See something we could improve on this page? Give website feedback.
Label:
Ordinance
Amend Portland Permitting & Development Fee Schedules to improve cost recovery to ensure an adequate level of service
Passed
The City of Portland ordains.
Section 1. The Council finds:
- Portland Permitting & Development (PP&D) promotes safety, livability, and economic vitality through efficient and collaborative application of building and development codes.
- In 1988-89, the Development Services Operating Fund was established with a policy that construction-related programs in the fund would be full self-supporting. Since that time PP&D, formerly known as the Bureau of Development Services (BDS), has kept these programs self-supporting by providing efficient, effective services and applying periodic, moderate fee increases that allow the bureau to respond to increasing costs and to be innovative and proactive in meeting changing customer needs.
- PP&D collects fees under various fee schedules, including building, land use, neighborhood inspections, plumbing, signs, site development, and others. These fees are used by PP&D to fund inspections, plan review, permit issuance, land use review, code enforcement, customer assistance and other functions.
- Fees charged for services delegated from the State Building Codes Division (BCD) must comply with the fee calculation methodologies as determined by BCD and described in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 918-050-0000 through 918-050-0170.
- Fees charged must be used to cover the costs of administering and enforcing the State Building Code only and may not be used to cover the costs of administering and enforcing local codes. Fees charged by PP&D should cover the costs of providing these services.
- PP&D has been proactive in informing bureau customers and stakeholders regarding the need and rationale for the proposed fee changes. The bureau has published information about the proposed changes on its website.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:
- The Fee Schedules listed as exhibits A through Q to this ordinance shall be effective July 10, 2026.
- This ordinance is binding City policy.
In support of this ordinance, the following Exhibits (A-Q) describe the current and proposed fees:
- Exhibit A: Building
- Exhibit B: Cannabis
- Exhibit C: Electrical
- Exhibit D: Enforcement
- Exhibit E: Environmental Review
- Exhibit F: Land Use Services (LUS)
- Exhibit G: Life Safety (LUS)
- Exhibit H: Site Development (LUS)
- Exhibit I: Mechanical
- Exhibit J: Noise
- Exhibit K: Plumbing
- Exhibit L: Signs
- Exhibit M: Site Development
- Exhibit N: Transportation Review
- Exhibit O: Urban Forestry Review
- Exhibit P: Water Review
- Exhibit Q: Hearings Office (LUS)
Exhibits and attachments
An ordinance when passed by the Council shall be signed by the Auditor. It shall be carefully filed and preserved
in the custody of the Auditor (City Charter Chapter 2 Article 1 Section 2-122)
Passed by Council
Auditor of the City of Portland
Simone Rede
Impact Statement
Purpose of proposed legislation and background information
Portland Permitting & Development (PP&D) collects fees under various fee schedules to fund inspections, plan review, permit issuance, land use review, customer assistance, and other functions. Most bureau programs have the goal to be self-supporting, while three programs receive General Fund support. Of the three programs receiving General Fund Support, two (Neighborhood Inspections and Noise) are affected by this ordinance.
PP&D maintains a strong commitment to providing excellent programs and services while operating in a fiscally responsible manner. This commitment, coupled with recent decreases in demand for services and increasing costs, is resulting in proposed increases for most fees in FY 2026-27. PP&D continues to strive to use its resources efficiently and keep costs as low as possible.
While the bureau recognizes the impact of increased fees on its customers, fee increases will be necessary to improve service levels, respond to current and future service level demands, and to operate closer to cost recovery. PP&D is therefore proposing the following fee schedule increases:
- 9% to Building/Mechanical, Environmental Review, Urban Forestry Review, and Water Review fees
- 5% to Electrical, Field Issuance Remodel (FIR), Land Use Services, Neighborhood Inspections, Plumbing, Sign, Site Development, and Zoning Enforcement fees
- 26% to Accessory Short-Term Rental (ASTR) fees
- 41% to Noise Variance fees
- 34% to Transportation Review fees
Financial and budgetary impacts
Percent increases are aggregated, however percentage change to individual fees may vary. This ordinance does not amend the PP&D budget.
This legislation does not create, eliminate, or re-classify positions now or in the future. Additional staff time required is limited to performing outreach, preparing the revised fee schedules, and this subsequent legislation. Existing PP&D staff will implement and administer the revised fee schedule as part of the existing workload. There is no change to demographic impacts or changes in staffing. The legislation does not result in a new or modified financial obligation or benefit, including IAs, IGAs, MOUs, grants, contracts, or contract amendments.
Economic and real estate development impacts
As PP&D is funded mainly through fees and charges for service, the bureau must set fees at a level which cover the costs of providing services. Costs are rising due to:
- increased personnel costs from union labor agreements,
- cost-of-living adjustments,
- merit and step pay increases,
- health & benefits increases,
- mandatory PERS contribution increases,
- costs associated with implementing technology and process improvement work, and
- materials and services inflation.
The fees charged by PP&D support the staff time associated with services, including responding to customer inquiries, providing early assistance, plan review, and inspection of buildings, and are necessary to ensure a stable, experienced workforce. These fee changes allow PP&D to maintain current service levels.
PP&D has had significant staff reductions through layoffs and natural attrition in recent years. Any additional staff reductions will impede the bureau's present and future ability to provide services. Services would be cut, permitting timelines would be impacted heavily, and PP&D would be in the position of not being able to support the demands of the development industry when permitting activity increases again.
The 2017 Government Accountability Transparency Results (GATR): Strategies for Accelerating Housing Development Report, determined PP&D fees are not a major factor in project feasibility. The negative economic effect of longer permitting timelines is outweighed by the minor increase in project costs from these proposed fee increases.
Community impacts and community involvement
PP&D has been proactive in keeping customers and stakeholders informed regarding these proposed fee changes. The bureau has published information about the proposed fee increases on its website. Additionally, division managers have reached out to appropriate industry organizations and committees.
The bureau knows these changes affect its customers' work and their willingness to do business in this area. PP&D's interests are in delivering excellent levels of service and increasing its effectiveness on both its customers' and the community's behalf.
100% renewable goal
Not applicable.
Economic and real estate development analysis
Analysis provided by Prosper Portland
An Economic and Real Estate Development Impact Statement was submitted for this proposed action. Pursuant to City Council Resolution 37664, Prosper Portland staff has reviewed the item.
The Economic and Real Estate Development Impact Statement would benefit from additional discussion on the following topics:
- A comparison of how Portland's permitting fees compare to other cities. For example, with a new single-family residence, Portland's permitting fees are comparable to Beaverton and Wilsonville, Oregon and Sacramento, California. However, Portland's fees are significantly lower than San Diego, California while being noticeably higher than Milwaukee and Hillsboro, Oregon.
- The negative effects of reducing staff levels, such as the increased cost burden on home builders due to longer turnaround times for construction permits. Relatedly, the negative reputational effect on the perception of Portland as a place to build housing that would result if the turnround time for permits were to increase due to reduced staffing levels.
- Outreach to the impacted community and industry organizations relating to this proposal, along with a summary of the feedback received.
Document history
Document number: 2026-152
President's referral: Housing and Permitting Committee