BOARD02274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Platte River Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement - Status report March 26, 1999 " . Page 3 I,., , 'do"", '\', impacts. Correspondence related to thisi~s~e is attached, as is the final position on property taxes adopted by the GovernanceCommittee at its march meeting in Nebraska. (e) The third party impact analysis, once completed later this summer, will very likely show that the proposed program will have net economic benefit for Nebraska communities and the region encompassed by the Big Bend reach of the Platte. Still, Nebraska likely will seek compensating payment for any negative third party impacts that may be identified, whether or not they are offset by positive impacts. At the appropriate time, I will be seeking guidance on this matter from the CWCB and the General Assembly. 3) Budget and Disbursement Procedures: The Cooperative Agreement establishes a $900,000 cash commitment for the state of Colorado, and cash commitments for the other states and federal government totaling an additional $8.8 million. The Governance Committee has adopted an operating budget for the remainder -Of the Cooperative Agreement period totaling approximately $1.3 million. This operating budget is in addition to the $800,000 spent to date but does not include any funding for capital demonstration projects that may be pursued during the remainder of the Cooperative Agreement period, nor does it include NEP A compliance costs, estimated at $5 million. : .... . To date, Colorado has encumbered $300,000 through the CWCB's contracts with Boyle Engineering (in the amount of $260,000) and West, Inc. (in the amount of $39,000). Colorado's share of the remaining $1.3 million operating budget will be about $205,000. Thus, Colorado's total projected share of the Cooperative Agreement operating budget will be approximately $505,000. This amount compares favorably with our total $900,000 Cooperative Agreement commitment, and suggests that the remainder of Colorado's Cooperative Agreement commitment could be 'spent on demonstration projects, should any be identified. c, . . In addition to the operating budget, the Governance Committee has adopted a detailed procedure for disbursements. This procedure' is attached. ..... ., . 4) Foundation Agreement: Finally, the Goverhance Committee has decided to retain the Nebraska Community Foundation to provide art administrative mechanism for the remainder of the Cooperative Agreement period to pool furids from the three states and the federal government so that vendor services can be efficiently secured in accordance with the cost sharing fonuula agreed to in the Cooperative Agreement. The Governance Committee selected the Nebraska Community Foundation after s()liClting proposals from several national and community foundations. The Nebraska COffi,IIlunity Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife, Foundation submitted proposals and were interviewed by the Governance Committee's selection two weeks ago in Kearney, NB.: You'll recall that I sought the CWCB's guidance at its January meeting as to which entity would be most appropriate. At that time, the CWCB indicated its preference for the National Fisnand Wildlife Foundation, which I emphasized during the selection process. However, given concerns about the need for local "buy-in" in Nebraska, other members of the selection committee felt that the Nebraska organization was a more appropriate choice. I agreed to this pending the CWCB' s consideration of this issue. ###