Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2003 01:33 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 2003
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jim Holm, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act relating to political signs on private property."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 280
"An Act relating to the regulation of commercial motor vehicles
to avoid loss or withholding of federal highway money, and to
out-of-service orders concerning commercial motor vehicles;
amending Rule 43.1, Alaska Rules of Administration; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 280 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE:POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HOLM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/31/03 0713 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/31/03 0713 (H) TRA, STA
04/29/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 280
SHORT TITLE:COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:REGULATIONS
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/23/03 1071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/23/03 1071 (H) TRA, FIN
04/29/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
TODD LARKIN, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 230 on behalf of
Representative Holm and answered questions from the members.
SETH LITTLE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 230 and answered questions from the members.
ED EARNHART
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in support of
HB 230 and answered questions from the members.
BOBBIE JO SKIBO
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 230 and answered questions from the members.
ANDRE CAMARA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 230.
CLARE STOCKERT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 230.
MARTHA LEVENSALER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference in opposition
to HB 230.
ALLEN COMBS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference on HB 230 and
answered questions from the members.
COLLEEN NORMAN
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 230 and
answered questions from the members.
MICHAEL DOWNING, Chief Engineer
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 230 and answered questions
from the members.
AVES THOMPSON, Director
Division of Measurements, Standards, and Commercial Vehicles
Enforcement
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 280 and answered questions
from the members.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President
Alaska Trucking Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 280.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
Legislative and Governmental Affairs
Alaska Teamsters Local 959
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 280.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-19, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR JIM HOLM called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Holm, Masek, Fate, Kohring, Ogg, and
Kookesh. Representative Kapsner arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 230-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
Number 0054
CO-CHAIR HOLM announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act relating to political signs on
private property."
Number 0095
TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 230 on behalf of Representative Holm,
sponsor, and answered questions from the members. He read
Article I, Section 2, Source of Government, of the Alaska State
Constitution, which says:
All political power is inherit in the people. All
government originates with the people, is founded upon
their will only, and is instituted solely for the good
of the people as a whole.
MR. LARKIN told the committee that those are the sentiments that
both the sponsor and he believe in and that are echoed in the
sponsor's statement. This bill originated out of the
frustration that free speech tended to be infringed upon in
Alaska. He said the United States of America is based on the
same premise that he just quoted. He said that means that "we
the people" have the right to advocate or choose who governs us.
What HB 230 seeks to do is allow persons on their private
property to post a political sign on an issue or candidate,
express their free speech, and advocate for or against those who
govern them. He told the members that action is currently
against state law if a sign is within 660 feet of certain state
roads or any federally funded roads and that could be stretched
out to mean within legible view, which actually means whichever
is the greater distance. The state law was enacted in an effort
to come into compliance with the Highway Beautification Act of
1965. He told the committee that in checking with the federal
government he found that the State of Alaska has gone beyond
compliance. Mr. Larkin pointed to the stacks of case law in
favor of this bill. He asserted that if the legislature does
not pass this bill, it is clear the state is in danger of
litigation and will surely be defeated in a court of law.
Number 0315
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that Mr. Larkin's statement
that the state would "surely be defeated" is not really the
case. He said he hopes that is not the position of the sponsor,
because the courts in this land look at both sides of the issue.
He warned Mr. Larkin about making that kind of statement.
MR. LARKIN corrected his statement to say he believes the state
would surely be defeated. He pointed to the last part of the
sponsor statement where it, first, advocates for a change in law
to save individual citizens the time and expense of challenging
the current restriction on free speech. He said the second
reason to pass this bill would be to save the state the cost of
defense and the likely legal fees that would be awarded to a
victorious citizen. Mr. Larkin told the committee he believes
it is unfair to infringe upon citizens' rights and then require
that citizens go to court at their own expense to demand free
speech when that infringement should not have occurred in the
first place. He summarized his reply by saying that he could
not with absolute certainty say the state would fail in a court
of law, but the United States Supreme Court and other state
supreme courts have said that this law would not be upheld.
Only one state came down on the side of the state, due to a
technicality.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if this bill has any correlation to the
legislation on billboards. She asked if that law was
challenged.
MR. LARKIN said that he is not clear about the billboard
legislation. He found no reference to that bill. Legislative
Legal and Research Services did countrywide research to see
court decisions based on this kind of law. He suggested that
Alaska billboard case must not have had enough similarities,
because it was not mentioned by the agencies.
CO-CHAIR MASEK responded that there was an initiative on the
ballot with respect to billboard signs and the result was that
the people voted to prohibit billboard signs on Alaskan
roadways. She asked if this bill might be along the same lines
and expressed concern that the public may think it is not
appropriate.
MR. LARKIN said he is vaguely familiar with the initiative, but
he believes the billboards were commercial signs. This bill
takes pains to stay away from commercial signs or billboards.
He said that there is a size restriction, which is
constitutional. Speech cannot be regulated, but size can be
stipulated. This bill only addresses free speech and is not
intended to address the billboard issue. The largest sign that
can be put up is 32 square feet.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the committee his concern is that during
an election, people will want to exercise their free speech
about a candidate or issue. A lot of people are concerned that
some people put the signs up very early, prior to an election,
and fail to take them down after the election. It just ends up
being clutter or trash. He asked Mr. Larkin if the time element
had been looked into with respect to free speech.
MR. LARKIN responded that this is beyond the basic scope of the
bill. However, that was the second most investigated point of
the bill and although there may be some very minimal ambiguity
as to the type of speech looked at, there were no cases where a
time limit was upheld. There have been multiple time limits
required in an effort to urge people to clean up the signs, but
every case was struck down where a time limit had been imposed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked Mr. Larkin if U.S. Supreme Court cases
were researched.
MR. LARKIN replied that the most of the cases reviewed were U.S.
District Court cases and various state supreme court cases. The
only U.S. Supreme Court case is the first one in the backup
information, and has to do with residential signs expressing
political, religious, or personal views. In the Oregon case,
time limits were spoken to and found to be unconstitutional.
Number 0817
CO-CHAIR HOLM pointed to the Antioch case [City of Antioch v.
Candidates' Outdoor Graphic Service] where the signs could not
remain up past 7 days after an election or could not be put up
earlier than 60 days before an election. In this instance, the
court struck down this law as an affront to free speech. Co-
Chair Holm said that one of the arguments was that there had to
be an even playing field. For instance, a Representative
already holding office has no infringement in getting his/her
name out in front of the public; however, someone who has no
money and wants to put signs out to be viewed by the public is
prohibited from doing so. Therein lies the lack of parity
between the two candidates running for office. He said case law
is very interesting with respect to an individual's right to
promote his/her ideas. One issue that was determined was that
it would be illegal for someone to put a sign in the front yard
saying that he/she hates the war in Iraq under current Alaska
law if that sign could be seen from a federally funded highway,
because it falls under the federal Highway Beautification Act.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if this would be illegal under state
law.
CO-CHAIR HOLM responded that it would be illegal under Alaska
law. He reiterated that it would be against federal law if the
sign could be seen from a federally funded highway under the
Highway Beautification Act. This is why the Alaska State
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities told the
legislature that if the law is changed, it will negatively
impact the state's ability to get federal highway funds. He
told the committee that he wrote to the U.S. Department of
Transportation concerning this legislation, however, and
obtained a letter from them saying that this bill would not
negatively impact federal funds.
MR. LARKIN commented that the letter is in the members' packets
for review. He said the letter confirms that the U.S.
Department of Transportation does not intend to withhold any
funding from the state if the bill, as it stands, becomes law.
Mr. Larkin told the committee they even suggested some
amendments, one of which will be presented today.
Number 0958
REPRESENTATIVE OGG commented that this seems hopeful to him. He
said this bill would be a good thing because presently the state
has a dichotomy. Signs could be on a borough road or city
street, but if it is on a highway, it is not possible to display
a sign within 600 feet of it.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated that the law is not administered
evenly or fairly across the state of Alaska. In one area,
political signs will be up that are obviously illegal, and in
another area, signs have been removed to comply with state law.
He agreed that this bill is a good approach to the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said Representative Fate is absolutely right.
The enforcement of the law depends on who complains about signs.
CO-CHAIR HOLM pointed to the Collier case [Collier v. The City
of Tacoma] that deals with this issue. He told the members that
Michael Collier was a person who ran for [Congress from] Tacoma,
Washington, and fought this law and finally won.
MR. LARKIN told the members that Amendment 1 was suggested by
the U.S. Department of Transportation as a safety issue.
Number 1109
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt Amendment 1, 23-LS0780\H.1,
Utermohle, 4/4/03, which read:
Page 2, line 8, following "base":
Insert ";"
(C) the signs do not interfere with, obstruct,
confuse, or mislead traffic or pose a traffic hazard"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(D)"
Number 1126
CO-CHAIR HOLM asked if there was any objection. There being no
objection, he announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said that while he does not object to
Amendment 1, he wanted to enter into the record the fact that if
there is a sign that presents interference, obstruction, or
confusion, or misleads traffic, that the Alaska Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities has the ability to go in and
take a sign down or ask to have the sign taken down.
CO-CHAIR HOLM said he is in complete agreement with
Representative Kookesh's clarifying comments.
Number 1153
SETH LITTLE testified in opposition to HB 230. He told the
committee that the bill would allow the roadways to be
cluttered. The public is exposed to and receives more than
enough information about political candidates, and does not need
political signs cluttering roadways. He said there is nothing
in the bill that defines what a political sign is, what a
permanent base is, or whether there is a timeline when the signs
can be put up and taken down.
MR. LITTLE said another issue is that there is nothing in the
bill that prohibits stacking of signs to create a billboard
effect. Mr. Little pointed out that the bill says that
individual signs cannot exceed 32 square feet, but many
individual signs stacked next to each other could possibly
create a billboard effect. He told the committee he believes HB
230 would open the door for the billboard industry, and would
set the precedent to begin exempting other signs and billboards
that were prohibited by a law that was passed by initiative in
1998. During that election, 72 percent of the voters voted to
ban billboards. He said he believes political billboards have
no place along the roadways. They are a distraction and
interfere with traffic control signals and safe bicycle and
pedestrian circulation. There is also an aesthetic value in
prohibiting billboards and signs from cluttering the road
systems, especially in Alaska where the tourism industry depends
on beautiful Alaskan scenery.
