OBP008983 DAILY REPORT FOR PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS PROJECT DATE OF CONTACT # O-11 O-11 O-11 CONTACT MADE IN PERSON OR TELEPHONE FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED YES or NO NEGOTIATOR REPORT TAB # 1 2 3 O-15 O-15 O-17 O-17 O-17 O-17 O-18 O-19 O-19 O-19 O-19 O-21 O-21 LANDOWNER 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 15 16 SURVEY COMPLETE ESTIMATED FENCE MILEAGE 0.92 6 SH MOTSU REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP LTD RGV-HRL-1003 Y (b) (6) (b) (6) RGV-HRL-1006 Y 0.1 RGV-HRL-1009 Y 0.23 1 RGV-HRL-501 Y 0.03 RGV-HRL-5019 N 0.039 RGV-BRP-1000 Y 0.1729 . Tamez, E oisa G. 5 TRACT # (b) (6) (b) (6) RIO GRANDE PALMS WATER DISTRICT RGV-BRP-1002 Y 0.6306 CEBALLOS, OSCAR (ET UX) RGV-BRP-1005 Y 0.027 RGV-BRP-1010 N 0.266 RGV-BRP-2007 Y 0.053 0.031 (b) dba, MCMD, Limited Prtnrshp DRENNAN, JOHN DBA TROY INVESTMENT COMPANY NO 25 LP BROWNSVILLE & MATAMOROS BRIDGE CO (b) (6) Jones & Jones Properties, Inc. (b) (6) Borzynski Brothers Properties (b) dba Yturria Land & Cattle Co. RGV-BRP-3001 N RGV-BRP-3003 N 0.033 RGV-BRP-300 N 0.0301 RGV-BRP-3005 N 0.026 RGV-FTB-1026 N 0.2118 RGV-FTB-10 N 0.328 LANDOWNER / ATTORNEY CONCERNS BP RESPONSE / RESOLUTION OBP008984 REPORT TRACI PART I rt 22: RGV-HRL-IOOJ l' . ?Lad Realty Specialist a cunt, Real Estate Dmsron ESIWVBCIY Realty Spea'altst 3 NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNERS) Shimtw Real Estate Pmnc?lttp. LTD Lessee C10 ht "any Shimtsu Du da Farm Fresh Fourlx nm 5 its Highway 231 um Duda not i San Benito. TX L'Ne'aJo Fl. mos . hilt-9406 otl'tee (956) 63'1-33? local of?ce (wt) 31077? cell 1. AREA 5 APPROVED VALUE leAl OFFER 5 71 acres $26500 $26,500 7 RESUMEOF NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND: The Shlmotsu Real Estate Partnership, Ltd. lltul been identified as the owner ofbl0.85 acres ofpropetty located in Cameron County that in part of the PF 225 border infrastructure protect i.e. the Border Fence Project It is necessary to acquire a 5.71 acres port of the property. This area is identi?ed at 003 The estate to he acquiroi rs fee, excluding minerals The Government reserves to the Vendor a perpetual right-ofway on both std-m of the Federal Border barrier for the purpose ol?gaining access to Vendor's land on the other Side of the border barrier. The Government?s estimate otvalue for the 5 71 acre parcel is 526.500 and includes damages to the remainder During this land negotiation, the Army Corps of Engineers has soltetted the views at the property omrts) on how u) minimize any impacts of the construction of the border security fencing on their environment, culture, community, and quality of life. We have made every effort to record below all views, suggestions and questions of the landowner. as well as our responses and any reasonable accommodation made. When aslted about his/her thoughts on the impact of the border tent-e project, Mr. Shrmattu said he was not opposed to the tense project. With Mr, Shirnotsu at his office 0050-1110) ?)te5entcd Mr. Shimotsu with the offer letter package. Mr Graham speci?cally the t'ollowmg points: was a negotiator tor the US Army Corps of Engineers: That. the subject property was needed for the Border Fence Project: That the estate on the tract of land required by the United States is Tract 530.1003 fee simple, excluding minerals. consistiag of 5.7l acres: That the value for the propeny being acquired was established at 326.500: That, due to the accelerated schedule established for the protect by Congress. the Corps has been unable to obtain the title information needed to be able to acquire the estates by direa purchase. 0 That, thus, the only method or' available to permit the project to proceed on the established schedule rs to acquire title through a friendly eminent dormiw'cmtdeutoation procss. went over the ma showing the area needed for the proJect Mr. Shtmotsu inquired about access to the remaitder of this property on the other side of the levee. showed where the farm gates were located on the roads coming off Military Highway 28! on both sides of his property and how he - . remainder at his property. Mr. Shrmotsu stated that he did not want to sell any of this land. but would leue it to the Government. -id that fee was required and that he had no atxhortty to lease it. _extended to Mr. Shimutsu the got-emoeot' otter of 526.500 to acquire this property. Mr. Shimmer: did not want me to go over the otter becatse he said he would have his attorney look at it. but that he wasn?t selling fee to anything. Mr. Shimotsu said that he wanted me to comm - and explain the acquisition to him. ?am allot Mr. Shimotsu's property affected by this acquisition. After -rueets Mr Duoa. Mr. Shimotsu will discuss the acquisition impacts with him. and we will continue the negatiations. At I240. -ealled -nd got his votesmarl. - left a message explaining the purpose of the call and asking F0 call back. 4/l7f08-Mr. Shirnotsu called-and had two questions. Mr. Shtmotsu short if the fence were constructed and the project later abandoned, would the fence be removed. answered that thit wmar'tn had not hecn contemplated by the Government. and. if the project were abandoned after construction. Homeland Security would make a decision about mowing the fence at that time. OBP008985 Mr. Shimmsu asked if access to south portion at his property sums the km: would st-Jl be possible. I lepealed my explanation at our earner 01?de where lht: farm gate< were loaded on both of h: property and that access would remain to Ms property across the Zevec as it now exists. Mr. again stated that he did not want In sell tee in the Government called-and left a voicemail. 4121/08th He- was unavailable. but Mr. Graham lefl a message that?had Int callod back and asked that Mr. Shimotsu contact so that could meet him and ecmmue the negotiations 4!23'08er. Deda cailed and we agreed Io on 40? at 0900 to new the property. on me property with Find ?_?business manager. at 0900. We touted the tract and entire the ktcatlon of the tence on the and the Incalion of the farm gates that would be placed to the north and unruly larms the [and of :he lewe and uses a crossing that goes over the levee on [h mildly farm area. wili not have gated accent tn crossing and that he will have to use the farm gem tn be installed. upset with the since it will cw him more to operate due to the inert-med Pavel time required For his farm equipment. -also asked shout the in igation valve and turn that they would be if necessary, by the Guvemmenl during consuuclion of the tune. ?vas tormented about once? [tout the mum property. - explamed that access would be reserved to the owners over Goverrmerl land on either slde of the fence and that ould be able to use to gel lo the ptupeny. ?aated that his Myriam lease Mr Shimotsu. and that?expend: It) area of Tract planted that [hr euzlent value was for the land value only. assigned it to to give him me crops lost and the rattomle of how he arrived at the value. next few days with that number. If has a valid lease it may be apptuprlate to him in the condemnauml asked abom :hc crop damage estimate. the response was that it would be pmvided in a few days. Mr Shtmotsu and they agreed to schedule fut that discussions on 5/6/08 at 09W. idiot-went to Mt. Shimotsu's of?ce. but Mr. Stlmoteu was not in this day. Mr Shinto:su?s of?ce. got no and Mt a maaxe to call back since negotiations had to be concluded. 5/8/09-? called and the, had an number for the crap Joe; became um.- did not know exactly when the fence would be built. - When the lence is but] and any crops lost can be deten-ntned. he prowl: a value. Slams-Based on Mr. Shimomu'c stated destte not tn convey fee title LU the Government throughom the negotiatitlm and not having heard back from him. is recalmlentled. Condemnation 0f Dada l-?arm [rcsh loads lent: hold is alto 8. NEGOTIATOR RECOMMENDATION 8A. SIGNATURE, TITLE AND DATE IS) Really Speeialist - 5M 9. INTERIM SIGNATURE. HTLE AND DATE mecca WITH convey/manor? Lead Realty Speculum 5.3m l0. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION S?e~ oJ? CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION ENG FORM $423 OBP008986 l. PROJECT NAME TRACT NUMBEIS PF 225 RUV-llRL-ll?h all 11111332 butternut ?germanium M, we 4. AREA 5. APPROVED APPRAISED VALUE 6. LOI acre: Scum. tumult 0.2! ecre in venue euerurn 519"?) SIOKDO 0.07 acre temporary access etuemeet. Revteet 99-7?) 7. RESUME 0P NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND. ?ve been identified as the am or 106.31 trues mm in Cameron County. in meant-y to acquire a fee cirque estate. excluding m?ncrals, over 1.0] wee of 1nd 1&6) a perpetual road eaaenul over 0.14 acre of land and termonry access easemerx over 0.07 acre of land for the PF 22.5 border htfraetructure project the border fence. The Government reserves to the Vendor a perpetual righttuf-urny on both sides of the Federal Bartlet barrier for purpose ut'gaining new It.) Vendm'n lanl on the other side of the border barrier. The Gm'ernmetx's estimate of value all parcels in includes danger to the reminder. Subsequent to negotiations. tract RGV-HRL- 10068-1 was deleted. During this had ?cordon. the Army Corps of Engineers has solicited Ihc news at the prcpetty ownerta) on how to num'mtze any inpacts ofrhe construction of the btxder security fencing on their environment. culture. community, and qualiy of ife. We have made every effort to record below Ill views. suggestion and MOI of the lnndownet, as well as our reopens? and any nude. 4110 to? 0835. _Islred whet the value of the acqtisiu'on. old him 510.030. he was concc in; his irrigation well on revered/ac ircd 'on, him he would investigate this an] call hit-aback. discussed this with the raiser. and We examined BorderPatrol. Th in the offer. Urn'l and furdter investigates this nutter. no ?nal decision will be met. id that wu ?ne. but that he was itt the midst and asked 0 call him back next My It) -at 0900. -stated he was in middle or 0mm harvest md asked that -call him back on 4.'2l. dlleOS-pokoto owu?ututcdoon. utmo. -.gteut unwind asked-3 call him on 4/24 wht: as back from his trip 4/24/08-rnnged to meet I445 II the tract. -av-te offer letter package. and want our each ofthc i?ully addressed the. following points: 0 .13 I negomlot? for the US Anny Corps of Engineers; 0 That the subiect was needed for the Border Fence Project; 0 ?tat the estate on the three tracts of land required by the United States are Tract No.1006 fee sirtple, exchulirtg nutteralt. of 1.01 acres. Tract No.10065-1 a perpetual road easemem consisting of 0. 14 acre. and not No. 10066-2 a mammary access caeem consisting ofO.U7 acre; 0 That the value for the property being acquired was established at $10,000 (for ell tracts); - Thu. due tn the schedule established for the pruject by Consress. the Corps has been unable to obtain the the iriormanon needed to be able to acquire the estate: by direct purchnac: . That, thus. the only method or acquisition ava?dable to permit the project to proceed on the established schedule is to acquire title through friendly eminent process. inhibited the and dtscuued the acquisition, the location: and he location of the fence: to be installed aisctl the followtrg issues: He was ctmcemed abut: losing hit direct access across the tevec which he now uses -xplained that access would be provided via the farm gate to the an and up and dovm the fence on Governmem (matted land. 0 lie tndt'catcd that the fame wruld make his land to the south the levee less valuable and he would be tumble to a! OBP008987 I responded that the mute of value took me unto comidoratton. 0 He had a cotton crop plan on the are: being acquired and wanted to be pail for it. -old him to eltitmte the value of this crop lots end to provide a value and he would comider i in further negotimorn. 0 He was cemented loss ofhis unterwen. the lossol?use ofthe loss of his standpipe. all of which appear to be in the are: at acqut?iltut lacilkies would be Idiuted at no cost no the owmr during construction concerned about just takitu my word for this. so inserting language in he other to con?rm this. was agreeable to this. 0 He useomermdeboutdnpotetlnl forany loos ofwaterpressure frornthe nuin'tmgationlinettould itbe moderadjtuod. the main irrigation water line rum Internally along the IBWC levee from west at the will to east. and is awroxinmely in the outer of the ma kiln acquired or directly under where the fence ts proposed. 0 He was most concerned abate the umenunry ofthe explanation given by_botl the et?tect of the project on his property. In pet?timln that DHS did not exactly how hut facilities would be adjusted that a ergineer did not visit him and distant his turntion to provide him access In the of his property. He me also dilutis?ed diamwd not furriit nny construction drawings or plan for tlte adjustmm of these fm.