Opinion ID: 1392493
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The LBC erred in its incorporation determination by failing to address whether the Borough could reasonably and practicably provide the desired services.

Text: Keane argues that even if a requirement of reasonableness or practicability is read into AS 29.05.021(b), the LBC provides no evidence which supports a conclusion that formation of a service area is not reasonable or practicable. Keane contends that a Borough's support of a petition for incorporation is not equivalent to a refusal to create a new service area. At issue is former 19 AAC 10.020, [11] a regulation which interprets AS 29.05.021(b) and assists the LBC in determining whether the formation of a service area is reasonable or practicable. It provided in part: (a) The commission will not allow the incorporation of a community located within an organized borough unless the petitioners demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commission that the services to be exercised by the proposed city cannot be reasonably or practicably exercised by the borough on an areawide or non-areawide basis. The commission will consider the requirement of this subsection satisfied if: ... . (2) the commission determines that the city is remote from the borough seat and is not connected to the borough seat by the state highway system. Keane asserts that the LBC raises for the first time on appeal to the superior court its finding of remoteness and attendant reliance on 19 AAC 10.020. The LBC asserts that it did not overlook the application of 19 AAC 10.020. It notes the applicability of 19 AAC 10.020 in its Findings and Conclusions: AS 29.05.011 sets out four standards for the LBC to apply to all petitions for city incorporation. A fifth standard, set out in AS 29.05.021(b), applies only to communities such as Pilot Point which are in organized boroughs. The Alaska Administrative Code, 19 AAC 10.010 and 10.020, gives the criteria which the LBC, in its discretion, should consider when applying the statutory standards, although the Commission is not limited to the listed factors. Remoteness was part of the record before the LBC. The fact that Pilot Point is not connected to the borough seat, King Salmon, by any road, and the fact that Pilot Point is eighty-five air miles from King Salmon, were mentioned in the Incorporator's petition as well as the DCRA reports to the LBC. The LBC argues that there was no need to discuss specifically in its decision remoteness or its effect on the criteria of 19 AAC 10.020(a)(2). The LBC is not required to set forth findings of fact in its incorporation decisions. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 518 P.2d 92, 97 (Alaska 1974). In Mobil Oil, we stated that [t]he special function of the [LBC], to undertake a broad inquiry into the desirability of creating a political subdivision of the state, makes us reluctant to impose an independent judicial requirement that findings be prepared. Id. We stated that we were able to determine the basis of the LBC's decision from our own review of the entire record. Id. Keane responds that where a decisional document shows on its face that an important factor was not considered, the court should remand the matter for further consideration. See, e.g., Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State, 665 P.2d 544, 549 (Alaska 1983). We agree. The LBC's decision allowing incorporation provides: Given the lack of any city close to the community of Pilot Point, annexation to an existing city is impractical. While the Lake & Peninsula Borough could, on a service area basis, provide other services needed or desired by the residents of Pilot Point, the Borough Assembly formally supports incorporation of the city. Therefore, service area formation does not appear to be a viable option at this time. The LBC argues the applicability of 19 AAC 10.020, notes its importance in the consideration of the statutory standards for incorporation, and acknowledges the facts that support a finding of remoteness. Nonetheless, we cannot ascertain from the record whether the LBC made a reasonableness or practicability determination, and if it did, whether it found a lack of the two based on a remoteness theory. The LBC does not refer to the facts concerning a remoteness determination in its conclusions. Its decision appears to be based solely on the fact that the residents of Pilot Point wanted to incorporate and that the Borough Assembly formally supported the incorporation. [12] There is no indication that a determination of the reasonableness or practicability of a service area was considered. Therefore, we remand to the LBC to make findings consistent with this opinion.