Legislature(1997 - 1998)

02/21/1997 01:40 PM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                     HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                        FEBRUARY 21, 1997                                      
                            1:40 P.M.                                          
  TAPE HFC 97 - 36, Side 1, #000 - end.                                        
  TAPE HFC 97 - 36, Side 2, #000 - end.                                        
  TAPE HFC 97 - 37, Side 1, #000 - end.                                        
  TAPE HFC 97 - 37, Side 2, #000 - #398.                                       
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
  Co-Chair Gene Therriault called  the House Finance Committee                 
  meeting to order at 1:40 P.M.                                                
  Co-Chair Hanley               Representative Kelly                           
  Co-Chair Therriault           Representative Kohring                         
  Representative Davies         Representative Martin                          
  Representative Davis          Representative Moses                           
  Representative Foster         Representative Grussendorf                     
  Representative Mulder was not present for the meeting.                       
  ALSO PRESENT                                                                 
  Senator  Lyda Green;  Representative Jeannette  James; Dugan                 
  Petty, Director, Division of General Services, Department of                 
  Administration;     Duane     French,     (Testified     via                 
  teleconference), Washington, D.C.;  Janey Wineinger,  Staff,                 
  Senator Lyda  Green; Boyd  Brownfield, Deputy  Commissioner,                 
  Department of  Transportation  and  Public  Facilities;  Tom                 
  Garrett,  Director,  Division   of  Tourism,  Department  of                 
  Commerce and Economic Development;  Jody Kennedy, Volunteer,                 
  Alaska  Environmental  Lobby  (AEL),  Juneau;  Cliff  Eames,                 
  (Testified  via  teleconference),   Alaska  Center  for  the                 
  Environment,  Anchorage;  Priscilla  Gregg,  (Testified  via                 
  teleconference),   Valdez;   David   Lee,   (Testified   via                 
  teleconference),   Valdez;   Wes  Wallace,   (Testified  via                 
  teleconference),   Wasilla;   Ted   Smith   (Testified   via                 
  teleconference), Wasilla.                                                    
  HB 18     An  Act  extending  to  certain  partnerships  and                 
            corporations the 10 percent procurement preference                 
            currently  given  to certain  sole proprietorships                 
            who are Alaska  bidders and owned by  persons with                 
            HB 18  was reported  out of  Committee with  a "do                 
            pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the                 
            Department  of  Administration  dated 1/29/97  and                 
            with  a  zero  fiscal note  by  the  Department of                 
  SB 56     An Act  relating to  tourist oriented  directional                 
            signs that are 90 inches in width and 18 inches in                 
            height,  relating  to  penalties   for  violations                 
            related to  outdoor advertising,  and annulling  a                 
            regulation of the Department of Transportation and                 
            Public Facilities.                                                 
            HCS CS SB 56 (FIN)  was reported out of  Committee                 
            with a "do pass" recommendation  and with a fiscal                 
            note  by  the  Department  of  Transportation  and                 
            Public Facilities dated 1/29/97.                                   
  HOUSE BILL 18                                                                
       "An   Act   extending  to   certain   partnerships  and                 
       corporations  the  10  percent  procurement  preference                 
       currently given to certain sole proprietorships who are                 
       Alaska bidders and owned by persons with disabilities."                 
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES pointed out  that HB 18 would                 
  allow 100%  disabled owned corporations  and partnerships to                 
  be eligible  for disabled  bidder preferences.   She  stated                 
  that  current law allows disabled owned sole proprietorships                 
  to take advantage  of certain  disabled bidder  preferences.                 
