2007-591-Minutes for Meeting May 16,2007 Recorded 6/8/2007DESCHUTES
NANCY
COUNTY CLERKDS CJ Z00~•591
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
11111111 111 oil 06/08/2001 03;06:01 PM
II~IIIIII~~~~i~u
2007-381
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book
or as Fee Number
and Page
~01ti~sc
v
w ~
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 169 2007
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Anna Johnson,
Commissioners' Office; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property and Facilities;
and, for part of the meeting, Tom Blust, Road Department; Ernie Mazorol, Courts;
Larry Blanton, Sheriff; David Givans, Administration; Mark Pilliod, Legal
Counsel; and citizen Jim Love, representing Habitat for Humanity. No
representatives of the media were present.
Chair Daly opened the meeting at 1: 00 p.m.
Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-121, Approving a Special
Procurement for Supply and Hauling Crushed, Pre-coated Rock for Chip
Seal.
Tom Blust explained the reason for the special procurement, which is necessary
because earlier bids for rock were rejected due to the high cost, but the need for
the product is imminent. He has spoken with providers about delivery dates
and purchasing in smaller quantities. The cost is somewhat less; the winning
bidder is the same. It appears that no further savings can be realized, but the
cost will be spread out between this fiscal year and next fiscal year.
BANEY: Move approval of the Order, subject to legal review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Page 1 of 5 Pages
2. Discussion of Jail Options - Contracting Method.
Dave Kanner stated that the common bid process is the "hard bid", which goes
to the lowest bidder. State law and the County also permit alternative
contracting methods. (He referred to a document regarding bid options)
Susan Ross walked the group through the bid option documents.
A question was asked about a liquidated damages clause. Dave Kanner said the
liquidated damages clause for failure to complete on time relates to a Court of
Appeals ruling in 2003, which found that there has to be an assessment of actual
damages. It is almost impossible to prove damages as a public entity. The
County could put an incentive in the contract to finish early. However, this
might not be necessary, and could also encourage the contractor to cut corners
or to insist things are completed when they may not have been.
Mark Pilliod said the courts view liquidated damages provisions skeptically;
they are thought of as penalties. Damages are allowed, while penalties are not.
You have to try to plug in an appropriate number for damages. If the County is
using another jurisdiction's facilities, costs can be can determined. He added
that the contractor might blame any delays on the County. In any case, it is
difficult and could be costly to include a liquidated damages clause.
Mr. Pilliod said that the more change order requests that have to be considered,
the more complicated and costly the project could be.
Dave Kanner said that architects claim ownership of their documents to limit
their liability. The design is the responsibility of the owner at that point. The
design-build process makes the contractor and architect responsible for the
entire project from the beginning, and they have to work out any discrepancies
during the process.
Larry Blanton said their operation cannot stop. Security can be a risk as well.
It is important to have a contractor on board at the beginning. Susan Ross said
the timeline is optimal, and the whole public safety complex has been done
through an alternative process.
Commissioner Luke stated that he is leaning towards using a CMGC process
because the technical expertise needed is great. He does not do this lightly;
usually he prefers a hard bid process.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Commissioner Daly disagreed, and said he prefers a low bid process. He feels
any company that bids would be qualified, and should be able to follow the
plan. He said a CMGC could lead to higher prices, and that this project would
not be any more complicated than any other. He added that this is a political
situation as well.
Sheriff Blanton wants to move the process along as quickly as possible. Phase I
was supposed to happen in 2010. Also, the cost of materials and labor can
increase substantially as time passes.
Ms. Ross said the major elements can be listed to get an idea of cost at the
beginning.
Commissioner Daly asked what the big hurry is; he wants to view other jails.
Mr. Kanner stated that the county needs to know the concept and basic
schematics at least prior to doing that. Commissioner Luke stated that the
architect can be bid out now, if it is a traditional low bid process; if not, they
need to go out for the team for design build.
Commissioner Daly feels the hard big process is the least expensive way to go.
Commissioner Baney said that this is a complicated project; she asked about the
timing of the various bid processes. Ms. Ross stated that there is a domino
effect and the work has to go smoothly because of the issues related to a
corrections facility.
Commissioner Daly stated that the only time he voted in favor of CMGC was
for the construction of the Information Technology/warehouse building, and he
has taken criticism from the media since then. Commissioner Luke said that the
school districts, park and recreation district and others use CMGC all the time.
Commissioner Baney feels this is crisis mode, but it is a lot of money and wants
to be careful with her choice. She sees where streamlining would help a lot.
Commissioner Luke said that CMGC is an easier process for staff to handle. It
has only been done twice since he has been at the County. Usually the County
goes out for hard bid whenever possible. However, low bid opens the door for
substandard contractors and a lot of change orders.
Commissioner Luke explained that staff needs to start preparing the documents
but needs to know which way to go. Commissioner Daly said that
Commissioner Baney needs to take some time to consider the political
ramifications and other aspects. He thinks the best price can be obtained
through a low bid process, regardless of possible change orders.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Page 3 of 5 Pages
The Board asked that this be discussed further on Wednesday, May 23,
following the Board meeting.
3. Update and Overview of County-owned Properties.
Susan Ross gave an overview of County-owned property. There are properties
that are almost immediately ready for sale; these are called Priority 1. They are
been designated as appropriate to sell by Resolution, are readily marketable and
there is a strong demand.
Teresa Rozic then went through the list of Priority 1 properties.
Priority 2 parcels are those that need land use action taken, have access issues,
or have other obstacles that make them not readily marketable at this time.
Priority 3 parcels are those that need major land use action and probably will
not be available to sell for many years.
Commissioner Baney will meet with Ms. Ross and Ms. Rozic to learn more
about the properties.
4. Economic Development Grant Requests:
• Deschutes County Weed Board - Weed Pull Event - Commissioner Baney
granted $1,000.
• Heart of Oregon Corps - Fire Fuel Reduction Program - Commissioners
Baney and Daly both granted $1,000.
5. Update of Commissioners' Schedules; Meeting Details.
None were discussed.
6. Other Items.
Commissioner Luke asked that the Board sign a letter for Scott Johnson to use,
in lieu of the fact that the legislature is likely not granting funds for mental
health purposes.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Page 4 of 5 Pages
The Board approved signature of a letter to the Oregon Judiciary Committee in
support of House Bill 3445.
Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the
meeting at 2:50 p.m.
DATED this 16th Day of May 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
l
f
Tammy aney, Co ssioner
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
G 5~
02
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007 -please note earlier time
1. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2007-121, Approving a Special
Procurement for Supply and Hauling Crushed, Pre-coated Rock for Chip Seal -
Tom Blust
2. Discussion of Jail Options - Contracting Method
3. Update and Overview of County-owned Properties
4. Economic Development Grant Requests:
• Deschutes County Weed Board - Weed Pull Event
• Heart of Oregon Corps - Fire Fuel Reduction Program
5. Update of Commissioners' Schedules; Meeting Details
6. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE:
At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations;
ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
JAIL CONSTRUCTION BID OPTIONS
May 16, 2007
Design-Bid-Build (traditional hard-bid process)
Segregates design and construction responsibilities by awarding them to an independent
private designer and a separate private contractor. Final design is completed and issued at
time of bid. Award of construction contract is based solely on price. Proposals are
submitted by sealed bid based on the completed design, and contract is awarded to lowest
responsive, responsible bidder.
Process:
1. Owner hires a designer to conduct the design of the facility.
2. When design is final and approved by Owner, the Invitation to Bid is advertised.
3. Bids are received, lowest responsive/responsible bidder is determined, and
contract is awarded.
Pros:
Base cost is established on the project at time of bid award.
Process is familiar to and easily understood by the public and media.
Cons:
• Contractor is not involved in the design phase; Contractor bids only on the
designed product and can't base bid on best practice.
• Lowest bid may be a firm that has no prior experience in jail construction.
• Adds to timeline because of additional design/value engineering that needs to
occur after construction is awarded.
• Change orders typically add 4% to 6% to base bid cost.
• Much staff/architect time and energy spent on the change request process which is
inherently adversarial.
Design-Build
A project delivery method in which the design-builder provides or obtains and manages
architectural/engineering and construction services and the risks associated with
providing these services for a fixed price.
Process:
1. Owner issues a request for qualifications. Respondents detail the background and
qualifications of the entire team.
2. Review committee shortlists the best qualified teams and invites them to
interview.
3. Review committee recommends a contracting team to the Board.
Pros:
• "Turnkey" operation. One entity is responsible for delivering the final product.
The contractor is just as responsible for the design as the designer. Complexity of
this project requires close cooperation between design and construction phases.
