Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1996 09:20 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 181
An Act relating to the promotion of Alaska businesses
through signs, displays, and devices within or adjacent
to highway rights-of-way, to municipal regulation of
directional signs, displays, and devices, and to
penalties for violations related to outdoor
advertising.
BRETT HUBER, aide to Senator Green, came before committee.
Directing attention to CSSSSB 181 (STA), he explained that
the bill would establish the Dept. of Transportation and
Public Facilities tourist oriented directional signs (TODS)
program in statute and allow placement of signs on private
property outside of the right-of-way. Codification of the
program will provide for a well-planned and regulated system
of directional signs to benefit visitors and businesses that
serve them.
The department presently administers TODS as an experimental
program consistent with standards established by FHA and the
manual of uniform traffic control devices. The absence of
statutory authorization for the program has left the public
out of the regulatory process. Statutory enactment would
provide firm legal footing for the program to continue.
Opinion from legislative counsel suggests that without
statutory standing the program would be unlikely to
withstand judicial challenge.
Private property placement of uniform (18" x 90")
directional signs would allow establishments a limited,
strictly controlled opportunity to direct clientele.
Stringent guidelines (more strict than federal law allows)
and requirements for individual application and approval
offer ample opportunity for the state to maintain roadway
view sheds. As evidenced by signatures of visitors gathered
by campground owners, tourists seek more adequate
directional signs.
Mr. Huber directed attention to additional material from the
Federal Highway Administration and noted that it highlights
concerns regarding language within the bill. Referencing
FHA indications that TODS signs may only be placed in the
right-of-way, Mr. Huber advised of the sponsor's intent to
develop a uniform program allowed by Dept. of Transportation
and Public Facilities and approved on a case-by-case basis
to give businesses an opportunity to provide directional
signs while maintaining state control of roadway appearance.
Mr. Huber then voiced his understanding that directional
signs outlined in the bill would be allowed under federal
guidelines but would be under a different program than TODS.
The second concern raised by FHA relates to sign dimensions.
Mr. Huber referenced information stating that signs should
not exceed seventy-two inches in width. The current TODS
program allows for ninety-inch signs.
Mr. Huber asked that the committee assist in developing
language to remedy federal concerns and to satisfy business
needs.
BOB RUBY, Division Administrator, Alaska Division, Federal
Highway Administration, came before committee accompanied by
JIM BRYSON, Division Right-of-Way Officer, Federal Highway
Administration. Mr. Ruby directed attention to a handout
(copy on file in the Senate Finance file for SB 181) and
advised that it contains:
1. An overview relating to outdoor advertising
2. Umbrella law (outdoor advertising)
3. Information on "on-premise" signs
4. Requirements for the TODS program.
5. General comments on SB 181
In response to questions by Co-chairman Halford relating to
sign dimensions, Mr. Ruby acknowledged that TODS was
established as an experimental program. In an attempt to be
as flexible as possible, "the ninety inches was accepted at
that time." That is not considered a significant issue and
would not be considered a fatal flaw. Federal law covers
all fifty states. The administration has authority at the
state level to make reasonable adjustments for unique
conditions.
Brief discussion occurred between Co-chairman Halford and
Co-chairman Frank regarding prior billboard legislation that
failed to become law. Further comments followed regarding
sign requirements for commercial/industrial areas.
Referencing the above-noted information regarding outdoor
advertising, Mr. Ruby acknowledged that Alaska law is more
severe than federal law in that federal law allows for
commercial/industrial areas. Aside from that, one cannot
have signs in rural areas or beyond the right-of-way. The
problem with the proposed bill is the private property
allowance. TODS signs and motorist information signs are
considered official signs and formatted in accordance with
MUTCD. All directional and official signs must be located
within the highway right-of-way so that there is proper
control over the signs.
Senator Randy Phillips asked if there is an official size
for such signs. Mr. Ruby responded affirmatively, saying
that all official signs for the traveler (gas, food,
lodging) or tourist oriented destination signs have
restrictions as far as size, placement, number, location
within the highway right-of-way, etc. There is little state
control of signs on private property outside of the right-
of-way.
Senator Rieger directed attention to language in his
proposed amendment:
The program must allow the department to maintain
control over the location of signs, and the
department must control the location of signs in a
manner which maintains the quality of scenic
areas.
He advised that the language should be inserted in the
"heart of the bill" which describes the sign program.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the foregoing language meets
control requirements. Mr. Ruby stressed that official signs
must be located within physical right-of-way limits. Co-
chairman Frank attested to the fact that the Dept. of
Transportation and Public Facilities maintains control
outside of the right-of-way. He advised that he had placed
a sign outside of the right-of-way, on private property, and
was told to take it down.
In response to a suggestion from Co-chairman Frank that two
parallel programs be developed, Mr. Ruby said that federal
regulations do not apply to zoned, commercial/industrial
areas. The Co-chairman then suggested that the state could
have a program, existing outside of the right-of-way but
limited to size restrictions, which would mirror the TODS
program in zoned, commercial/industrial areas.
END: SFC-96, #45, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, #45, Side 2
Discussion occurred between Senator Zharoff and Mr. Ruby
regarding civic organization signs. Mr. Bryson explained
that they are considered official and directional signs
under outdoor advertising laws and regulations. They are
legitimately erected off-right-of-way signs relating to
public-interest, nonprofit groups.
Mr. Ruby acknowledged that one problem relates to the fact
that state law is much more restrictive than federal law in
commercial/industrial areas where signs are expected. That
has generated some of the controversy.
Discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Mr. Ruby and
Mr. Bryson regarding signs along the Glenn Highway. Mr.
