Chapter 222

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Provisions of this chapter do not require final decisions on small tract annexations to be made in quasi-judicial proceedings rather than by popular vote. Stewart v. City of Corvallis, 48 Or App 709, 617 P2d 921 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

      222.111

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Exception allowing annexation of noncontiguous property separated by public right-of-way or stream is limited in extent to situations where public way or stream provides minimal separation between properties. Dept. of Land Conservation and Development v. City of St. Helens, 138 Or App 222, 907 P2d 259 (1995)

      Where city annexation of oddly-shaped territory is disputed, proof that annexation is reasonable must include demonstration by city that disputed annexation is consistent with local or state land use criteria. Morsman v. City of Madras, 191 Or App 149, 81 P3d 711 (2003)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Inclusion within annexed territory of a highway right of way, (1976) Vol 38, p 448

      222.115

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      City may not require consent to annexation by city as consideration for provision of services by other government bodies. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority v. City of Medford, 130 Or App 24, 880 P2d 486 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

      Consents or contracts to consent to annexation given by property owners prior to 1991 in exchange for services are ineffective unless annexation plan was submitted to owner before consent was requested. Johnson v. City of La Grande, 167 Or App 35, 1 P3d 1036 (2000)

      222.120

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Metes and bounds description as required in notice of hearing, (1972) Vol 36, p 89

      222.127

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Annexation of property by city as required by this section is not legislative act. State ex rel Select Reform Com. v. City of Jefferson, 306 Or App 239, 474 P3d 399 (2020)

      222.130

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Metes and bounds description as required in notice of election, (1972) Vol 36, p 89

      222.170

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      The legislature did not intend to give a local boundary commission the authority to order an annexation of any area which does not meet the requirements of this section regardless of the fact that the area originally petitioned for did comply with this section. Peterson v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govt. Boundary Comm., 21 Or App 420, 535 P2d 577 (1975)

      Consents or contracts to consent to annexation given by property owners prior to 1991 in exchange for services are ineffective unless annexation plan was submitted to owner before consent was requested. Johnson v. City of La Grande, 167 Or App 35, 1 P3d 1036 (2000)

      Where city obtains landowner consents meeting triple majority requirement for area to be annexed, alteration of area description before city finally proclaims annexation does not require that consents be reissued. Morsman v. City of Madras, 196 Or App 67, 100 P3d 761 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

      Triple majority system of annexation does not violate state or federal constitutional rights to equal protection. Morsman v. City of Madras, 203 Or App 546, 126 P3d 6 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

      222.210 to 222.310

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      These sections require that at least two cities participate in initiating consolidation and petition by filing city for consolidation of new city to consist of filing city and unincorporated territory was legally insufficient. Mid-County Future Alt. v. Port. Metro. Area LGBC, 300 Or 14, 706 P2d 924 (1985)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 50 WLR 619 (2014)

      222.510 to 222.580

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 50 WLR 619 (2014)

      222.610 to 222.710

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 50 WLR 619 (2014)

      222.750

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Permitting annexation of surrounded territory without vote of residents does not deprive residents of right to equal protection under United States Constitution. Kane v. City of Beaverton, 202 Or App 431, 122 P3d 137 (2005)

      “Surrounded by” means territory to be annexed is completely enclosed by and contiguous with corporate boundaries of annexing city or corporate boundaries of annexing city and body of water. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 206 Or App 380, 136 P3d 1219 (2006), aff’d 343 Or 18, 161 P3d 926 (2007)

      222.850 to 222.915

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      These provisions authorizing the state Health Division to order annexation to a city or territory within which there exist conditions dangerous to the public health do not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power. Kelly v. Silver, 25 Or App 441, 549 P2d 1134 (1976)

      These sections apply even though an area is served by an existing sanitary district. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 42 Or App 755, 601 P2d 858 (1979), aff’d as modified 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)

      As agency actions under these sections do not involve decisions concerning land use, ORS 197.180, requiring adherence to state-wide planning goals in planning and other actions by state agencies, is inapplicable. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 42 Or App 755, 601 P2d 858 (1979), aff’d as modified 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Territory separated into two parcels as eligible for health hazard annexation, (1980) Vol 41, p 195

      222.850

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      “Reasonably clear possibility” of public exposure means possibility that is reasonably clear to administrator. Trueblood v. Health Div., 28 Or App 433, 559 P2d 931 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

      222.880

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Health Division order, issued pursuant to this section, is not action “authorized by law with respect to programs affecting land use” under ORS 197.180, so Division need not consider state-wide planning goals in reaching its decision. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. LCDC, 289 Or 393, 614 P2d 1141 (1980)

      Actions by Health Division and Environmental Quality Commission pursuant to this section are not combined administrative proceedings, but rather separate agency actions each resulting in “final order” under ORS 183.310. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)

      222.885

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Only those voters registered to vote and resident in area to be annexed may be considered in determining whether alternative plan petition meets 51% requirement of this section. State ex rel Rodriquez v. Gebbie, 289 Or 399, 614 P2d 1144 (1980)

      Environmental Quality Commission, in certifying its approval of city’s plans for alleviating or removing conditions causing danger to public health in territory had no duty to consider alternative plan unless Health Division of Department of Human Resources submitted alternative plan to appropriate agency for review. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. Health Div., 289 Or 417, 614 P2d 1151 (1980)

      222.898

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Certification of Environmental Quality Commission pursuant to this section is not action required by ORS 197.180 to be made in accordance with state-wide planning goals. West Side Sanitary Dist. v. LCDC, 289 Or 409, 614 P2d 1148 (1980)

      222.915

NOTES OF DECISIONS

      Where statutory procedure provided by ORS 222.850 to 222.915 was initiated by area residents, and local board of health adopted resolution requesting Health Division to investigate area conditions, this section did not deprive division of authority to order that, without vote of electorate, city would be required to annex adjacent area, based upon finding of danger to public health. Pieper v. Health Division, 288 Or 551, 606 P2d 1145 (1980)