Skip to content
Bills from the 2025–26 session

Assembly Bill 502

Outdoor advertising signs that do not conform to local ordinances and that are affected by certain transportation-related projects; compensation for takings of signs, and appraisals upon which jurisdictional offers are based. (FE)

Topics: Billboard, Eminent domain, Road: Construction and repair, Transportation, Department of: Roads

Vetoed by the governor

Both chambers passed it, and the governor vetoed it on Apr 8, 2026. Lawmakers did not ⁠, so it stands.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Oct 9, 2025

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Jan 15, 2026

  4. Senate vote, passed

    Passed Mar 17, 2026

  5. Governor, stopped here

    Vetoed Apr 8, 2026.

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, May 13, 2026: “Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82”

Read the governor's veto message · All vetoes this session

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

Embed this on your site

Paste this code into your page. The card shows the latest record each time it loads. Preview the card

The same bill was also filed in the Senate as SB 497. That version died when the session ended.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

This bill revises the standards governing the treatment of outdoor advertising signs that do not conform to local ordinances (nonconforming signs) and that are affected by certain transportation-related public projects, prohibits the use of the “unit rule” in the condemnation of signs, and limits the use of certain appraisals as the basis for a jurisdictional offer.

Under current law, if a highway project of the Department of Transportation causes the realignment of a nonconforming sign, the realignment does not affect the sign’s nonconforming status under the ordinance. “Realignment” is defined as relocation on the same site. Also under current law, if DOT proposes the realignment of a sign in connection with a highway project, DOT must notify the municipality or county that adopted the ordinance to which the nonconforming sign does not conform of the sign’s proposed realignment. The municipality or county may then petition DOT to condemn the sign instead of realigning the sign, but must pay DOT for certain costs of condemnation if DOT succeeds in condemning the sign.

Read the full summary

This bill expands the types of projects covered and replaces the realignment provision with a repositioning provision. Under this bill, if a state or local transportation project for which DOT has allocated state or federal funds (covered project) causes the removal or reduces the visibility of a nonconforming sign, the sign’s nonconforming status under the ordinance is not affected if the sign is repositioned within the political subdivision in a manner approved by the political subdivision. Repositioning under the bill means raising, lowering, rotating, or adjusting the sign or moving the sign to another location. In general, the bill requires that the characteristics of a nonconforming sign be the same after repositioning as before repositioning. If a sign is repositioned, the agency undertaking the covered project must pay to the sign owner the actual replacement costs incurred by the sign owner in repositioning the sign. The bill requires that replacement costs be determined by using the moving cost agreement for the relocation of outdoor advertising signs.

Also under this bill, the agency that undertakes a covered project proposes the repositioning a nonconforming sign in connection with the project, that agency must notify the municipality or county that adopted the ordinance to which the sign does not conform of the sign’s proposed repositioning. The municipality or county may then petition the agency to condemn the sign instead of repositioning, but must pay the agency for certain costs of condemnation if the agency succeeds in condemning the sign.

This bill also prohibits the use of the “unit rule” in the condemnation of signs. In general, for properties owned by multiple parties, the “unit rule” limits the liability of a condemnor to the fair market value of the property taken, notwithstanding the potential loss in property value to the separate parties. This bill provides that, for signs, a condemnor must pay values for 1) the value of the sign and any lease related to the sign, 2) the loss in value to other signs of the owner caused by the removal of the sign, and 3) with regard to the owner of the real property on which the sign is located, the loss of the right to erect and maintain the sign. The bill specifically provides that these amounts are not limited to the fair market value of the property as an undivided whole.

This bill also prohibits a condemnor from using as an appraisal upon which a jurisdictional offer is based any appraisal in which the amount of the owner’s appraised loss is less than 85 percent or more than 115 percent of the amount of the owner’s loss provided in the jurisdictional offer.

Who's behind it

11 representatives are its ⁠. 10 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.

3 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 14 names

Authors (11)

Signed on in support (3)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There were 3 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Transportation vote to recommend it

Passed, 4 to 2 · Dec 17, 2025

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 4, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government vote to recommend it

Passed, 3 to 2 · Feb 4, 2026

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Transportation and Local Government, Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote

Passed, 3 to 2 · Mar 16, 2026

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. May 13, 2026

    The veto stood. Lawmakers didn't override it.

  2. Apr 8, 2026

    The governor vetoed it.

  3. Apr 2, 2026

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Mar 17, 2026

    The Senate passed it too.

  5. Mar 16, 2026

    “Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2” (the official wording)

  6. Feb 4, 2026

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 3 to 2.

  7. Jan 22, 2026

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  8. Jan 16, 2026

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government.

  9. Jan 16, 2026

    The Senate received it.

  10. Jan 15, 2026

    The Assembly passed it.

  11. Dec 17, 2025

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  12. Dec 17, 2025

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 4 to 2.

  13. Nov 12, 2025

    The committee held a public hearing.

  14. Oct 9, 2025

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Transportation.

  15. Oct 9, 2025

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Oct 9, 2025 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Goeben, O'Connor, Doyle, B. Jacobson, Kreibich, Melotik, Mursau, Penterman, Spiros, Murphy and Brill; cosponsored by Senators Feyen, Nass and Wanggaard

  2. Oct 9, 2025 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Transportation

  3. Nov 12, 2025 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  4. Dec 3, 2025 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  5. Dec 17, 2025 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 4, Noes 2

  6. Dec 17, 2025 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  7. Jan 13, 2026 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 1-15-2026 by Committee on Rules

  8. Jan 15, 2026 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  9. Jan 15, 2026 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  10. Jan 15, 2026 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  11. Jan 15, 2026 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed

  12. Jan 15, 2026 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  13. Jan 16, 2026 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  14. Jan 16, 2026 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation and Local Government

  15. Jan 22, 2026 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  16. Feb 4, 2026 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  17. Feb 4, 2026 · Senate

    Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Transportation and Local Government, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  18. Feb 4, 2026 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  19. Mar 16, 2026 · Senate

    Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2

  20. Mar 16, 2026 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 3-17-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  21. Mar 17, 2026 · Senate

    Read a second time

  22. Mar 17, 2026 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  23. Mar 17, 2026 · Senate

    Rules suspended to give bill its third reading

  24. Mar 17, 2026 · Senate

    Read a third time and concurred in

  25. Mar 17, 2026 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  26. Mar 18, 2026 · Assembly

    Received from Senate concurred in

  27. Mar 24, 2026 · Assembly

    LRB correction

  28. Mar 24, 2026 · Assembly

    Report correctly enrolled on 3-24-2026

  29. Apr 2, 2026 · Assembly

    Presented to the Governor on 4-2-2026

  30. Apr 8, 2026 · Assembly

    Report vetoed by the Governor on 4-8-2026

  31. May 12, 2026 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)

  32. May 13, 2026 · Assembly

    Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82

Terms on this page

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote