Contractor criticizes city’s new proactive sign enforcement; case continued to August

Jake Hixson, a local contractor with Hixson Construction, told the Code Compliance Board on July 16 that a recent shift from complaint-driven to proactive enforcement of sign permits will produce many new violations for longstanding construction signs.

"A sign that size has been in front of our job site for 50 years, and it's never been a problem," Hixson said during public testimony, arguing that the city’s new approach will force small contractors to pay additional fees and administrative burdens late in large projects. He said he has paid roughly $30,000 in project fees and that an additional permit fee to place a contractor sign is disproportionate.

Staff described a recent, proactive effort to locate and permit oversized signs across the city after noticing many large feather flags and other signs without permits. A staff presenter told the board that some signs have been in place for years and that the city is now beginning to address them systematically rather than only in response to complaints.

Board members and staff discussed eligibility thresholds and enforcement criteria for signs, including size limits and visibility-triangle concerns. One board member suggested collecting contact information and proactively notifying sign owners; staff noted there are multiple ordinances that apply depending on sign type and property zoning.

Hixson proposed a procedural fix – a checkbox on permit applications to register recurring contractor signs so the process would not require separate steps later in a project. Staff said they would explore procedural changes with the development-services director and consider options to reduce friction for contractors while maintaining code compliance.

The board accepted staff’s recommendation to continue the sign case to the Aug. 20 hearing to allow additional review and follow-up with the contractor and staff. The continued hearing gives the parties time to pursue permit applications or explore code-administration changes before the matter returns to the board.

The continued case remains under the city’s standard notice and compliance process; respondents were reminded to contact the code inspector and retain the right to appeal any future order within 30 days.