Coos County Watchdog


  • Home >>>
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Links
    • Whistle-Blower’s Page
  • Blog >>>
    • Info Blogs
  • Issues >>>
    • Johnson Creek Dam
    • Jury Nullification >
      • Jury Nullification on Facebook
    • More Choices in Bandon
    • NO Bandon Marsh Expansion >
      • Bandon Marsh Expansion on Facebook
    • Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance >
      • S.A.S.O on FB
    • State of Jefferson >
      • State of Jefferson on Facebook
    • The Coos County Charter
    • Urban Renewal Information

Coos Bay Considers Eliminating Voter Approval for the Sale of Revenue Bonds

2/20/2018

Comments

 
Picture
On February 20, 2018, the Coos Bay City Council will be voting on a Resolution to put a measure on the May ballot that would add an amendment to change three sections of the city charter.  One of the changes would eliminate the ability of the voter to approve the sale of Revenue Bonds returning that authority to the city councilors to decide. 
 
The city officials are making the argument that the city should not have to ask the voters permission to sell Revenue Bonds because this type of bond has existing revenue sources to repay the debt, so it does not require the enactment of a new tax.  However, the city has to repay the debt with public money, so it is a tax nonetheless.    
 
The voters in 1996 chose to establish voter approval for the sale of certain bonds because the people knew the local politicians would continue to spend public money on wasteful projects with little regard for the concerns of the citizens.
 
The most disturbing thing about this agenda item is that the city recorder has already filled out and predated the SEL802 document that the city has to submit to the county clerk for a ballot measure.  It is almost as if the city officials already know how the council and mayor will vote before the meeting has occurred….Rob T. 

CITY OF COOS BAY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 20, 2018 - 7:00 PM
Council Chambers - 500 Central Avenue, Coos Bay, OR
 
Those changes will affect these sections of the city charter: 
(1) Section 4.1 Meeting requirements of the Council;
(2) Section 9.11 Funds for Police Officers and Firefighters;
(3) Section 9.12 Sales of Bonds and Warrants.
2018-02-23 CB Charter Aamendeent SEL802
File Size: 38 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2018-02-20 CB Resolution 18-06 Charter Amendment
File Size: 176 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2018-02-20 CB Charter Aamendment
File Size: 116 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2018-02-20 CB Agenda Item 15 Proposed Charter Amendment
File Size: 153 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Background:

On February 18, 2017, the Council held a work session to discuss priorities for 2017-2019. The work session was facilitated by consultants from Solid Ground Consulting. Based on a consensus of the Council, priorities were categorized into five areas: (1) Wastewater; (2) Street Maintenance; (3) Library facility; (4) Economic Development; and (5) City Charter. On April 4, 2017, the Council approved the attached goals which included possible amendments to the City Charter. 
  • Section 4.1 of the Charter requires in part that the "...Council shall hold a regular meeting at least twice each month..." Currently the Council meets and has traditionally met on the 1st and 3rd Tuesdays evening of each month for their "regular meetings." There have been times when such regular meetings were not necessary and where the business of the Council could have been conducted during one monthly meeting rather than in two. The following is the proposed amended Section 4.1 language in its entirety: Section 4.1 Meetings. The Council shall hold regular meetings as the business of the City requires, at a time and at a place in the City which it designates and may adopt rules for the government of its members and proceedings. The mayor, manager, or three members of the Council may, by giving notice to all members of the Council then in the City, call a special meeting of the Council.
  • The City Charter was amended by the voters in 1988 by adding Section 9.11 Funds for Police Officer and Firefighters. Section 9.11 requires mandatory minimum staffing for public safety personnel. Under Oregon's current taxing structure the City is unable to and has been unable for more than a decade to fund all of the required positions. Section 9.11 was deemed unconstitutional in 2003. As the language is not enforceable and unattainable, it should be deleted from the City Charter.
  •  The Charter was amended in 1996 by adding Section 9.12 of the Charter precludes the City from the selling of all bonds or warrant without an approval of the voters. The intent of the Charter amendment was to stop the Coos Bay Urban Renewal Agency from issuing bonds to undertake for a library expansion project. While the voters approved the ballot measure which precluded the City from issuing bonds and warrants, it was not and is not legally binding on the Coos Bay Urban Renewal Agency which under Oregon law is a separate corporate political entity.
Most cities find it necessary to borrow money from time to time (e.g., to buy a fire truck or build a new wastewater treatment plant). Oregon cities can borrow money in a wide variety of ways and from a variety of sources. The choices a city makes in how to borrow can have a significant effect on the cost of the borrowing and the speed at which the borrowing can be done. A city might be able to borrow money for a project from a state agency, from a commercial bank, or through an underwriter who will sell the city’s bonds in the public securities markets. That city might be able to use general obligation bonds, full faith and credit loans, notes or revenue bonds to finance the project. Market conditions can change, and a method of financing that was ideal for one city project may be inappropriate for another project.

For many borrowings, an Oregon city can choose to do any of the following kinds of borrowings:

  • GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS pledge the "full faith and credit" of the city, and permit the city to levy an additional property tax that is sufficient to pay the bonds. Because these bonds are secured by this additional property tax, voter approval is required. General obligation bonds are usually the most secure form of borrowing available to a city, and therefore usually have the lowest cost.
  • REVENUE BONDS are secured by a pledge of a specific revenue source or tax source, typically do not require voter approval and are usually subject to referral. The interest rates and other costs of revenue bonds are usually higher than for general obligation bonds, and depend greatly on the type of revenues that are pledged to pay the bonds.
  • Local improvement district or "Bancroft" bonds are bonds that are issued to finance the costs of local improvements that are assessed against neighboring property. Assessed property owners are entitled to pay the assessment, with interest, over at least ten years. Cities use those payments to pay the local improvement district bonds.
  • CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION (sometimes referred to as COPs) on which annual debt service payments are subject to annual appropriation. Borrowings that are subject to appropriation usually have higher interest rates than borrowings that are not. Recent changes in Oregon law allow most cities to do general fund obligations, and certificates of participation have become relatively uncommon.
  • GENERAL FUND OBLIGATIONS, OR LIMITED TAX OBLIGATIONS, which are similar to COPs but are a binding obligation payable from all resources of the general fund rather than to annual appropriation. Some city charters do not permit this kind of borrowing.
  • LOAN AGREEMENTS are often used when a city borrows from a bank.
 

Since the inclusion of Section 9.12, the City has secured funding (loans) from federal and state agencies, from banks, and by the sale of bonds (approved by the voters for the building and equipping of the Fire Station). Given that the time process involved in securing voter approval for revenue bonds combined with the reality that the financial market is in constant flux, the City has chosen not to avail itself to this funding possibility. As is stated above, revenue bonds do not typically require approval of the voters as cities have existing revenue sources to repay the debt (doesn't require enactment of a new tax). While revenue bonds generally don't require voter approval, they are generally subject to referral to the voters through the referral process.

As Section 9.12, as currently worded limits financing options, staff recommends amending the language. Financing options, such as GO Bonds and other bonds which require the implementation of an additional tax should require voter approval. Amending the language would provide the City greater flexibility, without the ability to impose additional taxes, for financing the business of the City.

In addition, the City Attorney had reviewed the current City Charter and is suggesting that the Council consider additional amendments which would remove langue referencing consolidation and consolidation continuances.

The follow Section is part of the new amendment giving the councilors of CB the authority to create more debt in the name of the taxpayers.
 
 Section 2.4 Utilities. The City, acting by and through its Council, is authorized and empowered to acquire, construct, purchase, own, lease, operate and maintain, within, without, or partly within and without the corporate limits of the City, public utilities and other public utilities and other public enterprises and properties which may be deemed by the Council to be in the public interest, including, but not limited to, airport, roadway, dock, wharf, sewer, and water system facilities; and the Council may, by ordinance, authorize the issuance and sale of self-liquidating revenue bonds and self-liquidating notes or contracts payable only from the pledged revenues of public utilities, enterprises and properties for the acquisition, purchase, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension or repair of any such utility, enterprise or property or any part thereof; provided that such obligations, and any part thereof, shall not be payable from taxes or general fund revenues and shall not be deemed general obligations of the City unless specifically authorized at election of the legal voters of the City, nor shall such self-liquidating obligations be debts of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory or charter limitations.
Related Posts:
Coos Bay Pays Around $406,000 to Repair Mingus Park Pool
Coos County Public Hearing on Extending the Urban Renewal Tax Debt Dec. 13, 2017
The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal
Coos Bay URA Spends $300,000 on North-South Gateway While Streets Deteriorate
Coos Bay Street Action Plan Open House Thursday, June 8, 2017, 5:30pm
Coos Bay Legally Steals from Average Citizens to Decorate a Private Business
Coos Bay Taking from the Poor to Give to the Privileged Using Urban Renewal
Coos Bay Gives $97,000 of Public Money to the Local Drama Club
Coos Bay Redistributing Money to Owners of Historical Places
Coos Bay Giving Away Public Money to a Private Business Using Urban Renewal
CATO Policy Analysis #676 ~ The Case Against Tax-Increment Financing
Public Comment Due BY December 1, 2017 on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
The Continuing Saga of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Coos County Board of Commissioners FINAL VOTE on Extending the URA Debt
Information on the Campaign to Shut Down the North Bay URA
Coos County Proposed Ordinance Adopting North Bay UR Plan ~ FOREVER
Coos County Commissioners Hearing on Extending the Debt of the North Bay URA
Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension  
PERS Task Force Recommends Exempting School Districts from Urban Renewal
List of Coos Bay’s Urban Renewal Expenditures from 2006 - 2012
LTE ~ Coos Bay Urban Renewal Giving Away Public Assets Paid for by The Public
#CoosBay Urban Renewal Monies Siphoned from Public Basic Services 
Port of #CoosBay Blowing Through Your Tax Dollars Like Drunken Sailors 
Commissioners Campaign Contributors are Champions of Corporate Welfare

Comments

LTE ~ It's Time to Change the Narrative About School Shootings

2/19/2018

Comments

 
Picture
Submitted by Chris Brumbles

It’s time to change the narrative.

  I recently read an article about school shootings that made a whole lot of sense. Anti-Gunners seem to foam at the mouth in anticipation of the next tragic school shooting to happen so that they can walk on the graves of dead children. Ideological and political gains seem to be their only concern. They don’t even give the parents and friends of the slain a moment to breath or grieve, and then it stays on the news until the next tragedy. This of course is because they rely on feelings instead of logic as to push their agenda of stealing what is not theirs to take…your RIGHTS.

  In this article I read, the author makes a good point; public schools are dangerous. How many private schools or charter schools do these shootings happen in? None. Public schools are dangerous to our children and dangerous to our country, as they push UN American propaganda and indoctrination as well as being magnets for psychopaths because of their status as Gun Free zones (Also pushed by those who know what’s better for you). All of these school shootings, bombings, etc., were perpetrated by people attending, who graduated from, or were expelled from public schools. Guess what… there is no gang violence in charter or private schools either.

  Maybe it’s time for the would be tyrants to stop the constant attack on our Unalienable RIGHTS and honestly think about what is fact. I know that fact is a four letter word to the ones who worship at the temple of unlimited Government and control, but maybe it’s time for us to change the narrative. Ten years of constant RIGHTS bashing is getting tired, weak, and has accomplished nothing but to steal Rights from law abiding citizens and to grow the Leviathan of the control freaks. Maybe it’s time to get rid of public schools and actually start teaching our kids morals and life skills again as well as making them safer. Until then, let’s train and arm teachers who want to be armed so that psychopaths can’t walk down the hall picking their targets. Good luck getting any of this past the entitled, entrenched Unions…then how would they extort more money every year while lowering results?
 
In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation
Founder Irregulars 3%



Stossel: Saving Kids From Government Schools
https://reason.com/reasontv/2018/01/23/stossel-saving-kids-from-government-scho

Gary North: Public School Control Now!
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/gary-north/public-school-control-now/

The World:  Online schools provide safe educations
http://theworldlink.com/news/local/education/online-schools-provide-safe-educations/article_34c0db3d-7984-53ae-bef5-a3bc9b348ece.html

Related Posts:
LTE ~ Free Speech is what the Editor says it is at the Chronicle
Absolutely NO on 101, no more theft.
LTE ~ Elvis, The Bundy's, and the Bureau of Land Management
LTE ~ School Tax Sacrifices Property Owners
LTE ~ Try Convincing Seniors to Vote for Public School Failure
LTE ~ Coos Bay Low Ranking Public Schools Vestiges of a Failed System
LTE ~ School Bond is NOT About Education
LTE ~ Study History, Robert E. Lee One Honorable Man
LTE ~ Not My Governor

LTE ~ Participation Trophies for All the Spoiled Brats
LTE ~ Election Reflections & the Legislative Session
LTE ~ Open Letter to Mayor and Councilors of Coos Bay on Wastewater Treatment
LTE ~ Colombia County Approves Second Amendment Preservation Petition
LTE ~ Occasionally the Righteous can Still Win
LTE ~ Rigging Elections Using Three Proven Mechanisms


Comments

Press Release - Bill to Limit Regional Closures of Crab Harvest Due to Domoic Acid

2/19/2018

Comments

 
Picture
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Sunday, February 18, 2018 
CONTACT:  Shelia Megson   
Chief of Staff 
503-986-1401   
Shelia.Megson@oregonlegislature.gov                           

Click Here for the Bill                                                

SALEM – A bipartisan bicameral piece of legislation; introduced and Chief Sponsored by Senator Roblan (D-Coos Bay) and Representative David Brock Smith (R-Port Orford) looks to better track crab and other marine base food susceptible to domoic acid and other food related issues that could pose a threat to human consumption.

“We have an ever-increasing frequency of domoic acid test results that have a negative impact on our coastal industries,” said Senator Roblan. “This is evident in the delay of this year’s crab season, as well as the recent closure on Friday due to high levels of domoic acid found in Brookings,” he said. “We have been working with our industries and agencies to come up with a better solution to protect our consumers, without having such a wide impact on our producers”.

SB 1550 looks to the location of the seafood caught and if a problem is discovered in one location, product data can be tracked to check nearby locations for a similar issue. If one is not found, area closures can be isolated and much smaller rather than have larger, regional closures like the current crab harvest closure that occurred last week from Cape Blanco to the border.

“Our crab fishers are struggling and so are their families,” said Representative David Brock Smith, whose District is affected by the recent closure. “With the delay in opening of the Crab Season due to elevated levels of domoic acid, and now the regional closure off southwest Oregon, our fishers are being hit extremely hard and this bill couldn’t come soon enough for them,” said Brock Smith. “This tracking and data collection will help isolate the affected areas and allow more certainty to ODA on localized closures,” he said. “This legislation will also allow for more flexibility in evisceration orders, while keeping the public safe and helping our fishing industries continue to be successful.”
SB 1550 is expected to pass the Senate Floor on Monday and move to Representative David Brock Smith’s House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on Wednesday to be worked on his side of the Capitol.   

Rep. David Brock Smith represents House District 1, which includes Curry, Coos, Douglas and Josephine counties. This press release and an archive of previous press releases issued by Rep. David Brock Smith’s office are available on the web at: www.oregonlegislature.gov/smithd.

Related Posts:
ODFW ~ Commercial Crab from South Coast Must be Eviscerated to Protect Public
ODFW ~ Meeting to Discuss Coos Mountain TMA Public Trails November 30, 2017
ODFW ~ Crab Harvesting Reopens on a Portion of Oregon Coast
ODFW ~ Commercial Dungeness crab season delayed
ODFW ~ Entire Oregon Coast Reopened for Mussel Harvesting
ODFW ~ "Pounder" trout stocked in Coos Bay area Lakes
ODFW ~ One Species on the Verge of Causing the Extinction of Another Species
NOAA Antibusiness Plan for Coquille River ~ Public Private Property Partnership
ODFW ~ Commercial Crabbing Closed From Coos Bay North Jetty to Heceta Head
ODFW seeks Landowner Representatives for Access & Habitat Program – by Jan. 30
OR State Land Board Public Meeting December 13, 2016 ~ Sell the Elliot Forest
ODFW ~ Deer virus confirmed in Coos County
ODFW ~ Hosts Town Hall On Proposed 2017-19 budget North Bend May 4, 2016
ODFW ~ Commission Meeting in Bandon Friday April 22, 2016
ODFW ~ Harassing Cormorant to Protect Salman but Still a Crime for the People
ODFW ~ Public Meeting Coquille Valley Wildlife Area Discussion Wed. March 2, 2016

Comments

ODFW ~ Commercial Crab from South Coast Must be Eviscerated to Protect Public

2/16/2018

Comments

 
Picture
Commercial crab from south coast must be eviscerated to protect public health
February 16, 2018


SALEM, Ore.—The Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have announced the establishment of a biotoxin management zone from Cape Blanco to the California-Oregon border, effective immediately. To protect consumers, all crab landed from this area must have the viscera (guts) removed by a licensed processor.

Dungeness crab internal organs (viscera) sampled from the area have biotoxins above the alert level, indicating that crab harvested from the biotoxin management zone must be eviscerated (gutted) before it is safe for consumption. Traceability measures that were put in place at the start of the season (Dec. 1, 2017) will be used to ensure that whole crab are eviscerated.

Crab meat remains safe for consumers who purchase it in retail markets or at restaurants. Domoic acid levels are elevated only in crab viscera, or the guts, of crab sampled and tested from this area of the Oregon coast.
Because of Oregon’s precautionary management of biotoxins, crab and shellfish products currently being sold in retail markets and restaurants are also safe for consumers.

ODA and ODFW will continue monitoring biotoxins in crab and shellfish to ensure that the concentrations of harvested products from all of Oregon remain below the alert level.

Domoic acid is a naturally occurring biotoxin produced by marine phytoplankton or algae that grow and bloom during certain seasons. When the algae are in high numbers, the biotoxin they produce is eaten and concentrated by crabs and other species.

Eating shellfish that is contaminated with domoic acid can cause illness in humans within minutes to hours resulting in cramping, vomiting, and diarrhea. In severe cases, consumption can result in memory problems or even death. The toxin cannot be destroyed by cooking, adding baking soda, or any other method. Anyone experiencing these symptoms after eating seafood should contact a physician immediately.

Fortunately for crab consumers, the majority of domoic acid resides in the internal organs– not the meat– and is effectively removed through “evisceration” (also known as “backing”) of the crab, to remove the internal organs. For this reason, it is recommended that crab always be eviscerated prior to cooking, which includes removal and discard of the internal organs and gills.

For more information, call ODA’s shellfish safety information hotline at (800) 448-2474 or visit the ODA shellfish closures web page at: http://ODA.direct/ShellfishClosures

For notices to the commercial crabbing industry visit ODFW commercial crabbing webpage at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/shellfish/commercial/crab/news_publications.asp
###
Contact:
Rick Swart (971) 673-6038

Recreational crabbing closed along southern Oregon coast

February 16, 2018

SALEM, Ore.--The Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife announce the immediate closure of all recreational crabbing on the southern Oregon coast from Cape Blanco to the California border due to elevated levels of domoic acid. This includes Dungeness and red rock crab harvested from the ocean as well as in bays and estuaries, and on beaches, docks, piers, and jetties.

Recreational crab harvesting from Cape Blanco north to the Columbia River remains open in the ocean, bays and estuaries, and on beaches, docks, piers, and jetties.

Meanwhile, for commercial crabbing, ODA and ODFW are requiring that all crab harvested from Cape Blanco to the California border be eviscerated (gutted) before it can be deemed safe for consumption. Domoic acid levels are elevated only in crab viscera, or the guts, of crab sampled and tested from this area of the Oregon coast.

For recreational crab harvesters, it is recommended that crab always be eviscerated prior to cooking, which includes removal and discard of the viscera, internal organs, and gills.

Because of Oregon’s precautionary management of biotoxins, crab and shellfish products currently being sold in retail markets and restaurants are safe for consumers.

