Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
04/01/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB26 | |
| 136 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 26-STATEWIDE PUBLIC & COMMUNITY TRANSIT PLAN
1:06:47 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 26, "An Act relating to the duties of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and
relating to a statewide public and community transit plan."
[Before the committee was CSHB 26(CRA).]
1:07:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA, as prime sponsor, gave a recap of CSHB
26(CRA). She stated that it would update the responsibilities
of the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
to enact a statewide transit plan in coordination with community
stakeholders. She stated that the proposed legislation would
help update the multimodality work DOT&PF is currently doing, as
it would ensure public transportation is there for those who do
not drive.
1:08:53 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID opened public testimony on HB 26.
1:09:45 PM
BRIDGER REED-LEWIS, Board Member, Alaska Mobility Coalition,
stated that he is an advocate for those with disabilities in
Alaska. He shared that he is originally from Palmer, but he had
to move because of the lack of para-transit opportunities. He
shared that in Anchorage he can access AnchorRIDES. He
recommended that the proposed legislation be amended to allow
for two roundtrip Taxi or Uber rides for individuals who are on
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC). He clarified that this would be for a ride to a
store within a 15-mile radius. He argued that many individuals
with disabilities cannot carry bags onto a bus; therefore, they
are limited to shopping at expensive convenience stores. He
outlined the idea for a future bill that would allow free
transportation for everyone. He spoke about how transportation
should be a right for everyone, as this would allow more access
to jobs and stores.
1:13:15 PM
MICHELE GIRAULT, Executive Director, Hope Community Resources,
Chairman, Key Coalition of Alaska, stated that Hope Community
Resources provides disability support in six regions of the
state and the Key Coalition of Alaska is a statewide group
supporting Alaskans with disabilities. She pointed out that
Alaskans with disabilities face many challenges, but
transportation is at the top of the list. She noted that the
proposed legislation would improve access to community-based
services and give a voice to those who are not often heard. She
expressed her support of HB 26.
1:14:46 PM
GERRY HOPE, Government Relations Director, Sitka Tribe of
Alaska, noted that the proposed bill is a part of the Alaska
Mobility Coalition's multiyear effort to improve public, Tribal,
and community transit programs in the state. He stated that
during his experience as the Transportation Director for the
Sitka Tribe of Alaska, it had been difficult "getting a seat at
the table" with DOT&PF; therefore, on behalf of the Sitka Tribe
of Alaska he expressed support for the proposed legislation.
1:16:36 PM
BRITTANI ROBBINS, representing self, shared that she is a
"lifelong, remote Alaskan" and the Civic Engagement Coordinator
[for Alaska Community Action on Toxics]. She listed several
past community positions she has also held. She expressed
support for the proposed legislation, explaining that living on
a remote island reinforces the lack of public transportation in
the state. She highlighted the importance of viable
transportation within the education system, especially for
sports teams. She noted that when she had been a student,
schools used the Alaska Marine Highway System as reliable
transportation for student athletes, as it is more financially
viable than flying. She pointed out that now only a couple of
ferries a week service Wrangell. She stated that some federal
funding has helped the situation, and this is important for her
as she travels often to the Lower 48 because of medical
disabilities. She argued that a transportation system needs to
be in place for every Alaskan.
1:19:47 PM
JASON NORRIS, representing self, expressed his support for HB
26. He explained that Anchorage is in a crisis for pedestrian
safety, and this is because transportation planning has focused
on motor vehicles. He argued that transportation for Alaskans
who have different needs should be prioritized because this
would improve quality of life and be better for the economy. He
stated that if individuals are given the opportunity to move
around, they will choose to do so, even in winter cities, and he
cited examples.
1:21:30 PM
CYNTHIA LONG, representing self, stated that she is a lifelong
public transportation user. She stated that she is testifying
on behalf of herself and her husband, who is no longer able to
drive. She stated that on the Kenai Peninsula, the Central Area
Rural Transit System [CARTS] takes people to the doctor, the
store, and more, and this helps members of the community not to
be isolated. She opined that a larger transportation system
could allow residents of the Kenai Peninsula to work in the
Anchorage area.
1:22:51 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 26.
