Court Opinion

ID: 9690417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:11:58.32071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:56.865121
License: Public Domain

DAVID T. PROSSER, J.
¶ 1. This case is before the court on certification by the court of appeals, *448pursuant to Wis. Stat. (Rule) § 809.61 (2003-04).1 The circuit court upheld the City of Madison's (the City) personal property tax assessment of Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. (Adams) billboards for 2002 and 2003, and Adams appealed.2
¶ 2. Adams presents essentially four challenges to the assessments:
A. The City erroneously used the third tier income approach to assess Adams' billboards even though evidence of comparable sales was available.
B. Assuming the City could use third tier methods to assess Adams' billboards, the City improperly relied upon only the income approach to assess Adams' billboards, in violation of Bischoff v. City of Appleton, 81 Wis. 2d 612, 260 N.W.2d 773 (1978).
C. Assuming the City could use the third tier income approach to assess Adams' billboards, the City erroneously applied the income approach by including the value of the billboard permits in the assessments even though the permits are either intangible personal property or an interest in real property.
D. Use of the third tier income approach to assess Adams' billboards when almost all other personál property in the City is assessed using the cost-less-depreciation approach (the cost approach) contravenes the Uniformity Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution, article VIII, section 1.
¶ 3. We answer Adams' challenges as follows:
*449A. The City was entitled to use third tier methods of assessment to assess Adams' billboards because there was not a recent arms-length sale of the property and Adams did not produce evidence of reasonably comparable sales.
B. Although net income from billboard rentals may be a factor to consider in a third tier analysis, it cannot be the sole controlling factor in determining value. When the Madison City Assessor acknowledged that he considered but rejected all other approaches and factors, his assessment contravened long-standing assessment principles articulated in Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Kenosha County Board of Review, 184 Wis. 2d 541, 558, 516 N.W.2d 695 (1994); Bischoff, 81 Wis. 2d at 619; and State ex rel. I.B.M. Corp. v. Board of Review, 231 Wis. 303, 311-12, 285 N.W 784 (1939), as well as the prevailing practice for assessing billboards throughout Wisconsin and the United States.
C. The City erred by including the value of billboard permits in the assessment of Adams' billboards. Billboard permits are not tangible personal property. For property tax purposes, billboard permits constitute an interest in real property, as defined by Wis. Stat. § 70.03.
D. Having concluded that the City's assessment is improper because it relied on only an income approach and because it improperly included the value of billboard permits, we do not reach the question of whether the City's use of the income approach violates the Uniformity Clause.
¶ 4. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court and remand the cause to the circuit court, which is directed to stay further proceedings pending reassessment of Adams' billboards by the City in a manner consistent with this opinion, or until the parties reach a settlement.
*450I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5. Adams challenges as excessive the City's personal property tax assessments of its billboards for the years 2002 and 2003. The City assessed Adams' billboards at $6,022,400 in 2002 and $5,858,000 in 2003.3 In 2002 and 2003 Adams owned 109 billboard structures in the City, according to an appraisal prepared for Adams. These structures presented "206 billboard faces," according to the Madison assessor. All billboard structures were on leased land.
¶ 6. Adams timely challenged the 2002 and 2003 assessments before the City Board of Assessors and then the City Board of Review.4 For both years, Adams claimed the fair market value of its billboards was $401,984. Adams' fundamental objection to the City's assessments was that they included value attributable to elements other than tangible personal property, including the location of the billboards and the billboard permits.5
*451¶ 7. After Adams failed to obtain meaningful relief from the Board of Review, Adams timely commenced actions against the City in Dane County Circuit Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 74.37(3)(d). The circuit court consolidated the 2002 and 2003 actions and held a three-day trial July 27-29, 2004, from which this appeal ensued.
¶ 8. Since 1994 the City has used the income approach to value billboards. Under the income approach, an assessor seeks to convert future benefits likely to be derived from property into an estimate of present market value. See Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 541. Using the income approach, the assessor first determines the net annual income from personal property, such as billboards. This figure is reached by deducting from gross income "the leasehold interest in the land," all typical operating expenses, and income attributed to something other than the personal property. Then the assessor sets a capitalization rate and applies this rate to the net annual income to determine the expected income stream over the economic life of the billboards. Id.; see also 1 Property Assessment Manual for Wisconsin Assessors, ch. 7 at 7-27 to 7-28 and ch.9 at 9-11 to 9-25 (hereinafter, Property Assessment Manual).
¶ 9. Prior to 1994, the City appraised billboards using the cost approach. Under the cost approach the total cost required to reproduce a billboard is determined and from this amount depreciation is subtracted. Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler, 219 Wis. 2d 764, 783, 580 N.W.2d 644 (1998); see also 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7 at 7-22 to 7-25 and 9-11.
*452¶ 10. The City switched from the cost approach to the income approach in 1994 after receiving an appraisal supplied by Adams as part of Adams' inverse condemnation lawsuit against the City. In the early 1990s, the City began actively restricting the number of billboards within the City pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 84.30. To establish its damages, Adams commissioned an appraisal from Ruppert and Ruppert, Inc. (the Condemnation Appraisal). The Condemnation Appraisal used the income approach and valued Adams' billboards within the City at approximately $5,000,000.
¶ 11. The Condemnation Appraisal prompted the City to re-think how it assessed billboards. In 1994, using the income approach, the City initially assessed Adams' billboards at $5,000,000, up from assessments of no more than $2,000,000 in the previous three years.6 Since 1994, the City's assessments of Adams' billboards have steadily increased using the income approach.
¶ 12. At trial, Adams emphasized how unusual it is to use the income approach to value billboards. Testimony revealed that other than Madison, the only jurisdictions in the nation that use the income approach are Sun Prairie and La Crosse. Additionally, testimony revealed that within the City, billboards are the only personal property assessed using the income approach, except certain buildings on leased property.
¶ 13. Although the above facts are undisputed, the parties, through their expert witnesses, fiercely contest the proper assessment methodology. Consequently, it is necessary to briefly summarize the testimony of the parties' experts.
*453¶ 14. The City's Chief Assessor, Michael Kurth (Kurth), testified that he appraised Adams' billboards using the income approach because there were no recent arms-length sales of the billboards and no reasonably comparable sales information. Kurth explained that in deriving the amount of income attributable to the billboard structures he determined Adams' total income and then subtracted the value of the leasehold interest, the income attributable to Adams' art and advertising-development department, and Adams' operating expenses. According to Kurth, the result of these calculations equaled the net income attributable to the billboard structures and the billboard permits. To this figure, Kurth then applied a capitalization rate of 14% to calculate the true cash value of the billboards.
¶ 15. Additionally, Kurth's testimony addressed the cost approach. First, he explained that he rejected the cost approach because he believed the true cash value of Adams' billboards was greater than the cost of its components. According to Kurth, the cost to construct a billboard does not reflect how the industry calculates the fair market value of billboards. Second, he criticized the calculations of Adams' expert (Rodolfo Aguilar) under the cost approach as omitting several significant costs, including site procurement costs, design costs, and permit costs, thereby significantly undervaluing Adams' billboards.
¶ 16. Adams presented three expert witnesses: Rodolfo Aguilar (Aguilar), Mark Ulmer (Ulmer), and Donald Sutte (Sutte). Adams' experts testified that either the market approach (comparable sales) or the cost approach should be used to appraise billboards for personal property tax assessments. None of these experts, however, presented evidence of comparable sales. Only Aguilar provided affirmative testimony as to the *454value of Adams' billboards. Using the cost approach, Aguilar valued Adams' 109 billboard structures in the City at $1,565,100.
¶ 17. Aguilar, Ulmer, and Suite were all critical of the City's use of the income approach. All three concluded that the City improperly included the income-producing value of the billboard permits — "intangibles," they argued — in the personal property tax assessments, thereby overvaluing Adams' billboards. All three testified that the cost approach is the preferred method to value billboards for purposes of property tax assessment. Nonetheless, the testimony of both Ulmer and Sutte suggested that the income attributable to just the physical structure of the billboards could be determined.
¶ 18. Based on this testimony, the circuit court concluded, first, that the purpose of an appraisal does not drive which valuation method must be used (i.e., the cost approach versus the income approach), because the objective when assessing property for both condemnation and property tax purposes is to determine the property's fair market value. The court noted, however, that regardless of the method used, non-taxable items must be excluded from any tangible personal property tax assessment.
¶ 19. Second, the circuit court concluded that the City's use of the income approach was proper because it factored out all income attributable to Adams' business value and to the real estate leaseholds upon which the billboards are anchored.
¶ 20. Third, the court concluded that the City's inclusion of the billboard permits and the location of the billboards in the assessment was proper, even if permits and location are intangible, because the per*455mits and location are inextricably intertwined with the physical structure of the billboards.
¶ 21. Fourth, the circuit court concluded that use of the income approach did not result in double taxation.
¶ 22. Finally, the circuit court concluded that use of the income approach rather than the cost approach did not violate the Uniformity Clause, because both methods are intended to achieve the same result, the full fair market value of the property.
¶ 23. Adams appealed, and the court of appeals certified the following questions:
1. In the absence of a recent sale of the subject property and sales of other reasonably comparable properties, does the law require a taxing authority to use the "cost less depreciation" method instead of the "income" method when valuing an outdoor advertising sign for personal property tax purposes?
2. Should the appraisal methods used in eminent domain cases be recognized in personal property tax assessment cases?
3. Should the "[inexplicably] intertwined" approach used in real estate tax assessment cases be recognized in personal property tax assessment cases?
4. Is a permit authorizing the location of an outdoor advertising sign an "intangible" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 70.112(1) and therefore an exempt factor for purposes of personal property tax assessment?
5. Does the Uniformity Clause, article VIII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the language of State ex rel. Baker Manufacturing Co. v. City of Evansville, 261 Wis. 599, 53 N.W.2d 795 (1952), require that *456similar property be assessed under the same methodology or merely require that the fraction of the value taxed be the same?
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 24. This is a review of a circuit court's decision on an action commenced under Wis. Stat. § 74.37(3)(d). When we review a claim of an excessive tax assessment under § 74.37(3)(d), we review the record made before the circuit court, not the board of review. See Nankin v. Village of Shorewood, 2001 WI 92, ¶ 25, 245 Wis. 2d 86, 630 N.W.2d 141; Bloomer Hous. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Bloomer, 2002 WI App 252, ¶ 11, 257 Wis. 2d 883, 653 N.W.2d 309.
¶ 25. The circuit court may make its determination without regard to any determination made at any earlier proceeding, Nankin, 245 Wis. 2d 86, ¶ 25, and without giving deference to any determination made at a previous proceeding. Id. This court, like the circuit court, must give presumptive weight to the City's assessment. Wis. Stat. § 70.49(2). However, the assessment is presumed correct only if the challenging party does not present significant contrary evidence. Bloomer Housing, 257 Wis. 2d 883, ¶ 11.
¶ 26. Failure to make an assessment on the statutory basis is an error of law. State ex rel. Boostrom v. Bd. of Review, 42 Wis. 2d 149, 155-56, 166 N.W.2d 184 (1969). Whether the City followed the statute in making its assessment is a question of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. See State v. Waushara County Bd. of Adjustment, 2004 WI 56, ¶ 14, 271 Wis. 2d 547, 679 N.W.2d 514.
*457¶ 27. The circuit court conducted a trial that included expert testimony. Where there is conflicting testimony the fact finder is the ultimate arbiter of credibility. "The weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is 'uniquely within the province of the fact finder.'" Bloomer Housing, 257 Wis. 2d 883, ¶ 12. Applying the law to the facts presents a question of law that we review independently of the circuit court.
III. OVERVIEW
¶ 28. At trial, the expert witness testimony revealed substantial disagreement over the most accurate method to assess the true cash value of billboards absent an arms-length sale of the subject property or evidence of reasonably comparable sales. Adams contends the cost approach must be used, whereas the City maintains the income approach is proper and that the cost ‘approach does not reflect the true cash value of billboards.
¶ 29. The disagreement over how to value billboards is reflected in the scholarly literature and appraisal trade journals. However, a recent article, and one of the few articles that specifically addresses property tax assessment of billboards, notes that "any of the accepted approaches to value, income, sales, or cost, may be used[,]" but that the emerging trend is to use the cost approach. Cris K. O'Neall & Bradley R. Marsh, Trends in the Property Tax Valuation of Commercial Outdoor Advertising Structures, J. of Prop. Tax Assessment & Admin. 5, at 7,11 (Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2004) (emphasis added).
¶ 30. Neither the Wisconsin Statutes nor the Property Assessment Manual mandates either the cost *458approach or the income approach. Nevertheless, we begin with an overview of the assessment framework established by the statutes, the Property Assessment Manual, and case law.
¶ 31. Property taxes must be levied upon all real and personal property in this state, except property that is exempt from taxation. Wis. Stat. §§ 70.01 and 70.02. Real property is "not only the land itself but all buildings and improvements thereon, and all fixtures and rights and privileges appertaining thereto[.]" Wis. Stat. § 70.03. Personal property includes "all goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, and effects, of any nature or description, having any real or marketable title, and not included in the term 'real property,' as defined in s. 70.03." Wis. Stat. § 70.04. Billboards are taxed as personal property. 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 15 at 15-13.
¶ 32. Property tax exemptions abound.7 Exemptions are found primarily in three statutes, Wis. Stat. §§ 70.11, 70.111, and 70.112. One exemption is at issue in the present case. Section 70.112(1) exempts: "Money and all intangible personal property, such as credit, checks, share drafts, other drafts, notes, bonds, stocks and other written instruments." Adams and the City disagree over whether billboard permits fall within the intangible personal property exemption.
¶ 33. There is no dispute that billboards are personal property, subject to the personal property tax. *459The questions presented concern how an assessor should arrive at the value of a billboard and what elements of the billboard may be included in the assessment. Wisconsin Stat. § 70.34 provides that "[a]ll articles of personal property shall, as far as practicable, be valued by the assessor upon actual view at their true cash value[,]" and that assessments should be performed in accordance with the Property Assessment Manual 8
¶ 34. The Property Assessment Manual and case law set forth a three-tier assessment methodology to ascertain true cash value. See State ex rel. Markarian v. City of Cudahy, 45 Wis. 2d 683, 686, 173 N.W.2d 627 (1970); 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7, at 7-18, ch. 21, at 21.3-16. Evidence of an arms-length sale of the subject property is the best evidence of true cash value. State ex rel. Keane v. Bd. of Review, 99 Wis. 2d 584, 590, 299 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1980) (citing State ex rel. Geipel v. City of Milwaukee, 68 Wis. 2d 726, 733-34, 229 N.W.2d 585 (1975)). If there has been no recent sale of the subject property, an assessor must consider sales of reasonably comparable properties. Id. Only if there has been no arms-length sale and there are no reasonably comparable sales may an assessor use any of the third-tier assessment methodologies. Id.
*460¶ 35. Within tier three, an assessor may consider "all the factors collectively which have a bearing on value of the property in order to determine its fair market value." Markarian, 45 Wis. 2d at 686; 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 21, at 21.3-16. These factors include "cost, depreciation, replacement value, income, industrial conditions, location and occupancy, sales of like property, book value, amount of insurance carried, value asserted in a prospectus and appraisals produced by the owner." State ex rel. Mitchell Aero, Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 74 Wis. 2d 268, 278, 246 N.W.2d 521 (1976); see 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 21, at 21.3-16 to 21.3-20, 21.4-11. The income approach, which seeks to capture the amount of income the property will generate over its useful life, and the cost approach, which seeks to measure the cost to replace the property, both fit into this analytic framework. 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 21, at 21.3-16.
IV DID THE CITY ERR BY NOT CONSIDERING COMPARABLE SALES?
¶ 36. Adams does not contend the City should have used the first assessment tier. Adams acquired the majority of its billboards in the City in 1987, at a time when the regulatory environment in the City was in flux. The price Adams paid for the billboards 15 years earlier is not indicative of their true cash value in 2002 and 2003. Adams does argue, however, that the City failed to consider evidence of comparable sales.
¶ 37. If there were reasonably comparable sales, but the City used the income approach, the assessments would be invalid. State ex rel. Keane, 99 Wis. 2d at 590; Markarian, 45 Wis. 2d at 686. Upon review of the *461record, we conclude the City did not err by using tier three assessment methodology.
¶ 38. In response to Adams' objection to the 2002 assessment, Assessor Kurth filed an Objection Report dated November 15, 2002. The report stated in part:
There is no sale of the subject property nor are there sales of reasonably comparable properties.
The City of La Crosse Assessor has informed me of a recent sale of a set of billboards containing eight faces. These eight faces sold for an allocated value of $301,200 or $37,650 per face.
¶ 39. In response to Adams' objection to the 2003 assessment, Assessor Kurth filed an Objection Report dated September 17, 2003. It repeated word-for-word the statements on comparable sales from the 2002 Objection Report.
¶ 40. On July 20, 2004, Assessor Kurth signed a Supplemental Report that elaborated on the 2002 and 2003 objection reports. This Supplemental Report was introduced at trial. The report states that " [reasonably comparable sales do not exist." The report lists six sales, including the billboards Adams purchased in Madison in 1987. Two of the documented sales occurred in 2001, both less than a year before the first assessment in 2002.9 The Supplemental Report lists the source of the six sales as the City of La Crosse Assessor's Office.
¶ 41. The Supplemental Report states: "The outdoor advertising industry and valuation experts indicate in various articles and books that the sales com*462parison approach using a gross income multiplier is a relevant approach to determine the market value of outdoor advertising signs. .. . Sales of outdoor advertising structures do exist in the State of Wisconsin."
¶ 42. Kurth went on to list four reasons why he did not consider the sales he had cited in the discussion of the sales comparison approach to be reasonably comparable sales: (1) the sales information was becoming dated; (2) the sales information lacked details about the nature of the billboard structures sold; (3) the sales were of a comparatively small number of billboards, limiting the usefulness of the information; and (4) he had concerns about the accuracy of the information and calculations used to compute the income produced by the billboards.
¶ 43. Adams did not present significant contrary evidence to overcome the presumptive weight of the assessor's report and testimony. Its experts stressed that comparable sales data was available but they failed to provide any comparable sales.10
*463¶ 44. We note that at the 2003 City Board of Review hearing, Adams' appraiser, Craig Hungerford, testified: "There [are] no comparable sales that we're aware of at this time; therefore, the cost approach is the most reliable approach."
¶ 45. Based on the Supplemental Report and Kurth's testimony, the circuit court found that Kurth's reasons for dismissing the sales as not reasonably comparable were entitled to presumptive weight and concluded the City correctly used the income approach, a third tier assessment methodology.
¶ 46. Adams' chief complaint on this point is that the City did not do enough to actively seek out comparable sales information.11 Yet Adams did nothing to provide assistance. Adams' own expert, Mark Ulmer, has written:
[Bjillboards are commonly erected on leased land; consequently, when billboards sell, they are transferred by assignment of lease or bill of sale, rather than by warranty deed recorded in the public record. Many appraisers, therefore, are not aware of billboard trans*464fers nor do they have ready access to sales data for billboard transactions, so they are unable to apply the comparable sales approach.
8A Nichols on Eminent Domain § 23.04[4], at 23-62 (3d ed. 2005); see also O'Neall & Marsh, supra at 7 (noting the difficulties associated with relying upon comparable sales); Jill S. Gelineau, Valuation of Billboards in Condemnation, 19 No. 4 Prac. Real Est. Law. 23, 30 (July 2003) (noting that data on billboard values are difficult to obtain).
¶ 47. An assessor has an obligation to follow the three tier assessment analysis. In terms of comparable sales of billboards, however, neither the City nor Adams seems particularly anxious to use this information. One insists that reasonably comparable sales are not available but makes no serious effort to find them; one assures us that the information is available but then makes no serious effort to provide it. Under the circumstances, we are bound to uphold the decision of the circuit court that the City was entitled to rely upon tier three valuation methods.
V DID THE CITY IMPROPERLY USE ONLY THE INCOME APPROACH?
¶ 48. On several occasions we have stated that an assessment cannot be based solely upon the income approach. E.g., Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 558; Bischoff, 81 Wis. 2d at 619; I.B.M., 231 Wis. at 312. This rule reflects the fact that variables other than income-generating capability influence fair market value. Absent relevant sales information "an assessor must determine market value from the best information the *465assessor can practicably obtain, considering all elements which collectively have a bearing on the value of the property." Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 557; see 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 21, at 21.4-11. Elements bearing upon fair market value include "cost, depreciation, replacement value, income, industrial conditions, location and occupancy, sales of like property, book value, amount of insurance carried, value asserted in a prospectus, and appraisals procured by the owner." Waste Management, 184 Wis. 2d at 557; see I.BM., 231 Wis. at 311-12.
¶ 49. Adams argues that the City used only the income approach to value its billboards. The City does not disagree, although it contends that it reached its assessment after considering the alternative methods of comparable sales and the cost approach and rejecting them.
¶ 50. The rule against the exclusive use of the income approach originated in Wahl v. H.W. & S.M. Tullgren, Inc., 222 Wis. 306, 310, 267 N.W. 278 (1936). See Bldgs. Dev. Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 225 Wis. 357, 359, 274 N.W 298 (1937) (interpreting Wahl as holding that income alone cannot control the determination of fair market value). In Wahl the plaintiff, who was interested in securing a low appraisal of an apartment building, urged this court to reverse the fair market value determined by the circuit court for the reason that the income-generating capability of the building did not support the circuit court's finding. Wahl, 222 Wis. at 309-10. The court rejected the plaintiffs contention, concluding that the fair market value based upon the income approach was not consistent with the original purchase price or the reproduction cost of the building, both of which were much greater. Id. at 310.
*466¶ 51. Implicit in Wahl is the court's concern that reliance upon a single factor in determining fair market value may result in skewed appraisals due to aberrant market conditions. See id. The reason the income approach yielded a low valuation of the building in Wahl was that it was the middle of the Great Depression and monthly rent for apartments was one-third to one-half the rent obtained prior to the Depression. Id. The lesson from Wahl and its progeny is that an assessor must consider all factors relevant to fair market value to ensure that an assessment is not skewed.
¶ 52. The Property Assessment Manual reflects the need to consider all factors that bear upon fair market value. "Usually, more than one — and often all three — of the approaches apply to a given property." 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7, at 7-18. "The only limiting factor: whether available and appropriate data exists to develop any and all approaches." Id.
¶ 53. There may be situations in which the only information available compels an assessor to use a single methodology to assess property. See 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7, at 7-28.12 In any event, an assessor must have the ability to discount, even disregard, factors that do not really bear on the value of a property. See State ex rel. Kesselman v. Bd. of Review, 133 Wis. 2d 122, 129-30, 394 N.W.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1986). The *467Property Assessment Manual directs appraisers to use the assessment methodology or methodologies that are most rehable. 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7, at 7-28. The Property Assessment Manual states:
The best guidance that can be offered is to review market activity for the subject and determine the attributes by which the market uses to evaluate alternative real estate decisions. Generally, the greatest weight should be placed on the approach for which the greatest amount of rehable and appropriate data is available that will yield the highest degree of confidence.
1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7, at 7-28.
¶ 54. Where there is sufficient data to estimate market value under both the income and cost approaches, "[assessors should select a final estimate of value through the process of 'reconciliation.'" Id. at 7-18. Reconciliation requires an assessor to evaluate the data available under the alternative approaches and decide whether to derive the value from one of the approaches or a combination of approaches. Id.
¶ 55. In this case, we think that we would nullify the so-called Bischoff rule if we permitted the City assessor to reject all approaches and factors other than an income approach. We think it extraordinary that the assessor rejected out of hand such factors as cost, depreciation, replacement value, and insurance carried. The City assessor concluded, in effect, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Vivid (approving cost approach), the Wisconsin Department of Revenue in three revenue rulings (approving cost approach), the assessors in most communities in Wisconsin (using cost approach), and rulings in other states approving the cost approach, *468were simply irrelevant. Thus, the City Assessor deemed unreliable the cost approach, a method that nearly all jurisdictions use to assess billboards.13
¶ 56. We consider the City assessor's failure to consider collectively all the factors, especially costless-depreciation, that reasonably affected the value of Adams' billboards a failure to follow the Property Assessment Manual and the rulings of this court. No presumption of correctness may be accorded to an assessment that does not apply the principles in the Property Assessment Manual. The circuit court upheld that presumption, notwithstanding Adams' full-blown appraisal and all of Adams' expert testimony. Under the facts of the present case, the City improperly relied upon only the income approach to assess Adams' billboards, in violation of Bischoff 81 Wis. 2d at 619, and in contravention of the directive in the Property Assessment Manual to reconcile the applicable approaches to value.
*469VI. DID THE CITY ERRONEOUSLY APPLY THE INCOME APPROACH BY INCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE BILLBOARD PERMITS IN ITS ASSESSMENT?
¶ 57. This question encompasses three of the questions certified by the court of appeals:
2. Should the appraisal methods used in eminent domain cases be recognized in personal property tax assessment cases?14
3. Should the "inextricably intertwined" approach used in real estate tax assessment cases be recognized in personal property tax assessment cases?
4. Is a permit authorizing the location of an outdoor advertising sign an "intangible" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 70.112(1) and therefore an exempt factor for purposes of personal property tax assessment?
A. A Billboard Permit is Real Property
¶ 58. We address the issue of billboard permits first. Adams contends that billboard permits are either (1) an interest in real property under Wis. Stat. § 70.03 or (2) intangible personal property and not taxable as personal property under Wis. Stat. § 70.112(1). Either way, Adams concludes, the result is the same: the value of billboard permits cannot be included in the assessment of billboards. In response, the City contends the classification of the permits is immaterial, because the *470value attributable to the permits is inextricably intertwined with the billboard structures and therefore properly included in the assessments of the billboards.
¶ 59. We conclude that a billboard permit is a right or privilege appertaining to real property and thus falls within the definition of "real property" in Wis. Stat. § 70.03. A billboard permit is not tangible personal property within the definition of "personal property" in Wis. Stat. § 70.04. If a billboard permit were to be considered personal property, it would be exempted from property taxation as an intangible by Wis. Stat. § 70.112(1).
¶ 60. Whether the City could include the value of the billboard permits in its personal property tax assessments is a question of statutory interpretation. As always, "statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute." State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. When the meaning of a statute is plain, the inquiry ordinarily stops. Id. We conclude the statutory scheme established by Wis. Stat. ch. 70 unambiguously precludes billboard permits from being taxed as personal property.
¶ 61. In determining whether a billboard permit can be taxed as personal property, the first question is whether permits are personal property. To answer this question we turn to Wis. Stat. § 70.04, which states:
Definition of personal property. The term "personal property", as used in chs. 70 to 79, shall include all goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, and effects, of any nature or description, having any real or marketable value, and not included in the term "real property", as defined in s. 70.03.
*471(1) Personal property also includes toll bridges; private railroads and bridges; saw logs, timber and lumber, either upon land or afloat; steamboats, ships and other vessels, whether at home or abroad; ferry boats, including the franchise for running the same ....
Three aspects of § 70.04 demonstrate that a billboard permit, which represents an intangible right to use land in a specific manner, does not fall within the definition of personal property.
¶ 62. First, Wis. Stat. § 70.04 defines personal property by means of a list of general types of property, including "goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, and effects," all of which have tangible characteristics and have "real or marketable value" because of their corporeal existence. By contrast, the value of a billboard permit lies not in the piece of paper qua paper, but in the right to construct a billboard upon designated land, which the paper represents. Applying the canon of ejusdem generis,15 we interpret § 70.04 to include only tangible personal property, to the exclusion of intangible property such as permits, licenses, most franchises, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and the like. [21]
¶ 63. Second, Wis. Stat. § 70.04(1) corroborates the conclusion that billboard permits do not fall within the definition of personal property. Subsection (1) lists specific examples of personal property. Of the list, only one item is not tangible — a ferry boat franchise. If "personal property" included permits, licenses, and "fran*472chises," the statute would not have listed a "ferry boat franchise." To avoid rendering this provision surplus-age, we interpret the term "personal property" (which is subject to property taxation) to exclude intangible property, with the exception of ferry boat franchises.
¶ 64. Third, Wis. Stat. § 70.04 excludes from the definition of personal property anything that falls within the definition of real property in Wis. Stat. § 70.03. In part, § 70.03 defines real property as "not only the land itself but... all fixtures and rights and privileges appertaining thereto[.]" Because a billboard permit confers a right or privilege to erect and operate a billboard on a designated piece of land and because a permit cannot be transferred to a different location, we conclude a billboard permit falls within the definition of real property.16
B. As a General Rule, a Permit Is Intangible Personal Property
¶ 65. The fourth certified question asked: "Is a permit authorizing the location of an outdoor advertis*473ing sign an 'intangible' within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 70.112(1) and therefore an exempt factor for purposes of personal property tax assessment?"
¶ 66. We conclude that a billboard permit should be assessed as a right or privilege appertaining to real property under Wis. Stat. § 70.03. As a result, we need not respond to the certified question with a "yes" or "no" answer. Nonetheless, if a failure to comment on intangibles were to leave the impression that the answer is "no," we would create a misleading impression of Wis. Stat. § 70.112(1) and open the door to argument on inextricable intertwinement.
¶ 67. Wisconsin Stat. § 70.112(1) exempts from personal property taxation "all intangible personal property." "[A]ll intangible personal property" is an exceptionally broad classification. Its plain language suggests a clear policy choice to exempt "intangible personal property" from personal property taxation. We see no reason on the face of the statute to give the term a narrow reading.
¶ 68. There is a solid historical basis to support this interpretation of Wis. Stat. §§ 70.04 and 70.112(1). A century ago personal property was more broadly defined than it is today. In 1900 Wis. Stat. § 1036 read as follows:
Personal property defined. Section 1036. The term "personal properly" as used in this title shall be construed to mean and include
Toll bridges,
Saw logs, timber and lumber, either upon land or afloat;
Steamboats, ships and other vessels, whether at home or abroad;
*474Buildings upon leased lands, if such buildings have not been included in the assessment of the land on which they are erected;
Ferry-boats, including the franchise for running the same;
Ice cut and stored for use, sale or shipment;

Ml debts due from solvent debtors, whether on account, note, contract, bond, mortgage or other security, or whether such debts are due or to become due;

And all goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, moneys and effects, of any nature or description, having any real or marketable value, and included in the term real property as above defined. (Emphasis added.)
¶ 69. This text covered some, if not all, intangibles. In State ex rel. Dwinnell v. Gaylord, 73 Wis. 316, 41 N.W 521 (1889), this court approved a personal property tax assessment on $14,000 of a taxpayer's "moneys" in Nebraska managed for the taxpayer by his son-in-law. In Kingsley v. City of Merrill, 122 Wis. 185, 99 N.W 1044 (1904), the court approved the taxation of notes and mortgages. In State ex rel. Milwaukee Street Railway Co. v. Anderson, 90 Wis. 550, 63 N.W 746 (1895), the court approved the assessment of a street railway franchise in Milwaukee. Among other things, the court said that "the franchises of the street railway company are property." Id. at 559. "Franchises are classed as incorporeal hereditaments." Id. at 560. "We have the general and paramount provision making franchises taxable.. . . [T]he cardinal requirement is that, as property, they shall be taxed." Id. at 562.
¶ 70. In a "Report of the Taxation Committee of the Wisconsin Legislative Council," December 1950, the Committee recounted the history of the personal prop*475erty tax in Wisconsin. The report indicates that the personal property tax had consistently been the subject of hostile criticism, in part because of its uneven administration. A tax commission set up in 1898 revealed that intangibles escaped taxation almost entirely. The formal exemption of intangibles began in piecemeal fashion in 1903 with the exemption of mortgages. A 1907 Report of the Wisconsin Tax Commission singled out intangibles as the class of personal property "for the most immediate and drastic action of exemption." In 1909 Governor James O. Davidson advocated the abolition of the personal property tax on intangibles and the establishment of an income tax.
¶ 71. In Chapter 658, Laws of 1911, an income tax was created and "all moneys, all debts due or to become due to any person, and all stocks and bonds not otherwise specially provided for" were exempted.
¶ 72. The 1911 statute did not use the word "intangibles." That word was added by Chapter 63, Laws of 1949, in legislation requested by the Legislative Council. Chapter 63 created Wis. Stat. § 70.112, which exempted: "Money and Intangible Personalty. Money and all intangible personal property, such as credit, checks, notes, bonds, stocks and other written instruments."
¶ 73. The 1950 Legislative Council Report made two significant observations in relation to this case. First, "[t]he Wisconsin personal property tax has been transformed over the years from a tax on tangible and intangible, income-producing and non-income-producing property into a tax wholly on tangible and largely on income-producing property." (Emphasis added.) This statement reinforces our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 70.04. Second, "there seems little doubt that *476the income tax was designed as an eventual replacement for the entire personal property tax."
¶ 74. With respect to the second point, Wis. Stat. § 70.112 is now entitled "Property exempted from taxation because of special tax." This title is explained by Rick Olin in a "Study of the Treatment of Personal Property Under the Property Tax" (Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Sept. 2002). Olin writes: "[S]ection 70.112 ... exempts certain types of real estate and personal property from the property tax because the property is subject to another tax or fee ... Such property includes money and intangibles (income tax).... In 1911, the creation of the state income tax provided a rationale for fully exempting intangible property ... from the property tax." Olin, supra, at 3.
¶ 75. Black's Law Dictionary 809 (6th ed. 1990) defines "Intangible Property." "As used chiefly in the law of taxation, this term means such property as has no intrinsic and marketable value, but is merely the representative or evidence of value, such as certificates of stock, bonds, promissory notes, copyrights, and franchises." "Intangibles" is defined as "[pjroperty that is a 'right' such as a patent, copyright, trademark, etc., or one which is lacking physical existence; such as goodwill." Black's Law Dictionary 809 (6th ed. 1990).
¶ 76. Black's Law Dictionary 1233 (7th ed. 1999) has a different definition of "Intangible Property:" "Property that lacks a physical existence." Additionally, "Intellectual Property" is defined as "1. A category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of the human intellect. The category comprises primarily trademark, copyright, and patent rights ...." Id. at 813.
*477¶ 77. Intangibles have a paramount place in contemporary society. They are integrally related to both the heavily regulated and wholly entrepreneurial facets of our modern economy. They include the intellectual property that is essential to creativity, branding, and information technology. Wisconsin Stat. § 70.112 exempts from personal property taxation "all intangible personal property," ranging from patents to permits, as well as money substitutes. (Emphasis added.) Any decision to tax intangible personal property should be made by the legislature, not local assessors.17
C. The Inextricably Intertwined Concept Does Not Apply in the Context of Personal Property Tax Assessments
¶ 78. Regardless of our conclusion that billboard permits are real property, the City contends it is permissible to include the value of the permits in the personal property tax assessments. The City argues the income attributable to billboard permits is inextricably intertwined with the physical structure of the billboards, so that it can be included in the assessment, just as the management income in ABKA Limited Partner*478ship v. Board of Review, 231 Wis. 2d 328, 344, 603 N.W.2d 217 (1999), and the income attributable to the landfill license in Waste Management, 184 Wis. 2d at 568, were included in real property assessments. In short, the City argues permits can be included in personal property tax assessments because a permit is necessary for a billboard to be operational, meaning the permits are inextricably intertwined with the physical structure of the billboards.
¶ 79. We conclude that the City's reliance upon the inextricably intertwined concept is misplaced. The concept of inextricable intertwinement allows business value to be included within the assessment of real property where the income-generating capability can be transferred with the real estate. ABKA, 231 Wis. 2d at 336; Waste Mgmt, 184 Wis. 2d at 563; State ex rel. N/S Assocs. V. Board of Review, 164 Wis. 2d 31, 54, 473 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1991). When business value is transferable with the underlying real estate, the business value is appended to the real estate rather than attributable to the personal skill and expertise of the owner. ABKA, 231 Wis. 2d at 336; Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 563; N/S Assocs., 164 Wis. 2d at 54.
¶ 80. A review of the cases leading up to ABKA demonstrates that inclusion of business value in a property assessment should be the exception, not the norm. See ABKA, 231 Wis. 2d at 344 (cautioning that for income to be included in an assessment it must be attributable primarily to the nature of the property); Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 565 (inclusion of business value "permissible only in very limited circumstances under sec. 70.32(1)"). Only business value related "primarily to the nature of' the property may be included; business value attributable to another source must be *479excluded from real property assessments. ABKA, 231 Wis. 2d at 344; Waste Mgmt., 184 Wis. 2d at 566, 570 (requiring income attributable to labor and skill to be factored out).
¶ 81. In ABKA, Waste Management, and N/S Associates, the courts confronted the question whether business value was attributable primarily to the underlying real estate or to the business skill and acumen of the property owner. In all three cases, the courts determined the value was attributable to the underlying real estate. Integral to the analysis in these cases was the conclusion that the income appertained to the real property under Wis. Stat. § 70.03, and therefore, was a proper element to include in the real estate assessment under Wis. Stat. § 70.32(1). See ABKA, 231 Wis. 2d at 344; N/S Assocs., 164 Wis. 2d at 55.