  Equal protection under the law  requires all like situations                 
  to  be  treated fairly  and  equally.   Representative James                 
  continued, current law discriminates  against disabled owned                 
  corporations     and     partnerships,     allowing     sole                 
  Representative James explained how the  past legislation was                 
  vetoed  in  error.    Gary  Hayden, Alaska  Marine  Highway,                 
  Department of Transportation and  Public Facilities (DOT&PF)                 
  had added  an amendment to  the legislation which  created a                 
  conflict  between  the  two  agencies,  thus,  causing   the                 
  Governor to veto the legislation.   Representative J. Davies                 
  clarified  that  the  bill had  not  been  vetoed  in error,                 
  instead, it had been amended in error.                                       
  DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,  testified that the Department                 
  of Administration  supports the proposed  legislation.   The                 
  bill would correct an inequity which was established in law,                 
  allowing only the  sole proprietorship to take  advantage of                 
  the preference for  the disabled  community.  A  partnership                 
  would not  be able  to take  advantage of  that nor  would a                 
  Mr.   Petty   addressed   Representative  Martin's   concern                 
  regarding the application  of the  legislation.  He  advised                 
  that last year the Legislature had passed  an extensive bill                 
  on procurement.  One of the provisions of the bill currently                 
  is law,  which outlines  the procedure  to  qualify for  the                 
  preference.  That  was a  loop hole and  the Department  has                 
  endeavored to close the gap.                                                 
  D.C., spoke in support of HB 18.  He reiterated that passage                 
  of the legislation would allow for partnerships,  completely                 
  owned by people  with disabilities  the opportunity to  take                 
  advantage of the bidder's preference.                                        
  Representative  J.   Davies  asked  how   many  corporations                 
  currently in existence  would fall  under the  terms of  the                 
  bill.   Mr. French did not  know, although, he felt  that it                 
  would provide an  opportunity for  people in that  category.                 
  He predicted that there would not be a rush of applications.                 
  Representative Martin MOVED to report HB 18 out of Committee                 
  with individual  recommendations and  with the  accompanying                 
  fiscal notes.  There being NO  OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                 
  HB  18  was  reported out  of  Committee  with  a "do  pass"                 
  recommendation  and with a fiscal  note by the Department of                 
  Administration dated 1/29/97  and a zero fiscal  note by the                 
  Department of Education.                                                     
  SENATE BILL 56                                                               
       "An  Act relating to tourist oriented directional signs                 
       that are 90  inches in width  and 18 inches in  height,                 
       relating to penalties for violations related to outdoor                 
       advertising,  and   annulling  a   regulation  of   the                 
       Department of Transportation and Public Facilities."                    
  56 would  amend Alaska  Statute, Tile  19  to allow  certain                 
  restricted exceptions to current outdoor  advertising law in                 
  order  to  better  serve the  traveling  public  and provide                 
  increased opportunity for Alaskan businesses.                                
  SB 56 would  establish a category of outdoor advertising for                 
  business entities  of significant interest to  the traveling                 
  public  and  would allow  their  placement in  zoned/unzoned                 
  commercial  or  industrial  areas  along  a  state  highway,                 
  subject to stringent restrictions.                                           
  Ms.  Wineinger   continued,  SB   56  would   provide  these                 
  directional  signs  to be  consistent  with format  and size                 
  standards established  by the  Department of  Transportation                 
  and  Public  Facilities  (DOT&PF)   and  would  limit  their                 
  placement as to proximity to  the business, thereby, further                 
  mitigating any potential impact on  the scenery visible from                 
  Alaska's highways.                                                           
  The provisions of SB 56 would codify in statute the existing                 
  DOT&PF Tourist Oriented Directional Signs (TODS) program and                 
  clarify language  providing municipal authority to  enact by                 
  ordinance  standards for  directional  signs adopted  by the                 
  DOT&PF or standards more restrictive  than those provided by                 
  the measure.                                                                 
  Ms. Wineinger concluded, passage of SB 56 would provide long                 
  sought  assistance to Alaska  businesses dependent  on trade                 
  with the  traveling public as  well as  enhance the  State's                 
  ability  to  be  user-friendly  for  its  tourists,  further                 
  promoting  a  responsive visitor  industry.   She  urged the                 
  Committee's support.                                                         
  Representative  John  Davies  pointed  out  that  DOT&PF  is                 
  currently running an experimental program and that they have                 
  a task force  working on  these issues.   He questioned  the                 
  need for the  legislation.  Ms.  Wineinger stressed that  to                 
  date there is no finality on action taken by the task force.                 
