Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/29/1996 03:30 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSTA - 2/29/96
SB 181 PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING
TAPE 96-16, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate State Affairs Committee to order
at 3:30 p.m. and brought up SB 181 as the first order of business
before the committee. The chairman called the sponsor's
representative to testify.
Number 020
BRETT HUBER, Aide to Senator Lyda Green, prime sponsor of SB 181,
read the sponsor's statement for SB 181. SB 181 would provide for
the TODS (Tourist Oriented Directional Signs) Program in statute.
Mr. Huber noted that there is a sectional analysis of the
legislation in committee members' packets.
Number 050
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the TODS program is the same as the
identification signs that he sees along the highways.
MR. HUBER replied that is the TODS program. The TODS signs are the
blue, 90x18 inch directional signs.
MICHAEL MORRIS, Regional Director, Alaska Campground Owners
Association, testifying from Anchorage, supports SB 207, and has
submitted written testimony to that effect. TODS signs not only
help the campgrounds, but help visitors immensely.
Number 100
BONNY EBY, Owner, Willow Trading Post Lodge, testifying from Matsu,
stated that the signs help, but they should be larger. They are
also expensive for the small business person. She also has a
problem with the fact that the signs are not transferrable when a
business is sold. She also thinks that for the amount of money the
signs cost, there should be upkeep on the signs, such as snow
removal.
Number 135
LARAE ELDRIDGE, Owner, Big Lake Motel, testifying from Matsu,
supports SB 181. But she stated that the community sign posted
below hers does not comply with the TODS program and is illegal.
She would appreciate it if the state would get Big Lake a green
geographical sign, just like everyone else. She also objects to
the adopt-a-highway signs.
Number 185
JERRE WROBLE, Program Administrator, Matsu Convention & Visitors'
Bureau, testifying from Matsu, supports SB 181. She stated that
highway signs are essential for their survival. Ms. Wroble
mentioned some problems with the TODS program, including one woman
who would have been required to hire a licensed contractor to
install the sign, even though her husband was a contractor. The
regulations and expense make it difficult for new businesses to get
going. In principal, the MSCVB supports the TODS program, as long
as all its' members are allowed to participate without undue
regulation and expense.
Number 240
TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors' Association,
supports SB 181. Committee members have two letters in support of
this legislation in their bill packets from Ms. Lindgren: one dated
October 17, 1995, and the other dated February 23, 1996.
Number 260
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked Mr. Rasmussen from the Department of
Transportation about the fiscal note from the department. Doesn't
SB 181 propose the exact same signage as allowed now under the TODS
program? If so, why is the fiscal note for such a large amount of
money?
Number 275
LOREN RASMUSSEN, Acting Director, Division of Engineering &
Operations, Department of Transportation, stated there is a
difference between how SB 181 is written, and how the TODS program
works: the TODS program is a directional sign that is literally on
the shoulder of the road. Those are the little, blue signs one
sees in the Matsu Valley, on the Kenai Peninsula, and a few other
areas of the state. SB 181 tries to utilize the same technique,
but putting the signs outside the right-of-way, which then makes
them advertising signs, which would be different from the TODS
program. Advertising signs outside the right-of-way are
controversial. So we would have to promulgate those regulations
with the Department of Law and would have to have public hearings
on those regulations. That is where the costs in the fiscal note
originate.
Number 300
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if there would be a difference in the
size of the signs.
MR. RASMUSSEN is not sure what size the signs would be; he thinks
that would be determined by regulation. Currently, the size of a
sign with a single business on it is 90x18 inches. 18 inches can
be added for each additional business on a sign, with up to a total
of three businesses per sign.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS thinks the signs would still be 90x18 inches
high.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that the legislation lists the same size as
that of the TODS program.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS noted that since the size of the signs is
the same in both the TODS program and SB 181, the only fundamental
difference is that signs would be allowed outside the right-of-way.
He asked if any other jurisdictions have this.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded, none that he could find, and they checked
with 11 other states. Other states have these types of signs on
highways, but none have them out of the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked about costs for the TODS permits.
MR. RASMUSSEN replied that the application fee is $100.00, and
there is a $200.00 inspection fee once the sign is in place.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked if DOT puts a sign up for that price.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded DOT does the permitting and the inspection,
but the owner buys, installs, and maintains the sign.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked why someone complained about DOT's
maintenance of signs, if DOT doesn't maintain them.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded the complaint was that DOT doesn't maintain
the signs.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if that was part of the agreement.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded that is part of the agreement.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if there is a departmental position on SB 181.
MR. RASMUSSEN thinks the department would take the same position
the previous administration took.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what that was.
MR. RASMUSSEN did not think it was very favorable. If a position
paper is requested, DOT would certainly submit it.
SENATOR DUNCAN commented he can understand the reason behind the
department's concerns.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he did not know the reasons behind their
concerns.
SENATOR DUNCAN said that's why he is asking for a position paper.
He would ask for a position paper, unless the chairman doesn't want
one.
CHAIRMAN SHARP responded, if DOT cares to submit a position
statement, he would sure like to see it. He asks that paper be
submitted to committee staff.
SENATOR DUNCAN stated he is not suggesting the State Affairs
Committee hold the bill for the position paper; he would just like
to see it before the bill reaches the floor.
