Tag: Bend Bulletin

Posted on

Don’t forget the pond and skate park

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to respond to a survey or to attend meetings, and the unsavory reputation of skateboarders survives despite being outdated.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.

Posted on

Bend parks likely to ask for bond

The Bend Park & Recreation District Board is likely poised to ask voters in November to approve a $29 million bond for park improvements.

If the board goes forward with the bond proposal, it will be a downgrade from its initial discussions of a $31 million bond. The board discussed bond options at a work session Tuesday night and will vote on a bond proposal and recommendation at its July 3 meeting.

Don Horton, the district’s executive director, recommended the board eliminate one project — a study that would have explored ways to get rid of silt at Mirror Pond.

That study’s cost was estimated at $400,000.

Horton told the board the Mirror Pond situation is a polarizing issue, with some people thinking the pond should be dredged and others questioning the district’s involvement. As a result, the item would consume a lot of time to explain to people, he said.

“I think the community’s still struggling on what ought to be done and who should be responsible,” Horton said.

Board member Dallas Brown said leaving the Mirror Pond project off is a good idea.

“I don’t think it’s our issue exclusively and I don’t think it’s the best thing to have on the bond,” he said.

And based on low support in a poll, the bond proposal will no longer include a skate park, a project estimated at $500,000.

The district is still crunching numbers and hasn’t fine-tuned where the rest of the cuts — about $1.1 million from the original bond proposal — will come from. The proposal calls for about $11 million of property acquisitions along with another roughly $18 million in projects.

But Horton said savings will be found throughout the proposal process and costs are only estimates at this point.

Board Vice Chairman Scott Asla called the proposal a “golden opportunity,” noting it asks the community for a smaller investment than what the cost would have been five years ago.

The goal is to keep the proposal’s tax increase at less than $50 a year for the average homeowner, Horton said.

Source: The Bulletin

Posted on

Park district takes a first step

The Bend Park & Recreation District took a timid step toward putting a $31 million bond measure on the November ballot to develop large-scale projects and buy more land.

While the wish list hasn’t been finalized, some projects could include an ice rink, a passageway for floaters and boaters at the Colorado Avenue dam, upgrades to the Deschutes River Trail, and an analysis of how to address sedimentation buildup in Mirror Pond.

On Tuesday, the park district board of directors said it supported the idea of asking voters to approve a property-tax-funded bond measure, but admitted there’s still a lot of research to do.

“This is a very preliminary, very big, ugly, scary step,” Board Chairman Ted Schoenborn said. “Well, I shouldn’t say it’s ugly, but it is big and it is scary.”

The $31 million bond measure would be paid back through property tax assessments. According to district officials, an assessment for the average homeowner would be less than $50 a year.

In addition to a nearly $20 million list of possible construction and development projects, directors discussed an $11 million list of potential property acquisitions. That discussion took place during an executive session that was not open to the public.

If any land acquisitions were a part of a bond measure, Park District Executive Director Don Horton said that property information would almost certainly be revealed. In general, he said the district is looking at property that bolsters the Deschutes River trail system and add to the amount of open space that’s available, particularly for regional parks such as Shevlin Park.

Director Ruth Williamson expressed the most apprehension about the bond measure. She was concerned about whether it was the right economic climate and wanted to make sure the district was ready to undertake such an “ambitious” proposal.

“If we’re going to do this,” Williamson said, “we (need to) understand that we’re going to have to give this 150 percent, nothing less, to give this a chance.”

The park district last considered a bond measure in 2004. At that time, the district wanted a new tax to pay for a $25 million indoor recreational facility and pool on Bend’s west side similar to Juniper Swim & Fitness. The bond would also include $5 million to renovate the Juniper pool facilities.

Ultimately, district officials decided not to put that measure on the ballot. Survey results at that time showed there wasn’t much support among voters.

The district recently hired a firm to poll residents about whether they would support a new park district bond measure. The results were mixed, with some officials describing the support in terms of a traffic signal that’s stuck somewhere between yellow and green. There was also more support for conservation projects rather than the expansion of recreation facilities.

Based on these results, the survey firm told the park district that it would “clearly be challenging” to pass a bond measure, but “there does appear to be a path to success.”

The district has until September to craft ballot language for a bond measure. In the meantime, district officials said they will continue to look at the best way to approach a bond measure, and work with the community to come up with a project list they think would pass.

Source: The Bulletin

Posted on

Information was needed before public input on Mirror Pond

A number of recent articles in the local news media illustrate citizen concerns about the Mirror Pond sedimentation problem. Issues include lack of progress toward a solution, conflicting community values and lack of community involvement in the decision-making process. These concerns are valid, but the Mirror Pond Steering Committee would like to offer some clarification.

To begin, the river bottom at Mirror Pond is owned by different private individuals, Bend Park & Recreation District and Pacific Power. This information was not utilized in previous sediment management efforts, but ownership information is absolutely critical for determining key stakeholders and jurisdictional authority. Determining parcel ownership has required a significant investment of the committee’s resources.

Fragmented ownership and lack of clear jurisdictional authority for Mirror Pond complicate funding. The city of Bend does not have an ownership stake in the pond, nor is it responsible for the dams that regulate flows and sediment transport in the river. Similarly, while BPRD owns parcels that extend into the river, it does not operate dams. Both parties have committed funds and time to support the process, but those funds are not sufficient to “fix” Mirror Pond.

A recent letter to the editor suggested that Mirror Pond required a collaborative approach, something the MPSC has pursued from the beginning. Several committee members met with the Bureau of Reclamation, the federal agency responsible for management of Wickiup Dam, in an attempt to secure its participation. The BOR claims that Mirror Pond is outside its jurisdiction, citing a lack of scientific evidence linking management of the dam with increased sedimentation in the river. Without a federal legislative directive, BOR will not participate in the process.

The Pacific Power dam at the Newport Avenue Bridge is a barrier to downstream movement of sediment. Sediment transport is a normal function of rivers, and where there are dams, sedimentation will occur upstream. Advocates for a free-flowing river recommend dam removal and restoring the river to its natural course. I’m personally sympathetic to this idea, but reality in this situation is a bit more complicated.

Removing the Pacific Power dam eliminates Mirror Pond, but there is strong opposition to this idea. Additionally, dam removal shifts the sediment problem downstream to North Unit Dam, part of the federal Deschutes Project. Achieving an ecologically relevant, free-flowing river would entail removal of this dam as well, which would require federal legislation and addressing North Unit Irrigation District water rights. These options are theoretically possible but they greatly expand the complexity and expense of addressing the sedimentation issue.

There is some concern in the community that the MPSC has committed to a flawed process. To be clear, the MPSC has not made binding decisions — financial or otherwise — that restrict our approach to Mirror Pond. How the committee proceeds will largely be determined by the results of upcoming conversations with permitting agencies, specifically the Department of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers, and by interactions with the community.

The committee has not pursued community engagement up to this point because there were substantial information gaps pertaining to permitting requirements, parcel ownership and costs for conducting appropriate studies to support the decision process. We now have that information.

The MPSC is committed to working with the community to determine the desired future condition for Mirror Pond, studying the alternative options for achieving that vision and developing funding mechanisms that will ensure long-term success. At this time the committee is shifting emphasis to community involvement, beginning with several questions pertaining to Mirror Pond on the upcoming BPRD survey. The MPSC will use information from the survey to develop a more comprehensive community outreach process that will inform the decision approach. We look forward to working with the community in the coming months.

— Matt Shinderman, on behalf of the Mirror Pond Steering Committee and Bend 2030.

Source: The Bulletin

 

Posted on

Solution to Mirror Pond will come from partnership

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