regulating
when
they
can
go
up
so
yeah,
it
does
open
the
door
for
things
that
are
different,
but
the
bottom
line
is
what
the
Supreme
Court
says.
G
Is
that
we're
really
not
allowed
to
regulate
it?
I'm
not
gonna
play
this
this
article.
That
was
on
the
news,
but
you
can
look
it
up
if
you
want,
but
basically,
if
you
could
regulate
if
the
city
of
Sioux
Falls
felt
as
if
they
could
regulate
the
content
of
signs,
I
assume
they
would
take
this
sign
down
her
order
removed
with
these.
G
With
these
letters
on
it,
it
was
it's
pretty
clear
what
the
intent
was,
especially
when
you
hear
the
backstory
of
this,
but
basically,
if
the
sign
literally,
is
not
vulgar
showing
something
and
it's
basically
going
to
have
to
go
to
a
nuisance,
to
take
it
down
and
that's
really
been
their
interpretation.
I
use
this
again.
This
comes
out
of
a
slide
out
of
the
Sioux
Falls
presentation.
That
was
their
example
and
and
Shawna
sends
her
regards
from
there.
G
G
You
determine
where
you're,
okay
with
signs
in
that
and
you've
done
this
as
a
community,
obviously
to
a
large
degree.
First
of
all
identify
why
you're
regulating
where
the
signs
are
for
safety
is
a
for
aesthetics.
Is
it
for
both?
Maybe
it's
a
combination,
somehow
figure
that
part
out
then
you're
going
to
determine
whether
the
timing,
size
or
other
factors
affect
that.
You
know
how
long
is
it
there?
Is
it
a
big
deal
if
it's
only
there
a
couple
of
days
versus
if
it's
there
forever?
G
G
Is
it
those
things
if
you
are
allowing,
and
specifically,
if
we're
talking
about
the
right
away,
if
you're
you
are
allowing
signs
on
the
right
away,
the
ordinance
is
only
allowed
from
my
understanding
of
the
Supreme
Court
case
to
address
the
time
and
the
placement
in
the
manner,
and
so
anything
that's
going
to
restrict
the
language
is
or
who
is
making
the
messages
is
going
to
be
something
that's
going
to
be
a
problem.
You
know
it
if
you
do
allow
signs
in
the
on
public
property
or
in
the
right
away.
G
The
suggestion
that
they've
got
is
the
same
indicate
where
you're,
okay,
with
the
signs
that
you
would
allow
in
a
right
away,
how
big
they
would
be
and
a
manner
in
which
you're
going
to
permit
them,
or
maybe
you
don't
even
permit
them
at
all,
but
basically
what
they're
getting
at
is
allow
signs,
don't
allow
signs,
don't
regulate
what
they
say
what
portion
of
it.
So
the
bottom
line
is
from
a
standpoint
of
recommendations.
I
I'd
come
through
that
feel
comfortable
about.
Is
it
with
any
ordinance?
That's
going
to
regulate
signs
there?
G
F
G
Well,
let's
go
back
to
the
one
slide:
I
had
there
there's
a
headache
to
it,
but
the
answer
is:
you
could
do
them
separately,
but
you're
gonna
want
to
take
out
the
terminology
of
the
political
sign
in
the
real-estate,
sign
the
directional
sign
and
on
a
property
and
let's
just
use
a
residential
district.
Okay
on
a
property
in
a
residential
district
during
election
season,
I
could
have
I
could
be
building
a
project
on
my
property.
I
could
be
making
an
addition
onto
my
house.
G
I
could
also
be
selling
my
house
and
I
could
be
advertising
for
a
candidate
honestly
today
you
could
do
that,
but
what
you
would
do
in
here
is
I
I
know
it
doesn't
do
any
good
for
me
to
cover
a
portion
on
my
screen,
but
the
point
is
in
here:
you
would
have
that
same
ability.
You
just
spell
out
the
instances
in
which
you're
allowing
them.
So
it's
really
the
same
as
what
you
said.
G
H
G
Could
but
again
it's
going
it's
not
going
to
be
for
the
sale
of
the
property
when
the
property
is
for
sale.
It's
not
going
to
limit
them.
They're
gonna
be
allowed.
Let's
say:
you're
gonna
allow
one
sign
on
the
property
when
you're
when
you're
selling
it
okay,
if
they
choose
I,
don't
know
why
they
do
this.
