2003-1156-Minutes for Meeting July 28,2003 Recorded 8/11/2003DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2443•i156
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/11/2003 03:28:26 PM
11111111 IIIIIIII IIIVIIIIII1
20-li 6
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.ore
MINUTES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIAISON
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JULY 289 2003
Conference Room B - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly;
also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; David Givans, Susan Ross
and Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office.
Also present during a portion of the meeting were Timm Schimke, Solid Waste
Department; David Blair and Michelle Giguere of Ball Janik, LLC; Tammy
Credicott, Property Management; and Steve Scott, Broker of Record. No media
representatives or other citizens were present.
The meeting began at 1:30 p.m.
1. Further Discussion of Federal Lobbying.
Commissioner DeWolf introduced David Blair and Michelle Giguere. He
explained that their firm, Ball Janik LLC, is willing to handle federal lobbying
services for the County on a limited duration basis, focusing on specific issues,
just to test the waters.
Two issues that could be addressed are obtaining funding for the La Pine Senior
Center and local fire fuel reduction. He further said that the Senate and House
are now in conference, and the County has no representation at this point.
The firm would represent Deschutes County through November, focusing on
these two issues and others, at a cost of $20,000. On December 1 the Board
could decide whether to continue the contract, go out to bid or discontinue these
efforts altogether. He added that the timing is critical for this year, and action
cannot be delayed if the County hopes to be able to pursue funding.
Minutes of Administrative Liaison Monday, July 28, 2003
Page 1 of 5 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that he feels the delegation represents this area very
well, and asked for justification why lobbyists could make a difference. Ms.
Giguere replied that the members of the delegation are very busy, with many
things going on at the same time, and the lobbying firms help to keep them up
to speed. Mr. Blair added that they are spread pretty thin, and appreciate any
help that can be provided.
Commissioner Luke stated that he wants to go through an RFP process for this
work. Commissioner Daly agreed, but due to the time consuming nature of a
bid process, feels that the Ball Janik contract is a reasonable solution for the
immediate future. He also said that he is confused why Commissioner Luke so
strongly supports the state lobbyist when he seems so against a federal lobbyist.
It was decided that the Ball Janik contract will be addressed at the Wednesday,
July 30 Board meeting.
2. Discussion of the Acquisition of a Property.
Timm Schimke explained that a property owner adjacent to Knott Landfill has
placed her property on the market. It consists of about twenty-two acres with
twenty acres of water rights, an older home, two barns, and other outbuildings.
He encouraged the Board to consider having the County purchase the property
for several reasons. The property is impacted by landfill operations, and the
present owner has been cooperative in working with the landfill, but a new
owner may not be as accommodating. Also, the water is important, as it is a
critical factor in the end use of the landfill. The land is outside the urban
growth boundary, and is fairly rough. The property could likely be rented out
for between $900 and $1,200 per month.
LUKE: Move approval of the purchase of this property.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Administrative Liaison Monday, July 28, 2003
Page 2 of 5 Pages
3. Discussion of Redmond Airport Request for Land.
Tammy Credicott stated that the parcel of land requested for airport use is in the
Redmond urban growth boundary, and its value is between $65,000 and
$90,000. There is no access and it is non -conforming, and an appropriate value
would be $1,300 per acre for the approximately fifty -acre parcel. Mike Maier
added that a lot line adjustment would be required.
LUKE: Move approval of the sale of this property, should
representatives of the Redmond Airport choose to purchase it.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
4. Discussion of Newberry Habitat for Humanity Request for Land.
Ms. Credicott said that the County owns property in the vicinity of Wickiup
Junction behind the rural service center zoned area that has sewer service and
soon will have water service, and Newberry Habitat for Humanity would like to
place some affordable dwellings on the parcel.
Commissioner DeWolf added that it would not compete with the new
neighborhood, as Habitat deals with specific clientele.
Commissioners Luke and Daly asked that a plan for the property be presented
to the Board.
5. Communications Update.
Anna Johnson updated the Board on the upcoming Fair activities, press
releases, the employee orientation video, and the website update.
6. Visits to Schools.
It was decided that the schools would be contacted to find out if the teachers
would prefer the Commissioners visit individual classrooms rather than holding
formal Board meetings, due to the schools' lack of space and time.
Minutes of Administrative Liaison Monday, July 28, 2003
Page 3 of 5 Pages
7. Update of County Projects.
Susan Ross discussed the proposed plans for the area in front of the old
courthouse building. Once the steps have been removed, the area could become
a small County park, and park funds are available for this type of use. The City
would need to be involved in the process.
