HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE March 30, 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 Representative Bill Williams OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Hudson Representative Curt Menard COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 221: "An Act relating to workers' compensation for volunteer ambulance attendants, police officers, and fire fighters; and providing for an effective date." PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION SSHB 34: "An Act relating to a registration tax and a certificate of title for a snow vehicle; relating to municipal taxation of a snow vehicle; and providing for an effective date." PLACED IN SUBCOMMITTEE OF REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES AND MENARD Bills Previously Heard: HB 26: "An Act relating to the control of outdoor advertising." PLACED IN SUBCOMMITTEE OF REPRESENTATIVES TOOHEY AND MENARD WITNESS REGISTER Representative Bill Hudson Capitol Building, Room 108 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Phone: 465-3744 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 221 Larry Fanning, Fire Chief City and Borough of Juneau 820 Glacier Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 586-5322 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 221 John George, Lobbyist Alaska State Fire Fighters Association Alaska State Fire Chiefs Association Assistant Fire Chief, Capital City Fire and Rescue Department, Auke Bay District 9515 Moraine Way Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: 789-0172 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 221 Representative Curt Menard Capitol Building, Room 405 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Phone: 465-2679 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SSHB 34 and HB 26 Juanita Hensley, Chief Driver Services Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 20020 Juneau, AK 99802-0020 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SSHB 34 Gary Lewis, Cordova City Manager P.O. Box 1210 Cordova, AK 99574 Phone: 424-6200 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding assessments 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: Provided technical information on HB 26 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 221 SHORT TITLE: WORKERS COMP:VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS, ETC BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HUDSON,Grussendorf TITLE: "An Act relating to workers' compensation for volunteer ambulance attendants, police officers, and fire fighters; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/12/93 619 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/12/93 619 (H) CRA, LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE 03/25/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/30/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/30/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: HB 34 SHORT TITLE: SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION TAX BILL VERSION: SSHB 34 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MENARD BY REQUEST TITLE: "An Act relating to a registration tax and a certificate of title for a snow vehicle; relating to municipal taxation of a snow vehicle; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/04/93 33 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/11/93 33 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/11/93 33 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 02/22/93 410 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED- NEW TITLE 02/22/93 410 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 03/25/93 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/30/93 (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 03/17/93 (H) MINUTE(CRA) ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-19, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. He noted Representatives Toohey, Willis, Davies and Sanders were present. Representative Bunde arrived at 1:13. HB 221: WORKERS COMP:VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS, ETC. Number 030 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 221, read his sponsor statement into the record. (Copies of this sponsor statement and the committee substitute may be found in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol Room 110, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) LARRY FANNING, FIRE CHIEF, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, testified in support of HB 221 and gave an example where HB 221 would have clarified existing statutes. REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY voiced her support for HB 221. Number 175 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked, "What does the city (Juneau) think about this?" MR. FANNING said the City and Borough of Juneau passed a resolution supporting an extension in workers' compensation coverage "including training and approved department activities" for volunteers. Number 191 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "The City and Borough of Juneau has not formally entered a position on this bill (HB 221), but in my conversations with the mayor...they see the need for this legislation to clarify it." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE rephrased his concern, "I was thinking of places...who might have a fire department and find the workers' compensation contribution may have a significant impact on their budget to be able to function. Is there any concern from small volunteer fire departments?" Number 212 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I don't believe this calls for contribution on the part of a small volunteer fire department or any fire department, is that correct?" REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I believe that any volunteer ...if they are called out to go fight fires they become an employee. What the bill (HB 221) does... It says they are employees, and they are employees at the rate in which they normally come to the fire at and too, that it is not just when they are going to actually fight a fire but if they are partaking in anything that is valid, that they are covered as employees as well." Number 234 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think the point should be made that every volunteer fire fighter in the state of Alaska regardless of where they are when they respond to a fire, is considered an employee of the state of Alaska." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I understand the intent of the bill (HB 221) and I do not disagree with that, but workers' comp (compensation) costs money, someone has to pay for that. There is no indication with this zero fiscal note. Where does this increased workmen's comp coverage come from to pay for it?" REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I don't believe there is going to be an appreciable increase in the overall contribution to workers' compensation. ...The compensation I believe...comes from the private sector." Number 269 JOHN GEORGE, LOBBYIST, ALASKA STATE FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, and ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF, AUKE BAY DISTRICT CAPITAL CITY FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT, clarified, "Workers' compensation is paid for by the employer. In the case of a volunteer fireman in Juneau, that would be the City and Borough of Juneau. The state is not providing these benefits. It is a municipal responsibility, just as if someone was driving a city pickup truck for the Harbor Department and was injured... The bill (HB 221) does not do anything as far as adding liability for workers' comp for the employee." MR. GEORGE continued, "The law already says that they are covered for workers' comp for all training (and) while responding to fires. But it is not so clear when you just read it...you have to go through a long construction and go from place to place in the statute book to come up with that conclusion." He added, "We would just like the firemen to have that same advantage. When we get hurt, our families, we think, are entitled to receive wage replacement based on what we were making, not based necessarily on what an entry level fire fighter would make." Number 318 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE persevered, "My point again is, this increases further liability that costs more. Who is paying for it? The city is going to pay for an increased workers' comp coverage in this case. In other cases, who pays for it?" MR. GEORGE indicated there is currently another bill (HB 150) which would provide state employee workers' compensation to volunteers of fire departments not under a municipality. He said, "There are fire departments I think, probably, that do not have workmen's comp insurance, in violation of the law. They are subject to criminal penalties as well as civil penalties... The law is designed to punish employers that do not provide the statutorily required benefits..." Number 354 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reiterated, "We already believe this is in the statutes. It is just that it is not clear... In this particular case, all we are really trying to do is to make very, very clear what has already been embodied in the law and it does not cost the state anything. It could conceivably cost someone who already has workers' compensation. It may cost the overall pool to rise very slightly." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out HB 221 would indeed increase the workers' compensation rate, but since Mr. George, who represents all state fire fighters statewide supports it, he would. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES MOVED to PASS HB 221 out of committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections, and the MOTION CARRIED. SSHB 34: SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION TAX Number 411 REPRESENTATIVE CURT MENARD, PRIME SPONSOR OF SSHB 34, read his sponsor statement into the record. (A copy of the sponsor statement may be found in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol Room 110, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) He added, "I did introduce this bill at the request of the Mat-Su Motor Mushers. I believe we also have the Anchorage Motor Mushers on board." REPRESENTATIVE MENARD continued, "There is an estimation of roughly probably 50-60,000 snow machines out there, and I believe probably the total amount registered in the municipality is maybe a thousand or thereabouts. The reason in reality they do not register is because they come under a local property tax. In the Mat-Su, a $5,000 machine would represent about $150 to $160 in local personal property tax. So in an effort to reach some sort of a compromise in this, to give the owners and the dealers the ability to have their machines titled, they feel it would track the ownership side of it and we would have a revenue stream that would start where we could tap into developing trails and establishing areas that would help many areas in the state expand their tourist and recreational monies." Number 452 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Converting the MSO (Manufacturer's Statement of Origin) to a title at the time of sale when a machine is new would certainly cause some revenue to be generated." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about the Department of Public Safety's fiscal note. Number 482 JUANITA HENSLEY, CHIEF, DRIVER SERVICES, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, said, "This fiscal note is written on what the industry has advised us. I was surprised to hear Representative Menard say there was 50- 60,000 machines... It's only 25,000." REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "It was someone's guess." MS. HENSLEY continued, "It's based on how many vehicles would be titled or registered. I must say something else, the department is opposed to title assumption. We presently have a format, and it is required by law that everyone who owns a snow machine register that vehicle with the Division of Motor Vehicles. They are not doing that. We have 7,000, I believe 7,100 registered snow machines now in this state. Titling them, we feel, is not going to accomplish anything further than what it already is. There are a lot of places out there that do not register their vehicles, lots of villages out there..." Number 509 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "A titling requirement should mandate that the dealer at the time of sale would acquire a title by turning in the MSO. Maybe we can do it through the registration process in some fashion, but what we are really trying to do here is establish a paperwork trail with the sale of each new snow machine. Whether it be a title or registration, I do not have any hang-ups, but it needs to be mandated at the dealer level when the machine is new, if it is going to have any effect at all." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "The level of possible registrants is optimistic, and as such the chances of the program being revenue neutral and paying for itself is diminished." Number 510 CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked if present laws require snowmobile registration to be physically on the machine. MS. HENSLEY indicated no, but there are decals applied to snowmobiles. REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "I didn't care whether it was titling or registration... I knew DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles) did not support titling. Currently, the group that I am working with seemed to be intent that titling is the important factor and we have not worked through it. I think they can do the same thing with registration. Their main concern was theft of machine...and having the ability to do it at the time of sale. The organized groups that talked to us say they do not like operating outside the law but they are not willing to step up to the plate because of the cost of new machines and the borough personal property (tax)... REPRESENTATIVE MENARD continued, "So we are trying to devise some sort of a mechanism to one, make them register or have an incentive to register, given the track record on the thieving and give them the opportunity to work on some kind of a revenue stream to develop trails. I did float it out to the groups, 'would you be willing to...have an assessment over and above what the registration tax is that would be earmarked for trails development?' ...And they are floating that around. I do not have the total exact crystal clear picture how this should work...and I would like to work within the committee and with the department to see if there is a way that we can structure it. ...I am not opposed to structuring something that is somewhat revenue neutral. I just don't know what the numbers are." Number 589 CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested, "If we propose mandatory registration at time of original sale...would that cause a fiscal note in DMV?" MS. HENSLEY said, "If you are increasing the fees or requiring a mandated fee. Then, of course, the fiscal note we have would still be the same fiscal note. However, the revenue that would be generated would certainly offset the costs." Number 605 GARY LEWIS, CITY MANAGER, CORDOVA, testified giving an example of a municipality assessing personal property tax on a snow machine. CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "If we structured it so that the dealer selling the new machine is mandated to register the snow machine at a fee that is revenue neutral, ten bucks call it...then the relationship becomes a relationship between the owner of the snow machine and the municipality that he or she lives in as to the personal property tax ramifications." MS. HENSLEY said, "I am not saying that titling is not a positive thing. I am saying it is something I do not think is necessary because we do have the registration... These are registered every two years as opposed to yearly. Presently, it is $5.00 to register a snow machine. With this registration of these vehicles the city can come back to (the Department of) Motor Vehicles and say, 'I want a list of the people who registered snow machines in that municipality' and we will supply that to them. In fact, we do that to several municipalities..." CHAIRMAN OLBERG confirmed the present biannual snow machine registration. MS. HENSLEY reminded the committee there are only 7,000 snow machines presently registered and added, "The law does say if it is operated on public lands that it must be registered." She further said, "I have a list of areas who are exempt from motor vehicle registration and the same would exist (for snow machines) in those areas." Number 660 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if other snow machine groups had commented on SSHB 34. REPRESENTATIVE MENARD indicated the Anchorage, Wasilla and state associations had been contacted. Number 675 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out, "I think we have two issues: One, a registration procedure so that we can track stolen vehicles, and that ought to be a fee that just pays for itself, I would think. Then the municipalities, if they have a property tax on this vehicle, that is a whole other question. Do I understand correctly that the thrust of what the organizers want is to have a system where the vehicle can be traced?" CHAIRMAN OLBERG reiterated, "By mandating the registration of snow machines at the time it is sold new we would accomplish a couple of things. First, we would hear from every dealer in the state so we would know who they are, but then the state would have an every two year registration fee and municipalities could do what they want to do and everybody else can do what they want to do. Is that what you are suggesting?" REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES said, "Except that the last line in the bill (SSHB 34) exempts snow machines from personal property taxation." TAPE 93-19, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "Eventually over a ten year period, the majority of snow machines in the state will be registered vehicles." Number 020 CHAIRMAN OLBERG clarified, "The plan is that everybody that registers their vehicle exempts themselves from the municipal tax." REPRESENTATIVE MENARD added, "And is substituted with a registration fee. That was the carrot that was out there. Obviously, there are a lot of machines out there that are not registered and the main reason is the personal property tax that is assessed. ...So the group thought that if they had the registration...and were not subject to personal property tax they would go with a registration fee." Number 074 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "The compromise I would like to support is a registration title of all dealers that sell machines with the idea that eventually most of the machines would become registered, but I do not think we should bind the hands of the municipality by saying they cannot charge them a property tax..." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked which committee members represented areas with personal property tax. Number 120 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "If we had to create a tax big enough in the Mat-Su to pick this up, the registration fee would be $60-$70. I do not think the organization is going to be real happy about that." Number 147 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Representative Menard what the current discussion was with the snow machine groups regarding compromises. Number 153 REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "A lot of people are not registering. They would like to have the registration. Unless they are exempt from the personal property tax and we come up with some kind of a registration tax then they lose support of the bill (SSHB 34). If it comes down that we are going to mandate registration from this point forward on new sales and resalable machines, and there's not a fee structure in the bill on what they would be charged; and, if they fall totally under the municipal personal property tax, then they would drop their support of the bill." He then indicated that the groups would approve of a fee in the $20- 25 range. Number 186 MR. LEWIS said, "In some municipalities, the local assessor looks at a snow machine as part of the household goods which is exempt. In other municipalities, the assessor looks at it as personal property that is taxable. A definition of a snow machine being part of the property of the head of a household might eliminate the whole tax question on snow machines that are used for personal use. It would only be snow machines that are held in inventories or used for commercial purposes that would be taxable." He continued, "In the first part of (AS) 29.45 it says the personal effects of the head of a household are exempt from property taxation. If you define snow machines as being part of the personal effects of the head of the household they could be exempt." Number 214 REPRESENTATIVE MENARD pointed out the similarities in registering snow machines and motorcycles. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "Am I to assume we do it something like motor vehicles, cars, that the state would then rebate the municipality something that would then hold them harmless from their original tax? Like motor vehicles, we pay our state registration, but we do not pay a personal property tax on motor vehicles." MS. HENSLEY said, "Presently you pay your $35 or $40 for your normal registration fee. In addition, you pay, if you live in the Anchorage, Mat-Su or Kenai area, well, nine areas of the state, you pay a motor vehicle registration tax that the Division of Motor Vehicles collects for the municipality and rebates less than 5% which is kept for administrative costs." Number 247 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would be a lot more comfortable about putting this exemption in here if the permissive language allowed the municipalities to put a dedicated fee on top of that..." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I've a problem with this, primarily (because) for twenty years I commuted by snow machine to my car because there was no maintenance on the road I live on... Snow machiners are very reticent to do anything to help communities because nobody helps the snow machiners. There is no plan out there that says, 'yes, this is an activity that we think is good and it is healthy and here is a trail you can use, here is a mountain you can use...' There are no trails in the Anchorage area. There is one mountain down in the pass." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I am sorry, I cannot support this part where they will leave out the municipal property tax, certainly without talking to Anchorage...I think it is going to be a hardship on the municipalities." Number 302 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "There are trails in the Fairbanks area...where snow machines are welcome. That is what I am concerned about this other possibility: The municipality could raise some dedicated funds to help maintain those kinds of trails. That would encourage that kind of designated use." REPRESENTATIVE MENARD gave a description of trails available for snow machines. He added, "We need to come up with some kind of a mechanism to generate those through and then we move forward." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY pointed out, "What happens to the person who is trapping and he buys his neighbor's snow machine for $1,200 or $300 and it is used for transportation." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "If there is a snow machine registration tax and it differs from Anchorage to Wasilla to Fairbanks, where they don't have any, people are going to be buying their snow machines where the tax is the smallest..." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The tax is assessed by the municipality in which you live, not where you buy...so everybody is going to end up living in Delta, I suppose." He then suggested a subcommittee be formed to work further on SSHB 34. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES volunteered to work on the subcommittee with Representative Menard. CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Realistically, I do not think we can address everything that this addresses in one bill. Maybe we need a state registration bill mandating dealers to register at the point of initial sale and let it go at that. Then that list is available to the municipalities and they can do whatever they want with it, and they can fight it out in the municipalities." Number 380 HB 26: PROHIBITED HIGHWAY ADVERTISING CHAIRMAN OLBERG referred to two amendments to HB 26; one dated 3/12/93, and the other dated 3/30/93. Number 390 REPRESENTATIVE CURT MENARD, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 26, referred to the latter amendment dated 3/30/93 and said, "If you had a business on the highway, you would have the ability to put up a sign 25 miles on one side of it and 25 miles on the other side of it. If someone was coming along hypothetically, we could have a sign up 25 miles before you got there. Then within the intersection or close to the facility within let's say a mile, for example, they could have another sign. And then if it is on the highway, they are going to have an on highway premise sign. If it is off the highway, they would have the ability to still have that sign in there. So you would have five or four signs depending on where you are." Number 435 