-Xplam0nl did not contort tum. water frotntheriver.md Midvny thmuyi the negotiations, _father (who has no loge] lmerest in this property) come to the the end timed in on the reminder of our draft some language for the offer consenting the well, culvert and sundpipe and provide this to -un 4125 . mil greed with this. wanted some time to consider the offer. ?explained tint bounce-bed put off the negotiation for two weeks due to the Onion harvest. time was short, however we can tell: early next week in order toconclude tract-dons. When asked a on how to m?ninile the inpoct of the border {ewe project on the enVirorumm. cuhtre. oomuity. quality of life. had the following commas. - The fence was a chub idea end would act be c?cctive. . Other technological witatiom would be better. Since the stuveillencc cameras there installed. that he has seen no illegal alien traf?c on his property. 0 That he would like to have the fence repair contact from DHS if the fence was ever erected because will be a mver ending cult to repair the holw in it. 0 That he had loa con?dence that Congress had any comtmn some. WIN-called - but got no crawler-left a message that he had the draft language comerting the water well. etc. all! would Itkr: to give it to never called back. get no answer. -n a message that he had the draft lame out needed to comirue negotiations and asked for a call back. summer?114 we spoke trom 1100 mo -uated um I: has been extteImb' waited up 1.4 worried I ncemtnnet of what wold happen to his t?anm'm operation resulting from the term and the possible input on his mil ts dutdust'arrungoperationw his family .114 am he wished out would in go away harmed to reassure mm: could won: out and explained indent! how the process would work (tram ?lms through title determination to negotiatiots arr] possible trial) and what the onmuucbon 3e likely be. and muted the commotion represomrlves would talk with about In: irn'm militia am well. i not excited about getting an enemy. but said he felt better mw that he mulerstood the protest although he still wasn't thrilled about the whole thing ?iterated the Govettunem?s offer of 310.000 and that language could be inserted in the olfcr that would imam out the ?tespondod thathetid notfeel thatheoould n?ukencouruerofterurlil hesawhowhisfaulttiee would be alfected. He indicated that he Wesn' trying to get more money on at that however he did thirt that the fare. by severing his tract. would make the scumh tide of the levee virtually worthless because no one could get to ltef?ciettl lined on thit. ld that he ms gain; to recort'mend condemnation Wiltout a signed offer. droid he undemood. like the other {mum in this area is genuinely concerned about his ability to continue to effecn'vely farm lhil urea. He takes this a little more to heart and LB a little more emotional ohm: the acqtmition than some alters He was very forthcoming and pleas": (hiring our I believe he will be willing to negotiate once he can determine the honor of the feme onltis trriyrioo facilities and water well. (by regular t'mll) the offer language concerning the hollows us-equeoted. Rosamund outliemuttion as .111 ml make a coumnroffer or accept the (Emerrmtetl's offer. 5 acreol land was mm the WAS a result the In It nsttio_n has; meme! 1101111.me OBP008988 - v-a- 8. RECOMMENDATION CON DEMNATION 3A. SIGNATURE. AND DATE 9. RECOMMENDATION CWCUR WITH CONDEMNATION 9A SIGNATURE. TITLE AND _Ludaauy5podann-5moos 10. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION CWCUR WITH CONDEMNATIGJ 10A. SIGNATURE, TITLE AND DATE ll. CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION (lief. Real Estate Divisim 5/4/09 Du: OBP008989 1 PROJECT NAME TRACT NUMBERS NEGOTIATORS REPORT PART 1 PF 215 ?and Realty Speciist Chief, Real Estate nit-mun Realty Specialist WNENS) Q. AREA 5. APPROVED APPRAJSED VALUE 6. OFT-FR I8 acres fee simple, excluding minerals ?"0000 ??100 OD 7. RESUME OF been identi?ed a the owner of 92.53 acres loeamd in Cameron County. Texas that is par: ofthe PF 225 border infrastructure re. the Border l-?encc Protect. It i< necessary to acquire it LIB we part at the property. This area is identi?ed IS RGV-HRL- [009. The estate to be acquired '8 fee simple. excluding minerals The Government reserves L0 the Vendor a perpetual right-of-wuy on both sides ofthe Federal Border barrier for the purpose of gaining access to Vendor?s land on the other Side of the border barrier. The Government?s estimate of value for the L18 acre parcel is $7,400.00 and include: damages to the remzindcr During this land negotiation. the Army Corp: 0! Engineers has solicited the views of the property owner(s) on how to lnmimlu: any impair of the construction of the border security fencmg on their environment. culture. community. and qualiy at life. We have made every elfort to record below all views, smeaions and questions at the landowrter. as well as our and any made. 4.10:0 ke byphone -indicated that he would be negotiating on beh . Isidore, that he was t. tha cd ll hack on 2 April to set up negotiations meeting. greed. who was ulrarail?dile. and le? a tiless?dge at 1 I30 asking him to call back. who was and left a message at two asking him to call back. called from his tractor and said he wanted to negotiate and was not trying but Llutl he wt: extremely busy with the was in to get his onions to before the rain on Saturday He said he would un?arurday or Monday I ting ?int having heard him at Hill] and got no answer left a message asking im in ne ?ctions. Si 'vod no response to date, the otfer letter pact-age was uni by certified mail to 0 said he wnnte ions. and we agreed to meet tomorrow at Trnot 1009. and his of which are owners-*5 in ill health and is being . at ome. We then drove down to the tract and had our dtscusslons there from mums. speci?cally addressed the followmg points: .15 a negotiator for the 0.8. Army Cot or of Engineers; 0 That the subject property was needed for the Bondcr Fence Project; 0 That the were on the tract of land required by the United States is l?ee simple. excluding minerals; and No.1009 consirtt of 18 acres; . That: the value for the property being acquired was established at $7,300.00; 0 'lhat, due to the accelerated schedule established for the project by Congress. the Corps has been unable to obtain the title information needed to be oble to acquire the estates by direct purchase: . That. thus. the only method of acquisition available to permit the project to proceed at the established schedule is to require title through a ?dly eminent donninr'cmdemnallon processl cut over the value letter and for the property. went over the maps shown: the location. and showed than the probable location of the farce. [n we: Whoa about the exact location it the area being acquired? that because the ind not completed a survey, the exact location could not be shown. axed to see the approxirmtz location uyway, so we took a tape, chose arbitrary spots along the toe of the levee and measured and stated the area. Mr. Bauer was pleased to Bee the around and said that hel immensely as extremely concerned that not describe exactly how his facilities would be adjusted so he could continue his fuming operation because in rem tn this question had Maud that tor the border tenoe project were not available. Mr. Graham stated that home wuld be inserted into the offer that would mike it clear that the irrigation facilities would my in operation and that any adjustment would be It Government expense A copy of this language is attached. The desired that the offer he tubject tn the tollowin: terms and concerning the lacilittes located on No.1009: a ?re Vendor shall have the right to operate and maintain the litigation valve and standpipc in order tn irrigate his lands. 0 Any changes or adjustments to these facilities required as a result of the operation. and of the border militant: border tencc) shall be at the expense of the Federal Government and not the landowner; - These facilities, if treasury. may be relocated to other of the Vendor OBP00899O wave-I hunt?, audit II un- x-Aysuat- ua up a annua- wv-v?mm ?as. Then full'rtme if nor-eurt- mnu mlrwatprl in other In?ll: (if lht! Vendor -htted the following concerns: a The fence would cut off his levee access if it goes to the easterly edge of the property just north of the IBWC levee ?respoudetl that appeared that the fence stopped on the westerly side of his access road. but. until it survey was completed. we could not be certain. 0 Would he be compensated for the loss tn the crops already planted to Tract l009 (here it is mild)" ?sald that he should estimate the valu: of those lost trope and hold consider it II further negotiations 9 There is an irrigation valve and standpipe on either end of the property within the am of Tract 1009 that mves his fanning operation They are located in the approximate center of Tract 1009 and directly on the main rmgzitton water line coming from the canal to tie wt. 1! the fem: is bull in the center of these facilities will have to be. relocated How will that: be ndjiit odate lite fence and roads? ssurc that the facilities would be adjusted Mot expense to permit to continue to lat-tn the area. but that no speci?c plans or drawings were available to show this as condoned about this uncemmty. The current irngalicn valves are on the min irrigation line so there is plenty of pressure to push the water north to irrigate the reminder of the ?eld. If the solution is to stuh off this main direction, ll would reduce the watt pressure and unpect ability to larm the north side of the approximately 80 acre that this was a legitimate concern that he had no answer for - o?'ofTract 1009 and into w" loseevertmorecrop because to plotting anther north to accommodate this stub. tincetled this was a ptmsibililyW that he had a solution to this which was to mull a cuio?' valve on the main irrigation Itne the coating standpipc immediately cost ofhr?r property line north of the levee. Then whim he and the farmers to his west were irrigating, the main valve could be shut and it would maintain the enter pressure for his property and the 4 to the immediate woo. Then after they irrigated. it could be opened and the farmers to his east could irrigate. The wind blows hard from east to west in the are: ?to fence Stops at the eastern edge of his property and he has a Farm road that goes from Ill: levee to Rt 281. What will happen is that people and other farmers will begin. to use his farm mad as access to land across the bee and to the west, This heavier use \v?l up dust that will cause a loss of production! to 10 or 15 rows of crops along the eastern edge of his ?eld from the levee to Rt. 28]. ?stuted that it warm and that he could [link access or install a gate to limit traffic. ?statcd that those farmers were his friends and he would not cut them off. and that he would have to bar the expense of installing a gate should he decide to install one. ?staied that he should investigate the cost of installing a gate and that it could he dimmed durtng further negotiations. 0 He plants sm?owm that while winged doves and then rents hunting privileges lo incaning hunters Thi? is ltrralivc illsilCSS and he was concerned that if his irrigation nln'lity was reduced he could not raise the and thus would lose this additional income Mr. iterated that the irrigation facilmes would he ad" rated at Government apatite and tha ?wculd he left with an urination ?purity at it was before the border fence or; insralled hagatn stated that unless It: wold see the actual plan for run, he was 'cttl about this. ed out that the had suggested an amount of $7400.00 for this tract and halted?what he felt the tree! was also suggested that language could be inserted it the offer sitting that the irrigation facilities would be relocated at Government stated that hc thought the tract was worth more ditto the $1400.00. he was not wining to late an ?irtlier on price uncertainties about or: impacts or construction. would really be on in; farming operation In light or detail the coodemnuion process from filing the case and depositing the money throu a title hearing and possible withdrawal of the deposit to negotiations and ultimately trial it necessary ?said he understood the process stated that to was certainly writing to motion: once the reuse was constructed and his facilities were adjusted. but could out until then. alto stated that he was not ultempling to be motive and was not tryin to i the progms of 1hr. but that farming was his livelihood and. at this court. he could not realisu'utll assess the impacts of the farce. waited that la: would recommend this tract be acquired by condemnation wrihout a signed offer and concurred. When inked about lrisllier views on how to minimize the impact of construction of Lht: border fence project on the envrronmeu. atrium. comunity and quality of life. suited the following: The fence will likely not work: - That they were not agnitrsi the fence. but were concerned about the lock of detail as to what the acquisition would do farm attm couldn't understand why the fence war heir; installed on his father's property and to the west ecmss Pwy.Mm F?Op?ftcs since it stopped at the edge of his father's anyway, what good would it really do to