Opinion ID: 1367804
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of Mayoral Veto

Text: Because we conclude that the Assembly had the authority to grant SP a refund, we must determine whether the mayor had the power to veto this decision. Under the Anchorage Municipal Charter, the mayor may, by veto, strike or reduce items in a budget or appropriation measure. Anchorage Municipal Charter § 5.02(c); see also AMC 3.20.020(C). The Anchorage Municipal Code provides: No payment shall be made or obligation incurred except in accordance with appropriations. Obligations otherwise incurred are void. The Assembly by ordinance may provide for exceptions in the case of tax refunds and other routine payments. AMC 6.30.010(A); see also Anchorage Municipal Charter § 13.08(a). SP argues that the Assembly's decision to grant SP a refund is not subject to veto because it is a quasi-judicial action. We agree. The Assembly clearly performed an adjudicatory function here. After SP presented its case before the Assembly and the mayor's office presented its opposing view, the Assembly determined that SP was entitled to a full refund without interest. We have repeatedly held that a legislative body which applies general policy to specific individuals acts as an administrative agency. See Kollodge v. State, 757 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Alaska 1988); Winegardner v. Greater Anchorage Area Borough, 534 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1975); Keiner v. City of Anchorage, 378 P.2d 406, 410 (Alaska 1963). In our opinion, the Assembly's decision is analogous to an adverse judgment against the municipality. A judgment debt is intrinsically different from obligations a municipality incurs in the course of doing business as a municipality. [8] Clearly when a taxpayer prevails in a suit to recover taxes paid under protest under subsection (a), the mayor has no authority to veto the court's decision to order a refund. We conclude that such quasi-judicial decisions by the Municipal Assembly are not subject to mayoral veto. [9] See 5 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 16.42 at 240 (3d ed. rev. vol. 1989).