Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/30/1993 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
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice-Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative John Davies
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Williams
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Curt Menard
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 221: "An Act relating to workers' compensation for
volunteer ambulance attendants, police officers,
and fire fighters; and providing for an effective
date."
PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
SSHB 34: "An Act relating to a registration tax and a
certificate of title for a snow vehicle; relating
to municipal taxation of a snow vehicle; and
providing for an effective date."
PLACED IN SUBCOMMITTEE OF REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES
AND MENARD
Bills Previously Heard:
HB 26: "An Act relating to the control of outdoor
advertising."
PLACED IN SUBCOMMITTEE OF REPRESENTATIVES TOOHEY
AND MENARD
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Bill Hudson
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 221
Larry Fanning, Fire Chief
City and Borough of Juneau
820 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-5322
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 221
John George, Lobbyist
Alaska State Fire Fighters Association
Alaska State Fire Chiefs Association
Assistant Fire Chief,
Capital City Fire and Rescue Department,
Auke Bay District
9515 Moraine Way
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 789-0172
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 221
Representative Curt Menard
Capitol Building, Room 405
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SSHB 34 and HB 26
Juanita Hensley, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, AK 99802-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SSHB 34
Gary Lewis, Cordova City Manager
P.O. Box 1210
Cordova, AK 99574
Phone: 424-6200
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding
assessments
Jeff Ottesen, Chief of Right-of-Way and Environment
Division of Engineering and Operating Standards
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-6954
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided technical information on HB 26
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 221
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS COMP:VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS, ETC
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HUDSON,Grussendorf
TITLE: "An Act relating to workers' compensation for
volunteer ambulance attendants, police officers, and fire
fighters; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/12/93 619 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/12/93 619 (H) CRA, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
03/25/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/30/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/30/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 34
SHORT TITLE: SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION TAX
BILL VERSION: SSHB 34
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MENARD BY REQUEST
TITLE: "An Act relating to a registration tax and a
certificate of title for a snow vehicle; relating to
municipal taxation of a snow vehicle; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 33 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 33 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 33 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/22/93 410 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-
NEW TITLE
02/22/93 410 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/25/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/30/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 26
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MENARD,Olberg,Foster
TITLE: "An Act relating to the control of outdoor
advertising."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 31 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 31 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 31 (H) TRANSPORTATION, CRA, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
02/11/93 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/11/93 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/23/93 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/93 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/93 444 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG
03/01/93 475 (H) TRA RPT 3DP 1NR
03/01/93 476 (H) DP: FOSTER, HUDSON, MENARD
03/01/93 476 (H) NR: VEZEY
03/01/93 476 (H) LETTER OF INTENT WITH TRA
REPORT
03/01/93 476 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT) 3/1/93
03/01/93 476 (H) REFERRED TO COMMUNITY AND
REGIONAL AFFAI
03/01/93 495 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
03/16/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-19, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:12
p.m. He noted Representatives Toohey, Willis, Davies and
Sanders were present. Representative Bunde arrived at 1:13.
HB 221: WORKERS COMP:VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS, ETC.
Number 030
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 221, read
his sponsor statement into the record. (Copies of this
sponsor statement and the committee substitute may be found
in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room,
Capitol Room 110, and after the adjournment of the second
session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the
Legislative Reference Library.)
LARRY FANNING, FIRE CHIEF, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU,
testified in support of HB 221 and gave an example where HB
221 would have clarified existing statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY voiced her support for HB 221.
Number 175
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked, "What does the city (Juneau)
think about this?"
MR. FANNING said the City and Borough of Juneau passed a
resolution supporting an extension in workers' compensation
coverage "including training and approved department
activities" for volunteers.
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "The City and Borough of Juneau
has not formally entered a position on this bill (HB 221),
but in my conversations with the mayor...they see the need
for this legislation to clarify it."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE rephrased his concern, "I was thinking
of places...who might have a fire department and find the
workers' compensation contribution may have a significant
impact on their budget to be able to function. Is there any
concern from small volunteer fire departments?"
Number 212
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I don't believe this calls for
contribution on the part of a small volunteer fire
department or any fire department, is that correct?"
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I believe that any volunteer
...if they are called out to go fight fires they become an
employee. What the bill (HB 221) does... It says they are
employees, and they are employees at the rate in which they
normally come to the fire at and too, that it is not just
when they are going to actually fight a fire but if they are
partaking in anything that is valid, that they are covered
as employees as well."
Number 234
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think the point should be made that
every volunteer fire fighter in the state of Alaska
regardless of where they are when they respond to a fire, is
considered an employee of the state of Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I understand the intent of the
bill (HB 221) and I do not disagree with that, but workers'
comp (compensation) costs money, someone has to pay for
that. There is no indication with this zero fiscal note.
