On the agenda: Millersburg meeting — Data Center (Sep 30)

Rules of Conduct for Public Meetings
No person shall be disorderly, abusive, or disruptive of the orderly conduct of the meeting. Microphones
will be muted and webcams will be turned off for remote participants unless called upon to speak or
during public comment period.
Persons shall not comment or testify without first receiving recognition from the presiding officer and
stating their full name and city of residence.
During public hearings no person shall present irrelevant, immaterial, or repetitious testimony or evidence.

This meeting is being recorded for public
review on the City of Millersburg website.

There shall be no audience demonstrations such as applause, cheering, display of signs, or other conduct
disruptive of the meeting. If online participant(s) disrupt the meeting, the participant(s) microphone and
webcam will be turned off. If disruption continues, the participant(s) will be removed from the meeting.

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
In-Person Meeting with Remote Access Available
Millersburg City Hall
4222 NE Old Salem Road, Millersburg OR 97321
September 30, 2026 @ 1:00 p.m.
Agenda
Remote access for the meeting is available.
To participate via Zoom, contact City Recorder at 458-233-6300
or [email protected], prior to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 29, 2026.
You can watch the City Council Meeting here:
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@cityofmillersburg611/streams

A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
D. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
E. WORK SESSION ITEM #1 – Zuhlke Lane
1) Fees paid by previous developer
2) Right-of-way previously dedicated
3) Easement along lots on Anthony
F. WORK SESSION ITEM #2 – Data Centers
G. WORK SESSION ITEM #3 – Utility Assistance Program
H. WORK SESSION ITEM #4 – Sidewalk Repair Assistance Program
I.

WORK SESSION ITEM #5 – Financial Policies

J. CLOSING COUNCIL COMMENT
K. ADJOURN
Upcoming Meetings & Events:
For a schedule of meetings and events, visit the City’s website calendar at
https://www.millersburgoregon.gov/meetings

The meeting is accessible to the disabled. If you have a disability that requires accommodation to
attend or participate, please notify the Millersburg City Hall in advance by calling 458-233-6300.
Page 1 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 30, 2026

Page 1

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

September 21 for September 30, 2026, City Council Work Session

SUBJECT: Zuhlke Lane
Discussion:
The future of Zuhlke Lane has been a topic of many discussions in Millersburg since
the West Park Phase 2 subdivision was completed in 2013. It has recently been a
topic at City Council meetings in February, March, and April of 2025 and April of
2026. A work session was scheduled for July of 2026 but was postponed. The
materials prepared for each of these meetings, as well as relevant meeting
minutes are attached as reference materials to this staff report.
Three primary topics are presented for discussion:
1. Fees paid by previous developer – whether to return fees previously paid
by Mr. Ed Perlenfein currently being held for future improvements of Zuhlke
Lane to City standards earlier than the date established in Resolution 201611.
Options:
a. At a future council meeting, adopt the draft resolution that was
presented at the 3/13/2025 City Council meeting authorizing return of
funds to Mr. Perlenfein.
b. Do nothing, money will continue to be held and will be returned to Mr.
Perlenfein if not used for qualifying improvements by 2033.
c. Move forward with a project that will utilize the funds.
2. Right-of-way previously dedicated – when the City requested dedication
of the 30-foot easement that was intended for a future Zuhlke Lane
extension, one property owner, Michael and Kathleen Martin, signed the
necessary documents dedicating the property as right-of-way.
Subsequently, a judge ruled that the plat notes did not require the property
owners to comply with this request of the City for dedication. Mr. Martin is
now requesting vacation of the 30-foot right-of-way that was dedicated.
Options:
a. At a future Council meeting, initiate the right-of-way vacation process
or direct Mr. and Ms. Martin to initiate the vacation process if they wish
to have it vacated.
b. Do nothing and retain the right-of-way for future use.
c. Move forward with a project that will utilize the right-of-way for street
improvements.

4929-9711-1250, v. 2

Page 2 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 30, 2026

Page 2

3. Access and Utility Easement – The Amended General Judgment expressly
declared the West Park Phase 2 Subdivision included a valid easement and
restrictions as follows: “30' wide access and utility easement along the

southerly 30.00 feet of Lots 49-54 of the Plat granted to the City of
Millersburg. No permanent buildings may be constructed within the
easement without prior authorization from the City of Millersburg.
Building setbacks must be approved by the City of Millersburg prior
to construction.” Property owners previously requested termination of
this easement and restriction. The staff report for the January 13, 2026,
City Council meeting listed several ways in which this could be done,
including vacation, sale for market value, or conveyance for no
value.

Options:
a. At a future Council meeting, initiate easement termination process
through one of the methods listed above.
b. Do nothing and retain the easement for future use.
c. Move forward with a project that will utilize the easement (this would
require further discussion).
In recent months, an update to the City’s Transportation System Plan has been
underway. Rather than waiting for the entire process to be complete, the
consultants were asked to produce a memo analyzing the need for a future eastwest collector street in the location of Zuhlke earlier in the process. That memo was
provided in April 2026. It found that based on current street locations and future
potential development, an east-west collector located between Alexander Lane
and Transition Parkway is not needed and that future development should be
guided by our policies. That means the current alignment of Zuhlke does not need
to continue straight through from east to west, but any future development should
provide for connectivity for all modes of transportation (cars, bicycles, pedestrians,
etc.) between neighborhoods.
Recommendation:
Staff’s previous recommendations are contained in the attached staff reports.
Each of these topics represents a legislative decision for Council. Due to the
frequency of discussions on this topic and continued expenditure of time and City
resources over the years, staff recommend taking action to either release these
assets being held for future improvements, or move forward with utilization of the
right-of-way, easement, and funds. Based on experiences over the last 12+ years,
continuing to hold them for potential future development will likely result in
additional expenditure of City resources without leading to resolution of these
issues.
Attachment(s):
Materials from 2/11/2025 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report
• Letter to Ed Perlenfein dated February 6, 2025
• Zuhlke Fees Timeline
4929-9711-1250, v. 2

Page 3 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 30, 2026

Page 3

• Resolution 2016-11
• Resolution 2008-3
• Resolution 2006-3
• West Park Estates Phase 2 Final Plat
• Approved meeting minutes (applicable info on pages 7-9)
Materials from 3/11/2025 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report
• Letter from Mark Burrows
• Draft Resolution
• Approved meeting minutes (applicable on pages 5-7)
Materials from 1/13/2026 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report
• Easement Termination Request
• Approved meeting minutes (applicable info on pages 9-13)
Materials from 4/14/2026 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report
• Zuhlke Lane Street Connectivity Memo
• Approved meeting minutes (applicable info on pages 7-8)
Materials posted for 7/29/2026 City Council Work Session (Postponed)

•
•

Staff Report
Engineering Tech Memo – End Treatment on Zuhlke Lane

4929-9711-1250, v. 2

Page 4 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

February 6, for February 11, 2025, City Council Meeting

SUBJECT: Request for Refund; Resolution 2016-11 – Zuhlke Lane
Discussion:
Staff have received several inquiries from Ed Perlenfein regarding money he paid
in 2017 for street frontage fees for Zuhlke Lane improvements associated with the
West Park Subdivision.
The attached letter, timeline, resolutions, and plat were provided to Mr. Perlenfein
on February 6, 2025. Based on adopted Resolution 2016-11, staff currently does
not have the authority to return these funds to Mr. Perlenfein ahead of the date
established by the resolution (October 14, 2033) for the reasons outlined in the
letter. Additionally, staff communicated to Mr. Perlenfein that the judgement
regarding the 30-foot easement issued in November 2023 does not mean Zuhlke
Lane cannot be constructed in a manner consistent with usage of street frontage
fees as established in Resolutions 2006-3, 2008-3, and 2016-11.
If Council wishes to return the street frontage fees to Mr. Perlenfein ahead of the
October 2033 date, Council will need to rescind Resolution 2016-11 and adopt a
new resolution authorizing the return of funds.
Additionally, if Council desires to consider the future of Zuhlke Lane, including
multimodal connectivity, staff recommends that discussion take place as part of
an upcoming Transportation System Plan amendment.
Budget Impact:
The fees paid by Mr. Perlenfein in 2017 have been held in a separate interestbearing account. The current balance is $109,128. If a qualified Zuhlke Lane
improvement project takes place prior to October 2033, these funds may be used
toward that project. If they are returned to the developer now, this funding will no
longer be available to the City.
Options:
1. Do nothing – funds will be retained in in accordance with Resolution 201611.
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution rescinding resolution 2016-11 and
returning the funds.
Attachment(s):
Letter to Ed Perlenfein dated February 6, 2025
Zuhlke Fees Timeline
Resolution 2016-11
Resolution 2008-3Resolution 2006-3
West Park Estates Phase 2 Final Plat

Page 5 of 138

Janelle Booth, City Manager
Scott Cowan, Mayor

February 6, 2025
Ed Perlenfein
2910 NE Alexander Lane
Millersburg, OR 97321
Mr. Perlenfein,
This letter is provided in response to your request to return funds paid by you in 2017 to the City
of Millersburg for future street improvements on Zuhlke Lane in relation to the West Park
Subdivision, Phase 2. For the reasons described below, the City cannot release the requested
funds without a resolution adopted by City Council expressly authorizing such a request.
The originally approved West Park Subdivision tentative plat included a condition of approval
requiring construction of half street Zuhlke Lane improvements along the southern boundary of
the subdivision. At your request, in 2007, the City approved a change to the tentative plat to
modify the size of lots adjacent to Zuhlke. At that time, Council required you to either make the
half street Zuhlke improvements or pay the frontage fee for future improvements. You opted to
pay the frontage fee and the plat was ultimately recorded with a 30-foot Access and Utility
Easement, convertible to a future right-of-way upon request of the City where the Zuhlke half
street improvements were previously shown. The attached Zuhlke Fees Timeline (Attachment 1)
provides a history of decisions and actions related to this matter.
In 2023, a judge ruled that the City has a valid access and utility easement, but the covenant
requiring a future dedication of right-of-way interest was not enforceable against the current
property owners.
You have now requested that the City return the Zuhlke street fees to you because you believe
Zuhlke can never be constructed as originally planned. The City does not agree for the reasons
described below.
Millersburg City Council previously adopted Resolutions 2006-3 and 2008-3 to address payment
of street fees in Millersburg. In 2016, City Council adopted Resolution 2016-11 specifically to
address street fees paid for Zuhlke Lane. This resolution states,
“…the money deposited with the City of Millersburg by the developer of the subdivision
may only be used to improve to city standards those off-site roadways that are
associated with that particular subdivision to which the money was deposited; and,”
“…the City of Millersburg intends to return un-spent street fees to the subdivision

Page 6 of 138

developer, or assignee or heir of subdivision developer, after twenty (20) years from the
date of the City of Millersburg’s signing the Plat for the subdivision development abutting
the existing or proposed Zuhlke Lane;”
“…those fees and related accrued interest which are un-spent by the City twenty (20)
years after the subdivision plat has been approved by the City to pay for the
improvements to city standards of Zuhlke Lane abutting the subdivision developer’s
property, shall be returned to the subdivision developer or the developer’s assignee or
heir.”
Resolutions 2006-3, 2008-3, and 2016-11 are included as Attachment 2 to this memo. The City of
Millersburg signed the West Park Subdivision Phase 2 plat on October 14, 2013. Twenty years
from this date will be October 14, 2033.
I believe I would be acting in violation of Resolution 2016-11 if I returned these funds prior to
October 14, 2033 for the following reasons:
•

Resolution 2016-11 does not mention the easement or in any way connect the collection
of street frontage fees to the dedication of right-of-way as shown on the recorded plat
(Attachment 3).

•

The judgement simply stated that the right-of-way interest the City and developer
believed to have been created by the plat was invalid. Acquisition of property through
purchase or imminent domain are paths still available to the City. Although the City has
not chosen to pursue this to date, the judgment does not preclude the possibility.

•

Street frontage fees are regularly collected for construction of improvements on property
immediately adjacent to a development that has not been dedicated as right-of-way as
a part of the development approval. If the 30-foot easement never becomes right-ofway, Zuhlke Lane can still be constructed adjacent to the subdivision frontage and this is
a valid use of the funds.

•

134 feet of the 30-foot easement (fronting 2997 Zuhlke Lane) was dedicated as right-ofway upon the request of the City. Construction of street improvements in this area could
take place prior to 2033.

I intend to share this letter and attached information with the Millersburg City Council at the
regularly scheduled Council meeting on February 11, 2025. If you wish to address City Council
regarding this matter, you may submit written testimony and/or address them at the meeting.
Janelle Booth
City Manager
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Zuhlke Fees Timeline
Attachment 2 – Resolutions 2006-3, 2008-3, and 2016-11
Attachment 3 – West Park Subdivision Phase 3 Final Plat

Page 7 of 138

Zuhlke Fees Timeline
March 10, 2006 – Ed Perlenfein submitted application for West Park Subdivision
March 14, 2006 – Council adopts Resolution 2006-3 regarding street fees.
April 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting – considering approval of West Park
Subdivision Tentative Plan and Variance Request. This map included half street
improvements for Zuhlke Lane. No decision was made, item was continued to a date
and time to be announced.
May 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting – West Park subdivision continued from April
11, 2006. Approved contingent on compliance with conditions of approval in Staff
Report. Decision issued May 15, 2006.
March 13, 2007 City Council meeting– Ed Perlenfein requested to change the size of
the lots on the south end of West Park Estates and not build the Zuhlke half street
improvements. Don Driscoll (City Planner) said this would be a deviation from what
Planning Commission approved. Council decided to table this until Council had time
to consider the issue.
April 10, 2007 City Council meeting – Council denied Ed Perlenfein’s request to defer
making improvements to Zuhlke. Said Perlenfein either needs to make improvements
or pay $125 per lineal foot to the City of Millersburg for the road to be put in at a later
date.
June 11, 2007 – Phase 1 West Park Subdivision recorded (included Kindsey, Granite,
and part of Obsidian, did not include properties adjacent to Zuhlke).
February 12, 2008 City Council Meeting – Council adopts Resolution 2008-3 amending
Resolution 2006-3. This resolution states “…any money deposited with the City of
Millersburg prior to February 12, 2008, under Millersburg Resolution 2006-3, by the
developer of West Park Estates Ed Perlenfein, shall be used solely for the development
of city streets abutting West Park Estates.” At this time Ed Perlenfein had paid frontage
fees for Alexander Lane Improvements.
May 26, 2010 – Ed Perlenfein requested frontage fees paid for Alexander Lane be
returned to him until the City is ready to construct the Alexander Lane improvements.
Council discussed at a council meeting on July 14, 2009 and it was decided that the
City would move forward with engineering design of Alexander Lane improvements.
August 1, 2012 – West Park Subdivision plat 2012-41 recorded (included only 2997
Zuhlke Lane).
January 14, 2013 – Change to West Park Subdivision approved to reduce number of
lots and make lots on south side of Anthony larger. Staff report states that the change
Page 8 of 138

is in substantial conformance to the original subdivision approval and that access to
Zuhlke Lane is preserved by the proposed Easement.
March 26, 2013 – Replat of Parcel 3 (2997 Zuhlke Lane).
July 31, 2013 – West Park Subdivision – Phase 2 recorded (included lots on Anthony,
which back up to Zuhlke). This plat created the 30’ wide access and utility easement
to be dedicated as right-of-way upon request of the City of Millersburg. Millersburg
signed on October 14, 2013.
November 15, 2015 – Barb Castillo memo to Council that stated she approved the last
phase of the West Park Subdivision but did not collect the fee for the half street
improvement because it was not mentioned in the summary by Don Driscoll.
November 15, 2016 Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting – Discussed future
of Zuhlke Lane. After much discussion PC recommended to CC to leave Zuhlke Lane
as it has been planned for in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Millersburg
Transportation Plan. Council approved Planning Commission’s recommendation
unanimously. It was stated that City Council would take up the issue of Road Frontage
Fees at a future meeting.
December 13, 2016 – Council adopts Resolution 2016-11 pertaining to street fees paid
by subdivision real estate developers of property abutting the entire length of the
existing or proposed Zuhlke Lane from Woods Road to Old Salem Road.
•
•

May only be used to improve to city standards those off-site roadways that are
associated with that particular subdivision to which the money was deposited.
Un-spent street fees are to be returned to the developer after twenty years from
the date of the City of Millersburg signing the Plat for the subdivision
development abutting the existing or proposed Zuhlke Lane. This would be
October 14, 2033.

February 15, 2017 – Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting – again
confirmed leaving Zuhlke in plans as a future collector street.
April/May 2017? (exact date not determined) – Ed Perlenfein paid Zuhlke frontage fee
in the amount of $90,140.
June 2017 – City created LGIP account for Zuhlke funds and Zuhlke reserve shown in
2017-2018 budget
October 2, 2023 – Ruling – Judge decided that the City has a valid access and utility
easement; however, the grant of dedication for a conditional right-of-way interest, to
the City by the former property developer, was invalid.

Page 9 of 138

Page 10 of 138

Page 11 of 138

Page 12 of 138

Page 13 of 138

Page 14 of 138

Page 15 of 138

Page 16 of 138

Approved: March 11, 2025

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
February 11, 2025 @ 6:30 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Scott Cowan at 6:33 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Councilors Present: Mayor Scott Cowan, Council President Mark Raum, Councilors
Mike Hickam, Ray Hunt and Dick Perdue
Staff Present:

Janelle Booth, City Manager; Matt Straite, Community
Development Director; Andrew Potts, City Engineer; Alan Sorem,
City Attorney; Sheena Dickerman, City Recorder

D. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
6:33 p.m.
Mayor Scott Cowan mentioned moving City Manager’s Report item 2) Request for
Refund to new business.
Action: Motion to move City Manager’s Report item 2) to New Business made
by Councilor Mark Raum; seconded by Councilor Mike Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
E. CONSENT AGENDA
1) Approval of January 14, 2024, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes

6:34 p.m.

Action: Motion to adopt the consent agenda as presented made by Councilor
Mark Raum; seconded by Councilor Dick Perdue.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
F. GUEST PRESENTATIONS
6:34 p.m.
Linn County Sheriff’s Office Monthly ReportSergeant Steve Frambes presented the LCSO monthly report*. He noted there were
nine arrests last month, which he considered "quite a few for a city this size."
Sergeant Frambes highlighted a case involving the arrest of a 27-year-old male for
multiple sex crimes. He explained this resulted from a group posing as underage
children online to lure potential predators, then calling law enforcement once a
meeting was arranged.
1|Page

Page 17 of 138

Frambes reported there were two to three thefts in January, including bicycles and
porch packages. An arrest was made that they believe is responsible for all three
incidents.
Frambes advised against using Facebook as a crime reporting tool, as the Sheriff's
Office does not monitor social media for reports. He encouraged residents to call law
enforcement directly to report crimes before posting on social media. Other arrests
included trespassing on train tracks, which caused trains to be stopped for nearly 30
minutes, and two juveniles for probation violations, harassment and assault.
Frambes mentioned a crash on I-5 involving a semi-truck that went off the road near
Bakelite chemical storage. He noted it fortunately did not hit any chemical storage
areas. City Manager Janelle Booth clarified that the crash was into a storage yard
for mechanical equipment, not chemical storage. She added this area gets vehicles
into it fairly regularly due to the interchange ramps.
Frambes stated he and Booth are working on an ordinance regarding shooting guns,
pellet guns, bows and arrows, etc. within city limits to make it easier for citizens to look
up regulations. He noted there is already a state statute prohibiting this but having it
in the Municipal Code would improve accessibility.
Councilor Mike Hickam asked about allowances for larger properties that are still
farms, particularly regarding shooting at coyotes. Frambes responded that there are
clauses for higher contractors approved by the city, but generally LCSO works with
Fish and Wildlife and have trappers through USDA to assist with wildlife issues. He
advised against shooting at animals unless in protection of people or pets.
Cowan mentioned that traps have been set along the north and west boundaries of
the city for coyotes. Frambes confirmed trapping is allowed in the county and there
are warnings for the urban growth boundary. Booth added that the City’s Ordinance
did not talk about the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) but did address the ORS
(Oregon Revised Statutes) language that covers the UGB.
G. PUBLIC HEARING:
6:44 p.m.
File DC 24-02 – Development Code Text Amendment proposes to make 26 revisions
to existing Development Code.
Mayor Scott Cowan went through the public hearing procedures. He announced
that those from the public wishing to speak would be given three minutes of time for
testimony.
Mayor Scott Cowan opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m.
City Recorder Sheena Dickerman read the disclosure statement specifying that
applicable criteria to be relied upon in making a decision are in the city staff report.
Community Development Director Matt Straite provided the staff presentation on the
proposed Development Code text amendments. He highlighted changes made
based on input from the previous City Council workshop:
2|Page

Page 18 of 138

1. Item 5. Regulations freezing the code for a specified period after subdivision
approval remain, with a proposed 3-year period instead of the state's 10-year period.
2. Item 17. Language regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs) was clarified to specify
they are allowed on lots meeting standards. Height restrictions were further defined
to measure from the lowest grade adjacent to the foundation to the tallest point of
the house.
Straite reminded Council that if they were uncomfortable with any of this they could
just add a flat maximum height or they could pull it and discuss it more at the Planning
Commission level to bring it back to them.
3. Item 20. The term "finishes" was changed to "materials" in commercial design
guidelines.
4. Item 27, Ground-mounted solar regulations were discussed. The current proposal
would prohibit pole-mounted solar in commercial/industrial areas, which may be too
restrictive. Staff recommended pulling this item for further review.
Hickam said that he would prefer to wait as he is a fan of the parking lot. He would
like to differentiate between ground and pole solar. He has seen it designed on
apartment complexes. Straite said those would be approved.
Cowan reminded Council that going forward items can be pulled if Council wants.
He felt that more work needed to be done.
Straite concluded that all required criteria in the Development Code and State
requirements are met, as outlined in the staff report. He noted the Planning
Commission supports the code updates and staff recommends approval, possibly
with modifications by Council.
Hickam requested that the time to speak be extended from three minutes to five
minutes. Councilors agreed.
Mayor Scott Cowan opened the public hearing for testimony. No members of the
public provided testimony in favor of or opposed to the application.
Mayor Scott Cowan closed the public hearing at 6:56 p.m.
Cowan reiterated that solar, item 27, needed more work. Booth commented that if
it was approved now, it would make it more prohibitive in the commercial, industrial
and public zones because solar on poles is not addressed. She recommended pulling
the item and offered that staff could bring it back for future revision. Hickam was
good either way.
Cowan said regarding accessory structure height, item 17, he would like this to be
crystal clear on what was being measured. He said if it is a single story the height
would be restricted to a single story. He said it could be just a max height, which is
very clear. He liked the bottom mark on the slide* that clarified where it was being
measured from.
3|Page

Page 19 of 138

Cowan asked staff if the max height was included before. Straite replied that it was
new. He added that staff did pass it by the Planning Commission but they passed it
with how it was written.
Booth said the reason staff brought it back up is someone with a single-family home
is being held to a different height standard, for their accessory structure, than a twostory home. This is a little unusual, it is simpler to have a max height for everybody.
With this one people get different things depending on what their primary home is.
Staff wanted to make sure Council understood and was comfortable with that result
if adopted as proposed.
Hickam said his understanding was that staff was trying to solve huge two-story
accessory units in a backyard. He didn’t see how the wording helps with that. He
thought it made more sense to put a max height on what the building could be.
Cowan agreed. He mentioned that it would be different than what the Planning
Commission brought to Council. Council and staff discussed the proposed changes
to accessory structure height regulations and maximum height.
Booth said Council could choose to adopt changes today without number 5. “No
accessory structure can be taller than the primary structure….”, and the max height
of an accessory structure would be 35 feet.
Cowan clarified that item 16. regarding RV covers was pulled. Straite affirmed.
Cowan said with item 27, solar, Council could approve and direct staff to bring back
more information.
Action: Motion to approve Development Code 24-02 with modifications to
section 17 to remove bullet number 5 for the ADU and staff to come back with
a better definition in commercial and light industrial uses on ground solar with
the adoption of the Ordinance 213-25 (as modified) made by Councilor Mark
Raum; seconded by Councilor Dick Perdue.
Councilor Ray Hunt said he hated restricting somebody from utilizing their property.
He said if someone was building a structure, to get an RV in it, it would need a 20foot height. Hickam said he needed more information on what is appropriate for that
height. Raum pointed out the table where it says 25 feet max height.
VOTE: Mayor Scott Cowan:
Councilor Mark Raum:
Councilor Mike Hickam:
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Motion PASSED: 5/0
H. PUBLIC COMMENT

Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
7:16 p.m.

