From: KNUDSEN Larry
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:34 PM
To: MCALLISTER Larry
Subject: RE: SRF concurrence review
Larry, In the last couple
of weeks, I learned about some potential legal challenges to the implementation
program. These potential challenges highlight two areas in the rules that
should be clarified. They are the authority to use the so-called bypass
procedures and the authority to award lesser amounts than the maximum
established by the rule. One way to address these issues would be
changes in Rule 0106. I have also suggested a couple of other minor
modifications for clarification. The language proposed below
need not be used, but we should do something to address the
issues:
(1) Funds will be offered to an
applicant on the project priority list in rank order, subject to
eligibility. A project is not eligible unless environmental
review, including any required notice and opportunity for public
comment, has been completed at the time the department issues the
final intended use plan.
(2) The department will
determine the amount of funding to be provided to an applicant, but
the amount of any initial loan may not exceed $ 5 million per
applicant, [Or is this intended to be per
project?] except as provided
in Section (3) below.
(3) If there are no applicants on
the project priority list currently eligible for a loan of ARRA funds, a borrower that has
received partial funding under the Act may be allocated additional
funding. The department may allocate the remaining funds to a borrower based on
rank order not to exceed 25 percent [of the
existing loan?] or $2 million, whichever is
greater. If funds still remain after reallocation, the balance of any remaining
funds must be allocated to existing borrowers in rank order. [Note: This assumes the projects and rank order are frozen as
of the date the initial IUP. Is that correct?]
(4) The funds of projects not able to meet the loan
agreement, including the requirement to be under construction or contract by
February 17, 2010, will be recovered from those projects and be provided as an
increase to other Act funded projects.
This transfer of funds will occur by December 31, 2009 and will be
offered to partially funded projects in rank order. [Note: this is
broader now and would include any basis for ineligibility.]
Larry, we should check
with Judy to make sure that these proposed changes don't have unanticipated
consequences. LK
-----Original Message-----
From: MCALLISTER Larry
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 5:30 PM
To: BELYEA David; VERNON Pat
Cc: KNUDSEN Larry; MCALLISTER Larry
Subject: SRF concurrence reviewDave, Pat and Larry K.
Thanks for your quick responses last week to the draft review. Your edits have been incorporated for the most part into the attached documents.
I am not able to show all the specific changes to these documents since your earlier edits, but I have highlighted the areas that have received some revision.
I ask that you take one last look at these documents and provide any final edits to me by mid-day Friday, July 10. The final notice package is scheduled to go to Neil on Monday July 13.
I have also attached a concurrence review form, I would appreciate you “signing” this form and returning it with your edits. Thanks to the three of you for your time and review.
Larry
503 229-6412
<<rulemakingannouncement-concur.docx>> <<NoticeWithHearing-occurence.doc>> <<LandUseEvalStmt-concurrence.doc>> <<Relationship to Federal Requirements-concur.doc>> <<StmtNeedFiscal-concurrence .doc>> <<proposed rules-occurrence.docx>> <<Concurrence review form.docx>>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or
otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received
this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the
contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments
from your system.
************************************