My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Financial- Prudential
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Financial- Prudential
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2012 3:31:31 PM
Creation date
9/6/2011 5:00:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10220
Title
Financial- Prudential
Company
Marion County
BLDG Date
8/21/1998
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Finance
Project ID
CS9801 Courthouse Square Construction
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
from using an emergency clause?" <br />No. Whether financing is by revenue bonds or by COPs, no tax is being imposed. <br />Therefore, the restriction on adoption of a county ordinance by emergency clause found at ORS <br />203.045(4) does not apply. <br />:4. "Do the answers to any of these questions change if the method of financing differs? <br />That is, is there a difference if it is COP versus Revenue Bonds?" <br />Yes. Revenue bonds are issued pursuant to the Uniform Revenue Bond Act, ORS <br />288.805 through 288.945. As mentioned above, the BOC has adopted a resolution authorizing <br />issuance of revenue bonds to finance courthouse square. Pursuant to ORS 288.815(5) electors <br />may petition the county to refer the issuance of revenue bonds to a vote. The petition must be <br />filed within 60 days of the last publication of notice. In this case, the last publication of notice <br />was March 17, 1997. The 60 days has passed. There is no further opportunity to refer this <br />matter to a vote. <br />On the other hand, COPs are authorized by ORS 271.390. This statutory authorization <br />does not provide for any referendum or initiative process. The only basis for a referendum or <br />initiative would be pursuant to the Constitution of Oregon, Article IV, Section 1(5): <br />"The initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people by subsections (2) <br />~, and (3) of this section are further reserved to the qualified voters of each municipality and <br />district as to all local, special and municipal legislation of every character in or for their <br />municipality or district." <br />In other words, only "municipal legislation" is subject to initiative and referendum. <br />Legislation is the making of laws of general applicability and is permanent in nature. <br />Administration, on the other hand, is the impiementation of such general rules. Foster v. Clark, <br />309 Or 464, 472 (1990) and Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 584-85 (1931). Administrative <br />actions are not subject to initiative or referendum, and must be removed from the ballot. Id. <br />Adoption of an ordinance or resolution to carry out legislative policies and purposes <br />already declared, and for which no further legislation is needed, is an administrative act. Such an <br />act is not subject to local initiative or referendum. Lane Transit District v. Lane Co , 327 Or 161, <br />167-69 (1998). <br />ORS 271.390 is a complete legislative scheme. It authorizes issuance of COPs as the <br />"...governing body determines is needed...". It authorizes all the terms necessary to complete the <br />issuance of COPs, including such things as authority to secure the contracts by mortgage, to <br />designate revenues for payment of the COPs, to covenant to budget for payments and appropriate <br />the necessary funds, and to fix terms the governing body determines are necessary or <br />appropriate to secure its obligations. No further legislation is necessary. All necessary authority <br />'`- has already been delegated to the BOC. The determination of whether to issue COPs is an <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.