Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Griego

DATE TYPED 02/16/05 HB

SHORT TITLE

Outdoor Advertising Requirements

SB 234a/SCONC

ANALYST Moser

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Department of Transportation (DOT)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Amendment

This proposed amendment to NMSA 1978 § 67-12-4 proposes three major revisions to the

current law.

(1) SB 234 would amend § 67-12-4(A)(5) to provide that an outdoor advertising sign, dis-

play and device must be at least 750 feet from the next closest sign, display or device and at

least 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way.

(2) SB 234 proposes to amend § 67-12-4(A)(5) by deleting the requirement that the state

transportation commission determine whether a sign is a landmark sign of historic or artis-

tic significance worthy of preservation.

(3) SB 234 proposes the addition of new language to be codified as § 67-12-4(D), which

would provide that “on and after July 1, 2005, no new permit shall be issued by the com-

mission unless the permit applicant conveys to the commission an existing outdoor adver-

tising permit or the commission acquires or condemns an existing outdoor advertising

structure under a permit to the applicant.”

Senate Bill 234a/SCONC -- Page 2

This bill also proposes several minor amendments to the existing statute, which, in our

opinion is “clean up” language that has no significant impact on the Department.

Significant Issues of Amendment:

(1) The proposed amendment to § 67-21-4(A)(5) would increase the distance between out-

door advertising devices to 750 feet. The new spacing requirement would result in fewer

advertising devices along a highway corridor than are presently allowed. However, the re-

quirement that the outdoor advertising device must be at least 660 feet from the nearest

edge of the right-of-way raises several concerns. The law presently provides that outdoor

advertising devices must be located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way.

The requirement that the sign, display or device be located at least 660 feet from the nearest

edge of the right-of-way means that the advertising device would be farther from the road-

way and, therefore, less visible. That may result in the erection of larger outdoor advertis-

ing devices that can be seen from a greater distance, but the larger signs may violate local

government ordinances restricting the size of advertising devices. The larger signs would

be more costly to erect and less affordable to the smaller outdoor advertising companies.

In order to prevent the proliferation of larger signs, albeit farther apart, the NMDOT rec-

ommends that the bill be revised to include the new spacing requirement, i.e., that signs,

displays and devices must be located at least 750 feet from the next closest sign. However,

the department also recommends retaining the language in the current law allowing the dis-

play or device to be located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way.

(2) The current § 67-12-4(A)(6) provides that signs that were lawfully in existence on

October 22, 1965 (the effective date of the federal Highway Beautification Act), and which

are determined by the state transportation commission to be landmark signs of historic or

artistic significance worthy of preservation may be erected or maintained. SB 234 pro-

poses to amend this section by deleting the reference to the state transportation commis-

sion. However, it leaves unanswered the question of who would determine whether a sign

is a landmark sign of historic or artistic significance. The NMDOT recommends retaining

the reference to the commission.

(3) The proposed § 67-12-4(D) provides that no new permit may be issued as of July 1,

2005 unless the applicant conveys to the state transportation commission an existing out-

door advertising permit or the commission acquires or condemns an existing outdoor ad-

vertising structure currently under permit to the same applicant. Because it is unclear under

what circumstances the commission would acquire or condemn an existing outdoor adver-

tising structure under a permit and how it would be conveyed to applicants who qualify for

a permit, but do not have another permit to convey to the commission, NMDOT recom-

mends revising the bill to provide the following:

“On and after July 1, 2005, no new permit shall be issued by the commission unless the

permit applicant conveys to the commission an existing outdoor advertising permit and

otherwise complies with all rules adopted by the commission governing the issuance of

permits. In the event the commission acquires or condemns an existing outdoor adver-

tising structure under a permit to the applicant, the commission may issue the applicant

a new permit subject to rules adopted by the commission.”

Senate Bill 234a/SCONC -- Page 3

The proposed revision would also clarify the issue whether an applicant is guaranteed a

new permit if he conveys an existing permit to the commission or the commission acquires

or condemns an existing outdoor advertising device under permit to the applicant. The is-

suance of a new permit should be conditioned on compliance with federal, state and local

requirements, including spacing, lighting, etc. The applicant should not be entitled to a

new permit, even though he has conveyed an existing permit to the commission, or had his

existing structure acquired or condemned by the commission, if the application for a new

permit does not comply with applicable federal, state and local requirements.

Finally, a single outdoor advertising structure may have up to four permits. Each advertis-

ing face of a single outdoor advertising structure requires a separate permit. Therefore, the

number of permits does not necessarily represent or equal the same number of outdoor ad-

vertising structures. That raises the question whether an applicant who has an existing

double-faced outdoor advertising structure with two permits may convey one of the permits

to the commission, keep the existing billboard with just one face and now one permit, and

then be issued a new permit for a different outdoor advertising structure. Alternatively,

would the same applicant be required to remove an existing outdoor advertising structure

prior to the issuance of a new permit.

Synopsis of Original Bill

Senate Bill 234 proposes three major revisions to the current law.

(1) Amend § 67-12-4(A)(5) to provide that an outdoor advertising sign, display and device

must be at least 750 feet from the next closest sign, display or device and at least 660 feet

from the nearest edge of the right-of-way.

(2) Amend § 67-12-4(A) (5) by deleting the requirement that the state transportation com-

mission determine whether a sign is a landmark sign of historic or artistic significance wor-

thy of preservation.

