HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-02-0332J-02-268
03/14/02
i 0
RESOLUTION NO.0 2 — 3 3 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
URGING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO DEFEAT
PROPOSED HOUSE BILL 715 (HB 715) AND SENATE
BILL 758 (SB 758) WHICH, IF ADOPTED, WILL
DEPRIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF THE RIGHT TO
REGULATE BILLBOARDS BY REMOVING THE EXISTING
MECHANISMS AVAILABLE FOR CONTROL OF AND
COMPENSATION TO OWNERS OF NON -CONFORMING
BILLBOARDS; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND
CITY ATTORNEY TO USE ANY AND ALL RESOURCES
AVAILABLE, SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION BY THE
CITY COMMISSION, TO OPPOSE ENACTMENT OF THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION AND APPRISE THE
LEGISLATURE OF THE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL FOR
NEGATIVE IMPACT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
ENTAILS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE
OFFICIALS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
WHEREAS, Florida House Bill 715 (HB 715) and Florida Senate
Bill 758 (SB 758), if adopted, will preempt local governments'
authority to establish rules and standards for outdoor
advertising; and
WHEREAS, the proposed bills will create insurmountable
obstacles to the removal and control of non -conforming
billboards and signs; and
WHEREAS, the proposed bills will cause a severe and
negative impact both financially and aesthetically for local
CITY C;OMM$=
MAP 1 tj 202
(j Res€iatiutt.kb.
0;G, — 33
governments in their efforts related to billboard regulation;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami strongly opposes the legislation
currently under consideration by the Florida Legislature;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The Florida Legislature is urged to defeat
proposed House Bill 715 (HB 715) and Senate Bill 758 (SB 758)
which, if adopted, will deprive local governments of the right
to regulate billboards by removing the existing mechanisms
available for control of and compensation to owners of non-
conforming billboards and other outdoor advertising signs.
Section 3. The City Manager and City Attorney are
directed to use any and all resources available, subject to
ratification by the City Commission, to oppose the proposed
legislation and apprise the Legislature of the enormous
potential for negative impact the proposed legislation entails.
Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a
copy of this Resolution to Governor Jeb Bush, Lieutenant
Governor Frank T. Brogan, President of the Florida Senate
John M. McKay, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives
Page 2 of 3 02- 332
0
f
Tom Feeney, all members of the Miami -Dade County Legislative
Delegation, the Florida League of Cities, and the Miami -Dade
League of Cities.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.'/
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March , 2002.
UEL A. DIAZ, MAY
ATTEST;
PRISCILLA A. ROMP ON
CITY CLERK
AND CORRECTNESS
ITY ATTORNEY
d� W6112:MJC:BSS
y' If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at
the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If
the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately
upon override of the veto by the City Commission.
Page 3 of 3 02- 332
• CITY OF MIAMI, FLOR DA 16
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Honorable Chairman and Members DATE March 14, 2002
of the City Commission
SUBJECT State Billboard Legislation
FR3V Manuel A. Diaz �,EFEREI,CES
Mayor
ENCLOSURES
The City is currently involved in the difficult work of reforming its Billboard Ordinance
and reigning -in the activities of those in the industry who have abused or violated local
law. As each of you is aware, the industry is swiftly moving legislation through both the
Florida House and Senate that would preempt local attempts to set rules and standards
governing outdoor advertising.
1 am writing to request your assistance in an effort to combat this legislation that would
severely curtail the City's ability to establish fair and appropriate standards that govern
outdoor advertising within its jurisdictional limits. We have been informed that the
language in the Senate version will be amended to adopt the House version that will limit
efforts by municipalities to have non -conforming billboards and signs removed. Please
join me in an effort to defeat the proposed legislation by:
1. Contacting members of the Dade delegation and voicing your opposition to the
current House language which is being forwarded to the Senate for consideration;
2. Contacting the Florida League of Cities and urging them to alert their members
about the negative impact the current House language will have on the ability of
cities to set local standards;
3. Contacting the Miami -Dade League of Cities and urging them to alert other cities
within Miami -Dade County about the negative impact the current House language
will have on their ability to set local standards; and
4. Possibly visiting Tallahassee next week and meeting with members of both the
House and Senate to voice your opposition to any legislation that preempts our
ability to set local standards.
Thank you for your anticipated support on this issue of great local importance.
02- 332
CS/HS 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1
A bill to be entitled
2
An act relating to transportation; creating s.
3
70.20, F.S.; providing for a process for
4
governmental entities and sign owners to enter
5
into relocation and reconstruction agreements
6
related to outdoor advertising signs; defining
7
"relocation and reconstruction agreement";
8
providing for compensation to sign owners under
9
certain conditions; requiring a study by the
10
office of Program Policy Analysis and
11
Government Accountability and requiring a
12
report to the Legislature; amending s.
13
163.3180, F.S.; extending the period within
14
which certain transportation facilities needed
15
to serve new development must be in place or
16
under actual construction; amending s. 334.044,
17
F.B.; authorizing the Department of
18
Transportation to expend funds to promote
19
scenic highways; authorizing the department to
20
delegate to other governmental entities the
21
authority to issue drainage permits under
22
certain circumstances; amending s. 339.135,
23
F.S.; providing a 5 -year commitment for
24
projects on the Florida Intrastate Highway
25
System; amending s. 479.7.5, F.S.; defining
26
"federal -aid primary highway system" for
27
purposes of provisions governing the alteration
28
of certain lawfully erected signs; creating s.
29
479.25, F.S.; authorizing local governments to
30
enter into agreements with the department which
31
1
CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02- 332
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
allow outdoor signs to be erected above sound
barriers; providing an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1, Section 70.20, Florida Statutes, is created
to read:
70.20 Balancing of interests. --It is a policy of this
state to encourage municipalities, counties, and other
overnmental entities and sign owners to enter into relocation
and reconstruction agreements that allow governmental entities
to undertake public projects and accomplish public goals
without the ex enditure of public funds while allowing the
continued maintenance of private investment in signage as_a
medium of commercial and noncommercial communication.
(1) Municipalities, counties, and all other
governmental entities are specifically empowered to enter into
relocation and reconstruction agreements on whatever terms are
agreeable to the sign owner and the municipality, county, or
other governmental entity involved and to provide for
relocation and reconstruction of signs by agreement,
ordinance, or resolution. As used in this section, a
"relocation and reconstruction agreement" means a consensual_
contractual agreement between -a sign owner and a municipality,
county, or other governmental entity for either the
reconstruction of an existing sign or the removai of a sign
and construction of a new si n to substitute for the si n
removed.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no
municipality, county, or other governmental entity may remove,
or cause to be removed, any lawfully erected sign located
2
CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02--• 332
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 along any portion of the interstate, federal --aid primary or.
2 other highway system, or any other road without first payirz2
3 just compensation for such removal as determined by agreement
4 between the parties or through eminent domain proceedings.
5 Except as otherwise provided in this section, no municipality,
6 county, or other governmental entity may cause in any way the
7 alteration of any lawfully erected sign located along any
8 portion of the interstate, federal -aid primary or other
9 highway system, or any other road without first paying just:
10 compensation for such alteration as determined by agreement.
11 between the parties or through eminent domain proceedings. The
12 provisions of this section shall not apply to any ordinance
13 the validity, constitutionality, and enforceability of which
14 the owner has by written agreement waived all right to
15 challenge.
16 (3) In the event that a_municipality, county, or other
17 governmental entity undertakes a public project or public goal
18 requiring alteration or removal of any lawfully erected sign,
19 the municipality, county, or other governmental entity shall
20 notice the owner of the affected sign in writing of the public
21 project or goal and of the intention of the municipality,
22 county, or othe tai entity to seek such alteration
23 or removal Within 30 da s fter receipt of the notice, the
24 owner of t e sign and t ici alit , county,_or other
25 governmental entity shall attempt to meet for purposes of
26 negotiating and executing a relocation and reconstruction
27 agreement as provided for in subsection (1).
28 (4) If the parties fai ter into a relocation and
29 reconstruction agreement wi in 120 da s ter the initial
77:-30 notification by the municinality, county. or other
311 governmental entice, either party may request mandatory
11
CODING:Words stricke are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02— 332
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
CS/H3 715, First Engrossed/ntc
nohh� i g—,T bitration_to resolve the disagreements between
the parties. Each party shall select an arbitrator, and the
individuals so selected shall choose a third arbitrator. The
three arbitrators shall constitute the panel that shall
arbitrate the dispute between the parties and, at the
conclusion of the proceedings, shall present to the parties a
prop -)sed relocation and reconstruction agreement that the
panel believes equitably balances the rights, interests,
obligations, and reasonable expectations of the parties. if
the municipality, ceunty, or other governmental entity and the
sign owner accept the proposed relocation and reconstruction
agreement, the municipality, county, or other overnmental
entity and the sign owner shall each pay its respective costs
of arbitration and shall pay one-half of the costs of the
arbitration panel, unless the parties otherwise agree.
(5) Tf the parties do not enter into a relocation and
reconstruction agreement, the municipality, county, or other
governmental entity may proceed with the public project or
purpose and the alterati val of the si n only after
first a in ust Com ensation forsu h alteration or removal
as determine the parties or through
eminent domain proceedings.
(6) The requirement by a municipality, county, or
other governmental entity that a lawfully erected sign be
removed or altered as a condition precedent to the issuance or
continued effectiveness of a development order constitutes a
compelled removal that is prohibited without prior payment of
just compensation under subsection (2). This subsection shall
not apply when the owner of the land on which the sign is
located is seeking to have the property redesignated on the
4
CODING:Words antricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02_. 332
0 •
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 future land use map of the applicable comprehensive plan for
2 exclusively single-family residential use.
3 (7) The requirement by a municipality, county, or
4 other governmental entity that a lawfully erected sign be
5 altered or removed from the premises upon which it is located
6 incident to the voluntary acquisition of such property by i
7 municipality, county, or other governmental entity constitutes
8 a compelled removal that is prohibited without payment of just
9 compensation under subsection (2).
10 (8) Nothing in this section shall prevent a
11 municipality, county, or other governmental entity from
12 acquiring a lawfully erected sign through eminent domain or
13 from prospectively regulating the placement, size, height, or
14 other aspects of new signs within such entity's jurisdiction,
15 including the prohibition of new signs, unless otherwise
16 authorized pursuant to this section. Nothing in this section
17 shall impair any ordinance or provision of -any ordinance not
18 inconsistent with this section, including a provision that
19 creates a ban or partial ban on new signs, nor shall this
20 section create any new rights for any partyother than the
21 owner of a si n, the owner of the Land upon which it is
22 located, or a municipality, county, or other governmental
23 entity as expressed in this section.
24 (9) This section applies only to a lawfully erected
25 sign the subject matter of which relates to premises other
26 than the premises on which it is located or to merchandise,
27 services, activities, or entertainment not sold, produced,
28 manufactured, or furnished on the premises on which the sign
29 is located,
30 (10) This section shall not_apply to any actions taken
31 by the Department of Transportation that relate to the
I
CODING:Words strirkez are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02- 332
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
CS/HS 715, First Engrossed/ntc
operation, maintenance, or ex ansion of transportation
facilities, and this section shall not affect existing law
regarding eminent domain relating to the Department of
Transportation.
(11)Nothing in this section shall impair or affect
any written agreement existing prior to the effective date of
this act, including, but not limited to, any settlement
agreements reliant upon the legality or enforceability of
local ordinances. The provisions of this section shall not
�apply to any signs that are re ired to be removed b a date
certain in areas desi nated by local ordinance as view
corridors if the local ordinance creating the view corridor,
was enacted in part to effectuate a consensual agreement
between the local government and two or more sign owners r_Lor
to the effective date of this act, nor shall the provisions of
this section apply to any signs that are the subject of� an
ordinance providing an amortization_ period which period has
expired, and which ordinance is the subject of judicial
proceedings that were commenced on or before January 1, 2001.,
nor shall this section apply to any municipality with an
ordinance that prohibits billboards and has two or fewer
billboards located within its current boundaries or its future
annexed properties.
(12) Subsection (6) shall not apply when the
develo ment order permits construction of a replacement sign
that cannot be erected without the removal of the lawfull
erected sign being replaced.
(13) Effective upon this section becoming a law, the
Office of Program Polic Anal sis and Government
Accountability, in consultation with the property appraisers
and the affectedprivate-sector parties, shall conduct a stui
M
CODING:Words stric ei are deletions; words underlined are additions.
060! 332
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 of the value of offsite signs in relation to, and in
2 comparison with, the valuation of other commercial properties
3 for ad valorem tax purposes, including a com arison of tax
4 valuations from other states. The Office of Program Policy
5 Analysis and Government Accountability shall complete the
6 study by December 31, 2002, and shall report the results of
7 the study to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
8 the House of Representatives.
