Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remand Proceeding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews 2001–02 land-exchange valuations after court remand; chair recuses
Summary
The Hood River County Board on Oct. 21 reviewed valuation reports that a circuit court remanded to determine whether a 2001–02 forestland exchange with Mt. Hood Meadows met the statutory equal-value requirement. The Board, with Chair Euwer recused, declined to reopen the record for new public testimony and directed counsel to prepare an order consistent with its finding that the existing record supports equal value.
Vice Chair and Commissioner Travis Weathers led a continuation of a writ-of-review remand concerning the land exchange between Hood River County and Mt. Hood Meadows, a dispute originating in 2001–02 (Thrive Hood River and Mike McCarthy v. Hood River County and Mt. Hood Meadows Oregon, Ltd., Case No. 020029CC).
County Counsel Mark Sandri told the Board the Circuit Court limited the remand to review of valuation materials already in the record and instructed that communications not in the record — including new public comment, new arguments, or new evidence — cannot be considered. Sandri summarized the court’s direction and the limited scope: the Board must determine, based on the existing record, whether the valuation reports support the earlier equal-value finding.
Attorney Jesse Buss, representing Thrive Hood River and Mike McCarthy, asked the Board to exercise its discretion to allow public comment and to grant a 30-day continuance so additional testimony could be submitted. Buss argued the Board could constrain testimony by time, manner and place but still hear community input. Counsel Sandri and County Counsel Lisa Davies responded that reopening the record for new testimony would conflict with the court’s remand instructions.
Commissioners discussed the valuation documents in the record, including assessor exhibits and timber appraisals. Sandri identified the timber appraisal date as October 2001 and the escrow/closing date as March 2002; the Board’s review is required to assess whether the equal-value determination would have been met as of the original transaction date. Commissioners Babitz, Moretti, Muenzer and Weathers each said the reports and assessments in the record were reasonably prepared and sufficient to support a finding of equal value as of the original transaction.
Commissioner Babitz moved that counsel prepare an order consistent with the Board’s finding that the record demonstrates the equal-value statutory condition was satisfied at the time of the exchange; Commissioner Moretti seconded. The motion passed unanimously; Chair Euwer was recused from consideration of this agenda item.
Why it matters: The Board’s action implements a court remand and resolves whether the administrative record supports the statutory requirement for the land exchange. The Board limited its review to materials in the court-compiled record and did not accept new testimony or reopen the administrative record.
What’s next: County counsel will prepare an order memorializing the Board’s finding for the record and return it for formal signature or further procedural steps as required by the court’s timetable.
