Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/06/2025 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 | |
| HB167 | |
| HB136 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 136 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 136-RAILROAD UTILITY CORRIDORS
[Contains discussion of HB 142.]
1:25:58 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 136, "An Act relating to use of railroad
easements."
1:26:17 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 136, Version 34-LS0640\H, Walsh, 4/28/25,
("Version H") as a working document.
1:26:36 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:26:54 PM
GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, Staff, Representative Ashley Carrick, on behalf
of Representative Carrick, gave the explanation of changes on
Version H, [copy included in the committee packet] which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 3 is amended by removing line 11 of the
original bill which stated "for the purpose of the
easement."
1:27:30 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK explained that the change was made to align the
intent of the proposed legislation with received testimony. She
stated that, concerning the use of easements, Version H would
reflect the Alaska Railroad Corporation's (ARRC's) obligation to
work with potential trail users, trail projects, and others.
1:28:17 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed agreement with the explanation,
stating that by working with the sponsor's office, the language
has been clarified. He added that the change would keep the
original intent of the proposed legislation intact.
1:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, for the record, commented that the
proposed legislation would address the entire railroad, which is
635 miles, and it would not be specific to a 3-mile section and
the trail users in Anchorage. He pointed out that individuals
in Fairbanks have different issues. He emphasized that the bill
would affect the entire railroad; therefore, any decision made
on a small section should be examined thoroughly.
1:30:12 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed the opinion that Version H would
better reflect the underlying intent of having ARRC work with
those who have other, noninterfering uses for easement
properties.
1:31:05 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Version H was before the committee.
1:32:04 PM
BILL O'LEARY, President, CEO, Alaska Railroad Corporation,
provided invited testimony on the proposed CS for HB 136,
Version H. He expressed the opinion that the plain language in
the proposed legislation already "mirrors" ARRC's practices.
However, after the previous hearing [held on 4/1/2025], he
stated that he had made the realization that more, far-reaching
consequences could result from different interpretations of the
language. He pointed out that during the previous meeting
"blurry areas" concerning the quiet title in the case of Alaska
Railroad Corporation v. Flying Crown Subdivision Addition, No. 1
& NO. 2, et al, (9th Cir. 2023) had been discussed. He stated
that this issue and others would be addressed in the upcoming
presentation, along with ARRC's perspective. He said, "We do,
respectfully, disagree with some of the conclusions that were
drawn as a result of the last presentation."
1:34:03 PM
MEGHAN CLEMANS, External Affairs Director, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, presented the PowerPoint, titled "HB 136: Railroad
Utility Corridors" [hard copy included in the committee packet].
She began by addressing the background of the case law and
standards for the railroad industry. She addressed the Flying
Crown case, stating that the dispute really began around 15
years ago, when ARRC introduced a new right-of-way policy, which
created a charge for usage. Because of negative feedback, this
policy was rescinded, and ARRC no longer charges for the
residential usage of the right-of-way. Before this, she stated
that a letter had been received from the Flying Crown
Subdivision requesting that the railroad relinquish the
exclusive use of easements in the right-of-way. In pursuit of
clarity, she stated that ARRC had initiated a quiet title action
to understand its property interest in the easement.
MS. CLEMANS, concerning the quiet title, pointed to slide 2
showing the two key questions: the federal government's interest
in creating ARRC's right-of-way, and the interest in the right-
of-way conveyed by the federal government to the state at the
time of transfer in 1985.
1:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE requested the definitions of "easement,"
"exclusive-use easement," and "right-of-way."
MS. CLEMANS suggested that the presentation continue, as these
definitions would be explained.
1:38:04 PM
MS. CLEMANS moved from slide 3 through slide 5 to provide the
answers to the questions on slide 2. She pointed out that the
1914 Alaska Railroad Act had not defined the federal
government's property interest in the right-of-way; therefore,
the issue has been debated. In its analysis, she said that the
court looked at legal precedent in the Lower 48 and at the fact
that the federal government had originally owned the Alaska
Railroad.
MS. CLEMANS, concerning the legal precedent in the Lower 48,
noted that easements were created in the 1875 General Railroad
Right-of-Way Act, which determined that railroads do not have
subsurface mineral rights or reversionary rights; however, she
pointed out that there was never a ruling on exclusive-use
rights. She continued that Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v.
United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014) had ruled that railroads have
the right to exclude others from the right-of-way because "a
railroad easement is exclusive in character."