1:23:25 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK requested a clarification on the stakeholders
not included in the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA responded that metropolitan planning
organizations are one of the stakeholders that are not included
in the proposed bill. She explained that these are separate
entities outside of local governments and other community
organizations.
1:25:08 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Department of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, in response to a follow-up
question from Representative Mina, clarified that there is a
difference between the use of "coordination" and "cooperation"
in the proposed legislation. He stated that the choice of
wording was intentional, as the department had been advised by
its legal counsel on specific usage in the Alaska Railroad Act
of 1982 (ARTA). He pointed out that the term "coordination" has
been used in CSHB 26(CRA). He discussed that this relates to
[the concept of the Three Cs of transportation planning:
continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative, as guided by federal
law].
1:26:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that Kodiak has a local
transportation service provided to the community by the senior
center. She shared that her nephew has a disability, and the
ability to ride the bus has made a difference in his life. She
expressed support for the proposed legislation.
1:27:18 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID commented on how AnchorRIDES improves the
quality of life for the elderly. He made closing comments.
[CSHB 26(CRA) was held over.]
^#136
136-STATEWIDE PUBLIC & COMMUNITY TRANSIT PLAN
1:27:47 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 136, "An Act relating to use of railroad
easements."
1:28:02 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:28 p.m. to 1:29 p.m.
1:29:47 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID notified the committee of the individuals
available for questions concerning the proposed legislation.
1:30:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 136 and gave a PowerPoint presentation
[hard copy included in the committee packet]. He stated that
the proposed legislation is a policy bill dealing with the
management of the railroad easements. The goal would be to
balance the interest between the Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC) and landowners who live along the right-of-way from
Seward to Fairbanks. He explained that HB 136 would affirm the
state's right to set a management policy for railroad easements.
1:32:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 3 and slide 4, showing a
timeline of railroad easement law, beginning with the General
Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875. This law granted railroads
the right-of-way through public lands in the United States,
allowing easements instead of land grants for railroads. He
stated that the 1914 Railroad Act authorized the federal
government to build and operate the Alaska Railroad, creating a
blanket right-of-way across all federal lands for rail,
telegraph, and telephone lines. Per this law, he clarified that
the federal government became both the granter of easements and
the landowner. He continued that in a 1942 case, Great Northern
Railway Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262 (1942), the Supreme
Court of the United States affirmed that a right-of-way is an
easement and not a fee interest in the land.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that in 1982 there had been two
significant events. In December of that year, the Alaska
Railroad Act of 1982 (ARTA) transferred ownership of properties
of the Alaska Railroad from the federal government to the state.
He stated that just before this transfer, the state had made a
land selection along the right-of-way, and the federal
government protested this because it already owned a 200-foot
swath the state could not select. The Interior Board of Land
Appeals heard the appeal and sided with the state, ruling that
the railroad only has an easement over state public lands;
otherwise, there would be a fee interest in the lands. In this
decision, the board of appeals relied on the General Railroad
Right of Way Act of 1875 and the Northern Railway Co. v. United
States case. He reiterated that this decision had been the
understanding just before ARTA was passed.
1:37:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 4 and directed attention to
the case of Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572
U.S. 93 (2014). He stated that this case reaffirmed that
railroads only have a mere easement over state public lands and
not a fee interest. Moving through the timeline, he addressed
Reeves v. Godspeed Properties, LLC, 517P. 3d 31 (Alaska 2022),
as this case decided that an easement would not exclude a
property owner from the property burdened by the easement. He
concluded the timeline with the case of Alaska Railroad
Corporation v. Flying Crown Subdivision Addition, No. 1 & NO. 2,
et al, (9th Cir. 2023), where, under appeal, the court had sided
with [the Alaska Railroad Corporation]. He expressed the
opinion that this had been "a wild misinterpretation of law,"
and it was this decision that brought the need for the proposed
legislation.
1:41:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned where the term "exclusive use"
originated.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the term "exclusive use" was
created during the enactment of ARTA, for the adjudication of
lands that had claims of valid existing rights. These were
lands that had been previously designated, such as lands under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska
National Interest Land Claims Act (ANICLA). These lands also
included mining claims, cemeteries, and town sites. He
explained that these lands resulted in a patchwork the railroad
was trying to navigate, and the U.S. Congress was trying to
adjudicate the property rights of the railroad in these areas.
