Mirror Pond Project

1  2  3  4  5

1  2  3  4  5

Comments

Craig Lacy said:   June 7th, 2016 7:27 pm
Meeting tonight to possibly adopt a plan to partner with Bill Smith. NOTHING on websitge, not even mention of board meeting agenda. No transparency! Total disregard of the public concerns.

Ted Winchel said:   January 22nd, 2015 10:53 pm
Dam removal will eliminate silt deposit which of course has been a big issue. Also Mirror Pond has always been an artificial impondment and like all dams impacts the total environment in a negative way. A free flowing river through existing Mirror Pond won't be pretty, for some time, but is the right thing to do and eventually the area will be better for it. Commercial development ? Make plenty of space for riparian area.

Mark Buckley said:   January 14th, 2015 8:27 pm
I love the idea of an additional, accessible section of rapids. I live near First Street Rapids and they create the busiest, most popular single spot on the entire river through town, and it's not even very central. There's something to the mist, sound, spectating and general atmosphere the rapids create that draw people in. Another spot like this at the current dam site is even more convenient and should be even more attractive. And businesses will love the foot traffic. Having more rapids near town will turn an inaccessible area that creates something of an obstacle to the parks downstream into an attraction that complements the whole corridor.

Richard Salber said:   January 12th, 2015 11:56 pm
My concern is that Parks and Recreation is fixing one damn and we are going to take out another damn? How are the floaters going to get to the take out if there is not a pond? Taking out the damn makes no sense.

Kathy said:   January 10th, 2015 12:45 am
1) My question is about the dredged sediment possibly being used as fill to create the new park and lawn areas along the river. Presumably there has been a study done on the toxins that have settled into the sediment of the river bed over the years. Is there a study and is it available to the public? If not, are there plans to look at the toxic load before we use it for public play lands? 2) I would like to see downtown Bend retain its character and charm, with LOCAL businesses, the old buildings left in place, refurbished if necessary, the elevations of the buildings kept low, and franchises and the large out of town, out of state businesses kept out of that area. Bend is already well on it's way to becoming like "Every Other Town in America", where everything looks the same and has the same bunch of mega-chains and junky restaurants. It would be possible keep that from happening in the downtown area with some careful planning, incentives for locals to place their businesses there, and simply biting the bullet when it comes to the big bucks and the Glitz. In addition to our amazing surrounding areas, one of the reasons we live in Bend and folks like to visit, is the charm and funk of our downtown area. It's NOT like everywhere else. Yet. Let's be careful with the "downtown revitalization". 3) As a member of, and taxpayer in, our community, I would like to see a comprehensive and up to date plan for covering the costs of the project. Thanks for reading this.

Foster Fell said:   January 9th, 2015 9:22 pm
I actually came to Wednesday's presentation with an open mind. To paraphrase new Bend City Councilor Casey Roats, there are other things to fight about, and it really is important to move on. But, I don't see much hope in this new concept for these reasons: (1) There will be a sizable, unchecked public investment in the concept. Mr. Horton rightfully said that the public would be unwilling to pay for it, yet, he goes on to contradict himself by saying that property currently held by the City and the Park District (publicly owned assets) would be sold to create it. Why would the latter be more acceptable to the public than the former? (2) There are no assurances that the habitat created in the so-called new compromise version of Mirror Pond will be any more favorable than the abiotic, dead zone it is now. (3) If the concept goes forth as planned, we will see a net loss of open space and public land. As a growing city, we need to hold on to open space; redevelopment is great--and needed--but it shouldn't impinge on the treasured banks of the Deschutes. (4) We have yet to hear from the community in a significant way. Why have the various iterations of the Mirror Pond committees been so reluctant to hold a public referendum? (5) We can have beautiful urban riverside parklands, habitat restoration, and improved recreation opportunities without the need for a new version of an environmentally destructive and expensive dam that this concept envisions. I have held up the example of Boise, Idaho, elsewhere in these comments. Other organizations are doing extraordinary work in restring the Upper Deschutes Watershed; why can't Bend follow their example?

Cal Hoover said:   January 8th, 2015 4:53 am
As a member of a family that has resided here since 1912 I feel that Drake Park and Mirror Pond are the heart of Bend. My father paid for the memorial for the presidential candidate who gave his life attempting to save a child from drowning. Fourth of July pageants at night on the pond were a wonder to behold for years. Thousands of residents have enjoyed picnics and concerts with the pond as a backdrop. Save the Pond requests this Oregon Duck, class of 1960

Dale D. Allen said:   January 7th, 2015 6:51 pm
I like the proposal because it provides a funding strategy It looks good at 30,000 feet but when you get down to 3,000 feet I believe the "flack" .will be too heavy for parts of the concept. Your public meeting should give you better idea.

J.H. Bennett said:   December 27th, 2014 11:20 pm
Please identify the "private interests" who are partnering with The City of Bend, Pacificorp, and the Park District who are leading and funding this plan. Why is there no estimate of costs available?

EAM said:   December 26th, 2014 7:15 am
It all sounds so simple and a pat answer to the problem. What evidence is there that a rock structure will "satisfy both sides". Recreation activities can take place a long side a free flowing river. Not certain pools of water will end up looking like Mirror Pond.

Resident said:   December 23rd, 2014 8:55 pm
Let the river run free! It is extremely polluted and will only get worse if left as is. No more commercial downtown, plenty of sites outside of the main downtown area. Let Pacific Corp remove the dam. They put it there, they can remove it.

Steve said:   December 21st, 2014 4:43 am
Even from 30,000 feet the latest Mirror Pond proposal looks expensive to the taxpayers of Bend. Saving Mirror Pond is great, but it still needs to be done at the lowest expense to the taxpayer. At the December public meetings BPRD reiterated this is a long-term project spanning 10 or more years, so let’s put this timeframe to our advantage. Allowing Pacificorp to gift the dam to Bend/BPRD puts the removal and regulatory compliance expenses on the taxpayer. Gannet Fleming stated in their inspection report, commissioned by BPRD, that dam removal and mitigation expense would be upwards of $15M: $2M for dam removal and, “Stream Channel Restoration and Sediment removal are determined through a regulatory process and could add as much as $13 million to overall project costs.”. Since time is on our side we should hold off on dredging Mirror Pond, and wait for Pacificorp to decommission the dam. Once the dam is decommissioned, State and Federal regulations will drive Pacificorp to remove and mitigate according to regulatory guidelines and schedules. As part of the river mitigation regulations sediment would have to be removed from Mirror Pond and this would be at Pacificorp’s expense not the taxpayer’s. The current Mirror Pond proposal looks good, but we should not accept a gift from Pacificorp which would cost the taxpayer $15M, as well as subject the City of Bend to the burden of complying with State and Federal regulations to remove the dam and mitigate the area.

Theresa Skarsten said:   December 14th, 2014 9:04 pm
I am a local business owner downtown. The idea that you are going to take away valuable parking is going to put my business under. People can't find parking. Diamond Parking are parking Nazi's and I lose business daily due to lack of parking or people fearing they are going to get a ticket. Don't bow down to big money. We're already struggling. You don't need to cutesify downtown. I can't emphasize enough how detrimental this will be to downtown business owners.

Donald Trask said:   December 13th, 2014 11:23 pm
As a former government geologist, my view is "let the river be a river" but I recognize that there are legitimate needs of an outdoor-oriented community.

gene mcmullen said:   December 12th, 2014 7:11 am
I have coffee nearly every morning at Looney Bean. Your plan (blue is new) seems to show this establishment morphing into something else? This is an iconic location as well as Mirror Pond. Why do you seem to feel it needs to be replaced with something else.

Dane said:   December 8th, 2014 2:07 am
I am a downtown business owner I do not favor more commercial development downtown. It is tough enough to keep a business afloat, especially in the shoulder seasons. Adding more commercial space would be detrimental to current downtown businesses. Lack of parking continues to be an issue as well. I am in favor of keeping open space along the river. If development does go forward,however, then have it be residential only - this would help the city in their quest to have higher density in residential areas.

JL said:   December 5th, 2014 7:17 pm
I don't think we need anymore businesses running the west end of downtown. I've lived in bend for 22 years and have enjoyed mirror pond, seen my friends and family members get married there, and believe it is still our choice what happens to our town. Too many people have come here and developed land that should have been protected for bendits to enjoy, but then you protect areas to the point that we can no longer enjoy it. Leave the parking lots and mirror pond the way it is. Let someone else take care of the river, since pacific power can't seem to do it, and quit trying to turn bend into a downtown Portland.

