Billboard compromise receives final approval from City-County Council

The Indianapolis City-County Council voted unanimously on Wednesday to approve a proposal that alters the city’s regulations on billboards to comply with a legislative compromise.

The proposed ordinance upholds the city’s prohibition on new billboards inside Interstate 465—the crux of the matter for those representing historic Indianapolis neighborhoods—but allows outdoor advertising companies to relocate a sign within the same parcel of land.

A proposal from state lawmakers would have allowed owners to relocate billboards without receiving a city permit. When that proposal was introduced as an amendment to a transportation bill in a year ago, local groups including Historic Urban Neighborhoods of Indianapolis, or HUNI, came out against it. The measure was eventually withdrawn.

Councilor Josh Bain, a Republican who represents the southwest side of Indianapolis, commented prior to the vote that he hopes any legislation coming in the 2025 Indiana General Assembly on behalf of an industry applies statewide rather than to a specific city or county. The 2025 state legislative session began earlier Wednesday.

The council voted last month to send the proposal back to its Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee, where members heard public comment on Dec. 12. However, the committee returned the proposal unchanged.

During the committee hearing, representatives from both the city and community-based organizations testified that the changes to the city’s current zoning regarding billboards were necessary to prevent intervention from state lawmakers. However, a lobbyist on behalf of one of the largest outdoor advertising companies in the nation said the changes didn’t go far enough.

Tew, a partner with Ice Miller, spoke on behalf of Utah-based Reagan Outdoor Advertising. He said the company doesn’t see the proposal as a compromise. He said the plan put forth by the industry would not have added any billboards in Indianapolis—just allowed these existing signs to be moved within Interstate 465.

“Principally, we don’t believe that not allowing for any movement of signs inside 465 accomplishes very much of anything,” he said. 

The Department of Metropolitan Development provided to councilors and IBJ a memo that described outreach to both outdoor advertisers and neighborhood organizations. According to the memo, the DMD met with members of the billboard industry in April, received a proposal from the industry in late May and sent the final proposed ordinance to the industry members in September.

During that same period, the department met with 16 community leaders representing about a dozen community organizations.

The final proposal, according to the memo, compromised on six of the 10 requests made by the billboard industry. While Tew testified that these compromises weren’t enough, neighborhood leaders said that the city shouldn’t budge further.

A document from the DMD details the requests of the billboard industry. Megan Vukusich, director of the DMD, testified in December that she believed the proposal went far enough to prevent state intervention. Shea Joyce, director of government affairs for the Hogsett administration, agreed. She cited Rep. Jim Pressel, the Republican leader of the House Roads and Transportation Committee, as the state representative the city has convened with.