Court Opinion

ID: 9545183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:07:55.90194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:15.776570
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
dissenting.
I concur in that part of the majority opinion which holds that the voters of Yamhill County have no power to rescind their approval of the issuance of bonds for the construction of a bridge across the Willamette River. The bonds, having been approved by the voters, are a legal obligation of the county and, if sold, must be paid according to their terms.
The decision to build a bridge, however, is a separate question from the decision to finance the bridge by the issuance of bonds. As the majority opinion points out, the decision to build the bridge was made by the Board of County Commissioners of Yamhill County. If the Board of County Commissioners could decide to build the bridge, it presumably could revoke that decision. The power of the Board to change its mind about building the bridge is not questioned by the majority.
General law provides that decisions to build bridges and to cooperate with other counties in building bridges are made at the county level. ORS 203.120(4); ORS 382.245. Article IV, sec 1 (5) of the Oregon Constitution reserves the initiative and referendum powers
“* * * to the qualified voters of each municipality and district as to all local, special and municipal legislation of every character in or for their municipality or district.”
This court has held that a county is a “municipality or district” within the meaning of a prior identical provision. Kosydar v. Collins, 201 Or 271, 277, 270 P2d *158132 (1934). It is clear, therefore, that the voters of Yamhill County have power through the initiative to enact legislation providing that Yamhill County shall not construct or participate in the construction of any bridge across the Willamette River. As the Court of Appeals pointed out in its opinion, the measure is legislative rather than administrative when tested by the criteria approved in our prior decisions. See, e.g., State ex rel Allen v. Martin, 255 Or 401, 465 P2d 228 (1970); Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 3 P2d 778 (1931).
What effect the initiative measure would have on a bridge previously authorized but not yet constructed need not be decided in this case. It is clear, however, that the question whether Yamhill County should participate in the building of a bridge across the Willamette River is a different question than how the bridge should be financed.