MS. CLEMANS, concerning the federal ownership question,
reiterated that the federal government's interest in easement
property had not been addressed in the 1914 Act, but the court
has since reasoned that the federal government would not have
given itself a lesser property interest than other railroads in
the 1875 Act; therefore, the federal government had reserved the
right-of-way for itself. She added that other railroads
retained an exclusive-use easement at the time. She stated that
the courts established precedent, issuing that when land grants
are ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the
sovereign grantor, which was the federal government. She added
that in the [1982 Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (ARTA)] the U.S.
Congress issued that the federal government held either a fee
simple interest or exclusive-use easement in the full right-of-
way of the Alaska Railroad.
1:41:19 PM
MS. CLEMANS moved to slide 6 and addressed the definition of
"exclusive-use easement." She pointed out ARTA determined that
the Alaska Railroad's exclusive control over the right-of-way
would be necessary for the safe and economic operation of the
railroad, and it was determined that the federal government must
grant the state an easement that is "not less than an exclusive-
use easement." She directed attention to the definition on the
slide, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
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;
1:42:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the difference in the
proportion of the right-of-way held in fee simple versus
exclusive use. He questioned how the proposed legislation would
affect this.
MS. CLEMANS expressed uncertainty concerning the difference the
railroad holds in fee simple interest versus exclusive-use
easements. She stated that the language in the bill is specific
to underlying property owners; therefore, it would not affect
sections of the right-of-way held in fee simple; however, it
could affect exclusive-use areas.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE directed attention to the language in ARTA
concerning the safe and economic operation of the railroad. He
suggested that this language would not address allowing the use
of a trail on an easement by a third party. He argued that, in
issuing the right-of-way, the federal government would be
strictly concerned with safety. He pointed out the conflict
over this, reasoning that the property belongs to an owner who
would have these rights in any other situation other than with
the railroad. He referenced the three-mile [trail] discussed
earlier in the meeting. He questioned the railroad's
perspective on this.
MS. CLEMANS stated that other uses of the utility corridor have
been defined in state statute and ARTA, including for the
purposes of transportation, communication, and transmission.
She pointed out that state statute specifically addresses
approval for trails in the right-of-way.
1:44:57 PM
MS. CLEMANS pointed out that in the Flying Crown case the courts
had sided with ARRC, upholding the exclusive-use easement, as
defined in ARTA. She directed attention to the excerpts from
the court on slide 7, which explained the difference between
railroad easements and other easements. She paraphrased from
the slide, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Excerpt from the Ninth Circuit opinion:
Safe and efficient operation requires railroads to
have the ability to exclude anyone, including the
servient estate owner, at any time.
Railroad rights-of-way are necessarily different than
traditional easements because of the purpose of the
easement.
Logically, the scope of an easement intended to
facilitate the passage of large, fast-moving machinery
differs from, say, an easement to walk across a
neighbor's land to access the beach.
The purpose of the 1914 Actto provide a railroad for
the territory of Alaskais best served by an
exclusive-use easement.
1:46:07 PM
MS. CLEMANS transitioned to slide 8 and slide 9 and acknowledged
the language change in Version H. She reiterated that the
proposed legislation would largely mirror ARRC's existing
practices. She noted that the railroad no longer charges fees
for the use of the right-of-way, and adjacent homeowners can use
the outer edges of the right-of-way for lawns, gardens, and
other approved uses, in respect to safety and efficiency of the
railroad. She expressed confusion over the intent of the
proposed legislation. She pointed out that ARRC became
concerned after the previous hearing [on 04/01/25], as the
intent of the proposed legislation seemed to go beyond codifying
the railroad's existing practices, undermining the legal
precedent on exclusive-use easements.
MS. CLEMANS addressed AARC's general concerns regarding the
proposed legislation, as seen on slide 10 and slide 11. She
noted that an over-arching concern is the lack of clarity for
the practical application of the proposed legislation, as it is
unclear what the legislation would be changing. She explained
that ARRC is a separate legal entity than the state, and with
greater management of the right-of-way, the state's liability
could increase, along with regulatory obligation. She added
that currently ARRC is charged with this responsibility. She
continued that promoting private usage and development of the
right-of-way would erode the available land within the
continuous utility corridor. In reference to utilities, she
emphasized the value of this land to Alaskans, of which the
railroad is statutorily mandated to protect.
1:50:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, concerning safety, acknowledged that ARRC
has authority over the right-of-way. He directed attention to
slide 11 and questioned the length of an extension of the right-
of-way onto a property owner's easement. He questioned the
Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA's) requirements
concerning safe usage on a property owner's easement.