8. Update of Rocky Mountain Co. Business Loan.
Susan Ross advised the Board that Rocky Mountain Co. owes $27,000 on their
County loan, and has asked if the County would accept $12,500 as payment in
full so that liens on their equipment can be removed. They have not made a
payment since December, as they lost their large contract with Albertson's for a
time.
DALY: Move approval of a payoff of $20,000.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
9. Discussion of Affordable Housing Support Letter.
Ms. Ross said that Mountain Laurel Lodge, which is an independent living
project for low-income clients, has asked that the Board provide a letter of
support for them so that they can receive housing tax credits.
Commissioners Luke and DeWolf asked for more information on the business
prior to doing so.
10. Update of Property Transactions.
Steve Scott, the County's Real Estate Broker of Record, gave an update on the
following.
• The 61s` Street property is to close, at $385,000.
• The Hellbusch properties (at the corner of Lafayette Avenue and
Hill Street) will close escrow in about a week. The one remaining
tenant will vacate by August 16.
Minutes of Administrative Liaison Monday, July 28, 2003
Page 4 of 5 Pages
It was pointed out that the Commissioners had not taken formal action as a
Board regarding the purchase of the Hellbusch properties.
DEWOLF: Move approval of this purchase.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: I abstain, since I know the Hellbusch's personally.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
DATED this 28th Day of July 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
nis R. Luke, air
Tom DeWolf, Commissioner
zzxz&'�Z' /11
ATTEST: NfiAael M. aly, Co ssioner
Recording Secretary
Attached
Exhibit A: Memo regarding Federal Lobbying
Exhibit B: Memo regarding the Acquisition of Property near Knott Landfill
Minutes of Administrative Liaison Monday, July 28, 2003
Page 5 of 5 Pages
t
-� Department of Solid Waste
r
61 ODD S.E. 27th St, Bend, OR 97702
(541) 317-3163 - FAX (541) 317-3959
Memorandum
To. BOCC
From: Timm Schimke
CC: Mike Maier; Rick Isham
Date: 7/25/2003
Re: Property Aquisition
It came to my attention last week, that one of the property owners located directly south of
Knott Landfill had put their property up for sale. The property is about 22 acres with 20 acres
of water rights. The house is 4 bdrms, 3 baths, older with numerous upgrades. Property also
has 2 barns, large tack room, foaling shed, stallion paddock, and other horse freindly features.
I would like to purchase the property for the following reasons:
• Water rights. Water will be a critical factor in our ability to provide a beneficial end
use for the landfill.
• Buffer. This land is one of two properties that are most impacted by our operations.
The current owner has been very tolerant and worked with us positively through some
serious issues. It is doubtful that any new neighbor would be as accomodating.
Landfill impacts have never extended beyond (south) of the property.
• Investment. This property will provide a better rate of return for our reserves than our
current rate. Estimated potential cash from rental alone could exceed our current rate
of return.
The owner listed the property for $448,500. Working with Steve Scott, we have offered
$400,000, and agreed to a $430,000 price pending BOCC approval, and other satisfactory
inspection reports. County records indicate a $287,165 value in 2002. I have obtained
brochures from 6 other properties for sale in the area, summarized below:
• 21700 Rickard Road. 20 acres, 10 acres water, no house, septic, water, elec. in place
$599,000
• 60525 Billadeau Road. 19.48 acres, no irrigation, 2477 sq. ft. house, 30x30 shop
$545,000
• 21775 Rickard Road. 18 acres, 4.5 acres water, 2668 sq. ft. house, Guest house
$575,000
.Dire tor: 'rirnrrr Sc:lti.nike • Otv:rations Clmi Centola • Accounting Tech: Debbie .E;lledge.
Exhibit
Page ` of
U
• 60670 Billadeau Road. 5 acres, 1 acre water 3160 sq. ft. house built in 2002
569,000
• Larsen Road. 2 acres, 1.5 acres water, 2550 sq. ft. house, 936 sq. ft. 3 car garage
$545,000
• 61490 Ward Road. 7 acres, 5.9 acres water, 2168 sq. ft. house, horse set-up w/ barn.
$399,500
Although we did not budget for this purchase, we opened bids for the rock crushing project at
the landfill last week and had bids come in below budget which would allow us to purchase
this from the capital reserve fund without affecting contingency.
• Page 2
Exhibit
Page of �—
f
Tom DeWolf
From:
Tom DeWolf
Sent:
Monday, July 21, 2003 8:24 AM
To:
Tom DeWolf
Subject:
Lobbying Details
I asked Michelle Giguere, of Ball, Janik to answer the following:
Regarding key goals and deliverables, an explanation of how the coordination is handled
between your company and your client? Is there a single point of contact? Multiple
contacts? Scheduled meetings? Scheduled e-mail updates? Please describe a typical year's
communications between BJLLP and a typical client.
