2017 ORS 223.302¹
System development charges
  • use of revenues
  • review procedures

(1) Local governments are authorized to establish system development charges, but the revenues produced therefrom must be expended only in accordance with ORS 223.297 (Policy) to 223.314 (Establishment or modification of system development charge not a land use decision). If a local government expends revenues from system development charges in violation of the limitations described in ORS 223.307 (Authorized expenditure of system development charges), the local government shall replace the misspent amount with moneys derived from sources other than system development charges. Replacement moneys must be deposited in a fund designated for the system development charge revenues not later than one year following a determination that the funds were misspent.

(2) Local governments shall adopt administrative review procedures by which any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of system development charge revenues. Such procedures shall provide that such a challenge must be filed within two years of the expenditure of the system development charge revenues. The decision of the local government shall be judicially reviewed only as provided in ORS 34.010 (Former writ of certiorari as writ of review) to 34.100 (Power of court on review).

(3)(a) A local government must advise a person who makes a written objection to the calculation of a system development charge of the right to petition for review pursuant to ORS 34.010 (Former writ of certiorari as writ of review) to 34.100 (Power of court on review).

(b) If a local government has adopted an administrative review procedure for objections to the calculation of a system development charge, the local government shall provide adequate notice regarding the procedure for review to a person who makes a written objection to the calculation of a system development charge. [1989 c.449 §3; 1991 c.902 §27; 2001 c.662 §2; 2003 c.765 §3; 2003 c.802 §20]

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.