2017 ORS 199.466¹
Approval of annexation or extraterritorial extension without study or hearing
  • conditions
  • appeal

(1) When filing an annexation petition 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) (3) or (4) with a boundary commission, the principal petitioner may request that the petition or application be approved without the study, public hearing and adoption of a final order required under ORS 199.461 (Study of proposed boundary change or other action). If such request is made, the executive officer of the commission, not later than the 15th day after the filing of the petition or application, shall prepare a brief analysis of the petition or application and a recommendation for disposition of the proceeding, and send a copy of the analysis and recommendation to each commission member, to the governing body of each city, county and district with territory affected by the annexation or extension, to the owners of the affected territory and to such other persons as may be required by the commission. If the executive officer fails to prepare the analysis and recommendation by the 15th day after the filing of the petition or application, then the petition or application shall be approved only after the study, public hearing and adoption of the final order required under ORS 199.461 (Study of proposed boundary change or other action).

(2) If, within 25 days after the filing of an annexation petition or application for an extraterritorial water or sewer line extension, a person or governing body that received a copy of the executive officer’s analysis and recommendation under subsection (1) of this section does not ask in writing for a public hearing on the proceeding under ORS 199.461 (Study of proposed boundary change or other action), the petition or application shall be considered approved by the commission. After such approval, the executive officer of the commission shall send written notification of the approval to the officials and persons described in ORS 199.461 (Study of proposed boundary change or other action) (5) or (6). For an annexation petition, the notification shall contain a legal description and map describing the territory approved for annexation, and for 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) (3) or (4), a general description and map of the territory affected by the extension. If a request for a public hearing is received by the commission within the 25-day period after the filing, the commission shall proceed as provided by ORS 199.460 (Jurisdiction of boundary commission over boundary changes) to 199.463 (Notice) and 199.490 (Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory) to 199.534 (Legislative annexation of territory to cities and districts).

(3) Any person, city, county or district may appeal the approval of a petition or tentative plans under this section as provided in ORS 199.461 (Study of proposed boundary change or other action) (4). [1981 c.265 §14; 1983 c.336 §12; 1989 c.92 §20]

Notes of Decisions

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 this sec­tion 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

Content of staff analysis is subject to court review for adequacy on narrow grounds. Bellinger v. Lane County Local Govern­ment Boundary Comm., 140 Or App 185, 915 P2d 430 (1996)

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.