City Council

MISSION STATEMENT: TO CREATE A HEALTHY, SAFE, DIVERSE, AND PROSPEROUS CITY BY ENGAGING COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO DEVELOP AN ENRICHED QUALITY OF LIFE. COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA CITY COUNCIL – CITY OF ONTARIO OREGON TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026, 6:00 PM, MT Zoom Link Pursuant to the Public Meetings Laws and Rules within the Oregon Revised Statutes, the City Council has the authority, ability, and standing to take action on any items on the Agenda, or add items to the Agenda, during the Study Session or Regular Meeting, as long as all public meeting notice requirements have been met. 1) CALL TO ORDER Roll Call: Susann Mills Michael Braden Ken Hart ____ Adrianna Contreras John Kirby _____ Council President Penny Bakefelt Mayor Deborah Folden 2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE This Agenda was posted on July 10, 2026. Copies of the Agenda are available from the City Hall Customer Service Counter and on the city's website at www.ontariooregon.org. 3) MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA 4) CONSENT AGENDA A) Approval of Council Meeting Minutes: June 23, 2026 B) Approval of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: June 10, 2026 5) PUBLIC COMMENTS Citizens may address the Council; however, Council may not be able to provide an immediate answer or response. Out of respect to the Council and others in attendance, please limit your comment to three (3) minutes. Please state your name and city of residence for the record. 6) NEW BUSINESS A) Liquor License Application: Café Huichol, LLC B) Appointments to Planning Commission: Two Vacancies C) Resolution #2026-118: TVP Donation for AED D) Amendment #10: Approval of Operations Management International, Inc. Jacobs Contract 7) DEPARTMENT HEAD UPDATES A) Police Department: Quarterly Report 8) DISCUSSION ITEMS A) Appoint Council Liaison to Airport Committee 9) HAND-OUTS A) Minutes: County Court: 06-17-2026; 06-24-2026; Airport 06-01-2026 10) CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENTS AND EX-OFFICIO REPORTS 11) ADJOURN The City Council may recess/adjourn to Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2) as follows: (a) Employment of Public Officers, Employees, or Agents; (b) Discipline of Public Officers, Employees, or Agents; (d) Labor Negotiations; (e) Real Property Transactions; (f) Exempt Public Records; (g) Trade Negotiations; (h) Litigation [Current or Potential]/Consult with Legal Counsel; (i) Performance Evaluation of Public Officers and Employees; (j) Trade Negotiations; and/or (l) Labor Negotiations. The City of Ontario does not discriminate in providing access to its programs, services and activities on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, or any other inappropriate reason prohibited by law or policy of the state or federal government. Should a person need special accommodations or interpretation services, contact the City at 889-7684 at least one working day prior to the need for services and every reasonable effort to accommodate the need will be made. City of Ontario 444 SW 4th Street Ontario, OR 97914 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 23, 2026 The scheduled meeting of the Ontario City Council was called to order by Mayor Deborah Folden at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Council members present were Deborah Folden, Susann Mills, Michael Braden, Penny Bakefelt, and John Kirby. Ken Hart and Adrianna Contreras were excused. Staff present were Dan Cummings, Tori Barnett, Corinna Hysell, Clint Benson, Kari Ott, Andy Wood, Tatiana Burgess, Marshall Pierce, Al Haun, and Cal Kunz. AGENDA This Agenda was posted Friday, June 19, 2026. Copies of the Agenda are available from the City Hall Customer Service Counter and on the city’s website www.ontariooregon.org. BAKEFELT moved, MILLS seconded, TO ADOPT THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion carried 5/0/2. CONSENT AGENDA KIRBY moved, BAKEFELT seconded, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH CONSISTED OF ADOPTION OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2026. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras- out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion carried 5/0/2. PUBLIC COMMENT Annah Tubbs, Ontario, stated: I just wanted, in a general, my thoughts and feelings kind of sense. I just wanted to encourage the city to continue discussions around affordable housing, low income, low barrier housing development, transitional housing options, tiny housing communities, and especially daily housing services like the Oasis House. These issues affect many residents and deserve continued community discussion and planning. I also hope the city would consider exploring solutions related to animal welfare infrastructure, as our community does not have a current animal shelter and few animal parks. Consider looking into expanded recycling opportunities, especially for easier use for low-income housing facilities. Some overflow could be diverted with well-placed cardboard recycling bins, particularly in light of recent losses. Some recycling options previously available, as Western Recycling moved out of the area, I personally am having trouble finding a close place to recycle number one and two plastics currently. I would also like to see our parks using less chemicals and have parks and apartments to also be required to give notice when spraying occurs. I encourage the city to keep these additional community needs in mind and when planning our future grants, partnerships, and community development efforts. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS Rural Contract Approval Clint Benson, Fire Chief, presented. The city and Rural Fire District contractual relationship began in 1959. This critical partnership benefited both city and rural residents by combining resources to provide fire protection services in both response areas. This amended and restated agreement simplified the calculation and provided each entity with financial amounts prior to the upcoming fiscal year budgets. Additionally, this agreement removed the negotiation process related to annual agreement amounts and would allow representatives of both entities to focus on operational and future capital projects. Two members of the City Council, Michael Braden and Susann Mills, two members of the Ontario Rural Fire Protection District Board, Monty Culbertson and Brandon Coley, and two city staff members, Dan Cummings and Clint Benson, worked together to amend the agreement as presented. Calculations of annual payment amounts were based upon the 5-year rolling call volume average (calls into the Ontario City Council Minutes: June 23, 2026 Page 1 City of Ontario 444 SW 4th Street Ontario, OR 97914 Rural Fire District), multiplied by the fire department's actual expenditures in the prior fiscal year, plus the previous calendar year insurance premiums paid by the City of Ontario to insure the district's apparatus. The current agreement was set to expire on June 30, 2026. A priority recommendation of the joint 2025 Community Risk Assessment/Standard of Cover Study was to improve the partnership between the City of Ontario and Rural Fire District. Negotiations had been positive, and this amended agreement represented a solid partnership focused on providing quality fire protection services for the Ontario community. The new calculation within this agreement was based on the city fire department's actual expenditures. For example, when the fire department's expenditures increased due to additional staffing or other expenditures, this agreement produced a fair share from the Rural District. The annual agreement for FY 26/27 was set at $253,844, an increase of $15,344 over the current agreement amount. Mr. Cummings thanked Councilors Braden and Mills for their participation. MILLS moved, BAKEFELT seconded, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE SUPPRESSION AND OTHER SERVICES AND FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion carried 5/0/2. SRV Mutual Aid Contract Clint Benson, Fire Chief, presented. Ontario Fire & Rescue was one of the original founding members of the SRV Chiefs Association in 1968. The original purpose of its formation was mutual aid. The SRV Chiefs Association has grown to thirty-eight members and provided an annual academy designed for beginning firefighters and another annual academy for more advanced firefighters. Ontario Fire & Rescue increasingly relied on mutual aid for incidents that exceeded its staffing and equipment capabilities. Currently, Ontario Fire & Rescue was grandfathered into the 2022 mutual aid agreement. The 2026 agreement was similar in content and did not increase the City of Ontario's responsibilities under the agreement, nor did it decrease the level of aid received from the partnering fire departments. The Snake River Valley Fire Chiefs Association mutual aid agreement was due for renewal. The 2026 agreement included mutual aid with thirty- eight fire departments and would automatically renew after five years unless terminated by any party, or in the event of the need for updated procedures. Ontario Fire & Rescue benefited greatly from the resources offered through the Snake River Valley Fire Chiefs Association. The mutual aid agreement with the SRV Chiefs supplemented existing staff by providing equipment and labor during emergencies, and did not create a financial strain on the city. Many of the SRV Chiefs Association fire departments had already signed the 2026 SRV Mutual Aid Agreement, including the Ontario Rural Fire Protection District. Ontario Fire & Rescue regularly received and gave mutual aid under the current agreement and had not had any legal issues with the SRV Fire Chiefs Association. BRADEN moved, KIRBY seconded, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2026 SNAKE RIVER VALLEY MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden- yes. Motion carried 5/0/2. Resolution #2026-117: Financial End of Year Clean Up Kari Ott, Finance Director, presented. At the time the 2025-2026 budget was approved, there were some items that were unknown. Since these items were now known, a budget resolution was necessary to prevent over-expenditures in various departments. The following items needed to be adjusted within the budget to prevent over-expenditures of budget appropriations: 1) There were unexpected grants; 2) Building revenues were much higher than budgeted, so an adjustment needed to be made for the 12% state assessment; and 3) TOT revenues were higher than expected. Ontario City Council Minutes: June 23, 2026 Page 2 City of Ontario 444 SW 4th Street Ontario, OR 97914 An additional $150,000 (grants and TOT) would be appropriated and the remaining budget changes were transfers between items already appropriated. Per Oregon Local Budget Law, the proposed resolution had to be approved on or before June 30, 2026. Councilor Bakefelt asked why the legal services were so high. Mr. Cummings stated there had been several employee issues, and a pending Tort case possibility. KIRBY moved, MILLS seconded, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE RESOLUTION #2026-117: A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET TO RECOGNIZE UNEXPECTED REVENUES AND TO TRANSFER BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS FOR UNEXPECTED ITEMS. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion carried 5/0/2. PUBLIC HEARING(S) Resolution #2026-115: City’s Election to Receive State Revenues It being the date advertised for public hearing on the matter stated above, the Hearing was declared open. There were no objections to the city’s jurisdiction to hear the action, no abstentions, no ex-parte contact, and no declarations of conflict of interest. Kari Ott, Finance Director, presented. The City Council was required to annually approve a formal resolution in order to elect to receive state revenues. The city would be able to receive state revenues that were shared with cities throughout Oregon. The City of Ontario Budget Committee held Public Hearings on May 26 & 27, 2026, discussing the 2026- 2027 budget, which included revenue sharing from the State of Oregon. The City Council was holding a Public Hearing on June 23, 2026, giving the citizens an opportunity to comment on the use of State Revenue Sharing, pursuant to ORS 221.770. The resolution was required to be approved on or before June 30, 2026, and resolutions had to be approved by the City Council. The Hearing was opened for public testimony. Proponents: None. Opponents: None. There being no Proponent testimony and no Opponent testimony, the Hearing was closed. BAKEFELT moved, MILLS seconded, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION #2026-115, A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion passed 5/0/2. Resolution #2026-116: Adopt City of Ontario Annual Budget FY2026-2027 It being the date advertised for public hearing on the matter stated above, the Hearing was declared open. There were no objections to the city’s jurisdiction to hear the action, no abstentions, no ex-parte contact, and one declaration of conflict of interest. Councilor Braden declared a conflict of interest. The nature of the two conflicts that he would not debate, deliberate, or vote on were on the Grant and Building funds. For the Grant fund, he provided contracted directed services, and his wife was an employee of the Building Department. Kari Ott, Finance Director, presented. Resolution #2026-116 was a resolution to adopt and appropriate the annual budget for 2026-2027, impose the taxes upon taxable property, and categorize the taxes imposed for the fiscal year 2026-2027. The City of Ontario Budget Committee held public hearings on May 26 & 27, 2026, and approved the 2026- 2027 annual budget. The budget presented had no changes from what was approved by the budget committee. Ontario City Council Minutes: June 23, 2026 Page 3 City of Ontario 444 SW 4th Street Ontario, OR 97914 The required public hearing notice was published in the Argus Observer. The City Council was holding this public hearing on June 23, 2026, giving the citizens an opportunity to comment on the annual budget for 2026-2027. There were two motions to approve this resolution due to the conflict Councilor Braden disclosed in the budget committee meetings, and restated above. Councilor Braden would not be voting on the Building or Grant Funds. The Hearing was opened for public testimony. Proponents: None. Opponents: None. There being no Proponent testimony and no Opponent testimony, the Hearing was closed. MILLS moved, BAKEFELT seconded, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GRANT AND BUILDING FUNDS IN RESOLUTION #2026-116. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-abstain; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion passed 4/0/2/1. BAKEFELT moved, KIRBY seconded, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ALL REMAINING ELEMENTS OF RESOLUTION #2026-116, A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AND APPROPRIATE THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR 2026-2027, IMPOSE THE TAXES UPON TAXABLE PROPERTY, AND CATEGORIZE THE TAXES IMPOSED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion passed 5/0/2. Mr. Cummings thanked the Council and the Budget Committee for the great job done on the budget. Councilor Kirby thanked Mr. Cummings for helping him participate in the meetings via Zoom when unable to attend the meetings in person. Councilor Mills thanked staff for a great job, and for Ms. Ott for doing such a great job on the budget. They were all to be commended. Councilor Bakefelt and Mayor Folden also voiced agreement. Everything went smoothly, and it was a very well- prepared budget. CDBG Final Notice: Design Services for River Intake Project It being the date advertised for public hearing on the matter stated above, the Hearing was declared open. There were no objections to the city’s jurisdiction to hear the action, no abstentions, no ex-parte contact, and no declarations of conflict of interest. Marshall Pierce, City Engineer, presented. The city was wrapping up the engineering design phase of the river intake project at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP). This project was funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for $500,000. As required by HUD, two public notices/hearings were needed per each CDBG project. This was the final notice for the design portion of the river intake project, The first notice was held prior to design. This hearing was for the City Council to obtain citizen views and to respond to questions and comments regarding how this project went. Mr. Pierce read the public notice into the record: The City of Ontario is completing the Secondary Water Supply Intake from the Snake River design project funded with Community Development Block Grant funds from the Oregon Business Development Department. The location of the project is Ontario, Oregon. It is estimated that the project has benefited at least 10,044 persons, of whom 57.88% are low to moderate-income. A public hearing will be held by the City Council at 7:00 pm on June 23, 2026, at 444 SW 4th Street, Ontario, OR 97914. The purpose of the hearing is for the City Council to obtain citizens’ views about the project and to take comments about the local government’s performance. Written comments are also welcome and must be received by June 22, 2026, at 444 SW 4th Street, Ontario, OR 97914. Both oral and written comments will be reviewed by the City Council. Ontario City Council Minutes: June 23, 2026 Page 4 City of Ontario 444 SW 4th Street Ontario, OR 97914 The location of the hearing is accessible to persons with disabilities. Please let Dan Cummings at (541) 881-3223 know if you need any special accommodations to attend or participate in the hearing. More information about the Oregon Community Development Block Grant program and the project is available for public review at 444 SW 4th Street, Ontario, OR 97914, during office hours. Advance notice is requested. The Hearing was opened for public testimony. Proponents: One. Opponents: None. Proponents: Annah Tubbs, Ontario, stated: Hi, I’m Annah Tubbs. More questions than anything, I guess. But I do want to say I do support investing in our lower infrastructure, and appreciate the city’s efforts to pursue grant funding for needed improvements. I’m definitely interested in learning more about the proposed project, including the total project cost, how much grant funding is being requested, and whether matching funds are required, what specific improvements would be made. It sounded like intake, so, more water being utilized, but I feel like I have little info on that. I speak with many residents that choose filtered or bottled water because they have concerns about taste, odor, or quality of our water. I’d like to better understand whether those concerns are reflected in the city’s testing, or whether this project will improve public confidence in our drinking water. I’m also personally interested in learning more about our current water quality challenges, and whether this project addresses any existing concerns. Are there issues related to Arsenic, agriculture, contaminants, treatment byproducts, aging infrastructure, other water quality concerns that this project is intended to improve. Is this primarily just the intake and delivery project, or does this include treatment upgrades. I’d also like to understand whether this project will affect the amount of type of treatment chemicals currently used, and whether the proposed improvements would reduce reliance on treatment chemicals while continuing to provide safe drinking water. That’s all, thank you. Mr. Cummings asked Mr. Pierce to address some of the questions. Mr. Pierce stated this was supply only. It had no bearing on treatment, and no bearing on chemicals currently being used. It was just added supply being drawn off the Snake River. The reason for the project was twofold. First, it was for redundancy as there was currently only one intake. If that failed, there was no backup other than wells that were becoming less reliable. Another primary reason was that it added additional supply capacity allowing for projected growth in Ontario, commercial and industrial, primarily. Ms. Tubbs asked about chemical dependency and getting citizens to be more confident in the infrastructure. Mr. Pierce stated these improvements were included in the 2021 Water System Master Plan, which could be found on the city’s website. All the projects that had been brought forward over the past few years were following that plan. Regarding chemicals, this had no bearing on chemicals. Chemicals were currently being used, and they would continue to do that. Mr. Pierce stated that with regard to the project cost, the CDBG awarded up to $2.5M, and as the design had progressed, the anticipated construction costs had increased. It began at $2.5-$3M, and now there was a range of between $4M-$7M, which exceeded the CDBG allowance, but that had been planned for. Previously in the year, staff had applied for a Safe Drinking Water RLF, of which half was forgivable, so the city would only have to pay the remaining portion. There being no further Proponent testimony and no Opponent testimony, the Hearing was closed. NO MOTION REQUIRED CDBG Initial Notice: Construction Application for River Intake Project It being the date advertised for public hearing on the matter