Oregon Advisory Opinions October 06, 1980: OAG 80-122 (October 6, 1980)
Collection: Oregon Attorney General Opinions
Docket: OAG 80-122
Date: Oct. 6, 1980
Advisory Opinion Text
OAG 80-122.
State Representative
May the voters of a city, by the enactment of an initiative measure, prohibit the use of bond proceeds for the purpose stated in the original election at which the issuance of bonds was approved?
ANSWER GIVEN
No.
The voters of the City of Jacksonville have approved a proposal for issuance of bonds for improvements necessary to connect the city's sewer system with that of the Bear Creek Sanitary Authority.
A proposed initiative measure has been circulated and its proponents have obtained sufficient signatures to place the measure on the ballot, if it is eligible to be on the ballot. It would require that bond proceeds for sewer improvements not be committed to any system other than that shown to be "least expensive" as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Apparently such "least expensive" system would be a "field flooding" system, rather than the connection with the Bear Creek Sanitary Authority which the voters have already approved.
We conclude that the proposed measure is invalid, under precedent set by the Oregon Supreme Court in Yamhill County v. Dauenhauer, 261 Or 154, 492 P2d 766 (1972). In that case, the voters of Yamhill County had approved issuance of bonds for the construction of a bridge. An initiative measure was subsequently proposed which would prohibit construction of any such bridge.
Affirming a ruling of the Court of Appeals (6 Or App 422, 487 P2d 1167 (1971)), the Supreme Court held that the county's voters had no authority to rescind their earlier approval of the project, saying their authority to accept or reject the
proposal was "exhausted when the expenditure is once approved . . . ." (261 Or at 156.)
The fact that the case dealt with a county rather than a city, and state statutes rather than a city's charter or ordinances, we find of no significance. In the Court of Appeals below, the correct rule, applicable to all municipalities, was quoted from 15 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations 287, sec 40.18 (3rd ed 1970):
"'If the vote is in favor of the proposition submitted as incurring an indebtedness, it is final and conclusive * * *.'" 6 Or App at 424.
Nor does the conclusiveness of voter approval depend on whether an indebtedness has actually been contracted pursuant thereto, for as the McQuillin passage quoted goes on to say:
We find the initiative measure proposed for the City of Jacksonville, which would attempt to reconsider the authorization of bonds for connecting the city's sewer system to that of Bear Creek Sanitary Authority, to be unauthorized. It would be invalid if adopted.