Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/25/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 1994
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Cliff Davidson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Rep. Terry Martin
Rep. Harley Olberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 47: "An Act relating to primary elections and to the
delivery of the primary ballots to persons making
application for them when, by operation of
political party rule, two or more primary ballots
must be provided to the public."
CSHB 47 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 518: "An Act extending the termination date of the
Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association;
and providing an effective date."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SB 151: "An Act providing for oil and gas exploration
incentive credits for certain activities on
certain land in the state; and providing for an
effective date."
CSSB 151 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 367: "An Act relating to the control of outdoor
advertising."
CSHB 367 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 411
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
465-3783
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 47
JACK CHENOWETH
Legislative Legal Counsel
Department of Law
130 Seward St.
Juneau, AK 99801
465-2450
Position Statement: Testified on HB 47
JOSEPH L. SWANSEN, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, AK 99811-0017
Position Statement: Testified on HB 47
PHILIP R. VOLLAND
Alaska Bar Association
211 H. St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
276-5231
Position Statement: Testified on HB 518
KEN BOYD, Deputy Director
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107034
Anchorage, AK 99510-0734
762-2548
Position Statement: Testified via teleconference on SB 151
CARL MEYER
Income & Excist Audit Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110420
Juneau, AK 99811-0420
465-2343
Position Statement: Testified on SB 151
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
465-4859
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 367
CHRYSTAL SMITH
Alaska Municipal League
217 2nd St., Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Position Statement: Testified on HB 367
LYNN STANTON
HCR 64 Box 386
Seward, AK 99664
224-2344
Position Statement: Testified via teleconference on HB 367
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward St.
Juneau, AK 99801
465-2450
Position Statement: Testified on HB 367
DAVID KAMRATH, Legislative Assistant
Representative Harley Olberg
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
465-4859
Position Statement: Testified on HB 367
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE: ABSENTEE BALLOTS - PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/12/93 43 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/12/93 43 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
01/28/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/04/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/18/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/18/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/02/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/02/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/04/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/04/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/93 540 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE
3DP 4NR
03/05/93 540 (H) DP: VEZEY, SANDERS, KOTT
03/05/93 540 (H) NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS, OLBERG,
G.DAVIS
03/05/93 540 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 3/5/93
02/07/94 (H) JUD AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 120
02/07/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/25/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/05/94 3119 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE
5DP 1NR
04/05/94 3119 (H) DP: GREEN,KOTT,JAMES,PORTER,
PHILLIPS
04/05/94 3119 (H) NR: NORDLUND
04/05/94 3119 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 4/5/94
04/12/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/13/94 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
04/14/94 3425 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NEW TITLE 2DP
5NR 2AM
04/14/94 3425 (H) DP: MARTIN, GRUSSENDORF
04/14/94 3425 (H) NR: LARSON, HANLEY, HOFFMAN,
BROWN
04/14/94 3425 (H) NR: MACLEAN
04/14/94 3425 (H) AM: PARNELL, THERRIAULT
04/14/94 3426 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 4/14/94
04/15/94 3465 (H) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/15/94
04/15/94 3465 (H) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/15/94 3466 (H) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/15/94 3466 (H) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/15/94 3466 (H) READ THE THIRD TIME CSHB
47(FIN)
04/15/94 3466 (H) PASSED Y37 N- E3
04/15/94 3467 (H) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
04/15/94 3530 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/18/94 3750 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/18/94 3750 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
04/25/94 (S) STA AT 09:00 AM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
BILL: HB 518
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/04/94 2608 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/04/94 2608 (H) JUDICIARY
03/21/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/25/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 151
SHORT TITLE: OIL & GAS EXPLORATION INCENTIVE CREDITS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/05/93 618 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/05/93 618 (S) OIL & GAS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/05/93 618 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DNR, REV)
03/05/93 619 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/16/93 (S) O&G AT 08:00 AM
03/16/93 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/16/93 (S) MINUTE(O&G)
03/23/93 (S) O&G AT 05:00 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/23/93 (S) MINUTE(O&G)
03/30/93 (S) MINUTE(O&G)
03/31/93 1002 (S) O&G RPT 3DP 1DNP/AM
03/31/93 1002 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DNR, REV)
04/15/93 1418 (S) JUD REFERRAL WAIVED Y11 N9
04/18/93 1468 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1DNP
04/18/93 1468 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DNR, REV)
04/18/93 (S) FIN AT 01:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
04/18/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/18/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/21/93 1613 (S) RULES 3CAL 1NR 4/21/93
04/21/93 1620 (S) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
04/21/93 1633 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/21/93 1633 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11
04/21/93 1634 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y7 N13
04/21/93 1634 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FAILED
Y11 N9
04/21/93 1634 (S) THIRD READING 4/22 CALENDAR
04/22/93 1675 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 151
04/22/93 1675 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
04/22/93 1675 (S) EFFECTIVE DATES SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/22/93 1675 (S) JACKO NOTICE OF RECONSID
04/23/93 1714 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
04/23/93 1715 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y14 N6
04/23/93 1715 (S) EFFECTIVE DATES SAME AS PASSAGE
04/23/93 1717 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/24/93 1508 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/24/93 1508 (H) OIL & GAS, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/31/94 (H) O&G AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/31/94 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
02/02/94 2215 (H) ADOPT AMENDMENT
02/02/94 2215 (H) O&G RPT 3DP 2NR
02/02/94 2215 (H) DP: KOTT, G. DAVIS, GREEN
02/02/94 2215 (H) NR: SITTON, OLBERG
02/02/94 2215 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 2/2/94
02/02/94 2216 (H) JUD REFERRAL ADDED
02/23/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/04/94 (H) RES AT 08:15 AM CAPITOL 124
03/04/94 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/07/94 2641 (H) RES RPT HCS(RES) 6DP
03/07/94 2641 (H) DP: HUDSON, GREEN, JAMES,
MULDER
03/07/94 2641 (H) DP: BUNDE, WILLIAMS
03/07/94 2641 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV) 3/7/94
03/07/94 2641 (H) -PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE
(DNR) 2/2/94
03/21/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/21/94 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/25/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 367
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OLBERG
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/94 2052 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/13/94 2052 (H) TRANSPORTATION, JUDICIARY
02/23/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/01/94 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/01/94 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/11/94 2716 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NEW TITLE
4DP 1NR
03/11/94 2717 (H) DP: VEZEY, G.DAVIS, HUDSON,
FOSTER
03/11/94 2717 (H) NR: MULDER
03/11/94 2717 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
3/11/94
03/12/94 (H) MINUTE(ECO)
03/23/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/25/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-51, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order
at 1:15 p.m. on March 25, 1994. A quorum was present.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be
heard: HB 47, HB 518, SB 151, and HB 367. He called
Representative Terry Martin to come forward and introduce HB
47.
HB 47 - ABSENTEE BALLOTS - PRIMARY ELECTIONS
Number 019
REP. TERRY MARTIN, Prime Sponsor of HB 47, testified that
the CS for this bill addresses many of the questions
previously raised. He then deferred to Jack Chenoweth from
Legislative Legal Services to address the CS.
Number 052
JACK CHENOWETH, Legislative Legal Services, testified that
he has eliminated the requirement that multiple ballots be
sent to applicants if the director or staff were not able to
determine which ballot was proper and has in the long
material being added from the middle of page 3 on to the top
of page 4, laid out a team by which the director or his
staff would make a determination as to which is the proper
ballot and if, after going through all of this, it's still
not possible, based on representation made by the applicant
or records in the custody of the division, then and only
then is the statutory ballot to be given. He said they have
also closed the window of opportunity to change party
affiliation in the 30 day period preceding the primary.
