Upload
scribd-government-docs
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
1/44
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA
STATEOFALASKA,MICHAEL HANLEY,COMMISSIONEROFALASKADEPARTMENTOFEDUCATIONANDEARLYDEVELOPMENT,inhisofficialcapacity
Appellantsand
Cross-Appellees,
v.
KETCHIKANGATEWAYBOROUGH,AGNESMORAN,anindividual,onherownbehalfandonbehalfofherson,JOHNCOSS,aminor,JOHNHARRINGTON,anindividual,and
DAVIDSPOKELY,anindividual,
AppelleesandCross-Appellants.
) ) SupremeCourtNos.S-15811/15841
SuperiorCourtNo.1KE-14-00016CI
OPINION
No.7075January8,2016
) )
,) ))
)))))))))
)) ) ) )
AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska, FirstJudicialDistrict,Ketchikan,WilliamB.Carey,Judge.
Appearances: Kathryn R. Vogel, Rebecca Hattan, and
Margaret Paton-Walsh, Assistant Attorneys General,Anchorage,andCraig W.Richards, Attorney General,Juneau,forAppellants/Cross-Appellees.LouisianaW.Cutler and Jennifer M. Coughlin, K&L Gates, LLP,Anchorage, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants, and ScottBrandt-Erichsen,KetchikanGatewayBorough,Ketchikan,for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Ketchikan Gateway
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
2/44
Borough. William D. Falsey and John Sedor, Sedor,Wendlandt,Evans&Filippi,LLCandSaulR.Friedman,Jermain,Dunnagan&Owens,P.C.,Anchorage,forAmiciCuriae Association of Alaska School Boards, AlaskaCouncil of School Administrators and AlaskaSuperintendents Association. Howard S. Trickey,MatthewSingerandRobertMisulich,Holland&KnightLLP, Anchorage, for Amicus Curiae Citizens for theEducationalAdvancement of Alaskas Children. KimDunn,LandyeBennettBlumsteinLLP,Anchorage,forAmicusCuriaeNEA-Alaska. A.ReneBroker,BoroughAttorney,Fairbanks,forAmicusCuriaeFairbanksNorthStarBorough.
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice,Winfree, Maassen, andBolger,Justices.[Fabe,Justice,notparticipating.]
BOLGER,Justice. STOWERS,ChiefJustice,andWINFREE,Justice,concurring.
I. INTRODUCTION
TheStateslocalschoolfundingformularequiresalocalgovernmentto
makeacontributiontofunditslocalschooldistrict. Thesuperiorcourtheldthatthis
requiredlocalcontributionisanunconstitutionaldedicationofastatetaxorlicense.
Buttheminutesoftheconstitutionalconventionandthehistoricalcontextofthose
proceedingssuggestthatthedelegatesintendedthatlocalcommunitiesandtheState
wouldshareresponsibilityfortheirlocalschools. Andthoseproceedingsalsoindicate
thatthedelegatesdidnotintendforstate-localcooperativeprogramsliketheschool
funding formula to be included in the term state tax or license. These factors
distinguishthiscasefrompreviouscaseswherewefoundthatstatefundingmechanisms
-2- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
3/44
violatedthededicatedfundsclause. Wethereforeholdthattheexistingfundingformula
doesnotviolatetheconstitution,andwereversethesuperiorcourtsgrantofsummary
judgment.
II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS
A. SchoolFundingFormula
Article VII, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution requires the state
legislaturetoestablishandmaintainasystemofpublicschoolsopentoallchildrenin
thestate.1 Tofulfillthisconstitutionalmandate,thelegislaturehasdefinedthreetypes
ofschool districts according towhere the district is located: cityschooldistricts,
boroughschooldistricts,andregionaleducationattendanceareas.2 [E]achorganized
boroughisaboroughschooldistrict;3 aboroughmustestablish[],maintain[],and
operate[]asystemofpublic schoolsonanareawidebasis.4 Localschoolboards
manageandcontroltheseschooldistrictsunderauthoritydelegatedbyAS14.12.020.
Thisstatuterequireslocalboroughandcitygovernmentstoraisemoneyfromlocal
sourcestomaintainandoperatetheirlocalschools. 5
1 AlaskaConst.art.VII,1(ThelegislatureshallbygenerallawestablishandmaintainasystemofpublicschoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState,andmay
provideforotherpubliceducationalinstitutions.).
2 AS14.12.010.Cityschooldistrictsarethoselocatedwithinahome-ruleareaorcitybutoutsideanorganizedborough.Id.Boroughschooldistrictsarethoselocatedinorganizedboroughs.Id. Regionaleducationattendanceareasarethoselocatedoutsideorganizedcity,home-rule,orboroughboundaries. Id.
3 AS14.12.010(2).
4 AS29.35.160(a).
5 AS14.12.020(c)(Theboroughassemblyforaboroughschooldistrict,andthecitycouncilforacityschooldistrict,shallprovidethemoneythatmustberaised
(continued...)
-3- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
4/44
Thelocalschoolfundingformulabeginswiththeconceptofbasicneed.
Thisconceptisintendedtoequalizedistrictsbyprovidingthemwithneededresources,
takingintoaccountdifferencesamongdistricts.6 Astatutoryformuladeterminesa
districts basicneed basedon two variables: the districts adjustedaveragedaily
membershipandthestatewidebasestudentallocation.7 Thedistrictsadjustedaverage
dailymembershipaccountsforseveralmetricssuchasenrollment,schoolsize,relative
costsinthedistrict, thenumberofstudentswithspecialneeds,and thenumberof
correspondencestudents.8 Thebasestudentallocationisaper-studentallowancesetby
astatutethatthelegislatureperiodicallyrevisits. 9
(...continued)fromlocalsourcestomaintainandoperatethedistrict.). Bycontrast,thelegislaturefundsdistrictslocatedintheregionaleducationalattendanceareas,whichlacktaxingauthority.Id. (Thelegislatureshallprovidethestatemoneynecessarytomaintainand
operatetheregionaleducationalattendanceareas.);see AlaskaConst.art.X,2(TheStatemaydelegatetaxingpowerstoorganizedboroughsandcitiesonly.);Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,399-400(Alaska1997)(statingthattaxingpowerexplains,inpart,whythelegislaturetreatsdistrictsdifferently).
6 ALASKA DEPT OF EDUC.&EARLY DEV.,ALASKAS PUBLIC SCHOOLFUNDINGFORMULA:AREPORTTOTHEALASKASTATELEGISLATURE8(2001).
7 AS14.17.410(b)(1).
8
AS14.17.410(b)(1)(A)(D);AS14.17.420(a).9 AS14.17.470;see e.g.,ch.9,810,SLA2008(settingtheamountat
$5,480for2008,$5,580for2009,and$5,680for2010);ch.41,7,SLA2006(settingtheamountat$5,380for2006).AsofNovember2015,theper-studentallowanceis$5,830.AS14.17.470.
-4- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
5/44
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
6/44
citytocontributemorethan45percentofadistrictsbasicneedfortheprecedingfiscal
year.17 Acityorboroughschooldistrictalsomaymakeavoluntarycontribution,but
astatutorycappreventsalocalcommunityfromcontributingmorethanthegreaterof
theequivalentofatwomilltaxlevyonthefullandtruevalueofthetaxablerealand
personalpropertyinthedistrictor23percentofthetotalofthedistrictsbasicneed
forthefiscalyear.18 Thus,underthecurrentframework,organizedboroughsandcities
worktogetherwiththeStatetosupportpublicschools.
B. PriorProceedings
KetchikanGatewayBoroughisanorganizedboroughthatmustannually
contributetofunditsschoolsunderAS14.12.020. 19Therequiredpayment,setbythe
schoolfundingformula,20supportstheKetchikanGatewayBoroughSchoolDistrict.In
2013, the districts basic need for the upcoming 2014 fiscal year was almost
$26million; therequiredlocal contributionwasabout$4.2million.ThoughtheBorough
contributedthisamountunderprotest,itvoluntarilycontributedanadditional$3.8
million. Aftercontributingthefunds,theBoroughbroughtsuitagainsttheState,asking
thesuperiorcourt, first, todeclare the requiredlocal contributionunconstitutional;
second,toenjointheStatefromrequiringtheBoroughtocomplywiththestatute;and,
17 AS14.17.410(b)(2).
18 AS14.17.410(c)(1)(2).
19 AS14.12.020(c)(Theboroughassemblyforaboroughschooldistrict...shallprovidethemoneythatmustberaisedfromlocalsourcestomaintainandoperatethedistrict.).KetchikanGatewayBoroughincorporatedasasecond-class
boroughonSeptember13,1963.
KetchikanGatewayBorough,Alaska,Code01.05.040(2015).
20 See AS14.17.410(b)(2)([T]herequiredlocalcontributionofacityorboroughschooldistrictistheequivalentofa2.65milltaxlevyonthefullandtruevalueofthetaxablerealandpersonalpropertyinthedistrict....).
-6- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
7/44
third,todirecttheStatetorefunditsprotested$4.2millionpayment.Bothpartiesmoved
forsummaryjudgment.
ThesuperiorcourtpartiallygrantedtheBoroughsmotion. Itagreedwith
theBoroughthattherequiredlocalcontributionviolatedthededicatedfundsclause
underarticleIX,section7ofthestateconstitution.Thededicatedfundsclauseprovides:
Theproceedsofanystatetaxorlicenseshallnotbededicatedtoanyspecialpurpose,exceptasprovidedinsection15ofthisarticleorwhenrequiredbythefederalgovernmentforstateparticipationinfederalprograms. Thisprovisionshallnotprohibitthecontinuanceofanydedicationforspecial
purposesexistinguponthedateofratificationofthissectionbythepeopleofAlaska.[21]
Thesuperiorcourtconcludedthatthe requiredlocalcontributionconstitutedtheproceeds
ofastatetaxorlicense;thatthelocalcontributionstatuteearmarkedthosefundsfora
specificpurposeandpreventedthelegislaturefromusingthefundsinanyothermanner;
and that the required local contribution was not exempt from the constitutional
prohibitionagainstdedicatedfunds.
Thesuperior courtdeniedsummary judgmenton theBoroughsother
claims. Itconcludedthatthelocalcontributiondidnotviolatetheappropriationsor
governorsvetoclausesandthatequitydidnotrequiretheStatetorefundthelocal
contributiontotheBoroughforthe2014fiscalyear.
Theappropriationsclauseunderarticle IX, section13provides: No
moneyshallbewithdrawnfromthetreasuryexceptinaccordancewithappropriations
madebylaw. Noobligationforthepaymentofmoneyshallbeincurredexceptas
authorizedbylaw. Unobligatedappropriationsoutstandingattheendoftheperiodof
AlaskaConst.art.IX,7.
-7- 7075
21
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
8/44
timespecifiedbylawshallbevoid.22 AndthegovernorsvetoclauseunderarticleII,
section15provides: Thegovernormayvetobillspassedbythelegislature. Hemay,
byveto,strikeorreduceitemsinappropriationbills. Heshallreturnanyvetoedbill,
withastatementofhisobjections,tothehouseoforigin.23 Thecourtconcludedthat
neitherclausewasviolatedbecausetherequiredlocalcontributiondoesnotenterthe
statetreasuryandbecausetherequiredlocalcontributionisnotanappropriation. The
courtfurtherconcludedthatitwasunproblematicthattherequiredlocalcontribution
neverenteredthestatetreasury.IndenyingtheBoroughsrequestforarefund,thecourt
explainedthattheStatewasnotunjustlyenrichedbecausetherequiredlocalcontribution
didnotbenefittheState.
TheStateappealedandtheBoroughcross-appealed,togetheraskingusto
considerallfourprongsofthesuperiorcourtsdecision: whethertherequiredlocal
contributionisunconstitutionalunderthededicatedfunds,appropriations,orgovernors
vetoclauses and,ifso,whetherequity requires refunding theBoroughsprotested
payment.24
22 AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.
23 AlaskaConst.art.II,15.
24 Sixamicialsofiledbriefs.TheFairbanksNorthStarBoroughfiledinsupportoftheBorough.FiveamicifiledinsupportoftheState:theCitizensfortheEducationalAdvancementofAlaskasChildrenandtheNEA-Alaskaeachfiledabrief;and the Association of Alaska School Boards, the Alaska Council of SchoolAdministrators,andtheAlaskaSuperintendentsAssociationfiledajointbrief. The
AssociationofAlaskaSchoolBoardsistheorganizationandrepresentativeagencyofthe members of the school boards of the state.
The Alaska Council of SchoolAdministratorsdescribesitselfasanumbrellaorganizationforfourofAlaskaspremiereducationalleadershiporganizations,includingtheAlaskaSuperintendentsAssociation.TheCitizensfortheEducationalAdvancementofAlaskasChildrendescribesitselfas
(continued...)
-8- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
9/44
III. STANDARDOFREVIEW
Wereviewagrantordenialofsummaryjudgmentdenovo. 25 Questions
ofconstitutionalandstatutoryinterpretation,includingtheconstitutionalityofastatute,
arequestionsoflawtowhichweapplyourindependentjudgment.26
Weadopttherule
oflawthatismostpersuasiveinlightofprecedent,reason,andpolicy.27 Legislative
historyandthehistoricalcontext,includingeventsprecedingratification,helpdefinethe
24 (...continued)acoalitionof23memberschooldistrictsandeducators,foundedin1998toaddressthe
problemofagedanddeterioratedschoolsinruralAlaska.NEA-Alaskadescribesitselfasastatewidelabororganziationof13,000certifiededucatorsandeducationsupport
professionalsservinginAlaskaspublicschools.
25 State v. Schmidt,323P.3d647,654(Alaska2014)(quotingAlaska CivilLiberties Union v. State,122P.3d781,785(Alaska2005)).
26 Id.at655.
27 Se. Alaska Conservation Council v. State,202P.3d1162,1167(Alaska2009)(quotingPremera Blue Cross v. State, Dept of Commerce, Cmty.& Econ. Dev.,
Div. of Ins.,171P.3d1110,1115(Alaska2007)).
-9- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
10/44
constitution.28 Statutespassedimmediatelyafterstatehoodgiveinsightintowhatthe
foundersintended.29 Wepresumestatutestobeconstitutional;thepartychallengingthe
statutebearstheburdenofshowingotherwise. 30
IV. DISCUSSION
A. TheSchoolFundingFormulaDoesNotViolateTheDedicatedFundsClause.
BeforeAlaskabecameastatein1959,theTerritoryandlocalareasshared
28 See State v. Alex,646P.2d203,208(Alaska1982)([T]hesenseinwhichtaxisusedinarticleIX,section7ofthe[Alaska][C]onstitutionmustbedeterminedfromitscontext,bothinthetextandaccordingtothediscussionsattheconstitutionalconventionwhichadoptedthewording.);Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated Sch. Sys.,
536 P.2d 793, 800 (Alaska 1975) ([A]n historical perspective is essential to anenlightenedcontemporaryinterpretationofourconstitution.);id. at804(explainingthatthe events preceding ratification supported the courts interpretation of the stateconstitution).
29 See Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 4 n.4 (Alaska 1976)(Contemporaneous interpretationof fundamental lawby those participating in itsdraftinghastraditionallybeenviewedasespeciallyweightyevidenceoftheframersintent.);cf. J.W. Hampton, Jr., &Co. v. United States,276U.S.394,412(1928)(citing
Myers v. United States,272U.S.52,175(1926))(ThisCourthasrepeatedlylaiddown
theprinciplethatacontemporaneouslegislativeexpositionofthe[U.S.]ConstitutionwhenthefoundersofourgovernmentandframersofourConstitutionwereactively
participatinginpublicaffairslongacquiescedinfixestheconstructiontobegivenitsprovisions.).
30 Se. Alaska Conservation Council,202P.3dat1167.
-10- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
11/44
responsibilityforfundingpubliceducation.31 Thelegislaturederivedthecurrentschool
fundingformulafromthispre-statehoodprogram,theframeworkofwhichhasremained
largelyunchanged.32
TheBoroughcontendsthattheschoolfundingprogramisastatetaxor
licensethatissubjecttothededicatedfundsclausebecauseitisnotadedication...
existinguponthedateofratificationof[theAlaskaConstitution]33andbecausenoother
exemptionfromthededicatedfundsclauseapplies. Accordinglyitconcludesthatthe
requiredlocalcontributionviolatesthededicatedfundsclause.FirsttheBoroughclaims
thatbeforestatehood,municipalitiesexercisedindependentjudgmentanddiscretionas
towhattheycouldaffordtopayforschoolsandnotesthatcitieswerenotrequiredto
provideanyparticularamounttotheschooldistricts.SecondtheBorougharguesthat
therefundamountthatcitiesreceivedfromtheTerritorydependedonhowmuchwas
appropriatedbytheLegislatureforsuchpurpose.
However,asweexplainbelow,therequiredlocalcontributionisthemost
recent iteration of a longstanding state-local cooperative program in which local
communitiesandtheStateshareresponsibilityforfundingAlaskaspublicschools.
Accordingly,whetherornotitisadedicationthatpredatedstatehood,therequiredlocal
contributionisnotastatetaxorlicensewithinthemeaningofthededicatedfunds
clause.
31 See37-3-31to-33,37-3-41,37-3-62AlaskaCompiledLawsAnnotated
(ACLA)(1949).Forexample, section 37-3-62 of theCompiledLawsofAlaska requiredtheTerritorytorefundlocaldistrictsforpartofthecostofmaintaininglocalschools.
32 See AS14.17.410;37-3-31to-33,37-3-41,37-3-62ACLA.
33 AlaskaConst.artIX,7.
-11- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
12/44
1. UndertheAlaskaCompiledLawsof1949,theTerritoryandlocal communities shared responsibility for funding local
schools.
BoroughsdidnotexistbeforeAlaskabecameastate. UndertheAlaska
CompiledLawsof1949,eachcityconstitutedasingleschooldistrictandeachhadan
obligationtoprovidepublicschoolservices.34 Anincorporatedcityalsocouldjoinwith
adjacentareastoformanindependentschooldistrict. 35 Localschoolboards,which
oversawlocalschoolactivities,hadthepowertoassess,levy,andcollecttaxestoassist
withthisobligationtosupporttheirschools.36 Thoughterritoriallawdidnotdictatean
exactfundingamount,itrequiredcitiestoprovidesuitableschoolhouses...and...
thenecessaryfundstomaintain[local]publicschools37
or,ifpartofanindependentschooldistrict,tosetasidefundingfortheirshareoflocalschoolcosts.38 Liketoday,
local communities enjoyed discretion in determining how to satisfy their funding
obligation. Theycoulddedicatea specialschool taxtothepurpose,ortheycould
34 See 37-3-32ACLA(Everycityshallconstituteaschooldistrictanditshallbethedutyofthe[city]counciltoprovidethe[schooldistrict]with...thenecessaryfundstomaintainpublicschools....).
35 Id.37-3-41.
36 Id.37-3-24to-26,37-3-32,37-3-53;see also id.37-3-33(establishing
authorizedexpendituresbytheschoolboard). Theseboardspossessedthesamepowertotaxasthethen-existingmunicipalcorporationsandincorporatedcities.Id.37-3-25.
37 Id.37-3-32.
38 Id.37-3-53.
-12- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
13/44
dedicateaportionofthegeneralmunicipaltaxtothepurpose. 39 Territoriallawalso
required school boards toannually submit tothe Territoryabudgetofanticipated
expenses,arecordofallfundscollected,andreceiptsfortheirexpenses. 40
Local communities also received support for local schools from the
Territory. Territoriallawprovidedforthelegislaturetorefundaportionoflocalschool
expensesfrom time to time.41 Theamountlocalcommunities receivedreflecteda
statutoryformulathatconsideredfactorslikethenumberofstudentsinthedistrict,the
totalamountthedistrictspenttomaintainitsschoolsystem,andtheexpensesthe
Territoryhadapprovedinthedistrictsbudget.42 ThusbeforeAlaskabecameastate,
localcommunitiesandtheTerritorytogethersupportedlocalschools,muchliketoday.
39 Id.37-3-35;see AS14.17.990(6)(defininglocalcontribution).
40 37-3-55,37-3-63ACLA.
41 Id.37-3-61to-62. AlaskaCompiledLawsof1949section37-3-61provided:
Such per centum of the total amount expended for the
maintenanceofpublicelementaryschoolsandhighschools,withinthelimitsofanyincorporatedcityorincorporatedschooldistrict...astheLegislaturemayfromtimetotimedirect, shall be refunded to the school fund of saidincorporatedcityorincorporatedschooldistrict...fromthemoneysoftheTerritory....
This refund from the Territory reflects the current state-local cooperative fundingprogram. See AS14.17.410(publicschoolfunding).
42
See 37-3-61to-64ACLA.Schooldistrictswithmorestudentsreceivedproportionallylessthanschooldistrictswithfewerstudents.Id.37-3-62. Refundswere notavailableforcertainexpenses,includingthecostoflevyingandcollectingtaxesandconductingboardelections. Id.37-3-64. Inreviewingadistrictsbudget,theTerritory had the authority to disapprove or reduce any items in the budget incalculatingtheamountofreimbursement.Id.37-3-63.
-13- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
14/44
2. Theframersdraftedtheconstitutiontoallowsuchstate-localcooperativeprogramstocontinueafterstatehood.
Thedelegatesattheconstitutionalconventionrecognizedthebenefitsof
suchstate-localcooperativeprograms.43 Buttheyalsorecognizedtheimportanceof
preservingstatecontroloverstaterevenue.44 Throughthededicatedfundsclauseof
articleIX,section7,thedelegatessoughttobalancesuchconcerns.45 Earlydraftsofthe
clausegenerallyprohibitedthededicationofstaterevenuewhileallowingforcertain
43 See, e.g.,4ProceedingsoftheAlaskaConstitutionalConvention(PACC)2651(Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateLondborg)(explainingthatstate-localcooperativeprogramswouldencourage localcommunitiestoorganizeintoboroughs, thenewformoflocalgovernance).
44 1975FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.Opinion9,at3(May2,1975);3ALASKASTATEHOODCOMMN,CONSTITUTIONALSTUDIESpt.IX,at27-30(1955);4PACC2414(Jan.17,1956).
45 See, e.g.,4PACC2413-16(Jan.17,1956). Thedelegates,forexample,
rejectedanamendmenttothededicatedfundsclauseproposedbyDelegateBuckalewthatwouldhavedeletedasentenceintheclausethatallowedforexistingdedicationstocontinue. Id.at2416. DelegateBuckalewhadexpressedconcernthatthe[only]sensiblesoundwaytorunastateistoabolishthispractice[ofearmarkingfunds]whichleadstoevilsasfarasthefiscalmanagementofthestateisconcerned. Id.at2413.Delegate Peratrovich, who participated in the committee that drafted the clause,respondedthatthecommitteesoughttostrikeacompromise:
[Y]ouhavetocompromise....[I]twasdangeroustogivefreereintothenewstateinearmarkingfunds. However,I
realize...thattherewassomegoodbeingaccomplishedbythoseearmarkedfundsthatwehaveonthebookstodayandIfeelthatIcannotsupport[Buckalewsamendment]onthatcondition.
Id.at2414.
-14- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
15/44
exceptions. Thedelegatesrecognized,forexample,thatdedicationsshouldbeallowed
whenrequiredtoparticipateinfederalprogramsandwhensuchdedicationspreexisted
statehood. Onesuchdraftprovided:
Alltaxrevenuesshallbedepositedinageneralfundtobeestablishedandmaintainedbythestate. Thisprovisionshallnotprohibitthecontinuanceofanyspecialfundforspecial
purposesexistingattheeffectivedateoftheconstitution.[46]
Asubsequentdraftmodifiedthefirstsentence: Allrevenuesshallbedepositedinthe
Statetreasurywithoutallocationforspecialpurposes,exceptwherestateparticipation
in Federal programs will thereby be denied,47 and preserved the exemption for
allocationsinexistenceatthetimeofstatehood. 48
Butthedelegatesfearedthatthisdraftlanguagemightprohibittoomuch. 49
Accordinglytheymodifiedtheclauseintwokeyrespects. First,theyrewordedthe
clausebyreplacing[a]llrevenueswithproceedsofanystatetaxorlicense. Second,
theyrevisedthelastsentencebyreplacinganyspecialfundwithanydedication:
Theproceeds of any state tax or license shall not bededicated to any special purpose, except as provided insection15ofthisarticleorwhenrequiredbythefederal
governmentforstateparticipationinfederalprograms. Thisprovisionshall notprohibitthecontinuanceofanydedication
46 FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at3(quotingthedraft)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
47 Id.at4(quotingthedraft)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
48 Id.at8(ThisprovisionshallnotprohibitthecontinuanceofanyallocationexistinguponthedateofratificationofthisConstitutionbythepeopleofAlaska.(quotingthedraft)(internalquotationmarksomitted)).
49 See id.at5;3PACC2302(Jan.16,1956)(statementofDelegateNerland).
-15- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
16/44
forspecialpurposesexistinguponthedateofratificationofthissectionbythepeopleofAlaska. [50]
Throughsuchrevisions,thedelegatesrecognizedthatanyprohibitionondedicatedfunds
requiredreasonablelimits. Aflatprohibitionwasneitherfeasiblenordesirable.51 The
dedicatedfundsclausecouldnotbestrict[ly]interpret[ed]becausebothlegaland
contractualobligationswouldrequireasegregationofcertainmoneys,including:
pensioncontributions,proceedsfrombondissues,sinkingfund receipts, revolvingfund receipts, contributions fromlocal government units for state-local cooperative programs,andtaxreceiptswhichthestatemightcollectonbehalfoflocalgovernmentunits.[52]
Delegate White explained that the amended language allowed these exceptions tocontinue: Bygoingtothetaxitselfandsayingthatthetaxshallnotbeearmarked,we
eliminated[theneedtomakeexplicit]allsevenofthoseexceptions. 53
Thecolloquyamongthedelegatesreflectsthisdeliberatecompromise
embodiedbytheclause.JustasthedelegatesvoicedtheneedforStatecontroloverstate
revenue,thedelegateslaudedtheclauseforpreservingcertainprograms,includingthose
50 AlaskaConst.art.IX,7(emphasisadded).
51 See PUB. ADMIN. SERV., COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC SERVICEADMINISTRATIONONFINANCECOMMITTEEPROPOSAL1(Jan.4,1955);see alsoFORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at7(quotingPUB.ADMIN.SERV.,supra,at1).
52 PUB.ADMIN.SERV.,supranote51,at1(emphasisadded);see alsoFORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at7(quotingPub.Admin.Serv.,supra,at1).
53
4PACC2363(Jan.17,1956)(statementofDelegateWhite);see alsoFORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at7(quotingPUB.ADMIN.SERV.,supra note52,at1);Se. Alaska Conservation Council v. State,202P.3d1162,1169n.29(Alaska2009)(notingtheexceptions). BoththeBoroughandtheStateappeartoagreethatthedelegates amended the clause to avoid interferingwithprograms such as pensioncontributionsandstate-localcooperativeprograms.
-16- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
17/44
forhighways,airports,andschools.54 Throughthiscompromise,thedelegatesallowed
dedicationsnowonthestatutebooks[to]beleftineffectaslongasthelegislaturesaw
fittoleavethemthere,55 and,asDelegateWhitenoted,thedelegatesallowedsetting
asidecertainmoniespursuanttostatute,includingthoseforstate-localcooperative
programs.56
Thedelegates recognized thatanarrangementofshared responsibility
betweentheStateandlocalcommunitiesofferedsubstantialbenefits,particularlyinthe
transitionto theboroughsystemof localgovernance. Activeparticipationin local
governance promised to save the State hundreds of thousands of dollars of the
taxpayersmoney.57 Cooperativeprograms,likethoseinwhichtheStateandlocal
communities shared the cost of providing local public services, encouraged
unincorporatedareastoincorporatebyreassuringthemthattheywoulddefinitely
benefitbyorganizing.. .[to]get[]intothepictureoflocalgovernment.58 Existing
cost-sharing programs between the Territory and local communities, like that in
education,combinedwithincreasedlocalcontrolovereducationandotherservices
offeredsuchincentives.59
54 FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at12-13.
55 4PACC2415(Jan.17,1956)(statementofDelegateNerland);see also id.at2369-70(statementofDelegatePeratrovich).
56 See id.at2363(statementofDelegateWhite)(explainingthatthesevenformerexceptionswerenowimplicitintheamendedclause);FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,
supranote44,at7(identifyingthesevenexceptionstowhichDelegateWhitereferred).
57 4PACC2652(statementofDelegateLondborg).
