Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/17/1993 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice-Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative John Davies
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative Curt Menard
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 206: "An Act relating to the regulation of election
campaigns, and providing for regulation by the
Alaska Public Offices Commission of elections by
electrical cooperatives."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 26: "An Act relating to the control of outdoor
advertising."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 1: "An Act establishing a motor vehicle recycling
grant fund and a motor vehicle recycling
registration fee; and providing for an effective
date."
NOT HEARD
HB 180: "An Act relating to the residential housing
inspection requirements of the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation."
NOT HEARD
(* first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Eldon Mulder
Capitol Building, Room 116
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
Phone: 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor, HB 206
Karen Boorman, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
2221 E. Northern Lights, Rm. 128
Anchorage, AK 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Neutral on HB 206
Representative Curt Menard
Capitol Building, Room 405
Juneau, AK 99811-1182
Phone: 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor, HB 26
Jeff Ottesen, Chief of Right-of-Way and Environment
Division of Engineering and Operating Standards
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-6954
POSITION STATEMENT: Neutral on HB 26
Douglas Euers
Rita's Campground
P.O. Box 741
Tok, AK 99780
Phone: 883-4344
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 26
Jerry Jernigan
Tok RV Village
P.O. Box 741
Tok, AK 99780
Phone: 883-5877
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 26
Sara Sears
Norlite Campground
1660 Peger Road
Fairbanks, AK
Phone: 474-0206
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 26
Nancy Lethcoe, President
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association
P.O. Box 1313
Valdez, AK 99686
Phone: 835-5175
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 26
Jerry Luckhaupt, Legislative Counsel
Division of Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Room 414
Juneau, AK 99801-2105
Phone: 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 26
Gary Wilson, Right-of-Way Officer
Federal Highway Administration/Alaska Division
P.O. Box 021648
Juneau, AK 99802-1648
Phone: 586-9615
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 26
Jerry McCutcheon
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 26
Paul Smith
P.O. Box 559
Tok, AK 99780
Phone: 883-4181
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 26
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 206
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS AND ELECTRIC COOP ELECTIONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER
TITLE: "An Act relating to the regulation of election
campaigns, and providing for regulation by the Alaska Public
Offices Commission of elections by electrical cooperatives."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/05/93 553 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/05/93 553 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS
03/16/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 26
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MENARD,Olberg,Foster
TITLE: "An Act relating to the control of outdoor
advertising."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 31 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 31 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 31 (H) TRANSPORTATION, CRA, JUDICIARY,
FINANCE
02/11/93 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/11/93 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/23/93 (H) TRA AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/23/93 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/93 444 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OLBERG
03/01/93 475 (H) TRA RPT 3DP 1NR
03/01/93 476 (H) DP: FOSTER, HUDSON, MENARD
03/01/93 476 (H) NR: VEZEY
03/01/93 476 (H) LETTER OF INTENT WITH TRA
REPORT
03/01/93 476 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT) 3/1/93
03/01/93 476 (H) REFERRED TO COMMUNITY AND
REGIONAL AFFAI
03/01/93 495 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER
03/16/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 1
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE RECYCLING GRANT FUND & FEE
BILL VERSION: SSHB 1
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Finkelstein,
Nordlund
TITLE: "An Act establishing a motor vehicle recycling grant
fund and a motor vehicle recycling registration fee; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 25 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/13/93 52 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-
REFERRALS
01/13/93 52 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/20/93 116 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN
01/27/93 167 (H) COSPONSOR(S): NORDLUND
02/11/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/23/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/23/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/17/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/93 691 (H) RES REFERRAL WAIVED
BILL: HB 180
SHORT TITLE: AHFC HOUSING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN
TITLE: "An Act relating to the residential housing
inspection requirements of the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/25/93 455 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/25/93 455 (H) CRA, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/11/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/11/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/17/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-14, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:13
p.m. He noted for the record that Representatives Bunde,
Williams, Sanders, and Willis were present.
HB 206: ELECTIONS AND ELECTRIC COOP ELECTIONS
Number 025
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 206, read
his sponsor statement into the record. (A copy of this
sponsor statement may be found in the House Community and
Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol 110, and after the
adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State
Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) He
added, "I have a work draft of a committee substitute (CS),
that would make the bill applicative to telephone
cooperative elections also. ...The CS also makes clear
that...the bill would only apply to elections for a seat of
the Board of Directors electrical or telephone cooperative
if the cooperative provides power or service to at least
10,000 customers or more."
Representative John Davies arrived at 1:14 and
Representative Con Bunde arrived at 1:15.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER continued, "The original fiscal note
has been revised for the committee substitute and...is pared
down to $1,900 annually."
