The Idaho State Legislature won a legal battle over a last-minute vote to halt the sale of the Idaho Transportation Department’s State Street campus.
On Tuesday, the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by construction companies Hawkins, Pacific Companies and FJ Management challenging two narrowly passed budgets for ITD and the Department of Administration. The bills included a provision that would have stopped the $52 million sale of the 44-acre riverfront property to the construction group with plans to move the agency to the state’s campus on Chinden Boulevard.
The question of whether or not to go ahead with the sale dominated the end of Idaho’s 2024 legislative session. Supporters of the sale said a last-minute withdrawal by the state would jeopardize future deals. Opponents of the sale said the property would not sell for as much as originally planned and the high cost of rebuilding the state’s asphalt testing lab made the sale financially irresponsible.
The court dismissed the lawsuit because the project developers were not entitled to file the lawsuit since no signed contract completed the sale.
What did the statement say?
There is no question that the developers were harmed by the Idaho Legislature’s decision to stop the sale.
In her opinion, Judge Colleen Zahn wrote that Hawkins and the other developers involved in the project were able to show that they suffered “significant and tangible harm” after the sale was completed. This was because the developer submitted the highest bid and all resources and personnel were devoted to negotiating the sales schedule to meet the requirements of the State of Idaho in order to complete the sale of the property.
The court also agreed with the developers that there was a connection between the damage suffered and the decision of the Idaho legislature to cancel the sale. The reason for this was the decision of the Department of Administration not to sign the final purchase agreement because the budget proposals pending in the state legislature were legally uncertain.
However, the court had to ask itself whether a decision in their favor would solve the problem for the developers. The court explained that it would not because, as Speaker of the House Mike Moyle argued in his brief, the law does not require the Department of Administration to sell the property to Hawkins. The court also agreed that the sales contract was invalid because it was not signed immediately.
“The Department of Administration and (Hawkins) have no binding
Contract for the sale of the ITD campus,” the statement said. “The Department of Administration’s letter dated September 25, 2023 to (Hawkins) specifically stated that the letter was not a formal offer to sell the
ITD campus. Although a mutually acceptable purchase and sale agreement was negotiated, the Department of Administration did not sign the purchase and sale agreement. In the absence of a signed agreement, the Department of Administration is not obligated to sell the ITD campus to (Hawkins).”
The opinion concludes that the court’s decision merely dismisses Hawkins’ lack of standing challenge, but does not determine whether the Idaho State Legislature exceeded its constitutional authority to prevent the sale of the campus through budget bills.
