Board of Directors

Agenda & Reports

February 19, 2013

Bend Park and Recreation District Board of Directors

February 19, 2013

5:00 PM Work Session

7:00 PM Regular Meeting Executive Session

Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h) & ORS 192.660(2)(i)

District Office Building 799 SW Columbia

Bend, Oregon

VISITORS Work sessions are scheduled for the board to receive and discuss information regarding district operations, projects, and planning to aid in their decision-making process. The board can choose to accept comment on work session agenda items at the end of their discussion. The chair may ask for comment from visitors at the appropriate time. Please state your name and address and limit your comments to three minutes in the interest of allowing the board to complete their work session agenda. 5:00 PM WORK SESSION Board Candidate Presentations & Interviews 1. Board self-assessment process review 2. Outdoor Children’s Forest Initiative update 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING VISITORS This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding items not listed in the business session. The Board may elect to ask for comment on business session items at the appropriate time. The visitor’s section is not designed for a lengthy presentation. If you have a proposal for Board consideration, briefly introduce the subject, and request that the Board consider adding discussion to a future Board meeting agenda. Visitors who wish to speak are asked to sign up on the public comment card provided. Please state your name and address at the time you address the Board. Please limit your remarks to three minutes.

CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes: February 5, 2013, Work Sessions & Regular Meeting 2. Award contract: Big Sky Access Improvements

BUSINESS SESSION Appoint Board Member & Administer Oath of Office 1. Appoint Budget Committee Member

2. Award Mirror Pond Consultant Contract EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT BOARD MEETINGS CALENDAR REVIEW GOOD OF THE ORDER ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board of Directors will meet in an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed and ORS 192.660(2)(i) for the purpose of conducting performance evaluations of public officers and employees. This session is closed to all members of the public except for representatives of the news media. Matters discussed in executive session that relate to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed or performance evaluations of public officers and employees shall not be disclosed by the news media.

BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: February 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Board Self-Assessment Process STAFF RESOURCE: Don Horton, Executive Director Paula Lowery, Executive Assistant PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None. ACTION PROPOSED: None – for information and discussion only. COMMITTEE ACTION: None. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Theme: Operational Excellence

Objective 3: Improve Business Practices. Initiative: Develop a Board Self-Assessment Process

BACKGROUND During the strategic planning process conducted in 2011-12, and in accordance with the BPRD Strategic Plan adopted by the board in August 2012, development of a board self-assessment process was identified as an initiative under the Operational Excellence Theme, Objective 3. Improve Business Practices. The objective to Improve Business Practices is stated as: “An important element of operational excellence includes the ability to manage and improve critical processes. Streamlining processes includes the development of an improvement model and metrics to measure both organizational and departmental performance”. The board felt it was essential to include their role and function in the district’s business practices, and subsequently contribute to the operational excellence of the organization. As a result of the board identifying their function in the performance of the district’s business practices, an initiative to conduct a board self-assessment process was created. In September 2012, a committee consisting of Ted Schoenborn, Dallas Brown, Don Horton and Paula Lowery met and drafted a self-assessment process for board consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the full board review and discuss the attached proposed Board Self-Assessment Process, and consider a timeframe to conduct the self-assessment, and review the results.

BUDGETARY IMPACT None. MOTION None – for discussion only. ATTACHMENT Draft Board Self-Assessment Process

Bend Park & Recreation District Board of Directors

Self-Assessment Process

Introduction The BMPRD Board of Directors works together as a team of volunteers elected to represent district residents. The board is charged with providing vision and long-range planning, developing policies, and evaluating district functions and operations. The board conducts its business through the deliberation of agenda topics to reach sound decisions and provide clear direction to the BMPRD executive director. At the conclusion of these deliberations, each board member agrees to support final decisions formalized by a vote of the board, and to provide the executive director with a unified direction. In order to ensure the board is providing leadership and representation for the district residents we serve, and in accordance with the district’s Strategic Plan, it is appropriate for the board to conduct a self-assessment process. The goal of this process is to: Identify board strengths and weaknesses in its performance as the district’s governing

body. Determine our strengths and weaknesses as individual Board members. Foster growth and development for individual Board members and for the Board as a

whole. Set a positive tone for the district regarding the importance of evaluation on all levels. Determine and highlight areas of change needed by the district. Demonstrate to the community the seriousness of purpose and responsibility for the

Board. Determine how as a Board we can provide better leadership and service to the

community. Evaluate the current development plans and our success in achieving them. Determine future development plans and establish timelines and goals for achieving

them.

Self-Assessment of Board Function Survey

Considerations 5

Definitely Agree

4 Agree

3 Somewhat

Agree

2 Do Not Agree

1 Strongly Disagree

As an individual Board member …. 1 I am an asset to the district through positive

personal and professional relationships in the community, and by participating in healthy discussion before I form a voting opinion.

2 I am comfortable expressing my opinion, even when it diverges from the group.

3 I have a good working relationship with other members of the board and treat them with respect during meetings.

4 I have a good working relationship with the executive director.

5 Annually evaluates the performance of the executive director.

6 I am confident in the decisions the board makes.

7 I seek useful and appropriate information on finance, budgets, park maintenance and development, and program performance of the district.

8 I balance the many stakeholder interests in board deliberations.

9 I speak with one voice, but not at the expense of any individual voice.

10 Does board discussion focus on strategic leadership rather than administrative detail?

11 Do board members focus is on policy issues and decisions that clearly belong to the board?

Function of Board meetings….. 1 Are agenda items prepared in a timely manner?

2 Are staff presentations thorough and efficiently presented?

3 Are board meetings well organized, efficient and provide adequate opportunity for discussion and comment?

Suggestions & Comments

A. Suggestions on how to make the board more visible to the community.

B. Suggestions for improving the committee appointment process.

C. Suggestions on how communications could be improved between the board, staff and public.

D. Suggestions on how to make board meetings more efficient.

E. Suggestions for board goals.

F. Other Comments

BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: February 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Deschutes Children’s Forest/Outdoor Initiative STAFF RESOURCE: Sue Jorgenson, Recreation Manager Chelsea Schneider, Landscape Architect PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: Approved MOU with Discover Your Northwest and

Deschutes Children’s Forest Advisory Board on August 21, 2012

ACTION PROPOSED: None – Informational Only STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: Invest in initiatives that will engage children in

outdoor activities, nature education and stewardship BACKGROUND The District has worked closely with Deschutes Children’s Forest (DCF) since its inception including assisting with strategic plan development and serving on the DCF Advisory Board. The mission of the DCF is to provide “a network of outdoor places and programs dedicated to moving all children along a continuum of leaning, exploration and healthy living through engagement with nature.” Over the past few months, the District has been working with DCF on program development, advancing the “naturehood” concept, and serving on the facilities, program and marketing committees. DCF coordinator, Katie Chipko, and District staff will provide an update on the overall Deschutes Children’s Forest project as well as progress on specific initiatives that the District is supporting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION None – Informational only BUDGETARY IMPACT Any budget resources required to complete initiatives will be proposed in the forthcoming 2013-14 Fiscal year budget. MOTION None ATTACHMENT None.