This conforms with the 30 day pre-general election
requirement for party affiliation registration.
Number 095
JOSEPH SWANSON, Director, Division of Elections, Office of
the Lieutenant Governor, testified that they are very
supportive of the bill and are proud of the work done on the
bill.
Number 112
REP. PHILLIPS inquired whether just public radio would be
used for an education campaign or would private radio also
be used.
Number 115
MR. SWANSON responded that they have funding to also use
private TV and private radio.
Number 118
REP. JAMES moved to adopt the Judiciary CS to HB 47.
Number 119
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, adopted the CS.
Number 120
REP. JAMES moved that CSHB 47 be moved from committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
Number 138
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, declared CSHB 47
moved from committee.
Number 142
HB 518 - EXTEND ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
PHILIP VOLLAND, President of the Board of Governors of the
Alaska Bar Association, testified in support of HB 517 and
stated that HB 517 reflects the recommendation of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee that the function of
the Alaska Bar Association continue for another four years.
He further testified that by statute, disciplinary,
admission assessment, fee assessments, continuing legal
education, pro bono services, all are designed to enhance
public perception and their confidence in how attorney's
serve the interests of clients. The Budget and Audit
Committee found that the bar fulfills this function
effectively and at no cost to the state. The board is able
to function because of its power to assess fees against
every lawyer in the state and those fees cover the
activities of the board.
Number 256
REP. GREEN inquired how the bar handles complaints that come
before them and where these complaints originate.
Number 270
MR. VOLLAND responded principally by complaints by clients
or other lawyers. The discipline council of the Bar
Association has authority to bring action on his or her own
based upon information the council may receive and that that
happens occasionally. But by and large most of the
complaints are by either clients or other lawyers. The
council then works up a series of hearings depending on how
significant the complaint may be. Sometimes a complaint is
disposed of by the lawyer agreeing to a private discipline.
Other times it goes to a hearing committee, which is a
committee composed of lawyers and members of the public.
Lawyers can then appeal that and go to the Board of
Governors which can act as an independent board hearing the
same evidence and depending on the level of sanction, all
significant discipline has to approved by the Supreme Court
which can review the record entirely on its own.
Number 295
REP. GREEN inquired if the bar's hammer is that if they call
Johnson in and he doesn't show then the bar can make a
pretty harsh recommendation.
Number 300
MR. VOLLAND responded that they could.
Number 310
REP. PHILLIPS inquired whether all other states have a Board
of Governors and when was Alaska's established.
Number 315
MR. VOLLAND responded that Alaska's Board of Governors was
established in 1955.
Number 338
REP. NORDLUND inquired what the bar's response has been to
the Legislative Budget and Audit report.
Number 345
MR. VOLLAND responded that some of the recommendations they
agree with, but Audit found that one of their board terms is
out of sync with the statutory rotation and the bar is
taking action to change that.
Number 420
REP. NORDLUND inquired as to the recommendation that the Bar
Association establish a toll free complaint line.
Number 429
MR. VOLLAND responded that that recommendation was under
review and the bar may very well adopt it.
Number 432
REP. GREEN recommended that the committee move HB 518 from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
zero fiscal note.
Number 435
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, declared HB 517 moved
from committee and next brought SB 151 before the committee.
Number 441
SB 151 - OIL & GAS EXPLORATION CREDITS
REP. JOE GREEN, testified that SB 151 is a companion bill to
HB 199, which was the exploration licensing bill; this being
a companion bill in that it is another encouragement to get
some sort of delineation, or discoveries in remote areas of
the state. This bill would allow the commissioner of
Natural Resources to grant relief on taxes to a company or
companies that spent money that would be acceptable to the
commissioner as exploration dollars, up to a limit, against
either their existing production taxes or against the
development of something that they might find in the areas
they are looking at. I have for the committees review a
handout which could help explain the differences between
this tax incentive and an existing tax incentive program
that has been on the books since statehood. Rep. Green
further testified that this bill applies to unleased state
land and private land as well and does not just confine
itself to taxes from state land. The dollar limit under the
current program is five million allowable per company for
each operation. The concept there is that five million is a
pretty small amount in relation to the total program. SB
151 would have a sunset in ten years. The concept there is
to get some activity in a close time frame so that the time
it takes from discovery to development would ensure the
solvency. The confidentiality provision in the existing
credits is that a person can drill an exploratory well where
there is unleased land around that well, he can request the
commissioner hold the material confidential so it does not
become a benefit to people who might bid on adjacent land.
