Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/08/2025 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 | |
| HB136 | |
| HB217 | |
| Presentation: Highway Safety Improvement Plan Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 136-RAILROAD UTILITY CORRIDORS
1:07:26 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 136, "An Act relating to use of railroad
easements." [Before the committee, passed on 05/06/25, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 136, Version 34-
LS0640\H, Walsh, 4/28/25, ("Version H").
1:08:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
CSHB 136, Version H, would affirm the state's right and the
state's obligation to set policy for the management of the
Alaska Railroad easements. He reasoned that because the Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC) is state owned, the state holds the
authority to determine the usage of the railroad right-of-way.
He explained that Version H is about the balance between the
operational needs of the railroad and those Alaskans who own the
land beneath the easement. He stated that the proposed bill
would reaffirm usage of the right-of-way by property owners, as
long as the usage would not unreasonably interfere with railroad
operations. He gave a brief overview of the court cases
affirming this standard.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP acknowledged the concern that the proposed
legislation could preclude the railroad's ability to authorize
public trails along the right-of-way. He pointed out that an
amendment has clarified this issue. He added that public trail
approval is addressed by a different piece of proposed
legislation, HB 142. He maintained that Version H would not
interfere with ARRC's ability to coordinate with state or local
governments and public works; however, it would set a clear
policy for those who own land under the easement. He stated
that the proposed bill is about respect for private property and
urged the committee's support.
1:10:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 136,
labeled 34-LS0640\H.5, Walsh, 5/7/25, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "The corporation shall allow"
Insert "(a) Except as provided in (b) of this
section, the corporation may not charge a fee or
require a permit for"
Page 2, following line 10:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) 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."
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA explained that Amendment 1 is in response to
the discussion concerning ARRC's ability to charge fees in the
future. She stated that Version H would codify the railroad's
current process, while the amendment would assure property
owners that they are not charged fees on easement usage, even if
ARRC changes its leadership. She pointed out that the policy of
revenue-neutral crossings would continue. She said she had
worked with the bill sponsor and ARRC to develop the amendment.
She added that the amendment would ensure the proposed
legislation would be about property rights, and not trail
issues.
1:12:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE discussed the need for a conceptual
amendment to Amendment 1. He pointed out that Amendment 1 would
deal with fees and permits that AARC could charge property
owners. Following this same logic, the prospective conceptual
amendment to Amendment 1 would apply to fees charged to state
agencies and public utilities. He argued that a state-owned
corporation should not be able to charge state agencies, as this
would only shift public dollars from one agency to another.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE continued that the conceptual amendment
would add a new subsection to prohibit ARRC from charging state
agencies or public utilities fees to use railway utility
corridors. He reasoned that Amendment 1 would be addressing
fees; therefore, this would be the time to create the language.
For example, he noted that the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the Matanuska Electrical
Association (MEA) are both paying fees to the railroad to use
the right-of-way. He maintained that the conceptual amendment
would stop the shifting of the state's money.
1:14:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1. He explained that this would insert a new
subsection in Amendment 1, following subsection (b), and it
would read, "The corporation may not charge a state agency or
public utility a fee to use a railway utility corridor."
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:15:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:15 p.m. to 1:17 p.m.
1:17:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA expressed appreciation, as ARRC's fees
should be transparent; however, she expressed opposition to
Conceptual Amendment 1. She argued that it does not belong in
the proposed amendment. She explained that the intent of the
proposed legislation would be to codify the Alaska Railroad's
current practices. She surmised that Amendment 1 would assuage
property owners, who feel they may be charged in the future by
the railroad for access to their property on the right-of-way.
She reasoned that Conceptual Amendment 1 would create a new
policy, which would not reflect the current policy.
1:18:58 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK requested comments from ARRC.
1:19:16 PM
MEGHAN CLEMANS, External Affairs Director, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, concerning Conceptual Amendment 1, pointed out that
there are real expenses associated with rail crossings. She
acknowledged that the railroad could not block railroad-crossing
access across the state; however, she pointed out that rail
crossings are a burden to the rail system. She explained that
it is a standard in the railroad business for users to assume
the cost and maintenance of crossings, because crossings are a
benefit to the users, but a burden to the railroad. She pointed
out that in 1988 a policy was created between ARRC and DOT&PF.
This policy covers new applications for road crossings,
diagnostics, and the entities sharing the expense.
MS. CLEMANS stated that it would be a concern for ARRC to assume
all the expenses for rail crossings. She maintained that the
crossing program has been designed to be revenue neutral, as it
is not a profit source. She emphasized that there are real
expenses in building the railroad infrastructure and meeting the
regulatory requirements, which are the expenses passed along to
users.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK requested an estimate of state agency fees and
public utility fees taken in by ARRC.
MS. CLEMANS responded that she does not have current numbers
available, but expressed the understanding that in 2022, from a
real estate perspective, the railroad took in around $82,000 in
fees, and from an annual signal maintenance perspective, it took
in around $250,000 in fees.
1:23:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned the basis of the fees. She
expressed the understanding that it would be the railroad's
actual expense to maintain the crossings.
MS. CLEMANS answered in the affirmative. She explained that
ARRC fees would include internal administrative time, such as
reporting to the Federal Railroad Administration. Track and
crossing inspections would also be included in the fees, and she
pointed out that these occur throughout the year, with crossing
inspections occurring more frequently. She added that
incidental crossing costs would be covered under annual permit
fees. She stated that the study by the diagnostic team is an
expensive process, which could involve ARRC, DOT&PF,
municipalities, school districts, and law enforcement. These
studies would involve determining the new location of a crossing
and the type of crossing. She stated that a study could cost
over $10,000, adding that the railroad attempts to inform
applicants of this cost when the applications are made.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES acknowledged that a [1988] agreement
already exists between DOT&PF and ARRC. She questioned the
appropriateness of the legislature to "get in the middle of it."
