Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Fees And Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council receives first‑reading packet of water, sewer, storm, transportation and permitting fee updates; public comment offered; items carried over
Summary
Council reviewed a package of ordinances to update tree permit fees, water/sewer/stormwater rates, transportation fees and permitting schedules. Committee staff summarized proposed adjustments (averaging roughly 5–8% in many categories). Council took public testimony and recessed to continue discussion at a future meeting.
Portland Council received a multi‑ordinance fee package on first reading that would update a range of city rates and fees for FY 2025–26, including: PRK (tree permit fees), water rates and water‑related service charges, sewer and stormwater rates and service development charges, transportation fees and permitting and development fee schedules. Committee staff provided a consolidated finance committee summary.
Key elements from the committee summary (staff): - Tree permits (PRK 2.03): small increases to fees in lieu and development review fees; reduction of some administrative review fees; restoration fees increased ~5%. - Water and water‑related services: proposed retail rate adjustments in the mid‑single digits (staff cited approximately an 8% retail increase in one document), and updated system‑development charges to reflect current cost recovery targets. - Sewer and stormwater: changes to rates and SDCs with intended average increases near 5% across several fee lines. - Transportation and permitting fees: most fees held flat or increased by roughly 5%; selected fees that had not reached full cost recovery rose more sharply; committee amendments addressed certain administrative appeal and enforcement fees.
Public comment: members of the Portland Utility Board (PUB) urged early engagement and highlighted affordability and deferred maintenance risks; advocates asked for clearer communications on impacts to low‑income residents. Urban forestry advocate Edith Gilles urged stronger protections and lower appeal costs for residents and higher penalties for illegal tree removals. Two members of SEIU and other speakers commented on related budgetary priorities.
Council action: because the meeting ran long, council recessed and scheduled continued consideration for a subsequent meeting. Several councilors asked staff to confirm exhibit attachments (staff agreed to follow up on a blank exhibit PDF that appeared online) and to provide detailed comparisons to the mayor’s proposed budget and prior committee action before final votes.
Next steps: staff will return with corrected exhibits and any requested clarifications; several ordinances will be scheduled for final reading in upcoming council sessions (some as emergency items if timing requires).
