Flock security systems have made national news several times this summer as police departments across the nation have, unwittingly or otherwise, run amok of privacy an equal protection in their use of the systems. In 2024, North Bend police actually started using license reading technology after staffing research and with council approval with a unanimous vote in granting that approval.

With the rise of stories in national outlets this year, however, our residents have raised fears about its use. In doing so, they’ve also brought for a model from the ACLU called CCOPS,  Community Control Over Police Surveillance.

So, this is my personal take on North Bend’s use of automatic license plate readers, not just Flock through the lens of where our local resident have raised what they believe are the gaps in Oregon law which they presume carries into North Bend’s use an policy.

I’ve included a number of links to online resources below so that any of you can review North Bend’s actual policy alongside ACLU’s recommendations and come to your own conclusions.

For those who haven’t gone deep yet, here are key NBPD policy points:

• North Bend ALPR policy limits use to accessing for investigations only 

  • Further, "ALPR data shall not be shared with federal law enforcement entities conducting immigration enforcement" from 426.5(f)

• NBPD is prohibited from using the system to troll for anything, including personal reasons

• NBPD ALPRs photo license plate only, *no* facial recognition, *no* audio

• NBPD does not pull over a vehicle based solely on an alert

• ALPR access logs are published and available for anyone to download at any time

• ALPR logs do not contain private entities’ information:

  •  no license plate numbers or vehicle ownership information

  •  no information a “bad actor” could use to find a specific party

•  ALPR logs do contain enough to request police records and/or register a complaint  

• NBPD auditing includes verifying:

  •  appropriate use by NBPD (investigations only, no trolling)

  •  data, including photos, are removed after 30-day period

  •  turned off “features” NBPD has deemed in appropriate actually *stay off*

• NBPD programs for transparency and accountability by our community

  •   Public access to police logs including ALPR use

  •   ALPR Transparency Portal with stats and use log at the very bottom (.csv format)

  •   Citizen Ride Along program 

  •   Profiling Complaint form

Perceived Gaps in North Ben vs CCOPS:

To me, the fundamental disconnect between ACLU CCOPS vs North Bend policy is some kind of city-run citizen board. What I see, though, is that North Bend is publishing the audit logs of the Flock system and police logs which are the very same data that a city-run board would be handing to citizens whenever meetings occurred. In other words, the information that citizen board would review and use to cultivate change is already being published without any other filtering other than removing private citizen information.

I think that’s a way better set of data to study. And I hope that concerned citizens start learning that data to bring forward ideas.

If it were me, I would regularly examine the public data, contacting the city with questions, including learning the meaning of the information that shows up in the reports.  Should a small group of dedicated people choose to do this on a regular basis, all the better.

During this time, I was given a gap analysis of how the ACLU’s CCOPS policy maps to North Bend. I’ve focused my comments here on the items our residents deemed missing entirely that I don’t actually think are.

North Bend has different names or forms of the spirit of those line items, but not the same names.

Public approval:  North Bend, through council’s public meetings and council approval, has been using license-reading technology since July 2024. The original system wasn’t producing accurate results, so Flock is being tried now.  My recollection is that no one spoke in opposition to the use of ALPR technology, nor came to any meetings where council discussed and ultimately voted for use. Council votes were unanimous. Ms. Noordhoff and I along with all our colleagues voted yes. We believed using ALPR technology, as well as the speed trailers, would aid police in active investigations and deter criminal activity.  

ACLU typically claims *no* surveillance actually deters crime. However, the ACLU is focused on urban when they formulate their opinion. Rural cities, however, can be an attractor for criminal organizations because of their sizably smaller resources. (Anyone remember the car thefts in early 2017?) Automated speed monitors, license plate readers and simple trash pickup actually do deter crime, particularly when there are many towns to choose from. The organized groups notice who’s got some monitoring and who doesn’t. Larger urban areas — less choice. (Ugly, but true.)

Additionally, expanding use is something that would come before council, at minimum, as with all technology uses are if for no other reason than the systems are above the spending threshold city staffers can allocate without a yes from council. Those yeses to spending are always accompanied by the why’s. 