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I think we are doing exactly what we do not want to do. Why 25 miles?" REPRESENTATIVE MENARD said, "We were trying not to be too restrictive, and in that area, the possibility of a commercial area that would be in the (25 mile) area." Number 445 JEFF OTTESEN, CHIEF OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ENVIRONMENT, DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND OPERATING STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, testified, "25 miles is my recommendation and I understand your concern. The issue here is that the entire highway is not eligible for signing. Only areas that are either zoned commercial industrial or are a commercial industrial land use. So if you are a gas station and a half mile down the road there is another gas station, where you might put advertising, is he going to allow you to put up a sign advertising your gas station? Probably not. Those kinds of concerns and the preponderance of public ownership made me suggest a larger range." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Are you saying 25 miles from the gas station we are hoping that there is a commercial?" MR. OTTESEN replied, "That was the intent, that if you had 24 miles of public ownership in front of your business, then there really is no opportunity to place the sign. Hopefully, somewhere in the 25 miles there is: A) private ownership; B) commercial industrial use; and, C) willing to let you put a sign up." CHAIRMAN OLBERG pointed out, "This is mandated by the federal government." MR. OTTESEN concurred, "Commercial industrial is an underlying requirement we just have to live with." Number 472 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Where does this leave TODS (Tourist Oriented Directional Signing)?" MR. OTTESEN said, "TODS is primarily geared to businesses not on the main highway. This would make some of the TODS requirements less necessary." CHAIRMAN OLBERG speculated, "This does not impact TODS." MR. OTTESEN concurred, "It (TODS) would be allowed on top of anything we would do here." Number 486 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Why five? Why couldn't we have reduced this to three...?" CHAIRMAN OLBERG gave examples in Tok and Dot Lake and said, "Some people are going to have to use TODS to have signs, but I don't find five excessive..." REPRESENTATIVE MENARD pointed out TODS cost around $1,500 each. Number 520 MR. OTTESEN said, "The five was actually a worst case scenario. I think the one sign on the business (premises) you should not count in your formula. That sign is already allowed by both federal and state law. Whatever number you set, it should only be those signs that are not on the premises. You might want to pick four. We were thinking about situations where you are near an intersection so you might have three or four roads that ultimately lead to your location in the immediate proximity. And the idea was to have one sign per route of travel or approach. Not to have two or three signs on a given approach." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "That got to one of my concerns...to just specify five is a little bit too simple. If we could get at the idea that was just expressed, that we had one sign per direction of approach per road, that notion. I would be a lot more comfortable with it." He added, "There are places like Dot Lake as you point out, where even with this you probably will not even be able to put up one sign. The logo approach, it seems to me, might actually do the businesses a better job in a lot of instances than what we are doing here..." MR. OTTESEN said, "When we first looked at the logo program, another one of these programs allowed by federal law, it did not make sense for Alaska. It was geared to interstate situations that had four categories: Food, gas, lodging, and campgrounds. No other activities could be signed. It was intended to be big, expensive signs: $5,000 to $10,000 per business. I understand now...other states have come up with what I call the mini logo sign, a little bit bigger than TODS, but a lot smaller than those monsters you see on the interstate...would fit our circumstances pretty well. It gives you the benefit of being able to put up a colorful logo that describes your business, particularly if your business has a recognizable logo. It would fill a gap that TODS does not always fill and it would certainly fill the gap in areas of almost all public ownership." Number 559 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Is there enough flexibility that we could make that kind of thing work for Alaska?" MR. OTTESEN said, "I don't know if the Oregon approach (mini logo signs) is able to get beyond the limitation of four types of businesses. Right now our TODS program is geared towards anything that a traveler might use. I have to do some investigation to find out if they were able to spread that beyond the food, gas, lodging, and camping. But definitely in terms of it being small enough to be affordable, but large enough to be read, it was working and people seemed to use it. And it was being used on two-lane highways in a rural setting." Number 590 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY proposed community services also be viewed on the mini logo signs. MR. OTTESEN said, "The time that we did the first TODS study we came up with a concept called the Community Service Sign...it was intended to say, 'There's a community off the highway here and they have a whole variety of services'." He added these were currently used in the Yukon Territory. Number 603 CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested Representative Toohey serve on a subcommittee to work on HB 26. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY consented. Number 610 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested, "Would it work to say, 'no more than two signs per business location per route'?" MR. OTTESEN said, "I've been thinking about the language... One sign per direction or approach." Number 620 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said further, "There ought to be a disclaimer in here that says this does not limit in any sense the use of TODS." CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested, "Back to the drawing board, Representative Menard?" REPRESENTATIVE MENARD concurred. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 1:48.