City of Kodiak v. Kodiak Public Broadcasting Corporation, 426 P.3d 1089

In Sept. 2015 Kodiak police used pepper spray during a widely noticed incident; KMXT requested related public records under the Alaska Public Records Act (APRA).
The City initially withheld records invoking law‑enforcement and privacy exemptions, then the superior court ordered immediate release of three chest‑cam videos after concluding the City had not carried its burden to justify exemptions.
The City announced release of all requested records and produced them by Dec. 31, 2015; litigation thereafter narrowed to declaratory relief and attorney’s fees.
The superior court entered judgment for KMXT, named it the prevailing party, and awarded “full” attorney’s fees under AS 09.60.010(c)(1), including municipal sales tax.
On appeal the City challenged (1) whether KMXT asserted a constitutional claim entitling it to full fees under AS 09.60.010(c)(1), (2) inclusion of sales tax, and (3) whether all claimed fees were necessarily and reasonably incurred.
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the AS 09.60.010(c)(1) fee award (finding no constitutional claim in the pleadings), ordered remand for a Rule 82 fee determination, and held municipal sales tax may not be awarded on attorney’s fees.

Issue	KMXT's Argument	City of Kodiak's Argument	Held
Whether KMXT was entitled to full attorney’s fees under AS 09.60.010(c)(1) (constitutional‑claim statute)	Access to public records is a fundamental/constitutional right; applicability depends on the source of the right, not the label of the pleading	KMXT only asserted a statutory APRA claim; it never pleaded a constitutional claim	Reversed: KMXT did not assert a constitutional claim in its complaint, so AS 09.60.010(c)(1) did not apply; remand for Rule 82 fees
Whether municipal sales tax may be included in an attorney‑fee award	Sales tax was part of the billed total and recoverable	Municipal sales tax is not recoverable under Rule 82 or controlling precedent	Held: Sales tax cannot be included; court must exclude it on remand
Whether fees awarded must be limited to those necessarily and reasonably incurred (including post‑Dec. 31 work and show‑cause motion)	All billed time was reasonable; alternative equitable Rule 82 relief justified	Much work after Dec. 31 was unnecessary or duplicative; show‑cause motion was frivolous; only 20% baseline recovery applies absent findings justifying deviation	Held: On remand the superior court must parse billing, exclude duplicative/unnecessary/frivolous entries, and explain any deviation from Rule 82 schedule

State v. Jacob, 214 P.3d 353 (Alaska 2009) (prevailing party must have actually asserted a constitutional claim to recover fees under AS 09.60.010(c))
Alaska Conservation Found. v. Pebble Ltd. P’ship, 350 P.3d 273 (Alaska 2015) (discussing AS 09.60.010 framework replacing broader public‑interest fee doctrine)
Long v. Arnold, 386 P.3d 1217 (Alaska 2016) (Rule 82 awards may not include municipal sales tax on attorney’s fees)
Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 273 P.3d 1128 (Alaska 2012) (statutory claims are not automatically constitutional simply because constitutional analysis may be relevant)
Krone v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 222 P.3d 250 (Alaska 2009) (example of affording full fees where plaintiffs prevailed on explicit constitutional claims)
Tenala, Ltd. v. Fowler, 993 P.2d 447 (Alaska 1999) (duplicative or unnecessary work should be excluded when calculating Rule 82 recovery)
Brandner v. Pease, 361 P.3d 915 (Alaska 2015) (standard of review and principles governing attorney‑fee awards)