Bend Metro Park & Recreation District Board of Directors

Work Session, Executive Session & Regular Meeting Minutes

February 5, 2013 BOARD PRESENT: Scott Asla, Ted Schoenborn, Scott Wallace and Ruth Williamson.

STAFF PRESENT: Lindsey Lombard, Theresa Albert, Dave Crowther, Pat Erwert, Bruce Ronning, Jan

Taylor, Matt Mercer and Paula Lowery.

LEGAL COUNSEL: Neil Bryant.

MEDIA: Mac McClain, The Bulletin. VISITORS: Mike Lovely, Wayne Smith, Quinn Keever, Michael Graham, Justin Gottlieb,

DelRay Livramento, Kurt Petrich and David Orton. WORK SESSION Chair Scott Asla convened the work session at 5:36 pm. Budget Committee Appointment Process Lindsey Lombard provided copies of applications from four candidates for the open position on the Budget Committee. Following a brief discussion the board determined they would each rank the candidates and select their top two in consideration of making the appointment at the February 19 meeting. Lindsey reminded the board of the Budget Committee meeting dates. Board Vacancy Appointment Process Scott Asla proposed an application and interview process beginning with opening the position to the public and advertising the vacancy. He suggested conducting interviews on February 19, followed by appointment to the position at that meeting. He stated if the board could not reach a consensus for making the appointment on February 19, it would be moved to March 5. He stated the board should appoint someone who is willing to run for the remainder of the term of that position, and by following this process potential candidates would have 60 days to campaign for the position. The board agreed to conduct the appointment process as proposed. Senior Center Services Report Matt Mercer presented information and provided copies of a PowerPoint presentation about the senior center’s programs and services offered since the opening of the facility in 2000. He explained this information is provided to look at where we are now and a second presentation will focus on where we go in the future. He noted the center’s mission to serve adults 50 years and older and staff’s efforts to provide a variety of programs for all age groups. He identified the free services that are fully subsidized by the district and explained the level of subsidy. He also identified the social activities and fitness/wellness programs that occur at the senior center, and the fees associated with those activities. Matt also provided information regarding the number of users by program and age populations noting the strongest participation is by users 65+. He assured the board the growth in program areas has not come at the

expense of social programs as they still exist, however, they have not grown in number or experienced significant increase in participation. Matt also provided information regarding the amount of the district’s subsidy of the operation of the facility and explained that while there are revenue streams from partnerships, it has not been adequate to fully support the senior center operations. Ted Schoenborn asked if staff ever does a search for services we don’t provide. Sue Boettner stated that she regularly reviews state-wide and national sites for information about trends in programs, and senior center users are encouraged to suggest programs or services for consideration. She stated that staff is open to offering programs and activities that center users request. Matt added that staff works very closely with Central Oregon Council on Aging and they are the principal group working on issues related to older adults. He stated he is confident that if there is a service that it makes the most sense to provide at the senior center, they will call us. Sue stated we host a lot of their meetings and informational events at the senior center. Matt stated that the $250,000 subsidy the district is putting toward the senior center could potentially service a lot more people and provide resources to those programs where there is very little to no revenue generating potential. He stated additional information about this concept will be presented to the board in the coming weeks in concert with the senior center master planning process currently underway. Ruth Williamson stated we don’t want to abandon necessary services that we provide to our community and that many seniors contribute to, and she sees it as a different mix we are striving for. She added she would love to see us create space that will support a much broader breadth of programs that are low fee or no cost and create a gathering place. Scott Asla stated there has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes and this is not in response to what has just happened. Ruth stated the community is not aware of it and possibly we have missed some opportunities to raise some awareness. Matt stated the planning process will provide a broad enough canvass for people to contribute to and is by no means the end to the planning process. Ted stated he thinks tonight’s presentation is important because it shows basically within the existing model we started with we are still fulfilling that, and growing with the facility as it is. He stated when we look at the new master plan we will see ways the revenue can be increased as well as the whole range of programs. The work session was concluded at 7:04 pm. REGULAR MEETING Chair Scott Asla called the regular meeting to order at 7:14 pm. VISITORS Keith Scott addressed the board regarding the importance of acquiring riverfront property while it is available and prices are reasonable. He urged the board to move forward with the acquisition of riverfront property before the opportunities are lost. Justin Gottlieb addressed the board and provided a written copy of his remarks. He referred to the resignation of Dallas Brown and the passage of the district’s bond measure, and requested a public referendum regarding the proposed allocation of the people’s money. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes: January 3, 2013 Board Workshop, January 15, 2013 Work Sessions & Regular Meeting Ratification of professional services agreement for General Obligation Bond Issuance Financial Advisor Ted Schoenborn moved to approve the consent agenda. Ruth Williamson seconded the motion. Ted Schoenborn, Ruth Williamson, Scott Wallace and Scott Asla all voted aye. Motion approved.

Chair Scott Asla recessed the business meeting of the board. Convene as the Contract Review Board Chair Scott Asla convened the board as the district’s contract review board to conduct a public hearing pursuant to ORS 279A & C to hear public testimony and consider findings of fact and conclusion of law to support the use of the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) process exempting the Colorado Dam Construction Contract from competitive bidding. Dave Crowther explained the purpose of the process and asked the board to consider applying the CM/GC process to the Colorado Street Dam construction project. Ted Schoenborn asked for clarification that this hearing is to determine using the CM/GC process, and if that is determined, the district would receive competitive bids for the actual construction of the project. Dave stated that the process is the same as applied to the construction of the district office and competitive bids would be received for the actual construction piece of the project. Chair Asla asked for public comment regarding the findings of fact and conclusion of law to support the CM/GC process for the Colorado Street Dam construction project. Hearing none, Chair Asla closed the public hearing. Ted Schoenborn moved that the board of directors, acting as the district’s contract review board, approve the draft findings exempting the Colorado Street Dam Safe Passage project from competitive bidding and use the Construction Manager/General Contractor alternative contracting method to award a contract for the project’s construction services. Ruth Williamson seconded the motion. Ted Schoenborn, Ruth Williamson, Scott Wallace and Scott Asla all voted aye. Motion passed. Chair Scott Asla adjourned the contract review board and reconvened the business meeting of the board of directors. Adopt Resolution No. 351, 2012 BPRD Comprehensive Plan Update Bruce Ronning explained the action before the board is to adopt the edited and revised 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update. He noted that staff has made some final editing and formatting changes to the draft version approved by the board on January 15. He addressed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and explained it is the district’s overall umbrella document and referred to the illustration of the hierarchy of planning meant to guide all aspects of the district’s work through year 2020. He noted that planning elements adopted during the interim, between 2005 and 2012, including the 2008 update of the Neighborhood Parks Plan, 2008 Trails Plan, 2011 Recreation Needs Assessment and Access Plan are incorporated by reference in the Comprehensive Plan, and any future discussion of current unmet need or future need for parks, trails, recreation facilities and programs should begin with the materials now found in Chapters 5 and 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he feels the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a useful document that will serve the district well until it is time to rewrite the plan entirely. Ruth Williamson acknowledged Bruce’s work on the update to make it truly comprehensive, applicable and appropriate. She stated she thinks it will serve us well in the years to come and thanked everyone who contributed to this work. Scott Asla stated it is a hard process for staff requiring a lot of work, time and effort ,and the quality of work really shows. Scott Wallace moved to adopt Resolution No. 351 incorporating the February 2012 Parks, Recreation and Green Spaces Comprehensive Plan Update and the final revisions contained