• Integrates value engineering suggestions into the design phase, which results in
reduction or elimination of contract changes at construction. Contractor is able to
provide immediate feedback on design considerations. This reduces the risk of
design flaws, misunderstandings, and conflicts. This collaboration is also
conducive to innovative design solutions.
• Shortened project timeline because some construction activity (early submittals,
mobilization, subcontracting, etc.) commences prior to completion of a "biddable"
design.
• Can select firm based on many criteria, not only lowest cost. We can ensure we
select a firm that has prior experience constructing corrections facilities.
• Firms compete for the contract by offering best value for available dollars.
Owner gets a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). Construction does not begin
until owner and contractor agree on GMP. If project is completed for less than
GMP, savings typically accrue to the owner.
Cons:
May not have the most optimal design and construction team because they come
as a package.
Design team can be given confusing directions because of duality of who they
work for. Designer works for contractor, not for owner.
Political heat because of perception that this process limits competition.
Design-Bid-Build Using CM/GC (Contraction Manager/General Contractor)
An alternative contracting method where the general contractor also serves as the
construction manager and is involved with the project team in design, value engineering,
scheduling, estimating and subcontracting services, and overall coordination of the
building process. The contractor establishes a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) to
complete the project. Owner would solicit separately for the design firm and the
contracting firm, but contractor can be involved in design at the beginning. This method
of contracting is beneficial on projects that involve technical complexity because the
contractor input may be necessary on issues such as operations of the facility during
construction, delivery of a cost estimate as early as possible, and the need for highly
coordinated scheduling.
Process:
Can be similar to design-build or we can issue Invitation to Bid that requests the
contractor's mark-up percentage.
Pros:
• Can obtain optimal design and construction team because each is selected
separately on its own merits
• Allows for design changes during preliminary design rather than after final design
work has been completed. Integrates value engineering suggestions into the
design phase, which results in reduction of contract changes at construction.
Contractor is able to provide immediate feedback on design considerations. This
reduces the risk of design flaws, misunderstandings, and conflicts. This
collaboration is also conducive to innovative design solutions.
• Shortened project timeline because some construction activity (early submittals,
mobilization, subcontracting, etc.) commences prior to completion of a "biddable"
design.
• Can select firm(s) based on many criteria, not only lowest cost. We can ensure
we select a firm that has prior experience constructing corrections facilities.
• The jail project will be technically and logistically complex. It involves an
incarceration facility that must continue to operate during construction. This will
involve a high degree of coordinated scheduling. A CM/GC process is ideal for
this type of situation because the contractor is brought on board at the early design
phase.
• Firms compete for the contract by offering best value for available dollars.
Owner gets a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). Construction does not begin
until owner and contractor agree on GMP. If project is completed for less than
GMP, savings typically accrue to the owner.
Cons:
• Political heat because of perception that this process limits competition (although
contractor can be required to bid out all subcontracts).
L
O
U
N
C
-
L
O
CD
(1)
a
W
CD
c
^
~
if
0
0
N
-
o
v
CD
L
O
a
m
L
L
U
rn
N
O
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Z
L_O
~r
V
~N
i.V
Z
Or
V o
0
J cv
Q ~
N ~
W
O°
LL
A
W
_Z V)
J 0
CW
G d
N
m
CO)
c
o
C
U
'
ca
0
.