Domoic acid or amnesic shellfish toxin can cause minor to severe illness and even death. Severe poisoning can result in dizziness, headaches, vomiting and diarrhea. More severe cases can result in memory loss and death. Shellfish toxins are produced by microscopic algae and originate in the ocean. Toxins cannot be removed by cooking, freezing or any other treatment. ODA will continue to test for toxins in the coming weeks. Removal of the advisory requires two consecutive tests in the safe range.

For more information, call ODA’s shellfish safety information hotline at (800) 448-2474 or visit the ODA shellfish closures webpage at http://ODA.direct/ShellfishClosures
###
Contact:
Rick Swart (971) 673-6038
Related Posts:
ODFW ~ Meeting to Discuss Coos Mountain TMA Public Trails November 30, 2017
ODFW ~ Crab Harvesting Reopens on a Portion of Oregon Coast
ODFW ~ Commercial Dungeness crab season delayed
ODFW ~ Entire Oregon Coast Reopened for Mussel Harvesting
ODFW ~ "Pounder" trout stocked in Coos Bay area Lakes
ODFW ~ One Species on the Verge of Causing the Extinction of Another Species
NOAA Antibusiness Plan for Coquille River ~ Public Private Property Partnership
ODFW ~ Commercial Crabbing Closed From Coos Bay North Jetty to Heceta Head
ODFW seeks Landowner Representatives for Access & Habitat Program – by Jan. 30
OR State Land Board Public Meeting December 13, 2016 ~ Sell the Elliot Forest
ODFW ~ Deer virus confirmed in Coos County
ODFW ~ Hosts Town Hall On Proposed 2017-19 budget North Bend May 4, 2016
ODFW ~ Commission Meeting in Bandon Friday April 22, 2016
ODFW ~ Harassing Cormorant to Protect Salman but Still a Crime for the People
ODFW ~ Public Meeting Coquille Valley Wildlife Area Discussion Wed. March 2, 2016

Comments

LTE ~ Free Speech is what the Editor says it is at the Chronicle

2/16/2018

Comments

 
Picture
Submitted by Chris Brumbles

Free Speech is what the Editor says it is at the Chronicle

 
Recently I submitted an Op-Ed to the Chronicle in St Helens. I was informed that they were going to censor part of the story because it violated their “Civility Policy”, (there is no civility in politics). I had them pull the story rather than submit to censorship. Every other paper that I submitted the article to had no problem and published it. In the past few months, getting an Op-Ed or LTE published with the Chronicle has been like pulling teeth. Most recently they’ve cut my title of Oregon Firearm Federation coordinator and Founder of Irregulars 3% from the signature section.

 
I went to the Chronicle and met with the Editor/Publisher, Frank Perea and asked why he was going to censor my article. At first I got the excuse that the Chronicle is a “family paper”, (as opposed to what), and later he admitted that he didn’t “feel” that my attack on the governor was appropriate for his readers. I responded that I had not used profanity, and reminded him  that the 1st amendment protects unpopular speech,…popular speech doesn’t need protection. I added that as a publisher he should embrace free speech as it is his livelihood. I explained that I had written harsher things in the past that had been published, that the left seems to be able to write whatever they want and even ignore word count, but none of this seemed to faze Frank.


  So what was it that Irked Frank? I wrote that the Governor is a “Neo Marxist Post Modern Communist”, and told Frank that I could prove it; Frank then said OK, prove it and I’ll print the article. This was very strange to me because I had been told that I violated the civility policy and later that Frank didn’t “feel” my material was appropriate…so if I Prove that what I said was true, (in an opinion piece), the civility policy no longer matters and all of a sudden it becomes appropriate?! I have decided not to waste my time educating Frank on Kate Browns policies and economics as, I am sure that no amount of information would convince someone who would practice censorship in the first place, and is most likely bigoted by ideological bias.

  Kate Brown is a state employee at a high position that affects our State, our lives, and the lives of our posterity. It is not only our Right to challenge her positions and ideology, but our duty as her employers. We the People are duty bound to resist the tyranny going on in Salem and cannot allow censorship in this county or elsewhere. Kate Brown is destroying this state, pushing job and Rights killing agenda 21/30 policies, elevating illegal invaders to above the law status, pandering to the Unions and other cronies, acting as a community organizer using identity politics, alienating most of the counties in Oregon, taxing us to death, legislating away our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS just to scratch the surface. Where’s the civility in that Frank?

  Before I left Franks office I informed him that I would let everyone in the state know that the Chronicle practices Censorship…he said OK. Please join me in spreading the word and let’s put an end to this practice in our county. Censorship is not OK. Let Frank know how you feel.

Frank Perea, Editor/Publisher of the St Helens Chronicle chroniclenews@countrymedia.net 503-397-0116
Steve Hungerford Pres. And principle shareholder Country Media inc. Corp. Headquarters 308-635-4093
In Liberty,

Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation
Founder Irregulars 3%


Comments

Coos Bay & North Bend Pass Resolution Approving Changes to North Bay UR Plan

2/14/2018

Comments

 
Picture
The cities of Coos Bay and North Bend have approved the changes that the county commissioners made to the North Bay Urban Renewal Plan and now it goes back to the county for final approval by the Board of Commissioners.  
 
The county’s attorney will add the plan to a county ordinance as exhibit A, so the board can place it on the agenda for an upcoming meeting.  Stay tuned….Rob T.  

Here are the files related to the CCURA North Bay District Plan:

2018-02-06 Resolution 18-03 North Bay UR Plan Amendment
File Size: 11 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2018-02-06 Resolution 18-03 Exhibit A CCURA North Bay District Plan
File Size: 2542 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Related Posts:
Board of Commissioners Postpones Vote on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Update on The Campaign to Shut Down the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Public Comment Due BY December 1, 2017 on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
The Continuing Saga of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Coos County Board of Commissioners FINAL VOTE on Extending the URA Debt
Information on the Campaign to Shut Down the North Bay URA
Coos County Proposed Ordinance Adopting North Bay UR Plan ~ FOREVER
Coos County Commissioners Hearing on Extending the Debt of the North Bay URA
Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension  
PERS Task Force Recommends Exempting School Districts from Urban Renewal
List of Coos Bay’s Urban Renewal Expenditures from 2006 - 2012
LTE ~ Coos Bay Urban Renewal Giving Away Public Assets Paid for by The Public
#CoosBay Urban Renewal Monies Siphoned from Public Basic Services 
Port of #CoosBay Blowing Through Your Tax Dollars Like Drunken Sailors 
Commissioners Campaign Contributors are Champions of Corporate Welfare
Coos County Public Hearing on Extending the Urban Renewal Tax Debt Dec. 13, 2017
The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal
Coos Bay URA Spends $300,000 on North-South Gateway While Streets Deteriorate
Coos Bay Street Action Plan Open House Thursday, June 8, 2017, 5:30pm
Coos Bay Legally Steals from Average Citizens to Decorate a Private Business
Coos Bay Taking from the Poor to Give to the Privileged Using Urban Renewal
Coos Bay Gives $97,000 of Public Money to the Local Drama Club
Coos Bay Redistributing Money to Owners of Historical Places
Coos Bay Giving Away Public Money to a Private Business Using Urban Renewal
CATO Policy Analysis #676 ~ The Case Against Tax-Increment Financing

Comments

Coos Bay Pays Around $406,000 to Repair Mingus Park Pool

2/10/2018

Comments

 
PictureNot an actual picture of Mingus Pool!!!
The City of Coos Bay had to do a necessary repair on the Mingus Park Pool, which will end up costing the city approximately $406,000.   The taxpayers of Bandon were very wise to vote down a public pool when their city put the question on the ballot, because they saved themselves a huge expense.  
 
During the development, the city planners of CB surmised that people living in the surrounding area would travel to CB to swim in their public pool.  The residents of Bandon were part of those statistics, because the city did not have a public pool at the time, and that holds true through today.   A pool in Bandon would be a financial loss for the pool in Mingus Park, because it takes more customers to support that pool than are available in the entire city of Coos Bay and they knew this when it was built.  North Bend made those same estimations when their city constructed the NB public pool.  
 
Each new public pool in Coos County draws revenue from all previously constructed pools, so at some point these projects will over saturate the county costing the taxpayers millions.  The people from the cities without pools have to except the reality of the situation and reside in the fact they will have to travel to do their swimming……Rob T.

The following information is from official city documents and public inquiries

From: Rob Taylor
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 2:31 PM
To: Susanne Baker
Subject: Official Inquiry on Mingus Park Pool

Hello,
The following is an inquiry on the city council meeting for January 23, 2018 about the Mingus Park Pool, Agenda Item 2.E.   
The item is in the attachment.  
What was the total cost of the repair project? 
From: Jim Hossley <JHossley@coosbay.org>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 11:00 AM
To: Susanne Baker; Rob Taylor
Subject: RE: Official Inquiry on Mingus Park Pool

Mr. Taylor:
Thanks for your inquiry.  The total cost of the Mingus Pool project is $406,704.04.  Staff requested authorization to spend up to $408,000 in case another invoice from the project plumber or electrician was to come in late.  The $406,704.04 amount includes $276,000 paid to Anderson to provide the equipment.  Anderson was not used to perform any of the other work or items they bid on (shown in the list of values you provided below).  Plumbing and electrical materials and work were provided by local plumbing and electrical firms.  Their costs are also included in the total Mingus Pool project cost, as are equipment rental and other minor work provided by other firms.

I trust this answers your questions.
Regards,  
Jim Hossley
Public Works and Community Development Director
City of Coos Bay
From: Rob Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 11:32 AM
To: Jim Hossley <JHossley@coosbay.org>
Subject: Re: Official Inquiry on Mingus Park Pool

The funding for the current project for Mingus Park Pool is coming from the Parks Improvement Fund and The Major Capital Fund, and I know how the city spends the Parks Improvement Fund. 
 
However, what is the purpose of the Major Capital Fund?
Hi Rob: 
I answered your questions below in red.
Regards,
Jim Hossley
Public Works and Community Development Director
City of Coos Bay

 Revenue for this fund comes from sale of timber on City property and grants for capital projects.  The fund is used to pay for making purchases of heavy equipment, rolling stock, and major repairs to City owned facilities.
 
How much does it cost annually to operate and maintain the Mingus Park Pool? The City does not operate the pool, a non-profit organization manages the day-to-day operations.  They charge fees to swimmers, swim teams, and for tournaments. They provide basic management services, operation, maintenance, and life guard services for the pool.  The City pays utility costs, which includes heating the pool, minor maintenance repairs, and the City pays chemical costs.  This fiscal year $91,000 is budgeted for the City’s portion of “Pool Operations” which is a single budget line item within the City’s General Fund Parks budget.  Through the first six months of the fiscal year the City has spent $23,243 on pool operations.   I do not know the pool management organization’s revenues and expenditures.
 
Is this current project just a repair or is it part of regular maintenance? This project is a repair and refurbishment of the pool mechanical system and not part of regular maintenance.

 
Would you be able to send me the pool budget from the last FYE? Last FYE 2017, the “Pool Operations” budgeted amount was $70,000.   Actual cost was $72,413.  
 
Thank you for all your help and I hope to use this info for the benefit of both cities and especially the tax payer.   
Jim Hossley
Public Works and Community Development Director
City of Coos Bay

CITY OF COOS BAY JOINT CITY COUNCIL / URA WORK SESSION
Agenda Staff Report
This item was previously discussed at Joint URA/Council Worksession on 7/25/2017
MEETING DATE December 12, 2017
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.b.

TO:  Mayor Benetti and City Councilors
FROM:  Randy Dixon, Operations Administrator
THROUGH:  Rodger Craddock, City Manager
ISSUE:  Request for Additional Funding - Mingus Pool Project
 
SUMMARY: Mingus pool mechanical rehabilitation project is completed. The improvements made to the facility will allow the community many more years of pleasure, and it will allow efficient operation! Anderson Pool Works supplied mechanical equipment, and City staff and service contractors provided the labor for the project. The plumbing portion was estimated to be around $6,500, (T&M) time and material; however, there were a few design changes to the plumbing configuration that affected plumbing cost. The actual plumbing cost came in at $23,869.61. At the August 1, 2017 Council meeting, Jim Hossley requested the project budget not to exceed $328,350.00 including 10% contingency. Given the change order for the pluming portion of the project, the actual overall cost of the project is $347,451.27.
 
ACTION REQUESTED: If it please the Council, revise the Mingus Pool mechanical project budget not to exceed $347,451.27 which includes the additional plumbing expenses.
 
BACKGROUND: April 2016, the City applied for a Government Grant (LGGP) through Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to improve Mingus Park Community Pool.  September 2015, the City was informed by Oregon Parks and Recreation Department that the City was awarded the LGGP 40/60 grant for a total grant amount of $371,770.00. The project was broken into two phase; Phase 1.) Dressing/Restroom Rehab. Phase 2.) Mechanical Operations Rehab. Last year the dressing/restroom were rehabilitated which cost $96,601.67 of the $371,770 which left $221,774 for Phase 2.
 
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The City will be partially reimbursed for this project from Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Program and the Energy Trust of Oregon. Matching funds come from in-kind labor and equipment plus cash from Fund 17 Parks Improvement.

CITY OF COOS BAY CITY COUNCIL Agenda Staff Report
This item was previously discussed at
Joint URA/Coucil Worksession on 1/23/2018

MEETING DATE February 6, 2018
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9.