stated above, the Hearing was declared open. There were no objections to the city’s jurisdiction to hear the action, no abstentions, no ex-parte contact, and no declarations of conflict of interest. Marshall Pierce, City Engineer, presented. Ontario City Council Minutes: June 23, 2026 Page 5 City of Ontario 444 SW 4th Street Ontario, OR 97914 The city was wrapping up the design of the new Secondary River Intake at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP). This design was funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds of $500,000. Staff were now in a position to apply for the construction phase funds through the same project, up to $2,000,000. A public hearing/notice was required for this as well. As required by HUD, two public notices/hearings were needed per each CDBG project. This was the first notice for the construction portion of the river intake project, which a portion would be funded by block grant funds, up to $2,000,000. The City of Ontario is eligible to apply for a 2026 Community Development Block Grant from Business Oregon. Community Development Block Grant funds come from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The grants can be used for public facilities, water/wastewater improvements, and housing improvements, primarily for persons with low and moderate incomes. Approximately $11 million will be awarded to Oregon non-metropolitan cities and counties in 2026. The maximum grant that a city or county can receive is $2,500,000. The City of Ontario is preparing an application for a 2026 Community Development Block Grant from the Business Oregon for Water System Improvements. It is estimated that the proposed project will benefit at least 11,645 persons, of whom 58.10% will be low or moderate-income. A public hearing will be held by the city council at 7:00 p.m. on June 23, 2026, at 444 SW 4th Street, Ontario, Oregon, 97914. The purpose of this hearing is for the city council to obtain citizen views and to respond to questions and comments about community development and housing needs, especially the needs of low- and moderate-income persons, as well as other needs in the community that might be assisted with a Community Development Block Grant project, and the proposed project. Written comments are also welcome and must be received by June 22, 2026, at 444 SW 4th Street, Ontario, Oregon, 97914. Both oral and written comments will be considered by the City Council in deciding whether to apply. The location of the hearing is accessible to persons with disabilities. Please contact Dan Cummings at (541) 881-3223 if you will need any special accommodations to attend or participate in the meeting. More information about Oregon Community Development Block Grants, the proposed project, and records about the City’s past use of Community Development Block Grant funds is available for public review at 444 SW 4th Street, Ontario, Oregon, 97914 during regular office hours. Advance notice is requested. If special accommodations are needed, please notify Dan Cummings at (541)881-3223 so that appropriate assistance can be provided. Permanent involuntary displacement of persons or businesses is not anticipated as a result from the proposed project. If displacement becomes necessary, alternatives will be examined to minimize the displacement and provide required/reasonable benefits to those displaced. Any low- and moderate- income housing that is demolished or converted to another use will be replaced. The Hearing was opened for public testimony. Proponents: One. Opponents: None. Proponents: Hannah Tubbs, Ontario, stated: Hi, Annah Tubbs from Ontario, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the funding towards our water systems, but I do hope that we look at furthering more of that in the future and keep working on that still, and as a reminder of my initial remarks that I do hope that we do look at, because it said in the public notice that we could talk about housing desires and stuff that I still hope that we keep an option open for housing, affordable housing that could be looked at in the area like I spoke about in the beginning with the Oasis House, tiny homes, affordable housing, and things like that. I hope that we do keep an eye on that as well, but I do think this is a good project. Thank you. There being no further Proponent testimony and no Opponent testimony, the Hearing was closed. MILLS moved, BAKEFELT seconded, T H E CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH APPLYING FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECONDARY RIVER INTAKE PROJECT, UP TO $2,000,000 IN GRANT AMOUNT. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart-out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion passed 5/0/2. Ontario City Council Minutes: June 23, 2026 Page 6 City of Ontario 444 SW 4th Street Ontario, OR 97914 DEPARTMENT HEAD UPDATES Community Development: Quarterly Report Kari Ott, Finance Director, submitted her report. The Zoom portion of the meeting was dropped, and Ms. Ott was not available to answer any questions directly. The Council was asked to submit any questions or concerns directly to Ms. Ott. HAND-OUTS Minutes County Court 05/20/2026, 05/27/2026, 06/03/2026, 6/10/2026 CORRESPONDENCE, COMMENTS, AND EX-OFFICIO REPORTS Councilor Mills asked Mr. Cummings where the city was at with regard to the flag that was going to be located near the hospital. Mr. Cummings stated the city budgeted $50k for it, based on an estimate from a local business; however, only one bid was submitted, and not from a local firm, and it was $154k. He also met with Idaho Power, and under the current regulations, the location was not approved as it was too close to the power poles. Staff moved to Option B, which was moving it over into Lion’s Park. Staff was negotiating with the bidder to get new quotes to install a new pole in the corner of the park, where it had been previously suggested. Some were concerned it might not be as visible as it was now, and that it might be less expensive to use the existing base. That was wrong. Another concern was that there were three large mature trees in that corner, and he thought they might have to remove at least one, if not two, of those trees. After laying out the plan, it was determined no trees would have to be removed, but definitely trimmed back. Staff was waiting on proposals for that. The cost of removing the base at the existing location ranged from $8k-$15k. He wondered if the city would be better off investing that money instead of removing, following a conversation with the Fire Chief, and Mr. Pierce came up with a part of it, but it might be great to do a bronze statue of the emergency response group, which was fire and police. He was researching costs to install a brass monument, depicting those entities. He was getting ideas from both police and fire as to what that might look like. There was a plaque there that was dedicated to the gentlemen for the flag, and he would speak with the Sullivan family, who put that up, to see if they wanted to do a new plaque rededicating it to their father, Bob Sullivan, as he was the person who installed it. He had not spoken with anyone there yet, as he wanted to receive the cost first. For the existing base, he thought to maybe get another plaque that would bolt overtop the one that was embedded in the concrete, dedicating it to the emergency responders. The Council expressed their support of that plan. ADJOURN MILLS moved, BAKEFELT seconded, THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. Roll call vote: Mills-yes; Braden-yes; Hart- out; Contreras-out; Kirby-yes; Bakefelt-yes; Folden-yes. Motion carried 5/0/2. Meeting concluded at 6: 46pm. ACCEPTED: ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________________ Deborah K. Folden, Mayor Tori Barnett, MMC, City Recorder Ontario City Council Minutes: June 23, 2026 Page 7  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 10, 2026 6:00 pm The scheduled joint meeting of the Ontario City Council and Ontario Planning Commission was called to order 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Council members present were Susann Mills, Michael Braden, Penny Bakefelt, and Adriana Contreras. Ken Hart and John Kirby were Excused. Mayor Folden arrived at 6:05. Planning Commission members present were: Tyler Whitaker; William Ecret; Blu Fortner; John Breidenbach. Al Christiani was absent. Two seats were vacant. City Staff present were: Dan Cummings, City Manager; Tatiana Burgess, Community Development Director; Eddie Alvarez, Building Official; Tori Barnett, City Recorder; Jennifer Braden, P&Z Technician. The meeting was recorded on tape and the tape was on file at the City Community Development Center. The Agenda for this meeting was emailed on or before June 3, 2026. Copies of the Agenda were available at the City Community Development Center. Council President Bakefelt led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC HEARING It being the date advertised for a public hearing on the matter stated above, the hearing was declared open. There were no objections to the city’s jurisdiction to hear the action, no abstentions, no ex-parte contact, and no declarations of conflict of interest. ADOPTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Adriana Contreras moved, seconded by Susann Mills, to adopt the Agenda as presented. Roll call vote: Mills- yes; Braden-yes; Contreras-yes; Bakefelt-yes. Motion carried 4/3/0. Councilwoman Bakefelt deferred the meeting to John Breidenbach, Planning Commission Chairman. Chairman Breidenbach called the Planning Commission meeting to order. ADOPTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Blue Fortner moved, seconded by Tyler Whitaker to adopt the Planning Commission Agenda as presented. Roll call vote: Whitaker-yes; Ecret-yes; Fortner-yes; Breidenbach-yes. Motion carried 4/1/0. There were no unscheduled public appearances. There were no objections to the Planning Commission jurisdiction, no abstentions or ex-parte contact, or conflict of interest declarations. Chairman Breidenbach opened the public hearing. Chairman Breidenbach asked if proper notice was given and if any communication regarding this action was received. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 1  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 Ms. Burgess informed the Planning Commission that the Agenda had been published on June 3, 2026, and was advertised in the Argus Observer on May 20, 2026. Ms. Burgess introduced the topic of the work session. She informed the City Council and Planning Commission that Grace Coffey and Greg Winterowd, from Winterbrook Planning, would be offering a presentation for the Code analysis that would bring Ontario’s City Code up to reflect current State law updates. She also informed the Commissioners and Council Members that the code analysis was made possible by a grant that was awarded to the City by DCLD. She stated that the process should be completed by the end of the summer. Ms. Coffey began the presentation. She introduced Mr. Greg Winterowd, also from Winterbrook, and that Ryan Marquardt, from DCLD, who was attending online. Ms. Coffey explained she would be working through the presentation and encouraged Council, Planning Commission and staff to ask questions as needed. Ms. Coffey introduced the presentation by saying that most of the topics to be discussed were changes required by State law, and that Winterbrook hoped to get Ontario’s feedback on updating the code where necessary. She noted that changes would come as a code amendment update, redlined for code references, to be adopted by City Council. Ms. Coffey further pointed out that the majority of the code update related to a State requirement that housing applications must have a clear and objective path to approval. Ontario had a code update in 2020 and much of its code was compliant, but some code language was less defined and would have to be clarified to meet the “clear and objective” language, this included addressing Ontario’s current conditional use housing process. Topic 1 - Administrative processes The State required non-discretionary applications, including most housing applications to be processed administratively instead of going to hearing. This also included zone changes to allow for higher density residential and planned unit developments. Ms. Coffey also noted that Ontario’s final plat approval for land divisions following the creation of streets was not required to be approved by City Council. Ms. Coffey noted it was an unusual process and not commonly found. She noted the typical process was that preliminary plans for subdivisions were approved and almost always included streets. She noted that as long as the final plat was aligned with the preliminary plat, the final plat decision would be an administrative decision. Discussion: Mr. Cummings commented that this new requirement to allow plats to be approved via administrative process would conflict with current City Code that required City Council to accept all Right of Way (ROW). Mr. Winterowd commented that the State no longer required a Public Hearing. Dan agreed but restated that Ontario City Code required a public hearing and the City would have to change their code to comply with new State requirement. Topic 2 - Middle Housing Land Divisions State requirement for cities of Ontario’s size and larger to allow for middle housing land division. This would allow the City to divide one larger lot into smaller individual lots that could then be sold separately. These divisions could be allowed concurrently with a subdivision or after a subdivision. State has developed a model code and Winterbrook recommended that Ontario adopt the model code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 2  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 No discussion or questions. Topic 3 – Single room occupancies (SRO’s) The State developed specific definitions for SRO’s as developments that have separately rentable/lockable units and shared kitchen and/or bathrooms. SRO’s were now allowed in all residential zones. . No discussion or questions. Duplexes 5 –Duplexes Duplexes were now allowed in UGA. Duplexes could not have more stringent requirements than detached single family homes. No discussion or questions. Topic 5 – Childcare facilities Small childcare facilities (less than 16) to be allowed in all residential zones/ Large child-care facilities (16+) to be allowed in high-density residential, commercial and industrial zones. No discussion or questions. Topic 6 – Dwelling Unit Terminology and Zone Name Update Recommendation to update Ontario’s residential zoning terminology with State terminology to classifications such as “low density, medium density, high density” instead of RS-50/single family, RD-40/duplex, RM-10/high density. These terms were more familiar to developers and code readers and would create a more consistent usage. Winterbrook would collect feedback from the Planning Commission and changing the zoning terms would require a comprehensive plan amendment. Ms. Coffey noted that this was not required by State law but was suggested. Recommendation to change “single family home” to “single unit home” for clarification and ease of use. No discussion or questions. Topic 7 – Manufactured Homes and Dwelling parks State had required that manufactured homes be allowed in every residential zone, including in parks and outside parks. Under new State law, manufactured dwellings cannot have different design requirements than stick-built homes. It was noted that thermal envelope standards could still be enforced by the Building Code the same thermal requirements as a stick-built home. Discussion: Chairman Breidenbach asked if this change was coming directly from the State. Ms. Coffey confirmed it was and that it had changed a few years prior. Mr. Cummings informed the Planning Commission and City Council that Ontario’s current code required manufactured homes outside parks to be doublewide homes or larger. The new code took that regulation away and the City would now be required to allow manufactured homes, including single-wide homes, in all residential zones. He cautioned the City Council members that the public would likely have strong comments PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 3  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 and reactions to this change and reiterated that this was a State-required code that the City had to comply with. Chairman Briedenbach asked if manufactured homes would still be installed according to State Building Code. Ms. Coffey confirmed manufactured homes would still follow Building Code for installation and setup, but could not be regulated differently than a stick-built home. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the manufactured homes would be required to be on a foundation or if they would be allowed to be set up and remain on axels. Building Official Eddie Alvarez replied and said that he had contacted the State regarding installation. He was told that manufactured homes could be set up as they would be in manufactured home parks (on blocks and tied down to meet manufactured home installation standards). The State had informed him that the City could not force manufactured homes to be affixed to a permanent foundation. Mr. Winterowd commented that the City could consider adopting standards that all single-family homes, including manufactured homes, had to meet, as long as the standards were clear and objective. He proposed this could be a way to address some of the concerns people might raise. Mr. Cummings noted that a stick-built home was required to be on a foundation, but a manufactured home wasn’t and he saw that there were discrepancies in the code that would be challenging to navigate. Mr. Alvarez said the State did not clearly say that manufactured homes should be on foundations, rather, the State said it was up to land use to say how manufactured homes should be placed. He noted that he and Ms. Burgess had discussed this at length the responsibility to interpret and apply the Building Code but still be in line with the updated State regulation that restricted differing standards for manufactured and stick-built homes. Mr. Alvarez also commented that RV park placement was different, and those parks did not require any permitting or have requirements for foundations. Commissioner Ecret commented that in addition to blocks, manufactured homes were required to have skirting and stairs. Mr. Alvarez agreed and said there was also clearance of the unit when placed on blocks, handrails, and other requirements. Mr. Winterowd commented that standards for single family homes could be applied in a way that addressed some of the concerns that had brought up, but he noted again that standards had to be clear and objective. He agreed it was a complex law and asked if Ryan Marquardt (attending online from DCLD) could provide any insight. Ryan Marquardt, Housing Planner for DCLD, commented that standards for placing manufactured homes could be confusing. He noted that there had previously been sections of ORS that could apply certain standards to manufactured homes on individual lots, including requirements for foundations, but those had been removed around 2019. He stated that regulations now were tied to requirements for stick-built homes. He noted that Council and Planning Commission could give directions to Winterbrook to aid them in crafting language or standards that addressed the issue of manufactured homes in all residential zones. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 4  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 Topic 7 – Conditional Use Housing The State required housing to have a clear and objective path to approval or disapproval, thus conditional use housing was no longer allowed. Ms. Coffey noted that Ontario had two zones and two types of housing that were currently conditional use. She asked for input as to whether those should be permitted or not allowed. Conditional residential use in C2H Zone: The first was C2H (Heavy Commercial), which allowed ground floor commercial with residential above as a condition use. She also noted any changes from the update would not affect any existing housing. She asked if the Planning Commission wanted to permit this outright or disallow it completely. She asked for input and discussion. Discussion: Chairman Breidenbach asked for an example of this type of set up that was already existing in Ontario. Ms. Burgess pointed out the area south of the Ore-Ida complex, in the northeast section of town, where there were a lot of old homes in the heavy commercial zone. She noted that heavy commercial has the same allowed uses as general commercial, but it included some industrial aspects. With that in mind, she noted that the houses that were existing in these areas would continue to be allowed. She stated that the Commissioners must decide to either expand residential use in the C2H zone or prohibit residential use in order to preserve the heavy commercial zone and better align with the intended use in that zone. Mr. Cummings noted that the ground-floor residential was the result of the last code update and was allowed in order to meet the “live where they work” idea. Dan said he would now recommend completely removing residential use from C2H. He felt that permitting residential outright in that heavy commercial zone would have a negative impact on that zone. Commissioner Whitaker asked if residential