222.170
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, 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.
(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, 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.
(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,
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 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
Morsman v. City of Madras (2006)
orctapp · cites it 16×
“Third, at a subsequent hearing on August 26,2003, the Morsmans did, for the first time, raise the argument that ORS 222.170 is unconstitutional. Thereafter, at a continuation of that hearing, on September 23, 2003, petitioner Shepherd specifically endorsed and adopted all…”
Johnson v. City of La Grande (2000)
orctapp · cites it 17×
“The City of La Grande adopted a decision to annex a 155-parcel area, including respondents’ property, without an election pursuant to ORS 222.170. Respondents appealed to LUBA, which remanded the decision to the city.”
Morsman v. City of Madras (2004)
orctapp · cites it 15×
“Third, at a subsequent hearing on August 26, 2003, the Morsmans did, for the first time, raise the argument that ORS 222.170 is unconstitutional. Thereafter, at a continuation of that hearing, on September 23, 2003, petitioner Shepherd specifically endorsed and adopted all…”
Stewart v. City of Corvallis (1980)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“, acting on a "triple majority” annexation petition under ORS 222.170, 3 had "to result in a decision” by *714 the city council, unlike annexations initiated by other statutory methods.”
Skourtes v. City of Tigard (1968)
or · cites it 8×
“The trial court held that the annexation proceedings were invalid for failure to comply with ORS 222.170 under which the purported annexation proceedings were brought.”
Kelly v. Silver (1976)
orctapp
“The original petition in this case was signed and filed by 16 residents of the territory involved, who thus initiated the proceeding. 2 There are other situations where annexations of territory to cities may be accomplished and elections therefor are not contemplated.”
Morsman v. City of Madras (2003)
orctapp
“The city effected the annexation by using the “triple-majority’ process set out in ORS 222.170(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…”
Landis v. City of Roseburg (1966)
or
“These consents, pursuant to ORS 222.170, were signed by at least two-thirds of the land owners within each of the respective areas, who owned at least two-thirds of the real property therein, representing at least two-thirds of the assessed value of all real property in each…”
Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (1975)
orctapp · cites it 8×
“97 acres been the subject of the original petition, then the quantum of written consent actually obtained from the affected landowners would have been insufficient to waive the election requirement under the triple majority provisions of ORS 222.170. Moreover, those landowners…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.170(1) — 4 cases
Morsman v. City of Madras (2006)
orctapp
“Third, at a subsequent hearing on August 26,2003, the Morsmans did, for the first time, raise the argument that ORS 222.170 is unconstitutional. Thereafter, at a continuation of that hearing, on September 23, 2003, petitioner Shepherd specifically endorsed and adopted all…”
Morsman v. City of Madras (2004)
orctapp
“Third, at a subsequent hearing on August 26, 2003, the Morsmans did, for the first time, raise the argument that ORS 222.170 is unconstitutional. Thereafter, at a continuation of that hearing, on September 23, 2003, petitioner Shepherd specifically endorsed and adopted all…”
Morsman v. City of Madras (2003)
orctapp
“The city effected the annexation by using the “triple-majority’ process set out in ORS 222.170(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…”
Johnson v. City of La Grande (2000)
orctapp
“The City of La Grande adopted a decision to annex a 155-parcel area, including respondents’ property, without an election pursuant to ORS 222.170. Respondents appealed to LUBA, which remanded the decision to the city.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.170(2) — 2 cases
Morsman v. City of Madras (2006)
orctapp
“Third, at a subsequent hearing on August 26,2003, the Morsmans did, for the first time, raise the argument that ORS 222.170 is unconstitutional. Thereafter, at a continuation of that hearing, on September 23, 2003, petitioner Shepherd specifically endorsed and adopted all…”
Johnson v. City of La Grande (2000)
orctapp
“The City of La Grande adopted a decision to annex a 155-parcel area, including respondents’ property, without an election pursuant to ORS 222.170. Respondents appealed to LUBA, which remanded the decision to the city.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 222.170(3) — 1 case
Morsman v. City of Madras (2004)
orctapp
“Third, at a subsequent hearing on August 26, 2003, the Morsmans did, for the first time, raise the argument that ORS 222.170 is unconstitutional. Thereafter, at a continuation of that hearing, on September 23, 2003, petitioner Shepherd specifically endorsed and adopted all…”
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.