Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.480 (2026)

Filing of major boundary change order; effect of filing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      199.480 Filing of major boundary change order; effect of filing. In a proceeding for a major boundary change, a certified copy of the final order of the boundary commission shall be filed with the filing agency from which the commission received the petition. If the copy is so filed and:

      (1) If the commission approved the petition as presented or as modified, the proceeding shall continue as provided by the principal Act; except that when a commission considers and enters a final order on a petition:

      (a) The city council or county or district board need not call or hold a hearing on the petition and shall not change boundaries as described by the final order of the commission.

      (b) An election on the proposed change, if required under the principal Act, shall be held on the next appropriate election date authorized under the principal Act or under ORS 203.085, 221.230 or 255.345.

      (c) The final order, in a proceeding to merge or to consolidate districts or to dissolve a district and transfer its functions, assets and liabilities to a county service district, shall conclude the proceeding for all purposes; and the merger, consolidation or dissolution and transfer shall take effect on the date the order is adopted or at whatever date the commission specifies in its order which shall not be more than one year after the date the final order is adopted. A merger or consolidation to which this paragraph applies includes but is not limited to a merger or consolidation under ORS 198.705 to 198.955 that provides for joining a city to the surviving or successor district.

      (2) If the commission disapproved the petition, the proceeding shall terminate.

      (3) If the commission determines that a county service district subject to a determination of public need for continued existence shall be dissolved, it shall enter an order so providing and dissolution shall take effect at the end of the fiscal year in which the order of the commission is entered. [1969 c.494 §14; 1971 c.462 §11; 1973 c.664 §4; 1983 c.142 §12a; 1983 c.336 §14; 1987 c.504 §11; 1989 c.92 §22]

 

      199.483 [1987 c.882 §9; repealed by 1989 c.92 §39]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1983–1985 · leading case: Mid-cty. Future Alt. v. Port. Metro. Area Lgbc, 695 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mid-cty. Future Alt. v. Port. Metro. Area Lgbc, 695 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “" See also ORS 199.480. Petitioners argue, in essence, that ORS 199.”
Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “885(1) requires an election in the case of this proposed merger, Redland’s statutory argument fails and, therefore, the provisions of ORS 199.480(1) (b) do not apply. When a boundary commission enters a final order in a proceeding to merge districts, and no election is necessary…”
Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 695 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “” See also ORS 199.480. Petitioners argue, in essence, that ORS 199.”
Aloha Incorporation Advisory Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 695 P.2d 941 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 199.480(2). Petitioners did not tender the required filing fee to the commission until one month after the petition was filed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.480(1) — 1 case
Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “885(1) requires an election in the case of this proposed merger, Redland’s statutory argument fails and, therefore, the provisions of ORS 199.480(1) (b) do not apply. When a boundary commission enters a final order in a proceeding to merge districts, and no election is necessary…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.480(1)(b) — 1 case
Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “885(1) requires an election in the case of this proposed merger, Redland’s statutory argument fails and, therefore, the provisions of ORS 199.480(1) (b) do not apply. When a boundary commission enters a final order in a proceeding to merge districts, and no election is necessary…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.480(2) — 3 cases
Mid-cty. Future Alt. v. Port. Metro. Area Lgbc, 695 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “" See also ORS 199.480. Petitioners argue, in essence, that ORS 199.”
Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 695 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “” See also ORS 199.480. Petitioners argue, in essence, that ORS 199.”
Aloha Incorporation Advisory Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 695 P.2d 941 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 199.480(2). Petitioners did not tender the required filing fee to the commission until one month after the petition was filed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.480(l)(b) — 1 case
Redland Water Dist. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 665 P.2d 1241 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “885(1) requires an election in the case of this proposed merger, Redland’s statutory argument fails and, therefore, the provisions of ORS 199.480(1) (b) do not apply. When a boundary commission enters a final order in a proceeding to merge districts, and no election is necessary…”
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.