Town of Calais v. County Road Commissioners

795 A.2d 1267, 173 Vt. 620, 2002 Vt. LEXIS 49
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedFebruary 25, 2002
DocketNo. 00-194
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 795 A.2d 1267 (Town of Calais v. County Road Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Town of Calais v. County Road Commissioners, 795 A.2d 1267, 173 Vt. 620, 2002 Vt. LEXIS 49 (Vt. 2002).

Opinions

The Town of Calais appeals from a superior court order affirming a decision of the County Road Commissioners requiring the Town to repair portions of Still Brook Road, a class 4 highway. The Town contends the trial court: (1) lacked jurisdiction; (2) misconstrued the controlling statutory scheme; (3) erroneously failed to conduct a de novo hearing; and (4) improperly excluded certain evidence. We agree with the contention that the trial court misconstrued the governing statutes, which vest the Town seleetboard with broad discretion to determine the necessity of making repairs to class 4 highways. Accordingly, we reverse.

Appellees Sylvia and Steven Spooner brought this action to compel the Town to repair the portion of Still Brook Road which leads to their house and is classified as a class 4 highway. The road had washed out in a storm and, as a result, contained very deep ruts. The Town declined to make the repairs, relying on its class 4 road policy, enacted by the Town seleetboard in 1996, which provides that maintenance of class 4 highways will be done by adjacent landowners who “shall bear all costs associated with said fourth class road . . . project,” except that the Town Road Commissioner will evaluate each class 4 highway annually and “as time permits will perform minimal [summer] maintenance.” Appellees appealed to the County Road Commissioners, who eventually found that the Town should “provide reasonable access and safety” for appellees by spending up to $1,500 to fill in washes and restore waterbars.

[621]*621On appeal by the Town, the superior court required it to go further, and return the road to its former condition with no cost limit. The trial court held that the Town had not fulfilled its statutory responsibility to promote the public good, necessity, and convenience under 19 V.S.A. § 310(b), which provides:

Class 4 highways may be maintained to the extent required by the necessity of the town, the public good and the convenience of the inhabitants of the town, or may be reclassified using the same procedures as for laying out highways and meeting the standards set forth in section 302 of this title.

This appeal followed.

The Town relies on the plain language of § 310(b), and its road maintenance policy adopted pursuant to that section. We agree that the statute supports the Town’s road maintenance policy, which in turn authorizes exactly the position the Town took here. It is axiomatic that in construing a statute our objective is to effectuate the legislative intent. See Sagar v. Warren Selectboard, 170 Vt. 167, 171, 744 A.2d 422, 426 (1999). We rely on the plain meaning of the words in a statute because we presume they reflect the Legislature’s intent. See Burlington Elec. Dep’t v. Vt. Dep’t of Taxes, 154 Vt. 332, 335-36, 576 A.2d 450, 452 (1990). The plain, ordinary meaning of the word “may” indicates that a statute is permissive, not mandatory. See In re D.L., 164 Vt. 223, 234, 669 A.2d 1172, 1180 (1995); Dover Town Sch. Dist. v. Simon, 162 Vt. 630, 631, 650 A.2d 514, 516 (1994) (mem.). This conclusion is reinforced when the same statute elsewhere employs the mandatory “shall,” indicating a conscious decision to grant discretion through use of the alternative “may.” See In re Stacey, 138 Vt. 68, 71, 411 A.2d 1359, 1361 (1980). It is, of course, essential to harmonize a statute by construing its constituent parts to form a consistent whole, affording every provision significance and meaning. See Sagar, 170 Vt. at 171, 744 A.2d at 426.

