CCAP (Coos County Alliance for Progress) co-founder John Knutson has contributed $2,000 from his towboat company to incumbent John Sweet’s reelection campaign. Knutson Towboat, if you recall, was the prime beneficiary of a controversial “towboat bill” that effectively put Captain Charlie Yates out of business. The CCAP contributed $5,000 to the Hillsboro state senator, one Bruce Starr, who introduced the towboat provision into a bill that later passed the legislature. Sweet has publicly expressed his support for the Jordan Cove LNG export terminal and the CEP (Community Enhancement Plan) which stand to concentrate future property tax revenue funding on the waterfront at the expense of the county. Expect more contributions from the usual suspects that haunt the Bay Area.

On another note, Sweet and challenger Don Gurney have agreed to participate in the first ever Yāhoo Candidate Forum to be held on October 6, beginning at 7PM at the Coquille Community Center – Small Auditorium. The forum is hosted by the Yāhoos of Coos County and everyone is welcome. Questions will submitted from the audience. Forum rules for both attendants and candidates will be posted in the near future.

Editor,

Just another silly 'did you know' question.

On August 5th Commissioners Cribbins, Sweet, and Main gave 84.3 miles of our Coos County Roads into the Coquille Indian Tribe Transportation Inventory.

Approximately 23 different roads are impacted. The exact multiple locations on each road were requested several times, verbally and in writing, since July 1st. The requests were summarily ignored. And don't bother to look in the BOC August 5th Agenda or on the BOC Coos County web site because the information, including the list of road areas and the agreement, is not there. You can, however find the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) and the list of road names with their mileage in the July 1st Commissioner Meeting Agenda pages 18-21.

Why the multiple small areas of road locations are needed specifically by the Tribe for their school buses and getting to work (per the MOU) was not explained. What 'up-grades' (that the county would be required to maintain) and 'economic development' federal funds (per the MOU) they would then be qualified to apply for was additionally not addressed.

What will the Bureau of Indian Affairs with Indian trust lands rules be?

How many Tribal laws, (such as no firearms) and federal strings would then be in effect?

The question of why the good-condition, asphalted 8 continuous miles of the Fairview
Road are needed was ignored.

No answers, no explanations, and no commissioner discussion followed. Just the aye, aye, aye vote.

This is not about the Tribe. It is about the infrastructure and finances of Coos County being used to divide our community into special interest groups against each other.

Divide and Conquer?

Why are the commissioner-signed agreements such as this agreement, the ORC (Oregon Resources Corp.) open ended agreement, the Bay Area Enterprise Zone Agreement, the CEP Agreement, disposal of the solid waste facility agreement, etc, etc not on the County site for the citizens to see, both before and after they sign? There are many very experienced knowledgeable retired citizens in Coos County who can, viewing past
history, read these agreements much better than the establishment few. 

Vote for the “Voice of the Voters” Home Rule Charter in November and bring some
common sense and stability back to Coos County.

Jaye Bell
Coquille, Oregon 97423

Related Posts:
Commissioner Sweet has Public Perception Problem with Campaign Donations  
BOC---County Road Master Responds to Concerns About Tribal Road Proposal
Commissioner Sweet Responds to Constituent on Coquille Tribal Road Proposal
Letter to Editor---BOC Has Major Discrepancy with the Coquille Tribal Road Proposal
MGX---County Assessor has Real Disconnect on Community Enhancement Plan
#Coquille & #MyrtlePoint School Districts Among Worst at Utilizing Public Funding
Letter to Editor---Open Question to Coos County Head of Road's Department
BOC Meeting Bandon mosquitoes, Coquille Indian Tribe Road Proposal July 15, 2014
Letter to Editor---Shocked at Vote By Coos BOC in Support of AmeriCorps
Letter to Editor---Open Question to Commission Sweet About SCCF
BOC---County Meeting to Hire AmreiCorp, Discuss SCCF Tuesday July 1, 2014
City of #coosbay Hiding Documents on the South Coast Community Foundation
BOC---Enterprise Zone Agreement for Jordan Cove Energy Project LP in a Resolution 
BOC---Cowardly, Commissioners Cribbins & Sweet Betray the Voters of Coos County
Unanswered Questions about the South Coast Community Foundation
MGX---CEP/SCCF will Impact ALL of Oregon
AFP---Information on the CEP/SCCF Presentation at the Red Lion on May 1, 2014
Letter to Editor---SCCF Should pay for Coos Bay Sewer Upgrades
Letter to Editor---Promises in the Dark with the Jordan Cove Project
BOC---Public Meetings Coos County Planning Changing Land Use Laws
Letter to Editor---County Politicians Keeping Public in the Dark on SCCF
RPCC---Republican Monthly Meeting "Candidate Forum" April 24, 2014
Critique of the BOC Town Hall in Bandon---"PUT IT ON THE BALLOT"
BOC---Public Meetings on South Coast Community Foundation "Put it on the Ballot"
BOC---Public Meeting for Vote on South Coast Community Foundation April 1, 2014

Hey Folks,

Commissioner Sweet has a real public perception problem when it comes to voting on issues like the LNG and anything to do with the Coquille Indian Tribe.  He apparently has received money from the Coquille Tribe and a Natural Gas Political Action Committee.  In the near future, he will have to decide on a road proposal that would allow the Coquille Tribe to manage a portion of Coos County's roads. 

It sounds like a good way to get money from the feds, but there are always strings attached and this specific tribal government has a reputation of not abiding by the contracts they have made in the past.  Just ask the citizens of North Bend about a hotel tax the tribe promised the city for their casino. 

It would be wise to remember that upon a public request, Sweet never released the answers of a survey he took for the tribe during the last election cycle. He still refuses to release his answers to this day. What does he have to hide from his constituents?.....Rob T. 

1761445 07/14/2014 Original Committee to Elect John Sweet from Coquille Indian Tribe Cash Contribution $500.00

1751383 06/25/2014 Original Committee to Elect John Sweet from Natural Gas Political Action Committee (102) Cash Contribution $250.00_

Ronnie,
 Sorry I have not got back to you yet.  Had another email this week that Commissioner Cribbins answered that is pretty much right on. Here is her answer: 

“Native American tribes receive road funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs for roads that are part of the Tribal Transportation Roadway inventory.  These funds can be used for any roads that are relied on by Tribal members to get to and from work or school.  The Tribe has identified sections of road that Tribal members use frequently based on the addresses of their Tribal members.  This identification simply allows the County to have access to a different funding stream that we would normally not be able to access.  The intent of this MOU is to give additional funding to the County for improving” 

In the MOU it states “ Allowing the Tribe to include these roads on the TTP Inventory simply allows the Tribe the opportunity to provide potential funding to future roadway improvement projects. In no way does this action render the County less responsible for the roads, or in any way impact roadway ownership or jurisdiction”.


At the Road Department we can only apply for federal funds (Transportation Enhancement, Surface Transportation Program, State Transportation Investment Program, etc) for our Major Collectors only. In most applications for funding the projects must also be listed in our TSP (Transportation System Plan). 

By letting the Tribe list roads that include Major Collectors, Minor Collectors, and  Local Roads it gives the County another possible funding source for roads that are not Major Collectors. 

It is not a conflict of interest, the roads are still ours, but if someone else wants to spend money (our tax dollars) to make improvements to our roadways I thought that would be a good thing. 

