Loading...
2020-60-Order No. 2020-002 Recorded 2/18/2020Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2020-60 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 02/18/2020 4:38:08 PM R VIEWED �: II�IIII�II"I��I�)IIIIIIIIII �uTEs ca LEGAL COUNSEL ,` 2020-60 For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Completing Legalization Procedures for a Portion of Sisemore Road, * ORDER NO. 2020-002 in Deschutes County, Oregon. WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 368.201 and by Resolution No. 2019-051, the Board of County Commissioners initiated the legalization of a portion of Sisemore Road in Deschutes County, Oregon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 368.206 and by Resolution No. 2019-051, the Board of County Commissioners caused said road portion to be surveyed, caused the county road official to prepare a written report on the proposed legalization, and caused proper notice of the proceedings to be given; and WHEREAS, a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was held on Wednesday, January 22, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes County Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97701, for consideration of information contained in the county road official's report and any information controverting or supporting the proposed legalization; and WHEREAS, after considering the matters presented in the legalization proceedings, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that legalization of a portion of Sisemore Road, pursuant to the county road official's report, is in the public interest; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. That the portion of Sisemore Road in Deschutes County, Oregon, as described in Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B", both attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby legalized. Section 2. That the county road official's report, attached as Exhibit "C" and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby accepted and approved. Section 3. That this Order shall be recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk. PAGE 1 of 2 — ORDER NO.2020-002 Section 4. That the survey for the portion of Sisemore Road subject to these legalization proceedings be filed with the County Surveyor and the road right of way be monumented pursuant to ORS 368.106. Section 5. That, upon proper recording of this Order and filing of the survey as provided herein, any records showing the location of Sisemore Road in conflict with the location as described herein shall become void. Dated this ) of 2 ATTEST: Recording Se re a PACE 2 of 2 - ORDER NO.2020-002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON r PATT ADAIR, Chair ANTHONY De ONE, Vice air PHILIP G. HE ERSON, Commissioner EXHIBIT "A" SISEMORE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION FOR A PORTION OF SISEMORE ROAD A 60 foot wide road situated in the southwest one -quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. The centerline is described as follows: Commencing at a %" iron bar which bears North 89' 53' 05" West, a distance of 315.95 feet from the North one -quarter corner of Section 4, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, said point being the point of intersection (PI), at station 242+91.2 per Tumalo Reservoir Market Road No. 11A, Survey No. RD01529, dated 1926, Deschutes County Road Department Records; thence North 06° 58' 09"West, a distance of 333.23 feet to the True Point of Beginning, and being the terminus of said Tumalo Reservoir Market Road; thence North 06* 47' 46" West, a distance of 126.51 feet to the south line of that property recorded as Bargain and Sale Deed Document 2014-03436, Deschutes County Records, as shown on Record of Survey No. CS 19023, Deschutes County Survey Records; thence North 06' 47' 46" West, a distance of 6.67 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of an 80.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 67' 25' 35", an arc distance of 94.14 feet (the long chord of which bears North 40° 30' 33" West, a distance of 88.81 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 74' 13' 21" West, a distance of 145.05 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 200.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 15' 58' 03", an arc distance of 55.74 feet (the long chord of which bears North 66° 14' 19" West, a distance of 55.56 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 58° 15' 17" West, a distance of 302.68 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 20' 03' 19", an arc distance of 105.01 feet (the long chord of which bears North 48' 13' 38" West, a distance of 104.47 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 38' 11' 59" West, a distance of 140.53 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 500.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 08' 53' 18", an arc distance of 77.57 feet (the long chord of which bears North 42° 38' 38" West, a distance of 77.49 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 47' 05' 17" West, a distance of 244.95 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 350.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 14' 13' 27", an arc distance of 86.89 feet (the long chord of which bears North 39' 58' 33" West, a distance of 86.67 feet) to a point on the west line of said Bargain and Sale Deed, said line also being the east line of Statutory quitclaim Deed in Document Number 88-20572, Book 170, page 0581 of Deschutes County Records; thence continuing on said 350.00 foot radius curve to the right through a central angle of 11' 54' 28", an arc distance of 72.74 feet (the long chord bears North 26' 54' 36" West, a distance of 72.61 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 20° 57' 21" West, a distance of 40.00, more or less to the north line of the southwest one -quarter of the southwest one -quarter of section 33 and the terminus of herein described centerline, said point being South 89' 53' 59" West, a distance of 46.18 feet from the Southwest 1/16th corner of said section 33, said point being a %2 " iron rod. Bearings are based on the Central Oregon Coordinate System (COCS). REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYQ.I OREaON JANUARY 10, 2006 ROBERT R. JACKSON 47721 RENEWS: �I3o/Zo2� EXHIBIT "B" TERMINUS OF q DESCRIPTION —N 89'53'59" E 46.18' 0 100 200 400 1 /S " IRON RD AdIlk 00'28'420 E 101.82' 61111IMM116MONEE� SWV A=14'13'27" COR=350.00' NE/4 SW/4 YL=86.89' T SE/4 SW/4 L1LC=N 39'58'33" W 86.67'"C147'05'17" W —4 -08'531844.95' / R=500.00' \ tJ BOO 1 � O N 38'11'59" W 140.53' L=77.57' LC=N 42'38'38" W 77.49' A=20'03'19" R=300.00' r—L=105.01' LC=N 48'13'38" W 104.47' F PROPERTY LINE N 5815'17" W DEED DOC 88-20572 TAX LOT 1611000007891 TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 64697 COOK AVE. BEND OR. 97703 N 74*13'21" W 145.05' TUMALO RESERVOIR DEED DOC NO 2014-03436 TAX LOT 1611330000600 HUDSON FAMILY TRUST 18130 TUMALO RESERVOIR ROAD BEND OR, 97703 LEGEND LINE — - — PROPOSED CENTERLINE — - — EXISTING CENTERLINE — - - — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY A--15'58'03" R=200.00' —L=55.74' LC=N 66'14'19" W 55.56' A—,-67'25'35" R=80.00' L=94.14' LC-N 40'30'33" W 88.81, „OD �N 06'47'46" W 'N 06.47'46" W 126.51' CANAL 1-1: N 20'57'21" W, 40.00f' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND TERMINUS OF EXISTING TUMALO Cl: 6--11'54'28" RESERVOIR MARKET ROAD— R=350.00' L=72.74' POINT OF COMMENCEMENT LC- N 26'54'36" W P.I. STA, 242+91.2 72.61' FD 3/4" IRON BAR SEC. 33, T. 16 S., R. 11 E., WM. .....,e,.,.,—,.,._...�.,,v.._e.._..�..d. ...___...�..�,..........._....._._._..�.e..,w,_.._._W.,,.__.......................__.,,_...__ SEC. 4 T. 17 S., R. 11 E., WM. %f DAVID EVANS wNoASSOC IATEA ING. 2100 SW River Parkway Portland Oregon 97201 Phone: 503.223.6663 PROJECT TITLE RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION N 06'58'09" W 333.23' S 89'53'05" E L5.95' 1/4 CUB DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON DWG. REF. PROJECT SCALE AMENDMENT NO. SV—EX-0I—DESX0116 DESXOOOO-0116 1" = 200' 1.0 DRAWN BY DESIGN BY APPROVED BY DATE DEM/TAS RRJ DGH 01/08/2020 SHEET Gov C ES COG a ate.. G STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cody Smith, County Engineer DATE: January 17, 2020 SUBJECT: Road Official's Report Legalization of a Portion of Sisemore Rd ROAD DEPARTMENT This report is made pursuant to ORS 368.206 and Resolution No. 2019-051 of the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County Oregon concerning the investigation by the County Engineer of the proposed legalization of a portion of Sisemore Rd. Executive Summary ORS 368.201 to 368.221 provides county governing bodies with authority and procedure to clarify the record of public road right-of-way boundaries by legalization if one or more of the following conditions exist: • If, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road. • If the location of the road cannot be accurately determined due to: o Numerous alterations of the road; o A defective survey of the road or adjacent property; or o Loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. • If the road as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not conform to the location of a road described in the county records. Deschutes County Road Department ("Department") is preparing plans and specifications for the Sisemore Rd Bridge Rehabilitation project. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is contributing approximately$1.2 million of the estimated $1.4 million project cost. The intergovernmental agreement with ODOT (Agreement No. 2018-057) for the project stipulates that the County "..shall acquire all necessary right of way.." for the project. A review of available County records indicates that the portion of Sisemore Rd, a County -maintained public road, depicted in Figure 1 below that includes the Sisemore Rd Bridge (aka Bull Creek Dam and Bridge) has been used and travelled by the public since 1914 in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records and that the historical record regarding the legal establishment of this portion of Sisemore Rd may be incomplete. Based on the 61 150 SE 2 7 t h Street Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 road@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org Department's findings described in this report, the Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners determine that legalization of the portion of Sisemore Road subject to these proceedings is in the public interest. Thereby, the Department further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt Order No. 2020-002, completing the legalization procedures for that road portion. Figure 1— Location Map Record Documents The Department retrieved all available records regarding the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. The entirety of these retrieved records have been indexed and will be added to the public record for these proceedings. Notable records that were retrieved include: Crook County Road Establishments • Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 2 Pale 89 — Sisemore Rd Establishment, 1892 - This document completed the county road establishment proceedings for the original alignment of the Sisemore Rd according to Oregon Law at the time. • Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4 Page 157 — R.H. Bayley Rd Establishment, May 2, 1907 -This document completed the county road establishment proceedings for the original alignment of the R.H. Bayley Rd according to Oregon Law at the time. • Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4 Page 269 — G.W. Wimer Rd Establishment, November 5, 1908 -This document completed the county road establishment proceedings for the original alignment of the G.W. Wimer Rd according to Oregon Law at the time. Crook County Road Proceedings — Tumalo Project Road No. 1 (realigned Sisemore Rd) • Resolution to Establish Tumalo Protect Road No. 1, Crook County Court, December 4, 1914 -This document initiated county road establishment proceedings according to Oregon Law at the time for the "Tumalo Project Rd No. 1", which was constructed in 1913 and 1914 as the realignment of the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1907 R.H. Bayley Rd, and the 1908 G.W. Wimer Rd. • Tumalo Protect Road No. 1 Surveyor's Preliminary Report, January 7, 1915 -This document is a report prepared by Fred A. Rice, County Surveyor, to the Crook County Court documenting that the realigned Sisemore Rd had been examined and further that the road "is a public necessity and should become a County road." • Notice of September 1, 1915 Public Hearing, August 10, 1915 - This document is a notice of public hearing scheduled to occur on September 1, 1915, concerning the establishment of the Tumalo Project No.1 Road as a county road. However, all documents, such as meeting minutes for the September 1, 2015 public hearing (or a rescheduled public hearing) indicating what transpired at the public hearing have been lost. • Letter from R.H. Bayley to Crook County Court, August 28, 1915 - Former Commissioner R.H. Bayley submitted a letter to the Crook County Court recommending payment of $200 to C.S. Hudson, an impacted property owner, based on what is claimed to be a previous agreement between then -Commissioner Bayley, C.S. Hudson, and Olaf Laurgaard, Project Engineer for the Tumalo Irrigation Project. The property described in this letter has little relevance to the present legalization proceedings as it is approximately 2.15 road miles north of the portion of Sisemore Rd under consideration. As previously noted, the portion of Sisemore Rd presently at issue was owned by Frank V. and Olga Swisher in 1915. Further, the available record does not include documentation that the Crook County Commissioners either agreed with ex - Commissioner Bayley's recommendation and remitted the $200 to C.S. Hudson, or instead disagreed with that recommendation. It should also be noted that the letter does not serve as evidence that Mr. C.S. Hudson owned "the SW % Section 20 Township 16 South Range 11 East" as described in the letter. The most relevant portion of the letter is the statement therein confirming that the realigned Sisemore Rd was opened to the public at some point prior to August 15, 1915. • Excerpts from Crook County Commissioners' Journals July 5 1916 and November 4, 1916 - This document contains excerpts from the Crook County Commissioners' Journals as follows: o July 5, 1916 — Final survey was presented and hearing was continued to August 7, 1916. o November 4, 1916 — Crook County Commissioners order for the payment of damages to Fred E. Mosier in the amount of $100 and Adam Kotzman in the amount of $50. Notably, this document does not include any payment to the aforementioned C.S. Hudson, suggesting that either he was already paid $200, or that the County Commissioner disagreed that he was owed such a sum. Note: Historic Crook County records were retrieved from the Deschutes County Road Records for the preparation of this report. Prior Department staff retrieved these documents at various times from Crook County and the Oregon State Archives. The documents listed above constitute the entirety of the Deschutes County Road Records regarding the aforementioned road proceedings; however, gaps in the available record regarding the aforementioned road proceedings are evident. Deschutes County Legalization Proceedings • Deschutes County Resolution No. 2019-051- This document initiated the current legalization proceedings according to ORS 368.201 and 206. 3 Certificate of Posting of Notice, December 18, 2019 - This document provides proof that the County posted notice of the current proceedings according to ORS 368.206(1)(c). Certified Mail Receipt of Notice, Tumalo Irrigation District, 2019 - This document provides proof that the County served notice of the current proceedings to one of the two owners of abutting land according to ORS 368.206(1)(c). It is noted that the recipient did not date the certified mail receipt upon delivery. The Department estimates that the notice was served on December 20, 2019. Responsive Records Included in the public records are comments from the Trustee of the Hudson Family Trust and an attorney representing the trust opposing the legalization proceedings. (As understood by the Department, the Hudson Family Trust is of no relation to the aforementioned C.S. Hudson.) As such, County staff is also including in the public record all past correspondence with the Trust. The following correspondences are notable because they dispute claims made in the recently received comments: Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson (Trustee of the Hudson Family Trust), March 19, 2015 — This road file memorandum and email chain includes a March 13, 2015 email from Dr. Hudson to George Kolb, former County Engineer, regarding parking concerns on the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. In that email, Dr. Hudson indicates: o That he "lives on the piece of Sisemore Road that was never legalized." This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings is not a public road and that legalization of this road portion would constitute an illegal takings. o That his "land is on both side(s) of Sisemore Road". This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that legalization of Sisemore Road would irrevocably isolate a portion of their property. o That parking is occurring along Sisemore Rd on the Hudson's land. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that "at no time has the public used any portion of the Property in excess of the 20-foot wide dirt road." Also notable is that by sending this email (and the email referenced below) to Department staff, Dr. Hudson was acknowledging his understanding that Deschutes County had authority over the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. Correspondence — Dr. Hudson, January 30, 2019 —This email chain includes a January 25, 2019 email from Dr. Hudson to Mike Berry, former County Surveyor, requesting that the County Road Department perform earthwork on the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings near his driveway access. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that the portion of Sisemore Rd across their property is not a public road, which would imply that it is not a county road and that county funds cannot be expended to maintain the road (see ORS 368.001 and 031). Correspondence — Dr. Hudson, August 19, 2019 — This email chain includes an August 18, 2019 email from Dr. Hudson to Chris Doty, Road Department Director, regarding an incident with an ultralight aircraft taking off and landing on Sisemore Rd. Dr. Hudson acknowledges in his email that Sisemore Rd is a public road contained within a right of way. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings is not a public road and that the County does not have the authority to legalize a right of way. A similar email from Dr. Hudson to Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel, dated August 1, 2019, is also included in the record for these proceedings. 4 Correspondence —Dr. Hudson, September 24, 2019 —This September 24, 2019 email from Cody Smith, County Engineer, to Dr. Hudson regards an incident involving a private survey crew prematurely placing right of way monuments prior to the completion of these legalization proceedings. The County contracted with the survey crew but was unaware of and did not authorize the premature work. Upon being notified, the County immediately corrected the situation. In the email exchange, Mr. Smith indicated to Dr. Hudson that the legalization proceedings would be initiated in November 2019. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust has repeatedly argued that they did not receive adequate public notice for these proceedings, and/or that they have not been provided sufficient time to provide testimony. Miscellaneous Records • Crook County Deed Volume 31, Page 342. Chain of title research indicates that the property in the immediate vicinity of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to the current proceedings was owned by Frank V. and Olga Swisher. In 1913, the southern portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 33 was granted to the State of Oregon by the Swishers in consideration of $777.00, presumably in furtherance of the State's Tumalo Irrigation Project discussed later in this report. • Final Report of Construction — Tumalo Irrigation Project by Olaf Laurgaard, December 19, 1914 - This document is the final report regarding the Tumalo Irrigation Project to the State Desert Land Board by Olaf Laurgaard, Project Engineer. The report provides the context for the relocation of the Crook County roads impacted by the Tumalo Irrigation Project. • Determining Widths of Existing Rights -of -Ways for County Roads By William F. Frye, November 18, 1959 - This publication, written by former Lane County District Attorney William F. Frye, serves as a manual for Oregon county road officials in determining the width of county road right of ways created prior to 1959. • Historic Tax Lot Ledger — Tax Lot 600 in 16-11-33 - In 1961, the 60 ft.-wide road right of way (1.14 acre per the historic ledger) was removed from the taxable acreage of the one of the properties surrounding the portion of Sisemore Rd currently at issue. That property is currently owned by the Hudson Family Trust (discussed at length later in this staff report). No records were recovered indicating why the acreage was removed from the tax rolls at the time, but the current Assessors Tax Map for 16-11-33 shows the omitted portion as road right of way. Although not formally a relevant criteria under the legalization statutes, it is nonetheless notable that it does not appear that any property owner has been required to pay taxes on the portion of Sisemore Rd currently at issue since at least 1961. • Aerial Imagery —June 28, 1994 and July 27, 2018 —Aerial imagery from Google Earth demonstrating that the alignment of the subject portion of Sisemore Rd has been unaltered since at least 1994 (approximately 26 years). • Correspondence — Neil K. Hudson, October 10, 1983 - This letter from Neil K. Hudson, former Director of Public Works, to First American Mortgage Company affirms that Sisemore Rd has been a County -maintained road since at least 1983. Summary of Historic Record Sisemore Rd was established in Crook County in 1892 (Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 2, Page 89). The road originated at John Sisemore's Farewell Bend Ranch (which later became the Brooks Scanlon mill and is now a portion of the Old Mill District) and went northwesterly 21 miles to its terminus just a few miles east of the town of Sisters. The 1892 north -south road alignment was located west of present-day Tumalo Reservoir and west of the present-day alignment of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings (Figure 2). The R.H. Bayley Rd was then established in 1907 (Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4, Page 157), providing an east -west connection to Sisemore Rd. In 1908, a portion of Sisemore Rd was vacated with the establishment of the G.W. Wimer Rd (Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4, Page 269), which was aligned west of the 1892 Sisemore Rd alignment in the Project vicinity (Figure 3). The road was relocated in 1913 and 1914 (Figure 4) in conjunction with the State of Oregon's Tumalo Irrigation Project, which created Tumalo Reservoir. The Tumalo Irrigation Project was intended to create a much larger reservoir than present-day Tumalo Reservoir with the construction of Tumalo Dam and Bull Creek Dam and Bridge (Sisemore Rd Bridge), both of which carry the present-day alignment of Sisemore Rd; the planned reservoir would have inundated portions of the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1908 Wimer Rd, the 1907 R.H. Bayley Rd, and the 1908 J.R. Couch Rd. Due to rock fissures in the reservoir floor, the reservoir was unable to hold the planned quantity of water. Figure 2 — Sisemore Rd in 1892 Figure 3 — Sisemore Rd in 1908 11 Figure 4 — Sisemore Rd in 1914 No records have been recovered indicating that a right of way for the realigned Sisemore Rd was established by the State of Oregon with the Tumalo Irrigation Project. Crook County began proceedings to establish the realignment under the name of the "Tumalo Project No. 1 Road" on December 4, 1914. Available records indicate that the proceedings continued through November 4, 1916, when Crook County Commissioners ordered for the payment of damages to Fred E. Mosier in the amount of $100 and Adam Kotzman in the amount of $50. Three days later, on November 7, 1916, Crook County voters approved the formation of Deschutes County from the southwestern portion of Crook County; after some contention with Crook County Commissioners and a vote recount, Governor Withycombe proclaimed Deschutes County's official existence on December 13, 1916. The available record does not establish if either Crook County or Deschutes County completed the road proceedings and those records were lost due to the transition between the two counties or due to the passage of time; similarly, the available record does not establish if Crook County or Deschutes County neglected to continue the road proceeding due to the transition between the two counties. As such, Deschutes County relied on ORS 368.201 et seq. to legalize other sections of Sisemore Rd prior to the present proceedings. In 2004, a segment of Sisemore Rd south of Tumalo Reservoir Rd was legalized (Order No. 2004-066). Also, the present-day portion of Sisemore Rd south of the Sisemore Rd Bridge and north of Tumalo Reservoir Rd was established in 1926 with the Tumalo Reservoir Market Rd (Deschutes County Commissioners Journal Volume 2, Page 119). Last, the record for much of the realigned road was clarified in 1995 when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) granted to Deschutes County the right of way for the portions of Sisemore Rd that cross BLM-administered federal lands (BLM OR 51362). None of the aforementioned actions clarifying the record for other sections of Sisemore Rd were contested. 7 Road Location Survey ORS 368.206(1)(a) states the following: (1) If proceedings for legalization of a road are initiated under ORS 368.201, the county governing body shall: (a) Cause the road to be surveyed to determine the location of the road and the width of the road according to: (A) The laws governing the width of roads at the time the road was originally established; or (B) If the original width of the road cannot be determined, to the width for roads of the some class established by the standards under ORS 368.036; Prior to June 6, 1931, the statutory width of county roads was 60 ft. The recovered records for the road proceedings initiated by Crook County for the realigned Sisemore Rd do not indicate a right of way width. As Sisemore Rd is classified as a local road in the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.48A provides a standard 60 ft. width for local roads. Pursuant to ORS 368.206(1)(a), the right of way width for the subject portion of Sisemore Rd is 60 feet, with the legalized right of way centerline coinciding with the as -constructed road centerline. The Department has caused the subject portion of Sisemore Rd to be surveyed and a legal description and exhibit map of the subject portion to be prepared. The legal description and exhibit map for the legalization are attached to Order No. 2020-002 as Exhibits "A" and "B". Notification of Road Proceedings The Department provided notice of the proceedings for legalization of the subject portion of Sisemore Rd by posting and by service to owners of abutting land pursuant to Resolution No. 2019-051 and ORS 368.206(1)(c). Notice for a public hearing on December 18, 2019 was distributed on November 14, 2019. Due to a scrivener's error on that notice and issues with service to one property owner, the hearing was rescheduled to January 22, 2020 to provide a sufficient notice period, and notice for the rescheduled hearing was distributed on December 18, 2019. The following land owners received notice by certified mail or email: 8 1. Hudson Familv Trust 2 u� • Owner of Tax Lot 600 in Section 33 of Township 165, Range 11E • Total Property Area = —101 Acres 2-6 • Area covered by right of way = —1.74 Acres • Chain of title research indicates that in 1913, the property was owned by Frank V. and Olga Swisher. In that year, the southern portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 33 was granted to the State of Oregon by the Swishers in consideration of $777.00. • The current owners acquired the property in 2007 z (Deed No. 2007-48920) SEE 41V tE tf I A L Figure 5 —Tax Lot 600 in 16-11-33 Tumalo Irrigation District • Owner of Tax Lot 7891 and in Section 33 of Township 16S, Range 11E • Total Property Area = —755 Acres • Area covered by right of way = —0.33 Acre �1 • Chain of title research indicates that in 1914, the Jp property was owned by the State of Oregon. The LQ- � _, property was granted to Tumalo Irrigation District rWA ,2 by the State of Oregon in 1988 (Deed Records `' } Book 170, Page 581). Y43.C� Figure 6 — Portion of Tax Lot 7891 in 16-11-33 �7 Compensation ORS 368.211 provides for compensation for any person who has established a structure on real property if the structure encroaches on a road that is the subject of legalization proceedings. No encroaching structures exists within the proposed road legalization, so no compensation is required. Public Comments As of the date of this report, the only public comments received were from the Hudson Family Trust generally opposing legalization of the portion of Sisemore Rd presently at issue. Those comments are summarized as follows: • December 12, 2019 - Dr. Hudson argues that legalization of Sisemore Rd across his property would constitute a takings under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requiring compensation. As such, Dr. Hudson requests: o Damages for the proposed take of the portion of his property occupied by the existing road bed. o Just compensation for the proposed additional take of the right of way outside of the road bed. o Compensation for the remnant portion of his property west of Sisemore Rd • December 16, 2019 - Dr. Hudson provides a narrative of the issues with the November 14, 2019 notice and requests sufficient time in 2020 to obtain appropriate legal advice and submit additional testimony and evidentiary material. Dr. Hudson also requests the URL location for public testimony regarding the matter. • December 17, 2019 — Dr. Hudson accepts service of the December 17, 2019 notice by email and again requests the URL location for public testimony regarding the matter. • January 14, 2020 — Stephanie Marshall, representing the Hudson Family Trust, argues many of the same points raised in Dr. Hudson's December 12, 2019 letter. Other notable assertions include: o Disputing whether the legalization is in the public interest. o Disputing the 60 ft. right-of-way width o Disputing the Oregon Legislature's authority in adopting ORS 368.201-221 o Disputing County staff's assertion that Dr. Hudson's December 12, 2019 letter constitutes a threat of litigation. o Requesting that the County either ■ abandon the legalization proceedings and execute an agreement to not recommence legalization in the next 30 years; or ■ honor "the agreement between C.S. Hudson and Crook County" Response to Public Comments The only relevant comments presented by the Hudson Family Trust are (1) the concern about receiving sufficient notice as required by ORS 368.206(1)(c), as well as the more recent assertions (2) challenging the 60 ft. right-of-way and (3) challenging that legalization is not in the public interest. All three of those issues are addressed at length elsewhere in this report. D. Adam Smith, Assistant County Legal Counsel, has provided the following response regarding the remainder of the Hudson Family Trust's comments: The remainder of the Hudson Family Trust's comments are perhaps best understood as generally challenging the constitutionally of the legalization statutes, currently codified as ORS 368.201 10 through 368.221. Specifically, the Hudson Family Trust argues that "any action by the County to legalize [the portion of Sisemore Rd] over the Trust Property, particularly if in excess of the existing 20-foot road bed, requires immediate payment to the Trust of just compensation. Failure to do so results in an immediate violation of the Takings Clause, giving rise to a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 USC § 1983 and attorneys fees, if the Trust prevails, under § 1988." These road legalization proceedings are not the best forum for such a challenge, and the Deschutes County Commissioners can rest assured that their statutory authority is well - established. The first iteration of a road legalization statute was adopted in 1859 by the first Oregon Legislature. Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or App 375, 381 (2008). Understanding the prevailing interest of public roads, the Shotgun Creek Ranch Court explained that the first legalization statute "declares without ambiguity that one of its purposes is to guarantee that roads established by county courts are lawful county roads even if the process of establishment was imperfect." Id. Since 1953, appellate courts have considered legalization cases on at least five occasions, with four of those five petitioners also raising Fifth Amendment takings challenges. See Strome v. Lane County, 230 Or App 190 (2009); Strome v. Lane County, 219 Or App 519 (2008); Shotgun Creek Ranch v. Crook County, 219 Or App 375 (2008); and Holdner v. Columbia County, 123 Or App 48 (1993) (takings claims raised by petitioners); Ligner's Co v. Lincoln County, 5 Or App 270 (1971) (no indication of a takings claim). The Hudson Family Trust also cites several of the aforementioned cases, but suggests that the constitutionality of Oregon's long-established legalization process is still an open question. The subtlety that perhaps the Hudson Family Trust misses is that the Oregon Court of Appeals has had the opportunity on at least five occasion to declare ORS 368.201 through 368.221 unconstitutional, yet the Court has consistently chosen not to do so. Notably, the Hudson Family Trust cites Holdner for the proposition that legalization proceedings can run afoul of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. The dispute in Holdner concerned the width of the right-of-way being legalized, with Columbia County arguing for a 60 ft. right-of-way and an impacted property owner arguing for only 40 ft. The Hudson Family Trust described that "The Court of Appeals affirmed the legalization, finding evidence to support the finding that the right of way was 60 feet when established, such that the legalization process did not result in a taking of the plaintiff's property. In dicta, this ruling indicates that, had the court determined the road was only 40 feet wide when established, the plaintiff's taking claim would have been cognizable." The statement demonstrates that the Hudson Family Trust misunderstands both the Holdner decision and the legalization statutes. If, as the Hudson Family Trust argues, the legalization statutes are unconstitutional because they allow a local government to newly take road right-of-way without just compensation, then the width of the right of way in Holdner would not have mattered. Holdner, like most legalization cases, clearly began because of ambiguities in the historic record that required Columbia County to initiate legalization proceedings. Holdner generally stands for the proposition that such record keeping ambiguities do not overcome what is well -established on the ground, and implicitlythat public funds should not be used to potentially pay for right-of-way twice, first when the right-of-way was actually acquired and second when a property owner decades later attempts to capitalize on faulty record keeping. Oregon's well -established road legalization procedures at ORS 368.201 through 368.221 are predicated on other even more -established common law real property doctrines. For example, 11 ORS 368.201(3) allows a county to initiate legalization proceedings when a "road is traveled and used for 10 years or more." That 10-year period obviously is intended to invoke the same 10-year period necessary for any property owner to establish a road right-of-way by way of a prescriptive easement. See, e.g., City of Ashland v. Hardesty, 23 Or App 523 (1975). Despite Article I, § 18 of the Oregon Constitution mirroring the Fifth Amendment Takings provision and thus precluding a government from taking private property without just compensation, Hardesty confirms that "states and municipal corporations may acquire interest in property by adverse possession or prescription." Id at 526. Hardesty sets forth what is perhaps the majority in rule in most states — when a right-of-way is established pursuant to a prescriptive easement, a state or local government need not compensate impacted property owners because those property owners failed to previously block the public's open and notorious use of their property for a sufficient period of time. See Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island, 217 F Supp 2d 206, 223-24 (D Rhode Island 2002) (noting similar decisions in Ohio, Alaska, Maine, Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Washington). Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, a federal case, is the one exception found by County staff differing with the aforementioned state court decisions on the matter. Nonetheless, the Pascoag Reservoir & Dam Court rooted its decision in another well - established common law doctrine, and found that the applicable statute of limitations barred that plaintiff's compensation claim which was predicated on a decades -old taking of private property. These statutory legalization procedures are not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the Hudson Family Trust's constitutional arguments, nor do the Deschutes County Commissioners need to address those arguments as part of these proceedings. In order to justify financial compensation beyond what is statutorily allowed by ORS 368.211, the Hudson Family Trust has the arduous task of challenging in another forum a statutory process that has existed for 161 years and overturn well -established case law. Findings Based upon the information described in this report, the Road Department makes the following findings: 1. Sisemore Rd was established in Crook County in 1892, providing a north -south route between Bend and Sisters. A portion of the road was vacated and realigned as the G.W. Wimer Rd in 1908. 2. The portion of the current alignment of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings was constructed by the State of Oregon and financed with public funds to realign established Crook County roads (the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1908 Wimer Rd, and the 1907 Bayley Rd) in 1914. 3. Through omission and/or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. (ORS 368.201(1)) 4. The portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings as travelled and used by the public since 1914 does not conform to the location of the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1908 Wimer Rd, or the 1907 Bayley Rd. (ORS 368.201(3)) 5. Pursuant to ORS 368.206(1)(a), the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings has been surveyed, and the right of way width shall be 60 feet. 12 6. No established structures exist within the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings that qualify for compensation under ORS 368.211. 7. Legalization of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings is in the public interest to clarify the public record regarding continued public ingress/egress, to provide for continued County road maintenance, and to satisfy the terms of Agreement No. 2018-057. 8. In response to the Hudson Family Trust's submitted testimony: o The subject portion of Sisemore Rd is presently a public road pursuant to several legal doctrines. Most notably, the public has exercised a prescriptive right across the Hudson Family Trust property since circa 1924 (10 years after the road was constructed), as substantiated by the public records from 1914 to present. o The Hudson Family Trust alleges that a letter dated August 28, 1915 from retired Crook County Commissioner R.H. Bayley establishes a principle by which the current Deschutes County Board of Commissioners should consider paying damages. As understood by the County, the Trust asserts that the relocated portion of Sisemore Rd across the Trust property was constructed under the same general circumstances pertaining to the portion of road constructed across C.S. Hudson's property. This assertion is incorrect, as C.S. Hudson owned property over which the road was constructed when it was constructed, while the Hudson Family Trust did not. More importantly, the Hudson Family Trust is not a successor -in -interest to the property owned by C.S. Hudson in 1915. Regardless, neither the Hudson Family Trust nor the available record provide any evidence indicating that Crook County did not remit payment to C.S. Hudson as Mr. Bayley suggested. The available record does indicate that the Crook County Court ordered payment to other impacted property owners subsequent to Mr. Bayley's letter. The only principle established by Mr. Bayley's letter is that the "I umaw Project Number One Road' was constructed and "opened" prior to August 28, 1915 and that it was a matter of Crook County concern. o Legalization of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings does not constitute a takings under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. An argument could be made that perhaps a takings occurred circa 1914 when the road was constructed by the State of Oregon because the record does not establish the nature of the transaction that occurred between the State and the Hudson Family Trust's predecessors - in -interest, Frank V. and Olga Swisher. Available records do indicate that the State of Oregon purchased a portion of the Swishers' property (now a portion of Tax Lot 7891 owned by Tumalo Irrigation District) in 1913 for $777.00. Regardless, any such claim would now be time barred by the applicable six -year statute of limitations. See e.g., Foster Group v. City of Elgin, 264 Or App 424, 441 (2013); Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island, 217 F Supp 2d 206, 229 (D Rhode Island 2002). No transfer of interest would occurwith the completion of these legalization proceedings, as the public's interest in Sisemore Rd is already firmly vested. As such, no compensation or damages are warranted. The legalization procedure is prescribed by state law to clarify the record of existing public roads, not create new public roads. o Subject to completion of these proceedings, the Hudson Family Trust would not be losing any right or interest that they currently possess. The property currently owned by the Hudson Family Trust has effectively been bisected by Sisemore Rd since circa 1914. o ORS 368.201 to 368.221 clearly provide Deschutes County the statutory authority to legalize the subject portion of Sisemore Rd. The Hudson Family Trust's questions 13 regarding the Oregon Legislature's authority to adopt the aforementioned legalization statutes is beyond the scope of these proceedings. Recommendation Subject to testimony and findings presented at the public hearing, the Road Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners determine that legalization of the portion of Sisemore Road subject to these proceedings is in the public interest. Thereby, the Department further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt Order No. 2020-002 completing the legalization procedures for the portion of Sisemore Road as presented in this report. Subsequent to adoption of Order No. 2020-002, the County shall cause for the following actions to be completed pursuant to ORS 368.106, and ORS 368.216: • Any order or resolution enacted and deed or other document establishing an interest in the property for public road purposes to be recorded • The road right-of-way to be surveyed and monumented. • The survey to be prepared in compliance with ORS 209.250 • The survey to be recorded with the County Surveyor Upon completion of the legalization procedures, any records showing the location of the road that conflict with the location of the road as described in Order No. 2020-002 will be void. 14 ml EXHIBIT "A" SISEMORE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION FOR A PORTION OF SISEMORE ROAD A 60 foot wide road situated in the southwest one -quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. The centerline is described as follows: Commencing at a V iron bar which bears North 89° 53' 05" West, a distance of 315.95 feet from the North one -quarter corner of Section 4, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, said point being the point of intersection (PI), at station 242+91.2 per Tumalo Reservoir Market Road No. 11A, Survey No. RD01529, dated 1926, Deschutes County Road Department Records; thence North 06° 58' 09"West, a distance of 333.23 feet to the True Point of Beginning, and being the terminus of said Tumalo Reservoir Market Road; thence North 06* 47' 46" West, a distance of 126.51 feet to the south line of that property recorded as Bargain and Sale Deed Document 2014-03436, Deschutes County Records, as shown on Record of Survey No. CS 19023, Deschutes County Survey Records; thence North 06' 47' 46" West, a distance of 6.67 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of an 80.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 67' 25' 35", an arc distance of 94.14 feet (the long chord of which bears North 40' 30' 33" West, a distance of 88.81 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 74` 13' 21" West, a distance of 145.05 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 200.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 15° 58' 03", an arc distance of 55.74 feet (the long chord of which bears North 66° 14' 19" West, a distance of 55.56 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 58° 15' 17" West, a distance of 302.68 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 20' 03' 19", an arc distance of 105.01 feet (the long chord of which bears North 48' 13' 38" West, a distance of 104.47 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 38' 11' 59" West, a distance of 140.53 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 500.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 08' 53' 18", an arc distance of 77.57 feet (the long chord of which bears North 42' 38' 38" West, a distance of 77.49 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 47' 05' 17" West, a distance of 244.95 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 350.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 14' 13' 27", an arc distance of 86.89 feet (the long chord of which bears North 39' 58' 33" West, a distance of 86.67 feet) to a point on the west line of said Bargain and Sale Deed, said line also being the east line of Statutory Quitclaim Deed in Document Number 88-20572, Book 170, page 0581 of Deschutes County Records; thence continuing on said 350.00 foot radius curve to the right through a central angle of 11' 54' 28", an arc distance of 72.74 feet (the long chord bears North 26' 54' 36" West, a distance of 72.61 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 20° 57' 21" West, a distance of 40.00, more or less to the north line of the southwest one -quarter of the southwest one -quarter of section 33 and the terminus of herein described centerline, said point being South 89' 53' 59" West, a distance of 46.18 feet from the Southwest 1/16'h corner of said section 33, said point being a % " iron rod. Bearings are based on the Central Oregon Coordinate System (COCS). REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYa OREGON JANUARY 10. 2006 ROBERT R. JAC'KSON 47721 RENEWS: &/So/202/ SW/16 CDR L EXHIBIT "B" TERMINUS OF q DESCRIPTION -N 89'53'59" E 46.18' 0 100 200 400 FD 1/2" IRON ROD Afk S 00'28'42" E 101 82' A=14*13'27" R=350.00' NE/4 SW/4 L=86.89' SE/4 SW/4 LC=N 39'58'33" W 86.67' N 47-05'17" W A=08'53918" 244.95' R=500.00' L=77.57' 0 LC=N 42*38138" W �d0 77.49' 1 A=20'03'19" R=300.00' L=105.01' W LC=N 4813'38" 104.47' N 38*11'59" W 140.530 - PROPERTY LINE N 58*15'17" W 302.68' DEED DOC 88-20572 TAX LOT 1611000007891 TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 64697 COOK AVE. BEND OR. 97703 N 741321 " W 145.05' TUMALO RESERVOIR DEED DOC NO 2014-03436 TAX LOT 1611330000600 HUDSON FAMILY TRUST 18130 TUMALO RESERVOIR ROAD BEND OR, 97703 LEGEND DARY LINE - - - PROPOSED CENTERLINE - - - EXISTING CENTERLINE - - - - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY A-15'58'03" R=200.00' -L=55.74' LC=N 66'14'19" W 55.56' A=67'25'35" R=80.00' L=94.14' LC-N 40'30'33" W 88.81' p �N 06'47'46" W 6.67' 'N 06'47'46" W 01 _ 126.51' CANAL L1: N 20'57'21" A 40.00f' TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND TERMINUS OF EXISTING TUMALO Cl: A=11'5428" RESERVOIR MARKET ROAD- R=350.00' L=72.74' POINT OF COMMENCEMENT LC- N 26*54*36" W P.I. STA. 242+91.2 72.61' FD 3/4" IRON BAR j_....__ SEC 33 T. 16 S., R. 11 E., WM. SEC. 4 T. 17 S., R. 11 E., WM, N 06'58'09" W I, 333.23' t S 89'53'05" E \ � 1/4 �Iv[315.95' - _ _ COR IN - PROJECT SISEMORE ROAD 0 TITLE RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION DAVID EVANS DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANDASSOCIATES ING. DWG. REF. PROJECT SCALE 2100 SW River Parkway SV-EX-0I-DESX0116 DESX0000-0116 1" = 200' Portland Oregon 97201 DRAWN BY DESIGN BY APPROVED BY Phone:503.223.6663 DEM/TAS RRJ DGH AMENDMENT NO. 1.0 DATE 1Z08/2020 SHEET STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cody Smith, County Engineer DATE: January 17, 2020 SUBJECT: Road Official's Report Legalization of a Portion of Sisemore Rd This report is made pursuant to ORS 368.206 and Resolution No. 2019-051 of the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County Oregon concerning the investigation by the County Engineer of the proposed legalization of a portion of Sisemore Rd. Executive Summary ORS 368.201 to 368.221 provides county governing bodies with authority and procedure to clarify the record of public road right-of-way boundaries by legalization if one or more of the following conditions exist: • If, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road. • If the location of the road cannot be accurately determined due to: o Numerous alterations of the road; o A defective survey of the road or adjacent property; or o Loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. • If the road as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not conform to the location of a road described in the county records. Deschutes County Road Department ("Department") is preparing plans and specifications for the Sisemore Rd Bridge Rehabilitation project. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is contributing approximately $1.2 million of the estimated $1.4 million project cost. The intergovernmental agreement with ODOT (Agreement No. 2018-057) for the project stipulates that the County "..shall acquire all necessary right of way.." for the project. A review of available County records indicates that the portion of Sisemore Rd, a County -maintained public road, depicted in Figure 1 below that includes the Sisemore Rd Bridge (aka Bull Creek Dam and Bridge) has been used and travelled by the public since 1914 in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records and that the historical record regarding the legal establishment of this portion of Sisemore Rd may be incomplete. Based on the 61 150 SE. 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702 (5 41 ) 388-6581 road@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org Department's findings described in this report, the Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners determine that legalization of the portion of Sisemore Road subject to these proceedings is in the public interest. Thereby, the Department further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt Order No. 2020-002, completing the legalization procedures for that road portion. Figure 1— Location Map Record Documents The Department retrieved all available records regarding the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. The entirety of these retrieved records have been indexed and will be added to the public record for these proceedings. Notable records that were retrieved include: Crook County Road Establishments • Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 2 Page 89 — Sisemore Rd Establishment, 1892 - This document completed the county road establishment proceedings for the original alignment of the Sisemore Rd according to Oregon Law at the time. • Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4 Page 157 — R.H. Bayley Rd Establishment, May 2, 1907 -This document completed the county road establishment proceedings for the original alignment of the R.H. Bayley Rd according to Oregon Law at the time. • Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4 Page 269 — G.W. Wimer Rd Establishment, November 5. 1908 -This document completed the county road establishment proceedings for the original alignment of the G.W. Wimer Rd according to Oregon Law at the time. 2 Crook County Road Proceedings — Tumalo Proiect Road No. 1 (realigned Sisemore Rd) • Resolution to Establish Tumalo Protect Road No. 1, Crook County Court, December 4, 1914 -This document initiated county road establishment proceedings according to Oregon Law at the time for the "Tumalo Project Rd No. 1", which was constructed in 1913 and 1914 as the realignment of the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1907 R.H. Bayley Rd, and the 1908 G.W. Wimer Rd. • Tumalo Proiect Road No. 1 Surveyor's Preliminary Report, January 7, 1915 -This document is a report prepared by Fred A. Rice, County Surveyor, to the Crook County Court documenting that the realigned Sisemore Rd had been examined and further that the road "is a public necessity and should become a County road." • Notice of September 1 1915 Public Hearing, August 10, 1915 - This document is a notice of public hearing scheduled to occur on September 1, 1915, concerning the establishment of the Tumalo Project No.1 Road as a county road. However, all documents, such as meeting minutes for the September 1, 2015 public hearing (or a rescheduled public hearing) indicating what transpired at the public hearing have been lost. • Letter from R.H. Bayley to Crook County Court , August 28, 1915 - Former Commissioner R.H. Bayley submitted a letter to the Crook County Court recommending payment of $200 to C.S. Hudson, an impacted property owner, based on what is claimed to be a previous agreement between then -Commissioner Bayley, C.S. Hudson, and Olaf Laurgaard, Project Engineer for the Tumalo Irrigation Project. The property described in this letter has little relevance to the present legalization proceedings as it is approximately 2.15 road miles north of the portion of Sisemore Rd under consideration. As previously noted, the portion of Sisemore Rd presently at issue was owned by Frank V. and Olga Swisher in 1915. Further, the available record does not include documentation that the Crook County Commissioners either agreed with ex - Commissioner Bayley's recommendation and remitted the $200 to C.S. Hudson, or instead disagreed with that recommendation. It should also be noted that the letter does not serve as evidence that Mr. C.S. Hudson owned "the SW % Section 20 Township 16 South Range 11 East" as described in the letter. The most relevant portion of the letter is the statement therein confirming that the realigned Sisemore Rd was opened to the public at some point prior to August 15, 1915. • Excerpts from Crook County Commissioners' Journals, July 5, 1916 and November 4, 1916 - This document contains excerpts from the Crook County Commissioners' Journals as follows: o July 5, 1916 — Final survey was presented and hearing was continued to August 7, 1916. o November 4, 1916 — Crook County Commissioners order for the payment of damages to Fred E. Mosier in the amount of $100 and Adam Kotzman in the amount of $50. Notably, this document does not include any payment to the aforementioned C.S. Hudson, suggesting that either he was already paid $200, or that the County Commissioner disagreed that he was owed such a sum. Note: Historic Crook County records were retrieved from the Deschutes County Road Records for the preparation of this report. Prior Department staff retrieved these documents at various times from Crook County and the Oregon State Archives. The documents listed above constitute the entirety of the Deschutes County Road Records regarding the aforementioned road proceedings; however, gaps in the available record regarding the aforementioned road proceedings are evident. Deschutes County Legalization Proceedings • Deschutes County Resolution No. 2019-051-This document initiated the current legalization proceedings according to ORS 368.201 and 206. Certificate of Posting of Notice, December 18, 2019 - This document provides proof that the County posted notice of the current proceedings according to ORS 368.206(1)(c). Certified Mail Receipt of Notice, Tumalo Irrigation District, 2019 - This document provides proof that the County served notice of the current proceedings to one of the two owners of abutting land according to ORS 368.206(1)(c). It is noted that the recipient did not date the certified mail receipt upon delivery. The Department estimates that the notice was served on December 20, 2019. Responsive Records Included in the public records are comments from the Trustee of the Hudson Family Trust and an attorney representing the trust opposing the legalization proceedings. (As understood by the Department, the Hudson Family Trust is of no relation to the aforementioned C.S. Hudson.) As such, County staff is also including in the public record all past correspondence with the Trust. The following correspondences are notable because they dispute claims made in the recently received comments: Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson (Trustee of the Hudson Family Trust), March 19, 2015 — This road file memorandum and email chain includes a March 13, 2015 email from Dr. Hudson to George Kolb, former County Engineer, regarding parking concerns on the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. In that email, Dr. Hudson indicates: o That he "lives on the piece of Sisemore Road that was never legalized." This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings is not a public road and that legalization of this road portion would constitute an illegal takings. o That his "land is on both side(s) of Sisemore Road". This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that legalization of Sisemore Road would irrevocably isolate a portion of their property. o That parking is occurring along Sisemore Rd on the Hudson's land. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that "at no time has the public used any portion of the Property in excess of the 20-foot wide dirt road." Also notable is that by sending this email (and the email referenced below) to Department staff, Dr. Hudson was acknowledging his understanding that Deschutes County had authority over the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. Correspondence — Dr. Hudson, January 30, 2019 —This email chain includes a January 25, 2019 email from Dr. Hudson to Mike Berry, former County Surveyor, requesting that the County Road Department perform earthwork on the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings near his driveway access. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that the portion of Sisemore Rd across their property is not a public road, which would imply that it is not a county road and that county funds cannot be expended to maintain the road (see ORS 368.001 and 031). Correspondence — Dr. Hudson, August 19, 2019 — This email chain includes an August 18, 2019 email from Dr. Hudson to Chris Doty, Road Department Director, regarding an incident with an ultralight aircraft taking off and landing on Sisemore Rd. Dr. Hudson acknowledges in his email that Sisemore Rd is a public road contained within a right of way. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust is presently claiming that the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings is not a public road and that the County does not have the authority to legalize a right of way. A similar email from Dr. Hudson to Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel, dated August 1, 2019, is also included in the record for these proceedings. 4 Correspondence— Dr. Hudson September 24, 2019 This September 24, 2019 email from Cody Smith, County Engineer, to Dr. Hudson regards an incident involving a private survey crew prematurely placing right of way monuments prior to the completion of these legalization proceedings. The County contracted with the survey crew but was unaware of and did not authorize the premature work. Upon being notified, the County immediately corrected the situation. In the email exchange, Mr. Smith indicated to Dr. Hudson that the legalization proceedings would be initiated in November 2019. This is notable because the Hudson Family Trust has repeatedly argued that they did not receive adequate public notice for these proceedings, and/or that they have not been provided sufficient time to provide testimony. Miscellaneous Records • Crook County Deed Volume 31, Page 342. Chain of title research indicates that the property in the immediate vicinity of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to the current proceedings was owned by Frank V. and Olga Swisher. In 1913, the southern portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 33 was granted to the State of Oregon by the Swishers in consideration of $777.00, presumably in furtherance of the State's Tumalo Irrigation Project discussed later in this report. • Final Report of Construction — Tumalo Irrigation Project by Olaf Laurgaard, December 19, 1914 This document is the final report regarding the Tumalo Irrigation Project to the State Desert Land Board by Olaf Laurgaard, Project Engineer. The report provides the context for the relocation of the Crook County roads impacted by the Tumalo Irrigation Project. • Determining Widths of Existing Rights -of -Ways for County Roads By William F. Frye November 18, 1959 - This publication, written by former Lane County District Attorney William F. Frye, serves as a manual for Oregon county road officials in determining the width of county road right of ways created prior to 1959. • Historic Tax Lot Ledger — Tax Lot 600 in 16-11-33 - In 1961, the 60 ft.-wide road right of way (1.14 acre per the historic ledger) was removed from the taxable acreage of the one of the properties surrounding the portion of Sisemore Rd currently at issue. That property is currently owned by the Hudson Family Trust (discussed at length later in this staff report). No records were recovered indicating why the acreage was removed from the tax rolls at the time, but the current Assessors Tax Map for 16-11-33 shows the omitted portion as road right of way. Although not formally a relevant criteria under the legalization statutes, it is nonetheless notable that it does not appear that any property owner has been required to pay taxes on the portion of Sisemore Rd currently at issue since at least 1961. • Aerial Imagery — June 28, 1994 and July 27, 2018 — Aerial imagery from Google Earth demonstrating that the alignment of the subject portion of Sisemore Rd has been unaltered since at least 1994 (approximately 26 years). • Correspondence — Neil K. Hudson, October 10, 1983 - This letter from Neil K. Hudson, former Director of Public Works, to First American Mortgage Company affirms that Sisemore Rd has been a County -maintained road since at least 1983. Summary of Historic Record Sisemore Rd was established in Crook County in 1892 (Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 2, Page 89). The road originated at John Sisemore's Farewell Bend Ranch (which later became the Brooks Scanlon mill and is now a portion of the Old Mill District) and went northwesterly 21 miles to its terminus just a few miles east of the town of Sisters. The 1892 north -south road alignment was located west of present-day Tumalo Reservoir and west of the present-day alignment of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings (Figure 2). The R.H. Bayley Rd was then established in 1907 (Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4, Page 157), providing an east -west connection to Sisemore Rd. In 1908, a portion of Sisemore Rd was vacated with the establishment of the G.W. Wimer Rd (Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4, Page 269), which was aligned west of the 1892 Sisemore Rd alignment in the Project vicinity (Figure 3). The road was relocated in 1913 and 1914 (Figure 4) in conjunction with the State of Oregon's Tumalo Irrigation Project, which created Tumalo Reservoir. The Tumalo Irrigation Project was intended to create a much larger reservoir than present-day Tumalo Reservoir with the construction of Tumalo Dam and Bull Creek Dam and Bridge (Sisemore Rd Bridge), both of which carry the present-day alignment of Sisemore Rd; the planned reservoir would have inundated portions of the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1908 Wimer Rd, the 1907 R.H. Bayley Rd, and the 1908 J.R. Couch Rd. Due to rock fissures in the reservoir floor, the reservoir was unable to hold the planned quantity of water. Figure 2 — Sisemore Rd in 1892 Figure 3 — Sisemore Rd in 1908 N. Figure 4 — Sisemore Rd in 1914 No records have been recovered indicating that a right of way for the realigned Sisemore Rd was established by the State of Oregon with the Tumalo Irrigation Project. Crook County began proceedings to establish the realignment under the name of the "Tumalo Project No. 1 Road" on December 4, 1914. Available records indicate that the proceedings continued through November 4, 1916, when Crook County Commissioners ordered for the payment of damages to Fred E. Mosier in the amount of $100 and Adam Kotzman in the amount of $50. Three days later, on November 7, 1916, Crook County voters approved the formation of Deschutes County from the southwestern portion of Crook County; after some contention with Crook County Commissioners and a vote recount, Governor Withycombe proclaimed Deschutes County's official existence on December 13, 1916. The available record does not establish if either Crook County or Deschutes County completed the road proceedings and those records were lost due to the transition between the two counties or due to the passage of time; similarly, the available record does not establish if Crook County or Deschutes County neglected to continue the road proceeding due to the transition between the two counties. As such, Deschutes County relied on ORS 368.201 et seq. to legalize other sections of Sisemore Rd prior to the present proceedings. In 2004, a segment of Sisemore Rd south of Tumalo Reservoir Rd was legalized (Order No. 2004-066). Also, the present-day portion of Sisemore Rd south of the Sisemore Rd Bridge and north of Tumalo Reservoir Rd was established in 1926 with the Tumalo Reservoir Market Rd (Deschutes County Commissioners Journal Volume 2, Page 119). Last, the record for much of the realigned road was clarified in 1995 when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) granted to Deschutes County the right of way for the portions of Sisemore Rd that cross BLM-administered federal lands (BLM OR 51362). None of the aforementioned actions clarifying the record for other sections of Sisemore Rd were contested. 7 Road Location Survey ORS 368.206(1)(a) states the following: (1) If proceedings for legalization of a road are initiated under ORS 368.201, the county governing body shall: (a) Cause the road to be surveyed to determine the location of the road and the width of the road according to: (A) The laws governing the width of roads at the time the road was originally established; or (e) If the original width of the road cannot be determined, to the width for roads of the same class established by the standards under ORS 368.036; Prior to June 6, 1931, the statutory width of county roads was 60 ft. The recovered records for the road proceedings initiated by Crook County for the realigned Sisemore Rd do not indicate a right of way width. As Sisemore Rd is classified as a local road in the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.48A provides a standard 60 ft. width for local roads. Pursuant to ORS 368.206(1)(a), the right of way width for the subject portion of Sisemore Rd is 60 feet, with the legalized right of way centerline coinciding with the as -constructed road centerline. The Department has caused the subject portion of Sisemore Rd to be surveyed and a legal description and exhibit map of the subject portion to be prepared. The legal description and exhibit map for the legalization are attached to Order No. 2020-002 as Exhibits "A" and "B". Notification of Road Proceedings The Department provided notice of the proceedings for legalization of the subject portion of Sisemore Rd by posting and by service to owners of abutting land pursuant to Resolution No. 2019-051 and ORS 368.206(1)(c). Notice for a public hearing on December 18, 2019 was distributed on November 14, 2019. Due to a scrivener's error on that notice and issues with service to one property owner, the hearing was rescheduled to January 22, 2020 to provide a sufficient notice period, and notice for the rescheduled hearing was distributed on December 18, 2019. The following land owners received notice by certified mail or email: 8 1. Hudson Family Trust 2 • Owner of Tax Lot 600 in Section 33 of Township` 165, Range 11E • Total Property Area = —101 Acres 2-6 • Area covered by right of way = —1.74 Acres • Chain of title research indicates that in 1913, the property was owned by Frank V. and Olga Swisher. In that year, the southern portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 33 was granted to the State of Oregon by the Swishers in consideration of $777.00. > ' • The current owners acquired the property in 2007 (Deed No. 2007-48920) SEE 4A0 tb tf � �� Tt Figure 5 —Tax Lot 600 in 16-11-33 Tumalo Irrigation District • Owner of Tax Lot 7891 and in Section 33 of Township 165, Range 11Ec,�`� —755 Acres • Total Property Area = • Area covered by right of way = —0.33 Acre • Chain of title research indicates that in 1914, the k property was owned by the State of Oregon. The — -� 331.1 E property was granted to Tumalo Irrigation District by the State of Oregon in 1988 (Deed Records` _�+ Book 170, Page 581). L� 43V. Figure 6 — Portion of Tax Lot 7891 in 16-11-33 9 Compensation ORS 368.211 provides for compensation for any person who has established a structure on real property if the structure encroaches on a road that is the subject of legalization proceedings. No encroaching structures exists within the proposed road legalization, so no compensation is required. Public Comments As of the date of this report, the only public comments received were from the Hudson Family Trust generally opposing legalization of the portion of Sisemore Rd presently at issue. Those comments are summarized as follows: December 12, 2019 - Dr. Hudson argues that legalization of Sisemore Rd across his property would constitute a takings under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requiring compensation. As such, Dr. Hudson requests: o Damages for the proposed take of the portion of his property occupied by the existing road bed. o Just compensation for the proposed additional take of the right of way outside of the road bed. o Compensation for the remnant portion of his property west of Sisemore Rd December 16, 2019 - Dr. Hudson provides a narrative of the issues with the November 14, 2019 notice and requests sufficient time in 2020 to obtain appropriate legal advice and submit additional testimony and evidentiary material. Dr. Hudson also requests the URL location for public testimony regarding the matter. December 17, 2019 — Dr. Hudson accepts service of the December 17, 2019 notice by email and again requests the URL location for public testimony regarding the matter. January 14, 2020 — Stephanie Marshall, representing the Hudson Family Trust, argues many of the same points raised in Dr. Hudson's December 12, 2019 letter. Other notable assertions include: o Disputing whether the legalization is in the public interest. o Disputing the 60 ft. right-of-way width o Disputing the Oregon Legislature's authority in adopting ORS 368.201-221 o Disputing County staff's assertion that Dr. Hudson's December 12, 2019 letter constitutes a threat of litigation. o Requesting that the County either ■ abandon the legalization proceedings and execute an agreement to not recommence legalization in the next 30 years; or ■ honor "the agreement between C.S. Hudson and Crook County' Response to Public Comments The only relevant comments presented by the Hudson Family Trust are (1) the concern about receiving sufficient notice as required by ORS 368.206(1)(c), as well as the more recent assertions (2) challenging the 60 ft. right-of-way and (3) challenging that legalization is not in the public interest. All three of those issues are addressed at length elsewhere in this report. D. Adam Smith, Assistant County Legal Counsel, has provided the following response regarding the remainder of the Hudson Family Trust's comments: The remainder of the Hudson Family Trust's comments are perhaps best understood as generally challenging the constitutionally of the legalization statutes, currently codified as ORS 368.201 10 through 368.221. Specifically, the Hudson Family Trust argues that "any action by the County to legalize [the portion of Sisemore Rd] over the Trust Property, particularly if in excess of the existing 20-foot road bed, requires immediate payment to the Trust of just compensation. Failure to do so results in an immediate violation of the Takings Clause, giving rise to a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 USC § 1983 and attorneys fees, if the Trust prevails, under § 1988." These road legalization proceedings are not the best forum for such a challenge, and the Deschutes County Commissioners can rest assured that their statutory authority is well - established. The first iteration of a road legalization statute was adopted in 1859 by the first Oregon Legislature. Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or App 375, 381 (2008). Understanding the prevailing interest of public roads, the Shotgun Creek Ranch Court explained that the first legalization statute "declares without ambiguity that one of its purposes is to guarantee that roads established by county courts are lawful county roads even if the process of establishment was imperfect." Id. Since 1953, appellate courts have considered legalization cases on at least five occasions, with four of those five petitioners also raising Fifth Amendment takings challenges. See Strome v. Lane County, 230 Or App 190 (2009); Strome v. Lane County, 219 Or App 519 (2008); Shotgun Creek Ranch v. Crook County, 219 Or App 375 (2008); and Holdner v. Columbia County, 123 Or App 48 (1993) (takings claims raised by petitioners); Ugner's Co v. Lincoln County, 5 Or App 270 (1971) (no indication of a takings claim). The Hudson Family Trust also cites several of the aforementioned cases, but suggests that the constitutionality of Oregon's long-established legalization process is still an open question. The subtlety that perhaps the Hudson Family Trust misses is that the Oregon Court of Appeals has had the opportunity on at least five occasion to declare ORS 368.201 through 368.221 unconstitutional, yet the Court has consistently chosen not to do so. Notably, the Hudson Family Trust cites Holdner for the proposition that legalization proceedings can run afoul of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. The dispute in Holdner concerned the width of the right-of-way being legalized, with Columbia County arguing for a 60 ft. right-of-way and an impacted property owner arguing for only 40 ft. The Hudson Family Trust described that "The Court of Appeals affirmed the legalization, finding evidence to support the finding that the right of way was 60 feet when established, such that the legalization process did not result in a taking of the plaintiff's property. In dicta, this ruling indicates that, had the court determined the road was only 40 feet wide when established, the plaintiff's taking claim would have been cognizable." The statement demonstrates that the Hudson Family Trust misunderstands both the Holdner decision and the legalization statutes. If, as the Hudson Family Trust argues, the legalization statutes are unconstitutional because they allow a local government to newly take road right-of-way without just compensation, then the width of the right of way in Holdner would not have mattered. Holdner, like most legalization cases, clearly began because of ambiguities in the historic record that required Columbia County to initiate legalization proceedings. Holdner generally stands for the proposition that such record keeping ambiguities do not overcome what is well -established on the ground, and implicitlythat public funds should not be used to potentially pay for right-of-way twice, first when the right-of-way was actually acquired and second when a property owner decades later attempts to capitalize on faulty record keeping. Oregon's well -established road legalization procedures at ORS 368.201 through 368.221 are predicated on other even more -established common law real property doctrines. For example, 11 ORS 368.201(3) allows a county to initiate legalization proceedings when a "road is traveled and used for 10 years or more." That 10-year period obviously is intended to invoke the same 10-year period necessary for any property owner to establish a road right-of-way by way of a prescriptive easement. See, e.g., City of Ashland v. Hardesty, 23 Or App 523 (1975). Despite Article I, § 18 of the Oregon Constitution mirroring the Fifth Amendment Takings provision and thus precluding a government from taking private property without just compensation, Hardesty confirms that "states and municipal corporations may acquire interest in property by adverse possession or prescription." Id at 526. Hardesty sets forth what is perhaps the majority in rule in most states — when a right-of-way is established pursuant to a prescriptive easement, a state or local government need not compensate impacted property owners because those property owners failed to previously block the public's open and notorious use of their property for a sufficient period of time. See Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island, 217 F Supp 2d 206, 223-24 (D Rhode Island 2002) (noting similar decisions in Ohio, Alaska, Maine, Colorado, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Washington). Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, a federal case, is the one exception found by County staff differing with the aforementioned state court decisions on the matter. Nonetheless, the Pascoag Reservoir & Dam Court rooted its decision in another well - established common law doctrine, and found that the applicable statute of limitations barred that plaintiff's compensation claim which was predicated on a decades -old taking of private property. These statutory legalization procedures are not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the Hudson Family Trust's constitutional arguments, nor do the Deschutes County Commissioners need to address those arguments as part of these proceedings. In order to justify financial compensation beyond what is statutorily allowed by ORS 368.211, the Hudson Family Trust has the arduous task of challenging in another forum a statutory process that has existed for 161 years and overturn well -established case law. Findings Based upon the information described in this report, the Road Department makes the following findings: 1. Sisemore Rd was established in Crook County in 1892, providing a north -south route between Bend and Sisters. A portion of the road was vacated and realigned as the G.W. Winner Rd in 1908. 2. The portion of the current alignment of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings was constructed by the State of Oregon and financed with public funds to realign established Crook County roads (the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1908 Winner Rd, and the 1907 Bayley Rd) in 1914. 3. Through omission and/or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings. (ORS 368.201(1)) 4. The portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings as travelled and used by the public since 1914 does not conform to the location of the 1892 Sisemore Rd, the 1908 Winner Rd, or the 1907 Bayley Rd. (ORS 368.201(3)) 5. Pursuant to ORS 368.206(1)(a), the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings has been surveyed, and the right of way width shall be 60 feet. 12 6. No established structures exist within the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings that qualify for compensation under ORS 368.211. 7. Legalization of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings is in the public interest to clarify the public record regarding continued public ingress/egress, to provide for continued County road maintenance, and to satisfy the terms of Agreement No. 2018-057. 8. In response to the Hudson Family Trust's submitted testimony: o The subject portion of Sisemore Rd is presently a public road pursuant to several legal doctrines. Most notably, the public has exercised a prescriptive right across the Hudson Family Trust property since circa 1924 (10 years after the road was constructed), as substantiated by the public records from 1914 to present. o The Hudson Family Trust alleges that a letter dated August 28, 1915 from retired Crook County Commissioner R.H. Bayley establishes a principle by which the current Deschutes County Board of Commissioners should consider paying damages. As understood by the County, the Trust asserts that the relocated portion of Sisemore Rd across the Trust property was constructed under the same general circumstances pertaining to the portion of road constructed across C.S. Hudson's property. This assertion is incorrect, as C.S. Hudson owned property over which the road was constructed when it was constructed, while the Hudson Family Trust did not. More importantly, the Hudson Family Trust is not a successor -in -interest to the property owned by C.S. Hudson in 1915. Regardless, neither the Hudson Family Trust nor the available record provide any evidence indicating that Crook County did not remit payment to C.S. Hudson as Mr. Bayley suggested. The available record does indicate that the Crook County Court ordered payment to other impacted property owners subsequent to Mr. Bayley's letter. The only principle established by Mr. Bayley's letter is that the "lumalo Project plumber One Road" was constructed and "opened" prior to August 28, 1915 and that it was a matter of Crook County concern. o Legalization of the portion of Sisemore Rd subject to these proceedings does not constitute a takings under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. An argument could be made that perhaps a takings occurred circa 1914 when the road was constructed by the State of Oregon because the record does not establish the nature of the transaction that occurred between the State and the Hudson Family Trust's predecessors - in -interest, Frank V. and Olga Swisher. Available records do indicate that the State of Oregon purchased a portion of the Swishers' property (now a portion of Tax Lot 7891 owned by Tumalo Irrigation District) in 1913 for $777.00. Regardless, any such claim would now be time barred by the applicable six -year statute of limitations. See e.g., Foster Group v. City of Elgin, 264 Or App 424, 441 (2013); Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island, 217 F Supp 2d 206, 229 (D Rhode Island 2002). No transfer of interest would occurwith the completion of these legalization proceedings, as the public's interest in Sisemore Rd is already firmly vested. As such, no compensation or damages are warranted. The legalization procedure is prescribed by state law to clarify the record of existing public roads, not create new public roads. o Subject to completion of these proceedings, the Hudson Family Trust would not be losing any right or interest that they currently possess. The property currently owned by the Hudson Family Trust has effectively been bisected by Sisemore Rd since circa 1914. o ORS 368.201 to 368.221 clearly provide Deschutes County the statutory authority to legalize the subject portion of Sisemore Rd. The Hudson Family Trust's questions 13 regarding the Oregon Legislature's authority to adopt the aforementioned legalization statutes is beyond the scope of these proceedings. Recommendation Subject to testimony and findings presented at the public hearing, the Road Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners determine that legalization of the portion of Sisemore Road subject to these proceedings is in the public interest. Thereby, the Department further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt Order No. 2020-002 completing the legalization procedures for the portion of Sisemore Road as presented in this report. Subsequent to adoption of Order No. 2020-002, the County shall cause for the following actions to be completed pursuant to ORS 368.106, and ORS 368.216: • Any order or resolution enacted and deed or other document establishing an interest in the property for public road purposes to be recorded • The road right-of-way to be surveyed and monumented. • The survey to be prepared in compliance with ORS 209.250 • The survey to be recorded with the County Surveyor Upon completion of the legalization procedures, any records showing the location of the road that conflict with the location of the road as described in Order No. 2020-002 will be void. 14 ES Co A& A" ROAD DEPARTMENT LEGALIZATION OF A PORTION OF SISEMORE RD INDEX OF RECORD DOCUMENTS 1. Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 2, Page 89 —Sisemore Rd Establishment (1892) 2. Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4, Page 157 — R.H. Bayley Rd Establishment (1907) 3. Crook County Commissioners' Journal Volume 4, Page 269 — G.W. Wimer Rd Establishment (1908) 4. Resolution to Establish Tumalo Project Road No. 1, Crook County Court (December 4, 1914) 5. Tumalo Project Road No. 1 Surveyor's Report (January 7, 1915) 6. Notice of September 1, 1915 Public Hearing (August 10, 1915) 7. Letter from R.H. Bayley to Crook County Court (August 28, 1915) 8. Excerpts from Crook County Commissioners' Journals (July 5, 1916; September 6, 1916; November 4, 1916) 9. Resolution No. 2019-051— Initiating legalization proceedings (November 13, 2019) 10. Certificate of Posting of rvuucc (Dct.cniucr 100, w1.7) 11. Certified Mail Receipt of Notice, Tumalo Irrigation District (2019) 12. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, November 20, 2019 13. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, November 22, 2019 14. Correspondence —Tumalo Irrigation District Staff, November 25, 2019 15. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 8, 2019 16. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 9, 2019 17. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 10, 2019 18. Public Comments — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 12, 2019 19. Correspondence —Tumalo Irrigation District Staff, December 13, 2019 20. Public Comments — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 16, 2019 21. Public Comments — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 17, 2019 22. Public Comments —Stephanie Marshall, Bennu Law, January 14, 2020 23. Document No. 2018-057 — Intergovernmental Agreement- Sisemore Rd: Tumalo IRR Canal (Couch Lateral), Bridge No. BR 17CO2 (2018) 24. Final Report of Construction — Tumalo Irrigation Project by Olaf Laurgaard, Project Engineer, December 19, 1914 25. Assessors Tax Map 16-11-33 26. Assessors Tax Map 16-11 27. Historic Tax Lot Ledger — Tax Lot 600 in 16-11-33 28. Crook County Deed Volume 31, Page 342 — Frank V. and Olga Swisher to State of Oregon (August 16, 1913) 29. Deschutes County Deed Volume 170, Page 581— State of Oregon to Tumalo Irrigation District (September 8, 1988) 30. Deschutes County Deed No. 2007-48920 — William W. Wessinger to Leslie Hudson and Veronica Newton -Hudson 31. Deschutes County Road Department Research —Tumalo Project Road No. 1, April 4, 2000 32. Deschutes County Road Department Research — Bull Flat Rd in Sections 31 and 32, April 24, 2013 33. Deschutes County Road Department Research — Sisemore Rd at Bull Springs Dam, April 1, 2019 34. Determining Widths of Existing Rights -of -Ways for County Roads, By William F. Frye, November 18, 1959 35. BLM Right of Way Grant, OR51362, December 7, 1985 36. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, March 19, 2015 37. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, January 30, 2019 38. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, August 19, 2019 39. Correspondence — Cody Smith, September 24, 2019 40. Public Comments — Dr. Leslie Hudson and Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson, November 6, 2019 (File No. 247-19-000785-HS) 41. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, August 1, 2019 42. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 16, 2019 43. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 17, 2019 44. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 17, 2019 45. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 18, 2019 46. Correspondence — Dr. Leslie Hudson, December 23, 2019 47. RFP — Engineering Consulting Services-Sisemore Bridge #17CO2 Project, June 8, 2019 48. Aerial Imagery —1994 and 2018 49. Correspondence — Neil K. Hudson, October 10, 1983 50. Chapter 6 — Legalization of Roads, County Road Manual, Association of Oregon Counties 51. Inspection Report — Sisemore Rd Bridge #17CO2, February 4, 1971 52. Public Comments — David Bilyeu, January 18, 2020 53. Public Comments —Thomas Bishop, January 20, 2020 54. Public Comments —Jamie Hildebrandt, January 21, 2020 55. Road Department Presentation —January 22, 2020 Public Hearing 56. Public Testimony — Peter Fullenwider, January 22, 2020 57. Public Testimony — Stephanie Marshall, January 22, 2020 58. Public Testimony — Leslie Hudson, January 22, 2020 59. Public Testimony —Sarah Rush, January 22, 2020 60. Public Testimony — Carol Macbeth, January 22, 2020 61. Public Testimony — Veronica Hudson, January 22, 2020 62. Public Comments — Greg Baker, January 22, 2020 63. Agency Comments — Peter Russell, Deschutes County Community Development Department, January 21, 2020 64. Public Comments —Joel Blatt, January 24, 2020 65. Public Comments — Carol Wallace, January 26, 2020 66. Public Comments — Durlin Hickok, January 26, 2020 67. Public Comments — Eileen Drew, January 27, 2020 68. Public Comments —Stephanie Marshall, Bennu Law, January 27, 2020 Roolon 2c— j MMMN�ln TZT�!�' TOURNAL ...TE ..TERM, i8v- 9' the.18q '�G H001063 0 89, -ZC-j COMMIW ONE 814URNAL, ..... .--......TERM, .. .7 189 t- � hday of..-,., ............. .... ...... ...... XJPzmpb" and B.U.— at Lama JAW off AU? - tIx lroo� A-0 v AQVI r pay v v Z-0 - .......... l0 a/A gel 461 ANO Of SUVAMS5 4�av' 1100=10 list/ V'a' 60 COMMIS��I RS' JOURNAL,.................4`.�......................TERM, z8g�- � the G� - v day of .............................. ......... 180' A ll-d h C... Hl..k Hook L7.0.1k C9- 9 the 2. yZ� day of 2 0 • YJOJ' _- 157 Court met pursuant to adjojirnmenA,aj 9 Olclock A.M.present the same officers as on the a preceeding day, and the following pyoeeedings were had, to -wit: In the Matter of Long Hollow Road Now, on this day is presented to the Court the surveyor and viewers report on the long Hollow Road and the same having been read for first time, on May let, told second time on i May 2nd, the same was approved and road ordered opened. f In The matter of } H F.E.DayVon at al Road, ¢� The surveyor and viewers report having been read for tho first time Sri' May let and second time on May 2nd, the same was approved and road ordered opened. I' In the Matter of Change in ) ) i Frank Forest Road, } now, on this day is presented to the court for private change in Frank Forest Road and i the viewers, report having been read for first time on May let and second time on May ! $nd, the same was approved and petitioners were ordered to open said road and make proof N thereof, whe n the same will be declared a public highway, The Costs, amounting to ".50 to be paid by Petitioners. � In the Matter of R.R.Bayley Et al Road } The viewers report on the R. H. Bayley Road having been read for first time on May let, and second time on May $hd, the same was approved and said road ordered opened, In the Matter of payments to be made } for, construction of basement of new Courthouse, Now, on this day it is ordered by the court that the clerk shall draw warronts on General Fund in payment of work on basement of new Court House upon written order, signed, by at least two members of the Court and not otherwise. Attest County Clerk, te42')L, . �..V. . ... .............. County Judge, Co;.-mi ssi oners, In the Matter .of 1 ' i the A. J. Harter Road.'j' The viewers report on the A.J: Harter Road heving been read for the first time on May { lot, and second time on May 2nd, the same was approved end said road ordered opened. Whereupon Court adjourned for the term, Attest :—......... County Ji,.dge, County Clerk. Conanissioners. Commissioners' Journal_ x�_v_ l�a_�l�__.___T______ .^.Term, 19 (... Thursday the 5" dayof Novenbur 1908• In thr *..attar of 0e�•kt'. wirier Road. 4 Tise report of viewers on the Oeo•W. Wimer Road having been rend first tis,6 on November 4Us enn sE(.,nl",d time on Nov,mber 5th7 slid report wit spl)roved, road deol,trec a Public highway aril Clerk ordered to notify supervisor of said road district to open said road as required f by law. In the matter of 5 J.R. Conch Road _^ The report of viewers on J.R. Couch Roid having been read first title on November 4th And q second time on November 5th, said report was approved, road d-clared_a_publiq_izighway and t _ Clerk ordereu to notify ,a,pervisor of said road district to open said road as required by law. 3 In the matter. of D.C. Hell Road i The report of viewers on the D.C. Hall Road, }paving been read first time on Novemoer 4th j and e•econd.tlrie on Ncvember 5th, said report was approved, roe•d oselared a public highway and Clerk ordered to notify supervisor of. said district so operl said road as requi ;ed by law. I Ir. the matter of A_.F. Rausay Road. The report of •viewers on t+se A. F. Ramsay Road, having been read first time on NovEmmber 4th and second time on Nov6mb6r 5th, said report was approved, road declared_.a.hi.biic htghWRy end A Cleric ordered to notifysupervisor of said roaddAst-riot to Qi)prL said road as reculred 8& iIn the matter of ) Richard King Road.- S The report, of viewers on the Richard King Road having been read first time, on November 4th and second time on November 5Lh, An,i said *sport being adverse to the allowaisce of said road,` and upon the claim of F.A. ShonqueSt for $500 damages, said report was adopted and Clerk ordered to notify bondsmen of a,aount of costs of viewing and surveying said road and deJ•ssnd payment thereof. In ttie matter of Ovid Riley Road The report of viewers on the Ovid Riley,Road, having been read first tilse,on NovemberAh and oecond time on November 5th, said report was approved, road declared a public hip hway'and Clerk ordered to notify supervisor to open} said road as required by law. In tho matter of W.F. Sandel Road, The report of viewers on the W.F. Sandel Road having be,-n read first time on November 4th and second time on November 5th, said report was approved, road ordered opened, and Clerk ordered to notify supervisor of said road district to open sAid road as.requlred by law. In the matter of Road Supervisor for Kutolser Precinct. Now,,,on this day is presented to the Court the resignation of J.W. Livingston, Road Supw- jvleor for Kutcher Precinct No. 23, the some being accepted by saidutCo+art Amu R.C. Robinson 'was appointed to fill said vacancy. _ !'�_C a-----Jud$e. Whereupo`p Court adjos nod suitil to -morrow at os lOck A.M. 1 �a � � O' t• F�== Attest: y��cr�t.__Clerk. %� , `_ Commissioners 4 FRED A. RICE COUNTY SURVEYOR 41VN. ENGINEER IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF Oi?RGON FOR THE COUNTY OF CROOK. In the matter of the establishment of the , County'Rbad. v� Resolution. r° It being deemed advisable that the e County Road be so- talished as follows., to wit:: 7-16 7�3�� a- It is hereby resolved by the Jude and Cbmmissioners of the Court aforesaid that the laying out and establishing of the above described County Road is considered a public necessity and the County Surveyor s hereby ordered and directed to make an examination of ,- the a County Road and report 'herewith, taking in consideration the general 'road system of Crook County, the grade, cost of construction, maintenance, utility, convenience, inconvenience and expense which will result to individuals as well as to the public if such a road shall be established and laid out. Dated this---=r...-_-day of December, 1914. Judge. r—.,aa._s..Aaa edm _a.cr m. FlrC linty Commissioner. ✓ i�x 2_/':� ' `: --County Cammissioner. 5 OFFICE OF }} y FREDA. R#CA}f.,s' COUNTY 6URVEYO�'R CIVIL ENO - NE. - The Tiunalo Project. Nn. 1. County Road. Surveyor'9 Preliminary Report. T'd the lion. The County Court of Crook County, State of Oregon. GGsntl emen ° : Ilhave made an examination of the above proposed Rotbd. It is a public necessity and should become a County Road. Respectfully, \>3004 Li t. C . c..'i : c 2" s l`. t 1 ,° 1 1 » t3 .a."tty .t �,._. ..._,-......—..-- s 's£o1S.a,,2 tM r 13 t.:y 1. `rvifj,,,, rdv that nr County ;:.t.'iirt I F_• ,t t, c' _. a�" )`; t,-�ta Coi ,l, uf Gror,'k 110 s ="U E;L .. :'. .,G uii''�" Colu't`?'a ani �. JA `''i •. �..�. ?:'yitl G:w, <% i. y i3.:,f txl; .,.. �. ..laX`U�`I �i �. �. LJ ,,.1 _ � S'iS.^, a,x i✓J iJ l.,, �'','.: t": ,. t.0 3 V ��.1 c xd`:, (� � c;. ::','!. ita i:_(J Yi'`T ¢:?;'e- to individvipls tl,s;.G. t0 ''ir :z,upl3 w atx`v„ ?"C�:':i 1,0 i:;», 1:..,;vil �S ,,,i4:. _1.T ..� t'•'it_ ;C.•r' .. t ]. t„s,:�t t p' mt.JiSs. ,. `.0 'l? CiO�F.i GI`ti:i: ., >. .a3 -i: t t. 17 tl,'s` 1 ,5,3. ll Off e X V.: firot duly sworn 3o depose ,and ay t:iat 1 �a,..: a resident and frieelaolds er of Crook County,St:Ite of iQregon, an orex o t,r>1 y- one •dears, That I served t ti within notice of 1sc� 2ke : , County Road +a,taai3� lip cour* tae andSt a,te af01 ea -I, id On the day of � � *vi to 1 n n ;.l.) fa d t..-_. � i all <, _ tfse •ritil:= nuet T d.ay o� � - —11)1v o:. � 3 � E on the (t,ty of % l ,1915 o t.ie widrill na:,ed-2. XNgtxor) ttLt d< y 01 o,. tire t,i tai o na d 191 b .. o . ' d�. oofc , and on t,_e r By ielive c? Fl?; ;a. copy t ,vreof , signned by Iarrer) Brown , County Clerk to tfle said TO eaoh of :arid ]--,rsoaFi pr. ^�onallj and is per=pon ": ut tau- afore- said. ,raridavi,i is true, andeorr ct ;:m I verily believe. K Sub4cribed and sworn to bef or+a DLL tiaia of Notary Public for Clregor. ",y r;o:,n.4ssion expires :`� ...,.� � . R�'d�� �� �,s �)i €: To the Fonorable County Court, Crook County,Ore7on. Gentlemen: In the matter of Tumalo Project Number One Roaffl,I wish to say that at the time this road -,vas opened thru the SVZ4 Section 20 Township 16 South Range 11 East that tt was mutually agreed between INIr Hudsoni,the owner,Mr Laurgaard and myself that the damage to said place -,,:,,nild be $200,00; that when the road f as legalised I laoi)ld recom)-riend the payment of this s"m to !,.,Tr Hudson_ The road was not legalised dvrin7 my term of office and this letter is to simply Pay that the payment of the above amount world be carrying out the terms of the original agreement which prow rated any delay in the building of this road by the State* Yours truly, C C �� , Cpv+n w� r VXl $ No "A Gi C� �r .{ /� CJ ad `ice Commissioners' Journal_ JU�J._ 1915____._- __ —Term, 191 Wednesday Me 5th day of July, 1916. Tly, TT RFMIERED that at a reilar term of the County Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Crook, begun and held at the'Court-house in Prineville, in said nounty c(nd state, on Wednesday, the 5th day of July, 1916, the same being the First Wednesday in said month and the time fixed by law for holding a regular term of said Court, when were prosen' G. :,pringer, Judge, J. F. Blanohard, Commissioner, H. J. Overturf, Commissioner, Warren Brown, Clerk, and E. B. Knox,. Sheriff. WHEN, on Wednesday, the 5th day of July, 1916, 6r the First Ju,14-ciaR. Day of said term, among others, the following proceedings were had, to -wit" IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ) ) CHANGE IN THE HOGS LISTER ROAD. } Now, on this day is presented to the Court the Preliminary Report on the change in the Hugh ?,aster Road, and, it appearing that proper notioe had been given, it is hereby orders( that the surveyor make final survey and report forthwith. It was further ordered that the claim of Mrs. F. A. Powell, presented by her attorney, ►e R. Biggs. be disallowed. IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ) THE C. R. DEALY ROAD. ) The final survey ofthe surveyor for the C. H. Dealy Road having been filed and approve( and J. N. Williamson appearing in open Court and making objections to the opening of said road beyond the south bank of Kitchen Creek, it is hereby ordered that said road be opened as.a public highway to the south bank of Kitchen Creak only. IN THE HATTER OF THE ESTARUSiMENP OF ) THE BARNES BUTTE ROAD. ) ...The Barnes Butte Road now coming before the Court for Preliminary Hearing, it is hereby ordered that said hearing be continued until August 7, 1916- IN THE HATTER OF THE ESPABLI613KENT OF ) THE TUX" PROJECT ROAD # 1. ) Road Now, on this day is presented to the Court the Final Survey for the Tumalo Projeo # 1 and it is hereby ordered that said hearing be continued until August 7, 1916, IN THE MATTER OF ) THE H. W. CARLIN ROAD. ) Now, on this day is presented to the Court the Preliminary Survey for the R. W. Carlin Road and action on said survey is hereby continued until August 7, 1916. GO Yvt to, 8 � V� ✓� } ` , 4 - t h $ J i .� it Commissioners' Journal_ NOVF.MBER, 1915 _ . Term, 191 ^ L Thursday the 4th day o% November, 191 5. IN THE MATTER OF ) THE S. HARDIN ROAD No. 2.) Now, on this day comae on this cause to be heard upon the preliminaryreport for the S. V. Hardin Road No. 20 and it is hereby ordered that further action in the matter be continued until the first day of the December Term, 1915. IN THE !(ATTER OF ) THE GEO. A. JONES TOAD. ) Now, on this day is presented to the Court the preliminary report on the Goo. A. Jones Road, and, there appearing to be no objections to said proposed road, it is hereby ordered that H. A. Kelley, County Surveyor, make final survey and report to the County Court of Crook County on the fArst day of December, 1915. IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTENSION OF ) THE L. C. YOUNG R1AD. ) Now, on this day is presented to the Court the preliminary report on the Extension of the L. C. Young Road, and, there appearing to be no objections to said proposed road, it is hereby ordered that H. A. Kelley, County Surveyor, make final survey and report to the County Court of Crook County on the first day of December, 1915. IN THE MATTER OF ) ) THE TUMALO PROJECT NO. 1, COUNTY ROAD. ) Now, on this day it is ordered by the Court that the County Clerk draw a warrant on the General Find in favor of Fred E. Mosier for the sum of Jm0 dollars, and one in favor of Adam Kotzman for the sine of 50 dollars as damages caused by the County Road known as Tumalo Project No. 1. IN THE MATTER OF ) THE C. H. DEALY TOAD. ) Now, on this day comes on this cause for further hearing, and it in hereby ordered that said cause be continued until the first day of the January term, 1916. IN THE MATTER OF ) THE 0. F. WALLENBURG ROAD. ) Now, on this day comes on this cause to be heard, and said cause is hereby continued until the first day of December term, 1915. IN THE MATTER OF ) ) THE 0. B. SWALLEY ROAD. ) Now, on this day is presented to the Court a petition, asking that the C. B. Swalley Road be opened for public use, and action on said matter is hereby continued until the first day 0 REVIEWED LEGAL OUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON A Resolution Initiating Proceedings to " Legalize a Portion of Sisemore Rd, in RESOLUTION NO. 2019-051 Deschutes County, Oregon. WHEREAS, ORS 368,201 established County authority to initiate road legalization proceedings; and WHEREAS, the portion of Sisemore Rd in Deschutes County, Oregon as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" has been traveled and used for more than 10 years in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records; and WHEREAS, the legal establishment of the portion of Sisemore Rd in Deschutes County, Oregon as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" is in question; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners seeks to legalize a portion of Sisemore Rd according to the process established by ORS 368.201 to 368.221; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows: Section 1. Proceedings for legalization of a portion of Sisemore Rd, as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, are hereby initiated pursuant to ORS 368.201. Section 2. That the portion of Sisemore Rd as shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, be surveyed to determine the location and width of the road according to the laws governing the width of roads at the time Sisemore Rd was originally established, including road right of way subsequently dedicated to the public in conjunction with adjacent development. Section 3. That the County Road official file a written report with the Board of County Commissioners including the survey required by Section 2 herein and any other information requested by the Board. Section 4. That a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be held on Wednesday, December 18, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in the Bames and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes County Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon 97701, for consideration of information contained in the County Road official's report as well as any information that controverts or supports PAGE 1 of 2 — RESOLUTION NO.2019-051 0 matters presented to the Board in the course of the legalization proceedings or that alleges any new matter relevant to the proceeding. Section 5. That notice of the proceedings for legalization of a portion of Sisemore Rd, including the hearing set by Section 4 herein, be provided by posting and by service to abutting land in a form that substantially conforms with Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, pursuant to the notice requirements established by ORS 368.401 to 368.426. Dated this 1J of /Jad , 2011 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: Off. ecordin Secreta PAGE 2 OF 2 — RESOLUTION NO.2019-051 PHILI ER W fflo�� PATTI ADAIR. Vice Chair ANTHONY DeBONE, Commissioner 0 EXHIBIT "A" LEGEND ! • PROPERTY BOUNDARY I ............. EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ® PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY I ' � I •` �'PF TAX LOT 1611330000600 HUDSON FAMILY TRUST Rogo � TAX LOT 1611000007891 r— TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT ♦ , .� , / • �T COVCH cAN TUMALO RESERVOIR SECTION 33, T 16 S, R it E, WM ,•�.....••..••••••�•r SECTION 4, T 17 S, R 11 E, WM ............... SES C ROAD LEGALIZATION y`�V ROAD PORTION OF SISEMORE RD -�� DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION 2019-051 0 EXHIBIT "B" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATION HEARING NOTICE IS HEARBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2019, AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE BARNES AND SAWYER ROOMS OF THE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER,1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON ON .THE PROPOSED ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDING DESCRIBED BELOW. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD. NOTICE TO MORTGAGE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. A portion of Sisemore Rd has been traveled and used by the public for more than 10 years in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records. Additionally, the legal establishment of a portion of Sisemore Rd is in question. Deschutes County has initiated proceedings to legalize a portion of Sisemore Rd across tax lot 400 and a portion of tax lot 7891 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Section 33. Persons interested in obtaining more detailed information or a map of the proposed vacation may contact the Deschutes County Road Department, 61150 SE 27th Street, Bend, Oregon 97701, Phone: (541) 388-6581, Email: roadAdeschutes.or4. ORS 368.201 to 368.221 provides authority for road legalization. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, ON q kk""- 1� Philip G. Hende n, Chair POSTED: November 14, 2019 MAILED: November 14, 2019 C w —A CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Torina Wilson, hereby certify: 1. That I posted Public Notice of Road Legalization Hearing regarding a portion of Sisemore Road, a copy of which is attached, in the following locations. • Sisemore Rd MP 6.718 —west side of road, affixed to tree • Sisemore Rd MP 6.757 —west side of road, affixed to lathe on bridge rail • Sisemore Rd MP 6.783 —east side of road, affixed to tree • Sisemore Rd MP 6.859 — east side of road, affixed to message board 2. That said notices were posted on December 18, 2019. 3. That said notices were conspicuous and clearly visible. DATED this 18th day of December, 2019. To ina Wilson 61 150 SE 27thStreet Fiend, Oregon 97702 (541 ) 388-6581 road@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org Me 10 CiAD DFk=ARI'K.-IE i'f NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATION HEARING **ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR 10:00 AM, DECEMBER 18, 2019' **RESCHEDULED FOR 10:00 AM, JANUARY 22, 2020** NOTICE IS NEARBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020, AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE BARNES AND SAWYER ROOMS OF THE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER, 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON ON THE PROPOSED ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDING DESCRIBED BELOW. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD. NOTICE TO MORTGAGE LIENHOLDER VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT !F YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. A portion of Sisemore Rd has been traveled and used by the public for more than 10 years in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records. Additionally, the legal establishment of a portion of Sisemore Rd is in question. Deschutes County has initiated proceedings to legalize a portion of Sisemore Rd across tax lots 600 and 7891 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Section 33. Persons interested in obtaining more detailed information or a map of the proposed vacation may contact the Deschutes County Road Department, 61150 SE 27th Street, Bend, Oregon 97701, Phone: (541) 388-6581, Email: road (a-)deschutes.orq. ORS 368.201 to 368.221 provides authority for road legalization. a Complete items 1; 2, and 3. 0 Print your name and-adoress on the reverse so that,we can return i" card to you. �pwa ■ Attach this.caro,t back of the mailplece, _ or an the, Q # J *1 permits. 1. ArtidldAd%dies ^I 1 l ! otk- fiY,- . &egac l I7?03 A. S nature X Agent 0 Addressed a.. Rec ived by (Printed Nar a) , , C. Date of Delivery D. 3 delivery address different from Item 1? U Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [p No III1IIII1IIII 3. vice Type 11 Priority Mail ut UAdlgt UgsIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Signature Restricted Delivery Registered Mall Restricted 9590 9402 3702 7335 7652 91 cortilled Mails Delivery Certified Mall Restricted Delivery { Return Receiptfer ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 'Rail merehzattli s 0 Signature Confirmation"' El Signature Confirmation 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7 014 2870 0000 8751 5975 "Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery gall PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt � o, o Ir Ln ri u9 Postage Certified Fee $ aCO O p Return Receipt Fee p (Endorsement Acquired) 77 (., n c:a Posting q livrr� �7 p _ Restricted Delivery Fee p (Endorsement Required) t Total Postage & Fees $ ' go fU _. Snnt Tom / y l7 f`- ........................... Stroet & . Ant No., _ or PO Box No. Ll �•----- � .............................__.-- ...-. City, State, LIN 4ry -._ .:........,..........- 7 �� r 11 NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATION HEARING **ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR 10:00 AM, DECEMBER 18, 2019*** **RESCHEDULED FOR 10:00 AM, JANUARY 22, 2020** NOTICE IS HEARBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020, AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE BARNES AND SAWYER ROOMS OF THE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER, 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON ON THE PROPOSED ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDING DESCRIBED BELOW. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD. NOTICE TO MORTGAGE LIENHOLDER VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. A portion of Sisemore Rd has been traveled and used by the public for more than 10 years in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records. Additionally, the legal establishment of a portion of Sisemore Rd is in question. Deschutes County has initiated proceedings to legalize a portion of Sisemore Rd across tax lots 600 and 7891 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Section 33. Persons interested in obtaining more detailed information or a map of the proposed vacation may contact the Deschutes County Road Department, 61150 SE 27th Street, Bend, Oregon 97701, Phone: (541) 388-6581, Email: road (cb-desch utes. o rg. ORS 368.201 to 368.221 provides authority for road legalization. 11 AVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC. EXHIBIT "A" SISEMORE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION FOR A PORTION OF SISEMORE ROAD A 60 foot wide road situated in the southeast one -quarter of the southwest one -quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. The centerline is described as follows: n_____..--:.. -. .. 3/11 7­ h-.r which ho�rc Alnrtk AQ' q1' nS" \A/act a rlictanna of 315.95 feet %_UII1111C111 IIIr, Ql Q /a If U11 vawhich nldI uc I .— ". v-. -- -- .. 1., .. _. __-'-- ---- from the North one -quarter corner of Section 4, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, said point being the point of intersection (PI), at station 242+91.2 per Tumalo Reservoir Market Road No. 11A, Survey No. RD01529, dated 1926,. Deschutes County Road Department Records; thence North 06' 58' 09"West, a distance of 333.23 feet to the True Point of Beginning, and being the terminus of said Tumalo Reservoir Market Road; thence North 06* 47' 46" West, a distance of 126.51 feet to the south line of that property recorded as Bargain and Sale Deed Document 2014-03436, Deschutes County Records, as shown on Record of Survey No. CS 19023, Deschutes County Survey Records; thence North 06° 47' 46" West, a distance of 6.67 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of an 80.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 67' 25' 35", an arc distance of 94.14 feet (the long chord of which bears North 40° 30' 33" West, a distance of 88.81 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 74` 13' 21" West, a distance of 145.05 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 200.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 15' 58' 03", an arc distance of 55.74 feet (the long chord of which bears North 66' 14' 19" West, a distance of 55.56 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 580 15' 17" West, a distance of 302.68 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 20* 03' 19", an arc distance of 105.01 feet (the long chord of which bears North 48` 13' 38" West, a distance of 104.47 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 2100 Southwest River Parkway Portland Oregon 97201 Telephone: 503.223,6663 Facsimile: 503.223.2701 11 38' 11' 59" West, a distance of 140.53 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 500.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 08° 53' 18", an arc distance of 77.57 feet (the long chord of which bears North 42' 38' 38" West, a distance of 77.49 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 47° 05' 17" West, a distance of 244.95 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 350.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 14* 13' 27", an arc distance of 86.89 feet (the long chord of which bears North 39' 58' 33" West, a distance of 86.67 feet) to a point on the west line of said property and the terminus of herein described centerline, said being South 0° 28' 42" East, a distance of 101.82 from the Southwest one -sixteenth corner of Section 33. Bearings are based on the Central Oregon Coordinate System (COCS). REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON JANUAAY 10, 2006 ROBERT R. JACKSON 47721 RENEWS: SW/16 COR 1 � EXHIBIT "B" 0 100 200 400 00'28'42" E 101.82' A=14*13'27" R=350.00' ,,—L=86_89' NE/4 SW/4 LC=N 39'58 33 W SE/4 SW/4 DEED DOC NO 2014-03436 86.67' TAX LOT 1611330000600 N 47*05'17" W HUDSON FAMILY TRUST �08'53'18" 18130 TUMALO RESERVOIR ROAD 244.95' R=500.00' BEND OR, 97703 L=77.57' LEGEND 0 N 38*11'59" W 140.53' sis, a=67 25 35 F2�0 R=80.00 PROPERTY L=94.14' LINE LC=N 40'30'33" W N 58*15'17" W 88.81' 302.68' ROgO N 06'47'46" W 6.67' LC=N 4238'38" W BOUNDARY LINE 77.49' - PROPOSED CENTERLINE — - — EXISTING CENTERLINE a=20'03'19" — - - — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY R=300.00' A= 15*58'03* rL=105.01' R=200.00' LC=N 4813'38" W=55.74' 104.47' LC=N 66'14'19" W 55.56' " N 74'13'21" W DEED DOC 88-20572 145.05' TAX LOT 1611000007891 TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 64697 COOK AVE. BEND OR. 97703 TUMALO RESERVOIR TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND TERMINUS OF EXISTING TUMALO RESERVOIR MARKET ROAD POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.I. STA. 242+91.2 FD 3/4" IRON BAR SEC. 33, T. 16 S., R. 11 E., WM. SEC. 4 T. 17 S., R. 11 E., WM. ^ �N 06'47'46" W -"-126.51' CANAL N 06'58'09" W 333.23' S 89'53'05" E 315.95' "j --- PROJECT SISEMORE ROAD Q ® TITLE RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION DAVID EVAN8 DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANcASSOCIATES tNC. DWG. REF. PROJECT SCALE 2100 SW River Parkway SV-EX-01-DESX0116 DESX0000-0116 1 " = 200' Portland Oregon 97201 Phone: 503.223.6663 DRAWN BY DESIGN BY APPROVED BY DEM/TAS RRJ DGH 1/4 COR P�-13431 NO. 1 0.0 DATE 10-15-2019 r� Cody Smith From: Leslie Hudson <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 1:22 PM To: Cody Smith Cc: Newton Hudson Veronica Subject: Re: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Thanks Cody, Both forms of the our address which you cite would normally get mail through to us. I should be pleased to receive an email copy of your report in advance. Les Hudson Copyright is hereby asserted on this private communication. Do not copy or forward without express permission. On Nov 20, 2019, at 12:03, Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> wrote: Les, i had a notice mailed to you on November 14t" by certified mail. The notice was returned to us yesterday afternoon with "INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS" stamped on the letter by the Post Office. We sent the notice to the following address: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703 I had another notice mailed yesterday addressed as follows: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703-5538 Attached is a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, which includes the notice and a map. Also attached is a copy of the legal description and map that will be included in my report for the final order that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing. I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that report once it is completed prior to the hearing if you would like. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Cody Smith, P.E. I County Engineer 1 im 12 61150 SE 27t" Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Codv.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:41 AM To: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Cody, At the beginning of this week I saw the public notice on Bull Creek Bridge concerning the legalization of that part of Sisemore Road. I wonder whether the mailed Notices have been sent out to the affected landowners? If they have already been sent but in my case not arrived, I should be grateful for an emailed copy. I could not find the map referenced on your public notice on the Road Departments website. Please could I get a copy of the map. Thanks, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudsonAg.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:33 PM To:'les.hudson@q.com' <les.hudson@q.com> Cc: Chris Doty <Chris. Doty@ deschutes.org>; Kevin Samuel <Kevin.Samuel@deschutes.org>; Shon Heern (Skhe deainc.com) <Skhe@deainc.com> Subject: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, Deschutes County has retained David Evans and Associates to provide engineering and surveying services for the Sisemore Bridge Rehabilitation project. As you are aware, the public right of way for Sisemore Rd has not been legally established across your property. As I discussed with you a while back, the County will be holding legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 through 368.216 as part of 12 the project to legalize the public right of way for the existing public road. We have not yet begun these proceedings, and you will be notified when the proceedings begin. I currently anticipate that we will initiate legalization proceedings in November. I was just informed that you confronted a David Evans and Associates survey crew today who was placing right of way monuments on your property and that they abandoned their work upon your insistence. Please know that Deschutes County did not instruct David Evans and Associates to set these monuments prematurely, as setting monuments before legalization proceedings have been completed (and, certainly, before proceedings have even started) is not the process prescribed by law. Our consultant and their staff, which includes licensed professional land surveyors, should have known better than to set right of way monuments on property for which the public has not yet secured a legal interest. I have addressed this matter with our consultant's project manager, and he has offered an apology on behalf of his company. I sincerely apologize that today's incident occurred; it should not have happened. Please let me know if there was any damage caused to your property with today's incident, and I will ensure that it is immediately repaired. Respectfully, Cody Smith, P.E. County Engineer 61150 SE 27t" Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road <Regnl„tine Nn 2019-051.pdf> <Sisemore Road Legalization.pdf> 13 Cody Smith From: Leslie Hudson <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 8:19 AM To: Cody Smith Subject: Re: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Thanks Cody I am much obliged. I hope you and your family have an excellent Thanksgiving. Les. Les Hudson Copyright is hereby asserted on this private communication. Do not copy or forward without express permission. On Nov 22, 2019, at 07:47, Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> wrote: Les, As depicted in the map prepared by David Evans and Associates, the boundary of your property does not necessarily coincide with the right of way boundary. Rather, the right of way boundaries coincide with a 30 ft. offset on both sides of the as -constructed centerline of the road as surveyed by Mr. Jackson (surveyor for David Evans and Associates). ORS 368.206(1)(a) requires that the road right of way width in a legalization proceeding be determined by a survey according to either A.) the laws governing the width of roads at the time the road was originally established or, if the original width of the road cannot be determined, B.) to the width for roads of the same class established by the standards adopted by the county governing body. Between May 21, 1889 and May 22, 1915, state law prescribed 60 ft. as the standard county road right of way width when no width was stated in an establishment order, with 80 ft. as a maximum stated width and 40 ft. as a minimum stated width. Similarly, as Sisemore Rd is classified as a local road in the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan, Deschutes County Code (DCC) 17.48A provides a standard 60 ft. width for local roads. Under either A or B above, the right of way width for Sisemore Rd is 60 ft., with the legalized right of way centerline coinciding with the as - constructed road centerline. It will not be necessary for you to have any existing survey monuments pulled, and those monuments will still represent the boundary of the property for which you hold fee title interest. Upon adoption of the legalization order, the county will have the right of way monumented and a survey filed with the County Surveyor's office in conformance with ORS 368.106. The survey to be filed will include the locations of your existing survey monuments that are within the right of way in conformance with ORS 209.155 in the event that those monuments are removed or destroyed. Please note that the County has no intention of removing or destroying those survey monuments with the Sisemore Rd Bridge project. 13 Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Cody Smith, P.E. ( County Engineer 61150 SE 27t" Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 ( Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: les.hudson@q.com.<les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:08 PM To: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com>; Mario Requelme <mario@erwattorneys.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Cody, When David Evans and Associates surveyed the bridge and Sisemore Road on behalf of Deschutes County in October 2019, they asked for (and received) permission from the Hudson Family Trust to check all of the existing monuments physically delineating our property. They told me afterwards that all the monuments were accurate. I wish to confirm that the monuments placed on our property niie proximate to western mouse of the current roadbed of Sisemore Road (which were placed by our surveyor and recorded with the County about 5 years ago) correspond with the proposed boundary line shown on the map (DWG. REF. SV-EX- 01-DESX0116 Project DESXOOOO-0116)? Or will it be necessary for us to have the monuments pulled and relocated? Thank you. Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson(&q.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 12:03 PM To: les.hudson@q.com Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, HKI I had a notice mailed to you on November 141h by certified mail. The notice was returned to us yesterday afternoon with "INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS" stamped on the letter by the Post Office. We sent the notice to the following address: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703 I had another notice mailed yesterday addressed as follows: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703-5538 Attached is a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, which includes the notice and a map. Also attached is a copy of the legal description and map that will be included in my report for the final order that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing. I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that report once it is completed prior to the hearing if you would like. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, Co d%# Smith P F 1 rnunty Fngineer 61150 SE 27th Street ( Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (S41) 322-7113 1 Cell: (S41) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:41 AM To: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Cody, At the beginning of this week I saw the public notice on Bull Creek Bridge concerning the legalization of that part of Sisemore Road. I wonder whether the mailed Notices have been sent out to the affected landowners? If they have already been sent but in my case not arrived, I should be grateful for an emailed copy. I could not find the map referenced on your public notice on the Road Departments website. Please could I get a copy of the map. 3 13 Thanks, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudsonAg.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith deschutes.or > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:33 PM To: 'les.hudson@q.com'<les.hudson@q.com> Cc: Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org>; Kevin Samuel <Kevin.Samuel@deschutes.org>; Shon Heern (Skhe@deainc.com) <Skhe@deainc.com> Subject: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, Deschutes County has retained David Evans and Associates to provide engineering and surveying services for the Sisemore Bridge Rehabilitation project. As you are aware, the public right of way for Sisemore Rd has not been legally established across your property. As I discussed with you a while back, the ('mint%, will hiphniriina IPaaii7atinn nrnreedinEs pursuant to ORS 368.201 through 368.216 as part of the project to legalize the public right of way for the existing public road. We have not yet begun these proceedings, and you will be notified when the proceedings begin. I currently anticipate that we will initiate legalization proceedings in November. I was just informed that you confronted a David Evans and Associates survey crew today who was placing right of way monuments on your property and that they abandoned their work upon your insistence. Please know that Deschutes County did not instruct David Evans and Associates to set these monuments prematurely, as setting monuments before legalization proceedings have been completed (and, certainly, before proceedings have even started) is not the process prescribed by law. Our consultant and their staff, which includes licensed professional land surveyors, should have known better than to set right of way monuments on property for which the public has not yet secured a legal interest. I have addressed this matter with our consultant's project manager, and he has offered an apology on behalf of his company. I sincerely apologize that today's incident occurred; it should not have happened. Please let me know if there was any damage caused to your property with today's incident, and I will ensure that it is immediately repaired. Respectfully, Cody Smith, P.E. County Engineer 61150 SE 27t" Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 13 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road Codv Smith From: Cody Smith Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 8:42 AM To: 'Chris Schull' Cc: Ken Rieck Subject: RE: Sisemore Bridge Attachments: fw9.pdf; TID Permit App - Sisemore Br.pdf; Resolution No 2019-051.pdf; Sisemore Road Legal ization. pdf Chris, We will need a completed W-9 form from TID in order to have payment issued by our Finance Department. Attached is a blank W-9 form if needed. Please return a completed form to me by email at your convenience. Attached is a completed copy of the crossing agreement application. Please let me know if I need to provide any additional information with the application. I will submit a hard copy of the application and project plans to your office with the payment. Thank you for addressing this promptly. Your office received notice last week that the County has initiated legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 through 368.221 for the portion of Sisemore Rd that includes the bridge. Attached is a copy of the notice and a copy of the legal description for the subject portion of the road. The public right of way for this portion of Sisemore Rd was not properly established subsequent to the Tumalo Irrigation Project. The State of Oregon did not formally dedicate a public right of way for Sisemore Rd when the road was realigned with the Tumalo Irrigation Project. Crook County began road establishment proceedings in 1914 but did not complete that process by 1916 when Deschutes County was formed, and the proceedings were unintentionally abandoned. The legalization process will clarify the record regarding the road rink+ of %Aiav The- Rnarri of Cni into Cnmmis�ionPrs will hold a public hearing to complete the proceedings on December 'b. , — ....r. .� .... ,.. � �. ___.._,--..... ----------- - - 18th as indicated in the notice. Please let me know if there are any questions regarding this process. I look forward to continuing a positive and productive working relationship between Deschutes County Road Department and TID. Sincerely, Cody Smith, P.E. ( County Engineer 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: Chris Schull <chris@tumalo.org> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 3:19 PM To: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Ken Rieck <ken@tumalo.org>; Txi@deainc.com Subject: RE: Sisemore Bridge [EXTERNAL EMAIL] 14 Cody, Thank you for your quick response to my email TID and the County have had a solid working relationship over the years and TID is striving to continue that, The tone of the boilerplate letter that was sent is aggressive for the working relationship that The County and TID have. It was not expected from DEA either as to the fact they have a long history working with TID on many of TID's projects. Do we need a corrected letter not for this time but it would be appreciated on future project's that we will be working on. Just to add a bit more about our storied history, what is now known as TID originally started in the late 1800's with many trials and tribulations and a couple of BK's and name changes led us to 1914 when we were in receivership with the state due to another BK. That is why the State ended up building Bull Creek Dam for us. It would be great if we could get a crossing agreement done so that we can clean up our records. Attached is a crossing agreement. If you guys fill that out. it would be at the $1762.00 fee. And 1 hour of my time at $92.00. we will call it square. You don't need to provide a sketch on page 1 of the agreement we will attach the plans to the agreement. I have reviewed the plans and they look great. I look forward to seeing how the finished project looks. Thank you and have a great weekend Chris From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:01 PM To: Chris Schull <chris@tumalo.org> Cc: Ken Rieck <ken@tumalo.org>; Txi@deainc.com Subject: RE: Sisemore Bridge Chris, Please allow me to respond to your email to Mr. Imamura below. David Evans and Associates is providing engineering and related services, including utility coordination, to Deschutes County Road Department for the Sisemore Rd Bridge Rehabilitation project. Prior to sending the project notification letter to TID, Mr. Imamura contacted TID's office and asked for a contact name for project coordination, and the TID employee who answered his call indicated that Ryan Williams would be the point of contact. The letter that was sent to TID is boilerplate, and the same letter was sent to all service providers in the project area. If you require a revised letter addressed to you and excluding the statement that you disputed in your email below, we would be happy to provide it. As I'm sure you're aware, the Sisemore Rd (Bull Creek) Bridge was constructed in 1914 by the State of Oregon with Bull Creek Dam as part of the Tumalo Irrigation Project. The bridge has been operated and maintained by Crook County and, upon formation, Deschutes County since that time, which was prior to TID's formation in 1922. If TID is requesting that a crossing agreement be executed, we would be happy to pay the fee and complete that process to clarify your records. Please provide me with a copy of the draft crossing agreement. 14 Please proceed with your plan review and provide me with an estimate of the total time and cost for TID's review. Please note that we cannot allow for any significant changes to our project design. The project scope is to rehabilitate the existing historic bridge under the provisions of various federal, state, and local historic preservation laws; we cannot provide for any alterations to the bridge other than the minor alterations depicted in our project plans. The project has already received approval by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission. Please direct any future correspondence regarding this project to me. I very much appreciate your consideration to work through these issues in an expedient manner. Thank you, Cody Smith, P.E. County Engineer 61150 SE 27t" Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: CodV.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: Chris Schull <chris@tumalo.org> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 11:50 AM To: Txi@deainc.com Cc: Ken Rieck <ken@tumalo.org>; Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Subject: Sisemore Bidrge [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Ta i, Hello my name is Chris Schull and I am the Watermaster for TID, I have a few items that need to be straightened out First off I am curious as why you did not send these items to myself. I do the plan review for any and all projects that pertain to crossing any District facilities. Secondly TID is the senior easement holder in this area, After reviewing our files we have no record of a permitted bridge crossing over TID's Carey act federal easement. So the statement in your letter about, TID will be responsible for delay claims arising from errors or omissions is a categorically incorrect statement. Third, The breakdown of cost for TID to review these plans and facilitate a crossing agreement is as follows. My review time is at a rate of 92.00 a hour TID's engineer is at a rate of 165.00 a hour Crossing agreement is a 1762.00 flat rate With those items in mind would you like me to proceed with plan review? Lastly the District employee's name that should be included as the utility contact is Chris Schull Email is chris@tumalo.org 14 Office number is (541)382-3053 Cell Number is (541)640-0634 Thank you for your time and hopefully we can work thru these issues in an expedient manner Regards, Chris IV Cody Smith From: les.hudson@q.com Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2019 3:44 PM To: Cody Smith Subject: Sisemore Road on Tax Lot 1611330000600 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Cody, In preparation for the Board of County Commissioners Meeting on December 18, 2019 1 started looking at the e-mail you sent me as I did not yet have the hardcopy notice. I am confused by the tax lots cited in the text of the 'Notice of Road Legalization Hearing' (1611330000400 and — 7891) and the map Exhibit A accompanying the Board Resolution 2019-051 which shows tax lots 1611330000600 and -7891. Has an incorrect tax lot been used in the Public Notice? Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson@q.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. 1 16 Cody Smith From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Cody, les.hudson@q.com Monday, December 09, 2019 2:50 PM Cody Smith Veronica Newton Hudson RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today went back to the post office today and their best guess is that the second certified letter has been returned despite the confirmation that it would be held for my collection until December 10, 2019. Where can I come to pick up a hardcopy? In particular, I need a file reference to submit testimony for the December 18, 2019 Hearing before the County Commissioners. Thanks, Les. From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 12:03 PM To: les.hudson@q.com Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, I had a notice mailed to you on November 14th by certified mail. The notice was returned to us yesterday afternoon with "INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS" stamped on the letter by the Post Office. We sent the notice to the following address: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703 I had another notice mailed yesterday addressed as follows: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703-5538 Attached is a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, which includes the notice and a map. Also attached is a copy of the legal description and map that will be included in my report for the final order that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing. I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that report once it is completed prior to the hearing if you would like. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. 1 Thank you, Cody Smith, P.E. I County Engineer 61150 SE 271" Street ( Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:41 AM To: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Cody, its At the beginning of this week I saw the public notice on Bull Creek Bridge concerning the legalization of that part of Sisemore Road. I wonder whether the mailed Notices have been sent out to the affected landowners? If they have already been sent but in my case not arrived, I should be grateful for an emailed copy. I could not find the map referenced on your public notice on the Road Departments website. Please could I get a copy of the map. Thanks, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson(da.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:33 PM To: 'les.hudson@q.com'<les.hudson@q.com> Cc: Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org>; Kevin Samuel <Kevin.Samuel@deschutes.org>; Shon Heern (Skhe@deainc.com) <Skhe@deainc.com> Subject: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, Deschutes County has retained David Evans and Associates to provide engineering and surveying services for the Sisemore Bridge Rehabilitation project. As you are aware, the public right of way for Sisemore Rd has not been legally 2 16 established across your property. As I discussed with you a while back, the County will be holding legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 through 368.216 as part of the project to legalize the public right of way for the existing public road. We have not yet begun these proceedings, and you will be notified when the proceedings begin. I currently anticipate that we will initiate legalization proceedings in November. I was just informed that you confronted a David Evans and Associates survey crew today who was placing right of way monuments on your property and that they abandoned their work upon your insistence. Please know that Deschutes County did not instruct David Evans and Associates to set these monuments prematurely, as setting monuments before legalization proceedings have been completed (and, certainly, before proceedings have even started) is not the process prescribed by law. Our consultant and their staff, which includes licensed professional land surveyors, should have known better than to set right of way monuments on property for which the public has not yet secured a legal interest. I have addressed this matter with our consultant's project manager, and he has offered an apology on behalf of his company. sincerely apologize that today's incident occurred; it should not have happened. Please let me know if there was any damage caused to your property with today's incident, and I will ensure that it is immediately repaired. Respectfully, Cody Smith, P.E. County Engineer 61150 SE 27`" Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road 17 Cody Smith From: Cody Smith Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 7:55 AM To: 'les.hudson@q.com' Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, Oddly, I didn't receive your email below or your other email from Sunday until last night. Your email below shows you sent it at 10:55 AM on Sunday, but I didn't receive it until yesterday at 7:55 PM. les,iiudsoq@q.com m RE.InadentWith SuaveyolCrew Toddy Mon 7M KJ ics,hudson @q,com S:sem-we Read on Ta Lot 16113FC'f&36r%J Nlon T1:3 PA It does not appear as though you and I can count on the postal service or email to promptly correspond with each other. As we discussed by phone yesterday, the information that I emailed to you on November 20t' included the entirety of the public notice and also an advanced copy of the legal description and exhibit map that will be included with the proposed legalization order. As you indicated, there was a scrivener's error on the notice form for the public hearing (Exhibit "B" of Resolution No. 2019-051) regarding your tax lot number, but the tax lot number is shown correctly on the preliminary map (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2019-051). As we also discussed by phone yesterday, road proceedings are not assigned file numbers in the same manner that land use permit applications are assigned file numbers. You can reference Resolution No. 2019-051 on submitted comments if desired, but it is not necessary. Please note that all of our written correspondence regarding this matter are public record and will be stored in our Road Record files. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments. Thank you, Cody Smith P.E. ) County Engineer 61150 SE 271" Street ( Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2019 10:55 AM To: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Importance: High 17 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Cody, I have not been able to pick up the second certified letter from the post office. The tracking number left by the mail delivery person did not match anything on the USPS system. I asked that the certified letter (identified by description) be held pending my return and received a confirmation number. I tried to collect it yesterday following my return from the Land Use Law Seminars in Portland but the counter clerk was unable to track the letter. Is there anything in the letter that was not copied in the e-mail you sent on November 20, 2019? If there is additional information, please let me know where I can come to pick up a copy of the letter in person. Thanks, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson(&Q,com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: 1nie.dnes da.. November 20 2019 12:03 PM To: les.hudson(@q.com Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, I had a notice mailed to you on November 14`h by certified mail. The notice was returned to us yesterday afternoon with "INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS" stamped on the letter by the Post Office. We sent the notice to the following address: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703 I had another notice mailed yesterday addressed as follows: Hudson Family Trust 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Rd Bend, OR 97703-5538 Attached is a copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, which includes the notice and a map. Also attached is a copy of the legal description and map that will be included in my report for the final order that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing. I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that report once it is completed prior to the hearing if you would like. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, CodV Smith, P.E. County Engineer 61150 SE 27t' Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 11:41 AM To: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Cody, At the beginning of this week I saw the public notice on Bull Creek Bridge concerning the legalization of that part of Sisemore Road. I wonder whether the mailed Notices have been sent out to the affected landowners? If they have already been sent but in my case not arrived, I should be grateful for an emailed copy. I could not find the map referenced on your public notice on the Road Departments website. Please could I get a copy of the map. Thanks, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson(a,g.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:33 PM To: 'les.hudson@q.com'<les.hudson@q.com> Cc: Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org>; Kevin Samuel <Kevin.Samuel@deschutes.org>; Shon Heern (Skhe@deainc.com) <Skhe@deainc.com> Subject: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, 17 3 17 Deschutes County has retained David Evans and Associates to provide engineering and surveying services for the Sisemore Bridge Rehabilitation project. As you are aware, the public right of way for Sisemore Rd has not been legally established across your property. As I discussed with you a while back, the County will be holding legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 through 368.216 as part of the project to legalize the public right of way for the existing public road. We have not yet begun these proceedings, and you will be notified when the proceedings begin. currently anticipate that we will initiate legalization proceedings in November. I was just informed that you confronted a David Evans and Associates survey crew today who was placing right of way monuments on your property and that they abandoned their work upon your insistence. Please know that Deschutes County did not instruct David Evans and Associates to set these monuments prematurely, as setting monuments before legalization proceedings have been completed (and, certainly, before proceedings have even started) is not the process prescribed by law. Our consultant and their staff, which includes licensed professional land surveyors, should have known better than to set right of way monuments on property for which the public has not yet secured a legal interest. I have addressed this matter with our consultant's project manager, and he has offered an apology on behalf of his company. I sincerely apologize that today's incident occurred; it should not have happened. Please let me know if there was any damage caused to your property with today's incident, and I will ensure that it is immediately repaired. Respectfully, Cody Smith, P.E. County Engineer 61150 SE 27t" Street ( Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road W. Date: December 12, 2019 Testimony by Trustee of Property Owner (Hudson Family Trust) pursuant to the proposed legalization of the majority part of that portion of Sisemore Road identified in the Board of County Commissioner's Resolution Numbered 2019-051 (Deschutes County, Oregon) Dear Chairman Henderson and Commissioners Adair and DeBone, Copy to Cody Smith, P.E., County Engineer. I am Dr. Leslie Hudson and I give this testimony on behalf of myself and my wife — Dr. Veronica Newton - Hudson. We are the sole Trustees of the Hudson Family Trust which owns tax lot 1611330000600, part of which will be taken by Deschutes County to effect the legalization of the majority of that portion of Sisemore Road identified in Exhibit A of the Board of County Commissioner's Resolution Numbered 2019-051. TESTIMONY: Relevant Preceding Events: A large portion of Sisemore Road (legalized 1892) was relocated to a site approximately 4,000 feet to the west during the construction of the Tumalo Irrigation Project (June 1913 — December 1914). There is evidence of, and reasonable belief that informal mutual agreements between local property owners, Crook County (then the responsible governmental authority) and the Tumalo Project Engineer (who had executive authority delegated by the State of Oregon) were used to expedite construction of the road infrastructure required to execute the Tumalo Irrigation Project. In the case of the property owned by Mr. C.S. Hudson - SWY4 T16S R11E S20 [now tax lots 1611200000500 private property and 1611000001400 USA] —then retired County Commissioner R.H. Bayley gave written testimony, dated August 28, 1915, to such a three way agreement for the accommodation and use of the 20 feet wide road prior to legalization as a Public Highway and, upon legalization, the payment of $200.00 in damages for the road bed crossing Mr. Hudson's property [measured on the County's DIAL system as 1.548 acres], see 1915 letter EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED). Proceedings to legalize the relocated portion of Sisemore Road under the name of 'Tumalo Project No. 1 Road' was started by Crook County in the Crook County Court House on September 1, 1915 after due resolution by the County Commissioners and Public Notice dated December 4, 1914 and August 10, 1915, respectively. It is reasonable to assume that the letter detailing the three-way agreement on the Claim for Damages (August 28, 1915) and addressed to 'The Honorable County Court, Crook County' was entered into the proceedings both due to the close proximity of the dates and their sequential nature. The legalization process was not completed. There is a note in the Crook County Commissioner's Journals on September 6, 1916 stating that 'the proceedings are to be continued' but there is no evidence of further action by the Crook County Commissioners. Approximately 3 months later, Deschutes County was organized by carveout of a portion of Crook County, and the new Deschutes County assumed all authority, assets and obligations previously held by Crook County that pertained to the newly organized, excised portion of Crook County. Current Proceedings: As sole Trustees of the Hudson Family Trust, my wife and I understand that Deschutes County wishes to legalize and thus take that portion of Sisemore Road which is owned by the Trust and crosses tax lot 1611330000600, however, we believe the Trust is entitled to just compensation as a remedy for the loss of these lands. The merits of each part of this claim are explained below: 1. The letter by retired Crook County Commissioner R. H. Bayley suggests that he at least wished to give 'full faith and credit' to the agreement reached the County, the Tumalo Irrigation Project and Mr. Hudson for the use of his land prior to a formal process and without immediate just compensation. It reasonable to ask the Commissioners of Deschutes County to recognize and act upon the principle thus established, in good faith, by the parties for the use, valuation and compensation for take after formal legalization. Bayley recounts a valuation in'1913 dollars' and agreed for 3,175.3 feet of road (measured on the Deschutes County DIAL system) with a 20 feet wide bed. The relocated portion of Sisemore Road under current consideration is approximately 20 feet in width, was constructed under the same general circumstances pertaining as that part of the road crossing Mr. C.S. Hudson's property, has been used and travelled as a Public Road for more than 10 years and maintained by Deschutes County during the same period. I hereby request damages for the proposed take of 25,926 square feet of my property occupied by the roadbed of portion of the relocated Sisemore Road under consideration (equivalent to 0.595 acres). 2. The County seeks to legalize a Right of Way 60 feet in width centered on the middle of the roadbed of the relocated portion of Sisemore Road based on the notion of a 'County Standard,' which was neither in force when the road was constructed nor applied to this part of the road before this day. The Hudson Family Trust has maintained the abuttals of the roadbed for more than 10 years and has, inter alia, mowed grass and underbrush to limit wildfire initiation and spread from discarded smoking materials, posted to discourage camping, and built berms to contain parking sprawl and limit access and egress by off road vehicles for the prevention of general dilapidation of the area. The proposed additional land area for the Right of Way would result in a taking of an additional 51,852 square feet or 1.190 acres of private property. I hereby request just compensation for damages due to the proposed additional take of 51,852 square feet or 1.190 acres at a fair current market evaluation. 3. Approximately 1.18 acres of the Hudson Family Trust property will be irrevocably separated and marooned from the main 90 plus acres if the proposed legalization and take is finalized. Once the extent of the road boundaries is agreed and monumented, this separated area also will require fencing and posting to control the increasing incursions by vehicular, equine, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. In their June 21, 2019 decision Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. — (2019) the Justices of the Supreme Court of the USA relied on the principle that the taking of property by the government could be through 'physical invasion or a regulation that destroys the properties productive use.' The latter principle of value destruction most certainly applies to the separated 1.18 acres which is zoned EFU. Although we do not wish to cede control of this part of our property, the exercise of authority through ORS 368.201 to 368.221 will destroy its productive use and so merits compensation by Deschutes County; which we hereby request. In its June 21, 2019 decision the Supreme Court concluded 'that a government violates the Takings Clause when it takes a property without compensation and that a property owner may bring a Fifth Me Amendment claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 at that time.' The Supreme Court reached back and overruled Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985); thus more than 30 years of apparently settled law was overturned and it becomes clear that 'takings claims against local government should be handled the same as other claims under the Bill of Rights.' This has a certain impact on the manner and basis by which local government must considers these claims for just compensation and has removed the basis for past custom and practice. The Supreme Court opinion provides clear direction on how local government should treat takings claims as the entitlement to compensation arises automatically at the time of the taking since the landowner has, by that decision, already suffered a constitutional violation. Claim for damages: On behalf of the Hudson Family Trust, we ask for (i) just financial compensation as a remedy for the taking of approximately 1.785 acres of private property by Deschutes County upon the decision to legalize that portion of Sisemore Road currently under consideration and (ii) proportional compensation for the exercise of a regulation that destroys the productive use of a further approximately 1.18 acres of Hudson Family Trust property upon the decision to legalize the same portion of Sisemore Road. I should be grateful if, as soon as practicable, the Board of County Commissions could determine a time and a place for them to deliberate and decide upon each of the parts of this claim for damages. Sincerely, Dr. Leslie Hudson Trustee, Hudson Family Trust Copy to: Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson, Trustee, Hudson Family Trust. W Exhibit 1. Letter from Crook County Commissioner R. H. Bayley (retired) to the Honorable County Court, Crook County. We Bend, Oregon .August 20,1915. To the Honorable County Court, Crook Caunty,Oregon. Gentlemen: It the matter of Tumajo Pro jeot Number One Ros,tt, l wish to say that at the time this road was opened thru the SC1, Seotion 20 Toimshi.p 16 South Range 11 East that tt was mutually agreed between. xdr Hudeona, :ho owner�Mr Laurgaard. and myself that tho damage to said place would be $200.00; that when the road was legalised T Groul.d recommend the payment; of this sum to NIT Hudson. The road was not legalised during, my term of office aau Vil.L C] .L C) V VG1 is VV U.L3Yj./14y vfJ.'y that Vi1C} 1l aJ'll{q 11V of the above amount would be oarryIng out the terms of the ori.gIna.l ag7ceemen't which prevented any delay in the building of this road by the State. Yours truly, (..-e / ..a, Codv Smith From: Ken Rieck <ken@tumalo.org> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 8:23 AM To: Cody Smith Subject: Re: Legalization of Portion of Sisemore Rd - Public Hearing Cancelled [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Thank you for the updates Ken On Dec 13, 2019 8:08 AM, Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> wrote: Mr. Rieck, This is to inform you that the public hearing for the legalization of a portion of Sisemore Road that was scheduled for December 18, 2019, has been cancelled. We will provide Tumalo Irrigation District with notice when the public hearing has been rescheduled. Please confirm that you have received this email. Thank you, Cody Smith, P.E. j County Engineer 61150 SE 27t" Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.or Website: www.deschutes.org/road m 1 m Monday, December 16, 2019 Hudson Family Trust Mr. D. Adam Smith Assistant Legal Counsel Deschutes County. Sent by email Dear Adam, Sole Trustees: Dr. Leslie Hudson Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson Re: That portion of Sisemore Road crossing the Hudson Family Trust Property I am in receipt of your email dated December 16, 2019, explaining, inter alia, the reason for cancellation of the December 18, 2019 Sisemore Road legalization proceedings. You will know from the Road Department public record that the Public Notice for the Legalization Hearing was posted on Bull Creek Bridge on November 14, 2019 but made no mention of the Hudson Family Trust Property. Further, neither of the two certified letters sent by Deschutes County and mailed to the Hudson Family Trust, on November 14, 2019 and November 19, 2019, reached us through mail misadventure; documented in the County's public record. I requested a copy of the Public Notice from the Road Department on November 20, 2019 having coincidently stopped to read the copy on Bull Creek Bridge. I received an emailed copy the same day and the reap, which was included in the email, revealed what I assume was a scrivener's error in the text of the Public Notice. Because of the thus foreshortened notice period, I personally wrote the testimony submitted on December 12, 2019. Given the Holiday Season which is already upon us and affecting the ability to obtain counsel in a timely manner, I request that Deschutes County allow me sufficient time in 2020 to obtain appropriate legal advice in this matter and, if deemed necessary, submit additional testimony and evidentiary material. As you know, the piecemeal legalization of Sisemore Road started on September 1, 1915 and the last recorded action I could find in this process was in 2005. 1 sincerely hope the County will be able to respond favorably to my request. I have been unable to trace the public testimony you reference in this case as already submitted to the County by others. Please could you send me the URL so I might access this information. Respectfully, Dr. Leslie Hudsor, tee;, s - I rU J11 YUSt. Copy: Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson, Trustee. Tuesday, December 17, 2019 Hudson Family Trust Sole Trustees: Dr. Leslie Hudson Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson Mr. D. Adam Smith Assistant Legal Counsel Deschutes County. Sent by email Dear Adam, Re: That portion of Sisemore Road crossing the Hudson Family Trust Property I am in receipt of your email dated December 17, 2019, containing a copy of the new public hearing notice. In response to the question in your covering narrative, both addresses used by the County Road Department with respect to the mailing of the original notice were correct and have routinely brought other letters, etc. to our secure rural mailbox. Our address is: 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend OR 97703. I prefer to receive important notices and letters via certified mail to the above address as this avoids the extraneous clutter which is characteristic of the email system and provides for independent tracking and verification of receipt, or otherwise. In this instance alone, however, I accept that your attached email copy is sufficient to inform me of the new date of the public hearing. As noted in my previous letter, I should be grateful to learn the identity of the County's URL used for public •testimony with respect to this matter. An email in this regard would be gratefully accepted! Respectfully, �Ui Dr. Leslie Hudson, Trustee, Hudson Family Trust. Copy: Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson, Trustee. 22 Irlr January 14, 2020 Deschutes County Attn: Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97703 re: Deschutes County Road Legalization: Tax Lot 1611330000600 Dear Adam: This office and the undersigned represent the Hudson Family Trust (the "Trust") with respect to proceedings initiated by Deschutes County to legalize a portion of Sisemore Road (the "Road") which crosses the Trust's property, tax lot 1611330000600, 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend 97703 (the "Property"). Dr. Leslie Hudson and Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson are the sole trustees of the Trust. The Property is in Deschutes County (the "County") in the Tumalo Unincorporated Community, and is not within an urban growth boundary. This letter is to set forth the Trust's position regarding the County's proposed actions affecting the Property, compensation therefor, and to request a meeting with you prior to the hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners currently scheduled for January 22, 2020. The issues proposed for discussion are as follows: Is legalization of the Road in the public interest and, even if so, is legalization necessary? 2. Is the County required to, and should it obtain a 60-foot right of way for the Road where: (a) the existing dirt Road is 20-feet wide and its use for access by the public has been limited to this 20-foot width for over 100 years; (b) the Road was proposed to be legalized in 1915, at which time there were no County road standards; (c) Sisemore Bridge is only 14.50 feet in width, the location of the Road is remote, and there is limited vehicle use of the Road'; (d) current County Road standards (for residential collector or residential local streets) have not been applied to this portion of the Road, nor are they required to be applied to all County roads per DCC 16.16.030(E)(2)(d) (roads of reduced width shall be called lanes or The County has determined an average vehicle use of 172 per day (RFP for Sisemore Bridge #17CO2 Project). 22 terraces); and (e) legalization of a 60-foot right-of-way would irrevocably separate a portion of the Trust Property from the remainder, rendering it unusable and increasing the cost to the Trust of that portion of the Property's protection and maintenance? 3. Must the County recognize and give effect to Crook County's agreement to pay (in 1913 dollars) a property owner that would have been damaged by the Road legalization if it had been completed over 100 years ago? In other words, is the Trust entitled to the same compensation in 2020 dollars from Deschutes County given that the Road legalization was not completed by Crook County prior to the establishment of Deschutes County, Deschutes County did not complete the Road legalization following its establishment, and Deschutes County acquired all liabilities of Crook County pertaining to the area excised from Crook County to create Deschutes County? 4. Will the County's proposed actions result in a taking of private property for public use, requiring payment of just compensation under the Oregon and federal constitutions? If so, is the Trust entitled to compensation for legalization of a 20-foot wide Road over the Property, or, alternatively, is the Trust entitled to compensation for the proposed 40-foot increase in width of the Road over the Property and the additional loss of private property rights associated with a portion of the Property that would be irrevocably separated if a 60-foot right of way is "legalized." Does ORS 368.20-.221 effectively amend the Oregon Constitution to limit constitutional protections of private property to those instances where road legalization impacts a structure on private property? If so, does the Oregon Legislature have such authority? 6. Can the Oregon Legislature, via ORS 368.20-.221, limit federal constitutional protections of private property rights and does it foreclose a takings claim based on the 5r" Amendment to the U.S. �_.__�:�. .�: _._ :-- �'--_- circumstances .-'---- private .___.__.�.. :_ •_�__._ r_.. _ .___._____i _..i_r._ ___ten Constitution in those circumstances where private property rs taken rur a proposed public road? A. County Proposed Actions Affecting the Trust Property It is our understanding that the County desires to legalize a portion of Sisemore Road in connection with a Sisemore Bridge project, referenced as project #17CO2 (the "Bridge Project"). On November 13, 2019, the County approved Resolution No. 2019-051, Initiating Road Legalization Proceedings for a Portion of Sisemore Road. The property over which a portion of the proposed road legalization runs over property owned by the Trust and will affect access to a portion (1.18 acres) of the Trust Property. Exhibit A for the Sisemore Road Right -Of -Way Legalization, prepared by David Evans and Associates includes a Centerline Description for a 60-foot wide road, with a legal description, signed by Robert R. Jackson, registered professional land surveyor. The November 9, 2019 Agenda Request and Staff Report for Resolution No. 2019-051, prepared and submitted by Cody Smith, Road Department includes, among other things: Deschutes County Road Department is preparing plans and specifications for the Sisemore Rd Bridge Rehabilitation project. A review of County records indicates that the portion of Sisemore Rd that includes the Sisemore Rd Bridge (aka Bull Creek Dam and Bridge) has been used and traveled by the public since 1914 in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records and that the legal establishment of this portion of Sisemore Rd is in question. 2 22 The County desires to proceed with legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 to 368.221. Mr. Smith indicated there are no fiscal implications associated with the proposed legalization in his Staff Report. This is contrary to the County's Request for Proposals for the Bridge Project and fails to recognize the Trust's private property rights. While the existing dirt road currently used by the public is approximately 20 feet wide, the County intends to "legalize" a right-of-way 60 feet wide, centered on the middle of the roadbed of the relocated portion of Sisemore Road (see Exhibit A, referenced above). This intended action is purportedly based on a County Road Standard, which was not in effect when the road was constructed, nor has it been applied to this part of the Road. Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2019-051 states, among other things: A portion of Sisemore Rd has been traveled and used by the public for more than 10 years in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records. Additionally, the legal establishment of a portion of Sisemore Rd is in question. Deschutes County has initiated proceedings to legalize a portion of Sisemore Rd across tax lot 400 and a portion of tax lot 7891 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Section 33. Subsequent to issuing public notice of the hearing on the resolution, the County discovered this description is in error because a portion of the road proposed to be legalized runs over the Trust Property, which is tax lot 600 — not tax lot 400. Given the error in the legal description, even the "constructive notice" that you stated the Trust obtained was ineffective as a matter of law. Moreover, the notice posted on the Bridge on or about November 14, 2019, observed by Dr. Hudson on or about November 20, 2019, did not include a map of the affected properties, nor did it mention the Hudson Family Trust Property. As an affected landowner, the Trust did not receive mailed notice of the public hearing, as detailed in an email exchange between Dr. ii udsoiI and Cody .CJIi Ii LI1.2 IVICIU ier of LI ie two certified letters Sei It by Uie U'Vou Ity to the Trust on November 14, 2019 and November 19, 2019 reached the property owner by mail. The public hearing scheduled for December 18, 2019 was thereafter continued to January 22, 2020. Errors in the property description and failure to properly mail notice to the Trust followed an event on September 23, 2019. Dr. Hudson asked Keith Lyman, EIT Party Chief of David Evans and Associates what work was being carried out by their crew on the Trust Property and was told that they were placing Right of Way monuments for Deschutes County. A senior manager from David Evans and Associates called Cody Smith to advise that employees or agents of David Evans and Associates had been placing road monuments on the Trust Property and to advise that Dr. Hudson had requested them to cease doing so. Mr. Smith then sent Dr. Hudson an email on September 24, 2019 in which he admitted that the right of way over Sisemore Road has not been legally established over the Trust's Property. Mr. Smith further acknowledged that a David Evans and Associates survey crew had placed monuments on the Trust Property, which work was abandoned at Dr. Hudson's request. Mr. Smith stated, among other things, "Please know that Deschutes County did not instruct David Evans and Associates to set these monuments prematurely, as setting monuments before legalization proceedings have been completed (and, certainly, before proceedings have even started) is not the process prescribed by law. Our consultant and their staff, which includes licensed professional land surveyors, should have known better than to set right of way monuments on property for which the 2 Copies of the emails between Dr. Hudson and Cody Smith between November 20, 2019 and December 10, 2019 are attached to this letter as Exhibit 1. 22 public has not yet secured a legal interest." (emphasis added). Mr. Smith continued, "I sincerely apologize that today's incident occurred; it should not have happened., Please let me know if there was any damage caused to your property with today's incident, and I will ensure that it is immediately repaired. The County's proposed actions have already impacted the Property, will continue to have both temporary3 and permanent impacts to the Property, and will affect the Trust's use and enjoyment of the entirety of the Property. As discussed in more detail below, the statutory scheme adopted by the Oregon Legislature for road legalization mandates compensation where structure(s) are affected. The fact that no structure on the Property is affected is not dispositive. The Oregon Legislature did not, nor could it, limit the scope of protections afforded to private property rights under both the Oregon and federal constitutions. Thus, impact on a structure is not required to be established to support a claim of deprivation of private property rights and/or due process; the context of a road legalization does not provide immunity to a county where its actions result in a taking of private property rights. The Trust has been maintaining the Property, including the 20-foot wide area over which the existing road runs (except for periodic road grading and snow removal carried out by the County), and all areas that would be impacted by the proposed Road Legalization since it acquired the Property for a period of more than 10 years. Among other things, the Trust has maintained abutments to the road bed, mowed grass and cleared brush to minimize fire danger, posted signs to discourage camping, discouraged the erection of landing strip accessories and landing of light aircraft (as prohibited by ORS 837.090) and built berms to contain parking sprawl and to limit access and egress by off -road vehicles for the prevention of general dilapidation of the area. At no time has the public used any portion of the Property in excess of the 20-foot wide dirt road over the Property for a sufficient time to establish a prescriptive right. Any prescriptive rights of the public, if demonstrated to exist, would be limited to a 20-foot wide right-of-way. The Trust does not concede to the existence of a prescriptive easement over its Property. Legalization of the Road to a 20-foot width over the Property would result in a dedication of that portion of the Property for public use. The Trust calculates that the portion of private property that would be taken by the County is 25,926 square feet (equivalent to 0.595 acres of private property). Legalization of the Road to an increased 60-foot width would result in a further taking of private property for public use. The additional land area owned by the Trust impacted by a 60-foot right-of-way is 51,852 square feet (equivalent to 1.190 acres of private property). The total amount of private property that would be taken by the County for public use is 77,778 square feet (equivalent to 1.785 acres). Further, if the Road is legalized to include a 60-foot right of way, 1.18 acres of Trust Property would be irrevocably isolated from the remaining 90-plus acres of the Property. This 3-fold increase in width of the Road would require the Trust to separately post and fence the isolated area of the Property in order to protect it from the increasing incursions by vehicular, equine, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Moreover, the loss of continuity with this portion of the Property due to the County's actions would render it valuless with respect to its EFU designation. 3 In the County's Request for Proposals for the Bridge Project, the County indicated it was aware it needed two (2) temporary easements for the Bridge work, including one from the Hudson Family Trust, with a referenced anticipated acquisition cost of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for each temporary easement. 4 22 B. Historic Landmarks Commission Hearing and December 12, 2019 Letter from Trust to Board of County Commissioners Dr. Hudson submitted testimony on behalf of the Hudson Family Trust before the County Historic Landmarks Commission on November 6, 2019 concerning Bull Creek Bridge Alterations, File No. 247-19-000785-HS in support of the Bridge Project; he noted that his wife, Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson was also in support. The proposed scope of work includes removing and replacing the existing asphalt wearing surface, concrete repairs, removing and replacing the existing bridge fill and non-functioning drainage pipes, and other miscellaneous work. In his testimony to the Historic Landmarks Commission, Dr. Hudson noted that the northern end of the Bull Creek Bridge as currently constructed rests on the SW corner of the Trust Property, which Property spans Sisemore Road. Dr. Hudson expressed concerns regarding the impact of closure of the bridge for repairs on this priority escape route in the event of a wildland fire. On December 3, 2019, the Historic Landmarks Commission approved the land use application to alter the Bull Creek Bridge (also known as Sisemore Bridge), a Goal 5 Historic Landmark, without conditions. We request that Dr. Hudson's written testimony to the Historic Landmarks Commission and a copy of the Request for Proposals Sisemore Bridge #17CO2 Project be included in the record for the proposed Road Legalization. Dr. Hudson also submitted written testimony on behalf of the Trust, himself and his wife, Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson on December 12, 2019 to the Board of Commissioners. You responded in a letter dated December 16, 2019, stating that Dr. Hudson's letter, along with other written testimony, will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners in advance of the rescheduled public hearing. Your letter further states that the County IS UGa 111 ly U1. 1 1 u U-1 sons L✓Q1,GII be 2— G 19 letter as a toIt clad 11 notl CVe allu Iq u e J tJ Ulal all Co 111111 u ill Ca t1 Vll concerning this issue needs to be addressed to you and/or David Doyle, Deschutes County Legal Counsel. We respectfully request that the County include this letter in the County Commissioner's public hearing packets, as well. C. Historical Background of Road and Legalization Procedures Over 100 years ago, Deschutes County had not been established; it was part of Crook County. An undated Memorandum prepared by the County Road Department, Mike Berry (Senior Engineering Associate) ("Berry Memorandum"), states that Sisemore Road was established in 1892 and originated at John Sisemore's Farewell Bend Ranch (which later became the Brooks Scanlon mill and is now a portion of the Old Mill District) and went northwesterly 21 miles to its terminus just a few miles east of the town of Sisters, The 1892 alignment would have placed the road in the middle of the large, failed reservoir that was planned in the early 1900s. In 1914, Crook County commenced proceedings for the Establishment of the Tumalo Project No. 1, County Road ("Tumalo Road") to effectuate the relocation of Sisemore Road for purposes of the Tumalo Irrigation Project. These proceedings, had they been finalized, would have established Tumalo Road as a public road, with the following legal description: 5 22 Beginning at the West % Sec. Corner of Sec. 20 T.16 S.R. 11 E; thence Southeasterly to a point 1750 feet south and 1635 feet east of the N.W. Corner of Sec. 9 T. 17 South, Range 11 East of the Willamette Meridian. Tumalo Road (aka Sisemore Road) was to have been relocated to a site approximately 4,000 feet to the west of its original location during the construction of the Tumalo Irrigation Project (June 1913-December 1914).4 No right-of-way width was stated in any of the establishment documents. The Berry Memorandum references a Final Report of the Construction Tumalo Irrigation Project to the Desert Land Board, State of Oregon, By Project Engineer June 1913-Dec. 1914, written by Project Engineer Olaf Laurgaard, which includes Drawing "A," showing a relocated Sisemore Road along or near the alignment of present day Sisemore. The report states, "The road was constructed of 20 foot road bed," and that "the total cost of the road construction around Tumalo reservoir was $9,780.90." The Berry Memorandum notes that the relocated road was not legally established, which necessitated Crook County initiating legalization proceedings in 1914 for the establishment of the road under the name of the Tumalo Project No. 1 Road. In order to expedite the construction of the reservoir for the 1913-14 Tumalo Irrigation Project, Crook County and the Tumalo Project Engineer entered into mutual agreements with local property owners who would be damaged by the road relocation/legalization. Notice of Hearing was provided to five (5) property owners on August 7, 2015, which was to be held on September 1, 1915, stating that the property owners are "hereby notified to appear, at said above named time and place and show cause if any there by why said proposed road should not be opened as a public highway. The noticed property owners included C.S. Hudson and Frank V. Swisher. The Trust is a successor in interest to Mr. Swisher. ram_ e�_a:__ rii___:._ �_ i__ rc__i__i i__.._ i_ �..__i. r Ile Notice of nearing, effectively a subpoena to the affected property owners, appears to nave been Crook County's attempt in good faith to settle property owner claims related to taking of private property for a public use. Because the road legalization proceedings were not finalized, there is no evidence any payment was made by Crook County to affected property owners, nor would any payment logically have been made since the predicate for payment (road legalization) did not occur. Crook County Commissioner R.H. Bayley admitted in a letter dated August 8, 1915, that a claim for damages resulting from the road legalization in the amount of $200 (1913 dollars) should be paid to C.S. Hudson, one of the owners of private property, over which Tumalo Road was to be opened. The damages to be paid recognized Crook County's use of Mr. Hudson's land for public purposes prior to a formal process and without immediate payment of just compensation. Commissioner Bayley recounts a valuation in 1913 dollars and agreed for 3,175.3 feet of road with a 20-foot wide bed.5 This letter was referred to in the Berry Memorandum, which states, in relevant part: 4 In 1913, a special meeting of the Desert Land Board, which later became the Water Resources Department, was held to approve the purchase of land in the Tumalo area for developing the Tumalo Reservoir Project. The State purchased roughly 1,235 acres of land, but the Project was not successful due to the reservoir's inability to store water. 5 The amount of land owned by Mr. Hudson that was damaged and for which compensation was to be paid is measured on the Deschutes County DIAL system 22 Evidently, this road was not legally established and in 1914 Crook County began the proceedings for the establishment of this realignment under the name of the "Tumalo Project No. 1 Road". The Crook County Road Jacket for the "Tumalo Project Road No. 1 ["] contains the following documents: Claim for Damages. 8/28/1915. A letter from former Commissioner R.H. Bayley (he was one of the Commissioners who signed the 12/4/1914 resolution). He states that during his term the road was not legalized although it was opened across Mr. Hudson's property in the SW % of Section T16C, R11 E and that Mr. Hudson should be paid the amount of $200 per the agreement between Hudson, Bayley and Laurgaard (the State -appointed managing engineer for the Tumalo Irrigation Project). The Berry Memorandum states that the road legalization proceedings initiated by Crook County in 1914 were not finalized before the area in question became part of Deschutes County. Deschutes County did not complete the road legalization proceedings. There is a note in the Crook County Commissioner's journals on September 6, 1916 stating, "the proceedings are to be continued," but there is no evidence of further action by the Crook County Commissioners. Approximately three months later, Deschutes County was organized by a carve -out of a portion of Crook County. Deschutes County assumed all authority, assets and obligations previously held by Crook County with respect to the excised portion of Crook County from which Deschutes County was created. Deschutes County Commissioners' journals do not contain any entries for the establishment of the relocated road. A review of the August 28, 1915 letter to the Crook County Circuit Court from Commissioner Bayley indicates that payment of $200 for "damage" to private property owned by C.S. Hudson from the opening of the road would be paid "when the road was legalized." That did not occur. Therefore, payment would not have been made by Crook County to Mr. Hudson. Mr. Bayley's letter further confirmed that the road was not legalized during his term of office. The letter is "simply to say that the payment of the above amount would be carrying out the terms of the original agreement which prevented any delay in the building of this road by the State." The relocated portion of Sisemore Road under current consideration is approximately 20-feet in width and was constructed under the same general circumstances pertaining to that portion of the road crossing Mr. Hudson's property. The last recorded action concerning Sisemore Road appears to have taken place in 2005. Then, the Water Resources Commission was asked to approve a land exchange between Ann Cobb and Tumalo Irrigation District ("TID"). Ms. Cobb requested to give up 0.58 acres of private property owned by her in exchange for 0.28 acres of land deeded to the TID. The land swap was intended to provide public access to Ms. Cobb's land as necessary for her to obtain County approval to partition her land. Ms. Cobb's land is immediately south of Bull Creek Bridge along Sisemore Road. D. Legal Analysis and Claim for Compensation 6 The amount of property that would have been damaged by the roadbed crossing Mr. Hudson's property, measured on the County's DIAL system, is 1.548 acres. See Exhibit 1 to Dr. Hudson's December 12, 2019 letter to County Commissioners. 7 22 Road Legalization in General One of the purposes of road legalization is to resolve uncertainty as to where or whether a particular county road exists. Strome v. Lane County Board of Commissioners, 230 Or App 190, 193, 213 P3d 1269 (2009) (Strome ll). The process is governed by ORS 386.201-.221. It appears that the County is proceeding pursuant to ORS 368.201(3), which provides that, "[a] county governing body may initiate proceedings to legalize a county road.... If the road as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not conform to the location of a road described in the county records." As part of the process, the County must authorize a survey to "determine the location of the road." ORS 368.206(1). Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or App 375, 378, 182 P3d 312 (2008). After allowing for and considering relevant information, the governing body may decide to either abandon or complete the legalization, guided by "whether legalization of the road is in the public interest." Id. The question of whether legalization of the road is in the public interest under the circumstances here should be carefully considered by the County. The County should note that use of the Road has been continuing for over 100 years and that the Trust will agree to allow continued use of the 20-foot dirt road for access to the Bridge, as set forth in this letter. Therefore, legalization is not necessary for purposes of the Bridge Project, nor is there any evidence of public uncertainty regarding the location of the Road. Given the financial impact to the County associated with payment of just compensation to the Trust for a taking of private property for a public purpose, we submit the County should abandon the legalization at this time. 2. Basis for Trust Claims for Just Compensation. The County has taken the position that compensation is not required to be made to the Trust because the proposed Road Legalization will not encruacn on a structure. Such a iiairuw Nusniun is uiwuPNuncu uy GaJC law and further ignores constitutionally protected private property rights that cannot be abrogated by the Oregon Legislature, as discussed below. While compensation is required under the road legalization statutory scheme if such action results in an encroachment on a structure, ORS 368.211, a property owner is not foreclosed from bringing an inverse condemnation claim for an unconstitutional taking of private property and/or unconstitutional deprivation of due process under ORS 34.040(1)(e)7 and the Oregon State and federal constitutions. Strome ll, supra, 230 Or App at 199 (citing Butchart v. Baker County, 214 Or App 61, 78-79, 166 P3d 537 (2007)). A private property owners' broad, constitutionally based rights are not limited to circumstances where a road will result in an encroachment. In other words, while statutory rights may be limited, fundamental property rights, for which just compensation is required when taken for a public purpose, are not. The County's position also runs contrary to the promise made by Crook County to C.S. Hudson in 1915.8 Moreover, such position does not take into account the County's proposal to increase the width of the Road 3- ' A writ of review under ORS 34.040 is not the exclusive remedy with regard to an inverse condemnation claim. Butchart v. Baker County, 214 Or App 61, 74-75, 166 P3d 537 (2007); Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswego, 335 Or 19, 26, 56 P3d 396 (2002); Spivak v. Marriott, 213 Or App 1, 159 P3d 1192 (2007). 8 Crook County admitted in an agreement that it is responsible for damages to private property resulting in road legalization. The County must give full faith and credit to that prior agreement and award damages on the same basis to the Trust as the successor to Crook County's liabilities associated with the Road. The amount of H 22 fold, from 20 to 60 feet, which will take additional private property owned by the Trust and will render useless a portion of the Trust Property that will be irrevocably separated from the Property by a 60-foot right-of-way. 3. Inverse Condemnation Claims are Constitutionally Based and Not Foreclosed by Statute Inverse condemnation is "[a]n action against the government to recover the value of private property that the government has taken without first filing condemnation proceedings." Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswego, 335 Or 19, 26, 56 P3d 396 (2002). Stated another way, an action for inverse condemnation is one for damages asserted against a governmental entity with the power of eminent domain that has taken private property for public use without initiating condemnation proceedings, that is, without paying just compensation. E.g. City of Keizer v. Lake Labish Water Control Dist., 185 Or App 425, 429-31, 60 P3d 557 (2002). Given that an action for inverse condemnation is a "direct action to enforce the self-executing provisions of Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution or the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, both of which prohibit lawful takings of private property for public use without the payment of just compensation, (Volkoun, supra, 189 Or App at 530), interpretation and application of ORS 368.211 cannot, as a matter of law, operate to limit constitutionally -based property rights. Whether an inverse condemnation claim is cognizable for the lawful exercise of a county's road legalization authority, which results in a taking of private property without compensation, has been left open by the courts. Strome v. Lane County, 219 Or App 519, 525 n. 2, 183 P3d 237 (2008) (Strome l); Shotgun Ranch, supra, 219 Or App at 386 n.2. In Strome Il, the court specifically did not reach the plaintiff's taking claims, noting that, "even if the legalization process effected a taking — which on this record it did not — that would not make the legalization unlawful, it would merely give plaintiff a compensatory remedy." 230 Or App. at 199 (emphasis added). The court in Strome I similarly observed, "[w]e are informed that the [legalization] process has been _ _ .• __ .___�..__i :._ ai__ ._a a r_..__ �ni_ i__.._ -_ r .. - compietea and that a challenge by way or a writ or review nas r�een resolved in the county's iavei. vve nave nu occasion in this case to confront the question whether plaintiff can now bring an action alleging that the lawful exercise of the county's authority resulted in a taking of her property without compensation." 219 Or App at 525 n.2; see also Shotgun Ranch, supra, 219 Or App at 386 n.2 ("Plaintiff makes no argument that it is entitled to compensation for the lawful taking of plaintiff's property, and we do not address that issue"). Of particular note here is the decision in Holdner v. Columbia County, 123 Or App 48, 858 P2d 901 (1975). There, the plaintiff alleged that legalization of a road for a 60-foot right-of-way was not supportable because the road was 40-feet wide when it was created and a 60-foot wide road would result in a taking of his property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the legalization, finding evidence to support the finding that the right of way was 60 feet when established, such that the legalization process did not result in a taking of the plaintiff's property. In dicta, this ruling indicates that, had the court determined the road was only 40 feet wide when established, the plaintiff's taking claim would have been cognizable. damages in 1915 was agreed to be Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). Damages were to compensate for the loss of property for an approximate 20-foot right of way, and not a 60-foot wide right of way. In 2020 dollars, if the County limited the legalization of the Road to a width of 20 feet, damages due to the Trust would be in the range of approximately forty times that amount, without interest. Using a compound interest calculation, that 2020 damages figure would again increase at least four -fold. Again, such damages would not cover an increased right-of-way width of 60 feet, nor would it address the resulting loss of value of a portion of the Trust property that would be cut off and isolated, rendering it useless. 22 Here, in addition to a claim for just compensation related to the taking of private Trust Property for public use along the area of the existing route (approximately 20 feet wide), the Trust would have an inverse condemnation claim for the additional 40 feet of right-of-way the County desires. The scope of such a claim would include the Property over which the road is proposed to run, as well as compensation for the loss of use of approximately 1.18 acres of the Property, which would be irrevocably separated from the remaining approximately 90 acres of the Property, if the County claims a 60-foot right of way for the road. As recently confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. — (June 21, 2019), the taking of private property by the government occurs through physical invasion or by regulation that destroys a property's productive use. The latter principle applies here to the separated 1.18 acres which is zoned EFU. The Trust does not wish to cede control of this part of its Property. The County's intent to exercise authority through ORS 368.201-.221 will destroy a portion of the Property's productive use and merits just compensation by the County for the taking of private property for a public use. The Knick Court affirmed that private property rights are among Americans' most important constitutionally protected rights and should be on equal footing with other rights such as due process and free speech. It also effectively streamlined the process for obtaining just compensation by ruling that a government violates the Takings Clause when it takes a property without compensation and that a property owner may immediately bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 USC §1983 in federal court, without the requirement to exhaust state law remedies. The ruling overruled Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) and confirmed that takings claims against local government should be handled in the same manner as other claims under the Bill of Rights. Under Knick, entitlement to compensation arises automatically at the time of the taking since the landowner has, by that decision, already suffered a constitutional violation. Because of the "self-executing character" of the Takings Clause with respect to compensation, a property owner has a Fifth Amendment claim for just compensation at the time of the taking without payment. It should also be noted that 42 USC §1988 provides: "in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of section * * * 1983 * * * of this title, * * * the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs * * Thus, any action by the County to legalize the Road over a portion of the Trust Property, particularly if in excess of the existing 20-foot road bed, requires immediate payment to the Trust of just compensation. Failure to do so results in an immediate violation of the Takings Clause, giving rise to a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 USC §1983 and attorneys fees, if the Trust prevails, under §1988. 4. The County is Not "Mandated" to Take 60 Feet for a Right -of -Way for the Road We understand that the County's position is that the existing 20-foot dirt road must be legalized to a right-of- way width of 60 feet to meet existing County Road Standards. The Trust submits that the Road Legalization is not required to authorize a three -fold increase in the bed of the Road and that such action would increase the amount of compensation due to the Trust for a taking of private property for public purposes. Not only would the amount of Trust Property damaged by the County's legalization of the Road be increased under such circumstances, but a 60-foot right-of-way would result in deprivation of all economically viable use of a portion of the Property by the irrevocable separation of 1.18 acres from the remaining 90-plus acres of the Property. 10 22 Currently, the Road is paved along the road segment south of the Bridge. Once the Bridge is crossed, the Road enters the Trust Property where it is only 20-feet wide and unpaved (except for a pot -holed 17 feet length of asphalt [unmaintained for the past 13 years] proximate to the north end of the Bull Creek Bridge); these dimensions and the unpaved condition of the Road continue past the Trust Property to an intersection with a user -initiated dirt trail (Bull Flat Road) which is not recorded in the County's files as a County road. There are no paved roads in any direction from this intersection for several miles. A 60-foot right-of-way is neither warranted nor required for Road Legalization. In fact, the Road Legalization itself is not required for the Bridge Project. The County Road Standards were not in existence at the time the Road was established in 1892, nor when the proposed relocation was commenced by Crook County in 1914. The Road has existed and has been used for travel by the public in its current 20-foot wide configuration for more than 100 years. The public has not acquired any prescriptive rights in a greater scope of the Trust Property. County Road Standards are currently set forth in Table A to Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, which governs subdivisions. DCC 17.48.010.A (the standard specifications for design and construction contained within DCC 17.48 and in the "Deschutes County Road Department Standard Drawings January 2011" adopted by Ordinance 2011-018 as Exhibit B ... are the minimum standards governing construction of roads and other improvements and facilities." As per DCC 17.48.100, the minimum right of way width is 60 feet, unless specified otherwise in Table A (or in any right of way specifications set forth for a particular zone in a zoning ordinance); this standard must be met for approval of a subdivision. DCC 17,48.040 allows for a variance in the improvement standards, up to ten percent (10%) without the need for a variance application. A variance from Road Standards may be approved where: (1) There is no adverse impact to the public in allowing the variations; (2) The variation promotes the intent and purposes of the ordinances; and (3) There are practical difficulties that will create an unreasonable construction expense that will not result in a significant public benefit. These provisions are only applicable by analogy because the Trust is not proposing any subdivision, development or change of use at this time. Thus, Title 17 and Chapter 17.48 in particular are inapplicable. Therefore, the County cannot mandate that the Trust dedicate property without payment of just compensation. However, DCC 17.48.040 and .100 clearly contemplate that new roads proposed as part of development may be approved for a width less than that set forth in County Road Standards. Moreover, DCC 16.16.030(E)(2)(d) also shows the County's acknowledgement that not all roads will be improved to County Road Standards, nor required to be improved from their originally constructed width to current Road Standards, as it addresses the naming of roads of reduced width. Turning to the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan ("TSP") adopted via Ordinance 2012-005, the County is instructed in Policy 4.2 that it "shall not add any miles of new arterials or collectors to the County road system unless the following issues are satisfied: a. The need for the road can be clearly demonstrated; b. The County can financially absorb the additional maintenance requirements; c. The condition of the road proposed for acceptance into the County system must meet County road standards." Policy 4.9 of the TSP requires the County to acquire the necessary right-of-way through the development process ... consistent with constitutional limitations." (emphasis added). 11 22 The TSP further states that "Tables 2.2310-12 summarize the dimensional minimums for streets and roads in the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. The standards attempt to balance accommodating through traffic on predominantly rural high-speed stretches vs. segments which traverse more quasi -urban areas." It continues, "[t]he full minimum road standards for width, grade, design speed, etc., appear in Deschutes County Code DCC Chapter 17.48, Table A, Design and Construction Specifications. Table A is Appendix C in the TSP." Goal 7 of the TSP generally states that Road Standards should be "adequate to meet the needs of the traveling public." The stretch of Sisemore Road the County proposes to legalize does not present a rural "high-speed stretch" area that would warrant a full 60-foot right of way. As discussed above, it is part of a road system that primarily consists of dirt roads and is a mix of County maintained roads (Sisemore Road) and user initiated dirt trails (Bull Flat Road). Sisemore Road is currently only 20-feet wide, not only over the Trust Property but for two miles past the Property in a northerly direction. Per Goal 7 of the TSP, the Road as currently constructed has been demonstrated to be adequate to meet the needs of the traveling public. Legalization of an increased width of the Road is not only demonstrably unnecessary, it would cost the County significantly more to purchase this extent of private property for a public use. There is no mandate that the County acquire private property to accommodate a full 60-foot right-of-way under the circumstances and considering the fact (1) the Trust is not proposing any development or change of use, and (2) even if it was, there are provisions in the Code for a variance from County Road Standards that allow discretion to reduce the width of right-of-way. The County recognizes that not all roads are developed to current Road Standards, as evidenced by DCC 16.16.030(E)(2)(d). Where a substandard road exists, there is no authority for the County to demand improvement to current standards outside of an application for development. E. Proposed Resolution The Trust submits that legalization of the Road is not necessary, nor should the process proceed under the circumstances set forth in this letter. The County will not be limited in its ability to repair the Bridge; this work can be completed with permission from the Trust to cross the Property. Road Legalization is not required for the Bridge Project, either. An approximately 20-foot wide Road has been in existence for over 100 years and has been used for access without incident. There is no demonstrable public need to formalize legalization, nor to increase the width of this remote dirt roadway that has been used for over a century from its current 20-foot width. The Trust requests the County withdraw the road legalization proceedings and to cancel the hearing before the Commissioners on January 22, 2020. The Trust further requests that the County execute a binding agreement with the Trust in which the County promises not to recommence road legalization proceedings for the Road for a period not to exceed thirty (30) years, or during the remainder of time the Trust owns the Property, whichever occurs first. Such agreement shall be recorded with the County Assessor's office. Alternatively, the Trust requests that the County acknowledge and give effect to the agreement entered into between C.S. Hudson and Crook County. That agreement acknowledges private property owner rights and the County's obligation to pay damages for the impact to/loss of such rights via road legalization. The County is required to give full faith and credit to the 1915 agreement, pursuant to which the Trust should be awarded damages for the taking of private property for a public use. The amount of such damages depends on whether the County continues to pursue an increased demand of a 60-foot right-of-way, or limits the Road Legalization 12 22 to that 20-foot wide area of the Property that has historically been used for public passage. As noted above, a 60-foot right of way would not only take a greater amount of private property than has been used by the public (or is required for safe passage), but will further entirely deprive the Trust of all beneficial use of 1.18 acres of the Property, which would be irrevocably separated and unusable. The Trust respectfully requests that the County cooperate with it on these issues. The Trust submits that it does not desire to bring any formal claims against the County, nor does it wish to capitalize on the existing situation. Neither this letter nor Dr. Hudson's December 12, 2019 written testimony should be construed as a notice of "tort claim." The Trust simply desires acknowledgement of its private property rights. This can most easily be accomplished by the County's decision to withdraw the Road Legalization proceedings. If it does not do so, the Trust is entitled to payment of damages as just compensation for the loss(es) of private property. Damages should be calculated and paid immediately to the Trust. We are happy to discuss with you in more detail the calculation of the additional damages/just compensation due to the Trust if the County proceeds with the Road Legalization and does not limit the right-of-way to the existing 20-feet. Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter. I look forward to speaking with you soon. Sincerely, Stephanie Marshall cc: Dr. Leslie Hudson Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson 13 Ktvltwttl Pin 9a LEGAL. COUNSEL Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 31740 LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT State Funded Local Project Program Seismore Rd: Tumalo IRR Canal (Couch Lateral), Bridge No. BR17CO2 Deschutes County THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State" or "ODOT°' and Deschutes County, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "Agency," both herein referred to individually or collectively as "Party" or "Parties." RECITALS 1. Agency wishes to exchange unspent federal funds previously allocated to the Project for state funds, in order to fund the Project using state funding. State has determined that Agency is eligible for state funds for the work to be performed under this Agreement through the State Funded Local Project Program. The Parties enter Into this Agreement to exchange these funds, identify the Project that will be funded with the state funds, and describe the method State will use to reimburse Agency for work performed on the Project using the state funds, including establishing invoicing requirements and the proportional reimbursement rate. 2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 366,572 and 366.576, state agencies may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities, and units of local government for the performance of any or all. functions and activities that a party to the Agreement, its officers, or agents have the authority to nprfnrm. 3. Selsmore Road is a part of the county road system under the jurisdiction and control of Agency. 4. The Couch Lateral Bridge (No. 17CO2) has large spalls and rock pockets with exposed rebar throughout the arch. The reinforced concrete pier walls have large spalls with exposed rebar throughout the piers with leaks; the piers serve as a dam. The reinforced concrete abutments have numerous cracks and spalls with exposed rebar. This historic bridge provides access for the public and USFS lands located to the north and west of the structure. If this bridge continues to deteriorate, it may be closed to traffic. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, It is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1, State and Agency agree to Agency repairing and rehabilitating the Couch Lateral Bridge (BR17CO2) by removing and replacing the asphalt wearing surface, patching spalls, installing new guardrails, removing and replacing the existing non-functioning drainage pipes, and removing and replacing the existing fill against the abutments with 12-22.17 Key No.20731 Is 2018wov,07 23 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 material that allows drainage, hereinafter referred to as "Project." The Project location and approximate limits are shown on the map Marked "Exhibit A," attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. The total Project cost for the work to be performed under this Agreement Is estimated at $1,435,279, which is subject to change. Prior to exchanging funds, the federal share of the total Project cost is $1,287,876. a. Per the 1:1 fund exchange ratio of state dollars to federal dollars, Agency will exchange $1,287,876 of federal dollars allocated for this Project for $1,287,876 of state dollars. b. State funds under this Agreement are limited to $1,287,876. :3. Upon receipt and approval of Agency's invoice(s), State shall proportionately reimburse Agency 89.73 percent of eligible, actual costs incurred in carrying out the Project, up to the maximum amount of state funds committed for the Project. 4. Agency is solely responsible for any and all costs incurred in excess of the state funds identified in this Agreement. Any unspent state funds will be retained by State and will not be available for Agency use. State funds transferred to Agency must be used for the Project. 5. To be eligible for reimbursement, expenditures must comply with the requirements of Article IX, Section 3a of the Oregon Constitution. Eligible costs are defined as reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Agency in performance of the Project. 6. The term of this Agreement will begin upon the date all required signatures are obtained and will terminate upon completion of the Project and final payment or ten (10) calendar years €ollowing the date of final execution, whichever is sooner. AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 1. Agency shall perform the work described in TERMS OF AGREEMENT, Parargraph 1 of this Agreement. 2. Americans with Disabilities Act Compilance: a. When the Project scope includes work on sidewalks, curb ramps, or pedestrian - activated signals or triggers an obligation to address curb ramps or pedestrian signals, the Parties shall: I. Utilize ODOT standards to assess and ensure Project compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (together, "ADA"), including ensuring that all sidewalks, curb ramps, and 2 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 23 pedestrian -activated signals meet current ODOT Highway Design Manual standards; ii. Follow ODOT's processes for design, modification, upgrade, or construction of sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian -activated signals, including using the ODOT Highway Design Manual, ODOT Design Exception process, ODOT Standard Drawings, ODOT Construction Specifications, providing a temporary pedestrian accessible route plan and current ODOT Curb Ramp Inspection form; iii. At Project completion, send a completed ODOT Curb Ramp Inspection Form 734-6020 to the address on the form as well as to State's Project Manager for each curb ramp constructed, modified, upgraded, or improved as part of the Project. The completed form Is the documentation required to show that each curb ramp meets ODOT standards and is ADA compliant. ODOT's fillable Curb Ramp Inspection Form and instructions are available at the following address: bftp://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/CQNSTRUCTION/Pages/HwyConstForm s1.aspX; and b. Agency shall ensure that temporary pedestrian routes are provided through or around any Project work zone, Any such temporary pedestrian route shall include directional and informational signs, comply with ODOT standards, and include accessibility features equal to or better than the features present in the existing pedestrian facility. Deschutes County shall also ensure that advance notice of any temporary pedestrian route Is provided in acessible format to the public, people with disabilities, and disability organizations at least 10 days prior to the start of construction. c. Agency shall ensure that any portions of the Project under Agency's maintenance jurisdiction are maintained in compliance with the ADA throughout the useful life of the Project. This includes, but is not limited to, Agency ensuring that: I. Pedestrian access is maintained as required by the ADA, ii. Any complaints received by Agency Identifying sidewalk, curb ramp, or pedestrian -activated signal safety or access Issues are promptly evaluated and addressed, iii. Any repairs or removal of obstructions needed to maintain Project features in compliance with the ADA requirements that were in effect at the time of Project construction are completed by Agency or abutting property owner pursuant to applicable local code provisions, 3 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 iv. Any future alteration work on Project or Project features during the useful life of the Project complies with the ADA requirements in effect at the time the future alteration work is performed, and v. Applicable permitting and regulatory actions are consistent with ADA requirements. d. Maintenance obligations In this section shall survive termination of this Agreement. 3. Except as otherwise provided in Agency Obligations Paragraph 2 above, Agency agrees that the Project shall be developed in conformance with the applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, including the current edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 4. Agency shall obtain a permit to occupy State right of way through the State District 10 Office prior to the commencement of construction. 5. If Project includes traffic signal or illumination improvements on or along a state highway, Agency shall: a. Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-020-0430, obtain the approval of the State Traffic Engineer prior to the design and construction of any traffic signal, or illumination to be installed on a state highway. b. Enter into a separate traffic signal agreement with State to cover obligations for any traffic signal or illumination being installed on a state highway. c. Ensure Agency, or its contractor's, electrical inspectors possess a current State Certified Traffic Signal Inspector certificate, In order to Inspect electrical installations on State highways. The State District Permitting Office shall verify compliance with this requirement prior to construction. The permit fee should also cover the State electrician's supplemental Inspection. d. Upon completion of the Project and at its own expense, maintain the pavement surrounding any vehicle detector loops installed in the Agency street in such a manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops. Failure to do so may result in State requiring Agency to repair or replace the damaged loops at Agency expense. Future Agency roadwork activities involving the detector loops may also result in the same State requirements. Agency shall also adequately maintain the pavement markings and signing installed in accordance with the approved signal plan sheets for the signal installation or current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. e. Ensure that all Project work and maintenance activities involving pedestrian - activated signals comply with the ADA and Agency Obligations Paragraph 2. 4 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 6. Agency shall submit all of the following items to State's Project Manager, at Project completion and prior to final payment: a. Final Project completion Inspection form No. 734-5063 (completed with State's Project Manager); b. Final Cost; c. As -Constructed Drawings d. Structural Analysis Information (if applicable); e. Foundation Report; f. Hydraulic Report including Scour Analysis. g. Pile Records and drill logs (if applicable); h. Final Load Rating calculation with a stamped report with a CD containing all electronic files to the State's Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer; I. Notify State's Local Agency Bridge Inspection Coordinator at Richard, J.King@odot.state.or.us, and brid e a odot.state.or.us to ensure the initial inspection will be scheduled; and j. Inspection with State's Project Manager under this Agreement, State's Region Senior Structural Designer, or State's Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer. Agency shall submit, prior to final payment, required bridge plans, reports, and documentation to State's Project Manager and Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer, using an electronic files package: MicroStation file and PDF file output that shows all red -line as -constructed markups of plan sheets (and additional files listed below, if applicable to the Project). Agency shall follow the file naming convention required in the Bridge Design and Drafting Manual located at: htto://www.oregon.ciov/ODOT/HWY/BRIDGE/Paces/standards manuals.asax#Bridg e Dgsign & Drafting Manual. a. In the "As ConstructedPlans" folder on State's FTP directory (available at the following link): ftn:JJftg.odot.state.or.us/AsConstructedPlansJ, Agency shall create a subfolder under the "Bridge" folder using the bridge numbers shown in this Agreement for each bridge for the subfolder name. Agency shall place the PDF files in these folders, including: b. 11 inch x 17 inch PDF plan sheets stamped and signed - as -constructed markups, containing final construction notes. c. Agency shall also place copies in same FTP folder of the following reports/records identified in Agency Obligations, paragraph 7 of this Agreement. d. Agency shall send email notification to State's Project Manager and Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer Holly.M.WINSTONOodot.state.or.us and to the bridae0odot.state.or.us mailbox after placing files on FTP site (include link to applicable FTP subfolder in email). 8. Project Chancre Request (PCR) Process - Agency must obtain approval from State's Bridge STIP Coordinator and State's Bridge Engineer for changes to the 5 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No, 31740 Project's scope, schedule, or budget by submitting a PCR, as specified in Paragraphs 10 a-f, below. Agency shall be fully responsible for all costs attributable to changes to the established Project scope, schedule or budget made prior to an approved PCR. Amendments to this Agreement are required for all approved PCRs. a. Scope - A PCR is required for any significant change or reduction in the scope of work described in the Project Description in Terms of Agreement, paragraph 1. b. Schedule— A PCR is required if Agency or State's Contact anticipates that any Project Milestone will be delayed by more than ninety (90) days, and also for any change in schedule that will require amendment of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). c. Budget — The Project's estimated budget is used for determining the level of compensation for completed work. Increases or decreases in the budget which require a STIP amendment also require the submission of a PCR to the State's Regional Local Agency Liaison. d. PCR requests that result in Project cost increases that are equal to or less than twenty (20) percent of the total estimated Project cost or $200,000, whichever amount is less, can be approved by the State Bridge Engineer. Such amendments can be approved and entered into by the State Bridge Engineer, subject to any applicable State approvals. e. PCR requests that result in a Project cost increase in excess of twenty (20) percent of the total estimated Project cost or $200,000, whichever amount is greater, must be approved by the State Bridge Engineer and the Local Agency Bridge Selection Committee with a majority vote. Such amendments must be executed by the same officials who executed the original Agreement, and are subject to any applicable State approvals. PCR Form - Agency must submit all change requests using PCR Form 734-2851 attached by reference and made a part of this Agreement. The PCR Form is due no later than thirty (30) days after the need for change becomes known to Agency. The PCR shall explain what change is being requested, the reasons for the change, and any efforts to mitigate the change. A PCR may be rejected at the discretion of State's Bridge Engineer. The fillable PCR form and its instructions are available at the following web site: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOTIForms/20DOT/2851.doo 9. Agency shall present Invoices for the eligible, actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf of the Project directly to State's Project Manager listed in this Agreement for review and approval. Such invoices shall be in a form identifying the Project, Key Number, the Agreement number, the Project phase and amount charged to each (such as preliminary engineering, right of way, and construction), the invoice 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 number, and will itemize all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Invoices shall be presented for periods greater than one month, based on actual expenses Incurred, and must clearly specify the percentage of completion of the Project. Agency shall also include with the invoice a Project progress report or summary that describes work accomplished for the period being invoiced and work expected for the next invoicing period. Travel expenses will not be reimbursed. 10.Agency, or its consultant, shall conduct the necessary preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, specifications and cost estimates In accordance with current state and federal laws and regulations; obtain all required permits; be responsible for all utility relocations; advertise for bid proposals; award all contracts; perform all construction engineering; and make all contractor payments required to complete the Project. 11.Agency or its consultant shall acquire all necessary right of way in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, ORS Chapter 35 and the State Right of Way Manual, 12. Agency shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520, 279C.530 and 2796.270 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Agency expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 604 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Qii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all reaulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 13.Agency shall perform the services under this Agreement as an independent contractor and shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related'to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal Income tax withholdings. 14.AII employers, including Agency, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656,126, Employers Liability insurance with coverage limits of not less than $500,000 must be included. Agency shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. 15.Agency shall, at its own expense, maintain, operate, and provide power as needed upon Project completion at a minimum level that is consistent with normal depreciation and/or service demand and throughout the useful life of the Project. State and Agency agree that the useful life of this Project is defined as 10 years. 7 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 Maintenance and power responsibilities shall survive any termination of the Project Agreement, 16. Utility relocation or reconstruction may or may not be an eligible Project expense according to the following standard: a. The expense is an eligible expense if the owner of the utility facility possesses a property right for its location on the public right of way. b. The expense is not an eligible expense if the owner of the utility facility does not possess a property right for its location, but the facility exists on the public right of way solely under the permission of the Agency or other road authority, whether that permission is expressed or Implied, and whether written or oral. 17.Agency certifies, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within Agency's current appropriation or limitation of the current budget. Agency further agrees that they will only submit invoices to State for reimbursement on work that has been performed and paid for by Agency as described in this Agreement. 18. Agency shall require its contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) that are not units of local government as defined in ORS 190.003, If any, to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the State of Oregon, Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, Oregon Department of Transportation and its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, actions, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses, Including attorneys' fees, arising from a tort, as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.24au (C lairi1S), to the extent such Claims are caused, or alleged to be Caused by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of Agency's contractor or any of the officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of the contractor. It is the specific intention of the Parties that State shall, In all instances, except to the extent Claims arise from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the State, be indemnified from and against all Claims caused or alleged to be caused by the contractor or subcontractor. 19.Any such indemnification shall also provide that neither Agency's contractor and subcontractor nor any attorney engaged by Agency's contractor and subcontractor shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that Agency's contractor is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that Agency's contractor is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue claims it may have against Agency's contractor if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense. P 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 20. If Agency enters into a construction contract for performance of work for the Project, then Agency will include provisions in that contract requiring its contractor to comply with the following: a. Contractor and Agency shall name State as a third party beneficiary of the resulting contract. b. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless State from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever resulting from, arising out of, or relating to the activities of Contractor or its officers, employees, sub -contractors, or agents under the resulting contract. a Commercial General Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor's expense, and keep in effect.during the term of the resulting contract, Commercial General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in a form and with coverages that are satisfactory to State. This insurance shall include personal and advertising injury liability, products and completed operations. Coverage may be written in combination with Automobile Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis. If written in conjunction with Automobile Liability the combined single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000 for each job site or location. Each annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000. d. Automobile Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor's expense, and keep in effect during the term of the resulting contract, Commercial Business AiAmmnhilP Liability Insurance covering all owned, non -owned, or hired vehicles, This coverage may be written In combination with the Commercial General Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Combined single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000. e. Additional Insured Endorsement. The liability insurance coverage, except Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions, or Workers' Compensation, if included, required for performance of the resulting contract will include State and its divisions, officers and employees as Additional Insured but only with respect to the Contractor's activities to be performed under the resulting contract. Coverage shall be primary and non-contributory with any other insurance and self-insurance. f. Notice of Cancellation or Change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, potential exhaustion of aggregate limits or non -renewal of insurance coverage(s) without thirty (30) days written notice from the Contractor or its insurer(s) to State. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of this clause shall constitute a material breach of the resulting contract and shall be grounds for immediate termination of the resulting contract and this Agreement. 21.Agency acknowledges and agrees that State, the Oregon Secretary of State's Office, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, 9 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 23 documents, papers, and records of Agency which are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts during the course of the Project and for a period of six (6) years after final payment. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by State. 22. Agency certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of Agency, under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members or representatives, and to legally bind Agency. 23.Agency's Project Manager for this Agreement is Cody Smith — County Engineer, 61150 SE 27"' Street, Bend, OR 27702, (541) 322-7113, Cody.smithO-deschutes.org, or assigned designee upon individual's absence. Agency shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. STATE OBLIGATIONS In consideration for the services performed under this Agreement, State shall reimburse Agency 89.73 percent of eligible costs incurred in carrying out the Project up to the maximum amount of state funds committed for the Project in Terms of Agreement, Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. Reimbursements shall be made by State within forty-five (45) days of State's approval of a request for reimbursement from Agency, except that final payment will be withheld until the State's Project Manager has completed final project inspection and project acceptance. 2. State shall provide the following items to Agency's Project Manager no later than 30 days after execution of this Agreement: a. Scoping Notes; and b. Any other project specific information gathered during the scoping and selection process 3. State's Project Manager will arrange for a final project inspection upon notification from Agency of Project completion, to confirm project completeness and fulfillment of Agreement obligations, prior to final payment. 4. If Project includes traffic signal improvements on or along a State Highway, traffic signal timing shall be the responsibility of State, unless there is an agreement that specifically allows Agency to perform that function. Consistent with Agency Obligations Paragraph 2 State shall: a. Ensure its Region Electrical Crew, at Project expense, perform the signal equipment environmental testing and perform the signal field testing and turn on, 10 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 b. Retain the right of review of the traffic signal timing for signals on state highways, or those which State maintains, and shall reserve the right to request adjustments when needed, c. Notify the focal jurisdiction whenever timing changes that affect the operation of local street connections to the state highway are scheduled. All modifications shall follow guidelines set forth in the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the current ODOT State Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines, d. Upon completion of the Project, maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops installed in the State highway in such a manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops and at State's expense, e. Maintain the pavement markings and signing installed on the State highway in accordance with current ODOT standards, and Where Agency has an agreement with State to modify signal timing and the Agency modifies timing to add railroad or emergency vehicle preemption, bus priority, or other changes that affect vehicle or pedestrian clearances, or operation of the state highway, Agency shall promptly report such modifications to State's Region Traffic Engineer. Any such timing modification shall comply with the ADA and Agency Obligations Paragraph 2, 5. State's Project Manager for this Agreement is Darrell Newton - Local Agency Programs Coordinator, 63055 N. highway 97, Bldg M, Bend, OR 97703, (541) 388- 6272, darrell.r.newtonC,odot.state.or.us, or assigned designee upon Individual's absence. State shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1, This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both Parties. 2. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a. If Agency falls to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as State may authorize. c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure 11 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. e. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or If State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 3. If State terminates this Agreement for the reasons described in General Provisions 2(a) or (b) above, Agency must reimburse State for all state funds expended. If Agency falls to reimburse State, State may withhold Agency's proportional share of State Highway Fund distribution necessary to reimburse State for costs incurred by such Agency breach. 4. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 5. If any third party makes any claim or brings any action, suit or proceeding alleging a tort as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.260 ("Third Party Claim") against State or Agency with respect to which the other Party may have liability, the notified Party must promptly notify the other Party in writing of the Third Party Claim and deliver to the other Party a copy of the claim, process, and all legal pleadings with respect to the Third Party Claim, Each Party is entitled to participate in the defense of a Third Party Claim, and to defend a Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing. Receipt by a Party of the notice and copies required In this paragraph and meaningful opportunity for the Party to participate in the Investigation, defense and settlement of the Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing are conditions precedent to that Party's liability with respect to the Third Party Claim. 6. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which State is jointly liable with Agency (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), State shalt contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by Agency in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. State's contribution amount in any Instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, if State had sole liability in the proceeding. 7. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which Agency is jointly liable with State (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), Agency shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by State in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of Agency on the one hand 12 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 W1 and of State on the other hand In connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of Agency on the one hand and of State on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative Intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. Agency`s contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, if it had sole liability in the proceeding. 8. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement. In addition, the Parties may agree to utilize a jointly selected mediator or arbitrator (for non -binding arbitration) to resolve the dispute short of litigation. 8. State and Agency are the only Parties to this Agreement and, as such, are the only Parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing In this Agreement gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect or otherwise to third persons unless such third persons are expressly identified by name and specifically described as intended to be beneficiaries of its terms. 10.This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart, Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 11.This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements; or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by that Party of that or any other provision. THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that their signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions, This Project is in the 2018-2021 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), (Key #20371) that was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on July 11, 2017 (or subsequently by amendment to the STIP). 13 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 DESCHUTES COUNTY, by and through its elected officials By Chair Date Co ' v . W�I LEGAL REVIEW APPROVAL By a Wz Agency Counsel Date /-I-L - l d Agency Contact: Cody Smith -- County Engineer 61150 SE 271h Street Rend OR 27702 (541) 322-7113 Cody. smithOdeschutes.org State Contact: Darrell Newton - Local Agency Programs Coordinator 63055 N. Highway 97, Bldg M Bend OR, 97703 (541) 388-6272 darrell.r.newtonp_odot.state.or.us 14 STATE OF OREGON, by and through its pep �lVio ransportation B_ Y Highwa Administrator Date ';� tl� }thy APPROVALRECOMMENDED By V' y V % / \ ✓ \ , _ Reg-io-h 4 Manager Date (�2.,c�b, l By State Bride Engineer Date i, 7- � APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By: Rachel Bertoni Assistant Attorney General by email Date, January 9, 2018 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 EXHIBIT A — Project Location Map 0 0,25 0.5 Legend CSisemore Bridge - Morway Lake �--- County Routes Floodpieln ! ToOots Wotiends PublIe Land 0.75 1 Mies 30 rNxk+wll, GIs Analyst • O t►aoc Wox2rnr t.ai�M.,u.ro0u.1.•enq �,waxa,:s:lrrt.s< w araa !toad Oepattmv* ttq wermQenae wt ewpe.• a:.,dr�,+apn+a�e,q.w a C•NM•• ee,•hr. a1.6. C•naa•YMtnra N• a+.t•n •inq •W. Q••daM GulYew.w rwd MJNyNMkP;t/Mt arr•n, Printed. .waxer w resew ••w•eirna aw•gN f w w�ro May o. 2015 wrnrM�w r1yN/rxrro�w iwwW eaWeranar Ier(Mtrr•AIM� dWv. o.YucGla�NgWtiN(dprN7lwmu'tr neMplSgwna��loation�lAey.3o15mcd 16 w 24 FINAL REPORT OF THE CONSTRUCTION TUMALO IRRIGATION' PROJECT TO THE DESERT LAND BOARD STATE OF OREGON BY PROJECT ENGINEER JUNE 1913 .DEC. 1914 LAIDLAW, OREGON, DECEMBER 19, 1914 24 owe--No.�, 403242 24 Jan 1I.► 1934 swy .OR32. BRiTF HISTORY: Table of Contents Page. Columbia Southern History ....................... . .......... 1 Causes of Failure .. .... .... .. 2 Fvon -+a iT.aadine to Rp^nstruction of Project 3 Brief Extracts from Columbia Southern Act ...................... 4 brier Lescripcion of Proposed Work ... ... .. .......... 4 Original Estimates Covering Reconstruction of the Project .......... 5 Comments on Estimates 7- Commencement of work on the Project .. 7 Constitutionality of the Columbia Southern Act .............. ... 8 ORGANIZATION: 8 Project Engineer .... .� .... .. .............. 9 C:ericai, stenographic, Purchasing and AccountingDepartments .....10 Duties of Chief C:erk.................................... ....10 Accounting System ..........................11 PayrollSystem ............................................12 Classification of Expenditures..................................13 Cost Ledger Totals...........................................14 Purchasing.................................................15 Clerical .......<......................................16 Medical Services.....................................................16 Accident Insurance..................................17 Messes...........................................17 Project Automobiles.........................................19 Praj6ct' Photographs ....... - - ... ................. 19• Headquarters Construction....................................20 Telephone Construction .....................................20 Organization and Accomplishments ....20 Drafting, Designing and Office Engineering .......................21 FEED CANAL: 23 Description................................... ......... ... .23 ContractWork .......................... ..................26 Construction Costs: Rightof Way ........................................... 27 Diversion Weir ................................ .......... 28 ConcreteLining 28 ........................................... Concrete Structures.......................................29 Grouted Pavement ......................................... 29 F.Yravatinn...............................................29 1%Seta1 Flun:ee...................................... ......32 Roadsand Bridges..........................................33 Engineering..............................................34 V111timgtwa..................................................35 Organization...............................................35 STORAGE WORKS: 3 6: Right•of Way ............................................36 Preliminary Investigation ....37 Capacity of Reservoir........................................37' Hydrographic Studies .........38 Consulting Board of Engineers................................41 StateRoad Around Reservoir..................................44 Reservoir Drain Ditch ...................................... . .45 BullCreek Dam.............................................45 24 Page. TumaloDam ....................:-.::......................47 Diversionof Water........................................48 Cutoff nd Drain Trenches • • • t .�• • . ...... • • • • • • • • . 43- Core Wall ...... .................49 Dam Embankment .............50 Riprap...........................................52 Outlet Works Tunnel........................................2 Outlet Works Shaft ..................................... .55 Gate Chamber and Gate House ............ 55 GravelPit ................................................. 1.56 Engineering .. 5 6 Organization ............................................56 Accomplishments..........................................57 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: 57 Engineering Coveriig Adjudication of Water Rights, Topography, Ciassincaticn a.id Snbdrv.sion of.Lands, General Investigations and Distr i uution System ........................................ 5 7 Topy::graphy..............................................58 Classification.............................................59 Subdov:sion...............................................09 Cc•mments on Casts ................ ........59 CEneral Plan cf Distribution System .59 System of Nam,ng Laterals and Subiaterals .......................60 C:,nstructicn Work .60 lrrigable Acreage..................................... ........ 61 Detaiied C :structic n Casts ................................. 62 BandSaw Outfit ...................................... ... 6a Uncc•mpleted Work ...................................... _ .65 E..;g.neering and Ad_ninistraticn Charges ..................... .65 Organization and Accomplishments ............... ............66 DIVERSION OF C ATER AND LITTLE CHATER C IEEIiS: 66 Costs................................. ..... .............67 Estimateto Complete ........................................ C. Is 011EPATION AND 3IAINTE-NA\CE DEPARTMENT: 69 Distribution cf Water, 1913 ......69 Accounting System..........................................70 Opeiaticn and ;Maintenance Charges from Construction Fund 7. Distribution of Water, 1914................................... 7 2 Crops..................................................... Adjudication cf Water Rights ........................... . ..... 'r ; Tumalo Project C'.itracts...................................... i 3 Record Books...............................................7i, Sales of Land and Water Rights .................................. 76 Non -Resident Contract Holdeis ................................... WimerRanch ................................... ..........78 Rules and Regulations ......................... ........... .. 7S Accomplishments............................................40 GENEPAL: 1� 1 Brief Summary of Work ....................................... c 1 Men Employed and NN'ages....................................81 NewLie..r..................................................82 Engineering............. .................................fig Administration Charges ...................................... Estimates........................................ ........84 Deeert Land Board...........................................� Visits to Project .................... c State Reclamation ....................................... 5 6 Co-operation .......................... fi 6 Recommendations .......................... • ........ S 7 Conclusion...............................................: 5 0 lit 24 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page. Diversion Dam and Headgates of Feed Canal on Tumalo Creek, Concrete Lined Canal ....................... Frontispiece Metal Flume Suspended from Trestle Work in Tumalo Canyon ...26 End of Feed Canal, Drop into Reservoir, Intake to By -Pass and Highway Bridge ............................29 Bull Creek Dam, Spillway and Highway Bridge. One of the Dams for Tumalo Reservoir .. .............47 View of Dam From Reservcir Side Showing Gate House .........55 Diversion Dam and Headgate of Main Canal in Canyon Below Tumalo Reservoir .................. ...................66 LIST OF DRAWINGS. Page. (a.) Principal Features cn Tumalo Project ................ Back Cover (b.) Plan and Sections of Feed Canal Diversion Weir ...............22 (c.) Detail of Flume Timbering ................................ 32 (d.) General Plan, Sections and Profiles of Bull Creek Dam ......... 44 (e.) General Plan, Sections and Profiles of Tumalo Dam.............48 (f .) Main Canal Diversion Dam ................................. 62 (g.) Tumalo Project and Vicinity ....81 (h.) Distribution System ..................................... .5 MAI ►a H z 0 z to U Aa w� w z w Q wA 0w z a 0w q H xz A V z �w as z" 0 a w Y 24 FINAL REPORT OF CONSTRUCTION Tumalo Irrigation Project Laidlaw, Oregon, December 19, 1914. To the Secretary of the Desert Land Board, of the State of Oregon. Dear Sir: In submitting the final report covering the construction of the Tumalo- Project, it may perhaps be advisable to elaborate upon certain features with considerable detail, and especially discuss the important features in such a manner that they will show conclusively not only to the members of the legislature who appropriated the money for the re -construction and com- pletion of this Project, but also to others who have been vitally interested in the success of the Project and to the people of the State at large, just to what purpose the money has been expended. Furthermore, inasmuch as this is the first irrigation project that has ever been constructed by any state in the union, through direct appropriation, it has been deemed advis- able to describe the events and accomplishments with enough detail to enable comparisons to be made with work of similar character undertaken under different conditions elsewhere, and thus show that t.ne State of Ore- gon, in its pioneer work of irrigation, has received full value for the amount expended, has accomplished the purposes intended, and further to show that the State has demonstrated that it is just as possible, under certain con- ditions, for the State to undertake the development and construction work as for the federal government. It is not however, the intention to record the incidents of minor detail that have occurred in connection with the construction of the Project, but still sufficient to attract the attention of any one interested. And further, it is felt that any one desiring more complete and detailed information than is contained herein can do so from the exhaustive records in the Project office and data elsewhere reported. BRIEF HISTORY. To the members of the Desert Land Board and a great many people of the State, the early history of the Tumalo Project, formerly known as the Columbia Southern Irrigation Company Project, is well known, but for the benefit of those who are not so well informed it might be well to cite briefly a few of the most important events leading up to what has now developed into the Tumalo Project constructed by the State of Oregon. -The Project was originally undertaken under the terms of the Carey Act and was presented to the Desert Land Board by the Three Sisters Irrigation 24 2 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT: Company in February, 1902, shortly after which time a contract was entered into for the irrigation of 27,000 acres of land for which the lien price was established at an average of a little over $10.00 per acre. As the price of the land was very low the company had little trouble to dispose of same, with the result that during, the'years of 1904, 1905 and 1906, contracts were executed for about 18,000 acres of Carey Act land and 1, 60 acres of private land. The first indications of dissatisfaction among the settlers and water users appeared during the 1905 irrigation season, when it was noticed that although only about 1,000 acres of land had actually been irrigated, there was a shortage of water. From that time up to .the time the State of Oregon took the project over, there seemed to be cause for grievances and com- plaints continually from the settlers on the segregation to the members of the Desert. Land Board and to members of the various companies who gained c_ntrol of the Project After a suit to cancel the Columbia Southern con- tract with the Desert Land Board had been determined adversely to the Bear d, (the State finally agreed to an increase of the lien un the Project under certain conditions to a successor of the old Columbia Southern Irriga- tion Ccmpany, which had acquired title from the original Three Sisters C ;mpuny. ) Under the terms of their contract with the State, the Oregon, V afbingtcn & Idaho Finance Co. made complete and exhaustive investi;a- tions c f every phaEe of the Project, and also made preparations for the reorgn n:zr.ticn of the Project in case negotiations were completed f,;r fina.icing same. ` Due, however, to conditions over which they had no con- trol : -.:nahies colianga,r and it was found that. in spite of the very attirctive inducemEnts that could l)e offered, no investors could be found t put the Project cn its feet.. Accordingly on February 1, 1911, a deed was obtai.7ed from the Columbia Southern Irrigation Company in favor of the Oregon, Washington & Idaho Finance Co., who in turn gave the deed under date of December 15, 1911, in accordance with their contract with the State whereby they conveyed all their rights and interest of every kind in c-.nnection with the Project to the State. It was found impossible, however, for the State at that time to take over the Project for the reason that the Desert Land Board did not pose-ess the necessary authority or finances with which to take charge of or maintain it. By virtue of a request from the Desert Land Board, Mr. Alma D. Katz, of Portland, executed a contract with the Desert Land Board to operate the. Project during the season of 1912, with the understanding that. should he be able to finance same before January 1, 1913, he would be given a contract, the terms of which were definitely decided upon at the time he entered into this prelianinary contrac-. This arrangement was made for the purpose of tiding the Project over until possible arrangements could be made to take the same before the legislature, which met in January, 1913. causes of Failure. There are a great many causes to which may be attributed the failure of the old Columbia Southern Project. In the first place, it was one of the first Carey Act. Projects attempted in the State of Oregr,n, so naturally the actual working out of the law was new to the var- ious members of the State Land Board. For instanced the natural safeguard In the contract between the State and the company to'protect the settlers in 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 3 case of failure, by the company providing a bond, was not included; neither were the rules and regulations sufficiently known to be' incorporated into the contract. Furthermore, at that time there was no State Engineer to Investigate the merits of the project or advise the Desert Land Board as to actual true conditions on the ground. The .members of the Board, as a whole, were not familiar with the conditions surrounding an irrigation project, nor were they at all sure as to their own position in enforcing this law, for, as has been subsequently explained, some of the members thought that the actual carrying out of the Project would be supervised by the government in place of by the State. As far as the company was concerned, It was only •natural for them, when they found it impossible to make any profit on their investment, to refuse to build storage reservoirs and expend more money without receiving an increase of lien to cover such additional expense. Furthermore, there were very few people connected with the com- pany who understood irrigaticn and its varied and many requirements, so that the actual flow of the stream was overestimated and the actual loss due to seepage, etc., underestimated. With the advanced strides that irrigation has made during the past ten or twelve .years, it appears quite reasonable that any project undertaken on a basis of $10.00 per acre could not provide satisfactory means of irrigation to the settlers and still provide for a profit for the promotors of the company. Events Leading Up to Re -Construction of Project. During August, 1912, the Honorable Oswald West, Governor of the State of Oregon, made a trip across the.entire State; passing through the arid lands in Central and Eas- tern portions. A meeting was called during this trip at Laidlaw on August 12th, at which time the condition of the .project was fully discussed. During this meeting, the Governor presented a plan which, in his opinion, might result in the complete reorganization and reconstruction of the Project with the assistance of the State directly or indirectly. As the settlers on the Project had become thoroughly dissatisfied and had lost • ail faith in the probability of private capital being able to reorganize same, they grasped the idea presented by the 'Governor with considerable enthusiasm. The set- tlers on the Project, together with the people of Laidlaw and vicinity, pre- sented this matter at a meeting of the Central Oregon Development League at Lakeview on August 21, 22 and 23, 1912, which meeting adopted strong resolutions urging that the State should take some decisive steps to assist in the reorganization of the 'Project and fulfillment of the pledges made to the settlers, not only by the company but also implied by certain State Officials. On January 9, 10 and 11, 1913, at a meeting of the -Oregon Irrigation Congress, the settlers on the Project again brought this matter up for at- tention, and after considerable discussion, the Irrigation Congress passed strong resolutions recommending that the legislature take prompt and de- cisive action when they met in the latter part of the same month, to relieve the chaotic conditions existing on the Project. In making these resolutions, the Cong roes resolved that the State was more or less directly to blame and was morally obligated, If not legally, to assist in the. reconstruction of the Project, and make possible the actual delivery of water to lands which had been bought and paid for. The Irrigation Congress, as well as the Laidlaw m 4 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. Development League, sent delegates to ,the legislature which met directly at the close of the Irrigation Congrem, who urged the passage of the Co- lumbia Southern Bill which carried with it an appropriation for the Com- pletion of the Project. After the.members of the legislature became fully advised as to conditions and facts, they passed a law providing for the complete recb.nstructicn of the Project by the State and appropriated $450,000 from the general fund for this purpose. In doing this, an advanc- ed step was taken in the matter of reclaiming lands within .the domain of a state, which. may be classed. as one of the most progressive steps in legisla- tion ever taken for the development of a western state. Brief Extracts from Columbia Southern Act. The Act passed by the Oregon Legislature providing for the reconstruction of the Columbia South- ern Project is found in Chapter 119 of the Session Laws of 1913. At this time it may be proper to mention a few of the important provisions. The Act provides for the reconstruction and completion of the Project as far as possible by the Desert Land Board on behalf of the Stage of Oregon. The Desert Land Board is authorized and directed to make all necessary arrange- ments to perfect the State's title to said Project and to execute all contracts and agreements and make all arrangements necessary for the proper con- struction and completion 'of the irrigation works. This is made possible by the appointment of a Project Engineer who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board and have direct charge and supervision of the construction and operation of the Project. The duties of the Project Engineer were not very definitely stated, but plans, specifications and estimates prepared by the Project Engineer should all have the approval of the Desert Land Board before actual construction could take place. In reorganizing the Project, the. Desert Land Board, by virtue of the Act, received power to adjust all existing water rights and establish new liens on all unsold land as well as those already contracted for. It was expressly stated in the law, however, that in placing the lien on each legal subdivision, the Board shall take into account the condition of the water right for each smallest legal subdivision and no additional charge shall be placed on land which now has complete vested water right Provision was made In the law to allow the holders of contracts under which no land had been previously reclaimed, to either cancel their contracts or take out a new contract under the new Project. In either event, the- contract holder would receive, either the repayment of the amount paid as principal on his con- tract, or a credit on the new contract for the actual amount that had been previously paid. kThe Act provides that the total liens on State and Carey Act lands and total amount to be realized from private lands, shall together be so fixed as to insure the return to the State of Oregon of all money expended by the State in reclamation of lands in said Project, and in addition there- to, not less than $5.00 per acre for the reclamation fund. The Act'further provides that until the $450,000 is returned, it shall draw six per cent in- terest, so that the money appropriated for the completion of this Project is merely a loan to be repaid before the expiration of ten years into the General Treasury of the State with. interest. Brief Dawrlption of the Proposed Work. Under date of November 7, 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 5 1912, Mr. John H. Lewis, State Engineer, transmitted to the Honorable -Oswald West, Governor, a report and "timate which was later tranami ted by the Governor to the various members of the 1913 legislature. (The' ,work as outlined by the State Engineer for the information of the legial ure may be briefly summarized as follows: The construction of a new feed. .canal from Tumalo Creek to a proposed reservoir site was contemplated, which feed canal would also include various structures. In order to ade- quately supply water to the lands under the Project it was deemed neces- sary to construct a reservoir in which to store the surplus water during the non -irrigating seascu, which necessitated the purchase of approximately I 1,400 acres of land and the co.nstructicn of two dams, with appurtenant structures and features. The construction of the diversion works on Tumalo , Creek, the entire feed canal and storage works were absolutely essential, and considerable money was appropriated for the completion of those feaures, it being understood that this would leave approximately $100,000 ter the completion and improvement, as far as possible, of the present distribution and lateral system. Original Estimates Covering Reconstruction of the Project. The report of the State Engineer covering the work to be accomplished with the $450,000, included an estimate which served as a guide to members of the legislature when they considered the passage of the Calumbia Southern .Act. The Project Engineer, in connection with the work accomplished, has been guided to a considerable extent by this estimate. As a basis for future work, and in order to intelligently compare the results accomplished when the work is completed; It may be well to insert the items as estimated by the State Engineer. In his report the State Engineer estimated that 22,300 acres of land could be reclaimed for the amount appropriated. His estimate as presented ,on various items, is as follows. Cost of Feed Canal. Diversion weir ........ ............. $ 5.000.00 Flumes, 6,000 feet @ $4.50 .•..•••••••••••••••••• 27,000.00 Trestles, 1,000 feet @ $2.00 ...................... 2,000.00 Excavations for flumes, 5,000 lin. ft.- 6,430 cu. yds. @ 40 cents .................... 2,570.00 ,Canal excavation, 8,100 lin. ft.--- 15,770 cu. yds. @ $1.25 ...................... 19,700.00 .11,570 cu. yds. .50 ...................... 5.780.00 X8,200.00 23,500 lin. ft., 60,690 cu. yda. @ 30 cents .......... Fight of Way —Cost of land, about 80 acres :........ 1,600.00 ,Clearing right of way ............I ................ 3,200.00 By -Pass and drop Into reservoir ................. 3,000.00 Total .................... $88,050.00 Tumalo Dam. b7;000 cu. yds. earth excavation anal till @ 60 cents.. $ 34,200.00 4.335 cu. yds. concrete core @ $11.00 ........... 47;685.00 2,2 9 5 cu. yda. excavation cut-off trench @ $1.2 5 .... 2,868.75 1,980 cu. yds, excavation drain trench @ $1.00 .... 1,980.00 2 acres stripping @ $300 ..••• •.• ..•••.•.•••.• 600.00 8,.470 cu. yds. rip rap @ $1.75.. . • • . • . • • • . • . • . 14,822.50 1,500 cu. yds. excavation for tunnel, open" cut ` $1,54 ........................... 2,250.00 24 6 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 400 ft. excavation tunnel,_8x8 @ $20.00 ......... 8,000.00 200 ft. concrete lining, 300 cu. yds. @ $18.00 .... 5,400.00 70 ft.. shaft excavation, 6x8 @ $40.00 .......... 2,800.00 75 ft. concrete liming, 100 cu. yds. @ $18.00 .... 118".00 2 gates, rcds, stands, grillage, etc., in place ......... 5,000.00 .1 gate house .................................. 1,000.00 Total ................... $128,406.25 Auxiliary Darn. Dam and outlet conduits ......................... $10,000.00 Spillway ........................................ 5,500.00 Total .................... $15,500.00 Total Cost of Construction of Reservoir. Tumalo Dam ................................... $128,406.26 Auxiliary Dam ....... 15,500.00 Lands ....................................... 50,000.00 Reads, etc ..... 1,700.00 Total ................... $195,606.25 Distribution Systemw In estimating the cost of the distribution system, the private lands to be watered from the same system must be considered, for the dis- trfbuticn system already constructed, and for which an allowance of $45,000.00 is made, covers thefe private lands. At $6.50 per acre, the distribution system for 22,300 acres would cast in round numbers, $145,000.00. Deducting $45,000, the esti- matedmated f tpreset,t ' wor it would leave 100,000 to be �......, e. he ., 'works, - - - expended cn the distribution system. Recapitulation of 'Cost. 25 I Tumato Dam ................................ $115,0. Auxiliary Dam 15,500.00 D0 Feed Canal 88,050.00 Reservoir roads and excavation of crit ............. 1.700.00 Distribution system ......... ... 100,000.00 Engineering, contingencies, incidentals, administration, - 15 per cent ................................ 50,048.44 Land purchases necessary for reservoir, 1,000 acres @ $50.00 ..... ............ ... ' 50,000.00 Preliminary investigations ....................... 10,000.00 Total cost ..... .......$443,704.69 In estimating the .cost of the recdnstructlen of this .Project, the State Engineer included 15 per cent of the total construction cost for engin- eering, contingencies, incidentals, administration, etc., exclusive of the cost of reservoir land purchased. Distributing this 15 per cent propor- tionately cn the features according to their estimated cost would make the following amounts avai:able for the construction of the various important features: �Tumalo Dam .................................. $147,667.19 Auxili. ry Dam ................................ 17.82:,.00 Feed c^nal ....... ..'......................... 101,257.50 •Fescrvr4r, roads end cuts ............. . ......... 11955.00 Disti ib•i'ion system ............................. 115,000.00 Tend wi-chased 50,000.00 Preliminary investigations 10,000.00 Total ................... $443,704.69 M FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 7 Comments on Estimates. As will be noted, a total of $443,704.69 was requested of the legislature with which to reconstruct the old Columbia Southern Project and within the State Engineer's estimate providing -for an expenditure of the above amount no provision was made for the i epayment of contract holders who had claims against the Project. The Columbia Southern Bill, however, as it passed the House, called for an appropriation of $1500,000, and it was the intention to pay to the contract holders who had claims against the Project the surplus amount over and above the State Engineer's estimate and up to $500,000. Fearing, however, for the passage of the bill in the Senate, a special message was sent by the Governor's office to the Senate under date of February 19, 1913, requesting the passage of the bill. It was pointed out, however, that the bill as passed in the House was in excess of the State Engineer's estimate and that therefore the bill could be reduced to meet his figure without in any way embarrassing the Project. Therefore, it is very safe to assume that when the Senate reduced the appropriation from $500,000 to $.450,000 they did not intend that the contract holders were to be paid from the sum as appropriated, but that they eventually should obtain their refund from the sale of lands under the Project, and further, that Inasmuch as the State Engineer's construction estimate provided for $443,704.69, and the legislature - appropriated $450,000 for the completion of the Project, it was their intention to spend the entire amount, or as much thereof as was necessary, to construct the Project. Commencement of Work on the Project. 'The Columbia , Southern. Act passed by the last session of the legislature was filed in the Secretary of State's office on February 25th, 1913, and became effective as a law on June. 3rd, 1913. In order that as much work as possible could be accom- plished during the season, it was found advisable by the Desert Land Board to commence, preliminary work on the Project before the law actually went into effect. Therefore, a short time after the Act was filed, the Deco: t: Land Board took action and appointed Mr. 0. Laurgaard of Fortland as Project Engineer, and instructed him to report directly to the Desert Land Board as soon as possible. The Project Engineer took up his duties on April 29th and spent about two weeks in Salem and Portland making proper arrangements to commence work on the Project at the earliest possible —ioment. On May 14, 1913, accompanied by the Honorable Oswald West, the Honorable Jos. N. Teal, Chairman of the Oregon Conservation Commission, and Arthur H. Devers, the Project Engineer arrived on the Project and commenced actual work in connection with the reconstruction of the old Columbia Southern Project, the name of which had been changed to the Tumalo Project. ceverai meetings were held —one at Laidlaw and one at Bend, wherein the new policy of the State of Oregon In reclaiming its arid lands was discussed at some length by the members of the party. On May 15t.h the first engineering parties were sent into the Held making investigations and collecting data to be used in drawing up the plans for construction. The men qualified to perform certain duties in connection with the work were selected from a large list of applicants and were advised to report at Laidlaw so that the work could proceed with considerable dis- 24 8 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. J.atch just as soon as the law went into effect on June 3rd. In selecting the organization for the project, each man had a certain place to fill and con- siderable care was exercised in selecting men with past experience in the particular work for which they were desired. Constitutionality of the . Calumbia Southern Act. On June 3rd, when the law went into effect and when the organization on the Project was practically complete to commence work, Mr. L. H. McMahan, an attorney of Salem, filed a suit against the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer to enjoin them from making payments out of the money appropriated by the last session of the legislature to carry on the Project. This came as a bolt from a clear sky, inasmuch as it jeopardized the payment of all money that had been and would be expended before the case would be settled. The Desert Land Board, however, finally decided that arrangements could be made, should the suit be decided adversely to the State, whereby the amount expended could be paid from.the Desert Land Board funds, but the Project Engineer was instructed to hold the force down to a minimum and to advise all men already hired to wait outcome of injunction suit. The injunction suit was dismissed in. the Circuit Court, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State on July 1st, 1913, after which the organization on the Project was completed and work in earnest was commenced. Previous to the time of the dismissal of the injunction suit by the Supreme Court, the organization that had been procured from Portland and surrounding territory were kept employed —the engineers collecting data and making surveys relative to adjustment of water rights on the Project, survey.%ag the lands required for reservoir purposes, .securing options on these lands, installing the accounting system and on other work which would be of decided advantage should the injunction suit ioe determined favorably to us. The few men who had been secured on the construction organizat.icu were kept employed in the construction of a telephone system from Laidlaw to the various proposed camps, and also in erecting Camp No. 4, which was centrally located and for which lumber had been purchased. ORGANIZATION. It was fully realized when work commenced on the Project that there would be a great variety of work to be done simultaneously. For instance Investigation work might be carried on for one feature of the Project while constructicn work might be completed at the other end. Furthermore, all the lands had to be mapped, topography taken and the lands subdivided and c?assified. In addition, surveys had to to made from which the water rights on the Project could be adjudicated. All this tended to show that a very complicated organization would probably be necessary, .and much chaos and confusion would result unless the work was properly segregated and organized. We have also endeavored on this Project to keep the engi- neering organization separate and apart from the construction department as it was believed that more efficient work could be done in that manner. Therefore, it was deemed advisable to divide the organization as follows: No. 1. The administrative bead of the Project ifi officially known s the Project Engineer, to whom all reports are addressed by the organization on the Project, and who is directly responsible.to the Desert Land Board for all matters pertaining to the Project. 24 -FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 9 M No. 2. All general office work and field accounting, including the clerical, stenographic, purchasing and accounting department; G. Ed Ross, Chief Clerk, in charge. No. 3. The engineeri,ag department, which was subdivided into three divisions, as follows: (a.) Office engineering, including drafting and designing; P. W. Heasley, Assistant Engineer, in charge. (b) Construction engineering. 1. Ccnstruction of feed canal; H. C. Rupple, engineer in charge. 1. Construction of Bull Creek Dam and Crater Creek Diversion; . A. J. Welton, engineer in charge. 3. Tumalo Dam; A. S. Nicol, assistant. engineer in charge. 4. Distribution system eonsti ueticn; C. E. Hewitt,engineer in charge. (c) E.agineering. Taking of topography, land classifications and s,01divial-n. ad{udic^tiro of water rights, and general investi- gation; C. E. Hewitt, engineer in charge. No. 4. The construction department. This department included all cr•nstructicn work as well as the constructi^,a and operation of camps, telephone systems, roads, -etc. The work at all times on the Project was divided among two construction superintendents, whose work at no particular time. overlapped, although each superintendent at dif- ferent times ccnstruct.ed certain portions of each important feature. A. M. Bye and Alfred Hanson, the two construction superintendents, each constructed certain portions of the following work: the feed canal with appurtenant structures; reservoir roads, Tumalo dam with ap- purtenant structures, main canal from reservoir. . In addition, Alfred Hansen was in charge of the construction of Bull Creek dam, spillway and bridge, and the distribution system. No. b. The operation and maintenance department, which included the actual operation and maintenance of the irrigation system, the distr.ibaticn cf the water for irrigation, the collection of maintenance tees. the adiustm(nt of all matters pertaining to the settlers already on the Project, adjudicatien of water rights, etc.; Fred N. Wallace, Irrigation manager, in charge. Now that the Project is completed, these various departments will not be discussed separately except the clerical, stenographic, purchasing and accounting department, the drafting and designing department and the operation and maintenance department, but the constructed Project will be discussed by features, which it is hoped will prove more interesting. Project Engineer. The duties cf the Project Engineer were many and varied. All reports and cffic`al business pass through his office and in almost all cases either receive his personal attention or were brought to his notice in condensed form. He supervised all important matters pertaining to the office work, the design and estimates of the office engineering, laid out and planned the work for the field engineering, and issued instructions to the censtruct.icn department. Furthermore, he actually supervised all construction work by daily visits cn the ground. All right of way matters or legal questions were worked out by him and submitted for .approval to the Desert Land Board. The chief of each department on the Project or- ganization rendered a weekly and monthly report to the Project Engineer so that with his actual personal supervision of the work on the ground, to- gether with these reports he was able to keep in perfect touch with all con- ditions on the Project. All matters of policy or any matters of great Ira- 24 10 FINAL REPORW„T,1VMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. portance were submitted to the Desert Land Board, for consideration, ap- proval or decision. All plans, maps and estimates prepared in blue print form had the signature or approval of the Project Engineer before the con- struction force had authority to use same. On account of the great responsibility placed on the Project Engineer, and in order to conform with the general practice among other State officials having large tesponsibilities, it was decided by the Desert Land Board to _place the Protect Engineer under $1'0,000.00 bond to assure that he would honestly, faithfully and impartially discharge his duties. After considerable difficulty was experienced and annoyance resulted -over the method of making payments of labor claims by the voucher sys- tem, a pay roll system• was finally installed, which provided for the pay- ment of the month's payroll by warrants from the Secretary of State to the Project Engineer, who in turn would deposit same in the First National Bank of Bend and draw his official check as Project Engineer to each man listed on the payroll. In order to amply protect the State against any pos- sible losses in this connection, it was deemed .advisable to. place the Project Engineer under an additional $10,000 bond to cover disbursements. Owing to tre fact that the present Project is the outgrowth of the old ,defunct Carey Act Project wtih about 3,000 acres already in operation, the -duties of the Project Engineer became more numerous and varied than is ordinarily the case on, construction work. The majority of` tte;'people felt that they had not been justly treated in the past which made them rather skeptical and as a result hard to deal with. The water rights on the Project were very complicated and Many legal points were encountered when adjustments were under consideration or new contracts considered. In view of the conditions existing on the Project, the Project Engineer retained .no legal adviser, and inasmuch as the Attorney General could not be ex- pected to spend much of his time Iocally, considerable legal detail work in connection with the various adjustments was left entirely to be settled by the Project Engineer. Usually, however, on matters of great importance or policy, they were presented to the Desert Land Board for official interpreta- tion. CLERICAL, STENOGRAPHTC, PURCHASING AND ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENTS. The Project headquarters are located in the small town of Laidlaw where the State established offices in a vacant bank building, which was very satisfactory for all requirements _after a few inside alterations were made. Adjacent to the Project office suitable men's quarters, storehouse, barns, garage and corrals were established. The State acquired one barn and four lots from the Oregon, Washington & Idaho• Finamea Co. Upon these lots a large warehouse and garage were built as a fixed asset to the Project. The bank building or Project headquarters and two lets were also subsequently purchased so the Project now owns the property occupied and Is not required to pay taxes or rents. Duties of Chief Clerk. The Chief Clerk arrived at the Project head- quarters on June 9, 1913, and immediately took charge of his duties, which -were very complicated and a great deal more numerous and varied than 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 11 is usually the case on construction work. The lack of a regular assistant to the Project Engineer in connection with the handling of the details con- sequent to a large amount of construction work, which in itself usually received the entire attention of an, additional men made it necessary to turn over much of this detail work to the Chief Clerk and his assistants. Furthermore, this being the first Project ever undertaken directly by the State, considerable work was involved in bringing good business methods on construction work to conform to the State laws and requirements. The position cf Chief Clerk is a very important one for the reason that in him is intrusted the charge of the clerical, accounting, bookkeeping, purchasing and the distribution of materials and supplies for the entire project. He also had charge of the payroll system and acted as paymaster. To assist in the routine work in connection with the general office, the Chief Clerk had the following organization; a bookkeeper, who is respons- ible for the proper assembling and recording of all accounts, for the vouch- ering of all bills, and who acted as custodian of all records which went to make up the parts of his accounts; two or three stenographers who handled the correspondence, the actual vouchering, filing, etc.; a storekeeper who received all incoming freight, filled all requisitions from the various camps, had charge of the equipment record, and personally arranged for the freight- ing of materials from the railroad station, Deschutes, and to and from the various camps; a roustabout with team who worked under the jurisdiction of the cffice, whose duties were to handle all miscellaneous freighting, and had charge of the headquarters corral; the timekeepers at the construction camps, who although they reported to the construction superintendent direct, were under the jurisdiction of the headquarters cffice as far as the accounting was concerned; during a portion of the season of 1914 it was also necessary to engage a chauffeur to operate and keep in repair the two State automobiles, who also reported to the office. Accounting System. For the seasons of 1913-14, during which the work has been in actual operation on the Project., the actual keeping of costs covering construction from 14 camps has been kept by the clerical and auditing department. The original records are so kept and arranged in the field that the transrer of charges and credits to the permanent rec- ords in the general office was a very simple matter and eliminated con- siderable work at a period cf the month when time is the most valuable. Owing to the lack of duplication of the work, which also decreased the liability of error, this method obtained very satisfactory results with a minimum force of accounting employees. On July 6, 1913, Mr. A. S. Emery, Field Inspector for the Reclamation Service, visited the Project to assist in the installation of our accounting system. Mr. Emery made some suggestions that were appreciated and sub- sequently adopted; but as a whole, the system had been quite thoroughly planned before he arrived, so that with the exception of a few minor altera- tions as the work progressed, the original system was retained in the handling of our accounts. Our system - of accounts is very � similar• to that used on Government Reclamation Projects, and -about the same records kept, but owixg to the fact that our work was on a smaller basis, those in authority in closer touch 24 12 FINAL" REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROTECT. with it, and all permanent records were kept in the Project office, it was possible to accomplish the same results as those attained by the Govern- ment Reclamation System, with less labor, and a considerable saving in administration cost, as our cost reports for the work reveal. This system was outlined and operated with a view of having a perma- nent and complete record of every business transaction on the Project, and at the same time it was so arranged that the majority of the field records became a part of our permanent record. The principal features of the accounting system consist of an Invoice Register, Voucher Register, Cost Ledger, and about a dozen Ge ieral Ledger accounts. An account number book, the items of which correspond with the items in the Cost Ledger, and cover thoroughly the detail of every feature on which costs were kept, was in the hands of each of the men who had to do with the field accounting, and all charges for labor, material and sup- plies were noted by account number. An Equipment record was kept sep- arately from the general books; a certain portion of equipment deprecia- tion being shown against each feature monthly. At certain periods, (three six or twelve mcnths, as might appear desirable,) an actual physical inven- tory was taken of all equipment, its selling value determined, and the difference between this and the depreciation that had been taken previously was adjusted and entered in the Cost Ledger. The administrative features of the Cost Ledger were also distributed to the active construction features at certain periods during the year. Payments for all purchases of materials, supplies, equipment, real estate, etc., were made by means of vouchers prepared in the office, ap- proved by the Project Engineer, transmitted to the Desert Land Board, and by the latter to the Secretary of State, who prepared State Warrants for the amount due, which warrants, until July 10, 1914, were sent direct to the payee by the Secretary of State, giving the Project office no check as to when accounts were actually settled. This was a rather unsatisfactory method of handling the matter. On July 10, 1914, however, the Secretary of State made a ruling whereby warrants covering vouchers from this office would be sent to us for transmittal to the payee, which we found to be much more satisfactory than the former method. Payroll System. The labor accounts were paid at the close of each month on a payroll voucher, which was inaugurated on this Project on the recommendaticn of the Project officials to the members of the Desert Land Board through the co-operation of Secretary of State Ben W. Olcott and Treasurer Thos. B. Kay. The Project Engineer was bonded for $10,000 to cover his connection with this method of payment. A warrant for the amount of the payroll was sent him for deposit in the First National Bank of Bend, Oregon, on which he drew his official check as Project Engineer, countersigned by the Chief Clerk. This system was put into effect in time to pay the October, 1913, payroll, and payment was made for October time on November 14th, November time on December 6th, and December time on January 8th, and so on. Under the old method of paying by vouchers and the sending of'State Warrants direct to the employee by the Secretary of State, which gave this office no check as to who had and who had not been paid, paymefit was oftentimes delayed thirty days or more; very sel- WA LIMM FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 13 dom did any of the employees receive their warrants before the 20th of the mcnth, which caused a great deal of dissatisfaction and made it very hard to hold men on the Project. " Time checks which came in during the month were still handled on the old voucher system, but an assignment was taken by the First National Bank of Bend and payment made to employees at once, the bank advancing the money and waiting for a refund by the Secretary of State. During April, 1914, the payroll system was installed to cover time checks issued during the month as well as the regular monthly payments, which we found very much superior to handling the numerous accounts. Much of the succeess cf this time check payroll system was due to the hearty co-operation of the First National Bank of Bend, who allowed us to check against our unpaid balance and waited until the warrant was returned from the Secretary of State for the time check payrcll. Usually one time check payroll was sent in each week except on a few special oc- casions when it was found advisable to send them in oftener. On the payroll system from October, 1913, to December. 1914, 4365 checks were issued, aggregating $154,099.15. The largest iidividual month for labor accounts was September, 1914, when 560 men were paid by official check, 184 being on time check rolls and 376 on the regular payroll. A total amount cf $27,500.00 was expended during the month on the payroll, from which. however, deductions were made, leaving the net amount paid $19,571.06. / Classification of Expenditures. From the beginning of the work on the Project .,n June, 1913, to its c3mpletion December 31, 1914, tier a was paid out approximately as follows: Labor .......... ........ $276,404.87 Material and supplies .................. 100.97 3.33 Equipment . ........................... 19.7 7 7.33 Right of way ......................... 59,855.00 A total expenditure of .................. $456,993.53 It will be noted that an expenditure of $6,993.53 in excess of the ap- priation is shown and there is still left of the appropriation of $450,000 approximately $2,204.30, making an apparent discrepancy of $9,197.83. This may be explained by the fact that profits have resulted from certain features or the work which have been credited to accounts on the Cost \Ledger. These profits were derived from the camp messes, camp mercantile stpres and storehouse. In addition to the above, we now have stored in our warehouse at Laidlaw equipment and supplies in serviceable condition which could not be replaced for less than $16,000 or $17,000, and which at a very conserva- ative estimate should be worth at least $12,000.00 to any one having use for equipment of this character. In addition we have about $1,100 re- turned from the sale of material and supplies which either has been or will be deposited in the reclamation fund of the State for use only on the Tumalo Project. A summary, therefore, shows that, the construction of the Project was completed, there still remains in tho general fund $2,204.30 of the appropriation that has not been disturbed, there has been a profit of $9,197.83 expended on the work, property to the value of approximately J 24 14 FINAL REPORT TUMALO• IRRIGATION PROJECT. $12,000 remains, and about $1,100 -in, cash is available for future wo •k on the project. The books is the Project office show that there has been expended- $447,795.70, and there is tabulated below a detailed list of the classification of there expenditures as they appear on the Project books: COST LEDGER TOTALS, TABLE BY FEATURES. December, 1914. GENERAL. Adjudication of water rights .............. $ 4,819.93 Construction of telephone system ........... 766.81 General road construction on project........ 2,136.54 General invest.igati=n of project ........... 3,112.57 Topography, clasE`flcaticn and subdivisio.a of lands .............................. 8,422.25 $ 19,258.10� FEED CANAL. Right of way charges ... ... ........... $ 3,602.36 Diversion dam on Tumalo Creek ........... 4,987.02 Construction of canal ................... 47,449.12 Drop Ni. 1 at Rock Cut .................. 1,797.48 Drop No. 2 into reservoir ................. 1,810.68 Cnn.;:tri,ction cf by-pass .................. 1,071.20 Metal Flume No. 1 ...................... 19,520.85 nieLal r ra..,e .\c. s. ..................... 3,046.52 Metal Flume No. 3. ..................... 18,834.43 Metal Flume No. 4. ............ 6,551.50. $108,671.06 1ORAGE WORKS. Right cf way charges ................... $ 60,544.42 Road construction around reservoir ........ 9,780.80 Eull Creek Dam, spillway and bridge ....... 11,062.10 Tumalo dam Dra.nage and diversion of water .................. $ 2,200.39 Cut of and drain trenches ... 5,823.09 Dam embankment and ripiap 45,207.'3 Borrow pit charges ........ 8,580.48 Core wall ................ 16,VO4.01 Outlet tun::e'—excavation and concrete lining ......... 15,701.35 Gateshaft and h:.use—escava- tion and concrete lining... 9,318.51 $103,33 7.06 $184,724.38 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. Lateral system and structures under feed canal and by-pass .................... $ 18,240.51. Lateral system and structures under Wimer Canal ............................ 3,79,7.7 8 Main Canal Diversion dam below reservoir........... 4,342.45 Construction of main canal ............. 43,185.62 Lateral system and structures under main canal ............................. 48,671.99 Construction of North Canal Laterals and structures ........................ • • • 6,705.54 $124,943.83: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Repairs and renewals and patrol house construction ...... $ 3,842.02 - m FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION ,PROJECT. 15 BROKEN TOP DIVERSION CANAL .......... . ............ 6,356.31 $447,795.70 Certified tows correct: W M. SCHALLER, G. ED ROSS, Bookkeeper. Chief Clerk. Purchasing. During the weeks we were awaiting the outcome of the injunction suit, estimates were made on material, supplies and equipment which would be required and the orders actually written up for as much as could be definitely decided upon, so that the moment the decision was announced these orders were mailed, the urgency of prompt shipment impressed upon all the dealers and within a very few days the goods began '.o arrive. From the beginning it was realized that every dollar rhould purchase a full dollar's worth of merchandise and therefore, in most cases, wholesale dealers and manufacturers wei a patronized. Although the state law does not require advertising for prices on important purchases, it was considered good business for three reasons —first, it was felt that a little better price raas secured is this way and a wider range of selection given; second, as this was public work, it gave all dealers the same opportunity to participate and receive their share of business; and third, it eliminated all appearance of favoritism. The quality of materials and supplies desired was always considered in connection with the prices quoted, awards being made only after careful investigation of the merits of the goods offered. All Project records covering purchases were always open to those interested and .the officials were always pleased to produce them. A large portion of the business of the Tumalo Project necessarily went to Portland dealers. As a matter of convenience and accomodation to the men on the works, It was considered advisable to install mercantile stores or commissaries at each one of the camps established, where only regular employees of the Project could purchase supplies on credit. These charges were deducted from their monthly check. In camps of ordinary size it was found that profits from these sales were almost sufficient to pay the timekeeper's salary. Supplies were also furnished employees from the storehouse at Laidlaw at a slight advance over the wholesale cost. One object in accom- odating the employees of the Project in the matter of furnishing supplies was to impress them with the fact that the Project officials were interested in their welfare and desired the salaries paid to purchase the maximum amount of supplies. In connection with the mercantile store and storehouse, small profits were obtained which went to credit certain features of the construction work on the cost ledger. In connection with the mercantile store, $631.13 is shown as profit, while in connection with the storehouse $2,011.68 was credited. The following table, which has been prepared to show our business dealings with various firms, may prove of interest: 81 accounts, in amount $97,353.94, 40 per cent of total, Portland, Oregon. 97 accounts, in amount 72,532.75, 30 per cent of total. I.aid'au,. Ore ron. 40 accounts, in amount 47,657.00, 20 per cent of total, Bend, Oregon. 106 accounts, in amount 26,597.21, 10 per cent of total, Elsewhere. 24 16 FINAL REPORT TUMAL-O IRRIGATION PROJECT. Clerical. The clerical force, in addition to its regular duties, was used to operate the Project automobile at times of emergency. All men and teams were also hired through the office and when full handed, applications were placed on file, fro -i which men were hired as soon as vacancies oc- caried. In addition, all the men on the force acquired more or less intimate knowledge in connection with the administrative affairs on the Project, and were often used whenever occasions arose which demanded special services. An enormous routine work was also turned out, which may be judged from the fact that about 16,500 letters were written and mailed, in addition to all the Project orders and circulars. Medical Services. In order to provide properly for hospital attendance for all the employees on the Project, it was found necessary to enter into a contract with Dr. J. F. Hosch, of Redmond. To cover the doctor's fees, it was agreed to deduct $1.00 per month from each employee's earnings, provided such employee worked at least five days. In cases of less than 5 days and more than cne day, 50 cents was deducted. The hospital and medical services performed by Dr. Hosch on this Project have been especial- iy gratifying to all concerned. Very complete medical chests were placed i,- each camp and a general supply chest at the Project headquarters, from which the men were supplied for their various minor ailments. There have l,Een very few serious accidents on the work and no deaths among the em- plcyees of the Project direct, although one man in the employ of one of the contractors met instantaneous death through an accident for which no c•ne in particular was to blame. Aside from furnishing medical and hospital attendance to the employees, Dr. Hosch very carefully looked after camp sanitation and the enfarce:nent of the ordinary rules to keep the camps clean and healthy. The medical contract with Dr. Hosch was in force from August 1, 1913, to November 30, 1914, during which time 170 cases of disease were treated, and 23 accidents attended. No permanent disability resulted with the pcssib:e exception of one man who received a very severe blow on his head from the crank of the steam shovel. This accident resulted in partial paralysis, which necessitated a very delicate operation which required trephining the skull. The patient now is in good condition and may eventually recover completely. A small hospital with four beds and a nurse in constant attendance was maintained at Redmond to care for the sick under the .doctor's care. A total of 47 patients were taken into the hospital with a total attendance of 578 days, making the average time to each patient about 12 days. The longest attendance, however, of any one case was 76 days. In connection with the hospital provision, however, 4 cares of small pox occurred which required an additional peEt house. Dr. Hosch deserves a great deal of credit and commendation for the manner in which he handled the,,e small- pox cases in preventing the spread of the disease in the first place, and the spread cf. alarm or fear among the laborers in the second place. Only one case of typhoid fever developed on the work, which was the last patient in the hospital. This man was en the work only about a week, ,iowever, before taken sick, so it is quite probable that the disease was contracted elsewhere.. 24 FINAL -REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION .PROJECT. 17 Dr. Bosch received as compensation during the time of the continuance of his contract $4,721.00, and he deserves a great deal of credit for the satisfactory manner in which he handled the work. Accident Insurance. After the accident which caused the death of one: of the laborers for the contractor, it was deemed advisable to take out acci- dent insurance as a precaution for the workmen. Accordingly, on March 14, 1914, effective at noon, a contract was entered into between the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., of Baltimore, Md., covering all employees on the Project. This contract provided for the payment of one-half of their weekly salary in case of accident, and other benefits to cover permanent disability or death. A charge of 4 per cent of the gross earnings of the employees engaged on all the work except tunneling was made, and 12 per cent on the gross earnings was charged against that particular class of work. This contract expired on June 30, 1914, when the Workmen's Com- pensation Law for the State of Oregon became effective. During the con- tinuance of the contract with the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 6 men were slightly injured, to whom the company made a total payment of $121.78. The total amount paid during this time to the company was $2,903.02. The Workmen's Compensation Law provided for a deduction from the salaries of the employees as follows: 1/4 of 1 per cent from all those engaged in clerical, engineering, drafting, patrolmen, cooks, etc., and 1/ of 1 per cent from those engaged in other and more hazardous occupations. In addition to this amount deducted from the employees, the Project remitted six times the amount deducted from the employees, which amounts to 11 per cent of the payroll for class B and 3 per cent of the payroll for Class A. Inasmuch, however, as a contract was in force with Dr. Hosch covering ace -'dents as well as sickness, no additional charge besides the hospital fees were deducted from the employees of the Project to cover accident insur- ance, but the Tumalo Project transmitted to the State Industrial Accident Commission not only the amount to be deducted from the workmen, but also 6 times that amount. A supplementary contract., however, was entered into between the Project Engineer and the Accident -Commission whereby the workmen's portion was returned to the Project to be transmitted to Dr. Roach, from whose payments the workmen's portion was usually deducted. Practically the same protection was obtained for the workmen under the compensation act as had been obtained froin.,the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., and the premiums paid were considerably less. From July 1st to December 31st there was contributed to the. State Industrial Accident Fund by the Tumalo Project $2,5762.66, while. the employees for the same period contributed $460.12, or a total of $3,022.78. During the same period $12'6.72 had been paid for accident claims and there are four claims still unsettled. Messes. During the progress of ccnstruction 14 camps were in operation and the same number of messes. The proper handling of these and the feeding of the men was considered of far more importance to the work in hand than is often the case on construction work. It was believed that if a workman was well fed and satisfied with the meals served him his efficien- cy on the work was increased over that of an employee who felt that he 18 FINAL REPORT TUMALQ IRRIGATION PROJECT. was not getting the meals for which he paid. With that end in view every endeavor was made to give the men through the messes all that, possibly could be given and still come within the price of 25 cents which was charged. We have been very fortunate in the matter of cooks and kitchen help for the messes. It seemed that each cook attempted to obtain a reputation for serving better meals than his . neighbor. Also, in order to offer proper in- ducements to the cooks to furnish good meals at reasonable prices, we adopted very early in the construction period a sliding scale for the cook's salary. It was understood, however, that the prices we paid as salary would depend entirely on the class of meals served, the cost of same, cleanliness, and that no serious complaint would be tolerated from the men as to the nature of the meals served. The charges assessed against the messes in- cluded the cost of the foodstuffs furnished to which a certain percentage was added to cover the handling and freight from the railroad station to the camps, the cook's and helper's salaries, the initial construction cost of the mees houee, root house, meat house, all fuel, oil, etc., and also an ap- proximate depreciation each month of the actual camp equipment used. None of the camps was very large, so that the. net profit would not look tempting to a boarding house contracor. The profit to the State, aside t-om the financial part, has been in. keeping the men in good humor and well satisfied with their treatment. It is bel'evcd that no small portion of the credit for the low cost of construction work on the Project is due to efficient management of the camp messes. Soon after the establishment of the camps, it was deemed advisable to. make a small investment in pigs to absorb the waste from the mess houses which would otherwise be lost. It required only a short time to become convinced that this was a good proposition and a sound investment for the Project., and accordingly the mess camps were kept well supplied with young live pigs. A total of 126 pigs were purchased during our operations for which we paid $456.40. This investment netted 12,717 pounds of pork, which at the ordinary rate of 12 % cents per pound, would have cost us $1,589.57, showing a profit of $1,133.17, or 248 per cent on the in vestment. From July, 1913, to December, 1914, a total of 200,927 meals were served on the Project at a cost of $44,507.97, producing an average cost of 22.15 cents per meal. For these meals we obtained a price of 25 cents, netting a profit to the State of $5,280.32, after all costs in connection with the messes had been paid for. Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners were always served appropriate to the occasion and consisted of turkey, celery, nuts, apples and various fancy pastries, aside from the staple foodstuffs. A great many meals were served to various parties who inspected the Project from time to time. The largest delegation served at any one time, however, besides the regular organization, was 139 members of the Port- land Ad Club, the Bend Emblem Club and a few local visitors, on Septem- ber 6, 1914. A few of the special features for that occasion were two suck- ling pigs roasted whole and properly dressed and a skyscraper cake weighing 147 pounds, which was properly decorated and lettered for the occasion. This banquet, which was held at our Camp No. 6 at Tuma.lo Dam, received 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 19 much favorable comment and was a splendid means of advertising the Project. Project Automobiles. During the early part of the construction season the bills for livery and auto hire, together with the inconveniences and in- adequate service, made it appear very desirable to have an .automobile for use in connection with the work. Accordingly on August 2, .1913, with .the approval of the Desert Land Board a 1913 Ford touring car was purchased and put into general use. With the increased demands on this car in the spring of the year 1914, it was deemed advisable to purchase a Ford run- about for the personal use of the Project Engineer. The runabout was used from March to October, both months inclusive, after which time it was sold for $350.00, as its usefulness to the Project had ceased. Very careful records of the ecst of running the automobile were kept. These records show that a total of 18,877 miles were run during the period of the work at a total cost of $1,563.81, which includes operation, depreciation, small tools and equipment, repairs, gasoline, oils, etc. A total of 1,217 gallons of gasoline weie used with an average of 15.52 miles per gallon. Deducing the cost of running these automobiles per. mile, we. obta?.ned results as follows: operation, 4.71.cents, depreciation, 3.48 cents, or a total cost of 8.19 cent per mile. Depreciation charges were at first computed on the basis of the first car being worthless at .the completion of the Project, but on March 1, 1914, this was changed and the depreciation was computed on the basis of 20,000 miles for each car. The * very cheapest rate charged for automobile hire in this locality is 15 cents per Haile, and that rate applies only to long distances. The ordi- nary rate is about 25 cents per mile. Taking the cheapest rate, however, of 15 cents for the 18,877 miles, the total charge would be $2,831,55. November, 1914, on both cars, we have a charge of.... $2,831.55 Cost of touring car with accessories complete ........................... $704.15 Cost of runabout with accessories complete 569.00 Cost of operation complete 906.01 $2,179.16 Less sale price of runabout 350.00 Total cost of auto service for both cars .................. $1,829.16 Leaves a net profit of .......................... $1,002.39 In addition to the above profit, of over.$1,000.00, we still have the tour- ing car which is in good condition, and undoubtedly with proper care will cover at least 20,000 miles more. The greatest service to us in having the Ford cars was in convenience and time saved during the period when time was the most valuable. project Photographs. It was deemed advisable to keep a complete pho- tographic record of construction progress and interesting events. For this purpose an ord°nary 3A kodak was purchased and operated by the Project employees. Up to the close of work 365 views were taken, of which one complete set was on file in the office. Copies of these p;ctures could be Obtained at any time by employees of the Project at a very nominal cost. In addition to these smaller views, about 18 official views, 8x10, were It i 20 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. taken by R. J. Todd, a photographer of Bend, Oregon. These views assist quite materially in preF-erving a permanent record of the features of the work as it progressed. Headquarters Construction. The amount of construction work neces- sary for headquarters office building, bunkhouse, barns, .corrals and garage was very reasanab:e compared to similar requirements on other projects. 'As recorded elsewhere in th�Is report, one large barn and four lots were acquired from the Oregon, Washington & Idaho Finance Co., in accordance with their contract with the . Desert Land Board. On these,lots were also constructed a large warehcuse 30x50 and a garage. All these were proper- ly painted. The cost of the warehouse was $553.28 and the garage $45.28. The barns, warehouse, corral, etc., were also completely fenced. The acquisition of office building and two lots cost $2,000, while the labor and material necessary to remodel the office building, bunkhouse, and ware- houase, other than those now owned by the State, cost $454.89. The total cost to the Project for headquarters construcion was $1,137.67. TeIephono Construction. About the first work commenced was the in- stallation of a telephone system to'connect the various camps with the office during the c�nstructicn period. It was also realized -that it would be of permanent value to'the Project Manager during operation and maintenance. AplproXimate!y 25 miles of telephone line has been built at a total cost of $766.81, or an average of $30.67 per mile. The line runs from the central office at Latdiaw to a point near the middle of the feed canal, from which place it branches to the head gates and the other branch 'running to Bull Creek dam, Tumalo dam, along the main canal, then over the distribution system and back to Laidlaw. The telephone has an important place on construction work owing to the fact that emergencies continually arise which call for prompt action, besides delays mean added cost to the work. It is very important for all men connected with the work, and especially those in charge, to have the telephone as a means of quick communication with remote regions. Again, there is always mere or less danger connected with work of this character, necessitating rapid means of getting medical aid, as sometimes an hour's delay means a manns life. Where climatic conditions are unfavorable a few months each year for working operations, time has great value during the actual working season. For the above reasons the telephone on this work was consequently almost indispensible. Organizaticm and Accomplishments. The Chief Clerk and his organiza- tion deserve a great deal of credit for the work that has been accomplished in the clerical, accounting and purchasing departments during the construc- tion of the Project. At' the commencement of the work practically his entire organization were men inexperienced in handling construction work, but after they became accustomed to what was desired they proved very efficient. The Chief, Clerk and the Bookkeeper have the distinction of being with the Project from beginning until completion. Aside from these two positions, the storekeeper was the only position which was filled by ,two men during the entire period. The Project Engineer hereby desires to express his `appreciation of the faithful work and performance of the Chief Clerk, G. Ed Ross, who was in charge.of the department; W1:1liam Schaller, 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 21 who was bookkeeper and clerk during the entire period of the work; R. J. Simpson, who acted as bookkeeper and clerk from November 12, 1913, until the completion of the work; and B. L. Stanford,. who acted as clerk and ,stenographer. In additicn to the above, there were employed at various ether times 12 other stenographers, 1 storekeeper, 15 timexcepers, 7 roust- abouts and 3 chauffeurs, who were employed under this department at dif- ferent times. A great deal of detail work accumulates on construction work and it was often necessary to work long hours and under pressure. The crganizaticn of this department has at all times proved themselves willing, capable and efficient and the Project Engineer hereby desires to ,express his appreciation of their splendid efforts and accomplishments. DRAFTING, DESIGNING AND OFFICE ENGINEERING. The work in this department bore such close relation to the Project Engineer that an office Engineer was appointed to take charge of the work In this department to work at the Project headquarters. The early work consisted of platting and mapping the sheets prepared in connection with the adjudication of' water rights from which the areas actually irrigated -were obtained. A large amount of work was also necessary in connection with the platting of the horizontal control for topography, and subsequent- ly inking in the topographic sheets and obtaining the irrigable areas from the classitleaticn sheets. In addition, a great deal cf miscellaneous work` was handled by this department, all right of way surveys were platted and the correct descriptions given. Complete and exhaustive studies were made from the hydregraphs from Tumalo Creek from which the capacity of the reservoir and canals could be easily determined. A great many maps were also made in the office which were necessary to obtain the extension of time on the segregation lists No. 13, the Carey Act segregation of list No. 34, and the patents to certain -lands on the Project that had been reclaimed. General maps were also made of the Project after the topography and classification had been com- pleted. Preliminary to construction all plans were prepared in the drafting room of which estimates were also prepared. The most important portion of the work in this division was the design- ing of important structures. This was done under the direction of the Project Engineer, but a great many of the details were left to those in charge of the department, who submitted all plans for approval before any of the plans were sent out for construction. So -me of the most important structures designed in this department and which were of special interest because they are distinctly original with the Project may be listed as follows: Diversion weirs and head gates for feed canal; Concrete lining and sand trap for feed canal; Timber structures for hanging of metal flumes;. Concrete and grouted pavement transitions for steel flumes; Concrete intake gates and drop for by-pass from feed canal; Concrete weir and water cushion basin; Drop No. 1; Concrete check gates .and Drop No. 2; Bull Creek dam, bridge and spillway of concrete; Complete designs of Tumalo dam with appurtenant outlet works; Diversion dam and spillway with outlet conduit for main canal; Concrete and steel bridges; Standard wooden structures, .turn outs, etc. And in addition to the above 22 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. ,a great many other smaller structures too numerous to mention have been designed in the drafting room and constructed in the field. On January 12, 1914, a board of consulting engineers met on. the Pro- ject to consider storage works. In preparing for this meeting it was necessary to prepare a great many. maps, plans, estimates and investigation data obtained for Tumalo dam. This involved a great deal of work in the drafting and designing department. On all maps and plans prepared, appropriate titles were made, all of uniform plan. The title was usually placed on the lower right hand corner. The tracings prepared were also made of uniform dimensions, some multiple of 10 % inches in one direction and some multiple of 7 inches in the other direction, so that with a one inch border cu one Bide and one-half inch border on the other three, the blue prints could be folded in sheets of letter size. Blue prints cf all structures and maps necessary for the proper execu- tion of the wcrk were all prepared at the. Project headquarters by this department. This involved no small amount of work as hundreds of blue prints were necessary when many structures were under course of construc- tion at the same time. The timckceping for the engineering department also for a time was kept by the office engineering department for the reason that a great many .engineering parties and su*vPynrs worked. from LaidlaW as their head- quarters, and this department was in better position to segregate the var- ious charges than an ordinary timekeeper. On account of interruptions caused by the construction of various ditches and structures, conditions were very unfavorable for obtaining satisfactory measurements for the guaging of the seepage losses in the various canals during the past season.. On a few occasions, however, measurements were made by this department when conditions for reliable results were favor- able. From such observations as were able to be procured, it would seem -that our estimates on seepage losses were very ample and that the actual losses in practice would be considerably less than estimated. Also, guag- ing stations of a permanent character were established along the feed canal which have been adopted by the Geological Survey as regular stations. Progress profiles in color were also prepared by this department of the construction wcrk, especially in connection with the feed canal, main canal and Tumalc dam. During the close of operations much work was also done in segregating quantities and working up cost data; also in preparing information and data as a matter of record when the construction organizat'on has left the project. The number of men in this department has varied at different times frc m 2 to 3, according to the amount of work on hand. P. W. Beasley, assistant. ergineer, has been in charge of this department, and his pains- taking, careful work has been appreciated. The men in the department have als-- at all times been willing to work hard and long hours to produce necessary results when it was absolutely essential. 24 rr� al da'surJ`iav� o1we 6v pINSe/in ,y! //b'ap ot�ovn K.�JGtay=d _,.cavgtu_ Kofe:- ZfV restrop# to As fedene/ & ear./ 4 i�vn 6y csunfer-1t61nk riv�fe .wails 01..9/ofa fArah Zowr & flab Scrssn! V i'•i^ ...,.:. �rs+a 10 be"as/ in "4A skf J �. Nofe: FAosh-tasils fo be niopt-beod nndnvnRL,srad i 9 t 8 sr `x9 io/h latilri/ � �/;Iah Barns STATE a OREOON VCaCRT LAMD BOARD TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT PLAN ^mo SECTIONS FEED CANAL DIVERSION WEIR OFF1611 Or PRO.JCCT CNGINECR L/UOLAW,ORC. *CPT iVOWS - . __ _._ ....__ ... _.. _� � ..�...�......_._...._ _-�24 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 23 FEED CAN414 The 'constxu.ction work .during the season of 1913 consisted ,principally ef • building the Tumalo Feed Can&1, the purpose of which was to convey the water from Tumalo Creekto the reservoir. This work .As originally contemplated consisted of earth canal and wood flume, but after consider- able discussion it was deemed advisable to build more permanent work, /\ and replace ,the wooden flume in the estimate with metal, using concrete transitic-us and concrete pedestals for the bents. During the period that the Injunction suit was being tried in the courts at Salem, preparations were made so that this work could be pushed rapidly as soon as authority was obtained, with the result that immediately after July 1st, work com- menced from four different camps at practically the same time. It was the desire of the organization of the Project to complete this feature during the 1913 season, but on account of certain contingencies over which they had no control, such as delay of contractors completing their work, etc., the feed canal was not entirely completed until the spring of 1914, or just before the irrigation season. It was deemed very important to construct the feed canal immediately for several reasons, but probably the most important was the fact that the old Columbia Southern main canal on which practically all the settlers depended for water was in a precarious condition and might at any time break and cause great inconvenience and loss of property. It was also necessary to purchase right of way and make certain tests and prelim- inary investigatic:ns on certain features of the storage works before con- struction could be commenced. The actual laying out of the distribution system could not be done until a definite policy had been adopted for the signing up of the settlers and adjudication of water rights. This demanded very careful attention and serious consideration during the 1913 season on behalf of the organization of the Project as well as the Desert Land Board. In view of the above facts the only feasible program of construction that presented itself appeared to be a concentration of all forces on the com- pletion of the feed canal and at -the same time close up all matters pending which delayed the construction of the balance of the Project. Actual con- struction work cn the Project was commenced on July 7, 1913. Description. The feed canal proper is 37,800 feet in length and was ,constructed with a capacity of 225 cubic feet per second. Of this length .about 730 feet was concrete lined canal and concrete transitions, 6,381 feet American Ingot Iron metal flume, and the balance was excavation in earth and various forms of solid rock. All the structures appurtenant to the feed canal, such as diversion weir, drops, canal crossings and turn outs were constructed of concrete. On account of the very light material through which the major portion of the feed canal was c instructed, it was deemed advisable to select a section with flat slopes; accordingly, the section as constructed was 14 feet wide on the bottom, 6 feet deep, with side slopes of 2 to 1, making the top width 38 feet. Taken as a whole the construction work was fairly easy and economical with the possible exception of the last one and one-half miles nearest the reservoir, and that portion commonly known as the rock cut between sta- tions Nos. 138 and 151. That portion of the feed canal between Camp No. 4 4 'FINAL RMPORT TUMALO IRRIGATYON' PROJECT. '7 i, i f -and the reservoir was undertaken by contract, but had to be completed by the State under force account. The excavation was very difficult, consisting of large boulders, cement gravel, hard pan and earth with some solid rock mixed ' at intervhls, creating a combination very ' difficult to handle. This rock cut' was rxiade 45 feet wide on the bottom and % to 1 side slopes. The maximum cut was "17 Peet and contained approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material. For the balance of the feed canal excavated the world was located on fairly flat ground, making it possible to stake and -cut on an average center cut of about 3 % feet. On account of the nature of the material through which the feed canal was constructed, it was deemed advisable to give the canal a small grade `to insure a velocity that would not exceed 2.25 feet per second. This was ,deemed advisable in order to allow the fine silt and sediment that was carried by the water to settle and form a water tight coating for the canal. Furthernione, a great porticn of the material excavated was loose and light, 'which .would make the cutting of the banks quite probable had a higher -velocity been chosen. The major porticn of the feed canal was constructed on a grade of .0003. For the rock cut and the concrete lining, however, a grade of, .001 was chosen. For the metal flume the grades varied in diff- erent instances from .0008 to .001. The hen d works of the feed canal consist of a low overflow weir dam, the crest of which is 94.2 feet in length and the height above the hard pan .foundationencountered in the creek was only' 4 feet 3 inches; the cut off walls, however, extended into this hard pan foundation a distance ,of 3 feet. 