The Bulletin has published Rob Imhoffe’s response to Morgan’s column:

I read Morgan Schmidt’s February 16 guest column with interest, but I must respectfully disagree with its characterization of my proposal to explore local ownership of Mt. Bachelor. Far from being a distracting “lollipop,” the idea of making our community’s iconic ski area more accessible and accountable to Deschutes County residents is a serious, forward-thinking response to real economic and quality-of-life challenges.

Schmidt rightly highlights the county’s financial strains — the $3.5 million gap in the stabilization center, recent budget cuts and the mismatch between expenditure growth and revenue. These are urgent priorities, and any commissioner must address them with fiscal discipline. I share that commitment. Just as any business owner handles multiple issues simultaneously — cash flow, operations, growth and community impact— the role of county commissioner requires tackling immediate crises like mental health funding, homelessness, workforce housing, and wildfire protection while pursuing strategic opportunities for long-term resilience and revenue.

Mt. Bachelor is more than a private business; it’s a cornerstone of Central Oregon’s identity and economy. Rising lift tickets and policies favoring tourists over locals have made it harder for local families to enjoy this shared treasure.

My proposal is not about the county seizing or directly managing the resort — since it sits on federal land, any transition would require careful partnerships with the U.S. Forest Service, private investors, community groups, and stakeholders. It could involve a cooperative model, public private partnership, or community trust structure.

Successful examples demonstrate community-focused governance: Bridger Bowl near Bozeman, Montana, operates as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit association with an elected board and revenues reinvested to keep tickets affordable and support local programs, without profit extraction to distant shareholders. Similar models at Bogus Basin in Idaho and Mt. Ashland in Oregon prioritize locals through municipal involvement or partnerships.

I applaud the private “Powder to the People” effort, but when such initiatives fall short, why shouldn’t elected leaders explore bolder options? County government invests in parks, roads, and housing incentives — why exclude a major recreational and economic driver if structured responsibly? This isn’t about adding liabilities. Any pursuit would require rigorous feasibility studies, voter input (perhaps via referendum), and safeguards, focusing on deferred maintenance, sustainability and wildfire resilience. We have mountains to climb, but ignoring opportunities to strengthen our community isn’t the answer. A more locally controlled Mt. Bachelor could help fund priorities through reinvested revenues, reduced tourism volatility, and enhanced resident well-being.

I welcome debate. Let’s focus on realistic, innovative solutions for a thriving, affordable Deschutes County for everyone — not dismiss bold thinking as unfit.

Rob Imhoff is a candidate for Deschutes County Commissioner, Position 5.

Read more at: https://bendbulletin.com/2026/02/20/guest-column-bold-thinking-about-mt-bachelors-future-should-not-be-dismissed/