STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETS FEBRUARY 22 IN NORTH BEND
News Release from Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept.

NORTH BEND, Ore. – The State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (SACHP) will meet at 9 a.m., Friday, Feb. 22 at the Mill Casino, 3201 Tremont Street, North Bend, OR 97459, and consider nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. The meeting is open to the public.

Friday’s meeting agenda: a presentation by the national register program coordinator, and hearings of one delisting request and three proposed nominations. Hearings will begin at 10:15 a.m. For specific hearing times, refer to the online agenda: www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/Pages/nrhp_sachphome.aspx

The committee will review a delisting request for the John M. and Elizabeth Bates House in Lake Oswego. The committee will review three proposed nominations: the Roy E. and Hildur L. Amundsen House, Gresham; the Oregon Trail: La Grande to Hilgard Segment, Union County; and the Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me Traditional Cultural Property Historic District, Coos County.

Nominations recommended by the SACHP go to the National Park Service, which maintains the Register under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

The SACHP is a nine-member governor-appointed citizen commission with credentials in many historic preservation-related fields.

The meeting site is accessible to people with disabilities. Special accommodations for the meeting may be made with at least three days of advance notice by calling (503) 986-0690.

More information about the National Register of Historic Places process is online at www.oregonheritage.org (click on “National Register” at left of page).
​
Contact Info:
Robert Olguin, National Register Program Coordinator
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
503-986-0668; robert.olguin@oregon.gov

February 22, 2019 - The SACHP will review the nomination document for the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me Traditional Cultural Property Historic District. The meeting will be at the Mill Casino, 3201 Tremont Street, North Bend, beginning at 1:00 p.m.
 
May 10, 2019 - Requested last day to submit notarized objections to the Oregon SHPO for the proposed historic district. Any notarized objection received after this date will be forwarded to the National Park Service before they make a final decision.
 
May 23, 2019 - Nomination for the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me TCP Historic District is forwarded by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to the National Park Service for a final decision. This date will change if the SACHP does not recommend that the district be listed in the National Register at its February 22nd meeting.
 
July 2019 - Expected date that the National Park Service will make a final decision regarding listing the proposed Q’alya ta Kukwis shichdii me TCP Historic District in the National Register. This date will change if the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (SACHP) does not recommend that the district be listed in the National Register at its February 22nd meeting.
 
More information can be found at the City web site at http://coosbay.org/departments/community-development-department#planning-division  and the State Office of Historic Preservation web site at https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/pages/index.aspx. ​

AGENDA
Community Enhancement Plan Workgroup
December 6, 2018 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Coos Bay City Hall City Council Chambers
2:00 Welcome and Introductions Melissa Cribbins
2:15  Presentation on history of CEP discussions and EZ Agreement
 
2:45 Review of proposed EZ Agreement between Jordan Cove and Sponsors
 
3:00 Review of proposed CEP Agreement between Zone Sponsors
 
3:15 Discussion of EZ Agreement and CEP Agreement
Workgroup Members
 
Public Comment will be taken at the end of the meeting.  Workgroup Members are not approving either agreement, but may make a motion to recommend passing the agreements to their respective governing bodies.  Both Agreements (the EZ Agreement and the CEP) must be approved by all four Zone Sponsors at a duly noticed public meeting.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/569e6f1176d99c4f392858c4/t/5c01abc74fa51ac22714df29/1543613387743/CEP+Presentation+12+06+18.pdf

​Most people who don't want a community swimming pool in their backyard, or in the city park, claim that it's okay with them if a self-funded organization builds one.

CC Watchdog seems to have always resisted the very idea.

  Presuming you're engaged in a quest for the truth, I have the honor to point out a few random errors which I hope to see you correct. 

Tons of cement will not be dumped in the city park. The correct term for the construction materials concrete. A 100,000 square foot building would be 316 feet on a side and would cost well over 15 million dollars. Obviously we envision no such project. Your informant is off by more than an order of magnitude. His information may come from a misheard remark or even a misprint, but anyone of ordinary intelligence would realize that the numbers make no sense.

And finally the citizens of Bandon never voted against a pool, but turned down a certain means of funding it, which is why we have had to turn to other sources.

