Committee hears hours of testimony on tree code, forwards amended fee schedule after staff presentation

City officials from Portland Parks & Recreation and Urban Forestry briefed the Finance Committee April 1 on enforcement, compliance, and fee proposals under Title 11 — the city’s tree code — then took extended public testimony before forwarding an amended fee schedule to the full council with a recommendation to pass.

Deputy Commissioner Sonia Chimanski opened the briefing and framed Title 11 as a 10‑year check‑in for the city’s tree code. "This 10 year check-in is the time to review, revisit, and reset the course for the next 10 years," Chimanski said. Adina Long, director of Portland Parks & Recreation, described Urban Forestry’s work to preserve and grow Portland’s tree canopy, noting the program’s planting targets and emergency response responsibilities.

Casey Jogurst, manager of the permitting and regulation program in Urban Forestry, summarized how the code compliance program is complaint‑driven, focused on corrective action, and generally seeks restoration rather than punishment. Rick Faber, Urban Forestry code compliance supervisor, presented a district review showing that in a recent review of 109 active cases in District 4, about 61% required no enforcement fee and 30% required only the standard removal application fee; roughly 7% resulted in a $350 violation review fee and fewer than 1% led to major penalties.

Staff explained specific parts of the proposed FY 2025–26 fee schedule. Brian Lando of Urban Forestry said the draft schedule would:

- eliminate or greatly reduce many non‑development fees for routine tree permits (for example, removing the standard application fee in some non‑development cases), funded in part by a Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF) allocation so staff can maintain service levels; - increase the fee‑in‑lieu for preservation/planting by 5% (the fee in the draft is $712 per tree, designed to approximate planting and three years of establishment); and - increase the programmatic permit fee (used by utilities and high‑volume applicants) by 10% — the first change for that item since 2018.

Staff emphasized existing relief tools: administrative Rule PRK 2.06 establishes a waiver program that can reduce accumulated enforcement fees by up to 75% (or fully waive them) for qualifying low‑income property owners, and Urban Forestry said it has waived roughly $580,000 in fees since 2020 under the rule. Urban Forestry also described a newly funded street tree maintenance program supported by PCEF funds and a private‑property maintenance support pilot intended to lower the burden on property owners.

Public testimony spanned dozens of speakers and perspectives. Supporters of Title 11 and expanded city investment in trees included Friends of Trees, researchers from the USDA Forest Service and Portland State University, and neighborhood tree stewards who highlighted public‑health, heat‑mitigation, and equity benefits of trees. Opponents and residents who described negative experiences cited cases where property owners received large bills, inconsistent communications from bureaus, or difficulty getting urgent help after storms. One public commenter said an ombudsman review found city bureaus responsible for a sidewalk and tree removal conflict, but a bureau later refused reimbursement; another speaker said urban forestry had issued a $13,725 bill for after‑the‑fact pruning.

Council members pressed staff on process and equity. Councilors raised concerns about appeal outcomes — urban forestry said many administrative review determinations are reversed when property owners provide new information, and staff explained that inspectors often must make determinations from public rights of way and cannot enter private property. Staff also described outreach and education efforts, including the Call Before You Cut campaign, community stewardship programs, a newsletter, and a new public education position supported by PCEF funds.

After hours of presentation and public comment, committee members proposed and adopted amendments to the fee schedule in committee. The amendments directed the committee to eliminate several administrative fees pending deeper review: the committee voted to set the non‑development Administrative Review and Appeal application fee to $0 and to set two Administrative Review/Violation Review fees (the enforcement Administrative Review and the $350 violation review) to $0. Committee members said they will request a budget‑season follow‑up (a budget note) so staff can prepare an accounting of how enforcement fees have been used and to ensure adequate staffing if application volumes rise following fee reductions.

The committee then moved the amended fee schedule to full council with a recommendation that it be passed. Staff said the fee changes will be reflected in the executive budget that is released in May and that PCEF funds are intended to cover lost fee revenue for an initial period while the city implements the service and outreach changes.

The urban forestry plan update, an ongoing process of public engagement and analysis, remains open for comment; staff said Title 11 code amendments are planned next year to align the code to the plan. The amended fee ordinance was scheduled for full council consideration on April 16.