Fish eyed: Cheers, a few jeers greet latest roundabout art

Talk about instant feedback.

As Miles Pepper installed his new “kinetic” artwork of 12 fish at the Colorado and Simpson roundabout Saturday, he heard firsthand the shouted comments from the circling critics, most of whom were friendly dolphins amid a few sharks.

“I love it,” one woman yelled as she drove around it.

“Looks great,” said another.

But, then came the Bend version of a Bronx cheer.

“Aren’t those beautiful?” one guy shouted derisively.

As his truck rolled through the roundabout, he answered his own question, “Not!”

It didn’t phase Pepper, the artist from Pullman, Wash., who was paid $35,000 to create the latest installment of Bend’s ongoing, frivolous controversy.

Titled “Redsides Roundabout,” the mostly stainless steel aluminum fish spin atop poles as the wind blows in one of Bend’s busiest traffic circles. A light breeze Saturday sent the school of fish headed in the same direction.

“The overwhelming response has been positive,” Pepper said as he painted the poles black.

Drivers have reacted with the thumbs up sign, he added.

Still, he noted that a few yelled, “Money for schools, not art.”

He pointed out that his artwork was commissioned by a private, not public, entity.

Indeed, Art in Public Places, a Bend non-profit group whose previous commissions include the controversial “Flaming Chicken” at the Galvestion/14th roundabout, is behind this effort as well. Art in Public Places is funded solely by the Bend Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Brooks Resources.

“Most of the negative comments have come from guys in pickup trucks,” Pepper said. “I’m not sure what that means.”

Pepper’s “kinetic” artwork adorns the recent remodel of Portland International Airport and the Mark O. Hatfield light rail station in Hillsboro.

This is his first artwork for a roundabout.

“There aren’t too many of these things in America,” he said.

There are even fewer with aluminum fish “swimming” inside them.

Towering controversy: Antenna owners, neighbors gird for battle

Serious concerns over the threat of increased interference with police, fire and other public safety radio communications must be addressed before the owners of several broadcast antennas atop Awbrey Butte should be allowed to build a new 300-foot tower and boost the height of two others, a city planner said.

In a 39-page staff report that sets the stage for a combative Thursday night hearing at Bend City Hall, city Senior Planner Dale Van Valkenburg also cited other issues not yet resolved to city planners’ satisfaction, such as wind noise created by the towers and unanswered questions about possibly combining FM radio antennas on existing towers, and/or the possibility of parceling out some antennas or towers to other locations.

In findings issued Thursday, after review by Community Development Director James Lewis, Van Valkenburg said the applicants, Awbrey Towers LLC (leaseholders who bought the site atop the 4,225-foot summit from Deschutes County in 2000 for $1.7 million) had proven a need for the new or expanded towers proposed over the next five years, in the first of two phases. Much of that need is driven by federal requirements to move the nation’s television broadcast system from analog technology to digital TV (also called “DTV”).

During that period, Combined Communications would build a 300-foot tower, while the 20-year-old Oregon Public Broadcasting tower, now tallest on the site at 300 feet, would be raised to 350 feet. Meanwhile, the 200-foot Gross Communications tower also would rise to 300 feet, and Western Radio would build a new, 140-foot tower, while dropping its existing 100-foot tower to 40 feet.

But Van Valkenburg said the proponents have failed to prove the need for a proposed second phase of expansion, in six to 10 years. In that phase, the current 200-foot KTVZ tower would rise to 300 feet, the 95-foot American tower to 195 feet, and Cowan Broadcasting Co.’s 115-foot tower also to 300 feet. The city planner said the Phase 2 proposal should be a separate, future land use decision, with public notice and the opportunity for appeal, although the issues could be confined to the need for those facilities.

The applicants claim Federal Communications Commission edicts under the 1996 Telecommunications Act pre-empt local decision-making on issues such as interference with law enforcement transmission facilities, as well as neighborhood health and interference concerns. Van Valkenburg urged Hearings Officer Karen Green to confirm if those FCC rules apply, and said if she “finds that the preemption is not fully applicable, then this (law enforcement interference) issue must be resolved prior to any approval.”

The many issues swirling around the potential Awbrey Butte tower expansion, which first came to public light more than a year ago, rise about as tall as the butte and towers themselves, ranging from the political and legal to the technical, financial and – last, but surely not least – aesthetic.

One only needs to recall the furor over the infamous “golf nets” and the wrangling over Deschutes County’s proposed cell-tower rules to know that, when it comes to tall man-made objects in Central Oregon, the past is only prologue – and today is a whole different story.

The butte has had broadcast towers atop it for more than 40 years, but homes for less than 20, which leads critics to wonder why residents moved there, if they didn’t want to live near the towers. The neighbors, meanwhile, say they weren’t told to expect such a major expansion of the tower site. They point out that the land is still zoned for residential uses, and they want other locations to be seriously explored, in order to avoid expanding the “tower farm” in their area, and to limit the impact on any one part of the region.

More than 1,500 property owners within 4,300 feet of the 20-acre parcel were notified by the city of the tower proposal, due to the proposed height of the towers. More than 100 people have submitted letters in opposition, some as a result of a separate postcard mailing by the group Save Our Skyline (, which has helped to coordinate much of the opposition.

Promontory Drive resident Debi Curl has been heavily involved with the group, although she noted that her home faces away, not toward the tower site.

“Moving to this size of a tower farm – it’s unimaginable, to me, that our city would even consider that,” Curl said as she kept busy, putting in long hours on research and preparation for the hearing.

Curl said the 100 or so submitted letters show a pretty strong response rate, considering that many mass mailings generate only 5 percent response. “I can tell you at least 50 people I talked to who didn’t even notice it came in the mail,” she said.

‘NIMFY’: Not In My Front Yard

The neighbor said she’s never been contacted by the tower proponents to discuss her concerns, since a contentious neighborhood meeting held a year ago. On the other hand, Curl said, “My goal is to do this with a respectful process. I want to do it with sincerity and concern for the community, and at the same time, respect for people who do business here.”

She rejected the tired NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) label, but threw out a new one of her own: NIMFY – Not In My Front Yard. She said it fits not just the folks on the butte, but is something everyone in the city should be concerned about: “It’s not what everybody is looking away from. It’s what we’re looking at.”

Tami MacLeod, attorney for Awbrey Towers LLC, also toiled through the weekend, preparing responses to Van Valkenburg’s concerns, as well as those raised by critical neighbors.

“I think we’re very pleased with the staff recommending approval,” she said Saturday. “We’re not surprised by the issues raised, and feel we’ll be able to adequately address them.”

Asked about the law enforcement radio-interference issue, MacLeod said, “We’re making slow but steady progress. We’re exploring a lot of different avenues on that issue, some of them related to an agreement with them, some of them not.”

But Police Chief Andy Jordan said Monday that he and Stiles “have been waiting to hear from Awbrey Towers LLC with a proposal.”

“The first one they sent us was not acceptable, but they have said our fears will be alleviated,” the police chief said, adding that the agencies “will have a presence at the hearing, if we cannot work out something with them.”

The neighbors, meanwhile, have raised a wide spectrum of concerns: the still-debated health implications of electro-magnetic (EMF) and radio frequency radiation emissions, as well as ongoing interference woes with such electronic gear as garage door openers, phones and VCRs.

They also have aesthetic concerns, of course, and many fear a drop in property values, although private appraiser Dana Bratton concluded in a letter submitted by the tower partnership that there would be “little to no adverse impact” on surrounding property values from the proposed new 300-foot tower. (Curl said the letter indicated that Bratton based his opinion only upon a verbal description of the tower, rather than a detailed set of plans.)

Several letters supporting the proposed towers also were received, pointing to the public service provided by broadcasters, and the lack of other suitable sites, Van Valkenburg noted.

But some of the strongest concerns have been raised by local police and fire agencies that have their transmission gear on a 200-foot-tall U.S. Forest Service tower, which is not involved in the current land use application. (Nor are several other, smaller towers also located on the site.)

“Raising the tower heights and adding additional towers and antennas at the Awbrey Butte communications site could have devastating effects on communications for the city of Bend and Deschutes County public safety agencies, as well as the city of Bend Public Works, Dial-A-Ride and other commercial users of the site,” wrote Tim Beuschlein, a technical specialist for the Bend Police Department.

No agreement yet between tower owners, police

Sheriff Les Stiles also wrote “to voice my strong concerns over the proposed expansion” of the butte’s tower facilities, noting that the sheriff’s office leases space on the Forest Service tower for 911, police, fire, Air Life and other uses.

Stiles said his agency already is trying to deal with interference occurring at the site, and that radio techs for the city and county “tell me it is reasonable to assume the proposed expansion will cause even greater interference.” Stiles urged that the applicant be required to pay for a study to determine the potential impacts, how they can be mitigated, and how much that will cost.

After receiving those comments, the applicant put its request for site plan review and a conditional use permit on hold in early January, a month after the application was submitted, and waived the city’s typical 120-day review time line, in order to meet with the agencies and work to resolve the issues. Van Valkenburg said no response had been received by city planners by the time his staff report was issued Thursday.

The “utilities” portion of Bend’s city ordinance provisions that apply to “special uses” states, “As far as possible, transmission towers, poles, overhead wires, pumping stations and similar gear shall be so located, designed and installed to minimize their effect on scenic values.”

Western Radio proposes a “lattice” type of tower – wider and thus more visible than the slender, monopole type, which also needs guy wires. Van Valkenburg noted that “the lower height permitted by use of the lattice tower is an acceptable tradeoff, as long as the tower is finished in the light galvanized metal gray discussed in the application (the tallest, OPB’s tower, is painted orange and white, as the Federal Aviation Administration required).

City rules also say that such proposed uses must “have a minimal adverse impact on the property value, livability and permissible development of the surrounding area.” In their proposed findings, the applicants claim that “livability may actually improve” if the towers are raised, as interference suffered by some homeowners is likely to decrease.

After reviewing the tower owners’ photo simulations of the new and raised towers, Van Valkenburg wrote, “It is staff’s opinion that the submitted photo simulation is an accurate depiction of how the view shed might be impacted by Phase 1 development, and that impact is minimal. Staff finds it likely that most casual observers would not notice the change.” That’s not the case with the Phase 2 proposal, for which “staff believes that a casual observer would notice `something has changed’ atop the butte,” the planner wrote.

Visual impact `not terribly significant,’ planner says

Later in the report, Van Valkenburg said the city planners concluded “that the visual impacts of the proposed Phase 1 tower expansion will not be terribly significant, as views from the majority of the city. As submitted, Phase 1 represents a reasonable compromise between the needs of the … operators (and the benefits they accrue to the region), and the visual impacts associated with the expanded towers.”

“The proposed tower structures do have the potential to impact surrounding property values,” Van Valkenburg acknowledged. But he said, “Neighboring property owners have provided no data to substantiate these assertions, and staff notes that the record indicates the current array of towers existed on the site prior to any homesite development within the surrounding Awbrey Butte master plan area.”

“Thus, whatever perceived impact on property values associated with the towers that may now exist likely also existed when the current owners purchased their property,” the planner found.

Van Valkenburg said the applicant has justified the additional tower heights, showing, for example, that raising the Western Radio tower would cut interference among existing users and provide “co-location” opportunities for other carriers, reducing the need for more towers.

“The applicant has also demonstrated that both KTVZ and OPB are under FCC mandates with strict timelines to establish digital television broadcast capabilities,” the planner wrote. OPB plans to install “a new taller but more slender antenna atop the existing 233-foot supporting tower,” he said. But to provide capacity for the DTV antennas, the tower owners will have to evict three existing FM radio tenants – KMTK, KLRR and KTWS.

“The new 300-foot Combined Communications tower and expanded Gross Communications tower would provide new tower space for these three existing broadcasters at a height that should help to reduce existing interference issues experienced by neighbors (law enforcement agency interference issues notwithstanding),” Van Valkenburg wrote.

But the city planner went on to say, “The applicant has not identified any specific users or their potential needs for Phase 2 of the master plan. Staff must conclude that the additional tower height is being requested in order to provide speculative lease space for potential future users.” While the need for more tall towers could be proven in the future, he wrote, “a lower tower height would unquestionably have lesser visual impacts and be more aesthetically pleasing.”

The applicants also laid out a list of other sites they reviewed for possible placement of its “T&R” (transmission and reception) facilities. They noted that FM radio, like cellular phones and pagers, require “line of sight” transmitting, so a high, unobstructed location provides the highest quality signal.

For example, they said, the FAA wouldn’t allow a new tower on Powell Butte, citing a hazard to air travel, while an existing FM site northwest of Tumalo Falls, commonly called Jack Pine Ridge, is surrounded by Forest Service land not available for tower location, and also is heavily shaded, which reduces the level of service. Other buttes around the region also are unworkable, they said, while there are problems with using other high spots around the city. The applicants said, “the adverse visual impact of randomly dotting Bend’s skyline with towers is significant and undesirable.”

City wants more info on alternatives

The applicant has made a “persuasive argument … that the present tower farm location atop Awbrey Butte is … preferred for a variety of reasons, including its topography, its central location within Central Oregon, and its present use and ownership,” Van Valkenburg said. But he also said that neighbor Curl raised the question of combining FM antennae on existing towers, or moving some facilities elsewhere, to free up space.

“The submitted master plan does not explore these alternatives, but rather appears to study the alternative sites as an `all or nothing’ proposition for all of the site’s facilities,” the planner wrote. He said Curl’s questions should be addressed by the applicant before any approval of the new Combined Communications or expanded Gross Communications towers, both intended to accommodate FM antennas that must be moved to accommodate DTV on the OPB and KTVZ towers.

Van Valkenburg concluded that the new and raised towers “will have an impact on the scenic values of the surrounding area, as (well as) the Awbrey Butte skyline as viewed from throughout the city.”

“However, such facilities are an undeniable necessity, with obvious benefits to the community as a whole,” the planner wrote. Most of the objecting property owners were “opposed not only to the expansion, but even further desiring the entire facility to be relocated to a site that does not as directly impact their property.”

Van Valkenburg said city staff are “certainly sympathetic to the concerns” raised by neighbors, but that “the fact remains that Awbrey Butte was utilized as a communications site long before homesites were ever developed near its summit.”

“The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed towers of Phase 1 are the minimum necessary to meet immediate needs, and that no other reasonable alternative site exists for the facility,” the planner wrote. Faced with potential loss of some FM radio broadcasters, and possibly jeopardizing OPB’s and KTVZ’s FCC licenses, Van Valkenburg said that “at least Phase 1 of that expansion will accrue benefits to the general populace of Central Oregon.”

Brooks Resources Corp., the developer of Awbrey Butte, doesn’t appear to agree. It’s also submitted a letter to city planners, expressing concern about the proposal and warning it “may result in a significant decrease in the value of Brooks Resources … property located near the proposed sight,” in the words of Jade Mayer, chief financial officer.

“Property devaluation could result from the proposed towers with aesthetic blight and an eroding of the character of the neighborhood that currently exists on Awbrey Butte,” Mayer wrote. “As Brooks Resources still has several acres to be developed on Awbrey Butte, concerns about property values are relevant.”

Then there are the concerns raised by neighbors such as Pickett Court resident Helen Fisher, who invited officials to come to her home and see how when one turns on a “boom box” tape deck, with the radio off, “radio stations come in loud and clear in almost every part of the house. … Our home is literally being bombarded with RF radiation.”

Operators `not asking for 10 more towers’

Neighbor Curl noted that the FCC has modified its requirements, enabling stations to go on the air with cheaper, lower-powered DTV facilities, giving them more time to gain experience before having to match their current service area and pick their “post-transition channel.” She also said she’s been unable to find any evidence that the FCC’s rules pre-empted local decisions on TV and FM radio broadcast towers, unlike the rules regarding cellular/wireless towers.

But lawyer MacLeod said, “The timelines are still tight. The fact is, to have any DTV transmission, you have to add an antenna. I’ve been saying from the very beginning that we’re out of tower space. Some juggling needs to be done, and is being done.” Going with a lower power at the start still would require a new antenna, she said, “and it’s a temporary fix. I do know the FCC has stopped granting extensions … (and) Congress is really firm on the DTV roll-out.”

For example, the ’96 Communications Act says licenses for analog TV service expire at the end of 2006, and the FCC must reclaim that spectrum for other uses, unless conditions for an extension are met.

The tower owners’ attorney also pointed out that the Phase 2 proposal only was included at the city’s request, in order to lay out potential needs at the site for up to a decade. “Instead of having a kind of piecemeal process, it was requested – and we thought it was a good idea – to tell everyone the maximum we want to do over 10 years,” MacLeod said.

“We’re not going to be coming in and asking to put 10 more towers up there. This is all we’re asking for,” she added. “That’s why it’s phased. Ad if we’re going to reduce the overall electronic interference, that only happens if we do the 10-year plan. We want to get all the high-power (transmitters) up and away from the ground.”

Curl was pleased that Van Valkenburg agreed with her that the issue of combining FM antennas or parceling out some to other locations needs to be addressed.

“The premise of the application is they are going to put these antennas on taller towers, therefore reducing interference for neighborhoods,” she said. “However, they don’t address anywhere in the master plan what they are going to do from the ground to the top of the tower. And if we think they are developing vertical real estate to use only the top 50 feet of the tower, we’re fooling ourselves. Once they build the tower, they are pretty much free to adorn them however they see fit. The FCC so rarely checks up on a site.”

“If you ask me, our city ordinances are woefully inadequate, in terms of cell towers, and other towers,” Curl said.

No one expects a decision at Thursday’s hearing – in fact, if everyone who wishes to gets to testify, it could be a long night, possibly even continued to another night, considering how contentious the issues are.

Either way, the written record is likely to stay open for a few weeks, with a decision several weeks after that. Green’s ruling can (and, one suspects, probably will) be appealed, first to the city council, which has the option of deciding whether to hear the matter or letting the hearings officer’s ruling stand. That would send it on to the next level, the state Land Use Board of Appeals, which can take months to hear the case and issue a ruling.

Police stop drunk driver from fleeing Redmond crash scene

REDMOND – An alleged drunk driver who smashed into a power pole and street sign late Friday night started his car up after authorities arrived and tried to flee the scene. It took several officers to physically subdue the “belligerent and combative” motorist, police said.

Redmond police and fire personnel responded around 11 p.m. to a reported single-vehicle crash near the 1100 block of Southwest Highland Avenue, said police Capt. Wayne Shortreed.

Upon arrival, crews found Shawn Wesley Jurgens, 25, of Redmond, in the driver’s seat of the heavily damaged, 1991 white Chevy Camaro, Shortreed said. Investigators determined that Jurgens had just left the Redmond 7-11 store and was heading eastbound on Highland when, approaching 12th Street, the car left the road, striking a power pole and street sign before coming to rest in the middle of the road.

As fire and police personnel tried to determine Jurgens’ injuries, the suspect allegedly started the ignition and tried to put the car into gear and flee the scene. “Multiple officers had to physically subdue the belligerent and combative (suspect) in order to remove him from the vehicle,” Shortreed said in a news release.

With help from an Oregon State Police trooper, Jurgens was transported to the Deschutes County Jail and lodged on DUII, 10 counts of reckless endangering, two counts of third-degree criminal mischief, and two counts of reckless driving.

Fire closures in effect for BLM river recreation areas

Beginning at 12:01 a.m. on June 1, 2003, and lasting through and including October 15, 2003, fire closures are in effect on public lands within wild and scenic river corridor boundaries and public lands in other areas described below:

Along the Middle Deschutes River from the bridge on Lower Bridge Rd. west of Terrebonne to Lake Billy Chinook and additionally those public lands located within ½ mile of Lake Billy Chinook. This area includes the Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area and its camping, parking and hiking areas.

***For a complete description of the fire closures/prohibited acts for all of the described river corridors, see below.


Beginning at 12:01 a.m. on June 1, 2003, and lasting through Oct 15, 2003, fire closures are in effect:

Along the Lower Crooked River from the Highway 97 bridge to Lake Billy Chinook, along the Middle Deschutes River from Highway 20 to Lower Bridge Road, along the Lower Deschutes River from Lake Billy Chinook to the Columbia River, along the White River from its confluence with the Deschutes River to Keeps Mill.


Beginning at 12:01 a.m. on June 1, 2003 and until further notice, fire closures are in effect within ¼ mile of the river’s edge in the following locations:

-The Mainstem John Day River, from Tumwater Falls (River Mile 10) upstream to Kimberly (River Mile 185).

-The North Fork John Day River, from the confluence with the mainstem at Kimberly (River Mile 0) upstream to the Umatilla National Forest boundary (River Mile 62).

-The South Fork John Day River from Smokey Creek (River Mile 6) upstream to the Malheur National Forest boundary (River Mile 47).

1. Building, maintaining, attending, using, or being within 20 feet of open flames, including but not limited to campfires, candles, torches, kerosene lanterns, or charcoal briquette fires. (Portable, commercially constructed cooking stoves and lanterns using pressurized bottled fuels such as white gas and propane are permissible.)
2. Smoking except while in non-public buildings, within a closed vehicle, or in a boat floating on the water or standing in the water.

Except in emergency conditions or permission by an agency-authorized officer, there are no exceptions to this closure. A violation of this closure is punishable by a fine of not more than $1000 or imprisonment of not more than 12 months, or both.

Deschutes River closed to river users starting June 1

Notice of River Closure:
The Deschutes River will be closed to all recreational river users in the immediate area of the construction of the Southern River Crossing Bridge, starting this Sunday, June 1st.

Fishing, boating, water sports, hiking and mountain biking will be prohibited within the construction area seven days per week until bridge construction work is complete. The closure is effective Sunday, June 1st, 2003 and is anticipated to remain in effect until December 31st, 2003.

This section of the river is being closed to protect public safety during the construction of the Southern River Crossing Bridge.

It will not be safe to observe bridge construction work from the riverbank, so interested observers are urged to use safe vantage points on the cliffs above the construction area.

Signs to inform river users of the closure will be installed 500 feet and 1000 feet upstream from the bridge construction zone, and 150 feet downstream. Signs 1000 feet upstream will read “River Closed 500’ Downstream – Use Take Out Area Ahead.” Signs 500 feet upstream and 150 feet downstream will read “River Closed for Safety Purposes – All Water Craft Must Take Out”.

Work in the river will include installation of pilings downstream of the permanent bridge, falsework for the bridge and delivery and installation of steel spans and deck construction. The temporary pilings will be removed when the span placement is completed and the area will be backfilled with gravel.

During the construction of the bridge span, large sections of structural steel will be delivered to the construction site and lifted by crane onto the bridge supports.

The river closure and construction work are both permitted by the Division of State Lands under a removal/Fill Permit no. 24962. The permit sets standards for erosion control, maximum turbidity of river water, quality of fill materials and work allowed within the river.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed impacts to fish populations that might result from disturbance of riverbeds and construction activity. The City of Bend will install 2000 cubic yards of native river-run gravel for Redband trout spawning habitat within a half-mile reach of the Deschutes River north of the bridge to mitigate any impacts to fish populations.

The section of river affected by the construction is outside the Wild and Scenic River corridor and is not listed as an Endangered Species Act protected area. The City of Bend and the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District will be restoring many areas of the riverbank to a more natural state than its pre-construction condition.

FYI – Future notices w/ additional construction activity to follow!

Delivery of the large structural steel for the project is scheduled to begin later in June and will involve temporary, daily road closures. Additional news and public information releases will be provided as construction continues.
(Plan on great photo opportunities throughout the summer – more information to follow!)

For additional information, or to report any problems with this project, contact:
Construction Manager, Bob O’Neal, 388-5556
Project Manager, Ken Gould, 388-5523
Traffic Safety Program Manager, Deborah Hogan, 330-4029

ODOT announces state’s outward migration levels off

The number of people moving to Oregon and turning in their out-of-state driver licenses declined 10 percent last year, but the number of outgoing drivers fell 15 percent, according
to Driver and Motor Vehicle statistics.
The migration from Oregon to California also took a sudden decline last year, the statistics show.
A total of 66,103 out-of-state driver licenses were surrendered in Oregon during 2002. That is a significant decline from the 2001 figure of 73,768 and 72,228 in 2000.
During the same period, the number of Oregon driver licenses surrendered in other states and returned to DMV fell to 54,467 last year from 64,128 in 2001 and 64,335 in 2000. As a result,
net inward migration recovered slightly to 11,636 in 2002. That compares to 9,640 in 2001 and a low of 7,893 in 2000, according
to these statistics.
California remained the leading origin of out-of-state licenses surrendered in Oregon. It accounted for 29 percent of the total
last year. Washington was second at 17 percent, and Idaho, Nevada, Arizona and Texas each accounted for about 3 percent to 4 percent
of out-of-state drivers coming to Oregon.
Other states, territories and Canadian provinces each accounted for less than 3 percent of incoming drivers.
Washington was the No. 1 destination for Oregon drivers surrendering their driver licenses out of state. Oregon’s northern neighbor accounted for 27 percent of all returned Oregon licenses in 2002.
One significant change in the outward migration pattern was that California accounted for only 14 percent of Oregon driver licenses surrendered out of state. Oregon’s populous southern
neighbor had been returning about 20 percent of surrendered Oregon licenses.
Idaho and Nevada each accounted for 7 percent of returned Oregon licenses. Other states, territories and Canadian provinces
typically return tiny percentages of Oregon licenses.
The movement of licensed drivers is not a scientific measure of Oregon population change, but it does provide a glimpse of
the state’s population growth trend.

Year Incoming Outgoing Net incoming
1997 79,977 46,729 33,248
1998 77,407 57,475 19,932
1999 72,669 60,038 12,631
2000 72,228 64,335 7,893
2001 73,768 64,128 9,640
2002 66,103 54,467 11,636

Two new driving laws in effect now

Two new Oregon laws that affect some drivers are already in effect after passage by the 2003 Legislature and signing by Gov. Ted
Kulongoski. Although legislation typically goes into effect the year following a session, lawmakers believed that these two laws should take effect immediately upon passage.
House Bill 2214 expanded the eligibility for obtaining a hardship driving permit. It allows driving to and from drug treatment programs
after a driver license suspension as well as to search for employment.
A hardship permit is a restricted license issued to a person whose driving privileges are suspended or revoked. Before the law change, people with hardship permits could drive only to and from alcohol treatment or rehabilitation, or to and from their places of employment and as needed as part of their jobs. The other new law affects drivers who have been required to
install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles. The device prevents the vehicle from starting if the person fails the device’s alcohol breath test.
The 2003 Legislature clarified the law governing drivers’ use of these devices with House Bill 2261. The new law allows reinstatement of driving privileges when the driver provides
proof of installation of the ignition interlock device.
Under the previous law, a person who did not install an IID in his or her vehicle before the related suspension ended was not eligible for a full reinstatement of driving privileges. Instead, he or she could apply only for a hardship permit with restricted
driving privileges. The new law creates an incentive to install an IID.
The governor also signed into law two other bills affecting drivers. House Bills 2176 and 2216 will take effect Jan. 1, 2004.
HB 2176 creates the offense of failure to maintain a safe distance from an emergency vehicle or ambulance. The offense will have a
maximum fine of $300. The session also has produced a consumer-protection law regarding
how Oregon deals with out-of-state vehicles that carry a “junk” title, certificate or similar notation. HB 2216 requires Driver
and Motor Vehicle Services to refuse to issue an Oregon title if a vehicle has a junk title or certificate from another jurisdiction.
This law helps prevent the illegal activity of “title washing,” moving vehicles from state to state in an effort to change or
delete information on the title that indicates the extent to which a vehicle has been damaged or totaled. The law will help protect consumers from being sold a vehicle without information that it has been damaged so severely that
it might not be safe to repair it and then drive it.

Investment rep named to select group for helping colleagues

Brian K. Stallcop, an Edward Jones investment representative in Bend, recently was named to a select group on individuals who voluntarily train new brokers in their communities.
The financial-services firm Edward Jones went from being a regional firm with about 300 offices in the early 1980’s to a global investment firm with more than 8,800 offices today. The firm’s value-based culture of helping contribution to that culture did not go unrecognized.
Stallcop has been tapped as a ‘field trainer,’ a new position created for those investment representatives who voluntarily give their time and energy to help their new colleagues succeed. Those investment representatives named field trainers receive certification through training sessions and testing. Field trainers work with groups of new Edward Jones investment representatives for several months to help them through their training and while they build their businesses.
Edward Jones Managing Partner John Bachmann said the willingness to help one’s peers is fundamental to the firm’s growth.
“We couldn’t grow at the rate we’ve achieved it we didn’t have people like Brian Stallcop who remember what it was like to start out, and who give unselfishly so others can realize the success he has enjoyed,” Bachmann said. “Brian was selected for his dedication and willingness to help others as well as his success at running his own business.”
Field trainers are not monitarily compensated for this effort. But according to Stall cop, he has a much greater motivation than money to help others in the firm. “That’s the Edward Jones culture,” Stallcop said.
“When one person succeeds, it adds to the firm’s success which benefits us all. If someone hadn’t been willing to help me, then I might not be where I am today.”
Stallcop has an office at 1288 SW Simpson Ave, Suite B-2, Bend, OR. His phone number si (541) 382-7398.
Edward Jones, the only major financial-services firm advising individual investors exclusively, traces its roots to 1871 and currently serves more than 6 million clients. The firm offers its clients a variety of investments, including certificates of deposit, taxable and non-taxable bonds, stocks and mutual funds.
The largest firm in the nation in terms of branch offices, Edward Jones currently has more than 8,800 offices in the U.S. and through its affiliates in Canada and the United Kingdon. Plans call for expansion to 10,000 offices in 2004.
The Edward Jones interactive Web site is located at .

Gov lowers homeland security alert level

Following a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Oregon Office of Emergency Management and the Oregon State Police, has made the decision to lower the threat advisory level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or yellow level.

While Oregon continues to be at an elevated level of alert, the state has extensive protective measures still in place at our critical infrastructure points. Governor Kulongoski urges all citizens to remain alert and active in the protection of our state.

BBB’s Scam Jam 2003 deemed a success

Portland, OR – May 30, 2003 – Over $2.5 million was lost to fraud and
Identity Theft in Oregon last year. Education and prevention are the keys
to stopping con artists. For this reason, The Better Business Bureau hosted
Scam Jam 2003 yesterday at the Oregon Convention Center, a free anti-fraud
Scam Jam began with refreshments followed by a keynote presentation by Clark
Howard, the Consumer Champion. Clark’s engaging demeanor captivated the
crowd when he spoke about everything from Identity Theft to Savings Bonds.
He answered audience questions, provided tools to avoid fraud, and raffled
off signed copies of his new book, Clark’s Big Book of Bargains.
Then an “Ask the Pro” panel featuring; John Becker from KGW News, Eric
Schmidt from KPAM Radio, Kerry Tomlinson from KPTV Fox News, and Janine
Robbin from the Portland Tribune shared experiences about scams and fraud
here in Oregon. They fielded questions from the audience and provided
guidance in resolving important consumer issues.
Following the media panel, breakout seminars were provided by Industry
professionals on consumer issues such as; Identity Theft presented by
Patricia Leigh from the Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing and Mail
Fraud presented by Camille Hammonds, a U.S. Postal Inspector, Investment
Fraud presented by David Tatman from the Department of Consumer & Business
Services, and Charity Scams presented by the Director of the BBB Education
Alliance, Andrea Henchell.
This event was made possible with support from KPAM radio, State Farm
Insurance, OASIS, and Elders in Action.
The BBB Education Alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to
educating consumers on a variety of marketplace issues. The BBB Education
Alliance’s mission is to empower consumers in Oregon and Western Washington
to be confident and proactive by providing education, information and
resources on marketplace issues. For more information on the programs,
services and products provided by the BBB Education Alliance and the BBB
call (503) 972-4455 in Oregon or (206) 676-4195, (253) 830-2955 in