223.304
Determination of amount of system development charges; methodology; credit
allowed against charge; limitation of action contesting methodology for
imposing charge; notification request.
(1)(a) Reimbursement fees must be established or modified by ordinance or
resolution setting forth a methodology that is, when applicable, based on:
(A) Ratemaking
principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements;
(B) Prior
contributions by existing users;
(C) Gifts or
grants from federal or state government or private persons;
(D) The value of
unused capacity available to future system users or the cost of the existing
facilities; and
(E) Other
relevant factors identified by the local government imposing the fee.
(b) The
methodology for establishing or modifying a reimbursement fee must:
(A) Promote the
objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share
to the cost of existing facilities.
(B) Be available
for public inspection.
(2) 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 improvements identified in the plan and list adopted
pursuant to ORS 223.309 that are needed to increase the capacity of the systems
to which the fee is related; and
(B) The need for
increased capacity in the system to which the fee is related that will be
required to serve the demands placed on the system by future users.
(b) Be calculated
to obtain the cost of capital improvements for the projected need for available
system capacity for future users.
(3) A local
government may establish and impose a system development charge that is a
combination of a reimbursement fee and an improvement fee, if the methodology
demonstrates that the charge is not based on providing the same system
capacity.
(4) The ordinance
or resolution that establishes or modifies an improvement fee shall also
provide for a credit against such fee for the construction of a qualified
public improvement. A “qualified public improvement” means a capital
improvement that is required as a condition of development approval, identified
in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either:
(a) Not located
on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or
(b) Located in
whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity
than is necessary for the particular development project to which the
improvement fee is related.
(5)(a) The credit
provided for in subsection (4) of this section is only for the improvement fee
charged for the type of improvement being constructed, and credit for qualified
public improvements under subsection (4)(b) of this section may be granted only
for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the local
government’s minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the
particular development project or property. The applicant shall have the burden
of demonstrating that a particular improvement qualifies for credit under
subsection (4)(b) of this section.
(b) A local
government may deny the credit provided for in subsection (4) of this section
if the local government demonstrates:
(A) That the
application does not meet the requirements of subsection (4) of this section;
or
(B) By reference
to the list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309, that the improvement for which
credit is sought was not included in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS
223.309.
(c) When the
construction of a qualified public improvement gives rise to a credit amount
greater than the improvement fee that would otherwise be levied against the
project receiving development approval, the excess credit may be applied
against improvement fees that accrue in subsequent phases of the original
development project. This subsection does not prohibit a local government from
providing a greater credit, or from establishing a system providing for the
transferability of credits, or from providing a credit for a capital
improvement not identified in the plan and list adopted pursuant to ORS
223.309, or from providing a share of the cost of such improvement by other
means, if a local government so chooses.
(d) Credits must
be used in the time specified in the ordinance but not later than 10 years from
the date the credit is given.
(6) Any local
government that proposes to establish or modify a system development charge
shall maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for
notification prior to adoption or amendment of a methodology for any system
development charge.
(7)(a) Written
notice must be mailed to persons on the list at least 90 days prior to the
first hearing to establish or modify a system development charge, and the
methodology supporting the system development charge must be available at least
60 days prior to the first hearing. The failure of a person on the list to
receive a notice that was mailed does not invalidate the action of the local
government. The local government may periodically delete names from the list,
but at least 30 days prior to removing a name from the list shall notify the
person whose name is to be deleted that a new written request for notification
is required if the person wishes to remain on the notification list.
(b) Legal action
intended to contest the methodology used for calculating a system development
charge may not be filed after 60 days following adoption or modification of the
system development charge ordinance or resolution by the local government. A person
shall request judicial review of the methodology used for calculating a system
development charge only as provided in ORS 34.010 to 34.100.