Where does this increased workmen's comp coverage come from
to pay for it?"
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I don't believe there is going
to be an appreciable increase in the overall contribution to
workers' compensation. ...The compensation I believe...comes
from the private sector."
Number 269
JOHN GEORGE, LOBBYIST, ALASKA STATE FIRE FIGHTERS
ASSOCIATION, and ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF, AUKE BAY DISTRICT
CAPITAL CITY FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT, clarified,
"Workers' compensation is paid for by the employer. In the
case of a volunteer fireman in Juneau, that would be the
City and Borough of Juneau. The state is not providing
these benefits. It is a municipal responsibility, just as if
someone was driving a city pickup truck for the Harbor
Department and was injured... The bill (HB 221) does not do
anything as far as adding liability for workers' comp for
the employee."
MR. GEORGE continued, "The law already says that they are
covered for workers' comp for all training (and) while
responding to fires. But it is not so clear when you just
read it...you have to go through a long construction and go
from place to place in the statute book to come up with that
conclusion." He added, "We would just like the firemen to
have that same advantage. When we get hurt, our families,
we think, are entitled to receive wage replacement based on
what we were making, not based necessarily on what an entry
level fire fighter would make."
Number 318
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE persevered, "My point again is, this
increases further liability that costs more. Who is paying
for it? The city is going to pay for an increased workers'
comp coverage in this case. In other cases, who pays for
it?"
MR. GEORGE indicated there is currently another bill (HB
150) which would provide state employee workers'
compensation to volunteers of fire departments not under a
municipality. He said, "There are fire departments I think,
probably, that do not have workmen's comp insurance, in
violation of the law. They are subject to criminal
penalties as well as civil penalties... The law is designed
to punish employers that do not provide the statutorily
required benefits..."
Number 354
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated, "We already believe this
is in the statutes. It is just that it is not clear... In
this particular case, all we are really trying to do is to
make very, very clear what has already been embodied in the
law and it does not cost the state anything. It could
conceivably cost someone who already has workers'
compensation. It may cost the overall pool to rise very
slightly."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out HB 221 would indeed
increase the workers' compensation rate, but since Mr.
George, who represents all state fire fighters statewide
supports it, he would.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES MOVED to PASS HB 221 out of
committee with individual recommendations. There were no
objections, and the MOTION CARRIED.
SSHB 34: SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION TAX
Number 411
REPRESENTATIVE CURT MENARD, PRIME SPONSOR OF SSHB 34, read
his sponsor statement into the record. (A copy of the
sponsor statement may be found in the House Community and
Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol Room 110, and after
the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska
State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.)
He added, "I did introduce this bill at the request of the
Mat-Su Motor Mushers. I believe we also have the Anchorage
Motor Mushers on board."
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD continued, "There is an estimation of
roughly probably 50-60,000 snow machines out there, and I
believe probably the total amount registered in the
municipality is maybe a thousand or thereabouts. The reason
in reality they do not register is because they come under a
local property tax. In the Mat-Su, a $5,000 machine would
represent about $150 to $160 in local personal property tax.
So in an effort to reach some sort of a compromise in this,
to give the owners and the dealers the ability to have their
machines titled, they feel it would track the ownership side
of it and we would have a revenue stream that would start
where we could tap into developing trails and establishing
areas that would help many areas in the state expand their
tourist and recreational monies."
Number 452
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Converting the MSO (Manufacturer's
Statement of Origin) to a title at the time of sale when a
machine is new would certainly cause some revenue to be
generated."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about the Department of Public
Safety's fiscal note.
Number 482
JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF, DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, said, "This fiscal
note is written on what the industry has advised us. I was
surprised to hear Representative Menard say there was 50-
60,000 machines... It's only 25,000."
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "It was someone's guess."
MS. HENSLEY continued, "It's based on how many vehicles
would be titled or registered. I must say something else,
the department is opposed to title assumption. We presently
have a format, and it is required by law that everyone who
owns a snow machine register that vehicle with the Division
of Motor Vehicles. They are not doing that. We have 7,000,
I believe 7,100 registered snow machines now in this state.
Titling them, we feel, is not going to accomplish anything
further than what it already is. There are a lot of places
out there that do not register their vehicles, lots of
villages out there..."
Number 509
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "A titling requirement should mandate
that the dealer at the time of sale would acquire a title by
turning in the MSO. Maybe we can do it through the
registration process in some fashion, but what we are really
trying to do here is establish a paperwork trail with the
sale of each new snow machine. Whether it be a title or
registration, I do not have any hang-ups, but it needs to be
mandated at the dealer level when the machine is new, if it
is going to have any effect at all."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "The level of possible
registrants is optimistic, and as such the chances of the
program being revenue neutral and paying for itself is
diminished."