Cordially,
Dan Green

Exhibit  "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 18-09
REFERRAL MEASURE FOR NOVEMBER 6, 2018 ELECTION
BALLOT TITLE
CAPTION: Voter Approval Required for City to Expend Funds on Pool

QUESTION: Should Bandon's Charter restrict spending (other than private donations or grants) for operation or maintenance of any pool?
​
SUMMARY: Currently, the City has no public swimming pool. There have been public and private organizations that have attempted to organize efforts for construction of a pool. The City has not formally supported any entity's efforts. The Mayor and City Council may determine the City can support a pool construction effort in non-monetary ways but has determined it is not in the best interest of City to risk spending public funds for the maintenance and operation of a swimming pool if a public or private entity is unable after construction of a pool to sustain those costs. The passage of the proposed measure would allow the City to express its support for some swimming pool project but preclude the spending of any tax payer funds for the operation or maintenance, except as specifically authorized by the voters. The City and Urban Renewal would still be able to apply and provide matching funds for capital and construction grants.

Submitted by Fred Kirby,

​Dear Mr. Editor: 
 
Apparently Pembina / Jordan Cove Energy is reporting that the proposed LNG factory will employ 6,000 (different) temporary workers (not all concurrently) and 200 permanent workers – “many” expected to be Coos County job seekers.  That’s enormous growth from JCEP 2005 numbers of less than 1,000 and 50.  Apparently JCEP currently estimates a total of $10 billion (current year) US dollars will be spent to construct the LNG factory and pipeline; that number has grown from less than $2 billion.  The US BLS reports that about 35% of the growth is inflation related.  We Oregonians who are neutral or supporting the LNG project deserve to know the verifiable facts.  Perhaps you will task your investigative journalist to provide answers to the following questions in a soon to be published paper.  Certainly, after 14 years of effort, answers in excruciating detail are immediately available for the public.   
 
01 Why should we believe JCEP numbers?  How did JCEP scientifically arrive at its numbers? 
 
02 Please publish the JCEP graph that shows planned labor build up and decline.  When is the peak? 
 
03 Oregonians have relied on 14 years of JCEP promises.  Which elected Oregon official holds the JCEP written legally enforceable document covering its contractual obligation to employ (first) all local temporary workers seeking employment?  What written legally enforceable promises have been made to local labor unions to employ their members?  Who will determine a “qualified” job seeker?  What are the significant penalties if JCEP does not honor its contractual obligations in this matter? 
 
04 There are probably no experienced LNG factory workers in Coos County who are seeking employment.  Describe the 200 full time positions.  How many positions are expected to be LNG experienced scientists and technicians from elsewhere?  What has JCEP done to train locals for “skilled” permanent jobs? 
 
05 Apparently there will be many months of 24/7 noise from placing thousands of piles followed by years of factory construction.  How will JCEP mitigate years of noise? 
 
06 What prevents Canadian company Pembina from selling the LNG effort to a Chinese, Russian, or other foreign company when FERC approves its application? 
 
07 When did the people of Coos County approve the fees in lieu of taxes concept that is being reported by JCEP as being in place? 
 
08 Some day the LNG factory will be abandoned.  What safeguards protect local taxpayers from paying many tens of millions to demolish? 
 
Fred Kirby 
Coos Bay ​

The Committee to Shut It Down will be having a meeting on Friday, April 13, 2018, at 7 pm in the North Bend Library on Sherman Street and the reason is due to a recent vote by the Coos County Board of Commissioners. 
 
On March 27, 2018, the Board voted to extend the urban renewal debt and the North Bay Urban Renewal Plan for another twenty years.  The maximum indebtedness is thirty-seven million dollars, and it is the responsibility of the taxpayers to pay it back.  
 
The BOC started this process in September of 2017 where at one meeting over seventy opponents attended, and they spoke out against the UR tax debt or extending the plan.  Many of them demanded that the commissioners put the ordinance on the ballot for the voters to decide. 
 
Unfortunately, ALL THREE COMMISSIONERS ignored the pleas of the public and voted unanimously to support this tax.  They saddled the taxpayers with two more decades of debt by enacting Ordinance 17-08-006L, which amends the plan to the county’s urban renewal agency until the year 2038.  The life expectancy of some of the current board members are shorter than the time it will take the next generation to pay off this debt,
 
In a twist, Commissioner Bob Main, who had been a very vocal longtime opponent of urban renewal decided to vote in favor of the plan and the ordinance.  Many of his supporters were very disappointed by the sudden reversal, but it was not surprising considering his past inconsistencies. 
 
