Alaska Railroad Corp. v. Native Village of Eklutna

оf the cor- the court’s treatment of the reduction Douglas’s argument If were 09.30.070.20 language if it debt.”22 That amounts rect, only owe 7.5% interest marital he would a judgment directions that 1999.21 a reversal “with calculated from were and, money by the trial court” for be issued matter, Douglas we note an initial As 509, following the direction of Rule interest argument. Rule likely Civil has waived 10.5% is thus to be calculated from at 69(d)(3) judgment “[t]he debtor states that 18, original judgment April of the of date objections and which all defenses waives not present answer debtor does judgment case, Douglas, In this provided.” as herein Y. CONCLUSION lawyer, represented did not although response in his dispute amount the interest rulings AFFIRM the of the We entry judgment. for of to Tahni’s motion on all issues. Douglas had assuming But even objection to the award

not waived his

interest, no merit. He argument his argument merely request his on

bases to benefit finan

that Tahni “not be allowed

cially diligence” on from her lack and “injustice.” But Alaska

other concerns of modification has a clear rule on effect CORPORATION, ALASKA RAILROAD judgment interest or reversal of a on calcula Appellant, Appellate tions. Alaska Rule Procedure 509 provides: judgment money If a for in a civil case is and NATIVE VILLAGE OF EKLUTNA affirmed, prescribed by rate interest Anchorage, payable shall be from effective

law Appelleеs. trial If judgment date of the court. No. S-11619. judgment or in a civil case a is modified a judgment with reversed directions Supreme Court of Alaska. court, money by the for be issued trial judgment interest on new at the rate Sept. prescribed by payable law shall be prior judgment the effective of the date

which was modified or reversed.

Thus, appeal if an modifies or reverses a judgment

judgment and directs that a court,

money by the inter- be issued trial

est is to be calculated from the of the date judgment

original entered the trial court. case, superi-

In this this court reversed

or court and remanded for “a clarification of findings regard prop- to the Wasilla

erty, any necessary adjustments resulting

distribution from these issues 1997; January year §§ 20. See ch. SLA Marine in effect on in which the Horton, (Alas judgment Solution Servs. v. decree is entered!.] 2003). provides, ka 09.30.070 relevant part: System, 21. See Alaska Court How to Determine Rates, Post-Judgment http:// Pre- Interest judgments [T]he rate interest and decrees www.state.ak.us/courts/int.htm. payment money, including prejudg- for the interest, percentage points ment is three above Brotherton, the 12th Reserve discount rate 941 P.2d at 1248. Federal District

H93 McCann, Cummings Kelly S. William Mason, Anchorage, Appellant. & Ashburn Heideman, E. Hedland Brennan & Sara Heideman, Appellee Native Anchorage, for Village of Eklutna. McDermott, Municipal Assistant

Thomas Boness, Munici- Attorney, Frederick H. Attorney, Anchorage, Appellee for Mu- pal Anchorage. nicipality of BRYNER, Justice, Before: Chief FABE, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, CARPENETI, Justices.

OPINION FABE, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION to remove The Alaska Railroad wishes culturally granite quarry rock from a Village Native significant land located decision, Eklutna. In a 2004 we concluded of clearly indicate legislature did exempt the Railrоad from its intention municipal zoning laws when enacted the Act, Corporation and that Alaska Railroad apply a conditional the Railroad must use may operate permit before it decision, Following the Alaska quarry. emergency regu- ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍Railroad Board enacted allowing it to rock from the lation remove quarry applying for a conditional use without permit. Railroad also asked the clarify exempt ture to the Railroad is laws. The municipal so, creating a declined to do instead task study superior issue. The force to summary judgment granted to the Native Eklutna, Village concluding that our 2004 for a required decision permit. ap- The Railroad conditional use peals, and we affirm. AND

II. FACTS PROCEEDINGS Village Eklutna v. Board A. Native Adjustment Village Eklut decision, Native Our Adjustment, forms the back- na v. Board of H95 case, In that the Native for which Damco drop of this case.1 needed conditional use challenged permit Anchorage zoning a decision under Village of laws.7 We Anchorage grant operation concluded that Damco’s permit quarry require permit Bank did a conditional conditional use National Alaska, entry injunction allowing operate against and affirmed bank granite property mine on bank-оwned near Damco.8 Municipal-

Eklutna.2 concluded that the We Village C. Native of Eklutna v. Alaska mining ity ignored op- evidence that the had (Eklutna II) Corporation destroy eration would one of two hills for named, village which the of Eklutna was Following court’s of an observing that historical value of the “[t]he injunction against Damco in gave twin hills that Eklutna its name is a began operation quarry.9 road direct cultural have consid- factor should been injunction. preliminary moved for a by Municipality.3 the ered” We remanded superior prelim- The court declined to issue a Municipality for determina- the case the inary injunction and instead entered sum- mining operation im- tion of how the would mary judgment for the Railroad on the preservation ar- pact the of historic and ground that the Railroad was immune from resources, chaeological required by zoning Municipality local ordinances.10 The Municipality’s comprehensive development Anchorage sought intervened and a decla- plan.4 subject ration that the Railroad was to mu- nicipal zoning. considering After the Munici- Corporation B. Alaska Railroad v. Na- pality’s position, court reinstated (Eklutna I) Village tive of Eklutna summary judgment its favor of the Railroad in 2001.11 appeal involving Rail- first the Alaska mining operations appeal, road’s in the Eklutna hills On Eklutna and the Corporation argued was Alaska Railroad v. Native the Railroad was not immune (Eklutna I), Village regulation which we from local land use under state I, decided 2002.5 Eklutna we affirmed law.12 We held Alaska Railroad (ARCA) injunction against Paving Corpora- Corporation clearly Damco Act13 did not tion, procured rights which had exclusive indicate that the intended to im- operate by quarry an Eklutna owned the munize the Railroad from local ordi- government Among provisions, Railroad.6 The tribal and sever- nances.14 other we dis- 42.40.390, Village al of the residents Native of Eklutna cussed AS the section at issue in injunction sought ground appeal.15 on the that the current We concluded that AS mining operation nonconforming was a 42.40.390 “should not be read as a clear (Alaska 2000). 1. 995 P.2d 641 Id. 11.

