City Council

Calendar Date:
Monday, December 3, 2018 - 7:00pm

BANDON CITY COUNCIL 
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 3, 2018, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 555 HIGHWAY 101, BANDON 97411

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1.  CALL TO ORDER - INVOCATION - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
      Pastor Greg Fodrea, First Baptist Church
2.  PUBLIC REQUEST(S)
3.  PRESENTATIONS
3.1  Volunteer of the Month- Harv Schubothe
4.  HEARINGS
4.1  FEMA Floodplain Regulations Ordinance #1628
4.2  Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance #1629
5.  PROCEEDINGS
5.1  ACTIONS
5.1.1  Adoption of Findings – Gu VRD, 2967 Spinnaker Ave, - LUBA Remand
5.1.2  Council Meeting Calendar for 2019
5.1.3  Holiday Schedule for 2019
5.1.4  Appoint City Manager as Budget Officer for Fiscal Year 2019/2020
5.1.5  Budget Calendar for Fiscal Year 2019/2020
5.2  DISCUSSIONS
5.2.1  Review & Discussion of Parks & Recreation Commission Report on Potential Locations for a Swimming Pool in City Park
5.3  RESOLUTIONS
5.4  ORDINANCES
5.4.1  FEMA Floodplain Ordinance # 1628 1st & 2nd reading
(Special Meeting if Needed- Wednesday, December 5, 2018 @ Noon)
5.4.2  Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance #1629 1st & 2nd reading          
6.  CONSENT AGENDA
6.1  APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES
6.1.1  City Council Meetings

• City Council Regular Meeting – November 5, 2018

6.2  REVIEWING OF COMMISSION & COMMITTEE MINUTES
          (These have not necessarily been approved by the commission or committee they belong to)
6.2.1  Planning Commission Meeting

• October 25, 2018 Regular Meeting

6.2.2  Utilities Commission Meeting

• October 3, 2018 Study Session
• October 17, 2018 Study Session

6.2.3  Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting

• November 8, 2018 Regular Meeting

6.3  INFORMATION ONLY: DEPARTMENT REPORTS
6.3.1  A/P Report for October 2018
6.3.2  Library Report for October 2018
6.3.3  Public Works Report for November 2018
6.3.4  The Barn/Theater Report for October 2018
6.3.5  Planning Department Report for November 2018
6.3.6  Police Department Report for October 2018
6.3.7  Consolidated Municipal Utility Report
6.4  INFORMATION ONLY: OTHER ITEMS
6.5  EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY
6.6  COMMITTEE/COMMISSION DIRECTION AND REPORTS
6.6.1  Planning Commission
6.6.2  Utilities Commission 
6.6.3  Parks and Recreation Commission
7.  PUBLIC COMMENT - The City of Bandon offers this time for citizens to comment on municipal issues not already on the agenda. After the Mayor asks for comments, rise or raise your hand for the Mayor to acknowledge you. Come to the podium and state your name and address. Please be sure to speak into the microphone. Comments should be limited to 3 minutes. Please supply 16 copies of the material brought to the meeting for distribution.
8.  OTHER: COUNCIL/MAYOR/STAFF REMARKS
9.  ADJOURN TO JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND URBAN RENEWAL MEETING


JOINT CITY COUNCIL /URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY REGULAR MEETING
1.  CALL TO ORDER
2.  APPROVAL OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND U.R. MINUTES
2.1  June 4, 2018 Joint City Council and U.R. Meeting
3.  ACTION & DISCUSSION
3.1  Appoint City Manager/Urban Renewal District Manager as Budget Officer for Fiscal Year 2019/2020
4.  ADJOURN
******************************************************************
Council Chambers is accessible to the disabled. 
For special services contact City Hall 48 hours in advance at
347-2437, Voice ˜ 711 TTR ˜
e-mail: citymanager@cityofbandon.org ˜
web: www.cityofbandon.org ******************************************************************​

