Appeal from OHA-Identified Misexpenditure. If OHA’s notice of Misexpenditure is based on a Misexpenditure solely of the type described in Section 13(b) or (c) of Exhibit A, LPHA and OHA shall engage in the process described in this Section 1.c.iii.(B)(I) to resolve a dispute regarding the noticed Misexpenditure. First, LPHA and Department shall engage in non-binding discussions to give LPHA an opportunity to present reasons why it believes that there is, in fact, no Misexpenditure or that the amount of the Misexpenditure is different than the amount identified by OHA, and to give OHA the opportunity to reconsider its notice. LPHA and OHA may negotiate an appropriate apportionment of responsibility for the repayment of a Misexpenditure. At LPHA request, OHA will meet and negotiate with LPHA in good faith concerning appropriate apportionment of responsibility for repayment of a Misexpenditure. In determining an appropriate apportionment of responsibility, LPHA and OHA may consider any relevant factors. An example of a relevant factor is the extent to which either party contributed to an interpretation of a statute, regulation or rule prior to the expenditure that was officially reinterpreted after the expenditure. If OHA and LPHA reach agreement on the amount owed to OHA, LPHA shall promptly repay that amount to OHA by issuing payment to OHA or by directing OHA to withhold future payments pursuant to Section 1.c.iii.(C) below. If OHA and LPHA continue to disagree as to whether or not there has been a Misexpenditure or as to the amount owed, the parties may agree to consider further appropriate dispute resolution processes including, subject to Oregon Department of Justice and LPHA counsel approval, arbitration.
