1999-695-Minutes for Meeting March 24,1999 Recorded 5/6/1999VOL: CJ1999 PAGE: 695
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*CJ 1999-695 * Vol -Page Printed: 05/12/1999 10:41:09
DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE
(This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with
ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect
the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.)
I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received
and duly recorded in Deschutes County records:
DATE AND TIME:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
May. 6,1999; 10:38 a.m.
Regular Meeting
(CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 99
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK ,.......; L�
2
� J l9qq_ X 95
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Wednesday, March 24, 1999
Commissioners' Hearing Room
Administration Building
Acting Chair Tom DeWolf called the Board of County Commissioners' meeting to order at
10:00. Present were Dennis Luke, County Commissioner; Mike Maier, County Administrator;
Sue Brewster, Assistant County Counsel; Richard Isham, County Counsel; Ron Meckler,
Director of 9-1-1 Service District; and Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel.
CONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
DEWOLF: Called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
CITIZEN INPUT
There was no citizen input.
Final Hearing on La Pine Special Sewer District Annexation and Signature of Order
No. 99-057 Approving Annexation.
Before the Board was a final hearing on the La Pine Special Sewer District Annexation and
request for signature of Order No. 99-057, approving the annexation. Bruce White indicated
this is the appropriate time for objections to be made, and if sufficient objections are made
the issue would be sent to an election. He stated he has not received any objections to the
annexation to date.
DEWOLF: Opened the public hearing.
DEWOLF:
Being no response, closed the public hearing.
LUKE:
Move approval and signature of Order No. 99-057.
rn
DEWOLF:
I'll second that.
nr
a
VOTE:
LUKE: AYE.
o
DEWOLF: CHAIR VOTES AYE.
SWEARINGEN: EXCUSED.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 1 of 11
3. Final Hearing on Bundy/Sunset View Estates and Lost Tracks Golf Course, Annexation and
Signature of Order No. 99-058 Approving Annexation of Territory into Rural Fire Protection
District No. 2.
Before the Board was a final hearing on the Bundy/Sunset View Estates and Lost Tracks
Golf Course Annexation into Rural Fire Protection District No. 2.
Bruce White stated this is the final hearing on the annexation of territory into Rural Fire
Protection District No. 2, offering an opportunity for citizens to state any objection to this
annexation. Sufficient objections would send the issue to an election. He indicated he has
had no negative response to this annexation.
DEWOLF: Opened the public hearing.
DEWOLF: Being no response, closed the public hearing.
LUKE: Move approval and signature of Order No. 99-058.
DEWOLF: I will second that.
VOTE: LUKE: AYE
DEWOLF: CHAIR VOTES AYE.
SWEARINGEN: EXCUSED.
4. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 99-013, Relating to the Exchange of County Reversionary
Interests in Real Property with Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation District.
Before the Board was a public hearing on Resolution No. 99-013, relating to the exchange of
County reversionary interests in real property with the Bend Metropolitan Park and
Recreation District.
Richard Isham gave a brief overview of the proposed exchange process. The exchange
involving Deschutes County is not an exchange of properties; rather, it is a release of
reversionary interests. In 1983, when the parcels were transferred to Bend Metropolitan Park
and Recreation District by the Board of County Commissioners, the County retained a
reversionary interest. The current request of the Park and Recreation District is to exchange
the reversionary interest (a contingent future interest) from the properties that they are
proposing to exchange with others to a new property to be acquired by the Park and
Recreation District. The principal question for the Board under the exchange statute is
whether the value of the interest of those being exchanged is equal to or greater than the
value being released.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 2 of 11
Mr. Isham further explained that in the event that a third party acquired the property from
Bend Park and Recreation District, the County would release its reversionary interest in the
property. The primary reason for reversionary interest being placed on the properties at that
time is the County would have recourse if the property was tax foreclosed.
Mr. Isham also explained that the reversionary interest would also apply if Bend Park and
Recreation sold or exchanged the property to a third party who did not continue the use of the
property in public purpose. At that time, it would revert back to the County. In addition, if
the property was to be sold and the County did not consent to the sale, the sale would be
upset by the retention of the reversionary clause. It does not relate to the actual use of the
property unless it is no longer used for public purposes.
Commissioner DeWolf asked for a show of hands of those who completed the sign-up sheet
for public testimony, and those who had not had an opportunity to sign up. This totaled I I
people. Commissioner DeWolf requested those giving testimony to try to keep their input
brief in order to allow everyone to participate. He also stated that written testimony was also
welcome. He indicated that a copy of written testimony previously provided to Bend Park
and Recreation had already been provided to the Board. He firmly stated that the Board
would not tolerate any personal attacks, that a lack of civility would not be permitted, and
reiterated that testimony should be kept to the issue at hand.
DEWOLF: Opened the public hearing.
A citizen, J. Marcus Campbell, P. O. Box 7695, Bend, OR 97708, a resident of First on the
Hill Subdivision, spoke. He explained that he worked for the Federal Government for twenty
years, and has lived in Bend for ten years. He thanked Cascade Highlands, Bill Smith, and
the Park and Recreation District for trying to do a good job in attempting to resolve a
difficult situation.
Mr. Campbell stated that First on the Hill homeowners have been meeting with Cascade
Highlands in an attempt to resolve several of the key issues involved. He felt the issues are
larger than the Park and Recreation District, the First on the Hill representatives and the
Cascade Highlands representatives can resolve. He stated that it is the Board's duty to
protect the public interest, and after hearing numerous times that this issue is not about roads
or bridges, he feels it is about roads and bridges. He feels that the City of Bend should
become involved as the proposed bridge would go right through the proposed park, and the
City clearly has an interest in the issue.
He also stated that Cascade Highlands could be a very good development and an asset to the
City and County. However, open space is a big issue, and this development would be nearly
the size of Sunriver. He feels it would be prudent to have a citizen's advisory committee that
would coordinate the involvement of the City, the County, Cascade Highlands and others
involved in this issue. He stated this would be a good way to work things out in an amicable
way, with the citizenry remaining involved and educated about the situation.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 3 of 11
Mr. Campbell indicated that he is concerned about the restriction placed on parcel #3 of the
log deck, which is a restriction to prevent development, retained by Michael Hollern. He
feels the County should be more educated and involved about the total picture before making
a decision.
A citizen, R. L. Garrigus, 61669 Cedarwood, Bend, OR 97702, then spoke. He felt that the
possibility of such a trade between Bend Metro Park and Recreation and Riverbend Ltd.
Partnership would not have been possible in the first place without the generosity of the
County putting the parcels in a surplus properties category. He supports the exchange, as
does the Woodriver Village Homeowners Association, made up of 148 property owners on
the land adjacent to the log deck. He stated the trade allows Park and Recreation to be
involved in one of the last remaining parcels of open space along the Deschutes River. He
hopes to see the trade to go through.
(A copy of Mr. Garrigus' written testimony is attached, Exhibit #1.)
A citizen, John Calkins, 19490 Kemple Drive, Bend, then spoke. He stated he lives in the
First on the Hill neighborhood, purchasing it about a year ago.
'fh e-ri
Mr. Calkins the read his written testimony into the minutes (copy attached, Exhibit #2).
Commissioners DeWolf and Luke had to interrupt and caution Mr. Calkins on several
occasions, asking him to refrain from voicing personal attacks against individuals involved in
the exchange situation. Commissioner DeWolf emphasized that it does not help one's cause
to make threats or personal attacks.
A citizen, Judy Briles, 18180 Bull Springs Road, Bend, then spoke. Ms. Briles stated that
she is upset about Crown Pacific Corporation's attempt to buy land and the water rights near
her property, which is located near Tumalo Reservoir. She feels it is wrong that Crown
Pacific does not maintain the property they already have in regard to trash control. (This is a
separate issue from the Park and Recreation exchange.)
Debra Burke, a citizen, then spoke. She lives near the Gosney property. She wanted to know
if similar bare land in that area is valued the same, at about $800 per acre.
Commissioner Luke stated that the review appraisals have not yet been completed, so the
final valuation of the properties involved in the exchange has not been firmly established.
Ms. Burke asked if the zoning will change or remain the same as adjoining properties once
Park and Recreation completes the exchange.
Richard Isham answered that the exchange of the reversionary interests on the property has
no effect on the zoning. The current zoning would remain in place until such time as an
owner applies for a change in zoning through the same process as any other property owner
would use. Commissioner Luke stated that one of the few allowed alternate uses for
farmland is recreational use.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 4 of 11
Ms. Burke asked if the property will be sold to Bill Smith and then be developed.
Commissioner DeWolf stated that the County's role is to make sure values are equitable. Ms.
Burke said that the newspaper stated that the land would go into private ownership and the
County would then have no say. Commissioner DeWolf responded that the County didn't
write the article. He further stated that any owner, including developers, would have to go
through the normal building permit process. He explained that the County does not own the
properties, but simply has a reversionary interest in it.
Carrie Whitaker, Chair of Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation District, then spoke. She
explained that a full set of appraisals has been completed, and review appraisals have been
ordered and should be done by the end of April. She further explained that it is a very
thorough process, completely independent of the influences of Park and Recreation, the City,
the County, and others. She stated the difference between the approximate value of Bill
Smith's property and Park and Recreation's properties would be made up through Park STC
credits for Bill Smith's future developments.
Ms. Whitaker also explained that there have been meetings between Bill Smith and First on
the Hill neighbors regarding the Westgate parcel. As a result, Parks and Recreation will
place deed restrictions on the use of the property that seem to be acceptable to the majority of
the First on the Hill property owners. (These are detailed in the attached information
provided by Park and Recreation, Exhibit #3.)
Ms. Whitaker stated that the Tumalo Reservoir parcel was never viewed as a potential park
site, since access to it is difficult and it is surrounded by private lands. She explained that
there are better public holdings in that area that can used as parks. She stated the same
applies to the Gosney land, as 800 acres in that area has already been set aside for future
parks.
Mike Smith of Park and Recreation then spoke. He explained that the area around the river is
the top priority for community use, and they did not want to miss this opportunity. He
further stated that other Park and Recreation holdings scattered around the County are held
for future exchanges of this type.
Nancy Craven, representing Broken Top, then spoke. She explained that they intend to
follow through with meetings to develop deed restrictions that will protect everyone.
Keith Scott, Vice President of Woodriver Village Homeowners' Association, spoke. He
expressed that in his opinion the log deck area is quiet and a good wildlife habitat. He hopes
the City will reconsider putting in a two-lane road and bridge. He would prefer a hike/bike
bridge instead. He also feels obtaining the log deck area is a top priority, but wants to see
Park and Recreation consider alternatives to the road and bridge.
Larry Acuff explained that the Park and Recreation lands being exchanged are clearly
undervalued. (See his written testimony, attached as Exhibit #4.)
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 5 of I 1
Dave Sheldon then spoke. He is in favor of the land trade and the County's release of interest
in the subject properties. He felt this opportunity to obtain riverfront land should not be
missed, and that it has the potential to be a world-class city park. He explained public
opinion on river use has changed, with most people feeling that rivers should be made
accessible, but preserved and enhanced. He also felt that it would add not only to the beauty
of Bend and Deschutes County to have the park, but would contribute to local economic
vitality.
Mike Smith of Park and Recreation spoke. He explained that the giving of lands in the
1980's was for eventual public use or for trade, and feels that trading these properties is an
appropriate public action.
Nancy Hall, a member of the Alliance for Responsible Land Use, then spoke. (Her written
testimony is attached, Exhibit #5.) She would like to see the log deck area as a park, but not
based upon the exchange of other public lands; she thought perhaps some kind of bond or
fund raising might help to purchase the log deck instead. She explained that the "fast track"
needs to be slowed down, and that perhaps the Department of Environmental Quality and
other entities should be involved. She also questioned the estimated appraised values.
Fran Franklin, a citizen, spoke. She stated that she felt everyone was acting in good faith.
She asked if there might be another way to obtain the river land, and suggested individuals
present different options.
Richard Isham stated that this hearing should not be closed but should be continued until
Park and Recreation has the review appraisals. Closing the hearing at this time would limit
the Board's receipt of future information. He recommended that the hearing be held open on
a continuation basis.
Commissioner Luke asked how to address the concerns about the Westgate property, and the
road and bridge issue. Mr. Isham answered that these issues probably won't be resolved by
the time the County makes a decision regarding the reversionary interests.
Commissioner DeWolf stated that the hearing should be continued to April 28, limiting
further testimony to new information, and allowing for the receipt of the review appraisals
and legal review.
5. Public Hearing on Resolution No. 99-015, Relating to the Intention to Transfer Reversionary
Interest in Redmond Armory to City of Redmond - Richard Isham
Before the Board was a public hearing on Resolution No. 99-015, addressing the intent to
transfer reversionary interest in the Redmond Armory to the City of Redmond.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 6 of 11
Richard Isham explained that there is a tentative agreement between Fred Meyer Stores, the
Armory and the City of Redmond regarding a right of way. Fred Meyer Stores is involved in
discussions with the State regarding the property. The parking lot and landscape
rehabilitation are a part of the issue. Discussions are in progress, and it is felt that the issue
will be satisfactorily resolved. He stated there would need to be a deed drawn up to transfer
the reversionary interest, and a letter of agreement.
DEWOLF: Opened the public hearing.
There was no public comment.
DEWOLF: Closed the public hearing, and stated that a final decision by the County can be
made by Order authorizing a deed to transfer reversionary interest once a letter of
understanding has been developed by the parties.
Commissioner Luke stated that he felt it is in the public interest to do so.
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY 9-1-1 SERVICE
DISTRICT:
6. Discussion of Resolution No. 99-023, Authorizing Execution and Signature of Documents
for Lease/Purchase of Hardware and Software for Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District.
Before the Board was a discussion of Resolution No. 99-023, which would authorize the
execution and signature of documents relating to the lease/purchase of hardware and software
for the Deschutes County 9-1-1 Service District.
Richard Isham explained that LaSalle Bank was approached regarding financing this
lease/purchase; however, they were under the impression it was for Deschutes County and
drew up the contract accordingly. If the loan was rewritten under the name of the 9-1-1
Service District, the interest rate would increase by approximately one-half percent. He and
Ron Meckler suggested the Board approve the contract as -is, with an intergovernmental
agreement to be drawn up between the County and the 9-1-1 Service District. He also
indicated that the previous loan would be paid off, leaving no old encumbrances against the
new system.
LUKE: I move approval and signature of Resolution No. 99-023.
DEWOLF: I'll second that.
VOTE: LUKE: AYE.
DEWOLF: CHAIR VOTES AYE.
SWEARINGEN: EXCUSED.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 7 of 1 1
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF BLACK BUTTE SERVICE DISTRICT:
7. Signature of Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement for Law Enforcement Services in
Central Oregon (COLES).
Before the Board was a request for signature of an Intergovernmental Cooperative
Agreement for Law Enforcement Services in Central Oregon (COLES).
Sue Brewster gave a brief overview of the COLES Agreement.
LUKE: Move approval and signature of the COLES Agreement.
DEWOLF: I second that.
VOTE: LUKE: AYE.
DEWOLF: CHAIR VOTES AYE.
SWEARINGEN: EXCUSED.
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY EXTENSION AND
4-H SERVICE DISTRICT:
8. Signature of Resolution No. 99-019, Transferring Appropriations within 1998-1999
Deschutes County Extension and 4-H Service District Budget and Directing Entries.
Before the Board was a request for approval and signature of Resolution No. 99-019,
transferring appropriations with the 1998-99 Deschutes County Extension and 4-H Service
District Budget, and directing entries.
Mike Maier explained that the appropriations would move only within the budget.
Move approval and signature of Resolution No
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99
9. Request for approval of weekly accounts payable vouchers for the 4H/Extension County
Service District.
Before the Board was a request for approval of weekly accounts payable vouchers for the
4H/Extension County Service District.
DEWOLF: Motioned to approve the weekly accounts payable vouchers for the
4-H/Extension County Service District, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: LUKE:
DEWOLF:
WEARINGEN
AYE.
CHAIR VOTES AYE.
EXCUSED.
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF DESCHUTES COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICE
DISTRICT:
10. Request for approval of weekly accounts payable vouchers for the Deschutes County Library
Service District.
Before the Board was a request for approval of weekly accounts payable vouchers for the
Deschutes County Library Service District.
DEWOLF: I move approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers for the Library
Service District, subject to review.
LUKE: I'll second that.
VOTE: LUKE: AYE.
DEWOLF: CHAIR VOTES AYE.
SWEARINGEN: EXCUSED.
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
11. Request for approval of weekly accounts payable vouchers for Deschutes County.
Before the Board was a request for approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers for
Deschutes County.
DEWOLF: I move approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers for Deschutes
County, subject to review.
LUKE: I'll second that.
VOTE: LUKE: AYE.
DEWOLF: CHAIR VOTES AYE.
SWEARINGEN: EXCUSED.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 9 of 1 1
12. CONSENT AGENDA
Agenda Items #9 through # 18, as discussed at the Board Work Session on March 22, 1999.
The Consent Agenda items before the Board of County Commissioners were:
9. Acceptance of Intergovernmental Agreement for Administrative Services; Continuation of
Prior Contract with City of Redmond to Have Sheriffs Office Administer City's Vehicle
Forfeiture Ordinance.
10. Signature on a Letter of Support for Oregon Department of Transportation's 2000-2003
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
11. Signature of Letters of Appointment of Forest Committee for Regional Problem Solving, to
Consider Whether BLM Land for New Neighborhood is Part of Commercial Land Base.
12. Signature of Resolution No. 99-024, Declaring Intent to Participate in Funding Activities of
the Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission.
13. Acceptance of Bargain and Sale Deed to City of Bend for Providence Drive Roadway
Extension to Highway 20.
14. Signature of Letters Reappointing Jim Bussard and Loren Irving to the Deschutes River
Mitigation and Enhancement Committee.
15. Signature of Resolution No. 99-017, Transferring Appropriations within Various Funds of
the 1998-1999 Deschutes County Budget and Directing Entries.