2. Id. at 641-43. at 12. Id. 45.

3. at Id. 645. seq. et 13. AS 42.40.010 (AMC) (citing Anchorage Municipal Id. Code 14. Eklutna 87 P.3d at 45. 21.50.020A). (Alaska 2002). provides: 5. 43 P.3d 588 15. AS 42.40.390 Corporation] [of The board the Alaska Railroad 6. Id. at 590. may adopt governing exclusive rules by parties having permits interests in or 7. Id. managed by corporation. land owned or conferred this section is exer- Id. health, safety, cised for common and wel- fare of the and to the extent constitu- Corp., 9. Native Vill. Eklutna v. Alaska R.R. tionally рermissible, 2004) II). not be limited (Eklutna P.3d contracts, leases, terms and conditions of transactions. other adopt ‘exclusive rules’ to Board legislature intended declaration ... if the Board regu- Railroad land and governing local land use Railroad from shield rules, they control over adopts concluding that the such After lation.” ” regulations.... Emergency clearly conflicting immunize the intend to ture did not Railroad, “balancing of inter- in effect for 120 adopted a 2004-E-l remained we Rule applied days.21 trial courts test to be ests” is immune

determining zoning requirements.17 Un- municipal Legisla- Request for E. The Railroad’s test, courts should balancing trial der the tive Clarification scope of the instru- weigh “the nature and Emergency Following promulgation immunity, of func- mentality seeking the kind 2004-E-l, the Railroad lobbied Rule involved, the extent tion or land use Legislature to enact a bill which Alaska thereby, the ef- public interest to be served explicitly exempted the Railroad would have regulation would have local land use fect from local land use laws.22 im- concerned and the upon enterprise hearings change considered at before But legitimate local interests.”18 pact upon Standing Transportation Committee Senate trial courts should сautioned we Standing Transportation and the House made a “unless the state has apply the test Committee. comply good attempt faith reasonable Gamble, of the Pat President and CEO Thus, under the rule zoning laws.”19 Corporation, testified at a Alaska Railroad II, Railroad in Eklutna the articulated meeting Transportation Stand- of the Senate per- apply a conditional use should first for 29, April 2004. Gamble ing Committee on then seek from the and mit II in Eklutna described this court’s decision judicial through application of the bal- relief and indicated that the deci- to the committee only if the Railroad’s efforts to ancing test apply for a required the Railroad to sion permit prove use unsat- procure conditional permit: isfactory.20 Railroad, any as well as other state The Emergency

D. Rule 2004-E-l entity, present as of the court at the time 12, 2004, 12th of March is not ex- Railroad decision on the April the Alaska On borough municipal planning and empt from adopted Emergency Rule 2004-E-l. Board court that there is a zoning.... Railroad said emergency rule authorized the (1) regard applied that be with to at the Ek- test should processed store materials to: the planning and issues whenever remove stored materi- quarry; lutna requires that require project Railroad confronts a quarry. Both activities als from the zoning and that test would be Anchorage planning and permit under a conditional permit apply permit. for a If that findings, the zoning law. In its statement conditionally are in Ek- and the conditions our decision comes Railroad Board discussed Railroad, then the that the decision favorable lutna II and concluded litigate and work Railroad can the decision that 42.40.390 in the Alaska indicated “AS case-by-case litigation in on a Corporation gives Railroad that out Act the Railroad legislation, contained in Senate at 47. 22. The 16. Eklutna 560, would have amend Bill 395 and House Bill Id. at 54-55. provide: ed AS 42.40.390 to Pituso, Rutgers, (quoting State Univ. v. (b) 18. Id. plan- Municipal providing ordinances for (1972)). N.J. 286 A.2d regulation adopted ning, platting, and land use apply AS 29.35.180 or other law do not under 19. Id. corporation the land of unless the land is the person by corporation leased to another right corporation has not retained a and the 42.40.190(b) provides emergency during that an of the lease. 21. AS use the land the term adopted Railroad Board remains in rule days." than 120 effect "for more

H97 session, twenty-fourth legislative it it every project that for individual basis municipali- apparently failеd to do so.25 going have whatever might. boroughs it ties and Superior F. Court’s Grant Sum- meeting at a also testified Gamble mary Judgment to Eklutna Standing Transportation Committee House 15, 2004, April On after the Railroad enact- May Again, stated Gamble rule, Village of emergency ed its the Native apply for a required the Railroad would Eklutna filed a motion with this court re- “[Wjhat court permit: conditional use rule, or, stay emergency questing a exemption, you if have the has said is don’t alternative, superior a remand to the every permit you then must for challenge so that Eklutna could you get you agree what and if don’t case ” of the rule. Eklutna withdrew enactment back, litigate.... you must stay motion for a after we denied the Transportation Standing At the House rehearing in Eklutna Railroad’s motion Representative Ogan meeting, Committee superi- II was returned to the matter exempting wondered 20, 2004, May or court. On filed al- municipal zoning ordinances would summary judgment motion for pit in the “develop Railroad to a rock low the court, effectively seeking ruling right neighborhood middle of residential Railroad could not enact rules under AS responded against it.” up Gamble attempting comply first 42.40.390 without likely try the Railroad would ever was “not regulations. The with local land use Munici- Representative Ogan something like that.” Anchorage on behalf of pality of intervened exemp- expressed concern that such also Eklutna. public. tion would not be well-received Judge Superior Court Mark Rindner suggested enacting a sunset clause Gamble summary judg- granted Eklutna’s motion for Eklutna, said, not affect “this does July concluding that ment on mean, entirely separate. I we are issue is by our determina- superior court was bound quarry out go get to in and rock not allowed in II that 42.40.390does not tion Eklutna regardless Eklutna of what we decide here of ” regu- clearly exempt the Railroad from local today sign.... or full Judge Rindner awarded Eklutna lation. people opposition in A number of testified in attorney’s public litigant as a interest fees providing exemption the a broad Railroad $19,989. superior amount of The the laws, including representative a from judgment in favor of Eklutna and entered organization, a planning a local land use The Municipality on October the Village representative from the Native of superior deci- appeals Railroad court’s Eklutna, representative from the Alaska a joined Eklutna Municipality ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍has sion. The Board, representative and a Native Health appellee. anas League. Municipal Ulti- from the Alaska mately legislature deleted III. DISCUSSION exemption from the bill and established Review A. Standard of make recommen- task force to “consider and summary of We review to the on whether and dation Questions are judgment novo.26 of law municipal planning, platting, and de what extent novo, adopt the de and we apply to interests also reviewed regulations should light of persuasive most Corpo- “rule of law that is owned the Alaska Railroad reason, policy.”27 We review precedent, forming the task force ration.”23 bill a liti determination of task court’s June 2004.24 The became effective public interest status abuse beginning gant’s at the report force was to file a II, 4(d), 87 P.3d at 44. § 23. Ch. SLA 2004. Ch. SLA 27. Id. 4(d), §