therein. Ted Schoenborn seconded the motion. Scott Wallace, Ted Schoenborn, Ruth Williamson and Scott Asla all voted aye. Motion passed. Bend Paddle Trail Alliance Memorandum of Understanding Jan Taylor referred to the Bend Paddle Trail Alliance (BPTA) memorandum of understanding (MOU) provided in the board report and briefly reviewed the components of the agreement. She stated the document has been reviewed by BPTA and district legal counsel. She noted three addendums to the MOU have been identified, but are not included in the document the board is being asked to approve, including a map, fundraising agreement, and specifics with regard to the middle channel of the project. She stated the elements of the addendum are being developed and the motion by the board reflects that they are forthcoming. She noted these elements will reflect on the components of the fundraising agreement that is being developed. The board agreed to have Don Horton sign off on the addendums as they are completed. Ruth Williamson moved to accept the Memorandum of Understanding with Bend Paddle Trail Alliance with addendums forthcoming. Scott Wallace seconded the motion. Ruth Williamson, Scott Wallace, Ted Schoenborn, and Scott Asla all voted aye. Motion passed. Partnership Fundraising Agreements Jan Taylor referred to draft samples of partnership fundraising agreements provided in the board report. She stated staff is working with some very dynamic, enthusiastic partners on the soccer, skate park, pickleball and Colorado Dam improvement projects. She stated the fundraising agreements remain in negotiation, and reviewed the basic structure of the documents, and cited differences to accommodate each organization to address the collection of funds. She added the project timeline will be defined in each of the agreements and briefly explained the fundraising plan component. She noted that staff will be able to provide assistance in terms of strategies in capital campaigns to support these partners in their fundraising efforts. She added that the in-kind services donation component will be clearly defined and provided to each of these organizations. She referred to the benchmarks and deliverables component of the fundraising agreements and explained the importance of this component to ensure that funds are in place in a timely manner to carry out the projects. Jan referred to naming opportunities and stated they are a great way to raise funds for projects; however, the district has been very careful and protective of our parks and facilities in terms of signs, plaques, etc. She stated we need to do more research before we bring a naming rights plan to the board for discussion and approval. She stated she anticipates bringing naming rights information to the board for discussion at the March 19 work session. The board discussed the importance of these agreements and fundraising plans, and how they will help the partners be successful in their efforts to make these projects happen. Lindsey Lombard clarified that the fundraising agreements will not come to the board for their approval; rather they will be signed by Don Horton. GOOD OF THE ORDER Neil Bryant advised the board that they needed to adopt Resolution No. 350 as the Bend Park and Recreation District Board of Directors in addition to their adoption as the district’s Contract Review Board. Ted Schoenborn moved to adopt Resolution No. 350 adopting findings to support the use of the CM/GC process for the removal and replacement of the pedestrian bridge and the removal and replacement of the Colorado Street Dam for safe passage. Scott Wallace seconded the motion. Ted Schoenborn, Scott Wallace, Ruth Williamson and Scott Asla all voted aye. Motion passed.

Lindsey Lombard noted tonight was Bruce Ronning’s final business with the district as an employee. She stated that she has appreciated working with Bruce and she is thankful for what he has done for this organization and the community. Pat Erwert stated he has had the pleasure of working with Bruce since he became the director of planning and development in 2000. He noted the number of projects the district has accomplished since and thanked Bruce for his dedication to the district and stated he had really enjoyed working him. Keith Scott thanked Bruce for the fine job he has done all of these years with Bend Parks and Recreation and for making it the driving force it is. He asked if he would consider a position such as emeritus. Ted Schoenborn stated it is important to recognize Bruce again and again, as in very many important ways he has been a mentor to not only many of the staff, but most of the board. He stated most of what we know in detail and understand about what the district is trying to do is Bruce’s fault. The board agreed with Ted’s comments and wished Bruce well in his retirement. As there was no further business, Ted Schoenborn moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Wallace seconded the motion. Ted Schoenborn, Scott Wallace, Ruth Williamson and Scott Asla all voted aye. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. EXECUTIVE SESSION Chair Scott Asla convened an executive session at 8:16 pm pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h) for the purpose of consulting with legal counsel regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. The executive session was concluded at 8:25 pm. Prepared by,

Paula Lowery Executive Assistant __________________________________ ___________________________________ Scott Asla, Chair Ted Schoenborn, Vice-Chair __________________________________ __________________________________ Ruth Williamson Scott Wallace

BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: February 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Big Sky Access Improvements Construction Award STAFF RESOURCE: Norm Ziesmer, Development Manager Mark Ellington, Facility and Construction Manager David Crowther, Business Manager PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None ACTION PROPOSED: Award Construction Contract for Big Sky Park

Access Improvements STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVES: Theme: CUSTOMER-COMMUNITY CONNECTION OBJECTIVE 1. ANALYZE AND ADAPT TO CHANGING COMMUNITY NEED: Initiative: Plan and develop trails, river access, parks, natural areas and recreation facilities to meet identified community demand and future need. Theme: FINANCIAL-FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP OBJECTIVE 2. TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE: Initiative: Complete a comprehensive district-wide Asset Management Plan and develop a long-term funding plan to meet future needs. BACKGROUND The Big Sky Park Access Improvements Project was developed from the Park Services Asset Management Plan to meet the requirements of ADA guidelines. This project was selected to meet the 2010 guideline revision requiring an accessible route be provided to athletic fields, as well as building code requirements to provide access to existing picnic shelters and restrooms. Work includes site work preparation, concrete sidewalk construction, asphalt trail construction, accessible parking space renovation, and minor fencing. The engineer's estimate was $157,000. The following bids were received on this project:

1. 7 Peaks Paving $127,777.77 2. Alex Hodge Construction $136,208.80 3. Deschutes Construction $140,720.25 4. Jack Robinson & Sons $150,878.95 5. Wilson Curb $158,853.33 6. Wystan Brown Excavation, Inc. $159,075.00 7. Vic Russell Construction, Inc. $159,990.00 8. Robinson & Owen Heavy Const. $164,079.93

