SB 2358 HOUSE TESTIMONY
House Transportation Committee  --  March 13, 2003

          Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the House Transportation Committee.  My name is Keith Brandt.  I am President of the North Dakota Grain Dealers Association and the General Manager of Plains Grain and Agronomy at Enderlin, ND and three other nearby locations.  Right now I am on the Canadian Pacific Railway.  But most of my 25 years in the grain elevator business was spent at locations on the Burlington Northern Railroad at Galesburg, Mayville and Hunter. 

            Thank you Chairman Weisz for cosponsoring this bill.  We asked for this bill so as to curb the railroads’ abuse of its lessees and others it serves through high lease and site sale costs, and unconscionable liability shifting provisions in these agreements.

            Our legal counsel, Brian Bjella, who wrote this bill, is here this morning to explain more about what we are trying to get at and how this bill would accomplish that. 

            Our Association and its members are generally free market thinking people.  The railroad will no doubt say today that the market should determine lease rates, site costs and indemnity provisions.  But what we have here is NOT a free market of several willing buyers and sellers.  It is instead a railroad holding life or death powers over a business that, in many cases, located on the railroad’s property to give the railroad business.  The business entity made improvements to the property in the form of its own structures.  But the location of those structures can now be used against the business by railroad demands that must be met, or it becomes a matter of getting off the railroad property.

            This power over lessees and purchasers of railroad property has been displayed since this bill passed the Senate 46-0 on February 20.  Immediately that very day the Canadian Pacific Railway sent some letters out saying negotiations on leases and sales were suspended and that some lessees might have to demolish their improvements and remove them from railroad property.  Those we know of who received such letters thought it was pretty strong-armed tactics.

            The Burlington Northern has been in and out of the site sale business over the past dozen years or so.  At one point they were attempting to sell a certain number of sites each year.  Then the emphasis shifted to raising the lease prices.  The minimum was arbitrarily set at $1,200 per year.  Most elevators were paying more than that.  Then when it came to selling the property, BNSF multiplied the annual lease cost by an arbitrary factor of 10.  So if you were paying $2,500 per year on a lease of two acres the sales price was automatically $25,000.  There didn’t seem to be any relationship with surrounding property values.  This leads to situations such as:

             In a western North Dakota town a grain elevator is quoted a price of nearly $50,000 for between three and four acres of property on which its facilities sit. 

             A different western North Dakota elevator, in an even smaller town along the BNSF, was quoted $12,000 plus $1,000 processing fee for less than two acres.  He ended up buying the property for $10,000 total.  During this process he asked the railroad if he could pay for a third party appraiser.  The railroad said no, it would put the value on the property.  The elevator manager feels the property could possibly sell for a third of the value the railroad first put on it.  The buyer receives a quitclaim deed and is responsible for having the property platted to have the legal description suitable for taxation. 

             A grain elevator in a small northeastern North Dakota town was quoted $43,000 for the 2.5 acres its facilities sit on.  This fellow actually did better than most, he got them down to $21,000.  This is yet another example of the railroad taking advantage of the shipper because they have him over the barrel. 

            Another eastern North Dakota elevator was asked $31,000 for little over three acres.  They got their quitclaim deed for a little under $20,000.  These quitclaim deeds release the selling railroad from any liability for latent defects, including the environmental condition of the property.  But the railroad maintains mineral rights and the full right and privilege to remove them at anytime.

            An oil company in northern North Dakota paid nearly $300,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees because of an accident caused by a sticky brake on the railroad’s grain car. 

           The Canadian Pacific Railway has announced that repair to its main line switches leading into an industry will be that industry’s responsibility, notwithstanding the fact that some of the wear on the switch is due to through traffic, not industry traffic.  In addition, some or all track agreements allow the railroad to use the industry’s track at will, thus creating more wear that the industry is expected to pay for.  This can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

            You may have heard that there is an arbitration system under the National Grain and Feed Association to supposedly resolve these problems.  But less than 1/3 of North Dakota grain elevators are members of that Association.  And there are some inherent flaws in the arbitration process.  For instance, arbitrators cannot change lease terms that have been unilaterally imposed by the railroad.  So the only thing arbitable about these ridiculous indemnity clauses is whether they have been applied correctly.  Secondly, depending on an arbitration system means going to that system time after time after time.  We have told the BNSF it should remove these ridiculous clauses from their leases.  They refuse.  So that is why we come to you to try to remedy the situation in state law. 

            I will try to respond to any questions you may have.  I would appreciate you allowing our legal counsel Mr. Bjella to be the next speaker here in favor of SB 2358.  Thank you.