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. (1) Approval or disapproval under this section shall
be based on the policy stated in ORS 199.410.
(2) Without the
approval of a boundary commission, a district with territory in the
jurisdiction of the commission may not initiate an additional function of the
district. Any proposal by a district to initiate an additional function shall
be referred immediately to the boundary commission that has jurisdiction of the
territory in which the district lies. The district shall take no further action
on the proposal unless the commission approves the proposal as proposed or
modified.
(3) Except for
lines which provide no extraterritorial service, without the approval of a
boundary commission, a city or district with territory in the jurisdiction of
the commission shall not extend a water or sewer line extraterritorially to an
extent not effected on October 5, 1973. Tentative plans for such
extraterritorial extension shall be submitted to the boundary commission that
has jurisdiction of the territory in which the extension is proposed. If the
commission disapproves the plans, no further action may be taken.
(4) Except as
provided in subsection (5)(d) of this section, within territory subject to the
jurisdiction of a boundary commission, no person may establish a community
water supply system or a privately owned sewerage system or privately owned
disposal system or extend a water line or sewer line without commission
approval. Tentative plans for such approval shall be submitted to the boundary
commission that has jurisdiction of the territory for which the establishment
or extension is proposed. However, extension by a city or district of water
lines or sewer lines shall be governed by subsection (3) of this section and
the requirements of this section shall not apply to establishment of a
city-owned or district-owned community water supply system within its
boundaries.
(5)(a) A
community water supply system within the territory subject to the jurisdiction
of a commission may apply to the commission for allocation of service
territory. If the territory is allocated to a community water supply system, no
other community water supply system may serve within the territory without
approval of the commission and the approval may not be given so long as the
existing system is reliable and has an adequate quality and quantity of water.
(b) In condemning
all or part of the properties and allocated service territory of a private
community water supply system through eminent domain, the acquisition price
shall be fair market value.
(c) No part of
the acquisition price for all or part of a community water supply system
acquired by eminent domain shall be specially assessed against the property
within the acquired service territory, or its owners on a special benefit
assessment basis.
(d) A community
water supply system to which service territory has been allocated under this
subsection may extend or establish water lines within the territory without
further approval of the commission.
(6) Action which
under this section requires approval by a boundary commission but is taken
without that approval may be enjoined, upon suit in a court of competent
jurisdiction, by the boundary commission in whose territorial jurisdiction the
action is taken.
(7) As used in
this section:
(a) “Community
water supply system” means a source of water and distribution system whether
publicly or privately owned that serves more than three residences or other
users where water is provided for public consumption including, but not limited
to, a school, farm labor camp, an industrial establishment, a recreational
facility, a restaurant, a motel, a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park,
or a group care home.
(b) “Disposal
system” is that system described by ORS 468B.005, except for individual
subsurface disposal systems.
(c) “Sewer line”
includes every gravity sewer line that is eight inches or more in diameter and
all force lines regardless of size, except a line connecting a sewer system
with the premises of the user unless the line provides for extraterritorial
extension of service.
(d) “Sewerage
system” is that system described by ORS 468B.005.
(e) “Tentative
plans” submitted to the boundary commission for approval shall include:
(A) For the
establishment of a water system or extension of a water line:
(i) The source of
the supply and quantity of water available.
(ii) The
transmission, distribution and storage system size and location.
(iii) The
proposed number of service connections, a map, and a legal description
indicating the proposed service area.
(B) For the
establishment of a sewer system or extension of a sewer line:
(i) The location
of the treatment facility and outfall or other method of disposal.
(ii) The size and
location of the collection system.
(iii) The
proposed number of service connections, a map, and a legal description
indicating the proposed service area.
