Roger and Dawn,

Not to be too much of a pain on this matter but I was wondering why
the city chose to deviate from their originally stated plan of
inviting input from stakeholders? The April council meeting set clear
direction and yet, nearly 4 months later, the city has changed
direction without explanation. To be frank, the last town hall meeting
I attend for the survey results was only attended by 17 community
members, no minutes were recorded, and no actions mentioned at that
meeting had follow up provided.

That begs the question of how many community members have to show up
to make a quorum at a town hall meeting? Isn’t it an illusion of
public input if the event is hastily advertised and poorly
communicated (bear in mind we still have no output from our
communications “blue ribbon” committee).

You had a member of the community who was motivated to help with focus
group activities and now you have chosen to take additional input from
people who may not understand the code as written and whose only input
is more emotion than fact. Furthermore, you potentially are inviting
even more data to consider that will further delay the process. You [sic]
current timeline is already unreasonably set for November 2010.

My overall concern with this approach is that you will open the door
for an “astro-turf” campaign by a stakeholder to give the appearance
of overwhelming support. For instance, a church or realtor may bring
in 15 and 10 people respectively to speak in favor of allowing their
signs while citizens who feel their signs are an unsightly distraction
will only have 5 representatives. In short, do not mistake those in
attendance as a fair representation of the community. The city has
confirmed [and] historic issues with communications.

I hope to attend but I am not sure that I can make it in time. I would
like to see in the future an avenue to provide input without
attendance. Perhaps an email can be entered into record if I state my
name and address.

For what it is worth, I would like to see addressed the “human
billboard” signs. Hoffman Hill have [sic] a weekly sign holder dancing
around directing people to the townhouses for sale. Is there a permit
for that sign? Is it covered by code? Can we please somehow restrict
that sort of signage because it something you would expect to see in
Tacoma or Spanaway.

I look forward to your timely response.

Thanks for the impromptu civics lesson on the purpose of a town hall
meeting.

As I mentioned before, my concern is the change in direction from what
was originally stated in April. You mentioned that there were numerous
calls and emails to the city asking for participation in the process
regarding addressing this code. I assume that you have maintained a
record of the inquiries and that the call logs and email copies are
available upon request through the standard records request process.

I am disappointed that the callers, especially the realtors, were not
directed to the DuPont Business Association. It would seem logical
that the business voice be funneled through that organization; it may
have been a good opportunity for the DBA to build credibility.
Similarly, the citizen concerns could have been routed to the citizen
representatives. Whether or not the original approach would have
worked will remain a mystery.

The news of an outside consultant also was not previously mentioned.
What is the cost of the service and is it really necessary? Is our
elected council, many of whom were in attendance at the town hall
meeting, incapable of formulating an objective opinion and crafting
the legislation?

I am also perplexed at the determination that new legislation is
required. How was that decision reached prior to the input of the town
hall meeting and citizen testimony? Did the result of the city sign
sweeps have any influence on this decision and if so, what was it?

Speaking of the enforcement, how many sign sweeps in total were
conducted? There were obvious violations that occurred after the
warning letters and sign collections. Is there a reason the
enforcement was abandoned? I understand there are cost considerations
that the mayor neglected to include in our city budget but the
citizens should not be punished for the lack of foresight. As you
probably have gathered, the city’s ineptitude in enforcing their, nay,
“our” codes are nothing short of a disgrace.

To that end, the main focus of you and your staff needs be the cost
and personnel to complete this enforcement task. This should take
place before the law is changed because it will influence the law
itself. A law without enforcement puts us in exactly the position we
are in today.

There is undoubtedly improvement on our streets of the numerous signs.
That may be attributed to the fact that it had grown so out of control
that even a minor improvement looks like progress. There are still
plenty of violators and issues to be resolved. The episode that
transpired this past weekend at the corner of Hoffman Hill and McNeil
should be intolerable to the city. A human sign waver having a
companion laying passed out on a blanket while he completed his shift.
Can you answer whether that he has a permit? Is that a violation of
any DMC or do the citizens just have to tolerate that sort of behavior?