Thanks

John J. Rowe, Roadmaster
1281 West Central  Coquille, Oregon 97423
541-396-7665
541-396-1023 Fax
541-404-8332 Cell
jrowe@co.coos.or.us

In a message dated 7/21/2014 9:28:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jsweet@co.coos.or.us writes:

Theo,
Thanks for your concern.  Although I do not make up the agendas, I believe that the matter you are referring to will be on next week’s BOC agenda.  In visiting with our Roadmaster I have found that this is simply preliminary to getting Bureau of Indian Affair’s funding to help maintain county roads used by the Coquille Tribe along with general public.  It does not give them ownership rights to the roads or road segments involved.  We have much the same arrangement with some of the local timber companies who help the county with road maintenance on county roads heavily used  for logging activity.
John

Mr Sweet,
My concern is the word "Inventory" which implies ownership. The term "economic development" implies the Tribe has plans that are not being addressed. We are also aware that the Tribe is a sovereign nation when it comes to legation. I still believe the public should be able explore the road segments identified in the list attached to the MOU. Both of which have been replaced with a "Contact / Grant Summary Form that is basically blank. The attached written  contact was also missing. It was signed as being reviewed by Counsel. I have no problem with the County receiving additional funding for our roads. If the Tribe wishes to help in that manner, just do not attach strings. I also believe if the Tribe uses the term "inventory", as in ownership, on any request for Federal Funds from the BIAF, Dept. of Interior, when in fact they do not own the property, that may be fraud on their part. Theo

Stop by the Coos County Fair and you will have a chance to chat with commissioner candidates Don Gurney and incumbent John Sweet working their respective campaign booths. More likely than not you will see them standing together, talking about the county or ribbing each other about politics but feel free to insert yourself into the conversation and ask questions and offer opinions.

As important as it is that we elect good people to office, more and more citizens across the country are taking matters into their own hands and using the initiative process to correct flaws in existing laws and even to repair decisions made by our elected officials. The Oregon Right to Know GMO Labeling initiative is one example of the people taking matters into their own hands when the legislature kowtowed to the food manufacturing industry. Communities have similarly banned fracking and initiatives are underway to halt the use of aerial pesticide spraying right here in Oregon.

Citizen initiatives and referendums are powerful tools and in light of the recent revelation that Governor Kitzhaber will not intervene in the plan to abuse the enterprise zone statutes and privatize millions of dollars in property taxes via the CEP (Community Enhancement Plan) the public may need to intercede where our elected officials will not. Kitzhaber took a laissez-faire approach to the CEP which will deprive the state school fund of tens of millions despite his school equalization assertions telling The World editor, “I’d say let’s watch it closely and see how it works.” One can only hope the governor watches more closely than he did with Cover Oregon or than he and his predecessors have watched over the Port of Coos Bay. Gasp!

The time has come for Coos County citizens to take matters into their own hands and file some initiatives asserting their rights to fair and equitable taxation and a sustainable economy. More details will follow in the next couple of weeks but perhaps it is high time to do away with local enterprise zones and other ineffective but costly constructs that favor the few over the many.

Resolution 2013-058:
Opposing Eminent Domain for the Proposed Veresen/Williams Pacific Connector Pipeline from Malin to Coos Bay Sponsored by: Dean Byers, Douglas County Democratic Party Chairman
Approved: 12/08/2013

A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON

Whereas the Pacific Connector Pipeline Gas Pipeline Project (Pacific Connector Pipeline) has applied for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to construct a 36" pipeline across southern Oregon from Malin to Coos Bay for delivery of domestic natural gas to the proposed Jordan Cove Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export facility at Coos Bay: and

Whereas the owner of the natural gas that will travel through this pipeline is Veresen Energy, a Canadian Company, currently selling stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange; and

Whereas the company proposing to build and own the pipeline is Williams Pipeline Co. of Tulsa, OK; and

Whereas the mitigation costs of damage to salmon-bearing streams and costs that may be incurred by first responders in preparation for potential accidents or natural disasters are unknown; and

Whereas the application to FERC requests that the right of Eminent Domain be granted to Veresen Energy and Williams Pipeline, for-profit private enterprises, to take easements from private property owners in exchange for onetime payments; and

Whereas Ballot Measure 39 (2006), prohibiting a public entity from condemning private real property if the intent is to transfer said property to a private party, was approved by 79% of Douglas County voters and by 67% of the popular vote from all Oregon voters:

Therefore, be it resolved that the Democratic Party of Oregon:

1. Demands that FERC deny Veresen Energy and Williams Pipeline the use of Eminent Domain to secure properties from landowners along the Pacific Connector corridor.
2. Urges all elected officials at all levels of government go on record opposing the use of Eminent Domain for purposes of the proposed pipeline.

Submitted by Dean Byers, Douglas County Democratic Party Chairman, August 4, 2013.
Reviewed and modified, DPO Platform Committee, November 16, 2013. and December 8, 2013.
Passed: DPO Central Committee, December 8, 2013.

Madam Chair CC BOC, Melissa Cribbins:

Coos County BOC agendas for July 1, 2014 and July 15, 2014 have a major discrepancy. For some reason items 3G and 3I do not match per the agenda item “Coquille Indian Tribe would like to add portions of the Coos County roadway to their Tribal Transportation Program Roadway Inventory”. In the July 1, agenda packet page, published on the Coos County website, item 3G, 17 of 41 is/was a Memorandum of Understanding from the Tribe and page 18 of 41 is/was a list of county roads that the Tribe was requesting approval to add to their TIP. In the July 15 agenda packet, published on the Coos County website, the same agenda item was listed as 3I. The MOU and the list of roads are gone and a “Contract / Grant Summary Form substituted for page 18 of 46. The last sentence of the page is marked that a written contract was attached. There was no contract attached.

Your response on July 6th to my July 3rd letter to Mr. Rowe and CC’d to Coos County BOC and counsel did not address all questions raised. After further review I have the following questions and request answers:

• The Tribe “has identified portions of the Coos County roadway system for addition to the TIP Roadway Inventory. The July 1st agenda, page 20 of 41, has identified 84.3 miles of “S-County” owned roads which the Tribe wishes to include in the TTP.  The length of roadway in the request varies from .01 to 8 miles and is of various surface types.
• Webster’s New College Dictionary defines “inventory’ as “1) an itemized list of current assets: 2) a catalog of the property of an individual or estate”.  With that definition, I read the Tribes request as for “Ownership”. They go on to say that “the County agrees to continue the required maintenance as these roads as it is presently the County’s responsibility.” There are a lot of legal ramifications made it that statement. Remember the Tribe invokes its “sovereign nation” status in legation!
• They claim the County is unable to provide funding for upgrades to these roads. What improvements does the Tribe wish to make? Will the County have funds for any maintenance of these improvements?
•  The Tribe uses many of the county roads for numerous activities, and acknowledges that many residents of Coos County have use of these roads. What “potential economic development” do they have planned?
• Are private property owners aware of any future activity?
• I am sure Coos County would accept any funding the Tribe would contribute to improvements to all roads tribal members use.

I respectfully request that maps be made available on the County web site least ten (10) days prior to any authorization for approval of chair to sign. These maps need to show the general and specific locations of each segment listed on the TTP with a description of the potential economic development and/or upgrade.

Oregon Revised Statute, ORS § 801.305 – Highway (1) Highway means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right. ORS 368 County authority over roads. (1) Except as provided in this section or as otherwise specifically provided by law, the exercise of governmental powers relating to a road within a county is a matter of county concern. Oregon Law, H.B. 208, enacted that: Section 1. All roads or thoroughfares not hereto fore legally established within the State of Oregon that may have heretofore been used, or hereafter be used, for a period of ten (10) consecutive years or more by the general public for the purpose of travel, without protest, are hereby declared to be county roads. Section 2. No road of public easement shall be altered or vacated except by the county court in the manner now provided by law; and no county shall be bound to work, or improve, or keep in repair such road of public easement. Approved February 28, 1901.




