Relating to the civil penalty for certain signs placed on the right-of-way of a public road.
Summary
HB 3611 revises Texas Transportation Code provisions governing unauthorized commercial signs placed in the right-of-way of public roads. The bill narrows and clarifies who may be held liable by specifying that a person who places, commissions, or benefits from the placement of a commercial advertisement on an unauthorized roadside sign may face a civil penalty, but only after the applicable political subdivision gives written notice and the person fails to remove the sign within the stated period for a first violation.
The bill also updates the definition of “sign” in Chapter 393 to broadly include outdoor signs, displays, lights, devices, figures, paintings, drawings, messages, plaques, posters, or similar items used to advertise or inform. It authorizes district, county, and municipal attorneys in the jurisdiction where the violation occurred to sue to collect the penalty. The penalty structure is changed to set maximum fines of $1,000 for a first violation, $2,500 for a second violation, and $5,000 for a third or subsequent violation, replacing the prior framework that allowed a lower minimum and maximum range and separate daily penalties for continuing violations.
Impact
HB 3611 amends Chapter 393 of the Transportation Code and changes the enforcement and penalty scheme for unauthorized signs in public-road rights-of-way. It expands the statutory definition of “person” for liability purposes, clarifies the notice requirement before a first-violation penalty can be imposed, and shifts enforcement authority to local prosecuting attorneys. The bill applies only to violations occurring on or after September 1, 2025, leaving prior violations subject to existing law.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support, passing both chambers with comfortable margins. House votes were 129-17 on second reading and 112-23 on third reading, while the Senate passed the measure 26-5 after suspending the regular order of business and the three-day rule. The vote pattern suggests broad agreement on tightening enforcement against unauthorized roadside advertising, though not unanimous support.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the increased penalty amounts, the expanded scope of liability to include those who commission or benefit from the sign, and the delegation of enforcement to local attorneys. Opponents may have viewed the bill as too punitive or as expanding government enforcement authority, while supporters likely argued that stronger penalties and clearer notice procedures are needed to deter illegal signs and protect public rights-of-way. The absence of committee transcript detail limits the ability to identify more specific objections.