Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.299 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 223.297 to 223.316

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      223.299 Definitions for ORS 223.297 to 223.316. As used in ORS 223.297 to 223.316:

      (1)(a) “Capital improvement” means facilities or assets used for the following:

      (A) Water supply, treatment and distribution;

      (B) Waste water collection, transmission, treatment and disposal;

      (C) Drainage and flood control;

      (D) Transportation; or

      (E) Parks and recreation.

      (b) “Capital improvement” does not include costs of the operation or routine maintenance of capital improvements.

      (2) “Improvement fee” means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed.

      (3) “Reimbursement fee” means a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already constructed, or under construction when the fee is established, for which the local government determines that capacity exists.

      (4)(a) “System development charge” means a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement. “System development charge” includes that portion of a sewer or water system connection charge that is greater than the amount necessary to reimburse the local government for its average cost of inspecting and installing connections with water and sewer facilities.

      (b) “System development charge” does not include any fees assessed or collected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of complying with requirements or conditions imposed upon a land use decision or limited land use decision. [1989 c.449 §2; 1991 c.817 §29; 1991 c.902 §26; 1995 c.595 §28; 2003 c.765 §2a; 2003 c.802 §18; 2025 c.476 §42]

 

      Note: See note under 223.297.

 

      223.300 [Repealed by 1975 c.642 §26]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2002–2019 · leading case: Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “See ORS 223.299(1). Finally, in addition to describing what is included in the term “system development charge,” the statutory scheme also specifies what is not included.”
Baker v. City of Woodburn, 79 P.3d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” ORS 223.299(3), (4)(a). However, as with LIDs, the statutory system development charge scheme appears to apply only to improvements made by a governmental unit rather than by a private individual.”
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 444 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" ORS 223.299(1)(a). Cities that assess SDCs must also provide developers with credits against those fees for the construction of a "qualified public improvement," i.”
Summer Oaks Ltd. P'ship v. McGinley, 55 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “314, system development charges are reimbursement or improvement fees “collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit, or connection to the capital improvement * * ORS 223.299(4)(a). With respect to sewer…”
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “ORS 223.299(2). Improvement fees, in other words, are intended to stop the addition of new users from diluting the level of service enjoyed by the existing population.”
Portland Metro. Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Portland, 423 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" ORS 223.299(2). ORS 223.304(2) provides: "Improvement fees must: "(a) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is available for public inspection and demonstrates consideration of: "(A) The projected cost of the capital…”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Springfield, 129 P.3d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 223.299(4)(a) defines a “system development charge” as “a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.299(1) — 1 case
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “See ORS 223.299(1). Finally, in addition to describing what is included in the term “system development charge,” the statutory scheme also specifies what is not included.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.299(1)(a) — 1 case
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 444 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “" ORS 223.299(1)(a). Cities that assess SDCs must also provide developers with credits against those fees for the construction of a "qualified public improvement," i.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.299(2) — 3 cases
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “See ORS 223.299(1). Finally, in addition to describing what is included in the term “system development charge,” the statutory scheme also specifies what is not included.”
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 223.299(2). Improvement fees, in other words, are intended to stop the addition of new users from diluting the level of service enjoyed by the existing population.”
Portland Metro. Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Portland, 423 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" ORS 223.299(2). ORS 223.304(2) provides: "Improvement fees must: "(a) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is available for public inspection and demonstrates consideration of: "(A) The projected cost of the capital…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.299(3) — 3 cases
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “See ORS 223.299(1). Finally, in addition to describing what is included in the term “system development charge,” the statutory scheme also specifies what is not included.”
Baker v. City of Woodburn, 79 P.3d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 223.299(3), (4)(a). However, as with LIDs, the statutory system development charge scheme appears to apply only to improvements made by a governmental unit rather than by a private individual.”
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 223.299(2). Improvement fees, in other words, are intended to stop the addition of new users from diluting the level of service enjoyed by the existing population.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.299(4)(a) — 5 cases
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “See ORS 223.299(1). Finally, in addition to describing what is included in the term “system development charge,” the statutory scheme also specifies what is not included.”
Summer Oaks Ltd. P'ship v. McGinley, 55 P.3d 1100 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “314, system development charges are reimbursement or improvement fees “collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit, or connection to the capital improvement * * ORS 223.299(4)(a). With respect to sewer…”
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 444 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “" ORS 223.299(1)(a). Cities that assess SDCs must also provide developers with credits against those fees for the construction of a "qualified public improvement," i.”
Portland Metro. Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Portland, 423 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “" ORS 223.299(2). ORS 223.304(2) provides: "Improvement fees must: "(a) Be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is available for public inspection and demonstrates consideration of: "(A) The projected cost of the capital…”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Springfield, 129 P.3d 713 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 223.299(4)(a) defines a “system development charge” as “a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.299(4)(b) — 2 cases
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “See ORS 223.299(1). Finally, in addition to describing what is included in the term “system development charge,” the statutory scheme also specifies what is not included.”
Baker v. City of Woodburn, 79 P.3d 901 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 223.299(3), (4)(a). However, as with LIDs, the statutory system development charge scheme appears to apply only to improvements made by a governmental unit rather than by a private individual.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.