By News-Register staff • 

Newberg decides not to send urban renewal district to November ballot

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .


David S. Wall

I am dismayed at the News Register's lean reporting of the impending Urban Renewal District that is being hurriedly foisted upon the Newberg and County Taxpayers.

How many people remember the News Register's article entitled, "Board conditions Newberg Urban Renewal Plan approval on city vote" by Nicole Montesano dated; [07.29.21] and the significant details of this accursed project contained therein? I do.

Check the Archives section of the News Register so you may make an informed decision.

From the above article dated; [09.03.21],

"A portion of the 600-acre district lies in the county’s jurisdiction; that segment will be reduced to about 52 acres, after the city completes a series of annexations and purchases, which it plans to do this year."

From the "Board conditions Newberg Urban Renewal Plan approval on city vote" by Nicole Montesano dated; [07.29.21].

"County approval of the urban renewal district is required because some 244 acres of the project are in unincorporated county land, although Newberg Planning Director Doug Rux said the city plans to annex all but 52 acres.

One option the city has is to remove all of the county property from the district, he told commissioners."

The total property owned by the Yamhill County is [244 acres] but, Newberg is only going to use [192 acres] leaving a residual of
[52 acres].

Yamhill County Property constitutes 32.0% of the Urban Renewal District.

Yamhill County property in this project raises a few questions.

Go to Post #2
David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post #2

Below are a few questions...I am sure others will follow.

What legal authority does Newberg have to annex Yamhill County property?

Is the County going to 'sell' or 'lease' the aforementioned property?

Should not the Voters of Yamhill County 'Vote' on this property issue?

Are there any unreported 'financial obligations' associated with the Urban Renewal Project?

Should not the 'Voters' of Newberg, 'Vote' for; the creation of; the expenses and obligations the Urban Renewal District is going to cost them?

Should not the creation of a 'Taxing District' require a public 'Vote?'

David S. Wall


@David S. Wall - I guess it wasn’t embarrassing enough to be wiped out in May 2020, so you continue to pontificate in comments. It is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard IN MY LIFE to have one power-trip Commissioner insist to hold a vote over 54 acres of land. And for her to infer TVF&R wouldn’t build a rural fire station that’s in fact fully funded already was a complete overstep, and Berschauer should stay in her lane. It would cost $1300 per landfill acre to refer it to the voters. The taxing district doesn’t require a vote by statute. If you listened to the July 29 BOC meeting, you’d be real clear on that based on the incoherent ramblings of Berschauer. You left out the part where Berschauer became a self-appointed TVF&R spokeswoman with misleading statements about a fully-funded rural fire station she said wouldn’t be built to sway the support of Scary Mary. Based on these Board meetings, I bet it’s even embarrassing to watch Berschauer choose what to have for dinner. I have no idea how she’s in charge of children, let alone the county. Please don’t validate this BOC circus with vague, cagey questions you don’t even have the answers to.

David S. Wall

Post #3

From the [09.03.21] article,

"...Some members of the public have asked it not to, citing earlier work done to solicit residents’ input, and the high cost to the city of putting a measure on the ballot."

Now reference the article below;

From the [07.29.21] article,

"Rux said the city has put years of effort into public outreach, and spent some $2 million on the effort, which included updating all of the city’s master plans for its downtown and riverfront...Weinheimer said that when the city inquired a year ago about the cost of putting a special election on the ballot, it was $72,000."

The Newberg City Council authorized the expenditure of $2 million taxpayer dollars pursuing the Urban Renewal District and now the City Council doesn't want to place issue on a ballot for a 'special election' to be accepted or rejected by the voters.

As to "...the city has put years of effort into public outreach..." this is a red herring issue. It is irrelevant how much 'public outreach' has been conducted. People who participate and or attend staged 'community meetings' represent only themselves and are not a valid substitute for the consent of the 'voters.'

It appears the Newberg City Council is significantly worried of the 'voters' rejecting the economic development project that benefits a few people at the enormous expense to the taxpayers. The $72,000 dollar expenditure for a 'special election' is approximately 3.6% of the reported $2 million taxpayer dollars spent. But, the economic development project is going to cost far more than $2 million dollars. A lot more.

Go to Post #4

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post #4

From the [07.29.21] article,

"The urban renewal district would divert a percentage of future tax dollars from taxing districts, including the county, to help pay for a list of projects to improve Newberg’s downtown and riverfront, with a focus on economic development. City officials stressed that it will not reduce money that is currently coming in."

