H.443 is set to pass with various updates to existing sign laws

From H.443

Full bill is located here

Underlined words are new and do not exist in current law

Words with “strike through“ are in current law, but are now being removed.

* * * Sign and Travel Information Law * * *

 Sec. 29. 10 V.S.A. § 494 is amended to read:

§ 494. EXEMPT SIGNS

The following signs are exempt from the requirements of this chapter except as indicated in section 495 of this title:

 * * *

(16) [Repealed.] Signs displaying a message of congratulations, condolences, birthday wishes, or displaying a message commemorating a personal milestone or event; provided, however, any such message is maintained for not more than two weeks.

* * *

 Sec. 30. TRAVEL INFORMATION COUNCIL – RULEMAKING AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) By July 1, 2012, the travel information council shall, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted in 10 V.S.A. § 484(b), adopt rules as to what constitutes flashing intermittent or moving lights or animated or moving parts within the meaning of 10 V.S.A. § 495(a)(3). In adopting these rules, the travel information council shall consider reliable empirical studies of the effect of changing or flashing signs on traffic safety; the current state of sign technology and expected future developments in sign technology; and the findings set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 482 concerning the value of the scenic resources of the state, the importance of providing information regarding services, accommodations, and points of interest to the traveling public, and the hazard created by the proliferation of outdoor advertising. The agency of transportation shall provide staff and administrative support during the rulemaking process.

(b) The travel information council shall study whether, consistent with the legislative findings set forth in 10 V.S.A. § 482, and based on the council’s experience enforcing 10 V.S.A. chapter 21, the list of exempt signs at 10 V.S.A. § 494 should be amended. The council shall report its findings to the house and senate committees on transportation and to the house and senate committees on natural resources and energy by January 15, 2012.

Sec. 41. EFFECTIVE DATES

(a) This section, Secs. 9 (western rail corridor grant application), 12 (authority to reduce fiscal year 2011 appropriations), 15 (White River Junction railroad station), 16 (aviation program plan), 20 (utility adjustments), and 29–30 (sign law provisions) shall take effect on passage.

Sec. 42. SUNSET

Sec. 29 (exempt signs) shall be repealed on July 1, 2012.

House passes Transportation bill, updating sign law

WPTZ reports passage of Transportation Bill H.443

Transportation Bill H.443 contains language to update laws on signs at places of business, allowing the display of  “Messages of congratulations, condolences,  birthday wishes, or commemorating a personal milestone or events”.

Bill now moves to the Senate.

Revised text in House version reads as follows -

BILL AS INTRODUCED

H.443

2011

Page 31 of 40

(d) For attendance at a meeting when the general assembly is not in session, legislative members of the committee shall be entitled to per diem compensation and expense reimbursement as provided in 2 V.S.A. § 406(a).

(e) The committee shall deliver a report of its findings, including any recommendations for proposed legislation, to the house and senate committees on transportation and on judiciary by January 15, 2012.

* * * Sign and Travel Information Law * * *

Sec. 25.  10 V.S.A. § 494 is amended to read:

§ 494.  EXEMPT SIGNS

The following signs are exempt from the requirements of this chapter except as indicated in section 495 of this title:

* * *

(9)  Signs to be maintained for not more than two weeks announcing an auction, or a campaign, drive, or event of a civic, philanthropic, or religious organization, or displaying a message of congratulations, condolences, birthday wishes, or commemorating a personal milestone or event.

* * *

VT LEG 265733.5A

BILL AS INTRODUCED

H.443

2011

Page 32 of 40

Sec. 26.  10 V.S.A. § 495 is amended to read:

§ 495.  OTHER REGULATIONS APPLYING TO PERMITTED SIGNS

(a)  No official business directional sign, on-premise sign, residential directional sign, or exempt sign may be erected or maintained, along a highway and visible from the highway, which:

* * *

(3)  Contains, includes, or is illuminated by any flashing intermittent or moving lights, or moves or has any animated or moving parts, except that this restriction shall not apply to a traffic control sign signs, barber poles, time or temperature displays, or theatre marquees which are determined by the travel information council to contribute to the historic significance of a building listed, or eligible for listing, in the national register of historic places and which are operated in accordance with any conditions prescribed by the travel information council, or signs of a public service nature as determined by the travel information council.

