Local Improvements and Works Generally

ORS 223.391
Notice of proposed assessment to owner of affected lot

If a notice is required to be sent to the owner of a lot affected by a proposed assessment, the notice shall be addressed to the owner or the owner’s agent. If the address of the owner or of the owner’s agent is unknown to the recorder, the recorder shall mail the notice addressed to the owner or the owner’s agent at the address where the property is located. Any mistake, error, omission or failure with respect to the mailing shall not be jurisdictional or invalidate the assessment proceedings, but there shall be no foreclosure or legal action to collect until notice has been given by personal service upon the property owner, or, if personal service cannot be had, then by publication once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper designated by the governing body and having general circulation within the boundaries of the local government where the property is located. [1959 c.219 §3; 1991 c.902 §38; 2003 c.802 §29]

Notes of Decisions

Where no notice to affected property owners had been given, ordinances attempting to establish "special district" for public parking were ineffective. Collins v. Rathbun, 43 Or App 857, 604 P2d 441 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

§§ 223.387 to 223.399

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Application of Ballot Measure 47 (Oregon Constitution Article XI, section 11g) to issuance of bonds for specific local improvements, (1996) Vol 48, p 67

Chapter 223

Notes of Decisions

Fact that ordinance, which charged fee to property owners taking advantage of privilege of making connection to city water system, specified that payment would be secured by liens which would be "enforced" in matter provided by this chapter did not, of itself, show that such charges were "assessments." Montgomery Brothers v. City of Corvallis, 34 Or App 785, 580 P2d 190 (1978)

Circuit court has jurisdiction to determine merits of assessment, but cannot address whether assessment is subject to constitutional limits on property taxes. Martin v. City of Tigard, 14 OTR 517 (1999), aff'd 335 Or 444, 72 P3d 619 (2003)

State statutory procedures for financing local improvements are not exclusive and do not displace consistent local procedures. Baker v. City of Woodburn, 190 Or App 445, 79 P3d 901 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS