Opinion ID: 1345944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Majority of Owners Requirement

Text: In order for an SID to be established, a majority of the owners having an interest in the real property within the limits of a proposed ... district must support its formation by signing the articles of association. See § 31-727(1). The objectors claim that the petitioners failed to satisfy § 31-727 because less than a majority of the owners signed the articles. Thus, we must address whether § 31-727 requires a majority of the owners by name or a majority of the owners by area. The record in this case indicates that Central owns a majority of the real estate in the proposed SID. With the exception of three residential areas that contain 227 privately owned lots, Central owns the greatest number of lots around Johnson Lake used for residences, seasonal cabins, and businesses. The objectors contend that Central should be counted only once as an owner in support of the SID, whereas the petitioners contend that Central should be counted in proportion to the amount of real estate it owns within the proposed district. The meaning of a statute is a question of law. Cox Nebraska Telecom v. Qwest Corp., 268 Neb. 676, 687 N.W.2d 188 (2004). We conclude that the phrase majority of the owners in § 31-727(1) refers to owners representing a majority of the area of real estate within the district. In order to ascertain the proper meaning of a statute, reference may be had to later as well as earlier legislation upon the same subject. Cox Nebraska Telecom v. Qwest Corp., supra . A collection of statutes in pari materia may be considered and construed together to determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions of the act are consistent, harmonious, and sensible. See Willers v. Willers, 255 Neb. 769, 587 N.W.2d 390 (1998). Considering other SID provisions, we find that under § 31-740.01, trustees may amend the articles of association unless the owners representing a majority of the front footage of real estate within the district oppose the amendment. Under § 31-767, trustees may dissolve an SID unless the owners representing a majority of the area of real estate within the district object. Under § 31-769, trustees may detach property from an SID unless the owners representing a majority of the area of real estate within the district object. When construing a statute, an appellate court must look to the statute's purpose and give to the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves that purpose, rather than a construction which would defeat it. Kosmicki v. State, 264 Neb. 887, 652 N.W.2d 883 (2002). Section 31-727 was designed to benefit and improve real property and ameliorate the sanitary conditions in the proposed district. Zwink v. Ahlman, 177 Neb. 15, 20, 128 N.W.2d 121, 124 (1964). If this court were to construe the phrase majority of the owners in the manner advocated by the objectors, owners representing only a small fraction of the affected area could defeat the will of the owners representing the majority of the area who wished to address pressing sanitary needs. Such an interpretation of § 31-727(1) would defeat the purpose of the SID statutes. To establish other types of improvement districts, both in this state and elsewhere, proponents are usually required to obtain the approval of a substantial percentage of landowners by area. For example, the formation of an irrigation district requires the approval of property owners or lease-holders representing a majority of the acreage within the proposed district. Neb. Rev.Stat. § 46-103 (Reissue 2004). Public utility districts may be created by petition if consent is given by the owners of a majority of the front footage of real estate within the proposed district. Neb.Rev. Stat. § 18-407 (Reissue 1997). Petitions to establish drainage districts ordinarily must be signed by landowners representing a substantial portion of property within the area that will be affected by the improvement. 25 Am.Jur.2d Drains and Drainage Districts § 8 (2004). SID-formation proceedings are proceedings in equity. See Zwink v. Ahlman, supra. Equity is best served by a requirement that a majority of the owners by area must sign the articles of association. By signing the articles, the owners of real estate so forming the district for such purposes... obligate themselves to pay the tax or taxes which may be levied against all the property in the district and special assessments against the real property benefited which may be assessed against them to pay for the installation of a sewer or water system. § 31-727(2). SIDs are authorized to levy a tax on the taxable value of the taxable property in the district sufficient to pay interest on borrowed money and to make repairs to the sewer or water system. § 31-739(1). The district court correctly noted that Central is not exempt or relieved in part from paying its share of the costs of improvements in the SID. Central, like all other benefited property owners in the district, will be taxed by the SID on the taxable value of its property. See § 31-739. To interpret the majority of the owners requirement in § 31-727(1) differently would lead to an inequitable result: Central, as the owner of a majority of the taxable real estate in the proposed SID, would receive less than a one-half-percent vote in forming it. Therefore, we hold that under § 31-727(1), owners representing a majority of the area within a proposed SID must sign the articles of association. Based on our de novo review of the record, it is clear the petitioners established that owners representing a majority of the area within the proposed SID voted to form the district.