• LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ALASKA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ALASKA
prepared by Local Boundary Commission Staff
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development
updated March 2004
Section 1 – Alaska has just two types of municipal government –
cities and organized boroughs.
Unlike most other states that typically have local government
structures consisting of many overlapping local government
service providers, Alaska’s system of local government is
simple, efficient, and effective. It consists of just two types of
municipal government as described below.
A. Cities.
A city government is a municipal corporation and political
Federal law did not subdivision of the State of Alaska. City governments are
allow the subject to the “limitation of community” doctrine. (See
incorporation of
city governments
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Local Boundary Commission, 518 P.2d
in Alaska until 92, 100 (Alaska 1974).) The doctrine requires the area
1900. The City of taken into the boundaries of a city to be urban or semi-
Skagway was the urban in character.
first city
government
incorporated in On average, the corporate boundaries of cities in Alaska
Alaska. encompass just over 27 square miles. However, there are
wide variations in the size of individual cities. The City of
Skagway encompasses the largest area (466 square miles),
while the City of Kiana encompasses the smallest area (0.3
square miles).
Current State law restricts the inclusion of large geographical
regions or large unpopulated areas in cities. [3 AAC
110.040(b) - (c); 3 AAC 110.130(c) - (d)]. A city is part of the
borough in which it is located. [Art. X, § 7, Ak. Const.]
Presently, there are 145 city governments in Alaska. In
2003, those cities were inhabited by 159,255 individuals or
24.5 percent of Alaska’s total population of 648,818.
The 2003 population of cities ranged from a high of 29,486
(City of Fairbanks) to a low of 30 (City of Kupreanof).
Local Government in Alaska 1
 B. Organized Boroughs.
Like a city, an organized borough in Alaska is a municipal
Prior to statehood,
corporation and political subdivision of the State of Alaska.
federal law prohibited However, organized boroughs are regional governments –
the creation of much larger than cities.
counties in Alaska
Article X, Section 3 of Alaska’s Constitution requires that the
entire state be divided into boroughs, organized or
unorganized. It also requires that each borough embrace a
maximum area and population with common interests.
Article X, § 1 of Alaska’s Constitution calls for minimum
numbers of local governments. Together, Sections 1 and 3
of Article X promote large boroughs embracing natural
regions.
Presently, there are 16 organized boroughs in Alaska. On
average, organized boroughs encompass just over 17,400
square miles (644 times the average size of cities). Like
cities, the size of individual organized boroughs varies
considerably. The largest organized borough is the North
Slope Borough (94,770 square miles), while the Bristol Bay
Borough is the smallest (850 square miles)
White area In 2003, Alaska’s 16 organized boroughs
encompasses the
were inhabited by 567,343 individuals, or
unorganized
borough
87.4 percent of the total population of the
state. Of the 567,343 residents of
organized boroughs in Alaska, 97,044
(17.1 percent) also lived within a city
government during 2003.
Organized boroughs encompass about 43
percent of the geographic area of Alaska.
State law provides that the part of Alaska
outside organized boroughs comprises a single unorganized
borough. As it is presently configured, the unorganized
borough encompasses 374,843 square miles. The
unorganized borough was inhabited by 81,475 residents in
2003. Additional information about the unorganized borough
is provided later in this publication.
2 Local Government in Alaska
Section 2 – Classification of Cities and Boroughs.
A. Cities.
There are three different classifications of city governments
in Alaska – home-rule, first-class, and second-class cities. A
community must have at least 400 permanent residents to
form a home-rule or first-class city.
First and second-class cities are general law cities – State
law defines their powers, duties, and functions. General law
is distinct from home-rule. Home-rule cities have all
legislative powers not prohibited by law or charter. Details
about the differences between the two types of government
are provided in Section 3.
Table 1 lists the number of cities of each classification and
indicates whether those cities are inside or outside an
organized borough. The classification and location of cities
are significant in terms of the powers and duties of city
governments in Alaska as addressed in Section 3.
Table 1
City Governments in Alaska
Within the
Within Organized Unorganized
Classification Boroughs Borough Total
Number 2003 Number 2003 Number of 2003
of Cities Population of Cities Population Cities Population
Home-rule Cities 7 60,604 5 12,124 12 72,728
First-class Cities 7 22,068 13 16,733 20 38,801
Second-class Cities 34 14,372 79 33,354 113 47,726
Total 48 97,044 97 62,211 145 159,255
Local Government in Alaska 3
 B. Organized Boroughs.
The word “borough” has There are five different classifications or types of organized
its origins in 5th century boroughs in Alaska. These are unified home-rule, non-
Europe. It means “place unified home-rule, first-class, second-class, and third-
organized for local
class.1 First, second, and third-class boroughs are general
government purposes.” A
number of countries and a law governments.
number of states in the US Table 2 lists the number of boroughs according to
have boroughs; however, classification. Details about the distinctions among the
they are unlike boroughs
in Alaska.
different classifications of boroughs are provided in Section
3.
Table 2
Organized Boroughs in Alaska
Classification Number 2003 Population
Unified Home-rule 3 314,177
Non-unified Home-rule 6 21,095
First-class 0 0
Second-class 7 232,071
Third-class 0 0
Total 16 567,343
1
A “unified municipality” is an organized borough (unified home rule borough). A unified
municipality is defined as such by the Local Boundary Commission in 3 AAC 110.990(1).
Alaska’s Constitution recognizes only two types of municipalities, cities and boroughs (Art. X,
Sec. 2). The legislature consistently treats unified municipalities as boroughs. For example,
State statutes utilize the same standards for incorporation of a borough as they do for
incorporation of a unified municipality (AS 29.05.031). By contrast, the legislature has
established separate standards for incorporation of a city (AS 29.05.011). Newly formed
unified municipalities and boroughs are entitled to identical organization grants and other
transitional assistance (AS 29.05.190; 29.05.210), whereas newly formed cities are entitled to
substantially lower levels of organization grants and different transitional assistance. AS
29.06.410 describes the powers of a unified municipality to include all powers granted to a
home-rule borough. Additionally, all of the existing unified municipalities in Alaska recognize
themselves as boroughs in that each is governed by an assembly. Art. X, Sec. 4 of Alaska’s
Constitution reserves the term “assembly” for the governing body of a borough, whereas Art.
X, Sec. 8 of Alaska’s Constitution reserves the term “council” for the governing body of a city.
Lastly, none of the unified municipalities exhibits characteristics that are exclusive to city
governments.
While the third-class borough classification remains in law, there are no third-class boroughs.
Moreover, State law expressly prohibits the formation of new third-class boroughs.
Therefore, this publication does not address the powers of a third class borough or other
aspects of a third class borough.
4 Local Government in Alaska
Section 3 – Alaska’s Cities and Organized Boroughs – both
General Law and Home-rule – Enjoy Broad Powers.
A. Provisions Applicable to all Local Governments in
Alaska.
Article X of Alaska’s Constitution establishes the framework
for local government in Alaska. Section 1 of the local
government article states the following with respect to the
purpose and construction of the constitutional provisions
regarding local government:
The purpose of this article is to provide for
maximum local self-government with a
minimum of local government units, and to
prevent duplication of tax-levying jurisdictions.
A liberal construction shall be given to the
powers of local government units. (emphasis
added)
All local governments in Alaska – general law cities, home-
rule cities, general law boroughs, and home-rule boroughs –
enjoy broad powers. The Alaska Supreme Court has noted
with respect to the constitution provision for a liberal
construction of the powers of local government as follows:
The constitutional rule of liberal construction
was intended to make explicit the framers’
intention to overrule a common law rule of
interpretation which required a narrow reading
of local government powers.2
2
The rule, called Dillon’s rule states:
[a] municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers and not
others. First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily implied or
necessarily incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those absolutely essential
to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation – not simply convenient, but
indispensable.
Merrian v. Moody’s Executors, 25 Iowa 163, 170 (1868). The minutes of the constitutional
convention reveal that the liberal construction clause of Article X, Section 1 was intended to
assure that general law municipalities, as well as those having home-rule powers, would not
be governed by this rule, but would have their powers liberally interpreted. The following
colloquy between delegates Hellenthal and Victor Fischer is illustrative:
HELLENTHAL: Is there a compelling reason for the retention of the last sentence in the
section?