disrupt these farming opcmions and the expense that goes with intirtlling this short portion of fence and adjusting all the irrigation facilities. ?Werc very gracious during this meeting. They the fence was to be installed and were not antagonistic at all. They built represented that they were not trying money. but simply needed to be able to see the acute! impan of the fence on the farming operation or at least a plan showing what it was before they could assess the value of the acquisition. They indicated they reluctant to litre an attorney and said that was up to them. Personally. ?helieves we can newlane 3 ?mm for the issue of relocating the facilities is solved ted by stating that the Government was buying land. paying for any damage to the remaining lmd, and adjourn; the toediriea tit Ire path of the border fertce's construction. operation and maintenance. llnwevcr the Government would not pay for lost income or other mmeury damages oftltat nature. ?ttated he understood. Although no agreement could he machfd, it will be transit-y that the Vendor reseer the following rtgrus and interests in the property being acquired by the United States as described in Paragraph 13 of the Offer to Sell a perpetual rtghi-of-way on both sides of the Federal border barrier for the purpose of gaining access to Vendor?s land on the other of the border carrier. and, the United States grants to the Vendor a perpetual right-of-way across other had: of the United States along and on both sides of the Inrder barrier to reach and uhlim the nearest border barrier gate for the wrpose of crossing over the levee and accessing Vendor's lands on the other side. This reservation aid grant duo not create any new rights to traverse arty purl of the levee. and does not change the nature of any such rights. if any. which may now exist, The purpose of this provision is to clarify dial the United States is not prohibiting access to Vendor?s remaining lands between the border barrier and the Rio Grande river. but is pro?ting a pennamnt ri?u-of-way to Vendor and all landowners similarly situated to mess the nearest harder grate which allows entry to the other side of the border barrier from which macquired land can be accessed. 8. RECOMMENDATION 8A SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE 15/ OBP008991 8. RECOMMENDATION 8A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE Rum- Specialin - May 2. 2008 9. INTERIM RECWMENDATION 9A. SIGNATURE, AND DATE 14?? MW 3mm Ma)" 3- 20W INTERIM RECOMMENDATION 10A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE CONDEMNATION _Auisum Chicf? Real Estate Division- ll. CHECK APPLICABLE ITEMS W1 I Esun- Divisinn ENC: PORN 3423 OBP008992 1. PROJECT NM 2. TRACT NUMBERS "215 4 n-Chu.mamm? lam?1mm? Fat Worth mm 3. NAME AND AMES Of Dr. [lob Tuna Mr Can. It: Hum-1 and Cam [at 256 San) Ocddmu Ivd. l? CA 90057 (213) 388-5693 (323) 25l-3223 1. am 5. mo MD VALUE 6. INITIAL OFFB 0.26 00! Ice, eldudhz Inherit $13,500.00 $13,500.00 7. RESUME OF NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND: Dr. Apot?onofthat [Linn-um The TheGovetm'seuimeolvnlucfor Dr. Tum: is by Mr. Peter Schey. Almaty a; Law, Cener fox Hum Rights Comm] Luv, 256 South Occidental Hint, 10: Angela, CA. ?057. All mu with Mr. dey. was. WM. May andvalucwasm?edloMr. Dr. Tame: wuufaxmmbu. He ?belndreulvedmeodupachga. MLSdIeyiu?wedbehad. Inadifbc ?Immunlatu'. .2003 -?calleer. uni]. Mr. faxed Ml. Selle, a lute nidr? for lheclarif'udon. Ashm?lmlaa 'veda inthe odthc Mammoth. Ma Walled Mr. Schey?s cell umber alahom ?:50 A.M (PST). There wasno mm: wentovoioc mil. Behadudedinlhermm IlmtheCowps OBP008993 Imil- uni]. momdimir?thtionofm?cm?onac?m. Tama?a behalf. pmjuaoomecmhommc.mxyandwam hmhenobcoppowdtotheprqjecl. a. mm's RECOMMENDATION 8A. SIGNATURE. mu; AND DATE Lad Realty Spam - 5/30/08 9. concur wnu communion I /o 8 Ali um: Division 10. INTERIM RECOWDATION 10A. SIGNATURE, TITLE AND DATE 6/40? ENG FORM 3623 OBP008994 REPORT TRACT PART I pt? 21? dc Rev-met?i Lad Really Spud-dbl Chief. Real l'stalc Dwisim Realty Specialist 4. AREA 9 APPROVED APPRAISFD VALUE 6. OFFER 0.05 fee simple, etcluditg minerals ?'00 ?3 HRL-SOIOE 0.36 Temporary Work Arra 7 RESUME 0F ION BACKGROUND: _tts been identi?ed as the owners on all acres located in (?smcron County that is part PF 225 border project t.c the Harder l-cncc Project. It is necessary to acquire 0.05 acre identi?ed as tract in tee. excluding minerals and 0 36 acre identi?ed as tract I?ll-1. a temporary work area casement. The estimate ol?vclue for these tracts $4.l00.00. During this land negotiation, the Amy Corps of Engincm has the views ot?tlre property owner on how to minimize any impacts OWN ofthe border security fencing on their culture, community. and quality oflit?e We have made every effort to record below all Vim, suggestions and questions of the landowner. as well as our response? and any reasonable accommodation made. I I April 2008. the interpreter. contacted?to schedule meeting vi ith -r.r present/ discuss the Government?s offer letter dated 7 April 2008. . 2 A Il 2003: ?met with -nd his ??re to present the Government?s after letter dated 7 April 2008. ho explain that A fee more. excluding minerals. containing approximately 0.05 acre and a te orary work am casement containing approximately 0. 36 acre would he required for project and the amount being otl'ered was $4.100 00. ?ashed ?to advrse them that due to the accelerated scheduled imposed by Congess to acquire the property. the G-JVez'tunem had not yet received the necessary title information. so advised them that the only method available to acquire the property would be through a friendly condemnation. He explained that the condemnation would not indicate to lunch .1 negnliated settlement. but was only being exercised due to the accelerated schedule. and that an answer was required within mo weeks. Wing the solicited the views uftlre owner on how to minimrrc impacts nfthe constructim ofthe border security Fencing on their environment. culture. community and quality ofltl?e. rd not appear to be in support ofthe fence project She mind what would happen if they decided not to sign the offer. they were advrsed that if a negotiated settlement could not be reached the Government would acquire the property through eminent domain proceedings She stated that it was :nl?arr 0(th (internment to form: them It) soil property lhal has been in their farm]; for several years. ?also indicated that there is a discrepancy in the length with: fee aretr. the area is much larger than 0.05 acre. She was advised that if they had copies nfa or legal description that could prote that the area is much larger than lhlil presented in the offer. the Government would make an adj IS Apnl attired ifhe would contact ?egudtng t's ochr. contacted the and spoke with ?cg,ardint_t the Government?s ull?cr asked the ifthey had considered the Government?s otter. The) advised him that they drc? not want to sign the agreement were the property has been In their family for a long time. The negollalions With the .id not result in it Simed offer Since they are not in support fence being Installed Qint?e no agreement could be reached recommend the property be thuired through condemnation proceeomgs. OBP008995 8. [03 8A AND DATE cally Special-.31. April I5. 2008 9. 9A suumxaumh TITLEAND DAIE (mum x? II umuwmnox Lead Ra") "Pr? 7?03 ssislam Real Estate Ic. RECOMMENDATION CON DE MN ief. Real Estate E?Viszor. Dale FOLM 3423 OBP008996 NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR. PETER SCHEY 6-18-08 - Mr. Peter Sche called -at 3:49pm (CST) and expressed interest in discussing Dr. Tamez's to any . adv ised that he was prepared to discuss the?properties at this time. Both thehproperty and -l-?amily Partnership property offers were discussed (acreage and dollars). Mr. Sehey wanted to know if this was a ?rm offer or if we could negotiate the price. Mr. xplained that the Government believed the offers were fair market value as established by an estimation of value. however, the Government would entertain counter offers. The valuation process was disc usscd and Mr. Schey requested a Whammy to do estimates in lieu of appraisals. Mr. ?aid he would check this out. explained the condemned for title process and Mr. Schey said he understood. Mr. Schey asked they could discuss the Dr. Tamez property. Mr. said he would check to make sure that the action had not been ?led in the Federal Court. Mr. Schey proposed that_ also check on the Eduardo Benavidcs property and call him at 1:00pm (PST) tomorrow to discuss all the properties that aren't ?led in Federal Court. 6-19-08 - _called Mr. Schey at 1:00pm (PST). Mr. Sehey said he needed to recover some information from some emails and requested that ?call again at 2:00pm (PST). advised that he would be leaving the of?ce at 4:00pm (CST) for another appointment and would not be able to call at that time. Mr. Schey said that if he located the emails i uld call back before 4:00pm (CST). If he was unable to call back today, he requested thathall him at 9:00am (PST) Friday. June 20, 2008. 6-20-08 -_called Mr. Schey at 9:04am (PST). Mr. said he was just leaving the office for a 10:00am meeting downtown. Mr. Schey requested that?all him at 2:00pm CST which would be 12:00pm PST. 6-20-08 _ealled Mr. Schey at l2:00 (PST). Mr. Schey said he needed to get another attorney on the line and he would call iback in ?ve minutes. 6-20-08 - Mr. Schey called?at 2:09pm (CST). Also on the line was Mr. Chris Scherer, attorney with the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (213-388-8693 eat.305i. Mr. explained that Mr. Seherer would be taking notes and that the notes would be emailed to Mr. Sehe ask about?relationship to?Chief Real Estate, Fort Worth District. explained that He worked in the Real Estate Division Field Of?ce. Edinburg. TX. which was subservient to the ChiefReal Estate. Mr Sehey ask if_ was a USACE employee or a contractor. Mr. said he was a retired USACE employee under contract. Mr. Schey brought tip the question of the authority to do value estimates in lieu ot?appraisals. _apologi7ed for not having followed up and promised to fax an answer as soon as he received it from the district office. The ?rst tract discussed was 9? Mr. Schey at ?rst did not have a map. so some time was spent trying to describe the location and con?guration of the fee area and the temporary work area. Mr. Seherer eventually located a map. though it was not in color so the acquisition areas were still a little dif?cult for Mr. Schey to determine. Mr. Sehc asked what the temporary work areas would be used for and why we didn't acquire one on each tract. hexplained that the work area would be used [or stockpiling of materials and storage of equipment and were only needed at certain locations. Mr. ask if the contractors would be crossing the mproperty to access the work OBP008997 locations. Mr. Schey ask if the contractors would be crossing the -property to access the work area or to cm fence. _said they would not. The Government. offer of $4,100 was discussed. explained the general valuation process (i done by appraisers. used comparable sales, etc). Mr. ask if the appraisers were l'ederal employees or contractors. -said the appraisers were either Federal employees or retired Federal employees under contract. Mr. Schey ask a number of questions along the lines of did the appraiser consider this or did the appraiser think of that. indicated that he was not an appraiser and he did not accompany the appraiser, so he did not know. Mr. Schey ask . was permitted to give him a copy of (or information out oi) the value estimate document. said the value estimate was an internal working document and he was not permitted to release the document. Mr. Schey ask who could give him a copy. suggested he mi try a FOIA request. Mr. Schey did not pursue this subject further. Tract 4, Dr. Eloisa Tamez, was discussed next. lite con?guration of the parent tract, the acquisition area and the Govt. offer of$ 1 3.500 was discussed. Mr. Schey ask how the contractors would access the pro to construct the fence since the Government was not acquiring use of the existing road on the levee. ?said that construction. including ingress and egress. would be on acquired ro err. Mr. Schey request information as to the authority the Border Patrol had to utilize the levee road. ?said the question would be better addressed to the Mr. Schey made a statement/question re arding the loss of value and the worthlessness of the severed property south of the border fence. or agree. Mr. ask if the Government would consider buying the severed property. said the Govemment was not accepting offers to sell property south of the border barrier and would not accept an otter from Dr. Tamez to sell her severed property. Mr. Schey ask if the Govemment would accept a donation of the severed property. ?said he did not have authority to accept such an offer. however. if Dr. Tamcz would make a ?mt offer of donation he would forward the offer to the District of?ce. Mr. ask about the location of gates that Dr. Tamez would use to access her severed property. said that from looking at a map it appeared that there was a gate located a couple thousand feet to the west of Dr. Tamez's property and another gate to the cast a shorter distance. Mr. said he thought 'l?amea was getting her property appraised and the appraisal might be available next week. Mr. said he would share the results of the appraisal with the Government and this might lead to a resolution of the consideration issue. Mr. Schey said he hoped the Government would delay filing the condemnation action in Federal court to allow this to happen. Mr. said he would pass this inlitt?nmort Worth District of?cc. _ask Mr. Schey if he would be getting appraisals for the nd properties also. Mr. Schey said he had not decided that yet. Mr. Schey said he would call as soon as he got the appraisal and he requested that -call him Wednesday. June 25. 