Specht v. City of Sioux Falls
1995 WL 29032, 526 N.W.2d 727, 1995 S.D. LEXIS 16 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law violates a state constitution's prohibition against delegating municipal functions to a special commission when it authorizes the creation of an independent, unelected authority to perform a core municipal function, such as providing emergency medical services, and grants it unaccountable power to levy taxes and issue bonds.
Facts:
- The South Dakota Legislature enacted SDCL ch. 34-11B, a law authorizing municipalities to establish a regional emergency medical services authority (EMS authority).
- Pursuant to this law, the Sioux Falls City Commission passed a resolution creating the Sioux Falls Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority (SFREMSA).
- The City Commission then appointed commissioners to serve on SFREMSA.
- SFREMSA was subsequently issued a certificate of incorporation by the South Dakota Secretary of State.
- Later, the City Commission passed a resolution authorizing SFREMSA to borrow funds.
- Michael Specht is a resident and taxpayer of the City of Sioux Falls and president of the local firefighters association.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Specht and the Sioux Falls Fire Fighters Association (Specht) sued the City of Sioux Falls (City) in a state trial court.
- Specht filed an application for a writ of prohibition, challenging the constitutionality of the city's resolution and the enabling state statute, SDCL ch. 34-11B.
- The South Dakota Attorney General was notified of the constitutional challenge and appeared as amicus curiae (friend of the court).
- The trial court issued a peremptory writ of prohibition and a declaratory judgment, ruling that SDCL ch. 34-11B was unconstitutional.
- The City of Sioux Falls appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law, SDCL ch. 34-11B, which authorizes a municipality to create an independent regional emergency medical services authority with the power to tax and issue bonds, violate Article III, § 26 of the South Dakota Constitution by improperly delegating municipal functions to a special, unaccountable commission?
Opinions:
Majority - Amundson, J.
Yes. The state law violates the South Dakota Constitution by creating an unaccountable special commission and delegating to it core municipal functions. The court found that providing emergency medical services is a municipal function because it has been historically handled by municipalities and primarily affects local interests. The statute establishes SFREMSA as a 'special commission' because it is defined as an 'independent public body,' separate and distinct from the elected municipal government. Crucially, the law renders this commission unaccountable to the public, as there is no mechanism for removing commissioners, and their power cannot be diminished without their own consent if bonds are outstanding. This lack of oversight is most pronounced in the delegation of taxing and bonding authority; the statute allows SFREMSA to issue bonds without a public election and compels the city to levy any tax amount the authority certifies, which amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of the legislature's taxing power to a non-elected body, violating the principle of 'no taxation without representation.'
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the principle of local self-government as protected by 'ripper clauses' in state constitutions, which are designed to prevent state legislatures from undermining municipal control over local affairs. The ruling establishes a clear precedent in South Dakota that creating quasi-governmental authorities to perform traditional municipal functions is unconstitutional if those authorities are not politically accountable to the electorate through elected officials. It sets a high bar for any legislative scheme that delegates taxing and bonding powers, requiring that such powers remain under the firm control of elected bodies. This case serves as a crucial check on the creation of special districts or authorities that could operate as shadow governments, immune from direct public oversight.
