Court of Appeals hears dispute over compensation for relocated billboard in ROA General v. Salt Lake City

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in ROA General v. Salt Lake City (case number 2020Three-eight38) before Judges John Luthy, Ryan Harris and Amy Oliver on whether a billboard owner is entitled to compensation under state law when relocating a billboard that the owner had already dismantled.

The question at the center of the argument is how to read statutory provisions referenced by counsel as "section 5‑11" and "section 5‑13" of the relevant municipal/Outdoor Advertising statutory scheme and whether the word "existing" in the spacing and relocation provisions requires a billboard to be physically on-site when a relocation request is made. Salt Lake City argued the owner is not entitled to compensation here; ROA General argued the city’s handling of competing applications and its prior statements make compensation appropriate.

Why this matters: the court’s construction will affect how municipalities handle billboard relocation requests and when they must pay just compensation. The case also raises procedural and equity issues about whether the city may change litigation positions after making statements in prior administrative and appellate proceedings.

Salt Lake City’s position

Samantha Slough, counsel for Salt Lake City Corporation, told the panel the city’s reading is that the statute does not require payment when the statutory prerequisites are not met and that the city has multiple defenses to compensation. Slough said the present case is the third action arising from Reagan/ROA General’s attempt to relocate a billboard it demolished in 2014 after a private landowner ended the lease.…