Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/17/1993 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 26: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING Number 386 REPRESENTATIVE CURT MENARD, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 26, read his sponsor statement into the record. (A copy of this sponsor statement may be found in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol 110, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) Representative Cynthia Toohey joined the committee at 1:38. REPRESENTATIVE MENARD added, "My intent was to allow businesses along the highway to have a provision to advertise their business and be in compliance with federal and state law. I've been involved in personal issues in the district where DOT (Department of Transportation) has had three DOT people and two state troopers, out there cutting down signs..." Number 430 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY stated that she has a business off a highway and expressed how important her Tourist Oriented Directional Signing (TODS) signage is to her business. REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "This does not affect the TODS signs at all. This does not affect in the highway right-of- way there, you have to go through air-space lease agreements. What this covers is the area where the highway right-of-way stops and beyond." VICE CHAIR SANDERS asked, "How, if in any possible way, does this affect political signs?" CHAIRMAN OLBERG recalled receiving information regarding political signs which indicated "you're not supposed to be able to see a political sign from a moving motor vehicle." Number 486 JEFF OTTESEN, CHIEF of RIGHT-OF-WAY and ENVIRONMENT, DIVISION of ENGINEERING and OPERATING STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION and PUBLIC FACILITIES, testified, "The issue of political signs always comes up...I think there are a couple of different avenues... One would be to actually create a special category, call it the penalty provision that applies to political signs. It basically makes the penalty virtually nominal or nonexistent for say, 30 days. That would leave a 30 day period prior to every election when people put their political signs up. We would have no enforcement authority. At the end of 30 days we could start tearing them down. It would technically be illegal, but they would spring up like crocuses." VICE CHAIR SANDERS said, "With some sort of guarantee that this did not change political signs, I'd be very happy to vote for this bill (HB 26)." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked about the amendment the sponsor had included with the backup. He asked where billboards would be allowed. REPRESENTATIVE MENARD replied, "Billboards that are advertising generic stuff like alcohol, cigarettes, hotel chains, that is not specific right in that area, would not be allowed. But businesses and services related to the area would be." Number 524 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was a restriction on the size of signage. MR. OTTESEN replied, "This exemption really creates...three categories where signs are going to be allowed..." and referred to a map in the members packets. (A copy of this map may be found in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol 110, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) He then gave an indiscernible and complicated explanation about signage. Number 552 CHAIRMAN OLBERG addressed Representative Davies' question saying, "The amendment says outdoor advertising other than service advertising. I read that to mean outdoor advertising other than mom and pop advertising." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was a limitation on the number of signs that a particular business could post. MR. OTTESEN said, "I don't view the bill (HB 26) as having any limitation on the total number of signs a business can have." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The legislation is to bring state law into compliance with federal law... (because) I have constituents that have highway businesses also. I would rather open this pandora's box and close it later than leave it closed." Number 584 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said, "I view the bill (HB 26) with mixed emotions" and gave examples for and against. Number 618 DOUGLAS EUERS, RITA'S CAMPGROUND, TOK, testified via teleconference saying, "We're glad to see this bill, HB 26... This bill would help all businesses and would benefit every community and make a satisfied, happy traveler..." Number 630 JERRY JERNIGAN, TOK RV VILLAGE, TOK, testified via teleconference saying, "I think this is very much needed and a very welcome move that is being made to modify and lighten the restrictions of the state concerning these highways." Number 656 SARA SEARS, NORLITE CAMPGROUND, FAIRBANKS, testified briefly via teleconference in support of HB 26. NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WILDERNESS RECREATION AND TOURISM ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference saying, "Our organization is concerned about the signage question here. We can appreciate the needs of our highway members and their concerns with people being able to locate them. However, a survey I did of our members along the highway, they feel they would loose more scenic quality than they would gain in terms of marketing. ...We have very good vacation products. We have the TODS signs, we have private industry, the milepost and a number of other sources where people can do marketing and the destruction of the scenic quality of our highways is not something that should be taken lightly." TAPE 93-14, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if Ms. Lethcoe currently owned a highway business? MS. LETHCOE replied in the affirmative, and gave a description of her business. Number 020 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "If you had a business that was, say five miles off the highway, would you have any objection to (a sign) saying 'wilderness excursion five miles'?" MS. LETHCOE said, "From polling our membership, the directional sign was very good. ...you can find somebody's ad in the milepost, you can find them in the vacation planner but you're not quite sure whether you're at mile 21.2..." MR. OTTESEN spoke regarding political signs, "The information provided to you when you're a candidate for office is information provided by APOC which comes from our department, the Department of Transportation. We bear the whole burden of enforcing those laws that are on the books, both federal and state... Secondly,...I just wonder in my own mind if we can craft some way to basically create this window of allowance... If you created something like a 30 day, maybe even a 45 day rule where our hands are tied, we can't do much..." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I'm still not seeing how that specifically relates to this legislation (HB 26)..." Number 080 MR. OTTESEN said, "The advertising prohibition does not make any distinction right now in the federal rules between service advertising, product advertising or political advertising. It simply says 'advertising is disallowed' with one major exception, and that is the on-premise advertising. ...It's the advertising two, five or ten miles down the road that's not allowed. With regard to political signs, we find that most of our political sign problems are not advertising outside of the right-of-way, except maybe urban areas, but primarily advertising in the right-of-way. MR. OTTESEN continued, "We have very few opportunities to allow advertising in the right-of-way. The TODS program is one, and that really doesn't fit political advertising clearly. The air-space leasing which is really a creative way of extending a business premises a little closer to the roadway itself, but again that doesn't solve political advertising. So it's this creative enforcement, let me call it, it's the only mechanism that I can envision that would relax the political advertising rule." MS. LETHCOE said, "I believe I would have a negative response from our membership, particularly for primary advertising. August is the height of the tourism season along the highway." Number 132 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I don't share your concerns, Representative Sanders, about political signs as it relates to this specific legislation (HB 26)." VICE CHAIR SANDERS said, "I'm not sure my concerns are real... I don't want to see a change in this statute lead to political signs all up and down the road, legally. ...I'm not trying to talk against the bill (HB 26), I'm trying to get somebody to assure me that this won't have any political consequences." Number 156 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I don't read in there any verbiage that would encourage, allow, or somehow more liberalize the law in political signs," and, "My bigger concern is the lack of number and size limitation on the signs... Primary advertisement, I strongly oppose." CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked if any of these issues were addressed in federal regulation. Number 190 MR. OTTESEN replied that the size and height standards allow "what we think of as a major billboard" and described federal criteria for billboard placement. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES supported the intent of HB 26, but would have a problem if "the effect of this bill were to allow a business to erect a sequence of signs along the highway, many miles away from where the turn off was or where their business is located." REPRESENTATIVE MENARD described his original intentions with HB 26. Number 307 JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, testified saying, "This Bill (HB 26) does bring state law into line with what federal law does on outdoor advertising. There isn't a lot of change when you're dealing with those major primary roads, parts of the national highway system... The way the bill's drafted, signing would be permitted in those commercially zoned areas and signing would be permitted on secondary highways of the state...those roads which are not part of the national highway system. Signing would only be permitted outside of the right-of-way, 660 feet... and that's really the only area that would change, the only major change by this bill." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked what constituted a commercial area in federal law. MR. LUCKHAUPT indicated zoning has been determined in most cases, but "some second class boroughs and third class boroughs don't zone all of the land" and there is no zoning in unorganized boroughs. Number 395 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was anything that prohibited the placement of numerical limits on signs. Next he asked, "Can there be limits saying that it has to be within a certain distance of an establishment or junction?" MR. LUCKHAUPT said, "I think an amendment could be tailored that relies upon something, that the business is located within a mile of the road or something like that, and requiring the sign to be placed within a mile of the business, for example. And maybe something along the lines for those businesses that are off on access roads or service roads or some type of unimproved road... Maybe allow a sign for those businesses within one mile of that junction..." MR. LUCKHAUPT then embarked upon the subject of political signs, "The bill (HB 26) itself would not prohibit political signs in that area outside of the right-of-way which we're opening up, right now. The AMENDMENT would, as it's currently drafted, but that's not a change over current law. ...The bill as written right now would allow political signs in those areas along with the commercial signs." Number 461 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I am sympathetic to the purpose of the bill (HB 26)... but I'd certainly like to go on record saying I opposed the introduction of billboards into Alaska. I would be much more comfortable with this bill if it's spelled out specifically, the size of the signs, the number of the signs and location." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY agreed, but said, "With a commercial zone area, that makes so much more sense. In order to put up a sign you have to be in a commercially zoned area for your business that's off the road. ...To stop small business advertising...it's suicide for this state." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed, "We need to have appropriate advertising for the businesses, I just want to have some constraints in here which I don't see right now." Number 497 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked for clarification of the definition on commercially zoned property. GARY WILSON, RIGHT-OF-WAY OFFICER, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/ALASKA DIVISION, testified giving history and specifics. He said, "Right now the 660 feet (right-of-way) only applies within urban areas, all of the rural groups of what used to be primary and interstate system are restricted from being visible..." MR. WILSON, addressing Representative Toohey's concern said, "It would only take one business to become an unzoned commercial area if the DOT decided to do that, but they would also have to designate that it's within 500 feet, 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet or whatever they decide of that business and probably just on that side of the road would be the unzoned commercial area. They'll propose that to us on an item by item basis..." MR. WILSON, regarding political signs said, "Generally, they do come under a different statute, the encroachment control statutes, and nothing in this (HB 26) will allow any political signs or any other kinds of signs within the right-of-way...unless they are permitted by the DOT under an air space agreement. The federal law does not allow any nonhighway uses within the highway right-of-way unless they are specifically permitted by the Federal Highway Administrator." Number 562 VICE CHAIR SANDERS asked, "Is that a no?" in regards to his question on political signs. MR. WILSON said, "This bill (HB 26) will not have any effect upon signs within the right-of-way, where most of the political signs are. It will allow political signs along secondary roads and I don't remember all the other places that are coming into conformance with federal law... If this bill will allow a business sign it will allow a political sign." MR. WILSON added, "One of the other questions that came up was the spacing and the size of signs. Some states have specifically put that in their legislation, but generally it's covered in the agreement between the DOT and the federal highway administration. It was signed in 1968, and nobody paid a whole lot of attention to it then because all outdoor advertising in Alaska was prohibited..." Number 578 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was anything in federal law that prevented a business near Wasilla from posting a sign in a commercial zone near Nenana?" MR. WILSON said no and, "That would be a detriment to the existing businesses along there because right now they could put up a sign advertising their specific business as an on premise sign. If you declare that an unzoned commercial area, everybody up and down the road could put signs up there." Number 595 JERRY MCCUTCHEON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference. He asked, "What is the effect of this thing?" REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "My intent was to allow businesses along the highway system to have the ability to advertise... It would create some opportunities... It would bring us into compliance with federal law." MR. MCCUTCHEON said, "If it's more stringent than federal law, it is already in compliance with federal law. What you're saying is we're going to reduce it to the minimum standard of federal law... I thought we already had the right to advertise within 500 feet of the turnoff to a lodge or whatever..." MR. OTTESEN said, "The TODS program is the only way that you could do that to my knowledge and this bill (HB 26) neither expands nor takes away from the TODS programs." MR. MCCUTCHEON said, "Not knowing what the TODS program is, it seems to me we used to have a thing where you could put up a small sign 500 feet from oncoming traffic...it seems to me this was more than adequate." He proceeded then to talk about signage in the "territorial days" and said he was opposed to HB 26. Number 655 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It seems like there are some concerns that need to be addressed about numbers, size, political or nonpolitical..." MR. LUCKHAUPT said, "You put in a requirement to allow a sign within so many miles of the business or within so many miles of the access road to the business... That would meet a lot of the concerns here. We could put a size limitation on...you could even put a reasonability standard in and leave it to DOT to decide the size..." Number 682 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY described a form of signage found "in the states." MR. LUCKHAUPT said they were "logo" signs and said these could be considered. MR. WILSON said, "It would be a problem in Alaska because so many of the businesses that want to advertise don't have a recognizable logo." TAPE 93-15, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE MENARD offered to revise HB 26 to meet the committee's concerns. Number 010 PAUL SMITH, TOK, testified via teleconference saying, "Tok has fought the battle of the signs for 35 years... But we do need uniform signage for small businesses. I think most small businesses are in favor of this. They're also willing to pay their fair share... This is imperative to our businesses because we do have such a short season and this bill (HB 26) fits right in with the economic development of tourism." Number 035 CHAIRMAN OLBERG assured Mr. Smith, "We're going to get some version of this bill (HB 26) passed out of this committee soon." ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 2:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|