BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 2244 |
By: Harper-Brown |
Urban Affairs |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
According to interested parties, if a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) highway project requires the removal of a billboard in a municipality, TxDOT will either relocate the billboard to another location in the municipality or pay just compensation to the owner for removing the billboard. The parties note that, in such circumstances, relocation typically is the preferred option for both parties because the owner is able to maintain a valuable business asset and TxDOT saves time and money by not having to pay just compensation. However, the parties have expressed concerns regarding restrictions imposed by some municipalities that either prohibit such relocation or render relocation economically impractical for the billboard owner. Such an owner may then seek compensation from the state for the fair market value of the asset, which may exceed the actual cost to the state for relocation if the sign were to be relocated. C.S.H.B. 2244 seeks to address this concern by requiring municipalities to reimburse TxDOT for the just compensation paid by TxDOT to the owner of a sign that must be removed because of road construction but is not subsequently relocated.
|
||||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 2244 amends the Local Government Code to require a municipality, if the widening, construction, or reconstruction of a road by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) requires the removal of a sign located in the municipality and if relocation of the sign in the municipality would be allowed under TxDOT rules but is restricted or prohibited by the municipality's charter, ordinance, or decision, to reimburse TxDOT for any just compensation paid to the owner or lessee of the sign in a condemnation proceeding. The bill establishes that, for purposes of its provisions, a sign located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a municipality is considered located in the municipality.
|
||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2013.
|
||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 2244 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||
|