That provision has been in law for some time. SB 151 puts a
maximum cap of two years on the confidentiality provisions.
This is a credit allowance and all the dollars have to be
approved by the commissioner. If this bill is passed there
would be a maximum of fifty percent of the expenses, not to
exceed five million, done on state land, and up to
twenty-five percent of that done on private land.
Number 573
REP. PHILLIPS inquired on page 2, line 30, section E, the
amount of the exploration explained there is determined by
the commissioner. Is that a normal procedure, he asked, and
how they will develop those guidelines as far as limits that
normally occur?
Number 580
REP. GREEN responded that the commissioner determines what
is eligible and quite often, what is negotiated before hand
is a situation like, "I'm going to go out and drill on this
land and I'm going to have these kinds of costs."
Number 582
REP. PHILLIPS inquired whether other states have these kind
of incentive credits.
Number 589
REP. GREEN responded that there are incentive credits in
other states which are to a greater or lesser extent. In
Texas, they don't have the undrilled land that we do in
Alaska.
Number 595
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired as to whether, for the record, it
could be explained the difference between the state benefits
from drilling on and discoveries on private land verses
state land.
Number 598
REP. GREEN responded that the benefit would be is that where
they are adjacent, and the well is in close proximity, say
within a lease of two by two square miles, there would be a
significant interest to the state because the field might be
large enough to extend on state land. But in the other
areas, let's say this is on Native land, but perhaps several
miles from the nearest state border, it would be relative
small value. There would still be value because there would
be an area you could tie seismic work to.
Number 626
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired into the revenue differences to the
state from producing on state land versus private land.
Number 628
REP. GREEN responded we wouldn't have any royalties from
private land. We would have severance and ad valorem taxes.
Number 630
REP. NORDLUND inquired as to what the credits that would
apply towards payments and obligations, would that be for
any obligations that might be due on that particular project
or would it be overall taxes or obligations owed by the
company to the state.
Number 640
REP. GREEN responded that it could be either.
Number 644
REP. NORDLUND responded that we are diminishing some of the
resources available to the state to encourage companies to
drill on private land.
Number 647
REP. GREEN responded that that is why it is reduced to
twenty-five percent as opposed to fifty percent. This only
means that the commissioner has the right to do this. He
could go as high as fifty percent, but he never has.
Number 664
REP. NORDLUND expressed his concern regarding Natural
Resources commissioners having discretion over the credits
and whether the commissioner would have the best interests
of the state in mind when granting credits.
Number 667
REP. GREEN responded that the commissioner must show cause
why he would think that this particular case be granted
credits.
Number 672
KEN BOYD, Deputy Director, Division of Oil and Gas,
testified that Representative Green pretty much covered SB
151 and he would respond to questions, if any. He further
added that the fifty million was a total over the life of
the bill.
Number 691
REP. PHILLIPS inquired why there was a ten year sunset in
this legislation.
Number 700
MR. BOYD responded that the rationale was to try the program
and see if it works and whether this type of incentive would
lead to increased exploration.
Number 711
REP. PHILLIPS inquired about the two year confidentiality
provision.
Number 713
MR. BOYD responded that right now on state land the
confidentiality provision is guaranteed for two years. At
the end of that period of time a company can come in and ask
for an extension of the confidentiality period.
