Local Improvements and Works Generally

ORS 223.301
Certain system development charges and methodologies prohibited


As used in this section, “employer” means any person who contracts to pay remuneration for, and secures the right to direct and control the services of, any person.


A local government may not establish or impose a system development charge that requires an employer to pay a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee based on:


The number of individuals hired by the employer after a specified date; or


A methodology that assumes that costs are necessarily incurred for capital improvements when an employer hires an additional employee.


A methodology set forth in an ordinance or resolution that establishes an improvement fee or a reimbursement fee shall not include or incorporate any method or system under which the payment of the fee or the amount of the fee is determined by the number of employees of an employer without regard to new construction, new development or new use of an existing structure by the employer.


A local government may not impose a system development charge for increased use of a transportation facility that results from the production of marijuana on a property located in an exclusive farm use zone. [1999 c.1098 §2; 2003 c.802 §19; 2019 c.292 §1]
Note: Section 5, chapter 292, Oregon Laws 2019, provides:
Sec. 5. Section 3 of this 2019 Act [475B.077 (Marijuana production as nonconforming land use)] and the amendments to ORS 223.301 (Certain system development charges and methodologies prohibited) and 475B.968 (Adoption of ordinances) by sections 1 and 4 of this 2019 Act apply to marijuana produced before, on and after the operative date of this 2019 Act [January 1, 2020]. [2019 c.292 §5]
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


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021