Main used to be the renegade on the board with Cribbins and Sweet towing the line for the local political establishment, but this recent decision puts Main in the muck with the rest of the local swamp creatures.  It seemed to be a recklessly cavalier decision considering the election before last he only kept the commissioner position by 14 votes.  It is unclear where he will receive support in his next bid to retain the office.  
 
He explained himself by stating this, “While I do not like UR’s, I was able to modify the Coos County UR.   Removed was the additional tax levy on all Coos County tax payers ( if the UR was short funds ).  Also, any additional revenue from additional taxable value has to be approved by the county commissioners.  ( Jordan Cove as an example would have to be approved.  I do not see that happening because the county needs those funds for the jail, deputies, etc.)”
 
Fortunately, the voters will have a chance to terminate Bob Main as county commissioner in two years, but for now, Commissioners Cribbins and Sweet are up for reelection.   Both are facing multiple contenders so voters will have plenty of choices in the May primary.  
 
Interested parties can find more info on candidates at the county Elections Office’s website at www.co.coos.or.us/Departments/CountyClerk/Elections.aspx.
 
Insubordination is an intolerable act for elected employees, so several citizens have decided to file a TAX Referendum.  If the group collects enough signatures, the voters will get to make the final decision.  With the required number, plus extras for the ones the elections official might throw out, the committee will need to gather about 1300 signatures.  The campaign is an effort to eliminate, not only the tax but also the entire process of tax-increment financing in Coos County. 
 
Anyone interested in fighting for a lower tax debt should attend the “Shut Down the Coos County URA” meeting on Friday the thirteenth.  There will be petitions available to sign, and organizers will provide more in-depth explanations of how urban renewal and tax-increment financing is driving up taxes and property prices.  
 
For anyone who cannot make the meeting, but would like to circulate the petition and gather signatures can get copies by sending an email to cooscountywatchdog@gmail.com.  Please put “UR Petition” in the subject line.   
 
Download a single signature sheet and find out more information at www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com.  

TOWN HALL MEETING
Urban Renewal Agency Wants Your Input
The Coos Bay Urban Renewal Agency (Agency) is in the process of reviewing the Empire Urban Renewal Plan (Plan).  For the most part, the Plan was created more than twenty years ago. A number of Urban Renewal Projects listed in the Plan have been accomplished while others have yet to be undertaken. One of the largest projects, the South Empire Blvd Street project was recently completed. That project included a complete makeover of South Empire Blvd, which was aimed at increasing pedestrian and bicyclist safety through the widening of the street and installation of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and lighting.     
 
The purpose of the Plan review is to ensure the project list reflects today’s needs of the District. It is more than possible that the Plan will need to be updated to reflect the current and anticipated future needs of the Empire Urban Renewal District. Over the next few years, the Agency will have additional resources to undertake projects listed in the Plan.The Agency would like to gather public input on not only the remaining projects already in the Plan, but also potential projects that would be added to the Plan. The Coos Bay Urban Renewal Agency will be hosting a Town Hall meeting on Tuesday, January 9 at the Dolphin Theatre beginning at 5:30 pm. The Dolphin Theatre is located at 580 Newmark Avenue. A copy of the current Empire Urban Renewal Plan can be found online at Empire URA Plan.  

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

 AM-17-005 Urban Renewal
North Bay Renewal Agency District Report
North Bay Urban Renewal Plan Amendment
North Bay Urban Renewal Plan as Amended
12/05/17 Memo to the BOC

Related Posts:
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

The Excesses of Tax-Increment Financing & Urban Renewal
 
Sex scandals aside, taxes are the biggest issue on the table right now, which is understandable when most families are spending more on taxes than they do on housing, food, and clothing combined.  Most people think they are paying too much due to the overspending of government, so it makes sense to shrink the budget.
 
There never seems to be enough revenue for education, infrastructure, and public safety, so eliminating the process of tax-increment financing would stop Urban Renewal Agencies from siphoning money from those and other overlapping taxing districts that provide those services. 
 