58 Id. at2651(statementofDelegateLondborg).
59 See id.;id.at2650(statementofDelegateV.Rivers)(notingtheexample(continued...)
-17- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
18/44
Beforestatehood,responsibilityforlocalgovernancelargelyfelltocities.
Thestateconstitutionrevisedthissystembycreatingboroughswiththepotentialtohold
morepowerandmoreresponsibility:
TheentireStateshallbedividedintoboroughs,organizedorunorganized. Theyshallbeestablished inamanner andaccordingtostandardsprovidedbylaw.... Thelegislatureshall classify boroughs and prescribe their powers andfunctions.[60]
Throughtheboroughsystem,thedelegatessoughttoavoidtheredundancy,confusion,
andunnecessarycostsofoverlappingcounty-citysystemselsewhereinthenation.61
Givensuchconcernstheydecidednottograntschooldistrictstaxingpower. 62 Instead
thedelegates made local schoolsdependentonboroughs for money.63 While the
delegatesentrustedtheStatewithestablish[ing]andmaintain[ing]asystemofpublic
59 (...continued)ofexistinginducementstoorganizelikerefundsoftaxesapercentage,atleast,ofwhichrevertsbacktotheorganizedarea).
60 AlaskaConst.art.X,3.
61 See, e.g.,4PACC2630(Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateV.Fischer)(Onceyougetstartedon[grantingtaxingauthority],eachseparatefunctioncouldwell
justifyanindependenttaxlevyingauthorityandthenyouarerightbacktothetypeofgovernmentthatwearetryingtoavoidinAlaska,theoverlappingofindependenttaxing
jurisdictions.);id.at2632(statementofDelegateDoogan)(Thethingthatiswrongwiththatfiscalautonomy[givinglocalschoolboardstaxingauthority]isthat...iftheywerenotcarefultheycouldbreakanymunicipalitywithinaschooldistrict.).
62 See AlaskaConst.art.X,2(TheStatemaydelegatetaxingpowersto
organizedboroughsandcitiesonly.).63 See AlaskaConst.art.X,2;4PACC2632(Jan.19,1956)(statementof
DelegateDoogan) (Consequently,withthe[borough]assemblyhavingmorethantheonefunctionofhavingschools,havingmanyotherfunctionsandsomanytaxdollars,thenwouldbeabletodistributethefundsasequitablyaspossible.).
-18- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
19/44
schoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState,64theyanticipatedthatboroughslikelywould
havetolevyataxtoprovideforschools. 65
Thedelegatesrecognizedthatthetransitiontotheboroughsystemwould
taketime.66 InallocatingpowerandresponsibilityundertheAlaskaConstitution,the
delegatessoughttoprovidetheStatewithroomtogrowandtoadapt.Theydesignedthe
64 AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.
65 4PACC2652(Jan.19,1956) (statementofDelegateDoogan)(Theborough,ofnecessity,...toprovideforitsoperationwouldprobablyhaveacertainbasictaxtoprovideschools....);see also id. at2648(statementofDelegateDoogan)
(The[S]tatewouldofnecessityprovidecertainbasicfunctions....[T]he[S]tatethencouldveryeasilydelegatewhateveritwantedtodototheborough....);MatanuskaSusitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,399(Alaska1997)(highlightingthelegislaturesauthoritytodelegatesuchresponsibilitywhilestillretainingcontrolovereducation).
66 4PACC2650(Jan.19,1956). AsDelegateVictorRiversexplained:
Wethoughtthatatthestatelevelitwouldbethepolicyasithasbeeninthepasttooffercertaininducementstothemto
organize. Now,at the present time in incorporated citiesthere are certain refunds of taxes inthenatureoflicensetaxes,liquortaxes,and other taxes that are a percentage, atleast, of which reverts back to the organized area. Intheextentthatthebenefitsthelegislaturesetsupwilloffsettheaddedcosttothepeople,...butitwasourthoughttherewould be enough inducement for them to organize andexercise home rule so that as time went on they wouldgraduallyallbecomeincorporatedboroughs....Thethoughtwasthatinducementstoorganizewouldbeofferedonthe
basisofthegrantingofhomerulepowerspluscertainotherinducementsthatwouldmakeitadvantageoustothemtobe
boroughs,aswenowhavethatsameprogramofinducementtoorganizecommunities.
Id.(emphasesadded).
-19- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
20/44
constitutiontobeflexiblesothatthelegislaturecouldfillintheexactdetails[later].67
Thoughthedelegatessoughttolimitcertainpowersandtoavoidcertainpitfalls,theydid
notintendtocompeltheStatetounravelexistingprogramsnordidtheyintendtoprevent
theStatefromexperimentingandadaptingtochangingcircumstances.
3. Early legislationbuiltuponthepre-statehoodlawsthatrequired
theTerritoryandlocalcommunitiestoshareresponsibilityfor
localschools.
Earlypost-statehood legislationfilledin thegaps of theconstitutional
framework. In1961thelegislatureenactedincorporationstandardsforboroughs,as
requiredunderarticleX,section3oftheAlaskaConstitution,anddelegatedsignificant
responsibilitytothem.68
Asthedelegatesenvisioned,69
thoseresponsibilitiesincludedtheStatesconstitutionalobligationtoprovidepublicschools. 70
67 Id.at2647(statementofDelegateRosswog)(notingthatthedelegates
soughttodevelopaflexibleframeworkonwhichthelegislaturecouldbuildandfillintheexactdetails...bylaw);see also id.at2654(statementofDelegateV.Fischer)([A]tthesametimewevisualizethepossibilitythatastheboroughbecomesamoredefiniteunitofgovernmentovertheyearsitwillassumethosefunctionsthatitcouldbest...carr[y]out.).
68 See AlaskaConst.art.X,3.
69 See 4PACC2629(Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateV.Fischer)(explainingboroughsresponsibilityforschools);id.at2652(statementofDelegate
Doogan)(notingthatboroughslikelywouldhavetolevytaxestosupportschools);seealso Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 4 n.4 (Alaska 1976) (Contemporaneousinterpretationoffundamentallawbythoseparticipatinginitsdraftinghastraditionally
beenviewedasespeciallyweightyevidenceoftheframersintent.).
70 See AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.
-20- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
21/44
The1961actchargedboroughswithestablish[ing],maintain[ing],and
operat[ing]asystemofpublicschoolsonanareawidebasis.71 Tofulfillthismandate,
boroughsweregivenresponsibilitieslikethoseofcities. Statelawsthatgovernedcity
schooldistrictsnowalsogovernedboroughschooldistricts,includingthoserelatedto
financialsupport.. .andothergenerallawsrelatingtoschools.72 Thesefinancial
supportlawsandothergeneralschoollawswerelargelythesameasthoseinplacepre
statehood.73 AsintheTerritory,localcommunities,includingboroughs,wererequired
tosupportlocalschools. 74
Ina1962act,thelegislaturebegantoadaptthepre-statehoodcooperative
programforproviding school servicesto theboroughsystemofgovernance. The
legislature clarified that [e]ach organized borough constitutes a borough school
district.75 LiketheTerritory,theStatecontinuedtooverseelocalschooloperations,
budgeting,andspending,76anditsharedresponsibilityforadministeringandsupervising
71 Ch.146,3.33(a),SLA1961.
72 Id.3.33(b).
73 See, e.g.,formerAS14.15.230.750(1962).Asthelegislativehistoryreveals, many of these laws remained unchanged since 1949. See, e.g., formerAS 14.15.230 (1962) (originally enacted as 37-3-31 ACLA (1949)); formerAS14.15.240(1962)(originallyenactedas37-3-32ACLA);formerAS14.15.450(1962)(originallyenactedas37-3-54ACLA).
74 Ch.146,3.33,SLA1961.
75 Ch.110,9,SLA1962.
76 See formerAS14.05.010(1962)(originallyenactedas37-1-2ACLA(1949));AS14.10.010(1962)(originallyenactedas37-2-7ACLA);AS14.10.300(1962)(originallyenactedas37-2-53ACLA).
-21- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
22/44
thesystemofpublicschoolswithlocalschoolboards.77 Andthe1962actbegantorefine
thesystem,developingthepublicschoolfoundationaccounttoprovidestatefundingfor
publicschoolsonanannualbasisandfine-tuningthemethodforcalculatingtheamount
ofstateaidandtherequiredlocalcontribution.78 TheStateandlocalcommunities
continuedtosupportschoolstogether.
Statutesenactedsoonafterstatehoodgenerallyreflecttheframersintent. 79
Post-statehood,as thedelegates envisioned, the legislature continued toholdlocal
communitiesresponsibleforsupportingschoolsunder theboroughsystemoflocal
governance. WhiletheStateofnecessityprovide[d]certainbasicfunctions,80italso,
as the delegates anticipated, delegated some of its duties to boroughs with the
understanding that boroughs would probably have a certainbasic tax to provide
schoolstoboroughresidents. 81
4. Subsequent legislationdidnotalterthebasic framework of
state-localcooperationinprovidinglocalpublicschools.
In1966,astheboroughsystembegantogain traction, the legislature
divided school districts into three categories. Organized cities located outside an
77 FormerAS14.05.100(1962)(originallyenactedas37-1-12ACLA).
78 FormerAS14.17.010.040(1962);see also formerAS14.15.050.070(1962). Thelegislaturealsorecognizedthatthetransitiontotheboroughsystemwouldtaketime. Accordingly,until1966,thelegislatureleftinplacemanyoftheparallelterritoriallawsthatrequiredcitiestosupportlocalschools. Ch.98,61,SLA1966(repealingAS14.15).
79 See Bradner v. Hammond,553P.2d1,4n.4(Alaska1976);Se. AlaskaConservation Council v. State,202P.3d1162,1172(Alaska2009).
