Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.462 (2026)

Standards for review of boundary changes; territory that may not be included in certain boundary changes

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

199.462 Standards for review of boundary changes; territory that may not be included in certain boundary changes. (1) In order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.410 when reviewing a petition for a boundary change or application under ORS 199.464, 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 proposed boundary change or application under ORS 199.464 and the goals adopted under ORS 197.225.

(2) Subject to any provision to the contrary in the principal Act of the affected district or city and subject to the process of transfer of territory:

(a) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to a district without the consent of the city council;

(b) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to another city; and

(c) Territory within a district may not be included within or annexed to another district subject to the same principal Act. [Formerly 199.515; 1975 c.361 §2; 1979 c.374 §2; 1981 c.748 §18; 1983 c.336 §7; 1989 c.92 §17]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1974–2010 · leading case: State Ex Rel. City of Powers v. Coos Cnty. Airport Dist., 119 P.3d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. City of Powers v. Coos Cnty. Airport Dist., 119 P.3d 225 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “805(1) requires that the county "shall hear the petition and determine, in accordance with the criteria prescribed by ORS 199.462, if the area could be benefitted by the formation of the district.”

Donaldson v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 761 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “3 ORS 199.462(2) (b) provides, in part: “(2) Subject to any provision to the contrary in the principal Act of the affected district or city and subject to the process of transfer of territory: M* * * * * “(b) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to…”

Norvell v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 604 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “We think, however, that the amendment only made explicit what was implicit in ORS 199.462(1) prior to that time. See ORS 197.”

McGowan v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 795 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “The closest they come is ORS 199.462(1): “In order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.”

City of Wood Vill. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 616 P.2d 528 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5× “” ORS 199.462(1). We turn first to petitioner’s contention that Wood Village would be an adequate provider of services.”

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× “Moreover, the other property owners’ expressed desire to be absorbed by the city in order to permit the more efficient and economical delivery of urban services is sufficient to dispel any notion that there was no value to be derived from the annexation. Finally, we reject…”

Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “” ORS 199.462(1). Although Redland points out that, during hearings before the commission, the question of possible annexation was raised and counsel for Clairmont stated that “Clairmont is working with * * * Oregon City trying to coordinate the installation of water…”

Marion Cnty. Fire Dist. 1 v. Marion-Polk Cnty. Boundary Comm'n, 526 P.2d 1031 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). “” ORS 199.462(1). Following this language are set forth specific boundary changes that may not be made, none of which are applicable at bar.”

Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “Both rules, read in context, reflect the same policy as ORS 199.462 and ORS 199.410, namely, that the acknowledged local comprehensive plan itself addresses the application of the goals to the annexation and further goal findings are necessary only where the plan is inadequate…”

City of Wood Vill. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 609 P.2d 379 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “ORS 199.462(1) requires boundary commissions to apply the statewide planning goals.”

Donaldson v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 795 P.2d 549 (Or. 1990). “ORS 199.462(2) (b) limits the authority of a Boundary Commission to authorize annexation of territory: “Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to another city.”

Multnomah Cnty. Rural Fire Prot. Dist. No. 10 v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 868 P.2d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “410, “[enumerate] general factors that must be given some consideration before a decision is made; it does not articulate specific criteria that a boundary commission is ‘bound to apply’ as substantive tests in reaching a decision.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.462(1) — 10 cases

Norvell v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 604 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “We think, however, that the amendment only made explicit what was implicit in ORS 199.462(1) prior to that time. See ORS 197.”

McGowan v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 795 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “The closest they come is ORS 199.462(1): “In order to carry out the purposes described by ORS 199.”

City of Wood Vill. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 616 P.2d 528 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “” ORS 199.462(1). We turn first to petitioner’s contention that Wood Village would be an adequate provider of services.”

Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 689 P.2d 326 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “Moreover, the other property owners’ expressed desire to be absorbed by the city in order to permit the more efficient and economical delivery of urban services is sufficient to dispel any notion that there was no value to be derived from the annexation. Finally, we reject…”

Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “” ORS 199.462(1). Although Redland points out that, during hearings before the commission, the question of possible annexation was raised and counsel for Clairmont stated that “Clairmont is working with * * * Oregon City trying to coordinate the installation of water…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.462(2) — 2 cases

Donaldson v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 761 P.2d 1349 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “3 ORS 199.462(2) (b) provides, in part: “(2) Subject to any provision to the contrary in the principal Act of the affected district or city and subject to the process of transfer of territory: M* * * * * “(b) Territory within a city may not be included within or annexed to…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.462(2)(b) — 2 cases

Donaldson v. Lane Cty. L. Gov. Bdry. Com'n, 795 P.2d 549 (Or. 1990).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.462(4) — 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.