*1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY, Idaho, OF TWIN FALLS al., Plaintiff-Appellants, et
IDAHO HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORI- TY, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 11564.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
Dec. 1974.
As Amended Jan. *3 Eugene C. Thomas and R. Rowe John Moffatt, Thomas, Blanton, Barrett &
Dwight Board, Boise, V. C. Griffith Janice Hawkins, Wood, Delafield & New York City, plaintiff-appellants.
Edward Benoit, L. Benoit Benoit & Alexander, Falls, Twin for defendant-re- spondent. Park, Anthony Atty. Gen., W. G. James
Reid, Sp. Atty. Boise, Gen., curiae. amicus BAKES, Justice.
This action arises from the refusal of defendant-respondent Idaho Health Fa- Authority, cilities hereinafter referred to Authority, as the agreements to honor had entered into with the governing bodies hospitals of three Idaho and with the Ida- Bank, plaintiff-appellants First ho National agreements hospitals herein. The with provided Authority for the to issue bond anticipation financing for notes to obtain hospitals, repaid by hospitals said pursuant agreements entered into be- Authority. tween them and Hospital Community Sacred Heart proceeds Idaho Falls was use the outstanding refinance existing County, debt. Twin which owns Falls Valley Hos- operates Magic Memorial pital, proceeds use the to cover improve- cost alterations and of structural facility. Bene- existing ments to the St. Hospital use the was to dict’s Jerome proceeds the cost of architect’s to cover recon- in connection with incurred fees ex- struction, equipping remodeling National The Idaho First isting building. Bank, Bank, hereinafter attempt referred in an public entity to create a agreed had purchase anticipa- tax-exempt bond could make revenue bond fi- tion Authority. notes from the nancing available to non-profit hospitals within the state. notes, Before issuance and sale of the appellant contends that this method was the Authority was advised its conunsel adopted part compensate for the loss that there ques- number of serious previously federal funds which had been regarding tions the constitutionality of the hospital available for construction and re- action taken When modeling under Act. Hill-Burton agree- refused to abide exempt financing This tax ac- was to be ments on the advice of its counsel that complished by Authority entering into agreements binding they were not because agreements governing body provisions, violated constitutional the hos- hospitals in which ob- pitals *4 brought and the Bank this action for hospital pledge tain a of revenues of the declaratory judgment to determine whether security provided and such other as the or Authority not the had exceeded consti- hospitals in agreement individual with the tutional limitations. return for to be the advanced to money court, rendering judgment trial on hospital by Authority the pleadings the and the exhibits attached money to the would obtain advanced them, that Authority found had acted anticipation hospitals by selling bond *5 public of of Co., Manufacturing supra. Aurora by making residents of the state available improve hospital the means facilities or that We conclude the use of these hospitals existing to allow reduce their current health facilities funds to better the expenses state, operated throughout by debt-related and channel more of the when ei private non-profit entities, expendi public their resources ther or into health-related pub public purpose for the rule an legislative tures. This declaration of a within purpose Moyie Springs lic in the case. No is entitled to the utmost con nounced corpora sideration, profit-making private or person it is not and conclu binding advantage deriving tion an economic public purpose. sive of from health facilities authorized under Village Moyie Springs, of v. Aurora Co., primary purpose The of the monies Act. Manufacturing P.2d improve the expended the Act is under 767 (1960). pub health care caliber of available Article 3 of the of Ida Constitution lic; any profit-mak incidental benefits specifically ho require does not mention a or fi enterprises, such as a bank other ing public ment purpose legislation of a au is buys the notes nancing institution thorizing public entity a state-created Authority, sued will not invalidate However, expend funds. of case are Only private if interests program. Village Moyie Springs, Aurora Idaho v. programs primarily must such benefited Co., supra, de