2008-593-Minutes for Meeting April 07,2008 Recorded 5/29/2008DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS VJ 200YE593
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK Vd Val
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
IIIIIII I III 05129/200$ 08;46;31 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2008-593
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
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
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy
Melton. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Teresa Rozic,
Property Management; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Inbody,
Assistant to the Administrator; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property and
Facilities; Catherine Morrow and Tom Anderson, Community Development
Department; Greg Bates, Assessor's Office; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Jeff
Kern, former County Surveyor; Mike Berry and Ken Grantham, Surveyor/Road
Department; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin, and four other
citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p. m.
1. Proposed Property Exchange with Bend Metro Park & Recreation District.
Paul Stell of Bend Metro Park and Recreation District said that the Park District
is trying to complete the trail connection. The County owns a small parcel that
is needed for this purpose. At this time, recreationists are trespassing on the
Entrada Lodge property, so the District proposes to reconfigure the trail to take
care of this problem. (He referred to a map at this time) An exchange of a
like-sized parcel would enable the County to have a parcel that is more usable.
Dave Kanner stated that a survey would be necessary so that a lot line
adjustment can be done. The Commissioners indicated support of the proposal.
2. Discussion of Dustan Road Neighborhood Lot Line Issues.
Mike Berry gave a brief history of the situation, referring to maps and aerials of
the area. He said that Lechner Acres is a valid subdivision and there are no
problems there. However, the Dustan Road neighborhood has had significant
issues since 1951 when the Lechners started selling off lots. They hired Tom
Conklin, a private individual, to lay out the parcels but his work did not
coincide with the deed descriptions. Some of the lots have significant problems
between the actual assumed lot lines and the deed descriptions.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, April 7, 2008
Page 1 of 5 Pages
If a series of lot line adjustments were made to get back to what the owners are
occupying, there are several steps required, including conveyances to other
property owners. Surveyors feel that there might have been pipes set, but they
are not recorded. Subdivision laws were not well structured in the 1950's. The
seller was aware in 1961 and tried to correct the problem. Since then the
Surveyor has been trying to address the issue. Jeff Kern passed out a copy of
State law that relates to the situation (get a copy). County Ordinance needs to
be changed to match State language. Liz Fancher, an attorney, wrote language
that might bring this into compliance.
This should be added as a high priority program and it won't be easy getting a
consensus but it can start with a few of the neighbors cooperating. A temporary
solution with
Tom Anderson stated that Catherine Morrow might be able to help. This way a
domino effect might be started. Right now, the owners can't do anything.
Commissioner Melton asked about the ramifications of a Code amendment. . A
correcting deed is necessary on all. Mr. Gratham indicated that there has to be
consensus of the owners.
Just want to get the Count out of the ay to make it possible for these to be
approved as they come in. Mr. Pilliod indicated that they would probably have
to be handled one at a time.
Tom Anderson said that perhaps the Board would consider waiving the fee for a
Code amendment in the public good, to get the process started. Some neighbors
are willing to go first with the lot line adjustments. Each lot line adjustment is
approximately $400-$500. It would be more convenient and less costly to do a
large number at one time. Of course, there may be some issues with property
owners that may end up with a smaller lot size.
Mr. Pilliod asked if the process of approving the change would also address the
location of access ways, the location of utilities and other issues. Catherine
Morrow said that it would be a minor variance and is included. Typically,
people do this to correct non-conforming setback situations. They want to
avoid increasing the non-conformance.
Mr. Pilliod stated that access might remain due to a prescriptive use. It is more
than occupying a piece of property. Ms. Morrow said that a requirement is to
record new deeds, along with surveys.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, April 7, 2008
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Dave Kanner said that the County should not take on the responsibility of re-
surveying the area. He added that Dave Bancroft, an owner who lives in
Arizona, has indicated that perhaps a neighborhood association or an LLC
could be formed so that the entire area could be surveyed, with the cost split
equally. Some people have indicated they don't have the money to pay a share
of this expense, however. And deeds would still have to be generated and
recorded. Mr. Bancroft thought that perhaps the County could oversee this
process.
Commissioner Luke said that the County can try to get things out of the way so
that the property owners can proceed. Greg Bates said that a similar situation
took place in another subdivision.
Mike Berry stated that Dorrance Meadows had a similar problem and the Court
ordered the County surveyor to resolve the issue. However, the owners had to
cover the cost of surveying the 25 lots.
3. PSRB Secure Residential Treatment Facility Update.
Susan Ross gave an overview of the Oregon State Police property. (She
referred to a map of the area). The proposed that OSP and 911 would go in a
specific location and the balance would be for the
Telecare and the County are proposing this project. The County already owns
the property where it is currently an approved use.
Scott Johnson said the plan is to create more residential facilities throughout the
State to replace the State hospitals. Commissioner Luke asked why this has to
be renewed every two years. Ms. Ross stated that since the project is handled
by another agency, the State can only commit to the legislative biennium but
has indicated in writing that they will support it longer than ten years.
Mr. Johnson stated that the subject population is growing and it is highly
unlikely where these beds won't be needed. Ms. Ross said that the County will
have to provide this service as it is considered mandatory.
She added that if the County is going to go out for bonds, it would save money
to include this property at the same time.
Mr. Johnson stated there is a huge benefit to having the clients here rather than
sending them elsewhere. It provides family support for the individuals.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, April 7, 2008
Page 3 of 5 Pages
Commissioner Daly said that he thought when the property was purchased, it
was earmarked for law enforcement uses. Ms. Ross stated the zoning is IL, but
public safety uses are included in this zone. Commissioner Luke added that
siting a facility like this is one of the biggest problems they have to face. Mr.
Johnson said there are two projects; a ten-bed unit there, and an eight-bed unit
that also needs to be sited in the area.
Mr. Kanner noted that it is an appropriate site for this facility; many of the
clients might have already been adjudicated through the public safety system.
He said that in his opinion the risk is fairly low in regard to funding. If human
services are cut, this won't be one of the first as this is a necessary service.
Commissioner Daly stated that he would prefer this area be reserved for law
enforcement and jail expansion. He feels that he doesn't want to lose any
options. Commissioner Luke said that already the OSP and 911 facilities will
be there, and even with this property over half of the land will still be available.
Ms. Ross stated that 15,000 square feet would be needed for this and there is
78,000 available.
Commissioner Melton said that it would be irresponsible not to take advance of
this opportunity. Commissioners Luke and Daly asked that a map be provided
with a basic site plan of the various proposed building at the Wednesday work
session.
4. Consideration of Economic Development Grant Requests.
• Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council - C. 0. Partnership for Wildfire
Risk Reduction. Commissioner Luke stated that this is COIC's own program
and is not related to Project Wildfire. The Commissioners awarded no funds
at this time.
• Community Action Team of Sisters - Leadership Summit. Mr. Kanner stated
that this is not related to Leadership Sisters. This is a proposal to get
members of the community to meet and define priorities and needs. The
role of CATS needs to be defined. Commissioner Melton suggested that
they come back to the Commissioners with a request for funding a specific
project. Commissioners Daly and Melton may contribute $500 each, but this
will be decided at the Wednesday work session.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, April 7, 2008
Page 4 of 5 Pages
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
None were discussed.
6. Other Items.
None was discussed.
7. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property
negotiations.
No formal action was taken.
Being no further items before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3: 30 p.m.
DATED this 7th Day of April 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
ATTEST:
&kw~- 64*ot
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, April 7, 2008
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Tam (ney))Melton, Vice Chair
z
z
0
k^
,W
v ,
Q
W
J
a
_V2
00
O
N
a, q
r
Q
L
0
1
O
r
Q
~
Y
n
a
L/
V I
bo
c
+r
N
Q)
c
o
°
E
v
'
Z
co
Q
L
Y2
F
~
L
L
L
a
-TES
{ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
t, (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008
Proposed Property Exchange with Bend Metro Park & Recreation District -
Dave Kanner; BMPRD Staff
2. Discussion of Dustan Road Neighborhood Lot Line Issues - Teresa Rozic, Mike
Berry, Greg Bates
3. PSRB Secure Residential Treatment Facility Update - Susan Ross
4. Consideration of Economic Development Grant Requests:
• Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council - C. 0. Partnership for Wildfire
Risk Reduction
Community Action Team of Sisters - Leadership Summit
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
6. Other Items
7. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations
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.
Ifyou have questions regardinga 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.
-VES
W~ Department of Administrative Services
l
Dave Kanner, County Administrator
0 ErA %AA
1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202
www. co. deschutes. or. us
April 1, 2008
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Dave Kanner
RE: Property exchange with Bend Metro Parks and Rec district
In January, 2007, the Bend Metro Parks and Rec District (BMPRD) approached the
County with a request for a trail easement across a County-owned piece of land on the
south side of Century Drive near the Entrada Lodge. The BMPRD wants to re-route the
trail, which currently terminates at the Entrada Lodge parking lot.
After discussing the proposal, the Board indicated it would be more comfortable with a
property exchange than an easement. BMPRD has now come back to us with a proposal
to redraw the property lines of the District and County lots in this area that would result
in Deschutes County owning exactly the same square footage, but give BMPRD the land
it needs to re-route the trail on land it owns. I've scheduled this for discussion at the
April 7 work session and BMPRD staff will be there to answer questions.
Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner
d
W
o N N N r o w y w
pp w r7 M .C p .C •,C.. a g a O 0 C 0
po° o cx o~o~^ o C L- oZ 3~•a
X, G C o N U y ^ d
W. p C
O N°° N O N
h M o a ❑ w C
e A
~O N w C V 0. O O C 0 0 0
U N O~ V N O y U C y V o U
Q y O N .d ° 0.b ❑ . N.
„ y U w ctl O N O N 0 O '.S w ~C+
C y " b0 O 0 N o °O. C C ° W
U W o vO •a ,FO v ;o v 'y d
° ° OD U ~ Y b ~ m y OD ~ T
.C'i O F ^ F. W ld V ~ ~ ~ C O O ~ N ka
O aCi 'c7 p o° y O •C •aC. 'd O
C ea o ~ 1°y y w w w w~ c•
api Q z o U'oEo11~
y3cnti o°'vA°p00o 2 P, o '0
"z4
V T'~ N O tC ,C 0,5- Mw l C N O O N IS
ra. ~ y ~,U g Tw 0 ° o o a
C U wopb op :d N;d y y 3.C
B 'o E°Cyobo noa oa~E v
0 o y owv.~°e ~3b3W q~
p iy 4 N ~ N O OA c`~ m
o Lp W lop, ~ a,.n . v~ _ o 0 o h i p
3
ti
W
0
Q
0
0
~
W
~bN^
2
wW \
\
W
`
4
O
N
\N
~
2\
r
\
O ~
o \N
ti
o~
00
oU
p
NU
~O
,£Z•ool \
h
q
N
,88'i0{ b +
O
E
0
V
y
c0
03'.
0
0
~y
ao
s~
a
v
~b
C
v
W
w
p
d
G
P7
F
xW
W
d
U
A
o
'
Z h
3
J
0
~
a
~q Z
~~EL o=
G
n
~60U0 NN
O~~Q Yp
O
14
Z\
^2002 a
~
~mhNm °
N
W Z O`M ~
O ~ Z Z
y~f
N
o -
4~4y
Q~ -~3
~
y0
ai$ti 2
ao~
Onln
R20 U~
y
o~
OJ
T QO
2m
p h
ryT
m~
~Z \
K
U
T
f
`
kn~
10
~
U
2W WO
8 2 in
q
00~ ~
oQ~~.~O
-~Q ~n cib0
8
2
8
H
q~
W
~
a
t
a
0
u
U
u
h
00
OOi
CL;
.n
' 3W
O y
U
'd
O
Q
U
Q
W
0
N
°
0
U
O
W
0
0
0
U
o .o
o a
v ~
a.
6ti
a~
a~
LL
0
rn
as
a
0
a
0
a
m
0
v
c
0
O~
D
~
M
N
a
0
a
C
C
0
o
0
0
e
e $A
s
vii
~6
i
\ \ 1,
N
s vA
B
s eA
\
A
s
6~
n
A
A
;S
L~i[2 Milk-& nAMM E11n%WA LODGE 7842 EAR
,WCM aK WWAW & AMCUM A'c O~REL/M/NARY 114~1
" 07M EyCl /AMGE G~OMPA OAI
s
~J-ces c0
oU < Dustan Road Neighborhood Survey Background
Introduction
The Dustan Road neighborhood is located in the west one-half of Section 4, Township 22 South,
Range 10 East, which is west of Wickiup Junction and north of La Pine. The neighborhood is
bordered on the north by Burgess Road, on the west by Dorrance Meadow Road, on the south by
the Timber Haven subdivisions and on the east by the subdivisions of Lechner Acres and
Woodland Park Homesites. The private roads accessing the tracts in this area include Dustan
Road, Friendly Street, Lucky Lane, Bluebird Lane, Greenwood Drive and Davis Avenue.
These tracts, numbering nearly 200 individual tax lots, constitute an unrecorded subdivision since
no official subdivision plat was ever submitted, approved or recorded at the Deschutes County
Clerk's Office or the County Surveyor's Office.
In some areas of this neighborhood existing lines of occupation do not match the deed
descriptions. Additionally, gaps and overlaps exist between some of the tracts. Judging from
contacts with land owners and a review of surveys, these problems aren't as severe along the
northern and western parts of the neighborhood.
Background
The following is a compilation of the events which apparently created this problem:
1. In 1991 former County Surveyor Jeff Kern interviewed Pearl Lechner about the tracts of land
in this area. According to Kern's report, Bert and Pearl Lechner owned the west one-half of
Section 4. They began selling lots in 1951. Initially they hired Ted Conklin of Brooks Scanlon
and Tom Sly of Gilchrest to lay out the lots. Conklin was a surveyor/timber cruiser for Brooks
and did the work for the Lechners on weekends. Supposedly the tracts were marked with
some kind of monuments by these surveyors. Around 1961 Pearl came to the realization that
the descriptions did not match the tracts as laid out on the ground. She then hired William
Hudson, an engineer and surveyor, to survey the remaining lands. Pearl said she discussed
the survey/deed discrepancy problems with "someone in authority" which resulted in the
policy of not trying to correct the differences.
2. Pearl's statements are substantiated by the County Clerk's Tract Indexes which show that the
Lechners bought the parent parcel for these tracts in 19482 and began selling small tracts in
1950. A cursory review of deed records between 1952 and 1959 indicates that Lechner used
"aliquot part" descriptions to convey most of these parcels. This type of description breaks a
section of land down into smaller and smaller squares and rectangles, much like cutting up a
square tray of brownies. An example of an aliquot part description would be "the Northwest
1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2". This description can be
abbreviated to read "NW1/4 SE1/4 SW1/4 Section 2"
3. In 1971 a local surveyor, Bruce Rogers, performed a survey for Pearl Lechner. In his
narrative Rogers noted that there was "...a good chance for trouble in the W 1/2 of Section
4...the W 1/2 is about 70% developed... most land owners are not sure of their boundary
lines. ..,,3.
4. In 1984 another surveyor, George Colvin, stated in a survey narrative "To compound an
already bad situation, lots have been segregated and sold in the NW 1/4 of Section 4 without
benefit of survey. Some person or persons, who obviously lacked the knowledge to follow
proper surveying procedures, have set pipe monuments which are supposed to represent the
boundaries of some of these lots. These monuments are incorrectly set but have been held
by the property owners as their corners for years. Had lots been sold by metes and bounds
[descriptions], perhaps more credibility could be given the above mentioned monuments,
however, ownership is described by aliquot parts of Section 4 and proper survey disagrees
with possession lines by many feet... s4
1 Jeff Kern report of Pearl Lechner interview 7/5/1991
2 V86 P350 D.R.
3 Survey CS04717
4 Survey CS04786
Dustan Road Neighborhood Survey Background
5. In August of 1989 a County owned tract (tax lot 22-10-04C-100) was sold to private parties.
The County Commissioners were notified that a number of surveys in this area were
"inconsistent" and the county apparently rescinded the sale.5
6. In January of 1990 the County Commissioners directed the County surveyor to set all of the
public land survey system corners (section corners and one-quarter corners set at
approximately 1/2 mile increments along the exterior boundary) in section 4. This work was
completed by 1991.6
7. Although not documented in the Commissioners' Journals, in 1990 the County
Commissioners also directed the County Surveyor to map this area to determine the extent of
the ownership problems. Survey control was set around the section and an aerial mapping
survey was conducted. A map was produced showing approximate tax lot lines, existing
roads, fences and buildings. Unfortunately, the map supplied by the aerial mapping company
does not depict the location of the assessor's tax lot lines correctly, as the exterior corners of
the lot line coverage do not match the section corners located by the surveyor's office. No
further actions were taken by the County on this matter.
8. Since 1991 the Surveyor's Office has had discussions with various land owners about the
ownership/occupation problems in this area.
9. Recently a few Property Line Adjustments have been performed to correct the occupation vs.
deed location problems in this area.
10. In the last 5 years some residences have had trouble selling their property because title
companies will only insure land described in the deed.
11. A sampling of current deeds in this neighborhood shows that most of the properties are still
conveyed by "aliquot part" descriptions.
Summary
1. Unskilled surveyors hired by the Lechners laid out tracts of land on the ground. They
apparently believed that they surveyed these tracts out as proper "aliquot part' tracts. Later,
when professional land surveyors entered the area to mark property lines it was found that
the tracts laid out on the ground were done incorrectly and in a few cases were over a
hundred feet off when compared with the deed descriptions. By 1961, Pearl Lechner was
aware of the this discrepancy and hired Bill Hudson to survey her remaining lands.
2. Most of the original conveyance deeds were written as standard aliquot part descriptions,
with no calls for any of the monuments which may have set. No caveats or restrictions were
made in the deeds to indicate that the intent was to convey the tracts as laid out on the
ground rather than as described by aliquot part.
3. In the 1970s and 80s, when most if not all of the tracts had been sold by Lechner, land
owners began to hire surveyors to mark their boundaries. At this time the problems began to
reveal themselves as the surveyors were required to monument the deed description rather
than the occupation limits. A few of the survey narratives in this area state that the surveyor
recommended that their client consult a lawyer about the encroachment situations
encountered.
4. Since the 1970s property owners have been encumbered with uncertain ownership of their
properties due to the difference between the legal, deeded descriptions and the occupied
lines.
5 Commissioners' journal 96, Pg. 918 - 8/9/89 Board Meeting Minutes
6 Commissioners' journal 100, Pg. 1191 - 1/10/90 Board Meeting Minutes
U:\22-10-04 Dustan Rd Neighborhood\Survey Background Reports\Dustan Road Neighborhood - survey
background-alternative 4 doc
Page 2 of 6
04/07/08 12:27 PM mjb
Dustan Road Neighborhood Survey Background
Illustrative Maps of Approximate Occupation and Deed Lines
Exhibits A through D, illustrate an example of a deed in this neighborhood not matching the
occupation lines of "Tax Lot "A"". These maps are for illustrative purposes only and represent a
hypothetical situation.
TAX LOT "A" DEED DESCRIPTION
Description of Tax lot "A" from 2005 deed:
G=rces) tae fb:louing dcciW real prop_ In the Gray of DESCHUTES and Sate of owpa E= of eaCIL b- mes
except as opcsifi 34 so forth hcob:
THE WEST MROFTHESOUTHEASTQUARTEROFTHENORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUrHEASr QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER tWV# (wI/2
SE114 N%VI/4 SEW SWI/4) OF SECTION FOUR (4X TOWNSHIP TWENTY-TWO (22)
SOUTH, RANGE TEN (10), EAST OFTHE WILI AAIETTE MERIDIAN, DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON
I I
I I
I
I ;
- - - - - - - PROPERTY LINES
DESZHUTES ZODUTY S;iRVEYOa'S OFFIZE
I
l
i
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I 1° T'n I
I
i
C~
' I
I
oA (IM
j JotiQ.oa' C3 ` - - -
~e c
k
~ ~ G<•
l
ii
l (~y Yli ~L i
I I
I ~
TAX LOT A PER DEED DESCRIPTION
ROAD NEIGHE3ORW.001) T22S,R10E,SEC
BY, tl...D. DATES 7/29/a') SHEET
UA22-10-04 Dustan Rd Neighborhood\Survey Background Reports\Dustan Road Neighborhood - survey
background-alternative 4 doc
Page 3 of 6
04/07/08 12:27 PM mjb
Dustan Road Neighborhood Survey Background
TAX LOT "A" LOCATION ON COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP.
THE ASSESSOR IS REQUIRED TO MAP TAX LOTS ACCORDING TO RECORD INFORMATION.
THEREFORE THE DEED DESCRIPTION, AS RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE, IS THE
INFORMATION USED TO PLACE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ON THE ASSESSOR'S MAP.
Wt I I
I I
I I
I l
I
I
l
I
I I
I ! I
I f , I
I [ I I
III
Placed on Assessor's Map
per the Aliquot Part ~
Description in the Deed of: I
W3 SEJ NVJj SEJ SWJ
Section 4
i f
I [
1 [
I !
I
PROPERTY LINES
DESZHUTES '-GUNTY KRVEYM'S DUZE
:.':~D S.E. 227TH ST4EET, WNE, 02 9TY03
72-^-0-04 Justor Rd N0igbort0ad di n
I 1
~ 1 I
TAX LOT A PER ASSESSOR'S MAP
FXH RIT I'3
IN DUSTAN ROAD N
n NE
C 3A*~N BYE ~.~.8.
SHEET
OF 4
4)1
UA22-10-04 Dustan Rd Neighborhood\Survey Background Reports\Dustan Road Neighborhood - survey
background-alternative 4 doc
Page 4 of 6
04/07/08 12:27 PM mjb
Dustan Road Neighborhood Survey Background
TAX LOT "A" LINES OF OCCUPATION VS. TAX LOT "A" DEED OWNERSHIP.
IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE, THE SOUTH 940 FEET OF TAX LOT a5" IS OCCUPIED BY
OWNERS OF TAX LOT "A°.
1
I
I
1 I I [
I I I I
I f I I
I I [
I
(SINCE THE DrRT ROAD IS
I Dirt Rood
I [ 1~ 1 I ~I I
[
C/V0 I
I ! ~ 1
1 C ~ !
f 1 ' [
t 1 ~
~ I
I I I I
I I I I
I I ~ '
PROPERTY LIES TAX LOT "A" 'PER DEED DESCRIPTION
DIR:I RGA'.~ TAX LOT "A" OCCU:'ATION LINES
FXH'RIT C
F_XAVPLE OF OWNERSHIP PROALEMS IN DUSTA% R(:Al) NEIGHBOR---001) (T7,2S,Rl0E,SEI
DES«H11TES ZGUNTY SJRVEYMR'S OFFI,".E fiSeALE, NZIE 16RAWN BY, DATE. 7/25/01 ~ SHEET
background-alternative 4 doc
Page 5 of 6
04/07/08 12:27 PM mjb
Dustan Road Neighborhood Survey Background
2005 AERIAL PHOTO OF TAX LOT "A" SHOWING OCCUPATION AS
EVIDENCED BY LOT CLEARING AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.
NOTE THAT THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO THE WEST ON
THE TAX LOT MARKED "X"
I
~ a
E
4
p
w
zip#
FXH"F31T D L.EXA E OF CJWNERSHI P PROHLEMS IN DUSTAL ROAD NEIGHT22S,R10ESE1
ES ;,OUNTY S:;RVEYOR'S E ;AL<tiII NE CpAWN t$Yi DATE1/25/b! SHEET
. WITH ST:dEET, BEND, Oft. 5"I"70 FILE- 22-10-04 a4ctch.dx 4 OF
CA2 Wrojcx 4 ~ustar^ Rd N6gborhoad\dwg 22-10-04 a;t aW Awg G/ /2t
U:\22-1U-04 Dustan Rd Neighborhood\5urvey Background Reports\Vustan Road Neighborhood - survey
background-alternative 4 Am
Page 6 of 6
04/07/08 12:27 PM mjb Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
JJA i
R
DRAFTE_
rr~ I ~Ti rr 4~~~ ar
i
s'y
s~
0
vo a "
i
I N Pl
o°~ 3
I rn =
o ~ c Z
r
v~y rr
T
C
a c
m ~ Z
to <
Z (n
~d0 =
D
i°~H
E 'D
y Z7
o
J
m
N
co
i IH Z m
P2 ~ --I
I m > K
m Z N
z
m
I z Z Z
p
m C
and (n
£ ~ D
z y Z
C) Z7
O,
C7
m O v
Z Z
zi m
C
c =
o > m
-i O
D
m p ~
Z O
O
N
N
N
.Z7
~N O
om m
-mi m
0
o
v
C0D
m
~
?v
cnC
O
m
~
Mm
z
~T~
°D cl)
0
I7
~
x
=c
o
aZ
3
CD
xC
D
z
3
m
Z
O~
Q
fp
~z
D
Dip
CD
M
Cl)
m
M
m
ppm
Z
v
~a
~
n
WZ
0>
m
0
O C
m
Imo
D v --1
O
W
-1
mo~
O
O
Z
r
NZO
-0O"i
_
m
o
O
W
=
D
9
M
O
~
O
m
x
>
y
r
N y m
V
=c O
y Z
A < o
m ~c
iC Z
A m
to ri M
!w o N
A =
C:) (A
C3 _0
D V -9
~
n O
ru m
D p
w m
m Ln
O N
Z Z
I m p
C C
m z D
£ ~ D
z O Z
Z
° < N O
m > ~
p Z
m m
m c)
p =
m a)
a p
O
r1 X
O
o p
N
_
y
O
x
m
m "at1"
m~
m
a
-
O
A v
cnC
m
O
r
O
z~
°
D
i
-
z
0
x~
>W
a
op
Z
3
Z
O
O
0 m
D
m
v
C
D
O
m°
m
mN
O
m
m
c
ii
p
W
m
O
C:
0
O
z
2
v
co
m
o
°
;o
z
Dm
v
r
D 0
m00
M
AAc
~
~ r O
u :q
X m
ao
~p-D
N!n
oD
0
m
mZ
O*
Or
yy
ODZ
3
~r
DZ
3m
D0
m0
O
D
N
m
mN
Dr
v
~
M
m
_
w
M
n
0
0
E
m
z
m
ip
~
m
M
O
c
c
-
t
m i)
0c
x
?
LL
'0
;
a
ON
W
W
z
0
0
z
r
Z~
O
n
m
co
~
z
z
D
r
o ey m
En >
c~ >
r
NH m
_C3 0
A K O
~c Z
ml
zzo N
A 2
C3 N
V~ O
0 O
r°u m c co
0 r
m
L >~r
m O N
~o Z
Z
~ m z
m c
y d m cn
N a D
0 z D
Z Z
O Z7
a
O D
mo
m
0
m Z
p m_
r_ T
D Z CO
m N x
O
o p
.Z1
W
S I'T1
m
N
n
A
92 D~ D ~E ZM CO 0 C) Ocn•i 0 rn Ocnp O(na~ O(~N
c b m v ~O mm r m c~ O Onw 007--a m-00
0
(x -0 'r- -0 nx G) v m m~m ~DO W,MO SO f DOm 522 zc zzcm OM
m~ 00 O~ Sao WD r p-iz T'_ M rnm5 mpz MP50 Mmz M<X M<Mo mmm
>cm II X~ X- wr 0-1 z tnm zMm (nm cnm -CM Mmm mxw r
:c l ~r ~z c M0 m `"'m OEM ~mM 0 E M OrM -n O M O M O mT nm
D3 Dz
-ID-i M m (n= T a nor- T<O Ono *^<O T<O~ -n~z TN~z m0zJo
M O= -iz O -1 mT SST -im -imO 3~ ~O
Z~ min rnp m-Di OO Z z §m--q 2~Z-I ~A~ ~~-TIt OO ~rD-- ~~03 z~bvi
M7 o --ill D p oq~ mm~ n0~ n0~~ nm5 Or z mo-I
00 !3! m n i? ~p r DD ~C~ ~ rnc~ ~T9 ~T~mzm ~m --ir-mzm D~~
p I O0 qp °z- mO; Nz- Az;~ `"'ni0 ,,MO wmO02o `c~z
o c~no wT ~g 5~ -pi3 -piwZ-Ti O~ o-miz° WMm
m~y mcm
-i-n z m O 02 occn -1ZVN O~ O~0 n-
-4 m z ((1) g ca O mm wn ~OZ0 M0 MZnm 0r... z~ z-40 =v
O (n M v z RI Z C Z Z < 2 G Z< I D x v O N O O
w Z ~m O-~im Ocm
z (n N (n
C,
°o
c
O
c
C
~8
m
e x
o0 X >
m~ N
rv y O m
r m
~m <
Z m
Hz O
O
m-<
O
Z
w m
< C Zl
71 m
eo D N
2
;o
m Z
0
~m p
v r^ Z
n N m
m D N'
m Z
V)
m
D
O
°m r p
Z
m N
D N
p N
C-
c
N
imin
i Zi
Y
N
■
A
d 3
0 rt ~i1
w
• s,
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO TITLE 18
TO INCORPORATE CHANGES TO PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT LAW
APPROVED BY THE 2008 OREGON LEGISLATURE (HB 3629)
AND TO ALLOW THE CORRECTION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
THAT DO NOT MATCH THE BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED ON THE GROUND
18.120.020. Nonconforming Lot Sizes.
A. Any parcel of land or portion thereof which is to be dedicated to a public or other entity for a road,
canal, railroad, utility or other public use shall be exempt from the minimum lot size requirements set
forth by DCC Title 18.
B. Whereas land sections in the County are affected by survey adjustments, minimum requirements
relative to lot sizes, where applicable, shall be considered as standard metes and bounds land section
division, (i.e., 160 acres, 80 acres, 40 acres, 20 acres, etc.); lot sizes, therefore, may be reasonably smaller
than set forth by DCC Title 18 if a total section acreage reduction is due to a survey adjustment or other
man-made barriers over which the applicant has had no control.
