Opinion ID: 1246543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: application of the step-annexation provisions

Text: The company first contends that the commission failed to hold an election and follow other procedures mandated by the step-annexation provisions of the statute regulating local boundary changes. [5] However, the company has never made clear why the Valdez annexation ought to be considered a step annexation. The Alaska Constitution, art. X § 12 [6] established two methods by which local boundaries might be changed: (1) by direct action of the Local Boundary Commission subject to legislative disapproval, [7] and (2) by establishment by the commission of procedures for the adjustment of boundaries by local action. The legislature implemented art. X § 12 in 1959 by enacting AS 44.19.260. Only the simple, direct annexation by the commission was authorized at that time. The step-annexation provisions were added to AS 44.19.260 in 1964. [8] As an alternative to immediate annexation, these provisions allow for gradual assimilation of contiguous areas into incorporated cities where direct annexation would be premature or impractical. Ordinarily, a step annexation will be commenced by a municipality's petition specifically requesting that alternative, [9] although presumably the commission could require the municipality to annex by the step method. In the instant case the company has adduced no evidence that either the city or the commission contemplated a step annexation. The original petition requested a direct annexation and the certification of boundaries (a document similar to a judgment accompanied by findings of fact, which formally establishes the new boundaries) contains not a single fact, conclusion or order suggesting that a step annexation was contemplated. Since the city did not request and the commission did not certify a step annexation, the requirements for step annexation are not applicable. The company has argued that because service areas with differing municipal services and tax rates were established after the annexation, the annexation must be considered to have been effected by the step method. We find the selection of annexation method made by the commission and approved by the legislature to be controlling. The company's argument amounts to an assertion that the differing municipal services and tax rates demand the choice of the step method. We find no such fetters imposed upon the commission's discretion. The policy decision as to the mode of annexation is an exercise of lawfully vested administrative discretion which we will review only to determine if administrative, legislative or constitutional mandates were disobeyed or if the action constituted an abuse of discretion. [10] The company has adduced no facts from which we can conclude that the approval of direct annexation for the Valdez expansion constituted an abuse of discretion. The company relies upon the statement of the city that one of the purposes of the annexation was the extension of services into unincorporated territory. This argument misses the point that all annexations will have the purpose and effect, in part, of extending city services. The post-annexation creation of differently served and treated areas does not impugn the reasonableness of the annexation. [11] Nor can the company point to any constitutional, statutory or administrative provision which requires that an annexation of territory like that absorbed by the City of Valdez be accomplished by the step method. We therefore hold that the Valdez annexation was undertaken by the direct method rather than the step method. [12] It follows that the company's contentions regarding the necessity of an election, schedule of services and tax mill levies as mandated by the step-annexation provisions are without merit.