Opinion ID: 2583951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alaska Railroad Corporation Act Exempts the Railroad from Local Zoning.

Text: Although the rationale that state agencies are immune from local zoning unless a statute makes them subject to local zoning expressed above is sufficient to decide this case, there are a number of provisions in the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act that affirmatively indicate that the Railroad was intended to be exempt from local planning and zoning control. These include:
This section provides: The board may adopt exclusive rules governing land use by parties having interests in or permits for land owned or managed by the corporation. The power conferred by this section is exercised for the common health, safety, and welfare of the public and to the extent constitutionally permissible, may not be limited by the terms and conditions of leases, contracts, or other transactions. By this section the Railroad Board is given the power to to adopt exclusive rules governing land use for railroad land. The second sentence of this section confirms that the exclusive rules have the same purpose as a planning and zoning ordinance, namely to provide for the common health, safety, and welfare of the public. The word exclusive by definition excludes the possibility that a municipality could impose rules governing land use of railroad property. The legislative history of this section of the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act confirms that the legislature was aware that section.390 placed railroad lands beyond the control of local zoning. Tamara Cook, Deputy Director of the Division of Legal Services of the Legislative Affairs Agency, first raised a question as to the effect of section .390 on March 1, 1984, at a Senate Transportation Committee meeting. She asked, what does it do, is this an effort to supercede municipal land use regulations? Is that what this does? Does this say that property controlled by the railroad is not subject to municipal land regulations? Is that what this is? [11] Chairman Moss initially responded in the negative: I don't believe that that was the original intent on it. Maybe, I'm wrong on it. But Cook persisted, stating: What this says though, it says the board may adopt exclusive regulations governing land use, which means that the board would then be operating as a planning commission. After further discussion Cook again explained that the Railroad could attempt to put a subdivision on acquired property and not be subject to municipal zoning ordinances. She recommended that until this section is made a lot clearer I think the committee ought to consider dropping it entirely. Chairman Moss observed that this would be one way to eliminate the problem. Senator Gilman agreed that removing it is fine but observed that as to a version of the legislation in a prior session there were reasons why the section was written as it was, but he could not remember what they were. He suggested that he be allowed to revisit the file. Chairman Moss agreed: Let's do that before we delete this section and proceeded to adjourn the meeting. Cook put her concerns in writing, in a memorandum dated March 12, 1984, to the Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. Observing that there are two alternative effects of AS 42.40.390, she again recommended that section .390 be clarified or deleted: Section 42.40.390 appears to be an attempt to grant the power of land use regulation, such as platting and zoning, to the railroad corporation, which would contravene the requirement contained in Article X, section 2 that all local government powers shall be vested in boroughs and cities. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the section is to exclude rail property from municipal land use regulation, that should be done specifically. I would recommend that the section be clarified or eliminated. It is worth noting that while Cook states that there are two possible interpretations of section.390that it grants zoning power to the Railroad or that it excludes railroad property from municipal land use regulationunder either interpretation the Railroad would be immune from local zoning. Under the first, a grant of exclusive zoning power to the Railroad would necessarily exclude the power of a municipality to zone the same property. Under the second, the exclusion of municipal zoning is the explicit purpose. [12] Section .390 was retained as written, despite Cook's suggestion that it be clarified or deleted. The question of retaining or deleting section.390 was taken up for the last time by the Senate Transportation Standing Committee on March 15, 1984. The minutes of that meeting indicate that Senator Gilman initially sought to remove AS 42.40.390. But Senator Halford responded that there should be a way to protect railroad operations. That would protect the railroad's operations from local zoning restrictions. [13] The matter was discussed further. Senator Gilman stated that .390 originally was put in at a time when it was anticipated that they were going to have to establish some rationale for why the railroad should get a tax-exempt bonding authority. He noted that this was no longer a problem. But Senator Faiks stated that pending in the House of Representatives was a bill that would take away tax-exempt status from the Railroad. She argued that section.390 should be left in the bill. This was the final resolution. The discussion reveals that the Senate Committee clearly understood that .390 would protect the Railroad's operations from local zoning restrictions. No one argued with Senator Halford's characterization that this was the section's direct function. Senator Gilman's observation that the purpose of section .390 was to guarantee tax-exempt bonding status is consistent with section.390's function. In order to have tax-exempt bonding status, it was believed that the Railroad needed land use regulation powers comparable to those of a local government. Such powers were granted. It does not matter whether the powers were granted primarily so that the Railroad could issue tax-free bonds or so that the Railroad would not be disturbed in its operations by municipal zoning. Whatever the dominant motive may have been, the grant of exclusive land use regulatory power was the same.
This is the section that declares that AS 35 does not apply to the Railroad. Since, as discussed above, AS 35 contains AS 35.30.020 requiring a department to comply with local zoning, exempting the Railroad from AS 35 indicates, among other purposes, an intent to exempt the Railroad from local zoning.
This section required the Railroad to comply with local building and safety codes within five years, subject to waiver by the Commissioner of Public Safety. Because AS 35 is not applicable to the Railroad, AS 35.10.025, [15] which requires all public buildings to comply with local building codes, did not apply to the Railroad. Recognizing that a transition to compliance with local building codes was desirable, subject to an executive waiver, the legislature enacted AS 42.40.936(b). Its enactment shows legislative awareness that in light of the fact that AS 35 was made inapplicable to the Railroad, special measures were needed in areas where it was intended to make the Railroad subject to local laws. The omission of a similar measure relating to compliance with local zoning codes thus seems deliberate and purposeful.
Section .250 lists the general powers of the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Subsection (13) authorizes the Railroad Corporation to apply to various entities for permits or approvals necessary to construct various facilities. The Railroad is authorized to apply to the state, the United States, and foreign countries or other proper agencies. But the list pointedly does not include political subdivisions of the state. By contrast, subsection (9) of section .250 expressly mentions political subdivisions. Subsection (13) thus suggests that the legislature thought that it would not be necessary for the Railroad to apply to political subdivisions for approval to obtain permits to construct and operate facilities. The legislative history of subsection (13) indicates that the omission of political subdivisions was not accidental. Versions of the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act were considered in 1982. Senate Bill 212 in 1982 contained a section entitled Licenses and Permits. It provided: Whenever the laws of a municipality, the state, or the United States require a license or a permit to undertake certain activities or perform an act, the authority, prior to undertaking the activity or performing the act, shall comply therewith to the same extent as the state, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. A notation in the legislative folio indicates that the Railroad requested that the word municipality be deleted from this provision. Offered as a reason for this was that the railroad presently negotiates with a number of municipalities regarding crossings, traffic signals, etc. If the municipalities were granted authority to regulate the railroad's passage through their boundaries, the railroad's transportation of goods and services would be so erratic as to be totally nonoperable. [17] The specific examples offered by the Railroad, crossings, traffic signals, etc., may not be subjects governed by typical zoning codes, but the more general topic of passage through municipal boundaries potentially is. Further, the bill applied to all permits to undertake certain activities or perform an act, terms that readily encompass permits such as conditional use permits needed for zoning compliance. If the legislature intended the Railroad to be subject to local zoning codesregulatory systems in which permits of many types are standard fareit would not have deleted political subdivisions from the list of government entities to which the Railroad is authorized to apply for permits. In summary, the legislature in section .390 of the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act gave the board exclusive authority to adopt rules governing railroad land. This necessarily excluded local zoning authority over the same land. The Legislative Affairs Agency and a legislative committee recognized that section.390 had this effect. A number of other provisions of the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act confirm that the legislature intended that the Railroad was to be exempt from local zoning.