Her reply:
Key goals and deliverables: usually a potential client has an idea of what they want us
to help them with; we then help the client refine it depending on practicality of actually
getting it through Congress and on whether a project would meet key evaluation criteria,
etc. I think we actually did some of this in the last meeting that I went over for with
the large group. Early each year, generally no later than January and preferably by
December, we like to know what a client expects us to do, and we strive very hard to make
sure both parties have a common understanding of what the goals are and what the
deliverables are. Usually in our line of work the deliverables are special appropriations,
approved competitive grant requests, an outline or strategy for how to accomplish
something, timelines, etc. Sometimes it's establishing a presence for a client in D.0
that they don't already have. This wouldn't be case for the County because your
congressional delegation knows you well. My point is that the goals and deliverables are
defined by the County with input and feedback from us and then we have to go deliver. I
think you'll find that our track record is extremely good, and what's more that we are
creative and persistent even in the face of "can't be done" - usually we find a way.
Coordination: We defer to the client on this, but we almost always work as a project team
because that has served our clients well and it takes maximum advantage of the broad range
and years of experience of our team. It also allows you to have constant coverage from
your team here in Oregon and in D.C. We establish a project principal, which in the case
of your County, would be me. I would be responsible for all contractual, technical, cost,
billing, supervisory, and performance tasks. David Blair would be the project manager and
he would probably be the person you have the most regular contact with, and he would be
primarily responsible for helping you with strategy, timelines, how to respond to
inquiries from agencies, delegation staff, committee contacts, etc. He would be doing the
bulk of all the really important work that needs to be done and when he thought necessary
he could pull me or others on the Ball Janik team in to help. As County goals and
deliverables are developed or changed, David and I would figure out who else on our team
can assist the County and we would let you know that on certain projects we're going to
pull Sean in, or Hal, or Eric -- folks
we hope you will get to know! It seems to work better for our clients
to have a single point of contact but often what we do is copy each other on pretty much
everything -- that way if David's tied up with something else, I can dig in and there is
always someone you can reach who is familiar with the project or issue. We definitely
prefer to have one point of the contact at the County. However, as we get more familiar
with client projects and get into the nitty gritty details we usually get to know
administrative heads and project managers and that is very helpful if we need something
right away and the single point of contact is not around.
Communication: we pride ourselves on good communication with our clients. I can't
imagine that there would be very many days that would go by when you and David would not
be in contact. We use email all the time, have cell phones, direct lines, etc. We
usually work long hours and you should always be able to reach one of us. You would be
getting regular verbal reports of what's going on, written reports or memoes and analysis
as necessary, and depending on the County's preference we could do written quarterly
reports. We've represented Clackamas County for 14 years and it took us a few years but I
think we really have a great process down now wherein I personally brief the County
Commissioners, the County Administrator, key Deparment heads, and anyone else the
1
Exhibit Q
Page _-2- of
Lobbying Information from Greene County, Missouri
Coordination of Lobbying efforts is located in the office of the Auditor/Budget Officer.
This is a hired position there.
• The Auditing function is looking backward, how they spent their money. The
Budget Officer function is looking toward the future.
• Responsibility includes Lobbying and Legislation
• This is the main point of contact, through which coordination occurs
Exhibit 16
Page c of
C,ozrnt` o
DAVID L. COONROD
Presiding Commissioner
DARRELL DECKER
Commissioner 1st District
JIM PAYNE
Commissioner 2nd District
x1ale o Xssou
rI
GREENE COUNTY COMMISSION
940 Boonville Avenue
SPRINGFIELD MO, 65802
(417) 868-4112
M
Karen Miller May 15, 2003
Commissioner, Boone County
Columbia, MO
Dear Karen:
The Greene County Commission has asked me to get you some information regarding the
contractual employment of a lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. My understanding of what you are
looking for is the following;
1. What projects did Greene County request for funding?
2. What projects were funded?
3. Does the County believe we would have received funding without the assistance of a
lobbying firm?
800 MHz Trunked Radio System Enhancement - FUNDED $2.0 Million
We requested funding to enhance the recently built radio system to enable the rural fire districts to
join the system fully. We were looking for funding to pay for radios and equipment that would
allow for interoperability of all the emergency responders in Greene County. With all of the focus
on homeland security, this request is one that we possibly could have received funding for without
the assistance of the firm. We do believe that we received $2.0 million, instead of a lesser amount,
because of the constant attention given by Fierce & Isakowitz.
Hidden Valley Stormwater Proiect - FUNDED $500 Thousand
We requested funding to alleviate a problem with flooding in the southern part of the county. This
flood problem has been severely increased because of the explosive growth of Greene County. The
project is a $10 million total project that involves clearing the floodway of houses, constructing a
water conveyance system, and rebuilding roads. The funding for the project is for the Corps of
Engineers to complete a study and hopefully begin purchasing homes. We believe that getting the
initial funding was key to the ongoing funding of the entire project. Without Fierce &Isakowitz'
constant attention and Congressman Blunt's office creativity, Greene County would be in the
position of knowing we have a problem and absolutely no funds to address the issue.
Exhibit
Page (,,--Of_ `3 _
FA
FIERCE & ISAKOWITZ
A Government Relations Consulting- Firm
Fierce & Isakowitz
Fierce & Isakowitz is a government consulting and public relations firm that was established in 1978.
The firm represents a wide range of Fortune 500 clients including Worldcom, Southern California
Edison, Coca Cola Enterprises, Federation of American Hospitals, Tricon Global Restaurants,
Liberty Maritime, Health Insurance Association of America, American Gaming Association, Credit
Union National Association, Edison Electric Institute, Moore Capital, Pegasus, Pernod Ricard,
Protor/Novelli, Zurich and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.
Firm Principals
Don Fierce, Founder & President
Don Fierce is the founder of Fierce & Associates, which in 1998 was renamed Fierce & Isakowitz. In
1993, Mr. Fierce took a leave of absence from his firm to serve at the Republican National
Committee. At the RNC, he held the position of Director of Strategic Planning and Congressional
Affairs. As Director, he was the chief liaison to Republican members of the House and Senate as
well as providing strategic planning for gubernatorial and congressional races. Don worked directly
with the Republican leadership to coordinate legislative and communication strategy.
Don began his career in government and politics in 1969 while working in the office of Congressman
Jim Broyhill of North Carolina. In 1970, he left to manage the successful campaign of Congressman
Lamar Baker of Tennessee. Following that victory, he served on Capitol Hill as a legislative
assistant for three years to Congressman Walter Powell. In 1973, Don entered the Nixon/Ford
Administration in the office of Congressional Affairs at the General Services Administration. Three
years later he joined the Ford for President campaign as a regional field director responsible for five
states. During the Reagan Administration, Don served as a consultant to Lee Atwater for three years.
During his career he has consulted on numerous congressional, senatorial and presidential
campaigns. In 1994, he was instrumental in developing and implementing the Republican plan to
regain majority control in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Don has two children and resides in Falls Church, Virginia.
THE WATERGATE • 600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE., N.W. • SUITE 1000
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 • 202.333.8667 • FAX: 202.298.9109
Exhibit -2
Page �— of Z
Diane Moery, Senior Associate
Diane Moery joined the firm as Senior Associate in February of 2000. Prior to that, she spent ten
years with Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles. She served as a senior legislative assistant
responsible for labor, tax and regulatory issues. Most recently, she served as the Senator's
Legislative Director. In this role, she was responsible for coordinating the Senator's entire
legislative portfolio, which included such key issues as tax and budget, regulatory reform,
business and labor and healthcare.
Diane also served as a manager for Senate Federal Government Relations at the National
Federation of Independent Business.
Diane is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma. She and her family reside in Alexandria, VA.
Samantha Cook, Senior Associate
Samantha Cook joined the firm as Senior Associate in February of 2001. Prior to that, she spent
three years as the Senior Legislative Assistant to House Chief Deputy Majority Whip Roy Blunt. In
this capacity, she advised the Congressman on a number of issues, including Budget, Tax, Pension
Reform, Labor, Transportation, Superfund and Education. Samantha was responsible for two bills
authored by Congressman Blunt and passed by the House of Representatives: H.R. 987, a bill to
delay the OSHA ergonomics standard, and H.R. 352, a bill to increase the availability of pensions to
small businesses. She also served as the Congressman's chief liaison to the House Commerce
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Before joining Blunt's staff, Samantha spent two years as Legislative Assistant to House Majority
Whip Tom DeLay. She graduated from the University of Texas and is a native of Austin, Texas.
Samantha currently resides in the District of Columbia.
Exhibit 5
Page / o of _3�7
6. INDEMNITY. Contractor shall defend, save and hold harmless the Port, their officers,
agents, and employees, from all claims, suits, or actions of whatsoever nature resulting from or
arising out of the activities of Contractor or its subcontractors, agents or employees under this
agreement.
7. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT. All work products of the Contractor which result
from this contract are the exclusive property of the Port.
