Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Signs Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Subcommittee tables bill to raise fines for illegally placed signs on VDOT property

2152685 · January 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Subcommittee on Highway Safety and Policy on Thursday voted 5-1 to table House Bill 2141, which sought to raise fines for illegally placed signs on VDOT property.

The House Subcommittee on Highway Safety and Policy on Thursday voted 5-1 to table House Bill 2141, which sought to increase the civil penalty for illegally placed signs on Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) property.

The bill’s patron, Delegate Milby, told the subcommittee the proposal was intended to reduce the net cost to localities that remove illegally placed signs. “This will be the easiest bill you've seen all day,” Delegate Milby said, explaining the measure would set a $250 fine for the first sign and $100 for subsequent signs placed in the vicinity of one another.

Supporters described the change as an attempt to make enforcement economically viable for counties. Lauren Gilbert of Advantis Strategies, speaking on behalf of Stafford County, said the county finds sign removal “very labor intensive” and voiced support for the bill. “The signs are an ongoing issue,” Gilbert said.

Members pressed the patron on enforcement mechanics and legal exposure if a locality cannot identify who actually erected a sign. Delegate Cohen asked why language that formerly said violators would be “punished accordingly” was being replaced and raised concern that the proposed wording could presume the advertiser placed a sign even when nobody observed the act. Delegate Milby said counties already rely on a practice of fining the person who benefits from the sign because enforcement officers rarely witness the placement, and that the bill would primarily change the penalty amounts rather than the enforcement standard.

The subcommittee also discussed the risk that malicious actors could plant signs to draw penalties against others. Delegate Anthony said that risk “already exists” and noted the bill’s language limiting the $250 charge to the first sign in a vicinity was intended to avoid excessive penalties when multiple signs are placed at an intersection.

After brief public comment in support from Stafford County’s representative, the committee adopted a motion to table the bill. The clerk recorded the motion to table and the subcommittee voted to table House Bill 2141 by a roll call of 5 to 1.

The bill was tabled without amendment; no vote record listing individual member votes was provided in the transcript. The subcommittee did not adopt new enforcement mechanisms or specify additional reporting requirements before tabling the measure.