Are property owners' objections to two parish street projects counted together or street by street?

Plain-English summary

In an opinion with an unclear date in the available extract, the Louisiana Attorney General concluded that Jackson Parish had to assess property-owner objections to two proposed street improvements separately for each street. The statute measured written opposition by owners holding more than half the front footage of property abutting the street to be improved and assessed. A qualifying objection to Paradise Drive would bar the parish from ordering that street's improvement under the assessment procedure, but would not automatically bar an adjacent cul-de-sac project.

The AG acknowledged that the statutory text was ambiguous where one notice covered multiple streets. It relied on the singular street language and earlier opinions treating each street as a separate assessment project. It also said the police jury could vote on the remainder of a noticed project after removing a properly objected-to portion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did an objection on Paradise Drive count against the cul-de-sac too?

No. The AG said each street's frontage and owners had to be evaluated separately, even though the cul-de-sac was accessible only through Paradise Drive.

Was this a simple majority vote of all neighborhood owners?

No. The opinion addressed written objections from owners holding more than one-half of the total front feet of property abutting the particular street and subject to the assessment.

Could the police jury continue with one street if the other drew enough objections?

The AG said it could consider the remainder of the project described in its notice, removing the portion properly objected to under the statute.

Background and statutory framework

Jackson Parish asked about improving previously dedicated streets that had not met parish road-system standards. The AG read La. R.S. 33:3689.2's notice procedure with La. R.S. 33:3689.3's objection threshold. It concluded that frontage and objections were calculated separately for each road.

Source limitation

The date on the extracted letterhead reads "JlIN 13 2014" and does not reliably distinguish the month. The issued_date field is left blank until an official page image resolves it.

Citations

• La. R.S. 33:3689.2 (notice of proposed improvements).
• La. R.S. 33:3689.3 (written-objection threshold by abutting frontage).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/14-0054

Original opinion text

~bdl! of JIloull.lhmn
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE
JAMES D. "Bunor" CALDWEll
70B04-900S
ATIORNEY GENERAL

JlIN 13 2014
OPINION 14-0054
90 POLICE JURIES - Powers & Function.
50 HIGHWAYS - Road.

La. R.S. 33:3689.1, .1 seq.
Mr. Douglas L. Stokes
When two streets in a single neighborhood are considered for acceptance into Assistant District Attomey the Parish Road System, each street should be treated as a separate project
Parish of Jackson
and each street's total owners must be considered separately for the purposes
of determining whetherthe street will be accepted into the Parish Road System.
P.O. Drawer 459
Should an objection be filed to the proposed Improvement by the property
Jonesboro, LA 71251
owners owningmore than one-half ot the total front feet ot the property abutting
the single street at issue, the police jury shall not order the tonstrudion of improvements on that particular street.

Dear Mr. Stokes:

You have requested an opinion from this office related to the improvements to and assessments of perpendicular streets within a single neighborhood and whether those streets must be evaluated individually or considered together in terms of the property owners' votes. As you mentioned in your request, these streets have been previously dedicated to the public by plat, but fall short of meeting parish standards for acceptance into the Jackson Parish Road System.
Specifically, you are concerned that one street, which is a cui de sac (unnamed at this time) and is only accessible by Paradise Drive to the south, may not be able to be incorporated into the parish road system if an objection is lodged by property owners owning in excess of one-half of the total property on the perpendicular Paradise Drive. Thus, your question is whether La. R.S. 33:3689.3 requires a majority vote of the property owners on each street or a majority vote of the two streets' owners collectively.

As an initial matter, it is important to note that this question is governed by La.
R.S. 33:3689.1, et seq., which sets forth the process by which a parish or municipality may improve previously dedicated streets.' Consistent with La. R.S.
33:3689.2, a police jury wishing to make improvements to streets or sidewalks must adopt a resolution which gives the public notice of the proposed improvements and the manner of payment. This notice must set forth a day and time that the public may object to the proposed improvements and the notice must be pubiished for three consecutive weeks. With specific reference to objections to proposed improvements, La. R.S. 33:3689.3 states (emphasis added):

1 According to the opinion request submitted to this office, both roads at issue were dedicated to the public by virtue of a subdivision plat filed in Jackson Parish.

Page 2

OPINION 14-0054
Asst. Disl. Atty. Douglas L. Stokes
Page 2

The police jUry of any parish shall not order the construction of said improvements in the event there is filed at the public hearing written objection to the proposed improvement signed by the property owners owning more than one-half of the total front feet of property abutting on the street, road, sidewalk or alleys, or portion thereof, to be improved and which will be assessed to pay the cost of such improvements; the majority shall be determined after considering the front footage of all properties abutting the portion of the street, road, sidewalk or alley, ordered improved and the owners of such portion shall be determined by the conveyance records of the parish.

