Steering Committee Minutes 4-2-2012

MIRROR POND STEERING COMMITTEE
Minutes

April 2, 2012
11:00-12:00
Awbrey Butte Conference Room
Bend City Hall
710 NW Wall Street, Bend

Attendance: Bill Smith, Angela Jacobson, Bruce Ronning, Greg Blackmore

1. Update on ownership / indemnity issues (Bill Smith);
• background on sediment testing completed in the Old Mill river stretch
• background on potential sources of sediment pollutants in Mirror Pond
• establishment of tasks to determine the reasonable likelihood of pollutants in the Mirror Pond sediment

– Tasks:
1) review best available City data
2) supplement City data as necessary with additional tests

2. Discussion of BPRD survey results and bond measure plans (Bruce Ronning)
• District has not yet determined whether to pursue a Bond at this time
• If a Bond is pursued,
– it could be placed on the November 2012 ballot
– the District believes that it has the greatest chance of passing if the additional cost per household is less than $50 on average, resulting in less than a $30 million bond
– the District will likely be willing to include a Mirror Pond assessment project if a bond is pursued. The intent of a Mirror Pond assessment project would likely be to determine the best way to protect Mirror Pond. Such a project could include public outreach and education, along with the establishment of a preferred alternative.

3. Update on DSL / USACE 404 (b)(1) Permitting process (Greg Blackmore)
• Regardless of the specific project design, the application for any fill, removal, or relocation of sediment within Mirror Pond will require a number of specific items, reports, and/or elements of documentation.
• An initial breakdown of each of the needed items, in addition to a rough
estimate of time and cost was provided to the committee.

4. Upcoming Mirror Pond Management Board discussion (Group)
• The Committee suggested that it would be useful for BPRD to update the
MPMB on the results of the survey and the potential actions to be taken
by the District.
• The Committee suggested that breakdown of needed items (regardless of
the project) be revised and presented to the MPMB. Guidance should be
sought on whether to pursue any of the items at this time.

Document: MPSC-Minutes-2012-04-02

Steering Committee Minutes 3-5-2012

MIRROR POND STEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES

Attendance: Bill Smith, Angie Jacobson, Matt Shinderman, Don Horton, Greg Blackmore, Neil Bryant and Mel Oberst

1. Discussed BPRD survey results
a. Survey of 400 likely voters
b. 42% yes – 45% no vote to support dredging without any info on Mirror
Pond
c. 56% yes – 44% no vote to support dredging when they received info on
Mirror Pond benefits
d. 33% thought Mirror Pond dredging is important
e. When the word “dredging” was replaced with “protection”:
i. Dredging 33% in favor to 50% in favor of protecting
ii. 71% convinced of value of bond
iii. 72% want long term fix – for “protection” of Mirror Pond benefits
iv. 39% favor special district and 32% favor a bond measure
v. Putting MP on same ballot with BPRD bond will not be successful
f. Neil said results under subsection c above needed to be above 70% for a
successful campaign to do anything for MP

2. Discussed meeting with Corps and Dept. of State Land (DSL) by Greg and
Matt
a. Modify dam for fish passage estimated at $1 Million- favored by DSL
b. Power production at PP dam will not warrant fish passage cost –therefore
cost of passage would be a cost of the Mirror Pond project
c. DSL – wants a thorough evaluation of impacts
d. Corps is not concerned like DSL
e. ODFW – Brent and Mike are concerned about impacts if fish are
reintroduced and/or for existing fish populations in the reach, particularly
for native Redband trout
f. No EIS or NEPA process is required by either agency
g. Environmental impact analysis is not required by DSL but an alternative
analysis is required with one option being no build. A formal NEPA EIS is
not required unless we seek federal funds for the project which then
triggers NEPA.

3. Discussed Mirror Pond ownership, options and concerns
a. Indemnification
b. Property taxes
c. Insurance policy
d. Gift of pond to district

4. Need to do alternative analysis as well as community involvement, but in what
order?

5. Put $ in BPRD bond measure to do alternative study – Board would need to
approve

6. Take $ in MP fund to do a values assessment community outreach

7. Matt will check with Jean Lawson & Associates (JLA) to assess what work can be done for $30,000 8. Bill will work with property owner

9. Spencer Dahl proposal for sluice gates on the PP dam
a. Will scour channel but not sediment deposition areas
b. Coffer dams near dam impede sluice gate operations