Community oversight: North Bend publishes and has committed to publishing the police logs and ALPR logs that detail every use. Audits, which are weekly at this point, include not only looking for misuse by our police officers, but verification that “features” North Bend has expressly turned off stay turned off, as well as that data said to be deleted after 30 days is indeed deleted.  So, NBP is already publishing the data the public would use to oversee activities and in a very timely fashion.

What's missing is interested citizens learning how to read the information and bringing concerns forward to city staffers and/or council. This is an opportunity for those truly interested to start something new, perhaps for the whole nation, where citizen-lead interpretations of the same information can come forward and improvce the system as a whole.

Surveillance Impact Report: council meetings didn’t include a report called the “Surveillence Impact Report”, but a big piece of the internal city staffer discussions were around minimizing impact personal freedoms and privacy. I believe some Coos Dems are aware of this because they discussed with the police chief and/or city administrator.

The ALPR Transparency Portal (link below) also reports in this area.   

Annual public reporting: the public reporting is monthly for ALPR and current for the police logs. We also get annual reports by the police that include stats on calls. Concerned citizens could easily propose some additional information they want in the annual reports and/or transparency portal, if they truly found the reporting lacking

Periodic Review/Sunset: contracts are all time limited, usually 2 years, where technologies including this one are evaluated and brought to council, as will this one be. Concerned citizens can easily call up the city to find out about this review or any others, as well as come forward with concerns at any time.

Vendor Accountability: Our city staffers are actually holding this vendor (the prior one, as well) to higher standards. For Flock, North Bend has pushed the envelope for Flock’s transparency portal, among other things city staffers can speak to.

This is extremely unusual, in my understanding. I feel our community can be proud of how seriously city staffers have taken building a policy on ALPR use that preserves equal protection and privacy balanced alongside public safety. 

Complaint Process: any one can visit city offices to register a complain. They could also use the Profiling Complaint form to register something specific to ALPR, as well as any other condition where someone feels they were profiled.

Consequences for Misuse: misuse of accessing the ALPR system would be handled with the same disciplinary response as any police misconduct. Misuse of ALPR system is misconduct. Period.

The NBPD’s process in learning the technology and developing the policy has gone quite a bit deeper than other municipalities, so much so that I don’t believe the serious violations found in other places would/could happen in North Bend. 

My personal experience shows me that rural cities like North Bend have a unique form of accountability not available in urban areas: our own neighbors and community members work these positions which means they are very interested in preserving personal freedoms and local good life we all enjoy — something quite a bit less common in large cities. IMO, that raises the level of shared values among all “sides” of an issue like this one. 

Resources -- scrolling is your friend! Roll through the pages for the key term you're :

• NBPD page has a host of resources including logs the public can use to monitor: https://www.northbendoregon.gov/21065/police

• NBPD Policy 426 Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) -- scroll down to North Bend Police Policy 426: https://www.northbendoregon.gov/sitefiles/boards/packet07232026210011.pdf?dt=072926110749

• North Bend’s Flock Safety Transparency Portal — where you can download use logs: https://transparency.flocksafety.com/north-bend-or-pd-

• ACLU’s information on it’s CCOPS program: https://www.aclu.org/community-control-over-police-surveillance 

As our community gets warmer, more people are going to seek using our designated overnight camping spots that are required by Oregon law to establish in each incorporated city.   A lot has changed since that law went into effect, but North Bend is still required to comply, unfortunately.

Our mayor, Jessica Engelke, as written a detailed overview of this situation -- which is complex, to say the least. It's well worth the read, if you have Facebook. Hopefully, the World will also publish the content.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EKBpd3Efx/

Here's my take, having been one of the team who had to make the tough decisions for our camping ordinance several years ago:

Homelessness does not provide a get-out-of-jail card. If you see crimes being committed, call the police just like you would for any other situation.  There are complexities here: it’s true that we have a jailing limitation as a county. It’s also true that North Bend’s police force is extremely lean. I personally wish the city had the funds to support a full 3-person team every shift. Until we have the funding for that, our current police do a stand-up job providing the services they do.  