Supporting Documents
4.1 FEMA Floodplain Regulations Ordinance #1628 - Hearing (1 MB)
4.2 Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance #1629 - Hearing (3 MB)
5.1.1 Adoption of Findings - GU VRD (596 KB)
5.1.2 Council Meeting Calendar for 2019 (37 KB)
5.1.3 Holiday Schedule for 2019 (42 KB)
5.1.4 Appoint City Manager as Budget Officer for FY 2019-2020 (31 KB)
5.1.5 Budget Calendar for FY 2019-2020 (73 KB)
5.2.1 Review & Discussion of Parks & Recreation Commission Report on Potential Locations for a Swimming Pool in City Park (281 KB)
5.4.1 FEMA Floodpain Ordinance # 1628 1st & 2nd Reading - Adoption (723 KB)
5.4.2 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance # 1629 1st & 2nd Reading - Adoption (84 KB)
6.2.1 Planning Commission Minutes - October 25, 2018 (209 KB)
6.2.2 Utilities Commission Study Session Minutes -October 3rd & October 17, 2018 (232 KB)
6.3.1 Accounts Payable Report (339 KB)
6.3.2 Library Report (206 KB)
6.3.3 Public Works Report (22 KB)
6.3.4 Barn & Theater Report (131 KB)
6.3.5 Planning Department Report (75 KB)
City/UR 2.1 Joint City Council and UR Minutes - June 4, 2018 (58 KB)
City/UR 3.1 Appoint City Manager / UR District Manager as Budget Officer for FY 2019-20 (32 KB)

​The city council of Coos Bay is going to vote to increase and extend the indebtedness of the Empire Urban Renewal Plan and we plan to file a referendum. 

There will be petitions to sign and copies available for anyone who would like to help gather signatures.   The GOP is giving out signs for candidates and ballot measures.  

 There will be discussions on how we are going to get the signatures and how we are going to run the campaign.  There will be updates on Measure 6-168 and the Coos County Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance.

If the politicians of CB cannot put it on the ballot for the voters to decide then we will have to do their job for them. 
  ​
Here is a link to the CB city council meeting on Tuesday October 16, 2018.
​Coos Bay City Council Votes to Extend Empire UR Tax Debt Plan October 16, 2018

​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.

One of the purposes of the referendum process is to keep local and state politicians in check.  The state of Oregon has a very liberal policy on rescinding bad laws or taxes that were enacted by city councils and county boards.
 
At the Coos County Board of Commissioners meeting on March 27, 2018, ALL THREE COMMISSIONERS voted to continue the urban renewal tax debt.  There are thirty-two million dollars in potential projects and any debt incurred over the twenty-year life of the plan is the responsibility of the taxpayer.  Since the vote was unanimous, it is hard to tell who is representing the people.
 
The commissioners started reviewing the North Bay URA plan back in August of 2017. During the meetings, Commissioner Main played both sides of the issue sending mixed messages, while Cribbins and Sweet repeatedly implied they were going to do everything possible to find out what the people thought about their plan of extending this public liability.   
 
However, the board scheduled all the meetings during the day when most people are at work. There was no town hall or public forum where the opposition and the supporters could debate the issue in free discourse in front of a live audience.   There was no opportunity for the people to hear both sides of the argument because the commissioners were only concerned with the opinion of the supporters of the agency.  Everyone else had to follow strictly mandated time constrictions, and the commissioners never allowed the opposition to give their power point presentation at any of the meetings.  
 
In fact, all Cribbins and Sweet had to do to find out what the people thought of the issue was to put the question on the ballot, but that would have revealed an ugly truth.  The truth is that most people do not support creating more debt for themselves or their children.  They certainly do not approve of using public money for the benefits of private development.  Cribbins and Sweet lied about their intentions, deceived the people, and denied them their authority to make the final decision.  After all, it is the taxpayer’s money, not the boards.  
 
Fortunate for the voters, they might get two chances to veto the commissioners and override these elected employees, but those opportunities depend on the actions of county voters. 
 
First, it is time to drain the swamp and give Cribbins and Sweet their walking papers. Start looking for new employees, especially when the old employees are guilty of deception.  In the upcoming primary in May, the voters have a couple of choices for candidates in both commissioner positions #2 and #3. 
 
Secondly, people can and should take back their authority by gathering signatures for the referendum petition filed by The Committee to Shut Down the Coos County URA.  A successful ballot measure would put the commissioners back in their place.  Our forebearers wrote the state’s constitution acknowledging the right to the redress of grievances so that the people could train their politicians to obey, which is what Cribbins, Sweet, and Main should have done for the people of Coos County. 
 
There will be a meeting to discuss the history and consequences of urban renewal and tax-increment financing at 7 pm on Friday, April 13, 2018, at the North Bend Library on Sherman Avenue.  Petitions will be available for registered voters to sign.  The campaign also needs volunteers to help circulate the petition. 
 