(3) The addition of new language to be codified as § 67-12-4(D), which would provide that

“on and after July 1, 2005, no new permit shall be issued by the commission unless the

permit applicant conveys to the commission an existing outdoor advertising permit or the

commission acquires or condemns an existing outdoor advertising structure under a permit

to the applicant.”

This bill also proposes several minor “clean up” language amendments to the existing statute.

Significant Issues

(1) The proposed amendment to § 67-21-4(A) (5) would increase the distance between

outdoor advertising devices to 750 feet. The new spacing requirement would result in

fewer advertising devices along a highway corridor than are presently allowed. However,

the Department of Transportation (DOT) has several concerns with the requirement that the

outdoor advertising device must be at least 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-

way raises. The law presently provides that outdoor advertising devices must be located

within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way. The requirement that the sign, dis-

play or device be located at least 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way means

Senate Bill 234a/SCONC -- Page 4

that the advertising device would be farther from the roadway and, therefore, less visible.

That may result in the erection of larger outdoor advertising devices that can be seen from a

greater distance, but the larger signs may violate local government ordinances restricting

the size of advertising devices. The larger signs would be more costly to erect and less af-

fordable to the smaller outdoor advertising companies.

In order to prevent the proliferation of larger signs, albeit farther apart, DOT recommends

that the bill be revised to include the new spacing requirement, i.e., that signs, displays and

devices must be located at least 750 feet from the next closest sign. However, DOT also

recommends retaining the language in the current law allowing the display or device to be

located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way.

(2) The current § 67-12-4(A) (6) provides that signs that were lawfully in existence on

October 22, 1965 (the effective date of the federal Highway Beautification Act), and which

are determined by the state transportation commission to be landmark signs of historic or

artistic significance worthy of preservation may be erected or maintained. SB 234 pro-

poses to amend this section by deleting the reference to the state transportation commis-

sion. However, it leaves unanswered the question of who would determine whether a sign

is a landmark sign of historic or artistic significance. DOT recommends retaining the ref-

erence to the commission.

(3) The proposed § 67-12-4(D) provides that no new permit may be issued as of July 1,

2005 unless the applicant conveys to the state transportation commission an existing out-

door advertising permit or the commission acquires or condemns an existing outdoor ad-

vertising structure currently under permit to the same applicant. Because it is unclear under

what circumstances the commission would acquire or condemn an existing outdoor adver-

tising structure under a permit and how it would be conveyed to applicants who qualify for

a permit, but do not have another permit to convey to the commission, DOT recommends

revising the bill to provide the following:

“On and after July 1, 2005, no new permit shall be issued by the commission unless the

permit applicant conveys to the commission an existing outdoor advertising permit and

otherwise complies with all rules adopted by the commission governing the issuance of

permits. In the event the commission acquires or condemns an existing outdoor adver-

tising structure under a permit to the applicant, the commission may issue the applicant

a new permit subject to rules adopted by the commission.”

The proposed revision would also clarify the issue whether an applicant is guaranteed a new per-

mit if he conveys an existing permit to the commission or the commission acquires or condemns

an existing outdoor advertising device under permit to the applicant. The issuance of a new permit

should be conditioned on compliance with federal, state and local requirements, including spacing,

lighting, etc. The applicant should not be entitled to a new permit, even though he has conveyed

an existing permit to the commission, or had his existing structure acquired or condemned by the

commission, if the application for a new permit does not comply with applicable federal, state and

local requirements.

Finally, a single outdoor advertising structure may have up to four permits. Each advertising face

of a single outdoor advertising structure requires a separate permit. Therefore, the number of per-

mits does not necessarily represent or equal the same number of outdoor advertising structures.

Senate Bill 234a/SCONC -- Page 5

DOT raises the question whether an applicant who has an existing double-faced outdoor advertis-

ing structure with two permits may convey one of the permits to the commission, keep the existing

billboard with just one face and now one permit, and then be issued a new permit for a different

outdoor advertising structure. Alternatively, would the same applicant be required to remove an

existing outdoor advertising structure prior to the issuance of a new permit.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

DOT feels that passage of this bill may create numerous additional administrative duties related to

the conveyance, acquisition, or condemnation of existing permits /outdoor advertising structures,

which, in turn, may result in the need for DOT to increase the number of permanent, specialized

staff that performs duties related to the Highway Beautification Act and control of Outdoor Adver-

tising.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

The consequences of not enacting this bill are as follows:

1.

With regard to § 67-12-4(A)(5), the current requirements regarding spacing between signs, dis-

plays and outdoor advertising devices would continue to apply, along with the requirements

concerning distance from the nearest edge of the right-of-way. As a result, the number of signs

along a roadway corridor would not, over time, necessarily be reduced. However, by leaving

the current 660 ft. distance intact, it is also less likely that very large signs would be erected for

visibility purposes.

2.

With regard to § 67-12-4((A)(6), the state transportation commission would continue to deter-

mine whether a sign lawfully in existence on October 22, 1965 is a landmark sign of historic or

artistic significance worthy of preservation.

3.

Without § 67-12-4(D), there will be no finite number of outdoor advertising devices allowed in

the State of New Mexico. However, the spacing requirements contained in § 67-12-4(A)(5) do

effectively limit the number of outdoor advertising devices that can be erected along interstate

highways and primary systems.

GM/rs:yr:lg