Hello Everyone,
The special elections are very important for local decisions.  There is going to be millions of dollars going through the school districts especially concerning the Community Enhancement Plan and it would be nice to have a few fiscal conservatives on these boards.  Please consider running for office in the special districts election of Coos County....Rob T.

Coos County Republican Central Committee
There will be SASO petitions to sign. 
Join the regular January Monthly Meeting
When
Thursday, January  24th, 6:00 pm
Where
Pony Village Mall, 1611 Virginia Ave, N.B. OR 97459 Room # 155
What
For those who wish to participate, they usually start the meeting with a potluck dinner, and you are invited to bring a potluck dish to share.
The county party will be voting on some proposed changes to their bylaws to keep in compliance with the State Party rule changes made in Last September.
They will be discussing the ORP organizational meeting coming up this next month.
Please notice that the meetings are back at Pony Village Please check them out at www.facebook.com/coosgop
​

Port of Coos Bay Commission Meeting Notice
The Board of Commissioners of the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay will hold its Regular Commission Meeting at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 22, 2019, in the Port’s Commission Chambers, located at 125 West Central Avenue, Suite 230, Coos Bay, OR.

AGENDA 
6. ACTION ITEMS
B. GMA Garnet Enterprise Zone Agreement
C. Jordan Cove Enterprise Zone Agreement
An Executive Session has also been scheduled on Tuesday, January 22, 2019, immediately after the Commission Meeting, in the Port’s Commission Chambers, at the same place.
(e) negotiate real property transactions;
(h) consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed;
(i) review and evaluate the job performance of a chief executive officer,
(j) carry on negotiations proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments.
 **********************************************************************
​

download the Port Commission meeting packet here:
https://www.portofcoosbay.com/port-commission ​

Related Posts:
Oregon Dept of State Lands Public Hearings for Jordan Cove Project in January
LTE ~ JCEP Expanding its Slick PR Campaign
Community Enhancement Plan Workgroup Meeting Thursday, December 06, 2018
Coos County Commissioners Approve Tax Free Living in Bay Area Enterprise Zone
Coos County Planning Approves Extension Request for LNG Natural Gas Pipeline
Coos County Regular Board Meeting Tues 9:30am Dec. 5, 2017 ~ LNG on Agenda
FERC Notice of EIS for JCEP Public Comments & Meetings ~ Coos Bay June 27, 2017
Coos County Grants One Year Extension Approval for LNG Pipeline for the JCEP
BOC ~ Notice of Deliberation on JCEP Tuesday August 16, 2016
Public Meeting for Coos County April 19 & North Bend April 26, 2016 on JCEP
Open Letter to the Coos County Board of Commissioners Concerning the JCEP
LTE ~ Leshley Don't Know Dick About the JCEP Work Camp
Jody McCaffree Appeals LNG Road Construction Coos County Planning Oct. 9, 2015
Do Enterprise Zones Work? ~ An Ideopolis Policy Paper February 2011
Educational Enterprise Zone Workshop Roseburg OR Thursday, September 17, 2015
Coos County Planning Decisions on LNG & Effected Roads

Hello Everyone,
After reading over the new draft of the "Smart Meter" ordinance it became obvious that it did not have an Opt-Out option, so this measure is a useless piece of legislation.  The people of Coos County will have to step up and speak out for the opt-out option for all residents.....Rob T.  

 Tuesday, January 15: 6:00 PM Hearing- Amending the Coos County Code to Promulgate Rules & Regulations Protecting County Citizens from Arbitrary and Excessive Utility Charges- Owen Building large conference room

Hello Randal,

Would you please look over the new Smart Meter ordinance from the county BOC.  They don't have it on the agenda, but that is a SM ordinance.  

However, the Board makes it for hardship cases and they get to set the criteria on what is a hardship case.  Please read it thoroughly.   
Sincerely,
Rob Taylor

Smart Meter OP ED

Smart Meters are data gathering and control endpoints of the Smart Grid. The Smart Grid was kicked into gear when the Federal Government passed the Stimulus Bill in Feb 2009 providing an 11 Billion Dollar financial motivation for what we see happening with Smart Meter Deployment nationwide.