(f) “Water line”
includes every water line except a line connecting a community water supply
system with the premises of the water user unless the line provides for
extraterritorial extension of service. [1973 c.684 §2; 1975 c.330 §1; 1979
c.374 §3; 1979 c.880 §4; 1983 c.336 §9; 1989 c.92 §19; 1989 c.648 §58; 2003
c.469 §2; 2005 c.22 §149]
199.465 [1969 c.494 §11; 1971 c.462 §10;
1973 c.433 §1; 1981 c.890 §6; renumbered 199.476]
(Boundary Change
Procedure)
Notes of Decisions
Eklund v. Clackamas Cnty., 583 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 3× “The Boundary Commission argues that, in making its decision, it must consider economic, demographic and sociological trends (ORS 199.464(1)) and the state-wide goals and guidelines of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, as well as the County Comprehensive Plan and…”
McGowan v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 795 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “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…”
Babcock v. Sherwood Sch. Dist. 88J, 90 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“did not convert a process into a quasi-adjudication: “[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…”
Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n v. City of Eugene, 578 P.2d 473 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 5× “The issue presented is whether, without the approval of the Boundary Commission, ORS 199.464(3) precludes the extension of water lines by EWEB to areas outside the city limits of the City of Eugene, but within three defined areas EWEB contracted to serve prior to the enactment…”
Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 689 P.2d 326 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“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 directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed boundary change or application…”
Crist v. City of Beaverton, 922 P.2d 1253 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“ORS 199.464(3). Further, for the reasons stated by LUBA, the final administrative decision regarding the annexation of respondent’s property to the city is also within the boundary commission’s rather than LUBA’s jurisdiction and, at least before annexation occurs, authority to…”
Brown v. City of Eugene, 279 P.3d 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Under ORS 199.464 (1975), the boundary commissions’ functions included approving establishment of new community water supply systems and extensions of water lines by existing systems, including city-owned systems like EWEB’s.”
Donaldson v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 795 P.2d 549 (Or. 1990).
“461(4) provides: “On the basis of the study and on the basis of the facts presented at the hearing, the boundary commission shall approve the proposed boundary change or application under ORS 199.464 as presented or as modified by the commission or disapprove the proposed…”
Mcgowan v. Lane Cty. L. Gov. Bdry. Com'n, 795 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “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…”
Bellinger v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 915 P.2d 430 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “That statute provides: "(1) When filing an annexation petition or application under ORS 199.464(3) or (4) with a boundary commission, the principal petitioner may request that the petition or application be approved without the study, public hearing and adoption of a final order…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.464(1) — 1 case
Eklund v. Clackamas Cnty., 583 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“The Boundary Commission argues that, in making its decision, it must consider economic, demographic and sociological trends (ORS 199.464(1)) and the state-wide goals and guidelines of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, as well as the County Comprehensive Plan and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.464(3) — 5 cases
McGowan v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 795 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“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…”
Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n v. City of Eugene, 578 P.2d 473 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“The issue presented is whether, without the approval of the Boundary Commission, ORS 199.464(3) precludes the extension of water lines by EWEB to areas outside the city limits of the City of Eugene, but within three defined areas EWEB contracted to serve prior to the enactment…”
Crist v. City of Beaverton, 922 P.2d 1253 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“ORS 199.464(3). Further, for the reasons stated by LUBA, the final administrative decision regarding the annexation of respondent’s property to the city is also within the boundary commission’s rather than LUBA’s jurisdiction and, at least before annexation occurs, authority to…”
Bellinger v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 915 P.2d 430 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“That statute provides: "(1) When filing an annexation petition or application under ORS 199.464(3) or (4) with a boundary commission, the principal petitioner may request that the petition or application be approved without the study, public hearing and adoption of a final order…”
Mcgowan v. Lane Cty. L. Gov. Bdry. Com'n, 795 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
“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…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.464(4) — 1 case
Eklund v. Clackamas Cnty., 583 P.2d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“The Boundary Commission argues that, in making its decision, it must consider economic, demographic and sociological trends (ORS 199.464(1)) and the state-wide goals and guidelines of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, as well as the County Comprehensive Plan and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.464(5)(a) — 1 case
Brown v. City of Eugene, 279 P.3d 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Under ORS 199.464 (1975), the boundary commissions’ functions included approving establishment of new community water supply systems and extensions of water lines by existing systems, including city-owned systems like EWEB’s.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.464(7) — 1 case
Brown v. City of Eugene, 279 P.3d 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“Under ORS 199.464 (1975), the boundary commissions’ functions included approving establishment of new community water supply systems and extensions of water lines by existing systems, including city-owned systems like EWEB’s.”
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.