TO:  Mayor Benetti and City Councilors
FROM:  Randy Dixon, Operations Administrator
THROUGH:  Rodger Craddock, City Manager
ISSUE: 
Request Additional Spending Authority for the Mingus Pool Repair Project
SUMMARY: Staff presented to the Council on December 19, 2017 a staff report regarding expenses on the Mingus Pool Project, which at that time, we had thought all material invoices were accounted for. Not so, All Coast Plumbing who is the City service contractor for plumbing did not turn in all the material invoices. The actual plumbing cost T&M (time and material) came in at $63,938.43. It should be noted, Anderson Pool Works bid the plumbing portion for $406,000. Below is breakdown of bid items by Anderson Pool Works on the project before the City self-performed the project. The City accepted bids to rehab the Mingus Pool facility, and we received one bid: $890,650 from Anderson Pool Works. Once the City received only one bid, which was 60% over budget, staff recommended to self-perform using City labor and service contractors plumbing & electrical. Council approved of self-performing the work; therefore, staff requested T&M estimates from service contractors. However, staff only received labor cost not material. Service contractors thought the City was supplying material, so they never provided those cost to the City. This was not realized until about 40% into the project. In an effort to prevent this from ever happening again clear communication and understanding with our service contractors will be established to ensure we have accurate labor and material cost. Additionally, due to the unknowns associated with most of our self-perform projects, project budgets will be crafted to include total cost including 25% contingency.
On December 19, 2017, Council approved project cost of up to $385,000; however, the project is over that amount by $21,704.04. We will need to be adjusted from $385,000, not to exceed $408,000.
 
ANDERSON POOL BID: Equipment Cost: $276,000 Building Mech: $102,000 Pool Plumbing Mech: $406,000 Pool Shell: $106,650 Total Bid Cost: $890,650
 
SELF PERFORM: $406,704.04 OPRD Grant: <$163,728.93> City Out Pocket Cost: $242,975.11 The City will also be reimbursed by the Energy Trust of Oregon. At this time staff expects the reimbursement to exceed $10,000.
 
ACTION REQUESTED: If it please the Council, revise the Mingus Pool mechanical project budget not to exceed $408,000. BACKGROUND: April 2015, the City applied for a Government Grant (LGGP) through Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to improve Mingus Park Community Pool. September 2015, the City was informed by Oregon Parks and Recreation Department that the City was awarded the LGGP 40/60 grant for a total grant and City match amount of $371,770.00. The project was broken into two phase. Phase 1.) Dressing/Restroom Rehab. Phase 2.) Mechanical Operations Rehab. Last year the dressing/restroom was rehabilitated which cost $96,601.67 which left grant funds of approximately $164,000 for Phase 2.
 
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The City will be partially reimbursed for this project from Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Program and the Energy Trust of Oregon. Matching funds come from in-kind labor and equipment plus cash from Fund 17 Parks Improvement and Fund 34 Major Capital Reserve.The project would need additional Council approval for a total project cost not to exceed $408,000, approval of a supplemental budget to transfer funds to the Parks Improvement Fund from the Major Capital Fund, and Council approval of the increased dollar amount of the task order/contract with All Coast Plumbing from $25,000 per occurrence to $63,938.43 due to the final plumbing costs.
2017-12-12 Agenda item 2.e Mingus Park Pool
File Size: 22 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2018-02-06 CB Agenda Item 9 Mingus Park Pool Repair
File Size: 19 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Related Posts:
Coos County Public Hearing on Extending the Urban Renewal Tax Debt Dec. 13, 2017
The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal
Coos Bay URA Spends $300,000 on North-South Gateway While Streets Deteriorate
Coos Bay Street Action Plan Open House Thursday, June 8, 2017, 5:30pm
Coos Bay Legally Steals from Average Citizens to Decorate a Private Business
Coos Bay Taking from the Poor to Give to the Privileged Using Urban Renewal
Coos Bay Gives $97,000 of Public Money to the Local Drama Club
Coos Bay Redistributing Money to Owners of Historical Places
Coos Bay Giving Away Public Money to a Private Business Using Urban Renewal
CATO Policy Analysis #676 ~ The Case Against Tax-Increment Financing
Public Comment Due BY December 1, 2017 on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
The Continuing Saga of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Coos County Board of Commissioners FINAL VOTE on Extending the URA Debt
Information on the Campaign to Shut Down the North Bay URA
Coos County Proposed Ordinance Adopting North Bay UR Plan ~ FOREVER
Coos County Commissioners Hearing on Extending the Debt of the North Bay URA
Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension  
PERS Task Force Recommends Exempting School Districts from Urban Renewal
List of Coos Bay’s Urban Renewal Expenditures from 2006 - 2012
LTE ~ Coos Bay Urban Renewal Giving Away Public Assets Paid for by The Public
#CoosBay Urban Renewal Monies Siphoned from Public Basic Services 
Port of #CoosBay Blowing Through Your Tax Dollars Like Drunken Sailors 
Commissioners Campaign Contributors are Champions of Corporate Welfare

Comments

Bandon City Council Mulling Amendment Officially Separating the City from the Pool

2/7/2018

Comments

 
Picture
Since the Bandon Planning Commission meeting in January where the commissioners discussed platting the pool next to the public library in the city park the city council has been looking for a way to distance the city from the pool. 
 
The one problem that remains is the city's insistence on allowing the possibility for pool funding to remain in the plan for Urban Renewal district #2.   Once the city removes that caveat from the UR plan, then they can proceed with the amendment. Otherwise, there is no way they will be able to get the voters to support it….Rob T.     

Here is the background starting in September of 2016, which is four years after the voters rejected the pool on the ballot in the General Election in November of 2012.
At the end of the post is a reply from the City Mayor & City Manager 

REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2016, 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
555 HIGHWAY 101, BANDON
AGENDA

5.1.2 Potential City Charter Amendment Regarding Swimming Pool Funding
BACKGROUND:
As the City Council is aware, the Bandon Community Swimming Pool Development Corporation (aka Swimming Pool Committee) has been working on their proposed development of a public swimming pool in Bandon. They have been conducting fund raising activities and have purchased a 10 acre parcel immediately south of City Park as their proposed swimming pool site. The Committee would very much appreciate City support for the project, and believes that they can raise the necessary funds for the swimming pool construction and privately fund the continued operation and maintenance of the facility without any future expense or obligation of City funds. The major objection City staff has had to the project, and an objection heard from members of the public, is that once the swimming pool has been constructed it would not be able to support itself, and that responsibility would fall on the City. City staff has met with the Committee on this issue, and the members are fully aware that staff continues to oppose the project for this
reason, although the members maintain that this would not happen. 

