05/15/2025 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB64 | |
| HB136 | |
| HB24 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 15, 2025
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Gray, Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp, Vice Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Jubilee Underwood
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mia Costello
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to the surrender of infants; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 136
"An Act relating to use of railroad easements."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 24
"An Act relating to aggravating factors considered at
sentencing."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 64
SHORT TITLE: SURRENDER OF INFANTS; INF. SAFETY DEVICE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TOMASZEWSKI
01/24/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/25 (H) HSS, JUD
03/13/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
03/13/25 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
04/29/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
04/29/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
05/01/25 (H) HSS AT 3:15 PM DAVIS 106
05/01/25 (H) Moved HB 64 Out of Committee
05/01/25 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
05/02/25 (H) HSS RPT 2DP 2NR 1AM
05/02/25 (H) DP: PRAX, SCHWANKE
05/02/25 (H) NR: MEARS, MINA
05/02/25 (H) AM: GRAY
05/14/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/14/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/15/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 136
SHORT TITLE: RAILROAD UTILITY CORRIDORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
03/14/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/25 (H) TRA, JUD
04/01/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/01/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/06/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/06/25 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/08/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/08/25 (H) Moved CSHB 136(TRA) Out of Committee
05/08/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/09/25 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 3DP 1NR 3AM
05/09/25 (H) DP: MCCABE, MOORE, STUTES
05/09/25 (H) NR: MINA
05/09/25 (H) AM: TILTON, EISCHEID, CARRICK
05/14/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/14/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/15/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 24
SHORT TITLE: AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/22/25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/25
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) STA, JUD
05/01/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/01/25 (H) Heard & Held
05/01/25 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/06/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/06/25 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/25 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/10/25 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/10/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/12/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/12/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/25 (H) STA AT 3:15 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/13/25 (H) Moved HB 24 Out of Committee
05/13/25 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/14/25 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1AM
05/14/25 (H) DP: HOLLAND, HIMSCHOOT, STORY, CARRICK
05/14/25 (H) DNP: VANCE, MCCABE
05/14/25 (H) AM: MOORE
05/15/25 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK TOMASZEWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 64.
DAVID GOFF, Staff
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 64
on behalf of Representative Tomaszewski, prime sponsor.
LORI BRUCE, representing self
New Haven, Connecticut
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 64.
NOELLE OZIMEK, representing self
Boston Massachusetts
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 64.
CARLA ERICKSON, Chief Assistant Attorney
Alaska Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
64.
IVAN LONDON, Senior Attorney
Mountain State Legal Foundation
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 136.
HUGH ASHLOCK, Owner
Diamond Center Mall, LLC;
Diamond Center Holdings, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 136.
JOE MATHIS, property owner
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 136.
JOHN PLETCHER, property owner
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 136.
MEGHAN CLEMENS, External Affairs Directo
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, titled, "HB 136:
Railroad Utility Corridors," and answered questions.
DIANA RHOADES, Program Director
Anchorage Park Foundation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 136.
ALEXA DOBSON
Executive Director, Bike Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 136
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 24.
TAMMIE WILLIS
representing self
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 24.
KAREN LOEFFLER, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 24.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:00:45 PM
CHAIR GRAY called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting
to order at 1:00 p.m. Representatives Mina, Vance, Eischeid,
Underwood, and Gray were present at the call to order.
Representative Kopp arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 64-SURRENDER OF INFANTS; INF. SAFETY DEVICE
1:01:36 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 64, "An Act relating to the surrender of infants;
and providing for an effective date."
1:01:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:01 p.m. to 1:03 p.m.
1:03:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK TOMASZEWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, introduced HB 64. He read the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In 2008 Alaska enacted its safe surrender law to
ensure that surrendered infants receive immediate care
for their safety and provide legal protection for the
relinquishing parent, thereby reduce potential infant
death due to illegal abandonment. Our current safe
surrender law requires a parent to directly relinquish
an infant to another individual.
Infant safety devices protect both relinquishing
parents and infants. Infant safety devices allow a
parent to surrender an infant anonymously through a
climate-controlled device at a designated facility.
Currently, twenty-two states authorize infant safety
devices. House Bill 64 would authorize the use of
infant safety devices as an additional method of
infant relinquishment under the safe surrender laws.
These devices would safely hold an infant with an
automatic lock and constant video surveillance while
immediately alerting appropriate personnel of the
surrender. Infant safety devices would be placed in
conspicuous areas with appropriate signage as
determined by the Department of Family and Community
Services (DFCS). An infant safety device may be
located at hospital, emergency department,
freestanding birth center, office of a private
physician, rural health clinic, municipal police
department, state trooper post, fire department, or
other facility designated by the DFCS commissioner.
The ability to relinquish an infant to a safe location
rather than an individual allows additional anonymity
for the relinquishing parent while still ensuring that
surrendered infants receive immediate medical care.