Number 100
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 206 (CRA).
There were no objections.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to an additional AMENDMENT.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he had never seen that AMENDMENT,
but on hearing it he said, "If I understand the gist of the
AMENDMENT...the essence here is to allow these different
cooperatives to exempt themselves. ...The question is a
philosophical one, when there are thousands of dollars being
spent on an election, and trying to determine the outcome of
an election, is it or is it not in the public's interest to
know who's trying to influence the election."
Number 137
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if Native corporations could
also be included in CSHB 206 (CRA).
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "I believe they're private...I
think we have limited ability to influence or effect their
elections. If you notice, we don't with the bill (HB 206)
and the new committee substitute (CSHB 206 (CRA)), address
only public cooperatives, not all telephone companies
because we cannot influence the other telephone companies,
only the cooperatives...they are subject to public laws."
Number 162
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES addressed the AMENDMENT, "It's a
simple amendment... I would just point out that the
existing law as it applies to the municipalities, allows the
municipality a similar option. That is, they can put an
election before their respective constituency as to the
question of whether or not their particular officials will
be subject to APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission)
monitoring. And this would afford the effected utilities
cooperatives in exactly the same way."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES then MOVED to DISCUSS the AMENDMENT.
VICE CHAIR JERRY SANDERS OBJECTED, but WITHDREW his
OBJECTION when it was pointed out that the motion was only
to discuss the amendment, not adopt it.
Number 211
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "There's a self-interest
involved in the entire affair. If they don't want to
disclose, they'll opt out of it. More or less it's self-
defeating. ...I think you're granting them an abuse in
self-interest."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I think there's a slight
misunderstanding here, this does not suggest that the board
can do this unilaterally. This proposed new language that
Representative Mulder is bringing forth, if adopted would
apply to every utility unless the utility or the cooperative
put a vote before their membership and a majority of their
membership voted to exclude the officers from this
provision. And I would point out that's exactly the process
that's in law right now with respect to municipalities."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "You are adding the words 'electrical
cooperative or telephone cooperative' to the existing
statute in effect, is that correct?"
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES confirmed that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER apologized for his misunderstanding
and said he had no objection to this amendment.
KAREN BOORMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES
COMMISSION, testified via teleconference from Anchorage
saying, "The Commission has taken a neutral position on this
bill (HB 206). Our fiscal note is a modest fiscal note for
training, changing materials to be current with the law, and
overtime for current staff. But there is one other item
that would be of assistance to us if this bill passed, and
that is, there is no direct connection between APOC and the
electric and telephone cooperatives, and their is a
provision in regulation right now...which requires the
municipal clerk to notify APOC after the filing deadline of
the names of candidates and their addresses. If there was
something similar in the statutes for electric and telephone
cooperatives, it would make administration of these
provisions much easier."
Number 288
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "I think it's appropriate...it
makes a lot of sense to include that provision." He then
asked if that would add costs to the fiscal note.
MS. BOORMAN replied in the negative.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Ms. Boorman if she had specific
language for this change to CSHB 206 (CRA).
MS. BOORMAN suggested adapting the existing language for
municipalities.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested CSHB 206 (CRA) be brought up again
Tuesday, March 23, 1993, after a redraft.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if it was the wish of the
committee to incorporate Representative Davies' change as
well.
Number 333
VICE CHAIR SANDERS OBJECTED to the inclusion of
Representative Davies' change and said, "I feel that by
allowing the organization to exempt themselves we actually
gut the bill (CSHB 206 (CRA))... If they're spending money
to get elected, they can spend money to get it exempted just
as easily."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG paraphrased, "You're suggesting that the
same powers that are being brought to bare now to influence
the election could influence the election of the
membership..."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "I think Representative Sanders
has a pretty good point in the sense that, (with) a
municipality you don't have an interest group, per se,
lobbying to exempt itself. But you definitely would in the
case of an electrical or telephone cooperative where you do
have dominant players who would see a disadvantage for
disclosure."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I just think we ought to
provide the same ability for the voters to decide the
question we've provided in the case of the municipalities."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked that this discussion be
continued when CSHB 206 (CRA) is brought back Tuesday.
Number 374
CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested Representative Mulder return on
Tuesday with two drafts of CSHB 206 (CRA), one incorporating
both changes discussed, another just incorporating Ms.
Boorman's change. He called an at ease at 1:30 and
reconvened at 1:34.
