City staff presented research July 7 on whether Goodyear should permit off‑premise billboards along freeways, and councilmembers signaled they do not want to expand billboard allowances.

The work session presentation by Katie Wilkin, Development Services Director, and Planning Manager Christian Williams explained that Goodyear’s zoning currently prohibits billboards and that the city instead allows on‑premise signage such as freeway pylon signs and two city‑owned digital marquees placed under license during the 2012 recession.

Why this matters: permitting off‑premise billboards would authorize commercial advertising not tied to a specific business on the property where the sign stands, creating new visual elements along freeways and producing limited revenue while raising concerns about “visual blight,” staff and several councilmembers said.

Staff defined the key distinctions: on‑premise signs advertise businesses located at the site and are reviewed for safety and size; freeway pylon signs and on‑site digital displays are restricted to tenants or activities within the activity center. Christian Williams summarized federal and state controls that apply to highway‑adjacent digital displays and said, “the big piece of this I want you all to know is that at 11PM, digital signage must turn off. It may recommence, operations at sunrise, and the messages must be static for 8 seconds.” Williams also told council that the city has never permitted traditional off‑premise billboards and that none exist inside Goodyear today.

Staff reviewed peer‑city approaches around the Valley and found a mix: Phoenix, Glendale and Avondale allow many freeway billboards; Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Peoria and Tempe generally do not; Surprise allows a limited stretch under strict locational constraints; Buckeye allows up to eight billboards with spacing and setback rules. Williams used these examples to show how peer communities balance commercial advertising, land use and aesthetics.

Council reaction emphasized aesthetics and limited revenue. Councilmember Vicky asked whether the city would have control over billboard messaging; after staff replied it would not, Vicky said, “For that reason, right there, I'm not for these.” Multiple councilmembers praised the staff analysis and supported keeping existing regulations. Laura (Councilmember) called the presentation “very thorough” and agreed with staff recommendations; Benita voiced concurrence with the recommendation not to permit billboards.

Staff noted there are two city‑authorized digital marquees placed under license agreements tied to transit property. There was discussion about revenue from those existing marquees: Christian initially said the program generated “8,300 per sign per month,” while another staff speaker later said, “We actually receive about $10,000 per sign per month, so about $240,000 a year for the 2 signs,” and that revenue is split by location with half directed to transit where federal funding rules require it. Staff further explained the marquee agreements are long‑term (25‑year agreements beginning in 2012) and include a 3% annual adjustment.

Staff recommendation and council direction: based on peer comparisons, limited revenue potential and community character concerns, staff recommended not permitting billboards and not expanding the digital marquee program, while continuing to allow on‑premise freeway pylon signage. Council indicated consensus to not expand billboard permissions; staff said council could still direct a deeper review if it wished.

Next steps: Staff will return with more detailed analysis only if council directs further study, including potential height, brightness and locational rules and options for limiting numbers or design standards.