Judges: DUSTIN McDANIEL, Attorney General
Filed Date: 5/7/2007
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Paul Miller State Senator Post Office Box 488 Melbourne, AR 72556-0488
Dear Senator Miller:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on behalf of the city of Horseshoe Bend on the following:
On March 19th the City Council will be making appointments for the new year and we have been approached by a citizen to be a member of a Commission and he does not live within their boundaries.
The City of Horseshoe Bend has three different municipal improvement districts. One is the Municipal Recreational Improvement District that encompasses the entire City. The second is the Crown Street Improvement District that covers only properties lying within the boundaries of the Crown Addition subdivision. The third is the Municipal Street Improvement District that covers approximately 90% of the rest of the city that is not in the Crown Street Improvement District.
Arkansas Code
Question: What is the strict interpretation of this statute? Do those three (3) owners of real property have to live in the District or is the only qualification that they own property in the district?
Because you have specifically referenced A.C.A. §
(a)(1)(A)(i) In the ordinance creating a municipal improvement district, the city or town council shall appoint three (3) owners of real property therein as commissioners, who shall compose a board of improvement for the district.
* * *
(a)(1)(B)(iv)(a) Before the end of a commissioner's term, the city council shall appoint an owner of real property in the district as a new commissioner.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has stated with regard to statutory interpretation, as follows:
The first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary meaning and usually accepted meaning in common language. Weiss v. McFadden,
Macsteel, Parnell Consultants v. Ar. Ok. Gas Corp.,
The court has also held that "it does not engage in interpretations that defy common sense and produce absurd results," and that "in construing statutes . . . we look to the language under discussion in the context of the statute as a whole." Green v. Mills,
In my opinion, the language of A.C.A. §
Assistant Attorney General Joel Dipippa prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General
Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service ... , 342 Ark. 591 ( 2000 )
Weiss v. McFadden , 353 Ark. 868 ( 2003 )
Steward v. McDonald , 330 Ark. 837 ( 1997 )
Green v. Mills , 339 Ark. 200 ( 1999 )
Burcham v. City of Van Buren , 330 Ark. 451 ( 1997 )