PORT OF HOOD RIVER COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA May 1, 2018 Marina Center Boardroom 5:00 P.M. Regular Session 1. Call to Order 2. Modifications, Additions to Agenda 3. Open Public Hearing on Draft Administrative Rules Governing Public Private Partnerships related to Bridge Replacement (Kevin Greenwood – Page 3) 4. Public Comment (5 minutes per person per subject; 30-minute limit) 5. Consent Agenda a. Approve Minutes of April 17 Spring Planning Work Session and Regular Session (Jana Scoggins – Page 53) 6. Reports, Presentations and Discussion Items a. Expo DDA Lot 6 Parking Analysis (Michael McElwee – Page 59) b. Bridge Replacement Project Update (Kevin Greenwood – Page 69) c. Spring Planning Discussion Topic: Future Focus (Michael McElwee – Page 93) 7. Director’s Report (Michael McElwee – Page 111) 8. Commissioner, Committee Reports a. Airport Advisory Committee – April 26 9. Action Items a. Approve Contract with S2 Contractors, Inc. for Paving East Portion of West Jensen Building Parking Lot (Anne Medenbach – Page 115) b. Approve Contract for Stadleman Waterline Improvement Project (Anne Medenbach – Page 117) c. Approve Service Contract with Kapsch TraffiCom USA for Tolling System Hardware Service Not to Exceed $43,662 (Fred Kowell – Page 119) d. Approve Port Resolution No. 2017-18-5 Adopting Personnel Policies as Defined (Fred Kowell – Page 127) 10. Commission Call 11. Close Public Hearing Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e) Real Estate Negotiations. 12. Possible Action 13. Adjourn If you have a disability that requires any special materials, services, or assistance, please contact us at 541-386-1645 so we may arrange for appropriate accommodations. The chair reserves the opportunity to change the order of the items if unforeseen circumstances arise. The Commission welcomes public comment on issues not on the agenda during the public comment period. With the exception of factual questions, the Commission does not immediately discuss issues raised during public comment. The Commission will either refer concerns raised during public comment to the Executive Director for a response or will request that the issue be placed on a future meeting agenda. People distributing copies of materials as part of their testimony should bring 10 copies. Written comment on issues of concern may be submitted to the Port Office at any time. Commission Memo Prepared by: Kevin Greenwood Date: May 1, 2018 Re: Public Hearing No. 2 - P3 Rules With the passage of HB 2750, the Oregon State Legislature allowed the Port of Hood River to consider Public Private Partnerships (P3s) if the Port would develop rules similar to the State’s. Steve Siegel has been a technical advisor throughout the process. This schedule, developed by Siegel and Port Staff, has been moving along and May 1st is the second and final opportunity for the Commission to hear public comment on the Rules. As of April 24, the Port had received four sets of comments (all of which are available at https://portofhoodriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/P3-Rules- 18.04.24_Redacted.pdf). Siegel and staff have reviewed the comments and were able to improve the rules based on received input. Attached is a memo from Siegel on the significant changes and a red-lined version of the rules. Mr. Siegel will call in to summarize the changes and answer any questions. • Key timeline dates (Commission meetings in italics), X=completed: o Prelim Review Draft #1 Discussed ............................... January 23, 2018 X o Commission Directs Changes to Draft #1.................... February 6, 2018 X o Commission Directs Changes to Draft #2.................. February 20, 2018 X o Public Discussion Draft Released .............................. February 23, 2018 X o Written Comments Due ................................................ March 15, 2018 X o Public Hearing #1 ........................................................... March 20, 2018 X o Commission Reviews PD Draft Changes (none)................. April 3, 2018 X o Staff Prepares Revised Recommended Draft .................... April 6, 2018 X o Notice for Second Hearing ................................................ April 13, 2018 X o Written Comments Due ................................................... April 27, 2018 X o Staff Prepares Compilation of Comments ....................... April 30, 2018 X o Public Hearing #2 ................................................................ May 1, 2018 o Comments Reviewed; Recommendations to Comm........ May 4, 2018 o Post Final Draft on Website .............................................. May 11, 2018 o Commission Vote on Final Draft of Rule .......................... May 15, 2018 Upon closure of the Hearing, staff will compile, review, and analyze comments and post a final draft on the website. RECOMMENDATION: Open hearing and receive public comment on the P3 rules. (3) This page intentionally left blank. (4) TO: Port of Hood River Commission, Michael McElwee, Kevin Greenwood FROM: Steve Siegel SUBJ: Proposed Final Draft of Public-Private Partnership (P3) Rule About 60 specific comments were received from four testifiers during the public review period. The comments reflected in depth reviews by the testifiers, all of whom were transportation professionals, some of whom specialized in P3 projects. In addition, ODOT reviewed the Draft Rule and did not provide written testimony, but verbally advised the Port’s lobbyist that they found that the Port’s Draft Rule substantially conforms to the ODOT Rule, as required by the statute. The attached Proposed Final Draft shows the redline revisions to the Public Review Draft proposed for Commission action. Most of the proposed revisions reflect grammatical or citation corrections, terminology refinements for understandability, or other technical clarifications; but there are a few the deserve attention from the Commission. Below is a summary of the key issues identified in the comments: 1. Establish limitations in the Rule regarding the types of P3 arrangements the Port will consider. Comments were received that the Rule should prohibit P3 agreements wherein (i) ownership is transferred to the private entity, (ii) public resources other than toll revenue are provided to the P3 partner, and (iii) the P3 partner is involved in toll setting. We concluded it was premature to establish these prohibitions in the rule. The Port will be undertaking analyses of P3 market for the replacement bridge. Establishing limitations on deal points in the rule prior to these analyses would simply amount to a guess about what is feasible. If it is feasible to restrict ownership, public funding requirements, etc., the Commission can do so later in the RFP. Thus, no revisions to the rule are proposed in response to these comments. 2. Streamline the process by eliminating inefficiencies. P3 entities are sensitive to the amount of time a procurement process takes because time is money. The comments address two different ways to expedite the process: a. Tighten time period requirements in the rule. Early drafts of the rule had tight time frames. In the preparation of various drafts, the time period requirements were lengthened. Upon review, we believe that some time period requirements should be retightened. As a result, revisions are proposed to subsections 4.4(1), 5.2(7), 6.3(4) and (5), each of which shorten the time period for appeals. b. Allow Director to take additional intermediate actions that currently are assigned to the Commission. There is full agreement that the major policy and substantive actions during the procurement (i.e.; issuing the RFP, selecting proposals for detailed evaluation, selecting the preferred proposal, approving agreements, etc.) should be taken by the Commission. But there are intermediate actions that are more procedural in nature that could be made by the Director in shorter time frames without undermining the Commission’s role. The initial draft of the Rule had the Director handling these items, the Public Review Draft placed responsibility for these actions on 1 | Page (5) the Commission, and the attached proposed final rule seeks to refine the balance. As a result, revisions are proposed to subsections 4.1(6)(c), which expands to the types of addenda to an RFP that the Director may issue without Commission approval; 4.4.(4)(a), which allows the Director to approve changes in the proposed Team prior to any action by the Commission selecting or rejecting the team (after a Commission action, any change in the Team still requires Commission approval); 4.5(5) and (6), which allows the Director to determine the penalty associated with lobbying (which is now referred to as unauthorized public communications), although the Director’s determination can be appealed to the Commission; and 5.2, which allows the Director to determine Unresponsive Submissions (with appeals to the Commission). 3. Restrict, to the extent permitted by law, public disclosure of Submissions and the Evaluation Panel’s report until after the Agreement is executed. The final selection of a preferred proposer does not occur until after the Agreement is approved (subsection 3(4)). Until then, it is possible that there may be Competitive Negotiations with multiple proposers, or there may be further consideration of a lower ranked proposer if an agreement cannot be reached with a higher ranked proposer. Allowing proposers to have access to the Submissions or the report of the Evaluation Panel during this period could undercut the Port’s ability to get the best deal. Thus, subsection