Number 1277
MR. LITTLE said that many signs along the roadways can pose a
potential hazard. Signs are particularly dangerous when placed
in vision areas at intersections. Improperly placed signs can
obstruct a motorist's view, distract a driver's attention,
compound damages and injuries in the event of a crash, endanger
the safety of individuals who are erecting signs along busy
highways, and present obstacles to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mr. Little urged the committee members to oppose HB 230.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Little to speak to the issues he raised
about there not being a definition of political signs and the
lack of a time limit in posting the signs.
MR. LITTLE replied that during campaign season everyone is
familiar with signs that have the candidates' names on them;
however, he questioned whether a sign advertising a spaghetti
dinner held by the chamber of commerce for a candidate is a
political sign. He said he believes it is important to define
what a political sign is.
MR. LITTLE said in response to the second part of Co-Chair
Masek's question about the time limit that a sign can be
displayed; he said the bill only refers to signs not being on a
permanent base as a criterion. He told the committee his
question would be whether the permanent base refers to the
structure, or is within a timeline as far as when these signs
need to be removed.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if he would still oppose the bill if it was
amended to define time limits for the display of political
signs.
MR. LITTLE replied that he would still object to the bill
because he sees this legislation as the beginning of larger
exemptions for other interests to tout free speech and access to
their rights of free speech. Some commercial interest will then
lobby for its rights to free speech, which will allow billboards
onto Alaska's roadways.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Little if he believes this bill is too
vague. She asked if he believes there should be more
definitions and timelines in the bill.
MR. LITTLE said he would not support this bill even for one
sector, political signs, because it would change the law for
free speech. He said there is nothing that could be done to
make HB 230 acceptable.
Number 1488
ED EARNHART testified in support of HB 230 and answered
questions from the members. He told the committee he is
representing the public interest, which means good elections
that are competed for fairly by decent candidates. He said he
has participated in elections for the last 25 years; some years
he was involved with as many as four elections. For the last 17
years he has been involved with the placement of signs. Mr.
Earnhart shared his view of the problems in Anchorage and the
unfairness that exists because of the difference between the
[laws and regulations that govern] municipal streets and the
state highways that are classified under that 660-foot rule
[federal Highway Beautification Act]. He asked if he correctly
understood earlier testimony that the U.S. Department of
Transportation recognizes that the situation in Alaska is
different and has allowed some exemptions.
MR. EARNHART restated his question by asking if the [ban on
political signs being within] 660-feet [of federally funded
highways] still applies to Alaska.
CO-CHAIR HOLM responded that he is not sure what Mr. Earnhart is
asking. He commented that the 660-foot requirement refers to
signs that can be seen from a federally funded or supported
highway.
MR. EARNHART commented that in Anchorage there are a lot of
streets and bicycle paths that are federally supported. He said
he believes the federal law was intended for interstate highway
systems, and he understands the interpretation that was
mentioned earlier in testimony is that Alaska would not be held
to that standard if signs are on private property. He asked if
he understands this correctly.
Number 1606
CO-CHAIR HOLM replied that is exactly correct.
MR. EARNHART said that this bill is intended to help eliminate
the obstruction to use signs along the roadways for campaigns.
He commended Co-Chair Holm for working to correct the problem.
MR. EARNHART told the committee he is concerned with enforcement
for the sake of public safety. He said he believes that issue
is covered by municipalities and boroughs. He asked if it was
necessary to have that kind of detail in the bill.
CO-CHAIR HOLM responded that he is not sure.
MR. EARNHART said that in Anchorage the municipality takes care
of the enforcement of safety with respect to the placement of
signs. He said he believes that is true of the state's handling
of state highways as well. He pointed out that enforcement is
likely to be erratic because there are not enough funds or
people to do the enforcement. He said he hopes this bill will
simplify the law and reduce the need for enforcement. Mr.
Earnhart shared that nothing was enforced for the last 30 days
before the election in Anchorage in the last several years. He
said the administrative time it took for giving notice to remove
signs meant that nothing happened for the 30 days prior to the
election. He said last year "Governor Murkowski" signs were
everywhere and he does not fault them for it because it is
warfare before an election. Mr. Earnhart said the only way to
control warfare is if there are simple rules that are easily
enforced.
CO-CHAIR HOLM thanked Mr. Earnhart for his testimony and assured
him that the committee would ask the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) how it maintains
control of political signs.
MR. EARNHART responded that he is less interested in DOT&PF then
he is in the city of Anchorage. He said that while the city is
supposed to be nonpartisan, it is, in fact, partisan.
MR. LARKIN commented that in their discussions with DOT&PF, the
department has indicated that any definition that is added to
this bill, no matter how small or broad, will reduce the
enforcement load that it has right now.
