Basically, now that Measure 76 has granted OWEB dedicated lottery funds with no end date, they want to plan more long-term in order to achieve their goals most effectively. They want to hear from folks all across the state about our priorities and our suggestions for how OWEB can operate most effectively. Yesterday’s session was one of twelve sessions taking place all across the state.

First Tom Byler, Executive Director, explained why developing a Long-Term Investment Strategy is important to OWEB. Then, we identified our priorities between creating ecological benefits, social/community benefits and economic benefits. As a group our number one priority was ecological benefits (social/community benefits was second, and economic was third). Next we had small group discussions on various topics relating to what kinds of outcomes OWEB should try to achieve through its investments and how it can best reach those achievements. I have not had direct experience with grant funds from OWEB so I did not have a lot to add, but it was very interesting to hear from the other members of my group.

Please feel free to get involved in this process online by:

Visiting the website – http://oregon.gov/oweb/roadmap_to_investment_strategy.shtml

Connecting through Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/healthywatersheds

Signing up for email updates – https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/ORWE /subscriber/new

Tumalo SWIP LandWatch USDA Environmental Assessment Comments April 30 2012

USDA Environmental Assessment Comments MDN

Tumalo SWIP Environmental Assessment by Hydrogeologist Yinger critique April 26 2012

Tumalo SWIP Environmental Assessment by Hydrogeologist Yinger Nov. 2011 letter

Hydrogeologist Mark Yinger Resume with projects

Hydrogeologist Yinger Review of HDR April 20 2012

Tumalo SWIP Environmental Assessment Hydrologist Salminen comments April 30 2012

By Nick Grube/The Bulletin

The city of Bend will break ground this summer on the first in a slew of infrastructure projects estimated to cost $280 million. As the dirt begins to move, officials hope taxpayers will view every stretch of steel pipe and truckload of asphalt as a piece of a larger effort to position the city for economic recovery.

To that end, the city recently hired a public relations firm that, among other things, will develop a plan to market upcoming water, sewer and road projects and “brand” them as necessary for current and future economic development.

“Think Eisenhower and the Interstate System,” states one of the city’s contracting documents. The plan could even include a logo and tagline.

While city officials say this work is part of a broader public education campaign, some officials and observers are skeptical about the true intentions behind the $48,000 expenditure.

Mayor Jeff Eager, for instance, believes the publicity work could be seen as redundant — more like a sales pitch than educational outreach.

The city already has a communications manager, who makes $94,000 a year in salary with an additional $46,000 in benefits, to dole out information and press releases. It also already includes line items for public outreach in many of its infrastructure contracts.

For instance, the city plans to spend almost $600,000 in public outreach for its $70 million Bridge Creek water project and $30 million voter-approved transportation improvement program combined.

But others look at the hiring of Portland-based Barney & Worth as a tactical move, one that should have taken place long before the Bridge Creek water project became a flashpoint in Bend politics.

“You need some help getting your message out,” said local attorney Neil Bryant, of Bryant, Lovelien, Jarvis, P.C. “In watching what was being reported I thought the city needed not just a better response to the questions that were being asked, but they needed to be more assertive about what they were doing and why there were doing it. I just thought they were losing the publicity battle.”

Bryant knows well the importance of successful messaging. He’s a former state senator and lobbyist, and he also helped the city run its successful campaign last year to pass a $30 million bond measure to improve local streets and intersections.

To him, the city always seemed to be on the defensive when answering criticisms about the Bridge Creek project, which is one of the largest infrastructure undertakings in Bend’s history.

With so many projects on the horizon, not to mention an upcoming election that will decide four of seven City Council positions, getting in front of the message has become particularly important. But the problem, Bryant said, is that the city started using terminology, like “branding,” that’s typically found in the corporate media world.

“If they had good help, they wouldn’t use those terms,” Bryant said. “That just gives the opponents something to talk about.”

Central Oregon Landwatch Executive Director Paul Dewey is one of the staunchest critics of the Bridge Creek project. Dewey, a Bend-based land use attorney, also challenged the city’s drawn-out attempt to expand its urban growth boundary.

Dewey said Barney & Worth contacted him recently to talk about the city’s upcoming infrastructure projects. The firm’s representative wanted to know how it could better communicate to the public the need to move ahead with the expensive infrastructure work. Dewey called the conversation “bizarre” and “frightening,” particularly the part about branding.

“Spin is not what the city needs,” Dewey said. “It speaks volumes about their attitude. They’ve decided what they want to do, and now it’s just how do they sell it. It’s a product they’re selling instead of (a process) involving the public.”

In fact, when the firm surveyed various stakeholders — including city officials and representatives of nonprofits and private businesses — it found a similar pattern: The city doesn’t listen; its focus is on one-way communication.

Barney & Worth’s contract with the city is for $48,000. According to the firm’s proposal, the city can expand it to include more work that could total up to $124,000. Only about $6,000 of the $48,000 is for branding the infrastructure projects. Much of the rest is for developing a strategic communication plan and public outreach.

Some of this work includes putting together press releases and articles for the city newsletter included in utility bills. The firm also develops “talking points” to be used by city staff members when discussing various projects and designs public meetings that aim to get “regular people” to participate. Barney & Worth will also create a Web page featuring an interactive map containing information about various projects.

Although other infrastructure contracts already include hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform similar duties — including creating and maintaining project websites — Bend Communication Manager Justin Finestone said Barney & Worth will provide a more holistic approach to communication that he couldn’t do on his own.

Rather than focusing on specific projects and their impacts, said Finestone, Barney & Worth will provide a broad narrative explaining why the city has chosen to do certain projects. The narrative, for instance, could discuss capacity problems at the city’s wastewater treatment facility and its need for reliable water. The information, meanwhile, could be placed into a context of economic development and job growth.

The only branding that might occur, he said, is to make sure people understand that the construction they’re seeing around town is city-driven and not something the Oregon Department of Transportation or any other government agency is involved in.

“What I really want this company to do is come up with a way to wrap all these projects under one banner,” Finestone said. “These projects are going to happen, and it’s not trying to get people to like the projects or not like the projects. It’s just to get people information about the projects.”

Mayor Jeff Eager said he likes the idea of having a “robust” public involvement process with the large infrastructure issues the city will face over the next decade, especially after the political fallout experienced with the Bridge Creek water project.

But when it comes to developing a logo or tagline for the construction of a roundabout, or delivering messages that say the city is acting as a good steward of public funds, Eager doesn’t see the value.

“I don’t think the city needs to be in the position of selling anything to anyone,” he said. “I think the idea with these issues is you want to get people’s input and make some decisions. And not everyone is going to agree with those decisions. But it’s the discussion and the justification for taking a particular route that is your message. It’s not like selling soda pop. It’s a political process.”

As the most expensive public works project in Bend’s history moves forward, some critics continue to question whether it’s even necessary.

Bend City Council earlier this month approved a $19 million contract to start construction this fall on a project to update and improve the surface water component of Bend’s dual-source system. But the project’s cost could potentially reach $68 million.

Although nearly all Bend’s city councilors have consistently voted in favor of the project since it was proposed in 2009, land conservation groups, community members and others believe the city has not taken the proper steps to make sure the project is as economically and environmentally viable as possible.

“The project they’ve come up with is totally out of scale to me, costing at least twice as much as it should,” said Jim Clinton, the one city councilor who has repeatedly voted against the project. “I’m in favor of using the same (system), but do it in a project that’s a lot less expensive, more environmentally sound and more sustainable. The city is doing a project where bigger is better.”

Bend relies equally on a surface water system that draws from Bridge and Tumalo creeks and a groundwater pumping system. In the project’s first phase, the surface water system’s two pipelines, both over 60 years old, will be replaced with a new pipeline.