 Respectfully, Theo Stanley

 A comment posted by County Assessor Steve Jansen on a local blog betrays the unimaginative, dogmatic, ideological and unscientific thinking that unfortunately infests those same people that hold sway over our elected leaders. Jansen accuses blog author Rob Taylor of deliberately misstating facts related to enterprise zones and specifically the Jordan Cove LNG fifteen year property tax exemption and in so doing reveals his own disconnect from empirical evidence and statistical fact.
Jansen writes:
You are correct in saying that the average citizen can’t get a tax break like this. That’s because the LTREZ program was carefully designed by the Oregon Legislature to create incentives to attract high-dollar industries to areas like SW Oregon. Individual citizens (unless they’re Bill Gates or Warren Buffett) have no possible way to make such an economic impact…

…It was the Legislature doing the right thing (for a change?) by creating a tool for areas like ours to use to be able to compete with cities like Portland/Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Houston, other states, and other countries.

If you think we in Coos County can compete (without tools like LTREZ’s) on a level playing field with opponents like that, you are woefully uninformed.[Emphasis added]

Clearly Jansen doesn’t believe in the American Dream, instead he promotes the enslavement of the average taxpayer who should be genuflecting to the likes of Warren Buffet. There is no empirical evidence that enterprise zones and other so-called economic incentives payoff for the taxpayer or level the playing field, in fact quite the opposite is true, particularly in Coos County. Using terms like “compete” and “opponents” when referring to other cities is not only infantile but nothing more than an attempt to make a point with what amounts to a straw man argument. Somehow Coos County is expected to overcome its obvious geographical limitations by offering up tax exemptions so it can compete in the industrial Olympics. The scary thing here is that Jansen is on the BS Oregon steering committee and it wouldn’t be much of stretch to accept that this studious lack of critical thinking and adherence to old school dogma pervades that whole group. Unfortunately for Coos County we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them.

The county’s hearings officer, Andrew Stamp, recently read a statement regarding bias that I believe identifies a key problem that permeates this area. “Bias means having certain preconceived thoughts about an issue of policy, the facts, the law or the parties. To disqualify a decision maker from participating in the hearing, the bias must be an actual bias and not an apparent bias. A person has actual bias or prejudice when no fact can persuade that person to vote or rule another way.” Unfortunately for Coos County too many of our elected leaders fall into this category.

Hey Folks,

Another article giving example that our schools are well funded, except the districts are just not getting a good investment for their money.  Typical government bureaucracy. 

Why then, should anyone fight to give school districts more money when they have a proven record of mishandling the funding?   

The political elite of the county are going to hand the school districts the money from the property taxes that the LNG facility should have paid or at least half the money according to the Community Enhancement Plan.  The money from those taxes should go to other taxing districts, like the Coos Bay Fire Department, and the County itself or revert back to the taxpayer.  The county pays for the sheriff department and several other essential services.  The South Coast Community Foundation is going to use the property taxes like a slush fund for the school districts and performance will not be part of the criteria.   Also, private schools will not qualify for this funding, even though the private schools have a better record of educating children with much less money than what the public schools use per student.  

Coquille, Myrtle Point school districts are both mentioned.

Six rural Oregon school districts among worst in nation at getting educational bang for buck
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2014/07/six_rural_oregon_school_distri.html

Mr Rowe,

At the July 1, 2014 Coos County BOC meeting agenda there was an item under “Department Heads” item “G” titled: “Coquille Indian Tribe would like to add portions of the Coos County roadway to their Tribal Transportation Program Roadway inventory” also known as “(TTP)”.

The background and description of need or problem was stated: “The Coquille Indian Tribe would like to add portions of our County roads to the Tribe’s TTP Roadway inventory for additional funding consideration for future roadway improvements.” What future improvements are being considered?

The requested action was: “Approve and authorize chair to sign (“memorandum of understanding (MOU)”) Coquille Tribe’s Acknowledgement of Public Responsibility, Statement of Inability to Provide Funds and Verification of Federal Aid Category”. Has the County stated it is financially unable to fund some project? If so, what project?

The MOU states “these roads are used by Tribal members for school, mail routes, and routes to employment locations and are crucial to the Tribe’s access to goods and services and potential economic development.” To this, I would like to state that these roads are open to use by all citizens of Coos County for the same uses and acknowledged as such by the Tribe. The statement “potential economic development” raises the question, what “economic development” is planned for these areas?

The MOU states that the County is currently responsible for the maintenance of the roads, and has sufficient funds to meet its maintenance responsibilities. The Tribe “simply wants the ability to provide funding for future roadway improvements projects”, which when completed the County would have the responsibility to maintain. To that end, how can the County authorize the potential of future expense when the County has no idea of what the future roadway improvements will be?

All roads in the County are important to all citizens of the County. I consider all members of the Coquille Tribe to be citizens of the County. Is that correct? The Tribe claims “the County is unable to provide funding for upgrades to these roads.” What upgrades are they planning? Will the County be able to fund the maintenance of these upgrades? The Tribe is asking for the County to acknowledge its responsibility to maintain any future upgrades without identifying the upgrade! That is like getting a cart before the horse.

The Tribe is agreeing “that no roadway improvements will be made without obtaining prior approval from the County.” How about identifying the project and then looking for the approval and funds? How does the Tribe know how much “Federal Aid” to secure? How will this “Federal Aid” impact the County? Will there be Federal restrictions placed on the County?

The Tribe has identified 84.3 miles of “S-County” owned roads which they wish to include in the TTP. Does this require State of Oregon approval also?

I respectfully request that maps be made available on the County web site showing the general and specific locations of each segment listed on the TTP with a description of the potential economic development and/or upgrade. Furthermore, I request that the appropriate time be scheduled for public input at least five (5) days prior to any authorization for approval of chair to sign.

The agenda item cover sheet shows that Counsel, Treasurer and Road Department have signed off on this. Would the planning department be involved? Does anyone really know what they are signing off on?

Any future upgrades may affect the rights of private property owners. Have these landowners been made aware of “potential economic development” and “upgrades to these roads”.

Respectfully, Theo Stanley

Dear Commissioners,

As you're aware, I am not politically correct or apathetic when it comes to preserving our beloved country and Constitution. So, consider the source and take this how you will. It matters not to me. I only care about America.

I am totally shocked at today's meeting. Everything that I said was factually true but fell on deaf ears. I showed you only a small part of the available material and offered to explain more.

You took the opinion of someone whose family members were involved in Americorps in 1990. This is 2014 and a LOT has changed. Congress is a joke and is bypassed by the president who continually violates the Constitution by using Executive Orders to get his way.

If you had read the following before voting, you would see how this will turn out. You could have made time by postponing it for a week. Read this part of the Bill that Congress DID pass.

H.R. 1388 GIVE Act (Now the Serve America Act) Initially it was "Mandatory service." Changed to "Encouraged."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:6:./temp/~c111vMTMSi::
Under section 6104 of the GIVE Act, entitled Duties, in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges.

Under the circumstances, there is no reason why this action on Americorps Vista could not have been tabled for further investigation before deciding on something so important to our children and theirs. Your decision appeared to be based on "feel good" not informed, but you approved it anyway.

Didn't anything Rob or I say make a dent, or do you just think we're blowing smoke and like to hear ourselves talk? Are we unintelligent people, conspiracy theorists, radicals, or what? We came to you with a real issue of concern only to be ignored. How dare you be so flagrant with our lives and our rights and so easily dismiss the messengers.

I don't believe that you realize what you've just done to our  county and how it will effect everything. Yes, change has definitely come to America, socialistic change under a despotic government and the indentured sycophants who owe their allegiance to the Federal Government and not to America or her people. This is after you hypocritically recite the pledge of allegiance. You obviously agree with socialism because it shows. Perfect for the New World Order.

Most local governments today are more concerned with losing government funding, so they use that as their crutch. I see no difference with Coos County. Now, you've opened the door to FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security. I've lost all respect and confidence in this commission for not giving the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks a bunch for helping to push their socialist agenda onto the good people of this county.