According to data collected from the “OR Property Tax Annual Statistics FY 2016-2017” found on the Oregon Department of Revenue’s website, there are 77 Urban Renewal Agencies in the state that manage 113 areas/districts.  Those UR agencies received $223.3-million from the “Revenue from Excess,” while others received an additional $21.1-million from special levies totaling $244.4-million that was diverted from other various taxing districts or directly from the taxpayers.  The revenue from property taxes going to Urban Renewal through the TIF process in FY 2009-2010 was $182-million.
 
“Revenue from Excess,” is the property tax revenue generated by increased property values inside the UR area over the frozen increment when the authorities enacted the plan for the district.  Without the TIF process, the other districts that overlap the UR area would retain that money.  
 
Statewide in FY 2016-2017, Public education lost $87.2-million in potential revenue because of urban renewal activity. Cities lost $73.3-million in that same fiscal year, and counties lost $41.5-million, which includes the $28.2-million taken from Multnomah County alone.  Other districts, including Fire Districts, lost $21.3-million. 
 
Those totals do not include the maintenance of the unfunded projects built with the redirected money.  
 
Politicians use urban renewal funding as seed money to create new taxing districts, or they use tax dollars from existing districts to maintain unnecessary projects at the expense of necessary amenities. Those projects include auditoriums, carousels, conservation easements, convention centers, decorations, estuaries, murals, racetracks, swimming pools, sports stadiums, sculptures, street art, and theaters, which take money directly from colleges, roads, schools, police and fire departments.
 
The idea of redevelopment is to increase the assessed values of property surrounding and within the urban renewal area by artificially inflating the local tax base using public money---all to generate new economic activity that most likely would have taken place with or without public incentives.  It just may not have happened in the area desired by the urban renewal planner but in a place chosen by the private business owner, which alleviates the taxpayers of the financial risk. 
 
Some independent studies have found little evidence that municipalities with Urban Renewal Agencies developed any faster than cities without these programs did.  In fact, one study titled “The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development” written in March of 1999 by two professors of economics, Richard F. Dye, and David E. Merriman, it found TIF areas grew slower than areas without it did.  Quote, “If the use of tax increment financing spurs economic development that would not have happened but for the public expenditures, we would expect (after controlling for other growth determinants and for self-selection) a positive relationship between TIF adoption and growth. If the use of tax increment financing merely moves capital around within a municipality, relocating improvements from non-TIF areas of the town to within TIF district borders without changing the productivity of that capital, we would expect (after appropriate controls) to find a zero relationship between TIF adoption and growth. What we find, however, is a negative relationship between TIF adoption and growth. This is consistent with the hypothesis that government subsidies reallocate property improvements in such a way that capital is less productive in its new location.
 
A Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute made the case against urban renewal and tax-increment financing in a policy analysis titled, “The Case against Tax-Increment Financing” by Randal O’Toole.  In the paper, he states, “There are two problems with any attempts to reform TIF. First, no matter how much legislatures may try to focus TIF on genuine examples of blighted neighborhoods, cities will find ways to get around such safeguards. Second, there is little evidence that city gov­ernments are better than private developers at determining the type and location of new development that cities need, and plenty of evidence that they are not as good. Instead of reforming TIF, state legislatures should sim­ply repeal the laws that give cities and coun­ties the authority to use it and similar tools to subsidize economic development.”
 
The politicians intentionally design these types of development schemes to centralize power and money for the utilization of government planners.  Oregon legislators both Democrat and Republican ignore the annual loss of revenue, especially to education, so they can continue the excessiveness of constructing nonessential boondoggles of the future because it benefits the special interest of both parties today.    
 
About the author: 
Rob Taylor is the tentative Chief Petitioner for the “Committee to Shut Down the Coos County URA.”  Go to CoosCountyWatchdog.com for more information.

Related Posts:
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

Coos Bay Urban Renewal Agency Minutes - September 19, 2017
Approval of Streetscape Construction Bid
Public Works and Community Development Director Jim Hossley stated over the past two years, the Urban Renewal Agency reviewed various ideas and renderings for the Highway 101 streetscape. The goal was to improve the appeal of the Highway 101 streetscape from the south to north city limits. The streetscape improvements would be restricted to Highway 101 right-of way (ROW) and City owned property. Due to funding constraints, efforts on the project focused on the two existing entry monument locations.
 