But
if
someone
would
choose
that,
you
know
what,
instead
of
having
a
real
estate
sign
in
my
yard,
while
I'm
selling
my
house
I'm
gonna,
put
a
sign
up
that
that
talks
about
I
the
street
is
in
bad
condition.
G
They
could
do
that.
It
wouldn't
have
anything
to
do
with
that.
I,
don't
know
why
they
do
it,
but
someone
could
do
that,
so
it
wouldn't
have
anything
to
do
with
it.
Wouldn't
have
to
have
anything
to
do
with
what's
happening
on
the
property
you
would
just
have
to
do
with
this
is
a
time
I
get
to
have.
Another
sign
is
what
that
would
be.
H
H
G
You
have
to
assume
that
the
sign
looks
like
it
looks
like
that.
Blank
screen,
I
showed
you
and
not
being
able
to
read
it.
I
mean
bottom
line,
is
you're
regulating
it
based
on
this
sign,
based
on
this
sign,
that's
on
the
wall
here,
where'd,
where
that
sign
is
when
it's
put
up
and
what
sort
of
materials
go
up
there.
Obviously
you
know
what
type
of
sign
this
is,
but
you
get
my
point
is
it
you
could
have
a
blank
sign.
G
F
E
G
G
Basically,
if
you
want
to
go
down
the
road
and
my
understanding
of
the
Supreme
Court
decision
is,
if
you
want
to
allow
some
signs
on
the
right
away,
that's
fine,
but
you're,
allowing
signs
on
the
right
away,
you're,
not
allowing
this
type
of
sign
or
that
type
of
sign,
and
if
you
put
it
in
in
the
manner
in
which
you're
and
frankly,
I
see
an
exemption
in
there.
Now
that
that
you
either
you
want
to
address
already
that
you
either
want
to
take
it
out
or
specify
more
about
the
size
and
time
placement
and
manner.
G
The
point
is
it
becomes
a
toehold
is
what
it
amounts
to.
Is
that
it's
it's
going
to
be
difficult
and
and
based
on
what
I
had
read
from
the
letter
that
was
submitted
to
the
to
the
City
Council,
as
well
as
the
information
I've
seen
in
other
trade
magazines
and
heard
out
other
places.
Basically,
if
you
write
a
regulation
that
allows
a
temporary
sign
on
the
right-of-way
for
one
purpose,
you
could
just
as
well
write
it
to
allow
it
for
all
other
purposes,
but.
H
Really,
isn't
it
safe
to
say
that
the
right-of-way
is
really
kind
of
up
it's
a
secondary
issue?
That's
just
the
placement
where
we
want
it
to
play,
go
yeah
it
is
it
whether
it's
on
their
property
or
in
the
right
away,
the
restrictions
or
the
allowances.
Whatever
you
want
to
call.
It
are
the
same
yes,
okay,
so
you're
really
content
is
out.
It's
do
you
want.
You
want
signs
in
the
right-of-way
or
not
and.
G
The
whole
right,
what's
your,
what
you're
dealing
with
and
what
you've
got
coming
before
you
today
is
going
to
be
a
question
of
placing
a
type
of
sign
in
the
right
away,
and
the
point
that
I'm
making
to
you
is
differentiating
between
what
type
of
sign
is
allowed
in
the
right-of-way
is
what
the
problem
is.
The
decision
of
whether
or
not
sign
should
be
allowed
in
the
right
away.
That's
a
community
decision!
G
That's
a
city
council
decision,
the
settled
case
law
is
that
you're
not
differentiating
between
who
gets
to
put
that
sign
out
there,
and
so,
even
though
the
way
it's
written
does
that's
not
what's
happening
in
that
case
and
and
it
reading
between
the
lines
I'm
expecting
that
you'd
probably
be
tested.
Eventually,
on
that.
A
So
is
it
safe
to
say
that
if
we
make
an
exemption
for
a
particular
type
of
sign
based
on
what
it
says
on
the
sign,
ie
realtor
sign
versus
not
realtor
sign
and
someone
that
wanted
to
put
a
not
realtor
sign
did
so
in
the
right
away
and
we
plucked
it
out
and
they
came
back
to
us.
We
would
be
defenseless
because
we
can't
regulate
signs
based
upon
what
what
they
say
on
them.
That's.
