2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB3611
HB3611 changes the civil penalties for unauthorized signs in a public road's right-of-way.
Official caption: Relating to the civil penalty for certain signs placed on the right-of-way of a public road.
Official report lists House author(s): Curry, Simmons, Perez, Mary Ann, Craddick, Rose. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB3611 changes the civil penalties for unauthorized signs in a public road's right-of-way.
- For a person's first violation, the relevant local government must give written notice warning of possible civil liability and specifying a period to remove the sign.
- The civil provision reaches a person who places or commissions the sign, or whose commercial advertisement appears on it.
- The change took effect September 1, 2025 and applies only to violations occurring on or after that date.
What does it do?
HB3611 changes the civil penalties for unauthorized signs in a public road’s right-of-way. The maximum is $1,000 for a first violation, $2,500 for a second, and $5,000 for a third or later violation. It removes the former $500 minimum and the provision allowing a separate civil penalty for each day of a continuing violation. These are ceilings, not automatic fixed fines. Final law.
For a person’s first violation, the relevant local government must give written notice warning of possible civil liability and specifying a period to remove the sign. Liability under this provision requires failure to remove it within that period. The act does not set a statewide number of days for that first notice or require the same opportunity for every repeat violation.
The civil provision reaches a person who places or commissions the sign, or whose commercial advertisement appears on it. The chapter’s new definition of “person” includes employees, agents, independent contractors, assignees, business alter egos and successors in interest. District, county and municipal attorneys in the affected jurisdiction retain authority to sue for the penalty. Existing law separately addresses sign authorization, removal, exceptions, a campaign-candidate defense and a Class C misdemeanor; the new first-violation civil notice is not blanket permission to place an unlawful sign. Surrounding sign law.
The change took effect September 1, 2025 and applies only to violations occurring on or after that date. If any element occurred earlier, the act’s transition clause keeps the violation under the former law. History.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill already proposed the escalating ceilings, removal of the minimum and daily civil-penalty language, and coverage of the commercial advertiser. The House committee substitute added the expanded definition of “person” and the first-violation written notice and removal opportunity, while moving the lawsuit-authority sentence into its own subsection. Those protections and changes survived into law.
The amendment index lists no individual amendments. The House substitute and House-passed text match; the Senate and enrolled versions retain the same operative provisions. The House passed the bill 112–23 and the Senate 26–5. Amendment index; text versions.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Local governments gain higher potential civil penalties for repeat violations, while first-time violators receive a written chance to remove the sign before liability under this provision. Advertisers and businesses face exposure even when another person handles placement. Removing the daily-penalty provision and minimum also changes the government’s recovery tools, so the law is not simply an across-the-board increase in every case.
All three available fiscal notes anticipate no significant state or local fiscal impact and assume costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They do not estimate penalty collections or prove that roadside sign problems will decline. Latest fiscal note.
Review boundary: This concerns unauthorized placement in public rights-of-way, not every sign on private land. Whether a particular sign is authorized, exempt or covered by an existing defense depends on the surrounding law and facts.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