Sincerely,
Thomas M. McKirgan

July 1, 2014

The Coos County Commission has signed it's second yearly contract with Americorps, a federal government civil service program. Begin at 9.50 min.

Tom McKirgan followed by Rob Taylor objecting. After Rob, listen to liberal logic in defense of Americorps.
http://coosmediacenter.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=ef16abfc9c239ca03c59e61b453fe32f

State of Oregon's Community Service Learning Requirement
http://www.oregonsd.org/OregonHigh.cfm?subpage=6839
Dear Parents, Guardians, and Students of the Class of 2017:

There are many firsts for your respective graduating cohort that I have touched on in previous documents, mailings, and newsletters. The fact that you now need to earn three versus two credits of math and science to earn an Oregon High School diploma is straightforward. Another requirement is your documentation and submission of 40 hours of community service between 2013 and 2017. Below you will find a link to the form you are to use. This form can also be picked up at any time in our main or student services offices.

Community Service Graduation Requirement Letter

Americorps, Amerivista, et al were born of the following programs.

See videos below.

Rahm Emanuel "Citizenship Is Not An Entitlement Program."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbfuC13kPgU&index=17&list=FLDiwv74ewLqPi0IgWiYUMEg

Civilian National Security Force
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&list=FLDiwv74ewLqPi0IgWiYUMEg&index=17

H.R. 1388 GIVE Act (Now the Serve America Act) Initially it was "Mandatory service." Changed to "Encouraged."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:6:./temp/~c111vMTMSi::
Under section 6104 of the GIVE Act, entitled Duties, in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges.

​Dear Commissioner Sweet:

According to the "news" appearing at the World paper web site, you are quoted frequently in the past 48 hours.  Of particular interest is your quoted "wish" to reveal to your constituents "so much misinformation" that's "absurd" re the SCCF / CEP / Waterfront whatever.

Since nothing prevents you from doing so, and you are not prohibited by any Oregon law from expressing an opinion, may this constituent, speaking for most of your constituents I am certain, grant your wish and ask that within the next calendar week you offer such opinion, and in writing.  I am certain that your good friend Mary Geddry would welcome an opportunity to post your position paper at her web site.  A majority of the 7,000 subscribers of the World paper would probably also appreciate your written opinion.  Perhaps radio personality Jim Bice would welcome your appearance on his program next Monday to discuss the matter.  In addition to your opinion, this constituent would appreciate verifiable fact that refutes absurd misinformation; a good starting point would be a response to the question - what has Veresen / Jordan Cove Energy agreed to do that has been reduced to writing in a legally enforceable written agreement?  And, why are you in such a hurry without that written agreement in place first?

I await your response via a local media source.

Sincerely,
Fred Kirby
Coos Bay

Please print this in your newspaper.  

The citizens of Bandon are doing a very good job of documenting the mosquito problem and forwarding that information.  However, the mosquito problem documentation is going to multiple agencies. Consequently, to get an accurate count of the complaints, all those agencies must get together to combine the count.  By reporting to only one department, the total mosquito complaints are instantly available.    If you are having a mosquito problem, the only way the County will know about it is if you report it. Reporting the mosquito problem is as simple as calling the Coos County Environmental Health Department.  That telephone number is 541-751-2431. 

Reporting to this number will eliminate the issue of multiple agency's getting together to combine their reports.  If this summer is anything like last summer, you'll want to keep this telephone number handy. Again, to report mosquito problems, call Coos County Environmental Health at 541-751-2431.  

Wayne H. Miller     

Related Posts:
Letter to Editor---LNG Should Learn from Mosquito Problem on Kentuck Restoration
BOC---County Skeeter Meeting Wednesday June 25, 2014
Someone should have told the USFWS the Three Reasons Mosquitoes Suck
The Bandon Marsh Mosquito Farm
Mosquito Armageddon:  One Mosquito Bite Can Change a Life Forever
BOC---County Mosquito Meeting Wednesday, June 11, 2014
BOC---County Mosquito Meeting in Bandon Thursday, May 29, 2014  
American Mosquito Control Association Information on Mosquito Management
A Picture is Worth a 1000 Words
Contact Information to Make an Official Mosquito Report in Bandon  
USFWS---Coos County Public Health Joint Press Release Bandon Marsh Mosquitoes
Natural Resources Committee Protecting the Rights of Property Owners from USFWS
USFWS---Bandon Mosquito Infestation was a Figment of the Imagination
USFWS---Moving Forward at the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Preserve
BOC---Public Meeting Vector Assessment & Control Advisory Committee May 1, 2014
Letter to Editor---They're Back, The Mosquitoes are here....
USFWS---Public Comment Integrated Marsh Management in Bandon by April 9, 2014
BOC---Shared State-County Services and Mosquito Abatement
USFWS---Post Card & News Release on Bandon Marsh Mosquito EA March 11, 2014 
USFWS---Public Comment & Meeting for Bandon Mosquito Control March 18, 2014

Hey Folks,

The Board of Commissioners have three important items on the Agenda.  The only way to make sure the commissioners make the right decision is for the public to show up and voice their opinion.   You do not have to attend all the meeting, but it helps to show up for the right meeting.  Politicians are uncontrollable looters without the support of a vigilant community.  The items on the agenda are list below.....Rob T. 

Section 3, Item A --Request for an approval of contract with AmeriCorp and the Health & Human Resource Department. 

Section 3, Item B---Contract with a cheesy motivational speaker

Section 3. Item M---Discussion on the South Coast Community Foundation

If you cannot make the meeting then call and email them beforehand: 

Hey Folks, 

The Port of Coos Bay, the city of Coos Bay and North Bend, and the County Board of Commissioners, have to pass a resolution before the Jordan Cove Energy Project can receive the 20-year property tax exemption from the Bay Area Enterprise Zone.  Most businesses cannot take advantage of EZ tax breaks and neither can the average citizen, which makes it an unfair tax exemption that benefits large corporations.  The vote on these resolutions is not supposed to take place for a few more months.   

In the meantime, the City Manager for the City of Coos Bay is refusing to release a report from the city’s attorney containing his legal opinion of the bylaws regulating the South Coast Community Foundation.  The designers of the Community Enhancement Plan have promised transparency, but already the members involved with this taxing fraud are hiding documents from public scrutiny.  If the Mayor and City Councilors of Coos Bay expect to garner the trust of the people then they should demand that the City Manager, Rodger Craddock, release the attorney’s report.  You may want to ask them why they would deny the public the information needed to make an objective opinion on the CEP in the first place.  Following the contact info for the Coos Bay councilors there are some of the documents to show the paper trail of the manager's refusal to release this important document.  It is some very interesting reading the exchange between the County DA and the City Manager…..Rob T. 

Open Letter,

To further "set the record straight" I want to make it clear that my questions/statements directed toward the USFWS biologist Bill Bridgeland during the Vector Board meeting on 1 May 2014 were in no way meant to discredit or misrepresent the South Slough Research Reserve’s salt marsh restoration program. Given that I was actively involved as a contractor in gathering much of the data you presented to the Board the other night, I know that the Kunz Marsh restoration was a resounding success. As regards marsh elevation and accretion, it is clear that marsh elevation declined or stabilized over the first six years or so after the dikes were removed, and then began to rise as the accretion rates and salt marsh plant abundance increased. Knowing that during the initial restoration effort marsh elevation can decline, I was concerned that the channelization project being proposed for the Ni-les’tun portion of the Bandon Marsh (at a possible cost of $500,000) might not ameliorate the mosquito problem, if subsidence was out pacing accretion and small depressions suitable for mosquito breeding recurred. I was encouraged to hear Bill say that he had five monuments in place on the marsh and had documented that accretion was increasing marsh elevation. I was also interested in what was going to be done with the dredge spoils (as much as 10,000 yd3 ) with creation of the channels and I learned that this material was to be distributed on site and, I am assuming, could be used to fill remaining low-lying areas that would be subject to retaining brackish water after a spring tide series.

