Court Opinion

ID: 9595750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:43:10.304178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:30.860715
License: Public Domain

*261Guy, J.
(concurring)—While I concur with the majority opinion, I write separately to make clear the limited effect of that opinion.
Our state constitution contains a debt limitation in article 8, section 1. That limitation may not be exceeded, directly or indirectly, without approval by a vote of the people. I believe that it is important to emphasize that long-term lease agreements may not be used as a subterfuge to avoid the constitution's debt limitation.
In this case, the full faith and credit of the State was not pledged, and the DOE may vacate the leased premises without further liability in the event the Legislature determines not to continue funding. The DOE did not bind itself under its financing plan to a long-term financial commitment in the event of changing needs. Therefore, the DOE's financing plan is not debt within the meaning of article 8, and so cannot be regarded as a subterfuge to avoid the constitution's debt limitation. In addition, the Legislature authorized the DOE to enter into the leasing arrangement involved in this case. By so doing, it determined that for the DOE to house itself in 18 separate buildings with no prospect of eventual state ownership was not a sound governmental or business decision. I do not believe that the constitution's debt limitation should be a barrier to sound government or business decisions not involving debt.
The majority opinion should not be read as allowing either the executive or legislative branches to have the ability to contract in excess of constitutionally limited indebtedness without first submitting the debt to public vote.
Utter and Andersen, JJ., concur with Guy, J.