1:05:56 PM
DAVID GOFF, Staff, Representative Frank Tomaszewski, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tomaszewski,
prime sponsor, read the sectional analysis for HB 64 [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1
Amends the child abandonment statute (AS 47.10.013(c))
to make a parent immune from prosecution if they
safely leave the infant in a safety device that is
fiscally affixed to allowable public agency facility.
Section 2
Amends the child abandonment statute (AS 47.10.013(d))
to conform to Section 1 abandonment for the person to
whom an infant is safely surrendered.
Section 3
Amends the child abandonment statute (AS47.10.013(e))
to include designated facility as a receiver of a
safely abandoned infant.
Section 4
Adds a new subsection to the child abandonment statute
to require receiving facilities to immediately notify
the nearest peace officer, community health aide,
physician, or hospital employee.
Adds a new subsection to specify what an infant safety
device must be equipped with and where it must be
located.
Section 5
Provides an effective date of July 1, 2026.
1:07:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the bill is voluntary or if
the Department of Health (DOH) would "assign entities."
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI stated that the bill gives the
commissioner the discretion to make those designations.
1:08:51 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked whether the bill sponsor or his staff had
visited one of these [infant safety devices] "baby boxes."
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI said no, he had never seen or been
placed in a baby box.
1:09:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE shared her understanding that the Safe
Surrender of Infants Act allows parents to relinquish an infant
who is less than 21 days old, and asked whether the same
parameters apply in HB 64.
MR. GOFF confirmed that the bill would follow the same 21-day
rule. He explained that once the baby box door is opened, it
sounds a silent alarm in the fire station, hospital, emergency
room, or healthcare facility; after the baby is placed in the
basinet, the door locks upon closure and a second alarm is
sounded. If no one responds, local dispatch is notified to take
custody of the child.
1:13:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to confirm that HB 64 would allow
any mother to surrender an infant under three weeks old
anonymously without judgment and the state would provide for
that child.
MR. GOFF responded affirmatively.
1:13:47 PM
CHAIR GRAY sought to confirm that any person, not just the
mother, could surrender the child. In addition, he asked about
constant surveillance, and whether a six-month-old baby being
placed in the box would eliminate the adult's right to
anonymity.
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI shared his understanding that
existing laws prevent the submission of a child by someone other
than the parent.
MR. GOFF clarified that the camera providing 24-hour
surveillance is inside the box to ensure the safety of a child,
not to capture the identity of the person relinquishing the
child.
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI added that cameras are everywhere, so
anonymity is subject to interpretation.
CHAIR GRAY pointed out that anonymity in smaller communities is
unlikely.
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI anticipated that the boxes would be
placed in larger hub communities, not the small communities.
1:18:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD asked whether baby boxes are linked to
a reduction in abandonments.
MR. GOFF did not know the answer. He reported that 54 babies
had been submitted to baby boxes across the U.S.
1:22:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID asked how many infants had been
relinquished under the Safe Surrender of Infants Act.
MR. GOFF responded that the numbers are not clear, but he was
aware of three babies that had been abandoned in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referenced a letter from Chief Schrage at
the Anchorage Fire Department [included in the committee packet]
that testified to recent incidents of abandoned newborns in
Anchorage under the Safe Haven Law and spoke in support of HB
64.
1:23:59 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked what other states with baby boxes are doing
with regard to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
MR. GOFF imagined that those states would be doing everything
they could to work with those agencies.
1:25:18 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:25 p.m.
1:25:51 PM
CHAIR GRAY opened public testimony on HB 64.
1:26:24 PM
LORI BRUCE, representing self, stated that she has studied safe
haven laws for over ten years and led an open letter to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) that called for
federal oversight of these devices. The letter was signed by
100 clinicians and child welfare experts because of the growing
awareness of the harms and unintended consequences of baby
boxes. She said under present conditions, she strongly
recommends against the use of these boxes because they decrease
the likelihood of crisis intervention and increase unecessary
family separation. They also violate ICWA and are not regulated
by any government authority. She reported that three deaths
have been associated with boxes over the past year.
Additionally, context terms disallow providers from altering the
signs on the boxes that could inform at-risk parents of family
preservation and other options, which ties the hands of the
first responders by withholding legal options from at-risk
families. She said there's nothing that would stop an older
baby or toddler from being left in a box. She added that there
are many better ways to help these families.
1:30:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID asked Ms. Bruce where she resides.
MS. BRUCE said she currently resides in Connecticut.
