HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-03 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 1 of 7 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011
___________________________
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; and, for a portion of
the meeting, Tom Anderson, Peter Gutowsky and Nick Lelack, Community
Development; George Kolb, Road Department; Joe Stutler, County Forester;
Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; media representative Hillary Borrud of The
Bulletin; and four other citizens.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
_______________________________________
1. Historic Landmarks Commission Update.
Nick Lelack explained that the City of Redmond left the Commission and
created its own group. The City of Bend is taking steps to do the same. They
are willing to serve in a dual capacity, at least for a while, but the County will
need to revise its process. He recommends a text amendment to reduce the
number of members from nine to five, and to include the unincorporated areas
plus the cities of La Pine and Sisters. This should be initiated soon since the
City of Bend is proceeding on its changes.
Peter Gutowsky said that since this is not a typical text amendment, the
Landmarks Commission would need to hold a public hearing to obtain
feedback. There would not have to be comprehensive plan amendments, and
there is no need for a 45-day notice. The Planning Commission should have a
chance to review this, probably in November; and the modifications could then
come before the Board.
Chair Baney asked how the membership would be filled. Mr. Lelack said that a
quarterly meeting might be appropriate; to review local grants and the national
register project, and a few others. They would need to coordinate with the
cities, perhaps having meetings by rotation in the different locations.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Unger said there were separate historical societies in the past,
but the groups came together. However, the economy and staffing issues had a
negative impact in recent years. The Historical Societies remain involved , but
typically within the appropriate city’s group.
Mr. Lelack stated that each certified local government is eligible for
approximately $14,000 each year in grant funds. The County is one of just
three counties in the State that is involved. The cities could obtain this funding
individually.
2. Discussion of Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis – LCDC.
Peter Gutowsky and staff have proceeded on this issue quickly. They need to
know how the Board wants them to prepare for the upcoming public hearing.
There have been questions raised about the legitimacy of the REOA, which was
funded by a technical assistance grant. CDD never planned to retain the
services of the person who developed the study, Jerry Johnson. He has been
contacted to get answers to specific questions, but there is a cost of about
$2,500 to do so.
Staff wants to avoid an appeal and have the process as transparent as possible.
They recommend retaining Mr. Johnson. Mr. Gutowsky also indicated that
representatives of the DLCD would attend the Board meeting of October 31.
There are questions as to whether the Goal and changes to the Plan amendment
have been coordinated. DLCD has a role in this. He also wants other local
governmental entities to be involved.
Commissioner Unger feels that the first alternative is the best. The traditional
land use system in Oregon does not necessarily help to address large lot
industrial requirements. A good record needs to be developed in this regard.
He wants the involvement of EDCO and other organizations, perhaps sharing
staff time. This is being done for the entire region, to create a model so that
other cities and counties can benefit.
Chair Baney asked what the responsibilities are for answering questions such as
those relating to evidence in the record and how a position is reached. She
wants to know if the consultant would be available to back the research and
results. Mr. Gutowsky said he has read the evidence provided, and feels one
could analyze it quite a bit, or just respond to the basic concerns. There have
been three letters from 1,000 Friends who question the math or the
methodology. This information should be provided by the consultant.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Business Oregon has a responsibility because they have been saying for years
that the State does not have these needed sites. He and others are meeting with
DLCD and other groups to make sure they understand who is doing what. He
would like to have a well-synchronized meeting on October 31, and all
necessary documentation in place a week before then. On October 31, they
would take oral testimony.
Chair Baney asked if the consultant would need to be rehired to respond to
questions about the methodology or results. Mr. Gutowsky said a third party
could analyze the study, but he feels there is an obligation on the part of the
consultant to stand up for his work.
Mr. Lelack stated that Mr. Johnson filled his contractual obligations through the
end of June, when DLCD certified his study. He had agreed to a reduced fee of
$50,000, the amount of the grant, at the time the process started. He has been
paid a little more for additional information. There ma y be a small expense,
therefore, for further work.
Mr. Gutowsky said that there have been some questions that were not in the
record, which went to Mr. Johnson and the DLCD. Some of the concerns were
addressed at that time.
Commissioner Unger stated that the County is an agent of the State, fulfilling
the duties as a County. He would like to have the County commit, but perhaps
Business Oregon and/or other entities could split the cost. It is good for Central
Oregon, but also is good for the State. Commissioner DeBone is confident this
is going down the right path, and he is okay with retaining the consultant if it is
the right thing to do.
