With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 456); see Afognak Logging, 31 P.3d at 786 ("Discretionary function immunity precludes liability for harm caused by the type of planning decisions that involve policy formulation. In contrast, operational decisions-those made while executing or implementing existing policies-are not immune." (internal citations omitted)). 14 . Angnabooguk v. State, 26 P.3d 447, 456 (Alaska 2001) (emphasis added). 15 . Sanders, 944 P.2d at 456 (quoting Johnson v. State, 636 P.2d 47, 64 (Alaska 1981)). 16 . 26 P.3d at 454-59. 17 . Id. at 456. 18 . - Id. at 458 (quoting Harry Stoller & Co., Inc. v. City of Lowell, 412 Mass. 139, 587 N.E.2d 780, 785 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 . - Id. at 458-59 (citations omitted); see Adams v. City of Tenakee Springs, 963 P.2d 1047, 1051 (Alaska 1998) (<HOLDING>). 20 . Angnabooguk, 26 P.3d at 459 (citation

A: holding that a board affirmance of an ro decision subsumes that decision
B: recognizing that the existence of a copy of a decision in a bill file along with numerous references to a decision of the court of appeals in the legislative history indicated that an amendment was made in response to that decision
C: holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts
D: holding that citys decision whether to allocate funds to hire firefighters was an immune planning decision
D.