Business owner says city required $132,000 in corner work already funded by state project; bill would bar duplicative permit conditions

Representative Paul Evans introduced House Bill 26 58 a during the Senate Committee on Housing and Development’s May 14 work session and public hearing, saying the measure would bar cities or counties (population 15,000 or greater) from conditioning a permit or zone change on improvements that have already been financed, planned or approved.

Evans said the bill arose from a concrete example: Cammie Price, a Portland small‑business owner, told the committee she purchased a small commercial building in October 2018 and began interior renovation in January 2019. Price testified that the city withheld permits until she agreed to upgrade a sidewalk and ADA ramp at her corner because of a permit condition. She said initial estimates from the city indicated a sidewalk permit fee of about $2,900 and a possible total cost of $8,000–$10,000, but the city later required a performance bond based on a high estimate of $67,000. Price said a later contractor bid for the work came in at $119,000; she then negotiated with a subcontractor working on the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) multimodal project and obtained a discounted price of $90,000.

Price told the committee the entire process took more than six years and $132,000 of her personal funds — including construction, engineering, permits and bond costs — before the city closed her permits on Jan. 29, 2025. “This process was unnecessarily costly, exhausting, and duplicative,” she said.

Paul Evans said the bill passed the House on a 46–5 vote and that the dash‑5 amendment narrowed the bill’s scope to avoid unintended consequences; he called it a targeted governance fix to prevent the situation Price described.

Portland Bureau of Transportation Director Millicent Williams testified that the city had coordinated with ODOT and that an agreement assigned responsibility for the single corner ramp to the developer, while ODOT retained scope for other corridor elements. Williams apologized that Price felt unsupported, said the city’s exception and appeals process exists to address onerous requirements for small projects and noted the bill raises questions about what constitutes a “truly imminent” public project. Williams said the city supports protecting owners from paying for improvements that are “planned, funded, and truly imminent” but remains concerned that broad timelines could create gaps in curb, sidewalk and utility infrastructure.

Alexander Ring of the League of Oregon Cities said the league was neutral on the dash‑1 amendment and warned the committee that the bill may cause unintended infrastructure gaps where public projects fall through after a private permit is issued. Tom Powers, representing Multnomah County, said the bill’s definitions risked conflating design and construction and could hamper sidewalk and stormwater work on county roads that now function as main streets.

Representative Evans and supporters said the dash‑5 amendment substantially narrowed the bill to address prior concerns; cities and municipalities engaged in negotiation on the amendment and some signaled neutrality with the new language.

The committee took public testimony from Ms. Price and several city and county witnesses and closed the hearing; no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.