Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRecher Vesting LetterBRYANT EMERSON & FITCH, LLP Attorneys at Law December 1, 2009 Sent via e-mail: board(a co.deschutes.or.us and Hand Delivered Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Re Rencher Vesting Application DR -08 -3 Dear Commissioners: Ronald L. Bryant a` Craig P. Emerson Edward P. Fitch Steven D. Bryant Michael R. McLane Lisa D.T. Klemp Alison M. Emerson Tony F. De Alicante * Philip Emerson * Also adncitted in Washington First, let me apologize for the tardiness of this response to the staff report. My family and I were out of town for the Thanksgiving Holiday and only returned Monday morning. The staff report raises a number of questions that merit a response. I. REN Development/Expenses of the Subdivision All of the subdivision expenses have been incurred by Frank Rencher. The staff report had a fairly lengthy discussion regarding REN Development and C Corp. The staff report questions whether or not the expenses that were incurred are eligible. They are. The Attorney General's office addressed this issue in open court in June, 2006 in the case of Crook County v. All Electors, Crook County Circuit Court Case No. 05CV0015. Katherine George, the Assistant Attorney General, represented the State of Oregon in that case. I am enclosing a copy of a portion of the transcript from that hearing (pgs. 97 through 99). During a discussion with Judge Neilson, a question about an arrangement between a Measure 37 owner and a developer came up. The Attorney General's office advised the court of the following: It's not really the State's position that a waiver is never transferable, but under existing law, there are existing statutes governing non- conforming uses, and under the Court's decision, under the vested rights principle, when a development of a non - conforming use has reached a certain stage, the property owner is said to have acquired a vested right to continue the development and subsequently put the use to its intended function. 888 S.W. Evergreen Ave. P.O. Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756 -0103 (541) 548 -2151 Fax (541) 548 -1895 E -mail bef @rdmond- lawyers.com BRYANT EMERSON & FITCH, LLP Attorneys at Law Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Page 2 December 1, 2009 I don't know why any landowner would want to proceed by applying the vested rights principle or testing that principle when they can instead have some kind of arrangement with the developer so that they retain an interest until development is completed, which seems a much more hassle -free way to see the property fully developed and sold , but nonetheless, if an owner does not choose to pursue that avenue, under common law how much of his development would be transferable at the time of sale and whether or not a new owner could complete his development would be determined under the common law of vested rights. The issue in this case, as it was in the others, is whether or not there has been a substantial investment in the project taking into account all of the Holmes factors. As the court noted in Clackamas County v. Holmes, courts have found vested rights to existing not only where expenditures have been substantial but also where there has been a substantial change of position in relation to the land or where substantial obligations have been incurred. 2 Rathkofi, The Law of Zoning and Planning, 57 -7, (3rd Edition) 11 Or App 1 at 10. In the present case, when the 21 -lot subdivision was originally planned, Frank Rencher and C Corp entered into an arrangement to have the development activity run through an LLC. As was noted in the information submitted to the hearings officer back in 2008, the purpose of REN Development was twofold. The first was to insulate Frank Rencher from liability during the construction activity on the project. The second was to provide an accounting methodology for expenses. Frank Rencher also borrowed $75,000 to pay for engineering and construction fees as well as other expenses associated with the development. He pledged the property to repay those monies. The method by which Frank Rencher was to pay C Corp for its work and costs advanced was out of the proceeds of the sale of lots. This arrangement changed after the 21 -lot subdivision was denied. With the revised 8 -lot subdivision, Frank Rencher agreed to reimburse C Corp for the expenses that C Corp incurred (e.g., project management fees and other out -of- pocket expenses). This type of arrangement was consistent with the AG's view of how Measure 37 claimants, most of whom were retired and elderly, could proceed with a development under Measure 37 and achieve a common law