  Representative J. Davies informed her of a memo report dated                 
  1/15/97  generated  from the  task  force.   That  group has                 
  considered the problem  and has made recommendations  to the                 
  Governor regarding the concern.                                              
  Representative J. Davies referenced a memo from  Legislative                 
  Council regarding  the status  of the  experimental program.                 
  He again questioned  the need for the  proposed legislation.                 
  Ms. Wineinger referenced  a statutory clause which  provided                 
  authority  to  the  Department  to  have the  signs  placed.                 
  Representative  J. Davies countered  that the Department now                 
  has the authority  to implement the experimental  program as                 
  an operational program with regulations  to be adopted.   He                 
  stated that was  the purpose of  the task force given  their                 
  statutory authority under federal and State standards.                       
  Representative Grussendorf referenced the fiscal note, which                 
  indicated that no  other states allow placement  of official                 
  directional  signs  on  private   property  because  of  the                 
  difficulties in controlling and enforcing sign placement  in                 
  those areas.   Ms. Wineinger disclosed that  through support                 
  from the Federal Highway Authority (FHA), three other states                 
  have implemented the action.                                                 
  TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES  (DOT&PF), spoke to the                 
  proposed legislation.   The Administration has stressed that                 
  SB  56 would  be  harmful to  the  State.   The action  will                 
  establish a potential for the proliferation of outdoor signs                 
  along  highways,  thus,  degrading  the  natural  beauty and                 
  historic sights  of Alaska  as seen  from our  highway.   He                 
  pointed  out  that it  has been  said  that our  public road                 
  system is Alaska's single, largest  tourist attraction.  The                 
  proposed legislation would end that quality.                                 
  Mr. Brownfield  commented that Alaska's signage  program was                 
  patterned  after a  federal  initiative called  the  Tourist                 
  Oriented  Directional  Signs  (TODS)  program,  designed  to                 
  provide business identification and  directional information                 
  for businesses.   The  program allows  signs  to be  located                 
  within the highway  row.  Mr. Brownfield  provided Committee                 
  members a model sign of the largest size, 18" x 6'.                          
  Last Fall,  DOT&PF, Division of  Tourism and representatives                 
  from  the tourism industry held  a series of public meetings                 
  to  discuss  where  TODS  signs  fail  to  provide  adequate                 
  signage.  Two specific issues surfaced:                                      
       *    Businesses along a  major highway want to  be able                 
            to advertise  a mile  or two  in advance  of their                 
            location.   TODS  does  not allow  advance signage                 
            along  a major highway if the  business is in full                 
            view of the highway.                                               
       *    Businesses within a city would  like TODS signs in                 
            city limits.   TODS signs  are for rural  settings                 
            where the majority of the land is not sub-divided.                 
            In Alaska, that is  defined as a city having  less                 
            than five thousand residents.                                      
  Mr.  Brownfield  stated that  DOT&PF  is  incorporating logo                 
  signs and drafting regulations to include "advanced" signage                 
  and  signs  within cities  and  municipalities which  have a                 
  population  of  five  thousand  residents  or more.    Those                 
  regulations will be ready for public review  by February 26,                 
  1997, and the new  regulations will be adopted by  April 15,                 
  Mr.  Brownfield  testified on  the effect  of  SB 56  on the                 
  program.  Present State law prohibits the erection  of signs                 
  outside  the state  row or  private  land.   The legislation                 
  would open the door for signs to be erected  on private land                 
  along  Alaska's  highway system  which  are either  zoned as                 
  commercial   or  industrial-use  or  unzoned  but  used  for                 
  commercial or industrial purposes.                                           
  The Administration strongly  opposes the change in  the law.                 
  The change would establish a new  category of signs off-row,                 
  on private lands,  which the Department has  no jurisdiction                 
  over.  Enforcement would be difficult with significant costs                 
  stemming from legal and administrative issues.                               