Rick Child said:   December 5th, 2014 9:24 am
This plan is an unbelievably ill advised scheme. We own neither the Land, Dam or Water rights to this site, we cannot change what is not ours. The Mirror Pond structure is an Historic one, having been in existence for nearly one hundred years, this may prevent changes. It would be nice to have Disneyland but we seem to be stuck with what we have.

Rich Fleming said:   December 4th, 2014 8:42 am
The original and reoccurring issue is silt in the pond. I've never understood why Pacific Power has not been held responsible for the silt removal...it is a cost of doing business and taxpayers should not be involved in resolution of that problem. If left alone for nature to take its course the pond will fill with silt, the river will again freeze from bottom to top and water will spill out to destroy private property and Pacific Power will be held responsible. Take legal action against Pacific Power now to remove the silt. It's their damned dam!

concerned citizen said:   December 1st, 2014 6:51 pm
The economics of this project will not work! There is no consideration of the waterway overlay zone! there is no consideration for over restrictive city ordinances and parking in lieu fees for this area of the river! The general obstructionists that live across the river who want zero development have considerable clout with the corrupt city counsel. And finally, there area is split zoned, and commercial development is prohibited.

KB said:   November 30th, 2014 7:11 am
This scheme benefits the few at the expense of the many. Those that support this bad idea are those who will financially gain from it. The citizens of Bend want open space to be preserved, as made clear in a survey re the UGB. http://bendoregon.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=18710 Offering design options without revealing the cost is like going shopping for a car and being told the price only after the purchase is made. This scheme is a bad idea trying to hide its true cost. Ask your lawyer friends about liability.

Luke said:   November 29th, 2014 5:53 pm
Please tell me this project has contacted boaterparks.com! I know the dam removal will include "a series of ponds and riffles" but why not just make those into drops for kayakers AND fish migration? The guys at boaterparks.com have years of experience with this and also have impact studies on both riparian AND financial impact studies from increased visitors for kayaking.

Catherine Light said:   November 29th, 2014 1:56 am
It is virtually impossible to assess the situation without some kind of cost analysis. Asking the public to choose an alternative without this critical information is folly.

Kim said:   November 27th, 2014 6:52 am
Let it be. Pacific Power will eventually remove the dam, and they will be motivated to do it in a way that allows the Deschutes to make its own new way. The real beauty of Central Oregon is nature-made, not man-made. Let the River run!

GB said:   November 25th, 2014 11:07 pm
I like this ! Best solution so far...You're headed in the right direction- just take it that next step


Spencer Dahl said:   November 24th, 2014 6:29 pm
Deed restrictions and parking issues can be overcome. Here's my "Top 3" concerns with this proposal: 1) The liability for the dam owner is uncertain, but most certainly it is in the millions of dollars. Bend Mayor Jim Clinton (former Mirror Pond Technical Advisory Chair) has used $35 million to $75 million as a range of potential liability. There is a $35 million lawsuit surrounding the cleanup of the Cline Falls Dam in Redmond. I'm not sure how much experience the City or BPRD has cleaning up PCBs or other hazardous materials. 2) A new water right is needed to maintain the pond without generating power at the dam; this is a major uncertainty. Getting a new water right is a two to ten year process, but an application for this new water right hasn't even been submitted. 3) ODFW does not "think that a roughened channel or natural type fishway would work at this site..."

RB said:   November 19th, 2014 12:54 am
This is the best idea yet. As for the parking worry, use Troy Field for downtown parking. Let's just do it!

Adam Albright said:   November 13th, 2014 1:28 am
This area is the original settlement site for the downtown area and I think it's finally time to give this amazing site the respect it deserves. I say: Unpave Paradise and Move the Parking Lot!

David Parish said:   November 11th, 2014 8:47 pm
I see the latest idea calls for elimination of parking for the sake of increased businesses and restaurants which, of course, creates the need for more parking. Can this ridiculous idea really being floated? Why are we planning to increase an already crowded downtown rather than to continue to expand along the river to provide those business and restaurants AWAY from downtown. The river downtown has been developed with walls and pathways for walking, not more noisy pubs. Please be reasonable and think of the citizens instead of businesses and restaurants.