25. Ch. SLA 2004. litigation pending. is Final- gency rule while overturn award willWe discretion.28 ly, an abuse of dis- the Railroad enact rules if there was whether attorney’s fees manifestly unrea- use rules allowing if the award is it to circumvent local land cretion or For these public interest. sonable.29 is a matter reasons, public interest we conclude Exception to Interest B. The Public applies. doctrine exception to the mootness Applies. the Mootness Doctrine argues appeаl that this question is whether preliminary A ripe ap- until not become will moot, emergency given that the appeal this is permit and is plies for a conditional use A expired. the Railroad rule enacted issue in this denied one. That is resolution is moot “when its disputed claim case, challenge Eklutna’s which stems from relief, if any actual even not result in emergency rule. The Mu- the Railroad’s If a chal claiming party prevailed.”30 argues that the issues in this nicipality also repealed expires, is lenged law or rule beyond scope of this court’s case are Eklutna states its brief is moot.31 case because, holding in under this court’s remand except that it matter would be moot that this apply for the Railroad must exception public interest falls under the will permit before the court conditional doctrine. the mootness proceedings. further While it is entertain following fac examine the three We appeals will not true that this court hear public whether the interest tors to determine beyond scope remand from issues applies: exception to the mootness doctrine appeal,34 principle does not prior this “(1) disputed capable issues are whether the Eklutna, Railroad, not the in- to this сase. (2) repetition, whether the mootness doc litigation. impor- round of troduced this trine, applied, may repeatedly circumvent if question here is not tant whether issues, review remand, has raised a new issue on road important presented are so issues any whether there are new issues justify overriding as to interest appeal. Here, disputed mootness doctrine.”32 repetition because the capable issue is Holding Applies in Eklutna II C. Our emergency rule Railroad could enact another to this Case. so, in the future. If the Railroad chose do argues appeal that a The Railroad doctrine circumvent re the mootness could allowing reading of AS 42.40.390 every emergency rule enacted view because local promulgate to rules that conflict with days expire must within 120 the Railroad Therefore, ordinances is not inconsistent with if Eklutna statute.33 were opinion in Eklutna II. The Railroad emergency court’s challenge a future rule enacted Railroad, following likely portion focuses on the of our dis challenge would by expiration of the emer- cussion of AS 42.40.390: be rendered moot Game, 1019, (Alaska Reform, & 938 P.2d 1023 28. Coalition Tort Inc. v. Fish Citizen for 1991) (cit 1997) 162, (Alaska (holding McAlpine, that issue was moot becausе De- 810 P.2d 171 Tait, 185, (Alaska repealed challenged ing partment Game v. 774 P.2d 190 of Fish and Johnson 1989)). regulations). State, 1387, Koyukuk O’Callaghan v. 920 P.2d 1389 River Tribal Task Force on Moose Freas, Rue, 1019, (Alaska 1996) (Alaska 2003) (citing Mgmt. v. 871 P.2d v. 63 P.3d 1020 Peloza Conant, (Alaska 1994)); (citing Feichtinger see Alaska Ctr. v. 893 P.2d 688 also for Env’t, (Alaska 1995)). 95 P.3d at 929. None of the inter- 1268 dispositive, and to invoke est factors is exception lies with the discretion Rue, P.3d 929 30. Alaska Ctr. Env’t v. Krohn, at court. 938 P.2d (Alaska 2004). 33. See AS 42.40.190. Barnes, 361, 363, See, e.g., v. 479 U.S. Burke (conclud- S.Ct. 93 L.Ed.2d 732 State, expired Entry Commercial Fisheries Comm'n ing was moot because bill 34. See that issue Carlson, 2003). State, Dep't during pendency appeal); Krohn v.

H99 footnotes, ar- evidence that Based these the Railroad provision presents some This gues majority and the that “both the dissent exempt legislature intended to immune, agreed if that the Railroad was not laws. Its refer Railroad from could, minimum, adopt rules that might indicate rules” ence “exclusive govern conflicting would over local ordi- rules would government’s no other argument nances.” But the Railroad’s ne- Railroad land. But the term apply on glects important portion opinion of our also read as a choice- “exclusive” could be Examining II. the same Eklutna Board provision the Railroad of-law —if dissent,"we history in the ana- considered conflicting with local or promulgated rules lyzed possible interpretations of some AS dinances, regulations the Railroad’s 42.40.390.40 We noted that various members conflict, govern, in the of a absence Transportation of the Committee Senate unaffected[35] local rules are agreed provision was not intended to points to footnotes— The Railroad also two regulation.41 shield the Railroad from local decision, oth- in this court’s one included observed that one senator stated that the We argues taken provision originally er the dissent —and “was added to ensure exempt that AS that Railroad bonds would be tax together, the footnotes indicate law,” a federal and another senator allowing Rail- under 42.40.390must be read as retaining provision advocated minimum,” road, adopt “at a land use rules because tax-exempt “the Railroad’s status as a bond- trump conflicting local ordinances. that would ing authority again question.”42 was meeting of the The dissent examined Transportation Committee at which Senate Thus, II our discussion of AS repeal whether to the committee considered possible 42.40.390considered a number of con- particular, 42.40.390. In the dissent interpretations of the statute. But we did Cook, which, a memorandum that Tamara any, interpreta- sidered not decide if of these Legal Deputy of the Division of Regarding possibility Director correct. tions was Agency, Legislative Affairs that the statute intended as a choice-of- Services provision, committee.36 Cook concluded law we stated that “the term wrote could also read as a choice-of- ‘exclusive’ that AS 42.40.390 was either intended provision” law and concluded “AS grant zoning to the Railroad or to not a clear indication 42.40.390is property zoning regu- exclude railroad exempt from local tive intent to footnote, suggest- lations.37 the dissent zoning.”43 a third alterna- ed that the court had offered namely, that AS 42.40.390was choice- plausible dissent’s view44 is that no tive— mandating pro- provision of-law rules interpretation to its of the term alternative govern in mulgated by the Railroad would remains “exclusive rules” in AS 42.40.390 respond- of a conflict.38 The court the event reject once we theoretical own, stating that “[t]he ed in a footnote of its posited in of the term “exclusive” we promulgated any Railroad Board has appeal, II. Yet in this regulation. Contrary yet to the dissent’s possible interpretation such offered another ... chоice-of-law rule does not assertion AS 42.40.390: that it was intended authority, only convey grant any immunity independent or Railroad parties.45 land The Munici- between laws.”39 Railroad to third resolves conflicts at 47-48. 35. 87 P.3d at 47. 41. Id. J., (Matthews, dissenting).