Robert Richard Jr., Millersburg, requested that a previously approved $2,500 grant to
the Morningstar Grange for septic tank replacement be redesignated for roof
replacement, as the septic work was deemed unnecessary.
4|Page

Page 20 of 138

Hunt stepped away from the dais at 7:18 p.m.
Booth explained this was listed in the budget and there was no resolution.
Hunt returned to the dais at 7:20 p.m.
Action: Motion to direct staff to adjust the grant funding to the Grange to be
identified as assisting with the roof project made by Mayor Scott Cowan;
seconded by Councilor Mike Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
Ed Perlenfein, 2910 Alexander Lane, Millersburg, requested the return of funds he had
deposited for half street improvements on Zuhlke Lane, stating he believes the street
will not be constructed due to a recent court ruling.
Doug Iverson, Millersburg, said for the proposed Events Planning Committee
resolution, he suggested changing the committee size to an odd number like five
members to avoid tie votes. He also recommended revising language to allow the
committee to suggest events for Council approval, rather than only organizing
events assigned by Council.
I.

COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS
7:26 p.m.
Cowan commended the council and staff for their dedication, noting over 24 hours
of meetings and training sessions in recent weeks.

J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
7:28p.m.
1) Projects UpdateCity Engineer Andrew Potts provided updates on several City projects:
•

Transition Parkway: Retaining wall and waterline work is complete for Schedule
A and B. Schedule C work is being evaluated. Both grants approved for a total
of $2 million and SDCs are coming in.

•

Waverly Drive/Cox Creek Bridge replacement: Design funding increase was
approved by ODOT. Linn County is administrating the project and is in the
process of getting the designer approved.

•

Old Salem Road AC waterline transfer: Bid documents finalized and going out
for advertisement for bid planned for February 18. Staff will figure out a
timeline, but it will happen this year.
Booth said it will come back for City Council for final award because it is over
$100,000.
5|Page

Page 21 of 138

Potts continued to review projects that are not City projects but happening
within the city.
•

Project DeLorean: Earthwork and site preparation ongoing.

•

Timber Lab: Access road construction and stormwater work in progress.

Booth provided update on:
• Solar for City Facilities: Staff has been meeting with solar development
company looking at City Hall’s energy usage and the fire station and what
potential grants the City could qualify for. They have preliminary proposals
that staff will bring back to Council. City Hall roof is not suitable for solar
because it is sloped the wrong direction. The fire station roof has potential.
They are looking at a couple possible projects, one at City Hall could involve
pole mounted solar. More to come. Hickam asked if the ODOT grants were
federal grants. Booth replied it sounded like the grants were already funded
through the Oregon Department of Energy. They are looking at money that
the State already has.
Booth added the other grants talked about earlier, were not federal grants,
none of the City’s projects are impacted.
Hickam said this is something to continue to work through and see what kinds
of numbers and how much of the grant will cover. He is for anything to save
the community money.
2) Per Changes & Additions this item was moved to New Business 1).
3) Final Loan: Booth reported the final payment on the City's water treatment
plant loan was made in December. The original $6 million loan from February
2008 at 5.5 percent interest was refinanced in 2018 at 2.9 percent. Cowan said
it was a great project that was needed and built up the relationship with
Albany.
4) Recycling Modernization Act Update: Booth provided an update on the
State's Recycling Modernization Act and its impact on waste collection. She
explained the City will designate Republic Services to receive program funds
and implement required changes. The City can request funds for a recycling
center. Republic will provide more information and education in the future.
5) License Agreement with NW RE LLC: Booth reported on negotiations for use of
City property across from City Hall. The contractor for Project DeLorean has
proposed taking down the existing house and doing vegetation work in
exchange for temporary use of the property. Cowan asked how many trees
would be removed. Booth described the trees that were flagged for what the
City wants to keep and to be removed.
6|Page

Page 22 of 138

6) Fuel Tax information-SB687: Bill would change requirements for gas tax
measures to go to voters. More information will be provided at the next
Council meeting.
Booth mentioned that staff received a Budget Committee application but it was too
late to get into the packet. It will be brought to the next Council meeting.
Booth talked about the potential ice and snow. The City has a policy for winter
weather. If the City receives over three inches on the roads the City works with
contractors who have graders. Staff has the conversations ahead of time. Staff will
be out early and evaluate. Decisions will be dependent on what happens.
Booth gave potential dates on the continuation of the Strategic Plan Work Sessions;
February 25, a normal work session date or March 4, a normal Planning Commission
date but nothing is on the agenda. She asked them to give her input on a date.
K. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
7:48 p.m.
Sorem offered to be a resource for council members regarding ethics laws, public
meetings laws, and other procedural matters discussed in recent training sessions.
Cowan mentioned at the recent Ethics training there were some questions that
came up and suggested a possible work session or something to answer them.
L. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None

7:49 p.m.

M. NEW BUSINESS

7:49 p.m.

1) Request for Refund; Resolution 2016-11 (Zuhlke Lane)Booth provided background* on Ed Perlenfein's request for refund of street
frontage fees paid for the West Park subdivision development. She explained the
fees were collected in lieu of constructing half-street improvements on Zuhlke
Lane. The money can only be used for streets improvements. A recent court ruling
in 2023 where the judge decided the City has valid access and utility easement,
but the grant of dedication per conditional right of way interest by the former
property developer was invalid.
Booth said there was nothing in the current resolution that ties the funding to the
easement. The judgement on the easement has no bearing on the street fees.
Street fees are routinely used for developing frontage of a subdivision without the
dedication of right of way.
Booth noted the current resolution states unspent fees are to be returned after 20
years (in 2033). Council could choose to refund the fees now by adopting a new
resolution or leave them in an interest-bearing account until 2033.
Ed Perlenfein had no further comment and there was no other public that wanted
to comment.

7|Page

Page 23 of 138

Cowan read on page 167, the third bullet point, “Street frontage fees are
regularly collected for construction …..” He said that with the ruling of the judge,
it doesn’t mean that the City couldn’t build the road, it would just be done
differently.
Hickam stated he is not a fan of Zuhlke Lane going through there. He
recommended going back and looking at the Transportation Plan and the
Strategic Plan. He is not a fan unless a lot of money is spent to fix the parking at
the park. There is too much parking next to the park to make Zuhlke a main road
from Woods Road to Old Salem Road. He agreed that bullet point two was a valid
point, there would not be enough funds to purchase the property and build a
street. He did not agree with bullet point three because if the road went through
it was going to go through another developer’s property. His understanding is that
the developer would be responsible for building that road and any
improvements.
Cowan said it is in the current TSP and it is a conversation that Council needs to
have about that road as well as other roads. Booth added that to amend the TSP
is a process it requires a public hearing and is part of the Comp plan. She
recommended that when Council looks at it to think about connectivity and
making decisions for the city as a whole. Hickam recommended looking at the
TSP, with the agreement with the farmers he didn’t believe there was a need
another access road through there. Hunt stated he agreed with Hickam and
wanted to give Perlenfein his money.
Cowan asked if the City were to develop the road and met the requirements of
the judgement, it’s a frontage, and would the funding pay for that roadway?
Booth addressed the reason for the language in bullet point three is there might
be an existing road that needs improvements. They are not dedicating any rightof-way but they are still paying the fee to improve the road and do the work. She
explained the different ways past councils had handled the street improvements.
The most recent direction from Council has been to have the developer build the
half street improvements so the City doesn’t end up in a situation like this and
costs go up. Woods Road is an example of a half street improvement. She said
the funds could be used because that is how street frontage fees have been set
up and used. Cowan said that until the Council has the TSP discussion, they should
consider that potential funding. Hunt said if a new developer wants to build the
property it would be the developers responsibility. It should not be the City’s
responsibility. Cowan replied that it was the intention of the money, it was set
aside to build a half street that didn’t get built.
Booth added there is right-of-way dedication at the end of Zuhlke now. She
explained that Zuhlke could be connected at the end. There would be
construction within the thirty feet if that took place. Cowan asked who would be
responsible. Hunt said the developer. Booth agreed but added that if the City has
street funds that were collected for those improvements, the City could have an
agreement with the developer that the money goes towards improvements. She
shared an example of when the City paid for a portion at the cemetery and the
other half street improvements on Woods Road was paid by the developer.
8|Page

Page 24 of 138

Straite said when someone divides a property and it is adjacent to a TSP street it
becomes the developer’s responsibility and obligation to build out the TSP street
as the TSP states. West Park had two TSP streets adjacent to it when it was
processed: one to the north, Alexander, and one to the south, Zuhlke. Zuhlke is still
in the TSP and could be built adjacent. Hickam said he disagreed with Straite
because it is saying that Perlenfein is responsible for building a road on someone
else's property.
Council and staff discussed what was happening in the historical West Park
Subdivision; Zuhlke Lane street, right-of-way and funds. Sorem added that there is
a potential hypothetical scenario where the funds could be legally used in a
development immediately south of West Park.
Cowan said he didn’t think the City was interested in eminent domain. He said,
as caretakers of the funding for the City, until it is identified in the TSP that it is
removed or not going to be considered releasing the funding would be a
disservice.
Hunt stepped away from the dais at 8:22 p.m.
Hickam asked when the property owner would have to take action in order to
make that a realistic deadline. Booth said there are many hypotheticals of how
the property could be developed. There are eight years before it expires, and no
one knows what will happen in those eight years. Sorem said hypothetically there
is adequate time for it but it is beyond staffs’ ability to know.
Perlenfein said that he paid $65,000 per acre for the past two subdivisions. He said
Mark Burrows had asked him who his environmental engineers were. He said
Burrows property is half wetlands. He said it takes time to mitigate the wetlands.
Hunt returned to the dais at 8:24 p.m.
After Council had discussed the situation, Council directed staff to draft a
resolution for consideration at the next meeting regarding potential refund of the
fees.
Action: Motion to direct staff to bring a resolution to the next City Council
meeting to consider rescinding Resolution 2016-11 regarding Zuhlke Lane
street frontage fees made by Councilor Mike Hickam; seconded by Councilor
Dick Perdue.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
2) Events Planning Committee Appointment
Action: Motion to appoint Wendy Bales to the Events Planning Committee
made by Councilor Dick Perdue; seconded by Councilor Mark Raum.
9|Page

Page 25 of 138

Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
3) Events Planning Committee Resolution
Cowan reminded Council about the public comment from Doug Iverson. Booth
commented that the resolution was almost word for word the original resolution
establishing the committee that was adopted in 2019.
Council discussed proposed changes to the Events Planning Committee
resolution, including reducing the committee size and clarifying language on
event planning authority.
Action: Motion to approve Resolution 2025-01 regarding the Events Planning
Committee as amended to change the committee size to 5 members and
revise language to allow the committee to propose events for council
approval made by Councilor Dick Perdue; seconded by Councilor Mike
Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
4) Municipal Code Changes – Trees, Temp Signs, and Shipping Containers – Straite
explained the proposed changes move regulations on temporary signs, tree
removal, and shipping containers from the development code to the municipal
code.
Action: Motion to adopt Ordinance 214-25 regarding Municipal Code
changes for trees, temporary signs, and shipping containers made by Mayor
Scott Cowan; seconded by Councilor Mike Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
5) Municipal Code Change – Weapons
Booth presented a proposed ordinance to codify State regulations on weapon
discharge within City limits in the Municipal Code. Council requested staff review
language regarding pellet guns and bows/arrows on private property, as well as
potential exceptions for agricultural properties. The item was tabled for further
review and will be brought back at the next meeting.
10 | P a g e

Page 26 of 138

N. CLOSING COUNCIL COMMENTCowan announced the Timberlab groundbreaking on February 27 at 11a.m. He also
noted the upcoming Strategic Plan Work Session and Events Planning Committee
meetings.
O. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scott Cowan adjourned the regular meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:

Reviewed by:

Sheena Dickerman
City Recorder

Janelle Booth
City Manager

*Presentation materials or documents discussed at the meeting that are not in the agenda packet are archived
in the record. Documents from staff are posted to the website after the meeting. Documents submitted by the
public are available by emailing [email protected].

11 | P a g e

Page 27 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

March 3, for March 11, 2025, City Council Meeting

SUBJECT: Request for Refund; Resolution 2016-11 – Zuhlke Lane
Discussion:
At the Council Meeting on February 11, 2025, Council discussed whether to
return funds currently being held for street frontage improvements on Zuhlke
Lane associated with the West Park Subdivision. The subdivision developer, Ed
Perlenfein, presented his request for return of the funds at this time, which is
earlier than the date of 2033 established in Resolution 2016-11. Mr. Perlenfein
cited constructability issues, including wetlands and grading, and cost concerns
as reasons why he believes this portion of Zuhlke Lane will not be constructed
prior to 2033. He further expressed that he believes constructability and cost
issues will prohibit any future development on the properties adjacent to the
south boundary of the West Park Subdivision.
Staff presented a timeline of events that led to the current request. Staff also
shared information about how these funds are separate from, but related to, the
2023 judgement regarding conversion of an easement to right-of-way for a road
in the originally proposed Zuhlke Lane alignment. Finally, staff communicated how
the funds could be used in accordance with the requirements of Resolution 201611 in the next eight years.
During the Council Meeting on February 11, 2025, Mr. Perlenfein discussed the
potential development of the land located immediately south of the West Park
Subdivision, which is currently owned by Mr. Mark Burrows. Following the meeting,
staff contacted Mr. Burrows and asked him to review the staff report and testimony
from the Council meeting on February 11, 2025. Mr. Burrows’ comments are
attached to this staff report. In sum, he testifies that he does continue to intend to
develop his property and requests the monies be retained by the City.
Council directed staff to draft a new resolution for consideration at the March
council meeting, which would rescind Resolution 2016-11 and authorize the return
of these funds to Mr. Perlenfein. Resolution 2025-02 is attached for Council’s
consideration
Budget Impact:
The fees paid by Mr. Perlenfein in 2017 have been held in a separate interestbearing account. The current balance is $109,128. If a qualified Zuhlke Lane
improvement project takes place prior to October 2033, these funds may be used
toward that project. If they are returned to the developer now, this funding will no
longer be available to the City.

Page 28 of 138

Millersburg City Council
March 11, 2025

Page 2

Options:
1. Do nothing – funds will be retained in in accordance with Resolution 201611.
2. Adopt Resolution 2015-02 repealing Resolution 2016-11 and authorizing
return of street frontage fees paid for Zuhlke Lane improvements to Ed
Perlenfein.
Attachment(s):
• Materials from February 11, 2025 Council Meeting
• Email from Mark Burrows
• Resolution 2025-02 Repealing Resolution 2016-11 and Authorizing Return of
Street Frontage Fees Paid for Zuhlke Lane Improvements to Ed Perlenfein

Page 29 of 138

Page 30 of 138

Page 31 of 138

RESOLUTION 2025-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MILLERSBURG, OREGON,
REPEALING RESOLUTION 2016-11 AND AUTHORIZING RETURN OF
STREET FRONTAGE FEES PAID FOR ZUHLKE LANE IMPROVEMENTS TO
ED PERLENFEIN
WHEREAS, the City of Millersburg adopted Resolution 2016-11 Pertaining to Street Fees
Paid by Subdivision Real Estate Developers of Property Abutting the Entire Length of the
Existing or Proposed Zuhlke Lane from Woods Road to Old Salem Road; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution 2016-11 requires the fees to be separately accounted for in the
City’s budget, and those fees and related accrued interest which are un-spent by the
City twenty (20) years after the subdivision plat was approved by the City to be
returned to the subdivision developer or developer’s assignee or heir; and,
WHEREAS, the final plat for West Park Subdivision Phase 2 was signed by the City
of Millersburg on October 14, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the Millersburg City Council believes the facts related to the original
requested condition of approval for the West Park Subdivision have materially
changed and qualified construction of Zuhlke Lane is unlikely to occur prior to
October 14, 2033; and,
WHEREAS, the Millersburg City Council desires to return street frontage fees and accrued
interest held as authorized under Resolution 2016-11 to the developer of the West Park Subdivision,
Ed Perlenfein,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILLERSBURG AS
FOLLOWS:
Resolution 2016-11 is repealed.
FURTHERMORE, the Council authorizes return of street frontage fees paid for Zuhlke
Lane Improvements, including accrued interest to date, to the developer of the West
Park Subdivision, Ed Perlenfein.
Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon its approval and adoption. Duly
passed by the City Council this 11th day of March, 2025.

Scott Cowan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheena Dickerman, City Recorder

Page 32 of 138

Approved: April 8, 2025

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
March 11, 2025 @ 6:30 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Scott Cowan at 6:30 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Councilors Present: Mayor Scott Cowan, Council President Mark Raum, Councilors
Mike Hickam, Ray Hunt and Dick Perdue
Staff Present:

Janelle Booth, City Manager; Andrew Potts, City Engineer; Alan
Sorem, City Attorney; Sheena Dickerman, City Recorder

D. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
6:31 p.m.
City Recorder Sheena Dickerman noted the following changes:
• On page 15, the motion to appoint the Events Committee Wendy Bales should
say "made by Councilor Dick Perdue" instead of "Mayor” Dick Perdue
•

On pages 41 and 43 for Ordinance 25-215, the approved by date should say
“March”, not “February”

•

On page 46, the Resolution number should be “2025-02”, not “2025-01”, it is
correct everywhere else.

Mayor Cowan stated these changes would be adopted into the record and minutes.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
6:34 p.m.
1) Approval of February 4, 2025, City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes
2) Approval of February 11, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Action: Motion to adopt the consent agenda as corrected made by Councilor
Mark Raum; seconded by Councilor Dick Perdue.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
F. GUEST PRESENTATIONS
6:32 p.m.
Linn County Sheriff’s Office Monthly ReportMayor Scott Cowan said Sergeant Steve Frambes was unable to attend due to an
emergency call.
City Manager Janelle Booth provided an update from a recent meeting with
contract cities. There has been a significant increase in fraud cases, particularly
involving people posing as LCSO. LCSO is trying to get the word out to the public not
to give out credit card or personal information over the phone. Residents should call
1|Page

Page 33 of 138

the LCSO office if someone receives suspicious calls claiming to be from law
enforcement.
Mayor Cowan noted there were multiple dog complaints in the report this month,
mostly at the same address. One person was cited. There was also an unrelated dog
issue at another address that was resolved without charges. Booth explained that
Animal Control doesn’t seize the animal if the owner is there to take possession, unless
the animal has attacked the person. If a dog is seized it goes to a judge to make a
decision and ultimately it is up to a judge whether the dog goes back home. Cowan
added in this situation the other owner did not press charges.
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
None

6:37 p.m.

H. COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS
6:37 p.m.
1) Potential Park projectCouncilor Hunt proposed adding canvas covers over the playground equipment
at the park so children can use it in hot weather. He said 30 to 40 mothers had
asked him to bring this up. Councilor Mark Raum commented that it was called
solar shade.
Cowan and other Councilors expressed interest in looking into this further. Booth
said staff could include it in upcoming capital improvement planning and budget
discussions. Raum asked if it was on the Parks Commission’s radar. Booth replied
not yet.
Councilor Mike Hickam asked if there were already plans to upgrade the
playground equipment. Booth said equipment replacement was in long-term
plans but not currently budgeted.
Hunt said several seniors had asked for additional benches in the park. He said
the additional bike “trail” was because the signs at the park say no bikes. He
asked where kids would learn to ride their bikes, besides the streets. Cowan
clarified Hunt was asking for an additional bike trail on the inside. Hunt affirmed.
Booth said the signs are being added to address recent conflicts between bikes
and pedestrians. Councilors and staff discussed possibly widening the path and
adding other things into the project.
Council directed staff to gather more information on playground shade options
and costs to consider during budget planning. Council agreed it should be
discussed by the Parks Commission.
2) City Street Naming- Deceased VeteransHunt proposed naming any new streets in Millersburg after deceased veterans,
starting with local veterans and expanding to Linn County if needed. He said
veterans’ organizations could help compile a list of names. Cowan expressed
support for the idea but did not want to make it an absolute requirement.

2|Page

Page 34 of 138

Booth explained historically the process is the developers propose street names,
which are then vetted by the County, dispatch. The City has not standardized a
naming convention. She said an ordinance or resolution may be needed to
formalize a new naming convention.
City Attorney Alan Sorem said having a pre-approved list of veteran names that
are 911 approved could simplify the process for developers.
Hickam supports the idea but did not want to make it absolute and give the
developer an option. Cowan directed staff to develop wording to capture the
intent of honoring veterans through street naming while maintaining flexibility.
Bill Schrader, 2647 Sonora Drive, suggested allowing public submissions of veteran
names to be considered as well. He mentioned a friend, David Staab, who was a
retired police officer and Air Force veteran who had lived in Millersburg.
Booth commented there was time to figure it out, as there is no development
currently going on that will create new unnamed streets.
Cowan mentioned the groundbreaking of Timberlab and attendance by
Governor Kotek and Congresswoman Shelly Boshart Davis. It was a good event
with 200 people. He encouraged Councilors to go see. Booth added that they
need to check in with their job trailer if Councilors wanted to see the site. She said
that if Councilors were interested she or City Engineer Andrew Potts could assist.
I.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
6:56 p.m.
1) Projects UpdatePotts provided updates on the Transition Parkway project, noting that waterline
installation was ongoing with testing scheduled for the following week. He
mentioned electrical conduit installation for lighting and discussed the upcoming
award of Schedule C, change order 4, which would be addressed later in the
meeting. He said that change order 4 includes what was originally in the contract
for Schedule C but includes a provision to hold back the landscaping work in the
park until staff gives notice to proceed to ensure funding comes in. Emery and
Sons agreed to the terms. Booth explained that normally staff does not bring
change orders for Council to approve but it is a big dollar amount. Staff felt that
it was appropriate to bring to Council for approval.
Hickam asked for clarification that the City received grants for the first half but
needed to submit for the second half. Booth replied that all the grants are coming
together at the same time. She explained that, the City had enough money in
the bank from property sales for Schedules A and B, before work was started. She
said all the costs that are accruing are reimbursable but staff cannot submit until
the paperwork is done. She said SDCs for DeLorean have come in and Timberlab
is sending theirs.
Booth explained the Immediate Opportunity Fund (IOF) grants and the Special
Public Works Fund (SPWF) grant funds.

3|Page

Page 35 of 138

Old Salem Road Water Service Transfer ProjectPotts also reported on the Old Salem Road Water Service Transfer Project, with
bid opening scheduled for March 18, 2025. It is to transfer water services from old
AC main to DI main. He noted significant interest from contractors.
Siuslaw Court Water LeakPotts discussed a recent water leak on Siuslaw Court on February 27. It was the
second leak in that area since 2021. He explained that corrosive soil conditions
were likely contributing to the issue. Booth added that a more extensive project
to address the aging infrastructure in that area would need to be planned and
budgeted for in the future. Councilors and staff discussed the soil type, what pipes
were like when they were put in, what needs to be done to fix it, and potential
financial impact. Council directed staff to bring back information for Council to
consider.
2) Budget CalendarBooth presented the budget calendar, highlighting key dates including the first
Budget Committee meeting on April 23, 2025, and a second meeting on April 28,
2025, starting at 6 p.m. She offered to meet individually with Council members to
review the current budget structure before the first meeting.
3) Council SummariesBooth said staff wanted to bring up the idea of creating Council meeting
summaries starting in April. These summaries would include graphics and be
distributed through various channels including mail, email, website, and social
media. She said the intent is not to mass mail these on a regular basis.
Council expressed support for this communication effort.
Cowan suggested at some point doing one mass mailing, possibly when we
launch a newsletter, to reach out to all the community members to find out how
they want to be communicated with.
Booth showed where people can sign up for newsletter on the website.
4) Website Migration
Booth said that Community Development Director Matt Straite and Finance
Manager/City Recorder Sheena Dickerman had attended a meeting regarding
the website migration. The migration update timing is still unknown. Dickerman
stated that they were both impressed with how easy it was for staff to make
changes and design. Hickam asked if the new one would be more “user friendly”.
Dickerman affirmed. She shared that the search function was much improved.
Hickam stated he despised the current website. Booth said the structure of the
website is similar to a lot of communities. The City tries to be consistent so that
people can find what they are looking for. Hickam said people don’t know what
they are looking for and where to look for it. Dickerman commented that the
company’s goal was that a person would be able to find what they were looking
for in two clicks.
Cowan expressed his desire to hit the communication campaign hard.
4|Page

Page 36 of 138

Cowan said Council was getting email updates from Booth regarding legislative
bills. He reminded Council that Council gave staff direction that if it was a topic
Council has already expressed that they were opposed to that Booth would get
something started with a “stamp of the City” if it is a timely manner. If it is not timely
or a big matter it would come to a Council meeting. Raum asked if something
had been submitted yesterday. Booth replied that on some staff provided the
City’s logo to LOC to add to a letter, and some staff submitted online. She said
one of them, for housing, LOC (League of Oregon Cities) was going to send a
letter for the City to add their logo or to send out.
J. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
7:21 p.m.
Sorem reported that there were no new real estate transactions or litigation matters
to discuss. He mentioned that legislative updates might require Municipal Code
revisions in the coming months. He also noted that an executive session might be
needed next month to discuss the Talking Water Gardens matter.
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7:22 p.m.

