Officials at the chromite mining company, Oregon Resources Corp., and Coos County are still talking, despite an appeal by the company and a Bandon couple against the county that went before the Land Use Board of Appeals on Thursday.

Oregon Resources offered the county a set annual amount to settle differences on issues about upkeep of roads to be used by ore-filled trucks.

Although county commissioners considered the proposal, they eventually gave it the thumbs down.

“Oregon Resources has e-mailed (counsel) about offering a proposal,” County Commissioner and Roadmaster Kevin Stufflebean said Thursday. “We looked at it and counter-offered with a few hundred thousand more dollars.”

Oregon Resources sent County Counsel Jacqueline Haggerty its counter proposal on Wednesday, raising the amount the company would pay by about $25,000 over the original proposal, according to Stufflebean.

“In order to fund ORC’s obligations, ORC would agree to pay annually at the end of each year, the sum of $175,000 for the first three years of operation and $225,000 annually thereafter for the remaining years of the operations using identified haul roads,” Oregon Resource’s counter proposal offered.

The offer indicated that an appeal Oregon Resources filed with the Land Use Board of Appeals — heard by LUBA on Thursday (see sidebar) — would be revoked if the county agreed to the terms.

But Stufflebean said he decided he couldn’t continue negotiations without a traffic impact analysis. The analysis is to be paid for by Oregon Resources, as required in Condition 13.

“(Oregon Resource’s attorney Steven Abel) was asking if we would agree to a lump sum annual agreement,” Stufflebean said.“The whole purpose of the traffic impact analysis is determining what the impacts will be on the county road.”

The commissioner also nixed an Oregon Resource request to remove the word “upgrades” from the condition.

“The road was built as a light traffic road,” he said. “(The mining operation) clearly makes it an industrial road. The upgrades mean bringing it to industrial road standards.”

Haggerty agreed that it’s too difficult to come up with an annual lump sum without the traffic impact analysis in hand.

“We’re not going to expect them to pay more than to cover the impacts. I think that’s what they are concerned about,” Haggerty said. “It’s just coming up with a fair way of determining what their cost is.”

Abel indicated in the counter proposal that a traffic impact analysis would be prepared at the company’s expense. But Haggerty said the counter proposal was e-mailed to her too close to the appeal hearing date — the day before — for her to talk to Stufflebean about it.

On Friday, officials on both sides seemed anxious to get the situation resolved.

“We’re working hard with the county to resolve any issues,” Oregon Resources President Cheryl Wilson said.

“We’re still committed to finding a fair evaluation,” Haggerty said. “We just don’t have all the numbers.

“It’s been said that we’re killing industry, but we’re not. We’re trying to protect the taxpayers. I think we can reach a resolution that’s going to be fine,” she said.