¶ 82. The conclusions in these cases depend upon the definition of real property in Wis. Stat. § 70.03, which includes "all buildings and improvements thereon, and all fixtures and rights and privileges appertaining thereto [.]" (Emphasis added.) Thus, in ABKA the management income derived from adjacent real estate could be included in the assessment because the physical proximity and interdependency of the real estate meant the income was a privilege appertaining to the subject real estate, rather than the product of the owner's skill and business acumen. Likewise, in Waste Management, the right to generate income from the landfill appertained to the nature of the real estate rather than the labor and skill of the owner. Finally, in N/S Associates the right to receive rental income appertained to the nature and location of the mall rather than to the unique qualities of the mall's ownership.
¶ 83. The valuation of Adams' billboards for purposes of a personal property tax assessment presents *480the court with a different set of circumstances from those presented in ABKA, Waste Management, and N/S Associates. Rather than a question of whether the income is primarily attributable to the real estate or the personal business skill and acumen of the real property owner, the issue here is whether the income is primarily attributable to real property or personal property.
¶ 84. We conclude that because billboard permits are real property, as defined in Wis. Stat. § 70.03, the income attributable to them is properly included in the real property tax assessment, not the personal property tax assessment.18 Any value attributable to the billboard permits is not inextricably intertwined with the structure of the billboards. The primary value of the permits is unrelated to the structures; rather, the primary value of the permits appertains to the location of the underlying real estate.
¶ 85. The nature of billboard permits demonstrates the correctness of this conclusion. Billboard permits are valid for a designated location only. A permit terminates when a billboard is moved. Whether value appertains to property depends upon the property's inherent capacity to generate income. ABKA, 231 Wis. 2d *481at 341. Applying this analysis to billboards, it is apparent that business value primarily inheres in the permit and the location, which are real property (the permit) or features of real property (location). Value primarily inheres in the permit because the City has severely restricted the number of permits, artificially driving up their value. Likewise, the value of a billboard is heavily dependent upon its location, as demonstrated by the fact that a billboard along a heavily traveled interstate highway can command a much greater price for the display of advertising than a billboard in a residential neighborhood. See Vivid, 219 Wis. 2d at 780 (Bablitch, J., with two justices joining); see also N/S Assocs., 164 Wis. 2d at 53.
¶ 86. The City argues that it is immaterial whether the billboard permit is considered "tangible" or "intangible." In its brief, the City states that "[t]he City has shown that the value of the permit is inextricably intertwined with the structure and that its value is transferable to a subsequent owner." (Emphasis added.) However, if we were to allow the permit, which the City concedes is intangible, to be factored into an assessment of personal property by means of the inextricably intertwined concept, we would undermine the legislature's decision to exempt intangible personal property, as expressed in Wis. Stat. §§ 70.04 and 70.112(1).
D. The Property Valued in a Personal Property Tax Assessment Is More Limited Than the Property Valued for Eminent Domain
¶ 87. "There are three recognized valuation methods for billboards: cost approach, income approach and market approach." Vivid, 219 Wis. 2d at 783 (citing 8A Nichols on Eminent Domain § 23.04[4], at 23-51 to *48223-59). These three methods are equally applicable to establish fair market value in eminent domain cases, id., and to establish true cash value for personal property tax assessments. Mitchell Aero, 74 Wis. 2d at 279; 231 Wis. at 311-12; see also O'Neall & Marsh, supra at 7.
¶ 88. Although the same appraisal methods may be used to establish fair market value for condemnation purposes as may be used to establish true cash value for purposes of personal property tax assessments, the property valued differs depending upon the purpose. See 8A Nichols on Eminent Domain § 23.04[3], at 23-50 n.7 (3d ed. 2005). 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 (Bablitch, J., with two justices joining). Necessarily, this includes the value attributable to the location of the billboard. Id. at 803-04 (Bradley, J., with three justices joining) (noting the value of the location is included in the value of the leasehold).
¶ 89. In contrast, an appraisal for personal property tax assessment purposes includes only the value of personal property, and therefore excludes the value of the leasehold and billboard permit. See Wis. Stat. §§ 70.04 and 70.34. Because Adams' experts, Donald Sutte and Mark Ulmer, and the City's chief assessor, Michael Kurth, all testified that income attributable to the billboard structures could be isolated, we conclude that a per se rule against the use of the income approach to appraise billboards for property tax assess*483ment is not necessary.19 In fact, once it is shown that a market approach is not available, the income approach "is always a proper element to consider],.]" 231 Wis. at 312 (emphasis added).
¶ 90. Therefore, we conclude the same methods of appraisal may be used in eminent domain as are used in appraising personal property for tax purposes, provided care is taken to exclude from a personal property tax assessment any value attributable to elements other than tangible personal property.
VII. DOES THE CITY'S USE OF THE INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE BILLBOARDS VIOLATE THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE?
¶ 91. Because it is necessary to remand the cause for the City to reassess Adams' property, we need not reach Adams' constitutional challenge. Labor & Farm *484Party v. Elections Bd., 117 Wis. 2d 351, 354, 344 N.W.2d 177 (1984) ("This court does not normally decide constitutional questions if the case can be resolved on other grounds.").
VIII. CONCLUSION
¶ 92. In sum, we conclude as follows:
A. The City was entitled to use third tier methods of assessment to assess Adams' billboards because there was not a recent arms-length sale of the property and Adams did not produce evidence of reasonably comparable sales.
B. Although net income from billboard rentals may be a factor to consider in a third tier analysis, it cannot be the sole controlling factor in determining value. When the Madison City Assessor acknowledged that he considered but rejected all other approaches and factors, his assessment contravened long-standing assessment principles articulated in Waste Management, 184 Wis. 2d at 558; Bischoff, 81 Wis. 2d at 619; and I.BM., 231 Wis. at 312, as well as the prevailing practice for assessing billboards throughout Wisconsin and the United States.
C. The City erred by including the value of billboard permits in the assessment of Adams' billboards. Billboard permits are not tangible personal property. For property tax purposes, billboard permits constitute an interest in real property, as defined by Wis. Stat. § 70.03.
D. Having concluded the City's assessment is improper because it relied on only an income approach and because it improperly included the value of billboard permits, we do not reach the question of whether the City's use of the income approach violates the Uniformity Clause.
*485¶ 93. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court and remand the cause to the circuit court, which is directed to stay further proceedings pending reassessment of Adams' billboards by the City in a manner consistent with this opinion, or until the parties reach a settlement.
By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise indicated.

