Skip to content

Bills · 2023-2024 Regular Session

AB 486

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: outdoor advertising signs that do not conform to local ordinances and that are affected by certain transportation-related projects. (FE)

Billboard Ordinance Organization miscellaneous Road — Construction and repair Transportation department of — Roads

  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

This bill revises the standards governing the treatment of outdoor advertising

signs that do not conform to local ordinances (signs) and that are affected by certain

transportation-related public projects.

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

causes the realignment of a 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 the types of projects covered, eliminates the realignment

provision, and creates provisions related to signs that are removed and signs whose

visibility is reduced. Under this bill, if a transportation project for which DOT has

allocated state or federal funds (state project) causes the removal of a sign, the sign's

nonconforming status under the ordinance is not affected if the sign is repositioned

or, if the sign cannot be repositioned, the sign is transferred to a parcel on the same

highway or, if the sign cannot be transferred to a parcel on the same highway, to

another parcel to which the sign owner and the municipality agree the sign may be

transferred. If a state project reduces the visibility of a sign, the sign's

nonconforming status under the ordinance is not affected if the sign is repositioned,

or, if the sign cannot be repositioned, the sign face is raised, lowered, or rotated so

as to provide substantially the same view of the sign from the roadway from which

motorists are intended to view the sign as existed before the state project, or, if the

sign cannot be repositioned and the sign face cannot be adjusted, the sign is

transferred. “Reposition” under this bill means to remove a sign and erect the sign

or a replacement sign on the same parcel and not more than 25 feet in either

direction, measured parallel to the roadway, and not more than 660 feet, measured

perpendicular to the roadway, from the location from which the sign is removed.

“Transfer” under this bill means to remove a sign and erect the sign or a replacement

sign within the same municipality.

Also under this bill:

1. If DOT proposes the repositioning or transfer of a sign in connection with a

state project, DOT must notify the municipality or county that adopted the ordinance

to which the sign does not conform of the sign's proposed repositioning or transfer.

The municipality or county may then petition DOT to condemn the sign instead of

repositioning or transferring the sign, but must pay DOT for certain costs of

condemnation if DOT succeeds in condemning the sign.

2. If a sign is adjusted, repositioned, or transferred, DOT must pay to the sign

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Brandtjen (R) , Brooks (R) , Doyle (D) , Goeben (R) , Gundrum (R) , Krug (R) , Mursau (R) , O'Connor (R) , Petersen (R) , Plumer (R) , Schmidt (R) , Schutt (R) , Tusler (R)

3 cosponsors

Ballweg (R) , Feyen (R) , Wanggaard (R)

Full history

  1. Oct 12, 2023 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Goeben, Brandtjen, Brooks, Doyle, Gundrum, Krug, Mursau, O'Connor, Petersen, Plumer, Schmidt, Schutt and Tusler; cosponsored by Senators Feyen, Ballweg and Wanggaard

  2. Oct 12, 2023 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Transportation

  3. Nov 13, 2023 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Jan 9, 2024 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Apr 15, 2024 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1