It is well settled that courts may presume that the legislature does not intend an absurd result. Nevertheless, we face the incongruity between sections 1 and 5. When faced with such an absurd result, courts must look beyond a statute's literal meaning to ascertain and fulfill the legislature's intent. Statutory interpretation requires a court to ascertain and accomplish the intention of the legislature. We defer to the fundamental intent of the legislature in adopting ch.
Legislative intent reveals two obvious elements of ch.
Any procedural shortcoming that resulted from inconsistency within the special law fails to justify appellants' case unless such a shortcoming constrained either the Board's authority to convert or the voters' authority to block conversion. Respondents complied with ch. Although the timing of the conditions is ambiguous, the intent is clear. Appellants' argument that respondents were unable to publish the resolution until it was filed is unpersuasive. Chapter 307 does not hinge publication on filing, but in fact requires publication after the Board has adopted a resolution permitted by section 1.