For anyone who cannot make the meeting, but would like to gather signatures can get copies by sending an email to cooscountywatchdog@gmail.com.  Please put “UR Petition” in the subject line.    There is a petition available to sign at The Sentinel Newspaper in Coquille, and Waterman’s Automotive in Bandon.
 
Otherwise, download a single signature sheet and find out more information at www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com.  
​

Related Posts Establishing the Timeline
Commissioner's URA Vote Triggers Tax Referendum ~ Meeting on Friday the 13th
Coos County Considering Ordinance to Extend UR Tax Debt March 27, 2018
Board of Commissioners Postpones Vote on Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
​Update on The Campaign to Shut Down the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
Coos County Public Hearing on Extending the Urban Renewal Tax Debt Dec. 13, 2017
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 Coos County Urban Renewal Agency
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 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.  

Dear Mr. Delaney,
 
Thank you for your informative letter.  I have often wondered what must go through the minds of rapists.  Now I know, and it is even worse than I imagined.
 
After reading your threat-ridden email, all I could think about was the poor defenseless women that you raped.  It must be difficult for her to have to live with such an intimate violation that will haunt her for the rest of her life and not once did you express any remorse.  Like all sexual predators, you lack the emotional capacity for any sense of empathy for others, so it is impossible to have sympathy for you.   You could have talked about how you were seeking redemption and had attempted to atone for your crime, but you did none of that in your notice.
 
You should seek help.  Your attempts at threats and intimidation are humorous---You are just not very good at it! 
 ​
Public records indicate that the state of Washington convicted you of rape and the court ordered that you have to register as a sex offender.  The information posted on my website is consistent with the documentation.  Perhaps instead of threats and intimidation, you might consider having your alleged amendments and corrections to court documents placed in the public domain. 
 
I do not respond well to threats...especially threats based on bullshit.
 
Fortunately, I have the best and most impenetrable defense against libel, the truth.  The truth will set you free, but in this case, that may not be true for you.   
 
Copyright and trademark laws protect logos and other business materials from commercial use.   The Coos County Watchdog website is NOT a commercial enterprise.  There is no advertising, and there is no profit.  Also, you posted your logo and business information on social media websites and shared them with the world, which technically puts them in the public domain.  Therefore, your assertions are just as full of bullshit as your threats.   Perhaps you should do a little research before you make such accusations.  
 
Your investments in the community are commendable.  However, you are still a convicted rapist, and it is highly questionable why someone with your past convictions would choose to be in an industry designed to cater to young people.  The welfare of the community by far supersedes these efforts. 
 
Your tactics are not the proper way to address these matters.  Had you contacted me to offer explanations civilly you would have discovered that I am a very understanding person. Perhaps I could have gained a better understanding of your situation.
 
The bottom line here is that you are, indeed, a rapist.  You took $25,000 of taxpayer money under controversial circumstances, and your attempts to threaten and intimidate were unsuccessful.
 
You should return the taxpayer's money.  I also suggest that you pursue legal action against me.  I will be more than happy to appear in court to support my positions and then I will report to the public on the proceedings. 
 
Remember, I am not the criminal here, YOU ARE!
 
Have a nice day (If, indeed, rapists deserve to have a nice day).
 
Sincerely, Rob Taylor

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

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

The county has postponed the vote for extending the plan for the North Bay Urban Renewal Area.  When the city council of North Bend and Coos Bay approve the changes made to the plan by the county commissioners it will go back to the county where their attorney will draft an ordinance.  Then it will go to the board for a vote.   Stay tuned.
 
For more info on The Campaign to Shut Down the CCURA go to www.cooscountywatchdog.com/shut-down-the-coos-county-urban-renewal-agency.html
 
 
In other news, John Sweet and Melissa Cribbins are up for reelection.  Currently, only Commissioner Sweet is facing one serious contender for the primary election in May, former budget committee member, Steve Scheer. 
 
For more info on the election go to www.facebook.com/DefeatJohnSweet

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

The campaign to shut down the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency begun about six months ago when the Port of Coos Bay announced that they planned to renew the North Bay urban renewal area for another twenty years with a maximum indebtedness of $37 million. 
 
The county Board of Commissioners have made the final decision over the plan and they had three hearings to discuss it, one in August 31, another on October 30 with the final meeting on December 13, 2017, which ended with ALL THREE commissioners approving the plan.
 