1:30:45 PM
NOELLE OZIMEK, representing self, informed the committee that
she is the former director of research and development at the
National Safe Haven Alliance and a reproductive biologist
currently based at Harvard Medical School. In running the safe
haven crisis hotline, she said she worked with many providers,
law enforcement officers, and parents looking to surrender their
children and came to the belief that baby boxes are not the best
way to end infant abandonment. When people come into hospitals
to surrender it provides the opportunity to intervene and
provide resources for parents and children. Baby boxes diminish
this opportunity, she said, and increases the liability for all
those involved if child is harmed or dies. She stated that a
box failure could kill an infant and the current boxes are
designed poorly. She reiterated her belief that the people who
panic and abandon infants should be provided with better
options.
1:35:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked how to regulate the inspection of baby
boxes to ensure their function.
MS. OZIMEK replied it's a difficult question to answer because
the boxes are patented in the U.S. by one provider, so that
company would need to be very involved in the testing process.
She suggested that an alternative route to be explored is baby
drawers, which would be more open to regulation and testing by
states or institutions.
1:36:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD asked whether anyone has been charged
with a crime after surrendering their baby.
MS. OZIMEK said she has seen many cases of law enforcement
following people home and involving child protective agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD asked which state this occurred in.
MS. OZIMEK answered all across the U.S.
1:37:52 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that public testimony would be left open on
HB 64.
1:38:08 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:38 p.m.
1:38:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI, in response to public testimony,
opined that he would rather have a panicked parent leave their
baby in a warm box instead of outside on the side of the road.
He clarified that Alaska already has safe surrender laws, so
parents would not be charged with a crime for using the baby
box. He said the bill is intended to help struggling parents.
1:40:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked whether there are ways to provide
resources to parents in a panicked crisis situation, so they
don't default to abandoning their child.
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI agreed that providing parents with
additional information or a number to call on the box would be a
good idea.
1:41:29 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked whether a crime could be charged in the case of
severe drug exposure.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP shared his understanding that as long as no
physical injury had occurred to the child prior to surrender, no
crime would be charged.
1:43:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked to hear from DOH. She shared her
understanding that the bill would enhance safe surrender laws
and is intended to provide resources that improve the safety of
both mother and child not charge them with a crime. She
suggested that other organizations could provide baby boxes for
infants in compliance with state law, and further clarified that
there is a process and resources available for surrendering a
child who is older than 21 days.
1:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA noted that trafficking and ICWA are
important points of discussion.
CHAIR GRAY asked whether safe haven laws allow parents to
surrender drug-exposed infants in person.
1:48:35 PM
CARLA ERICKSON, Chief Assistant Attorney, Department of Law
(DOL), said that would be grounds for a child in need of aide
(CINA) petition in a civil case, but she was unsure how it would
be handled on the criminal side.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked how the safe surrender law impacts
ICWA if an Alaska Native mother were giving her baby up.
MS. ERICKSON stated that ICWA requires the state to make efforts
to notify the Indian child's Tribe and allow them to participate
in the CINA petition. She said she's not familiar with any
cases in which the state was not aware of the identity of the
parents, which in turn allowed them to identify the child's
Tribe.
1:50:14 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that HB 64 was held over.
HB 136-RAILROAD UTILITY CORRIDORS
1:50:34 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 136, "An Act relating to use of railroad
easements." [Before the committee was CSHB 136(TRA).]
1:50:47 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:50 p.m.
1:51:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, as prime sponsor, presented CSHB 136(TRA).
He directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation on HB 136
[hard copy included in the committee packet], beginning on slide
2, "Purpose of HB 136," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
HB 136 affirms Alaska's right to set management
policies for the Alaska Railroad Easement
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued to slide 3, "What HB 136 does not
do," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 136 does not amend AS 42.40.420, the statute that
enables the Alaska Railroad to permit public projects
within the right of way
1:54:40 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked whether the bill would prevent the installation
of the Fish Creek Trail connector.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated the bill has no impact on that trail.
1:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slides 4-5, "How did we get here?"
Which showed a historical timeline of railroad rights-of-way and
easements in the U.S.
2:00:03 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked about fee interest.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP defined fee interest as "owning outright."
He resumed the presentation on slide 5 which an explanation of
Reeves v. Godspeed and Alaska Railroad Corporation v. Flying
Crown Homeowners' Association, which brought legal uncertainty
when the railroad asserted the right to fence off several homes
that encroached on the easement despite the homeowners' land
patent making no mention of the railroad.
2:04:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 6 and discussed the intent of
Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (ARTA). He shared his belief that
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals misapplied the law in Alaska
Railroad Corporation v. Flying Crown Homeowners' Association
when asserting that the railroad had the right to absolutely
exclude, even for noninterfering uses. In 2018, Congressman
Young, the only living member of Congress who debated on the
passage of ARTA, gave a written statement clarifying ARTA did
not intend to authorize the transfer of privately owned property
interest.
