City Boundary Changes

ORS 222.170
Annexation by consent before public hearing or order for election

  • proclamation of annexation


(1)

The legislative body of the city need not call or hold an election in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed if more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than half of the land in the contiguous territory and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the contiguous territory consent in writing to the annexation of their land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body on or before the day:

(a)

The public hearing is held under ORS 222.120 (Procedure for annexation without election), if the city legislative body dispenses with submitting the question to the electors of the city; or

(b)

The city legislative body orders the annexation election in the city under ORS 222.111 (Authority and procedure for annexation), if the city legislative body submits the question to the electors of the city.

(2)

The legislative body of the city need not call or hold an election in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed if a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed consent in writing to annexation and the owners of more than half of the land in that territory consent in writing to the annexation of their land and those owners and electors file a statement of their consent with the legislative body on or before the day:

(a)

The public hearing is held under ORS 222.120 (Procedure for annexation without election), if the city legislative body dispenses with submitting the question to the electors of the city; or

(b)

The city legislative body orders the annexation election in the city under ORS 222.111 (Authority and procedure for annexation), if the city legislative body submits the question to the electors of the city.

(3)

If the city legislative body has not dispensed with submitting the question to the electors of the city and a majority of the votes cast on the proposition within the city favor annexation, or if the city legislative body has previously dispensed with submitting the question to the electors of the city as provided in ORS 222.120 (Procedure for annexation without election), the legislative body, by resolution or ordinance, shall set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation.

(4)

Real property that is publicly owned, is the right of way for a public utility, telecommunications carrier as defined in ORS 133.721 (Definitions for ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739) or railroad or is exempt from ad valorem taxation shall not be considered when determining the number of owners, the area of land or the assessed valuation required to grant consent to annexation under this section unless the owner of such property files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation with the legislative body of the city on or before a day described in subsection (1) of this section. [Amended by 1955 c.51 §2; 1961 c.511 §2; 1971 c.673 §1; 1973 c.434 §1; 1983 c.350 §36; 1985 c.702 §11; 1987 c.447 §117; 1987 c.737 §4; 1999 c.1093 §12]

Notes of Decisions

The legislature did not intend to give a local boundary commission the authority to order an annexation of any area which does not meet the requirements of this section regardless of the fact that the area originally petitioned for did comply with this section. Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govt. Boundary Comm., 21 Or App 420, 535 P2d 577 (1975)

Consents or contracts to consent to annexation given by property owners prior to 1991 in exchange for services are ineffective unless annexation plan was submitted to owner before consent was requested. Johnson v. City of La Grande, 167 Or App 35, 1 P3d 1036 (2000)

Where city obtains landowner consents meeting triple majority requirement for area to be annexed, alteration of area description before city finally proclaims annexation does not require that consents be reissued. Morsman v. City of Madras, 196 Or App 67, 100 P3d 761 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

Triple majority system of annexation does not violate state or federal constitutional rights to equal protection. Morsman v. City of Madras, 203 Or App 546, 126 P3d 6 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 222

Notes of Decisions

Provisions of this chapter do not require final decisions on small tract annexations to be made in quasi-judicial proceedings rather than by popular vote. Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 48 Or App 709, 617 P2d 921 (1980), Sup Ct review denied


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021