*1 Finney, Sandpoint, for Finney, Finney & Finney A. argued. appellant. John LLC, PARAMEDICS, BIG SKY Liability Company, Limited Moscow, for re- Herrington, L. William Plaintiff-Appellant, spondent. SCHROEDER, Justice. DISTRICT, governmental FIRE SAGLE Paramedics, (Big Sky) Big Sky LLC Idaho and a subdivision of the State of enjoin injunction Sa- sought permanent Defendant-Respondent. body politic, operating an (Sagle) gle District No. 28940. The district court denied ambulance service. Supreme request. Big Sky asks the Supreme Court of Idaho. decision to reverse the district court’s Boise, April 2004 Term. back the district remand the matter July proceedings court for further consistent permanent injunction. the issuance of a I. AND PROCEDURAL
FACTUAL BACKGROUND an ambu- Fire District within its district at Basic Support level since 1997. Life Sagle upgraded to Intermediate August applied Support level and According to Advanced Life level. court, application the district it is apparently Support level Advanced Life Big Sky to initiate lawsuit. caused Idaho. Unless other services (or response to a mutual aid unavailable only Sagle dispatches request), ambulances within the emergencies to incidents of bound- Prior to estab- aries of the district. service, private lishing company Sagle’s Sagle be- dispatched from facilities. company after came licensed stopped doing business and board adequate determined its residents. complaint filed December declaratory seeking judgment and Sagle. junctive Sagle an- relief swered, hearing was held which presented on issue of a evidence injunction. The preliminary preliminary injunction denied preliminary harm had not been the basis that trial, Following shown. *2 Sagle may operate Law,”
held that as “Fire Protection District add- jurisdictional service within the ing boundaries of section num- code the fire district and else wherever has ber. protection agreements. mutual grants power I.C. 31-1401 fire districts agency court held that whichever loads the fire and injured person into its will trans- this, preservation Beyond of life ...”
port injured person, if Sagle and that express given. powers are injured person, stabilizes an but not load- Big Sky argues does not have person ed that into ambulance before right operate to an ambulance service. Big Sky, arrival of shall be authority operate to the entity transport person. to The dis- may implied be under the Big Sky’s trict court denied motion for recon- According to Big Sky appeals. sideration. “the encompasses
II. does to general fire but not extend grant power. Sagle implicit asserts that SAGLE FIRE MAY DISTRICT OP- in right operate this is the to ERATE THE AMUBLANCE preserve ambulance service to SERVICE by the hazards created fire. The district A. Standard of Review following made the determination: The principal appeal issue on agrees This Sagle’s argument, with whether a fire district created to spe- that since these statutes forth set Idaho has the power authority all, operational powers cific not even the operate an ambulance service. The standard specific power fight of review of the lower court’s determination must have meant them have broad on issues interpretation is one of powers operations determining what Nelson, free State v. review. protective district will use the effect 1282, 1284(Ct.App.1991). “preservation of life.” power Municipal example is a classic Purpose B. and Power Districts derivative Because fire district under I.C. 31-1401 city, is a like a provides following: I.C. powers possesses only fire district con property fire and ferred on or which de- by necessary be implication. derived State v. pur- clared to be Frederic, 155 P. pose. portion Any of a not includ- (1916). This has articulated this rule any ed in other fire district construing as a strict limitation when munici organized into a fire pal powers: “municipalities may exercise provisions chapter. under the of this All granted powers to them or neces property any taxable within sarily implied ... provisions created of this fair, reasonable, [and i]f there substantial chapter ratably shall be benefited power, doubt as to the existence of proportion to assessed valuation city.” doubt must be resolved district, creation and of such maintenance City Grangeville, 116 any and all taxable such 1208, 1211. equally propor- district shall be assessed pur- tion to assessed for the its valuation C.Necessarily Implied Powers pose provi- of and accordance chapter chapter. question authority sions of shall whether operate implied be known the “Fire Protection District an ambulance service Law,” cited, enumerated, whenever state that re- I.C. 31-1401. statute does amended, may designated power a fire district has the conduct activi- ferred to or right operate the ambu- fire. The of life.” ties lives of municipalities, “if Regarding encompassed within the Fire express ... but derives from neces- residents is implication, enough set forth I.C. 31-1401. sary District’s [express implied power is ‘convenient’ to
powers], indispensable to but it must be *3 III. MCQUILLIN, COR- them.” MUNICIPAL (3d. ed.1995). CONCLUSION § Al- PORATIONS 34.23 though Sagle municipality, ap- not a is the is af- of district court The decision Thus, of proach applicable. is resolution Sagle is awarded costs. firmed. opera- indispensable turns how issue of an service is to tion concurs. Justice KIDWELL district. EISMANN, Concurring. Sagle The district court found that an ambulance service within dis- majority opinion and write concur in the Support trict at the Basic Life level since legislative intent only to further the discuss Sagle upgraded 1997. to Intermediate Life that Idaho Code 31-1401. When behind level 2000. Subse- it originally enacted quently, Sagle applied for Advanced provided, protection of “The approval benefit, Support Level and received that hereby public to be a declared Department of of 161, § purpose.” use and Ch. and Health Welfare on December 2001. In Laws 324. Sess. found: further “and amended statute to add words life,” read, that preservation of so it evidence,
There is uncontradicted
that es-
of
fire and the
pecially
originating
as to calls
from south
life are
declared
station,
Sagle
will al-
purpose.”
Ch.
always
longer
most
take
to respond. This
1165. The
1974 Idaho Sess. Laws
responds
Sand-
(unless
wording
“preser-
not link
of the statute does
point
a unit is out on the road
in)
life”
fires.
It does
limit the
vation of
roaming around
a call comes
when
(unless
to the
purpose of a fire
Sagle
its unit
in). preservation
it does to
of life
is out on the road
comes
call
property.
assuming
the protection of
Even
Sagle
respond
Whether
can
two minutes
ambiguity
regard,
in this
there is some
average
faster on
or five
faster on
minutes
the enactment stated that the statute
title to
average
significance
is of
real
to the
being
“by adding
preserva-
amended
significant
Court. What
purposes
tion
life as one of
of the law.”
respond
faster. These are matters of
Id. at 1164.
Again,
nothing linking
death,
there
life
matter
legisla-
to fire. The
life
preservation.
life
The uncontradicted evi-
areas,
granted fire
districts the
is that
dence
is faster to these
power to
to the
faster,
conduct activities
they
if they
providing
are
operation of
preservation of
“reasonably”
service that
ambulance service comes within that
under Idaho Code 31-3901.
argues
that statements made
found
uncontradicted
Sagle provides
during
hearings
proponents
service
committee
faster ambulance
district.
the 1974 amendment should restrict
than
residents
began
language
of the
of the statute. State-
maintains
ambulance ser-
services,
by persons supporting legisla-
compete
private
not to
made
vice
but ments
patrons
modify the
of the
protect
plain language
tion cannot
rather
lives
legislation.
expressed
sup-
for
district. The Court is satisfied that the
Their
reasons
provision
porting
in I.C.
are irrelevant when
31-
wording
used
1401 extends
tion.
discussions,
who attended the com-
the first
Senator Bark-
hearings
explained:
er
mittee
were not the
ones enti-
tled
to vote
the bill. Their
present
governing
comments
that the
law
Fire Pro-
gives
tection Districts
why
limit
reasons
either
to men
or
saving techniques
trained in life
amendment,
others
use
voted
favor of the
par-
techniques.
fact,
In
Attorney
ticularly
present
those who were not
at the
says that.they
General’s office
cannot ad-
addition,
meetings.
committee
it is not
lifesaving
minister aid
the form of
tech-
unusual for the
aof
statute to be
anyone
niques
present
law. This
broader
than is
to address the
would add
law
primary
proponent
issue that
motivated
of life.
legislation.
legislators
comments
Committee, Minutes, January 31,
H.E.W.
statute,
can modify
is it
by proponents
comments
*4
The Local Government Committee heard
do so? The
the following:
scope
sometimes minimize
impact,
spoke
Fire
Peterson
in favor of this
exaggerate
while the
sometimes
it.
Chief
question, “why
and answered the
If
legislature
had intended to restrict the
emergency
clause” because
rendering
1974 amendment
“first aid at
legally,
render
aid
first
at this time.
care,
emergency
the scene” or
medical
urged
Mr.
passage
Anderson
of this bill
certainly
wording.
could have chosen that
also,
legal
to make it
to administer first
the language
legislature
chosen
is too
aid.
broad,
it has
impossible
Lane said it is
narrow
Chief
type
activity
curtail this
which has been
going
depart-
on since the formation
fire
BURDICK,
Dissents.
hoped
ments.
legislature
He
would
respectfully
“come to their aid" on this.
departs
Legislature’s original
legislative
The
intent
intent seems clear —first
scene, nothing
aid at
expands
this ease and
districts
more.
Legisla-
to them the
is consistent with the overall
ture.
tive scheme.
the H.E.W. Committee
meeting
January
Senator Snow
primary duty
Court’s
apply
asked if
this would
to cities
Sena-
give
legislative
statute is to
effect to the
tor
city
Barker answered it wouldn’t because
purpose
intent
the statute. Adamson
departments
regulations.
have their own
Blanchard,
605,
602,
133 Idaho
990 P.2d
This bill
aimed
at rural
1213, 1216(1999);
County v. City
Bannock
only.
pass
districts
Counties
allowed to
294,
Pocatello,
(1986). Additionally,
legislature’s
Why
Chapter
Title 31.
would the
tent
is ascertained from the
lan-
very
duplicate efforts with this
guage
seek edification
phrase?
nebulous
should
legislative history
from the statute’s
and his-
with instructions to limit the fire
reversed
Adamson,
torical content at enactment.
district to “first aid”
the site of
Idaho at
Committee on Febru-
ary Local 1974 and the House Govern- 8,1974.
ment Committee on March