RE: SRF concurrence review

From: KNUDSEN Larry

Sent: Wed Jul 08 17:23:46 2009

To: MCALLISTER Larry

Subject: RE: SRF concurrence review

Importance: Normal

looks ok.

-----Original Message-----

From: MCALLISTER Larry

Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:59 PM

To: KNUDSEN Larry

Subject: RE: SRF concurrence review

Larry K,

Could you also take a look at the wording I inserted in the attached form (relationship to federal requirements). These edits were based on our brief conversation about DEQ exercising its authority under both federal programs.

Larry M.

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 review

Dave, 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.

************************************

*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****

************************************