Manufacturing this Court Boise public invalidated. goals “municipal corporations clared Redevelopment Agency v. Yick pur- . are limited to functions (1972). Corp., 94 Idaho poses public in char- which are . entering in Authority The actions of distinguished acter as from those which violate did not involved into contracts engaged in in for character and un of Idaho 3 of p. private profit” p. at (at 353 P.2d interpretation Moyie Springs der 773). Although that case dealt with the that article. rights municipal govern- powers of process clause due exempt entity ment mu- (a to create a tax to the Constitution Amendment nicipally the Idaho Fourteenth park), owned industrial States, long line in a United provision explicitly of the Constitution has no pledging loaning or giving, adoption, stituted after shortly beginning cases state, thereby of the of the faith and credit “there mean that interpreted been has in liability of the creating a debt or is not laid for be no lawful tax which can 1-4, of the Idaho violation of Article public purpose.” Loan Association §§ Constitution.2 Topeka, Wall.) (20 87 U.S. Authority L.Ed. at 461 payment governs I.C. strictures of that not run has afoul Authority bonds issued return amendment, first, monies because provides given part for the funds it. -It monies, secondly, expends are not tax that: expends are for the monies it because authority “Bonds and issued *6 agreement any individual, association, in nicipality 1. While not included in the aid of mu- Community Hospital, corporation ; the Sacred Heart that or nor shall the state hospital directly requested indirectly, funds or additional become a stockhold- any corporation er in “for the building adjacent of a construction doctor’s office association or hospital. We feel county municipal “§ that increasing this is the most effective 3. means for Limitations on and productivity physicians county, city, town, the of indebtedness. —No town- ship, physicians district, and is essential if number of board of the education or school increasing state, that or we have can meet the de- other of subdivision the shall incur any indebtedness, liability, any mand for health We services. that or in estimate man- facility ner, needs, any purpose, exceeding meet our hous- or for in that ing approximately year, physicians, provided 30 the and income revenue for (Tr. $1,500,000.” p. 16). year approved by would cost it for about such [unless the Nothing opinion pro- in this should be voters in a vided, election] construed bond . . . attributing primarily public purpose as this shall section not be con- undertakings. apply ordinary that or similar strued to and neces- sary expenses by general authorized laws Excluding provisions inapplicable of
2.
this
state.
provides:
us,
County, etc.,
give
4.
Ҥ
case before
Article 8
not to loan or
“
county, city,
town,
township,
1. Limitation on
indebtedness.—
credit. —No
legislature
any
education,
district,
The
in
board
shall
manner
or school
or
any
debts, liability
lend,
pledge
subdivision,
create
lia-
debt or
or
other
shall
or
singly
bilities,
aggre-
directly
shall
or in the
credit or
which
faith thereof
or indirect-
gate
ly,
any
to,
aggregate
manner,
any
in the
in
.
.
.
or in
exceed
the aid of
individual,
corporation,
sum
.
.
[un-
of two million dollars
.
association or
for
any
approved by
any purpose whatever,
less
voters]
amount or for
prohibited.—
responsible
any debt,
2. Loan of
credit
or become
Ҥ
state’s
for
contract
Holding
corporation prohibited.—
liability
any individual,
in
or
stock
association or
not,
corporation
. The credit
the state shall
in
or out
this state.”
any manner,
given,
to,
in
or
be
loaned
or
part
expenses
carrying
provides
Article
“All
out
stitution.
incurred
solely
act
taxes are
be uniform
payable
this
shall be
from that
“[a]ll
subjects
provided,
provided
authority
same
.
.
.
funds
under
class
:
exemp-
legislature may
obligation shall
that the
allow such
liability
this act and no
or
beyond
shall
by
authority
tions
taxation
...
as
be incurred
from
necessary
just
have been
seem
and
.
.
. .”
moneys
extent to which
shall
exemptions
trial
that these tax
provided
court ruled
under
act.”
hence,
and,
necessary
vi-
just
were not
provides
39-1453 then
Au-
I.C.
olated the Constitution.
thority may collect
“ .
rates, rents,
charges
fees
only
property
case in which a
the use of
and for the services fur-
exemption granted by
tax
facility
nished or to be
each
furnished
just
necessary
was found not
Moyie
Village
Springs,
Aurora
Idaho v.
