2017 ORS 222.170¹
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

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 222—City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors222.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 222, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano222.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.