Title: Valleys Borough Support v. Local Boundary

State: alaska

Issuer: Alaska Supreme Court

Document:

863 P.2d 232 (1993) VALLEYS BOROUGH SUPPORT COMMITTEE, for itself and on behalf of those certain classes of persons Residents of the Proposed Valleys Borough and the Signatories on the Valleys Petitions, Appellants, v. LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION, Appellee. No. S-5182. Supreme Court of Alaska. November 12, 1993. Rehearing Denied December 2, 1993. Marc Grober, Nenana, for appellants. Marjorie L. Odland, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles E. Cole, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee. Before MOORE, C.J., and RABINOWITZ, BURKE, MATTHEWS and COMPTON, JJ. MOORE, Chief Justice. Valleys Borough Support Committee (VBSC) seeks to void the incorporation election of the new Denali Borough on the grounds that the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) had no authority to reject the proposed Valleys Borough petition and that LBC had no authority to make incorporation of the Denali Borough contingent on the passage of a revenue measure. VBSC also appeals the attorney's fee award in favor of LBC, arguing it should not be required to pay attorney's fees because it is a public interest litigant. We affirm, but vacate the attorney's fee award. This case concerns the borough incorporation of the Denali National Park, Cantwell, McKinley Park and Healy areas. LBC received three petitions to organize this land into a borough. The first, submitted on June 1, 1989 by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, sought to annex the area. The second, submitted on October 25, 1989, was the Denali petition. It sought to create a new home rule borough. The third, submitted on October 27, 1989, was the Valleys petition. It also sought to create a new home rule borough. The proposed Valleys and Denali borough petitions concerned essentially the same geographic areas. However, the Valleys petition included the "road system north past Nenana" (i.e., the Greater Nenana area), whereas the Denali petition did not.[1] In March 1990, LBC conducted seven public hearings on the merits of the competing petitions. In April 1990, LBC held a decisional session. During this session, LBC determined the "ideal" boundaries for a borough in the region, amended and approved the Denali petition, and denied the Valleys and Matanuska-Susitna petitions. LBC determined that the Denali petition met the constitutional, statutory and regulatory standards for borough incorporation. LBC found the Denali petition superior to the Valleys and Matanuska-Susitna petitions. Specifically, LBC determined that Despite this conclusion, LBC also determined that The superior court affirmed LBC's decision. VBSC now appeals the superior court's ruling. VBSC argues LBC had no authority to reject the Valleys petition. We disagree. Although LBC made no express finding *234 regarding the validity of the Valleys petition, we conclude LBC impliedly found that the petition did not comply with the statutory standards for borough incorporation. The statutory standards for home rule, first class and second class borough incorporation are AS 29.05.031(a). LBC impliedly found that the Valleys petition did not meet the first statutory criterion, AS 29.05.031(a)(1), because LBC found that the area within the proposed Valleys borough was not "cohesive enough at this time to [be] within the same organized borough." We previously have observed that Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 518 P.2d 92, 98-99 (Alaska 1974) (footnote omitted) (upholding LBC's determination that the North Slope Borough met the standards for borough incorporation). Applying the reasonable basis standard, we affirm LBC's determination that the proposed Valleys Borough was not cohesive enough for organized borough government.[3] Upon LBC's motion, the superior court awarded LBC attorney's fees in the amount of $750. VBSC argues this award was erroneous, because it is a public interest litigant. We agree. In Kenai Lumber Co. v. LeResche, 646 P.2d 215, 222-23 (Alaska 1982), we set forth the criteria useful in identifying public interest litigants. Id. These criteria have been met. Because the Valleys petition represented a proposed form of government, it clearly was designed to effectuate strong public policies. Hundreds of citizens signed the Valleys petition, indicating that numerous people would receive benefits from the lawsuit. Only a private party would have been expected to bring this suit. No apparent economic incentive exists to bring the lawsuit. Consequently, we vacate the attorney's fee award. We affirm the superior court's decision to uphold the incorporation of the Denali Borough. LBC correctly applied the statutory standards for borough incorporation in determining that the Denali petition was superior to the Valleys petition.[4] We vacate the attorney's fee award, because VBSC is a public interest litigant. AFFIRMED. The attorney's fee award is VACATED. [1] Moreover, the proposed governmental charters differed significantly. The Valleys charter provided an "automatic referendum" procedure, which would require two-thirds voter approval on any "ordinance which purports to tax or levy, appropriate, contract [or] circumscribe any resident's rights or liberties." The proposed Denali charter contained no such provision. [2] AS 07.10.030 contained the former statutory standards for borough incorporation. It has been replaced by AS 29.05.031. The standards set forth in AS 29.05.031 parallel those found under the prior statute and contain similarly flexible language. [3] Given this analysis, we need not address the validity of former Alaska Administrative Code regulations concerning competing petitions and borough incorporations. 19 AAC 10.835; 19 AAC 10.160-10.180. These regulations have been either rewritten or eliminated in the 1992 code revision, effective July 31, 1992. [4] VBSC also challenges LBC's authority to make the Denali Borough incorporation contingent on voter approval of a four percent bed tax. We need not decide this issue. Even if LBC exceeded its authority, this would not entitle VBSC to the remedy it seeks, i.e., voiding the Denali Borough's creation.