Submitted by Chris Brumbles:

​Columbia County, this past November we passed the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance to protect our Inherent Natural Born Rights and Salem has doubled down with more usurpations. In response, on January 1st, 2019 I filed a Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance that further protects our Rights.

  The county responded to prospective petition 19-1 by rejecting it, saying it was not one subject, that it didn’t have complete text, and that it was administrative in nature. We believe the premises of this rejection to be false and ideologically driven; we have filed a lawsuit and will continue to pursue the protection of your Rights. We will keep you updated. To help turn Oregon Counties into Sanctuary’s for our Rights, please contact Sanctuary Ordinance.com to help.
​
In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation
P.S. Your tax money will once again, be used against We The People to defend the counties ridiculous attempt to obstruct and enslave. (Up to you to include this part or not Marty.) 

SASO on the Curry County Commissioners Agenda
CURRY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEEKLY BUSINESS MEETING Wednesday February 6, 2019 – 9:00 AM in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room, Courthouse Annex 94235 Moore Street, Gold Beach, Oregon www.co.curry.or.us 
We are on the agenda to present the SASO. If you want to speak slips must be in by 9:00 am so come early. We need to fill the room and overflow it with Second Amendment supporters, so please tell all interested parties.
​

4. PRESENTATIONS
A. Cena Crook Service Award Presentation – Louise Kallstrom, County Accountant 
B. CPTSD (Curry Public Transit Service District) Grant Plans for 2019-2021, Kathryn Bernhardt, General Manager, CPTSD 
​C. SASO (Sanctuary 2nd Amendment Ordinance)  - Lyn Boniface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Randal,

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

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

Smart Meter OP ED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smart Meter OP ED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randal Barrett,
​Advocate NoSmartMeter.org

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

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

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

To the citizens of Coos County:

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

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

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

​News Release from Oregon Dept. of State Lands

Posted on FlashAlert: December 21st, 2018 4:03 PM

Five public hearings will be held between Jan. 7 and 15 to hear comment on the removal-fill permit application for the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project.  

In order to protect Oregon's water resources, the state removal-fill law requires projects that remove or fill material in wetlands or waterways to obtain a permit from the Department of State Lands (DSL). Input received during the permit application public comment period is used to determine what additional information the applicant may be required to provide, what issues the applicant may need to address, and ultimately to inform the Department’s permit decision.  
DSL will hold five public hearings to hear comment on the application: 
•    Klamath Falls: Monday, Jan. 7 from 5:30-8 p.m. at Klamath Falls Community College, Commons Building, 7390 S 6th St.
•    Central Point: Tuesday, Jan. 8 from 5:30-8 p.m. at the Jackson County Expo, Padgham Pavilion, 1 Peninger Rd. 
•    Canyonville: Wednesday, Jan. 9 from 5:30-8 p.m. at Seven Feathers Casino, Cedar Room, 146 Chief Miwaleta Ln.
•    North Bend: Thursday, Jan. 10 from 5:30-8 p.m. at the Mill Casino, Salmon Room West, 3201 Tremont Ave.
•    Salem: Tuesday, Jan. 15 from 5:30-8 p.m. at the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Auditorium, 700 Summer St NE. Please note this is a new location, directly across the street from the original DSL location.  
 
Doors will open at 5:15 p.m. for comment signup to begin. DSL asks that all attendees contribute to a respectful setting and a productive public comment hearing by following the hearing ground rules and comment procedures available on the DSL website: https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WW/Pages/jordancove.aspx 

Comments may also be submitted to [email protected], by postal mail, or through a comment form. Full comment submittal information is available on the DSL website. 

The 60-day public review and comment period began Dec. 6, 2018, and ends Feb. 3, 2019, at 5 p.m. All comments must be received by this date and time to be considered. 

The complete application is available for download on the DSL website. Paper copies of the application are also available at the Coos Bay Public Library, the Sutherlin Library, the Winston Branch Library, the Jackson County Library, and the Klamath County Library. 
​
Contact Info:
Ali Ryan Hansen, DSL Communications Manager
[email protected]
503-510-6860 (cell)

Oregon Citizens Lobby

Legislative Days at the Capitol
December 11th to 14th, 2018

Legislative Organizational Days

January 14th to 17th, 2-192019 Legislative Session

January 22nd to June 30th, 2019There is no other voice like ours in the Capital. You can be proud to be a part of this movement! 

Check out the updated OCL website.  http://oregoncitizenslobby.org 
The War Room will be every Thursday, Rm 350,  starting February 7, 2019 Come and join us!

Please Volunteer.If you are a returning volunteer please update your profile to improve your experience!

You can Volunteer to:
1.  Adviser (one who may not analyze bills themselves, but lends their expertise in a given area to those who are analyzing bills or writing testimony)
2.  Analyze bills for Track Their Vote website and scoring legislator’s votes
3. Call or legislators on posted bills.
4. Give public testimony at committees.
5.  Participate in War Room efforts (this is literally a room we reserve at the capitol during the legislative session, where we congregate and collaborate on analyzing bills and lobbying)
6.  Write/email legislators
7.  Write letters to the editors
8.  Write testimony for bills
9.  Join the Twitter Brigade @ORcitizen  #orocl

Analyzers and Advisers will be contacted by a Team Leader and receive further instructions and training.


