Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490 (2026)

Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory

✓ current as of May 2026

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

199.490 Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory. (1) A proceeding for a minor boundary change other than a transfer of territory may be initiated:

(a) By resolution of the governing body of the affected city or district;

(b) By petition signed by 10 percent of the electors registered in the affected territory;

(d) By resolution of a boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory; or

(e) When the minor boundary change is a withdrawal of a city from a district, by resolution of the governing body of the city, which shall be an affected city for the purposes of ORS 199.410 to 199.534.

(2)(a)(A) An annexation proceeding may also be initiated by a resolution adopted by the governing body of the affected city or district upon receiving consent to annex their land in writing from more than half of the owners of land in the territory proposed to be annexed, who also own more than half of the land in the territory proposed to be annexed and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the territory proposed to be annexed.

(B) A resolution adopted by the governing body of the affected city or district upon receiving written consent to annexation from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent to the annexation of their land from the owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed.

(b) However, before soliciting statements of consent for the purpose of authorizing an annexation under a proceeding initiated as provided by this subsection, the governing body of the affected city or district shall file a notice of intent to annex with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory. The notice of intent to annex shall name the affected city or district and generally describe the boundaries of the territory sought to be annexed, which territory must be contiguous to the city or district or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. The notice of intent to annex shall have attached to it a county assessor’s cadastral map showing the location of the affected territory that the city or district proposes to annex.

(c) For the purpose of this subsection, consent need not be obtained for any land in a public way included within or contiguous to the territory proposed to be annexed. However, land in such a public way shall, as determined by the commission, be considered annexed to the affected city or district if the minor boundary change is approved, regardless of the land’s ownership, size or assessed valuation.

(d) For the purpose of this subsection, consent need not be obtained for any real property that is publicly owned, is the right of way for a public utility, telecommunications utility or railroad or is exempt from ad valorem taxation unless the owner of such property files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation with the legislative body of the annexing city or district on or before the date the city or district adopts the resolution required by paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(e) As used in this subsection, “owner” has the additional meaning given that term in ORS 222.120 (7).

(3) A transfer of territory proceeding may be initiated:

(a) By joint resolution of the governing bodies of the affected districts or cities;

(b) By petition signed by 10 percent of the electors registered in the affected territory;

(d) By resolution of a boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory.

(4) The petition or resolution shall:

(a) Name the affected city or district and state whether it is proposed to annex, withdraw or transfer territory;

(b) Describe the boundaries of the affected territory;

(d) Have attached a county assessor’s cadastral map showing the location of the affected territory; and

(e) Be filed with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the affected territory.

(5) When a city annexation is initiated:

(a) As provided by ORS 222.750 the petition proposing the annexation shall be filed with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the annexation.

(b) As provided by ORS 222.840 to 222.915, the findings adopted by the Director of the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 222.880 shall be considered the initiatory action and a certified copy of the findings shall be filed with the boundary commission having jurisdiction of the annexation, at the same time a copy of the finding is filed with the affected city.

(6) Except when a boundary change is initiated by an affected city or district under subsection (1), (2), (3) or (5) of this section or by the director as provided by subsection (5)(b) of this section, the boundary commission shall notify the affected city or district that a petition has been filed or that the commission has adopted a resolution. If the petition complies with the requirements of the applicable statutes, the commission shall proceed as provided by ORS 199.460 to 199.463 and 199.490 to 199.519.

(7) Unless the parties appearing at a hearing for a minor boundary change or application under ORS 199.464 agree to a postponement of the adoption of a final order, a final order approving or disapproving a minor boundary change must be adopted within 90 days after the date the petition, resolution or application is filed with the commission. If a final order approving or disapproving a minor boundary change is not adopted within 90 days after the petition, resolution or application is filed or within the period of postponement, the petition, resolution or application shall be considered approved by the commission. A postponement shall not be for a period exceeding one year from the date the petition, resolution or application initiating the proposal is filed with the commission. [1969 c.494 §16; 1971 c.462 §14; 1973 c.808 §1; 1975 c.157 §3; 1975 c.361 §3; 1979 c.880 §1; 1983 c.83 §11; 1983 c.336 §16; 1985 c.702 §18; 1987 c.447 §114; 1987 c.737 §1; 1989 c.92 §24; 1989 c.176 §1; 1997 c.541 §348; 2009 c.595 §177]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 1972–2020 · leading case: Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. City of Portland, 795 P.2d 541 (Or. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. City of Portland, 795 P.2d 541 (Or. 1990). · cites it 7× “12 Plaintiffs also claim support from the decision of the legislative counsel to specifically enumerate those sections amended by the Or Laws 1987, ch 818, especially ORS 199.490, in the codified version of ch 818, § 3.”

Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “7 ORS 199.490 provides for annexations to effectuate minor boundary changes or territory transfers in municipalities and districts.”

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 728 P.2d 63 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 11× “1 ORS 199.490 provides, in part: 2 Or Const, Art I, § 20, provides: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Johnson v. City of La Grande, 1 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “855, ORS 199.490(2), ORS 222.125 and, the applicable statute here, ORS 222.”

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× “On May 20, 1983, the City of Portland submitted a proposal for the annexation of certain property pursuant to ORS 199.490(2), which authorizes the initiation of annexation proceedings by the adoption of a resolution by the affected city, with the consent of more than half of the…”

Green v. City of Tucson, 340 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2003). “Or.Rev.Stat. § 199.490(2)(a)(B); see Hussey, 64 F.”

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. City of Portland, 770 P.2d 604 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs argue that section 3 suffers from the same defect, because some of the annexations that it validates were initiated through the triple majority procedure.”

Dement Ranch v. Curry Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 474 P.3d 435 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Curry County Board of Commissioners Dement and the county focus heavily on ORS 607.012 as context to support their argument that there is an implied contiguity requirement in ORS 607.”

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 742 P.2d 47 (Or. 1987). · cites it 2× “*91 PER CURIAM By final orders of March 28,1985, the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission ordered that certain tracts of land be annexed to the City of Portland as of that date. Opponents of the annexations sought judicial review in the Court of…”

River Road Water Dist. v. City of Eugene, 492 P.2d 812 (Or. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “It was the only part of ORS 199.490 which was changed in the bill as originally drawn.”

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 733 P.2d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Petitioners point out, correctly, that there is no constitutional defect in that consent process itself.”

Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Auth. v. City of Medford, 880 P.2d 486 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “487: “Notwithstanding ORS 199.490(2)(b), 222.173(1), 222.175 or any other requirement for obtaining consent to annexation, a city or district may use a consent to annexation contained in contracts authorized by section 2 or 4 oí this 1991 Act in formulating annexation proposals…”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(1) — 5 cases

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 728 P.2d 63 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “1 ORS 199.490 provides, in part: 2 Or Const, Art I, § 20, provides: “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

Donaldson v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 782 P.2d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 809 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(1)(b) — 2 cases

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 809 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(2) — 13 cases

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. City of Portland, 795 P.2d 541 (Or. 1990). “12 Plaintiffs also claim support from the decision of the legislative counsel to specifically enumerate those sections amended by the Or Laws 1987, ch 818, especially ORS 199.490, in the codified version of ch 818, § 3.”

Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “7 ORS 199.490 provides for annexations to effectuate minor boundary changes or territory transfers in municipalities and districts.”

Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 689 P.2d 326 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “On May 20, 1983, the City of Portland submitted a proposal for the annexation of certain property pursuant to ORS 199.490(2), which authorizes the initiation of annexation proceedings by the adoption of a resolution by the affected city, with the consent of more than half of the…”

Johnson v. City of La Grande, 1 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “855, ORS 199.490(2), ORS 222.125 and, the applicable statute here, ORS 222.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(2)(a) — 2 cases

Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(2)(a)(A) — 1 case

Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(2)(a)(B) — 3 cases

Green v. City of Tucson, 340 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2003). “Or.Rev.Stat. § 199.490(2)(a)(B); see Hussey, 64 F.”

Mid-Cnty. Future Alternatives Comm. v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 809 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(2)(b) — 3 cases

Johnson v. City of La Grande, 1 P.3d 1036 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “855, ORS 199.490(2), ORS 222.125 and, the applicable statute here, ORS 222.”

Citizens Against Annexation v. Lane Cnty. Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 711 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(3) — 1 case

Peterson v. Portland Metro. Area Local Gov't Boundary Comm'n, 535 P.2d 577 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(3)(e) — 1 case

State ex rel City of Happy Valley v. Dept. of Rev., 23 Or. Tax 193 (Or. T.C. 2018).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(l)(a) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 199.490(l)(c) — 1 case

Rivergate Residents Ass'n v. Land Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 590 P.2d 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

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.