10. Next meeting April 2nd

11. Set up MPMB meeting first two weeks in April

Document: MPSC-Minutes-2012-03-05

Steering Committee Minutes 2-1-2012

MIRROR POND STEERING COMMITTEE

Attendance: Bill Smith, Angie Jacobson, Matt Shinderman, Bruce Ronning, Greg Blackmore and Mel Oberst

  1. Debriefed minutes of the Management Board meeting
  2. Discussed draft questions on the Park District survey to be undertaken in February – results will be reviewed in March
  3. Discussed the ownership of the pond and the requirements of the owner’s to have someone indemnify them from harm during any work in the pond
  4. Discussed a community outreach program – Greg to draft one for the next meeting and to be reviewed by the Management Board in their March meeting
  5. Discussed public information venues to be used to inform the public about the facts of Mirror Pond – i.e. City newsletter, City website, City cable show “city view”, Park District newsletter, and ‘in my view’ editorials in the Bulletin. Matt agreed to draft an editorial for the Bulletin for review by the SC.
  6. Agreed to meet monthly on Mondays. Gina Dahl will doodle everyone for best time.

Document: MPSC-Minutes-2012-02-01

Management Board Minutes 10-3-2011

Mirror Pond Sedimentation and Enhancement Project, Phase 1A
Bend, Oregon

Management Board Meeting
MB Meeting: 03

Meeting Date: 10.03.11 @3:30-5:00 PM
Bend Parks and Recreation Admin Conference Room

MEETING MINUTES

Attendees

  • David Rosell
  • Chuck Arnold
  • Mel Oberst
  • Ryan Houston
  • Tom Greene
  • Mike Olin
  • Don Horton
  • Bill Smith
  • Angela Jacobson
  • Leslie Olson
  • Reagan Desmond
  • Steve Johnson
  • TodHeisler
  • Gina Dahl
  • Michael McLandress

Welcome and Introductions

 

Document: MPMB-Minutes-2011-10-03

Steering Committee Minutes 6-27-2011

Mirror Pond Siltation Project, Phase 1A
Bend, Oregon

Steering Committee Meeting

SC Meeting: 007
Meeting Date: 06.27.11 @ 2:00 PM

MEETING MINUTES

Attendees: [x] denotes present
[X] Mel Oberst /MO
[X] Angela Jacobson /AJ
[ ] Don Horton /DH
[ ] Bruce Ronning /BR
[X] Bill Smith /BS
[X] Matt Shinderman /MS
[X] Michael McLandress /MM

A. BUDGET:

Mike Riley has not yet issued this month’s Financial Report to SC. Forthcoming. (General note: B2030 asks for SC feedback on Financial Report every month.)

In accordance with practices established by the Steering Committee, the SC approves invoices based on Matt Shinderman’s review and comment.

Matt Shinderman (Bend 2030) reviewed and subsequently approved payment of May’s Invoice #7. Matt’s comments subsequent to SC meeting were regarding Task 5- Funding Research and planning. PM hours billed toward this task involve WRDA apps, Jt. Bureau letters, etc…

B. SCHEDULE:
RFP issued May 4. Mandatory pre-proposal meeting May 23. Closing
June 22.

The following schedule was issued which outlines the Proposal Evaluation process; (EC= Evaluation Committee)
June 28 thru July 18 – Scoring period (EC)
July 18 – Scores due back to MM
July 18 – Scores summarized
July 26 – Joint SC/EC meeting @ City Hall, Awbrey Room, 3 hrs allotment
August 22 thru Sept 2 – Conduct interviews (tentative)
Sept 6 thru 9 – call references and score
Sept 9 – Summarize all scores (Tech + Price+ Interview + References)
Week Sept 12th – final selection, highest combined score
Sept 19 – Notification of results, and commencement of 7-day protest period

C. PHASE 1A TASKS:

C.2 – Task #4 – Scope of Work, Budget and RFP/proposals evaluations:

Item 4.4: Evaluate and Score Proposals:
Evaluation Committee (EC): 7 scoring members total- Matt, Don, Mel, Mike are confirmed; MM will inquire with Karen Swirsky, Ryan Houston and Steve Johnson to join the committee. Bill and Angela will not score, but would act as ex-officio and sit in meetings and interviews to provide a “nonvoting” opinion in the evaluation process.

