Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Advertising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate rejects statewide digital-billboard measure after heated debate over local control
Summary
Senators debated third substitute SB 61 — a bill offering a delayed statewide path for converting static billboards to digital displays with brightness and curfew limits — but the measure failed on a 12–15 vote after weeks of negotiation and floor amendments. Sponsors framed the delayed effective date as an incentive for local negotiations; opponents warned it would undercut municipal authority.
The Utah Senate voted down third substitute Senate Bill 61 on March 5, after extended floor debate over whether the state should create a delayed, statewide mechanism to allow some outdoor billboards to convert to digital displays.
Sponsor Senator Sandel, who carried the measure, said the bill was a compromise meant to force city-by-city negotiations between billboard companies and municipalities. Sandel said the bill would not permit immediate conversions and that "no new billboards" would be authorized by the measure as written and that the delayed effective date was an incentive for parties to negotiate (Sen. Sandel). He also described technical limits the bill would allow cities to impose, including lighting curfews, directional lighting, and a requirement that digital faces not exceed 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light at night.
Opponents on the floor repeatedly framed the bill as an erosion of local control. Senator Kitchen told the sponsor that she could not support a measure that, in practice, might allow billboard companies to digitize large portions of their inventory without adequate municipal oversight. Senator Sandahl and others argued cities were already able to regulate lighting, noise and speed, and that the state should not give undefined authority to ban or restrict vehicles or alter local zoning rules.
Several senators raised definitional and fairness questions. Senator McCall said the bill was intended to apply only to street-legal off-highway vehicles in resort cities but acknowledged the statutory definitions required clarification; Senator Bramble asked whether the term "street-legal all-terrain vehicle" had a clear statutory definition and suggested a floor amendment might be needed to avoid unintentionally capturing ordinary trucks or other vehicles.
Senator McKay, reflecting a view of caution, said he would vote yes to keep the conversation going but urged a stricter stakeholder resolution. Senator Wyler praised the sponsor's effort but said his city urged rejection. At the final roll call, third substitute SB 61 failed 12–15 with two senators absent.
The sponsor repeatedly pledged to revisit the issue if the intended city-by-city negotiations failed: he said the delayed effective date could be rolled forward or the bill repealed if stakeholders did not negotiate in good faith. The measure’s failure leaves intact current municipal authority over sign placement and illumination; no immediate change to local billboard policy takes effect.