Nevertheless, if you see crimes, call the police!

Our community’s feedback was overwhelmingly to keep our camping areas away from residential properties. Our camping areas are limited to  overnight  only in a few sites downtown and by our beautiful waterfront area this side of the bay. Not great, but at least not in residential areas.

The camping ordinance required by Oregon law: the city/council choice was and remains the following: If a city doesn’t have a camping ordinance, than the city *allows* resting and sleeping on every inch of public property — which includes sidewalks, meridians, etc. — by anyone in any condition they may be in while sleeping or resting. 

Any city without some kind of ordinance is open to suits from any person or organization who wishes to claim harm because the city allowed resting and sleeping everywhere and some action the city took to move someone in that state was taken.

Lastly and this is my personal take: we’re not the only community experiencing an influx of people. Homelessness is becoming a larger and larger national problem, not just a problem for areas like ours with beautiful weather and landscape. Housing is part of the problem. Jobs that can’t keep pace with rents and property ownership costs are another.  At this time, our national administration hasn’t prioritized either of these areas, so…

Ballot measures are limited in amount of text and can only be yes/no. So, I hope every North Bend voter spends time reviewing as they consider in Resolution 3377's charter changes.

While I don't speak for council or the city, I was a part of the team putting it forward. I wasn’t on the committee tasked with making the recommendations, but, as it happens, I support all the changes. For the curious, I've included several links at end so that you can review and decide for yourself.

The proposed changes come from the League of Oregon Cities 2025 Model Charter (link below). Like other states, LOC maintains a model charter as it compiles and analyzes member city information, goes through litigation on behalf of member cities and influences state legal matters member cities’ have prioritized as a collective.

Not all standardization is needed in my opinion, but the few changes being proposed for North Bend are useful -- North Bend has not engaged in a charter review for 20 years or more, I believe.

To get to the ballot measure, council followed charter code and state law. Each step of the way, a qualified Oregon law team reviewed. Council authorized a committee to review LOC's analysis of our charter, as well as discuss additional recommendations if anyone had them. That committee met several times. The measure contains only updates that committee voted to include by a majority.

I've ordered my opinions here on what concerns I've heard from neighbors, not on how the changes appear on the ballot itself, FYI:

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.

Track actual changes proposed in Resolution 3377 from Exhibit B:

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

Review LOC 2025 Model Charter:

https://www.orcities.org/application/files/5217/6480/5723/Model_Charter_for_Oregon_Cities_-_Ninth_Edition_-_2025.pdf

Here's the city's announcement with more materials:

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/news/8273/measure-6-229-proposed-north-bend-city-charter-amendments

Resolution 3377 was approved in this January council meeting:

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/apps/boards/meetings/details.aspx?meetingid=7215

Comment added to NextDoor Wed April 8, 2026:

"Food for thought: 

* The Charter review was part of a previous Council-adopted strategic priority from June 27, 2023. 

* Committee created by Resolution No. 3369 (July 22, 2025) 

* Committee was advisory 

* City Council retained full decision-making authority 

* Process included: * Public meetings 

* Council updates *

 Legal review 

* Judicial review (ballot title challenge where titles were updated)

Ballots are still on the ballot which means to me, the ballot's measure and spirit are supported by law, including city charter"

______________________________

Timeline Highlights

June 27, 2023: Council adopts Strategic Plan → includes “Review and update the City Charter”

May 13, 2025: Updated Strategic Plan → directs creation of Charter Review Committee

July 22, 2025: Resolution 3369 adopted → Committee created and members appointed

Aug–Dec 2025: Committee meets publicly (Aug 6, Sept 10, Dec 4; Oct 8 cancelled)

Jan 13, 2026: Council approves recommendations and refers measure to voters

March 2026: Ballot titles challenged in court → amended and certified

May 19, 2026: Election

________________________________

Ballot Title Outcome

  *   Court added one clarifying item:

     *   Removal of a councilor after a public hearing

  *   No changes to caption or question

  *   City complied with court order to update verbage on ballot title

  *   Ballot Measure going foward as planned

________________________________

Compliance with Council Rules

Committee created by resolution (authorized)

Classified correctly as advisory lay-committee

Public meetings noticed and conducted

Members appointed through Council action

Council retained final authority

Conclusion:

The process aligns with City Council Rules and Oregon law.

