Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves measure setting procedures for relocating billboards during highway reconstruction
Summary
The House passed House Bill 426 on Feb. 27, 1996, directing procedures for moving outdoor advertising affected by major state highway reconstruction. Debate focused on compensation, local control and whether the law should cover all state highways or only interstates; final vote announced 50–17.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on Feb. 27 approved House Bill 426, a measure that sets state procedures for relocating outdoor advertising signs taken down during major highway reconstruction projects. The bill passed after floor amendments and recorded division votes, with the clerk announcing 50 yes and 17 no.
Sponsor Representative Stephen Bodley said the bill was conceived to address an immediate problem along the I‑15 reconstruction corridor: when state highway work removes nonconforming signs, who pays to relocate them and how should replacements be sited. Bodley said the bill directs municipalities to provide suitable alternative locations and makes the state responsible for relocation logistics, but does not guarantee payment for lost market value if the owner’s site is permanently taken by eminent domain.
Floor debate centered on two issues: whether the bill should apply only to interstates (the I‑15 corridor was the initial impetus) or to all state highways, and whether the bill intruded on local land‑use control. Representative Meg Carlson warned the House that broadening the bill to all state highways could “take away from local government the ability to control billboards in their areas,” and urged defeat of the broader amendment.
Proponents countered that applying the procedure to all state highways would save taxpayer dollars because moving signs or identifying replacement sites often costs less than a full buy‑out. Representative Watts argued the bill protects private property owners’ rights while controlling government costs.
After substitute amendments that ultimately restored “state” (not merely interstate) highway language and included an effective date, the House adopted the measure and sent it forward. The bill’s sponsor said the delayed effective date gives municipalities time to address zoning and logistics.
What’s next: HB426 will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration. Supporters said communities that will be affected by large reconstruction projects had signalled willingness to cooperate on replacement locations; critics raised the prospect of future disputes over local planning authority.