Commissioner Unger would like to develop a relationship with 1,000 Friends.
They try to hold everyone to the system as adopted into law, but there need to
be ways to deal with the challenges of the economy while still protecting land
in the State. The current system is too cumbersome in some cases.
Chair Baney said the delays are a concern and this approach makes sense. She
would not want to jeopardize the study or findings due to a lack of $2,500.
Commissioner Unger said that the partners need to step up and help with this.
Tom Anderson suggested that a letter go to each of the cities asking for their
commitment towards this expense. Commissioner Unger would like others in
the region to participate as well, but does not want to slow down the process.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 4 of 7 Pages
UNGER: Move Board support of these efforts, as discussed.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
There will be a work session with Community Development on October 26 to
review this information, with the hearing to follow at the October 31 Board
business meeting.
3. Discussion of Secure Rural Schools Letters and Documents.
Chair Baney said there is a meeting in Redmond on Friday, October 14 at 3
p.m. for discussion of this issue. Legislators Bruce Hanna and Mike McClain
are hosting a series of meetings in this regard. Commissioner Unger stated that
the challenge is, as discussed last year, that concrete examples need to be
shown, and the entities need to be passionate about it.
Mr. Kolb presented a forest revenue estimate document, which shows a large,
steady decline to maybe 25% of what the funding was five years ago. It has
gone from $2.8 million to about half of that to use for overlay projects.
Commissioner Unger asked about PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) from the
federal government. Mr. Stutler said that what is in effect since in 2012 is
PILT. Secure Rural Schools funding from timber sales is almost non-existent.
At this point, whatever they get is a band-aid. There should be more tied to the
use of federal land other than timber sales; there needs to be a holistic look at
the entire issue.
Commissioner Unger stated that this primarily helps areas where they have
robust timber growth. This area does not sustain that kind of use. Even doing a
lot of timber cutting would only last a few years. It involves fire suppression
policies and the limitations of doing anything else with federal lands. There is
not just a single issue affecting this funding.
Chair Baney asked how this could be told in relation to jobs. Mr. Stutler replied
that Secure Rural Schools and PILT immediately impact those who do the work
on the roads and in the forests. The reality is that even the grants they have
gotten for private lands work have created only perhaps 150 jobs.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 5 of 7 Pages
If this were done on the national forests, it would save not only the forests but
would triple the number of jobs over twenty years. It would not pay for itself in
terms of timber sales or power generation. Deschutes County has probably
invested a lot in the forests here, but the value is much greater. If $20 million
could be saved from taxpayer dollars over 20 years, creating safe urban
interface communities, this would certainly help the economy.
Mr. Stutler said, however, that this would not help the roads. If sustainable,
though, perhaps there could be a way to use some of this for roads. It only
makes sense if the rules are changed. If there is not a streamlined way to do
this, it will not help, as it would take too long to go through the process. It can
be very basic but the process for environmental compliance would be a huge
barrier.
Commissioner Unger stated that they need to stress more than just roads. There
needs to be more focus on other ideas. Chair Baney said that cause and
prevention need to be considered rather than just dealing with the impacts.
There needs to be leadership to come up with ways to deal with this up -front
instead of just getting some money and spending it, without looking at the
cause.
Commissioner Unger feels that the County has to partner with the federal
agencies to find a solution. Chair Baney said the county is getting paid for
something it is not doing. There needs to be a way to get paid for something
they are doing. They may shift more of the dollars to the Forest Service when
perhaps that work could be done by private industries or the local governments.
Commissioner Unger said that the see this big dollar amount going out with
nothing to show for it.
Mr. Stutler said that the difference between west and southeast regarding
biomass is the market. It is easy to talk about the resource, and there is value
there, but the markets are not yet established and the economy does not support
this. About $1 million in investment has created about $10 million in value,
with property owner buying into being fire-safe.
Chair Baney asked about photos to tell the story, particularly where good fire
management has saved property. She would like to talk about the real ways
these dollars have been leveraged.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, October 3, 2011
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Chair Baney indicated that 728 counties receive these dollars, so it matters to a
lot of people. It seems to be difficult for Oregon representatives to convey this
message. One strategic approach was to let other entities step up, but Oregon
needs to remain involved since it has so much to lose.