A sign shall be considered to contain, include, or be illuminated by flashing intermittent or moving lights or to move or have animated or moving parts if lights or parts of the sign change more frequently than every five minutes.

* * *

VT LEG 265733.5A

House moves to vote on revised sign bill

Jericho/Underhill Representatives George Till and Bill Frank offer an amendment to the Transportation bill as it pertains the signs like the one at Clark’s Truck Center. Representative Till then voted against the bill, but with comment. I will be asking Rep Till for further explanation as his comments leave me slightly confused.

I had also heard rumor that Rep Frank was opposed tot he change, however I see here that he voted in favor of the changes.

Journal of the House (full journal here)

Thursday, March 31, 2011

At nine o’clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon the Speaker called the House to order.

Bill Read Second Time: Bill Amended; Consideration Interrupted by Recess

H. 443

Rep. Brennan of Colchester spoke for the committee on Transportation.

Rep. Helm of Fair Haven, for the committee on Appropriations, to which had been referred House bill, entitled

An act relating to the state’s transportation program

Reported in favor of its passage when amended as follows:

In Sec. 13, by striking subdivision (a)(5) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a new subdivision (a)(5) to read:

(5)   After consulting with the joint transportation oversight committee, such other paving, roadway, or bridge projects as determined by the secretary.

The bill, having appeared on the Calendar one day for notice, was taken up and read the second time.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on Appropriations?

Recess

At ten o’clock and thirty minutes in the forenoon, the Speaker declared a recess until the fall of the gavel.

At eleven o’clock and five minutes in the forenoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

Consideration Resumed; Bill Amended and Third Reading Ordered

H. 443

Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled

An act relating to the state’s transportation program

Thereupon,   the   recurring   question,   Shall   the   bill   be   amended   as recommended by the committee on Appropriations? was agreed to.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Reps. Till of Jericho and Frank of Underhill moved to amend the bill as follows:

In  Sec.  26, 10  V.S.A.  § 495, in subdivision (a)(3), by inserting a new sentence to be the last sentence of the subdivision to read:

A sign shall not be considered to contain, include, or be illuminated by flashing intermittent or moving lights or to move or have animated or moving parts if lights or parts of the sign change solely for the purpose of displaying a single, complete message in a sequence of frames due to space constraints of the sign.

Thereupon, Rep. Till of Jericho asked and was granted leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Howard of Cambridge moved to amend the bill as follows:

First:  By striking Sec. 26 in its entirety and by renumbering the remaining sections to be numerically correct.

Second:  In the last section, the effective dates section renumbered as Sec. 34, in subsection (b), by striking “15–34” and inserting in lieu thereof “15–33”