'Heavy wing walls were constructed at each end of the diversion weir. The headgates of the feed canal and waste way were excavated at the north end 'Of the weir, and consisted of heavy buttress walls with 4 openings, each 5 feet wide and 6 feet 6. inches high, surmounted by arched foot walks (See Drawing No. (B.) The entire diversion weir, wing walls, waste way and head gates are all of reinforced concrete construction with steel angle irons embeddv4 in the concrete slots for the operation of flash boards and fish screens. It was found necessary to build an earth embankment dam in the bottom of the canyon in line with the weir and head gate to an eleva- tion of .3 feet above the top concrete work of the head gates to connect with the hillside on the north side of the canyon. For view of Diversion Dam, headgates and concrete lining, see Cut No. (1.) Immediately below the head gates it was deemed advisable to line a porticn of the canal extending for a distance of 373 feet with concrete as the material encountered during excavation was very porous and would :allow too great proportion of seepage. The section adopted for this lined porticn was 8 feet wide on the bottom, 6 feet deep with side slope of 1 and 1 % to 1. This concrete was all placed without forms and in alternate 8 foot sections, using 1x4 wood templets to get the correct slope and thickness of concrete. After the sections were sufficiently hard the templets were removed and the joints thoroughly oiled before the next sections were placed In order -to provide a clean joint for expansion. It was also deemed advis- able to place drain tile in the center of the canal about 1 foot below the concretelining in order to keep the, earth well drained in the immediate vicinity of the lining to prevent possible back pressure when the canal was 24 . -FINAL. REVORI TUMAIL41IRRIOATI©I TROJECT. 25 empty. This precaution was found. after th® cgmpletton, of the work to have .been a wise one inasmuch as water has run .continuously from the out- lets of tais drain. Between the ends of the concrete. lined canal in Tumalo canyon and the beginning of the metal flume, a small sand trap was in- stalled for the purpose of preventing sand from entering the metal flume. To allow properly for the periodical flushing of the sand trap through the bank of the canal, a six inch Hinman lateral steel gate was installed with outlet through a six inch vitrified sewer pipe laid with cement Joints. Among the structures of the feed canal some of the most important which were constructed of concrete may be mentioned as follows: At staticn 101-1-31 and also at 375-1-64 bridges spanned the feed canal, both of which had conci ete piers on each side of the canal and one in the middle. These were built on a cc -operative basis with the county, the State furnishing the concrete footings and timber superstructures, while the county furnished the metal I -beams for stringers. These brides are practically permanent in character. Near station 148 at the end of the rock cut it was deemed advisable to drop the grade of the feed canal approximately 12 feet to eliminate expen- sive construction in the rock cliffs of Howard canyon. This drop was constructed of concrete and consisted of a heavy cut off wall surmounted by a Cipoletti weir 12 feet long with sides 5 feet high, from which the water is conducted over a 1 to 1 slope to a settling basin. This settling basin serves also as a water cushion to break the fail of the water. Im- mediately below this drop the concrete warped surface transition was con- structed as an intake to metal flume No. 3. Near station 312-1-86 a concrete structure was found necessary to provide a crossing for the old Columbia Southern canal in case of any break in the feed canal, or -for any other reason it was deemed advisable to use the old canal, water could be diverted from it into the feed canal and into the distribution system of the new Project. This Columbia Southern and Tumalo feed canal crossing consists of 3 concrete gate openings sur- mounted by arched foot walks over the feed canal, and a single concrete opening with similar foot walks for the intake and outlet of the Columbia Southern canal. At staticn 375-1-15 the intake gates for the by-pass were constructed of reinforced concrete. This structure is merely a concrete gate opening, surmounted by a concrete foot walk, to divert the water from the feed canal, into the by -.pass, and thus water is delivered below Bull Creek dam and • above the outlet of the reservoir without necessitating the passing of the water through the reservoir. (See Cut No. 3.) A short distance be:cw this gate it was found necessary to repair the feed canal after it was completed by the placement of about 100 lineal feet of concrete lining. At station 376-1-50 at entrance into the reservoir and end of the feed canal, there are located 4 gate openings, 2, of which are in the form of weirs and the others suitable for flash boards. With these gate openings It is possible to cont.rol.the water entering the reservoir and that diverted through the by-pass. From these intake gates into the reservoir for a distance of 175 lineal ,feet.en a .4 to 1 slope there has been constructed a 24 26 FINAL REPORT T LO ,IRRIGATION PROJECT. very rough grouted pavement channel, care being taken that the rocks form a rough irregular' surface which tends to very materially check and retard the flow of water before it reaches the water cushion basin at the foot of drop No. 2, which was constructed with a top elevation the same as that of the high water contour of the reservoir. For a distance of 6,381 lineal feet of the feed canal it was deemed ad- visable to construct metal flumes suspended from wooden trestle work set on concrete pedestals. This flume was divided into 4 sections. Flume No. 1, 2,727 feet long in Tumalo canyon; flume No. 2, 265 feet long across Tukesburry canycn; flume No. 3, 2,774 feet long along the side of the hill of Howard canyon; and flume No. 4, 615 feet long across Howard canyon. Flumes Nos. 1 and 3 were constructed along the rocky hillside of the can- yon. The trestles supporting these flumes have 8x8 timber posts of unequal length. . Flumes Nos. 2 and 4 were built on high trestles crossing the canyons; the one across Howard canyon nearly 40 feet high, necessitating the building of trestle work in two stages. After careful investigation it was decided to use No. 16 guage American Ingot Iron and No. 180 Lennon flume for this construction. On account of the inaccessibility of the con- -struction work and the many varied kinds of construction involved, the very closest supervision of: the construction was necessary in order to keep the cost as low as possible. Footings for the trestle were built of concrete, the average size being 12 inches square on top, 18 inches high, and 2 feet square at the bottom. The posts of the trestle work were fastened to these -concrete footings by means of 2 % inch metal straps imbedded in the con- crete about 1 foot, and fastened to the 8x8 posts by means of % inch bolts. The lumber used in this construction was obtained from one of the local mills, especial attention, however, being given this particular order in order to receive the best grade possible. (See Cut No. 2 and Map (C.) Contract Work. Practically all of the work on the Tumalo Project has been done by force account, or by the State's own force. During the be- ginning of operation, however, there seemed to be a strong sentiment, not only among the State officials, but also among the local people, for contract work. The organization on the Project at that time consisted of men who had had from eight to fifteen years of actual experience in reclamation construction, which is a class of construction entirely by itself and varies from other classes of engineering construction in a great many respects. 'The Project Engineer therefore felt that the State was in a better position to do all the work by force account and that the results obtained would be more satisfactory than if contracts were to be let. Furthermore, the condi- tions surrounding the Project were such that a great many reclamation offi- cials, private irrigation companies and a great many other people interested in irrigation were watching developments on the Project —some doubtful as to the ability of the State to successfully carry on such operations and others with a critical eye as to methods used and results accomplished. Therefore it was felt from'the very beginning that it was absolutely impera- tive to make a success of the construction of the Project., and it was very important that the work should be dcne.properly, substantially, expediti- ously and economically. During the month of August, 1913, however, in order to comply with a 24 24 W FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 27 great many of the demands for contract work, a few small contracts were let for construction work on the feed canal, and more or less trouble was experienced with each of these contracts, with the possible exception of one, and we believe, taken as a whole, that the State would have ac- complished results in less time and would have secured better and more economical work, in spite of the fact that strict supervision and inspection was maintained over all contractors by the engineering organization. The following contracts were placed during the 1913 season: Joe Rock and Abe Wolf, of Bend, Oregon, executed a contract for 5,800 lineal feet involving 13,620 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, "fiard pan, gravel and cement gravel at 18 cents per cubic yard, and 541 cubic yards of solid rock at $1.00. From the force account which was kept through the engineering organization by the State it is believed that these contractors lost $1,000, although they completed the work In a satisfactory manner. P. H. Dencer, of Bend, Oregon, executed a contract for 1835 lineal feet, involving 6,462 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, hard pan, gravel and cement gravel at 17 cents, and 4 cubic yards cf solid rock at $1.00. From our force account it would appear that Mr. Dencer lost $100 on his contract, although he completed the work in a satisfactory manner. H. S. Hutchins, of Redmond, Oregon, executed a contract for 2,800 lineal feet, involving 6,976 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, hard pan, gravel and cement gravel at 17 cents, and 10 cubic yards of solid rock at $1.00. This contractor broke about even and managed the work personally, so that it is estimated he made fair wages for himsel,t while the work was in opefation. James J. Adams, of Bend, executed two contracts —one for 1,300 lineal reet, called the "Rock Cut" which involved the excavation of about 7,000 cubic yards of solid rock at $1.00, and 3,000 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, hard pan, gravel and cement gravel at 25 cents -- the other involved the excavation of 6,200 lineal feet near the end of the feed canal and involved 15,500 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, hard pan, gravel and cement gravel at 35 cents, and 1,730 cubic yards of solid rock at $1.10. Mr. Adams, however, failed to complete either of his two contracts in the time specified. The State was compelled to take one contract over during December, 1913, and the other during the last few days of January, 1914. On the rock cut Mr. Adams had the misfortune of having ane of the derrick booms fall and hit one of the laborers, causing instant death. The health of Mr. Adams at this time was also very poor, necessitating his removal to Portland. There, fore he voluntarily quit the work and made arrangements for the State to complete same. In this transaction the State of Oregon acquired all the equipment and plant owned by Mr. Adams. After all arrange- monts had been completed with him it was found that he broke about even on his two contracts. Our experience on the feed canal with contractors would justify our former standard, that on work of this nature where the State has already a complete and competent organization in the field who are capable of doing economical construction work, it is not wise to let contracts for the work. Construction Costs, Right of Way. In connection with the construction, of the feed canal it was necessary to clear 57 acres of right of way, which included the removal of sage brush and juniper trees, the cutting of a considerable amount of pine timber and subsequently the grubbing of the coots. The total cost of this clearing work, including all labor, engineering, administration charges, etc., as well as supplies, was $a,60.2.36. This figure 24 28 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. also represented $535.77 paid out for land damages. The work in connec- tion with the right of way was very gratifying, as the State Engineer esti- mated this feature at $5,520 to the legislature. During the late fall and winter of 1913 and 1914, when conditions would no longer allow excavation and construction work on the feed canal, Camps Nos. 3 and 4 were kept in operation by having a small force clearing up the timber which was removed from the right of way. This was cut into stove lengths and distributed to the various camps for use during the year 191.4. A total of 1018 ricks of wood were cut, a portion of which was done by contract. The cost of this wood distributed at the various camps and at Laidlaw was practically the same as other wood purchased locally. We were in this manner able to quite materially reduce the cost of clearing by disposing of all the trees and timber which was removed, after which the branches and twigs were easily burned. Diversion Weir. The construction of the diversion weir and appurten- ances involved the excavation of 1,772 cubic yards of earth, gravel and cement gravel at a cost of $901.65, or about 50 cents per cubic yard. This high cost was due to the fact that a great deal was excavated under water and under conditions which necessitated the diversion and pumping of water. In connection with this 213 cubic yards of reinforced concrete was placed which involved a great deal of rather intricate form work. A No. 11 cube mixer was used in the placement of the concrete, the cost of which was. $2,097.05, or an average of $9.82_ per cubic yard. The gravel was obtained adjacent to the work by removing about one foot of overburden from the pit, A large portion of this gravel, however, was screened before being used. In addition to the above costs, miscellaneous work amounted to $404.84, engineering work $234.49 and the proportion of administrative charges and camp operation amounted to $877.90, making a total cost of the diversion weir $4,971.03, which was covered fn< the estimate to the legislature as requiring $5,750.00. A plan of this structure is shown on Map (B) , and- a view of the completed work Cut No. (I.) Concrete Lining. The lining of 373 lineal feet of the feed canal between the diversion weir and the beginning of flume No. 1, together with the con- struction of a small.concrete sand trap, involved the placement of 166.8 cu. yards of concrete, nine square yards of grouted pavement and 350 lineal: feet of drain tile. The concrete placed was all mixed by the cube mixer, placed by wheeled hand carts, and tamped by hand without forms and without reinforcement. A finishing coat, however, was placed on the sur- face of exposed lining and troweled down to a smooth finish. The propor- tion of concrete used was about 1, 2 %, 5, while the finish was made on the basis of 1 to 3 or 3% sand. The cost of the drain tile in place was $76.42; 9 square yards of grouted pavement, $15.00; while the concrete work cost $1,359.47, or $8.06 per cubic yard. Another 10'0 lineal feet of concrete lining was found necessary at they head of Drop No. 2, where, during May, 1914, a large break occurred.. This item, however, will be more fully discussed in the Operation and Maintenance Department under repairs and renewals. CA m a a as O E4 W x a O aw w � � A P4 O H Z a a °ate x a A � z U A W W W w O A z w M 0 z 24 FTNAL REPORT- TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 29 Ccccrete Structures. The principal structures on the feed canal built ' of concrete are the following: Drops Nos. 1 and 2, Columbia Southern Crossing, Entrance to By -Pass, Transiti: n for Metal Flumes, and several Bridges. These structures involved the placement of 587.5 cubic yards of concrete, the average cost of which was $10.70 per cubic yard. The cost data, however, of the Columbia Southern Crossing and the Entrance to By -Pass was included in the cost of sti uctures from the feed canal and distribution system. On Cut No. 3 is shown a view of the intake to the by-pass, a bridge across the feed canal, and the check gates at the entrance to the reservoir at Drop No. 2. The table shown on page 30, shows, how- ever, the classification of the concrete wcik on the feed canal and the dis- tribution of the charges. Grouted Pavement. This class of construction was valuable in connect- ing earth excavation with the concrete wcrk, and was used cn the diversion dam, drop No. 2 and for outlet transitions for metal flumes Nos. 1, 2 and 3. A total of 236 cubic yards was placed at a total cost of $1,062, or $4.50 per cubic yard. (See Cut No. (6.) Excavation. On ordinary construction work there are usually three classes of material to be considered in connection with excavation. The common classifications are usually No. 1, consisting of common earth; No. 2, loose rock, hard pan, cement gravel, gravel and other forms of excava- tion too difficult to classify under No. 1 and not contained in solid ledges; and No. 3; commonly known as solid rock, which requires drilling and powder for blasting. On the Tumalo Project, however, it was very .difficult to draw a distinct line between Classes Nos. 1 and 2 for the reason that cement gravel and gravel would be encountered together with earth and hard pan and otherwise, making it practically impossible to classify. There- fore in our classification work only two classes have been used, Nos. 1 and 2 together and No. 3. On the feed canal 90,588 cubic yards of Classes Ncs. 1 and 2 were ex- cavated at a total cost of $36,536.77, or an average of 40.3 cents per cubic yard. The table on page 31 shows the structures upon which the excava- tion was made and the distribution of the charges. The excavation of the feed canal by the State force account involved a great deal of loose rock, hard pan, gravel and cement gravel, which ac- counts to great extent to the high cost as compared with the contract work. That portion of the excavaton which was let to contractors was practically all earth, hence the low figure at which they were let. Furthermore, the contractors very carefully avoided that portion of the feed canal that con- tained practically all cement gravel and hard pan excavation, which con- dition was revealed by our numerous test pits along the line. Also, with the exception of the feed canal excavation by force account and by the contractors, the excavation was practically all hand work for structures and footings for the flumes. This also accounts to some degree for the high excavation cost of Classes Nos. 1 and 2. A total of 14,861 cubic yards of solid -rock was excavated in connec- 24 30 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. ' ONr-LI7 Orr r- M0000mm M w O CstN Ml1'J N 000OU00?a m f�d� co t d� Cn rl N M CO ri in N C O r• t - rM O r- W r- W W .-r .r o srivsos Oi ul� 00 .o N to --w M w r- M r-4 144 N r1 N O r+ ea w — 00 Or- OM O O O O N eM C- O o0 00 CIO m rr •oN ouznt3 a� v oo o� M r� 0 0 0o a, r- N M rn r- r- N rt rir- 69. eP — Lo o Lo 0 0 o c+ w m r- ri r• rl M co+-4 N N g -oN amnia as r- 00 = 00 w w r- .1 Lo ►o r- m w 00 .-� N N M 4 ` ,o o Io r- e, w e+ 00 w y 'oH ouinja co cl� M o; ►n ea L� N tD .r w 00 0 w w N N rl rl r- rt mO O 69 O ri M rl M r- eM o w 00 m 0 0 N o acIIn I la w w O w r• N rl eM N N rl � N N ri i'M ri 69 di ar 0000 O Co r- O m rl O O N r• ri 00 il'� N M tD O g 'oN dodo r- 00 N M w W coL m ti lw � ,ro rio r- a0000 ,1 m 1 ox dodo N Oi O+ c0 0 00 0c tO r• 00 O M r- M M M M ri ri ri rl UM rl N r-I d6 ei eP M r• W r4 M UZ O 00 C c0 tC rl r! rl D M ri O N N sa;n0 PVOH . . M d� rl 00 o r- = er M 00 . N pII 8 III 8 (I ,- i Qi Oi .-i 00 N 00 M r- O rl IIOFSdaA}u N rl d' eM N "I m N N N eD 6s- _ e� O Oti OM N N CD cO w O O eM Oi M rl d' 00 r- lvuuo oo paaa euf wt- No 0o r- 0000 1� -ulrj aladonop N N N N 69. &D. 6Ri cd rA ° Eby° ' ... a c W cd a ; ,poi z a� o :S. a b O ova 'O44) H any°=b•vaM ca U �aa�°'tiA O ti .�4)WO w05S. 0m''ace E-4 H c° �°sto Go cd a, m YA4acAva as w uw� FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 32 M O In r-I "' O O M t pxoA rcojgno r4MtM 00srNV-4N aad IsoO `nNt°"r Mo00o7t rM M tt M O O = --d: t tow NMr'�O�►nr�OtMto jgco jujoy = M O to 6V " O r+ ►n �rc7 UIN ri"WM • M S+ r-1 N eow M O In In uopilaaadaQ t ,-+ 00 cW luouidinbg saliddnc pun pIIB 111J949W M "Oe-1 'trnMMO tm00N oo oiN00 rM 0o141OO Otehtto doq,erj = O ►n " 0o Moo N t to InN to NM MN 00 r4 69. _ O M to O 00 O r^1 N r-4 uoll8dad0 o 00 V4 o w duauo N r-I N r1 t N M O O 00 rLo O O to er to to O N M N U..1 r-1 t ri to tD -UjIsfuluipv o N �oorc Lo� 00 O to 00 00 supaquIBU3 "' c� t ao O O to ri eg inc�e000e�o�1414c: t M M 00 M N N M M O Ii�T�IIEriZ°j oNNNtri�nr"�C�N er Q� N rl r-1 . . . . . . to cd o 'Q� d amgoozzzz pcd�zZ4)a)aDm m O O 0 to.�.�i t w m a H 0 H 24 24 32 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. tion with the feed canal at an average cost of 86.1 cents per cubic yard. This cost may be distributed as follows: hngineering Administration and Camp Operation ... $ 1,979.95 Labor........................................ 10,168.40 Material and Supplies ................. 650.34 TOTAL .................. $12,798.69 As an explanation, it may be stated that a great deal of the rock encounter- ed was of a soft nature commonly called Tufa, with which we had consid- erable success, and which was excavated when encountered in the ditch at a cost of from 35 to 60 cents per cubic yard, varying with its degree of hardness. Metal Flumes. The original plans and estimates for the construction cf the feed canal contemplated the construction of wooden flumes, but after due deliberation it was decided t.o install metal flumes, even though the cost was estimated approximately $13,200 in excess of the wooden struc- tures. Concrete warped surface transitions were constructed at the en- trances of the metal flumes, while the outlet transitions of three of the flumes were constructed of grouted rock pavement left in rather rough cc-ndition. (See Cut 6.) Two sets of forms, 20 in number, were used re- peatedly on the footings of the bents. The placement of the concrete in the transitions and footings involved considerable work and inconvenience as side hill construction was necessary and the sand, gravel and construc- tion material was difficult to transport. The sand and gravel was obtained i i portions of the canal excavation where suitable materials were exposed. A total of 244 % cubic yards of concrete was placed in connection with these four metal flumes, the cost of which was about $15.60 per cubic yard. This cost included cement, sand and gravel, water, forms, mixing and placing, and was rather high on account of difficult construction and the difficult form work in connection with the warped surface transitions at the ends of the flumes, which varied from a semi -circle at one end to the full canal secti;-n in 30 feet at the other end. The cost was reduced somewhat by the use of a Smith hand mixin machine which was very easily trans- ported from one place to another on the side hill. Of the 8 transitions necessary for the four flumes, three were constructed of grouted pavement. Some grouted pavement was also necessary in connection with the drainage ditches under the trestle work of flumes Nos. 2 and 4. A total of 67 cubic yards of grouted pavement was placed in connection with these flumes at a cost of about $ 5 per cubic yard. The trestle supporting the metal flumes involved the placement of ap- proximately 286,000 f. b. m. of lumber. This was obtained from one of the local mills at a price of $11 for the ordinary grades and $15 for the stringers and hangers, which we desired to be sawed of a special grade. The expense of the construction of these trestles was considerable as all the joints were made and fitted by hand and the trestles complete were well braced and joined by one-half inch bolts. The labor cost of erecting the timber trestles was . $14.95 per thousand, whereas the total cost per thousand feet of lumber in place, which includes the cost of lumber, tie straps, bolts, inspection, labor, engineering, administration, etc., was about. ,h..... ............�......,... ,......«"..m,..� �•..«,w,vrcv�.w..«�,.v..m..�..w+:-w.,m�-,+e.. r,.w..eS l�'......c.aa�u-e....�_.....�.+...w...—......._-_..,..�....,..�..._......,......._.,....._-... ,....,.. __.,.. 1 24 h 4 I I, u rP;�a! for abort bon/s - � � II L yrocnd sbpe sleep•'- th on2r :.t„^..� M_ � ib/Yer / vse one J :r 6 -lie pL7w/L or PEae�srwL. vie one 3'i6" lie ped"r ! 1 JLr j( 1 ' r .T 1 . _ '� i� ern fe r'aaek I F j 1 t1 I DEW' Or 6MPe1q- ✓J/N3: PLAN. it'll�': e�.�.a� k 1 lJ l lu u u # s, 1. .� PLAN W/,'ero the &,/ooco -f,vn /op of girder /a /op of p,,o.Aa1 does not ,:id /B=o; 8'x 8"posts nu7/de vsed in sing/e s/ayiny. Where /he distance %ran AP o/ ,girder to lop of pedosla/ does Preoeo slaginy m// he vsed/ /ho posts o r ,,or stage being ;arl timbers /6'o'/my and Jhe /owor 5/'.Ye /ox/o' /tinders. W/icre doob/e sta✓n/irg dents. &e# vsed an B"x 8'si// to be /os/rned lop of /o /v'posti by drift bol/s. ,pout/e slaye dants to de /%i 1 foyeJfier / 9/lvd hgu/Jy fj XW liin6ers. AI/psd .s/o%s Jo de /5�syuore ai �P. 3idos <oile-dd /"in4: Store dard he%'yht /B'. Criy to firm /avndo/ion. / 111?IMum aGstoxe fom Asp o/'Oedesta/ /a STATE or O R EGO N DESERT LAND ODAA0 /�: of yirdvr /obe s=G" TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT anchor straps A-60 %a"rah" z=." /any DETAIL of FLUME TIMBERING. f- F1rF OF PROJECT ENOINEEn. sana to .do sot in concrete rOedesla/s. APPAovED._ LAIDLAW,oRE. :crl io, i•l /YMf+t�tt-'ri=H� _— 1/ PA0,1, [NCR. qJ/Potts /O do da/5erod /"/r1B." APPROVEO-DESERT LAND DOAAD, iz' bdls /o be vsed /hrvovt 24 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 33 $37.85. This rather high cost may be explained by the following: consid- erable waste was unavoidable in cutting the lumber for the stringers, and being dimension timber, the percentage ran rather high; steel straps and one-half inch bolts with heavy washers were used in securing all the timbers, the first cost and freight of which increased the cost considerably; the holes for the bolts were all bored and the joints were also made and fitted by hand; a great deal of the trestle work was done off the ground, some times In two stages; great care was also used ,in producing a finished job in order to secure perfect alignment and grade; and, the trestle work all being built on side hill in inaccessible places, considerable work and inconven- ience was experienced in getting all the material on the ground. On account of the various delays due to manufacturers and delivery, it was impossible to place the metal flume on the trestle work before winter, as it was at first expected. The flume was, however, completely installed before 'ne commencement of the irrigation season, so that no great inconvenience was experienced by reason of the delay. (A view of the completed flume No. 1 is shown on Cut No. 2 ; while the general plan of timber construction appears on Map C. ) The total cost of the 6,381 lineal feet of flume installed was $47,953.30, or $ 7.51 per lineal foot, which includes all costs, such as engineering, clerical, administration, camp operation, general expense, cost cf flume ma- terial, labor, trestle installation, and in fact everything complete. For those who might possibly be interested in the various items which enter Into the installaion of the metal flumes, the following table has been prepared: Feature Excavation for transitions and pedestals .... Labor, erecting and building trestles ........ Lumber, bolts, nails, etc., for trestles . Labor on concrete for transitions and pedestals Materials and supplies for concrete transitions and pedestals ......................... Cost of flume materials on the work, including hauling from station ................... Labor, placing and installing flume material on trestle...... .......................... 1 Cost per Total Cost I Lin. Ft. $ 2,186.59 j $0.343 4,277.43 I .670 5406.22 I .847 1:444.44 ` .226 1,286.29 .202 27,004.88 ' 4.232 I 1,273.18 I .199 Distribution on account of camp operation .. 829.65 i 130 Distribution on account of administration charges 2,114.82 i .332 Engineering 2,129.80 1 .334 Total cost 6,381 lin. ft. of 16 guage No. 1801 I flume completely installed .............. 1 $47,953.30 1 $7 .515 Roads and Bridges. To operate the various camps it was necessary for the Project to lay out its own system of roads, as none were in operation along the line of the feed canal. During 1913 approximately 7 % miles of new roads were constructed along the feed canal, also considerable work 24 34 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. was done on the county roads, at a total cost to the Project of $731.84. One of the County Commissioners and the Road Supervisor reside on the Project. Both of these road officials, in addition to the County Court, showed a willingness to co-operate with the Project organization in any matter that brought about better roads. Early in 1913 an arrangement was made whereby the County, a few settlers most interested, and the Project, co- operated on the improvement of one of the county roads leading to points on the feed canal. The Project expended altogether on this particular road $80.91, and has already profited ten fold in connection with the re- duced freight costs. The new roads made on account of the construction of the Project will be of permanent value to the Operating Department after the Project is completed, because it is essential to have a good road system on a completed Project in order to be able to repair and maintain the system expeditiously. Three bridges have also been constructed on the feed canal at county road crossings, with the co-operation of the county. Two bridges are per- manent in character, being constructed with concrete piers and abutments, steel I-beam girders and wooden superstructures. The other is a wooden truss bridge. The county purchased the steel and lumber for these bridges, while the Project paid the labor of construction. (See Cut No. 3.) Engineering. In order to complete all the construction work during the 1913 season and give same proper supervision it was found advisable to employ a larger organization of engineers than would be ordinarily necessary. During the time the injunction suit was being tried engineers were investigating the proper location of the feed canal, and after some preliminary work the final location was completed about the time the suit was dismissed, making it possible to immediately commence construction. The located line was completely referenced from the head gate to the res- ervoir and surveys made tying the right of way for the feed canal to the various land corners, making it possible for the office engineering depart- ment to make complete descriptions of each separate piece of right of way necessary to acquire. This right of way was subsequently staked for the benefit of the construction department, who cleared same of brush and trees, and then grubbed the stumps. The engineers computed the areas and quantities in connection with the construction work in addition to keeping accurate accounts of the actual cost by force account, which was furnished the engineers in charge by the time keepers on the 'work. The actual setting of the cross section and excavation stakes for the entire feed canal and structures, was in itself considerable work, especially when a complete set of finishing stakes were also set for the completion of the work after the bulk of the material was excavated. From the force accounts kept by the engineering department it was possible to make comparisons between the various construction superintend- ents of the State force account work as well as to check up the work done by contract. For instance, we were able to show at any stage of the con- struction work just what progress the contractors were making and could estimate with considerable degree of accuracy whether the contractor was making or losing money. The engineering on the feed canal was divided into two divisions, one 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 35 practically 3 miles in length and the other 4 % miles. These division engineers reported to the engineer in charge of the feed canal, who reported directly to the Project Engineer. Estimates. As previously mentioned, original estimates covering the construction of the feed canal contained an item of 6,000 feet of wooden flume at $4.50 per liaeal foot. After the teed canal was finally located it was decided to construct 6,500 lineal feet of flume, this increasing the length 500 feet. The metal flume was originally estimated to cost $7.00 per foot, thus the estimated increase for the metal flume was $18,500 over the original estimate. In addition to this the 373 feet of concrete lining Increased the construction over the estimates $1,435.89. The placing of concrete footings and concrete warped surfaces in connection with the metal flume construction increased the cost over and above the estimates $3,128.70. All this made a total of $23,064.59 increase over the original estimate to construct the present permanent and substantial work, as wood- en construction was originally intended. The original estimates provided for an expenditure of $101,260, and the completed feed canal, on a perma- nent ccnstructicn basis, test $108,622.76, an increase of only $7,363, when it was estimated that an increase of $23,065 would be necessary, leaving a net saving over estimates cn the feed canal of $15,702. The engineer-ng anc, general administration charges for the construction work on the feed canal were rather heavy in proportion to the actual am -aunt expended on construction, especially as compared with the balance of the Project. This, however, may be explained by the fact that the same con- structicn organization was concentrated during the season of 1913 on only the feed canal, whereas during 1914 the same construction organization not only completed the feed canal, but also all the storage works and distribu- tion system. We find from our cost ledger totals that there has been ex- pended a total of $108,622.76 on the feed canal feature, of which amount $5,558.04 is charged to engineering in the office and the field and $7,698.60 has been charged to administration, which contains the :ordinary overhead charges and administrative accounts, making a total of $12,256.64 that has been charged and actually expended in connection with the engineering, overhead and administrative accounts. Of the total amount expended on the feed canal, this represents 11.29 per cent. Organization. Under the ecnditions which existed when the feed canal was' constructed, it was deemed advisable in order to complete the work in the time desired, to divide the work into two divisions. This was subse- quently discovered to be a satisfactory method, as it is very doubtful whether the results accomplished could have been attained had this not been done. The ccnstructicn cost on the feed canal compares very favor- ably with work cf similar character constructed elsewhere. Much of the credit for this economical work is attributed to the energy of the construc- tion superintendents and the interest which they took in their work at all times. Mr. Alfred Hanson, superintendent, had charge of the construction of the diversion works on Tumalo Creek, flumes Nos. 1 and 2, the rock cut, concrete lining and the earth work from the head works to station 148. He also constructed certain other portions of the feed canal in the early spring of 1914, as well as the following concrete structures: Drop No. 1, Colum- 24 36 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. bia Southern crossing, entrance to by-pass, bridges, entrance gates into res- ervoir and Drop No. 2. Mr. A. M. Bye, the other construction superintend- ent, had charge of the construction of flumes Nos. 3 and 4, and the earth excavation from station 148 to the reservoir. Mr. H. C. Rupple was engineer in charge of the construction of the feed canal, with A. J. Welton, F. I. Phoenix and R. Z. Myers as assistant engin- eers. The engineers deserve special mention for their untiring efforts to produce first-class construction. The completed work is a credit to any engineering organization, as the alignment, grades and finish on all work Indicate first-class construction engineering. STORAGE WORKS. The construction of the storage works involved the following work: The purchase of right of way, construction of Tumalo dam with outlet works; Bull Creek dam, spillway and bridge all in one structure; the com- struction of 4.40 miles of road on the east side of the reservoir to replace 5.50 miles of county road which will be flooded when the reservoir is in operation; the building of 9.70 miles of fence inclosing the entire reservoir; and the excavation of a small trench to drain the upper portion of the res- ervoir which was in the form of a pot hole. During the year 1913 no actual construction work was commenced in connection with the storage works. Right of Way. In order that no time might be lost in acquiring right ,of way for the reservoir, steps were taken before the law became effective to acquire the property necessary, with the result that just as soon as the in- junction suit. was dispcsd of by the Supreme Court on July 1, 1913, the Attorney General, Henn. A. M. Crawford, accompanied by the Assistant Sec- retary of the Desert Land Board, immediately arrived at Laidlaw and closed the transaction for the acquisition of this property upon which options had already been taken. For reservoir right of way it was necessary to purchase 996 acres of land which had acquired water rights, and 292 acres of land in addition which had no water rights. The amount of money actually expended on this feature was $58,484.33. In the estimate of the State Engineer to the 1913 legislature this was estimated at $50,000.00. But under the condi- tions existing where the land was actually under cultivation and had ac- quired vested water rights it is believed that the prices paid for the right of way were not excessive, but only fair and reasonable. This land was, with one exception, all purchased without any legal proceedings. One tract, how- ever, involving 56 acres without water rights was condemned. The owner desired $50.00 per acre for the land, and $500.00 damages in payment for road inconveniences. The State, however, offered only a flat price of $20.00 per acre. Condemnation proceedings were instituted, with the result that 'the jury allowed the owner $25.00 per acre for the land and $250.00 dam- ages. This has been the only case that has been brought before the courts In connection with the Tumalo Project during the two years of construction after the law became effective. Practically all of the people living below the outlet of the reservoir will depend on the water stored or passing through the reservoir for domestic water supply. Therefore it was deemed advisable and important to inclose the area that will be flooded completed with a three -wire fence as a san- MIA FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 37 itary measure. A total of .9.70 miles of fence of this nature was constructed above the high-water line and below the road as constructed,: on the east side. The total cost of the fence was $924.12, or an average of $102.55 per mile. Preliminary Investigation. As soon as the construction of the Project was definitely authorized immediate steps were taken toward the purchase of a Calyx shot drill outfit for the investigation of the Tumalo dam site. The arrival of this equipment delayed the actual investigation work, which did not commence until about October 1, and was continued with good progress until the 22d day of December, when operations were suspended on account of the weather conditions. The results obtained from these Calyx drill operations were very satisfactory. But some hard rock with tufa and pebbles embedded necessitated the purchase of smaller tools to allow casing to be lowered into the holes when they reached a depth of 60 to 70 feet. Four holes were drilled at the Tumalo dam site, and sufficient data obtained to close operations. The data obtained from these investigations were very valuable to a board of consulting engineers who met during February to consider the Tumalo storage works. It may be of interest to state, how- ever, that the drill holes themselves revealed no conditions that changed materially the feasibility of the construction of the storage works, although they were of value in corroborating the judgment of the engineers from merely external data. The four holes drilled were care ied a depth of 99, 100, 74 and 36 feet respectively, aggregating 309 feet. The actual cost of .operation, repairs and miscellaneous labor in connection with this investiga- tion amounted to $977.79, or a unit cost of $3.16 per lineal foot. The total cost of the drill outfit, including freight and miscellaneous small tools, was $742.87. It was necessary, however, to also purchase a small duplex pump which cost $110, and two gasoline engines, one 6 H. P. and the other 4 H. P., at $425 and $232 respectively. This Calyx drill outfit, however, was sold during 1914 for $400 f, o. b. Deschutes, and the 4 H. P. engine and the duplex pump were exchanged for one 20 H. P. steam boiler and a Cameron pump. The 6 H. P. engine, however, was used during the entire period of construction cn the band sew outfit and in connection with other construc- tion work. The results of these investigations were very gratifying. Test pits were also dug at the Bull Creek dam site and in various other locations In the reservoir floor to ascertain the character of the subsoil or foundation. Capacity of Reservoir. Careful studies were made of each year's flow of Tumalo Creek as recorded by the United States Geological Survey from the year 1906 to 1913, both inclusive. In this study the total flow of the creek by months was. used as a base from which was deducted the loss of water due t to the limited capacity of the feed canal. To this amount which would be ; received at the head gate, about 16 Yj per cent loss was deducted on account . of seepage -losses in the feed canal. This loss, although very excessive, might be possible for the first few years under a new system, but represents a gross daily loss of about 2.12 feet in depth over each acre of wetted area of the 30,580 lineal feet of the earth portion of the completed canal. The balance of 7,200 feet represents metal flumes and concrete lining, which would involve practically no loss. 24 38 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. It is common practice for the character of soil in which the canals are constructed on the Tumalo Project to consider one foot depth of water loss over the wetted area of a canal. Next was considered the amount of losses which might be included during the winter Beason through interference by Ice, and this was arbitrarily chosen at 3 per cent per mile of the canal dur- ing the months of December, January and February. To the losses thus estimated was added the reservoir loefes, which were estimated on a basis of evaporation only, as it was estimated that the flow from Bull Creek spring and from 25 square miles of drainage area in the Tumalo basin would be sufflcieat to c:unteract to a large extent the seepage losses. After these losses had been deduced the amount available for distribution and storage was itemized by months from a duty curve for the Project, which was arbi- trarily.chosen, from which the deficiency or surplus, as the case might be, of the reservoir could be determined. For every year on the basis cf the above study there would always be a surplus in the reservoir at the close of the irrigation season with the pos- sible exception of the irrigation year from October 16, 1909, to October 15, 1910. For this particular year there was a deficiency of only 321 acre feet which could be very easily absorbed by the ample seepage allowances of the feed canal, and which could be considered as practically limiting the ca- pacity of the reservoir. Furthermore, it is shown quite conclusively that the capacity cf 20,000 acre feet is ample for the irrigation of 22,500 acres of land during the year least favorable among eight on record. In order to illustrate the manner in which these studies were made the table on the opposite page is submitted for the low year, 1909 to 1910. Hhdrogir ltic Studies. As shown in the preceding paragrpph, a study of the hydrographic conditions surrounding the Tumalo Project indicates that a storage of about 20,000 acre feet will be ample for the irrigation of 22,500 acres of irrigable land from Tumalo Creek, using the year of most favorable record for storage, viz., 1910. The recorded flow of Tumalo Creek for the irrigation year October 16, 1909, to October 15, 1910, was 100,810 acre feet, but the flow during the irrigation months affected prin- cipally by storage, viz., from June 1 to October 15, was only 28,260 acre feet. The lowest year of record for Tumalo Creek is that contained between Octobcr 16, 1910, and October 15, 1911, during which time the flow was 77,760 acre feet, but the conditions for storage in Tumalo reservoir during that period were more favorable, even though the actual run of[ was less. Therefore the year 1910 during the irrigation season was chosen from which to make the hydrographic study for storage. It is not necessary however, to store water for all the lands included in the Tumalo Prooject, for there is available for irrigation under the feed canal direct above the outlet of Tumalo recervoir about 9,080 aces of land, and from the Wimer canal system, a'.so above the reservoir, about 2,650 acres; from both of which it has been decided to select only 9,000 acres, which leaves only 13,500 acres for which to provide storage below Tumalo reservoir out of a poss`ble number cf 14,800 irrigable acres. The following table shows some figures which v: e"*e c^mpiled and used by the board of consulting engineers when they ccnzidei ed carefully the number of acres to be safely considered with 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO. IRRIGATION PROJECT. 89 gluolq jo pug OMM 0 0 0 Cr 0 OOOC- NONN IV 021Sols mm" OOOOOO wwcgM ul junomv ,.i V-I N N N N rI O I' N paingll4slQ aq of Junou V tf: O M CO t0 00 119 00►PMOrI►L�00 Nt`-C�MrlifdN 1391Q ?+ N�-IOC+ 1oj olg'sIluA%r O M0•r I7OMoo oof.-IMu.0mo,00N 4Unotuv *''r4w MNC-oo?+C-� MMN 1308go�j oaotco 0000000oc- dlOAda88 tj w00M r-I N d WWCoWtoeYtoC-Its y' -W " v � Vt M H Olin Woo I zaa E aaj lsori v ton M-I ivao aaa T Z N ,-I V•-I ;ooa v.av p IuUL'o paa.�r zso�t ,o aad s/ii 9 T jaaa aaav aluU pu9H 3u .aaR '4uud IuuuO jo S;taudup of anQ sso l r-1 N O V-I = 00 O C+: r-I 00 M M LM [ C- �r•Ir ,-Ioo�ooa� ^oc-r-r N ,-+ .-I ,-I r•I r-I ,-I ,-, 000 .000oeo000o00 ti00 e-rlootf OCMtD t^ M "Mm O.rr'iNOerMootic•• C7MO C-►f9Oirl�--IOCGeMti'N 00 *� O O O O G G C O O C O C O t-OO Nr•iOOOOCMCOCC M lAola lu7os " M A Nero O a .-I N ,-•I t.^. M 00 C- r- NIfJC+rI NO�CO �r erN rti� �M c.'j . . . . . . . a . to ....... . L � O y 't't � i•+ id .. . 4.+ y �. ... 0 'Z 0Z1::l 4u0 24 40 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PRdJECT. in the limits of the Project for the amount of water available, using the res- ervoir with a capacity of 20,000 acre feet, which was also very carefully checked at that time: 0i 001 Cc,,� a+ cc e� OwlF m O War C ++ >� •O•� m �o ti dP, m � b o d c "" w� o. b m m 0M p O q0 o gb.cd Cc w m CtS W. C > O O R+ m 0 .�xo dto v (A.�m S. 04 4, �� > z w a I Acres I Loss c� i i I I I 20000 June..... 18590 July....... 11370 August ..... 3310 September .. 1570 October.... 1700 5940 1 9490-3960: 5530 1 4101 1050 1 470 1 530 7560 1 6330-5040:1290 1 62701 900 7560 1 4860-5040: 0 1 75601 480 3780 4760-2520:2240 1540 240 1490 2730- 990:1740 I 250 200 500 1450 260 240 80. 120 20 1 100 1410 4220 8060 1740 130 In preparing the above table evaporation records for Spokane were used, as they were the only ones available at that time, as follows: Month Feet IMonth Feet January ...........0.06 1 July .............0.56 February .......... .14 1 August ........... .53 March ............. .22 1 September ......... .32 April .............. .37 1 October ........... .21 May ............... .45 1 November ......... .14 Juae .............. .45 1 December ......... .21 TOTAL 3.67 FT. These studies were made on a basis of 1.8 acre feet delivered cn the ground plus a 33 per cent loss for distribution system. The table shows quite conclusively that the water supply can afford a loss in the reseivcir of about 1 foot depth per month per acre submerged. The flow of Tumalo Creek by months from June to September, inclusive, each year from the year 1907 to 1913, inclusive, is as follows: 1907 ( 1908 I 1909 , 1910 1 191111 1912 I 1913 June .....• 12630 12720 13270 9580 113000 13330 19860 July ....... 12280 12720 9350 6330 8550 10590 13110 August .. 5000 5540 5580 4860 I 4430 6100 6300 September 5000 b000 4960 4760 4040 5370 I 5140 W FINAL REPORT TU.MALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 41 This table shows that there ,is sufficient water Sowing in the creek to supply water for 9,000 acres of land above the reservoir, with a possible exception of one month in the year 1911, when about 600 feet would be lacking during the month of August. However, it would be unwise to limit any irrigation system when records are available for 8 years and when only one month is insufficient by a very small margin. Further, however, work has already been commenced towards supplementing the flow of Tumalo Creek by the diversion of Little Crater and Crater Creeks from another drainage basin to that of the Tumalo, which will no doubt provide sufficient add,tional water supply to irrigate at least 3,000 acres without storage. Consulting Board of Engineers. The construction of reservoirs of large capacity for irrigation always contains an element of risk, especially as to the ultimate success of the reservoir in serving the purpose intended, and, further, of being water tight. This feeling of uncertainty was voiced a great wany times, not only on the Project by also among the members of the Desert .Land Board and prominent eng.neers, both during the con- templation of the Project by the legislature and the period of preliminary examination. Therefore, in order to give the Desert Land Board and others Interested first hand expert opinion concerning the reservoir, and to justify the expenditure of the large am -cunt of money necessary, it was deemed advisable to appoint a Board of Consulting Engineers to thoroughly investi- gate conditions as they actually existed on the ground and to interpret the data obtained and revealed by the investigations by Calyx drill holes, test pits, etc. The Desert Land Board appointed on this board the following engineers: Mr. D. C. Henny, Consulting Engineer, Portland, Oregon; C. M. Redfield, Chief Engineer of the Central Oregon Irrigation Company; John H. Lewis, State Engineer -c f Oregon, and O. Laurgaard, Project Engineer .of the Tumalo Project. As soon as the investigation work was completed a meeting of this board was .called at Laidlaw to go over the ground and write a report. This isle -r.- ing was held on January 13, 14 and 15, during which time all the conditions at Tumalo . dam site and those which affected the storage works were very carefully considered. It was deemed advisable, however, on account •.rf the short tirre to make invest?gations and tests of the reservoir before the ex- piraticn of the time of the appropriation to make investigation as to other possible methods for water supply other than using Tumalo reservoir. With this end in view several surveys were made from the Deschutes river in such a manner that the water could be turned into the Tumalo feed canal. The estimate for a diversion canal from the Deschutes river at the dam of the ' Bend Light and Power Company to connect with the feed canal of the Tumalo Irrigation Project at station 39-1-00 was $252,310.00. The other estimate from the Deschutes river contemplated to carry the water above the intake of the Tumalo Feed canal aggregated $348,150. After the inves- tigations' above referred to had been made and were in the hands of the Board a report was written setting forth their v:ewe, brief extracts of which are as follows.: I2 1 42 FINAL REPORT TUMALO 'IR.RIGATiON PROJECT. "In considering construction of storage works -we have studied other types of dam construction, to -wit: the hollow concrete and solid con- crete types. The former is likely to be somewhat less costly, while the latter can be built at about the same cost as the earth dam. The character, and variability of the foundation rock upon which the dam is to rest and the general volcanic condition of the country render the earth dam with concrete core wall the safest type which can be con- structed at the site. As to the detail plans for the -dam, we recom- mend a , change of slopes ficm 3 to 1 on water face to 2 % to 1 and from 2 to 1 on the downstream side to 2 % to 1, leaving the total quantities involved practically unchanged. The reason for this change is to give a bgavier backing to the core wall, which is an indispensable element in this dam, as the available earth material is of gravelly na- ture and' cannot in itself be depended upon for tightness. "In. regard to the Bull Creek spillway, we find that the plans are well suited to the conditions and recommend their adoption subject to miner changes found desirable .during construction. It would be well to consider a concrete bridge in lieu of a wooden bridge as being permanent and more in harmony with the other parts of the structure, providing funds will permit, which can be decided when the work is further advanced. "The works as planned with the minor changes suggested present In themselves no construction difficulties, and the estimates are not only sufficient but ample. The reservoir as a whole, however, has certain features in regard to possible losses from percolation to which previous reports have called attention. "Borings at and near the dam site show reasonably tight rock near the st rtace, but indicate the existence of open seams in lower lying strata. The absence of ground water near the surface of the valley immediately above the dam is largely due to absence of inflow from above during most of the year, but may in part result from losses through crevasses in the rock. "If circumstances permit «e deem it advisable, however, as a cau- tionary Treasure to construct the dam to a first stage with top eleven feet below ultimate elevati•cn, using Bull Creek, slightly widened and rectified but without any overflow dam as a temporary spillway. At this stage of the work the expenditure incurred will be about $43,000 below final cost and the reservoir storage will be about one-half the ultimate coracity. Beycnd this point it will be necessary to assume whatever risk may be involved in completing construction, as has been -done in numerous cases. This risk, which refers solely to losses from reservoir and not to safety of c�;nstructfon, is in our opinion not espe- cially Eericus as the surface rock where exposed at the dam site is tight and free from seams, as is also similar rock excavated and exposed for many miles along the feed canal. "Such constructicn in two stages will add four or five thousand dollars to the ultimate cost by reason of intermittent building opera- tions, but would otherwise fit in well with probable project develop- ment. It. would, however, necessitate spreading this part of the work and possibly construction of part of the distribution system over an- other year and create a condition apparently not. contemplated by the law under which the Project is being constructed." Accordingly after work was commenced on the Tumalo dam, the foun- dation opened up and a great many test pits dug in the reservoir floor, revealing the foundation of the reEeivcir, it was deemed advisable to obtain a supplementary report from the Board of Engineers. This report was written under date of June 15th, after all the members of the Board had .again viewed conditions as revealed by the test pits and by the nature of the foundation of the dam. This later report completely eliminated any 24 46 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. Total Cost of Bull Creek Dam--884 Cubic Yams. ITEMS Sand and Gravel Charges .. I....... j Forms, Labor ............. $1,014.99 Materials 176.20 Mixing and Placing Concrete I ............ Itei3f3reing Steel, 10,000 lbs.1 cost ........ ........1 291.25 Labor, Cutting, Bending and Placing ...........) 120.61 CementCharges ...................... Water Charges .......... Equipment cost, Repairs and Depreciation . Ccal, Wood, Oils, etc . ................. Distributicn of camp construction, opera- tion, maintenance, etc. Distribution, administraticn, general and office expenses .................. Distribution, engineering, surveying, inspec- tion, etc. Cost ;Per Cu.Yd. $1,264.55 ( $1.431 1,191.19 i 1.347 869.04 1 .983 411.86 j .466 2,181.47 2.468 28.08 I .032 166.40 j .188 27.31 1 .031 313.25 675.00 226.44 Total 884 cubic yards concrete . ......1 $7,354.59 .354 .764 .256 $8.32 It was necessary to haul the sand and gravel about 1 % miles after ex- cavating considerable overburden in the graviel pit, which accounts for the comparative high gravel cost. The construction of the arches and coping of the roadway, together with the lettering, necessitated a large amount of painstaking carpenter work, which accounts to some extent for the compara- tive high labor cost for form work. The cost of material for form work is low on account of using the great majority of timber again, having been used before on other structures. The mixing of concrete was done by means of two small mixers, one a Smith hand mixer and the other a No. 4 "Little Wonder." The output and service cf these two small mixers was very gratifying, and it may be of more than special interest to note the small equipment charge per cubic yard of concrete on account of this equipment. It may also be of interest to note that of the above cost of $8.32 per cubic yard of concrete, that 47 cents was for steel reinforcement and $1.37 was for distribution of general expense such as camp construction, operation, maintenance, etc., general administraticn at the Project headquarters and engineering. The concrete used in this structure was mixed at the south end of the dam and placed in position by means of hand carts on timber false work. All the concrete work in the arches above the spillway elevation was poured in one run continuously. In addition to the excavation of the foundation for Bull Creek dam and' the placement of concrete, the only additional charges to complete the - cost as shown on Page No. 14 of this report, was the actual cost of the two inch pipe hand railing, fittings, and the labor installing same, together- 24 —. FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 45 Eesertioir Drain Ditch. This feature of the storage works consisted of the excavation of 3,500 lineal feet of ditch, the purpose of which was to drain a pot hole existing at the upper end. The work involved the excava- tion of 2,350 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, hard pan and cement gravel, hV and 777 cubic yards of solid rock, at unit costs of 17 cents for classes 1 and 2, and 48 cents for class 3. Bull Creek Dam. BuII Creek dam was designed to serve three purposes; it acts in the first place as a dam to close the outlet from the reservoir _ through Bull Creek Canyon; it serves as a natural spillway for Tumalo reservoir, therefore was constructed with a top elevation of the high water contour of the reservoir; and lastly, the structure was designed as a high- way bridge crossing over Bull Creek Canyon for the new State road con- structed around the reservoir to replace the county road that will be cov- ered when the reservoir is full. The gravity type of overflow dam was Ai chosen for the section of the dam. Two cut oft walls, however, were ex- tended into solid formation, one at the upper toe and the other at the lower toes of the concrete dam. The dam proper is about 17 feet high from the foundation, although the completed structure is about 25 feet. Five arches with a span of 19 feet 6 inches, surmount the spillway crest to carry the road bed. The springing lines of these arches are situated 3 feet 2 inches above the crest of the epillway, thus giving approximately 1880 cubic feet per second spillway capacity below the springing line of the arches. As shown on drawing (D), the structure was very thoroughly reinforced with steel throughout. Three expansion joints shown on the plans are also placed in the dam to allow for proper expansion and con- traction. These were constructed by having alternate sections of dam completed, then having the surfaces of the joints thoroughly painted with oil and asphaltum. A view of the completed structure from the down stream side is shown cn Cut No. 4. In connection with the construction of the Bull Creek dam, there was excavated 851 % cubic yards of solid rock, 1606 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, hard pan and cement gravel, and 1060 cubic yards of earth for back fill. The cost of these various kinds of excavation, including all general expense, such as camp operation., administration and engineering, was as follows: Solid rock, $1.02 per cubic yard; excavation for foundation, classes 1 and 2, 60.13 cents per cubic yard; and excavation and placement of back fill on the upper side of the dam and over the completed concrete arches of the roadway, cost 41.2 cents per cubic yard, making a total of $2,255.57 for the excavation. The total cost of the concrete portions of the completed dam, spillway and bridge, was $7,354.59, which distributed over 884 cubic yards of concrete, gives a unit price of $8.32 per cubic yard. This total, as well as •the unit cost, may be summarized and itemized as follows: Powo.? JI•�l Notes: e• drJnn pp to be paced on each side of coed at each pier Confer of arch to be a' higher then of sides for porPose of dra�nag♦ Roodcroay to be snoa'e of Borth a- grave/ 60 r-/Pat ppe ro,/iny to rVn enfirr /dngm of bridge Rein/orung ~&l to be p/aced es iedi6efi4'• =--`--------------------- ----` ---- ---- _-�--` f �„a r 5 eat STATE a•.OREGON 0950M IAHO �OARO TUMALOIRRIGATION PROJECT GENERAL PLAN, SECTIONS end PROFILE o� BULO"ICE oil PLECR�EE`K�aWD, OREA.M V.* APPRwEO— 4 „ P J. CNG�L %,pAOv Eo-OE3EAr LAND SOARO TP-SJ 'A ere - be �s J D." with ;tate sess- )ard and In- rom A of (G) the r of ut.h- reek n to Inge first :s of a as west �r to cent eats. pre- ' 24 side sins. ated ,703 rip sage the cost ad- -hed 24 Fes; the exca drain a 1 tion of 2 and 777 . and 2, ai Bull t it acts is through reservoir contour way brie i strutted i ered whi chosen f tended i lower too the foun Five to carry feet 2 ins cubic fe4 arches. reinforce plans ari traction. complete oil and stream si In co excavates rock, hax fill. ThE expense, follows: 1 and 2, fill on tt of the ro for the e- The 1 and brad concrete, as -the ur 24 - --- --_— __-1 011 44 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. January report are not justified under the conditions and has there- fore recon;mended that such test be eliminated and the work be pushed without interruption to full completion." (Signed) D. C. HENNY, JOHN H. LEWIS O. LAURGAARD, C. M. REDFIELD." Now that the Tumalo Dam and storage works are completed and with considerable water already in the reservoir, it is probably safe to state that the conditions all ±ndicate that the reservoir will be tight and success- ful and that the judgment of the engineers comprising the consulting board was sound. State Road Around Reservoir. The construction of the Tumalo and Bull Creek dams will make possible the inundation of 1,105 acres. In- cluded in this area are several county roads, a portion of the one from Laidlaw to Sisters, and aloo a portion of the Bend -Sisters road, a total of 5% miles to be replaced. This road is shown on drawings (A) and (G) of this report. The location of the road is as follows: Commencing at the north west corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 20, in township 16 south, range 11 east, and extending in a south- easterly direction across Tumalo dam and continuing across Bull Creek dam and spillway, and thence in a southeasterly and southerly direction to the quarter corner between sections 4 and 9, in township 17 south, range 11. This new road necessitated the actual building of 4.40 miles of first class road, which was located about 10 feet above the high water lines of the reservoir and laid out on a uniform grade with as small curvature as possible. The minimum grade is 2 per cent, except the grade at the west end of the Tumalo dam, where a 4 per cent grade was necessary in order to reach the top of the hill from the canyon. Along the rocky cliffs adjacent to the Tumalo dam and also over the top of the dam, stone monuments were set a distance of 8 feet apart not only as an ornament but also to pre- vent vehicles from possible accident. The road was constructed of 20 foot road bed, 8 inches elevation in the center, a gutter on the uphill side for drainage and occasional culverts to provide outlets for these drains. In connection with the construction of this road there was excavated 15,590 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, cement gravel and hard pan, 2,703 cubic yards of solid rock, and there was placed 880 cubic yards of dry rip rap walls. In addition it was necessary to clear about 14 acres of sage brush and juniper trees, one 12x24 inch wood siphon was placed under the road for ditch crossing, and about 20 box culverts placed. The total cost of the road construction around the Tumalo reservoir, exclusive of ad- ditional work in connection with the Tumalo dam and the concrete arched bridge of the spillway, was $9,780.80, which was distributed as follows: Fngineering and Administration .... $1,051.54 Distribution of Camp Construction, operation and main- tenance ....... 711.09 Distribution General Expense Tumalo Dam .......... 233.92 Material and Supplies ............................ 1,130.36 Labor......................... ................ 6,649.89 TOTAL .................. $ 9,780.90 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 43 further test by partially filling the reservoir with water, and made possible the early completion of the dam. A copy of the final report of the Board of Engineers is submitted herewith: "On January 24, 1914, the undersigned board reported to you on cer- tain features of the Tumalo Reservoir, part of the Tumalo Irrigation Project. "In this report we set forth the fact that in volcanic regions, espe- cially in valleys away from the main stream depressions, reservoirs are liable to serious losses from seepage through fissures in the underlying rock. The possibility of the Tumalo reservoir showing heavy losses had therefore been carefully considered and in connection, therewith the desirability of so arranging the work of construction that the reservoir could be partially tested when the investment for construction was as yet relatively small. "The project engineer was advised of the desirability of putting down a number of additional test pits in the bottom of the reservoir to the end that all facts bearing on this problem would be known as far as practicable to obtain them, so as to assist in laying, out a progress of work, and it was stated that upon completion of this supplemental investigation work a final report would be rendered. This report is submitted herewith. "The board visited the project in April (1914) of this year at which time the test pit work was nearly completed and each member of the board has subsequently been advised of the final results of this work. . "The results of the investigations show that wherever test pits were put down the sand and gravel filling of the river floor was found to be underlaid with tufa of considerable thickness. This material was also found in trench 'excavation in the reservoir bottom near the Bulb Creek outlet. "There has been opportunity to examine the character of tufa ilk this vicinity along long stretches of the feed canal excavation. The material itself will probably permit little if any percolation and wher- ever examined it was free from seams or fissures. "It appears to us therefore that the tufa base of the reservoir, which so far as known is continuous, should prevent serious seepage losses. The only disquieting feature regarding the tightness of the reservoir consists of certain fissures in the rock underlying the tufa at the dam site. It is possible that these fissures may connect with the open res- ervoir bottom material and may thus cause serious losses and that similar fissures may exist at other points in the ridge running from the main dam southeast to Bull Creek, which ridge separates the reservoir from the lower lands to the Northeast. "In case a reservoir test could have been made at small expense and without serious loss of time such test would have been advisable al- though probably less necessary under the conditions as now ascertained than is ordinarily the case in reservoir construction in the northwest. "It was found, however, that a test of any real importance would have led to serious expense as it would have necessitated the suspension of the work for at least a month with the unavoidable effect of dis- organization of the construction forces and the consequent additional cost. The loss of time would also have been serious as it would have jeopardized the completion of the dam construction during the current; year, which might have proved embarrassing in view of the appropria- tion being limited as to time under the law. "A Qtudy of water supply data in connection with the capacity of the main canal indicates that a considerable amount of water may be lost without causing a shortage to the project as at present outlined. "The board after careful consideration of all these -facts- has arrived unanimously at the conclusion that the extra expense and the loss of time involved in a reservoir test such as was contemplated to the 24 W A a 0 z ffAl I/G:; FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 47 with its proportionate share of the distribution charges, amounting to $248.77, and the placement of 569 cubic yards of grouted rock pavement in the spillway channel immediately below Bull Creek dam. This spillway channel was constructed 20 feet wide for a distance of about 100 feet and connected with the ends of the dam on the sides of the canyon by means of warped surfaces. This pavement was made from 10 to 14 inches thick with a possible average of 12 inches laid in a cement mortar. Mortar was also placed in between the rocks. The average cost of 569 square yards of grouted pavement was $2.05 per square yard, which in- eludes the following charges: Labor placing rock pavement ...................... $ 636.03 Mixing and handling mortar ....................... 32.84 Cement charges ................... 250.00 Distribution of camp construction, operation, mainte- nance, engineering and administration 248.30 Total cost 569 square yards at $2.05 ............... $1,167.17 As noted on page No. 6 of this report, the State Engineer estimated the construction of this auxiliary dam originally at $15,500, with 15 per• cent engineering, contingencies and administration, bringing the total to� $17,825. The consulting beard of engineers estimated the structure as plan- ned and built at $14,000, plus 15 per cent contingencies, or $16,100. After - considerable investigation and modification of plans and methods, we have! a dam of permanent character constructed at a total cost of $11,062.10, or a saving over the State Engineer's estimate of $6,752.90, and a saving: cf $5,038 over the cousultilng engineers' estimate. Tbp credit for this splendid showing is due, no doubt, to the careful planning and manipulation: of those in charge of the construction work. The excavation of the foun- dation for Bull Creek dam was commenced in February, 'but actual work on the structure did not commence in an active manner until in April. The structure was completed about the first of July. Alfred Hanson was sup- erintendent in charge of the construction, A. J. Welton, engineer and H. L. Gilkey, assistant engineer. Tumalo Dam. Actual construction work on Tumalo dam and its ap- purtenant structures commenced during the early part of February, 1914. and was carried on in a preliminary way only until the latter part of March. The dam is of the earth fill type on 2 % to 1 slopes on the down stream as well as on the up stream face. A core wall of concrete extends from well into the solid rock foundation through the entire dam to within; 4 feet of the top elevation, and 3 feet above high water contour of the reservoir. Both faces of the dam were built with a face of hand laid rip rap about 30 inches average thickness on the upstream face and about 24 inches average on the lower. The top of the dam is now used as the new State road to replace certain roads flooded in the reservoir, therefore the top was made 20 feet in width. Large rock monuments were set on both sides of this roadway over the dam, not only as an ornament, but also to prevent vehicles from overturning or reaching the slope of the dam. (See Drawing [ED. The total height of the Tumalo dam from bottom of foundation to 24 - 48 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. roadbed on top is 84.8 feet, the greatest height above the natural ground surface of the canyon to the top of roadbed 78.6 feet, and the total length of the dam on top 350 feet. The outlet works for the reservoir are also located at Tumalo dam and consist of a 6 foot by 6 foot concrete lined conduit with a concrete lined gate shaft, all through solid rock, and a concrete gate house surmounting the shaft. Two large sluice gates are installed in the gate chamber and operated from the gate house. Also grillage was installed at the entrance to the tunnel to prevent floating debris from entering. For a short distance below the outlet of the tunnel the channel is lined with concrete to prevent any possible cutting to endanger the lower toe of the dam. A view of the completed dam and gate house from the reservoir side may be seen in Cut No. 5. Diversion of Water. The canyon in which Tumalo dam was constructed was used as a lateral to supply water for irrigation to lands below the res- ervoir to the extent of about 8 c. f. s. Therefore, during the construction period it was necessary to divert this water in some manner either over or around the dam. The amount, however, was not large and it was found advisable to construct a diversion canal and flume to elevate this water at the dam about 27 feet. This ditch served not only for the purpose of divert- ing water below the dam during construction, but also furnished the water supply to Camp No. 6, which was operated for the construction of the Tumalo dam. The ditch constructed was 3 feet wide on the bottom and approximately 2 feet deep with a Iength of 4,800 feet. It was also necessary to construct 800 lineal feet of flume which was 3 feet wide and 18 inches deep. The total construction of this ditch- involved 960 cubic yards or classes Nos. 1 and 2 .and the placement of 7,200 f. b. m. of lumber. In ad- dition to the above, when the dam reached the elevation to which the flume was constructed it was necessary to build another flume through the outlet tunnel which was then completed. All work necessary in connection with the drainage of the reservoir and the diversion of this water was charged to this feature, which received the following charges: Labor, excavation ...............................$ 596.54 Miscellaneous labor ... .... ................... 348.54 Carpenters, building and removing flume ............ 204.90 Materials & supplies, lumber, powder and miscellaneous 205.29 General expense of Tumalo dam, including miscellaneous work and camp charges .. .. ..........:.. 368.69 Distribution account of administration charges ........ 287.05 Salaries, engineers, etc ........................... 189.38 TOTAL ................... $2,200.39 Cat Off and Drain Trenches. The work on the excavation of these two trenches was commenced about the middle of February and was carried forward as rapidly as possible, being completed during the latter part of March. At the bottom of the dam a cut off trench was excavated about 5 feet wide on the bottom and on as steep slope at the sides as the material would stand. The r4aterial encountered consisted of earth, loose rock, various classifications of tufa, various grades of lava rock; and solid gray trap rock. This cut. oft trench was excavated into solid rock a considerable distance to afford a good foundation for the core wall, and also to make a STATEO OPECON TUMALO IRRI16ATION PROJECT OEN[Rk PL AW, SF IONS -x PROF E5 I TUMALO DAM -le 31- h .r, `ch in n- on IT 'm ed tn- ns k, of of Lin its ire 4. .on his igh .all )ck 3 a ick eet ods stal an 24 - -124 4 8- roadbed ` surface of the d The consist gate shl the sha: eperatet to the ti For with co: the darn side ma Divt was use ervoir t period , or arou advisab the daix ing wat _ -- supply Tumalo approxi to cons deep. 1 classes dition t was cor tunnel the dra to this La Mi Ca ME Ge• Di; Sa Cut l trenche`- - forwart - March. feet wi _ would various trap ro distant 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 49 good tie. On the east side this small 36 inch by 36 inch trench as a tie was excavated in solid tufa, but on the west side of the canyon the classi- fication varied greatly but it is believed that the foundation is absolutely safe. The drain trench was excavated on the lower toe of the dam through earth and loose rock formation to solid rock. In the solid rock, however, a smaller trench about 12 inches wide and deep was excavated in which porous drain tile was laid and covered with gravel. The excavated drain trench was then completely refilled with loose rock. A large air compressor driven by a 25 H. P. gasoline engine was in- stalled at Tumalo dam. A great deal of drilling therefore in connection with the cut off and drain trenches was done by air hammer drills. A stiff legged derrick was also set up and operated in conjuncticn with a steam hoisting engine. In this manner the rock which was blasted and uncovered in the bottom of the trench was easily removed from the vicinity of the cen- ter of the dam and hauled into place at the lower toe of the dam by means of dump cars. The air compressor, dump cars, hoisting engine and derrick,, however, were used elsewhere in addition to this work. In connection with the cut off and drain trench, 1,498 cubic yards of earth and loose rock, classes 1 and 2, were excavated, 999 cubic yards of tufa and solid rock was excavated, 630 lineal feet of 6 inch porous drain tile placed, and 215 lineal feet of vitrified sewer pipe laid with cement joints as an outlet for the drain tile placed in the drain trench. The cost of this feature was $5,825.09, which has been distributed and charged as follows: Labor, excavation ..............................$2,725.94 Materials and supplies and labor placing drain the .... 137.09 Materials and supplies, powder, repair parts and supplies 243.04 Miscellaneous and general expense ................ 831.06 Equipment charge 1,146.99 Distribution, account administration charges 568.87 Engineering .................................... 172.10 TOTAL ................... $5,825.09 Core Wall. Upon the completion of the excavation of the cut off trench work was commenced immediately upon the placement of forms for the core wall. The pouring of the concrete was actually commenced on April 4. The thickness of the wall varied from 6 feet 6 inches thick at elevation 3437 in the cut off trench to 6 feet thick at elevation 3453. From this ele- vation there was another gradual change to elevation 3461, where the con- crete was made 3 feet thick. The thickness gradually decreased from this point to 1 foot thick at elevation 3514, which was 3 feet above the high water line of the reservoir and 4 feet below the top of the dam. A small trench 3 feet wide and from 3 to 4 feet deep was carried into the solid rock foundation below the 6 feet 6 inches thick wall in the center to act as a further tie or cut off. Below the point where the core wall was 3 feet thick one-half inch reinforcing rods were placed in a horizontal position 5 feet center to center. Above the elevation 3458, however, the horizontal rods were placed 4 feet apart and vertical rods 1 foot center to center. A total of 15,000 pounds of steel reinforcement was placed in the core wall, or an average of about 10 pounds of steel to each yard of concrete. 24 50 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. Practically all the concrete was mixed on the hillside west of the damp and conveyed by means of chutes to the top of the core wall, where the. concrete was distributed by dump cars run on track on top of the form work. The form work, and consequently all concreting on the core wall, progressed ii stages according to the progress made on the dam embankment, and -according to the necessity of making changes in the road crossing on the care wall, but usually the forms were built and concrete deposited in about 8-foot sections. Great care was taken to preserve the form lumber, which was used a great number of times. A total of 1,476 cubic yards of concrete was placed in the core wall,. for which 1,536 cubic yards of gravel and 4,726 sacks of cement were used. This gives an average of 3.2 sacks of cement per cubic yard of concrete,. P-nd .05 cubic yards of gravel, in addition to a large amount of hard, shr.rp rock which was placed in the concrete during each run. The complete cost of building the core wall is $16,504.01, which includes• labor and material for form work, all gravel pit charges, building roads and hauling gravel, the cost of steel and the labor of cutting, bending and plac- ing same, the setting up and moving concrete mixer, together with the build- ing of the runway, chutes and track for distributing the concrete, mixing and placing, water charges, cement, miscellaneous expense, equipment, engineering and general distribution of administration charges. This con- crete was actually placed in the core wall at a cost of $7.36 per cubic yard,. exclusive of the administration charges, engineering and equipment. This - cost was raiFed quite materially by the gravel cost which alone was over $2.00 per cubic yard. The equipment charge especially is very large on this feature for the reason that considerable machinery and equipment was necessary, and inasmuch as this has not been sold there is no feature to which it can be credited. So the entire cost has been charged against the. concreting. Assuming these heavy equipment charges, which amount to, $1,792.00, and the steel reinforcement charges of $1,222.00, and the general expense at Tumalo dam, engineering and administration, the total gross cost - of this ccncrete was $11.25 per cubic yard. Ilam Embankment. Work was commenced on the construction of the dam embankment on March 25 by first spreading the excess waste material from the cut off and drain trenches at the lower toe of the dam by slip scrapers. About this same time work was commenced at the two portals of the tunnel where considerable loose material of suitable quality for the embankment was uncovered. This material was hauled into the dam embankment by - two horse fresncs. On April 23 the hauling of material from the borrow pit by means of four horse dump wagons of two -yard capacity was begun. The borrow pit was located a short distance south of the dam in the - reservoir floor, and considerable care was necessary in laying out the con- struction roads to obtain suitable grades. A one -yard 35-ton Thew auto- matic merry-go-round type of traction steam shovel was installed in the• borrow pit and gave very satisfactory service. The location of this borrow pit was at the mouth of the canyon and is shown on Map No. E. From the borrow pit, which was opened upon an average of about 16 feet in depth, there was excavated 83,300 cubic yards of material. From 15 to 20 two - yard dump wagons hauled continuously from this borrow pit to the dam FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 51 embankment from the time work was commenced up to the 3d of October, when the embankment proper was completed. At that time the yardage hauled showed only 69,400 cubic yards in the embankment, or a net shrink- age of 16 2-3 per cent. The quantities of the Tumalo dam, aside from the riprap and core wall, which aggregated 8,080 cubic yards, were 72,900 cubic yards, making a total of 81,000 cubic yards. The earth portion of the dam was obtained from the following sources: Cut off and drain trench ...................... 1,272 cu. yds. Outlet tunnel portals .. 2,105 cu. yds. Excavated from borrow pit ....................69,438 cu. yds. The material as received from the dump wagons was dumped near the outer slopes of the dam embankment, from which location the fine sand, tilt and clay was washed near the core wall by means of nozzles under very heavy pressure. This pressure was obtained from a 12x7xl2 Gardner duplex plunger steam pump, which gave very satisfactory service. The material was in this manner automatically separated, the fine silt being deposited nearest to the core wall, then fine sand, next coarse sand and finally the gravel. There was, however, considerable fine material left with the gravel which we were unable to separate. Therefore practically a compact mass was obtained throughout. In order to keep the water on both sides of the core wall, to form a pond, it was necessary to keep the outer slopes of the dam considerably higher than the inside. When the embankment, however, reached an elevation of about 10. feet below, the top of the core wall it was necessary to eliminate the pond on account of the narrow width of the dam. From. this elevation to the top of the dam the inaterial was. spread in thin layers of about 6 to 8 inches in depth, thoroughly wet down. and packed. As the work progressed it was the aim of the engineers to have the ma- terial dumped outside of a theoretical line on a 1 to 1 slope from the center of the dam cn both sides of the core wall. Considerable expensive new'equipment was necessary for the excavation, hauling and placement of the materials for the dam embankment. All of the materials purchased in connection with the borrow pit, hauling and dis- tribution of material has been charged directly against this feature, as there Is no other work to which this equipment could be transferred or credited. Under normal conditions on other work only the depreciation on such items would be charged. Therefore, it is to be expected that the cost of a compara- tively small earth fill dam, such as the Tumalo, under these adverse condi- tions, would be higher than ordinary costs under different conditions when the same equipment and plant could be used for a dam many times the same yardage and then have the equipment subsequently transferred. Comb°ntng the cost of the borrow pit and dam embankment, we find that the charges on these two features may be classified as follows: Labor clearing foundation for dam ............. $ 3()fi.32 Labor placing rip rap .... 3,700.51 Hauling of material, including foreman and time keep- ers, building and repairing and construction of reads, etc . .................................. 16,955.23 101 24 tit FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. Equipment, including all labor for repairs, installation, moving, freight, etc., materials and supplies for ,operating machinery ......................... 13,646.10 Distribution of material in dam ................... 3,231.77 Borrow pit., operation charges ............. % ...... 6,328.59 Geaeral expense including camp construction, opera- tion, etc . ................................... 3,455.80 Distributcn administration charges ................ 5,087.09 Engineering, inspection and surveyors .............. 1,017.30 TOTAL .................. $53,787.71 Eliminating the labor on foundation of dam, labor placing riprap and their proportionate share of general expense, administration and engineer- ing charges, we have left $48,861.46 to be charged directly against the cost of the dam embankment. This, on a basis of 72,900 cubic yards, gives an average of 67.02 cents per cubic yard, which includes all charges for the material placed in the dam embankment after settlement and shrinkage has taken place. This average cost caa be further subdivided, however, as 40.60 cents for labor in the borrow pit, hauling and distribution in the dam, 18.72 cents for equipment, installation and repairs, and 7.62 cents for administration and engineering. Riprap. After sufficient material had been placed in the dam embank- ment and had remained in position a sufficient length of time that no appar- ent shrinkage took place the riprap facing of the sides of the dam was laid. Where this rip rap intersected the hillside a small trench was dug into which the lcose rock was laid. This riprap rock was obtained partly from the excavation of the outlet tunnel portals, some from the gate shaft excavation, some from the rock cut excavation for the new road and the balance was obtained from the rocky cliffs on the canyon on both ends of the dam. A total of 6,600 cubic yards was laid at a total cost of $4,560.93, or 69.1 cents per cubic yard. ( See Cut No. 5.) Outlet Works, Tanned. When work was commenced on the construction of the dam it was the intention to follow the recommendation of the Board of Consulting Engineers, which contemplated the construction of the dam about 20 or 25 feet above the natural surface of the ground in_ the canyon. It was only after the cut oft trenches had been constructed, considerable work done on the embankment and the work carried to the elevation of the flume before the Consulting Board decided to eliminate certain tests. Had these tests been found necessary it would have inconvenienced the work considerably and a great deal of money would have been needlessly expended in building a reinforced concrete conduit through the dam in place of tun- neling around the west end cf the dam. A conduit through the dam would have required a gate shaft and gate house all exposed, which would have been very undesirable on account of frost and ice conditions in the winter with the prevailing direction cf the wind from the southwest, giving -a full sweep ever the reservoir on the gate shaft and house. It was therefore decided to excavate a tunnel 8x8 feet in size around the west end of the dam and through the hillside. The excavation of the tunnel approaches commenced on March 26; all suitable material, as before mentioned, was placed in the dam embankment. The tunnel proper was 402 feet to length. A great deal of ,difficult work was encountered in driving the tunnel for W FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 53 the reason that the character of the rock was variable. The compressor was used to good advantage with Burley drills. As soon as the excavation of the tunnel was completed excavation was commenced on the shaft which extended from elevation 3464, or the top of the tunnel, to elevation 3512. Owing to loose rock encountered at the top it was necessary to crib the shaft for a distance of 18 feet. The bal- ance was excavated into solid tufa and stood very well without timbering, All of this timber work in the shaft, however, was removed when the con- crete lining was placed. The excavation of these features involved the following: Earth Loose Rock, Solid etc. Rock cu. yds. cu. yds. Portal and outlet channel ................... 664 560 Tunnel bore .......... .................... 994 Gate shaft, open cut ........................ 37 Gate shaft proper and gate chamber ........... 232 This makes a total of 664 cubic yards of classes Nos. 1 and 2, and 1,832 cubic yards of class No. 3. The neat excavation of the tunnel, however, was only 884 cubic yards, leaving a 12 % per cent everbreak. On the shaft the neat excavation was 156 cubic yards, leaving an overbreak of 26.3 per cent. It was impossible to excavate the material encountered to the neat lines for the reason that numerous seams were encountered and certain formations of rotten lava rock where it was necessary to excavate until it was safe, especially in the roof of the tunnel. The excavation of the tunnel was done from both portals at the same time, the material being removed by dump cars operated on a track. The cost of the excavation of the tunnel may be summarized as follows: Excavation of tunnel bore ......................... $2,507.44 Timbering....................................... 29.08 Moving and repairing equipment ................... 521.05 Drill runners, engineers and mechanics .......... 657.40 Repairs to equipment ............................ 15 6.3 4 Wood, coal and oils .............................. 309.37 Explosives, etc . ................. • • • • • • • • 656.87 Labor, materials and supplies, trimming tunnel ....... 223.23 Equipment..................................... 410.34 General expense ................. 844.00 Administration charges ........................... 557.31 Engineering .................................... 173.67 TOTAL ................... $ 7,046.10 This gives an average cost for the driving of the tunnel bore for 402 lineal feet of $7.09 per cubic yard, or $17.52 per lineal foot. This price, however, as shown above, includes all charges for engineering, general ex- pense, such as camp construction and operation, administration, heavy equipment costs, and, in fact, all charges. In addition to the above there was excavated 664 cubic yards of earth and loose rock and 560 cubic yards for the portals of the tunnel, at a total -cost of $643.20, and the complete cost of the material, supplies, freight and 24 54 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. installation of the grillage in front of the tunnel was $648.03. As soon as the shaft excavation was completed work was commenced .on the lining of the tunnel with concrete. The mixer was set up on the hillside above the gate shaft and all concrete delivered at the bottom of the shaft by means of chutes, from which position it was delivered in the tunnel by means of cars on track. Actual concreting operations on the tunnel were delayed on account of the flume which occupied the central portion. It was mececsary to keep this flume to deliver water, as before mentioned, for irri- gation pui poEes below the dam. Actual concreting was commenced on August 20 by placing the sides and head wall of the intake portal and the sides of the tunnel to the gate chamber. The entire tunnel bore section was lined with concrete from the inlet portal for a distance of 196 feet, exclusive of the gate chamber. For the balance of the tunnel the lining was placed only on. the bottom, and extended 3 feet on the s'des. The lining in the tunnel was very heavily reinforced with steel, especially the gate chamber, and continued throughout the entire tunnel about 12 inches thick with the exception of the roof in the places where large overbreaks occurred. In these places the concrete was placed :about 16 inches thick and the cavity above was very carefully filled with loose rock packed very tightly. The distribution of the concrete in the tunnel portals and channel is as follows: Tunnel lining ...... ........... • • • . • • • • • • • • ..430 cu. yds. Portals 88 cu. yds. Transition and channel below tunnel .............135 cu. yds. A total of ........................653 cu. yds. In addition to this total yardage of 653 there was placed 57 cubic yards -of rock in filling overbreak in the roof, the cost of which was about $1.50 per cubic yard. An average of 4 % sacks of cement and about 12 pounds of steel was used per yard in the tunnel. The cost of the concrete operations and the placement of 653 cubic yards -of concrete in the tunnel approaches and channel may be summarized as follows: Engineering, inspection, surveyors, etc ............. $ 150.00 Distribution of administration charges ............ 523.47 Foremen, timekeepers and general expense ........ 1,308.25 Forms, material . $200.19 Labor ............................. 611.14 811.33 Cement charges .. 1,503.06 Steel reinforcement, material ............ 345.54 Labor, cutting, bending and placing .... 183.01 528.55 Cement and gravel charges ...................... 811.32 Water charges ... .. ......................... 47.58 :nixing, placing and finishing concrete ............. 1.6e1.62 Equirment, repairs, materials and supplies ......... 178.84 Total cost 653 cubic yards concrete at $11.28 ....... $7,364.02 I-cfert ir_g to the cost ledger totals covering tunnel features on page 23 we find the total cost $1 5,701.35, which is segregated about as follows: w r O 0 z 0 z Go W O z v 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 55 Excavation of approaches ................... $ 643.20 Cost of grillage including placing ................. 648.03 Cost of tunnel excavation ........................ 7,046.10 Cost of concrete tunnel .............. 7,364.02 TOTAL .................. $15,701.35 Outlet Works —Shaft, Gate Chamber and Gate House. As noted above, the construction of the gate shaft and gate chamber involved the excavation of 269 cubic yards of solid rock. The neat cross section averaged about 4.8 cubic yards per lineal foot of depth. The size of the shaft was irregular, being about 13 feet wide and 12 feet long along the center line of the tunnel. All the excavation was done from the top, where a windlass was operated with two large buckets, the material being removed in a dump car on track. The average cost of this excavation work, including all charges, was about $5.83 per cubic yard, cr about $32.62 -per lineal foot for the depth of the shaft excavation of 48 feet. The concreting -of the approaches in the gate chamber and the gate shaft was delayed on account of non -delivery of the sluice gates and accessories, which were ordered from the Chapman Valve Company, Indian Orchard, Mass. Actual c,-neretiig operations commenced, however, with the arrival of two gates on October 10, and continued thereafter as rapidly as possible. On account, however, of the non -delivery of the gate rods, stands, hangers and accesscries- it was found necessary to drill holes for the installation of these after their arrival on November 16. A gate house was cc natructed also .of.. concrete at the top elevation of the dam 10x11 % feet in floor space. A total of 220 cubic yards of concrete was necessary between the neat lines for the gate chamber shaft and gate house, but on account of the various outbreaks it was necessary to place actually 247 cubic yards, the cost of which has been segregated as follows: Cost of Concrete. Forms, la>>or..........................$435.46 Material and supplies 142.26 $ 577.72 Sand and gravel charge ... ... • ..... • . . • • . • • • 376.97 Equipment plant, operation -and supplies ........ 279.73 Mixing and placing concrete .................... 203.70 Cutting, bending and placing steel reinforcement ... 141.19 Superintendent, foremen, timekeeper and general ex- pense..................................... 641.35 Cement..................... 729.20 Distribution account administration charges ....... 451.04 Engineering .................. ................ 120.62 Tctal, 247 cubic yards @ $14.25 ................. $3,521.52 The total work cn the gate shaft can be summarized briefly as follows: Excavating 269 cubic yards @ $5.83 ............. $R.00 F'xtrs i7nsts on gatehouse ....................... 290.82 •(:GFt ^F R^`pa rind accessories, includ°ng freight, and ic- stallaticn ... ... ... ... ............. 3.938.17 Concreting 247 cubic yards @ $14.25 ............ 3.521.52 TOTAL ................. $9,318.51 Two 3 %x6 foot sluice gates, made special, were manufactured by the Chapman Valve Company and installed as regulating works for the reser- NVI FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. voir. Two very large, heavy gate stands were also placed in the gate house, with three speed gears for the raising and lowering of the gates. The con- nections between the stands and the gates were made by 4-inch steel gate rods. Gravel Pit. Considerable gravel was necessary for the concrete on many iof the structures in connection with the storage works. Accordingly it was very important to locate gravel of a satisfactory quality. Test pits were Klug in numerous places in the vicinity of the storage works, but the best .gravel discovered was in the reservoir floor about a mile south of Tumalo -dam. It was necessary to excavate considerable over burden before a good quality .could be obtained in sufficient quantities to warrant the opening of •a pit. On February 9, 1914, a pit 200x600 feet was opened up from which ,an average depth of 3 feet over burden was removed, aggregating approx- 4m•ately 12,150 cubic yards of earth. A total of 3,700 cubic yards of gravel `was obtained from the pit, thus giving an average of 3.23 cubic yards over burden excavated to each cubic yard of gravel. It wis also necess?Rry for some of the important parts of the structures, :such .as Bull Creek dam, tunnel, gate house, etc., to screen the gravel. Ac- (cordingly a revolving screening plant was installed in the gravel pit. Of the .gravel obtained from the pit 1,190 cubic yards were used on Bull Creek dam and structures of the feed canal; 2,422 on the concrete structures of Tumalo dam, and 88 on the pedestals for the main canal metal flumes. A total of 1$2,175.49 was distributed as the total charge in connection with the gravel -pit; therefore it does not appear on our cost ledger totals. Englneexing. The total amount of engineering at Tumalo dam, involv- ing $103;337.06 construction, was $2,389.65, which shows that some very 'eccnorriical -work was done. The engineering was also of high class, strict -supervision being given to the construction and the acquisition of true lines and grades. . Much credit for the splendid class of construction obtained is ,clue to the engineering organiiation at the dam. In addition to their regu- lar work of giving lines, grades and inspection of all construction work, a :series of tests was also carried on to determine the tightness of the reservoir 'floor. Gravel tests were also performed to obtain the proper proportions of sand, gravel and cement for concreting operations. These gravel tests ,showed our gravel and sand pit run to be of rather fair proportions, the 'voids being usually about 23 per cent. A series of cement tests were also 'performed with various combinations of sand, gravel and diatomaceous %earth. Orgrnization. Operations were begun at Tumalo dam in early Feb- Ziiary and March by Mr. Alfred Hanson, during the absence of Mr. A. M. Bye, to whose charge the construction of the Tumalo dam was assigned. -Mr. Bye took charge in March and carried operations forward with consid- ,erable skill and energy up to October 10, when his resignation took effect, 'he having obtained a very favorable appointment on the construction of the Elephant Butte ds.m in New Mexico. Mr. Bye was, however, assisted in the ,construction work by a large number of very able and energetic foremen. After October 10 Mr. Alfred Hanson was transferred from the distribution system to take charge of and complete operations at Tumalo dam. The rplaceme:�t of the earth embankment, the excavation of the tunnel and shaft 24 FILIAL REVOrit'TUMALO'"IRRIGATION PROJECT. 57 were completed by Mr. Bye, as well as the concrete lining- of the tunnel, ex- clusive of the gate chamber. The Concrete lining of the gate chamber,. gate shaft and house, with the installation of the gates and accessories, the place- ment of approximately one-third of the riprap on the dam and the comple- tion of the roads around the reservoir were left in charge of Mr. Hanson. Mr. A. S. Nicol, assistant engineer, was in charge of the engineering opera- tions at Tumalo dam, and deserves a great deal of credit for the interest taken and the results accomplished. Accomplishments. Although a considerable amount of saving was effected in a great many of these structures on the Tumalo Project, perhaps the largest percentage and involving by far the greatest amount in actual money was effected at Tumalo dam. The total estimated expeaditures for Tumalo dam and its appurtenant structures, including 15 per cent engineer- ing, administration and contingencies, was *147,667.19. This work was actually accomplished, as shown ca our cost ledger totals, for $103,337.06, effecting a saving of $44,330.13, or 30 per cent. The amount of money expended on engineering at Tumalo dam on all structures was $2,389.65, cr 2.31 per cent.. the administration $9,217.18, or 8.92 per cent., making .a total for engineering and administration on Tumalo dam 11.32 per cent. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. Before the distribution system proper could be constructed a great amount of preliminary work was necessary. During the season of 1913 one division of engineering work consisted of that work covering Adjudication of Water Rights, Topography, Classification and Subdivision of Lands, Gen- eral Investigations and Distribution System. Engineering Covering Adjudication of Water Rights, Topography, Classi- fication and Subdivision of Lands, General Investigations and Distribution System. Some of the most important work in connection with the recon- struction of the Tumalo Project by the State was the adjudication of the water rights. In order to have some definite working knowledge to assist in adjusting these complicated water rights it was necessary to make complete, accurate and individual surveys of all the lands under the project that had been previously irrigated. These were all made by A. S. Nicol and party while the injunction suit was being disposed of under the direct supervi- sion of the Project Engineer. The man in charge of this division did not report and take charge of his duties until July 18th, having been temporari- ly delayed to await the outcome• of the injunction suit. The work in this division has been diversified and has covered a great many branches of engineering work necessary for an irrigation project. The largest .portion of the expense, however, has been in connection with the taking of topography to cover the entire Project. Four engineering parties during AR13 were in the field continuously, and at times an extra Party was engaged for short periods. The country is irregular and smoothly rolling in character with occas- ional mounds and buttes, and pract?tally the entire area is covered with sage brush and juniper trees, all of which tend to obscure the view; ac- cordingly, the ordinary method of using triangulation or signals for hori- zontal control was considered impracticable. The method adopted con- sisted of running .transit traverse lines, setting hubs, and tying in -the land 24 Z8 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. ,corners whenever they could be located. These transit lines were then plotted on the plane -table sheets, with the hubs and land corners correctly marked so they could be used for location and orientation on plane -table work in the field. During the early part of the season these lines were plotted by means of protractor, but the method proved unsatisfactory, after which all lines and corners were plotted by means of the co-ordinate method, using latitude and departures. The levels for vertical control were all based on U. S. Geological Survey -sea level datum. Lines were run along county roads, section lines, or along transit control lanes and in circuits, closing either on original points of be- ginning or cn some previous point of known elevation. Bench marks with marked e!evations were established abc•ut one-half mile apart, but eleva- tions for temporary use were often marked more frequently. All level line ,circuits or ties were required to check within a limit of error of .05 of a foot times the square foot of the number of miles. The scale used for the actual taking of topography was 400 feet to an inch, and the contour interval 5 feet. Each fifth contour when inked in was accentuated, and in case of very steep slopes the intermediate contours were dropped, leaving the contour interval 25 feet. Each plane -table sheet Included three square miles of topography, two miles east and west and one :and one-half miles north and south. The sheets were numbered. from the northeast corner of the township toward the west along the township line, then dropped down and numbered back toward the east in the same manner that the sections are numbered in a township; thus a full township would be covered by twelve sheets. This method of laying out the sheets was fol- lowed throughout the topographic work as nearly as was possible, but in a few cases where the lands to be mapped Were irregular it was believed ad- visable to change the numbering so as to eliminate a large number of frac- tional sheets. The land classification on this project was made by parties of three, one instrument man and two rodmen, either by means of a plane -table or a transit. The classification sheets were made on the same scale and plan as the topographic maps so that a tracing of any particular classification sheet will serve as an over sheet for the topographic sheet of the same number. 