Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/23/1996 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL 181
"An Act relating to directional and informational
signs, displays, and devices and penalties for
violations related to outdoor advertising."
5
BRETT HUBER, STAFF, SENATOR LYDIA GREEN, testified in
support of SB 181. He stated that the bill would provide
for the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOTPF) a Tourist Oriented Directional Sign (TODS) program
in statute and allow the placement of TODS signs on private
property outside of the right-of-way. Codifying the program
would provide for a well planned and regulated system of
directional signing that would preserve the scenic beauty of
Alaska's roadways and benefit Alaska's visitors and the
business' that serve them.
He continued, the Department currently administers TODS as
an experimental program. Although, the program is
consistent with standards established by the Federal Highway
Administration and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, absence of statute authorizing the program has left
the public out of the process of promulgating regulation.
By placing TODS in statute, the Legislature will provide
firm legal footing for the program to continue. Mr. Huber
concluded, passage of SB 181 would provide long sought
assistance to Alaska businesses that are dependent on trade
with the traveling public. The bill would likewise enhance
the state's ability to be user-friendly to it's tourists and
promote a responsive visitor industry. SB 181 authorizes a
means for providing needed directional information while
preserving the unique beauty of Alaska's roadways. He urged
the Committee's support.
Representative Brown referenced Page 3, Section 4, asking
who would make the determination in the unzoned areas
whether they would be zoned commercial or industrial. Mr.
Huber replied that a specific definition does not exist at
this time. Zoning would become representative by the use
pattern of that area.
Representative Brown pointed out that the bill covers space
"outside" the right-of-way. She asked if the signs outside
the right-of-way had to be consistent with federal highway
standards. He replied that they would, noting that the
concern would not come under the guidelines for highway
right-of-way control but would be included under the outdoor
advertising control regulations.
Representative Brown asked the need to include private
property "monitoring" in the legislation. Mr. Huber
explained that congestion could exist on the right-of-way or
that a business site could border the highway. In response
to Representative Brown's query, Mr. Huber indicated it was
the intention of the Department to approve the specific
location on private property as well as on state lands.
6
Signage limitations exist in the program.
SAM KITO III, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (DOT&PF),
stated he did not know how many signs each business could
have. He understood that the legislation would provide for
new regulations to be drafted to address varying situations
-- inside and outside the right-of-way.
Representative Brown asked what the Department intended to
do to prevent a proliferation of signs. Mr. Huber responded
that it was the sponsors intent to provide the necessary
latitude to the Department to establish the regulations.
Representative Brown inquired if the legislation would work
in cooperation with local ordinances and zoning. Mr. Huber
replied that it was the intent of the legislation that it
not be more restrictive than provisions contained in AS 19.
The municipalities would have the ability to enact
ordinances which were more restrictive if need be.
Representative Brown disagreed with Section #5 of the
legislation which would lower the penalty from a misdemeanor
to a violation. Mr. Huber suggested that a misdemeanor
violation would not make the best use of jail time or
legislative funding. Although, Mr. Kito advised that
reducing the penalty would limit the Department's ability to
enforce illegal signs placed in the right-of-way. He
thought passage of the legislation would hamper the
Departments ability to implement it.
Representative Brown questioned if Section #5 would cover
political signs. Mr. Kito understood that separate
restrictions exists addressing political advertising. He
added that political signage would be expressly prohibited
in the right-of-way. Representative Brown proposed that the
Legislature would have a conflict of interest in lowering
the penalty.
Representative Therriault referenced Page 3, Section 4, and
the use of "shall" in relationship regarding the location of
sign placement. Mr. Huber responded that the Department
will establish criteria to be met in order that the
application be approved.
Representative Brown referenced the language on Lines 20-21,
Page 3, questioning how the Department would adopt
regulations which affect the "scenic" qualities of an area.
Mr. Huber stated that language had been added in the Senate
Finance Committee to address if whether the legislation
would remove current use of road travel. The Department can
use the quality of the scenery which exists in an area to
7
allow or disallow signage.
Representative Mulder commented on an earlier discussion
regarding penalty, misdemeanor versus a violation charge.
He suggested that it was easier to file a violation than to
take a person to court. He continued, voicing concern with
the number of signs being applied for and posted. Mr. Kito
pointed out that existing TODS policy restricts intersection
posting to a maximum of four, with a size of 90" x 18".
Representative Mulder asked the criteria used to distinguish
between the applicants and the eligible positions. Mr. Kito
stated that it would be first come, first served. Mr. Huber
corrected, reading from the TODS policy guideline manual,
".....not more than three signs should be installed on any
sign panel and not more than two sign panels could be
installed at any intersection".
Representative Kohring noted support for the legislation.
He stated that it would be an enhancement to the tourism
industry, although, suggested that the fiscal note was too
high. Mr. Kito explained the components of the fiscal note
which would allocate $10 thousand dollars to establish the
regulations, the remainder would cover the departmental
costs to adequately maintain the system. Discussion
followed regarding the fiscal note.
Representative Mulder referenced Page 3, Line 7. He thought
that including "shall" would suggest that there could be an
inherent conflict and lawsuit through exclusion of vendors
who want to have a sign. He MOVED changing "shall" to
"may". Mr. Huber stated that changing "shall" to "may"
would be permissive language in determining if the
Department instituted the program. Representative Mulder
pointed out that the TODS program had already been
initiated. Mr. Kito explained that a pilot program is in
place. He stressed that regulations have not been
established to formalized that program policy. With the
changed language, Line 6 has already established a "tourist
oriented directional sign program".
(Tape Change, HFC 96-133, Side 1).
Representative Therriault suggested changing the language
would make the entire program discretionary. Mr. Huber
added, changing "shall" to "may" would include the direction
outside of the right-of-way. It is the sponsor's intent
that the area outside of the right-of-way be included.
Representative Mulder MOVED to WITHDRAW the MOTION to change
the language. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Martin MOVED to report CS SS SB 181 (FIN) out
8
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SS SB 181 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendations" and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|