80 4PACC2648 (Jan.19,1956)(statementofDelegateDoogan).
81 Id.at2652(statementofDelegateDoogan).
-22- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
23/44
organizedboroughwereresponsibleformanagingandcontrollingacityschooldistrict;
organizedboroughswere responsibleforthedistrictwithin theirboundaries;anddistricts
outsideorganizedboroughsandcitieswereoperated(andfullyfunded)bytheState.82
AsbeforetheStaterequiredcityandboroughdistrictstohelpmaintainandoperatelocal
schoolswithmoneyraisedfromlocalsources,andtheStateagreedtocontributean
amountdefinedbyastatutoryformula.83
From 1969to1970,astheBoroughnotes,thelegislatureredefinedstateaid
underChapter17ofthestatutetoequaleachdistrictsbasicneed. 84 Anditrepealed
provisions mandating that local communities contribute to local school funding,
including AS14.17.030 (required localeffort) and AS14.17.130 (computationof
requiredlocaleffort).85 Butthelegislatureleftthestate-localcooperationfoundation
untouched. Aswastruein1961,[e]achorganizedboroughconstitute[d]aborough
schooldistrictandeachorganizedboroughwasrequiredtoestablish,maintain,and
operateasystemofpublicschoolsonanareawidebasis. 86
82 FormerAS14.12.010,.020(1966)(originalversionatch.98,1,SLA1966).
83 FormerAS14.12.020(c)(1966)(originalversionatch.98,1,SLA1966).Theamountofthestatecontributiondependedonfactorslikethenumberofschoolsinthe district, the districts need for special education services, and the specificcharacteristicsofthedistrict. AS14.17.050.070(1966).
84 Ch.95,1,SLA1969(Theamountofstateaidisthebasicneed.).
85
Ch.95,11,SLA1969.86 Compare AS07.15.330(a)(1970)([T]hefirstandsecondclassborough
shallestablish,maintain,andoperateasystemofpublicschoolsonanareawidebasis.),with ch.146,3.33(a),SLA1961(Thefirstandsecondclassboroughshallestablish,maintain,andoperateasystemofpublicschools....).
-23- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
24/44
Thenextyear,in1970,legislatorsagainexplicitlymandatedthatlocal
communitiesandtheStateworktogethertofundlocalschools. Therevisedformulafor
allocatingresponsibilitybetweentheStateandlocalcommunitiesexperimentedwithnew
variables.87 Forexample,itdeterminedstateaidbasedontaxablepropertyvalueswithin
thedistrictinlightofthenumberofstudentsadistrictserved. 88 Previously,therequired
localeffortconsideredonlythetaxablepropertywithinthedistrict;itdidnotstandardize
thatvalue.89
In1980,astheBoroughpointsout,thelegislatureagaintweakedtheschool
fundingsystem. Ratherthanseparatelycalculateadistrictsstateaidandadistricts
87 AS14.17.021(c)(5)(1970),asamendedbych. 238, 4,SLA1970([S]tateaidascomputedunderthissectionshallconstituteatleast90percentofthebasicneedasdefinedbythedepartmentofeachschooldistrict.). Adistrictwouldonlyreceivestateaidifitsatisfieditsrequiredlocalfundingobligation. AS14.17.071(a)(1970),asamended by ch.238,4,SLA1970(Paymentofstateaidtoalocalschooldistrict
underthischapteriscontingentuponmatchingbythedistrictintheamountoftherequiredlocaleffortforthatdistrictintheratioofrequiredlocaleffort....).
88 AS 14.17.021(c)(3) (1970), as amended by ch. 238, 4, SLA 1970(definingstateaidwithrespecttothefullandtruevalueoftaxablerealandpersonal
propertywithinthedistrictdividedbytheaveragedailymembershipofthedistrict).
89 Compare AS 14.17.021(c)(3) (1970), as amended by ch. 238, 4,SLA1970(definingstateaidwithrespecttothefullandtruevalueoftaxablerealand
personal property within the district divided by average daily membership of the
district),withAS14.17.030(b)(1963)(definingtherequiredlocaleffortintermsofthefullandtruevalueoftaxablerealandpersonalpropertywithinthedistrictbutnotreferring to the number of students in the district). The legislature repealedAS14.17.030in1969. Ch.95,11,SLA1969. Thelegislaturehadlastamendedthestatute in 1963. See former AS 14.17.030 (1966) (identifying the most recentamendmentassessionlawsof1963,chapter70,section1).
-24- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
25/44
basicneed,thestatutecalculatedonlyadistrictsbasicstateaid. 90 Throughthisshift
infocus,thestatutenolongersetouttoestimateadistrictsbasicneedoradistrictstotal
budget.Unlikebefore,thestatutedidnotconsiderlocalcontributions.91 Butitalsodid
notrulethemout.92 Afterall,asbefore,theStatecontinuedtoholdboroughsresponsible
forestablish[ing],maintain[ing],andoperat[ing]asystemofpublicschoolsonan
areawidebasis.93
Subsequently in 1986 the legislature again reformulated the state aid
calculation. Itreinstatedtherequirementthatlocalcommunitiescontributetolocal
schoolfunding.94 Andtheamountofstateaidcontinuedtoreflectfactors likethe
numberofschoolsinthedistrict,thedistrictsneedforspecialeducationservices,and
90 Compare ch.26,4,SLA1980(reframingAS14.17.021(a)as[t]heamountofbasicstateaidforwhicheachdistrictiseligibleandomittingreferencestobasicneed),with ch.90,23,SLA1977(separatelydefiningstateaidandbasicneed).
91
Compare ch.26,4,SLA1980(notingonlythatthestateaidcouldbereducedinlightoffederalcontributions),with ch.90,3,SLA1977(mandatingthatstateaidconstituteatleast97percentofthebasicneedofeachschooldistrict).
92 AS14.17.220(1982)(Thischaptershallnotbeinterpretedaspreventingapublicschooldistrictfromprovidingeducationalservicesandfacilitiesbeyondthoseassuredbythefoundationprogram.). Astheannotatedstatutesreveal,in1982thissectionhadnotbeenrevisedsince1962whenthelegislatureenactedtheprovision.Id.(notingonlythe1962enactmentundersessionlawschapter164,section1.01).
93
AS29.33.050(1984)(identifyingthemostrecentamendmentassessionlawsof1975,chapter13,section6,andchapter124,section34).In1972,thelegislaturerepealedformertitles7(boroughs)and29(municipalcorporations)andreenactedthe
provisionsundertitle29,includingthoserelatedtoboroughduties.Ch.118,SLA1972.
94 Ch.75,23,SLA1986.
-25- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
26/44
adistrictsspecificcharacteristics. 95
The legislaturehas continued to refine thisprogram, as the delegates
envisioneditwould,buttheprograms pre-statehoodcorehasremainedintact. Justas
theCompiled Laws ofAlaskachargedlocalcommunitieswithprovid[ing]thenecessary
fundstomaintain[local]publicschools,96 title14,chapter17requiresboroughsand
citiestofundschoolswithmoneyraisedfromlocalsources. 97 Whilethedetailsofthis
state-localcooperativeprogramhavechanged,thelegislaturehasneverrelievedlocal
communitiesoftheirlongstandingobligationtosupportlocalpublicschools. Ratheras
onedelegatestatedwhenexplainingtherationaleforshiftingtheonusofeducationfrom
citiestoboroughs: Whenyoucometotheboroughthough,theboroughisinterested
ineducation. Itwillbeoneofthebasicfunctionswhichitwillberesponsiblefor.98
95 See ch.75,2,5,SLA1986. Section2definedstateaidforadistrictinlightofitsinstructionalunitallotment,and5definedinstructionalunitstoincludesomeoftheabovefactors.Id.Thenextyear,thelegislaturerefinedthislongstanding
cooperativeframework, creatingnewsectionsfor someofthe1986mandates andcombiningothermandateswithexistingsections. See, e.g.,ch.91,3-4, SLA1987(recalibratingtheformulaforstateaidandlocalcontributions);id.25(repealingtheformerprovisions).
96 37-3-32ACLA(1949).
97 AS14.12.020(c)(Theboroughassemblyforaboroughschooldistrict...shallprovidethemoneythatmustberaisedfromlocalsourcestomaintainandoperatethedistrict.);AS14.17.410(b)(Publicschoolfundingconsistsofstateaid,arequired
localcontribution,andeligiblefederalimpactaid....). ThelegislaturehaslefttheAS14.12.020mandateuntouchedsince1975. See AS14.12.020.
98 4PACC2629(Jan. 19, 1956)(statementofDelegateV.Fischer).CompareAS14.12.020(2015),with id.(1975),id.(1966),formerAS07.15.330(1966),and ch.146,3.33,SLA1961.
-26- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
27/44
5. Wehaveyettoconsiderthededicatedfundsclauseinlightofstate-localcooperativeprograms.
TheBorougharguesthatState v. Alex anditsprogenydictatethatthelocal
fundingformulaofAS14.12.020(c)and14.17.410(b)violatesthededicatedfunds
clause.ButAlexanditsprogenydonotdictatetheresulthere.Neverbeforehavewe
consideredthistypeoflongstandingstate-localcooperativeprogram.
a. State v. Alex
Wefirstconsideredthescopeofthededicatedfundsclausein State v.
Alex.99 There,agroupofcommercialfishersallegedthatastatuteauthorizingmandatory
assessmentsontheirsalmonsalesforthepurposeofprovidingrevenuefor...qualified
regional[aquaculture]association[s]violatedthededicatedfundsclause.100 Weagreed
with thefishersandaccordinglyrejectedtheStatesargument,whichattemptedto
distinguishbetweengeneralrevenuetaxes(subjecttothededicatedfundsclause)and
specialassessmentsforservices(allegedlynotsubjecttotheclause). 101 Indoingso,
weadoptedabroadmeaningoftaxinlightoftheoriginoftheclausesprohibition.