Mr. Stutler feels that it is not too early to address fire resistant communities to
cut down the cost of response, the funding from the secure rural schools helps
to implement the Flame Act.
Commissioner Unger asked if the other local Commissioners are putting time
into this effort. Jefferson County is not affected as much as Crook and
Deschutes. Something needs to be put together to help tell the story, that is
understandable and will provide education and clarity.
Chair Baney said the partnership of the 728 counties from throughout the
country tells the story a bit differently. Reviewing that information may help.
Commissioner DeBone said they need reauthorization for the next few years,
but a long-range approach is needed. Mr. Stutler said they must do the things
they know work. There are examples that could be done for many years. A
different view of this could help Central Oregon show it still has a lot to offer.
UNGER: Move Board signature of the letters of support.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
4. Other Items.
The Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or
threatened litigation, at 3:05 p.m., and ending at 3:10 p.m.
_______________________________________
Chair Baney said the ABHA conversation last week had to do with goals that
are quite different from those discussed a few years ago. It appears no
relationships were damaged, but it is a difficult transition with Central Oregon
separating from the group. There are still big questions regarding reporting,
services and oversight. This type of administration needs to be provided at the
local level.
F ommissioner Unger said that he attended the Boardman water resources board
meeting, and supports their efforts in the past and to move forward with ~hallenges in each water basin. This is a start to show how important water
lssues are to the region and State. He toured the Port of Morrow, which is
peveloping quickly. They also have a poplar tree forest there that is 12 miles
F ide by 6 miles long, to be harvested mostly for pulp. They handle 7 .5 acres
per day, creating cabinet stock with dimensional lumber, with the rest going to
bhips.
The grand opening of the new highway near Lava Butte is scheduled after years
of work.
lJ3eing no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
I
DATED this 2011 for the {~~DaYOf D~
Deschutes Couuty Board of commiSSioners ~
Tammy Baney, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 3, 2011
Pag~ 7 of 7 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, OCTOBER 3,2011
1. Historic Landmarks Commission Update -Nick Lelack
2. Discussion ofRegional Economic Opportunity Analysis -LCDC -Community
Development
3. Discussion of Secure Rural Schools Letters and Documents
4. Other Items
• Executive session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened
litigation
f
II
I
I
(
~ PLEASE NOTE: At any time during Ibis meeting, an executive session could be caned to address issues relating to ORS 192660(2) (e), real
property negotiatims; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meeting;J are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise Indicated q you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 381U572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. I
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for nY.
rPleue call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative furmats or for further infonnation. !
(
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner
Nick Lelack, Planning Director
DATE: September 27,2011
MTG: October 3, 2011 Work Session
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation / Text Amendment
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this work session agenda item is to seek the Board of Commissioner (Board)
approval for staff to initiate a program to amend the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter
2.28, Historical Preservation and Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). The reason for the
amendment stems from the Cities of Redmond and Bend establishing their own municipal
HLCs. The amendments would restructure the number of appointed Historical Landmarks
Commissioners from nine to five and grant the Board with the authority to make those
appointments. The HLC would serve as a hearings body for matters concerning historic and
cultural resources within the County and the cities of La Pine and Sisters.
BACKGROUND:
Deschutes County received a Certified Local Government Grant (CLG) to update DCC Chapter
2.28 in light of the Cities of Redmond and Bend establishing their own municipal HLCs.
TIMELlNE:
I
October • Update Board and receive approval to initiate amendments
• Conduct a public hearing with the HLC, deliberate and receive a recommendation
November • Conduct a work session with the Deschutes County Planning Commission and
receive a recommendation
December • Conduct Board public hearing and deliberation
Quality Services Perfonned with Pride
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner
Nick Lelack, Planning Director
DATE: September 27,2011
MTG: October 3, 2011 Work Session
SUBJECT: Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis I Next Steps
BACKGROUND:
Yesterday, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners (Board) held their public
hearing on the Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis (REOA). 1000 Friends of Oregon
submitted an additional 52-page letter identifying issues with the REOA and the County's policy
framework. During the hearing, the Board mentioned they would like to avoid an appeal if
possible and continued it to Monday, October 31 at 10:00 a.m. The purpose of the October 3
work session is to clarify the issues raised by 1000 Friends and determine how staff should
attempt to address them prior to October 31.