​Propaganda of lowering power costs and improving the environment are false promises to hide the real objective of data collection, surveillance and control. Actually, the US Power Grid becomes more insecure with remote access and our environment is harmed by the substantial increase in RF Microwave transmissions. Smart Meters commonly utilize RF Microwave Frequencies similar to cell phones to provide 2 way communications with the utility. This not only puts individual customers at risk of hacking by Bad Actors, but also puts the whole power grid at risk because now your power can be cut remotely. Utilities tell you it is a good thing that your power can be disconnected remotely.

Smart Meters being remotely reprogrammable, having undisclosed capabilities, and completely out of our control, should scare every American who cares about security and safety for their home & family. Think 4th Amendment!

Smart Meters observe your power usage patterns during the day. This exposes activities like when you are home, when you sleep etc. When you consider that detailed data gathering does not benefit the customer at all; and yet makes tremendous profits for utilities and other agencies through Federal Grants and data sales to third parties, you start to see why the corporate leaning regulatory bodies like Oregon Public Utilities Commission are so dead set on forcing this invasive computerized technology on our homes. They levy completely illegal Opt Out Fees and yet are getting away with it in many US States, including Oregon.

Smart Meters do not save the consumer money! It only costs the consumer more and more! Computerized overbilling cannot be disputed successfully since there is no mechanical proof. Overbilling is common. Utility fees go Up and Up after deployment of Smart Meters. Then they will start Time-Of-Use to gouge you some more to keep your home warm or cool.

New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission rejected the Smart Meter Deployment with Opt Out Fees because it did not benefit the public in any way and all power company claimed benefits to customers were declared false. Smart Meters only cost the customer more with no benefits.

Why did Oregon Public Utilities Commissioners approve and New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commissioners reject? New Mexico has “Elected” Commissioners which held public “Hearings” in which public comments and submitted evidence is allowed and must be included in the record for consideration. Oregon has “Appointed” Commissioners who did not hold public “Hearings” on Pacific Power’s Smart Meter Deployment Application with Opt Out Fees. Oregon PUC only had “meetings” in which public testimony was not allowed. The lack of contrary evidence on the record makes the Oregon PUC feel emboldened to repeat Pacific Power’s lies as if they were true.

The US Supreme Court is the only way to reverse this travesty of citizens being forced to decide between their health, safety and privacy; or; having to pay Extortion Fees that many just cannot afford. US citizens that have removed their smart meter and replaced it with an analog meter, which is completely within their constitutional rights to protect their home with force if necessary, are being convicted of Tampering Laws. Tampering Laws were never enacted to allow a utility to force an invasive harmful device on our homes, and of which they have total control! This is completely in violation of our 4th Amendment Rights and must be the basis of the appeal to the US Supreme Court. The illegal Opt Out Fees that were used to force this invasion on Americans is plain and simple Mafia style Extortion.

Smart Meter OP ED

Although the Opt Out fees are Double Billing, this argument will not hold up legally because they can pass a new budget removing the double billing. That feeling you get in your gut when you know something is wrong, but you just cannot put your finger on it, is totally justified in this case. Reducing costs by eliminating meter readers is a smoke-screen and a lie! The costs to read Smart Meters many times exceeds the costs to read analog meters! To read customers power usage with a Smart Meter, they must install new meters, new antennas, new infrastructure, hire more new personnel than the meter readers they fired, maintain the smart grid infrastructure, etc.

Customers refusing smart meters are being charged Opt Out fees, Meter Reading Fees and Meter installation fees while customers who accept Smart Meters are not being charged additional costs necessary to read their meters, installation fees or any other smart grid expenses! The Oregon Public Utilities Commissioners are bound by Oregon Statutes to insure fair cost based rates to customers; they have violated the law!

We have covered the 2 main issues so far;
1. Our Constitutional Rights to Choice when it comes to our home and safety, were violated.
2. Illegal Extortionary means were utilized.

Additional risks of Smart Meters not presented into evidence at Oregon Public Utilities Commission meetings are numerous.

Exposure to RF Microwaves 24/7. Despite the thousands of studies clearly showing the harm of non-ionizing RF Microwave exposure, this technology is being forced on our homes without our informed consent, exposing us to high power RF Microwave pulses every few seconds, 10,000 to 190,000 times a day.

Smart Meter Fires due to internal failure. Utilities divert attention away from this extreme risk to life and property by blaming fires on Hot Sockets and faulty wiring, accepting no responsibility and providing no insurance for Smart Meters. Smart Meter fires are well documented and still happening. In the first 6 months of 2018 British Columbia had 60 Smart Meter fires. Analog Meters never catch on fire!

Citizens in the U.S. are supposed to be protected by the constitution. The Right to refuse this fire risk on our homes is being taken away! The financial hardship of Opt Out Fees is just too much for many and people were not informed of the dangers. There is purposeful deception & lying taking place which is depriving the public of critical information that directly affects their family’s safety!

What will they put inside these meters forced onto our homes next? 5G? More advanced spying and control technology? How can we Stop this Invasion on our homes?

Band every County and City in your state together in a class action law suit against your states Utility Commission! Educate your county commissioners and legal counsel. The combining of legal teams means no more running out of money to force this to the US Supreme Court.

Join with Josephine County Oregon in doing ordinances to stop smart meters. Force the US Supreme Court to Rule on Our Right to Refuse Computerized Technology being forced on our homes.

We must stand up and win this or our rights as Americans will be gone forever ! !

