Kleikamp v. Board of County Commissioners
240 Or. App. 57
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Oregon Measure 37 waivers allowed development of a 13-lot subdivision with an equestrian center on the Greggs' property.
- Greggs expended about $488,255.55 and obtained a final plat and building permits before Measure 49 took effect.
- Vesting officer determined the Greggs had a common-law vested right to complete the use described in the waivers without defining a total project cost.
- Circuit court affirmed, rejecting petitioners' challenge to the vesting determination and noting the denominator was unnecessary.
- This case, along with Friends of Yamhill County, clarifies the role of the expenditure ratio and the need to identify total project cost as of December 6, 2007.
- The court held the reviewing court should have remanded to determine the extent and general cost of the project and give proper weight to the expenditure ratio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did initiation of construction control vesting? | Greggs had not broken ground; no vested right. | Initiation not required if substantial expenditures exist. | Initiation not required; vesting can arise from substantial expenditures. |
| Were expenditures after notice of Measure 49 in bad faith? | Post-notice expenditures were not in good faith. | Expenditures may be substantial and in good faith regardless of timing. | Expenditures after notice were not dispositively bad faith; other factors govern. |
| Must the expenditure ratio be tied to a defined total project cost? | No fixed denominator required; focus on expenditures. | A denominator is necessary to assess the ratio fairly. | Denominator must be identified; failure to do so is legal error. |
| Should the case be remanded to determine total project cost and weighting of expenditures? | Remand unnecessary if expenditures substantial. | Total cost and ratio require proper consideration. | Remand required to determine extent and general cost and weight the ratio. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of County Commissioners, 237 Or.App. 149 (Or. App. 2010) (measures the interplay of Holmes factors and total project cost)
- Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of County Commissioners, 238 P.3d 1016 (Or. 2010) (emphasizes need to define total cost and expenditure ratio)
- Clackamas County v. Holmes, 265 Or. 193 (Or. 1973) (establishes Holmes factors for vested rights)
- Davis v. Jefferson County, 239 Or.App. 564 (Or. App. 2010) (applies Friends of Yamhill County principles)