  He continued, the change  could jeopardize up to 10%  of our                 
  federal  Intermodel  Surface  Transportation Efficiency  Act                 
  (ISTEA) funds.  Mr. Brownfield specified that the Department                 
  can  not  provide  effective  control  of the  erection  and                 
  maintenance of signs off-row.  He stressed that with current                 
  resources,   the   Department  can   barely   handle  on-row                 
  The bill  recommends that a  sign be no  greater than  18" X                 
  90".  The row ranges from 100' to 300' in width.  Generally,                 
  on a major highway,  the row is 300', whereas,  on secondary                 
  roads, it can  be 100'  to 150'.   Mr. Brownfield  suggested                 
  that  the  signs   would  be  unreadable  at   the  distance                 
  recommended for them to be effective.  He reiterated that an                 
  18" x 90" sign would be unreadable at that distance.   Also,                 
  given the circumstances, the Department  would be faced with                 
  processing the off-row  signs, leaving little choice  but to                 
  not grant or issue approval for erection of those signs.                     
  (Tape Change HFC 97-36, Side 2).                                             
  Representative J. Davies inquired why a sign would be placed                 
  150' off the  road.   Mr. Brownfield replied  that when  the                 
  sign is placed on private property, there exists a right-of-                 
  way  of 300'.   The sign  could not  be adequately  read and                 
  would  present a safety  problem.  It  is the responsibility                 
  and obligation  of the Department to protect  the safety and                 
  welfare of the public.  Allowing a sign to be installed like                 
  that, knowing in advance that it  can not be adequately read                 
  would impose a  safety problem leaving  the Department in  a                 
  negative position.                                                           
  Mr. Brownfield  stated that SB 56 would be the first step to                 
  the proliferation of more and bigger  signs.  The bill would                 
  reduce the penalty for such an offense from a misdemeanor to                 
  a  simple violation.    A  misdemeanor  carries with  it  an                 
  accumulative increased  seriousness to multi-offenses  by an                 
  offender.    He  suggested  that   change  would  deliver  a                 
  "powerful"  message  to the  public.   Reducing  the penalty                 
  clearly sends  the wrong message  that somehow the  size and                 
  number of signs along the highways is not important.                         
  Mr.  Brownfield  summarized,  the  Administration  uses   an                 
  effective  signage system  which meets most  business needs.                 
  The Department has  identified weaknesses  in their  program                 
  and  is  taking  positive  steps  to  cure  those  concerns.                 
  Regulations are being  drafted and will be  ready for public                 
  review by February 26th, 1997.                                               
  Mr. Brownfield stressed that SB 56 does not address weakness                 
  in the  system.   The  legislation would  create a  category                 
  which puts signs on private land over which the State has no                 
  jurisdiction.   It would  jeopardize 10%  of ISTEA  funding,                 
  amounting to  $22 million  dollars, and  would serve  as the                 
  first step toward more and bigger signs.                                     
  Mr.  Brownfield  urged  Committee members  not  to  pass the                 
  proposed legislation but instead  to weigh the consequences.                 
  Representative Kelly questioned the criteria used to place a                 
  sign in  the right-of-way.  Mr. Brownfield responded that an                 
  application would  be made  with a  $100 dollar  application                 
  fee.    The Department  would  be responsible  to  check the                 
  installation procedure  and placement.  The  applicant would                 
  be  responsible for the  sign.  SB  56 would  take the sized                 
  sign and would  post it on  private property up to  150' off                 
  the highway.   The Department  would be responsible  for any                 
  signs  off the right-of-way  and back  660' feet  through an                 
  existing agreement with the federal government.                              
  Representative Martin thought  the Department's argument was                 
  exceptionally "fear" based.  Mr.  Brownfield argued that the                 
  Department would not want to  put up a sign which  could not                 
  be read.   He emphasized that the Department  is responsible                 
  for highway safety.  SB 56 would not stop anything; it would                 
  proliferate signs further outside the highway.                               
  Co-Chair  Therriault  referenced Page  3,  Section 4:   "The                 
  Department shall maintain the location of directional  signs                 
  within  a  right-of-way".   He  advised that  the Department                 
  could "turn down" a person applying for sign posting.                        
  Representative   J.   Davies   asked  what   specifics   the                 
  regulations would cover.   Mr.  Brownfield replied that  the                 
  regulations would cover all signage issues and would address                 
  concerns brought forth by the task force.                                    