36. Id. at 63 42. Id. at 47. added). (emphasis 37. Id. 43. Id. at 47-48 Id. at 63 n. 12. 44. Dissent at 1205. 39. 87 P.3d at 47 n. by exempted AS the Railroad is 45.Given that 42.40.920(11) governing state land from the rules Act, 38.05, conveyancing the Alaska Land at 47. passage is weight to the inference that this us that too interpretation reminds pality’s on the term of conflicts focused not concerned with the resolution has been much attention by in the first sentence of AS Railroad and adopted rules” rules “exclusive between examining the entire con- without regulations. 42.40.890 It is instead con- local land use provision.46 text of the ensuring that the Railroad has cerned with activities on its land power to control fol- entirety 42.40.390 reads as of AS from those even when its wishes to deviate lows: permittees. of its gov- may adopt exclusive rules The board parties having interests by erning land argues interpreta- that this dissent managed or permits land owned in or is concerned with tion —that AS 42.40.390 power conferred by corporation. relationship the Rail- regulating the between for the common by is exercised section this dispenses parties and third on its road land — health, safety, welfare of the “exclusive.”47 But when the with the term constitutionally permissi- to the extent read in the context of the term “exclusive” is by ble, may limited the terms and not be appears provision provision, entire leases, contracts, other -or conditions of ensuring that the Railroad’s was aimed at transactions. own is exclusive in the power over its added.) expressly language This (Emphasis abrogated it cannot sense power to authorize grants the' leases, contracts, and conditions of or “terms If by others on its land. regulate activities “parties into with other transactions” entered with the passage concerned rela- were having permits for land owned interests or gov- and other tionship between Merely managed by corporation.” or entities, have it would stated ernment then powers the Railroad’s over its own because may adopt exclusive rules that the Railroad regard par- land are exclusive with to third land, rather governing conduct on its its own ties, in contrast to the usual situation where governing rules than exclusive away contracting parties bargain free to are permits parties having interests in or other rights, imply their does not land. And if this section were for Railroad regard to powers road’s are exclusive with immunity compli- to confer intended being government other entities. Far from regulations, the sec- ance local land use absurd, dissent,48 gov- suggested as sentence, stating that the Railroad’s ond commonly contend ernment entities must “by terms and power is not to be limited jurisdiction, it be in with conflicts of leases, contracts, other conditions of or law, law, property commercial or matters of transactions,” presumably also have n environmental law.49 ordinances, regulations, or mentioned local language, not to The lack of such statutes. have that “issues “immunity” We observed word

mention the absence adjudicated any equivalent, previously further can be reconsid- lends derivative or confer- 47. Dissent at it makes sense to read AS 42.40.390 as ring to enact rules on the Railroad the 48. Dissent at 1206. convey governing how it will lease or its land within, course, others the constraints of other out, points problems 49. As the dissent of the act. sections ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍government entity proposes one arise when activity violate the rules of an- government entity other are common and have Municipality’s takes issue with the 46.The dissent development approaches led to the of traditional interprets the dissent because resolving problems these such as "the convey- separate from land term "land use” test,” sovereign governmental/propriety "the di- Dissent ances or other forms of transfers. test,” chotomy,” domain in addi- or "eminent capable is of in- at 1205. But the term "use” "balancing interest test.” Dissent tion to the of conveyances cluding of kinds. and transfers all attempts negoti- proliferation to at 1207. The AS 42.40.390 also uses the terms "interests” and among govern- jurisdiction ate these conflicts of transactions," general both of which are "other suggests that while these conflicts mental entities may legal resolve, range they that can cover the full rela- terms are nevertheless be difficult to conveyances. tionships including common.

1201 any changed exceptional appear that there are circum- there exist circum- ered where constituting light meaning presenting a clear error that shed new on the stances stances injustice.”50 The law the case originally a manifest statute as was enacted. precludes of issues consideration excep- doctrine Nor are we convinced that there exist previous adjudicated in a that have been presenting tional circumstances a clear error n “Even issues not appeal in the same case.51 constituting injustice. a manifest We decline appellate in first explicitly discussed to revisit the issue here. directly involved with or neces- opinion, but argues require The Railroad also that our sarily inhering in the will be consid- decision apply ment that the Railroad for a condition doctrine is ered the law of the case.”52 The clearly permit respect al use “is dicta with principle decisis. grounded in the of stare fact, requirement 42.40.390.” But in AS prior overrule a decision We “will attempt comply that the Railroad must originally clearly that the rule was convinced zoning with local laws is a central element of longer is no sound because of erroneous or balancing of interests test that we conditions, good that more than changed Eklutna adopted proper II.57 inter departure would result from a harm adjudicated pretation of AS 42.40.390was at precedent.”53 II. At least, Eklutna length in the mean argues that this court did The Railroad ing “directly involved of AS 42.40.390 not decide whether AS 42.40.390 is choice- necessarily inhering” with this court’s provision in Eklutna II of-law because reasons, decision II.58 For these yet reg- adopted had not a land use case doctrine to this we the law the asking to re- ulation. But the Railroad is us appeal grant and affirm the court’s arguments that we considered in consider summary judgment to Eklutna. Eklutna II. After analyzing meaning legislative history of 42.40.390 at AS Legislature’s Response D. The to the meaning length, we concluded that the Request Legislative Railroad’s for This conclusion is in statute was not clear.54 Clarification Is Probative but holding in keeping our overall the case: with Dispositive. provides no indication of “that ARCA clear legislature’s Eklutna contends that the de- regard to local legislature’s intent with adopt cision not to the Railroad’s authority over the Railroad and that probative in amendment to AS 42.40.390 is presume immunity Alaska law does not state II, in this case. As we observed clarity in zoning.”55 local The lack of AS legis- is often an error to make much of “[i]t provisions and other led us 42.40.390 ARCA test, opinion lative inaction.”59 But the same adopt balancing of interests legislature’s decision jurisdictions we considered the 1984 courts in at least fourteen other clarify possi- not to revise 42.40.390 to when faced with unclear statutes have done immunity It and observed: “[I]n under similar circumstances.56 does ble II, Carlson, (internal ("Resort quotations at at 57. See Eklutna 87 P.3d 55 50. 65 P.3d 859 omitted). balancing test two of interests is limited First, requirements. because the test threshold intent, Prods., statutory aims to discern direct Inc. v. Fairbanks N. Star 51. Bowers Office they Dist., (Alas- grants immunity control when exist. Borough School 918 P.2d Second, 1996). resolve conflicts the court will not under ka balancing unless the state has made test comply good attempt reasonable faith (internal omitted). quotations 52. Id. citations and omitted). laws.”) (internal citations Carlson, (internal quotations at Prods., omitted). 58. See Bowers 918 P.2d at Office (internal doctrine) (discussing of the case law omitted). II, quotations 54. Eklutna 87 P.3d at 48. (citing Cmty. 59. Eklutna 87 P.3d at 48 Reid, 730, 749, 490 U.S. CreativeNon-Violence (1989)). S.Ct. 104 L.Ed.2d 811 Id. at 54. Superior Did Not Err in E. The Court context, problem and solution -with the this Attorney’s Awarding Full Fees to it, legislature’s we see plainly before the Public Interest Eklutna Under suggesting that AS least decision as Litigant Doctrine. as a shield intended 42.40.390 was legisla- The 2004 regulation.”60 argues superi- that the against local Railroad is, attorney’s full granting or court erred in fees position it had in a ture was similar —that litigant public Eklutna under the interest legislation to add to AS proposed specific (1) argues: Railroad that AS doctrine. The have-clarified which would 42.40.390 09.60.010(b) prevents claiming Eklutna zoning. The exempt from local is Railroad status; public litigant interest statute, not to amend the chose qualify public as a intеrest Eklutna does not a task force. formed instead but litigant. conclude that the We adopt not to it decided When when it deter did not abuse its discretion amendment, public interest the 2004 mined that Eklutna was a road’s litigant. aware of this court’s decision ture was well minutes of the reflected in the Eklutna as 09.60.010(b) 1. Alaska does Statute hearings in both committee transportation apply to this case. above, And, Gamble told as noted chambers. argues Railroad first that AS Transportation Committee that the House 09.60.010(b) prevents claiming Eklutna from get not be allowed to the Railroad would public litigant interest status. Alaska Stat- regardless of the quarry rock from Eklutna was amended in 2003 to state: ute 09.60.010 fact, legislature’s decision. Gamble statute, provided by Except as otherwise statement, Railroad had al- this made court in this state not discriminate ready adopted Emergency Rule 2004-E-I. attorney award of fees and costs to or in the min- is no indication committee There against party appeal in a civil action or legislators were aware of the utes that the policy on the nature of the or inter based point in emergency rule. At one the House party, est advocated the number hearing, Standing Transportation Committee persons affected the outcome of the questioned Representative Kookesh Gamble’s case, governmental entity could quo being the status characterization of bring participate in expected be or exempt is from local that the Railroad ease, party’s the extent of the economic quo that “the status is laws observed case, 61] bring any incentive to combi Al- Supreme Court said was.”