A
We
we
can
allow
signs
in
the
right
away
will
specify
where,
in
the
right-of-way,
how
long
what
size,
but
we
cannot
regulate
what
the
sign
says
on
it,
because
we
have
free
speech
in
this
country
and
that
would
be
regulating
free
speech.
If
we
say
you
cannot
say
contractor
you
who
may
only
say,
realtor,
that's
discrimination,
so
that's
not
constitutional.
We.
We
can't
look
at
the
sign
and
read
it
to
decide
whether
it's
legal
or
not.
A
We
have
to
be
able
to
tell
if
it's
legal
or
not
based
on
where
it
is
when
it
is
how
long
it's
been
there.
That
sort
of
thing.
That's
what
this
Reed
versus
Gilbert
case
established
the
church
wanted
to
put
a
sign,
but
it
wasn't
a
realtor
sign.
So
the
city
said
no
Church.
You
can't
put
your
sign
there.
You're,
not
a
realtor
sign
or
you're,
not
a
whatever.
They
do
allow
and
the
church
sued
the
city
and
won.
F
A
G
I
guess
I'd.
As
far
as
the
closing
of
my
my
statements
is
it's
a
long
winding
road
to
get
to
the
get
to
the
point
of
where,
where
it's
at
with
with
the
question
I
know
you're
faced
with
here,
and
that
that
the
problem
is
not
necessarily
with
allowing
them
in
the
right-of-way
or
not.
That's,
that's
a
sign
in
the
right
now.
G
I
G
Right,
basically,
I
mean
the
way
that
I
would
see
it
going
down.
Is
that
you
would
wind
up
having
those
types
of
periods,
those
periods
where
you
can
have
a
sign
on
the
property,
and
then
at
that
point
you
would
just
you
would
extend
that
out
to
where
on
the
right
away
you
would
allow
it
I
mean
that's,
probably
the
the
simplest
way
that
you
would
extend.
That
out.
Is
it
on
the
property.
G
H
G
H
I
don't
care
where
it
goes,
we're
not
there
yet,
but
let's
just
use
real
estate
science
as
an
example,
because
those
can
go
up
for
days
or
many
many
months.
So
we
can
have
language
as
it
relates
to
realtor
signs.
That
says,
as
long
as
the
properties
for
sale,
it's
allowable
and
instead
of
a
set
day
or
number
of
days,
you.
G
Could
do
not
you
could
do
both
you
could,
while,
while
the
property
is
for
sale
but
keep
in
mind,
I
mean
the
thing
that
I'll
say
again.
I'm
devil's
advocate
is
my
job.
My
property
is
always
for
sale,
but
I've
never
listed
it.
Someone
gives
me
enough
money,
I'll,
sell
it,
and
so
I
can
see
someone
arguing
that
so
I
mean
we.
We've
got
to
be
creative
when
we
write
our
ordinances
well,.
H
F
G
It
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
specify
what
it's
gonna
say
on
it,
and
that's
I
mean
obviously,
if
you're
trying
to
sell
your
your
house
and
you're
having
you
know
like
two
election
signs
up,
you're
kind
of
biting
your
nose
to
spite
your
face,
but
in
the
same
breath
that
might
be.
That
might
be
what
they
want
to
do.
When.
K
Excuse
me:
I,
read
them
regulating
their
free
speech
as
well.
If
we
say
that
they
can
have
two
signs,
what
if
it's
an
election
cycle
and
they're
Republican
and
they've
got
you
know
the
governor,
the
tenant
governor
or
any
of
the
any
of
the
Senate
plus
localized
as
well
I
mean
we're
telling
you
them.
If
we
have
three
signs
or
two
signs,
you
got
to
pick
up.
I
pick
a
person
and
put
on
there.
No.
G
A
It's
if
you
have
three
and
you
normally
have
a
for
sale
and
a
garage
sale
and
your
house
is
under
construction
and
then
there's
an
election.
We
are
gonna
have
to
give
up.
One
of
those
give
up
your
for
sale,
sign
to
put
a
political
sign.
It
doesn't
matter
what
the
sign
says.
You
can
have
three
signs,
so
you
can
have
one
time
whatever
we
decide
goes,
doesn't
matter
what
the
content
is,
you
can
have
five
signs,
doesn't
matter
if
they're,
identical
or
different,
or
that.
I
A
The
reason
this
came
up
is
because,
when
I
took
office,
I
said
I,
don't
like
favoritism
and
I,
don't
like
excess
regulations.
