Price v. Kenai Peninsula Borough
331 P.3d 356
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Kenai Peninsula Borough adopted Ordinance 2008-28 allowing general law cities in the borough to tax nonprepared food year-round after a boroughwide initiative created a nine-month borough exemption.
- Six cities exist in the Borough: four general law (Homer, Soldotna, Seldovia, Kachemak) and two home rule (Kenai, Seward); Kachemak did not then impose a sales tax.
- James Price filed a referendum application (Referendum 2010-01) to repeal Ordinance 2008-28, which the Borough Clerk rejected.
- Clerk and superior court held the referendum invalid on the ground it constituted prohibited local or special legislation (AS 29.26.100); the clerk also argued the referendum would be unenforceable as conflicting with AS 29.45.700(a).
- Supreme Court reviewed de novo, addressing (1) whether the ordinance/referendum was local or special legislation and (2) whether a referendum repealing the assembly’s authorization would be unenforceable as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Price) | Defendant's Argument (Borough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance 2008-28 (and thus Referendum 2010-01) is prohibited "local or special legislation" under AS 29.26.100 | Boroughwide residents have an interest (they shop in cities); the ordinance affects the borough broadly and is not a closed class | The ordinance/referendum affects only three cities, so it concerns only a subset of borough voters and is local/special | Reversed: ordinance is generally applicable (affects multiple cities and borough residents who use city services); not local or special legislation |
| Whether a referendum repealing an assembly ordinance authorizing city taxation is unenforceable because AS 29.45.700(a) vests exclusive authority in the assembly | Referendum would merely repeal an existing assembly authorization; nothing in AS 29.45.700(a) prohibits repeal by referendum | Allowing repeal by referendum would usurp the assembly’s exclusive authority to authorize city taxation | Rejected: referendum would not conflict with AS 29.45.700(a) and is not unenforceable as a matter of law; constitutional referendum power permits nullifying legislative acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Boucher v. Engstrom, 528 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1974) (defines special/local legislation and emphasizes areawide interest test)
- Pebble Ltd. P’ship v. Parnell, 215 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2009) (applies two-step test for local/special legislation and treats laws as general if not limited to a permanently closed class)
- Whitson v. Anchorage, 608 P.2d 759 (Alaska 1980) (initiative invalid where it conflicted with statutory scheme requiring assembly enactment of municipal taxes)
- Municipality of Anchorage v. Frohne, 568 P.2d 3 (Alaska 1977) (initiative invalid where it conflicted with statutory procedures for local charters)
- Griswold v. City of Homer, 186 P.3d 558 (Alaska 2008) (zoning by initiative invalid where it bypassed statutorily required planning procedures)
- Municipality of Anchorage v. Holleman, 321 P.3d 378 (Alaska 2014) (refuses to read "exclusive" assembly authority as barring initiative/referendum absent clear intent)