Number 510
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked if present laws require snowmobile
registration to be physically on the machine.
MS. HENSLEY indicated no, but there are decals applied to
snowmobiles.
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "I didn't care whether it was
titling or registration... I knew DMV (Division of Motor
Vehicles) did not support titling. Currently, the group
that I am working with seemed to be intent that titling is
the important factor and we have not worked through it. I
think they can do the same thing with registration. Their
main concern was theft of machine...and having the ability
to do it at the time of sale. The organized groups that
talked to us say they do not like operating outside the law
but they are not willing to step up to the plate because of
the cost of new machines and the borough personal property
(tax)...
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD continued, "So we are trying to devise
some sort of a mechanism to one, make them register or have
an incentive to register, given the track record on the
thieving and give them the opportunity to work on some kind
of a revenue stream to develop trails. I did float it out
to the groups, 'would you be willing to...have an assessment
over and above what the registration tax is that would be
earmarked for trails development?' ...And they are floating
that around. I do not have the total exact crystal clear
picture how this should work...and I would like to work
within the committee and with the department to see if there
is a way that we can structure it. ...I am not opposed to
structuring something that is somewhat revenue neutral. I
just don't know what the numbers are."
Number 589
CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested, "If we propose mandatory
registration at time of original sale...would that cause a
fiscal note in DMV?"
MS. HENSLEY said, "If you are increasing the fees or
requiring a mandated fee. Then, of course, the fiscal note
we have would still be the same fiscal note. However, the
revenue that would be generated would certainly offset the
costs."
Number 605
GARY LEWIS, CITY MANAGER, CORDOVA, testified giving an
example of a municipality assessing personal property tax on
a snow machine.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "If we structured it so that the
dealer selling the new machine is mandated to register the
snow machine at a fee that is revenue neutral, ten bucks
call it...then the relationship becomes a relationship
between the owner of the snow machine and the municipality
that he or she lives in as to the personal property tax
ramifications."
MS. HENSLEY said, "I am not saying that titling is not a
positive thing. I am saying it is something I do not think
is necessary because we do have the registration... These
are registered every two years as opposed to yearly.
Presently, it is $5.00 to register a snow machine. With
this registration of these vehicles the city can come back
to (the Department of) Motor Vehicles and say, 'I want a
list of the people who registered snow machines in that
municipality' and we will supply that to them. In fact, we
do that to several municipalities..."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG confirmed the present biannual snow machine
registration.
MS. HENSLEY reminded the committee there are only 7,000 snow
machines presently registered and added, "The law does say
if it is operated on public lands that it must be
registered." She further said, "I have a list of areas who
are exempt from motor vehicle registration and the same
would exist (for snow machines) in those areas."
Number 660
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if other snow machine groups
had commented on SSHB 34.
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD indicated the Anchorage, Wasilla and
state associations had been contacted.
Number 675
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out, "I think we have two
issues: One, a registration procedure so that we can track
stolen vehicles, and that ought to be a fee that just pays
for itself, I would think. Then the municipalities, if they
have a property tax on this vehicle, that is a whole other
question. Do I understand correctly that the thrust of what
the organizers want is to have a system where the vehicle
can be traced?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG reiterated, "By mandating the registration
of snow machines at the time it is sold new we would
accomplish a couple of things. First, we would hear from
every dealer in the state so we would know who they are, but
then the state would have an every two year registration fee
and municipalities could do what they want to do and
everybody else can do what they want to do. Is that what
you are suggesting?"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES said, "Except that the last line
in the bill (SSHB 34) exempts snow machines from personal
property taxation."
TAPE 93-19, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "Eventually over a ten year
period, the majority of snow machines in the state will be
registered vehicles."
Number 020
CHAIRMAN OLBERG clarified, "The plan is that everybody that
registers their vehicle exempts themselves from the
municipal tax."
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD added, "And is substituted with a
registration fee. That was the carrot that was out there.
Obviously, there are a lot of machines out there that are
not registered and the main reason is the personal property
tax that is assessed. ...So the group thought that if they
had the registration...and were not subject to personal
property tax they would go with a registration fee."
Number 074
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "The compromise I would like to
support is a registration title of all dealers that sell
machines with the idea that eventually most of the machines
would become registered, but I do not think we should bind
the hands of the municipality by saying they cannot charge
them a property tax..."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked which committee members
represented areas with personal property tax.
