2017 ORS 223.594¹
Lien for water service to certain real property through single water meter
  • owner as water user
  • foreclosure

(1) When water service is provided to a multifamily building with five or more units with a single water meter, the owner of the real property shall be considered the user of the water. If payment for such water is not made when due and the water service has not been shut off or will not be shut off, the municipal utility may place a lien on the premises to which water service was provided for the amount due for such service.

(2) When requested by the property owner and authorized by the municipal utility, a single water meter may serve several parcels of real property owned by the same owner. The owner of those parcels of real property shall be considered the user of the water. If payment for such water is not made when due and the water has not been shut off or will not be shut off, the municipal utility providing such service may place a lien on the real property to which water service was provided for the amount due for such service.

(3) At any time after 60 days from the time the lien is entered in the lien docket of the local government, in addition to any method provided by law, ordinance or the charter of any local government, the lien may be foreclosed in the manner provided under ORS 223.510 (Authority to sell property for delinquent liens and assessments) to 223.595 (Validation of prior foreclosure proceedings). [1993 c.786 §4; 2003 c.802 §45]

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.