222.120
Procedure for annexation without election; hearing; ordinance subject to
referendum. (1)
Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative
body of a city is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory
to the electors of the city for their approval or rejection.
(2) When the
legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of
the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of
the city shall fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at
which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of
annexation.
(3) The city
legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each
week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be
posted in four public places in the city for a like period.
(4) After the
hearing, the city legislative body may, by an ordinance containing a legal
description of the territory in question:
(a) Declare that
the territory is annexed to the city upon the condition that the majority of
the votes cast in the territory is in favor of annexation;
(b) Declare that
the territory is annexed to the city where electors or landowners in the
contiguous territory consented in writing to such annexation, as provided in
ORS 222.125 or 222.170, prior to the public hearing held under subsection (2)
of this section; or
(c) Declare that
the territory is annexed to the city where the Oregon Health Authority, prior
to the public hearing held under subsection (1) of this section, has issued a
finding that a danger to public health exists because of conditions within the
territory as provided by ORS 222.840 to 222.915.
(5) If the
territory described in the ordinance issued under subsection (4) of this
section is a part less than the entire area of a district named in ORS 222.510,
the ordinance may also declare that the territory is withdrawn from the district
on the effective date of the annexation or on any subsequent date specified in
the ordinance. However, 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.
(6) The ordinance
referred to in subsection (4) of this section is subject to referendum.
(7) For the
purpose of this section, ORS 222.125 and 222.170, “owner” or “landowner” means
the legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded land contract which is
in force, the purchaser thereunder. If there is a multiple ownership in a
parcel of land each consenting owner shall be counted as a fraction to the same
extent as the interest of the owner in the land bears in relation to the
interest of the other owners and the same fraction shall be applied to the
parcel’s land mass and assessed value for purposes of the consent petition. If
a corporation owns land in territory proposed to be annexed, the corporation
shall be considered the individual owner of that land. [Amended by 1953 c.220 §2;
1955 c.51 §1; 1961 c.511 §1; 1967 c.624 §14; 1971 c.673 §2; 1985 c.702 §8; 1987
c.818 §11; 1993 c.18 §39; 2009 c.595 §180]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case:
Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “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.”
Kane v. City of Beaverton, 122 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “That statute provides: “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…”
Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 617 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “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…”
Green v. City of Tucson, 340 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2003).
“Or.Rev.Stat. § 222.120(4)(a). We concluded in Hussey that the written consents of voters required under the double majority annexation procedure were the constitutional equivalent of votes: “Both [votes and written consents] must be returned by registered voters; both are…”
Kelly v. Silver, 549 P.2d 1134 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“111(2) provides for the usual manner in Oregon of submitting a question of annexation to the voters of the city except in those cases where that is unnecessary under ORS 222.120 which, in turn, provides for annexation without a vote in the city in certain specified situations…”
Morsman v. City of Madras, 100 P.3d 761 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “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…”
Heilman v. City of Roseburg, 591 P.2d 390 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“The applicable ordinance provides that the council is to review zone change applications based on the record of the hearing before the commission "[w]ithout further hearing, unless the council should elect otherwise, but with the right of oral argument by any party.”
State Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Gebbie, 614 P.2d 1144 (Or. 1980).
“111(3)) or consent from more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than half of the land in the territory and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the territory (ORS 222.120(2); 222.170).…”
Skourtes v. City of Tigard, 444 P.2d 22 (Or. 1968).
“th the foRowing provisions: “(2) If the city legislative body has not dispensed with submitting the question to the registered voters of the city and a majority of the votes cast on the proposition within the city are in favor of annexation, or if the city legislative body has…”
Khosroabadi v. North Clackamas Parks & Rec. Dist., 347 Or. App. 465 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× ““(6) The public hearing and ordinance referred to in this section may be the same as the public hearing and ordinance in ORS 222.120.” Cite as 347 Or App 465 (2026) 469 in ORS chapter 198 expressly prohibited the city from enter- ing into a contract that provides for a…”
Khosroabadi v. North Clackamas Parks & Rec. Dist., 347 Or. App. 465 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× ““(6) The public hearing and ordinance referred to in this section may be the same as the public hearing and ordinance in ORS 222.120.” Cite as 347 Or App 465 (2026) 469 in ORS chapter 198 expressly prohibited the city from enter- ing into a contract that provides for a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.120(2) — 2 cases
Morsman v. City of Madras, 126 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“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.”
State Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Gebbie, 614 P.2d 1144 (Or. 1980).
“111(3)) or consent from more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than half of the land in the territory and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the territory (ORS 222.120(2); 222.170).…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.120(3) — 1 case
Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 617 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“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…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.120(4)(a) — 1 case
Green v. City of Tucson, 340 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2003).
“Or.Rev.Stat. § 222.120(4)(a). We concluded in Hussey that the written consents of voters required under the double majority annexation procedure were the constitutional equivalent of votes: “Both [votes and written consents] must be returned by registered voters; both are…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.120(7) — 1 case
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.