Last fall, we voted a "yes" to increasing the public safety fee to $20. But now this May, we will have an almost identical ballot measure to increase the public safety fee to $20. Most of us are probably asking why? 

I understand why this is confusing and, believe me, it's been a bummer to council and city staffers that we've had to roll this way. Here’s why…. 

The $20 public safety we said yes to was, unfortunately, governed under the charter rules that said a majority of registered voters -- not those who actually voted -- was still in play. The fee-limiting charter language used to say “majority of electorate” which means a majority of those registered to vote, not those who actually vote. 

In that same election, North Bend had a 2nd ballot measure to correct that: Charter Change (6-221): Proposes changing the voting requirement from a "majority of the electorate" (which counts non-voters as "no" votes) to a "majority of voters" for fee increases. 

I remember when the “public safety fee” was introduced to our water bill in 2019, I think. I remember a few months going by when it went from $5 to $15, then to $30. At that time, City Administrator O’Conner and Police Chief Kappelman discovered a mistake in their budget that exposed a million dollar gap for the police. The public safety fee was their remedy. I understand why they tried it. I remember O’Conner’s preamble to the annual budget meetings concerning that issue. I also remember and understand why residents rebelled through the fee-limiting measures introduced into the city charter later that year. 

Since then, it’s been a strategic u-turn in how to keep city services going because all departments now have only one way to bridge the budget gaps: grants, which are hard to get and do not stay for long. 

And getting us all to say yes to fee increases is, well, tough at best. So, we have to run that dang thing again and see what happens. I get why you're frustrated. It's hard to peel back all the layers if you haven't personally attended any of the discussions….ugh… 

Personally, I don't understand why it's a legal ballot measure to require a "majority of the electorate". That makes people who've moved away but haven't changed their voter registration, people who don't vote but registered more power, than people who bother to vote.

2nd Post on May 13 in response to some misinformation from community member and former mayor John Briggs, former councilman Susanna Nordhoff who misinterpreted last years budget when deciding to say no:

As we all consider the $5 added to the public safety fee, it's worth noting that the police department through heavy grant subsidies which will run out in 1-2 years support about 3 FTE's, aka, people on the force. This is something that former mayor Briggs didn't apparently see when he recommended to voters to say no to this measures when he reviewed last years budget. 

We have only 2 patrol officers on the beat at any given time, but residents have consistently cited public safety concerns which, IMO, translates to more people on the force, including a detective so that beat officers can spend more time on the streets. Because this is complicated due to the charter measures limiting fees and the change we made last fall, I'm including a prior post for more details below. 

On a side note: this is a great reason to attend or watch the North Bend Annual Budget Meetings which will be next Mon and Tues at 5:30, Wed if we need it.

Some residents have raised concerns and questions about the how, why and way of the coming ballot measure for updating the city charter, Measure 6-229. Come to the Town Hall Monday at 6pm at the community center for more — it’s one of a number of issues we’ll be raising. 

The proposed changes to North Bend’s charter will make the charger more closely align to League of Oregon Cities model charter. Charter updates are a process suggested by all of the league of cities organizations around the US. In guiding charter update process, the leagues all provide model charters that are updated as the leagues learn and influence legal matters concerning cities over time.

Not all standardization is needed, but in the few changes being proposed for North Bend are particularly valuable for establishing a common, reliable framework that reduces ambiguity,  simplifies intergovernmental relationships in ways the League of Oregon Cities recommends. 

IMO, a model charter is like any other standardization: it makes the moving parts easier to adjust or fix. It makes it easier for other organizations to know how to navigate working with the city.  

