Princeton council debates enforcement, fees after campaign sign violations

Princeton City Council members and residents discussed enforcement of the city—s temporary sign ordinance after two candidates— campaign signs exceeded permitted sizes, with one candidate having paid a municipal violation fine rather than permit fees.

The matter surfaced during public comment when Kent, a resident, urged the council to enforce the fee schedule and not "misconstrue our ordinance," saying that one candidate "still owes his fees at $20 per sign" and that waiving those fees would be "unfair" to taxpayers. Council staff reported that one person paid a code-enforcement ticket ($100 plus $25 in court fees) rather than obtaining permits; staff said permit fees would have been $20 per sign and that there were about six signs, roughly $120 in permit fees.

Councilmember Michael (staff member) explained the sequence: candidates were notified about sign-size rules; one candidate obtained permits and paid fees; another received an ordinance-violation ticket, paid the ticket and court costs, and the signs were later removed. "If he had gotten permits, he would not get fined," Michael said in the meeting.

Council members clarified technical limits in the code. Councilmember Don Solecki said residential signs cannot exceed 6 square feet and that the maximum in nonresidential districts is 16 square feet. Kent and others noted an additional provision they located in the municipal code that limits total signage on a lot to 32 square feet.

Members debated enforcement practicality and First Amendment considerations, noting large campaign signs on railroad or private property and nonprofit event signs that the council does not want to penalize. Councilmember Mike McCall, who moved several procedural items during the meeting, said the situation "ends up as a wash" once court fees and fines are paid and favored moving on. Other members pressed for clearer public information and candidate packet materials.

Rather than ordering further immediate fines or retroactive permit invoices at the meeting, the council reached a consensus to: (1) update candidate packets and public information about size and permit requirements; (2) consider clearer ordinance language and a defined enforcement process; and (3) pursue limited exemptions or waivers for veterans and nonprofit groups as policy refinements. Staff indicated they could issue a simple one-page guidance sheet with the ordinance limits and permit process and circulate a press notice in future election cycles.

The discussion mixed policy, enforcement and outreach: several council members said they were newly informed about the exact size limits and asked staff to provide clearer guidance to candidates, political parties and the public before the next campaign season. No new ordinance changes or formal votes were taken at this meeting.