Point distribution: through email correspondence with SC it was determined Price would weigh less than the Technical proposal byt eh following amounts: Technical proposal = 100pts; Price Proposal = 50 pts. This ensures that pricing does not overly influence the importance of selecting a consultant that can deliver the Outreach and Technical studies necessary to reach a selected alternative. However, SC asked for some amount ofpoints attributed to a “wiggle room” criteria giving each evaluator an ability to score based on “best fit” for the overall project. MM will review and submit revised point distributions.

Evaluation process: as described in RFP. Further details of process to unfold; however, it’s understood once proposals are received proposals would be reviewed for conformance by MM, then distributed to the EC for scoring based on criteria set forth in RFP. Allow two to three weeks for this process, and then convene in joint SC/EC meeting for discussion and point tally. Once points are tallied, Price Proposals would be opened. Interviews would be scheduled thereafter, pending Price evaluations and overall EC scoring. More than one SC/EC meeting may be required. MS suggested a “tie-breaker” rule incase scores are tied.

Interviews: SC/EC Committee will develop a set of pertinent questions to ask, with scoring values, only after proposals are fully evaluated and scored. Interviews to take place over two-week period.

Revised scoring distribution: SC request add to scoring criteria to reflect evaluation of proposer’s ability to work as a “partner” with SC, MB and other multi-level stakeholder groups; an important trait not currently reflected in the scoring criteria.

Post meeting note: Through email correspondence, SC agreed to revise scoring as follows –
160 pts total (not including interview scores –TBD); Technical Proposal = 120 pts [75% weighted value], adding in 10 pts for new criteria, “Strength as a Community Partner”; Price Proposal = 40pts [25% weighted value])

The following proposals were received by the 2:00 RFP closing, June 22, and are in good order:
Cascade Environmental Group- Portland
McMillen- Wallace- Portland

A third proposal was received from Environ (Portland), but the proposal was turned in at 3:10 PM. It was “late” and was declared non-compliant.

Evaluation Committee – Matt Shinderman received notice that he will be out of the country from July 20 thru August 1, and he will be unable to attend the July 26th meeting. Steve Jorgenson also will be away July 26th. The following outlines how the EC will accommodate their scoring:

Matt- will write a narrative with any comments for each of the proposers and submit with his scores by the 18th; it will be shared with the EC at the meeting on 26th. He will have no proxy.
Steve- will score and Don, who is attending the meeting anyway on the 26th, will serve as Steve’s proxy. He will brief Don with the results of his evaluation in advance of the meeting, and report any comments.

C.3 – Task#5 – Funding Research and Planning:
a. LID, PORT DISTRICT, and/or ‘NEW’ PARK’S SUB-DISTRICT:
Comments and discussion were had about creating an LID for partial funding of Design and Implementation once Alternative is selected, plus a Port District for long-term management funding. Another option to consider: possible new “sub” District within Parks and Rec. MO to ask Mary Winters (City’s legal counsel) on viability of LID vs Port District. DH to discuss new district idea with Park’s legal and planning.

Post meeting note- follow up with Gary Firestone, Asst. City Atty:

Mel’s 5/18 email to Gary: “During our monthly Mirror Pond Steering Committee meeting yesterday, Bill Smith raised the question, in the context of any in-river work to remove sediment, who owns the river. Apparently, back in the early 1900’s the Bend Company platted both sides of the river and presumably held the river-bed as a separate tract. We know of no known heirs to the Bend Company. Can you advise us on what approach to take to determine who owns the river bed, or in the absence of any legitimate owner, who can lay claim to ownership for the purposes of permitting the work to remove the sediments. Second question, can local improvement districts, which may be formed around the Mill Pond, own assets. Can an LID be formed for the purpose of purchasing the river-bed should an heir be found? I would like to have some information on these questions by our
next steering meeting on June 21.”

Gary’s response: “A local improvement district is not an entity and has no authority to own property. The ownership of the river is a much more difficult question. I have looked at the plats for the properties on each side of the river, and neither of them includes the river as being within the plat…. This may take a lot of effort.”

SC decided to hold a ”funding” meeting at the next SC meeting July 19 where we will continue to play out various funding mechanics available. City and Parks atty’s may be present, as well as
representative of Bend 2030 (assuming Matt cannot make the meeting…) Meeting will look at both short term funding needs of the AA feasibility study, as well as long-range planning options.

b. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-
Local Bureau Contact: MM to contact Scott Boelman, new Bureau of Rec. Manager, Central Oregon Field Office- to meet and discuss MP project, and Bureau’s involvement.

