Newberg council directs staff to solicit sites under SB 1537 one-time UGB expansion; fee structure and land-exchange option remain undecided

The Newberg City Council on Oct. 6 directed staff to conduct a formal solicitation for one-time urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion sites under Senate Bill 15 37 (SB 15 37), starting a two-step application, selection and concept-plan refinement process.

Planner James Dingwall presented the proposed timeline and process, saying the city would follow a broad first-step solicitation to identify multiple candidate sites, allow public comment and hold planning commission and council review before adopting a resolution to select a single site. “Step 1 would be a general solicitation for sites,” Dingwall said. The selected site would then move to step 2, a more detailed concept-plan refinement and engineering review before concurrent comprehensive plan and UGB amendment submissions.

Dingwall told council staff intend to consult DLCD prior to issuing the solicitation to confirm the city’s eligibility interpretation and avoid wasting time if the state disagrees with the city’s reading of eligibility criteria. The city will also notify affected special districts and utilities and publish required public notices; the deadline for applications must be at least 45 days after notice.

Staff stressed that an in-lieu land-exchange option remains available: the city could accept a land swap instead of an onetime expansion. The council will consider that option alongside any candidate sites during the selection step.

Councilors discussed fees associated with the process. Staff described existing fees for comprehensive plan text and UGB amendments (listed on the city’s fee schedule) and an established technology fee (5%) that covers software platform costs such as OpenGov and Tyler. Dingwall proposed that the resolution selecting a site set an SB 15 37 fee—part applied to the step 1 selection cost recovery and part to step 2 refinements—with some portion nonrefundable to cover staff review; if a site fails to progress, applicants could receive a partial refund depending on the stage reached.

Dingwall and other staff recommended leaving precise dollar amounts to be refined after initial evaluation of candidate sites because the amount of staff work depends on site-specific factors such as acreage, elevation, distance to water mains and needed transport or pump stations. Councilors asked for clarity that prospective applicants would be informed the city intends to recover its costs.

Dingwall cited two eligibility data points used in assessing SB 15 37 eligibility: the city’s last residential UGB expansion date (roughly 2006–2007) and the state’s published percentage of highly rent-burdened households, which he said has increased from about 25.7% in earlier data to about 28.8% in March 2023 U.S. Census–derived figures.

A council motion to direct staff to conduct a formal solicitation passed unanimously. The council will consider fee levels and any written confirmation from DLCD before finalizing the solicitation schedule; staff placed a buffer in the timeline and suggested a November notice as a working target.