Now the process moves from the public hearings where the board approved the plan and they will add it to an ordinance as exhibit A.   The commissioners will have to enact the ordinance that initiates the plan and at that point, the people should be able to file a referendum.   Commissioner Cribbins said they have tentatively scheduled the vote for Tuesday, January 23 at the boards regularly scheduled meeting.  The county will post more info when the meeting becomes official.  
 
People are encouraged to contact the BOC:
Robert "Bob" Main
(541) 396-7540
Email: bmain@co.coos.or.us     
 
 
John Sweet
(541) 396-7541
Email: jsweet@co.coos.or.us   
 
 
Melissa Cribbins
(541) 396-7539
Email: mcribbins@co.coos.or.us
 
 
Videos of the hearings:
December 13, 2017
https://coosmediacenter.viebit.com/player.php?hash=Makyr2P6cWn2
 
August 31, 2017
https://coosmediacenter.viebit.com/player.php?hash=COouDtEQJUqy
 
September 25, 2017
https://coosmediacenter.viebit.com/player.php?hash=H1rPhV2VF0Fd
 
Port of Coos Bay CCURA
http://www.portofcoosbay.com/ccura/

More info on the Campaign to Shut Down the CCURA
www.cooscountywatchdog.com/shut-down-the-coos-county-urban-renewal-agency.html
 
The Campaign on FB
https://www.facebook.com/ShutDowntheCoosCountyURA/

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

The following meeting will be held in the Owen Building at 3:00pm.  It was advertised on the Port of Coos Bay website for 1:30pm, but that is the incorrect time.  It has been changed, but if the Port Director cannot schedule a meeting should the commissioners be giving him access to $37 million dollars. 

 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.

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.”

The Continuing Saga of the CCURA
 
On Monday, October 30, 2017, the Coos County Board of Commissioners held the second hearing to discuss renewing of the county’s urban renewal plan for another twenty years.  The board had to continue the meeting until December 13, 2017, because the Director of the Port of Coos Bay did not submit the suggested changes to the URA plan until a few hours before the meeting. 
 
The urban renewal agency is a county entity, but the UR area is on the North Spit, so the Port of Coos Bay manages its finances and directs the projects under the authority of the board members of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency.    
 
Some of those changes included adding an ending date out to 2038 and eliminating the special levy.  The levy is a direct tax paid for by all the property owners in the county, approximately $0.0229 per $1,000 assessed value goes toward the CCURA Special Levy.  The URA Board also lowered the amount of the agency’s allotted maximum indebtedness from $60,900,390 to $37,169,510 over the life of the district.  The projected tax increment financing revenues over the 20-year life are supposed to be around $32.4-million.
 
The UR agencies projected revenue is the money that would normally go to ten other regular taxing districts.            
 
Operations and overhead costs are among the allocations listed in the Tier 1 category.  Approximately $500,000 would go to Special Studies and planning, $181,369 would go to Financing Fees, and another $660,000 would go to Administration.  Those speculative figures will change due to increasing cost overruns.   
 
The CCURA has been around since 1986.  By next June of 2018, the agency will have a whopping $1,011,500 on hand as the anticipated bank balance.  A good portion of that funding should have gone to the several taxing districts that the UR area is overlapping instead of sitting idle while county roads deteriorate and jail beds lay vacant.  Those other districts provide essential services to the people of the county, such as roads, schools, and law enforcement to list a few. The UR agency has not undertaken a major project since 2014, which was the safety improvement at the Trans-Pacific Parkway railroad crossing.
 
There are 79 taxing districts in Coos County, seven of which are urban renewal districts.  Five urban renewal agencies supervise those seven UR districts.  Those county UR districts retained 5% or $3-million annually from the revenue collected by the county in property taxes from all the districts, which in FYE 2017 was $65.2-million.  $3-million is roughly the same amount of taxes designated to the county’s ports and libraries.  The county, which is a taxing district itself, loses roughly $300,000 annually from the general fund due to the drainage of the Tax Increment Financing process.
 
Urban Renewal and the process of TIF is a scheme to circumvent funding from the necessary county services while rewarding the agency that is taking the money in the first place.  Many of the beneficiaries of this process are supporters of Commissioners Cribbins and Sweet, so they have no incentive to stop the drain until the people demand a change.   
 
To find out more information go to
www.cooscountywatchdog.com/shut-down-the-coos-county-urban-renewal-agency.html

Related Posts:
Coos County Board of Commissioners FINAL VOTE on Extending the URA Debt
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