8. NONDISCRIMINATION. Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of
federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations.
9. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. The provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon and
shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns.
10. FORCE MAJEURE. Contractor shall not be held responsible for delay or default caused by
fire, riot, acts of God and war which is beyond Contractor's reasonable control. Contractor shall,
however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and
shall, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations under the
contract.
11. SEVERABILITY. The parties agree that if any term or provision of this contract is declared
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the
remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties
shall be construed and enforced as if the contract did not contain the particular term or provision
held to be invalid.
12. ACCESS TO RECORDS. The Port and its duly authorized representative shall have access
to the books, documents, papers and records of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to the
specific contract for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts and transcript.
13. TERMINATION. This contract may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties, or by
either party upon 30 days' notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. The Port
may terminate this contract effective upon delivery of written notice to the Contractor or at such
later date as may be established by the Port under any of the following conditions:
(i) If the Port funding from federal, state, or other sources is not obtained and
continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of
services. The contract may be modified to accommodate a reduction in funds.
Ball Janik-PSCO2.doc
2002-03
Exhibit
Page --l-2— of 32_
effective or by construed as entering into or forming a part of, or altering in any manner this
contract or the contract documents. Contractor's oral explanations and representation to Port
prior to entering into this contract have been a material inducement to Port to enter into this
contract. Contractor shall be bound to perform the contract work in accordance with oral
representations, to the extent not included in this written contract, in addition to all of the written
provisions of this contract.
18. NON -WAIVER. Failure by Port at any time to require strict performance by Contractor of
any provision of this contract shall in no way affect the Port's rights hereunder to enforce the
provision, nor shall any waiver by Port of any breach of any provision hereof be held to be a waiver
of any succeeding breach or as a waiver of the provision itself.
19. LEGAL ACTION. In the event of any suit, action or proceeding relating to any rights,
duties or liabilities arising hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover such sums as
an arbitrator (if arbitration is agreed to by both parties), or a court, including any appellate court,
may judge reasonable attorney fees in addition to any costs of arbitration, or costs and
disbursements provided by statutes in any legal action.
This agreement is entered into between the parties, by a person who has been duly authorized to
sign for each party, on this
Ball )anik-PSCO2.doc
2002-03
Exhibit (13
Page �_ of —�
5) Parkland and Recreational Development Contractor will continue to monitor
authorizing and appropriating legislation designed to expand funding opportunities for
parkland acquisition and development and various recreational objectives, and work to
secure funding for priority parkland and recreational development projects being
promoted by the parties to this Agreement. Contractor will continue to monitor
legislative efforts to revive and/or pass the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
or similar legislation authorizing significantly increased levels of federal support for
parkland acquisition, recreational development, wildlife protection, and community
economic development.
6) Industrial Parks and Economic Development: Contractor will continue to pursue
opportunities for funding public infrastructure designed to support the continued
development of business or industrial parks in
7) Educational Training and Technology: Contractor will pursue federal financing for the
funding of post -high school educational facilities and technology incubator in _
8) Salmon Recovery: Contractor will monitor federal legislative and regulatory
developments in regard to salmon recovery in the Columbia River and its tributaries
located within the political boundaries of the parties to this Agreement. Contractor will
advise the parties to this Agreement about pending changes to the Endangered Species
Act as they relate to salmon recovery issues and could impact the parties to this
Agreement:
9) Reauthorization of the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 — Contractor will monitor
reauthorization of the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 and encourage Congress to take
into consideration the particular plight of during this
reauthorization debate.
Other Program Issues of Interest
In addition to the areas listed above, this Scope of Work is intended to be flexible
enough to allow the Contractor to pursue other federal funding opportunities identified
by the Contractor and collectively agreed to by the parties to this Agreement, and
continue to monitor and advise the parties to this Agreement on other federal
legislation or administrative changes that may have a significant impact on them.
Ball Janik-Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Exhibit
Page_ / of_32__
9
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
FOR
FEDERAL REPRESENTATION
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MICHAEL JORDAN, Chair
BILL KENNEMER, Vice Chair
LARRY SOWA, Commissioner
Steve Rhodes, County Administrator
Lane Miller
Purchasing Manager
COUNTY_ REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OPENING
DATE: November 2, 2001
PLACE: Clackamas County Purchasing
Clackamas County Sunnvbrook Service Center
9101 SE Sunnvbrook Blvd., Clackamas, OR 97015
TIME: 4:00 PM
Exhibit 13
Page 4' of 3
• REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Notice is hereby given that Clackamas County, through its Board of County
Commissioners, will receive sealed proposals per specifications until 4:00 PM,
November 2, 2001, for
FEDERAL REPRESENTATION
No bids will be received or considered after that time.
The purpose of this solicitation for federal representation services is to guarantee
a continued County presence in Washington, DC and to increase the likelihood that
federal funding decisions, legislation, programs, proposals, rules and regulations reflect
the needs and concerns of the County.
Proposal packets are available at Clackamas County Purchasing, Clackamas
County Sunnybrook Service Center, 9101 SE Sunnybrook Blvd., Clackamas, OR
97015, phone 503-353-4444. Sealed bids are to be sent to Lane Miller — Purchasing
Manager at the Sunnybrook Blvd. address. Bids will be opened in the Purchasing
Department, located on the fourth floor of the Sunnybrook Service Center, at the
designated time.
This is not a public work contract subject to ORS 279.348 to 279.380 or the
Davis -Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a).
The Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to
reject any and all proposals not in compliance with all prescribed public bidding
procedures and requirements, reject for good cause any and -all proposals upon the
finding that it is in the public interest to do so and waive any and all informalities.
DATEVthis 10th day of October, 2001
Lane Miller, Purchasing Manager
0
Exhibit
Page Of 7
• No oral interpretations shall be made to any proposer as to the meaning of any of
the contract documents or be effective to modify any of the provisions of the contract
documents. Every request for an interpretation shall be made in writing and addressed
to the Purchasing Manager and, to be given consideration, must be received at least
five (5) days prior to the date set for the opening of proposals. Any and all such .
interpretations will be mailed to all prospective proposers (at the respective address
.furnished for such purposes) not later than three (3) days prior to the date fixed for the
opening of proposals. Failure of any proposer to receive any such addendum or
interpretation shall not relieve such proposer from any obligation under this proposal as
submitted. All addenda so issued shall become as much a part of the contract
documents as if bound herein.
2.9 NONDISCRIMINATION:
The successful contractor agrees that, in performing the work called for by this
proposal and in securing and supplying materials, the contractor will not discriminate
against any person on the basis of race, color, religious creed, political ideas, sex, age,
marital status, physical or mental handicap, national origin or ancestry unless the
reasonable demands of employment are such that they cannot be met by a person with
a particular physical or mental handicap.
2.10 FAILURE TO SUBMIT OFFER:
If no offer is to be submitted, do not return the RFP. Failure of the recipient to
offer, or to notify the issuing office that future solicitations are desired, will not result in
removal of the name of such recipient from the mailing list for the type of supplies or
services covered by the solicitation.
2.11 PREPARATION OF OFFERS:
Proposers are expected to examine the specifications, schedules and all
instructions.
Each proposer shall furnish the information required by the solicitation.
Proposers shall sign the solicitation and print or type their name on other submitted
exhibits and each continuation sheet thereof on which an entry is made. Erasures or
other changes must be initialed by the person signing the offer. Proposals signed by an
agent are to be accompanied by evidence of his/her authority unless such evidence has
been previously furnished.
Proposers shall state a definite time for delivery of supplies or for performance of
services. Time, if stated as a number of days, will include Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays.
2.12 SPECIFICATIONS LIMITING COMPETITION:
Proposers may comment on any specification or requirement contained within
this RFP, which they feel limits competition in the selection of a proposer to perform the
services herein defined. Protests shall detail the reasons and any proposed changes to
Exhibit S
Page a-2—of --3
2
•
SECTION 3
PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND
RESPONSE
n
Exhibit—45
Page � of 2 7
Submitted by:
Address:
Date:
PROPOSAL RESPONSE
Phone number:
The undersigned, through the formal submittal of this proposal response, declares that
he/she has examined all related proposal documents and read the instruction and
conditions, and hereby proposes to furnish proposals for FEDERAL
REPRESENTATION as specified, in accordance with the proposal documents herein.
The term of the contract is from contract execution through December 31, 2002.
The Proposer, by his signature below, hereby represents as follows:
(a) That no Commissioner, officer, agency or employee of Clackamas County is
personally interested directly or indirectly in this contract or the compensation to be paid
hereunder, and that no representation, statement or statements, oral or in writing, of the
County, its Commissioners, officers, agents, or employees had induced him to enter into
• this contract and the papers made a part hereof by its terms;
(b) That this proposal is made without connection with any person, firm or
corporation making a bid for the same material, and is in all respects, fair and without
collusion or fraud.
(c) The proposer agrees to accept as full payment for the services specified herein,
the amount as shown in his/her proposal.
(d) Vendors shall use recyclable products to the maximum extent economically.
feasible in the performance of the contract work set forth in this document.
