Newberg River Street ad hoc committee weighs reconstruction options, funding and state bikeway requirement

The Newberg River Street Ad Hoc Committee met to review three preliminary design options for River Street, hear how state bikeway law applies to full‑reconstruction projects, and discuss likely impacts to trees, private yards and the city budget.

City manager Will Worthy and staff framed the project within earlier planning work — the transportation system plan, the riverfront master plan and the NURA (tax increment) list — saying those processes identified River Street as a key downtown connector and that about $10 million is currently banked for the corridor: “about a maximum of $6,000,000” from NURA tax increment financing and “about a maximum of $4,000,000” from system development charge funds, Worthy said.

Transportation staff explained the state requirement that triggered much of the committee’s technical discussion. The project’s engineer summarized Oregon statute and ODOT guidance and said full‑depth reconstruction typically obliges the agency to provide a bicycle facility because existing narrow sidewalks “do not qualify as a shared use path” under state standards: “State of Oregon was the first state in the whole country to pass a law that actually requires the addition of some sort of bicycle facility, each time a road is fully reconstructed,” the engineer said.

That statutory interpretation prompted questions about alternatives and exceptions. A committee member asked whether the statute applies when a project does not use state highway funds; staff replied that local precedent has generally required compliance and that the city attorney could provide a white paper on statewide precedent.

Design choices, trade-offs and impacts were central to the meeting. Staff emphasized intersections as the main source of property and tree impacts because ADA ramps and intersection geometry leave little flexibility, and noted that moving transmission poles would be costly and add long delays from utility companies. An alternative scheme presented by committee member Jim — later called the “Tesla plan” — showed a curb‑grade bike lane that could keep poles in place and reduce some tree impacts; Jim said the idea “looks to me like you could lay this right down” on certain blocks, while staff cautioned that corners and intersections would still require targeted solutions.

Residents pressed the committee on private‑yard impacts and transparency. Local resident Elizabeth Todd said she had collected signatures and asked the council to ensure neighbors know “how it will impact neighbors before they green light a project,” adding that petitioners ask that “there should not be any taken yard space.”

Survey timing and cost produced a sharp practical debate. Staff estimated a right‑of‑way and property survey would cost roughly $50,000 and take multiple months because original plats and century‑old property lines require careful field work. Some residents and members argued to delay spending until the group narrows a preferred concept; City manager Worthy warned that if the city spends survey money and the project does not proceed, recovering those funds would create a budget problem: “If we spend the $50,000 and… then later we do not do the project, then I am in a difficult legal position,” he said. Others said a survey gives residents more confidence about likely impacts and that survey data would be reusable if the project advances.

The committee set clear next steps: staff will prepare visuals and photo‑real renderings of the curb‑grade option and other concepts, planning staff may present River Street in the context of the NURA/master plan at the next meeting, and the group will revisit the survey timing and block‑by‑block impacts. No formal motion or vote was taken.

The ad hoc committee scheduled follow-up work to present more detailed visuals and technical clarifications at the next meeting and to post packet materials for public review.