9 Section 2. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section
10 163.3180, Florida Statutes, is amended to read;
11 163.3180 Concurrency. --
12 (2)
13 (c) Consistent with the public welfare, and except as
14 otherwise provided in this section, transportation facilities
15 designated as part of the Florida Intrastate Hi_qhway System
16 needed to serve new development shall be in place or under
17 actual construction not more than 5 years after issuance by
18 the local government of a certificate of occupancy or its
19 functional equivalent. Other transportation facilities needed
20 to serve new development shall be in place or under actual
21 construction no more than 3 years after issuance by the local
22 government of a certificate of occupancy or its functional
23 equivalent.
24 Section 3. Subsection (5) and paragraph (b) of
25 subsection (15) of section 334.044, Florida Statutes, are
26 amended to read:
27 334.044 Department; powers and duties. --The department
28 shall have the following general powers and duties:
29 (5) To purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire property
30 and materials, including the purchase of promotional items as
31 part of public information and education campaigns for the
7
CODING:Words strickez are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02- 332
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 promotion of scenic highways,traffic and train safety
2 awareness, alternatives to single -occupant vehicle travel, and
3 commercial motor vehicle safety; to purchase, lease, or
4 otherwise acquire equipment and supplies; and to sell,
5 exchange, or otherwise dispose of any property that is no
6 longer needed by the department.
7 (15) To regulate and prescribe conditions for the
8 transfer of stormwater to the state right--of-way as a result
9 of manmade changes to adjacent properties.
10 (b) The department is specifically authorized to adopt
11 rules which set forth the purpose; necessary definitions;
12 permit exceptions; permit and assurance requirements; permit
13 application procedures; permit forms; general conditions for a
14 drainage permit; provisions for suspension or revocation of a
15 permit; and provisions for department recovery of fines,
16 penalties, and costs incurred due to permittee actions. In
17 order to avoid duplication and overlap with other units of
18 government, the department shall accept a surface water
19 management permit issued by a water management district, the
20 Department of Environmental Protection, a surface water
21 management permit issued by a delegated local government, or a
22 permit issued pursuant to an approved Stormwater Management
23 Plan or Master Drainage Plan; provided issuance is based on
24 requirements equal to or more stringent than those of the
25 department. The department may enter into a permit -delegation
26 a reement with a governmental entity if issuance of a ermit:
27 is based on requirements that the department finds will ensure
28 the safety and integrity of facilities of the Department of
29 Transportation.
30 Section 4. Paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section
31 339.135, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
8
CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02T 332
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 339.135 Work program; legislative budget request;
2 definitions; preparation, adoption, execution, and
3 amendment. --
4 (4) FUNDING AND DEVELOPING A TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM[. --
5 (b)1. A tentative work program, including the ensuing
6 fiscal year and the successive 4 fiscal years, shall be
7 prepared for the State Transportation Trust Fund and other
8 funds managed by the department, unless otherwise provided by
9 law. The tentative work program shall be based on the
10 district work programs and shall set forth all projects by
11 phase to be undertaken during the ensuing fiscal year and
12 planned for the successive 4 fiscal years. The total amount of
13 the liabilities accruing in each fiscal year of the tentative
14 work program may not exceed the revenues available for
15 expenditure during the respective fiscal year based on the
16 cash forecast for that respective fiscal year.
17 2. The tentative work program shall be developed in
18 accordance with the Florida Transportation Plan required in s.
19 339.155 and must comply with the program funding levels
20 contained in the program and resource plan.
21 3. The department may include in the tentative work
22 program proposed changes to the programs contained in the
23 previous work program adopted pursuant to subsection (5);
24 however, the department shall minimize changes and adjustments
25 that affect the scheduling of project phases in the 4 common
26 fiscal years contained in the previous adopted work program
27 and the tentative work program. The department, in the
28 development of the tentative work program, shall advance by 1
29 fiscal year all projects included in the second year of the
30 previous year's adopted work program, unless the secretary
31 specifically determines that it is necessary, for specific
9
CODING:Words stir-i� are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02~ 332
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 reasons, to reschedule or delete one or more projects from
2 that year. Such changes and adjustments shall be clearly
3 identified, and the effect on the 4 common fiscal years
4 contained in the previous adopted work program and the
5 tentative work program shall be shown. it is the intent of
6 the Legislature that the first 5 years of the adopted work
7 program for facilities designated as part of the Florida
8 Intrastate Highway System and the first 3 years of the adopted
9 work program stand as the commitment of the state to undertake
10 transportation projects that local governments may rely on for
11 planning purposes and in the development and amendment of the
12 capital improvements elements of their local government
13 comprehensive plans.
