Opinion ID: 2614000
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Erred in Formulating a Remedy.

Text: The superior court's final order regarding remedy provides: Should the LBC decide that the northwest boundary of the [Borough] should remain unchanged, no election would be required; should the Commission decide otherwise, an election restricted to approval of the new boundary versus retention of the existing boundary would be required. Villages cross-appeal the superior court's decision. The issue concerns only the situation in which, upon reconsideration, LBC changes the boundary to exclude the Nushagak watershed. Villages argue that Borough voters should be given a choice of changed boundary or no borough. The Borough responds that the superior court correctly defined the election as a choice of changed boundary or previous boundary. Villages argue that boundary decisions should be made by the Local Boundary Commission or the Legislature, not the voters. [27] See City of Douglas v. City & Borough of Juneau, 484 P.2d 1040, 1042-43 (Alaska 1971); Oesau v. City of Dillingham, 439 P.2d 180, 183-84 (Alaska 1968); Fairview Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Anchorage, 368 P.2d 540, 543 (Alaska), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 5, 83 S.Ct. 39, 9 L.Ed.2d 49 (1962). They conclude that [t]he superior court's decision to essentially remand this matter back to Borough voters goes against the [Alaska C]onstitution, the statutes, and indeed the very purpose of the LBC. [28] We agree. It does not appear that a municipality can ignore an LBC boundary decision. An election permitting voters to choose between two boundaries essentially allows the electorate to establish the boundary without regard to LBC's action on reconsideration. In Fairview, this court examined the purpose of Article X of the Alaska Constitution and determined that local political decisions do not usually create proper boundaries and that boundaries should be established at the state level. [29] 368 P.2d at 543; accord 1 Dallas Sands et al., Local Government Law § 8.29 (1994). The Borough argues that detachment is the proper remedy. Villages respond that the detachment standard differs from the incorporation standard. The standard for incorporation is found in AS 29.05.031(a)(2), which provides in part: [T]he boundaries of the proposed borough [must] conform generally to natural geography and include all areas necessary for full development of municipal services. The standard for detachment applicable at the time Villages filed suit was found in 19 AAC 10.230(a)(2) (reorganized 1992), which provided in part: In determining whether to approve a detachment, the commission will consider, but is not limited to ... whether the geographic location or configuration of the territory precludes the provision of borough services provided other areas of the borough or makes the provision of borough services impractical... . Villages express two concerns regarding the differing standards: There is no mention of natural geography in the detachment regulation nor any provision that makes it likely that the concerns of an unincorporated borough would be heard. Moreover, there remains the question of which party would carry the burden of proof. Under the statutory incorporation standards, the Borough incorporators have to justify the inclusion of all the territory which they wish [to] incorporate. Under the detachment regulations, previous compliance with the incorporation standards is presumed. We agree that detachment will not adequately remedy Villages' concerns. In fashioning a remedy, the superior court was guided by Alaska Community Colleges' Federation of Teachers v. University of Alaska (ACCFT), 677 P.2d 886 (Alaska 1984), and its direction that approximation of the status quo at the time of the original decision is desirable. [30] Id. at 890. However, the court recognized the difference between an ideal remedy and a practical remedy, and cautioned that the damage to the public good should not outweigh the benefits derived from the remedial action. Id. at 890, 892. We hold that under ACCFT, an election between no borough or a borough excluding the Nushagak watershed will best approximate the status quo. See 677 P.2d at 890. The prospect that the Borough will not be incorporated does not constitute damage to the public good outweighing the benefits of remedying the notice violations. See id. at 891-92.