If ownership of the land was contested, once resolved, per ARTA,
the railroad could have an "exclusive use" of the easement,
which could not be interfered with. He concluded that
"exclusive use" was a new concept because of the different
claims on Alaska lands.
1:44:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether land determined "exclusive
use" would belong to the State of Alaska or ARRC.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded that the term "exclusive use" only
applies to the easement, and the easement can only be used for
its stated purpose. He added that the landowner has the title
and would not be denied noninterfering uses. He stated that
there is a range of exclusivity for usage. He pointed out that
one reason for the proposed legislation would be so the
legislature could direct ARRC relations with landowners on
easement usage. In response to a follow-up question concerning
charging a third party for usage of an easement, he stated that
the Federal Railroad Association and the Department of the
Interior have addressed this, and there was the opinion that
revenue from utilities on an easement would belong to landowners
versus the railroad.
1:48:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, in response to a question from Co-Chair
Eischeid, clarified that the courts had sided with ARRC over the
Flying Crown Subdivision case. He expressed the understanding
that if an easement is exclusive to the point where the
landowner has been driven out, courts would not be involved with
this dispute resolution; rather, the decision would be made in
the railroad boardroom, where easements can be monetized by the
railroad. He argued that this is akin to ownership and a fee
interest in the land. He expressed the opinion that currently
ARRC is treating the easements as fee interest properties. He
stated that the crux of the argument is whether private
landowners have rights for safe, noninterfering uses of their
land. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that the
Supreme Court of the United States declined to take the Alaska
Railroad Corporation v. Flying Crown Subdivision case any
further. He continued that this is why the issue is back before
the legislature, so it could be able to decide the relations
between ARRC and those living alongside the railroad.
1:50:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP recalled that in 2016 many constituents had
complained concerning ARRC fees on easements. After right-of-
way legislation passed, he said that the ARRC's right-of-way use
program stopped around 2017, and the monetization stopped. He
stated that in 2018, he introduced House Joint Resolution 38
[heard during the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature], which
addressed the "wild misapplications" of the exclusive use claim
to the entire right-of-way, in a way that "Congress never
intended." He directed attention to slide 6, which showed the
letter that United States Congressmen Don Young wrote in support
of the resolution. He paraphrased two passages from the letter,
including the last sentence from the third paragraph, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Nowhere in ARTA did Congress authorize the transfer of
privately owned property interests, nor could it do so
in such a cavalier and vague manner as in being
suggested.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed the opinion that ARRC's claim of
"exclusive use" of the entire right-of-way was based on its
misunderstanding of ARTA. He reiterated the understanding that
this was not the intent of ARTA. He stated that even as a
private citizen, he has been in continuous support of balancing
ARRC and private landowners. For the record, he stated that he
has no clients who are involved with the proposed legislation.
1:54:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 7 and slide 8 and explained
that a railroad right-of-way is a right of passage through
public lands in the U.S. He explained that an easement is a
right-of-way that crosses private property, giving a user the
right to the property for a specific purpose. He added that
this definition is from the Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v.
United States case.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to slide 9 and explained homestead
land patents as privately owned land over which much of the
railroad easement crosses. He stated that more than 142.34
miles of track in Alaska cross lands patented to individuals.
For homestead land patents, he explained that the federal
government has reserved the right-of-way for rail, telegraph,
and telephone lines. He further discussed homestead patents
that exist in the state.
1:57:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP paraphrased slide 11, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Why does HB 136 matter?
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.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that the U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly described "exclusive use" as an extreme claim, and it
has said that law must be explicitly state this, and it cannot
be implied. He argued that "exclusive use" had been inserted
after the fact to ensure that ARRC would have exclusive usage
over contested areas, such as ANCSA or a village land claim. He
displayed a picture of the Flying Crown Subdivision and
explained that ARRC had fenced off access to an easement. He
stated that this has now been resolved, but he suggested that a
similar issue could arise, thus the need for the proposed
legislation.
2:01:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE gave details on the image of the Flying
Crown Subdivision, as seen on the slide.
2:02:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP paraphrased from slide 12, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
What's the harm?