16. Signature of Resolution No. 99-018, Appropriating New Grant Funds to the 1998-1999
Deschutes County Budget.
17. Signature of Orders No. 99-044, 99-045 and 99-046, Authorizing the Refund of Taxes.
18. Discussion of Order No. 99-056, Authorizing the Sale, at Auction to be Held on May 6,
1999, of Certain Real Properties Acquired by Deschutes County.
LUKE: Move approval of Consent Agenda Items #9 through #18, including approval
of weekly accounts payable, subject to review.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: AYE.
DEWOLF: AYE.
SWEARINGEN: EXCUSED.
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 10 of I 1
Commissioner DeWolf adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m.
DATED this 24th Day of March, 1999, by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
Linda L. S ingen, Chair
ATTEST: D s R. Luke, Commi sioner
Recording Secretary Tom N. DeWolf,ssioner
Minutes of BOCC Meeting, 3/24/99 Page 11 of 11
3/24/99
TO; DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM R.L. GARRIGUS
RE; PARKS AND REC LAND SWAP
---------------
THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING....... THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH A TRADE BETWEEN BEND METRO PARKS AND REC AND RIVER BEND
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST
PLACE WITHOUT THE GENEROSITY OF THE COUNTY, PUTTING THESE
LANDS IN A SURPLUS CATEGORY. I SUPPORT THIS LAND EXCHANGE, AS
DOES THE WOODRIVER VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, MADE UP
OF 148 HOMEOWNERS, ON THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE LOG
DECK. THE TRADE ALLOWS PARKS AND REC TO BE INVOLVED WITH ONE
OF THE LAST REMAINING PARCELS OF OPEN SPACE ALONG THE
DESCHUTES RIVER I WOULD HOPE YOU CHANGE THE REVERSIONARY
CLAUSE ALLOWING THE TRADE TO GO FORWARD.
SINCERELY,
R.L. GARRIGUS
61669 CEDARWOOD,
BEND OREGON
March 23rd, 1999
To: The Deschutes County Commissioners
From: John Calkins, 19410 Kemple Dr. Bend, OR
Re: Protecting Westgate Park from Developers
Dear County Commissioners,
My purpose here today is to save Westgate Park for future generations. I am here to
seek justice for our community. I am here to warn you that Bend Metro Parks and
Recreation District has not Taken Care of the Public Trust. My neighbors and I demand
that a watchdog committee be created to look at how truly schizophrenic Carrie
Whitaker, the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District, some of its board members,
and employees really have been in regards to their duties and responsibilities to serve
the public on this Westgate Park Controversy and the whole log deck land exchange in
general.
As I will tell Z21 News Today in my interview with them -
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District has made terrible mistakes on there way to
misleading me, my neighbors, and the whole community about Westgate Park and this
land exchange. We should all be ashamed and disgusted with this whole process. And
we should be gravely concerned about how Carrie Whitaker and the powers that be,
have handled this deal. This whole deal is really not about parks, it is about roads,
bridges and developers who really don't give hoot about protecting our natural
resources.
Carrie Whitaker is probably hoping that no one has noticed her actions. But she was
wrong. We have noticed. We have noticed how instead of protecting the parks that she
is paid to protect, she has instead made every effort to serve Bill Smith and the River
Bend Limited Partnership as well as the Broken Top People (AKA) Cascade Highlands
Limited Partnership. She and the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District have
mislead many people and their actions and/or lack of actions have served these
developers well. Their efforts have served those who would take away our existing
parkland at the expense and loss to the taxpayers and residents of this community. I will
say it one more time so I get my point across, they are serving the developers, not the
public. And I have proof!
In my dealings with Carrie Whitaker and the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District,
I have been lied to, told to shut up, hung up on, and deprived my right to make proper
public comment. I have a very well documented case to show that, besides from the
improper orchestration of the local media, Carrie Whitaker has not served the public
trust. I for one, and many people in the community, including my neighbors, don't
trust her to do the right thing. And we have been shown that we can't trust any of the
parties involved in this proposed land exchange including the Bend Metro Parks and
Recreation District, RBLP, CHLP, or the City of Bend.
We need to act now to save Westgate Park before it is gone and Bill Smith and his
buddies profit greatly from it at our communities expense. At close inspection, this is
not a good deal for our community. It is a horrible deal for our community. However,
the "players" that are involved the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District, RBLP,
CHLP, the City of Bend and the local media have all made efforts to fool everyone into
thinking that this is a wonderful deal for the community. And God Bless old Les
Schwab for all his money! And what nice park this log deck will be! Blah Blah Blah
Hold on, wait, lets get the story right for a change. There is no deal or agreement
between Broken Top and my neighborhood. They have not kept up their end of the
bargain. We have been lied to and deceived. Something has to be done to protect us
from these guys before they rip off the entire community.
In fact, I am demanding that this whole deception be stopped right now, today. It is
pretty obvious that this land exchange deal has many flaws in it. I come before you
today to seek your help. I need you to act properly & carry out your fiduciary
responsibilities as the custodians of Westgate Park. I am asking that you hold off a while
until the community can take a closer look at what has happened so far and who really
benefits from this deal. I need your help to protect the residents of and visitors to
Central Oregon. "We The People", need a watchdog committee to look after the well
being of not just our generation, but future generations to come. If you don't put a stop
to this "done deal" it will become just another scam played on the taxpayers and citizens
of this community. And where will we be then, when Bend has grown up all around us
and we our crying out for more parks, protected open spaces and trail systems.
If nothing is done to protect our community, I will seek legal actions. I will expose all
the greed and corruption that is taking place here. And I won't stop until everyone
knows about our communities own little "FLEECING OF AMERICA".
The choice is yours. Protect the rights and interests of the people or jump on the Carrie
Whitaker bandwagon and see where that leads you.
I demand Justice Now! Save Westgate Park and preserve its use for public purposes
forever. Send these developers the message that they can't buy off or swap away our
future.
I have enclosed my telephone numbers at the bottom of this speech. I encourage you to
hear more of my side of this story as well as hear the stories of my neighbors and the
many other residents of this community who have not been fooled by all this nonsense.
Thank You for this opportunity to shed more light on this shady deal.
Sincerely,
"o � B�,o
John Calkins wk (8.30-1.00) 389-7404, hm (10:00-5:00) 388-4725
etro
& Recreation
Nstrict
Carrie Whitaker. Executive Director
Date: March 18, 1999
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Carrie Whitaker
Subject: BMPRD Proposed Land Trade
Administration & Recreation Services
200 N.W. Pacific Park Lane
Bend, Oregon 97701
541/389-7275
FAX 541/388-5429
In preparation for the County hearing on March 24 I have prepared the following
information that should be helpful. Attached is a summary of the comments we received
from the public review period regarding the proposed land exchange between the District
and River Bend Limited Partnership. I shared these notes with the Park and Recreation
District Board at our March 16, 1999 meeting. I have also made you a copy of the
written and verbal comments we have received.
At the March 16, 1999 Board meeting the Board agreed to keep moving forward on the
proposed exchange. There are several pieces of work that need to be completed prior to
the Board taking final action on the proposal. The work that remains to be done includes:
• Completion of the Review Appraisals.
• Completion of the agreement between_ the District, Broken Top and First on Hill Site
Neighborhood Association.
• Transferring of the reversionary clauses from our three parcels to the Log Deck
Parcel.
Once this work is completed to the Board's satisfaction they will pass a resolution to
approve the trade.
We will be in attendance at the hearing on March 24, 1999 should you have any questions
for us. In the mean time if you need any additional information or have questions please
give me a call. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
CARING FOR PEOPLE AND PLACES SINCE 1921
Date: March 16, 1999
To: BMPRD Board of Directors
From: Carrie Whitaker
Subject: Proposed Land Trade - Summary of Public Comment
In the following memo I have made a quick, very unscientific stab at summarizing the key
issues that have been raised about the proposed land trade, during the public comment
period. I have not attempted to summarize all the issues and due to a time constraint today
I have only discussed the major issues that occurred repeatedly throughout the comments
we received. We received very thoughtful comments from many people and from those
comments we have been able to hear and understand a full range of issues about the
proposed trade. I hope this memo provides you with a summary of these issues as you
proceed with your consideration of this proposal.
As of Tuesday, March 16, 1999 we have received approximately 49 letters:
24 in support
21 in opposition
2 petitions with a total of 12 signatures in opposition
2 letters, asking questions
At the March 2, 1999 Board meeting 23 folks provided testimony:
8 in support
8 in opposition
6 raised concerns about the process
* Many of the folks that provided comment at the Board meeting, also provided written
comment.
Key Issues
Supporters of the Trade have sighted the following points:
• Bend Riverway projects surveyed 400 people and on that survey respondents
indicate that one of the top 3 priorities of the project should be acquisition of
additional open space on the river.
• The log deck is a prime park location which is centrally located.
• Location of the log deck neat to business center will help attract more businesses
to the area and will used by people in the office buildings for fitness and
recreation opportunities.
• Log Deck is an important historic site/Farewell Bend Ranch.
9 Log Deck important link of the Deschutes River Trail
• The Woodriver village Neighborhood (200 ? property owners ) supported the
trade
• Rapid development along the river is leaving few opportunities in that area for
park acquisition.
Opponents to the trade have sighted the following points:
• Opposed to trading any of the BMPRD lands;
As the community grows we will need land for parks.
The three parcels of BMPRD lands designated as natural environments on the Bend
Area General Plan.
Tumalo and Gosney property are well outside the UGB. They are not on the Bend
Area General Plan as they are well outside the Bend Urban Area. In the vicinity of
the Tumalo Parcel we also own the 130 acre Tillicum Ranch that is slated to be
developed into a public park. In the vicinity of the Gosney parcel we own over 800
acres of property referred to as the Westgate parcel that will be developed into a park
in the future. Because of these other large holdings in these areas the Gosney and
Tumalo parcels do not make as desirable public parks as Tillicum and Westgate.
The Westgate parcel is located outside the UGB adjacent to Forest Service lands with
other large park parcel in the vicinity (Shevlin & Skyline).
Opposed to trade of the 80 acre Tumalo Reservoir site:
Winter Deer Range.
Would like to see development restriction on the parcel.
Think it is appraised too low.
ODFW wants conservation easement on the parcel.
The Tumalo site is surrounded by developed parcels and does not have good public
access.
The acreage's in this area are all large 10 - 40 acres with access to USES and BLM
lands.
Tillicum Ranch will be developed into a public park in the fixture and is in the same
vicinity.
ODFW has no regulatory authority to their request.
The review appraisal will include an appraisal of the timber value and will research
if the parcel is a tax lot of record. If it is it is developable, if it is not it could not be
built on. Either scenario directly effects the value of the parcel.
• Asking that the land exchange be postponed so other options could be explored.
Some folks would like to conduct a fund raising campaign to purchase the log deck
outright.
Some folks would like the District to explore other funding sources for the log deck
parcel.
Bill has told the District that if we don't acquire the log deck parcel by the middle of
the year he will put it on the market.
The District does not have money in its operating or capital budget for this
acquisition, nor do we anticipate have those kinds of fiends in the next 2-4 years.
We do have fiords in our park SDC funds, currently they are slated for a list of
neighborhood park developments and the board could decide to use the money for
other acquisition and development projects.
• Environmental Issues on Land Deck:
Should have more than a level 1 assessment done on the property.
Because of the fill material on site, unstable as a building site.
We could consider a level 2 assessment, however 1 have seen no evidence to suggest
we need this. We are not putting any buildings on the site and grading work for the
park will deal with the removal of the fill material.
Developer would be required to dedicate park and trails in the Old Mill District
as a condition of development, why do we have to buy the log deck:
Developers are not required to dedicate parks or trails as a condition of
development, no such ordinances exist in the City of Bend Such a requirement
would be considered a taking and is not legal.
• Concerns about appraised values and appraisal process:
BIVIPRD lands appraised too low.
RBLP land appraised to high.
Road alignment along log deck should make the property less valuable.
Westgate undervalued.
BMPRD should hire professional broker to sell the properties
Some folks have offered their own "comparibles" in terms of property values.
District and RBLP are having review appraisals done by Bancroft Appraisors..
Appraisals are conducted by strict guidelines.
Neither party has influenced the appraisals.
We are aware of some of the examples of "eomparible "properties that people
forwarded to its and we have forwarded that info. to the appraisers.
Proposed road alignment along log deck does not devalue that parcel, there is a state
law that limits positive or negative impact on market values as a result of proposed
road construction.
Appraised values are based on comparable market values.
0 Perception that the proposed trade is unfair:
RBLP will make tons of money on the deal.
410 acres of BMPRD lands for 22 acres private land.
Why can't any citizen purchase the BMPRD lands
The District is not required to dispose of these lands by offering them on the market.
To date the Board has chosen to consider disposing of these lands in the form of an
exchange. We have had a Realtor look at the pros and cons of selling these lands on
the open market, his opinion is the values look good and the District will not gain ally
significant additional money by selling them it self. It would cost in the
neighborhood of 5100, 000. to broker these properties outside of the proposed
exchange.
Concerned about exchanging Westgate parcel:
Many folks have proposed that all or a large portion of Westgate be left out of the
trade and preserved for park and open space and trail easements.
The First on the Hill Site Neighborhood Association (representing 45 ? homeonwers )
has submitted a letter opposing the trade and indicated a willingness to participate in
the development of an agreement between the District, the neighnorhood association
and Broken Top about future development of the Westgate parcel. Thta agreement is
currently being prepared.
Westgate is located in vety close proximity to USES lands.
The First on the Hill neighborhood Association and Broken Top developers have
conducted a series of meetings and drafted an agreement that protects some open
space, a buffer between the neighbors and future development, trail easements, a 12
acre public park, view corridors for existing homes and locates a potential future
road across the property a minimum of 1000 feet from the neighborhood. They will
review the agreement with you in detail at our meeting tonight.
• Reversionary clauses on BMPRD placed on properties by County:
Reversionary clauses state that property must be used for public use, how can the
county change that ?
We have requested that the county move the reversionary clauses on our parcels to
the new property we acquire. That has been the practice in the past when we have
disposed of property that was given to us by the county. The county has a hearing on
March 24, 10:00 am, regarding this issue.
* Notes revised, March 18, 1999 to accurately reflect the comments submitted by First
On the Hill Site Neighborhood Association.
PUBLIC COMMENT TO BMPRD BOARD OF DIRECTORS 3/2/99 RE: LAND EXCHANGE
John Calkins
He stated he was told in 1998 by District staff that Westgate was scheduled to be a community
park early in the next millennium. He also questioned/and or cited the following issues:
• County reversionary clause.
• Appraised value.
• Westgate existing trail system that ties into the Deschutes River Trail and USFS trails
• Current zoning.
• Broken Top/Cascade Highlands developers need a road from Century Drive to future
Broken Top development.
LaM Acuff - (access issue across Hwy 20 & Gosney)
• County stipulation in deed.
• Questioned the development of the 22 -acre river site with the setback and city street
included.
• Stated there is a current litigation issue involving to the Gosney parcel.
Don Pederson
• Neighbor of 15t on the Hill
• Served on committee in 1981 to look at all county lands transferred to the Park District.
Westgate met the criteria for future trading stock to be used to acgaire a valuable piece of
property for park development.
• Retain a small neighborhood park site.
• Provide access to USFS trail system.
• Deed restrictions could secure the park site and trails with the site selected at the time of
development.
Supports the proposal.
R. L. Garrigus
• Sated his support of the exchange of the property to acquire the 22 acres of the old log
deck.
• Stated that this is a unique parcel and important for Parks and Recreation to be a part of
the future of that area.
Bruce Miller
• Urged the Board to consider the interest of the larger community.
• Last sizeable remaining piece of undeveloped riverfront land near the downtown core.
• Site would make it accessible to more people/ unsurpassed views.
• If the deal does not go through the property will remain in private hands.
• Concluded that this is not a shady, back room deal, rather it looks like a pretty open
discussion.
Doug Werme (geologist)
• Asked why we have to do a land swap.
• Suggested the District contract a realtor to sell the land for whatever price it might get.
• Keep both parcels; do fundraising for the log deck instead of the land swap and sell
whatever minimum lands the Park District has to raise the remainder.
• Broken Top hopes to get UGB expanded and if that were to happen Westgate would worth
more than $850,000.
• Sell the name of the park.
• Stated concerns about the log deck with regard to fill, tires, drums, a layer of bark on the
surface, and underneath the fill, contaminants.
• Recommended the District take a look at what condition this parcel might be accepted in
and what might be moved on or off of it.
Michelle McKay
• Stated her support of the project.
• Served on the City of Bend Transportation Advisory Citizen Committee; reported on
specific citizen open house where public had indicated desire for park in log deck area.
• Stated the Deschutes River corridor is the heart and soul of our community and she
envisions a trail system and park system that can be linked along the corridor, and the 22 -
acre log deck parcel is a keystone to all of it.
• Strongly endorsed the concept of some deed restrictions on the Westgate parcel; it does
have some great and unique features and some public access opportunities that shouldn't
be lost.
• Stated that this can be a win, win situation.
1. Marcus Campbell
• Read a list of 14 questions (copy attached).
• Would like to see Cascade Highlands developed, however, without studying the
proposal and considering some land use changes to increase the value of that land and
make this swap more feasible, he believes we are being fool -hardy and we want the
river parcel so bad we are giving up the farm to get it.
• Stated that as someone who has been unconstitutionally annexed to the City of Bend,
they are very upset, and now this gets slammed in our face.
• Stated there is no reason to slam-dunk this in a month.
Steve Lelli
• Stated he is a resident of Sunrise Village overlooking the Westgate parcel, and his office
over -looks the log deck so he would like to parks in both areas.
• Stated that 400 acres of surplus property in exchange for 20 acres in return seems like an
awful lot.
• Stated the log deck would be a wonderful piece of property to have, cut there is still an
unresolved issue on a southerly bridge crossing, and he believes there is a road that could
bisect that property.
• Stated he uses the Westgate property as it is a great place to ride bikes, and he observes
that it is used by a number of people.
• Suggested the District look into a land sale or pending sale across the street from Westgate
to see what that land sold for.