2:05:57 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked about if the railroad had built a fence on
those homeowners' property, whether they would have the right to
do things that did not interfere with the railroad on their
property.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered in his view, yes, which the bill
would make clear.
2:07:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued to slide 7, "What is a Railroad
'right-of-way," which defined "right-of-way as the right of
passage through the public lands of the United States. He
advanced to slide 8, "What is an 'easement'?" Slide 8 read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
A non-possessory right to use property owned by
another for a specific purpose - Marvin Brandt
Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014)
The Railroad right of way becomes an easement when it
crosses another person or entity's private property
i.e., Homestead patented lands
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 9, "Exclusive Use for
Railroad, Telegraph and Telephone only," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
• The right to exclude is the essence of ownership,
conversely, to the extent one does not have
exclusion rights, one does not have property
• Exclusivity has many meanings and applies to the
easement holder, not the landowner
• An easement that permits the holder to exclude
the underlying landowner is no longer an easement
but is full ownership
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP turned to slide 10, "Homestead Land
Patents," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
These are privately owned lands over which much of the
Railroad easement crosses. More than 142.34 miles of
track in Alaska crosses lands that are patented to
individuals*
These patents cite a reservation to the U.S.
government of a right of way for rail, telegraph, and
telephone
* USRA Valuation of the Alaska Railroad Sep. 1983
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued to slide 11, which stated that the
railroad right of way was reserved for "railroad, telegraph, and
telephone." He advanced to slide 12, "Why does HB 136 matter?"
Slide 12 read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The 9th Circuit's 2023 ruling in Alaska Railroad
Corporation v. Flying Crown held the ARC possesses an
"exclusive use" easement in the entire right of way,
which conflicts with significant U.S. Supreme Court
and Alaska Supreme Court rulings on the general nature
of the property interest that railroads possess in
their easement over private property
2:14:19 PM
CHAIR GRAY questioned why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
held that ARRC possesses an exclusive use easement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the court argued that ARRC had
"something special," and while not explicitly stated in the 1914
Railroad Act, Congress intended for it to be exclusive use.
However, because of the legal uncertainty now due to the Ninth
Circuit's ruling left unchallenged, the railroad can exclude all
noninterfering uses and they are the sol arbiter of what to
exclude. Fortunately in the Flying Crown Homeowners
Association's case, a land use agreement was negotiated that
said ARRC would not stop land owners from using the air park
until the case was finally resolved.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 13, "What's the harm?" Slide
13 read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• The Alaska Railroad does not own the land over
which more than half of the railroad right of way
traverses*
• The Alaska Railroad wrongly asserts a fee
interest in the easement over these private lands
• This policy allows the Alaska Railroad discretion
to deny safe, noninterfering landowner uses of
land within the easement
• The Alaska Railroad restricts access via onerous
fees, permits, and crossing restrictions to
property owners whose land is bisected by the
railroad easement
2:17:16 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked why ARRC would assert a fee interest and what
it would allow the corporation to do with the land that they
wouldn't otherwise be able to do with an easement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said it would allow for monetization.
Furthermore, it would impact the resale value of these
properties. He stressed that the goal of the bill is not to
stop ARRC from excluding any interfering use that would prohibit
them from safely operating the right-of way; however, it's
important that the railroad does not have the discretion to deny
safe, noninterfering landowner uses of land within those
easements. He added that ARRC can restrict access with onerous
fees, permits, and crossing restrictions to property owners
whose land is bisected by the railroad easement.
CHAIR GRAY asked why a person can't just walk across the track
and why a fee would be levied.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that property owners must pay a
fee to build a crossing and maintain it even if they own the
land on both sides of the track.
2:21:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP transitioned to slide 14, "Examples," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Homestead properties being charged for access to
their own property, or road access blocked
• Private property owners being charged for
utilities buried on their property
• Business owners denied the opportunity to use or
develop their commercial properties
• Municipalities denied access to lands and charged
large sums of money to maintain road crossings
• Utility companies charged exorbitant fees to
access the right of way
• Homeowner Associations being sued
• Outdoor recreationists being denied access to
public property
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued to slide 15, "Crossing Fees,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• The State is forced to pay the Railroad to access
and maintain its own public roads.
• In FY2025, DOT&PF paid over $453,000 to the
Alaska Railroad in annual signal crossing
maintenance fees for just 23 highway and
pedestrian crossings.
• In FY2025, ARRC charged DOT&PF approx. $1.6
million for signal maintenance projects and
crossing repair, including steep overhead
markups.
• A project repairing the Parks Highway Milepost
235 railroad crossing cost the state $931,230 in
FY 2025, with $380,955 charged as overhead alone.
2:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 16, "Crossing Fees Cont'd,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]"
• The House Transportation Committee recognized
that ARRC's current fee practices resemble
private-sector profiteering, despite its status
as a state-owned corporation.