Based on early cost estimates, staff budgeted $175,000 in this year's Downtown Capital Projects Fund Urban Renewal budget for the streetscape projects at the entry monument locations. After completion of the construction documents, the design consultant estimated the total construction cost to be $225,071. The project was advertised for bid, and the City received one bid from Clean Rivers Erosion Control for a total cost of $249,999. Mr. Hossley noted there was a $75,000 shortfall in the budget relative to the bid price, but there were adequate funds in the Urban Renewal Downtown Capital Projects Fund to cover the bid price plus a contingency.

Urban Renewal Agency Minutes - September 19, 2017 21 
Mr. Hossley advised the proposed bid only covered the streetscape improvements and did not include the two entry signs and rockscaping . The estimated cost for signs was $32,000 and rockscaping was $10,000. Vice-Chair Marler expressed concern about the increased costs for the project.
 
Board Member Groth moved to award contract to Clean Rivers Erosion control for a cost of $249,999 plus a 10% contingency of $25,000 for a total cost of $274,999. Board Member Kilmer seconded the motion which carried. Ayes: Benetti, DiNovo, Farmer, Groth, Kilmer, Marler. Absent: Kramer.

CENTRAL POINT, Ore.—The Southwest Region Council of the Access and Habitat program will host a public meeting Nov. 30 at 3:30 p.m. to discuss a possible new Travel Management Area to be known as the Coos Mountain TMA within the Tioga Wildlife Management unit.

The meeting will be held at
ODFW’s Central Point office,
1495 East Gregory Road. 
                                                   Attend in person or call
                                                   1-877-336-1831 and enter participant code 804246.

Commercial timberland ownership in the area has shifted in recent years. The new TMA would provide “Welcome to Hunt” access on 63,000 acres so that hunters would have access to more private and public land in the area. TMAs typically involve some motor vehicle restrictions and help regulate access so private landowners are more willing to open their property to hunters.

The A and H program funds projects that provide hunter access and/or improve wildlife habitat on private land in Oregon. It’s funded by a $4 surcharge on hunting licenses and big game auction and raffle tag sales.

For more information, please contact Jade Keehn, ODFW’s A and H SW Regional Coordinator at jade.e.keehn@state.or.us, (541) 826-8774 x232.
###
Contact:
Jade Keehn, ODFW’s A and H SW Regional Coordinator, jade.e.keehn@state.or.us, (541) 826-8774 x232

Related Posts:
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

FINAL VOTE on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
The Board of Commissioners will vote on an amendment to renew the plan for the North Bay Urban Renewal Area.  
 
 Monday, October 30, at 1:30 PM the Board of Commissioners will hold the Continuation of Hearing on Urban Renewal Plan Amendment in the Owen Building large conference room, 250 Baxter Street, Coquille, Oregon 97423.  

Related Posts:
Information on the Campaign to Shut Down the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Coos County Republican Party Resolution Opposing School Bond Measure #6-166
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

The following page is here to keep people informed about the campaign to shut down the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency, which manages the North Bay Urban Renewal Area.  The UR area is considered a taxing district.
 
Visit The Facebook page:
 www.facebook.com/ShutDowntheCoosCountyURA
 Shut Down the Coos County URA  
 
Please LIKE, FOLLOW and then SHARE our page to let your friends know about our effort to end a useless tax that everyone in the county contributes too.
 
Please press the Volunteer Button if you would like to volunteer for the campaign

In 1986, some local business owners and community leaders decided to create a county Urban Renewal taxing district to develop the industrial area of the North Spit, so they formalized the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency then established the North Bay Urban Renewal Area. The agency has a plan outlining future development projects, and the county has updated it three times since, once in 1998, then again in 2000, and again in 2006. The most recent plan allows the district to sunset in 2018.   
 
The UR agency may pay the district's debt with federal or state grants.  In this case, the agency pays the debt through a process called Tax Increment Financing. TIF is a taxing scheme designed by the Oregon Legislature to siphon money from other taxing districts that overlap the urban renewal area. The taxing districts that the North Spit URA overlap include The Coos Bay School District, the North Bay Rural Fire District and except for 16.3 acres of NB estuary land and 163.39 acres of CB estuary land most of North Bend and Coos Bay lands are predominantly beneath the water in the Coos Bay channel.  There are several countywide districts including the airport district, the county, the library district, and SWOCC, so every property owner in the county contributes to the North Bay URA. 
 