Co.,
Manufacturing
supra.
case a
In that
only
obligated
These are the
funds
authorizing municipalities
statute
to issue
satisfy payments
Act to
due on the bonds
bonds,
proceeds
tax-free revenue
from
Thus,
or notes
Authority.
issued
acquire
the sale of which would be used to
such,
neither the state of
any
Idaho as
nor
man
construct industrial facilities for
governmental unit,
local
nor
other
concerns,
ufacturing
was struck
down
subdivision,
agency
state-created
has
or
unconstitutional under
Article
5.§
obligated
obligations
been
to meet the
reason was that:
and notes
bonds
issued
Authori-
ty.
obligation
is whether the
exemption
prefers
“An
arbitrarily
debt of the
constitutes a
private enterprise operating by
one
loaning
Idaho or a
the state’s
provided by
means
facilities
munici-
within
meaning
credit
§§
pality,
engaged,
desiring
over another
prohibit
and 4. These sections
counties
engage,
same business
political
and other
subdivisions of the state
locality,
necessary
same
is neither
nor
incurring
with-
certain indebtedness
just.”
at
82 Idaho
353 P.2d
approval
pledging
out voter
subdivi-
private non-profit
All
health institutions
already
credit.
sion’s
We have
considered
operated
publicly
and all
institutions
health
Lloyd
this issue in the cases of
v. Twin
eligible
participate
programs
Housing Authority,
Falls
62 Idaho
(c).
I.C.
Redevelop-
P.2d
(1941),
Boise
Thus,
does
within
not fall
Agency
Corp.,
ment
v. Yick
*7
foregoing prohibition
the
in the
announced
876,
analogous
was given intended to be legislature exemptions. Ill create tax assignment alleges The third of error At the adoption time of the Idaho Constitution, that the trial in ruling court was incorrect there were a of tax number exemption given by exemptions from listed taxation on the statute territorial journal was in vio- books. The I.C. of the debates § 5, 7, lation of Article Idaho requires of the Con- Constitutional Convention 56 §
505
arguments in favor of
IV
pages to record the
status one or
elevating to a constitutional
assignment
urges
fourth
error
exemptions from taxation
another of the
that the
in
creation
I.C. §
proposed.
then
Final-
in
then
existence or
independent
body
39-1444 as “an
ly,
compromise,
“necessary and
as a
politic
corporate”
in
not
contraven-
agreed to
just” provision
was offered
3,
19,
2,
11,
tion of Article
or Article
§
§
allowing
constitutional standard for
Idaho. Article
§
exemptions
legislature
to create
19, provides
“legislature
that the
shall not
accepted by the dele-
was
taxation. This
pass
special
local or
laws
”
language
gates and became
any corporation.
.
Ar-
[cjreating
.
present provisions.3
11, 2, provides
ticle
that:
special
delegates urging
If
tax ex-
incorporation
“No charter of
be
shall
emptions
will-
of one kind
another were
extended,
granted,
changed or amended
ing
accept
“necessary
just”
lan-
by special law, except for such munici-
it
passed,
was
guage
the section as it
pal, charitable, educational, penal,
re-
they
follows that
intended that this section
formatory corporations
be,
may
as are or
legislature
allow to
discretion to
broad
under the control
state .
. .”
they
exemptions
tax
establish
sort
There have been two cases in
leg-
which
Indeed,
advocating.
in Achenbach
islatively created entities have been struck
Kincaid,
(1914),
laws election and Indeed, officers, governmental agency. the seventh by-laws to right make con- power gov- is much indicative of a cerning regulation of its more the control and Yet, corporation. agency than a that these ernmental The dissent observed business. concluded that every Enking state the Court powers by virtually were held established, corporation a because it could they board was board and commission Again, the case corporations. agency. not be a state Because were not issue, gave question definitive answer majority on no defini- no lack of a corporation a state a differs from about constitutes a how tive statement what ruling the as- agency, and it based its prohibited corporation given in this was entity sumption every state-created case. cor- agency an of the state or a was either The with the creation Enking case dealt poration. power, among had of a state board which appropriate to itself the things, other Dormitory College v.Wood Boise Junior appropriated. yet waters the state not 379, Commission, Idaho 342 P. Housing 81 The that it was an board had contended another state-cre dealt with (1959), 2d 700 arm of the state. If administrative was created entity. ated The commission so, were then the Court reasoned that independent public legislature appropriation by it would be in of water politic, but it would body corporate and violation of Idaho § junior college being if the only come into Having concluded that Constitution. thus necessity for a board trustees found agency, board could be a state commis 33-2118. The existence. I.C. § corpora- Court held that the was a board sued, power sion to sue and had by special tion that had been created act seal, perpetual to have corporate have a 11, violation of Article and Article repeal by succession, make, and amend authority” no 2. There was reason or acquire, laws, regulations, rules given for the declaration of this di- Court’s construct, lease, improve alter operate, chotomy all state-created entities rent, manage housing, dormitory and to corpora- unconstitutionally either created 33- housing. dormitory I.C. lease agencies tions or of the state. Court issued commission revenue 2122. powers it indicated made listed the which paid the income received to be bonds corporation: the board a housing. brought was Suit from its validity by the bonds issued contest the perpetual succession. 