Opinion ID: 2594248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Railroad's Request for Legislative Clarification

Text: Following the promulgation of Emergency Rule 2004-E-1, the Railroad lobbied the Alaska Legislature to enact a bill which would have explicitly exempted the Railroad from local land use laws. [22] The proposed change was considered at hearings before the Senate Transportation Standing Committee and the House Transportation Standing Committee. Pat Gamble, President and CEO of the Alaska Railroad Corporation, testified at a meeting of the Senate Transportation Standing Committee on April 29, 2004. Gamble described this court's decision in Eklutna II to the committee and indicated that the decision required the Railroad to apply for a permit: The Railroad, as well as any other state entity, at the present time as of the court decision on the 12th of March is not exempt from borough municipal planning and zoning.... The court said that there is a test that should be applied with regard to planning and zoning issues whenever the Railroad confronts a project that requires planning and zoning and that test would be to apply for a permit. If that permit comes conditionally and the conditions are not favorable to the Railroad, then the Railroad can litigate the decision and work that out in litigation on a case-by-case basis for every individual project that it would have going in whatever municipalities and boroughs it might. Gamble also testified at a meeting of the House Transportation Standing Committee on May 4, 2004. Again, Gamble stated that the Railroad would be required to apply for a conditional use permit: [W]hat the court has said is if you don't have the exemption, then you must apply for a permit in every case and if you don't agree with what you get back, you must litigate .... At the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting, Representative Ogan wondered whether exempting the Railroad from municipal zoning ordinances would allow the Railroad to develop a rock pit in the middle of a residential neighborhood or right up against it. Gamble responded that it was not likely the Railroad would ever try something like that. Representative Ogan also expressed concern that such an exemption would not be well-received by the public. Gamble suggested enacting a sunset clause and said, this does not affect Eklutna, that issue is entirely separate. I mean, we are not allowed to go in and get quarry rock out of Eklutna regardless of what we decide here today or sign.... A number of people testified in opposition to providing the Railroad a broad exemption from zoning laws, including a representative from a local land use planning organization, a representative from the Native Village of Eklutna, a representative from the Alaska Native Health Board, and a representative from the Alaska Municipal League. Ultimately the legislature deleted the proposed exemption from the bill and established a task force to consider and make recommendation to the legislature on whether and to what extent municipal planning, platting, and land use regulations should apply to interests in land owned by the Alaska Railroad Corporation. [23] The bill forming the task force became effective June 5, 2004. [24] The task force was to file a report at the beginning of the twenty-fourth legislative session, but it apparently failed to do so. [25]