Nothing to report. Scott Boelman has not returned calls. MM to follow up and arrange for meeting.
04.19.05 Meeting with Scott arranged for Tuesday May 3. DH, MS and MM attending from SC. Bureau to bring a geologist. Two-item agenda: Introduction of the MP project, and “ask how Bureau can help and work with us.”

Reported on May 3 local Bureau meeting. See Bureau Meeting notes. In general, Bureau stated they couldn’t engage with MP project unless Federally authorized. Scott expressed desire to be kept apprised of MP progress and will attend meetings if requested, but cannot offer formidable
assistance until such authorization. Scott stated there is no evidence to support Bureau impact on MP. SC discussed possibly getting geo consultant involved to sample and characterize sediment to support argument for Bureau’s involvement. MO to review City records for baseline studies already completed-Wendy Edde. (Of note: refer to Joint Letters to Delegation dated March 7, 2011).

MS and DH discussed relevance of having USFS comment on MP’s management, engaging them as a stakeholder. MS will contact John Allen and Tom Walker with USFS Supervisor’s Office to arrange meeting and/or informal discussions.

MM reminded SC of earlier comments about SC partial funding to support Phase 1 of AA consultant’s scope, thus allowing us to move into project and use those monies to support matching grant funding opportunities for Phase 2. DH stated need to have City and District meeting about funding, and then a specific meeting with SC only about funding of this project. City and Parks meeting to be arranged soon. MD stated he felt uncomfortable with idea that local public monies would be used for MP “fix”.

c. USFS
MS spoke with John Allen of USFS to possibly assist with sedimentation characterization of MP as part of the “Blue Print for Restoration of Upper Deschutes River”. MS to follow up with Allen, and utilize the assistance of a colleague at OSU- Cascades. This partnership could assist with MP funding.

D. OTHER BUSINESS:

MIRROR POND ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY RESEARCH:
Bill Smith has engaged AmeriTitle to research adjacent property boundaries along river. See Bend Downtown River Corridor map, dated 4/12/11. Finding thus far is ‘The Bend Company’ (circa ‘20’s) owned by Mr. Drake once owned all land including the riverway. During subdividing, riverway was not parceled out and therefore it appears riverway portion of Mirror Pond is ‘still owned’ by The Bend Company, though the company no longer exists. Title Company’s research to continue. Question raised: Who now owns the river? AmeriTitle is researching.

Bill clarified that if the “owner” of the river cannot be identified, then the Feds would “own” it. In addition, or if an owner is ID’d but would not cooperate with supporting a MP project, then we could take legal action to secure the property.

D.1 – COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
(Not part of the Phase 1A scope of work, but SC finds Community Outreach is being considered more as we progress in this phase.)
a. Local Stakeholders
b. Media/Outreach
c. Bend 2030 Board
END OF MEETING

Document: MPSC-Minutes-2011-06-27

Steering Committee Minutes 5-17-2011

Mirror Pond Siltation Project, Phase 1A
Bend, Oregon

Steering Committee Meeting
SC Meeting: 006

Meeting Date: 05.17.11 @ 2:00 PM

MEETING MINUTES

Attendees: [x] denotes present-

[X] Mel Oberst /MO
[X] Angela Jacobson /AJ
[X] Don Horton /DH
[  ] Bruce Ronning /BR
[X] Bill Smith /BS
[X] Matt Shinderman /MS
[X] Michael McLandress /MM

A. BUDGET:

Mike Riley issued this month’s Financial Report to SC. (General note: B2030 asks for SC feedback on Financial Report every month.)

In accordance with practices established by the Steering Committee, the SC approves invoices based on Matt Shinderman’s review and comment.

Matt Shinderman (Bend 2030) reviewed and subsequently approved payment of April’s Invoice #6. Matt’s comments subsequent to SC meeting were regarding Task 5- Funding Research and Planning. PM hours billed toward this task involve WRDA apps, Jt. Bureau letters, etc…

SCHEDULE:
03.02.03 On-track for RFP issuance early-April

Schedule will be revised once RFP is issued. On track for early April, and may push for March 31, but MM suggested an individual legal review of RFP by all SC members’ legal counsel. SC agreed but not to hold up issuance.
(See meeting note 03.21.05 below for Post Meeting Note).

RFP issuance adjusted to later April or early May to accommodate legal review by MPSC

RFP issued May 4. Mandatory pre-proposal meeting May 23. Closing June 22.

