SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE January 28, 1997 1:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Jerry Ward, Chairman Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chairman Senator Lyda Green Senator Rick Halford Senator Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT All members present. COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 56 "An Act relating to tourist oriented directional signs that are 90 inches in width and 18 inches in height, relating to penalties for violations related to outdoor advertising, and annulling a regulation of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities." - MOVED SB 56 OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 8 "An Act relating to the noise levels of airports and sport shooting facilities." - MOVED SB 8 OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION SB 56 - No previous Senate action to record. SB 8 - No previous Senate action to record. WITNESS REGISTER Janey Weininger, Staff Senator Green State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Explained SB 56. Boyd Brownfield, Deputy Commissioner Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898 POSITION STATEMENT: Administration opposed SB 56 in its current form. Sam Kito III, Special Assistant Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the draft report from the task force. Robert Reges, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law PO Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the language on page 2, lines 22-24. Kevin Ritchie, Executive Director Alaska Municipal League 217 Second Street, Suite 200 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Did not yet have a position on SB 8. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-1, SIDE A 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. SB 8 AIRPORT/SHOOTING FACILITY NOISE LEVELS  Number 309 CHAIRMAN WARD announced that SB 8 was the next order of business before the committee. BRETT HUBER , Staff to Senator Halford, noted that the sponsor statement, a zero fiscal note, sectional analysis, and letters of support were included in the committee packet. SB 8 was introduced in order to protect existing shooting ranges and private airports from nuisance lawsuits based on noise level. Although this has not yet been a significant problem in Alaska, many sport shooting ranges and private airports in the Lower 48 have found themselves in such lawsuits. Mr. Huber noted that this issue was addressed in the 19th Legislature with the passage of SB 274. SB 274 passed by a wide margin, but was ultimately vetoed. The National Rifle Association, Alaska Air Carriers Association, the Alaska Outdoor Council, Alaska Boating Association, and the Alaska Airmen's Association have endorsed SB 8. SENATOR LINCOLN was interested in Senator Halford's response to the Governor's veto letter from last year. The letter said that with such legislation the state would usurp a control traditionally belonging to municipal authorities. Further, the AMU noted in its opposition statement that the state should not restrict the enforcement of municipal ordinances. Senator Lincoln expressed support of local control. SENATOR HALFORD pointed out that the municipal authorities are created by the state and are limited in numerous ways. With regards to noise, there is a statewide preemption. There are many areas in which the state in representing the whole do not allow municipal intervention in the regulatory structure. Number 352 SENATOR LINCOLN asked if this was in the municipality's power in this case. SENATOR HALFORD explained that two issues are at hand, civil and criminal action by lawsuit, and action by the municipality itself. In other jurisdictions, people move into an area with an established facility operating and decide to sue to close the operation. Senator Halford noted that this does not preclude the municipality's ability for reasons of public safety, zoning, or the other municipal powers to represent its constituency. This legislation means that a municipality cannot close a facility existing prior to the action of the municipality or the individual suing merely on the basis of noise. SENATOR LINCOLN noted the concern with the hearing process that the general public was not able to participate in the hearings. The Alaska Municipal League (AML) will be meeting soon on this legislation. Senator Lincoln wanted to allow the public to participate in the hearing process. SENATOR HALFORD expressed shock that Governor Knowles felt the bill last year did not have a sufficient review. Last year, the bill passed through more than one committee in the Senate and the House and all of the proper notices and readings. Senator Halford indicated that this issue was raised by AML at the last minute. Number 391 ROBERT REGES , Assistant Attorney General with the Department of Law, informed the committee that he had tracked this bill last year, but had not yet conferred with his clients on this. With regards to the municipality still having power to regulate noise and other issues for purposes of public health. If that was the statement, the Department of Law would suggest an amendment to the language on page 2, lines 22-24. SENATOR HALFORD clarified that he stated that municipalities could regulate for health purposes, public safety, zoning, or all other purposes. He did not mean to imply that a municipality could regulate for noise and those other purposes together. SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to Mr. Reges' interpretation of that section in the bill. ROBERT REGES interpreted the language on page 2, lines 22-24 to prohibit any regulation based on noise whether in whole or part. SENATOR HALFORD said that was intended. SENATOR LINCOLN asked why that was intended. SENATOR HALFORD reiterated that this legislation would only apply to a facility that was established before there were any regulations or change of regulations. SENATOR LINCOLN asked for an example to illustrate why this legislation would be necessary. SENATOR HALFORD posed the following scenario. An influential individual moves into a community off the end of an airport, they do not like the noise. The individual moves through the process, making contributions, supporting candidates and controlling the assembly in order to get an ordinance to close an airport that existed before the individual resided in that area. Number 437 KEVIN RITCHIE , Executive Director of the Alaska Municipal League (AML), informed the committee that AML's legislative committee would be meeting on this bill. He offered to work with the committee and the sponsor on the bill. SENATOR HALFORD inquired as to why AML did not raise any issue with the bill last year after the bill had extensive consideration. KEVIN RITCHIE agreed that the bill had gone through the process. The bill was not identified as an issue to municipal governments. After the passage of the bill, some municipalities expressed concern. Mr. Ritchie stated that AML did not have a position on the bill at this time. SENATOR HALFORD moved to report SB 8 out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. SENATOR LINCOLN objected. Due to the fact that AML will be meeting on the bill as well as the fact that the bill only goes to Senate Resources after this, perhaps the bill could be held in order to hear from AML. CHAIRMAN WARD requested that a roll call vote be taken. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Ward, Wilken, Green and Halford voted "Yea" and Senator Lincoln voted "Nay". Therefore, SB 8 was reported out of committee. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.