1) Municipal Code Change – Weapons Ordinance 215-25
Booth explained this was a repeat item from last month to remove language that
should not have been in the ordinance. Raum asked for clarification on one of
the exceptions, “d”, listed would be covered by a peace officer. He asked if it
needed to address an animal nuisance or an emergency. Sorem explained that
the language was modeled after state statute and provides some flexibility
beyond just peace officers.
Action: Motion to adopt Ordinance 215-25 made by Councilor Mike Hickam;
seconded by Councilor Mark Raum.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
2) Request for Refund Zuhlke Lane – Resolution 2025-02
Booth reminded the Council this was discussed at the last meeting. Developer Ed
Perlenfein had requested a refund of street fees paid for Zuhlke Lane. Last
meeting Council directed staff to draft a resolution, which is in the packet*, to
adopt if Council wants to return the funds. Staff reached out to Mark Burrows,
another impacted property owner, for comment.
Hickam mentioned his property backs up to Zuhlke Lane and may have potential
conflicts of interest, but did not believe there was a conflict of interest.
Hunt mentioned his property abuts Mark Burrows property, he has never spoken
to Mark Burrows and has no financial interest in his property.
Cowan said he felt the Council should not take action:
5|Page

Page 37 of 138

1. The funds can still be used for future Zuhlke Lane buildouts. He read
reference in page 49.
2. The Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan still shows Zuhlke
Lane as a collector street.
3. Mark Burrows expressed interest in developing his property and using the
funds.
Hickam said he would agree with Cowan if the City owned the property where
Zuhlke Lane was going to go. He does not support a dime of the City’s or in this
case Perlenfein’s, to build the road. He did not know why Perlenfein’s funds should
pay for a road on someone else's property. He said any developer who develops
that property is responsible for every road that goes through there. There were
efforts to develop those properties at the same time, but Mr. Burrows did not want
to participate. Cowan did not believe that Mr. Burrows should be penalized for
lack of participation when the development was built because it was adjacent
to the property, and he would only have to be responsible for half of it. The
intention was the road would be put in. It should have been a mutual road. He
said there has been a change, with the judgement, on the easement.
Hickam said he thought Council should review the plan; he was not in favor of
how the plan is currently listed. He has not talked to one person in Millersburg that
wants the road to be a main collector. Booth said the TSP shows Zuhlke going
through as a collector. The classifications are local/residential street, collector
and arterial. She thought revisiting this with the TSP would be great. She said from
a technical standpoint; Council should look at the City as a whole before making
those decisions. She said connectivity in the area is something to look at. She
pointed out the property set aside for a school and neighborhoods that
potentially would need a way to get there. There is analysis and data in a TSP that
helps inform those decisions.
Booth explained that the driver for it being required for Perlenfein’s development
was the fact that it was in the TSP. The driver for it be in future development is
because it is in the TSP. If Council removes it from the TSP it removes his obligation
to build it.
Hunt clarified that the developer would be responsible to build roads, curb and
gutters. He asked why the City needed to hold funds to build roads in that
subdivision. Booth explained that it wasn’t the need for the City to give funds to
Burrows but it was an obligation of Perlenfein’s development, in the first place
because it was a part of the TSP. To meet the obligation, he was to build the road
and things changed, it ended up being “pay the fee” to meet the obligation of
his development. The money is in an account and has been set aside for that
purpose. She added if the City didn’t have these funds from the obligation of the
first development, the City would not be obligated to pay Mr. Burrows a certain
amount to build the road on his development. The City might have a discussion
about participation in the cost of a facility that is above and beyond what is
required for any developer.
Sorem reiterated that the funds were put aside because the original design
identified half street improvements for construction of that road. At the request of
6|Page

Page 38 of 138

the developer, actually dedicating the property and constructing was replaced
with a fee in lieu.
Sorem mentioned it would look different depending on what Burrows might put in
and what staff would require as far as levels of connectivity. He said depending
on the impacts of those residential developments there could be a public
obligation.
Booth said that just because people don’t want to see a street go through private
property, that doesn’t invalidate a street in a transportation system plan.
Booth added there are funds from COG to do the TSP update, and it would take
at least a year.
Ed Perlenfein, 2910 Alexander Lane, expressed his disappointment that he doesn’t
get his funds. He said from a contractor’s point the road would never be built, a
bike path might be.
Perlenfein recommended for the park awning to get a hold of Side Tarps in Salem
and they could do build the awnings the City wants.
After extensive discussion, Council agreed to take no action at this time. Council
directed staff to bring information to the next meeting on steps to update the
Transportation System Plan, which could impact the future of Zuhlke Lane and
returning funds to Perlenfein.
Councilor Ray Hunt stepped away from the dais at 8:01 p.m.
Cowan informed Perlenfein that if the Zuhlke Road designation as a collector
street goes away then Council could do another resolution to give his funds back.
Booth explained the TSP process. The City will hire a consultant. She noted that
the State has a lot of requirements on TSPs. It will look at the City as a whole. There
are other things on the list the City needs to address, besides Zuhlke. When it is
ready to be adopted it is sent to the DLCD (Department of Land Conservation
and Development) for review.
Councilor Ray Hunt returned to the dais at 8:02 p.m.
Booth said it would have public hearings and then be adopted by Council. Sorem
confirmed, adding that it is a local decision, but the State has an opportunity to
review and comment, and there are regulations that the TSP has to comply with.
Perlenfein asked if the State was involved, if it meant that it couldn’t be appealed.
Sorem replied it is a legislative decision and everyone is given opportunities to
comment on it and anyone that comes would have standing to appeal. He
encouraged Perlenfein to look for the notice, come to the Planning Commission
hearings or City Council hearings to provide his comments.
3) Fuel Tax Information
Booth and Potts presented extensive information on City streets, maintenance
needs, and potential fuel tax revenue:
7|Page

Page 39 of 138

•

The City is responsible for most roads except some county-owned (Old
Salem, Morningstar, Nygren, east end of Conser) and one private road
(Steelhead Run).

•

Roadway life is 20 years with minimum regular maintenance and 50 years
with regular and preventative maintenance (crack sealing and slurry seal).

•

Most of the City’s roads are residential and are newer.

•

About 54 percent of City roads are 10 to 20 years old and will need
increased maintenance soon.

•

The City has three bridges, two that are fairly new and are entering their
life cycle of needing more maintenance.

There was discussion on the road mileage numbers presented. Cowan said they
looked high. Booth said staff will double check the numbers.
•

Historical street fund spending has steadily increased.

•

Projections show a growing gap between street fund revenues and
needed expenditures*. It does not take into account for any major
changes in requirements and policy.

Booth reviewed the general fund projections and said the General Fund
expenditures have had a growth of 5.6 percent per year for the last seven years,
probably due to personnel. Staff does not project the same rate of growth, even if a
staff member is added.
•

Street sweeping is included in street maintenance.

Perdue asked how much was transferred from the General Fund. Booth replied none
since 2017.
•

Enterprise Zones with the clawbacks for public safety.

•

Establishing a street funding source dedicated to streets will help the City
build up a reserve for capital projects and save GF funds for other needs.

•

Establishing a fuel tax now will help avoid future fees.

•

A 3 cent per gallon tax could generate about $600,000 annually.

•

A 5-cent tax could generate about $1 million annually.

•

Only about 10 percent of fuel sales are estimated to be from Millersburg
residents. If residents only purchased fuel from Millersburg, it would be
approximately $18 per vehicle per year.

•

Adding fuel tax to the ballot for this year must be done by July 2025, with
a cost to the City. There is no cost for the City if it is on next year’s ballot.
8|Page

Page 40 of 138

•

City of Albany is in the middle of public outreach for fuel tax. If Millersburg
does it at the same time, there could be shared costs.

•

Administration fees to set up with ODOT.

Hickam asked about the Bill about fuel tax and what it entails. Booth replied there is
a Senate Bill, that if it passed the City would have the option to put a vote to the
people or not. Raum added currently it is mandatory to refer it to a vote.
Council had a lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of implementing a local fuel
tax. Council and staff talked about electric vehicles and taxes. Council did not make
any decisions but directed staff to continue researching options and develop a plan
for potential public outreach on the topic.
L. NEW BUSINESS
8:52 p.m.
1) Budget Committee Appointment
Applicant Bill Schrader shared about himself and his wide financial experience.
Action: Motion to appoint Bill Schrader to the Budget Committee made by
Mayor Scott Cowan; seconded by Councilor Mike Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
2) Appoint Budget Officer
Booth recommended appointing Dickerman.
Action: Motion to appoint to appoint Sheena Dickerman as the budget officer
made by Councilor Dick Perdue; seconded by Councilor Mark Raum.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
3) Transition Parkway Schedule C Award
Booth noted the actual contract modification is in the packet*. Staff negotiated
the escalation in the original contract, and it is exactly what was in the original.
Raum summarized the City is adding $8.2 million and 224 days. Booth affirmed.
Action: Motion that the City Council approve award of Transition Parkway
change order 4 for Schedule C made by Councilor Mark Raum; seconded by
Mayor Scott Cowan.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
9|Page

Page 41 of 138

4) Solar Grant –
Booth presented information on a potential solar project grant opportunity that
would include:
• Four pole-mounted solar units.
•

Four electric vehicle charging stations, which would have a cost.

•

Battery storage

Hickam said he was in favor of solar for cutting City’s cost but was not in favor of
charging stations, or government being involved in a private venture.
Council and staff discussed the pros and cons of having vehicle charging stations
and if it was a right location and if they would be used.
Booth said the consultants shared there were grants coming out for solar that might
be a good fit for the fire station.
After discussion, Council directed staff to continue monitoring grant opportunities but
not pursue this specific project at this time. Council expressed interest in solar options
for the fire station if grants become available.
5) Parade Rules- Information Only
Councilors agreed to move it to the top of the list next month’s agenda.
M. CLOSING COUNCIL COMMENTCowan reminded Councilors of upcoming events:

9:18 p.m.

•

Events Committee meeting tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.

•

Chamber lunch on March 19, 2025. Councilors to let Booth know if they are
interested in attending. It is at Linn County Fairgrounds at 11:30 a.m.

Council agreed to change the start time of the March 17, 2025, Council Work
Session to 3 p.m.
N. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scott Cowan adjourned the regular meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:

Reviewed by:

Sheena Dickerman
City Recorder

Janelle Booth
City Manager

*Presentation materials or documents discussed at the meeting that are not in the agenda packet are archived
in the record. Documents from staff are posted to the website after the meeting. Documents submitted by the
public are available by emailing [email protected].

10 | P a g e

Page 42 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

January 6, 2026, for the January 13, 2026, City Council Meeting

SUBJECT: Easement Termination Request
Action Requested:
Consideration of attached request for termination of easement on properties on
Anthony Lane and Obsidian Avenue.
Discussion:
When the West Park subdivision was recorded in 2013, a “30’ Wide Access and
Utility Easement” was created in the southerly 30 feet of Lots 49-54. The plat also
stated that the easement “shall be dedicated as public right-of-way upon the
request of the City of Millersburg.” In 2023 a judge ruled that this plat language
was not a valid way to create a right-of-way interest. The ruling stated that it did
not become right-of-way upon the request of the City but upheld the easement
interest and language created on the plat.
Staff received a request from the current owners of the properties affected by the
easement that the City now terminate the easement. The basis stated in the
request is that there has been no use or development of the affected property for
more than ten consecutive years (other than the owners maintaining their
respective properties) and that the property owners have paid property taxes on
the entire parcel.
City master plans do not currently call for extension of utilities through the
easement area. The current Transportation System Plan does show the extension
of Zuhlke Lane through the easement area, as well as a pedestrian and bicycle
route for connectivity. The easement is an “access and utilities” easement, which
may allow the construction of access facilities.
ORS 271 addresses disposal of City-owned properties or interests. Potential next
steps include:
1. Take no action.
2. Table until TSP amendment determines whether classification of Zuhlke
Lane will change.
3. Sale for market value following a determination of no public need (with
noticed public hearing).
4. Vacation process, as it is an interest created by a plat (City initiated or
petitioner initiated).
5. Conveyance for no value following a determination that such an action
furthers a public interest (with noticed public hearing).
Budget Impact:
None at this time. Potential future impact if easements or land must be acquired
for connectivity between neighborhoods in the future.

Page 43 of 138

Millersburg City Council
January 6, 2025

Page 2

Recommendation:
Staff recommend Council provide direction as to whether they are interested in
vacating the easement and how so staff can prepare the appropriate
paperwork.
Attachment:
Easement termination request.

Page 44 of 138

Page 45 of 138

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
January 13, 2026 @ 6:30 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Scott Cowan at 6:30 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Councilors Present: Mayor Scott Cowan, Council President Mark Raum, Councilors
Mike Hickam, Ray Hunt, and Dick Perdue
Staff Present:

Janelle Booth, City Manager; Andrew Potts, City Engineer; Alan
Sorem, City Attorney; Matt Straite, Community Development
Director; and Sheena Dickerman, City Recorder

D. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
None

6:30 p.m.

E. CONSENT AGENDA
6:30 p.m.
1) Approval of December 9, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
City Recorder Sheena Dickerman brought forward a correction to December 9, 2025,
minutes on page 6. The second motion should say Council President “Mark” and not
“Mike”.
Action: Motion to approve the consent agenda as presented made by Councilor
Dick Perdue; seconded by Councilor Mike Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
F. GUEST PRESENTATIONS
6:30 p.m.
Mayor Scott Cowan noted that since Sergeant Steven Frambes had not arrived yet
Council would move to Albany Fire Department Quarterly Reports.
2) Albany Fire Department Quarterly ReportDeputy Chief Kevin Vining reported that the year-to-date calls for the fiscal year
stood at 169 for Millersburg, which is down a few calls from the previous year. The
department rounded out calendar year 2025 with 11,705 total calls, which is also
down a couple hundred from the previous year.
Vining shared two significant milestones. First, eight new hires graduated from their
academy right before Christmas, bringing them back to full staffing. This is the first

1|Page

Page 46 of 138

time in several years. Second, they received a grant through Oregon DHS to assist
local care facilities with acquiring lifting devices. The devices were distributed to
care facilities in December and January, with staff being trained on their use. He
explained it allows them to handle non-injury ground level falls within their facility
without having to utilize AFD resources. He emphasized the importance of this
program, noting that the number one call type for Millersburg was lift assists at 27
calls.
Cowan asked what the name of the device was. Vining replied “the elk” and “the
camel”.
Councilor Mike Hickam thanked the fire department for helping his older neighbor
who lives alone, by setting them up with a lockbox for emergency access. He asked
how to get information about these services out to the community. Vining explained
these were services the department has provided for many years, including installing
lock boxes, grab handles for elderly households, and smoke detectors. He suggested
social media campaigns and noted they share this information at their annual open
house. Both Hillary Kosmicki, their community paramedic, and Sandy Roberts,
Deputy Fire Marshal in charge of community risk reduction, were identified as
contact persons for these services.
Staff and Council looked at where it could be put on the City’s Website, under “Our
Services, Fire Services” and calling it “What AFD Can Provide For You”.
Cowan noted that he would save a spot for the LCSO report and continue to the next
agenda item.
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
6:38 p.m.
Doug Iverson, Millersburg, addressed the Council regarding the December 18 and 19
rain event. He detailed the numerous road closures he had heard about during the
event: Castillo, Evergreen, Deciduous, 54th, and Millersburg Drive and Saunter were
closed.
Iverson described driving around the neighborhood on Saturday, about 24 hours after
the rain stopped, to assess the damage. All standing water had drained off but he
noted significant impacts. Behind the fire station, he observed landscaping had been
washed out. On Evergreen and Deciduous, he noticed the debris line from the top of
the water was halfway up driveways. He noted that it might have caused a lot of
anxiety for those that lived in that area.
Iverson recounted speaking with a resident on 54th Street who had attempted to drive
through high water. The resident told him that when he saw the high-water sign, he
thought he could make it but when the water was over his hood, he decided it was bit
“higher than high”. The resident suggested to him that the signs should be changed
from "high water" to "road closed" or include markers showing depth.

2|Page

Page 47 of 138

Iverson emphasized his perspective that the storm's severity wasn’t a catastrophic event
but suggested this might be a good opportunity to communicate with neighbors about
what they saw and to anticipate for the future.
Cowan thanked Iverson for his observations and research, noting that the storm event
would be discussed in more detail later in the meeting.
H. COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS
1.) Committee Assignments –

6:44 p.m.

Cowan reviewed the Council committee assignments for 2026 with Council. He went
through each committee systematically.
For Events Planning/Community Liaison, Cowan and Perdue would remain with
Raum as alternate.
Joint Water/Wastewater remained with Cowan and Perdue, with Councilor Ray
Hunt as alternate.
For Oregon Cascades West Council of Government (COG), Cowan asked to be the
primary with Perdue alternate.
On AAMPO (Albany Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) after discussion, Hunt
will continue as primary and Cowan as alternate.
For Cascade West Area Commission on Transportation, Hickam remained as primary
and Raum as alternate. Hickam noted he could attend in person or virtually. Raum
commented he joins virtually.
Cowan suggested expanding the list to include other committees like the LEDG
Board, noting that he, Raum and Booth served on it and GAPS (Greater Albany
Public Schools) facilities group, which Perdue participates on. Raum noted that he
is the secretary treasure for LEDG and that is why he is on it. Council agreed to list
these additional committees showing which positions “Mayor of Millersburg” and
“City Manager” automatically serve.
Cowan went back to the Linn County Sheriff’s report.
F. GUEST PRESENTATIONS
1) Linn County Sheriff’s Office Monthly ReportSergeant Steven Frambes noted that it had been a very busy month. He
highlighted that Millersburg’s contract is for 153 hours, while Mill City’s contract is
301 hours, almost double, and despite the difference Millersburg had 11 more
calls than Mill City in December.

3|Page

Page 48 of 138

Frambes detailed the arrests made in December; strangulation, harassment, two
for driving with revoked driver’s license, providing false information to law
enforcement officer, four individuals for warrants, two DUII’s, assault 4 and
possession of cocaine.
Frambes discussed the December 18 high water event. That event was
challenging for everybody in the County. Cowan asked about water rescues or
fatalities. Frambes reported none, but LCSO issued citations to people who went
around road closure signs.
H. COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS
6:57 p.m.
2.) City Appreciation CoinCowan presented the concept of a City appreciation coin to show thanks to
community members, staff, stakeholders, or work partners who go above and beyond.
He said he had been working with Community Development Director Matt Straite on
some conceptual designs. He showed sample coins from his collection, including one
from Albany Fire given for CPR saves where the patient leaves the hospital under their
own power (shown in the presentation*). He explained the coins originated in the
military but have spread to fire, police, and city services.
Hunt asked what the plan was to hand them out. Cowan replied that if Council likes the
idea, he and staff would work on design and award guidelines to bring back to Council.
The idea was to get what Council liked or didn’t like on the designs.
Council discussed the two ideas presented. One proposed design (on right side of
presentation) featured the City logo with a residential home and American flag, with
“Thank you” and “Est. 1974”. Cowan noted that it should be “Incorporated in 1974”. The
other coin (on left side of presentation) showed agricultural and industrial themes, with
train and power lines, representing the City's character. A handshake between
agricultural and industrial gloves was shown at the bottom.
Hunt thought it looked good and suggested going with the size of Cowan’s coin from
Albany Fire. Raum said he liked the left side with the handshake, he expressed hesitation
about the right-side design because it looked to “too animated”. He thought the two
should complement each other. Councilor Mike Hickam stated that he didn’t like the
handshake. Perdue agreed, he liked the one that didn’t include the handshake.
Council generally liked the concept but agreed the handshake should be removed
and more detail added to match both sides. Cowan said he and staff would refine the
design and bring back guidelines for distributing the coins at the next regular Council
meeting.

4|Page

Page 49 of 138

3.) Meet your Councilor –
Cowan asked the Council to provide brief biographies for the City website, using his
own entry as an example. He requested they email their submissions to Straite and
noted a link would be added for residents to contact Council members directly. City
Manager Janelle Booth explained email address would be hidden for cybersecurity
reasons.
Hickam raised the issue of meeting start times and asked if Council meetings could start
at the same time as Planning Commission. Councilors discussed various options,
including 5:30 p.m., with concerns raised about dinner and travel time. Cowan
suggested they check with regular attendees and staff before making a decision at the
next meeting, with 6 p.m. being the leading option. Booth stated that the next Regular
Council Meeting time would not change.
I.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

7:17 p.m.

Booth reminded Council that after the regular meeting there was a work session to
discuss the commercial property master plan, targeting for around 8 p.m.
1) Projects UpdateCity Engineer Andrew Potts provided updates on various City Projects:
Transition Parkway: Potts shared that work continued with subcontractors installing
fencing around the retaining walls, ADA curb ramps, sidewalks, irrigation, electrical
conduit and light pole foundations. The day after the last Council meeting the
intersection at Woods Road and Conser Road opened but is not open to the rest of
Transition Parkway. There are temporary stop signs for worker safety. Cowan asked if
the temporary stop signs would not be there when Transition Parkway opens ups.
Potts confirmed that they would be removed once it was completed, allowing trucks
to travel through without stopping. Booth commented that the turn was a little tight
and was intentionally tight, but staff would review it, noting that it was designed to
engineering standards to intentionally slow traffic.
Siuslaw Ave Watermain Replacement: Potts said exploratory potholing and soil
testing was completed on December 15, 2025, to address corrosion issues that had
caused recent leaks. Briefing would be this week, with the hope of starting
preliminary engineering in February or March.
Woods Road Multiuse Path: Potts said it was still on track for 60 percent design
completion by the end of February. Significantly, the Army Corp determined that
the wetlands were not in their jurisdiction, eliminating one agency from the review
process. Booth emphasized this was a notable change from past Army Corp
response, though full state permitting, wetland mitigation, and stormwater design
would still be required.
5|Page

Page 50 of 138

Waverly Drive Cox Creek Bridge: Potts said the bid advertisement for bridge
replacement at Talking Water Garden is on January 23, 2026, with bid opening in
February. It is on track for construction in summer of 2026.
2) Cyber Policy –
Booth reported the City had submitted applications for excess cyber coverage
through CIS (Cities Insurance Services) which was budgeted previously. The policy
adoption required for coverage has taken time to align with COG, which provides
IT support. Requirements include staff training on phishing awareness and other
security measures now being implemented.
3) Future Potential Charter RevisionsBooth explained that LOC (League of Oregon Cities) published an updated model
charter in 2024 with two primary amendments addressing recent litigation trends.
One addressed small communities lacking enough councilors to fill vacant seats as
their charters require a majority to appoint. While Millersburg hasn’t experienced this
problem, as a small community it remains possible. The charter update process
would require three newspaper notices and two public hearings. The last update
was in 2021 with minor cleanup. She recommended that Council consider if other
amendments should be included if they proceed with updates.
4) Intern UpdateBooth said Council previously indicated they wanted an intern this year. Selection of
the intern is this week. The City plans to hire a MECOP (Multiple Engineering
Cooperative Program) intern for six months with a beginning date in June 2026. Potts
and Booth, who both had participated in the program in the past explained that
the internship provides meaningful construction inspection and engineering work
experience. The program involves Oregon State, Portland State, and OIT (Oregon
Institute of Technology) with competitive selection processes. The City has not had
one since 2021.
The intern would assist with construction inspection, general engineering tasks, and
potentially sidewalk/road vegetation clearance - addressing a previously expressed
Council priority. Cost would be approximately $28,000 for six months full-time work,
with wages set by the program. Selection would occur Thursday of that week.
Hunt questioned whether the money would be better spent on parks maintenance
staff. Cowan said there will be discussion during budget to explore those options.
Hunt asked if construction inspections were done by Linn County. Booth explained
that the City hires a consultant to do inspections. The County does building permit
inspections and the City does anything regarding right-of-way, utilities and
Millersburg projects. She noted that an intern would be doing a lot of other tasks to
help as well. One thing that was talked about from Council was possible sidewalk
and road clearance.
6|Page

Page 51 of 138

5) 12/18/2025 Storm Event – Potts presented analysis of the December 18, 2026, storm
event. Six streets were closed during flooding, with all but one drained by morning.
He acknowledged they ran out of road closure signs and had to use high water
signs, but more road closure signs have been ordered.
Potts said the storm delivered 4.38 inches in 24 hours. Booth corrected it to 4.55
inches. Potts added that 2.2 inches fell in just six hours between 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.
Booth said the system is designed for a 10-year or 25-year event, but this intensity
was equated to a 70-year event.
Potts noted that most areas behaved as expected and had drained out by morning
but the intersection of Millersburg Drive and Saunter Street remained flooded the
longest. Booth explained that this drainage was tied to Crooks Creek tributary levels
which remained high the next day. She said the Evergreen area had ongoing issues,
previous flooding there was resolved by cleaning softball and bottle-clogged outlet
structures. The plans are to cut a notch in the berm, once weather permits, which
should help the issue in the future.
Hickam shared that having lived in a flat area in the south, water can only move so
fast when flat.
Booth shared that 54th street flooding was unexpected, as issues hadn’t been seen
there before. Staff will be looking into it to address it in the future. Cowan thanked
staff. He had come out that night to see how things were draining and ran into
Maintenance staff Dustin Patton and Randy Mueller. He mentioned talking with
Booth during the event. He mentioned that staff prioritized safety and did what they
could with the situation.
Booth noted the City was nearly cut off during the event, with water encroaching
on freeway on-ramp lanes. She suggested potentially stockpiling sandbags locally
for future events rather than relying on county supplies at the fairgrounds.
Booth shared that City of Albany (COA) staff had asked if the City wanted to be a potential
partner with other communities (Albany and Linn County), for either a fireworks or for a drone
show celebration on the 4th of July. She noted that the Fire Chief would prefer not to do
fireworks. It would be at either Monteith Park or Timber Linn Park.