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION & COORDINATION:
The following table lists the issues raised by 1,000 Friends and the entity(s) best able to provide
a technical response. The responses may eventually be provided in a memorandum or a
revised REOA and policy framework while still achieving the project's intended outcomes
Issue
Technical Response
Consultant OLCO
Business
Oregon & EOCO
1. There is no evidence that large industrial lots mean
many jobs.
V~'~'N~,", , ,
2. ~:~~ Oh1-I~e lot employers betterttlan,small lot
3. Evidence provided in the REOA, page 43, Figure 25,
indicates that large industrial lots would result in a net
job loss in the region.
4. ~9.A,~()E!~,tlotShOW that large cOim~nlfls.;~oUld set
!W~~h~Bil)~:community like ours. I;:::,'"
x
x
X
X
x
x
X
Quality Services Perfonned with Pride
Issue
Technical Response
Consultant OLCO Business
Oregon &EOCO
5. It does not appear on page 40 of the REOA that lot
sizes required by various industry types require 50 to
200+ acres.
6. Should each pros~e,ctive industry identified in the
_ 'J" ". " :t~.J ',","'f,' _" -REOA, page~~Q+15:be, reviewed individually'fot .
warranting asit&'~eq4irenient between 50 to.200*
acres basedoo,itsownsile characteristic needs?>
;.-"-, ",\:\ -" ~;;;:. -'
7. How does REOA conclude that Central Oregon needs
lots substantially large than those in and around
Portland?
8. What trends, activities, a.rid success natiQoally
indicateaQ'opportl,lnity exists to attract largeolot
industrial userSinC I Oregon? How do national
trends tr'.apslate or a 0 Central Oregon? '.
9. Why should Central Oregon as a region invest limited
resources to provide for large lot industrial sites (50
acres»?
1O. WhaNsit·,a,99lJt;ci5rnR~tingregiOnSandzth~ir,in.dustrial·,·
land supplYthafhasehabled their success?"': ,.'.
11. Does a competitive portfolio of large lot employment
site create a strong and thriving economy?
, 12. The RE I ~re ·m.ended comp.~tjtive\]WgeJoti;" "
industrynC 0 ,'ag~:~6, is difficulttQ):~!scerTl%given
the s,hofterm"andloQg'term totals.' iri: ..... '
13. What facts and assertions presented in the REOA
justify the number of large-lot industrial sites is
needed?
14. Has theJ3FO~fu!filleq.t9~.requirernent,of,,~~R()60-
009:o,p,1" ~ .'.'.~;~.~tr~~uiremenl!2}ide i ·tYtne1.:· ..•
numb~r; ':~~s,eClb~site chara·.,"".".?W?i~alofexpecte ' "',','.,j' ~",
15. Has the REOA satisfied the requirements of Goal 9 by
providing an employment forecast within a 20-year
planning period?
16. WhaJje.2(j~yearemploymenUao~~uly·fqcthe .
REOk.
17. Does the REOA and Deschutes County's plan
amendment require that the inventory for large-lot
employment sites, OAR 660-009-0015(3) (immediate
& 20 year) be completed as part of this legislative
process?
x X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
2
I
ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION:
The Board has two alternatives:
Alternative A
If the priority is to avoid an appeal to the greatest extent possible, direct staff to:
1) Retain the services of Jerry Johnson, the consultant with Johnson-Reid who wrote the
REOA. to have him respond in writing, either updating the REOA and/or providing a
technical memorandum to 1,000 Friends' arguments as reflected in their August 11,
August 18, and September 26 submittals.
2) Coordinate with Business Oregon and EDCO to revisit 1,000 Friends' arguments,
respond in writing and testify on the 31 5
\
3) Coordinate with DLCD to revisit 1,000 Friends arguments, the questions identified in the
table above, respond in writing, and testify on the 31 st;
4) Develop additional replenishment policies that specify additional governance steps that
need to take place when the region has successfully attracted industrial users to large
lot employment sites;
5) Schedule a Board work session on October 26 for the purpose of disseminating all the
materials described and provide these materials as the Board's hearing packet; and
6) Reconvene the Regional Advisory Committee prior to the public hearing on the 31 st to
update everyone on the County's efforts to coordinate expert testimony and provide
substantial evidence in the record.