HB 26: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
Number 386
REPRESENTATIVE CURT MENARD, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 26, read his
sponsor statement into the record. (A copy of this sponsor
statement may be found in the House Community and Regional
Affairs Committee Room, Capitol 110, and after the
adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State
Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.)
Representative Cynthia Toohey joined the committee at 1:38.
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD added, "My intent was to allow
businesses along the highway to have a provision to
advertise their business and be in compliance with federal
and state law. I've been involved in personal issues in
the district where DOT (Department of Transportation) has
had three DOT people and two state troopers, out there
cutting down signs..."
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY stated that she has a business
off a highway and expressed how important her Tourist
Oriented Directional Signing (TODS) signage is to her
business.
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "This does not affect the TODS
signs at all. This does not affect in the highway right-of-
way there, you have to go through air-space lease
agreements. What this covers is the area where the highway
right-of-way stops and beyond."
VICE CHAIR SANDERS asked, "How, if in any possible way, does
this affect political signs?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG recalled receiving information regarding
political signs which indicated "you're not supposed to be
able to see a political sign from a moving motor vehicle."
Number 486
JEFF OTTESEN, CHIEF of RIGHT-OF-WAY and ENVIRONMENT,
DIVISION of ENGINEERING and OPERATING STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT
of TRANSPORTATION and PUBLIC FACILITIES, testified, "The
issue of political signs always comes up...I think there are
a couple of different avenues... One would be to actually
create a special category, call it the penalty provision
that applies to political signs. It basically makes the
penalty virtually nominal or nonexistent for say, 30 days.
That would leave a 30 day period prior to every election
when people put their political signs up. We would have no
enforcement authority. At the end of 30 days we could start
tearing them down. It would technically be illegal, but
they would spring up like crocuses."
VICE CHAIR SANDERS said, "With some sort of guarantee that
this did not change political signs, I'd be very happy to
vote for this bill (HB 26)."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked about the amendment the sponsor
had included with the backup. He asked where billboards
would be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD replied, "Billboards that are
advertising generic stuff like alcohol, cigarettes, hotel
chains, that is not specific right in that area, would not
be allowed. But businesses and services related to the area
would be."
Number 524
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was a restriction on
the size of signage.
MR. OTTESEN replied, "This exemption really creates...three
categories where signs are going to be allowed..." and
referred to a map in the members packets. (A copy of this
map may be found in the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee Room, Capitol 110, and after the adjournment of
the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in
the Legislative Reference Library.) He then gave an
indiscernible and complicated explanation about signage.
Number 552
CHAIRMAN OLBERG addressed Representative Davies' question
saying, "The amendment says outdoor advertising other than
service advertising. I read that to mean outdoor
advertising other than mom and pop advertising."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was a limitation on the
number of signs that a particular business could post.
MR. OTTESEN said, "I don't view the bill (HB 26) as having
any limitation on the total number of signs a business can
have."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The legislation is to bring state law
into compliance with federal law... (because) I have
constituents that have highway businesses also. I would
rather open this pandora's box and close it later than leave
it closed."
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said, "I view the bill (HB 26) with
mixed emotions" and gave examples for and against.
Number 618
DOUGLAS EUERS, RITA'S CAMPGROUND, TOK, testified via
teleconference saying, "We're glad to see this bill, HB
26... This bill would help all businesses and would benefit
every community and make a satisfied, happy traveler..."
Number 630
JERRY JERNIGAN, TOK RV VILLAGE, TOK, testified via
teleconference saying, "I think this is very much needed and
a very welcome move that is being made to modify and lighten
the restrictions of the state concerning these highways."
Number 656
SARA SEARS, NORLITE CAMPGROUND, FAIRBANKS, testified briefly
via teleconference in support of HB 26.
NANCY LETHCOE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WILDERNESS RECREATION AND
TOURISM ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference saying,
"Our organization is concerned about the signage question
here. We can appreciate the needs of our highway members
and their concerns with people being able to locate them.
However, a survey I did of our members along the highway,
they feel they would loose more scenic quality than they
would gain in terms of marketing. ...We have very good
vacation products. We have the TODS signs, we have private
industry, the milepost and a number of other sources where
people can do marketing and the destruction of the scenic
quality of our highways is not something that should be
taken lightly."
TAPE 93-14, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if Ms. Lethcoe currently owned a
highway business?
MS. LETHCOE replied in the affirmative, and gave a
description of her business.
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "If you had a business that
was, say five miles off the highway, would you have any
objection to (a sign) saying 'wilderness excursion five
miles'?"
MS. LETHCOE said, "From polling our membership, the
directional sign was very good. ...you can find somebody's
ad in the milepost, you can find them in the vacation
planner but you're not quite sure whether you're at mile
21.2..."