what factors.[ nation of these engaged in a though Gamble discussion disagree provision Eklutna does not that this proper definition of the Kookesh about doctrine, repeals litigant interest that the Rail- quo, status he did not mention argues the amendment does not emergency rule promulgated road had apply suit was because this filed it to remove rock from the that would allow the amendment came into effect. Al- before events, quarry. sequence this Given ternatively, argues that the amend- understanding that legislators’ apparent ment is unconstitutional. required apply the Railroad was parties acknowledge, As both permit under this court’s de- conditional use 09.60.010(b) applies only to suits filed on or Eklutna, II, we believe that cision September after 2003.62 Eklutna con- clarify legislature’s not to the mean- decision provision does not tends probative in ing of AS 42.40.390 is this case. part action because the action is of Ek- note, however, not consider a We that we do injunction against original for an lutna’s suit Railroad, of this nature to dis- decision which Eklutna filed challenge argues that Eklutna’s positive standing on its own. 86, 4,§ ch. SLA 2003. 62.See 09.60.010(b); ch. SLA 2003. 61. AS

1203 ap- stance reinforces our conclusion that this 2004-E-l is a new case Emergency Rule to original peal a stems from Eklutna’s lawsuit have either filed and that Eklutna should 11, September that was filed before 2003. original complaint its action or amended new 09.60.010(b) rule, Having determined that AS does than emergency rather protest public not Eklutna’s claim of interest bar summary filing post-appeal a motion for status, litigant we need not consider whether agreed with Ek- judgment.63 Judge Rindner its enactment violated the Alaska Constitu- lutna and concluded that the case filed tion. 11, 2003, required by September as before language of the session law.64 superior did 2. court not abuse this case has position Eklutna’s is it its discretion when determined beginning equitable been an action from public that Eklutna is a interest sought injunction, Eklutna an because litigant. attaches, jurisdiction the court equitable once argues The Railrоad next jurisdiction until continuing the dis- retains public qualify Eklutna does not as a interest pute general is resolved. This is the rule.65 litigant. This court examines four factors argues The Railroad that Eklutna should party qualifies a determine whether for the its have either filed a new action or amended public litigant exception to Rule interest Civil enacted Emer- complaint after the Railroad (1) The factors are: whether the case is 82. 2004-E-l, gency Rule but the Railroad does public designed strong policies; to effectuate complaint explain why amending the 2001 (2) plaintiff’s whether the success will cause a new cause of action would be the to add lawsuit; people from numerous to benefit filing equivalent of a new case after (3) only private party have whether could 11, September 2003 deadline. Under Alaska (4) suit; expected bring been law, a statute of limitations does not bar purported public litigant whether the interest original complaint party amending from would have sufficient economic incentive to long as the amendment relates back to the so if file suit even the action “involved claim, original filed before the limitations lacking general importance.”68 narrow issues Although period has run.66 this case does argues that cannot The Railroad Eklutna limitations, involve a statute of the “relat- satisfy the third factor because the Munici- is, ing “whether the new back” test —that pality party is a to the action. same transaction or occur- claim involves the disagreed, noting that original complaint”67 superior court alleged in the rence —is Eklutna treated as a interest by analogy. Even if Eklutna had had been useful litigant quotes complaint, sug- related cases. amended its 3, have, complaint Spenard Action Committee v. Lot gests it the amended should support sufficiently Evergreen the Block Subdivision to have been related to public interest its contention that under the original complaint that it could be considered doctrine, municipality litigant “where part of the same lawsuit. We also note ability bring an summary judgment action but Eklutna moved for so, in Ek- declines to do the situation is one where to enforce this court’s decision effort remand; purposes, only private during practical this eireum- ‘for all lutna II 1988) jurisdic- (stating Although challenge that "once a court obtains the Railroad did not equitable purposes, dispose of all procedural posture tion for of the case when it, equitable legal”). summary issues bеfore judgment, its motion for filed preserve right argu- to make this road did stipulation See, ment in a Eklutna. e.g., Ely, 263 Brown v. 14 P.3d (Alaska 2000) 15(c)). (construing Civil Rule 86, 4,§ 64. See ch. SLA 2003. § 74 65. See 18 Am.Jur.2d Contribution ("Once equity acquires jurisdiction Reform, Inc. v. court of Coalition Tort Citizens (cit- matter, (Alaska 1991) subject McAlpine, retain it until full P.2d 171 it will Daily Anchorage parties.”); ing Anchorage justice see News v. Sch. has been done between the Dist., 1990)). State, (Alaska 803 P.2d also Foster v. did not abuse its discretion expected bring have been party could Committee, Action Spenard Eklutna full reasonable at- when it awarded [suit].’”69 group that a citizens’ public interest liti- torney’s we examined fees under the public prostitution was abate sought to gant doctrine.74 concluded that the litigant.70 We interest litigant even public interest group was IV. CONCLUSION Anchorage Municipality of could though the II Because Eklutna requires the Railroad anti-prostitution laws be- the have enforced permit use before conditional to do so.71 In Municipality refused cause quarry, AFFIRM operating the Eklutna we requested case, asserts that entirety. in its court’s decision action in 2001 to to take Municipality quar- mining from Railroad