MS. CLEMANS responded that ARTA has defined the right-of-way as
100 feet from either side of the centerline of the tracks, as
seen on the example on slide 11. The slide showed homes
adjacent to the tracks, with lawns extended well into the
railroad's right-of-way. She added that her statement is not in
criticism of these homeowners, as this is an older neighborhood,
[pre-ARTA]. She explained that this particular usage would
conflict with other public-benefit usages on the corridor. In
reference to this, she discussed the trail proposal, adding that
the railroad is responsible for protecting property for utility
usage.
MR. O'LEARY added that freight cars can be 80-feet long, and
derailments could occur. He stated these cars could go sideways
until the train is able to stop. He advised the committee that
having 100 feet of the right-of-way on either side of the
railroad is not an arbitrary decision; rather, FRA has
determined this length for safety. He emphasized that safety
for the railroad is a core concern.
1:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, concerning FRA's safety requirements,
argued that trails should not be placed in the right-of-way.
MR. O'LEARY responded that trails in the right-of-way are not
taken "lightly," and ARRC would require an indemnity. He
expressed the understanding that trail organizations are aware
of the risks. He added that statutorily this would be allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned who would need the indemnity
clause. He opined that this discussion should end any trail
projects in the right-of-way.
MS. CLEMENS responded that the municipalities would assume the
indemnity for the trails. She pointed out that statute allows
trails on the right-of-way in individual stretches, but it would
be based on safety. She pointed out that there are 600-plus
miles of tracks, so there would be variations to consider.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed confusion on the railroad's
ability to install a trail, while landowners are not able to use
their easements because of safety issues. He opined whether
this is hypocrisy.
1:59:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned the difference between ARRC's
right-of-way usage for railroad, telegraph, and telephone versus
ARTA's designation for railroad right-of-way usage.
MS. CLEMANS responded that the 1914 Act designated the right-of-
way for railroad, telegraph, and telephone purposes, while in
1982 ARTA defined the right-of-way for transportation,
communication, and transmission purposes. She pointed out that
this is a more expansive view of how the right-of-way would be
used today.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA noted that, statutorily, the railroad has
the ability to have trails on the right-of-way. Other than the
Fish Creek Trail, she questioned other instances when the
railroad had allowed trails and instances of conflict with
homeowners over the allowance.
MS. CLEMANS expressed the understanding that, at the time of
construction, the [Tony Knowles Coastal Trail], which goes along
the right-of-way, had been a point of discussion among the
adjacent homeowners. She added that she was not part of this
discussion.
2:01:59 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID directed attention to property owners
developing into the right-of-way, as seen on slide 11. He
questioned whether they pay additional property taxes.
MS. CLEMANS expressed the understanding that the Municipality of
Anchorage does not tax the property underneath the right-of-way.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned the limit into the right-of-way the
landowners could develop.
MR. O'LEARY responded that this is dependent on variables, such
as the train's speed limit, the topography, and whether the
property development is new or existing. He noted that the
usage for the Fish Creek Trail is 75 feet from the centerline.
2:04:34 PM
MS. CLEMANS, in response to Representative McCabe, clarified
that the picture on slide 11 shows the property boundaries in
red, which is the outer edge of the right-of-way. She noted
that the property shown in the photo was sold in a homestead
patent, so the land under the right-of-way would not be owned by
the railroad.
2:05:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES questioned whether any homeowners are
being taxed for usage of the railroad right-of-way.
MS. CLEMANS expressed uncertainty of any homeowners being taxed,
as ARRC would not be notified of this transaction. She
expressed the understanding that there was one instance when the
railroad responded with a letter in support of a homeowner who
had received a tax notification.
2:06:35 PM
MS. CLEMANS returned to the presentation on slide 12 and stated
that the railroad does not contend it has a fee simple interest
in the land underneath the easement along the Fish Creek Trail;
however, she pointed out the uncertainty whether an adjacent
property owner would be the underlying property owner. She
explained that homestead patents could have been subdivided into
parcels, with the land under the right-of-way not included. She
added that an operating railroad has not always been on top of
the land. She continued that the railroad does not require
proof of underlying ownership; however, it would be unclear how
the proposed legislation would affect this. She pointed out
this would be an example of an unintended consequence of the
bill.