C. Any lot that is smaller than the minimum area required in any zone may be occupied by an allowed use
in that zone provided that:
1. The lot or parcel is a lot of record, as defined in DCC 18.04.030(J), Lot of record.
2. The use conforms to all other requirements of that zone.
3. If there is an area deficiency, residential use shall be limited to a single dwelling unit.
4. All necessary permits are obtained.
D. Notwithstanding the minimum lot size requirements of the applicable zoning; district the county may
approve a property line adjustment where one or both properties are smaller than the minimum lot or
parcel. size for the applicable zoning district provided:
1. One of the lots, parcels or units of land being adjusted meets or exceeds the minimurn lot or
parcel size for the applicable zone after approval of the adjustment, or
2. Where both abutting lots, parcels or units of land are smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size
for the applicable zone before and after the property line adjustment.
3. On land zoned for exclusive farm use or forest use, a property line adjustment approved under the
authority of this exception may not be used to:
a. Decrease the size of a lot. parcel or unit of land that, before the relocation or elimination of the
common property line, is smaller than the minimum. lot or parcel. size for the applicable zone and contains
an existing dwelling or is approved for the construction of a dwelling, if the abutting vacant tract would
be increased to a size as lame as or larger than the minimum tract size required to qualify the vacant tract
for a dwelling; and
b. Decrease the size of a lot, parcel or unit of land that contains an existing dwelling or is approved
for construction of a dwelling to a size smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size, if the abutting vacant
tract would be increased to a size as large as or larger than the minimum tract size required to qualify the
vacant tract for a. dwelling; or
c. Allow an area of land used to qualify a tract for a dwelling, based on an acreage standard to be
used to qualify another tract for a dwelling if the land use approval would be based on an acreage
standard.
4. The approval of a property line adjustment for a lot or parcel size that is lower than the minimum
lot or parcel size does not excuse the applicant from complying with minimum yard quirements for new
construction.
5. If structures are located on a property involved in a property line adiustment, the approval of the
property line adjustment shall not reduce the depth of an existing yard that complies with the applicable
ya d requirement nor shall it reduce the depth of a nonconforming
yard requirement below the minimum r
yard unless the adjustment is made to correct the location of a lot line of a lot, parcel or unit of land to
match the area possessed and used as the lot, parcel and unit of land. This exception to yard depth is
designed to allow property owners to correct survey errors and to adjust boundaries to reflect the
inclusion of land that has accrued to a lot by adverse possession.
D. Lots or parcels within the Rural Residential Zone (RR-10) that are separated by an arterial right of way
created after June 30, 1993, shall be exempt from the minimum lot dimension of 10 acres in size. Such
parcels may be partitioned only as separated by the right of way and shall not be smaller than one acre.
(Ord. 93-034 §2, 1993; Ord. 87-015 §§1 and 2, 1987)
18.132.025. Minor Variances.
A variance seeking to depart from on-site requirements of DCC Title 18, such as setbacks and area
requirements, by no greater than 10 percent of the required distance or area may be granted by the
Planning Director or Hearings Body in conformance with DCC 18.132.025.
A. In the case of a setback or size variance, the applicant shall show that the approval will result in:
1. More efficient use of the site;
2. Preservation of natural features where appropriate;
3. Adequate provision of light and privacy to adjoining properties; and
4. Preservation of topographic, vegetative and drainage features which would be adversely affected by
application of the standards otherwise required by DCC Title 18.
(Ord. 2004-013 §15, 2004; Ord. 91-038 §3, 1991)
VV/ VY/ VV 11.YY l"AA A. Y41 YVY YV.V 'C,1V 1"A1. V{1L11\ All VL\l.Ul yy VVL
Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 1 of 9
79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2008 Special Session
Enrolled
House Bill 3629
Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, ETHICS AND RULES (at the
request of House Interim Committee on Agriculture and Natural
Resources)
CHAPTER
AN ACT
Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions;
amending ORS 92.010, 92.060 and 92.345; and declaring an
emergency.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ( + Section 2 of this 2008 Act is added to and made
a part of ORS 92.010 to 92.190. + )
SECTION 2. ( + (1) Except as provided in this section, a unit
of land that is reduced in size by a property line adjustment
approved by a city or county must comply with applicable zoning
ordinances after the,adjustment.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, for properties
located entirely outside the corporate limits of a city, a county
may approve a property line adjustment in which:
(a) One or both of the abutting properties are smaller than the
minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone before the
property line adjustment and, after the adjustment, one is as
large as or larger than the minimum lot or parcel size for the
applicable zone; or
(b) Both abutting properties are smaller than the minimum lot
or parcel size for the applicable zone before and after the
property line adjustment.
(3) On land zoned for exclusive farm use, forest use or mixed
farm and forest use, a property line adjustment under subsection
(2) of this section may not be used to:
(a) Decrease the size of a lot or parcel that, before the
relocation or elimination of the common property line, is smaller
than the minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone and
contains an existing dwelling or is approved for the construction
of a dwelling, if the abutting vacant tract would be increased to
a size as large as or larger than the minimum tract size required
to qualify the vacant tract for a dwelling;
(b) Decrease the size of a lot or parcel that contains an
existing dwelling or is approved for construction of a dwelling
to a size smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size, if the
abutting vacant tract would be increased to a size as large as or
larger than the minimum tract size required to qualify the vacant
tract for a dwelling; or
(c) Allow an area of land used to qualify a tract for a
dwelling based on an acreage standard to be used to qualify
hnp://Iandru.leg.state.or.us/08ssl/measures/hb360o.dir/hb3629.en.htmi 3/5/2008
VY/ VY/ VV iLVV 1"[iA Y°'~V•'!1 VVV VV.V Liu alai. vaaua~ [aiiva~[.ui
'Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 2 of 9
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HE 3629-A) Page 1
another tract for a dwelling if the land use approval would be
based on an acreage standard. + )
SECTION 3. ORS 92.010 is amended to read:
92.010. As used in ORS 92.010 to 92.190, unless the context
requires otherwise:
(1) 'Declarant' means the person who files a declaration under
ORS 92.075.
(2) 'Declaration' means the instrument described in ORS 92.075
by which the subdivision or partition plat was created.
(3)(a) 'Lawfully established unit of land' means:
(A) A lot or parcel created pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190;
or
(B) Another unit of land created:
(i) In compliance with all applicable planning, zoning and
subdivision or partition ordinances and regulations; or
(ii) By deed or land sales contract, if there were no
applicable planning, zoning or subdivision or partition
ordinances or regulations.
(b) 'Lawfully established unit of land' does not mean a unit of
land created solely to establish a separate tax account.
(4) 'Lot' means a single unit of land that is created by a
subdivision of land.
(5) 'Negotiate' means any activity preliminary to the execution
of a binding agreement for the sale of land in a subdivision or
partition, including but not limited to advertising, solicitation
and promotion of the sale of such land.
(6) 'Parcel' means a single unit of land that is created by a
partition of land.
(7) 'Partition' means either an act of partitioning land or an
area or tract of land partitioned.
{ + (8) 'Partition plat' includes a final map and other
writing containing all the descriptions, locations,
specifications, provisions and information concerning a
partition. + }
{ - (8) - ) { + (9) + ) { - Partition - }
( + Partitioning + ) land' means [ - to divide - }
( + dividing + ) land to create not more than three parcels of
land within a calendar year, but does not include:
(a) ( - A division of land resulting from - ) ( + Dividing
land as a result of + ) a lien foreclosure, foreclosure of a
recorded contract for the sale of real property or the creation
of cemetery lots;
( - (b) An adjustment of a property line by the relocation of
a common-boundary where an additional unit of land is not created
and where the existing unit of land reduced in size by the
adjustment complies with any applicable zoning ordinance; - }
( + (b) Adjusting a property line as property line adjustment
is defined in this section; + )
(c) ( - The division of land resulting from - }
{ + Dividing land as a result of + } the recording of a
subdivision or condominium plat;
(d) { - A sale or grant - } { + Selling or granting + }by
a person to a public agency or public body ( + of property + )
for state highway, county road, city street or other right of way
purposes { - provided that such - ) ( + if the + }road or
right of way complies with the applicable comprehensive plan and
ORS 215.213 (2)(p) to (r) and 215.283 (2)(q) to (s). However, any
property { - divided by the sale or grant of property - }
f + sold or granted + ) for state highway, county road, city
http://Iandru.leg.state.or.us/08ssi/measures/hb3600.dir/hb3629.en.html 3/512008
'Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 3 of 9
street or other right of way purposes shall continue to be
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HB 3629-A) Page 2
considered a single unit of land until ( - such time as - }
the property is further subdivided or partitioned; or
(e) ( - A sale or grant - } ( + Selling or granting + }by
a public agency or public body of excess property resulting from
the acquisition of land by the state, a political subdivision or
special district for highways, county roads, city streets or
other right of way purposes when the sale or grant is part of a
property line adjustment incorporating the excess right of way
into adjacent property. The property line adjustment shall be
approved or disapproved by the applicable local government. If
the property line adjustment is approved, it shall be recorded in
the deed records of the county where the property is located.
( - (9) 'Partition plat' includes a final map and other
writing containing all the descriptions, locations,
specifications, provisions and information concerning a
partition. - }
(10) 'Plat' includes a final subdivision plat, replat or
partition plat.
(11) 'Property line' means the division line between two units
of land.
(12) 'Property line adjustment' means { - the - } ( + a + }
relocation or elimination of ( + all or + } a ( + portion of
the + ) common property line between abutting properties ( +
that does not create an additional lot or parcel + '
(13) 'Replat' means the act of platting the lots, parcels and
easements in a recorded subdivision or partition plat to achieve
a reconfiguration of the existing subdivision or partition plat
or to increase or decrease the number of lots in the subdivision.
(14) 'Road' or 'street' means a public or private way that is
created to provide ingress or egress for persons to one or more
lots, parcels, areas or tracts of land, excluding a private way
that is created to provide ingress or egress to such land in
conjunction with the use of such land for forestry, mining or
agricultural purposes.
(15) 'Sale' or 'sell' includes every disposition or transfer of
land or an interest or estate therein.
(16) 'Subdivide land' means to divide land to create four or
more lots within a calendar year.
(17) 'Subdivision' means either an act of subdividing land or
an area or a tract of land subdivided.
(18) 'Subdivision plat' includes a final map and other writing
containing all the descriptions, locations, specifications,
dedications, provisions and information concerning a subdivision.
(19) 'Utility easement' means an easement noted on a
subdivision plat or partition plat for the purpose of installing
or maintaining public or private utility infrastructure for the
provision of water, power, heat or telecommunications to the
public.
SECTION 4. ORS 92.060 is amended to read:
92.060. (1) The initial point, also known as the point of
beginning, of a plat must be on the exterior boundary of the plat
and must be marked with a monument that is either galvanized iron
pipe or an iron or steel rod. If galvanized iron pipe is used,
the pipe may not be less than three-quarter inch inside diameter
and 30 inches long. If an iron or steel rod is used, the rod may
not be less than five-eighths of an inch in least dimension and
30 inches long. The location of the monument shall be with
http://IanOnLieg.state.or.us/Ogssl/measures/hb3600.d r/hb3629.en.htmi 3/5/2008
VJ/ VJ/ WO LL. au
I`AA 1 J'!L JOJ JV 1 V LL'4 l•A1~LUnat°1iY avN~lia
.ry v v .
Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 4 of 9
reference by survey to a section corner, one-quarter corner,
one-sixteenth corner, Donation Land Claim corner or to a
monumented lot corner or boundary corner of a recorded
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HB 3629-A) Page 3
subdivision, partition or condominium plat. When setting a
required monument is impracticable under the circumstances, the
county surveyor may authorize the setting of another type of
monument.
(2) In subdivision plats, the intersections, the initial point,
also known as the point of beginning, the point of ending, points
of curves and points of tangents, or the point of intersection of
the curve if the point is within the pavement area of the road,
of the centerlines of all streets and roads and all points on the
exterior boundary where the boundary line changes direction, must
be marked with monuments either of galvanized iron pipe or iron
or steel rods. If galvanized iron pipe is used, the pipe may not
be less than three-quarter inch inside diameter and 30 inches
long. If iron or steel rods are used, the rod may not be less
than five-eighths of an inch in least dimension and 30 inches
long. When setting a required monument is impracticable under the
circumstances:
(a) The county surveyor may authorize the setting of another
type of monument; or
(b) The county surveyor may waive the setting of the monument.
(3) All lot and parcel corners except lot corners of cemetery
lots must be marked with monuments of either galvanized iron pipe
not less than one-half inch inside diameter or iron or steel rods
not less than five-eighths inch in least dimension and not less
than 24 inches long. When setting a required monument is
impracticable under the circumstances:
(a) The surveyor may set another type of monument; or
(b) The county surveyor may waive the setting of the monument.
(4) A surveyor shall set monuments with sufficient accuracy
that measurements may be taken between monuments within one-tenth
of a foot or within one ten-thousandth of the distance shown on
the subdivision or partition plat, whichever is greater.
(5) A surveyor shall set monuments on the exterior boundary of
a subdivision, unless the county surveyor waives the setting of a
particular monument, where changes in the direction of the
boundary occur and shall reference the monuments on the plat of
the subdivision before the plat of the subdivision is offered for
recording. However, the surveyor need not set the remaining
monuments for the subdivision prior to the recording of the plat
of the subdivision if:
(a) The registered professional land surveyor performing the
survey work certifies that the remaining monuments will be set,
unless the county surveyor waives the setting of a particular
monument, on or before a specified date as provided in ORS 92.070
(2); and
(b) The person subdividing the land furnishes to the county or
city by which the subdivision was approved a bond, cash deposit,
irrevocable letter of credit issued by an insured institution as
defined in ORS 706.008 or other security as required by the
county or city guaranteeing the payment of the cost of setting
the remaining monuments for the subdivision as provided in ORS
92.065.
(6) A surveyor shall set all monuments on the exterior boundary
and all parcel corner monuments of partitions, unless the county
surveyor waives the setting of a particular monument, before the
hup:/Amxlru.leg.state.or.us/08ssl/measures/hb3600.dir/hb3629.en.html 3/5/2008
VJ/ Vi,/ VO 11. J! l`AA 1 --JVL -0-J 'JV atl Ll4 a'~a•vaaaaa~ malt va~a.ua p~v..- - - v
• Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 5 of 9
partition plat is offered for recording. Unless the governing
body provides otherwise, any parcels created outside an urban
growth boundary that are greater than 10 acres need not be
surveyed or monumented.
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HB 3629-A) Page 4
(7) Except as provided in subsections (8) and (9) of this
section, { - an adjusted property line created by the
relocation of a common boundary as described in ORS 92.010
(8)(b) - ) { + a property line adjustment + ) must be surveyed
and monumented in accordance with subsection (3) of this section
and a survey, complying with ORS 209.250, must be filed with the
county surveyor.
(8) Unless the governing body of a city or county has otherwise
provided by ordinance, a survey or monument is not required for a
property line adjustment when the abutting properties are each
greater than 10 acres. Nothing in this subsection exempts a local
government from minimum area requirements established in
acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations.
(9) The requirements of subsection (7) of this section do not
apply to property transferred through a property line adjustment
as { - provided - ) { + described + } in ORS 92.010
{ - (8) (e) - ) { + (9) (e) +
SECTION 5. ORS 92.345 is amended to read:
92.345. (1) Prior to negotiating within this state for the sale
or lease of subdivided lands located outside this state, or prior
to the sale or lease of any subdivided or series partitioned
lands located within this state, the subdivider, series
partitioner or agent of the subdivider or series partitioner
shall by a 'Notice of Intention' notify the Real Estate
Commissioner in writing of the intention to sell or lease. A
notice of intention shall contain true information as follows:
(a) The name and the business and residence address of the
subdivider or series partitioner;
(b) The names and the business addresses of all licensees of
the commissioner and of all other persons selling or leasing,
within this state, interests in the subdivision or series
partition;
(c) With respect to subdivided or series partitioned lands
located in this state:
(A) For { - ' - } subdivided land { - ' - } or a
{ - ' - } subdivision { - ' - ) as those terms are defined
{ - , respectively, - ) by ORS 92.010 ( - (16) and (17) -
a certified copy of the plat filed for record under ORS 92.120
and a copy of any conditions imposed by the city or county
governing body;
(B) For { - ' partitioned land' or - } a { - - }
partition ( - - } as
( - those terms are - } ( + that term is + ) defined by ORS
92.010 { - (7) and (8) - } , a certified copy of the plat filed
for record under ORS 92.120 and a copy of any conditions imposed
by the city or county governing body; and
(C) For all other land subject to ORS 92.305 to 92.495, a
survey, diagram, drawing or other writing designating and
describing, including location and boundaries when applicable,
the interests to be sold and a statement from the city or county
governing body that the proposal as depicted on the survey,
diagram, drawing or other writing has received all necessary
local approvals or that no local approval is required;
http://hmdm.leg.state.or.us/08ssl/measures/hb3600.dir/hb3629.en.html 3/5/2008
V V'/ VJ/ VO '~11++. i7f PffA L JYl JOJ JV f V All" &*A" 4 - ...-..E:- .0
Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 6 of 9
(d) With respect to subdivided lands located outside this
state:
(A) A copy of the plat, map, survey, diagram, drawing or other
writing designating and describing, including location and
boundaries when applicable, the interests to be sold, in the
-final recorded form required by the governing body having
jurisdiction over the property; and
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HB 3629-A) Page 5
(B) A written statement from the appropriate governing body
that the plat, map, survey, diagram, drawing or other writing is
in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and
regulations;
(e) A brief but comprehensive statement describing the land on
and the locality in which the subdivision or series partition is
located;
(f) A statement of the condition of the title to the land;
(g) A statement of the provisions, if any, that have been made
for legal access, sewage disposal and public utilities in the
proposed subdivision or series partition, including water,
electricity, gas and telephone facilities;
(h) A statement of the use or uses for which the proposed
subdivision or series partition will be offered; and
(i) A statement of the provisions, if any, limiting the use or
occupancy of the interests in the subdivision or series
partition.
(2) The notice of intention shall be accompanied by a filing
fee as follows:
(a) For subdivisions or series partitions containing 10 or
fewer lots, parcels or interests, $100.
(b) For subdivisions or series partitions containing over 10
lots, parcels or interests, $100, and $25 for each additional
lot, parcel or interest, but in no case shall the fee be more
than $2,500.
(3) For lands located outside this state, the notice of
intention shall include only the area shown by the plat, survey,
diagram, drawing or other writing required under subsection
(1)(d) of this section. The subdivision of any contiguous lands
located outside this state shall be treated as a separate
subdivision for which an additional complete filing must be made,
even though the plat, map, survey, diagram, drawing or other
writing of the contiguous lands is recorded simultaneously as
part of an overall development.
SECTION 6. ( + Section 2 of this 2008 Act and the amendments
to ORS 92.010 and 92.060 by sections 3 and 4 of this 2008 Act
apply to property line adjustments approved before, on or after
the effective date of this 2008 Act. + )
SECTION 7. 1 + This 2008 Act being necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency
is declared to exist, and this 2008 Act takes effect on its
passage. + )
hnp://Im&u.leg.state.or.us/08ssl/measureAb3600.dir/hb3629.erLhbnl 3/5/2008
VJ/VJ/VO LL.JO 'rlfa L J.&L JVJ JVIV a•a a. aaaa•Vaaaaa•-ara avav.aaa... z,___
- Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 7 of 9
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HB 3629-A) Page 6
Passed by House February 8, 200B
Chief Clerk of House
Speaker of House
Passed by Senate February 19, 2008
President of Senate
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/08ss1/measures/hb3600.dir/hb3629.en.html 3/5/2008
WO/ VJ/ VO LL. JO Dl1A L JY1 JOJ"'J V7 V Ll4 PA1wLLLYA A11V1~1l.Sl .L. vvv - -c.+
- Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 8 of 9
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HB 3629-A) Page 7
Received by Governor:
M................ 2006
Approved:
......M 2008
Governor
Filed in Office of Secretary of State:
..M 2008
Secretary of State
http://Iandru.leg.state.or.us/08ssl/measures/hb3600.dir/hb3629.en.html 3/5/2008
VJ/ VJ/ VO 11':'J.7 1`AA "Y"JY1 JOJ JV / V L111 VIUI%IQBA Al1V1U161 'VV 1"
- Relating to property line adjustments; creating new provisions; amending ORS 92.010, 92... Page 9 of 9
Enrolled House Bill 3629 (HB 3629-A) Page B
http://Iandru.leg.state.or.us/08ssl/measures/hb3600.dir/hb3629.en.htmi 3/5/2008
EJ
Economic Development Fund
Discretionary Grant Program
Organization: Community Action Team of Sisters (CATS)
Organization Description: CATS was established in 1999 to serve as a catalyst for
community involvement. CATS developed and implemented the Greater Sisters
Community Vision project and has contributed to the development of the Hispanic
English Learners Program, Think Again, Parents!, Tamarack Affordable Housing
complex, created the Sisters Economic Development Strategic Action Plan and created a
Business Relocation Guide. Additionally, CATS has help raise funds for several area
programs and non-profit organizations.
