*1 January 19, Argued affirmed December Respondents, YAMHILL COUNTY et al, et al, Petitioners. DAUENHAUER Eugene, Fadeley, argued the cause N. and Edward petitioners. a brief for filed Attorney, Blensly, District R. Donald McMinnville, respondents argued eause and Jack Beeler. himWith on the brief was Duane R. Erts- gaard, respondent Salem,
Before O’Connell, Chief Justice, McAllis- Justices. ter, Denecke, Holman, Howell Bryson, *2 O’CONNELL, C. J. declaratory judgment proceeding
This is a to de- proposed termine whether a Yamhill measure filed in County July, proper subject in defendants is a appealed for the initiative Defendants from plaintiffs. the trial court’s The Court of Appeals App (1971), affirmed, 6 Or 422, 487 petition and defendants filed this for review. proposed measure that,
“Notwithstanding any contrary previous decision by majority, made a County vote of the Yamhill Commissioners, Yamhill shall in no manner undertake the manner construction or of, any bridge of, construction or bridges, crossing the Willamette River.” filing Prior to the of this measure, County Commissioners of both Yamhill and agreed counties had to construct a across the ques- Willamette river between two counties. The tion of whether bonds should be issued for the con- struction of the was submitted to the voters Yamhill in November, A 19.68. similar submis- passed sion was made Marion The measure regard only in both counties. We this not as the voters’ decision issue to bonds but also their decision to designated bridge. The bonds were offered for accepted by sale and the lowest bid was county, each subject attorney’s approval. to the bond As a result filing petition, the bond of the initiative
of defendants’ attorney approve and the the bonds bids refused to were withdrawn. only power such as legislature. legisla granted to them the Where
is power ap grants to the citizens of ture reject expenditures, prove that or certain is expenditure approved, is once when the ab exhausted contrary. statutory authority express sent citizens of a to vote on issuance county purposes is derived from of bonds Having once exercised 287.054-287.074.
granted the voters of statute, to them the Yamhill no to rescind that in a power, proposed such initia later vote. Without improper insofar as it relates tive bridge previously agreed upon by Board of Commissioners. *3 language however, cast is, The broad bridges enough proscribe the County in the futriré. the Whether voters by pro- the initiative to enact such would have question need not posal we now decide. is a upon posed have called the electorate upon also to vote the in Yamhill bridge previously approved could the be whether con- we voters do not noted, As structed. previous approval. their to rescind Since the properly proposed measure contained matter not in- correctly held that it trial court was not cluded, and cases cited 68 ALR2d 1045-1047 therein. See See also 5, App 331, District No. Ariz Tubac-Amado School 9 v. Garrett (1969); Baker, 909, 295, Enloe v. Ariz 912 94 P2d City Robinson, Custer 79 SD 211, 213-214 NW2d proper to submit the measure for a vote under ini- tiative of the trial court is affirmed. dissenting.
McALLISTER, J., part majority opinion I concur in that of the which holds that the voters of Yamhill have no to rescind their of the issuance of bonds for bridge the construction of a having approved by
River. The been bonds, the voters, legal obligation are a if and, sold, must paid according be to their terms. bridge, sepa-
The decision to is a rate from the decision to finance the majority opinion issuance of As bonds. points out, the decision to build the was made Commissioners of Yamhill If the Board of Commissioners could bridge, presumably decide to build it could revoke change that decision. of the Board to building questioned mind about is not majority. General law bridges that decisions to build cooperate with other counties in bridges 203.120(4); are made at the level. (5) Oregon ORS 382.245. Article sec 1 IV, Con powers stitution reserves the initiative and referendum “* * * qualified municipal- voters of each ity special and district as to all municipal local, legislation every character in or for their munici- pality or district.” “municipality
This
held
court has
that a
is a
*4
meaning
prior
or district” within the
aof
identical
Kosydar
Collins,
vision.