2017 ORS 223.301¹
Certain system development charges and methodologies prohibited

This section is amended
Effective June 7, 2019
Relating to marijuana; creating new provisions; amending ORS 135.246, 135.893, 137.542, 144.086, 223.301 and 475B.968; repealing ORS 135.252; and declaring an emergency.

(1) 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.

(2) 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:

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

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

(3) 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. [1999 c.1098 §2; 2003 c.802 §19]

Note: See note under 223.297 (Policy).

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

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 223—Local Improvements and Works Generally, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors223.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 223, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano223.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.