accommodation would continue to be allowed and if ground floor commercial would still be required with living above? Mr. Cummings said they could, but now the City couldn’t regulate anything. The current conditional use process allowed the City to regulate residential use in that zone but the new code would not allow the City to place any regulating standards on residential use if the Planning Commission decided to allow it in the C2H zone. Ms. Coffey commented that it would be possible to permit the zone with clear and objective standards as decided by the City. She agreed that the City wouldn’t have as much say or discretion over when it would be allowed if they decided to allow residential use in the C2H zone. Mr. Cummings said he and the Planning Department would take a hard look at this zone in light of the new code requirements because he felt it was important not to ruin the heavy commercial zone. Ms. Coffey asked Ms. Burgess and Mr. Cummings if the City had experienced many requests for this type of conditional use in the C2H zone. Ms. Burgess responded that C2H zone was highly sought for commercial and industrial purposes (referencing the northeast section of town near Ontario Marketplace / Home Depot) and that there hadn’t been much residential interest in that area. There had been some conversations about replacing the older homes in the area but no new residential above commercial development had been proposed to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 5  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 Mr. Cummings added that the few inquiries he had received for conditional use residential in the area hadn’t been followed through with because the interested parties had not wanted to go through the process of application, planning action, notification of neighbors, etc. He noted that if the City allowed all residential in that area, without the land use processes, the City would get complaints from people who had been required to go through the conditional use process. He noted that it was a bit of a two-edged sword. He thought it required a very thorough discussion before deciding to allow or disallow residential in the C2H zone. Mr. Winterowd commented again that the Planning Commission had the choice in this matter. Ms. Burgess added that if the Planning Commission did decide to allow residential over commercial, it had to be higher density with multiple units. This would add congestion with additional parking and a higher traffic flow. If this type of housing existed along with commercial businesses that were moving heavy equipment, there would be added hazards for those heavy equipment operators. She pointed out that that the C2H was located right next to the Heavy Industrial zone, which experienced even more of that heavy equipment use. She cautioned that residential use in the C2H zone would inherently take away from the intended use of that zone. Mr. Cummings recollected the issued that City Council had to previously dealt with regarding the complaints from homeowners in that C2H zone about the trucks and traffic generated by Ore-Ida. He noted that allowing more residential development in that area would very likely increase complaints and conflict between big trucks and residential cars. There had been complaints to City Council in the past specifically related to trucks going in and out of Americold across the street from houses. Mr. Cummings also noted that the rest of the C2H was mostly developed but there was a section (near Americold) that was older and had more existing houses, and that area would eventually be redeveloped. He advised the Planning Commission to heavily consider how those sections should be developed since they were located right next to established heavy industrial zones. Ms. Coffey asked the Planning Commission if there were considerations that Winterbrook should take into account regarding this topic. Chairman Breidenbach responded that the Planning Commission would discuss this in more details before they could provide specific feedback. Conditional residential use in Duplex zone: Four-plexes were currently a conditional use in the RD-40 zone. Per State code, 4-plexes would now have to be either permitted outright or prohibited. Ms. Coffey noted that City staff did not report many applications for this use in the zone. Discussion: Ms. Burgess provided clarifying information from the City of Ontario Planning records from several years previous. She reported that she did not find any requests for this type of conditional use permit in this zone. She noted that building a 4-plex had a much higher cost. She noted that developers would have a work- around, often two duplexes on a lot instead of one 4-plex. She also noted that the RD-40 zone allowed single family homes, duplexes and townhouses (including attached), and that flexibility of housing allowed developers to be creative when building multi-family developments. Mr. Cummings agreed with Ms. Burgess’ statements and said the City would not have an issue pulling that specific conditional use option from the RD-40 zone. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 6  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 Topic 9 – Landscaping Requirements for landscaping were required to be “clear and objective”. Landscaping requirements in residential zones must have the same standards. Ontario’s current landscaping requirement of “6% green and growing” included residential zone, and as such, that landscaping requirement had to meet the “clear and objective” standard. Ms. Coffey stated the options for this update were: exempt residential from landscaping requirements (noted that doing so would not remove nuisance code); to have separate landscaping standards for residential zones; to work with the code to identify the items not “clear and object” in the code and define them so they meet that qualification; to replace the whole landscaping standards section so that it was the same across the board with the same standards for all development. Ms. Coffey also noted that Ontario’s requirement of 6% was low compared to many other jurisdictions. She said the percentages could be increased or decreased for different zones. Mr. Cummings commented that reducing the landscaping would created a “concrete jungle”. He also commented that the strongest objections to residential landscape requirements over the years had been developers who built high-density rental properties with maximum space for structures and thus had not prioritized landscape. Mr. Winterowd stated that was possible to continue to use the language “green and growing” but the City would have to state very specific, measurable conditions (number of pots, type of trees), in place of the “green and growing” language that was in the current Code. Ms. Coffey commented that those types of conditions had the potential to get extremely prescriptive so it was recommended to allow for deviations from the standards if prepared by a landscape architect and approved by City staff. Chairman Breidenbach stated he felt that Ontario’s “6% green and growing” was appropriate to local landscape. Ms. Coffey stated that the standards could be difficult to craft and often required specific call-outs such as percentages of groundcover. Chairman Breidenbach asked for clarification if the State was requiring Ontario to change the “6% green and growing” language, specifically. Ms. Coffee responded and said it was the language that had to be clarified, specifically the term “green and growing” because that term didn’t meet the “clear and objective” requirement for residential zones. Councilwoman Bakefelt asked what percentages of landscaping other cities typically required. Ms. Coffey said they typically saw a 10-20% requirement in commercial and industrial and 20% was common in residential zones. Ms. Burgess cautioned against making the requirement so restrictive as to create a hardship, especially for the single-unit developments that may not have the financial means to hire a landscape architect or adhere to the specific requirements. She recommended a simplified, prescriptive version of the City’s expectation. She PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 7  CITY OF ONTARIO, 444 SW 4TH STREET, ONTARIO OREGON 97914 commented that a large-scale developer would have the resources for an architectural landscape designer but it would be a burden to a family building a single-unit home. Councilman Braden commented that increasing the landscape requirement from 6% to 20% in the Ontario community was a substantial increase. He noted that Ontario’s green spaces were not watered by rainwater, so the water used for the increased landscaping would have to be processed by City services and that should be taken into consideration when considering increased landscaping requirements. Conclusion of topics Ms. Coffey told the City Council and Planning Commission that feedback was welcome. She explained that the next step in the process was for Winterbrook to draft the redline suggestions. She and Mr. Winterowd would bring back a packet for the Planning Commission to review with the proposed changes. Ms. Coffey and Mr. Winterowd said they didn’t expect final decisions at the meeting and knew more discussion may be required. They directed the Planning Commission to work with City staff. City staff would communicate with Winterbrook and DLCD. Mr. Winterowd noted that housing was now a very important focus for the Land Use Goals. Chairman Breidenbach thanked Ms. Coffey and Mr. Winterowd for their work on the update. Mr. Cummings directed the Planning Commission to put their comments together and present them to Ms. Burgess. He and Ms. Burgess would work with Winterbrook to make sure the updates were in alignment with State requirements. There were no proponent or opponent public testimony. There was no additional discussion by the Planning Commission. Chairman Breidenbach closed the Planning Commission Public hearing and turned the meeting back the City Council. Mayor Folden declared the City Council Public Hearing closed. MOTION TO ADJOURN Adriana Contreras moved, seconded by Susann Mills, to adopt the Agenda as presented. Roll call vote: Mills- yes; Braden-yes; Contreras-yes; Bakefelt-yes; . Motion carried 4/3/0. ____________________________ ________________________________ John Breidenbach Attest: Jennifer Braden Chairman Planning & Zoning Technician ____________________________ ________________________________ Deborah Folden Attest: Tori Barnett Mayor City Recorder PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES—June 10, 2026 PAGE 8  AGENDA REPORT NEW BUSINESS July 14, 2026 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tatiana Burgess, Community Development & Planning Director THROUGH: Danny K. Cummings, City Manager SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION: CAFÉ HUICHOL, LLC DATE: July 7, 2026 PROPOSED MOTION: I MOVE THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMEND THE NEW FULL ON-PREMISES, COMMERCIAL LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR CAFE HUICHOL, LLC, BE GRANTED. SUMMARY: Cafe Huichol, LLC, under the trade name Mariscos La Cueva Del Pulpo Ontario, located at 797 N Oregon St, Ontario, Oregon, completed the “New Full On-Premises Sales, Commercial” liquor license application, for retail on-premises sales and consumption (indoor only). The Oregon Liquor Control Commission has updated the licensing procedure. Applications now come to the local government for endorsement before completing the application process through the State of Oregon Liquor Control Commission office in Salem. All necessary paperwork has been submitted to the City of Ontario. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission office is awaiting a recommendation from the Ontario City Council. BACKGROUND: Café Huichol, LLC will operate in the existing building, which was formerly known as the Mallards Convenience Store, located at 797 N Oregon St. The applicant, Gerardo J. Esparza has completed the "New Full On-Premises Sales, Commercial" liquor license application through the Oregon Liquor & Cannabis Commission. The application forms have been filled out appropriately and the required fees will be received after Council action. All permit and license requirements can be met through the City of Ontario Planning, Building, and Fire Departments. CURRENT SITUATION: The previous owners of the Mallard Store, and then The Curb, held their own liquor licenses. Upon the sale of the premises, a new liquor license must be obtained. Cafe Huichol, LLC intends to obtain their own Full On-Premises, Commercial license for retail sales. Additionally, the applicant intends to operate a 48-seat restaurant within the existing building, and offer on- premises indoor liquor consumption. If granted, the liquor license will require an annual renewal. ANALYSIS: A. STRATEGIC PLAN This meets the Council’s adopted Strategic Plan for Lifestyle and Growth. Under Lifestyle, with this license approved, Cafe Huichol, LLC will be able to offer both retail and on-premises consumption, through the addition of the new restaurant space. B. FINANCIAL If approved, the applicant will remit the $100 application fee to the city. C. TIMING A recommendation is required before alcohol can be sold at this location. D. POLICY/LEGAL All legal steps have been followed to completion, with no negative feedback. ALTERNATIVES: Not recommend the license application. This has no true effect on the process, as the Oregon Liquor Control Commission may take the city’s objections to the action into consideration, but is not obligated to do so. They are the ultimate authority on issuing the license. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the new Full On-Premises, Commercial liquor license for Cafe Huichol, LLC. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application and floor plan  Committee Appointments - 2026 New Term Committee Expiration Current Member Applicant Airport [4 year term] Full Budget [4 year term] Citizen at Large 2029 Vacant Business Loan Fund [Perpetual] Full CLG/Façade Grand [3 year term] Full Parks [3 year term] Full Planning Commission [4 year term] Citizen at Large 2028 Vacant Megan Cook Citizen at Large 2028 Vacant Annah Tubbs Public Works [3 year term] Full V&C [3 year term] Full Meeting Date Time Location Airport 1st Mon/Mo 6:00 p.m. City Hall Budget May/Year 6:00 p.m. Training Center Business Loan Fund As needed 5:00 p.m. Comm Dev Center CLGC/Façade Grant As needed 5:00 p.m. Comm Dev Center Parks 3rd Thu/Mo 6:00 p.m. City Hall Planning 2nd Mon/Mo 6:00 p.m. City Hall Public Works 3rd Tue/Mo 3:00 p.m. City Hall V&C 1st Thu/Mo 7:00 a.m. Chamber Office  AGENDA REPORT NEW BUSINESS July 14, 2026 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kari Ott, Finance Director THROUGH: Danny K. Cummings, City Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION #2026-118: TVP DONATION FOR AED DATE: July 7, 2026 PROPOSED MOTION: I MOVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE RESOLUTION #2026-118: A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET TO RECOGNIZE UNEXPECTED DONATIONS FROM TREASURE VALLEY PARAMEDICS AND APPROPRIATING $4,388 FOR EXPENDITURE IN THE 2026-2027 SUMMARY: Attached is Resolution #2026-118. BACKGROUND: The Ontario Police Department received a $4,388 donation from Treasure Valley Paramedics. CURRENT SITUATION: OPD received a $4,388 donation from Treasure Valley Paramedics to equip the remaining police cars with automated external defibrillator (AED) units. ANALYSIS: A. STRATEGIC PLAN No direct strategic plan impact noted. B. FINANCIAL $4,388 will be appropriated within the police department for expenditure. C. TIMING The resolution needs to be approved in order to give budget authority to purchase the AED units. D. POLICY/LEGAL A formal resolution approved by the City Council is required to expend funds per ORS 294. ALTERNATIVES: A. Take No Action - The Council could take no action on this matter; this would require the police department to refuse the donation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of Resolution #2026-118. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution #2026-118 Police Donation  RESOLUTION #2026-118 A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM TREASURE VALLEY PARAMEDICS WHEREAS, The City of Ontario received a donation from Treasure Valley Paramedics in the amount of $4,388; and WHEREAS, This donation is to be used to purchase automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to place in the police cars; and WHEREAS, The City desires to modify the 2026-2027 budget in order appropriate funds from Treasure Valley Paramedics. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Ontario City Council, to approve the following adjustment to the fiscal year 2026-2027 budget: Line Item Item Description FY 26-27 Budget Amount of Adjusted Change Budget GENERAL FUND 001-000-469208 Police Donations $500 $4,388 $4,888 001-024-613550 Patrol Supplies $34,336 $4,388 $38,724 EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective immediately upon passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Ontario this 14th day of July, 2026, by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: APPROVED by the Mayor this 14th day of July, 2026. __________________________ Deborah K. Folden, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Tori Barnett, MMC, City Recorder Resolution #2026-118: TVP Donation Page - 1  AGENDA REPORT NEW BUSINESS July 14, 2026 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Casey Mordhorst, Public Works Director THROUGH: Danny K. Cummings, City Manager SUBJECT: AMENDMENT #10: APPROVAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. JACOBS CONTRACT DATE: July 8, 2026 PROPOSED MOTION: I MOVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT #10 WITH OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.(JACOBS) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2026, THRU JUNE 30, 2027, AND APPROVE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN ALL DOCUMENTS. SUMMARY: Amendment #10 covers the FY starting July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027. This amendment asks for a 4.26% increase to the base contract between the City of Ontario and Operations Management International, Inc.(Jacobs) to operate the City of Ontario's Public Works Department. The formula increase was calculated based on appendix E.3. BACKGROUND: Operations Management International, Inc.(Jacobs) was contracted to operate and maintain the City's Public Works Department starting July 1, 2014. Annually, the increase is based on the CPI and ECI and negotiated with the City Manager and finance Director. The annual increase has varied from year to year. The annual contract increase can not go above 5% and typically has been lower. With the cost of inflation that is seen in all areas, we are asking for a 4.26% increase for this fiscal year. CURRENT SITUATION: Inflation has driven costs extreamly high. Each year the annual increase varies with the fluctuation of CIP and ECI. ANALYSIS: A. STRATEGIC PLAN Operating the Public Works Department efficiently to cut costs and stay within budget.  B. FINANCIAL The 4.26% increase has been factored into the city's budget and was approved by the budget Committee and City Council. Staff worked with the City Manager and Finance Director prior to the budgeting process to ensure this was added. C. TIMING The increase will start July 1, 2026, and go through June 30, 2027. D. POLICY/LEGAL Annually, Jacobs will provide an amendment to the contract for any increase or modifications made to the original contract between Operations Management International, Inc.(Jacobs) and the City of Ontario. ALTERNATIVES: If the increase is not approved, negotiations would take place to see where services could be reduced or eliminated to stay within the budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving Amendment #10 to Operations Management International, Inc.(Jacobs) for the operation of the City's Public Works Department for the fiscal year July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, and authorizing the City Manager to sign all documents. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ontario_OM_OMM_10042018_A10  AMENDMENT NO. 10 to the AGREEMENT FOR OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE, AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES for THE CITY OF ONTARIO, OREGON This Amendment No. 10 (the “Amendment”) to the Agreement for Operations, Maintenance and Management Services for the City of Ontario, Oregon dated September 7, 2018 (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ date of July 2026 by and between the City of Ontario (hereinafter “City”) and Operations Management International, Inc. (hereinafter “CH2M HILL”). NOW THEREFORE, City and CH2M HILL agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1. CH2M Hill updates their mailing address for any formal notice to read as follows: Operations Management International, Inc., whose address for any formal notice is 7001 E. Belleview Ave, Suite 1000, Denver, CO 80237. 2. Appendix E, Section E.1.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: E.1.1 City shall pay to CH2M HILL as compensation for services performed under this Agreement a Base Fee of Seven Million Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Eight Dollars and Twenty One Cents ($7,093,628.21) for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. Subsequent Years’ base fee shall be determined as hereinafter specified in Appendix E.3. For budgeting purposes (period noted in E.1.1) the Base Fee includes $331,942 for chemicals, $535,000 for repairs, and $775,711 for electricity. 