14 4. The tentative work program must include a balanced
15 36 -month forecast of cash and expenditures and a 5 -year
16 finance plan supporting the tentative work program.
17 Section 5. Subsection (2) of section 479.15, Florida
18 Statutes, is amended to read:
19 479.15 Harmony of regulations. --
20 (2) A municipality, county, local zoning authority, or
21 other local governmental entity may not remove, or cause to be
22 removed, any lawfully erected sign along any portion of the
23 interstate or federal -aid primary highway system without first
24 paying just compensation for such removal. A local
25 governmental entity may not cause in any way the alteration of
26 any lawfully erected sign located along any portion of the
27 interstate or federal --aid primary highway system without
28 payment of just compensation if such alteration constitutes a
29 taking under state law. The municipality, county, local zoning
30 authority, or other local government entity that adopts
31 pt-oMu gati g requirements for such alteration shall pay must -
10
CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02- 332
• 0
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 just compensation to the sign
2 owner if such alteration constitutes a taking under state law.
3 This subsection applies only to a lawfully erected sign the
4 subject matter of which relates to premises other than the
5 premises on which it is located or to merchandise, services,
6 activities, or entertainment not sold, produced, manufactured,
7 or furnished on the premises on which the sign is located. As
8 used in this subsection, the term "federal -aid primary highway
9 system" means the federal -aid primary highway system in
10 existence on June 1, 1991, and any highway that was not a part
11 of such system as of that date but that is or becomes after
12 June 1, 1991, a part of the National Highway System.This
13 subsection shall not be interpreted as explicit or implicit
14 legislative recognition that alterations do or do not
15 constitute a taking under state law.
16 Section 6. Section 479.25, Florida Statutes, is
17 created to read:
18 479.25 Application of chapter. ---This chapter does not
19 prevent a governmental entity from entering into an agreement
20 allowing the height above ground level of a lawfully erected
21 sign to be increased at its permitted location if a
22 noise -attenuation barrier, visibilityscreen,or other highway
23 improvement is erected in such.a way as to screen or block
24 visibility of the sign. However, if a nonconforming sign is
25 located on the federal -aid primary highway system, as such
26 system existed on June 1, 1991, or on any highway that was not
27 a part of such system as of that date but that is or becomes
28 after June 1, 1991, a part of the National Hi hwa S stem, the
29 agreement must be a roved by the Federal Hi hwa
30 Administration. Any increase in height permitted under this
31.1 section may only be the increase in height which is required
11
CODING:Wcrds strickcr are deletions; words underlined are additions.
02-- 332
CS/HB 715, First Engrossed/ntc
1 to achieve the same degree of visibility from the richt--of-wa
2 which the sign had prior to the construction of the
3 noise -attenuation barrier, visibility screen, or other highwa
4 iE�provement .
5 Section 7. This act shall take effect July 1, 2002.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
12
CQDSNG:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
®2- 332
PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON
City Clerk
March 18, 2002
titij la£ 4RT-am?
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ
City Manager
TO: The Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor
The Honorable Frank T. Brogan, Lieutenant Governor
The Honorable John M. McKay, President - Florida Senate
The Honorable Tom Feeney, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives
Ms. Debra D. Owens, Executive Director - Miami -Dade County
Legislative Delegation
The Florida League of Cities
Miami -Dade League of Cities
N
FROM: Priscilla A. Thompson City o Miami
City Clerk
Enclosed please find a copy of Resolution No. 02-332, which was passed and adopted by the
City of Miami Commission at its meeting on March 14, 2002. This legislation is being
forwarded to you for your information and files.