O
U
U
O
a
N
Q
O
a)
U
N
a)
m
N
O
a
a)
(6
Lo
a
j
cm
(D
c
+0+
O
(0
v
cn
O
cu
E
U
O
O
L
N
a
a)
:3
ca
O
0
C
c
a)
CL
w
~
1
E
c"
c
(
0
CL
U
L
O
c
O
O
3
O
cu
CL
0
C
a)
2
U
a)
c0
'a
:2
c
CL
( -
a)
:r
c
m
a)
L
m U
c
U
N
O
O Y
„O
O
Q
m
23
- c
O
U
N
to
O
a)
c
7
O
O
E 3
° U
-a
O
-O
co
~i
O_
Q
a O
C
(a
U
c
cu
.Q
~
rn O
a)
N C
C
Q
O
C
c
N
o a)
CL
a)
tf L
0)
a)
iB
a)
a
0
L
t1
CL
~
a)
c
FO
>
U
c
6
a) o
a)
0
-0
:2
Q
af (n
N
CO a)
0
0
O
m
cu
c
0
c
o
C 3
O U
0 O
m
m
d
U)
O
E
N
U)
O
3
't
W
O
3
~
L
O
E
N
fA
c
E
N
fA
c
E
O
f0
c
E
N
) N
3
V
N
rr
c
E
N
L_
c
E
N
i
C
c
0
N
O
O
o
ti
O
co
O
m
O
000
O
O
r`
O
0)
O
O
r
rl-
O
0
O
N
00
O
C)
O
(0
i
Oo
O
N
0)
O
O
rn
O
0)
O
r-
I
rn
O
(D
0)
O
O
I
rn
O
I
\
O
I
rn
O
0)
-
O
N
(Y)
1
`
N
e0
0
0
CL
0
L)
U
U
N
O
CL
N
0
Y
c
O
c
O
off
c
0
a
c
O
o
U
0
U
N
w
c
O
U
O
d
N
LL
E
C
N
D
U
a)
N
O
O
v7
Uj
7
N
dl
N
"O
a)
a)
a)
O
0O
C
a
C
fU
to
U
C
a
N
~
(0
0
V
D)
`
:3
L
m
O
a)
'0
c
a
U
a)
c
X
~O
O
m
a)
a> Y
(n
a o
a)
-
>
c
E 3
~
° U
a
D
C
v
c
o
+7
U
_
0
n C
`
N
O a)
4)
C
c
LM
C
om
+
cn
a
=3
U
v
Q
N°
N
cn
r-
aa)
}n
p
u
U,
cn
U) a)
0
O
U
O
U
0
m
co
w
L
U)
L
i
d
L
C
L
C
fn
+
-
c
L
+
-
C
O
O
O
D
O
f
c CO
O
f
U)
E
3
E
a)
I'-
N
N
IT
o
OD
o
N
-0
1-
C
N
V)
C
0
O
N
N
f~
C)
~
O
CD
r
O
C)
~
O
00
O
O
)
co
O
rn
O
r
0)
o
r'
M
,
00
O
CD
n
O
M
o
C)
N
r
Deschutes County Land
Inventory
Presentation to Board of County
Commissioners
May 15, 2007
Priority 1
• Market will accept it now
• Realistic sales price
• Legal Lot
• Liquid - can be sold within 12 months
• Strong demand
1
- ~ n~
A
-
SMITH RGr:R
n~ ~~l'~n
TERREBONNE
t:NFI. 2
e J
. Parcel. 1-1
I59 a "es
EFUTE
$1 Million after partitlon
DAI.~D6 Y
H
^ii_H
rMr!TC~FY_
Sr
Parcel 1-2
1_0 o-Cre5 -
s
K~ 15FItHDC P,
P-el 1-3
90 A-,
EFUTE ~
S7`4).000.fter partlti-
,
1
~
S1dIA Lht EFUTE
$500,000 ,ith access
ewoc
r
1
i
/
\
Fl to
_ _
CO+N R >tF~
1
r~ I ~
_
F j
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY
1:24,000
o
Parcel l-4
159A ~s
w EFUTRB. SMLA
onvP~m _ . 1,500,000 after part llm
p
A
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY 1:24,000
2
r
y ~ L
~
G E tW rOD~
S - co,
f)b k~
i E, I
H
HF-
-
Parr 1 I
Er I
A res th 1 l is
pp 5 s im
J R d pond City L n tr : 1111 21
?181111 .nth zoin0 and partl on
y ?
A
Hwv zE
S VErLl~S 1~. 1
/
II o
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY 1:24M0
Pa el t 6
coNnu~n
~40 res
U1 EFUTRB
F
$~J00 000•i.lh ac~ess ~
i
~
~ IJAY ION
F
~ECft ;r
SAEULt
COUCH MAR-
RL
D
Pare.
I 1-7
~
~
41 acres
FmtA. LM. EFUTRB
$1 Mill- ,ft, aoiu
-
f
_ f r.r=r_R5r I
\
\
MALO
IT
SJ
TU 0
L5
IL O
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY
1:24.000
l SnE,~R ~
I Fa cJ t-9
y ~
40 ates
c
S RR 10
y~-
5300 000 after parMlon s
~
T. c FT
2os ~ ~
Parcel 1-3
_ ST,iIA IA, Au RR 10
S° A /
~
, $1 6 -11m agar part t-
ro~anev
\
~ LMt rONt
t1RC -CN O~ PENN} Zt ORIOLE r.. v~~ ! f Q
Yi LONY`~I:
QUAIL %
I F
/ S 2 RQ91N
' m
C "'0 DESCHUTES ZNCTION RILL
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY 1:24,000
o
i
cParcel I-10
clv eeriwooo
67 NW Greenwood Bend
- j C--rdi l La
$720.000
y
':I
JINN
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY c1.250
onve~auer ~h
i
-t-
~ .
~
~
\'14a
'C?ERL D `
CU
I
i.I
~ 2y~
F
t^
6ALiiA (!E
~
~
~ ~ ~OR
f c
r
H
~
na
u
r
~ r
KNOLL
t1 1
- t 1
App 9 1 16
E s
~
1_
kF ~ 1
$3 m Ilion aft p-ut hon and zon ng
- ` S
0
1I
C
~
~t
I_lAKAY
i
-
f~/ A
~
"
t :Il M V.KC
~ l
1 r-
FC 1PrN0lD
S
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY
1:10.000
-12-7 ~
I- ircel2-8 -
I'.I acres .
I-IUAL
t_50g000afterp oRionand-th occc-,s.
Parcel 1-12 Parcel 2-9
316 aces
EFacreLs
F_FUAL _ EFUA \
Ilion afl r 5600.000
5
1
a
Priority 2
• Secondary parcels
• Needs land use action
• Little speculation
• Sell "as is"
6
-41
U tclat,'l sc'
EF I
52180,000 `.l '
r
/
Parcel ?-2
320 taal Pa ~ t / l
VA. EFUSC
1,, o € Q is
~ EPG _T
5 2
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY 172.875.728757
06114P_007
X0.1 I
~J
J-
u
p
Parcel2 3
~lj _ 116 t tol acres.
- W SINlLk EFUSC
$65000u^
Y'N
~
ECn '.U`f~rJ
/
k
~ F8
~UCK HOftN
EMEHPI
NHIfiLAWAY i
N STONE - i
l ff F
l
~
~
0"
~ /
H U
ICHt>BL(
t,K
`
j WE f
r
DY C~FC+- Cl
1
1 ~ w
I NII SH ~
~ NF_TPEE _ t
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY t2a,aoo
7
NP G ESt ~ ~M r°i ~
LkAl LLn W.P6L. ~MLI
1A FOLI-140
-
ICKI-
Fm
Z-sLRO.
A/
i7
YEfIn
YtW
A
, rr ~ PEENS
V
h/
z
f \ P~ < Jp
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY 1:9.109.455005
i
304 total ao=,
_
11,10 L-
jA
AS. EFUAL
i $1 minion
6u0KSK r
SAGE MFi0Y0
m
INTIG,
. O
MAVEI2IC
w
~
T
1 _g OxfiOW _
a
U
V
N!!W TA
. 1.11 C~4
RODEO
s
YUCCA
6U( AiM1Ft
-
H1~ - MARKFT
TTT
Mt,GnA
T
/rJJJ
J
1
U
~
~
41 C
Z
u
NELSON
NELSON
hELSGN
F
nEl SON.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY
1:24,000
\
P,i-l 2-9
61
LM es v~
MIA, WA, EFUHR
Huse Ridge Frontage Road -
sly'
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY 1:24,000
A _
]p
T c rl r~r
r ! ,
a( Lr s ~ cl r ~
1 t ~i
?I
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY
05/142007
1
P'~rC•--I-2 1012-'5
LPVIR
~r
L .Pine City Limit
a
-
Rr r` rF Za
~
1
nr
/
f iN
t
f
1:24.000
9
Priority 3
• Needs master planning
• Needs major land use action
I
dt.
I Parcel 3 I
Parcel 3-2
160 acres
M EFUSC
.$480,001) vrilh access
f
~
I
,
I
f
I
~
a
i
r
~
4
Deschutes County Property
1:24.000
05114/2007
10
Deschutes County Property
124,000
11
Deschutes County Property
0511412007
1:24.000
DAVE Pl RT O
-
~
l
GD 16E p MCKA/ p y~(
Z ~
N AIT NtF ~
C
O
~n
~
'
G
AL6
.'I
1
~ t
VRNa ~ r ( tRCt
EkHr cNEi rllnG -
m Y
r
t Parcel 1-11
4pprox 9 of 46 eaes total e .y
million after parhuon and eonmg
t t
(
~
< FOREST R DGt
t
q~
1
S
T~
j
\ i
p10~
Flo
~ ~ RCC9 fARn~
zJ
~EDARw 100
DESCHUTES COUNTY PROPERTY tlo,ooo
12
Summary of May 15,
2007 Presentation
To Board of County Commissioners
ParcellD Priority Method4cq
Zoning Comments
Acreage Appraisal
1-1 1 Resolution
EFUTE Needs 1 foot of access. South of
Smith Rock Way. Legal lot?
