WisconsinLocal governments could approve moves for signs affected by highway projects
The failed proposal would let local governments approve moves for some signs affected by funded highway projects, while requiring payment of actual moving costs.
What it does
If a funded highway project removes a locally nonconforming sign or blocks its view, the owner could keep its local status by moving it with local approval. The lead agency would pay actual moving costs unless the sign is condemned.
When an agency takes a sign, it would pay separately for the sign and related lease, harm to the owner’s other signs, and the landowner’s lost right to keep a sign there.
Appraisers would value each owner’s partial interest in covered sign property instead of treating the property as one owner’s and dividing a single payment.
An appraisal below 85 percent or above 115 percent of the owner’s loss amount in a jurisdictional offer would not count as an appraisal the offer is based on.
Argument forOwners could keep a locally nonconforming sign’s status after an approved move caused by some funded highway projects, with actual moving costs paid.
Argument againstSign owners could face costly limits on a move: the sign must keep its size and other features, and its height may change only within stated limits.
More detail
A lead agency would pay a sign owner’s actual costs to reposition an eligible sign. This applies when a highway project with state or federal funds allocated by the department removes a locally nonconforming sign or reduces its visibility. The local government must approve the repositioning. The sign must be repositioned under this subsection. No payment is allowed if the sign is condemned. Payment applies when the sign is repositioned under this subsection.
A condemning agency would pay specified compensation to sign and landowners when it takes a sign. These rules apply whether the taken sign is legally permitted or nonconforming. They cover sign owners and owners of the land where the sign stands. Payment for the sign, its lease, and harm to the owner’s other signs goes to the sign owner. Payment for the lost right to erect and maintain a sign goes to the landowner. If they cannot agree on compensation, the parties may ask a court to decide it. A successful owner may recover litigation expenses if the owner meets the stated requirements. These compensation rules apply when an agency takes a sign.
Appraisers would not use the unit rule to value compensation for signs under the specified provisions. This applies to appraisers determining compensation under the specified sign compensation provisions. The unit rule values property as if one person owned it, then divides one payment among multiple owners.
An appraisal outside the stated range would not count as an appraisal the jurisdictional offer is based on. This applies to appraisals connected with a jurisdictional offer in a condemnation proceeding. The excluded appraisal is one below 85 percent or above 115 percent of the owner’s loss amount in the jurisdictional offer.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 13Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82Latest
- May 12Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- Apr 8Report vetoed by the Governor Tony Evers on 4-8-2026Major
- Apr 2Presented to the Governor on 4-2-2026To Governor
- Mar 24Report correctly enrolled on 3-24-2026Minor
- Mar 24LRB correction
- Mar 18Received from Senate concurred inMinor
- Mar 17Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 17Read a third time and concurred inPassed Senate
- Mar 17Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Mar 17Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Mar 17Read a second timeMinor
- Mar 16Placed on calendar 3-17-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Vote recorded Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 16Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Feb 4Available for scheduling
- Vote recorded Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Transportation and Local Government, Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 4Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Transportation and Local Government, Ayes 3, Noes 2Minor
- Feb 4Executive action taken
- Jan 22Fiscal estimate receivedMinor
- Jan 16Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation and Local GovernmentMinor
- Jan 16Received from AssemblyMinor
- Jan 15Ordered immediately messaged
- Jan 15Read a third time and passedPassed Assembly
- Jan 15Rules suspended
- Jan 15Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Jan 15Read a second timeMinor
- Jan 13Placed on calendar 1-15-2026 by Committee on Rules
- 2025
- Dec 17Referred to committee on RulesMinor
- Vote recorded Report passage recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 4, Noes 2. Result: pass.Lower
- Dec 17Report passage recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 4, Noes 2Minor
- Dec 3Executive action taken
- Nov 12Public hearing held
- Oct 9Read first time and referred to Committee on TransportationMinor
- Oct 9Introduced by Representatives Goeben, O'Connor, Doyle, B. Jacobson, Kreibich, Melotik, Mursau, Penterman, Spiros, Murphy and Brill; cosponsored by Senators Feyen, Nass and WanggaardIntroduced
- Dec 17Referred to committee on RulesMinor
Transportation