From: PEARSON Lisa

Sent: Wed Jul 15 16:30:28 2009

To: ALDRICH Greg; MCALLISTER Larry

Cc: OLIPHANT Margaret

Subject: RE: ACDP fees (see attached)

Importance: Normal

Then we don’t need to do a SB 333 for it. I’ll have our administrative staff remove it from our log and we’ll consider it withdrawn. Thanks.

From: ALDRICH Greg [mailto:greg.aldrich@state.or.us]

Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM

To: PEARSON Lisa

Cc: OLIPHANT Margaret

Subject: RE: ACDP fees (see attached)

Yes – it was thoroughly discussed and nothing has changed.

Greg

From: PEARSON Lisa

Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:15 PM

To: ALDRICH Greg

Subject: FW: ACDP fees (see attached)

Are Paul and I correct in thinking this request is the same idea as discussed and approved by the legislature? Thanks.

From: Siebert Paul R [mailto:paul.r.siebert@state.or.us]

Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:52 AM

To: ALDRICH Greg; PEARSON Lisa

Subject: RE: ACDP fees (see attached)

I don't see why they would need SB 333 for this unless something has changed in the last few weeks from what DEQ said they would do. If that is the case there are bigger issues here than simple SB 333 reporting!

From: PEARSON Lisa * BAM Analysts [mailto:lisa.pearson@state.or.us]

Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:29 AM

To: ALDRICH Greg; Siebert Paul R

Subject: ACDP fees (see attached)

Weren’t these discussed during W&M hearings, and the LAB is based on the assumption that these fees will increase/change? If so, why do we need to do a SB 333 now?

Thanks.