Shelly said:   November 9th, 2014 8:15 am
Would it be possible to plant a riparian zone and introduce wild beavers to this area? The beavers would naturally deepen ponds and their dams and lodges would encourage more diverse wildlife. I would love to see a more natural approach to this problem that will provide a long term solution and improve the quality of our river. Beavers improve conditions and deepen ponds creating more fresh surface water for people and animals which is especially helpful in a desert environment.

MF said:   November 9th, 2014 7:27 am
Just make sure to consider more whitewater features for recreation when and if this happens - It would be so perfect for our downtown to have world class kayak play spots steps from downtown - look to aspen, vail, jackson, missoula to see how it has benefitted them. You're headed in the right direction- just take it that next step.

Laura said:   November 9th, 2014 5:56 am
What happens to places like Crows Feet Commons (the best spot to grab a coffee or beer and sit along the river), bend brewing, and looney bean? It was hard to tell on the maps I found but the only place that looked to stay the same was Pine Tavern.

concerned said:   November 9th, 2014 1:27 am
Mirror pond creates a false environment inviting animals to create a habitat that people punish and kill them for. Bend parks and rec previously choose a kill route and then pretended to feed the poison goose bodies to the homeless. If this was a natural enviroment, a flowing river, would geese live there in such a large quantity? Raise thier young there? If not that i am in favor of it being natural. I have no faith in the park department however and am always hoping the people in charge will be replaced with more thoughtful and responsible and trustworthy people. I would also hope that none of the public area become what that park at the end of riverside street became. That park runied that street. Hopefully there will be lots of natural space preserved.

Bruce Berryhill said:   November 8th, 2014 9:09 pm
Have the mudflats appeared as predicted?

Irene Trowbridge said:   November 8th, 2014 6:37 pm
What will the night safety be? I like the plans but worry about the crime rate. I am sure their will be plenty lights. Looking forward to the change! :)

Joe Burda said:   November 8th, 2014 6:07 pm
As a frequent visitor of the downtown area I can tell you the downtown corridor is nothing without adequate parking for families and seniors. Parking is in fact property that brings a higher revenue stream than your willing to give it credit for! The new plan as you have laid out seems very flawed.

Mark Sigl said:   July 18th, 2014 2:28 am
In reading some of the reports & studies and having done some refurbishing of hydro sites myself. I would be interested in owning & operating this site as a private citizen and working with the agencies. With grants and proper management the site could operate while providing clean green power, improving the environment and fish & wildlife habitat. A vertical fish by pass structure could be used or a horizontal one. The repairs could be done with concrete to look like boulders, while still providing clean green power. Currently Pacificorp produces it power with fossil fuels 83%. they offer to buy my power for .03/kwh which does not cover true costs burning fossil funds. Other place offer .05 to .09 plus the REC's GHG (green house gases) offset costs ususally .05 kwh while Pacificorp offer .0015 to .002 kwh. How do they meet their 2020 33% clean green energy federal requirements and reducing GHG? I would use a a floating boat dredge to handle recovering silt (soil erosion recovery) that is prime soil. developing a better habitat. Using the Boy Scouts to help with liter control while offering rec activities coning, fishing, swimming, camping, conservation, electricity for their badge work. The local home owners would also kick in since they too reap the rewards and property value so poor maintenance won't be an issue in the future.

Foster Fell said:   July 3rd, 2014 2:47 am
Following are excerpts from a response to a question I posed to Thomas Governale, the Boise City Dept. of Parks and Rec. Resources Superintendent. (For further background on the Boise experience, please go to the webpage, freetheriver.org. There you will find a reprinted article from the Idaho Statesman on the urban stretch of the Boise River.) I'll let Mr. Governale's message and the article speak for themselves. Keep in mind that the $35,000 annual river management cost cited by Mr. Governale seems mainly devoted to upkeep of the two white water "Wave Master" features. These are similar to the Colorado Dam white water feature now under construction here in Bend. Take away that cost and It would appear that it requires an amazingly nominal annual expenditure to manage the Boise River as it flows freely through the city. Foster, The Boise River through City jurisdiction does not contain an impoundment . . . Regarding the cost to maintain the river park, the annual operating expense is approximately $35,000 per year. Expenses include seasonal personnel costs of approximately $17,000 for two “Wave Master” positions. The current phase of the Boise River Park is operated with electronics and hydraulics and we are able to adjust the waves for different experiences and levels of boating, boarding and surfing. Other operational costs include web cam, Wi-Fi, cell phones, litter, signs, and pathway management. Dredging has not been required, although, a diver was hired the first year after construction to clear the wave shaper mechanism of debris that we believe was caused due to high water flows and loose debris from construction activity. The River Park has increased fish and wildlife habitat along the river with rocks that were added to the bank and river bed as well as trees and plant material planted along the river. Sincerely, Tom

