Newberg council adopts annual master fee schedule but pauses higher public-records rates

The Newberg City Council on March 17 adopted an updated Master Fee Schedule that adjusts a range of city charges, but the council voted to pause increases to the public-records request fees while staff and council consider cost, accessibility and comparability with nearby jurisdictions.

The council approved Resolution 2025-3961 (master fee schedule) after hearing a staff presentation from Accounting Manager Dan Koerler and a public comment from Newberg resident Rebecca Wallace, who said the proposed attorney-review rate of $404 per hour and an administrative research charge of $60 per hour create a “paywall” for public records and are higher than nearby jurisdictions.

Koerler told the council the master fee schedule, established in February 2016, is used to consolidate and update fees across departments and that many fees are indexed to CPI or other cost indices. He summarized several changes: the city attorney research rate in public-records processing would increase “from $300 per hour to $404 per hour,” the budget includes a new $50‑per‑hour digital archivist/grant‑writing service, updates to permit and utility fee lines tied to the Citizens Rate Review Committee, and reinsertion of a demolition permit fee under engineering at the base inspection rate of $108.22. He also identified a $1.03 correction in the building mechanical fee schedule and requested a clarifying word change to list a “reinstatement fee” alongside the reinspection fee.

Wallace urged the council to reconsider the public-records fees and to compare Newberg’s rates with McMinnville and Yamhill County. “If residents and local organizations cannot afford to request public records, it creates a paywall to public information, which works against this goal,” she said, referencing Council Goal 4 on transparency.

Council discussion focused on the public‑records fees and how often legal review is required. Staff and the city attorney’s office said the vast majority of routine records requests are not routed to legal review; legal review is used sparingly for redaction and exemption determinations. Because of residents’ concerns and several councilors’ sense that public access should be balanced against cost recovery, the council voted to leave public‑records request fees at the 2024 rates while adopting the rest of the master fee schedule with the stated corrections.

The council also approved a technical motion to adopt the changes Koerler presented and directed staff to implement the minor numeric corrections and clarifying language he requested.

Councilors and staff emphasized that fee waivers and reductions remain available under existing policy for requests that incur minimal staff time and that residents are encouraged to contact the Police Department’s non‑emergency line for parking enforcement matters raised during public comment.

The council closed the administrative hearing and moved on to the next agenda item after the votes.