Resident challenges Newberg council’s SPARK funding decision, cites conflicts and criteria concerns

Shonda Martin, a Newberg homeowner, asked the City Council on July 21 to reconsider its recent award of CET funds to the SPARK program, saying the program failed to meet the minimum criteria set by the application process and that the mayor and others improperly influenced the decision.

Martin told the council she had emailed members and sent letters asking them to reconsider the award after the council’s July 16 decision. “I didn't really think that the city council was going to pass over the criteria that had been agreed on and award funds to a program that didn't even meet the minimum criteria,” Martin said.

Martin said she reviewed the housing commission and council recordings and that at an April 2025 housing commission meeting staff member Scott Segal had told the commission the criteria had been vetted and approved. She said at that same meeting Segal emphasized the commission’s recommendation was advisory, which she interpreted as signaling the council could ignore the criteria.

Martin also said the mayor publicly promoted the SPARK proposal at the June 16 meeting and then recused himself to sit with the presenters. “It was very questionable to have the mayor plug this program and then recuse himself,” Martin said. She asked the council how much advocacy the mayor did behind the scenes and why the city did not follow its own rules.

Martin raised additional concerns about SPARK’s structure, asking whether the program’s language — referring to rent as fees and requiring participants to sign a contract — was intended to avoid landlord-tenant responsibilities and what participant rights or education would be required. She asked whether the program included religious content and noted language describing “spiritual, relational, and emotional development” had been removed from the SPARK website after an op-ed criticized the program.

Martin also disputed the program’s premise that education is the primary barrier to housing affordability in Newberg. Using her own home as an example, she said: “Wages have not gone up 250%. The minimum wage worker . . . cannot afford nor would they qualify for a mortgage for a $426,000 average Newberg price.” She concluded that a program serving about 20 people would not address broader housing affordability in the city.

Councilors did not take further action during public comment. The record indicates Martin provided a written letter to council and that Councilor Wheatley had responded to her email recommending she attend the earlier meeting to testify.

The comments occurred during the public comment period; no formal motion or vote followed Martin’s remarks.