Election News & Support

We, as a community, have way more common ground on how we want our city and county governments to run than not.  I'm very grateful that the Coos Dems gave me $200 towards this web site domain costs and yard signs for the 2026 election.  

I thought that others may be interested in the answers I gave to the committee that influenced that endorsement because others my find my answers informative. They speak not only about me, personally, but to how the work actually flows when you sit on a city council like ours,

--------------------------------

1. Name, number of years in Coos County:

I'm Jenny Jones and I've lived in Coos County for over 12 years. Prior, I spent almost 20 years living in the Boston area and working in high-tech, mostly for software startups.

2. What position are you seeking? What experience do you have with the position you are seeking? Name one thing that has concerned you in the past about the entity or governing body you want to join.

I'm seeking to be re-elected to a North Bend City Council position. This would be my 2nd term.

While I love the idea of low-cost living (low taxes, no sales tax, etc.), since being on council, I've become very aware of just how cities, in particular *small* cities like North Bend, are under-funded for the services they are legally required to operate due to Oregon's limits on property tax increases.

We're all experiencing inflation. But the inflation we experience as individuals and families is far outpaced by the inflation on city-sized materials, services, and labor.  That becomes very stark once you start asking questions about the financials. 

It also becomes very plain that the only way out is through economic development where new tax/fee revenue streams are introduced in addition to existing streams. Either we all pay more for the services we love so that our land doesn't change *or* development introduces new streams and our land changes: those are the choices.

3. What do you see as priorities that need addressing in the future? What are your goals regarding this position, both short- and long-range?

At this level of government, the city has to comply with every single layer of law the United State has before we even get to individualized city charter code: federal, state, county. So, government at this level is strictly about keeping services running: water, sewers, roads, police, fire, parks and the occasional city event -- which also means collaborating with sister cities, the county and the other tax districts (schools, airport, port, etc.). 

"My" goals are council goals and active city projects. No one on council acts alone, we pass by majority vote and move on. These are the most important in my book.

Goal 1 (short-term): Improve how the city runs and collaborates with partners:

Update Charter to conform to League of Oregon Cities Model Chart: Several important changes I support. This fall, those changes should be spelled out in separate ballot questions. Because ballot measures are basically limited to the length of a dang Tweet, I think that all of the changing in one ballot measure was just too much to get a handle for most of us. Hopefully, breaking them out will leave more room for people to learn more.  At the bottom of this questionnaire, I include my personal take on each of these changes, if you are curious.

Track actual changes proposed in Resolution 3377 from Exhibit B:

https://www.northbendoregon.gov//apps/municipalboards/attachment/view.ashx?meetingid=7215&attachmentid=7488

Goal 2 (mid to long-term): Bring new revenue streams, bring down maintenance costs:

Annex Project:  demolishing the old hospital downtown and rebuild a multi-story apartment building with non-living space on the first floor.

* Convince current County Commissioners to say yes to allowing the city to have space in the bottom floor of the building. Even though the county has no financial stake in whether this happens or not, the county commissioners in the past have voted this down. Commissioner Sweet and Taylor in the last round. Hopefully, with the new commissioner, the county will see the sense in allowing North Bend to build in some space.

* Get the Oregon commissions on land marks to okay demolition (it's riddled with asbestos, so this should be easy, but it's still a process)

* Get the building built in the next 2-3 years (please, God, oh please!)

Goal 2a (mid to long): Move the police to a building that complies with Oregon law, in particular the building code that requires the station police remain fully operational during and immediately after a natural disaster. Currently the police are housed in city hall which has reached its end of life -- leaks, electrical problems and structural decay like severe foundation cracks are abundant. There's no way it passes the bar for surviving a natural disaster.

This doesn't bring a new stream of revenue, but it's attached to the Annex project since we/I hope and pray that the county will say "yes" to adding city offices to this building.

Goal 3 (mid to long):  Fix Pool & Parks Funding Deficit:

·      Create North Bend Parks & Recreation Tax District

·      Convince Oregon YMCA or a similar private organization to manage North Bend Pool

North Bend's parks are often used by people living outside city limits, but the pool is *mostly* used by people outside the city limits. Yet, only people within the city limits are really responsible for keeping it up. But because of the measure limiting fee increases or new fees we can't do simple things like charge people outside the city more, or charge teams a separate fee for use, etc.

What seems like the truly fair, truly equitable solution is to create a Parks & Recreation Tax District so that more people who actually use our parks and pools pay more of a fair share.

Having the Y or some non-city organization run the pool means that the city contributes funds, but management can make the critical decisions like increasing fees for a more equitable distribution of cost without the fee limits that the city must operate under.

I've relayed this idea to a Mingus board member because they face the same essential problem that our North Bend pool does. I think the Oregon Y taking over both pools could really level up our community ability to keep those pools open in the long run. The Y knows this territory very well and they are a large network, so it's quite possible the Y could run our pools for less money and effort than each city running the one pool they each have.

