Laserfiche WebLink
1 223.309(1).. As relevant here, that statute requires Respondent to prepare a "caPital <br /> 2 improvement plan, public facilities plan, master plan, or comparable plan that <br /> 3 includes a list of the ca pital improvements that the local government intends to fund" <br /> 4 with revenues from the SDC's. <br /> s ORS 223.314 provides: <br /> <br /> "The establishment, modification, or implementation of a system <br /> development charge, or a plan or fist adopted pumuant to ORS <br /> ? 223.309, or any modification of a plan or list, is not a land use <br /> decision pursuant to ORS Chaptem.195 and 197." (Emphasis added). <br /> 8 ~f~...cedair~.:excel~tionS,:not.~appl~,c~ble.he.~e, ~RS.1'97.O25(!,)giv~s LUB'A ' <br /> 9' <br /> exclusive jurisdiction for "review of any land use decision or limited land use decision <br /> <br /> of a local government, special district or a state agency." In the absen~ of this <br /> statutory jurisdictional requirement, LUBA may not review a decision of a local <br /> government. <br /> <br /> Here, the decision at issue is a facilities plan and capital improvement plan <br /> <br /> enacted under the provisions of ORS 223.297 et seq. Such plans are specifically <br /> 15' <br /> excluded from LUBA's jurisdiction by the provisions of ORS 223.314. Consequently, <br /> <br /> LUBA does not have judsdi~tion over this matter. <br /> 17 <br /> Conclusion. <br /> <br /> As explained in detail above, the facts set forth in Resolutign 04-19, the <br /> 19 <br /> definitional language of ORS 223.314 and LUB^'sjurisdictional limits' under ORS <br /> 20 <br /> 197.825(1) should compel.this Board to dismiss this appeal. <br /> <br /> DATED this t/ y of June, 2004. <br /> 22 <br /> Respectfully sUbmitted, <br /> 23 HAROLD...I,.F. AHY & KIERAN . <br /> <br /> By: , ~-- <br /> 25 Meg E. Kiel, OSB No. 89068 <br /> Of Attorneys for Respondent City of Springfield <br /> 26 <br /> <br /> & KIERAN <br /> <br />2~3 A <br />Suite D <br />Sprbg~U Oregon <br />(541)746-9621 <br />F=~C~)7.~o, Page 3 - RESPONDENT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S MOTION TO DISMISS <br /> 5-3 <br /> <br /> <br />