Chapter 294
294.033
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Authority of local
government to invest public funds in variable annuity contracts for funding
deferred compensation plans, (1978) Vol 39, p 47
294.035
NOTES OF DECISIONS
This
section does not distinguish between voluntarily and involuntarily placed
funds. Urban Renewal Agency v. Swank, 54 Or App 591, 635 P2d 1344 (1981), Sup
Ct review denied
Since
this section, together with ORS 328.255 and 328.441, do not define county
treasurer’s investment of school district proceeds as “use,” treasurer’s
pooling of proceeds with those of other governments for investment was not “use”
but was rather the manner in which treasurer exercised custody over funds.
Urban Renewal Agency v. Swank, 54 Or App 591, 635 P2d 1344 (1981), Sup Ct review
denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Investment of funds
by school district, (1974) Vol 36, p 827; investment
of funds in a credit union, (1975) Vol 37, p 968;
investment of deferred compensation funds, (1976) Vol
37, p 1284; collateral requirements for public funds, (1976) Vol 38, p 374; authority of local government to invest
public funds in variable annuity contracts for funding deferred compensation
plans, (1978) Vol 39, p 47; public official entering
into standby or forward commitments to purchase securities, (1980) Vol 40, p 295; general obligations of Federal National
Mortgage Association as general obligations of instrumentality of U.S., (1982)
Vol. 42, p 359
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 58 OLR 119 (1979)
294.040
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Investment of funds
by school district, (1974) Vol 36, p 827
294.048
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Investment pool’s
authority to borrow money by pledging securities guaranteed by United States
government, (1980) Vol 40, p 322
294.050
NOTES OF DECISIONS
This
section did not prohibit loan from county general road fund for purposes other
than supplementation of depleted election accounts. State ex rel Weinstein v. Lane County, 71 Or App 238, 692 P2d 135
(1984)
294.060
NOTES OF DECISIONS
This
section authorized county to borrow from county general road fund provided
other requirements of section were met. State ex rel
Weinstein v. Lane County, 71 Or App 238, 692 P2d 135 (1984)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Expenditure of
federal forest receipts for bicycle trails and park and ride parking lots for
mass transit, (1980) Vol 41, p 270; deposit of unused
forest receipts from national forests earmarked for county road purposes into
county general fund, (1981) Vol 41, p 430
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 51 OLR 743 (1972);
69 OLR 315 (1990)
294.070
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Responsibility of
county court for expenditure of funds, duty to obtain advisory board approval,
(1972) Vol 35, p 1130
294.080
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Under
this section, county, in commingling federal forest revenues in county road
fund with other county monies for purpose of investment, could not credit to
county general fund all interest earned from commingled investments to county
general fund. Lane County v. Paulus, 57 Or App 297,
644 P2d 616 (1982), Sup Ct review denied
Interest
earned from investment of monies designated for particular municipal
corporations must be credited to account of the particular municipal
corporations. School Dist. No. 1 v. Multnomah County, 9 OTR 371 (1983)
Legislature
did not intend that county have unbridled discretion to divert arbitrarily
interest earned on funds that a statute specifically designates as belonging to
other public bodies; trial court correctly ordered mineral lease interest
distributed to plaintiff school district rather than placed in county general
fund. State ex rel School Dist. 13 v. Columbia
County, 66 Or App 237, 674 P2d 608 (1983), Sup Ct review denied
Dispute
over whether interest on tax moneys held in county treasurer’s unsegregated account is to be credited to fund of municipal
corporation comes within circuit court jurisdiction and not within tax court
jurisdiction. Clackamas Co. Ed. Serv. Dist. v. Clackamas Co., 86 Or App 259,
739 P2d 587 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
Moneys
in county treasurer’s unsegregated account are “designated
for particular municipal corporation” as of time of deposit, and not as of time
that distribution statement under ORS 311.395 is prepared. Clackamas Co. Ed.
Serv. Dist. V. Clackamas Co., 86 Or App 259, 739 P2d 587 (1987), Sup Ct review
denied
This
section did not create vested right in defendant taxing districts to interest
earned on unsegregated tax accounts and legislature
had power to retroactively divert those funds. Jackson Co. v. Jackson Ed.
Service Dist., 90 Or App 299, 752 P2d 1224 (1988), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Constitutionality
of crediting to the county general fund interest earned from investment of unsegregated money held by county treasurer, (1971) Vol 35, p 1020
294.100
NOTES OF DECISIONS
The
fact that a public official acted in good faith does not justify an attempted
exercise of any power or authority not expressly or impliedly given to him, no
matter how honest may be his intention or how upright his motives. Porter v.