9. Knife River $176,000.00 10. North Fork Excavating $180,757.08 11. JAL Construction $255,462.06

An additional bid was received but was considered non-responsive because the bidder failed to provide unit prices required by the bid form. Without unit prices, staff has no way to evaluate potential changes in scope due to site conditions, or to adjust the contract award based on the schedules provided in the bid documents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends awarding the Big Sky Park Access Improvements Project contract to the lowest and best responsive bidder, 7 Peaks Paving, LLC in the amount of $127,777.77 with a total project budget not to exceed $140,555.55. BUDGETARY IMPACT The total amount budgeted for access plan improvements for this fiscal year in the Facility Reserve Fund is $100,000, of which approximately $27,000 has been spent to date on other vital access improvements. This original budget amount was not specific to any project or projects, but a staff cost estimate of how much might be accomplished in the current year. Since the budget was adopted, staff has prioritized necessary access improvements, and Big Sky Park is the highest priority. The Facility Reserve Fund has other non-designated appropriated funds that are sufficient to cover the full cost of this project. MOTION I move to award a contract to the lowest and best responsive bidder, 7 Peaks Paving, LLC. for Big Sky Park Access Improvements Project in the amount of $127,777.77 and to approve a total project budget not to exceed $140,555.55. ATTACHMENT None

BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: February 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Budget Committee member appointment STAFF RESOURCE: Lindsey Lombard, Finance Director Don Horton, Executive Director PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None ACTION PROPOSED: Appoint one member to the district’s Budget

Committee STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: Theme: FINANCIAL - FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP Objective 1: Maintain Financial Stability: Initiative: Provide responsible financial planning and management to support the district’s existing and future level of service. BACKGROUND **Please bring with you the candidate applications handed out at the February 5th board meeting** There is currently one vacant seat on the district’s Budget Committee. This vacant seat will serve a term of three fiscal year budget processes, beginning with the 2013-14 fiscal year budget process. Dave Stensland completed his term at the end of the budget process for fiscal year 2012-13. The board has received four applications for consideration for the open position. At the February 5 board meeting, the board discussed potential selection processes, and decided on the following process: to individually review the applications over the ensuing week and each board member select their top two candidates. With this information, the board will discuss and decide whether to make the appointment, or determine if they would like further information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the board appoint one new Budget Committee member. BUDGETARY IMPACT The 2013-14 fiscal year proposed budget is scheduled to be presented to the board and budget committee on May 13.

MOTION I make a motion to appoint to serve on the Bend Park and Recreation District’s Budget Committee for a term of three fiscal year budget processes, beginning with the 2013-14 fiscal year budget process. ATTACHMENT None

BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: February 19, 2013 SUBJECT: Mirror Pond Visioning Project Consultant Contract STAFF RESOURCE: Jim Figurski, Project Manager PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None ACTION PROPOSED: For Review and Approval BACKGROUND A Request for Qualifications for the Mirror Pond Visioning Project was advertised in the ‘Central Oregon Builders Exchange’ and the ‘Daily Journal of Commerce’ on December 14, 2012 (Attachment “B”). During the advertisement period for the Request for Qualifications all identified proposers were told that the expected range for consulting fees was $75,000 to $100,000. The closing date for receipt of proposals was January 25, 2013. At that time five proposals were submitted from the following lead consultants (lead consultants are indicated with bold/underlined text) and their teams: Walker Macy Landscape Architects West Consultants, Inc. Pacific Habitat Services NC3D Cascade Environmental Group Laura Hebron Landscape Architect, LLC Olsen Bono Designworks in Portland WH Pacific Salmon River Engineering GreenWorks, PC InterFluve, Inc. OTAK Pacific Habitat Services Wallace Group Engineering ENVIRON International Corporation Harper, Hough, Peterson, Righellis Natural Systems Design Confluence Environmental URS, Inc. Members of the Mirror Pond Steering Committee served as the review panel to assess the submitted proposals (Mel Oberst, Don Horton, Bill Smith, Matt Shinderman – Angela Price was absent and did not participate). Proposals were evaluated upon the advertised criteria; demonstrated knowledge of

river systems (30pts); understanding of regulatory process and ability to work cooperatively with agencies (30pts); experience creating dynamic and engaging visions of proposed projects (30pts); and local knowledge and familiarity with community dynamics (10pts). Based upon these criteria and discussion of the submissions the selection committee unanimously selected GreenWorks, PC and their team as the best qualified to provide the requested scope of work. The committee felt that the response from the GreenWorks, PC team was significantly better than the other responses and therefore there was no need to create a short-list and interview consultant teams further. With approval from the selection committee (Mirror Pond Steering Committee) contract scope and fee negotiations were begun with GreenWorks, PC on January 28, 2013 with Attachment “A” reflecting the result of those negotiations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve scope of work and authorize a contract with GreenWorks, PC for the Mirror Pond Visioning Project. BUDGETARY IMPACT Mirror Pond Visioning Consultant costs $97,881.16 in base contract. Additional services are identified in the proposed contract for meetings with the consultant team beyond those identified in the original scope of work. It is not expected that these additional services will exceed 5% of the proposed contract amount ($4,895.00). MOTION I move to authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with GreenWorks, PS for an amount not to exceed $97,881.16 to perform the scope of work submitted as part of the negotiated contract, attached.

ATTACHMENT “A”: (Consultant Scope of Work and Task and Fee Spreadsheet)

MIRROR POND VISIONINGBend Parks and Recreation Department

2/11/2013

TASK

Name: Faha Craig Boggess Perove Mikkelson Van

Staveren Timmons Wolff Owens JeannineScott

Wallace, R.G.

Herbert Shane Cochran Barbara Reynolds

Role:Principal/Tech

. Dir. PM Project Staff Project Staff Principal Senior

Technician Role AdminPermitting

Lead

Fishery/ Habitat

Biologist AdminCivil Engineer

IXCivil Engineer

VIII ED II Admin PM/Principal

Senior Geotech. Engineer

Staff Geologist Admin Cost by Task

Hourly Rate: Hours ($153.51/hrHours ($122.96/hr Hours ($81.97/hr) Hours ($71.54/hr) Hours ($197/hr) Hours ($127/hr) Hours ($0/hr) Hours ($50/hr) Hours ($133/hr) Hours ($106/hr) Hours ($98/hr) Hours ($170/hr) Hours ($155/hr) Hours ($80/hr) Hours ($70/hr) $140.00 $118.00 $93.00 $53.00 including expenses

