2017 ORS 199.487¹
Commission authority to initiate minor boundary change
  • nonapplicability of certain boundary change procedures
  • effect of commission action

(1) Within the jurisdiction of a boundary commission, a minor boundary change proceeding may be initiated as provided by ORS 199.490 (Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory). In addition, a city annexation proceeding may be initiated as provided by ORS 222.750 (Annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city) or 222.840 (Short title) to 222.915 (Application of ORS 222.840 to 222.915). Minor boundary change proceedings shall be conducted as provided by this section and ORS 199.490 (Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory) to 199.534 (Legislative annexation of territory to cities and districts).

(2) ORS 222.111 (Authority and procedure for annexation) to 222.180 (Effective date of annexation), 222.460 (Procedures for withdrawal of territory) and the statutes of the state that govern annexation of territory to, or withdrawal of territory from, districts do not apply in territory subject to the jurisdiction of a boundary commission. However, a city annexation proposal initiated under ORS 199.490 (Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory) may include a tax differential proposal authorized by ORS 222.111 (Authority and procedure for annexation) (3). Notwithstanding ORS 199.490 (Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory) (2)(b), 222.173 (Time limit for filing statements of consent) (1), 222.175 (City to provide information on taxes and services when soliciting statements of consent) or any other requirement for obtaining consent to annexation, a city or district may use a consent to annexation contained in contracts authorized by ORS 198.869 (Annexation contract) or 222.115 (Annexation contracts) in formulating annexation proposals or petitions under ORS 198.855 (Annexation election), 199.490 (Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory) (2), 222.125 (Annexation by consent of all owners of land and majority of electors) or 222.170 (Annexation by consent before public hearing or order for election) for properties whose owners have signed such consents to annexation. ORS 222.530 (Procedure for division of assets on withdrawal of part of district) shall not apply in territory subject to the jurisdiction of a boundary commission unless the affected territory constitutes at least 60 percent of the area and 60 percent of the assessed value of the district.

(3) Notwithstanding any charter or statutory provision to the contrary, a final order or a proclamation of a boundary commission declaring a minor boundary change approved is effective to change the boundary of the city or district without the necessity of any further action by the electors or the governing body of the city or district. [Formerly 199.540; 1979 c.880 §3; 1983 c.336 §15; 1985 c.702 §17; 1989 c.92 §23; 1989 c.1063 §12; 1991 c.637 §6]

Notes of Decisions

Use of con­sents to annexa­tion contained in contracts for “formulating annexa­tion proposals” allows applica­tion of con­sents toward satisfac­tion of majority-con­sent pro­vi­sions. Johnson v. City of La Grande, 167 Or App 35, 1 P3d 1036 (2000)

Use of con­sents in contracts to formulate annexa­tion proposal “for properties whose owners have signed such con­sents to annexa­tion” does not limit scope of proposal to properties of con­senting owners. Johnson v. City of La Grande, 167 Or App 35, 1 P3d 1036 (2000)

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.