Partition to 3 lots and flag lot to
1413260000200.
Smith Rock
159 $1,000,000.00
1-10 1 County Asset
City Bend
Title will transfer to county
11/30/2008. Commercial lot= 0.11
acres.
67 NW Greenwood
0
$720,000.00
1-11 1 County Asset
Bend
Construction landfill. Only that
portion of TL 100 north of Simpson
is marketable at this time. Need to
partition about 9 acres. Sell subject
to zoning and partition.
19755 Simpson Av
46
$3,000,000.00
1-12 1
County Asset EFUAL
5 lots of record? County partition or
let buyer do it? 05/07/07: Partition
(with 1813000004503) into 15 lots.
$200k/lot. Access off Rickard.
Rickard Rd
316
$2,400,000.00
1-2 1
County Asset EFUTE
South of Smith Rock Way. Lot of
record determination 1/26/2000.
Needs access. Maybe flag lot from
1413230000200. Build road?
Smith Rock
120
$750,000.00
1-3 1 Resolution SMIA, LM, EFUT Needs access. Canyon floor and
part rim. File indicates 2 building
sites w/views.
East Hwy 97 80 $500,000.00
I hursday, May 17, 2007 Page I of 8
• I
ParcellD Priority MethodAcq
Zoning
Acreage
Comments
Appraisal
1-4 1 Resolution
EFUTRB, SMIA
Lot of record verification 2003. 40
acre parcel north sold in Dec 2004
for $425,000. 2006 RMV of that
piece is $563,750. File indicates
problems with adj owners to
acquire access as well as strong
opinions about conserving the land
as open space (1999). 05/07/07:
Partition for 3 & provide access.
Jordan Rd
159
$1,500,000.00
1-5 1 County Asset
EH10
Separate serial # for this zoning.
NE Maple
0
$0.00
1-5 1
County Asset SM, SMIA, M2, A
AKA "Redmond 1800 acres". Need
to coordinate with City of Redmond.
05/07/07: Only the 200 acres in the
city. $2/sf = $90k/acre = $18 million
conditioned on approval of M-2
zone and minor partition to create 2
lots. Balance at $1/sf.
2400 NE Maple Ave
1-6 1
Hwy 20
1829
County Asset LM, EFUTRB
40
$18,000,000.00
Needs access. 05/07/07: Partition
not possible (no road frontage).
Obtain access off Tweed?
$400,000.00
1-7 1
County Asset SMIA, LM, EFUT
Application for partition pending.
Hwy 20
41
$1,000,000.00
1-8 1
County Asset SMIA, AS, RR10
Hold for re-zoning or sell now?
Lots 100 and 2800 together
constitute one legal lot of record
(2003). 05/07/07: $200k per 10
acre lot with utilities, water & septic.
Whispering Pines
80
$1,600,000.00
1-9 1
County Asset AS, RR10
Hold for re-zoning or sell now?
Lots 100 and 2800 together
constitute one legal lot of record
(2003). 05/07/07: $200k per 10
acre lot with utilities, water & septic.
Whispering Pines
40
$800,000.00
1 hursday, May 17, 2007
Page 2 of-B
Parce/ID Priority
MethodAcq
Zoning
Comments
Acreage
Appraisal
2-1 2
County Asset
SMIA, EFULB
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
McKenzie Cyn
40
$120,000.00
2-1 2
County Asset
WA, FP, EFULB
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
McKenzie Cyn
80
$240,000.00
2-1 2
County Asset
WA, EFULB
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
McKenzie Cyn
240
$720,000.00
2-1 2
County Asset
SMIA, EFULB
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
McKenzie Cyn
40
$120,000.00
2-1 2
McKenzie Cyn
2-1 2
McKenzie Cyn
2-1 2
McKenzie Cyn
2-10 2 - Tax
52755 Drafter Rd
County Asset WA, EFUSC
240
County Asset WA, EFUSC
40
County Asset WA, EFULB
40
Tax Deed La Pine, LPWCR
1
Portion leased for runway.No notes
in file. Access? Building sites?