C. PHASE 1A TASKS:

C.2 – Task #4A – Write RFP for SubK for Alternatives Analysis:
12.17.05 It is anticipated that the RFP will resemble in style and format much like the recent RFP issued for the Colorado Street/Whitewater Park. Similarly, the MP RFP will not be prescriptive in context or format, and will be written based on desired outcomes necessary for an Alternatives Analysis process required of NEPA.

Draft RFP process will begin once Swirsky has completed her peer review, anticipated to being third week of February. Final Working Draft will be issued to SC for comment. Final Draft presented to MB prior to advertisement.

Draft RFP writing in progress, using TAC members K. Swirksy, J. Runyon and R. Houston; along with assist from Dave Crowther, BP&R Business Manager (Contract Specialist).

MM will re-issue DRAFT RFP to SC members for comments and RFP refinement. Comments due back by Tues. 3/8.

Draft comments taking longer to get back from SC and TAC; DH away in DC. Suggestion to take our time to ‘get it right’ is better than operating on a self-imposed deadline, and issuing unnecessary addenda. MM’s still shooting for issuance 3/31.

BR suggested limiting hard copies of proposals to only two (2), and request
8 digital copies

MM recommended SC members provide their own legal review; this would push the RFP issuance further out. BS believes we could issue RFP by 31st
and if necessary respond via addenda with any legal concerns to consultants.

(Post meeting note: After further consult with MPMB at the 3/28 MPMB meeting, it was recommended we wait for all legal reviews to be complete before final issuance of RFP for advertisement)

RFP Draft #3 in legal review. Legal approvals from City, Parks and WSPI.
Bend 2030’s legal review currently with Peter Hicks of Ball Janik. PPL has minor comments to be addressed under Hick’s review pertaining to Bend2030’s legal role relative to MPSC and describing that more clearly in RFP. Mike Riley will send over MOU to Peter that describes the roles.
Once legal reviews are complete, and final approval received, MM will issue RFP.

Legal reviews complete.

A mandatory pre-bid will be required for all interested proposers, to be held at BP&R building (date pending). Site visit to follow.

Proposal Evaluations:
Evaluation Committee (EC): 7 scoring members total- Matt, Don, Mel, Mike are confirmed; MM will inquire with Karen Swirsky, Ryan Houston and Steve Johnson to join the committee. Bill and Angela will not score, but would act as ex-officio and sit in meetings and interviews to provide a “nonvoting” opinion in the evaluation process.

Point distribution: through email correspondence with SC it was determined Price would weigh less than the Technical proposal byt eh following amounts: Technical proposal = 100pts; Price Proposal = 50 pts. This ensures that pricing does not overly influence the importance of selecting a consultant that can deliver the Outreach and Technical studies necessary to reach a selected alternative. However, SC asked for some amount of points attributed to a “wiggle room” criteria giving each evaluator an ability to score based on “best fit” for the overall project. MM will review and submit revised point distributions.

Evaluation process: as described in RFP. Further details of process to unfold; however, it’s understood once proposals are received proposals would be reviewed for conformance by MM, then distributed to the EC for scoring based on criteria set forth in RFP. Allow two to three weeks for this process, and then convene in joint SC/EC meeting for discussion and point tally. Once points are tallied, Price Proposals would be opened. Interviews would be scheduled thereafter, pending Price evaluations and overall EC scoring. More than one SC/EC meeting may be required. MS suggested a “tie-breaker” rule incase scores are tied.

Interviews: SC/EC Committee will develop a set of pertinent questions to ask, with scoring values, only after proposals are fully evaluated and scored. Interviews to take place over two-week period.

Revised scoring distribution: SC request add to scoring criteria to reflect evaluation of proposer’s ability to work as a “partner” with SC, MB and other multi-level stakeholder groups; an important trait not currently reflected in the scoring criteria.

Post meeting note: Through email correspondence, SC agreed to revise scoring as follows – 160 pts total (not including interview scores –TBD); Technical Proposal = 120 pts [75% weighted value], adding in 10 pts for new criteria, “Strength as a Community Partner”; Price Proposal = 40pts [25% weighted value])

C.3 – Task#5 – Funding Research and Planning:
05.17.05 MO,DH/on-going a. LID, PORT DISTRICT, and/or ‘NEW’ PARK’S SUB-DISTRICT:
Comments and discussion were had about creating an LID for partial
funding of Design and Implementation once Alternative is selected,
plus a Port District for long-term management funding. Another
option to consider: possible new “sub” District within Parks and Rec.
MO to ask Mary Winters (City’s legal counsel) on viability of LID vs
Port District. DH to discuss new district idea with Park’s legal and
planning.