V. FISCHER: Mr. President, we were advised by our committee consultants that due to the
fact that in the past, courts have very frequently, or rather generally interpreted the powers of
local government very strictly under something called “Dillon’s Rule”, or something like that,
that a statement to this effect was rather important, particularly in connection with the local
government provisions of the article to make sure that it would be interpreted to give it the
Local Government in Alaska 5
 (Liberati v. Bristol Bay Borough, 584 P.2d 1115, 1120
[Alaska 1978])
B. General Law Cities and Boroughs.
As noted in Section 2, general law local governments derive
their powers from laws enacted by the State legislature. The
constitutional principle of liberal construction of local
government powers is reflected in the laws enacted by the
legislature granting powers to general law governments.
Among the statutes are the following provisions:
Sec. 29.35.400. General construction. A liberal
construction shall be given to all powers and
functions of a municipality conferred in this title.
Sec. 29.35.410. Extent of powers. Unless
otherwise limited by law, a municipality has and
may exercise all powers and functions
necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the
purpose of all powers and functions conferred
in this title.
In 1983, the Alaska Supreme Court addressed Article X,
Section 1 along with the similar version of the two statutes
noted above that was in effect at the time. The Court
concluded that a second-class (general law) borough had
powers beyond those expressly stated in law. Specifically,
the Court concluded that even though State statutes did not
specifically authorize a second-class borough to dispose of
land by lottery, that power was “fairly implied.” (Gilman v.
Martin, 662 P.2d 120, 124 [Alaska 1983])
In reaching its conclusion that a general law government had
implied powers, the court cited the irreconcilable conflict rule
that it utilized in Jefferson v. State, 527 P.2d 37, 43 (Alaska
1974). The court made no distinction as to the deference
due to an enactment by a home-rule municipality as
compared to an enactment by a general law municipality.
The application of the irreconcilable conflict rule in Gilman v.
maximum amount of flexibility that we desire to have in it and to provide the maximum
powers to the legislature and to the local government units to carry out the intent of this
article.
....
HELLENTHAL: Now I refer to Section 11. Doesn’t Section 11 clearly reverse this rule that
you refer to as Dillon’s Rule?
V. FISCHER: That would apply to home rule, cities and boroughs, but the point is that there
may be a lot of local government units in Alaska over the years that may not be granted the
home rule authority by the legislature and it may not want to adopt a home rule charter.
Alaska Constitutional Convention Proceedings, Part 4, 2690 – 96.
6 Local Government in Alaska
 Martin clearly enhanced the powers of general law
municipalities in Alaska.
Those powers were further enhanced to a great degree in
1985 when the State legislature eliminated the enumerated
list of regulatory powers of general law municipalities (former
AS 29.48.035) and the enumerated list of authorized
facilities and services of general law municipalities (former
AS 29.48.030). The enumerated lists of powers were
replaced with the broadest possible grant of powers to
general law municipalities; i.e., “...any power not otherwise
prohibited by law.” [AS 29.35.200(a) & (c); 210(c) & (d);
220(d); 250(a); 260(a)]
The statutory grant of powers to general law municipalities
has no general limitations such as ‘...any municipal power’ or
...’any local government power’ which would imply that the
granted powers were limited to those that the court might
think of as typical or appropriate local government powers.
Finding such an implied limitation would be difficult in light of
the language of Article X, § 1, Liberati v. Bristol Bay
Borough, Gilman v. Martin, and the literal language of the
statutory grant of powers.
Similarly, it may be relevant that the second sentence of
Article X, § 1 reads “A liberal construction shall be given to
the powers of local government units” instead of, “A liberal
construction shall be given to local government powers.”
The latter implies that there is some definition or judicial
understanding of what constitutes local government powers
and invites a court to define what is encompassed by the
term before it applies a liberal construction to the power
being questioned. If it is not typically a “local government
power” as envisioned by the courts across the nation, then
the court need not apply a liberal construction to it. The
actual language of Alaska’s Constitution does not lend itself
as easily to such an interpretation and, coupled with the
language of the Title 29 grants (“any power not otherwise
prohibited by law”), would make it difficult for a court (in a
well briefed case) to resort to limiting Alaska municipal
powers to common understandings of what powers are
traditional municipal powers.
As a practical matter, under the present language of Title 29,
the nature of the powers to which a general law municipality
has access are substantially the same as those to which a
home-rule municipality has access, bearing in mind the
specific Title 29 limitations that apply to general law
municipalities.
