inefficiency increases, and to promote the public health, peace and safety. County
home rule was an adaptation of city home rule, with limitations thereon to assure
that state functions traditionally imposed upon counties by the state be continued.
We conclude that with reference to matters of local concern, the authority of a
county under a home rule charter may be as broad as that of a city. (Emphasis
added)
Grant v. Multnomah County, 14 Or App 78, 511 P2d 1278 (1973)
Issue: Whether Article VI, section 10 gives home rule counties the authority to give
employees of the county’s department of judicial administration retirement benefits
different from those given to employees of the county’s department of public safety.
Holding: Yes. Article VI, section 10 gives home rule counties broad powers over county
administrative departments.
Allison v. Washington County, 24 Or App 571, 548 P2d 188 (1975)
Issue: Whether county-created zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans are
subject to the initiative and referendum process.
Holding: In the absence of state preemption or a limiting charter provision, the
authority given a home rule county by Article VI, section 10 and the authority given a
general law county by ORS 203.035, is the same. That authority subjects land use laws to
the local initiative and referendum process when the laws are primarily of
local concern. This result follows, in part, from State ex rel Heinig v. Milwaukie, 231 Or
473, 373 P2d 680 (1962)
Multnomah County v. Mittleman, 275 Or 545, 552 P2d 242 (1976)
Issue: Article VI, section 10 reserves to the people the “referendum powers” given them
by the constitution. The issue was whether these powers included the power of a
referendum as to new taxes; specifically, whether a home rule county may attach the
emergency clause to an ordinance levying a new tax, thus preventing a
referendum on the ordinance.
Holding: The power to hold a referendum concerning new taxes is indeed reserved by
Article VI, section 10. A charter county may not avoid a referendum on a tax measure
by declaring an emergency.
Olsen v. State ex rel Johnson, 276 Or 9, 554 P2d 139 (1976)
Issue: None relevant to Article VI, section 10.
Dictum: In dictum, the court compared the authority of home rule counties to the
authority of municipalities. The court stated: “In Oregon [the] emphasis on local control
is constitutionally accentuated. Art XI, section 2, and Art VI, section 10, of the Oregon
Constitution provide for home rule by cities and counties; that is, the voters of the cities
and counties can enact their own charters which shall govern on matters of city or
county concern.” 276 Or at 25.
City of Banks v. Washington County 29 Or App 495, 564 P2d 720 (1977)
Issue: Whether Article VI, section 10 gives a home rule county authority to pass on to
the taxing districts within the county the cost of collecting taxes.
99