1. Power of is right commission. commission’s to sue and be sued. 2. Power upheld, was but the sue the bonds purchase grants and take 3. Power had or not created of whether personal property and dis- real corporation in of Article violation corporate pose name. same in its opinion. The discussed never corporate adopt seal 4. and use To Lloyd Housing Falls Au v. Twin cases of judicial no- take which the courts shall 113 P.2d thority, 62 Idaho tice. (1941), Redevelopment and the Boise Corp., Agency Yick Adopt regulations. 5. rules and very simi dealt with (1972), P.2d negotiable negotiate To 6. issue had created lar situations. coupon bonds. to di housing provide low cost bodies to sovereign powers exercise all the To only come rect renewal urban of eminent domain. 56 ne finding of their after into existence P.2d at 781-782. involved. government cessity the local *9 was there opin- cases dissenting In of these Yet, in the neither pointed as out leg by the created Gallet, supra, the bodies this cata- ion to discussion Jackson legisla- corporations that being sig- in not differ loguing powers does islature rejected prohibited establishing. Thus, Musgrave. ture was from In in under the doctrine legislature Musgrave these three created cases case there are public operative bodies that would state-created entities become which are neither upon corporations body, approval of another but nor state agencies subject to all were nevertheless created and restrictions bodies of the state constitution. against no challenge constitutional mounted corporations Unlike described in 3, of them under 19. Article § Title Code, 30 of the Idaho the state insur ance by private fund is not par controlled ex rel. v. Mus State Williams In power ties with person to grave, 77, choose (1962), will administer entity, nor are there the state in the status of private parties such power to change surance fund was before this Court. The purposes exists, for which it even from fund was established one closely public purpose related fund, anoth seq. et The 1.C. 72-901 into § powers er. sued, to sue and be premiums paid according to be seal, have a perpetual succession, have Compensation Law and the Workmen’s Oc to make administrative Laws, regulations, cupational to ac Compensation Disease quire property and obtain and issue *10 body. 796, 642, 649, Because of the control at 228 P. at over Idaho the Authority, it differs state bar found to be in unconstitutional given Jackson Authority has not been unlim- case, supra, lawyers where the of the state authority. Its powers, ited discretion given right governing to elect the 39-1447, it given give do not as in I.C. § board Authority of the bar. The is re- any power, merely pow- lawmaking but stricted permissible to a narrow range of necessary carry er to to determine facts public goals and a narrow means of functions, in regulate itself out its to achieving regard them. In it differs law, by to it carrying given the duties out from the State Water Conservation Board agreements authorized and to enter into in case, the Enking primary purpose of Redevelopment Agency v. law. In Boise which the found Court to be the undermin- Corp., it was said when supra, Yick ing right of appropriation delegation of legislative of a fund, water. Like the state insurance issue, that: power at agency corporation is not a within the empower an legislature] can “[The 3, 19, 11, meaning of Article or Article § § official to ascertain agency or an exr 2, of the Idaho Constitution. Like the or conditions istence of the facts fund, body insurance it a but operative law becomes agency it not an of the state within the fix legislature must itself . The meaning the prohibitions against of all of which the stat- or event on condition state action within the Constitution. Idaho may operate, it confide to ute is to but 3, 2, 19, 11, Neither Article nor Article § § fact-finding agency some suitable
was violated its creation. ex- the condition as to whether function determine, power to ists, or the V create, the stated event. discretion to fifth assignment al error is, broadly, The nature condition leges that the trial judge was incorrect in 885, 499 P.2d Idaho immaterial.” 94 ruling legislative power that had been dele at 584. gated in of Arti violation unbridled discretion There has been no 2, 1, cle and Article Consti § § only It can act given to the 2, 1, provides tution of Idaho. Article § in limited manner after purpose a a limited separate there three branch exist. certain conditions finding that Idaho, government es person no lawmaking authority no There has been power exercising shall one branch exer 2, 1, nor delegated Article it. Neither § powers cise This section does another. 1, Idaho 3, of the Constitution Article § prohibit expressly delegation legis has been violated. power, interpreted lative has been prevent Suppiger Enking, VI it. See 3, 362 (1939). 91 P.2d Article er- assignments of and seventh sixth 1, provides legislative power that “The was incorrect court trial ror assert of the state shall be in a senate and vested contracting Authority, by ruling representatives.” house of This has been Hos- financing Benedict’s provide to St. interpreted to mean that: Cor- the Idaho was owned pital, which Sisters, religious power by poration of Benedictine “The the state is legislative Article sect, Article violated 3 of the constitution vested in article the Constitution Representatives, and House of Senate Idaho, Amendment the First rep- principle of and it is a fundamental These States. that, the United government except resentative general error law, assignments of relate legis- organic authorized Authority’s ac- or not issue department delegate any of whether lative cannot reli- an establishment powers tion constitutes to make laws other required being persons are gion, body authority.” Purcell, whether State
509
Hospital,
by
Benedict’s
which is
sect, and whether
owned
support
religious
a
Sisters,
Corporation
Idaho
Benedictine
public moneys
being spent in aid of a
of
are
9,
5,
religious sect,
prohibit-
violates Article
society, all as
of
religious
church
§
or
provisions.
the Idaho Constitution. The trial court’s
by
ed
above constitutional
pass upon
findings and conclusions did not
appropriation
agreements
validity
of the
with the Sa-
hospitals
by reli
operated
funds to
Falls,
Hospital
partic-
cred Heart
of Idaho
not
the First
gious sects does
violate
9,
5,
ularly
as it relates
Article
§
Amendment
Constitution
Constitution,
accordingly
we
not
do
Roberts,
States, Bradfield v.
175
United
pass upon
constitutionality
of those
121,
291,
(1899).
44 L.Ed.
20 S.Ct.
U.S.
9,
agreements
Article
under
§
mean that such commit
But
does not
VII
ment
funds is not violative of
Idaho
assignment
The final
of error al
Idaho Constitution
Constitution.
leges that the
trial court was incorrect
places
greater
a much
restriction
ruling that
the action of the Board of
power
government
to aid activities
County Commissioners of Twin Falls
by religious
undertaken
sects than does
County, by agreeing
principal
to amortize
First Amendment
to the Constitution
payments
and interest
on the notes and
Epeldi
Engelking,
United
States.
Authority,
bonds issued to them
390,
Idaho
loss, if indeed there were such insti- other ” Article Section 4 . . Boise wing tutions. Even the of a or a loss Redevelopment Agency Yick hospital very floor of a dis- have Idaho, 883-884, Corp., supra, 94 ruptive effect the health P.2d at 583. hospital. in the area It is served county has not violated Article necessary certainly ordinary under- by entering agreement into the with the taking keep hospitals operation- existing Authority. repair. county al in good If the com- County missioners of Twin Falls believe CONCLUSION expenditures necessary is make judgment of the district court is re- Magic remedy defects in structural Val- part part. versed and affirmed in No' Hospital, ley ordinary this is an and neces- costs allowed. expense upon part county. sary Peterson, City supra. of Pocatello For SHEPARD, J., and C. DONALDSON reason, there is no violation of McQUADE, JJ., concur. by the the Idaho McFADDEN, J., County dissents. agreement Twin Falls between remedy- provide funds for McFADDEN, (dissenting). Magic structure of Val- Justice ing the substandard Hospital, though revenues ley portion even I major- dissent from that Hospital become liable Valley ity opinion Magic which holds that the action year. beyond the current expenditures County the Board of Commissioners of Twin presented County, “agreeing is Falls to amor- The final principal tize payments and interest on entered into agreement not the whether by the the Au- notes and bonds issued to them Au- funds to the borrowers from thority” provisions e., thority, is violative The bor- County. i. Twin Falls of Idaho Art. obligated Const. rationale rowers then in turn would he opinion majority simply repay Authority, these *13 774, 473 644 (1970), P.2d need not be desired. again expressed. See, Comment, “Expan- Redevelopment In the case Boise ‘Ordinary sion of Necessary Ex- supra, Agency Kong Corp., this v. Yick pense’ Exception Constitutional Lim- again dealing legislatively with a court was Municipal itation on Indebtedness”, 8 Ida- designed primarily to take agency, created ho Law Review (Spring p. 2), No. opportunity advantage afforded federal the Federal to obtain Government majority opinion relies by the improve funds to what was found cases Lloyd v. Twin Housing Falls Au- City and de- Council to be “deteriorated thority, P.2d City of Boise. area” within the teriorating (1941), and Redevelopment Boise Agency Redevelopment, primary issue In Boise Corp., Yick Kong P.2d agency fell within whether 575 (1972), as the holding basis for that in Const. prohibitions of Idaho strictures and this case is not in contraven- 12, 4, prohibit Art. Art. tion of Article 1-4 of the Idaho Con- §§ by counties loaning giving credit or my stitution. It conclusion that those municipalities, respectively. or
two cases are distinguishable from this case. Lloyd v. that neither my It is conclusion In Lloyd Twin Housing Falls Author- supra, nor Authority, Housing Twin Falls ity, supra, legislative act which created Kong Yick Agency v. Redevelopment Boise the Authority contemplated that the Hous- prop- on Corp., supra, are authoritative ing Authority would proposed finance con- majority. propounded by the osition struction of low-cost housing to be rented legislation involved purpose of the individuals, pursuant to a contract with majority case, by the declared instant the United Housing Authority. States Un- least, compensate was to opinion part der agreement agreed U.S.H.A. previously federal funds the loss of purchase bonds other obligations of the Act. Hill-Burton under available obligated The U.S.H.A. was (un- legislation of this effect purpose and reimburse the local Authority annual Lloyd and this court like that before contributions in amount not exceed supra) is circumvent Corp., Yick per years. annum' for 60 That ar- 3% Art. Idaho Const. the strictures rangement Lloyd set forth in v. Twin Falls taxing eligible voters denying the Housing cry is a far from the opportunity e., counties) the (i. units agreement contemplated present leg- in this the creation in advance approve reject agreements. Here, islation and the Au- the counties. indebtedness thority anticipation will issue its bond my reasons, con- proceeds foregoing notes provisions of numerous of contravention repaid gross receipts from which would be the Constitution of the of Idaho and State paid hospitals. Interest income Ap- of the United States. anticipation from the bond notes to peal findings is taken from these of uncon- Bank, holders, supposedly such as stitutionality. tax-exempt Idaho and federal under both specific Eight assignments of error statutory scheme and law. Under by hospitals have been made and the money be state tax agreements, no Bank, plaintiff-appellants ac to this give to to loan or given Authority assignments tion. will examine these We participating hospitals. individually. Implicit of error in our anal declaration contains the I.C. 39-1442 ysis strong presumption of each will be the purpose the Act: necessity and of of constitutionality every of legisla necessity and Declaration “39-1442. enactment is entitled. Leonardson v. tive construction.—It purpose. —Liberal Moon, for that hereby and declared determined the state of people the benefit of I their improvement Idaho and assignment alleges The first of error conditions, it health, living and welfare that the trial court was incorrect in ruling state people this that the is essential by Authority that the taken for action and health medical care adequate have construction, purpose financing re- that health it is essential facilities; that health refinanc- modeling of facilities and provided be the state within institutions ing outstanding participating health debt as- means to additional appropriate public purpose and organizations was not a development and maintenance sist Article 3 of the Consti- therefore violated care, hospitals health, health Fourteenth Idaho and the tution pur- it is the facilities; and related of the to the Constitution Amendment a measure provide act to this pose United States. to en- methods and alternative assistance to re- in the state institutions able health acting under the was indebted- outstanding Au- Health Facilities terms of Idaho refinance fund and to health facilities ness incurred Act, seq. et This thority I.C. struc- additional provide passed in Act facilities are sorely tures which needed to accom- constraining municipal corporations to ex- plish act, purposes of this all to the powers public purpose, ercise their for a good fully benefit more provision nor does appear a like in the law ” herein; provided (Emphasis . . . state regulating created entities. If this added). upon powers, rule is a restriction the cities’ it must be so it is because a restric- also provides That further section upon power, tion the state’s for the cities purpose this is au- achieve singled unique are not out for treatment in thorized to: regard “ pro- this statute constitutional money . . lend health . institu- Therefore, vision. this restriction must be ' construct, acquire, tions and . throughout inherent government state reconstruct, repair, alter, improve, ex- must be a fundamental limitation tend, own, dispose proper- lease power of state government under the Idaho authority may to the end that the ties Constitution, though expressly even promote able the health welfare Thus, entity in it. created stated no people engage in state can activities that do not it is not intended this act [but] primarily public, pri- rather than have authority shall itself be authorized purpose, vate nor can it finance or aid facility.” operate any such health activity. Article such Consti- purposes Act were for Moyie Springs, Village tution. Idaho v. the betterment health