Local Government in Alaska 7
 C. Distinctions Among General Law Boroughs.
A principal distinction between a first-class borough and a
second-class borough relates to the authority to assume
powers. A first-class borough may exercise any power not
prohibited by law on a non-areawide basis (i.e., in the area
of the borough outside cities) by adopting an ordinance. In
contrast, a second-class borough must gain voter approval
for the authority to exercise many non-areawide powers.
D. Home-Rule Cities and Boroughs.
While general law local governments in Alaska have broad
powers, home-rule local governments have even greater
powers. Article X, Section 11 of Alaska’s Constitution
provides that:
A home-rule borough or city may exercise all legislative
powers not prohibited by law or by charter.
Adoption of a home-rule charter promotes maximum local
self-government to the greatest extent possible. Tom
Morehouse and Vic Fischer, recognized experts in Alaska
local government, wrote the following account of the views of
the constitutional convention delegates with regard to this
matter:
An oft-repeated theme of the [Alaska
Constitutional] convention, and one of
the stated purposes of the local
government article, was provision of
maximum local self-government to the
people of Alaska. . . . Home rule was
held to be the vehicle for strengthening
both state and local governments by
permitting the people to deal with local
problems at the local level. It was also
to be the means for promoting local
government adaptation in a state with
Committee on Local Government meeting during the
Alaska Constitutional Convention, February 1956
great variations in geographic,
economic, social, and political
conditions.
This home rule philosophy was not believed to
be inconsistent with a strong state role in local
affairs. As the above discussion indicates, the
exercise of state authority was considered
essential in matters of incorporation and
boundaries, i.e., the creation of local
governments and their areas of jurisdiction were
8 Local Government in Alaska
 felt to be matters ultimately of state
responsibility. When properly established,
however, their internal organization and
operations were to be primarily local concerns,
particularly in the case of home rule units.
Moreover, a “strong state role” also meant that
the state would support local governments with
financial aid and technical assistance.
Before Alaska became a state, there was little
self-determination either at territorial or local
levels. Federal law prescribed the powers of
the territorial legislature, severely limiting the
scope and types of local government that could
be established and restricting the powers that
could be exercised by incorporated cities.
Throughout its deliberations, therefore, the
Local Government Committee emphasized the
need for effective constitutional provisions for
home rule.
(Thomas A. Morehouse and Victor Fischer, Borough
Government in Alaska, p. 56 [1971].)
In 1963, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled as follows:
By constitutional provision cities have “the
powers and functions conferred by law or
charter.” (footnote omitted) The meaning of
this provision is that where a home rule city is
concerned the charter, and not a legislative
act, is looked to in order to determine whether
a particular power has been conferred upon
the city. It would be incongruous to recognize
the constitutional provisions stating that a
home rule city “may exercise all legislative
powers not prohibited by law or by charter” and
then to say that the power of a home rule city is
measured by a legislative act.”
(Lien v. City of Ketchikan, 383 P.2d 721, 723 [Alaska 1963])
In 1974, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the
prohibitions referred to in Article X, Section 11 can be either
in express or implied terms. Specifically, the Court stated:
The prohibition must be either by express
terms or by implication such as where the
statue and ordinance are so substantially
irreconcilable that one cannot be given its
substantive effect if the other is to be accorded
with weight of law.
Local Government in Alaska 9
 (Jefferson v. State, 527 P.2d 37, 43 [Alaska, 1974])
There are 138 sections of the current Alaska Statutes that
specifically refer to home-rule local governments. Most of
those (106) are found in Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes
dealing with municipal government. The remaining 32 are
scattered in 20 other titles of the Alaska Statutes.
Section 4. The Duties of Cities and Boroughs Depend Upon
Classification. City Duties also vary in terms of Location Within
or Outside of Organized Boroughs.
All local governments have certain fundamental duties such
as conducting elections and holding regular meetings of the
governing bodies. Beyond this, the duties of municipalities in
Alaska vary considerably.
All organized boroughs as well as home-rule and first-class
cities in the unorganized borough must operate municipal
school districts. Second-class cities in the unorganized
borough and cities in organized boroughs are not authorized
to do so.
All organized boroughs, along with home-rule and first-class
cities in the unorganized borough must also exercise
planning, platting, and land use regulation. Second-class
cities in the unorganized borough are permitted, but not
required, to exercise those powers. Home-rule, first-class,
and second-class cities in organized boroughs may exercise
planning, platting, and land use regulation powers only if
those powers have been delegated to them by the borough.