prevent the so, refused to do forc- ry. Municipality The Justice, MATTHEWS, with whom injunction. Eklutna an ing Eklutna to seek Justice, BRYNER, joins, dissenting. Chief Municipality’s assistance requested also Justice, MATTHEWS, with whom Railroad enacted after the April. Justice, BRYNER, joins, dissenting. Chief Again, the Mu- Rule 2004-E-l. Emergency action, to take nicipality refused legis- my 42.40.3901is a direct view AS summary judgment motion. filed its own immunity from grant lative to the Railroad until la- Municipality did not intervene zoning. power adopt “exclusive local Heideman, attorney, Sara ter. Eklutna’s governing land use” for railroad land rules they facts in an affidavit and forth these sets necessarily governments local means disputed in the record before us. are not regulate able to might otherwise be argues that this case differs The Railroad Today lands are excluded.2 railroad Action Committee because Spenard from only alternative to this court disavows the Municipality has intervened this case prior opinion. it offered in its view that The Railroad of Eklutna. concedes behalf interpretation was that “the term alternative Municipality participated in this that “the a choice-of- ‘exclusive’ could also be read as carry litigation [Eklutna] but allowed provision promul- Railroad law Board —if yet briefing,” argues that the burden of the ordinances, gated conflicting rules with local Railroad, Municipality, not the should bear regulations govern, the Railroad’s but Denying Eklutna the costs of this decision.72 conflict, of a local rules are the absence litigant merely public interest status because unaffected.”3 joined the suit later would point I think that the court at this should purpose public interest liti- defeat the retracted, recognize doctrine, it has thus gant “designed which is to encour- changed, important part prior opin- of its age plaintiffs bring public issues of inter- retraction means that it was conclude that the ion. The court’s est to the courts.”73 We (Alaska 1995). may adopt govern- The board exclusive rules 69. 902 P.2d ing by parties having interests in or managed by permits for land owned or 70. Id. by power corporation. The conferred this sec- health, safety, is exercised for the common tion 71. Id. and welfare of the and to extent constitutionally permissible, not be limit- that the 72. The Railroad does not contend fees leases, by con- ed the terms and conditions charged were unreasonable. tracts, or other transactions. McCabe, Anchorage v. detail, position explained in more This (Alaska 1977). supported by legislative history, dissenting in the Village opinion in Native Eklutna Alaska Municipality argues that 74. The (Eklutna II), Corp. P.3d 62-65 attorney’s pay should its full fees because the J., 2004) (Matthews, J., joined by Bryner, Municipal- Railroad's case is without merit. The dissenting). ity provides support argument. little for this provides: Id. at 47. 1.AS 42.40.390 thinking The second new alternative originally mistaken rule-making offered is that the land use rules of exclusive regulation room for local Railroad left some authorized section .390 are to ensure “that The court should now of railroad lands. the Railroad has the to control activi- in accordance with its construe section .390 on its land even when wishes to ties its language as confirmed clear plain permittees,” deviate from those of its history and hold that section .390 ex- tive subject rules that these land use are municipal zoning. cludes railroad land regulations.6 It is of course true purpose one of section .390 is to ensure something that the “exclusive Is there else that thé Railroad can control the land use mean? provision of section .390 could rules” permittees. Today’s opinion offers two new alternatives. activities of its lessees and section, But, following regulatory power I discuss in the power granted as thus is a plausible. neither is granted government to the Railroad ás a exercised, entity. zoning, It tois be like “for

I. health, safety, the common and welfare of the alternаtive, (as As the first new public,” the second sentence of AS interpretation by clear) states that an offered as a 42.40.390makes rather than land- possible interpreta- Municipality is “another power specify permits lord’s to leases and Municipality’s interpretation is tion.”4 The However, how land should be used. governs conveyances of rail- that section .390 part interpretation, that second the court’s subject explicit But the of sec- road lands. regulatory power granted the land use governing .390 is “exclusive rail- tion rules” by subject section .390 is to the land use, road land not transfers of interests regulatory power any municipality use subject important railroad lands. The lands, encompasses which railroad is not a gov- in railroad lands is transfers of interest reasonably possible interpretation for three act, by primarily other sections of the erned reasons. 42.40.285(1) (4) 42.40.350(c) and and AS AS First, interpretation reads the (d).5 word conveyances land and land and Since “exclusive” out of section .390. Since subjects separate separate treated in use are power regulate Railroad’s to its land is “ex- sections, statutory that the view section .390 clusive,” may municipality it that a conveyances, it states that it follows governs use, governs regulate frivolous. not also them.7 land seems by Op. made at fair market value as determined at 1199-1200. by qualified appraiser competitive or bid. provide: 5. These statutes Op. at 1200-01. (4): 42.40.285(1) AS and law, legislature approves Unless the the action point response In to this the court states that may corporation not merely used in the statute means "exclusive” as (1) donate, sell, exchange, or otherwise con- permittees do also have lessees and land; vey its entire interest in regulatory power adopt Op. rules. at to logic 1200-01. But we know both as matter of period lease land for a in excess of 55 legislative history and from the of section .390 corporation right years unless the reserves the legislature that this is not what the had in mind. to terminate the lease if the land is needed for governmen- permittees do Lessees not have and purposes[.] authority. ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍railroad regulatory tal use Therefore land 42.40.350(c) (d): to exclude them from its exer- there is no need lease, (c) may subject corporation to AS legislature grants zoning power When the cise. section, (d) grant necessary municipalities 42.40.285 and of this ease- to does not find it to .it for, permits powers in or otherwise authorize ments state that the is exclusive of However, by municipal portions might les- use of of rail land. otherwise be exercised sees, convey zoning power. corporation lack And we its entire interest because lessees history provided legislative that section except in AS know from the in rail 42.40.285, 42.40.370(d) the Railroad the land and 42.40.400. .390 was intended (d) regulatory authority government. disposal approved of a See A lease or of land legislative history of section AS 42.40.285 the cor- the discussion of under party pages poration other the state shall be .390 1206-08. than infra when, ever, approved on the .390 was requires us to section Second, interpretation day Senator that two final of committee deliberations legislature intended believe “pro- it needed to municipal- argued Halford that was entities —a governmental separate local zon- operations have the railroad’s both tect the ity the Railroad —would Gilman, Imposing ar- ing land. who railroad restrictions.”12 Senator authority to zone .390, government entities said that gued two for the deletion of section system in which zone the same land some originally put was “to establish have the absurd, espe- why get irrational as railroad should be so rationale for mechanism for authority” opined is no built-in cially tax-exempt bonding when there enti- necessary.13 between resolving longer conflicts But this was no thus conflicts interpretation argued exemption ties.8 The that tax Faiks Senator that statutes should the rule of construction problem. Hers was the last word and still a to reach absurd results.9 interpreted not be As the dissent in section .390 was retained. Eklutna II states: is not tex- Finally, result, it also and absurd tually untenable tax-exempt bonding sta order have history. That with the conflicts tus, Railroad need it was believed that the in history in detail the dissent- was examined comparable regulation powers ed land use 17.10To summarize it ing opinion in Eklutna government. pow to those of a local Such originally briefly, .390 was drafted section granted. It does not matter ers were the Alaska Rail- legislative session in which granted primari powers were was considered but not Corporation road Act ly that the Railroad could issue tax-free so 1984, passed, the act was passed. In or so that the Railroad would not be bonds Transportation of the Senate Chairman by municipal operations in its disturbed initially uncertain as to what Committee was zoning. Whatever the dominant motive states, today’s opinion As the section meant. been, may grant have exclusive attorney the committee advised same.[14] regulatory power was the “was either intended to that section .390 least controversial authority Railroad or to The most valuable and grant zoning to the prob- zoning regu- legislative history is to show the property from use of railroad exclude 11 lem, legislature meetings problems, con- or the was During subsequent lations.” known, addressing. problem is this was When cerning section .390 desirability language might that although the the effect of otherwise questioned, never end, apparent.15 often Here retaining was. In the how- be obscure becomes section .390 point 14. Id. response to the court states that commonly "government contend entities must jurisdiction.” Op. at 1200-01. with conflicts See, Singer, e.g., 2A Norman J. Sutherland correct, generality not detract is but it does This 4502, (6th § Statutory ed. 15 Construction give point would be absurd to from the that it ("Before 2000) meaning of a can the true statute authority separate government two entities the genuine be determined where there is uncertain- land. court offers neither a zone the same The ty concerning application, must its consideration of, for, example that rationale nor an statute given problem society to which the to the zoning authority. conflicting bestows itself.”); Breyer, Stephen addressed History Interpreting Legislative On the Uses Co., 16, Holiday P.2d 9. Sherman v. Constr. Statutes, (1992) 65 S. 848-49 Cal. L.Rev. 1967) (it judicial duty is a "to con- history helps (noting "legislative a court glaringly strue statutes so as to avoid results absurd"). purpose of a statute” understand the context "clarify ambiguity" help which can and can results"); City Rancho Palos “avoid[ ] absurd J., (Matthews, by joined 10. 87 at 62-65 P.3d Abrams, v. U.S. 125 S.Ct. Verdes J., Bryner, dissenting). (2005) (concurring opin- 161 L.Ed.2d 316 J., Breyer, joined by justices) other ion of three Op. at 1199. "context, just (advocating lit- examination intent”) (dis- Congress guide text” as a "to eral (dissenting opin- at 63-64 12. Eklutna 87 P.3d Borough, v. Fairbanks N. Star ion). cussed in ICHRRA (Alaska 2006) (Mat- 1010 n. 5 thews, J., concurring)). 13. Id. at 64. completely ignored. that it was word was not Current- history section .390 shows two, two, however, prob- ly, appears saying the court to be meant to address municipality to ensure that the that a and the Railroad both was the need lems. One authority recognized zoning as a tax-ex- have concurrent and in Railroad would be entity bonds. eases where have acted and empt entitled issue tax-free both there is protect municipal regulations, conflict the The other was the need rather impediments regulations, prevail. from im- than the railroad operations road in its zoning. gone missing. .390 posed Section word “exclusive” problems. In order to estab- solution to both II. Railroad as a