Number 1760
BOBBIE JO SKIBO testified in opposition to HB 230 and answered
questions from the members. She told the committee that she
agrees with Seth Little's points concerning definitions of
political signs and the timeline issue. Currently, there are
still political signs up in Anchorage from the last election.
She said a "George Wuerch" political sign is still up at Peters
Creek. This is a problem that is seen along the roadsides. She
shared her belief that it is important to pick up the signs
because it is a major distraction. The Alaskan public spoke out
against billboards, Ms. Skibo told the members. She agreed with
Seth Little's comment that stacking 32 signs next to each other
equals a billboard. She said that she believes the public
receives enough political information through television, radio,
newspapers, street corner handouts, and mailings. She said she
thinks this covers all the bases and she does not want signs
cluttering roadways and views of scenery. Tourism is a big
factor and people come to Alaska for the view, not the politics
of Alaska. Ms. Skibo said she would like to see the "George
Wuerch" sign taken out of Peters Creek, and in fact, would never
want to see a sign there again.
MS. SKIBO addressed the free-speech issue by saying that people
with small children have political signs that advocate for the
legalization of marijuana. She said there should be a
definition of what a political sign is before moving forward on
this issue. She spoke to Co-Chair Masek's question of whether
she would support this bill with definitions of political signs
and timelines included; she said she is not sure that she could
support it.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Ms. Skibo what kind of timeline she thinks
should be incorporated in the bill.
MS. SKIBO responded that a reasonable time to remove the signs
would be a week at most. She reiterated her comment that she is
still seeing signs from the last election.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Ms. Skibo what definition of a political
sign she would be comfortable with.
MS. SKIBO said she believes just a sign displaying the name and
the position the candidate is running for.
Number 2026
ANDRE CAMARA testified in opposition to HB 230. He told the
committee that he believes that political billboard signs on
roadways will cause visual distractions to motorists and create
unsafe road conditions. Mr. Camara said that the tourism
industry depends on Alaska's beautiful scenery because it is
unique, and he said he feels it is important to keep it that
way. There is nothing in HB 230 to prohibit the stacking of
many signs to create a larger billboard effect. He expressed
his opinion that the public is exposed to more than enough
information on political candidates. He said he sees HB 230 as
just a foot in the door for the billboard industry and it will
only be a matter of time before this billion-dollar industry
starts littering Alaska's landscape with billboards.
MR. CAMARA told the committee that in 1997 the state legislature
ignored overwhelming public opposition in passing SB 56,
sponsored by Senator Lyda Green. This bill made it legal for
landowners to rent out advertising space along the highways. In
1998, 72 percent of the people decided through an initiative to
permanently ban billboards in Alaska. This initiative repealed
SB 56 and returned Alaska's sign laws to the way they have
always been and the way he hopes they remain.
Number 2107
CLARE STOCKERT testified in opposition HB 230. She asked what
the language is in Amendment 1, which the committee had adopted.
CO-CHAIR HOLM read Amendment 1 to Ms. Stockert.
MS. STOCKERT went on to say she is testifying in opposition to
HB 230 because in 1998, 72 percent of the Alaskan people voted
to ban billboards. She said she is concerned when she hears
that the legislature is trying to overturn the vote of the
people. She said there are already many signs on the roadways
to ensure safety, and to add political signs to this is a whole
new ball game. She told the committee that driving through the
Lower 48 during election season is ugly because there are signs
everywhere. Alaskans do not want to be like the Lower 48; nor
do Alaskans want the Lower 48 to tell them what to do, so she
asked why there would be a desire to have billboards all over
the place.
MS. STOCKERT asked what the definition of a political sign is.
For example, what if during the next election there is an
initiative to have a head tax? Can Princess Cruises put up a
big sign saying "Vote No on a Head Tax"? Or could Governor
Murkowski put up a sign saying "Buy your Frank Murkowski for
Governor T-shirts here"? She said she would like to have more
clarity on what "political signs" means.
MS. STOCKERT mentioned the issue of a timeline and the question
a of permanent base. She pointed to a possible sign that would
say "Tony Knowles for U.S. Senate" and asked if the public
should have to look at that for the next year and half. How
long can the signs stay up after the election? She questioned
when the timeline would extend after the election, whether the
municipalities have any discretion on what is allowable in their
communities, whether stacking of signs is allowed, and who will
enforce the law.
Number 2266
MARTHA LEVENSALER testified in opposition to HB 230. She said
that a lot of the factual concerns she has about this bill have
already been voiced by previous speakers. She expressed her
opposition to this bill and told the committee she believes the
language in the bill is so loose that stacking could occur and
Alaska would have billboards that are ugly and distracting. Ms.
Levensaler pointed out that 72 percent of Alaskans do not want
billboards.
Number 2315
ALLEN COMBS testified on HB 230. He told the committee that he
has been involved in at least two mayoral candidates' campaigns
and he put up signs for them. He said he would like to see the
playing field leveled for individuals who are running for
political offices. The borough and the state have different
rules. Often the borough does not know what it is doing and
calls back a week later [with a different interpretation of
regulation]. For instance, he said, in the last election a
candidate he was working for was blackmailed by someone who said
he had a bunch of signs that were illegal and if he did not take
them down, this person was going to publicize it. So the signs
were taken down because the campaign did not want any negative
publicity.
MR. COMBS told the committee he would like to see language
included in the bill that says a political sign is for a person
running for office. He believes that would clearly define what
that is. He suggested that signs be up no sooner than 60 days
before the election, and taken down no later than 10 days after
the election. Put a $100-per-day fine for each sign that is not
picked up after 10 days, he suggested. This puts teeth into the
law. He said the signs should meet the setback requirement,
there should be only one sign in 32 square feet, and they should
be no closer [together] than one-half mile. Mr. Combs said he
believes that would alleviate some of the problems.
TAPE 03-19, SIDE B
MR. COMBS told the committee that he believes [laws pertaining
to] federal campaign signs are not enforced. Officials turn
their heads the other way; however, when it is a local election,
then enforcement is carried out. He asked the members to level
the field on this issue.
Number 2367
CO-CHAIR MASEK said she is in favor of less state government
intervention and more local control. She asked Mr. Combs to
clarify his position on local control of these issues by the
municipalities.
MR. COMBS said that applying and paying for a permit is time
consuming. Quite often, the person issuing the permit does not
know what he/she is doing. Sometimes a call will come three
days later saying the person made a mistake. It is a losing
proposition, so he suggested putting the police on the other
end. If a sign is put in the wrong place, there is a phone
call, and a limited time to move or correct it. He said the way
it is currently done is not effective. Mr. Combs told the
committee his experience is limited to Anchorage, where he has
lived since 1950.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if working with the borough assembly or the
mayor would be a better solution, rather than getting the state
involved by making it a statewide regulation.
MR. COMBS said that he believes the federal government makes the
rules because of federal funding for roads. The state complies
with the rules and then the boroughs finally get the rules in
the end. He said he does not really have an answer for Co-Chair
Masek.
Number 2261
COLLEEN NORMAN testified in opposition to HB 230 and answered
questions from the members. She told the committee she is here
to speak against HB 230 because she believes allowing the
posting of political signs along state roads will lead to major
problems. First, it just adds to the campaign money battle.
She pointed out that there is a bill going through the
legislature that would increase the amount of campaign
donations, which will mean there will be more political signs
out. Second, she believes that the signs are a safety issue.
People get distracted by the signs. She explained that where
she lives on North Douglas Highway it is a very active road.
There are a lot of people that run or bike on that road, and
there are school children out there in the mornings. There is
no sidewalk. If someone is driving down that road and is
distracted by a political sign, it could cause a lot of problems
and could be very dangerous.
MS. NORMAN told the members another concern she has is when
political signs are displayed near intersections. In Anchorage
a woman was hit by a car because the driver was distracted by a
sign. Another issue that concerns her is the idea of clutter.
She said when sitting outside she does not want to have 30 signs
posted on the lawn next to her house. Ms. Norman agreed with
Seth Little and others that a lot of signs put together have the
same effect as a billboard. She said there really is not any
clarity in the definition of political signs. Ms. Norman asked
the members to take more time to look through this bill and make
changes that would make it less vague. She summarized her
comments by saying she opposes HB 230 as written.
CO-CHAIR HOLM asked Ms. Norman if she has ever seen in her life
more than one four-by-eight political sign put together to make
a billboard.
MS. NORMAN responded that she has not, but does not want it to
happen.
CO-CHAIR HOLM said he has heard the same remark all afternoon
and he is perplexed. He asked if all of the people who
testified were together or had seen political signs displayed
this way.
MS. NORMAN responded that she does not live where that is a
problem, but she does not want to see huge billboard signs on
each side of her or across the road. She said she appreciates
freedom of speech, but does not support this bill.
CO-CHAIR HOLM said he appreciate Ms. Norman's sensibilities but
offered that she lives in a country that allows her to express
her views, because people have the freedom to express themselves
through their political speech. Co-Chair Holm stated that from
that freedom comes the bill.
Number 2092
MICHAEL DOWNING, Chief Engineer, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, testified on HB 230 and answered questions
from the members. Mr. Downing offered a few comments of
clarification. He pointed out that these signs are not
advertising on the highway right-of-way and that is important to
keep in mind. This is advertising on private property and is an
important distinction to the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities.
MR. DOWNING said that sign enforcement in general is
particularly difficult; however, that is not the case when a
sign is in the right-of-way. In that case, the department
simply removes the sign from the right-of-way because there are
no requirements for notice. Sign enforcement becomes more
difficult when it is on private property or it is a political
sign. The department distinguishes between political speech and
commercial speech because it is believed that political speech
is more important. Enforcement practice today, according to
statute, is a 30-day notice by certified letter to the property
owner where the sign is displayed. The letter is not sent to
the candidate. The department might send a courtesy copy to the
candidate; however, the violator is the property owner.
Candidates have figured that out. He told the committee what he
has observed is that the candidates will take advantage of the
30-day notice because if it is 30 days before the election, by
the time the enforcement action occurs, the election is over.
