Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Connell council adopts ordinance requiring removal of outdated commercial signs
Summary
The Connell City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1058-2026 to require removal or repair of signs on vacant commercial buildings and allow fines of at least $100 per continuing monthly violation; council recorded the motion as moved by Council member Welch and seconded by Serna and approved it by voice vote.
Connell's City Council on Monday approved Ordinance No. 1058-2026, a change to the Connell municipal code that gives the city authority to require removal or repair of signs on vacant commercial buildings and to impose monthly civil penalties for continuing violations. Mayor Shelly Hassel read the proposed language and described the problem as outdated signage that confuses visitors.
The ordinance, described by the mayor as an amendment to chapter 17.22A adding sections on sign maintenance and removal, would allow the city to require owners to remove unused signs and supporting structures "at the expense of the sign owner and/or property owner." It also makes each month that a violation continues a separate civil infraction with a penalty "not less than $100." The mayor cited local examples such as Burger Factory, Davis Automotive and Michael J's to illustrate the concern that vacant buildings still display old commercial signs.
Council members asked how enforcement would work and whether fines would accumulate. The mayor said the city will send letters to owners, offer assistance (city crews can help remove signs where appropriate), and — if necessary — place liens on property or remove signs directly with the cost assessed to the owner. "We have the right then to go take it down ourselves if we still wanted to," the mayor said during discussion.
The mayor recorded that Council member Welch made the motion to adopt the ordinance and that Serna seconded; the motion passed by voice vote. The ordinance text presented to council included codification, severability and an effective date, though the meeting record did not specify the exact effective date. No vote tally was recorded in the minutes provided.
The council did not amend the measure on the floor; council discussion focused on enforcement logistics and offering property owners an opportunity to remove or arrange removal before the city takes action. The city indicated it will notify sign and property owners and publish procedures for enforcement and appeals.