MS. CLEMANS moving to slide 13, directed attention to ARRC's
current policies and practices. She expressed the belief that
these are consistent with the stated intent of the proposed
bill. If easement usage does not conflict with the railroad's
purpose, she pointed out that fees are not charged. She
explained that the crossing policy is designed to be revenue
neutral, only covering any expenses to the railroad. Next, she
pointed out that ARRC is [statutorily] charged with preserving
the integrity of the utility corridor along the railroad. She
noted that there have been right-of-way disagreements; however,
the state-owned model has offered effective and meaningful
channels for public feedback. She emphasized that the railroad
is responsive to community concerns, pointing out that it
stopped charging fees in result of the Flying Crown dispute.
MS. CLEMANS, concluding the presentation on slide 14, stated
that ARRC is not adversarial to the proposed legislation, as it
is already meeting the proposals. She offered that it shares
the goal of having positive relationships with adjacent property
owners.
2:10:53 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK opened public testimony on HB 136.
2:11:07 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.
2:13:47 PM
DAVID POST, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
136. He shared that he lives close to the area of the Fish
Creek Trail. He pointed out that the quality of life in
Anchorage attracts businesses and creates jobs. He stated that
he is an avid trail user and expressed concern for the
unintended consequences of the proposed legislation on trails
across the state. He testified in support of public trails in
the state.
2:17:13 PM
TOM ATKINSON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
136. He directed attention to Version H, and he recommended a
change to some of the language, including the usage of the word
"unreasonably" in Section 3. He argued that this usage could be
used in court against the Fish Creek Trail connection project.
He directed the committee to read his written testimony [copy
included in the committee packet]. He said, "It appears the
prime sponsor has a conflict of interest here," as his company
represents the principal opponents of the Fish Creek Trail
project. He pointed out that during the 04/01/25 hearing on the
proposed legislation, the prime sponsor had said he has no
clients who would be affected by HB 136. He expressed the
opinion that there could be a conflict of interest.
2:19:58 PM
MICHAL STRYSZAK, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 136. He shared that his family lives in West Anchorage, and
he expressed the belief that the trail system is a major asset,
as it draws people to the city. He expressed support for the
extension of the Fish Creek Trail, as his sons bicycle to school
and he bicycles to work, and the current route connects onto an
unsafe, busy road. He discussed that some who oppose the
extension of the trail are clients of [the sponsor], as this
would be a conflict of interest. He urged the committee to "not
allow a handful of landowners to stop what so many in the
community want." He expressed the belief that the passage of
the proposed legislation would jeopardize the Fish Creek Trail
extension project.
2:22:54 PM
BONNIE WOLDSTAD, representing self, provided public testimony in
support of HB 136. She commented on the hypocrisy of Alaska, as
the state fights for property rights, but it does not respect
its citizens in the same fight. She shared that her family has
the remaining portion of a homestead patented by the U.S.
government, which predates the Alaska Railroad. She stated that
since initial ownership, her family has purchased an additional
homestead and the railroad traverses this. Concerning railroad
easements, she reviewed the history of actions taken by the
federal government and the courts. She pointed out that during
the creation of [ARTA], land issues had been a key concern.
During that process, she argued lands with patented homesteads
were supposed to be addressed. She directed attention to [45
U.S. Code 1203] of ARTA, stating that all unresolved claims were
to be adjudicated within three years. She pointed out the court
opinion, which gave the railroad exclusive use of easements, did
not address third-party claims on the easements. She argued
that the railroad has now received patents on properties that
were already patented. She argued that HB 136 would be a good
starting point on investigating this issue so adjudications on
claims could be finalized.
2:26:57 PM
JOE MATHIS, representing self, stated he is testifying on behalf
of the Langford family, who has owned a 160-acre homestead in
the state for 69 years. He said that before the state ownership
of the railroad, his relatives had helped install the railroad
crossing on the property. He stated that the crossing had been
established 68 years ago; however, since the ownership of the
Alaska Railroad transferred to the state, there have been annual
permit fees, totaling $1,000 annually. He pointed out that one
of the permits is for an underground electric line to power his
home, while the other is a crossing permit. He argued that the
fees are unreasonable. He added that every 5 years there is
also a $250 permit renewal fee. He stated that a clause in the
contract would allow ARRC to change the terms at any time. He
expressed support for HB 136, as it would protect the property
rights of Alaskans.
2:30:24 PM
LARRY LAU, representing self, provided public testimony in
support of HB 136. He stated that he has lived in South
Anchorage for 52 years, living for the past 38 years near the
railroad tracks. He noted his background in land title
management, stating that his family members have a patent in the
ARRC right-of-way. He stated that he had worked on the Flying
Crown case. He expressed support for HB 136, as it would be a
"reasonable solution to the inherent conflicts."