As regards mosquito abundance off Hinch Rd. near the Kunz Marsh restorations sites up the Winchester Cr. arm of South Slough, my assessment is based on the three summers I worked in that area. I was surprised by the abundance of mosquitos in this area, but having dealt with mosquitos when working on my bottomland pasture I realized early on that the mosquitos at the Kunz Marsh site were a different species than the Anopheles spp. I had encountered on my pasture and that in fact they were summer salt marsh mosquitos (Aedes dorsalis). There was not a time when working in this area over those three summers that I and my crew did not have to repeatedly slather on repellent to keep from being "eaten alive" by mosquitos. Interestingly, we did not have to use repellent when collecting data on the monument sites and other vegetation "control" survey sites located to the north (most often upwind of the Kunz sites). So, it appeared that, as you pointed out at the Board meeting, mosquito abundance was somewhat localized, and as I mentioned to Bill during the previous meeting that the presence of those mosquitos did not cause the problems the USFWS is having to deal with because there was no one living in the area of the Kunz Marsh restoration site. Additionally, when conducting the plant surveys along transects extending from the Winchester Cr. channel inland to the upper reaches of the Kunz Marsh sites we noted mosquito larvae in abundance in brackish water pools. Unfortunately, none of the sampling methods I was tasked with performing to monitor invertebrate abundance were applicable to quantifying the abundance of adult or larval A. dorsalis abundance, so my assessment, like your’s, remains largely anecdotal. Furthermore, I suspect that with continued accretion and the increase in salt marsh plant abundance on the Kunz sites over the last ten years, the amount of habitat for A. dorsalis has been greatly reduced, and out of curiosity I plan to visit this area several times this summer to see if that is the case. But, in summary, to assert that there was not a significant increase in A. dorsalis population abundance related to the conditions on Kunz Marsh during the early stages of restoration strains credulity.

At present I am focused on whether or not the channelization project on the Bandon Marsh will ameliorate mosquito abundance to the point where mosquitos are again a minor nuisance to residents in Bandon and in the lower Coquille Valley. But I also have a personal stake in the outcome of the channelization project because the LNG folks have purchased the land that was once the Kentuck golf course, which they plan to inundate with bay water to mitigate for habitat loss that will occur during construction of the terminal’s ship berthing area on the North Spit of Coos Bay. The Kentuck golf course is less than a mile up wind of my home and that of a dozen other residents. The successful conversion of this land to a functional salt marsh that does not provide habitat for mosquitos will hinge on the outcome of channelization and the proper application of knowledge gained from the restoration efforts at the Bandon Marsh as well as the Kunz Marsh. Adscititiously, the mosquito problem on the Bandon Marsh should forewarn those that may be involved in the Kentuck restoration and for that matter the proposed China Camp Creek restoration of the potential adverse consequences of marsh restoration. Specifically, if these projects result in an increase in mosquito abundance that adversely affects even one nearby landowner, there will be grounds, in my opinion, to hold those responsible liable for damages.

Regards,
Daniel H. Varoujean II

COOS COUNTY

VECTOR ASSESSMENT & CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

AGENDA

June 25, 2014

5:30 – 7:00 p.m.

 

Bandon Conference and Community Center (aka Bandon Barn)

