SANDPOINT - A legal showdown is brewing over Bonner County's attempts to revive a project to construct a new juvenile detention center without voter consent.

The county's legal counsel is asking District Judge Charles Hosack to reconsider his Sept. 5 ruling, which struck down proposed lease-to-purchase agreements for a work-release facility and a new juvenile lockup.

Sagle taxpayer Lou Goodness, who challenged judicial confirmation of the proposal when it was argued in court this summer, has filed papers aimed at shooting down the request for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration applies only to the 34-bed juvenile unit, which would replace a deteriorating facility that can't be expanded.

The Idaho Constitution mandates voter approval of projects which extend indebtedness and liabilities beyond a fiscal year. The county maintains voter consent is not required because the county can afford the annual lease payments and can withdraw from the agreements via a non-appropriation clause.

Hosack, however, ruled that the agreements could lead to unconstitutional liabilities if the county triggers the non-appropriation clause. Hosack concluded the county would lose title to county property on which the projects would sit for the balance of the 30-year lease. The county would also lose access to facilities, Hosack concluded.

But the county contends Hosack misunderstood the agreements. In the county's motion for reconsideration, Deputy Prosecutor Scott Bauer asserts non-appropriation could transfer title of the facility - not the land - to the trustee, Rocky Mountain Corrections. Moreover, the building would be constructed by the trustee with private funding.

"Since the buildings would be purchased and constructed by monies provided by the Trustee and not monies supplied by the County, the County loses no title to the buildings by transfer to the Trustee," Bauer said in the motion.

Goodness asserts in his submittal to Hosack that the agreements clearly state that title to all real property in the project would be conveyed upon non-appropriation. Goodness adds that the agreements should not be judicially confirmed if they can't be fully understood despite two hearings and a flurry of evidentiary submissions.

Hosack's has also ruled that confirmation of the leasing concept would effectively be "planning for an expected emergency" which the court could be asked to sort out if the county activated the non-appropriation clause.

Idaho counties are authorized - but not mandated - to provide juvenile lockups, which means the county can always contract with other jurisdictions to house youthful offenders. Hosack found that a housing emergency could be created if the county opts out of its lease.

But Bauer argues that a housing emergency could ensue if the agreements to rent bed space from other jurisdictions fell through or were terminated.

Goodness points out that Idaho courts have frowned upon local governments embarking on plans which are crafted to evade constitutional prohibitions and limitations.

"The (county) is attempting to do indirectly what it can not do directly," Goodness said in his opposition memo.