During a recent city council meeting, discussions centered on the city's sign ordinance, particularly regarding the placement of political signs in relation to state law. The council sought clarity on how local regulations align with Minnesota statutes, specifically statute 211B.045, which allows non-commercial signs, including political ones, to be displayed 46 days before a primary election and 10 days after.

City attorney Brian provided insights into the complexities of sign regulations, noting that while state law preempts local ordinances during election periods, cities retain the authority to impose restrictions for safety reasons. This includes preventing signs from obstructing traffic control devices. The council acknowledged the need to review and potentially revise local signage laws to ensure they are consistent with state regulations and to clarify definitions related to signage.

Councillor Paulson raised concerns about the existing ordinances, suggesting they sometimes contradict state definitions, particularly regarding terms like \"street\" and \"right-of-way.\" The council agreed on the importance of aligning local definitions with state statutes to avoid confusion and ensure proper enforcement.

The meeting also addressed the recent removal of political signs by city staff, which sparked controversy. Councillor Johnson explained that he and others had removed signs from public property to maintain aesthetics, but this action led to misunderstandings and complaints. The council emphasized the need for clear communication and adherence to established procedures regarding sign placement and removal.

Looking ahead, the council decided to allow political signs to remain in public areas during the designated election period, provided they do not pose safety hazards. They also agreed to revisit the sign ordinance in the future to establish clearer guidelines and definitions.

In addition to signage, the council discussed building security protocols, particularly access to city hall after hours. There was a consensus that access should be limited to essential personnel to maintain security, especially concerning sensitive areas like the finance department and election equipment storage. The council plans to further evaluate access protocols to ensure the integrity of city operations and security measures.