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/ 3300 Pan American Drive/P.O. Box 3307013/Miami, FL 33233/{305) 250-5360/FAX: (305) 858-1010
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
April 25, 2002
STATE OF FLORIDA
(Offirt of thr 05oiieruor
THE CAPITOL �+� APR 2 9 PH 3+ 4 0
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0001 lJ
C IR
SOV (?f`' tliAP11, FL
Ms. Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Post Office Box 330708
Miami, FL 33233
Dear Ms. Thompson:
Thank you for your letter to Governor Bush regarding legislation pertaining to
transportation and provisions for the removal of billboards (Committee Substitute for
House Bill 715). The Governor appreciates receiving your letter and asked that
respond on his behalf.
As you may know, the Governor signed Committee Substitute for House Bill 715 into law
on April 4, 2002. The best way to share his position and rationale regarding this
legislation is to provide you with the enclosed copy of the Governor's letter to Secretary
of State Katherine Harris. In the letter he outlines, in detail, his approval of the bill.
Governor Bush was very pleased to receive your letter and did consider your
recommendations and those of many other Floridians relating to Committee Substitute
for House Bill 715.
Sincerely,
�1& AJAII--
Teresa B. Tinker
Policy Coordinator
Office of Policy and Budget
TBTIbg
Enclosure
JFB BUST I
GOVERNOR
9 STATE OF FLORIDA 0
(Office Df t4.e (16niirrnar
TI IE CAPITO1,
TALI AHASSF.E, FLORIDA 32399-0001
April 4, 2002
The Honorable Katherine Harris
Secretary of State
PIL 02 The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
DeaF Secretary Han -is:
I hereby transmit to you with my signature Committee Substitute for House Bill 715, an
act relating to transportation.
Committee Substitute for House Bill 715, among other issues, provides a mechanism for
the removal of billboards in Florida's counties and cities. Over the last 20 years, local
communities have launched road beautification programs intended to remove what
many consider to be the blight of billboards in our communities. Under this bill, localities
may still continue with that process. The issue the bill seeks to address, however, is
how localities are to compensate billboard owners for damages that result in the takings
of these billboards. The bill also seeks to balance two fundamental governing principles
- that we should whenever possible allow local governments to govern their own affairs,
and that Floridians should be protected in their private property from government
takings.
In this particular bill, these principles appear to compete. Local communities seeking to
remove billboards have employed a compensation policy called amortization. Under this
policy, billboard owners would be allowed to keep their billboards intact for a
predetermined period of time, established by the locality, in order to recoup as much of
their investment as possible. Upon expiration of this time period, localities could then
force the removal of the billboards without paying compensation to the billboard owners.
Localities believe this is an appropriate means for compensation. On the other hand,
billboard owners see forced removal of their property much like the forced removal of a
business or a home. The takings of a business or a home would trigger a different
compensation mechanism known as "just compensation" - localities would have to pay
the fair market value of the property taken, rather than waiting for a period of time and
then taking the property without compensation. Hence, the issue: Localities seek to
utilize amortization in order to remove billboards without having to expend taxpayer
dollars, while billboard owners desire to be paid fair market value for the takings of their
property.
This issue is especially difficult since I am a firm believer in both local control and
property rights. I also believe that CS/House Bill 715, while not perfect, strikes an
adequate balance between important principles.
0
The Honorable
Katherine Harris
April 4, 2002
Page Two
First, this bill seeks to avoid the thorny issue of compensation altogether by first
promoting the relocation of billboards. Unlike earlier legislative amendments on this
issue, this legislation provides for a negotiation and arbitration process designed to
encourage relocation of a billboard as a first remedy. In fact, many billboard owners
would prefer to have their billboards relocated. This is evidenced by the fact that already
many agreements between billboard owners and localities are settled by relocation. In
CS/House Bill 715, billboard owners and localities are encouraged to negotiate for
relocation. If those negotiations fail, a process for non-binding arbitration is established.
Only if arbitration fails to yield a satisfactory resolution does the requirement for just
compensation take effect.
Second, this bill does not prohibit localities from passing ordinances banning all future
billboards going forward. Rather it deals only with existing billboards and how they
should be removed. It also still permits amortization as a negotiation tool for
communities. There is nothing in this bill that prevents communities from offering a
longer amortization in lieu of just compensation - in fact, some commentaries on this
subject suggest amortization is a more lucrative form of compensation for billboard
owners. If that is the case, an individual billboard owner may still agree to an
amortization period in place of fair market value, if he or she finds that will be a more
appropriate form of compensation.