 We use the term "billboard" generically to refer to all the various types of outdoor, off-premises signs owned by Adams. An off-premises sign does not advertise the business or activity that occurs on the site where the billboard is located.

 Adams' personal property tax bill for 2002 was $141,283.10. Adams' personal property tax bill for 2003 was $135,786.10. The difference in assessment was due to the net loss of three billboards between 2002 and 2003.

 In 2002 the City's original valuation was $5,815,900. When Adams objected, the City Board of Assessors increased the assessment of Adams' billboards to $6,022,400. The City Board of Review upheld the Board of Assessors' increase. In 2003 the City Board of Assessors reduced the assessment of Adams' billboards from $6,625,000 to $5,858,000, an amount that the City Board of Review sustained.

 A prerequisite to constructing and operating a billboard is a permit issued by the City. Because the City strictly limits the number of billboard permits despite increasing demand for advertising space, a significant amount of value inheres in a *451permit. Cf. Ron L. Nations & Donald E Oehlrich, The Valuation of Billboard Structures, Appraisal J. 412, 420 (Oct. 1999).

 After Adams contested the assessment, the City eventually reduced the 1994 assessment to $3,032,000.

 Given the proliferation of exemptions, the legislature has sought to limit how the exemptions are interpreted by creating a presumption of taxability. Wis. Stat. § 70.109. Section 70.109 states: "Exemptions under this chapter shall be strictly construed in every instance with a presumption that the property in question is taxable, and the burden of proof is on the person who claims the exemption."

 The term "true cash value" means the same thing as fair market value. State ex rel. Mitchell Aero, Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 74 Wis. 2d 268, 277, 246 N.W.2d 521 (1976); 1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 21, at 21.4-1 (noting "the basis for valuing personal property should be same as real property,"). Thus, the true cash value of the billboards is that which they would sell for "upon arms-length negotiation in the open market, between an owner willing but not obliged to sell, and a buyer willing but not obligated to buy." Mitchell Aero, 74 Wis. 2d at 277.

 We note that the reported sales information for the eight billboard faces sold in 2001 differs between the 2002 and 2003 objection reports and the Supplemental Report.

 When asked about comparable sales, Donald Sutte testified: "I believe — I have not researched, but from my understanding, there are sales in Wisconsin that are for both permits and land leases." Sutte never produced evidence of such sales.
Likewise, consultant and attorney Mark Ulmer testified:
[T]here is an active market out there of purchase and sale of billboard structures standing alone as items of tangible personal property. It's typical appraisal theory ... when direct comparable sales exist, that you don't even go the next step, you don't get to an income based approach.
Ulmer, however, never produced evidence of such sales. At oral argument Adams' attorney confirmed that Adams did not present evidence of comparable sales, other than that its experts testified that comparable sales existed.

 We too have reservations about the City Assessor's efforts to discover comparable sales information and his willingness to dismiss the information he did have as not reasonably comparable. For instance, we question what efforts the City Assessor made to obtain evidence of reasonably comparable sales; whether he obtained the other sales information from the La Crosse Assessor before or after the 2002 assessment; whether he attempted to obtain details about the size, age, illumination, or daily circulation of the signs from the La Crosse Assessor or any other source; and why two sales within a year of the 2002 assessment were viewed as out of date. Adams, however, did not ask these or similar questions of Kurth and did not present evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness that attached to Kurth's conclusion that the sales were not reasonably comparable.

 The Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7, at 7-28 provides:
The appraiser should consider all three approaches [sales, cost, and income] when estimating the value of a property. However, all three approaches may not he developed in an appraisal because a sufficient amount of data may not be available or, due to the specific property characteristics, the approach may be considered less reliable in estimating market value. If more than one approach is developed in the appraisal, the individual value estimates must be reconciled into one final value estimate for the property.

 In order to conclude the income approach was proper the dissent emphasizes appraisal articles that discredit the cost approach as unreliable. Dissent, ¶¶ 108-114. As we have recognized, supra, ¶ 29, there is substantial disagreement over how to value billboards. For every article promoting the income approach, there is a contrary article extolling the virtues of the cost approach. See e.g., James Wagner & David Baker, The Valuation of Outdoor Advertising Structures: A Mass Appraisal Approach, Assessment Digest, July/Aug. 1991, at 4 (concluding the cost approach is "justifiable as the best available method for the valuation of off-premise outdoor advertising structures"); Charles F. Floyd, Outdoor Advertising Signs & Eminent Domain Proceedings, Real Est. Appraiser & Analyst, Summer 1990, at 11, 14 (concluding "the cost approach is the only valid technique for valuing outdoor advertising signs").

 We agree with Adams' statement during oral argument that the thrust of this certified question is better -understood as asking what property should be included in an assessment for purposes of establishing fair market value in an eminent domain proceeding as compared to a personal property tax assessment.

 "Ejusdem generis is a 'canon of construction that when a general word or phrase follows a list of specific persons or things, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only persons or things of the same type as those listed.1" State v. A.S., 2001 WI 48, ¶ 33 n.4, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 535 (7th ed. 1999)).

 The Property Assessment Manual helps to explain why a billboard permit is real property:
To value real property the assessor must know what real property is. In the process of valuing real property, the assessor will encounter the terms "real estate" and "real property." Real estate refers to the physical items; the land and any structures and improvements located on the land. Real property is the rights, privileges, and benefits of owning the real estate. These two terms are often misused and misunderstood used interchangeably. For assessment purposes real property is defined in Section 70.03, Stats., as follows: "The terms 'real property1, 'real estate1... shall include not only the land itself but all buildings and improvements thereon, and all fixtures and rights and privileges appertaining thereto." Thus, in Wisconsin assessment law real property encompasses the definitions of both real estate and real property.
1 Property Assessment Manual, ch. 7, at 7-1.

 The dissent disagrees with this analysis. It cites State ex rel. Dane County Title Co. v. Board of Review, 2 Wis. 2d 51, 85 N.W.2d 864 (1957), which determined that title records are not "intangible personal property." The court described the records in an abstract office as "a completely indexed collection of authentic notes and memoranda of all public records relating to grants, judgments, liens, etc., for use in the preparation of abstracts of title or for title-policy purposes." Id. at 60. These records were obviously tangible in that they presented substantial questions of weight and space. We have no difficulty in distinguishing tangible title records from billboard permits.

 Our conclusion does not mean that the City can include 100 percent of the income derived from Adams' billboards in the real property tax assessment of the land that is leased to Adams and upon which Adams places its billboards. The amount of rental income a property can generate is a proper factor to consider when assessing property under the income approach. See Darcel, Inc. v. City of Manitowoc Bd. of Review, 137 Wis. 2d 623, 633 n.7, 405 N.W.2d 344 (1987). Because the rent the underlying landowner can charge Adams is but a fraction of Adams' income from the billboards, our decision does not shift 100 percent of the tax burden from Adams to the landowner.

 Creation of a per se rule dictating how billboards should be valued smacks of an administrative or legislative decision. We leave the decision of whether to adopt a per se rule that the cost approach should be the exclusive method to value billboards to the Department of Revenue or the legislature, as have other states. See e.g., California State Board of Equalization, Property and Special Taxes Dept., Guidelines for the Assessment of Billboard Properties, No. 2002/078 at 2 (Dec. 2002), available at http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdfAta02078.pdf (last visited July 10, 2006) (adopting the cost approach); Nev. Admin. Code § 361.1305 (2006) (adopting the cost approach); State of New Jersey, Dep't of the Treasury, Div. of Taxation, Real Property Appraisal Manual for New Jersey Assessors 71.02 (Feb. 2005), available at http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/ taxation/pdfApt/billboardpacket.pdf (last visited July 10, 2006) (noting the income, market, and cost approaches are all available to value billboards).