Looking to stem a financial crisis that’s been years in the making, the Portland City Council will host an important debate at meetings tomorrow (Wednesday, 4/15) that, if ultimately supported, would result in a significant increase to their annual revenue. On the agenda of the Committee of the Whole is an ordinance to adopt a transportation utility fee (TUF) and the regular City Council meeting will consider a resolution to adopt a street damage restoration fee (SDRF). If both fees were passed as currently proposed, they’d generate an estimated $69 million a year in new revenue.
To put that number into perspective, $69 million is about 40% of PBOT’s annual General Transportation Revenue. GTR is important because it’s discretionary — meaning the money is not obligated to specific projects or grant sources and PBOT can spend it however they see fit. This new funding would be very significant to PBOT given that just over 70% of its current budget is restricted.
The background
The TUF, which would be an additional line-item on Portlanders’ utility bills, could bring in about $47 million a year. The City’s current plan is to charge a flat rate of $12 per household, and $8.40 for folks who live in multifamily dwellings (a low-income discount program would also be created). The commercial rate would be 4.3% of the business owner’s utility bill. The SDRF would be charged to agencies and contractors who cut open city-owned streets to perform projects (these could be public agencies or private companies). In the past, PBOT would foot the bill to repair damaged pavement. The current plan is to add a $10.38 per square-foot charge to all “street opening permits” to account for the damages. The city estimates that would bring in about $22 million per year in new revenue.
Funds from the SDRF would be spent on damage done by the permit holder and the rest would go toward administration of the program. 75% of funds raised by the TUF would be spent on general maintenance and street preservation, including “those that support the City’s Vision Zero goals.”
Council members have already voiced strong support for both of these fees and there doesn’t appear to be strong, organized opposition to either of them (so far Councilor Dan Ryan is the only member to lodge a “no” vote). The only questions that remain appear to be how the fees might be tweaked around the edges.
The amendments
Given that the TUF ordinance language says how “no less than 75%” of the revenue must be spent, there’s likely to be spirited debate on Council about how to spend the remaining 25%. We already have two proposed amendments related to that issue.
District 3 Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane wants the ordinance to state that no less than 25% of the revenue must be spent on, “activities that move us closer to our Vision Zero goals.” Koyama Lane’s amendment would also explicitly prohibit the money from being spent on “major roadway expansion.” She also wants to add language that would call out the Sidewalk Improvement and Paving Program (SIPP) as one of the eligible expenditures. SIPP was passed by Council in May 2025 as an unfunded mandate to build sidewalks in Districts 1 and 4.
This amendment makes sense for Koyama Lane, given that she’s positioned herself as Council’s Vision Zero champion. But keep in mind, the ordinance as written would already fund Vision Zero-related activities. The language says that at least 75% of the revenue must include, “maintenance activities that help the City achieve Vision Zero goals,” which includes, “bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance.”
District 2 Councilor Sameer Kanal wants to strengthen the City’s commitment to a low-income discount. His amendment would force city leaders to work with the Public Works Service Area (of which PBOT is a part of) to provide a report on how to implement a TUF discount program and deliver to City Council before the end of this year.
District 4 Councilor Eric Zimmerman wants to make sure the TUF provides revenue directly to the SIPP program. Zimmerman’s amendment would add SIPP to Vision Zero as one of the investment areas that some of the maintenance projects align with when PBOT is considering how to spend the 75%. When it comes to the remaining 25%, Zimmerman wants the ordinance to dedicated half of it (12.5%) to the SIPP and the remaining half to go to Vision Zero.
District 4 Councilor Mitch Green has put forward a legislative concept — not an official amendment. Green’s proposal would create a two-part rate structure for the TUF: a fixed charge of $3 per billed account on the lot per month, plus a variable fee of $0.10 per 100 square-feet of utilized zoned land usage for each billable account per month. At the April 2nd meeting of the Committee of the Whole (where the TUF was last discussed), Green said he believes his idea would, “Align better with cost-causation principles” and that it, “sends a price signal to use our land more efficiently.” Green added that the proposal would also incentivize land owners to create more units within existing land, thus discouraging sprawl.
Note that Green’s proposal — which he referred to as, “quite elegant” and “really smart” — is not an amendment. That’s because he understands the urgency of the moment and wants the current proposal to pass as-is. At that April 2nd meeting he successfully passed an amendment that would allow Council to change the design of the fee (not the amount) at a later date. He wants his proposal to be carried forward in future discussions in hopes that after the existing fee passes, he can convince a majority of his colleagues to adopt his idea.
The politics
These new fees have more than enough support on City Council to pass. There will be some discussion tomorrow about relatively minor details of how the money is spent, but I don’t see a lot of disagreement among councilors. The TUF will be discussed in committee at 2:00 pm tomorrow and the SDRF resolution will be in front of full City Council at their 6:00 pm meeting later that same day.
If these fees pass, they’d go into effect January 1, 2027 and Council would have an opportunity to make adjustment every two years beginning in 2029.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
The most inequitable thing would be to keep our streets unfunded. Pass the TUF!
But they are funded. PBOT and our city just really spends our money poorly. And now they are coming back for seconds.
Why isn’t all of it going to maintenance? Does the council need another slush fund to put towards pet projects while our infrastructure deteriorates? The 70% of PBOTs budget that is restricted is more than enough for their pet projects. They can propose capital projects that have dedicated funding if they want something built in their neighborhood.
As it stands the estimated $69 million isn’t even close to enough to bring all of our infrastructure up to an acceptable quality. In 2015 that number was $100 million a year over 10 years or a billion dollars. The last time they provided an estimate that included improving unimproved streets and sidewalks that number was $400 million a year over 10 years or four billion dollars.
Green’s proposal is confusing and if I understand it correctly it would add an additional $5 to a standard 5k lot with a single family home like is common in Montavilla. To match their flat fee of $12 the average lot to unit ratio would need to be 9,000 SQFT. That seems kind of big. My basic googling suggests the average is 5,300 SQFT. Does he have some math that makes it come out to the same amount?
I imagine the reason it isn’t all going to maintenance, is because there still needs to be new infrastructure built. Like sidewalks through much of SW and parts of SE, for example.
This is Portland! We chase dreams over pragmatism.
So every time utility rates are increased, business owners get a tax increase. That doesn’t sound business friendly.
I’m opposed to restrictions on how this money can be spent. Too many bespoke taxes already going unspent with too many restrictions, which is partly why we have to keep dipping into the tax base. If we don’t like how the money is being spent, vote out the councilors who are screwing it up.
Wrong – the problem is that unrestricted funds always end up going to political interests, think ribbon-cutting opportunities and pet projects, rather than basic maintenance. Development fees are restricted for capital projects, grants are project specific, and then there is no money left for filling the potholes, fixing broken lights, and updating signs and markings, etc…
If that happens, we can impose another utility fee to fund street repair.
We’ve been down this road before; utility companies are paying a fee to repair streets, except it’s all been siphoned off into other things.
“ The City’s current plan is to charge a flat rate of $12 per household”
That’s per month, every month, from now until who knows.
I think why there isn’t any organized resistance to this, is because most people aren’t even aware that their utility bills are about to go up another $12 a month.
It’s really only being talked about it in transportation circles as a fee to fund pbot. But really this is a new tax on people who have already endured steady increases in utility costs. And we have no vote on this like we normally do with new taxes, because they are calling it a fee.
It’s maddening actually.
Counterpoint: motorists have been benefitting from unsustainable and unfunded subsidies for decades and are now mad that the chickens have finally come home to roost.
$144 per year?
yeah it’s totally gross
The rest of what? Not clear how much is for admin.
I don’t think they are saying exactly how the split would happen. I’m sure they will cover all admin costs. But I haven’t seen an admin cost estimate. Good question.
Posting this for inquisitive people who want to see another perspective before jumping on the Portland progressive bandwagon that more taxes automatically fix everything.
Portland is pushing two new transportation fees—a monthly Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) and a Street Damage Restoration Fee (SDRF)—without sending them to voters. Together, they’d raise about $68 million a year.
(This is a summary of Eric Fruits’ article—I’ll drop a link so you can read the full piece.)
No one disputes PBOT has a funding problem. The real issue is whether these fees are fair, well-designed, and legally sound—and whether the city has earned enough trust to impose them without a vote.
The TUF would add about $12/month to household utility bills and charge businesses based on water usage. That’s easy to collect, but the connection between water use and road wear is weak. The more that link breaks down, the more this starts looking like a tax rather than a true fee—which typically requires voter approval.
The SDRF, which charges for street trenching, makes more sense in theory. But the city hasn’t clearly shown how it calculated the cost of damage, and much of the burden would ultimately fall back on residents through higher utility bills anyway. There are also open legal questions about whether these charges comply with Portland’s city charter.
There’s also a trust issue. Portland already passed a gas tax for road maintenance, yet the backlog has continued to grow. Some of that money has gone to projects unrelated to basic maintenance, raising questions about accountability.
If these proposals are truly fair and necessary, the city should be willing to take them to voters rather than fast-tracking them through council.
ERIC FRUITS RE: TUF
That’s funny. The City just gave $300,000,000 to help a billionaire from Texas (subsidizing Blazers) and yet now there will be a $12/month tax to fill a budget hole of $69,000,000?
Hmm. Seems like bull.