Clinton agrees that water should still be drawn from the creeks, but he believes the existing pipelines should not be replaced until they can no longer function. He said that one of the pipelines – built in the 1950s – is still fully functional, and the other – built in the 1920s – still has some use. He also believes that a new pipeline alignment is a waste of money.

“They thought it would be more convenient to put a totally new alignment along the road, but really, once you put in a new pipe, there’s not much significant maintenance involved; it just sits there, so you don’t really need access to it,” he said.

Members of Stop the Drain, a conservation group created by Central Oregon LandWatch to monitor the project, believe a new pipeline shouldn’t be built now. Instead, they said the city should continue to use the current pipes, or convert the entire system to groundwater pumping. Stop the Drain has collected more than 1,000 signatures from citizens in protest of the project.

Moey Newbold, Stop the Drain’s campaign coordinator, said the project will take more water from the creeks than necessary.

“Tumalo Creek is a very vulnerable water source here, and it’s really important to Central Oregon as a recreation mecca,” she said. “By restricting the creeks, it’s harmful to the environment compared to what the alternatives would be.”

Newbold also believes there is a conflict of interest in the city’s partnership with the project’s engineer, HDR Inc. In 2009, the city chose HDR to conduct a cost analysis to make sure the project was economically viable. Newbold claims that HDR’s analysis was biased because it did not include accurate information about alternatives, such as a groundwater system. She added that the analysis was based on research done in 2007, when many people expected Bend’s population to grow exponentially; she said that research was irrelevant when the analysis was performed, because the recession had thwarted those expectations.

Clinton believes that HDR’s involvement in every aspect of the project – from cost analysis to construction management – will end up costing the city more money than it should pay.

“One thing that’s always bugged me about this project is the entire way the city contracts to have these projects done,” he said. “These are large, international engineering firms that get these contracts and charge hundreds of dollars an hour … the bigger the project, the more money they make.”

But most of City Council sees things differently. Mayor Jeff Eager said the city can save money by replacing the pipelines while also performing a Skyliners Road reconstruction project.

He added that a new alignment is necessary because the existing pipelines travel beneath multiple privately owned structures. The floors of the structures would have to be torn up to maintain the alignment.

Also, Eager said that there is no conflict of interest with HDR Inc., because multiple firms were hired as part of the cost analysis.

“The city ran its project through a firm that performs value engineering services and that firm is not constructing the project; they have no dog in the fight,” he said.

Eager said a report released recently by the U.S. Forest Service shows that the project would not have any significant impacts on the environment. In it, the Forest Service states that the project could lead to “minor changes” in creek temperatures and the loss of several large-diameter trees.

The project’s first phase will cost $30 million. Originally, the other two construction phases – a new intake facility and hydro-electrical plant totaling $28 million – were going to follow immediately. However, the city recently put those phases on hold. Eager said the delay will give the city and the community more time to discuss the project, and prevent the city from spending too much money at one time.

But Newbold does not believe the delay will result in any significant changes to the city’s original plan.

“Our pressure in the community had an impact on the decision, but it was more of a public relations move than anything else,” she said. “It’s just a slowed-down version of the project.”

A Bend conservation group is mounting a legal challenge against the city’s plans to overhaul its surface water system.

Central Oregon Landwatch wants Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals to put the brakes on the project.

The project has been a source of controversy both because of its price, and the long-term impacts it could have on fish in Tumalo Creek.

Opponents want to see the city go to an all-groundwater solution.  While certain components of the project have been delayed to defray costs, work on it continues.  And so does the resistance.

Attorney Paul Dewey says the city failed to follow state land use rules when it voted last month to move forward with the project without passing what’s known as a public facilities plan.

“We may be naive, but we actually think that if they go through planning, they will see that their needs can be accommodated with far less than they are proposing to do.”

City Attorney Mary Winters says the city is asking the board to dismiss the appeal.

