Local Improvements and Works Generally

ORS 223.307
Authorized expenditure of system development charges


(1)

Reimbursement fees may be spent only on capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed including expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness.

(2)

Improvement fees may be spent only on capacity increasing capital improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of debt for such improvements. An increase in system capacity may be established if a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of the improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to the need for increased capacity to provide service for future users.

(3)

System development charges may not be expended for costs associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other capital improvements or for the expenses of the operation or maintenance of the facilities constructed with system development charge revenues.

(4)

Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system development charge revenues must be included in the plan and list adopted by a local government pursuant to ORS 223.309 (Preparation of plan for capital improvements financed by system development charges).

(5)

Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, system development charge revenues may be expended on the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 (Policy) to 223.314 (Establishment or modification of system development charge not a land use decision), including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development charge expenditures. [1989 c.449 §5; 1991 c.902 §29; 2003 c.765 §6; 2003 c.802 §22]
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