3. CPI and ECI Data Clarification: The Parties acknowledge that, as a result of the federal government shutdown in October 2025, the October 2025 CPI and ECI reports are unavailable. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating the Base Fee set forth in this Amendment No. 10, the adjustment was calculated using the most recently published CPI and ECI data available as of September 2025. This Amendment together with any previous Amendments and the Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior oral and written understandings with respect to the subject matter set forth herein. Unless specifically stated all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Neither this Amendment nor the Agreement may be modified except in writing signed by an authorized representative of the Parties. The Parties, intending to be legally bound, indicate their approval of this Amendment by their signatures below. Authorized Signature: Authorized Signature: Operations Management International, Inc., The City of Ontario, Oregon By: ________________________________________ By: _______________________________________ Name: ______________________________________ Name: _____________________________________ Title: _______________________________________ Title: ______________________________________ Date: _______________________________________ Date: ______________________________________ Ontario Police Department • Quarterly Report • 2026- 2nd Quarter (April – June) Jason Cooper Chief of Police  CHIEF OF POLICE JASON COOPER CAPTAIN 2 CAL KUNZ OPERATIONS LIEUTENANT DETECTIVES POLICE OFFICE MANAGER JAMES SWANK BEN ESPLIN BJ SNYDER SHERI SMITH SERGEANTS JON LAURENSON CASEY WALKER CHRIS BOLYARD VACANT POLICE SUPPORT SCHOOL RESOURCE PATROL PATROL CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST OFFICERS (A & C) (B & D) EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN TRISH ROBINSON STEPHANIE CUMMINGS LIZ AMASON DANIELLE LLAMAS-HS JEREMY JONES JARED CUTLER JESSICA MCKINNEY VACANT-MS TODD HARNDEN RICHARD FRAZIER VACANT TYLER BULLINGTON VACANT RICK REYNA MIKE GALLAGHER BRANDON MITCHELL TAYLOR BROWN ADEN MARIN GABE GALICIA MATT POND TANNER SMITH MARTIN RODRIGUEZ VACANT  Personnel Updates 4 – Police Officer openings -2 officer candidates completed background phase. 1 - Code Enforcement Officer -Currently in background phase. SERVICE RECOGNITION 10 Years Ofc. Richard Frazier  Recruit Officer Update Officer Martin Rodriguez - - DPSST Academy (16 weeks) Graduation: July 31, 2026 Community Involvement • Autism Awareness Event –Lions Park (April) • Touch a Truck event - Cultural Center (May) • National Rx Drug take back program (April) - Community Involvement • Week of the Child – OCDC (April) - Community Involvement • Mama Lupe’s Pre-School – OCDC (May) • Global Village Festival – Lions Park ( June) -  Significant cases April - June • Motor Vehicle Crash – CMV vs. Motorcyclist (significant injury) • Firearm Discharge - Felon arrest; Pending DA prosecution • Domestic Violence/Disturbance - Susp. armed w/hatchet; pending DA prosecution • Edge Performance Burglary (Interrupted) – 2 Arrests; pending DA prosecution • Assault/Pursuit – Susp. armed w/ax – Arrest; pending DA prosecution  High Desert Task Force • HDDTF Highlights for past quarter • 9 total search warrants • Total • 110.3 pounds of methamphetamine seized • .1 ounces of fentanyl seized • 17 arrests • Investigation – April 2026 (Ontario) • 1 arrest • 87 grams (3 oz) of methamphetamine seized • .6 grams of fentanyl seized • $1023.00 in drug currency • Investigation – May-June 2026 (Ontario, Nyssa, Adrian, Caldwell) • Co-Investigation with DEA • 7 search warrants served • 8 arrests (multiple more pending federal charges) • 109 pounds of methamphetamine seized • Small amounts of fentanyl powder seized Major Crime investigation assists • Homicide Investigation – Malheur County (June) continuation from last quarter • Assisted in locating and arresting both homicide suspects • Agency Accreditation-OACP Grant (82% progress) • Policy Updates (Lexipol) (In progress) • Axon Body Cameras (Completed) - Equipment has been issued - Training completed - Deployment/Go Live was June 24 • New Office Space for Police Department (In progress)  Traffic Safety Projects • (2) Traffic radar signs deployed (Funded by City Council) April (Completed) • Lighted crosswalk system (SW 4th Avenue/SW 12th Street) May (Completed)  Professional Development / Training  Investigative (1) Officer (April) DUII Conference  Crisis Intervention (1) Officers (April) Applied Suicide Intervention Skills (ASIST)  Investigative (1) Officer (May) Drug recognition expert Instructor thru State of Oregon  Code Enforcement (1) Officer (April) Oregon Code Enforcement Assoc. Conference  Investigative (1) Detective (April) Child Abuse Conference  Crisis Intervention (2) Officers (April) Crisis Intervention Basic Training  Administrative (2) Officers (April) PCOD Certification (lateral hire)  Investigative (5) Officers (April) Radar/Lidar training & re-certification  Administrative (1) Officer (May) OACP Conference  Administrative** Multiple Officers (April-June) In-house agency training **Development & Opportunity  MALHEUR COUNTY COURT MINUTES June 17, 2026 The regularly scheduled meeting of the County Court was called to order by Judge Dan Joyce at 9:00 a.m. with Commissioner Ron Jacobs and Commissioner Jim Mendiola present. Judge Joyce led the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of the media, public and staff had the opportunity to join the meeting electronically or in person. Present in the meeting room was Economic and Community Development Coordinator Taylor Rembowski. Notice of the meeting was posted on the County website, Courthouse bulletin board, and emailed to the Argus Observer and those persons who have requested notice. The agenda is recorded as instrument # 2026-2098 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Krista Purser with Kittelson & Associates explained MCOA&CS is seeking adoption of the Transit Development Strategy. A work session was previously held with the Court regarding the document; and the Court members had no further questions regarding the development strategy document. Commissioner Jacobs moved to adopt the Malheur County Transit Development Strategy. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed unanimously. See instrument # 2026-2099 Vote: RJ/JM/DJ in favor. Approved. COURT MINUTES Commissioner Mendiola moved to approve Court Minutes of June 10, 2026 as written. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Vote: JM/RJ/DJ in favor. Approved. ROAD ACCEPTANCE County Surveyor Derrick McKrola met with the Court and presented a road dedication on a partition plat for their consideration. Commissioner Mendiola moved to accept road dedication of a portion of Klamath Avenue on Keith William's Partition Plat #26- 10. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. See instrument # 2026-2097 Vote: JM/RJ/DJ in favor. Approved. MCOA&CS MCOA&CS Transportation Manager Brittany White explained the STIF Advisory Committee had not met so she did not have a recommendation regarding the 5310 application. Ms. White will reschedule with the Court at a later date. ONTARIO SANITARY SERVICE/ WASTE CONNECTIONS - PROPOSED RATE INCREASE Ontario Sanitary Service District Manager Travis Williams met with the Court and discussed a proposed rate increase of 3%, effective August 1, 2026. The proposed increase is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the state of Oregon and would get the pricing in the County in line with the rest of Ontario Sanitary’s service area. Waste Connections has invested over $700,000 in operations over the last year to assure a high level of service to customers in Malheur county. The Court requested a hearing to take public comment on the proposed rate increase be scheduled. See instrument #2026-2100 for the written request. Mr. Williams also explained that notice was recently received that rates at Clay Peak will increase October 2026. Ontario Sanitary will request an additional rate increase of 3% effective October 1, 2026 due to the Clay Peak increase. The Court may consider an additional 3% increase at a later date; a separate hearing regarding that increase would be scheduled. PUBLIC COMMENTS Judge Joyce asked for comments from the public. No public comments were received. COURT ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mendiola moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Vote: JM/RJ/DJ in favor. Approved.  MALHEUR COUNTY COURT MINUTES June 24, 2026 The regularly scheduled meeting of the County Court was called to order by Judge Dan Joyce at 9:00 a.m. with Commissioner Ron Jacobs and Commissioner Jim Mendiola present. Judge Joyce led the Pledge of Allegiance. Members of the media, public and staff had the opportunity to join the meeting electronically or in person. Present in the meeting room was Administrative Officer Lorinda DuBois, ASD Coordinator Keith Ishida, and Surveyor Derrick McKrola. Notice of the meeting was posted on the County website, Courthouse bulletin board, and emailed to the Argus Observer and those persons who have requested notice. The agenda is recorded as instrument # 2026-2167 PUBLIC HEARING – ORDINANCE NO. 239 Present for the second public hearing on Ordinance No. 239: An Ordinance Amending Malheur County Code Title 6, Chapter 1, Chapter 3, Section A, Chapter 4, Chapter 6 and Chapter 12; and Title 7, Chapter 1; and Declaring an Emergency were: County Counsel Stephanie Williams, Planning Director Kelsie Haueter; and Morgan Snyder with Winterbrook Planning. Judge Joyce opened the hearing. The Court had no further questions concerning the ordinance. The ordinance codifies State and administrative rule changes applicable to resource lands. Judge Joyce asked for public comments. No comments were received. Commissioner Jacobs moved to approve Ordinance No. 239: An Ordinance Amending Malheur County Code Title 6, Chapter 1, Chapter 3, Section A, Chapter 4, Chapter 6 and Chapter 12; and Title 7, Chapter 1; and Declaring an Emergency.See instrument # 2026-2168 for the staff report and instrument # 2026-2171 for Ordinance 239. Vote: RJ/JM/DJ in favor. Approved. SECTION 5310 RURAL APPORTIONMENT MCOA&CS Transportation Manager Brittany White explained that the Section 5310 Program for the 2027-2029 biennium included a new funding allocation known as Rural Apportionment Funds. The County issued a request for proposals for the Section 5310 Program funding for two separate funding sources: 5310 Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG ) funds and Rural Apportionment Funds. The STBG funds were awarded to MCOA in April; no applications were received for the Rural Apportionment funding and those funds remain unallocated. MCOA has applied for the Rural Apportionment funds; the STIF Advisory Committee reviewed the application and recommended awarding the funds to MCOA&CS. Commissioner Jacobs moved to award the 5310 Rural Apportionment funding to MCOA for the 2027-2029 biennium. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Vote: RJ/JM/DJ in favor. Approved. COURT MINUTES Commissioner Mendiola moved to approve Court Minutes of June 17, 2026 as written. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Vote: JM/RJ/DJ in favor. Approved. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Judge Joyce moved to authorize Commissioner Jacobs to sign as Planning Director when necessary while Planning Director Kelsie Haueter is on leave. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed. Commissioner Jacobs abstained. Vote: DJ/JM in favor. Approved. VALLEY FAMILY HEALTH CARE AGREEMENT Commissioner Jacobs moved to approve First Amendment to Amended and Restated Affiliation Agreement for Medical Services in the Malheur County Jail Recorded with the Malheur County Clerk as instrument #2024-1952. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The agreement is extended to June 30, 2029; and includes the compensation for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. See instrument # 2026-2169 Vote: RJ/JM/DJ in favor. Approved. IGA WITH HARNEY COUNTY Commissioner Mendiola moved to approve Intergovernmental Agreement between Harney County and Malheur County for Inspection of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Harney County’s Environmental Health Specialist will provide onsite wastewater treatment services in Malheur County one day a week at a rate of $68.00 per hour, plus mileage and other actual expenses, and a 10% administrative fee. Malheur County's current onsite fees are low and have not been updated in many years; the Court may need to consider raising the fees. The IGA with Harney County expires October 1, 2026. See instrument # 2026-2170 Vote: JM/RJ/DJ in favor. Approved. PUBLIC HEARING – ADOPTION OF ASD BUDGET The Court met as the governing body of the Ambulance Service District (ASD ). Judge Joyce opened the public hearing for consideration of Resolution R26-15 adopting the Ambulance Service District budget; notice of the hearing was published in the Argus Observer. Changes to some line-items were made to the budget at the recommendation of the ASD Advisory Board; those changes were provided to the Court members in advance of the hearing and are attached to the resolution. No public comments were received. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved to approve Resolution R26-15: In the Matter of the Adoption of a Budget and Levy of Taxes for the Fiscal Year 2026/27 as Required by ORS 294.456. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Total Appropriation is: $274,470. See instrument # 2026-2172 Vote: RJ/JM/DJ in favor. Approved. PUBLIC HEARING – ADOPTION OF COUNTY BUDGET Judge Joyce opened the public hearing for consideration of Resolution R26-16 adopting the County budget; notice of the hearing was published in the Argus Observer. No public comments were received. Judge Joyce, Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Mendiola each declared an actual conflict of interest as their salaries are included in the County budget. Several changes were made to the Approved Budget prior to adoption; those changes were provided to the Court members in advance of the hearing and are attached to the resolution. Commissioner Jacobs noted that $35,000 was added to the Surveyor’s budget for the purchase of a vehicle and accessories ($35,000 is also in the Corner Preservation Fund for the vehicle). Commissioner Jacobs also expressed appreciation to the County Budget Committee and Ms. DuBois for their work with the budget. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Mendiola moved to approve Resolution R26-16: In the Matter of the Adoption of a Budget and Levy of Taxes for the Fiscal Year 2026/27 as Required by ORS 294.456. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The total sum of the budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year is $72,507,240; and the tax rate is $2.5823 per $1,000 of assessed value. See instrument # 2026-2173 Vote: JM/RJ/DJ in favor. Approved. PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF EXTENSION TAX DISTRICT BUDGET The Court met as the governing body of the Malheur County Agricultural Educational Extension Service District. Judge Joyce opened the public hearing for consideration of Resolution 26-17 adopting the Extension tax district budget; notice of the hearing was published in the Argus Observer. No changes were made to the Approved Budget. No public comments were received. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved to approve Resolution R26-17: In the Matter of the Adoption of a Budget and Levy of Taxes for the Fiscal Year 2026/27 as Required by ORS 294.456. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Total Appropriation is $2,406,353 and the tax rate is $0.23 per $1,000 of assessed value. See instrument # 2026- 2174 Vote: RJ/JM/DJ in favor. Approved. COMMITTED FUND BALANCES Judge Joyce moved that the Malheur County Court hereby report the 2025/2026 ending fund balances of the following Special Revenue Funds as "Committed Fund Balances". These committed fund balance amounts can only be used for the specific purposes for which they were imposed unless the Malheur County Court removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action (legislation, resolution, or ordinance) it employed to previously commit those amounts. The Special Revenue Funds are: Major Bridge, Surveyor Corner Preservation, Community Corrections, Law Library, Boat License, Corrections Assessment, DA Enforcement, Taylor Grazing, Task Force, Ambulance Service District, Juvenile Crime Prevention, Federal Forfeitures Fund, Agricultural Educational Extension Service District, LATCF (Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund), 911 Fund, Traffic Safety, Court Facilities Security, State Drug Court, State Mediation, CVSO (County Veterans Services Officer) Expansion, Search & Rescue, GIS (Geographical Information Systems) Maintenance, Clerk's Record Fund, Special Transportation Fund, Work Release Construction, Economic Development, American Rescue Plan, Opioid Settlement, and Grasshopper Fund. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed unanimously. This motion is effective as of June 24, 2026. Vote: DJ/JM/RJ in favor. Approved. Mr. McKrola left the meeting. AMBULANCE SERVICE DISTRICT SESSION ASD Coordinator Keith Ishida presented the ASD Advisory Board’s recommendations for funding distributions for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 to the local emergency medical services agencies operating within the County. The ASD Advisory Board reviewed and discussed the request for funding applications submitted by the EMS agencies in a public meeting and recommended award as follows: Treasure Valley Paramedics (TVP) - $42,548.46 Vale Fire & Ambulance - $9,998.00 Ontario Fire & Rescue - $23,722.16 Jordan Valley Ambulance - $10,284.70 Adrian Quick Response Unit (QRU) - $9,908.06 TOTAL: $96,461.38 Mr. Ishida noted the request for funding process is done early in the calendar year and as such the funds available for distribution to the providers was much lower than anticipated; in order to honor the funding recommendations made by the Advisory Board adjustments were made to the 2026/2027 budget (as reflected in the resolution adopting the budget done earlier in today’s meeting). Mr. Ishida is also actively seeking grant opportunities and other funding options to strengthen the District’s financial standing. The Advisory Board has asked that the request for funding process be completed in June and that a policy and procedure guide be drafted for the request for funding process; Mr. Ishida is working on this. Commissioner Jacobs moved to approve the funding allocations as recommended by the ASD Advisory Board. Commissioner Mendiola seconded and the motion passed unanimously. See instrument # 2026-2196 for the ASD Advisory Board’s recommendations. Vote: RJ/JM/DJ in favor. Approved. Mr. Ishida also discussed the current assessment that supports the Ambulance Service District. The current assessment rates have been in place for approximately 30 years. The ASD Advisory Board supports a ballot measure asking the voters to increase the assessment. The current assessment for residential properties is $16.00 per residence; and it is proposed to increase that rate to $29.00 per residence. Apartment complexes and assisted living (for profit) facilities are currently assessed $16.00 per apartment; it is proposed to increase that rate to $29.00 per apartment. Hotels/Motels and RV parks are currently assessed a $16.00 base charge and $2.50 per room/RV space; it is proposed to increase the base charge to $29.00 and $5.00 per room/RV space. Mobile home courts are assessed $16.00 per mobile home; it is proposed to increase that rate to $29.00 per mobile home. Businesses are assessed $16.00 and $1.50 per full time employee; it is proposed to increase the assessment to $29.00 and $3.00 per full time employee. Nursing homes are currently exempt from the assessment. The current assessment structure generates approximately $190,000 annually. The increased assessment structure would generate approximately $380,000 annually. Increased revenue could be allocated to disposable medical supplies/small equipment; direct payments to providers through the request for funding process; increase the ASD Coordinator from part-time to full-time, supervising physician compensation, as well as increasing other areas of the budget. A hypothetical budget and explanation of the budget is included in the Court’s packet prepared by Mr. Ishida. The Court members suggested potentially increasing the assessment over a period of 2-3 years; Mr. Ishida will prepare a new proposal. If the matter is to be put on the November ballot there is limited time to prepare the ballot measure as the deadline to file with the Clerk’s Office is in August. See instrument # 2026-2197 for the written summary provided to the Court. PUBLIC COMMENTS Judge Joyce asked for comments from the public. No public comments were received. COURT ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mendiola moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Jacobs seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Vote: JM/RJ/DJ in favor. Approved.