• Questioned the appraisal process.
Robert Jamieson
• Stated he believes we can have both parks, and there are other ways to reach the same
objective.
• Stated that he as well as others would be interested in purchasing Westgate Park and
returning it to the community.
• Suggested that the District create a task force that will look into other solutions.
Mike Hollern
• Stated that it is important to put the riverfront property in public hands, and there is
significant risk that that opportunity will be lost if the District doesn't act in the reasonably
near future.
• Stated that it is extremely important to provide as a community a new access to the west
side, and the southern crossing was reaffirmed by the City Council last year, specifically a
two-lane, meandering road through a park to be developed by the District. Added that
this seems to be a reasonable compromise for all of the elements involved.
lack cones
• Stated that from a real estate point of view, what Bill Smith does with the property if the
trade goes through is nobody's business because nobody is going to tell you what you
are going to do with your property and you have no right tell him what to do with his.
• Stated that he is a casualty of the Larkspur Trail, and he sees some of the things that
have taken place with Parks & Rec. and the opportunity over the last 20 years to put the
Larkspur Trail together, going on here.
• He stated that he sees this trade out of balance and as far as the public's money is
concerned the properties could be put up for sale, and the little piece down on the river
could be bought.
Bill Smith
• Stated that he has been working on the Old Mill District since 1993, and he is out of time
and patience, and he is going to something with the log deck property soon. Added that
he won't own it at mid -year.
• Stated he has handshake agreements with potential buyers of the parcels.
• Stated he has supported the parks in Bend since he got here. Stated that he was
instrumental in helping to add the McKay property to Drake Park.
• Stated that Broken Top (which would end up with the Westgate parcel) would like to meet
with the neighbors and discuss how they could develop that piece of ground that is
consistent with what the neighbors think of Broken Top (that they would like to see
Cascade Highlands developed).
Brian Smith
• Stated that he is an owner/developer across from the Blakely parcel.
• Stated there are numerous road alignments taking place and this piece will facilitate a
longer street radius as Bond Street connects with Blakely Road.
• Suggested reducing the speed and width of Blakely at Bond; keeping Blakely the same
speed and width as Bond.
• Suggested that some of these issues could be addressed as part of the trade.
Vince Genna
• Stated that in negotiating with the county the District was trying to look to the future, and
if there is some way to have a reasonable trade with Bill, then it is time.
• Stated that Eastgate was going to be a park where there would be a variety of different
activities, and to redirect summer use of Shevlin Park when the fire danger closes Shevlin.
Keith Scott
• Stated that he is a property owner in Woodriver Village, and serves on the homeowner's
association board.
Stated that he is in favor of riverfront open space.
Cited the survey taken at the Bend River Way Project open house that documented that
over 400 people identified their top priority choices for the future of the river are natural
areas and wildlife, scenic views, trails along the river and more open space.
Stated his support of the land trade.
Nunzi Gould
• Recommended that the log deck site be purchased outright from Mr. Smith.
• Recommended that the Parks Board keep parks in every location that have been identified.
Palmer Nicholas
• Stated that he is a 6th grader at Casdcade Middle School, and lives in Sunrise Village.
• Stated that he supports the proposed land swap, but like most kids his age, he would like
to have a small park at Westgate.
• Stated that his generation wants the riverfront to be a park.
Joanne Reitan
• Stated that she lives across the street from Westgate Park. Asked that the District keep
Westgate one of the few natural parks we have left.
Jim Guild
• Expressed concern for the possible environmental issues on the log deck.
• Stated the Blakely road issue is an important part of this whole thing.
• Supported a fund raising to purchase the property.
• Stated he fought the Crown Pacific trade.
• Stated the appraisal values are 10% of the real value.
Linda Augustin
0 Offered $40,000 for the Tumalo Reservoir parcel.
Mark McKin
• Stated that he is for the river park and for Westgate Park.
• Suggested allocating 20%, 30%, 40% of Westgate Park and trade the rest.
Dave Sheldon
• Stated that he is in favor of trade for the log deck.
• He stated that the value of that site as future parkland is almost incalculable.
He stated the importance of acquiring the log deck site compared to the missed
opportunity of acquiring riverfront property further down stream (BRC & Armory site).
,61S30
�wK
Handcrafted
TRADITIONAL ALES
March 1, 1999
Board of Directors
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District
200 NW Pacific lane
Bend, OR 97701
To the Board of Directors:
The publicized proposal to use 22 acres of land in the River Bend development for a new city park is
incredible! I am sure that the Parks Board is taking this proposal as the great opportunity that it is.
However, I am encouraged to re -state the obvious and remind you that this is a key component in the
Parks District's stated goal of a network of connected river parks. The publicized objections made by a
small group of citizens should not be construed as reflective of the community as a whole. The
community needs this park and you are doing the right thing by securing it for future generations.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the Parks Board on this fantastic opportunity. It will be wonderful to
see such a jewel develop in Bend.
If you should need anything from me with regards to this matter, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Until then I remain,
Yours truly,
Gary
President.
901 SW SIMPSON
BEND, OREGON 97702
541-385-8606 • Fax 541-383-4505
3J'2!'99
T0,,l ElTD tr1zTl c.t sr frac) RECR Amt ss r,0ARD OF DIP. E TORS,
FF OM;R.I.,. &. KATEIM GAFRIGUS
RE;I AND I- xCHANGE WITH RIVER BaTD I.I V=, PARTNERSHIP
WE FT -TI -LY SUPPORT TIIE EFFORT i:F BEIM h2E1T C, PARIcS Alm T<Fc
TO FaCIIANGE THE 1,EEDII7 PROPERTY TO AQUIPE TIS 22 ACMES AT THE SOUTH ENE,) OF
TETE OLD BROOKS SCANLON LOG DF.,CK.AIr.MP LIVING IN TIM CANYON NEXT TO THE
4,00 DECK 1,'Ok 20 -ARS,-'WE FULLY ItXAT M 4VHt,,T ?tiL'23IQ E PARCEL=2 IS! il-M HOW
SINCERELY,
R.I:. ,% IP.THIE CIARRIG US
BF-IJD ORF(J.011 977102
---
� «.Yi JYIJUUJJi JYl Jl.1V JJfl LI'Ir rut dl
Options currently being cosidered by opponents to the land swap
1 A lawsuit and i,njuction to stop the swap based on Parks and
recreation district exceeding there mandate and acting in a
way that involves land use planning not just Park issues.
2 Start an immediate recall campaign for all Parks and recreation
commissioners, and Deschutes county commissioners who vote for
this land swindle as proposed.
3 File a lawsuit against the city of Bend to stop the resent
unconsitutional annexation of all areas within the urban growth
boundary, as punishment for this proposed land swindle. Thus
preventing Federal funds in 1999 for Bend going over 50,000
people, and causing Bend to have another vote where the areas
being considered for annexation, votes would not be diluted
by city residents.
4 a solution to this problem can be achieved by getting Cascade
Highlands/Broken top to agree to an acceptable Westgate park
in addition to granting them a land swap for there future access
to Century drive. This must be done by deed restrictions prior
to any transfer of land.
Attention
Carrie Whitiker
Larry Patterson
Tom DeWolf
Dennis Luke
Linda Swearigen
Mary Arnstad
The Bulliten
The Oregonian
The Source
March 1, 1999
19438 Cartmill Dr.
Bend, Or 97702
Board Members
Bend Metro Park and Recreation Dist.
200 Pacific Park Lane
Bend, Or 97701
Dear Board Members,
This letter is to let you know that we live in the First On The Hill subdivision and that we support the
proposal to use the Wastagate Park to help purchase a new park in the Old Mill District. If it were possible
to keep the park land next to our subdivision in a natural state, as it is today, that would of course be
preferable. However, we recognize that sometimes we have to give up something that is desirable to get
something that is even better. We believe that is the case with the current proposal. A river front park next
to the Old Mill District will be a tremendous asset to our community in the future; much like Drake Park is
today.
In 1980 the Board of County Commissioners created a small group of citizens to look at various parcels of
county owned land for their recreation potential. I was a member of that team. We were able to get a
number of parcels of land transferred from the county to the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District for
future use as parks. We also discovered the large parcel of land that is now called Westgate Park. We
knew at the tiro@ that this was not an ideal parcel for a park but we realized it had significant value and
could be traded for other more desirable land sometime in the future. It appears that time has come because
I can think of no more desirable piece of land than what is being proposed along the river.
My wife and I have two suggestions that we would like to consider as you go forward with this proposal.
One would be to reserve a small neighborhood park and the other would be to provide access across the
Westgate Park land for hikers, joggers, and bicyclers. The neighborhood park could serve our subdivision
as well as whatever is developed on the exchanged land and on Broken Top's land as well. This
neighborhood park would not have to be identified at this time but could be located as the design for the
property is developed. The same thing could be done with the trails. In fad, there would not even be a
need for the trails if there were adequate road access across the property. We believe that a simple deed
restriction providing for the neighborhood park and access would be adequate. It would, however, be
desirable to have access both to the west and the north. Access to the north is now quite difficult from our
subdivision because of the cliffs that run along the north edge of the subdivision. There is good access to
the north through the Westgate Park.
As a young child I learned that if you wanted to trade marbles or baseball cards you had to be willing to
give up something if you wanted to get anything, and usually it had to be something good. If you wouldn't
give anything up then nobody would trade with you and your collection wouldn't improve. The same thing
is true with land exchanges. If you want to get something you have to give something up. Your
predecessors had tremendous vision that created the wonderful park system we have today. We applaud
you for your vision in trying to expand that legacy.
Sincerely yours,
J 1.2
Don & Darcey Pederson
3�% - q --k->- 5
To: The Board of Directors. Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District
From: John Calkins
Re: Public Comment on Proposed River Park Land Exchange
My name is John Calkins. I am the owner and founder of High Cascade
Snowboard Camp. My business employs up to 85 people and it brings in over
$2,000,000 in tourist revenue to Central Oregon annually. I live in the First on
the Hill Neighborhood and my daughter is the fourth generation on my family to
live in Bend. I will try to state some facts and simply let those present draw
their own conclusions as to how best to proceed with this land swap proposal.
After all it is not Bend Metro's land to swap, but all of ours. Bend Metro is only
the custodian and caretaker for the people of this community I just hope that this
board will see how some of the real owners of the land are feeling right now
about the facts of this case.
1) Before I made the investment in my home last year I researched Westgate
Park at the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District office.
2) The plan for Westgate that I was shown said that it was scheduled to be a
community park early in the next millennium, I was not told it was a surplus
property subject to a land swap.
3) The 1982 Deed I researched for Westgate Park says that Deschutes County
conveyed to Bend Metro Park and Recreation District the property now know as
Westgate Park:
"so long as it is used for public purposes. If the property ceases to be used for
public purposes, it shall automatically revert to Grantor"
4) I based my final decision to invest in my home on the information that I
was given at the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District office.
5) Bend Metro needs to change the way it informs people of its intentions,
plans and policies before any other potential legal problems arise.
6) I go to swaps like the MBSEF ski swap. These swaps are really just sales in
which one can get top rate merchandise at a discounted price.
7) Bend Metro has listed the appraised value of the 209 acres of the east side
real estate at $168,000.00. or $803.83 per acre.
8) Bend Metro has valued Westgate Park at $850,000.00. or $7,083.33 per
acre.
9) Bill Smith is swapping with Bend Metro to vet a Great deal on our park
lands. These appraisals, that he helped pay for, are really going to benefit him
and the balance sheet of his buddies.
10) Westgate Park is a unique piece of property that "We the People" already
own. We did not have to buy it. It will become more and more valuable as Bend
grows around it.
11) Westgate Park is bordered by the forest service on one side, and real estate
developments and/or real estate developers on its other sides.
12) Westgate Park has a breathtaking 360 degree panoramic view that is
unmatched by any other Park that Bend Metro owns.
13) Westgate Park has an existing trail system that ties into the Deschutes river
trail as well as the multitude of Forest Service roads and single tracks that head
up toward the mountains.
14) Westgate Park has long been used by recreational enthusiasts who can walk.
run, bike, or ski on its trail system.
15) Westgate Park is the last piece of property on the Westside that Bend Metro
owns that can act as an open space buffer between all of the planned development
around it.
16) As currently zoned Westgate Park is only zoned for up to twelve 10 acre
minimum parcels.
17) It would not be very economically feasible for Westgate Park to be used
for 12 homesites as it is currently zoned.
18) Westgate Park has long been coveted by the developers of Broken Top and
the Cascade Highlands properties.
19) In order to go ahead with their extensive resort development plans, the
Cascade Highlands developers know they have put in a road from their property
to Century Drive.
20) Cascade Highlands would save hundreds of thousands if not millions of
dollars by putting a road through Westgate Park instead of using the current
easement that they having been trying to move around lately.
21) When and if this land swap happens Bill Smith and his buddies are going to
make a lot of money by getting their hands on Westgate Park.
22) The Board Members are in an elected position to do the right thing for our
community.
23) There are three things the board can do right now:
A. approve the land exchange as proposed
B. discuss revising the land exchange as proposed
C. not approve the land exchange
24) By choosing option B, the Board can make the first step to insure that
everyone who cares a lot about Westgate Park and this land swap are heard and
that their concerns are dealt with.
25) Until the Board Members agree to put in detailed and deeded restrictions
upon Westgate Park in order to preserve its trail system network, vast open
spaces and access to across Century Drive and into Forest Service Land, there is
going to be a lot of opposition to the land swap. This is not done deal.
26) I am not in favor of ruining the swap if a suitable compromise is made.
However, I will not sit idle while the value and beauty of our community's
properties are reduced while the profits of a few developers are increased. If
necesary, I will seek legal action and/or any other methods at my disposal to
break this deal.
Hopefully the Board will make the right decision and the next generations of
people who use Westgate Park will recognize their wisdom of trying to create a
new river park while at the same time not turning their backs on what was the
right and economically more sound thing to do for our community.
Thank You For Your Time
WOODRIVER VILLAGE,
HOMEMN ERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 464
BEND$ OREGON 97709
March 1, 1999
Board of Directors
Bend Metro Parks and
Recreation District
The Woodriver Village Homeowners Assoc., wishes to take
this opportunity to express support for the recently announced
plan to acquire the former Brooks - Scanlon log deck property.
The Woodriver Village Assoc. applauds the long range plan
to preserve this one - of - a - kind river front area as a park
and open space area within the inner city of Bend.
While this Homeowners association has gone on record as
being opposed to some uses for this magnificent stretch of river
front, the proposed creation of a city park on the former log
deck equates to the highest ideals ever envisioned by the members
of Woodriver Village Homeowners Assoc., who represent one -
hundred and forty - seven properties. We wish to share with
you our pleasure in supporting the plan Parks and Rec. has
unveiled.
Sincerely,
Gary E. Loggan
Canyon Committee Delegate
Appointed by the
Woodriver Village Board of Directors
cc
Woodriver Village Board of Directors
BALL JANIK LLP
A T T O R N E Y S
ONE MAIN PIACF.
101 Sotrniwr;,Y MAW STRSET. SUM 1 100
Por; LANo. Orwcov 97204-3219
NANcYCRAvEN TELEPHO E503.228.2525 ncraven@bjllp.com
FACS*41U 03.295-1058
March 12, 1999
BY FAX
Board of Directors
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District
200 N.W. Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Land Exchange - Comments
Dear Members of the Park District Board:
On behalf of Cascade Highlands, L.P. (CHLP), I am writing this letter to provide
written comment on the proposed land exchange.
As you are aware, CHLP has participated in discussions with the Bend Metro
Parks and Recreation District, the City of Bend, Deschutes County, and other public and private
property owners and residents of the Bend area to consider the opportunities and benefits
presented by the proposed land exchange. As the owner of the lands contiguous to the Westgate
parcel, CHLP has agreed to acquire the Westgate parcel, if the exchange is completed. In our
view, the exchange provides a unique opportunity to facilitate a park along the Deschutes River
in the Old Mill District, as well as providing for the potential to address the needs of the Forest
Service and to allow for the development of the Westgate parcel with significant open space
areas, buffers, a designated park area and public trails extending to the Forest Service lands to the
west.
During the course of our conversations regarding the exchange, CHLP has
indicated a willingness to meet with all interested parties and agencies to discuss interests and
concerns. As you are aware, the residents of the First on the Hill subdivision have identified
some concerns with regard to the proposed exchange. CHLP, together with Carrie Whitaker,
have met with these residents to discuss their interests and to consider whether their interests can
be addressed or accommodated as a part of the future development of the Westgate parcel.
As a result of the two meetings with our neighbors in the First on the Hill
subdivision, we have been able to achieve a general understanding with regard to their concerns.
0190328.01
PcRn--ov. oww4m WAa W40TOK D.C. SAUK 01UMN
BA ,L JANIK LLP
Board of Directors
March 12, 1999
Page 2
While we are continuing to finalize and document our understandings, the attached map provides
a description of our general understandings. As reflected on the attachment, CHLP has indicated
a willingness to provide a significant open space/park area that will serve as natural open space
and buffer. In addition, a 12 -acre public park incorporating a water feature has been proposed.
The proposed park is located on lands owned by CHLP to the north of the Westgate parcel.
Further, CHLP has agreed to provide public trails from the existing trail system in the Broken
Top development to and through the Westgate parcel to the Forest Service lands to the west.
Other general understandings relate to the retention of open space, the location of the north -south
collector street and reasonable efforts to address certain view corridors.
As noted above, we are continuing to finalize and document our understandings
with the neighborhood and prepare appropriate recordable agreements reflecting our
understandings. At this juncture we are reviewing a proposed Memorandum of Understanding
and are having ongoing individual meetings as needed to refine the agreement.
In our view, these discussions have ensured significant public and neighborhood
benefit. We encourage you to proceed with the exchange.
Si cerely,
an
C en
NC/ejs
cc: Cascade Highlands L.P.
0190324.01
FOTHAFIRST ON THE HIUSITE ASSOCIATION, BEND, OREGON
March 12, 1999
The Board of Directors
Bend Metro Parks & Recreation District
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, Oregon 97701
Dear Sirs and Madam,
First, the home owners of the "First On The Hillsite" subdivision, want to thank you for
the time and effort you put in as our park district board. We all appreciate it.