1.0 PROJECT INITIATION AND PUBLIC INVOVLEMENT 10 18 0 28 14 16 0 0 10 2 0 12 2 2 1 4 2 0 1 $15,822.75

2 1.1 Preliminary meeting 1 152 1.2 Review Background information 1 6 12 4 16 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 144 1.3 Site Tour 8 8 4 8 8 8 215 1.4 Opportunities and Constraints Map 1 12 22 1.5 Project Coordination 2

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS TECHNICAL REVIEW 7 38 24 24 23 83 0 2 22 7 0 10 2 28 3 4 2 16 1 $35,769.66

87 2.1 Sediment Management Plan 1 4 12 60 2 8 2 2 16 120 2.2 Preliminary 3-D Modeling Base 16 467 2.3 Develop Range of Alternatives 2 8 8 16 4 12 8 4 4 1 231 2.4 Preliminary Infrastructure Review 4 1 4 20 213 2.5 Preliminary Permitting Requirements Review 4 1 837 2.6 Draft Performance Criteria 4 4 8 4 4 6 3 2 26 2.7 Existing Conditions Review 2 2 28 2.8 MPSC Existing Conditions Review 84 2.9 Project Coordination 4

3.0 PUBLIC VISIONING 5 11 0 16 4 8 0 0 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 $7,082.63

20 3.1 Visioning Open House #1 4 4 12 430 3.2 Test Alternatives using Performance Criteria 1 4 4 4 8 5 2 22 3.3 Vision Alternatives Review Selection and Confirmation 21 3.4 Project Coordination 1

4.0 VISION ALTERNATIVES 10 32 120 80 4 0 0 0 14 4 0 2 0 20 2 6 0 0 0 $27,563.88

248 4.1 Vision Alternatives 2 12 120 80 4 2 4 2 20 2 214 4.2 Vision Alternatives Review with Permitting Agencies 2 1216 4.3 MPSC Vision Alternatives Review 8 88 4.4 Visioning Open House #2 8 42 4.5 Project Coordination 2

5.0 PREFERRED VISION 0 26 40 30 4 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 $11,642.24

88 5.1 Create Preferred Vision 4 40 24 4 4 2 2 8 210 5.2 Preferred Vision Review with Permitting Agencies 4 68 5.3 MPSC Preferred Vision Review 88 5.4 Visioning Open House #3 82 5.5 Project Coordination 2

Individual Totals (hours) 32 125 184 178 49 107 0 2 55 15 0 28 6 58 6 20 4 16 2Firm Totals (cost) $48,098.92 $23,342.00 $8,905.00 $10,750.00 $4,866.00

2% Reimbursable Expenses $961.98 $466.84 $178.10 $215.00 $97.320% Subconsultant Management $0.00

Consultant Total Fee $49,060.90 $23,808.84 $9,083.10 $10,965.00 $4,963.32TOTAL FEE $97,881.16

checkAssumptions:

1.$97,881.16

2.3. Site Survey will be provided in AutoCad format for design team use.

4.

The Wallace Group

BPRD PM will present materials to MPMB for coordination and feeback. BPRD PM will provide written comments to design team from MPMB meetings.

GreenWorks, PC Interfluve Pacific Habitat Services Otak

Cost Estimates will be master plan level estimation of costs. Detern=mination

All public outreach coordination, website postings, mailers, open house coordination, coordination of MPSC and MPMB will be managed by BPRD.

GreenWorks PC

ATTACHMENT “B”: (Request for Proposals/Qualifications)

Request for Proposals Mirror Pond Visioning Project

Background Mirror Pond is the area of the Deschutes River located in downtown Bend between Galveston Bridge and Newport Bridge, where the river widens as it winds its way past Harmon, Pageant, Drake, and Brooks parks and residential properties. An identifying feature of the City of Bend since the early 1900s, Mirror Pond was created by a hydroelectric dam located just downstream of Newport Avenue Bridge. The District is seeking qualified consultants to develop detailed graphics (visions) depicting alternative strategies and scenarios to address sediment accruals and the future condition and maintenance of Mirror Pond. These visions will be used throughout a community outreach program with the goal of finding a common vision to guide the implementation of both an immediate and a long-term strategy to manage the accumulation of silt deposits in Mirror Pond while also maintaining the recreation and scenic value of Mirror Pond. Scope of Work – See Exhibit A Submittals for Proposals

1. Provide critical review of proposed scope of work and project schedule: • Identify possible efficiencies that would reduce overall scope and fee; • Identify additional or alternative work processes that would increase scope or fee and; • Analyze the benefits and disadvantages of all proposed work scopes.

2. Identify staff assigned to project, including their role, qualifications and experience. • It is expected that the successful proposer shall include professional team members experienced

in Landscape Architecture, fluvial dynamics, fish and wildlife habitat, and computer modeling. 3. Describe experience of firm, sub-consultants and assigned staff with similar projects, especially in

visualizations of proposed and theoretical projects (include examples of graphics). 4. Describe the approach and process anticipated to complete the project, including proposed

communication plan and review of proposed schedule. (attached) 5. Describe community visioning and regulatory process experience. 6. Written proposal shall not exceed 25, 8.5 x 11 inch pages; shall be printed two-sided (excluding cover)

and unbound; and all materials recyclable. Six print copies and one digital copy in pdf format shall be submitted. PDF copies shall utilize compressed graphics for ease of distribution via email.

7. Proposal evaluation criteria (100 possible points): • Knowledge of fluvial dynamics affecting possible visions for future of Mirror Pond (30 points) • Understanding of scope of regulatory authority and experience of design team (both prime and

sub-consultants) working collaboratively with public agencies to achieve mutual goals. (30 points)

• Experience with creating dynamic and engaging visions of proposed projects. (30 points) • Demonstration of local knowledge and familiarity with dynamics of affected communities. (10

points)

Timeline 1. Proposals are due by 1:00pm on January 25, 2013 at the Bend Park and Recreation District office at 799

SW Columbia, Bend, OR 97702. 2. Award of contract is anticipated on or before February 8, 2013. 3. Completion of project is expected within seven months of commencement of contract. 4. Technical questions or requests for clarifications regarding this RFP will not be accepted after 3:00pm

on January 18, 2013. Prior to January 18, 2013 questions or requests for clarification shall be directed to:

Jim Figurski jim@bendparksandrec.org Bend Park and Recreation District 799 SW Columbia Street Bend, Oregon 97702 541-706-6152

Information for RFP Request for proposals, scope of work, addenda, planholders list, and notifications of bid results for this project may be viewed, printed or ordered on line from Central Oregon Builders Exchange at http://www.plansonfile.com, then click on Public Work Projects.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Agreement made on the ____ day of January,2013 between:

BEND PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT 799 SW Columbia Street

Bend, Oregon 97702 (“District”)

and

[CONSULTANT]

[Address] [Phone] [Fax]

[Email] (“CONSULTANT”)

Consultant agrees to provide professional services to the District pursuant to this Agreement. Such services are authorized by and are subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The “PROJECT”: Develop detailed graphics (visions) depicting alternative strategies and scenarios to address sediment removal and restoration of Mirror Pond (see Exhibit A for Scope of Work). Work will be completed within seven months of commencement of the contract. Consultant has reviewed the District’s description of the Project and has conducted initial inquiries with the District and local regulatory agencies regarding the Project. Consultant represents that Consultant is competent and willing to undertake professional services in connection with the Project and is capable of performing such professional services within the time allotted herein.