Post meeting note- follow up with Gary Firestone, Asst. City Atty:
Mel’s 5/18 email to Gary: “During our monthly Mirror Pond Steering
Committee meeting yesterday, Bill Smith raised the question, in the
context of any in-river work to remove sediment, who owns the river.
Apparently, back in the early 1900’s the Bend Company platted both
sides of the river and presumably held the river bed as a separate
tract. We know of no known heirs to the Bend Company. Can you
advise us on what approach to take to determine who owns the river
bed, or in the absence of any legitimate owner, who can lay claim to

ownership for the purposes of permitting the work to remove the
sediments.

Second question, can an local improvement district, which may be
formed around the Mill Pond, own assets. Can an LID be formed for
the purpose of purchasing the river bed should an heir be found?
I would like to have some information on these questions by our
next steering meeting on June 21.”
Gary’s response: “A local improvement district is not an entity and
has no authority to own property. The ownership of the river is a
much more difficult question. I have looked at the plats for the
properties on each side of the river, and neither of them includes the
river as being within the plat….This may take a lot of effort.”

b. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-
03.02.07 Local Bureau Contact: MM to contact Scott Boelman, new Bureau of Rec.
Manager, Central Oregon Field Office- to meet and discuss MP project, and
Bureau’s involvement.
03.21.07 Nothing to report. Scott Boelman has not returned calls. MM to follow up
and arrange for meeting.
04.19.05 Meeting with Scott arranged for Tuesday May 3. DH, MS and MM attending
from SC. Bureau to bring a geologist. Two-item agenda: Introduction of the
MP project, and “ask how Bureau can help and work with us.”
05.17.06 MO,MM/Pending Reported on May 3 local Bureau meeting. See Bureau Meeting notes.
In general, Bureau stated they couldn’t engage with MP project unless
Federally authorized. Scott expressed desire to be kept apprised of
MP progress and will attend meetings if requested, but cannot offer
formidable assistance until such authorization. Scott stated there is
no evidence to support Bureau impact on MP. SC discussed possibly
getting geo consultant involved to sample and characterize sediment
to support argument for Bureau’s involvement. MO to review City
records for baseline studies already completed-Wendy Edde. (Of note:
refer to Joint Letters to Delegation dated March 7, 2011).

MS and DH discussed relevance of having USFS comment on MP’s
management, engaging them as a stakeholder. MS will contact John
Allen and Tom Walker with USFS Supervisor’s Office to arrange
meeting and/or informal discussions.
05.17.08 on-going MM reminded SC of earlier comments about SC partial funding to
support Phase 1 of AA consultant’s scope, thus allowing us to move
into project and use those monies to support matching grant funding
opportunities for Phase 2. DH stated need to have City and District
meeting about funding, and then a specific meeting with SC only
about funding of this project. City and Parks meeting to be arranged
soon. MD stated he felt uncomfortable with idea that local public
monies would be used for MP “fix”.
D. OTHER BUSINESS:
05.17.09 BS/on-going MIRROR POND ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY RESEARCH:
Bill Smith has engaged AmeriTitle to research adjacent property
boundaries along river. See Bend Downtown River Corridor map,
dated 4/12/11. Finding thus far is ‘The Bend Company’ (circa ‘20’s)
owned by Mr. Drake once owned all land including the river-way.
During subdividing, river way was not parceled out and therefore it
appears river is ‘still owned’ by The Bend Company, though the
company no longer exists. Title company’s research to continue.
Question raised: Who now owns the river?

D.1 – COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
(Not part of the Phase 1A scope of work, but SC finds Community Outreach
is being considered more as we progress in this phase.)

12.17.07 a. Local Stakeholders
MM suggested pulling together a “local” Public Stakeholder meeting comprised of just the landowners adjacent to MP. It is felt this meeting is
important to partner with and provide a voice to these key public

stakeholders during the refinement process. SC agreed, and MM will
arrange and inform SC of that meeting.
01.24.10 MM met with Mike Hollern. He suggested not meeting with local/adjacent
property owners now; rather keep them informed through a simple mailing.
Only meet once alternatives are being vetted, and outreach process is
underway. This will strengthen our position with those more protective of
the Mirror Pond.

