This resolution supports modifications to the Street Opening Permit fee structure to include a Street Damage Restoration Fee (SDRF) to recover a portion of the long-term pavement degradation caused by excavation in the public right-of-way. Portland City Code Chapter 17.24 requires permits for excavation and authorizes PBOT to establish permit fees and administrative rules governing such work.Excavation disrupts pavement structure, weakens adjacent pavement edges, and accelerates deterioration beyond the immediate trench area. While utilities are required to restore the trench itself, existing permit fees recover only administrative and inspection costs and do not address the broader pavement impacts caused by excavation. Just over the past three years alone, more than 53 miles of trenching, approximately 1,400 blocks, have occurred within Portland streets.This proposal follows Council direction in Resolution 37712 to identify alternative funding strategies to address PBOT's transportation funding needs. The SDRF would be assessed at the time of Street Opening Permit issuance and would more proportionally align the costs of pavement life reduction with the entities performing excavation.
Official proposal and impact statementWhat is Portland deciding about support modification of Bureau of Transportation street opening permits to utilities to include damage cost recovery related to…
This resolution supports modifications to the Street Opening Permit fee structure to include a Street Damage Restoration Fee (SDRF) to recover a portion of the long-term pavement degradation caused by excavation in the public right-of-way. Portland City Code Chapter 17.24 requires permits for excavation and authorizes PBOT to establish permit fees and administrative rules governing such work.Excavation disrupts pavement structure, weakens adjacent pavement edges, and accelerates deterioration beyond the immediate trench area. While utilities are required to restore the trench itself, existing permit fees recover only administrative and inspection costs and do not address the broader pavement impacts caused by excavation. Just over the past three years alone, more than 53 miles of trenching, approximately 1,400 blocks, have occurred within Portland streets.This proposal follows Council direction in Resolution 37712 to identify alternative funding strategies to address PBOT's transportation funding needs. The SDRF would be assessed at the time of Street Opening Permit issuance and would more proportionally align the costs of pavement life reduction with the entities performing excavation.
Official impact statementSee the official legal title
Support modification of Bureau of Transportation street opening permits to utilities to include damage cost recovery related to long-term pavement degradation associated with excavation in the public right-of-way
What this proposal would actually do.
Plain-language orientation first. Every substantive statement below links to its official basis.
The reviewed sources do not clearly identify every existing policy, service, contract, or obligation that would remain unchanged.
Official matter recordThis proposal concerns transportation & public works and requires action through Portland’s public legislative process.
Official matter classification and recordThe proposed legislation benefits Portland residents and businesses by helping maintain the condition and longevity of the City's street network. Frequent excavation contributes to accelerated pavement deterioration, which can increase long-term maintenance costs and reduce roadway quality.Revenue from the Street Damage Restoration Fee will support pavement preservation and maintenance activities that improve roadway conditions and extend the life of existing infrastructure. Maintaining pavement in good condition through preservation treatments is significantly more cost-effective than allowing pavement to deteriorate to the point of requiring reconstruction. Every $1 invested in pavement preservation can avoid $6–$10 in future reconstruction costs.PBOT conducted public outreach through open houses in each of Portland's four Council Districts and an online survey, which indicated general support for policies that ensure entities performing street cuts contribute to addressing the resulting pavement impacts.
Official community impact statementWhat the record establishes and what it does not.
Votes show choices. They do not, by themselves, prove why a member made that choice.
Passed · 11–0
Read the exact motion or vote question
Final action on 2026-114: Support modification of Bureau of Transportation street opening permits to utilities to include damage cost recovery related to long-term pavement degradation associated with excavation in the public right-of-way
We will not turn the roll call into invented arguments.
The vote above establishes who supported or opposed that exact motion. A source-validated account of the competing reasons will appear only after human review of the meeting transcript and documents.
This resolution does not appropriate funds or require a budget amendment. It supports implementation of a Street Damage Restoration Fee within PBOT's Transportation Fee Schedule, anticipated to take effect in Fiscal Year 2026-27 starting on January 1, 2027.Revenue generated by the fee will depend on the annual volume and size of street excavations permitted by PBOT. Based on recent permitting activity, the fee is expected to generate approximately $10M dollars in the first half year of collection. Actual revenue may be less due to increased permit cut coordination.Revenue collected will be deposited into PBOT's Transportation Operating Fund and used for pavement management, preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, as well as the administration and enforcement of the utility permitting and restorations. PBOT will report annually to Council on revenues collected and program performance.