  Co-Chair   Hanley  asked  how  signage  positions  would  be                 
  determined under current  law.  Mr. Brownfield  replied that                 
  it was first  come, first serve.  Six signs would be allowed                 
  at an intersection approach,  no more than four on  the same                 
  pedestal.   He added,  this type situation  would provide  a                 
  good reason to create  a "kiosk".  Co-Chair Hanley  asked if                 
  the bill passed, would  the Department be able to  limit the                 
  number of signs.  Mr.  Brownfield noted that the  Department                 
  would have that authority  and that the size of a sign would                 
  be governed by the TODS program.                                             
  Co-Chair Hanley commented  on the reduction of  the penalty.                 
  He noted that as a misdemeanor, the offense would not likely                 
  be  prosecuted.   He  believed that  a  fine of  $1 thousand                 
  dollars  would  be  a more  effective  deterrent.   Co-Chair                 
  Hanley  suggested that  the  legislation could  provide  the                 
  Department  more  flexibility  than anticipated,  indicating                 
  that regulations are always more stringent than people think                 
  they should be.                                                              
  Co-Chair Therriault asked  if the State would be  allowed to                 
  use federal  funds  for  the kiosk  area.    Mr.  Brownfield                 
  commented that  the existing right-a-way  approval would  be                 
  determined by the Federal Highway  Association.  He did  not                 
  know if that action could be approved.                                       
  Representative G. Davis  asked if  the Department felt  they                 
  had  enough  statutory  authority  to  implement   the  TODS                 
  program.  Mr. Brownfield responded  that the Department does                 
  have the authorization to establish a TODS system.                           
  Representative G.  Davis agreed  with Representative  Hanley                 
  concerning  the  penalty   associated  with  sign  problems,                 
  although, warned  that the regulations would be implementing                 
  the specifics of the  legislation.  He pointed out  that the                 
  Department does have control over the regulations, although,                 
  does not have control over the  statutes.  He suggested that                 
  concerns  of  the  Department  should  be addressed  in  the                 
  statutes.   Mr.  Brownfield  pointed  out  that  regulations                 
  require  distance between the groups  of signs.  In response                 
  to Representative Therriault's query, Mr. Brownfield  stated                 
  that there  does  exist a  category of  signs which  include                 
  services available in the community.                                         
  FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,  ANCHORAGE, testified in  opposition to                 
  the proposed  legislation.  He  suggested that the  bill was                 
  not  necessary  given  the  proposed  regulations  that  the                 
  Department submits.   He suggested  that massive numbers  of                 
  signs would interfere with the State's scenic beauty.                        
  asked how the  legislation would  affect signs currently  on                 
  private property  advertising private businesses.   Co-Chair                 
  Therriault indicated that  there would  be no impact  there.                 
  Mr. Brownfield agreed.                                                       
  questioned the impact  of the legislation on  an off premise                 
  or out-of-town sign.   Mr. Brownfield replied  that business                 
  owners  are allowed  to  put  their  signs on  the  business                 
  (Tape Change HFC 97-37, Side 1).                                             
  to the proposed  legislation and his personal  problems with                 
  the  TODS  program  affecting  the  placement  of   signage.                 
  Representative Grussendorf  noted  that  Mr.  Wallace  would                 
  continue  to have  the  same problems  with  passage of  the                 
  proposed legislation.                                                        
  passage of  the proposed  legislation.   He stated that  the                 
  legislation would  implement  recommendations  made  by  the                 
  Citizens Advisory Committee  formed ten years ago  to create                 
  the TODS  regulations.   He  disagreed that  many new  signs                 
  would pop up throughout the State.                                           
  COMMERCE  AND ECONOMIC  DEVELOPMENT, explained  that he  was                 
  involved with  the Governor's  task force  to determine  the                 
  problems which exist throughout the State regarding signage.                 