As President of FOTHA, my comments here reflect the wishes of the homeowners who
were involved with the committee meetings as well as the wishes of the area residents.
The last few weeks have been filled with meetings, discussions and comments
concerning the upcoming land swap between Bend Metro Parks & Recreation District and
Bill Smith of River Bend Limited Partnership. Most notably, the Westgate Park parcel
which our subdivision abuts to.
We have always had the understanding that Westgate Park would remain a park, with
park development to start sometime in the near future. The land was deeded for public
use and FOTHA is opposed to any land swap that would take this or any parcel out of its
intended park use. Westgate Park, in the natural state that exists now, has considerable
use by Bend residents for walking, running, snowshoeing, bicycling as well as watching
the Cascade Mountains bask in the soft pinks of an early morning glow or quietly going
to sleep with a golden sunset. As guardians of our parks, we are certain you can
understand our anxiety as this park is being bartered.
As responsible citizens in the spirit of cooperation, we have met with your Executive
Director Carrie Whitaker, Mr. Bill Smith of River Bend Limited Partnership and Mr. Dike
Dame representing Broken Top as well as Cascade Highlands (who will be the final
recipient of the Westgate Park parcel). We met so that all parties could come to an
understanding and common agreement regarding the future use and development of
Westgate Park as well as avoiding a confrontation regarding the moral and legal
commitments which have been made by Bend Metro Parks & Recreation District.
19431 West Campbell Road • Bend 9 Oregon • 97702-1911 • (541) 382-1384
FOTHA
The meetings produced a preliminary "Memorandum of Understanding" to be agreed to
by all parties to the land swap issue. The "Memorandum" addresses the future use of
Westgate Park and covers such issues as open spaces, lines of view, building heights,
retention of the existing W. Campbell Road (Swarens Road) fire escape route, trails and a
dedication of at least a 15 plus acre park on the east side boundary abutting our
subdivision. As of this time, the final "Memorandum of Understanding" has not been
received by FOTHA. But it is intended to be presented to you when finalized and
approved as agreeable terms regarding the future development of Westgate Park.
Today being the last day for public comment to the Board of Directors of Bend Metro
Parks & Recreation District, FOTHA residents have decided to provide these comments
and to reiterate the request for a delay in any decisions by the Board of Directors until
the "Memorandum of Understanding" is completed and agreed upon by all parties
concerned. Carrie Whitaker, more than once, has assured us at our meeting that a final
decision on March 16, 1999 by the Board of Directors is not crucial and that appropriate
time would be allowed to complete the "Memorandum of Understanding" so all parties
are in harmonious agreement.
4resident,
regards,
Darrow
First On The Hillsite Association.
cc: Carrie Whitaker
Page 2of2
Bowler
Bend Metro Park District
Attn Carrie Whitaker
200 NW Pacific lane
Bend, OR 97701
Friday, February 26, 1999
Dear Ms Whitaker,
I have followed with great interest the media coverage of the proposal by the Bend
River Partnership to trade some 22 acres of riverfront land with the Park District.
When coupled with the offered donation by Les Schwab, it seems that this is a clear
case for approval.
So many groups and individuals in the region share a real concern for the fitture
development of the riverfront. I do hope that this proposal which offers real hope
for the future quality of life, receives the approval of the Park District.
Most sincerely,
r
C
(Brian Bowler
Phone & Fax: 541.389.9492
64001 Tanglewood Road, Bend, Oregon, USA 97701
KE N N ET h W. C h ARd
2603 NW MARkEN STREET • BENd, OR 97/01 • TEIEpIwNE 541.385-4944 - FAx 541.385.0684
February 26, 1999
Bend Park District Board
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Park Board Members:
Re: Proposed Swap of Parks District "Trading Acres" for Southern Deschutes
Canyon "Log Deck" Acreage
Please approve this exchange. River canyon parks are rare for any urban area. This exchange will
provide the citizens of the Park District with an unparalleled opportunity for a centrally -located
scenic recreation area. Its proximity to Bend's "intellectual" industrial park will augment the
attractiveness of those employers and offer critical R&R opportunities for overworked techies.
Most important, the acquisition of such valuable property at no cost to the Park District will
forever cast in rim rock the Park Board's vision to capitalize on such an opportunity!
Sincerely,
� y n
AIR cc
J < .>r„��,,#r�. a f ar 7 }': � -1 a?��+ •" K 9y'rwj< a"` ?` '�y��r r � 'T "" �;� t � . {:. �r`� ,L F.' •s 4 r:'�'
tf' if. r t -ti it v yr 3„ts s�,y` �.; y a 1g _ _ .. i.. r ;• Y'° { y,., -t-: 'S,F..J i ry
f � -i...-tar rE�>� '� -,n ..rF � � y -�`j• -_ 4 ��s��ia. ri!! <` .il, -+'.i
`. �N ! r f. �rti � �' � � �.' x :. �S'Y. 'r�.�� 71i+r `. A �» X p.�''f �i- .: �� wl .t.i� £:'i { <C'c� `.�;.• f '' %sc c'74=1 i � f'�"�`4r�'•?:- . -
--f 'z�` - t- � i . 2 : > : i'+i �ia i /-' L 1 1 : F ! * _...it �,s, ..11: i f � si, L r. ,.�% w�• A3 v. x,?A-e�!+�sy� "'' _ 7�� �"i
_ ': .t: .. .�. -r. t 'tc � is -. ;t- .- •i, _. iii � - .. ..
'G1F :re ill - t1 .5 -
'ti1'V ! •� '?c�, -�n'1 4 �.. �- ��,y4 t'i,t.. Z> .:S,,.t"'1 *rt(% T Y ' aF. i. -i.��a - t: jf rR�Z�' '�" .•sa �'"-Y�4 ��*. # ,G. �'?r'r� { T,=�. ,' '�`.r ��y, .
`-.. i/` ��i�^.'4:�+�X '�: ^G T66};';'.i..t a,ri.r/ �'>p'+Y "i '"�i .+t, t.J .'t t.t. ,. 'fie 'Et r, r-'�rF^. ?F'r,tl. � -. t� ani,• .�i„'_t: .
- ., 'lit, e, /.` -It � C JC•- :.i -f -
r -.r._ t r;i 'y✓� aFj Rr ~k a .Q ;.v �, iy 7�v t :x� r� �*7 A� i
Ji1e '! i
" �i t7'c
_. .._ ._;- _. ,�.,'t;� __.lt-r:a. _- r.._ -.c _.,. .♦,�. _._� :-.+n,- �?-J� i. _ v-_,1�'tS, ;t -f_ .; �>a.... _ _- �. _ ."-:..x_=.� .:4-� a:i?+�.:�..,:�lr.c_tas�<6t.Y.._T.nt4.�,��;
:F. ♦ '. it '�. t f _K i�' :.
t1!•YV� o,f; �. ek>+!, -4 v!IFI f A I . I G I F r e i_vrt�
.i��r �; �`;�� >�.s'4 ����r��."fit ��,^�� �-•y�T��`'•�!
a '•;,� ."i$ i ,t.. -w. ., - rf : Z' 4.� - r '..i „h .�'s?+` .�.4 l.,a.:
S"
' i. { -t, 1, �S� !' l 1
'If 1 - 1 5 '{A•' f G - FI r
-•! -
.
`lk
• ♦� .�- � Y,I--;t x�:
..
_ ': .t: .. .�. -r. t 'tc � is -. ;t- .- •i, _. iii � - .. ..
'G1F :re ill - t1 .5 -
'ti1'V ! •� '?c�, -�n'1 4 �.. �- ��,y4 t'i,t.. Z> .:S,,.t"'1 *rt(% T Y ' aF. i. -i.��a - t: jf rR�Z�' '�" .•sa �'"-Y�4 ��*. # ,G. �'?r'r� { T,=�. ,' '�`.r ��y, .
`-.. i/` ��i�^.'4:�+�X '�: ^G T66};';'.i..t a,ri.r/ �'>p'+Y "i '"�i .+t, t.J .'t t.t. ,. 'fie 'Et r, r-'�rF^. ?F'r,tl. � -. t� ani,• .�i„'_t: .
- ., 'lit, e, /.` -It � C JC•- :.i -f -
r -.r._ t r;i 'y✓� aFj Rr ~k a .Q ;.v �, iy 7�v t :x� r� �*7 A� i
Ji1e '! i
" �i t7'c
_. .._ ._;- _. ,�.,'t;� __.lt-r:a. _- r.._ -.c _.,. .♦,�. _._� :-.+n,- �?-J� i. _ v-_,1�'tS, ;t -f_ .; �>a.... _ _- �. _ ."-:..x_=.� .:4-� a:i?+�.:�..,:�lr.c_tas�<6t.Y.._T.nt4.�,��;
:F. ♦ '. it '�. t f _K i�' :.
t1!•YV� o,f; �. ek>+!, -4 v!IFI f A I . I G I F r e i_vrt�
.i��r �; �`;�� >�.s'4 ����r��."fit ��,^�� �-•y�T��`'•�!
a '•;,� ."i$ i ,t.. -w. ., - rf : Z' 4.� - r '..i „h .�'s?+` .�.4 l.,a.:
S"
C-4'T�Compass.
'k•,\-.-PCommerclal
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
February 25, 1999
Director
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District
200 NW Pacific Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Director:
1011 SW Emkav Dr., Suite 108
Bend, OR 97702
Phone: (541) 383-2444
Fax: (541) 383-5162
E-mail: compassacompasscommercial.com
Web Site: www.compasscommercial.com
I am writing in support of the proposed 20 -acre park in the Old Mill District. This park
would undoubtedly by a tremendous asset for the residents of Bend. The location is
fantastic with the adjacent river, mountain views and easy ingress and egress. It would
also complement Drake Park and the park under development on Shevlin-Hixon Road in
Shevlin Center.
I give the proposal my full support.
Sincerely,
sem/
Erich W. Schultz, SIOR
Partner
Individual Members '
CERTIFIEO
Certified Commercial 3/40 Society of Industrial PROPERTY
Investment Member" MANAGER'
and Office REALTORS" -
27 February 1999
Carrie Whitaker
Bend Metro Park and rec District
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Carrie:
I wish to express my support of the proposed land
trade which will allow space for the 22 acre park
development in the Old Mill District.
I beleive this will be a real asset to all of us
in this area.
Sincerely,
AA
Ruth Burleigh
127 NW Wilmington
Bend, OR 97701
CITY OF BEND, OREGON
Ms. Carrie Whitaker
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation
200 Pacific Park Ln
Bend, Oregon 97701
Dear Carrie:
District
Larry Patterson, City Manager
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the Park District's plans to exchange
property with Bill Smith for the "log deck". The City of Bend endorses this
acquisition. The property provides a wonderful natural park setting in an area that
compliments Bend's existing riverside parks. A twenty -acre park on the river assures
the beauty and livability of our community well into the future. The vision of a
central park, set aside at this point in Bend's history, will be appreciated by those
who follow us.
I understand from Ron Garzini that he and Andy Parks recently reiterated to you the
City's goal that the land swap result in a real estate transaction facilitating the
proposed Southern River Crossing, should the City Council and the public decide to
go forward at some future date.
As you know, hundreds of hours of public discussion have gone into the
development of our Comprehensive Plan, resulting in the selection of the Southern
Crossing as the optimum site. A similar process will take place with our
Transportation System Plan. Should the City Council decide to move forward with
the Southern River Crossing as a part of the TSP, at that point I will urge them to
proceed with an Environmental Impact Analysis of the Southern River Crossing and
the alternatives to it.
I need to assure the Bend City Council and the interested public that the final land
swap product will allow and provide for both the park and the crossing. Let me
know if the City can be of help to you as you move forward with this exciting
opportunity.
Sincerely,
L atterson
ity Manager
P.O. Box 431, 710 N.W. Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97709 • 541-388-5505 9 Fax 541-388-5519 9 TDD/VOICE 388-5571
cc 111,144 W.,ew,
Li!
Azo el t 6 e� � ; I
low a Zcee�,
ce
01
���Z G'�-�L- ��,o �fi✓ �r-eP� tea'p
iAl
icy .._-eel's :orth K e -1- E ] ScoLL
1;26 ,i-: :'_.11 Sir et %J030 S. ".lder,�-,od `ircle
3end, C.c 97701 F?r %, C? 97702
6I7-^^51 or
15 1x99
'iverfront oven s^ace 'L -A ored
'L -,e _<-ri- i ' , i -co P ;r7,.,s and Tz ?cr,-�ation
Fo-tindatiorl ^-nd ..ivsr:.i .-,/ Proi;-,c+: -en h,_Iuse on=_n.__ry 3Cth
�t the �t'nd ni ver ,ll, anc' _'' e Par" JistriC L hoar'? of ?_r-
=ctors : eet' ? n(- or. ';e';r'.,ary 2nd, 1t is re, --1rt,._- the t the nark
Lei strict intCends to turn t:'_re tO_;; `ter riv=rfroni t lo; deck 1-1 nd
stri r., s:_,uth est cf file Old rill district, into a ne-.,� drake
Fark for the 21st century,=n-ndi .- oi� a land s° an e>_ch:yn.-e
eel et.re,n Cld r'ill __str1ct d_vnloper Bill S:,i th and the
r'- dlstrict• It s also re. GrL=d at U r,:e?c_J _ _>y the
end Project 1-ana,-r Darcy Mc 'Namara that a survey of
=,bout 400 peo^le _a1 --_n -fro - U-,ose •'110 att"naed the open house
r v�,aled that ti -ie ton priori tv c'ic ces are n-: sural areas an,J
ldlife, scenic viers, tr-.ils orlon; the river, and -,,,ore o:)en
ce. I did express a hearty enc?crsement for the land swap
^roposal, as I w,_=s '.,i,_-ntioned in the Februsr'y' ' h 31.-lletin front
pace editorial by -arney Lerten ': ec.: dra;;e Fark' ei,aits land.
S-veral raI-si -?encs __n the '.Mood Rlv?r Village area, ^'ijacent
south of the riv,>rfr.ont lo, dec': lend strip, trz)uld li'-,e to sec
it as an oven space p:=:roc =r -a, e;-ce-,t ,oi thout two-lane road
�,n(f .Dri'_'0e, so the -u-Jet l=ens',-,='acelUl serenity, n =tural ':;eauty,
are_? :i1d1ife wi11 retai nedr-t"OUZ' the adci_tion of noise,
^011 tion, and development. Indeed, "it C)orders on) one of
,_Ae lE s t m, tural h;-. _ i tats -i' in '-:Ie ?enc ci L'y li .^its'
d// -
th Sco t
517-8 '51 or 3 -.
�kv-R_ 1�-D �d���
Thursday, February 4, 1999 The BuUed
New : D.ra
ke"Pdrki,::a a is ._ I a n c
Paris"'' agency wants
20 riverfront acres
for open space`
By Barney Lerten
The Bulletin
�•
The Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District is closing in on
a deal with Old Mill District devel-
oper Bill Smith that could turn 20 -
plus acres of prime riverfront land
.{
into a new Drake Park for the 21st
century.
The imminent deal will ensure
open space, not homes or other de-
velopment, in the scenic De-
;t
i
schutes River canyon area.
M•,""' E '
But it will change only the
players, not resolve a debate over
controversial plans for a new road
and bridge along the spot where
thousands of logs used to sit be-
side the Brooks -Scanlon sawmill.
The city council decided
`It (borders on) one
months ago to acquire enough of
the riverfront property for a two-
Of the, last natural
lane road and possible -bridge.
habitats Within
The park district and city have
begun discussing how a' road
the Bend city limits
might wind through the site, Simi-
lar to the curves of Riverside
—Keith Scott
Boulevard beside Drake Park. But
no one is certain when such a road
Appraisals on the property in -
or bridge might be built or how
.volved should be finished this.
they would be paid for.
week, said Carrie Whitaker, park
The park board was briefed
district executive director.
Tuesday night on plans to swap ,
The log deck is worth more
three undeveloped and surplus
than the park district land,but
park district parcels totaling more
Whitaker said Smith `has a set of
than 300 acres for the Smith prop-
proposals to close the funding
erty. The planned acquisition is
gap." She would not divulge de -
primarily on the east bank of th=asso*ciation
al a
river but includes a small piece orew
a hearty en -
the west side, below Colorado Av
member of the
enue and Disk Drive.
iation board in
Wood River Village, just south
the log deckparcel
"It (borders on) one of the 1E
natural habitats within the Be:
city limits," said Keith Scol
"Most of us would like to keep t
riverfront area without a two -
0 ----1----- _]"
cide if a bridge is needed. But t
deal would mean the city, if a.
when it proceeds; would negotif
with the district, rather than
private party.
"It could be one to three yeE
before the city is ready to stE
buying right of way," she said.
Whitaker said the park si
likely would be developed simil,
ly to other river parks, with mu
green space and a trail extendi
south from the mixed-use Old M
District.
Blakely and Old Forest Grove Neighborhood Association.
Neighborhood position and recommendations for the Blakely Road alignment
with Bond Street and the proposed transfer of Park land to facilitate the
alignment.
The Blakely and Old Forest Grove Neighborhood Association is concerned
with the impacts of the enlargement and alignment of Blakely Road. The
changes to this road will have a major effect on Neighborhood noise and the
safety of owners crossing the street to the Blakely neighborhood park.
Changes in road positions and alignments have been proposed by the River
Bend Limited Partnership that may not be in the best interest of the Blakely
neighborhood park and the neighbors in the Blakely and Old Forest Grove
Neighborhoods.
Since the creation of the Mill District a number of Blakely road alignment
changes have been proposed. These items have not been made public, as
they are being determined by the engineers for the Mill District owners.
There has been no forum for discussion of the impact of these changes on the
neighborhood. It will be too late to discuss these impacts after the alignments
are finalized, and then go to the City of Bend for public comment.
Blakely road has been on the Master Plan as a major collector for some time.