Mission of the Oregon Citizens Lobby
Our mission is to help empower Oregonians by monitoring the legislative process in this state. We analyze bills and track them throughout their life cycle. We also track the actions of state representatives and senators as they work through and vote on these bills. The bills and legislators receive a grade based upon the 5 core principles of OCL. If a politician votes in a manner that violates one or more of these principles it is up to them to explain why they did so. We leave the politics to the politicians.

The result of our work is posted at Track Their Vote for the public to review.
Our hope is that this information will help citizens better understand proposed legislation which will in turn allow them to give relevant testimony on bills, lobby their legislators, and hold these politicians accountable for their actions.

Five Core Principles
Fiscal Responsibility
Government should have a limited budget that reflects the vitality of the state’s economy.
Local Control
Governmental power and functions should be as close to the citizens as possible for maximum oversight, control, and responsiveness.
Free Markets
Production and prices should be dictated by the laws of supply and demand without the interference of government in the way of subsidies, price controls, or over-burdensome regulation.
Limited Government
Our government should be charged with administering only those functions essential to society and that cannot be performed by private entities.
Personal Choice and Responsibility
Citizens must be free to pursue life, liberty, and property without undue government interference and to reap the rewards or bear the consequences of their decisions.
 
Oregon Citizens lobby
​[email protected]

Submitted by Denny Powell

​​HELLO, MAYOR BENNETTI, CITY COUNCILORS.

I AM SPEAKING TONIGHT BECAUSE OF MY CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY, WELL BEING AND HEALTH OF MY FAMILY, PETS, AND NEIGHBORS.

FIRST I AM GOING TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO DO SOMETHING, THEN I AM GOING TO TELL A STORY.

ON TO IT. I AM ASKING THE COUNCIL TO PLACE ON YOUR AGENDA, SUBJECT, SMART METERS IN THE CITY OF COOS BAY.

I WANT THE COUNCIL TO ORIGINATE AN ORDINANCE, SPECIFYING THE ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS TO CITIZENS LIVING IN COOS BAY CAN OPT-OUT HAVING A SMART METER PLACED UPON THEIR RESIDENCE, OR THEIR PROPERTY.  AND THERE WILL BE NO,  OPT-OUT CHARGE, OR FEE OR INCREASE OF RATES BECAUSE OF THE OPT-OUT.

THE ORDINANCE MUST ALSO INCLUDE THAT THE CUSTOMER CAN REQUEST TO HAVE A NON COMPUTERIZED  ANALOG METER PUT BACK IN SERVICE, IF IT HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH A DIGITAL METER OR SMART METER, WITH OUT ANY CHARGES OR FEE OR INCREASE OF BILLING COST.

NOW, WILL THE COUNCIL OF COOS BAY STEP UP, JOIN OTHER COMMUNITIES/CITIES/AND COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF OREGON TO STOP THE NO CHOICE EXTORTION FEE DRIVEN SMART METER ROLLOUT BY THE POWER COMPANIES, SUPPORTED BY THE OREGON PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.

THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB TO PROTECT THE THE CITIZENS OF OREGON. THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR APPROVAL TO THE POWER COMPANIES ROLL OUT OF SMART METERS. WHILE REFUSING TO ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT OR EVIDENCE. 

AND, DAM, IF YOU DON’T WANT ONE ON YOUR PROPERTY OR RESIDENCE THE COMMISSION GRANTED THE POWER COMPANIES THE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CUSTOMERS WITH A $36.00 CHARGE PER METER PER MONTH. IT IS ILLEGAL TO CHARGE SOME CUSTOMERS FOR METER READING AND NOT OTHERS. SMART METERS COST MORE TO READ THEIR POWER, NEW METERS, NEW ANTENNA’S, NEW EMPLOYEES, NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ETC. THIS IS PUNITIVE AND EXTORTION.

THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO STEP UP TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS FROM, WHAT, YOU SAY, FROM:

FIRE RISK
INCREASE BILLING
CHOICE TO OPT-OUT WITH-OUT A CHARGE
HOME SPYING
CONSTANT HIGH POWER RF (RADIO FREQUENCY) & MICROWAVE PULES
    10,000 TO 190,000 PER METER, PER DAY 24/7
STORY:

I CALLED THE POWER COMPANY SMART METER OPT-OUT PHONE NUMBER LAST WEEK TO OPT OUT 4 METERS

THEY WANTED TO VERIFY, THAT I UNDERSTOOD THERE WILL BE $36.00 PER MONTH PER METER CHARGE. I PROTESTED, BUT TOLD THE PERSON I UNDERSTOOD.

I ALSO TOLD THE PERSON ON THE PHONE I WANTED ONE OF THE METERS, WHICH HAD BEEN CHANGED TO DIGITAL READER, TO BE REMOVED AND THE ANALOG METER PUT BACK IN PLACE.

