2017 ORS 199.476¹
When petition for major boundary change required
  • when economic feasibility statement required
  • effect of filing petition
  • effect of appeal

(1) When a major boundary change is initiated by a legally sufficient petition as provided by the principal Act, if the territory subject to the petition is within the jurisdiction of a boundary commission, the filing agency notwithstanding the principal Act, shall file, within 10 days after the petition is filed, a certified copy of the petition with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the change. If the petition proposes formation, consolidation or merger of a city or district it shall be accompanied by the economic feasibility analysis and an estimate of the tax rate derived from the feasibility analysis that will be required to provide the services or functions of the proposed city or district. The analysis and estimate of the tax rate shall be prepared in cooperation with the county assessor and the Department of Revenue. The analysis shall include among other items a description of the services or functions to be performed or provided by the new unit and an analysis of their relationship to other existing or needed government services. The analysis shall also include a first year line item operating budget and a projected third year line item operating budget.

(2) The proceeding under the principal Act shall be suspended from the date the petition is filed with the filing agency until the date the commission files a certified copy of its final order with the filing agency. Suspension of the proceeding under this section shall not continue for more than 120 days after the date the commission receives the petition.

(3) If a final order is not adopted within the 120 days, the petition shall be considered approved by the commission.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, if a final order of a commission is appealed for review by the Court of Appeals and a copy of the petition for judicial review is filed with the filing agency within 60 days after the date on which the final order is issued, the suspension period shall be extended and continue until the petition for judicial review is determined and the results thereof certified to the filing agency.

(5) A determination by the board of directors of a county service district that there is a public need for the continued existence of the district shall be reviewed as provided in this section. [Formerly 199.465; 1983 c.336 §13; 1987 c.504 §10; 1987 c.882 §10; 1989 c.92 §21]

See also annota­tions under ORS 199.465 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Boundary com­mis­sion is not re­quired to consider peti­tion to incorporate city until re­quired filing fee has been paid, and 120-day period for com­mis­sion to approve or disapprove peti­tion does not begin to run until fee is paid. Aloha Advisory Comm. v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC, 72 Or App 299, 695 P2d 941 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

ORS 222.210 (Authority to consolidate adjoining and nonadjoining cities or territories) to 222.310 (Construction of ORS 222.210 to 222.310) require that at least two cities participate in initiating consolida­tion, and peti­tion by filing city for consolida­tion of new city to consist of filing city and unincorporated territory was legally insufficient. Mid-County Future Alt. v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC, 300 Or 14, 706 P2d 924 (1985)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

No applica­tion to livestock district, (1976) Vol 37, p 1508

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.