CSHB 230(STA)-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced CSHB 230(STA) to be up for consideration and noted that the sponsor's staff member was present. TODD LARKIN, staff to Representative Jim Holm, bill sponsor, reminded members that they heard the bill previously so his recap would be very brief. The state has traditionally disallowed political signs within 660 feet of the edge of rights-of-way, but those restrictions are a little excessive and not necessary to continue to qualify for federal highway funds. "HB 230 seeks to give free speech rights back to property owners within the 660-foot margin, but outside of DOT rights-of-way." CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that the committee passed an amended version of amendment 1 at the previous meeting. He asked for verification that you couldn't put signs in the rights-of-way on private property. MR. LARKIN clarified that the original statute covers rights-of- way and there was some question regarding whether easements and rights-of-way were technically not the same thing. Because of that the committee adopted an amendment in the last hearing specifically saying that signs cannot be placed in a DOT easement. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him to explain proposed amendment 2. MR. LARKIN explained that the second amendment is the result of conversations with the federal highways administration. They would like intent language included in the bill to make it clear that the Legislature does not intend for the political signs to "pose an opportunity for indirect commercial advertising." CHAIR GARY STEVENS summarized that the purpose is to make sure federal highway funds aren't jeopardized. MR. LARKIN replied there is no threat to federal funds, but this increases the comfort level. SENATOR BERT STEDMAN made a motion to adopt amendment 2. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 23-LS0780\U.1 Utermohle 10/7/04 A M E N D M E N T 2 OFFERED IN THE SENATE TO: CSHB 230(STA) Page 1, following line 2: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: INTENT. It is the intent of the Alaska State Legislature that political signs on private property not pose an opportunity for indirect commercial advertising." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill section accordingly. JEFF STARK, Department of Law, participated via teleconference to say that he was asked to look at this on behalf of the Department of Transportation and was available for questions. SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked for his opinion on the bill and how it might impact any federal funds. MR. STARK said it shouldn't have any affect on federal funds as written. "Anytime you get into any sort of regulation of signs and particularly political signs we had concerns about the constitutionality of the language. We took a look at it and I think our feeling is that as written it is probably all right. Once you get into constitutional issues, you never really know what the answer is until a judge takes a look at it and tells you what the answer is." SENATOR GUESS asked if he understood that the Department of Transportation would be the enforcing entity. MR. STARK replied, "Absolutely, they enforce the statutes as written now and this is simply an amendment to that statute." SENATOR STEDMAN made a motion to move SCS CSHB 230(STA) from committee with the attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.