  He spoke to  the regulations  which were a  product of  that                 
  task force.                                                                  
  During the meetings  of the  task force, it  was clear  that                 
  Alaskan  businesses did  not understand  current regulations                 
  regarding the posting of  signs.  He thought that  there had                 
  been  a  break-down  of  communication  regarding   business                 
  options for signage.   In recognition of that,  the Division                 
  of Tourism, will  be disseminating  to Alaskan businesses  a                 
  guide explaining the regulations.   The goal of the Division                 
  is to have signage in place for those business that  want it                 
  by Summer, 1997.                                                             
  Mr. Garrett spoke  to the citizen advisory  group's concerns                 
  regarding the legislation.  This group wants signage and the                 
  Administration is currently addressing those concerns.                       
  JUNEAU, stated that the Lobby  opposes the legislation.  She                 
  reiterated that the bill is  not necessary.  The  Department                 
  is  currently working  on  a  program  to provide  signs  to                 
  benefit business  owners.   She added  that  the bill  would                 
  impose a size  restriction of eighteen inches  in height and                 
  ninety inches in width, creating signs  difficult to read at                 
  highway speeds.  Ms. Kennedy concluded, the bill  would make                 
  it more difficult  to enforce a sign regulation  through the                 
  penalty reduction.                                                           
  In response to  Co-Chair Hanley's  query, Ms. Kennedy  noted                 
  that the Lobby is in favor of the regulations as proposed by                 
  the Department.   Co-Chair  Hanley clarified  that with  the                 
  federal  regulations  in place,  it  would be  difficult for                 
  legislators  to   increase  signage  size  in   the  future.                 
  Representative J. Davies  pointed out that the  maximum size                 
  under the  Federal Highway Administration  regulations would                 
  be a 650 square feet sign with a maximum height of 20' and a                 
  maximum length of 50'.   He stressed that would be  the size                 
  of a bill board.                                                             
  Mr. Brownfield elaborated, when signs  are posted outside of                 
  the right-of-way and are placed in the area which is zero to                 
  650' back, they are no longer considered federal directional                 
  signals.  A  TODS sign is a  directional sign and  a federal                 
  law allows signs to be posted in those areas.                                
  Representative  Grussendorf  mentioned that  the enforcement                 
  costs of  the penalties would be costs associated with doing                 
  business.   He  stressed that  $1,000 dollars  would not  be                 
  enough of a deterrent for a business to adhere to the law of                 
  the regulations.                                                             
  Representative Kohring announced his support of the proposed                 
  legislation, commenting that it would promote small business                 
  growth and development.  He recommended that the bill should                 
  contain verbiage which would eliminate the State's authority                 
  in  the process.   He  stressed that local  authority should                 
  have the ultimate jurisdiction.  He inquired what risk could                 
  jeopardize federal dollars.  Mr. Brownfield replied that the                 
  Department could not effectively monitor enforcement outside                 
  the right-of-way with  current allocations.  Ten  percent of                 
  the ISTEA  funds could be held  back if the program  was not                 
  administered effectively.   The  Department abides by  local                 
  Co-Chair Therriault reviewed the fiscal note, questioning if                 
  the allocation was  warranted.  Mr. Brownfield  replied that                 
  the fiscal note  represents the costs  to the Department  to                 
  implement the  legislation.   Regulations would  need to  be                 
  prepared and set in place.                                                   
  Co-Chair  Hanley  asked  if this  year's  budget  included a                 
  proposed increase for the TODS program.   Mr. Brownfield was                 
  not  aware  of  an  increased   request.    Co-Chair  Hanley                 
  mentioned  that  the Department's  budget  could be  cut $10                 
  thousand dollars as regulations will have been prepared.  He                 
  commented that the  regulations will  be completed and  that                 
  they could  be  used  for  the proposed  legislation.    Mr.                 
  Brownfield  reiterated,  placing  the  bill  into  law  will                 
  perpetuate more signs,  and that  the $10.5 thousand  dollar                 
  request for personal services was  menial.                                   
  Representative  J.  Davies  MOVED  to  adopt  Amendment  #1.                 