I realize it is difficult for you to monitor the activities in town on
the weekend since you reside elsewhere. Frankly, this sort of thing
went unchecked with Bill McDonald in your position and he lives here.
However, when such things are brought to your attention I expect that
they be taken seriously.

My stand remains unchanged. The city failed to commit to enforcement
since the April mandate and has yet to produce for the citizens any of
the facts on the violations. The tracking sheet has no measured
deliverable to help council in their legislation. No output was given
on the number of violators, number of permits issued weekly, monthly;
revenue generated. (Although the city did state how much it would cost
to enforce the code with union employees).

To summarize, my concern in the change in direction is the suggestion
that DuPont has a direction on this matter. Based on the actions
between April and August, I am unconvinced. The solution has deviated
and now more layers of complexity (and expense) have been added while
enforcement was effectively cast away. That did not happen in a vacuum
and my original question can be restated as who made that call? You or
the mayor?

I do have an expectation that all my questions raised here be addressed.

Regards,

Good morning Mike. I apologize it has taken so long for me to respond.
It was the Mayor and my decision, made after consultation with our City
Attorney, to change the City’s course of action from a stakeholder’s
committee to a more inclusive community meeting approach. Per
attorney-client privilege, the legal advice given is confidential and
cannot be disclosed. Most of the communication from citizens wishing to
participate was done via phone calls which the City does not track nor
maintain call logs. Copies of any electronic records which we have
could be made available through a public disclosure request with the
citizen information redacted. We did receive positive feedback on the
community meeting as presenting a forum for all to have their voices
heard. We did also accept written testimony through Friday, August 6th
and included that as part of the public record as well.

While I agree that the DuPont Business Association would be a good
option for many of our local realtors to participate in it is not the
City’s normal practice to divert citizens or business owner’s comments
or complaints elsewhere. Even within our business community there are
several different sides of issues being voiced, which again was the
reason many were in favor of a community forum so they could “speak for
themselves”. The same holds true for our concerned citizens – there are
many varying opinions on the City’s sign code.

We have a consultant on contract who has worked with the City on special
projects involving planning. The sign code revision process is
complicated and time-consuming. We have one staff member in Planning at
this point who already has several major projects on his plate, as well
as being the sole person to review land use and permit applications.
The consultant is compiling the data from the community meeting,
information previously deliberated on by the Planning Agency,
surrounding communities sign codes, and other information as necessary
to bring forward a report to the City Council at the September 21st work
session. At that work session Council will be presented with options
and decision points for them to direct staff on what they would like to
see in the revised sign code – if the decision is made to do a revision.
Staff and legal counsel will then prepare the legislation based on the
Council’s clear guidance. It is not the Council’s duty to draft
legislation, rather to deliberate and vote on it.

There has been no determination by the City Council that a new sign
ordinance is required as there has been no public discussion of this
issue. However, the current and former City Attorney’s have suggested
that the City Council review the code, but I cannot discuss the nature
of any legal advice given by the City Attorney because it is governed by
the attorney-client privilege.

In regards to enforcement, the City has not abandoned its efforts. We
have conducted two sign sweeps with another one going to be happening in
the next week, sent out educational letters, and sent out letters
informing businesses of non-compliant signs. We do have this
information available for disclosure with a public records request. We
will continue to send out letters and work on enforcement, within the
legal guidelines set out by our City Attorney, as we work on the sign
code revision. Public Works will continue to conduct periodic sign
sweeps as time allows and is slated to conduct another one this week. I
also appreciate receiving information and pictures regarding signs which
may not be in compliance with our code and will follow up on those as
well. It is not the City’s intention to not enforce the current code,
but rather to enforce it in a fair, equitable and legally defensible
manner.

In regards to human sign-waivers, our current code would require them to
have a permit, which I believe they do not have. I will follow-up with
the business owner if you can please provide me with what company they
were representing. Whether to permit this type of sign activity will be
something the Council will have to discuss, but the court’s have treated
signs held by person’s in a more protective way than stationary but
temporary signs.