2017 ORS 199.460¹
Jurisdiction of boundary commission over boundary changes

(1) A boundary commission has jurisdiction of a proceeding to consider a boundary change if any part of the territory included or proposed to be included within the affected city or district is within the jurisdiction of the commission.

(2) If the territory subject to the proceeding is within the jurisdiction of two or more commissions, the highest assessed value commission shall have primary jurisdiction in the conduct of the proceeding under ORS 199.410 (Policy) to 199.534 (Legislative annexation of territory to cities and districts), and all other commissions having jurisdiction of the territory shall cooperate in the conduct of the proceeding. On the call of the highest assessed value commission, the commissions shall meet as a joint commission to hold hearings and to adopt a final order in the proceeding. As used in this subsection, “highest assessed value commission” means the commission having jurisdiction of the greatest portion of the taxable assessed valuation of the affected territory. [1969 c.494 §10; 1971 c.462 §6; 1989 c.92 §15; 1997 c.516 §6]

Notes of Decisions

The statutory scheme of authority and pro­ce­dures for com­mis­sions created by this Act, plus adherence to the prescribed pro­ce­dure as set out in the Act, release the com­mis­sions from the limita­tions placed upon local govern­mental bodies in zone-change matters in Fasano v. Washington County Comm., 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23 (1973). Marion County Fire Dist. 1 v. Marion-Polk County Local Govt. Boundary Comm., 19 Or App 108, 526 P2d 1031 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

In Proceeding Involving Proposed Merger of Three Water Districts

1) no elec­tion was re­quired before com­mis­sion order approving merger could take effect; 2) com­mis­sion made the findings re­quired by statute; 3) com­mis­sion’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, adequate for review and sufficient to support its order; and 4) these sec­tions did not constitute invalid delega­tion of legislative power. Redland Water District v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 63 Or App 641, 665 P2d 1241 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Dissolu­tion of insolvent metropolitan service district, (1972) Vol 35, p 1117

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 199—County Consolidation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors199.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 199, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano199.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.