Local governments and the billboard industry are squaring off over a bill that would require cities and counties to pay up when they take down billboards.

Columbia and Richland County leaders say they are worried their existing restrictions on billboards could be in jeopardy.

The bill, scheduled for debate on the House floor today, would require local governments to first try to relocate billboards instead of removing them. If a comparable location could not be found, the local government would:

• Compensate the billboard company for the cost of the billboard, its relocation and lost revenue

• Compensate the person who owns the land where the billboard is located. Typically, billboard companies rent their sites.

The S.C. Municipal Association estimates the change could cost local governments about $300,000 to $400,000 per billboard.

“It would be impossible for cities and counties to afford that,” said Carol Kososki, a member of Richland County’s Appearance Commission, an advisory board on beautification issues.

But members of the billboard industry say the bill puts South Carolina in line with the rest of the nation.

“Just compensation” laws exist in most states except South Carolina and several others, said Scott Shockley, president of the S.C. Outdoor Advertising Association and general manager for Lamar Advertising of Columbia. Shockley says the municipal association’s estimates are likely too high.

Some residents say they depend on the rent they receive from billboards.

Thelma Ray Sellers of Columbia wouldn’t say how much she receives from the billboard on her Taylor Street property. But, she says, it pays nearly all of her taxes on her beauty salon and barbershop. “If it weren’t for that billboard, I’d probably have to sell my businesses,” she said.

When local governments enact ordinances that require billboards to come down, they often give billboard companies an “amortization schedule,” enough time to recoup the cost of erecting the billboard and turn a profit.

But profits are not certain and not big, Shockley said.

“Amortization is like a slow-motion confiscation of property,” Shockley said. “It’s a great concern to the (billboard) industry to look at investments being wiped out and landowners losing their leases. It’s devastating.”

In recent years, Columbia, Richland County and other S.C. municipalities have restricted billboards after residents’ complaints about their appearance.

The bill could invalidate Columbia’s cap-and-replace program, said Marc Mylott, the city’s chief zoning official. For every billboard that goes up, one of the city’s other 185 billboards must come down.

“If a municipality wants to determine what it looks like and use a court-recognized tool, why is the Legislature saying we’re going to give this special group (the billboard companies) protection?”

Richland County has limited its billboards to 293. Billboards can be maintained and repaired, but no new ones can go up.

“Let local government do what they do best, which is dealing with zoning issues,” said state Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, who helped craft the ordinance as a County Council member. “On the state level, we need to be dealing with policy.”

Staff writer John Drake contributed to this report. Reach Smith at (803) 771-8462 or gnsmith@thestate.com.