As it happens, North Bend has not engaged in a charter review for, I believe, 20 years or more.  It seems like a good time to me, just saying…

To get to the ballot measure, council authorized a committee of citizens, council, city staffers and the city attorney to review an analysis from the league on recommended updates, as well as discuss additional recommendations if anyone had them. That committee met several times. The ballot measure contains only the updates that committee recommended and nothing more.

That said, even though I wasn’t on this committee, I can understand why the committee ended up recommending the updates that align us to the model charter. 

Let’s run down the changes. I don’t speak for the city or for council, but I can speak to what I understood as a person who did agree to decide to form the committee, as well as agree with the charter updates. If I  quote, it’s from what League of Oregon Cities says when it “justifies” it’s recommendations

1)  Mayoral term to 4 years: “a 4-year mayoral term is considered important because it promotes long-term planning, stabilizes city leadership, and reduces the distractions of perpetual campaigning. It aligns the mayor's term with the 4-year staggered terms of council members, ensuring consistent, strategic leadership”  I agree with this, particularly now after seeing up close that 2 years isn’t enough time to establish any paths much less get anything “accomplished”.

2) Updating title of City Administrator to City Manager: This is because our form of city government is chartered to be a “weak mayor” model where the mayor is the head of council and the city hires a professional manager to run the city. The “strong mayor” form of city government is when the mayor is not only the head of the city council, but has administrative power and the “City Administrator” is a support to them mayor, rather than the top staffer.  When we hire the next top city staffer, we aren’t going to be hiring a VP (i.e. City Administrator), where going to hire a CEO (i.e. City Manager).   If we don’t change the title, we will get candidates with a wrong skill set and the wrong expectations for what the job entails.  

3) “Providing for council rules to be established by ordinance or resolution”: there are a number of good reasons for this, but to keep this short(er), this one is most important IMO: “Stability and Flexibility: By using a resolution or ordinance rather than a rigid charter amendment, the council can easily update rules as needed while maintaining stability during transition periods.”  In my short time on council, it’s been clear to me that councils need the ability to update council rules outside the two election cycles in the calendar year.

4) “Updating the process to fill council vacancies in limited circumstances.”  These recommendations have come from a series of weird situations where cities across Oregon have experienced a council without a quorum for extended periods in between election cycles.  Without councils to choose courses of actions, city services can grind to a halt in a very short period of time. 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. 

5) “Updating the process of removing a city councilor by a vote of the City Council after a public hearing. “ Again, the model charter language came from a series of weird situations and lawsuits filed against cities across Oregon  where older and more vague language regarding removing councilors where challenged.  The updated process emphasizes that removal must follow a formal public hearing, protecting the due process rights of the council member and minimizing the need for court intervention.  The updates align with the "council-manager" form of government, ensuring that the council-manager relationship is protected and that a councilor cannot abuse their power over city administration. 

The city’s web page on this includes a link to the league’s model charter, so you can see for yourself that these changes are actually coming from the professional organization that helps all Oregon cities govern and work with the state legislature to keep the city and its services running:

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/news/8273/measure-6-229-proposed-north-bend-city-charter-amendments

Come to the Town Hall and ask your questions directly!

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/news/8277/march-30-2026-city-of-north-bend-town-hall-meeting

North Benders:  please come to the Town Hall to learn and bring your questions/concerns forward about a number of issues the city is going to cover. 

Monday March 30th from 6-8pm

North Bend Community Center

2222 Broadway, North Bend

Three main areas are going to be covered:

* Annex Project: where the city is so far with the plan for demolishing the old hospital and putting up an apartment building with approximately 70 units for people who actually work in the community with dollars tied to workforce housing.

 * Ballot initiatives that include upping the Public Safety Fee to $20 to further support our police. It’s worth noting here that we have police staff the city and council believes needs to be supported fully but we can only fund them at this moment by grants or by community donations: our narcotic officers and our K-9 program with 1 officer and 1 dog.