Organized boroughs also have the duty to collect municipal
property, sales, and use taxes levied within their boundaries.
Otherwise, municipal powers are exercised at the discretion
of local governments. Second-class cities are not obligated
by law to provide any particular service.
Organized boroughs may provide services on three
jurisdictional levels. These are (1) areawide (i.e., throughout
the entire borough); (2) nonareawide (i.e., in that part of the
borough outside of cities); and (3) service area (the size and
configuration of service areas may vary, they may even
include territory within the boundaries of city governments
under certain circumstances).3
3
“Service area” means an area in which borough services are provided that are not
offered on an areawide or nonareawide basis, or in which a higher or different level of
areawide or nonareawide services are provided. Borough service areas are not local
governments, service area boards lack legislative and executive powers.
10 Local Government in Alaska
 Alaska’s Constitution (Article X, § 5) and Alaska Statutes
(AS 29.35.450) prohibit the creation of new service areas if
services can be provided by an existing service area,
annexation to a city, or incorporation of a new city.
Tables 3 and 4 provide additional information concerning the
powers and duties of the various types of cities and
boroughs.
Section 5 – The Unorganized Borough is Unlike an Organized
Borough.
Unlike cities and organized boroughs, the unorganized
borough is not a municipal corporation or political subdivision
of the State of Alaska.
Unorganized boroughs were intended to serve as a means
to decentralize State services and to foster local participation
in the administration of state programs within regions not
ready or suited for organized borough status.
Art. X, § 6 of Alaska’s Constitution stipulates that, “The
legislature shall provide for the performance of services it
deems necessary or advisable in unorganized boroughs,
allowing for maximum local participation and responsibility.
It may exercise any power or function in an unorganized
borough which the assembly may exercise in an organized
borough.”
To ostensibly carry out the constitutional mandate that the
entire state be divided into boroughs, organized or
unorganized, the 1961 Legislature enacted a law providing
that all areas not within the boundaries of an organized
borough constitute a single unorganized borough. (AS
29.03.010)
The Local Boundary Commission has stressed repeatedly
over many years that, given the size and diversity of
unorganized areas of Alaska, a single, residual unorganized
borough falls far short of the constitutional intent regarding
borough boundaries.4 In 1990, the Commission initiated an
effort to define the unorganized borough in terms of model
boundaries based on constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
boundary standards for borough incorporation. The
Commission’s work was completed at the end of 1992.
4
Most recently, the LBC recently expressed the view that the 1961 law creating the single
residual unorganized borough, “disregarded the constitutional requirement that each
borough must embrace an area of common interests.” , Local Boundary Commission and
Department of Education and Early Development, School Consolidation: Public Policy
Considerations and a Review of Opportunities for Consolidation, February 2004, p. 30.
Local Government in Alaska 11
 Funding for the project was provided by the Legislature. In
the course of the effort, the LBC held hearings involving
88 communities. Since 1992, the model borough boundaries
have been modified twice.5
Currently, 18 different model boroughs are defined in the
unorganized borough. In addition, the Commission identified
five parts of the unorganized borough that have greater
social, cultural, economic, geographic, transportation, and
other relevant ties to existing organized boroughs vis-à-vis
any of the 18 model boroughs in the unorganized borough.
A map showing the 16 organized boroughs, 18 model
boroughs, and 5 parts of the unorganized borough with ties
to organized boroughs is provided below.
The legislature has enacted two key provisions to allow for
local participation and responsibility in the delivery of State
services in the unorganized borough. These are described
below.
5
The first modification occurred to the boundaries of the Prince William Sound Model
Borough, which were reduced as a result of an annexation to the adjoining City and
Borough of Yakutat. The second modification occurred when the LBC merged the former
“Aleutian-Military Model Borough” into the “Aleutians West Region Model Borough” in
December 2002, during the course of a study of the unorganized borough. (See: Local
Boundary Commission, Unorganized Areas of Alaska that Meet Borough Incorporation
Standards, February 2003, p. 69.)
12 Local Government in Alaska
 Regional educational attendance areas (REAAs) are state
service areas to provide public education to the unorganized
borough, except within home-rule and first-class cities. The
1975 legislature required the then Department of Community
and Regional Affairs, in consultation with the then
Department of Education and local communities, to divide
the unorganized borough into educat