Oregon Advisory Opinions October 10, 1977: OAG 77-121 (October 10, 1977)

OAG 77-121.

This opinion considers a school district reorganization plan prepared and submitted to the voters pursuant to ORS 330.505 et seq .

ORS 330.603 provides in part that:

"(1) If a majority of the votes cast within any one or more of the common school districts participating in the election under ORS 330.585 is against the formation of the administrative school district, or against the plan providing for the formation of more than one administrative school district, the organization of the new administrative school district or districts shall be delayed for a period of 30 days."

The statute says only that the plan shall be "delayed," but actually it cannot go into effect at all unless there is a further vote as subsequently provided for in the same section.

Although the statute seems to refer to the vote cast within existing districts (in this case, the single county unit district), there is strong evidence that where a county unit district is to be reorganized into several districts, the legislature intended that the vote be tallied within proposed

districts:

"It provides that reorganization plans may include the formation of more than one administrative school district, that elections held for the formation of these districts shall be held on the same day, and there must be a majority in each district proposed in order to pass in all districts." (Emphasis added).

(Minutes of the Senate Education Committee for January 21, 1965, referring to comments made by the committee's research analyst to an amendment to ORS 330.585 as it would apply to the Klamath County Unit School District).

In any event, because of the negative votes assumed in the first question presented, the county unit will be retained.

The second question presented requires application of ORS 334.010(2), which provides:

"(2) There is created in any county which ceases to operate under ORS chapter 333 and which has more than one school district a district to be known as the intermediate education district and a governing body thereof to be known as the intermediate education district board."

The quoted statute refers to counties which cease to operate under the county unit system provided by ORS ch 333. Since by the premise stated in the second question the county unit would not cease to exist under ORS ch 333, there is no statutory authority for the creation of an intermediate education district in the county. Although the word "county" is used throughout ch 333, there is nothing in the law which requires the area of a county unit school district to include, or be limited to, all of the territory of a particular county. The Lincoln County School District in fact extends into Lane County. Also, ORS

ch 333 recognizes that city school districts and union high school districts may exist within a county having a unit district.

Thus, it should not be considered that a "county" (within the meaning of ORS 334.010(2), supra ) has ceased "to operate under ORS chapter 333" so that an intermediate education district would be created.

In answer to the third question, a reorganization plan of the type here discussed, when submitted to the voters, is required by ORS 330.530(2) (e) to set forth, among other matters:

"(e) An equitable adjustment of all the property, assets, debts and liabilities of each existing school district which is affected by the plan, determined under ORS 330.540 and the manner of consummating such adjustment." (Emphasis added).

ORS 330.540, referred to, requires that the "committee" (in this case the board of county commissioners) preparing the plan:

". . . shall determine the value and amount of all school property and all bonded and other indebtedness of all school districts affected by the comprehensive reorganization plan and shall determine an equitable adjustment of all property, assets, debts and liabilities of each such school district." (Emphasis added).

There is nothing arcane about the term "equitable adjustment" as used in ORS 330.530(2) (e) and 330.540, supra . It means a fair settlement, and is no less desirable when a large district is being divided into a number of smaller districts than when several small districts are reorganized into one larger district. However, the settlement must be based in

part on the value determined for the property assigned to each of the new districts.

This is not to say that each new district must receive an equal or even a proportionate share of value of the total property of the former district, or that allocation to each new district of the property located within it is per se inequitable because of disproportions in value. The committee (i.e. the county commission) has discretion to determine what is equitable in the circumstances, with value being a very significant factor but not the only factor involved. The voters of each district then have their own opportunity to vote for or against the reorganization. In effect they approve or disapprove the committee's decision as to what is an equitable division of property, as well as the basic question of whether the re-organization shall occur at all.

The legislature has determined that the value and amount of all school property should be a matter of public record. We find no basis on which to find the specific requirements of ORS 330.540 inapplicable simply because it is proposed to organize various geographical areas within a county unit school district as separate administrative districts owning all school property already in the area.