A12
NEWS
Blue Mountain Eagle
Police
Plan
Continued from Page A1
Continued from Page A1
able to transfer its $375,000 COPS grant
to the county. If the grant turns out not
to be transferable, the city would pay
$371,000 a year.
The county proposal makes no men-
tion of any county road funds coming to
the city.
Palmer made it clear at the City
Council work session that he couldn’t
speak for his fellow commissioners but
said he would present the city’s response
to them.
“I myself can’t make a decision,
obviously,” he said. “I would have to
take it to the court.”
The proposal drew a variety of
responses from the City Council.
Some council members suggested
the way to go might be a countywide
bond measure to increase the budget for
the Sheriff’s Office, so it could hire more
deputies to improve law enforcement
coverage countywide.
Councilor Heather Rookstool said
her chief concern was making sure the
residents of John Day had a level of
protection comparable to what they
had before the Police Department was
suspended.
“Our community is expecting police
coverage, and they’re not going to get
John Day police coverage with a county
bond,” she said.
“Our community voted,” Councilor
Shannon Adair responded, referring to
the failure of a police funding levy last
August.
She added that the county’s proposal
would cost more than the city could
afford.
“My concern is we’re still paying
more than we bring in in property taxes
if we agree to this,” she said.
“I think a proposal that singles out
the citizens of John Day … is not fair to
our constituents,” Councilor Elliot Sky
said. “I would like to see the County
Court consider (other options).”
Councilor Dave Holland suggested a
middle ground.
“I think the whole problem needs
to be addressed with the citizens of the
whole county, with everybody paying
in,” he said, adding that residents of John
Day and other incorporated communi-
ties could pay a higher rate in exchange
for a higher level of law enforcement
coverage. “I don’t have a problem with
that, as long as it’s proportionate.”
Adair and Lundbom also raised the
issue of using money from the county
road fund for city street projects,
reminding Palmer that the City Council
has been requesting a joint meeting with
the County Court to discuss that request
since early last year.
The county had said it needed a opin-
ion from its attorney on whether those
funds could legally be appropriated for
city projects, but so far, they said, it has
never provided such an opinion to the
city. Last April, the city had its attorney
draft an opinion on that question and
provide it to the county, but the city has
not yet received anything in reply, they
added.
“I want to see a response to that
(opinion) before we respond to this (pro-
posal),” Adair told Palmer.
Palmer said he bring the city’s legal
opinion before the County Court, even
though he thinks police funding and road
funding should be separate discussions.
“Get it to me and I’ll put it on the
next agenda,” he said.
Several members of the public rose
to speak during the work session, calling
for action on law enforcement funding.
“We are already in a state of emer-
gency with regard to law enforcement,”
Prairie City resident Frances Preston
said. “We need to do something through
the County Court to take care of the
county sheriff and his deputies.”
The BIC subcommittee revised
the list of conditions pertaining to
a number of key issues, including
access, elk security, wilderness and
other set-asides.
Forest access
In its final draft document of
desired conditions, the BIC’s access
subcommittee wrote forest access
was the most contentious topic during
the 2018 forest plan revision process.
Committee member Bill Harvey
said the forest roads have been used
by people in rural areas for 75 to 80
years.
Harvey, a Baker County com-
missioner, said people have lived,
worked and played in the Blue Moun-
tains their whole lives.
“Why, in God’s name,” Harvey
said, “would we want to take that
right away?”
Public use
The group writes that the public
desires to be well informed on for-
est access. It want the agency to
provide an up-to-date and compre-
hensive inventory of all forest roads
and the status of those roads.
This was an important desired
condition for subcommittee mem-
ber Mark Owens, a state representa-
tive from Crane, who told the Eagle
last year that he understands cer-
tain areas have wilderness or wild-
life designations restricting motor-
ized vehicle access.But he wanted
to learn what roads are open and
what roads are closed and why they
are closed.
He said he wanted to see which
roads were closed through the
National Environmental Policy Act
and which roads were closed by the
Forest Service administratively.
“If they’re closed through
NEPA, we really can’t get it back
open unless we go through NEPA,
Pool
Continued from Page A1
shows that support for the measure
is strongest in the district’s incorpo-
rated areas, with 55% of respondents
in John Day and Canyon City say-
ing they would definitely, probably or
possibly vote yes to 41% who would
definitely, probably or possibly vote
no. In unincorporated portions of the
district, the margin was 51% yes to
46% no.
Most women of all ages (69%
of those 18-49 and 52% of those 50
and older) said they would likely vote
for the measure, while just over half
of men aged 18-49 (52%) said they
would vote yes. The strongest oppo-
sition was found among men aged
50-plus, with 59% opposing the
measure.
Weigum said the board is awaiting
updated construction cost estimates
from the project design firm before
determining exactly how big a bond
to go out for, but it should be in the $3
million to $4 million range.
“We should have a really good
idea in the next couple of weeks,” she
said.
The survey shows only a slight
difference in support between those
two price points. When asked if they
would support a $3 million bond mea-
sure, 52% said yes and 42% said no
(with 6% undecided) as opposed to
the 51%-45% split at the higher cost
level.
The level of support creeps up a
Wednesday, February 9, 2022
Wilderness, habitat
and set-asides
not see the need for any additions to
set-asides.
The desired condition is to estab-
lish objective criteria for user-cre-
ated routes, such as evaluating his-
torical maps and aerial imagery
to determine if the agency should
include the forest system.
The routes would be evaluated
and analyzed at the project level
for social, cultural, historical, eco-
nomic, habitat and environmen-
tal concerns while, at a minimum,
seeking to ensure access in the gen-
eral area.
The evaluation would coordi-
nate with local and tribal govern-
ments with ample public notice
and involvement through the NEPA
process. As a result, the public and
groups that frequent the routes
would be well informed and allowed
to comment on changes in manage-
ment actions.
Last year the subcommittee asked
the Forest Service’s Dennis Dough-
erty, a recreation planner, Nick Gold-
stein, a regional planner, and Trulock
about the process of recommending
set-asides within a forest plan.
Dougherty talked about the diffi-
culties during the 2018 plan revision.
However, he told the group his biggest
takeaway was complying and com-
porting each component with the over-
arching forest plan.
Dougherty said it is important to
remember the forest plan does not
designate motorized usage on forest
roads. Instead, those provisions come
from the travel management plan.
He also told the group that some
areas are statutorily designated. Also,
he said, Congress identifies certain set-
asides as well.
He explained a Forest Service doc-
ument, the “suitability-rating table,”
used during the last revision, which
lists management areas, activities,
land allocations and designations that
the forest can use to make access and
land-use recommendations.
Dougherty said he recognized the
framework as cumbersome and com-
plicated because of the plan amend-
ments over the years. However, he
said it is the Forest Service’s general
approach to determining land uses.
The Forest Service’s Tom Montoya
said these administrative recommen-
dations go through a review process
under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Trulock said the goal was to come
to a collective understanding about
the Forest Service’s process: Even
if there are no additional set-asides,
they still have to go through the anal-
ysis to get to that point and make that
recommendation.
The final draft of the desired con-
dition was to understand that the forest
service has to evaluate the suitability
and eligibility through the forest plan-
ning process for future set-asides.
That said, the subcommittee does
Baker County Commissioner Bill
Harvey submitted a minority report
disagreeing with the BIC access sub-
committee’s final draft of the desired
conditions document.
Harvey writes that special inter-
est groups, agencies, and tribes disre-
garded forest management principles
the Eastern Oregon Counties Associ-
ation compiled in a 2019 document
throughout the subcommittee meet-
ings. Meanwhile, Harvey noted that
this let other counties make too many
concessions.
Harvey writes that Baker submit-
ted several edited versions of desired
conditions, and the subcommittee
offered “minimal regard” for the coun-
ty’s input.
Local governments know their
counties best, Harvey writes.
“And it’s ridiculous to be overrid-
den by committee members that have
no authority or knowledge of what is
best for the citizens of this county,”
Harvey added.
Trulock said that the BIC’s char-
ter allows for the submission of the
minority report.
Ultimately, he said, the Forest Ser-
vice would have to make decisions
through the forest planning effort,
which will include alternative drafts
and a public comment period.
Grant County Commissioners Jim
Hamsher and Sam Palmer, who both
served on the BIC, said they knew
there would need to be compromises.
“You’re never going to everything
you want,” Palmer said. Palmer said
he was happy that all of the entities
began working with each other early
in the process, which, he said, did not
happen in 2018.
