A Portland Permitting & Development program meant to streamline permitting for residential remodels has drawn fire from at least one contractor who says it puts firms outside the program at an unfair disadvantage.

The permitting agency rolled out the program, Field Issuance Remodel, known as FIR, as a pilot program in 2003; it was made permanent in 2006. The program designates a single inspector to evaluate all permit reviews and inspections for each project, significantly reducing permit wait times.

The program grew dramatically during pandemic closures, and in November 2024, PP&D closed the program’s waiting list, saying it had reached capacity for the agency’s staffing. Some contractors were left on the outside looking in.

Initially a boutique program for a handful of remodelers, FIR has grown to 466 Oregon-licensed contractors, with about 100 more on the now-closed waiting list, according to PP&D.

The program’s static nature — any remodel business founded after November 2024 has no way in, nor does any other nonparticipant — has drawn critics, including a lawyer who in August wrote a scathing letter demanding changes on behalf of an anonymous client.

“T��� FIR program, by design, restricts participation to a closed list of contractors,” Miller Nash partner Jacob A. Zahniser wrote in an Aug. 26 letter to PP&D interim Director David Kuhnhausen. “This exclusivity has created a system where access to expedited permitting, a critical economic advantage in Portland’s competitive remodeling market, is concentrated on the select, chosen few, which does not reflect the racial, gender or socioeconomic diversity of Portland residential contractor community.”

Zahniser wrote that he represented a local residential remodeling contractor who chose to remain anonymous “out of fear of retribution from the city of Portland.”

Kuhnhausen defended the program in a letter to the City Council on Wednesday.

“T��� FIR program is unique because customers work with one senior building inspector for the entire project, streamlining the process and developing a close working relationship between participants and city inspectors,” Kuhnhausen wrote.

The program, he added, “allows for flexible scheduling and faster turnaround times.”

Zahniser charged that the city’s closure of the waiting list had made matters worse “by locking out new contractors, particularly (woman-owned) and minority-owned businesses (WMBEs) just entering the industry, placing them at a competitive disadvantage.”

Zahniser stated that according to Miller Nash’s research, no FIR program contractor is certified by the state Certification Office of Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID); or as certified minority business enterprises, or MBEs.

The FIR program “favors the historically white male contractor group, providing an unfair advantage and excluding diverse firms from expedited permitting critical for competitive advantage,” Zahniser wrote. “Non-FIR contractors are at a competitive disadvantage to FIR-approved contractors who can provide VIP access to the building department. Clients do not want a non-FIR contractor because the extended permit timelines come at great cost to themselves.”

Zahniser demanded the city immediately open the FIR program to new applicants through a “fair, transparent and objective enrollment process with published criteria that encourages inclusion of underrepresented contractors,” or to scrap it altogether.

“Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable,” Zahniser wrote. “T��� city cannot allow a public program to operate as a gatekeeping tool perpetuating systemic inequalities in the residential contractor sector.”

Zahniser also sent the letter to Mayor Keith Wilson, city councilors and key managers, including City Administrator Michael Jordan.

The program grew dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic due to restrictions on in-person permit processing, quickly exceeding available staffing.

“T��� list was strategically managed according to staffing capacity and has remained at full capacity ever since,” Kuhnhausen wrote to the City Council.

Darcy DeGiovanni, president of IDS Remodeling, a FIR program member, said the city initiative is both useful and flawed.

“Trying to get projects done outside the program in the city of Portland has been extremely daunting,” said DeGiovanni, who is a past president of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry’s Pacific Northwest chapter. “So, it’s created this unintentional situation of the haves and the have-nots.

“It is problematic, but it’s a great system,” he said.

Other remodelers outside the FIR program continue to work through the regular permitting process. Regan Sorensen, who owns and operates AHE Building in Southeast Portland, said he can see the appeal of having a regular contact at PP&D.

“It’s a good idea — dealing with one (inspector),” he said.

Permit inspections for his small remodeling jobs can be hit-or-miss, Sorensen said.

“You’ve got to get lucky,” he said.

FIR participants pay a roster of fees. These include a $609 registration fee, $175 for annual renewal and $402 per hour for inspection, plan review, administrative and project management activities. Consultation fees range from $1,338 to $1,673.

Total revenues for the FIR program were $2.93 million in the fiscal year that ended on June 30, according to Portland Permitting & Development. That was approximately 3.6 percent of the agency’s total revenue.

The post Portland remodel permit program sparks dispute appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.