Skip to main content

Oregon Advisory Opinions November 27, 1961: OAG 61-176 (November 27, 1961)

Up to Oregon Advisory Opinions

Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 61-176
Date: Nov. 27, 1961

Advisory Opinion Text

Oregon Attorney General Opinions

1961.

OAG 61-176.




331


OPINION NO. 61-176

[30 Or. Op. Atty. Gen. 331]

Special road district statutes are applicable only to inhabited areas; therefore an uninhabited subdivision cannot comprise a special road district.

The powers of such special road district rest in an appointed board of com




332



missioners who reside within the district.

Qualified electors must own property within the proposed special road district and reside therein not less than 90 days last preceding the election in addition to other requirements for electors in the State of Oregon.

No. 5350

November 27, 1961

Honorable J. Alfred Joiner
District Attorney, Benton County

You request an opinion as to whether an uninhabited subdivision can qualify as an area to comprise a special road district.

Chapter 681, Oregon Laws 1961, amended and repealed certain sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes relating to special road districts and added new sections.

ORS 371.330, as amended by § 2, chapter 681, Oregon Laws 1961, reads in part:

"If the county court determines to grant such petition it shall enter upon its journal an order so declaring and shall appoint three persons with the qualifications described in subsection (1) of section 6 of this 1961 Act to be the first commissioners of the district. * * *"

Section 6 (1) of said chapter reads in part:

"The powers of a special road district are vested in a district board of commissioners consisting of three commissioners appointed by the county court. Each commissioner shall reside within the district and shall be a registered voter . * * *" (Emphasis supplied)

Section 7 of said chapter reads in part:

"* * * The board shall hold one regular meeting each month at a time and place within the district designated by the board . * * *" (Emphasis supplied)

Section 9 of said chapter reads in part:

"Within 30 days * * * the board shall order a special election to be held within the district and shall certify to the county clerk for submission to the qualified electors owning real property within the district the question * * *." (Emphasis supplied)

A further requirement for elector qualification appears in ORS 371.345 (5), as amended by § 10 of said chapter, which reads:

" No person is authorized to vote at such an election unless he is an elector of the state, has resided in the district for a period of not less than 90 days last preceding the election and has the other qualifications provided in section 9 of this 1961 Act." (Emphasis supplied)

Also pertinent to the question are ORS 371.345 (1)(c) and (3)(a) and (b), as amended by said § 10 of said chapter, which read:

"(1) Upon receiving the certified question provided in section 9 of this 1961 Act, the county clerk shall:

"(c) Name the places for holding the election , which places shall be within the boundaries of the proposed district .

"(3) The county clerk shall give notice of the election by causing a copy of the order referred to in section 9 of this 1961 Act, together with the date of and places for holding the election, to be:

"(a) Posted for four successive weeks prior to the election in each of three public places within the district ; and

"(b) Published once a week for four successive weeks prior to the election in a newspaper of general circulation in the district , or if there is no such newspaper, in some newspaper published and of general circulation in the county." (Emphasis supplied)

Where the language of a statute is clear and its meaning is plain and unequivocal, the statute shall be construed in terms of the generally accepted meaning for the words employed therein. As stated by the Oregon Supreme Court in Roy L. Houck & Sons v. State Tax Commission, (1961) 73 Adv. Sh. 603:

"* * * It is self-evident that when the legislature makes use of plain, unambiguous, and understandable language in an act, it is presumed to have intended precisely what its words imply and furnishes no occasion to invoke any rules of statutory construction to discover the legislative intent. See Fox v. Galloway, 174 Or 339, 347, 148 P2d 299."

The statute in question clearly and repeatedly expresses the requirement that the commissioners as well as the voters be residents and live within said district in addition to any action by holders of title to lands within the proposed special road district.

Since there are no persons residing within the proposed district, no election or other corporate action could be performed which when undertaken would have sanction under the law.

Our opinion, therefore, is that an uninhabited subdivision, even though the plat is properly filed and accepted by the county, is not an area such as is contemplated by ORS 371.305 through 371.360, as amended by chapter 681, Oregon Laws 1961, as being eligible to constitute a special road district.


ROBERT Y. THORNTON,

Attorney General,

By J. N. Hershberger, Assistant.