The House Transportation Committee recommended a do-not-pass on House Bill 1052, an NDDOT-sponsored proposal to update state code about tourist-oriented directional signs. The committee voted 13–1 to block an amendment that would have removed a statutory prohibition on logos appearing on TOD signs.

The bill’s sponsor, Matt Lindeman, deputy director for engineering at the North Dakota Department of Transportation, told the committee the measure “will update language in North Dakota Century Code in section 391309 clarifying where tourist oriented directional signs may be placed.” He said the Department’s goal was to align state law with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which governs road signing standards nationally and is adopted by the state. "We do recommend a do pass on 1052," Lindeman said during his introduction of the bill, and answered members’ questions about existing signs and permitting.

Supporters and opponents at the hearing described how the program operates. Ron Henke, director of the NDDOT, clarified that the signs are privately owned and installed at the edge of highway right-of-way under an application-and-review process: “The private business or entity would be, would have to pay for the sign,” Henke said. Randy Albrecht, owner of Wolf Creek Winery and treasurer of the Winery Association of North Dakota, testified in opposition, saying his winery has applied for a TOD sign and been denied because the DOT classified his community as urban; he told the committee signage is vital for visitors to find rural tourism businesses. "We derive probably 95% of our business from tourism," Albrecht said.

Committee members debated two issues: where TOD signs should be allowed (rural versus urban/urbanized areas) and whether to strike the current statutory prohibition on logos so signs could display business logos in line with the MUTCD. Representative Koppelman and others argued keeping the logo prohibition avoids the state appearing to compete with private advertising and preserves a clearer boundary between commercial advertising and wayfinding. Matt Lindeman said the DOT was aiming to mirror the MUTCD’s current allowances; the DOT staff described the program as focused on rural wayfinding and small-business direction rather than interstate logo signing.

The committee did not accept the DOT’s proposed amendment that would have removed the statutory ban on logos. On a recorded roll call the committee approved a do-not-pass recommendation 13–1 (Representative Koppelman voting no). The committee directed that the bill not move forward with the logo change.

The outcome leaves the existing statutory prohibition in place; committee members and affected businesses noted practical difficulties remain where DOT application decisions, federal guidance, and local zoning intersect. Several members urged private property or municipal permitting as the route to place commercial signs outside the DOT right-of-way rather than changing state law.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 1052 — committee recommendation: Do not pass (13–1).