Skip to main content
House Bill 3515, which could have allowed voters in the city of Portland to create a new city-governed taxing district to support the city’s parks, will not pass this year.
As WW reported earlier, state Rep. Travis Nelson (D-Portland) put forth legislation that would have allowed the creation of a new district to help fund city parks, which have struggled to keep pace with maintenance requirements, and to offer classes and programs to which Portlanders became accustomed. (HB 3515 arrived around the same time Portland Parks & Recreation announced it would be uprooting more than 100 light posts in parks because of the legal risk they presented.)
Related: Portland’s Parks Are a Cherished Gem. But They Can’t Make Ends Meet.
Nelson’s bill was written so it would only affect (read: benefit) Portland. Even with the city’s large contingent in Salem, lawmakers generally don’t love legislation with a narrow application.
And although the bill survived the initial March 17 deadline that vaporizes bills with no chance of passage, it drew significant opposition at a March 30 public hearing in front of the House Committee on Emergency Management, General Government, and Veterans.
In his testimony, Nelson cited the example of the Columbia Pool, which the city of Portland decided to close after 93 years of operation, citing excessive deferred maintenance.
“With better funding, Columbia Pool would not have had millions of dollars in deferred maintenance. Columbia Pool would still be serving North Portland,” Nelson said in his testimony. His bill drew strong backing from City Hall and a variety of parks supporters around the city.
But two groups, the Special Districts Association of Oregon and the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District, objected to the bill, although for different reasons.
Mark Landauer, a lobbyist for SDAO, told lawmakers the bill provided an end-run around current property tax limits and would create a precedent for all kinds of new taxing districts.
“For the last 25 years, local governments across the state have adhered to their permanent [property tax] rate as required by voters,” Landauer testified. “If you allow the city of Portland to create a new or additional permanent rate, how would you justify saying no to any other city that would like the same authority? If you pass this bill, there will be plenty of other cities lining up to do the same.”
Felicita Monteblanco, president of the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District board, said her group, the state’s largest parks district, opposed Portland’s bill because the proposed parks district would lack independence from City Hall.
The effect of that could be that city commissioners use money from a new parks district to reduce parks spending from the city’s general fund or otherwise make decisions not motivated by what’s best for parks. Monteblanco added that if Portland really wants a parks district, it could create one within existing law—it would just have to have a board solely focused on parks.
“Oregon already has several areas of statute that address the formation and governance of parks and recreation special districts that can and already do support parks and recreation in the Portland area,” Monteblanco testified. “These statutes provide for special districts to be formed within city boundaries; however, they call for a very clear governance model–independent elected boards focused solely on the park and recreation district’s mission.”
The bill moved no further after the March 30 public hearing and so missed an April 4 deadline to be voted out of committee.
Sometimes, lawmakers find creative methods of resurrecting legislation after deadlines have passed, but AmyBeth Altenhofen, Nelson’s chief of staff, says he will not make such an attempt.
“At this point,” Altenhofen says, “he does not have a plan to put the concept into another bill.”