Print 🖨

The Texas Transportation Commission met on June 28 to discuss regulation of commercial signs. SB 2006 (Watson), relating to erecting or maintaining certain outdoor signs regulated by TXDOT, and SB 312 (Nichols), relating to the continuation and functions of TXDOT were outlined in great detail. 

85th Legislative Session Overview

  • Tryon Lewis, Chair: We are going to defer this item to July meeting, either at a workshop or a normal meeting.

Regulation of Commercial Signs

  • Gus Cannon, Director of Right of Way, presented a PowerPoint, highlighting SB 2006 and SB 312.
  • Both bills bore out of recent Texas Supreme Court rulings that held that the Texas Highway Beautification Act (HBA) is unconstitutional.
  • SB 2006 (Watson), Relating to erecting or maintaining certain outdoor signs regulated by TXDOT
    • Ensures that Texas HBA is no longer constitutionally suspect on 1st amendment grounds. Key provisions in the bill:
    • Changes the definition of a “commercial sign”.
    • Removes of the list of exemptions which are no longer needed and all references to exempted and nonprofit signs
    • Replaces outdoor advertising with commercial sign under new definition.
  • SB 312 (Nichols), Relating to the continuation and functions of TXDOT.
    • Legalized the height of all signs as they existed on March 1, 2017 up to a height of 85 feet.
    • Currently, there are 159 individual height violations for OAS over the 42.5 feet maximum height (above the highway pavement).
    • What we have to address is: what happens as we move forward? What are height restrictions going to be, if any? There will be many complexities involved; it is going to take quite the administrative review.
  • General Notes:
    • Federal HBA does not impose height restrictions.
    • Of 50 states, 4 do not allow OAS anywhere.
    • 80% of states do not have height restrictions at all.
    • The Considerations.
    • There is a compounding effect of this change that requires nearly every rule to be amended. The amendments are required to:
    • Align with rules with SB 2006 and SB 312
    • Reflect the new electronic application system for licenses and permits
    • Delete sections that are now unnecessary.
    • Housekeeping to clarify the rule and to reflect current right-of-way practices.

Questions

  • Jeff Austin III, Commissioner: What other categories of implication might the department suffer for failure to enforce? You can talk to us about that later. What is your timeframe for proposed rules?
    • Cannon: We are pushing hard for the next two weeks. We will probably move that out past the 4th of July. It will be an open meeting, held in Austin.
    • Austin: Will you allow for written comments?
    • Cannon: Absolutely.
    • Austin: How soon will we be able to publish?
    • Cannon: We would ask to publish in August.
    • Austin: How did we get here? Lack of enforcement?
    • Cannon: For decades, there was little to no inspection as far as measurements. The distance between signs has been a big challenge across the US. There is also a commercial industry aspect that has also been hard to monitor. All of these things led to the centralization.
    • Austin: Inconsistent interpretation, inconsistent monitoring. Centralization is bringing some consistency.
    • Cannon: Yes.
    • Austin: Distance and height. Can you help me define these measurements?
    • Cannon: The measure would be from center of asphalt.
    • Austin: Is that in statute?
    • Cannon: No, that is in our rules. Obviously, it poses some issues as it is unsafe to stand in the middle of the road and measure up.
    • Austin: With some of these over-height signs, will they be grandfathered.
    • Cannon: Yes.
    • Austin: For those that we do not know about. Are we going to include them in our rules?
    • Cannon: That is one of our great administrative considerations.
    • Austin: Would it be feasible to have a “come-clean” period? If you are aware of it – bring it forward?
    • Cannon: We always prefer self-reporting. It is the cleanest way to do it.
    • Austin: One thing you did say is that there would be an increased cost component to the department for inspecting. I question that; we have better things to do without time.
    • Cannon: There are other ways to do it. The program is revenue neutral.
    • Austin: We may not like how we got here, but we are here. Going forward, let’s try to do something sensible.
    • Cannon: Height is a big concern to us in the administration. We are going to work on it.
    • Austin: As I understand it, considerations are about where to measure and how.
    • Cannon: Yes.
    • Austin: I am aware of a situation that deals with a broadcasting antenna. Is that under the same regulation?
    • Cannon: No.
  • Victor Vandergriff, Commissioner: We were one of four states with a height restriction of 42 feet and below. Can you explain to why Texas is different, considering we are pro-business?
    • Cannon: A number of states chose to be bonus states.
    • Vandergriff: What are bonus states?
    • Cannon: Monitoring obligations were bore to the states a few decades ago. Texas chose not to partake in the program. It had nothing really to do with height; back then, there were a bunch of telephone poles.
    • Vandergriff: The federal government does not impose a height restriction; we self-imposed a very strict one. Will you work with industry when you are creating rules?
    • Cannon: It has got to be an open discussion.
    • Vandergriff: Could you touch on vegetation management, how will that topic influence rule making?
    • Cannon: We don’t have those in our proposed rules, but we will take that into consideration when creating our rules.
    • Vandergriff: It is something that self-help can help with. I will see to it.
    • Austin: I concur.
    • Vandergriff: Do we know the other states are that have height requirements less than 42 feet?
    • Cannon: Mississippi, Montana South Dakota, Wyoming.
  • Laura Ryan, Commissioner: I hear we don’t have a dog in the hunt, but what is the benefit of putting a height restriction?
    • Cannon: We certainly are not anti-billboards. The aspect is that if we do not have a height restriction, our regulation will cease to exist.
    • Ryan: Do we have any data that speaks to unintended consequences to not having a height restriction?
    • Cannon: No. Literature is all over the place, advocating for and against a restriction.
  • Tryon Lewis, Chair: Who are some of the stakeholders in this area of billboard regulations?
    • Cannon: There are many groups; for example, the independent sign owners association, retailers, etc.
    • Lewis: Local cities, governments, do they have an interest in this?
    • Cannon: Yes. Texas Municipal League will have a say in this.
    • Lewis: Will you be meeting with different stakeholder groups? What will be the process?
    • Cannon: We will be listening to all during the rule making process, all stakeholders.

The commission did not meet in executive session.
No public comments.