lish the bona fides of the entity tax-exempt government entitled I think also the court has made a treatment, granted Railroad was exclu- fundamental mistake as to the nature of the regulatory power. In order to sive land use test, “balancing of interests” test. That operational from inter- protect the Railroad Supreme which was first announced zoning, the Railroad was ference from local Jersey Rutgers, State Uni Court of New power. leg- exclusive granted the same Piluso,16 versity rejects ap traditional unmistakably history thus shows that islative proaches problem that to the arises when one was meant as a section .390 entity government proposes activity regulatory Railroad of exclusive land use zoning gov violate the rules another is, history power. quite simply, There no entity. approaches ernment traditional suggesting that concurrent land use authori- (1) immunity inferred based ty legislature, much less was intended (the competing the status of the entities su give prece- concurrent test), perior sovereign the nature of the zoning in municipal dence to case of con- (the activity proposed governmental/proprie flict. tary dichotomy), or the fact that the activity authority supported new concurrent munic- was or was not This (the by property ipal zoning given precedence is the to condemn emi test). Rutgers balancing now-rejected the reverse of the alternative nent domain The of the court Eklut- by rejects in interpretation offered interests test the rote or “ritualistic” na II. That alternative also practice inferring immunity posited concur- of based the municipalities presence of zoning rent or absence the above factors.17 Instead, immunity particular question If railroad the of is to be the Railroad. land factors, many by zoning by considering in municipal covered and the Rail- answered cluding ap passed regulations those on which the traditional road had not based, land, proaches may that relevant to governing that would be controlled are municipal zoning regulations. upon particular question governmen But of which the the regula- entity, prevail. balancing tal should The of passage by the Railroad of land use land, regula- rejects practice the governing tions the the railroad interests test thus inferring legislative just from one fac preсedence. take The now-re- intent tions would words, tor, inferring legislative intent jected interpretation, in other read favor thought of factors that are priority to state a rule of rather from number “exclusive” particular to a resolution of land than a rule of exclusion. That is an unusual be relevant “exclusive,” government entities.18 interpretation of but at least the use conflicts between (1972). balancing policy choice. drawback of the 16. 60 N.J. 286 A.2d 697 The ultimately policy the choice is made test is that courts, rather than executive 17. Id. at 701. involving balancing authorities. local in- Issues readily are not ame- terests with state-wide needs immunity, 18. Id. at 702. Because or the lack judicial analysis. thereof, This drawback can be nable to is from a of factors that inferred number balancing where the decision maker is may policy avoided be relevant to the ultimate decision legally agency competent to make easy is particular project, to the location of a it is complicated policy Law why balancing preferred by many choices. The American test is see the Development Code cre- approaches Institute’s Model Land authorities to the traditional that fo- dеcisions, regional agencies such to a rational ates to make cus on factors that be irrelevant directly duty interpret statutes ad- balancing the underlying premise of The (and subject immunity. Balancing of ap- the traditional dress test interests' directly of a applies not interests the absence legislature state proaches) is statute, it is not a rule intended subject relevant but of whether actually addressed ambiguities in that ad- activity to resolve statutes should or should entity proposing the immunity.22 subject inquiry is dress the subject zoning. The to local not be legislature would have “what essence Jersey Supreme of New de Court question.”19 it considered done had Rutgers balancing prohibit signed test hypothetical legisla- a search for test entails relationships using legal from that do courts by using factors relevant to local intent tive directly to draw not concern land use control the state “[w]hen and broader needs government entity’s inferences about one is, subject” because “it on the ture silent Today’s amenability zoning by another. thinking problem.”20 about wasn’t Rutgers balancing opinion has converted the statutory pre legis- into a rule of construction no doubt test there can be Since about, entity cluding immunization of one thinking problem lature was zoning power of another unless be immune from the Railroad should the. .390,21 law states the immunization ob it considered section use control jective high clarity.23 balancing with a standard premise of the of interests test Rutgers balancing test result, the court’s This conversion of the here. As is satisfied pre rule reflects a into a clear-statement duty is to determine what zoning power sumption “exclusive rules” favor of local over when it enacted the meant Judicially clear- balancing of interests test is state land use. created provision. The presumption of immuni- rules are based on a rejects rote inferences statement rule that disfavored, legislation, particular it is that a result is thus ty from collateral drawn requiring to make a clear statement changes a court’s fundamental laws rule supra pages appeals See 1206-08. a state-wide to hear from 21. board agencies. regional See Model Dev.Code Land (1975). general §§ 7-304-504 Alaska statu- E.g., City City Pennington County, Rapid tory system setting up the courts as also avoids (S.D.2003). 669 N.W.2d 120 This case involved policy inter-gov- the ultimate decision maker in county dispute a between a zoning disputes, without the bureau- ernmental cratic facility city jail-work a release in a in locate overlay of the Model Code. Under AS city’s zoning comprehensive and violation of agencies required and .030 state are 35.30.020 governing provided plan. that no statute zoning subject comply to a waiver in with local building without "shall be constructed” governor overriding cases state interest. The of city approval, overriding planning commission but another makes the decision as to whether an system But this sensible provided planning state interest exists. section commission "dis- apply provi- does to the Railroad because may by” approval be overruled the board autho- Corporation the Alaska Railroad Act sion of states that AS 35 does not rizing building. (discussing at 122 SDCL apply to the Railroad. 11-6-21). that ar- 11-6-19 and Over dissent 42.40.920(b)(3). It is one of the ironies of gued previously adopted that South Dakota's bal- this case that the efforts make ancing apply, test should the court construed subject zoning than Railroad less to local control county subject statute to mean that the was not agencies quo status other slate for —the city's zoning respect to the to the ordinance with entity a former was that it was road as federal jail-work facility. Id. at creation of the release subject zoning to local resulted in the —has 124-26. control; becoming subject more to local Railroad or, least, certain that it must endure less (and expensive time-consuming) meth- introductory more language 23. This is evident from the obtaining overriding od state interest court, of waiv- today's opinion explaining in of where agencies. other er than legislature "the states that because exempt clearly did not indicate its intention to City County, 510 Crown Point v. Lake zoning municipal the Railroad from laws when it (Ind.1987). N.E.2d Corporation ... enacted the Act Alaska n City Temple Hillsborough must for a conditional use Terrace v. Ass’n Citizens, (Fla. Municipali- Retarded 322 So.2d 578-79 permit” under the code of the for App.1975). adopt governing That the exclusive rules railroad land a result is intended.24 that such balancing interpreted test cannot be use. Rutgers from the a clear-statement rule is clear

