Laserfiche WebLink
<br />During the early summer of 1977, prior to the confirmation of EDA funding, <br />the State Drought Coordinator remained in contact with the regions, visitin9 <br />seven of the 13 regions to further explain their proposed roles in the Statewide <br />drought management program and to help with needs assessments and program <br />implementation. <br /> <br />A 1 so, duri ng thi s "pre-funding" peri od, the State Drought Coordi nator <br />initiated informal contractual negotiations with the regional organizations. <br />When and if funding was secured, it was planned that the State would contract <br />with the regional organizations to undertake drought response programs. In <br />order that the contracts would address the specific needs and characteristics of <br />each region, the State Drought Coordinator encouraged each region to write its <br />own contract. The regions, however, did not respond to the initiative. The <br />State Drought Coordinator then decided to prepare a short contract, supplemented <br />by a "memorandum of agreement" (MOA) in which each region was again encouraged <br />to design individualized planned program activities. A sample MOA, outlining <br />general suggested program guidelines, was prepared at the OS DC and distributed <br />to the regions. The regional response to this second State initiative was <br />sparse. Only one regional organization replied with its own set of program <br />guidelines. The other regions accepted the basic MOA prepared by the State <br />without tailoring it to their own perceived needs. It was those MOAs which <br />later became part of the formal agreement between each region and the State. <br /> <br />Although the program guidelines within the final MOAs were more general <br />than had been originally planned from the beginning of the contractual process, <br />it had been the intention of the State Drought Coordinator that the contracts <br />feature simplicity and flexibility to expedite regional program implementation. <br />The notions of simplicity and flexibility were manifested within the contracts <br />through the relaxation of the usual State requirements that contractors supply <br />regular financial statements and that an annual State audit be performed. <br />Rather than requiring a monthly financial statement, the contracts stipulated <br />that financial statements were to be forwarded to the State "upon request of the <br />OSDC." In lieu of the usual State audit, the contract allowed for the <br />submission of the "usual COG audit." <br /> <br />3.1.2.2 The Formalization Phase <br /> <br />.. <br />.. <br /> <br />The $253,977 techni ca 1 ass i stance grant to the Governor I s Offi ce was <br />approved by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) in mid-July 1977. On <br />August 12, 1977, OSDC personnel organized another meeting in Denver for the <br />staffs of the 13 substate regional organizations to begin to formalize the prior <br />contractual initiatives and to provide further orientation to the State drought <br />managanent program. Federal personnel were available to provide information <br />pertaining to the federal drought assistance programs. State agency personnel <br />were in attendance to update the regional staff people concerning the State <br />drought program activities. The meeting also provided a good framework within <br />~hich federal, State, and regional personnel could exchange ideas regarding the <br />lmplementation of drought program activities and strategies at the regional <br />level. <br /> <br />36 <br />