Blogtown, PDX

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Portland In Salem—The Fight Over PDC

Posted by Scott Moore on Tue, May 8 at 2:10 PM

Over at Amanda Fritz’s blog and at bojack.org, there’s a bit of a discussion going on about House Bill 3104, which would ostensibly give the city council the power to be the Portland Development Commission’s “budget committee.”

That’s what city ballot measure 26-92 would do as well, assuming voters pass it next week, but in order for 26-92 to be enacted, there needs to be a change to state law to allow it.

So that’s what HB3104 does. Except for this funny little bit:

{ + (2) The governing body of a city with a population of more than 400,000 is the budget committee of an urban renewal agency created by the city under ORS 457.035. + }

Which has posed this question from Amanda: Is city council trying to go around Portland voters? If HB3104 is simply “enabling legislation,” then why does it specifically say that city council “IS” the budget committee of the urban renewal agency (PDC)? If 26-92 fails at the ballot box, could the legislature make the change regardless?

Even though Amanda and Jack Bog’s concerns are directed at council as a whole, it’s really Erik Sten they’re pointing the finger at. Read his response after the jump.

"I just testified [at a Senate committee hearing on the bill] this morning--totally coincidentally--saying that there's no reason to not delay the legislation until after the city vote next week," Stens says. "And if [26-92] doesn't pass at the ballot, I'll withdrawal my support for the state legislation. If the ballot measure doesn't pass, we'll stop pushing for it."

As for why the bill says the city council "IS" the budget committee for the PDC--as opposed to "CAN BE the budget committee, if city voters approve"--it's largely a matter of history. Late last year, when the charter review commission was still saying it wasn't even going to consider the change since state law didn't allow it, council voted 3-2 to ask the state legislature to amend the law, making city council the budget committee. It was only later, when Mayor Potter and Sten struck a bargain to add the language to the charter commission's recommendation, that it started heading toward the ballot.

In the short term, the effect is the same--if Portland voters approve 26-92, the state legislature will likely change so that the laws are in sync. But what if in, say, five years, Portland voters change their mind and don't want city council to be PDC's budget committee, will HB3104 prevent the reversal?

Permalink

Comments

Before he has a chance to say it--here's what Dave Lister wrote in one of his Brainstorm NW columns a few months back:

"I think Adams, Sten and Leonard will probably go directly to the Oregon Legislature to seek reform of the PDC. And I think one or more of them will be running for mayor in 2008 and Tom Potter probably won’t."

Posted by Scott Moore | May 8, 2007 2:22 PM

Good explanation, and shorter than mine, Scott. Have you been able to find out what part of state law doesn't allow the Council to be the budget committee for PDC? The amendment in HB 3104 would require it to be. But nothing in the rest of that section says the Council isn't allowed to pass a resolution now, making itself the budget committee. There must be more to this, right, since both the Charter Commission and the Council say a change in state law is needed. What is it? Or is that a secret we may or may not find out later?

Posted by Amanda Fritz | May 8, 2007 3:20 PM

Amanda,
I think it has to do with the 200,00 population. That was put in there originally so that Portland's City Council would not have budgetary control of Urban Renewal, but all other Oregon communities would. If you read Phil Stanford's "Portland Confidential" you will find out quickly why they didn't want the city council to control urban renewal back in 1958. The money would have all ended up in manilla envelopes.

Posted by Dave Lister | May 8, 2007 3:37 PM

Lord knows I'm no attorney, but this could be it, from ORS 457.460:

(1) An agency shall, by August 1 of each year, prepare a statement on the same basis on which its financial statements are prepared containing: ...(d) A budget setting forth the purposes and estimated amounts for which the moneys which have been or will be received under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 are to be expended during the current fiscal year

Which, to me, looks like it's the responsibility of the agency itself--and only the agency--to craft the budget.

Then again, I've heard many a time through this debate that this "state preemption" argument is based on legal interpretation, not a clear, direct reading of the ORS. Portland could very well have gone forward with giving council the budget authority, and then waited around to see if anyone (the PBA? Mark Rosenbaum?) would sue. I think that would be amusing.

Posted by Scott Moore | May 8, 2007 4:26 PM

Dave, the language about cities "over 200,000" gives same rights to Portland as other large cities. It says "over 200,000" rather than "except those over 200,000".

Scott, you may be right, however HB 3104 doesn't address ORS 457.

Clarification of your Blogtown post: I'm not pointing any fingers at Erik Sten or any particular one member of the Council. Measure 26-92 was referred with a 5-0 vote, and I haven't heard any dissent in Council's support for HB 3104. Both pieces of prospective legislation belong to the Council collectively.

Posted by Amanda Fritz | May 8, 2007 5:04 PM

I hear ya, Amanda, but Sten's the one down in Salem testifying in favor of it. I doubt if anyone else on council (besides Randy Leonard) is paying much attention. Hence me reading into it that it's Sten whom all eyes are on.

As for ORS 457--since that is THE section dealing with urban renewal agencies, I don't see how HB 3104 doesn't implicitly refer to it. In fact, I'm not sure why this isn't amending 457 instead of 294.341. The mind boggles.

Posted by Scott Moore | May 8, 2007 5:15 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).