"An Act relating to application of municipal ordinances providing for planning, platting, and land use regulation to interests in land owned by the Alaska Railroad Corporation; and providing for an effective date."

A recent Alaska Supreme Court decision has called into question the Railroad's exemption from local planning and zoning ordinances provided in AS 42.40 ("Alaska Railroad Corporation"). This bill would clarify the Legislature's intent that such local regulations do not apply to the Railroad's land unless it is leased to another person without retaining a railroad right of use.

The Alaska Railroad Corporation is both an interstate common carrier and an instrumentality of the State of Alaska. Its statutory mission is to provide transportation services to residents, businesses, visitors and military installations in the State, and foster and promote long term economic growth and development, particularly of the State's land and natural resources. The Railroad's ability to operate safely, efficiently and effectively is due in great part to the singular nature of its corridor Right-Of-Way. The Railroad's current track alignment passes through 13 recognized municipal (city and borough) governments between Seward and North Pole. It is important to protect the Railroad's ability to use its lands for operational purposes in service to the broader state interest without facing different, and potentially conflicting, planning and zoning scenarios among so many municipalities.

Without this protection, local communities could separately dictate planning and zoning restrictions that would negatively impact the Railroad's ability to offer safe, efficient, economical and reliable service to its freight and passenger customers. For example, communities could prohibit train operations or noise levels during certain hours (e.g., evenings and early morning) or on certain days (e.g. Sundays) and the hours of operation could vary from community to community. This type of restriction would increase the cost of operations, impact train movements, customer schedules, contract commitments, and the amount of business the Railroad can accommodate each year due to decreased or varied hours of operation. More importantly, in situations where the Railroad and a municipality are in agreement on a planning and zoning issue, an individual or environmental group could still file a lawsuit seeking to overturn the municipality's decision, which would further delay or possibly eliminate a project.

There are other adverse impacts that can arise if the Railroad is subject to local planning and zoning. Inconsistent regulation would also decrease the value of the State's considerable investment in purchasing the Railroad. Finally, it could unreasonably delay and add significant cost to the Railroad's efforts to improve the transportation infrastructure of the State through upgrades of existing track and facilities and expand in new directions (for example to Fort Greely or to Canada).

While federal law arguably protects interstate commerce from some of these restrictions, the issue as it now stands after the Supreme Court decision invites litigation, which is not only costly to the Railroad and municipalities, but could result in inconsistent holdings among various jurisdictions. The bottom line is that, because the Railroad is an essential part of the State's transportation network and serves an important State mission, the State should be the entity that controls the Railroad's use of its land, not the 13 Railbelt municipalities and boroughs.

# # #