Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/27/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| Lt. Governor Successor | |
| HCR22 | |
| HJR38 | |
| HB184 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HCR 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 38-AK RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT; CONVEYANCES
3:40:40 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38, Relating to certain
conveyances to the Alaska Railroad Corporation under the Alaska
Railroad Transfer Act of 1982.
3:41:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HJR 38, relayed that he has been working on the issue
addressed by HJR 38 with many Alaskan residents, from south of
the Denali Borough down through the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su")
Valley into Palmer, Anchorage, and Seward. The issue impacts
thousands of Alaskans. He referred to his PowerPoint
presentation, entitled "HJR - Restoring Property Rights," and
pointed out the quote by John Locke on slide 1, which read:
"Government has no other end, but the preservation of property."
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP turned to slide 2, entitled "What's the
Harm?" and relayed that the harm that is being addressed by HJR
38 is that there was a property interest that was taken from
landowners along the Alaska Railroad (ARR) right-of-way (ROW) in
a way that circumvented the [U.S. and Alaska] Constitutions and
due process in the rule of law. Hundreds of landowners along
the ARR ROW now have a cloud on their property titles due to an
unlawful "exclusive-use easement" claim to the entire ROW. The
exclusive-use easement claim does not exist for any other
railroad in America.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued by saying that in 1875, Congress
announced that the U.S. government would no longer grant general
land grant railroads [General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875
("1875 Act")]. Land had been granted to the Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR) to incentivize its east-west route; that lead to
huge tracks of divided land; industry and farming could not
cross the rail belt without tariffs and fees; and it resulted in
a great deal of corruption. He relayed that beginning in 1875,
all railroads had surface easements only.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP relayed that the Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC) acted in violation of AS 42.40.285 in 2005 and 2006, when
it approached the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the U.S.
Department of the Interior (USDOI) without notifying the
legislature or governor of Alaska or any of the affected
landowners along the ROW and obtained an exclusive-use easement
patent on all the Homestead Act [1862] ("homestead") properties
along the ROW.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to slide 5, entitled "A Brief
History," and to the continuation on slide 6. He reminded the
committee that the ARR was formed by an Act of Congress in 1914;
between 1914 and 1982, there were hundreds of homestead patents
issued by the federal government to private landowners along the
ARR ROW; during that time, the federal government completely
divested itself of all ownership in that land and the land went
into private hands. He said that the only land that the U.S.
government reserved for itself was a ROW - a surface easement
for rail, telegraph, and telephone - consistent with all other
railroad easements in the country post 1875.
3:45:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to slide 7, entitled "What is a
standard railroad 'easement'?" and explained that the easement
is a 200-foot easement that extends 100 feet on either side of
the track; this is a limited surface easement; and according to
the 1875 Act, this was all railroads were to have from that time
forward. He directed the committee's attention to the document
included in the committee packet, entitled "HJR 38 Overview and
Backdrop," which gives a historical background. He stated that
today, the limited interest ROW - or surface easement - provides
the foundation for 80 percent of all the track mileage in the
nation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP relayed that using principles established in
the 1875 Act, the Alaska Railroad Act of 1914 ("1914 Act")
authorized the creation of ARR. He said that 1982 was the first
time the easement became an issue, and the following questions
were raised: "What does this easement mean?" "How exclusive is
it?" "Does the railroad actually have a fee simple interest in
the land?" He explained that under the Alaska Statehood Act [of
1958], the state selected ROW lands; ARRC claimed it owned the
land; the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) ruled that the
railroad did not own the land, but a surface easement only. The
ruling was based on a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1942, Great
Northern Railway Co. v. U.S., in which the court declared that a
railroad only has a surface easement, not fee ownership of the
land; that is, it does not have any outright ownership of the
land. The ruling was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in
2014 [Brandt Revocable Trust v. U.S.].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP cited the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court Case
Brandt Revocable Trust v. U.S. ruling: "The right of way was an
easement that was terminated by the railroad's abandonment,
leaving the property owner's land unburdened." The ruling went
on to say that the 1875 Act, upon which IBLA based its decision,
clearly states that the railroad only has an easement and
nothing more. He stated that the court adopted the U.S.
government's previous argument in full, which was that a
railroad only has a surface easement. He quoted from the
ruling, which read, "It found the 1875 Act's text 'wholly
inconsistent' with the grant of a fee interest." He explained
that a fee interest refers to owning land outright. The court
declared that the railroad does not have a fee interest; it does
not own the land; it has a surface easement only.
