Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, " <br />;~' :.; <br /> <br />- I <br /> <br />.,., ~ <br /> <br />f:'- <br /> <br />(0 <br />,-.ol <br />"....;, <br /> <br />('..;. <br /> <br />At its OCtober, 1982, meet ing, 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 /> <br />Allocation of Costs <br /> <br />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 />features were being' allocated to .fish and wildlife which really <br />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 /> <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 sa 537 (1979). <br /> <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 /> <br />operation and Maintenance <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Full Development Plan <br /> <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 /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />3/1/83 <br />