222.111
Authority and procedure for annexation; specifying tax rate in annexed
territory. (1)
When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner
provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or
222.840 to 222.915, the boundaries of any city may be extended by the
annexation of territory that is not within a city and that is contiguous to the
city or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake
or other body of water. Such territory may lie either wholly or partially
within or without the same county in which the city lies.
(2) A proposal
for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body
of the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the
city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed.
(3)(a) Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the proposal for annexation may
provide that, during each of not more than 10 full fiscal years beginning with
the first fiscal year after the annexation takes effect, the rate of taxation
for city purposes on property in the annexed territory shall be at a specified
ratio of the highest rate of taxation applicable that year for city purposes to
other property in the city.
(b) For purposes
of paragraph (a) of this subsection, a proposal for annexation initiated by the
legislative body of a city may provide for a duration of not more than 20 full
fiscal years.
(c) The proposal
may provide for the ratio to increase from fiscal year to fiscal year according
to a schedule of increase specified in the proposal, but in no case may the
proposal provide for a rate of taxation for city purposes in the annexed
territory that exceeds the highest rate of taxation for city purposes
applicable to other property in the city for the current year.
(d) If the
annexation takes place pursuant to a proposal providing for taxation at a
ratio, the city may not tax property in the annexed territory at a rate other
than the ratio that the proposal authorizes for that fiscal year.
(e)
Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this subsection, during the term of fiscal
years provided for pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, the ratio
shall be 100 percent for property that is sold or transferred to new ownership,
beginning with the first property tax year that begins after the sale or
transfer.
(4)(a) When the
territory to be annexed includes a part less than the entire area of a district
named in ORS 222.510, the proposal for annexation may provide that if
annexation of the territory occurs the part of the district annexed into the
city is withdrawn from the district as of the effective date of the annexation.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, if the affected district is a
district named in ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of
territory shall be determined as provided in ORS 222.465.
(5) The
legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS
222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation
to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when
permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting
the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body
of the city shall submit such proposal to the electors of the city. The
proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special
election to be held for that purpose.
(6) The proposal
for annexation may be voted upon by the electors of the city and of the
territory simultaneously or at different times not more than 12 months apart.
(7) Two or more
proposals for annexation of territory may be voted upon simultaneously, but in
the city, each proposal shall be stated separately on the ballot and voted on
separately, and in the territory proposed for annexation, no proposal for
annexing other territory may appear on the ballot. [1957 c.613 §2 (enacted in
lieu of 222.110); 1959 c.415 §1; 1967 c.624 §13; 1985 c.702 §7; 2019 c.315 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 14× “120, 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, if the city legislative body submits the question to the electors of the city.”
1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Cnty. Court, 703 P.2d 207 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 2× “175(1) provided: “Cities and counties shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities, including * * * the annexation of unincorporated territory pursuant to ORS 222.111 to 222.750 and the formation of and annexation of territory to any district * * * in accordance…”
Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 617 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “” The charter requirement that there be an election in the annexing city on every proposed annexation (with exceptions not relevant here) differs from the election requirements of ORS 222.111 et seq. Under those statutes (again with immaterial exceptions), the governing body of…”
Kelly v. Silver, 549 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The proposal may contain terms of annexation as provided in ORS 222.111 * * (Emphasis supplied.) ORS 222.”
Neuberger v. City of Portland, 586 P.2d 351 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “"(3) As used in this section, `annexation' means the annexation of unincorporated territory by a city pursuant to ORS 222.111 to 222.750 and the formation of an annexation of territory to any district authorized by ORS 451.”
Petersen v. Mayor Etc. City of Klamath Falls, 566 P.2d 1193 (Or. 1977).
“275, the annexation of unincorporated territory pursuant to ORS 222.111 to 222.750 and the formation of and annexation of territory to any district authorized by ORS 198.”
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. City of St. Helens, 907 P.2d 259 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 10× “The statute provides: “When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or 222.840 to 222.”
State Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Gebbie, 614 P.2d 1144 (Or. 1980).
· cites it 3× “) *405 Under the general annexation statutes, ORS 222.111 to 222.750, annexation of territory to a city typically requires, among other things, either approval from a majority of "the registered voters” of the territory proposed for annexation (ORS 222.”
Petersen v. Mayor & Council of Klamath Falls, 555 P.2d 801 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “ORS 222.111(1) provides that "* * * the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory not then within a city and which territory is contiguous to the city * * Annexation, then, is a process of boundary extension, not of determining land uses.”
Kane v. City of Beaverton, 122 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“Specifically, petitioners contend that the right to vote is granted to residents and property owners in non-“island” territories by ORS 222.111(5). That statute provides: “The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.”
Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. City of Beaverton, 138 P.3d 23 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“According to petitioner, under Oregon Laws 1987, chapter 737, section 3, which is compiled as a note before ORS 222.111, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city may not annex property without the owner’s permission when the property is not residential, is zoned for…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.111(1) — 7 cases
Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev. v. City of St. Helens, 907 P.2d 259 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“The statute provides: “When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or 222.840 to 222.”
Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 617 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“” The charter requirement that there be an election in the annexing city on every proposed annexation (with exceptions not relevant here) differs from the election requirements of ORS 222.111 et seq. Under those statutes (again with immaterial exceptions), the governing body of…”
Petersen v. Mayor & Council of Klamath Falls, 555 P.2d 801 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“ORS 222.111(1) provides that "* * * the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory not then within a city and which territory is contiguous to the city * * Annexation, then, is a process of boundary extension, not of determining land uses.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.111(2) — 3 cases
Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“120, 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, if the city legislative body submits the question to the electors of the city.”
Kelly v. Silver, 549 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“The proposal may contain terms of annexation as provided in ORS 222.111 * * (Emphasis supplied.) ORS 222.”
Petersen v. Mayor & Council of Klamath Falls, 555 P.2d 801 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“ORS 222.111(1) provides that "* * * the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory not then within a city and which territory is contiguous to the city * * Annexation, then, is a process of boundary extension, not of determining land uses.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.111(3) — 3 cases
Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 617 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“” The charter requirement that there be an election in the annexing city on every proposed annexation (with exceptions not relevant here) differs from the election requirements of ORS 222.111 et seq. Under those statutes (again with immaterial exceptions), the governing body of…”
State Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Gebbie, 614 P.2d 1144 (Or. 1980).
“) *405 Under the general annexation statutes, ORS 222.111 to 222.750, annexation of territory to a city typically requires, among other things, either approval from a majority of "the registered voters” of the territory proposed for annexation (ORS 222.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.111(5) — 3 cases
Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“120, 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, if the city legislative body submits the question to the electors of the city.”
Kane v. City of Beaverton, 122 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“Specifically, petitioners contend that the right to vote is granted to residents and property owners in non-“island” territories by ORS 222.111(5). That statute provides: “The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.