1. Consultant’s Responsibilities 1.1. Consultant will provide professional services for the District during all phases of the Project to

which this Agreement applies, serve as the District’s professional representative for the Project as set forth below, and will give professional consultation to the District during the performance of services hereunder.

1.2. Consultant will provide all professional services customarily furnished and reasonably necessary within the Scope of Services set out at Exhibit A, attached. Time is of the essence for this Agreement. The District and Consultant will develop a project schedule consistent with requirements of the Scope of Services and Consultant will complete each phase of the services in accord with the Schedule. The District must approve subconsultants. Consultant will contract directly with and will pay such subconsultants. Subconsultants will have the same language and rquirements in their contract as is in the Consultant’s contract.

1.3. Consultant will pay all royalties and license fees which may be due by reason of materials or

methods employed by Consultant or its subconsultants or by reason of the necessary inclusion of protected materials or methods in the Project except to the extent such materials or methods are included with the informed consent or at the direction of the District. Consultant will defend all suits or claims for infringement of patent, trademark, or copyright for which Consultant is responsible pursuant to this paragraph, which may be brought against the District, and Consultant will be liable to the District for all losses arising therefrom, including costs, expenses, and attorney fees.

1.4. Consultant will not be relieved of responsibility for errors or omissions or other defects in any

other documents prepared by Consultant for the District’s review and approval.

1.5. Consultant will keep any real property involved in the project free from all liens by reason of its services and will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District from the operation and effect of any such lien or encumbrance that may be claimed by any person by reason of Consultant’s services. If Consultant fails to remove any lien or adjust any other claim relating to Consultant’s services, by bonding or otherwise, the District may, without recourse by Consultant, pay the lien or claim and charge such payments, with costs incurred, to Consultant.

1.6. All services provided by Consultant will be performed in a prompt manner and will be in

accordance with the professional standards of care and diligence applicable to such services performed by recognized Consultants in the locale and on the type of project contemplated at the time such services are performed. Consultant will be responsible for all services provided whether such services are provided directly by Consultant or by subconsultants engaged by Consultant. Consultant will make all decisions called for promptly and without unreasonable delay.

1.7. Consultant will perform only the services authorized. Additional services will be compensated

only as authorized in writing by the District. To the extent additional services are made necessary by any fault or error of Consultant in the performance of Consultant’s duties, responsibilities, nor obligations, the services will not be compensated.

2. The District’s Responsibilities 2.1. The District will designate a representative fully knowledgeable about the project and with the

authority to review and approve all project work.

2.2. The District will furnish Consultant with information regarding requirements for the project, including programs setting forth the District’s objectives, schedules, constraints and criteria.

2.3. The District will render its own decisions in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable

delay in the orderly and sequential progress of Consultant’s services.

2.4. The District will furnish Consultant with all necessary information in its possession regarding the project.

3. Materials

3.1. All materials and documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement will be

complete and unambiguous and in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, regulations and laws, except to the extent expressly and specifically otherwise stated in detail in writing by consultant at the time of such submission.

3.2. Consultant will assign all original studies, reports, data documents or materials of any kind produced pursuant to this Agreement to the District upon completion or termination of services under this Agreement. Work will be made available not only in paper format, but also in electronic format.

3.3. All copies of the above materials provided to the District will become the property of the

District who may use them without Consultant’s permission for any proper purpose relating to the project, including, but not limited to additions to or completion of the project.

3.4. Consultant will maintain compete and accurate records of all services performed and all

documents produced under Exhibit A for a period of five (5) years after completion or abandonment of the project. Such records will be made available, in full, to the District upon reasonable notice.

4. Payments to the Consultants

4.1. For the period of this Agreement, Consultant agrees to provide services at the rates set forth at

Exhibit B, attached, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant’s labor rates include, but are not limited to labor costs; taxes including FICA, state, local, social security/old age, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, and state disability insurance (if required); benefits including holiday, vacation, sick and personal absence pay, pension, medical, dental, wellness programs, company provided vehicles, and company provided tools; overhead including corporate insurance, office space and expense, computer equipment, software, plotters and printers, non-project specific support services, nonbillable time, and corporate management and expenses; and profit.

4.2. For reimbursable expenses authorized under this Agreement, the District will reimburse Consultant at the rate specified. For unscheduled reimbursement items, Consultant will be reimbursed at Consultant’s direct cost.

4.3. Consultant will not be compensated for the cost of services provided in excess of any

guaranteed maximum price or fixed price amount that has been established for such services unless authorized by written scope change.

4.4. Consultant will provide the District with monthly statements of authorized services rendered

and authorized reimbursable expenses incurred in the preceding month. Consultant expressly waives any right to payment for services rendered if such services are not billed within sixty (60) days following their rendition.

4.5. Consultant’s invoices will include a summary of services provided; a summary of reimbursable

expenses; and a summary of authorized additional services, all in accordance with the compensation provisions of this Agreement, as well as an estimate of the percent of services competed as of the invoice date.

4.6. Invoices for reimbursable expenses will be accompanied by supporting documentation.

4.7. Invoices for authorized additional services will outline and identify the services performed and

by whom, the number of hours each person worked, and the applicable pay rates.

4.8. Payments will be made monthly for services performed and invoiced.

4.9. Consultant’s records, which include timesheets, rate schedules, and invoices necessary to support its invoices for time and materials, additional services, and expenses will be maintained current by Consultant according to generally recognized accounting principles and will be maintained for a period of two (2) years following completion or abandonment of the project. Such records will be available to the District for inspection, copying and/or audit during normal business hours.

5. Termination

5.1. The District may terminate this Agreement for convenience and without cause by giving written

notice of such termination to Consultant. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant will immediately cease further performance except that Consultant may perform such services and incur such reimbursable expenses as are reasonably necessary to preserve work that has been completed or is in progress and to achieve an orderly termination. Upon such termination, the District will pay Consultant, pursuant to the payment provisions of this Agreement for all authorized services or reimbursable expenses up to the date established in the notice of termination. Authorized reimbursements will include those costs necessarily and reasonably incurred by Consultant for organizing and carrying out the termination. The District will not be obligated to reimburse Consultant for any continuing contractual commitments to others or for penalties or damages arising from the cancellation of such contractual commitments.

5.2. Within a reasonable time after termination of this Agreement or of any Exhibit A work, Consultant will deliver to the District all materials and equipment and documentation, including raw or tabulated data and work in progress upon payment pursuant to paragraph 5.1 above.

