Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landuse Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Approves Measure Requiring Compensation When Cities Remove Outdoor Advertising Signs
Summary
The Utah House passed a second substitute to Senate Bill 98 after debate over local control. Sponsors said the bill simply clarifies that when cities or counties require outdoor advertising signage to be discontinued under eminent domain, companies must receive just compensation; opponents warned it would preempt local regulation.
The Utah House voted to approve the second substitute to Senate Bill 98, a measure clarifying compensation requirements when outdoor advertising signage must be discontinued under the power of eminent domain.
Representative Stevens, the bill's floor sponsor, told members the measure narrows the change to clarify that if a city requires a sign company to remove signage, the municipality must provide just compensation. “Basically, we want to make sure that their just compensation is given when anytime the outdoor advertising signage are required to be discontinued by either cities or counties,” Stevens said during floor debate.
Representative Carlson opposed the bill, saying constituents in his Salt Lake district had worked with local and county governments on sign regulation and that the measure would undermine those local efforts. “This bill simply is an in run around what county and city government has been doing over the past number of years to regulate signboards within communities,” Carlson said, urging colleagues to vote no and to study the issue further.
Stevens responded that the bill only clarifies existing eminent‑domain provisions and asked for the House's support. The reading clerk later announced the bill received 39 yes votes and 28 no votes and "passes this house," to be recorded in the journal and signed by the speaker pro tem.
Why it matters: The change narrows the statutory language on compensation when municipalities order removal of outdoor advertising – a detail that affects sign owners and municipal land‑use authority. Opponents said it risks reducing local regulatory flexibility; sponsors said it simply ensures fair compensation when property rights are affected.
What happens next: The passage was recorded on the House floor and the action will be noted in the legislative journal. Any further interplay between municipal sign ordinances and this state clarification would play out in implementation and, if contested, potentially in court.