Bryson said that if state legislation enabled signs to be
erected in unzoned commercial/industrial zones, a specific
definition would have to be developed. The erection of
signs would then have to comply with the definition of
"unzoned commercial" within the state of Alaska. Mr. Ruby
acknowledged that, because of the wide right-of-way in
Alaska, when a sign is placed on private property outside of
the highway right-of-way, it is too far from the line of
sight to be seen. Many property owners thus place signs in
the right-of-way and are subsequently asked to remove them.
To address the issue, the federal government developed a
program unique to Alaska. It allows property owners to
lease highway right-of-way from the state and place signs
immediately adjacent to property in areas where they are
visible and safe from collisions. The federal government
has tried to address individual issues in rural areas of
Alaska. Mr. Ruby voiced his understanding that the approach
is working satisfactorily but acknowledged room for
improvements and suggestions.
Senator Rieger referenced the handout from Mr. Ruby and
requested a definition of "an unzoned commercial or
industrial zone." Mr. Ruby explained that a single entity
does not constitute a commercial area. It is merely a
business located along the road. A series of businesses
along a strip creates a commercial or industrial area.
Senator Rieger cited an example of a number of road houses
located in close proximity. Mr. Ruby said that, on request,
the FHA could make a site-specific evaluation and a clear
determination.
Co-chairman Frank voiced need to accommodate federal
restrictions within the proposed bill. He then suggested
that the sponsor be asked to develop a committee substitute
that allows for directional signs in commercial and
industrial areas. While those signs would be limited to
specific size, they would not be restricted to location
within the right-of-way. For areas other than commercial
and industrial, the existing TODS program would prevail and
location of signs would be within the right-of-way.
Further discussion followed among members citing sign
situations at Tok, the Glenn Highway, and the Seward
Highway.
Senator Zharoff inquired regarding the federal definition of
a rural road. Mr. Ruby answered, "Something outside of a
built-up city, town, village." Unincorporated villages and
small communities are considered commercial areas for sign
purposes. He advised that he would produce a definition for
"rural."
SAM KITO III, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant, Dept.
of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before
committee in opposition to SSSB 181. He pointed to
difficulties associated with enforcement of sign
restrictions for signs located outside of the right-of-way.
At the present time, these signs are easily identified as
illegal signs. A specific category of such signs would make
enforcement against illegal signs difficult.
Further, proposed decrease of the penalty from a misdemeanor
to a violation will leave the state no recourse in instances
of repeat offenders. Co-chairman Halford asked if the
department was opposed to all signs outside of the right-of-
way. Mr. Kito attested to concern regarding placement of
signs from both a legal enforcement and aesthetic
standpoint. Co-chairman Frank questioned concern in
commercial and industrial areas, given size restrictions.
Mr. Kito cited Wasilla and Soldotna as examples of local
control of signage outside of the right-of-way. He noted
the proliferation of signs and spoke to resulting confusion
for motorists. Both Co-chairmen took exception to Mr.
Kito's comments. They said that feedback from visitors
indicates Alaska lacks sufficient directional signs.
RICK BARRIER, President, Alaska Campgrounds Owners'
Association, next spoke via teleconference from Anchorage.
He advised that the association consists of 70 to 80
campground owners and "over 100 other associate members . .
. primarily along the highway system." Mr. Barrier voiced
association support for the legislation and cited safety
issues relating to proper advance notice of sites for
visitors driving large campers. The bill would enable
business owners to do a better job of informing the public
of their locations without deteriorating "the public image."
DANIEL STROUSE, R/V park owner, Palmer, Alaska, next
testified from Palmer. He observed that after eight years
in the business, the number one visitor complaint is lack of
tourist-related signs. The second most often asked question
is "Where are your route sign numbers." Mr. Strouse
stressed that many of Alaska's tourists are elderly visitors
driving large "eighteen wheelers." It is difficult for them
to anticipate need to stop when a business is only allowed
an entrance sign. Visitors have constantly remarked on need
to improve signage.
Mr. Strouse further attested to complaints from visitors
that when they see a viewpoint sign and pull over, they are
confronted with "nothing but cottonwood trees and
overflowing trash cans."
Further, Mr. Strouse noted that his campground is across the
road from a state recreation area. There are two, huge
signs announcing the entrance to the state park while Mr.
Strouse is denied opportunity to give advance notice of his
private park.
Referencing Mr. Strouse's comment regarding lack of route
numbers, Co-chairman Halford noted that Alaska has so few
highways that it names rather than numbers them. Mr. Stouse
stressed that while that is known by Alaskans, it is new to
visitors who are "nervous when they can't find a route
sign." The Milepost is "almost useless anymore because
there are relatively few mileposts left on the highway."
RED STARR, R/V park owner, next testified from Palmer. He
attested to the two-and-a-half-year effort involved in
procuring TODS along the Old Glenn Highway. While those
signs are working, there is still need for additional
signage. TODS are small and located at intersections.
There is no effective advance sign.
Mr. Starr referenced his prior conversation with Mr. Ruby
regarding placement of signs on commercial property as well
as comments by the state that such signs would lead to loss
of federal highway funding. It appears obvious from
discussion with FHA personnel that the state has been using
federal requirements and loss of federal funding as "a
scapegoat" to allow DOTPF to do "whatever they wanted to."
Mr. Starr stressed need for a cooperative effort. He then
commented further on size restriction on signs, suggesting
that even larger signs than presently allowed would not
obstruct most views.
Co-chairman Halford asked that Co-chairman Frank work with
the sponsor in development of a committee substitute for the
bill. He then directed that it be held in committee pending
receipt of a new draft.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|