- 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
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued that ARRC has been allowed to
charge other state entities and local governments fees for
crossing and accessing easements to public property. He stated
that in the Flying Crown case the court did not specify
circumstances when ARRC can exercise exclusive use of the right-
of-way. He argued that this allows landowners to be excluded
from easements on their own property for no reason.
2:03:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP gave examples of ARRC's exerted control over
the right-of-way, as seen on the next slide. He paraphrased
from the slide, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Examples
- 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
2:04:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out on slide 15 a sliding scale of
exclusive use, which begins with no right to exclude anyone to a
point where everyone is excluded. He stated that the homestead
patents along the railroad have easements for only rail,
telegraph, and telephone lines, with no specifications that the
railroad owns the land. He added that the homestead patent is
the title to the land. He explained that the "right to exclude"
is the essence of property ownership; therefore, the terms
"easement" and "exclusive use" are irreconcilable. He gave
further examples of "exclusive use," pointing out why it should
not apply to the landowner. He explained that "exclusive use"
means exclusive to the purposes of the easement. He added that
the landowner would be excluded only if it is clearly stated.
2:07:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to the next slide and stated that the
issue is not new, and he listed instances of requests for
change. He reiterated that the question is how to have ARRC be
a "good neighbor" with people who live along right-of-way, and
not assume a fee interest when it does not have a fee interest
in the land. He commented that ARRC does have a fee interest in
certain segments of the land along the right-of-way; however, on
homestead-patented lands the railroad has never had a fee
interest. He explained that homestead patent owners were never
questioned on easement rights because ownership had never been a
question.
2:10:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to the next slide, and he said, "It is
just a matter of justice, and that's why I am relentless on this
issue." He continued that under due process, the government
cannot give or sell the same parcel of property to two different
owners, and once a land patent title is issued, it cannot be
changed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, on the next slide, stated that HB 136 would
affirm the state's right to manage ARRC's right-of-way as a
nonexclusive easement, where it crosses homestead patent lands.
It is not being denied that ARRC has fee interest in some lands.
He reiterated that the proposed legislation is a policy bill for
landowners who have noninterfering uses of easements.
2:13:09 PM
BILL O'LEARY, President, CEO, Alaska Railroad Corporation,
answered questions on HB 136.
MEGHAN CLEMENS, Director, External Affairs, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, answered questions on HB 136.
2:13:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned who owns the Alaska Railroad.
2:14:33 PM
MR. O'LEARY responded that the State of Alaska owns the
railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that Alaskans own the
railroad, and it is one of the state's biggest assets. He asked
why ARRC, which is owned by Alaskans, would sue Alaskans.
MR. O'LEARY responded that the decision to take action with the
quiet title against the Flying Crown Subdivision was not taken
lightly, as the decision resulted from over a decade of events
regarding the right-of-way. He acknowledged that there were two
distinct sides to the issue, and the courts should have been the
place to settle, yet no action was being taken. Eventually the
homeowner's association for Flying Crown asserted that ARRC was
affecting the title to their property, and it should renounce
its exclusive use over the lands in question. He noted that
ARRC was aware of the public's opinion of this, but it moved
forward to gain clarity through the courts. He added that ARRC
had paid all legal fees. He expressed the opinion that clarity
was received at the federal court level. In response to a
follow-up question, he stated that in 2017 the railroad stopped
charging the landowners for use of the easement lands, as it
ended the residential right-of-way use program; therefore, for
this usage there is no charge. In response to a follow-up
comment, he stated in the interest of time ARRC would wait with
comments.
2:20:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE questioned whether the owners of the
easements are paying property taxes on the right-of-way.
2:20:30 PM
MS. CLEMENS responded that, to the knowledge of ARRC, taxes are
not being assessed on the property subject to the exclusive use
of the railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE expressed the understanding that the issue
has been through the courts and questioned whether the
legislation would be undermining the court's decision.
MS. CLEMENS expressed the belief that the question was answered
by the courts with the same information given in the
presentation. With further committee questions, she recommended
that members review the legal opinions, so the court's decision
can be better understood.