7|Page

Page 52 of 138

Booth said she had received the contract for the Done show and this would need to be
brought to the Events Planning Committee. Hunt added that he had talked with Alex Johnson,
Albany Mayor, and he would like it at the park downtown. It will cost approximately $18,000.
Iverson shared that he didn’t care for fireworks. Cowan stated that it was $18,000 for Albany’s
last fireworks event at Montieth Park. Booth mentioned they had asked what we paid for our
drone show, $12,500. Hickam said he would like to partner with Albany for a fireworks show,
and would prefer not to do drone show that would last only a few minutes. Cowan explained
that Albany was reaching out because it is the 250 year anniversary for the County. He stated
that he would rather see it at Timber Linn Park than downtown. Perdue agreed, stating Timber
Linn Park would hold more people and he was against having it downtown.
Booth asked how Council wanted this to work with the Events Committee as she had a drone
show contact in her inbox. She asked if there needed to be communication with the Events
Committee, or would this be separate. She asked if Council would be looking at funding it
separately. Hickam said it would depend on what Albany was expecting for partnering.
Perdue suggested an email to the Events Planning Committee notifying them that this came
up and put a delay on signing the contract if possible.
Cowan reiterated Councilors thoughts were that the City was willing to partner if it was at
Timber Linn Park, but there was no set funding number, and preferred fireworks.
Booth said that Albany City Manager would be contacting the County Commissioners too.
Booth wanted to address the next work session timing. She asked about February 3, 2026.
Perdue couldn’t make it. Councilors decided that February 2, 2026, at 4 p.m. would work.
K. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
7:59 p.m.
1.) City Attorney Alan Sorem presented the annual review of public meetings and records
policy as required by a 2018 City Resolution. He emphasized individual Councilor’s
responsibilities for following public meetings laws, records laws, and ethical obligations.
Sorem warned about the new Oregon Ethics Commission’s aggressive approach to
taking complaints from individual citizens. The Ethics Commission had made “relatively
aggressive interpretations” in the past year that surprised city attorneys and city
managers. He said that he, City Manager Janelle Booth and City Recorder Sheena
Dickerman, are a resource.
Sorem specifically addressed serial meetings, discussions that occur outside public
meetings through various means. He explained that the Ethics Commission now
considers it problematic if one councilor talks to another about city business, then either
party talks to a third councilor - even over different days or through different mediums
(text, phone, lunch). With only five councilors, three constitutes a quorum, creating
violation risk.

8|Page

Page 53 of 138

Hickam asked if the Ethics Commission had backed off regarding discussions with
citizens. Sorem explained that while Salem City Council protested they couldn't attend
neighborhood meetings or talk with constituents, the Ethics Commission clarified public
meetings were acceptable. Sorem’s "editorial comment" was to remain cautious. He
noted the statute requires "deliberation" which should involve "intent and awareness of
communal discussions," but the Ethics Commission's interpretation remained
concerning.
Sorem emphasized the frustration of ethics investigations, even when resulting only in
"letters of education,".
On records retention, Sorem reminded Council to maintain all notes, emails, and
materials for five years after their term ends. He recommended using City email
exclusively for City business to avoid personal email searches during public records
requests.
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None

8:09 p.m.

L. NEW BUSINESS
8:09 p.m.
1) Easement Termination Request –
Cowan asked Councilors to declare any conflicts of interests. Councilors Hickam
and Hunt declared conflicts.
Booth provided background on the 30-foot-wide access and utility easement
created in 2013 when West Park subdivision was recorded affecting the southerly 30
feet lots 49 through 54. The easement was intended for the extension of Zuhlke Lane.
In 2023, a judge ruled the plat language attempting to convert the easement to
right-of-way when requested by the City was invalid. The judge confirmed no rightof-way exists but the easement as written remains.
Current property owners requested termination, stating there had been no use or
development for over 10 consecutive years and they had paid property taxes on
the entire parcels. Booth clarified the City never owned the property - it only held an
easement interest.
Booth explained City master plans currently do not show utility extensions through
the easement area. The transportation system plan shows Zuhlke Lane extension
plus pedestrian/bicycle connectivity. Options presented included taking no action,
tabling for future action, selling the easement interest (requiring appraisal), pursuing
a vacation process, or conveying for no value (requiring public interest finding). A
vacation request or conveying would require a notice of public hearing to
determine there are no public needs. Sorem added that the City has a real estate
interest, and there are a number of tools available to the City if we want to make

9|Page

Page 54 of 138

use of it. There are a lot of options for releasing the City’s real estate interest. He
discussed the difference between a quitclaim deed after public hearing and a
vacation of an interest created on a plat. Because it is an interest created on a plat,
other third parties could challenge based on their noticed rights under Oregon
vacation law. The City might choose to follow a vacation process out of an
abundance of caution, that could be petitioner or City initiated. All options require
a public hearing, and any final action will require three votes.
Booth emphasized that staff did not have a proposed motion but was asking for
direction. Raum asked to clarify that the City was already having the TSP updated
and if this was included in the scope of that work. Booth affirmed it was a
consideration of whether Zuhlke Lane should stay a collector was on the list. She
noted that there were changes in the City since the last one was done. She added
that the TSP plan will be looking at all of it. The Council as a whole will give input to
those plans. Raum stated that he would like to see that information. Cowan asked if
the current TSP has language now regarding connectivity in that area. Booth replied
that it has general policies regarding connectivity. The policies do not specifically
call out this area. She said a map shows lines through the area. She commented
that when the City did the Parks Master Plan and started talking about paths and
trails, some changes that were desired to be made to the TSP maps for paths and
trails came out. She said it is a normal process to modify the TSP maps. She said
evaluating the maps will be part of the TSP.
Councilor Dick Perdue asked about the Council telling Ed (Perlenfein) that the City
was going to do a TSP before answering his question. Cowan clarified that these are
two different things. Booth added that they are related but the resolution regarding
the funds that were provided by Ed (Perlenfein) sets them aside for specific road
improvements, streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks and this is about access. The
funds could not be used for a path or trail. They are two separate but related things.
Sorem agreed.
Sorem said that if the City decided not to keep the easement and quitclaim deed
it away, then the City might want to reconsider holding on to Mr. Perlenfein’s funds,
but these are two separate, legally different decisions. Booth explained that what
the funds were collected for and how the resolution was written, it was not tied to
doing improvement in this easement, it is tied to the frontage. It is not tied to the
easement area.
Cowan asked for any member in the audience that wanted to address the Council
on the matter.
Cowan clarified that Raum wanted the TSP to be done before Council took action.
Raum affirmed. Cowan asked about the timeframe for the TSP. Booth said that the
City is contracted now, with a kickoff meeting scheduled for next week. Staff has

10 | P a g e

Page 55 of 138

already discussed with them regarding moving the Zuhlke Lane collector status up.
It will not be something at the very beginning but will not be at the end. Partway
through it will look at the functional classifications of the roadways and determine if
it is not needed there. The City can look at the bike and pedestrian connectivity and
where it falls then. It will take approximately 16 months for the schedule, so in more
than 6 months, but less than 12 months there should be more clarification.
Cowan asked what the TSP would provide for the City. He asked if Council should
seek a determination if it is a collector or not. Booth explained that the determination
would come from engineering and whether the traffic volumes rise to a level that
the City would want to see a collector in this area. That recommendation will come
from consultants and staff. She added that looking at the bike and pedestrian
connectivity is a little bit more subjective and would be something Council and
possibly the Planning Commission look at first and prioritize where the City wants to
see paths, trails and connectivity based on what is going on in the City, where the
neighborhoods are, etc. It will be a process. During the Parks Master Plan and
previous Transportation System Plan (TSP) there were public workshops before
landing on the what the City wanted to incorporate for paths and trails. Community
Development Director Matt Staite said there would be public outreach as part of
the TSP update.
Perdue asked when staff say it is “subjective”, it is subjective to Councilors making a
decision. He added that working through the process of the TSP would help make a
decision whether to give up both the easement and the funds paid by Ed Perlenfien.
Raum asked about an option of reducing the easement to five feet. He questioned
if the City didn’t need all of the 30 feet what the option would be. He didn’t want to
see “Mayor Cowan” in 20 years having the same discussion with a new council.
Cowan acknowledged it was an option.
Mike Hickam, stepping down from the dais to speak at the public table, and
speaking as an affected property owner at 2876 NE Anthony Lane, said he was one
that signed to ask for the removal of the easement, and he strongly disputed the
interpretation. He believed the City was wrong at this point. He emphasized there is
no “public access” easement involved. There is an “access” easement. He said the
definition, when looked up, “is for the city to get from point A to point B, not to take
away the use of our land, which a path would do”. He asserted any attempt to build
a path would involve another legal fight as it is not the definition of an access
easement. He said there would not be a path through it. That is not the purpose of
the easement. The dedication would have done that, but it was thrown out. He said
the easement stayed but it is for city access for utilities. Cowan agreed with the
ambiguity of the terminology of access and utility.

11 | P a g e

Page 56 of 138

Cowan said if it comes out the TSP says there is a need for connectivity there are a
couple of ways. There is property in the south side and west side. He asked Straite to
pull up a map of the area* and proceeded to say that area would have to develop
to get connectivity. He said if the TSP did come back or it was decided to stay with
the easement, the City would only have the last property. The City would have to
acquire or gain connectivity to the subdivision to the west that Perlenfien also built.
There would still need to be some work.
Ray Hunt, stepping down from the dais and speaking at the public table,
acknowledged that he was also an affected property owner. He stated that the
City received a tentative plat map that hasn’t been recorded or processed. Booth
replied the plat had been recorded. Straite clarified that Hunt meant the
application that was submitted from the one to the south. Booth acknowledged
that application had expired. Hunt said the City could modify Zuhlke any way it
wants, based on future development. The City could go around their property lines
to build Zuhlke. He agreed with Hickam that there is no bike path in the easement,
it is all underground. He said that if the City wants to “tunnel a gas line” there and
not give it back to the property owners he could live with that, but he stated he
would like to have it back as he does have plans for it. Cowan reiterated that it was
not clear on what the definition of access or utility means. Hunt said that according
to his title policy and what the judge ruled it was an underground utility easement.
Sorem respectfully disagreed with the property owners' interpretation, explaining he
looked at the plain text in context with other easements granted. He said there were
utility easements granted, franchise agreements granted, and stormwater utility
easements were granted. He said the testifiers’ interpretation is they are thinking it is
not an access easement, but it’s a utility easement granted together with rights to
access to such utilities. He did not think that was the intent of what the declarant
and the City intended at the time of the formation of the easement. He noted the
language included no permanent buildings, setback standards may be observed,
and the language was expressly preserved in the terms of the judgment. There may
be a differing opinion of that, but his opinion was the text is clear and the City does
have an access easement to include the right to construct access facilities. He said
that if a third party disagrees with that, they have rights to go ahead and object. He
said the judgement of record does not require for the court order to do any
construction activities. He said this is his opinion as to the terms of the easement,
granted to the City. If the City wants to voluntarily give it up or sell it, then the options
are in front of the City as laid out in the staff report.
Councilor Ray Hunt left the dais at 8:34 p.m.
Council discussion revealed division on how to proceed. Raum wanted to wait for
the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update results. Cowan noted even with the

12 | P a g e

Page 57 of 138

easement, connectivity would require acquiring additional property to reach the
western subdivision.
Councilor Ray Hunt returned to the dais at 8:35 p.m.
Cowan asked for Perdue’s input. He acknowledged that he felt like he didn’t
understand everything that was going on.
Councilor Mike Hickam left the dais at 8:36 p.m.
Booth said this is an issue that has been going on for a while and is complicated. If
Council wanted more time to think about it, they could decide to bring it back to
the next meeting. Perdue stated that he definitely needed more time. Booth stated
that staff is trying to lay out the information that staff has and what the options are.
It is ultimately the decision of Council to decide whether it is in the public interest to
continue to pursue anything or to say that this was thought of for the future but
believe the future is going in a different direction.
Cowan said that there would be no vote tonight. He said Sorem’s point was that the
three Councilors would have to come together on a vote to move this.
Councilor Mike Hickam returned to the dais at 8:38 p.m.
Cowan said the matter would be tabled until TSP information becomes available in
6 to 12 months. This would give Perdue time to consider the complex issue. The three
non-conflicted Councilors agreed to tabling it. He stated that he would like this to
be included as the higher priority than the whole TSP package. Booth replied that
staff can follow up, possibly by the next meeting, with the proposed timeline, and try
and move those two items up. She noted that they would probably not be too
dependent on other analysis that are taking place.
2) Linn County Stormwater Intergovernmental Agreement
Booth explained both Millersburg and Linn County are MS4 Phase 2 permittees
requiring them to permit erosion control and stormwater projects. Currently, projects
along Old Salem Road require double permitting by both jurisdictions.
The proposed intergovernmental agreement would have Millersburg handle all
permitting for erosion and stormwater quality permits within city limits, even for
properties draining to Old Salem Road. The county would retain all maintenance
responsibilities for their facilities. This formalized what staff had already been
coordinating informally.
Perdue caught an error on page 2 referencing "September 31st which doesn't exist."
Booth confirmed it should be September 30.
Action: Motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Linn County
for Stormwater Code Implementation made by Councilor Dick Perdue; seconded
by Mayor Scott Cowan.
13 | P a g e

Page 58 of 138

Mayor Scott Cowan:
Councilor Mark Raum:
Councilor Mike Hickam:
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Motion PASSED: 5/0

Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye

2) Utility Rates
Booth presented comprehensive analysis of water and sewer funds in response
to questions about the scheduled 3 percent rate increases set to take effect
February 1, 2026. For the water fund, she showed revenues and expenditures
over time, noting operational costs had increased partly due to higher water
usage and Albany's billing correction after years of missed charges. The fund's
beginning balance for the current year was approximately $2.7 million including
SDCs. Planned capital projects included potential pretreatment at the water
treatment plant for dam drawdown sediment, membrane replacements,
corrosion-related main replacement, and service line transfers at Old Salem
Road. She recommended maintaining the planned 3 percent increase for water,
to keep up with costs.
Booth stated the sewer fund showed a different picture. After four years of 7.5
percent increases to address past deficits, the fund had grown healthy with a
beginning balance of approximately $6.3 million, including $1.2 million from a
previous settlement. Booth stated that the increases accomplished their goal
and it wouldn’t put the fund in jeopardy not to have the increase this year.
Booth showed the slide comparing regional rates*, which showed Millersburg
had the lowest water rates but was in the top third for sewer rates. Combined
utility rates remained the second lowest in the region. Booth strongly
recommended conducting a rate study in the next year at an estimated cost of
$20,000 to $25,000.
Hickam noted that he disagreed with a lot of people in the community that thinks
the City’s water is expensive. He shared that he had recently gone in and looked
at his utility bill and saw that his water bill was not very much, but his sewer bill
was three times what he was paying for water. He asked that the City look at
what was driving those costs and fees. He was supportive of the water increase
if the City needed it. He challenged the logic of raising rates after claiming the
new water meters would save money. He said the community came out and
said they didn’t want to see the City replace the meters.
Cowan stated that staying up with inflation is important. He noted that having
four years of a 7.5 percent increase is a thirty percent increase. He agreed with
the idea of having a freeze on sewer and get the study done and see if it stays
with a three percent for inflation. He liked the idea of evaluating the future meters
and saving money. He stated that if in the future the City could “shave off more”

14 | P a g e

Page 59 of 138

for the residents, then to “do it”. He mentioned that for water there are some
larger capital projects, such as capacity in the tank that needed to be kept in
mind.
Raum pointed out that the fund balances that were shown, in the sewer fund,
has capital projects that will deplete it in its entirety when those occur and the
potential for SDC charges to refill the fund is diminishing with the developable
land that the City does not have.
Booth addressed the comment regarding the tank with water, noting that the
City will need additional system storage, more than the City has in the reservoir.
She said what would push the City over the edge would be a large water user
that would require additional storage. Those types of upgrades will be funded
partially or potentially fully by SDC’s of the large user.
Booth addressed the water meters, saying that from staff’s perspective of the
discussion was the new meters wouldn’t cause the City to raise water rates. The
three percent increases were already planned and not related to the meter
project, which should offset future costs.
Perdue stated that the City needed to raise a little bit each year, otherwise the
City will end up with a 7.5 percent increase, because of not increasing like
previous years. He agreed that it made sense to remove the three percent off
for sewer. He agreed that the three percent increase in water was necessary.
Hickam clarified that he was not hinting the meters were the reason for the
increase, but if the City was saying it would save money by having the meters, it
should save the City on what the City needed to increase the rates by. It was
part of the selling point of going to the new meters. He said for storage and other
things, he would be supportive of not wasting water. He used the example of
watering the park when the sprinklers are not working efficiently. He also
suggested that the City look at switching to a monthly billing cycle.
Booth said that if Council wants staff to explore going to a monthly billing cycle,
to have staff bring back how it would impact operations. It would double the
work to do billings, which is not a big hinderance but something to be aware of.
She said one of the advantages of the new meters is not having meter readers
out twice as often. Hickam said that if it was postponed until the new meters, it
shouldn’t be hard, because it is coming electronically. Booth said staff would like
to consider the impacts of switching to monthly and bring it back to Council in
the future.
Booth clarified Council could make a motion to describe Council’s intent, but a
resolution would need to be brought back for adoption.
Action: Motion to remove the three precent for sewer made by Councilor Dick
Perdue; seconded by Mayor Scott Cowan.

15 | P a g e

Page 60 of 138

Discussion: Hunt noted that he had raised the question to freeze the rates a few
months ago with Booth. He argued that consumers have taken a hit this last year
with inflation. The City is in a plus in the water and sewer fund. He calculated that
freezing rates would save residents approximately $18 per month per household,
totaling roughly $86,000 citywide.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Councilor Mark Raum:
Councilor Mike Hickam:
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Motion PASSED: 4/1

Aye
Aye
Aye
Nay
Aye

Action: Motion to freeze the water rate for a year made by Councilor Ray Hunt;
seconded by Councilor Mike Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Councilor Mark Raum:
Councilor Mike Hickam:
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Motion Failed: 2/2/1

Nay
Nay
Aye
Aye
Abstained

Cowan directed staff to research and bring back a proposal for a rate study. Booth
affirmed that staff would bring it back as part of the budget process. Hickam would like
to see more of what the projection looks like. Booth stated that the study would look at
it more in depth. She recommended using the same consultant as before. Hickam
asked for dates of projects so that Council could be aware of when the fund balance
would drop.
M. CLOSING COUNCIL COMMENT None

9:07 p.m.

N. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scott Cowan adjourned the regular meeting at 9:07 p.m.
O. WORK SESSION – COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MASTER PLAN

9: 15 p.m.

Cowan opened the work session and turned it over to Booth, who introduced Dan Van
Calcar and Carl Hampson from Soderstrom Architects. She commented that staff were
not expecting a final design to come out of tonight’s meeting. This was to be a guide for
future development. The architects had been contracted to develop master planning
concepts for the City-owned commercial/industrial property across from City Hall
between the fire station and corner market.
Hampson presented two conceptual approaches developed after meetings with city
staff. Both concepts aimed to reflect Millersburg's agricultural and industrial character,

16 | P a g e

Page 61 of 138

make connections with the linear park, preserve significant oak trees, and incorporate
food/retail, potential multi-family housing, and the YMCA facility.
Concept 1 - Green Core Design: This approach created a pedestrian-focused interior
with parking on the perimeter. Visitors would park outside and walk into a central green
space surrounded by retail, housing above retail, and the YMCA. The design featured
the preserved oak trees as a centerpiece, creating a park-like gathering area. Industrialstyle flexible buildings would reflect the community's character. Access would be via
Conser Road, Transition Parkway, and right-in, right-out only driveways off Old Salem
Road.
Concept 2 - Town Center Design: Inspired by developments like downtown Lake Oswego
and Bridgeport Center in Tualatin, this design brought cars into the site via a curved
internal street. Limited on-street parking would be available with additional parking in
peripheral lots. The street would feature special paving patterns and wide sidewalks to
slow traffic and create a pedestrian-friendly environment. Buildings would front the street
with retail at ground level and housing above.
Both concepts showed the YMCA with outdoor fenced play areas, preserved oak trees,
connections to the linear park, and potential integration with the corner market property
(shown both as currently planned by the owner and as potentially integrated into the
development).
Council discussion revealed several key themes:
Hunt raised extensive concerns about development feasibility, emphasizing that the City
would not be able to get somebody to come in and put $20 million in infrastructure,
unless they owned the property and had control. Also, banks would not loan money
without land ownership. He questioned who would pay for the infrastructure.
Perdue said if someone wanted to put $20 million dollars into it the City would sell them
the land. Cowan said it would be up to Council and the idea was to guide a future
developer of the concept to build what Council would like to see for a town center.
Hickam commented that he liked the drawings, but agreed with Hunt's concerns and
believed the City should know if there is a developer who is willing to do this. He
questioned whether the City’s 3,000-person population could support the retail spaces,
because he didn’t think they would be able to make money.
Sorem offered perspective on phasing and market analysis, saying the YMCA,
compared to a lot of retail users, would probably be less in demand for street frontage,
signage, and visibility. He suggested positioning the YMCA next to the fire station on the
southern edge, saving prime visibility for retail. He emphasized the need for market
analysis to determine viable uses, suggesting a hotel might work better than housing
given proximity to highways.

17 | P a g e

Page 62 of 138

Booth explained the planning context, staff has had multiple conversations with people
in the development world over the last several years, with months going by and nothing
happens. It's happened multiple times, and the City reached a point that if we want see
something happen there, the City will need to have a concept to take to developers.
Regarding preferences between concepts:
•

Hickam preferred the green core design. He liked central with the cars on the
outside, it's a small enough area that he didn’t think you need cars in the middle of
it.

•

Perdue also preferred parking outside with pedestrian access to the center.

•

Raum liked elements of both.

•

Cowan initially preferred the green core but was drawn to the town center
concept's accessibility during wet weather, suggesting the need for covered
walkways.

Councilors agreed the development would need to be phased rather than built all at
once. They discussed the importance of having an anchor tenant like a restaurant to
draw people. The existing corner market's rebuild plans were noted as a positive first step.
Regarding the YMCA placement, discussion revealed tension between locating it near
the future school site to the north versus near the fire station to the south, with retail
visibility concerns favoring the southern location.
Cowan directed the architects to email the drawings to the Council for further review
and input, noting the budget allowed for one more design iteration. The work session
concluded with understanding that this was a high-level master planning exercise to
guide future development discussions rather than detailed design specifications.
Mayor Scott Cowan adjourned the Work Sesson at 10:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:

Reviewed by:

Sheena Dickerman
City Recorder

Janelle Booth
City Manager

*Presentation materials or documents discussed at the meeting that are not in the agenda packet are archived in
the record. Documents from staff are posted to the website after the meeting. Documents submitted by the public
are available by emailing [email protected].

