Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

AB 242

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

the removal of nonconforming outdoor advertising signs.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

The federal Highway Beautification Act requires states to restrict advertising

along interstate and federal-aid primary highways, and current state law

incorporates these requirements. Current law prohibits, with certain exceptions,

the erection or maintenance of outdoor advertising signs within 660 feet of, or

otherwise visible (and intended to be visible) from, the main-traveled way of an

interstate or federal-aid primary highway. The Department of Transportation may

remove signs that do not conform to applicable requirements but, for each sign

removed, must pay just compensation to the owner of the sign and to the owner of

the land on which the sign is located. Current law permits customary maintenance

of certain nonconforming signs but, if the nonconforming sign is enlarged, replaced,

or relocated, the sign may be removed without compensation.

This bill provides that any nonconforming sign may be removed without

compensation if the costs of repairing and maintaining the sign within any 36

consecutive months exceed 50 percent of the replacement costs of the sign and that

such repairs and maintenance do not constitute customary maintenance.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Fields (D) , Friske (R) , Gunderson (R) , Honadel (R) , Smith (D) , Soletski (D) , Spanbauer (R) , Staskunas (D) , Van Roy (R) , Vos (R) , Zepnick (D)

8 cosponsors

Grothman (R) , Hansen (D) , Kapanke (R) , Kreitlow (D) , Leibham (R) , Olsen (R) , Plale (D) , Taylor (D)

Votes

Assembly: Report passage recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 9, Noes 2

Passed 9–2 Apr 15, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Assembly: Read a third time and passed, Ayes 83, Noes 15

Passed 83–15 Apr 20, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Apr 30, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Staskunas, Fields, Friske, Gunderson, Honadel, Smith, Soletski, Spanbauer, Van Roy, Vos and Zepnick;Cosponsored by Senators Kreitlow, Taylor, Grothman, Hansen, Kapanke, Leibham, Olsen and Plale

  2. Apr 30, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation

  3. May 21, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Sep 10, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Dec 3, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Transportation, Ayes 9, Noes 2

  7. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  8. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Made a special order of business at 11:03 A.M. on 4-20-2010 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 23

  9. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  10. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 83, Noes 15

  11. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  12. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  13. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Apr 21, 2010 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  15. Apr 21, 2010 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources

  16. Apr 28, 2010 · Senate

    Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1