SB 56 BUSINESS SIGNS/OUTDOOR ADVERTISING  Number 001 CHAIRMAN WARD called the Senate Transportation Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and introduced SB 56 as the first order of business before the committee. JANEY WEININGER , Staff to Senator Green, explained that SB 56 would amend Alaska Statute Title 19, allowing certain restricted exceptions to current outdoor advertising so as to better serve the traveling public and provide increased opportunity for Alaskans and their businesses. Businesses off the main road would be allowed, under SB 56, to use standardized signs measuring 18"x90" which contained the business' name, directional arrows and symbols. The program in SB 56 is modeled after an experimental directional signage program that DOT/PF has been using since 1981. Although the experimental program has been running without the legal authority to do so, the program does conform with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards as well as the Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices. The legislation utilizes user-friendly signage while maintaining scenic areas in the state. Ms. Weininger informed the committee that SB 56 is supported by the Alaska Campground Owners Association and the Alaska Visitor's Association as well as many other tourist oriented businesses. Ms. Weininger noted that SB 56 was introduced in the 19th Legislature as SB 181. SB 181 passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly. Number 064 BOYD BROWNFIELD , Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, informed the committee that the Administration opposed SB 56 in its current form. The Administration opposes a change in the statute that would significantly perpetuate an increase of signage effecting the scenic beauty of the Alaska highways. The Administration opposed establishing a category of signs over which the state does not have jurisdiction or control, specifically those on private lands. Establishing a sign category outside of the state's right-of-way would be difficult to enforce and could create legal and administrative burdens for the state. Mr. Brownfield said that the Administration opposed the reduction of the penalty for an offense relating to an outdoor advertising sign from a misdemeanor to a simple violation. A simple violation does not have an additive affect as would a misdemeanor. Due to limited staff, stretches of highway may lie unchecked for sign compliance for three years. Mr. Brownfield commented that the reduction of the penalty seemed to mean that Alaska's scenic highways are not of importance. Furthermore, the reduction of the penalty could allow a sign owner to violate a regulation and view the fine every three or four years as a business expense. Number 126 Mr. Brownfield pointed out that SB 56 states that directional signs should be established "in a manner consistent with standards established by the Federal Highway Administration and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices." The FHWA's standards allow signs of a maximum size of 650 square feet, with a maximum of 20'x50'. Although, SB 56 does limit the size this merely brings Alaska one step closer to billboards under the FHWA's standards. In conclusion, Mr. Brownfield informed the committee that the Governor had directed DOT to establish a committee consisting of members from DOT, DCED, and the tourism industry in order to review signage issues without compromising Alaska's scenery. SAM KITO III , Special Assistant in DOT/PF, passed out the draft task force report which outlines several options Alaska has with regards to establishing signage for businesses along the highway system. As a result of this information, DOT has created a group to review the options for a signage policy as well as creating regulations implementing the policy. The regulations should be completed around the end of June 1997, but this could change as the process evolves. SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to how individuals in rural Alaska who own businesses off the highway would be addressed under this legislation. BOYD BROWNFIELD informed the committee that the possibility of placing signage before a recreational area was being reviewed. Number 202 SAM KITO III explained that the signage program being reviewed in the task force would offer more than just the Tourist Oriented Directional Signs (TODS) type. TODS notifies the traveling public of amenities along the highway. The task force is reviewing a federal program called LOGO signs as well as the option of placing kiosks outside a community area. Currently, TODS signs are not allowed in areas with a population greater than 5,000. With regards to the rural areas, a service provider can place signs on their own property or apply for a TODS sign. Mr. Kito acknowledged that the TODS signs are fairly restrictive. The LOGO signs would allow signs with icons describing a service and the distance to that service. The regulations encompassing the TODS signs, the LOGO program and the kiosks should address most of concerns of those located on the rural road system. BOYD BROWNFIELD noted that he and his staff had worked with Senator Green last year on this issue in order to develop a mutually acceptable regulation. That did not come to fruition, but did impel a more in depth review of what can and cannot be done. Number 249 SENATOR GREEN did not believe that the desire was to imprison a person who violates sign regulations. The violation in the bill allows DOT the same authority with violators of sign regulations. With regards to the task force, many of the constituents who attended left discouraged due to the lack of knowledge on the part of the task force. Senator Green emphasized that the size was specified in the title of the bill in order to avoid the possibility of billboards. This bill is an extension of the present practices that are not in code. This should be in the interest of DOT. BOYD BROWNFIELD pointed out the following two issues of disagreement: placing signs on private property; changing the violation from a misdemeanor to a simple violation. It is not mandatory that a misdemeanor have a jail sentence. However, if a person violates statute repeatedly harsher consequences would get their attention. The problem is that the department does not have the resources to police the offenders. When policing does occur, once every third year or so, under SB 56 the violator could view the fine as a business expense. The violator could absorb the fine and build another sign, wait until the next policing occurs in a few years. SENATOR GREEN moved to report SB 56 out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Without objection, it was so ordered.