Ordinace Changing Residency Requirements

Residency rules that require a public employee to live within the jurisdiction have come and gone since the 1800s. The political machines of several American cities used similar requirements to give jobs to their friends and supporters in the late 1800s. As the progressive movement swept the country in the early 20th century, many jurisdictions did away with the requirement of having to live in the community to be hired, arguing that the best person for the job should be hired regardless of where they live as long as they moved to the community after they were hired. In the 1960s and 1970s, residency requirements made a comeback as many municipalities, mostly financially struggling cities, were looking to boost their economy and provide opportunities to minority residents. By the mid-1990s, almost all requirements fell out of favor as the middle-class increasingly moved to the suburbs and cities struggled to recruit good employees.

In the years of their revival, municipal employees and their union groups looked to the courts to strike down municipal residency requirements under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and under the recognized constitutional right to travel and move freely across jurisdictional lines. In their decisions, courts have had to decide the balance between the personal interests of public employees and the public interests of government and its citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court and various state courts have tended to uphold the constitutionality of the municipal residency requirements, generally siding with the public interests of government and its policy reasons for such requirements. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that residency requirements do not infringe on an employee's constitutional right to travel and in effect has maintained that there is no constitutional right to government employment. While some decisions have placed specific limitations on residency requirements, the ability to impose those requirements has remained. 

The Governor, as part of the most recent State Budget, recommended prohibiting local units of government from passing ordinances or other policies which require residency within the jurisdiction of the local unit, unless as required by state law. The new approved State Budget disallows local units of government, except as required under state law, from instituting or enforcing residency requirements on current or prospective employees.

This ordinance brings the City into compliance with the new State law. 

Reality

Someone came to the office the other day and offer to raze a building for us. They indicated that the methods they used would save us on our income tax. When they were informed that we don't pay income taxes, they were dumbfounded. Really... what school did you attend? Eighth grade social studies should have provided you with all the information you needed. It reminds me of the time we eliminated the funding for lifeguards at the beach. A person want us to keep the lifeguards. When we asked if they were willing to pay a higher tax to maintain lifeguards - they said "no". When asked how the lifeguards would be fund, they said " have the government pay for it."
I forget - who is the government?

Signs, sign everywhere signs

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this memo is to provide background information on general directional signage for local businesses. For this discussion, signs can be broken down into two categories: permanent signs and temporary signs. Permanent signs are those intended to last for a long time in a fixed location. Temporary signs are those intended for a finite time period and may be mobile. Temporary sidewalk signs appear to be the key contributor of the City’s recent uptake in sign issues. The Code requires sidewalk signage have a permit, is only allowed in the B-1C District, must comply with the design standards of the Downtown Design Overlay District and the Visibility Standards. The sign must be on the sidewalk adjacent to the business property and may not be affixed to a permanent structure. Many of the current signs being placed in the right of way currently fail to meet many of these requirements.

Recently business owners outside the main business district have struggled with how to attract business in stressed economic times. Temporary signage, specifically A-frame signs, has been suggested by some representatives of the business community as a business friendly solution that the City should consider in light of the current economy. The use of temporary A-frame signage with a changeable message has been presented by some businesses as a very effective means of advertising. For local businesses, the improvement in visibility and customer awareness may help increase store traffic and result in increased sales.

This agenda item is placed at the direction of the Council President for discussion by the Council.

ESTABLISHING CONTEXT

Temporary signs can be broken down into several categories: those allowed in residential v.commercial/industrial areas, and those allowed on private property v. within a public right-of-way.

The Code allows the B-1C commercial zone to have temporary sandwich board signs in the in the right of way adjacent to the commercial use. They are allowed only during business hours, limited to two per property frontage (per street), may be placed on a sidewalk provided reasonable clearance is available for pedestrians including ADA requirements. A permit is required. These signs were not intend as off premise directional signs.

Several businesses have started to use temporary signage in the right of way for off premise directional signage. The Zoning Inspector has been receiving complaints about a specific sign placed in the downtown right of way for several months. He had been working with the sign owner regarding placement and had problems maintaining compliance. The Council President asked the City Manager to assist in enforcing the sandwich board signage regulation. I personally removed some signage and after discussions with the Zoning Inspector and Police Chief, had police officers authorized to remove illegal signage. The business owners who were using the illegal off premise signage are now complaining about the city’s enforcement of the signage regulation.