Official financial impact statement- The source-linked record has not yet received a human review of competing arguments. A yes or no vote alone does not establish a Councilor’s rationale.
- What implementation evidence will show whether the intended result occurred?
Official testimony on this decision has closed. Residents can still contact their district Councilors about implementation and follow-up.
Official Council agendaInspect the complete research record.
Official text, source files, exact motions, roll calls, provenance, and the technical completeness check remain available without crowding the explanation above.
Official documents1 sources
The operative official record after Council action.
Open at Portland.govRead the full official text
WHEREAS,the City of Portland holds its public streets and rights-of-way in trust for the benefit of the public and has invested substantial public funds in constructing, maintaining, and preserving its pavement infrastructure; andWHEREAS, Portland City Code Chapter 17.24 requires any person performing excavation within a public street to obtain a Street Opening Permit pursuant to PCC 17.24.020, and authorizes the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to establish permit fees and related requirements; andWHEREAS,PBOT Administrative Rule TRN-10.19 governs Utility Permits in the Right-of-Way and requires that any person desiring to make a public improvement, perform work in, or use the public right-of-way must first obtain a permit from the City Engineer; andWHEREAS, over the last three years, more than 53 miles of utility trenching, representing approximately 1,400 blocks of excavation, have occurred within Portland's public streets; andWHEREAS, excavation and trenching within the paved portion of the right-of-way disrupt pavement structure, weaken adjacent pavement edges, allow water intrusion, and accelerate cracking, settlement, and deterioration of the pavement area beyond the immediate trench boundaries; andWHEREAS, industry research and pavement management data demonstrate that trenching can reduce pavement service life at least 60% percent; andWHEREAS, maintaining good pavement condition through timely preservation treatments is significantly more cost-effective than allowing pavement to deteriorate to the point where full reconstruction is required; andWHEREAS, under current City practice, the existing restoration standards completed by utilities and other permittees do not address the structural damage caused by utility trenching; andWHEREAS, existing Street Opening Permit fees recover administrative and inspection costs associated with processing permits and overseeing restoration activities, but do not recover the City's proportional costs associated with long-term pavement life loss and accelerated deterioration caused by excavation activity; andWHEREAS, the City would benefit if utilities coordinated with each other or with PBOT to minimize the number of street openings or to construct openings on streets planned for paving improvements; andWHEREAS, Portland City Code Section 12.15.020 recognizes that frequent excavation is a primary cause of early and excessive deterioration of the right-of-way and the City's regulatory authority to protect the structural integrity of its streets; andWHEREAS, other city jurisdictions, including the City of Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco in California and Seattle, Washington, have established damage fees to capture the costs of the deterioration caused by excavation. These cities' fees range from $7 to $22.50 per square foot. The City of Los Angeles has the most mature model and uses an average fee of $13.84 per square foot; andWHEREAS, Portland City Code Section 12.15.050 provides that regulatory fees and compensation for use of the right-of-way are separate from and in addition to other City charges and are not taxes subject to the property tax limitations of Article XI, Sections 11 and 11b of the Oregon Constitution, and are not imposed on property or property owners; andWHEREAS, on July 16, 2025, the Council adopted Resolution 37712 directing the Public Works Service Area and Budget and Finance Service Area to develop a comprehensive strategy to identify and evaluate viable alternative funding sources to help address transportation funding needs; andWHEREAS, on December 15, 2025, the Public Works Service Area and Budget and Finance Service Area presented an Alternative Transportation Funding Report, reviewing possible funding approaches, to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The report presented a narrowed list of four revenue options for further vetting, including a proposal to assess a damage fee to the current utility street opening permitting process; andWHEREAS, on January 26, 2026, PBOT presented several damage fee scenarios, modeling the fee structure from the City of Los Angeles damage fee model, along with other revenue approaches and a public engagement plan, to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Based on feedback from the committee, staff presented the damage fee scenarios to the public to obtain additional feedback; andWHEREAS, PBOT documented public support for adopting a damage fee through open houses held at each of the four Council Districts, as well as an online survey; andWHEREAS, the Council finds that it is reasonable and proportional to recover the long-term pavement degradation costs attributable to excavation from those entities performing street cuts; andWHEREAS, revenue collected from a Street Damage Restoration Fee will be directed to pavement management, preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, as well as the administration, coordination, and enforcement of the utility permitting and restoration.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City Council supports and affirms the City Administrator's authority under PCC 17.24.020 and related administrative rules to modify Administrative Rule TRN-10.19, Utility Permits in the Right-of-Way, to include a Street Damage Restoration Fee reflecting a proportional share of documented long-term pavement degradation costs associated with excavation in the public right-of-way; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Council supports the City Administrator encouraging city and non-city utilities to coordinate with each other and with PBOT paving improvements to maximize the life of the City of Portland's pavement assets; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Council supports the City Administrator investing revenue collected from a Street Damage Restoration Fee into pavement management, preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, as well as the administration, coordination and enforcement of the utility permitting and restoration; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Council supports the City Administrator's intent to include a Street Damage Restoration Fee at the 100% damage recovery amount as part of the Transportation Fee Schedule, as shown in Exhibit A attached to this Resolution and implement this fee by January 1, 2027. Exhibit A includes rates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Council requests that PBOT provide an annual report on the Street Damage Restoration Fee that includes the following:A. A report on revenues collected and expenditures made; andB. An evaluation of whether the fee remains proportional to documented pavement degradation costs; andC. Any recommended adjustments to the fee methodology or administrative rules to ensure continued proportionality and legal compliance.
