Heppner urges Morrow County to reconsider Boardman annex; commissioners discuss statutory limits and caseload geography

John Doherty, city manager for Heppner, asked the Morrow County Board of Commissioners to reconsider a September decision to locate a circuit-court annex in Boardman, telling the board he believes state statutes and local history favor keeping primary court functions in Heppner.

Doherty cited multiple Oregon Revised Statutes governing judicial districts and county responsibilities for providing courtrooms, offices and jury rooms and said his city had gathered petitions and letters supporting a Heppner location. He told the board Heppner was prepared to contribute up to $1,000,000 for water infrastructure if a site in the city were chosen. “I asked the board of commissioners to consider again the promotion to site in Boardman,” Doherty said, urging reconsideration on statutory and community-support grounds.

Members of the public who spoke during the meeting voiced sharply divided views. Tess Anne, a community member, said she personally collected “over 120 signatures” backing keeping the historic courthouse open in Heppner while adding an annex elsewhere. Another resident said an additional petition gathered roughly 270 signatures opposing relocation away from Heppner. By contrast, several callers and local officials argued the population and caseload justify an annex in the county’s North End. Pat McNamee, calling from Aragon, said that “80% of the court cases originate in the North End according to the state,” and argued locating services closer to caseloads would reduce travel burdens for jurors and parties.

Commissioners discussed competing considerations: statutory authority, caseload distribution and community and economic impacts. One commissioner summarized the tradeoff as providing services where they serve the greatest number of people, citing Judge Hill’s data that a large share of civil and criminal cases come from the North End. Board members also noted the state is a funding partner, contributing about half of the state-funded courtroom space, and said the chief justice’s future orders could affect any final siting decision.

No formal reversal of the September motion was taken in open session. The board agreed to continue discussion rather than immediately changing the prior vote, and commissioners emphasized further engagement with the state judiciary, DLR Group siting advice and public input would shape next steps.

What happens next: Commissioners signaled they would take the statutory guidance, DLR Group siting study and recent town halls and petitions into account as they consider next procedural steps. The issue remains under board discussion and could return to a future meeting for formal action.