>La Grande Observer | Union and Wallowa Counties' News Leader

Today The Observer continues its series of interviews with candidates for Union County commission, spotlighting John Lamoreau.

Lamoreau is seeking the Republication nomination, as are Kyle Corbin and Mark Davidson. Corbin and Davidson’s interviews appeared earlier.

Interviews with the two Democratic contenders, Greg Franklin and Jim Mollerstrom, will run Friday and Saturday.

Lamoreau is a former county commissioner who lost his seat to Nellie Hibbert two years ago. He lists funding for basic services, especially law enforcement, as one of his primary concerns. He also advocates bringing more wind power companies to the area.

Question: Last year, the Union County Sheriff’s Office leased two new vehicles using Justice Court money. Recently, the board of commissioners authorized Sheriff Boyd Rasmussen to solicit bids for three additional new vehicles. He will add those to the fleet if money is available in the next budget.

Also related to the sheriff’s office, the federal domestic violence grant allowed for the hiring of a deputy this year. There is a contract in place to provide law enforcement services for Union, and a deputy has been hired for that. Also, the Sheriff’s Office last year won the contract to house prisoners for Wallowa County.

Considering those upgrades and improvements, do you feel law enforcement funding is the same issue it was during your previous term? Why or why not?

Answer: Adequate law enforcement funding remains a top priority. The Sheriff’s Office, even with the recent additions, is under funded. The sad fact is the Union County’s Sheriff’s Office is near the bottom in funding per capita when compared to Oregon’s other 35 counties.

The Sheriff’s Office does not have the funding to staff deputies 24 hours a day. Every night there are four hours of no coverage by sheriff deputies in Union County. This needs to change. Talk to the men and women who serve to protect us. They will tell you they need more help.

Getting the new patrol cars is a step forward. But there should be a proactive plan to replace cars on a regular basis. The sheriff should not have to plead for proper equipment for his staff every year.

Consider a recent example. On March 12 of this year a deputy wrote the following in a report about the vehicle he was assigned: “Died while driving and would not restart. Siren stopped working last week. The car would occasionally smell of strong exhaust. The forward radar cone stopped completely working last week. The rear radar cone has not been working intermittently for several months. The radio does not receive transmissions once past the Ladd Canyon area. The car shudders noticeably when the brakes are applied from high speeds in excess of 50 mph. The inner blue strobe on the driver’s side of the light bar only works intermittently.’’ He had to have the car towed. Then the replacement vehicle he went to use would not start.

According to law enforcement staff, bulletproof vests were not ordered last year due to lack of funding. They put their lives on the line for us every day. We should at least guarantee they have proper equipment.

Adequate law enforcement funding is still an important issue and one that cannot be ignored. Sheriff Rasmussen and his staff have done an admirable job. They know they have my support. I believe that is the reason many from that department have encouraged me to run in this election.

Question: The future of the Wallowa-Union Railroad is very much up in the air at the moment, with the Railroad Authority hoping to renegotiate the terms of its loan from Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. Do you think the railroad has a viable future? Why or why not?

Answer: There was a reason a railroad company gave up on the line and sold it to us. And it had to do with money. I am doubtful there will be the financial resources to keep the entire line intact. The plight of short line railroads in Oregon is well documented.

I remember having a conversation with a former manager of our line. I was surprised when he admitted to me he didn’t think it could survive without huge subsidies on an annual basis.

But right or wrong the county did enter into a binding agreement to purchase the line. We now need to make the best of the situation. To make the best of the situation the county needs to become very transparent with the financial status of its operation. Saying a project is going great when it isn’t doesn’t do anyone any good.

Rumors are now surfacing that some of the railroad track may be scrapped and sold without plans for replacing it. Other rumors have some of the land being made into trails. This underscores why transparency is needed.

 Originally Union County predicted they would make millions on the railroad even though the professional railroad company they bought it from could not. Optimism does not always equate to business success. Financially the railroad has struggled. I have little doubt we will need to re-negotiate the loan with the State of Oregon just as Union County has done with its golf course loan. Unfortunately, both loans were backed by our general fund dollars.