Coos County-wide, property taxpayers contribute approximately $0.0368 per $1,000 assessed value toward the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency, and $0.0229 toward the CCURA Special Levy, which is six cents per every $1,000 of AV.  A $200,000 home would be charged $12.00 annually.  The median-valued home is about $140,000, which would pay $8.40.  The current debt of the North Bay URA is approximate $50,000. 
 
Unfortunately, that amount can and most likely will change depending on the projects the URA Board decide to undertake.  The new UR plan has $3 to 18-million dollars of expenditures listed as new projects, and it has the capability of going into a maximum indebtedness of 60-million dollars.
 
Oregon property taxes going to these Urban Renewal Agencies through the TIF process in FY 2009-2010 was $182-million.  According to data collected from the “OR Property Tax Annual Statistics FY 2016-2017” found on the Oregon Department of Revenue’s website, there are 110 Urban Renewal Agencies statewide in FYE 2016-2017.  These UR agencies received $223.3-million from the “Revenue from Excess,” while others received an additional $21.1-million from special levies totaling $244.4-million diverted from other various taxing districts.  “Revenue from Excess,” is the property tax revenue generated by increased property values inside the UR area over the frozen increment when the authorities enacted the plan for the district. 
 
In FY 2017, Public education alone lost $87.2-million in potential revenue because of urban renewal activity. Cities lost $73.3-million in that same fiscal year, and counties lost $41.5-million, which includes the $28.2-million taken by Multnomah County.  Other districts, including Fire Districts, lost $21.3-million.  
 
The idea of redevelopment is to increase the property values of the urban renewal area as a way to bolster the local tax base---all to generate new business that most likely would have taken place with or without these public incentives.

Coos County Commissioners Melissa Cribbins & John Sweet along with the current URA Board are going to delete the expiration date from the current plan, allowing the debt to exist in perpetuity.  They are going to enact the extension by just a vote of the Board of Commissioners.  If the commissioners extended the expiration date instead of deleting it, then that would have triggered a county ordinance passed in 2012, which would have forced a public vote for this type of substantial change.  
 
In other words, the lawyers working for the local politicians found a loophole in the state ORS to get out of facing the people in a showdown at the ballot box.  
 
However, “The Committee to Shut-Down the CCURA” has another plan. The group is going to file a referendum to put the amendment on the ballot after the commissioners enact it.
 
The following points are a few reasons to oppose Tax Increment Financing funding and to end all Urban Renewal Agencies.  
 
The criteria for using Urban Renewal money has become so vague that some would consider it a discretionary slush fund for politicians to choose how to spend.
 
Politicians use Urban Renewal to centralize power and money into the hands of the few politically connected.
 
Politicians created Urban Renewal as an artificial construct designed to manipulate and compensate certain segments of the market.
 
Politicians funnel public money through Urban Renewal to corporations for private profit.
 
Politicians use Urban Renewal incentives to develop pristine natural areas that normally would remain as undeveloped wilds.
 
Politicians can use Urban Renewal to make eminent domain claims against private property inside the taxing area, which erodes the right of ownership.
 
Politicians use Urban Renewal funding as seed money to create new taxing districts that maintain unnecessary projects at the expense of necessary services. Those projects include auditoriums, carousels, convention centers, swimming pools, sports stadiums, and theaters, which take money from colleges, hospitals, libraries, schools, police and fire departments.
 
Some independent studies have found little evidence that municipalities with Urban Renewal Agencies developed any faster than ones without it did.  In one thorough study written in September of 1999 by two professors of economics, Richard F. Dye and David F. Merriman, titled "The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development" it stated,  “In summary, the empirical evidence suggests that TIF adoption has a real cost for municipal growth rates. Municipalities that elect to adopt TIF stimulate the growth of blighted areas at the expense of the larger town. We doubt that most municipal decision-makers are aware of this tradeoff or that they would willingly sacrifice significant municipal growth to create TIF districts. Our results present an opportunity to ponder the issue of whether, and how much, overall municipal growth should be sacrificed to encourage the development of blighted areas.” 
 
A Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute made the case against Urban Renewal and Tax Increment Finance in a paper titled, “The Case against Tax-Increment Financing” by Randal O’Toole.  In it, he stated, “There are two problems with any attempts to reform TIF. First, no matter how much legislatures may try to focus TIF on genuine examples of blighted neighborhoods, cities will find ways to get around such safeguards. Second, there is little evidence that city gov­ernments are better than private developers at determining the type and location of new development that cities need, and plenty of evidence that they are not as good. Instead of reforming TIF, state legislatures should sim­ply repeal the laws that give cities and coun­ties the authority to use it and similar tools to subsidize economic development.”

Check it out, no notice of the meeting on the North Bay URA webpage on the Port of Coos Bay's website:
http://www.portofcoosbay.com/ccura/

No notice posted on the county website either:
http://www.co.coos.or.us/

Related Posts:
Press Release:  Coos County Forest Open Effective Immediately
Coos County BOC Press Release ~ Coos County Forest Closure
Time to End the Urban Renewal Debt in Coos County
Cribbins & Sweet Utilize Voter Suppression on Urban Renewal Extension
Coos County Proposed Ordinance Adopting North Bay UR Plan ~ FOREVER
Coos County Commissioners Hearing on Extending the Debt of the North Bay URA
Video of Coos Bay Superintendent of Schools Discussing a SECOND Bond Measure
OHA Lifts Blue-green Algae Health Advisory on South Tenmile Lake
FERC Notice of EIS for JCEP Public Comments & Meetings ~ Coos Bay June 27, 2017
Coos County Grants One Year Extension Approval for LNG Pipeline for the JCEP
BOC ~ Notice of Deliberation on JCEP Tuesday August 16, 2016
Public Meeting for Coos County April 19 & North Bend April 26, 2016 on JCEP
Open Letter to the Coos County Board of Commissioners Concerning the JCEP
Eminent Domain Protest in Coos Bay Monday April 4, 2016 ~ 5pm at The Mill Casino
LTE ~ Proponent Kissing Off Local Concerns About JCEP
LTE ~ More Transparency for the SCCF
Coos Bay School District Contract w/Superintendent Dawn Granger March 2014
LTE ~ Coos Bay School Board Ignoring Parents & Students
LTE ~ Leshley Still Uninformed
BOC ~ County Dog Board, Prisoner Release, Public Meeting for October 13, 14, & 15
Board of Commissioners Op-Ed for Measure 6-152 Transient Occupancy Tax
Coos Bay Alternative Location for Waste Water Treatment Plant Oct. 6, 2015
Bandon Cheese Factory Receives Private Financing & Still Pays No Property Taxes
LTE ~ Leshley Don't Know Dick About the JCEP Work Camp
Jody McCaffree Appeals LNG Road Construction Coos County Planning Oct. 9, 2015
Do Enterprise Zones Work? ~ An Ideopolis Policy Paper February 2011
Educational Enterprise Zone Workshop Roseburg OR Thursday, September 17, 2015
Coos County Planning Decisions on LNG & Effected Roads
LTE ~ CEP appears to be great for Canadian Veresen / JCEP
LTE ~ LNG Pipeline Man and His Bag of Money  
LTE ~ Should We Be Worried Dealing with Veresen and the LNG
LTE~ A Package of Rancor for Coos County Commissioner John Sweet

Oregon Delegation Members Announce New Funding for Oregon Small Ports
Thursday, May 25, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Oregon’s Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, along with Representatives Peter DeFazio (OR-4), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-1), and Earl Blumenauer (OR-3), today announced that the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) will dedicate new funding for dredging and maintenance of four of Oregon’s small ports.

The funding announcement follows a letter that the Senators and Representatives sent earlier this week urging the Army Corps to dedicate additional funding for projects at Oregon’s small ports in their 2017 work plan.

“This funding will make a tremendous difference for safety, economic vitality, and job creation along Oregon’s coast,” said Merkley. “This is terrific news for Bandon, Depoe Bay, Gold Beach, and Newport. This funding is especially critical for Gold Beach, which was at risk of losing Coast Guard Search and Rescue capabilities, putting lives at risk and effectively grinding a productive working port to a halt. Getting these urgently-needed dredging projects moving is a great investment for Oregon and our nation.”