The primary philosophy of zoning enforcement in Lake Mills has been enforcement by complaint. There is no staff inspection time scheduled to do a systematic discovery of code violations. This requires the residents to know and report zoning violations. Once there is a complaint, there is an attempt to confirm the violation and initiate enforcement. This approach does not generally provide consistent, equitable or fair enforcement. Many times the complainant considers an issue a code violation when it is not and has expectations of staff that cannot be fulfilled. The complaint system encourages retaliation, neighborhood fights and lack of expectations of zoning benefits. The business owners complain most about equity of enforcement of the sidewalk signs.

The issue the Council is being asked to resolve is rewriting the Code to allow off premise sidewalk signs. The current Code does not allow any off premise signage. It also requires specifically designed sandwich boards which are not followed regularly. Off premise signage is not allowed by the State in the right of way of a state highway. Wisconsin §86.04 states “If any highway right-of-way shall be encroached upon, under or over by any fence, stand, building or any other structure or object, and including encroachments caused by acquisition by the public of new or increased widths of highway right-of-way, the department, in case of a state trunk highway, the county highway committee, in case of a county trunk highway, or the city council, village or town board, in case of a street or highway maintained by or under the authority of any city, village or town, may order the occupant or owner of the land through or by which the highway runs, and to which the encroachment shall be appurtenant, to remove the encroachment beyond the limits of the highway within 30 days. The order shall specify the extent and location of the encroachment with reasonable certainty, and shall be served upon the occupant or owner of the land through or by which the highway runs, and to which the encroachment shall be appurtenant.” Encroachments may include, but are not limited to, improperly located mailboxes, trees, signs, crops, fences, headwalls, etc. The issue was addressed when the wayfinding sign policy was passed in 2007.

The directional signage could be placed in City right of ways if the Code were changed by the Council. The problem is that signs propagate signs. The posting of signs at the intersection of Main and Lake Streets has resulted in others doing the same. The area becomes cluttered with signs that cause problems for the businesses at the intersection, traffic using the intersection and pedestrians. It also results in trash. Even if temporary signs for community businesses are allowed only, that may be a catalyst for others who seek general advertisement. Experience shows when one sign is placed on a corner, others also follow, detracting from the overall character of the community.

The temporary signs will encourage other types of illegal signage as businesses compete for value advertising frontage. The history of sign regulation has led to the standard of on premise signage requirements to reduce the competition for prime advertising space. There are few prime advertising spots in Lake Mills and eventually the locations will become cluttered and cause problems for the businesses actually located in these areas. A crucial goal of all businesses is to have the opportunity to advertise in a prime location to entice customers into their store. The standard process for controlling the demand is purchasing the location or space from the owner for advertising. The problem of allowing public space used freely is defined in the Tragedy of The Commons. The questions start with how many signs can be placed at these space limited locations. Who gets to use of the free public benefit or who gets the most use? What other purposes, such as, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, traffic control signage, and access to the businesses at those locations will be impaired. Will public safety be impaired as the clutter begins to create traffic confusion, distraction and visibility issues? Again, experience has led most cities and states to prohibit signs in the right of way.

The picture below is an example of sign creep; illegal sandwich boards, banners and posters can become an enforcement issue with businesses complaining about the equity of enforcement and that the city isn’t business friendly.

Temporary signs also have a tendency to become refuse left in the street. The photo below is not an uncommon event.

RECOMMENDATION

The City’s Code is clear on the use of temporary signs and when enforcement is driven by a complaint, it must be enforced equitably. The sign regulations consider sign design, aesthetics and location as an integral part of a development. Temporary signage, when allowed, is regulated as to size, location, duration of display, attachment, quantity and maintenance. It may be considered Misconduct in Public Office to direct a staff member to intentionally fail or refuse to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law.

The policy question is whether during periods of special economic circumstances, the City can balance the general public interest for safety, aesthetics, compatibility, and wayfinding against the economic interest of business. During suspension of certain signage regulations there is a possibility that overall community aesthetic values are eroded. Consideration of allowing sandwich boards should include whether the deviation from adopted standards would enhance economic value in the community and whether those values outweigh aesthetic values. Do A-frame signs increase the visibility of a business and thereby serve to improve the financial condition and interests of individual businesses?

Are sandwich board signs the only solution for these businesses? “Put Your Best Sign Forward,” an article that appeared in the March/April 2005 Alliance Review, provides examples of effective and ineffective signage. The main example on the front page of the magazine shows a sandwich board sign and a cluttered storefront as compared to a storefront with interesting window displays that are intended to catch the eyes of passersby.

The Plan Commission must review and recommended changes to the zoning code.