I have been impressed with the hard work and dedication of the many volunteers who have tried to make this project viable. I am hopeful there can be a future with a “train station” in Elgin and a tourist train running to the Minam and back even if some of the Wallowa County line is abandoned.

But if the train is to succeed, even in a reduced form, it will need to be separated from loans tied to our general fund. It will need to stand on its own.

Question: You have said you support establishment of the Mount Emily Recreation Area, and you are, in fact, the county commissioner who got the issue to the table in the first place. What are your main reasons for supporting the MERA?

Answer: I was also among the first who stated we should have a public vote before the county acted. There have been too many times when the wishes and the will of the people have been ignored.

Mount Emily is the most recognizable landmark in Union County. For as long as anyone can remember citizens of Union County have had free access to use this forest property owned first by Boise Cascade and more recently by Forest Capital Partners.Over the years a unique partnership has been created where local citizens have worked together to build horse, hiking, biking and ATV trails on this property.

When Forest Capital announced plans to sell this 3,600-acre tract of land there was little doubt that if sold to an outside buyer, “No Trespassing’’ signs would go up and public access would be lost to another part of Union County.

My support of the project surprised some due to my questioning of the purchase of the golf course and the railroad by the county. There are major differences between these projects.

The other two were purchased with loans backed by our general fund. Financially both of those projects have struggled. Our general fund has been used to pay debt for one of them. But the Mount Emily project is to be paid with grants primarily from the State of Oregon’s ATV Division, which has millions of dollars to purchase this type of property. This money comes from the fees paid by ATV users.

There would be no loan tied to our general fund. And more importantly there is a nearby county (Morrow) which has already established a larger ATV park, bought by the same funds, that is being successfully operated with no negative impact to their general fund or operations. The question I had to ask was, if Morrow County can do this, why can’t we?

Much of my reservation about the Mount Emily acquisition diminished with my understanding of how well the Morrow County ATV park was working. I would encourage people on both sides of the issue to visit or contact Morrow County.

Question: The plan to establish the MERA has encountered some active and vocal opposition. Major concerns raised include possible taxpayer liability, wildlife management, risk and consequences of forest fire, and user conflicts. Please touch briefly on those concerns.

Answer: I am not surprised about the concerns that have been raised. I had some as well. That is why I strongly support having a vote on such an important issue.

Nationwide there is a lack of faith in government. That is true in Union County. (Much of the concern has centered around the county’s handling of the golf course and to a lesser degree the railroad.) While the legal documents for the purchases of both stated our general fund was backing the loans the county maintained it would never be used. The fact is our general fund dollars have been used for one of the loans. The lack of transparency concerning the operation and expenses of these projects have rightly caused concerns about future projects.

The county Road Department did an admirable job this winter on limited funds as did the Sheriff’s Office. There is an expressed fear that if we enter in to this purchase both the Road Department and the Sheriff’s Office will have to face even more cuts as a result.

The Morrow County ATV park has demonstrated the Mount  Emily project can be acquired without taxpayer liability and without impact to basic county services. If Union County goes forward they will need to insist the legal documents hold our general fund harmless.

When I investigated the Morrow County project I found their forest fire risk decreased with the creation of their park. This was due to the regulated use of the park rather than the go where you want, do what you want, use of the land similar to what historically has happened here. The state also provides ongoing funding for patrolling the park. Users are fined for going off trail or starting campfires outside of designated areas. This has also kept user conflicts to a minimum.

Morrow County also found wildlife management and wildlife habitat was enhanced due to the regulated use. Again I would encourage everyone involved to research the Morrow County ATV Park and ask them the same questions they have for the proposed Mount Emily ATV Park.

Question: Do you think the county and the Mt. Emily Recreation Coalition could have done a better job informing the public about MERA, the issues connected with it and plans for its management? What would you have done differently to include the public in the process?

Answer: The only change I would have suggested would have been for the county to promote a public vote from the beginning rather then waiting towards the end of the process to use this tool. This was something overlooked on other county acquisitions. Being transparent and actively seeking input from the public is important.

