Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting And Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portland Permitting and Development warns proposed cuts would sharply slow permitting and inspections
Summary
Interim PPD leadership told council that the bureau's fee-funded model and a proposed cut of 53 filled positions would materially slow permit reviews and inspections and risk longer delays if building activity rebounds.
Portland Permitting and Development (PPD) leaders told the City Council at a May work session that the bureau faces a structural funding problem and that a proposed round of staffing cuts would substantially slow permitting and inspections.
"The revenue growth is projected to be flat for the coming fiscal year, 25-26," David Tienhausen, interim director of Portland Permitting and Development, said. He and other PPD witnesses said the bureau is primarily funded by fees and charges for services and has little ongoing general-fund support.
The council heard that the mayor's proposed budget would eliminate 53 filled positions and 12 vacancies in PPD, following earlier reductions. Tienhausen said the bureau previously reduced its workforce by about 74 FTE and took another round of cuts in January 2024. "Those impacts, of the layoffs left the bureau with insufficient staff," he said, describing a pattern of staffing reductions tied to swings in construction activity.
Why it matters: PPD reviews and inspects tens of thousands of permit actions each year. The bureau told councilors it performs plan reviews, issues permits, conducts more than 500 inspections per day across multiple permit types and fields roughly 38,000 customer phone calls annually. Staff and councilors warned that cuts now would leave the city short-staffed if permitting activity rebounded, and rebuilding capacity would take time.
Details from the presentation: PPD reported roughly $77.5 million in projected revenue for fiscal 24-25 and a modest increase to about $80 million for 25-26, driven partly by a proposed 5% fee increase. Tienhausen said the 53-FTE reduction is proposed as part of two cut packages to close an approximately $14 million forecast gap. "Every $1,000,000 in additional funding equates to about 5 to 6 FTE," he told councilors.
Councilors pressed several operational and policy points: they asked whether revenue projections reflect new housing pushes or mayoral initiatives; Tienhausen replied they do not. Councilors also pressed whether the fee model is sustainable and urged a study of alternatives. "Revenue stable funding source: we're gonna find ourselves in the current situation every couple years," he said, and described the need for a new funding model.
What council asked staff to do: Discussion at the work session focused on preserving core capacity and on whether to restore some positions or hold contingency funds to rehire quickly if development activity returns. Several councilors said they plan amendments or budget notes to explore options to avoid long-lived service interruptions.
Bottom line: PPD leaders say the bureau is highly sensitive to construction market fluctuations, that recent staffing reductions already strained capacity, and that the proposed further cuts would lengthen timelines and raise costs for developers and the public. Councilors signaled they will weigh restoring funding or adding short-term contingency to avoid losing institutional capacity.
