Opinion ID: 2573749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: When Litigants Are Required To Pay Record Costs in Advance, Due Process Requires Clear and Accurate Cost and Time Estimates and an Explanation of How Estimates Were Calculated.

Text: 18 AAC 15.237(c) permits the agency to require advance payment of costs. [35] This does not on its face offend the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution, but Copeland and Ott have argued that the agency acted arbitrarily by: (1) issuing conflicting cost estimates; (2) presenting varying estimates of the pages in the record; and (3) arbitrarily apportioning record costs among the parties. We recognize that an agency often will be able to provide only an estimate of record preparation costs, given the size and complexity of many administrative records. In this case DEC counsel was careful to explain the method of calculation as estimates of the length of the record and the costs changed. [36] We nevertheless note that when an agency requires advance payment, it would be arbitrary not to provide an accurate and prompt estimate of cost and size of the record as well as an explanation of how each estimate was calculated. If the cost of the record is being shared by multiple parties, the agency should also explain its method of apportioning costs. Here the agency followed 18 AAC 15.237(c)'s direction for pro rata cost-sharing but did not explain how it applied this method to the three consolidated appeals when Copeland and Ott were participating in only one of the three appeals. The agency erred by not explaining this aspect of its calculations. Copeland and Ott also argue that the agency's interpretation of 18 AAC 15.237(c) is erroneous, as the agency interprets that regulation to include copying costs as part of the costs of gathering and certifying the record. We hold that the agency's interpretation of the term gathering and certifying to include photocopying the record to create a master copy is reasonable. Finally, Copeland and Ott argue that the agency's delay in preparing and certifying the record violated due process. We agree that an agency's unreasonable delay in preparing and certifying the record may violate a litigant's due process rights. We also agree that an agency must be mindful of the implications of a delayed record and take reasonable steps to provide due process to an agency litigant. The delay in this case, however, was not attributable only to the agency, and it did not reach constitutional proportions.