• Private landowners subject to the railroad
easement have faced similar unreasonable fees,
with no statutory check on ARRC's discretionary
authority.
• To protect Alaskans' property rights and prevent
financial exploitation, the Committee amended the
bill to require that crossing fees assessed
against private landowners be revenue-neutral
limited to actual cost recovery.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP turned to slide 17, "A matter of justice,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Under due process, the Government cannot give or sell
the same parcel of property to two different owners.
"Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with
sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law."
- Justice Gorsuch
-McGirt v. Oklahoma U.S. Supreme Court July 9, 2020
2:29:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to better understand the difference
between the corridor, rights-of-way, and easements.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the ARRC transportation corridor is a
creature of statute that was added when Alaska took possession
of the federal railroad to make clear that more uses of the
easement were permitted.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what ARRC would consider
"unreasonable interference" with regard to easements.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said it would come down to a commonsense
decision regarding potentially derailment in high-speed areas.
He added that landowners are some of the best protectors of the
easement because they understand the danger and the beauty of
the railroad.
2:36:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked about liability with permits and
whether issuance of a permit transfers liability if something
were to happen on that area of the easement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP confirmed that crossings require a permit,
and permits make clear that the railroad is not responsible for
that private crossing.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked who has liability on the easements.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the liability falls on both. The
landowner is responsible for noninterfering use, and if
interfering use results in injury, they would be held liable to
the railroad. He added that the question of liability is
addressed in the permit and agreed to by both parties, whereas
the fee issue is the real area if concern for landowners.
2:39:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID asked whether a non-exclusive easement
would conflict with the federal law that allows the corporation
to fence the easements.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered no. He said ARTA never gave the
railroad an exclusive license to the right-of-way. He explained
that homestead patent landowners were never notified that their
properties could be impacted by ARTA because their interests
were never to be affected by the act, as they held "perfect
title" to the land. However, the government was concerned that
those with contested title would not be able to stop the
railroad from using the corridor. He said the bill narrowly
focused on non-exclusivity where the railroad crosses homestead
patent lands because it was never Congress's intent to claw back
their fundamental property interests.
2:43:04 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked whether the bill would prevent the railroad
from asserting its right to put a fence in.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said absolutely, without the bill, the
railroad does not need to claim interference to exclude. The
bill would make clear that the policy of the state is to avoid
fencing people off and disallowing safe noninterfering uses of
their property when the easement crosses their land.
2:44:48 PM
IVAN LONDON, Senior Attorney, Mountain State Legal Foundation,
provided invited testimony. He stated that he is a
constitutional and property rights attorney. He noted that he
has experience litigating easements with state and federal
legislative authority. He opined that the railroad is an entity
that can be governed by the legislation because the legislature
created ARRC; therefore, giving it the right to govern and
regulate it. He continued that the proposed legislation would
not change the nature of the property rights.
2:48:39 PM
HUGH ASHLOCK, Owner, Diamond Center Mall, LLC;, Diamond Center
Holdings, LLC, provided invited testimony. He explained that
his parents originally built the Diamond Mall, and it is the
highest trafficked facility in the state. He explained that the
mall is located on a former homestead property that his family
purchased as a direct transfer from the original owner. He
suggested that the right-of-way on the property is the most
valuable piece of right-of-way in the state. He stated that the
right-of-way is subject to only rail, telegraph, and telephone
use. He expressed the desire to build a culvert on the right-
of-way and create a parking lot, housing, or other mixed-use
projects in the area, and this would be without interrupting the
railroad's usage. He stated that in 2005 he received $3
million, per a bill sponsored by Alaska's Congressional
Delegation, to implement intermodal transportation, with a
train/bus combination. He explained that this resulted in a bus
station in the Diamond Mall parking lot; however, the railroad
was not interested in participating in the project.
MR. ASHLOCK stated that after the multimodal project, he had a
national chain restaurant interested in the Diamond Center
location, but he needed 5,000 square feet of the right-of-way
for landscaping. He noted that he was quoted an exorbitant
price; however, now he understands that he would have been
paying for the use of his own land. After relaying this story,
he said, "I have run into some bad actors over the years." He
continued by expressing the desire to create an intermodal
station or create a new parking lot, as the easement property is
worth "a lot of money."
2:53:23 PM
JOE MATHIS, property owner, provided invited testimony on HB
136. He shared that his family has owned a 160-acre homestead
in the state for 69 years. He stated that the parcel is
bisected by the Alaska Railroad right-of-way, which is contained
in the patent for the land. He said that before state ownership
of the railroad, his relatives had helped install the rail
crossing on the property; however, since the ownership
transferred to the state, annual permit fees for crossing and
contract renewal fees have continually increased. He added that
an underground electric line was installed by the family at its
own expense, with no maintenance cost and no liability to the
railroad; however, this requires an additional annual $500 fee
to ARRC.