“Oregon’s small ports power our coastal economies by generating good-paying jobs in commercial fishing, recreation and much more,” Wyden said. “I’m glad to see the federal government recognize the importance of coastal communities by investing in our ports, which will now be able to complete crucial dredging projects that keep these communities afloat.”

“Oregon’s ports and harbors are the lifeblood of the communities they serve.  Thousands of Oregon jobs are directly or indirectly tied to cargo, recreation, industrial, commercial or other activity at Oregon’s ports,” said DeFazio. “These critical investments in dredging and maintenance will help ensure Oregon’s small ports stay open for business and boost local economies. I applaud the Army Corps for including this essential funding in their Work Plan.”

“Oregon’s ports are critical to economic development and they serve as a link to connect Oregon businesses and agriculture with international markets,” said Bonamici. “I’m pleased to see that the US Army Corps of Engineers will be investing in small ports in Oregon. Investments in marine infrastructure are important to growing our economy in the Northwest, and this is positive news for our region.”

“This is a testament to what Congress can do when it ignores ideological differences and works across the aisle to strengthen local communities,” said Blumenauer. “I’m glad the Army Corps understands these needs. This will make a difference.”

The new funding for small ports includes:
· Coquille River (Bandon): $467,000
· Depoe Bay: $27,000
· Rogue River (Gold Beach): $800,000
· Yaquina Bay and Harbor (Newport): $893,000
More information about the letter the members sent requesting this funding can be found here.

Front Street Action Plan Open House

In 2015, the City of Coos Bay was awarded a $400,000 Brownfield Grant through the Environment Protection Agency. A component of that grant was to do an update of the Front Street Master Plan completed in 1998. With the consultant team of ECONorthwest and the assistance of the Brownfield Advisory Committee (BAC), a plan document is now in its final draft form. The plan focuses on achievable, end-result actions that will create greater focus and activity along Front Street while still maintaining the traditional water-dependent businesses that have been the mainstay of the area for many decades.

On June 8, there will be an open house and a public presentation of the draft plan for the area’s business owners, local residents, and interested citizens who would like more information. Active participation by those interested in the Bay front’s future is our best chance of moving forward. The presentation will be from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at 737 Front Street in the heart of the plan boundaries. The building was recently purchased by Legacy Properties with the intention of upgrading and allowing purposeful reuse. Light fare and beverages will be provided. Further information can be provided by Tom Dixon, Community Development Administrator at 541 269-1181 ext. 2287 or tdixon@coosbay.org. 

Related Posts:
BOC ~ Notice of Deliberation on JCEP Tuesday August 16, 2016
Public Meeting for Coos County April 19 & North Bend April 26, 2016 on JCEP
Open Letter to the Coos County Board of Commissioners Concerning the JCEP
Eminent Domain Protest in Coos Bay Monday April 4, 2016 ~ 5pm at The Mill Casino
LTE ~ Proponent Kissing Off Local Concerns About JCEP
LTE ~ More Transparency for the SCCF
Coos Bay School District Contract w/Superintendent Dawn Granger March 2014
LTE ~ Coos Bay School Board Ignoring Parents & Students
LTE ~ Leshley Still Uninformed
BOC ~ County Dog Board, Prisoner Release, Public Meeting for October 13, 14, & 15
Board of Commissioners Op-Ed for Measure 6-152 Transient Occupancy Tax
Coos Bay Alternative Location for Waste Water Treatment Plant Oct. 6, 2015
Bandon Cheese Factory Receives Private Financing & Still Pays No Property Taxes
LTE ~ Leshley Don't Know Dick About the JCEP Work Camp
Jody McCaffree Appeals LNG Road Construction Coos County Planning Oct. 9, 2015
Do Enterprise Zones Work? ~ An Ideopolis Policy Paper February 2011
Educational Enterprise Zone Workshop Roseburg OR Thursday, September 17, 2015
Coos County Planning Decisions on LNG & Effected Roads
LTE ~ CEP appears to be great for Canadian Veresen / JCEP
LTE ~ LNG Pipeline Man and His Bag of Money  
LTE ~ Should We Be Worried Dealing with Veresen and the LNG
LTE~ A Package of Rancor for Coos County Commissioner John Sweet