Pending the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by Rep. Howard of Cambridge? Rep. Turner of Milton demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number. The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by Rep. Howard of Cambridge? was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 96. Nays, 40.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Andrews of Rutland City, Aswad of Burlington, Atkins of Winooski, Bartholomew of Hartland, Bissonnette of Winooski, Bohi of Hartford, Botzow of Pownal, Branagan of Georgia, Brennan of Colchester, Browning of Arlington, Burke of Brattleboro, Buxton of Royalton, Campion of Bennington, Cheney of Norwich, Christie of Hartford, Clarkson of Woodstock. Condon of Colchester, Conquest of Newbury, Consejo of Sheldon, Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford, Corcoran of Bennington, Courcelle of Rutland City, Dakin of Chester, Davis of Washington, Deen of Westminster, Donovan of Burlington, Edwards of Brattleboro, Ellis of Waterbury, Emmons of Springfield, Evans of Essex, Fisher of Lincoln, Font-Russell of Rutland City, Frank of Underhill,French of Shrewsbury, French of Randolph, Gilbert of Fairfax, Greshin of Warren, Haas of Rochester, Head of South Burlington, Heath of Westford, Hooper of Montpelier, Howrigan of Fairfield, Jerman of Essex, Jewett of Ripton, Johnson of South Hero, Keenan of St. Albans City, Kitzmiller of Montpelier, Klein of East Montpelier, Krebs of South Hero, Lanpher of Vergennes, Larson of Burlington, Lenes of Shelburne, Leriche of Hardwick, Lippert of Hinesburg, Lorber of Burlington, Macaig of Williston, Malcolm of Pawlet, Manwaring of Wilmington, Marek of Newfane, Martin of Springfield, Martin of Wolcott, Masland of Thetford, McCullough of Williston, Miller of Shaftsbury, Mitchell of Barnard, Mook of Bennington, Moran of Wardsboro, Mrowicki of Putney, Munger of South Burlington, Nuovo of Middlebury, O’Brien of Richmond, Partridge of Windham, Peltz of Woodbury, Poirier of Barre City, Potter of Clarendon, Pugh of South Burlington, Ralston of Middlebury, Ram of Burlington, Shand of Weathersfield, Sharpe of Bristol, South of St. Johnsbury, Spengler of Colchester, Stevens of Waterbury, Stevens of Shoreham, Stuart of Brattleboro, Sweaney of Windsor, Taylor of Barre City, Toll of Danville, Townsend of Randolph, Trieber of Rockingham, Waite-Simpson of Essex, Weston of Burlington, Wilson of Manchester, Wizowaty of Burlington, Woodward of Johnson, Yantachka of Charlotte

Those who voted in the negative are:

Acinapura of Brandon, Batchelor of Derby, Bouchard of Colchester, Burditt of West Rutland, Canfield of Fair Haven, Degree of St. Albans City, Devereux of Mount Holly, Dickinson  of St. Albans Town, Donaghy of Poultney, Eckhardt of Chittenden,Hebert of Vernon, Helm of Fair Haven, Higley of Lowell, Howard of Cambridge *, Hubert of Milton, Johnson of Canaan, Larocque of Barnet, Lawrence of Lyndon, Lewis of Berlin, Lewis of Derby,Marcotte of Coventry, McAllister of Highgate, McFaun of Barre Town, McNeil of Rutland Town, Morrissey of Bennington, Myers of Essex,Olsen of Jamaica, Pearce of Richford, Peaslee of Guildhall, Perley of Enosburgh, Reis of St. Johnsbury, Savage of Swanton, Scheuermann of Stowe, Shaw of Pittsford, Smith of New Haven, Strong of Albany, Till of Jericho *, Turner of Milton *, Wright of Burlington, Young of Albany,

Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:

Ancel of Calais, Clark of Vergennes, Crawford of Burke, Donahue of Northfield, Fagan of Rutland City, Grad of Moretown, Kilmartin of Newport City, Koch of Barre Town, Komline of Dorset, Kupersmith of South Burlington, Pearson of Burlington, Webb of Shelburne, Winters of Williamstown

Rep. Till of Jericho explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker:

Presently the law is silent on the issue of how quickly a sign may change messages.   The Legislature should decide this issue and put it in the statutes. Whether that interval is 15 minutes, 5 minutes or any other interval instead of relying on a three decades old A.G. opinion which is quite vague saying only that changing every 15 minutes would not likely violate the statute that exists.”

Rep. Turner of Milton explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker:

We live in the era of technology and we hear time after time that we need to update our laws to stay up with this changing world.  However, in this case we choose to leave  the determination up to an out-dated Attorney General opinion of what is a legal sign.  Thank you.”

Rep. Howard of Cambridge explained his vote as follows: “Mr. Speaker:

How many more of our citizen’s first amendment rights will we continue let slip  away by subverting the committee process?   It is my hope that the Natural Resources Committee will take on this vague and out-dated law that can both retain the Vermont landscape we all love and allow our residents the same rights that other Americans enjoy?”

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Krebs of

South Hero moved to amend the bill as follows:

In Sec. 24, subsection (a), after the words “a representative of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns designated by the league,” by inserting the following:  “a representative of the Vermont Society of Land Surveyors designated by the society,”

Which was agreed to and third reading ordered.