Third, the legislation specifically recognizes by exemption existing billboard agreements
between billboard owners and localities, as well as communities with amortization
periods completed that are in litigation with billboard owners as of January 1, 2001.
These two exceptions alone would exempt a good many communities, including some of
Florida's largest counties and cities, from the impact of this bill.
Fourth, the requirement for just compensation for billboard removal in this country is the
rule, not the exception. Already, the State of Florida pays just compensation when it
seeks to remove billboards. In 39 other states, the law provides for just compensation.
In addition, the bill is consistent with the federal government policy that provides just
compensation for the removal of billboards on all federal -aid highways.
Fifth, the bill would treat billboard owners and billboard tenants as we treat other
property owners and other business tenants. Instead of suggesting that a billboard is
property that is less deserving of protection against government takings, this bill would
level the playing field, treating billboards as we would treat a leased or owned restaurant
or a gas station that is removed by government to advance a public purpose. There is
no priority interest given to billboard owners; there is no change in eminent domain law.
The Honorable Katherine Harris
April 4, 2002
Page Three
Sixth, the payment of just compensation by counties and cities is not necessarily
prohibitive. In editorials around the state opposing this legislation, it is often remarked
that paying just compensation will bankrupt cities or force them to abandon their
beautification programs. While the cost of removing billboards may be hard to quantify,
the Florida Department of Transportation's (DOT) own experience in billboard removal
has been fairly reasonable. For example, in a random survey by DOT of its eminent
domain proceedings with billboards, it found that in only seven cases of the 33
proceedings surveyed, billboard owners were compensated at an amount greater than
$100,000 for signs located in heavy urban areas and along major interstates. About half
of the eminent domain settlements resulted in compensation of less than $50,000.
Finally, the bill is the product of a two-year negotiation process. When this issue arose a
number of years ago, I asked my office to initiate discussions between both the billboard
owners and local governments. While these meetings failed to yield consensus, it did
have the effect of moderating the initial legislative proposals - proposals that did not
include exemptions, clarification that the bill applies only to "lawfully erected" signs, and
an arbitration process designed to encourage relocation. Nevertheless, the version of
the proposal now under consideration did go through ten committee hearings over the
last two years, was debated five times before the full House and five times before the full
Senate, and has passed the Legislature not once, but twice.
Some opponents of this legislation suggest that the bill is unfair because billboards for
tax purposes are valued as tangible personal property, and that may be less than the
valuation of the billboard for eminent domain purposes. Although this issue is irrelevant
to the bill since property tax appraisals cannot by law be considered in eminent domain
proceedings, it is important to point out that property appraisers in valuing a billboard
may consider cost, market and income approaches. In reality, however, our research
has found that many counties rely solely on cost at their discretion. The Legislature in its
wisdom recognized the need to review valuation of signs by calling on the Office of
Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) to study the value
of offsite signs in relation to the valuation of other commercial properties for ad valorem
tax purposes, including a comparison of tax valuations from other states.
In sum, CS/House Bill 715 protects the rights of property owners while still allowing local
governments the latitude to remove or relocate billboards. Under the bill, localities can
still use their home rule power to remove a billboard. If they choose, localities may now
remove billboards immediately, without having to wait for years. Or, they may offer
relocation or amortization as a settlement. Their existing agreements with billboard
owners are still honored. It allows for the continuation of court cases in progress before
January 1, 2001, and it preserves all existing and future ordinances not in conflict with
the just compensation provisions of the law.
0
The Honorable Katherine Harris
April 4, 2002
Page Four
CS/House Bill 715 also stands for something in which I strongly believe. As a
conservative, it is my opinion that we must always be wary of the government taking or
regulating away the use of property, tangible or real, whether direct or indirect, It should
not be something taken lightly, and it should not be something made too easy. The
taking, whether direct or indirect, of private property is serious business. It should
require extraordinary effort on the part of government to effectuate. Imagine a
government that could amortize your home or your business as a means of taking your
property? Such a failure of the checks and balances of government power would be
pernicious. Similarly, we, as a people, do not deserve the further diminishment of our
rights by marginalizing how government compensates us when it does actually utilize its
extraordinary power to take property.
For these reasons, and due to the bill's attempt to balance the rights of cities and
counties with the rights of property owners, I hereby approve CS/House Bill 715.
Sincerely,
Jeb Bush