The World penned yet another predictable and banal absolution of the Port’s latest announcement to become a coal export facility and the paper’s blind and unwavering support, even for litigation ripe coal industry, got me to thinking that maybe the emergency rail line repairs have more to do with the conditions set by some of the grant and lottery funds received than any local shipper’s opportunity. For example, the State legislature approved the release of $5 million of $60 million in lottery funds to the Port in 2007 contingent upon time sensitive conditions.

(4)(a) Prior to the distribution of bond proceeds described in section 13 (2)(a) of this 2007 Act, the primary sponsor shall provide to the director a budget document outlining expenditures for the Coos Bay Channel Project and verify and certify to the director that:
(A) The primary sponsor has entered into a commercially reasonable agreement with a cargo terminal developer to construct and operate cargo terminal facilities on the Coos Bay channel;
(B) The Secretary of the Army has authorized the performance of environmental studies on the channel pursuant to section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662); and
(C) The cargo terminal developer has entered into, or made appropriate progress in negotiations toward, a contract with rail service providers to ensure adequate rail infrastructure and service capacity to serve the cargo terminal facilities to be developed as part of the Coos Bay Channel Project.

Notwithstanding the language in the bill, funds were distributed to the Port absent a “commercially reasonable agreement with a cargo terminal developer” or “adequate rail infrastructure” and the bill allows “converting the amount into a loan subject to an agreement that allows the primary sponsor to repay the amount over time at terms provided for in the grant agreement.” In other words, if I interpret this correctly, should the Port fail to meet the original conditions the grant funds, in this case lottery funds, convert to a loan and must be paid back. Not having looked at the agreement between the State and the Port I don’t have specifics but I seem to recall a time frame of five years to meet the requirements or the $5 million must be repaid. While I don’t know if a coal export terminal meets the criteria of a ‘cargo terminal facility’ as set forth in the 2007 bill but perhaps this grant or any of the other conditioned grants bestowed upon the Port are up against some onerous deadlines and getting the rail line operational at 10MPH and cutting any deal, even with the controversial and divisive coal industry is mandatory in order for the Port to save face.

A month ago I requested documentation proving the need to declare a state of emergency and being told the Port had entered into a NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with Roseburg Forest Products I then requested the NDA and the application made by RFP to the Port. Having received nothing I reissued my request and a deadline of Friday at which point, if necessary, I will turn it over to the district attorney who, by law, must respond within seven days.

Again, it is incumbent upon the people of this county to develop and implement our own jobs plan and stop waiting on and relying on the Port and SCDC.