Loading...
1994-19451-Order No. 94-074 Recorded 5/10/199494-19451 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTE S An Order Accepting the Engineer's Report Relating to the Improvement of Certain Dedicated Public Roads Within Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates Local Improvement District in Deschutes County, Oregon, Setting the Hearing* for Remonstrances; and Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Give Notice of Said Hearing. REVIEWED 9w LEGAL COUNSEL COUNTY, OREGON 0135-1.613 � ORDER NO. 94-074 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, by Resolution No. 94- 039 initiated the improvement of certain dedicated public roads in and around the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates subdivision; and WHEREAS, the County Engineer has investigated the feasibility of making the improvements, estimated the cost of the improvement, has proposed a method of assessment and has estimated the amount of the assessments that would be assessed against each of the specially benefitted properties, in accordance with Chapter 12.48 of the Deschutes County Code; and WHEREAS the Board has considered the Engineer's report and has determined to proceed with the proposed improvements, subject to the notice and hearing requirements of Chapter 12.48 of the Deschutes County Code; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide notice to specially benefitted property owners and to set a hearing for the purpose of hearing remonstrances to said improvement; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That the Engineer's Report, Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, relating to the improvement of certain dedicated public roads within Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates Local Improvement District be accepted and hereby approved and that, subject to the public hearing process set forth by Chapter 12.48 of the County Code, the LID be formed and the improvements be carried out. Section 2. That a hearing be set for June 1, 1994, at 10:00 a.m. at the Deschutes County Juvenile Justice Center, Hearing Room A, Bend, Oregon, for the purpose of taking testimony on the proposed improvements and hearing remonstrances to said improvements. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDER NO. 94-074 ,a`., _r -0., .*-0 +;.a, 4 i r�r 7199# 0135-1614 Section 3. That the Director of Public Works be authorized to notify benefitted property owners of said hearing and the proposed improvements and assessments, in a form substantially as contained in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. DATED this 6,�f4 day of May, 1994. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON NANCY'PO SCHLANGEN, Chair AT7 TOM 'HROOP' B 44 ssioner �I Recording Secre ary BARRY H. SLAUGHTE , Commissioner PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDER NO. 94-074 All 0135-16.5 Exhibit "A" MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: TOM BLUST, County Engineer DATE: MAY 9, 1994 SUBJECT: ENGINEER'S REPORT SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES L.I.D. This report is made pursuant to Section 12.48.170 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) concerning the investigation by the County Engineer of proposed local improvements. The County Engineer has been assisted in the preparation of this report by the Planning Division, the Assessor's Office and County Legal Counsel. Deschutes County received a request from certain property owners to improve certain dedicated public roads known as Buffalo Drive, Mountain View Road, Appaloosa Drive, Palamino Drive, Cayuse Drive, Sorrel Drive, Pinto Drive, Longhorn Drive, and Mustang Drive in Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates Local Improvement District, Deschutes County, Oregon. Due to this request, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners initiate a Local Improvement District by Resolution No. 94-039, signed on April 20, 1994. The Resolution was referred to the Deschutes County Public Works Department for an investigation of the proposed improvements in accordance with Chapter 12.48 of the Deschutes County Code. This report constitutes the engineer's findings. General Description of Improvements and Surrounding Area The area for which the improvements are sought constitutes a portion of a subdivision development located east of Wilt Road known generally as Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates and the road and surrounding properties accessing the subdivision from Wilt Road. The Squaw Creek developer has platted a total of 250 lots in two phases. The first phase, platted as Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates (Squaw Creek Canyon) consists of 114 1 -acre lots. The second phase, platted as Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates, First Addition (First Addition), consists of 136 2 1/2 -acre lots. The proposed improvements are located within the Squaw Creek Canyon phase of the development. The subdivision takes its primary access along Buffalo Drive from Wilt PAGE 1 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 I W 0135-1.61.6 Road.1 From its intersection with Wilt Road (designated as a collector on the Transportation Plan Map) Buffalo Road traverses a 40 -acre parcel owned by the U.S. Forest Service, crosses another 40 -acre parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Niederbrach and then crosses a portion of a 170 - acre parcel owned by Larry Atkins. Buffalo Drive then enters the Squaw Creek Canyon subdivision, with land platted under the Squaw Creek Canyon plat to the south and land platted as the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates First Addition plat to the north. All of the lots described by the Squaw Creek Canyon plat abut on roads proposed to be improved. Of the lots platted by the First Addition plat only those abutting Buffalo Drive abut any of the proposed improvements. Thirty-eight of the Squaw Creek Canyon lots are owned by the current developer, Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates, Inc., or by individuals closely connected with the developer. The remainder of the lots in the Squaw Creek Canyon plat are owned by other private parties, except for three lots owned by Deschutes County (and dedicated on the plat as park lands) and one lot owned by the Sisters/Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District. Twenty-five of the Squaw Creek Canyon platted lots have improvements on them. With respect to the First Addition lots, all but 5 of the 14 lots abutting the proposed improvements are owned by the developer. None of these lots has structures on them. Much of the First Addition plat has not been opened for development. Services have not been extended along the roads leading off Buffalo Drive to the north. The First Addition lots along the rim of Squaw Creek Canyon northeast of where Buffalo Drive intersects Mountain View Drive have been opened for development. However, the EFU zoning of many of these properties makes their development prospects uncertain and the LID proposal has not been drawn to include improvements along Mountain View Drive. The improvements within the subdivision boundaries are proposed to cover only those roads described in the Squaw Creek Canyon plat. A map of the area is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Proposed Improvements The proposed improvements include improvement of dedicated public roads or portions of dedicated public roads known as Buffalo Drive (from Wilt Road to its intersection with Mountain View Road), Mountain View Road (from its junction with Vista Ridge Drive to its intersection with Buffalo Drive), Appaloosa Drive, Palamino Drive, Cayuse Drive, Sorrel Drive, Pinto Drive, Longhorn Drive, and Mustang Drive in the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates subdivision in Deschutes County, Oregon. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this report is a map showing the location of the local improvement and the roads to be improved. 1 Access to the subdivision can also be taken off of Wilt Road through roads in the neighboring Sno-Cap Vista subdivision to the west. PAGE 2 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 0135-1.617 The roads to be improved are local streets under the transportation plan (the relevant portion of the transportation plan map is attached as Exhibit 3), meaning that the purpose of those streets under the transportation plan is to carry local traffic and serve primarily lots abutting the subject streets. See DCC 17.08.620(F). The construction standards for local streets in the rural areas are found in the County subdivision ordinance. See DCC 17.48.010. The relevant standards are set forth in Section 17.48.050 and Table A. Those standards require a pavement width of 28 feet, a base depth of 6 inches of crushed aggregate and a surface of 0-9 mat or 2" of AC. Roads must be designed to the road safety and design standards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). These standards as adapted to rural local streets reflect the designation and function of the proposed improvement as a local street. The road standards may be varied by up to 10%. This engineer's report has been drafted anticipating that the work to be done will meet that rural local road standard, except that the road width has been reduced by 10%. The following is a description of the proposed work under those standards: Mobilization - normal mobilization costs incurred in preparation of the work. Construction Surveying - setting of slope stakes, subgrade stakes and base stakes for the contractor to construct the road. Traffic Control - signs and flaggers will be provided to warn, safeguard, protect, guide and inform the public and workers. Subgrade - earthwork will be required to construct subgrade. There will be some construction required to provide proper drainage. Base - placing, shaping, compacting and fine grading of base will be required. A six-inch depth of compacted aggregate base will be utilized. The finished width shall be 34 feet measured between the edge of shoulders. Paving - the paving will be an 0-9 asphaltic penetration macadam (oil mat) on a two-inch asphaltic concrete surface. The pavement will be 26 feet in width. Miscellaneous Work - resetting mailboxes and reconstructing existing driveways to match the new construction. Engineering and Administration - the expenses incurred by the County in the preparation of plans and specifications, inspection, surveying, accounting and payment collection, and interim financing costs. From staff's review of the proposal and the site, it does not appear PAGE 3 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 t 0135-1.618 that there is anything that would make the proposal unfeasible from a technical standpoint. All right-of-way is dedicated to the public.2 All right-of-way width is at least 60 feet in width and consistent with current county standards for rural local streets. Except for areas where the current road base does not align with the right of way, the roads to be improved are already laid out and in use. The terrain is generally fairly flat in nature, and there are no natural or geographic impediments to road development in the area. Public Works staff will be consulting with the Forest Service on the design and specifications of the improvements where they cross Forest Service land, as is required by the Forest Service right-of-way grant to the county. In the experience of Public Works staff, gaining Forest Service approval for such improvements has never proved to be a problem. Estimated Actual Cost Under DCC Chapter 12.48, assessments for local improvements may include in the costs to be assessed to benefitting properties the "actual cost" of the local improvement project. "Actual costs" includes all direct or indirect costs incurred by the County to undertake a capital construction such as that proposed by Resolution 94-039. "Actual cost" includes but is not limited to the cost of labor, materials, supplies, equipment rental, property acquisition, permits, engineering, financing, legal, administration, depreciation, amortization, reserve for delinquencies or defaults, and debt service. DCC 12.48.041. Administrative expenses may include those incurred in preparation for formation of a local improvement, such as meeting with property owners, preparing and processing the feasibility report, and providing notice and conducting hearings. The estimate of the probable actual cost of the proposed local improvement, including interim financing, is $922,000.00. Attached as Exhibit 4 to this report is a detailed schedule of the cost estimate. The estimated construction costs are based on actual 1993 project costs for similar types of construction. A 15% contingency has been added to the construction cost estimate for several reasons: First, to cover unexpected cost overruns due to unforseen construction complications; 2 Buffalo Drive within the Squaw Creek Canyon Estates development and all roads to be improved lying to the south of Buffalo Drive were dedicated to the public by the developers on the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates plat, recorded in the Deschutes County deed records on May 24, 1967 in Plat Cabinet A, Page 147. Those portions of Buffalo Drive lying between Wilt Road and the Squaw Creek Canyon Estates development have been dedicated to the public by separate dedications or easement grants dated in September 1981, recorded at Volume 347 Page 668; Volume 348, Page 278; and Volume 348, page 285 in the Deschutes County Deed Records. PAGE 4 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 0135-1619 second, to reflect the possibility that due to the tight construction time schedule of this project unit prices might be higher; and finally, to reflect the possibility of higher construction costs brought on by bidding the project late in the construction season (most contractors will already have their resources scheduled for the remainder of the construction season when this project goes to bid). The estimated cost is substantially higher than some earlier estimates for the proposed improvements. The reasons for the higher costs are several: 1. Construction costs have increased since the earlier estimates were made; 2. Earlier estimates were made under County construction specifications then in effect, which allowed for a cinder base. The County changed its road standards in 1993 to require that base materials be of aggregate. The aggregate base adds to the cost of the improvement, since the existing base material will need to be added to. In the County's experience, the aggregate base will cause the improvements to last longer than if a cinder base were used. 3. Finally, in performing preliminary survey work for the proposed local improvement, the County has discovered that the existing road base is not centered in the roadway in all cases. Previous estimates assumed that the existing roadway was properly aligned in the right of way. Boundaries of the Local Improvement District DCC Chapter 12.48 requires that properties to be assessed be included within the boundaries of a designated local improvement district (LID). Properties to be included in a LID are properties that are benefitted by the proposed local improvements. Attached as part of Exhibit 2 of this report is a map showing the boundary of the proposed local improvement district and the benefitted properties, along with the location of the local improvement and the roads to be improved. Properties abutting a street improvement are presumed under Oregon law to benefit from such construction. Accordingly, except as noted herein, the boundaries of the LID have been drawn to include those properties that abut the improvements. Because the roads are designated as rural local roads and will be constructed to standards appropriate for rural local roads, properties that do not abut the improvements will not be included within the LID. The proposed boundaries includes a 170 -acre property with frontage along Buffalo Drive described as 14 -10 -24 -DO -05600 that is not within the Squaw Creek Canyon Estates subdivision and that was referred to PAGE 5 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 M i 0135-1620 earlier as the Atkins property'. This property is the subject of a proposed partition under MP 92-37. Under that proposed partition, the 170 acres would be split into two parcels of approximately 40 acres each and a remaining parcel of approximately 90 acres. Buffalo Drive bisects and abuts one of the proposed 40 -acre parcels. It is unclear how the other proposed 40 -acre parcel would obtain its access; it does not appear to abut the proposed local improvement. The status of a public easement that would purport to give access to the second parcel is unclear at this time.4 Two other properties abutting Buffalo Drive are not included in the LID. Those properties are a 40 -acre parcel zoned for forest use described as 14 -10 -24 -AO -00300 referred to earlier as the Niederbrach property and another 40 -acre forest zoned parcel (described as 14-10- 24-1800) owned by the United States government and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Niederbrach property appears to be subject to pending building and planning applications for a residential use that is oriented toward and would take its access from Wilt Road rather than from Buffalo Drive. See, e.g., CU 91-108 (forest residential use) and building permits B32742 and B32863. Because of recent state -imposed changes in the forest zone requirements, it appears that unless the current permits are exercised, the new forest zone regulations would preclude any residence from being constructed on the property other than the one for which permits are pending. See, e.g., OAR 660-06-027. Accordingly, it is unlikely that a residential use would be constructed on the property in the future that would be oriented toward Buffalo Drive, even though Wilt Road is unpaved at this time. Furthermore, physical limitations posed by the slope of the property away from Buffalo Drive makes it unlikely that as currently oriented the property would take its access from Buffalo Drive. ' In the past, assessor's maps have shown the Atkins property to be split into numerous 5 -acre tax lots. These 5 -acre tracts were described only in a survey filed with the County surveyor in the early 1960s. The county has refused to recognize those tax lots as "lots of record" for planning and development purposes. The County's position in this regard was upheld by LUBA and the Court of Appeals in Atkins v. Deschutes County, 19 Or LUBA 84, aff'd 102 Or App 208 (1990). Accordingly, the Atkins property is considered to be one lot of record, until further divided pursuant to county ordinances. The Atkins property is now subject to a partition, as the following discussion details. ° The deed of that public easement explicitly been accepted by the County. County has sought to avoid taking any actio deed, given that the public dedication was with a purported division of land that the be illegal. See note 3, infra. PAGE 6 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 appears to In recent n that would offered in County has have never years, the accept that conjunction adjudged to 0135-162:1. The Forest Service parcel is isolated from other Forest Service lands and has been classified in the current Deschutes National Forest Plan as available for disposition to private parties. According to Forest Service personnel, little if any interest has been expressed by private parties in acquiring the parcel and it could be years before the parcel would be transferred to private parties. Because of federal supremacy, the County cannot impose assessments for local improvements on federal land such as tax lot 1800 in the absence of consent from the federal government. From conversations with Forest Service personnel, it appears to county staff that the Forest Service would not consent to the imposition of such a lien. The proposed LID boundaries include the 14 parcels within the First Addition plat abutting Buffalo Drive to the north. The developer has at some earlier time expressed concern about the inclusion of these properties in the LID. It is staff's position that as properties abutting the proposed improvement, these lots cannot fairly be excluded from the LID boundaries. It is clear that under the County Code these properties could access Buffalo Drive directly. Finally, the proposed LID boundaries include tax lot 6200 in 14-10-24. This 8.86 -acre parcel lies immediately to the west of the Squaw Creek Canyon development and abuts the end of the cul-de-sac on Palamino Drive. This lot was deeded off from the Atkins holdings in 1976 and would be recognized as a lot of record under County ordinances. Although the parcel appears to have deeded access from the south off of roads in the Sno-Cap Vista subdivision, that access is not paved. In addition, according to assessor's records a house that was previously located on that parcel was destroyed by fire in 1992 and has not been replaced. It is entirely possible that the replacement house could be oriented and located so as to take advantage of access from Palamino Drive. A description and assessed value of each lot or parcel to be specially benefitted by the local improvement and included within the LID boundaries, with the names of the record owners, is attached as Exhibit 5 of this report. Proposed Method of Assessment The recommended method of assessment to arrive at a fair apportionment of the actual cost of the local improvement to the properties specially benefitted is to divide the total cost of the project by the number of specially benefitted lots and parcels, with an adjustment for certain lots abutting roadways that will not be improved by this LID. This per lot apportionment method is recommended due to the differing lot sizes, shapes and frontages, the presence of numerous corner lots, and takes into account densities prescribed by zoning in the area. The differences amongst the lots make for difficulties in apportionment if an alternative apportionment method based upon frontage were to be used. For the reasons set forth below, it is reasonable to assume that each abutting lot or parcel will have only one residence; therefore, PAGE 7 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 c 0135--1622 the usage of the improvements would be the same per lot regardless of the frontage a particular lot has. The boundaries of the LID have been drawn to include only properties that abut the proposed improvements. All included properties are zoned either RR -10 or F-2. Given the existing zoning, the size of the subject parcels and the nature of existing development or proposed development in the area, it is reasonable to assume that future development on the vacant lots in the proposed LID will be for residential uses. See DCC Chapters 18.40 and 18.60.5 With one exception, each of the subject properties is zoned in a manner and is of a size that would limit the use under current zoning to one residence apiece. Most of the lots in the Squaw Creek Canyon plats are zoned RR -10, with 10 -acre minimum lot sizes, not counting wildlife area density restrictions. See DCC 18.60.060. The four F-2 zoned lots in the First Addition plat have 80 -acre minimum lot sizes. See DCC 18.40.090(A). The RR -10 zoned Golick parcel is also subject to a 10 - acre minimum lot size. None of these parcels could be further divided for residential uses. Current zoning allows but one dwelling per parcel on the existing parcels. The Atkins property is the only property that could be further divided for residential use. Records of the Planning Division show that a residential partition of that property is currently pending that would divide the property into three parcels for residential use, the maximum density allowed under wildlife restrictions in effect at the time for a non -cluster development partition. Under the proposed partition, it appears that only one of the proposed parcels would directly abut the proposed improvements. Accordingly, for purposes of apportionment, this property will be treated as if it were one parcel. The lots abutting Buffalo Drive to the north are proposed to be assessed at a rate 2/3 of the per lot amount charged to the other lots. This adjustment recognizes that the side roads abutting those properties will not be improved in this project and thus the properties do not fully benefit from the proposed improvements in the same way that the other properties do. It is possible that these lots could be assessed for improvement of the side roads in the future. However, because it is possible for the lots to access improved portions of Buffalo Road directly, they do benefit substantially from the proposed improvements. It is therefore appropriate that they be assessed at a rate in excess of 50% of the proposed assessment. It should be noted that the three park parcels currently owned by Deschutes County will be subject to the assessment at the full rate. 5 In addition, the Amended Building and Use Restrictions for the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates subdivision, recorded at Volume 331, Page 649 of the Deschutes County deed records, generally restrict uses in the subdivision to recreational purposes. PAGE 8 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 s 0135-1623 In summation, the actual costs of the improvements, estimated to be $922,000, will be apportioned by dividing the actual costs of the improvements by the number of lots specially benefitting from the improvements (130), except that the apportionments will be adjusted so that the 14 lots abutting Buffalo Drive to the north will bear an assessment at a rate that is 2/3 the other specially benefitted parcels bear. Estimated Assessments The estimated assessment against each lot or parcel is shown on the property list described in Exhibit 5 of this report. The estimated assessment on 116 lots would be $7,356.38 apiece and the estimated assessment on the 14 lots to the north of Buffalo Drive would be $4,904.26 apiece. Consistency with Zoning/Land Use There are two considerations to be looked at in assessing whether the proposed improvements are consist with zoning requirements. First, whether the class of the road improvement is one that would require land use approval and second, whether the requirements of the applicable zones would require land use approval. In this case, the proposed improvements would be considered to be a Class III road or street project. Class III road and street projects are those involving modernization, traffic safety improvements, maintenance, or repair or preservation of a road or street. DCC 17.08.625(C). Improvements falling within this classification do not as a general rule require a land use permit. Id. As a general rule, it is only when modernization involves widening by more than one lane that a land use permit is required. (See, e.g., DCC 17.08.625(B) regarding Class II road and street projects.) That scenario is not presented by the proposed road improvements. As to the requirements of the zones themselves, the proposed improvements are located in part within RR -10 zoning and in part within F-2 zoning. Some portions of the RR -10 zoning include WA and LM overlays. Some portions of the F-2 zoning include a WA overlay. Class III road improvements in the RR -10 zones are outright permitted uses. DCC 18.60.020(F). The LM zone overlay regulates only structures requiring a building permit or agricultural structures; it does not regulate road construction. DCC 18.84.050(A). The WA overlay zone does not regulate road improvement; it regulates only building of new structures, land divisions and new fencing. DCC 18.84.88.050 - 070. The proposed project is consistent with the RR -10 zoning and its associated overlays and may proceed without obtaining permits. The F-2 zone allows as an outright permitted use certain road improvements that are listed in ORS 215.283(1)(k) through (n). DCC 18.40.020(1). ORS 215.283(1)(L) lists "reconstruction or modification PAGE 9 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 0135-1624 of public roads and highways not including the addition of travel lanes, where no removal or displacement of buildings would occur or no new land parcels would result." The proposed improvements constitute an improvement to an existing roadway and do not include the addition of new travel lanes. Furthermore, utilizing an existing roadway, the project would not require the removal or displacement of existing buildings and would not result in the creation of any new parcels. The analysis of the WA requirements is the same as for those portions of roads located within the RR -10 zone and subject to the WA overlay. Under the foregoing analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the F-2 zoning and its associated overlays and may proceed without obtaining permits. Given that zoning allows for the proposed improvement, the project is feasible from a land use perspective. Requirements for Undeveloped Lands DCC 12.48.330(A) sets minimum requirements for "undeveloped land." "Undeveloped land" is defined as a lot or parcel with no improvements or with improvements that constitute less than 25 percent of the land value. DCC 12.48.096. In this case, as indicated by assessor's records and visual observation of the benefitted properties, only 25 of the 130 specially benefitted properties have improvements on them. Accordingly, the minimum requirements of DCC 12.48.330(A) must be satisfied, unless the exception criteria of DCC 12.48.330(C) allows for exceptions to these standards if it appears that in allowing such an exception the financial risk to the County of doing the project are not materially increased. The criteria of DCC 12.48.330(A) are as follows: (1) The value of the land and improvements for each of the lots or parcels to be assessed, other than those held by public agencies, exceeds the assessment by a ratio of no less than 2:1. Under DCC 12.48.330(A) "value" means the real market value of property or improvements, as shown by the most recent valuation of the County assessor or by evidence of recent sales of comparable property of land in the same development. The latest assessor's records show tentative valuations resulting from the revaluations made this spring by the assessor's office. According to those records all but 35 lots within the proposed LID boundary meet the 2:1 value to assessment ratio (see attached property listing, Exhibit "5," which lists the values and estimated assessment). For the reasons set forth below, for the purposes of this report, the real market value of these properties can fairly be said to be at least twice the value of the proposed improvements. These 35 lots can be broken down into several groups: lots that are PAGE 10 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 0135-160-5 zoned for forest use and that are assessed for tax purposes under a forest deferral assessment; lots that are in farm use and assessed under a farm deferral; and lots that at the time of the assessor's appraisal earlier this spring were not served by or that were judged to not be served by water. All the lots north of Buffalo Drive are assessed either under forest or farm tax deferral. Accordingly, the assessor's valuations for these lots do not reflect market values. In addition, according to the assessor's office, the lots are grouped for assessment purposes with all of the other lots north of Buffalo Drive, all of which are unserviced. The values reflect a reduction based upon the average cost of providing services to those parcels, including those that are as far as several thousand feet from existing services. Because of the undeveloped nature of the