The alignment at the north end of Blakely includes impacts from new traffic
sources including; the new bridge under construction, the new south bridge,
Wilson road, Reed market road, and Bond street. All of these roads will have
a tie in that feeds traffic to Blakely within a one mile radius. These new
alignments will substantially increase the traffic load on Blakely road.
The sale of the 1/4 acre section at the north end of the park to the Mill district
developers will facilitate the creation of a large radius curve. This new
alignment will make an ideal acceleration point in the road coming South out
of the Mill District right in front of the Park.
We feel that the alignment should be examined with the goal of trying to
allow sufficient traffic flow for the master plan intent of the road, while
taking into consideration that other design options may be available.
Suggested options for study;
1). Keep speeds on Blakely the same as the current posted speeds on
the new Bond Street (25 m.p.h. ) and keep the street the same width as Bond
street until the road has passed to the South of the Park and the Old Forest
Grove residential neighborhood.
2). Build the road in front of the Park with a 6 to 8 foot landscaped
median center divider to create a boulevard style street.
3). Build a brick pedestrian walkway with 3" speed bump for
neighborhood access across Blakely, to assist in traffic recognizing the
walkway and keeping speeds within the 25 m.p.h. limit in the park area.
4).A large radius alignment may increase speeds and so the land
transfer helps facilitate the large radius turn and faster speeds. It may be in
the best interest of the Park to study alternative alignments in a different
location.
5). If the above options cannot be made to be effective in the goal of
decreased speeds and road width, the increased traffic volume expected on
Blakely may justify keeping the land for a buffer zone from the road.
We believe that the River Bend Limited Partnership engineers should address
the issues raised by the neighborhood association, and the Board should look
at the proposed solutions to see what consideration is being given to the Park
and the neighborhood concerns, prior to the approval of the transfer.
We would like to see the issues addressed in specific proposals, and that the
transfer be conditional upon the execution of the final proposals.
The transition from Bond Street to Blakely Road will be the entranceway to
our Blakely and Old Forest Grove section of town.
We want this transition to be designed with the neighborhood and Park in
mind, as well as the intent to move traffic through the area with the easiest
alignment of roads.
The Riverbend Limited Partnership has shown the community that it can do
an excellent job on design and planning as evidenced by the construction to
date in the Old Mill District. We hope that this gateway to our community
can be done with the same good taste and high level of planning. The new
Park and new roads have the potential to be a positive asset to our
neighborhood, or a big negative if they turn out to be just another busy
intersection.
We look forward to working with the Park and Recreation District, The
Riverbend Limited Partnership, and the City of Bend in order to create a
beneficial outcome.
Sincerely yours;
The Blakely / Old Forest Grove Neighborhood Association
Representative: Bryan Smith
Board of Directors
BMPRD
200 NW Pacific Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear BMPRD Board Members,
Michele McKay
1334 NW Trenton
Bend, OR 97701
March 11, 1999
I attended the March 2 hearing on the proposed land swap between
the Park District and the River Bend Limited Partnership and want to
thank you for the opportunity to speak and participate. I'd also like
to once again commend your very capable and committed director
and staff for their work on this proposal.
I enthusiastically support the trade and feel that this opportunity for
collaboration is one that should not be passed up! The Deschutes
River corridor is the heart of our community and the log deck area is
the Hope Diamond of undeveloped open space within the District. I
look forward to a new 22 acre riverfront park as an amenity that
will be used and cherished by citizens and visitors alike.
Concerns have been raised about public access on the Westgate
parcel and about the assessed land values. It's good that the
Westgate neighbors have been able to sit down with the Broken
Top/Cascade Highlands representatives to *Work out their ' issues, and
I commend the Park District for responding to assessment concerns
by ordering a review.
This can be a wonderful win-win situation! Good luck in your
process!
Yours,
Michele McKay
PARKS AND RECREATION,
WHY CAN'T WE DO THIS LAND SWAP AND ALLOCATE 20% OF WESTGATE PARK TO REMAIN AS
A PARK. THIS WOULD CREATE A SHORTFALL OF 30 ACRES AT APPROX. $7,000 PER ACRE.
THAT'S ABOUT $200,000. CAN'T WE FIND THIS MONEY IN THE COMMUNITY? THROUGH A
FUNDRAISER? A LINE OF CREDIT? URBAN RENEWAL FUND? CREATIVE THINKING? MORE
CREDITS TO THE DEVELOPER?
YOU ARE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. WHAT ARE THE PERCENTAGES OF COMMENTS F 0 R OR
AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL? YOU ARE OUR VOICE. WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE SAYING. HOW MANY
PEOPLE THAT ATTEND THESE MEETINGS AND WRITE LETTERS ARE FOR THIS SWAP? CAN WE
KNOW THESE PERCENTAGES?
I AM NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. I AM JUST FOR MORE PARKS. IS THERE A CITY ON
THIS PLANET WITH TOO MANY PARKS? I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF THERE IS.
THANK YOU,
DEBORAH WASHBURN
1334 NW BALTIMORE
BEND OR.
-1-
BEND PARKS AND REC.
WHAT IS AND WAS THE ALLURE OF BEND? WAS IT THE WIDE OPEN SPACES? WAS IT EASIER
ACCESS TO TRAILS? WAS IT NOT HAVING TO DRIVE 20 MINUTES TO A PLACE TO HIKE, BIKE, OR
WALK YOUR DOG. I LIVE BY WESTGATE PARK. AN AMAZING NUMBER OF PEOPLE USE THESE
TRAILS. ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW UNTIL YOU LIVE HERE AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES. IF PEOPLE
DIDN'T WANT TO USE THESE TRAILS, THEN THE TRAILS WOULDN'T ALREADY EXIST.
THE ONE THING THAT PEOPLE SEE AND REMEMBER WHEN THEY VISIT BEND IS A PARK. THAT
PARK IS DRAKE PARK. THE HEART AND SOUL OF BEND. THE PARK THAT ARTICLES/REPORTS ARE
ALWAYS SAYING WERE LOVING TO DEATH. SO A LOGICAL ANSWER IS TO DECREASE OUR OVERALL
NUMBER OF PARK? PEOPLE DON'T REM MBER A VISIT TO BEND BECAUSE OF ANOTHER HOUSING
SUBDIVISION OR GOLF COURSE.
GOD ONLY MAKES SO MANY RIVERS. THE RIVER PARCEL IS IMPORTANT AND I WOULD LOVE
TO SEE ANOTHER RIVER PARK. NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ENTIRE WESTGATE PARK. WHY NOT
ALLOCATE 30 ACRES OF WESTGATE TO REMAIN A PARK. ALL BROKEN TOP REALLY NEEDS IS
ACCESS TO CENTURY DR. WHY SACRIFICE THE ENTIRE PARK. IF L'M CORRECT, THERE IS NO
MORE LAND FOR FUTURE PARKS LEFT, IS THERE? HOW MUCH OF A FINANCIAL GAP WILL THIS
CREATE. CAN'T WE SAVE PART OF THIS WONDERFUL PARK FOR NOW AND FUTURE FAMILIES.
WHY GIVE AWAY THE ENTIRE PARK? WHY NOT SAVE 60 ACRES FOR A PARK?
AS A HOMEOWNER NEAR WESTGATE PARK, I STAND TO POSSIBLY LOSE EITHER WAY. WE CAN
LOSE THE ENTIRE PARK TO DEVELOPMENT OR SAVE THE PARK AND HAVE A BIG POTENTIAL FOR
BALLFIELDS WITH LIGHTS THAT WOULD RUIN MY PROPERTY VALUE. I WOULD STILL OPT FOR
MORE PARKS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CERTAIN STANDARD SET FOR LIGHT POLLUTION, BUT I
SUPPOSE THAT MAY SEEM SELFISH. I WANT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND
LESS PARKS DOESNT APPEAR TO BE THE ANSWER. WHAT IS THE COST OF WESTGATE TO OUR
COMMUNITY Y? ARE WE REALLY LOSING TIME AND MONEY IF A DECISION IS NOT
REACHED?
IT APPEARS TO ME THAT AQUIRING THE LOG DECK IS A PRIORITY DUE TO THE POTENTIAL OF
BEING ABLE TO FEND OFF A SOUTHERN BRIDGE CROSSING OVER THE RIVER. DOES EVERYONE
REALLY BELIEVE THAT A RIVER PARK WOULD HELP COMBAT THIS? DON'T ALL THE DEVELOPERS
TYPICALLY WIN IN SITUATIONS SUCH AS THESE? BIG MONEY VS. FAMILIES? IT APPEARS SO.
ISNT THE PARKS AND REC. BOARD FOR OUR FAMILIES? IS THERE A DEVELOPERS PARKS AND
REC. THAT I DONT KNOW ABOUT? WHO AND WHAT DO YOU REALLY STAND FOR? KEEP PART OF
WESTGATE AND FIND THE MONEY SHORTFALL SOMEWHERE ELSE?
I'M PRO PARKS! I HOPE YOU ARE!
HOW COME THESE PARK PARCELS AREN'T AVAILABLE FOR ANY CITIZEN TO PURCHASE?
THIS LAND IS OWNED BY THE TAXPAYERS. BY LAW YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO BID OUT THESE
PARCELS TO OTHER PARTY'S, BUT BY GOD IT ISN'T RIGHT TO TRADE OF THESE PARKS AND N01
AT LEAST SAVE A PORTION OF THESE PARKS TO REMAIN PARKS. WHY GIVE IT ALL AWAY! THE
ONLY REASON THE PARKS BOARD EXIST IS BECAUSE THE CITIZENS WANT PARKS. IF WE DIDN'T
CARE WHY WOULD WE NEED A PARKS DISTRICT. I DO CARE. I WANT A PARKS AND REC.
DISTRICT. I WANT WESTGATE PARK TO REMAIN A PARK. ISN'T THERE A WAY TO PRESERVE
THIS PARK?
THANK YOU,
GERDA RUIZ / 311 NW RIVERSIDE
-1-
TO BEND PARKS Er REC.,
I FEEL WE ARE BEING EXTORTED BY A DEVELOPER WITH A TIME SCHEDULE. I APPRECIATE
WHAT BILL SMITH HAS DONE IN MANY WAYS. IF WE RUSH A DECISION THAT WILL AFFECT US
FOR YEARS TO COME WE ARE ALL LOSERS IN THIS SWAP. MR. SMITH SAYS THE LAND IS GONE
BY MID SUMMER. I DONT WANT TO SEE A POTENTIAL FOR A RIVER PARK TO SLIP AWAY, BUT
IF THE LAND SWAP ISN7ABLE TO MEET MR. SMITH'S DEADLINE DUE TO ADDITIONAL TIME
NEEDED MAYBE HE WILL HAVE TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. MAYBE THAT PERSON WILL BE
WILLING TO WORK WITH PARKS AND REC TO FIND A MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING. IS IT GOING TO
BE FEASIBLE TO HAVE THAT PARCEL REMAIN INDUSTRIAL? WHAT INDUSTRY WILL OCCUPY THAT
PARCEL WITH ALL THE ZONING, WATER RIGHTS NEEDED, SETBACKS AND BRIDGE? IF MR. SMITH
CANT FIND A BUYER WILL A BANK END UP WITH THIS PARCEL? BUYING FROM A BANK WOULD
BE CHEAPER THAN BUYING FROM A DEVELOPER. PLEASE SAVE ALL OR PART OF WESTGATE PARK.
PLEASE DO BEST FOR OUR FAMILIES,
/ z 4�
JOE SMIIHEY
1157 NW PORTLAND
-1-
Dear Board of Directors,
Regarding the land exchange with River Bend Limited Partnership I have
several concerns. First of all, the extreme stealth and speed in which this
process has unfolded, without regard for the public at large to become
aware of the different issues involved. The information packet dated
February 24, 1999 allows until March twelfth for a "public comment
period." Fifteen days is obviously the timetable of a busy developer, not of
a Board that claims to be the stewards of our public parks. Secondly, our
neighborhood had requested (in writing) to be kept informed of potential
progress or changes in regards to Westgate Park. No such notice was
given, nor was any proposed land use notice given. Bend Metro Parks has
always confirmed over the years that Westgate Park was slated to remain
a park, developed at some later date. I have doubts that the "public
interest" is served when such hasty decisions are made, mostly behind
closed doors. It appears that little vision for the long term future of our
area has been implemented or perhaps that vision has been fogged by heavy
breathing developers. Please consider delaying any final decision until
possible alternative solutions have been explored. Thank you.
Sincerely, Robert Halderman
19428 W. Campbell Rd.
Bend, Or. 97702
To Bend Parks and Rec:
I am in favor of more park land for everyone. I am not in favor of trading all park land
possible for one parcel on the river. Does the board realize the value of Westgate UPark?
Will we really be glad, when Bend doubles in size in 25-50 years, that we traded this park
away? Of course we won't be! We will be happy we preserved more park land.
ISN'T THERE ANOTHER WAY???????
HAVE WE REALLY EXPLORED ALL POSSIBILITIES??????
"PUBLIC TRUST IS YOUR FIRST RESPONSIBILITY"
What a wise man that realizes another development in Bend won't make much of a
difference in 100 years. But what a difference another park would make in the lives of so
many people. Not a park at the expense of other parks. Please save all or some of Westgate
Park.
Are we glad that Juniper Park, Hollinshead Park, and Drake Park are not covered by housing
or development.
YOU BET WE ARE!
PLEASE FIND OTHER CREATIVE WAYS. DON'T GIVEAWAY OUR PARKS. SAVE FOR OUR
FAMILIES.
JOHN STERLING
19761 NUGGET AVE.
-1-
03.10.99
Bend Metro Parks & Recreation
Executive Board
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, Oregon 97701
RE: Log Deck Lands Swap
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time to consider input from the public on what we
consider to be such an important issue.
We feel that appropriating lands and developinghnaintaining these properties for public use and recreation
programs should be a part of the primary mission of any parks district, and ours is no exception And we
applaud the idea of preserving more waterfront property for the public to enjoy. However, we strongly
disagree with the method and reasoning used to acquire the log deck parcel of land.
As longtime residents of Bend, we, like many others have watched as the quality of living here has
changed. Some times good, some times bad, slowly Bend is coming to grips with the fad that this is indeed
becoming a large metropolitan area. We believe the problems of urban growth that are with us now will
only continue to accelerate. In that regard, open space will become a critical issue, as it has for so many
other communities. We are fortunate that the Park District has done so well to acquire many parcels for the
public to enjoy and, as we said before, we appreciate your efforts to gain more. But not at the expense of
important open space that we, the citizens of Bend have already acquired
Westgate Park provides a critical link for the residents of Bend to gain direct access to miles and miles of
hiking and biking trails in our national forest. It provides the citizens a spectacular panoramic view of the
great place that is Central Oregon And it gives the citizens a wonderful opportunity to see first hand the
ecological balance of wildfire in our forests, and the natural regeneration that occurs afterward. Thousands
of people use this area yearly for many types of recreation. And be assured; as the years go by, thousands
more will also use it.
This should not be a choice issue, and should not be treated as arse. The river is important, and the log deck
should be considered as a park. But Westgate Park is just as important also. Please do not throw away
something so valuable in a moment of blindness and lack of foresight. We challenge the park board to stand
up for what is right and question the timelines involved with this swap. If money to acquire this property is
the focal issue, which it seems to be, then study other means to raise the necessary finding. As an example,
just last month congress passed the Lanais Legacy Initiative, which now provides federal grants directly to
communities such as ours specifically for preserving parkland and open space. Please explore this and
many other options first. If the log deck is truly destined to become a park, it can become one without the
Bend Metro Parks ar}d Recreation district reducing any park area open space that the community enjoys.
Please remember your goal should be advocating and preserving open space of many types for many lanais
of recreation experiences.
Sincerely,
Lan Ann Dyer
194 West Campbell Rd.
Bend, Oregon 97702
541-383-2743
O Ki
.1 �%i� i� d,:s usf�it9 a✓to� d�sa� o,��,�
t'ha-f- you ova 1-7 � f� suxr abs � Yeo
G�'Y�s off'
�u-blle re r- ZZ
aha f u0, // .c��ec�e yoP e a fid
Ila �Ya l 2i/7vj r'o
fAe
�'h2 n��u�f'h Q ✓1d r ��ea,�,c��jo-� Y��
r�A=S ~ eEj�h'-76A) .15o4ep
zco it/w PIC, F, c (!A/
PIAR �-/ZD,
��� �✓.e�ri�/� 7a �'du �•�� DrPD� 7a
MY
4,/:,F>7V 725'
��}�/� LvvvG fl ���cl.�T�D �� wo.✓��l�FGrL �S�T"
OF i345�J) /s dui? �xG�f T16N�L 6��.v
WIW Ly4��4S �,vr7 �CtB�lc G SD GJIT�I/.(J
c'l Du.R iCS 60 �FRJ5 fvDEE0 Y151ON'4R�'
w4Eiv 7?-r.Cy sE7 .95149E PagLlc:::� Z-,4w_O o/Z
Fal"U/Q5 02�
rOX-rII,V/}-Tg� 7b 1AW6,417' �i 115-
Crr/�k'7r�.��-TES
Ll�- Bt-�Av s &-(-) ,+,
,I7��G� � S lrv�l �%1 � �•gtJG� 8Ll �` SGl��olZ71�4' P�i�'I�iV —
�ti� S7�1,lGTl1�i� Or OU e A)II-0 G, AIP5 A AIP
,61' ALL �O ��1'�1,r% �gL Es7'A T� DEVE'�P/r16.tJ�'
AND NQ�v . s T��T ydu AIAV'7- 7Z)
alb Sin I T/-/ '�/Go A6#1
foR 2 2 14k�-
5 O` )P/Z/v,4T� YOU GoST
r(!/2 /%2/.i/OS ? 7V5 A)ju-e-p tGUCo!5'G Y zajt*c,,2vuS
-ME C,11 -y d�
j/!i BEColS Su6SElZ!/G�� AEI�IA�ECS
■■
Tn .reS PUV d ►� 5e p 4e pa, pis Peri rt c) �a �- K l� l s�i trc�s
OICI�,� �,��e <,� ���}z� )Ma Ve
covvtv�e�-.�fS. 1 �1
a e on
r�� (,�
J�s . Ud► ve ° tT'ST
a� ar K T Go i� Co rse . 10�- 5, oK-e i YvtoS
d5 ee+S CO 5 S i�e 4m r ►5 e
Gl��C2 ssi (4 i I i J C.2 1 � ia►�►a11 �Tt� )a N�sQ
Q'J_ ` r
d s wu t �` b (, r K 1 ae.�,� v� TSS u re a� s u c.� (�
Pacc�� u�I!c �u ace�ss �Duto�i
4 -kc Parks f �Q e
t�(�as� 1�� �-t�..e 1�S t�� ► �s�� �
4'i a d I �s �boy 14.
