Smith launched effort in September 2025 to create easier process for ridding landscape of such signs
After hearing details about Sarasota County staff’s proposed new regulations regarding the removal of unauthorized signs from county rights-of-way, and then a revised version that Commissioner Mark Smith had suggested, the board members agreed unanimously on Jan. 27 to let the staff of the Office of the County Attorney review Smith’s changes and report back on its findings.
In late September 2025, Smith initially expressed his desire for the County Commission to consider better means of dealing with such signs. More discussion ensued during the board’s regular meeting on Nov. 18, 2025.
During a Jan. 27 presentation to the board, Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, reminded the commissioners that, after that Nov. 18, 2025 discussion, they directed staff to provide a report to them with potential amendments to the County Code. Staff gave them that report on Dec. 12, 2025, he noted.
They subsequently requested the scheduling of a discussion of that report, Osterhoudt added, including recommendations about prohibiting the signs.
The current practice, Osterhoudt explained, is for staff to remove the signs, impound them for a period of time and then require “a small fee” from the owners of those signs, if the owners want to retrieve them.
The Planning and Development Services staff had worked with the Office of the County Attorney on the draft ordinance with an amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations, and an amendment to Chapter 98 of the County Code, regarding removal of signs in the rights-of-way, he continued.
“The two ordinances would declare that unauthorized signs in the right-of-way constitute litter and a public nuisance” and allow [Code Enforcement officers] to immediately dispose of those signs without the current impoundment procedures, Osterhoudt explained.
The goal, he added, is “to expedite and make the process more efficient and make clear to our public that those signs are litter and unauthorized.”
He pointed out that, in accord with state law, it is within the county’s “home rule” power to take such steps. A slide he showed the board members cited Florida Statute 403.413, known as the Florida Litter Law.
A staff memo included in the Jan. 27 agenda packet for the discussion put it this way: “It is within the County’s authority under its home-rule police powers and applicable local ordinances to treat unauthorized signs intentionally installed within the County right-of-way as unlawful encroachments and public nuisances subject to immediate removal without prior notice.”
Yet, the memo also said that Chapter 705 of the Florida Statutes, which governs “lost or abandoned property, generally does not apply to signs intentionally placed in the right-of-way; however, it could be implicated in circumstances where a sign is inadvertently mislaid within County right-of-way.” Therefore, the memo continued, “There may be some concern if a sign is mistakenly removed from adjacent private property. Thus, while the County may amend its code to authorize immediate removal and disposal of unauthorized right-of-way signs, the ten-day holding period minimizes the legal risk associated with signs inadvertently placed in County right-of-way or mistakenly removed from adjacent private property.”
A desire ‘not to burden staff’
After Osterhoudt completed his presentation, Commissioner Smith pointed out to Osterhoudt, “As you know, this is one of my pet peeves … And I appreciate the effort” put into the reports.
Smith then noted, “My goal was basically not to burden staff much more than you’re already burdened. My thought was to find a vehicle in which [people who put up the signs] could go pick their signs up or get fined.”
To that end, Smith continued, “I took a crack” at revising the proposed ordinance. He passed copies of his draft to his colleagues.
Smith suggested that the ordinance call for staff to notify the people or companies identified on the signs that they would have five days to remove their signs, or they would be fined for littering, “for each sign located in the public right-of-way.”
Second, he recommended eliminating proposed Section “(b)” of the ordinance, which said, “Such signs are considered as litter and may be disposed of immediately without any notification to the owner of the sign.”
Smith continued, “And then ‘(c)’ becomes ‘(b),’ which is fine and dandy.”
Section “(c)” read, “Signs erected by a governmental agency or required by a governmental agency, and constructed, erected or maintained on, over or upon any existing County, State, federal, or other public right-of-way, or officially adopted right-of-way, within the unincorporated areas of Sarasota County, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.”
Section “(d)” would become “(c),” Smith added. As written in the draft provided to the board, “(d)” said, “Any person convicted of violating this section shall be punished by fine of not more than $100.00 or by imprisonment in the County jail for a period not to exceed ten days, or both such fine and imprisonment.”
“I don’t think we need to put people in jail,” Smith pointed out. “We’ve got issues with the jail already,” he noted, referring the continued efforts of the Sheriff’s Office’s Corrections Division to try to manage the increasing population of that facility.
Therefore, Smith continued, he suggested that the new Section “(c)” read, “Any person convicted of violating this section shall be punished by fine of not more than the current fine for littering for each sign illegally placed in the public right-of-way.”
Smith added that he would “be happy to hear” what his colleagues felt about those proposed changes.
Commissioner Joe Neunder was the first to respond: “I appreciate, Commissioner Smith, your hard work and diligence on this.”
As he had during the Nov. 18, 2025 discussion of the issue, Neunder pointed out that signs sometimes end up in the roads, which can result in damage to vehicles that run over them. He called that “a public safety issue.”
Then Neunder said that while he was not suggesting that Smith’s corrections “don’t enhance this in any way,” Neunder also noted that he was just now looking at [the proposed changes].”
At that point, Neunder asked County Attorney Joshua Moye whether his staff had vetted Smith’s recommendations. Moye replied that the Office of the County Attorney had not done so. “I would appreciate a little staff input,” Neunder added.
Commissioner Tom Knight also thanked Smith. Then Knight asked whether he was correct in believing the ordinance would not apply to state roads.
Osterhoudt confirmed that the ordinance would apply just to county roads.
Knight also asked for confirmation that state law does not require state employees to impound signs in the rights-of-way for any period of time. Putting signs in the state rights-of-way “is a violation of the law?”
“Correct,” Osterhoudt replied.
“I go back to my state trooper days,” Knight added: “We’d pick up those things and throw them in the garbage.”
“We want to remain as consistent as possible [with state law],” Knight continued, “yet, have our home rule powers …”
Thus, Knight said, he felt the ordinance as drafted by county staff would be “less confusing to the public …” He would like to see the county regulations mirror state law to the greatest extent possible, he added.
“It makes sense,” County Attorney Moye responded. Moreover, Moye said, he and his staff would like to review Smith’s proposed changes before the board members proceeded with directing staff to schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
Moye added that he had some concerns about “notice and process,” given Smith’s call for giving owners of the signs five days to pick them up. Moye noted his worries about potential disputes with Code Enforcement officers.
He also wanted his staff to review Smith’s suggestion about the process for fining people who violate the ordinance, he said.
When Chair Ron Cutsinger asked for board consensus on how to move forward, Smith made a motion to refer his version of the proposed regulations to the Office of the County Attorney for its review and comments, with another discussion to be conducted after that analysis.
Commissioner Teresa Mast seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0.