3:47:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP relayed that the opinion was dated March 10,
2014. Less than one month later, ARRC authored a ten-page legal
response to a constituent in Anchorage about concerns of the
railroad's fee interest claim in the ROW, as well as exclusive-
use easement allowing it to fence off all adjoining property
owners on homestead patent lands. He related that the ARRC told
the constituent that it had previously addressed the
constituent's concerns in a comprehensive memorandum explaining
that ARRC holds fee simple interest in most ARR ROWs and at
least an exclusive-use easement in all ROWs. Representative
Kopp exclaimed, "That is outrageous!" He stated that it was in
direct violation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued by saying that in 2017, the Alaska
Supreme Court ruled in Reeves v. Godspeed L.L.C that a surface
easement must allow the holder of that easement all necessary
control to safely conduct its operations but may not deny the
landowner proper use of the easement, if it doesn't interfere
with the holder's operations. He added that the case did not
involve a railroad, but it did address easements; the principle
is the same and continues as a legal basis. He maintained that
no credible argument can be made that an exclusive-use easement
belongs to ARRC without establishing what the private parties
owned when the federal government made the transfer to the State
of Alaska [under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (ARTA) of
1982].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to slide 8, entitled "What is an
'exclusive use easement'?" and said, "You may ask yourself, 'Why
is this such a big deal with the exclusive-use easement?'" He
relayed that the exclusive-use easement allows ARRC to fence off
and exclude any adjoining landowner for any purpose whatsoever.
He explained that doing so allows ARRC to build a fence through
the back yard of any properties built next to the ROW - many of
them built 40-50 years ago under original homestead patents.
Many of these properties have immaculately maintained yards
along the ARR ROWs or a boat or trailer in the yard that
homeowners would not be able to access. He stated that ARRC
claims that it needs to have the exclusive-use easements for
safety, but Representative Kopp maintained that the safety
problems have almost always occurred on public crossings and in
areas of public land use. The private property owners are some
of the best caretakers of the ROWs and the first to report a
problem to ARRC, because it is their land and they want it
protected.
3:51:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP relayed that ARRC has not always maintained
that it had the exclusive-use easement right. He stated that
ARRC's lead counsel, Ms. Phyllis Johnson, argued on June 25,
1996, before the Alaska Legislative Budget & Audit (LBA)
Committee that the federal government owns less than originally
thought. She reported that the issue should be researched on a
parcel-by-parcel basis to determine whether ARRC has all those
rights from the transfer [to the state]; property owners were
there first, and the ROWs went across private property not
federal land. He offered that ARRC does have an exclusive-use
easement on federal lands as authorized by ARCA - the Denali
National Park and Preserve (DNPP) and federal lands under
competing Native land claims in Northern Alaska. Wherever the
federal government owned land, the exclusive-use easement could
be transferred to the state; however, the federal government may
not transfer anything to the state that it does not own. He
emphasized that the issue was, What did the federal government
actually own at the time of the transfer and what could it
actually send to the state?
3:52:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to slides 9-19 to examine the
details of HJR 38. He cited page 1, lines 4-7, of HJR 38 [shown
on slide 9], which states that ARR was created under the 1914
Act, which directly granted interests in federal land for
railroad ROWs for the construction of the standard easement,
that is, for railroads and telegraph and telephone lines. He
added that this standard easement was in place beginning in
1875, and it is the only easement that Congress authorized.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP cited page 1, lines 10-15 [shown on slide
10], which states that before and after completion of ARR, the
federal government conveyed into private ownership land affected
and burdened by the ROWs. He explained that these lands refer
to the homestead patents. He offered that about 60 percent of
the 500 miles of tract are homestead patents - in the
municipalities, Palmer, Anchorage, the Denali area, Cantwell,
and Seward - and are in private hands. He said that homestead
patent owners had railroad tracts reserved across their
properties before ownership was transferred to the state in
1983.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP cited page 2, lines 3-6 [shown on slide 11],
which states that the state acquired ARR from the federal
Government in 1983 and created ARRC to oversee operations as an
instrumentality of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP cited page 2, lines 7-13 [shown on slide
12], which states that ARCA provided for the transfer of all
rail properties of ARR from the federal government to the State
of Alaska; that is, all right, title, and interest of the U.S.