He said most candidates seem to be savvy about that.
MR. DOWNING told the committee that state regulation and law
allows for on-premises advertising. State regulations say that
for purposes of campaign headquarters, political advertising at
the headquarters itself is on-premises advertising. Some
campaigns and political parties have taken advantage of that.
There was a case in Juneau where a party leased a property next
to a highway and designated that as the community campaign
headquarters and then there was a huge proliferation of signs
for every candidate in that party. That was legal and clever.
He said he was surprised that it happened, but it is perfectly
legitimate to do it. Another thing that he has seen is barges
in Gastineau Channel [with political signs]. The department has
no enforcement authority over that. It is visible from the
highway system, but it is legal. That is an example of what
goes on.
MR. DOWNING shared his and his staff's observations that the
candidates who violate the ban on outdoor advertising tend to do
better in the elections. He pointed out that this is not a
particularly balanced situation with respect to sign enforcement
on private property. As a general rule, the department does not
go onto private property to remove a sign without a court order.
He said [the need to get court orders] is not in regulation or
statute; it is just the department's practice. If the
department does not have a court order, it is more difficult to
get support from the local law enforcement agencies to go onto
someone's private property. There were certainly times when the
department felt it was necessary to have that support, he noted.
Number 1902
MR. DOWNING told the committee that the citizens of the state
are very passionate about the initiative that got passed. With
the current ban on outdoor advertising, local governments are
authorized to pass stricter laws [ordinances] than the
department. They cannot make it less restrictive in their
communities on state highways, but communities can make it more
restrictive. Another observation is that when there is
confusion about billboards, it may be "sourced" in the statute
itself because the statute defines billboards pretty broadly.
It is not the giant billboard seen on Lower 48 interstate
highways. Almost any sign, device, or distraction is included
in the Title 19 definition of what a billboard is.
MR. DOWNING offered four suggestions to the committee. He told
the members the first suggestion was already addressed in
Amendment 1 and the department supports that amendment. The
second relates to the definition of what a political sign is.
He suggested that political signs be limited to candidates and
issues in front of the voters in the district where the sign is
located. Mr. Downing said he believes that language would put
some narrow parameters on the definition. Third, he said he
believes there should be time limits on the display of signs.
Some individuals have suggested 60 days prior to election and 10
days following election. The department's right-of-way staff
prefers 30 days prior to election and 5 days after the election.
Fourth, Mr. Downing asked the committee to address the authority
of the department for enforcement of illegal signs, particularly
with the issue of safety. He asked that the authority of the
department for removal remain in statute.
CO-CHAIR MASEK said that in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities removes the
signs and puts them in a holding area where a candidate must pay
a fee to retrieve their signs. She asked what the fee is.
MR. DOWNING responded that the fee is $50, which is set in
regulation.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked what happens when candidates do not pick up
their signs.
MR. DOWNING responded that the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities will dispose of the signs after a period of
time. There is no set period of time when that will happen;
however, the disposal occurs when they believe the candidate
will not be collecting them.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked how many feet from the centerline of a
highway a sign must be placed that is on private property.
Number 1739
MR. DOWNING replied that if the sign is on-premises advertising,
it can be on the building. If the sign is not related to that
business and therefore is not on-premises, it is subject to the
requirements of the federal Highway Beautification Act where the
requirement is 660 feet from the nearest edge of the highway
right-of-way. He pointed out that the right-of-way varies, so
the additional distance to the centerline would also vary.
There is an additional provision in the federal law that says
"or as intended to be read from the highway". Mr. Downing
explained that the idea here is that those signs should not be
placed with the intention of being read from the highway.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked, if a private person who owns highway
frontage property gives a candidate permission to put a sign up,
whether this can be done legally.
MR. DOWNING responded that if he understands the question
correctly, the answer would be no. He asked Co-Chair Masek to
clarify her question.
CO-CHAIR MASEK gave an example of a candidate who is running for
mayor and Jane Doe owns private property with highway frontage
and gave the candidate permission to place his sign on her
property. The sign would be placed the required 660 feet from
the highway. She asked whether it would be legal to place the
sign there.
MR. DOWNING responded that this example is one that would be
subject to the additional language in the federal Highway
Beautification Act where it says "or as intended to be read from
the highway", which means that it is also banned under the
federal law. He commented that the Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities rarely sees that kind of violation.
Number 1632
REPRESENTATIVE FATE commented that it is very difficult to see a
4-foot by 8-foot sign from 660 feet away. He asked Mr. Downing
about other signs including commercial advertising and memorials
along highways, which was a big issue. The Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities seems to enforce placement of
signs unevenly, he suggested. For example, it appears that
signs at intersections that describes a garage sale somewhere
are not enforced, but yet a political sign will be. Relative to
the political sign, some department staff have used intimidation
as an enforcement tool by walking into a place and telling the
owners, "This sign is illegal! Get it off of here!" They did
not notify the owners of the property that they had 30 days to
remove the sign by registered letter saying it is an illegal
sign. The owners of the store were so intimidated that they
took a $150 [sign] plus the cost of the stand and labor and
dumped it into the back of the pickup bed and took it to the
dump.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that there needs to be a change in the
enforcement of laws to make it more even across Alaska. He
pointed out that he is not just talking about political signs,
but all signs. Looking the other way in some areas of the state
is not fair, and he urged the committee to make changes to
mitigate this problem.