(8) A change in
the amount of a reimbursement fee or an improvement fee is not a modification
of the system development charge methodology if the change in amount is based
on:
(a) A change in
the cost of materials, labor or real property applied to projects or project
capacity as set forth on the list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309; or
(b) The periodic
application of one or more specific cost indexes or other periodic data
sources. A specific cost index or periodic data source must be:
(A) A relevant
measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time
period for materials, labor, real property or a combination of the three;
(B) Published by
a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for
reasons that are independent of the system development charge methodology; and
(C) Incorporated
as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate
ordinance, resolution or order. [1989 c.449 §4; 1991 c.902 §28; 1993 c.804 §20;
2001 c.662 §3; 2003 c.765 §§4a,5a; 2003 c.802 §21]
Note: See note under 223.297.
223.305 [Repealed by 1971 c.325 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Petitioner asserts that the *377 ordinance establishing the TIF fails to comply with the calculation methodology required by ORS 223.304(2) and that the TIF therefore is invalid.”
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 444 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 7× “" ORS 223.304(4). By default, SDC credits offset only like-kind SDCs charged for the type of improvement being constructed.”
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2). 8 *666 Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of…”
W. Hills Dev. Co. v. Doughman, 432 P.3d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 7× “070 (regarding TDT credits for qualified public improvements); WCRO 2010-098, Attachment A, § 070 (regarding NBTSDC credits for qualified public improvements); see also ORS 223.304(4) (defining "qualified public improvement").”
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Springfield, 156 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “The governing statute is ORS 223.304. It provides, in part: “(l)(a) Reimbursement fees must be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is, when applicable, based on: “(A) Ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital…”
Portland Metro. Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Portland, 423 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“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 improvements identified in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(1) — 1 case
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Springfield, 156 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“The governing statute is ORS 223.304. It provides, in part: “(l)(a) Reimbursement fees must be established or modified by ordinance or resolution setting forth a methodology that is, when applicable, based on: “(A) Ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(2) — 3 cases
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Petitioner asserts that the *377 ordinance establishing the TIF fails to comply with the calculation methodology required by ORS 223.304(2) and that the TIF therefore is invalid.”
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2). 8 *666 Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of…”
Portland Metro. Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Portland, 423 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“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 improvements identified in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(2)(a) — 1 case
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2). 8 *666 Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(3) — 1 case
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2). 8 *666 Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(4) — 3 cases
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 444 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“" ORS 223.304(4). By default, SDC credits offset only like-kind SDCs charged for the type of improvement being constructed.”
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2). 8 *666 Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of…”
W. Hills Dev. Co. v. Doughman, 432 P.3d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“070 (regarding TDT credits for qualified public improvements); WCRO 2010-098, Attachment A, § 070 (regarding NBTSDC credits for qualified public improvements); see also ORS 223.304(4) (defining "qualified public improvement").”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(5) — 2 cases
Rogers Mach., Inc. v. Washington Cnty., 45 P.3d 966 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Petitioner asserts that the *377 ordinance establishing the TIF fails to comply with the calculation methodology required by ORS 223.304(2) and that the TIF therefore is invalid.”
W. Hills Dev. Co. v. Doughman, 432 P.3d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“070 (regarding TDT credits for qualified public improvements); WCRO 2010-098, Attachment A, § 070 (regarding NBTSDC credits for qualified public improvements); see also ORS 223.304(4) (defining "qualified public improvement").”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(5)(a) — 1 case
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 444 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“" ORS 223.304(4). By default, SDC credits offset only like-kind SDCs charged for the type of improvement being constructed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(5)(c) — 2 cases
Alexander Loop, LLC v. City of Eugene, 444 P.3d 1116 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“" ORS 223.304(4). By default, SDC credits offset only like-kind SDCs charged for the type of improvement being constructed.”
W. Hills Dev. Co. v. Doughman, 432 P.3d 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“070 (regarding TDT credits for qualified public improvements); WCRO 2010-098, Attachment A, § 070 (regarding NBTSDC credits for qualified public improvements); see also ORS 223.304(4) (defining "qualified public improvement").”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(6) — 1 case
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2). 8 *666 Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 223.304(7)(b) — 2 cases
Home Builders Ass'n of Metro. Portland v. City of West Linn, 131 P.3d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“As long as the city measures the existing LOS in the same way when it determines its current or future needs, its methodology does not violate ORS 223.304(2). 8 *666 Petitioners fail to recognize that the city’s adopted LOS is the LOS that actually existed at the time of…”
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.