2017 ORS 223.307¹
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).

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.