Oregon Advisory Opinions February 24, 1955: OAG 55-16 (February 24, 1955)
Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 55-16
Date: Feb. 24, 1955
Advisory Opinion Text
OAG 55-16.
State Senator
In your letter of January 21, 1955, you presented a question as to whether local tax-levying bodies, when submitting a levy exceeding the limitation of § 11, Article XI, of the Oregon Constitution, to the people for approval may break such levies down to a number of items to be voted upon separately.
A statement of the purpose for which a tax is levied is a common requirement of most constitutional and statutory provisions relating to the levying of taxes. While such a statement is mandatory, in general, only reasonable certainity is required in stating the purposes of the levy, especially where the particular statute or constitution does not require the county or municipal levy to specify in detail the purposes for which the levy is made or the amount appropriated for each purpose. Thus, many cases have held that specific items need not be set forth in the levy. See, for example, Chicago Lumbering Company v. Munising Tp., 123 Mich. 132, 82 N. W. 267. In Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Eversole, 121 Ky. L. Rep. 830, 96 S. W. 478, it was held that a city ordinance levying a property tax for "municipal purposes" was a sufficient specification of the purpose.
Our own statutes do not appear to require the purposes of the levy to be set out in detail. For example, ORS 310.010 and 203.120 (7) provide that the county court or board of commissioners shall estimate the amount of money to be raised for "county purposes" or "for other purposes as required or authorized by law". ORS 310.020 requires the county to levy a tax sufficient to defray expenses and ORS 310.030 requires the county to levy all taxes which by law it is required to levy and any other taxes it determines and is permitted to levy. ORS 310.060 provides that the notice of the tax levy be given the county assessor and clerk for the current fiscal year and be stated in the total amount to be raised by taxation. These provisons apply to and cover levies both within and without the constitutional limitation. An examination of the levy statutes of a number of other districts reveals no requirement that a levy be set out in detail.
ORS 310.310 to 310.390, relating to the approval of that portion of a levy outside the constitutional limitation by the voters in districts not possessing a separate legislative department, make no provision for breaking down the excess
into individual items. ORS 310.330, 310.350 and 310.360 provide that when such a taxing body proposes to make a levy in excess of the constitutional limitation, it state in its certificate to the county clerk "the reasons therefore and the amount of the increase in not to exceed 100 words." ORS 310.380 provides that municipalities having a legislative department may hold elections as provided for subdivisions not having a legislative department, subjecting these to the same 100-word restriction.
These statutes, then, do not require a separation of items. Wherever more than a few items are involved such a separation would be a practical impossibility. It appears, therefore, that a statement of the general purpose for which a levy in excess of the constitutional limitation is made sufficiently satisfies the provisions of ORS 310.330 to 310.390, and that enumeration and submission of items therein, or upon the ballot, is not required by law.
Nevertheless, nothing in the statutes reviewed has indicated that the particular tax body may not submit separate items wherever practical.
The prohibition contained in § 11, Article XI, Oregon Constitution, is not on the number of special elections to authorize levies outside the six percent limitation but on the raising of any revenue outside the limitation without a vote of the people "specially" authorizing the same. ORS 310.310 et seq. specially authorizes and establishes the procedure for holding special elections to obtain approval of such levies by various taxing units. The number of such special elections on separate issues which the governing body of the taxing unit believes it to be desirable to submit to the electorate is, of course, in the discretion of such governing body.
Wherever practical, the practice of segregating unusual items to be voted upon as separate issues should in my opinion be encouraged. I trust this answers your inquiry.