4. Give an example of a time you stood alone on an issue where others did not agree. Explain the situation, the result, and what you learned.

I usually stand alone in asking questions or addressing people who've made a public comment in my council comments. There are really important, valid reasons why public comments are not intended as dialog, but most people feel like they are addressing a stone wall when council just listens. I don't try to change people's minds, but I do strive to add some information when I feel that someone's comments don't seem to include or be aware of something critical.

My perspective, though, is that standing alone is over-rated as a "skill"/"ability". It's easy to shout and troll and experience righteous umbrage. It's a-whole-nother thang to dialog while in passionate, deeply-held disagreement.

So, it's up to me to learn how to discuss important matters with other council members. If I can't speak plainly and civilly -- especially when I "stand alone" in my perspective -- that's a deficit on my part.  So, when I feel that I may "stand alone", I strive to act like a Star Trek team member: speak my truth, be open to dialog, discuss, then save the world without blowing up the ship (unless it's Star Trek Discovery where that's a part of every episode, it seems, alas...)

5. How do your personal ethics align with those of the Democratic Party?

Before being on council, I considered myself a card-carrying Lib-Tard. I still do, in spirit, but all that I've learned on council has shown me that us Lib-Tards and our favored organizations like John Oliver or the ACLU only offer analysis and solutions that apply to very large urban areas/cities.

Now, when I glad-hand state and federal officials that city councilors have an occasion to interact with, I make the same request:  use the GIS software we use to gerrymander districts to map the actual network of roads, sewers, schools -- whatever the system is -- to determine how the shared resources flow. Without mapping those dollars, public servants and elected officials make the same funding mistake regardless of party: large cities are funded, everybody else is left in the dust.

Other favorites:

Civil discourse and diverse perspectives *always* make for better solutions whether in work or family, business or government. As well, explicit agreements are far better than presumed.

Transparency is powerful, despite the downside of misinterpretation.

6. Do you hold a leadership position in any other organization(s)?

I was a prior member of the Coos Head Food Coop Board of Directors and served on the North Bend Budget Committee for 3 years prior to getting elected to council in 2022.

--------------------------------

Food for thought: my take on the charter updates I'm hoping we pass, one at a time, this fall:

1) Updating the process of removing a city councilor by a vote of the City Council after a public hearing:  Many have come forward to say that removal should only be allowed in recall elections. It seems like that comes from a presumption that council can kick anyone off if enough "don't like" the target person. I can see why that feels alarming. I feel alarmed thinking of that idea. But, that's not how I read the change.

Here’s a clip from the proposal (link below, so you can verify for yourself):

“…no council member may actually coerce or attempt to coerce the manager or a

candidate for the office of manager in the appointment or removal of any city employee, or in administrative decisions regarding city property or contracts. A violation of this prohibition is grounds for removal from office by a majority of the council after a public hearing…”

This very change is also mentioned in the 1st paragraph of the 2025 Model Charter which is telling to me (also, link below).

To me, how council manages itself should have some checks and balances I believe this new language introduces fairly for both "sides". Councilors and city staffers always have the court system if they feel wronged.

Without anything at all in the charter, serious violations of our oath like interfering with city contracts *is* left to the actual and spendy court system. We saw this with $50K+ legal fees around censuring a council member in 2024 -- money we could have used elsewhere. That pile most likely would have been much smaller had we a clear path on our charter.

Aside from that and, in my opinion, more serious, opportunities can be pulled back or vanish because North Bend doesn't abide by its contracts. This can be the result when one council member acts outside our role and our oath. I think this closes this important gap in our charter.

2)  Mayoral term to 4 years: some believe that 2 year terms keep the mayor closer to public views. I understand that. However, council decisions are rarely paths that can be completed in 2 years, much less during *the* 2 years of a term.  I would prefer elected officials stick to the work of they are elected to do, rather than endless campaigning and using term change-overs as a reason this or that didn’t get completed.

3) Updating title of City Administrator to City Manager: Our city charter requires a professional manager to run the city, a CEO really. Other charters authorize the mayor to be the CEO as well as council top spot. When we hire the next top city staffer, should we hire someone prepared to be a VP (i.e. City Administrator) or a CEO (i.e. City Manager)?  If we don’t change the title, we will get candidates with the wrong expectations for what the job entails.  

4) Providing for *council rules* to be established by ordinance *or resolution*: to my understanding, ordinances are more formal, permanent. To me, this update simplifies how council as a team can operate without permanent changes when they aren't needed, as well as creates opportunity for time limits or other ways to try improvements and see what works.

5) Updating the process to fill council vacancies in limited circumstances.  These have come from litigation where cities experienced a council without an elected quorum for extended periods.  Without councils to choose courses of actions, city services can grind to a halt quickly. For us in North Bend, it’s a little more of a concern because our charter has lower monetary thresholds for when council must approve of a purchase Many decisions in many departments require council approval all year long.

--------------------------------