CELESTE Brody said:   July 2nd, 2014 7:10 pm
It is clear from the minutes of meetings and discussions around the reports, that the quest is to replace the existing failed dam. There is more talk about how to raise the money to replace this dam than to get solid costs for options, including the removal of the dam, and put these before the citizens in a vote. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and a "free flowing" river may still be in the City's best interests, but the current "best option" is discussed as "who will collaborate to pay for this?" This is a very disappointing example of "process."

Secret Agent 007 said:   June 6th, 2014 9:47 pm
Here is an interesting video perspective that is worth watching. http://vimeo.com/ondemand/damnation?sssdmh=dm23.170438 My vote is to remove the dam and restore the river and fishery vs. inheriting the future expenses of keeping the dam intact (though broken and unnecessary) other than to keep a pond that needs periodic and expensive dredging. If that is the only reason to keep the dam, then why don't we make Pacific Power remove their broken dam and just toss a bunch of trees in the river or some other temporary blockage than can be adjusted or removed as needed to deal with the silt?

Chris said:   May 28th, 2014 11:21 pm
I am extremely disappointed to see the pursuit of possibly purchasing a 100+ year old damn, removing it and building another in its place. This is nonsense! Pacific Power has made profits off this damn for years and should be contractually obligated to remove it when decommissioned. The recent report shows it is in terrible condition. Yet another example of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses! There is another damn just up the river from it that will produce some back up and slowing of river flow. Sediment problem will continue if rebuilt. And a fish passage has to be built in to new damn. River flow if free of damn would not be roaring, it would most likely be like near River Bend Park. Don't waste one more dollar trying to preserve the artificial Mirror Pond.

W. DIllard said:   May 16th, 2014 1:53 am
There was a nature show on Channel 7 last night about reintroducing Beavers into the streams and ponds. I think this is something that you might be interested in. It not only helped the restructuring of the ponds and water but provided a more natural environment for wildlife to come back and enjoy the waters edge while still providing clean fresh water down stream helping the community. The Beavers are remarkable builders and crafters that would clean up the water without destroying the environment...http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/06/leave-it-to-beavers/308980/ Something to check out

Sheri said:   March 1st, 2014 6:37 am
The waste of monies spent on the various experts is appalling on so many levels. But the shangrala dreams of putting the river back to it's natural state is a joke. In one breath I hear let's let nature have it back and everything is going to be dreamy, I then in the same sentence read " we can truck sand in for beaches, put in retaining walls, plant plants and trees, and so on" none of that is natural! Sandy beaches are by oceans. The damage to the riparian areas from people getting in and out of the water will alway's have to be maintained or made in accessible. It has been done in the Old Mill area. Should we turn that section back to it's natural state while we're at it? NO ONE knows for sure what the real consequences of bringing the river to it's natural state will be. Either direction requires studies and money. You can't just remove the dam and have nature take over and expect to have this beautiful fantasy for free. Mirror pond is an asset to our city! DREDGE the pond. For the folks who want a natural flowing river, go to Sawyer park and float that trickle!

Mark Davis said:   March 1st, 2014 6:28 am
Bend is at a serious crossroads, where a long enduring decision will shape the center of Bend and leave a significant financial burden. It is a very simple decision. We can do nothing, and let PacifiCorp remove the dam and restore the river at no expense to the city or taxpayers. Alternately, we could purchase the dam, then pay for all the unknown ownership expenses and end up with an unknown outcome due to the regulatory uncertainties. The third choice, so far presented, is the BPTA plan that includes a new and much smaller impoundment structure that maintains most of Mirror Pond, but is not a traditional dam. Keeping and maintaining the dam is a ludicrous choice, and is only based on a childish though process that refuses to accept the realities of the dismal condition of the dam and present river management policies nation wide. Letting PacifiCorp remove the dam and restore the river is the intelligent choice because it saves the city millions of dollars and has no uncertainties. This dam is not the taxpayer's problem. They did not profit from it and they should not pay for it. Finally, the BPTA plan of a rock impoundment with a cascading drop is very nice and would meet all regulator demands, but the funds for this plan should be raise by private donation or approved by vote. The people of Bend are getting tired of having projects and the ensuing costs shoved down their throats.