Need inspection. 05/07/07:
Partition into 2 or 3. Only tract
w/road frontage.
$720,000.00
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
$120,000.00
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
$120,000.00
Within LaPine city limits. May be
affected by Wikiup Junction re-
alignment.
$50,000.00
2-11 2 - Tax Tax Deed La Pine, LPWCR Within LaPine city limits. May be
affected by Wikiup Junction re-
alignment.
52695 Drafter Rd 1 $50,000.00
Thursday, May 17, 2007 Page 3 of 8
ParcellD Priority
MethodAcq
Zoning
Comments
Acreage
Appraisal
2-12 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
La Pine, LPWCR
Within LaPine city limits. May be
affected by Wikiup Junction re-
alignment.
52651 Drafter Rd
1
$50,000.00
2-13 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
La Pine, LPWCR
Within LaPine city limits. May be
affected by Wikiup Junction re-
alignment.
Drafter Rd
1
$50,000.00
2-14 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
LaPine, LPWCR
Within LaPine city limits. May be
affected by Wikiup Junction re-
alignment.
52535 Drafter Rd
1
$50,000.00
2-15 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
La Pine, LPWCR
Within LaPine city limits. May be
affected by Wikiup Junction re-
alignment.
52589 Drafter Rd
1
$50,000.00
2-2 2
County Asset
WA, SMIA, EFUS
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
Buckhorn Rd
81
$250,000.00
2-2 2
County Asset
WA, EFULB
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
Buckhorn Rd
80
$250,000.00
2-2 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
WA, EFUSC
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
Buckhorn Rd
81
$250,000.00
2-2 2
County Asset
WA, EFUSC
No notes in file. Access? Building
sites? Need inspection.
Buckhorn Rd
80
$250,000.00
2-3 2
Resolution
SM, SMIA
1 lot of record? Partition to
separate southern 40-acres of EFU
from northern 80 acres of SM. See
141131 C0001 00. Need to dedicate
ROW?
Hurtley Ranch Rd
40
$250,000.00
I hursday, May 17, 2007
Page 4 of 8
Parcel[D Priority
MethodAcq
Zoning
Comments
Acreage
Appraisal
2-3 2
Resolution
SM, SMIA, EFUS
AKA "Goodrich Rd". Partition and
sell the EFU portion only? See
1411000005200. 05/07/07:
Possible partition. Resource
depleted? Lot of record? Assume
flat & buildable & access to both.
Hurtley Ranch Rd
76
$40,000.00
2-4 2
County Asset
R2
Across from cemetery. Needs fill.
Broker price opinion $1,413,500
dated November 2006.
31st Street
8
$1,413,500.00
2-5 2
Resolution
AS, EFUAL
Bend Airport. 05/07/07: Minor
partition (with 1713170000100) into
3 parcels or LLA to SW of McGrath
then partition the remainder into 3.
McGrath Rd
188
$1,000,000.00
2-5 2
Resolution
AS, EFUAL
Bend Airport. 05/07/07: Minor
partition (with 1713170000100) into
3 parcels or LLA to SW of McGrath
then partition the remainder into 3.
McGrath Rd
116
$0.00
2-7 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
EFUAL
Potential development east of
Bend. Access from Ward Rd?
5/7/07: $50,000 each lot after
partition and with access.
Ward Rd
161
$250,000.00
2-8 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
EFUAL
Potential development east of
Bend. Needs access. 5/7/07:
$50,000 each lot after partition and
with access.
Ward Rd
161
$250,000.00
2-9 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
don't know
Potential development east of
Bend. Access from Rickard Rd.
05/07/07: Partition (with
1813000004503) into 15 lots.
$200k/lot. Access off Rickard.
Rickard Rd
78
$600,000.00
Thursday, Alay 17, 2007 Page 5 of 8
ParcellD Priority
MethodAcq
Zoning
Comments
Acreage
Appraisal
2-9 2 - Tax
Tax Deed
LM, SMIA, WA, E
A nearby 4-acre parcel just sold at
auction for $28,000.
Horse Ridge Frontage Rd
61
$50,000.00
3-1 3 - Hol
Tax Deed
WA, F2
AKA "Fremont Canyon". Lot of
record 05131/00. Part of the MOU
w/COCC OSU. Manage for timber.