We
should
not
have
rules,
we
don't
intend
to
enforce.
We
enforce
our
regulations,
so
I
directed
staff
to
enforce
the
regulations
when
I
became
mayor
and
our
regulations
do
not
permit
signs
of
any
type
in
the
right-of-way.
So
we
started
enforcing
that
and
Realtors
have
been.
It
hasn't
been
written
in
our
ordinance
that
Realtors
signs
were
allowed
in
the
right-of-way.
A
We
just
have
not
enforced
that
and
that's
favoritism,
because
we
have
enforced
other
signs
not
being
allowed
to
be
put
in
the
right
away
and
I,
don't
have
anything
against
realtors
at
all.
I,
really,
don't
I'm!
It's
to
me!
It's
a
matter
of
fairness
and
if,
if
we
don't
have
the
stomach
to
enforce
no
signs
in
the
right-of-way,
then
let's
change
our
ordinance
and
allow
signs
in
the
right
way.
But
let's
do
it
in
such
a
way
that
we
won't
be
sued.
We
can't
be
discriminating
against
what
the
sign
says.
A
So
if
we
want
to
have
signs
in
the
right
away
how
many,
where
what
size,
what
time
period
those
are
things
we
can
regulate
legally
what
the
sign
says
on
it,
none
of
our
beeswax.
Unless
it's
obscene,
then
we
can
regulate
that.
But
in
fairness
to
one
who
might
want
to
put
a
sign
in
the
right-of-way,
we
either
allow
them
or
we
don't
uniformly
for
everyone.
A
Everyone
gets
the
same
rules,
and
if,
if
this
appears
to
be
unenforceable,
then
we
can,
we
won't
know
that
until
we
try
to
enforce
it,
I
don't
think
it's
unenforceable,
I
think
not
allowing
any
signs
in
the
right
way
is
entirely
enforceable
in
many
communities.
Do
it
whether
we
do
it
or
not,
is
up
to
the
council.
I
do
not
want
to
tell
my
staff
to
ignore
certain
signs
for
certain
people
and
enforce
on
others,
which
is
what
we
were
doing.
A
And
for
years,
I've
heard
about
court
cases,
I
just
I
didn't
realize
it
was
the
Supreme
Court.
That's
a
pretty
clear
precedent
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
coincidence
that
when
we
published
on
an
agenda
that
we
were
considering
a
sign
code
change
that
every
member
of
council
got
a
packet
from
a
lawyer
telling
us
about
sign
code
regulations
and
how
we
should
write
them,
there
are
opportunities
out
there
that
could
prey
upon
a
city
who
unknowingly
does
something
and
then
gets
sued.
So
they
want
to
protect
the
city.
J
H
Luke,
when
we
were
meeting
few
months
ago,
part
of
the
conversation
we
went
through
a
lot
of
this
at
the
time
about
the
Gilbert
decision
and
towards
the
end
of
that
or
some
meetings
later
it
was
brought
up
that
that
decision
was
in
question.
Is
this
the
end
result
of
that
that
you're
referring
to
here
or
is
it
still
in
question
and
being
looked
at
okay.
G
G
Question
of
off
premise
on
premise:
does
creep
into
the
the
question.
That's
out
there
remaining
on
off
premise
on
premises
that
the
reference
was
with.
Who
is
making
the
message?
You
can't
do
it
based
on
who's,
making
the
message
and
then
that's
where
the
gray
area
was
was
that
there
was
some
some
inclination
that
in
some
cases
you
could
argue
that
that
on
premise
off
premise
could
be
involved,
but
again
with
regard
to
temporary
signs.
That
was
not
something
that
was,
that
was
the
door.
I
H
G
E
K
C
Just
Kay
clarifying
part
of
our
discussion
when
we
went
through
the
sign
ordinance
and
all
that
the
primary
thing
is,
we
didn't
really
get
any
more
restrictive
on
how
many
signs
out
right
so
right
now
you
could
have
your
house
or
sale.
You
could
have
a
rougher
sign
in
your
yard
if
your
roofing
you'd
have
ten
political
signs
out
there
right
now.
Our
only
restriction
is
that
those
be
on
private
property
and
not
in
the
right
way.
Correct.