to be up, I in To sum think that the court erred pre opinion. reflecting Far from Rutgers interpret Eklutna II when it declined to disfavoring land uses when sumption state exempt séction .390 to railroad land from zoning, they with local the New Jer conflict zoning. interpretation Such an is re- sey Rutgers that state func court stated quired by customary our touchstones of stat- generally, not be agencies would tions utory language interpretation, of the subject to restriction or control local land unusually section as confirmed its clear regulations.25 Rutgers court stated: use legislative history.27 The court has now necessary only it alter- found to recant the regard university ... there to a state With interpretation of section .390 that it native that, an instrumental can be little doubt as in Eklutna II. I think this should offered ity performing of the state an essential signal to the court that it made a mistake in for the of all governmental function benefit Eklutna II and that the mistake should now state, Legislature people Instead, be corrected. the court has offered growth not intend that its and devel interpretations. two new alternative These subject opment should be to restriction stray interpretations new so far afield from regulation. control local land use In statutory our traditional methods of inter- deed, generally be true in the such mil pretation completely implausible, to be junctions agencies.[26] all state case of my justify opinion. The court is able to its statutory Rather than use a rule of con- interpretation failure to reach a conclusive gives permission ig- courts struction that by creating meaning of section .390 spеak ques- nore relevant statutes that statutory clear-statement rule of construc- to control tion of the allocation tion. This rule allows the court to brush any land use unless the courts find them to be aside statute that addresses the land part authority that is not of the Rut- rule-making “clear” —a rule use of entities other should, my gers balancing municipal zoning test —the court than unless the boards clearly opinion, customary statutory exempts rules of in- statute the other entities municipal zoning. This is a distortion terpretation order to determine what the actually Rutgers balancing test. Our estab- meant when addressed statutory subject lished do of the Railroad’s rules However, 1991). ty Anchorage. Op. (emphasis even at 1194-95 add- P.2d 643 statutory language ed). where the considered alone reasonably leave one seems to room Noatak, 24. See v. Native Vill. meaning, we nonetheless consult Blatchford 775, 790, history statutory U.S. 111 S.Ct. 115 L.Ed.2d construc- tive tion, and the rules of J., (1991) (Blackmun, dissenting) language (noting, realizing in dis- that sometimes approval, seems clear in the abstract takes on a different clear-statement rules that so-called Slope meaning when viewed in context. North designed against "are as hurdles” disfavored re- Corp., Borough 585 P.2d v. Sohio Petrolеum sults) (internal omitted); quotations Dan Ka-M. Alex, 534, (Alaska 1978); 540 State v. 646 P.2d han, Federal Criminal Is Chevron Relevant to (Alaska 1982). 208 n. 4 In such cases the Law?, (1996) (report- L. Rev 504 110 Harv. legislative history and rules of construction rule, ing that in the face of a clear-statement present compelling case that the literal must meaning "only express [legislative] action will suffice to language of the statute is not of the reading”). the disfavored establish University what the intended. Geistauts, v. 428 n. 5 Alaska Rutgers, A.2d at 703. ("Where 1983) meaning ap- a statute’s added). (emphasis unambiguous, party pears clear and ... meaning asserting a corre- a different See, concerning customary our methods of heavy demonstrating spondingly burden of statutory interpretation, Elec. v. Homer Ass’n Alex, intent.”); contrary State v. (Alaska 1992): Towsley, 841 P.2d 1043-44 (under sliding-scale P.2d at 208 n. 4 approach Alaska's Generally, guide the most reliable to the statutory interpretation, the more meaning language of a statute is the words of the statute plain of the statute the more convincing contrary legislative accordance with their common construed in the evidence Sitka, be). usage. Lagos City Borough intent must v. & clarity statutory clarity require —where for the rules. is little need there exists view, ‍‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‍approach is taken a normal my meaning of section question reasonably interpretation is

.390 one

possible. reasons, I dissent.

For these BLANK, Appellant, A.

Laura Alaska, Appellee.

STATE A-9034.

No. Alaska. Appeals

Court

Sept.

Case Details

Case Name: Alaska Railroad Corp. v. Native Village of Eklutna

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 1, 2006

Citation: 142 P.3d 1192

Docket Number: S-11619

Court Abbreviation: Alaska