5.3. Termination of this agreement by the District will not constitute a waiver or termination of any

rights, claims, or causes of action the District may have against Consultant under this Agreement.

5.4. Upon a determination by a court or an arbitrator that any termination by the District of

Consultant or its successor in interest was wrongful, such termination will be deemed converted to a termination for convenience as set forth above and Consultant’s remedy will be so limited.

6. Insurance

6.1. Consultant and Sub-Consultants will maintain throughout the period of this Agreement, as

extended from time to time, and for a period of two (2) years after completion of the Project, the following minimum levels of insurance:

6.1.1. Workers’ compensation coverage as required by Oregon State law.

6.1.2. Employer’s liability with limits of not less than $1 million per occurrence. 6.1.3. Comprehensive general liability for damages as a result of death or bodily injury to any

persons or destruction or damage to any property with limits of not less than $1 million per occurrence.

6.1.4. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance for at least $1 million per occurrence. 6.1.5. Errors and omissions insurance with limits of not less than $1 million. Consultant will

require that any subconsultants engaged or employed by Consultant carry and maintain similar insurance with reasonably prudent limits and coverages in light of the services to be rendered by such subconsultant.

6.2. Consultant’s insurance will be primary and any insurance carried by the District will be excess

and noncontributing. The general liability coverage will name the District as additional insureds and will contain a severability of interest clause. Workers’ compensation coverage will contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the District. All required coverage will be with companies rated A-/V or better by A.M. Bests Rating Service and will provide the District with thirty (30) days notice of material change, expiration, or cancellation.

6.3. Prior to commencement of any services under this Agreement, Consultant will furnish the District with Certificates of Insurance evidencing coverage and provisions as required. In the event Consultant fails to maintain insurance as required, the District will have the option, but will not have the obligation, to obtain such coverage with costs to be reimbursed by Consultant.

7. Delay Neither party will be responsible to the other for its failure to perform on time when such failure is due to causes beyond the party’s reasonable control such as acts of God, fire, theft, war, riot, embargoes, or acts of civil or military authorities. If Consultant’s services are delayed by such contingencies, Consultant will immediately notify the District in writing and the District may either (1) extend time of performance, or (2) terminate the uncompleted portion of Consultant’s services at no cost to the District.

8. Independent Contractor

Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing in this Agreement will be construed as forming a partnership or joint venture between the parties. Neither party to this Agreement may assign any rights in nor delegate any obligations under this Agreement without the written consent of the other except that it is expressly understood that the District is the intended beneficiary of Consultant’s performance.

9. Notices Any notice required under this Agreement will be deemed properly given if directed by prepaid mail, certified return receipt requested, or delivered in hand to the parties at the address as specified on the face page of this Agreement.

10. Indemnity Each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the other harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, demands penalties, suits and the associated costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) which it may hereafter incur, become responsible for, or pay out as a result of the death or bodily injury to any person, destruction or damage to any property, contamination of or adverse effects on the environment and any clean-up costs in connection therewith, or any violation of law, governmental regulation or orders, caused in whole or in part by the indemnitor’s breach of any term or provision of this Agreement, or by any negligent acts, errors, or omissions by the indemnitor, its employees, officers, agents, representatives, or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement. This indemnity obligation will survive termination of this Agreement.

11. Mediation Consultant and the District agree that any dispute that may arise under this Agreement will be submitted to a mediator agreed to by both parties as soon as such dispute arises, but in any event prior to the commencement of litigation or arbitration. Such mediation will occur at Bend, Deschutes County, Oregon, and the mediator’s fees and expenses will be shared equally by the parties who agree to exercise their best efforts in good faith to settle all disputes.

12. Arbitration Consultant and District agree to submit all complaints, disputes and controversies that may arise out of or in connection with this Agreement or services provided, and which are not resolved through mediation, to binding arbitration under the laws of the State of Oregon, and in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the Portland Arbitration Association in effect at the time. Notwithstanding any rule to the contrary, either party will have the option to initiate arbitration according to the Arbitration Service of Portland in effect at the time. The decision of the arbitrator(s) will be final and binding upon both parties.

13. Attorney Fees In the event suit or action is instituted to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover its cost and disbursements together with reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by the arbitrator or court at trail or on appeal.

14. Governing Law This Agreement and all services performed hereunder will be interpreted under the laws of the State of Oregon and the exclusive venue for any lawsuit or action will be in Deschutes County, Oregon.

15. Public Contract Requirements The terms and applicable requirements of ORS 279B.005 to 279B.025 are included in this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein.

16. Severability If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any circumstance is determined to be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remaining provisions of this Agreement will not be affected but will instead remain valid and fully enforceable.

17. Article Headings All article headings are inserted for convenience only and will not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

DISTRICT: CONSULTANT: BEND PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT [CONSULTANT NAME] By: _______________________________________ By: Printed Name: Don P. Horton Printed Name: Title: Executive Director Title:

EXHIBIT A

Scope of Work Mirror Pond Visioning Project

Phase I – Visioning

1. Work closely with district’s project manager in a public outreach program to identify and create visions for alternative scenarios to present to the community.

• Support the Bend Park and Recreation District (BPRD) project manager (primarily with graphics and data) in presentations to key stakeholders including the Mirror Pond Steering Committee (MPSC), Mirror Pond Management Board (MPMB), Bend Park and Recreation District Board, City Council, and neighborhood associations.

• The Mirror Pond Management Board will function as the primary decision-making body for the project. Regular reports to the MPSC and key stakeholders shall be the responsibility of BPRD’s project manager.

2. Utilize existing background data and consultant(s) best professional judgments to create visual representations of selected alternative scenarios addressing both immediate and long-term strategies to manage the accumulation of silt deposits in Mirror Pond while maintaining the recreation and scenic values associated with Mirror Pond. Consultants shall create graphic visualizations of both immediate and long term (20-50 years) strategies.

• At least one scenario shall reflect immediate and long-term visions that would result from a ‘no-action’ approach.

• Draft and final visual representations shall be presented to district’s project manager, MPSC, and MPMB prior to public presentations.

• Visual representations shall reflect a mature (fully developed) vision of each alternative scenario.

• Provide estimates of probable costs associated with permitting and constructing each vision alternative. Estimates shall reflect a range of low to high costs.

• Copies of existing studies, reports, and data relevant to Mirror Pond are available on the City of Bend, Mirror Pond website at http://bendoregon.gov/index.aspx?page=437

3. Alternative scenarios must anticipate and reflect the requirements of relevant permitting agencies utilizing existing information regarding Mirror Pond and consultant’s knowledge of typical permitting requirements.

• Long term scenarios must reflect both the continued presence and absence of the immediate downstream dam.

4. Bend Park and Recreation District Staff shall lead the community outreach and visioning process.

• The Consultant(s) are expected to make key staff available to participate in community meetings and key meetings of the Mirror Pond Steering Committee and Management Board.