[ ] Drug Testing Requirement, as defined in ORS 279.312
[ ] Resident Bidder, as defined in ORS 279.029
[ ] Non -Resident Bidder, Resident State:
E
Exhibit '13
Page 2,,b of —�
• 5. Identify and establish contacts and working relationships with individuals, offices and
agencies that are responsible for making or influencing federal funding, policy and
regulatory decisions that may affect the County. Contacts shall include Members of
Congress, congressional staff, congressional committee staff, Administration officials
and staff and relevant interest groups & coalitions.
6. Arrange meetings and prepare County officials for meetings with Members of
Congress, congressional staff, federal officials, and other organizations in
Washington, D.C. and in Oregon.
4.2 QUESTIONS ON TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Questions relating to materials in the Bid Proposal (Section 3), the Standard
Specifications and Conditions (Section 4) shall be addressed to:
JOHN RIST
Business and Administrative Services Manager
Department of Transportation and Development
(503) 353-4337
• 4.3 QUESTIONS ON LEGAL INFORMATION
Questions relating to this bid or bid document (excluding Sections 3, 4 and 5) shall be
addressed to:
Lane Miller
Purchasing Manager
(503) 353-4444
Exhibit
Page_ ZP'_of _ 3-7
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE of WORK
FEDERAL REPRESENTATION
BALL, JANIK LLP
January 1, 2002 — June 30, 2003
CLACKAMAS COUNTY
The Washington, D.C. office of Ball, Janik LLP (the CONTRACTOR) will represent the
interests of Clackamas County before Congress, Oregon's Congressional delegation and
the federal agencies as such interests relate to transportation, human services, water &
natural resources, economic development, public works and other federal funding
opportunities. The CONTRACTOR will provide to the County a strategy for
accomplishment and monthly reports as to its progress in the following key areas:
SEEK FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDING
FOR THE SOUTH CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT AND BUS
IMPROVEMENTS.
2. SEEK AUTHORIZATION OF ROAD, TRANSIT and RAIL PROJECTS IN
PROPOSED LEGISLATION REAUTHORIZING "TEA -21" AND PURSUE
FEDERAL FUNDS IN FFY03 & FFY04 FOR VARIOUS DTD PROGRAMS &
FUNCTIONS, such as, road or bridge projects (Sunnyside Road and/or Sunrise
Corridor), economic development.
3. SEEK FEDERAL APPROVAL FOR THE LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION TO
THE "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self -Determination Act of 2000".
4. SEEK FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS OF FUNDS AS AUTHORIZED IN THE
LITTLE SANDY LEGISLATION FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT.
5. SEEK FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PACIFIC COASTAL SALMONID
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY EFFORTS ASSOCIATED WITH
CULVERT REPLACEMENT and GENERAL SALMONID RECOVERY
EFFORTS.
In addition, to the key areas listed above, this Scope of Work is intended to be flexible
enough, so that, the CONTRACTOR will pursue other federal funding opportunities as
directed by the County. Also, the CONTRACTOR will monitor and advise County
departments on other federal legislation that may have a significant impact on their
operations and funding. At any time that the County so decides, this scope of work may
be terminated, extended, or increased on a time and material basis if additional time or
resources are required to resolve numerous federal issues.
Exhibit
Page 3 0 of -_
z
07/26/01 THU 13:57 FAX 503 373 1688 AERONAUTICS [a00I
Request for Proposal
Oregon Department of Aviation
FEDERAL REPRESENTATION CONSULTING SERVICES
Responses Due Friday, August 24, 2001
Issued by: 0 0
DEPARTMENT OF
� � D
3040 25' Street S.E.
Salem, Oregon 97302-1125
503-3784880
Contact Person: Marilyn Lorance
Outreach/Legislative Coordinator
800-874-0102
Date: July 26, 2001
Post -it" Fax Note 7671
Date,� �!
Pages►
To 'P
From
Co./Dept.
Co.
Phone #
Phone #
Fax # �1 � _ ONY
Fax S
I
Exhibit
Page 3 --'—of 7
07/26/01 THU 13:58 FAX 503 373 1688 AERONAUTICS
concerns of the State of Oregon and the positions and priorities of the Oregon Department
of Aviation.
PROPOSED WORK TASKS AND PRODUCTS
The Contractor shall perform the following tasks and activities on an ongoing basis and
prepare monthly written reports for the Agency that outline the Contractor's specific
activities and accomplishments with respect to the tasks and activities outlined below.
Reports, at a minimum, must outline specific references to the legislation programs and
policies monitored. Regular updates of reports must also be provided to Agency.
