?lexaa i?egialaiure August 10, 2017 Mr. Tryon Lewis Chairman, Texas Transportation Commission 125 E. 11?h Street Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Chairman Lewis, We are writing regarding the Texas Department of Transportation's implementation of Senate Bill 312, the agency?s Sunset bill, which passed during the regular session of the 85th Texas Legislature. conducted a public hearing on July 19, 2017 regarding its regulation of commercial signs. The purpose of the hearing was to provide stakeholders an opportunity to review draft proposed rules and submit comments before the Department presents ?nal rule preposals to the Texas Transportation Commission for approval. The proposed rules directly con?ict with SB 312 and our legislative intent. Under SB 312, Chapter 391 of the Transportation Code was amended to create a limited exception to commercial sign height restriction. As stated in the bill, this exception only applies to signs that were erected before March 1, 2017, and that are no higher than 85 feet. This date was included in statute to provide a ?date certain.? In other words, so long as a sign existed on or before March 1, 2017, it can remain legally permitted or be rebuilt to its originally permitted height, so long as it does not extend higher than 85 feet. In no way did we intend to permit to authorize thousands of signs to be built or rebuilt up to 85 feet in height or more. In fact, we discussed this issue speci?cally on the Senate ?oor and had our exchange reduced to writing and placed in the Senate Journal in order to make our intent clear. An excerpt of this exchange is below for your review. Senator Watson: The language that?s in the Conference Committee Report is not an authorization for all billboards in existence on March 1st to go as high as 85 feet, right? Senator Nichols: That's correct. Chairman Lewis August 10, 2017 Page 2 Senator Watson: The intent and the interpretation of the language ought to be that it's to grandfather signs currently are in non?compliance so we can end lawsuits over those speci?c signs, but is not meant to create a loophole for any currently compliant signs to go above the current height limit. Senator Nichols: That is absolutely correct. There were some signs that were above the 42 feet, not to exceed 85 that were in litigation. And when centralized all that, that's when they identi?ed them. They went in the litigation. This grandfathers them at the heights they currently exist, and no other sign is and no other sign going forward will. We urge to reconsider its proposed rules in light of SB 312?s text and our legislative intent. Alternatively, please know that if the agency does not honor the legislative intent of SB 312, we urge the Commission to reject the rule proposals. Sincerely, Robert L. Nichols Kirk Watson State Senator State Senator Cc: Commissioners Jeff Austin Bruce Bugg, Jr., Laura Ryan, Victor Vandergriff Executive Director James Bass