Chapter 261

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      People’s utility district does not possess exclusive right to provide service within boundaries of district. Douglas Electric Cooperative v. Central Lincoln People’s Utility District, 164 Or App 251, 991 P2d 1060 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: County clerk’s and county governing body’s duty to determine validity of voters’ petition to form people’s utility district, (1980) Vol 40, p 367

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 7 EL 315 (1977); 16 WLR 549 (1979)

      261.050

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Market data approach to valuation of people’s utility district’s property was proper. Emerald People’s Utility Dist. v. Dept. of Rev., 10 OTR 207 (1986)

      261.118

See also annotations under ORS 261.040 in permanent edition.

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Effect of withdrawal by a sponsoring member, (1976) Vol 38, p 26

      261.235 to 261.255

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      If cities and PUDs otherwise had authority to enter Participants’ Agreement with WPPSS, enactment of Thermal Power Facilities Act did not supersede or restrict that authority, except for policy against financing another participant’s share. DeFazio v. WPPSS, 296 Or 550, 679 P2d 1316 (1984)

      261.305

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Purpose stated in both resolution and election notice tracked this section and ORS 261.355, granting powers to people’s utility districts, that purpose was legal, and resolution and notice were valid on their face. Pac. Power & Light v. Emerald P.U.D., 58 Or App 21, 646 P2d 1360 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

      Participants’ Agreement between PUDs and WPPSS was not “borrowing” for purposes of this section. DeFazio v. WPPSS, 296 Or 550, 679 P2d 1316 (1984)

      This section grants public utility districts authority to acquire existing hydroelectric facilities either by contract or by eminent domain. Emerald PUD v. PP&L, 302 Or 256, 729 P2d 552 (1986)

      Power of public utility district to condemn existing hydroelectric facilities already producing power for public consumption arises by necessary implication. Emerald PUD v. PP&L, 302 Or 256, 729 P2d 552 (1986)

      261.345

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Union has standing to challenge validity of public body’s contract on ground that it fails to require payment of prevailing rate of wage. Int’l Electrical Workers v. Central Lincoln PUD, 69 Or App 127, 684 P2d 611 (1984)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 51 OLR 54 (1971)

      261.355

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Purpose stated in both resolution and election notice tracked this section and ORS 261.305, granting powers to people’s utility districts, that purpose was legal, and resolution and notice were valid on their face. Pac. Power & Light v. Emerald P.U.D., 58 Or App 21, 646 P2d 1360 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

      261.375

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Peoples utility district revenue bond election notice phrase “not to exceed”, which modified amount and term of bonds to be voted on, did not render election notice too indefinite under this section or ORS 255.085 requiring “statement” of term and amount and was not misleading. Pac. Power & Light v. Emerald P.U.D., 58 Or App 21, 646 P2d 1360 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

      261.615

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Requirement of this section that Court of Appeals hear and determine proceedings under ORS 261.605 to 261.630 within three months from time of taking of appeal is constitutional. State ex rel Emerald PUD v. Joseph, 292 Or 357, 640 P2d 1011 (1982)