By Nick Grube/The Bulletin

A Bend-based nonprofit is challenging the city’s Bridge Creek water project to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. Central Oregon Landwatch has long criticized the $70 million project for its expense and potential effects on Tumalo Creek. Now Paul Dewey, the group’s executive director, says the city hasn’t followed state planning rules.

“It’s complicated because the normal course of things under the land use laws is that a plan is adopted, and then a project is later adopted that is consistent with that plan,” he said. “Here, the city has done it backwards. They’ve been making decisions incrementally on this project without there being a plan for it and now they’re finally coming up with a plan.”

Specifically, Dewey has appealed a March 7 City Council resolution that stated Bend would continue to rely on a dual-source water system that includes Bridge Creek and groundwater.

The city gets about 50 percent of its annual water supply from each source. Bridge Creek is a tributary of Tumalo Creek, which runs through Shevlin Park.

The March 7 resolution also stated the city would try to delay the construction of a $30 million water filtration system that’s needed to comply with federal guidelines and would re-evaluate the viability of a $4 million hydropower facility that is included in the project. The city would like to delay these two segments of the Bridge Creek project in order to moderate water rate hikes over the next several years.

Dewey also plans to appeal the city’s water public facilities plan, which is something the City Council initially approved Wednesday after a public hearing. A public facilities plan, required by state law, spells out how a city intends to meet its infrastructure needs. The City Council still must approve a second reading of the plan.

Dewey thinks this plan should be in place before construction decisions are made on the Bridge Creek project. He also thinks the water-need analysis included in the plan is flawed. He hopes that LUBA will force the city to re-evaluate its plan and conclude that the Bridge Creek project is not needed.

“What the city did here is they’re doing the planning after they decided to do a project,” Dewey said. “We want a rational plan, and that’s what we’re trying to win. … I would think that after a rational planning process the surface water project would be seen in a different light.”

No delays expected

While a representative from LUBA said the average case takes about six months to resolve, city officials don’t believe there will be delays in the planned construction of a 10-mile pipeline. That work is scheduled to begin in August, assuming the city can get a special use permit from the U.S. Forest Service.

City Attorney Mary Winters said Bend plans to ask LUBA to dismiss Central Oregon Landwatch’s appeal over the resolution. She called it a “highly unusual” appeal to LUBA since it doesn’t involve a land use decision. For that reason, she said LUBA shouldn’t hold any jurisdiction.

“The resolution really had to do with just some policy statements from the City Council about certain portions of the surface water project,” Winters said. “There was no land use decision or even a decision of the council that was being made. … There was controversy about the project and there was a request from the community to rethink the direction of the project. (With the resolution) the council was clarifying the current status of the project and its direction to staff.”

Winters said she couldn’t respond to Dewey’s other planned appeal over the public facility plan, calling it premature to do so considering the council hasn’t formally adopted the plan yet.

City planner: ‘We’ve been going by the book’

Bend senior planner Damian Syrnyk said the city followed the rules when developing its public facility plan for water. It was, after all, the second time the city has developed the plan in recent years. As part of an attempted expansion of the urban growth boundary, the city submitted a water public facility plan to the state, which sent it back because it didn’t meet certain standards. Syrnyk says the new plan should comply with those guidelines. As a result, the state should accept it when the city again tries to expand its growth boundary.

“I feel like we’ve been going by the book,” Syrnyk said. “While I think I understand what Landwatch’s concern are with the surface water project, I believe that we still satisfied the law that’s required.”

Dewey denies that he’s looking at the LUBA appeals as a means to delay the surface water project. Instead, he said he’s hoping the state’s strict land use and planning rules prevail.

He’s challenged the city before on similar grounds and won. Central Oregon Landwatch was instrumental in convincing the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development that the city’s proposed urban growth boundary proposal didn’t follow state planning rules. In 2010, the Land Conservation and Development Commission ordered the city to shrink its proposed expansion area and revisit parts of its plan in order to bring it into compliance with state law. The city has spent more than $4 million in its attempt to expand the urban growth boundary.

