You decide – Am posting this exchange with Stufflebean today – it speaks for itself

Earlier I posted the following email to Commissioners Whitty, Main and Stufflebean along with a copy to The World.

MG – Just wondering has anyone actually done a real economic analysis of signing a mineral lease with ORC? For example, has anyone weighed the costs associated with jobs gained sometime in the future, two or three years as ORC ramps up and jobs lost, like the road crew more than a year ago? Are the potential revenues from royalties greater than the
current timber revenues already being earned on a sustainable harvest yield basis?

What about the consequence of enterprise zone tax exemptions ORC plans to avail itself of? What about potential lost timber sales if ORC mitigation methods aren’t adequate? How many years after the county ties up its mineral rights before the public see a return? What is the NPV (Net Present Value) for working timber land today? What is the
county’s business model for entering into the mineral rights business?

How much water is required for ORC mining use?

ORC indicates they take all the risk but that simply isn’t true. Core
samples aren’t the only due diligence the County needs to undertake.

So far, the only response I have had is from Stufflebean and it begins here

KS – There have been no jobs lost in the road department associated with ORC.

There is currently no property taxes paid for county forest land.

There would be no loss of timber revenue from ORC.

Water issues are nothing related to coos county, that would be CB/NB
water board issues.

To which I reply

MG – Thank you, Kevin, for the reply but you specifically said the road department ‘reorganization’ was to allow the county to afford the necessity to upgrade W Beaver Hill to industrial grade. From the February 2009 public meeting you said to ORC…

“there’s been quite a hype about some of the restructuring we’ve done in the road department. One of the reasons it was essential we do some of those is everybody who has read the URS report that was provided by Oregon Resources Corporation, Coos County needed to make a $450,000 investment of their share just to deal with maintenance of the road department itself on W Beaver Hill. With the changes we made that was factored into that. We will now have the money to actually make that investment.”

The County has committed itself to spending $450K plus a share of ongoing road maintenance. The jobs, by your own admission, Kevin, were sacrificed to afford the county the opportunity to ‘make that investment’. What analysis has been done on the economic impact of those lost jobs over a year ago versus promised future jobs including the lag time between those future jobs and additional cost to the county for services to accomodate ORC given ORC is in an enterprise zone? This is not just about the county budget, this is about the county economy as a whole.

The county land as it stands does not place an additional burden on the taxpayer. Mining it will. Therefore, I repeat, what analysis have any of you done on the true cost to the county, ESPECIALLY in light of the five year tax exemptions?

There is no guarantee of secure timber receipts. Even IF ORC maintains adequate mitigation and replanting on a schedule in line with the current harvest plan, unforeseen events can impact the County – forest fires, diseased trees, watershed and wetlands impacts, etc… what contingency plan do you have in the event of unexpected circumstances? Again, how many years before the public sees a return on their investment?

Water affects everyone and excessive use in one location can significantly affect other locations miles away.

Are you telling me that no economic impact study has been done prior to a push to lease away public mineral rights? Are you saying you don’t know the answer to any of these questions? What is the economic impact? The public has a right to know.

Ignoring most of my questions Stufflebean answers thusly

KS – You should read the report again, it clearly states that even if ORC did not do anything, that 450,000.00 would need to be invested to deal withcurrent traffic over the next 10 years and if ORC was to locate there are other numbers. We are only going to pay for our current maintenance issues and not ORC’s. If they do mine weyco property they wi be required to make payments to coos county for their impacts.

To which I parry back

MG – First, the conditional permit requires the county to commission and pay for the report. That did not happen. ORC commissioned URS and the county reimbursed the report cost. This is significant because almost without fail a report is always slanted in favor of the party commissioning and perceived to be paying the report. Further, I have read the URS report and it is not clear that $450K needs to be spent on that road regardless of ORC and upgrading it to industrial grade. The report states that absent the improvement existing traffic “is not anticipated to fail the pavement section”. Please read the report again.

Please comment on your comments regarding the road department layoffs quoted below?

Please answer the rest of my questions

This is the final non answer answer I have received to date

KS – I have no idea where you get your information because the county did not pay for anything.

Your interpretation of everything is that, your interpretation.

My final attempt to receive an answer from my elected official

MG – My information comes from readily available public records, the Transportation Impact Analysis was to be paid for by the county. Read the conditional permit- Shall I take your non answer to my many questions as a refusal to answer or an inability to answer a county citizen? You specifically use the term ‘investment’ when speaking about county improvements to W Beaver Hill. As an ‘investment’ am I to understand you have no idea what the ROI to the taxpayer is going to be?

No wonder he works for the government because no private business would tolerate this. Thank goodness there is an election coming up!!!