1200 W   11th St.  SW Bandon OR 

5:30 – 5:35      Roll Call & Approve minutes of 6/11/14 meeting

5:35 – 5:50      Staff Report

5:50 – 6:00      Bat House Program

6:00 – 6:20      June Event Planning

6:20 – 6:25      Mosquito Magnets

6:25 – 6:40      Mapping Project

6:40 – 6:55      Public Comment

6:55 – 7:00      Committee Member Comment

7:00                 Adjourn

ENTERPRISE ZONE AGREEMENT
The sponsors of the Bay Area Enterprise Zone comprising the governing bodies of the Cities of Coos Bay and North Bend, Coos County and the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay (hereinafter “The Zone Sponsors”) and Jordan Cove Energy Project LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership (hereinafter “JCEP”) do hereby enter into an agreement for extending the period of time in which JCEP shall receive an exemption on its investments in qualified property in the Bay Area Enterprise Zone contingent on certain special requirements under ORS 285C.160.
RECITALS
The Zone Sponsors and JCEP do hereby mutually accept the following facts for purposes of entering into an agreement:
I. FINDINGS
A. The Cities of North Bend and Coos Bay, Coos County and the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay (collectively, “The Zone Sponsors”) jointly sponsor the enterprise zone known as the Bay Area Enterprise Zone (the “Zone”).
B. JCEP proposes to construct and operate a facility inside the Zone, as currently configured, and to employ a significant number of persons, who will be compensated on average at substantially more than the average annual county wage, at the facility, which will produce, liquefied natural gas for export (the “Facility”).
C. The Oregon Legislative Assembly has adopted ORS285C.400 to 285C.420 and 317.123 to 317.131 (the “Statutes”) which provide tax incentives to business firms that invest in a qualifying facility within a rural enterprise zone in a ‘county with chronically low income or chronic unemployment.’ Coos County is currently eligible in terms of chronically low income and chronic unemployment.
D. Administrative rules (OAR 123-065-3000 to 123-065-3999, 150-285C.409 and 150-285C.420), as adopted by the State of Oregon, further define and implement the Statutes.
E. The benefits to a certified business firm under the Statutes include primarily a 100-percent exemption on new, non-transport property (but not any value assessed as land) that is owned/leased by the business firm and is otherwise subject to ad valorem taxation, and that is located at the site of a qualifying facility. The exemption covers property tax years, after construction commences and before the facility is placed in service. The exemption further applies to all such property for a single period of 7 to 15 consecutive tax years after the facility is placed in service, as determined by a written agreement between the zone sponsor and the business firm under ORS 285C.403(3)(c).
No property may be exempt, as described above, if that property has received an enterprise zone exemption under ORS 285C.170 or 285C.175.
Moreover, if the certified business firm is a C corporation and owns the facility, the Governor may formally approve tax credits equal to 62.5 percent of the business firm’s 1
annual gross payroll costs at the facility. The firm may claim these credits for a period of 5 to 15 fiscal years of the firm, starting as late as the third year after the year when the firm places the qualifying facility in service. These tax credits are supplemental to any exemption from property taxes. They would offset the business firm’s annual state corporate excise and income tax liability and are subject to other provisions of law.
F. Before commencing construction or installation of improvements or property, and before hiring employees in the enterprise zone, a business firm must submit the Oregon Department of Revenue’s CERTIFICATION APPLICATION Long-Term Rural Oregon Tax Incentive, #150-310-073 (the “Application”), in order to receive the benefits described above. Submission is made to the local zone sponsor (in the person of the local zone manager) and to the county assessor, who shall jointly approve the application, certifying the business firm, subject and pursuant to the following:
i. Execution of a written agreement between the business firm and the local zone sponsor
ii. Adoption of resolutions by the governing body of the county and the city, in which the facility would be located, approving the property tax exemption
iii. Satisfactory commitment to the requirements of ORS 285C.412 and to any additional requirement contained in the written agreement
iv. Review of the written agreement’s administrative sufficiency and confirmation of the county’s current economic status, by the Oregon Economic and Development Department.
The county assessor may make his/her approval of the Application contingent on establishing satisfactory administrative arrangements with the business firm, including but not limited to regular notice and substantiation for relevant junctures in the development of the facility, property located at the facility site or satisfaction of statutory requirements.
In order for JCEP to receive the benefits, the local zone manager and county assessor need to approve the Application before the date on which any facility property is placed in service and before termination of the enterprise zone.
G. Irrespective of certification and the written agreement, a business firm qualifies for and receives/retains the above-mentioned benefits only if minimum investment costs, hiring and compensation at the affected facility in the enterprise zone are achieved and maintained, according to the applicable provisions under ORS 285C.412 and 285C.420. Expected, applicable minima are more specifically described in the “Terms and Conditions” below.
H. The Zone Sponsors have found that the construction and operation of the Facility will foster desirable economic development in the Zone and its local area and will be in the best interest of The Zone Sponsors.
I. The description of the site where the Facility will be located is contained in Exhibit A. A map showing the site is in Exhibit B.
2
J. The Facility is located in unincorporated territory of the County.
K. JCEP presently estimates and anticipates that:
i. The Facility will encompass approximately ______,000 square feet comprising one or more building(s) and other structures.
ii. At least initially, the total cost for improvements, machinery & equipment, and the acquisition, construction, reconstruction and/or installation of property at the Facility will be approximately $___ million
iii. The site preparation, construction and improvements at the Facility will most likely commence after _________ but not later than __________.
iv. The Facility will most likely be placed in service after January 1, 20____, but not later than December 31, 20____.
v. JCEP will initially hire about _______ full-time employees at the Facility, the workforce for which will likely increase substantially thereafter.
vi. Average annual compensation for all employees at the Facility will equal or exceed $_________.
The above estimates reflect presently available information and are subject to change. JCEP in no way warrants the accuracy of the above estimates. Subject to the minima stipulated under ORS 285C.412, JCEP eschews any liability to the Zone Sponsor (or to any cosponsor or any other party) if the actual numbers differ from the above estimates.
L. Pursuant to this agreement, JCEP, at its discretion, may seek approval from the Governor for the aforementioned corporate excise and income tax credits available under ORS 307.124.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now therefore, as an incentive for JCEP to locate the Facility within the Zone, and in accordance with ORS 285C.403(3)(b) and (c), the parties do hereby enter into the following agreement (the “Agreement”):
II. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY
A. Conditions
All obligations of JCEP described in this Agreement arise solely because of, and depend entirely upon, the following:
1. JCEP’s development, and the placement in service, of the Facility at the location described in Exhibits A and B.
3
2. JCEP’s ability to avoid property tax liability as provided under ORS 285C.409, while property and improvements comprising the Facility are in the process of being constructed or installed, and for 15 consecutive property tax years thereafter, due to the Facility’s inclusion in the Zone.
If either condition is not satisfied for any reason, JCEP is excused from performance of any obligation pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Statutory Obligations
1. JCEP shall complete the Application and submit a signed original and executed copy of it, with this Agreement and related attachments, to the local zone manager for the Zone and to the County Assessor for Coos County, before the commencement of construction or installation of property and improvements and before hiring employees at the Facility.
2. JCEP shall comply with ORS 285C.412 and 285C.420 and does thereby commit to meet the applicable requirements of the Statutes, such that the particular provisions for qualification of the Facility are those under ORS 285C.412(3), as follows:
a. By the end of the calendar year when the Facility is placed in service, the total cost of the Facility shall equal or exceed _____ percent of the 20___ real market value of all nonexempt taxable property in Coos County up to $____________ million.
b. On or before the third calendar year following the year when the Facility is placed in service, the number of full-time, year-round employees at the Facility shall be ______________ or more.
c. On or before the fifth calendar year following the year when the Facility is placed in service, average annual compensation (including wages, salary, non-mandatory insurance and other financial benefits) of all employees working at the Facility shall equal or exceed 150 percent of the most recent figure for average annual covered payroll in Coos County from the Oregon Employment Department.
C. Additional Obligations
JCEP hereby commits to meet certain additional requirements as reasonably requested by The Zone Sponsor and established solely through this Agreement, as follows:
1. JCEP agrees that failure to satisfy requirements of this paragraph shall result in disqualification of property from exemption in accordance with ORS 285C.420, including but not limited to the payment of back taxes. Any such disqualification shall be pursuant to a 60-day period for resolving the matter after the receipt of notice, as sent by certified mail from the Sponsor to the County Assessor and JCEP. On or before December 31 of each year, in which begins a tax year when the Facility is exempt under ORS 285C.409(1)(c) in or after 20___, JCEP shall
4
pay to The Zone Sponsor a Project Fee in the amount of $_________0,000. (Moneys comprising the Project Fee shall be deposited with The Zone Sponsor and shall be budgeted, expended and distributed by The Zone Sponsor as described in Exhibit C).
2. JCEP shall furnish timely information or document to the Coos County Assessor, the Zone Sponsor and state agencies, as necessary, appropriate, or requested for administrating the provisions of this Agreement or associated tax incentives.
Except as indicated directly above, no promise or warranty attributable to JCEP, whether verbal or written, shall be deemed an obligation or local additional requirement that is in any way incumbent on JCEP for purposes of tax incentives under the Statutes.
III. OBLIGATIONS OF SPONSOR
A. The governing bodies of The Zone Sponsors shall adopt resolutions to authorize the approval of this Agreement, such that:
1. If this resolution has not all been adopted on or before __________, this Agreement becomes null and void
2. Official, executed copies of the adopted resolutions shall be attached and included with this Agreement in Exhibit D
3. The resolution adopted by the governing bodies of The Zone Sponsors shall serve to approve the Facility for the property tax exemption under ORS 285C.403(3)(a).
B. The Zone Sponsors hereby set the period of the property tax exemption for purposes of ORS 285C.409(1)(c) to be 15 consecutive years, notwithstanding any shorter period that may be allowed by law.
C. The Zone Sponsors shall distribute and use the funds paid with the aforementioned Project Fee as described in Exhibit C and shall fully indemnify and hold JCEP harmless from any liability arising from those funds or their use.
D. The Zone Sponsors shall not impose or request any additional requirement of JCEP, except as expressed in this Agreement.
E. The Zone Sponsors shall support JCEP in having the Facility approved by the Governor for the tax credits under ORS 307.124, but The Zone Sponsors make no warranty with respect to its ability to affect any outcome in such regards.
IV. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall commence on the last date of execution by the parties and terminate on June 30 of the last tax year of the exemption.
5
V. GENERAL TERMS
A. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party (provided, however, that JCEP may assign this Agreement to any affiliate involved in the liquification, transport and sale of liquid natural gas without the consent of the Port). JCEP shall provide written notice of any such assignment to the Port and shall, notwithstanding any such assignment, remain liable for its obligations under this Agreement. To avoid any ambiguity, the parties agree that JCEP may not assign this Agreement to any affiliate without the consent of the Port unless such assignment is to any affiliate involved in liquification, transport and sales of liquid natural gas as described in the proceeding sentence.
B. The governing law, jurisdiction, and venue. Any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement or any other documents or instruments executed in connection with this Agreement shall be governed by the Laws, and brought in the Circuit Courts of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of laws, and by the execution and delivery of this Agreement, both parties hereto consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts.
C. Attorney’s Fees. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever (including any proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement or to interpret or enforce any rights or obligations hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorney, paralegal, accountant, and other expert fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as determined by the court or body at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. Payment of all such fees shall also apply to any administrative proceeding, trial, and/or any appeal or petition for review.
D. Miscellaneous Provisions. This Agreement may only be amended in writing, signed by both parties. Waiver of any provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be considered a future waiver of that provision or any other provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement was negotiated at arms’ length by sophisticated parties and shall not be construed against the drafter. Should any provision of the Agreement be deemed illegal, void, or unenforceable the parties intend that all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Each of the parties signing below represents and warrants that
(1). He/she has been authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of their respective organizations; and
(2). Neither the execution of this Agreement, nor the execution, delivery, or recordation of any document or Agreement referenced herein, nor the closing of any transaction contemplated herein, constitutes or will constitute a default under any Agreement to which it is a party. 6
Time is of the essence in the performance of this agreement. Nothing in this Agreement expressed or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any person other than the parties hereto, and their respective successors and permitted assigns, any rights, benefits, or revenues of any nature under or by reason of this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto and any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one in the same Agreement. Each counterpart may consist of a number of copies hereof each signed by less than all, but together signed by all, the parties hereto.
E. Notices. All notices to be given hereunder unless specified to the contrary shall be in writing and provided to the parties by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by a nationally recognized national air carrier service at the following addresses:
Oregon International Port of Coos Bay
PO Box 1215
Coos Bay, OR 97420
Copy to:
Mike Stebbins
P.O. Box 1006
North Bend, OR 97459
JCEP
Copy to:
Any notice shall be deemed given:
(a) If delivered, on the first business day after the date of delivery or refusal of delivery if sent by personal delivery or airborne, Federal Express or a comparable national air carrier service and provided such delivery or refusal delivery is evidenced in writing by the delivery service; or
(b) If mailed on the third business day following mailing if deposited in the United States, postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.
7
SIGNATURES
ACCEPTING FOR THE ZONE SPONSORS OF THE BAY AREA ENTERPRISE ZONE:
County of Coos
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
Oregon International Port of Coos Bay
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
City of Coos Bay
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
City of North Bend
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
8
ACCEPTING FOR Jordan Cove Energy Project:
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
9
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY SITE
10
EXHIBIT B
MAP OF FACILITY SITE
11
EXHIBIT C
PLAN FOR DISTRIBUTION AND USE PROJECT FEE
[law enforcement, recreation district]
12
EXHIBIT D
COUNTY RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR 15-YEAR EXEMPTION ON RURAL ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPERTY
13

