Laserfiche WebLink
At its October , 1982 , meeting , the Board concurred in the <br /> reduced development plan and delegated to me the negotiation of a <br /> repayment contract , subject to the concurrence of the Executive <br /> Director, Divisions of Wildlife and of Parks and Outdoor <br /> Recreation, and the Attorney General . The purpose of this memo <br /> is to update the Board on these negotiations, which have <br /> essentially been concluded . Major items are identified below. <br /> Allocation of Costs <br /> =r t Following the Board's action in October, the Division of <br /> Wildlife (DOW) expressed concern about the allocation of costs in <br /> the reduced development plan between recreation on the one hand <br /> and fish and wildlife on the other. DOW felt that certain <br /> 3 e features were being allocated to fish and wildlife which really <br /> f were needed only for recreational purposes. DOW was also <br /> concerned that the state not seek an even greater allocation of <br /> costs to fish and wildlife, because this would imply a larger <br /> burden on DOW cash funds, even though this would yield a more <br /> favorable cost-sharing arrangement as a whole. <br /> This matter has now been resolved, with my agreeing that DOW <br /> cash funds would be utilized in an amount not exceeding <br /> $204,000. This sum was authorized by the Wildlife Commission in <br /> January, 1982. All remaining costs for which the state is <br /> obligated would come from the CWCB construction fund, as <br /> authorized by SB 537 ( 1979) . <br /> The Bureau has also indicated that they strongly doubt that <br /> there is a basis for allocating even more costs to fish and <br /> wildlife than proposed in the reduced development plan. I have <br /> concluded that their view is well taken. Therefore, I do not <br /> expect to pursue the matter further. <br /> Operation and Maintenance <br /> Operation and maintenance will be a state responsibility. <br /> The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation is unable to assume <br /> this obligation due to the budget constraints which they face. <br /> DOW has agreed to handle O&M, assuming they receive appro- <br /> priations for the same. The O&M they provide will be geared to <br /> the management of the area for fish and wildlife, not recre- <br /> ational, purposes. <br /> Full Development Plan <br /> The Bureau has recommended that the repayment contract <br /> provide for the originally anticipated full development plan. <br /> They advise that it is preferable from their point of view to <br /> obtain the authority initially to proceed with the full plan in <br /> case that eventually proves to be desirable. They have indicated <br /> that amending the contract at . a later date might not be possible. <br /> 3/1/83 <br /> MEMORANDUM -2- <br />