Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation

ORS 646.745
Joint operation of Memorial Coliseum and Arena in Portland

  • definitions
  • legislative findings and goals
  • state supervision


As used in this section:


“Affiliate” means an individual, or a corporation or other entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the owner or operator of the arena. For purposes of this subsection, the term “control” means ownership of more than 50 percent of the shares or other ownership interests in the owner or operator of the arena or having management power over the affairs of the owner or operator of the arena.


“Arena” means a multipurpose arena with a seating capacity of approximately 19,000 constructed or to be constructed on real property adjacent to the Coliseum.


“Coliseum” means the Memorial Coliseum in Portland.


“Coliseum agreement” means an operating agreement, management agreement, lease or any similar agreement between the City of Portland and any corporation, partnership, limited partnership or individual who owns or operates the arena or any affiliate of the owner or operator of the arena.


The Legislative Assembly finds that direct competition between the Arena and Coliseum may require the City of Portland to spend limited public resources to maintain the Coliseum, undermine the City of Portland’s goal of creating a world-class center for athletic events, conventions, trade shows and other events and otherwise result in economic rivalry injurious to the interests of the City of Portland and the citizens of this state.


The Legislative Assembly declares that it is the policy and intent of this state to displace competition between the Arena and Coliseum by allowing the City of Portland to enter agreements for the joint operation of the facilities by an owner or operator of the Arena in order to further the following goals:


To avoid economic rivalry which might undermine the continuing economic viability of the Coliseum and require the public to subsidize the operations of the Coliseum with funds which the City of Portland has allocated to other public needs;


To allow the joint operation of the Coliseum and Arena to avoid scheduling conflicts and other related problems which would unduly burden public safety resources and the transportation system of the City of Portland;


To encourage the joint marketing of the Arena and Coliseum to attract trade shows, conventions and other events which require multiple venues or could otherwise not be accommodated by the Coliseum or Arena;


To avoid duplication of management and other services and minimize the public funds necessary to operate the Coliseum;


To encourage development of the Arena adjacent to the Coliseum rather than in another location; and


To limit financing risk and provide for development of the Arena with private funding sources so that public funds may be used for other pressing needs.


The Legislative Assembly declares that the City of Portland is the political subdivision of the State of Oregon best suited to monitor and supervise the operation of the Coliseum Agreement. The Legislative Assembly therefore delegates to the City of Portland the power to supervise and review the activities of the owner or operator of the Arena under the Coliseum Agreement and declares that this review shall be equivalent to active supervision by the State of Oregon to the fullest possible extent under the federal or state antitrust laws. The City of Portland may, subject to any agreement with the owner or operator of the Arena, review and approve annually or more frequently certain practices under the Coliseum Agreement, including without limitation:


Prices charged for Coliseum events;


Decisions about event allocation between the Arena and Coliseum; and


Decisions to decline to accommodate events at either the Coliseum or the Arena, or both. [1993 c.183 §2]
§§ 646.705 to 646.815

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Meetings between members of associations having PUC authority to transport logs, poles and piling and mills and other shippers to jointly agree on rate for transportation, (1981) Vol 41, p 444

Law Review Citations

55 OLR 537-551 (1976); 56 OLR 331 (1977)

Chapter 646

Notes of Decisions

Subject matter regulated by this chapter is not "preempted" by Federal Robinson-Patman Act so as to render this chapter invalid. W. J. Seufert v. Nat. Restaurant Supply Co., 266 Or 92, 511 P2d 363 (1973)

Whether an injunction should issue when a court finds a violation of the Act is a matter of discretion. State ex rel Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 25 Or App 9, 548 P2d 176 (1976)

This chapter imposes no affirmative duty to inform customers of rates in absence of request, but prohibits making information about prices available to some customers and not others. Wildish Sand & Gravel v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 103 Or App 215, 796 P2d 1237 (1990), Sup Ct review denied


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021