46 VLO-a 4c, fe
5 n cL I° ra �e sss► �vi�Q ir�� s4 jam,
{0 r I v r- kA --N S eZ C- elw:5 'mit E
(�1alClptu,rn 4 16 d b ��� qCe l�cz,cks a
�.�a"U� 41" Be4t.�
i
(q�}S SwKnol�
B,P-A,A o R
541- 3`6S- (-79 9
March 9, 1999
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Board of Directors
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend Oregon 97701
Dear Sir or Madam:
In response to the proposed land exchange for the "Log Deck" property, I offer my concern and objections to the
current proposal.
I am asking the individuals who are acting on behalf of the citizens of Bend, those officials directly responsible
for the fate of the properties to consider their obligations carefully. With any decision facts should be gathered and
verified. Allowing the proper time to gather information and time to process it is necessary to eventually creating a
decision that is balanced and worthy. From the standpoint of a citizen of Bend, I believe that the market value of the
"Westgate" property, including the inherent functional and esthetic value to the community has not been fully
considered. I ask that those individuals responsible for the final decision consider obtaining a fair market analysis of
the property. In addition, postponing the decision would allow citizens time to entertain ideas and proposals as to the
potential "Westgate" has to the their future community.
Its obvious to all that our parks are and will continue to be valued assets to a community fast becoming know for
its quality of life. Even so, many of Bends citizens have not had a chance to experience all of their parks and should
not be forced to give up one jewel for another without proper consideration. Trading national forest access through
"Westgate" for a river park is not acceptable. River Bend LP has much to gain on both sides of a trade and knows it
River Bend LP understands the potential benefit to its development if a park is developed at the "Log Deck" property,
and they will be rewarded handsomely for the "Westgate" property as well. The individuals responsible for negotiating
with River Bend LP should play some "hardball" and not trade one acre of "Westgate" parcel for the "Log Deck"
property. River Bend LP should give the community time to find an alternative to trading our future parks. If Bill
Smith and River Bend LP are not willing to allow our community time for alternatives, so be it! The community
deserves better and should not be forced into a situation of limited choices.
River Bend LP dearly understands that the community is interested in negotiating for the "Log Deck" property.
There are benefits to all concerned for an established park at the "Log Deck" property and at the "Westgate" parcel.
Alternatives remain beyond filling the "Log Deck" property with condominiums; businessmen weigh such decisions
with associated cost's and the benefits. The community should do the same with its properties.
This letter is not filled with facts. that would be associated with a well thought out proposal to keep "Westgate"
and acquire the "Log Deck" property, but it is heartfelt. Developers come and go, but I plan to stay.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Bassett
1931S.w-KNOLL • BEND OREGON • 97702
382-7527 •.
Cheryl A. Stomps
356 NW Columbia St.
Bend, OR 97701
March 11, 1999
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Board of Directors
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Proposed Land Exchange between Bend Metro Park & Recreation District and River Bend Limited Partnership
Dear Board Members:
Please postpone this proposed land exchange for a few months and allow the citizens of Bend to attempt to
raise funds to purchase the Log Deck Parcel directly from the developer and save our parks.
I would like to be involved in a fundraising effort, and have already spoken to Bend area citizens as well as
organizations, and have received monetary pledges of support which can be converted to contributions, should the
Board give us this opportunity to save our park lands.
I understand the concern that the Board has with respect to timing, and appreciate that this is an extremely
valuable resource to add to our park system. To my knowledge, the Log Deck Parcel has always been slated to be
a park. It will add considerable value to the Old Mill District development, and should be in the interest of the
developers. Obviously, the land should be a park It isn't wide enough for anything else. When one considers the
setback from the river on one side of the Log Deck Parcel and the possibility of a two-lane road with bike lanes on
the other side of the site, there is little space for development.
If the Log Deck Parcel is developed as anything other than a park, the DEQ may have concerns with the extended
exposure of full time users to possible contaminants resulting from logging operations. It is my understanding that
more than a Level I Environmental Site Assessment will probably be required. At this point, only a Level I site
assessment (which does not include chemical analyses) has been perforated. The DEQ has also pointed out
that, due to the presence of an enormous amount baric, the area would be structurally unstable as a building site
without considerable remediation. In other words, we may have more time to raise funds than previously indicated.
Three of the park parcels being considered for trade, the Westgate, Gosney Road, and Tumalo Reservoir Parcels
may seem to be too far out of town now, but in 20 years, when our area has been developed beyond our present
imagination, these parks will be extremely valuable. You have the opportunity to allow the community to save
these parks for the future.
With respect to the Westgate parcel, the residents of First on the Hill are not the only people interested in the park.
An agreement among this small group, Park and Rec., and Broken Top does not mean the rest of the community
has agreed. Westgate Park belongs to all of us.
I am seriously concerned with an attempt to remove the `reversionary clause' in the Westgate property deed.
Serious legal issues could arise. In addition, this will certainly affect lands under consideration as donations to the
public in general and to Park and Rec. in particular. If I were considering donating land to Park and Rec., I would
now reconsider.
Give the people of Bend a chance to have all of our parks. Let us try to raise the money. If we all work together, I
am sure we will be successful.
Si rely,
Cheryl 2&Lps?
Geologist
Douglas R. Werme
356 NW Columbia Street
Bend, Or, 97701
March 11, 1999
Mr. Mike Smith
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Board of Directors
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, Or 97701
Dear Mr. Smith:
The board will be considering the proposed trade of several parcels of our current park land for the
log deck parcel. Despite wide spread support for trying to do better the board may find it easier to
approve the trade in its current form. The three most convenient excuses to quick approval are:
1) We don't have the money to just buy the log deck This opportunity is more than just a
year to year expenditure. It is an important opportunity, and deserves extraordinary fund raising
efforts. To date there has been none to my knowledge. If there were a place to contribute
specifically towards saving these park lands 1 would send a check tomorrow, as would many
people, particularly those who live near affected land. Even raising just $40,000 would save 50
acres of the Gosney Road parcel or the entire the Tumalo Reservoir parcel.
2) Bill Smith has only given us until midyear to complete the deal. Bill Smith is a
businessman. He knows he has a good deal in the works and wants to push it to closure. If you
look at his position however, it is obvious that the best outcome for him is to have the area a
park. He has been courting tenants based on a master plan with a park. A park will enhance the
value of the rest of the Old Mill project immeasurably. The land is currently zoned industrial, and
industrial use would only degrade his project. Taxes would be exceedingly high due to the 2
million dollar valuation. Residential use would require a zoning change and there isn't much
room for lots due to the fact that much of the parcel is squeezed down to nothing by the river
setback and the proposed road. No one will do any residential building until the road issue is
solved anyway.
Bill Smith is a professional developer, and a highly successful one. He will make the best
business decision, and that will be to support the park, even if it takes more time. He does not
run our city government. Perhaps you need an equally experienced negotiator on your side.
3)The highly vocal neighbors of the Westgate parcel can be appeased with a small
neighborhood park and some access trails. To give away the four parcels without major
attempts at a better solution is a grave violation of the pubic trust. As Vince Genna pointed out,
large parcels will be increasingly harder to come by. The land involved in the trade was turned
over to the Park District with a reversionary clause specifically to prevent this type of a loss. We
have to do better than just turning it over to development.
Please don't take the quick and easy way out of this issue. The Parks and Recreation Board's
responsibility is to preserve and protect our park lands. Quick approval of this trade falls woefully
short of that goal.
Sincerely, J,
oug Werme
3/6/99
Mrs. Carrie Whitaker, Director
Bend Metro Parks & Recreation District
1675 SW Simpson
Bend, OR 97702
Dear Director -
You have asked for input regarding the proposed land swap in order to build a
new park at the old log deck site. This is not a good idea for the following
reasons:
1. The original plans for the old mill site included a park anyway. Does the
revised plan contain the same amount of dedicated park area excluding the
proposed public park? If not, we are letting the developer transfer the cost of
the planned park to the public.
2. The argument that preservation of this last remaining spot along the river is
to the greater benefit of the community is flawed. Most people do not live in
downtown Bend. I have lived in SE Bend for 20 years. Since the year I arrived
there have been promises by Parks and Recreation that a new park would be
created in our area. To date it has not happened and the land slated for a
park will be used for a senior center. It is more important to me that parks are
easily accessible to foot and bike traffic for all areas than to focus on the
River.
3. In a similar vein, the commonly accepted concept of centralizing public
activity in a downtown area is seriously flawed. If centralization is the answer
then we would build all schools in downtown Bend.
4. The greatest irony is that the very people who are bragging about the "new'
way of building a community where everything is close at the old mill site are
the same people who will most benefit from using your/our limited resources
and reducing your ability to provide a similar degree of community outside of
downtown Bend.
5. The value you are accepting for the proposed site is probably greatly
exaggerated relative to the land that is being swapped. In truth, if a road is
put through at the south end of the Old Mill Site, the developer will need a
buffer to protect the value of the remaining site.
Mumford, a recognized leader in city planning speculated in the forties and fifties
that someday the rich will walk. A rich future for all residents in Bend is not tied
to a stupendous park along the river but to the proliferation of parks throughout
the city. Please invest our limited resources wisely.
Sincerely,
David R. Kyle
61324 Robin Hood Lane
Bend, OR 97702
ilregon
John A. Kitr -tx-T, M.U_, Governor
March 11, 1999
Carrie Whitaker
Executive Director
Administration and Recreation. Services
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Lend, Oregon 97701
Tear Ms. Whitaker:
Department of Fish and Wildlife
I Iigh Desert Region
61374 Parrell Road
Bend, OR 97702
(541)388-6363
PAX (541) 388-6281
E-mail: odfw.bendAbendnet.cout
We would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments concerning the proposed land
exchange between Bend Metro Park & Recreation District and River Bend Limited partnership.
In general we support all efforts to create new open space areas where possible. We also support
retaining critical habitat areas in an undeveloped condition.
One of the parcels being offered for exchange, Tumalo Reservoir Parcel, lies within the
Deschutes County recognized Tumalo Male Deer Winter Range as well as the Oregon
Department of Fish & Wildlife recognized Tumalo Mule Deer Winter Range. This area is
extremely critical to the existence of mule deer in this area. This particular range has been
severely compromised by development in the past 30 years. increasing development will only
contribute this degradation. We strongly encourage the retention of this property in public
ownership. The transfer of this property into private ownership will lead to at least two more
residences and associated human disturbances on wildlife. The only way we could support this
parcel being included in the transfer was if a conservation casement was placed on the property
prohibiting any residential development.
Tf we can be of any flirther help in this matter please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven George
Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist
swcslato.oi .us,
MIKE RILEY
1590 NW Davenport Avenue ♦ Bend, Oregon 97701
Phone: 541/389-8286 ♦ Fax: 541/389-8492 ♦ E-mail: Mjriley@aol.com
March 8, 1999
John Maniscalo, Chair
Board of Directors
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Public Comment on Proposed Land Exchange between Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District and River Bend Limited Partnership
Dear Chair Maniscalo,
I am writing to comment on the proposed land exchange between Bend Metro Park
and Recreation District and River Bend Limited Partnership. I believe the exchange
is in the best interests of Park District residents and urge you and your colleagues on
the Board to vote in favor of the exchange.
The proposed land exchange presents a rare and timely opportunity to bring into
public ownership a prime piece of waterfront real estate for enjoyment by current
and future generations. The river corridor is probably the most valuable and most
highly developed land within Bend's urban growth boundary, and current plans call
for additional development. Along with the majestic Three Sisters in the
background, the river is also one of the defining characteristics of Bend, for
newcomers and old timers alike. Unfortunately, little land in the river corridor
currently allows for the guaranteed public access that would be provided by a new
park. If we are to ensure a livable future for our small but rapidly growing city, we
need to secure as much public open space along the river corridor as possible. A
new park on the restored old log deck would be a step in the right direction.
I attended most of last week's public hearing on the land exchange at Holhngshead
Barn. I appreciate the concerns of those who live near and adjacent to the Westgate
parcel about preserving public access to nearby federal lands and minimizing visual
impacts on current neighbors. I believe there are several tools available to the
District — such as public easements and / or rights-of-way, and other deed restrictions
-- that could be used to resolve their concerns and urge the Board to use these tools
as they negotiate the details of the exchange.
However, as a west side resident myself, I do not agree that Westgate has more
value as a park than the log deck. Overall, the land that is most threatened by
development, that is most difficult to replace, and that will prove the most difficult
to acquire is land on the river. Also, I believe the west side would be better served
Pine
by one or several smaller and more centrally located parks within walking distance
of most residents rather than another large park that most residents would have to
drive to. We already have a large "natural" park on the west side — Shevlin Park
— and Bend is surrounded by federal forest lands. We have only one Deschutes
River.
I doubt the park district will get another opportunity to add prime waterfront to its
park lands. Adding the old log deck to the park district best serves the park district's
mission and its constituents over the long-term. I urge you to support the land
exchange.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this land exchange. Please share this
letter with your colleagues on the Board.
Sinc y,
r,
Mike Riley
r
e
dl so C
O co
O
0-0C
CL ca
o a
o Q 03
�a
un M
o
-a
�0
0
cD 00
CD
a M
o
CD Q
c
o �
� o
7 CC
C IM
CL �
a� a
jw
c
op
�m
CL
go �.
CL
R
=i
j
c�
CD
CL �
C
a o
a
mzC
.. 3 C
�-mii
Mor-
R
v> r,
sacc
dao
Z D
r Q �
Z
M
p 3
CA m rr3
m
a m
z
TOTAL P.01
Carrie Whitaker
Parks Dept.
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Dear Carrie,
I am very concerned about the proposed parks land swap. The Smith river front property
should be acquired but not through a swap of valuable public land.
The Smith property, the log deck, is an artificially created industrial sight. The mill created
it through years of fill; wood chips, gravel, and debris of unknown environmental quality.
The log deck could possibly contain materials of a highly toxic nature. It could probably
be made into a park but it might be an expensive procedure just to plant grass.
The log deck brings to mind the landfill behind the Mt. Bachelor corporate office. It too
was to become a public facility, but it was discovered you wouldn't be able to water the
grass without leaching toxins into the ground water. A great deal of public money went
down the drain on that deal. I assume the public restroom at that site, built at a reputed
cost of $250,0000, still sits unused up there as monument to a poorly thought out plan.
The log deck also could have a planned road running through or near it that reduces the
utility of the land. While this does not negate its value as a possible park it does
substantially reduce it market value.
In addition, I don't believe a swap is the way to approach this. Ideally, Mr. Smith could
donate the land to the parks department. The public would bear the cost of beautifying
the site, greatly enhancing the value of Mr. Smiths other property. If not, a fair price
could be established, and the land could be purchased by the public through grants,
fundraising or donations.
The parks land offered up in this deal obviously have far more value than the appraised
value. But more than market value, the park lands have great public value as open space,
wild life habitat and future developed parks for our rapidly expanding city.
The Westgate parcel is particularly valuable. I am sure that any developer in Oregon
would gladly pay millions for it. Cascade Highlands obviously wants it desperately, but
why should the Parks dept. hand it over to them on a silver platter?
The public park lands are a public trust. I am sure you will do the right thing and retire this
swap. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely �r-ours
C�
Nick Casey
March 11, 1999
Came Whitaker
Bend Parks and Recreation
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend OR 97701
Dear Came,
I am very concerned about the possibility of 409 acres of park land being swapped for 22 acres
of riverfront land. The Parks District should do its upmost to acquire this property but not by
giving away 409 acres of public land.
The $95,000 per acre riverfront parcel is a log deck. A test pit indicates the property is a very
thick landfill composed of decomposed wood fiber, gravel, dirt and pockets of petroleum, etc.,
etc. It is a man made landfill and is filled with "who knows what".
If the planned road goes through, it will certainly make the log deck smaller and devalue the
property. Because of potential settling, a road built on the logdeck riverfront parcel will be
unstable. Building anything on this landfill will be expensive because of the engineering
modifications that will be required. Please consult with DEQ before making a decision on this
important public matter.
I want to see public land stay public. You are in a very important position. You have the public
trust. Please let the public know that you have researched this issue and are doing your utmost
to protect our parks land for the future.
Park District parcels were recently appraised at just over $1 million, leaving a $1 million funding
gap. In checking the County Assessors office, there seemed to be quiet a discrepancy in values.
Tumalo Reservoir 80 acre parcel:
Recent Parks appraisal
$40,000
Gosney Road 210 acre parcel:
Recent Parks appraisal
$168,000
Westgate 120 acne parcel:
Recent Parks appraisal
$850,000
County Assessors appraisal
$96,000
County Assessors appraisal
tax lot 201 $431,865
tax lot 803 $139,845
total $571,710
very valuable because of location
I was unable to get an appraisal for Westgate.
The discrepancies between the Parks and Recreation appraisal and the County Assessors
appraisal indicates a huge sacrifice of public land. This process needs to stop and be
reevaluated.