'The plane -table was found a great deal more economical and satisfactory than the transit for taking classification, except possibly in bad weather, when it was impossible to work with a plane -table. The work with the tran- sit may be done with more speed in the field than with the plane -table, but the time taken to plot the notes in the office more than offsets the advan- tage in the field, in addition to which sometimes discrepancies arise when plotting the notes, increasing the liability of error. lie work tinder this engineering department was completed during the latter part of 1913, and may be briefly summarized as follows: Topography. The topographic maps covered portions of six different townships: Township 17111, 10.5 sq. miles; 17112, 1 sq. mile; 16111, 29.5 sq. m9es; 16112, 10.5 sq. miles; 15111, 23.5 sq. miles; 15112, 25.25 sq. miles: 14112, 0.5 sq. miles; giving a total of 100.75 sq. miles at a coat of 442.40 per square mile, or $4,240.00. I.- __ ... . _ .._.. f .. _. . - 24 I r 69 acreage mile, or Y- quarter �set and +i corners r, but no ilia work mile, or Avision of ion work insit line s cost an k several J ork. -' - land very _ pat many render- - - --r-�ecessary timbered trees to one-half g of the Lk in the m is di- 2, Unit -ect from ,�d canal, .he main in canal. .1 S 2 have le pres- _ _ These ading as ieridian. ible and the feed .e canals ed from 28 .COFI plot near woI` plot wH USI❑ eel trar gins ID R I' twii ct i 2' C foot inn w a s w e r inel and 110PI Chet that Ire C low teAr Visa doll t-raI the will The tha! whE t}1e tag( plot AM too, mq. mil( $42 FINAL REPORT TUMALO. IRRIGATION PROJECT, 59 S Classification. The lands classified to determine the irrigable acreage cover an area of 80 square miles, and cost $33.53 per square mile, or _ $2,682.25. ' Subdivision. In the subdivisicn work the section corners and, quarter section corners were located and iron posts with brass caps were set and the number of section stamped on the brass cap. The sixteenth corners on the exterior line of the sections were set in the same manner, but no intermediate sixteenth corners and points were determined. This work covered abrut 75 square miles, at a cost of $20.00 per square mile, or _ $1,500, giving a total cost for topography, classification and subdivision of $8,422.25. In addition and necessary for the topographic and subdivision work hundreds of miles of level and transit lines were also run. The transit line 9 control varied trom $4.50 to $7.50 per mile, and the transit lines cost an average of a little over $ 5.00 per mile. Oommeot+s on Costs. In comparing the above cost on this work several conditions should be considered which very materially affect the work. First. The topography of the country is broken and irregular and very deceiving to the eye, rendering it difficult to sketch without a great many elevations on the ground. Second. There is much rock and other local magnetic attraction render -Ong the magnetic needle unreliable for orientation, thus making it necessary to use back sites, thereby increasing the cost quite materially in a timbered country. Third. The larger portion of the area is covered with juniper trees to such an extent that they reduce the areas covered per day at least one-half of what could be covered in an open country. Fourth. Most of the men were inexperienced at the beginning of the season with the use of the plane -table, making it necessary to break in the men for taking topography. General Plan of Distribution System. The distribution system is di- vided into four divisions or units, designated as Unit No. 1, Unit No. 2, Unit No. 3, and Unit No. 4. Unit No. 1 comprises all the land watered direct from the feed canal and includes the land lying north and east of the feed canal, east of the reservoir, west of the Deschutes River and south of the main canal leading from the reservoir and the "B" lateral from the main canal. The entire acreage in the body of land is 13,425 acres, of which 9,082 have been classified as irrigable and 3,128 acres are being irrigated at the pres- ent time. Unit No. 2 comprises the land watered from the Wimer Canal. These lands lie west of the feed canal and south of the reservoir, extending as far west as the line between ranges 10 and 11, East Willamette meridian. This area covers 3,425 acres, of which 2,653 are classified as irrigable and 250 acres are being irrigated. For Units No. 1 and No. 2 the water is delivered direct from the feed canal and the Wimer canal; that is, the water is taken from these canals before it reaches the reservoir, the land being too high to be reached fror4 24 60 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. the reservoir outlet. These units are therefore dependent on the natural flow of Tumalo Creek. For Units No. 3 and 4 the water is taken from the reservoir through a tunnel around the end of the main dam into Red Rock canyon, where it is carried down the natural water channel 1.25 miles. At this point it is diverted into the main canal, which takes a general northeasterly direction for a distance of 280 stations. From this point the "B" lateral from the main canal continues in a south and easterly direction to the Deschutes River the two thus forming the northern limit of Unit No. 1 and the south- ern limit of Unit No. 3. From this point Unit No. 3 is bounded on the east by the Deschutes River, as far north as the north line of section 26. township 15112, thence west to Cline Butte, thence along the ccntour along the south and west edge of Cline Butte to wihin 1 % miles of the north line of township 15 south, thence west to a point 2 3/4 miles west of the east line of range 11, thence south to the south line of township 15, thence east to the drainage channel of Red Rock Canyon, thence along the drainage of Red Rock Canyon in a southerly direction to the diversicn of the main canal, which is the point of beginning. This territory comprises an acreage of 20,480 acres, 13,018 acres of which has been classified as irrigable and 1,765 acres are under irrigation at present. Unit No. 4 is watered by the north canal, which takes its water from the main canal at station 26-50 and is carried in a flume across Red Rock channel, then continues on a grade in a northwesterly direction to near the northwest corner of township 16111, the land lying between this line, the north line of township 16111 and the drainage channel of Red Rock Canyon being included in Unit No. 4, and comprises an area of 1,950 acres, 1,779 of which have been classified as irrigable and 242 acres being irrigated. , System of Nanning Laterals and Sublaterals. The laterals are designated by letters beginning with "A" in each unit, and the initial letters of the canal from which they derive their water is used as a prefix, the prefix thus indicating to which unit any lateral belongs. The sublaterals are numbered consecutively, beginning with No. 1 for the sublateral which takes out near- est the head of the lateral, the name of the lateral is used as a prefix to the number of the sublateral, I. e., F. C., Feed Canal; F. C. A., lateral or first lateral from the feed canal; F. C. A. 1, first sublateral from lateral "A," and so on, the F. C. indicating that the water is derived from the feed canal and that all laterals with this prefix belong to Unit No. 1. In like manner W. C.—Wiener Canal —indicates Unit No. 2; M. C.—Main Canal —and is the prefix for the lateral system for Unit No. 3; and N. C.—North Canal — for Unit No. 4. There is one exception to the above rule there are two laterals which are supplied through the by-pass at Bull Creek dam which are designated by the letters "B. P. A.," and "B. P. B.," but they belong to Unit No. 1. Herewith is a master map showing the general distribution system and area coming under the different units. (See Drawing [H] ). construction Work. Construction work on. the distribution system was commenced early in March, 1914, and has been carried on continuously up 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 61 to the first of December, 1914. It was well recognized from the start that the appropriation was not sufficient for the distribution system. It therefore became the plan to complete certain features (the feed canal and storage works), the completion of which is essential to the successful operation of the project, and to use the remaining portion of the appropriation in con- structing the distribution system as far as possible. The original estimates for the construction of the storage works and feed canal provided fcr a total of $318,704.00. The cost of topography, classification and subdivision and adjudication of water rights was $13,242; there was expended a total of $6356 on the Crater Creek diversion canal; there was expended on tele- phone construction, road construction and general investigation of the project $6,016, and it was found necessary to expend $3,842 on repairs, renewals and alterations under the operation, and maintenance department, which makes a total of estimated and actual expenditures of $348,160, leav- ing only a surplus of about $100,000 with which to construct the distribu- tion system, including engineering, administration and incidentals. On account of the fact, however, that a considerable saving was affected on other features of the work it has been possible to expend $124,944 on the distribution system against the estimated expenditure of $115,000- Eve,I with this surplus amount expended on the distribution system it has been impossible to complete the same in a satisfactory manner, although it will meet all the requirements for some time to come. There will, however, be a small amount necessary from time to time to put in measuring boxes and a few small laterals as the lands are geld. If a sale could be made of the equipment on hand and for the surplus lands still owned by the State in the reservoir with complete water rights it is believed that these sources will be amply sufficient to provide the necessary funds for extensions. The construction of the Tumalo dam not being brought to completion as early as was expected on account of the non -delivery of the gates and accessories, there remained an uncertainty as to the actual amount of money that could be available for the distribution system. Therefore the handling of the construction force on the distribution work during the months of October and November was done with considerable inconvenience, and the work may not have been accomplished with as much economy or as effi- ciently as otherwise would have been the case. An outline map of the distribution system is shown on Map H. Irrigable Acreage. Each unit under the distribution system has some segregated Carey Act lands as well as private land that may be irrigated. The irrigable land under both of these classes has been ascertained by the regular subdivisions of 40 acres. The total acreage is considerably more than the 22,500 which has been chosen for the project, so the water has been reserved for the segregated land and then a percentage of the private, land in each unit is provided for. From this basis the acreage of the various units is classifid as follows: 24 62 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. W Cd ccw GtS 'd d W 20. ab ao a to ; � F. b db •"b cl.- tea' a na Ha P4 az ° Fa" Unit No. 1. ... 4,328 4,754 3,230 • 1,524 7,558 Unit No. 2. ..... 1,088 1,565 780 785 1,868 Unit No. 3. ..... 9,479 3,539 2,481 1,058 11,960 Unit No. 4........ 198 1,581 916 665 1,114 TOTALS ..... 15,093 11,439 7,397 I 4,042 22,500 I Detailed Construction Costs. Unit No. 1 involved the enlargement of several of the old Columbia Southern ditches, the new construction of sev- eral ditches, the laying of several inverted siphons of wood stave pipe, and the placement of about 100 measuring boxes and structures. The labor cost of this feature is as follows: Clearing right of way 20 A. @ $14.735 .............. $ 294.73 Excavatio o--- Class 1 and 2, 19,465 cu. yds. @ $0.2025 ......... 3,942.87 Class 3, 1,555 cu. yds. @ $0.8244................ 1,282.00 Lumber in structures, 27,837 f. b. m. @ $18.48 M. .... 514.45 Concrete structure, .44 cu. yds. @ $3.86 ............ 169.8n Rock wall and rip rap, 150 cu. yds. @ 99 cents ........ 148.55 Laying wood stave pipe (8 to 14 in.) 3,639 ft. @ $.0292 106.15 Measuring boxes and drops, 100 @ $3.67 ............ 367.00 Total for Usit No. 1. ........ $6,825.55 Unit No. 2 includes the work necessary to irrigate the land above the reservoir under the Wimer canal system and includes ordinary new canal construction and the placement of a wooden flume. The detailed labor costs are listed as follows: Clearing right of way, 16 A. @ $14.53 ...............$ 232.44 Excavation - Class 1 and 2, 5,105 cu. yds. @ $0.13 ............ 661.85 Class 3, 536 cu. yds. @ $1.01 .................. 536.65 Lumber in structures, 10,000 f. b. m. @ $21.70 ...... 217.00 Total for Unit No. 2. ........ $1,647.94 In the canyon below Tumalo dam it was necessary to construct a diver- sion dam and spillway for the main canal. This involved the placement of 78 lineal feet of No. 180 metal flume, the placement of 206 square yards of grouted pavement, 228 cubic yards of concrete and considerable excavation work. The detailed labor cost of this feature may be classified as follows, Constructing road ...............................$ 40.00 Excavation - Class 1 and 2, 1,163 cu. yds. @ $.636 ............ 739.79 Flume Trestle, 2,280 f. b. m. @ $24.47 .............. 55.80 Concrete, 228 cu. yds. @ $4.90 .................... 1,118.13 ftif .r.Gya sr ni+d eN*wk A~ ►dc ow//WOY ♦,d 3FCrIVAI A.• A. '/ ri.nlwc.q nds .�r'w.• STATE of OREGON DESERT LAND ROARO TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT MAIN CANAL DIVERSION DAM Oii IGC Oi PCG7 ENGINEER. LAIDLAW. ORE. JULY 31,1SW AVVgOYEO , [N6R, AWRDVCO - DESERT LAND BDAR0. i TP-sw -`- 24 63 the i ding con- 156 the died �1 v , :a �. 3, sub - be ruc- tion a Of the - 4 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PRO390T. 63 Rip rap, 206 square yards ® $.636 ................. 131.00 Hanging flume, 78 Ila. ft. @ $.364 ................... '128.40 Miscellaneous................................... 24.60 Total for diversion dam ...... $2,137.72 A view of the completed dam is shown on Cut No. 6, and a plan of the structure may be seen on Drawing (F. ) From the diversion point on the canal below the reservoir and extending in an easterly direction for a little over 5 miles the main. canal was con- structed. This feature involved the placement of 578 lineal feet of No. 156 metal flume, the framing and erecting of 40,000 f. b. m. of timber, and the excavation of approximately 70,000 cubic yards of material. The detailed summary of the labor costs on this feature are as follows: Clearing right of way, 32.03 A. @ $32.10 .......... $ 1,027.82 Excavaticm- Class 1 and 2, 62,716 cu. yds. @ $0.277.......... 17,412.95 Claus 3, 6,434 cu. yds. @ $1.01 ........... 6,525.97 Concrete and rip rap, 91.2 cu. yds. @ $5.10 ......... 434.85 Hanging flume, 578 lin. ft. @ $0.32 ............... 187.56 Total for main canal .......$26,256.12 The dist.ributicn system under the main canal is described as Unit No. 3, and includes the constructicn of four main laterals, with many other sub - laterals. A brief summary of the labor costs under this system may be stated as follows: Diversion dam ................................. $ 2,137.72 Main canal .................................... 26,256.12 M. C. A. Lateral System ........................ M. C. B. Lateral System ........................ 8,856.79 M. C. C. Lateral System ........................ 4. 59.93 M. C. D . Lateral System ........................ 1,15 7.17 Measuring boxes ................................ 63.70 Total for Unit No. 3. ....... $56,348.04 Under Unit No. 4 practically the entire work consisted of the construc- tion of the north canal and the placement of a few structures in connection with same. This involved the excavation of about 10,000 cubic yards of material and the placement of 640 feet of No. 72 metal flume. Detailed, the costs are as follows: Clearing right of way, 10.96 A. a $18.60 ............ $ 203.90 Excavation - Class 1 and 2, 8,687 cu. yds. (Cu $0.182 ........... 1,587.65 Class 3, 440 cu. yds. @ $1.15 1502.7G Framing and erecting, 25,974 f. b. In. @ $14.68 ....... 381.1:3 Concrete and rip rap, 91.8 cu. Yds. @ $5.61 .......... 458.81 Hanging flume, 640 ft.. @ $0.087 ................... S ),51 Taking down old flume ........................... 35.80 Two three-way turnouts, Excavation— Class 1 and 2. 44 cu. yds. a $1.10 ............... 49.40 Lumber, 1,400 f. b. m., @ $12.93 ............... 18.12 Total for Unit No. 4. ........ $3,292.06 In explanation of the various kinds of construction work under Unit No. 3, it can be stated that on the M. C. A. lateral there was placed 576 24 64 FTi4AlLtnEP6RT TUMALO IRRIGATION' PROJECT. lineal feet of No. 109 metal flume, the placement of considerable grouted pavement, 73 cubic yards of concrete, the framing and erecting of 61,000 f. b. m-. of .lumber, and the excavation of 25,000 cubic yards of material. Work on the M. C. B., M. C. C., and M. C. D. laterals involved about 40,000 cubic Surds cf material and the placement of 474 lineal feet of metal flume and a great number of wooden structures, drops and several won,. :�r flomes, hivui'Ong considerable framing. A summary of the distribution systela lal;or costs may be made as follows: Unit No. 1..................................... $ 6,825.55 Unit No. 2..................................... 1,647.94 Unit No. 3. ............. 56,348.04 UnitNo. 4..................................... 3,293.06 Total ..................... $68.113.59 Another summary m.ty be made by quantities, as foliows: Clearing right of way, 168.39 A. @ $16.65 .......... $ 2,804.73 Excavatio n— Class 1 and 2, 162,672 cu. yds. @ $0.239 ........ 38,867.66- Class 3, 17,391 cu. yds. @ $1.05 .............. 18,301.77 Framing and erecting, 282,145 f. b. m. @ $13.15 .... 3,7h:a.:3r, Concrete and rip rap,974.4 cu. yds. @ $3.29 ........ 3.207.95 Paving, 146 square yards @ $1.03 ............... 150.25 Hanging metal flume, 2,346 lin. ft. @ $0.152 ........ 355.62 Laying wood stave pipe, 4,589 lin. ft. @ $0.025 ...... 115.65 Installing structures, 120 @ $3.59 ................. 430.70 Miscellaneous.................................. 166.90 Total ..................... $68,113.59 The grand total of the summaries of the distribution system costs as shown on the cost ledger are as follows: Labor cost .. ....... .............. $68,113.59 Material, supplies and miscellaneous equipment ...................... 24,941.48 General expense .................... 12,120.96 Engineering ....................... 10,262.50 Administration ..................... 9,505.30 Total of distribution system ................ $124,943.83 Giving 22,500 acres @ $5.55 per acre. Unit No. 1 has 46 miles of laterals and serves an irrigable acreage of 7,558 acres at a cost for distribution system of $2.40 per acre. Unit No. 2 has 28 miles of laterals and serves an irrigable area of 1,858 acres at a cost of $2.03 per acre. Unit No. 3 contains 53 miles of laterals and serves an irrigable acreage of 11,960 acres at a cost of $8.00 per acre. Unit No. 4 has 4.5 miles of laterals, 3.82 miles of which is the main lateral known as the north canal. In order to serve the entire acreage under this unit it will be necessary to extend the north canal a short distance and build some laterals. The cost of the construction for this unit is approximately $6.00 per acre. The total cost of the distribution system, including topography, classi- fication and subdivision work, is $133,366.05, or approximately $6.00 per irrigable acre. M FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 65, Band Saw Outfit. An enormous amount of cutting was necessary in. connection with the wooden structures, such as tournouts, takeouts, measur- ing boxes, for which it was deemed advisable to install at Laidlaw a small band caw outfit run by a gasoline engine. With this machine we were able to quite materially reduce the cost of a great many of the wooden struc- tures, and also there remain now a great many structures all ready to be placed together and installed. After this band saw outfit had served its purpose on the distribution system it was, moved to frame timbers for the trestles of the metal flumes and to cut out intricate form work in connection with the tunnel, shaft and gate house of the Tumalo dam. Uncompleed Work. As mentioned above it was deemed advisable to leave some portions of the distribution system unfinished. There is a large amount of first-class irrigable land tributary to the project immediately to the north of our present limits, and the number and amount of laterals that could be constructed would be limited only by the cost; therefore we con- tinued our lateral system just as far in the northerly direction as it was possible with the finds available. Structures for the delivery of water for lands not under contract were not installed. Some of the laterals, viz., X C. A. and M. C. C., have developed sink holes in a few rocky places which will require stopping or plugging with concrete. At the northern limit of the project in townships 15111 and 15112 there are some laterals which have been begun which have not been completed to their final capacity, and others which have been staked out but no con- struction work has been done on them. One of these proposed laterals in- volved a siphon of 14-inch wood stave pipe across Buck Horn Canyon in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 13, township 15 north, range 11 east. This siphon would be about 1,000 feet long, have its intake at an elevation of 3,185 and outlet at an elevation 3,175, with a maximum pressure of 60 feet and capacity of 6 % c. f. s. Aside from this siphon the work to be done is simply small lateral work that offers no difficulties. These lines are projected on prints of the topographic maps left in the office, so that the manager in charge can readily have them constructed as necessity requires. As the lands are sold the structures should be constructed and meas- uring boxes installed. In the spring also any breaks which may occur on new canal construction and any serious leaks encountered should be re- paired. These features, it is believed, will offer no serious difficulties pro- vided the right party is placed in charge of operations. If, however, a man unfamiliar with local conditions and requirements as a whole is placed in charge, then much chaos and confusion might result and the ultimate success of the project might be jeopardized. Therefore it is quite impera- tive that some man thoroughly familiar with every detail of the project and the requirements of the work be placed in charge for the next few years. Engineering and Administration Charges. As shown by the cost lodger totals, $124,943.83 was expended on the construction of the distribution system. Of this amount $10,262.50 was expended on engineering and $9,505.30 on administration, which are 8.21 and 7.60 per cent respectively, or a total of 15.81 per cent. For the class of work included under a dis- tribution system, however, this is very satisfactory, as the engineering is 24 66 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. necessarily high on small ditch construction and the building of small inex- pensive structures. Especially is this true on. a project like the Tumalo, that was necessary to be completed in one season, requiring a large number of small construction parties. Organization and Accomplishments. Seven camps, in addition to Laid - law headquarters, were necessary for the construction of the lateral system. Mr. Alfred Hanson was construction superintendent for the major portion of the distribution system work, while Mr. A. M. Bye had charge of the main canal and horth canal. After October 10 and up to the close of work Mr. C. E. Hewitt acted in the capacity, of construction superintendent as well as engineer. On the engineering Mr. Hewitt had the assistance of the following assdgtant engineers on construction: H. C. Rupple, R. H. Jamison, Spencer Biddle and R. F. Melin. To those in charge the Project Engineer feels very grateful for their loyal work and faithful performance. During the past season long hours were often necessary to handle the enormous amount of detail work included in the construction of about 140 miles of canals and several hundred structures, but they always performed their duties to the best of their ability cheerfully and conscientiously. The record made by the men on the distribution work is enviable. On topographic, adjudication, classification and subdivision work Mr. Hewitt was as,-isted by the following: A. S. Nicol, H. J. Gilkey, L. D. Mars, and H. R. Wessell. DIVERSION OF CRATER AND LITTLE CRATER CREEKS. Near Broken Tcp Mountain, as shown on Drawing (Ai, two small creelcs flow into the drainage area to the west of that of Tumalo Creek and into Sparks Lake. During the time that the Oregon, Washington & Idaho Finance Company had charge of the project this water supply was investi- gated and it was found to be feasible to divert Crater and Little Crater Creeks and some small springs from their natural water course into that of the Tumalo drainage area. From a preliminary examination and investiga- tion, in 1910 it was learned that there was a supply sufficient for probably from 3,000 to 5,000 acres. In order to ascertain with some degree of accur- acy the water supply from the two above named creeks it was deemed advis- able to install weirs this season and construct the diversion canal while an engineering and construction organization was available on the project. Ac- cordingly, early in the spring the Desert Land Board authorized the con- struction of this work and the conditicns in the mountains were wat-Chec quite closely in order that work might commence at as early a date as pos- sible on account of the short working season in the mountains. During the latter part of June an inspection trip was made in the vicinity of Broken Top Mountain, but the snow was so deep that the canal location could not be reached by men on horseback. It was impossible to do any work before July 20, when a crew consisting of one four -horse outfit, one single tear► for freighting, eight laborers, a sub -foreman and party of three engineers left the Project Camp No. 5 to commence work on the diversion of Crater and Little Crater Creeks. Before any construction work could take place it was necessary to make preliminary examinations and declee on the final location of the canal. Also it was necessary to clear and construct a wagon z 0 d H C M 0 z �a r� 00 O 09 00 0 �a z A a z a r M z A a z �c 0 z 24 Ad q7 MA FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION. PROJECT. • 67 road or trail to Broken Top Mountain in order that supplies .and equipment might be freighted in. At first only a pack trail was contemplated from tho old Columbia Southern ditch to the divide near Broken -Top Mountain, which has an altitude of about 7,000 feet, but after work was, commenced it was found that a rough wagon road could be constructed, which would more than double the freighting capacity. Thirteen miles of roads were accord- ingly constructed, the total cost of which was $619.05. Weirs were established on Crater and Little Crater Creeks from which it was found that during the low water period in. Tumalo Creek the aggre- gate flow of these creeks averaged from 15 to 40 cubic feet per second, de- pending somewhat on the rate of melting of the glaciers around Broken Top Mountain, which are the sources of the two streams. It was noted, however, that the greatest run off occurred during the warm portion of the day, egpecially during the middle of the afternoon the flow in both the creeks would be about three times the amount that was flowing in the early morning. From the records obtained it is safe to assume that there is sufH- cien water flowing under normal conditions, without storage, for 3,000 acres. The clearing of right of way and the construction of the diversion canal was commenced immediately after the final location was made, and was pushed very diligently from that time forward until September 6, when a snow and sleet storm commenced at 7 p. m. and continued without cessation until Thursday, September 10. Work was done, however, after a fashion on the 10th, 11th and 12th, but bad weather, with snow, sleet and rain, commenced again on September 13 and continued uninterruptedly until September 20, when camp was torn down, equipment stored for the winter and the entire party returned to the Project headquarters. The storm, which was rather unusual for that time of the year, caused not only ten days' loss of time for the work, but prevented further work during Sep- tember and October, which, under normal conditions, would be the most favorable months for construction, for the reason that during the spring and early summer months the conditicn of the ground and the surface. of the earth in general is too wet to allow hauling of supplies, equipment, or the work of construction. The total length of the canal as located is 100 stations. A type of ditch was adopted for this construction work from 5 to 6 feet wide on the bottom, with side slopes of 1 % to 1, a water depth of from 2.5 feet to 2.8 feet, a free board of 1.5 and 1.2 feet, making a total depth of ditch in all caves 4 feet, A steep grade was chosen in order to give a swift velocity to the water. It is believed that no danger will be encountered from cutting, as the bot- tom of the ditch is rather solid material. It was intended to construct the ditch of 75 c. f. s. capaciy, although it is doubtful whether in the low water Period much more than 35 or 40 c. f. s. will be carried. In all prominent draws or canyons spillways were constructed of grouted Pavement, rock being laid up in solid walls with cement mortar. Costs. The total amount expended during the past season on the con- struction of the Crater Creek diversion canal was $ 6,3 a 6.31, which may be distributed as follows: WA rA"M 68 FINAL REPORT'TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. Engineering .I. . .. ........... $ 628.03 Distribution on account of administrative charges .... 296.30 Camp construction, maintenance, operation and general expense ... 242.83 Le-bor and material building road .................. 387.62 Labor.on the construction of diversion canal ......... 3,933.90 Materials and supplies and equipment for the construc- tion of the canal ............................. 872.63 Total ..................... $6,356.31 A total of 6,200 cubic yards of earth, loose rock, hard pan, gravel and cement gravel was excavated at a total cost of $2,713.93, or an average cost of 43.7 cents per cubic yard; 805 cubic yards of solid rock at a total cost of 41,006.00, or an average of $1.25 per cubic yard; 2% acres of right of way were also cleared and grubbed at an average cost of $36 per acre; and 80 cubic yards of grouted.wall was placed at about $5.90 per cubic yard. A large amount of engineering work was necessary in connection with this work. Twelve and one-half miles of transit lines and ievele were run for the road, which were tied in to a great many section corners, platted and profiles made. Eight miles of preliminary contour level lines were run In connection with the location of the diversion canal, and two miles of final Iccation made, platted and profiles and section ties made._ Oae mile of ditch was contemplated, necessitating finishing grades. Estimate to Complete. In order to complete the diversion of water from Crater and Little Crater Creeks it is estlWated that the following work will have to be done on the basis that the equipment and material at hand stored at Crater Creek will materially reduce come of the prices above quoted: Excavation 800 cu. yds. solid rock @ $1.00 ......... $ 800.00 Excavation 1,000 cu. yds. loose rock @ $.60 .......... 600.00 Excavation 2,300 cu. yds. earth @ $.25 ............ 575.00 Excavation 2,200 cu. yds. borrow @ $.16 ...... 352.00 Placement, 400 cu. yds. grouted rock wall @ $6 ...... 2,400.00 Clearing two acres @ $35.00 ...................... 70.00 Total .... . ..... . .. $4,797.00 15 per cent engineering, contingencies and incidentals.. 719.00 Total ..................... $5,516.00 The problem of furnishing hay and grain for 14 head of horses, gro- ceries and supplies for 50 men, which was the maximum used on this Crater Creek wprk, was aninteresting one, as it was found that very few men could freight material into the mountains over the very rough roads which were constructed and at the same time accomplish results. The men doing ,the work on the Crater Creek diversion canal deserve a great deal of credit 'for the amount of work accomplished for the funds expended and during 'the time employed. Mr. A. J. Welton, construction engineer,. was in charge -of the engineering as well as the construction, with Mr. H. J. Gilkey as :assistant engineer. 24 FINAL •REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 69 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT. Distribution of Water, 1913. As explained previously in this report, .actual operation by virtue of the law under which we worked did not com- mence until the 2d of July. The irrigation season usually begins on April 15. In order to provide for the adequate handling of the water on this project for the season of 1913 the Desert Land Board, after due deliberation, contracted for the actual operation and maintenance of the project for the :season of 1913 to the West Side Users' Association, which is composed of actual water users and settlers on the project. This contract was executed on March 29. The Water Users' Association soon thereafter appointed Fred N. Wallace to act as their irrigation manager, and he served in that capacity during the entire season. The actual work of repairing the old system was begun on March 24 and proceeded with considerable dispatch to the extent that on April 10 the main canal and all laterals were in good shape to receive water. On that date,,- gate tender at the intake of the ditch and a ditch rider with a saddle horse were engaged at a salary of $65 per month for the gate tender and $85 per month for the ditch rider. During April all the smaller laterals and ditches were cleaned and put In shape to receive water for irrigation with the result that in May water was actually delivered to all who desired same. As the demands for water .increased it was found necessary to employ an additional ditch rider at .$85 per month. The old Columbia Southern ditch was not tested to its full capacity until July 10, which head was maintained for only a week, when a large break occurred in the main canal in the timber about three miles above our camp No. 4. This break was quite serious, as it occurred at a point where soft sandstone overlaid a porous and loose material, the water evidently hav- ing worn through the sandstone and then undermined the bank of the canal 'through the soft porous material. A State force under one of the super- intendents assisted on, the work of repairing the break by the installation ,of a flume 161 feet in length and 8 feet in width, with sides 3 feet high. For this flume trestle work was also necessary at an average elevation of 6 feet above the ground. Three days were required to completely repair this break. ' The water supply during the season was quite uniform, due to the slow .melting of the snow in the mountains, and this uniform flow was continued until late in the season, giving very satisfactory water delivery to the :settlers. Due to the rather dilapidated condition of the distribution system; measuring boxes, etc., no actual record was kept as to the actual deliveries. On account of the construction operations at the headgate of the new :feed canal, which is about nine miles below the intake of the Columbia Southern canal, it was necessary to continue the flow of water through the Columbia Southern canal in larger quantities than was necessary to supply the actual demands. On September, 20, 1.913, the directors of .the West Side Water Users' .Asscciation-at:a.negula.r mveting decided to'dlscontinue the actual manage- 24 70 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. ment of the irrigation system, so accordingly turned the entire matter of maintenance and operation over to the State to take effect at the close of the Irrigation season. On October 15 the Desert Land Board -at a -regular meeting agreed to the proposition submitted by the directors of the' Water Users' Association. Since that date the State has actually been in charge of the maintenance and operation cn the project, with the same irrigation manager in charge. It was necessary to operate the Columbia Southern canal continuously in order to supply water to the construction camps, and also carry on the drill operations at Tumalo dam site. Considerable trouble was experienced to maintain a uniform flow during the winter season through the canal, but we were very fortunate, as we had to haul water im tanks for only a few days. The total number of acres irrigated in 1913 was 3,571, for which a charge of $1 per acre was made for maintenance in accordance with the provisions of the Columbia Southern contract. The total cost incurred while the association was in charge was $3,457.27. This includes the pur- (cha.e of all equipment, cleaning and repairing of ditches, office equipment, rent and all salaries paid. The amount collected was $3,234.31, leaving a deficit when the association's books were closed of $222.96; there was,. however, an uncollected balance due of $336.69, which will leave a balance of $113.73 aside from paying all indebtedness when collected. After October 15 and until April the actual expenee of the operation and maintenance department was charged directly against the camps that were being maintained and also to the Calyx drill outfit for the Tumalo dam, -ex- cept the salary of the irrigation manager, which was charged directly to the adjudication of water rights and to the office accounts. Accounting System. After the first charges were made against the opera- ticn and maintenance department after this had been taken over by the Stag on April 1, 1914, it was necessary to have a separate accounting system from that of the construction department. Accordingly, a complete system to meet this plan was devised and arranged by the clerical force of the con- -structicn department along the same general planas the books used by that department. While the system is not complicated, still it will meet every requirement and will plainly show the cost by features and charges of all moneys expended. The total amount expended by the operation and maintenance depart- ment for the year 1914, up to DecemhFr 1, is $3,224.27. A segregation of the charges is shown on the table on Page 71. The receints from the collection of maintenance to December 1, 1914, have been as follows: Received from maintenance to complete vested water rights ....... $ 907.75 Received from maintenance for season of 1914 ....... 2,440.80 Total ..................... $3,348.55 As the various amounts paid on maintenance were received they were transmitted to the Desert Land Board where they were placed to the credit of the Tumalo operation and maintenance fund from which all disbursements were made on a regular voucher and payroll form. FINAL REPORT TUMAI:o IRIM04TION PIMJECT. 71 W A W z d z w H z r-� rn W O W O A O �z1 H xH H z off' W A i+y za w a k w F-+ z O A 4 wwmt "Momw C- Mc-Mtit 00 d+000 ci tBloi m"Wommm eq CD rl to M r•l rl CV rl M tlP K M 00 aagutaeoK G& O o aagolDo 4m o0 I ea Gob- M M M M aaquialdog C* M M r1 �••1 600, CV im 4n 00 O eta w r.4 00 IsnAnV 00 m .-i r, Cat eM O 00-- m— M cV O CV 00 o 00 ca o0 eq er CV — CV V7 r-1 CG CJ! ri Anyi ,-; rl CID r; .•-1 C9 C+0 tD eM M ri N trJ — Ml—OMUf 00lTidV C 0G Go .iaM •�cv 00 " C G d Cd CS u o C.) cs CS g c� 24 ?21 '42 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROTECT. Qperation and Maintenance Charges from Construction Fund. In addi- -lion to the amount expended directly ,by the operation and maintenance ,department as shown above, operation and maintenance accounts have been carried in the construction books, which show an expenditure of $3,842.02. 'These charges cover repairs, renewals, and such new work as will eventual- ly be a benefit to the operation and maintenance department, but were not necessarily included in the construction estimates. Also much repair work -on the new system which was put in operation during April, 1914, was necessary at times. On the feed canal on May 6th, .a large break occurred -caused by an underground cavity. To repair this break satisfactorily by reinforced concrete lining, an expenditure of $969.28 was necessary. (See 'Cut No. 3.) Several patrol houses were also built, one at the headgate of 'the feed canal and the other at the reservoir end, where barn and sheds were also constructed. .Distribution of Water for 1914. On April 7th the work of cleaning and 'repairing the old •distribution system was begun with a small force of men :and teams and only such work as was absolutely necessary was performed `for the reason that the construction department would be going over the -entire distribution system later making permanent improvements, and any unnecessary work done in this line would be a waste of funds. Water for irrigation purposes was first turned into the old Columbia Southern Canal -on April 7th and only such amount was maintained as would supply the demands at that time. On April 18th the new feed canal was finished and ready for use a7d upon the instructions of the Project Engineer, the gate keeper was moved from the intake of the Columbia Southern canal to that of the feed canal and en that date water for irrigation purposes was sup- plied the system from that source. The delivery of water through the feed canal was very satisfactory from every standpoint and its workings are ideal: the seepage losses are not nearly as much as was anticipated or as is usual in any new canal of that size. Throughout the summer it was not necessary to expend any funds in repairs except one unavoidable break as mentioned above and the construction of this canal is of such substantial nature that only minor repairs will be necessary for many years to come. The supply of water was increased in the feed canal in proportion to the 'needs cf the water users and records were kept so far as possible of the amount delivered but no attempt was made to limit the settlers to a speci- 'fled amount so long as a sufficient supply was available in the Tumalo 'Creek. On July 9th the total. flow of the creek was put in the feed canal and the gunge readings at that time show the flow to have been about 85 -c. f. s. After that time the water was distributed in proporion to the amount to which the water users were entitled on the basis of 1.8 acre feet during the season. Owing to the construction work progressing on the distribution System it was necessary to at times take all water out of the various canals and laterals, but this work was accomplished with as much speed as possible and immediately upon the completion of the work an additional supply oil water was returned to the canal or lateral in order that the growing crops would not be damaged by any shortage of water. Measuring boxes and vweirs were installed during the summer for all settlers who are now using 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 43 water and the operation for another Beason will be much simplified, as the .amount which it is ,desired to deliver will be, under absolute control. Crops. The past season has been about the most unfavorable for the .growing of crops that has been experienced in Central Oregon for at least lb years. Zhe weather remained cold very late in the spring and in the .early summer .frosts occurred; but these, however, were riot confined local- ly, as Lie same conditions prevailed almost all over. the entire northwest. In addition, however, during the winter of 1913 very little moisture fell, and after February, 1914, and during the entire irrigation season there was less than three inches of rainfall. Under these conditions it can plainly be .seen that dry farming would not be a great success. Even on irrigated land the first crop of alfalfa was very light. But as the season advanced the weather conditions improved to such an extent that very fine second crops of alfalfa and clover were cut. From the irrigated lands on the Project fine crops of grain and clover were cut, but vei y little of the crop was thres%ed, as there was a very good demand for hay, due principally to the construction forces on the Project. During 1914 a total of 316 additional acres were seeded to alfalfa and clover. Adjudication of Rater Rights. During 1913 careful surveys were made of the lands which had actually been irrigated by the old water users, which surveys were used as a basis of adjudicating the water rights on the Project. In the adjudication cf the waters of Tumalo Creek made in 1910 and by the decree of the Circuit Court of Crook County under date of May 1, 1911, many inchoate water rights were granted and in accordance with the pro- visions of the findings and decree the various appropriators were given until October. 1, 1913, to complete such appropriations and perfect their water rights. Owing to the chaotic condition in which the Columbia South- ern Project had been, many of the settlers had neglected to do the neces- sary clearing and cultivation. However, after the Columbia Southern bill was pawed and it was definitely known that the Tumalo Project would be built, many began at, once to accomplish the work necessary to complete .their entire vested water rights, but after the passage of .the act and before .same bad gone into elect, the Board of Control passed an order granting ,appropriators of this class an extension of time of two years from October 1, 1913, to complete all inchoate rights, the result was that many who had begun the work ceased entirely in reclaiming new lands for this year, put- ting all efforts on the lands already in cultivation.. The following extract from the act by which the appropriation was made provides that ";n. fixing said lien the Board shall take into account the con- dition of the water right for each smallest legal subdivision, and no addi- tional lien shall be placed upon land which now has a complete vested water right. Any person who holds a contract with the Columbia Southern Irriga- tion Company, or its successors in interest, for any tract in the project may execute a new, contract with the State, for the reclamation, under the provisions of this act, of the land described in his original contract with said company, receiving credit thereon for all money paid to said company under said. original contract;. or may surrender his contract and receive in cash, 74 FINAL;REPO.RT TUMALO IRRIGATIQN PROYNCT. the full amount of money paid to ea'd company cn such contract, but no ,such refund payments shall be made by the board prior to December 1, 1914." As it was atsolutely necessary to ascertain, before fixing the lien, the exact amount cf acreage for which vested water rights would be acquired, and, as the law provided that the lien list should be Sled on December 1, 1914, it was incumbent upon the Project officials and the Desert Land Board to at once determine just what would constitute a complete vested water right under the Tumalo Irrigation Project. In deciding this question they had not only the Iegal phase to comply with but also the very serious com- plication occasioned by the Board of Contrcl having granted an exteasion of two years' time on all inchoate water rights. After the matter had been invest'gated most fully from every legal and moral standpoint the Desert Land Board, at a meeting held cn July 25, 1913, finally passed upon the matter in the manner as is shown in the following ruling, a copy of which was sent by the Project office t.,) all contract holders of the Columbia Southern Irrigation Company who had acquired vested water rights. "After full discussion the following ruling was made defining the 'Board's understanding of a c^n:plete vested water right as mentioned in Chapter 119, Laws of Oregan, for 1913: A complete vested water light is:- 1. An adjudicated vested water right under the Tumalo Decree for which annual maintenance fee has been regularly paid as provided in said decree. 2. An ircheate right granted under the Tuniaio Decree which has been completed by the irrigation of the lands in question and by the payment of maintenance fees since the adjudication and previous to the year 1913. 3. An adjudicated vested water right under the Tumalo Decree for a larger amount of land than the irrigable area considered in the application contract by the irrigatioa company and the settler, pro- vided, hzwrver, that malnten�r.ce fee has been paid since the adjudi- cation for all water adjudicated. (The Board further decided that in this case the lien price of $14.75 per acre of irrigable lands should be paid for all lands irrigated in order that such water rights should be considered complete.) 4. A wirier right obtained by the irrigation of an additional amount of land `.n excess of that adjudicated under the Tumalo Decrees, which amount may cr may not be in excess of the land considered as irri- gable InAbe contract between the Columbia Southern Irrigation Com- pany and the settler and upon which maintenance fee has been paid in full. 5. A water right similar to that in the third case, except that main- tenance fees have not been paid, -but that the holder of the water right is willing to pay such maintenance fees. Payment of maintenance fees must be made within 30 days after the date of the notice demanding such payment. The Secretary was directed to submit a copy of this ruling to the Project Engineer, with the request that said Project Engineer take steps to send the notices required as soon as his office records, as to the land ir-ip'ated in the Prcject and maintenance payments thereon, are complete." The Columbia Southern bill as passed went into effect on June 3, 1913, and this was fixed by the Board as the final date for which vested water tights should to considered. As the matter progressed, however, it was found 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 7S that owing 'to the many complications* it would be necessary to adjust each vested. water right upon. its individual, merit, and the board latex ruled that while it would not in any wise change the interpretation of what constituted a vested water right, yet the matter was left entirely with the Project Engineer with instructions to adjust with each individual in: such manner as would be equitable to both the settler and the State: • These instructions were carried out by the project officials f.nd in the end vested water rights were -allowed for .practically all acreage which was irrigated during the year of 1913. Tumalo Project Contract. The preparation of the 'form of contract to be used by the. Tumalo Project, for all holders of Columbia Southern con- tracts who had acquired vested water rights, wa,s given much study by both the Project Engineer and members of the Desert Land Board. The general form as finally agreed upon was submitted to the West Side Water Users' Association at a called meeting at which the Project Engineer was present, and explained the.various features of the contract in detail. A few minor changes were suggested which were accepted by the board, and at a second meeting of the association contract form No. 60, as is now used, was fully endorEed. 'Form No: 65 cf the Tumalo Project is identical with form No. 60 except that it does not provide for vested water rights and is used en- tirely in the sale of new lands;or in the transfer of the Columbia Southern contracts that have not acquired vested watqr rights. .On November 1, .1,913, the work of transferring all vested, water rights to the Tumalo Project form of contract was actively taken_ up by this de- partment under the.direct supervision of the Project Engineer, who devoted a great amount of his time for the first three months in making adjust- ments personally with settlers living on the project and in correspondence with non-residents holding Columbia Southern contracts of this class. The amount of vested acreage that was. finally allowed on the entire project is 4,801 acres, which is classified as shown by the following summary: On private lands to which contracts for water rights had been sold by the Columbia Southern Irrigation Company ., ... 893 acres On Carey Act lands holding Columbia Southern Ir- rigation Company Contracts 3,023 acres. On transfer of Wimer—Spaugh lands from Wimer Harcrow ditch to Tumalo Project .. ..... ....... 420 acres On `-anrfer of Andersen —Johnson contracts from Tumalo Irrigation Company to Tumalo Project coit..acts 199, acres. On transfer of Frank Orcutt adjudication from Reisdorfer ditch to Tumalo Project contract ...... 10 acres Wimer ranch now owned by State for which a complete vested water right was acquired :....... 256 acres; Total... 4,801 acres- . In addition to the ,above a contract was entered into with Mr. Ed Steg- man whereby he was granted a paid -up water right .for five. acres in con- sideration of rights of way for the feed canal;.. however, at this date Mr. Stegm.an has failed to execute the Tumalo Project contract and the matter has not been closed up. • Up to this date there have been 171 vested water right contracts ad. �i J m 76 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. justed and executed by the purchaser, embracing a total acreage of 5,919.27 acres, .and the following summary shows in partial detail the status of these contracts at this time: Total vested acres embraced in contracts executed and adjusted .... .. .. ..... 4,687 Balance due from Columbia Southern Irrigation Com- pany contracts of balance of principal and accrued interest .. .... .. ... $17,450.21 Number of acres adjusted to be entered in contracts at $14.75 per acre, 355 5,236.25 Number of acres entered in contracts at new lien price of $40.00 per acre, 1098 ...................... 43,920.00 Number of acres of waste land entered at $2.50 per acre, 654.27................................ 1,635.67 Total resources as shown by contracts ........ $68,242.00 Less credits allowed in adjustment of contracts ...... 16,131.98 Net balance due the Tumalo Project on vested water right contracts, executed and adjusted ..... $52,110.15 In addition to the above there remain six contract holders of the Co- lumbia Southern Irrigation Company who have acquired vested water rights in the amount of 114 acres and with which we have been unable to make adjustments for the following reasons: Two of these contracts are now in the shape of an estate; one is in litigation and the remaining three are far removed from this point and thus far we have been unable to adjust by correspondence. It is very probable that all of the above will come under the new form of contract, as the work of adjusting with them is being continued. It will be -noted that a trifle over 97 per cent of the vested acreage is now in form of the Tumalo Project contract. Record Books. The sales of water rights on the project are covered by two forms of contract, one of which is applicable to lands which have acquired vested water rights and one to all other lands. These apply to private and Carey Act lands alike. The contracts are rather long and com- plex, therefore it was realized that a large saving in both time and money could be made by having record books printed for the county records. The recording fee was accordingly reduced from about $7 to $1 per contract. An appropriate index book, where the lands may be segregated according to contract number, name and land description, was also provided. Books were also printed for assignment of contracts and release of lien so the records affecting lands under the Tumalo Project may be found in six books furnished the county clerk at a total cost of $179.75, and a saving of over $2,000 in recording fees was affected. Sales of Land and Rater Rights. The land in units 1 and 2 were offi- cially opened on June 24, 1914, on which date the Desert Land Board authorized the sale of the land and water rights. No special advertising was done at that time, but, due to the press accounts which gave consider- able publicity to the event, the Oregon State Immigration Commission sent Mr. J. W. Brewer, manager of the farm land bureau, to Laidlaw to make a personal investigation of the lands open to entry. During the week begin- ning with July '9 Mr. Brewer made a very thorough examination of each 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 77 legal subdivision that was for sale within. the units above mentioned. Upon his return to Portland the Oregon State Immigration Commission issued a pamphlet in which was given a very comprehensive discussion of these lands, together with the general local conditions. The project office at once began to receive daily many inquiries from prospective purchasers, all of which received replies on the regular form circular letters as. compiled for this purpose, and when special information was requested a personal letter was written. On October 21 units No. 3 and No. 4 were thrown open for entry, and on November 1 a general opening was advertised in nine of the leading newspapers of the Northwest. For lands open to entry see Drawing (A.) These advertisements were run only about one week, but the results have been very gratifying, as this office has received and replied to 700 inquiries from prospective purchasers. In addition many have arrived at Laidlaw to make personal investigation. Aside from the new water rights pur- chased by those having first water rights the following sales were made: Sales of water rights for private land ................. 283 acres Trap-fer of old Columbia Southern contracts to Tum- alo contracts, gross 280 acres ..................228 acres Sales oc unsuiu Carey Act land .................... 40 acres Total number of irrigable acres ..................... 551 acres As noted above, the land sales have not been as brisk as was antici- pated previously, but it is believed that the European war at the present time has changed conditions so that very few people have felt safe to invest their money during the past few months, Non -Resident Contract Holders. At the time that the State assumed control of the Columbia Southern Irrigation. Company project there were about 170 of what is termed "non-resident" contract holders; by this class is meant those who had purchased contracts from the company and for which they had acquired no vested water rights. The basis of adjustment with this class of contract holders was provided for in the act, as follows; "Any person who holds a contract with the Columbia Southern Ir- rigation Company, or its successors in interest, for any tract in the project may execute a new contract with the State, foi- the reclamation, under the provisions of this act, of the land described in his original contract with said company, receiving credit thereon for all money paid to said company under said original contract; or may surrender his contract and receive, in cash, the full amount of money paid to said company on such contract, but no such refund payments shall be made by the board prior to December 1, 1914." One of the first matters to claim the attention of the project officials after the organization was effected was to begin the work of making settle- ments with all parties holding an equity in this class of contracts, and a circular letter was sent to all in which the matter was detailed by explaining just what the State would do in this connection. On March 7, 1914, a second circular letter was sent, together with an application for refund, and since that time correspondence has been kept up which has required a vast amount of time; as it has been necessary to explain minutely to many the reasons why the State could not refund the total amounts that had been paid the Columbia Southern instead of the amount of principal paid to that company. 24 78 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. The total of the amount cf this class of contracts in the beginning was $86,761.71. However, at this date there has b'eed filed hi this office applica- tions for refund and assignments to the State for about one-half of that amount and such applications and assignments are arriving 'by each mail. The outlook fcr a settlement with a large majority of these people is very favorable. Wimer Ranch. In the purchase of the reservoir site for the Tumalo Project the State was compelled to purchase the entire holdings of several farmers, and from such tracts purchased there new remain 256 acres that will not be submerged, and as almost this entire acreage was formerly em- braced in the ranch of George W. Wimer and Sons it is' now designated on the project books as the "Wimer Ranch." As stated above, this tract con- tains 256.05 acres and is now in the following condition: 65.68 acres have been cleared of all sage brush and small trees and is now ready for the plow; 190.37 acres have been in cultivation, of which 81.27 acres is now in alfalfa and clover; there are three fairly good barns, several sheds for tools and stc.cx and a very comfortable log house; the garden contains about fifty currant and gooseberry bushes and the whole farm is in such shape that any one purchasing the same could begin active operations without any outlay for clearing. The water rights are In the form of a complete vested water right under the Tumalo Prcject which were acquired by the adjudication of the waters of Tumalo Creek pricy to the time that the State purchased the lands, and the water Is delivered to the farms through the Wimer-Harcrow ditch, of which the State is the sole owner. In addition to the water right from Tumalo Creek there is an additional supply from what is known as the Bull Creek Spring. This spring is located about two and one-half miles from the farm and is run through an open ditch to the place, and the constant flow is from one and one-half to two acre feet delivered at the farm. This, aside from insuring the very best of a domestic water supply the year around, furnishes an additional supply during the summer for irrigation purposes and is considered a mcst valuable adjunct to the place. These lands Iie at an average elevation of 3,520 feet and in the edge of the pine timber; with the exception of a few 40-acre tracts of land that are for sale under the project the country on the west side is composed of open range at the present time, as the lands are owned in the main by the large timber companies, who are simply holding it for the timber values. The east boundary of the Deschutes National Forest is within about seven miles of the Wimer ranch. This place is for sale by the State at actual cost, which is $66 per acre, and in taking into consideration the high state of cultivation of most of the land, the domestic water supply and its many natural advantages for a stock farm this price is extremely low. During the past season a man was kept on the place to irrigate the grass crops in order that same would not deteriorate, and the hay procured was used by the construction camps. Rules and Regulations. At a meeting of the Desert Land Board held on November 10. 1914, the following rules and regulations, as formulated by the project officials and amended by the Secretary of the Board. These rules 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 79 and regulations cover all points necessary and, being concise and to the point, are very much more desirable than those usually found for the gov ernment of irrigation projects: "For convenience the term "Board" in these rules is meant to rep- resent the Desert ,Land Board and the State of Oregon. Rule 1. The Board agrees to furnish and deliver 1.8 acre feet of water at or within one half mile of each 40-acre tract between the tenth day of June and the twenty-eighth day of August of each year, and during the balance of the irrigation season, between April 15 and October 15, not included in the above dates, the Board agrees to deliver an additional amount of .45 acre feet, making a total of 21i4 acre feet per acre during the entire irrigation season; provided, how- ever, that there shall be sufficient water flowing in Tumalo Creek and available in Tumalo reservoir to supply all the land entitled to re- ceive water with 21/4 acre feet. In case of any shortage under this amount the Board agrees to furnish the water pro rata among the water users. In case, however, that the share allotted each water user is less than 1.8 acre feet, preference shall be given to those contract holders holding form No. 60, Preferred Vested Water Rights, to the amount of 1.8 acre feet as per the terms of the adjudication. Rule 2. The Board agrees to furnish and deliver the amount of water stipulated at the most practicable point to be reached by grav- ity flow from its main canal, ditches or laterals. Said point of deliv- ery shall be ascertained and determined by the Project Engineer or Prn;p^+ Ma.nager, but may be changed by the Board after being so established, the necessary expense, however, caused by such change snaii ue paid oy the Board. In case of a dispute between the Project Engineer or Manager and the settler as to the proper point of delivery, the question shall be submitted to the State Engineer, whose decisions shall be final. Rule 3. The Board reserves the right and option on its part to de. liver said water to any settler or settlers under the rotation system by giving the settler ten days' notice in writing of its intention to do so. Rule 4. All necessary ditches, gates or measuring devices to be installed by the settler after the water has passed the point of delivery will, upon request, be installed by the Board, but the cost will be charged to the settler and must be paid by him. Rule 5. • The settler will be required to put at least one -eighth of the irrigable area cf the land embraced under his contract under culti- vation within three years from the date of his, contract and make the necessary proof of such cultivation to the Board, and make settlement in accordance with the rules of the Board. In all cases the Water Sup- erintendent shall be a witness to the proof submitted. Rule 6. Water delivered to each settler may be used for stock, domestic and irrigation purposes only, and only on the lands describe$ in each contract, and for no other purpose whatsoever. The Board will furnish water periodically when necessary and possible during such times outside the irrigation season for stock and domestic purposes.. The Board will not be held responsible for any shortage of water for stock and domestic purposes during the non -irrigation season when it is impossible or impracticable to run water through the ditches. Rule 7. The settler will be expected to use all of the water and allow none to run to waste and must provide proper drainage for all waste waters entering his land. Water may be shut off from any set- tler who deliberately wastes his water or does not put same to bene- ficial use. Rule 8. The contract holder or settler will not be allowed to dis- turb, pollute or cause to become impure the water in any flume, canal 24 80 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. or lateral, or allow any act to be done which may cause same to become so. . Rule 9. The Board may when necessary shut the water of[ from its canals, laterals or ditches for the purpose of repairing same and may have such reasonable time as may be necessary in which to make such repairs and for such interruption of water supply, the Board will not be liable to the settler. Rule 10. Until further notice is given, the settler will be expected to pay an annual maintenance fee of $1.00 per acre, which money shall be placed in the Tumalo Maintenance Fund and shall be used only for the operation and maintenance of the Tumalo Project. This maintenance fee shall be due and paid as follows: 50 cents per acre on or before the fifteenth day of April of each year, and 50 cents per acre on or before the fifteenth day of October of each year. Rule 11. The Board, or its authorized representative, shall have the right to enter upon the premises owned by the settler for the purpose of repairing, constructing or maintaining any of its canals, flumes, laterals or ditches, and also for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining any portion of Its irrigation system such as tele- phone system, etc. Rule 12. A notice of at least twenty-four (24) hours from the time the change is desired should be given by the water users in order to change the amount of water received. Rule 13. When a water user is delinquent more than six (6) months on account of his maintenance dues, the water may be turned off and the terms of the contract enforced. Rule 14. These rules and regulations may be altered or changed from time to time as occasion may demand, but always with the ap- proval of the Board." AccomvIishments. In addition to accomplishing* the satisfactory distri- bution of water for irrigation during the past season one of the most im- portant results which concerns the future of the project that was. accom- plished by the operation and maintenance department was the transfer of all water rights from Tumalo Creek to the new form of Tumalo Project con- tract. This will eliminate any possible controversy in the future. Consid- erable time and energy was spent upon this subject and it is believed that equitable and fair adjustments were made with all the water users who had acquired vested water rights through adjudication by the Board of Control and the Circuit Court by virtue of the decision of May, 1911. All the work in this department has been in charge of Mr. Fred N. Wallace, Irriga- tion Manager, who has rendered excellent service, nct only as far as the distribution of water is con- ned, but also in all matters that required tact and diplomacy. Muc' of the success of the adjudication of water rights on the project and the signing up of the water users on the new form of-ibntract was due to his untiring efforts and knowledge of conditions. With his tho,; Iigh kncwledge of all conditicns as they actually exist cp. the project, With his intimate acquaintance with each and every water user, and with a,` dispositicn and ability to act on all matters with discernment and diplamac3�; the Project Engineer feels that Mr. Wallace is the proper man to be appointed as Project Manager, to take charge cf the duties upon which now a great deal of the future success of the project nece:;s: rily depends. 24 but por plie all trai era equ acq and wor tion dist tact rigY fort wit the and a -id man whit dep( 24 d FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 81 GENERAL. Brief Summary of Work. During the past eighteen months the entire Jett has been constructed, which includes the following: The Diversion n and Headgate for Feed Canal on Tumalo Creek, the Feed Canal with Structures from Tumalo Creek to the Reservoir; Bull Creek ,m, Spillway and Bridge; road around Reservoir; Diversion Dam; Main nal; Tumalo Dam and Outlet Works for the Tumalo Reservoir; about 8 miles of Small Canals and Laterals, and numerous structures for the system, and the construction of 13 miles of road and portion two miles of Crater Creek Diversion Canal. This work may be briefly marized by quantities as follows: Excavation — Class 1 and 2, earth, loose rock, gravel, ce- ment gravel and hard pan • • • • • • • • • • • . 387,000 cu. yds. Class 3, solid rock ..................... 40,900 cu. yds. Placement of — Concrete, plain and reinforced ........... 5,250 cu. yds. Rip rap, dry walls and hand placed ....... 7,600 cu. yds. Pavement, grouted with cement mortar .... 1,225 cu. yds. Steel in connection with concrete work and bridges ..... ........................100,000 pounds Gates and accessories ..................... 40,000 pounds Forms for concrete, about ..................200,000 f. 6. M. Drain tile in place 1,250 Iin. ft. Metal flumes ............................ 8,727 lin. ft. Wood stave pipe .......................... 4,589 li n. ft. Building — Wood structures involved ...............700,000 f. b. m. Measuring boxes, turnouts, etc., placed .... 120 structures Fences .............................. 10.30 miles Clearing for right of way .................. 165 acres Men Employed and Wages. Of the total amount of $447,795.70 dis- ')ursed approximately $277,000 was paid out for labor and wages. The 'orce actually employed during the period from June, 1913, to December, 1914, varied according to the season, etc. The greatest number employed it any one time was 450 in September, 1914. In addition a large force of teams were employed on excavatica work, 230 head being the maximum employed at one time. The following is a general schedule cf the wages Timekeepers and cost keepers to $125.00 per month :.....$75.00 Engineers and machinists . 70.00 to 90.00 per mont;i Corral man ...................... 65.00 per month Coclt, .......................... 50.00 to 100.00 per month Flunkies ... .................... 25.00 to 40.00 per month �' Bull cook ..................... 65.00 per month 24 82 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. Foremen .................... 3.60 to 5.00 per day Carpenter Foremen .............. 4.00 per day Subforemen ................... 3.00 to 3.60 per day Carpenters .................... 2.40 to 2.80- per day Carpenter helpers ............... 2.40 to 2.80 per day Drillers ..................... 2.20 to 2.60 per day Piow holders ................... 2.20 to 2.40 per .day Slip holders .................... 2.20 to 2.40 per day Timbermen .................... 2.40 to 2.60 per day Concrete men .................. 2.40 to 2.80 per day Laborers, common .............. 2.00 to 2.20 per day Team with teamster ............. 4.00 to • 4.20 per day Teamsters ..................... 2.00 to 2.40 per day New Lien. Just as soon as the construction work on the project had advanced to the stage so that the acreage under the project was sufficiently known to enable the Desert Land Board to act it was deemed very essentiai to declare the new lienon the Carey Act lands, which also is the price of water rights for private lands. In determining this lien it was necessary to cgns:der, first, the amount of the appropriation under the Columbia Southern Act, cr $450,000; second, the interest on this appropriation dur- ing the construction period, or up to Decem+'aer 1, 1914, for those landi already under cultivation, and the interest up to April 15, 1915, for those lands that were unsold cr not contracted for; third, the amount which is still due contract holders and others with legitimate claims for which provision for refund has been made by the Desert Land Board; and, fourth, the completion of the Crater Creek diversion work. Accordingly, on Octo- ber 21, 1914, at a regular meeting of the Board it was decided that the new lien would be fixed at $40 per acre, which was declared at that time to be sufficient to cover all items originally intended by the 1913 legislature, provide for the refund to contract holders and the completion. of the Crater Creek diversion by the sales of land in addition to providing for the $ 5 per acre profit as provided for in the act, and would leave a sufficient sur- plus for any other incidentals which might arise. Engineering. During the time that work has been in progress on Tumalo Project there has been spent a total of $22,971.38 for engineering, involving a total expenditure of $447,795.70, or 5.13 per cent of the total disbursement. It is believed that the engineering organization, on the project deserves considerable credit for the splendid low engineering cost, but at the same time it is believed that another reason why this engineering runs so low was the fact that the engineering and construction organizations were kept separate. In this way the engineers were able to devote their entire time to the giving of lines and grades, the computation of quan- tities, and the actual inspection of the work. It was believed that more efficient construction work could be obtained by this segregation of the engineering and construction departments. Segregating the construction engineering department from the construction department has the advantage of each department working independently. The construction men nat- urally endeavored to do the work as economically as possible, while the engineering department in turn insisted that efficient work corresponding FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 83 to the plans and specifications sent out from the Project Engineer's office be accomplished. The result on this project of this feature has been that, each man in charge of it particular department has considered his work the most important, has takena great deal of interest in same, and has endeavored to meet the various requirements and duties placed upon him. Knowing that a particular work is being checked, or watched, by an inde- pendent department which reported to the same office has the effect also of producing ,accurate accounts, keeping those in charge in close touch with all details of the work. The engineers in the construction department have worked hard and faithfully during long hours, under conditions of rush and excitement, and deserve some of the credit for the dispatch with which the construction work was actually carried on. Administration. Charges. The total charges and expenditures on the Tumalo Project for all clerical, administrative and general accounts usually classified under administration, was $29,092.42. Of the total amount expended on the project this represents 6.49 per cent. The total amount expended for engineering and administration is 11.62 per cent of the total amount disbursed. The comparative low engineering and administrative charges on this work may be briefly' explained as follows: The Project Engineer was able to do the work of two high salaried officials, namely, Project Engineer or Manager, which concerns the general supervision of al! matters IS coanec- tion with the project, and in addition that of Chief Engineer, which concerns the engineering features and construction only. He has been able to spend a large portion of each day on the actual construction work and superintend Its progress, as well as spend the required amount of time in the office on routine official business. The method of field and office accounting adopted for the project is also responsible to a great extent for the lcw administrative or overhead cost, because on accurate and closely itemized accounts details are watched with considerable care. Also the lack of duplication in work in bringing the accounts in from the field decreased the force quite materially. On the construct.icn of the feed canal, as well as on the construction of the balance of the project, there have been no expert legal charges and very few engineering charges, which ordinarily are large enough to be of some Importance. In the engineering department the force has always been kept on a minimum, the parties being continually switched from one class of work to another in order to leave no idle men against engineering and administrative accounts. Also, on some occasions, men who did not giv-- satisfactory service were soon dismissed. This being the only project at the present time constructed by the State all the project records are kept and maintained at Project headquarters, so no other supervising is necessary, as the State officials who comprise the State Desert Land Board received their salaries and traveling expenses through their own respective departments. At the beginning of operations on the project it was known that the appropriation with which we had to 24 84 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. complete the project was scarcely sufficient to accomplish the ends desired. This matter was carefully impressed on the men in actual charge, and they were instructed to reduce expenses and keep them to a minimum at all times and watch details. The result has been, that the men in charge of the important positions on the project have taken great pride in showing that a great amount of work has been done at a minimum cost. ' Estimates. On page 5 of this report is given a recapitulation of the estimated cost as presented to the 1913 legislature, with, however, the 15 per cent engineering, contingencies, incidentals and administration dis- tributed. There is tabulated herewith a copy of the above estimate in addition to the actual amount expended on the project which may be of interest: Recapitulation of Estimated Actual com- Cost pleted Con- structed FEATURE Estimate Estimate coat with with Engin- with Eng:n- Engineering, !eering, etc., eering, etc., etc., distrib- segregated Distributed uted. � I I Tumalo Dam ............... j *128,406.25 Bull Creek Dam ............ 15,500.00 Feed Canal ................ 88,050.00 Reservoir Roads ........... 1,700.00 Distribution System ........ 100,000.00 Right of way ............... 50,000.00 Engineering Administration, Contingencies, etc. ........ 50,048.44 Preliminary Investigations .. 10,000.00 Adjudication of Water Rights . Construction Telephone System Construction of General Roads. Topography, Classification and Subdivision of lands ....... Broken Top Diversion Canal.. . Repairs, renewals, etc., O. & M.I TOTALS ...............1 $443,704.68 $147,667.19 17,835.00 101,257.50 1,955.0v 115,000.00 50,000.00 10,000.00 $103,337.06 11,062.10 108,671.06 9,780.80 124,943.83 60,544.42 3,112.57 4,819.93 766.81 2,136.54 8,422.25 6,356.31 3,842.02 $443,704.69 1 $447,795.70 As will be noted from the above table, a saving of $44,330.13 was made in the construction of the Tumalo dam and outlet works, $6,762.90 on Bull Creek dam, spillway and bridge, and when the increased cost of the perma- nent construction of the feed canal is considered a saving of $15,702 on that feature, as explained on page 35 of thi13 report. It will he noticed also that the actual cost of the right of way for the storage reservoir was increased by $10,544.40. This was unavoidable, as the lands were highly improved and only a fair price was paid for the lands required. In addition a large amount of time and money was necessary to acquire the property aside from the price paid. The increase in cost of 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 85 .:road construction around the reservoir may be explained as several reloca- tions •wem-made improving the alignment and gr&k;,.especially was this true near the Tumalo dam, where a large thorough cut through solid rock was deemed advisable. It will be noticed also that $10,000 was estimated for preliminary investigations and that $ 3,112.5 7 was actually spent on that class of work, and, in addition, $8,422.25 on the topography, land classification and th3 subdivision of the lands on the project. It was also necessary to expend $4,819.93 on the adjudication of water rights; $776.81 on the construction of a telephone system, used not only during the construction period but which will also prove of permanent value for the operation and maintenance department; the construction of general roads on the project to the ex- tent of $2,136.54; as expenditure of $6,356.31 on Broken Top diversion, and ti-e expenditure cf $3,842.02 on repairs, renewals and other features neces- sary for the operation and maintenance department. In. addition therefore, .to the increase of $1,534.82 actual expenditures over the preliminary in- vestigations item of $10,000 on account of topography, etc., it was deemed .necessary to expend $17,921.61 on other features not included in the esti- mates. Even with these increased expenditures not included :n the original estimates it has become possible to expend $124,943.83 c;n the distribution .system in. place of $115,000 as was originally expected. Desert, Land PArs- d. The Desert Land Board of the State of Oregon is composed of five of the most important State officials, viz., the Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General and State Engineer. A great deal of the success of the construction work on the Tumalo Project is due to the hearty co-operation of the Desert Land Board with the Project Engineer and his organization. The members of the Desert Land Board Dave laid personal and political differences aside when it came to matters of importance concerning the success of the project, and have always done .all in their power to facilitate the actual work on the project sad stiil work under the strict interpretation of the law. All the members of the board have taken a keen and active interest iii the progress of the work; all have visited the work during the construction _period and some on several occasio.na. Visits to Project. During the past eighteen months many men of prom- inence, not only in State but also in national affairs, have visited the pro- . ject. Some came because they were interested in what progress the State had made on the work; some to be informed as to coats and methods used, and others as a matter of curiosity and of local interest, as they were in the vicinity and had heard of the work. A large number of• railroad officials and newspaper men and writers for periodicals also have been included among the prominent visitors, which accounts to a considerable extent for the large publicity which has been given the project in the public press. It has always been a pleasure to the project officials to treat visitors courte- ously and show them every possible respect and, if, possible, take them over -the work and explain methods and the work in detail. 24 S6 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. State Reclamation. The matter cf State reclamation has had a rather thorough test on the Tumalo Project, especially as far as the effectiveness .and results are concerned. Considerable doubt, however, may arise, and justly so, as to the feasibility of carrying on State reclamation in exactly the same mangier as that done on the Tumalo Project. It is not a wise Idea to carry on reclamation work by direct appropriation to be derived from direct taxation. But on this project that particular feature was the probable outcome of the moral obligation on the part of the State because of the chaotic and deplorable condMcns which existed on this defunct project. A great deal of the success cn a State project built as the Tumalo depends to a great extent on the hearty co-operation of the Desert Land Board, the qualifications of the men in charge of the work, and the entire organization. In case the Desert Lard Board opposed this particular kind of work and in case of an organization not qualified to construct irrigation works, it is easy to see that the work could be thrown into confusion and no successful results be accomplished. If the State expects to continue iu the building of reclamation projects it is very probable that somo means will have to be provided to obtain money otherwise than by direct appro- priation; axd, furthermore, the actual carrying cn of the project and the construction of same should be placed either in the hands of one State officer or a commission, who should be qualified to handle this particular class of work. In any event the matter of State reclamation should be .eliminated from politics or political appointments in order to be effective .and successful. Co -Operation. Within the State cf Oregcn there are many projects in an uncompleted condition, some of which were undertaken under the Carey Act, while others were promoted as private enterprises. The actual com- pletion of these prc jects and the reclaiming of the lands embraced by them is of great importance to the State at large. This may be realized more fully when the east area of arid la2d of the State is compared with the area upon which profitable crops may be raised without irrigation. Some of the public-spirited officials and prominent men of the State have realized this, and as a solutic n of the problem have presented what is commonly called "co-cperation" between the State aad Federal Govern- ment. At the present time Oregcn stands as the pioneer in this field of development and already has under way several investigation projects for which the State and Federal Government are paying on a co-operative basis. Until szn-e better plan is promulgated for the reclamation of the arid lands within the State we believe that the idea of co-operation with the Federal Gcl-eTnment is probably the most feasible. Even with co-operation It is necesslry for the State to develop some feasible plan to raise money without direct appropriation or taxation. Should some suitable means be finally adcptcd by the people of. the State for the raising of money to be used in cc-c;-erative work with. the government some definite plan must also be outlined for the expenditure of these large sums of money and for 24 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. 87 the-" hrrying dut of the actual construction work, unless the construction bd turned over to the Reclamation Service. Several plans have. been suggested, :but thi's :office believes the one that :would be most feasible would be, in general; as follows: . A commission of three men should handle all of the co-operative work within the borders of each State. This commission should be composed of cne prominent State official, such as the- Governor; some .member of the Federal Government, either from the Secretary of the Interior's office or the V. S. Reclamation Service, and a third member should. be a man of tech- nical training with proper qualifications for the work in hand and could be called a "cc -operative officer." This co-operative officer could be appointed by the State with the approval of the Federal Government., -act as secretary of the commies: on and transact all routine business for the commission. On matters cf great importance or on matters of policy the three c:)mmission- ers could act, each having an equal voice in the proceedings. This would place all reports and all work in the hands of the commission and do away with confusion that might res-nit should the officers have to report separ- ately to the State and to the Federal Government. The co-operative officer should have absolute charge of all operations. Recorrcrendaticns. There are a number of important matters which ,concern the project that should receive the careful consideration of the 1915 legislature, and still other matters which concern action by the Desert Land Board in connection with the successful operation of the project. Therefore the foliow:ng is respectfully submitted to the Board for such action as it merit: On January 20, 1914, ren Lundberg, who was working for one of the contractors on the feed canal, was accidentally killed. The coroner's jury, which sat upon the case brought in a verdict of accidental death and exon- erated every one from any blame is the matter. Mr. Lundberg left a widow and three small children practically destitute and without any visible means of support. During the part season Mrs. Lundberg has been employed at our project headquarters. Out of the amount which was paid Mr. Adams to relinquish his work an the feed canal $500 was paid to Mrs. Lundberg. The sum of $2,000 has been left in the general fund of the Columbia Southern apprcpriaticn with the hope and firm belief that if the matter was submitted properly to the legislature authority could be obtained to make payment of the $2,000 to Mrs. Lundberg as a benefit. In order to acquire the lards necessary for reservoir purposes it was deemed advisable cnd necessary to purchase 256 acres that will not he covered with water. This area included part. of four different farms that were purchased, the average price of which was $66 per acre. There re- mains at the present time in the storehouse at Laidlaw equipment and tools that cost originally over $20,000, and could -not be reproduced pos- sibly for $16,000 or $17,000. This equipment should, however, be worth, on a conservative estimate, about $12,000 to anyone who could make use of same. A fund should be provided by the next legislature into which the 011 Vs FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. moneys received from the sale of the above ranch, called the Wimer ranch. -and all equipment could be placed. This seems to be fair and equitable inasmuch as the money disbursed for these items has been charged against °the project, included in the new lien, and must be paid by the water users, with interest. Provision could be made for the expenditure of this money 4Dn the project only for extensions and new construction work, such as ditches, measuring boxes, turnouts, etc., that have -not been constructed at the present time for lands unsold. Ccntained in the Columbia Southern Act by the 1913 legislature pro- `visicn was made for refund to contract holders under the project that had acquired no vested water rights. The Attorney General and the Desert .and Bard have interpreted this act and ruled that only the principal ,Ehculd be credited or refunded. It would appear just and equitable that .provision be made by the next legislature that the contract holders be re- imbursed by the returns from land sales to the amount that had been pre- �iously pairs as principal on their contracts, it being understood that refund will be made to those who have actually filed applications for refund and assignments with the Desert Land Board in the order in which they are (filed. Prevision should also be made that for a limited period, say six inonths, opportunity should be given to all other contract holders either -to sign up under the new form of contract under the Tumalo Project, make assignments to the Desert Land Board for a refund to the amount paid on print°sal, or to assign their contracts to some other party who is willing tj comply with one of the first two provisions. As previously explained, the diversion of Crater and Little Crater Creeks -was not completed during the past season, due to unfortunte conditions ever which we had no control. It is very important and appears very desir- able that this work should be completed as soon as possible. Therefore -authority should be obtained from the legislature to set aside and use .5.176 from the returns from land sales on the project for the completion qDf this work. Inasmuch as the old Columbia Southern Act has served its purpose, that portion which relates to the operation of this project should be repealed and a new law enacted which should include the appointment of a Project Manger. In this provision care should be taken not only to place the Project Manager under bonds, but also his duties should be stated as spe- cifically as possible. It is also believed that the appointment of this man- ager should be satisfactory to the water users; therefore it might be in eluded to have him appointed by the board for a definite period with the approval of the majority of the water users. it is firmly believed that a man who is thoroughly acquainted with local conditions and with the project errec`ally, is well acquainted with the individual water users and one who has had previous experience in this line of work would be more ,acceptable and favorable to the water users as well as to the board than zscrre stranger who might possess more technical qualifications. Included in list No. 13 are some lands in the northern portion of ram; FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRLGATIQX V OJECT. 89 township 15111 and 15112 that will not be served by the present con- structed project. It was deemed advisable to concentrate the loads as much as possible near the feed canal and the southern end. This was done for several reasons, among some of the most important being that a project Is more economically maintained in a compact body than one which is not; less seepage losses result from such combination, and in the event the .Government did construct the West Unit of the Deschutes Project the land would be included in that project and would thus ultimately be reclaimed. .until, however, it is definitely known whether or not the West Side Unit will be constructed it is believed that it would be policy for the Desert Land Board to include all of list No. 13 within the application for extension of time and not to relinquish those lands until either the West Unit has been .approved by the government or until the ultimate time for the extension of time from- the Department of the Interior has lapsed. The contracts covering water rights conlam a statement that interest ,on the deferred payments should commence on December 1, 1914, when the lien list is filed or when water is available for the land. Therefore Interest cn all contracts that have not received water during the past ,season should commence cn December 1, 1914, but on all other lands, ,now that the project to completed, the interest should commence before the be -Inning of the irrigation season of 1915. There has been considerable question, concerning the legality of certain water right transfers from the decrees of the Circuit Court to the present Tumalo Project contract. All these transfers and adjustments should be legalized. It is. believed that all acts of the Desert Land Board in its official capacity as far as the operations on the Tumalo Project are concerned should be legalized by the legislature, because so many duties were per- formed that were not specifically authorized. In the adjudication of water rights of Tumalo Creek the .duty of water was placed at 1.8 acre feet from April 15 to October 15 of each year. This would hardly seem adequate to meet the requirements for the soil condi- tions cn such projects as the Tumalo. Therefore the Desert Land Board has ad!-pted rules and regulations for the operation and maintenance and .distribution cf water on the Tumalo Project whereby they fixed the duty ,of water at 2.25 acre feet during the same season. In order that no con- troversy might occur, and in order that the duty of water as fixed by the ,courts may be revised it would seem advisable that some legislative action be taken along these lines. Should the occasion arise during the next session of the legislature to have some legislation enacted bearing on the construction or operation of an irrigation project it is believed by -this office that it would be advisable for the Desert Land Board to employ some competent person to assist the framers of the bill to have some adequate accounting system devised. Immediately after work commenced on this project and for a long time thereafter we worked under very serious handicaps on account of the failure 24 s0 FINAL REPORT TUMALO IRRIGATION PROJECT. of the 1913 legislature to provide ade�c�uately for the accounting and Alstiurs- ing under the Columbia Southern Act. The recommendations of this cflice as above outlined may be briefly .summarized as fAlows: 1: ' Legislative authority shcu'.d be obtained to make payments of the $2,000 that has been set aside from the Columbia Southern funds to Mrs. Lurdberg. (Ada E.) 2. A fund should be provided by the legislature into which should be depoetted the receipts from the sale of the Wimer ranch and equip- ment. This money to be expended only on construction work and ex- tensions on the Tumalo Project. 3. Legislative authority should be secured to refund to contract holders under the Columbia Southern Prc`eet from the return of land sales, etc. 4. Legislative authority should be obtained to set aside $5,156.00 from the iet'urn of land sales to complete the Crater Creek diversion. 5. Provision shodid be made by the legislature for the operation and maintenance of the Tumalo Project and the appointment of an irrigation manager. .6. The Desert Land Board shculd not relinquish list No. 13 until the construction of the west side Deschutes Project is definitely authorized by the government` cr until the limit for time extension has lapsed. 7. The Desert Land Board .hculd make a ruling on the time that interest should commence on the Tumalo contract. 8. A transfer of all water rights under the Tumalo Project, ap- proval of the official acts of the Desert Land Board in its official ca- pacity, and the change of the duty cf water in the rules Ind regulations from 1.8 to 2.25 acres feet, should all be legalized by the legislature. Conclusion. The organization wciked haid and faithfully to accomplish what '-ias been d- ne on the Tumalo Projcct. They have prosecuted their work with vigor and enthusiasm and it is felt that they have made a suc- , .cess cf the prefect so far as the construction is concerned. The Project Fngineer especially feels very grateful to the men in charge of the various departments, as well as to the men who have assisted them, .and wishes hereby to express his heartfelt appreciation and thanks, for it Is felt that without a complete and efficient organization it would have been impossible to accomplish the results in the short period coveted by this report. The organization of the Turnrlo Project hereby desires to express its appreciation of the co-operation of the people cf Laidlaw, Bend, Redmond and Deschutes. During the feried that the construction of the project has been in progress it is felt that much of the success of the construcion and develop - men work on the Tumalo Project has teen due to the hearty co-operation :and assistance of the Desert Land Bard. Very respectfully submitted, O. LAURGAARD, Project Engineer. c+— 24 EA i p t I I 9y �A �) SEE MAP 161t v`K g Y m m " cn m m z� w C n --1 7 rrnrrrn rr rrnrrrrrvrii.. -n vi O X !T y':.a'� ivrnr rrunr_r irYrrrrininrrr rrF � . � � a t u f- C ?S dXe,N4d XUCdN.XNXdt a SEE MAP 16 It 3 II II Gi a ca w W `" _ _ I E . -..._ _1_.__._..._._l_...._ sp °' zQ Ua Xo 26 o a X 0 ;., 3.1 RGE. E.1 SEC, 1114 1116 TAX LOT NUMBER MAP NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER t Yz INDENT EACH NEW COURSE TO THIS POINT -- e OFFICIAL RECORD OF DESCRIPTIONS OF REAL PROPERTY G� DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2—V _ 1 SPEC , u'' FORMERLY PART CITY iT. IN PROP. C DR - OF T.L. NO, AREA NUMBER � 8600 1611 ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF ENTRY DEED RECORD ACRES RECORD OF CHANGE ON THIS CAR ,--, e,. REMAINING Sec 33 - SE4TK4, E2SW4 Less rd. 1.14 ac R.C. W.D. B&S Q.C. R.C. EXCEPT: Bg at the 4 cor on the S line of Sec 33; th W on the T line 1320' to the SW cor of the SE45W4 of the above des Sec; th N 0° 02' E on the W line of the above des 40 ac tract a distance of 1140.1'; th S 38* 26' E 56.91; th S 090 58' E 113.5'; th S 440 36' E 261.51; th N 830 04' E 62.8'; th S 711 26' E 98.91; th S 560 46' E 219.01; th S 55- 06' E 210.51; th S 650 11' E 204.0'; th N 66* 311 E 95.41; th S 76° 44' E 87.01; th N 61° 06' E 123.21; th S 85' 16' E 64.0' ; th N 84° 06' E 32.61; th N 06° 56' E 60.4' to a pt on the E line of the above des 40 ac tract; th S 583.5' on sd E line to the POB 19.8 ac Deed Cont. W.D. Death Cert. Deed Wessinger, Patricia L.Trustee(F/B/0 Patricia L Wessinger) Deed 1-23 47 120.0 7- 6-61 118.86 6- 7-66 66 203 6-23-69 165 148 8-19-69 166 124 9-12-69 166 778 7-1-70 202 4-26-73 14 3 8-28-74 208 698 8-28-74 208 704 6- 9-75 12-7-7612081704 1-25-77 243 908 Recordi g d to 2-1-94 327 2891 99.06 27 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE THE GRANTORS ABOVE NAMED HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 1.913. SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF US AS WITNESSES. S. C. CALDWELL (SEAL) . LOWS.,V. FORCE MARY E. CALDWELL (SEAL) V. A. FORBES STATE OF OREGON ( SS• COUNTY OF CROOK BE IT REMEMBERED, THAT ON THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST A. 0. 1913 BEFORE ME THE UNDER- $IGNED A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE PERSONALLY APPEARED THE WITHIN NAMED S. e: CALDWELL AND MARY E. CALDWELL, HIS WIFE WHO ARE KNOWN.TO ME TO THE IDENTICAL PERSON DESCRIBED IN AND WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACK- NOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR LAST ABOVE WRITTEN. (NOTARINL SEAL) VERNON A. FORBES, NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON. VOLUME 31, PAGE 342 TRANSCRIPT FROM CROOK COUNTY nEEDS.. FRANK V. SWISHER ET UX TO ( FILED AUGUST 16, 1913 AT 4 O'CLOCK P. M. STAFE OF OREGON ( WARREN BROW , COUNTY CLERK. THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH, THAT FRANK V. SWISHER AND OLGA.'WISHER HIS WIFE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY AkIRHH SEVEN (777.00) DOLLARS. TO THEM PAID HAVE BARGAINED AND SOLD AND BY THESE PRESENTS 00 BARGAINg SELL AND CON VW UNTO STATE OF OREGON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PREMISES TO WIT. THAT PARTY OF THE SOUTH EAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTH WE-T QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY THREE TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN SOUTH RANGE ELEVEN EAST OF THE I'VILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER OF THE SOUTH DINE OF THE SECTION THIRTY THREE TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN SOUTH RANGE ELEVEN EAST W. M. THENCE WEST ON THE TOWNSHIP LINE 1320, FEET TO THE SOUT$ WEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH EAST 4UARTER OF THE SOUTH WEST Q.UARTER OF THE ABOVE DES- CRIBED SECTION, THENCE NORTH OA 02" EAST ONNTHE WEST LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 40 ACRE TRACT A DISTANCE OF 1140.1_ FEET THENCE SOUTH 38' 26".EAST 56.9 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 09' 58" EAST 113.5 EEET, THENCE SOUTH 44' 361 EAST 261.5 FEET, THENCE NORTH 83' 04" EAST 62.8 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 71' 26" EASR 98.9-FEET, THENCE SOUTH 56' 46" EAST 219.0 FEET THENCE SOUTH 55' 06" EAST 210.5 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 65' 11" EAST 204.0 FEET THENCE NORTH 66, 31" EAST 95:4 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 76' 44" EAST 87.0 FEET THENCE NORTH 618 06" EAST 123.2 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 85' 16" EAST 64.0 FEET, THENCE NOR NORTH 84& -6" EAST 82.6 FEET, THENCE NORTH 061. 56" EAST 60.4 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 8 EAST LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED FORTY ACRE TRACT, THENCE SOUTH 583.5 FEET ON SAID EAST LINE TO POINT OF BEGINNING, ABOVE DESCRIBED TRgCT CONTAINING '19.80 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, j TOGETHER WITH ALL WATERS, WATER RIGHTS, AND ANY AND ALL INTEREST AND INTERESTS OF IN AND TO THE SAINE OR ANY PART THER!:OF, BELONGING TO THE PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART HERETO OR TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PREMISES AND IN ANY MANNER WHATEVER USED OR CONNECTED WITH THE , SAME OR ANY PART THEREOF, INCLUDING ALL CANALS, DITCHES, FLUMES 9RAINS AND OTHER CONDUTTS OF ANY AND EVERY KIND WHATSOEVER AND ALL STORAGE BASINS AND RESERVOIRS OF ANY KIND SELONO• IJG TO THE PARTIES OF THE FIRST PART HEREIN AND OR TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PREMISES AND OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER USED OR CONNECTED WITH THE SAME OR ANY PART THEROF AND ESPECIALLY WATER RIGHTS FOR 9w ACRES ADJUDICATED AS VESTED BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL OF THE STATE OF OREGON, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF CROOK ON MAY I.$T, 1911, AND DESCRIBED IN C7ERTIFIC-TE ISSUED BY SAID BOARD OF SAID CIRCUIT COURT AS AFORESAID. THIS CONVEYANCE IS EXECUTED THE PU`:CHASE OF THE FOREGOING DESCRIBED PREMISES MADE BY THE DESERT LAND BOARD OF THE STATE OF OREGON, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SAID STATE .� BY VIRTUE OF AND TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS AND PURPOSES OF CHAPTER119, OF THE GENERAL LAWS OF OREGON, 1913. TOGETHER WITH ALL AND SINGULAR THE TENEPOENTS, HEREDITAMENTS AND APPURTENANCES THEREUNTO BELONGING OR AIN ANYWISE APPERTAINING .. THE - •,TQ HAV AND 7iD HS4p:=sTHE �fi;A{Q PR;�;I S$, V7,I TH !H.I.R APP U,RT ENAIyCES UNTO THE SA 1_D I STATE -OF OREGON O AND ASSIGNS FOREVER-. ANO-THE SAID FRANK, B. �i'WI-S H£ii�"AND 'OLGA ..'WISHER HIS WIFE OF HEREBY COVENANT TU AND WITH THE SAID STATE OF OREGON AND ASSIGNS THAT THEY ARE THE OWNERS IN FEE SIMPLE OF BFID Pf?EMISES AN DS �J&T THEY ARE FREE FROM ALL i1 NCUMBRANCES AND THAT THEY WILL AND WAR1?AtNT AND DEFEND THE/FROM ALL LAWFUL CLAIMS WAHT80 EV.T IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS THIS --- DAY OF WULY A. D. 1913. - EXECUTED AND DELIVERED IN - THEPPRESENCE FRANK V. SWISHER (SEAL) WALTER VAN '+TINKLE OLGA SWISHER (SEAL) M. S. BULLARD r-1 STATE OF OREGON ` SS. j COUNTY OF Ca00K ( - IITH OF JULY A. D. 1913 BERSONALLY CAME BEFORE ME A NOTARY ON THIS THE DAY COUNTY AND STATE THE WITHIN NAMED FRANK V. 'WISHER AND OLGA PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE SAIB KNOWN TO BE THE IDENTICAL PERSONS DESCRIBED IN AND WHO ,SWISHER HIS WIFE TO ME PERSONALLY 'WITHIN AND WHO EACH PERSONALLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY _ EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THERIN NAMED AND WITHGB EXECUTED THE SAME FEAR OR COMPULSION FROM ANY ONE. 1JITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR LAST ABOVE WRITTEN. (NOTARIAL SEAL) WALTON VAN ,IINKIZE. 1. 