2008. if he had not already heard from him. Mr. Schey and Mr. Scherer said they also represented?and ?and they would like to discuss these properties/'offers at a future date. ?eminded Mr. Schey that if the properties had been ?led in liederal court all communication would be through the Attorney's of?ce. Mr. Hardie said he would check the status of these properties. -requested a copy oi?MrMs of the telephone conservation and was assured by Mr. Schey that they would be emailed. ell phone log listed the duration of this call at 37 minutes, 40 seconds. Note: or ?led 28 May 08. and RU OBP008998 2 RGV-RRP-IOUO REPORT PART 1 ?-cmr mow??uremia Worth 05th mar-? 3. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNERS) 4. AREA 5 APPROVED APPRAISEU VALUE o. l'NlTlAl OFFER l2! acres 58.61010 $8,610.00 7. RFSITMF. OF BACKGROUND: _has been identi?ed as :he owner tr ms ?6 acm located in Cameron County. It is necessary to acquire a ll) acres part of the property for the PF 225 border infrastructure protect i e. the border fence This area is idcn?tl?ictl as tram The estate to twqutre is fee. excluding minerals. The detl?l?tl?hc?ll reserves to the Vendor a perpetual ?ght-of-way on both szdes u! the Federal Border Inn-id for purpose of gaming access to Vendor?s land on the other side Uflht? hunter hanier The estimate for the L23 acres parcel is $8.6l0 00 and in eludes damages to the remainder. During this land ncgotiatton. the Army Corps of b?ngmcers has solicited the ufthc ptopcn) owncr (3) en how to minimize any tmpocts ot?the construwon of the border security farting on their cnt'trnn'ncnt. culture. community. and qualny of life. We have made every effort to record bclow all Views. suggestions and questions of the landowner, us well as out respunm and any reasonable accommodation made 17 Mar 200W Sell pack '18. was hand delivered by _R?alty Specular, US Army Corp: of Engineers. xplaimd to hat the US Army Corps of Engineers was acquiring the property needed for the border fence pulp? and the nature of the schedule ambushed by Congress was MILII that the Government was using an accelerated acquisition procedure. peci?cally addressed the. fol?nwtn; points. - Thu-?as a negotiator for the US Army Corps of Engineers - The subiect properry we needed For the Border Fence preject. - Dc estate required by the United States is fee simple. - The value nf the property had been established at 55.61000. Due to the atxeleratetl schedule the had not yet the necessary title irformatton. - The only method to acquire the ptopeny would be through eunnem dmmin or concert'lnlt?tm. - The proxts of condemnation was in no way adversarzal but was being used solely because of time constraints. ?left with ?rour t4) Cavie? of the Offer to Sell Real Property and requested he rthew them and if he choose. to sign and return three copies back to him. 2-t Mar mus; "comm phone and ante-u ll he?d reviewrdedlcuwd that he'd brie?y looked at them, hit 0: this point was not happy With the offer. ?old we have a two week deadlme and to let It: know before Wednesday. April 2, 2008 he said he would. Mm: With?rid he saic Offer to Sell appraised value. ?asted what he would accept and he said he did 111 know. . said he wu going to turn the 0m: to Sell over to his attorney for an appraisal and that the attorney wnuld Be In touch with him . rd not give his name or phone number. 9 Apr 2008: As or this date. _:t:torney had not c?kd A letter dated. 1 Apr 2003. tam by ?_Chicf. Real Estate Dtvminn. a countero?er of $217,200.00 for the purchatc of the property. On 21 Apr 1008. cplied with a letter declininguounremffer stating that heads: the two valuations were clearly my far apart, the would instead allow the Court to dctermme the value of the propetty through eminent domain proceedings. The ncgorimions with _lid not result in an agreement on a purchase pnce. Further negotiations will serve no purpose. Recommend proceedings be initiated. OBP008999 8. RECOMMENDATION 3A. SIGNATURL. ?ll'l'LE AND DATE CONDEMNATION Really Specialm. AprIl 4. mm 9. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION 9A SEGNATURE. Tnu. AND DA IF. Isl CONCUR CONDEMNATION ?Lead Rem 3mm? 4? 100? Io. RECOMMENDATION 10A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE CONCUR Phirf. le Em: Division. April 2W8 IL. CONCUR Wl'l'H ?4?53 Real Esau: Diviniu?m ENG FUKM 3:23 OBP009000 NEGOTIATORS REPORT ittAt'l PART 1 PT 225 RUV-BKP-IUW. build. Real L-stae Division Realty Specialist _Rio (Junk l?olms er District 2348i Highway 100. San Benito. TX 78586 lrleplionc 956399 2.563 Load Realty Smialisl 3. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNERIS) AREA 5 APPROVED VALUE OFFER i ?4 acres. fee single. excluding mineral; 313350 0? 7 RESUME 0F NEGOTIATION -hu been identified as the owner of 349 urea located in Cameron County it is necessary to acquire a 414 acres part ofthe property for the PF 225 border infrastructure project the border fence This area is identi?ed as tract The estate to acquire is fee. excluding minerals. The Government reserves to die Vendor a perpetual riglit-of-wav on both sides of the Federal Border barrier for purpose of gaining access to Vcndor?s land on the other side ot?thc border homer. The estimate of value for the 4. l4 item parcel is $28,930.00 and includc: damages to tcrtiaindct. During this land negotiation, the Anny Corps of hos mlicitcd the Views of the property owner on how to minimize any inverts of the construction ofthe border security fencing on their culture, community. and quality oflil?e. We have made every effort in record below all Views, suggestions and questions of the landowner, as well as our responses and tiny rensonnble accommodation made. 15 Mar 08: A call was placed ultra?message was left on his machine to return the call. A call we: also placed With Mr. Russell on his cell pho it asked that we return his call on Monday. I7 Mar 08. to schedule an appointment lb Mar 08 Called "it his cell phone. he agreed to a meeting at office on I9 Mar 08 at 8:30 am. [9 Mil? 08' ?and - at his place of business to present him with the Government's offer letter dated 12 Mar 08 to acquire 4.l4 acres in fee ofhis pmpett). 'ndicated that he was in support of the Fencing Project however, prior to him sigiing the OlTer he indicated that he had some questions regarding the (Uhcll being constructed on his property and how ll will impact his ability to ?man his intent/3y. During the negotiation, views ofthe owner wemw to minimize impacts ofthe construction olthe border security fencing on their environment culture. community and quality of life. the following concern-5: 1. Who assumes the responsibility for tininteuznue? -: Border Patrol. b. What is anticipated? Flushing. cleaning out of debris or Will there be trash takes at both ends which still would require "28h removal. ?that she would forward his concerns to one ot?the engineers and would have someone contact him SITILI: they would be able to address his concerns. ?nqurred as to how long he had to respond to the Otter Since he would be out oftown for the next two (2) WCKS informed that all properties needed in he acquired on or before 1 Jun 08 him for taking the time to meet with her and that someone would be in touch with soon. . 2. 08; 27 Mar 08. ?lbr\varde- concerns to Fort Worth District._or a response. 3 Mar 08: _provided the following response. The current plan is to culvert 0,28 mites of the-canal that parallels the levee. Culvening of this section ofthe canal allow placement of fence north of the levee tne. avoiding fence on levee. Side note: _ad also inquired to the possibility ofculterting the canal all the was. to the river and to extend the culverts up to Highway 281. This additional milage of culverted canal is not doable as part of the project as it is not required for construction of fence. 2 Apr 08. A telephone cotWersatiutt between ?tsoii of]_ and a summary ot?the conversation is as follows. - Who msumcs responsibility for maintenance. _taterl that in previous mongage transfers that they have cnntiicted with other entities regarding the parcel being sold. the entity the land would resume can and maintenance. He also indicated that he preferred that the US. Border Patrol keep and maintain the urea nitric ctuial that is being used a?er it is purchased - What maintenance is anticipated. ?hated that clearing debris from both ends of the buried canal would be expected. He indicated that vegetation growth on all areas of the parcel is a maintenance issue. Erosion along with seepage would deteriorate the end caps tifthc canal and time would require additional earthen material and hem}! equipment to fix. He also stated that the current Cubic Feet 1 Second (CPS) mammiim requirement for the canal is 55 (TS. have not required that much F5 in quite a long time. in? usLed if they would have to exceed the maximum CFS in the future. ld not beliesc this Wauld occur unless more water was ever needed. bu he did not foresee this its that; current maximum CFS is 37. OBPOO9001 I would occur unless water was ever needed, till tiitl rtt?t foxtrot: this as that: current maximum CFS is 37. Ii-inqt?red about covering the carnal from where it be give. in close ptoximiry to. the river in Me Border Patrol is planning to culvert the canal at the went end ?end with futons west. lick-es that this is more cost effective re ardin . Irmiitmance in the long run and poxsibly less cost il' were lu only .ovtr the narrow that the fence alignment :5 gang to affect ?aw) indicated that It the entire canal was buried him its starting point towards tht? south wt:- of S. Highway 28! lIml [1528? could 31:0 use this as an ewes mad for Dam). operations ?voula pruter mat the Departmental Homeland Security (DHS) employ permanent tau-mg alarig the ruiuh side ofthe canal, Hr: also requested tha: a gut: bc placrtl in 1hr men that he can any type of maintenance on his pump: by :hc and that the gate be large enough to ?t a tract ?as aJVised that the 20? gate entrariu: was proposed to bc glaccd near the hand He that it would suffice, ontactcd-o inquin: as to whether their concerns had been addressed regarding the maintenance of the canal. Mr. .ntlxuetJ that the) would accept responsibiltly ohhc canal if II was buried from pump house to US Highway 281. Ms. advised him that she would check unto the matter and provide them with a response an a couple ol'days. ?consulted with?as to whether the canal could be timed from m: pump house to us Highwa, 28] _ndica.lzd that he would check into it mid get back to me. 6 Apt 08: ?ecetvec an e-tmil [Tom?nd2cazvd that the irrigation canal could not be buried from the pump house to US Highway 28] anc that only tnat pon'on ot?thc canal along 'hc levee ?here the fence wan to he place would be buried. 7 Apr 08: ?entrance?um udvis .e portion ofthe canal along the levee where the fence was to be placed would be buried?rulimtal that he had spoken Witl' (Border Patrol Agent) who indicated thin they would bury the irl'tgatiott canal from the pump house US Highway 28! smce the Border Patrol did not want to assume responsibilit) for the also indicated that they were Willing to decrease the maxunum requirement of 55 (IFS since It would decrease the cost tremendously. dvised him that the would check .nto it again Alter several discutsicns regarding -equest. it was determined that the canal would only be buried or. the levee where the fence would be installed. 14 Apr 08: ardin ?hc Government" caller and advised that his request to have the canal buried from the pimp house to US Highway 28] had been denied. ndicaled that was not in a position to sign the offer since the issues I?ad not yet been resolved The negotiations with _diu not result a signed agreement due to unresolved Mites rega'rting the irrigation canal. r. NmortAmR-s 8A. szunntuu; 'Il I?Lli AND mm; is! ?Reuw Specialist 9. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION 9A. SIGVATURE. TITLE AND DATE CONCUR CONDEMNATION Realty Specialist IU. IN IERIM Wad/er is isiun CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION ENG FORM 342} OBPOO9002 ENG FORM 342} Addendum to Negotiators Report PF 225 Tract: RGV-BPR-IWZ 5-22-08: _alled US Army Corps of Engineers office in Fort Worth and left a message to 5-23-08: Prior to retumin the call coordinated plans for this section of with PM Thereafter -returned the call 1 of?ce at 956-399-2563. ?answered the phone (son Mi related frustration at receiving the condemnation notice letter without havm received answers to their questions regarding their irrigation canal. asked?if they would be willing to accept reservation of an easement for maintenance of the eulvetted canal if we built it to suit their needs. He indicated that would probably be acceptable. ltis concerns are that the pipe will be large enough to carry the SS maximum ?ow. that we cannot tell him when or for how long the canal might be shut down during construction. _ndicated their system is a total of 9.5 miles and that the water is used mostly for agriculture. If the water were shut off for a prolonged period, his crops would not survive. We discussed that the fence is mandated for completion by the end of Dec 2008, so the most likely downtime would be this fall. 1" rank indicated that he would have his father call me back. I left my cell and of?ce numbers. Spoke again with?1nd requested information on size of pipe and a schematic showing the proposed location of the fence relative to the irrigation culvert. Spoke to _garding reservation of easement and possible transfer of ownership of the culvert itself to the Russells. Later in the day. not having heard back from - left a message on their of?ce phone that I would forward information on the proposed when to them as soon as received. 5-27-08: _alled and was on the line as well. We recappcd discussions from last week brie?y. ndicatcd they could not afford to have the canal out of service for more than 45 days maximum. Timing a shut down between September and December would be preterable although weather patterns are unpredictable. He stated that someone from the Corps had copied the plans for the canal. I was unaware of that and promised to follow up to see if we have that information. I again promised to provide inlormation on size of pipe and a schematic of the fence and culvert. Also r0 sed to make a written proposal as to maintenance of the culvened section?rovided the following contact infomtation: OBP009003 6-13-08: After corresponding with the Project Manager, emailed ?to advise that we do not havc plans ready yet. but are working. Subsequently it was discovered that the DT has already been ?led by DOJ. so further discussions will have to be handled by the AUSA. 6-16-08: Conference call with and Baker designers. They are working on plans for the fence and pipe at this location. Once they have some sketches prepared, Baker will provide and I can send to the AUSA for further discussions with Russell. Subsequent day: -callcd. Told him that schematics were not complete and that due to ?ling of? the DT, future discussions would need to be with the AU SA. Advised that 1 would pass culvert plans along to the AUSA when complete. OBPOO9004 I. PROJECT NAME 2. TRACT NUMBERS REPORT PF225 1005-2 Chlef, Red Estate Division, PHI: ?ldty Specialist Tl]: Fort Worth District OWNENS) Robert Mmdou - Attorney I440 East 7? Street Mlle, TX 7052l Flt. No. 956-54 l-5499 4. AREA 5. APPROVED APPMSED VALUE 6. INITIAL OFFER 0.l I am fee simple, $1,600.00 $l,600.00 man: man RGV-BRP- loos-2 O.I 5 we lee Shela. main; Inherit 7. RESUME 0F NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND: ?has been identi?ed as themvne.? of-I 27 acres located in Cameron County It is acquire a (LII acre and (HS next part ofthe progeny for the PF 225 border infrartructurc projea i e, the border fence. This mu is identi?ed as trot?. (0.11 we) and acre} neonate to acquire is fee. excluding minerals. The Government reserves tothe Vendor perpetual right-cf-wey on both sides of the Federal Border barrier for purposc ot?gnming nuns to Vendor's land on the abet side of the border barrier. The Govemment's estimate ofveluc {or the 0.11 acre and 0.15 parcels is $1,600.00 and includes damages to rerminder. During this land ueptiation. the Army Corps of Engineers has solicited the dew: ol'lhe property owner (8) on how to minimim any impuas ofthe mien of the border security falling on their environment. eilnrm. community. and quality of life. We have made every effort to record helm all views, sanctions Ind quest-ans oflhe landowner, as well as: our responses and any reasonable accommodation made. ?m Wm Engineers. . ?xplained to US Army Corps of Engineers was acquiring the property needed for the border fmee projed. He explained to the nature of the schedule as established by Congress was that the Gone 3 an accelerated acquisition procedure. At that time stated. that they thoudit the project wa needed Med?eally addressed the following points. Realty Specialist. us Army Corps of - That -38 a negotiator for the US Army Corp: of Engineers. - The subject poperty was needed for the Border Fence project. - The em required by the United States is fee simple. excluding minerals. - The vahte of the property had been established a: Sl,6le.00, - Due to the accelemed schedule the Government land not yet received the necerury title mfomxion to proceed with tho porcine of the - The only method available In acquire the property war eminent domain or tmdrumution - The process at condemnation was in no way adversarial but was hem; used. solely because of time constraints. ?It with Mr. and ?four 14) copies of the Offer to Sell Real Property and requested they review them and if they chomc. to sign and return three (Cl) copies at the offer hack :0 him He told them he would be following in) with them on March 24, 2008, to inquire Lino the status of the Otter to Sell paperwork ?mm, 2008; 'call_t 9.deelslononthe mesa: that was let! with them to revrew. A message for them to ml! was lc?. Maid! 26. 2003: -called?o see if they had made a (baryon on the Offer to Sell that was left with them to review. A message for than to all vus left. March 28. 2008; -nlled _0 see If they had a deciszon on the on" to Sell um was left with them to review. The secretary told him they were out of town for the week. A orange for them to call was left March 31. 2GB ?callcd if [lty had made a decision on the Offer to Sell that was left with men to review. The secretary told him the ere out of the of?ce. but would have than call when they returned. The ?Niall,? ??11 ?d not result in an agreement on a purchase price. Further negotiations will serve no purpose. Recommend condemnatim be initiated. A 19, 2008: a Realty Soccialin with the US Army Corps of Engineers. called owners again in an 81mm reach OBPOO9005 to leave a usage. April 22. 2008 - Rally Specialist celled them before Funding Io condenmation prmedurrs. There was no answer to the call. and no answering saviec was available for Ms. Elihu: dim offer of made. Just waned to and: base Muse he Ind bemomoftown. Henldhe wouldcallhect Aprll 23. 2M- Robert Manchu. money. bemuileblelomlk. unmd zetbecktoncgolmor by Friday May 4. 2GB - Negotiator called moneys of?ce to luvs a message foe Mr. Mendoza. No answering machine available to leave message. Maya.m-Anmgunotrmmedulls. 8. RECOMMENDATION CONDEMNATION 8A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE 9. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION 9A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE. Lad Really Specialist - ?1119,2008 l0. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDEMNATION II. CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION ,lleal Edna'divmm ENG FORM 3423 OBP009006 I - VU PRCIECT NAME 2 TRACT NUMBER NEGOTIATORS REPORT PART 1 Asst Chief, Real Estate On To mm? 0mm? FROM: -Rcally ADDRESS OF Atmme; reptnenlmg ownev Kenneth E. McKay - lock: Ltdoell a Supp, uy Phone - 7l3-216-l 3400 JP Motgm Chase Tower, out) rtavts, Houston, TX 77002 4 AREA 5 APPROVED WMISED VALUE 6. INITIAL OFFER 1 56 lures fee aimple. ?eluding animals $3 00 $37,700 00 7. RESUME 0F NEGOTIATION db: MCMD Limited Partnership, owns a 1.56-aere ll? ted in Cameron County, which has been idemi?ed as meessary for the PF 225 Border lnl'rastrutture Project. i Bordet Fence. mt being represented by Kenneth E. McKay. Attormy for [note Liddell and Sapp. LLP. The property is Identified as Ttact Nu. RGV-BRP-IOIO. contains acres. A fee estate. exelming minerals. will be acquired. The value at the property was established as $37,700.00. 13 Mar 08 - The O?et Letter with th (the Army Offer to Sell Real Property Forms. Legal Description and Em were sent via certi?ed mail on this date to Kenneth McKay. was sent a copy of the Offer Letter withota the attachments via certified mail on this date. 24 Mar 08 - telephoned Kenneth McKay and was informed he was on nation. lashed when he was expected to return from vacation and was told on MondayMcKay and he stated he did teceive the offer to sell package but has not spoken uith_ He stated he waits to get with and get back with me as well. Also. he stated he did not have a cop) ofthe tract plat and requested that I send it vra email. I sent Kenneth McKay an ematl mm the complete one: to sell package including the tract plat. requested him to contact me next week, when he was ready to discus. 8 Ag 08 - Kenneth McKay did not comet me. so I teleptuxieil him He slated he did not want to begin negotiations on this tract beau - clients to Cameron County that null he affected by this project as Well and he wants to repth those landowners at the same time with tract. 1 stated that this project was mmdatcd by Congress to proceed with the acquisru?ons as soon as possible. I asked how soon could he call me haclt With these diets. and he replied it could he tomorrow or next week. lligpr 08 - I telephoned Kenneth McKay and was . was in a meeting. I left him a voice message informm: him that I needed him to contact me today to start the mgotiating process for rty and pleasant mannerResponse back this afternoon from him. that I would have to proceed condemnation of property Kenneth McKay called me back and requested the appraisal l0 review. I dated that for all Government acquisitions. the Government does not ?loose their appraisals. He stated dial in condemnation proceedings the Gmernment will have to show the appraisal In court and he could not get a copy now. [said yes. you are right. He said (thy. then let's go to condemmion lsatd Okay. No separate represemations were made hy the negotiator. Recommend Tract No. RGV-BRP- lOlO be resolved through condemnation proceedings as negotiations have been unsuccessful. an Uiah lam nogonulon, the May Carp: a: Emirate? nu salt-:atnd new: {ti-open, om -e~t :an hm Le nmudao any invest! at construe-.190 of the outlet mutt-J foe-Plat: ml "to? environment. Lullt-Uth tat-n truancy n' it? Yo have We evezy alien to annual at: logger-ans and quotient: of LN lam". an rei'. our "sports? Inf ruaouhze ammzamt 8. RECOMMENDATION SA. SIGNATURE, TITLE AND DATE CONDEMNAUON .ealy Specralut . ll Apt 08 9 INTERIM RECOMXIENDATION 9A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE 10. RECOMMENDATION CONCUR WITH Real Estate Divi OBP009007 EC OT IATORS EPORT PART 1 PT 225 - . knelt Realty sputum Real Estate Division Realty ist i ADDRESS or OWNER Attorney; Mr. Norton A Colvin l. PROJECT NUMBERS Troy investment Company Itndriqucr t?hlwn. Chaney 5i Saetiz. LL P. 7600 FM 802 P0. Bot 2155 Brownsville. TX 78520 110] Van Burert 956-8384 I33 Brownsville. IX 78522-2l55 (9561542 MN 4. AREA 5 APPROVED APPRAISED 6. INITIAL OFFER $7,600 00 0 37 acre fee. excluding minerals 167.6000? 7. RESUME OF NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND: Tmy Investment Company. like been identified as the owner of 2 I .22 acres lucalcd in Cthl?O? Clitlm). it is nonmag- to acquire a 0.37 acre pm of the property which will be part ol'thc PP 225 border infra?lniclurc pmicet ie. the Border Fence Project. This am is irrnti?ed as Roman-20m The estate to be acquired is fee. excluding mint-1 ; The Government mama to the Vendor a perpetual right-of- way on both sides ofthe Federal Border limit: for purposes of gaining access to Vendor?s land on the other side ofthe border barrier. The Government's estimate 0! nine [or the 037 acre parcel is 57.600 00 and includes damages to the rcmaindcr During the land negotiation, the Amy Corps ofEnginct-rs wlicilnl the view at the property owner on how to minimize any impacts of the border security interns on their environment. culture. community and quality uflit?c We havc made every c?'ori to record below all Views. suggestions and questions ofthc landowner, as well as our responses and any readOnablc accommodation mule. 444-08 7 ?inspetted the property. The portion of the pmp?r?ly norilt ofthc has been developed for subdivISlon purposes. 