Project Name: CATS 2008 Community Leadership Summit
Project Description: This project will identify one or two priority interagency
community collaboration projects to benefit the Greater Sisters Community, develop
implementation plans to complete the projects, and perform initial implementation steps
to project completion. This project will be achieved through an interagency Leadership
Summit on April 19th, implementation team meetings and a public meeting. This project
is a direct outcome of the 2007 Greater Sisters Community Visioning Project.
Project Period: April - October 2008
Amount of Request: $3,000
Previous Grants: None
C
❑ 2{
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ory
DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
Direct Application to:
Commissioner Tammy Barley
Commissioner Dennis R. Luke
Commissioner Michael M. Daly
All Three Commissioners F_ _X I
Date: 14-2-08 Project Name: CATS 2008 Community Leadership Summit
Project Beginning Date: April 1, 2008 Project End Date: October 31, 2008
Amount of Request: $3,000 Date Funds Needed: lAr)ril 1. 2008
Applicant/Organization: Community Action Team Tax ID 93-1267377 of Sisters Address: PO Box 2215 City & Zip: Sisters 97759
Contact Name(s): Carrie ward Telephone: 549-2091
Fax: 549-0997 Alternate Phone: Email: carrie@sistersrecrea ion.can
On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions:
1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities.
2. Describe the proposed project or activity.
3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity.
4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health.
5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit.
6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the
source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will
support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future.
Attach:
Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status.
"Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget.
Amount Approved:
By:
Date:
Declined: By: Date:
Community Action Team of Sisters
Application to Deschutes County Economic Development Fund
2008 CATS Community Leadership Summit Project
April 2, 2008
1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and
activities.
The Community Action Team of Sisters is a 501(c)(3) non-profit serving the Greater Sisters
Community. It was formed in 1999 "to help shape Sisters' future by being a catalyst for community
involvement" (CATS mission statement). The CATS Board includes executive representatives from
the community's key public agencies - including the US Forest Service - Sisters Ranger District,
Sisters Organization for Activities and Recreation, Roundhouse Foundation, City of Sisters, Sisters
Trails Committee, Senior Council of Sisters, Latino Community Association, Deschutes County,
Sisters School District, Sisters-Camp Sherman Fire District, and Congressman Walden's Office.
CATS is an all-volunteer organization that occasionally utilizes contracts with local consultants for
program delivery. The Board is governed by a Board Chair and Secretary/Treasurer. CATS has no
paid staff.
Since 1999, the CATS has contributed to the development of the Hispanic English Learners Program;
Think Again, Parents!; Tamarack Affordable Housing complex; created the Sisters Economic
Development Strategic Action Plan; created a Business Relocation Guide; and helped fundraise for
Arts & Culture, Cabinet Making Program; the SOAR community facilities project; the Family
Access Network, HeadStart, and Power of Healthy Living classes. Perhaps most notably, CATS
developed and implemented the Greater Sisters Community Vision project and continues to shepherd
this process.
2. Describe the proposed project or activity.
This project will identify 1-2 priority inter-agency community collaboration projects to benefit the
Greater Sisters Community, develop implementation plans to complete the projects, and perform
initial implementation steps to project completion. The project will achieve this outcome through an
interagency Leadership Summit (April 19), 4-5 implementation team meetings, and 1 public meeting.
The proposed project is a direct outcome of the 2007 Greater Sisters Community Visioning Project,
which spawned a strategic plan and eight citizen-led Action Teams, 24 community organization
projects, and six "community collaboration" project ideas. The community collaboration project
ideas include a Community Facilities Master Plan and developing a transit system.
3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity
April 1-18 2008:
Project committee meetings
April 19 2008:
Leadership Summit
June 2008:
Implementation Plans created
July 2008:
Community meeting
Aug, Sept. 2008:
Implementation Team meetings - perform initial steps
Oct. 2008:
Final Implementation Plan created, capturing progress to date, ongoing
participation and funding commitments.
4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health.
Sisters has a reputation as an affluent community. This may be true for some, but much of the
community suffers from a lack of employment opportunities and access to public services. In fact,
Sisters, along with only LaPine, is characterized by OECDD as Deschutes County's only "severely
distressed" communities (Deschutes River Woods is characterized as "distressed"). One of the
critical elements to helping lift community members out of poverty is the efficient provision of
public and non-profit human services as stepping stones to individual self-reliance. As Oregon faces
yet another economic downturn, it will be increasingly difficult for agencies to provide adequate
services in the face of budget cuts.
The Sisters community is also experiencing rapid population growth and, along with it, a growing
need to expand existing service provision infrastructure. If the agencies choose, as is anticipated, to
develop an inter-agency Master Community Facilities Plan, all of the affected agencies will be able
to conserve financial resources through efficient co-location projects and streamlined, optimized
siting processes, enabling them to divert funds to programming rather than capital construction.
Another outcome of the project will be the engagement and empowerment of various "citizen
leaders" in the community collaboration projects through the Action Teams. Generally speaking, the
development of inter-agency collaborative planning and implementation as standard practice will
help this conununity by allowing agencies to more effectively and efficiently deliver public services
(e.g. healthcare, education, senior services, etc.) through integrated planning and development of
programs and facilities.
5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit.
Anyone who accesses services from the various agencies in the Greater Sisters community will
benefit from integrated inter-agency planning and implementation. A 2007 estimate found that
approximately 9-10,000 persons live in the area identified as the "Greater Sisters Area." The
agencies themselves (e.g. the County, City, School District, Fire District, Habitat for Humanity,
SOAR, Senior Council, etc.) will benefit from efficiencies resulting from integrated planning.
6. Itemize anticipated expenditures Describe how grant funds will be used and include the
source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will support
an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future.
Line Item
Costs
Deschutes
Co.
CATS
Ford
Family
Found.
Totals
Consultant Fees
$8,000
$3,000
$3,000
$2,000
$8,000
Summit Food
$700
$700
$700
Speaker Fees
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
Facilitator Fees
$200
$200
$200
Materials
$100
$100
$100
Totals
$11,500
$3,000
$3,000
$5,500
$11,500.00
The CATS Board consists of executive leadership of the key community agencies within the Greater
Sisters Community (e.g. the City, the County, recreation district, fire district, etc.). These leaders
have agreed to sustain the identified community collaboration projects, through pooled financial and
in-kind staff resources, after the implementation plan process is completed.
Mar, 31. 20081= 9.14AMD SOAR
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
015TRICT DIRECTOR
P. 0. WX 2508
CINCINNATI, OH 49201
Date: AUG 19 1999
COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM OF SISTERS
PO BOX 39
SISTERS, OR 97759
Dear Applicant:
No, 0782 W. 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
April 8, 1899
Advance Ruling Period Ends:
June 30, 2003
Addendum Applies:
No
Employer Identification Number:
93-1267377
OLN:
17053161007019
Contact Person:
TIMOTHY EMILY ID# 95199
Contact Telephone Number:
(877) 829-5500
Accounting Period Ending:
June
Foundation Status'Ciassification:
509(a)(1)
Advance Ruling Period Segins:
Based on information you supplied, and assuming your operations will be as
stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined you
are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code as an organization described .in section 501(c)(3).
Because you ara a newly created organization, we are not now making a
final determination of your foundation status under section 509(a) of the Code.
However, we have determined that you can reasonably expect to be a publicly
supported organization described in sections 509(x)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)_
Accordingly, during an advance ruling period you will be treated as a
publicly supported organization, and not as a private foundation. This advance
ruling period begins and ends on the dates shown above.
Within 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period, you must
send us the information needed to determine whether you have met the require-
ments of the applicable support test during the advance ruling period. If you
establish that you have bean a publicly supported organization, we will classl-
fy you as a section 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2) organizatloh as long as you continue
i o meet the requirements of the applicable support test, If you do not meet
the public support requirements during the advance ruling period, we will
classify you as a private foundation for future periods. Also, if we classify
you as a private foundation, we will treat you as a private foundation from
your beginning date for purpases of section 507(d) and 4940.
Grantors and contributors may rely on our determination that you are not a
vrivate foundation until 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period.
If you sent( as the required information within the'90 days, grantors and
contributors they continue to rely on the advance determinatiop until we make
a final determination of your foundation status.
If we publish a notice in the Internal Revenue Bulletin stating that we
Letter 1045 (DO/CG)
Ma r. 31. 2008- 9:14AM° SOAR
-2-
COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM OF SISTERS
No. 0782 P. 2
will no longer treat you as a publicly suppQ rted organization, grantors and
contributors may not rely on this determination after the data we p'ubligh the
notice. In addition, if you lose your status as a publicly supported organi-
zation, and a grantor or contributor was responsible for, or- was aware of, the
act or failure to act, that resulted in your loss of such status, that person
may not rely on this determination from the date of the act or failure to acct.
Also, if a grantor or contributor learned that we had given notice that you
would be removed from classification as a publicly supported organization, then
that person may not rely on this determination as of the elate he or she
acquired such knowledge.
If you change your sources of support, your purposes, character, or method
of operation, please let us know so we can consider the effact of the change on
your exempt status and foundation status. if you amend your organizational
document or bylaws, please send us a copy of the amended document or bylaws.
Also, lat us know all changes in your name or address.
