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

IMBLER — A healthy crowd gathered Tuesday night in the Imbler High School gym to hear more about Union County’s proposed purchase of acreage on Mount Emily to create a recreation area.

The meeting was the second and final information session scheduled regarding the proposal, which the county is seeking an advisory vote on in the May 20 primary.

The panel of presenters included Union County Planner Hanley Jenkins and county commissioners Nellie Hibbert, Colleen MacLeod and Steve McClure, and Mt. Emily Recreation Area Coalition member Bart Barlow. The session was mediated by Meg Valentine.

Two options exist for the proposed acquisition of the 3,700 acres of land from the current owner, Forest Capital Partners. Under the first, the county would buy all the acreage and all the timber.

Jenkins announced that a certified “yellow book” appraisal of the property, funded by $12,000 from the coalition, values the land and timber at approximately $7.4 million.

This differs from the $7.9 million asking price discussed in the original purchase sale agreement between Union County and Forest Capital.

“And the primary reason for that is that timber values have dropped significantly” since the purchase agreement while land value has increased, Jenkins said.

He said the discrepancy will be addressed in further negotiations with Forest Capital.

The county hopes to fund the purchase with two grants from the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department, as well as a low-interest loan from a philanthropic organization.

Jenkins said the ATV Advisory Committee voted on April 18 to recommend approval of the $4.4 million ATV grant.

A request for a $926,948 Local Government Grant will be reviewed by an advisory committee on June 10.

If that committee gives the go-ahead, a final decision on both grant requests will be made by the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 17 in Baker City.

The loan from the philanthropic organization will go toward the remaining two-thirds of the commercial timber value, and be repaid from a timber harvest program.

The philanthropic organization would accept liability for wildfire, disease and other contingencies to timber productivity.

“So there is no risk to the county’s general fund for that loan,” Jenkins said.

As he explained in a later interview, “The security for the loan is the existing standing timber value, not the general fund.”

The presenters noted that, based on the area’s annual timber production rate of 3 percent, some $125,000 in net annual revenue could be accrued for maintenance costs, on top of the harvest used to repay the loan.

In the event that the loan is not secured, but the two state grants are, the county could pursue a second purchase option under which it acquires all the land and one-third of the timber value for $4.6 million. Under those terms, Forest Capital would retain the remainder of the timber.

The presenters pointed to Morrow County’s successful creation of a 6,200-acre recreation area using ATV program grants, touted by representatives from that county at another Mount Emily informational meeting in La Grande earlier this month.

“Morrow County is making this work. This is not hypothetical ... I think we could make it work in Union County,” Commissioner McClure said.

Some questions from the audience centered around future management of the recreation area. Jenkins said that motorized use and non-motorized use advisory committees will be established to collaborate, along with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, on a comprehensive management plan.

The proposed recreation area would include both a motorized and non-motorized section.

Many in the audience spoke in favor of the idea, emphasizing the importance of Mount Emily for hikers, bicyclists, ATV and horse-riders, mushroom and berry-pickers and many other recreators.

Other members of the public, citing an uncertain economy, were more measured with their support, drilling the presenters on the financial aspects of the proposal.

On the May 20 ballot, the county is asking voters whether or not to continue pursuing the purchase option. While the referendum is non-binding, commissioners reiterated at Tuesday night’s meeting that they will abide by the voters’ will.