Got some more information about the billboard bill, SB219, from my good friend, planner and former Woods Cross city manager Gary Uresk.  Gary is now retired, but has always been a billboards warrior, and is working now with Ralph Becker and Scenic Utah.  Full disclosure, the Scenic Utah website lists me as an advisor, though I’m not actively doing much with them.  During my time as planning director for Salt Lake City, while Ralph was mayor, we had our hands full dealing with billboard issues, so I’m no novice on this.

Here’s what Gary had to say:

In last year’s session, the billboard industry had added to the state code 72-7-510(6)(a)(ii), which is shown on lines 78 and 79 of SB 219.  This allows a relocated sign to go into any city or county other than the one the sign to be relocated is in.  However, in negotiations, the industry agreed to the language in 72-7-510(7)(b) that limited the enforcement clause of requiring the entity that refuses to accept the relocated sign to buy the sign to only those cities or counties in which the sign to be relocated is located.  Line 110 of SB 219 shows this by limiting it to (6)(a)(i).  However, notice that this bill strikes out (6)(a)(i) and replaces it with (6)(a) placing all counties and cities potentially on the hook.  What this means is if a billboard company has a sign located in NSL, for example, that needs to be relocated, it can go to WX, Cedar City, Logan or any city in the state and say to them, “let’s find a site to mutually agree to relocate this sign.”  If the city fails to mutually agree, the company can then give 30 days notice and then can relocate the sign.  By removing one small letter, it creates the ability to move a billboard wherever the company wishes at will.

Sounds like a significant concern, and a repudiation of what was agreed to earlier.