2017 ORS 223.391¹
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

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

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 223—Local Improvements and Works Generally, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors223.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 223, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano223.­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.