“They have a pretty bad track record on planning,” Dewey said. “The problem with the city of Bend is they’re always pushing the margins. … It’s almost as if there’s a culture of, ‘We don’t have to follow the rules.’ ”

By Barney Lerten, KTVZ

The Bend City Council proceeded on a now-familiar 6-to-1 course Wednesday night to spend another $19.2 million on its controversial water pipeline project, bringing the total contract so far to more than $23 million.

Steadfast critic Councilor Jim Clinton said he’s “more firmly convinced the city is spending too much money for a project with too many questionable elements.”

Critics such as Central Oregon Landwatch and Stop the Drain pressed their case, but a strong majority of councilors stuck with their view that the aging pipeline to Bridge Creek, a tributary of Tumalo Creek, needs replacing, and that it’s best to keep the city’s two water sources, from the creek and underground wells.

The latest approval involves construction of intake facility modifications and a raw water conduit for the surface water improvement project.

City Attorney Mary Winters assured that if there were problems with Forest Service permits, as the pipeline project is tied in timing to next year’s Skyliners Road reconstruction, the city could halt the contract, though it would have to pay for the work done to that point.

The councilors later approved an updated water “public facility plan,” although foes raised similar issues, about whether the water project is even part of an acknowledged plan.

At this point, the “guaranteed maximum price” approved for M.A. Mortenson Construction, the construction manager/general contractor, is $23.67 million.

PrintEmail

By Hillary Borrud/The Bulletin

Farmers in Deschutes County may now book wedding rentals and other commercial events on their property.

The county’s three commissioners voted unanimously Monday afternoon to adopt an agritourism and commercial event ordinance, which legalizes event rentals and activities to promote agricultural products. Farmland owners who want to hold such events must apply for permits, which will authorize multiple events.

The new rules take effect immediately because commissioners adopted the ordinance by emergency. County officials have sought to resolve the controversial issue of weddings, and commercial events generally, since 2008.

The latest chapter focused on whether the county had to follow the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s noise standards, and commissioners and a county lawyer discussed that issue on Monday.

The DEQ rules are more complicated than a standard considered earlier by county officials. The earlier standard prohibited noise exceeding 70 decibels for more than six minutes per hour. The DEQ, by contrast, has different noise standards for different activities.

“It will just be a nightmare for us,” Commissioner Alan Unger said of the DEQ standards.

Unger and Commissioner Tony DeBone wanted to use the 70-decibel standard. But Laurie Craghead, the county’s assistant legal counsel, said a 2010 Land Use Board of Appeals ruling left the county with little choice but to use the DEQ rules. If the county stuck with 70 decibels, said Craghead, Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals would likely reject that rule and send it back for changes.

Planning Director Nick Lelack said he called the Department of Environmental Quality to find out more about the noise rules, but DEQ staff told him they no longer answer questions about the rules because the state Legislature cut all funding for work on noise standards.

“There’s no question that the DEQ standards are complicated and will be difficult to enforce,” Lelack said.

The DEQ does not enforce the noise standards, but the state land use board nonetheless ruled that counties must enforce them, Craghead said.

Lelack said the county will hold a workshop in the next couple of weeks to help property owners who want to rent out their land learn how to comply with the rules.

Planners already have printed out brochures explaining the rules for agritourism and other commercial events.

One question that could arise during the permit application process is whether a property owner is farming to make a profit, which is a basic eligibility requirement for anyone who wants a limited use permit to rent out farmland for weddings and other events.

“The number one thing is, it has to be established as a farm use,” Lelack said.

Commissioners did not hear testimony on Monday because the public comment period had already ended.

They did take comments Monday from the public on another issue: the proposed update to the transportation plan.

Much of the testimony came from people who live in and around the unincorporated community of Tumalo. Mara Stein, co-chair of the Tumalo Community Association, presented a proposal to build an underpass beneath U.S. Highway 20, plant trees along the highway and lower the speed through Tumalo from 45 mph to 35 mph, among other things.