Sincerely,
Nancy Hal
March 12th, 1999
To: The Board of Directors of Bend Metro Parks & Recreation District
From: John Calkins, 19410 Kemple Dr. Bend, OR 97702
Re: Proposed Log Deck Land Swap
Dear Board Members,
As a resident of the First on the Hill Neighborhood, I have shown great reserve
as to the proposed land swap. I feel that the people at the Bend Metro Parks &
Recreation District have displayed many signs of improper custodianship
regarding the Westgate Park parcel. I as well as many of my neighbors have
been fraudulantly mislead as to the real intentions of the Bend Metro Parks &
Recreation District in the past pertaining to this property. I also feel that there
has been an extreme lack of vision for Bend and it's increasing need for holding
onto Westgate Park for the future. This shows the very narrow minded and short
term approach of Bend Metro Parks & Recreation District's desire of acquiring
the log deck property for the community. Once gone, Bend Metro Parks &
Recreation District will never have an opportunity to preserve or aquire another
Westside property with the inherent value that it currently posseses and already
owns in Westgate Park. In that light, the appraised value of Westgate that has
been declared (within the guidelines of how these values are arrived) is well
below the market value of what this property will be for all of the parties
involved with this land swap. I was told by Carrie Whitaker that Bill Smith will
not turn around and make an instant profit by selling this property to the Broken
Top people. Although I will take her at her word for now, I will be very
distressed if what was told to me will once again not be the reality of what
happens in regards to this property. The FOTHHA (First on the Hill
Homeowners Association) neighbors were told directly by the people at Broken
Top, that it is their intentions to rezone the Westgate Park property to Destination
Resort zoning. By rezoning this property Broken Top will immediately increase
the value of this property by an exponential level. Why was it not an option to
deal directly with Broken Top to see if they would not be willing to buy a much
smaller portion of Westgate Park for $850,000.00 or more. It is common
knowledge that they greatly desire this property for their road access from
Century Drive to their current properties of which they are planning a major
resort. There seems to be an "at all costs" approach to make the acquisition of
the log deck a reality. I have great reserves as to whether or not the fudiciary
duties to the public have been met by Bend Metro Parks & Recreation District
concerning this proposed land swap. A great number of people within the
community also feel that the public trust has not been well served to date
regarding these above issues.
In meeting with Broken Top last week the FOTHHA negotiated in good faith a
list of conditions that would need to be met before our neighborhood could
support the land swap. In a vote of the FOTHHA, a revised list of conditions
which would need to be met and put in writing was agreed to with Broken Top.
We have to date not heard from the people at Broken Top, even though they said
they would be prompt in getting back to us so we can evaluate the conditions and
the binding nature of the conditions previously agreed to. I would also like to go
on record that I was a dissenting vote as to the agreement and its revised
conditions. I felt like they were throwing us scraps in comparison to the overall
conditions that they were presented with at the beginning of the negotiation
process. I, as will the FOTHHA, reserve the right to take any actions necessary
(including legal actions) if the conditions of the revised agreement are not legal
and binding in a permanent manner for any future owners of the Westgate
Property. We will not agree to this agreement if we are not given the proper
guarantees that will stand up to the test of time in court.
In closing, I feel that Bend Metro's duties will be to not go ahead with the land
swap (exchange) until all of the concerns and conditions regarding this property
are dealt with in due proccess. Many conditions will have to be varified well,
after the date set for you to make your decision regarding this swap on March
16th, 1999. This is not a done deal yet and the FOTHHA will not be rushed in
the decisions and conditions that need to be ironed out before we can endorse this
settlement. Please put off your final decision to go ahead with the log deck land
exchange until all of the FOTHHA neighbors investment concerns and conditions
are properly addressed.
Sincerely,
mimilmaw
John Calkins
Deco
• Sisters, Oregon 97759
200 Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Land Swap
Dear Board Members:
The proposed land swap may be a good idea but we are not taking a stand as yet, we
believe it is being unnecessarily rushed to a conclusion before the public has time to really
understand the implications. There are important questions that have apparently not been
sufficiently analyzed:
1. Will the properties now in the hands of the Park District be needed in the future as city
and county expansion occurs?
2. Is the short range public focus on the river property driving a decision that diminishes
the needed consideration for the larger long range planning?
3. The optimum goal is to have both river and park land. This is now a "one or the
other" alternative. Is this necessary ---to have a zero-sum game? What other alternatives have
been explored? The $2.1 million should certainly be obtainable for outright purchase of the river
property from a variety of sources ---City of Bend, donations, foundations, etc.
4. The public always needs time to warm up on these complicated (yet irreversible)
planning decisions. Many people only look at the NDABY considerations. The involvement has
started and it would be a mistake to rush a decision that would be later regretted. Bill Smith
urged rush decisions when we were involved in his development zoning proposal, but the Park
District has to give first priority to public interest.
5. The accuracy of the land appraisals raise a "red flag", it appears they are skewed to the
high side for Smith's riverfront property and low for Park District land. Why is there such a big
The Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County
Park Board
Pg. 2
difference between Bratton Appraisal Service determined market value and the County Assessor
Real Market Value (see attachments)? Normally, county values are below true market value.
Gosney Road 210 acres (Tax Lots 201 & 803)
Bratton Appraisal Service market value $168,000
County Assessor market value $571,710
Tumalo Reservoir parcel 80 acres
Bratton Appraisal Service market value $40,000
County Assessor market value $96,000
6. The Tumalo Reservoir parcel is in a WA Zone (Wildlife Area), it should remain in
public ownership to protect the important Tumalo Winter Deer Range. Has the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) been advised of this proposed swap?
7. The value of the riverfront property is complicated by the fact that a large portion is
already in the public domain (property goes to center line of river) and road alignments are not yet
determined in relation to the land ---affecting value.
8. Has there been a toxic waste environmental assessment of Smith's riverfront log deck
site? What costs to restore property? Who pays?
9. Has the Park District conducted neighborhood impact assessments? What about loss
of property values? Westgate property owners bought land and built homes believing the adjacent
Park District property would forever be used as park open space, even the deed -restrictions state
the land will be "used for public purposes." Will the sale of the Gosney Road site contribute to
sprawl ---more "big box" Costco's?
We request that no decision be made until all of the above issues have been fully
investigated and addressed. The question ---is this land swap in the public interest?
Sincerely,
X,e�z,
William Boyer,
President
Enc
cc: Carrie Whitaker, Bend Metro Park District
Ted Wise, ODFW
Barney Lerten, The Bulletin
PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE
Bend Metro Park & Recreation District Properties (BMPRD)
(vicinity & plat maps attached)
Westgate Parcel 120 Acres
Appraised Value
$850,000.
Hwy 20 & Gosney Rd Parcel 209 Acres
Appraised Value
$168,000.
Tumalo Reservoir Parcel 80 Acres
Appraised Value
$40,000.
Blakely Park Y4 Acre
Appraised Value
$8,400.
River Bend Limited Partnership Properties (RBLP)
(vicinity & plat maps attached)
Log Deck Parcel
$1,066,400.
2..98 Acres Appraised Value $2,000,000.
There is a $936,000 difference between the value of the BMPRD properties and the RBLP
property. To make up the difference the partiesare negotiating a funding package that
includes park SDC credits for RBLP and a donation from Les Schwab.
In addition to the BMPRD acquiring the Log Deck property from RBLP, RBLP is
contributing the existing bridge to the District, and water rights for irrigating the
proposed new park.
-'r i Le4- Z91
Prop Clsr990 MATS VA:Ec
Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/PEND)
"
:CHC (CONVENTIONAL HOUSING COMPI NI NG)
"
:LM' (LANDSCAPE MPAPSEMENT COMBINING ZONE)
N O N- A S S E S S A B L E
R 1003 181305-00-00201 167277 Prop Class 997 Value Area 26
Ma i n t Area 3 Plan Zone EFU
*** E X E M P T ***
PEND METRO PARK & REC
200 PACIFIC PARK LN
PEND, OR 97701
Card 1 of 1
F P Yr- 95
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
** ACCOUNT TOTAL ¢***
* * * L A N D *
* * *
Code
Description
Code Description
Code Description
0003
Rural
0101 Access Public
0105 Asphalt -Concrete
0201
Electricity
0203 Telephone
0308 View"Werage
0..x12
- -
Topa-Typical
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Land
Insp By: Reed, D
12/21/95
Total Size
Basic -Adj Factors-
Adjusted Real Mkt Total
AT/Class Description
Value 1 2 3
Value Value Value
RT
A '777313,
700
3700' 431865 431,865
Total
Land Value >>>> r$431.865*
** ACCOUNT TOTAL ¢***
Poop CI s : 990 MA:3 VA:34
Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFLITRP VEXCLUSI VE FARM USE - TLIMALO/REDMOND/ BEND)
"
:CHC (CONVENTIONAL HOUSING COMPI NI NG)
It : L),/
(LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT C O MP I NI NG ZONE)
N O N- A S S E S S A B L E
R 1005 181304-00-00801 167206
PEND METRO PARK & REC
200 PACIFIC PARK LN
PEND, OR 9774:1
Card 1 of 1
Prop Class 990
Maint Area 3
E X E M P T
Value Area 34
Plan Zone EFL/
FPYr 95
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Code Description
0003 Rural
*** PM 11 -12
* * L A N D * * *
Code Description Code Description
0101 Access Public 01145 Asphalt -Concrete
Land Insp Py: Greenstreet, R 11/14/94
Total Size Basic -Adj Factors- Adjusted Real Mkt Total
AT/Class Description Value 1 2 3 Value Value Value
RT A 93.23 1,500 0 loco 139845 139,845
Total Land Value > > > >31.39, 847x*
-------------
*** ACCOUNT TOTAL $***
------------------------------
�• f — I , . _ - , .,—, . . — . -- . n fell Y. 1 v G y vtv
Ascot Zone.F CDP Zone:F1 (FOREST Ute)
It :WA (WILDLIFE AREA COh1BINING-LINDERLYING ZONE)
N O N- A S S E S S A P L E
R 2006 161100-00-014,30 167"241 Drop Class 990 Value Ar -ea E
Maint Area c Plan Zone F
E X E M P T
PEND METRO DARK & REC
00 PACIFIC PARK LN
PEND, OR 97701
Card 1 o F 1
FB Yr- 94
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Code Description
0003 Rural
* L A N D * * * *
Code Description Code Description
0101 Access Public 0106 Gravel -Dir -t
*** 16-11 #601 SALE, 17 PM 15
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Land Insp By: Greenstreet, R 12123193
Total Size Basic -Ad,j Factors- Adjusted Real Mkt Total
AT/Class Description Value 1 2 3 Value Value Value
U A 80. 00 1, 200 1200 96000 96,000
Total Land Value ) >) > X96, 000*
*** ACCOUNT TOTAL $***
March 12, 1999
Board of Directors
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation
200 NW Pacific Park
Bend, OR 97701 BY FAX: 388-5429
RE: Proposed Land Exchange between BMPRD & RBLP
Dear John Maniscalco, Mike Smith, Eileen Woodward, Steve Stenkamp and
Chuck Burley:
I spoke at the public meeting held at Hollingshead Barn on 3/2/99
and am following up on my comments with this letter. Vince Genna was
(and iso a visionary for the Bend community by acquiring park lands for us
when he did. As Vince proclaimed, the number one priority of the park
board is representing the public trust. I believe that if you put this
decision of trading parks lands to acquire the log deck property to a vote
of the people in the board district, there would be over -whelming
opposition to this trade. In fact, why don't you put this concept to a vote?
Or, at least conduct a 2 week long survey on this matter?
I truly believe we as a community could raise the necessary funds to
purchase the log deck through a whole gamut of money raising schemes:
donations from everyone benefiting from Bend's growth i.e. builders,
developers, real estate companies, title companies, banks and lenders;
fund-raising events such as softball and soccer tournaments etc.,-
donations
tc.;donations from all of the sports -related businesses booming in our area
now, including athletic clubs, ski foundations, ski and sknowboarding
business and the sports equipment industry.
Without a doubt, our community could join forces, pool our financial
resources and come up with the necessary funds to outright purchase thgr
log deck property.
LET'S JUST DO ITI
im Guild
1145 NW Cumberland
Bend, OR 97701
March 12, 1999
Board of Directors
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation
200 NW Pacific Park
Bend, OR 97701 BY FAX/MAIL
RE: Proposed Land Exchange between BMPRD & RBLP
Dear John Maniscalco, Mike Smith, Eileen Woodward, Steve Stenkamp and
Chuck Burley:
Thank you for your public hearing of 312 regarding the above swap. All
who testified support parks. For many years there has been support
for an extension of a 'Drake Park' upstream. And the results of the Bend
Riverway Project survey certainly prove to motivate BMPRD to acquire the
log deck.
I enclosed a copy of the Riverway survey because it makes no reference to
making improvements at the expense of owning other park holdings. We
all know Bend is growing. Our community needs all of its current parks.
So why are you considering giving away park lands?
I encourage alternatives to this swap to acquire the log deck for
a park.
If the District is cash poor, then by all means, maximize your holdings.
Market your properties and realize their real value_
RE: Westgate parcel:
76 acres +/- UAR land on Shevlin Market Road has a sale pending at
$1,900,000.00 dollars. This equates to $25,000/acre, more than 352%
greater than the value/acre D_L.Bratton appraises the Westgate parcel.
RE: Tumalo parcel:
Deschutes County Tax Records show Real Market Value (R.M.V) of the
Tumalo property (TL 1430) to be $95,000.00, more than 237% greater
than the value/acre D.L. Bratton assigns.
RE: Gosney parcels:
Deschutes County Tax Records show R.M.V. of these 2 parcels (TL 201,803)
to have combined values of $571,710.00, more than 340% greater than
the value BMPRD is will to assign it to RBLP.
Page 2 BMPRD-Gould
RE: Blakley parcel:
In June of 1995, BMPRD bought a total of 3.03 acres at this Blakley site
for $120,000.00, This equates to $9,900.99/quarter acre. Today, almost
four years later, BMPRD values this quarter acre at $8,400.00, a loss of
17%.
BMPRD
was deeded
the Westgate,
Tumalo and Gosney properties on the
condition
that these
lands be used
for "public purposes". At the very least,
you are
responsible
to value these
lands judiciously.
How can the public adequately comment on this land swap if the comment
period is closed before the detailed appraisal is made available to the
public?
At the very least, the comment period should be extended.
What does it mean for long range planning when large pieces of publicly
owned property are put into private ownership without even notifying
adjacent property owners? Most adjacent land owners in Tumalo and
Gosney road are unaware of this proposed land exchange_
The Bend Metro Parks and Recs Comprehensive Management and
Development Plan identifies your vision statement:
"We will be rocognized for:
1. Promoting personal health, fitness and growth for all.
2. Opportunities that keep our families and community strong.
3. Being a key contributor to the traditional appeal of the Bend area.
4. Being stewards of our natural environment and cultural heritage."
The Westgate, Tumalo and Gosney parcels promote personal health by
virtue of being open spaces and natural environments.
Without a complete environmental analysis of your lands, do you really
know how these parcels are used? Have you seen the trails, identified the
uses? Do you know that these parcel 'of un -improved recreation keep our
families and community strong?
Please keep the record open for public comment. The log deck at the Old
Mill District is not going anywhere. It would require a much more serious
Page 3-13MPR-Gould
environmental analysis Le. type 2 EA with g emic!kliina_lys s to even begin
to determine what if any structures could be built on the property_
Breath deeply, choose wisely.
Enclosures: 2
Sincerely,
Nunzie Gould
1 i 45 NW Cumberland
Bend, OR 97701
SHEVLIN PARK ROAD - BEND
*Tl: 700, 1800, 100. Desirable Westside Acruage With Stun►ung
Views. rkvelopmeut Potential.
CATEGORY: LAND TYPE: A AREA: B. SECTION: Nw STATUS: PENDING LIST PRICE: 51,990,000
ADDRESS: Shevlin Park Road FARM DEF: N MLSS:
CITY: Dead ZIP CODE 97701 ZONING: UAR CC&R'S: SIGN: Y
LIST DATE: CS8A; FN: TAXES: 3120.00 TM: •
EXP DATE: CBA: 2.50 FN: ); TAX YEAR: 95 TL: CLA•
ELEM. K NWOOD JRW: CASCADE SRI& MT VIEW
LOT SEM. IRREO LOT SOFT: ACRES: 76.00 CURRENT USE:
XSTREET: ADDITION: M&B LOTS: BLOCK >R:
DWECTMWS: W On Newpo i(mevlin Plc Rd)Pcap Stud At Poaroll Oa L
WWt3: N ROAD ASSMT: HOA:
NOW ACRES: SEWER ASSMT: HOA AMT:
!BRIO DIST: OUT BLDOS: ELEC CO: CEC
MUM COMMENTS: OTHER RESTRICTIONS:
GEWERMEPTIC COMMENTS: NEED TO EXTEND CITY SEWER
WATER COMMUN TS: NEED TO EXTEND CITY WATER
ZONING COMMENTS: UAR. URBAN AREA RESERVE
OWNER:
1ST MTG BALANCE: PAYMENT: PITL-
ASSUMABLE: LENDER: TYPE:
LISTING OFFICE: 2ND LISTING;
LISTING AGENT: EMAIL:
SELL OFFICE:
SELLAGENT: SELL PRICY: S SELL TERMS:
PAW DATE: SOLD DATE;
Category
Lund
Statua
P
Area
B.
Property Type
A
Exkt Water
Hone
Road
Pavad
SeweH3eptic If
Tn Need
� �
crib
Owe
view
Mountaui Terrain
3 �'� (� f(Z,�3 �, M t_
4- 11 -�
03/08-'99 15:23 FAX 13413885428 BEND PARK AND REC DIST
The Bend Riverway Project
01002/002
The purpose of the Bend Riverway Project is to raise river awareness to protect one of the most
valuable assets in our community -- the Deschutes River. We are building a vision for the river
through community involvement in order to leave a legacy for future generations. The Riverway
Project's mission is to promote the conservation and enjoyment of our river. We need your help
todayl please give us your opinion about the river that runs through Bend by checking three
boxes below.
Check the top three things that the Bend Riverway Project
should focus on in the coming years.