HE TOLD ME THEY NO LONGER HAVE ANALOG METERS,
   “OH WELL” HAY

ENVISION HERE WITH ME FOR A MOMENT, IN YOUR MINDS EYE, LIVING IN A BUILDING HAVING A CLUSTER 15 SMART METERS, PULSING, EACH ONE 10,000 TO 190.000 RF, MICROWAVE. PULSE PER DAY, 24/7.

YOU WOULD BE LIVING INSIDE A MICROWAVE OVEN.

THIS WHOLE CITY OF COOS BAY IS GOING TO BE INUNDATED WITH MILLIONS AND MILLIONS  OF THE RF MICROWAVE PULSE 24/7 WHERE YOU LIVE, WHERE YOU WORK, WHERE YOU SHOP, AND WHERE YOU SLEEP.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 

Ref: nosmartmeter.org


Denny Powell
737 N Broadway
Coos Bay OR 97420

Submitted by Chris Brumbles,

What I learned from the 2018 Oregon Midterm

  Well, the midterm elections are over and here in Oregon we came away with some good things, some bad things, and some unexplainable craziness. This year we had a chance to get rid of our sanctuary status as a State, but you guessed it, the perpetually offended insane rioting class in Portlandia voted it down. Surely they would vote to end taxpayer funded murder of babies…nope, you must be able to murder babies and by golly, the taxpayers need to pay for it. Accountability must be avoided.

  Oregonians have been voting No on sales taxes for over 35 years, but in this midterm, they voted to allow the State to tax FOOD. How insane is that; the ten new taxes passed by the Demonrats in the last year, adding up to over a billion dollars is not good enough, they can now tax FOOD. Did I mention that in the last couple of sessions, the Oregon legislature and Crazy Katherine have passed around 6 new business taxes along with a $15.00 an hour minimum wage that will have Oregon looking like Detroit when they all reach full enactment? Good times.

  I have met many good Republicans around the State, but the State leadership for the GOP are a bunch of timid fellas who decided to get behind Knute the knot head Bueller . Bueller is an arrogant know it all who decided to run as a Republican, but to campaign as a Demonrat.  Pro-abortion, pro- special privileges for gays, lesbians and gender pretenders, anti-gun, anti-American, and as far as I can tell, hasn’t one principle in his whole makeup. Glad to see that the GOP at the State level is at least consistent…too afraid to take a stand, but at least perfectly willing to bend over and touch their toes. I read a story the other day that said that the Oregon Governor race has come down to between 3-5 points every year for over 20 years…this year it wasn’t even close. Crazy Corrupt Kate gave Ferris Bueller a day off and didn’t even break a sweat. Hey GOP, its spelled P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E-S. You have to stand for something, kicking your base in the berries doesn’t work.
​
  On a good note, Patriots in Oregon put the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance on the ballot in 10 Counties and it passed in 8 of them. We already had SAPO’s in 5 counties and this is just the beginning. Our next venture is the Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance. The SAPO makes it illegal for counties to enforce unconstitutional gun laws written since 2012, and makes the Sheriff the go to guy to determine what laws are unconstitutional. Because people have complained that not all Sheriffs obey their Oath, the SASO will make it illegal for counties to enforce ANY gun laws period. We thank Michael Boldin and the Tenth Amendment Center for writing this law for us and for their guidance. Yes we are prepared for the tyrants and oath breakers to come out calling us extreme or radical, but we will remember to consider the source and that they live in opposite world every day.
 
In Liberty,
Chris Brumbles
Columbia County Coordinator
Oregon Firearms Federation ​

Submitted by Randy Waters,

​​NOW THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE OVER.
What have we gained? We're still in the same boat. Seven counties took control of Oregon and left the other twenty nine counties in the control of seven and without representation!.

Where do we go from here?

It's time to get our act together. It's time we got out from under the thumb of Portland. It's time we demand equal representation throughout our wonderful state. Unfortunately the only way we can do that is to form our own state, The State of Jefferson, out of the rural counties in Oregon. Each county will get one Representative. We will encourage logging and milling our own trees instead of sending them overseas to be milled. We will encourage mining instead of importing the metals and minerals we need. We will encourage farming and ranching to raise the food for our consumption. We will encourage tourism and invite people to move into our new state.

As a new state we will demand to be made whole and equal to the original 13 states by filing under the “Equal Footing Doctrine” which means that the state retains control of all public land that is now being managed by USFS and BLM.
I can't do all of this by myself. I need people to help run information booths, pass out brochures and inform as many people in each of our rural counties as we can. We need support of everyone in our counties in order to accomplish this.

I meet each month on the second Wednesday of the month at Panthers Den Pizza and Deli in Gold Beach at 7:00pm. I also need someone to hold meetings in Brookings, Agness, Port Orford and Langlois. Set your own schedule. I'll help you get started! Come to a meeting or call me at 541-373-0259. My name is Randy Waters and I want to meet YOU!!
--
I'm willing to fight and die for my freedom, Are You???

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

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: [email protected] ˜
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)