Number 732
REP. PHILLIPS responded that in light of the ten year sunset
provision, the two year confidentiality provision was
probably okay.
Number 736
REP. NORDLUND inquired whether the fiscal note, which is a
zero fiscal note that definitely has a fiscal impact, would
actually result in a revenue loss to the state.
Number 747
CARL MEYER, Income and Excise Division, Department of
Revenue, testified that the fiscal note was put together on
the basis that it would be difficult to determine what type
of credit might be granted. He further stated that there
was no way to be absolutely certain what types of credits
would be granted. He felt that it would probably be around
twenty-five million. So the top would be twenty-five
million, but it could in fact be less than that.
Number 766
REP. NORDLUND felt that a cost/benefit analysis should be
conducted to determine if the state comes out in balance.
Number 775
REP. KOTT responded that while there is a cost to the
exploration credit, there would be future revenue which
would offset or balance out the cost.
Number 782
REP. GREEN further responded that even if you select an
arbitrary number of wells, that still doesn't mean that
there's twenty-five million at which fifty percent is
applied. It is still up to the commissioner to grant what
he will.
Number 789
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired whether any credit would be given
if no oil was found.
Number 793.
REP. GREEN responded that that was not necessarily true. An
oil company could drill a dry hole and still get credit if
they have other producing activity.
Number 795
REP. PHILLIPS inquired whether the passage of SB 151 would
positively further exploration in Alaska.
Number 799
REP. GREEN responded yes. This is the kind of legislation
that is more valuable to the industry than the number of
dollars that are included. It sends a very positive message
that the state of Alaska is saying they truly want to
compete for industry dollars, along with third world
countries, etc.
Number 810
REP. NORDLUND again expressed concern over a commissioner
granting a credit without having the best interest of the
state in mind. He doesn't see this provision in SB 151 and
that it would be appropriate to require that in this
legislation.
Number 820
MR. BOYD responded that it would be very difficult to
mandate such a provision. Our current state law has
provided a benefit to the state, he said, but it is hard to
substantiate it. The benefit to the state is immediate
because at the very least the state would gain valuable
information as to the mineral content of the land.
REP. NORDLUND inquired whether an oil company would drill a
well anyway, even without an exploration credit.
Number 846
Mr. BOYD responded that there is no way to determine whether
they would or not. But without SB 151, if they did, the
state would not get the data on the land.
Number 853
REP. PHILLIPS informed the committee that during her last
national Energy Council meeting, the energy minister for
Alberta reported to our body that she had approved nine
thousand last year alone and on her desk as of January 1,
1994, she had application permits for ten thousand
additional exploratory wells. In the United States 569
permits were offered for wells and in Alaska 11 were
offered. She felt SB 151 was bound to help.
Number 872
REP. NORDLUND informed the committee he didn't oppose this
legislation, but he wanted some of his concerns addressed.
Number 878
REP. KOTT motioned that CSSB 151 be moved from committee
with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Number 884
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, declared CSSB 151
moved from committee.
TAPE 94-51, SIDE B
Number 008
HB 367 - CONTROL OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
REP. JAMES motioned that HB 367 be moved from committee.
Number 013
CHAIRMAN PORTER felt there should be discussion on the
motion.
REP. HARLEY OLBERG, Prime Sponsor of HB 367, testified that
HB 367 would allow certain restricted exceptions to the
state's limitations on outdoor advertising, thereby
addressing the need for improved directional signage to
accommodate the state's traveling public. These changes
would facilitate efforts by roadside businesses to direct
motorists to available services and products. In response
to suggestions made by members of committees of both bodies
last session, he wanted them to consider CSSB 367 today. CS
for HB 367 allows one new exception to the state limitation
on outdoor advertising signs, displays and devices.