From: Rob Taylor [mailto:obetewic@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To: Bobbi Brooks; Bob Main; John Sweet; Melissa Cribbins
Subject: Official Information Request on JCEP in EZ

Hello,

Can someone tell me if the County has passed the resolutions to allow the JCEP to receive the EZ deductions?  According to the EZ agreement below, all members are suppose to pass a resolution.  I have not seen that yet. 

Please look at the following EZ agreement and read the parts highlited in red.  Look at section F letter ii or section 3 letter A.  

Does the county need to pass a resolution?  If the county has passed a resolution then please forward me a copy of that document?  Thank you.... 


Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
PO Box 973
Bandon OR 97411
Phone: 541-347-9942
Email: cooscountywatchdog@hotmail.com
Website: www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com

From: Rob Taylor [mailto:obetewic@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Margaret Barber
Subject: FW: Official Information Request on JCEP in EZ

Hello,

Could you please tell me if any of the members of the Coos Bay Enterprise Zone has voted on any resolutions to allow the tax exemptions for the JCEP? 


Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
PO Box 973
Bandon OR 97411
Phone: 541-347-9942
Email: cooscountywatchdog@hotmail.com
Website: www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com

Hey Folks,

The following letter is to the Lane County commissioners and the video is excellent.  Lane County may be the first county to pass an actual ordinance against the 2012 NDAA, which will catapult the issue back into the news.  Once this ordinance is passed in Lane County, we are going to take the wording in the ordinance and use it as an initiative for cities and counties who refuse to pass it through a regular vote of the council or committee.  This has been the reason for our delay on filing the NDAA resolution as an initiative in Coos Bay, so Coos Bay, North Bend and Coquille would be a good place to start when we have an actual ordinance in place, which will give it precedence.   

The BOC in Coos County voted to adopt a resolution against the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, section 1021 and 1022, except for one commissioner. 

Commissioner John Sweet refused to protect the rights of the average citizen and voted NO on the NDAA resolution for Coos County.  Contrary to the oath he took at the beginning of his term, Mr. Sweet must have a problem defending the freedoms of his constituents and this was not the first time.  He opposed the voice of the voters by trying to install a County Administrator.  He just called the position, Finance Director, but it was the same position, so maybe it is time for a change. 

If you would like to show your support for the Lane County Ordinance opposing the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, then call or email the commissioners..  The Lane BOC contact info can be found here:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/BCC/Pages/default.aspx

Rob T. 

 Although we could not attend your June 3rd, 2014 Board of County Commissioners meeting, we attentively watched the webcast of your discussions regarding the proposed resolution and ordinance. We were greatly impressed with the well-crafted resolution and your unanimous vote for its approval. We’re also grateful for the dialogue between the commissioners, acknowledging the effectiveness of withholding any county funds or resources from an unconstitutional implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. We were greatly disappointed however, in the time your legal council spent transforming the mainly symbolic resolution into anything substantial, or effective in protecting the constitutional rights of your constituents.

At the end of the awe inspiring public hearing where individuals from all across the political spectrum came together to voice their concerns about the NDAA, we saw and heard four commissioners truly committed to addressing their constituents concerns. In all of your final comments to the public, the enactment of an ordinance prohibiting the use of county tax dollars and resources from being used in the assistance of the implementation of the unconstitutional provisions of NDAA in Lane County was mentioned. Pat Farr also explicitly requested the BCC legal council to look into and draft several possibilities into how this effort could be effectively done. Despite Mr. Farr’s request, the legal council spent much of their time and energy reviewing and deconstructing an example ordinance submitted by Shane Ozbun, former State Director of PANDA ~ Oregon. Although this sample ordinance submitted by Mr. Ozbun, who has no experience drafting legislation, was clearly submitted with the purposes to help the BCC legal council brainstorm possibilities to fulfill Mr. Farr’s formal request for ordinance options. This submission was not intended to be the only and primary ordinance option available to the commissioners.

The legal council, and you the commissioners, were in the right with your concerns over the broad terminology used in the proposed ordinance. After all, it’s the broad terminology of the language in the 2012 NDAA that concerned the 300 people who attended your public hearing one month ago. However, after listening and reviewing the materials submitted by your legal council, I found that many of the arguments against this ordinance are relatively easy to solve and clarify. Below I have outline the concerns made in section ‘D’ and ‘E’ of their June 3rd report titled; Review of a proposed County Ordinance prohibiting expenditure of resources in implementation of illegal federal directives to arrest and detain US citizens in certain cases:

 

Section D: Financial and/or Resource Considerations

Moving forward, if the Board adopts an Ordinance, there are a number of unknown resource considerations including:

o    How the federal government will allocate resources to Lane County if it has adopted policies which make it a crime to carry

out certain federal laws.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Lane County’s ordinance would only affect a federal law that becomes unconstitutionally interpreted. In the case of section 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, it would only be a criminal act to assist or fund the NDAA’s implementation once it has violated the constitutional due process rights of its citizens, or more easily and specifically defined in the contents of ORS Volume 4: Criminal Procedures, Crime.

…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)

o   The public safety resources required in order to arrest, prosecute, and jail those who may be found guilty of implementing federal law in light of the well-known resource constraints currently existing in Lane County.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Your extremely diverse constituency, both geographically and politically in Lane County, supported the idea of an ordinance because it actually codified their concerns. Despite resource constraints in the rare occasion where an individual assists in the implantation of an activity that usurped state criminal procedures, and stripped persons of their constitutional rights, the use of funds to arrest, prosecute, and jail those individuals would be deemed appropriate.

…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)

o    How the Board would trigger a “freeze” on expending fiscal resources in the event the federal government seeks assistance enforcing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA, and would that freeze only apply to certain revenues?

 

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: In the event that the federal government unconstitutionally implements sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA in ways that violate the constitutional rights of Lane County citizens, absolutely no funds, resources, or personnel should be allocated in assistance of that effort. In this situation, Lane County would also have legal standing to file suite against those who violate the U.S. and State Constitutions as well as the Oregon state laws. Due to the valid legal standing Lane County would have, this hypothetical lawsuit could have the potential to reach the Supreme Court with the opportunity to rule sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA as unconstitutional. At the very minimum this would at least bring massive public and political awareness to the issue.

