Court Opinion

ID: 9580528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:05:52.067552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:20.363693
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, J.,
concurring in part and specially concurring in part.
While I agree with the lead opinion that JCESD has been created validly, I disagree that this issue is settled by the *99“plain language” of ORS 198.720(2). The allegedly “plain language” in ORS 198.720 is the phrase, “and is performing.” The dissent interprets that phrase to mean “and is performing any of the services [that an authorized health district may perform under ORS ch 440].” The lead opinion interprets that phrase to mean “and is performing the same specific service [that the newly-proposed health district would provide].” Both the lead opinion and the dissent alter the pivotal “plain language” of that statute.
I join in the result reached by the lead opinion because that outcome appears most conducive to protecting the health and safety of the citizens of Jefferson County — a result I believe that the legislature would wish to see. I find no meaningful assistance in the legislative history that the dissent relies upon — the history is of another, unsuccessful measure and was heard by a different legislature than that which enacted ORS 198.720(2). The dissent’s reliance on general principles of municipal law also seems to me to be misplaced. The cases to which it refers are cases where the competing districts were attempting to provide the same service. That is not true here.