Alternative B
If the Board believes the REOA is consistent with Goal 9, initiate all the steps above with the
exception of retaining the services of Jerry Johnson.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Alternative A. Retaining Jerry Johnson to provide a detailed technical
response and/or revise the REOA to address 1,000 Friends' arguments, together with the
actions 2-6 listed above, will demonstrate to stakeholders and the tri-county region that this
process has been transparent and diligent in its commitment to respond to questions about the
validity of Central Oregon's REOA.
3
www.co.deschutes.or.us
October 3,2011 board@co.deschuteS.or. us
Tammy Baney
Regional Advisory Committee Members and Partners Anthony DeBone
RE: Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis I Additional Funding
Alan Unger
Board of Cou Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 • Bend. OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570· Fax (541 J 385-3202
On behalf of Deschutes County, I am writing to thank you for your partnership and investment of staff
resources over the last two years to establish a regional approach to large-lot industrial siting in Central
Oregon. It is exciting to be recognized as a statewide leader in developing a new approach to economic
development planning.
This afternoon, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) decided to allocate up to $2,500
to retain the services of Jerry Johnson, the economist from Johnson-Reid, LLC, who wrote the Regional
Economic Opportunity Analysis (REOA) with input from Business Oregon, Economic Development for
Central Oregon and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The purpose for retaining
Mr. Johnson is to have him respond to 1,000 Friends of Oregon's concerns about the REOA in
preparation ofthe Board's October 31 public hearing. We expect Mr. Johnson's response to either be a
technical memorandum and/or slightly revised REOA. As you know, Deschutes County is adopting the
REOA and several large-lot industrial land policies into our comprehensive plan to comply with
Statewide Planning Goal9 (Economic Development) 9. Once adopted and upheld, our process will serve
as a model for Jefferson and Crook Counties to undertake their own plan amendments to adopt the
report and similar policies. These policies will then provide the framework for willing cities to begin
determining if sites within their jurisdiction are suitable to attract large-lot employers.
Deschutes County is providing additional funds to ensure the REOA is accurate and addresses questions
raised by 1000 Friends of Oregon so the region can collectively move forward with creating employment
opportunities on large-lot industrial sites. However, this financial commitment should not be borne
entirely by one county. It is the Board's belief that representatives from the Regional Advisory
Committee composed of municipalities (Bend, Redmond, Prineville, Madras, Sisters and La Pine),
counties, Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, Economic Development for Central Oregon,
Department of State Lands, Department of Land Conservation and Development, and Business Oregon
should contribute some of their own resources to offset this additional expense, given its collaborative
endeavor and regional emphasis. Please notify Deschutes County Planning Director, Nick Lelack, at
(541) 385-1708 or nickl@co.deschutes.or.us at your earliest convenience regarding your ability to
provide financial assistance. The Board thanks you in advance for considering this request and looks
forward to continuing this collaborative partnership for Central Oregon.
Sincerely,
,Pesch utes County Board of Commissioners
f vl~ )
Wm~Y~~
Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner
DESCHUTES COUNTY
FOREST REVENUE ESTIMATE
(Basis -FFY 2006)
2006-07
(FFY 2008)
2008-09
(FFY 2009)
2009-10
(FFY 2010)
2010-11
(FFY 2011)
2011-12 2012 -beyond
TOTAL
(TITLE 1111/111) $4,806,414 $4,325,773 $3,893,195 $3,508,682 $2,056,724
25% of actual
timber revenue
TITLE I
ROAD (75%)
SCHOOL, (25%)
$4,085,452
$3,064,0,89
$1,021','363
$3,676,907
$2,757,680
$919,227
$3,309,216
.. $2,481~~12
/'$827'1304
$2,982,380 $1,748,215
$2 .4~~,?~~: . $1 ,311}1.62
$?.l1:5i!595I '.. '.;,.; '$437~O54
TITLE 111111 $720,962 $648,866 $583,979 $526,302 $308,509
TITLE II
Trr:L I;':'ill,
$360,481
$3§P,~8.1
$346,062
$302,804
$311,456
$27.4,,524
$280,695
$245.608.
