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

 

      See annotations under ORS 368.717.

 

      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

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.338.

 

      294.338

(formerly 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 294.388.

 

      294.352

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.388.

 

      294.356

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.393.

 

      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

 

      294.368

(formerly 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)

 

      294.381

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.368.

 

      294.388

(formerly 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)

 

      294.393

(formerly 294.356)

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Adoption of federal budget manual as satisfying rule promulgation requirement, (1977) Vol 38, p 786

 

      294.435

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.456.

 

      294.450

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.463.

 

      294.456

(formerly 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

 

      294.460

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.468.

 

      294.461

(formerly 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)

 

      294.463

(formerly 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

 

      294.468

(formerly 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

 

      294.471

(formerly 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

 

      294.480

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.471.

 

      294.485

 

      See annotations under ORS 294.461.

 

 

      294.810

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: State Treasurer authority to enter into reverse repurchase agreements, (1979) Vol 39, p 569