Local Improvements and Works Generally

ORS 223.299
Definitions for ORS 223.297 to 223.314

As used in ORS 223.297 (Policy) to 223.314 (Establishment or modification of system development charge not a land use decision):

(1)

(a) “Capital improvement” means facilities or assets used for the following:

(A)

Water supply, treatment and distribution;

(B)

Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal;

(C)

Drainage and flood control;

(D)

Transportation; or

(E)

Parks and recreation.

(b)

“Capital improvement” does not include costs of the operation or routine maintenance of capital improvements.

(2)

“Improvement fee” means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed.

(3)

“Reimbursement fee” means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already constructed, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government determines that capacity exists.

(4)

(a) “System development charge” means a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement. “System development charge” includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the local government for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities.

(b)

“System development charge” does not include any fees assessed or collected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of complying with requirements or conditions imposed upon a land use decision, expedited land division or limited land use decision. [1989 c.449 §2; 1991 c.817 §29; 1991 c.902 §26; 1995 c.595 §28; 2003 c.765 §2a; 2003 c.802 §18]
Note: See note under 223.297 (Policy).
§§ 223.297 to 223.314

Notes of Decisions

System development charge levied upon broad class of property on uniform assessment basis is not "taking" subject to rough proportionality analysis. Rogers Machinery, Inc. v. Washington County, 181 Or App 369, 45 P3d 966 (2002), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 538 US 906 (2003)

System development charges do not effect taking in violation of section 18, Article I of Oregon Constitution. Homebuilders Assn. v. Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, 185 Or App 729, 62 P3d 404 (2003)

Chapter 223

Notes of Decisions

Fact that ordinance, which charged fee to property owners taking advantage of privilege of making connection to city water system, specified that payment would be secured by liens which would be "enforced" in matter provided by this chapter did not, of itself, show that such charges were "assessments." Montgomery Brothers v. City of Corvallis, 34 Or App 785, 580 P2d 190 (1978)

Circuit court has jurisdiction to determine merits of assessment, but cannot address whether assessment is subject to constitutional limits on property taxes. Martin v. City of Tigard, 14 OTR 517 (1999), aff'd 335 Or 444, 72 P3d 619 (2003)

State statutory procedures for financing local improvements are not exclusive and do not displace consistent local procedures. Baker v. City of Woodburn, 190 Or App 445, 79 P3d 901 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS