Six candidates for mayor and city commission answered questions from the Oregon City Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday morning at the Ainsworth House and Gardens.
The forum was moderated by past Chamber chair Seth Henderson. Each candidate got one minute per question, a volunteer flashed yellow and red cards to mark the time, and the audience was asked to hold its applause. The Chamber endorsed no one. Candidates received the questions in advance, at the same time, with no input into what was asked. Audience questions were not taken.
On the stage were two of the mayoral candidates, Commissioner Adam Marl and Rodney La Barr (Damon Mabee was unable to attend), and all four commission candidates: Gordon Lawrence, Paul Espe, Betty Mumm and James Nicita. Speaking order rotated so that each candidate answered first and last at least once.
Note: All quotes in this article are verbatim.
Full Video
The Candidates at a Glance
Adam Marl, mayoral candidate. A lifelong resident and five-year commissioner, Mr. Marl emphasized his record, in particular his role as chair of the city’s budget committee. He described himself as a “budget hawk,” cited the city’s fight against freeway tolling and the downtown exclusion zone, and said he maintains an open line of communication with business owners. His stated priorities: holding the line on property taxes, fully funding the police department, expanding homeownership, and getting government “out of the way” where public safety does not require it. He was the only candidate to name a specific budget cut he would make: the city’s diversity, equity and inclusion consulting contract.
Rodney La Barr, mayoral candidate. Mr. La Barr, a father of five, described himself in his closing as “fairly direct. Not a lot of wish-wash or gray. There’s yes or no.” Most of his answers returned to a single theme: that Oregon City requires too many permits, which he repeatedly called “nonsense.” He proposed eliminating the city business license for anyone holding a state contractor’s license, cutting the city’s policy and administration budget, converting a vacant building he referred to as the “old steel chain house” into a downtown police substation, and restoring vehicle lanes on Molalla Avenue.
Gordon Lawrence, commission candidate. The owner of Artisan Craft and Design and a Chamber board member. His priorities are a one-stop permitting process with a single point of contact, an overhaul of how system development charges are calculated and assessed, spending focused on infrastructure and public safety, and using urban renewal as an economic development tool rather than a general financing device. He said several times that the city should pursue partnerships and outside funding rather than act alone.
Paul Espe, commission candidate. A planner of 30 years, a 12-year veteran of the city’s planning commission, and a current economic development staffer in Lake Oswego, Mr. Espe focused much of his time on the permitting process. He proposed a centralized permit office, deferring system development charges until projects are complete, waiving them for accessory dwelling units, and expanded grant writing to shift infrastructure costs to state and federal sources. His stated priorities also include walkable neighborhoods, tree canopy, disaster preparedness, the Tumwata project at Willamette Falls, and continued care for the unhoused.
Betty Mumm, commission candidate. A 50-year resident and former 10-year small business owner, Chamber member and Ambassador, Ms. Mumm framed her candidacy around listening to business owners and learning the facts before deciding. She said permitting needs a plain-language checklist, that notification of new rules must go out through every available channel, and that safety downtown has to come first. In her closing, she said it takes three votes to move anything at the commission and that she has built that support before.
James Nicita, commission candidate. A former commissioner, former historic review board member, retired planner and attorney, and historian, Mr. Nicita cited specific sections of the city code and charter by number in several answers. His stated theme is home rule, and his central proposal is a citywide vote on whether to close the urban renewal district and return roughly $10 million to police, parks and fire. He also proposed writing maximum permit-response timelines into the code, adding a formal notification policy to the city charter, and, in his closing, a “home rule housing” agenda he is publishing on Facebook.
Opening Statements: Who Are You, and What Is One Change You Want to See?
Rodney La Barr opened with his central issue. “I am running specifically to massive deregulation,” he said, calling the requirement to get city permission for work on one’s own home “nonsense.” He listed permits for barbecues, dishwashers and garbage disposals as examples of fees he would eliminate and said the city needs to “quit asking permission” and get moving.
Adam Marl introduced himself as a lifelong resident, Oregon City High School graduate and five-year commissioner. “Together, we fought back and killed tolling,” he said, adding that he has stood up to private utilities and worked with regional partners on homelessness. He framed his candidacy around the people he grew up with being able to buy a home and his recently retired parents being able to age in place. His one big change: “to elect me as the next mayor.”
Gordon Lawrence described Oregon City as having a “unique historic identity” facing real challenges in infrastructure, public safety, housing and the environment. As a business owner, he said, “I understand what it takes to meet payroll, manage costs, and have money coming out of my own pocket.” The change he wants is to end what he called a long history of stymieing business development.
Paul Espe said he was “answering a call” to bring 30 years of planning experience and 12 years on the planning commission to the city commission. He wants a safe, livable, walkable city and said he is excited the tribes have taken over the Willamette Falls project, now called Tumwata. “Everybody in Oregon City should be open for business,” he said, while also pledging to defend against land use laws that affect livability.
Betty Mumm said she has lived in Oregon City for more than 50 years and owned a small business for a decade. “It is not easy to meet those needs,” she said. She promised to “listen and learn” and to work with the community to make the city a better place to live and work.
James Nicita introduced himself as a former commissioner, former historic review board member, retired planner and attorney, and a historian who has been publishing on Oregon City since 2013. His campaign theme, he said, is “local community and self-government, home rule.” He closed by addressing the early start: “If you do business this early as a matter of practice, you are a hearty bunch.”
Question 1: Describe Your Direct Engagement With Business Owners Over the Past Two Years
Adam Marl said work keeps him from attending the Chamber’s Good Morning Oregon City breakfasts as often as he would like, but that he attends its galas and socials and is a regular patron of member businesses. He said the key is feedback from businesses on how policy works in practice. “Oftentimes in government, we have the greatest of intentions, but when it comes to how it plays out on the ground, it’s very different.” As mayor, he promised an open door policy for small business.
Gordon Lawrence pointed to his own company, Artisan Craft and Design, his seat on the Chamber board and its government affairs committee, and a habit of spending his money inside city limits. “I direct all of my business within Oregon City and I rarely leave it,” he said, recalling a recent night in downtown Portland when he drove home for breakfast at The Watershed rather than eat there.
Paul Espe said he has had little engagement with Oregon City’s business community. His experience comes from Lake Oswego, where he sits on the city’s economic development team and personally processes business licenses and sign permits. “I’m the one person that facilitates both of those things,” he said. In Oregon City, he would first examine whether license staffing is adequate for a rapid response, then look at the digital process.
Betty Mumm recounted a conversation. Shortly after The Watershed opened, she said, its owner described “the frustration of different answers from different people. You have to go here, you have to go there, you have to do this.” Ms. Mumm said she would keep those conversations going and let them inform her votes.
James Nicita said he has been checking in with downtown business owners about the county courthouse closure. “They were very concerned about an empty courthouse depressing the business climate,” he said, adding that they had faith in Mr. Henderson’s redevelopment project on the site. He also cited helping McLoughlin Promenade business owners navigate the city’s encroachment abatement effort.
Rodney La Barr described his engagement as a customer of local businesses. “With five kids, OC Sports knows me,” he said, running through wrestling, soccer, softball, baseball, track and cross-country. His family eats out locally when it can afford to feed seven, and he professed a love for the antique shops, where he expects to be looking for crystal for his 14th anniversary. “That’s about all the experience I have for the small business,” he said.
Question 2: One Specific Step to Shorten or Simplify Permitting
Five of the six candidates called for a single point of entry into city permitting. Mr. La Barr called for eliminating permits.
Gordon Lawrence said he had thought about this one at length. “I would work to create a true one-stop permitting process for small business, with one point of contact who can help an applicant understand the requirements, coordinate between departments, and provide a predictable timeline.” Today, he said, an applicant may have to navigate planning, building, public works and fire on their own. “Permits should not be a revenue source for the city.”
Paul Espe agreed, calling for a centralized office that accepts permits and forces communication among planning, building and engineering “so that they are not in their separate silos.” He added a management point: leadership must discourage applicants from “calling different agencies and fishing for different answers.”
Betty Mumm said the problem is clarity. “Interpretation of the rules is very vague,” she said. She wants a permitting checklist “that is something that everybody can understand,” with requirements communicated up front.
James Nicita endorsed the previous answers and added a legal one. He said he has reviewed the code and found that many permit provisions set no deadline for the city to respond. “For example, OCMC 5.04.170 requires a separate permit for street sales. But that code provision does not prescribe a maximum amount of time within which the city must review and issue such a permit.” He would write such timelines into the code for every business permit.
Rodney La Barr agreed on one office and added: “That office should be really small. We just need to eliminate as many permits as possible.” His chief complaint is that contractors must hold a state Construction Contractors Board license plus a city business license and a Metro license. “If you’ve got the CCB, I think that covers you.” He added that the city should get away from Metro “as much as possible.”
Adam Marl said the work is already underway. The city recently moved economic development under the community development department, he said, and the next step is bringing public works under the same umbrella to create the one-stop shop. He also said that “Oregon is not a business friendly state,” and much of what burdens businesses is beyond a mayor’s control. What he can control, he said, is property taxes, which he has consistently voted against raising as budget chair. “You know how to do your job better than the government does.”
Question 3: What Regulatory Burden Would You Remove, and How Would You Ensure Businesses Get Notice of New Rules?
The moderator acknowledged this was two questions folded into one. System development charges, the fees Oregon cities levy on new development to pay for infrastructure, dominated the first half.
Paul Espe said he does not want to eliminate SDCs. “I think they are a really important funding tool,” he said. Instead he would defer them: for large projects, the city would hold a lien on the property and collect the charge when construction is done rather than up front alongside permit fees. He would eliminate SDCs for accessory dwelling units built for family members and exempt projects that do not require sewer or water. Prompted on notice, he suggested electronic notification and heavier use of social media, “because everybody’s on their phone.”
Betty Mumm focused on the notice half. “You have to notify people in many different ways,” she said, listing email, mail, text, phone and word of mouth through partner organizations. She would also “walk the streets for businesses.” Before any new regulation, she said, she would ask the Chamber and the downtown association whether the rule is needed at all.
James Nicita identified a gap: neither the city charter nor the code section governing ordinance adoption, OCMC 1.01, says anything about notification. “A very coherent policy on notification should be added to the charter, but more specifically to the city’s code provision on code adoption.” He would also revive the constituent email list and commissioner Facebook page he used in his first term.
Rodney La Barr cited what he called specialty code permits, under which a licensed specialist does the work and the city then inspects it. “If the city can’t do what the specialist is doing, why are we paying twice?” he asked. “Permits for permit’s sake.” For notice, he proposed certified mail at 90, 60 and 30 days, so that recipients have signed for it.
Adam Marl reframed the question. “You should not have to worry about being notified about new regulations because you deserve to be a part of developing those policies as they’re happening.” He said business owners already text and email him when a policy will or will not work. On the burden, he agreed with deferring SDCs and said the city is already doing it. He also proposed expanding eligibility for city business grants beyond downtown so that businesses off Main Street can fund tenant improvements without leaving.
Gordon Lawrence noted that it was “almost like we all got the questions ahead of time” and also chose SDCs. He wants a hard look at how the charges are calculated, when they are assessed, and whether they reflect a project’s real impact. “We should not create a situation where the upfront cost of developing a property makes an otherwise viable project financially impossible.” On notice, he said the process needs to be clear and businesses should not have to hunt for it.
Question 4: What Is Your Opinion of the Current Budget’s Spending Priorities, and What Would You Change?
Betty Mumm spoke in general terms. “If elected, I will look closely at how we are spending taxpayer dollars and make sure we get the best value for every dollar,” she said, adding that she has mediated disputes for the city before and saved it thousands of dollars.
James Nicita said police, parks and, at the county level, fire are underfunded, and attributed the shortfall to urban renewal. “In simple terms, urban renewal is property tax diversion away from services like fire and police and parks into the urban renewal program.” With roughly $10 million sitting in the urban renewal account earning interest, he said, he wants a citywide vote on closing the district and returning the money to those services.
Rodney La Barr singled out the policy and administration portion of the budget. “It doesn’t take this many people to make decisions. It doesn’t need this much money,” he said, describing committees that argue over which plants to put in front of new buildings when only the hardy ones will survive a mow-and-blow landscaping contract. “We don’t need a committee for a committee.”
Adam Marl described going page by page through the last biennial budget with staff in a meeting that ran several hours, proposing reductions to balance the budget without raising taxes. Most, he said, were accepted. He named one cut he would still make: “I would eliminate our DEI contract, not because it isn’t something that isn’t important to our city, but because I feel those dollars can better be spent on promoting cultural events rather than hiring a consultant.” He would use the savings to fill vacant police positions. “We can’t worry about a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community if you don’t have safe drinking water and safe streets.”
Gordon Lawrence said he supports funding fundamentals, and that before any new program the city should ask whether it improves the community, supports private investment, makes it easier to run a business, and whether grants or partnerships could pay for it. “Government does not have to do everything itself.” He cited a figure he attributed to the police chief: more than 12,000 open case files because of understaffing.
Paul Espe said he and Mr. Lawrence sounded as if they had “called each other up.” His change would be to strengthen the city’s grant writing and its relationships with the state and Metro so that federal, state and regional money carries more of the infrastructure load. He wants investment in facilities, public safety, parks and natural resources. “We have the lowest tree canopy in the Portland metro area,” he said, “and I want to improve that.”
Question 5: Describe a Policy Position You Have Changed Based on New Data or Evidence
The moderator said the question was meant to test how entrenched the candidates are. Urban renewal came up in four of six answers.
James Nicita reached back to 2010, when as a commissioner he opened the city manager search to unions, neighborhood associations and other stakeholders who had been shut out. “Based on that process, as this article I posted reports, I changed my vote,” he said. His original top candidate was not the one he ultimately supported, and he credited the stakeholders’ input for the change.
Rodney La Barr said he had initially liked urban renewal as a puzzle to be solved within its constraints. But the more people he talked to, the more he heard that infighting among commissioners made it unworkable. “If this is nothing but a boondoggle that argues all the time, again, get rid of it,” he said. “It was a great idea, it worked for a little while, right now it’s not working.”
Adam Marl said he came into office skeptical of the city’s aquatic center, which he called “literally and figuratively a money suck.” Hearing about its work changed his mind. “We are a river city. They do provide a life-saving public service.” He said the city is now exploring a partnership with Clackamas Community College to build a modernized aquatic center on its campus, near the high school.
Gordon Lawrence joked that Mr. Marl had just admitted he cannot swim, then turned to urban renewal. He said he was “vehemently opposed” before researching it. His position now: “Urban renewal should primarily be an economic development tool, not simply another way to finance projects government would otherwise undertake.” Any dedication of future tax revenue, he said, should come with an explanation of how it will generate private investment or raise property values.
Paul Espe said his position on the public’s right to vote on urban renewal debt has been misconstrued rather than changed. “It’s my desire to protect the people’s right to vote,” he said, while calling urban renewal “a really, really important vehicle for revenue generation.” He outlined three paths: close the district as Mr. Nicita proposes, seek a new public vote, or challenge the legal restrictions on such a vote.
Betty Mumm said she once believed that if the community liked a program, the city should fund it. “Since then, I have changed my mind on that.” Now she asks how many people actually use a program, what it costs, and whether there is another way to deliver it. “Learn the facts about every issue, hear both sides of the story, and then make an independent decision.”
Question 6: What Specific Action Would You Take to Improve Public Safety Response, Particularly Downtown?
Mr. Henderson introduced this as a question he hears “all the time.”
Rodney La Barr proposed a police substation downtown in a vacant building he called “the old steel chain house,” with a wrought iron fence around it, “as long as it doesn’t require a lot of permits.” He said he did not know what it would cost. “Substation right down the street, you have some people that you may not like,” he said, adding that officers stationed there would be within distance of downtown and the empty end of the Oregon Trail area at night.
Adam Marl said he found the cuts in the last budget to fully fund the police department and that a growing city needs a growing public safety investment. He pointed to the downtown exclusion zone, developed with business owners, as “a last resort tool for our police officers” against repeat offenders, housed or not. “Our downtown has come a long way, but there’s still some more investments we need to make in public safety to make sure that people feel safe eating and shopping and dining down there.“
Gordon Lawrence said he would pursue state and federal money for police resources, mental health services and community outreach, and address the underlying causes of property crime to reduce repeat offenses. “For businesses, public safety is also economic development.” He added that Oregon City cannot solve regional problems alone and would work with Clackamas County and neighboring cities.
Paul Espe put community trust first, citing the Citizens Police Academy and National Night Out, which he called a “fantastic event,” along with self-defense classes. He also wants stronger disaster preparedness in coordination with Clackamas Fire District and emergency management, plus violence prevention, prescription drug take-back and post-incident recovery support.
Betty Mumm endorsed the exclusion zone and noted that the police chief has been meeting monthly with the downtown association’s director. “Safety has to be first. If people do not feel safe, they’re not going to go places.” She credited the lighted trees downtown with brightening the walking path and said she would go business to business to hear what the problems are.
James Nicita restated his urban renewal position as the funding answer, then revived an idea he said got no traction in his first term: a surcharge of roughly $10 on every ticket police issue, modeled on a program he said Milwaukee once ran. “It helps capture the cost of outside drivers coming into Oregon City who otherwise wouldn’t pay for our police services.“
Question 7: When Community Interest and Vocal Public Opinion Diverge, How Do You Decide?
