Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission

733 P.2d 451, 83 Or. App. 552, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 3189

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 11, 1987

Docket2077, 2078, 2086, 2087 CA A36033 (control), A36034, A36035, A36036

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 733 P.2d 451 (Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mid-County Future Alternatives Committee v. Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission, 733 P.2d 451, 83 Or. App. 552, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 3189 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

*555 BUTTLER, P. J.

Petitions for review have been filed by the City of Portland and the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission, as well as a memorandum in support of petitions filed by the League of Oregon Cities as amicus curiae. We allow the petitions and modify our former opinion in one respect. ORAP 10.10.

In our former opinion, 82 Or App 193, 728 P2d 63 (1986), we concluded by stating that ORS 199.490(2) violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. That section permits a governing body to initiate an annexation by resolution after receiving the consents of a “triple majority” of the landowners in the territory proposed to be annexed. Petitioners point out, correctly, that there is no constitutional defect in that consent process itself. The only infirmity in the statutory annexation scheme is that the “triple majority” consent process permits, and is a prerequisite to, annexation without an election by virtue of ORS 199.495(1). It is that statute which provides that a “triple majority” annexation is not subject to an election, even if the requisite number of objections are filed, ORS 199.505, although other annexations, except those under ORS 222.880 and ORS 222.750, do require an election under those circumstances. ORS 199.505.

Accordingly, we modify our former opinion to provide that ORS 199.495(1), as it relates to annexations initiated pursuant to ORS 199.490(2), violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. We withdraw the statement in our former opinion that ORS 199.490(2) is unconstitutional.

Petitioners urge us to hold that our decision is not to be applied retroactively. Because that issue was not briefed or argued in this court, it would be inappropriate to decide it now. Our decision disposed of the four orders of the Boundary Commission that were on review in this court, and that is all that we were asked to decide.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*555 BUTTLER, P. J.

Petitions for review have been filed by the City of Portland and the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission, as well as a memorandum in support of petitions filed by the League of Oregon Cities as amicus curiae. We allow the petitions and modify our former opinion in one respect. ORAP 10.10.

In our former opinion, 82 Or App 193, 728 P2d 63 (1986), we concluded by stating that ORS 199.490(2) violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. That section permits a governing body to initiate an annexation by resolution after receiving the consents of a “triple majority” of the landowners in the territory proposed to be annexed. Petitioners point out, correctly, that there is no constitutional defect in that consent process itself. The only infirmity in the statutory annexation scheme is that the “triple majority” consent process permits, and is a prerequisite to, annexation without an election by virtue of ORS 199.495(1). It is that statute which provides that a “triple majority” annexation is not subject to an election, even if the requisite number of objections are filed, ORS 199.505, although other annexations, except those under ORS 222.880 and ORS 222.750, do require an election under those circumstances. ORS 199.505.

Accordingly, we modify our former opinion to provide that ORS 199.495(1), as it relates to annexations initiated pursuant to ORS 199.490(2), violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution. We withdraw the statement in our former opinion that ORS 199.490(2) is unconstitutional.

Petitioners urge us to hold that our decision is not to be applied retroactively. Because that issue was not briefed or argued in this court, it would be inappropriate to decide it now. Our decision disposed of the four orders of the Boundary Commission that were on review in this court, and that is all that we were asked to decide.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

733 P.2d 451, 83 Or. App. 552, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 3189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-county-future-alternatives-committee-v-portland-metropolitan-area-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack