199.410
Policy. (1) The
Legislative Assembly finds that:
(a) A fragmented
approach has developed to public services provided by local government.
Fragmentation results in duplications in services and resistance to cooperation
and is a barrier to planning implementation. Such an approach has limited the
orderly development and growth of Oregon’s urban areas to the detriment of the
citizens of this state.
(b) The programs
and growth of each unit of local government affect not only that particular
unit but also the activities and programs of a variety of other units within
each urban area.
(c) As local
programs become increasingly intergovernmental, the state has a responsibility
to insure orderly determination and adjustment of local government boundaries
to best meet the needs of the people.
(d) Local
comprehensive plans define local land uses but may not specify which units of
local government are to provide public services when those services are
required.
(e) Urban
population densities and intensive development require a broad spectrum and
high level of community services and controls. When areas become urbanized and
require the full range of community services, priorities are required regarding
the type and levels of services that the residents need and desire. Community
service priorities need to be established by weighing the total service needs
against the total financial resources available for securing services. Those
service priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, conditions and
limited financial resources. A single governmental agency, rather than several
governmental agencies is in most cases better able to assess the financial
resources and therefore is the best mechanism for establishing community
service priorities.
(2) It is the
intent of the Legislative Assembly that each boundary commission establish
policies and exercise its powers under this chapter in order to create a
governmental structure that promotes efficiency and economy in providing the
widest range of necessary services in a manner that encourages and provides
planned, well-ordered and efficient development patterns.
(3) The purposes
of ORS 199.410 to 199.534 are to:
(a) Provide a
method for guiding the creation and growth of cities and special service
districts in Oregon in order to prevent illogical extensions of local
government boundaries and to encourage the reorganization of overlapping
governmental agencies;
(b) Assure
adequate quality and quantity of public services and the financial integrity of
each unit of local government;
(c) Provide an
impartial forum for the resolution of local government jurisdictional
questions;
(d) Provide that
boundary determinations are consistent with acknowledged local comprehensive
plans and are, in conformance with statewide planning goals. In making boundary
determinations the commission shall first consider the acknowledged
comprehensive plan for consistency of its action. Only when the acknowledged
local comprehensive plan provides inadequate policy direction shall the
commission consider the statewide planning goals. The commission shall consider
the timing, phasing and availability of services in making a boundary
determination; and
(e) Reduce the
fragmented approach to service delivery by encouraging single agency service
delivery over service delivery by several agencies. [1969 c.494 §1; 1981 c.265 §1;
1989 c.92 §8; 1997 c.541 §347]
Notes of Decisions
Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 689 P.2d 326 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “462(1) provides that in order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.410, 6 the Commission shall: “* * * consider economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would…”
Norvell v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 604 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“462(1) provides: "In order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.410 when reviewing a petition for a boundary change, a boundary commission shall consider economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, and past and prospective…”
McGowan v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 795 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“464, a boundary commission shall consider local comprehensive planning for the area, economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the…”
River Road Water Dist. v. City of Eugene, 492 P.2d 812 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “⑦ The 1971 amendments (Oregon Laws 1971, ch 462, Section 19, p 731) provide: “All boundary changes initiated and purported to be effected in accordance with ORS 199.410 to 199.540 prior to the effective date of this Act are hereby ratified and declared to be valid…”
Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 6× “715(2) provides: “Except as otherwise provided by ORS 199.410 to 199.519 [proceedings before a boundary commission for the formation or change of organization of special districts], all district formation and change of organization proceedings shall be initiated, conducted and…”
McKnight v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 704 P.2d 1153 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“See ORS 199.410 et seq. Although susceptible to petitioners’ reading, we are satisfied that, read as a whole, the rule effectively assigns responsibility to the boundary commissions under the circumstances petitioners describe and that it does not require counties and cities to…”
Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n v. City of Eugene, 578 P.2d 473 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“Among the stated purposes of ORS ch 199 is the prevention of "illogical extensions of local government boundaries” and the assurance of "adequate quality and quantity of public services * * ORS 199.410(2). If that policy was not offended by the situation as it existed prior to…”
Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “) The referenced exhibit details how the annexation will meet the policy considerations and “purposes” outlined in ORS 199.410. Finally, the exhibit lists “reasons” for the annexation, including that the “proposal was supported by the City of Florence and the owners of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.410(1)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.410(2) — 6 cases
Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“715(2) provides: “Except as otherwise provided by ORS 199.410 to 199.519 [proceedings before a boundary commission for the formation or change of organization of special districts], all district formation and change of organization proceedings shall be initiated, conducted and…”
Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n v. City of Eugene, 578 P.2d 473 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“Among the stated purposes of ORS ch 199 is the prevention of "illogical extensions of local government boundaries” and the assurance of "adequate quality and quantity of public services * * ORS 199.410(2). If that policy was not offended by the situation as it existed prior to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.410(2)(b) — 1 case
Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“715(2) provides: “Except as otherwise provided by ORS 199.410 to 199.519 [proceedings before a boundary commission for the formation or change of organization of special districts], all district formation and change of organization proceedings shall be initiated, conducted and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.410(2)(d) — 1 case
Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 689 P.2d 326 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“462(1) provides that in order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.410, 6 the Commission shall: “* * * consider economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, past and prospective physical development of land that would…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.410(3)(d) — 1 case
Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“) The referenced exhibit details how the annexation will meet the policy considerations and “purposes” outlined in ORS 199.410. Finally, the exhibit lists “reasons” for the annexation, including that the “proposal was supported by the City of Florence and the owners of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.410(3)(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.