Check three items
❑ Preserving scenic views
❑ Recreational opportunities
d Alternative transportation opportunities
Natural areas for wildlife
❑ Removing invasive weeds like knapweed and toadflax
Economic benefits
❑ Historic and cultural heritage
d More open space and park land
d Community building
Better maintained river parks
Connecting trails along the river
0 Educational opportunities
❑ Water quality
d Water quantity
Connecting neighborhoods, schools and businesses to the river
Better signage at trails and parks
Other -- please use the back of this sheet to add your ideas
„,� i i ��� iJ. iu 1Jll UlJJY JfJlU Lc -r- I of uo rr-iut YJ1
Dudley and Phyllis Church
17310 Snow Greet; ltd.
Bend_ OR 97701
Mar 9, 1999
Carrie Whittiker
Executive Director
Bend Metre Pants and Recreation
200 NVQ' Pacific Park lane
Bend, OR 07701
Dear Ms. Whittiker.
We learned Monday about the proposed exchange of I'ark s and
Recreation land involving* the 80 acreTuniaki parcel to the �,vust of John
Barton's property and south o1' Snow Creek Rd. it is our understanding that
this parcel, plus three others, would be traded to Bill Smith for some
property he owns on the Deschutes River in the Old Mill arca in fiend. I
plioned you on March 9 to discuss the situation.
Our concern relates to the issue of conversion of public land to private
ownership, even though your goal is laudible,Once public land ends tip in
private hands,it seldom. if ever, reverts back to public. o:uitership. The
Tumalo parcel is in the Winter Deer Range, and we believe it carries zone
designations of 1~-I (Forest) and WA (Wildlite .Area C"Ombini*ig Zone). At
present these designations would preclude division of the projvrtti-. and ?ill.”
one home could be built on the 80 acres I loiwec.er one large home with
extensive grounds would diminish the etirectiveness of the Winter Deer
Range, and if the zoning were changed in the future, it is possible that
several homes could be built. If there were some wav to eliminate
dividability, or to revert to public ownership, we would feel far more
supportive of the proposal_ We would very much appreciate aiiv information
you might develop on these issues. You can reach us at 8614 SE
MiddleWav, Vancouver WA 98664 ,phone 360-6` 3-6429, until April l j.
We will be at the letterhead address after that.
Sincere v
i
Alan Larson
8 March, 1999
Bend Metro Park & Recreation District
Board of Directors
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear sirs:
I attended the March 2nd public meeting on the land swap. 1 1h e in the West Ridge Addition.
Here are my concerns and suggestions.
The hearing itself was open enough but it was about a seemingly closed process. The swap as
discussed at the meeting by both the Board and the actual participants was clearly an insider
deal—a transaction arranged among local powers and presented as a package to the public with
very limited time to explore alternatives.
The key question is: Is this the best way to handle the public trust involved? It may be.
However, that is surely not obvious in the data made public.
I should acknowledge up front that I have a vested interest in the swap: the existence of Westgate
as a recreational area was a significant factor in my decision to buy my house. The area is
widely used as a semi -primitive park area for walking, exercising and biking and that is valuable
to me. I should also say that I favor acquisition of the riverfront if possible, but have serious
doubts that we must give up all of Westgate to achieve that. I am writing to say why.
As presented, it is not clear that the deal is either fiscally responsible or fair. In such a matter of
public trust, it is incumbent on the Board to a) be fiscally responsible and fair, and b) be seen to
be both.
The riverfront park is obviously something highly desirable to the District and the public. From
the data presented it remains very much in question whether giving up Westgate, with its terrific
future recreation value, is the best or only way to get the riverfront parcel.
The question whether funds can be raised for an outright purchase has already been raised by
others, so I will not belabor that point. Let me just address my two points:
Fiscal responsibility: If it is in fact necessary to give up all or part of Westgate, is the best deal
being struck? Has the parcel been offered to the public? Have partial sacrifices of Westgate
been considered with pieces of it being retained for recreational purposes, with the rest being
offered to the public. If you do not offer these pieces on the open market, you are not
guaranteeing the public the best return on this great recreational property.
61450 West Ridge Avenue, Bend OR 97702
Fairness: Why should only insiders get to have a shot at this property? It was made clear that
the Westgate part of the swap would get incorporated in a destination resort use. That may be a
good thing for Bend, but shouldn't all other interests be given an equal chance to present
alternative good uses?
In conclusion, I do not personally wish to see Westgate lost to us as a recreational area, at least
not all of it. Therefore I support all efforts to find a way to get the riverfront without spending
this resource. However, if we must lose it or part of it, let's do it fairly and with solid and visible
fiscal responsibility.
S cerely yours
Ian Larson.
-2-
March 09, 1999
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District Board of Directors
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend Oregon 97701
There is no dispute that the "Log Deck" property being offered by
River Bend LP is an excellent park site. I would however, like to
register my concerns about the transaction as I understand it is being
proposed.
A significant concern is the properties being exchanged. As a
matter of personal knowledge, at least the Westgate parcel on
Century Drive is highly regarded as an access point to public lands
for runners, walkers, and bicyclists. I'm sure the other parcels
have value to the neighborhoods which they abut. What does it say
to the folks who have counted on these parcels remaining parks?
Would it be any more appropriate to offer Juniper Park? I don't
think so.
Other questions are the existing status and value of the property.
With setback from the river, possible loss to a road corridor, and
significant amounts of debris fills on the remainder, just how
marketable is the Log Deck? There seems to be a lot of sentiment
for a cash purchase. I would like to see a clear accounting on what
the value of this property is to River Bend LP. It has obviously
been a part of their Master Plan for this site to become a park.
Certainly the value to the future commercial tenants is enhanced by
the presence of a park. Look at downtown; Drake Park is the reason
downtown still exists at all. A park is probably the only reasonable
use of the property given the need to buffer the entertainment
facilities and commercial development planned. The price doesn't
seem they (River Bend LP) have come close to the kind of cooperation
we should expect for a park which is obviously going to benefit them
every bit as much as Bend.
I urge a "go slow" attitude towards this park proposal. Every
attempt should be made to avoid land swaps, and to negotiate a deal
which is fair to everyone. This includes River Bend LP. It seems
they're close to having their cake, and eating it too. Why not save
a slice for the rest of us?
Respectfully,
W. Austin Smith
154 SW 19th, Bend
[3/9/99 08:51] C:\MyFiles\park.txt
RECEIVED FROM J. MARCUS CAMPBELL 3/2/99
NOTES for Park meeting
1 What kind of notification was used to notify land owners in
effected areas.
A. vacant land
B. Absent landowners of rentals nightly and monthly
C. Vacation home owners
2 Was Cascade Highlands or Broken Top contacted concerning the
potentual availability of this property.
3 was enginerring study done by David Evans and ASSOC. reviewed.
study for Cascade Highlands on road options and costs.
4 Has the ODOT been consulted on impact of road options from
cascade highlands to century drive.
5 Whose idea was this swap was it Bill Smith or was it Bend
Metro Park & recreation.
6 Was an economic impact study done on the effected area's land
values assuming this swap goes thru as proposed. Will this have
a negitive impact on land and home values in the first on the
hill area? Will a river park add value to Bill Smith's Mill
district. Is this a proper transfer of wealth from a middle
class nieborhood to a wealthy developer? Will the availabilty
of the westgate parcel to Cascade Highlands increase it's value
by giving them access to century drive as well as skyliner drive.
7 Was the forest service contacted about this proposed land
swap: Would they consider participating? Donating land for a
park, from the land adjacent to Westgate Park.
8 If these things have not been done how can you even consider
slam dunking this swap thru the community in one month from
proposal to completion.
9 What is the hurry here?
10 Has Bill Smith been in contact with cascade highlands or
is he a partner in Cascade Highlands.
11 Why give Bill Smith this property, why not go directly to
cascade highlands and sell some land to them for their acccess
to century drive and keep the rest for a park.
12 If Westgate swap goes thru as proposed, and the property
is sold to Cascade Highlands, can't the two adjacent property's
be combinded as one by doing a simple lot line adjustment for
$85.00 with no puplic review. Thus making Westgate available
for destination resort development(Cascade Highlands is already.
aproved for resort development). The County says this can be
done, and certainly would not require a "herculean effort" as
stated in the article 3-1-99 in the bulliten, to change the
use status of this property.
13 If after hearing these questions do you really belive that
enough thought has been givin to this proposed land swap?
14 Why not consider working with the county to split this
propoerty into a couple pieces, one for a future road for cascade
highlands/Broken Top, one for an open space park, and one for
retail service area on century drive.
STEPHEN GREER & ASSOCIATES
March 6, 1999
Bend Metro Park District
Attn. Carrie Whitaker
200 NW Pacific Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Ms. Whitaker:
Our community has a rare opportunity to develop a 22 acre riverside park. I
urge you to support this concept. This type of opportunity is irretrievable if
lost. Bend has a rich tradition of healthy public-private partnerships and this
project will continue this partnership with your board of commissioners, a
well planned community development, and substantial contributions from
the community.
A significant part of Central Oregon's personality has been defined by
Drake Park and Mirror Pond. You should expand this definition with the
proposed park. A few people will be affected, but please do not allow the
few to veto a legacy for so many citizens and future generations.
Thank you for your courage.
Sincerely,
Stephen Greer
15 SW Colorado Avenue, Suite H, Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: 541 388 7888 fax: 541 388 0739
Perry I-Ierford
61900 Hunnell Road
Bend. Oregon 97701
March nth, 1999
Came Whitaker
Bend Metro Park & Rec. Dist.
200 N.W. Pacific Lane
Bend, Oregon 97701
Dear Carrie:
Of course I have been following with interest the plans and controversy as they unfold,
regarding the proposed Historic Park, to be located at the Old Log Dump on the east bank of our
Deschutes River, as it emerges from the S. River Canyon, and begins it's calm curving sweep,
long called, "The Bend of the River".
I say "Historic Park" Because it was near this point where a very ancient Indian Trail,
that linked the Klamath Basin to the Columbia River, departed from its path along the East bank
of the Deschutes to head North Easterly to an easy crossing of the Crooked River. As
Caucasians in the mid 1800's established themselves in this part of Central Oregon, they turned
this ancient Indian Trail into a wagon road. In 1867, J. W. Perit Huntington, Supt. of Indian
Affairs in Oregon, moved supplies over this road to build Fort Klamath, giving it the name of
Huntington Road. In 1877, John Y. Todd established his "Farewell Bend Ranch", here where
the road left the " The Bend of the River". Todd's Ranch in 1881 was sold to John Sisemore. As
this location grew, under the supervision of Sisemore, it became known as "Farewell Bend". It
was the location of the 1 st School in this part of Central Oregon, and also a Post Office, by that
name. In 1900, Mr. A.M. Drake arrived on the scene, buying up most of the original Homestead
properties. By 1904, as the community grew, the name was shortened to just 'Bend, Oregon.. In
1916, the original site of the Farewell Bend Ranch, became the site of the "Brooks Scanlon
Ponderosa Pine Mill, while directly across the river, the "Shevlin Hixon Mill" was located. This
Mill closed in 1950, and was soon dismantled. The Brooks Scanlon Mill continued to operate of
another 20 or so years.
Of course I need not quote you a page of our History, I am sure, but I do want to point out a
pertinent matter regarding the proposed Historic Park. As you can see by the above, there is a
great deal of the History_ of our present City of Bend, that is fast becoming the metropolis of
Central Oregon, imbedded in this tract of land, that comprises what we now call, "The Old Mill
District". As could be expected, there is a legacy of an ugly blemish; namely. "The Old Log
Dump Site". Hopefully this area will soon be turned into a beautiful Shrine. for the present
citizens of Bend, and the influx of future citizens to come. In every manner, this is an ideal
location for a Large Beautiful Park to commemorate all those hard working ,sound thinking
industrious pioneering spirited men and women, who made our little part of Central Oregon, anc
our City the modern place that it is. Let me take this. e to Thank and Compliment,
you, Bill Smith, and the others who are ph ng and making this reat project, come together.
Very best regards, Pee ora.
5 March 1999
Ms. Carrie Whittaker
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District
200 NW Pacific Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Ms. Whittaker.
I believe the proposed land exchange between the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District and the
The Old Mill Partnership is a great public policy action.
The Deschutes River is Bend's and for that matter Central Oregon's crown jewel. With the
development of a second "downtown Bend" in The Old Mill District having such an expanse of
public park land will be awesome. Portland is struggling now to reclaim its east river bank from
industrial and freeway development.
I applaud the District's Board for acting to develop our Deschutes Riverway.
I also applaud the District's work with the School District on open space, parks and school siting. I
think this is a much needed long term perspective. As part of this effort I urge the District to work
with the County Commission to thoughtfully plan parks for the future.
This is especially important as the Commission looks at the county's large land holdings. Maybe
this planning needs to be on a County -wide (maybe region -wide) open -space and parks needs as
our region explodes into a much more urban community.
Yours truly,
Gregory R McClarren
721 NW Cedar Avenue Redmond, OR 97756
�c V i% �ou�j'l� �✓:Qz� s a�
rC —
Central Oregon
Visitors Association
March 4, 1999
Carrie Whitaker
Executive Director
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District
200 Northwest Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Dear Carrie,
On behalf of the more than 200 member businesses of the Central Oregon Visitors Association, please
accept this letter as an endorsement of the proposed riverfront park near the Old Mill District.
Bend is well known for the beauty of its natural environment. The new 22 -acre park being considered
would appeal to visitors as a new attraction and residents would have a beautiful new location for family
gatherings and cultural events. A new riverside park would be a spectacular addition to the scenic parks
now gracing our community.
COVA continually strives to market and promote Central Oregon as a year-round visitor destination,
showcasing the area's diverse recreational opportunities and friendly hospitality. I encourage the
Commissioners of Deschutes County and the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District to proceed with the
creation of the 22 -acre riverfront park; an exciting contribution to the truly remarkable and unique
amenities of beautiful Bend and Central Oregon.
Sincerely,
Alana Audette
Executive Director
AA:el
Cc: Bill Smith
H. Bruce Miller
63085 North Highway 97 • Suite 107 • Bend, Oregon 97701 0 (541) 389-8799 • Fax (541) 385-9487
Peter Geiser
97 NW Shasta PI
Bend, OR 97701
March 4, 1999
Carrie Whitaker
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District
200 Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Re: New 22 Acre River Park
Dear Carrie:
I'm excited about the possibility of a new river park. Although properties of significant
value will leave public ownership, there is a net gain with the public acquisition of such a
unique piece of riverfront property. Your task is not easy assuring fairness in the process.
Thank you for your sensitivity to individual needs and assuring public interests are being
met. I support the swap.
Sincerely,
Peter Geiser
VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
March 1, 1999
Bend Park and Recreation
200 NW Pacific Park Lane
Bend, Oregon 97701
Re: Riverfront Park
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
I am writing you in regard to the proposed Riverfront Park in the Old Mill District. I
would like it to be known that I am totally in favor of the development of this area as a
community park. With the appropriate theme and amenities a park along the river would
be a lively and enjoyable addition to our great city. I understand parking and access are
issues of concern more particularly with regard to the much debated future bridge access
which would be through this strip of park land. Without taking sides on the issue of the
bridge, it would seem a right of way could and should be considered through the park for
access. Which, in the event of need in the future, would only serve to be a pleasant
addition to the fate one way or the other of the bridge. Let's do it!
Your truly,
Kevin Rea, President
New Village Development Corporation
1816 MAKER WAY NE • BEND OREGON 97701 PHONE: (541) 317-8349 FAX: (541) 385-8385 e-mail: kerea@empnet.corn
Letter to the Editor.
March 9, 1999
Shame on you, Bill Smith for trading 22 polluted, almost undevelopable acres for 400 acres of prime
development park land.
Shame on you Bend Park and Recreation for even considering this trade The deeds state that this land is
never to be traded or sold. The Westgate or Gosney Road property, either one alone could be sold for true
market value for more that enough to buy Smith's property outright.
Shame on you Dana Bratton - 209 acres, Highway 20 frontage, power, main COI canal, mountain views,
next to Gosney Acres, 5 minutes from Costco and only worth 5800 per acre?
Shame on you Deschutes County Commissioners. You know better than this, don't you?
Shame on the Bulletin for biased, one-sided reporting. Where is the DEQ and environmental impact
statement on Smith's propert? Detailed maps of Parks property? Some sort of explanation for the
"assessed" values?
Shame on you, Bruce Miller. Apparently there is no good for the greater community unless it involves
your or your bosses wallets.
Double -shame on you, Bend Park and Recreation. Have you lost your focus? Not everyone wants your
trails on private land and not everyone wants to see prime undeveloped park lands traded off. Why not
get back to what everyone wants, the developement of parks and lands that you
already own? Didn't your own poll published in the Bulletin state that the majority of people wanted
more open space? Trading 400 acres for 22 sure doesn't accomplish that, does it?
If this "deal" does through the entire community owes Vince Genna a public apology. He obviously left
shoes too big to be filled by the current crop of so-called public servants.
Larry Acuff
61601 Gribbling Rd
Bend OR 97701
388-3745
ARLU Deco
P.O. Box 1508 - Sisters, Oregon 97759 (503) 548-8643/548-6544
March 24, 1999
Dear County Board of Commissioners,
The parks land are public land in the public trust They have untold value as
open space, wildlife habitat and low impact recreation by the public on public
land. And since Deschutes County is the 22nd fastest growing county in the
United States, the land has tremendous value as future developed parks --
public parks. They should not be traded away, converted into private property
to suit the whims of wealthy developers and their clients.
�
The ytr of these lands, allowing them to move from the public trust and
domain, is aiding and abetting a bad horse trade. It is like trading 10 spirited
horses for a broken down mule. I think a trade like this will surely draw the
attention of the public and media in due time.
�Ye2�
This �, for the purpose of trading away public land, would be
furthering a massive subsidy for developers. I urge you to reconsider taking
an action that could allow the trade of an unrehablitated, unstable,
environmentally questionable log deck, that will someday inevitably be a
greenbelt alongside a public street for hundreds of acres of public park land.
The wealthy developers of Central Oregon do what they want with their land-
-their private property. Their will is almost completely unopposed by the
local media, local governing bodies and agencies. But this is public land in
the public trust and should not be be subject to speculation.
Sincerely,
Nancy all
ARLU DeCO
Board member
The Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County