03.02.08 DH to contact Hollern about further ideas on best approach. SC recognizes
the importance of the adjacent property-owner Stakeholder Group. The
context of the engagement, and timing is such, is important to consider.
Pat Egan suggested we be sure to have a fully developed project prior to
issuing a letter or meeting with them. Otherwise, this would be a challenge
to manage the public opinion.

03.21.09 DH/pending DH not present to report.
04.19.07 DH/pending DH not present to report.
05.17.10 closed M. Hollern contact – Don, no report
b. Media/Outreach

01.24.11 Recent Bulletin Articles and Editorials prompt questions of media and
outreach at this early stage. MM has discussed with Jan Taylor of BP&R
the importance of getting out our message and beginning to craft the
community’s perception and understanding of our project. Domain name is
secured: www.mirropondbend.org. MS states outreach begins in next
phase of the project and will need the proper funding, as it will be relatively
costly and take more time than budgeted in Phase 1A. Until then, SC
agrees use City of Bend’s MP Link for meeting minutes and general
information until consultant is on-board and outreach is necessary, at which
time the website will be developed.

01.24.12 MO will inquire with City’s PR Director Justin Finestone to assist in updating
website. MM would manage updates

03.02.09 Post-meeting note: Apparently City decided prior to Phase 1A to use the B2030 website to manage information for MP, rather than continuing with City’s website. MM to follow up with B2030’s website manager, Donna Jacobsen. There may be a fee involved for Donna’s assistance.

03.21.10 MM meet with Donna and arranged for Bend2030 website to be new link to
the Mirror Pond Project. She will add to B2030 website to allow for a direct
link to a new blog website (“Blogspot”) to be created (with Donna’s
assistance) and managed (by MM) for all current and new (Phase 1A)
updates. The B2030 site will direct to the City of Bend’s website for all
historical MP info. City’s site would refer to B2030 site for the new info.

Upon further review of idea to create another web-link, MM asked MO if city
would reconsider using the City’s website to house the MP documents and
updates. MO thought if it did not take a lot of time from Gina, who has been
given access to website to modify, then this would be workable.

Per MO, MP records (documents, minutes and various proceedings,
etc) can be posted on City website until further web development is
necessary to support project.

c. Bend 2030 Board

MM reports he provided an update and status report to Bend 2030 Board at
their April 1st Board meeting.

Quarterly status report to Bend 2030 suggested, August – pending

END OF MEETING

Document: MPSC-Minutes-2011-05-17

Management Board Minutes 3-29-2011

Mirror Pond Siltation Project, Phase 1A
Bend, Oregon

Management Board Meeting
MB Meeting: 02

Meeting Date: 03.29.11 @3:30-5:00 PM
Bend Parks and Recreation Admin Conference Room

MEETING MINUTES

Attendees

  • David Rosell
  • Chuck Arnold
  • Mel Oberst
  • Ryan Houston
  • Tom Greene
  • Mike Olin
  • Don Horton
  • Bill Smith
  • Angela Jacobson
  • Leslie Olson
  • Gina Dahl
  • Michael McLandress

Welcome and Introductions

Progress Report

Outreach to federal agencies continues to take place to obtain expertise, support, and long-term funding moving forward

  • Delegation-joint letters regarding Bureau of Reclamation support complete and sent by steering committee (add that the joint letters were completed to request Delegation’s support in asking for Bureau’s support in funding and research, etc…)
  • Bureau of Reclamation contacted locally for support
    • Michael called Scott Bowman in the local Bureau office to start this process
    • Michael advised they have technical expertise and can hopefully help defray costs
    • Michael will arrange a meeting with Scott to discuss Mirror Pond interests
  • Army Corp of Engineers-Water Resource Development Act of 2011 (WRDA) application submitted to get foot in the door for future ear marks that may be available Don discussed recent meetings with staff from Senator Wyden’s and Merkley’s offices
      • The staff supports the application process to the Army Corp and will also provide a staff person to be assigned to research possibilities
    • Don was very encouraged by the outcome of the meetings
  • Ryan suggested taking up conversation with the Bureau of Rec’s larger office in Boise

Scope of Services-Consultant for Alternative Analysis

  • As part of his tasks, Michael (with the help of others) reviewed the Draft Scope of Services as part of the “Moving Forward” document completed in 2009 , and an outcome of doing this was the determination that by looking at alternatives, the budget of $500,000 could possibly be reduced, but by very little
  • Michael said it will be hard to reduce the budget when certain federal regulations still have to be met to obtain federal funding
  • Reviewing the scope of services and hiring a consultant (via request for proposal) will lead to a better idea of what the project will really cost

