Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 29.05.100 (2026)
Decision
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 29.05.100. Decision.
(a) After providing public notice of each proposed amendment or condition and an opportunity for public comment, the Local Boundary Commission may amend the petition and may impose conditions on the incorporation. If the commission determines that the incorporation, as amended or conditioned if appropriate, meets applicable standards under the state constitution and commission regulations, meets the standards for incorporation under AS 29.05.011 or 29.05.031, and is in the best interests of the state, it may accept the petition. Otherwise, it shall reject the petition.
(b) A Local Boundary Commission decision under this section may be appealed under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act).
(a) After providing public notice of each proposed amendment or condition and an opportunity for public comment, the Local Boundary Commission may amend the petition and may impose conditions on the incorporation. If the commission determines that the incorporation, as amended or conditioned if appropriate, meets applicable standards under the state constitution and commission regulations, meets the standards for incorporation under AS 29.05.011 or 29.05.031, and is in the best interests of the state, it may accept the petition. Otherwise, it shall reject the petition.
(b) A Local Boundary Commission decision under this section may be appealed under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1994–2015 · leading case: for Incorporation of City & Borough of Yakutat v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 900 P.2d 721 (Alaska 1995).
for Incorporation of City & Borough of Yakutat v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 900 P.2d 721 (Alaska 1995). “Petitioners base their claim on AS 29.05.100(a), which prescribes the LBC’s powers and duties in reviewing a petition for incorporation: If the Local Boundary Commission determines that a proposed municipality fails to meet the standards for incorporation, it shall reject the…”
Mullins v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2010). “AS 29.05.100(b). 19 . See, e.g., Petitioners for Incorporation of City & Borough of Yakutat v.”
Lake & Peninsula Borough v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 885 P.2d 1059 (Alaska 1994). “If Villages had properly appealed LBC’s boundary decision pursuant to AS 29.05.100(b), then the case could have been resolved prior to the incorporation election.”
City & Borough of Juneau v. State, Local Boundary Comm'n, 361 P.3d 926 (Alaska 2015). “And under AS 29.05.100(a) the Boundary Commission may accept an incorporation petition upon finding that the petition meets constitutional, statu *932 tory, and regulatory requirements and that incorporation "is in the best interests of the state.”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.05.100(a) — 2 cases
for Incorporation of City & Borough of Yakutat v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 900 P.2d 721 (Alaska 1995). “Petitioners base their claim on AS 29.05.100(a), which prescribes the LBC’s powers and duties in reviewing a petition for incorporation: If the Local Boundary Commission determines that a proposed municipality fails to meet the standards for incorporation, it shall reject the…”
City & Borough of Juneau v. State, Local Boundary Comm'n, 361 P.3d 926 (Alaska 2015). “And under AS 29.05.100(a) the Boundary Commission may accept an incorporation petition upon finding that the petition meets constitutional, statu *932 tory, and regulatory requirements and that incorporation "is in the best interests of the state.”
— Alaska Stat. § 29.05.100(b) — 2 cases
Mullins v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2010). “AS 29.05.100(b). 19 . See, e.g., Petitioners for Incorporation of City & Borough of Yakutat v.”
Lake & Peninsula Borough v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 885 P.2d 1059 (Alaska 1994). “If Villages had properly appealed LBC’s boundary decision pursuant to AS 29.05.100(b), then the case could have been resolved prior to the incorporation election.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.