The moderator framed this against the national and state political climate. Three candidates gave a version of the same answer: follow the law.
Adam Marl chose housing. “We all know that we’re in a housing crisis and that we need to expand the supply of housing at every single level so that people can actually attain home ownership.” A development at the edge of town is upsetting to neighbors, he said, but “your home was at one point that property.” The city must pair growth with parks, roads and water capacity. When opinions clash, he said, “I’m always going to go to what the law says.”
Gordon Lawrence said he would not automatically side with business over residents or the reverse. “I believe business and community character do not have to be opposites.” He said the hardest part of the job is telling people the city has no authority over what they are asking about. “That’s not something everybody wants to hear.” He also called for a better relationship with the county and state, which he said has not always been good.
Paul Espe, a historic preservation planner by training, said the demolition of the county courthouse was “a very difficult thing for me to digest” and that the city keeps kicking “the teeth out of the downtown historic building ensemble.” Still, he concluded the retrofit cost made demolition the better path for housing. He also said he supports the state’s recent housing bills in general but that several are problematic, infrastructure must catch up with density, and subdividing property should be simpler.
Betty Mumm said the answer is the law. “Following the law, that’s what we have to do as a commission. It may not be popular, but that’s the rules.” She warned against relying on social media for facts, “because many times those facts are not correct.“
James Nicita said the community has already defined its interest in two votes. In 2012, he said, voters passed Measure 3-407 by two to one to establish Charter Section 59 and the right to vote on urban renewal debt. In May 2023, voters defeated Measure 3-597 to fund urban renewal projects with bonds. “No vocal minority there,” he said of each. Then, he said, “a tiny minority of nine individuals,” seven urban renewal commissioners plus the city manager and city attorney, used taxpayer money to go to court to try to extinguish Section 59. A second vote on the courthouse alone, he said, would have been the right course.
Rodney La Barr cited the lane reduction on Molalla Avenue. “When you take four lanes of commerce and reduce it to two lanes of traffic,” he said, the city did so for a small number of cyclists. “Yes, we wanna be green in other ways, but let’s just take a step back and realize that not everything is great.”
Closing Statements
Gordon Lawrence returned to the theme of opportunity and confidence. “My experience as a business owner has taught me that resources are never unlimited. We have to prioritize, measure results, and be willing to change course when something isn’t working.” He ended with a reminder to his fellow candidates that posting campaign signs in the public right-of-way “is the same as littering.“
Paul Espe joked that he had lost 20 IQ points by standing in front of the crowd so early, then restated his platform: a safe, livable, walkable city; responsible growth; a defense against land use laws that erode livability; natural resources; and disaster preparedness. He was the only candidate to raise the unhoused. “Most importantly, I want to continue providing the care that this city provides for the unhoused.”
Betty Mumm made a case for coalition building. “When you are elected you become a part of the team, so it takes three votes to move anything forward at the commission level,” she said. “You have to communicate, lay out the facts for your fellow commissioners so they can understand your position and go your way. I’ve done it.“
James Nicita used his minute to answer the housing question the forum didn’t have time for. He is writing a series of essays on what he calls “home rule housing,” drawing on tools in Oregon Revised Statutes chapters 456, 457 and 458 that he said have largely gone untried locally. The options range from a down payment assistance program like Gresham’s Welcome Home to “essentially having an Oregon City housing agency that acts as a developer.” Even if urban renewal survives, he said, its statute allows housing development, and he wants to reopen the door for families in their 20s and 30s.
Rodney La Barr described his own style. “In case you haven’t noticed, I’m fairly direct. Not a lot of wish-wash or gray. There’s yes or no. To a fault, I’m sure.” He acknowledged that governing takes three votes and said he would negotiate, “to an extent,” but not on what he sees as excessive permitting. “Enough committee for committee for committee.” He signed off, “Go Pioneers.”
Adam Marl thanked The Chamber, responded to Mr. Lawrence’s swimming joke, saying he learned to swim at the Oregon City pool and that its current manager was his instructor, and said he is running because Oregon City raised him. “The heartbeat of Oregon City is you. It’s not the government.” He said he would look to business owners as advisors on policy and directed the room to his website.
Mr. Henderson wrapped the forum with a reminder that every candidate on stage was volunteering hundreds of hours a year, and a final instruction to the room: “Please vote or none of this matters.”