Category: Editorials

Bend Park & Recreation District officials take community input seriously. They do polls and hold community open houses to determine what taxpayers want, and they tailor their plans accordingly.

Back in 2004, that meant scrapping plans for a bond issue to build a westside version of Juniper Swim & Fitness Center.

This year, it means the district will go forward with plans for a $29 million bond to fill in gaps on the river trail, build an ice rink and help Oregon State University-Cascades Campus with expansion plans, among others.

What they won’t do with this bond, however, is move forward with a study of Mirror Pond or the building of a skate park.

Mirror Pond is too controversial and not solely a park district responsibility, said Executive Director Don Horton, and the skate park suffered a “lack of support from voters.”

That made them unattractive items for a bond issue, Horton said, and we can’t dispute that reality. To enhance chances of bond approval, the district needs to focus on the things voters are willing to pay for. Attracting controversy doesn’t enhance chances of bond passage, and we support the bond.

Still, what to do about Mirror Pond and a skate park?

A few years ago, most of the public talk about Mirror Pond focused on finding the money to pay for dredging. More recently, the panel discussing next steps is hearing from those who think big changes would be better, possibly removing the dam and returning the river to a more natural course. What had seemed obvious has become controversial, at least among those trying to fix the problem.

Without a poll or a vote, we can’t know if attitudes have really shifted, but we think there’s still enormous support for preserving the pond by dredging. If voters were given a clear option for that, we think there’s a good chance they’d vote to pay for it. If, however, they are asked to pay for studies with unknown result, support would be much less certain.

The skate park has different issues. Lack of support in surveys is not surprising, and shows the danger in relying entirely on such tools. Skateboarders are less likely to respond to a survey or to attend meetings, and the unsavory reputation of skateboarders survives despite being outdated.

Across the nation, other communities have provided impressive new facilities for skateboarders, a group that now includes many responsible adults as well as youngsters. Yes, it’s a small group, but it’s also a small cost relative to all the other planned expenditures.

Horton says work toward a skate park will go forward using resources the district already has, rather than money from the bond. That sounds fine. We would understand if advocates are skeptical, though, given the long time they’ve been meeting with park district officials and seeing other projects move ahead to completion.

With regard to Mirror Pond and the various strategies to study/dredge one of Central Oregon’s defining scenic places, I wonder if all the folks involved with managing Mirror Pond realize the amazing opportunity that this “problem” presents.

Silt happens. When Mirror Pond was last dredged in the mid-1980s, it was a quick fix. There was general agreement then that the pond would need dredging again in 25 years or so. Nothing was done at the time to prepare for that eventuality, however. Central Oregon was in the middle of a recession — sound familiar? — with double-digit unemployment.

The strain and pain of that earlier recession did teach us to rely on ourselves and build community partnerships to move forward. Regional economic strategies, the Bill Healy transitional housing complex, the Oregon State University-Cascades Campus and the partnership for fire protection between the city and the rural fire protection district — all are examples of community partnerships with broad participation that accomplished great things, relying on innovation and synergy, more than just another tax measure.

For Mirror Pond, an opportunity exists to develop a similar dynamic partnership among the pond’s managing and regulating agencies. The city of Bend and Bend Park & Recreation District manage the land and public use of the park surrounding Mirror Pond. PacifiCorp operates and manages the dam that forms Mirror Pond. And Central Oregon’s irrigation districts control the water that flows through Mirror Pond.

For any one of those managing agencies, Mirror Pond does present a difficult, possibly insurmountable problem. For all four agencies working together, an equitable and lasting solution could be achieved long before we reach a point where crossing the pond no longer requires a bridge.

In order to seize the opportunity that Mirror Pond offers, all of the managing agencies need to accept the challenge and take responsibility for fixing it. The first step is a commitment from the four Mirror Pond management agencies to jointly fund a study. Share the cost, share the risk, as they share the benefits.

Now, a study doesn’t do anything to fix Mirror Pond. It will, however, provide a foundation and structure to support the best possible fix for the pond and for the community.

The best fix for Mirror Pond will come with:

• An analysis of the regulatory and environmental impacts associated with dredging the pond.
• An evaluation of the best management practices and most recent engineering technology.
• Public involvement.
• A broad-based community commitment to a long-term solution.

A study will do all those things and one more. It will provide the key to matching state/federal funding for a stable, lasting fix for Mirror Pond.

Any emergency quick-fix dredging of the pond will still require some environmental assessment that will more than likely be challenged in court because it is a quick fix, not the right fix.

A study, backed by a committed community partnership, opens up wider access to state and federal funds, while offering the strongest possible application for assistance in a highly competitive environment for state and federal support.

All it takes to make this happen is for the managing agencies to step up, take responsibility and do right by the pond. This beautiful, heavily used and highly valued piece of Central Oregon deserves it.

And who knows? If the agencies can work together to fix Mirror Pond, what other community issues could be resolved by building partnerships and finding the “opportunities?”

Source: The Bulletin

For years now, the silt has continued to pile up in Bend’s Mirror Pond while officials have struggled to find a solution.

Committees are formed, meetings held, staff briefly hired.

But the silt continues to pile up amid reports that there just isn’t enough money to deal with it.

Two Bulletin readers wrote last week urging the Bend Park & Recreation District to drop its new projects and concentrate on the pond. They reflect the frustration many feel when they read about wonderful plans while the prime jewel of the city deteriorates.

The park district doesn’t have sole responsibility for Mirror Pond, but it is the agency with money to do optional things. A bridge at the First Street Rapids or the purchase of the old Mt. Bachelor Park and Ride property are great, but hardly essential. So why not just focus on Mirror Pond?

One answer, according to the park district’s Executive Director Don Horton, is that the district is constrained by state law to spend its money only on recreation. Although rescuing Mirror Pond may contribute to recreation, he said, many other issues are involved.

The district does plan to include questions about Mirror Pond in an upcoming survey, asking respondents if they think a special district should be formed for Mirror Pond or if they prefer a bond issue for a one-time fix.

Results of the survey will help guide the park district in deciding among its many high-priced possible projects, Horton said.

Meanwhile, City of Bend Community Development Department Director Mel Oberst has agreed to take on a coordinating role on the Mirror Pond issue, working with the park district and other interested parties, as well as researching requirements of state and federal agencies. Oberst said the park district’s survey results will help guide the next steps for the group.

We’re in favor of preserving Mirror Pond, and we hope the group’s work will lead swiftly to a public vote if that’s what’s needed. A bond issue for studying alternatives would be a hard sell, but voters are likely to support one that offers a clear path to preserve the pond.

Source: The Bulletin