WeconsideredthedebatesattheConvention;thestudiesthedelegatesreliedonwhen
draftingthesection,includingthosethatemphasizedimportanceofprotectingStatecontroloverstaterevenue;andhowthedelegatesrevisedtheclause,includingthe
99 646P.2d203(Alaska1982).
100 Id.at204-05(Alaska1982).
101 Id.at208.
-27- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
28/44
changefromallrevenuestotheproceedsofanystatetaxorlicense.102 Inlightof
thiscontext,weheldthattheclauseprohibiteddedicatingnotonlytaxesbutalsospecial
assessmentsliketheoneatissueinAlex.103
Butunlikethiscase,Alex didnotaskustoconsideralongstandingstate-
localcooperativeprogram. InAlex,theprogramatissuewasfirstenactedin1976,
nearly20yearsafterAlaskabecameastate,andtherewasnoevidencesuggestingthat
the programwasone the delegates intendedwould falloutside the clause.104 The
regionalaquacultureassociations,whowouldbenefitfromtheassessment,werealso
establishedin1976,longafterAlaskabecameastate. 105 AccordinglyinAlexwedidnot
considerwhetheralongstandingstate-localcooperativeprogramwasastatetaxor
licensewithinthemeaningofthededicatedfundsclause.
b. City of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention & Visitors
Bureau
InCity of Fairbanks,weevaluatedtheconstitutionalityofavoterinitiative
thatrestructuredhowthecityallocatedbedtaxrevenues.106 ArticleXI,section7ofthe
AlaskaConstitutionprohibitsanyinitiativethatdedicatesorappropriatesfunds, 107and
102 Id.at209-10.
103 Id.at210.
104 Ch.190,1,SLA1976;ch.154,1416,SLA1977.
105 Ch.161,2,SLA1976.
106 City of Fairbanks v. Fairbanks Convention & Visitors Bureau,818P.2d1153,1153-54(Alaska1991).
107 AlaskaConst.art.XI,7(Theinitiativeshallnotbeusedtodedicaterevenues,makeorrepealappropriations....).
-28- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
29/44
theinitiativesopponentsarguedthatitdidboth.108Weheldthattheinitiativedidnot
dedicatefundsbecauseitactuallyincreasedthecouncilsflexibilitytomakespending
decisions.109 WereliedonAlex todeterminewhethertheinitiativededicatedfunds
because it was the only other time we had considered the meaning of dedicated
revenues.110
ButwedidnotinterpretthededicatedfundsclauseofarticleIX,section7
inCity of Fairbanks.ArticleXI(atissueinCity of Fairbanks),unlikearticleIX(atissue
hereandinAlex),definesthescopeoftheinitiative,referendum,andrecallprocess. 111
BycontrastarticleIXdefinesthescopeofadifferentsetofpowers,thoserelatedtostate
financeandtaxation.112 BecauseCity of Fairbanks consideredanentirelydifferentset
ofpowers,thatdecisionhasnobearinghere.
c. Sonneman v. Hickel
TenyearsafterAlex,weconsideredthededicatedfundsclauseforthe
secondtimeinSonneman v. Hickel,whereweheldunconstitutionalinparttheactthat
createdtheAlaskaMarineHighwaySystemFund.113 Thelegislatureestablishedthe
AlaskaMarineHighwaySystemFundasaspecialaccountinthegeneralfundand
requiredtheAlaskaMarineHighwaySystem,whichoperatestheAlaskaferries,to
108 City of Fairbanks,818P.2dat1155.
109 Id.at1158-59.
110 Id.at1158.
111 AlaskaConst.art.XI.
112 AlaskaConst.art.IX.
113 836P.2d936,937,940(Alaska1992).
-29- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
30/44
deposititsgrossrevenueintothataccount.114 Throughtheact,thelegislaturesoughtto
createincentivesfortheMarineHighwaySystembysettingasidesomeofitsrevenue
foritsownuse.115 Amongotherprovisions,theactoutlinedhowthelegislatureandthe
DepartmentofTransportationandPublicFacilities,whichhousestheMarineHighway
System,couldappropriateandcouldrequestmoneyfromthefund,anditdictatedhow
thelegislaturecouldspendthemoneytherein. 116
Wefoundthatsuchprovisionsrestrictedexecutiveauthoritytorequest
appropriations.117 Accordinglyweheldthatthestatuteviolatedthededicatedfunds
clause of article IX, section 7.118 In doing so, we recognized that a statute can
impermissiblydedicatefundsinvariousways: Astatutecouldrequirethelegislatureto
usefundsonlyforaspecifiedpurposeor,asin Sonneman,thestatutecouldpreclude
agenciesfromrequestinganappropriationforagivenpurpose. 119
But Sonneman doesnot controlour decision here either. Nothing in
Sonneman suggeststhattherestrictiononexecutiveauthorityovermarinehighway
114 Id.at937-38.
115 Id. at 938-39 (stating that the act isbased on the principle that theadministratorsoftheAlaskaMarineHighwaySystemandthelegislaturewilltreatthefundasiftheMarineHighwaySystemhadarighttoitsproceeds....).
116 Id.at938.
117 Id.at940.
118 Id.
119 Id.(Asthedebatesmakeclear,alldepartmentsweretobeinthesamepositionascompetitorsforfundswiththeneedtosell theirviewpointalongwitheveryoneelse.(quoting4PACC2364-67(Jan.17,1956))).
-30- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
31/44
revenueexistedbeforestatehood. And,unliketheschoolfundingformulaatissuehere,
inSonneman wedidnotconsiderastate-localcooperativeprograminwhichlocal
communitiesandtheStateshareresponsibilityforprovidingalocalpublicservice.
d. Myers v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.
Anothertenyearspassedbeforeweagainconsideredthededicatedfunds
clause. InMyers v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.,weupheldalegislativeschemefor
sellinganticipatedfuturestaterevenuefromasettlementagainsttobaccocompaniesso
that itcouldfund ruralschool improvements.120 Thelegislatureaccomplished the
schemeinthreesteps: First,thelegislaturedeemedtheStatesrighttofuturesettlement
paymentstobeanasset.121 Aswithotherassets,theStatecouldsellthefuturesettlement
paymentsfora lumpsumamountthatreflectedthepresentvalueoftheanticipated
revenuestream.122 Second,thelegislatureissuedrevenuebonds secured by theestimated
presentvalueofthesettlement.123 Finally,thelegislaturethenappropriatedaportionof
thebondproceedstofundthenecessaryschoolimprovements. 124
Thoughthetobaccosettlementfellwithinthescopeofthededicatedfunds
clauseandthoughtheschemededicatedfuturestaterevenue,weconcludedthatthe
schemewasconstitutional.125 WeexplainedthatunlikeAlex andSonneman,which
clearlydealtwiththeallocationoffuturerevenues,therevenueallocationschemein
120 68P.3d386,387-88(Alaska2003).
121 Id.at388.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 Id.
125 Id.at390-91.
-31- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
32/44
Myers wasdifferent.126 TheschemeinMyers reducedfuturerevenuetopresentvalue
andusedthatvaluetosecurebonds,theproceedsofwhichwouldbededicatedtofund
schoolimprovementsthatyear.127
e. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. State
Mostrecently,inSoutheast Alaska Conservation Council,wereturnedto
thededicatedfundsclausewhenwestruckdownanactthattransferredstatelandtothe
UniversityofAlaskaandthendirectedthatincomederivedfromthatlandbeheldintrust
fortheUniversity.128 Beforeconcludingthattheactwasunconstitutional,weengaged
inatwo-partinquiry. First,weconcludedthatproceedsfromthelandwerewithinthe
scopeoftheclausesreferencetoproceedsofanystatetaxorlicense.129 Indoingso,
wereiteratedourwarninginAlex thattheconstitutionprohibitsthededicationofany
sourceofrevenue.130 Andweexplainedthat,unlikeMyers,theactdidnotcontemplate
anon-recurringappropriation,whichasinMyers wouldhavebeenpermissibleunderthe
clause.131
Second, we considered whether the University was exempt from the
dedicatedfundsprohibitionbyvirtueofanimpliedexceptionunderarticleVII,section2
of the Alaska Constitution, which authorized the University to hold title to real
126 Id.at392.
127 Id.at389.
128 202P.3d1162,1165-66,1177(Alaska2009).
129 Id.at1169.
130 Id.(quotingState v. Alex,646P.2d203,210(Alaska1982)).
131 Id.at1170;see Myers,68P.3dat392.
-32- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
33/44
property.132 Inrejectingthisargument,weexplainedthatourcaselawestablishesthat
UniversitylandsarestatelandsoverwhichtheStateretainsauthorityregardlessof
whethertheUniversityholdstitle. 133 Asaresult,allrevenuefromUniversitylandisstate
revenuesubjecttotheclause. 134
Southeast Alaska Conservation Councildidnotruleoutthepossibilitythat
wemightfindotherstatutesexemptfromthededicatedfundsclause. Liketheother
casesinthisline,itdidnotaddressalongstandingcooperativeprogram,liketheschool
fundingprogram,inwhichlocalgovernmentsandtheStateshareresponsibilityfor
providinga localpublicservice. Suchprogramsdonotviolatethededicatedfunds
clause.