4-24-08 --ctompaniod b) SUP-net with ?Durirtg [his meeting Mr. Hardie speci?cally addressed the following ISSIK): Mr. Hardic was a negotiator for the US Army ("orps of Engineers. ihat the subject propem was needed for the Border Fence ijeci. That the carat: required by the United States is fcc. excluding minerals. That the value for the property being acquired ?as established at 31600.00 That. due to the aoceleruw schedule established for the project by Congress. the (jovemment had not yet received the necessary title information to acquire the mates tn; direct pult?ll?ase The only method available to acquire the would be through erru hen: domrn?condemnatiort. '1 he process of condemnation ?as net adversarial. but ?as be. ng usctt solely Mutts: ut? tint: utmtrainis. -equested a copy ofthe appraisal 1 ex laincd due the act-slanted anon-onion procedure a tame estimate wm completed in lieu ofan a isal and limit I could not give him a copy. huked? to expiaiit the used to :xlzhiish the value astimntc. atrium concern was the loss of utilitylvalitc nl?thc sci-cred portion of the parcel which will be south (third but ininn this 4 9 acres will be wordlless. ?d~is?d that he would tx- willing to st? the severed parcel to the that we not acquiring property which was not required for the project. -stated that he had been involved in three condemnation actions in the last of wars and he win familiar with the cc . Ha ndwsed that he was not inclined to accept the offer at this He did not mm: a counteroffer. ?agreed to ?nail" Tuesday 14-29-08) and advise him ofhis ?nal decision When ask ed ahnut his thoughts on the impact tiftlic hmcer i?cncc protect- stated that he was opposed to the fence project. but he was in full support of the Border Patrol. woman?of?ce and told that?vii: not available ?reqchall him secretary called and advigcd [ha \vuulu not he hack in the nf?re lmll! May am requested mal S-I2-08 at approx. 9:30am and 3 00pm Built tints?was told that?was in a meeting. Mr. llardic requested that his call 543-08 allcd ollicc and ?as told that he Wits an it telephone call. ??equested that-return his call OBPOO9008 .. . .. . . . II -. II 1- . I. In- I..- S-IWMRU said that m: tt?'n of $1600.00 was too low and he could not amp: it ?uuestw that take a wuntcm cr. that the ochn would be rat apart thumb waste cflimc. v' that he had rammed Mt. Norton Colvin ofRodrigucz. Cob-m. (Sham-y Snenz. and l. u) him requested that meet Mt. 54308 -cal?tcd fut Mt Coivm and was told that he wm out at the of?ce. ?cqucsla1 lhal Mr Colvin rctum call. 5-l 4-08 - Mr. Calvin called-1nd advised that he would he "sprawling-M would be the future point ofcontact. advised Mr. Cotvin that he would he that asqtus?ion he concluded by condemnation Since negotiations with td not result in an agnomem and sumcicnl Iltlr evidence has not yet been obtained it is that common proceedings be initial?! to nhtain possession ofthe propc?y. It. RECOMMENDATION 8A. SIGNATURE. TITLE mo DATE is! -Rcalt_v Speciallst, May 2008 9. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION 9A. TITLE AND I I CONCUR WITH CUNUEMNATION . .6 Rcelty Spectatist. May 14, mos l0. 11??th CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION vbate f??z E: It: Div-.sion ENG FORM 3423 OBP009009 t. nolrcr NAME IRAQI NUMBERS NEGOTIATORS REPORT itcv soon-z and PART 1 pr 22: 300153 m? - h: Chief, Real Estate Division may Speeldkt 3. NAME AND ADDRESS Of OWNENS) 1hr Brownie and Mzurnoror Company, (Jose F. Galvan, and (2th Operating Of?cer) 1300 Mexico Texas 78522 (956) 5452415, 956) 542-8558. FAX (956) 548.2426 AREA 5. APPROVED APPRAISED VALUI 6. INITIAL OFFER 0.57 acre tees'mole, minding 0.27 acre elemental rd easement $8,700.00 53,700.00 0.07 acre tall: road caserrlent 0.05 acre tent: road easement 7. RESUME OF NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND: The Brownsville and Matamoroc Bridge Company (Batu) has been identi?ed at the owner of subject property in Cameron Comty. Texan. It is necessary to acquire Tract Nos {0.57 acre fee. excluding minerals). (0.27 acre perpetual road easement), and [3-2 [0.07 acre} and (0.05 acre) temporary mad easement for the PF 225 border infrastructure project i the Border Fence protect. ?Itle Government's estimate of value for the 0.57 we. 0.27 acre, 0.07 out, and 0.05 acre parcels ls During land negotiation. the Army Corps ofEnglneers has solicited the views ofdtc property owner on how to minimize any impacts of the construction of the harder smunty tcncing on their environment. oulltte. community, and quality oflife. We have made every c?'at to record below all views. suggestions and questions ufthe landowner. a. well as our response- my reasonable aocotnrnodmm nude 10 April. 2008: ?Rea ty Specialist and Realty with the US Army Corps ofEngineet-s, delivered the offer to lost: Galvan at the 865M Bridge C0. o?ioe. plaiued the US Army Corps ofEngineera we: acquiring properly for the Border Fence project. ?also explained to Mr. Galvan that the nature of the schedule as established byCurlgress. the Government was ustng an accelerated emulsitlon procedure peci?cully addressed the fulluwing paints - -wls a negotiator fur the US Army oi Engineers. - The subject property was needed for the Border Fence project. - the estates required by the United States in: fee, excluding minerals. perpetual road easement and tempom road easement. - The value of the property ind been established as $8,700.00. - Due to the accelerated schedule the Government had not yet received the necessary title information to proceed with the purchase of the - The only method available to acquire the prq-lerty would be through mitten! domdn or ccmde'lma?on. - The process of condemnation was in no way but was being used solely because of time constraimrl Mr, Galvan pointed out during the a tel one hour meeting that then: Was an area to the Northeast ofthe acquisitton that they owned that was not included in the acquisition. ?said he would try to determine the ownership of'the am in question and aired Mr. Galvan to his records for ownership ptuut Galvan stud he would try to provide proof. 23 April, 2003: ?Jelivcmd deed: and to the nil-M Bridge Company and asked Mr. Galvan to look the overwith his staff and call him. at May. 2003: ?mlled Mr. Galvan at his of?ce. Mr. Galvan mid he could not determine ownership but ifthc propcny in question belonged to the Government they had allowed 9 a: to build Street and building on their property. or. May. 2003: ?that! GSA Property Mona in Brownsville (956) 548-2525 and asked ifhe had records to prove ownership of Lite area. axed cry-lies of map; of the area (Oh! it would not be or May, 2003: ?called Galvan and told him tincc ownership could not be dacrminod on to: area in question he would recommend condemnation of the tract for ownership and value determination. OBPOO9010 8 RECOM CON DEMNATION 9 INTERIM RECOMMENDATION CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION 8A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE ls. ?Rcalry Spcciaiisl. 8 May 2008 0A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DA FE 1nd Realty Specialist. 9 May 2003 ID. INTERIM CONCUR WITH CONDIEMNATION 10A SIGNATURE. AND DATE _Assistam Chief. Raul Esme Diviskm- Mny 14. 2008 ll. CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION f. Real Estatc Divisidn 5:77 0?3 Date ENG roan-3123 OBP00901 NEGOTI ATURS REPORT hAMl TRACT [:08 .C - and JCXBE 2 PF 225 mu;_ to mom: Film: DIVisitm 3. NAME AND ADDRESS OF L'lt) Mr Albert Villages. Attorney at Law 4 AREA 5. APPROVEDAPPRAISED VALUE 6 INITIAL OFFER It IS acre rec excluding Minerals 0 92 acre temp work area easement ?two-"0 334.100.00 7_ TME OF NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND: has been identi?ed as Ilu: owner of subject propert) in County. cxas. It IS necessary to acquire Tract .?los. (015 acre fee. excluding minerals). and RGV-BRP-JUOSE (0.92 acre) temporary wurl: amusement for the PF 225 border infrastructure proiect I: the Burdrr Fence pt'ujcul. The estimate of value for the 0.15 acre and (1.92 acre parcels is $3 4.10000. During this land negotiation. the Army Corps of Engineers has solicited the views of the property uwnetor repraicntalhc on how to minimize any impacts of the construction border 5a utity fencing on their environment. culture. community. and quality of life. We have made every effort to record below all views. and questicms or the landowner. as well as our responses and any remnable accommodation made. l4 April, 2008: ?l{calty Specialist and?Rea?) Specialist with the US Army Corps of Engineers, delivered the offer package to Mr. Albert Villegns. Anomey. at his of?ce on Fem Avenue in McAlletI Texas Mr. Villegac said during the approxunalcly one meeting that he wanted "it: appraisal that established the ul?t?crcd amount Mr. Dev-n: told Mr. Villcgas this was a market derived determination of value. Mr said he .1 Winter the olTer to be a legal offer. He asked for-telephone numbcr and address and the meeting ended. During the meeting ?peei?cally addressed the t'nlliming paints - That-was a negotiator for the US Amty Corpo of Engineers. - The subject pmpeny was in Fence project - The estate; required by the United States are fee. excluding minemls. and temporary work amt easement - The value ofthc properly had been otahlislted as S14. . Due to the accelerated schedule the Government had not yet received the necessary title information to with the purchase of the propctt}. - The wily method available to acquire the property would hr: through eminent domain or condemnation - ?l he process or was in nn in) ads mortal but ?as being used solely because 01? time constraints letter dated April. 2008 by as {attached} Letter dated [2 May, 2008 signed by anachedt l6, l7. May. EGGS-called Mr. Villcgas' BrewnSVille of?ce and Ierl messages asking for a return call. None waived. 20 . 2008. by Mr. lett otl'tce. Mr. thlegns said he had not received a response to his letter onI April, 2008. gave Mr. it copy of letter dated 12 May. 2008. He read the letter and card it wat not a to his letter and will negotiate until he receives the information he comidcn to make an informed decision. ?informed Mr. Villegas Lhat he intended to recommend a Declaration ot?Taking and Condemnation be ?led to determine ownership and just for the Note: During this meeting Mr. mid he had determined that Jones at Jones. Inc. does have an interest in Tram. of which he had been talking with Chuck Wendlant. US s. RECOMMENDATION 8A SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE ?zcniy Specialist. 22 May 2002 9. UAI ION 9A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE. CONCUR CONDEMNATION _'l.eatl Realty Specialist. 22 May 2003 I0. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION 10A. SIGNATURE. TITLE AND DATE I. CONCUR Wl'l'll ION gain, Real Estate Date OBP009012 1 1. nonscr NAME TRACT NUMBERS REPORT amour-3004 3004}: PART 1 m2, mvz? . heme: m1 Em Division Redty $1):ch 3 NAME AND 0F OWNERS) lanes lone: Plupurliea, Inc C10 Mr. Alba! Villages. Niamey at Law I785 hm: 10 1124 Eu: 7" Sum (hind Tans 75043-4456 Texts 78520 (956) 544-3352 FAX (956) 544-7813 01 (936) 971-3351 (McAllen 01151:) 4. AREA 5 APPROVED APPRAISED VALUE 6. INITIAL OFFER an ace fee simple. exchd'n; minerals 1.15 momrk mama-x 53650000 336500? 7. RESUME OF NEGOTIATION BACKGROUND: Jones a Jones Memes he. has been identi?ed a the owner ofsubioct property in Carmel Comty. Texas. 1! is my 81 acquire Tm Noe RGV-BRP-JOM (0.13 foe. cxdudll: animals). and RGV-BRP-JOIME (L1 5 m) temporary work 11m: euemeol fol Ill: border 111mm probate, the Borou- Fence peeled. The Goven'menl reserves to Iho Vendor I perpetual listl-of-way on both sides of the Fedetd Border barrier for purpose claim; omen to Vendor's Inn on In other axle of the bunk! burial. The Govoruml?s mimic ofvaluc f0: ll: 0.13 out 1nd L15 lac putds is ?36.5m.00. ?newton. the Army Corps of lin?ncers hu solicited the View: ohlle prope?y nine! or rep-mum)? on how in minimize any impact: ofthe con?meu'm of the border smuriy fmcingon their culture, and qulity ofli?: We have made evay d?f?o? to round below all views, suggestions and questions ofme lmdomer. a: well out responses and my teasomblc accommodation mule. 14 April, znoe ?Rulty Special'm Inf-nah] Spwh?sl, with 11.: US Anny caps ofEnginous, delivered the 011a pacing: IoMr. Albert Vilcus. Attorney. ll his 05]? on Fem Anni: in McAllen Tum, Ml. Vilkgu said du1in3 1h: appmximdtl) one bd?mur mating [in he willed ?u appuild that established the o??ered amount Mr Devin: told Mr. Villcges this van a market derived ddetmlnatlrm ofveiue. Ml. Ville not consider the o?'u Io be a legal 05c: He asked h?ldophonc number and address and the mlingulded. During the and specifically Addtused the ?1le poinls' Thu-ms a modal-:1 [1.11 11: US Army Corps oi Engineers. The subject property was needed for me Home Fence project. The ?nus required by Lie Unit? Sum are he. unludim minolals. and weaponry work an: ?autism. The value of the property Ind boa-1 established 13 836.5(300. Due to the accelemod d: Govemmu had not yet 1eceived 1h: necemry mic information to mooted with 11): purchase or no property. The only method ?nimble to acquire a: properly bi: 0111:1131: clam comb: or condemnation adversx'nl Lena died 21 All?. 2008 signed (washed) [an ?1m 12 May, 2008 signed DWM) 16, 17, u, my, zoos?mum Mr. Vinegar once and 1:11 messages asking for I mum can. None received. 