$164,538
$14~.971
Notes:
Estimate is based on AOC intrepretation of SRS2008 (per 10/7/08 McVay/Davis memo)
FFY 2008: 90% of FFY 2006
FFY 2009: 81% of FFY 2006
FFY 2010: 73% of FFY 2006
FFY 2011: USFS estimate 3/2/11 -per AOC
Assumed Title II/III allocation of 15% (bill allows 15% to 20% at discretion of SOCe)
Assumed Title 111111 split of 7% title II and 8% title III (bill allows no more than 7% to title
Shaded areas indicate funds depOSited to county. Title II funds remain with fed.
~~~1I!"OMi!\"f ~-..., '-~,<!""iI'~,tf ,"''''''"",*"",rlli(4tN~'I>fMi,*,W\',; ,;pQ(i4iJI4!t't'!i!"">iHd',h''''''''''i¥!P'H~I,~,'t!'Il\!!!!<l~I!l'I!<!''''!l~''U!''!.iIl!lf IU!W)l44 ... h," ......"*iIf ...~,$V'i'4jFi'''''J ,t'.I!b"H'. ""iTt fiiJ,"94hY 1J
STATEMENT
BY THE
Partnership for Rural America Campaign
An Initiative of the
NATIONAL FOREST COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS COALITION
On the
NATIONAL FOREST COUNTY REVENUE, SCHOOLS AND JOBS ACT OF 2011
The Partnership for Rural America Campaign supports the key concepts
underlying the "discussion draft" of the bill that is the subject of the September 22,2011
hearing scheduled by the House Natural Resources Committee. The discussion draft is a
good first step in the process towards an acceptable long-term solution to the National
Forests management and schools and counties funding conundrum.
The Coalition, since its inception, has supported a return to more active
management of our National Forests, in part to assure that timber and other resource sales
receipts to be shared with schools and counties are adequate, and dependable. It is also
critically important for fire resiliency and overall forest health. The Coalition has also
continuously advocated for renewal of the recognition by our Federal government of the
central role that resource based industries play in rural communities throughout the
Country. The discussion draft bill meets these twin standards for Coalition and
Partnership support, by offering both an assured revenue stream to counties and schools,
and required timber harvest levels to support local industries.
The Partnership is also supportive of the bridge funding provision in the
discussion draft. It is imperative that support for rural schools and county services
continue until increased forest management provisions are fully implemented. In addition
we request that Counties be given total local control in how the county's share of the
National Forest County Revenue, Schools and Jobs Act of2011 may be expended.
The Partnership is impressed with the work of the House Natural Resources
Committee to date and looks forward to the further development of the discussion draft
into a final bill which is ready to be addressed by Congress. The Partnership urges the
Committee and all interested members of Congress to proceed with all deliberate speed to
conclude work on development and adoption of a long term solution.
Partnership for Rural America Campaign
To: Individuals communicating with the House Natural Resources Committee post
September 22, 2011 Hearing
From: Marc Kelley, Partnership for Rural America Campaign
Re: Process for Communicating with the Committee and Members of the Committee
Date: September 27, 2011
Following the Hearing on Thursday of last week, we have ten business days (including
the day of the Hearing) to respond in writing to the Discussion Draft that was released at
the Hearing. That means we have until close of business Wednesday, October 5th to
submit our comments.
The format for communication will need to be as follows:
1. Use your own letterhead
2. Use word formatting
3. Address correspondence to Chairman Rob Bishop and Ranking Member Raul
Grijalva. (The draft letter attached provides a format for addressing the Chair and
Ranking Member.)
4. Send letter to the email addresses of staff for the Chair and Ranking Member. In
the case of the Chair Bishop the letter should be sent to:
Tyler Hamman tyler.hamman@mail.house.gov
In the case of Ranking Member Grijalva please address to:
David Watkins david.watkins@mail.house.gov
5. Carbon copy to, at a minimum, the member or members of the Committee you
know are aware and interested in this issue. For members that are not on the
committee -please feel free to carbon copy to them as well. We will leave it in
your competent hands to determine the staffer to receive those e-mails.
6. Blind carbon copy me:
Marc Kelley policy@marckelley.com
Also please find attached a copy of the Campaign's position on the Draft Legislation that
was presented to the Committee and is now a part of the formal record. If you have
questions, do not hesitate to contact me. This is a real chance for the Campaign to
provide assistance to the House Natural Resources Committee.
Board of Cou Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 • Bend. OR 97701-1960
[541] 388-6570· Fax [541] 385-3202
www.co.deschutes.or.us
board@co.deschutes.or.usOctober 3,2011 Tammy Baney
Anthony DeBone
Alan Unger
The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chair
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Bishop,
We want to express our gratitude to the Committee for holding a second hearing on
the critical issue of public forest land management and the relevance of
reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
We strongly believe that there must be adjustments to Forest Service land
management practices to ensure much-needed job creation and a sustained revenue
stream to counties from all environmentally sound activities on these lands.
From our perspective, it is difficult to overstate the value of the draft legislation's
current language that documents the importance that resource-based industries play
in the employment and viability of rural communities across the country as well as
the role they play in the protection of our nation's watersheds and wildlife habitat.
The draft legislation also makes it clear that a new approach to forest management
is vital for fire resiliency and overall forest health. Thank you!
We further appreciate that the legislation recognizes the need for bridge funding so
that counties and schools can continue basic and vital services while revised forest
management plans are developed and implemented. We encourage you to include
a stated number of years and a funding amount for the transition payments the
Committee is recommending. We appreciate that the Committee understands that it
will take time to engage the US Forest Service in active land management.
Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner
I
Finally, we would offer two suggestions. First, we suggest that the Committee
consider modifying the definition of biomass relative to include biomass from
public lands so that biomass from slash piles and similar potential resources can
count towards renewable energy standards. This will provide the certainty that
private investors need to build biomass plants in counties near National Forest
lands.
Second, we would ask that you consider adding some flexibility language to
accommodate the need for counties to use their allocated dollars under Title I for
activities beyond the maintenance of county roads. As you are aware, when the
Act was originally conceived in the early 1900s, the primary and many times
exclusive responsibility of county governments was the maintenance of roads. In
today's world, that language is too restrictive since counties are responsible for
providing a wide variety of other services.
Once again, thank you for your continued efforts on our behalf. Weare impressed
with the work of the House Natural Resources Committee to date and stand ready
to work with you in preparation of a final Bill that can be addressed by the
Committee and passed by the full House.
Sincerely,
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Tammy Baney, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Alan Unger, Commissioner I
I
Board of Cou Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200· Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570· Fax [541] 385-3202
www.co.deschutes.or.us
board@co.deschutes.or.us
Tammy Baney
Anthony DeBone
Alan Unger
The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building t
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Ranking Member Grijalva, I
We want to express our gratitude to the Committee for holding a second hearing on
the critical issue of public forest land management and the relevance of
reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
We strongly believe that there must be adjustments to Forest Service land
management practices to ensure much-needed job creation and a sustained revenue
stream to counties from all environmentally sound activities on these lands. I
From our perspective, it is difficult to overstate the value of the draft legislation's
current language that documents the importance that resource-based industries play I
October 3,2011
in the employment and viability of rural communities across the country as well as
the role they play in the protection of our nation's watersheds and wildlife habitat. I
The draft legislation also makes it clear that a new approach to forest management
is vital for fire resiliency and overall forest health. Thank you!
We further appreciate that the legislation recognizes the need for bridge funding so
that counties and schools can continue basic and vital services while revised forest
management plans are developed and implemented. We encourage you to include
a stated number of years and a funding amount for the transition payments the
Committee is recommending. We appreciate that the Committee understands that it
will take time to engage the US Forest Service in active land management.
Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner
Finally, we would offer two suggestions. First, we suggest that the Committee
consider modifying the definition of biomass relative to include biomass from
public lands so that biomass from slash piles and similar potential resources can
count towards renewable energy standards. This will provide the certainty that
private investors need to build biomass plants in counties near National Forest
lands.
Second, we would ask that you consider adding some flexibility language to
accommodate the need for counties to use their allocated dollars under Title I for
activities beyond the maintenance of county roads. As you are aware, when the
Act was originally conceived in the early 1900s, the primary and many times
exclusive responsibility of county governments was the maintenance of roads. In
today's world, that language is too restrictive since counties are responsible for
providing a wide variety of other services.
Once again, thank you for your continued efforts on our behalf. Weare impressed
with the work of the House Natural Resources Committee to date and stand ready
to work with you in preparation of a final Bill that can be addressed by the
Committee and passed by the full House.
Sincerely,
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Tammy Baney, Chair
Tony DeBone, Vice Chair
Alan Unger, Commissioner