Tiffany, 11 Or App 542, 502 P2d 1385 (1972), Sup Ct review denied
Public
money expended to advocate voter approval of a bonding issue was not “authorized
by law” and the public utility commissioners who authorized the expenditure
were personally liable for the funds so spent. Porter v. Tiffany, 11 Or App
542, 502 P2d 1385 (1972), Sup Ct review denied
This
section provides a procedure at law for taxpayers to follow in challenging
expenditure of public funds by any public official. Halsey v. Portland Sch.
Dist. 1 (concurring opinion), 16 Or App 450, 518 P2d 1349 (1974), Sup Ct review
denied
Defense
of good faith reliance on advice of counsel was available in action on relation
of taxpayers against directors of Sanitary Authority seeking return of moneys
allegedly expended for purposes other than authorized by law and to establish
defense of advice of counsel, defendants must show they relied in good faith on
advice given and without personal benefit. Bear Creek v. Hopkins, 53 Or App
212, 631 P2d 808 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
If
any change from urban renewal project is so substantial as to require formal
amendment of urban renewal plan under ORS 457.220 (2), then spending any funds
for project without formal plan amendment is unauthorized and subjects public
officials who authorize expenses to personal liability. Umrein
v. Nelson, 70 Or App 104, 688 P2d 419 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Reference
to unauthorized expenditure in this section includes unlawful use of otherwise
authorized expenditures. Burt v. Blumenauer, 299 Or 55, 699 P2d 168 (1985)
After
circuit court on remand from Court of Appeals granted officials’ motions to
dismiss and taxpayer again appealed, taxpayer action under this section to
recover allegedly misspent public funds is not “tort” within meaning of Oregon
Tort Claims Act. Burt v. Blumenauer, 84 Or App 144, 733 P2d 462 (1987), Sup Ct review
denied, as modified by 87 Or App 263, 742 P2d 626 (1987)
Defense
of good faith reliance on advice of counsel is not limited to situations where
law is unclear or public official lacks statutory guidance. Belgarde
v. Linn, 205 Or App 433, 134 P3d 1082 (2006), Sup Ct review denied
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: District Attorney
not civilly liable, (1976) Vol 37, p 1142; persons
liable for excess funding, (1976) Vol 37, p 1142; liability
for unlawful expenditures of unemployment insurance funds to operate a school
district, (1976) Vol 38, p 304; reliance upon an
opinion of the Attorney General, (1976) Vol 38, p
304; liability of school district or other municipal corporation officers for
continued expenditures after knowledge of substantial investment loss, (1980) Vol 40, p 408
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 52 OLR 155-170
(1973)
294.305 to 294.520
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Tax
court properly invalidated sanitary authority’s proposed tax where authority
had sufficient federal grant and other funds available to meet payments due on
its bonds without tax. Bashaw, Dept. of Rev. v. Bear
Creek Valley San. Auth., 287 Or 113, 597 P2d 822 (1979)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Budgeting deferred
compensation assets and liabilities, (1976) Vol 37, p
1284; exclusion of municipal financial activities with respect to urban renewal
agency projects, (1977) Vol 38, p 1062
294.311
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Distribution of
earnings from investment of money in the custody of the county treasurer,
(1971) Vol 35, p 1020; Local Budget Law application
to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, (1979) Vol
39, p 546
294.321
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Board of Education’s
rules manual’s compliance with this section, (1977) Vol
38, p 786
294.326
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Funds from county “Revenue
Sharing Contingency Fund” for architectural fees and construction of building,
(1974) Vol 36, p 795
294.351
NOTE:
Repealed July 24, 1979; ORS 294.352 enacted in lieu
See
annotations under ORS 294.352.