in those properties. He emphasized that only the interest owned
by the federal government was transferred; it could not transfer
an interest it did not own. He continued by saying that on
January 14, 1983, ARRC reserved and owned ROW interests on
private properties - homestead properties - provided for in
patents and other conveyance documents; those interests
represented the rail, telegraph, and telephone ROW.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP cited page 2, lines 14-17 [shown on slide
13], which stated that if all right, title, and interest of the
U.S. in the ROWs did not include at a minimum an exclusive-use
easement as defined in ARTA, the easement could not have been
included in the transfer under the plain language of ARTA. He
explained that there are two places in ARTA where the exclusive-
use easement is mentioned: competing land claims among Alaska
Native corporations and village corporations; and in Denali
Borough. He offered that those two places are where the federal
government did have an exclusive-use easement that it could pass
on to the state; however, it never claimed to have that easement
across all the homestead patent properties. He added that in
December 2015, Alaska U.S. Congressman Don Young proclaimed that
ARTA would have never passed Congress had vested property rights
been contemplated to be changed by the transfer; in other words,
there was never an intent to change vested property rights.
3:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP cited page 2, lines 18-25 [shown on slide
14], which stated that during the transfer of rail properties
under ARTA, USDOI erroneously issued and ARRC accepted an
interim conveyance of interests in real property not owned by
the federal government, including exclusive-use easements. He
stated that this interim transfer speaks to how the whole
process happened: first there was a license issued by the
federal government for ARR; then there was an interim
conveyance. He explained that "interim" conveyance means it is
temporary and conditional. It was realized that there were many
properties that needed to be researched to discover the interest
that the federal government was passing on to the state. The
federal government was not familiar with all the properties it
had; over 500 miles of track needed to be researched. The
interim conveyance was not made final until 2005 and 2006.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP relayed that before 2005 and 2006, the
Alaska State Legislature started to get nervous: residents from
Whittier, Palmer, Anchorage, and all over the state were
complaining that ARRC was incrementally ratcheting down on the
ROWs and fencing off adjoining landowners when for decades, it
had never been an issue. He cited page 3, lines 1-4 [shown on
slide 16], which stated that the legislature specified that
under AS 42.40.285, ARRC must receive legislative approval
before accepting any conveyances of land - land grants, titles,
interests. He added that complaints from the City of Whittier
was the "final straw"; residents maintained they were being run
out of town by the ARRC's assumption of exclusive-use.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP cited page 3, lines 5-8 [shown on slide 16],
which stated that the legislature listed, as an exception,
properties that are consistent with any right, title, or
interest that the federal government had a right to bestow; for
those, ARRC would not need to receive legislative approval. He
reiterated that an exclusive-use easement was not something the
federal government had in their possession to give if it was
across private homestead patent properties; AS 42.40.285
specifically states that to be true in a municipality. He
mentioned that most of the homesteads are in municipalities;
therefore, Anchorage, Palmer, and the Mat-Su Valley are all
affected.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued that in 2005 and 2006, ARRC
approached BLM and received patents of exclusive-use easement;
it claimed it was only getting what it was promised in 1985.
Representative Kopp emphasized that ARRC was never promised
those patents to the entire ROWs; it would be an outrageous
unconstitutional theft of property rights without due process of
law. Residents were unaware of the transfer until ARRC began to
institute the Residential Right-Of-Way Use Permit Program to
monetize the railroad. He offered that to ARRC's credit, it
discontinued the practice. He mentioned that he does not
completely blame ARRC for what happened, as USDOI improperly
allowed it to happen when it gave ARRC the 2005 and 2006 patents
of exclusive-use easement across hundreds of miles of private
property. He stated that the property interests that were given
to ARRC are the same as fee interests; it is outright ownership;
and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no longer may
railroads have them. He said that in the Brandt Revocable Trust
v. U.S. ruling, the Supreme Court mentioned other cases that it
had ruled on, [Stalker] v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. [1912] and
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Steinke [1923] - disputes dealing with
competing land claims to acquire and develop tracks of land.
The Supreme Court made it clear that any implication that the
interest is something more than a surface easement would not
have survived the court's unequivocal statement to the contrary.
4:01:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to slide 19, which cites page 3,
lines 28-31, of HJR 38. He stated that the intent of HJR 38 is
to give the Alaska State Legislature the opportunity to comment
on what it believes is clearly the law. If there was a
misapplication of ARTA regarding exclusive-use easements
affecting many hundreds or thousands of property owners, then
under HJR 38, Alaska would disclaim any property interests that
were taken contrary to law and ask its Congressional delegation
to work with the legislature to right this egregious wrong.