18 | P a g e

Page 63 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

April 7, 2026, for the April 14, 2026, Council Meeting

SUBJECT: Zuhlke Lane – Street Connectivity Memo
Action Requested:
Consideration of memo provided by Transportation System Plan consultant, DKS,
regarding Zuhlke Lane.
Discussion:
The current Transportation System Plan (TSP) includes projects to extend the
currently constructed portion of Zuhlke Lane east to Old Salem Road and west to
Woods Road. As part of an update to the TSP that is currently underway, staff
requested DKS consider whether Zuhlke Lane is needed as an additional
connection between Old Salem Road and Woods Road.
DKS concluded that Alexander Lane and Transition Parkway provide adequate
east-west connectivity and Zuhlke Lane does not need to provide this
functionality. Zuhlke Lane should be classified as a local street and projects to
extend Zuhlke east and west removed from the TSP. This does not mean Zuhlke
Lane cannot or should not be extended east or west in the future. The reason for
removing the projects from the TSP is that TSPs do not typically address local streets
and instead rely on policies to guide development and ensure connectivity
requirements are met on a case-by-case basis. If future development does extend
Zuhlke Lane east and west, a non-linear route may discourage cut-through traffic,
helping to keep speeds down and maintain a residential character.
The memo also emphasized the importance of relying on our policies to ensure
future development in this area has adequate connectivity and provides needed
pedestrian and bicycle routes. The possibility of a future school on the parcel
behind City Hall, adjacent to Zuhlke Lane, makes these multimodal connections
particularly important.
Budget Impact:
None.
Recommendation:
None.
Attachment(s):
Zuhlke Lane – Street Connectivity Memo

Page 64 of 138

Z U H L KE L A N E - ST R E E T C O N N E C T I VI T Y
DATE:

March 24, 2026

TO:

Janelle Booth, City Manager | City of Millersburg
Matt Straite, Community Development Director | City of Millersburg

FROM:

Jenna Bogert, PE | DKS Associates
Scott Mansur, PE, PTOE, RSP1 | DKS Associates

SUBJECT: Millersburg Transportation System Plan Zuhlke Lane – Street
Connectivity

P#26174-000

BACKGROUND

DKS has conducted an evaluation of Zuhlke Lane to determine its function and purpose within the
city’s street network, specifically the multimodal connectivity needs of the street. The City’s
Transportation System Plan (TSP) has identified Zuhlke Lane as a local street (see Attachments)
with an identified project that would extend the existing segments of Zuhlke Lane to the east and
west through a two-phase project (Project S1, see Attachments) that would result in a continuous
east-west route between Old Salem Road and Woods Road. Typically, TSPs do not identify local
street alignments; local street alignments are instead guided by policy to ensure that proper
connectivity is provided to the uses served by those local streets. This memorandum aims to
determine the function of Zuhlke Lane and what is needed to provide adequate connectivity for all
modes of travel in the general vicinity.

STREET CONNECTIVITY EVALUATION

The following elements were considered as part of the Zuhlke Lane evaluation.
SURROUNDING LAND USES

Today, the existing segments of Zuhlke Lane abut low-density residential properties as well as two
publicly zoned parcels, namely the Millersburg City Park and the large property where City Hall is
located (much of this lot is currently undeveloped). The undeveloped portion of the City Hall
property has been identified as the potential location for a future elementary school. Additionally,
there is a vacant parcel zoned as General Commercial directly adjacent to Old Salem Road and east
of the current street terminus of Zuhlke Lane. Given the mix of residential homes, city park,
potential school, and future commercial uses in the immediate vicinity of Zuhlke Lane, it is
important that the city provide direct and continuous, east-west pedestrian and bicycle

Page 65 of 138

facilities in this area. This will allow residents to access the park, future school, and future
commercial uses without a vehicle.
OVERALL STREET NETWORK AND CLASSIFICATION

Street classifications indicate purpose, design, and function, ensuring that streets are built and
maintained with features to support demand from both the surrounding land uses and from traffic
that may be traveling through parts of the city. Typically, local streets are intended to serve the
adjacent land without carrying through traffic. To achieve this, adequately spaced collector and
arterial streets within the city are needed to provide access, mobility, and higher-speed routes for
vehicles.
Alexander Lane (collector to the north) and Transition Parkway (arterial currently under
construction to the south) function as through-routes in the vicinity of Zuhlke Lane and will allow
Zuhlke Lane to continue functioning as a local street in the future. These two routes are
designed to collector and arterial standards, meaning the streets’ right-of-way, travel lane width,
sidewalks, bike lanes, and speed limits are all designed to support higher volumes and higher
speeds of traffic compared to local streets. Direct access points to parcels are limited along these
streets to improve traffic efficiency and reduce conflict points, allowing Alexander Lane and
Transition Parkway to function as continuous east-west routes and taking the burden of
through-traffic off local streets in the vicinity, such as Zuhlke Lane.
To further promote the function of Zuhlke as a local street, Zuhlke Lane could be constructed as a
non-linear route in the future to discourage cut-through traffic once extended from Old Salem Road
to Woods Road.

FINDINGS

Based on the findings above, DKS finds that Zuhlke Lane should continue to function as a local
street and that the future alignment be guided by policy. Alexander Lane (collector to the north)
and Transition Parkway (arterial currently under construction to the south) are designed to
adequately support higher volumes and higher speeds of traffic in the vicinity of Zuhlke Lane.

M I L L E RS B U R G Z UH L K E L A N E • S T RE E T C O N N E C T I V I T Y E V A L UA T I O N • M A R C H 2 4 , 2 0 2 6

Page 66 of 138

MILLERSBURG TSP
Figure 2. Millersburg Functional Classification Plan (revised 2023)

Note: Conser Road between Woods Road and Old Salem Road will be downgraded to a Residential/Local Road once Transition
Parkway is completed. Until that time it is classified as an Arterial.
Design Guidelines and Multimodal Policy

P age |7

Page 67 of 138

MILLERSBURG TSP
Figure 8. Multimodal Street Improvement Options (revised 2023)

S11

Modal Plans

P a g e | 17

Page 68 of 138

Approved: May 12, 2026

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
April 14, 2026 @ 6:00 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order by Mayor Scott Cowan at 6:00 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Councilors Present: Mayor Scott Cowan, Council President Mark Raum, Councilors
Mike Hickam, Ray Hunt, and Dick Perdue
Staff Present:

Janelle Booth, City Manager; Andrew Potts, City Engineer; Alan
Sorem, City Attorney; Matt Straite, Community Development
Director; and Sheena Dickerman, City Recorder

D. CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
6:02 p.m.
Mayor Scott Cowan mentioned that a guest presentation regarding Emergency
Telephone Agency (ETA) dissolution by Captain Franklin was already listed under guest
presentations and the corresponding action item was under New Business. He said the
vote on the ETA dissolution would be moved up immediately following Captain
Franklin’s presentation.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
6:02 p.m.
1) Approval of March 10, 2026, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
2) Approval of Resolution 2026-03 to support submitting OPRD pickleball grant
application
Action: Motion to approve the consent agenda as presented made by Councilor
Dick Perdue seconded by Councilor Mark Raum.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
F. GUEST PRESENTATIONS

6:02 p.m.

1) Linn County Sheriff’s Office Monthly ReportSergeant Steven Frambes reported a significant figure in the hour’s column. There were
65 hours over the contract amount. He walked through several notable calls. He
addressed activity at Humpty’s and Love’s, noting calls involving multiple motorcycle
club members in the area, and clarified this was not a cause for significant concern.

1|Page

Page 69 of 138

Frambes then highlighted a particularly dramatic call involving two simultaneous
overdoses at the same residence. A Deputy responded, found both individuals
unconscious, administered Narcan to both, and performed CPR until medics arrived.
He reported that, as of the day of the meeting, both individuals were alive and doing
well. He used the moment to underscore the ongoing fentanyl crisis, saying "Overdoses
are a thing. We had one today — actually, there was a fatality. Fentanyl has not gone
away. It's still a very serious thing that we're dealing with." The death was not in
Millersburg. Cowan acknowledged the Deputy’s great work. Frambes said Deputy
Armstrong secured two DUII’s in a single shift during the prior week, that was not
captured in this report, and arrested a driver who had been traveling backwards down
the roadway.
Frambes noted 24 traffic stops during the month and five total arrests. He said DUIs take
a long time, processing at the jail, breathalyzer, all the paperwork that comes with that
for DMV and courts.
Frambes then addressed a scam targeting Millersburg customers, in which fraudulent
emails impersonated the City, complete with the City logo ghosted in the background,
in an attempt to solicit wire transfer payments, particularly related to land use
applications. He noted the same type of scam was appearing in other contract cities
in the county. Booth confirmed that the customer who received the fraudulent
communication identified it and did not fall for it, and that the City posted a notice on
its website. She noted that the City will never ask for payment by wire transfer. She
added that the small-city advantage was that staff usually have relatively personal
contact with our land use applicants. Community Development Director Matt Straite
said the fraudulent communication "looked pretty legit" until the wire transfer request
appeared.
Councilor Ray Hunt asked what would happen in a traffic stop involving a driver with a
Mexican driver's license, and whether that was handled differently. Frambes clarified
that Mexican driver's licenses are valid for operating a vehicle and handled like any
other driver if they have license and insurance.
Councilor Mike Hickam asked about the practice of displaying front license plates in a
windshield versus mounted at the front of the vehicle. Frambes confirmed the
windshield is not acceptable and that Oregon law generally requires two plates
displayed one on the front of the vehicle, with some limited exceptions for older model
years.
Cowan flagged the 65-hour overage for ongoing monitoring, saying to keep an eye on
that and see how things go. Frambes attributed the spike to a few lengthier
investigations and extra patrol activities, noting no property crimes occurred during the
month.

2|Page

Page 70 of 138

ETA Dissolution
Captain Andy Franklin, Support Services Captain at the Linn County Sheriff's Office,
presented background on the Linn County Emergency Telephone Agency (ETA) and
the recommendation to dissolve it. He opened by acknowledging that "many people
today have never heard of the Emergency Telephone Agency," and provided historical
context.
The ETA was formed in the late 1980s when the State of Oregon asked counties to
develop 9-1-1 plans. At the time, Linn County had eight separate Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs) operating independently across various police and fire
departments. The decision was made to consolidate those eight PSAPs into one,
operated by the Sheriff's Office. To protect the interests of the agencies that were giving
up their individual operations, 41 parties signed an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
creating the ETA, whose primary purpose was to provide oversight of the PSAP through
policy development, training, and procedural standards. A Service Provider Committee
was also established under the IGA, made up of representatives from police
departments, the sheriff's office, and fire departments throughout Linn County.
Franklin explained that over the decades, the ETA's relevance had steadily diminished.
The committee convened in January 2026, discussed the matter, and voted
unanimously to recommend dissolution. He noted the Sheriff's office had been
operating the 9-1-1 center for 40 years. The ETA's only remaining functional role was
providing oversight of the emergency communication tax funds, approximately $1.4
million annually, which by law can only be used for PSAP operations. He confirmed there
was no financial interest for the City of Millersburg or any other party in the dissolution.
He reiterated the recommendation was unanimous across all fire and police agencies,
and he is only talking on their behalf.
Following the presentation and brief discussion, consistent with the agenda change
made at the opening of the meeting, the corresponding New Business item was taken
up immediately.
[See also: New Business – Item b. ETA Dissolution]
Action: Motion to approve the dissolution of the Linn County Emergency
Telephone Agency and to authorize the City Manager to sign the resolution of
dissolution on behalf of Millersburg, made by Mayor Scott Cowan, seconded by
Councilor Dick Perdue.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
2) Albany Fire Department Quarterly ReportDeputy Chief Kevin Vining presented on behalf of the Albany Fire Department. He
reported that the department as a whole was on pace for a call volume similar to
3|Page

Page 71 of 138

the prior fiscal year, but that Millersburg specifically was trending slightly ahead,
projecting approximately 328 calls, roughly 15 more than the previous year and
consistent with the growth trend seen in prior years.
One particularly notable highlight was the significant increase in fire and life safety
evaluations within Millersburg, about double. The top three call types for Millersburg
were lift assist, sick person, and fire alarm activations, mirroring the top call types for
the City of Albany.
Vining mentioned several highlights from the quarter. The department was preparing
for its annual Safety Camp at the end of June, a week-long public safety event for
children, held in partnership with Albany Police Department. He noted the venue
this year was likely the Boys and Girls Club, though he was not entirely certain and
offered to follow up with the correct information.
Vining announced the purchase of an entirely new fleet of electric, batteryoperated extrication tools to replace the department's aging gas-powered
hydraulic tools. He also shared that Albany City Council had approved the purchase
of a new fire engine. He noted this would allow the current Engine 15, stationed in
Millersburg at 18 years of service, three years beyond NFPA's recommended 15-year
frontline service threshold, to be placed in reserve status. New engines, he
explained, take 28 to 33 months to receive after ordering.
Cowan asked if the new engine would come to Millersburg. Vining explained it
would likely be a shuffle based on mileage and call volume.
Cowan noted one figure that stood out in the quarterly data: the response time for
the current period was the highest it had been in five years. Vining acknowledged
the observation and stated he could not say definitively why that number was
elevated but offered that it may reflect a couple of outlier calls skewing the
average. Cowan indicated it would be good to track and expressed hope to see
that number come back down.
Vining distributed copies of the Albany Fire Department's 2025 Annual Report.
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
None

6:21p.m.

H. COUNCIL MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS
None

6:22 p.m.

I.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
6:22 p.m.
1) Projects UpdateCity Engineer Andrew Potts presented project updates, noting several
developments that had occurred after the Council packet was distributed. He
reported that work on the park shade structure had begun that morning and was
expected to be completed by the end of the following week.

4|Page

Page 72 of 138

Potts announced that the Waverly Drive/Cox Creek Bridge replacement project had
been formally advertised for bidding by Linn County, with a bid opening date of
May 12, putting the project on track for construction that summer.
Potts also confirmed that the Woods Road Multi-Use Path project had reached a
significant permitting milestone, with the joint permit application, covering wetlands
and other environmental requirements, submitted earlier that day for construction
permitting.
Councilor Ray Hunt asked why the fireworks was absent from the postcard. Booth
clarified that the flyer had been focused on Events Committee activities, and that
the fireworks event, a partnership with Albany and Linn County, had not yet been
finalized in terms of marketing details from Albany. She confirmed the information
would be included in the June billing and that other outreach avenues would be
explored.
2) Donation Request ProcessBooth explained the purpose of placing this item on the agenda: with the first Budget
meeting approaching the following week, she wanted confirmation from Council
on the donation/community support request process before reaching out to
applicants. The existing process requires applicants to submit a hard copy
application and appear in person at the first Budget meeting to make a brief
presentation, typically capped at five minutes. She asked whether Council wished
to continue this process or make changes.
Councilor Mark Raum expressed that while the in-person appearance served a
useful purpose, there had been repeat applicants who had never appeared to
make their case, with Linn County Fair cited as the most prominent example. He
noted that it would also be valuable for recipients to return after the fact and report
on how the funds were used.
Councilor Mike Hickam suggested that a fully completed application form might
provide sufficient information in most cases. He then raised a broader philosophical
question about the practice entirely, questioning why the City gives “people's tax
dollars to nonprofits?” He acknowledged the causes were generally worthwhile but
indicated the policy warranted reexamination.
Councilor Dick Perdue disagreed with eliminating the program, arguing that the
recipient nonprofits provide services to the community on behalf of the City. He
added that supporting these organizations maintains the City's ability to have input
in what they do.
Cowan offered his own perspective, characterizing the contributions as an
extension of City services, given Millersburg's size. He used the Millers Cemetery as a
specific example, noting it had been in very poor shape historically and that at one
point the cemetery association had attempted to deed it to the City. The modest
funding the City provides has made a meaningful difference in maintaining it.

5|Page

Page 73 of 138

Councilor Ray Hunt shifted the conversation, suggesting the City should look at
helping struggling residents, particularly seniors, with utility bills. Booth clarified that
the City does work with residents on payment plans and extensions but does not
have a subsidized reduction program. Staff noted that such a program would likely
require applying it uniformly to all ratepayers. Perdue added that partners through
the Community Consortium provide resources for food, transportation, and other
assistance, and that the City directs residents to those programs.
The conversation settled on a practical resolution: new applicants would still be
invited to make a presentation, but returning applicants would not be required to
do so, provided their application was complete. Staff was directed to notify all
applicants that a presentation was not mandatory but that they should be prepared
to answer questions if Council members had them. Staff confirmed they would send
updated guidance to applicants by Thursday.
J. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
6:36 p.m.
City Attorney Alan Sorem stated he had nothing formal to report but raised a proactive
matter that had come to mind during the meeting. He noted that each fall, farm lease
renewals come up for consideration, often at the last minute when they are on the
verge of expiring. He asked whether council would prefer to receive those for review
earlier in the year, perhaps 60 to 90 days in advance, to allow for meaningful discussion
before renewal deadlines arrive. Raum indicated that two council meetings' worth of
lead time prior to the September expiration would be appropriate. Hickam agreed.
Staff was directed to build those items into the scheduling calendar in order to bring
them to Council for feedback well before the renewal deadline.
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6:38 p.m.
1) Ziply Postcard/Survey
Booth presented a draft postcard and corresponding web survey that had been
prepared at Council's prior direction to solicit community feedback on Ziply Fiber's
interest in installing fiber internet infrastructure in Millersburg. The survey contained
two questions: (1) Do you think it is a good idea to allow Ziply to install fiber internet
in their neighborhoods? and (2) Would you use fiber internet in your home if it were
available? Community Development Director Matt Straite noted that Sorem had
already provided some suggested language revisions. The estimated cost was
approximately $800 in postage plus printing and staff time.
Cowan noted that the last bullet point in the postcard draft had stood out to him as
something to potentially remove, and staff confirmed this was already being
addressed in response to the attorney's feedback.
Hickam stated he did not believe the postcard was necessary. He argued this was
precisely the kind of decision elected officials are meant to make.
Perdue indicated he was also ready to vote. Cowan noted he had personally
spoken with two community members on the topic and found them both somewhat
on the fence, and had been considering door-knocking if the process continued.

6|Page

Page 74 of 138

He acknowledged the City would not see significant direct financial benefit; this was
primarily a residential question of access to a private service.
Action: Motion to not move forward with negotiating a franchise agreement with
Ziply Fiber made by Councilor Mike Hickam; seconded by Councilor Ray Hunt.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Nay
Councilor Mark Raum: Nay
Councilor Mike Hickam:
Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue: Aye
Motion PASSED: 3/2
Staff was directed to notify Ziply Fiber of the Council's decision. Cowan clarified for
the record that this decision was specific to a franchise agreement with Ziply and
did not preclude future fiber service from another provider or from Ziply under
different future circumstances.
2) Zuhlke Memo
Booth introduced this item, noting it followed up on prior discussions regarding the
transportation consultant's memo on Zuhlke Lane. The memo, prepared by DKS (the
City's transportation system consultant), evaluated the role of Zuhlke Lane within
Millersburg's transportation system.
Booth summarized the memo's findings: the current Transportation System Plan (TSP)
includes projects to extend Zuhlke east and west, and there had been prior
discussions about designating it as a collector street. However, based on the
proximity of Alexander Lane and Transition Parkway as collector streets, DKS
concluded that Zuhlke is not needed as a collector or as a full east-west connection
from Old Salem Road to Woods Road. The recommendation was to remove the
Zuhlke projects from the TSP and allow Zuhlke to continue functioning as a local
street, with future alignment and connectivity guided by development-driven policy
rather than City-mapped projects.
Booth clarified an important implication, that it didn’t mean that there could never
be a project to build something on Zuhlke, it just meant that the City wasn’t mapping
out that project. Staff also walked through a related analysis: had the West Park
subdivision come in today under an updated TSP treating Zuhlke as a local street,
the City would not have required frontage improvements along Zuhlke but would
have required different connectivity solutions.
Hickam asked if this was the study and the plan that Council was waiting on to give
Mr. Perlenfein an answer. Booth confirmed. This was the analysis that had been
accelerated for precisely that reason, though the full TSP update remains about a
year away from adoption.
Hunt asked directly if the City could return his (Mr. Perlenfein’s) money. Cowan said
Council could always take a vote and by resolution return the money. Booth noted
that a resolution would need to be documented correctly.

7|Page

Page 75 of 138

Cowan noted that further dialogue was needed in regards to the funds and
suggested a work session.
Sorem provided procedural clarification. There is no contract in the traditional sense,
rather, there is an existing Council resolution that established the terms under which
the funds were held. A new resolution would be required to release those funds, and
doing so is a policy decision for Council. He noted the resolution was adopted in
2016 but the effective date for the refund timeline was retroactively tied to the date
the plat was signed by the City, making the relevant date around 2013 and the
expiration around 2033.
Cowan noted that he didn’t want staff to put forth the work for a resolution that
could fail, he said a work session might draw some things out.
Perdue raised concern about acting without full deliberation, noting that this is a
City asset and that a future Council wishing to build that street would find the funds
already returned. Hickam said he wanted to understand how the funds could still be
legitimately used on property the original applicant had agreed to develop, given
that no development occurred.
Booth added nuance, noting that the resolution's language contemplates
"frontage" improvements, and that regardless of how the TSP treats Zuhlke, the City's
street design standards do not typically terminate a street the way Zuhlke currently
ends, a cul-de-sac or other formal terminus would be appropriate, and there may
be legitimate uses for the funds in that context.
Cowan and Raum indicated a desire to review the minutes of the prior meeting with
Mr. Perlenfein and to re-read the original resolution.
Given the complexity and financial significance of the matter, consensus was
reached to schedule a work session to fully explore options before bringing a
resolution back at a future Council meeting.
Staff proposed scheduling the work session on the regular May work session date of
May 26, with the goal of bringing a resolution back at the June Council meeting if a
direction is settled upon. Council agreed in principle, although the May 26 date was
not feasible for all, and staff was directed to coordinate scheduling a meeting date.
L. NEW BUSINESS
7:04 p.m.
1) Budget Transfer Resolution 2026-04
Booth presented a housekeeping budget transfer. She explained that Oregon
budget law prohibits over-expenditure of any appropriated line item, and that the
solar installation project at the fire station, recently completed, with Pacific Power's
final inspection still pending, had resulted in an expenditure under the emergency
services portion of the general fund budget. The resolution would transfer funds from
contingency to the emergency services line item to formally cover the alreadyapproved cost of the solar project. Hickam asked for clarification that this was not

8|Page

Page 76 of 138

an increase to the City’s budget, it is moving funds from one category to another.
Booth confirmed that it is a use of previously budgeted contingency funds.
Action: Motion to approve Resolution 2026-04 made by Councilor Dick
Perdue; seconded by Councilor Mike Hickam.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam:
Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
2) ETA Dissolution
This item was moved under the Linn County Sheriff’s report, See Guest
presentations item 2.
3) Jacobs Contract Amendments – Siuslaw Water Main and ATI Sewer Lift Station
Potts presented the first amendment. He provided context: Task Order 3's original
scope covered exploration work on Siuslaw Avenue, soil sampling, potholing, and
pipe condition assessment, needed to understand the extent of corrosion-related
failures in the water main. He noted the results were constructive, it narrowed the
scope and made budget more friendly for the overall project.
This amendment would advance the project into the engineering design phase,
producing drawings, specifications, bidding support documents, and construction
support services. Booth added that the project was being fast-tracked for summer
construction given the ongoing risk of additional leaks.
Cowan asked for a rough ballpark on total construction cost. Potts estimated
approximately $300,000, roughly a third of what had initially been anticipated
before the exploratory work narrowed the scope.
Councilors asked about the scope of the corrosion and whether it extended into
other parts of the system. Perdue asked whether the sidewalks be marked again
with utility locates.
Potts explained that the investigation covered the area up through Old Salem Road
and confirmed that the issue is corrosive soil affecting the exterior of the pipe,
working inward. Booth explained why camera inspection inside the water main was
not a viable option. She noted that acoustic assessment tools exist as a future option,
but that exterior-focused evaluation was the appropriate approach here.
Councilors discussed the map from the packet, which showed the affected areas
in red (confirmed replacement needed), yellow (corrosive soil present, service
connection retrofit recommended), and green (no improvement needed). Cowan
noted the pattern of the map, red concentrated at lower elevations, green on the
hill. Potts confirmed that soil corrosivity varies significantly across short distances, and
the green area being a hillside explained the distinction.

9|Page

Page 77 of 138

Action: Motion to authorize staff to execute the contract amendment with
Jacobs for Task Order 3 was made by Councilor Mike Hickam; seconded by
Mayor Scott Cowan.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
ATI Sewer Lift Station – Task Order 4 Amendment
Potts presented the second amendment, this one for Task Order 4 to advance the
ATI lift station upgrade project. He explained the purpose: the project would add
capacity to the City's existing wastewater system by upgrading pumps and the
electrical system at the ATI lift station. A 5 percent design had already been
completed under the on-call services agreement, establishing pump sizing and
general project parameters. This task order would produce full engineered drawings
and specifications for construction, along with procurement support to allow the city
to pre-purchase the pumps for contractor installation.
Cowan asked for a ballpark cost. Potts indicated pump procurement would be
approximately $300,000, with installation estimated at $350,000 to $400,000,
acknowledging considerable uncertainty in those figures. Booth added context for
the cost, as the work takes place on ATI's private industrial site, contractors are
required to complete safety training and work under ATI's requirements, which adds
complexity and cost. However, because this project involves pump and electrical
work rather than earthmoving, site complexity would be somewhat reduced from
past projects.
Action: Motion to authorize staff to execute the contract amendment with
Jacobs for Task Order 4 was made by Councilor Dick Perdue; seconded by
Mayor Scott Cowan.
Mayor Scott Cowan:
Aye
Councilor Mark Raum:
Aye
Councilor Mike Hickam: Aye
Councilor Ray Hunt:
Aye
Councilor Dick Perdue:
Aye
Motion PASSED: 5/0
4) City Appreciation Coin Draft Policy
Cowan introduced the City Appreciation Coin Draft Policy, which had been
prepared primarily by Booth and was included in the Council packet. He offered
Council the choice of discussing it now or returning to it at the next meeting with
finalized input. Booth indicated she had a couple of questions for Council direction
before bringing a final draft back.

10 | P a g e

Page 78 of 138

Booth identified two primary policy questions. The first concerned the threshold for
receiving a coin: how difficult should it be to earn one, and whether Council was
comfortable with the award criteria as drafted. The second and more substantive
question concerned longevity: should the policy include an automatic coin for a
specified number of years of service on a committee, commission, or as city staff or
should it remain purely merit-based, awarded only for going above and beyond.
Hickam indicated he was "good either way" and framed it as a straightforward
recognition tool. Perdue suggested that rather than setting rigid year thresholds,
which could create awkward situations where someone narrowly misses a cutoff,
the award should remain flexible. Cowan agreed, noting the council was moving
toward a more open-ended approach tied to the quality and spirit of the
contribution rather than a fixed number of years. He gave an example of a shortterm volunteer who had made a significant impact versus a long-term member with
minimal engagement.
Hickam noted that from his perspective, the most important section of the draft was
inventory control and tracking, and he was satisfied that the draft had addressed it
adequately.
Cowan confirmed there were no major concerns and directed staff to bring a final
version of the policy to the next council meeting for formal action.
Booth noted that there would be a form for someone to submit the nomination.
M. CLOSING COUNCIL COMMENT
7:24 p.m.
Perdue announced that the popcorn enjoyed by attendees that evening was courtesy
of the Events Committee, which had decided to purchase a popcorn machine outright
rather than continue renting one at $100 per weekend event. He noted the machine
would pay for itself within five events.
Perdue reported on developments at Greater Albany Public Schools, noting that social
media and news coverage had created some alarm around discussions of school
closures. He clarified that this had been a committee-level discussion about hypothetical
scenarios rather than an imminent decision. He cautioned that it was his assessment that
a school being built in Millersburg was likely five to ten years away, if it happened at all,
given declining enrollment. He noted that GAPS is estimating to lose another 500 kids in
the next two years.
Hickam built on that comment, raising the question of whether the City should begin
planning for what to do with the property intended for a school.
Hickam also raised a street safety concern that had been on his mind, specifically
regarding parking on both sides of key feeder streets, citing Castillo and Zuhlke near the
park as primary examples. He described the situation as increasingly problematic. He
was flagging it for staff consideration.
Booth noted the issue connected to TSP street-width standards and suggested looking
at those specific streets in the context of the ongoing TSP process. Potts confirmed at
least one formal complaint had been received about Castillo in the past year.
11 | P a g e

Page 79 of 138

Cowan closed by raising a logistical question for future meetings given that the meeting
had an executive session to follow, he asked if Council would prefer to schedule
executive sessions before the regular Council meeting in the future or after. He
suggested a start time of around 4:30 to 5:00 PM, allowing the executive session to
conclude before the 6:00 p.m. regular meeting. Council members indicated a
preference for the earlier scheduling, and staff was directed to plan accordingly for
future meetings that include executive sessions.
N. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Scott Cowan adjourned the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m.
O. EXECUTIVE SESSION
ORS 192.660(2)(e): Conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing
body to negotiate real property transactions.

Respectfully submitted:

Reviewed by:

Sheena Dickerman
City Recorder

Janelle Booth
City Manager

*Presentation materials or documents discussed at the meeting that are not in the agenda packet are archived in
the record. Documents from staff are posted to the website after the meeting. Documents submitted by the public
are available by emailing [email protected].

12 | P a g e

Page 80 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

July 21 for July 29, 2026, City Council Work Session

SUBJECT: Zuhlke Lane
Discussion:
The future of Zuhlke Lane has been a topic of discussion in Millersburg for many
years. It has recently been discussed at City Council meetings in February, March,
and April of 2025 and April 2026. The materials from those meetings are attached
as reference material to this staff report.
Most recently, in April 2026, a memo from the consultant working on updating our
Transportation System Plan explained that Zuhlke is not needed as a mapped
collector in our street system and therefore specific plans for the road could be
removed from our TSP. This information has raised several questions, some which
have been discussed previously.
1. Does this mean Zuhlke cannot be extended west of its current termination
point?
A new development can still propose to extend Zuhlke and use it as an
access point. However, the City will not require it to be extended along an
extension of its current alignment. Instead, general policies on connectivity
will give a future developer flexibility to propose access.
2. What happens to the barricaded west end of Zuhlke Lane now?
In the near-term, no changes are necessary. However, this condition is
considered temporary. See the attached Engineering Tech Memo – End
Treatment on Zuhlke Lane for why the existing condition is not appropriate
for a permanent end treatment. Staff, in accordance with Millersburg’s
Engineering Standards, recommend construction of a cul-de-sac if the
road is not extended by development in the future. This could be
accomplished through either a developer project or a City project.
3. What about the frontage fees paid by Mr. Perlenfein for improvements to
Zuhlke Lane as a condition of the West Park subdivision? Should that money
be returned now instead of waiting until 2033?
Resolution 2016-11 was adopted specifically to address the fees paid by Mr.
Perlenfein and under what circumstances they shall be returned to him. It
states, “those fees and related accrued interest which are un-spent by the
City twenty (20) years after the subdivision plat has been approved by the
City to pay for the improvements to city standards of Zuhlke Lane abutting
the subdivision developer’s property, shall be returned to the subdivision
developer or the developer’s assignee or heir.” The subdivision plat was
signed in October of 2013.
Page 81 of 138

Millersburg City Council
July 29, 2026

Page 2

At the time Resolution 2016-11 was adopted, frontage fees were collected
to help pay for the developer’s share of required street improvements when
the developer did not construct the improvements as part of the
development project (see Resolutions 2006-3 and 2008-3).
If a cul-de-sac is constructed as the final end treatment on the west end of
Zuhlke Lane, it would be an improvement to city standards of Zuhlke Lane
in property abutting the subdivision. Based on the language in the adopted
resolution, this project would be eligible for use of the previously collected
frontage fees.
Budget Impact:
The fees paid by Mr. Perlenfein have been held in a separate interest-bearing
account. The current balance is approximately $116,00. If a qualified Zuhlke Lane
improvement project takes place prior to October 2033, these funds may be used
toward that project. If they are returned to the developer now, this funding will no
longer be available. The estimated cost of a city-constructed cul-de-sac would
be $250,000 to $550,000.
Options:
1. Do nothing – funds will be retained in in accordance with Resolution 201611 and be returned to Mr. Perlenfein in 2033 if a developer driven project
requiring construction in Zuhlke frontage has not taken place.
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution rescinding Resolution 2016-11 and
returning the funds.
3. Add a project to the City’s Capital Improvements Plan to construct a culde-sac in this location in a future year.
Attachment(s):
Engineering Tech Memo – End Treatment on Zuhlke Lane
Materials from 2/11/2025 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report
• Letter to Ed Perlenfein dated February 6, 2025
• Zuhlke Fees Timeline
• Resolution 2016-11
• Resolution 2008-3
• Resolution 2006-3
• West Park Estates Phase 2 Final Plat
Materials from 3/11/2025 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report
• Letter from Mark Burrows
Materials from 4/14/2026 City Council Meeting
• Staff Report
• Zuhlke Lane Street Connectivity Memo

Page 82 of 138

ENGINEERING TECHNICAL MEMO
BY:

Andrew Potts, City Engineer

DATE:

July 21, 2026

SUBJECT: End Treatment on Zuhlke Lane
Street Termination Considerations:
As a general engineering practice, permanent public local streets should not
terminate with a barricade or other dead-end barrier unless no feasible alternative
exists due to environmental constraints, property ownership, or an approved future
roadway extension. A barricade is intended to warn motorists of a roadway
closure or hazard and is not considered a preferred long-term design solution for
a public street.
A permanent barricade at the end of a residential street presents several
operational and safety concerns. Motorists may not anticipate a dead-end
condition until reaching the end of the roadway, particularly during nighttime or
adverse weather conditions, increasing the potential for run-off-road crashes. A
barricade also creates a fixed object within the roadway recovery area that may
be struck by errant vehicles. While appropriate signing and delineation can
reduce this risk, they do not provide the same level of operational functionality as
a properly designed street terminus.
From an operational standpoint, a barricaded street end provides little or no
opportunity for vehicles to safely reverse direction. Passenger vehicles, school
buses, emergency response vehicles, refuse collection vehicles, snowplows, street
sweepers, and utility maintenance vehicles may be required to back substantial
distances, increasing conflict with pedestrians, parked vehicles, and adjacent
property. These conditions also reduce operational efficiency and increase
maintenance costs over the life of the roadway.
Permanent barricades can also create confusion regarding the public status of
the roadway. Residents and visitors may perceive the street as closed, private, or
under construction, which can affect wayfinding and emergency response.
Public streets should provide a clear and intuitive roadway network consistent with
driver expectations.
For these reasons, a permanent turnaround should be provided wherever
practical.
The preferred street termination is a cul-de-sac designed in accordance with the
City's development standards. A cul-de-sac provides the highest level of
operational functionality by allowing all anticipated design vehicles—including
passenger cars, fire apparatus, school buses, refuse collection vehicles, and
maintenance equipment—to reverse direction without backing movements. Culde-sacs also improve emergency response, simplify roadway maintenance

Page 83 of 138

Page 2
operations, and reduce the likelihood of vehicles inadvertently leaving the
roadway at its terminus.
Where right-of-way or environmental constraints prevent construction of a
standard cul-de-sac, a hammerhead turnaround or other engineered turnaround
meeting the City's design vehicle requirements is generally the next preferred
alternative. In the specific case of Zuhlke Lane, the physical constraints of the
existing structures and properties make the location not well-suited to a
hammerhead turnaround.
Only where neither a cul-de-sac nor an approved turnaround can reasonably be
constructed should a permanent barricade be considered. In those cases, the
barricade should be accompanied by appropriate MUTCD-compliant warning
signs, object markers, retroreflective delineation, and other safety treatments to
clearly identify the roadway termination.
Recommendation
From both a public safety and municipal operations perspective, an off-set culde-sac end treatment is the appropriate permanent termination for the existing
west end of Zuhlke Lane. This option provides acceptable standards of safety,
maintenance costs, and mobility, while being feasible to construct. Because
currently the right-of-way is not sufficient to construct a cul-de-sac, temporary
barricades are acceptable as an interim condition. Future development should
either extend the road or construct a cul-de-sac in this location. Alternatively, the
City could acquire the necessary additional right-of-way and construct a cul-desac if desired and if it is intended that Zuhlke not be extended in the future.
Permanent barricades should be reserved for exceptional circumstances and
should not be considered a standard end treatment for public residential streets.
Budget Impact:
The order of magnitude cost estimate to construct an offset cul-de-sac with
sidewalks, stormwater features, and other required items would be $250,000 to
$550,000. The current balance in dedicated funds is approximately $116,000.
There would be minor long-term maintenance costs with the addition of public
infrastructure.

Page 84 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

August 26, for the September 30, 2026, City Council Work Session

SUBJECT: Consideration of Data Center Regulations
Action Requested:
Council discussion of whether to change land use regulations regarding data
centers.
Discussion:
In recent months, concerns of impacts from data centers on communities have
been raised. Some communities have chosen to restrict them entirely, while others
have adopted regulations to mitigate potential impacts.
Millersburg’s
Development Code currently allows them in the General Industrial Zone, with
requirements that infrastructure is sufficient to support the use. The following
information is presented to aid in Millersburg’s Council in discussion of this topic.
Data Center Development: Community Pros and Cons
Data centers can provide significant economic and technological benefits to
communities, but they can also place substantial demands on local infrastructure
and resources. The impacts vary considerably depending on the size, design,
cooling system, energy source, location, and tax structure of the facility.
Potential benefits include:
• Economic investment: Significant private investment in buildings,
equipment, utilities, and related infrastructure.
• Tax revenue: Increased property taxes and utility-related revenues,
including electrical franchise fees. Currently data centers are not allowed
to take advantage of the Enterprise Zone tax abatement program.
• Construction employment: Large projects can generate substantial shortterm construction and trade jobs.
• Long-term employment: Permanent jobs are generally fewer than
construction jobs but can include well-paid positions in technology,
facilities, electrical, mechanical, and security fields.
• Following construction, typically generates less long-term employee and
truck traffic on local roads than other developments of a similar value.
• Infrastructure improvements: Developers may fund or help finance
upgrades to electrical, fiber, water, wastewater, roads, and other
infrastructure that can also benefit the community.
• Technology and economic development: Data centers can attract
additional technology businesses and support broader digital
infrastructure.

Page 85 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 30, 2026

Page 2

Potential community concerns include:
•
•
•

•
•

Electricity demand: Large facilities can require large amounts of electricity,
potentially affecting grid capacity, utility investments, and—if costs are not
properly allocated—electric rates.
Water use: Traditional evaporative cooling can require significant water,
particularly during hot weather. The impact depends heavily on cooling
technology and local water availability.
Land-use and neighborhood impacts: Large campuses can occupy
substantial areas and may generate concerns about visual impacts, noise
from cooling equipment, backup generators, lighting, traffic during
construction, and compatibility with nearby uses.
Limited permanent employment: Once constructed, a very large facility
may employ relatively few people compared with other industries
occupying a similar amount of investment or land.
Infrastructure and public costs: Communities need to ensure that new utility,
road, emergency-services, and other infrastructure costs are paid by the
project rather than shifted to existing ratepayers or taxpayers.

New Modular Data Center Technology
Modular data centers change the equation somewhat. Instead of constructing
the entire facility as a conventional large building, computing equipment, power
systems, and cooling systems can be manufactured in standardized modules or
containers and assembled or expanded at the site.
This approach can reduce construction time, allow incremental expansion, and
potentially improve energy efficiency through factory-built and standardized
systems. Modern modular facilities may also incorporate advanced liquid or
closed-loop cooling systems that substantially reduce water consumption.
However, “modular” does not necessarily mean “small” or “low impact.” Modules
can be deployed in large numbers and ultimately create substantial electricity
demand, noise, heat, water requirements, and land-use impacts. A community
should therefore evaluate the maximum build-out and cumulative utility demand,
rather than simply regulating each module as a small individual facility.
Summary
Data centers can be valuable economic-development opportunities, particularly
when developers pay the full cost of required infrastructure and provide
measurable community benefits. At the same time, we should evaluate electricity,
water, land use, noise, environmental impacts, and long-term costs before
approval. New modular and high-efficiency technologies may reduce some
impacts, but they do not eliminate the need for careful planning and appropriate
development standards.

Page 86 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 30, 2026

Page 3

Recommendation:
Council direction on whether to draft changes to Millersburg’s Development Code
and regulations for data centers.
Attachments:
Email from Councilor Raum

Page 87 of 138

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Mark Raum
Janelle Booth; Alan M. Sorem
Scott Cowan
Data Centers
Thursday, August 13, 2026 6:52:33 PM

As we develop our picture for Millersburg and data centers, I would like us to consider
Mr. Mueller's comments as well as ideas from the City of Marana, Az.
https://www.maranaaz.gov/Government/Data-Centers
https://www.maranaaz.gov/files/sharedassets/cityofmarana/v/2/news-docs/datacenter-ordinance.pdf
And other communities as I discover them.
Cheers!
Mark
Get Outlook for Android

Page 88 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

August 26, for the September 30, 2026, City Council Work Session

SUBJECT: Utility Assistance Program
Action Requested:
Council feedback on eligibility criteria and structure of a utility assistance program.
Discussion:
At the August Council meeting, Council directed staff to move forward
developing a utility assistance program for qualifying water and sewer customers.
Council did not want to raise utility rates for all customers to fund this program,
instead they asked staff to propose a different funding source. Staff were directed
to reach out to the City of Albany and the Community Services Consortium (CSC)
to gather information related to eligibility criteria and customer utilization of a
similar program in Albany.
Eligibility Criteria
Common eligibility requirements to qualify for a utility assistance program include
the following:
• low income
• senior (over 60)
• disabled
Low-income may have several definitions, depending on the program being
discussed. CSC staff recommend aligning income eligibility criteria with existing
programs to aid in administration of the program and provide a more streamlined
experience for customers. CSC recommends using 60% of Area Median Income
(AMI) for Oregon, which is the criteria used for the federal Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Oregon Energy Assistance (OEA)
program sponsored through Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS).
Albany also uses participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) and Oregon Health Plan (OHP) to determine eligibility for their program.
CSC staff have explained that current OHP eligibility can be very hard to
determine because OHP cards do not have expiration dates and their staff do not
have access to information within the OHP system. It is also unlikely that customers
would be excluded from the program if we do not use OHP participation as an
eligibility criterion because they would likely also qualify for SNAP and/or LIHEAP.
Staff recommend low-income status eligibility be based on 60% of AMI and/or
participation in SNAP. The program could also require that participants be senior
or disabled, in addition to documenting low-income status. Estimated numbers of
program participants based on these criteria are listed below.

Page 89 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 8, 2026

Page 2

Program Utilization
Currently in Albany, it is estimated that approximately 15%-17% of potentially
eligible customers utilize the utility assistance program. Millersburg currently has
1087 residential utility customers, with approximately 185 households potentially
eligible to receive assistance, depending upon the adopted eligibility criteria. An
anticipated 10% participation rate would be conservative, 15% would be
reasonable based on Albany, and 20% would be high but plausible with good
outreach. This results in 18 to 37 customers who may take advantage of the
program if it is open to all qualifying low-income customers. If only available to
senior and disabled customers then those numbers are likely to decrease, but
there is no reliable data to indicate how much.
Assistance Levels and Costs
Staff recommend utility assistance in the form of a percent off the fixed charge for
a customer’s water account, sewer account, or both. The table below shows the
customer savings for several possible scenarios:
50% off base
50% off base
50% off base
Average residential
charge (water charge (sewer charge (water
customer bill*
No discount
only)
only)
and sewer)
Average total
monthly bill
$ 100.63
$ 91.20
$ 74.57
$ 65.14
Average total bimonthly bill
$ 201.26
$ 182.40
$ 149.14
$ 130.28
Customer cost
savings per month
$ 9.43
$ 26.06
$ 35.49
Customer cost
savings per year
$ 113.16
$ 312.72
$ 425.88
*Based on residential customer winter average water usage of 5 units per month.

For these scenarios, the table below shows the costs to the City to fund the
program, including the CSC fee of $15 per application:

Annual
program cost
10% of eligible
customers
15% of eligible
customers
20% of eligible
customers

# of
participants

50% off
base
charge
(water
only)

50% off
base
charge
(sewer
only)

50% off
base
charge
(water and
sewer)

CSC
processing fee
($15/customer)

18

$ 2,091

$ 5,779

$ 7,870

$ 277

28

$ 3,137

$ 8,668

$ 11,805

$ 416

37

$ 4,182

$ 11,558

$ 15,740

$ 554

Implementation
CSC currently supports Albany in administering their program by receiving and
reviewing applications for eligibility. Because this aligns with CSC’s work and
expertise, it is most efficient to utilize their services at a cost of $15 per application.
We will need to execute an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with CSC to
Page 90 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 8, 2026

Page 3

implement this program. They have told staff they could likely start in November or
December.
Budget Impact:
Because this program reduces utility payments, it will result in a decrease in
revenues collected rather than an increase in expenditures. Therefore, no formal
action is needed to modify the FY 2026-27 budget if Council desires to implement
the program during the current fiscal year. Water and sewer reserves are sufficient
to cover the program costs for the remainder of FY 2026-27. However, based on
previous Council feedback, the current rate study should not include subsidizing
this program through user fees. Instead, the proposed rates should reflect the
actual customer costs necessary to operate the utility and the next budget cycle
should include transfers from the general fund to the utility funds to support this
program.
Recommendation:
Council direction on eligibility criteria, assistance level, funding, and timing of
program implementation.
Attachment:
• Draft sample resolution establishing a customer utility assistance program

Page 91 of 138

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A LOW-INCOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR
WATER AND SEWER USER FEES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMERS
WHEREAS, the City Council directed that a low-income program for city water and sewer user
fees be established for qualifying residential customers; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Millersburg desires to fund this program through general fund revenues
rather than through an increase in water or sewer user fees; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MILLERSBURG, OREGON, that the low-income customer utility assistance program for city
water and sewer user fees as set forth in Exhibit A is hereby adopted and will be effective
Month, Day, Year.
Effective Date: This Resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.
Duly Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of September, 2026.

Scott Cowan
Mayor
Attest:

Sheena Dickerman
City Recorder

Page 92 of 138

EXHIBIT A
DEFINITIONS
Disabled:

Persons who are unable to engage in any substantial paid activity by
reason of any documented, medically determinable, physical, or mental
impairment that can be expected to last for twelve continuous months or
longer. A statement of disability benefits may be considered proof of
disability for an applicant.

Low Income:

Defined as 60% or less of the state median by household size or qualifying
for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility.

Senior Citizen:

Persons who are at least 60 years old.

QUALIFICATION CRITERIA
• Low income and a senior citizen, or
• Low income and disabled.
• Utility bill must be in qualifying person’s name and be for single-family residential water
or sewer service.
• Qualifying person must be at least 18 years old.
LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE
Qualifying customers shall receive a credit of 50 percent of the water fixed charge and sewer
fixed charge amount for each bi-monthly bill. The bi-monthly credit will take effect at the start
of the billing period following the City’s notification from Community Services Consortium
(CSC) that the customer has qualified for the credit.
RECERTIFICATION
Qualifying customers will be required to recertify annually.
PROGRAM FUNDING
The program will be funded through general fund revenues.

Page 93 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

VIA:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

FROM:

Andrew Potts, Engineering Services Director / City Engineer

DATE:

September 22, for the September 30, 2026, City Council Work Session

SUBJECT: Sidewalk Repair Assistance Program
Action Requested:
Council feedback on structure, eligibility criteria, funding, and implementation of
a sidewalk repair assistance program.
Discussion:
At the August Council meeting, Council directed staff to move forward
developing a draft sidewalk repair assistance program. The goal of the proposed
program is to improve sidewalk conditions throughout the City while helping to
alleviate a portion of the financial burden associated with sidewalk repairs for
property owners.
Program Development
Staff developed the attached draft sidewalk repair assistance program and
application based on a review of similar programs implemented by other Oregon
cities, including Mt. Angel, Sherwood, Scappoose, Grants Pass, Oregon City,
Corvallis, Silverton, and Molalla.
Although the programs vary in their specific implementation, common elements
include eligibility requirements, reimbursement or cost-sharing structures,
permitting requirements, contractor requirements, and City inspection and
acceptance of completed work.
The proposed Millersburg program is intended to provide a relatively simple
reimbursement process while maintaining the property owner's responsibility for
sidewalk maintenance and repair.
Considerations for Council
Staff is requesting Council feedback on the items outlined in the draft program
documents and direction regarding whether staff should continue toward
implementation. The primary policy considerations are summarized below.
•

Reimbursement rate and maximum amount
o Staff recommend 50% of eligible costs, not to exceed $2,000.

•

A requirement for documented detailed quotes from qualified contractors
o Staff recommend (2) written quotes from licensed and bonded
contractors.

•

Right-of-Way (ROW) permit fee requirement

Page 94 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 22, 2026
o

Page 2

Staff recommend waiving ROW permit fees for work approved under
this program.

•

Construction deadline
o Staff recommend requiring repairs to be completed within 90
calendar days of issuing a ROW permit for the repair, with the ability
for staff to issue an extension in certain circumstances.