G
F
G
G
A
What
the
council
will
be
considering
is
an
exemption
to
allow
one
type
of
sign
based
upon
the
message
to
be
in
the
right-of-way,
which
I
feel
is
a
dangerous
step
to
take
because
of
the
Supreme
Court
ruling
that
you
can't
regulate
based
on
the
message.
So,
if
we
are
inclined
to
allow
signs
in
the
right-of-way,
we
should
be
allowing
any
kind
of
sign
in
the
right-of-way
and
regulate
how
many,
how
long,
what
size
right
we
shouldn't
be.
F
E
I'm
gonna
direct
this
question.
Your
way,
I'll
probably
ask
the
same
question
again
when
we
discussed
this
at
the
count's
beating
cuz
I
asked
the
same
question
two
weeks
ago:
okay
at
the
Planning
Commission,
the
Planning
Commission
did
not
vote
to
grant
the
exemption
for
the
real-estate
science.
Is
that
correct?
Okay?
So
tonight,
when
we
vote
on
that,
if
we
want
to
overturn
that,
we
will
need
a
two-thirds
vote
of
this
body
to
overturn
that
decisions.
We
would
need
seven
seven
votes
to
overturn
the
Planning
Commission
decision.
I
A
H
Do
have
a
couple
can
just
make
a
comment.
First
and
I
think
this
is
important.
I've
gotten
emails,
I've
gotten
phone
calls.
I've
had
I've
talked
to
people
back
to
the
sign
ordinance
thing
where
people
have
come
and
said:
don't
you
have
more
important
things
to
do
for
our
city
than
this
and
I?
Think?
What's
important
and
I
agree
with
you
Sarah
wholeheartedly
that
if
we're
gonna
have
ordinances,
let's
have
them
be
what
we
are
willing
to
enforce.
H
Otherwise
we
should
change
them
or
get
rid
of
them
and
I
agree
with
that,
and
so
I've
tried
to
explain
to
people
that
this
is
not
something
that
we
as
a
council
have
just
woke
up
and
said.
We
should
do
this.
This
is
something
that
we
have
considered,
based
on
a
request
to
us
by
the
Realtors
that
fair,
pretty
much
yes,.
H
Absolutely,
but,
but
from
that
then
came
the
the
request
and
I
think
we
have
an
obligation
at
times
to
take
a
look
at
requests
from
the
public,
and
this
is
going
to
lead
into
a
work
session
topic.
So
I
just
think
it's
important
for
the
public
to
know.
That's
out
there
that
you
know
these
10
people
over
Thanksgiving
just
didn't,
decide
to
open
up
and
determine
that
we
should
have
real
estate
science.
It's
something
that
was
brought
to
us.
It
was
has
been
under
consideration
and
I.
H
Think
we
have
an
obligation
to
take
a
look
at
that.
Many
of
those
things
that
are
brought
to
us
from
the
public
standpoint
as
it
relates
to
our
ordinances.
But
the
question
came
up
then,
and
it's
on
another
topic
is
we
were
being
asked
to
take
a
look
at
at
ordinance,
language
and
Vince
and
and
I'm,
not
sure
who
else
it
Don
I
believe
had
a
little
bit
of
a
email
conversation
back
forth
regarding
what
is
the
process
for
somebody
from
the
public
requesting
a
change
to
an
ordinance
and
I?
H
Don't
know
if
we
really
knew
we
had
one
per
se.
It
would
be
very
difficult
for
everybody.
It
doesn't
like
something
to
come
in
and
say:
I
want
an
ordinance
changed
and
have
it
looked
at.
That
would
be
difficult,
but
I
don't
know
if
there
is
a
process
for
the
public's,
a
defined
process
for
getting
that
public
input
and
consideration
of
an
ordinance
change.
So
if
there
isn't
something
I
think
we
should
come
up
with
some
manner
that
is
defined
and
how
that
works.
A
A
Think
we
do
have
some
of
our
ordinances
are
more
explicit
than
others
about
how
amendments
can
be
made.
For
instance,
title
21,
which
is
our
zoning
ordinance,
is
very
clear
how
a
change
the
sign
code
is
part
of
the
ordinance
part
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
plan
Commission
can
initiate
a
change.
The
City
Council
can
initiate
a
change.
A
citizen
cannot
initiate
a
change
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
However,
a
citizen
can
bend
a
council
person's
ear
and
a
council
person
can
initiate
a
change
and
that's
what
happened
here.