2017 ORS 199.461¹
Study of proposed boundary change or other action
  • hearing
  • action by commission
  • judicial review
  • notice to public officials

(1) When the boundary commission receives a petition in a boundary change proceeding or an application for any proceeding allowed under ORS 199.464 (Commission approval for exercise of additional district function, to extraterritorially extend district or city sewer or water line or to establish privately owned community water system), it shall:

(a) Cause a study to be made of the proposal.

(b) Conduct one or more public hearings on the proposal.

(2) After the study and hearings, the boundary commission may alter the boundaries set out in a petition for formation or a minor boundary change of a city or district or in a petition for consolidation of cities so as either to include or exclude territory. If the commission determines that any land has been improperly omitted from the proposal and that the owner of the land has not appeared at the hearing, in person or by a representative designated in writing, the commission shall continue the hearing on the petition and shall order notice given to the nonappearing owner requiring appearance of the owner before the commission to show cause, if any, why the land should not be included in the proposal. For minor boundary change modifications, notice to nonappearing owners may be given by personal service or by letter sent by first-class mail, at least 10 days prior to the date to which the hearing has been continued. For major boundary change modifications, notice to nonappearing owners may be given by personal service, by letter sent by first-class mail or by a legal advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the area at least 15 days prior to the date to which the hearing has been continued. The required notice may be waived by the nonappearing owner.

(3) After the study and hearings the boundary commission may alter the application for extraterritorial sewer or water line extensions to include or exclude line and connections thereto, and may alter the application for formation of a privately owned sewer or water system or allocation of territory to a community water supply system to include or exclude territory. If the commission determines that any land has been improperly omitted from a proposal to form a private water or sewer system or allocate territory to a community water system, or that any line or connections have been improperly omitted from a proposal to extend extraterritorially a water or sewer line, and that the owner of the property to be included or to which the line is being extended has not appeared at the hearing, in person or by a representative designated in writing, the commission shall continue the hearing on the proposal and shall order notice given to the nonappearing owner requiring appearance of the owner before the commission to show cause, if any, why the land or line or connection should not be included in the proposal. Notice to nonappearing owners may be given by personal service or by letter sent by first-class mail, at least 10 days prior to the date to which the hearing has been continued. The required notice may be waived by the nonappearing owner.

(4) On the basis of the study and on the basis of the facts presented at the hearing, the boundary commission shall approve the proposed boundary change or application under ORS 199.464 (Commission approval for exercise of additional district function, to extraterritorially extend district or city sewer or water line or to establish privately owned community water system) as presented or as modified by the commission or disapprove the proposed change, by an order stating the reasons for the decision of the commission. Jurisdiction for judicial review of such an order is conferred upon the Court of Appeals. Except as provided in ORS 183.315 (Application of provisions of chapter to certain agencies) (1), any person interested in a boundary change may petition for judicial review of the order under ORS 183.482 (Jurisdiction for review of contested cases).

(5) Immediately after the effective date of a final order entered under subsection (4) of this section and a proclamation declaring a minor boundary change approved if any is entered under ORS 199.505 (Effective date of minor boundary changes) (3), the commission shall file a copy of the order and proclamation, if any, with the Secretary of State, the Department of Revenue, the assessor and the county clerk of each county in which the affected territory, city or district is located, and the clerk of the affected city or district. If the commission disapproves a minor boundary change, it shall send a copy of the final order to the person who actually filed the petition and to the affected city or district.

(6) Immediately after the effective date of a final order on an application under ORS 199.464 (Commission approval for exercise of additional district function, to extraterritorially extend district or city sewer or water line or to establish privately owned community water system), the commission shall file a copy of the order with the applicant, the Oregon Health Authority, the Department of Environmental Quality and the county planning department. [Formerly 199.475; 1979 c.772 §16; 1981 c.265 §9; 1983 c.336 §6; 1989 c.92 §16; 2009 c.595 §176]

Notes of Decisions

Local boundary com­mis­sion may not alter boundaries of area it orders to be annexed in excess of that which meets require­ments of ORS 222.170 (Annexation by consent before public hearing or order for election). Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govt. Boundary Comm., 21 Or App 420, 535 P2d 577 (1975)

Statute of limita­tions applicable to review of mi­nor boundary change order, whether by declaratory judg­ment or writ of review, is 30 days. Brooks v. Smith, 27 Or App 441, 556 P2d 696 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Under this sec­tion, where no issue about compliance with statewide planning goals was raised, boundary com­mis­sion had authority to grant mo­tion for stay of annexa­tion order from which city had ap­pealed. City of Wood Village v. Portland Met. LGBC, 45 Or App 585, 609 P2d 379 (1980)

Time for seeking review of boundary com­mis­sion order approving annexa­tion runs from date when filed and not from date when adopted. Donaldson v. Lane County Local Govt. Bdry. Comm., 93 Or App 280, 761 P2d 1349 (1988), aff’d 310 Or 168, 795 P2d 549 (1990)

In determining standing, ques­tion is not whether peti­tioners are entitled to relief sought, but whether they are entitled to an adjudica­tion, and where “any per­son interested in boundary change” may peti­tion for judicial review, peti­tioners alleging residence in proposed city partially annexed by defendant city show interest directly affected by annexa­tion orders and have standing to challenge them. Donaldson v. Lane County Local Govt. Bdry. Comm., 93 Or App 280, 761 P2d 1349 (1988), aff’d 310 Or 168, 795 P2d 549 (1990)

Boundary Commission was not re­quired to provide notice and hearing opportunities to per­sons who own prop­erty adjacent to area of annexa­tion when following expedited process of ORS 199.466 (Approval of annexation or extraterritorial extension without study or hearing) and failure to provide participatory rights was not viola­tion of due process. McGowan v. Lane County Local Govt. Bdry Comm., 102 Or App 381, 795 P2d 560 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

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.