BOARD02497

• Board Meeting Date: 7/14/1971
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I",va

MR. STAPLETON:

MR. BORGER:

REP. DITTEMORE:

MR. BORGER:

Secondly, we are saying that the corps of
Engineers can have the money diverted from the
channelization project into land acquisition.
Based on the Corps of Engineers' figures, that
is about $564,000. In other words, if you don't
spend the money to dig a channel and divert that
into land acquisition, that is $564,000.

I

The third funding source is to say that what's
left is what would be the local share and that
would be split two ways, the City would take part
of it and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation or
HUD would take part of it. All we are at this
time saying is that the City's share which is
only one of the four funding sources would be in
the magnitude of half a million dollars."

"Has Mr. Brotzman indicated that he can get
an answer from HUD for you in six months?"

"From HUD, no. We have a representative
from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation here to
speak to that point. We have not made contact
with him as yet."

"You indicate that we don't want to change
the allocation that the state made. That alloca-
tion was predicated on the fact that channel-
ization would take place. That money was appro-
priated for that purpose. I can see no way in
which that money could be taken and be used for
recreational purposes without additional legis-
lation from the state to indicate that the money
that was set aside for actual channelization
then be used in a different area. Here we are
talking about at least another year and whether
allocations will come about in time to get that
appropriation changed for other uses than orig-
inally intended. I can see problems there from
the state standpoint."

I

"Mrs. Dittemore,' I think the most important
point on that is if you treat the concept, not
the extra language, but if you treat the concept
the point is that money was appropriated - that