294.352
See
also annotations under ORS 294.351 in permanent edition.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
In general
Purpose
of contingency fund is to cover unanticipated needs and not to provide working
capital. Gugler v. Baker School Dist. 5-J, 12 OTR 162
(1992)
Contingency
fund for general fund below statewide average was not unreasonable. Gugler v. Baker School Dist. 5-J, 12 OTR 162 (1992)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
294.351)
Funds
from county “Revenue Sharing Contingency Fund” for architectural fees and
construction of building, (1974) Vol 36, p 795; Board
of Education’s rules manual’s compliance with this section, (1977) Vol 38, p 786
LAW REVIEW CITATIONS
Under former similar statute (ORS
294.351)
51
OLR 44 (1971)
294.356
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Adoption of federal
budget manual as satisfying rule promulgation requirement, (1977) Vol 38, p 786
294.361
NOTES OF DECISIONS
This
section prohibits any expenditure without adopted budget being in place, but
where condition or occurrence results in resource unknown at time original
budget prepared, resource may be supplementary budgeted. Gugler
v. Baker School Dist. 5-J, 12 OTR 162 (1992)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: County use of funds
received from federal government for Oregon and California Railroad Grant
Lands, (1977) Vol 38, p 985
294.381
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Local
Budget Law does not provide basis for challenge where amount levied for debt
service is equal to or less than amount of principal and interest due and payable
in ensuing year, regardless of other resources available for payment of
principal and interest. Luedtke v. Estacada School
District #108, 16 OTR 114 (2002)
294.435
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Where
ordinance required car rental companies to collect and remit tax on motor
vehicle rentals, tax was not invalid on ground of improper adoption procedures,
improper use of tax funds, or unconstitutional impact on interstate commerce.
Budget Rent-A-Car v. Multnomah County, 287 Or 93, 597 P2d 1232 (1979)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Budgeting previous
unknown losses in year in which discovered, (1980) Vol
40, p 408
294.450
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Distribution of
earnings from investment of money in the custody of the county treasurer,
(1971) Vol 35, p 1020; school districts expenditure
of funds set aside for potential unemployment insurance liability for operating
the district, (1976) Vol 38, p 304
294.460
NOTES OF DECISIONS
This
section authorized county to borrow from county general road fund provided
other requirements of section were met. State ex rel
Weinstein v. Lane County, 71 Or App 238, 692 P2d 135 (1984)
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Distribution of
earnings from investment of money in the custody of the county treasurer,
(1971) Vol 35, p 1020; exchange of land purchased with
money from County Road Fund, (1982) Vol 42, p 271
294.480
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Funds from county “Revenue
Sharing Contingency Fund” for architectural fees and construction of building,
(1974) Vol 36, p 795; role of budget committee in
supplemental budget proceedings and authority to adopt rules with respect to
quorum, (1978) Vol 38, p 1935; budgeting previous
unknown losses in fiscal year in which discovered, (1980) Vol
40, p 408
294.485
NOTES OF DECISIONS
Doctrine
of substantial compliance must be limited to relieving parties from minor
irregularities or errors which would not affect substance of statute’s
objectives. Dept. of Rev. v. Umatilla County, 10 OTR 309 (1986)
This
section does not make Tax Court exclusive forum for all issues that can arise
in connection with Local Budget Law but applies only to noncompliance with
budget law in connection with preparation and making of budgets and levies;
section does not address expenditures made after budget is adopted but which
are not authorized in budget or are nominally authorized through procedures
which violate budget law. Gugler v. Baker County
Education Ser. Dist., 86 Or App 549, 740 P2d 798 (1987), aff’d
305 Or 563, 754 P2d 900 (1988)
As
a mechanical proposition and as relevant to unlawful building expenditures
alleged in this case, this section could not be a source of redress for
improper transfers of appropriations within funds or from one fund to another. Gugler v. Baker County Education Serv. Dist., 86 Or App
549, 740 P2d 798 (1987), aff’d305 Or 563, 754 P2d 900 (1988)
Tax
Court’s jurisdiction over Local Budget Law matters is conferred by this
section, not ORS 305.410. Gugler v. Baker County
Education Serv. Dist., 86 Or App 549, 740 P2d 798 (1987), aff’d305 Or
563, 754 P2d 900 (1988)
Term
“interested taxpayer” does not include renter of commercial or residential
property or person by virtue of payment of city business occupation taxes. Hermo v. City of Lincoln City, 12 OTR 52 (1991)
Levy
challenge procedure does not exempt plaintiff challenging tax base ballot title
from general procedural requirements for ballot title challenges. Coultas v. City of Sutherlin, 318 Or 584, 871 P2d 465
(1994)
Attachment
to complaint of appendix containing signatures of 10 interested taxpayers is
sufficient notwithstanding that not all of taxpayers are listed or signed as
plaintiffs on complaint. Luedtke v. Estacada School
District #108, 16 OTR 114 (2002)
294.810
ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: State Treasurer
authority to enter into reverse repurchase agreements, (1979) Vol 39, p 569