City staff and the Committee members have been working to determine whether there is a compromise that would allow the City Council to express their full support the project, while at the same time ensuring that the public and taxpayers could not be obligated to the operation and maintenance of the swimming pool unless such financial participation was specifically approved by the voters. An idea that was generated through these meetings would be to propose that the City Council refer to the voters, possibly at one of the 2017 elections, the matter of a City Charter amendment that would preclude the City Council from authorizing the expenditure of any public funds on the operation and maintenance of a public swimming pool except as may be specifically authorized by voter approval.

The Committee voted to support such a Charter amendment, and has requested that this item be placed on the agenda for City Council discussion. Their feeling is that if the Council was prohibited by the City Charter from funding swimming pool operation and maintenance, then the Council would be free to express their full support for the project; the City and Urban Renewal would still be able to apply, and provide matching funds for, capital construction grants if such funds were available; and the public would be guaranteed that the City would be permanently precluded from spending taxpayers' funds on swimming pool operation and maintenance except as would be otherwise specifically authorized by the voters.

FISCAL IMP ACT:
Undetermined.

RECOMMENDATION:
MOTION: Direct staff to prepare potential optional amendments to City Charter that would preclude the City from expending any public funds on the operation and maintenance of a public swimming pool except as would be otherwise specifically authorized by voter approval, and bring the matter back to the Council for further discussion at a future meeting.

Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting 09/12/2016

Following Winkel's review of his report's contents, Caroline Mitchell introduced herself as a member of the pool board, stating that theirs is a 501 (c)(3) organization, and that she had voted against the Charter amendment proposal. She stated that it would be better to have the City's money used in Bandon, rather than being sent to Coos Bay/North Bend or Coquille. She stated that the group has researched the issue and feels that it can fund a local pool, and that it will support itself; they want the City's support.

Braun requested a definition of "support," as he felt that the City Council is supportive of the concept of a pool, but that it cannot be obligated for future financial support for operation and maintenance costs.

With regard to the City's money going elsewhere, Schamehorn clarified, "We agree that kids need to learn to swim, and right now we don't have a pool here, so we do contract with the City of Coquille through the Summer Recreation program ... Obviously, if we had a pool here, our Summer Recreation program would be contracting with your pool. .. "

There was some discussion of the fact that the Pool Committee vote to support the Charter amendment concept was a split vote, as Mitchell had indicated that she had voted against it, and further stated that individuals who were not on the board voted, as well, making the result somewhat "sketchy." She further stated that she felt it would be a waste of the taxpayers' money to put the issue on the ballot, as that money could be better spent on the pool project.
Carleton stated that it was obvious from Mitchell's comments that there was some confusion regarding the proposal, and Winkel explained that, as a result of discussion with the Pool Committee, a vote had been taken-with either 5-2 or 4-2 in favor-resulting in Winkel bringing the matter to the Council for discussion.

Hundhausen stated that, in her discussions with individuals, people were very concerned that the City not end up, at some future date, paying for the operation and maintenance of a pool. The proposed Charter amendment would simply reassure people that this would never happen, and they could all feel easy about supporting the pool. She stated that, perhaps if there were also some statement included which ensured the continuation of children being taught to swim through the Summer Recreation program, this would also be of some assurance to people.

It was noted that Winkel was to return to the Pool Committee to advise of the Council discussion of the matter, and it was agreed that the matter warrants further discussion. It will therefore be placed on the agenda for discussion at the next Regular Council Meeting.

REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2016, 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 555 HIGHWAY 101, BANDON
AGENDA
5. PROCEEDINGS
 5.1 ACTION & DISCUSSION

5.1.1 Potential City Charter Amendment or Similar Prohibition Regarding Swimming
Pool Funding
 
5.1.2 Potential City Charter Amendment Regarding Swimming Pool Funding
Councilors had been provided with copies of a report from Winkel, stating: 
As the City Council is aware, the Bandon Community Swimming pool Development Corporation (aka Swimming Pool Committee) has been working on their proposed development of a public swimming pool in Bandon. They have been conducting fund raising activities and have purchased a 1O acre parcel immediately south of City Park as their proposed swimming pool site. The Committee would very much appreciate city support for the project, and believes that they can raise the necessary funds for the swimming pool construction and privately fund the continued operation and maintenance of the facility without any future expense or obligation of City funds. The major objection City staff has had to the project, and an objection heard from members of the public, is that once the swimming pool has been constructed it would not be able to support itself, and that responsibility would fall on the City. City Staff has met with the Committee on this issue, and the members are fully aware that staff continues to oppose the project for this reason, although the members maintain that this would not happen.
 
City staff and the Committee members have been working to determine whether there is a compromise that would allow the City Council to express their full support of the project, while at the same time ensuring that the public and taxpayers could not be obligated to the operation and maintenance of the swimming pool unless such financial participation was specifically approved by the voters. An idea that was generated through these meetings would be to propose that the City Council refer to the voters, possibly at one of the 2017 elections, the matter of a City Charter amendment that would preclude the City Council from authorizing the expenditure of any public funds on the operation and maintenance of a public swimming pool except as may be specifically authorized by voter approval. The Committee voted to support such a Charter amendment, and has requested that this item be placed on the agenda for City Council discussion.
 
Their feeling is that if the Council was prohibited by the City Charter from funding swimming pool operation and maintenance, then the Council would be free to express their full support for the project; the City and Urban Renewal would still be able to apply, and provide matching funds for, capital construction grants if such funds were available; and the public would be guaranteed that the City would be permanently precluded from spending taxpayers' funds on swimming pool operation and maintenance except as would be otherwise specifically authorized by the voters.

Video link to Bandon City Council meeting on October 11, 2016:
https://coosmediacenter.viebit.com/player.php?hash=rEWxvxX8fRfp

Link to more info on Planning Meeting: 
Bandon Planning Department Informally Platting a Pool that the Voters Rejected

Video link to the Bandon Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 2018: https://coosmediacenter.viebit.com/player.php?hash=o2WIWpQOqcKV

On February 2, 2018, my question to Bandon City Manager, Robert Mawson:
Can you tell me if the city ever passed or enacted an amendment to the city charter concerning the swimming pool?  Also, was the UR plan changed to reflect the city's wishes?  Sincerely, Rob Taylor

On February 5, 2018, the City Manager responds:
From: Robert Mawson
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 2:04 PM
To: Rob Taylor
Subject: RE: Need Clarification on Pool Amendment

 Hi Rob
The City has not moved to create a charter amendment addressing the swimming pool.  I am working now to address the Council’s direction, which was not limited to a charter amendment.  The swimming pool is still a part of the UR#2 Activities Plan. It was originally added, along with several other projects, as part of Amendment #2 back in 1991.    

