Main Menu

North Slope Borough v. State, Department of Education & Early Development

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Sasha Kahn

In North Slope Borough v. State, Department of Education & Early Development, 484 P.3d 106 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that when summary adjudication has been stipulated to in an agency proceeding, and therefore no factual dispute is up for debate, the hearing officer need only apply a reasonable basis standard in reviewing the decision. (Id. at 115–16). Likewise, in reviewing an agency’s interpretation of an issue within the department’s expertise, a superior court should use a reasonable basis standard. (Id. at 116–17). A northern Alaska municipality and school district sought to use Alaska’s school debt reimbursement program. (Id. at 110). The program, designed to reimburse municipalities for payments made on approved school construction bonds, had strict statutory requirements, including that bonds “be repaid in approximately equal annual principal payments or approximately equal debt service payments over a period of at least 10 years.” (Id.). The municipality issued bonds with unequal service payments over several years, and after initially reimbursing them, the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development refused to reimburse the rest. (Id. at 110–11). On appeal to the Commissioner, a designee affirmed the denial. (Id. at 111–12). The municipality sought a formal hearing, and the hearing officer first issued an order stating that summary adjudication was in order as the facts were undisputed, and after reviewing briefs, used a reasonable basis standard to affirm the denial. (Id. at 112). The superior court, on further appeal, applied a reasonable basis standard to the agency’s interpretation of equal debt service bonds and affirmed denial. (Id. at 113). Affirming the superior court’s standard of review and final decision, the supreme court held that when summary adjudication has been stipulated to in an agency proceeding, and therefore no factual dispute is up for debate, the hearing officer need only apply a reasonable basis standard in reviewing the decision, and, in reviewing an agency’s interpretation of an issue within the department’s expertise, a superior court should use a reasonable basis standard. (Id. at 115–17).

North Slope Borough v. State, Department of Education & Early Development

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Sasha Kahn

In North Slope Borough v. State, Department of Education & Early Development, 484 P.3d 106 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that when summary adjudication has been stipulated to in an agency proceeding, and therefore no factual dispute is up for debate, the hearing officer need only apply a reasonable basis standard in reviewing the decision. (Id. at 115–16). Likewise, in reviewing an agency’s interpretation of an issue within the department’s expertise, a superior court should use a reasonable basis standard. (Id. at 116–17). A northern Alaska municipality and school district sought to use Alaska’s school debt reimbursement program. (Id. at 110). The program, designed to reimburse municipalities for payments made on approved school construction bonds, had strict statutory requirements, including that bonds “be repaid in approximately equal annual principal payments or approximately equal debt service payments over a period of at least 10 years.” (Id.). The municipality issued bonds with unequal service payments over several years, and after initially reimbursing them, the Alaska Department of Education & Early Development refused to reimburse the rest. (Id. at 110–11). On appeal to the Commissioner, a designee affirmed the denial. (Id. at 111–12). The municipality sought a formal hearing, and the hearing officer first issued an order stating that summary adjudication was in order as the facts were undisputed, and after reviewing briefs, used a reasonable basis standard to affirm the denial. (Id. at 112). The superior court, on further appeal, applied a reasonable basis standard to the agency’s interpretation of equal debt service bonds and affirmed denial. (Id. at 113). Affirming the superior court’s standard of review and final decision, the supreme court held that when summary adjudication has been stipulated to in an agency proceeding, and therefore no factual dispute is up for debate, the hearing officer need only apply a reasonable basis standard in reviewing the decision, and, in reviewing an agency’s interpretation of an issue within the department’s expertise, a superior court should use a reasonable basis standard. (Id. at 115–17).