Squaw Creek Canyon Estates development, the County will require all lots to have services in the streets adjacent to the parcels before construction can begin. According to the assessor's office, the market value of these parcels should then equal at least the $17,500 dollar valuation established by the assessor's office for undeveloped lots having services to the lots. It should be noted that there is a pending sale of a block of 10 1 -acre lots, some of which were not serviced at the time of the assessor's appraisal. According to a representative of the prospective purchaser, the prospective selling price of that group of lots is $19,000 per lot. (2) Any lots or parcels requiring conditional use approvals for dwellings in residential subdivisions are subject to clear and objective approval standards, and it can be demonstrated that there is a reasonable expectation that dwellings on such parcels can be approved. The purpose of this standard is to give some assurance to the County that there is a reasonable expectation that residential subdivision lots in a proposed LID are buildable. This gives the County an assurance that the owners will have incentive to pay the assessments and that the security for the assessments has some value. In this case, the applicable properties are those that are described by the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates plats. It does not apply to the Atkins or Golick parcels, since those properties are not within a "residential subdivision." (It can fairly be said, however, that the Golick and Atkins properties, with RR -10 zoning, would not require a conditional use permit in order to place at least one house on each property.) All but 4 of the benefitted lots in the Squaw Creek Canyon Estates subdivision are zoned RR -10. Dwellings on RR -10 lots do not require conditional use approval. These all meet the standard of this section. There are, however, 4 lots zoned for forest use that bear further examination. Those lots are described as lot 1 in block 3 and lots 2, 3, and 6 in Block 4 of the Squaw Creek Canyon First Addition plat (also PAGE 11 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 0135-16?6 described as tax lots 14-10-24 7900, 7300, 7400, and 7500 respectively). These lots are subject to the requirements of OAR 660-06-025(1)(d), which allows dwellings on forestlands if allowed under ORS 215.720 through 215.750. Those statutory provisions are also set forth at OAR 660-06-027. These properties would appear to qualify for a dwelling described under the clear and objective standards of OAR 660-06- 027(1)(e) and the standards incorporated therein. The parcelization test is easily met by the number of lots platted in the Squaw Creek Canyon development. Records from the assessor's office indicate that there were 11 parcels within that area on January 1, 1993 with dwellings on them, more than meeting the requirement that there be three such dwellings. Per communication with the Oregon Department of Forestry and OAR 629-29-404 the stocking requirements of OAR 660-06- 029(5) are not applicable, due to the small size of the parcel. The road maintenance requirements would be met once the LID is completed. Water supply requirements would be met by the water system that services the Squaw Creek development. It should be noted that the above analysis regarding buildability of respective lots or parcels has been conducted for the purpose of generally assessing the buildability of the subject parcels. It does not stand as a land use determination of any kind; final determination on the development potential of individual lots or parcels can only be made pursuant to an actual land use application. (3) All services (electricity, water, telephone, sewer, if applicable) have been installed in the right of way adjacent to the lot or parcel. The Squaw Creek Canyon developer is currently in the process of completing the installation of services to the lots. This needs to be verified at the public hearing. It is anticipated that this work will be completed prior to the commencement of the LID project. With respect to the Atkins property, a review of the partition file shows that phone and electrical utilities are in the area. The file also shows that water would be provided by a well and not by any water system. Assessors records for the Golick property indicate that there were services to the property before the structure on the property burned. (4) No lots or parcels to be assessed are subject to land sale contracts or are encumbered by a blanket mortgage, trust deed or land sale contract. The purpose of this requirement is twofold: with respect to the absence of a blanket mortgage, and of land sale contracts generally, it assesses the ease with which the County could foreclose on the properties, and the absence of land sale contracts stands as an indicator of the financial status of the purchaser and/or the property. PAGE 12 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 0135-102'7 Land sale contracts are often an indicator that the purchaser was forced to finance the purchase and was unable to find financing other than through the prior owner of the property. It does not appear that the Squaw Creek Canyon development property is covered by a blanket mortgage. A title policy covering the property, issued on June 27, 1990, shows that the Squaw Creek Canyon properties were not at that time encumbered by a blanket mortgage. Further inquiries of the developer and his realtor and with a representative of a prospective purchaser has established that there are no blanket mortgages on the property. The Golick property is the only property that is subject to a land sale contract. However, as only one parcel out of 130, this fact does not appear to present a material increase in the risk of proceeding with this LID. See DCC 12.48.330(C). (5) Proof of payment of all current and prior years' ad valorem taxes, interest and penalties for 90 percent of the lots in the development proposed to be assessed and 100 percent if the lots or parcels held by a developer. This requirement stands as a test of the creditworthiness of the owners of the various benefitted properties. A review of records from the assessor's office indicates that this standard has been met. Taxes are not current on only 4 lots that would be benefitted by the LID, none of which are owned by the developer. (6) Security in accordance with section 12.48.340 will be posted by the owner to cover 110 percent of the amount of the estimated assessment for each lot or parcel in excess of three lots or parcels held in single ownership. Based on the current assessor's property ownership listing, there are two property owners that fall into this category. The developer (Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates, Inc.) together with principal shareholder Ron Remund and his wife own 38 lots and Susan Phillips owns four lots. Based on the per lot assessment of $7,356.38, the following security will need to be provide to the County: SCCRE, Inc./Remund (38 lots -3 lots) = 35 lots 26 lots * $7,356.38 * 1.10 = $210,392.47 9 lots * $4,865.44 * 1.10 = $ 48,552.17 $258,944.64 Susan Phillips (4 lots - 3 lots) = 1 lot 1 lot * $7,298.15 * 1.10 = $8,027.96 From preliminary conversations with these lot owners or persons who PAGE 13 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 0135-1.628 know these owners, it appears that they are in agreement in principle with providing such security. This will need to be confirmed at the time of the hearing on the proposed LID. It should be noted that the arrangements for the security need not be made at the time of the hearing, so long as they have been completed prior to the time for letting the contracts for construction. Therefore, to the extent that the developer divests himself of lots prior to the letting of contracts for the project, the amount of security will be reduced commensurately. It appears that there is a sale pending for at least 10 and for possibly as many as 22 lots currently owned by the developer to a partnership. Staff has spoken with Dan McCabe, a representative of this purchaser, and he is aware of the security requirement for single ownership of more than three lots. PAGE 14 OF 14 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDER NO. 94-074 {!■ ■i ' ,• .. `t N 11 I i..l r t _ I I L 1 \ , 1 1 1 it I I •.� r�l / I `\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 I �• t r I I I I -• i Wi �-- 1 I .-..M— I .� ��.•,Y1'.•.,J�.,.,M.\\NRI•\1111►:..,. /.,• 1 j i III •••- j G I 1 i III 'o 1 7r ti Onco i I I , 1 j to 1 ••,,ISSCy..,DRIVE � �if� i "r "r •�� �� *� �r r i A f r r�� r i PPALOCISA �'�•. ,.�'� � � � .' r` r 1�'r ?^'�r r I � . r r r r � N " r ''" �. r ''',. � � :�''1 I •�� •t �t ti'�v 't `; .� -t, •Nr ��,� O R 4 � -ter t '��`• � �, � r ` � . , hi r CIZ c;I I 2 0) N I , � C7 r f r.� o . SA e . r RD. g FRYREAR ROAta. '� • OOLLINS RD. 940, Ro W OA I1RR. D.� ; `- -- -----�---- .yam MR. 67TH 6T. RDA 66TH STC BY RD. 0� �� 7 ;3 D wNELMMTZ EltI OK60N ROAD 6TENKAIP RD. .e JOHNSON MARKET ROAD c g T 19 S T'17 S M z� f. r' O x .16 m T 16 6 FE "f M- TZ WA .4;�R T 16 S N M ,63�a0N r r cn 10TH 6T. z ITBTrA cm 6T: rn r T 14 8 F cn 0 rn t rn FE "f M- TZ WA .4;�R T 16 S N M ,63�a0N r r cn 10TH 6T. z ITBTrA cm 6T: rn r T 14 8 F cn 0135-16"4 EXHIBIT 114" SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COST ESTIMATE ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST MOBILIZATION ALL L.S. $46,155.90 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING ALL L.S. $26,600.00 TEMP PROT & DIRECT ALL L.S. $1,000.00 TEMPORARY SIGNS 150 S.F. $6.00 $900.00 FLAGGERS 160 HRS. $26.00 $4,160.00 ROADWORK CLEARING & GRUBBING ALL L.S. $9,495.00 GENERAL EXCAVATION 10,000 C.Y. $7.00 $70,000.00 FINISHING ROADBED 18,990 L.F. $1.50 $28,485.00 WATERING 2,300 M -GALS $10.00 $23,000.00 6" (3/4"-0) AGG BASE 71,740 S.Y. $3.50 $251,090.00 2" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 54,860 S.Y. $4.00 $219,440.00 12" DIA C.M.P. 480 L.F. $15.00 $7,200.00 18" DIA C.M.P. 900 L.F. $20.00 $18,000.00 DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION 480 S.Y. $7.50 $3,600.00 TOTAL $709,125.90 150-. CONST. CONTINGENCY $106,368.89 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $815,494.79 ENGR. & ADMIN. (15%) $106,368.89 (INCUS INTERIM FINANCING COSTS) TOTAL L.I.D. COST $921,863.67 0135-1635 EXHIBIT "5" SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES L.I.D. PROPERTY OWNERS PROPERTY ASSESSED ESTIMATED NO. NAME DESCRIPTION VALUE COST 1 Larry G. Atkins 14 -10 -24 -DO -05600 $260,400.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 456 Bend, OR 97709 2 Brad A. Guyton Faith A. Guyton PO Box 1081 Sisters, OR 97759 3 Janice Elaine Bafford PO Box 266 Sisters, OR 97759 4 Clifford J. Boersma Catherine L. Boersma %Questar Publications PO Box 542 Sisters, OR 97759 5 Robert J. Macauley Gail M. Macauley 70075 Sorrel Drive Sisters, OR 97759 6 Sisters Habitat for Humanity PO Box 238 Sisters, OR 97759 7 Sisters Habitat for Humanity PO Box 238 Sisters, OR 97759 8 Sisters Habitat for Humanity PO Box 238 Sisters, OR 97759 14 -10 -24 -DO -00200 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -00300 $81,060.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -00400 $119,320.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -00500 $71,820.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -00600 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -00700 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -00800 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 0135-1636 9 Director of Veterans Affairs Richard D. Cole Lynn M. Cole 14 -10 -24 -DO -00900 $82,320.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 910 Sisters, OR 97759 10 Robert Bruce Farquhar Dennise S. Farquhar 14 -10 -24 -DO -01000 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 3230 Wildwood Drive Longview, WA 98632 11 David L. Van Diest Heather I. Van Diest 14 -10 -24 -DO -01100 $150,570.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 85 Sisters, OR 97759 12 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc. 14 -10 -24 -DO -01200 $35,000.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 13 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -10 -24 -DO -01300 $35,000.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 14 Patricia J. Foerster 14 -10 -24 -DO -01400 $37,000.00 $7,356.38 3132 Copa De Oro Los Alamitos, CA 90720 15 Michael C. Hunsaker Nancy P. Hunsaker 14 -10 -24 -DO -01500 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 18019 NE 198th Court Brush Prairie, WA 98606 16 Edwin A. Weiseth Karen T. Weiseth 14 -10 -24 -DO -01600 $42,000.00 $7,356.38 1462 Moon Terrace Medford, OR 97504 0135-1637 17 Susan B. Phillips 14 -10 -24 -DO -01700 $40,000.00 $7,356.38 34614 McKenzie View Drive Springfield, OR 97478 18 Susan B. Phillips 14 -10 -24 -DO -01800 $40,000.00 $7,356.38 34614 McKenzie View Drive Springfield, OR 97478 19 Susan B. Phillips 14 -10 -24 -DO -01900 $40,000.00 $7,356.38 34614 McKenzie View Drive Springfield, OR 97478 20 Charles W. Dekay Darby D. Dekay 14 -10 -24 -DO -02100 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 185 Sisters, OR 97759 21 Charles W. Dekay Darby D. Dekay 14 -10 -24 -DO -02200 PO Box 185 Sisters, OR 97759 22 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -10 -24 -DO -02300 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 23 James D. Anderson Karen E. Anderson 15974 SW Monner Road Portland, OR 97236 24 Richard P. Wilson Anne J. Wilson 15665 Tumbleweed Turn Sisters, OR 97759 $138,220.00 $7,356.38 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -02400 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -02500 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 0135-10"8 25 Daniel W. Smith Margaret J. Smith 14 -10 -24 -DO -02600 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 1132 Sisters, OR 97759 26 Wayne H. Ellis, Jr. Lorene M. Ellis 14 -10 -24 -DO -02700 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 8035 Lardon Road NE Salem, OR 97305-3795 27 Bendore Investors 14 -10 -24 -DO -02800 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 1611 Bend, OR 97709 28 Diana C. Regal 14 -10 -24 -DO -02900 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 26295 E 23rd Street Highland, CA 92346 29 Diana C. Regal 14 -10 -24 -DO -03000 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 26295 E 23rd Street Highland, CA 92346 30 George C. Staab 14 -10 -24 -DO -03100 $67,450.00 $7,356.38 70075 Cayuse Drive Sisters, OR 97759 31 James E. Atkinson Sherri M. Atkinson 14 -10 -24 -DO -03200 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 3251 Mulberry Drive Soquel, CA 95073-2941 32 Rodney C. Poynor Tracy J. Poynor 14 -10 -24 -DO -03300 $155,500.