MR. OTTESEN spoke regarding political signs, "The
information provided to you when you're a candidate for
office is information provided by APOC which comes from our
department, the Department of Transportation. We bear the
whole burden of enforcing those laws that are on the books,
both federal and state... Secondly,...I just wonder in my
own mind if we can craft some way to basically create this
window of allowance... If you created something like a 30
day, maybe even a 45 day rule where our hands are tied, we
can't do much..."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I'm still not seeing how that
specifically relates to this legislation (HB 26)..."
Number 080
MR. OTTESEN said, "The advertising prohibition does not make
any distinction right now in the federal rules between
service advertising, product advertising or political
advertising. It simply says 'advertising is disallowed'
with one major exception, and that is the on-premise
advertising. ...It's the advertising two, five or ten miles
down the road that's not allowed. With regard to political
signs, we find that most of our political sign problems are
not advertising outside of the right-of-way, except maybe
urban areas, but primarily advertising in the right-of-way.
MR. OTTESEN continued, "We have very few opportunities to
allow advertising in the right-of-way. The TODS program is
one, and that really doesn't fit political advertising
clearly. The air-space leasing which is really a creative
way of extending a business premises a little closer to the
roadway itself, but again that doesn't solve political
advertising. So it's this creative enforcement, let me call
it, it's the only mechanism that I can envision that would
relax the political advertising rule."
MS. LETHCOE said, "I believe I would have a negative
response from our membership, particularly for primary
advertising. August is the height of the tourism season
along the highway."
Number 132
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I don't share your concerns,
Representative Sanders, about political signs as it relates
to this specific legislation (HB 26)."
VICE CHAIR SANDERS said, "I'm not sure my concerns are
real... I don't want to see a change in this statute lead
to political signs all up and down the road, legally.
...I'm not trying to talk against the bill (HB 26), I'm
trying to get somebody to assure me that this won't have any
political consequences."
Number 156
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I don't read in there any
verbiage that would encourage, allow, or somehow more
liberalize the law in political signs," and, "My bigger
concern is the lack of number and size limitation on the
signs... Primary advertisement, I strongly oppose."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked if any of these issues were addressed
in federal regulation.
Number 190
MR. OTTESEN replied that the size and height standards allow
"what we think of as a major billboard" and described
federal criteria for billboard placement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES supported the intent of HB 26, but
would have a problem if "the effect of this bill were to
allow a business to erect a sequence of signs along the
highway, many miles away from where the turn off was or
where their business is located."
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD described his original intentions with
HB 26.
Number 307
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DIVISION OF LEGAL
SERVICES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, testified saying,
"This Bill (HB 26) does bring state law into line with what
federal law does on outdoor advertising. There isn't a lot
of change when you're dealing with those major primary
roads, parts of the national highway system... The way the
bill's drafted, signing would be permitted in those
commercially zoned areas and signing would be permitted on
secondary highways of the state...those roads which are not
part of the national highway system. Signing would only be
permitted outside of the right-of-way, 660 feet... and
that's really the only area that would change, the only
major change by this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked what constituted a commercial
area in federal law.
MR. LUCKHAUPT indicated zoning has been determined in most
cases, but "some second class boroughs and third class
boroughs don't zone all of the land" and there is no zoning
in unorganized boroughs.
Number 395
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was anything that
prohibited the placement of numerical limits on signs. Next
he asked, "Can there be limits saying that it has to be
within a certain distance of an establishment or junction?"
MR. LUCKHAUPT said, "I think an amendment could be tailored
that relies upon something, that the business is located
within a mile of the road or something like that, and
requiring the sign to be placed within a mile of the
business, for example. And maybe something along the lines
for those businesses that are off on access roads or service
roads or some type of unimproved road... Maybe allow a sign
for those businesses within one mile of that junction..."
MR. LUCKHAUPT then embarked upon the subject of political
signs, "The bill (HB 26) itself would not prohibit political
signs in that area outside of the right-of-way which we're
opening up, right now. The AMENDMENT would, as it's
currently drafted, but that's not a change over current law.
...The bill as written right now would allow political signs
in those areas along with the commercial signs."
Number 461
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I am sympathetic to the purpose
of the bill (HB 26)... but I'd certainly like to go on
record saying I opposed the introduction of billboards into
Alaska. I would be much more comfortable with this bill if
it's spelled out specifically, the size of the signs, the
number of the signs and location."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY agreed, but said, "With a commercial
zone area, that makes so much more sense. In order to put
up a sign you have to be in a commercially zoned area for
your business that's off the road. ...To stop small
business advertising...it's suicide for this state."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed, "We need to have appropriate
advertising for the businesses, I just want to have some
constraints in here which I don't see right now."
