Breakout Session E - Outdoor Advertising Signs. May 14, 2013 Chula Vista Resort Wisconsin Dells. Joel V. Batha, J.D. Statewide Acquisition and Litigation Facilitator. Hot Deals on Wheels. Presentation Contents :. History of WisDOT Process for Clearing
Breakout Session E - Outdoor Advertising Signs
May 14, 2013
Chula Vista Resort
Joel V. Batha, J.D.
Statewide Acquisition and Litigation Facilitator
Hot Deals on Wheels
Part 1. WisDOT Billboard Acquisition and Relocation
Advent of Highway Building until Vivid v. Fiedler, 219 Wis.2d 764, 580 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. 1998)
WisDOT Sign Acquisition Procedure
Up to Mid 1990’s
Relocation Authority: Wis. Admin. Rule ADM 202.64, f/k/a COMM 202.64
Part 2. Vivid v. Fiedler, 219 Wis.2d 764, 580 N.W.2d 644 (Wis. 1998)
Sign Companies Vehemently Protested – Where’s the sign site value?
Hellacious procedural history – culminating in an weirdly structured written opinion. Ultimately concluding that:
¶ 52 […] all right, title, and interest in and to the sign and the leasehold interest includes not only the value of the sign structure itself and leasehold value, but also the value of the sign location. Opinion at 796.
Vivid IV – Determining Location Value
“The initial calculation of the GIM is derived not from the sale of one billboard, an unlikely prospect […], but rather from the sale of an entire advertising concern. In such cases, it can be “virtually impossible to determine the amount of income that should be attributed to the billboard and which portion should be attributed to the marketing and other aspects of the business.” Id. at 798-799.
Vivid IV – Cont’d.
Part 3. Then Came:
Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. City of Madison294 Wis.2d 441, 717 N.W.2d 803, (Wis. 2006)
Though Adams is a property tax assessment appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court made statements implicating how billboards are to be treated within the eminent domain context:
Adams v. Madison, cont’d.
Adams v. Madison, conclusion
¶ 88 […] In eminent domain, fair market value of a billboard is the price “the aggregate asset—the lease, permit and sign—would bring in the marketplace[.]” Vivid, 219 Wis.2d at 780, 580 N.W.2d 644 (Minority opinion). Necessarily, this includes the value attributable to the location of the billboard. Id. at 803–04, 580 N.W.2d 644 (Majority opinion) (noting the value of the location is included in the value of the leasehold). Adams at 482.
Part 4. Now What?
Answer: Application of the “Unit Rule,” also known as the “Undivided Fee Rule.”
Application of Unit Rule Involving Sign Site Affirmed -
In re Country Side Restaurant, Inc.,
340 Wis.2d 335, 814 N.W.2d 159, (Wis. 2012)
Countryside – cont’d.
Opinion at page 350
Countryside – cont’d.
Next: Example Showing DOT Theory on Sign Site Acquisition and Valuation