As of January 1, 1984, you are liable for social sacurity taxes under
the Federal Insurance Contributions Act on amounts of $100 or more you pay to
each of your employees during a calendar year. You are not liable for the tax
imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).
Organizations that are not private foundations are not subject to the pri-
vate foundation excise taxes under Ghapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
However, you are not automatically exempt from other fadar47 excise taxes. If
you have any questions about excise, employment, or, other federal taxes, please
let as know-
Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code, Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you
or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they
meat the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code.
Donors may deduct contributions to you only to the extent that their
contributions are gifts, with no consideration received. Ticket purchases and
similar payments in conjunction with fundraising events may not necessarily
qualify as deductible contributions, depending on the circumstances. Revenue
Ruling 67-246, published in Cumulative Bulletin 1967-2, on page 104, gives
guidelines regarding when taxpayers may deduct payments for admission to, or
other participation in, fundraising activities for charity.
Contributions to you are deductible by donors beginning April 0, 1999,
You are not required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From
Income 'flax, if your gross retOipts each year are normally $25,000 or less, if
you receive a Form 990 package in the mail, simply attach the label provided,
chock the box in the heading to indicate that your annual gross racoipts are
normally $25,000 or loss, and sign the return. Because you will be treated as
a public charity for return filing purposes during your entire advance ruling
period, you should file Form 990 for each year in your advance ruling period
Letter 1045 (DO/CG)
Mar. 31. 2008'= 9 :14AM' SOAR
,3_
COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM OF SISTERS
No. 0782 1P. 3
that you exceed the $25,000 filing threshold even if your sources of support
do not satisfy the public support test specified in the heading of this letter.
If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth
month after the end of your annual accounting period. A penalty of $20 a day
is charged when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for
the delay, However, the maximum penalty charged cannot exceed $10,000 or
5 percent of your gross receipts for the year, whichever is less. For
organizations with grass receipts exceeding $1,000,000 in any year, the penalty
is $100 per day per return, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay-
The maximum penalty for an organization with gross receipts axeeeding
$1,000,000 shall not exceed $50,000. This penalty may also be charged if e
return is not complete, So, please be sure your return, is complete Wore you
file it.
You are not required to file federal income tax returns unless you are
subject to the tax on unrelated business income under section 511 of the Code.
If you are Subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return on Form
990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return. 1n this 'letter we are
not determining whether any of your present or proposed activities are unre-
lated trade or business as defined in section 513 of the Code.
The law requires you to make your annual return available for public
inspection without charge for three years after the due date of the return.
You are also required to make available for public inspection a copy of your
exemption application, any supporting documents and this exemption letter to
any individual who requests such documents in person or in writing. You can
charge only a reasonable fee for reproduction and actual postage costs for thE-
copied materials. The law does not require you to provide copies of public
inspection documents that are made widely available, such as by posting them
on the Internet (World Wide Web). You may be liable for a penalty of $20 a day
for each day you do not make these documents avoilable for public inspection
(up to a maximum of $10,000 in the case of an annual return).
You need an employer identification number even if you have no employees./
If an employer identification number was not entered on your application, we
will assign a number to you and advise you of it. Pleaso use that number on
all returns you file and in all correspondence with the internal Revenue
Service.
I
This determination is based on evidenCe that your funds are dedicated to
the purposes listed in section 501(c)(3) of the Code. To assure your continues
exemption, you should keep records to shoe, that funds are spent only for those
purposes. If you distribute funds to other organizations, your records should
show whether they are exempt under section $01(c)(3), In cases where the
recipient organization is not exempt under section 501(c)(3), you must have
evidence that the funds will remain dedicated to the required purposes and that
the recipient will use the funds for those purposes.
If you distribute funds to Individuals, you should keep case histories
Letter 1045 (DO/CG)
Mar. 31. 2008" 9: 14AM' SCAR No. 0782 'P. 4
-4-
COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM OF SISTERS
showing the recipients' names, addresses, purposes of awards, manner of selec-
tion, and relationship (if any) to members, officers, -trustees or, donors of
Funds to you, so that you can substantiate upon roquest by the Internal Revenue
Service any and all distributions you made to indivlduals. (Revenue Ruling
56-304, C_8. 1556-2, page 306.)
If we said in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the
addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter.
Because this letter could help us resolve any questions about your exempt
status and foundation status, you should keep it in your permanent records.
If you have any questions, please contact the per8on whose name and
t.el ephone number are shown in the heading of this letter,
Sincer ly yours,
District 01rector
Letter 1045 (DO/CG)
CCI ~ - D7'
Economic Development Fund
Discretionary Grant Program
Organization: Central Oregon Intergovnermental Council (COIC)
Organization Description: COIC serves Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties and
the cities of Bend, Culver, Madras, Metolius, Prineville, Redmond and Sisters. The 15-
member board consists of elected officials appointed by each member jurisdiction and
appointed representatives from key economic sectors - business and industry, tourism
and recreation, agribusiness and agriculture, timber and wood products, and the
unemployed/underemployed. The organization strives to provide education, retaining and
economic development services to positively affect regional and local government,
individuals and the business community.
Project Name: Central Oregon Partnership for Wildfire Risk Reduction (COPWRR)
Project Description: The COPWRR project is a local colaborative initiative aimed at
reducing wildfire risk, improving forest healt,h and providing local jobs and income in
the forest communities of Central Oregon. More than 30 stakeholder organizations
participate in COPWRR, including local forest products industry, environmental,
community and tribal organizations, as well as federal, state and local government
agencies. For 2008 and 2009 the follwing actions are planned:
• Continue working with local businesses to secure a predictable supply of wood
fiber from the federal forests
• Assist with the development of new biomass utilizing enterprises - particularly
biomass energy applications
• Conduct environmental monitoring for five thinning projects
• Continue to build and maintain consensus among diverse forest stakeholders
through COPWRR stakeholder meetings
• Assist with educating the public about the need for fuels reduction and forest
restoration work and the benefits of biomass utilization
The funds will be used specifically to support staffing for the COPWRR project in
completing the actions listed above. This includes the work of the COIC program
administrator and program coordinators in the Natural Resources Program area.
Project Period: Funded needed by May 1, 2008
Amount of Request: $5,000
Previous Grants:
January 2001: $2,500 ($833 Luke, $833 Daly, $833 DeWolf)
March 2002: $2,000 Non-sawtimber market study ($2,000 Luke)
o { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
Direct Application to:
Commissioner Tammy Baney
Commissioner Dennis R. Luke
Commissioner Michael M. Daly
All Three Commissioners X
Date: 13/26/08 Project Name: Central OR. Partnerships for Wildfire Risk R duction
Project Beginning Date: 5/1/2008 Project End Date: 4/30/2009
Amount of Request: $5000 Date Funds Needed: 5/l/2008_
93-0620261
Applicant/Organization: C.O.I.C Tax ID
Address: 2363 SW Glacier Place City & Zip: Redmond 97756
Contact Name(s): Telephone: 541-548-9534
Phil Chan
Fax: 548-9549 Alternate Phone: Email: pchang@coic.org
On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions:
1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities.
2. Describe the proposed project or activity.
3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity.
4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health.
5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit.
6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the
source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will
support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future.
Attach:
Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. COIL is a public agency.
* Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget.
Amount Approved: By: Date:
Declined: By: Date:
:
Deschutes County Economic Development Fund
Discretionary Grant Program Application for the Central Oregon Partnerships for
Wildfire Risk Reduction (COPWRR) project
The Central Oregon Partnerships for Wildfire Risk Reduction (COPWRR) project is a local
collaborative initiative aimed at reducing wildfire risk, improving forest health, and providing local
jobs and income in the forest communities of Central Oregon. More than 30 stakeholder
organizations participate in COPWRR, including local forest products industry, environmental,
community, and tribal organizations and federal, state and local government agencies. The Central
Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) acts as the coordinating agency and fiscal agent for
COPWRR.
Over the past seven years, the COPWRR stakeholders have worked to grow local businesses and
markets that can utilize the woody biomass by-products of forest thinning projects. Growing these
markets enables treatment of more acres of forest and stimulates local economic benefits. Notable
achievements in the last two years include:
• Assisting JTS Animal Bedding (Redmond) in securing a $250,000 grant for a new whole
log shaving facility and helping to develop their small-diameter log supply
• Assisting T2 Inc to develop new markets for biomass hogg fuel removed from fuels
reduction projects on private, Deschutes County, and federal lands. Also, assisting T2 to
secure financing for new chipping equipment
• Assisting the Prineville Sawmill Company to secure $95,000 of grants and tax credits for
renewable energy components of their new lumber kiln-drying facility
• Assisting Warm Springs Forest Products Industries (WSFPI) to secure needed biomass fuel
supply from federal forest lands for their 15+ MW power plant
• Assisting Silvan Power Company and the Bonneville Environmental Foundation with
feasibility analysis for new woody biomass-fired power plants in the region
• Creating a regional database (CROP) of forecasted woody biomass supply to help stimulate
investment in biomass utilizing enterprises
• Developed an environmental monitoring program to build and sustain environmental
organization support for forest thinning activities
For more information about the COPWRR project please see www.coic.ory/copw .
During 2008 and 2009 we plan to:
a) continue working with local businesses to assist them with securing a predictable supply of
wood fiber from the federal forests,
b) assist with the development of new biomass utilizing enterprises - particularly biomass
energy applications,
c) conduct environmental monitoring for 5 thinning projects,
d) continue to build and maintain consensus among diverse forest stakeholders through
COPWRR Stakeholder meetings, and
e) assist with educating the public about the need for fuels reduction and forest restoration
work and the benefits of biomass utilization.
COIC would like to request $5000 from the County Economic Development Fund to support the
COPWRR project between May 2008 and April 2009. For this same time period COIC has
secured $50,000 in federal grants, $12,000 in private industry funding, $7,000 in funding from
private foundations and non-profit organizations, and $45,000 from the Deschutes and Ochoco
National Forests and Prineville BLM. Each of these fenders is investing in COPWRR with the
expectation that a modest level of local matching funds will be provided to leverage their
investment.