Meetings, motions, amendments, and votes2 meetings · 3 votes
Recorded amendments
Motion to amend the second to last resolved statement in the Resolution and Exhibit A, Document 2026-114, to change the Street Damage Restoration Fee from 75% to 100%: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Green. (Aye (12): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Zimmerman, Avalos, Dunphy, Smith, Kanal)
Motion to refer the Resolution, Document Number 2026-114, to City Council with the recommendation it be adopted as amended: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Green. (Aye (10): Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Avalos, Dunphy, Smith, Kanal; Nay (1): Ryan; Absent (1): Zimmerman)
Read all 2 exact motions
Motion to amend the second to last resolved statement in the Resolution and Exhibit A, Document 2026-114, to change the Street Damage Restoration Fee from 75% to 100%: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Green. (Aye (12): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Zimmerman, Avalos, Dunphy, Smith, Kanal)
Motion to refer the Resolution, Document Number 2026-114, to City Council with the recommendation it be adopted as amended: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Green. (Aye (10): Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Avalos, Dunphy, Smith, Kanal; Nay (1): Ryan; Absent (1): Zimmerman)
Final Council action · Apr 15, 202611 yes · 0 no · 1 absent
Final action on 2026-114: Support modification of Bureau of Transportation street opening permits to utilities to include damage cost recovery related to long-term pavement degradation associated with excavation in the public right-of-way
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Apr 2, 202612 yes
Motion to amend the second to last resolved statement in the Resolution and Exhibit A, Document 2026-114, to change the Street Damage Restoration Fee from 75% to 100%: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Green. (Aye (12): Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Zimmerman, Avalos, Dunphy, Smith, Kanal)
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Apr 2, 202610 yes · 1 no · 1 absent
Motion to refer the Resolution, Document Number 2026-114, to City Council with the recommendation it be adopted as amended: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Green. (Aye (10): Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane, Morillo, Novick, Clark, Green, Avalos, Dunphy, Smith, Kanal; Nay (1): Ryan; Absent (1): Zimmerman)
Data quality, timeline, and provenanceRules v2
Unreviewed keyword matches and machine-extracted fragments are not presented as authoritative findings. Only 0 human-reviewed findings are available for this matter.
Technical information-completeness check · Ready With Caveats
This checks whether decision-relevant categories appear in the published packet. It does not recommend approval or opposition.
The official title and operative text identify the requested action.
Official text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.
The official impact statement includes financial information.
The impact statement identifies funding information without an explicit unresolved-source qualifier.
No linked attachments were found on the official page.
The text references exhibits. This guide has not yet automatically verified that each referenced exhibit is present, populated, and internally consistent.
The reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.
A direction, reporting requirement, or deadline appears in the official text.
Stability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.
- First discovered
- Aug 13, 2026, 1:05 PM PDT
- Last checked
- Sep 13, 2026, 2:24 AM PDT
- Evidence hash
- fc9a9868fb9ffcf6
- Guide status
- Deterministic baseline
- SOURCE UPDATED
Adopted as amended by council
- DOCUMENT PUBLISHED
Observed in the official source.
- Council Action
Adopted as amended
- Council Action
Referred to City Council as amended
- Council Action
Referred to City Council as amended