2:58:38 PM
JOHN PLETCHER, property owner, provided invited testimony. He
shared that his family moved to their property in Anchorage in
1981, and since that time, they have maintained a large garden
in the easement. He stated that the parcel of land has not
caused problems; however, they do not want to be continually
threatened by ARRC's permit requirements. Regarding a
residential use policy, he stated that he received a letter
informing him that he needed a permit, which he declined. After
this, ARRC threatened to put a lien on the property. He stated
that, per the exclusive use provision, the railroad wanted to
charge $2,200 annually. He discussed the details of the
exclusive use provision, of which will be published in an
article on the website, www.railroadedalaska.com. He shared his
understanding of what the courts have said about the exclusive
use provision. He noted that there is nothing in the property
patent about ARRC's exclusive use.
MR. PLETCHER stated that his community has created a railroad
committee, of which he chairs. He advised the committee members
to go to its website [listed above] and visit the document's
page. He cited that the legislature has directed policy on ARRC
in the past, and he noted these sections in the statute.
Concerning the comment made by Mr. O'Leary that the railroad
paid all the legal fees in the Flying Crown case, he said, "The
governor forced them to do it." He added, "The railroad's got
more money than God."
3:06:45 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked Mr. London whether there is some expectation
that affected homeowners have some understanding about the legal
rights of the railroad.
MR. LONDON emphasized that the bill has nothing to do with
property rights or expectations, and instead, outlines how the
state will let ARRC operate.
3:10:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:10 p.m. to 3:14 p.m.
3:14:47 PM
CHAIR GRAY opened public testimony on HB 136.
3:15:05 PM
MEGHAN CLEMENS, External Affairs Directo, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, said while she agrees with many of the comments
made today, she disagrees on some key items, such as the nature
of the exclusive use easement. She said the augments presented
today were heard and analyzed by the district court and the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the opinions offered by
those courts do a good job of explaining how they came to be
fully in favor of ARRC and the need for the exclusive use
easement, as well as a clear legal case of how that was
transferred from the federal government.
3:17:26 PM
CHAIR GRAY questioned Judge Kindred's reasoning for the greatest
exclusive use finding.
MS. CLEMENS referred to a PowerPoint, titled "HB 136: Railroad
Utility Corridors," and explained that the courts approached
determining the nature of the property interest by answering the
nature of the interest reserved by the federal government, as
well as the interest in the right-of-way that was conveyed to
the railroad by ARTA. She acknowledged that the 1914 act that
reserved the right-of-way for the railroad did not fully define
the nature of the property interest, so to answer that question,
the court considered the legal precedent for Lower-48 railroads,
and how the original federal ownership of the Alaska Railroad at
impacts this consideration. She continued to slide 4, "What is
Standard for Lower 48 Railroads?" Slide 4 read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
•Prior to 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act,
railroads were granted ROW in fee simple by federal
government
•1875 Act granted easement, not fee. Two Supreme Court
rulings related to limits of 1875 Act easements:
•1875 Act railroads do not possess subsurface mineral
rights
Great Northern Railway Company v United States
•If 1875 Act railroad abandons ROW, the court
confirmed reversionary rights to underlying property
owner
Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States
•Tenth Circuit ruled 1875 Act railroads had the right
to exclude from ROW under the 1875 Act, in congruence
with Great Northern and Brandt, because "[a] railroad
easement is exclusive in character"
LKL Associates., Inc., v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
MS. CLEMENS continued to slide 5, "Does original federal
ownership affect consideration?" Slide 5 read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
•The Alaska Railroad was unique: the only railroad in
the country wholly owned and operated by the federal
government
•In 1914 Act, federal government was reserving ROW to
itself
•Difficult to imagine the federal government would
have reserved a lesser property interest for itself
than that granted to 1875 Act railroads
•Established precedent: where land grants are
ambiguous, such ambiguity must be resolved in favor of
the sovereign grantor the federal government
•1982 Congress clearly found the federal government
held either fee simple or exclusive use easement in
ROW
MS. CLEMENS turned to slide 6, "What interest in the ROW did
Congress convey to ARRC?" Slide 6 read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
1982 Alaska Railroad Transfer Act: "the Congress finds
that exclusive control over the right-of-way by the
Alaska Railroad has been and continues to be necessary
to afford sufficient protection for safe and economic
operation of the railroad."