* The fuller financial outlook for North Bend which continues to be extremely strained by our charter, unfortunately. This discussion will include road maintenance, sewer infrastructure and ongoing maintenance, as well as the pool currently funded under a levy that will expire soon.

Here’s the website announcement:

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/news/8267/town-hall-to-cover-housing-public-safety-infrastructure-pool-funding-and-budget

As well, think about coming to our annual budget meetings in May we’re city staffers will go in depth about what we can and cannot cover with our current tax revenue, how we’re bridging some of those gaps with grants that will go away, and the steps forward we’ll need to keep basic services afloat.

Mon & Tue May 18 & 19 at 5pm, I believe (double check this, please!)

North Bend Council Chambers

835 California Ave, North Bend

Some residents got their facts wrong on some recent social media posts about the change in North Bend resident tax bills. I thought it was worth noting the actual situation because it’s so easy to misinterpret something and get angry or scared about it. (I make mountains out of molehills all the time, just like every human and as was the case here.)

To prove this to yourself: look at your tax bill from last year. The total is less than this year and not by a few dollars — the North Bend Urban Renewal *Special Levy* has dropped off permanently.

2025 Coos County tax bill and prior years had *2* line items for North Bend URA: a line for the normal urban renewal funding and a line for a special levy. The special levy was dropped off this year’s bill and represents a reduction in taxes. We tax payers were paying our normal taxes with an additional amount under the special levy.

This year's other line at $0.00 represents an “under levy” when an urban renewal district frees it’s portion of taxes to go back to the taxing districts that share its pool. This year city staffers approached the council for taking this action and council agreed to have this year be an under-levy for a number of important reasons. 

We will see that "NORTH BEND URBAN RENEWAL" line item increase next year again, as is normal. Unlike like the special levy, however, the line item will not increase our taxes for the future years beyond mandated increases. 

This year, the “under levy” means North Bend Urban Renewal will take no portion of our total tax bill. That amount is redistributed among the districts that share our pool, as is the law.

The pie with will remain but slices will be a little different, not more pie(s) or a bigger pie beyond the normal increases.

So, North Bend tax payers have a permanent tax reduction because the special levy was sunset with the new agreement between taxing districts for North Bend Urban Renewal. That new agreement was needed, in large part, to take advantage of the once in a generation or two opportunity to use $4 million in federal funds for housing.

The city and council have earmarked that federal money for a new downtown apartment building where requirements to rent will include working in this area. This building will replace the condemned old state annex building. 

To break down the tax bill lines, this is what we see:

SOUTH COAST ESD

NORTH BEND SCHOOL #13

————————

EDUCATION TOTAL

COOS CO LOCAL OPTION LEVY

COOS COUNTY-4H/EXTENSION

COOS COUNTY-LIBRARY SERVICES

COOS COUNTY

CITY OF NORTH BEND

CITY OF NORTH BEND SPECIAL LEVY

CITY OF NORTH BEND-LOCAL OPTION

PORT OF COOS BAY

COOS COUNTY AIRPORT

COOS COUNTY URBAN RENEWAL

NORTH BEND URBAN RENEWAL           <— $0 this year, more next

NORTH BEND URBAN RENEWAL SPECIAL LEVY     <— dropped permanently

Additional details here:

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/news/8201/north-bend-urban-renewal-your-2025-property-tax-bill-and-what-changed-and-didnt

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/news/8192/update-on-coos-county-property-tax-statements-involving-the-north-bend-urban-renewal-agency-nbura

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/21098/north-bend-urban-renewal-agency

North Benders:  please come to the Town Hall to learn and bring your questions/concerns forward about a number of issues the city is going to cover. 

Monday March 30th from 6-8pm

North Bend Community Center

2222 Broadway, North Bend

Three main areas are going to be covered:

* Annex Project: where the city is so far with the plan for demolishing the old hospital and putting up an apartment building with approximately 70 units for people who actually work in the community with dollars tied to workforce housing.