Randal Barrett,
​Advocate NoSmartMeter.org

​Laws binding on OPUC Commissioners:
756.040 General powers.
(1) In addition to the powers and duties now or hereafter transferred to or vested in the
Public Utility Commission, the commission shall represent the customers of any public utility or tele-communications utility and the public generally in all controversies respecting rates, valuations, service and all matters of which the commission has jurisdiction. In respect thereof the commission shall make use of the jurisdiction and powers of the office to protect such customers, and the public generally, from unjust and unreasonable exactions and practices and to obtain for them adequate service at fair and reasonable rates.
The commission shall balance the interests of the utility investor and the consumer in establishing fair and reasonable rates. Rates are fair and reasonable for the purposes of this subsection if the rates provide adequate revenue both for operating expenses of the public utility or telecommunications utility and for capital costs of the utility, with a return to the equity holder that is:
Laws Utilities are bound by:
757.020 Duty of utilities to furnish adequate and safe service at reasonable rates. Every public utility is required to furnish adequate and safe service, equipment and facilities, and the charges made by any public utility for any service rendered or to be rendered in connection therewith shall be reasonable and just, and every unjust or unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited.
757.210 Hearing to establish new schedules; alternative regulation plan.
(1)(a) Whenever any public utility files with the Public Utility Commission any rate or schedule of rates stating or establishing a new rate or schedule of rates or increasing an existing rate or schedule of rates, the commission may, either upon written complaint or upon the commission’s own initiative, after reasonable notice, conduct a hearing to determine whether the rate or schedule is fair, just and reasonable. The commission shall conduct the hearing upon written complaint filed by the utility, its customer or customers, or any other proper party within 60 days of the utility’s filing; provided that no hearing need be held if the particular rate change is the result of an automatic adjustment clause. At the hearing the utility shall bear the burden of showing that the rate or schedule of rates proposed to be established or increased or changed is fair, just and reasonable. The commission may not authorize a rate or schedule of rates that is not fair, just and reasonable.
(b) As used in this subsection, “automatic adjustment clause” means a provision of a rate schedule that provides for rate increases or decreases or both, without prior hearing, reflecting increases or decreases or both in costs incurred, taxes paid to units of government or revenues earned by a utility and that is subject to review by the commission at least once every two years. (2)(a) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to rate changes under an approved alternative form of regulation plan, including a resource rate plan under ORS 757.212.
(b) Any alternative form of regulation plan shall include provisions to ensure that the plan
operates in the interests of utility customers and the public generally and results in rates that
are just and reasonable and may include provisions establishing a reasonable range for rate of
return on investment. In approving a plan, the commission shall, at a minimum, consider
whether the plan:
(A)
Promotes increased efficiencies and cost control;
(B) Is consistent with least-cost resources acquisition policies;
(C) Yields rates that are consistent with those that would be obtained following application
of ORS 757.269;
(D) Is consistent with maintenance of safe, adequate and reliable service; and
(E) Is beneficial to utility customers generally, for example, by minimizing utility rates.
(c) As used in this subsection, “alternative form of regulation plan” means a
Plan adopted by the commission upon petition by
a public utility, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that sets rates and revenues and
a method for changes in rates and revenues using alternatives to cost-of-service rate
regulation.
(d) Prior to implementing a rate change under an alternative form of regulation plan, the
utility shall present a report that demonstrates the calculation of any proposed rate change at
a public meeting of the commission.
(3)
Except as provided in ORS 757.212, the commission, at any time, may order a utility to
appear and establish that any, or all, of its rates in a plan authorized under subsection (2) of
this section are in conformity with the plan and are just and reasonable. Except as provided
in ORS 757.212, such rates, and the alternative form of regulation plan under which the rates
are set, also shall be subject to complaint under ORS 756.500.
(4) Periodically, but not less often thanevery two years after the implementation of a plan
referred to in subsection (2) of this section, the commission shall submit a reportto the
Legislative Assembly that shows the Title 57 Page 28 (2015 Edition)
UTILITY REGULATION GENERALLY
757.212 impact of the plan on rates paid by utility customers.
(5)
The commission and staff may consult at any time with, and provide technical assistance to,
utilities, their customers, and other interested parties on matters relevant to utility rates and
charges. If a hearing is held with respect to a rate change, the commission’s decisions shall
be based on the record made at the hearing.
757.225 Utilities required to collect for their services in accordance with schedules.
No public utility shall charge, demand, collect or receive a greater or less compensation for
any service performed by it within the state, or for any service in connection therewith, than
is specified in printed rates schedules as may at the time be in force, or demand, collect or
receive any rate not specified in such schedule. The rates named therein are the lawful rates
until they are changed as provided in ORS 757.210 to 757.220.
757.227
Rate mitigation for certain electric company rate increases.
(1) As used in this section, “electric company” has the meaning given that term in ORS
757.600.
(2) The Public Utility Commission shall require that an electric company mitigate a rate
increase payable by a class of customers described in subsection (5) of this section if:
(a) The increase results from a transition to an electric company’s generally applicable costbased
rate from the rates established under the contracts described in subsection (5) of this
section; and
(b) The increase in the cost of electricity to that class of customers by reason of the transition
will exceed 50 percent during the first 12 calendar months after the transition occurs.
(3) The commission shall require an electric company to mitigate a rate increase under this
section by means of a schedule of rate credits for the class of customers described in
subsection (5) of this section. The rate credits provided by an electric company under the
schedule shall automatically decrease each year to the lowest credit necessary to avoid a rate
increase that is greater than 50 percent in any subsequent year. Rate credits under this section
may not be provided for more than seven years after the transition occurs.
(4) For the purpose of determining the increase in the cost of electricity to a class of
customers by reason of a transition described in subsection (2)(a) of this section,
the commission shall:
(a) Include the total charges for electricity service, including all special charges and credits
other than the rate credit provided under this section; and
(b) Exclude any local taxes or fees paid by the class of customers.
(5) This section applies only to customers of an electric company that purchase electricity at
metering points that before the transition described in subsection
(2)(a) of this section were eligible for rates that were set under contracts entered into before
1960 and remained unchanged throughout the period of the contract.
(6) The full cost of providing rate credits under this section shall be spread equally among all
other customers of the electric company.
[2005 c.594 §3]
757.355 Costs of property not presently providing utility service excluded from rate base;
exception.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a public utility may not, directly or
indirectly, by any device, charge, demand, collect or receive from any customer rates that
include the costs of construction, building, installation or real or personal property not
presently used for providing utility service to the customer.
(2)
The Public Utility Commission may allow rates for a water utility that include the costs of a
specific capital improvement if the water utility is required to use the additional revenues
solely for the purpose of completing the capital improvement.
757.755 Termination of residential electric or natural gas service prohibited; rules of
commission.
(1) The Public Utility Commission of Oregon shall establish rules to prohibit the termination
of residential electric or natural gas service when such termination would significantly
endanger the physical health of the residential consumer.
(2) The commission shall provide by rule a method for determining when the termination of
residential electric or natural gas service would significantly endanger the physical health of
the residential consumer.
CUB
774.020 Policy. The people of the State of Oregon hereby find that utility consumers need an
effective advocate to assure that public policies affecting the quality and price of utility services
reflect their needs and interests, that utility consumers have the right to form an organization
which will represent their interests before legislative, administrative and judicial bodies, and
that utility consumers need a convenient manner of contributing to the funding of such an
organization so that it can advocate forcefully and vigorously on their behalf concerning all
matters of public policy affecting their health, welfare and economic well-being.
[1985 c.1 §1]
774.030 Citizens’ Utility Board; powers.
(1) The Citizens’ Utility Board is hereby created as an independent nonprofit public corporation
and is authorized to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
(2) The Citizens’ Utility Board has perpetual succession and it may sue and be sued, and may in
its own name purchase and dispose of any interest in real and personal property, and shall have
such other powers as are granted to corporations by ORS 65.077. No part of its net earnings
shall inure to the benefit of any individual or member of the Citizens’ Utility Board.
(3) The Citizens’ Utility Board shall have all rights and powers necessary to represent and
protect the interests of utility consumers, including but not limited to the following powers:
(a) To conduct, fund or contract for research, studies, plans, investigations, demonstration
projects and surveys.
(b) To represent the interests of utility consumers before legislative, administrative and judicial
bodies.
(c) To accept grants, contributions and appropriations from any source, and to contract for
services.
(d) To adopt and modify bylaws governing the activities of the Citizens’ Utility Board.
[1985 c.1 §3; 1989 c.1010 §179]