Crook and Jefferson Counties each provided $5000 for the COPWRR project for federal fiscal year
2008 from County Title III funds. Deschutes County was not able to provide Title III funds for the
COPWRR project in FY 2008 but County staff recommended that we seek a County Economic
Development Fund grant. We understand that the typical County Economic Development Fund
grant is $3000 or less and would understand if the Commissioners wanted to adjust our request to
match the norm.
The funds will be used to support staffing for the COPWRR project to complete the tasks (a
through e) described above. Specifically, these funds would be allocated to the work of the COIC
Program Administrator and Program Coordinators in the Natural Resources Program area. The
current plan is to convert COPWRR into a independent non-profit organization by 2010 so that the
project can better access private foundation funds for community forestry projects.
With your support the COPWRR project will help to support the growth of local businesses that
utilize small diameter logs and woody biomass through feasibility analysis, biomass supply
development, and assistance with securing grants, tax credits and loans. Growing these businesses
will not only result in more living wage manufacturing jobs in town, it will also result in more jobs
in the woods harvesting, processing and transporting small log and woody biomass material. One
way to view this project is that COPWRR is helping to revitalize the forest products sector and help
it to grow around a supply of raw material that is abundant and much less politically controversial.
The project will also help to build the renewable energy industry cluster that is developing in
Central Oregon as local businesses and agencies adopt biomass-fueled heating systems and if a
biomass power plant is eventually built in the County. Using biomass for energy production keeps
dollars spent on energy circulating in the local economy instead of leaving the County, State or
nation.
Deschutes County residents who live near forests and rangelands will benefit from this project
because new markets for biomass material enable hazardous fuel reduction on more acres of land,
keeping homes and lives safer. Businesses and workers in the new forest products sector and
biomass energy fields will also benefit as described above. Finally, people who care about the
health of our forest ecosystems will benefit as treatments that restore big trees and protect
watersheds and habitat while reducing wildfire risk and producing raw material for industry are
implemented.
The County Economic Development Fund presents a key opportunity to match and leverage
external dollars. We hope that Deschutes County will consider our request for a $5000 County
Economic Development Fund grant favorably.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact Phil Chang, COIC Program Administrator and
staff to the COPWRR project, at (541) 548-9534 if you would like additional information.
x regon
a 5 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Govemor
April 2, 2008
Scott Johnson, Director
Deschutes County Mental Health Department
2577 N.E. Courtney Drive
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Funding for Secure Residential Treatment Facility
Dear Mr. Johnson:
500 Summer Street NE E86
Salem, OR 97301-1118
Voice 503-945-5763
Fax 503-378-8467
The Addictions and Mental Health Division (AMH) of the Department of Human
Services (DHS) recently approved the application submitted by Telecare, Inc. for a
secure residential treatment facility to be located in Bend. I understand that
Deschutes County is planning to construct a facility for this program. This letter
clarifies that this program will provide essential services for a DHS mandatory
service population. It is the intent of AMH to fund this program on a long term
basis subject to budget authority granted by the Oregon Legislature. AMH has not
reduced funding for SRTF programs since the first program opened in the late
1990s.
Thank you for your efforts to establish this facility. It will serve the needs of
people with psychiatric disabilities in the central Oregon region.
Sincerely,
j &6;2,
Robert E. Nikkel, M.S.W.
Assistant Director
VS/co
cc: Vicki Skryha, Community Housing, Employment & Supports Manager
If you need this letter in alternate format, please call 503-945-5763 (Voice) or 503-945-5895 (TTY)
"Assisting People to Become Independent, Healthy and Safe"
An Equal Opportunity Employer HSS1601 (11/06) '
Department of Human Services
Addictions and Mental Health Division
We have included a few attachments for your review prior to the April 7 meeting.
• There is a letter from the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Human
Services assuring the County that the services provided through this type of
facility are an "essential service for a DHS mandatory service population" and
that the intent is to fund this on a long-term basis. Although the funding is subject
to the biennial review, the Department also states that it has not reduced funding
for these types of services since the first program opened in the 1990s.
• There is a floor plan of a PSRB facility in Woodburn. This is provided to give an
example of a typical floor plan.
• Telecare provided a schedule detailing the square footage requirements. Based on
these needs, I would estimate the project cost at $1.6 million.
We will see you on the 7`}'. Please let us know if there is any other information you
would like us to provide prior to Monday. Thanks.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
Property & Facilities
Susan Ross, Director
14 NW Kearney Street Bend, Oregon 97701
Phone: 541-330-4686 Fax: (541) 389-3481
MEMO
Date: April 3, 2008
To: Dennis Luke, Tammy Melton, Michael Daly, Erik Kropp, Dave Kanner, Bonnie Baker
From: Susan Ross, Director Property & Facilities
Regarding: Secure Mental Health Facility in Bend
~JTES c
Property & Facilities Department
p
Susan C. Ross, Director
AAA.
14 NW Kearney Street, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6594 • Fax: (541) 317-3168
www. co. deschutes. or. us
April 2, 2008
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Susan Ross, Property & Facilities Director
Scott Johnson, Mental Health Director
RE: Secure Mental Health Facility in Bend
We will be in attendance at the Monday, April 7, work session in order to discuss the
secure residential treatment facility project, but wanted to distribute some materials ahead
of time.
If you will recall, we met with the Board several months ago regarding the need for such
a facility in Bend and the possibility that the facility could be located on a portion of the
"Elliott" property owned by the County near the existing public safety complex. We
stated that we would return with more information so that you may be better informed in
order to make a decision on whether or not to move forward with this development.
As a reminder, the State Mental Health Department has determined that we have a critical
need for this facility and it is outlined as one of several residential priorities in our
County Strategic Plan. As the geographic area.with the lowest residential program
capacity in Oregon, we need secure placement options in our region for people
transitioning from the Oregon State Hospital. The 10-bed project will include two beds
for County placements which will also help greatly in our efforts to manage and support
our County clients.
The State Mental Health Department conducted a public solicitation and has selected
Telecare Corp. as the provider of the secure residential treatment services. If we move
forward with the project as proposed, the business relationships would be as follows:
State of Oregon contracts with Telecare to provide residential treatment services.
Deschutes County acts as developer and builds the residential treatment center on
County-owned land. We would pay for the development by issuing bonds.
Deschutes County leases facility to Telecare. Telecare has agreed to an initial 10-
year term with 2, 5-year options for a total of 20 years. Lease amount will need to
cover debt service.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
-
a
x~
SEE MAP 17 1
17
IIC~~
2
00
SFE
DAP 17 12 17C
\
CNEROHEE
LANE
a
O.D. RILEY
-
m,
rorn <
Jrn
~
N rn
off'`
fn
J
a
LAVACREST STREET
° v
<
N
LAVACRES? STREET
-
ti
rn
v
MORGAN ~O
n
p
p
g
T
m .
v
M.
BRiTTA STREET"
"
s
41N.pIN,
N
;
-
C
t
I
I
N
IIf.N
1
I
I .pl
x
S xpM-]IIN Nx•N
X
S
-
Z
a ~
.
a
= 8
lp
N
s
rn
N
V
_L
_
~a
rn
m~
SHETLAND LOOP: I
35
o
_
s
p[x N _ ,f SI
~e s I K~
p
I a
Z b I cW
uea Ipx.40 a'I[o -I
L Nof V`CE\ ROAD s sn I i p
e SERN a xf.N no _N,.
m w
foal ~ .G_N C ✓ ` va ~ _ ~ S ,I/~
R ~Ifl.w IorN I[Y I .N _ _ ~e IZ g *d~
. ~ I p [po. xN. xfe. „ xN.a m°R I.Ip b I ,t V~ SS Ot I
Q f , [ - s e ~ >s i N ~ .fp K,NaS~,~c ~1s~S I
fig rid{ xaa.ao xN.n ctt mrrr mlrri rr~irri rrr m-, rr✓ im'm-rmi~ mm,mrrr rrri~ mJq-~.~ rr
Y 9;,
TREET fl
BUSIAI~sS
0 SEE WP 17 12 16C _ Z N
rnv - - - - v--
?c v F1999 - m v
Z202 w xv
U
w
~ II
M O C
N y M
Cl) V~06
r~N ~(X N
x
(V (V fM I_~ E U
x x II 0 rn
fD ~ a1 L of
II II p cV
.w l0 N
p E t0 N CD
>9 <
~4 a) o
LEI 0
-71 Z>
i~
m
c ~
m
Q
J
m
U nNN/
LJ0
U
L a)
LD V
a` U
,V-.9
CD
tt= a)
CO U
c
0
.N
U
a)
I
c
a~
L
U
Y
J
J
1\ V
1
3
Telecare Corporation
10 Bed SRTF
Square Footage Requirements
Quan
Sq Ft Req
Tot Sq Ft
Staff Offices
1 Administrator
120
120
1 Clinical Director
120
120
1 Administrative Assistant
120
120
1 Bus Office Manager
120
120
1 Med Room/Nursing Coord Ofc
120
120
1 Physician Office/Private Meeting Area
120
120
1 Staff Break Room
200
200
1 Conference Room
200
200
1 Mechanical (IS/Phone)
100
100
1 Hold Room
80
80
1 Copier/Office Equip Room
46
46
1 Storage
500
500
2 Staff visitor bathrooms
40
80
10 Resident Room-single
100
1,000
10 Closet
11
110
10 Half bath per room
40
400
Half bath per two rooms
40
0
Community lavatories
88
0
Common Areas
1 Living Room
240
240
1 Dining/Activity Room
250
250
2 Shower Room (ADA)
40
80
2 Tub Room
40
80
1 Kitchen
208
208
1 Pantry
100
100
2 Mechanical (Furnace, Hot Water
48
96
1 Janitor's closet
48
48
Total Bldg Sq Footage (Less Hallways)
4,538
Exits/Hallways
21%
953
Total Bldg Sq Footage incl. halls
5,491
Outdoor Areas
1 Smoking
150
150
1 Fresh Air/Exercise
300
300
1 Maint/Storage
50
50
1 Emergency Food/Water
80
80
10 Parking
171
1,710
Total Outdoor Use Areas
2,290
Pathways
15%
344
Total Outdoor Use Areas plus paths
2,634
Landscaping
50%
6,808
Total Site Square Footage 12,299
Estimated Construction Cost $1.6 million