12/13/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of a binding agreement could be structured to protect our interests if we agreed to lift our deed restriction. Once such an agreement is prepared, it would come back to this Commission for consideration. At that point he believed we would be down to two options, and that is either to agree to that agreement in some form or stand by our guns and tell the State that we are not going to lift the deed restriction. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that in the middle of the above letter from the DNR there is a crucial statement. The DNR says that the agreement would state the Dept.'s intention, but that they can't bind the Legislature to any certain budget. That means that no matter how good the DNR's intentions are, the Legislature may override the recommendation and not put the funds into our park. If the Board wants some legal mechanism to enforce the agreement, there is another option which would be to have an agreement to give a waiver of right to enforce the reversionary clause about the fees for a set number of years, say 5 or 10 years, and watch what the State does. At the end of that time, we could enter into an additional 10 -year waiver. If at any time the State does not properly return money to IRC, we just would not enter into an extension of the agreement. That way we would never get rid of our deed restriction by a waiver filed in the public records, but we would have a periodic waiver. Commissioner Bird suggested that we include the requirement in the agreement that we could require an accounting from the State as to the amount of fees generated in the Park and the disbursement of those fees. Attorney Vitunac felt sure that Director Baird could do that, and we could make it a rolling year to year agreement. Chairman Scurlock believed that would be a very positive way, because we would not be giving up our deed restriction forever. DEC 13 1988 52 BOOK 75 PAGE 39 7