The Mt. Emily Coalition has done a good job trying to inform the public. They have been willing to speak at any forum they are invited to.

Two years ago they held their first public meeting, which drew approximately 300 people on a Monday night.

The Mt. Emily Coalition represents a diverse group of local citizens who have met regularly over an extended period of time. The coalition is truly just that: a coalition. You have tree cutters with tree huggers, ATV users with horseback riders, snowmobile riders with snowshoe trekkers, single track motor bike riders with mountain bike users, hikers with bikers and bow hunters with rifle hunters all working together to preserve this land for public use.

You raise an issue, you hold years of meetings, you bring diverse groups together and ask for a public vote. While no process is perfect this effort has been better than most.

Question: As you have noted, the audit report for the year ending June, 30, 2007, shows Buffalo Peak’s deficit to be about $966,000. However, the county says that figure will drop by between $500,000-$600,000 after Dec. 1, 2008, when a $100,000 payment is made and accrued interest is waived per the agreement with the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. Please comment.

Answer: It is clear we need more transparency and openness about the finances of the golf course.

Just a few months ago the county reported the course was close to “breaking even.” The county audit painted a different picture. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, the course lost $122,152 when comparing operating expenses to golf revenue. This loss does not include the $100,000 annual loan payment. The net asset of the course is now listed as a negative $965,828.

The total amount of money paid from the county’s general fund to cover losses is now listed as $280,836. This amount does not include hundreds of thousands of economic development dollars also given to the course to cover basic bills.

The county is not able to meet the financial obligations it agreed to when they bought the course. As a result they have been trying to re-work the financial terms of the agreement including having some of the accrued interest waived. Once this is done it will reduce the interest owed but will not affect the principle owed.

This waiving of the interest will not repay the general fund money or the economic development dollars that have been used to pay bills at the course. The county has refused to accept the findings of two professional golf consultants who were paid to create business plans for us. The failure to follow major parts of their recommendations has in no small part led to some of the problems we face.

I truly like the golf course and believe it is an asset to the town of Union and our county. But I believe it should be in private ownership and the county should diligently work to see that happens. Financially the county is not in the position to subsidize the golf course when basic services such as law enforcement and road maintenance are threatened with cuts.

Question: In years to come the county faces budget shortfalls due to shrinking tax revenue and elimination or reduction of federal timber programs. What do you think are the keys to balancing the books in the future?

Answer: When I served as commissioner it was obvious our timber tax funds were going to be lost. That is why I worked so hard to bring in projects such as Horizon Wind Energy to fill the gap. This project is the largest single business investment in the history of Union County. The taxes it will provide will help to keep basic services funded.

Some have argued wind energy companies would have come regardless of anyone’s efforts. That is not true. We needed to offer incentives to companies who wished to invest here. Originally Union County proposed restrictive covenants for any wind energy facility including unreasonable setback rules and a 7 percent decommission fee on gross revenues. If enacted there is a great chance the current facility in operation would not have been built.

Our energy for sale, in the very least, would have been 7 percent more expensive than anywhere else. Add the cost of delivering the energy over long distances and we would have priced ourselves out of the market. That is why I successfully petitioned to have those restrictions removed.

During the last session I worked with the governor’s office, Republicans and Democrats to pass Oregon’s Renewable Energy Standard. This standard now means larger utilities (OTEC was exempted) will have to buy more renewable energy. This opened up a huge new market for us. As a result four separate wind energy companies are now looking at investing in Union County.

As commissioner I proposed our county be placed under a Renewable Energy Development Zone. It passed 3-0 and we became the first county in Oregon to do so. I proposed we use a Strategic Investment Program for Horizon’s first facility. That too was approved 3-0. No Oregon county had ever before used this program for a wind energy facility.

During the last 12 months I have met with and given tours of Union County to some of Oregon’s best business leaders who are looking at investing in Union County. The key to our future is working hard at protecting our current economic base and at recruiting new opportunities.

Question: Your adversarial relationship with current members of the board, including the two who will still be seated after the election, is well known. Some people agree the status quo needs some shaking up, while others feel the board is doing fine and returning you to office under the circumstances would be counter-productive. Please comment.