“We brought all the agencies up
to the table at the front end instead of
the back end,” Palmer said. “In two
years we had a product when before
they had one that got scrapped after 15
years.”
little more when framed in terms of
a household property tax bill. A $3
million bond would work out to 53
cents per $1,000 of assessed valua-
tion, or $106 a year for the owner of
a $200,000 property. For a $4 million
bond, the same property owner would
be billed 72 cents per thousand, or
$144 a year.
When surveyors laid it out that
way, 55% of potential voters said they
would support a $3 million bond with
42% saying they would oppose it,
compared to 54% for and 44% against
a $4 million bond.
One variable that will factor into
the cost estimates is the kind and
number of options incorporated into
the design.
The basic plan for the aquatic cen-
ter includes just an outdoor pool and
an 8,000-square-foot structure for
locker rooms, office space, mechani-
cal rooms and so forth, with space for
a small warm water exercise and wad-
ing pool that could be added later.
But the design could be tweaked
to allow for the pool to be enclosed at
a later date to enable year-round use.
Some 48% of potential voters said
that design would make them more
likely to vote yes while 7% said it
would make them less likely to vote
in favor and 44% said it would make
no difference.
Respondents were given a list of
potential design options and asked
how important each one would be
to them personally. The option to
enclose the pool for year-round use
tied for the highest ranking, with 47%
saying that was extremely important
or very important to them. The same
percentage valued providing space for
water aerobics and exercise classes.
Providing a lap pool was rated
extremely or very important by 38%
of respondents, while 31% said they
valued providing rental space for fam-
ily celebrations, parties and commu-
nity meetings; 21% wanted a water
slide; and 16% placed high impor-
tance on a climbing wall.
Weigum said the board is hoping
to keep the bond measure at the $3
million price point, even if that means
a pool with fewer bells and whistles.
“We want to minimize the finan-
cial impact,” she said. “The sur-
vey tells us there’s more people that
feel comfortable with that $3 million
mark.”
Surveyors also asked why people
would vote a certain way.
The top five reasons cited by “yes”
voters were:
• For the community
• It’s needed
• For the children
• Growth/attracts families
• Swimming lessons/water safety
Among “no” voters, the top five
reasons were:
• Can’t afford/fixed income
• No more taxes
• Not needed/waste of money
• Poor management/don’t have the
budget
• More important priorities/police
force shut down
Weigum said the parks and rec
board recognizes that people have
all kinds of reasons for supporting or
opposing the ballot measure and that
the board’s job is to provide the rec-
reational opportunities and amenities
that district residents want.
“If this is an opportunity our com-
munity wants, we’re going to provide
that,” she said. “If people want a pool,
they should vote for it. If they don’t
want a pool, they should vote against
it.”
Weigum emphasized that the sur-
vey only included voters who live
inside the district because they are the
ones who will be deciding the ballot
measure and who would be taxed to
pay for the bond.
“We’re letting the people who will
be voting for this and who will be pay-
ing for this be the drivers,” she said.
A plan was floated in 2020 to
expand the parks and rec district’s
boundaries to include other Grant
County communities as a way to
spread out the cost of building a new
pool, but that plan was dropped after it
failed to garner resolutions of support
from city councils in the target area.
The measure will appear on the
ballot for either the May 17 primary
or the Nov. 8 general election, but
Weigum said the board is shooting for
the earlier date.
“We’re still on track with that,”
she said. “We’re hopeful we’ll see it
in May.”
If the measure makes the May
ballot and voters approve it, the
new aquatic center could be open
to the public by the summer of
2023.
but if you’re closed administratively,
then those are open for a conversa-
tion on the subject,” he said.
According to the final document,
“use restriction of a road previously
reviewed and approved through the
NEPA process should be clearly and
effectively posted for the public and
reflected on updated maps.”
Elk security
The group writes that forest road
and trail system use, density and hab-
itat conditions may have some nega-
tive effects on wildlife in general and
specifically on elk distribution.
The desired condition is that
habitat is managed to provide a
balance of adequate nutritional
resources, cover, and human distur-
bance regimes that encourage elk
to remain on public lands. Collab-
oration and coordination occur that
benefits these desired future condi-
tions by addressing the many other
factors such as predation, hunting,
and private land practices that also
effect elk distribution while provid-
ing year-round recreational and cul-
tural opportunities and limiting agri-
cultural damage on private lands.
User-created routes
Baker’s minority report