Legal Case Study:	Michaels Craft Store, Richfield MN
Illustrates:	Use of sign valuation techniques to support a challenge to amortization as compensation for required removal of a previously conforming sign.
Background:	On top of the Richfield Michaels sits a billboard-style, single-face, on-premise roof sign (see image to the left), erected in the 1950s by a previous craft-store tenant. The sign has excellent exposure to eastbound traffic of I-494, which is a large retail corridor leading to the Mall of America. In 1987, the City of Richfield passed sign restrictions prohibiting both outdoor advertising structures (billboards) and certain on-premise signs, including roof signs. A 10-year "grace" or amortization period was allowed for the targeted signs to remain in place. In 1997, faced with the removal deadline and threats of lawsuits by outdoor advertising companies, the city extended the amortization period to January 2000 for billboards, and to January 1998 for other signs not conforming to the new restrictions, including Michaels' roof sign. At a December hearing on Michaels' request to again extend the deadline, the City refused the request and ordered the sign's removal by January 5, 1998. On December 31, 1997 Michaels filed suit.
Legal Issues Raised:	In seeking to save the Michaels sign from immediate removal, the following legal issues were raised (click on any for details): Violations of both federal and state equal protection requirements Violations of both federal and state due process requirements Violations of both federal and state free speech protections Violation of right to just compensation under 23 U.S.C., section 131 (Federal Highway Beautification Act), and equivalent state law.
Steps Taken:
After filing suit, Michaels' attorneys retained the services of signage valuation expert, Dr. R. James Claus, to analyze the sign's estimated value as an advertising device.
Results / Conclusion:
Following the legal arguments and Dr. Claus' presentation regarding the estimated value of the sign to the business ($750,000), the City of Richfield agreed to a settlement, allowing the sign to continue functioning for Michaels through the term of their lease at that location.
More information about the valuation techniques and approaches used in this case is available in the article by Claus and Bass, "Legislation Matters: The Economic Worth of On-Premise Signs, Part II", Signs of the Times, October 1998, p. 72. Information on possible legal issues is available in the article by Claus and Bass, "Legislation Matters: The Economic Worth of On-Premise Signs, Part I", Signs of the Times, September 1998, p. 58.

Back to the Signage home page