Matc h No ve mb e r 19, 2018
Why re quire a g ra nt ma tc h? • Sho ws tha t a pplic a nt ha s so me thing a t sta ke , “skin in the g a me ” • I s a wa y o f filte ring o ut a pplic a nts b y fina nc ia l he a lth, • E .g . if ma tc h is to o muc h o f a ha rdship, po te ntia l fo r issue s with o pe ra ting funds la te r do wn the line 2
Conside r ations pe r the statute (unc hange d in HB 2017) • (d) Ho w muc h o f the c o st o f a pro po se d tra nspo rta tio n pro je c t c a n b e b o rne b y the a pplic a nt fo r the g ra nt fro m a ny so urc e o the r tha n the Co nne c t Ore g o n F und; • Sta tute do e s no t spe c ify: – Ma ximum ma tc h a mo unts – F o rm o r e vide nc e o f the ma tc h (c a sh) – Ho w to fa c to r “o ve rma tc h” pro po sa ls – Re stric t g ra nt sta c king
Cur r e nt r ule language • (2) Applic a nts tha t me e t a ll o f the fo llo wing c rite ria a re e lig ib le : (c ) T he Applic a nt ha s suffic ie nt ma na g e me nt a nd fina nc ia l c a pa c ity to c o mple te the Pro je c t inc luding , witho ut limita tio n, the a b ility to c o ntrib ute 30 pe r c e nt o f the Re c ipie nt’ s T o ta l Pro je c t Co st (Cla ss 1 RR is 50 pe rc e nt.
Cha lle ng e s unde r c urre nt rule s • Sho uld we re wa rd “o ve rma tc h” – pro po sing to pro vide mo re tha n the ma tc h re q uire me nt with a mo re fa vo ra b le sc o re ? • I f so , sho uld we ho ld the m to this hig he r fig ure if the ir c irc umsta nc e s c ha ng e ? • E vide nc e o f ma tc h • L a nd a s a fo rm o f ma tc h • Curre ntly va lue d o n pric e pa id to purc ha se • Ho w re c e ntly wa s it purc ha se d • Ho w muc h o f the pa rc e l is b e ing use d fo r the pro je c t? 5
Cha lle ng e s unde r c urre nt rule s, c ontinue d • Amo unt o f ma tc h – is 30% the rig ht numb e r? • I n e a rlie r CO ro unds, it ha d b e e n 20% • Wo uld ne e d sta tute c ha ng e to a djust • So me mo de s/ pro je c t type s c a n sta c k o the r g ra nts, e .g . F AA mo ne y tha t a re no t a va ila b le to o the r mo de s • Sho uld this pra c tic e b e c o ntinue d, o r sho uld we put so me g ua rdra ils o n it? 6
Pote ntia l c ha ng e s ba se d upon fe e dba c k • Co nc e rns a b o ut o ve rma tc h • E limina te – e ve ryb o dy pa ys the sa me OR c a p o ve rma tc h • 30% ma tc h re q uire me nt b e ing a po te ntia l b urde n fo r a wo rthy pro je c t • Co uld b e c ha ng e d g lo b a lly, o r c o uld b e re duc e d fo r pro je c ts a b o ve / b e lo w a c e rta in size • E .g . la rg e r pro je c ts re q uire a hig he r pe rc e nta g e ma tc h 7
Pote ntial c hange s base d upon fe e dbac k, c ont’d • E vide nc e o f ma tc h • E sta b lish re q uire d do c ume nta tio n up fro nt in the rule / a pplic a tio n • L a nd a s a fo rm o f ma tc h – c o mplic a te s e va lua tio n • Ha s b e e n inte rpre te d to b e a ma tc h b a se d upo n c a sh o utla y fo r the la nd, no t a sse sse d va lue • L imita tio n o n ho w re c e ntly the la nd wa s purc ha se d • L imita tio n o n ho w muc h o f the ma tc h this c a n c o unt to wa rds 8
Recommend
More recommend
