Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/22/2004 09:03 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 31(RES)
"An Act relating to a transportation corridor for extension of
the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to extension of the Alaska
Railroad to connect with the North American railroad system."
This was the third hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill, sponsored by Senator Cowdery,
"authorizes [the] Alaska Railroad Corporation to delineate a
transportation and utility corridor from Eielson Air Force Base to
the Alaska-Canada border."
RICHARD, SCHMITZ, Staff to Senator John Cowdery, testified that no
changes have been proposed to this legislation since the previous
hearing. He stressed the importance that it passes into law,
expounding on the support and importance to establish a corridor to
extend the railroad into Canada. He reminded of the significant
discussion held in the Senate Resources Committee and efforts to
resolve certain issues. He noted that the provisions of the
legislation would not be immediately implemented, as other steps
must be first taken.
Co-Chair Wilken asked if the Alaska Railroad Corporation supports
this legislation.
WENDY LINDSKOOG, Director of External Affairs, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, Department of Community and Economic Development,
affirmed.
Senator Hoffman clarified that the Railroad supports the bill.
JEANNETTE JAMES, former Alaska State legislator, testified via
teleconference from an offnet location in her position as an
advisor to the Murkowski Administration on railroad issues, in
support of the bill. She stated that the legislation has undergone
compromises and that it should be advanced.
Co-Chair Wilken noted new fiscal zero notes being distributed to
the Committee.
Senator Bunde understood ownership of this land would be
transferred to the Railroad, which would maintain complete control
of the land and could restrict access to citizens. He questioned
how this would have cost to the State.
Mr. Schmitz replied that access to the land would not be restricted
until track is actually laid. He stated this legislation would
transfer ownership of a 200-foot corridor in locations where the
railroad would cross State-owned land. He noted that the Railroad
would be required to negotiate right of ways separately for
federally-owned land, lands owned by Native corporations and
privately-owned lands.
Senator Bunde contended that the 200-foot corridor, therefore,
could not be otherwise disposed of by the State, which would be a
financial loss.
Ms. James countered that this argument "falls on its face" because
the land would transfer from one State entity to another. She
explained that if the railroad were not constructed on the
property, ownership would transfer back to the State.
Senator Bunde remarked that this legislation would transfer
ownership from a State entity to a "quasi-private" entity, not
subject to administrative and procedures statutes. He disputed this
transfer would not have a zero fiscal impact.
Ms. Lindskoog detailed that as a compromise a 200-foot corridor
within a 500-foot corridor would be transferred to the Railroad fee
simple. She noted that the Department of Natural Resources would
reserve oil and gas mineral rights and that the State would have
control over the placement of railroad crossings. She also pointed
out that the State would have rights to utilize the property for a
natural gas pipeline. As a result of these differences, she stated
the proposed land would be unlike traditional Railroad-owned
property.
Senator Bunde informed that ownership of subsurface rights is not
transferred to any landowner and he therefore maintained his
disagreement.
Senator Olson asked how access for recreation and hunting
activities would be protected.
Ms. Lindskoog reminded that people are not allowed access to
airport runway tarmacs because of safety issues. She replied that
the Railroad and the Department of Natural Resources would review
user needs closely to determine where crossings would be located.
Senator Olson expressed concern about complaints from hunters cited
with trespassing for crossing the tracks "in the middle of
nowhere".
Ms. Lindskoog asked if Senator Olson suggests that hunters should
have a right to access the right of way.
Senator Olson "expressed discomfort" that hunters would be in
violation of trespassing laws.
Senator Dyson asked if Railroad rights of way have more access
restrictions than a highway.
Ms. Lindskoog surmised they do not. She furthered that the
Department of Natural Resources would retain significantly more
control over these lands than currently exercised with the route
between Seward and Fairbanks. She stated that if an area were
commonly used for hunting, it would likely be assumed that a
crossing would be located at the site.