MR. DOWNING responded that the public likes to use the highway
right-of-way for all kinds of things that are not allowed under
state law. The volume of that is very high. The right-of-way
staff that enforces that law is pretty limited and has a limited
budget. They will go through an area and try to clean it up,
but there is a differential in the regulations, policies, and so
forth. Mr. Downing said the guidance out of his office to the
right-of-way chiefs is consistent. One of the things that he
emphasizes continually is that wherever the bar is set anywhere
in the state, that is the bar for everyone. The department
cannot sustain saying it is okay to do something in Kenai, but
not in Fairbanks. There has been an active dialog to ensure the
ban is enforced uniformly. These are human beings, and they do
get different ideas at times. In one case, there was an agent
that was reluctant to enforce the ban, but the department
finally persuaded him to do it, and his approach was to put
posters over the signs, declaring them illegal. Of course, that
was retracted as soon as it was discovered. Mr. Downing
apologized for any of his staff who might have behaved the way
Representative Fate described. He said he has no excuse for
that kind of behavior.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Downing if the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities is immune to litigation that
might ensue as a result of uneven enforcement of the law. He
clarified his question by saying he is not just talking about
political signs. Representative Fate said he understands that
realtor signs are exempt from this law.
Number 1377
MR. DOWNING replied that he does not know. He commented that
there is a lot of litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG replied that the First Amendment to the
Constitution expresses what America, as a society, is about. He
said with respect to this Act [federal Highway Beautification
Act], it is difficult to define or limit what political speech
is and it is a foolhardy road to go down because everyone in the
country would have a different idea of what political speech is.
The courts have said that obscenity, inciting people to riot,
and things of that nature are violations of free speech.
However, he said he sees a problem with limiting political
speech by candidates and on issues before voters by denying
people on their own property [free speech]. It is not the
candidate who is advertising; this is the person who owns the
property that is advertising and who is saying, "I own this
property and I support that person or this idea." So this is
not talking about a candidate, but a property owner and his or
her right to express a viewpoint, using his/her private
property. To limit that to a candidate or issue in that
district creates problems. Representative Ogg asked what
happens when there is a statewide election: would it not be
permissible because [the election] is not in that district?
What happens when an individual wants to put a sign up about an
issue that is before the state legislature, and not an issue
before the voters?
REPRESENTATIVE OGG addressed the issue of time limits on
displaying political signs. He said that many states have
discussed this and it makes a lot of sense to do that, but the
courts in this country have ruled that this creates a problem in
that it infringes on free speech. He said he wonders why, in
the face of court rulings, the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities would suggest a time limit.
CO-CHAIR HOLM announced that HB 230 would be held until a later
date.
HB 280-COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES:REGULATIONS
Number 1254
CO-CHAIR HOLM announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 280, "An Act relating to the regulation of
commercial motor vehicles to avoid loss or withholding of
federal highway money, and to out-of-service orders concerning
commercial motor vehicles; amending Rule 43.1, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1250
AVES THOMPSON, Director, Division of Measurements, Standards,
and Commercial Vehicles Enforcement, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), testified on HB 280
and answered questions from the members. He told the committee
the division is responsible for commercial vehicle size, weight,
and safety enforcement; commercial vehicle operating
credentials; and enforcing and maintaining standards for weights
and measures used in commerce in Alaska. The key elements of
the commercial vehicle safety program include fixed weigh
stations and mobile and commercial vehicle enforcement. The
commercial vehicle enforcement officers conduct driver and
vehicle safety inspections, enforce size and weight regulations,
and inspect hazardous materials transport. He explained that at
the beginning of the fiscal year of 1998, Executive Order 98
consolidated commercial motor vehicle regulation and
enforcement, from [what was then the Department of Commerce &
Economic Development] and the Department of Public Safety into
DOT&PF.
MR. THOMPSON told the committee the consolidation of these
programs into one state agency was intended to result in greater
convenience to industry and the public, as well as more
efficient management of the programs. He said to a large extent
this has been accomplished. When the consolidation was
implemented, one minor omission occurred in the transfer of the
necessary regulation promulgation authority. While most of the
authority to operate the truck size, weight, safety, and
permitting programs was given at the time to the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, the authority to promulgate
regulations for driver safety, vehicle requirements, and
hazardous materials transport was not transferred and currently
resides in the Department of Public Safety.