Number 120
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "If we had to create a tax big
enough in the Mat-Su to pick this up, the registration fee
would be $60-$70. I do not think the organization is going
to be real happy about that."
Number 147
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Representative Menard what the
current discussion was with the snow machine groups
regarding compromises.
Number 153
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "A lot of people are not
registering. They would like to have the registration.
Unless they are exempt from the personal property tax and we
come up with some kind of a registration tax then they lose
support of the bill (SSHB 34). If it comes down that we are
going to mandate registration from this point forward on new
sales and resalable machines, and there's not a fee
structure in the bill on what they would be charged; and, if
they fall totally under the municipal personal property tax,
then they would drop their support of the bill." He then
indicated that the groups would approve of a fee in the $20-
25 range.
Number 186
MR. LEWIS said, "In some municipalities, the local assessor
looks at a snow machine as part of the household goods which
is exempt. In other municipalities, the assessor looks at
it as personal property that is taxable. A definition of a
snow machine being part of the property of the head of a
household might eliminate the whole tax question on snow
machines that are used for personal use. It would only be
snow machines that are held in inventories or used for
commercial purposes that would be taxable." He continued,
"In the first part of (AS) 29.45 it says the personal
effects of the head of a household are exempt from property
taxation. If you define snow machines as being part of the
personal effects of the head of the household they could be
exempt."
Number 214
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD pointed out the similarities in
registering snow machines and motorcycles.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "Am I to assume we do it
something like motor vehicles, cars, that the state would
then rebate the municipality something that would then hold
them harmless from their original tax? Like motor vehicles,
we pay our state registration, but we do not pay a personal
property tax on motor vehicles."
MS. HENSLEY said, "Presently you pay your $35 or $40 for
your normal registration fee. In addition, you pay, if you
live in the Anchorage, Mat-Su or Kenai area, well, nine
areas of the state, you pay a motor vehicle registration tax
that the Division of Motor Vehicles collects for the
municipality and rebates less than 5% which is kept for
administrative costs."
Number 247
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would be a lot more
comfortable about putting this exemption in here if the
permissive language allowed the municipalities to put a
dedicated fee on top of that..."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I've a problem with this,
primarily (because) for twenty years I commuted by snow
machine to my car because there was no maintenance on the
road I live on... Snow machiners are very reticent to do
anything to help communities because nobody helps the snow
machiners. There is no plan out there that says, 'yes, this
is an activity that we think is good and it is healthy and
here is a trail you can use, here is a mountain you can
use...' There are no trails in the Anchorage area. There
is one mountain down in the pass."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I am sorry, I cannot support
this part where they will leave out the municipal property
tax, certainly without talking to Anchorage...I think it is
going to be a hardship on the municipalities."
Number 302
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "There are trails in the
Fairbanks area...where snow machines are welcome. That is
what I am concerned about this other possibility: The
municipality could raise some dedicated funds to help
maintain those kinds of trails. That would encourage that
kind of designated use."
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD gave a description of trails available
for snow machines. He added, "We need to come up with some
kind of a mechanism to generate those through and then we
move forward."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY pointed out, "What happens to the
person who is trapping and he buys his neighbor's snow
machine for $1,200 or $300 and it is used for
transportation."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "If there is a snow machine
registration tax and it differs from Anchorage to Wasilla to
Fairbanks, where they don't have any, people are going to be
buying their snow machines where the tax is the smallest..."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The tax is assessed by the
municipality in which you live, not where you buy...so
everybody is going to end up living in Delta, I suppose."
He then suggested a subcommittee be formed to work further
on SSHB 34.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES volunteered to work on the
subcommittee with Representative Menard.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Realistically, I do not think we can
address everything that this addresses in one bill. Maybe
we need a state registration bill mandating dealers to
register at the point of initial sale and let it go at that.
Then that list is available to the municipalities and they
can do whatever they want with it, and they can fight it out
in the municipalities."
Number 380
HB 26: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
CHAIRMAN OLBERG referred to two amendments to HB 26; one
dated 3/12/93, and the other dated 3/30/93.
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE CURT MENARD, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 26, referred
to the latter amendment dated 3/30/93 and said, "If you had
a business on the highway, you would have the ability to put
up a sign 25 miles on one side of it and 25 miles on the
other side of it. If someone was coming along
hypothetically, we could have a sign up 25 miles before you
got there. Then within the intersection or close to the
facility within let's say a mile, for example, they could
have another sign. And then if it is on the highway, they
are going to have an on highway premise sign. If it is off
the highway, they would have the ability to still have that
sign in there. So you would have five or four signs
depending on where you are."
Number 435
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I think we are doing exactly
what we do not want to do. Why 25 miles?"