Congress is unambiguous in reserving and defining
exclusive use easement in ARTA:
ARTA specifies that the federal government must grant
the State an easement that is
"not less than an exclusive-use easement"
ARTA Definition: ''exclusive-use easement'' means an
easement which affords to the easement holder the
following:
(A) the exclusive right to use, possess, and
enjoy the surface estate of the land subject to
this easement for transportation, communication,
and transmission purposes and for support
functions associated with such purposes;
(B) the right to use so much of the subsurface
estate of the lands subject to this easement as
is necessary for the transportation,
communication, and transmission purposes and
associated support functions for which the
surface of such lands is used;
(C) subjacent and lateral support of the lands
subject to the easement; and
(D) the right (in the easement holder's
discretion) to fence all or part of the lands
subject to this easement and to affix track,
fixtures, and structures to such lands and to
exclude other persons from all or part of such
lands;
3:21:42 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked, in the case of Flying Crown, why ARRC was
asserting the right to build fence.
MS. CLEMANS did not know the answer. She referenced the ARRC
right-of-way residential use policy, which charged fair market
value for residential uses of the right-of-way. The policy
lacked public support and was subsequently rescinded;
nonetheless, the homeowners association demanded that the
railroad relinquish any claim to an exclusive use easement
within the right-of-way. She said the exclusive use easement is
very important to ARRC's ability to operate a safe and efficient
railroad. She added that active airstrips in the right-of-way
are uncommon; nevertheless, ARRC does its best to be a good
neighbor, but by virtue of managing the railroad, property
owners are not always given the answer they want.
3:23:57 PM
CHAIR GRAY asked whether Ms. Clemens supports or opposes the
bill.
MS. CLEMANS stated that the bill language looks similar to
current practices and reiterated that ARRC does not charge for
residential lawn or gardening uses within the right-of-way if it
does not interfere with the purposes of the corridor. She
clarified that fee structures are defined to be revenue neutral
across departments. She summarized slide 9, "HB 136," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Proposed bill language:
"The corporation shall allow an owner of real property
subject to an easement in favor of the corporation? to
use the property in a manner that does not
unreasonably interfere with the corporation's use of
the property.
The corporation may require the owner of real property
subject to an easement in favor of the corporation to
obtain a permit from the corporation to construct a
railroad crossing within the easement and may charge
the owner a revenue-neutral fee associated with
issuing the permit and developing and maintaining the
crossing."
Bill Sponsor's presentation implied the above bill
language would:
•Undermine ARRC's exclusive use easement
•Require ARRC to assume the expense of road crossings
burdening the rail line even when permitted to
entities without property interests in the ROW
•Allow ARRC to use ROW for Railroad, Telegraph and
Telephone purposes only
(ARTA allows for Transportation, Communication and
Transmission)
•Address "Outdoor recreationists being denied access
to public property"
3:28:16 PM
VICE CHAIR KOPP asked whether there's anything ARRC could do to
help Mr. Mathis maintain his private crossing in a revenue
neutral capacity. He added that an annual fee of $1,000 is a
lot for a family on Social Security.
MS. CLEMANS said she's not prepared to fully answer for the
maintenance and operations of that particular crossing; but it's
unusual for a crossing owner to personally maintain the
crossing, as ARRC owns the regulatory obligation and usually
oversees the work with reimbursement requests to ensure that it
meets industry standards.
3:30:52 PM
VICE CHAIR KOPP commented that the bill is trying to set a
management policy, not relitigate the issue.
3:31:57 PM
DIANA RHOADES, Program Director, Anchorage Park Foundation,
testified in opposition to HB 136. She said the foundation is
one of the lead advocates for the connection of the Fish Creek
Trail to the Tony Knowles coastal trail in the Alaska Railroad
right-of-way for one mile. She opined that CSHB 136(TRA) would
still cause legal uncertainty for the Fish Creek Trail, adding
that the exclusive use is what allows the trail to be built in
the right-of-way. She further posited that the existing right-
of-way is not wide enough for future uses that might benefit the
public. She expressed concern that the legislation may have
unintended consequences.
3:35:37 PM
ALEXA DOBSON, Executive Director, Bike Anchorage, testified in
opposition to HB 136. She stated that Bike Anchorage is a
nonprofit organization working to make Anchorage more bike
friendly. She argued that the proposed legislation would
threaten the trail projects along the railroad corridors across
the state. She noted that she has not reviewed Version H. She
expressed the understanding that some believe the proposed bill
is not about the Fish Creek Trail; however, she argued that the
bill has been supported by the interest of those wanting to stop
this and other trails. She pointed out that during the 04/01/25
hearing of HB 136, Hugh Ashlock, Ivan London, John Pletcher, and
Joe Mathis, were invited to testify. She expressed the
understanding that they were all involved with the Flying Crown
case, of which the sponsor has cited as the impetus for HB 136.
She argued that the reason for this would be to set precedent
for private landowners along the railroad. She expressed the
understanding that the bill sponsor's firm was hired to lobby
against the Fish Creek Trail extension project, which is also
connected with the Flying Crown case concerning easement usage.
