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),
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),
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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),
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),
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),
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),
This section provides a procedure at law
for taxpayers to follow in challenging expenditure of public funds by any
public official. Halsey v.
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.
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),
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),
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),
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’d 305 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’d 305
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
Levy challenge procedure does not exempt
plaintiff challenging tax base ballot title from general procedural
requirements for ballot title challenges. Coultas v. City of
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.
294.810
ATTY. GEN.
OPINIONS: State Treasurer authority to enter into reverse
repurchase agreements, (1979) Vol 39, p 569