Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carefree holds first reading to align political‑sign rules with state law; residents raise enforcement and constitutional concerns
Summary
The council held the first of two required readings to amend the town's political sign ordinance to match Arizona Revised Statute 16‑1019 (extending the display period from 60 to 71 days). Public commenters urged the council to reconsider content‑neutral and enforcement language, citing previous removals and constitutional cases.
Get email alerts on the Elections And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Carefree Town Council held the first reading on Oct. 7 of an amendment to the town code governing political signs to align the town's limits with Arizona Revised Statute 16‑1019, which recently changed the allowable period for political signs in the public right‑of‑way.
Town staff explained the amendment would change the town's current 60‑day window to 71 days to match state law and allow signs to remain until 15 days after a general election, or through a primary where a candidate advances. "Section a 2 reflects that sign shall be located in the public right away only during a period commencing 71 days," the staff presentation said, noting the change is to maintain statutory alignment. Staff also advised that, if the council failed to adopt the amendment at second reading, the town would be out of compliance with state statute.
Public comment included two residents who said the town should re‑examine its sign‑control language and enforcement practices. John Trainer said signs opposing a past property‑tax measure were removed in 2023 and that he believes removal was improper; he described attempts to trace who removed signs. "If there's this if it smells like a skunk, it is indeed a skunk," Trainer said, urging the council to revisit prior enforcement choices. Another resident, John Mattis, told the council he believes aspects of the town's sign code are content‑based rather than content‑neutral and urged the council to reconsider the ordinance in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision on sign regulation.
Staff said this hearing was the first reading and that a second reading and formal adoption will be scheduled; no final action was taken at this meeting. Council members did not vote on the ordinance at first reading. The item will return to the council for a second reading and possible adoption at a later meeting.