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 686 Sisters, OR 97759 33 Robert K. Phelps Marsha J. Phelps 14 -10 -24 -DO -03400 $132,350.00 $7,356.38 70105 Cayuse Sisters, OR 97759 34 Robert E. Sheeran Della M. Sheeran PO Box 1162 Sisters, OR 97759 35 James E. Atkinson 0135-10k9 14 -10 -24 -DO -03500 $79,440.00 $7,356.38 Sherri M. Atkinson 14 -10 -24 -DO -03600 3251 Mulberry Drive Soquel, CA 95073-2941 36 Michael J. Orr Sandra R. Orr 14 -10 -24 -DO -03700 13035 SW Falcon Rise Drive Tigard, OR 97223 37 Doyle C. Frazier Linda J. Frazier 14 -10 -24 -DO -03800 36030 Cold Springs Road Lebanon, OR 97355 38 Doyle C. Frazier Linda J. Frazier 36030 Cold Springs Road Lebanon, OR 97355 39 Reynold W. DeBates Lilly DeBates PO Box 1959 Sisters, OR 97759 40 Reynold W. DeBates Lilly DeBates PO Box 1959 Sisters, OR 97759 41 Dwight English Rhonda English PO Box 865 Sisters, OR 97759 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -03900 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -04000 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -04100 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 14 -10 -24 -DO -04200 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 0135-1640 42 John E. Dodd Lesley A. Dodd 14 -10 -24 -DO -04300 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 3052 Brittany Drive Victoria, B.C. V9B5P8 43 Michael D. Black Catherine A. Black 14 -10 -24 -DO -04400 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 351 Sisters, OR 97759 44 Reynold W. DeBates Lilly DeBates 14 -10 -24 -DO -04500 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 1959 Sisters, OR 97759 45 Mitch Deaderick Michelle Deaderick 14 -10 -24 -DO -04600 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 384 Sisters, OR 97759 46 Michael D. Black Catherine A. Black 14 -10 -24 -DO -04700 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 351 Sisters, OR 97759 47 Barbara L. Remund 14 -10 -24 -DO -04800 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 Po Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 48 Bruce L. Peasley 14 -10 -24 -DO -04900 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 1611 Bend, OR 97709 49 J. Merrill Kneeland Karen A. Kneeland 14 -10 -24 -DO -05000 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 8436 NE Dick Road Hillsboro, OR 97124 0135-°1641 50 J. Merrill Kneeland Karen A. Kneeland %Ben Masters 14 -10 -24 -DO -05100 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 216 Johannesburg, CA 93528 51 Steven L. Summerfield Lucinda R. Summerfield Norman K. Summerfield Edith m. Summerfield 14 -10 -24 -DO -05200 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 20905 Yeoman Road Bend, OR 97701 52 Steve Summerfield Lucinda Summerfield 14 -10 -24 -DO -05300 $104,750.00 $7,356.38 20905 Yeoman Road Bend, OR 97701 53 Doyle C. Frazier Linda J. Frazier 14 -10 -24 -DO -05400 $101,840.00 $7,356.38 36030 Cold Springs Road Lebanon, OR 97355 54 Brad Chalfant %Deschutes County 14 -10 -24 -DO -05500 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 1340 NW Wall Bend, OR 97701 55 Jon Rosenlof Marilyn Rosenlof 14 -10 -24 -DO -07300 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 225 East Main Street Santa Maria, CA 93454 56 Ned R. Long 14 -10 -24 -DO -07400 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 2471 Donegal Court West Linn, OR 97068 57 Don Dietz 14 -10 -24 -DO -07500 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 926 Tonto Basin, AZ 85553 0 58 Gerald H. Teyema .a° $5,000.00 $4,904.26 $13,025.00 $7,356.38 $17,000.00 $4,904.26 $16,000.00 $4,904.26 $14,500.00 $7,356.38 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 $48,000.00 $7,356.38 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 Lauren S. Teyema 14 -10 -24 -DO -07900 23815 Johnson Road West Linn, OR 97068 59 James T. Massey Leslee J. Bangs 14 -10 -25 -AO -00700 PO Box 1525 Sisters, OR 97759 60 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -DO -00300 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 61 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -DO -00600 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 62 Michael Von Dette 14 -11 -19 -DO -00700 12922 Harbor Blvd, #677 Garden Grove, CA 92640 63 Brad Chalfant %Deschutes County 14 -11 -19 -DO -00800 1340 NW Wall Bend, OR 97701 64 John F. Culp Trustee of John & Ruth Culp Loving Trust Ruth D. Culp Trustee of John & Ruth Culp Loving Trust 14 -11 -19 -DO -00900 1206 E 33rd Place Vancouver, WA 98661 65 John C. Klement Karen J. Lord 14 -11 -19 -DO -01000 2496 Landau Street SE Salem, OR 97306 .a° $5,000.00 $4,904.26 $13,025.00 $7,356.38 $17,000.00 $4,904.26 $16,000.00 $4,904.26 $14,500.00 $7,356.38 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 $48,000.00 $7,356.38 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 66 John C. Klement Karen J. Lord 2496 Landau Street SE Salem, OR 97306 67 Don Claude Brown Trustee Eleanor Simpson Brown Trustee 9826 Hasty Avenue Downey, CA 90240 68 Don Claude Brown Trustee Eleanor Simpson Brown Trustee 9826 Hasty Avenue Downey, CA 90240 69 Ronald D. Remund PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 14 -11 -19 -DO -01100 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 14 -11 -19 -DO -01200 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 14 -11 -19 -DO -01300 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 14 -11 -19 -CO -00200 $128,820.00 $7,356.38 70 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -00300 PO Box 760 Sisters, OF 97759 71 Robert Wayne Powell Terry Weygandt Powell 14 -11 -19 -CO -00400 PO Box 596 Sisters, OR 97759 72 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -00500 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 73 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -00600 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 $111,810.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 0135-16,14 74 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -00700 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 75 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -00800 $17,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 76 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -00900 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 77 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01000 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 78 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01100 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 79 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01200 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 80 Kenneth D. Enoch Laura J. Enoch 14 -11 -19 -CO -01300 $88,590.00 $7,356.38 17320 Mt. View Road Sisters, OR 97759 81 James C. Harrison Marion E. Harrison 14 -11 -19 -CO -01400 $121,590.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 613 Sisters, OR 97759 82 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01500 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 83 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01600 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 84 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01700 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 85 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01800 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 86 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -01900 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 87 Carl Rasmussen Dot Rasmussen 14 -11 -19 -CO -02000 PO Box 1747 Sisters, OR 97759 88 Kenneth E. Beu Renee M. Beu 14 -11 -19 -CO -02100 4010 Massachusetts Long Beach, CA 90814 89 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -02200 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 01 35--165 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $111,780.00 $7,356.38 $131,750.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 90 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -02300 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 91 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -02400 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 92 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -02500 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 93 Sisters Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District 14 -11 -19 -CO -02600 PO Box 824 Sisters, OR 97759 94 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -02700 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 95 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -02800 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 96 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -02900 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 97 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -03000 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 0135-16,.#6 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 0135-16110�7 98 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -03100 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 99 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -03200 $12,250.