Senator Dyson noted the assumption that people hunting or berry
picking would have the wherewithal to move off the highway to avoid
a passing truck. He opined that designated railroad crossings in
remote areas would be impractical.
Ms. Lindskoog informed that jaywalkers are not always ticketed. She
stressed that the trespass laws are intended for safety.
Co-Chair Wilken characterized crossing of the Railroad as potential
trespassing and pitching of a tent on the rails as trespassing.
Mr. Schmitz outlined possible signage to alert people of
trespassing laws and safety concerns. He assumed that a
"commonsense approach" would be adopted. He stated that in many
rural areas, warning signs are all that is necessary, as opposed to
a commuter train in an urban area with would likely be fenced off
Senator Bunde knew of specific duck hunters cited for trespassing
along the Railroad. He emphasized that this legislation does not
provide a "typical transfer" of property and that if undertaken the
Railroad would receive sole control over the land. He remarked that
if the decision is to "give away our natural resources" this fact
must be understood fully.
Senator Olson asked what party would retain the power of imminent
domain.
Ms. Lindskoog replied that the Railroad would have this power.
PHILLIS JOHNSON, Attorney, Alaska Railroad Corporation, testified
via teleconference from an offnet location, to affirm that the
Railroad holds the power of eminent domain just as the Department
of Natural Resources and utility corporations do for lands it
administers. However, she pointed out that the Railroad has never
exercised the power of eminent domain. She noted that in some areas
of the proposed route the entire width of the corridor is not
needed. She stated this was established as a compromise in this
legislation and that corridor width is commonly negotiated in land
transfers as a "last resort".
Ms. Johnson also commented that as a lawyer representing the
interest of the Railroad, she is always mindful of potential
litigation relating to trespassing issues. She stressed that the
transfer of title is important to the State, whether the Railroad
obtains fee simple title or "other mechanism" to utilize the land,
such as a permit from the Department of Natural Resources.
Regardless, she stressed, safety concerns would remain and the
issue of "tunneling" people must be addressed.
Senator Dyson strongly supported this bill and suggested the safety
issues could be addressed "in another forum". He viewed land owned
by the Railroad to be held in trust for the people of Alaska and
that access should not be limited. He was offended with "what the
Railroad has done in Whittier" indicating the extensive barriers
erected to prevent trespassing. He stressed that common sense is
expected when near railroad tracks and opined that most persons hit
by a train likely "deserve it." He expressed that the Railroad
should hold the land proposed in this legislation, not only for
Railroad purposes, but also for Alaskans in general.
Co-Chair Green stated that although she agreed with Senator Dyson's
comments about railroad crossings, major liability issues exist.
She spoke of "major issues" with access to Railroad property in the
Mat-Su. She spoke of attempts to change casual use at a "non-
official" crossing an established crossing through repeated use.
She stated that the Railroad insists upon involvement in these
decisions. She remarked that any land transferred to the Railroad
with the expectation that the land would be used for the benefit of
the public would not occur. Rather, this land would be utilized for
the Railroad's purpose and to generate profit for the Railroad. She
was unsure how a dividend program could be established to ensure
benefit for all Alaskans, or of a method to promise access to
everyone.
Senator Dyson offered a motion to report the bill from Committee
with individual recommendations and new fiscal notes.
Senator Bunde objected. He remarked that the zero amounts of the
fiscal notes are disingenuous. He expounded that this legislation
involves the transfer of State assets and suggested that the
legislature is "sometimes…too flexible."
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator B. Stevens, Senator Dyson, Senator Hoffman,
Senator Olson, Co-Chair Green and Co-Chair Wilken
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde
The motion PASSED (6-1)
CS SB 31 (RES) MOVED from Committee with three zero fiscal notes
from the Department of Natural Resources, dated 1/23/04, the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, dated 1/28/04,
and the Department of Community and Economic Development, Alaska
Railroad Corporation, dated 4/22/04.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|