Skip to content

Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session

AB 618

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

outdoor advertising signs that are relocated because of state highway projects.

  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

Under current law, if a highway project of the Department of Transportation

(DOT) causes the realignment of an outdoor advertising sign that does not conform

to a local ordinance (sign), the realignment does not affect the sign's nonconforming

status under the ordinance. "Realignment" is defined as relocation on the same site.

If DOT proposes the realignment of a sign in connection with a highway project, DOT

must notify the municipality or county that adopted the ordinance to which the sign

does not conform of the sign's proposed realignment. The municipality or county may

then petition DOT to condemn the sign instead of realigning the sign, but must pay

DOT for certain costs of condemnation if DOT succeeds in condemning the sign.

This bill expands these provisions to relocation of a sign to a new location within

the same municipality, not just on the same site. The bill also specifies that

relocation of a sign means either the dismantling and moving of the sign or the

removal of the sign and erection of a replacement sign constructed of new materials.

The bill also requires all of the following with respect to relocation of a sign caused

by a DOT highway project: 1) that the size of the sign face, and the number of sign

faces on the sign, after relocation must be the same as prior to relocation; 2) that the

height of the sign, as measured from road-grade level, after relocation must be equal

to or greater than prior to relocation; and 3) that the new location for the sign must

meet all requirements for a sign permit.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Bernier (R) , Craig (R) , Jacque (R) , Steineke (R) , Thiesfeldt (R) , Van Roy (R) , Wynn (R)

1 cosponsors

Lasee (R)

Full history

  1. Feb 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Jacque, Bernier, Craig, Steineke, Thiesfeldt, Van Roy and Wynn;Cosponsored by Senator Lasee

  2. Feb 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation

  3. Feb 28, 2012 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Mar 22, 2012 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Mar 23, 2012 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1