Reports may be submitted in verbal, written, overnight mail, fax, e-mail or other form as
requested by Agency's Contract Administrator.
1. Work to ensure aviation and related transportation legislation, policies, programs,
rules and regulations reflect the needs and concerns of the State of Oregon and the
positions and priorities of the Agency. Work with the Administration, Congress and
congressional staff, federal agencies (primarily USDOT/FAA) and other
transportation organizations concerning legislation, policies, programs, rules and
regulations affecting air transportation and aviation infrastructure.
2. Monitor federal legislation, programs and proposals that concern aviation or related
transportation infrastructure and services. This activity may include monitoring
legislation and proposals indirectly related to topics such as Americans with
Disabilities Act, Clean A_ir Act, Clean Water Act, Davis -Bacon Act, Energy Policy
Act, and other legislation and proposals.
3. Advise and assist in the preparation and implementation of strategies to accomplish
the Agency's goals and objectives at the federal level. In addition to providing advice
on the annual budget and appropriations cycles, advise the Agency on any major
aviation authorizations or the development of other major legislative proposals that
could impact aviation. Contractor shall provide information to Agency regarding the
development and consideration of such legislation and guide the preparation of an
Agency response to aviation and aviation -related legislation and specific relevant
provisions in the proposed legislation. This shall include review of likely legislative
provisions, analysis of funding provisions and program requirements, identification of
funding opportunities, and identification of Agency actions which would position
Oregon to influence or more favorably utilize legislative programs and provisions.
4. When appropriate, draft background papers, position papers, testimony,
correspondence, bills and amendments. Help coordinate annual project funding
requests and grant proposals when needed or requested. Respond to inquires from
members of Oregon's congressional delegation.
Page 3 of 6 7/26/01
Z 003
Exhibit 16
Page of 32
_o
07%26/01 THU 14:00 PAA 503 373 1688 AERONAUTICS
C?) 005
+ Proposals are due no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 24, 2001. All submittals
will become public documents and may be reviewed by anyone requesting to do so at
the conclusion of the evaluation and selection process.
+ In the event that it becomes necessary to revise any part of this request for proposals,
addenda will be provided to all parties who receive the basic request.
SELECTION PROCESS
Proposals will be reviewed on or about the week of August 27, 2001. The Agency
intends to select the consultant or firm that is deemed to have the best overall proposal
and is the most qualified to perform the work tasks and provide the products, based on the
information contained in the proposals and from references. Evaluation factors are:
Experience, Qualifications and Skills (60%)
l . Nature of Proposer's presence in Washington. DC (10%).
2. Proposer's experience in providing similar services to governmental agencies
(10%).
3. Qualifications of Proposer's firm and/or individuals involved (10%).
4. Proposer's experience with aviation issues (15%).
5. Proposer's experience with Oregon issues (15%).
Understanding and Approach (25%)
1. Proposer's understanding of the project and response to items requested.
2. Proposer's approach and overall plan to accomplish work tasks.
Value Delivered (15%)
l . Maximum level of service within the Department's budgetary requirements as
described on Page –4- General Information and Conditions (10%).
2. Total estimated budget for duration of contract (5%).
The successful firm will be asked to enter into a professional services contract with
Agency for the completion of the work.
PROPOSAL CONTENTS
1. An original document and 2 copies of the proposal are to be submitted to:
Marilyn Lorance
Oregon Department of Aviation
3040 250' Street S.E.
Salem, Oregon 97302-1125
(503)378-4880
Page 5 of 6 7/26/01
Exhibit
—16
Page 3CP of -37_
C
07/26/01 THU 14:00 FAX 503 373 1688
a
AERONAUTICS
Faxed proposals or proposals postmarked by the closing date but received after
the closing date will not be accepted.
The chief administrator of the Proposer's firm must sign the proposal. Proposals
must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 24, 2001.
2. The proposal must include:
a) A description of the nature of the Proposer's presence in Washington, D.C.
b) A description of the Proposer's experience in providing similar services to state or
local government agencies.
c) Identification of the Proposer's staff member(s) who would be assigned to the
Contract and description of their qualifications.
d) Description of the Proposer's approach to identifying, avoiding and mitigating
conflicts of interest.
e) Proposer's approach and overall plan to perform work tasks and provide required
products.
f) A description of the types and levels of services and products to be provided and
an estimated total budget.
g) Three (3) references, including the contact name and phone number, of local
government or other state agencies where Proposer has provided federal
representation services. Additional references may be sought and used in the
evaluation process.
Page 6 of 6
7/26/01
Exhibit r_
?age _-31 of 3�7
16 006