Answer: Will I ever be a “yes” man who will fall in lock step with others when I have a heartfelt different opinion on an issue? Obviously the answer is “no.” I believe there is value to having more than just one opinion on any governing council.

I have never served as a commissioner with Nellie Hibbert. I worked and served with Steve McClure for four years. When I first decided to run for this position last December I sent an e-mail to both of them. This is what I wrote:

“I wanted to let both of you know that I have filed to run for the commission spot being vacated by Colleen.

“Steve, during our four years on the county board together I sincerely appreciated the accomplishments we were able to achieve especially in renewable energy.

“Nellie, we never had to the opportunity to work together as commissioners. But I did appreciate the longterm job you did as county clerk and work you have done as a new commissioner.

“I wanted you to both know that you have my pledge to work effectively with you on the commission board if the voters give me the opportunity to serve in that capacity.

“Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.”

I am sure that if elected there will be times we will disagree. But more times than not we will be in agreement. I have no doubt the three of us can work effectively together.

Question: The primary is a three-way race between you, Kyle Corbin and Mark Davidson. Please say why you think you are the right man for the job.

Answer: All three of us have held or currently hold elective office. I think voters should look at what each of us have accomplished in office and then decide.

I have a record as a successful private sector business person. As commissioner I was liaison for a project that created the largest private sector investment in Union County’s history. There is a connection. To help create jobs you need to understand sound business models and principles.

Local citizens know I will put basic services first and I believe in open and transparent government. When I was first elected Union County was contemplating significant cuts to the Sheriff's Office. Serving as county liaison to the sheriff’s office devastating cuts were prevented. I have worked closely and effectively with Sheriff Boyd Rasmussen. If you have any doubts ask him.

People know I research issues. This was made clear when Union County faced a crucial Measure 37 claim that sought to create a new subdivision, larger than the town of Imbler, on some of Union County’s best farm land. I was the only commissioner who asked questions of the Portland attorney defending the claim. And it was my motion to deny the claim that passed 3-0 preserving some of Union County's best farm land. There were over 100 people in attendance at that meeting. They know what happened.

I have a proven record of being able to work effectively with political leaders on both sides of the political aisle. I am honored at what state Sen. Jason Atkinson recently said: “During the last Oregon Session John Lamoreau was instrumental in bringing Democrats and Republicans together to pass landmark legislation that will greatly benefit Union County. He should be commended for the job he did.”

I have been asked to serve as county campaign chairs for Congressman Greg Walden, Sen. Gordon Smith, Ron Saxton, Kevin Mannix and Jason Atkinson. There is a reason why.

I am excited about the future of Union County. I have a proven record of major accomplishments. I sincerely believe I am the right person for the job.

Question: What other concerns do you have as a candidate?

Answer: One statement all of the candidates could agree on is that Union County is a wonderful place to live. The cattle ranches, wheat and mint farms, the cherry trees, the forested mountains, the rivers and creeks, the scenic small cities and towns and the people who inhabit them all make this a wonderful place to live. But we live in a changing world and need to work hard to protect what we have as we face the challenges of the future.

We need to attract new jobs but not just any jobs. We need jobs that pay decent wages and offer great benefits while at the same time blend into our county. We need to support programs like the Health Network for Rural Schools and find ways to fund medical clinics in Elgin and Union.

Many in our nation and county are facing financial crises including foreclosures of homes. Our county has been blessed because we are a county of neighbors who are willing to reach out with a helping hand to someone in need. We must stay vigilant to the needs of those around us.

Many know that I have often volunteered to help with the Manuel’s at Hot Lake or helped with concerts at the Elgin Opera House. I have also coached soccer and co-hosted weekly college dinners. I have helped with fundraisers with CASA, the Salvation Army, local sports teams and more. I do this not because I have the time — who does? — but for the same reason so many others volunteer for so many things in our county. Simply because we have a passion to try and make a difference in the lives of those around us.

I believe more than anything else that community involvement is what makes Union County special. May we never lose the desire to be an active part of our community.