20 May, 2008: -drupped Mr, Ville as' McAllen of?ce. Mt. Viliegas sud he had not received a response In his letter of}! Awil. 2008.- yve Ml. Villegae a maid-nee and 12 May. 2008. Humanism: m4 mu 1?th not a rape-atoms loner and will mew-hoe until he receives the lntomumn he commas memory to make en 1mm decision .mnned ML Villages 811 he blended to memo a Deelanxim of Taking mo Condemnation be ?led to determnc owucaship udjusi mmation foe the subjoa Nun: During ms meeting Mr \?lbgas said he had determined mallones 51 Jonas. Inc. ?has haven: lumen 1n True! RGV-BRP-JDM ofwhich he had ban mkiu Chuck ?family;l Mina? US Money. 8. moon/wows RECOMMENDATION 8A. SIGNATURE. mu. AND DATE hum, Specialist. 22 Mny 2mg 9. mm 9A. SIGNATURE. mu; AND DATE CONCUR CONDEMNATION ma Realty Specialist, 22 May 1008 10. INTERIM TE 5 Division CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION 5/362/08 OBPOO9013 unu mun 11.3.1 VILLEGAS LAW aromas A1 uw 1324 STREET 0 BROWNSVILLETEXAS ?Sit! 0 TELEPHONE 956/544-3352 0 FAX 9503?4-7828 Aptil 21, 200: Real Estate Division Deparunent of The Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 17300 Fort Worth Texas 76102 RE: Tract Number RGV BRP 3004 am - I have previously advised the United Suites this matter. that the defendant, Jones and Jam Properties, Inc, named does not on the property but if then is a deed the govexmem relies on, to produce it. To date nothing has been produced. Since the letter of Apzil 8, 2008 is directed to an entity. which I do not represent, that] am uncertain 115 any interest in the contested propeny and the letter is directedto that entity?s interest, I can not respond to the latex oprril 8, 2008. . I believe it would lead to mismdemandings of the parties ?fth: government felt timtbe right patty. Jones Jones Properties Inc" was somehow involved In this matter. This entity, as noted on the Texas Secretary of State website. was a corporaziu I and is no longer in good standing. OBP009014 PROJECT NAME TRACT NUMBERS NEGOTIATORS REPORT PF 225 acvaayaoos PART 1 mu -Lead Realty Speddbt mid? FROM-WW 3. NAME AND 0F OWENS) (1'0 Mt. Albert Wiley,? Anamey at 1324 has! 7? Sum Texas 78520 (956) 544-3352 FAX (956) 564-7828 or (956) 97l-3352 (Mc?llen Of?ce) 4. AREA 5. APPROVED APPRAISED VALUE 6. INITIAL OFFER 0,1} we ?6,400.00 $6300.00 7. RESUME OF BACKGROUND: been nulli?ed 1: ll: uwncl of 97 am Loam] Cameron Cour-tun It is necessary to require I3 nae pan 0! ?be properly for the PF 215 border lunar-cm: project 1.: . the border fence. This area is intermixed as Incl RGV-BRP-BOOS. The reserves in he Vexlor a perpetual rigm-ot-my on but): silks of de Federal Border barrier lur purpcoc mac new in Vauth'a land on n: art-r dd: 9! dz: burder burial. The ?Inn to be acquired is fat. nduding minerals. Tl: Government's admin of?ine tor are 0.3 acre parcel it $16,400 no include: dangeuu me man". Ming (his land Woe. LID Anny Corp ofL-?Immen has 501mm the View: cf the popeny ouurfr) un ho.- to minimim any impact: 01th: mini-jun 0! (ll; border security fencing on In}: eniromcm. mime, Ind quality at life. We have mark every effon to record below ul views, Wm? querrions or? uh: well us our wand any reasombla ?communion nude. I4 April, 2005: ?lulty Spams: rag?mu, Specialist, wih the us Ann,- Cups ofEngInea's. some the Mame in Mr. Men ?v'lnogas. Mm. Ills office on Fem Avenue in McAIlen Texas, Mr uid duv?ng lire waxlumly one um I: walled the appraisal that the CM mum ?qua Mr Villegas mu a mum du'wed 4mm?: of value. My. vu he am not consider the alter an be a legal o??er. Ht Bk? for Ms, Head's tehphum Lumber and address and the meeting ended. During? Mg speci?cally undressed the following perms: Tim ?'is a negotmor for the US Army Cams 0! Hummers. The subject pope") was needed for the Border Peru project. The can: quuired h) Ih: Un'nd Sum is he. excluding minerals. The Vine the property been ?lawman us $16,4m?l, Due to the {acclaimed Mic m2 had not ya received me nmry rule Io proceed with rm: means of ill pm. Th: uni) method ?rumble no ?gun the property would be through eminent domain or cuuleuunrim. Tn: prunes: of con?rmation was in no my advemml but hem; wed solely Decline af?ne oomninu dultll 2 Aprll, 2003 ?ned by Vile Lama-ml l2 May, 2003 signed by mend) m, n, 18, May, 2wt?mlled Mr Vulkgu? of?ce and left messages utmg for a return cull. Non: madml 20 Mums: ?loam! h. 'McAllea 0mm Mn vine?: said in April, 200: am: Mr l2.May.2908. ikreadlhul end said iiwasnoursponsetohk lull he rtceives me Information he considm Iceman lo nuke informed decision. alarmed Mr. Villas? he immded l0 manna A Deduction of'l?ahng md Cundemmrim in: ?led to ownership andjusl compensation for the subject that 8. RECOMMENDATION 8A. TITLE AND DATE _aky Specialist. 22 May 2008 9. RECOMMENDATION 9A. SIGNATURE. TITLE: AND DATE CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION _lud Reilly Specialist. 22 May 7308 ID. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION )0 5/3 I 0rd OBPOO9015 VILLEGAS LAW FIRM ATTORNEYS AT LAW 324 EAST SEVENTH STREET 0 BROWNSVILLE. TEXAS 78530 0 TELEPH 3N2 956644-3351 FAX 956544-7828 - April 21 2008 Real Estate Division Department of The Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 17300 Fort Worth Texas 76] 02 Tract Number RGV 3005 Dw- met last week with? of your oi?ces. He ddivexod to me your letter of April 8. 2008. Since it did not c0mply with 42 USC 4601 nor CFR Pan 24,1'tdid not constitute an offer, as that is de?ned in these provisions. 1am uncertain whether there was an intentional omissi to, but I did not receive any appraisal or evaluation along with the documents provided. A: the code slates ?Appraisal. waiver thereof and invitation to owner. (1) Before the inttladm ofmgotlattom the real property to be acquimd shall be appraised except as provided to Sec. 211.102 (2), and the owner, or the merit deslgnated representative shall be ghen an opportunf to accompany the appraiser during the appraiser's inspection of the property. The own: nor his representative never received an invitation to accompany the appraiser during the i: 1 spection of the property. The code you cited 49 CE. R. Part 24.I02 governs tha: the 1311110an is entitled to certain concessions, one that an appraisal is made and evaluations of the manner in which the o?er is determined. Sammy statement. Along with the initial wrmenpurchz re o?'zr, the owner shall be given :1 Written statement of the the o?ir of just compound; P, which shat! include: (I) A statement of the amount offered asjust compensation It the case of a parttal acquisition the compensation for the real property to be acquired and the compensation for damage; if any, to the remaining real property shall be separately stated In this case of this tract. none of the information rcquivd to be prOVided has been forwarded. Upon receipt of the information that the Code tequ?rcs to be ptovidcd, my client will then be able to respond to the offer. receiving the information that Cor-gross mandated the landowner- 1 look forward to OBPOO9016 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY roar wonm coups OF swam - P. 0. sex moo romwoam, TEXAS 76102-0300 May 12, 2008 Real Estate Division M. Albert Vinegas Attorney at Law m4 East 7" Street Bromville, Texas 78520 RGV-BRP-3005 Dear Mr. Villegas: Your letter of April 21, 2008, referenced your meeting wi_of this of?ce and acknowledged receipt of our proposed Offer to Sell to be executed by your client and accepted by this of?ce. You expressed some confusion, however, as to the legality of this process. The tract determined to be neceSsary for Government acquisition, namely the 0.13 acre of land, fee, excluding minerals has been valued at $16,400.00 as stated in the letter. This wu explained in the letter, as was the fact that this offer represented a market derived determination of value. The amount is based on such factors as the land?s location, highest and best use, and any improvements that have been made. All of this is, indeed, in compliance with the law and is, indeed, legally initiating negotiations to purchase this interest in your client? 5 land. I sincerely hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have had regarding this process. As explained in the letter you received, a USACE representative will contact you shortly to continue the negotiation process. Chief, Real Estate Divrsron OBP009017 I. PROJECT NAME NUMIERS P7225 Rev-Fm l0?, 6-1. 6-2. E-J. E4 102-31131. Real Estate Division FROM: Realty Specialts Specialist _P~e-Ity Specialist 3. Attorney: David Cam, om cam, LLP uma A an ompany PO Box 2025 155 E. Van Bonn St. Browns-ville, TX 78522 (956) 54'. 49I ?l 4. AREA 5. APPROVED APPRAISED VALUE 6 [Nl?l'lAL OFFER FTBIW (2.34 cams fee simple. excluding 331900.00 minerals) 10445.! (1.73 acre for rocdeasement) l044E-2 (0.43 acre temporary access casement) 10448-3 (0.43 acre temporary access comment) (1.58 acres temporary work urea mt) 7. RESUME OF NEGOTIATION M40008: Assigned to as ncgitiatnr. 30400032 .m by prtmerty: he was informed by Border Patrol Agent -hnt we must malt through -nuomey. ans/zoos. received a call from Border- Patrol Agent?With the phcne number David on. allied (936) 54 to see if he could drop the documents oil? at his of?ce and set up an appointment for 4/1/08. . BACKGROUND: The-ave been identified as the owners ormo acres located in Cameron County that is part of the PF 225 border inhumaure project. i e. the Border Fence project I: is necessary to acquire the following parts identi?ed as 044 (2.33 acres Fee, excluding minerals). 2 and 04413-3 cad: (0.45 acre temporary access easement, and (1 58 cues tunpanry work area easement). Fer: simple ucluding minerals will be acquired. The government's estimate choice for the ?nutrition is $3 l.900.00. including damages to the remainder. During this lend negotiation, the Army Corps of Engineers has solicited the of the paperty owner on how to minimize any impacts ofthe eonetmerion ofthe border security fencing on their environment. cultwe. community. and quality oflife. We have made every effm torecord below all views, suggestions and questions of the landowner. as well as our responses and any reasonable accommodation made All/2008: _:Ict with owner's alimtcy. Mt. Gum. in his of?ce. An offer letter dated Much 20. 2008 was hand delivered it During the meeting he explained that the US Army Corps oflinginecn was acquiring property needed for the Border Fence project. explained that the nature ofthc schedule as establ ishcd by Congress. the was using an accelerated acquisition procedure. He speci?cally addressed the fol lowing points. - That ?was :4 negotiator for the US of Engineers. - The subjeu property was needed forth: Border Fence firmed - The date required by the United States is fee simple, excluding and both temporary and perpetual camttenls - The value ofthe property had been established as $3l 900.00. - Due to the accelerated schedule the Government had not yet received the necessary title information to proceed with immediate purchase oftbc property. ?vised him that. the only method available to acquire the property wnuid be through a friendly condemnation. The process of condemnation would in no way he nal but was being used solely to insure the government obtained clear title to the property. As part ofthe consolation. Mr Garza feels that land owners should be given the first right of reins-l in the event the ever wishes to abandon the property. He is nlso onncemed about the Farmer that currently leases the land He asked if i could provide general details regarding the type offence to be constructed. The owners are also that the price we are paying for [his property could be tired as a basis for increasing the value ofthc remaining Hm acres for tit; and estate WWS- Mr. Gum also stated that when owners were initially for a Riyal of Entry, the document gave the the right to enter their entire I400 acres When they asked (0 have this restricted, no further contact was made with them and they were famed mm court. More speci?cally to the property. the following concerns with our prupu?al were voiced and maintenance ol?nny existing irrigation am. 2 still own a U6 interest. OBP009018 I easement tor operations one lmntenortcc oi any existing irrigation "tar-es '1 l. l'i 3. Mr. Garza believes the property south oftbe levee to the river belongs tothis owner. We need to review and consider severance. 4. As part ofthe flint disposition. will the property he smeyed? 5. He mold like us to expand the exclusion ofthe mtnenl rights to speci?cally state oil. gas. and other minerals. 