Request for proposal

  • RFP for Consultant is being drafted. Draft has been sent out for review to the steering committee and management board
  • Ryan asked whose legal structure will be used to administer the consultant contract
  • o Michael has asked all steering committees to take the RFP to their own legal counsel for review; therefore it could be a combination of legal structures
  • Regarding the issuance of the RFP and the administration of the contract, the Steering Committee has all decision-making authority, and will manage the contract and the budget. Bend 2030 is just the fiscal agent and will issue the contract
  • Michael sees the RFP going through a public RFP process since it is public money
  • Who has liability? This should be developed in a memo of understanding (MOU) between Bend 2030 and the Steering Committee members
  • Chuck asked if anything is driving a deadline to get started besides the deadlines Michael created, Michael advised no other major driving factors
  • RFP schedule:
    • Consultant services for alternative analysis
      • Phase 1 – baseline conditions determined and community engagement , 4-6 months
        • Hopefully the baseline conditions can be somewhat determined by evaluating historical documents online, which should be available soon
      • Phase 2-evaluating alternatives, 8-12 months
    • Phase 1 timeline (tentative):
      • Advertising-April 7th (this will be extended in order to review draft and put historical documents online)
      • Proposals due-May 19th
      • Proposals evaluated-May 20th through June 22nd
      • Award Phase 1-late July
      • Phase 1 completion-January 2012
    • Phase 2 to begin after Phase 1 is completed, contract modified for Phase 2, and when ready to move forward
  • Don voiced concern regarding funds, advising they should be in place before moving forward
    • It was clarified that money would indeed need to be available for Phase 1 before it begins (the amount needed should be known once proposals are received)-Tom recommended having a budget number together by the end of May in order to give time for Council review before new budget cycle begins
    • If money not available for Phase 2, it will be delayed, which will be conveyed as a possibility in the RFP
    • It will also be conveyed in the RFP that there could be a significant delay between phases, and that if for some reason it is decided to not move forward, the contract can be cancelled
  • Because of so many stipulations, it was suggested that a mandatory pre-proposal meeting take place with all consultants and the management board (and/or steering committee)
  • The goal of phasing was to get started, that way Phase 1 can begin even if money is not yet available for Phase 2
  • Mike Olin asked where money would come from for implementation of the project
    • There is federal funding available if the project qualifies, but those options will not be known until alternatives are determined

Outreach

  • Once consultant is on board, more public meetings will take place
  • Bend 2030 Website
    • Michael will be updating a website with information and links back to the City of Bend
    • Ryan asked about where people can go to obtain baseline conditions and such, since they will be asking for this info when developing their proposals (baseline conditions)
      • Michael and Ryan will get together to get data needed and make it available online, before the RFP goes out (hopefully a page could be attached to RFP with this information). It would still up to the consultant to research what is available and provide additional studies if necessary to complete the baseline conditions

Next steps after RFP issuance

  • Consultant review and selection
  • Funding availability for Phase 1 scope of work to take place, PM tasks 5,6,7
  • Consultant contract issued (pending funding)
  • Start Phase 1 (pending funding)

Key Dates

  • Next MB meeting June 28th (tentative)

Q & A and General Discussion

  • Mike Olin asked what would happen if community wants to do nothing
    • o Don explained that as part of the alternative analysis, one of the alternatives for review has to be do nothing, that way there is something to compare the other alternatives to and the community can see what doing nothing would mean
  • It was asked who decides on selecting an alternative
    • This is not known yet, but there will be many aspects to consider when determining how it will be selected
    • Angela commented that the community wants to know that a process took place for this, and that nothing was decided on a whim
    • Ryan commented that sometimes the most expensive alternative could be more likely to obtain federal funds
  • Bill Smith advised that money should be put aside for future sustainability of the pond, so that there is not a scramble to obtain funds when a need comes up again
  • David asked the purpose of the management board
    • Bill Smith stated the management board is a standing focus group, providing feedback and suggestions for the project
    • Although steering committee makes decisions, consensus is needed from the management board

Adjourn

Submitted by:
Brightwater Collaborative, LLC
Michael McLandress
Project Manager
Mirror Pond Siltation Project

Document: MPMB-Minutes-3-29-2011