Number 497
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked for clarification of the
definition on commercially zoned property.
GARY WILSON, RIGHT-OF-WAY OFFICER, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION/ALASKA DIVISION, testified giving history and
specifics. He said, "Right now the 660 feet (right-of-way)
only applies within urban areas, all of the rural groups of
what used to be primary and interstate system are restricted
from being visible..."
MR. WILSON, addressing Representative Toohey's concern said,
"It would only take one business to become an unzoned
commercial area if the DOT decided to do that, but they
would also have to designate that it's within 500 feet,
1,000 feet or 1,500 feet or whatever they decide of that
business and probably just on that side of the road would be
the unzoned commercial area. They'll propose that to us on
an item by item basis..."
MR. WILSON, regarding political signs said, "Generally, they
do come under a different statute, the encroachment control
statutes, and nothing in this (HB 26) will allow any
political signs or any other kinds of signs within the
right-of-way...unless they are permitted by the DOT under an
air space agreement. The federal law does not allow any
nonhighway uses within the highway right-of-way unless they
are specifically permitted by the Federal Highway
Administrator."
Number 562
VICE CHAIR SANDERS asked, "Is that a no?" in regards to his
question on political signs.
MR. WILSON said, "This bill (HB 26) will not have any effect
upon signs within the right-of-way, where most of the
political signs are. It will allow political signs along
secondary roads and I don't remember all the other places
that are coming into conformance with federal law... If
this bill will allow a business sign it will allow a
political sign."
MR. WILSON added, "One of the other questions that came up
was the spacing and the size of signs. Some states have
specifically put that in their legislation, but generally
it's covered in the agreement between the DOT and the
federal highway administration. It was signed in 1968, and
nobody paid a whole lot of attention to it then because all
outdoor advertising in Alaska was prohibited..."
Number 578
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if there was anything in federal
law that prevented a business near Wasilla from posting a
sign in a commercial zone near Nenana?"
MR. WILSON said no and, "That would be a detriment to the
existing businesses along there because right now they could
put up a sign advertising their specific business as an on
premise sign. If you declare that an unzoned commercial
area, everybody up and down the road could put signs up
there."
Number 595
JERRY MCCUTCHEON, ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference.
He asked, "What is the effect of this thing?"
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "My intent was to allow
businesses along the highway system to have the ability to
advertise... It would create some opportunities... It
would bring us into compliance with federal law."
MR. MCCUTCHEON said, "If it's more stringent than federal
law, it is already in compliance with federal law. What
you're saying is we're going to reduce it to the minimum
standard of federal law... I thought we already had the
right to advertise within 500 feet of the turnoff to a lodge
or whatever..."
MR. OTTESEN said, "The TODS program is the only way that you
could do that to my knowledge and this bill (HB 26) neither
expands nor takes away from the TODS programs."
MR. MCCUTCHEON said, "Not knowing what the TODS program is,
it seems to me we used to have a thing where you could put
up a small sign 500 feet from oncoming traffic...it seems to
me this was more than adequate." He proceeded then to talk
about signage in the "territorial days" and said he was
opposed to HB 26.
Number 655
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It seems like there are some concerns
that need to be addressed about numbers, size, political or
nonpolitical..."
MR. LUCKHAUPT said, "You put in a requirement to allow a
sign within so many miles of the business or within so many
miles of the access road to the business... That would meet
a lot of the concerns here. We could put a size limitation
on...you could even put a reasonability standard in and
leave it to DOT to decide the size..."
Number 682
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY described a form of signage found "in
the states."
MR. LUCKHAUPT said they were "logo" signs and said these
could be considered.
MR. WILSON said, "It would be a problem in Alaska because so
many of the businesses that want to advertise don't have a
recognizable logo."
TAPE 93-15, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE MENARD offered to revise HB 26 to meet the
committee's concerns.
Number 010
PAUL SMITH, TOK, testified via teleconference saying, "Tok
has fought the battle of the signs for 35 years... But we
do need uniform signage for small businesses. I think most
small businesses are in favor of this. They're also willing
to pay their fair share... This is imperative to our
businesses because we do have such a short season and this
bill (HB 26) fits right in with the economic development of
tourism."
Number 035
CHAIRMAN OLBERG assured Mr. Smith, "We're going to get some
version of this bill (HB 26) passed out of this committee
soon."
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 2:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|