Chapter 199

199.410 to 199.512

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

199.410

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Boundary Commission should have addressed effect on city’s continuing financial viability of proposed annexation of undeveloped land to neighboring city, effect of proposed annexation on unincorporated “island” which would have been created by annexation, and effect of annexation on existing fire district where sufficient evidence was presented to raise these issues. City of Wood Village v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 48 Or App 79, 616 P2d 528 (1980)

Statutory recitation of general considerations of policy and purpose does not constitute specific approval criteria that dictate particular results. Multnomah County Rural Fire v. Portland Metro. Area, 126 Or App 351, 868 P2d 783 (1994)

199.415

NOTES OF DECISIONS

A district is an “affected district” within the meaning of ORS chapter 199 only when a separate petition for withdrawal addressed to and approved by the local government boundary commission is necessary in order to withdraw land. River Rd. Water Dist. v. Eugene, 8 Or App 290, 492 P2d 812 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Withdrawal of territory from a district, (1975) Vol 37, p 737

199.457

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Charges imposed on districts to finance commission activities comply with constitutional requirement for uniformity of taxation notwithstanding that some geographic areas may be located within more than one assessed district. Tualatin Fire Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Government Boundary Comm., 9 OTR 281 (1983)

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

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Funding methods for boundary commission, (1982) Vol 42, p 277

199.461

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Local boundary commission may not alter boundaries of area it orders to be annexed in excess of that which meets requirements of ORS 222.170. Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govt. Boundary Comm., 21 Or App 420, 535 P2d 577 (1975)

Statute of limitations applicable to review of minor boundary change order, whether by declaratory judgment or writ of review, is 30 days. Brooks v. Smith, 27 Or App 441, 556 P2d 696 (1976), Sup Ct review denied

Under this section, where no issue about compliance with statewide planning goals was raised, boundary commission had authority to grant motion for stay of annexation order from which city had appealed. City of Wood Village v. Portland Met. LGBC, 45 Or App 585, 609 P2d 379 (1980)

Time for seeking review of boundary commission order approving annexation runs from date when filed and not from date when adopted. Donaldson v. Lane County Local Govt. Bdry. Comm., 93 Or App 280, 761 P2d 1349 (1988), aff’d 310 Or 168, 795 P2d 549 (1990)

In determining standing, question is not whether petitioners are entitled to relief sought, but whether they are entitled to an adjudication, and where “any person interested in boundary change” may petition for judicial review, petitioners alleging residence in proposed city partially annexed by defendant city show interest directly affected by annexation orders and have standing to challenge them. Donaldson v. Lane County Local Govt. Bdry. Comm., 93 Or App 280, 761 P2d 1349 (1988), aff’d 310 Or 168, 795 P2d 549 (1990)

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 ORS 199.466 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

199.462

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In annexation proceedings, boundary commission’s findings which recited that evidence existed to show statewide planning goals were not violated were inadequate to meet commission’s responsibility under this section. Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 849, 604 P2d 896 (1979)

Statutory recitation of general considerations of policy and purpose set forth in ORS 199.410 does not constitute specific approval criteria that dictate particular results. Multnomah County Rural Fire v. Portland Metro. Area, 126 Or App 351, 868 P2d 783 (1994)

Boundary commission must consider statewide planning goals only when local comprehensive plan does not provide adequate policy direction. Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane County LGBC, 233 Or App 587, 226 P3d 711 (2010)

199.463

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Quasi-judicial boundary commission proceeding denying petition to annex 88 acres to city was subject to contested case procedures of ORS 183.415, and lesser procedures required by this section were insufficient. Fosses v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 647, 603 P2d 1235 (1979)

199.464

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where city, prior to establishment of Boundary Commission, assumed assets and liabilities of satellite water districts, but annexed only portions of such districts, extension of water service to unannexed portions was not “extraterritorial” extension within meaning of this section. Lane County v. City of Eugene, 34 Or App 257, 578 P2d 473 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Concerning Land Conservation and Development Commission goals upon water service applications, (1976) Vol 38, p 490

199.466

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)

199.476

See also annotations under ORS 199.465 in permanent edition.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

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

199.487

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)

199.490

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 (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

199.495

NOTES OF DECISIONS

So-called “triple majority” annexations initiated pursuant to ORS 199.490 (2) no longer depended for validity on constitutionality of this section where territory in dispute was annexed by other means, legislative command through subsequent legislation. Mid-County Future Alt. v. Metro Area LGBC, 304 Or 89, 742 P2d 47 (1987)

199.505

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Withdrawal of territory from a district, (1975) Vol 37, p 737

199.510

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Withdrawal of territory from a district, (1975) Vol 37, p 737

199.534

NOTES OF DECISIONS

This section is independent source of validity of annexations and does not violate equal protection and privileges and immunities rights of non-landowners in affected areas originally annexed through “triple majority procedure.” Mid-County Future Alternatives v. City of Portland, 95 Or App 556, 770 P2d 604 (1989), aff’d 310 Or 152, 795 P2d 541 (1990)