7 0 0581 88-205'72 STATUTORY QUITCLAIM DEED The State of Oregon, by and through William H. Young, Director of Water Resources Department, Grantor, releases and quitclaims to Tumalo Irrigation District, an Oregon Irrigation District, Grantee, all right and title and interest in and to the following described real property: Set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference included herein, so long as said property is held in public ownership and used as a Winter feeding area for wildlife satisfactory to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. When said property is no longer owned by Tumalo Irrigation District or another public body, or is no longer used for public purpose including use as a Winter satisfactory to the Oregon Department feeding area for wildlife of Fish and Wildlife, the interest of the Grantee, or its assigns, shall automatically terminate and revert to the Grantor. The true consideration of this conveyance is other good and valuable consideration promised, including a commitment by Tumalo Irrigation District to involve local residents and the community before making decisions on use and management of the land or granting easements. This instrument will not allow use of the property described in this instrument in violation of applicable land use laws and regulations. Before signing and accepting this instrument, the Statutory Quitclaim Deed i Page 1 k 0 170 - 0582 person acquiring fee title to the property should check with the appropriate city or county planning department to verify approved uses. 11 Dated this 7S day of �Q-���'^�^� 1988. THE STATE OF OREGON Water Resources Commission WILLIAM H. YOU , D1 ctor STATE OF OREGON ) ss. , 1988. County of Marion ) Personally appeared the above -named William H. Young, who, is the Director of the Water being duly sworn, did say that he Department of the State of Oregon, and that said and he Resources instrument was signed on its behalf and by its authority; to be its volun c deed.t and acknowledged said instrument Before 'me,: °"" ••, .sy''• Notar Public £oOrekoL,,.r My Commission Expires: � ��\��K . G. trL�_t IIFOF Statutory Quitclaim Deed J Page 2 29 M �f 170 b 0583 EXHIBIT A (1 of 3) 1. Location a. County Deschates b. Citys' Bead 2. Size a. Number of across 930 3. Legal description a. descriptions how now described follows' rA Is edsSaVl separate metes and bounds (1) Beginning at the E} corner of $ec. 30s To 16 S., R. 11 Zoo W.M. thence 11. 00 07 ' 175.311 thence S. 220 491 W. 9260.5'; thence S. 0° 36' E. thence S. 3° 56' W. 173.2'i thence c. 90 -4' uM 111059'; t thence S. 4° 53' E. 170.20; thence 19 c 20' W. 194.1'; thence S. 280 45' W. 165.411 thence S. 54 thence S. 24° 1?' E. 171.1'i thence S. 13° 03' v 350.3 ; thence S. 230 58' W. 169.41; thence S. 39" 401 W. 140.0'; thence S. 59° 36' W. 139.7'; thence S. 20° 33� W. 94.8' thence S. 40° 40' W. 145.5'i thence S. 73° 04' W- 220."'; thence S. 210 31' W. 197.3'1 thence S, 34° 26' thence S. 200 12' W. 224.2'1 thence 3. 34° 26� U. 213 �'i thence S. 460 03' W. 164.91i thence 55 53 thence S. 63° 26' W. 356.5'i thence S. 50° 27' U. 227.5 ; thence S. 89° 57' W. 547.3' more or le�a� We t�linecof tars e.30. T 16S-.r R. 11 E.W.M. thence 3. along vi F.ir.u.; thence '+ to the center of Sec. 3is T. 16 S.. R• NEto the car. of said east along the South line of said of Sea. 32, Sec. 31; thence S. on the West "near. . off said R. 11 E.U.K. to a point 2540.2' N. of the 5U cor section; ° u� thence N. 760 5' k'. 72.51i thence S. 76 4r E. 199.3 i thenar. N. 54° 19' F. 175.0'; thence N. 840 45' E. 21.2.0'; thence S. 71° 49' E. 224.0'i thence N. 87° 45' E. 399.0'T thence S. 15° WF. 612.0'; thence N. 37' 424 R. 395.0 ; thence N. 360 38' E. 338.0'i thence 8. 430 20� E. 274.0'i thence S, 89° 56' F,. 649.0'; thence T2. 44 22 . 454. i thence N. 73° 54' E. 305.0'i thence N. 82e 541 E. 175.0'i thence N. 640 07' E. 242.01; thence S. 20 39 i•. 193.41i thence S. no 251 W. 290.10; thence S. 30 20' So 85.81; . thence S. 140 56' E. 475.7'i thence S. 30 229 U. 262.0 thence S. 150 06' W 431.6'i thence N. Sle 43' E. 251.80; thence S. 86° 59' E. 281.0'; thence S. 72e 09' F. 277.7'; thence S. 41° 31' E. 226.80; thence S. 38° 09� 00.5'3 thence S. 71° 23' W. 220.91; thence S. 83 47 W. 3 thence S. 71° 51' W. 331.1'; thence S. 5`2�° 31' W. 173.1 i 29 170 - 0584 EXHIBIT A• (2 of 3 ) thence S. 690 Me F. 206.00; thence S. 62° 011 F. 367.01; thence S. 450 091 E. i thence S. 47" 231 W. 436-41tohanepoint on the south liner of said Section 32i thence westerly on the south line to the SW cor. of the BE* SE# of geld 8e0.; thence south on the vest line.o! the * of the Nrf Sec. 5, T. 17'8., R. 11 E.W.M. to the south line of the NE} said Sao. 5; thence on the south line of the NE} to the E} cur. said Soo. 5 Co=enoing at the Quarter corner common to Sections 4 and 5, Top. 17 S., Ranpe 11 E.W.M.; thence North along the wrest line of Soo. .4, Top. 17S., Hones 11 E.W.M., A Distance of 720.0 feet; thence North 63° 06t East 367.2 feet= thence North 580 231 Fast 340.1 feet; thence North 530 291 East 180.5 feet; thence North 560 55, Fast 262.5 feet; thence North 83° 45' East 158.1 feet to a point on the North line of the SWk of the NO of the above described section; thence North 89e 35' Fast on the North line of the above described forty acre tract 181.6 feet to the NE corner of the above described forty acre tract; thence continuing North 89° 35' East on the North lino of the SW NWt of the above described section, a distance of 458.0 feet; thence South 420 14' East 168.7 feet; thence South 50° 461 East 320.0 feet; thence South 21° 080 Fast 137.7 feet; thence South 20 091 Weat 90.0 fact; thence South 29e 291 East 236.3 teat; thence South 410 001 East 176.9 feet; thence South 770 05' East 279.6 feet to a point on the East line of the above described forty acre tract; thence North 0° 03, West 866.1 feet to the HE corner of the SF; of the NW; of Section 4, T. 17 S., R. 11 E.W.H.; thence N. approx. 13200 to the Nj cor. of Sec. 4; thence N. 583.51; thence S. 06° 561 want 60.4'; thence S. 84° 061 W. 32_f1: Thence N. 830 16' W. 64.09- thence S. 610 06, W. 223.21; thence N. 760 44, 11. $7.01; thence 66° 31' V. 95.41; thence N. 650 114 W. 204.01; thence N. 55° 06" W. 210.501 thence N. 560 46' W. 219.001 thence N. 710 26' W. 98:"; thence S. 83° 04' V. 62.80; thence N. "0 36' W. 261.511 thence if. 09° 58, W. 113.51; thence N. 38' 26' W. 56.9' to the vest line of the SEk SWk -See. 33, T. 16 S., R. 11 E.W.M. thence N. on said west -line to the WW corner of the SEJ SWk; thence west on the N. line Of the SWf SW-j of said section to the NW cor. thereof; thence N. on the W. line to the Wi cor. said Sec. 33; thenoe W. on the half section line to the BE oar. of the _ SW1 NF-} of Sec. 32, T. 16 S., R. 11 E., k.M.; thence N. on the E. line of said SWk M-41 to the HE cor. thereof; thence W. on the N. line of said SW# W to the NW cor. thereof; thence N. on the N-S center line of Sections 32 and 29 to the NE cor. of the BEk !iWk Sec. 29; thence W. on the N. line Of said SRk NW} to the NW cor. thereof; thence S. on the W. line of said SEk NW3 to the SW corner thereof; thence West on the South line of the SWk NF.; to the Wk cor. of Soo. 29, T. l6 S., R. ll E.,W.M., said cox3ner being the Point of beginninE of the tract herein described containing approximately 930 acres, sore or less .✓; 1.70 � ilSAa EXHIBIT A (3 of 3) Excepting and reserving to itself, its successors, and assigns all minerals as defined in ORS 273.775(1), including soil, clay, stone, sand, and gravel, and all geothermal resources, as defined in ORS 273.775(2), together with the right to make such use of the surface as may be reasonably necessary for prospecting for, exploring for, mining, extracting, reinjecting, storing, drilling for, and removing, such minerals, materials, and geothermal resources. in the event use of the premises by a surface rights owner would be damaged by one or more of the activities described above, then such owner shall be entitled to compensation from state's lessee to the extent of the diminu- tion in value of the real property, based the actual use by the surface rights owner at the time the state's lessee conducts any of the above activities. STATE OF OREGON ) SS. COUNTY OF DESCNUTES ) I, MARY SUE PENHOLLOW, COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF CONVEYANCES, IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS RECORDED THIS DAY: 68 SEP 12 PH 2: 15 1,1A l` SUE PENINULLOI" COUNTY CLERK By, 6� DEPUTY NO. 88-20_5!7-2— FEE DESCNUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS aa9��- �S 3�, DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS THIS SPACE NRNCY BL"ENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK VV1I1l '"'T1YY��7iiVV 'I71833Z00700480�000Z0026 , 086 � Amernme �,o,��, �,1s.4o AM Part OJThej=-WENFamly D-D Cntol Stnu26 SRO $10.00 0111.00 •10.00 $5.00 After recording return to: LESLIE HUDSON 1028 Princeton -Kingston Road Princeton, NJ 08540 Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to The following address: LESLIE HUDSON 1028 Princeton -Kingston Road Princeton, NJ 08540 Escrow No. SBI00942RS Title No. 100942 SWD STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED WILLIAM W WESSINGER, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR PATRICIA L WESSINGER, Trustee U/T/A dated October 21,1993 FBO Patricia L. Wessinger, Grantor(s) hereby convey and warrant to LESLIE HUDSON and VERONICA NEWTON-HUDSON, as tenants by the entirety, Grantee(s) the following described real property in the County of DESCHUTES and S' f 0,-L :-),free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: Sta}L ok Org°Y' LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SEl/4NW1/4) and the East Half of the Southwest Quarter (E1/2SW1/4) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Sixteen (16) South, Range Eleven (11) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County Oregon, EXCEPT that parcel described as follows: Beginning at the quarter corner on the South line of Section 33, Township 16 South, Range 11 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon; thence West on the Township line 1320 feet to the Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter Southwest quarter (SE1/4SE1/4) of the above described section; thence North 00*02, East on the West line of the above described 40 acre tract, a distance of 1140.10 feet; thence South 38*26' East 56.90 feet; thence South 09058' East 113.50 feet; thence South 44.36' East 261.5 feet; thence North 83004' East 62.80 feet; thence; thence South 71-26' East 98.9 feet; thence South 56046' East 219.00 feet; thence South 55006, East 210.50 feet; thence South 65011' East 204.00 feet; thence North 66031, East 95.40 feet; thence South 76044' East 87.00 feet; thence North 61006' East 123.20 feet; thence South 85016' East 64.00 feet; thence North 84006' East 32.60 feet; thence North 06056' East 60.40 feet to a point on the East line of the above described forty acre tract; thence South 583.50 feet on said East line to the point of beginning. The above -described property is free of encumbrances except all those items of record, if any, as of the date of this deed and those shown below, if any: 2007-2008 Real Property Taxes a lien not yet due and payable. The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is $1,861,700.00. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352. After racordhtp, return to AmerlTIde 15 OREGON AVENUE, BEND W ' Page 2 - Statutory Warranty Deed — Signature/Notary Page Escrow No. SB100942RS jn d Dated this day of WILLIAM W WESSINGER, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR PATRICIA L WESSINGER, Trustee U/T/A dated October 21, 1993 FB Patricia L. W ssm r BY: �� ��� WILLIAM W. WESSINGER, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE State of Oregon County of DESCHUTES This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2007 by WILLIAM W WESSINGER, SUCCESSOR Oct TRUSTEE FOR PATRICIA L WESSINGER, Trustee U/T/A dated ober 21, 1993 FBO Patricia L. Wessinger. (Notary Public for Oregon) =DERKACHT DDOT * My commission expiresM)TARON01 "769, 2008 In 31 Road Department 61150 S.E. 27th St., Bend, OR 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 Road Research File Road Research of Tumalo Project #1 Road (Sisemore Road, Bull Springs Road?) in 17-11-04 Township 17 South, Flange 11 East, Section 04, W.M. Tuesday, April 04, 2000 The Road Department has discovered additional information regarding the location of the 1892 Sisemore Road in the Tumalo Reservoir area and the road's relocation to its present alignment along the east side of the reservoir. Background Sisemore Road was established in 1892 per Crook County Commissioners' Journal 2 Page 89 with a right-of-way width of 60 feet. It originated at John Sisemore's Farewell Bend Ranch (which latter became the Brooks Scanlon mill and is now a portion of the Old Mill District) and went northwesterly 21 miles to its terminus just a few miles east of the town of Sisters. Although the Road Department has not searched for physical monumentation of the 1892 survey, a rough retracement of the survey indicates that in the area of Tumalo Reservoir the original alignment was approximately 4000 feet westerly of present day Sisemore Road. The 1892 alignment would have placed the road in the middle of the large, failed reservoir that was planned in the early 1900s. Additional research of Sisemore has revealed that Sisemore was also referred to as the "Bend — Sisters Road", Apparently Sisemore was relocated in conjunction with the 1913 Tumalo Irrigation Project which created Tumalo Reservoir. At the Deschutes County Library, Bend Branch, is a publication (library reference "631.7 Oregon Desert") entitled: Final Report of the Construction Tumalo Irrigation Project To the Desert Land Board State of Oregon By Project Engineer June 1913 — Dec. 1914 Laidlaw, Oregon, December 19, 1914.1 This 90 page account was written by Project Engineer Olaf Laurgaard and reports on all aspects of the project as of December 1914. Page 44 addresses the replacement of roads which would be within the proposed reservoir. The report states: "Included in this area are several county roads, a portion of the one from Laidlaw to Sisters2, and a portion of the Bend -Sisters Road, a total of 5 % miles to be replaced... The location of this road is as follows: Commencing at the north west corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 20, township 16 south, range 11 east, and extending in a southeasterly direction across Tumalo dam and continuing across Bull ` This publication is also archived with the Oregon Department of Fish Wildlife as "StreamNet Ref 1D 50087". '- The Laidlaw — Sisters road was most likely a portion of the 1908 J.R. Couch road which intersected the 1892 Sisemore at the west '/4 corner of section 29, T I6S i21 1 E. J:\DATA\WORD\RDRESERC\Tumalo-Project-t-road(Sisemore)History.doc Page t of2 07/25/04 9:48 PM MJS Quality Services Performed with Pride 31 Creek dam and spillway and thence in a southeasterly and southerly direction to the quarter corner between sections 4 and 9, in township 17 south, range 11." Drawing "A° of this report is a map showing the relocated Sisemore Road along or near the alignment of present day Sisemore. The original 1892 alignment is not shown on this map. The report states "The road was constructed of 20 foot road bed..." and that "...the total cost of the road construction around Tumaio reservoir —was ... $9,780.90." Evidently this road was not legally established and in 1914 Crook County began the proceedings for the establishment of this realignment under the name of the "Tumalo Project No. 1 Road". The Crook County Road Jacket for "The Tumalo Project Road No. 1 contains the following documents: • Resolution to Establish the road dated 12/4/1914. This contains a general description of the road • Surveyor's Preliminary Report filed 1/7/1915. In this report Fred Rice, the Crook County Surveyor states he has examined the proposed road and advises that it is a public necessity and should become a public road. Notice of Hearing filed 8/10/1915. The hearing is to be held 9/1/1915 at the Crook County Court House. Claim for Damages. 8/28/1915. A letter from former Commissioner R. H. Bayley (he was one of the Commissioners who signed the 12/4/1914 resolution). He states that during his term the road was not legalized although it was opened across a Mr. Hudson's property in the SW % of Section 20, T16S, R11 E and that Mr. Hudson should be paid the amount of $200 per the agreement between Hudson, Bayley and Laurgaard (the enginer for the Tumalo Irrigation Project) The only other entry in the Crook County Commissioners' Journals is a 9/6/1916 action which states the proceedings are to be continued. There are not other entries for the road in the Crook journals (Deschutes County was carved out of Crook 3 months after this entry) or in the Deschutes County Commissioners' Journals. Conclusions A portion of the 1892 Sisemore Road was relocated to its present location west of Tumalo Reservoir in 1913 in conjunction with the 1913 Tumalo Irrigation Project. Between 1914 and 1916 Crook County began proceedings to establish this realignment as the "Tumalo Project Road No. 1 ", but these proceeding were never finalized. Deschutes County Commissioners' Journals do not contai any a vies for the establishment of this relocated road. Mike Berry PLS Senior Engineering Associate J:\DATAkWORD\RDRESERC\Tuinalo-Project-l-road(Sisemore)History.doc Page 2 of 07/25/04 9:48 PM MJB 7_- { t -27 ' � �1 •; 1:� ..: .,:' {/-yJ JCZ f .. .�. S l I J �li� '/!,. ; 1 1 V'�. \ , , •• ,' S! r r � } 1., � � ,r � fr : r, � � a �i ; Tt J� _ .- t i 1 r >)� .'.S . / r .•. �r 'ry E"..$ r c• Y� %tik r- -i:'e 6d �- � +n �r .rs �r� � 'rv• .� ti,l 4, J y�, ,Hs" !1 '.�,. •' w 6 �'"' -�x � � '. ' 7 \J3�� �` �tC �o 'f i . V �; }.l 1 � �'J 5P/' i �%' J�.1• Jt' �� , �Jr f ���� � .ti�`� ! t� , �.�` 1`,��. �.•'.� `-`` A-.'`�.. , < %-. ... , s ^ .''� ,. r" ,4,�� 3t fT.. yf-•r 1610 R Iji{{`!�•� a Y L•_, f x +ir ♦ 4 1 Yr� /�I 1 f y,�7 _7; c/a fr�r',F`..�' a , SISEMORERD.2004 ,, r, rri (1914 TOMALO PROJ. y, s SISEMORE 1892 ! `.' .j lj , � "t'Yti ,{ �ii�'��jr~• \',�'\' � �w..rti��1 ,� �5���� /r � .�pC� ii Y M� �: : ti61 � �3�� �_.- S �/� - `t 1 /y V. \ r r �- / Y �7Mt,�sx.4�> ! i . rni°'r.°e'" Cs• ! BULL CR. DAM yr` 1711 y � , �\S •� •• •,.. t h' .3_ '.:;y`i ' 31, / "h.� t r• If 17 � 1 / 4 �rr,� \�, .— � \.p � i rp�/:�-.(/� ,�r;t.. f j'J\�`�/�.€•yl1 ° I �_ (� l S + } 5 ,>r 99 \ ] +1 rt ,�"•k��/ ` ' .�F 2 it.. k L i Z�} �_ l ., ^.�r .• 1� ,7 l r ,'"4+�,1•t'C -�.=+�•' ' � .< Via"• :; . �, rt �,Lu �, ` r�\: � i^��-�`1 ; �`,l ' ti� � �'�! � � � ��' / \ � ..,��'' l"` ,� ,'• l r_ r ram, f✓ �f , a +� \ Jy /.r, ,F,¢---',,, v �,f •!. J . 'R �`A, a. r'. )'1 A �, l , • _ 1��. _ l , � 4 6/ 7 r N \ .� "' , rv' ;\ ►� ,air, ti � ({ ;V� v�9,cl°:a:�s�,j.7t:lf7�/..�%)�'-��� ( , 3 . +ry 1 . � } N'' ,,t�1 �;. ,� /'d-- r ' : � ,1C �r'� '^'�,✓';1.' � _.:�'•+�`���"'•;��Y\',i.��'r1::1a7.�.�~�,.ar_1:'�a..%� \\ ark ,J1 ,� ,F , � r r.. = ° � ' ` // `% �. '"'�1 .,-.:.t ;'�.'{':;� }• " � + `� ; �Il �.-�. �� .._,h'^,av SISEMORE ROAD: 1892 SISEMORE, 1913 TUMALO PROJECT NO.1 ROAD (CURRENT LOCATION OF SISEMORE ROAD), & 1914-1916 CROOK COUNTY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE "TUMALO PROJECT ROAD NO. 1" 7/23/2004 mjb 1913: Apparent relocation of Sisemore (Bend - Sisters Road) From Page 44 of 1914 Report. Point A: Commencing at the NW corner of the SE 1/4 SW 114 Sec. 20, T16S, R11E ...Across Tumalo Dam ...across Bull Creek Dam Point B: S. 1/4 corner Sec. 4, T17S, R11 E. (terminus) 1892 S)SEMORE N2004 sISEMORE 1914 - 1916:.Crook County Proceedings for the "Tumalo Project No. 1 Road (proceedings not j .. 2004 Roads LJ Township Lines finalized). (� Sectionlines Point 1: Beginrnng at the W 1/4 Cor. Sec. 20, T16S, R11 E Rivers ...thence southeaterly... j Canals Point 2: To a point 1750 ft. South and 1635 ft. East of the NW Car. Sec. 9, T17S, R11 E Streams (terminus) 6600 0 6600 13200 Feet 1"=100 CHAINS 31 SISEMORE ROAD: 1892 SISEMORE AND 1913 TUMALO PROJECT NO.1 ROAD (CURRENT LOCATION OF SISEMORE ROAD) 7/23/2004 ��/ 1892 SISEMORE V 2004 SISEMORE i OTHER EXIST. RDS Township Lines Sectioniines Rivers o� Canals Streams Apparent relocation of Sisemore (Bend - Sisters Road) From Page 44 of 1914 Report. Point A: Commencing at the NW corner of the SE 114 SW 1/4 Sec. 20, T16S, R11 E ...Across Tumalo Dam ...across Bull Creek Dam Point B: S. 1 /4 comer Sec. 4, T17S, RI E. 6600 0 6600 13200 Feet 1 °=100 CHAINS 31 31 3 11 12_ �. _ 7�`� -08 09 10 _ 11 12 07.. 14 13 17 16 1 `�., 114 j�1 23 24 19 f, , 2 A 91 22 �._, 2 ,. -`24 TUMALO DAM 1 3 I t 1610 %''��� _ 11611 ` > 26 25 ,9oa COUCH 36 SISEMORE 1892 �� I SISEMORE RD. 2004 1't, ��}. (1914 TUMALO PROJ. . u, �1S08GEO. WIMER RDT 1 #1 RD.) G 2��.^ ( 33-? 3 35 ' 36 I ---Ili V t 35 36 31 '- , 1 OO c BULL CR. DAM 1711- 3 02 01 06 05 j 4 M ;02 0100 19- ,1 07 08 11 10 �,,J-1- 0 14 13 18 17 - 16 1 �' 13 18 SISEMORE ROAD: 1892 SISEMORE, 1913 TUMALO PROJECT NO.1 ROAD (CURRENT LOCATION OF SISEMORE ROAD), & 1914-1916 CROOK COUNTY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE "TUMALO PROJECT ROAD NO. 1" 7/2312004 A 1913: Apparent relocation of Sisemore (Bend - Sisters Road) From Page 44 of 1914 Report. mjb Point A: Commencing at the NW corner of the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec. 20, T16S, RI E ...Across Tumalo Dam ...across Bull Creek Dam Point B: S. 1/4 corner Sec. 4, T17S, R11 E. (terminus) j V' i892 SISEMORE 1914 - 1916: Crook County Proceedings for the 'Tumalo Project No. 1 Road (proceedings not 1908WimerRoad 1908 J.R. COUCH RD. finalized). 2004 SiSEMORt= Point 1: Beginning at the W 1/4 Cor. Sec_ 20, T16S, R11 E r 2004 Roads ...thence southeaterly... Township tines Point 2: To a point 1750 ft. South and 1635 ft. East of the NW Cor. Sec. 9, T17S, RI E —1 Sectionlines (terminus) rl(1•z�`' Snow Creek Canals (NOTE - THE 1908 WIMER ROAD WAS APPARANTLY ESTABLISHED AS A CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL SISMORE ALIGNMENT) V=100 CHAINS V- wN 0 Im w C/) (f) 2 w ik 0 v F (,r . 32 G 4 Tur+�)� ReS- RD A1ewk, f�a► 3�t1 �IaFF p4ld 61160 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (641) 3WS681 • FAX (641) 388-2719 Nancy Lowas 65160 Collins Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Date: 4/24/2013 Subject: Road Research of Bull Flat Road in Sections 31 and 32, Township 16 South, Range 11 East, W.M., Deschutes County, Oregon Nancy, As I stated in our phone conversation, the east -west road shown on some USGS maps as "Bull Flat Road" does not to appear to be a public road. According to road records on file at the Deschutes County Road Department: • Road Department indexes indicate that no old Crook County or Deschutes County roads were ever established over this route. • Surveys on file at the Deschutes County Surveyors Office indicate that no subdivision or Partition plats of record have dedicated a road along this route. I did not search the deed records at the County Clerk's Office. A title report would be the best means of determining whether or not any road dedications or easements along this route have been filed at the County Clerks Office. Regarding your questions about historic roads in the Bull Flat area, I have attached Maps A through D to help explain the records we have in our files. Map A is a USGS topographic map with an overlay of the approximate location of public roads "established", or created, by Crook County prior to 1916 and Deschutes County after it was created in December of 1916. Map A also has information about the notes surveyors made in 1871 regarding a trail that ran through the area. Map B is the same as Map A without the 1871 information, Map C is the same as B except it has public owned land shaded without the topographic map and Map D has the road information overlaid on an aerial photo. I have also included some photos of the 1913-1914 construction of the now -defunct Tumalo Dam and some other research documents which may be of interest to you. The next page has a summary of the progression of the roads through this area. J:IDATA\WORD\RDRESEROBW Flat Road 16-11-32 and area road history.doe Page 1 of 2 04/24/13 3:19 PM MJB The following is a summary of roads through the Bull Flat area as evidenced by surveys and County records. Please refer to the attached "Map A": • 1843 — Points A through D are on an old Indian trail which may have been used by John C. Fremont's 1842-1843 expedition though Oregon. 1871- When this land was origina�surveyed by the US General Land Office (GLO) the surveyors noted where the secbo lines crossed features such as rivers, creeks and trails. Points A through D were noted in the survey notes as the location of "trails". 1892 — The Sisemore Road was surveyed and established by Crook County. This road began at John Sisemore's Farewell Bend Ranch (which later became the site of the Brooks Scanlon Mill and is now the "Old Mill" shopping area), and ended a couple miles east of Sisters Oregon on the Santiam trail. In the Bull Flat area it apparently followed the trace of the trail noted in 1871 GLO notes. The location of Point A on the map is where we found the 12 Mile Marker tree of the Sisemore Road, meaning this spot was 12 miles from the Farewell bend Ranch. This 21 '/z mile long road was also known as the Bend - Sisters Road. • 1907 — The Bayley Road was established. It started in Tumalo (then called "Laidlaw") and ended at the "Bend -Sisters Road" • 1908 The Wimer Road was a change to the location of a portion of Sisemore in this area. Once an area began being farmed it wasn't uncommon for owners to want to move old, meandering roads to their property lines. This appears to be the reason for the Wimer road establishment. • 1908 Couch Road was established. This connected many of the roads north of the 1907 Bayley Road directly to the Bend -Sisters Road 1913-1916 — The current location of Sisemore Road, about a half mile east of the 1892 location, was built in order to skirt around what was intended to be a large reservoir. I hope this information helps. Please feel free to call me if you have any additional questions. Sincere , Aikee , PLS Deschutes County rveyor 61150 S. E. 27th Street Bend, Oregon 97702 • (541) 322-7112 • Fax (541) 388-2719 • Cell (541) 815-2352 mikebOlco deschutes.or.us J:IDATAMORDWRESEROBull Flat Road 16.11-32 and area road history.doe 04/24/13 3:19 PM MJB Page 2 of N ch r, \ ✓ 33M1 ' na d w o I 'o Z y ] a S u�. -x n U'lr z F NJ N� UgWy ZO O(Y 9fY Zt9~ �a owa of d LL W ULL a0 �_ W LLp I vF S q W `- U V U l O zpz a'S8 3.0 0m o F N_ =a sO o o� a -° 1,-� r one-W � �1 2I- d � N N 3 jz o�� No >�N' FQ QKU �= T-•+ a� wili aZw z ly� h3': I I nrrtc aZiS O 1II oa » ax(61 �-F o Irt 5 0 00 w� m�t�n N� zu~i zzaJ0 I ", (D `O -''a m �a dra nF as aor m E E0'u IN-'M aZ ym wsaa®I .'k fro m?I-' + yM Zww wa am ara�oi liM yrD tom oxo z zz �oaaz �I la ar h r yo m s+ N L B o w { U W o16 t YroNrnN o aM o(C14O Ko Ulu) avN U.OE o; a SoU JNU 00 yTd E"Ou r j >. � k+ 1 y� N Y O s S m C f6x> U W U ..� _ o , _ ....,, ,.. U W U � ai i?�.5 ;- »-r .., _ � s.`F•. ?', s_.. _. to .. _ ...,� . � _. �*+... -.._ , _ w rZ ... - . . 040 w v U tR r a w oa_ U too w.o W U 5: iz Lu Of O a U w wa o L VIWU� a, r DNM �(o T � i�� w U NW wrn� t o ��� WCO yk tea. 1 U i I �M� 00.50 W iyU� _ � "U.flYL� WvU �yUa' NT U 'f N� m o 'w (� m c W axt 3 m KL oo ��. ��WU2r 's t! maUv 3 m ggSNo.o m> ONUo 4 ; %� YfJ f Wj.t R '` F U I7WUYS m oa t r `� tnD �Q { :'i S I- S Z rt Q ouLL rc�, � I � '!� s, w Z � Y \\' e �� . e x , � S w U' U ��`r✓:°��-'�-, t eY "4x� U W' Z m �.C`t� N t#r•' 33 Road Department 61150 SE 27th St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 - FAX (541) 388-2719 Road Research of Sisemore Road at Sisemore Dam SW '/4 Section 33 Tawnship 16 South Ran a 11 East W.M. Mike Berry �! _ 4/1/2019 The present day Sisemore Road north of Tumalo Reservoir Road was built by the State of Oregon circa 1913 in conjunction with the Tumalo Irrigation Project. At that time it was anticipated that the originally established 1892 Sisemore Road and the 1908 Wimer Road (being a change to the 1892 Sisemore route) across Bull Flat would be flooded by the proposed Tumalo Reservoir. The failure of the reservoir to hold water put the kibosh on the reservoir project, but the newly constructed Sisemore Road became the primary route of travel through this area. The attached April 4, 2000 research information details the research this office has conducted on the 1913 Sisemore Road, AKA "The Tumalo Project Road No. 1 ". Since 2000 a portion of Sisemore Road in 17-11-04 (south of Tumalo Reservoir Road) was legalized by Deschutes County per Order 2004-66 dated 10/13/2004. The survey by David Evans and Associates is filed in the County Surveyor's Office as CS16260. This legalization was performed at the request of land owners in this area and the surveying and other associated costs were paid for by the landowners. ODOT/OSHD records that have been subsequently placed on-line do not indicate that the State of Oregon had established the Tumalo Project Road No. 1 at the time it was built. These records include the ODOT History of State Highways and the ODOT on-line Maps Archives. The fact that the road was not created by a State resolution appears to be substantiated by the fact that in December of 1914 Crook County began proceedings to establish the Tumalo Project No. 1 Road, but the proceedings were never completed. See attached 2000 research for more detail. Right -of -Way by Bridge The 1926 Tumalo Reservoir Market Road was established on 11/5/1926 with a right-of-way width of 60 feet. The north terminus of the establishment appears to be near the south end of the bridge. No road establishment information has been found for Sisemore north of the 1926 Tumalo Reservoir Market Road. The Deschutes County Road Department map for Tumalo Reservoir Market Road is document RD01529 which references Field Books 40 and 41. Field book 40 contains the transit notes for the survey and field book 41 contains the level notes. .1:\DATA\WORD\RDRESERC\Sisemore Road at Sisemore Dam (161133).docx 04/01/19 3:46 PM MJB 33 RD001529 title block MAP OF TUMALO RESERVOIR MARKET ROAD NO.I I A DESCHUTES RIVER TO RESERVOIR SECTION DESCHUTES COUNTY OREGON SCALE ROBEaT B. GOULD I -INCH -400 FEET COUNTY ENGINEER (92� RD0t524 FIELD NOTES -BOOKS N0.40-41 ASSUMED MERIDIAN i End Station 245+65.2 on RD001529 I � i .�aysi.�ss v6/p foci •g m SS. JB-v y s. s H v4wj 11.8 59I :1. '311'21 O SLI'1 �a I ` I � I Field book 40, Page 19 - End of project l /ry f l i Y y r Summary: The Sisemore Road/Tumalo Project Road No. 1 was built circa 1914 and has been continuously used by the public since that time. It is classified as a County Road. However, Deschutes County has not found any establishment/dedication information for this alignment. A segment south of Tumalo Reservoir Road was legalized in 2004 with a right-of-way width of 60 feet. If the road to the north of Tumalo Reservoir Road were to be legalized it would be centered on the existing traveled way with a total right-of-way of 60 feet. J:\DATA\WORD\RDRESERC\Siscmore Road at Sisemore Dam (I61133).doex 04/01/19 3:46 PM MJB 'AAMER, GEORGE W- Established 11/5/1908 Crook Co. CC-4CJ269 Width: 40` Portion of 1892 SISEMORE Vacated by 1908 WIMER WIMER, GEORGE W. Established 11/5l1908 Crook Co. CC-4CJ269 Width:40` 07 Overview of Sisemorel I umalo_ m em No I moaa �Iu - TUMALO PROJECT NO. 1 ROAD P.O.B. PER 1214/1914 RESOLUTION SISEMORE Established 1119/1892 Crook Co. CC-2CJ89 Wdth: 60' 08 33 TUMALO PROJECT NO. 1 ROAD (ROAD NOT SURVEYED OR FINALIZED - LAST ENTRY IN CROOK 6CJ471 STATES -' PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONTINUED. NO FURTHER ACTION LOCATED IN CROOKOR DESCHUTESJOUNALS) - Segment Legalized per 1 _ _ Order 2004-66, 10/13/2004 . -04 TUMALO PROJECT NO 1 ROAD TERMINUS PER 12/4/1914 RESOLUTION J:\DATA\WORD\RDRESERC\Siscmore Road at Sisemore Dam (161 133).doex 04/01/19 3:46 PM MJ13 33 Road Research of Tumalo Project #1 Road (Sisemore Road, Bull Springs Road?) in 17-11-04 Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Section 04, W.M. Tuesday, April 04, 2000 The Road Department has discovered additional information regarding the location of the 1892 Sisemore Road in the Tumalo Reservoir area and the road's relocation to its present alignment along the east side of the reservoir. Background Sisemore Road was established in 1892 per Crook County Commissioners' Journal 2 Page 89 with a right-of-way width of 60 feet. It originated at John Sisemore's Farewell Bend Ranch (which later became the Brooks Scanlon mill and is now a portion of the Old Mill District) and went northwesterly 21 miles to its terminus just a few miles east of the town of Sisters. Although the Road Department has not searched for physical monumentation of the 1892 survey, a rough retacement of the survey indicates that in the area of Tumalo Reservoir the original alignment was approximately 4000 feet westerly of present day Sisemore Road. The 1892 alignment would have placed the road in the middle of the large, failed reservoir that was planned in the early 1900s. Additional research of Sisemore has revealed that Sisemore was also referred to as the "Bend — Sisters Road". Apparently Sisemore was relocated in conjunction with the 1913 Tumalo Irrigation Project which created Tumalo Reservoir. At the Deschutes County Library, Bend Branch, is a publication (library reference "631.7 Oregon Desert") entitled: Final Report of the Construction Tumalo Irrigation Project To the Desert Land Board State of Oregon By Project Engineer June 1913 — Dec. 1914 Laidlaw, Oregon, December 19, 1914.' This 90 page account was written by Project Engineer Olaf Laurgaard and reports on all aspects of the project as of December 1914. Page 44 addresses the replacement of roads which would be within the proposed reservoir. The report states: "Included in this area are several county roads, a portion of the one from Laidlaw to Sisters Z, and a portion of the Bend -Sisters Road 3, a total of 5 % miles to be replaced... The location of this road is as follows: Commencing at the north west corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 20, township 16 south, range 11 east, and extending in a southeasterly direction across Tumalo dam and continuing across Bull Creek dam and spillway and thence in a southeasterly and southerly direction to the quarter corner between sections 4 and 9, in township 17 south, range 11. " Drawing "A" of the 1914 report is a map showing the relocated Sisemore Road along or near the alignment of present day Sisemore. The original 1892 alignment is not shown on the map. The report states "The road was constructed of 20 foot road bed..." and that "...the total cost of the road construction around Tumalo reservoir... was ... $9,780.90." Evidently this road was not legally established and in 1914 Crook County began the proceedings for the establishment of this realignment under the name of the "Tumalo Project No. 1 Road". The Crook County Road Jacket for "The Tumalo Project Road No. 1 contains the following documents: • Resolution to Establish the road dated 12/4/1914. This contains a general description of the road • Surveyor's Preliminary Report filed 1/7/1915. In this report Fred Rice, the Crook County Surveyor states he has examined the proposed road and advises that it is a public necessity and should become a public road. • Notice of Hearing filed 8/10/1915. The hearing is to be held 9/1/1915 at the Crook County Court House. This publication is also archived with the Oregon Dept. offish & Wildlife as "StreamNet Ref 1D 50087". The Laidlaw — Sisters road was most likely a portion of the 1908 J.R. Couch road which intersected the 1892 Sisemore at the west '/4 corner of section 29, T16S RI E, 3 "Bend -Sisters Road" was a local term for the 1892 Sisemore Road. J:\DATA\WORD\RDRESERC\Sisemore Road at Sisemore Dam (161 133).docx 04/01 / 19 3:46 PM MJB 33 • Claim for Damages. 8/28/1915. A letter from former Commissioner R. H. Bayley (he was one of the Commissioners who signed the 12/4/1914 resolution). He states that during his term the road was not legalized although it was opened across a Mr. Hudson's property in the SW '/4 of Section 20, T16S, R11 E and that Mr. Hudson should be paid the amount of $200 per the agreement between Hudson, Bayley and Laurgaard (the engineer for the Tumalo Irrigation Project) The only other entry in the Crook County Commissioners' Journals is a 9/6/1916 action which states the proceedings are to be continued. There are not other entries for the road in the Crook journals (Deschutes County was carved out of Crook 3 months after this entry) or in the Deschutes County Commissioners' Journals. Conclusions A portion of the 1892 Sisemore Road was relocated to its present location west of Tumalo Reservoir in 1913 in conjunction with the 1913 Tumalo Irrigation Project. Between 1914 and 1916 Crook County began proceedings to establish this realignment as the "Tumalo Project Road No. 1", but these proceedings were never finalized. Deschutes County Commissioners' Journals do not contain any entries for the establishment of this relocated road. 4/1/2019 Addendum: This portion of the map on page 81of the1914 report labels the new road across Bull Creek Dam and Tumalo Dam as "State Road" _. J:\DATA\WORD\RDRESERC\Siscmore Road at Sisemore Dam (161 133).docx 04/01/19 3:46 PM MJB 011 DETERMINING WIDTHS OF EXISTING RIGHTS -OF -WAY FOR COUNTY ROADS By WILLIAM F. FRYE Lane County District Attorney 34 FOREWORD "How wide is our right-of-way?" This is a question which is frequently raised in Lane County, and, I would assume, in every county. It is vital to anyone who is concerned with the construction or improvement of county roads. Any one of several factors may raise the question. It may be that no width was specified in the original establishment proceeding, or, it may be that the road was informally taken over by the county after it had been created by prescriptive use. Again, it may be that the road deviates from the boundaries originally established, or that the county built the road on the basis of defective establishment proceedings. Even where the original right-of-way width is clear, a problem arises as to whether the county may have lost part of it through adverse possession, automatic vacation, or a rule of law called the "doctrine of equitable estoppel." These are the problems that are dealt with in this paper. Many statutes and cases are discussed, and you will notice that instances where the law is not definite and clear. In these the citations and references are included mainly for the us of your own district attorney, for it is he who will have to apply such cases. Primarily, however, I hope that this paper will itself provide a useful guide for you, who, day in and day out, must answer the question: "How wide is our right-of-way?" WILLIAM F. FRYE Lane County District Attorney November 18, 1959 34 I. DETERMINING ORIGINAL WIDTH OF COUNTY ROADS A. Roads Established by County Court 1. Prior to June 6, 1931: a. The statutory width of county roads prior to June 6, 1931 was prescribed as 60 feet, with the county court being empowered to determine a different width. Until 1889 the court had discretion only to establish a lesser width, but after 1889 the statutes allowed a maximum of 80 feet and a minimum of, at first 40 feet and, from 1915, 30 feet. 1.) In the Bush Code of 1855 at page 489 it is provided that "all county roads shall be sixty feet in width, unless the commissioners shall, upon the prayer of the petitioners for the same, determine on a less number of feet in point of width." According to a footnote in the Deady Code of 1854, at page 856, this statute probably took effect on January 27, 1854. (2) This law was repealed and re-enacted in substantially the same form in Oregon Laws 1860, p. 36, section 10, changing only the term "commissioners" to "county court." This law took effect on January 17, 1861, according to the same footnote in the Deady Code referred to above. (3) In Oregon Laws 1889, p. 87, section 2, the law was amended to read as follows: All county roads shall be sixty feet in width, unless the county court shall, upon the prayer of the petitioners for the same, determine on a different width, not less than forty feet nor more than eighty feet in width. The effective date of this act, approved on February 25, 1889, would be 90 days from the adjournment of the 1889 session of the legislature, since the act carried no emergency clause. 34 (4) The 1889 law was repealed and re-enacted in the same form in Oregon Laws 1903, p. 262, section 16. (5) In Oregon Laws 1915, ch. 263, p. 373, the law was amended to read as follows: All county roads shall be sixty feet in width, unless the County Court shall, upon the prayer of the petitioners for the same, determine upon a different width, not less than thirty feet nor more than eighty feet in width. This act took effect on May 22, 1915. (6) This law was repealed and re-enacted in substantially the same form in Oregon Laws 1917, ch. 295, section 4, omitting the phrase "upon the prayer of the petitioners for the same." The reason for this change was that the general road law of 1917 provided for the establishment of county roads by resolution of the county court, as an alternative to the petition system. The amendment became effective on May 21, 1917. b. Under the law as it existed prior to June 6, 1931 there was no requirement that the width of a road be specified in the documents establishing it. Accordingly, the Oregon court has held that unless a width other than 60 feet was specified in the resolution initiating the road proceeding, the width is automatically 60 feet: "The law prescribes that all roads shall be sixty feet wide, unless otherwise ordered by the county court... This provision must be considered a part of the resolution unless a different width is specified therein. It would not confer a jurisdiction on the County Court to alter the road so as to establish any different width." Latourette v. Clackamas County, 121 Or. 323, 331 (1927). 34 2. Since June 6, 1931: a. No general statutory width has been provided. It is required that the county court determine the width, subject to a minimum. It is also required that the proposed width be stated in most of the documents relating to the establishment of a county road. (1) In Oregon Laws 1931, ch. 326, the former law was amended to read as follows: All county roads shall be of such width as the county court shall determine, which width shall not be less than thirty feet; provided, the proposed width shall be stated in all petitions, notices, orders or resolutions relating to any such county road. This act took effect on June 6, 1931. (2) The 1931 law was amended in Oregon Laws 1947, ch. 498, to read as follows: All county roads established after the effective date of this act shall be of such width as the county court shall determine, which width shall not be less than 50 feet; provided, that the county court shall have authority to accept any dedicated circular road or street of less than 30 feet in width and not exceeding one mile in length and maintain such road or street as a county road for one-way traffic only; provided, the proposed width shall be stated in all petitions, notices, orders or resolutions relating to any such county road. This act took effect on July 5, 1947. (3) The 1947 law was amended in Oregon Laws 1951, ch. 132, to read as follows: All county roads established after the effective date of this act shall be of such width as the county court shall determine, which width shall not be less than 50 feet; provided, that the county court shall have authority to accept any circular road or street of not less than 30 feet in width and not exceeding one mile in length and to maintain such road or street as a county road for one-way traffic only. The proposed width shall he stated in all petitions, notices, orders or resolutions relating to any county road. 34 This act took effect on August 2, 1951. (4) In Oregon laws 1953, ch. 229, the law was amended to read as follows: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, all county roads established after August 2, 1951, shall be of such width as the county court shall determine, which width shall not be less than 50 feet. The proposed width shall be stated in all petitions, notices, orders or resolutions relating to any county road. (2) The county court, by majority vote, may accept as a county road any highway, road or street, irrespective of its actual or plotted width, if such highway, road or street was dedicated to the public as a highway, road or street before January 1, 1948. After acceptance the county shall maintain such highway, road or street as a county road. This act took effect on July 21, 1953 and appears now as ORS 368.415. b. It should be noted that under each of these laws since June 6, 1931, the proposed width must be stated in all "petitions, notices, orders or resolutions" relating to a county road. The language in Latourette v. Clackamas County, quoted above, could not be applied to the law as it has existed since June 6, 1931, because no statute since that time has prescribed the width of county roads. The width must be determined by the county court itself, subject to the statutory minimum in effect at the time. ku B. Roads Established by Prescription or Implied Dedication 1. County roads can be informally established. This has been held by the Oregon court, and the court has said that it makes no difference whether the theory proceeded upon is that of prescriptive use by the public or an "implied offer of dedication" by the land owner. The result is the same and a prescriptive use by the public is "based upon the assumption of a prior dedication or action by duly constituted authority." The court's logic is open to question since the two legal bases --of prescriptive use, on the one hand, and dedication, on the other --are directly contradictory, but the holding is clear: "The rights to the use of a way arising by prescription, arise not out of the formality of conveyance, but by informality; not by formal gift, grant or dedication, but by open, notorious, hostile, adverse use, based upon the assumption of a prior dedication or action by duly constituted authority. Thus a roadway so established is not controlled by the statutory requirement of formal acceptance, and unless required by statute, no formality is necessary to a "valid acc:eptance... "An offer of dedication may be impliedly accepted by some act or acts showing that the municipality has assumed control and possession of the land dedicated as a public way, but the acts relied on must be unequivocal and not equivocal or isolated..." Huggett v. Moran, 201 Or. 105, 111-112 (1954) . 2. Width of roads established by prescription or implied dedication. a. Since 1889 (when a minimum width was first prescribed by statutes. In Huggett v. Moran, quoted above, wherein a road arising by prescription was held to be impliedly accepted by the county, the court said: "Whenever a statute prescribes the minimum width of public roads to be established in the future, and a public road is established by prescription, the width thereof is the minimum necessary to the 34 establishment of a legal road in the absence of evidence of the taking of a greater amount." (A guide as to what the court may consider as "evidence of a greater amount" may be found in the cases quoted under "b." below.) This case appears to overrule Sweet v. Irrigation Canal Co.,198 Or. 166, 187-188 (1953), which, in discussing the width of a county road arising by prescription, stated that there were several factors to be considered in relation to width, none of which was held conclusive as a minimum. b. Prior to 1889: The Oregon court has several times, prior to the ruling in the Huggett v. Moran case (which would be limited to roads created after 1889, when the minimum width was first prescribed by statute),indicated the factors to be considered in determining the width of a road arising from prescriptive use by the public. In Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438, 446-447 (1901), the court first stated that the width of a road arising by prescription cannot be any broader than its actual use by the public. However, the court went on to say: "Other conditions, however, may be effective to extend the exterior limits beyond the thread or course of actual travel, as where inclosures may have been permanently maintained by persons affected with reference to the highway, or the use is referrable to a survey and plot recognized and adopted by owners of lands over which the way extends, or was under color of ineffectual proceedings to establish a legal road under the statute... Even where the highway is founded solely upon user, its width or extent of servitude is usually a question of fact for the jury. It would seem that it ought not, where the topography of the locality will permit, to be confined exclusively to the beaten track or thread of actual travel, because of the exigency that experience has shown for the passing and re - passing of those in the use of it. And circumstances such as that the use has been with reference to natural objects or artificial obstructions, or the character of the way requires improvement, necessitating access to the wayside, 34 pertinent for the consideration of the jury in determining the question." In Montgomery v. Somers, 50 Or. 259, 267-268 (1907), a trail had been used for driving livestock, sometimes only 16 to 20 feet wide, and in other places 75 to 100 feet wide. The court said that the maximum width allowed would be 60 feet, since this was deemed by statute to be adequate for county roads, but went on to state general factors to be considered by the jury in determining the width: "Where the right to a highway depends solely on user by the public, its width and the extent of the servitude imposed on the land are measured and determined by the character and the extent of the user, for the easement cannot on principal or authority be broader than the user. This does not mean, however, that the public will be confined to the precise portion of the soil on which the wheels of passing vehicles may run, commonly called the track .... While it is the general rule that the width of a highway established by user is limited to the ground actually used, the question is usually for the jury, giving proper consideration to the circumstances and conditions attending the use." Also, it should be noted that in Sweet v. Irrigation Canal Co., quoted above, it was held that the usual width of highways in the locality is a pertinent factor. C. Where the prescriptive use is within the boundaries of a road purportedly, but ineffectually, established by the county, the road arising from such prescriptive use will have the width prescribed in the void proceedings: "Ordinarily, there must be an entry under, and a claim of right with reference to, the colorable title, in order to set the statute of limitations running. In such a case, actual possession need not be of the whole, but may be of a part only, and it will be extended constructively to the whole, by reason of the definite description contained in the defective or ineffectual muniment. The rule must have like application to public highways, if it has any at all; that is to say, user by the public must have been begun and continued with reference to the supposedly valid proceedings. In such a case, if there was user of a part, within defined limits, as shown by the proceedings, it would amount 34 constructively to an occupation of the whole, and the width of the road, when thus established, would correspond with that designated by the authorities or by the law." Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438, 447 (1901). (The court held, however, that the field notes in the void proceeding were too vague to enable anyone to determine the purported boundaries of the road in the establishment proceedings.) 34 II. FACTORS ALTERING THE ORIGINAL WIDTH OF COUNTY ROADS A. Adverse Possession 1. Prior to May 25, 1895, county roads were subject to the ordinary law of adverse possession. The legal elements of adverse possession are stated in Reeves v. Porta, 173 Or. 147, 149 (1944): "Ownership of land by adverse possession can be acquired only by actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous and exclusive possession under a claim of right or color of title... These elements must coincide, and the possession must be continuous for the statutory period, which, in this state, is ten years... Where adverse possession is in issue, it is held generally that all of the elements thereof must be alleged and must be established by clear and positive proof..." A good review of several Oregon cases on this subject can be found in Thomas v. Spencer, 66 Or. 359 (1913). 2. Oregon Laws 1895, p. 57, sec. 2, took effect on May 25, 1895, providing: The right of counties in this state to public roads, or to open public roads, shall not be extinguished by any adverse possession however long continued, and no title to lands included in such public roads, when such roads are once established, shall be acquired as against such county through the operation of the statute of limitations. This law was repealed and re-enacted in the same form in Oregon Laws 1903, p. 262, sec. 55 and appears now as part of ORS 368.620. All 10 years of the prescriptive period must have run prior to May 25, 1895. The court so stated in Killam v. Multnomah County, 137 Or. 562 (1931). 0 B. Automatic Vacation 1. Prior to May 22, 1903, Oregon statutes provided for an automatic vacation of roads not open for at least two years, and later four years, after the time of their location. In Killam v. Multnomah County, 137 Or. 562, 565 (1931), it was held that: "All these enactments had particular reference to roads laid out by county courts and not to streets or roads dedicated to the public by the realty owner." The statutes are as follows: a. "Provided: That all territorial and county roads which have been or hereafter may be located for the term of two years and not opened, shall be considered as vacated." Oregon Laws 1855, p. 492, sec. 24. This was amended in 1860 to read: b. "If any part of any road in this state shall not be opened for two years from the time of its location the same shall become vacant." Oregon Law 1860, p. 42, sec. 37. This in turn was amended in 1864 to read: c. "If any part of any road in this state shall not be opened for four years after, or from the time of its location, the same shall become vacated." Deady code, chapter 47, section 37, page 868. This was repealed by Oregon Laws 1903, p. 262, effective May 22, 1903. 2. It would seem reasonable to conclude that the full statutory period must have run prior to May 22, 1903. Yet the Oregon court, in Hawkins v. Rodgers, 91 Or. 483, 502,(1919), stated in dictum that the statute would apply to a road "initiated under the law as it stood prior to" May 22, 1903. And the attorney general in 1944-1946 Attorney General's Opinions, page 435, indicates that the statute would apply to roads "established" prior to that tine. (February 24, 1903, the date the repeal was enacted, is referred to in the opinion as being the effective date of the repeal, but this is an error.) 3. Did these automatic vacation laws apply to vacate that part of the road width which was not physically opened to travel within the prescribed time, even though the road itself was opened and a traveled portion 34 constructed? It would seem not. The language of Bayard v. Standard Oil Co., 38 Or. 438, 447 (1901), stated that "if there was user of a part, within defined limits, as shown by the proceedings, it would amount constructively to an occupation of the whole, and the width of the road, when thus established, would correspond with that designated by the authorities or by the law." But the Oregon court in Hawkins v. Rodgers, cited above, said by way of dictum that the statute would apply to vacate that part of a road which lay behind a bordering fence. The court does not elaborate on this conclusion, but possibly was following its statement in Bradtl v. Sharkey, 50 Or. 153, 156 (1911), that "It is frequently and very generally true that possession of a part of a tract of land, under a deed to the whole, is constructive possession of the whole, but the rule is not absolute." In this case this court went on to quote a New Hampshire decision stating that "the actual possession of a part must be of such a character as to give rise to a reasonable presumption that the owner knows that the entry was made under color of title." (This case did not involve any road.) However, the Oregon court would probably not follow the dictum in the Hawkins case in light of its recent reluctance to declare forfeiture of public road rights -of -way. See City of Molalla v. Coover, 192 Or. 233 (1951), discussed below. 34 C. The Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel This doctrine, as applied to public roads, was given its broadest application in Dabney v. City of Portland, 124 Or. 54 (1928). In this case, 45 years had elapsed since the establishment of a city street and a section of the street had never been opened. The city had built a sidewalk across the end of the open portion of the street, indicating that it did not intend to extend the street. The city had never exercised dominion of control over the unopened portion. Taxes had been mistakenly levied against the plaintiff on the unopened part. The plaintiff built a porch and a cement driveway on the street right-of-way and subsequently sought to enjoin the city from opening the street.. The court, in granting the plaintiff an injunction against the city, said (at page 58) "Whatever may be the authorities elsewhere, it is that, .1,, , Well established in this Jurisdiction �ua�, w�l��e title to property held in trust for public use by a munincipality cannot be acquired by adverse possession, special cases may arise where, in the interests of equality and justice, a city may be estopped from asserting that the property upon which the improvements were made is a street... "Where there has been long -continued nonuser by a municipality and valuable and permanent improvements have been made with its consent or acquiescence, in good faith, equity will not permit the city to change its position to the material damage of tho person thus misled. The groundwork of equitable estoppel is a species of fraud. The conduct of the city must have been such as to have caused the plaintiff reasonably to believe that it was the intention to abandon the strip of land for street purposes. Plaintiff must have been misled to her prejudice, and the damage sustained must be of a substantial character thus to invoke the aid of equity." The court went on to say: "Mere lapse of time, nonuser nor improper levying and assessment of taxes will not constitute an estoppel... but certainly these are factors to be 34 taken into consideration." Therefore it seems that the act of the city in constructing a sidewalk across the open portion of the street was the determining factor, although the language itself indicates that mere acquiescence by the city in the acts of the landowner may be enough to estop the city. For a thorough discussion of cases applying the doctrine, see "The Law of Dedication in Oregon," by Sheldon W. Parks, 20 Oregon Law Review, pp, 146-150 (1940). The Oregon court has recently retreated from this position --certainly to the point that a municipality will no longer be estopped by mere acquiescence in construction of improvements by the abutting owner, and probably further. In City of Molalla v. Coover, 192 Or. 233 (1951), the city had vacated only a part of a street and the defendant, believing that all had been vacated, built a fence across the unvacated part and constructed a barn on it. The city never warned the defendant that he was on the right of way, and 19 years later the city sought to open the street. The court, holding in favor of the city, said (at page 249): "As against holdings that the city may be estopped by passive acquiescence, we find persuasive authority and sound reasons for the severe restriction of the doctrine." The opinion stated (page 252) that "the courts have frequently cautioned that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should be applied in street cases only in exceptional instances of extraordinary hardship." Continuing, the court said that the doctrine "is a product of the pioneer era. It is ill - adapted to the needs of progressive and growing cities." The court overruled the doctrine insofar as it stood "for the proposition that a city will be estopped to open a street by reason of its tacit acquiescence in the construction therein of permanent and valuable improvements by persons who knew or should have known that the erections 34 were within the line of dedicated though unopened streets..." The court concluded (at page 253): "While he may have been honest in his belief that Seventh Street had been vacated, he is in no position to claim an estoppel against the city. If the city had a duty to prevent and remove purprestures, the defendant also had a duty not to construct or maintain them. Here the equities are not equal. The public interest must prevail. Our decision is limited to the facts of the pending case. Whether estoppel may in exceptional cases be predicated upon affirmative action by a city or its officers need not be and is not here decided." Note that in the last sentence the court indicated that the question is reopened in Oregon as to whether even affirmative action "by a city or its officers" will give rise to equitable estoppel. And in Sweet v. Irrigation Canal Co., 198 Or. 166, 199 (1953)i the court said of its a -pinion in City of Molalla v. Coover: "The opinion re-emphasizes the holdings of this court that a public or governmental corporation is not estopped by the acquiescence of its officers when they exceed their powers... The opinion may be said to be founded in adherence to the fundamental theory of the doctrine... that there can be no estoppel where the knowledge of both parties is equal and nothing is done by the one to mislead the other." No- a k E »6 c k/ # $ ; t 0 >� � CD =� �§ � /k W ■ « m CL U. 0-0 7 %7 m 2t E e uu¥ 5 1� 7 \ E 00 E r ma 2� 276 - # 22 c t � � ■ � _ (D2 k z 2k 2 § U) j @ § Jun 6 1931 ( § 2 'E _ C) .E ;# § % 4- .R m 2 /. 2 (D \; .( \ E E E' 9\ % May 2 ®19 5 \ E a )E §\ a 2 D 2 �0co . ( cn \2 .� \ May 21-188 @ S c o O / ) " c $ CL ■ � < � January 2^184 34 NTofr QP0 y��Z a � 9 �4ACH 3~�8a f 0 35 United States Department of the, Interio n D� BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CERTIFIED MAIL P 469 131 612 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Tom Blust County Engineer Deschutes County 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 Prineville District Office DEC 11 (995 P.O. Box 550 (3050 NE 3rd St.) Prineville, Oregon 97754 DESCHUTES CO. ROAD DEPT. DECISION In Reply Refer To: OR 51362_ 2800 Application for Right -of -Way . Right -of -Way Grant OR 51362 Issued Rental Determined Enclosed is a copy of right-of-way (R/W) grant (serial number OR 51362) which has been approved by the Bureau of Land Management. The issuance of this R/W grant constitutes a final decision by the Bureau of Land Management in this matter. Associated with this R/W are all the Deschutes County roads that were in prior casefiles. With the issuance of this new R/W the old R/W casefiles will be closed. The old casefiles that will be closing are; ORE 1602, OR 48396, OR 35621, OR 36179, TD 31797, TD 31774, OR 38522, OR 46604, and OR 18138. This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4 and the enclosed Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal - must be filed in this office (at the above address) within 30 days from receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of showing t^at the decision appealed from is in error. If you wish to file a petition •(pursuant to 'regulation 43 CFR 4.21 (58 FR 4939, January 19, 1993) (request) for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of this decision during the time that your appeal .is being reviewed by the Board, the petition for a stay must accompany your notice of appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below. Copies of the notice.of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to each party named in this decision and to the interior Board of Land Appeals and to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the'original documents.are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted. 35 Standards for Obtaining a Stay Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards: (1) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied, (2) The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits, (3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and (4) whether the public interest favors granting the ,tay. Please note, however, that under the regulations in 43 CFR Croup 2800, this decision is effective even if an appeal is filed. Sincerely, _ �vLv V o°( James G. Kenna Deschutes Area Manager Enclosures FORM 2800-14 (August 1985) • � 35 Issuing Office Prineville District UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT SERIAL NUMBER OR 51362 1. A right-of-way is hereby granted pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2776; 43 U.S.C. 1761). 2. Nature of Interest: a. By this instrument, the holder: Deschutes County 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 receives a right to operate, maintain, and terminate several roads, on public lands described as follows: T. 14 S., R. 11 E., W.M. Section 8: SWSW Section 11: NWSW, SWSW Section 14: NWNW, NWNWSW Section 15: SESE Section 22: E2NE, SWSW, NESE Section 28: SWNE, NWSE Section 33: NENW T. 14 S., R. 12 E., W.M. Section 10: S2S2SE Section 11: S2S2 Section 12: SWSW Section 13: N2N2 Section 22: SENE Section 29: E2 Section 32: NWNE, W2 Section 35: S2S2SE T. 14 S., R. 13 E., W.M. Section 7: E29ENW, E2E2SW Section 18: NWNE, N2NW Section 30: SESW Section 31: E2NW 0 35 T. 15 S., R. 11 E., W.M. Section 9: W2W2SW Section-16: NWNW Section 20: NESE Section 21: SWSW Section 28: NWNW, S2NW T. 15 S., R. 12 E., W.M. Section 2: SWNE, NESW Section 5: W2W2 Section 7: E2 Section 18: NWNE, E2W2 Section 19: W2 Section 22: NESE, SWSE Section 27: NWNE, NENW, S2NW, NWSW Section 28: S2SE Section 30: E2SE Section 31: E2NW, W2SE Section 32: SESE Section 33: W2 T. 16 S., R. 11 E., W.M. Section 7: W2W2 Section iV: S2SESW, o2.n72UE Section 11: SENE, NESW, SWSW, S2N2SE Section 12: NWNE, N2NW Section 18: NWNW, SENW, NWSE, SESE Section 19; SENE Section 20: NWSW, SWSW, SESE Section 29: E2, NENW Section 33: NWSW T. 16 S., R. 12 E., W.M. Section 5: Lot 3, NESW, SWSW Section 6: LotS 3 & 5, SWSE, SESW Section 9: NESW, NWSE Section 25: NENE, SWNE, SENW, NWSW T. 16 S., R. 13 E., W.M. Section 12: SE Section 13: N2NW, SWNW Section 14: SENE, SWSE, NESE Section 21: S2S2 Section 22: NENE, SENE, NESW, SWSW Section 23: NWNW, NENW Section 24: SE Section 25: NWNE, E2NW, W2SW Section 26: SESE 35 Section 16: S2SENW, N2NESW Section 20: S2S2S2 Section 21: S2S2SW Section 23: W2W2NW, N2NWSW Section 26: W2SWSW Section 27: E2SESE Section 28: N2N2N2 Section 29: N2N2N2 Section 34: E2NE The right-of-way area granted herein is 60 feet wide, 1,437,480 feet long and contains 1,980 acres, more or less. C. This instrument shall terminate on 30 years from its effective date unless, prior thereto, it is relinquished, abandoned, terminated, or modified pursuant to the terms and conditions of this instrument or of any applicable Federal law or regulation. d. This instrument may be renewed. If renewed, the right-of-way shall be subject to the regulations existing at the time of renewal and any other terms and conditions that the authorized officer deems necessary to protect the public interest. e. Notwithstanding the expiration of this instrument or any renewal thereof, early relinquishment, abandonment, or termination, the provisions of this instrument, to the extent applicable, shall the .. h..�r7 r. il-n continue in effect and shall be bitzuiiiy on the IDLOJlucr, L40 successors, or assigns, until they have fully satisfied the obligations and/or liabilities accruing -herein before or on account of the expiration, or prior termination, of the.grant. 3. Terms and Conditions: a. This grant is issued subject to the holder's compliance with all applicable regulations contained in Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations part 2800. b. Upon grant termination by the authorized officer, all improvements shall be removed from the public lands. within 90 days, or otherwise disposed of as provided in paragraph (4)(d) c= as directed by the authorized officer. C. Provided, however, that a right-of-way granted herein may be reviewed at any time deemed necessary by the authorized officer. d. The stipulations, plans, maps, or designs set forth in Exhibits A - P, attached hereto, are incorporated into and made a part o= this grant instrument as fully and effectively as if they were set forth herein in their entirety. e. Failure of the holder to comply with applicable law or any provision of this right-of-way grant shall constitute grounds fc= suspension or termination thereof. 0 35 f. The holder shall perform all operations in.a.good and workmanlike manner so as to ensure protection of the environment and the health and safety of the public. g. Any new construction or reconstruction would require further review and approval by the Bureau of Land Management. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The undersigned agrees to the terms and conditions of this right-of-way grant or permit. (Signature of (Title) (Date) l ,L b -F.r" (31'gnature of Aut4tor±zud r G � (Title) (Effective Date of Grant) Longs utte - - ....:-= •-- � 4/ � •" T\. '. fit! i = -J ,l r_ COW ton t '.Bu>ye'' '.Tumaio 3. Suit Flat . i a - .� --� -'•Cc if0e6 TU STA E'15K- 3i..� T +,: •.:_"Yr +� :_ _ � ' rah _ j I .,1a''• Rppzi �� t LanamQ 7 t� s "d0 . -".t '•r' (- _ ' • - ,. is � ` l� v'?r^ _ `7. - � - - j I. --- _ '^-- _ �" a ""�'' ->�,}-`✓�: �; i"' nn • ' �" s - V-Gag at ROBERT PA ��. ' �, ' rairs _ � j • t 6Hf>nt y St _ i 1 OrA ' / Hon /rr y,'• y t ` ti �� ,r� 3 / T.' ! -:n Coelm COlkpr^OV'v[Ud y'j.h'•"' _ -� _ _ -ki0&A - -(Caul f + y •.- Par TPILOF BUTTE 3F STATE PARK j / ', r '�, � t Town � t - ... .�, i _..«:�.�•=_ ,rr - 07 j:rin I/ K ..i •'"-iKnz '•���,' r .). ;d/ � n63f � a' �.-v"��'J�" j'\�{O.f•�e� _ 1f3B JZ •="ki.�'. 5+::-•_d: 1 -- ri .r � .. �ram- g�- _ `\ ;' .._.-�.!`-.: i� "'.'. ��-,', .t• .d. .^�r'F�r 'v+iy�. , ��'.� a , v , 'n.•4 _ .-`A, - i a`i�Gifi)7' � �i: � � - 1', rf - - , ' ;.-:sir. .:. a:2r' � .'v: �' . `.•'f� i ' ' j L - I / -:- t Qr �'' - . 'I } M• +•` q✓i '�-,•' '� _ 1, 4 `3: :-:. . :��': y•, p„fie '-� - s• .l - 4. , t f' .F•z i; y+na,"�, �;?�, I I I#DVM. ,;,/ '<.• �t 'S(� 36 ? . . \. ��; �,• icri ;�"."•i,: t^i;�.:^;t.:'�. , -. !Nell s ,i ,e ,tiH ?,f 'y- - i�'r. •-�?�; h.�" ;�, f., ti.t�i;";,-���•j � _ _ •oLTia.• s�Q. q;c .,fi�tts- �•, :>z. ..t�,• .L {, v� ?L �+y'-" � .. .._ i Cr �'^ r�� a ear}+ e f •e-tf' :. 1 ., � � s T "" 'r ,,:- .. � u[fe' ns en R _•r' '•.'�q ���' ! ty 1 r .+ i i',r � ��: � � �! ' t Bet + � 1 '• 'r :a •�' ,( i Vet J cf.. .. ' -u :M;e ow •�R_•ir ,./!G`%tfiss t :fe•- "• - ` .:. 3 .,1. t "Ll `t`j ..� „ 4i:� �• �jj[.. f t� a -••'". •� �.:.:Y .. :.\ .A� • �e t CF is J. �� �`�o � .a"J' .. -. ret > �` .� •' - - 35 R Li ms eamboat ark "' - ! _, A7E'i'ARH I ti V'�'" _:-� rv, i • •, _� - •- tae- ' `/ECHO Ise3 C oozed rt «- uing /; / `y 7— (l� e38 O'Neil `Falls I 1994 + �_ ineville Juntiion`..T / f 1\ r'3000 \ -` -(•.Su tat' � � Y. / J t: ! tt V1 116 ,t 1930 fro f- — Z Pit— _ •..�SORTT� t I, � .� Y� I' ,- s �-1. r�� obert 935 ,rbstano^ 'No dnand f ( •i Powell jFwkCd Md'in L(�}}, Butte 1961 `sear-A� r— 1 j \ I tom_ f• w.i 1 \' =� Picket (• ' � I-' �� %7 t t, � i -- Sty:= ' �utre j I1! i j r \ tuies f r I couA� _{tea/ 00 L / / I CA . . Ron p / / FV i; �• 1 v �' ri Sig FnL E\ ISteamboaf Vock CZ J-P, / r — jlsiw# i w�•ew: Cloverdale i E . — b.pit +" Fryreap( I j - i 1'ilkWan ad,d A L.0 Suos;a[ <�- + ! L"gm ..ed r oo, ' PEainoiew IF — — *Halt {� _ 96, j I I 1 % uorevl Falls Long purre — . IIII j Deschutes _ _., . lard Fteto e AMofcKj Butte I Gravel Clodale i " ver 2/2 ' 126 P.1 t i = {"y� Fryrea '1 Pit c fire UP '•♦ .y •�fY',llf 'hli. �• 'gga Alainulew- Gag i ,' :...: �:: �,•; '' fit* . i � L - � _• I Gra11o� - - - ; • fI u' 1' 3 i/ • �. ' `d: _ +- 'Hall I /j .• ;.,;.. - T. , !•= { t t -- ' \ t I 1 Lardlew Butte,,,, Th eek — _— v _ 8v; r gar Rtwo r ! ru STA 601-01 K rt • _ �'7' \ - • � � `I � y `' �ti • � _ , •�, :v -_mil ' — �,i • :, „ fir. _ �"9 `l, `. _" T ,na10 Q�.l / - ' ' `ir 01 :.`�' - i - j frae - •- - n ,ram � 417 - t �" Gag i ROB , r S tali 511 14000 .+ t 13e !lows � � ShBVlIn 111 c -Corr g� College- \ Park Date: March 19, 2015 To: File From: George Kolb, County Engineer RE: Parking on Sisemore Road by Les Hudson driveway I met today with Les Hudson and his wife concerning the parking on Sisemore Road in front of their driveway. There is a wide spot available for parking on the south side of the road and Les's concern is that when the vehicles are parked there, he is unable to get out of his driveway to the west because of the angle of his driveway. I told Les one option would be to improve the radius of his driveway in the west corner to allow him to maneuver his trailer and his is going to give that a try. I explained that there really isn't any way to stop the parking as it doesn't really constitute a public hazard. I told him that if he would take pictures of the worst parking and got them to me, I could take a look and potentially see what kind of resolution we could come up with. 36 George Kolb From: Leslie Hudson <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:17 PM To: George Kolb Subject: RE: Parking on Sisemore Road George, That would work. My cell phone is 561789 1620. Les From: George Kolb[mailto:George. KolbOdeschutes.orq] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:37 AM To: 'Leslie Hudson' Subject: RE: Parking on Sisemore Road Hello Les; Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you on this. I have a meeting this afternoon at 1:00 but could meet up with you after that. If that doesn't work, I am fairly open next week. Thanks - Geoge George Kolb, PE County Enoinoor ........., .I........ Deschutes County Road Department george.kolb@deschutes.org 541-322-7113 From: Leslie Hudson [mailto:les.hudson(§.bq.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 5:58 PM To: George Kolb Subject: Parking on Sisemore Road Hi George, As you might remember we live on the piece of Sisemore Road that was never legalized, either by Crook or Deschutes County. Our land is on both side of Sisemore Road and is extensively used for parking — even though it is on a blind corner. About 5 years ago we had a contractor level and berm the area to try to move the vehicles and trailers off the road bed, as traffic comes south on Sisemore Road at a considerable speed. We have seen a considerable increase in parking on both sides of the road even this early in the 'winter' and last week some persons set a fire in the easement and left it burning over night. This is directly under our home on the ridge. Most weekends in the summer we are unable to get our trailers out to make a right turn onto Sisemore Road. We have signed 'No parking opposite the Fire Access' but the signs are usually vandalized. 1 36 1 wonder whether you have time to come see the problem and could possibly offer some solutions. We would be willing to pay for improvements simply because in the event of a wildfire we could be blocked by parked trailers as happened at the beginning of the Two Bulls fire. I hope you had a great weekend. Best regards, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend OR 97701. Cell +1 5617891620 Les.hudson@g.com 2 36 37 Cody Smith From: Kevin Samuel Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:53 PM To: Cody Smith Subject: FW: Sisemore Road water hazard and tax lot 1611000007891 ownership. FYI From: Mike Berry Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:32 AM To: les.hudson@q.com Subject: Sisemore Road water hazard and tax lot 1611000007891 ownership. Hello Les, I understand our road crews did some grading work yesterday on the road. Hopefully they've taken care of the drainage problem. For future reference, the contact person at the Road Department for road maintenance issues is Operations Manager Chuck Schutte (Chuck.Schutte(@deschutes.org, 541-322-7124). Chuck is a top notch lad. Regarding your findings on tax lot 1611000007891, 1 would suggest bringing it to the attention of Chief Cartographer Gregg Rossi (Gregg.Rossi@deschutes.org, 541-388-4703) of the Assessor's Office. Gregg and his very capable staff are the ones who determine ownership for tax assessment on all of the properties within Deschutes County. Sincerely, IVIIKe Berry, rw I County aurvcrvi DESCHUTES COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE 61150 SE 271' Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Tel: (541) 322-7112 I Cell: (541) 815-2352 Email: mikeb@deschutes.org Website: www deschutes org/road/page/surveyors-office From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@ci.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 5:28 PM To: Mike Berry <Mike.Berry@deschutes.org> Subject: Sisemore Road water hazard. 37 Hi Mike, This is Les Hudson, you might remember us as the English family living on Sisemore Road. During the past few winters the bend in the road - just north of the Bull Creek Bridge and opposite the turning onto the BLM/TID properties - has been eroding and greater and greater amounts of water collects there each time it rains. This year the lake occupies more than half the road width and is a hazard, especially to traffic coming south on Sisemore Road. I was talking to the guy grading the road this afternoon and asked whether the County could bring in a few truck loads of fill to restore the camber and improve the drainage of this part of the road. I told him that I would write to you to make the request directly to the Road Department. I believe he is back on Tuesday of next week to finish the grading he started today. On a separate topic, you might remember I was researching the Arid Land Record in the State Archive last year to discover the ownership of the property immediately north of the lake in the photograph — it was disputed between BLM and TID, with DSL in the middle. It turned out that when I compared the original handwritten State conveyance and the typed copy filed in the Crook County Court House/Deschutes County Clerk's Office, there had been a transcriptional error. The original document shows that the property was conveyed back to the Federal Government by the State of Oregon and is owned by the BLM. Regards, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson(&cl.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. Wo Cody Smith From: Leslie Hudson <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 1:30 PM To: Cody Smith Subject: Re: Ultralight aircraft using county roads for non -emergency take -off and landing Will do. Thanks for your input. Les Hudson Copyright is hereby asserted on this private communication. Do not copy or forward without express permission. On Aug 19, 2019, at 11:08, Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> wrote: Les, In addition to Chris's comments below indicating that operating an aircraft on a public road is potentially in violation of numerous provisions of the Oregon Vehicle Code, Oregon Revised Statute 837.090 explicitly prohibits landing an aircraft on highways, public parks, or other public ground without permission from the authorities in charge thereof except in an emergency. Deschutes County Road Department has not issued and would not issue a permit for the activity you described below. Please contact us immediately if you witness this activity occurring again. Thank you, Cody Smith, P.E. I County Engineer 61150 SE 27t" Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road From: Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 8:08 AM To:'les.hudson@q.com' <les.hudson@q.com> Cc: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Ultralight aircraft using county roads for non -emergency take -off and landing Les, This is a first for me as well. While I doubt that any County Code exists that would specifically prohibit something this peculiar, my first thought is that this would run afoul of many portions of the Vehicle Code. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/`­`volume/­­17 Chapters 815 and 816 would seem to have plenty of violations in store for anyone operating an ultralight aircraft on a public road. Chris Doty, PE I Director 61150 SE 2V' Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 Tel: (541) 322-7105 ( Fax: (541) 388-2719 1 Cell: (541) 279-1134 Email: Chris DotyPceschutes.org Website: nrv_ n._c.leschuCes.c r /road From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 12:27 PM To: Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org> Subject: Ultralight aircraft using county roads for non -emergency take -off and landing Hi Chris, I wonder whether one of your folks can advise me? Nick Lelack told me that regulation of the use of the Right of Way for public roads in Deschutes County is the responsibility of the Road Department, so here is the story: About 10 days ago I drove onto Sisemore Road (a County -maintained graveled highway which carries high speed traffic) opposite Upper Tumalo Reservoir and found a gentleman had set up a wind direction and speed indicator so he could take off and land his ultralight aircraft on the highway. He had just landed and was packing up. As he was on a blind corner, I pointed out that this was not a smart thing to do — his response was that he had a perfect right to do so in this regard. I talked with Jon Bergstrom, the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Portland Flight Standards NM09) and his subsequent advice was as follows: %Please find the attached advisory circular. I have included an excerpt pertinent to your ni ioetinn knirmt It is not rern r%ry rn dn+hi it nviriannre e i iiriato i iltrnlinht nilnte %JU .. uvi . --wv 11 w - — . vyaa.a.�w. y, ..i �..a V1 v........� .j......�......�. w w.. —ZI. — p.,,..w. Additionally, CFR 14 Part 103 regulates ultralight pilots. It can be found here: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SI D=Oee376eddc4ef42e3aa917fd824fb9ff&mc=true&node=pt14.2.103&rgn=div5. am sure there are local ordinances and laws that prevent landing aircraft on unauthorized areas. I would suggest contacting the sheriff or municipality that has jurisdiction over the area. The FAA does not explicitly prohibited taking off and landing from non -airport environments. Let me know if you have any additional questions." I talked with one of the Sheriff's deputies who did some research but she was unable to get clarity; beyond the advice that this was a reckless thing to do. I committed to her that I would chase down out the local ordinances, if any, and get her further information. CDD 19-88-150 Landing Strips for Aircraft and Heliports require a user to obtain a conditional use permit, but I wonder whether this applies within the Right of Way on County Highways and for ultralight aircraft? I should be grateful to know whether or not we have a current ordinance that would govern in this circumstance. Thanks, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 7891620 les.hudson(&a.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. 39 Cody Smith From: Cody Smith Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:33 PM To: 'les.hudson@q.com' Cc: Chris Doty (Chris.Doty@deschutes.org); Kevin Samuel (Kevin.Samuel@deschutes.org); Shon Heern (Skhe@deainc.com) Subject: Incident With Surveyor Crew Today Les, Deschutes County has retained David Evans and Associates to provide engineering and surveying services for the Sisemore Bridge Rehabilitation project. As you are aware, the public right of way for Sisemore Rd has not been legally established across your property. As I discussed with you a while back, the County will be holding legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 through 368.216 as part of the project to legalize the public right of way for the existing public road. We have not yet begun these proceedings, and you will be notified when the proceedings begin. currently anticipate that we will initiate legalization proceedings in November. I was just informed that you confronted a David Evans and Associates survey crew today who was placing right of way monuments on your property and that they abandoned their work upon your insistence. Please know that Deschutes County did not instruct David Evans and Associates to set these monuments prematurely, as setting monuments before legalization proceedings have been completed (and, certainly, before proceedings have even started) is not the process prescribed by law. Our consultant and their staff, which includes licensed professional land surveyors, should have known better than to set right of way monuments on property for which the public has not yet secured a legal interest. I have addressed this matter with our consultant's project manager, and he has offered an apology on behalf of his company. I sincerely apologize that today's incident occurred; it should not have happened. Please let me know if there was any damage caused to your property with today's incident, and I will ensure that it is immediately repaired. Respectfully, Cody Smith, P.E. I County Engineer 61150 SE 27"' Street I Bend, Oregon 97702 Office: (541) 322-7113 1 Cell: (541) 699-8753 Email: Cody.Smith@deschutes.org Website: www.deschutes.org/road Me 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend, Oregon 97703. Wednesday, November 6, 2019. Public Testimony to the Deschutes County Historic landmarks Commission Dear Chairman and Commissioners, Bull Creek Bridge Alterations: FILE NO. 247-19-000785-HS I am Dr. Leslie Hudson and my postal address is 18130 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend Oregon 97703. The northern end of the Bull Creek Bridge (currently) rests on the SW corner of my property which spans Sisemore Road. Although l am a member of the Deschutes County Planning Commission, I am giving oral and written testimony on behalf of myself and my wife (also present this evening) as Private Citizens. My wife — Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson and I, support the proposed repairs to the Bull Creek Bridge. As a consequence of the closure of the bridge for repairs, our nearest route of escape in the event of a wildland fire will be blocked. We will have to make a NW detour of 2 miles to Couch Market Road. As the last 5 wildfires proximate to the project location have approached from the north and west (for exam pie see T` o t2Gllq firs nhntnnrnnh talenn from nwir nrnnartw in 2nlA— attarharn thir. iC a notentially p r„ . 6..r., r...,r,. ., ... , significant challenge to the safety of my family, domestic animals and horses. The potential for a catastrophic outcome could be considerably ameliorated if the bridge closure segment of this project is scheduled for early season only' so that it might be completed outside the historic wildfire season. (Our daily 1.00 yards trip to collect our mail will also be increased to 7 miles by the same closure event). Thank you for the opportunity to submit this Public Testimony. Sincerely, C— /V)�- - IlUecl- Dr. Leslie Hudson Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson. 41 Cody Smith From: Adam Smith Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:49 PM To: Cody Smith Subject: FW: Ultralight aircraft using county roads for non -emergency take -off and landing Please see the below email. It doesn't look like I ever responded. Please include the email in the Sisemore Rd record. D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(a-)_deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From. !e5 h'udsontg-)n rnm tlac hiArnn@n.rnm> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:24 PM To: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Subject: Ultralight aircraft using county roads for non -emergency take -off and landing [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Adam, Do you believe that County Code 19.88.150 (excerpted below) prevents a pilot from setting up a wind indicator on County -maintained Sisemore Road and then using that piece of the public road for routine, non -emergency take -off and landing of a microlight vehicle? I talked with the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Portland Flight Standards NM09) and his advice was as follows: ,,Please find the attached advisory circular. I have included an excerpt pertinent to your question below. It is not regulatory, but provides guidance to ultralight pilots. Additionally, CFR 14 Part 103 regulates ultralight pilots. It can be found here: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- idx?SID=0ee376eddc4ef42e3aa917fd824fb9ff&mc=true&node=pt14.2.103&rqn=div5. I am sure there are local ordinances and laws that prevent landing aircraft on unauthorized areas. I would suggest contacting the sheriff or municipality that has jurisdiction over the area. The FAA does not explicitly prohibited taking off and landing from non -airport environments. Let me know if you have any additional questions." 41 sold upon the premises, Signs shall be permitted according to the provisions of the sign purposes ofDCC Title 19, nursery schools and kindergartens shall not be considered home residential zones. (Ord. 90-03 8 § 1, 1990) 19.88.150. Landing Strips for Aircraft and Heliports. All landing strips and heliports 1'or aircraft shall be so designed and facilities so oriented thv of aircraft passing directly over dwellings during their landing or taking off pattern is rninirni� be located so that traffic, both land and air, shall not constitute a nuisance to neighbor proponents shall show that adequate controls or measures will be taken to prevent 0 vibrations, dust or bright lights. New landing strips and heliports shall not be construed to use in any zone established by D((' Title 19 unless and until a conditional use permit ha therefore. (Ord. 90-0 38 § 1, 1990) 19.88.160. Day Care Facility. Day care facilities shall have a mininiurn site size of 5,000 square feet and shall provide Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561789 1620 les.hudson(&cl.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. PA Cody Smith From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 2:08 PM To: les.hudson@q.com Cc: David Doyle; Chris Doty; Cody Smith; Nick Lelack Subject: Sisemore Road Attachments: Sisemore Rd_LH.pdf, Shotgun Creek Ranch LLC v Crook County.pdf Les, Please see the attached correspondence. Please also note that I am attaching an Oregon Court of Appeals case that you may find relevant. Thanks, -Adam Smith D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(a)deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. ES David Doyle, Legal Counsel Christopher Bell, Sr. Assistant Legal Counsel John E. Laherty, Sr. Assistant Legal Counsel D. Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel Amy Heverly, Assistant Legal Counsel December 16, 2019 Dr. Leslie Hudson Trustee, Hudson Family Trust Sent via email Re: Sisemore Road Dear Les, W County staff is in receipt of your letter dated December 12, 2019, providing testimony to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Sisemore Road legalization proceedings. As you know, the public hearing for the project was originally scheduled for Wednesday, December 18, 2019. Prior to receiving your letter, County staff postponed the original hearing to a later date to ensure all parties receive sufficient notice. You will again receive notification of the new hearing date after it is rescheduled. Your letter, along with all other written testimony, will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners in advance of that rescheduled public hearing. Your letter includes a "claim for damages" and is thereby being treated as a tort claim notice. Going forward, all communication concerning this issue needs to be addressed to me and/or Dave Doyle, Deschutes County Legal Counsel. If you elect to augment your December 12th letter with additional public testimony, please provide such correspondence directly to me and I will work with Cody Smith to ensure all documents are included in the County Commissioners' public hearing packets. Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions. Re i A 11 D. Adam Smith Assistant Legal Counsel, Deschutes County adam. smith@deschutes.org (541) 388-6593 CC: Dave Doyle Chris Doty Cody Smith Nick Lelack Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 182 P.3d 312 219 Or.App. 375 Court of Appeals of Oregon. SHOTGUN CREEK RANCH, LLC, Plaintiff —Appellant, V. CROOK COUNTY, Defendant —Respondent. 02CVoo61; A132214. Argued and Submitted Dec. 20, 2007. Decided April 16, 2oo8. Synopsis Background: Property owner sought writ of review of decision of the County Court to legalize a road that traversed owner's property. The Circuit Court, Crook County, Gary S. Thompson, J., affirmed. Owner appealed. The Court of Appeals, Schuman, J., held that county governing boards have the authority to legalize county roads whose status as such is doubted. Affirmed. Attorneys and Law Firms **312 Gregory P. Lynch, Bend, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Stanley D. Austin and Miller Nash LLP. David M. Gordon, Crook County Legal Counsel, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and ORTEGA, Judge. Opinion SCHUMAN, J. *377 "Legalization" is a statutory process by which a county governing body can establish the disputed existence or uncertain location, or both, of a county road. See ORS 368.201-368.221 (describing process). In this case, the governing body of Crook County, the Crook County Court, legalized a road known as Shotgun Road. The location as legalized by the county court traversed property owned by plaintiff Shotgun Creek Ranch. Plaintiff sought a writ of review in circuit court; the court affirmed. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the county court had no authority to undertake the legalization; that process, plaintiff argues, applies only to roads that are indisputably county roads, and Shotgun **313 Road was never lawfully established as one. Plaintiff also contends that, even if the county court had legalization authority, the court misapplied it. Defendant, the county, maintains that the county court had statutory authority and properly exercised it. We agree with the county and affirm. In 1879, the governing body of Wasco County, which at the time included today's Crook County, decided that a part of what was then known as the Prineville to Camp Creek Road should become a county road. As required by statute, the county court ordered a survey, after which it issued an order establishing what became known as Shotgun Road. In 2002, some property W WES TTI.-AA`'u Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182 P.3d 312 owners whose land abutted the road questioned whether the road's location as used matched the location of the road surveyed in 1879; the road as used ran mostly on the south side of the Crooked River, and the residents believed that the original survey located the road (or at least some parts of it) on the north side. In response, Crook County, through its governing body, undertook the legalization process. The statute authorizing legalization of county roads provides: "A county governing body may initiate proceedings to legalize a county road under ORS 368.201 to 368.221 if any of the following conditions exist: *378 "(1) If, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road. "(2) If the location of the road cannot be accurately determined due to: "(a) Numerous alterations of the road; "(b) A defective survey of the road or adjacent property; or "(c) Loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. "(3) If the road as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not conform to the location of a road described in the county records." ORS 368.201.Once a county decides to initiate the legalization process, it must authorize a survey "to determine the location of the road." ORS 368.206(1)(a). The survey is then filed with the county governing body, which, after notice, holds a legalization proceeding. ORS 368.206(1)(c). The proceeding is conducted by the county's governing body, and, although that body must allow "any person" to present relevant information, ORS 368.206(2), and that information must be "considered," the governing body can decide either to abandon or complete the legalization, guided only by "whether legalization of the road is in the public interest." ORS 368.216(1). If the governing body chooses to complete the legalization, it must "enter an order" to that effect and cause the order to be recorded. ORS 368.216(1), (2); see also ORS 368.106(l ). That order establishes that the road "exists as shown on the order legalizing" it. ORS 368.216(4)(b). The county governing body, however, must compensate the owner of any structure that is encroached upon by the legalized road, if that owner meets certain requirements. ORS 368.211. In short, the legalization process begins with uncertainty as to the establishment or location (or both) of a county road, then moves to a statutory process involving surveys and public hearings, and ends with either a decision not to legalize or a definitive order declaring the existence and location of the county road. *379 In the present case, the county initiated legalization proceedings by issuing an order declaring that the statutory prerequisites for undertaking the legalization process existed, calling for a survey, and setting the date for hearings on the matter after the survey was completed. After the hearings, at which plaintiff s counsel, among others, testified, the county court issued an order legalizing the road and locating it according to the recently completed survey. As noted above, plaintiff petitioned for a writ of review in circuit court, and the court affirmed, leading to this appeal. The briefs before this court do not engage each other or frame the issues with clarity. In its opening brief, plaintiff appears to present three contentions. First, it argues that the county never legally established any road in 1879; therefore, the county lacked authority to undertake legalization proceedings, because the indisputable existence of a county **314 road is a prerequisite to that process. In other words, according to plaintiff, the county could not fix the location of a road running from Prineville to Camp Creek —regardless of whether it was properly located on the north or the south side of the river —because no such road was lawfully established as a county road before the legalization process began. Second, plaintiff contends that, even if the county court had authority to determine whether the road running from Prineville to Camp Creek was lawfully established as a county road, the county court reached the wrong finding in that respect. And third, plaintiff argues that the county court Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 376 (2008) 42 182 R3d 312 erred by legalizing the wrong road; the original survey of Shotgun Road, conducted in 1879, established a road on the north side of the river, and the county legalized the road on the south side. In response, the county points out several undisputed facts: First, it notes that, in 1879, the county conducted a survey to establish the location of a county road running southeast from the Crooked River bridge in Prineville to Camp Creek. Second, on May 6 of that year, the county governing body's journal shows the following entry: "On this day came in for final hearing the report of the viewers heretofore appointed to view and survey a proposed county road, commencing at the east end of the bridge on *380 Crooked River in the town of Prineville; thence in an easterly direction to W.H. Anderson's; thence in a southeasterly direction to the Camp Creek Store and it appearing that said report had been publically read in open Court on two separate days of this term of Court, and no remonstrance or claim for damages having been filed thereto, and no objections being made thereto. Thereupon it was ordered by the Court that the prayer of the Petitioners herein be granted and that said road as viewed, surveyed and laid out be and the same is hereby established and declared a County road and that the said report, plat and survey be made of record in the journal of this Court." Third, the survey was, by modern standards, crude and imprecise. And fourth, the establishment and location of the road have been challenged. In other words, the county argues that the undisputed events underlying this case make it exactly the kind of dispute to which the legalization process in ORS 368.201 to 368.221 applies. In its reply brief, plaintiff explains its theory that the Wasco County court's attempt to create a county road in 1879 was fatally flawed because, when Wasco County established Shotgun Road in 1879, it failed to use proper procedures. In particular, according to plaintiff, it failed to provide proper notice. Plaintiff does not dispute ti-le authenticity ofthe `.'asco County court's 1879 journal entry declaring that the plan to establish Shotgun Road "had been publically read in open Court on two separate days of this term of Court," with "no remonstrance or claim for damages having been filed thereto, and no objections being made thereto." Rather, it cites a nineteenth-century case for the proposition that there must be irrefutable evidence in the county's record to establish that proper notice was given, and that mere recitation in a county court's decree to that effect is insufficient. State of Oregon v Officer, 4 Or. 180, 184 (1871). From the assorted pleadings and briefs, we distill the following inquiries presented in this case. First: Is the undisputed existence of a county road a prerequisite to the initiation of a county governing body's legalization process, or does the county governing body have the statutory authority to determine that the road it is legalizing is, in fact, a county *381 road, as part of the legalization process itself? If the governing body does have that authority, the second inquiry arises: Did the county court correctly exercise that authority here? In other words, did the county court correctly determine that, at some time before 2002, Shotgun Road was lawfully established as a county road? Third: Did the county court's order correctly locate Shotgun Road on the south side of Crooked River? For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the county court has the authority to establish the existence of a county road as part of the legalization process itself. That conclusion obviates the need to decide the remaining issues. **315 Under ORS 368.20](1), a county governing body may initiate proceedings to legalize a "county road" under several circumstances, including if, "through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road." A "county road" is one type of "public road." ORS 368.001(1). Read literally, then, the statute could be seen as circular: as plaintiff argues, the existence of an established county road is the prerequisite for the legalization process, yet the purpose of the process is to establish a county road. WFSl tPkv Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182 RM 312 Viewing the relevant language in the current statute in the context of its predecessors explains how the potential circularity came into existence and allows us to avoid it. The earliest version of the current road legalization statute is as old as the state. On June 4, 1859, the first Oregon Legislative Assembly approved "An Act to Legalize Certain Roads." That act provided: "Whereas; doubts exist as to the legality of roads in many parts of this State, on account of such roads not being surveyed, or of some imperfections of the county commissioners' court, therefore "Section 1: Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, That all Territorial, State, and county roads that have been laid out, surveyed or not surveyed, by order of the board of county commissioners, or act of the Legislature, and have not been altered or vacated by act of the Legislative Assembly, or by order of the boards of county commissioners, shall be, and the same are hearby declared legal roads. *382 "Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any imperfect or informal records of the roads in the county commissioners' court, shall be overlooked, and such imperfections or informality shall not destroy or impair the validity of said roads. "Sec. 3. As many persons are refusing to perform labor on roads, owing to the doubted legality, and as the said labor is needed very much at the present time, and to prevent litigation, this act shall take effect from the time of its passage." Laws of the State of Oregon, First Extra Session (1859), p 35 (emphases in original). This earliest version of the road legalization statute declares without ambiguity that one of its purposes is to guarantee that roads established by county courts are lawful county roads even if the process of establishment was imperfect. Under this original statute, then, it is clear that the existence of a county road, the establishment of which was procedurally perfect, was not a prerequisite to the legalization process; indeed, the process was designed to retroactively perfect the establishment. The original legalization statute was reformulated in 1917, when the legislature enacted a comprehensive statute governing county roads, General Laws of Oregon, chapter 295, section 33 (1917), and remained basically unchanged through 1947, at which point it stated: "Where by reason of the loss or destruction of the field notes of the original survey, or in case of defective survey or record, or in case of such numerous alterations of any county road since the original location and survey that its location cannot be accurately defined by the papers on file in the proper county clerk's or county surveyor's offices, or where, through some omission or defect, doubts may exist as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of any county road, * * * the county court of the proper county may, if they deem it necessary, order such county road, or any part thereof, used and traveled by the public, to be surveyed or resurveyed, as the case may be, platted and recorded as hereinafter provided." Or. Laws 1947, ch. 419, § 1 (emphases added). Although not as artfully drafted as it might be, the 1947 statute does not present the logical difficulty that the current statute does. *383 Rather, it states that, if (among other circumstances) there are doubts about the location or legal establishment of a county road, the county court may undertake the legalization process for "such county road." The word "such" indicates unambiguously that the "county roads" upon which the legalization process (surveying or resurveying, platting, and recording) may be applied are the ones already mentioned, including those **316 about whose establishment there exist doubts. Thus, we have no reason to believe that, between 1859 and 1947, the underlying purpose of road legalization changed; rather, it remained a process for firmly establishing the legality, as county roads, of roads whose location or establishment was doubtful. The 1947 statute remained in effect until 1953, when it was codified as follows: "The county court of the proper county may, if it deems it necessary, order a county road or any part thereof used and traveled by the public to be surveyed or resurveyed, platted and recorded as provided in ORS 368.590 to 368.610, where: Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182 P.3d 312 219 Or.App. 375 Court of Appeals of Oregon. SHOTGUN CREEK RANCH, LLC, Plaintiff —Appellant, V. CROOK COUNTY, Defendant —Respondent. 02CVoo61; A132214. Argued and Submitted Dec. 20, 2007. 1 Decided April 16, 2oo8. Synopsis Background: Property owner sought writ of review of decision of the County Court to legalize a road that traversed owner's property. The Circuit Court, Crook County, Gary S. 'Thompson, J., affirmed. Owner appealed. The Court of Appeals, Schuman, J., held that county governing boards have the authority to legalize county roads whose status as such is doubted. Affirmed. Attorneys and Law Firms **312 Gregory P. Lynch, Bend, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Stanley D. Austin and Miller Nash LLP. David M. Gordon, Crook County Legal Counsel, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and ORTEGA, Judge. Opinion SCHUMAN, J. *377 "Legalization" is a statutory process by which a county governing body can establish the disputed existence or uncertain location, or both, of a county road. See ORS 368.201-368.221 (describing process). In this case, the governing body of Crook County, the Crook County Court, legalized a road known as Shotgun Road. The location as legalized by the county court traversed property owned by plaintiff Shotgun Creek Ranch. Plaintiff sought a writ of review in circuit court; the court affirmed. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the county court had no authority to undertake the legalization; that process, plaintiff argues, applies only to roads that are indisputably county roads, and Shotgun **313 Road was never lawfully established as one. Plaintiff also contends that, even if the county court had legalization authority, the court misapplied it. Defendant, the county, maintains that the county court had statutory authority and properly exercised it. We agree with the county and affirm. In 1879, the governing body of Wasco County, which at the time included today's Crook County, decided that a part of what was then known as the Prineville to Camp Creek Road should become a county road. As required by statute, the county court ordered a survey, after which it issued an order establishing what became known as Shotgun Road. In 2002, some property Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182P.3d312 owners whose land abutted the road questioned whether the road's location as used matched the location of the road surveyed in 1879; the road as used ran mostly on the south side of the Crooked River, and the residents believed that the original survey located the road (or at least some parts of it) on the north side. In response, Crook County, through its governing body, undertook the legalization process. The statute authorizing legalization of county roads provides: "A county governing body may initiate proceedings to legalize a county road under ORS 368.201 to 368.221 if any of the following conditions exist: *378 "(1) If, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road. "(2) If the location of the road cannot be accurately determined due to: "(a) Numerous alterations of the road; "(b) A defective survey of the road or adjacent property; or "(c) Loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. "(3) If the road as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not conform to the location of a road described in the county records." ORS 368.201.Once a county decides to initiate the legalization process, it must authorize a survey "to determine the location of the road." ORS 368.206(1)(a). The survey is then filed with the county governing body, which, after notice, holds a legalization proceeding. ORS 368.206(l)(c). The proceeding is conducted by the county's governing body, and, although that body must allow "any person" to present relevant information, ORS 368.206(2), and that information must be "considered," the governing body can decide either to abandon or complete the legalization, guided only by "whether legalization of the road is in the public interest." ORS 368.216(1). If the governing body chooses to complete the legalization, it must "enter an order" to that effect and cause the order to be recorded. ORS 368.216(1), (2); see also ORS 368.106(1). That order establishes that the road "exists as shown on the order legalizing" it. ORS 368.216(4)(b). The county governing body, however, must compensate the owner of any structure that is encroached upon by the legalized road, if that owner meets certain requirements. ORS 368.211. In short, the legalization process begins with uncertainty as to the establishment or location (or both) of a county road, then moves to a statutory process involving surveys and public hearings, and ends with either a decision not to legalize or a definitive order declaring the existence and location of the county road. *379 In the present case, the county initiated legalization proceedings by issuing an order declaring that the statutory prerequisites for undertaking the legalization process existed, calling for a survey, and setting the date for hearings on the matter after the survey was completed. After the hearings, at which plaintiff s counsel, among others, testified, the county court issued an order legalizing the road and locating it according to the recently completed survey. As noted above, plaintiff petitioned for a writ of review in circuit court, and the court affirmed, leading to this appeal. The briefs before this court do not engage each other or frame the issues with clarity. In its opening brief, plaintiff appears to present three contentions. First, it argues that the county never legally established any road in 1879; therefore, the county lacked authority to undertake legalization proceedings, because the indisputable existence of a county **314 road is a prerequisite to that process. In other words, according to plaintiff, the county could not fix the location of a road running from Prineville to Camp Creek —regardless of whether it was properly located on the north or the south side of the river —because no such road was lawfully established as a county road before the legalization process began. Second, plaintiff contends that, even if the county court had authority to determine whether the road running from Prineville to Camp Creek was lawfully established as a county road, the county court reached the wrong finding in that respect. And third, plaintiff argues that the county court VV E S r In AVV Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182 P.3d 312 erred by legalizing the wrong road; the original survey of Shotgun Road, conducted in 1879, established a road on the north side of the river, and the county legalized the road on the south side. In response, the county points out several undisputed facts: First, it notes that, in 1879, the county conducted a survey to establish the location of a county road running southeast from the Crooked River bridge in Prineville to Camp Creek. Second, on May 6 of that year, the county governing body's journal shows the following entry: "On this day came in for final hearing the report of the viewers heretofore appointed to view and survey a proposed county road, commencing at the east end of the bridge on *380 Crooked River in the town of Prineville; thence in an easterly direction to W.H. Anderson's; thence in a southeasterly direction to the Camp Creek Store and it appearing that said report had been publically read in open Court on two separate days of this term of Court, and no remonstrance or claim for damages having been filed thereto, and no objections being made thereto. Thereupon it was ordered by the Court that the prayer of the Petitioners herein be granted and that said road as viewed, surveyed and laid out be and the same is hereby established and declared a County road and that the said report, plat and survey be made of record in the journal of this Court." Third, the survey was, by modern standards, crude and imprecise. And fourth, the establishment and location of the road have been challenged. In other words, the county argues that the undisputed events underlying this case make it exactly the kind of dispute to which the legalization process in ORS 368.201 to 368.221 applies. In its reply brief, plaintiff explains its theory that the Wasco County court's attempt to create a county road in 1879 was fatally flawed because, when Wasco County established Shotgun Road in 1879, it failed to use proper procedures. In particular, min sx A---r A.* . ,,ro rl,o .,,,the ntrert" of the W COu—ty court's according to plaintiff, It lalled to provide proper not -ice. u�w iio� ui�ruw �ii� "u J .� .. Wasco 1879 journal entry declaring that the plan to establish Shotgun Road "had been publically read in open Court on two separate days of this term of Court," with "no remonstrance or claim for damages having been filed thereto, and no objections being made thereto." Rather, it cites a nineteenth-century case for the proposition that there must be irrefutable evidence in the county's record to establish that proper notice was given, and that mere recitation in a county court's decree to that effect is insufficient. State of Oregon v. Off cei; 4 Or. 1801, 184 (1871). From the assorted pleadings and briefs, we distill the following inquiries presented in this case. First: Is the undisputed existence of a county road a prerequisite to the initiation of a county governing body's legalization process, or does the county governing body have the statutory authority to determine that the road it is legalizing is, in fact, a county *381 road, as part of the legalization process itself? If the governing body does have that authority, the second inquiry arises: Did the county court correctly exercise that authority here? In other words, did the county court correctly determine that, at some time before 2002, Shotgun Road was lawfully established as a county road? Third: Did the county court's order correctly locate Shotgun Road on the south side of Crooked River? For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the county court has the authority to establish the existence of a county road as part of the legalization process itself. That conclusion obviates the need to decide the remaining issues. **315 Under ORS 368.201(1), a county governing body may initiate proceedings to legalize a "county road" under several circumstances, including if, "through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road." A "county road" is one type of "public road." ORS 368.001(1). Read literally, then, the statute could be seen as circular: as plaintiff argues, the existence of an established county road is the prerequisite for the legalization process, yet the purpose of the process is to establish a county road. 1ta E S 1 1,A4"d' Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182 P.3d 312 Viewing the relevant language in the current statute in the context of its predecessors explains how the potential circularity came into existence and allows us to avoid it. The earliest version of the current road legalization statute is as old as the state. On June 4, 1859, the first Oregon Legislative Assembly approved "An Act to Legalize Certain Roads." That act provided: "Whereas; doubts exist as to the legality of roads in many parts of this State, on account of such roads not being surveyed, or of some imperfections of the county commissioners' court, therefore "Section 1: Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon, That all Territorial, State, and county roads that have been laid out, surveyed or not surveyed, by order of the board of county commissioners, or act of the Legislature, and have not been altered or vacated by act of the Legislative Assembly, or by order of the boards of county commissioners, shall be, and the same are hearby declared legal roads. *382 "Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any imperfect or informal records of the roads in the county commissioners' court, shall be overlooked, and such imperfections or informality shall not destroy or impair the validity of said roads. "Sec. 3. As many persons are refusing to perform labor on roads, owing to the doubted legality, and as the said labor is needed very much at the present time, and to prevent litigation, this act shall take effect from the time of its passage." Laws of the State of Oregon, First Extra Session (1859), p 35 (emphases in original). This earliest version of the road legalization statute declares without ambiguity that one of its purposes is to guarantee that roads established by county courts are lawful county roads even if the process of establishment was imperfect. Under this original statute, then, it is clear that the existence of a county road, the establishment of which was procedurally perfect, was not a prerequisite to the legalization process; indeed, the process was designed to retroactively perfect the establishment. The original legalization statute was reformulated in 1917, when the legislature enacted a comprehensive statute governing county roads, General Laws of Oregon, chapter 295, section 33 (1917), and remained basically unchanged through 1947, at which point it stated: "Where by reason of the loss or destruction of the field notes of the original survey, or in case of defective survey or record, or in case of such numerous alterations of any county road since the original location and survey that its location cannot be accurately def ned by the papers on file in the proper county clerk's or county surveyor's offices, or where, through some omission or defect, doubts may exist as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of any county road, * * * the county court of the proper county may, if they deem it necessary, order such county road, or any part thereof, used and traveled by the public, to be surveyed or resurveyed, as the case may be, platted and recorded as hereinafter provided." Or. Laws 1947, ch. 419, § 1 (emphases added). Although not as artfully drafted as it might be, the 1947 statute does not present the logical difficulty that the current statute does. *383 Rather, it states that, if (among other circumstances) there are doubts about the location or legal establishment of a county road, the county court may undertake the legalization process for "such county road." The word "such" indicates unambiguously that the "county roads" upon which the legalization process (surveying or resurveying, platting, and recording) may be applied are the ones already mentioned, including those **316 about whose establishment there exist doubts. Thus, we have no reason to believe that, between 1859 and 1947, the underlying purpose of road legalization changed; rather, it remained a process for firmly establishing the legality, as county roads, of roads whose location or establishment was doubtful. The 1947 statute remained in effect until 1953, when it was codified as follows: "The county court of the proper county may, if it deems it necessary, order a county road or any part thereof used and traveled by the public to be surveyed or resurveyed, platted and recorded as provided in ORS 368.590 to 368.610, where: Y'V( S C[-.AV Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182 P.3d 312 "(1) By reason of loss or destruction of the field notes of the original survey, defective survey or record of such numerous alterations of any county road since the original location and survey that its location cannot be accurately defined by the papers on file in the proper county clerk's or county surveyor's offices; [or] "(2) Doubts exist as to the legal establishment of any county road, through some omission or defect [.]" Former ORS 368.585 (1953), repealed by Or. Laws 1981, ch. 153, § 79 (emphases added). This version of the statute has the same confusing potential for circularity that persists in the current statute, ORS 368.201, unchanged since its enactment in 1981, Oregon Laws 1981, chapter 153, section 21, which, it will be recalled, provides: "A county governing body may initiate proceedings to legalize a county road under ORS 368.201 to 368.221 if any of the following conditions exist: "(1) If, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road [.]" *384 (Emphases added.) The supposed circularity problem —stating that the process of establishing a road as a county road cannot be undertaken unless the road is already a county road —was introduced between 1951 and 1953. In 1953, the legislature inverted the order of the clauses, putting the authorization to legalize a county road before, instead of after, listing circumstances under which that authorization could be executed and, more significantly, excising the word "such." It would therefore appear that the key to clarifying the statute lies in discovering why the legislature eliminated the clarity in the first instance. In other words, what was the legislature's intention in changing a statute that clearly authorized county governing bodies to legalize roads whose status as county roads was dubious, into a statute that appeared to authorize county governing bodies to legalize only those roads that were already county roads? In fact, the legislature had no intentions whatsoever; the legislature did not make the changes in 1953. The changes were part of a codification process authorized by the legislature and carried out by a "statute revision council" consisting of seven members appointed by the governor, only two of whom were legislators. Or. Laws 1949. ch. 317, § 1. The council's charge was "to clarify, simplify, classify, arrange, coordinate, codify and revise the laws of this state now in force," with the limitation that it "shall not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any act, but, within such limitations, may correct the grammar, punctuation, spelling and form thereof, employ standard nomenclatures, renumber sections and parts of sections of the acts, rearrange sections, subsections, and paragraphs, * * * and correct manifest clerical or typographical errors, and generally revise, coordinate, correlate, clarify and simplify the statutory law of this state." Or. Laws 1949, ch. 317, § 3 (emphasis added). We therefore conclude that whatever circularity is embedded in the current statutory language does not reflect the legislature's intention. That intention is manifest in the last version of the language that the legislature itself enacted before codification by the "statute revision council": county governing boards have the authority to legalize county roads whose status as such is doubted. A *385 preexisting county road is not a prerequisite to a county governing body initiating the legalization process. That process, as the legalization statutes themselves indicate, transforms roads that may or may not be lawfully established county roads (due **317 either to a defective establishment process or a mislocation) into roads that are conclusively and indisputably county roads. Plaintiff also argues that, even if the county court had authority to legalize Shotgun Road, it misapplied that authority by reaching findings of fact that are not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, plaintiff contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that Wasco County complied with the notice requirements in 1879, thereby establishing that Shotgun Road was lawfully established, and that there is insufficient evidence that the road that the county attempted to establish at that time ran on the south side of the Crooked River. VV Er S r I-AVV Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 42 182 P.3d 312_ _ "(1) By reason of loss or destruction of the field notes of the original survey, defective survey or record of such numerous alterations of any county road since the original location and survey that its location cannot be accurately defined by the papers on file in the proper county clerk's or county surveyor's offices; [or] "(2) Doubts exist as to the legal establishment of any county road, through some omission or defect [J" Former ORS 368.585 (1953), repealed by Or. Laws 1981, ch. 153, § 79 (emphases added). This version of the statute has the same confusing potential for circularity that persists in the current statute, ORS 368.201, unchanged since its enactment in 1981, Oregon Laws 1981, chapter 153, section 21, which, it will be recalled, provides: "A county governing body may initiate proceedings to legalize a county road under ORS 368.201 to 368.221 if any of the following conditions exist: "(1) If, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road[.]" *384 (Emphases added.) The supposed circularity problem —stating that the process of establishing a road as a county road cannot be undertaken unless the road is already a county road —was introduced between 1951 and 1953. In 1953, the legislature inverted the order of the clauses, putting the authorization to legalize a county road before, instead of after, listing circumstances under which that authorization could be executed and, more significantly, excising the word "such." It would therefore appear that the key to clarifying the statute lies in discovering why the legislature eliminated the clarity in the first instance. In other words, what was the legislature's intention in changing a statute that clearly authorized county governing bodies to legalize roads whose status as county roads was dubious, into a statute that appeared to authorize county governing bodies to legalize only those roads that were already county roads? In fact, the legislature had no intentions whatsoever; the legislature did not make the changes in 1953. The changes were part of a codification process authorized by the legislature and carried out by a "statute revision council" consisting of seven members ., _ _ only t____ _r__a_ ___ were Or. Taws 1 DAD eh 317 § 1 The council's charge was "to clarify, appointed by the governor, only two ut wuulu wcic rogimalvi a. vi, a�avva , ��i, .,.,..,. , , .� ... ,........+_..�.• ...�..».b., was --- _._.._„ simplify, classify, arrange, coordinate, codify and revise the laws of this state now in force," with the limitation that it "shall not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any act, but, within such limitations, may correct the grammar, punctuation, spelling and form thereof, employ standard nomenclatures, renumber sections and parts of sections of the acts, rearrange sections, subsections, and paragraphs, * * * and correct manifest clerical or typographical errors, and generally revise, coordinate, correlate, clarify and simplify the statutory law of this state." Or. Laws 1949, ch. 317, § 3 (emphasis added). We therefore conclude that whatever circularity is embedded in the current statutory language does not reflect the legislature's intention. That intention is manifest in the last version of the language that the legislature itself enacted before codification by the "statute revision council": county governing boards have the authority to legalize county roads whose status as such is doubted. A *385 preexisting county road is not a prerequisite to a county governing body initiating the legalization process. That process, as the legalization statutes themselves indicate, transforms roads that may or may not be lawfully established county roads (due **317 either to a defective establishment process or a mislocation) into roads that are conclusively and indisputably county roads. Plaintiff also argues that, even if the county court had authority to legalize Shotgun Road, it misapplied that authority by reaching findings of fact that are not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, plaintiff contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that Wasco County complied with the notice requirements in 1879, thereby establishing that Shotgun Road was lawfully established, and that there is insufficient evidence that the road that the county attempted to establish at that time ran on the south side of the Crooked River. Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook County, 219 Or.App. 375 (2008) 182 P.3d 312 Plaintiffs contentions are misguided. The purpose of the legalization process is not to determine whether a county road was lawfully established or where it originally ran; the purpose is to "legalize" a road by eliminating doubt concerning its establishment and location. In other words, the purpose of legalization was originally, and has remained, not to resolve competing factual accounts of how and where a road was or was not established, but to remove doubt about establishment when, due to omissions or defects in the establishment process, doubts as to legality exist; to set a location when, due to alterations, detective surveys, or lost surveys, the original "location of the road cannot be accurately determined"; and to conform a road as traveled for 10 years or more to the road as described in county records. ORS 368.201. Put another way, legalization allows counties to establish roads despite "omissions " in the original establishment process and to set locations when original locations "cannot be accurately determined." Id. (emphasis added). Those purposes are distinct from (and more robust than) determining whether omissions have occurred and where a road was originally located. See Ungers' Co. v. Lincoln County, 5 Or.App. 270, 275, 483 P.2d 81 (1971) ("The very purpose of the road legalization statutes is to remedy [discrepancies between the road as surveyed and the road as traveled] by resurveying the existing road and conforming the *386 official records to accurately reflect the true course of the road."). Thus, although "any person" can present information to the governing body, ORS 368.206(2), and that body must "consider" that information, ORS 368.216(1), no statute requires the county governing body to undertake a quasi-judicial process, hearing and weighing evidence to determine what did or did not occur in the past and reaching an "on the record" decision. I Rather, the statute requires the governing body only to order a new survey, ORS 368.206(l ), and to announce a quasi -legislative decision: "After considering matters presented in a proceeding to legalize a road * * *, a county governing body shall determine whether legalization of the road is in the public interest and shall enter an order abandoning or completing the legalization procedures on the road." ORS 368.216(1). Plaintiff does not assert that the county court's determinations are not in the public interest, and, in any event, such an assertion would not be reviewable under the writ of review. Strawberry dill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Comm., 287 Or. 591, 602-04, 601 P.2d 769 (1979). r There may be circumstances in which the governing body will need to determine whether any of die actual prerequisites ,u, legalization specified in ORS 368.201—doubtful establishment, impossibility of determining location, or 10 years or more of use — exist. Here, doubtful establishment is conceded. In sum, we hold that, under the legalization statutes, the Crook County Court lawfully exercised its statutory authority in issuing the order establishing Shotgun Road as a Crook County road running, as described in that order, along the south side of Crooked River. The circuit court did not err. 2 Plaintiff makes a cursory argument that the county court violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") and the analogous clause in Article 1, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution ("Private property shall not be taken for public use * * * without just compensation."). The argument, however, is based on the premise that the county court's action was unconstitutional because it was unlawful. We have rejected that premise. Plaintiff makes no argument that it is entitled to compensation for the lawful taking of plaintiffs property, and we do not address that issue. But see ORS 368.211 (requiring county governing body to provide limited compensation to qualified applicants). Affirmed. All Citations 219 Or.App. 375, 182 P.3d 312 End of DrtettntenE ,`- 2010 fhomson Reuters_ No claim to original 1,1.4, (iocernuxait \forks. 42 43 Cody Smith From: Adam Smith Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:04 PM To: 'les.hudson@q.com' Cc: Cody Smith Subject: RE: Sisemore Road Attachments: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (RESCHEDULED).pdf Importance: High Les, Attached is a courtesy copy of the new public hearing notice, now scheduled for January 22, 2020. My understanding is that there were problems mailing the last notice to you. Please respond to this email ASAP and let me know which address you would like me to send the attached notice via certified mail. Or, please let me know if the attached email copy is sufficient for your purposes. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (54 i) 617-4748 adam.smith(a)deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 2:08 PM To: les.hudson@q.com Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org>; Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org>; Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Subject: Sisemore Road Les, Please see the attached correspondence. Please also note that I am attaching an Oregon Court of Appeals case that you may find relevant. Thanks, FIN -Adam Smith D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(a)-deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. 43 NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATION HEARING **ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR 10:00 AM, DECEMBER 18, 2019' **RESCHEDULED FOR 10:00 AM, JANUARY 22, 2020** NOTICE IS HEARBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020, AT 10:00 A.M. IN THE BARNES AND SAWYER ROOMS OF THE DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER, 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON ON THE PROPOSED ROAD LEGALIZATION PROCEEDING DESCRIBED BELOW. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND BE HEARD. NOTICE TO MORTGAGE LIENHOLDER VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. A portion of Sisemore Rd has been traveled and used by the public for more than 10 years in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records. Additionally, the legal establishment of a portion of Sisemore Rd is in question. Deschutes County has initiated proceedings to legalize a portion of Sisemore Rd across tax lots 600 and 7891 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Section 33. Persons interested in obtaining more detailed information or a map of the proposed vacation may contact the Deschutes County Road Department, 61150 SE 27th Street, Bend, Oregon 97701, Phone: (541) 388-6581, Email: road (a)-deschutes.org. ORS 368.201 to 368.221 provides authority for road legalization. 43 DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC, EXHIBIT "A" SISEMORE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION FOR A PORTION OF SISEMORE ROAD A 60 foot wide road situated in the southeast one -quarter of the southwest one -quarter of Section 33 in Township 16 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. The centerline is described as follows: Co�i��iicit�iiig a+ a 3n" it— bar which hear hlnrtk RQ' S2' n5" \n/est a riiCtanfP rif 315.95 feet from the North one -quarter corner of Section 4, Township 17 South, Range 11 East, Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, said point being the point of intersection (PI), at station 242+91.2 per Tumalo Reservoir Market Road No. 11A, Survey No. RD01529, dated 1926, Deschutes County Road Department Records; thence North 06` 58' 09"West, a distance of 333.23 feet to the True Point of Beginning, and being the terminus of said Tumalo Reservoir Market Road; thence North 06' 47' 46" West, a distance of 126.51 feet to the south line of that property recorded as Bargain and Sale Deed Document 2014-03436, Deschutes County Records, as shown on Record of Survey No. CS 19023, Deschutes County Survey Records; thence North 06' 47' 46" West, a distance of 6.67 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of an 80.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 67' 25' 35", an arc distance of 94.14 feet (the long chord of which bears North 40° 30' 33" West, a distance of 88.81 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 74° 13' 21" West, a distance of 145.05 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 200.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 15* 58' 03", an arc distance of 55.74 feet (the long chord of which bears North 66' 14' 19" West, a distance of 55.56 feet` to a point of tangency; thence North 58° 15' 17" West, a distance of 302.68 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 20* 03' 19", an arc distance of 105.01 feet (the long chord of which bears North 48` 13' 38" West, a distance of 104.47 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 2100 Southwest River Parkway Portland Oregon 97201 Telephone: 503,223,6663 Facsimile: 503.223.2701 M 38' 11' 59" West, a distance of 140.53 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 500.00 foot radius curve to the left, through a central angle of 08' 53' 18", an arc distance of 77.57 feet (the long chord of which bears North 42° 38' 38" West, a distance of 77.49 feet) to a point of tangency; thence North 47' 05' 17" West, a distance of 244.95 feet to a point of curvature; thence on an arc of a 350.00 foot radius curve to the right, through a central angle of 14' 13' 27", an arc distance of 86.89 feet (the long chord of which bears North 39' 58' 33" West, a distance of 86.67 feet) to a point on the west line of said property and the terminus of herein described centerline, said being South 0' 28' 42" East, a distance of 101.82 from the Southwest one -sixteenth corner of Section 33. Bearings are based on the Central Oregon Coordinate System (COCS). REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SuF v R OREGON JANUARY W, 2006 ROBERT R. JACKSON RENEWS: SW/16 00'28'42" E 101.82' A=14013'27" R=350.00' e-L=86.89' 86.67' N 47*05'17" W 244.95' �, � O N 38*1159" W -40 100 200 400 � 6mpm%mmmm� NE/4 SW/4 W SE/4 SW/4 DEED DOC NO 2014-03436 TAX LOT 1611330000600 HUDSON FAMILY TRUST ,&=08'53'18" 18130 TUMALO RESERVOIR ROAD R=500.00' BEND OR, 97703 L=77.57' LEGEND: LC=N 42'38'38" W BOUNDARY LINE 77.49' - PROPOSED CENTERLINE — - — EXISTING CENTERLINE A--20'03'19" — - - — EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY R=300.00' A= 1558'03* rL=105.01' R=200.00' LC=N 48*13'38" W=55.74' 104.47' LC=N 66'14'19" W 55.56' " 140.53' 35 `iR=80.00 PROPERTY =94.14' LINE LC=N 40'30'33" W N 58*15'17" W 88.81' 302.68' R04 �N 06'47'46" W N 74'13 21 W_ DEED DOC 88-20572 145.05' TAX LOT 1611000007891 TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 64697 COOK AVE. BEND OR. 97703 TUMALO RESERVOIR `N 06'47'46" W -"-126.51' CANAL TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND�N 06'58'09" W TERMINUS OF EXISTING TUMALO RESERVOIR MARKET ROAD 'I 333.23' POINT OF COMMENCEMENT P.I. STA. 242+91.2 FD 3/4" IRON BAR SEC. 33, T. 16 S., R. 11 E., WM. SEC. 4 T. 17 S., R. 11 E., WM. S 89'53'05" E 315.95' � 1/4 COR PROJECT SISEMORE ROAD Q ® TIM RIGHT-OF-WAY LEGALIZATION DAVID EVANS DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANoASSOCIATES INC. DWG. REF. PROJECT SCALE AMENDMENT NO. 2100 SW River Parkway SV-EX-0I-DESX0116 DESX0000-0116 1 " = 200' 0.0 Portland Oregon 97201 Phone: 503.223.6663 DRAWN BY DESIGN BY DEM/TAS RRJ APPROVED BY DATE DGH 10-15-2019 ,�4� 1 Cody Smith From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Adam, les.hudson@q.com Tuesday, December 17, 2019 7:00 PM Adam Smith Veronica Newton Hudson RE: Sisemore Road DA Smith 12.16.2019.PDF; DA Smith 12.17.2019.PDF Lest we unintentionally create a one-way record, I have attached my response to your letters dated December 16, 2019 and December 17, 2019. Given the current penumbra of the holiday season, both of my letters are without the benefit of legal counsel. The Hudson Family Trust's attorney is unreachable and is or is about to be out of the country on a Holiday vacation. I believe the shadow will pass sometime at the beginning of January, 2020. Regards, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 709 16120 les.hudson@q.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Adam Smith Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:04 PM To: 'les.hudson@q.com' Cc: Cody Smith Subject: RE: Sisemore Road Importance: High Les, Attached is a courtesy copy of the new public hearing notice, now scheduled for January 22, 2020. My understanding is that there were problems mailing the last notice to you. Please respond to this email ASAP and let me know which address you would like me to send the attached notice via certified mail. Or, please let me know if the attached email copy is sufficient for your purposes. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith@deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 2:08 PM To: les.hudson@g.com Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org>; Chris Doty <Chris.DotY@deschutes.org>; Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Subject: Sisemore Road Les, Please see the attached correspondence. Please also note that I am attaching an Oregon Court of Appeals case that you may find relevant. Thanks, -Adam Smith D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith@deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. 45 Cody Smith From: Leslie Hudson <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:48 AM To: Adam Smith Subject: Re: Sisemore Road [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Thanks Adam. I am planning to attend the Lower Bridge hearing this afternoon. In case I don't see you - Veronica and I send our very best wishes for a very Happy Holidays to you and your family. Les. Les Hudson Copyright is hereby asserted on this private communication. Do not copy or forward without express permission. On Dec 18, 2019, at 08:41, Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> wrote: Les, Thank you for your letters. I appreciate your acceptance of the email notice. However, I plan to also send the new notice via certified mail to the address you provided to thereby ensure you will receive future notices from Deschutes County. Please let me know when you receive that new notice via certified mail. Also, there is no URL for this project. And, your December 12t" letter is the only public comment we received to date. All public comments will be included online in the Board's agenda packet prior to the rescheduled public hearing. Once posted, the easiest way to access that agenda packet is through the County's Meeting Portal: http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx. Unless you modify or withdraw your December 12t" letter, it will be included in the agenda packet once posted online. Finally, please let me know when you are represented on this matter as I am bound to communicate directly with your attorney (unless your attorney consents to me communicating directly with you). Have a wonderful holiday if I do not talk to you in the next couple of weeks. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(a)deschutes.org 45 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@q.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 7:00 PM To: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Sisemore Road [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Adam, Lest we unintentionally create a one-way record, I have attached my response to your letters dated December 16, 2019 and December 17, 2019. Given the current penumbra of the holiday season, both of my letters are without the benefit of legal counsel. The Hudson Family Trust's attorney is unreachable and is or is about to be out of the country on a Holiday vacation. I believe the shadow will pass sometime at the beginning of January, 2020. Regards, Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson�rt ,q_ com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:04 PM To:'les.hudson@q.com' <les.hudson@q.com> Cc: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Sisemore Road Importance: High Les, Attached is a courtesy copy of the new public hearing notice, now scheduled for January 22, 2020. My understanding is that there were problems mailing the last notice to you. Please respond to this email 45 ASAP and let me know which address you would like me to send the attached notice via certified mail. Or, please let me know if the attached email copy is sufficient for your purposes. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(a�deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 2:08 PM To: les.hudson@q.com Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org>; Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org>; Cody Smith <CodV.Smith@deschutes.org>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Subject: Sisemore Road Les, Please see the attached correspondence. Please also note that I am attaching an Oregon Court of Appeals case that you may find relevant. Thanks, -Adam Smith D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith 5cleschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE WLM RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. Cody Smith From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Adam, les.hudson@q.com Monday, December 23, 2019 4:32 PM Adam Smith 'Veronica Newton Hudson' RE: Sisemore Road I picked up your certified letter from the post office this morning. The system worked and you should get the hardcopy green card sometime soon. Les. From: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:41 AM To: 'les.hudson@q.com'<les.hudson@q.com> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Sisemore Road Les, Thank you for your letters. I appreciate your acceptance of the email notice. However, I plan to also send the new notice via certified mail to the address you provided to thereby ensure you will receive future notices from Deschutes County. Please let me know when you receive that new notice via certified mail. Also, there is no URL for this project. And, your December 121" letter is the only public comment we received to date. All public comments will be included online in the Board's agenda packet prior to the rescheduled public hearing. Once posted, the easiest way to access that agenda packet is through the County's Meeting Portal: http•//deschutescountVor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx. Unless you modify or withdraw your December 12cn letter, it will be included in the agenda packet once posted online. Finally, please let me know when you are represented on this matter as I am bound to communicate directly with your attorney (unless your attorney consents to me communicating directly with you). Have a wonderful holiday if I do not talk to you in the next couple of weeks. Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(cDdeschutes.org 1 M • THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From: les.hudson@q.com <les.hudson@g.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 7:00 PM To: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Cc: Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: RE: Sisemore Road [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Adam, Lest we unintentionally create a one-way record, I have attached my response to your letters dated December 16, 2019 and December 17, 2019. Given the current penumbra of the holiday season, both of my letters are without the benefit of legal counsel. The Hudson Family Trust's attorney is unreachable and is or is about to be out of the country on a Holiday vacation. I believe the shadow will pass sometime at the beginning of January, 2020. Regards, Les Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudsontr' g.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. From: Adam Smith <Adam.Smith@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:04 PM To: 'les.hudson@q.com'<les.hudson@g.com> Cc: Cody Smith <Cody.Smith@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: Sisemore Road Importance: High Les, Attached is a courtesy copy of the new public hearing notice, now scheduled for January 22, 2020. My understanding is that there were problems mailing the last notice to you. Please respond to this email ASAP and let me know which address you would like me to send the attached notice via certified mail. Or, please let me know if the attached email copy is sufficient for your purposes. me Thanks, -Adam D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(aD-deschutes.org THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. From: Adam Smith Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 2:08 PM To: les.hudson@q.com Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.or >; Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org>; Cody Smith <CodV.Smith@deschutes.o>; Nick Lelack <Nick.Lelack@deschutes.org> Subject: Sisemore Road Les, Please see the attached correspondence. Please also note that I am attaching an Oregon Court of Appeals case that you may find relevant. Thanks, -Adam Smith D. Adam Smith Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Phone: (541) 388-6593 Fax: (541) 617-4748 adam.smith(cbdeschutes.ora THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENT HERETO, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND/OR OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THIS TRANSMISSION. 47 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES SISEMORE BRIDGE #17CO2 PROJECT PROPOSALS DUE: JULY 13, 2018, 2:00 PM PST Zvi Es Co 61150 SE 27TH STREET G BEND, OREGON 97702 ROAD PHONE: (541) 388-6581 DEPARTMENT FAX: (541) 388-2719 WEB: www.deschutes.org/road SECTION 1: STATEMENT OF PROJECT Introduction 47 The Sisemore Rd: Tumalo IRR Canal (Couch Lateral) Bridge ("Sisemore Bridge") is a closed -spandrel concrete arch bridge constructed in 1914. The bridge has large spalls and rock pockets with exposed rebar throughout the arch, pier walls, and abutments. Deschutes County will be receiving funding through the ODOT Local Bridge Program to rehabilitate the bridge. The project scope of work will include removing and replacing the existing asphalt wearing surface, concrete repairs, installing new approach guardrails, removing and replacing the existing bridge fill and non-functioning drainage pipes, and other miscellaneous work. The total Project cost is estimated to be $1,435,279. Deschutes County Road Department seeks the services of a qualified team of engineering professionals to provide the following: 1. Engineering design services and development of bridge rehabilitation plans. 2. Construction management and inspection services. Specifically, design and prepare construction plans and specifications for the project and supply listed services: A. Provide labor, equipment and materials to complete the surveying needed to prepare mapping and complete the design of all elements of the project. Consultant shall: a. Perform research of existing records b. Establish a horizontal control network c. Establish a vertical control network d. Conduct a topographic survey e. Work with the County Surveyor to: i. Recover and tie monuments of record ii. Resolve road centerline alignments iii. Prepare a Recovery and Retracement Survey Filing Map iv. Prepare the right-of-way base map B. Development of engineered Public Improvement Plans. Consultant shall: a. Utilizing AASHTO, ODOT, MUTCD, and other industry best practices, produce bridge rehabilitation plans for the selected improvements. i. Produce 30%, 90% and 100% plan sets, including refined construction cost estimates with each submittal. b. Design storm water runoff treatment per the Central Oregon Storm Water Manual c. Develop traffic control plans for the construction phase of the project. d. Prepare Project special provisions in reference to the latest edition of the Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. The County shall provide template documents in MS Word format to assist the preparation of the Special Provisions. e. Provide an engineer's construction cost estimate and complete bid schedule for the project. f. Provide appropriate construction period services necessary to answer all project related questions as well as review the contractor's product submittals. g. Work with the Deschutes County Surveyor to field verify and document the existing right-of-way adjacent to the Project. h. Determine if there will be any utility design and relocation required as part of the project, including, but not limited to, power line relocation, canal piping, and any other utilities that fall within the project limits. Coordinate relocated and new utility alignments within the Special Provisions as necessary. i. Note: i. Approach road and other project components shall be designed to current AASHTO and Deschutes County standards and specifications. Page 2 of 7 47 ii. Contract Documents shall incorporate the current Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction and applicable Deschutes County standards. iii. Any affected irrigation crossings and structures will require review by the affected irrigation district. C. Provide Construction Management and Inspection Services: County anticipates negotiating consultant contract amendment for these services after 90% design review and prior to construction start. 3. Specifications and Expectations A. Pre -Design: Attend pre -design meeting with the County to finalize a specific scope of work for the project to finalize contract with the County for design services. B. Construction Plans: Prepare construction drawings for the above defined scope of work. Drawings shall be complete and correct working drawings and shall be in conformance with current Deschutes County Standards and Specifications and other industry standards. i. The Consultant shall perform or facilitate design of other utilities such as irrigation, power, natural gas, phone and cable by coordinating with each respective utility company as required. ii. The drawings will be prepared by obtaining existing system information from the County and by field surveying to show existing features. Horizontal and vertical control will be based on the Deschutes County Coordinate System. Drawings will show physical features, and will include legal boundaries, tax lots, and tax lot identification. iii. The intent of the drawings is to provide detailed information for construction by a contractor selected through the competitive bidding process by Deschutes County. C. Special Provisions: Prepare technical specifications. 11 i. The County will provide the Consultant with specifications (in microsoa Vvord format) from a typical project for use in this Project. ii. Technical specifications will include, but are not limited to, general and special requirements, material and testing requirements, special construction instructions, project closeout and cleanup, surveying (construction staking), construction and other specifications as necessary. D. Plan Review: Submit draft and final drawings with specifications to the Deschutes County Road Department and other impacted utilities, if necessary for review. County will pay for any applicable design review fees. L Consultant will contact and coordinate with each agency to expedite the review process. E. Final Plans: Prepare final drawings and specifications by revising draft versions as necessary from review comments. It is expected that the selected Consultant would meet with County staff and other agencies on a regular basis to review progress and refine draft design concepts. Provide an illustrative single page (24 x 36) exhibit drawing of the final layout for use in public meetings and presentations. F. Contract Documents: Provide Contract\Bid Documents (drawings and specifications) to the Deschutes County Road Department for use during bidding and construction (24 x 36 plan sheet size, no greater than 1:50 scale) The final documents will include bid quantities in the proposal based on take -offs from the design drawings. Provide an electronic printer - ready (pdf) set of final plans and contract documents in 24 x 36 sheet size and 11 x17 sheet size (scaled down from 24 x36). G. Control: Provide survey control data consisting of traverse control points with known X,Y, and Z coordinates. The points shall be 5/8-inch rebar with horizontal and vertical Page 3 of 7 information and shown on the construction drawings. This information is to be used for construction and shall be located sufficiently out of the proposed construction zone, yet readily available to the Contractor and the Surveyor providing construction staking. H. Project Budget: The project currently has a budget of $1,435,279 for design services and construction. Design Timeline: Road Department will require 15 business days to review draft design submittals. It is anticipated that the consultant will meet with the County to provide progress reports and address design issues on a periodic basis (monthly) throughout the design process. The consultant should plan for a meeting with County representatives eight times during the development and approval process of the plans, including but not limited to: 1. Initial project meeting with appropriate attendees; 2. 30% completion review meeting; 3. 90% review meeting, prior to final submittal; 4. Pre -bid for construction meeting; and 5. Pre -construction meeting SECTION 2: PROPOSAL PREPARATION, SCHEDULE, CRITERIA AND REVIEW There will be no mandatory pre -proposal meeting. All questions shall be made in writing via email to Cody Smith, County Engineer (cody.smith@deschutes.org) by 2:00 p.m. (PST) June 29, 2018. Faxed requests for information will not be accepted. Individual responses to questions will be made in writing as soon as practical however no later than July 6, 2018. Consultants intending to submit a proposal must register on-line when retrieving the RFP packet for this project at: https://www.deschutes.org/rfps. Proposals must be received by the Deschutes County Road Department office no later than 2:00 pm (PST), July 13, 2018. Proposals received after the deadline will not be considered. The County anticipates the following schedule for the project: RFP Advertisement: June 13, 2018 Proposal Due Date: July 13, 2018 RFP Review completed: July 25, 2018 County Commission approval of contract: August 22, 2018 Notice to proceed: August 29, 2018 The Proposal will be judged on the completeness and quality of content. Only those consultants who supply complete information as required in the Evaluation Criteria below will be considered for evaluation. Deschutes County reserves the right to reject any or all proposals. It is understood that all statements will become part of the public file on this matter, without obligation to Deschutes County. The County is not liable for any cost incurred by the consultant in the preparation or presentation of their proposal. Evaluation Criteria: The Proposal submitted shall respond to the following criteria in the order as listed below: Page 4 of 7 47 m ITEM MAXIMUM PAGE SCORE ALLOWANCE A Introductory Letter 1 0 B Project Team 3 35 C Firm's Capabilities 1 15 D Project Understanding and Approach (Scope) 4 40 E Communication and Availability 1 5 Supportive information (references, resumes, 6 5 F licenses, etc. Criteria Explanation: A. Introductory Letter: A statement in the introductory letter shall specifically stipulate that all terms and conditions contained in the RFP are accepted by the consultant. The letter shall also name the person(s) authorized to represent the consultant in any negotiations and sign any contract which may result. B. Project Team: This criterion relates to the project principal, the project manager, key staff and sub consultants. The basic issue is how well the team's qualifications and experience relate to this specific project. Elements to be considered: • Extent of nrinrinni'c invnlvPmPnt • Key member experience on similar projects • Team experience on similar projects • Unique qualifications of key members • Qualifications and relevant individual experience • Qualifications and relevant sub -consultant experience • Comprehensive team expertise to cover all phases of the project • Project manager's expertise with similar projects and with interdisciplinary teams • Approximate number of people to be assigned to the project • Organizational Chart (Project Team) may be included under supportive information • Familiarity with appropriate state, federal, and local laws and regulations • Project Manager or Principal must be a licensed Professional Engineer in Oregon. C. Firm Capabilities: This criterion relates to the firm's capabilities and resources in relation to the project. Elements to be considered: • Resources available to perform the work for the duration of the project (Include Capacity Chart, i.e., Can the firm accommodate the work?) Other on -going projects • Similar projects (by type and location) performed within the last five years that best characterize work quality and cost control • Similar projects completed for other government agencies (references will be contacted by Deschutes County) The firm's experience with Deschutes County Internal procedures and/or policies associated or related to work quality and cost control Management and organization capabilities Page 5 of 7 M D. Project Understanding and Approach: This criterion relates to the basic or preliminary understanding of the project, and the methodology and course of action used to meet the goals and objectives of the project. The basic issue is whether the firm has a clear and concise understanding of the project (based on existing information) and the major issues to address and whether a project approach has been formulated. Elements to be considered: The firm's basic understanding of the project as demonstrated within their proposal. Provision of a clear and concise explanation of work required. A typical project schedule that shows major tasks and approvals required to complete the job on schedule. A draft, line item scope of work for consultant services (not including hourly or cost estimates within the body of the proposal) should be included. E. Communication and Availability: This criterion relates to the consultant's accessibility, availability, and interaction with the Deschutes County staff. Elements to be considered: Ability to establish and maintain functional and productive working relationships. Accessibility for interaction with Deschutes County staff. Effectiveness of presentation skills. F. Supportive Information: Supportive material may include graphs, charts, photographs, resumes, references, etc., and is totally discretionary, but, as outlined in the Evaluation Criteria, it will be scored. Elements to be considered: Quality acid relevancy of material provided NOTE: All proposals submitted in response to this RFP shall become the property of Deschutes County and maybe utilized in any manner and for any purpose by Deschutes County. Be advised that proposals and all dvciirnentS submitted in response t^ thig RFP are subject to public discinsure as required by applicable state and/or federal laws. If you intend to submit any information with your proposal which you believe is confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from public disclosure (trade secret, etc.), you must separately bind and clearly identify all such material. The cover page of the separate binding must be red, and the header or footer for each page must provide as follows: "Not Subject to Public Disclosure." Where authorized by law, and at its sole discretion, Deschutes County will endeavor to resist disclosure of properly identified portions of the proposals. SECTION 3: EVALUATION A RFP evaluation committee will be appointed to evaluate the submitted proposals. Consultants will be evaluated on their response to the evaluation criteria. SECTION 4: SELECTION The proposals will require approximately 12 calendar days for evaluation. The top ranked firms may, at the County's discretion, be required to make a presentation in support of their proposal to the evaluation committee. The interview will serve to assist the County in selecting the successful firm and will serve as a tool to refine scoring of the RFP to produce a final ranking. Contract negotiations will follow the selection of the top firm. An initial scope and fee proposal will be required to be submitted within 7 calendar days of notification. The consultant selection process will be carried out under Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 279C.110. Page 6 of 7 SECTION 5: CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION M The successful consultant will be required to enter into a County Services Contract (see attached) with Deschutes County. The successful consultant must also submit documents addressing tax law, professional liability insurance, workers compensation, and overhead expense as part of the contract, as well as an Oregon tax account number. If the County and the top ranked consultant are not able to negotiate a contract, the County will initiate negotiation with the second place consultant, and so on. Any reference or general condition of employment of consultant that seeks to have State of Oregon indemnify and hold harmless the consultant, its sub -consultants, agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, direct and indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, or resulting from the performance of work by consultant, or the work of others, is limited to the extent permitted by Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, and the Oregon Tort Claims Act ORS 30.300 inclusive. SECTION 6: SUBMISSION Send four (4) copies of the Proposal and one (1) electronic copy (disc or disposable thumb drive) to the Deschutes County Road Department address listed below by 2:00 pm, July 13, 2018. Clearly mark the outside envelope RFP: Siemore Bridge Project. Attn: Cody Smith, County Engineer Deschutes County Road Department 61150 SE 27th Street Bend, OR 97702 Direct all other questions or inquiries to: Cody Smith, County Engineer Deschutes County Road Department 61150 SE 271h St. Bend, OR 97702 Email: cody.smith(a)_deschutes.org Attachments: Local Agency Agreement, Seismore Rd: Tumalo IRR Canal (Couch Lateral), Bridge No. BR17CO2 Scoping Notes Bridge Inspection Report Deschutes County Consultant Contract Template Page 7 of 7 EN E O U lu O O C) 0100 = 0 N W W J W (D a O 0 } U oC w w U C7 � Q � O to P. i • �G; Q� DESCHUTES -OUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ��� 61150 SE 27TH STREET Q BEND, OREGON 97702 (503) 388-6581 GENERAL SERVICES (503) 388-6591 ENGINEERING October 101 1983 First American Mortgage Corporation 358 N.E. Marshall Bend, Oregon 97701 ATTENTION: Rebecca Hodge: This -letter is to state that Deschutes County Department of Public Works does maintain Sisemore Road and it is infact in the County Maintained System. If you should need further information pertaining to the above mentioned road, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ,:• Neil K. Hudson Director of Public Works NKH:wg 50 CHAPTER 6: LEGALIZATION OF ROADS (This chapter was revised and updated in 2008, 2012 and 2014) TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.000 Introduction 6.015 Special References 6.100 Statutory Summary 6.110 Statutes on Legalization of Roads 6.120 Citations on Legalization of Roads 6.500 Discussion of Legalization Procedure 6.505 Width of Roads 6.510 Encroachments 6.515 Adjusting the Location 6.600 Legalization Checklist c inn V. / VV c i D A. is UQlllple LVcu111V111J 6.701 Survey Order 6.702 Hearing Notice 6.703 Affidavit of Posting 6.704 Affidavit of Service 6.705 Legalization Order 6.710 Legalization Resolution 6.711 Legalization Order (Alternative to 6.705) 6.800 Comments on Sample Ordinance 6-1 CHAPTER 6: LEGALIZATION 6.000 INTRODUCTION. The need to set the record straight on the location of roads in Oregon has been a concern since the middle of the nineteenth century. The Oregon Revised Statutes provide such a procedure, which was overhauled by the 1981 legislature. A county may refine or improve this statutory procedure to meet local needs, but should exercise caution to ensure that the final results have the status provided by ORS 368.216(3) and (4). The legalization procedure is used to clarify the record of the right-of-way boundaries of a road if one or more of the following conditions exist: • If doubt exists as to the legal establishment of a public road • If the location of the road cannot be accurately determined • If a road traveled for 10 years or more does not conform to the location in the county records. As noted above, use of the procedure depends on the nature of the record to be clarified. If a road exists exclusively because of public use and there is no other record of acquisition or property owner intent to convey right-of-way, the legalization procedure may result in no more right of way than would result from action to establish prescriptive rights. In that case, the county may want to explore direct negotiation with the property owners involved. If that fails to result in agreement, court proceedings to determine the boundaries of prescriptive rights and condemnation of any additional land needed may be the appropriate procedure. However, when the road that is actually traveled and otherwise used seems to be only a part of the record on the road, use of the legalization procedure may permit recognition of a statutory width. While the legalization procedure may not resolve all issues that could arise, when the limitations of prescriptive rights are involved, it should help bring the entire array of facts into proper perspective. In many cases, the record of original intent to provide a specific right-of-way should erase the need to enter the less precise prescriptive -rights arena. Once the county governing body has determined whether the legalization of the road is in the public interest it must adopt an order abandoning or completing the legalization procedures on the road. Upon the completion of the legalization procedures, any records showing the location of the road that conflict with the location as legalized are void (ORS 368.216 (4)(a)). The county governing body is further required to have the final order recorded, the road right of way surveyed and monumented in compliance with ORS 209.250, and have the survey recorded with the county surveyor (ORS 368.106). The statutory procedures described below apply only to legalization of right-of-way for the county road system. Clarification of the record of a road that is not in the county road system needs to be accomplished by adjudication in the courts or passage of a county ordinance broadening the statutory authorization. 6-2 50 6.015 SPECIAL REFERENCES: The following are sources of information outside this manual that are particularly relevant to sections of this chapter, as noted. Section 6.505 Oregon Law Institute, Oregon Government Law 2005: The Latest Chapters in Public Law, Ch. 3, "Streets and Roads, Obtaining Road Right-of-way" (2005) Section 6.505 Association of Oregon Counties, "Road Width Laws from the 1840's Onward". 6.100 STATUTORY SUMMARY. ORS 368.201 to 368.221 contain procedures for legalization of county roads. Legalization of a road is an action the county governing body may take to clarify the record as to the location of the right-of-way for a road. It consists of (a) Making a study of the road's history and a survey of its location; (b) Conducting a hearing with due notice to abutting property owners; (c) Issuing an order fixing the road -of -way; (d) Compensation for property affected by the legalization; and (e) Filing and recording the survey for the legalized road. Special compensation is provided for a person who owns a building that is in the road right-of-way unless that person had a reasonable basis for knowing of the encroachment before constructing the building. Rules are provided for settling uncertainty concerning roadway width. v 6.110 STATUTES ON LEGALIZATION OF ROADS Chapter 368 County Roads 368.201 Basis for legalization of roads 368.206 Proceedings for legalization of roads; report; notice 368.211 Compensation for property affected by road legalization 368.216 Order under road legalization proceeding 368.221 Legalization; county determination of lesser width 50 6.120 CITATIONS ON LEGALIZATION OF ROADS Strome v. Lane Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 230 Or. App. 190, 213 P.3d 1269 (2009): A property owner was not entitled to compensation for road legalization based on a claim that legalization was required for the removal of a bridge that encroached on a county road; evidence indicated that county owned the bridge in question, and there was no evidence that the property owner would be damaged by the costs of removal. Shotgun Creek Ranch, LLC v. Crook Cnty., 219 Or. App. 375, 182 P.3d 312 (2008): The Crook County Court legalized a road known as Shotgun Road that crossed property owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a writ of review challenging the legalization in circuit court, which affirmed in favor of the county. The plaintiff appealed, alleging the county court had no authority to undertake the legalization because the process only applies to roads that are indisputably county roads, and Shotgun Road was never lawfully established as one. The plaintiff also alleged that, even if the court had legalization authority, the court misapplied it because there was not substantial evidence that the proper location of Shotgun Road was along the south side of the Crooked River, as opposed to the north side. The Court of Appeals held that county governing boards have the authority to legalize county roads whose status as such is doubted. Also, the purpose of legalization is not to resolve competing factual accounts of where a road was established, but to remove doubt about establishment when, due to omissions or defects in the establishment process, doubts as to legality exist. Holdner v. Columbia County, 123 Or. App. 48, 858 P.2d 901 (1993): Property owner sued county for breach of contract and inverse condemnation that he alleged resulted from county attempting to enlarge a road plaintiff claimed was originally 40 feet to 60 feet following a landslide that caused a portion of Dutch Canyon Road to slide onto his property. The county initiated legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 for a 60 foot right of way, and maintained that the road was 60 feet wide before the landslide, and that therefore, there was no taking of plaintiff s property. The Court of Appeals held in favor of the county, stating that legalization process, which began after landslide but before road repair, did not result in a taking of the plaintiff's property. In addition, the court held the county was not bound by a county commissioner's statement that county would reimburse plaintiff for any damage caused by the use of plaintiffs private road during construction. A single commissioner cannot bind the county, as a majority of the board is required to transact county business, and the plaintiff is charged with knowing the limitation on a single commissioner's authority. Unger's Co. v. Lincoln County, 5 Or. App. 270, 483 P.2d 81 (1971): Plaintiffs brought a claim against the county for damages arising from the legalization of County Road No. 702, commonly known as Drift Creek Road, which passed through their property. The Plaintiffs filed objections to the legalization proceeding on the ground that no such county road existed. The county submitted results of an investigation which found that the road was indeed a valid county road, and went forward with legalizing the road as resurveyed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court and held that evidence supported the findings that County Road No. 702 was established in 1891, the plaintiffs' grantors assented to the establishment of the road, and the road had remained open and traveled by the public since its establishment. Under these circumstances, the court was required to deny plaintiffs' claim for damages. The court noted that the purpose of the legalization statutes is to remedy situations where a discrepancy exists between the road in fact and the road as described in the original survey by resurveying the existing road and conforming the official records to reflect its course. 6-4 50 6.500 DISCUSSION OF LEGALIZATION PROCEDURE. When legalization of a county road right-of-way is initiated under the statutory procedure, the county surveys the road to identify its location. The county road official prepares a written report regarding the road, based on the survey and other records. Notice of legalization proceedings is given to owners of abutting land by serving notice on the owners and by posting along the stretch of road in question. See chapter 2 for service and posting procedures. A hearing is held to provide affected landowners an opportunity to provide information or discuss problems that the proposed legalization may create. The legalization process serves to settle cases of right- of-way uncertainty. Once the process is completed, the legalized right-of-way is documented by the same kind of records of survey provided for newly established roads in ORS 368.106. Affected property owners who want to contest the decision must appeal to the courts within 60 days of the legalization through use of writ of review. If a proceeding is abandoned or overturned, the county may still want to preserve the record of the proceedings and the location data. 6.505 WIDTH OF ROADS. The description of right-of-way width in ORS 368.206 serves to consistently determine the right-of-way width and considers the historic statutory widths. When the record is unclear concerning the width of a county road, the width to be used is that width consistent with the law on county road width at the time the road was created. "Road Establishment Laws" is a compilation of road width laws from the 1840's onward prepared for the Association of Oregon Counties and very helpful for this purpose. If this width cannot be determined, the width to be used is the one consistent with width standards the county for roads of the same class at the time of the road creation. However, it is unlikely that the present county standard could be applied to claim a width in excess of that which would have been likely in the era when the road was originally established. A county may legalize a road at a width less than the standard width provided by ORS 368.221 if such action is in the public interest, or a portion may be narrowed if an encroachment cannot be removed. This authority in ORS 368.221 allows certain reductions in width as part of the legalization process without the need to follow vacation procedures. Typically, questions concerning width arise when the apparent description of a road created by dedication is at variance with its actual location. In these instances the county will want to use legalization procedures to "clean up" the record. However, as indicated in section 6.000, if a road's only record of existence is through prolonged public use (prescrip- tive use), the legalization procedure may be of little value in fixing a uniform width. 6.510 ENCROACHMENTS. The fact that the location of a road right-of-way needs legalization suggests that the exact boundary line is not entirely clear in some places. Under that circumstance some unsuspecting property owners may have installed structures within the right-of-way. ORS 368.211 allows a person caught in that circumstance to request compensation for the expense of removing the encroaching structure. However, the request must be made during legalization procedures. This permits the county governing body to weigh the relative merits of adjusting the right-of-way or of paying compensation to remove the structure. Compensation is not available to a person who knew at the time he or she acquired the property that the structure was in the road right-of-way. Compensation is also not available when the person or the person's grantor received compensation for the right-of- way when it was originally established, had otherwise actively participated in establishing 6-5 50 the right-of-way, or otherwise had knowledge that the right-of-way was a public way. 6.515 ADJUSTING THE LOCATION. Under some circumstances it may be appropriate to modify the right-of-way from the one the legalization analysis would otherwise fix. If the modification consists of a narrowing of width as described in ORS 368.221, this may occur merely by making that decision part of the legalization order. If right-of-way is required in a location that the facts of the road history do not permit to be included by the legalization process alone, concurrent procedure for establishment of the new right-of-way and abandonment of the old right-of-way are conducted. See chapter 5. 6.600 LEGALIZATION CHECKLIST ORS 368.401 to 368.426 establish standard methods and timeframes for providing notice by service, posting and publication in proceedings such as legalization that affect real property (See sections 2.300 and 2.330). ELEMENT ORDER NUMBER DATE RECORDED AND FILED Order to Survey Survey Notice of Hearing Affidavit of Posting Affidavit of Service i Final Order - 6.700 SAMPLE DOCUMENTS. The following sample documents on legalization proceedings were prepared by generalizing forms previously used by certain counties and may not cover all the procedures a county may need to follow. Modifications may be necessary to adapt them to individual county conditions or to unusual aspects of individual cases. County counsel review and modification of such documents is necessary to fit the particular circumstances and conditions of your county. The sample documents are as follows: 6.701 Survey Order 6.702 Hearing Notice 6.703 Affidavit of Posting 6.704 Affidavit of Service 6.705 Legalization Order 6.710 Legalization Resolution (Alternative to 6.701 and 6.702) 6.711 Legalization Order (Alternative to 6.705) 6-6 50 6.800 COMMENTS ON SAMPLE ORDINANCE. This sample ordinance may be used for one of the following purposes. Obviously, a county should, with county counsel review, modify and update such an ordinance appropriately to fit the particular circumstances of that county. (1) To Structure the Notice and Hearing Procedure: Short of getting consent sign - offs or some similar acceptance from each potentially affected property owner, some form of hearing is a necessary part of the proceedings. While the statutes contemplate a hearing, they do not fix a hearing procedure. Each county contemplating use of the legalization procedure needs to consider an ordinance to fill out these details. The sample illustrates just one method of accomplishing this. The ordinance could consist of no more than sections 1 through 4. Refer to section 2.330 for a discussion of notice alternatives. (2) To Give Ind pendent Attention to Potential Sources of Legal Challenge: Section 5 may be unnecessary; however, section 5 suggests going at least one step beyond the normal notice and hearing process when uncertainty exists. Very likely, the county would have used informal efforts to reach uncommunicative persons in order to discover and resolve possible conflicts. Section 5 formalizes one added step when communication has not been obtained by other means. (3) To Extend the Legalization Process to Local Access Roads: Under the 1981 road legislation the statutory legalization process applies to roads on the county road system only.' However, a county may elect to use its general ordinance --wers to extend the. stawtory procedure to apply to local access roads. The t..... . sample ordinance does this if the optional addition to section 1 enacting a general ordinance on legalization is included. A county may be particularly interested in applying legalization to a local access road if there is a potential of eventually adding it to the county road system or if the county is to be involved in spending county funds on the local access road or carrying out a special assessment project. I Prior to the 1981 revision, some historical statutory references to "county roads" might have had no purpose other than to distinguish them from streets in a "town plat," which would normally be expected to be under the jurisdiction of a town or city government. In drafting the 1981 revisions the term "county roads" refers exclusively to roads on a county road system. Limiting legalization statutes to only the county road system under the 1981 revisions leaves each county the choice of extending the procedure to local access roads by ordinance. 6-7 G STRUCTURE PHYSICAL INVENTORY CARD Date 4 Feb. 71 Project No.. A00901 Roadway By A-9 Sisemore M.P. N, 0.10 Joint Agency Name Waterway,R.R. or Rd. under Functional Class. ^- Federal Aid No. Type of Structure_ Spandrel Arch Spans 19.8 19.8 Total Length 138.5 feet. 19.8 Year built 1914 Type Superstructure Material Concrete Type Substructure Concrete Approach Roadway Width Width curb -curb—.._ _ 14.5 Vertical Roadway Clearance -- Load Capacity -15 No. Lanes 1 Type Area Plans Nos. -- Detour Route Location Add. Distance GENERAL INSPECTION CARD Project No. A-9-1 M.P. Date 9 Feb. 71 By F.E.R. St.l nsp.Cd. Surfacing Deck Curb `- Sidewalks Rails Rust - 80' i►7issing Drains Abutments Good Piers 4" spall at bottom Piles -- Paint -- Scour -- Drift Signing --- Protection @ piers Protection @ abutments - Struc. Traffic Under Traffic Guard Rail — Illumination Summary: Over-all Status Tolerable Deficient Now Deficient 19 1, I DESCHUTES COUNTY BRIDGE RECORD BRIDGE NO. A-9-1 Dates Maintenance Record 9 i. 71 Inspection By Record Type I F.E.R. of PROJECT NO. A-9-1 1. MAINTENANCE REPAIR ITEMS Replace 80' of railing 2. MAJOR REPAIR ITEMS Patch barrel pockets Patch footings 3. RECONSTRUCTION 4. RE -INSPECTION DATE 1975 ..DATE 9 February 1971 COST $400.00 COST $200.00 2ann nn .�JVV.4V COST CHECK LIST INSPECTION REPORT Project No. A-9-1 Bridge Name Type Spandrel Arch Length 138.5 Location Made by: Date: 9 Feb. 1971 I.WATERWAY Gate Present High a. Deck to XM& 18.7 b. Depth of seater 0 c Width of watr--r Reservoir d. Velocity 2. SURFACING - STRUCTURE a. Type b. Depth C. Skid characteristics d. Imperviousness C. 'Width curb/curb L' No. lanes g. Condition 3. SURFACING - APPROACH a. Type b. Depth C. Skid characteristics d. Pavement width e. Shoulder width L Condition 4. CURBS a. Type b. Dimensions C. Offset from main members d. Fastenings C. Condition S._ ^a. SID_ E_'W_AL_KS Type b. . Component dimensions e. Component orientation d. Fastening e. Condition 6. RAILS a. Type b. Height C. Spacing of posts d. Spacing, of rails e. Size of post f. Size of rail g. Offset from main members h. • Condition None 14.5 IR L R, _ None None Steel Pipe 2. 2" 2"—Q1 Rusty - 80' missing A-9-1 7. DRAINS a. Type None b. Sue c. Location d. Structure condition C. Hydraulic condition 8. DECK EXPANSION DEVICES Abutment/Picr Pier Abutment/Pier a. Type b. Opening distances C. Condition 9. DECK a. Type b. Size C. Orientation d. Condition 10. BULKI[EAD/A ING'NALLS Abutment So. Abutment No. a. Type Concrete Concrete b. Size support C. Size Components d. Condition Good Goo 11. ABUTMENT Abutment Abutment a. Type b. Size c. Condition 12. PIER PROTECTION - WATERWAY Pier Pier _ a— Type -- b. Size frame C. Size components d. Condition 13. SCOUR Pier Pier—_ a. Deck to bed b. Deck to bottom C. Bed to bottom footing d. With respect to bed at abutment 14. DRIFT a. Type b. Amount C. Size Pier Pier PIER PROJECT NO. A-9-1 PIER NO. So, 1 TYPE Concrete NO. COLUMNS/ PILES/POSTS 18" Wall SIZE 18" CONDITION Good CAP TYPE SIZE CONDITION SILL W SIZE CONDITION PIER PROJECT NO. A-9-1 PIER NO. 2 From South TYPE Concrete NO. COLUMNS/ PILES/POSTS 18" wall SIZE 18" CONDITION Spawl i ng Q" in 2' from Bottom CAP TYPE SIZE CONDITION SILL TYPE SIZE CONDITION PIER PROJECT NO. A-9-1 PIER NO. 3 From S. TYPE Concrete NO. COLUMNS/ PILES/POSTS 18" Wall SIZE 118" CONDITION2" Spawl i ng 1' From Bottom CAP TYPE SIZE CONDITION SILL TYPE SIZE CONDITION PIER PROJECT NO. A-9-1 PIER NO. 4 From S. TYPE Concrete NO. COLUMNS/ PILES/POSTS 18" Wall SIZE 18" CONDITION 3" in spawl i ng 1 " from Bottom TYPE SIZE CONDITION TYPE SIZE CONDITION CAP SILL I / 4�2 0 Coo, J'.,/ 14,1 t L � ii J •. "' l � • � =..1 l 1...� �� ( s � �' � 'J'r/ C - . ,.S'", � �- / 9 Jam'_ �/ <.,�° v. �"�� I � i z E i .2 23 z.�6 /`J S J v m e. X? Ze—o of 411,*1 3 :(� , z sO o /8'o 000 i a / !?G c DD # i �rbwH C9, F f r� e a 4 9, ✓ ,,/D f ,06 f ""A Cody Smith From: David Doyle Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2020 12:11 PM To: Chris Doty; Cody Smith; Adam Smith Subject: FW: NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATiON HEARING LOAM JANUARY 22, 2020 FYI DAVID DOYLE Deschutes County Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Telephone: (541) 388-6625 Facsimile: (541) 617-4748 Email: David. Doyle(o)_deschutes.org The information in this email, including any attachment, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information belonging to Deschutes County, which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Dave Bilyeu <dbilyeu621@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2020 9:42 PM To: Phil Henderson <Phil.Henderson@deschutes.org>; Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>; Tony DeBone <Tony. DeBone@ deschutes.org> Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org> Subject: RE: NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATiON HEARING 10AM JANUARY 22, 2020 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTRY COMMISSIONERS, DESCHUTES COUNTRY OREGON From: David Bilyeu, 64217 Tumalo Rim Dr., Bend, Or 97703 Please accept my comments below. My family and I travel this section of Tumalo Reservoir Road and out Sisemore Road at least 3-4 times per week on our way to hike or bicycle in the area. I believe in being involved in protecting the areas I frequently enjoy. As a member of the nonprofit, Friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor, I've been active in the work to manage the Tumalo Natural Area in collaboration with the BLM. As a result of this involvement, I've gotten to know the Hudson's and other families who live out along Sisemore. The Hudson's have spearheaded the efforts of our local community to maintain and protect the roadsides and surrounding Wildlife Corridor. This has involved considerable time, effort and personal expense on their part. The Hudson's and the membership of the nonprofit Friends group greatly appreciate the open spaces, amazing views, and opportunities to observe wildlife and respectfully recreate in this area. We believe this is also valued by the people who visit the area. I am unclear if this "road legalization" is just a record keeping formality or if it is something that can lead to some type of road expansion or development and intrusion into the wild character of this area. We also affirm that volunteers and residents will continue to actively care for the roadsides in this area as it now exists and believe any major road expansion would be unnecessary and harmful to the nature of the area. I recommend that any legalization hold to the current right of way and current road width of 20 feet. Thank you, Codv Smith From: David Doyle Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 2:26 PM To: Adam Smith; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Subject: Fwd: Written Testimony by Thomas E. Bishop for Jan. 22, 2020 hearing relating to Order No. 2020-002 (Portion of Sisemore Rd.) Attachments: 20200120 - Letter to BOCC - Bishop Opposition to Method of Legalization of Sisemore Rd.pdf Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Bishop <tom@bishoptrust.com> Date: Jan 20, 2020 1:25 PM Subject: Written Testimony by Thomas E. Bishop for Jan. 22, 2020 hearing relating to Order No. 2020-002 (Portion of Sisemore Rd.) To: Phil Henderson <Phil.Henderson@deschutes.org>,Tony DeBone<Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org>,Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org> Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Chair Henderson and Commissioners veBone and Adair, Attached is my written testimony of today's date for your thoughtful attention in preparing for and conducting the January 22, 2020 public hearing as to consideration of Board signature of Order No. 2020-002, Completing Legalization Procedures for a Portion of Sisemore Rd. I will not be able to attend the public hearing in person, but I trust you will find my written testimony helpful and informative. I request that you include my written testimony in the record of this matter. Best regards, Thomas E. Bishop 63382 Fawn Ln Bend, OR 97703-8574 Cody Smith From: David Doyle Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 6:27 AM To: Adam Smith; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Subject: Fwd: Testimony For Jan22 loam meeting Attachments: Sisemore Road.pdf; 1988 Tumalo Board Meetings.pdf, TID Deed.pdf; BLM UDRMP ROD.pdf Sent@om my Verizon Motorola Smartphone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Hildebrandt, Jamie" <jamie@rocksprings.com> Date: Jan 21, 2020 8:42 PM Subject: Testimony For Jan22 loam meeting To: Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org> Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Hi Patti, Please accept and review my testimony for the meeting at 10 am — start with the Sisemore Road PDF Thanks —Jamie Hildebrandt 1 Testimony to the Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Orecion For Hearina on January 22, 2020 at 10am. In regards to the legalization of Sisemore Road, I would like to submit the following comments to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. The short stretch of road that is under consideration for legalization has many benefits to Deschutes county to either remain non -legalized or legalized with historic restrictions to keep it in the same width that it was built. I have lived in Bend since 1970 and for the past 35 years I have dedicated many years of my life to the preservation of the land that is impacted by the public in the area serviced by Sisemore Road along with many other citizens and organizations. We have been quite successful - a few of the highlights are listed below. In 1988 Deschutes county citizens filled the Tumalo Community School gym to standing room only to help Tumalo Irrigation District decide to close Tumalo Reservoir to the public. See attached meeting minutes. The 1988 deed from the State Department of Water Resources that gives Tumalo Irrigation District the land in the area, so they could close it to the public, is very specific as to the use of the land. See attached deed. In 1996 the Crown Pacific / USFS land exchange was modified in the final stages to create a Forest Service buffer of land around Tumalo Reservoir to protect the area from potential development after the exchange was complete. During the Crown Pacific / USFS Land exchange a small area around the section of Sisemore Road now before this Board of Commissioners was identified as an ACEC (Area of Critical Concern) due to a plant found to grow only in this small area of the world - Peck's Milkvetch. Middle school students from Bend -La Pine have participated in scientific studies of the plant with the guidance of the Department of Agriculture. Most of Sisemore Road is available for use by the county due to a 30 year easement from the BLM issued in 1995 and is due to be renewed in only 5 years. Over 90% of the entire length of Sisemore Road on both sides is owned by the BLM and is a winter deer range. In 2005 the BLM Upper Deschutes Resource Management plan dedicated all the BLM land in the area as non -motorized use, the only county roads that travel through these thousands of acres are Sisemore Road and a short section of Couch Market Road. This was one of the largest non -motorized areas set aside in the entire plan covering over 400,000 acres the BLM land in Central Oregon. See attached page 134 of the 2005 Record of Decision. The Friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor was formed in 2013 by local citizens as an organization with the intent of protecting the area as the population of Central Oregon grows at a good pace with no real end in site. It has partnered with the BLM and is implementing the closure of roads and rehabilitating the area as outlined in the BLM Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan. These are only a few of the efforts carried out over decades by hundreds of Deschutes County citizens (and State / Federal agencies) to focus on reducing the impact of our Central Oregon population in this specific area. One of the defining markers that let people understand they are entering this area is the small one lane bridge and the narrow dirt road known as Sisemore Road that lies beyond it.This small entry point of less than 20' is the best entry statement we have to drive home that you are now entering a special point in Deschutes County. It forces everyone who crosses from the end of Tumalo Reservoir Road onto the beginning of Sisemore Road to slow down to less than 10mph just to enter the area. People only drive that slow in parking lots! It would be a shame to change a natural entry point that has stood the test of time in the County for over 100 years and indeed before the County even existed. The earthen dam that was finished in 1915 (Deschutes County Historical Society is proud to have a sign and markers onsite) is also 20' or less in width and sits toward the middle part of Sisemore Road. The very nature of the dam and the small stretch of road in question for legalization are what define the experience that you have entered a part of Deschutes County +hat It as o+nnr+ rii h in.i+h hic+nry fnr n Innn Innn time IC it nPRP.-,q;; v Affer nvP.r 100 vears of llIQt IQJ JLWWU 1-I vvIuI II -- I - .... .J- . .� .... ..�. ._ .. ..--------I ------ -- -- - - - , -- continuous use to bring this road, that mostly traverses a wildlife area protected with a non motorized use overlay, up to standards that would allow payment and highway speeds? Go stand on the bridge and cross the section of road you are deciding on - indeed take the short drive and cross the entire length of Sisemore Road and seriously consider if you want to take steps to change what hundreds of people have spent decades protecting. There are 3 welcoming kiosks along Sisemore Road that have been strategically placed so that anyone entering the area have to pass one. These provide information about the area and some of the use restrictions that are in play by the BLM, USFS, ODFW and other landowners in the area. The management of this area is ongoing with plans in the works that encompass many state and federal agencies along with lots of private individuals of the county. At the very least, please become better informed about the repercussions of the proposed legalization of this very small part of the county road system before you move forward. Thank -you for your time - unfortunately I am not able to attend the meeting on the 22nd but would be happy to address the commissioners questions and help educate them on the area at another time. Jamie Hildebrandt 16880 Barbara Way Bend, OR 97703 Cell: 541-408-1804 MINUTES OF REGULAR BOARD MEETING, 8EMEMB8B 13,1988 AT 7:00 PM DISTRICT OFFICE Present: Hodges, Hoobler, Ancel}, RDmesbVrg' Henry Staff: McNulty, [UUdanS Quests; Dill Hopp, R.C. Crum, Bob Nash, Ross Taylor The meeting was Called to order by Chairman Duane Hodges, and Sue Coudare was appointed scribe, l' R.C. Crum - Subdivision Mr. Crum and his Attorney Bob Nash along with Ross Taylor an Engineer representing Sun Country was present to ask Board to approve and sign the easement agreements. Our Attorney Bill Hopp was present also to advise the board on how the easements would effect the District. After an open and then closed discussion the Board of Directors agreed to the following stipulations in conjunction with approval Of signing the required documents: l. Wyndamera Association would be responsible for maintenance and or replacement of asphalt that will he over existing buried canal pipe. 2. Remove the domestic water right in the name of Kelly from Tumalo Irrigation Districts Deed. 1�aqh landowner shall become an individual such time as such lto is sold. ;�s each lot is aold., -i— deduction for the 10 acres of water curre,ntly_��aar�g�d to the propeEty/ so tbatthera o_lpugar be ot �-a�z��o�of���tez once I0 Io�e have been to Wyodemeza for tSe j sold, (see #7 Agreement #88-21030). 4, Wyndemere would pay all reasonable Attorney fee the District incurs for the enument and right of way agreements finalizing. ll MlNUTE8 The minutes of August 9th, September 12 and September 12 executive Meeting were approved by d motion by Houblmr, with a second by ADCall. Vote was unanimous. III VOUCHER LIST A motion was made by H0obl8r, and seconded by ROmesbVrg to approve the September voucher list as presented. All in favor, llll HYDRO Manager McNulty discussed with Board of Directors the PP&L buy down contract. It is in the final Signing stages, and could be ready as soon as Friday September lO. There are no more changes anticipated, but if there are he would yet prior board approval before Hodges and McNulty it wuuld sign as authurizmd by oarlier 8Oard on September l, l988 per telephone conversation by Chairman Hodges. TUMALO RESERVIOR Chairman Hodges enthusiastically presented to the board'a signed Deed, wherein the 930 acres of land in and around the present Tumalo Reservoir Site now belongs to Tumalo Irrigation District. The Deed from Water Resources was finalized and now the Board can determine the future uses of the site. After a discussion period, it was decided to hold an open Public meeting on September 27 at 7:00pm to be held at the Tumalo Elementary School, The meeting is to be advertised in the legal notices of the Bend Bulletin a newsletter be sent to each water users and an agenda be started where as each interested person will have equal time (approximately 3 minutes) to voice their opinion as to the best use of the site. Upon completion of said meeting the 5 member board of Directors will then hold a closed decision meeting to conclude the findings and making the public their final decision. PUMP PER141T pump permit for Gene littrell was approved by a motion from Henry, and second from Romesburg. The Board voted unanimously after Manager McNulty presented the problems that this delivery presents. Transfers A notion from hoobler to approve the following transfer was made: Ken Vincent to self _ Relocating on own lands. Nelson/Clement to self -Relocation on own lands. both users have already had survey's made and maps are ready. The motion was seconded by Ernie Romesburg. All board members in favor. CISTERNS AND LEGALITY Di rect,`oz Sharon Hoobler brought up the problems of delivering water for domestic use and how it may effect the District some day. After on open discussion pertaining to the volume of users with cisterns and the impact on District, the Board decided to have Attorney Hopp research the legal obligation to the District. He will report back and the Board can determine any further steps that may need to be made. At that time Attorney Kopp asked Board for approval to proceed with another item. He and our accountant Steve Greer need to discuss and set guide lines for contract bid in case in future the District need to follow open contract bid regulation,Board gave approval. Also at this time a motion was made by Hoobler and seconed by Romesburg to approve the retainer agreement with our attorney and have him attend each monthly meeting. Vote was unanimous. MANAGER'S REPORT Discussed newsletter to be sent out regarding end of irrigation season, which will be September 23 with a stock run to follow, continue through September 30. Board agreed with manager McNulty, Mamagement to implement. NEXT MEETING Scheduled for October 11 at 7:00 at District Office. Adjourned at 11:15pm. 1 a MINUTES OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING, SEPTEMBER 27, 1988, AT TVMALO SCHOOL AT 7:00 P,H. Present: !dodges, Ancell, Romesburg, floobler, Henry Staff; McNulty, Condare Guests* Attorney Bill Hopp The meeting was called to order by Chairman Duane Hodges, and Sue Coodare was appointed scribe, with Ralph McKultY taping the meeting. This was a special meeting called to order to determine the future use of the reservoir and surrounding lands. Water Resources Department had resently deeded to TXD the lands. After an opaA agenda with several water -users and other interested people speaking, expressing different ideas to the use of the lands, the Board of Directors came to this decision before 100 + people, Kenny Ancall made a motion to CIOSO the Tumalo Reservoir and surround- inS lands from public access, and to make the area a wlidiife sanctuary. To include the StiPvlation that a vote of 75% of the water users would be needed before any changes could be made to this motion. The motion was seconded by Sharon Hoobler. owz - Kenny Anuell - yes Sharon Hoobler yes Ernie Romesburg yes Randy Henry yes Duane Hodges yes The motion was carried unaaitnously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9-30 pm. 0 DESUTES COUNTY O"ICIAL RECORDS NANCYCHSUMMIP, COUWY CLERK 05/19/2008 03:512 M D-D Cntal Stnu3 FIG $5.00 $11.00 $20.00 $5.00 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk -TES Mate of Oregon �. -A, L County of Deschuteel;. pared w1tK the 0 original, and."thaVit is a borred-AranscrIpt therefrom, randi ?'of lth_"hole vi, suet) original, as the -'sarnqd app*arsb of qacord- at tho County Clerk% office Lq,_das0ute4 opntV, Oregon. , I j In NANO, 8GANk8N3j-t: e M")u Hy 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 and Page or as Fee Number STATUTORY QUITCLAIM DEED The State of Oregon acting by and through its Water Resources Department hereafter called die Grantor, releases and quitclaims to Tumalo Irrigation District, an Oregon irrigation District, Grantee, all rights, title and interest in and to the following described real property: Tax Lot 2100: Government Lot 2, and the southwest '/. of Section 5, together being the West''/, of said northeast''/4 of Section 5, Township 17 South, Range I I East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Tax Lot 400: The Northwest'/. of the Southwest Y. of Section 33, in Township 16 South, Range I l East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Tax Lot 600: The southwest V. of Section 4, in Township 17 South, Range I 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Tax lot S400: The north 1/2 of the southeast 1/4, and the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 31, in Township 16 South and Range I 1 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon as shown on the attached map; TOGETHER WITH, that portion of Section 32 of said Township 16 South and Range 11 East as shown on the attached map and fully described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 32; thence along the west line of said Section 32, North 2540.2 feet, per Statutory Quitclaim Deed from the State of Oregon to Tumalo Irrigation District, recorded September 12, 1988 in Volume 170, Page 531 of the Deschutes County Official Records; thence leaving said west line and following said Quitclaim Deed boundary, South 76°49' East 199.3 feet; thence North 76°05' East 72.5 feet; thence North 54°19' East 175.0 feet; thence North 84°45' East 212.0 feet; thence South 71°49' East 224.0 feet; thence North 87°45' East 399.0 feet; thence South 15°16' East 612.0 feet; thence North 37°42' East 395.0 feet; thence North 36138' East 338.0 feet; thence North 43°20' East 274.0 feet; thence South 89056' East 649.0 feet; thence North 44122' East 454.0 feet thence North 73°54' East 305.0 feet; thence North 82°54' East 175.0 feet; thence North 64°07' East 242.0 feet; thence South 20139' East 193.4 feet; thence South 3°20' East 85.8 feet; thence South 11 115' West 290.1 feet; thence South 14156' East 475.7 feet: thence South 3°22' West 262.0 feet; thence South 15106' West 431.6 feet; thence North 81 °43' East 251.8 feet; thence South 86°59' East 281.0 feet; thence South 72109' East 251.9 feet; thence South 419 V East 226.8 feet; thence South 38°09' East 277.7 feet; thence South 71°23' West 220.9 feet; thence South 83°47' West 300.5 feet; thence South 7051' West 331.1 feet; thence South 52°3V West 173.1 feet; thence South 69°0 P East 206.0 feet; thence South 62°0 V East 367.0 feet; thence South 45109' East 153.2 feet; thence South 29°23' West 243.9 feet; thence South 47°23' West 436.4 feet to a point on the south line of said Section 32; thence Westerly along said south line 4,000 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. provided that said property is held in public ownership and use as a Winter feeding area for wildlife satisfactory to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. When said property is no longer owned by Tumalo Irrigation District or another public body, or is no longer used for public purpose including ,use at a Winter feedina area for wildlife satisfactory to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, then Grantor may reenter and terminate the interest of the Grantee or Grantee's assigns. / The true consideration of this conveyance is other good and valuable consideration promised, including a commitment by Tumalo irrigation District to involve local residents and the community before making decisions on use and management of the land or granting easements. Excepting and reserving to itself, its successors, and assigns all minerals as defined in ORS 273.775(t), including soil, clay, stone, sand, and gravel, and all geothermal resources, as defined in ORS 273.775(2), together with the right to make such use of the surface as may be reasonably necessary for prospecting for, exploring for, mining, extracting, reinjecting, storing, drilling for, and removing, such minerals, materials, and geothermal resources. In the event use of the premises by a surface rights owner would be damaged by one or more of the activities described above, then such owner shall be entitled to compensation from state's lessee to the extent of the diminution in value of the real property, based on the actual use by the surface rights owner at the time the state's lessee conducts any of the above activities. In the event use of the premises by a surface rights owner would be damaged by one or more of the activities described above, then such owner shall be entitled to the extant of the diminution in value of the real property, based on the actual use by the surface rights owner at the time the state's lessee conducts any of the above activities. 4 In Witness Whereof, the grantor has executed this instrument this ._l �...... dayof .. 10.0.;Q......; ija corporate grantor, it has caused its name to be signed and its seat, ifany, affixed by an officer or otilkFirierson duly authorizes to do so by order of its board of directors. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352, THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRAr!n FS AS.API7NED INORS30.93aaLtD TO MOUIRE ABoimnrF. ... RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352. ate of Or on by th ou h its ter Resources Department P illip C. Ward Director Personally appeared the above -named Phillip C. Ward, who being duly sworn, did say the he is the Director of the Oregon Water Resources Department of the State of Oregon, and the said instrument was signed on its behalf and by its authority; and he acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. STATE OF OREGON, County of Marion I ss. Tftis-' stru entWas ucknow(edged before me on l WW / 1 200 Qy..K%C,as ack.of cd .................._ _..................... _....._ ........ _. __ ... _.......... _..............._.. 77ris instrument was acknowledged before me on..AaA4IX 200$ . by Phillip C. Ward as Director of Oregon Water Reso rces Departme , State of Oregon./ OFFIGALSEAL ." CINDY S 3 TH otary Pub ie for Oregon NOTARY PUBUC-OREOON COMMI$WNNO. 385580 y commission expires 1,.?- /5-i/,? co- CTa TTiT!\TfV litt.Tht aloe nnnn t A The State of oragoAf by mad through Wi1xitam X. Young, Aireator of Water Meeou90e9 D&PArtMObt, GZAntOr, rele&ee$ aDO qui.tclai*ms to Tumalo irrigation District, an oregon Irrigation U,(z tziat, Grantee, all right and title seed intereat in and to the fallovinr� isawribed real property; Set foa.th in 'sxhib3t h, attached buxtto and lay this reference included bGrOiRr so i,ong as said property io bald in PmCh .ic <Amership and used &A a winter feeding area for wildlife a tiatac°tory to tiae oregon uepartnmat of Piub and wildlife. When salt} provtxty ie ho longer otgned by Tome.Zo Irrigation Diatrfct or anotbar pUblio body, ax 19 no longer used fox Public purpoee incia8ing use as a itipter feeding area for wildlife 9atletaLotory to Ilia Oregon DepArtRODt of Fish and wildlife, the interest of the Granted, or Ito assi9AX8 gba�3 aut ti.oal-iy tarminate and revert to the Grantor. The tru* aobsideration of this Conveyance is o#her good and Valuable Cohmideration Promised, i,iw3abding a Comitment by Tumako Xzrlgatfov Diatrict to involve 1=al raSidaiats and 't17e Co tnitl' baaf*4,0 making dcrsisiahaa ®n une =4 T4=506ftOMt a€ the SAomd aa: graxittog eBSEueeats. This i.YastrRaent Will not allcto tis8 of the property desarib" in this inmtrw*nt in violation Of app].ioable land use laws mnd xmgula bons. Before aigaing and accepting this instrmmnt, the Statutory Quitclaim Dared ', < QD page 1 w r _.. Y.-.. . � .. • .e ' .y... .-,�...�r ��•"`A. •,.. .....y-...... % �'y ,Wry _ .. Y • • , �, 1 iJ ~ � � V pexoda �ioquirtuq f*Q title to the ProPOfty GbOuld chebk Wlth t" appropriate city or count? Planning department t$ verify MKOVad u8tlli. Dated thto day of ��•. 19�8. TB8 STATE Or (]MM WatQY itssourcen Ciomm3.sgion W7 WIM f. Xw4v# tsar " STATE Or 0R7700 3 Bounty of rnsian ) pe,ScM&Ily appeared Vhe abOvO-named Will1az 1; young' wbo. being dW$ sworar did sap that be ju the Dix$otor of the Mtez Aasflurcee ve"rtmont a3 the State of Oregon, and fat *110 Enr;trkiment wale gigged on its behblE and by i.ts autitozitys and be aakngvaWged said instv"ent k4 be ira vo2ivakafcy get en dead. or. Ps lie xOr VY s�if ��q Ml £' SLY Cmfamig�iou xxpireat * `� V of OF-gg sbatutozy Quitolaiya Dead MW Page 2 I -, ...,w-..-..yam -. .. .......rv.ri..- i ' ��n � . r-.•. ..-...4�.,,q,,...n,.+,,,.....r..�,.�...... . . `� .. i� . . { • x. Co�atyt Doeahct6� . • � T:tta178i' fli R&SOtPi . Quot • �. �, fleeatrlptd"at a, bacate Inv 9.arA U Aadpe&d° S a *2 ba�os+ats melee nab DoumBd t$l s� ttm �� eoraex seas , $. 36 ff.. P- 8r f.9+W- 996Sfa 2GOWS too" S. 00 3$1 �w IMP) th A ft S. 3° �iftt xe i$.2{x � co ° it 22d.4°t .a a: IV, 45' v ttteuo� S. 34e 1?' a0 %�.IIF +1qp sv .twin r%i` 16 3�osg�k o thtgtv4 8. Zi' :�° irs i$9.A°34 thews. 8. w ADO U. tion" $e "0 364 W. !'3?c7et 3r F3" 094 Vv 9A»Ss6 0t"" g 2!r 221 W. 22A.2"s $8amotr Sa 'WIW* Z..�+ 26 V. M3'q i 4�eesaa . 460 Z6q We x6s5°6 0° ° �' '3a° 27` it. �.�`Sli�s.3aa ' 547-3s or )ASS to thy► r tfteaW9 B B4o 7 .. _.. ,.e .s w t floe cc tit+ r He g+ rill/OHi oe shwtli to 4b, a -f Sous 31. 2. 26 4t .. 8�" 0 � "At aim ab smt$ 2.um o2 � ofYD 8s 3b a.. $P4. 31k ttttaatr S. on to uett Xtae of Sea, 320 �. u A V,K. to It to$nt 25k0.$ bl. u! tb : QC'it'a or aa tMawq S. ?G° &9° R. 199.311 tip 11. 046 451 $• 222.010 8hafyo* S. WAV"OlI S, Ma theme S. 'l1t° 1 V. G�0"J t4 1t, ')1r 42` 24 395,t1°! thwbm S. 64 36� S 8.0t1 t�tr tle 43° 20j0 Tw 04'ad: 4ltne�e $. 3f+ s t32r►ttm fgr yt," S+Cf .u.. 454.011 tbfE01P . i° `�` 19. 115.011 a z,ld ^A2.91; t �.a,+'tip, .y 9 k. WP411 s. 3 76't Ze LM71; thm" 34 221 W. .0 t they 94 3!Q d6� !�. 