Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 966 - ECONOMIC RECOVERY REVIEW COUNCIL
What is the Economic Recovery Review Council (ERRC)
The Economic Recovery Review Council (ERRC) is an Oregon statutory entity established to oversee and review certain economic recovery efforts of public bodies, in particular in situations where local governments or other public entities are undertaking recovery from disasters or severe economic downturns.
The purpose of the Council is to ensure that economic recovery programs follow state law, are implemented efficiently, are cost-effective, and are subject to oversight.
OAR Chapter 966 – Key Provisions
OAR 966 sets out the rules by which the ERRC operates. Key areas covered include:
Definitions and Scope
What “economic recovery” means, what constitutes a recovery plan or program, what kinds of public entities are under the Council's review.
Review Process
How an economic recovery plan is submitted for review.
What steps ERRC takes: reviewing the plan, determining whether the plan meets statutory requirements, whether it is cost‑effective, and whether there's compliance with other legal obligations (budgeting, oversight, public participation, etc.).
Criteria for Approval or Disapproval
Specific criteria that must be met: financial feasibility, accountability measures, transparency, timelines, budget impact, how the recovery will be monitored and reported, etc.
Reporting and Monitoring
After a plan is approved, there are rules about how the public agency must report on implementation.
The Council monitors whether the recovery plan is being followed, whether expenditures are consistent with projections, and whether results are achieved.
Enforcement or Remedial Measures
If a public entity diverges from its approved plan, or fails to meet required duties, the Council has certain powers: it may require corrective action, withhold certain approvals, or require adjustments or modifications.
Public Participation / Hearings
Typically, there are requirements for public input into recovery plans: hearings, comment periods, etc., so that affected citizens or stakeholders have notice and opportunity to comment.
How OAR 966 Relates to Statute
The OAR rules derive their authority from Oregon statutes that authorize the ERRC, define its powers, and require that certain recovery efforts be reviewed.
The statute will set deadlines, thresholds (for example, how big a recovery expenditure must be, or which kinds of public entities) that trigger review by ERRC.
Known Case Law
I was able to find little to no published Oregon appellate court decisions that focus specifically on OAR 966 or ERRC in a detailed way. This suggests that:
Many interactions are administrative, resolved at the level of the Council or public agency without needing court challenge.
Or, those cases exist but are unpublished, or not widely cited, or perhaps more recent and not yet appearing in major digests.
However, here is what can be inferred or what issues could arise, based on similar Oregon law and analogous bodies:
Analogous and Thematic Cases / Legal Principles
Even though there is no prominent case directly interpreting ERRC and OAR 966, some relevant Oregon legal principles and cases inform how such administrative review bodies are treated by the courts. These help understand how OAR 966 would be litigated or enforced.
Case Principle A: Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Oregon courts typically allow judicial review of administrative decisions under the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA). So decisions of ERRC or local entities under OAR 966 that affect rights or impose obligations can be reviewed in court.
In judicial review, courts look at whether the public body or Council exceeded authority, whether the administrative record shows substantial evidence for findings, whether there was fair procedure, proper notice, etc.
Case Principle B: Standard of Evidence & Substantial Evidence
Courts often require that administrative findings be supported by “substantial evidence in the record.” If ERRC approves or disapproves a plan, its determinations (for example, about feasibility or financial impact) would need to rest on evidence—appraisals, forecasts, financial data, etc.
If an entity claims that ERRC’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported, the court examines whether evidence was reasonably available, whether the review considered relevant factors.
Case Principle C: Procedural Due Process
If a public entity’s plan is reviewed under OAR 966, there must be adequate notice, hearing, and opportunity to be heard. Otherwise, an affected party could challenge on due process grounds.
Case Principle D: Scope of Statutory Authority
Because OAR rules must align with statute, courts will interpret the relevant statutes authorizing economic recovery review councils strictly. If the statute grants certain powers, OAR must not exceed that. If OAR’s rules try to impose additional requirements not authorized by statute, those parts could be invalid.
Hypothetical Issues & How Courts Might Treat Them
Here are some examples of issues that could arise under OAR 966, and how courts probably would rule based on analogous Oregon Administrative Law:
| Issue | Likely Legal Question | What Court Would Consider |
|---|---|---|
| A public entity submits an economic recovery plan that the ERRC disapproves, claiming it's not financially feasible. The entity sues. | Was the decision based on substantial evidence? Did ERRC use correct standards? Was the plan’s financial data evaluated correctly? | Court would review the record: forecasts, cost‑benefit analysis, assumptions. If the evidence is shaky, court might overturn or remand. |
| A public entity was not given a chance for public comment before plan submission as required by OAR 966. | Was public participation required by OAR / statute? Did failure violate due process or statutory requirement? | Court likely to require that procedural rules be followed; if not, plan disapproved or remanded to allow public comment. |
| ERRC’s rules require something beyond what the statute authorizes (for example, a particular kind of financial bond or guarantee), and public entity challenges that requirement as ultra vires (beyond authority). | Does statute expressly or by implication authorize that requirement? | Court would interpret the statute; if no authority, that part of the rule/rule’s application would be struck down. |
Why There May Be No Prominent Case Law
Many economic recovery plans may be small in scale or resolved administratively without litigation.
The threshold for judicial review may be such that only a few large or contested cases get to appellate level.
The rules (OAR 966) may have been used primarily after relatively recent legislative creation of the ERRC, so precedent may still be developing.
Key Takeaways / Practical Implications
Entities (cities, counties, other public agencies) that engage in economic recovery planning (such as post‑disaster rebuilding, infrastructure recovery) must check whether their plans are subject to ERRC review under OAR 966.
They should ensure their plans meet the criteria spelled out in OAR 966: financial feasibility, accountability, public participation, reporting, etc.
They should keep thorough records: cost estimates, projections, evidence, public input. That helps in case ERRC requirements are challenged or decisions are questioned.
RELATED Blog
0 comments