Stein said the Oregon Department of Transportation has installed traffic controls to limit drivers crossing the highway, and that has hurt local businesses.

Tumalo resident Dick Gummus said he opposed the Tumalo Community Association’s plan, specifically the proposal to lower the speed limit on the highway.

“There will be traffic jams and bottlenecks all through Tumalo,” Gummus said.

Trees would create problems, too, he said. For example, they would drop leaves and needles into his irrigation ditch.

“The work they’ll do will really mess my ditch up,” Gummus said.

By Nick Grube/The Bulletin

Bend city councilors are scheduled to approve a $19 million contract amendment Wednesday that should further solidify their commitment to the Bridge Creek water project.

The money would pay for the construction of a new intake facility near Tumalo Falls and a 10-mile pipeline to deliver Bridge Creek water to the city’s Outback treatment facility about two miles west of town.

Much of the pipeline will be made from already-purchased steel and be buried underneath Skyliners Road before a $9 million Federal Highway Administration reconstruction project that’s scheduled for 2013.

The $19 million amendment will bring the city’s total contract with Minnesota-based Mortenson Construction to $23.7 million. That price includes $4 million to buy the steel for the Bridge Creek pipeline, to try to take advantage of low market rates.

According to the city, the $23.7 million figure is part of a “guaranteed maximum price” on the project. Officials say this should eliminate the possibility that the project’s cost will be driven up by numerous change orders.

“This price is to deliver the project the way it’s currently laid out, and they shouldn’t be coming back to us unless there’s something … outside of the current contract documents,” Bend purchasing manager Gwen Chapman said. “It can’t change just because the bids (from subcontractors) came in higher than they thought. That’s on them. That’s on the contractor at this point.”

The contract can still change should the city ask Mortenson to do more work on the project, such as building an extra mile of pipeline or building a larger intake facility. Mortenson can also ask for a price change if the company comes across something unexpected, such as a sensitive archaeological site or lava tube that could cause complications and delays in construction.

Mortenson is expected to begin construction on the pipeline in August, with work on the intake facility scheduled to start the following month. The company, which is acting as the construction manager and general contractor, will hire subcontractors to perform much of the work.

Both the intake facility and the pipeline are scheduled to be completed by Nov. 1, 2013, unless there are unforeseen delays. The city is still waiting for a special use permit from the U.S. Forest Service, since a lot of the construction will take place on public lands.

City councilors can add to the Mortenson contract if they decide to build a new water treatment plant and hydroelectric facility as part of the Bridge Creek upgrade. Councilors recently put off building the treatment plant so the city can negotiate with the state over a new deadline to comply with federal clean water mandates. They also want to reconsider whether to add a hydroelectric facility.

The entire project, with the intake facility, pipeline, treatment plant and hydropower component, is estimated to cost about $70 million. In addition to the contract with Mortenson Construction, the city entered into a $12.2 million contract with HDR Engineering Inc. for design services.

City councilors are also scheduled to hold a public hearing Wednesday on a public facilities plan that includes the Bridge Creek water project.

That plan, required as part of the city’s ongoing urban growth boundary expansion, took center stage during a Bend Planning Commission meeting in November in which 75 people packed City Hall. Although the commission approved the plan, two planning commissioners voted against it because it contained the Bridge Creek water project.

Given that this is going to be a ground-breaking ordinance, we further believe that the County should take a cautious approach.  Allowing too much all at once, without truly understanding all the types of events that may occur and their impacts, could seriously affect many people who have made substantial investments in their rural properties under the reasonable expectation that their environment would remain rural.

The 6 letters from Central Oregon LandWatch concerning the proposed Event Venue Legislation have addressed:

1.        Subject #1: Access from a Public Road

2.        Subject #2: Noise Limits

3.        Subject #3: Number and Duration of Events

4.        Subject #4: Level of Planning Review and Expiration of Permit

5.        Subject #5: Setbacks

6.        Subject #6: Sanitation