CHAIRMAN SHARP called the mayor of Wasilla to testify.
Number 375
JOHN STEIN, Mayor of Wasilla, testifying from Matsu, supports SB
181. He does not understand why off-right-of-way signs need to be
in the legislation, because he believes property owners whose
property abuts the highway have a right to put up advertising
signs. He thinks federal law would allow that. He hopes that the
law would not allow off-site advertising other than something like
the TODS program. Mayor Stein stated one of the biggest
frustration business owners have regarding the signs is that DOT
knocks them down during snow plowing.
Number 410
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked what Mayor Stein thinks about having
signs out of the right-of-way.
MAYOR STEIN responded he does not see a need to have this type of
sign out of the right-of-way.
Number 440
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute for SB 181.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute was adopted.
CHAIRMAN SHARP stated he personally doesn't have a problem with
having these signs off the right-of-way. The main problem he sees
is that sometimes one cannot read the signs, because they're
covered with snow. If the signs were off the right-of-way, they
might not get plastered with snow by the snowplows.
SENATOR LEMAN stated his only concern regards the number of signs
and repetition of signs.
CHAIRMAN SHARP shares Senator Leman's concern, but he thinks that
would probably be addressed through regulation.
SENATOR LEMAN has concern with the $40,000 fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN SHARP would just as soon send the bill to the Finance
Committee and let them address the fiscal note. He doesn't like
zeroing out fiscal notes in State Affairs, unless it was the
committee's own fiscal note.
Number 485
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked if there is anyone in Matsu who would
comment on the within and outside the right-of-way.
Number 495
MS. EBY believes that inside the right-of-way signs are more
legible.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS noted that the bill specifies that signs
shall be located within and outside of the right-of-way of the
interstate. He asked for feedback regarding striking "outside"
from SB 181.
MS. EBY thinks signs should be within the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP thinks more than "outside" would have to be struck
from the bill.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS wants to know if most of the people in Matsu
would like to see signs just within the right-of-way.
MS. WROBLE stated she also wondered why signs would be allowed
outside the right-of-way the first time she saw SB 181. But a
situation that supports that provision concerns a business she
knows of which is on the highway, but is around the bend. If you
didn't know about that business, you would drive right past it.
The owner of that business has a small sign on her property just
off the right-of-way. The owner does not qualify for the TODS
program because her business is on the highway, so Ms. Wroble
thinks "outside the right-of-way" would serve someone in that type
of situation.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS stated that most testimony seems to be
supporting just having signs within the right-of-way. But we can
take care of that in the Finance Committee.
SENATOR DUNCAN thinks that whole subsection could be removed.
MR. HUBER stated Senator Green has been contacted by numerous
people wanting directional signs outside the right-of-way. Senator
Green is looking for the smallest and most uniform system allowing
signs on private property.
Number 530
SENATOR DUNCAN made a motion to delete Section (4).
CHAIRMAN SHARP informed Senator Duncan that Section (4) is the
section mandating the directional sign program.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked if that is so.
MR. HUBER responded that Section (4) is actually the portion of SB
181 that puts the TODS program in statute. There is no current law
or current regulations under TODS.
SENATOR DUNCAN asked Mr. Huber if he is suggesting that we need
part of Section (4), but not all of Section (4).
MR. HUBER replied it is the sponsor's position that all of Section
(4) is desirable.
SENATOR DUNCAN said he knows that. He wants to ask someone who is
not biased, if he can find anybody. What language of Section (4)
is necessary for establishing the program, but would still allow
deletion of "outside the right-of-way". Maybe DOT would respond;
he knows very well the sponsor's position.
SENATOR LEMAN said that DOT is probably biased too.
SENATOR DUNCAN stated that's what he said: he doesn't think they
can find anyone who's not biased.
MR. RASMUSSEN stated he would be reluctant to make amendments
without reading the whole bill through. It would be the
department's desire to keep the TODS program in place right now.
It's allowed under the MUTCED and the rest of our program, and
we've never been challenged on that.
Number 566
SENATOR DUNCAN offered a conceptual amendment not allowing signs
outside the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP objected to that amendment.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asked for clarification on where TODS signs
are allowed today.
MR. RASMUSSEN responded that TODS signs are allowed within the
right-of-way. Anything outside the right-of-way would be
considered an advertisement, and present state law forbids that.
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that SB 181 would make those signs
directional.
MR. RASMUSSEN replied that is the attempt; but it is very difficult
to have directional signs outside the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked that the roll be called on Senator Duncan's
motion.
The amendment failed, 2 yeas, 2 nays, and 1 absent. Voting in
favor of the motion are Senators Phillips and Duncan. Voting in
opposition are Senators Leman and Sharp. Senator Donley is absent.
CHAIRMAN SHARP asked the pleasure of the committee.
Number 580
SENATOR LEMAN made a motion to discharge SB 181 with accompanying
fiscal note [DOT, $40,000].
CHAIRMAN SHARP noted that the bill will need a referral to the
Finance Committee. He also noted that the committee would like a
position statement from DOT. The chairman asked if there was
objection to moving the bill from committee.
TAPE 96-16, SIDE B
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, stated CSSSSB 181(STA) was
discharged from the Senate State Affairs Committee with individual
recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|