GRADUATION 2020
SMALL SCHOOLS
PAGES B1-2 & B9-10
Contributed photo
Tanni Wenger Photography
Graduates from Prairie
City School toss their caps
in the air at their May 29
graduation ceremony.
Wednesday, June 3, 2020
152nd Year • No. 23 • 22 Pages • $1.50
MyEagleNews.com
EOC overspends $125,000 budget by almost $75,000
Treasurer: Budget transfer
needed to pay current
bills, get through fiscal
year for COVID-19
response
By Steven Mitchell
Blue Mountain Eagle
The Emergency Operations Cen-
ter Grant County established amid
the COVID-19 pandemic has over-
spent its $125,000
budget by almost
$75,000.
The
Grant
County
Court
approved $125,000
in funding for the
Julie Ellison
EOC in March, and
the EOC has obli-
gated $197,019 in payouts through
May, according to information pre-
sented in Grant County Court May
27 by EOC Incident Commander
Dave Dobler.
Grant County
Treasurer Julie Elli-
son said at the meet-
ing the EOC will
need another bud-
get transfer to make
payroll and pay cur-
Dave Dobler rent invoices to
make it through the
fiscal year through June.
In a document Dobler presented
in court, he details $60,000 of unex-
pected expenses — $35,000 for fed-
eral reimbursement tracking soft-
ware, $12,000 for rent at the airport,
$9,500 for wifi and $3,000 for non-
EOC expenditures — but the docu-
ment also claims the EOC is within
its budget.
When Dobler originally requested
funding for the EOC, he requested
$250,120 for 90 days, but the Grant
County Court authorized only
$125,060 with the plan to reassess in
45 days. The document Dobler pre-
sented in court appears to be working
from the $250,120 figure that was not
approved by the court.
“I went through my county com-
missioner for requests, and did the
best I could, and that’s really, really
where we’re at,” Dobler told the
Eagle. “So if the court has an issue
with that, I guess we’ll deal with that
at one particular time or another.”
Moving money
Ellison said the county trans-
ferred the $125,000 from the General
Fund Contingency to the Relief Help
See EOC, Page A12
Forest Service considers changing 21-inch harvest rule
By George Plaven
EO Media Group
The U.S. Forest Service is consider-
ing whether to amend a 25-year-old rule
that prohibits logging large trees across
six national forests in Central and East-
ern Oregon.
Known as the “Eastside screens,”
the policy was originally adopted in
1995 and included a ban on harvesting
any trees with a diameter greater than
21 inches east of the Cascades to protect
old-growth forests, water quality and
wildlife habitat.
Though the 21-inch standard was
supposed to be temporary at the time,
it has remained in effect for all or parts
of the Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman,
Malheur, Ochoco, Deschutes and Fre-
mont-Winema national forests, which
together add up to nearly 10 million
acres of federally owned land.
Forest managers, however, may
finally be ready to make changes
based on advances in science and a
better understanding of the different
landscapes.
The Forest Service’s Pacific North-
west Research Station issued a report in
February, stating that removing some
21-inch-diameter trees — especially
those that are large, young and thrive in
shade — may actually be desirable for
forest restoration goals.
A nine-member interdisciplinary
team is now leading the planning effort.
The team held a series of virtual work-
shops May 11, 13 and 15 to gather feed-
back from partner cities, tribes and
agencies, and plans to host additional
public hearings later this summer.
Project leaders hope to issue a for-
malized decision on modifying the
Eastside Screens by spring 2021.
At least one timber industry trade
group, the American Forest Resource
Council, supports amending the rule,
calling it flawed, unscientific and out-
dated and that it stunted forest restoration
and accelerated job losses in historically
timber-dependent communities.
“It’s actually been pretty devastat-
ing,” said Irene Jerome, a forester and
File photo
See Rule, Page A12 The U.S. Forest Service has formed an intergovernmental council to discuss management of the Blue Mountains.
City, chamber moving forward after heated discussion
By Rudy Diaz
Blue Mountain Eagle
Officials from the city of John Day
and Grant County Chamber of Com-
merce say they are making amends after
a heated discussion at a recent meeting.
Thirteen minutes into a study session
between the two groups over transient
room tax distribution May 21, represen-
tatives from both sides raised their voices
and criticized each other, and the meeting
ended in tension.
But representatives from the groups
met the following week amid a call for
working together, and they are moving
past the disagreement.
Cause for tension
Chamber Office Manager Tammy
Bremner told the Eagle May 28 that the
tension between the chamber and the city
began near the end of the May 12 John
Day City Council meeting. She said she
felt City Manager Nick Green was unfair
in his assessment that the city could do a
better job of promoting tourism in John
Day with the transient room tax funds
than the chamber, which receives much
of its funding from the county tax on
hotel and RV park users.
Eagle file photo
The John Day City Council listens to a question from the community about the
Fourth Street repairs March 10.
“That is what kind of what started the
main tension, and I hate to throw that in
(Green’s) face because he has backed off,
and I really don’t want to start another
fight with him or any of the city council,
but that’s where it came from,” Bremner
said.
At the beginning of the TRT meet-
ing on May 21, chamber President Jerry
Franklin began by thanking the council
for setting up the meeting, but then shared
what had been concerning him.
“It’s been kind of disturbing myself
hearing rumors lately that we’re not
effectively promoting the county and
John Day’s best interest, which we firmly
disagree with,” Franklin said. “And your
comments and your memos tend to lead
in that direction.”
John Day Mayor Ron Lundbom
quickly clarified that it was not the city’s
intent to discount the work the chamber
has done.
“It wasn’t our intention to bash the
county (chamber). It’s not the case,”
Lundbom said.
Green added it was not their intent to
criticize the chamber’s work.
The transient room tax
The county’s transient room tax ordi-
nance calls for the collection of 8% of
what hotel and RV park operators charge
for one night, paid by the temporary vis-
itor. The tax administration office keeps
a small fee, and about 25% goes into a
fund for grant funding through the cham-
ber and the remaining amount is given to
the chamber.
The chamber is supposed to use the
funds “for encouragement of entrepre-
neurial development and on the promo-
tion, acquisition, construction, operation
and maintenance of recreational, cultural
and tourist related services and facilities
intended to bring tourists and visitors to
Grant County” and encourage residents
to make use of the same.
According to the agenda for the TRT
meeting, the county’s transient room tax
generated $191,749 countywide from all
operators last year. Operators in John Day
generated $111,495.
“I would like to see that money (gen-
erated from John Day) invested in John
Day, and I’d like to see it used for tourism
promotion and community development
projects in John Day,” Green said during
a city council meeting on May 12. “Those
hotels exist here because of the infrastruc-
ture investment that we’ve made as a city
and the city taxpayers. I think that money
should stay in our community.”
The city discussed implementing its
own additional TRT tax or implementing
a city TRT tax in place of the county’s.
“Neither option precludes our ability
See Session, Page A12