•

Property type eligibility
o Staff recommend the program only be applicable to residential
properties.

•

Eligibility time limitation
o Staff recommend placing a minimum seven-year limitation after
utilizing the program for a property to receive additional program
assistance.

•

Application prioritization
o Staff recommend a first-come, first-serve basis for all qualified
applicants until programmed budget is exhausted.

Implementation
The proposed program would require staff time to review applications, verify
sidewalk deficiencies, review contractor quotes, issue or coordinate right-of-way
permits, inspect completed work, and process reimbursement requests.
Utilizing the City's existing right-of-way permitting and inspection processes would
provide consistency with current practices and minimize additional administrative
requirements.
The proposed program would be administered as a reimbursement program. The
City would not directly contract for the sidewalk work. Property owners would
select and contract with qualified contractors, complete the approved work,
obtain City inspection and approval, and submit paid invoices or receipts before
reimbursement is issued.
The draft program also limits eligible reimbursement to sidewalk repair or
replacement. Tree removal or root-related work, tree replacement, driveways and
driveway approaches, landscaping, and other non-sidewalk improvements would
not be eligible for reimbursement.
Budget Impact:
This program would increase the budget by the amount determined by City
Council to be allocated to this program. If Council desires to implement the
program prior to June 30, 2027, formal action would be required to modify the
current fiscal year budget to provide funding for the program. If Council directs

Page 95 of 138

Millersburg City Council
September 22, 2026

Page 3

staff to implement the program following July 1, 2027, funding can be identified as
part of the next budget cycle.
Recommendation:
Council direction on implementation, eligibility criteria, assistance level, funding,
and timing of program implementation.
Attachments:
• Draft template sidewalk repair assistance program
• Draft application for sidewalk repair assistance program

Page 96 of 138

*[suggested options]

PROPOSED DRAFT SIDEWALK REPAIR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM [TEMPLATE]
Proposed Program Guidelines
1. Purpose
The City of Millersburg recognizes that safe, accessible sidewalks are an important
component of the City's transportation system and provide a critical connection for
pedestrians, including individuals with disabilities.
The purpose of the Sidewalk Repair Assistance Program ("Program") is to encourage the
timely repair or replacement of deficient sidewalks adjacent to residential properties by
providing limited financial assistance to eligible property owners.
The Program is intended to supplement, and not replace, the property owner's
responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of sidewalks adjacent to their
property.
Participation in the Program does not relieve a property owner of any obligation imposed by
City code, state law, accessibility requirements, or other applicable regulations.

2. Eligibility
Financial assistance under the Program is available only when all the following conditions
are met:
1. The property is a [residential property] located within the City of Millersburg.
2. The sidewalk is located within the public right-of-way or otherwise constitutes a
sidewalk for which the adjacent property owner is responsible.
3. City staff have inspected or otherwise verified the sidewalk deficiency and
determined that repair or replacement is necessary.
4. The proposed work consists solely of eligible sidewalk repair or replacement.
5. [The applicant obtains at least two written quotes from licensed and bonded
contractors qualified to perform the proposed work.]

Page 97 of 138

6. The proposed work receives a City right-of-way permit before construction begins.
7. The work is completed within [90 days] of issuance of the right-of-way permit,
unless an extension is approved by the City.
8. The completed work passes a City inspection.
9. The applicant provides documentation demonstrating that the eligible work has
been completed and paid for, including paid invoices or receipts.
10. Funding remains available within the City's annual Program budget.
11. The property owner has not received Program assistance for the same property
within the previous [seven years].
The City may establish additional administrative requirements as necessary to ensure that
Program funds are used for their intended purpose.

3. Eligible Work
Program funds may be used only for the repair or replacement of an existing deficient
sidewalk.
Eligible work may include:
•

Removal and replacement of defective sidewalk panels;

•

Replacement of portions of sidewalk that do not meet applicable accessibility
requirements;

•

Repair of sidewalk trip hazards where an appropriate repair method is available;

•

Removal and replacement of deteriorated concrete sidewalk;

•

Necessary concrete preparation, forming, placement, finishing, and related work
directly associated with sidewalk repair or replacement; and

•

Other work specifically approved by City staff that is directly necessary to complete
the qualifying sidewalk repair or replacement.

The City may determine whether a proposed repair method is appropriate based on the
condition of the sidewalk and applicable accessibility, construction, and engineering
requirements.

Page 98 of 138

Ineligible Work
The following work is not eligible for reimbursement under the Program:
•

Tree removal;

•

Tree trimming or pruning;

•

Removal of tree roots;

•

Tree replacement or replanting;

•

Driveway approaches;

•

Driveways;

•

Private walkways that are not part of the public sidewalk system;

•

Landscaping;

•

Irrigation;

•

Fences, walls, or other private improvements;

•

Decorative improvements beyond what is necessary to repair or replace the
sidewalk;

•

Work performed before issuance of the City's right-of-way permit; or

•

Any work not specifically approved as eligible by City staff.

Tree-Related Conditions
Where a tree or tree root system is contributing to the sidewalk deficiency, the applicant is
required to address the tree-related condition before or in conjunction with the sidewalk
repair.
Any tree removal shall require City approval of a Tree Removal Permit and shall comply with
applicable City requirements.
Where the City determines that removal of a tree is necessary to facilitate the sidewalk
repair, the property owner may be required to replace the removed tree with a Cityrecommended tree species and location.

Page 99 of 138

4. City Verification of Need
Program assistance shall not be available solely based on an applicant's assertion that
sidewalk repair is needed.
Prior to approving an application, City staff shall verify the condition of the sidewalk and
determine whether repair or replacement is warranted.
City staff shall document the qualifying deficiency and may photograph the existing
condition for City records.
The City may approve either repair or replacement depending upon the nature and extent of
the deficiency.

5. Application Process
A property owner seeking Program assistance shall submit a completed Sidewalk Repair
Assistance Program Application to the City.
The application must be approved by the City before construction begins.
Submission of an application does not guarantee funding.

6. Contractor Quotes
Applicants shall obtain a minimum of two written quotes from licensed and bonded
contractors qualified to perform the proposed sidewalk work.
Quotes shall clearly identify:
•

Contractor name and contact information;

•

Contractor license information;

•

Description of the proposed work;

•

Quantity and unit pricing, where applicable;

•

Total project cost;

•

Any work that is not eligible for Program reimbursement.

Page 100 of 138

The City may request additional information or additional quotes if the submitted
proposals appear unreasonable, incomplete, or materially inconsistent with the proposed
work.
The City reserves the right to determine the eligible project cost for purposes of calculating
reimbursement.

7. Right-of-Way Permit
All work performed within the public right-of-way shall require a City right-of-way permit
(impactive) and other applicable permits prior to commencement of construction.
[The City's standard right-of-way permit fee shall be waived for work approved under the
Sidewalk Repair Assistance Program.]
The permit waiver applies only to the City's permit fee and does not waive other applicable
requirements, fees, utility coordination, traffic control, or permitting requirements as
needed.

8. Construction Deadline
Approved sidewalk repairs shall be completed within [90 calendar days] of issuance of the
right-of-way permit.
The City Engineer or designee may approve a reasonable extension when circumstances
outside the property owner's control prevent completion within the required timeframe.
Failure to complete the approved work within the required timeframe may result in
cancellation of the approved Program assistance.

9. Reimbursement
The City shall reimburse an eligible property owner for [50 percent of the eligible project
cost], up to a maximum City contribution of [$2,000 per property].
The maximum reimbursement shall be calculated as follows:

Page 101 of 138

Examples:
Eligible Project Cost Maximum City Reimbursement
$1,000

$500

$2,000

$1,000

$3,000

$1,500

$4,000

$2,000

$5,000

$2,000

$8,000

$2,000

The property owner is responsible for all costs exceeding the City's approved
reimbursement amount.
The $2,000 maximum applies to the property, regardless of whether the property is
subsequently transferred to another owner during the seven-year eligibility period.

10. Annual Funding
Program assistance shall be provided on a [first-come, first-served basis], subject to the
availability of funds within the City's adopted annual Program budget.
Applications shall be considered in the order that complete applications are received and
approved by City staff.
The City shall not be obligated to provide reimbursement after the annual Program
allocation has been exhausted.
An application that cannot be funded because annual funding has been exhausted may be
resubmitted during a subsequent funding year, subject to the requirements and funding
availability applicable during that year.
The City Council may establish, modify, or suspend the annual Program funding allocation
through the City's normal budget process.

11. Construction Standards

Page 102 of 138

All sidewalk repairs shall comply with applicable City standards, accessibility
requirements, construction standards, and permit conditions.
The City may require a proposed repair method to be modified when necessary to provide a
durable, safe, and accessible sidewalk.
The City may reject a proposed repair method if the repair would not adequately correct the
identified deficiency.
Where practical, the City may allow less expensive repair methods, such as concrete
grinding or similar treatments, when those methods provide an appropriate and durable
correction.

12. City Inspection
The completed work shall be inspected and approved by City staff before reimbursement is
issued.
The inspection shall verify, at a minimum:
•

The approved work was completed;

•

The sidewalk is constructed in accordance with applicable City standards;

•

The identified deficiency has been adequately corrected;

•

The sidewalk is reasonably accessible and safe for pedestrian use;

•

Required grades, transitions, and other applicable accessibility requirements have
been addressed; and

•

The work complies with the approved right-of-way permit.

If the work does not pass inspection, the property owner shall be responsible for correcting
the deficiencies at no additional cost to the City.
Reimbursement shall not be issued until the work has passed the required City inspection.

13. Documentation Required for Reimbursement
Following completion of the work, the property owner shall submit a reimbursement
request to the City.
The request shall include:

Page 103 of 138

1. A completed reimbursement request;
2. Final contractor invoice;
3. Proof that the invoice has been paid in full;
4. Documentation identifying the eligible sidewalk work;
5. Final inspection approval by the City; and
6. Any additional documentation requested by City staff.
Acceptable proof of payment may include a paid invoice, receipt, canceled check,
electronic payment confirmation, or other documentation acceptable to the City.

14. Property Eligibility Limitation
A property shall not be eligible to receive additional assistance under the Program until at
least [seven years have elapsed] from the date of the previous Program reimbursement for
that property.
The time limitation applies to the property rather than solely to the individual applicant.
The City may maintain a record of Program assistance by property address to administer
this requirement.
The time limitation does not prevent the City from requiring a property owner to repair a
hazardous sidewalk when otherwise authorized or required by City code or applicable law.

15. Property Owner Responsibility
Participation in the Program does not transfer responsibility for sidewalk maintenance or
repair to the City.
Following completion of a Program-funded repair, the property owner remains responsible
for maintaining the sidewalk in accordance with applicable City requirements.
The City may require repair of future sidewalk deficiencies regardless of whether the
property has previously received Program assistance.

16. Fraudulent or Misleading Applications

Page 104 of 138

The City may deny an application or require repayment of Program funds if an applicant:
•

Provides false or misleading information;

•

Submits fraudulent invoices or proof of payment;

•

Performs work materially different from the approved scope;

•

Begins work before receiving required City approval or permits; or

•

Otherwise fails to comply with Program requirements.

17. Administrative Authority
The City Engineer or designee shall administer the Sidewalk Repair Assistance Program
and may establish reasonable administrative procedures, application forms, inspection
procedures, documentation requirements, and other requirements necessary to
implement this Program.
Questions regarding interpretation of these guidelines shall be determined by the City
Engineer, subject to applicable City code.

18. Program Review
The City may periodically review the Program to evaluate:
•

Number of applications received;

•

Number of projects completed;

•

Total City expenditures;

•

Geographic distribution of assistance;

•

Types of repairs completed;

•

Effectiveness of the Program in correcting sidewalk hazards; and

•

Whether modifications to the Program are warranted.

The City may recommend modifications to Program funding, eligibility, reimbursement
limits, or administrative procedures based on program experience.

Page 105 of 138

SIDEWALK REPAIR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
APPLICATION
Property Address: _______________________________________________
Property Owner: ________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _______________________________________________
Phone: _______________________ Email: ________________________

PART 1 — ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST
Please check each box that applies.

Property
☐ The property is located within the City of Millersburg.
☐ The property is a residential property.
☐ I am the property owner or am authorized by the property owner to submit this
application.

Sidewalk
☐ The proposed work involves an existing city sidewalk fronting the property.
☐ The sidewalk requires repair or replacement due to a condition identified or verified by
City staff.
☐ The proposed work for reimbursement is limited to sidewalk repair or replacement.

Ineligible Work
Please confirm that the requested reimbursement does not include:
☐ Tree/root removal
☐ Tree replacement or replanting
☐ Driveway or driveway approach work
☐ Landscaping or irrigation
☐ Private walkways or other private improvements

Page 106 of 138

Contractor
☐ I have obtained at least two written quotes for the proposed work.
☐ The contractors providing the quotes are licensed and bonded.
☐ Copies of both quotes are attached to this application.

Previous Assistance
☐ To the best of my knowledge, this property has not received Sidewalk Repair Assistance
Program reimbursement within the previous seven years.

PART 2 — DESCRIPTION OF SIDEWALK DEFICIENCY
Please briefly describe the condition requiring repair.

Approximate length of sidewalk requiring repair: __________ feet
Or number of sidewalk panels requiring repair/replacement: __________

Type of deficiency
Check all that apply:
☐ Vertical displacement / trip hazard
☐ Horizontal displacement
☐ Cracking
☐ Spalling / surface deterioration
☐ Accessibility concern
☐ Other: __________________________________________________________

PART 3 — TREE / ROOT CONDITIONS
Are trees or tree roots contributing to the sidewalk deficiency?
☐ No

Page 107 of 138

☐ Yes
If yes, please describe:

IMPORTANT: Tree removal, root removal, tree replacement, and other tree-related work
are not eligible for reimbursement.
The City may require the removal of a tree or other corrective action before approving the
sidewalk repair. Any tree removal or replacement shall be subject to City approval through
a City Tree Removal Permit.

PART 4 — PROPOSED REPAIR
Briefly describe the proposed sidewalk repair or replacement:

Proposed repair method
☐ Concrete panel replacement
☐ Concrete grinding/shaving
☐ Other repair method approved by City staff:

PART 6 — ESTIMATED REIMBURSEMENT
Selected contractor total estimated cost: $____________________
Estimated eligible project cost: $____________________
50% City reimbursement: $____________________
Maximum potential City reimbursement: $2,000
Estimated property owner share: $____________________

Page 108 of 138

Final reimbursement will be based on actual eligible costs paid by the property owner and
is subject to the 50% reimbursement rate and $2,000 maximum, but not to exceed total
remaining programed budget for the Sidewalk Repair Assistance Program.

PART 7 — APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
By signing this application, I acknowledge and agree that:
1. I am the property owner or an authorized representative of the property owner.
2. The information provided in this application is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
3. I understand that the Sidewalk Repair Assistance Program provides reimbursement
for eligible sidewalk repair or replacement only.
4. I understand that tree removal, tree/root work, tree replacement, driveways,
driveway approaches, landscaping, and other ineligible work will not be
reimbursed.
5. I understand that the City must approve my application and the required right-ofway permit before construction begins.
6. I understand that I am responsible for obtaining at least two quotes from licensed
and bonded contractors.
7. I understand that the work must generally be completed within 90 days of right-ofway permit issuance.
8. I understand that the completed work must pass a City inspection before
reimbursement will be issued.
9. I understand that I must submit actual paid invoices or receipts and proof of
payment to receive reimbursement.
10. I understand that the City will reimburse no more than 50% of eligible costs and no
more than $2,000 per property.
11. I understand that Program funding is limited and applications are processed on a
first-come, first-served basis until the annual Program budget is exhausted.
12. I understand that the property may not receive additional assistance under this
Program for at least seven years following the previous reimbursement.
13. I understand that participation in this Program does not transfer responsibility for
future sidewalk maintenance or repair from the property owner to the City.

Page 109 of 138

14. I understand that the City may require correction of sidewalk deficiencies
regardless of whether the property has previously received Program assistance.
15. I authorize City staff to inspect the sidewalk and the completed work as necessary
to administer this application.
Property Owner Signature: ________________________________________
Printed Name: __________________________________________________
Date: ______________________

Page 110 of 138

TO:

Millersburg City Council

FROM:

Janelle Booth, City Manager

DATE:

September 22, for the September 30, 2026, City Council Work Session

SUBJECT: Financial Policies
Action Requested:
Council review of proposed financial policies.
Discussion:
Over the last several months, staff have been developing draft financial policies
for the City of Millersburg. These policies are tools used to ensure that the City is
financially able to meet its current and future service needs. The individual fiscal
policies set a basis for the financial planning, reporting, and internal financial
management of the City.
These policies will primarily serve to document and establish practices currently in
place. They will be a resource to both staff and Council in day-to-day operation
and fiscal decision making.
Following is a complete list of proposed policies presented for review.
Fin 101.1 Management of Fiscal Policies
Fin 101.2 Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting Policy
Fin 101.3 Revenue Policy
Fin 101.4 Expenditure Policy
Fin 101.5 Capital Improvement Policy
Fin 101.6 Operating Budget Policy
Fin 101.7 Economic Development Funding Policy
Fin 101.8 Pension and Retirement Funding Policy
Fin 101.9 Debt Management Policy
Fin 101.10 Reserve and Contingency Policy
Fin 101.11 Fixed Asset Capitalization Policy
Fin 101.12 Fee Policy
Fin 101.13 Investment Policy
Budget Impact:
The proposed policies primarily document and establish practices currently in
place, therefore, no immediate budget impacts are anticipated. Changes to
these policies could have long-term budget impacts.
Recommendation:
Council feedback on attached draft policies.
Attachments:
• Draft Financial Policies

Page 111 of 138

Management of Fiscal Policies
Policy/Procedure Title: Management of Fiscal Policies
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.1
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:

Purpose
The City of Millersburg is committed to responsible fiscal management through financial
integrity, prudent stewardship of public assets, planning, accountability and full
disclosure.
The financial policies are the tools used to ensure that the City is financially able to meet
its current and future service needs. The individual fiscal policies set a basis for the
financial planning, reporting, and internal financial management of the City.
Municipal resources must be wisely used to ensure adequate funding for the services,
public facilities, and infrastructure necessary to meet immediate and long-term needs.
These policies safeguard the fiscal stability required to achieve the City's objectives and
ensure long-term financial health.
These policies are adopted by Council as the basic framework for overall financial
management of the City, to guide day-to-day and long-range fiscal planning and
decision making, and to achieve the following general financial goals:
1. Provide an adequate financial base to sustain a sufficient level of municipal
services to maintain the social wellbeing and physical conditions of the City.
2. Deliver cost effective and efficient services to citizens.
3. Provide and maintain essential public facilities, utilities, and capital equipment.
4. Provide the financial stability needed to navigate through economic downturns,
adjust to changes in the service requirements of the community, and respond to
other changes as they affect the City's residents and businesses.
5. Protect and enhance the City's credit rating so as to obtain the lowest cost of
borrowing and to assure taxpayers and the financial community that the City is
well managed and financially sound.
6. Adhere to the highest standards of financial management and reporting
practices as set by the Government Finance Officers Association, the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board and other professional standards.
7. Fully comply with finance-related legal mandates, laws and regulations, including
Oregon Revised Statues and Oregon Budget Law.
To achieve these goals, fiscal policies generally cover areas of revenue management,
operating and capital budgeting, financial planning and forecasting, investment and
asset management, debt management, accounting and financial reporting, reserves,
and internal controls.
1 | P Page
age
112 of 138

Objectives
1. To guide the City Council and management policy decisions that will have a
significant fiscal impact.
2. To employ balanced revenue policies that provide adequate funding for services
and service levels.
3. To maintain appropriate financial capacity for present and future needs.
4. To maintain sufficient reserves so as to maintain service levels during periods of
economic downturn.
5. To promote sound financial management by providing accurate and timely
information on the City's financial condition.
6. To ensure the legal use of financial resources through an effective system of
internal controls.
7. To protect the City's credit rating and provide for adequate resources to meet the
provisions of the City's debt obligations on all municipal debt.
8. To promote cooperation and coordination with other governments and the
private sector in financing and delivery of services.

Management of Fiscal Policies
The City Manager or designee shall prepare a staff report explaining the substantive
impact of recommendations to changes in fiscal policy and their impact on the City's
operations, service levels and/or finances. Fiscal policies and changes in policies shall be
approved by the City Council and adopted by resolution.
The City Manager shall implement fiscal policies and monitor compliance. If the City
Manager discovers a material variation from policy, he/she shall report it to the City
Council in a timely manner.

2 | PPage
a g 113
e of 138

Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.2
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
The City will maintain accounting practices in accordance with state and federal law
and regulations, and financial reporting that conforms to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP), and provide for, prepare, and present regular reports that
analyze and evaluate the City's financial performance and economic condition.
1. The City Manager or Finance Manager shall present fiscal policy and changes to
fiscal policies to the City Council. Such fiscal policies and changes in policies shall
be approved by the City Council.
2. The City will comply with the following accounting and reporting standards:
a. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) developed by
Governmental Accounting Standards Board
b. Government Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting standards
prescribed by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
c. Oregon Revised Statues relating to Municipal finance
d. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (0MB) 2 CFR 200 Subpart D, when
applicable
3. A system of internal controls and procedures will be maintained to provide
reasonable assurance of the safeguarding of assets and proper recording of
financial transactions and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
When staffing limitations require it, staff duties shall be assigned to maximize a
system of financial checks and balances.
4. Annual Audit
a. Pursuant to state law, the City shall have an annual financial and
compliance audit, and prepare financial statements based on the audited
financial information. The audit shall be performed by a certified public
accounting (CPA) firm licensed to practice as Municipal Auditors in the
State of Oregon. The annual financial report, including the auditor's opinion
and specific reports as required by Oregon state regulations, shall be filed
no later than six (6) months following the end of the fiscal year. The audit
firm shall also provide a Single Audit of Federal and State grants, when
necessary. The City will prepare its financial statements and maintain its
accounting and internal control systems in accordance with applicable
1 | P Page
age
114 of 138

standards with the goal of obtaining an unqualified opinion from its
auditors. The Finance Manager shall be responsible for establishing a
process to ensure timely resolution of audit recommendations, if any.
5. Financial and Management Reporting
a. Quarterly financial reports, comparing actual to budgeted expenditures
and revenues, will be provided to management.
b. Annually, a comprehensive annual financial report subjected to
independent audit will be prepared in a format that conforms to the
standards of the Government Finance Officers Association Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The report shall be
shared with the City Manager, City Council, and the Secretary of State. In
accordance with state law, the report shall be distributed no later than
December 31st of the following fiscal year.

2 | PPage
a g 115
e of 138

Revenue Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Revenue Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.3
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
1. The City will strive to maintain diversified and stable revenue sources to prevent
undue or unbalanced reliance on any one source of funds. Revenue diversity will
also reduce risk to the City from short-term fluctuations in any one revenue source.
2. One-time revenues will be used for one-time expenditures. The City will minimize
using temporary revenues to fund continuing programs and services.
3. The City will maximize the use of service and user charges in lieu of ad valorem
taxes and subsidies from other City funds, for services that can be identified and
where costs are directly related to the level of service provided. The Council may
establish fees at less than "full cost recovery" when deemed in the public interest.
The City will periodically and systematically review user fees and charges to take
into account the effects of additional service costs and inflation.
4. Unless prohibited by law, City fees may be deferred by the City Manager or City
Council action when it can be demonstrated that a direct public benefit will be
obtained.
5. All fees, charges or assessments that are deferred for later payment will be
evidenced by a written promissory note or agreement. The City may charge
periodic interest, processing fees and additional interest and penalties for
delinquencies, as appropriate.
6. System development charges shall be established to fund the costs of
improvements to service additional increments to growth such as street, water,
wastewater and stormwater facilities and infrastructure.
7. Water and Wastewater funds will be self-supporting through user fees. Utility rates
will be established to fully recover costs; including operation, administration,
replacement of assets, capital expansion, with consideration given to return on
investment and existing and/or anticipated debt to insure a debt coverage ratio1
of no less than 1.30.
8. The City Manager shall approve all grant applications before their submission.
Additionally, all potential grants that require matching funds, on-going resource
1 Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR) represents the ratio of “net revenues” available to pay scheduled

debt service. A ratio of 1.0 reflects “net revenues” equal to scheduled debt service. A ratio
greater than 1.0 reflects “net revenues” in excess of scheduled debt services and a ratio less than
1.0 indicates “net revenue” is less than scheduled debt service.
1 | P Page
age
116 of 138

requirements, or include new or additional continuing compliance requirements
shall be evaluated and considered before submittal of the application. The City
Council will be provided this information with the request for their acceptance of
the grant.
9. Revenues will be estimated realistically and prudently. Revenues of a volatile
nature will be estimated conservatively. The City will estimate its revenues by an
objective, analytical process using best practices, as defined by the Government
Finance Officers Association.
10. Charges for services shall accurately reflect the actual or estimated costs

of providing a specific service. The cost of providing specific services shall
be recalculated periodically and the fee adjusted accordingly.