Notes
notes purpose. shall not or constitute become indebt- uphold appellants’ contention We edness, state, liability or a debt or monies assignment first error. The their legislature thereof, any county, or of expended by programs and the administered city, township, board of or education Authority by the Idaho Facilities Health district, school or other subdivision carry and hence the purpose, out a state, political or of other subdi- Article 3 of the does not violate corporate politic vision or body or Fourteenth Idaho Constitution or municipality within the state and nei- the Constitution Amendment ther political the aforementioned en- [of States.1 United shall be liable thereon nor shall tities] such giv- bonds or notes constitute the II ing, pledging loaning of the faith and credit [any po- aforementioned assignment second of error al litical entities their leges the trial court was incorrect subdivisions] ruling and sale issuance bonds and notes con- provides section further that:
notes was to administered state insurance a are a variety shared wide govern manager. manager was to have full agencies ment along powers fund, corpora with most including to administer the Thus, tions. power powers existence of these promulgate regula administrative corporate cannot be tions, sued, determinative of and be status to sue to contract as under the meaning of fund, necessary constitutional to administer the to ac provisions being discussed. The quire state in property space for office as neces surance corporate seal, fund has no assistants, sary, employ invest but having changed one would not have surplus inspec sta of the fund and to make tus. The state insurance fund was not participating tions ex facilities of em plicitly given power perpetual a ployees. 72-902—72-906, succes I.C. §§ sion, program but the it administers and de manager have no 72-928. was to pends upon perpetual personal liability administration in his acts done offi managers successive ongoing entity. cial capacity. I.C. 72-907. fund was § The state insurance fund therefore corporation held not a within met the to be requirements being 3, 11, corporation a meaning 19, as set of Article Article § § out in Enking, held not to be agen 2. But neither was the a fund state corporation. It cy appear then that the sense that the constitutional re main prohibited distinction between a strictions cor government ap poration plied under Article Money in to it. was held fund § Constitution, permissible “indepen money money to be state nor itwas public body politic corporate” dent treasury, un although deposit the state it was der the doctrine of Musgrave, Lloyd, Thus, ed with pay the state treasurer. Wood and Boise Redevelopment Agency ments could be made from fund to private cases (1) the absence of the against meet claims the state without meet parties right with the entity to control the ing requirement ap the constitutional it, or manage inability proval (2) by the State Board Examiners private parties change under fundamental Article be drawn could public purpose entity structure and appropriation treasury from the without an as set creating out law it. required These under In Article 13. dis apart corporations features fund, set them cussing the status of the Court within meaning of Article corporation, said “[although not a the fund has some of characteristics corporation occupies a simi Facility The Idaho Health Au thority lar status.” 84 Idaho 370 P.2d at appointed by a board gover dichotomy urged 784. The Enking was nor. It cannot choose its governing own
notes expenditures purpose improving repay for the in turn obligated would be hospital anticipation notes, structure of so as to com- holder of the bond or the ply safety are an .with state standards bonds ordi- issued In other nary necessary expense. words, It merely is with the Authority the role of that I disagree. County conclusion The rea- vehicle through which the can cir- sons pre- for this conclusion been necessity ap- have cumvent the seeking voter viously opinion proval in my dissenting discussed county of that in order the voters in City Peterson, may of Pocatello v. purpose borrow funds for whatever
notes and from the For the of those notes trial court (assuming judgment that bonds that the would later issue to clusion redeem anticipation the bond be affirmed. extend should notes)