Related Posts:
Coos County Commissioners Release Draft of "Smart Meter" Ordinance ​
NO Smart Meter Meeting NB Library Thursday November 1, 2018

​Soon the state legislature will be in session, and every person who owns a firearm will be in the sights of its members because they are beaming with new ideas in ways to disarm the citizens of Oregon. 
 
In 2015, the voters of Coos County overwhelmingly enacted the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance, which made national news and brought a great deal of attention to the issue. 
 
Since then eighteen other counties in OR had Chief Petitioners file a SAPO as an initiative in their county, and these people deserve gratitude for allowing themselves to become vulnerable to public scrutiny and taking on this controversial challenge.  It is not an easy job to approach your fellow citizen and ask them for their information.  
 
The county clerk for five of those Oregon counties rejected the SAPO initiative for circulation, two counties have those petitions still circulating, and the majority of voters in eight of those counties enacted the SAPO initiative in this past election. 
 
Unfortunately, the voters of two Oregon counties rejected the SAPO on the ballot essentially rejecting their own Second Amendment rights.  A citizen in another county decided to challenge the law in court, and they won the case against the ordinance.   
 
The challenge will not affect the enforcement of the SAPO in other counties. 
 
As a way to counter any future court cases, The Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment has drafted a new measure the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance.  Our attorneys believe it to be a much stronger statute and we plan to encourage citizens from every Oregon County to file the SASO as a new initiative for 2019. 
 
A chief petitioner has already filed in Coos County.  It is the first county in OR to have this new ordinance filed as an initiative.   Josephine County passed a similar law by a vote of their commissioners this past year, so they are the first official Second Amendment Sanctuary County in the state.  Our goal is to turn every county into a sanctuary for gun owners, and we plan to do it “one county at a time.”  
 