4:02:35 PM
EPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that Representative Kopp has given
very impassioned legal arguments and asked why this issue would
not be dealt with in court.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that ARTA was written so that the
U.S. Solicitor General is bound to defend any claim on the ROW
forever; therefore, someone would have to be very wealthy to sue
the federal government and take them to court; it would be a
difficult task. He maintained that a resolution is a way for
the State of Alaska to speak strongly about an egregious wrong
that has been committed to Alaska land owners. He mentioned
that the new Assistant Secretary for USDOI is aware of this
issue and is assisting to resolve it. He asserted that it is
the state's duty to disclaim and "walk away" from stolen
property. The state should not stand quietly by abating and
abetting the taking of property it doesn't own; by law, that is
theft by receiving. He concluded that for the individual
landowner, the cost of litigation is prohibitive. He expressed
that he would welcome a large public interest law firm taking on
this issue; however, there is much the legislature can do.
4:04:46 PM
EPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether such a lawsuit would be
considered a public interest lawsuit; if so, those type of
lawsuits are attractive to attorneys and bring generous attorney
fees when won.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP maintained that many people have tried to
get the attention of public interest law firms; pursuing that is
an ongoing effort; however, he advocates acting when possible
rather than waiting for a law firm to take the case. He
reiterated that court action would involve suing the federal
government. The proposed resolution would make it very clear
that Alaska does not support any interest that was not
originally owned by the federal government. He emphasized that
HJR 38 does not state that ARR does not have a ROW or the right
to safety conduct a ROW. He offered that ARRC has police
officers that can issue citations for trespassing; they have
full legal authority for protecting the ROW. He maintained that
ARRC does not need an exclusive-use [easement] to make a safe
ROW; it is an unsupportable claim legally and is contrary to the
interest of every land owner on the ROW.
4:06:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for a history lesson on why
Representative Kopp is pursuing this issue so aggressively.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that in South Anchorage and other
districts, homes built near the ROW have been there since the
'50s and '60s. When ARRC started advancing its residential use
permit, many property owners received notices that they would be
charged per square foot for their lawns or gardens. These
residents had thought that they were the landowners and ARR had
a ROW. He relayed that no one had an issue with ARRC preventing
anything hazardous to the movements of the trains; however, at
that point they realized their ROWs were being monetized. He
referred to the Flying Crown airpark in South Anchorage; about
40 pilots have used a portion of it as a taxiway for an airfield
since the '50s, that is, almost 70 years of continuous use as an
airpark. He stated that some of the homes in the area have
hangars big enough for an airplane; now residents are faced with
a fence that could prevent them from driving airplanes out of
their hangars. He maintained that the airpark, which has been
in continuous operation for 65-plus years and in which there is
shared use of a small portion of the ROW, now has fences on a
small sliver at the very end of the 1,500-foot strip.
Significant fees are being charged to the entire group of homes
in that area. He added that to its credit, ARRC has
discontinued doing this. He asserted that this issue needs to
be pursued until there is a final solution recognizing simply
that the federal government could not have passed to the state
an interest that it never owned.
4:09:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered his understanding that landowners
were being denied access to their property.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that there were landowners who were
denied access to the back yards of their properties; concrete
barriers were erected by the railroad in Oceanview that blocked
residents from access to their boats. He relayed that he worked
with ARRC to remove those barriers; ARRC always offered reasons
why it could not do so; and in the end, the situation became
untenable. He referred the committee to letters included in the
committee packet from residents and businesses who are
negatively impacted. He stated that the owner of Red Robin in
Anchorage had his land trespassed on, his trees cut down, and a
fence erected on his property; ARRC was mistaken as to the
location of the ROW. This person conflicted with ARRC when he
plowed snow onto a small section of the ROW and ARRC objected.
Representative Kopp asserted that the disagreement was fair, but
ARRC putting a fence in the individual's yard was unfair and was
done without notification. He further referred to Hugh Ashlock,
the owner of Dimond Center, who has had a very difficult
circumstance with ARRC; he would like 20 more parking spaces but
to obtain them, he would have to part with a "fortune of spaces"
that impede slightly into an ARR ROW that he has improved
immensely. He reiterated that all these lands are homestead
patent lands, and this is an issue that runs through Anchorage
and up and down the Railbelt. He declared that the issue is
ARRC claiming a fee interest in the land and an exclusive-use
easement to the entire ROW; he maintained that ARRC has neither,
except in areas that the federal government originally owned.
4:11:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his appreciation for the proposed
resolution and confirmed that it has been a long-standing
concern. He offered that when he served in municipal
government, it was a concern but could not be resolved at the
municipal level. He supported the legislature addressing it
through the proposed resolution.
4:12:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK also thanked Representative Kopp for
introducing the proposed resolution. He maintained that ARRC is
creating miles of borders blocking access to the railroad. He
stated that in Anchorage, the beach is cut off from the coastal
trail.
4:13:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that the easement was
100 feet on each side of track; ARRC is preventing people from
the area 100 feet from the center line; and fences are being
erected and blocking people from accessing property on the other
side of the track.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered yes and added that there are many
property owners for which this is the case; if the railroad
assumed the exclusive-use easement on the homeowners'
properties, they would be cut off from both sides of their own
land. He added that also people who abut the track may be cut
off from access to public land areas because of the fencing. He
said that ARRC's argument is always safety, but in the name of
safety, people's rights are being "run over."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the fencing is recent.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded that the erection of fencing
became very aggressive in 2012. He referred to page 4,
paragraph 3, of the document, entitled "HJR 38 Overview and
Backdrop," included in the committee packet, and stated that it
highlights six critical situations in the Municipality of
Anchorage. He apologized that he did not include the list of
grievances from Palmer. He relayed that ARRC fenced off access
to the Fish Creek estuary in the Turnagain area forcing a
utility to erect a $114,000 fence near Westchester Lagoon as a
precondition to entering and repairing sewer mains. The ARRC
installed concrete barricades and steel posts blocking access to
the ROW in a residential area in Oceanview. He mentioned again
the ROW Use Permit Program as further evidence of ARRC's
infringement.
4:16:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether many of the original
homesteads still exist or have been subdivided.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that all the homesteads still exist
as federal patents; he conceded that the homesteads have been
divided into multiple successors but maintained that homestead
patents don't "go away." He relayed that all the way up the
track are large homesteads still recognized in titles searches;
the original landowners have subdivided the land; and the
current landowners are considered successors in interest to the
homestead and carry with the land the property interest that
came with that homestead patent property.
4:17:33 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HJR 38 would be held over.
4:18:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that ARRC owns other lands that
are not easements or ROWs; he asked for clarification that the
resolution addresses only ROWs and easements.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the proposed legislation does
not refer to other lands that ARRC lawfully owns; it is focused
on the ROW and what is viewed as unconstitutional claims to
property interests in the ROW.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Davidson Resume 2_18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
|
| HCR22 Sponsor Statement 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR22 Version A.PDF |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR22 Fiscal Note LEG 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR22 Supporting Document ANDVSA Letter of Support 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR22 Additional Documents - ANDVSA Key Results from the 2015 Alaska Victimization Survey 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR22 Additional Documents - CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HJR38 Sponsor Statement 2.26.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR038 ver A 2.22.18.PDF |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Fiscal Note LEG 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Document- Powerpoint Presentation 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Index of Support Documents 2.26.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Supporting Document- Letters of Support 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Dick Welsh 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Ocean View Community Council 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Support Letter from Beth Fread 2.27.2018.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Index of Reference Documents 2.26.2018b.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Additional Documents- Reference 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HJR38 Opposing Document- Alaska Railroad Letter of Opposition 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/1/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/8/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 38 |
| HB 184 Sponsor Statement 1.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Sectional Analysis 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 ver J 4.4.17.PDF |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Fiscal Note HRC 2.23.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter Planned Parenthood 4.27.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter LWVA 4.27.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter HRC 4.28.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter ATFE 5.1.2017.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter Fbx PFLAG 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter HRC 4.28.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter LWVA 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter SAGE 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter AAARP 5.4.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Letter EGJ 5.4.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - 2017 Survey(2) 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - 2017 Survery(1) 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Supporting Document - 2010 Census 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Anch LGBT Discrimination Preliminary Report 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - ASHRC Resolution 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Court Decisions 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - HRC State Laws 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Legal Memo 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Williams Institute 5.3.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Public Letters 5.8.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Memorandum, Religious Exemptions 5.9.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - 18.80.300 5.9.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Supporting Document - Ministerial Exemption 5.9.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Supporting Document Letters of Support 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Letter of Support 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Supporting Document ACLU Testimony FINAL 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Supporting Document 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey—Alaska State Report 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Letter of Support 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Supporting Document- Public Letters of Support 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Opposing Document - Letter AFC 5.5.17.pdf |
HSTA 5/4/2017 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Opposing Document- Letter 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Opposing Document- Letter 2 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/6/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 184 |
| HJR001 Sponsor Statement 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 1 |
| HJR001 ver A 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 1 |
| HJR1 Fiscal Note LEG 2.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 1 |
| HJR001 Supporting Document-ADN Poll 2.19.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 1 |
| HJR1 Opposing Document- Alaska Family Action Letter of Opposition 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 1 |
| HJR1 Opposing Document- Letter 2.27.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/27/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HJR 1 |