Hurricane council reviews overhaul of city sign rules, debates disclosure and enforcement

Hurricane City Council spent the bulk of its meeting Wednesday reviewing proposed revisions to the city's sign ordinance, focusing on whether political signs must identify who paid for or sponsored them and how the city would enforce new rules.

A council member, recounting a past campaign experience, urged clearer disclosure on yard signs after a volunteer taped over his name on a multiple-candidate sign: "I'd love to know who created the sign so that we can, you know, have some accountability," the council member said. City attorney (S6) responded that "the state law does have disclosure requirements for signage" and cautioned that state changes this session might affect what the city can require.

Why it matters: the proposed changes would affect how long political signs must remain after an election, where signs may be placed on city property, whether new limits apply to all sign sizes and who is responsible for enforcement. Several members said they preferred a clear, enforceable local rule even if the state adopts its own standard.

Council debate covered several specific elements. Members discussed aligning a sign-removal timeframe with a pending state bill (14 days) or keeping a shorter local period (three to five days). One council member urged banning tall "wind" or feather-style banner signs and limiting electronic-message boards to non-flashing, dimmable displays with an eight-second minimum per image to reduce driver distraction. "Brightness is the biggest thing," a council member said; staff said modern displays are dimmable.

The draft also proposes a 200-square-foot baseline maximum for signs, with frontage-based allowances for larger lots; members asked staff to add a clear maximum and to make the ordinance's table consistent with other setback and overhang language. Several council members recommended a joint review with the planning commission before final approval.

Council members repeatedly raised enforcement logistics, asking how the city would remove heavy posts and whether a dedicated enforcement position would be needed. One member said streets crews or a post-puller could handle removals but acknowledged enforcement would require an initial "muscle" effort to change behavior.

Members discussed flagpoles and concerns about content displayed on flags and whether advertising might be disguised as flag use. The city attorney cautioned on free-speech limits while councillors urged tight definitions to prevent advertising from slipping through a flag exemption.

The council did not adopt the ordinance Wednesday; members asked staff to produce a revised draft that reconciles conflicts in the table (for example, whether signs may overhang public right-of-way), incorporate clear definitions for animated versus video displays, and return with planning commission input. Staff said they would email sections of the revised ordinance to council members for review.

What's next: staff will revise the draft, coordinate with the planning commission and return the item to the council for final action.