10'i tbmgo S tun" W Ogg R. 2O °9; $Aeitoo S. 968° i S. �p}.t L 2W*.7 9 t on" Be 410 ` 4:. 2 43 �ppo S. Q3' All W.:lw.s*l 7i° 511 .g°6 t8r0A g° U. 173.1°d t 170 0594 S25ml%, b (2 Of 3) $6m* 9. 69° Q1 g 1~. Sttjfs.Qm a t tsa qq6 �� ' Fw 3b7.A' 1 tdaaft S. 1.34 tK)+ 8. I53.2°� ttiajipb @Mgr W. d3. tSsm— A. 47" 231 %. 4%.4t to a pa3At 04 the auatkt limaq`a Of sM 'leUUM 321 tdmooe mmUrxy Va the &Lath 21= to the Sit aae. at the at 84 at ftzd 8304 t1ew&* oa bho usn+tt .+ the * of the is* Step. 50 It. IT S., 8• � itt. 9 tbs scuth It" at Z "m see . Sp tOtvaas oe the rotuett Um *r 00 to the SC} ser. "b 8ssa. S w"W at the Qu<+Y'aer aoxvat to S=eatimm 4 MA 5i TVF-- 37 �., Ra* 1Z £.ti.H.j Lhetma 600 %Iwo #Am spelt$, Ilse Ot $"- 4* IY. s ftqe 3I R D"ttdar of U0.0 batrthea N1'th 06 *61 alat 367.2 tpo'slts thedoe !truth *st W $KA 3tte.t teat; t No rth $30 "1 ft" InJ rset; t9aace tlorthh 560 551 Fad 262.5 c0eks 6bazwr tkrth S3* 450 IkA 9m,2 ttat to a Wnt an 0a North LAD Of tUt Bit} rt�z •b X' Ot UO AM tleaOOld mau'm ls% om M'CR'a 6,.0 "1 ant ca the Atuft UA* of the Above domat'tbed twty &m tmot JGLO Pest to tbb W eormer of tilts above daeaalbed rwo tmatt theeoso esu ls**w Mwed w 30' i4t" rat fte Nwth IUD of itttt 84 a* of the WNWO dspcoabosd motto% a tlirtamae or 4MO feints %muw Vsmittb 4"' 24* Zit IW 7 Uatl ttIM*$ Sautb W 465 E^aet 9ROoa! r trtl %b%u40 .21' 040 FARt XV.7 ftaI4 thA th South 29 090 Neet 90.0 fea,ty= t. ftm South 2v Or 2"t: I3ti.3 fvett tbtm* SOM 410 W1 Ust 176.9 linetl theaat SaAb ?70 05' ftot ,aw.b #ot to a PDlet; on tbk ant Uv* at the ,aborm 408030td AvtV aam tm*U tbtaaa Kawth V c3• tart $i$ii.1 teat to tho lm ewu#r of tine sue; of toss De s"tion rf $) T« Z7 S!. Ito 31 '$.t A. t --.'3ttt2tt6O Arn_w-- 33201 to the Ul thown N. 58i3e5`S them* S. 060 56t volt bQ.4t; ttisgdee S. �,u tlb0 V. "J ej Thafto R. 8s• k6' 4s. bi.0ti tbahae 8. 6�.1* 061 tr 123.2t1 thrnov U. 26° 4Rt tds. 87.09; thanato T+. 660 °n' V. 9S.4+j thtnoe 9. 63e l20 V. 2W-0ma ONO" tl. S'S' 06" Ne 2:2.0.5's tb mte IL SP 460 W. 23.9.a'9 QUM R. W 26t V. 98.01 tEarm S. 83, iut Lo 62.80, 0 thmws W. 360 26W. 56.90 to ttro Crest 2ftta or tBe N3 ai Sao. 33a T. 16 0., R. U A.tt.xo t mm* R. Dins g04 tteyt -11*0 to the W awns of tho M Sul; thattas woo OR UO W. Um of V'm out 6* of "Id aoo'tdat to 't64 tit ow. thereotx tbrrrte 84 on tho V. Jim J4 the itt asae. Maid 8sro. 331 tbmm w. m the hair aeotElon Um to the BE ate, or the _ 5WI >* t r sra. 32, T. U S., V. 11 IL w.2d. j $hoses 0. otj QW 1. Uns of =JA S* to the h Ct . tAlaem lt, sit tb6 d S Darner %Sae Of Sootaaw 32 Mid 29 to tbo gar. of the S* Wl Sao. 29; tlos" V. on the+ R. I.9mo ar *am at W. tD the MW aor. 4kWOMI &hence S. im U* it> Yins of asi.'A Mi. Wt to tks am ocrawa womm dim= Vest ra tW Saatb ita,a or the Sal W4 to tM it} **. at uses. 39e 4. U M., R. 21 l6oW.jfap w44 CoWar beUq the palsot of bogivaus of *0 tv"t toraia darer" ea3ulain6 tt¢>jtr+ooctmatte'1X 930 &map, am* or 3apah �..T-...- -.-.; v , . max.-..�--.-.�•..w.,... p. .. � ......... .. .. _... _ .. .. _ _.... M 7Ezvept;3 g and regarving to If8eLf, its Succome lens and asstgm .e3.1. MiTiere2a as 0518finea in 098 273.775(i1, including sail, clay, stOUS, Sawa, and gravel, and all qcother ,MM:L rt�,3thdefined 9bt �a mm&� 2738775{2}e ogetgeg allgil age of ta® sgrface as may be raawsaa'bll? meet¢"ary for prO0p"ttng for, 6%plor£na £nrP mining, ex ranting, reinjeattAgr g, dr£21£sag fore cesaovinS, guar "nerai,s, matezjalca ans 5jeotharmal Maasoa=ees . gip the %vant 038 tkff tha s pK�mi �� *eoY mere ighta owner W he das�e�� y of the at:�tivfti®a described abavO, then 9"czy ner phall be euLltled tv oogLmnmat.ion groAi a tate's lessee to 03'A g tent° t� the difflitx- tion in Va.},ue of the real pro tya based OU the ti-Xeathegst&te se&eu e0 id�h8 s a¢at the above activities- S 7 F 1 Ai i E I K, P MAN of b jf• GPI m r VW TM go= WWWW V"Mm"Im Isis M. gJ�tt T2 Pep��'.1 te1nnV COMITY CLMK 6t-/-1 )_ "? o' s 1201I Upper O schutes Record of Decision and Resource Mana,�Zernerrt Plan Guidelines: I The Deschutes and Crooked River corridors adjacent to Crooked River Ranch is designated Non -motorized Recreation Exclusive and managed for non -motorized trail use and river access. 2. The Deschutes River corridor located south of lower Bridge Road is designated Nan -motorized Recreation Exclusive and managed for non -motorized trail use and river access. 3. Small parcels located northwest of Redmond are designated Non -motorized Recreation Exclusive. 4. Provide a designated trail system within the main Steamboat Rock block. Emphasis on road and trail system development in this area will be on reducing density from the current range of approximately 8 miles per square mile to a lower r nige that provides understandable and useable recreation opportunities and reduces social and resource conflicts. 5. Aseparate trail system fornon-motorized use will be designated along the Deschutes River in the niain Steamboat Rock black. Non -motorized recreationists may also use the other designated roads and trails in the area. Tumalo Recreation area Roads will be retained or developed in the Tumalo block only to the extent necessary to create or access parking areas, trailheads or developed sites, or to serve administrative use. Roads not needed for administrative access may be closed and rehabilitated or modified to serve as trails. Designated trails will be developed in the area. (Objective R — 2: Provide designated access points (includes entry points, parking areas, trailheads, and/or staging areas) to enhance visitor experience, protect resources, ,Rid minimize conflicts with adjacent landowners. C.:,,;A.I;,,es- I. Identify designated access points, parking areas and frailheads to support the non - motorized trail system. 2. limit the number of access points through trail layout and rehabilitation efforts. Objective R — 4: Provide identifiable non -motorized recreation opportunities to provide visitor satisfaction, protect natural resources, and minimize conflicts among public land visitors and adjacent land owners. Allocations/Allocvabie Uses: The Tumalo area is closed tomotorized use. See RMP Maps 3 and 24. Guidelines: 1. The Tumalo area is designated as Non -motorized Recreation Exclusive. 2. Trail system goals for the area include: a. Roads will be retained in this area only to the extent necessary to create or access parking areas and trailheads. b. Roads not needed for administrative access will be either closed or converted to designated trails. c. Trails will be available for year-round use. d. Provide links to trail systems on adjacent lands. e. Provide a variety of loops that offer a diversity of trail experiences and serve to disperse users and reduce user conflicts. f. Trails will take advantageof scenic and interpretiveopporturuties. 3. Designate a system of non -motorized trails in both the main Tumalo Block and the area south of Tumalo Reservoir. 4. Work with Deschutes National Forest, Deschutes County and others to provide regional trail link opportunities between Bend and Sisters, and between Tumalo and Cline Buttes. 134 z 0 uj c� z z 0 Q r., J Q W I uj 0 I LU 0 u LLJ F�Mmn 0 m m z LLJ cr. 0 2 Lli V) MULMAM V) or_ w �z z 0 Q u MANKYON z cf� U.j z 0 z 0 u O J 0 0 Q I 0 a- S Q u D CL I LLJ V) z 0 CL V) Lij w z 0 Q 0 z w O v z 0 V) u z 0 v c�\x s coG -A D BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING • Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony: Is this topic an item on today's agenda? L/NYes (please see description of Citizen Input above) 0No Date: Name f Address 7� kI,!`�'`}rc��� d':� I�rci� %"- -'t Phone #s E-mail ad C-) THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? N Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ,Ale_ Sisemore Road Right of Way Legalization Hearing - January 22, 2020 Comments to Commissioners: I am Peter Fullenwider. I have lived at 17665 Snow Creek Road for over a decade. My wife and I frequently walk Sisemore and are very familiar with it. I am Secretary/Treasurer of the friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor, a registered 501c3 organization recognized by the IRS and the State of Oregon. I am not qualified to comment on the legal issues surrounding the proposed legalization of this stretch of Sisemore Road. I do however have some concerns regarding the stewardship of this area, as it is a critical urban/rural interface. Our grass roots organization was formed in 2013 by people living in and close to the Tumalo Natural Area in response to wide spread violation of the regulations and spirit of the Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan of 2007. Specifically, we had frequent shooting, automatic weapon fire, hazardous material dumping and rampant off -road vehicle use. Working under a cooperative management agreement with the BLM, we erected at our expense the three kiosks that greet visitors to the area with educational information. We have been continually active in graffiti abatement, trash cleanup and the closure of unauthorized trails and roads. We work with law enforcement agencies to facilitate their contact with persons who behave in dangerous and/or destructive ways. We continue to work with the various public agencies to standardize regulations and educate the public. We have seen good results from these efforts. seT_ L. YVe have Ueen qu;1*G.F.—A vnu *ahaana. vrna.ao, ;mmna.d.,i.,a,t,.p...h.Jr ,a,.r,fi.,,a»r,.n..n.-t- t-n. t_he_ nrn»nCP(j legalization as it has been a prime and inappropriate access point into the Winter Deer Cooperative Closure area and despite continued and ongoing discussions with TID, BLM, ODFW and Deschutes National Forest, we have been unable to move them to do the obvious thing which is to gate Bull Flat Road. This road is not a recognized road by any jurisdiction. To give you an idea of a few of the moving parts here, consider the surface mining violations by TID that were censured by the county, the consistent violations of the WDCC, the use of Bull Flat Road by off -road vehicles, the vulnerability of the endangered species and historic monuments in the immediate area and of course, trash and waste. My concern is that by implementing this 60' easement, you will remove our ability to monitor and post educational material for the public and will inadvertently increase the problems. My request that if it is truly necessary that you legalize the full 60' width, that the county and the road department in particular will be sensitive to the risks of human activity in this specific area and work with us and the public to mitigate issues that may arise. Thanks you for your consideration Peter Fullenwider. (peter.fullenwider@gmail.com) Page 1 of 1 11 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK • Citizen .Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony: 1 ��7.-��"' Is this topic an item on today's agenda? ®Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) []No Name _�" f �' Date: Address` Nei C�✓cP ��'Ltc } { U P- q Phone #s�=i E-mail address THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the recor FAr?" U. M [ g J �. i TT January 22, 2020 VIA HAND -DELIVERY Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Phil Henderson, Chair Patti Adair, Vice -Chair Tony DeBone, Commissioner David Doyle, County Counsel Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97703 re: Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2020-002, Completing Legalization Procedure for a Portion of Sisemore Road, Submitted on Behalf of the Hudson Family Trust Dear Chairperson Henderson, Vice -Chair Adair, Commissioner DeBone, and Messrs. Doyle and Smith: The Hudson Family Trust (the "Trust")' submits this letter and attachments for consideration and inclusion in the record with respect to proceedings initiated by Deschutes County (the "County") to legalize a portion of Sisemore Road (the "Road") which crosses the Trust's property, tax lot 1611330000600,18130 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend 97703 (the "Property"). The information and analysis herein is a supplement to our January 13, 2020 letter; we request that both letters be included in the record. Introduction Pursuant to ORS 368.206(2), the Trust and members of the public are participating in these proceedings to show "information that controverts any matter presented to the county governing body in the proceeding or alleging any new matter relevant to the proceeding." We request that the Board consider all public testimony submitted and, if necessary, to continue the public hearing on the County Road Department's motion to allow a full and fair opportunity for interested persons to comment and introduce relevant evidence. The Board should critically review the Staff Report to determine whether the Road Department has met its burden of proving the 1 Dr. Leslie Hudson and Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson are the sole trustees of the Trust. proposed road legalization of a small portion of a remote, narrow dirt road to a width three times than that in existence, and for which the County must pay just compensation to a private property owner, is truly in the public interest. The County Board of Commissioners ("Board") adopted Resolution No. 2019-051 on November 13, 2019, initiating road legalization proceedings pursuant to a request by the County Road Department. Due to public notice errors and an incorrect legal description of affected property, the public hearing originally scheduled for December 18, 2019 was continued to January 22, 2020. The County Road Department has submitted a motion for approval of Order No. 2020-002, Completing Legalization Procedure for a Portion of Sisemore Road. The Trust submits that Road legalization as proposed is not in the public interest and that the motion of the County Road Department should be denied. But, road legalization is not necessary or required for the County to complete work on the Bull Creek Bridge (the "Bridge Project"). The Trust desires to continue to work cooperatively with the County and believes that careful consideration of the potential impact of Road legalization should be undertaken to ensure that the Board is not rushed into making a decision that will have significant, long-term consequences, both fiscal and otherwise, to the detriment of County citizens. Road Legalization Proceedings Should be Abandoned Pursuant to ORS 368.216(1) and the Road Department's Motion Should be Denied. We submit that the County should deny the Road Department's motion for approval of Order No. 2020-002, which would approve legalization of this narrow, dirt road approaching a 14-foot wide bridge (1197 feet of which is on the Trust Property) and expansion of the Road right-of-way from 20 to 60 feet. The proposed action is not in the public interest for the following reasons: (1) there is only a 20-foot existing right-of-way as surveyed by David Evans & Associates south of Bull Creek Bridge; (2) there are significant physical and practical constraints around thm Rnad (reservoir and Hrop off on the west side and a ronkv wall on east side); (3) 40 feet of additional right-of-way is not necessary to accommodate travel, given the remote location, historic use and the surrounding environment; and (4) there will be a significant cost (fiscal impact) for the County to take private property for a public use for a "road to nowhere." Given that the record does not support a finding that legalization is in the public interest, the proceedings should be abandoned under ORS 368.216(1). Alternatively, the Commissioners have authority to legalize a road with less than a 60-feet right-of-way upon a finding that it is in the public interest to do so. ORS 368.221(1); see also DCC 17.48.040 and .100; DCC 16.16.030(E)(2)(d). As noted in our January 13, 2020 letter, the stretch of Sisemore Road the County proposes to legalize does not present a rural "high-speed stretch" area that would warrant a full 60-foot right of way. Per Goal 7 of the TSP, the Road as currently constructed has been demonstrated to be adequate to meet the needs of the traveling public. Public comments support that determination. The photographs enclosed with this letter illustrate the actual conditions and constraints of the Road, which should be considered in the Board's "public interest" determination: 1. The roadbed of Tumalo Reservoir Road and right-of-way consists of 20 feet; the bridge is 14.5 feet wide 2. Road bed of Sisemore Road is constrained to 20 feet by a cutting to the east and a steep drop off to the west 3. The bank and cut off continues for approximately 700 feet to north 2 4. Trust provided off road parking because of a fast blind corner and berms to contain parking sprawl 5. Neither end of the bridge allows access to repair the east side of the bridge 6. The access road for the east side of the bridge is 142 feet away at its closest point. It crosses the Trust Property via an access gate from Sisemore Road 7. Access from property to the north or south would require a temporary easement, as envisaged in the County's original RFP The Staff Report summarily states, without analysis or evidence, that the Road Legalization is in the "public interest." Such a conclusory statement cannot legally support the determination the Board must make to approve the Road Department's motion. Sisemore Road travels through a conservation area, and, heading north from the bridge through the Trust property, the Tumalo Natural Area and Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") lands, managed with the assistance of the friends of Tumalo Wildlife Corridor ("fTWC"). There is no paved road for miles in any direction. Sisemore Road shrinks and deteriorates after crossing the rock dam to the north. There is nothing to be gained for a useless right of way which must be purchased by the County if the resolution is enacted. We respectfully submit that road legalization would be a fiscally unsound change of priorities for only 0.227 miles of road; this is particularly so as the remaining 2.7 miles of relocated road to the north of the Trust Property has not been legalized but was secured for public use by a grant of a 30 year right of way, of which only 5 years remain. It would create an unnecessary "bulge point" of legalized road that is unnecessary from a public safety standpoint (on average 172 cars per day during peak season) and inconsistent with the existing remote/rural road system. The history concerning the Road is set forth in our January 13, 2020 letter, incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of the record. The impacts of the proposed legalization on the Trust is also included in the January 13, 2020 letter. in addition to the Trust, six members of the public have since submitted written testimony, some of whom are present at the public hearing to testify in person.2 Ail submit that the required showing of public interest to support road legalization has not been established. Importantly, there is no compelling "public interest" to legalize a 60-foot right-of-way given that County Road standards have not been applied to this portion of the Road, nor are they required to be applied to all County roads per DCC 16.16.030(E)(2)(d) (roads of reduced width shall be called lanes or terraces). The Trust has been deeply involved in the care and maintenance of the entire length of the relocated stretch of the non -legalized Sisemore Road to the north of the Bull Creek Bridge. Immediately north of the Trust Property, Sisemore Road enters the "Tumalo Natural Area," which is managed under a cooperative agreement between BLM and the friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor (fTWC). The Natural Area covers an area of approximately 27 square miles. The fTWC is a 501 (c) (3) organization of some 50 members (mostly residents of Tumalo Country) and Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson has been president since its inception. Dr. Leslie Hudson negotiated a cooperative management agreement with the BLM starting in 2013, it has since been 2 David Bilyeu (email dated January 18, 2020), Thomas Bishop (letter dated January 20, 2020, date stamped received January 21, 2020), Greg and Joyce Baker (email dated January 20, 2020), Sarah Casson Rush (email dated January 20, 2020) and Jamie Hildebrandt (email dated January 21, 2020). The Trust notes that, prior to the error in the County's notice of public hearing, originally scheduled for December 18, 2020, numerous members of the public intended to present testimony in opposition to the road legalization. The notice that was issued, which contained an incorrect legal description, erroneously indicated to the public that the proposed road would be located solely on BLM property, such that the Trust Property was not going to be affected. This, coupled with the holidays and winter months, has affected participation by some interested citizens in these proceedings. renewed and is still in force. Members of the fTWC have raised money to pay for all information kiosks, signage and trail maintenance. In cooperation with Deschutes County, the fTWC has adopted this whole of the relocated part of Sisemore Road under the 'Adopt a Highway' program and staffed a very active trash control program. The Trust has rendered services of great benefit to the citizens of Deschutes County through its maintenance of the abutments to the twenty -foot roadbed as evidenced over more than ten years by regular, maintained abutments to the road bed, mowed grass and cleared brush to minimize fire danger, posted signs to discourage camping, discouraged the erection of landing strip accessories and landing of light aircraft (as prohibited by ORS 837.090) and built berms to contain parking sprawl and to limit access and egress by off - road vehicles for the prevention of general dilapidation of the area. If these abutments are included in the taking of the Trust Property for the Road, then the legal basis for the Trust to continue this maintenance will be lost to the detriment of public enjoyment of this area in general and the scenic value of Bull Flat in particular. The County has the burden of showing that road legalization is in the public interest. We submit that it has failed to make such a showing, offering only conclusory statements in the Staff Report. Moreover, the statement in the Staff Report that there are no fiscal impacts to the County that would result from legalization is contrary to the facts and law, including the County's Request for Proposals for the Bridge Project and constitutionally -protected rights that guarantee just compensation for a taking of private property for a public purpose. This is confirmed by Policy 4.9 of the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan ("TSP") adopted via Ordinance 2012-005, which requires the County to acquire the necessary right-of-way through the development process ... consistent with constitutional limitations." (emphasis added). Repairs to Bull Creek Bridge Do Not Require Road Legalization We understand that the primary impetus for the Road Depa krnent's motion is for the purpose of Gllnwing ::cork on Bull Creek Bridge. There are no new proposed developments in the area, no proposed change of use of any property in the area, and not any demonstrated increase in traffic or other need for a major thoroughfare in this distant area of the County. No members of the public that have submitted testimony believe that the proposed legalization of this small stretch of road is necessary; they do submit that legalization of a 60-foot right-of-way in this elk and deer migration corridor and over BLM lands will diminish and negatively affect important public resources. The area could be irrevocably changed if Order 2020-002 is approved. The Trust shares these concerns, and will be further individually impacted as a property owner. Legalization of a proposed 60-foot right-of-way will impact the Trust with respect to the use and enjoyment of their private property, the right to exclude others from their property and the right to manage, use and access the full extent of their property. These are indisputably elements of the "bundle of rights" that private property owners enjoy — Rights that are afforded fundamental protection by the U.S. Bill of Rights, which was recently confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be co -equal with other constitutional rights of due process and free speech. While the issue of just compensation for the Trust's loss of property is not one for the Board to decide in these proceedings (ORS 368.211),3 you should weigh the benefits of gaining unusable additional right of way against 3 The Board only has authority under ORS 368.211 to provide for compensation under the statutory scheme where road legalization encroaches on a structure. The Board does not have authority to consider or make a determination on just compensation for loss of/damage to private property rights (other than those associated with a structure); such claims must be asserted for a decision by a court. 4 the potential cost to the County associated with just compensation required to be paid for a taking of private property in determining public interest under ORS 368.211(1). The County is advised that ORS 368.20-.221 does not amend the Oregon Constitution (and cannot constrain federal constitutional protections) with respect to constitutional protections of private property, nor does it limit liability of a municipality to payment of just compensation to those instances where road legalization impacts a structure on private property. The County has admitted to Dr. Hudson that it has no legal interest in the right-of-way it now seeks to "legalize" in these proceedings, and that Sisemore Road has not been legally established over the Trust Property. See September 24, 2019 email from Cody Smith to Dr. Hudson which states, among other things, "Our consultant and their staff, which includes licensed professional land surveyors, should have known better than to set right of way monuments on property for which the public has not yet secured a legal interest." (emphasis added). Cooperation with the Trust on this Stretch of Sisemore Road Advances and Protects the Public Interest The Trust desires to cooperate with the County in reaching a common sense solution that will allow the County to complete the bridge work without unnecessarily infringing on private property rights. The Trust proposes to make an offer for purposes of settlement outside the public hearing which it believes will benefit the public and further allow the County to complete the Bridge Project at no additional expense to the County. The County should note that use of the Road has been continuing for over 100 years and that the Trust will agree to allow continued use of the 20-foot dirt road for access to the Bridge. The Trust requests the County to either abandon the road legalization proceedings, or to continue the public hearing to allow full participation by all interested members of the public and for consideration of a proposed offer of settlement from the Trust that will allow the County the ability to complete the Bridge Project without additional fI$cal In1pd-I t. Thle T rust wls, ies to re -el that it does not %A 11 c to br iirg airy fvr mal claims against the County, nor does it wish to capitalize on the existing situation. The primary purpose of Dr. Hudson's December 12, 2019 written testimony and our January 13, 2020 letter is to request the County to acknowledge its private property rights. Thank you for your consideration of this letter and enclosures. Sin rely, Stephanie Marshall encls. cc: Dr. Les Hudson Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson 5 AFS 61150 SE 27TH STREET . BEND, OREGON 97702 PHONE (54� 388 a± p K» \` FAX:(54 388- 2719 WEB: wwwdesch .r/mad SECTION 1: STATEMENT OF PROJECT Introduction The Sisemore Rd; Tumalo IRR Canal (Couch Lateral) Bridge ("Sisemore Bridge") is a closed -spandrel concrete arch bridge constructed in 1914. The bridge has large spalls and rock pockets with exposed rebar throughout the arch, pier walls, and abutments, Deschutes County will be receiving funding through the ODOT Local Bridge Program to rehabilitate the bridge. The project scope of work will include removing and replacing the existing asphalt wearing surface, concrete repairs, installing new approach guardrails, removing and replacing the existing bridge fill and non-functioning drainage pipes, and other miscellaneous work. The total Project cost is estimated to be $1,435,279. Deschutes County Road Department seeks the services of a qualified team of engineering professionals to provide the following; 1. Engineering design services and development of bridge rehabilitation plans. 2. Construction management and inspection services. Specifically, design and prepare construction plans and specifications for the project and supply listed services: A. Provide labor, equipment and materials to complete the surveying needed to prepare mapping and complete the design of all elements of the project. Consultant shell: a. Perform research of existing records b. Establish a horizontal control network c. Establish a vertical control network d. Conduct a topographic survey e. Work with the County Surveyor to: i. Recover and tie monuments r)f rernrd !i, Resolve road centerline alignments iii. Prepare a Recovery and Retracement Survey Filing Map iv. Prepare the right-of-way base map B. Development of engineered Public Improvement Plans. Consultant shall: a. Utilizing AASHTO, ODOT, MUTCD, and other industry best practices, produce bridge rehabilitation plans for the selected improvements. i. Produce 30%, 90% and 100% plan sets, including refined construction cost estimates with each submittal. b. Design storm water runoff treatment per the Central Oregon Storm Water Manual c. Develop traffic control plans for the construction phase of the project. d. Prepare Project special provisions in reference to the latest edition of the Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. The County shall provide template documents in MS Word format to assist the preparation of the Special Provisions. e. Provide an engineer's construction cost estimate and complete bid schedule for the project. f. Provide appropriate construction period services necessary to answer all project related questions as well as review the contractor's product submittals. g. Work with the Deschutes County Surveyor to field verify and document the existing right-of-way adjacent to the Project. h. Determine if there will be any utility design and relocation required as part of the project, including, but not limited to, power line relocation, canal piping, and any other utilities that fall within the project limits. Coordinate relocated and new utility alignments within the Special Provisions as necessary, i. Note: i. Approach road and other project components shall be designed to current AASHTO and Deschutes County standards and specifications. Page 2 of 7 ® Are there known property owner concerns? If yes, discuss details: Yes ❑ No Z<C1 Other Right of Way Comments, Concerns or Considerations: This_aroject is anticipated to require two temporary easements. One TE will bo n.eed from TumaIo Irrigation District on the north side of the bridge and one TE will be needed from the Hudson Family Trust. The acquisitions are not complex and should cost $10 000 each. r MAIL INC; NAME: TVI-IALO IRRIGATIQN DISTRICT MAPTAXLOT: 2612000007892 ADORFSS: 13194 TUPIALC RI:SERVOIR RD SUBDIVISION: 'LwL. ,iij, riK., iir P�(rn,� Vn�r ibf' �h ca-lut r� Survey Aerial Photography: Proposed M Not proposed ❑ Complete ❑ Yn progress 77 ❑ Field Survey: Proposed ® Not started ❑ Complete ❑ In progress ❑ Has vertical and horizontal control been established on the ground? Yes ❑ No ❑ Additional elements to be surveyed: (drainage channels, intersecting streets, buildings etc.) I N."" iD Oi 0 LAr+ cr` M M n O 'VIJ pJ kk M 4N. cif .1 YJ4ct CL _ • i! • • a � iN �`� ° �� ;�-:, a �• ��: ..g *49�� "� :4A s t,N iL • q 1 t na i� ♦gyp, '.�� Syi ': ..,•^ .S � `� � "� ♦ �• •`.T f. ;y^ �' � , Via, • ���.�"' ;A .✓� �''..'�XY�`r".�!' J �Yt 1. p ���..i` 94 .� < \ ƒ f 00'28'42" E 101.82' &14'13'27" R:350.00' =86 89' lkO loo 200 400 6mmmlmmmm� NE/4 SW/4 W SE/4 SW/4 DEED DOC NO 2014-03436 LOT 1611330000600 m 86.67 N 47#05'17" W " TAX HUDSON FAMILY TRUST 18130 TUMALO RESERVOIR ROAD m A-08 5318 244.95' BEND OR, 97703 R-500.00' L=77.57' LESEN LC=N 42'3838" W NE '�" BOUNDARY LINE — PROPOSED CENTERLINE a i O 77.49 �O. — EXISTING CENTERLINE 1 A-20*03'19 - - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY k R-300.00' &=15*58'03" O-105.01' ' R=200.00' LC=N 4813'38" W L=55.74' 104.47' LC=N 661,09" W 38011159" W 55.56' " 25 35 140.53 sus, 66'7 F21 ©�f'F R=80.00 PROPERTY � �` L=9,4.14' I LINN E LC —IV 40'30'33" W 58'f 5'17" W 302.68' 88.81 Rpq� 06'4746" W �N 6.67' N 74*1321" W -. 'ED DOC 88-20572 145.05' ,X LOT 1611000007891 N 06'4T4fi" W MALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT w 697 COOK AVE. 126.51' ND OR.,, 97703 TUMALO RESERVOIR CANAL TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND TERMINUS OF EXISTING TUMALO , N 06'58'09" W RESERVOIR MARKET ROAD 333.23' POINT OF COMMENCEMENT S 89'53'05" E P.i. STA. 242+91.2 315.95' r FD 3/4" IRON BAR WM. C:VUNTY, OREGON 1/4 COR SHEET 35 N a N O G w a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING _REQUEST TO SPEAK • Citizen Inuut can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Tess can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony: Is this topic an item on today's agenda? 2Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) ❑ No i6 A -S Ci'� Date: Name LWA C?Z. r Address 1`61 �340 IsAAAA 0�.10 J=�-A C-�e q a Phone #s E-mail address C-0rn THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes ❑ No NZ If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. ZZe 9 Mr. Chairman and County Commissioners, I am Leslie Hudson and I am a Trustee of the Hudson Family Trust A 1 should like to draw to your attention to the fact that I feel ashamed of the process that has preceded this Hearing ® In 2019 the Board of Commissioners were asked to sign a Notice of Public Hearing which was duly posted; it identified the wrong property and caused confusion and delay in minds of the public who wished to provide testimony 6 1 was advised by the County that I should not communicate personally or directly on these matters but needed a legal counsel to speak for me as it had been decided unilaterally that I had issued a tort claim ® Afte!r I appointed a legal counsel, we were offered a meeting to discuss a situation which is challenging in its complexity and required over 700 pages of evidence in your package ® Two days later this offer of a meeting was withdrawn, and we were advised to communicate only in writing e The face to face meeting did finally happen last Friday, with one hour's notice to me. My counsel cleared her calendar and attended on my behalf; she was not treated well but we have no audio recording of the interaction 0 A rigid route to the federal court system does not provide a good route for a citizen to communicate with the administrative staff of his or her county ® 1 believe we can find a forum, short of a federal court, to find a compromise to do what really needs doing 0 The Road Department will close the bridge over Bull Creek for necessary repairs; this will close :_'L�... event f a fcro -rho" and tha Historic Landmarks Commission myfamiiiesescape mute n� u�� ������ �� a ���• ��••-• -- — have listened to our fears and concerns and have been helpful in a professional and proper manner a Thank you for listening to me in person. 20.ao Hi Mike, This is Les Hudson, you might remember us as the English family living on Sisemore Road. ., During the past few winters the bend in the road -just north of the •;, Bull Creek Bridge and opposite the turning; onto the BLM/TID properties - has been eroding and greater and greater amounts of water collects there each time it rains. This year the lake occupies �2 jF more than half the road width and is a hazard, especially to traffic 3 coming south on Sisemore Road. I was talking to the guy grading the road this afternoon and asked whether the County could bring in a few truck loads of fill to restore the camber and improve the drainage of this part of the road. I told him that I would write to you to make the request directly to the Road Department. I believe he is back on Tuesday of next week to finish the grading he started today. On a separate topic, you might remember I was researching the Arid Land Record in the State Archive last year to discover the ownership of the property immediately north of the lake in the photograph — it was disputed between BLM and TID, with DSL in the middle. It turned out that when I compared the original handwritten State conveyance and the typed copy filed in the Crook County Court House/Deschutes County Clerk's Office, there had been a transcriptional error. The original document shows that the property was conveyed back to the Federal Government by the State of Oregon and is owned by the BLM. Regards; Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 Ies.hudson(&.g.corn Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. LV 0 0 0 M z et X ca J Q W w CD M z O 3 r M a.+ G E M R Packet Pg. 4E les.hudson@q.com From: les.hudson@q.com Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:10 PM To: 'Chuck.Schutte@deschutes.org' Cc: 'Mike Berry' Subject: Grading of Sisemore Road Hi Chuck, I wanted to write to you to recognize the thorough and excellent job of restoring the camber on Sisemore Road (adjacent to the Bull Creek Bridge) which has just been completed by your grader guy. This part of they road has a lot of traffic and `high speed turn arounds.' The corner has been eroding over the past few years as you can see from the photograph. Thanks, Les Hudson. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 5617891620 les.hudson@q.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright o•.•.'ner. 1 les.hudson@q.com From: Mike Berry <Mike.Berry@deschutes.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:01 PM To: les.hudson@q.com Subject: Re: Sisemore Road water hazard and tax lot 1611000007891 ownership. Oh, and by the by, I just now got an email from Rod Campuzano (the grader guy) with a photo of your thank you gift. That's a very kind and rare gesture. I think he's really tickled by it. Mike Berry - Via cell phone On Jan 30, 2019, at 7:42 PM, "les.hudson@q.com<mailto:les.hudson@q.com>" <les.hudson@q.com<mailto:les.hudson@q.com>> wrote: Hi Mike, Thanks for your response and the contacts, which are much appreciated. Apologies, I pulled the wrong tax lot number; it should have been 1611330000400. It was part of the Segregation List 13, subject to Patent 1 signed by Theodore Roosevelt and returned to the Feds when the Desert Land Board conveyed title to, inter alia, Lot 400 Section 33 Township 165 Range 11E Willamette Meridian Deschutes County ['Sec. 33 NW1/4 SW1/4'] to the United State of America on June 27, 1910. 1 mentioned it only because last time we spoke, you expressed an interest in the outcome of my search — which all started when I saw your original recreation of the Wimer Farm map! Best, Les. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK • Citizen. Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only n ut or Testimony: 4,A,,k1tA0VN goad, Topic •f I : r Y Is this topic an item on today's agenda? Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) Name��'� Address t(130 Phone #s E-mail address PAI. %9)b co [—]No Date: THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? V Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. r G Q4 a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING RE EST TO SPEAK • Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only t � Topic of Input or Testimony: Is this topic an item on today's agenda? Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) � } Name _ l --� Address Phone #s ,,;;:� E-mail address C 6 > ` ❑No P f Date: ! 1` "� Z 12 0 t 1 THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING RE UEST TO SPEAK • Citizen Input can be given regarding any topic that is NOT on the agenda • Public Testimony can be given during Public Hearings only Topic of Input or Testimony: S S e _'E' fi� 0 Is this topic an item on today's agenda? f' Yes (please see description of Citizen Input above) ❑No Name tiI Date: A Address Phone #s E-mail address THIS FORM IS TURNED IN TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Are you submitting written documents as part of testimony? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Codv Smith From: David Doyle Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:49 PM To: Adam Smith; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Subject: Fwd: HEARING ON SISEMORE ROAD LEGALIZATION Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carol Atwood <cdatwood@roadrunner.com> Date: Jan 20, 2020 7:58 PM Subject: HEARING ON SISEMORE ROAD LEGALIZATION To: Phil Henderson <Phil.Henderson@deschutes.org>,Patti Adair<Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>,Tony DeBone <Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org> Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Testimony to the Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Oregon. For Hearing on January 22, 2020 at loam. My name is Greg Baker, my wife and I live at 65580 Sisemore Road in Deschutes County. I am not able to attend your hearing on the 22nd of January but would like to voice my concerns with your proposed Road Legalization of Sisemore Road. I am an engineer by training and have been a Committee Member of the Friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor (FTWC) since I retired to live in Deschutes County. FTWC works with the BLM to help manage and maintain 27 square miles of the Tumalo Natural Area, also with Deschutes County through its Adopt a Road program on part of Sisemore Road which coincides with the non -legalized stretch of Sisemore Road and which includes that portion of the road which is being proposed in this legalization. The proposal to legalize a 60-foot wide right of ways seems to exceed requirements for a 100 year old dirt road which feeds a 14 foot wide bridge (a historic landmark as you know) on the south end and connects to a 20-foot wide concrete -cored earth dam in the north. Even during peak season only about 100 people use this road per day, and many are residents on Sisemore Road. All of the roads in this remote location are dirt roads and some are still user initiated trails which have not been adopted by the County. Sisemore Road runs through the Tumalo Natural Area which is designated in the BLM Upper Deschutes Management Plan as a non -motorized vehicle access area. This area is part of the Elk and Deer winter migration route. There are sensitive and protected species in the Tumalo Natural Area. It's disturbing to think that the County would build a full scale 60-foot wide road through this sensitive area. The current 20-foot dirt road has served the community well for over 100 years, I fail to understand why a road THREE TIMES as wide would be warranted in an area that the BLM, Forest Service and local community try so hard to protect. What are you trying to facilitate with such a large road? This is a question I hope will be addressed at your hearing. I ask that the Commissioners limit the proposed right of way to dimensions in keeping with the existing dirt road and the needs of the Natural Area and the community. Since I cannot attend, I will look forward to reading the minutes of the meeting; I hope they will be made available as quickly as possible. With best regards, Greg & Joyce Baker, 65580 Sisemore Road 2 Codv Smith From: Peter Russell Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:20 AM To: Cody Smith Cc: Nick Lelack; Peter Russell; Adam Smith Subject: 60' ROW for Sisemore (Board Order 2020-002) Attachments: 01-23-20 memo to Road Dept. on 60' ROW for Sisemore Rd (Board Order 2020-002).pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Cody, Please enter this letter into the record for the legalization of a 60-foot right of way for Sisemore Road, Board Order 2020-002. Thanks. ttg " Peter Russell I Senior Transportation Planner 3 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 z_ PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 383-6718 1 www.deschutes.org/cd 008 Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. 1 �oI E S % MEMORANDUM DATE: January 23, 2020 TO: Cody Smith, PE, County Engineer FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner 0\ RE: Legalizing 60-foot-wide right of way for a segment of Sisemore Road (Board Order 2020-002) I'm submitting this letter into the record regarding the legalization of a segment of Sisemore R�arl fRnarrr nrrlar -)ngn-nm) and why this is in the public interest as well as needed for compliance with County code. Based on the submitted public testimony and oral responses at the Board's Jan. 22, 2020, hearing on the matter there appears to be a degree of confusion regarding the outcomes of the Board approving this order. Sisemore Road is a County -maintained road and is functionally classified as a local. The Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) on page 65 describes the purpose of this classification is to "[P]rimarily provide access to adjacent land/properties and [A]ccommodates travel over short distances as compared to arterials and collectors." Locals are low -volume facilities; the most recent count (2016) shows Sisemore had 102 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The public interest is served by having roads that are of standard widths for the travel surface, shoulders, and clear zones, all of which occur in the right of way. The latter two allow for storage of vehicles that have had a mechanical breakdown, allow drivers to recover if they leave the travel lane, allows the County to manage vegetation so it does not block lines of sight, allows the County to remove hazard trees or other potential obstacles which abut the travel lane and/or shoulder, and provides an area to safely stage maintenance vehicles, and place plowed snow. The wider right of way thus serves the 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 0 (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes.org @ www.deschutes.org/cd public interest by increasing the safety margins, both literally and figuratively, for the traveling public. Additionally, the 60' right of way allows for utilities to be placed within the roadway corridor, but at a reasonable distance from the travel lane. If the right of way were only 20 feet wide, it is highly doubtful there would be sufficient room and the County taxpayers would then need to purchase the additional right of way. For the reasons described above, the County in DCC 17.48 and its Table A has a set a minimum right of way width of 60' for nearly every public road in the County. The only exception is for 40' on a frontage road, which is a facility adjacent to a state highway and likely would have ODOT as the road authority and not the County. People expressed concern that the legalization of a 60' right of way for Sisemore would mysteriously trigger additional traffic or adverse effects. The paving of Sisemore would likely increase traffic volumes, but the County TSP on pages 145-146 documents that discussion and the County's determination that Sisemore would not be paved between Plainview and Tumalo Reservoir Road as requested by the cycling community. The County has no plans to pave Sisemore Road or add travel lanes as the County typically focuses scarce public funds on improving collectors and arterials, not local roads. Even if the County chose to spend funds on Sisemore this would require amending the approved projects list in the TSP and the Road Department's Capital Improvement Projects (CiP) list, both of which require public hearings and Board approval. The public was concerned about existing informational kiosks potentially not being allowed with the legalization of the full 60 feet. Staff has two responses; first, would the current kiosks be in the 60' right of way or on private property? Second, if the kiosks would be in the right of way, County code has a permitting process to allow such activities under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 12.40, License Agreements for Unused Rights of Way. If the kiosks are placed on private property adjacent to the road, a new property owner could remove them. There may also be liability issues for the public to access private property. From a transportation planning viewpoint, the legalization of the Sisemore Road to match the County's standard is clearly in the public interest for both the traveling public and the taxpayers. I support the Board approving Order 2020-002 as presented. If you need anything else from me, please do not hesitate to ask. Page 2 of 2 Cody Smith From: Joel M Blatt <joel.m.blatt@me.com> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 7:00 AM To: Cody Smith Subject: Sisemore Rd, Order No. 2020-002 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Cody, My opinion matters no more than others, but residence is at 65595 Sisemore Rd, Bend, 97703, which is effectively located in middle of entire gravel section of Sisemore Rd. Coincidentally, I am avid cyclist and learned of bridge project per "BendCycling" Google Group. Thank you in advance for your time and - consideration. Vote: Pave it! (my preference is as much as possible of Sisemore be paved, at least from end of Couch Market Rd north to where Sisemore is already paved) Background: • Bridge section has caused trucks to get stuck and difficult navigation for all, especially in dark • Along Sisemore multiple auto accidents/mishaps could be mitigated, if road was paved • Gravel does not deter drivers from exceeding safe operating speeds • Local residents drive Sisemore Rd, which conflict with volumes of gravel bikes at certain times of year Commentary: • Gravel bike enthusiasts have better alternative to Sisemore with Bull Creek and infinite miles of Brooks Scanlon Logging Rd and offshoots, where cars are less frequent • Keep section of Sisemore Rd as gravel between Tumalo Reservoir Rd and Couch Market Rd, which has no residents • Proactive paving will reduce chances of catastrophic confrontations between cars and bikes Again, thank you and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Joel Blatt (425) 246-6699 1 Cody Smith From: David Doyle Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 S:32 PM To: Adam Smith; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Subject: Fwd: Tesitmony to the Board of County Commissioners Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Sent front my Verizon Motorola Sinartphone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carol Wallace <cawallacemd@gmail.com> Date: Jan 26, 2020 3:32 PM Subject: Tesitmony to the Board of County Commissioners To: Phil Henderson <Phil.Henderson@deschutes.org>,Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>,Tony DeBone <Tony.DeBone@deschutes. org> Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Testimony to the Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County Oregon. For Hearing on January 22, 2020 at 10am. Dear Chair Adair and Commissioners DeBone and Henderson, I am Dr. Carol Wallace, and live at 18009 Couch Market Road, in Deschutes County. My family - and now my daughter's family (Dr. Laurel Hartwell) - are frequent users of the area to the west of Sisemore Road. As long-time residents of this area, we value this unique area for its wildlife, special flora, open space access and iconic views of the Cascades from Mt. Bachelor in the south all the way to Mt. Jefferson in the north. Sisemore road has been considerably improved over the past years by the Friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor both through the efforts of local volunteers (such as myself) and in collaboration with the BLM, the US Forest Service (who provide wildfire suppression and fire protection and important fire advisory signs by Bull Creek Bridge) and Deschutes County (Adopt a Road Program). I am pleased that the county is proposing to restore the historic Bull Creek Bridge at the south end of Sisemore Road, as it has fallen into a sad state of disrepair. However, I fail to understand the recent proposal by the Deschutes County Road Department to take a full 60 feet wide right of way for a 20 feet wide dirt road which connects to a 14.5 feet wide historic bridge and has served our community in this state for more than 100 years. This area is remote and connects only with other dirt roads and unadopted user -initiated trails. I have many questions about this proposal that require answers before this can possibly be approved. What is the rationale of this large right of way? Is a 60 foot right of way on personal property truly necessary for repair of the 14.5 foot bridge? Why has this proposal occurred now? Who put this proposal forward? Whose interest does this serve? How is this proposal in the public interest? What has changed in our local area to prompt this right of way on personal property? Will this set a precedent that others of us that have land bordering on BLM should be concerned about? Why are we tax payers spending money on this? The Hudsons are well known in our community and have spent a considerable time, effort and their own money to maintain the sides of the piece of Sisemore Road which crosses their property. In particular, they have provided berms to contain parking sprawl and provided permissive use of an off - road parking area on a dangerous blind corner of Sisemore road. With the Friends of the Tumalo Wildlife corridor, a 501 (c) (3) which they started, they and local volunteers, have worked diligently to stop dirt hikes and off road vehicles from trashing a beautiful area and to limit access to Bull Flat Road (not a county road). In addition, their efforts have greatly reduced Sunday afternoon target shooting on Bull Flat, trash dumping and out of season poaching of a rapidly declining deer population as well as unauthorized aircraft landings. I sincerely hope you will not take an action which will limit the ability of the Hudsons and our local volunteers to care for and improve the verges and traffic buffers which protect threatened wildlife area. I have concerns that the county will be unable to dedicate the staff and resources to the maintenance of off road verges to the same degree as the local volunteers and residents have over the past many years. In summary — I do not understand the need or justification for this right of way at this time and ask the Commissioners to leave well enough alone. Sincerely, Carol Carol A. Wallace 206.604.3982 18009 Couch Market Rd Bend, OR 97703 Codv Smith From: David Doyle Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 5:32 PM To: Adam Smith; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Subject: Fwd: Testimony to the Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Oregon. For the Public Hearing held on January 22, 2020 at loam. Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Sent from my TVerizon Motorola Smartphone ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Durlin Hickok <dhickok@gmail.com> Date: Jan 26, 2020 4:41 PM Subject: Testimony to the Board of County Commissioners, Deschutes County Oregon. For the Public Hearing held on January 22, 2020 at loam. To: Phil Henderson <Phil.Henderson@deschutes.org>,Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>,Tony DeBone <Tony. DeBone@deschutes. org> Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Dear Chair Adair, and Commissioners Henderson and DeBone I am Dr. Durlin Hickok and I live at 18009 Couch Market Road, in Deschutes County. I have been active in community affairs in our region through the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) (Director and former Board Chairman) as well as a member of the first working party of the friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor which cleaned up the verges of Sisemore Road from the Bull Creek Bridge to the Tumalo Project Dam. Over the past 30 years I have observed the growth in Deschutes County and have been personally committed to mitigate the inevitable downside to some of these changes so as to preserve the exceptional our rural character. I am surprised that the Road Department is considering a full 60 feet wide taking for a right of way centered on a 20 feet wide dirt road which connects to a 14.5 feet wide historic bridge. For more than 100 years this road has served our community. This proposal potentially impacts all of us in Tumalo, but particularly the Hudson's are our family friends and are well known in our community. Over the years they have spent a considerable time and effort as well as and own money to maintain the sides of the piece of Sisemore Road which crosses their property. In particular, they have provided berms to contain parking sprawl and off -road parking for horse trailers on a dangerous blind corner. With the friends of the Tumalo Wildlife corridor, a 501(c)(3) which they started, they have worked to minimize the adverse impact of off -road vehicles, posted signs to stop RV camping on a public road and worked with the US Forest Service to post season -appropriate wildfire signage. Although I know the county is not intending to build a larger new road, I do hope the county will not unknowingly hinder the ability of friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor in general and the Hudson's in particular to continue their care of the road verges. The over -sized right of way cannot be in the public interest as the county has other spending priorities and so will be unable to dedicate the staff and resources to the maintenance of off -road verges to the same degree as the local volunteers and residents have over the past many years. You may wish to legalize Sisemore Road, but it is in your authority to legalize a right of way appropriate for a road's situation and use. This should be the current 20 feet. Aside from the issues addressed above, I also question why this has become a priority issue for the County at this time and what are the concerns that have led to the process being initiated? Moreover, I question whether this is the best use of County resources and our taxpayers' funds. Thank you for considering the points that I have raised. I ask for my written testimony to be considered by the County Commissioners in reaching their final decision. Sincerely, Durlin Hickok, MD Cody Smith From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: DAVID DOYLE Deschutes County Legal Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 205 Bend, OR 97703 Telephone: (541) 388-6625 Facsimile: (541) 617-4748 Email: David. Doyle(a-)deschutes.org David Doyle Monday, January 27, 2020 9:14 AM Adam Smith; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Tom Anderson FW: NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATION HEARING AT 10:00 AM, ON JANUARY 22, 2020 Follow up Flagged The information in this email, including any attachment, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information belonging to Deschutes County, which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this email information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Eileen Drew <edrew777@gmaii.com> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 9:12 AM To: Phil Henderson <Phil.Henderson @deschutes.org>; Patti Adair <Patti.Adair@deschutes.org>; Tony DeBone <Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org> Cc: David Doyle <David.Doyle@deschutes.org> Subject: NOTICE OF ROAD LEGALIZATION HEARING AT 10:00 AM, ON JANUARY 22, 2020 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Dear Chair Adair, Commissioner Henderson and Commissioner DeBone, Testimony to the Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County Oregon. For Hearing held on January 22, 2020 at I Oam. My name is Eileen Drew, and I am a resident of Deschutes County at 64995 Collins Road in Bend, in the neighborhood of the Sisemore bridge. 1 understand you are still open to testimony regarding the Road Legalization Hearing of January 22. Please consider this testimony before reaching your final decision. As a horseback rider, hiker and dog walker, I often access the trails on Bull Flat, as does my husband, Lance Rosedale, and we have enormously appreciated the ability to park beside Sisemore Road using the area included in your proposal for a 60-foot wide right of way. The Hudsons have generously made available their private property for parking cars, trucks and horse trailers, and have managed the area in a manner that encourages the safety and welfare of people, their animals, and wildlife. It is especially important for horse trailers to have extra space to maneuver and to load and unload horses, and the existing area is well designed. As is, the road functions extremely well for the community at 20 feet wide. To widen the county's right of way to 60 feet would threaten a system that allows for the continual on site supervision and maintenance that private ownership can best provide. As residents and concerned citizens, the Hudsons have developed berms and off -road parking at their own expense to maximize safety as well as to minimize adverse effects on the environment and to support the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor. They have posted "No Camping" signs and worked with the U.S. Forest Service to post wildfire warning signs. They have organized neigborhood efforts to monitor and clean up trash and fire hazards. The current condition of this site is the successful result of community effort. County resources may not be sufficient to maintain the off road verges to the same degree. Please leave the road as it is. Thank you January 27, 2020 VIA HAND -DELIVERY Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Patti Adair, Chair Tony DeBone, Vice -Chair Phil Henderson, Commissioner David Doyle, County Counsel Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97703 re: Legalization Procedure for a Portion of Sisemore Road, Submitted on Behalf of the Hudson Family Trust Dear Chair Adair, Vice -Chair DeBone, Commissioner Henderson, and Messrs. Doyle and Smith: The Hudson Family Trust (the "Trust")' submits this letter during the open record period following the Deschutes County Board of Commissioner's public hearing concerning Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2020-002, Completing Legalization Procedure for a Portion of Sisemore Road, on January 22, 2020. The information and analysis herein is a supplement to our letters dated January 13, 2020 and January 22, 2020; we request that all three letters be included in the record. The proposed legalization of a portion of Sisemore Road (the "Road") crosses the Trust's property, tax lot 1611330000600,18130 Tumalo Reservoir Road, Bend 97703 (the "Property"). Cody Smith, on behalf of the County Road Department, presented testimony at the January 22, 2020 hearing that the proposed road legalization is required in order for the County to receive state funding for the Bull Creek Bridge ("Bridge") repair project. Mr. Smith further testified that the Road must be legalized with a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The north supports of the Bridge are situated on the Trust Property. A review of the Local Agency Agreement State Funded Local Project Program (No. 31740) Sisemore Rd: Tumalo IRR Canal (Couch Lateral), Bridge No. BR17CO2 (the "Agreement") between the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") and the County shows that the County is not required to legalize the Road as 1 Dr. Leslie Hudson and Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson are the sole trustees of the Trust. reported at the Hearing. A copy of the Agreement is enclosed for reference. Paragraph 11 of the Agreement requires the County to "acquire all necessary right of way in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 19702, as amended, ORS Chapter 35 and the State Right of Way Manual." In other words, any right of way necessary for the Bridge Project must be acquired by eminent domain. Of note, ORS 35.605(1) provides: Every condemner having the right to purchase, acquire, enter upon and appropriate land and property for establishing, laying out, widening, enlarging or extending roads, streets or highways, may purchase, acquire, enter upon and appropriate, in or in connection with establishing, laying out, widening, enlarging or extending roads, streets or highways, land and property immediately adjoining the proposed boundaries of such roads, streets or highways. ORS 35.610 states: Before the right to purchase, acquire, enter upon and appropriate any adjoining land or property under ORS 35.605 (Authorization to acquire adjoining property for roadways) is exercised by any condemner, the governing body shall by appropriate ordinance or resolution describe the land to be purchased, acquired, entered upon or appropriated, and shall further determine that the appropriation of such land is reasonably necessary to protect the full use and enjoyment by the public of the road, street or highway. The Agreement is silent with respect to the status of the Road and does not include any direct or implied requirement to legalize the Road. Moreover, the Agreement directs the County to comply with federal and state eminent domain requirements in right-of-way acquisition. But the County insists it has the right to acquire a 60- foot ROW over Trust Property without payment of just compensation. Such condemnation would perforce inversely condemn an additional approximately 1.118 acres of contiguous property and maroon it in perpetuity from the main Trust property. The Agreement cannot be satisfied by the Road Legalization proposed by the County. If the Board approves the motion for Order No. 2020-002, such action will arguably violate the Agreement terms concerning payment of just compensation. As the Trust has repeatedly made clear, however, the County is not at risk of losing funds for the Bridge Project under the Agreement. The Agreement merely requires the County to ensure it acquires "necessary right-of-way" for the Project. It may do so via a grant of easement(s) from the Trust, as discussed below. In summary, the County's receipt of funds simply is not conditioned on any portion of Sisemore Road becoming legalized. As originally set forth in the County's RFP for Engineering Consultant Services for the Bridge Project, requesting proposals by July 13, 2018 (attached to our January 22, 2020 letter), the County recognized that Paragraph 11 would be satisfied by its acquisition of a temporary easement for the Bridge Project: 2 This Act was intended to ensure fair compensation and assistance for those whose property was compulsorily acquired for public use under "eminent domain" law. Other Right of Way Comments, Concerns or Considerations: This project is anticipated to require two temporary easements ... one TE will be needed from the Hudson Family Trust. The acquisitions are not complex and should cost $10,000 each. Estimated RM for the project is $20,000, The County did not at that time, nor since then, set forth the basis for its valuation of an easement from the Trust, nor any legal description showing the extent of an easement the County estimates is required for staging equipment and accessing the Bridge for repairs. Those matters are open for discussion between the Trust and the Road Department. In sum, the statements in the RFP are consistent with paragraph 11 of the Agreement, provided the proffered payment for a temporary easement is determined to constitute "just compensation," and the area over which the easement is proposed includes all property "necessary" to complete the Bridge Project. Significantly, the County Road Department has erroneously maintained that the Road must be legalized for the Bridge Project with a 60-foot right-of-way, but Dr. Hudson testified that even the extent of such road legalization would not be sufficient for purposes of the Bridge Project, The County will need an easement from the Trust to access the east side of the Bridge for repairs. This is shown in photograph 5, attached to our January 22, 2020 letter and included here for the convenience of the County Commissioners. Heavy machinery and materials must move across either the Tumalo Irrigation District ("TID") property to the south or via the Trust Property to the north. Photograph 5 shows the dirt road that crosses from the Trust Property to TID property. This dirt road recently was installed (within the past 5-6 weeks) and is currently being used by the TID contractor to install piping along the in -filled irrigation canal. There had previously been no path down to the Bridge from the south property access was only from the Trust Property. We understand that the temporary road will become a greenway after pipe installation is completed. In short, the County Road Department will have no access to the east side of the Bridge without an additional easement from the Trust. The Trust offers to formalize the easement(s) necessary for the Bridge Project in exchange for payment within the limits of the County's original estimate and agreement by the County to either abandon the proposed Road Legalization or to modify the proposed Road Legalization to include a right-of-way not to exceed the current road bed. If, however, the County has additional needs not communicated to the Trust or envisages activities (not undertaken by the local authority over the past 115 years) that compel a greater right of way then the Trust is open to considering arguments which demonstrate this compelling public interest. As set forth in our prior letters and in public testimony, there are numerous County collector roads comprised of less than a 60-foot right-of-way (as illustrated in Table 1). The Code, the TSP and state statute allow roads of "substandard" width, upon a showing of public interest. Even after a minimum right of way was recommended on July 5, 1947, 10% of newly legalized roads in Deschutes County were legalized below this minimum right of way. The Road Department carries the burden of proof to establish public interest. The Trust submits that this has not been established and so concludes that it is in the public interest to either abandon the road legalization proceedings, or to legalize the Road with less than a 60-foot right-of-way. As Dr. Hudson and Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson testified, the Trust, friends of the Tumalo Wildlife Corridor, local citizens and other private property owners actively maintain the area, including posting educational materials for the public, and work to minimize unsafe activities. Specifically, conversion of this land from private to public property would deprive the Trust of the ability to post notices and advise the public that such areas are private property to discourage illegal and other harmful activities. There are concerns about the County's resources to maintain and monitor the area to the same extent as local volunteers and residents since 2013. There will be adverse impacts on wildlife, particularly the Tumalo Deer Winter Range, if the existing, narrow, dirt road is endowed with the legal characteristics of a major thoroughfare. Such action would irrevocably change the character of this natural area of critical concern (Tumalo Natural Area) to encourage more traffic and more off -road uses, with an attendant rise in wildfire risk and illegal activities. Widening the right-of-way would effectively move the "road" to a position immediately adjacent to the Trust Property; snow removal activities would then result in potential blocking of the driveway to the Hudsons' home and fence damage. The Trust requests a meeting with the County Road Department and County Counsel to discuss the proposal herein as soon as possible to allow the County to proceed with the Bridge Project in accordance with the terms of the Agreement in a timely manner. We believe that resolution of these issues can be reached by the parties and then presented by both parties to the Board at the February 5, 2020 Wednesday meeting. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Sinc ely, t Stephanie Marshall encls. cc: Dr. Les Hudson Dr. Veronica Newton Hudson Table 1. Right of way width of all roads in Deschutes County established up to 2010' Right of way (feet) Number of Roads2 40— 20 —___w-70 1 00 ' Latest year for which public data is available. 2 Dirt roads tend to dominate the lower right of way widths 5 I PA' -4, R- A a r7l a a nr.rIG11Lt/ LEGAL COUNSEL Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 31740 LOCAL. AGENCY AGREEMENT State Funded Local Project Program Seismore Rd: Tumalo iRR Canal (Couch Lateral), Bridge No, BR17CO2 Deschutes County THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State" or "ODOT:" and Deschutes County, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "Agency," both herein referred to individually or collectively as "Party" or "Parties." RECITALS Agency wishes to exchange unspent federal funds previously allocated to the Project for state funds, in order to fund the Project using state funding. State has determined that Agency is eligible for state funds for the work to be performed under this Agreement through the State Funded Local Project Program, The Parties enter into this Agreement to exchange these funds, identify the Project that will be funded with the state funds, and describe the method State will use to reimburse Agency for work performed on the Project using the state funds, including establishing invoicing requirements and the proportional reimbursement rate, 2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 366.672 and 366.576, state agencies may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities, and units of local government for the performance of any or all. functions and activities that a party to the Agreement, its officers, or agents have the authority to perform. 3. Selsmore Road is a part of the county road system under the jurisdiction and control of Agency. 4. The Couch Lateral Bridge (No. 17CO2) has large spalls and rock pockets with exposed rebar throughout the arch. The reinforced concrete pier walls have large spalls with exposed rebar throughout the piers with leaks; the piers serve as a dam. The reinforced concrete abutments have numerous cracks and spalls with exposed rebar. This historic bridge provides access for the public and LISFS lands located to the north and west of the structure. If this bridge continues to deteriorate, it may be closed to traffic. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. State and Agency agree to Agency repairing and rehabilitating the Couch Lateral Bridge (SR17CO2) by removing and replacing the asphalt wearing surfaca, patching spalls, Installing new guardrails, removing and replacing the existing non-functioning drainage pipes, and removing and replacing the existing fill against the abutments with 12-22.17 Key No. 20731 It 2018W 05. ill A . Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 material that allows drainage, hereinafter referred to as "Project." The Project location and approximate limits are shown on the map Marked "Exhibit A," attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 2, The total Project cost for the work to be performed under this Agreement is estimated at $1,435,279, which is subject to change, Prior to exchanging funds, the federal share of the total Project cost is $1,287,876. a. Per the 1:1 fund exchange ratio of state dollars to federal dollars, Agency will exchange $1,287,876 of federal dollars allocated for this Project for $1,287,876 of state dollars. b. State funds under this Agreement are limited to $1,287,876. .3. Upon receipt and approval of Agency's invoice(s), State shall proportionately reimburse Agency 89.73 percent of eligible, actual costs Incurred in carrying out the Project, up to the maximum amount of state funds committed for the Project, 4. Agency is solely responsible for any and all costs incurred in excess of the state funds identified In this Agreement. Any unspent state funds will be retained by State and will not be available for Agency use. State funds transferred to Agency must be used for the Project. 5. To be eligible for reimbursement, expenditures must comply with the requirements of Article IX, Section 3a of the Oregon Constitution. Eligible costs are defined as reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Agency In performance of the Project. 6. The term of this Agreement will begin upon the date all required signatures are obtained and will terminate upon completion of the Project and final payment or ten (10) calendar years following the date of final execution, whichever is sooner. AGENCY OBLIGATIONS 1. Agency shall perform the work described in TERMS OF AGREEMENT, Parargraph 1 of this Agreement, 2. Americans with Disabilities Act Comp lance: a, When the Project scope includes work on sidewalks, curb ramps, or pedestrian - activated signals or triggers an obligation to address curb ramps or pedestrian signals, the Parties shall: 1. Utilize ODOT standards to assess and ensure Project compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (together, "ADA"), including ensuring that all sidewalks, curb ramps, and 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 pedestrian -activated signals meet current ODOT Highway Design Manual standards; !L Follow ODOT's processes for design, modification, upgrade, or construction of sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian -activated signals, including using the ODOT Highway Design Manual, ODOT Design Exception process, ODOT Standard Drawings, ODOT Construction Specifications, providing a temporary pedestrian accessible route plan and current ODOT Curb Ramp Inspection form; III, At Project completion, send a completed ODOT Curb Ramp Inspection Form 734-6020 to the address on the form as well as to State's Project Manager for each curb ramp constructed, modified, upgraded, or improved as part of the Project. The completed form Is the documentation required to show that each curb ramp meets ODOT standards and is ADA compliant, ODOT's fillable Curb Ramp Inspection Form and instructions are available at the following address: h_ p:I/www.oreaon.gov/ODOT/IdWY/CONS*I"RUCTION/Pages/HwyConstForm s1,as x; and Agency shall ensure that temporary pedestrian routes are provided through or around any Project work zone, Any such temporary pedestrian route shall include directional and informational signs, comply with ODOT standards, and Include accessibility features equal to or better than the features present in the existing pedestrian facility. Deschutes County shall also ensure that advance notice of any temporary pedestrian route is provided in acessible format to the public, people with disabilities, and disability organizations at least 10 days prior to the start of construction. c. Agency shall ensure that any portions of the Project under Agency's maintenance jurisdiction are maintained In compliance with the ADA throughout the useful life of the Project, This includes, but is not limited to, Agency ensuring that: I. Pedestrian access Is maintained as required by the ADA, ii. Any complaints received by Agency Identifying sidewalk, curb ramp, or pedestrian -activated signal safety or access issues are promptly evaluated and addressed, III. Any repairs or removal of obstructions needed to maintain Project features in compliance with the ADA requirements that were in effect at the time of Project construction are completed by Agency or abutting property owner pursuant to applicable local code provisions, 3 2j Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 iv. Any future alteration work on Project or Project features during the useful life of the Project complies with the ADA requirements in effect at the time the future alteration work Is performed, and v. Applicable permitting and regulatory actions are consistent with ADA requirements. d. Maintenance obligations In this section shall survive termination of this Agreement, 3. Except as otherwise provided in Agency Obligations Paragraph 2 above, Agency agrees that the Project shall be developed in conformance with the applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, including the current edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 4. Agency shall obtain a permit to occupy State right of way through the State District 10 Office prior to the commencement of construction. 5. If Project includes traffic signal or illumination Improvements on or along a state highway, Agency shall: a, Pursuant to Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-020-0430, obtain the approval of the State Traffic Engineer prior to the design and construction of any traffic signal, or illumination to be Installed on a state highway, r_L-- a_ a.. A....=- 1.---1 1• W;f" State 4w u r �l�iir.n!lnr�o fnr tl. [:ntet FnIU a separatC halllti signixl agiaeli+elllt vvltn taw to Cows vvllyativ,w w, any traffic signal or illumination being installed on a state highway. c. Ensure Agency, or its contractor's, electrical Inspectors possess a current State Certified Traffic Signal Inspector certificate, In order to Inspect electrical installations on State highways. The State District Permitting Office shall verify compliance with this requirement prior to construction. The permit fee should also cover the State electrician's supplemental inspection. Upon completion of the Project and at Its own expense, maintain the pavement surrounding any vehicle detector loops installed in the Agency street in such a manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops. Failure to do so may result in State requiring Agency to repair or replace the damaged loops at Agency expense. Future Agency roadwork activities involving the detector loops may also result in the same State requirements. Agency shall also adequately maintain the pavement markings and signing installed in accordance with the approved signal plan sheets for the signal installation or current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. e. Ensure that all Project work and maintenance activities Involving pedestrian - activated signals comply with the ADA and Agency Obligations Paragraph 2. 4 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No, 31740 6. Agency shall submit all of the following items to State's Project Manager, at Project completion and prior to final payment: a. Final Project completion Inspection form No. 734-6063 (completed with State's Project Manager); b, Final Cost; c. As -Constructed Drawings d. Structural Analysis Information (if applicable); e. Foundation Report; f, Hydraulic Report including Scour Analysis. g. Pile Records and drill logs (if applicable); h, Final Load Rating calculation with a stamped report with a CID containing all electronic files to the State's Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer; i, Notify State's Local Agency Bridge Inspection Coordinator at Richard, J.KingOodot,state, or. us, and bridge aodot.state.or.us to ensure the Initial inspection will be scheduled; and i. Inspection with State's Project Manager under this Agreement, State's Region Senior Structural Designer, or State's Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer. 7. Agency shall submit, prior to final payment, required bridge plans, reports, and documentation to State's Project Manager and Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer, using an electronic files package: MicroStation file and PDF file output that shows all red -line as -constructed markups of plan sheets (and additional files listed below, if applicable to the Project). Agency shall follow the file naming convention required in the Bridge Design and Drafting Manual located at: htto://www.oregon,goy/ODOT/HWY/BRIDGE/Paces/standards manuais.aspx#Bridg e Design & Drafting Manual. a. In the "As Constructed Plans" folder on State's FTP directory (available at the following link): f%,p/l�i.odot.state.or.us/AsConstructodPlans/, Agency shall create a subfolder under the "Bridge" folder using the bridge numbers shown In this Agreement for each bridge for the subfolder name. Agency shall place the PDF files In these folders, including: b. 11 inch x 17 Inch PDF plan sheets stamped and signed - as -constructed markups, containing final construction notes. c. Agency shall also place copies in same FTP folder of the following reports/records Identified in Agency Obligations, paragraph 7 of this Agreement. d, Agency shall send email notification to State's Project Manager and Senior Local Bridge Standards Engineer Holiy.M.WINSTONQodot.state.or.us and to the bridne(Modot.state.or.us mailbox after placing files on FTP site (include link to applicable FTP subfolder In email). 8. Project Change Request (PCR) Process - Agency must obtain approval from State's Bridge STIP Coordinator and State's Bridge Engineer for changes to the F" 3 . Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 Project's scope, schedule, or budget by submitting a PCR, as specified in Paragraphs 10 a-f, below. Agency shall be fully responsible for all costs attributable to changes to the established Project scope, schedule or budget made prior to an approved PCR. Amendments to this Agreement are required for all approved PCRs. a. Scope -A PCR Is required for any significant change or reduction in the scope of work described in the Project Description in Terms of Agreement, paragraph 1. b. Schedule— A PCR is required if Agency or State's Contact anticipates that any Project Milestone will be delayed by more than ninety (90) days, and also for any change in schedule that will require amendment of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). c. Budget — The Project's estimated budget is used for determining the level of compensation for completed work. Increases or decreases in the budget which require a STIP amendment also require the submission of a PCR to the State's Regional Local Agency Liaison. d, PCR requests that result In Project cost increases that are equal to or less than twenty (20) percent of the total estimated Project cost or $200,000, whichever amount Is less, can be approved by the State Bridge Engineer. Such amendments can be approved and entered Into by the State Bridge Engineer, subject to any applicable State approvals. e. PCR requests that result in a Project cost increase in excess of twenty (20) percent of the total estimated Project cost or $200,000, whichever amount is greater, must be approved by the State Bridge Engineer and the Local Agency Bridge Selection Committee with a majority vote. Such amendments must be executed by the same officials who executed the original Agreement, and are subject to any applicable State approvals. f. PCR Form - Agency must submit all change requests using PCR Form 734-2861 attached by reference and made a part of this Agreement. The PCR Form is due no later than thirty (30) days after the need for change becomes known to Agency. The PCR shall explain what change is being requested, the reasons for the change, and any efforts to mitigate the change. A PCR may be rejected at the discretion of State's Bridge Engineer. The fillable PCR form and its Instructions are available at the following web site: http://www,oregon.gov/ODOT/Forms/20DOT/2851,doo 9. Agency shall present Invoices for the eligible, actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf of the Project directly to State's Project Manager listed in this Agreement for review and approval. Such invoices shall be in a form identifying the Project, Key Number, the Agreement number, the Project phase and amount charged to each (such as preliminary engineering, right of way, and construction), the Invoice R Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 number, and will itemize all expenses for which reimbursement Is claimed. Invoices shall be presented for periods greater than one month, based on actual expenses incurred, and must clearly specify the percentage of completion of the Project. Agency shall also include with the Invoice a Project progress report or summary that describes work accomplished for the period being invoiced and work expected for the next invoicing period. Travel expenses will not be reimbursed. 10.Agency, or its consultant, shall conduct the necessary preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, specifications and cost estimates in accordance with current state and federal laws and regulations; obtain all required permits; be responsible for all utility relocations, advertise for bid proposals; award all contracts; perform all construction engineering; and make all contractor payments required to complete the Project. 11. Agency or its consultant shall acquire all necessary right of way In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, ORS Chapter 35 and the State Right of Way Manual. 12, Agency shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 2790.605, 279C.515, 279C.520, 279C.530 and 279B.270 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Agency expressly agrees to comply with (1) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 604 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative niiPs PS,tahlished mimimnt Pn tho fnrerminn inuict- and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 13.Agency shall perform the services under this Agreement as an Independent contractor and shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal income tax withholdings. 14, All employers, including Agency, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Employers Liability Insurance with coverage limits of not less than $600,000 must be included. Agency shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements, 15. Agency shall, at its own expense, maintain, operate, and provide power as needed upon Project completion at a minimum level that Is consistent with normal depreciation and/or service demand and throughout the useful life of the Project. State and Agency agree that the useful life of this Project is defined as 10 years. Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No, 31740 Maintenance and power responsibilities shall survive any termination of the Project Agreement, 16, Utility relocation or reconstruction may or may not be an eligible project expense according to the following standard: a, The expense is an eligible expense if the owner of the utility facility possesses a property right for its location on the public right of way, b. The expense is not an eligible expense if the owner of the utility facility does not possess a property right for its location, but the facility exists on the public right of way solely under the permission of the Agency or other road authority, whether that permission is expressed or implied, and whether written or oral. 17. Agency certifies, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within Agency's current appropriation or limitation of the current budget. Agency further agrees that they will only submit Invoices to State for reimbursement on work that has been performed and paid for by Agency as described in this Agreement. 18,Agency shall require its contractor(s) and sub contractors) that are not units of local government as defined in ORS 190.003, If any, to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the State of Oregon, Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, Oregon Department of Transportation and Its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all claims, actions, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from a tort, as now or hereafter defined in ORS vV,r-Vv kVIG11111;)J, w M 10 VAMI R ZiUU11 l.rJU1111.Y W IS (;dUSGd, or alleged 10 be Caused by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of Agency's contractor or any of the officers, agents, employees or subcontractors of the contractor. It is the specific intention of the Parties that State shall, In all Instances, except to the extent Claims arise from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the State, be indemnified from and against all Claims caused or alleged to be caused by the contractor or subcontractor. 19.Any such indemnification shall also provide that neither Agency's contractor and subcontractor nor any attorney engaged by Agency's contractor and subcontractor shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that Agency's contractor is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that Agency's contractor Is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is In the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so, The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue claims it may have against Agency's contractor if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense. P Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No, 31740 20, If Agency enters Into a construction contract for performance of work for the Project, then Agency will include provisions In that contract requiring Its contractor to comply with the following: a. Contractor and Agency shall name State as a third party beneficiary of the resulting contract. b. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless State from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever resulting from, arising out of, or relating to the activities of Contractor or its officers, employees, sub -contractors, or agents under the resulting contract. c, Commercial General Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor's expense, and keep in effect during the term of the resulting contract, Commercial General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and property damage in a form and with coverages that are satisfactory to State. This insurance shall Include personal and advertising injury liability, products and completed operations, Coverage may be written in combination with Automobile Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Coverage shall be written on an occurrence basis, If written in conjunction with Automobile Liability the combined single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000 for each job site or location. Each annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000. Automobile Liability. Contractor shall obtain, at Contractor's expense, and keep In effect during the term of the resulting contract, Commercial Business Automobile Liability Insurance coverina all owned; non -owned; or hired vahicles: This coverage may be written in combination with the Commercial General Liability Insurance (with separate limits). Combined single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000. e. Additional Insured Endorsement. The liability insurance coverage, except Professional Liability, Errors and Omissions, or Workers' Compensation, if Included, required for performance of the resulting contract will include State and Its divisions, officers and employees as Additional Insured but only with respect to the Contractor's activities to be performed under the resulting contract, Coverage shall be primary and non-contributory with any other insurance and self-insurance. Notice of Cancellation or Change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, potential exhaustion of aggregate limits or non -renewal of insurance coverage(s) without thirty (30) days written notice from the Contractor or its Insurer(s) to State. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of this clause shall constitute a material breach of the resulting contract and shall be grounds for immediate termination of the resulting contract and this Agreement, 21.Agency acknowledges and agrees that State, the Oregon Secretary of State's Office, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, rig 3 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 documents, papers, and records of Agency which are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts during the course of the project and for a period of six (6) years after final payment. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies Is reimbursable by State. 22, Agency certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of Agency, under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members or representatives, and to legally bind Agency, 23.Agency's Project Manager for this Agreement is Cody Smith — County Engineer, 61150 SE 271h Street, Bend, OR 27702, (541) 322-7113, Cody smith ,deschutes.org, or assigned designee upon individual's absence. Agency shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. STATE OBLIGATIONS 1. In consideration for the services performed under this Agreement, State shall reimburse Agency 89,73 percent of eligible costs incurred in carrying out the Project up to the maximum amount of state funds committed for the Project in Terms of Agreement, Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. Reimbursements shall be made by State within forty-five (45) days of State's approval of a request for reimbursement from Agency, except that final payment will be withheld until the State's Project Manager has completed final project inspection and project acceptance. 2. State shall provide the following items to Agency's Project Manager no later than 30 days after execution of this Agreement; a. Scoping Notes; and b. Any other project specific information gathered during the scoping and selection process 3. State's Project Manager will arrange for a final project inspection upon notification from Agency of Project completion, to confirm project completeness and fulfillment of Agreement obligations, prior to final payment. 4. if Project Includes traffic signal improvements on or along a State Highway, traffic signal timing shall be the responsibility of State, unless, there is an agreement that specifically allows Agency to perform that function, Consistent with Agency Obligations Paragraph 2 State shall: a. Ensure its Region Electrical Crew, at Project expense, perform the signal equipment environmental testing and perform the signal field testing and turn on, 10 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 b. Retain the right of review of the traffic signal timing for signals on state highways, or those which State maintains, and shall reserve the right to request adjustments when needed, c. Notify the local jurisdiction whenever timing changes that affect the operation of local street connections to the state highway are scheduled. All modifications shall follow guidelines set forth in the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the current ODOT State Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines, d. Upon completion of the Project, maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops Installed In the State highway in such a manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops and at State's expense, e. Maintain the pavement markings and signing installed on the State highway in accordance with current ODOT standards, and f. Where Agency has an agreement with State to modify signal timing and the Agency modifies timing to add railroad or emergency vehicle preemption, bus priority, or other changes that affect vehicle or pedestrian clearances, or operation of the state highway. Agency shall promptly report such modifications to State's Region Traffic Engineer. Any such timing modification shall comply with the ADA and Agency Obligations Paragraph 2, 5. State's Project Manager for this Agreement is Darrell Newton - Local Agency Programs Coordinator, 63065 N. Highway 97, Bldg M, Bend, OR 97703, (541) 388- 6272, d arrel 1. r. newtonCcDod ot.state, or. % or assigned designee upon Individual's absence. State shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information changes during the term of this Agreement. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both Parties. 2. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions; a. if Agency falls to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If Agency falls to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State falls to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as State may authorize. c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project, d. If State falls to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure 11 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement, e. if federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or if State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 3. If State terminates this Agreement for the reasons described in General Provisions 2(a) or (b) above, Agency must reimburse State for all state funds expended. If Agency fails to reimburse State, State may withhold Agency's proportional share of State Highway Fund distribution necessary to reimburse State for costs incurred by such Agency breach. 4. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 6. if any third party makes any claim or brings any action, suit or proceeding alleging a tort as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.260 ("Third Party Claim") against State or Agency with respect to which the other Party may have liability, the notified Party must promptly notify the other Party in writing of the Third Party Claim and deliver to the other Party a copy of the claim, process, and all legal pleadings with respect to the Third Party Claim, Each Party is entitled to participate in the defense of a Third Party Claim, and to defend a Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing. Receipt by a Party of the notice and copies required in this paragraph and meaningful opportunity for the Party to participate in the investigation, defense and settlement of the Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing are conditions precedent to that Pzrhi's liahillt ifh mema �F to the Third Pa,a11 maim. 6. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which State is jointly liable with Agency (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), State shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by Agency in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted In such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. State's contribution amount in any instance Is capped to the same extent It would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30,300, If State had sole liability In the proceeding. 7. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which Agency is jointly liable with State (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), Agency shall contribute to the amount of expenses (Including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by State in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of Agency on the one hand 12 23 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 and of State on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of Agency on the one hand and of State on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. Agency's contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, if it had sole liability in the proceeding. 8. The Parties shall attempt In good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement. In addition, the Parties may agree to utilize a jointly selected mediator or arbitrator (for non -binding arbitration) to resolve the dispute short of litigation. 9. State and Agency are the only Parties to this Agreement and, as such, are the only Parties entitled to enforce Its terms. Nothing In this Agreement gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, Indirect or otherwise to third persons unless such third persons are expressly identified by name and specifically described as Intended to be beneficiaries of Its terms. 10.This Agreement may be executed In several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart, Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 11. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the PartiAS on the suhiect mmfer harAnf, There are no understandings, agreements or I-_. ..cy.., ., agreements, �.... ...., representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of either Party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by that Party of that or any other provision. THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that their signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions, This Project is In the 2018-2021 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), (Key #20371) that was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on July 11, 2017 (or subsequently by amendment to the STIP). 13 Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 DESCHUTES COUNTY, by and through its elected officials By Chair Date ja-U:6A) /8 Corp" sinner .. ........ ... LEGAL REY-IEW APPROVAL BY � Y1 Agency Counsel Date Agency Contact; Cody Smith —County Engineer 61160 SE 27th Street Bond, OR 27702 (541) 322-7113 Cody. s mith@des chutes, orq State Contact, Darrell Newton - Local Agency Programs Coordinator 63055 N. Highway 97, Bldg M Bend OR, 97703 (541) 388-6272 darrell. r.newto nftodot, state. or. us 14 STATE OF OREGON, by and through 1'!' "0' "n-en of ranspartation By HjgJ4 A Wa � jVi 1ian Administrator Date— API- R NDED By Regioi 4 Manager Date By. State Brid4je Engineer Date / -, 7 - 1. 04 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By: Rachel Bertoni Assistant Attorney General by email Date: January 9, 2018 RX Deschutes County/ODOT Agreement No. 31740 EXHIBIT A -- Project location Map 0 0.26 0.6 Legend l Skemore Bridge - Walorway lake w--W County Roulea Floodploln { Taulola Vw"Onds Publto tend 0.76 1 Meea �tNrNxi6scwt GtS 1u> iyst rv»�pTuHivro� N:*llWf V ftlir.ar.«p .T Wrn:)trw rR4I T>tcv� Road Depat e"t TM Nbr.+wS.N M Ui� n++Poa J�nheifmn9ytrt diAWsu m C�WMaOaN{�Oi.G. Gro+.a�l�nh Vtararn)ran nW+. praHw,Cn.MnrwuKKi P+IHt(%NhY�y )rMtNA Printed; �nr�),armww.twwrvduw.aa>rwdPro May d, 2015 ai.e,� ,� efts vae it>ww, uofstlapor P,WcG16„I'tc}Wr4Vip{ I)LVNmas R�h�DiS �MroN„lM'i+m�lAiy.20T! nud 15 w Cody Smith From: Chris Doty Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:28 PM To: Cody Smith Subject: Fwd: Follow Up Chris Doty, PE/PTOE Deschutes Co. Road Department chris.doty@deschutes.org 541.322.7105 Sent from my Whone Begin forwarded message: From: "les.hudson@q.com" <les.hudson@q.com> Date: January 28, 2020 at 1:07:57 PM PST To: Chris Doty <Chris.Doty@deschutes.org> Cc: Stephanie Marshall <stephanie@bennulaw.com>, Veronica Newton Hudson <vnewtonhudson@q.com> Subject: Follow Up [EXTERNAL EMAfL1 Hi Chris, Very many thanks for your help yesterday, I do appreciate your effort. Les. Dr. Leslie Hudson Mobile: 561 789 1620 les.hudson@q.com Copyright protection is hereby asserted on this personal e-mail. Please do not copy or forward this copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright owner. �0-c E S C o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of February 12, 2020 DATE: February 5, 2020 FROM: Cody Smith, Road Department, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2020-002, Completing Legalization Procedures for a Portion of Sisemore Rd RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Motion for approval of Order No. 2020-002, Completing Legalization Procedures for a Portion of Sisemore Rd. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: ORS 368.201 to 368.221 provides county governing bodies with authority and procedure to clarify the record of right-of-way boundaries of a road by legalization if one or more of the following conditions exist: If, through omission or defect, doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of establishment of a public road. If the location of the road cannot be accurately determined due to: o Numerous alterations of the road; o A defective survey of the road or adjacent property; or o Loss or destruction of the original survey of the road. If the road as traveled and used for 10 years or more does not conform to the location of a road described in the county records. Deschutes County Road Department is preparing plans and specifications for the Sisemore Rd Bridge Rehabilitation project. A review of County records indicates that the portion of Sisemore Rd that includes the Sisemore Rd Bridge (aka Bull Creek Dam and Bridge) has been used and traveled by the public since 1914 in a way which does not conform to its location as described in the County records and that the legal establishment of this portion of Sisemore Rd is in question. The Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2019-051 on November 13, 2019, which initiated legalization proceedings pursuant to ORS 368.201 to 368.22. A public hearing regarding the matter was held on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms of the Deschutes County Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon. During the hearing, the Board of Commissioners considered the information given in the Department report and public testimony regarding the proposed legalization. The Board of Commissioners closed the public hearing and kept the written record open until 5:00 PM, January 29, 2020. The Board also requested an agenda item for their Monday, January 27, 2020 meeting to discuss with staff options for addressing comments submitted by the Hudson Family Trust. During the Board's January 27th meeting, Commissioner Henderson requested that Road Department and Legal Department staff meet with the Hudson Family Trust in an attempt to address their comments and concerns. Staff met with representatives of the Hudson Family Trust immediately subsequent to the discussion with the Board. The Board of County Commissioners will now consider Order No. 2020-002, which will complete the legalization procedure for the subject portion of Sisemore Rd upon adoption. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Cody Smith, County Engineer