2017 ORS 199.490¹
Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory

(1) A proceeding for a minor boundary change other than a transfer of territory may be initiated:

(a) By resolution of the governing body of the affected city or district;

(b) By petition signed by 10 percent of the electors registered in the affected territory;

(c) By petition signed by the owners of at least one-half the land area in the affected territory;

(d) By resolution of a boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory; or

(e) When the minor boundary change is a withdrawal of a city from a district, by resolution of the governing body of the city, which shall be an affected city for the purposes of ORS 199.410 (Policy) to 199.534 (Legislative annexation of territory to cities and districts).

(2)(a)(A) An annexation proceeding may also be initiated by a resolution adopted by the governing body of the affected city or district upon receiving consent to annex their land in writing from more than half of the owners of land in the territory proposed to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory proposed to be annexed and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the territory proposed to be annexed.

(B) A resolution adopted by the governing body of the affected city or district upon receiving written consent to annexation from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent to the annexation of their land from the owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed.

(b) However, before soliciting statements of consent for the purpose of authorizing an annexation under a proceeding initiated as provided by this subsection, the governing body of the affected city or district shall file a notice of intent to annex with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory. The notice of intent to annex shall name the affected city or district and generally describe the boundaries of the territory sought to be annexed, which territory must be contiguous to the city or district or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. The notice of intent to annex shall have attached to it a county assessor’s cadastral map showing the location of the affected territory that the city or district proposes to annex.

(c) For the purpose of this subsection, consent need not be obtained for any land in a public way included within or contiguous to the territory proposed to be annexed. However, land in such a public way shall, as determined by the commission, be considered annexed to the affected city or district if the minor boundary change is approved, regardless of the land’s ownership, size or assessed valuation.

(d) For the purpose of this subsection, consent need not be obtained for any real property that is publicly owned, is the right of way for a public utility, telecommunications utility or railroad or is exempt from ad valorem taxation unless the owner of such property files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation with the legislative body of the annexing city or district on or before the date the city or district adopts the resolution required by paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(e) As used in this subsection, “owner” has the additional meaning given that term in ORS 222.120 (Procedure for annexation without election) (7).

(3) A transfer of territory proceeding may be initiated:

(a) By joint resolution of the governing bodies of the affected districts or cities;

(b) By petition signed by 10 percent of the electors registered in the affected territory;

(c) By petition signed by the owners of at least one-half the land area in the affected territory; or

(d) By resolution of a boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory.

(4) The petition or resolution shall:

(a) Name the affected city or district and state whether it is proposed to annex, withdraw or transfer territory;

(b) Describe the boundaries of the affected territory;

(c) If the proposal concerns a district, designate the applicable principal Act;

(d) Have attached a county assessor’s cadastral map showing the location of the affected territory; and

(e) Be filed with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory.

(5) When a city annexation is initiated:

(a) As provided by ORS 222.750 (Annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city) the petition proposing the annexation shall be filed with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the annexation.

(b) As provided by ORS 222.840 (Short title) to 222.915 (Application of ORS 222.840 to 222.915), the findings adopted by the Director of the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 222.880 (Oregon Health Authority order or finding) shall be considered the initiatory action and a certified copy of the findings shall be filed with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the annexation, at the same time a copy of the finding is filed with the affected city.

(6) Except when a boundary change is initiated by an affected city or district under subsection (1), (2), (3) or (5) of this section or by the director as provided by subsection (5)(b) of this section, the boundary commission shall notify the affected city or district that a petition has been filed or that the commission has adopted a resolution. If the petition complies with the requirements of the applicable statutes, 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 199.519 (Effective date of boundary change).

(7) Unless the parties appearing at a hearing for a minor 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) agree to a postponement of the adoption of a final order, a final order approving or disapproving a minor boundary change must be adopted within 90 days after the date the petition, resolution or application is filed with the commission. If a final order approving or disapproving a minor boundary change is not adopted within 90 days after the petition, resolution or application is filed or within the period of postponement, the petition, resolution or application shall be considered approved by the commission. A postponement shall not be for a period exceeding one year from the date the petition, resolution or application initiating the proposal is filed with the commission. [1969 c.494 §16; 1971 c.462 §14; 1973 c.808 §1; 1975 c.157 §3; 1975 c.361 §3; 1979 c.880 §1; 1983 c.83 §11; 1983 c.336 §16; 1985 c.702 §18; 1987 c.447 §114; 1987 c.737 §1; 1989 c.92 §24; 1989 c.176 §1; 1997 c.541 §348; 2009 c.595 §177]

Notes of Decisions

Where boundary com­mis­sion issued annexa­tion order after Court of Appeals decision holding statewide planning goals inapplicable to annexa­tion pro­ceed­ings and before Supreme Court decision requiring boundary com­mis­sions to make findings addressing applicable statewide planning goals, LCDC followed lawful pro­ce­dure when it reviewed record to determine whether boundary com­mis­sion adequately considered substance of planning goals. Rivergate Residents Assn. v. LCDC, 38 Or App 149, 590 P2d 1233 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

So-called “triple majority” annexa­tion no longer depended for validity on constitu­tionality of ORS 199.495 (Effective date of certain annexations) (1) as it related to annexa­tions initiated pursuant to this sec­tion where territory in dispute was annexed by other means, legislative command by sub­se­quent legisla­tion. Mid-County Future Alt. v. Metro Area LGBC, 304 Or 89, 742 P2d 47 (1987)

Contiguity is not re­quired for annexa­tions of land within boundary com­mis­sion jurisdic­tions. Donaldson v. Lane County Local Govt. Bdry. Comm., 99 Or App 430, 782 P2d 449 (1989)

Double majority annexa­tion pro­ce­dure of this sec­tion does not violate Article I, sec­tion 20, of the Oregon Constitu­tion. Mid-County Future v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC, 106 Or App 647, 809 P2d 1354 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Double majority method of annexa­tion is subject to same constitu­tional standards re­gard­ing voting rights as conven­tional elec­tion. Hussey v. City of Portland, 64 F3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1995)

Resolu­tion that initiates annexa­tion does not need to identify whether city calculated con­sent pursuant to triple majority require­ment or double majority require­ment. Citizens Against Annexa­tion v. Lane County LGBC, 233 Or App 587, 226 P3d 711 (2010)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Withdrawal of territory from a district, (1975) Vol 37, p 737

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.