2:22:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed the opinion that the proposed
legislation would be "in response to mitigate the harmful effect
of the court's ruling." He reiterated the belief that the court
misconstrued federal law on every point. He expressed the
opinion that the arguments against this are arguments against
the interest of Alaskans and against the law, and the proposed
legislation would rebalance these interests. He made the
conclusion that the state has the right to set the policy call
concerning the right-of-way.
2:25:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether the proposed
legislation would provide clarity for all parties, as this is
what ARRC has said it tried to do through the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed agreement that the proposed
legislation would be an attempt not only to mitigate, but also
to clarify.
2:26:29 PM
JULIA CARR, Staff, Representative Chuck Koff, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kopp, gave the
sectional analysis. She paraphrased from Section 3, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 3: Adds the New AS 42.40.415 - Use of Easement
• New Provision: This section explicitly states that
ARRC must allow landowners to use property they own
that is subject to an easement, provided that the use
does not unreasonably interfere with railroad
operations.
• Purpose: This provision places guardrails on ARRC's
authority, ensuring that it cannot broadly prohibit
landowners from using their own property simply
because the land is subject to a railroad easement.
• Effect: Permits landowners to exercise
noninterfering use of their land that is subject to a
railroad easement.
MS. CARR continued the sectional analysis, paraphrasing from
Section 1 and Section 2, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: Amends AS 42.40.350(b)
• Current Law: AS 42.40.350(b) establishes that
railroad utility corridors must be at least 100 feet
wide on either side of the main or branch line unless
the railroad does not own enough land to meet that
standard. The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) has
the authority to lease or grant easements within this
corridor for transportation, communication, and
transmission purposes, as long as those uses do not
restrict other parallel uses.
Amendment: This section clarifies that ARRC's
authority to lease or grant easements is subject to
limitations introduced by the new AS 42.40.415 (added
to the Alaska Statutes through Section 3 of the bill).
This change ensures that ARRC cannot unreasonably
restrict property owners from using their land within
the easement.
Section 2: Amends AS 42.40.350(c)
• Current Law: AS 42.40.350(c) allows ARRC to lease,
grant easements, or authorize the use of railroad
land, but it prohibits ARRC from selling or conveying
its entire interest in rail land except in specific
cases.
• Amendment: This section adds an exception to ARRC's
authority by incorporating the new AS 42.40.415,
meaning ARRC must allow landowners to use their
property as long as it does not interfere with
railroad operations.
Goals of HB 136
Permit property owners to use their land that is
covered by a railroad easement unless their use
interferes with railroad operations.
2:28:35 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."
2:33:54 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. In response to a previous committee
question, he expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation
would not undermine the court's decision in the [Flying Crown
case]. 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, but it would change "how the rail
corporation acts vis--vis the landowners." He argued that the
easements were created for use by the railroad, not as rent
control policies.
2:38:14 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.
MR. MATHIS stated that in 2023, the family requested a waiver
for the permit and the requirement for the five-year contract,
but it had been denied. He stated that now his family has been
informed that the exclusive use of the right-of-way has been
transferred to ARRC, which means it can restrict the use of this
property. He stated that even though ARRC has conveyed in court
that the right-of-way program has ended, his family and other
property owners are still subject to required permits and fees
for the use of their own land, even when the use is compatible
with railroad operations. He stated that two annual payments to
the railroad, one for the electric line and one for the
crossing, total $1000. The contract must be renewed every five
years, with an administrative cost of $250 to each. He stated
that the railroad dictates nonnegotiable terms for each
contract, such as a requirement for liability insurance for $2
billion. The current contract requires that the crossing gate
be locked, with the key distribution controlled by the railroad.
To cross their own property, he concluded that his family has
paid ARRC $20,000 in fees over the last 10 years. He argued
that this is unreasonable and unfair.
2:44:46 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."
2:50:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, in wrap up, stated that HB 136 would affirm
the legislature's oversight rule of ARRC. He added that any
questions on policy would not need to go through litigation, as
the proposed legislation would establish policy on the
relationship between the railroad and landowners, especially
concerning easements on private property. He argued that
decisions should not be made exclusively in ARRC's boardroom;
rather, the interest of the landowners should be considered,
permitting safe operations on easements that are not interfering
with railroad operations.
2:52:27 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID made closing comments.
[HB 136 was held over.]