Recess

At  eleven o’clock and forty minutes in the forenoon, the Speaker declared a recess until  twelve o’clock and forty-five minutes in the afternoon.

At  one o’clock in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

Favorable Report; Bill Amended and Third Reading Ordered

Clarks Sign Update

The citizenry actually can have an impact -

Today in the Burlington Free Press -

Personal messages may be allowed on Jericho business owner’s sign

MONTPELIER – A Jericho company could go ahead and wish local residents happy birthdays and mark other milestones on a roadside sign under proposed legislation.

The House Transportation Committee hopes it has found a way to solve at least some of the controversy surrounding a sign at Clark’s Trucking Center on Vermont 15 in Jericho. In the annual Transportation budget, the committee included wording that would add such personal messages to the list of allowable uses for signs, said committee Chairman Patrick Brennan, R-Colchester. Public service messages were already allowed, but not personal messages, he said.

Sign owner Randy Clark was recently told by the state Transportation Information Council that he was not allowed to post birthday and other personal messages on his Jericho sign.

The House bill, which should be voted on by the full House this week, also would allow electronic sign messages to change every five minutes instead of every 15 minutes. Brennan said the change keeps up with technology while also not allowing messages to be a distraction to drivers.

The Transportation bill contains $546.4 million in spending for roads and bridges, down about $40 million from this year’s budget because it has far less federal stimulus money, Brennan said.

 

Awesome Vermont Fudge funds field trip to Ottawa!!!

My son’s class is selling awesome fresh made Vermont Fudge to help fund an overnight field trip to Ottawa.

We will ship to you!!

Fudge freezes well!

For more information visit our website – The-Charters.com

My older son went on the same trip two years ago. It is a fantastic trip!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Tom Hanks To Battle Somali Pirates In ‘A Captain’s Duty’

Hopefully part of this will be filmed in Vermont
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

State Rep George Till Responds

I just got a follow up email from Representative George Till

 

Hi Michael,
Forgive the generic email but I’ve received so many on the subject of the sign that it’s impossible to write a separate message to each.

george

Thank you for your email about  the Clark?s Truck Stop sign.

According to the testimony before the House Committee on Transportation on 2/24 by John LaBarge, there are several issues with the sign.  First by state law the sign can display temperature and time.  This display may change at any time interval.  The sign may not otherwise appear to be flashing, intermittent or moving.  The statute does not further define what this means.  In 1977 the Attorney General issued an opinion about what it means to be intermittent, flashing or moving which the TIC continues to follow 34 years later.  No new opinion has been sought from the Attorney General. That opinion, 34 years ago said a change less than every 15 minutes would likely not be seen as intermittent, flashing or moving.   Therefore, according to the TIC, that information which is allowed to be displayed (other than time and temperature) should not change more quickly than every 15 minutes. Nothing I read in the A.G. opinion says that any change more frequent than 15 minutes would be flashing or intermittent only that less than 15 minutes would be safe.

Next is the issue of what may be displayed besides time and temperature.   According to the TIC, the statute lists the types of messages that can be displayed.   The TIC can find no category under which birthdays and anniversaries fall.  They therefore decide that unless Clark?s Truck Stop is having an anniversary or birthday party on the premises at that time, these types of messages can not be displayed at all.    It is clear that messages about civic events like fund raisers, church or school dinners, events like Harvest Market,  JUFD Labor Day barbeque ect. may be displayed, but these  are subject to the timing rules.

The size of the sign is well within the legal limits.  There is no evidence of increased rate of accidents at the intersection in the two years the new sign has been there.  The Jericho Select Board has endorsed the sign and it complies with Jericho?s zoning regulations.

