Bill Description: House Bill 171 would expand the ability of county- or city-based commerce authorities to issue revenue bonds to fund utility services. 

Rating: -3

Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?

House Bill 171 would amend sections 70-2201 and 70-2206, Idaho Code, to allow a "county-based or city-based intermodal commerce authority" to "acquire, construct, maintain, operate, develop and regulate" utility services.

These utility services would include "water and sewer facilities" but not "facilities to transmit, distribute, or produce electrical energy."

This is an expansion of the authority and scope of these entities.

(-1)

Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?

Section 70-2211, Idaho Code, says a county-based or city-based intermodal commerce authority may "borrow money for any of its lawful purposes and shall have the power to issue bonds."

Expanding the scope of these entities also expands their ability to take on debt. 

(-1)

Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?

House Bill 171 would create Section 70-2214, Idaho Code, to provide that when a commerce authority issues revenue bonds, notice "shall be published one (1) time in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality."

After that notice is published, there will be a 30-day window in which "any person in interest may file suit in any court of competent jurisdiction to contest the regularity, formality, or legality of the proceedings authorizing the revenue bonds, the legality of such resolution and its provisions, or the legality of the revenue bonds to be issued pursuant thereto and the provisions securing the revenue bonds."

After that window closes, however, "no one shall have any right of action to contest the validity of the revenue bonds, such proceedings, or such resolution or to contest the validity of the pledges and covenants made in such proceedings and resolution, and the revenue bonds and the provisions for their payment shall be conclusively presumed to be legal and no court shall thereafter have authority to inquire into such matters."

It is very troubling that legal challenges to significant government debt would be limited to such a short period following a single notification, and that courts would be prohibited from making an inquiry after that period. 

Government action — and government debt — should not be quickly and quietly elevated to the status of "conclusively presumed to be legal." Such a provision does not promote transparency and accountability. 

(-1)