 

 E. Analysis (from the Review of a proposed County Ordinance)

1) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 1 of ‘E’:

- No other ordinance in the U.S. has been passed against the NDAA, so why should Lane County pass one?

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: According to the A.O.C.’s report on County Home Rule, Oregon counties have the most discretionary authority on local matter than any other state in the U.S.. Lane County has received the most overwhelming amount of bipartisan support for such an ordinance, and supporter have come from all across Lane County’s jurisdiction. With the recent Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on the constitutionality of the 2012 NDAA, on March 28th of 2014, increases the importance in addressing this issue with both local and states solutions.

2) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 2 of ‘E’:

-Penalty for violating ordinance exceeds the scope of county’s authority

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Simply change the penalty for the proposed ordinance to the maximum penalty allowed under county law, both monetarily and with time served.

3) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 3 of ‘E’:

-Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: State laws are inferior and cannot conflict with federal laws.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: The text of the Supremacy Clause reads as; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.” The NDAA was passed legally under the U.S. Constitution, however, in the event where sections 1021 and 1022 become unconstitutionally interpreted and implemented violating other rights explicitly written in the U.S. Constitution, those provisions in the NDAA no longer become the “law of the land” because they are not “in pursuance thereof” the U.S. Constitution.

4) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 4 of ‘E’:

- State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Oregon has a long history of State Constitutionalism. Hans Linde, former Supreme Court Justice in Oregon, wrote extensively about the subject stating that state courts are allowed to think independently on individual cases and are not expected to follow slavishly to U.S. Supreme Court precedence on every case. Oregon along with many other states’ Supreme Courts have made rulings on specific cases that applied more protections to the 1st Amendment and due process rights than the U.S. Supreme Court had in previous cases. These decisions have not been overturned or challenged at the federal level.

5) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 5 of ‘E’:

-A court challenge would be twofold: (1) the conduct to be criminalized is so vague that a reasonable person could not know if they were violating it (facially unconstitutional) and it could potentially criminalize lawful constitutional expression (unconstitutional as applied).

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Mr. Ozbun was only submitting an example ordinance and believed the legal council would be able, and more importantly, willing to fix some of the issues with the legalese of the ordinance. The crime could be easily defined by any entity attempting to violate the due process procedures outline in Volume 4 of the ORS titled Criminal Procedure, Crime. One example of this would be ignoring the right for the accused/detained to see a judge within 72 hours of being detained. Any county employee (who is a “county resource” and operating under “county funds”) that becomes aware of such illegal activity outlined above, should be required to report such activity to the proper authorities (i.e. County Sheriff), and deny any support or resources under their authority to the violators of the state and or county law. If the county employee fails to do so, they are then aiding and abetting criminal activities further defined under ORS § 161.155 Criminal liability for conduct of another.

I hope these counter legal arguments help you continue your brave dedication and support towards defending your constituents’ constitutional rights, and your Oath of Office. I ask that you reopen the discussion for an effective ordinance at the next possible BCC meeting. I’m more than happy and willing to work with your staff in anyway to make this process as fast and effective as possible. I will be sending this letter to all the political action groups and the individuals who have dedicated much of their time and energy in bringing awareness to this issue. I have also provided a link below where you can access your comments made on April 15th regarding the public hearing of your unanimous support for an ordinance, as well as Mr. Farr’s request to your legal council to provide a few different ordinance options. Thank you for the services you provide this county and for your support and time spent on this issue specifically. For any future inquiries or action concerning PANDA ~ Oregon, or the NDAA, please get in touch with me by phone or e-mail as I will now be the primary contact for PANDA ~ Oregon.

Sincerely,
Colin Farnsworth
PANDA Oregon State Director
Phone: (206)450-7249

Commissioners’ comments on April 15th NDAA public hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnT_KJSpXQ

Hey Folks,

The endearing term "Yahoos" comes from a comment made by John Whitty in an article on the LNG in The Oregonian. 

Many in the community see the Community Enhancement Plan as one attributing factor to low turnout and even lower support for Commissioner Sweet.  It is hard to get the peoples vote while circumventing their representation in government.  Sweet would get more support for his campaign and his ideas, if he would trust the voter and PUT IT ON THE BALLOT....Rob T. 

All indications are that the Yahoos in the south county and rural Coos Bay and North Bend could put a new commissioner into office next January.

The county clerk’s office has released the vote tally for the eighteen precincts and John Sweet may have won the hearts and minds of midtown Coos Bay but he is vulnerable everywhere else. Sweet, the incumbent, lost the popular vote during the primary to challenger Don Gurney forcing a November runoff between the two. Because the voter turnout was so low last May these results may not be the most accurate barometer of how the county will vote this fall but all indications are that the Yahoos in the south county and rural Coos Bay and North Bend could put a new commissioner into office next January.

COOS COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA

Wednesday, June 11, 2014
5:30 pm


THE BARN, BANDON, OREGON

5:30 – 5:35      Roll Call & Approve minutes of 5/15/2014 and 5/29/14 meeting

5:35 – 5:50      Staff Report

5:50 – 6:10      Bat House Program

6:10 – 6:20      June Event Planning

6:20 – 6:30      Mosquito Magnets

6:30 – 6:55      Public Comment

6:55 – 7:00      Committee Member Comment

7:00                 Adjourn

Fellow Hunters and Shooting Enthusiasts,

The long awaited Tioga Sports Park opening is about to happen! Yes, at last, after years of anticipation, the Park is very close of opening our 100 yard shooting range for public use.

As a newly elected Tioga Board member, I would like to bring you up to date and ask, fervently, for your help.

This Thursday, June 5 at 4pm at the Coos County Courthouse, Room 121, 250 N. Baxter, Coquille, OR there will be a meeting of the Tioga Sports Park Board and the PUBLIC with the Coos County Board of Commissioners. The purpose of this meeting is to secure Economic Development Funds to supplement the Grant Monies obtained to date.

It is extremely important that we have a huge supportive effort shown by YOU, the supporters of the Tioga Sports Park, to show the Commissioners that we have waited long enough for this range and we want and need this for our community.

There is a lot of history on the difficulties of Tioga opening which you'll be able to read about in the near future of the new website. But, right now, we have been granted significant monies from the Friends of the NRA and the Pittman-Richardson Grants and with the previously promised financial support of the Commissioners with Economic Development Funds we will be able to open with a 100 yard rifle range. Plans for expansion of that rifle range out to 600 yards and a pistol range will follow.

Right now, we need everyone to show up to this meeting and make sure that the Commissioners understand that we are serious about obtaining additional promised funding from them. (Please note that Bob Main, a founder of the Park is in full support of it's opening, but John Sweet and Melissa Cribbens are not supportive). At a previous BOC meeting, after many local citizens speaking of their support and need for the Tioga Sports Park, and the Tioga Board asking for funds to finally open, Mr. Sweet and Ms. Cribbens stalled the approval of giving us these funds at the time, saying that if we could show proof of other monies that we had raised or been granted, they would grant us an 'over the top' amount to give us the money we needed to finish the initial range and corresponding services.

WE need to show up and speak up at this meeting! Tell your friends, family, even strangers....it's that important! Please get there any way you can and help hold the Commissioners accountable for their promises.

Tioga has just received our 2013 Friends of the NRA Grant and we are about to receive our Pittman-Richardson grant for 2013 and 2014 through the State as well, so we are well on our way to our Grand Opening.

Please check our new website in the coming couple weeks for further information on how you can help make Tioga a reality. Please note that the link to our website will take you to the old site right now, but bookmark it and check back for our brand new site.

Again, the meeting is:

Thursday, June 5 at 4pm at the Coos County Courthouse, Room 121, 250 N. Baxter, Coquille, OR

See you there,
Connie Martin
Tioga Sports Park Board Member