 * Ballot initiatives that include upping the Public Safety Fee to $20 to further support our police. It’s worth noting here that we have police staff the city and council believes needs to be supported fully but we can only fund them at this moment by grants or by community donations: our narcotic officers and our K-9 program with 1 officer and 1 dog.

* The fuller financial outlook for North Bend which continues to be extremely strained by our charter, unfortunately. This discussion will include road maintenance, sewer infrastructure and ongoing maintenance, as well as the pool currently funded under a levy that will expire soon.

Here’s the website announcement:

https://www.northbendoregon.gov/news/8267/town-hall-to-cover-housing-public-safety-infrastructure-pool-funding-and-budget

As well, think about coming to our annual budget meetings in May we’re city staffers will go in depth about what we can and cannot cover with our current tax revenue, how we’re bridging some of those gaps with grants that will go away, and the steps forward we’ll need to keep basic services afloat.

Mon & Tue May 18 & 19 at 5pm, I believe (double check this, please!)

North Bend Council Chambers

835 California Ave, North Bend

For those who want a little more information about North Bend's 6-221 ballot measure and why we need it... 

When former mayor Briggs mustered the public support to pass 6-176 that limits fees to voter approved measures, he apparently wasn't aware that the language he presented to be law made it so that a majority of the people who vote would not carry. 

The language his team used in that law was that a majority of the "electors" was needed to pass a measure. That means that the entire voter roll the county has for North Bend is used as the count for what the city would need for a measure to pass. (For reference, this is in the first paragraph: https://northbendor.municipal.codes/Charter/Section6.1) 

This measure changes that to a simply majority of voters, i.e. those who choose to participate. If you don't vote, you don't get a say. More practically, it means that people who moved or died do not get an automatic "no" vote on any measure city voters are asked to weigh in on. 

Here's the text of this measure on our May ballot: https://sos.oregon.gov/admin/Documents/local_measures/2025_S_6-221.pdf

Check out the summary for the North Bend Budget Meetings coming up. It's both a testament to how much our city staffers have put into getting a fair share of grant funds, as well as just how for off our property tax dollars go to pay for the actual services the city provides. 

For the full show, attend the meetings starting May 21st at 5:30pm: https://www.northbendoregon.us/calendarView.aspx?cid=30920 

Because organizations like to spread around the grant dollars, we are unlikely to see this type of grant funding again, particularly in this federal/political climate. The staffers did an incredible job plugging the gap that Measure 6-176 will prevent us from correcting, but the funding gap is real.

North Bend Residents: I know it’s not scintillating TV, but annual budget meetings are May 21 & 22. Do us go by watching and learning. If you attend the meetings, you can make public comments, even if you attend virtually. 

More info from the city: https://www.northbendoregon.us/newsview.aspx?nid=8064 

Here’s what I’ve learned: 

Even though the past 5 years have brought North Bend huge dollars from the extensive efforts of staffers to draw grants, we are still in a fiscal decline that will hit us hard in the coming few years. Grants are really only good for capital investments, not sustaining services, yet we have done what we can. 

For example, our city police force currently has 3-4 grant funded positions that will go away without a change. As you all are aware, the sewer system — with its own dedicated budget and funds — is falling off a fiscal cliff because prior councils for more than 2 decades have pushed off basic rate increases needed to keep that system up to date for the regulatory requirements and any shot of a growing population. 

We, as all other municipalities across Oregon and the US, are in a state where the federal government has drastically cut access to our fair share, large private businesses like those in timber who funded the city so well are long gone by decades, and our physical systems are aging out to the tune of 10-20 years beyond the known usable service time. Our tax dollars simply don’t cover basic services that the property taxes we are allocated need to fund. 

As voters, we’ve consistently voted down even modest increases because we’re all strapped, too. If we continue that pattern, we have one option left — economic development — as our path forward. But that path is rocky and unpredictable. Some of us truly believe that capitalism will save us, but we’ve also seen that private development on many fronts (housing, industry, etc.) have left our coastal community behind for years into decades. 

You’ll not get this on Fox News, but it’s truly happening real time in our community. Tune in to get informed!