Wilt Rd
242
$726,000.00
3-2 3 - Hol
County Asset
WA, EFUSC
AKA "Fremont Canyon". Lot of
record 04/25/00. Part of the MOU
w/COCC OSU. Manage for timber.
05/07/07: More attractive; closer to
road.
Wilt Rd
160
$480,000.00
3-3 3 - Tax
Tax Deed
EFUSC
Need inspection. Suitable for
shooting range?
Cline Falls Hwy
80
$500,000.00
3-4 3 - Hol
County Asset
Separate account, same tax lot.
Airport South
$0.00
3-4 3 - Hol
County Asset
Redmond, EFUA
City may want to acquire for airport
expansion. 05/07/07: Hold for
trade with airport.
Airport South
231
$0.00
3-5 3
County Asset
LM, AS, OS&C
Restrictive easement along
highway. 05/07/07: 2 parcels
@$300k if access off Gift and
Pleasant Ridge.
Pleasant Ridge Rd
67
$600,000.00
3-6 3
County Asset
EFUAL
May be impacted by proposed 19th
St extension.
Pleasant Ridge Rd
6
$0.00
3-6 3
County Asset
EFUAL
May be impacted by proposed 19th
St extension.
Pleasant Ridge Rd
34
$0.00
Thursday, Alay 17, 2007 Wage 6 of 8
■
ParcelID Priority MethodAcq Zoning Comments
Acreage Appraisal
3-6 3 County Asset EFUAL May be impacted by proposed 19th
St extension. 05/07/07: Assumes
access from 19th St.
Pleasant Ridge Rd 40 $1,200,000.00
3-6 3
County Asset
LM, EFUAL
May be impacted by proposed 19th
St extension.
Pleasant Ridge Rd
39
$0.00
3-7 3
County Asset
LM, OS&C
Restrictive covenant along
highway. 05/07/07: Include in
City/Juniper Ridge. $3/sf only if
inside City.
Juniper Ridge
107
$3,000,000.00
3-8 3
County Asset
EFUTRB
Over 500 aggregate acres, some
with Highway frontage, most west
of city's Juniper Ridge
development. 05/07/07: West side
needs Master Plan and access
from ODOT. Possible 13 sites
@$400k each or $13k/acre.
Juniper Ridge
80
$1,040,000.00
3-8 3
County Asset
LM, EFUTRB
Over 500 aggregate acres, some
with Highway frontage, most west
of city's Juniper Ridge
development. 05/07/07: West side
needs Master Plan and access
from ODOT. Possible 13 sites
@$400k each or $13k/acre.
Juniper Ridge
40
$520,000.00
3-8 3
County Asset
LM, OS&C
Over 500 aggregate acres, some
with Highway frontage, most west
of city's Juniper Ridge
development Restrictive easement
along highway. 05/07/07: West
side needs Master Plan and access
from ODOT. Possible 13 sites
@$400k each or $13k/acre.
Juniper Ridge
38
$494,000.00
Ihursday, May 17, 2007
Page 7 of 8
ParcellD Priority
MethodAcq
Zoning
Comments
Acreage
Appraisal
3-8 3
County Asset
EFUTRB
Over 500 aggregate acres, some
with Highway frontage, most west
of city's Juniper Ridge
development. 05/07/07: West side
needs Master Plan and access
from ODOT. Possible 13 sites
@$400k each or $13k/acre.
Juniper Ridge
80
$1,040,000.00
3-8 3
County Asset
LM, EFUTRB
Over 500 aggregate acres, some
with Highway frontage, most west
of city's Juniper Ridge
development. 05/07/07: West side
needs Master Plan and access
from ODOT. Possible 13 sites
@$400k each or $13k/acre.
Juniper Ridge
200
$2,600,000.00
3-9 3
County Asset
Bend
Construction landfill. Only that
portion of TL 100 north of Simpson
is marketable at this time. Need to
partition.
19745 Simpson Av
10
$0.00
3-9 3
County Asset
Bend
Construction landfill. Only that
portion of TL 100 north of Simpson
is marketable at this time. Need to
partition.
Simpson Av
15
$0.00
3-9 3
County Asset
Bend
Construction landfill. Only that
portion of TL 100 north of Simpson
is marketable at this time. Need to
partition.
19795 Simpson Av
8
$0.00
I hursday, May 17, 2007 Page 8 of 8