11. The City shall pursue a policy for collecting delinquent accounts. When necessary,
the City shall use such methods as small claims courts, collection agencies, liens to
enforce collection, up to and including foreclosure process. The City may impose
late fees and penalties.
12. The City shall maintain a current schedule of fees, showing when the fees were
last reviewed and/or recalculated.

2 | PPage
a g 117
e of 138

Expenditure Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Expenditure Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.4
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
Expenditures will be controlled through appropriate internal controls, procedures and
regular monitoring of quarterly budget reports. Management must ensure expenditures
comply with the legally adopted budget. Management is responsible for the
administration of the budget. This includes accomplishing the goals and objectives
incorporated into the budget and monitoring each department program budget for
compliance with spending limitations.
1. The City Council will approve the budget. Expenditures anticipated to be in
excess of appropriated amounts require approval of a Council resolution (i.e.
supplemental budget process).
2. All compensation planning will include analyses of total cost of compensation,
which includes analysis of salary increases, health benefits, pension contributions
and other fringe benefits. The City will only propose operating personnel costs that
can be supported by continuing operating revenues.
3. Estimated wage increases and changes in employee benefits will be included in
the proposed budget under Personnel Services.
4. All purchases of goods and services must comply with the City's purchasing
policies, guidelines and procedures and with State laws and regulations.
5. Before the City purchases any major asset or undertakes any operating or capital
arrangements that create fixed costs or ongoing operational expenses, the
implications of such purchases or arrangements will be estimated for current and
future years.
6. Items costing $5,000 or more per item shall be budgeted and accounted as
capital outlay and shall be tracked in the City's fixed assets records. Excluding
repair or maintenance items. The $5,000 limit shall apply to individual items unless a
group of items are intended to function together as a unified system.
7. City staff are to make every effort to control expenditures to ensure City services
and programs provided to its citizens and taxpayers are cost effective and
efficient. Expenditures that will reduce future costs will be encouraged.

1 | P Page
age
118 of 138

Capital Improvement Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Capital Improvement Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.5
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
A five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) encompassing all City facilities, including
utilities infrastructure, buildings and major equipment and vehicles, shall be prepared
and updated periodically as needed. A public process will be utilized to consider public
testimony on the CIP, including review and approval of the CIP by the City Council. The
five-year CIP will be incorporated into the City's budget and long-range financial
planning processes.
1. Projects included in the CIP shall have information on the need for the project,
description and scope of work, total cost estimates, future operating and
maintenance costs, and how the project will be funded.
2. CIP projects will be evaluated and prioritized, with respect to the overall needs of
the City. This prioritization will be used to allocate resources to ensure priority
projects are completed effectively and efficiently.
3. Changes to the CIP, such as addition of new projects, significant change to the
scope of the project, or reprioritization of projects will require City Council
approval.
4. The City strives to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the
City's capital investment and to minimize future operating maintenance and
replacement costs. The City recognizes that deferred maintenance increases
future capital costs, thus placing a burden on future residents. Therefore, the
budget will strive to provide adequate maintenance and the orderly replacement
of capital assets from current revenues when possible.
5. The City will determine the least costly funding method for its capital projects and
will obtain grants and contributions whenever possible, and low-cost state or
federal loans when necessary.
6. When possible, the City will establish capital equipment reserves to provide for
funding of vehicles and equipment. When funding levels allow, the City may also
establish major repairs and replacement reserves to provide for funding of major
infrastructure and building repairs and replacements. The reserves will be included
and identified as separate components of fund balance in the various funds.
7. The City may utilize "pay-as-you-go" funding for capital improvements when
current revenues and adequate fund balances are available or when issuing debt
would adversely affect the City's credit rating.

1 | P Page
age
119 of 138

8. The City will consider the use of debt financing for capital projects under the
following circumstances:
a. When the project's useful life will exceed the terms of the financing.
b. When resources are deemed sufficient and reliable to service the long-term
debt.
c. When market conditions present favorable interest rates for City financing.
d. When the issuance of debt will not adversely affect the City's credit rating
and coverage ratios.
9. Special funds dedicated for capital improvements will be segregated in the
accounting system and used only for the intended capital purposes.

2 | PPage
a g 120
e of 138

Operating Budget Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Operating Budget Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.6
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
The City will prepare an annual budget. All budgetary procedures will conform to existing
state and local regulations. Oregon Budget Law requires each local government to
prepare a balanced budget and Oregon Administrative Rules state: 1) the budget must
be constructed in such a manner that the total resources in a fund equal the total of
expenditures and requirements for that fund and 2) the total of all resources of the district
must equal the total of all expenditures and all requirements for the district.
1. A Budget Committee will be appointed in conformance with the City Charter and
state statutes. The Budget Committee's chief purpose is to review the City
Manager's proposed budget and recommend a budget and tax levy for the City
Council to adopt.
2. The operating budget shall serve as the annual financial plan for the City. It will
serve as the policy document of the City Council for implementing Council goals
and objectives. The budget shall provide staff the resources necessary to
accomplish City Council determined service levels.
3. The Budget Officer shall annually prepare and present a proposed operating
budget to the Budget Committee no later than May 30 of each year; and the City
Council will adopt said budget no later than June 30 of each year. Funds may not
be expended or encumbered for the following fiscal year until the budget has
been adopted by the City Council.
4. The City shall take corrective action if, at any time during the fiscal year, financial
monitoring indicates that a fund's anticipated expenditures are expected to
exceed its appropriated expenditures.
5. To maintain fund integrity, the City will manage each fund as an independent
entity in accordance with applicable statutes and with generally accepted
accounting principles.
6. Oregon budget law provides a means to adjust the budget for emergency
expenditures or unforeseen circumstances. All resolutions adjusting the budget will
be prepared by the City Manager for Council approval to ensure compliance
with budget laws.
7. Fund balance, which is a one-time revenue source, may be used to fund an
annual operating deficit, only with subsequent approval of a plan to replenish the
fund balance if it is brought down below policy level. (See Reserve Policy)

1 | P Page
age
121 of 138

8. A budget calendar will be prepared detailing the key elements in the
development of the budget.

2 | PPage
a g 122
e of 138

Economic Development Funding Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Economic Development Funding Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.7
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
1. The City may utilize economic development incentives to encourage valueadded development and accrue public benefits to the City of Millersburg. Public
benefits may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. A benefit that materially enhances the financial position of the City by
increasing its employment base or assessed valuation.
b. A contribution to the basic infrastructure of the City that is greater than that
which would be required of the development alone.
c. A benefit that increases access to other public services.
2. Economic development incentives may include formation of improvement or
redevelopment districts; reimbursement, deferral or reassignment of certain fees
and charges; and other forms of financial incentives. All such incentives will be
evaluated as to the costs, risks and level of benefit as well as the financial impact
of such incentives on the City's operating and capital budgets.
3. The fiscal impact evaluation will be presented to City Council along with the City
Manager's recommendation. The City Council shall make the final decision
concerning proposed economic development incentives, including any
repayment of incentives if performance requirements are not met.
4. Funding for economic development incentives must be identified before approval
of all such incentives.
5. A development incentive shall not be provided if the development does not
provide sufficient public benefit or if the cost and risks to the City will have a
materially adverse impact on the City's finances or operations.

1 | P Page
age
123 of 138

Pension and Retirement Funding Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Pension and Retirement Funding Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.8
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
1. Most of the City's employees participate in Oregon's Public Employees Retirement
System (PERS). Contributions are made on a current basis, as required by the plan,
and are recorded as expenses or expenditures.
2. The City provides tax-deferred annuity contracts established under Section 457 of
the Internal Revenue Code. Participation in the program is voluntary. Contributions
are made from salary deductions from participating employees within the limits
specified in the Code.

1 | P Page
age
124 of 138

Debt Management Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Debt Management Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.9
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
1. The Finance Manager will structure all debt issuances and oversee the ongoing
management of all City debt. Debt includes general obligation bonds, revenue
bonds, special assessment obligations, promissory notes, equipment financing
agreements, and any other contractual arrangements that obligate the City to
make future principal and interest payments.
2. No debt shall be issued for which the City has not identified specific revenue
sufficient for repayment. The Finance Manager shall prepare an analysis of the
source of repayment prior to issuance of any debt.
3. The City shall evaluate the most prudent methods of acquiring capital outlay
items, including the use of lease-purchase agreements.
4. The City will not use long-term debt to fund current operations, to balance the
budget, or to fund projects that can be funded from current resources, unless the
use of debt is otherwise determined to be in the best interest of the City.
5. The City may utilize short-term debt or inter-fund loans to cover temporary cash
flow deficiencies due to timing of cash flows, such as may result from delay in
receipting grant proceeds or other revenues, and delay in issuance of long-term
debt.
6. When issuing long-term debt, the City will ensure that the debt is soundly financed
by:
a. Incurring debt only when necessary for capital improvements too large to
be financed from current available resources.
b. Insuring that capital projects financed through long-term debt shall be
financed for a period not to exceed the useful life of the project.
c. Determining that the benefits of the project financed exceed the cost of
financing including interest costs.
d. Analyzing the source of repayment, debt coverage ratios and the impact
of debt service on annual fixed costs prior to issuance of long-term debt.
7. All bond issuances and promissory notes will be authorized by resolution of the City
Council.

1 | P Page
age
125 of 138

8. The City will comply with all statutory debt limitations imposed by the Oregon
Revised Statutes.
9. The City will consider establishing a credit rating when issuing debt in the capital
markets and once established, maintain or enhance the credit rating.
10. The City will comply with all bond covenants, arbitrage requirements, disclosure
and other requirements specified by law.

2 | PPage
a g 126
e of 138

Reserve and Contingency Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Reserve and Contingency Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.10
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
Reserves and contingencies are an important indicator of the City's financial position
and its ability to withstand adverse events. Maintaining reserves and contingencies is a
prudent management practice and is important to maintaining the City's credit rating
and to meet state law requirements for no deficit spending. The following are examples
of their use in the City of Millersburg:
Operating Contingency - a budgetary account used to appropriate resources that can
be used to address events or services needs that were unanticipated during budget
development.
Capital Asset Reserve - a reserve established to accumulate resources that will be used
to replace capital assets and to provide for major customer service enhancements,
where procurement will be budgeted in a future year.
Undesignated Reserve - a reserve available for general use with no specific restriction or
designation.
Debt Service Reserve - a reserve established as a requirement of a bond covenant or
covenant in another debt instrument.
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance – a specific budgetary requirement set aside
under Oregon Local Budget Law to provide working capital and cash flow from July 1
until new revenues become available to meet cash flow needs. No expenditure or
appropriation can be made from the unappropriated ending fund balance during the
fiscal year it is budgeted, except in explicit public emergencies authorized by statute. At
the end of the year, it automatically rolls over as a resource for the ensuing budget
period.
1. The City will maintain sufficient contingency and reserves in each fund for the
ability to:
a. Maintain a positive fund balance at all times.
b. Mitigate short-term volatility in revenues.
c. Mitigate short-term economic downturns (two years or less).
d. Absorb unanticipated operating needs that arise during the fiscal year but
were not anticipated during the budget process.

1 | P Page
age
127 of 138

e. Sustain City services in the event of an emergency.
f.

Meet operating cash flow requirements before the collection of property
taxes, grant proceeds and other operating revenues.

g. Absorb unexpected claims or litigation settlements.
h. Purchase vehicle and equipment without the need to finance such
purchases.
i.

Meet major facility and equipment repair and replacement needs.

j.

Meet requirements for debt reserves.

k. Reserves are desired to be sufficient to meet expenditure requirements
without the use of short-term borrowing.
2. Reserve amounts for individual funds:
a. General Fund - the undesignated reserves are targeted to be
approximately seventeen percent (17%) of next year's budgeted
expenditures (exclusive of transfers and contingency). For purposes of this
calculation, the expenditures shall be the budget as originally adopted for
the given year. The undesignated reserve amount shall be in addition to
non-spendable, restricted, committed or assigned fund balance amounts.
b. Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Funds - the operating contingency and
reserves within the utility funds will be based on projected operational and
capital needs. Reserves will vary year to year based on the operational and
capital budget. The operating contingency shall be within 5% and 15% of
the budgeted expenditures.
c. Special Revenue Funds will be evaluated individually based on the type of
service, potential for unexpected expenditures, and purpose of the fund to
determine the appropriate contingency and reserve. There may be some
funds that require no contingency or reserve.
d. All Other Funds - the City plans to provide for the periodic
purchase/replacement of equipment, furnishings and vehicles. This allows
for an amount to be set aside in a reserve account sufficient to
accumulate funds to purchase new equipment, furnishings and vehicles. As
a way to calculate the amount of set-aside, the City may annually budget
the depreciation for that year. This would allow the City to accumulate,
over the life of the asset, a significant portion of the cost to fund the
replacement of existing equipment, vehicles, computers and office
furnishings when they reach the end of their useful lives.
3. The City may use reserves on a one-time or temporary basis for purposes
described above. In the event that reserve funds are presently or decrease to

2 | PPage
a g 128
e of 138

levels below the levels desired by this policy, the City will develop a plan to restore
reserves to the desired level; such plans may be multi-year in nature.
4. The City shall appropriate a General Fund working contingency of approximately
10% of budgeted expenditures as part of the budget process. Funds may not be
disbursed directly from the contingency account but must be reclassified into a
spendable budget category through a supplemental budget.
Fund Balance Definitions
GASB 54 defines fund balances for financial reporting to be classified as follows:
1. Non-spendable – includes amounts that, by their nature, cannot be spent, such
as inventories, prepaid expenditures, long-term loans and notes receivable,
permanent contributions, and property held for resale.

2. Restricted – when constraints are placed on the use of resources for a
specific purpose by enabling legislation (legally enforceable), external
parties or constitutional provisions.
3. Committed – includes constrained amounts that can be used only for specific

purposes imposed by City Council. Commitments can only be reversed by taking
the same action employed to commit the amounts (e.g. ordinance or resolution).
The difference between Restricted and Committed is that committed resources
can be redeployed for other purposes with appropriate due process. Compliance
with the commitment is not legally enforceable by those outside the government.

4. Assigned – designation of amounts by either the governing body or officials
to whom the Council has delegated authority to be used for a specific
purpose narrower than the purpose of the fund.
5. Unassigned – defined as the residual fund balance that is not non-spendable,
restricted, committed, or assigned. Only the General Fund has an unassigned
category since money remaining in any other fund is automatically
designated or assigned to the purposes of that fund.

3 | PPage
a g 129
e of 138

Fixed Asset Capitalization Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Fixed Asset Capitalization Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.11
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this policy is to establish standard procedures for capitalizing fixed assets
to facilitate the identification, reporting and safeguarding of City assets in compliance
with generally accepted financial reporting requirements.
Asset Value
Capital assets are valued at their historical cost. In the absence of historical cost
information, the asset's estimated historical cost will be assigned and used. Contributed
capital is reported at fair market value or cost on the date the asset is contributed.
The historical cost of a capital asset includes the following:
•
•
•
•
•

cost of the asset
ancillary charges necessary to place the asset in its intended location (i.e. freight
charges)
ancillary charges necessary to place the asset in its intended condition for use (i.e.
installation and site preparation charges)
capitalized interest
any subsequent improvements that meet the qualifications listed below

Capitalization Threshold
The City will capitalize all individual assets with a threshold cost of $5,000 or more and has
an estimated useful life of 1 year or more, excluding maintenance items.
Grouped or Networked Assets
Individual assets that cost less than the capitalization threshold, but that operate as part
of a network system, will be capitalized in the aggregate, using the group method if the
estimated average useful life of the individual asset is 1 year or more. A network is
determined to be where individual components may be below the capitalization
threshold but are interdependent and the overriding value to the City is on the entire
network and not the individual assets. Examples include: Computers, software licenses,
new office furniture, etc.

1 | P Page
age
130 of 138

Depreciation Method
Capitalized assets are depreciated using the straight line method in the Annual Financial
Report.
Estimated Useful Life
The following guidelines are used in setting estimated useful life for asset reporting:
Buildings & Improvements

50 years

Land Improvements

10 – 20 years

Machinery and Equipment

5 – 10 years

Vehicles

5 – 10 years

Infrastructure

50 years

Improvements vs. Maintenance Costs
With respect to asset improvements, costs at or over the capitalization threshold should
be capitalized if:

•
•
•
•
•

the estimated life of the asset is extended by more than 25%, or
the cost results in an increase in the capacity of the asset, or
the efficiency of the asset is increased by more than 10%, or
significantly changes the character of the asset, or
in the case of streets and roads - if the work done impacts the "base"
structure.

Improvements that do not meet these criteria would be expensed as repair and
maintenance.

2 | PPage
a g 131
e of 138

Fee Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Fee Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.12
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
As a home rule municipality, the City of Millersburg has the ability to determine the extent
to which fees should be used to fund City facilities, infrastructure and services. This Policy
sets forth principles for identifying: the types of services for which fees could
appropriately be imposed by the City, methods for calculating the percentage of costs
to be recovered by such fees, and the manner in which the fees should be allocated
among individual fee payers.
Ongoing Review
Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace
with changes in the cost-of-living as well as changes in methods or levels of service
delivery. Fees will be reviewed on a yearly basis and adjusted when needed to ensure
fees are equitable and consistent with the cost of providing the service.
User Fee Cost Recovery Levels
In setting user fees and cost recovery levels, the following factors will be considered:
1.

Community-wide versus special benefit
The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the community-wide versus
special service nature of the program or activity. The use of general purpose
revenues is appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are
appropriate for services that are of special benefit to easily identified
individuals or groups.

2.

Service recipient versus service driver
After considering community-wide versus special benefit of the service, the
concept of service recipient versus service driver should also be considered.
For example, it could be argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the
City's development review efforts: the community is the primary beneficiary.
However, the applicant is the driver of development review costs and, as such,
cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate.

3.

Effect of pricing on the demand for services
The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services can significantly
affect the demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost
recovery, this has the specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing
1 | P Page
age
132 of 138

services for which there is genuinely a market that is not overly-stimulated by
artificially low prices. Conversely, high levels of cost recovery will negatively
impact the delivery of services to lower income groups. This negative feature is
especially pronounced and works against public policy if the services are
specifically targeted to low income groups.
4.

Feasibility of collection and recovery
Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery may be
appropriate for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish
a system to identify and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of
assessing and collecting charges should also be considered in developing user
fees, especially if significant program costs are intended to be financed from
that source.

General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges
The following general concepts will be used in developing and implementing service
charges:
1.

Revenues should not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.

2.

The City will maximize utilization of user charges in lieu of property taxes for
services that can be individually identified and where the costs are directly
related to the level of service. User fees should be reviewed at a minimum of
every five years to ensure that related costs are recovered in accordance with
City Council policy.

3.

Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service,
including direct costs, administration costs, and organization-wide support
costs such as accounting, personnel, data processing, vehicle maintenance
and insurance.

4.

The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in
order to reduce the administrative cost of collection.

5.

Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services, as well as
to smaller, infrequent users of the service.

6.

A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for
various programs based on the factors discussed above.

Factors Favoring Low Cost Recovery Levels
Very low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the following circumstances:
1.

There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit
received. Almost all public safety programs fall into this category as it is
expected that one group will subsidize another.

2 | PPage
a g 133
e of 138

2.

Collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient
delivery of the service.

3.

There is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most
public safety emergency response services fall into this category. Access to
neighborhood and community parks would also fit into this category.

4.

The service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand" or
emergency basis, cannot reasonably be planned for on an individual basis,
and is not readily available from a private sector source. Many public safety
services fall into this category.

5.

Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements
and adherence is primarily self-identified and, as such, failure to comply would
not be readily detected by the City. Many small-scale licenses and permits
might fall into this category.

Factors Favoring High Cost Recovery Levels
The use of service charges as a major source of funding service levels is especially
appropriate under the following circumstances:
1.

The service is similar to services provided through the private sector.

2.

Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of
the service.

3.

For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there is a
direct relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the
service received.

4.

The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to
disturbances or false alarms might fall into this category.

5.

The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to
be the primary method of detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements.
Permits, plan checks and subdivision review fees for large projects would fall
into this category.

Low Cost Recovery Services
Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should have very
low cost recovery goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities
within the broad scope of services provided that should have user charges associated
with them. However, the primary source of funding for the operation as a whole should
be general purpose revenues, not user fees.
1.

Delivering public safety response services, such as police patrol services.

2.

Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform,
community-wide basis such as streets, parks and general purpose buildings.
3 | PPage
a g 134
e of 138

3.

Providing economic development activities.

4.

Recreation programs.

Development Review Programs - Example of High Cost Recovery and Methodology
1.

Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps,
rezoning, general plan amendments, variances and use permits).

2.

Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision
requirements and encroachments).

The following cost recovery policies apply to the development review programs.
Cost recovery for these services should generally be very high. In most instances, the
City's cost recovery goal should be 100%. Exceptions to this standard include planning
services, as this review process is clearly intended to serve the broader community as well
as the applicant.
1.

In charging high cost recovery levels, the City needs to clearly establish and
articulate standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to
ensure that there is "value for cost."

2.

Comparability with other communities.

3.

In setting user fees, the City will consider fees charged by other agencies in
accordance with the following criteria:
a. surveying the comparability of the City's fees to other communities provides
useful background information in setting fees for several reasons: They
reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the
reasonableness of the City of Millersburg's fees.
b. if prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how costeffectively the City of Millersburg provides its services.

Fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting fees as there are many
factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at their levels. For
example:
1.

What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our
cost recovery objectives?

2.

What costs have been considered in computing the fees?

3.

When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated?

4.

What level of service do they provide compared with our service or
performance standards?

4 | PPage
a g 135
e of 138

5.

Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to
achieve?

These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different
communities. As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one
factor among many that is considered in setting City fees.
Enterprise Fund Rates
The City will set fees and rates at levels which fully cover the total direct and indirect
costs (including operations, capital outlay, and debt service) of the Water and Sewer
Funds.
The City will review and adjust enterprise fees and rate structures as required to ensure
that they remain appropriate, equitable and sufficient to cover the required debt service
bond covenants.
Upon review of utility rates, Council will set rates through the required public process and
adopt any changes to the rate structure for the City's enterprise funds by ordinance.

5 | PPage
a g 136
e of 138

Investment Policy
Policy/Procedure Title: Investment Policy
Policy/Procedure #: Fin 101.13
Adopted Date:
Current Revision Date:
I.

Introduction

This Investment Policy defines the parameters within which funds are to be invested by
City of Millersburg. This policy also formalizes the framework, pursuant to ORS 294.135, for
the City of Millersburg's investment activities to ensure effective and judicious
management of funds within the scope of this policy.
II.

Governing Authority

The City of Millersburg's investment program shall be operated in conformance with
Oregon Revised Statutes and applicable Federal Law. Specifically, this investment policy
is written in conformance with ORS 294.035; 294.040; 294.052 and 294.135; 294.145; and
294.810. All funds within the scope of this policy are subject to regulations established by
the state of Oregon. Any revisions or extensions of these sections of the ORS shall be
assumed to be part of this Investment Policy immediately upon being enacted.
Ill.

Scope

This policy applies to activities of City of Millersburg with regard to investing the financial
assets of operating funds, capital funds, and reserve funds. Investments of employees'
retirement funds, deferred compensation plans, and other funds are not covered by this
policy.
IV.

General Objectives

The primary objectives, in priority order, of investment activities shall be:
1. Preservation of Invested Capital
Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation
of capital in the overall portfolio. The goal is to mitigate credit risk and interest rate
risk.
2. Liquidity
The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all reasonably
anticipated operating requirements. The Local Government Investment Pool
(LGIP) offers next-day liquidity.

1 | P Page
age
137 of 138

3. Return
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market
rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into
consideration the safety and liquidity needs of the portfolio.
IV.

Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP)

To achieve the general objectives listed above City funds are invested in the Oregon
Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). Managed directly by the Oregon State
Treasury and overseen by the Oregon Short Term Fund Board, the LGIP combines
municipal cash reserves to leverage economies of scale and institutional diversification
that are generally inaccessible to individual municipalities. All pool allocations are
subject to the statutory strictures of the prudent investor rule (ORS 293.726), mitigating
credit risk through high-grade, short-term debt instruments. The fund permits daily liquidity
access without principal penalty, facilitating efficient cash-flow synchronization for
operational overhead while concurrently capturing institutional-tier yields

2 | PPage
a g 138
e of 138