2:31:54 PM
JAMES BROOKS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
136. He shared that he lives on Turnagain Street and is the
owner of the Rustic Goat, the apartments next door, and the
Alaska Rock Gym. He noted that his background is in finance,
and he owns property along the railroad. He expressed
opposition to HB 136, as there would be unintended consequences.
He expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation would not
be the tool to mitigate easement disputes. He pointed out his
experience in arbitrating and mediating easement disputes,
stating that the process is expensive. He expressed support for
the Fish Creek Trail extension project, as it offers a safe
alternative to biking in the area. He advised the committee
that the trail issue could be resolved through a mediated
settlement; otherwise, federal funding for the trail project
could be jeopardized.
2:34:55 PM
MARIE FRANCIS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
136. She cautioned that elevating the interest of private
landowners over the public good would create unintended
consequences. She expressed the opinion that the green belt is
the pride of Anchorage, improving the quality of life in the
city. She referenced the prospective Alaska Long Trail and
expressed concern that HB 136 could have adverse effects on this
project. She urged the committee to oppose the proposed
legislation.
2:36:25 PM
SADIE ARNESON, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
136. She shared that she works in public health and public
health research. She explained that her home is next to Fish
Creek, and for safe access to downtown on the Coastal Trail, she
must cross a main road. She addressed the comment from
Representative McCabe concerning safety along the railroad
corridor. She argued that the prospective Fish Creek Trail
connector along the railroad would provide a safer corridor for
people to access downtown. She noted that she serves on the
[Anchorage Trails Advisory Group], and it has received
"overwhelming support for connector trails for safe corridors
across Anchorage." She expressed the opinion that the proposed
legislation represents a conflict of interest for the prime
sponsor. She advised that the committee should invite planners
from the Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department for comment,
as they have invested time and work into the Fish Creek Trail
project.
2:38:35 PM
ROBERT GASTROCK, representing self, provided public testimony in
support of HB 136. He argued that the proposed legislation
would protect the property rights of homeowners "burdened" by
the ARRC right-of-way. He argued that the proposed legislation
is not about the trail system; rather, it would address land
usage within the easement by property owners if the usage does
not interfere with railroad operations. He said that it would
preclude "arbitrary extortion" by ARRC. He shared that he is a
long-time Anchorage resident and lives in the Flying Crown
Subdivision. Concerning ARRC, he spoke about the easement
situation in the subdivision, explaining that when the federal
government owned the railroad, the relationship had been
mutually supportive; however, after ARTA and state control, the
railroad began monetizing the right-of-way. He reviewed the
Flying Crown lawsuit, resulting in ARRC's "total control" of the
easement. He expressed the understanding that the result of the
case has also removed the judicial process as a way for conflict
resolution in these situations. He argued that the state has
the authority to set the management policies for railroad right-
of-way usage. He requested that the committee "properly
exercise" this authority by passing HB 136.
2:42:33 PM
NANCY PEAFE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
136. She shared that she is a lifelong resident of Anchorage.
She pointed out that Alaska is the largest state in the country
and expressed the opinion that the proposed bill would threaten
public access to the state's land. She argued that the proposed
legislation would create the unintended consequences of future
denial of public access along the entire railroad corridor,
including the prospective Alaska Long Trail. She expressed the
opinion that this trail is one of the "best" infrastructure
ideas for the state. She argued that every landowner on the
right-of-way purchased this land with the knowledge there could
be imposed constraints. She stated that opposing HB 136 would
serve the public interest by allowing potential trail access
along the railroad corridor.
2:44:28 PM
BETH NORDLUND, Executive Director, Anchorage Park Foundation,
testified in opposition to HB 136. She stated that the
Anchorage Park Foundation supports trail connectivity. She
stated that 94 percent of the residents of Anchorage have
reported trail usage within the last year. She offered to help
resolve any issues with the bill sponsor. She expressed the
belief that ARRC should not be "trampling" property rights,
adding that the Fish Creek Trail project has been undergoing the
development process for years, and it has a large amount of
neighborhood support.
2:46:00 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wish to testify, closed public testimony on HB 136.