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 100 Robert J. Macauley Gail M. Macauley 14 -11 -19 -CO -03300 $92,950.00 $7,356.38 70075 Sorrel Drive Sisters, OR 97759 101 Laurence R. Purvine Kimberly S. Purvine 14 -11 -19 -CO -03400 $40,000.00 $7,356.38 4135 Suntree Court SE Salem, OR 97302 102 Teresa Haines 14 -11 -19 -CO -03500 $40,000.00 $7,356.38 216 W Fifth McMinnville, OR 97128 103 Susan L. Phillips 14 -11 -19 -CO -03600 $40,000.00 $7,356.38 34614 McKenzie View Drive Springfield, OR 97478 104 Peter Ernest Thomas Storton Janet Lee Storton Co -Trustees 14 -11 -19 -CO -03700 $221,680.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 1743 Sisters, OR 97759 105 Robert W. Ross 14 -11 -19 -CO -03800 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 11834 Copper Butte Drive Tucson, AZ 85737 106 Brad Chalfant %Deschutes County 1340 NW Wall Bend, OR 97701 107 Gary E. Windheim Karen L. Windheim PO Box 1554 Sisters, OR 97759 14 -11 -19 -CO -03900 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 14 -11 -19 -CO -04000 $157,000.00 $7,356.38 108 Douglas V. Freeman Doreen C. Freeman 14 -11 -19 -CO -04100 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 1500 2nd Street Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 109 Thomas Kessler Shannon Kessler 4460 Mill Street Eugene, OR 97405 110 Frederick J. Bolthouse Nancy L. Bolthouse PO Box 1227 Sherwood, OR 97140 ill Douglas T. Nelson Kay B. Nelson 761 Hylo Road S Salem, OR 97306 112 William G. White Hui Chuan White 350 Golden Bear Court Simi Valley, CA 93065 14 -11 -19 -CO -04200 $133,700.00 $7,356.38 14 -11 -19 -CO -04300 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 14 -11 -19 -CO -04400 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 14 -11 -19 -CO -04500 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 113 Donald F. Eagleston Andrea G. Eagleston 14 -11 -19 -CO -04600 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 538 Sequoia Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 Q135-16,19 114 Glenn F. Nickell Nadine Nickell 14 -11 -19 -CO -04700 $145,330.00 $7,356.38 PO Box 188 Sisters, OR 97759 115 William G. White Hui Chuan White 14 -11 -19 -CO -04800 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 350 Golden Bear Court Simi Valley, CA 93065 116 James G. Chapman 14 -11 -19 -CO -04900 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 615-B SE Linn Street Portland, OR 97202 117 James G. Chapman 14 -11 -19 -CO -05000 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 615-B SE Linn Street Portland, OR 97202 118 Ray G. Hildenbrand Clara M. Hildenbrand Trustees 14 -11 -19 -CO -05100 $47,000.00 $7,356.38 846 Loper Avenue Prineville, OR 97754 119 J. A. Heath Mabel V. Heath 14 -11 -19 -CO -05200 $50,000.00 $7,356.38 77500 S 6th A44 Cottage Grove, OR 97424 120 Barry W. Enoch Loleta L. Enoch 14 -11 -19 -CO -05300 $183,460.00 $7,356.38 17385 Mountain View Road Sisters, OR 97759 121 Elwin M Dunn Trustee Beth A. Dunn Trustee 14 -11 -19 -CO -05400 $45,000.00 $7,356.38 Box 269 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 _ 0135-1650 122 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -06100 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 123 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -06400 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 124 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -06500 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 125 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -06800 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 126 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -06900 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 127 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -07200 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 128 Squaw Creek Canyon Rec Est Inc 14 -11 -19 -CO -07300 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 PO Box 760 Sisters, OR 97759 129 Kevin Spencer Linda Spencer 14 -11 -19 -CO -07600 $5,000.00 $4,904.26 65575 Tweed Road Bend, OR 97701 130 Alfred B. Ramsey ETUX %Golick Deanne (CB) 14 -10 -24 -DO -06200 $45,800.00 $7,356.38 5555 W Amazon Drive Eugene, OR 97405 0135-1651. EXHIBIT "B" NOTICE OF PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENT DATE: May _, 1994 TO: <name> <address> <city>, <state> <zip> DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates LID, a road improvement project to improve the following dedicated public roads to Deschutes County rural local road standards: Buffalo Drive (from Wilt Road to Mountain View Road), Mountain View Road, Appaloosa Drive, Palamino Drive, Cayuse Drive, Sorrel Drive, Pinto Drive, Longhorn Drive and Mustang Drive. Affected lots or parcels include all lots described in the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates plat (recorded at Plat Cabinet A, Page 147), 14 lots from the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates First Addition plat (recorded at Plat Cabinet C, Page 59) that abut the north side of Buffalo Drive, tax lot 14 -10 -24 -DO - 6200 (Gulick); and tax lot 14 -10 -24 -DO -5600 (Atkins). DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITTED PROPERTY: <tax lot> Estimated Cost of Improvement: $922,000.00 Amount of Estimated Assessment: <amount of estimated assessment> The Board of County Commissioners has initiated the above improvement, subject to a public hearing on the proposed improvement. The County Engineer has made a favorable report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the proposed improvement, including that the proposed improvements are consistent with relevant land use requirements. That report is available for public inspection at the Department of Public Works. Upon completion of the proposed improvement, the roads would be accepted into the County Road System, and would be maintained by Deschutes County. The total estimated cost of the proposed improvement and the amount of the estimated assessment against your land is as shown above. If you object to the proposed improvement and/or the estimated assessment shown above, you must file a written objection, if any, with the Board of County Commissioners, c/o Deschutes County Department of Public Works, 61150 S.E. 27th Street, Bend, Oregon 0 X115-1652 97702, within 20 days of the date of this notice, or testify at the public hearing on the proposed improvement before the Board of County Commissioners, which will be held on June 1, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. in the Deschutes County Juvenile Justice Building, 1128 NW Harriman, Bend, Oregon, in order to stop this improvement. If more than 50% of the owners of land representing more than 50% of the total amount of the assessment for the proposed improvement file objections, the proposed improvement will be declared abandoned and no new resolution shall be filed within a period of one year. If the required number of objections are not received, the improvement may proceed at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, in which case you will be notified of the actual final assessment when it is determined by the Engineer. This assessment, as finally approved by the Board of County Commissioners, will be entered into the lien docket of Deschutes County and will be released when the assessment is paid in full. Owners may apply to make payments in installments, which can be paid over a ten-year period. For the purposes of illustration, if interest rates were set at 9% at the time of final assessment, semi-annual installment payments on a final assessment of $7,356.38 would be $565.53. The interest rate will be set by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of the final assessment. Individuals or entities holding more than 3 lots or parcels to be assessed for the proposed improvement must provide security in the amount of 110 percent of the estimated assessment for each lot or parcel held in excess of three lots or parcels. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON LARRY RICE, Director of Public Works, On Behalf of the Board of County Commissioners