Here we are asked for the first time whether local contributions to
longstandingcooperativeprogramsinwhichtheStateandlocalgovernmentsshare
fundingresponsibilityrunafoulofthededicatedfundsclause. Theminutesofthe
constitutionalconventionandthehistoricalcontextofthoseproceedingsrevealthatthe
delegatesdidnotintendforrequiredlocalcontributionstosuchprogramstobeincluded
inthetermstatetaxorlicense. Todaysstatutoryprogramforfundinglocalpublic
schoolsfallssquarelywithinthetypeofstate-localcooperativeprogramsthedelegates
132 Se. Alaska Conservation Council,202P.3dat1170-71;see AlaskaConst.art.VII,2([TheUniversityofAlaska]shallhavetitletoallrealandpersonalproperty
noworhereaftersetasideorconveyedtoit. Itspropertyshallbeadministeredanddisposedofaccordingtolaw.).
133 Se. Alaska Conservation Council,202P.3dat1171.
134 Id.at1172.
-33- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
34/44
soughttoexemptfromtheconstitutionalprohibitionondedicatedfunds. Wetherefore
concludethattheexistingschoolfundingformuladoesnotviolatethededicatedfunds
clause.
B. TheSchoolFunding FormulaDoesNotViolateTheAppropriationsOrGovernorsVetoClauses.
Weagreewiththesuperiorcourtthattherequiredlocalcontributiondoes
not violate the appropriations clause or the governors veto clause of the Alaska
Constitution.
ArticleIX,section13,theappropriationsclause,provides: Nomoney
shallbewithdrawnfromthetreasuryexceptinaccordancewithappropriationsmadeby
law. Noobligationforthepaymentofmoneyshallbeincurredexceptasauthorizedby
law. Unobligatedappropriationsattheendoftheperiodoftimespecifiedbylawshall
bevoid.135 ArticleII,section15,thegovernorsvetoclause,provides: Thegovernor
mayvetobillspassedbythelegislature. Hemay,byveto,strikeorreduceitemsin
appropriationbills.Heshallreturnanyvetoedbill,withastatementofhisobjections,
tothehouseoforigin.136
Like the dedicated funds clause, the appropriations clause and thegovernorsvetoclausebothaddresshowtheStatespendsstaterevenue.Togetherthe
clausesgovernthelegislaturesandthegovernorsjointresponsibility...todetermine
theStatesspendingprioritiesonanannualbasis.137 Aswithourprecedinganalysis,
wemustinterprettheseconstitutionalclausesaccordingtoreason,practicality,and
135 AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.
136 AlaskaConst.art.II,15.
137 Simpson v. Murkowski,129P.3d435,447(Alaska2006)(quotingthetrial courtdecision).
-34- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
35/44
commonsense,takingintoaccounttheplainmeaningandpurposeofthelawaswellas
theintentofthedrafters.138
TheBorougharguesthattherequiredlocalcontributionisanappropriation
that bypasses the constitutionally mandated appropriations process and that the
governorsvetoclauserequiresthatthegovernorbegiventheopportunitytovetothis
appropriation. IfweassumetherequiredlocalcontributionislocalmoneyastheState
contends,therequiredlocalcontributionwouldnotviolateeithertheappropriations
clauseorthegovernorsvetoclausebecausetheseclausesaddressstate money,notlocal
money. Ontheotherhand,evenifweassumethatthelocalcontributionisstatemoney
astheBoroughcontends,therequiredlocalcontributionstillwouldnotviolateeither
clause. Thelocalcontributionneverentersthestatetreasury,anditisneversubjectto
appropriations bills. The appropriations clause, per its plain language, applies to
withdrawalsfromthestatetreasury,andthegovernorsvetoappliestoappropriation
bills.139 Therequiredlocalcontributiondoesnotwithdrawfromthestatetreasury;and
itisnotanappropriationbill.
The Borough correctly points out that the constitutional delegates
intentionallyestablishedasysteminwhichboththelegislatureandthegovernorwould
consider howto spendstatemoney eachyear. Butwhileall threeclausesthe
dedicatedfundsclause,appropriationsclause,andgovernorsvetoclauseaddress
poweroverthestatebudget,theplainmeaningofeachclauserevealsthreedistinct
purposes. Throughthededicatedfundsclause,thedelegatessoughttoavoidtheevils
ofearmarking,whichthedelegatesfearedwouldcurtail[]theexerciseofbudgetary
138 West v. State, Bd. of Game,248P.3d689,694(Alaska2010)(quotingNative Vill. of Elim v. State,990P.2d1,5(Alaska1999)).
139 See AlaskaConst.art.II,15;AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.
-35- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
36/44
controlsandsimply[would]amount[]toanabdicationoflegislativeresponsibility. 140
ThedelegatessoughttoprotectStatecontroloverstaterevenueandtoensurelegislative
flexibility.141 Bycontrast,theappropriationsclausedefineshowthelegislaturemay
spendstatemoneyafter ithasenteredstatecoffers,andthegovernorsvetoclause
providesanexecutivecheckonthelegislaturesspendingplan.142 Becausetheplain
languageofboththeappropriationsandgovernorsvetoclausesindicatesthatthese
clausesrestricttheStatespowerafter moneyentersthestatetreasury,notbefore,the
requiredlocalcontributiondoesnotviolateeitherclause.
C. TheBoroughIsNotEntitledToARefundOfItsProtestedPayment.
Becausewefindtherequiredlocalcontributionconstitutional,weneednot
considertheBoroughsrequestforarefundofitsprotestedpayment. Accordingly,we
upholdthesuperiorcourtsdenialoftheBoroughsrequest.
V. CONCLUSION
WeREVERSEthesuperiorcourtsdecisiongrantingsummaryjudgment
infavoroftheBoroughandREMANDtoallowthecourttoenterjudgmentinfavorof
theState.
140 State v. Alex,646P.2d203,209(Alaska1982)(citingALASKASTATEHOODCOMMN,supra note44,at29-30).
141 Id.;see also FORMALOP.ATTYGEN.,supra note44,at3.
142 See AlaskaConst.art.II,15;AlaskaConst.art.IX,13.
-36- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
37/44
STOWERS,ChiefJustice,concurring.
Ijoininthecourtsopinion. ButlikeJusticeWinfree,Iamconcernedthat
thecourtwasnotgiventheopportunitytodecidethededicatedfundsquestioncontrolled
byarticleIX,section7oftheAlaskaConstitutionaspresentedbythisappealinthefuller
contextofthepublicschoolsclauseofarticleVII,section1oftheAlaskaConstitution.
IdonotbelievethatthiscourtsopiniontodaynecessarilydeterminesthattheStates
requiredlocal contribution would surviveconstitutional scrutiny under articleVII,
section1itmight,itmightnotbutthepartiesintentionallydidnotlitigatethis
questioneitherinthesuperiorcourtorthiscourt,andnotwithstandingpointedquestions
byseveraljusticesinoralargumentinquiringintothepotentialapplicationofarticleVII,
section1,thepartiesadamantlyinsistedthatconstitutionalprovisionwasnotinissue.
Inmyview,therefore,thequestionwhethertheStatesrequiredlocalcontributionis
constitutionalunderthepublicschoolsclauseremainsanundecidedquestion.
-37- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
38/44
WINFREE,Justice,concurring.
Statutesarepresumedtobeconstitutional,andthepartychallenginga
statutesconstitutionalityhastheburdenofpersuasion;doubtsareresolvedinfavorof
constitutionality.1 AlthoughIhaveconsiderabledoubtabouttheconstitutionalityofthe
statutorilyrequiredlocalcontribution(RLC)publicschoolsfundingcomponent,I cannot
concludethatthepresumptionhasbeenovercomeinthiscase. Ithereforeagreethatthe
superiorcourtsprimarydecisionthattheRLCisanunconstitutionaldedicatedtax
shouldbevacated. ButIdonotruleoutanultimateconclusionthattheRLCis
unconstitutional,asadedicatedtaxorotherwise,andthereforedonotjointhecourts
analysisordecisionon this point.2 Inmy view the questioncannot beanswered
definitivelywithoutafullinterpretationandunderstandingoftheAlaskaConstitutions
public schools clause, which, apparently for strategic reasons, the parties did not
confront.
AddressinghowtheRLChaseveryappearanceofadedicatedtaxwarrants
abriefdiscussionofthepublicschoolsclause. ArticleVII,section1oftheAlaska
Constitutionstatesinrelevantpart: Thelegislatureshallbygenerallawestablishand
maintainasystemofpublicschoolsopentoallchildrenoftheState....
WeaddressedthisprovisioninMacauleyv.Hildebrand,3whenwereversed
asuperiorcourtdecisionallowingaboroughtorequirethatanon-consentingborough
schooldistrictusetheboroughscentralizedsystemforaccountingcontroloverfunds
1 Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz,170P.3d183,192(Alaska2007).
2 IagreewiththecourtsanalysisandconclusionaffirmingthesuperiorcourtssecondarydecisionthattheRLCdoesnotviolatetheAlaskaConstitutionsappropriationsorgovernorsvetoclauses.
3 491P.2d120(Alaska1971).
-38- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
39/44
appropriatedtotheschooldistrict.4 Anexistingstatuteallowedcentralizedaccounting
upontheschooldistrictsconsent,andtheissuebeforeuswasthevalidityoftheborough
ordinanceconflictingwiththestatute.5 Westatedthegeneralrulethat,notwithstanding
theconstitutiongrantingbroadpowerstohomerulemunicipalities,6thedetermination
ofwhetherahomerulemunicipalitycanenforceanordinancewhichconflictswitha
statestatutedependsonwhetherthematterregulatedisofstatewideorlocalconcern.7
WeheldthatthequestionwascontrolledbyarticleVII,section1:
Thisconstitutionalmandateforpervasivestateauthorityinthefieldofeducationcouldnotbemoreclear. First, thelanguageismandatory,notpermissive. Second,thesectionnotonly requires that the legislature establish a schoolsystem,butalsogivestothatbodythecontinuingobligationto maintain the system. Finally, the provision isunqualified; no other unit of government sharesresponsibility or authority.[8]
WelaterconfirmedthatarticleVII,section1smandatethatthelegislatureestablishand
4 Id.at121-22.
5 Id.at121.
6 Cf. AlaskaConst.art.X,11.
7
Macauley,491P.2dat122&n.4.8 Id.at122(emphasisadded)(footnoteomitted)(quotingAlaskaConst.art.