So what happens from here?  The TIC is not scheduled to meet until 3 months from now. In the mean time the House Committee on Transportation will consider whether the law should be updated and what changes should be made.  The Committee seemed very interested in finding an acceptable solution.  Should the Legislature not act, then at their next meeting the TIC could request the Attorney General to begin court proceedings.  This could result in a fine each subsequent day that the sign is not in compliance.  It could also result in the AOT removing the sign.  Both of these things seem extremely unlikely and any action would take several months.  By then it will be summer and we could have a daily picnic on the premises and advertise it on the sign.

George Till
2/26/2011

 

Second most commented story on BFP site is about the Jericho sign

Seems odd to me that the issue of how a sign is used in a relativly small town could become the second most commented on story on the Burlington Free Press web site.

 

Council allows some community messages on Jericho business’s sign

For the record – I do not personally support publicizing the name and address of the one person that filed a complaint about this sign. Since it was publicized though I now must confess that I’m even more troubled to learn the source of the complaint is essentially my neighbor. More specifically our properties border each other although we live on different roads.

 

MONTPELIER — Birthday and anniversary wishes are out, but Randy Clark can post messages for civic, religious and philanthropic causes on the electronic sign outside his Jericho business, the Vermont Travel Information Council ruled Thursday.

The council voted unanimously to send a notice to Clark’s Truck Center ordering it to comply with state law or face possible removal of the sign. Instead of having messages on the electronic board change every minute or two, the council also mandated Clark leave the same message up for at least 15 minutes with a pause of 30 to 60 seconds before changing it.

Clark, who noted he received 300 to 400 messages of support since the Burlington Free Press reported on the issue Monday, said Thursday that he will comply. He said he refuses to pay a lawyer to fight the state. Although the council said the Legislature could settle the issue, Clark responded that he was like other Vermonters who believe setting foot in the Statehouse is too intimidating a process.

Later at Clark’s, the sign flip-flopped between “We lost” and “Call whoever, but don’t call us.”

“I’ve got to get back to work,” said Clark, a seventh-generation Vermonter. “I was disappointed but not surprised. I knew they would not do anything.” He said he hopes some travel council members will read the messages and laws he included in a three-ring binder for each of them.

At issue is a 3 foot-by-10-foot message board that is part of the truck company’s business sign and is visible near Vermont 15 and Browns Trace Road. The council said the issue arose after a resident, Cheryl French, filed a complaint in February 2010.

A man who answered the phone Thursday night at French’s Jericho home said she was unavailable for comment.

Clark’s has been used to announce road closings, church dinners, school events and other messages, including birthday, anniversary and other personal greetings. Clark has raised about $8,000 for local charitable causes by accepting donations from people who want to see somebody’s name in lights to commemorate a celebration. He said about two-thirds follow through by sending a check.

The council is relying on a 1977 opinion by then-Attorney General M. Jerome Diamond that proposed the 15-minute requirement. The opinion said when the Vermont anti-billboard law was enacted, the Legislature probably did not envision modern signs.

“It is virtually impossible to guess what the legislature might have said had it been confronted with the possibility that a sign message could be changed instantly without the use of moving parts or a manual lettering system,” the 1977 letter said.

The state’s failure to keep up to date with sign technology is one reason the House Transportation Committee late Thursday afternoon agreed to learn more about the issue, said Chairman Rep. Patrick Brennan, R-Colchester.

Brennan said his committee received an introductory briefing about the Travel Information Council and asked the council to give the Legislature a chance at updating the law or finding a solution.

The Travel Information Council also heard from Tim Nulty, chairman of the Jericho Selectboard, which he said supports the sign. He said local regulations say birthday and anniversary wishes and community events are welcome. He said the town has blocked Clark from using the message board to promote truck sales or discounts.

Also speaking on Clark’s behalf were three local residents: Leslie Martin, Frank Popeleski and Doug Richmond.

Clark started his presentation by apologizing to John LaBarge, a Transpiration Agency official and Travel Information Council member, for the heat he has felt from taxpayers. LaBarge, a former Republican legislator from Grand Isle County, signed the letter ordering the sign down.

LaBarge later apologized for his conduct at Thursday’s hearing after Richmond criticized him for behavior he termed interrupting, scolding and strong-arming. LaBarge said the matter had become personal with threatening phone calls to him.