2017 ORS 199.485¹
Commission authority to initiate major boundary change
  • resolution as petition
  • content and filing of resolution

(1) A boundary commission may initiate a proceeding for a major boundary change in territory subject to its jurisdiction by adopting and within 10 days thereafter filing with the proper filing agency a resolution proposing the change and by proceeding in accordance with the principal Act of the affected city or district, ORS 199.476 (When petition for major boundary change required), 199.480 (Filing of major boundary change order) and this section. When the resolution is filed with the filing agency, thereafter for all purposes the resolution shall be considered as if it were a petition filed in accordance with the principal Act.

(2) The resolution shall:

(a) Identify the affected city or district;

(b) State the kind of boundary change proposed;

(c) Contain a legal description of the boundaries of the affected territory;

(d) If the proposal concerns a district, designate the principal Act of the affected district;

(e) Have attached a map showing the location of the affected territory; and

(f) Include whatever additional information the principal Act of the affected city or district authorizes or requires petitioners to include in or with a petition for such a boundary change.

(3) In proceedings initiated under this section, the filing agency is not required to send a copy of the resolution to the boundary commission, but the commission shall, except in formation proceedings, file a certified copy of the resolution with the affected city or district within five days after the date the resolution is filed with the filing agency, unless the city or district is the filing agency. [1969 c.494 §15; 1971 c.462 §12; 1973 c.664 §5]

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.