 Robert J Mawson
City Manager

On February 5, 2018 According to the Mayor:
I put the swimming pool item on the agenda, so the council could give Robert direction. The motion, which passed 5-1 (Braun), said that the swimming pool would not be allowed to be put in city park, and that the city will not be entering into any kind of a public/private partnership with the swimming pool committee. In guiding the motion, I also suggested that we continue to work with the swimming pool committee in any way we can, and also suggested that before a swimming pool could possibly pay for itself, the people of the area would have to approve a taxing district. Or at the very least, submit the charter amendment ( which Robert opposes) to prohibit city money from going to the pool. That would still allow us to support their efforts, but not financially. And it would not indebt property tax payers. 
I would love to have a pool, and have pledged $5,000 of my own money, as has Madeline, but we cannot support something that the voters have already turned down ... and has such a high probability of failing.  Our first obligation MUST be to the taxpayers of Bandon. Period. Swimming pools across the country are closing, unless there is a taxing district to support the operation and maintenance.

Mayor Mary Schamehorn

2016-09-12 Bandon City Agenda
File Size: 35 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

2016-10-11 Bandon Council Packet
File Size: 3028 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

Related Posts:
Bandon Planning Department Informally Platting a Pool that the Voters Rejected
Coquille River Water Trail Info Sessions in the Cities of Bandon & Coquille
City of Bandon Considers Marijuana Ordinance & Public Drinking Ordinance
USACE Intends to Dedicate $467,000 in Dredging Funding for Port of Bandon
Bandon Plans to Raise Planning Fees Monday May 1, 2017 7:00pm
Bandon Budget Committee Meeting April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm
Bandon Initiative Petition I2014002 Failed Due to Not Enough Qualified Signatures
Important Message for People Living in Bandon & the Bandon School District
City of Bandon ~ Asking Voters to Raise the Water Rates Measure 6-157
CELDF ~ Enviro Snuff Film "We the People 2.0" in Bandon Friday July 22, 2016
State Shared Revenues or Sin Tax Tribute for Counties & Cities 2016-17
LTE ~ Anonymous Letter on the Conduct of the Port of Bandon in the 2013 Election 
Bandon Changes the Revered Day of Infamy to Trash Art Day
TNC Benefits from States Loss & $450 Million More from Taxpayers for LWCF
Bandon Cheese Factory Receives Private Financing & Still Pays No Property Taxes

Comments

ACTION ALERT: Public Testimony Request for Hearing on Gun Legislation HB4145

2/6/2018

Comments

 

Send in a comment or make the trip to testify for your rights in Salem...

Picture
______________ ACTION ALERT _____________
 Click Tittle to view Bill
2018R1 HB 4145

Public Hearing   
2/7/2018 1:00 PM, HR 50

Please send Testimony to the
 
House Committee On Judiciary

Join the Oregon Citizens Lobby for Limited Government:

http://oregoncitizenslobby.org/

Email: Email:  hjud.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov
This bill expands the number of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition, adds reporting requirements on OR Dept of State Police (OSP), adds reporting requirements on the attorneys' offices and other law enforcement agencies receiving the additional reporting from OSP.

Personal Choice and Responsibility
Expands the list of prohibited persons under ORS 166.255 from those who have had a hearing to now include those who were served but did not request a hearing, expands the number of people who can be the target from 'intimate partner' to 'household member' which includes Spouses, Former spouses, Adult persons related by blood or marriage, Persons cohabiting with each other, Persons who have cohabited with each other or who have been involved in a sexually intimate relationship, Unmarried parents of a minor child.

Fiscal Responsibility
The reporting requirements on OR Dept of State Police including notifying attorneys' offices and other law enforcement agencies and publishing written reports, will require increased expenditure. If these measures were effective in making it impossible for prohibited persons to be armed, the expense might be justified. But law enforcement cautions against overconfidence that making something illegal makes it impossible: felons are found to be illegally in possession of weapons all the time. So while well-intentioned, the additional expenditure here is unlikely to be justified.

Limited Government
The reporting requirements on OR Dept of State Police including notifying attorneys' offices and other law enforcement agencies and publishing written reports, will require increase in staff to perform. This bill contains a 24-hour deadline to perform the additional reporting.

______________________
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2018R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4145/


Related Posts:
OFF ~ The Oregon Firearms Federation urges a "NO" vote on Measure 101
Oregon Firearms Federation ~ Protect Your Rights For Free!
OFF ~ NRA CAVES AGAIN ~ 719 REPEAL EFFORT FALLS SHORT
Information on Several Petitions Currently in Circulation in the State of Oregon
OFF ~ The Gun Confiscation Battle Begins
Teri Grier ~ Bill Post ~ Mike Nearman ~ File Referendum on SB719 Gun Confiscation
The Differences Between SB719A & Connecticut's Gun Confiscation Law
LTE ~ SB719 Into the Oven, Out of the Stack
Oregon Firearms Federation Responds to Senator Brian Boquist on SB 719
OFF Late Session Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Introduced
Senator Arnie Roblan Votes for SB917A The Gun Confiscation Bill ~ Now in House
OFF ~ CALL TO ACTION ~ Contact Senator Prozanski ~ Time to Fix SB941 
OFF ~ Bad Idea Becomes Bad Bill SB 868

Comments

    Categories

    All
    A.F.P.
    Agenda 21
    Bandon
    B.I.A.
    B.L.M.
    Coos Bay
    Coos County
    Coos County
    Coquille
    County Charter
    Curry County
    C.W.A.
    Democratic Party
    D.E.Q.
    Eco Devo
    Eco Devo
    Economic Development
    Educational
    Elections
    E.P.A.
    F.D.A.
    F.E.M.A.
    Individual Rights
    I Spy Radio
    Jury Nullification
    Legislation
    Letter To Editor
    Mary Geddry
    N.D.A.A.
    News Wave
    N.O.A.A.
    North Bend
    O&C Land
    O.D.F.W.
    O.D.O.T.
    O.F.F.
    O.H.A.
    O.P.R.D.
    O.R.C. Mining
    O.W.E.B.
    P.E.R.S.
    Petitions
    Port Of Coos Bay
    Public Comments
    Public Events
    Regulation
    Republican Party
    S.A.O.V.A.
    State Of Jefferson
    The Bandon Marsh
    The Economy
    The Rob Taylor Report
    The Supreme Court
    The Tea Party
    Urban Renewal
    U.S.A.C.E.
    U.S.D.A.
    U.S.F.S
    U.S.F.W.S.

    Sign-Up Now to Stay Informed

    * indicates required

    View previous campaigns.

    Send Letters to:
    ​cooscountywatchdog@gmail.com​

    Disclaimer: Letters to the Editor and other opinions published in The Coos County Watchdog blog are not necessarily the views of the Editor, Publisher, or possible anyone else in their right mind.  The Watchdog reserves the right to edit, omit, or copy any and all submissions. 
    Letters to the Editor must be attributed with a name, address, and contact phone number. 

    WARNING:
    Political correctness is not practiced on this
    page & some content is inappropriate

    RSS Feed


    Archives

    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from DieselDemon