Peter Clark said:   February 24th, 2014 6:16 pm
While Mirror Pond looks beautiful and idealic, I believe it's time is past. The power produced by the dam, the original purpose for it's construction, is miniscule, the cost of dredging is out of sight, and the amount of silt coming down the river is not likely to change (would be nice if the ditch folks, as Dan said, would take responsibility, but that's not likely either). Time to return this wonderful river to it's original flow. Many communities have "rivers running through them" freely and they are beautiful, natural and surrounded by parks. As a by product of the freely running river would be the reduction of "goose problems" and you might actually be able to walk along the pathways without stepping through the poo!

Kathy Phillips said:   February 12th, 2014 5:27 am
As member of Oregon Pioneer family-Myer, who came West on 1847 Wagon Train, 'to build a Nation', our family urges preservation of Mirror Pond, a beautiful & functional Bend Landmark. Dredging is a minor maint. item for a major community asset,... like a homeowner's chimney sweeping! Hope this persuades Bend,"Oregonians Love Mirror Pond!"

Doug said:   January 28th, 2014 4:50 pm
It really seems that this would be a good time to reassess the public's opinion on this issue. It appears that the local government, the parks dept., the steering committee and even private citizens (Taylor) are proceeding with foregone conclusion that Mirror Pond should be saved at any cost. Even without regard to what public sentiment. The time, cost and effort in studies, legal fees for negotiations all seem to be money that could saved if a vote on whether to proceed were taken. Then we would know if this was folly or necessary Obviously, no entity but the City of Bend would pay money for a dam that is damaged and it's current owner (a very large utility) has determined is not viable. Who are we bidding against? The Paddle Alliance has given a proposal worth consideration, are we considering it? It appears we are marching forward with only the vision of saving this dam at great financial peril to our community. The sentiment that this Pond is the only identifiable aspect of our town is flawed. The river, the Mountains, our countless bike trails, wonderful parks, our great downtown and Old Mill area are all iconic features. Please consider taking the pulse of the public again before committing tens of thousands more dollars studying what can be done to save the dam. This may be a an opportunity to expand parkland and remove a financial burden (dredging) at almost no cost to the public.

Rob Harrison said:   January 24th, 2014 6:49 am
Mirror pond is beautiful. No one can argue that. Mirror Pond is not sustainable without continued dredging. No one can argue that. A river sustains itself. The city is in a fortunate position right now where the dam needs to be removed by its owner at no cost to local taxpayers or it needs to be repaired by its owner at no cost to local taxpayers. The pond is great but so is the Deschutes River. We can maintain Drake Park as a beautiful center piece to our amazing city without spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to preserve a pond that is not sustainable. With a little bit of landscaping, a few river access spots, and a little patience we can have a beautiful park that will last forever with little maintenance and with relatively small upfront costs. I voted for the most recent parks and rec bond. I am willing to pay for a city that values beautiful places and promotes outdoor recreation. I am not willing to fund a new dam or improvements to the current dam and a massive dredging project that will only become more and more expensive. Rivers are natural. Rivers are beautiful. Rivers are sustainable. Do we want to leave future Bend residents with a beautiful, healthy river or a huge bill, another looming dredging project, and a dam to maintain?

Salathiel said:   January 11th, 2014 7:46 pm
So many voices with vested interests. If you wish to gain public support for any alternative I strongly suggest you start to talk ultimate costs. Not just to complete some selected project but to maintain it into the future. If you plan to keep coming to property tax payers for project after project you will find bond issues defeated out of hand. Treat us with some degree of respect by giving facts rather than pipe dreams. Ultimately WE have to pay for your decisions.

Bill The Cat said:   December 10th, 2013 6:20 pm
My concern is that there has not been proper inclusion of landowners with deeds to "the thread of the river". I support the City/County owning a modern enhanced retainment that functions to improve Mirror Pond, produce hydropower to a "smart grid" and continue to allow for fish passage. Most important to this conversation is accountability. There are individuals portraying themselves as representing The Mirror Pond Project while advocating for their personal positions. BTC

On behalf of the Mirror Pond Ad Hoc Committee, Steering Committee and Management Board