Oregon Records Management Solution

 
MessageFrom:                                                      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. 

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