VII, 1). We also noted that the legislatures delegation ofcertaineducationalfunctionstolocalschoolboardsdoesnotdiminishthisconstitutionallymandatedstatecontrolovereducation. Id.
-39- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
40/44
maintainapublicschoolssystemhasadualnature: Itimposesa[constitutional]duty
upon the state legislature, and it confers upon Alaska school age children a
[constitutional]righttoeducation.9
In what otherwise is a vacuum the RLC has all the hallmarks of an
unconstitutionaldedicatedtax.TheRLCisaState-imposedmandatethatmunicipalities
raisespecifiedfundsfortheStatespublicschoolssystem;itisarevenuesourceforthe
Stateandataxbyanyothernameremainsatax10andtherevenuesarededicated
totheStatespublicschoolssystemeventhoughtheyneverentertheStatestreasury.11
IfindunpersuasivethecourtsconclusionthattheRLCisexemptfromthe
dedicated taxprohibitionbecauseit isapost-statehoodcontinuationofaterritorial
dedicatedtaxoracooperativeefforttoestablishandmaintainpublicschools. First,the
RLCwasnotapartoftheterritorialmunicipalschoolfundingsystem. (Theterritorial
taxdedicatedtoschoolsdiscussedattheconstitutionalconventionwasatobaccotax
earmarkedforschoolconstruction.12) Intheterritorialsystemmunicipalschooldistricts
wererequiredtodeterminetheirownbudgetsandlocaltax-fundinglevels,butwere
promised some level of territorial reimbursement. Now the State determines a
foundationalbasicneedforallschooldistrictsandrequiresmunicipalitiestofund
specificamountsofthatbasicneedintheirschooldistricts. Theterritorialsystemdid
notincludea dedicated taxonmunicipalities; thecurrentsystemappearstodoso.
9 Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated Sch. Sys.,536P.2d793,799(Alaska1975).
10 See State v. Alex,646P.2d203,208-10(Alaska1982).
11 See id.at207-08.
12 See 4ProceedingsoftheAlaskaConstitutionalConvention(PACC)2370(Jan.17,1956).
-40- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
41/44
Second,theStatehastheconstitutionaldutytoestablishandmaintainthepublicschools
system inAlaska,not municipalities. It isdifficult tounderstandhowmandatory
delegationoffunctionsandmunicipalfundingfortheStatespublicschoolssystemcan
beacooperativeeffort.Moreimportantly,thecourtmisperceivesourearlierdiscussion
aboutfundingcooperativeeffortswedidnotsuggesttheframersapprovedofastate
taxdedicatedtoacooperativeeffort,butratherapprovedofdedicatingStaterevenues,
aftertheyreachtheStatetreasury,toacooperativeeffort(andotherusesofrevenues).13
Whatthengivesmepause? Byapparentdesign,thetailmaybewagging
thedogthepartiesappeartobeusingthededicatedtaxclausetodefinethepublic
schoolsclauseslimits.
Ifwefocussolelyontheconstitutionalprohibitionof dedicatedtaxesand
conclude that the RLC is a dedicated tax,wemaybeinferentiallybut necessarily
concludingthatthepublicschoolsclauseisaconstitutionalmandatethattheStatealone
mustprovidethefundsnecessarytomeetatleastminimumconstitutionalrequirements
for the statewide unified public schools system.14 Under this view municipal
contributionstolocalpublicschoolsmaynotbecompelled,butmaybevolunteeredto
supplementStatefundingtoenhancelocaleducationalopportunities. Thiswouldbea
remarkableconclusiontoreachwithouteverconsideringthepublicschoolsclause. 15
13 Alex,646P.2dat209-10.
14 Cf. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,405(Alaska 1997) (Matthews, J., joined byRabinowitz, J.,concurring)(noting publicschoolsclausemightsupportaconstitutionalclaimwhenfundsareinsufficienttopay
foralevelofeducationwhichmeetsstandardsofminimaladequacy).15 IrecognizethatinState v. Alex,646P.2dat210-11,weconcludedthatthe
legislatures general constitutional authority over natural resources could not beconstruedtooverridetheconstitutionalprohibitionofadedicatedtax,ananalysisthat
(continued...)
-41- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
42/44
Icertainlydonotsuggestthatthis interpretationof thepublicschoolsclause
wouldbeincorrect. Lookingonlyattheconstitutionallanguageandourlimitedcase
law,acredibleargumentcanbemadethattheconstitutionrequiresfundingthepublic
schools system in a significantly different manner than in territorial days.16 The
constitutionmandatesthattheState,throughthelegislature,establishandmaintaina
publicschoolssystem,17 andourcaselawestablishesboththatitisaunifiedpublic
schoolssystem18andthatnootherunitofgovernmentsharestheStatesobligation.19
This seems inconsistent with a RLC; if the current RLC is allowable, the State
theoreticallycouldcraftaRLCcompellingamunicipalitytopayforallofitspublic
schoolssystemcostswithoutanyStatecontributionwhatsoever. 20
15 (...continued)mayapplyinthiscontextaswell. ButIdeclinetoapplyitinrotefashionwithoutafullexplicationandunderstandingofthepublicschoolsclause.
16 Cf. Opinion,pp.12-13.
17 AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.
18 Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated Sch. Sys.,536P.2d793,799(Alaska1975).
19 Macauley v. Hildebrand,491P.2d120,122(Alaska1971).
20 Thiscouldhavebeenpossibleintheterritorialsystembecausemunicipalschooldistrictswererequiredtosettheirownpublicschoolsbudgetsandrelatedtaxlevelsandthenhopeforterritorialreimbursement.ButthisalsoseemsinconsistentwiththesubsequentconstitutionaldirectivethattheState,throughthelegislature,establishandmaintainastatewidepublicschoolssystem.
AninterestingquestionnotbeforeusiswhethertheStatecouldavoiditsconstitutionalobligation tomaintain a statewide unifiedpublic schools system byrefusingtofundschooloperationsifamunicipalitydoesnotcomplywiththeRLCmandate. See AS14.17.410(d)(providingthatiftheRLCisnotmade,theStatewillnot
(continued...)
-42- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
43/44
Ontheotherhandthepublicschoolsclausedoesnotexpresslyprovidethat
theStatemustfundthestatewidepublicschoolssystem. 21 Beforestatehoodtheterritory
didnotalonefundmunicipalschools,22 andtherewaslittlediscussionofthepublic
schoolsclauseattheconstitutionalconvention.23 Andasthecourtnotes,shortlyafter
statehoodthelegislaturecreatedapublicschoolsfundingframeworkinconsistentwith
thenotionthattheStateissolelyobligatedtofundthepublicschoolssystem. 24 Perhaps,
asthecourtconcludesbutnotforitsstatedreasonstheRLCisconstitutionally
viable.Butthisconclusionmayalsoinferentiallyandnecessarilyrequiretheconclusion
20 (...continued)provideanyschoolfunds);cf. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State,931P.2d391,405(Alaska1997)(Matthews,J.,joinedbyRabinowitz,J.,concurring)(noting
publicschoolsclausemightsupportaconstitutionalclaimwhenfundsareinsufficienttopayforalevelofeducationwhichmeetsstandardsofminimaladequacy).
21 Cf. AlaskaConst.art.VII,1.
22
See Opinion,pp.12-13.23 SeeVICTORFISCHER,ALASKASCONSTITUTIONALCONVENTION140(1975)
(Exceptfortheproposedprohibitionofpublicfundsbeingusedfordirectbenefitofprivateeducationalinstitutions, the[publiceducation]articlewasnot controversial.Lackofdisagreementwasduetothefactthatthefunctionscoveredbythearticlewerealreadybeingcarriedoutundertheterritorialgovernment.).
24 See Opinion,pp.21-23.ThecourtstatesthatthisreflectstheframersintentthattheStatecouldmandatelocalcontributionstothestatewideschoolssystem,
citingBradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d1,4n.4 (Alaska1976)(Contemporaneousinterpretationoffundamentallawbythoseparticipatinginitsdraftinghastraditionallybeenviewedasespeciallyweightyevidenceoftheframersintent.).Bymycount10constitutionaldelegateswereinthe60-member1961-62legislature:
DelegatesCoghill,Hellenthal, McNealy, McNees, Metcalf, Nolan, Peratrovich, Smith, Sweeney, andTaylor.
-43- 7075
7/25/2019 State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska (2016)
44/44
thattheStatedoesnothaveaconstitutionaldutytofundthestatewidepublicschools
system.
Iamleftwith the followingconclusions. Ifthepublicschoolsclause
requiresthatthestatewideschoolssystembefundedtoaconstitutionallyacceptable
minimumbytheState,thentheRLClikelyisanunconstitutionaldedicatedtax. Ifthe
publicschoolsclauseallowsthelegislaturetorequirelocalfundingforthestatewide
unifiedschoolssystem,then,dependingonitsparameters forrequiringlocalfunding,the
RLCmay or may notbe an unconstitutional dedicated tax. But, deliberately, the
interpretationofthepublicschoolsclausewasnotlitigatedinthesuperiorcourtand,
therefore,wasnotmeaningfullybriefedinthisappeal. AlthoughIhaveconsiderable
doubtthattheRLCisconstitutional,onthisrecordandbriefingImustresolvethatdoubt
infavorofthepresumptionthatitisconstitutional.