Here, the surrounding language only reinforces the conclusion that the statute grants the Town discretion in determining whether to maintain and repair class 4 highways. Section 310(a) states, in pertinent part, that a town “shall keep its class 1,2 and 3 highways... in good and sufficient repair during all seasons of the year.” (emphasis added). Section 310(b), in direct contrast, provides that “[e]lass 4 highways may be maintained to the extent required by the necessity of the town, the public good and the convenience of the inhabitants of the town, or may be reclassified using the same procedures as for laying out highways.” (emphasis added). The use of “shall” and “may” in such close proximity conveys a conscious design to impart to the words their ordinary and distinct meanings, imposing a mandatory duty upon towns to maintain class 1, 2, and 3 roads, while affording general discretion to maintain class 4 roads. The superior court decision and the dissent would make a town’s responsibility to maintain a class 4 road indistinguishable from its responsibility to maintain a class 3 road, despite the very different specification of these responsibilities in the statute.

Also reinforcing the highly discretionary nature of the seleetboard’s powers is the list of standards to which the selectboard must adhere: the necessity of the town, the public good, and the convenience of the inhabitants. Even if the statute described the seleetboard’s power using “shall” rather than “may,” the broad nature of the factors to be considered necessarily involves a high degree of discretion in their consideration.

The Town has commendably implemented § 310(b) through a general policy, avoiding the kind of ad hoc decision-making that may lead to discriminatory [622]*622application of discretion. Although the policy establishes less Town responsibility for road repair and maintenance than appellees desire, it is fully consistent with the discretion accorded by § 310(b). Indeed, it is noteworthy that although the trial-court’s ruling generally ignored the Town’s road policy and refused to follow it, it did not explicitly declare it invalid.

Clearly, therefore, under the statutory scheme described above, the select-board’s decision to refuse to pay for maintenance and repair of Still Brook Road must be upheld. The class 4 highway policy expressly provides that the Town will not pay for the substantial road rebuilding sought by appellees, and the policy is valid under the statute. This is the straightforward and direct answer to the Town’s appeal.

The trial court and appellees have cited four ostensible reasons for a contrary conclusion. All involve a misreading of the clear legislative intent and, therefore, are not persuasive.

First, appellees and the dissent rely on the statutory provisions for obtaining review of a town’s decision not to repair a road. See 19 V.S.A. §§971-976. This argument assumes, however, that county road commissioners are not bound to respect the discretion of - the town selectboard as defined in § 310(b), but are instead entitled to trump the selects board’s decision through their own view of what the public good requires. It makes no sense to read the statute as authorizing the selectboard to act under one legal standard, and then authorizing the commissioners to overrule the select-board under a different standard. The review statutes are plainly “procedural rules,” not substantive provisions. Thus, they provide a remedy; they do not purport to define duties.

Furthermore, the legislative history is inconsistent with appellees’ reasoning.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John Echeverria and Carin Pratt v. Town of Tunbridge
2026 VT 5 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2026)
Escheverria v. Tunbridge
Vermont Superior Court, 2025
Holly Bartlett v. John Roberts and LaLauni Rawls
2020 VT 24 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2020)
In re M.S., Juvenile
Vermont Superior Court, 2017
In re M.S.
176 A.3d 1124 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2017)
R.L. Vallee, Inc.et Al MS4
Vermont Superior Court, 2017
Joseph v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic
Vermont Superior Court, 2016
David Demarest v. Town of Underhill
2016 VT 10 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2016)
In re T.S.S.
2015 VT 55 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2015)
Demarest v. Town of Underhill
2013 VT 72 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2013)
Demarest and Moulton v. Town of Underhill
195 Vt. 204 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2013)
Musto WW & WS Permit
Vermont Superior Court, 2013
In Re Town Highway No. 20
2012 VT 17 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2012)
In re Town Highway No. 20 Town of Georgia
Supreme Court of Vermont, 2012
Ketchum v. Town of Dorset
2011 VT 49 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2011)
In re Williams
Vermont Superior Court, 2005
Appeals of Wesco, Inc.
Vermont Superior Court, 2005
Appeals of Curtis
Vermont Superior Court, 2005

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
795 A.2d 1267, 173 Vt. 620, 2002 Vt. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-calais-v-county-road-commissioners-vt-2002.