She reiterated that the proposed legislation might not mention
trails; however, she argued that individuals with known interest
in stopping trails are advancing it. She pointed out that many
of the most promising trail corridors in the state align with
the railroad. She argued that if the proposed bill passes, it
could cause legal delays for trail projects, or stoppage all
together. She urged the committee to oppose the proposed
legislation and support the state's "world-class" trail network.
3:37:38 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that public testimony on HB 136 would be
kept open and the bill would be held over.
HB 24-AGGRAVATING FACTORS AT SENTENCING
3:38:07 PM
CHAIR GRAY announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 24, "An Act relating to aggravating factors
considered at sentencing."
3:38:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 24. He paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
In Alaska today, prosecutors may seek additional
sentencing for crimes motivated by bias, if the
perpetrator's action was targeted because of the
victim's race, sex, color, creed, physical or mental
disability, ancestry, or national origin. These crimes
are typically known as 'hate crimes,' as they would
likely not occur if it were not for the hatred of the
perpetrator towards members of a specific group or
class of people. HB 24 would add 'sexual orientation
or gender identity' to this list.
Before an act is deemed a hate crime, the defendant
must first be tried and convicted of a crime. It is
only during the sentencing phase of the criminal
process that these aggravating factors may come into
play, and only if the crime can be shown to be
motivated by bias against a particular class or group.
Currently, 47 states plus the District of Columbia
allow for sentence enhancement when the defendant has
been convicted of a hate crime. Of these statutes, 34
include sexual orientation as an aggravating factor,
and 24 include gender identity.
Tammie Willis is a vocal LGBTQ+ activist from
Sterling. In November 2019, while organizing an annual
Pride event, she found a threatening note containing
homophobic slurs on her car. Roughly a week later, a
large rock was thrown at her car while she drove to
work. On December 9, she was attacked in her home by
an knife-wielding assailant. She received dozens of
stitches, bruising on her arms, legs, and stomach, and
a concussion. These attacks occurred within days of
announcements touting Pride in the Park planning
meetings. It is clear that Mrs. Willis was targeted
because of her LGBTQ identity and advocacy.
Amending AS 12.55.155(c) to include 'sexual
orientation or gender identity' would not reverse the
attack Ms. Willis suffered. However, it would send a
powerful message that Alaska rejects crime motivated
by hate, and that we as a state are willing to punish
it accordingly. As Alaskans and Americans, we have a
constitutional right to be and express ourselves. We
must support crime victims who are targeted for
exercising these rights, and I urge you to join me in
supporting HB 24 to do just that.
3:46:26 PM
TAMMIE WILLIS, representing self, provided invited testimony
during the hearing on HB 24 and shared her story. In October
2019, she received a death threat for her involvement in a pride
event in Soldotna and her LGBTQ identity. Later, when driving
to Kenai Peninsula College a rock was thrown through her car
window with "dyke" written on it. The third incident occurred
in December when she was physically attacked in her home
resulting in four lacerations on her arm and stitches in her
chest from a knife wound. For safety purposes she was forced to
leave her home and quit her job, all while continuing to receive
death threats throughout this time. She shared her belief that
if this had been "on the record," the Alaska State Troopers and
Soldotna Police would have taken the case more seriously and
investigated it as a hate crime, rather than dismissing it and
brushing her off. When the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) got involved, the cases had been closed and evidence lost.
She spoke to the impact of this crime and the importance of the
bill.
3:51:29 PM
KAREN LOEFFLER, representing self, provided invited testimony
during the hearing on HB 24 and informed the committee that she
had been a federal prosecutor in Alaska for 30 years. She spoke
to the danger of a perpetrator who attacks someone because of
their status or who they are due to the likelihood of continued
criminal activity. In addition, she emphasized the
vulnerability of individuals who don't have the ability to
protect themselves, because who they are is an inherent risk to
their safety. She stated the importance of acknowledging these
situations in law, protecting the public, and addressing the
dangerousness of the perpetrators.
3:53:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON summarized a PowerPoint presentation on
HB 24 [hard copy included in the committee packet], beginning on
slide 2, which explained that HB 24 amends aggravators under AS
12.55.155(c)(22). Slide 3 indicated that aggravating factors
are considered during sentencing. Slide 4 discussed aggravating
factors in sentencing. Slide 5 explained why aggravating
factors are used in hate crimes. Slide 6 showed data on
national hate crime victims based on sexual orientation or
gender identity. Slide 7 showed hate crime laws nationwide.
Slide 8 indicated that among all 50 states, Alaska is "middle of
the pack" for hate crimes rates. Slide 9 spoke to an increase
in anti-LGBTQ attacks, per an FBI hate crimes report. Slide 10
highlighted nationwide hate crime legislation. Slide 11 said
Alaska illustrated that the state is not immune.
3:57:34 PM
[HB 24 was held over.]
4:00:21 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|