• During the visioning process the project schedule anticipates 3 public meetings; 3 meetings each with the MPSC and MPMB; and 3 meetings with relevant permitting agencies.

• The Consultant(s) shall provide pdf copies of vision graphics prior to each community meeting and a minimum of three sets in print format suitable for presentation at each community meeting. Printed graphics shall be a minimum of 30”x42” in size.

5. Prepare graphic representations of immediate ‘preferred alternative’ solutions identified through the visioning process. Final graphics shall reflect both the proposed immediate conditions and conditions that might arise from future dam removals.

6. Provide Technical Memorandum identifying anticipated permitting requirements associated with ‘preferred alternative’.

• Technical Memorandum shall identify permitting agencies involved; anticipated timeline for obtaining permits from each agency; potential delays to permitting process and; consultant(s) cost for obtaining necessary permits to implement preferred vision.

• Permitting cost shall include all necessary drawings, data, and reports required by permitting agencies.

Phase II – Permitting (not part of current scope)

1. Obtain, on BPRD’s behalf, all required permits (Federal, State, County, and City) for implementation of preferred alternative.

Phase III – Final Design and Construction Documents (not part of current scope)

2. Provide final design, construction drawings, and technical specifications for District review and approval.

3. Provide estimate of probable costs for construction. 4. Provide estimate of probable construction sequence and timeline. 5. Bidding and award assistance. 6. Attend construction period meetings as requested by the District (up to 8 anticipated) 7. Response to requests for clarification and change requests.

Deliverables Phase I - Visioning

1. Illustrative plans and representative sections for a minimum of three alternative scenarios including perspective drawings from a minimum of three key viewpoints.

2. Illustrative plans and representative sections for final preferred alternative scenario including perspective drawings from three key viewpoints.

Phase II – Permitting (not part of current scope)

1. Exhibits, drawings, reports, and technical data necessary to complete permit applications. 2. Completed applications for required Federal, State, County, and local permits.

Phase III – Final Design and Construction Documents (not part of current scope)

1. Final architectural and engineering plans and specifications for permitting. 2. Development and construction cost estimates for construction. 3. Phased plan or alternate construction set if estimate exceeds budget.

Mirror Pond Project Schedule (DRAFT)Project Goals:

Find a common and immediate vision (action/solution) Public/Stakeholders/Agencies/City/BPRDFind a long term management solution to siltation of Mirror Pond

no action/full action (dredging)/mid-action (some wetland, some dredging)Identify permitting requirements associated with final solutionObtain permits for solution and long term maintenance

Mirror Pond Project PhasesTask/Phase • indicates meetingsfirst day of week 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28

Start UpBackground Research (getting comfortable in facts)Key Stakeholder Meetings (getting to know the field)Agency/Stakeholder Meetings (getting to know the field) •Property Owners •

ScopingDevelop & Finalize Work Plan (how do I do this) •Assess Consultant Roles (how much help do I need)Advertise Consultant Scope & Finalize Agreements ( RFP) •

Outreach - Alternatives (visioning - meetings, charrettes, etc.)Graphic simulations for Alternatives

With Stakeholders (MPMB, MPSC, ?) 1 2 3 4 1 - indicates meeting to discuss background information and draft work productsWith Agencies (ACOE, DEQ, NMFS, DSL, ODFW, COB, DC) 1 2 3 4 2- indicates meeting to present draft visualizationsWith Public (General, Neigh. Assoc's.) 2 3 4 3- indicates meeting to present and select preferred alternativeCoordinating meetings w/ Consultants (as necessary) • • • • 4 - indicates meeting to present and review visualizations for preferred alternative

Permitting requirementsIdentify permitting requirements associated with final solution: 404 permit/ ACOE, 401 certification & NPDES permit/ DEQ, Fill-removal permit/DSL&ODFWInitiate permit process • • •

Federal (ACOE, NMFS) • • •State (DSL, WR, DEQ,ODFW, ?) • • •Local (City of Bend, County?) • • •

Prepare & Submit permit application(s)RFP for Permit and Construction DocumentsFederal (ACOE, NMFS) • • • •State (DSL, ODFW,DEQ, ?) • • • •Local (COB, DC?) • • • •

Coordinating meetings w/ Consultants • • • • • • • • • •Construction Documents for Preferred Alternative

Construction DocumentsConstruction > > > Oct. 2014

Project Updates & OutreachWith Stakeholders (Steering Committee, MPMB,DRC, UDWC, PPL) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •With Agencies (City of Bend, ACOE, DSL, ODFW, DEQ) • • • • • •With Public • •

Mirror Pond Studies, Reports, RFP's (Time Line)http://bendoregon.gov/index.aspx?page=437Mirror Pond Rehabilitation Study (Winzler & Kelly, Consulting Engineers)

Mirror Pond Bathymetry Report (public works staff - COB)

Mirror Pond Tech Summary ReportMirror Pond Report to Council (Alternatives & Community)*

City of Bend Water Quality Monitoring ReportMirror Pond MOU (siltation project)Mirror Pond RFP - Phase I and II (Alternatives Analysis)

*(Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, ICF Jones & Stokes, City of Bend)

Dred

ging

2011 20121981 1984 2007 2008 2009 2010……. 2006

…….…….…….…….

Oct MarFebJanDecNov2012 2014

DecNovOct SeptAugJuneApr Apr2013

MarFebJan May July

2013…….…….…….…….

Board Calendar 2012-13

*This working calendar of goals/projects is intended as a guide for the board and subject to change. March 5 Work Session Indoor recreation facility vision Presentation of draft concept plan – Senior Center expansion CIP review Business Session March 19 Work Session Strategic Plan discussion – determine district’s appropriate role in economic development and support

of tourism promotion Volunteer report Special Events in Parks report Naming rights discussion Athletic field use and capacity report Business Session Pine Nursery Structures – contract award Miller’s Landing Structures - contract award April 2 Work Session Jeff Griffin, Wilson-Heirgood – presentation Review Succession Plan Butler Market Park – contract award Review draft financial policies Business Session Ponderosa Park Playground & Site Furnishings – contract award Simpson Site Master Plan – contract award April 16 Work Session Recreation fall/winter report Financial Policies review Business Session April 23 - Budget Committee Tour May 7 (Election Day) Work Session Draft Shevlin Park Master Plan review Branding Campaign

Business Session Set SDC fee schedule – Resolution (discuss methodology review) ADA Transition Plan approval Pine Nursery Playground Construction – contract award May 13, 15 & 21st – Budget Meetings June 4 Work Session Annual Work Plan update Park Maintenance Standards Business Session Adopt budget & impose taxes Adopt CIP June 18 Work Session Business Session TBD: New NP land purchase approval Hillside Park rehab design approval Bond project priorities Skate park design approval Simpson site master plan Butler Market Park design approval