Newberg City officials indicate if the Urban Renewal District is created, monies flowing from the District would benefit Downtown property owners at taxpayer expense. I wonder if any 'Downtown property owners' and or owners of businesses were on the 'advisory committee?'

Were the financial obligations' pertaining to the Urban Renewal District thoroughly discussed to the Newberg 'voters' and or the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (BOC)?

Although the issue of "System Development Charges were discussed" are the 'voters' of Newberg aware of these costs and if they are reduced to solicit and or induce business to locate in Newberg, how much are the property taxes going to be 'jacked-up' to pay for the inducements?

Here is a partial list of additional fees Newberg residents will have to subsidize to support the Urban Renewal District; costs to the sewage treatment plant operating and Capital Improvement Program expenses, costs associated with additional potable water availability, treatment and delivery infrastructure, garbage and recycling services.

There are additional capital outlays for ; Police Officers, Code Enforcement Officers, Building Inspectors and other city employees needed to support these and other yet to be identified city functions with corresponding 'overhead costs.'

And then there is the County land and the 'vote' of county voters to consider.

Urban Renewal Districts are 'insatiable debt machines.' They rarely pay for themselves, if ever.

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post #5

Here are some details for those affected taxpayers interested in the purchase of the Paper Mill:

From "PaperAge: October 5, 2020""
"CDC is currently evaluating all development options and will be meeting with local economic leaders to find end users who could benefit from the large amount of land available and prime location. Additionally, the site has heavy power, easy proximity to the I-5 transportation corridor, and potential for both rail access and significant water rights."

***The "..significant water rights" appears to be left out of the discussion. Why? This is very, very important selling point. What are the Yamhill County and Newberg taxpayers going to get for the "water rights?"

From: Commercial Development Company, Inc. in Newberg, Oregon: September 29, 2020

"Newberg, OR – Commercial Development Company, Inc. (CDC) today announced acquisition of a retired paper manufacturing plant in Newberg, Oregon. The site was acquired by CDC affiliate Newberg OR LLC."

The creation of; "Newberg OR LLC" will be introduced in Post #6

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post #6

***Note the creation of: "Newberg OR LLC an affiliate of CDC"

"Newberg OR LLC" can be seen here:

***Why is CT Corporation System involved?

"CT Corporation System" can be viewed here:

"CDC affiliate Environmental Liability Transfer, Inc. (ELT) facilitated the transfer of environmental liabilities."

Environmental Liability Transfer can be seen here:

CDC has two(2) "affiliates involved with the Paper Mill; Newberg OR LLC and Environmental Liability Transfer, Inc.

Again, why is CT Corporation System involved?

Commissioner Kulla's prepared response:

"“Yamhill County and the City of Newberg have so much to gain from the sale of the defunct mill site. We stand to have a legacy site cleaned up; we stand to gain excellent jobs in the community. With our county’s strong manufacturing base and this large-scale industrial site, I anticipate that we will attract additional successful businesses to the site and build our community’s resilience. I am so excited,” said County Commissioner Casey Kulla."

Looks like a "vote-getter" if I ever saw one.

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post #7

Newberg Residents, the Newberg Planning Commission is going to start the annexation process for the Urban Renewal District...tonight (09.09.21).

Newberg Planning Commission meeting tonight @ 7:00 p.m.. View Agenda Packet here:

In other news...It appears the "CT Corporation System" provides businesses, insurances their operations will be in local and state regulatory compliance. "Affiliates" could easily make local and or state regulatory errors.

From: "Commercial Development Company, Inc. in Newberg, Oregon: September 29, 2020"

"Initial redevelopment activities will include permitting, removal of universal waste, sale of equipment, and demolition of most of the buildings and infrastructure on site. CDC expects the site to be fully demolished and ready for redevelopment by late 2021."

***Will the environmental cleanup of the "site" be completed by "late 2021?"

David S. Wall

David S. Wall

Post #8

Newberg and County should read what is below and weep...

Below is the City of Newberg's "Ad Hoc Urban Renewal Citizens Advisory Committee" meeting, dated [May 24, 2021].

The "Nightmare" is upon us.

**Note the "Members" of the "Ad Hoc Urban Renewal Citizens Advisory Committee."

Is the age-old saying, "Membership has its' privileges"...still valid today?

David S. Wall


Does anyone actually read these rambling incoherent posts by D s W?