  [Attachment #1].   Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED for purposes                 
  of  discussion.    Representative  J.  Davies spoke  to  the                 
  amendment stating that it would allow for the possibility of                 
  a  narrower  width along  the  roadside and  placement  of a                 
  smaller sign.  The amendment  would authorize an upper limit                 
  of sized signs.                                                              
  SENATOR LYDA  GREEN spoke against  Amendment #1.   She noted                 
  the  extensive  review   and  study   that  had  gone   into                 
  preparation of the legislation.                                              
  Co-Chair Therriault  asked  if mileage  signs were  standard                 
  size  regardless  of  the  message  they  advertised.    Mr.                 
  Brownfield stated  that they  are a  standard size  and that                 
  size depends on the information the signs contains; he added                 
  there is a maximum size.                                                     
  Representative  G.   Davis  suggested  that   the  amendment                 
  provided an  option for  making a  sign.   He believed  that                 
  would  be a beneficial option to  the legislation.  Co-Chair                 
  Therriault  noted  that Amendment  #1  would create  a title                 
  change which would require a  resolution.  Representative J.                 
  Davies asked  if it  would be  possible to  leave the  title                 
  alone and only change the body of the legislation in Section                 
  inclusive"  than  what  is actually  in  the  bill  and that                 
  sometimes  portions  of  the  bill  are  deleted,  although,                 
  continue to remain in the title.   He suggested that perhaps                 
  the body could be changed without affecting the title and if                 
  that were  the  case, he  offered  to provide  a  "friendly"                 
  amendment  to  remove the  first  section of  the amendment,                 
  deleting  the  reference to  Page  #1.   Co-Chair Therriault                 
  thought  that  there could  be a  problem  with the  way the                 
  amendment was written.   Representative J. Davies  MOVED the                 
  change to Amendment  #1.   There being NO  OBJECTION to  the                 
  "friendly"  amendment,  the  change   to  Amendment  #1  was                 
  Senator  Green voiced support  of the change  and noted that                 
  she would support Amendment #1 as amended.                                   
  (Tape Change HFC 97-37, Side 2).                                             
  Co-Chair  Therriault WITHDREW  the OBJECTION to  the amended                 
  Amendment #1.   There being NO further  OBJECTION, Amendment                 
  Representative  J.  Davies  MOVED  to  adopt  Amendment  #2,                 
  striking  Sections #5 and #6  from the bill.  Representative                 
  G. Davis OBJECTED.  Representative  J. Davies state that the                 
  penalty should not be changed.  Mr. Brownfield was not aware                 
  of  a  misdemeanor conviction.   Co-Chair  Hanley emphasized                 
  that more funds would be generated  if there was a violation                 
  charge rather than proof of criminal intent.  Representative                 
  G.  Davis  agreed, suggesting  that  the violation  would be                 
  plenty, especially when the business would be faced with the                 
  possibility of the sign being removed.                                       
  Representative Grussendorf  countered that  the penalty  was                 
  not  intended to be a revenue producer.   He stated that the                 
  penalty section does not fit well  with the remainder of the                 
  proposed legislation.   Representative G. Davis  recommended                 
  that  all  legislation  which reduces  impact  to  the Court                 
  System should be supported.                                                  
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                                    
       IN FAVOR:      Grussendorf, Moses, J. Davies                            
       OPPOSED:       Foster,  Kelly,   Kohring,  Martin,   G.                 
                      Davis, Therriault                                        
  Representatives Hanley and  Mulder were not present  for the                 
  The MOTION FAILED (3-6).                                                     
  Representative J.  Davies MOVED  to amend  Section #5,  Line                 
  "$1000" dollars  to "$5000" dollars.   Representative Martin                 
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                                    
       IN FAVOR:      Grussendorf, Moses, J. Davies                            
       OPPOSED:       Kelly,   Kohring,   Martin,   G.  Davis,                 
                      Foster, Therriault                                       
  Representatives Hanley and  Mulder were not present  for the                 
  The MOTION FAILED (3-6).                                                     
  Representative J.  Davies MOVED to  strike Section #7.   Co-                 
  Chair  Therriault   OBJECTED.    Representative   J.  Davies                 
  reminded members  that the  Department is  currently in  the                 
  process of adopting regulations.  He suggested that it would                 
  be better to implement regulations  when passed, rather than                 
  when indicated in the legislation.  Senator Green countered,                 
  the experimental policy has  been in place since 1987.   The                 
  Department has not  put anything in statute  which regulates                 
  the concerns.  She added, the task force which was appointed                 
  last year, will not have anything available until late Fall,                 
  1997.  She stated  that the legislation is long  overdue and                 
  needs to be in place for the coming tourist season.                          
