Case Name: JACK GRAY TRANSPORT, INC., and Martha Peck Andrews, Respondents, and METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT, Intervenor - Respondent, v. Vicki K. ERVIN, Defendant, and E. Kimbark MacCOLL, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-07-01
Citations: 113 Or. App. 742
Docket Number: A8906-03120; CA A66490
Parties: JACK GRAY TRANSPORT, INC., and Martha Peck Andrews, Respondents, and METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT, Intervenor - Respondent, v. Vicki K. ERVIN, Defendant, and E. Kimbark MacCOLL, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 113
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 8,
affirmed July 1,
reconsideration denied August 19,
petition for review denied October 27, 1992 (314 Or 573)
JACK GRAY TRANSPORT, INC., and Martha Peck Andrews, Respondents, and METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT, Intervenor - Respondent, v. Vicki K. ERVIN, Defendant, and E. Kimbark MacCOLL, Appellant.
([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A66490)
833 P2d 1349
Robert L. Kirkman, Judge pro tempore, and Robert W. Redding, Judge.
Greg Wasson, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Rick T. Haselton, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Jack Gray Transport, Inc. and Martha Peck Andrews. Lawrence S. Shaw, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Metropolitan Service District. With them on the brief were Lindsay, Hart, Neil & Weigler and Metropolitan Service District, Portland.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
MacColl appeals from the trial court's judgment enjoining defendant Ervin, the Multnomah County elections director, from placing a measure on the ballot that purportedly would have referred to the voters the Metropolitan Service District's award of a contract to Jack Gray Transport, Inc., for hauling solid waste. The basis for the trial court's decision was that the award of the contract was an administrative action, not a legislative one, and that it was therefore not subject to referendum.
In his first assignment of error, MacColl contends that that ruling was incorrect. We agree with the ruling. See Foster v. Clark, 309 Or 464, 790 P2d 1 (1990), and authorities there cited; Monahan v. Funk, 137 Or 580, 3 P2d 778 (1931).
The other assignment of error does not warrant discussion.
Affirmed.