vesting. Since December, 2007, the situation has changed further. C Corp is now a defunct entity. REN Development is now a defunct entity (see attachment). Frank Rencher has the sole responsibility of proceeding with the completion of the development. II. Project Expenses At Issue. A. Road Construction Fees, $51,680. Based upon an e-mail from County Counsel, it appears that these fees should be allowed. B. Engineering Fees. Approximately $35,000 of these fees can and should be disqualified BRYANT EMERSON & FITCH, LLP Attorneys al Law Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Page 3 December 1, 2009 as related to the 21 -lot subdivision proposal. In reviewing the engineering fees with W & H Pacific previously, it appears that approximately $15,568.42 of the fees are attributable to the 8 -lot subdivision. This includes the overall survey of the property boundary from the 21 lot proposal, the revised drawings for the 8 -lot subdivision, the mass grading plans, and the construction staking (Rec 227 - 239). (Missing invoice submitted herewith.) C. Legal Fees. A small portion of the legal fees are related to the 21 -lot subdivision. An adjustment of $2,691 is appropriate, leaving $8,694.19 of attorney fees. D. Project Management Fees. These fees of $16,000 should be allowed. C Corp did provide management services for this subdivision. Chuck Koon, Aaron Curtis, George Werner from C Corp all provided management services, construction management services, development management services and accounting services, etc. for this project. E. Encore Properties. An adjustment of approximately $300.00 from Kristi Weigant who worked on this subdivision with Frank Rencher is appropriate. Encore Properties was a subcontractor to C Corp. F. Septic Feasibility Fees. It is not clear why the County staff is recommending disallowance. These were fees that were required to be paid to Deschutes County to satisfy a condition of the subdivision approval. The work by Deschutes County staff in evaluating the test pits previously dug did occur after December 6h. That work by the County staff, however, is not part of the claim for expenses. Only the fees are. The test holes were dug prior to December 6h. These fees of $4,120 for the 8 -lot should be allowed. G. Excavation, $1,050. This is the cost for the test holes. The County staff does agree that they should be allowed. H. COID fees. Application of these fees would probably have been required regardless of the development and should be disallowed. I. Road Department Fee, $250. This fee should be allowed. County staff concurs. J. Other Fees. Applicant's $50.00 LLC fee should be allowed as it was part of a liability protection in conjunction with this development. Given its de minimis amount, the applicant has no objection to having it disallowed either. BRYANT EMERSON & FITCH, LLP Attorneys at Law Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Page 4 December 1, 2009 Taking into account these deductions, the fees that were expended prior to December 6, 2007, for the 8 -lot subdivision of $105,787.31 could be adjusted as follows: Encore Properties <$ 300.00> COID Fees <$1,087.55> Secretary of State <$ 50.00> Legal fees <$2,691.50> TOTAL <$4,128.05> The deduction of these costs, however, will not materially effect any ratio analysis. III. Project Costs. The total project cost has been modified significantly since the original 21 -lot subdivision was proposed. Submitted in March, 2009, was a breakdown of the projected development costs based upon information submitted by Dale Davison. The total project cost of the 8 -lot subdivision is approximately $352,000. Of that sum, over $101,000 of eligible costs was expended prior to December 6, 2007. There has been a reduction in both project costs ($500,000 to $350,000) as well as the monies expended ($144,000 to $101,000) to account for the difference between the 21 -lot subdivision proposal that was denied and the 8 -lot subdivision that was approved. These 8 lots are all vacant lots. Assuming a speculative price point per house of $100,000, the total project cost would be approximately $1.15 million. With an expenditure of approximately $102,000 prior to December 6, 2007, the ratio factor would be approximately 9 %. This $100,000 figure is supported by the evidence in the record, (e.g., Aaron Curtis Affidavit, Declarations of Rick Roberts, Paul Whitaker, Hayden Watson, etc.). Even if a slightly higher cost figure was utilized, to -wit: $150,000, it would appear that the ratio would be consistent with the ratio factor approved by the Supreme Court in Clackamas County v. Holmes (approximately 6.5 %). IV. Homes The staff report appears to propose that a fmding by the hearings officer that is not based upon any evidence is binding. That incorrect fording by the hearings officer is not binding for three reasons. 1. There was no evidence of a cost that relates to this figure. In a memoranda, Central Oregon Land Watch suggested a figure of $225,000 per home. There was no evidence supporting that figure. The only evidence in the record before the hearings officer was that the cost of the home could be under $100,000. (See Curtis Affidavit, Rec. 100) 2. The court's order authorized and directed the County to reopen the record to look at the expenses and project costs. The applicant has submitted a number of evidentiary declarations in the record which support a finding that $100,000 per home would be an appropriate figure. This would also be consistent with the figure arrived at in Hurtley and in Bolken. BRYANT EMERSON & FITCH, LLP Attorneys at Law Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Page 5 December 1, 2009 3. Last spring, and also in September, the project costs were clarified. Much of the costs associated with the 21 -lot subdivision have been removed. The remaining costs for the subdivision are more in line with a cost of $352,000, rather than $500,000 plus. (See Exhibit A, Davison letter.) Examples of the reduction costs can be found in the following: A. The original budget included common areas and trail system. There is no common area nor is there a trail system with the 8 -lot subdivision. V. B. The original budget anticipated a community water system. That water system was to be connected to the Arnett development. The Arnett development is not going forward. There will not be a community water system. There will be approximately three shared wells on the property. The original 21 -lot subdivision anticipated significant engineering, proj ect administration and legal fees. Those will not be required for a simple 8 -lot, five acre subdivision. The reduction of approximately $200,000 is appropriate and reasonable considering the different scope of the subdivision from the one originally submitted. Holmes Factors As this Board knows, there are other equally important factors (other than ratio) to consider in this vesting application. Those factors include the following: 1. An owner making lawful expenditures; 2. Notice and the good faith of the owner; 3. Relationship of expenditures to conforming use; and 4. Extent of nonconformity of proposed use. As the Board also knows, all of these Measure 37 cases have a similar history. Shortly after the passage of Measure 37, Frank Rencher, as did the Bolkens and David Hurtley, filed claims for compensation in conformance with the new law. Frank Rencher received waivers from both the State of Oregon and Deschutes County. In reliance upon those waivers, he proceeded with a subdivision application. The original application was for 21 lots which was a permitted use at the time Frank Rencher acquired the property, to -wit: June 22, 1964. The State of Oregon, however, issued a "partial waiver" and continued to impose Goals 11 and 14 in what appeared to be a clear violation of the requirements of Measure 37. Nevertheless, in light of the initial denial by Deschutes County, Frank Rencher modified his application to conform with that waiver and proceeded with an 8 -lot, 5 acre subdivision. This Board found that that modified subdivision conformed with both waivers and approved the same. In reliance upon that approval, as well as the waivers, Frank Rencher proceeded to implement the subdivision application by excavating and grading the road on the property. That road was approximately over 1100 feet in length. Mr. Rencher, through contractors, also dug the test holes for the septic and paid the County the septic feasibility fees. Additional engineering work was also accomplished following BRYANT EMERSON & FITCH, LLP Attorneys at Law Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Page 6 December 1, 2009 the approval of the subdivision. As of December 6, 2007, and as noted above, approximately $101,000 had been expended. V. Conclusion It is clear that when one looks at all the factors that the courts have identified as important in reviewing on a common law vesting determination this project merits an approval. Frank Rencher followed the law at every point in time. He did so for approximately two- and -a -half years. He expended a considerable amount of money, some of which has been disqualified because of what appears to be the violation of Measure 37 by the State in imposing Goals 11 and 14, goals that were adopted 12 years after his date of acquisition. Judge Tiktin noted in the Leason case that the State did not have any authority to issue a partial waiver whereby the State can choose a use and continue to impose regulations that were adopted after the date of acquisition: It has now been almost five (5) years since this project began. Frank Rencher is not getting any younger. He now has a road that has been graded and developed up to the point of pavement the length of the 40 -acre parcel. He has test holes and septic evaluations for all 8 lots. The utility trench has been partially constructed and considerable monies were spent for legal, engineering and planning services for this subdivision. All of this was done in compliance with the law. All of this was done in good faith. The Board needs to approve this vesting and allow Mr. Rencher to move forward and complete the project. Very truly yours, Edward P. Fitch EPF /mcm cc: Steven Griffm (w /encl.) Steven _Griffin(&,,co.deschutes.or.us Darsee Staley (w /encl.) Darsee.staley(a doj.state.or.us Enclosures Crook County Transcript Corporation Division Printout Project Cost & Expenditure Summary Guideline Checklist Chuck Koon letter Dale Davison letter Edward P. Fitch Letter W & H Invoices G: \Clients \EPF\Rencher, Frank L\Rencher,Frank- Remand CL\Deschutes County BOC.11.30.09.wpd(mcm) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • 13 14 15 16 17 18 •19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF CROOK No. 05 CV 0015 CROOK COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. ALL ELECTORS, et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable George W. Neilson, Judge of the Citcuit Court for the County of Crook, State of Oregon, commencing on the 1st day of June, 2006. Appearances: Appearing in behalf of the Plaintiff Jeffrey M. Wilson, Attorney at Law .ppearing in behalf of the State of Oregon Katherine G. Georges, Attorney at Law • Appearing in behalf of the Defendant Hunnicutt Ross A. Day, Attorney at Law Appearing in behalf of the Defendants Martins and Riemenschneider Edward Fitch, Attorney at Law Appearing in behalf of the Defendant Donald Joe Willis Donald Joe Willis, Amicus pro se TRANSCRIBED FROM ELECTRONIC RECORDING BY: ROBYN M. ANDERSON 3351 SW REDFERN PLACE GRESHAM, OREGON 97080 ANDERSON ASSISTANCE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIM (503) 618-9938 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 has been waived, allowing a particular use by a particular applicant, and recorded against a particular property, shall not be applied as a condition of approval in a subsequent land use proceeding filed by that applicant to undertake --" THE COURT: So is the -- MS. GEORGES: "-- that use." THE COURT: -- particular particular particular "that applicant" that you're -- MS. GEORGES: Right. THE COURT: you're relying on? MS. GEORGES: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MS. GEORGES: "that applicant to undertake that use upon that property," end quote. THE COURT: Okay. MS. GEORGES: Section 11(a) that I just read is consistent with the State's argument that a Measure 37 waiver is personal to the owner, the Measure 37 claimant, because it only operates as a waiver for that applicant to undertake the particular use allowed by the waiver on that property. Measure 37 also has to be considered in the context of existing laws that are not changed by Measure 37, and this argument here is an illustration of the situations in which a waiver might be transferable, to respond to the Anderson Assistance (503) 618-9938 1 1 arguments. It's not really the State's position that a waiver is never transferable, but under existing law, there 3 are existing statutes governing non-conforming uses, and 4 under the Court's decision, under the vested rights 5 principle, when a development of a non-conforming use has 6 reached a certain stage, the property owner is said to have 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 acquired a vested right to continue the development and subsequently put the use to its intended function. However, the point in the development of the use at which time the owner is said to have acquired a vested right to continue a non-conforming use is an issue of fact to be decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis, applying factors set out by the Oregon Supreme Court in Clackamas County v. Holmes, 265 Or 193 (1973), and Polk County v. Martin, 292 Or 69 (1981). Thus the rights to engage and continue a non- conforming use vest only through actual use or development. Again, the Crook County ordinance, Section (b), which is not challenged here, is again consistent with the State's interpretation - THE COURT: Section (b)? MS. GEORGES: Section (b), 11(b). Section 11(b) says, quote, "A property which has been improved by an owner who has obtained a waiver allowing a use which would not otherwise have been allowed due to an enactment or Anderson Assistance (503) 618-9938 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 enforcement of a land use regulation may be transferred with the improvements to the new owner, but this privilege shall not be construed to create authority to transfer the right to improve to a new owner." So under the Crook County ordinance, only the improvements which have actually been made by an owner who has obtained a waiver may be transferred to the new owner because they're improved, they're built, it's there. But that does not transfer the right to improve under the waiver to the new owner under the Crook County ordinance. I don't know why any landowner would want to proceed by applying the vested rights principle or testing that principle when they can instead have some kind of arrangement with the developer so that they retain an interest until development is completed, which seems a much more hassle -free way to see the property fully developed and sold, but nonetheless, if an owner does not choose to pursue that avenue, under common law how much of his development would be transferable at the time of sale and whether or not a new owner could complete his development would be determined under the common law of vested rights. That's how existing law would apply to fill in various scenarios at the time of transfer. The only direct issue here, though, is whether - Anderson Assistance (503) 618 -9938 Business Registry Business Name Search http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_... 1 of 2 HOtvii' • OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE to- Corporation Division businesslnforrnatiofl oregon business guide 1. referral list business registryirenewal formsifees notary public UniferrnCoiiiinerciai commercial code search documents & data services Business Name Search New Search Printer Friendly Business Entity Data • 12-01-2009 06:54 Registry Nbr Entity Entity Jurisdiction Registry Date Duration Date Renewal Date Type Status CUR 389935-98 DLLC INA OREGON 10-19-2006 10-19-2008 ---TREK1 E-O--P-1V:Nf L Ea -- - - -- - -- - - - Entity Name fj-VELIE, Foreign Name New Search Printer Friendly Associated Names Type PPB PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS EDWARD V PTCH-------77— 1 End Date Addr 1 PO BOX 638 Addr 2 CUR •CSZ REDMOND IOR 197756 [Country [UNITED STATES OF AMERICA n ormation about re istered agents and service o process. TypeGT--PREGISTERED AGENT Start Date 10-19-2006 Resign Date 1 ...-"Name EDWARD V PTCH-------77— 1 End Date Addr 1 888 W EVERGREEN AVE REN DEVELOPMENT, LLC Addr 2 CUR 10-19-2006 CSZ REDMOND OR 97756 Country UNITED STA1B,S OF AMERICA Type W------M1VIEMBER Not of Record CORP Resign Date Addr 1 PO BOX 638 Addr 2 CSZ REDMOND OR 97756 country UN11ED STATES OF AMERICA New Search Printer Friendly Name Histo Business Entity Name Name Name Start Date End Date Type Status REN DEVELOPMENT, LLC EN CUR 10-19-2006 12/1/2009 6:54 AM Business Registry Business Name Search Please read before ordering Copies. http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inci.show_detl?p_... New Search Printer Friendly Summary Histo Image Date Action Transaction Date Effective Date Status Name/Agent Change Dissolved By 12-19-2008 A DMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION 12-19-2008 SYS 10-24-2008ANNUAL NOTICE LA 1E, 10-24-2008 SYS 10-29-2007 • ENDED ANNUAL REPORT 10-29-2007 FI 10-26-2007 NOTICE LATE ANNUAL 10-26-2007 SYS 10-19-2006ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION 10-19-2006 FI Agent About Us 1 Announcements 1 Laws & Rules 1 Feedback Site Map Policy SOS Home 1 Oregon Blue Book 1 Oregon gov For comments or suggestions regarding the operation of this site, HTML please contact : businessregistry.sosstate.orus 4.01Vr © 2009 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. 2 of 2 12/1/2009 6:54 AM BRYANT EMERSON & FITCH, LLP Attorneys at Law December 1, 2009 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Ronald L. Bryant * Craig P. Emerson Edward P. Fitch Steven D. Bryant Michael R. McLane Lisa D.T. Klemp Alison M. Emerson Tony F. De Alicante * Philip Emerson * Also admitted in Washington Re: Legal Fees associated with Rencher Development Dear Commissioners: The staff have questioned some of the fees. We do agree the following fees can be deducted: October 20, 2005 December 7, 2006 April 17, 2007 April 25, 2007 May 1, 2007 $ 400.00 $ 173.50 $ 112.50 $ 146.25 $ 900.00 Total $1,732.25 December 10, 11 and 13 and January 10 $ 958.75 Total $2,691.00 The sum of $1,732.25 is appropriate to take into account work done in relation to the 21-lot subdivision between October 1, 2005 and July 2, 2006. All of the work done after July 2nd was in relation to modifying the subdivision from 21-lots to 8 lots. Applicant also concedes work done on December 10th, llth, and 13th and January 10th ($621.25) in relation to the vesting may be ineligible. Very truly yours, Edward P. Fitch EPF/mcm G:\Clients\EPF\Rencher, Frank L\Rencher,Frank-Remand CL\Deschutes BOC.11.30.09(2).wpd(mcm) 888 S.W. Evergreen Ave. P.O. Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756-0103 (541) 548-2151 Fax (541) 548-1895 E-mail bef@redmond-lawyers.com EXHIBIT A Subdivision (8 Lots Only) Costs expended to date - Waiver Fee - $500 - Planning and subdivision application fees - $4,888.35 - Septic permits - $515.00 $105,787.31' - Engineer Fees - $15,568.42 (8 lots only) - Legal Fees Waiver - $962.00 - Legal Fees - $10,058.54 (8 lots only) - Development Fees - $51,680 - Utilities - $5,170 - Project Management - $16,445 Costs to Complete (8 lots) $248,366.00 - Road and path - $113,866 - Utilities - $100,000 - Offsite - $20,000 - Engineering - $12,000 - Legal - $2,500 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $352,688.51 RATIO WITHOUT HOMES 29% Subdivision (8 Lots Only) Total Project Costs including homes - 8 Homes @ $100,000 $1,115,680 - 8 Homes @ $150,000 $1,552,680 - 8 Homes @ 200,000 $1,952,688 Ratio for 8 Lot Subdivision - 8 Homes @ $100,000 9% " - 8 Homes @ $150,000 7% - 8 Homes @ $200,000 5.5%2 These costs were revised to reflect the 8-lot subdivision instead of the 21-lot subdivision. 2 A similar ratio was approved by Deschutes County in the Miles Application (Urban Acres) which was also a small 5-acre subdivision. BRYANT, EMERSON & FITCH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 S.W. EVERGREEN AVENUE RO. BOX 457 REDMOND, OREGON 97756-0103 TELEPHONE (541) 548-2151 FAX (541) 548-1895 COMMON LAW CHECKLIST RENCHER (1) History December, 2004 -. December, 2007 Claim 2005 Note: MacPherson delay 4 -6 months Oct. 05 - March 06 2. Initial Application Spring, 2007 3. Modified Application. 8/07 4. Final Approval 11/07 (2) Lawful Expenditures: $105,000 (rounded) (3) Factors (Polk County v. Martin) A. Good Faith (1) Owner making lawful expenditures (2) Owner has notice of rezoning (Only notice is he has to vest by effective date) YES NO B. Commitment (3) Relationship of expenditures to NO conforming use (All $ spent relates to nonconforming subdivision) (4) Extent of nonconformity of proposed use YES -� Night + Day from conforming use -+ Road through middle; former irrigation system out, cannot farm now (5) Substantial Investment YES Residential Subdivision 29% Residential Subdivision w /homes 5.5 % -9% ($100,000 - $200,000) Owner Meets Test BRYANT, EMERSON & FITCH, MY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 S.W. EVERGREEN AVENUE P.O. BOX 457 REDMOND, OREGON 97756 -0103 TELEPHONE (541) 548 -2151 FAX (541) 548 -1895 December 1, 2009 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Re: Rencher Vesting Hearing Dear Commissioners: I have reviewed the Staff Report. REN Development was formed in anticipation of a 21 -lot subdivision. Since the 21 -lot subdivision was denied and an 8 -lot subdivision, C Corp is entitled only to recover its costs which includes a management fee. Frank Rencher did not have the financial resources to pay these costs. The plan was to repay these expenses at the time of sales. Frank Rencher did borrow $75,000 and pledged as security this 40 -acre parcel. That $75,000 helped pay expenses associated with the subdivision. The project management fee for C Corp, ($16,000) as well as the expense for Kristi Weigant ($1,260) were all related solely to the Rencher subdivision. I believe an adjustment of approximately $300.00 for Kristi Weigant would be appropriate as some of that may have related to the 21 -lot subdivision. Regarding Kristi Weigant, she provided services for the Rencher subdivision by assessing impact on neighbors, working with the Deschutes County Planning staff and coordinating responses to questions raised by the Deschutes County Planning staff. Regarding C Corp, it was responsible for coordinating the work of the engineers, contractors on the project as well as helping prepare plans for the development of the property with Frank Rencher. C Corp also oversaw construction work on the property. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Page 2 December 1, 2009 Since 2007, C Corp has not faired well. During the entirety of 2008 we were unable to sell any homes. Because of obligations owed to the bank, C Corp was eventually subjected to judgments in excess of $500,000. The office of C Corp was foreclosed on by Columbia River Bank and C Corp is no longer an operating entity. Very truly yours, /c/ Chuck Koon* Chuck Koon, President C Corp *Chuck Koon was out of town but reviewed this letter by phone and approved the same. G:\Clients\EPF\Rencher, Frank L\Rencher,Frank-Remand CIACoon.ltr.toBOC.11.30.09.wpd(mcm) December 1, 2009 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Re: Rencher Vesting Hearing Dear Commissioners: I was a contractor for the work on the Rencher subdivision. Prior to December 6, 2007, all the necessary grading and base work had been done for the road that serves the 8 -lot subdivision. What remains is the paving of the street. I believe a budget of approximately $250,000 ($248,366) is a fair and reasonable estimate of what it would cost to complete the subdivision at this time. I did compare that with the budget that was originally prepared for the Rencher subdivision. That budget included many of the elements for the 21 -lot subdivision which are not required for the 8 -lot subdivision. The total project cost for the 8 -lot subdivision of $352,688.51 as described on Exhibit A is, in my opinion, a fair and reasonable project budget for the development of this subdivision. Very truly yours, /s /Dale Davison * Dale Davison Davison Construction, LLC *This letter was reviewed by telephone with Mr. Davison on December 1, 2009, while he was out of the area. Mr. Davison agrees with the content and authorized our office to submit it with his signature. INVOICE Date: October 23, 2007 To: AnonCudis Project Number: 209.033988 C Corp P.O. Box 638 Invoice Number: 033888-11 Redmond, OR 97756 Project Name: Rencher Property PROGRESS BILLING Pm�oo�n�8en�nn/ugm�27�mu0hOep�mbe 30, 2007 Project Manager: Project Administrator: Jimmy Bellomy Leah Fleser Professional servlces rendered on the above referenced project: 1. Project management and coordination. lncudes kick-off meeting In Redmond. 2. Prepare mass grading revlew. 3. Expenses. Amount Previously This Phase Budget Complete Billed Invoice 0300 COORDINATION/MEETINGS T&M $34.916.26 $54.198J3 $710.52 0400 MASS GRADING AND PERMITTING T&M $1.866.55 $0.00 $1.866.55 9890 EXPENSES T&M $2,735.48 $2,705.72 $29.76 *39.617.28 $36.902.45 $2.614.83 Total Due This Invoice: $2,614,83 Current 31 to 60 61 to 90 Over 90 033988-07 $2,520.68 038988-08 $1,425.70 083988-09 Q147.80 09398840 $1.128.93 03388841 *2.614.83 * Balance due does not lnclude acorued Interest. Balance Due* INVOICE ""~~~°"~~~~ Date: November 21, 2007 To: Arron Curtis Project Number: 209.038988 C Corp P.O. Box 638 Invoice Number: 03398842 Redmond, OR 97756 Project Name: RemchorPmparty Pndenniona8umiceuDutoben1NhmughOctobar28.%OO7 PROGRESS BILLING Project Manager: Project Administrator: Jimmy 8ellomy Leah Fieser Professional services rendered on the abov referenced project 1. Project management and associated clerical activates. 2. Revlslons to sito plan per Arron Curtis, 3. Preparaton and submlttal of mass grading ptans. 4. Reimbursable expenses. Amount Previously This Phase Budget Complete Billed Invoice 0300 COORDINATION/MEETINGS T&M $35,427.44 $34,915.25 $512.19 0400 MASS GRADtNG AND PERMITTING T&M *0,674.88 *1.866.55 $4.808.13 9890 EXPENSES T&M $3.386.81 $2,735.48 $601.33 (Current budget $51,780.64-87%complete) $45,438.93 *38'517.28 $5.821.65 Total Due This Invoice: $5,921.65 Current 31 to 60 61 to 90 Over 90 Balance Due* 033900'07 $2,520.58 083888-08 $1`425.78 038088'09 $147.80 03398840 $1.123.93 03388841 %2'614.83 033888-12 $5,921.65 $13,754.57 * Balance due does not include accrued interest. INVOICE """°~~"~~~~ Date: December 7, 200 To: Arron Curtis Project Number: 209.033988 C Corp P.O. Box 638 Invoice Number: 033988-13 Redmond, OR 97756 Project Name: RonoherPmpmrtY Professional Services Ootober 29 through Novembe 25, 2007 PROGRESS BILLING Project Manager: Project Administrator: Jimmy Bellamy Leah Fleser Professional services rendored on the above referenced project: 1. Project management and coordination. 2. Revise mass grading plans to reflect changes to site plan (per Arron Curtis) to include fire access design ondlaynut - nubmith/cuunty. 3. Reimbursable expenses. Amount Previously This Phase Budget Complete Billed Invoice 0300 COORDINATION/MEETINGS T&M *35'76099 $35,427.44 $339.55 0400 MASS GRADING AND PERMITfING T&M V10'002.31 $6.674.88 $3.327.63 9890 EXPENSES T&M $8.555.00 $3.386.81 $218.19 (Current budget $55,396.54 8996complete) $49,324.30 $45,438.93 $3'885.37 Total Due This Invoke: $3,885.37 Current 31 to 60 61Vm90 Over 90 Balance Due 033988-07 $2,520.58 033888-08 $1,435.78 033988'09 $147.80 033888-10 *1.123.93 088888-11 $2.614.83 033988-12 $5.821.65 038988-18 $3,885.37 $17.839.94 * Balance due does not Include accrued interest,