2:46:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, spoke to the proposed CS for HB 136, Version H. He
expressed the opinion that HB 142 would be the proposed
legislation that pertains to trail usage, the railroad, and
landowners' consent concerning public recreation projects. He
argued that Version H would not affect trail projects or public
usage along the railroad right-of-way; instead, it would protect
property owners' noninterfering usage of their land underlying
the easement. Concerning the testimony from Joe Mathis and his
yearly fees, he clarified that Mr. Mathis owns a single track of
land on both sides of the railway. He reiterated that Version H
would be "narrowly focused" on protecting the individual
landowner's right to a noninterfering usage, but it would not
address the railroad's statutory allowances.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP addressed the claim by ARRC that the
proposed legislation would undermine its exclusive use of the
easements; however, the Supreme Court of the United States has
already ruled on this in Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United
States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), which said "easements are
nonpossessory and purpose limited." He continued, arguing that
ARRC "cherry picked" a quote from ARTA, which deals with Native
land claims. He stated that in Great Northern Railway Co. v.
United States, 315 U.S. 262 (1942), the Supreme Court of the
United States said that railroads have easements only on other
people's land, and the owners of the underlying property possess
an interest. He stated that Version H would simply honor this
court authority.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that "actions do matter," as in 2003
ARRC went to the U.S. Congress, without notifying the state, to
remove the reversionary interest from ARTA. This reversionary
interest would allow the land to go back to landowners if the
railroad were removed. He continued that in 2006 ARRC got an
exclusive-use land patent over the entire Anchorage area and up
into the Matanuska-Susitna Valley without telling the state. He
pointed out that the Flying Crown lawsuit had used the "weight"
of a public corporation against landowners, emphasizing the
importance of the right-of-way for ARRC. He expressed the
belief that there should be a management policy that says, "Be a
good neighbor," letting underlying landowners have
noninterfering uses without fees. He argued that currently the
interest is not balanced, especially where the railroad crosses
private property. He concluded that the proposed legislation
would create a management policy to allow the legislature to
give guidance, and it would not amend any language concerning
trails.
2:52:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that, after
speaking with the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, the bill would not affect the Fish Creek Trail
extension project. He stated that the individuals expressing
support for the trail might find a solution in HB 142.
2:52:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, addressing the statements concerning his
conflict of interest, said that he "has no clients on these
matters." He continued that he has fought for property rights
of individuals who live along the right-of-way since 2016.
2:53:24 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned whether, under Section 3 of the
proposed legislation, a trail could be put on the edge of the
right-of-way, adjacent to property lines, as seen on slide 11.
He suggested that this could remove a property owner's lawns or
gardens.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded that the proposed bill would not
change any current statute allowing the railroad to create a
public recreation project in the right-of-way. He noted that
ARRC has said it would work with landowners, and Version H would
only codify ARRC standards. He reiterated that HB 142 would
address this question.
2:56:43 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned whether Version H would allow
property owners to sue the state successfully over trail
development on easement property.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed the understanding that the
proposed bill would not change anything regarding this. He
stated that it would not offer more or less protection than what
already exists. He reiterated that his main concern is the
underlying landowners with easements crossing their land, as
they should be allowed noninterfering uses on their land. He
reiterated that any other permitted usage inside the right-of-
way would be up to the Alaska Railroad. He reviewed his
understanding of ARRC's process for the approval of projects.
He stated that the proposed legislation would be beneficial to
all Alaskans who live along the railroad, and it would not be
about a small portion of the railroad track in Anchorage. He
reiterated that this would allow the legislature to give
guidance to the Alaska Railroad.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID, for the record, stated that his priority is
for his district in Anchorage.
2:59:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA, for the record, clarified that HB 142 would
be the specific legislation that addresses public management of
trail access within 100 feet of the right-of-way. She
questioned whether Version H would be specific to ARRC's ability
to charge fees to homeowners.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded in the affirmative. He stated
that, concerning property owners, the proposed legislation would
make sure the right-of-way is not monetized.
3:00:28 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that CSHB 136, Version H, was held
over.
3:01:16 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 167 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 167 |
| HB 167 Supporting Document Version A.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 167 |
| HB 167 Version A.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 167 |
| ARRC - HB136 - 05.06.25.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| CSHB 136 Ver H.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| HB 136 Letters of Opposition 5.2.2025-5.5.2025.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| HB 136 Letters of Support 5.5.2025-5.6.2025.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| CSHB 136 Ver H.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| HB 136 Summary of Changes Vers G to H.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| HB 136 Letters of Opposition 5.5.25-5.6.25.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 136 |
| HB 167 Fiscal Note DOT-NRHA-05-02-2025.pdf |
HTRA 5/6/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 167 |