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "We were trying not to be too
restrictive, and in that area, the possibility of a
commercial area that would be in the (25 mile) area."
Number 445
JEFF OTTESEN, CHIEF OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENT,
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND OPERATING STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, testified, "25
miles is my recommendation and I understand your concern.
The issue here is that the entire highway is not eligible
for signing. Only areas that are either zoned commercial
industrial or are a commercial industrial land use. So if
you are a gas station and a half mile down the road there is
another gas station, where you might put advertising, is he
going to allow you to put up a sign advertising your gas
station? Probably not. Those kinds of concerns and the
preponderance of public ownership made me suggest a larger
range."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Are you saying 25 miles from
the gas station we are hoping that there is a commercial?"
MR. OTTESEN replied, "That was the intent, that if you had
24 miles of public ownership in front of your business, then
there really is no opportunity to place the sign.
Hopefully, somewhere in the 25 miles there is: A) private
ownership; B) commercial industrial use; and, C) willing to
let you put a sign up."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG pointed out, "This is mandated by the
federal government."
MR. OTTESEN concurred, "Commercial industrial is an
underlying requirement we just have to live with."
Number 472
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Where does this leave TODS
(Tourist Oriented Directional Signing)?"
MR. OTTESEN said, "TODS is primarily geared to businesses
not on the main highway. This would make some of the TODS
requirements less necessary."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG speculated, "This does not impact TODS."
MR. OTTESEN concurred, "It (TODS) would be allowed on top of
anything we would do here."
Number 486
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Why five? Why couldn't we
have reduced this to three...?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG gave examples in Tok and Dot Lake and said,
"Some people are going to have to use TODS to have signs,
but I don't find five excessive..."
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD pointed out TODS cost around $1,500
each.
Number 520
MR. OTTESEN said, "The five was actually a worst case
scenario. I think the one sign on the business (premises)
you should not count in your formula. That sign is already
allowed by both federal and state law. Whatever number you
set, it should only be those signs that are not on the
premises. You might want to pick four. We were thinking
about situations where you are near an intersection so you
might have three or four roads that ultimately lead to your
location in the immediate proximity. And the idea was to
have one sign per route of travel or approach. Not to have
two or three signs on a given approach."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "That got to one of my
concerns...to just specify five is a little bit too simple.
If we could get at the idea that was just expressed, that we
had one sign per direction of approach per road, that
notion. I would be a lot more comfortable with it." He
added, "There are places like Dot Lake as you point out,
where even with this you probably will not even be able to
put up one sign. The logo approach, it seems to me, might
actually do the businesses a better job in a lot of
instances than what we are doing here..."
MR. OTTESEN said, "When we first looked at the logo program,
another one of these programs allowed by federal law, it did
not make sense for Alaska. It was geared to interstate
situations that had four categories: Food, gas, lodging,
and campgrounds. No other activities could be signed. It
was intended to be big, expensive signs: $5,000 to $10,000
per business. I understand now...other states have come up
with what I call the mini logo sign, a little bit bigger
than TODS, but a lot smaller than those monsters you see on
the interstate...would fit our circumstances pretty well.
It gives you the benefit of being able to put up a colorful
logo that describes your business, particularly if your
business has a recognizable logo. It would fill a gap that
TODS does not always fill and it would certainly fill the
gap in areas of almost all public ownership."
Number 559
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Is there enough flexibility
that we could make that kind of thing work for Alaska?"
MR. OTTESEN said, "I don't know if the Oregon approach (mini
logo signs) is able to get beyond the limitation of four
types of businesses. Right now our TODS program is geared
towards anything that a traveler might use. I have to do
some investigation to find out if they were able to spread
that beyond the food, gas, lodging, and camping. But
definitely in terms of it being small enough to be
affordable, but large enough to be read, it was working and
people seemed to use it. And it was being used on two-lane
highways in a rural setting."
Number 590
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY proposed community services also be
viewed on the mini logo signs.
MR. OTTESEN said, "The time that we did the first TODS study
we came up with a concept called the Community Service
Sign...it was intended to say, 'There's a community off the
highway here and they have a whole variety of services'."
He added these were currently used in the Yukon Territory.
Number 603
CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested Representative Toohey serve on a
subcommittee to work on HB 26.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY consented.
Number 610
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested, "Would it work to say, 'no
more than two signs per business location per route'?"
MR. OTTESEN said, "I've been thinking about the language...
One sign per direction or approach."
Number 620
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said further, "There ought to be a
disclaimer in here that says this does not limit in any
sense the use of TODS."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested, "Back to the drawing board,
Representative Menard?"
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD concurred.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 1:48.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|