Why should counties with a Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance replace it with the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance?
 
Even though some legal experts agree it is a good law, there is a chance the courts could strike down the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance or (SAPO) because it authorizes the sheriff to determine whether a state or federal law violates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.  The county sheriff has a great deal of discretionary authority, and they have to choose every day which law they will and will not enforce for many different reasons, mostly budgetary.
 
The SAPO may go too far in conflating two branches of government.  The judicial branch of government is the one authorized to determine the constitutionality of the law while sheriffs are part of the executive branch of government, which enforces the law.  It goes to the separation of powers.  
 
Moreover, if the county sheriff does not believe in the rights ratified in the Second Amendment they can choose to go ahead and enforce federal and state firearm laws even though their county might have enacted a SAPO. 
 
The new measure, the SASO, eliminates the sheriff’s role as a determining factor, and it utilizes the anti-commandeering doctrine, which President James Madison writes about in Federalist paper #46.  The practice protects cities and counties from having to use their resources to uphold or cooperate with state and federal laws they find immoral or objectionable. 
 
The SASO imposes a directive on the county government not to aid, assist or dedicate any funds or personnel to uphold any state or federal laws concerning firearms or firearms accessories.  It is the same defense used by sanctuary cities to protect illegal aliens from federal enforcement, and even the wording is very similar. 
 
Any court that rules against the SASO on the basis a city or county cannot determine where their local government will spend their tax dollars would be ruling against enactments that establish sanctuaries for people who have violated federal immigration law because both of them utilize the same legal principle.  
 
The SASO has some limitations in its enforcement, as do most laws. 
 
It does not protect felons in possession of a firearm.  It does not allow people to carry guns in government buildings.  It does not stop state or federal agents from coming into the county to enforce laws regarding firearms or firearm accessories.  It does not prevent the police in the cities from enforcing these laws unless that municipality has passed a SASO of their own.  It does not keep private or retail sellers of firearms from running a background check, which all goes to show that even sanctuaries cannot escape the overreach of government.  
 
The SASO is not a silver bullet against all rules and regulations that violate the tenet of infringement. 
 
However, the SASO will prevent the sheriff and county officials from enforcing state and federal or any other extraterritorial laws concerning firearms and their accessories. It is a hedge against one level of local government, and it eliminates the highest law officer in the county and his deputies from participating in any enforcement operation by the state to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens.   It also sends a loud message echoing the phrase “shall not be infringed” to gun-grabbing legislators.
 
Anyone who would like to find out more info or to help us in our campaign should surf to our website www.SanctuaryOrdinance.com where you can volunteer, sign up for our newsletter, or donate to the campaign.  For all other inquires all interested parties can send an email to sanctuaryordinance@gmail.com. 
 
About the author:
Rob Taylor is a local activist from Coos County who serves as Chair of the Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment.   

To the citizens of Coos County:

Soon the state legislature will be in session, and every person who owns a firearm will be in the sights of its members because they are beaming with new ideas in ways to disarm the citizens of Oregon. 

To counter these attacks on our liberty, a couple of months ago I filed another measure called the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance and I finally got the SASO petition sheets approved to sign for Coos County residents.  Anyone who is a registered voter of Coos County can sign this petition. 

We are the first county in OR to have this new ordinance filed as an initiative.   Josephine County passed a similar law by a vote of their commissioners this past year, so they are the first official Second Amendment Sanctuary County in the state.  Our goal is to turn every county into a sanctuary for law-abiding gun owners, and we plan to do it “one county at a time.”  
 
Anyone who would like to find out more info or to help us in our campaign should surf to our website www.SanctuaryOrdinance.com where you can volunteer, sign up for our newsletter, or donate to the campaign.  For all other inquires all interested parties can send an email to sanctuaryordinance@gmail.com.   
Sincerely, Rob Taylor