Directional signs could be placed in zoned or unzoned
commercial or industrial areas along the state highway
subject to stringent restrictions. The draft bill would
also codify two existing DOT/PF programs in statute. They
are space leasing program and the tourist oriented
directional signage program. CS for HB 367 would help many
small business owners while not negatively impact the
scenery visible from Alaska's highways. He strongly
encouraged support for this bill and asked that a committee
substitute be drafted, which would be version k. The two
changes in the CS are one, page 3, line 6. He said it used
to read business adjacent to the highway, and it has been
cleaned up to say activities conducted on or abutting the
leased property, and the other one on line 20 of page 3, a
municipality may regulate directional signs allowed under AS
19.25.105(a)(6) in a way that is more restrictive than AS
19.25.105(a)(6) by an ordinance that is adopted after the
effective date of this act.
Number 126
REP. NORDLUND inquired what the problem is that necessitates
this legislation.
Number 129
REP. OLBERG responded that the problem is, along the
highway, say between Tok and Glenallen, a mom and pop
operation are not allowed to have any sign off of there
directing people to their business. This bill would allow
them, within fifty miles of their operation, to place a
maximum of up to four signs, with directions on them, on
private property. This allows for private property
placement only.
Number 183
REP. PHILLIPS remarked that along the Sterling Highway they
have some taxidermists, and he bought a beautiful piece of
property along the bluff of Cook Inlet, as well as a house
as a museum/workshop for the tourists. He put a beautiful
hand crafted wood sign on his property along the highway,
and was ordered to remove the sign. The cost to an
individual is astronomical as a result of a stupid law.
Number 188
REP. NORDLUND expressed a concern that we could end up with
a plethora of signs along the highway that would not be very
attractive and he wanted to know what sort of limitations
are in this legislation to prevent that from occurring.
Number 201
REP. OLBERG responded that in his area of the state, the
shear lack of private property would be the most effective
deterrent.
Number 219
REP. PHILLIPS remarked that she is very much in support of
this legislation and would encourage all committees to
support this legislation.
Number 249
CHRYSTAL SMITH, Alaska Municipal League, testified that the
Municipal League has no problems with the concept of the
bill, but has a problem with the municipalities being able
to control the signs within their boundaries. She felt that
Representative Olberg's amendment was a back-door approach
to solving the problem and she felt that a municipality
should not have to open up their sign ordinances again to
comply with this legislation. She proposed that the bill be
amended at page 3, line 20, stopping after AS 19.25.080 to
19.25.180, which would say that you could enact ordinances
that regulate signs that are more restrictive.
Number 292
REP. JAMES remarked that in the Interior there are a lot of
people who can't find where they are going and she felt the
municipality should be just as interested as finding their
location.
Number 308
MS. SMITH responded that that was true, but the decision
needed to be made in the local environment and if a
municipality already had a sign ordinance that said x, y, z,
that then they shouldn't have to go back into their
ordinance because of a change in state law.
Number 322
LYNN STANTON testified via teleconference from Seward that
she supports the bill as it is presently written.
Number 332
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired as to the applicability of the
section relating to municipalities. He asked if what was
being said was that a municipality may have a more
restrictive sign ordinance if they want. He asked if there
was any reason they have to adopt it after enactment of this
legislation.
Number 339
REP. OLBERG asked, if we exclude the municipalities from the
more liberal provisions of this bill, can they then by
ordinance take advantage of the exception granted?
Number 363
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Legal Counsel, Division of
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, testified that
what is trying to be attempted here is that we are allowing
the municipalities to enact sign ordinances that are
anything that they want. They can be more restrictive than
the state, they can do whatever they want, except in this
area. This new allowance for signs that the legislature is
creating is that this is such a new area, no one's been able
to enjoinder that and any previous sign ordinance to this
that could be out there; they are saying this is something
we want everybody to look at, including the municipalities.
Any sign ordinances the municipality has enacted prior to
this can never have engendered this possibility, because it
wasn't out there. It wasn't an option in Alaska. The
thought of this language is that if a municipality wants to
be more restrictive in this particular area, because they
haven't been able to consider this, any previous sign
ordinance has not been able to consider this exception that
is now there, and thus they would have to adopt a new
section, not a new sign ordinance.
