Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/21/1997 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ 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.
PRESENT
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.
SUMMARY
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
disabilities.
HB 18 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
1
Department of Administration dated 1/29/97 and
with a zero fiscal note by the Department of
Education.
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
proprietorships.
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.
DUGAN PETTY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES,
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
corporation.
2
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.
DUANE FRENCH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WASHINGTON,
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."
JANEY WINEINGER, STAFF, SENATOR LYDA GREEN, stated that SB
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
3
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.
BOYD BROWNFIELD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (DOT&PF), spoke to the
4
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,
1997.
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,
5
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
enforcement.
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.
6
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.
7
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.
CLIFF EAMES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA CENTER
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.
PRISCILLA GREGG, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VALDEZ,
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.
DAVID LEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VALDEZ,
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
premises.
(Tape Change HFC 97-37, Side 1).
8
WES WALLACE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WASILLA, spoke
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.
TED SMITH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WASILLA, urged
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.
TOM GARRETT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TOURISM, DEPARTMENT OF
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.
JODY KENNEDY, VOLUNTEER, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL),
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.
9
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
ordinances.
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
10
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
adopted.
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
11
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
vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-6).
Representative J. Davies MOVED to amend Section #5, Line
"$1000" dollars to "$5000" dollars. Representative Martin
OBJECTED.
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
vote.
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
12
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
vote.
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
13
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
vote.
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
1/29/97.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M.
14
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|