This provision prohibits a police jury from ordering improvements if an objection is filed, signed by property owners that own more than one-half of the property abutting the street to be improved and who will be assessed the costs of such improvernente.! However, when determining if the lodged objection meets the "more than one-half' threshold, La. RS. 33:3689.3 does not clearly direct the police jury. The true ambiguity lies in the fact that a notice of intention under La. RS. 33:3689.2 may encompass multiple, non-contiguous streets. Therefore, the ultimate question is whether, under La. RS. 33:3689.3, the "more than one-half' requirement references "more than one-half of the total front feet of property owners" on each street individually, or whether it references "more than one-half of the property owners' total font footage within the entire project contemplated by the notice of intention under La. RS. 33:3689.2.

The interpretation of statutes requires that a statute be applied as written without further interpretation when the law is clear and unarnblquous.' This statute uses the singular form when referring to "the street, road, or sidewalk abutting the property to be improved." However, it is clear that a single street may have multiple sidewalks, one on either side of the road. The statute also contemplates that multiple alleys might exist on a single road or street, but does not differentiate between connecting streets within a single subdivision. Further, the language of La. RS. 33:3689.2 clearly envisions that the notice of intention to adopt a resolution may name "the street or streets, road or roads, sidewalk or sidewalks, alley or alleys" for proposed improvements. On the other hand, while La. RS. 33:3689.2 could include multiple streets, roads, sidewalks, or alleys, the use of these in the singular in La. RS. 33:3689.3 suggests that this provision applies to an individual street, road or sidewalk. Unfortunately, there has been no legal commentary on these statutes since they were enacted in 1952.

2 We note that La. R.S. 33:3689.3 is relevant when improvements are proposed to be funded by assessments rather than funded by general operating dollars. 3 La. C.C. Art. 9.

Page 3

OPINION 14-0054
Asst. Dis!. Ally. Douglas L. Stokes
Page 3

Because of the inherent ambiguity in these statutes, this law could be interpreted in more than one manner, thus invoking the statutory construction principle that the law "must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the taw." In search of the purpose of the law, we are unable to locate any guidance as to legislative intent. However, this office previously rendered two opinions in the late 1940s addressing the method of levying special assessments for street improvements for property situated over multiple streets, stating:

It is indispensable and necessary that each street be considered separately, both in determining whether or not a majority in number and value of abutting real estate owners has signed the petition for the paving of the given street, and in arriving at the total cost of paving that street and in apportioning the cost by making assessments under the lineal front footage rule. This holds true, whether one or two streets are to be paved in each of several different parts of the parish, or whether the program contemplates the paving of all the streets in an entire subdivision.s

The same unit rule applies in such determination that exists in ascertaining the total cost and apportioning it in levying the special assessments. That is to say, each street to be improved is a separate project... ln the case of the corner lot, the total assessed value of that lot should be considered separately and independently, upon receiving a petition for the improvement of each of the two streets, and should be counted entirely twice, or for each contemplated project,"

For reference, La. RS. 33:3689.3 was enacted in 1952 by Act 430. 7 The Attorney General opinions referenced herein are from the late 1940s, and therefore, obviously do not speak to this particular statute. However, we find the previous opinions persuasive in the meaning and purpose of the law. Based on these opinions and a logical interpretation of the law, we here opine that each street must be considered separately and each owner's front footage must be considered street-by-street. However, this conclusion does not affect the scope or the authority of the governing body when determining whether to accept the project, in whole or in part, as granted by La. R.S. 33:3689.2. The remainder of the project described in the notice of intention, published pursuant to La. RS. 33:3689.2, would be voted upon by the police jury, simply removing any portion of the project that has been properly objected to consistent with La. RS. 33:3689.3.

• La. C.C. Art. 10.
S La. Ally. Gen. Op. 1946-48, p.687 (1947).
• La. Ally. Gen. Op. 1946-48, p.684 (1947).
7 S.8.95, Reg. Sess. (1952).

Page 4

OPINION 14-0054
Ass!. Dis!. Atty. Douglas L. Stokes
Page 4

Admittedly, our interpretation leads to the odd scenario that the cui de sac in your request, only accessible by a street that is privately maintained (Paradise Drive), will be constructed and maintained by the parish. However, it is our opinion that this is the proper result under the law. As to Paradise Drive, should the parish desire to also improve this road, it may still adopt a resolution, give notice, and await any possible objection in accordance with the procedural requirements of La. RS. 33:3689.1, et seq. Should such objection be supported by the property owners owning more than one-half of the front footage on Paradise Drive, then that road cannot be improved at this time.

We hope this sufficiently answers your inquiry; however, if we may be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: CJ#di{j l· f2-o c:L~
CANDICE L. RODGERS
Assistant Attorney General

JDC/CLRljt