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired whether a municipality had in place
an ordinance that would preclude, and we are now voiding it
and making them revisit it.
Number 412
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded yes for this particular statute.
Number 415
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Chrystal Smith if she know of anybody
that had this kind of restriction that this would fit under.
Number 419
MS. SMITH responded that she was not sure. She reiterated
the point that municipalities that have sign ordinances
regulate the size and type of sign within their boundaries
and should not have to revisit their ordinances as a result
of passage of CSHB 367.
Number 433
DAVID KAMRATH, Legislative Assistant to Representative
Harley Olberg, Prime Sponsor of HB 367, commented that this
bill allows for criteria that a business must be at least
twenty miles away and that seventy-five percent of the
business receipts must come from tourists, so you are not
going to have every business in town putting up signs.
Another point to be made is that the zoned and unzoned areas
along the rural highways, the only thing that is zoned or
unzoned is where a business is located and in operation. A
business must be there, open, and must contact a property
owner down the highway for permission to put a sign on their
property.
Number 452
MR. LUCKHAUPT remarked that this exception only applies to
those areas that are zoned industrial or commercial. This
exception of allowing signs would not exist in those
residential areas and other zoned areas. Again, it only
applies to interstate and primary highways within those
municipalities. So it doesn't apply to those roads that are
not part of the interstate or primary system of this state.
Number 468
CHAIRMAN PORTER remarked that he hopes that doesn't appear
to be too adverse to those municipalities.
Number 477
REP. KOTT inquired as to what we have on the books at this
time that would require those businesses who erected a sign
to actually maintain the sign.
Number 491
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that the exceptions and also the
existing language for signs in statute require that they be
erected and maintained pursuant to DOT's directions. The
DOT fights with people all the time about signs. Jeff
Otteson from DOT has been testifying on how DOT requires and
maintains signs. The DOT has in AS 19.25 dealing with
offending signs and how they can be required to be
maintained or taken down.
REP. PHILLIPS moved the CS for HB 367, version K.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, moved the adoption of
CSHB 367, version k.
Number 553
REP. NORDLUND inquired what are the DOT requirements for the
type, size and lighting.
Number 567
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that you have the requirements that
the letters be a specific size relating to the speed limit
associated with the road. Also, if the road has a certain
amount of traffic on it, the lighting has to be of a certain
type. The sign can be reflective, but it can't be
reflective to the extent that it could blind certain
drivers.
Number 584
REP. GREEN inquired whether there was any provision in the
bill that would require the mom and pop operation to remove
the sign if they closed the establishment.
Number 589
Mr. KAMRATH responded that the DOT has the regulation
authority to monitor that type of situation.
Number 607
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that Section 19.35.150, existing
law, provides that an advertising sign, display or device
which violates the provisions of this chapter is a public
nuisance and the department is required under that statute
to give thirty days notice of an unconforming or illegal
sign. That would be a sign that doesn't meet these
requirements or isn't maintained. Thus, the DOT can order
the removal of the sign, or after thirty days the DOT can
remove the sign and charge the cost of removal to the owner
of the property.
Number 620
REP. KOTT inquired, if this statute were to be implemented,
would we see signs like the Marlboro at Harley's bar one
mile down the road type of signs.
Number 627
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that we do put requirements on what
the signs can advertise, on page 6. It actually has to
indicate the specific business and must provide directional
information and is limited to those situations.
Number 635
REP. OLBERG remarked that the sign must be for an individual
business entity that is a significant interest to the
traveling public.
Number 644
REP. PHILLIPS motioned to move CSHB 367 from committee with
individual recommendations and fiscal notes as indicated.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objections, declared CSHB 367
discharged from committee.
The House Judiciary Committee Standing Committee was
adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|