Number 1125
MR. THOMPSON told the committee that HB 280 transfers that
authority to the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities and completes the consolidation of the commercial
motor vehicle regulatory and enforcement programs started in
Executive Order 98. He said that except for matters relating to
the licensing of drivers for commercial motor vehicles, which is
reserved for the Division of Motor Vehicles, HB 280 gives the
authority to adopt regulations necessary to avoid the loss or
withholding of federal highway money to the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities. These commercial motor
vehicle safety regulations include equipment standards, working
conditions for drivers, and vehicle inspection standards. The
hazardous materials transport regulations deals with
notification, movement, labeling, and documentation of hazardous
materials loads. In addition, HB 280 sets a prohibition in
Title 28 against operating a commercial motor vehicle after
being placed out of service under a regulation adopted under
Title 19. Other sections provide for the changes to the bale
schedule and allow for the transition period for the Department
of Public Safety regulations to continue to be enforced until
the new regulations are adopted by the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities. The department is prepared
to proceed with the adoption of regulation process once these
legislative changes are effected.
MR. THOMPSON said the Federal Motor Carrier Administration
regulations provide that a state becomes ineligible for basic
program or incentive funds under the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program for failure to adopt new regulations or
amendments to the federal motor carrier safety regulations or
the federal hazardous materials regulations within three years
of its effective date. Mr. Thompson told the committee adoption
of these changes has not occurred since 1995 and the State of
Alaska is out of compliance. In the federal fiscal year 2003,
Alaska will receive $685,500 in basic program and incentive
funds. Passage of this bill is critically important, as DOT&PF
needs the authority to adopt the regulation changes to avoid the
loss or withholding of federal funding, he said. Loss of these
funds through the failure to pass this legislation and the
subsequent failure to adopt the regulations will virtually
eliminate the state's commercial vehicle safety effort. Mr.
Thompson told the committee the bill's provisions correcting the
regulation adoption authorities problems and the supporting
language in the existing statute are supported by the Alaska
Trucking Association, the Alaska's Teamsters Local 959, and the
Associated General Contractors of Alaska. The Department of
Public Safety and the Department of Administration also support
this legislation. Mr. Thompson urged the members to move HB 280
out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
Number 0959
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there is a fiscal note attached to this
bill.
MR. THOMPSON responded that there is a zero fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR MASEK commented on the language on page 1, lines [9-
11], "implement requirements imposed by federal statute", by
saying she is sure that complying with federal statutes will
cost the state money. She said, "Every federal mandate that is
shoved down the throat of the state comes back and bites us in
the butt."
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Thompson to explain Executive Order 98.
MR. THOMPSON responded that Executive Order 98 was issued by the
then-Governor Knowles. It consolidated the trucking regulations
and enforcement activities from Department of [Commerce] &
Economic Development and the Department of Public Safety into
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Thompson if the state will fail to get
the $685,500 in basic program and incentives funds if the
legislature fails to pass this bill.
MR. THOMPSON responded that the state has already received that
funding for 2003; however, failure to pass this bill will put
the FY 04 funds in jeopardy. The Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program has been receiving the benefits for that
program since 1991, and this existing language on page 1, lines
9-10, was necessary to implement requirements in both the
federal and state statutes. He told the committee that language
has been in Title 28 since 1991. Mr. Thompson clarified that
this will not implement any new requirements, but simply
transfer the authority from Department of Public Safety to the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities so the
regulations can be updated. Mr. Thompson explained that the
identical bill was introduced in the last legislative session
and passed the House of Representatives 37-0. It went over to
the Senate in the final days and was lost in the swirl of the
end of session. So it died last session and has been
reintroduced this year.
Number 0777
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked how much money the state lost because the
bill did not pass.
MR. THOMPSON responded that there were no funds lost, but the
state was put on notice that it needs to make this change to
update the regulations. After Executive Order 98, the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities went to the
Department of Law and was told that Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities does not have the authority to change the
regulations. This piece of legislation would correct that
authority problem.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH told the committee he has spent time
reading the legislation and talking to the sponsor and believes
this bill is a good idea. It is a housekeeping matter. He
suggested the committee move the bill on to the next committee.
Number 0703
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President, Alaska Trucking
Association, testified in support of HB 280. He told the
committee the association fully supports this bill based on the
explanations Mr. Thompson provided the committee. This is, as
Representative Kookesh noted, a housekeeping bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING asked for clarification that this bill
does not create new regulations, but simply transfers authority
from one state department to another.
MR. DILLON responded that is correct.
Number 0637
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director of Legislative and Governmental
Affairs, Alaska's Teamsters Local 959, testified in support of
HB 280. She agreed that this bill is a housekeeping bill. Last
session the efforts of Representative Kohring were most helpful
in pushing this bill through the House of Representatives and
she hopes that this year with everyone's assistance the bill
will make it all the way through the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG told the committee in discussing the bill
with the sponsor, he believes it is a good bill. He suggested
that there be a change in the title to assure more clarity in
the bill. The language could say something about "transferring
authority from Department of Public Safety to Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities." He pointed out that is
what is being done, but the title does not say that clearly.
CO-CHAIR HOLM said the language was drafted by Legislative Legal
and Research Services.
MR. THOMPSON commented that he believes the title adequately
describes the bill. He said he discussed this with
Representative Ogg this morning, but said in the interests of
moving the bill along, he believes the title adequately
addresses the issue.
Number 0484
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB 280 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the zero accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 280 was reported from the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|