Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Advertising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House backs outdoor advertising changes after heated debate on local control and safety
Summary
After extended floor debate, the House passed first substitute Senate Bill 98 to allow owners of billboards affected by state road reconstruction to raise or relocate nonconforming signs; critics warned it could override local ordinances and create safety and aesthetic problems while sponsors cited UDOT estimates of state cost savings.
The Utah House on Feb. 27 approved first substitute Senate Bill 98, an outdoor advertising measure that allows owners to raise or relocate billboard signs that became nonconforming because of state highway reconstruction.
Floor sponsor Representative Sam Garn said the bill was negotiated with UDOT and the League of Cities and Towns and aims to avoid costly state buyouts of affected signs after the reconstruction of Interstate 15. Garn cited a UDOT white paper he distributed to members that estimated a $7,000,000 liability for sign buyouts in Salt Lake City; he said an updated figure raised the estimate to $14,000,000 and that the bill would save the state that amount while preserving the property rights of sign owners.
Opponents said the substitute included provisions that had not been heard in committee and would erode local control. "That could be 150 feet high," Representative Becker warned when describing provisions that would permit sign companies to raise the height of previously nonconforming signs without clear limits. Becker argued the change would allow state law to effectively override local decisions about aesthetics and public-safety spacing near intersections and could legalize previously illegal billboards under state law even if they remain illegal under federal or local law.
Sponsor Garn countered the bill does not add new signs or authorize unlimited expansion; rather, it lets owners relocate or raise existing signs so they conform after reconstruction. Garn repeatedly framed the measure as protecting property rights and avoiding a large state expense.
Members pressed the fiscal implications: some said the official fiscal note did not show the white paper’s $14,000,000 exposure and asked whether a revised fiscal note was needed; Garn pointed to the UDOT document as the basis for the figure. Questions also focused on whether the legislation would require local governments to amend zoning ordinances to accommodate relocated signs or whether relocated signs would be required to meet local ordinances.
The House recorded a final vote: first substitute Senate Bill 98 passed 55 yes to 13 no and will be sent to the Senate for further consideration.
Next steps: Bill transmitted to the Senate for its consideration; local governments and UDOT will likely coordinate implementation and any local code implications.