She requested that ARRC report back to the committee the actual
revenue it is receiving.
1:26:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the yearly maintenance cost of
a utility that is buried alongside the railroad. He referred to
a conversation with ENSTAR Natural Gas Company about the cost of
putting a pipeline along the railroad in Port MacKenzie. He
questioned the maintenance cost of an already buried pipeline
along the railroad. He opined that it would need no
maintenance.
MS. CLEMANS responded that for fees for utilities, ARRC uses the
[statutory-mandated] model for a self-sustaining corporation.
She stated that in this case a fee for longitudinal utility
lines would be charged and rolled into ARRC's real estate
revenue; however, maintenance fees would be charged on a
revenue-neutral basis, which can include reimbursable costs.
1:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the concern that, through
utilities and state agencies, the railroad would be charging
Alaskans for the use of the land they own. He explained that
this is the reasoning behind the conceptual amendment.
1:30:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that ENSTAR is a private corporation
and agreed that it should be charged. She questioned whether
ARRC's financial information is available to the public.
MS. CLEMANS responded that ARRC's financials are available in
its annual report.
1:31:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed appreciation for Amendment 1 and
Conceptual Amendment 1. Concerning the rate that utilities pay
for corridor usage, he pointed out ENSTAR and MEA have both
commented on ARRC's [high] rates. He expressed the
understanding that ENSTAR "pays more for one mile of access to
the right-of-way" than it does for "the other 800 miles of
pipeline right-of-way in Alaska." He expressed the
understanding that the conceptual amendment would provide a
check and balance of the rate structures. He suggested that
DOT&PF pays around $1.6 million in fees to the railroad because
of crossings.
1:33:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE reasoned that because ENSTAR is a private
utility company, costs would be passed to Alaskans via a rate
increase. He expressed the understanding that these rates could
not be negotiated.
1:34:33 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed confusion on the difference in the
costs that have been quoted. He expressed interest in seeing
the [1988] agreement, the numbers printed out, and testimony
from DOT&PF and ENSTAR. Without these conversations, he stated
that he could not support the conceptual amendment.
1:35:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES concurred with the basis of the conceptual
amendment; however, the [1988] agreement between the state and
the railroad needs to be understood. She expressed uncertainty
on the "fallout" from Amendment 1 with Conceptual Amendment 1.
1:36:12 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed support for the "spirit" of the
amendment, and she expressed concern on the amount of the fees
discussed. She questioned the details of the charges,
especially concerning the utilities. She stated that without
having this information, she would be unable to decide on the
[conceptual] amendment. She questioned DOT&PF concerning the
fees it pays to ARRC.
1:37:15 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, responded that from fiscal year 21 (FY21) to FY25,
the railroad charged DOT&PF $1.6 million for the Northern
Region. He noted that he could also provide the Central
Region's fee. He continued that DOT&PF has been charged annual
railroad-signal maintenance fees of around $500,000. He
suggested that the conversations on the different fees should be
kept separate.
1:38:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted the 1988 agreement between the
railroad and DOT&PF. He questioned whether this had to do with
signal maintenance and road crossings, but not with right-of-way
fees.
MR. MILLS expressed uncertainty on this, and he offered to
follow up with the information after the meeting.
1:39:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the desire to not "torpedo" or
delay the proposed legislation with the conceptual amendment.
He questioned the will of the committee.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK suggested that he withdraw the conceptual
amendment, as more information would be necessary to continue
the discussion. She maintained her objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
1:40:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to withdraw Conceptual Amendment 1,
to Amendment 1. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment
1 was withdrawn.
1:40:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed appreciation for Amendment 1 to
Version H. He noted the previous testimony of a landowner who
has a private rail crossing, and he pointed out the many homes
in Seward with private rail crossings. He expressed the
understanding that these landowners are paying $1,000 a year in
fees to ARRC. He expressed disbelief that this amount would be
"revenue neutral," as these fees are onerous to the landowners.
He expressed support for Amendment 1, and he questioned the
definition of "revenue neutral."
1:42:52 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK withdrew her objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:43:11 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed her appreciation for the proposed
bill and the stakeholder discussion that ensued. She pointed
out the public comments concerning land management around the
railroad right-of-way, as there appears to be a need for
classification.
1:44:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA thanked the bill sponsor, and she thanked
the public advocates for their input. She reiterated that the
discussion on the rights of property owners is important. She
pointed out the discussion is not only about trails, but it is
also about fees and reconciling the differences between the
railroad and property owners.
1:45:38 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed appreciation for the robust
discussion that the proposed legislation created. He noted that
the process has been educational, and the history is interesting
in terms of the distrust it has created. He expressed
appreciation for the consideration for the committee substitute,
which recognizes potential trail usage in the right-of-way. He
recognized that the proposed legislation is not "a trail's
issue." He also pointed out the importance of definitions in
all legislation.
1:47:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:47 p.m. to 1:48 p.m.
1:48:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 136, Version 34-
LS0640\H, Walsh, 4/28/25, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 136(TRA) was reported out of the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 217 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Version A.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| HB 217 Letter of Opposition, Alliance for Automotive Innovation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| House Bill 217 Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 |
| DOTPF HSIP Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 136 Amendment H.5.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| House Bill 217 Support Letter Teamsters 959 051225.pdf |
HTRA 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 217 HB 217 Support Letter Teamsters 959 |