  Representative J. Davies repeated that  a report provided by                 
  the task force  is available.   The Department is issuing  a                 
  comprehensive set of  regulations next  week, which will  be                 
  adopted in April,  1997.   Representative G. Davis  reminded                 
  Committee members  that the  Department is  opposed to  this                 
  section of the legislation.  He indicated that it would be a                 
  "shame"  to  overlook  the  work  of  the  Department.    He                 
  suggested a "meeting" of the two  groups and agreed with the                 
  amendment,  reiterating  that  there  are regulations  being                 
  adopted which may coincide with the intent of the bill.                      
  Senator Green declared  that without Section #7, the rest of                 
  the bill is "for-not and without  value".  She believed that                 
  the  Department  had  all  the   authority  they  needed  to                 
  implement the bill.   Representative G.  Davis asked if  the                 
  bill  was   passed,  would   it  need   regulations  to   be                 
  implemented, asking why  annul something  which needs to  be                 
  addressed.      Co-Chair  Therriault   clarified   that  the                 
  "annulment" was the "prohibition".   The regulations will be                 
  allowed.  Representative J. Davies disagreed.                                
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                                    
       IN FAVOR:      Moses, J. Davies, Grussendorf                            
       OPPOSED:       Kelly,   Kohring,   Martin,   G.  Davis,                 
  Foster,                  Therriault                                          
  Representatives Hanley and  Mulder were not present  for the                 
  The MOTION FAILED (3-6).                                                     
  Representative J. Davies MOVED to  incorporate a new Section                 
  September   1,  1997.     Representative   Martin  OBJECTED.                 
  Representative  Martin  thought  that  the  amendment  would                 
  create a  time hazard for  placing signs  for this  summer's                 
  tourism  needs.  Senator  Green noted that  the impact would                 
  prohibit any outdoor signage until September, 1997.                          
  Representative J.  Davies explained the  reason he  proposed                 
  the date, would be to  grant the Department time to get  the                 
  other  regulations in  place.   He believed that  they would                 
  delete the need for further regulations.  The Department has                 
  guaranteed  the Committee  that  the  regulations  would  be                 
  "taken care of".                                                             
  Representative Kelly  pointed out that  the amendment  would                 
  create  the need  for  a title  change.   Representative  J.                 
  Davies  WITHDREW the MOTION  to move  the amendment.   There                 
  being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.                                        
  Representative Foster MOVED to report HCS CS SB 56 (FIN) out                 
  of Committee  with individual  recommendations and  with the                 
  accompanying  fiscal   note.     Representative  J.   Davies                 
  OBJECTED.   He pointed out  that he  did not  object to  the                 
  intent of the bill, but did object to the prematurity of the                 
  legislation as regulations  are being completed by  the task                 
  force and will be in place  by this summer's tourist season.                 
  He emphasized that the legislation is no necessary.                          
  Representative Kohring disagreed, noting that the bill would                 
  help small  businesses;  he supported  the proliferation  of                 
  more signage.   He suggested that  the only concern he  saw,                 
  was that the bill would not go "far" enough.                                 
  A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.                                    
       IN FAVOR:      Martin,   G.   Davis,   Foster,   Kelly,                 
                      Kohring, Therriault.                                     
       OPPOSED:       Moses, J. Davies, Grussendorf                            
  Representatives Hanley and  Mulder were not present  for the                 
  The MOTION PASSED (6-3).                                                     
  HCS CS SB 56 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with  a "do                 
  pass"  recommendation  and   with  a  fiscal  note   by  the                 
  Department  of Transportation  and  Public Facilities  dated                 
  The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M.                                           

Document Name Date/Time Subjects