6. In the Offer to Sell documem. Exh?aits a calls out Military Road. but the road is actually Boea Chico. unless we know mthiag they don?t know. 7. Tracts 2 8t 3 should actually beTracts 3 4 in Exhibit I (lead. 8. On lhepa'mment cement. what type ofrcad will he built into the miperty' Will there be some typeofpte at the road to prevent people caning c?'the highway md onto the pnpertyl 9. the aerial photograph clearly shows a farm road from the highway across the levee into the farm land south. What Will be the access to this Irotr?y?? 10 Can I tilt: ofrevtston ct right ofreftml be put in the It the evmt the government decides to abandon the projch or in: no further use t'orthe property? The negotiator was very well received. This owner has a number regarding the sale of the pro very tarp land owner mil a very powerful ruuily. but it we-om resolve their correct-us. then it is likely that we will reach an wait. on not feel that theyane trying to obstruct the med. The Negotiatcn general are that the owners are suwonive, and with ntistiictory answers. will likely sip the o?ir. ls provided with a deed to the property. An appointment was made to drive the property on 4/7/08 with Mr. Garza An a-mait response to the above questions and concern we: sent on ?6108. I. Emmfor 0pm?: on! maintenance of my existing ?ames. The Government will add a reservation to the o??er to include on easement for ir maintenance and operation of the existing irr'iption ?ames 2. ?urry sat! own a 1/6" interest. It alter a review antic miners we ?nd that Lydia does still own a ms intaest, then we will be happy to add her to the ownership list. The court and title Lumpauy will also have an interest in assuming that all oldie waters are named. 3. Gone Mm the proper?) south of the love: In the river belongs to (lair owner We need to renew and consider severance Under omnidention. 4. A: part of (he ?nal imposition, trill the property purchased be surveyed? Yes, the property. to he acquired. will be surveyed prior to closing. 5. He would like? to aparrd the aclwlorr drlte mineral rights to specifically state oil. gar, and alberminemls. The mural! is willing to modify the exclusion provision fr- minerals 1 would recomneod that you dra? it as yourclient desires. 6. In the 0179? to 3d! document. Exhibits 5 call: out Military Road. but the road is ?fatally Baal Chico. males! we Iataw .rmnd?rg they don '1 know We age: that the road called out and should have been Boca Chit: The Government is willing to make this change. 7. Tract: 2 3 should actually be Tracts 3 dt 4 Exhibit deal. believe the easiest way to resolve the errors in the legal description and the ownership. would be to have you make the mnectims. Your client obviously has superior knowledge and records. The Government is willing to modify the ag?eetnent to accommodate the corrections Again, the court and title company will verify awnaahip and deacrirticn prior to closing 8. 0n the permanent easement. what type road will be built into the Will there be some type of gate at the road to prawn people caning q??the highway and our; the property? The road Will he a road. While the ?nal details nfthe construction are still being developed, at the moment then: are no plans to a gate at the mad. 9. Tlte aerialpltolagmph clearly shows a farm mader the highway across the (cm into the amt landsoulh What will he the awess to this tawny? Again, this is a desrgi issue to he determined Pet our discussion. we intend to meeht the property on Monday Mail 7. to discuss these and athetissuet. I0 Can a right of met-start nr?m right (rpm in the document in the the government declder to abandon the project. or has no further on for the property? The Current position is that thus request may be added to the Otter to Sell Real Estate document: however. it is unlikely ttutt it will he accepted by the Government. #1720082? -m With Mr. 0am at tie-mm. We touted the propcny, and? described the no lies of the severance. This property Is also Wring white wing dove seaam and a source of revenue A?er running to the of?ce. Mr. Schultz discussed the severance with lead Rally Specialist. and the awniscrs. Canaan: is that the otEr should contain the entire for severance, and 31.000 for the cost ot'relouttion ofthe irrigation valve. 4/81'08: [conveyed the toll 'in attorney. David Garza Ater review. ofthe provided. and out onstte inspection ofthe property My with the and their attorney and appraiser. I agree that the Butler/Yturrie hand and Guile Company own substantial holding south of the levee. Therefore. Govemmeut is willing to increase the offer to include severance of $5,000.00. Alan. it is likely that the irrigation valve located in the temporary work casement ma ire relocation The Goveratnmt will pay St ,000.00 to cover that cost. This increases the offer to 3419(1). In reviewing the deed, it appears that conveyed all her intereet in the third mgr-spits at page 2. That may solve the concern regarding her 116 interest A: we have dismissed. time is of the essence I know the re only to town one day a week but ifpoutblc, I would like to rap this up by Aml IS an ldepart on the 16th. ?necessary, I could hand any the documents Mr. 0am, he in town on 41150008. Made appointment for I500. 4/15/03 smock?met with Mr. Gum. introduced-ho will be taking over as the negotiator for this action. We made a mommy. review ofthe issues; Nemu'atim assigned tit?ii um woos 411701118: -retumcd with the ?rights of prom;- owners" pamphlet for the attomeyto read. He said it would be useful and to call him later. OBP009019 I 4/2l/2008: tuned with a press release from explaining the waiver of certain normal procedures to expedite this most 4/24/2008: ?'net with Mr. (1am. attorney, discussed all the prnhicmaric issues Mr Gum wants a runner clause In the offer. which [know will be rejected, because he is untamed that ifthe land is bought. no project oonmucted. then the underlined lend my be disposed of by GSA and his client does not want another met his ownership. He has hired an uppraiaer to provide an appraisal because he believes both the southern ownership and the northern Mmhip will be dampd ton greater attent than just am?. He believes the northern ownership is thmaged by the fmneiing of illegal migration own his client: property by project design. as the fence ends at his clients property. He believes the northern property is more then just for inconvenient access, more than the $15,000 we can ulTer him. He suggested today that we will not reach an agreement and understands that I will have to close the ?le and recommend oondermatim and report we were unable to lane on a nine. 4/30/2008: A?er one more discussion with Mr. Gum, we both concluded that due to the complex nature of this acquisitim and the inability to rout at am on price due to the damage issue. we would terminate negotiations 5/1f20082?uw. Mr. Gem one more time at his request and aim the offer He hired an tho was malt and we dismissed the unique situation and location ofh?s client?s property at the end ofthe fence project. The purpose ofhin'ng an apprliser was to address the issue oi?poteatirl dameger to the rL-mu'rtder property to the north. where the fence ends. The owners are concerned that the ?mneiing pedestrian traf?c bathe moperty and ?ux subsequent frequent Border Patrol presence may be damage to the property that Im not been addressed, as our on?er included circuitous room damages only. Mr. Gem plant to preset? an appraisal when provided the oppattmity for the acquisition during future condemnation proceedinp 511/2005: ?phoned Mr, Gem :0 let him know site was concluding negotiations. be linked um wait until the hat possible moment in order to provide him tune to get his appraisal mmpieted An agreement could not be reached with the landowner: at tins time. As a result. all the inconsistmcim In this negotialar's report mot be resolved uni] a wrveyhas been obtained Condemnation is recommended. a. RECOMMENDATION BA AND DATE 13/ ?Realry Specialist, May 7, 2003 9. INTERIM RECOMMENDATION 9A. SIGNATURE, TITLE AND DATE CONCUR CONDEMNATION -Lad Ruhr Specialist. May 8. 2008 10.1NTERIM RECOMMENDATION I - . q//3/O (9 CONGJR CONDEMNATION Real Estate Division ll. CONCUR WITH CONDEMNATION gt/Real Estate Divisik ENG FORM 3423 OBP009020 DA LY REPOR FOR PROGRESS OF NEGO IA ONS RO EC # O-0 DA E O CON AC CON AC MADE IN ERSON OR E E HONE O OW-U REQUIRED ES o NO Adverse - Fi ed (A) Adve se - Pending Filing (P) Unknown Owner (U) Open Negotiation (O) A O-0 O-0 A O-0 O-0 O-0 O-0 O-0 O-0 O A A A O-02 O-02 O-02 O A A O-02 O-02 O O-02 O-02 O-02 O-02 U SURVE COM E E RAC # RGV-RGC- 000 RGV-RGC- 005 ade s ( 2 inte es ) Ci y o Roma ES IMA ED ENCE MI EAGE 0 44 RGV-RGC- 00 (Mu t ple Owne s) O-02 O-02 (b) (b) (6) (b) (b) (b) (6) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (6) 2 inte es ) & Gue a Int l O-0 O-0 ANDOWNER 0 26 005E 02 RGV-RGC-1007 0 02 RGV-RGC-1008E 1010 1010E 0 05 RGV-RGC-1011 1011E 0 05 RGV-RGC-1042 E-1 hru 5 0 44 RGV-RGC- 043 RGV-RGC- 045 E- 0 20 E 2 E-3 046 RGV-RGC- 065 05 0 24 RGV-RGC- 066 0 25 RGV-RGC-200 0 42 RGV-RGC-2003 E- E 2 E-3 E 4 0 23 RGV-RGC-2004 E- E2 0 73 RGV-RGC-2007 RGV-RGC-20 0 0 25 0 80 BWC Sam Va e Registe ed Agent o Sta Cama go B dge Co RGV-RGC-20 0 04 Sta Cama go B dge Company Sam Vale Reg ste ed Agent RGV-RGC-20 4 0 54 Ringold a ms Estate o os Vel RGV-RGC-20 5 0 8 RGV-RGC-2016 2 84 RGV-RGC-20 8 0 40 RGV-RGC-2020 0 9 (b) (b) (6) K W ANDOWNER A ORNE CONCERNS B RES ONSE RESO U ION OBP009021 O-02 U O-02 A O-02 A O-02 U O-02 O O-03 A O-03 A O-03 O-03 A O-03 O-03 A O-03 A O-03 A O-03 O-03 A O-03 O-03 O-03 U O-03 A O-03 A O-03 A O-04 O O- 0 K W (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (6) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (6) (b) (b) (b) (b) K K ul e A O- A O- A O- A O- A O- A O- 2 A O- 3 U 4 O- 4 O- 4 O- 4 O- 4 A A O- 4 A A O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 6 O- 7 O- 7 O- 7 O- 7 O- 7 O- 7 O- 7 O- 7 O- 8 O- 8 O- 8 O- 8 O- 8 O- 8 O- 8 A A A A U A A A A A A A A A A U A A A A D 0 07 E 2 E-3 RGV-MCS- 004 E- E 2 E-3 E 4 0 07 0 06 RGV-MCS- 005- 005-2 005 E- E-2 00 RGV-MCS- 006- 006-2 006 E- E-2 0 08 RGV-MCS- 007 0 02 RGV-MCS-1010 0 02 RGV-MCS- 0 0 07 RGV-MCS- 0 2 0 06 RGV-MCS- 0 3 0 26 RGV-MCS- 0 5 0 07 RGV-MCS- 0 7 0 09 0 5 RGV-MCS-1021E-1 & 2 0 00 RGV-MCS- 022 E- 0 00 E-2 E 3 RGV-MCS- 023E 0 00 RGV-MCS-1024 00 RGV-MCS-2005E-1 0 00 RGV-MER-4010E 0 00 CA S Estate n shp A A A A A A A A 0 23 RGV-HR -2005 & 2006 0 4 0 3 C O Ente p ses Inc 0 04 RGV-HR -4032 0 09 0 04 0 22 0 02 0 07 -2 HR 4006 0 34 RGV-HR -5004 0 02 RGV-HR -50 4 0 03 RGV-HR -50 9 50 9E 0 04 RGV-HRL-5024 0 2 RGV-HR -6000 0 6 RGV-HR -60 8 0 02 RGV-HR -60 9 0 05 RGV-HR -6020 0 0 0 7 0 23 E-2 E 3 0 03 RGV-HR -6030 0 4 0 7 0 02 D 0 04 RGV-HR -6035 0 RGV-BR - 000 0 7 0 5 RGV-BR - 002 0 63 2 RGV-BR - 009 En shp 0 4 0 27 E- RGV-BR - 0 5E- tn shp oy Inves ment Company No 25 0 03 E-2 RGV-BR - 0 0 Rive Bend Reso s nc 0 00 RGV-HR -6034 RGV-BR - 0 D hu3 RGV-BR - 00 tn shp 0 RGV-HR -6027 RGV-BR - 005D 0 69 RGV-HR -5002 RGV-HR -6033 E- tn shp 0 03 4063 RGV-HRL-6032 O t z Miguel dba MCMD Gonza ez mly 0 45 RGV-HRL-6031 Ba eda a k 0 4 RGV-HR -4030 RGV-HR -6026 E- (b) (b) (b) 0 99 0 8 RGV-HR -40 0 RGV-HR -40 9 E- th u 3 4020E- th u 4 4029 4053 4054 4062 RGV-HR -6024 W Gonza es mly 2&3 RGV-HR -6022 ust nt l Bank o Comme ce N A B ownsv l e (b) E- E-2 & E 3 E-2 E-3 & E-4 RGV-RGC-4060 RGV-BR 3009 & 400 B 00 & 0 - & 0 W Subd vis on RGV-HR - 009 RGV-HR -30 RGV-RGC-40 2 (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) 0 05 RGV-HR -406 Rio G ande a ms Wate D st A RGV-HR - 008 RGV-HR -4042 A A 0 05 RGV-HR -4038 Del Rio Diana Sant so dba Ba eda Ga dens A 0 4 RGV-HR - 007 RGV-HR -3003 & 400 dba E ect ic G n Co o San Beni o 0 RGV-HR - 006 E 2 RGV-HR -4004E- A A E-2 RGV-HR -4003 E- ansmig antes Simmons N O & Assoc nc K 0 92 RGV-HR - 005E- Ga cia am ly a ne sh p K 0 38 RGV-HR - 003 W & W im ted O- 4 9 20 2 O- 5 K and um A tn shp (b) (b) (b) (6) (b) (b) (b) Ha -Vest O- 4 O- 4 Shimo su Real Es a e (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) O- 4 O- 5 0 02 RGV-MCS- 003 E- RGV-MCS- 0 8 a ms A A O- 4 O- 5 0 RGV-RGC-2036 W O O- 4 O- 4 O- 5 0 2 RGV-RGC-2025 RGV-HRL-1001 O- O- 5 0 00 RGV-RGC-2024 RGV-RGC-2035 W O- O- 3 RGV-RGC-2022-E 1 & 2 E-2 & E-3 E-2 & E 3 0 03 0 00 RGV-BR 2000 E E-2 E-3 0 24 RGV-BR 2003 0 RGV-BR 2006 0 37 RGV-BR 2007 0 05 RGV-BR 20 4 0 06 RGV-BR 2020 0 5 RGV-BR 202 0 02 San e ipe D OBP009022 O- 8 O- 8 O- 8 A A A O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 O- 9 A A A A O-2 O-2 O-2 O-2 O-2 A A A O-2 O-2 O-2 O-2 O-2 O-2 0 03 RGV-BR 3004 0 03 RGV-BR 3005 0 03 RGV-BR 3006 0 05 RGV-BR 3007 RGV-BR 3008 RGV-BR 30 8 E- E 2 E-3 0 00 RGV-BR 30 9 E- E 2 E-3 0 00 ones & ones ope ies nc ones Mo gan C et al ope ties D (b) (b) (b) (b) (6) (b) (b) Dawson helma A V- ust dba ed m y nvestment tn shp Cascade Ente p ses Inc Bo zynski B othe s A Wh tew ng Ranch A (b) (b) (b) E-2 E-3 0 03 0 08 0 5 4 2 RGV- B- 0 3 RGV- B- 0 4 E- RGV- B- 0 6 42 0 06 E-3 0 00 0 08 RGV-FTB-1019 0 36 RGV- 0 4 B- 02 2 3 RGV-FTB-1024 ope ies D R& E- RGV-FTB-1022 Natu e Conse vancy A 65 3003 3003E A A 0 RGV-BR ust Ruby R ve nvestment Co p A 0 00 R C Sm th A A 0 00 E-2 300 Saba o Rive Dev A 2040 RGV-BR A A 2037 E- RGV-BR B ownsv l e & Matamo os B dge Co Newman B & eggy A RGV-BR RGV-BRP 3000 E-1 E 2 A -2 O-2 RGV-BRP 2036E-1 (b) (b) (b) a ms dba tu ia and & Ca tle Co Yellow Shaded Adverse Filed (A) Adverse Pending (P) Open Negotia ion (O) Unknown Owner (U) 6 of 7 are filed O AL MPAC ED BY UDGE'S RULING: 7 RGV- B- 026 02 RGV- B- 032 0 3 RGV- B- 033 RGV- B- 034 RGV- B- 044 E- -E-4 0 65 036 0 27 0 33 U Brownsvil e 88 25 7 7 127